Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Olde Tyme Religion

Vatican voices Synod vote concern

2008-07-10

The Church of England's vote for women bishops will be an 'obstacle' to reconciliation between Anglicans and Catholics, the Vatican has said.

The Church of England's General Synod voted in favour of consecrating women and against safeguards demanded by traditionalists opposed to the move. A Church group will now draw up a code of practice to try to reassure critics. But Roman Catholic leaders believe this goes against the will of Christ, who chose only men as his apostles.

Apostolic tradition
In a statement, Cardinal Walter Kasper, head of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, said: 'For the future, this decision will have consequences for dialogue, which until now had borne much fruit. Such a decision is a break with apostolic tradition maintained in all of the Churches in the first millennium, and is therefore a further obstacle for reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Church of England.'

Posted by:Fred

#8 If there is no law forbidding it, it can't be broken and therfore not sinful

By the way that is extremely BAD reasoning - and poor philosophy as well as poor bilbilcan study and bad morality. You end up with nearly "anything goes" - tholgoy of that sort is what has openly practicing homosexual Bishops, gay marriage endorsing homosexual practices, and all kinds of other heterodox problems out there in the Protestant parts. Discarding centuries of biblical and tehologocal scholarship for a hip but stupid set of "feel good" reasoning is the way to destroy faith, not refine it.

Remember, its the NARROW gate by which we enter.

Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-10 23:39

#7 Danielle Orthodox Jews as I recall do NOT accept women as Rabbis, so thats a poor case.

There is also a scholarly and biblical role difference between prophest and apostles.

Study up and you'd know the basis for these.

Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-10 23:34

#6 That was the punch-line, if you need the lead in ask OS or Frank G.

Posted by: .5MT 2008-07-10 16:19

#5 Shut up I'm tryin to talk to yuh mudda!

Posted by: .5MT 2008-07-10 16:18

#4 While women were not chosen to be apostles, they were chosen by God to be prophets, or to "speak the Word of God". Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Hannah, Abigail, Esther of the OT, and Anna, Mary, and the four unmarried daughters of Philip in the NT. In fact, Acts 2 promises that both sons daughters would prophesy in these Last Days. The only NT restriction for women in the Church is that of teaching in the assembled congregation, and Phoebe called a 'deaconess' by no less than Paul. Both Anglicans and Catholicism seem to have instituted non-biblical roles for women. Females can be rabbis is husbands and children don't prevent them from fulfilling their duties. If there is no law forbidding it, it can't be broken and therfore not sinful....it is in Christ, we have freedom.

Posted by: Danielle 2008-07-10 15:22

#3 And FYI, the Red Sea Scrolls and other early manuscripts that have been recovered show that the Bible is remarkably unedited from its time in the 1st century to its canonization in the late 300's culminating in the Council of Trent and the Latin Vulgate Bible. That includes the deuterocanonical books tht have additions to Esther, the book of Judith, etc - which have prominent roles for women in positions of power, and (Daniel, the Story of Susannah) men of power misusing said power via lies to execute a woman who refused to be blackmailed into having sex ith them (and were excised by the Protestants for that reason, amongst many others).

(please note that these are NOT the same as "apocrypha", which is a term that seems to constantly be misused pejoratively by Protestants)

Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-10 13:20

#2 Proc, the theology of this has been discussed for several hundred years of the ROman Catholic Church. There is simply no *Biblical* nor traditional evidence to support a change to add female appointment as priests and bishops (the apostolic successors from the original apostles), and considerable case for the opposite.

Unlike the priestly celibacy (which can be changed, and in all likelhood will be within our lifetimes), this one is non-negotiable. Christ had plenty of opportunity to designate female apostles - Mary and Martha, Mary of Magdelena, and even His own mom Mary - after all she was the first Christian (she was the first to believe His divinity).

This is another one of those things that have about 2 millinea behind it of thought, study, scholarship and tradition, and thus will not be changed in the Catholic Church (Roman and Eastern).

The Anglican Church, with civil divorce, openly practicing homosexual priests and bishops, etc, is straying ever further from the orthodox core of Christianity. This is just another step in their becoming Unitarians and completely abandoning the core of beliefs and Bible, and will eventually be leaving Christianity all together.

Thats why the (orthodox) American and African Bishops are fighting this, and will eventually schism, along with many of the US congregations.

Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-10 13:10

#1 But Roman Catholic leaders believe this goes against the will of Christ, who chose only men as his apostles.

Not that in the patriarchal environment of the early church fathers, that Mary Magdalene would have been 'written' out of the story line even if she had been. We know what was left in the Bible. We know some of the stuff that they threw out. What we don't know is all the stuff they keep out.

Moses: The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen...
[drops one of the tablets]
Moses: Oy! Ten! Ten commandments for all to obey! - History of the World:Part I (1981)

Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-07-10 09:15

00:00