Thanks Curt. I figured I'd best leave it to a Catholic to spell out the positions of the CC, and you did that quite well.
While the Gospels don't mention a female priesthood, the Epistles do, however, frequently refer to female host-preachers of nacient Christian communities. I could be wrong, but this could be the tradition in which these women claim their 'ordanation' (or whatever you'd call it) from.
In terms of how Catholics understand the priesthood, they are right. The Catholic understanding of the priesthood is based on the Levitical pristhood (well not really... but it serves), and there are no examples of female Levitical priests. Catholic priests are not preachers. They are not deacons. They are not prophets. All of these yes, the NT contains examples of female iterations. But not priests. (I won't get into the fact that there are no priests but Jesus in the NT either...)
This whole women ordaining thing is a joke. Saying that they are still Catholic despite being excommunicated is ludicrous. Sorry. If I am a Canadian citizen, but I am exiled, forbidden to ever return and have all my Canadian identification taken away, I can say I am Canadian all I want, but I cannot enjoy any benefits or identification with my nation any more. It is meaningless, and I would say probably grounds for diagnosis as being delusional.
I would advise compassion in this case. These women clearly identify with a contribution they can make, and have risked much to make such a contribution. It would seem too that there's more to their idea of Catholicism than Canon Law.
"The church does not believe it has the power to ordain women"
Perhaps it would be better expressed as "the Roman Rite does not believe..." However, this does not necessarily mean the Roman Church is correct in this assumption. But I would agree that yes, the Roman church is more about obedience than anything else, and therefore any disobedience (including, say, about the NO Mass - take THAT traddies!) would render one no longer in accordance with th ROMAN Catholic Rite as defined by the Bishop of Rome.
But they can still be Catholic, if one assumes (as I do) that the OHC&A Church is pre-existent to Christianity, and that there's more to the Catholic Church than the See of Rome.
Now I would say, that without Apostolic Succession and the high-five from their Bishop, their Ordinations are personal and symbolic, which is fine and fair - but also regrettable political, which is not.
J+
I hope I didn't give the impression that I was saying their contributions are unworthy or unwanted. If speaking about faith through the idea of gender is so important I would suggest they explore the idea of the Church as the Bride of Christ. That contruct is fine, and it makes all of women. I sense a desire to make the Roman church bow to fleeting trends or personal wants, and it just isn't built that way. And you're right, Jordan, that applies to Rad Trads as well.
I'm not familiar with the term OHC&A. Can you clarify?
As to the See of Rome being one of many rites, that's correct. I don't think any of the other 24 Catholic Rites have women as preists either.
OHC&A = one holy catholic and apostolic, sorry, I was being lazy. Re: your comments about the Bride of Christ, well while I agree with you, I'm not walking in their shoes and can't say offhand if this is really sufficient. I also agree about the need to examine and resist fleeting trends. I for one do not consider civil and human rights a fleeting trend (but then again I'm a heretical humanist, so what do I know?).
Insofar as the Anglican communion consider themselves to be part of the Church Catholic, well, they've been ordaining women for some time. There are also isolated but significant instances where both Roman and Greek Bishops have ordained women in extraordinary circumstances. And of course there are pre-Nicene Churches, the Old Dutch and post-Vatican 1 Churches who ordain women within apostolic succession.
Now the Roman Church is of course free to exclude women, gays, taxidermists, vegetarians or redheads from its Priesthood for whatever reason it so chooses. And one does not have the right to say the rules do not apply "cuz I don't wanna".
Either way, I smell schism - a three way split amongst modernist progressives, "classicals" who pretend it's the 1950s and maintain the nice comfy church-lady Catholicism, and the Traddies who are off into SSPX and Mel Gibson-land. Shame, really.
" I for one do not consider civil and human rights a fleeting trend "
On re-reading this I seem to be implying that you do, which I did not intend. This window is too skinny for me to write properly! Anyway, sorry for the seeming straw-man.
"I for one do not consider civil and human rights a fleeting trend" raises an interesting point. Civil rights are probably here to stay but I question if they can be said to apply to anything outside of human to human civil interactions. Can one take a civil rights charge against a church that one truly belives is odrained by God to teach faith an morals? Doesn't doing so suggest that the object of one's attack is merely human in all aspects? That it is one's *equal* on the matter of faith and morals? I don't see how that dog can hunt!
Curt,
Precisely. You either believe that the Holy Father and living Magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, or you don't.
You are either Roman Catholic, or you're not. You cannot be Roman Catholic and believe that the Vatican "got it wrong". If you do, that makes you... well... Protestant.
I agree with Tony. And, with all due respect to Jordan Stratford, the Roman Catholic Church is more than about obedience. It's about incorporation into Christ. It's about becoming part of his Mystical Body by being a member of the people of God.
God has blessed the Roman Catholic Church with the Magisterium. This teaching authority ensures that she remains faithful to the Deposit of Faith that Christ gives her. The Magisterium exercises this authority through ecumenical councils, Canon Law and teaching documents of the Pope (and Bishops in union with the Pope).
If a Catholic defies the Magisterium, he or she has effectively severed the union that once existed between him or her and the Church. Excommunication is the Canonical penalty in which the Church officially recognizes this breach of unity.
Whatever these woman's desire, their action has separated them from the Roman Catholic Church. They left the Church, not the other way around.
This is from the heartland. All things must come to an end; so let's just sing a pretty song named: Daniel
I would enjoy a post behind a familiar computer at the Vatican one day once my ship comes in.
No harm in trying to baptize these sort of women in words; when words have little to nothing to do with the pinwheels in motion to procreate the world as we know it today.
Commenting by HaloScan
