They continue to claim that they will be Roman Catholic Priests, though the Roman Catholic Church does not ordain, nor recognize any ordained priests.
The Reform Jewish Temple (very Liberal) that is hosting this Ordination is led by a woman.
The group that has organized this is "Woman Priest International" and has a traveling woman Bishop who arranges the services.
The women, both of whom have a long history of faith and working in the church, are not doing this for Women's rights, or fame, or media attention. They each claim to have recieved a call from God to be priests.
Although the name is Woman Priest International, they do work with other people who have also recieved the call, but whom the Roman Catholic Church will not allow to be priests--namely several men who have married, others who are openly gay, and a couple of men who are physically handicapped. According to the local Radion show and article on this, the Catholic Church will not ordain handicapped men for some reason. I have never heard that before and would love some confirmation.
Meanwhile back at the action--ArchBishop Burke, who has threatened ex-communication to one local Church for not closing their doors as they were ordered, and has threatened ex-communicating any Catholic politician that didn't advocate a strict Pro-Life agenda, has not surprisingly threatened to excommunicate these women if they go through with this ceremony.
He has also threated to back out of any more interfaith events if this particular Reform Temple is attending.
The rest of the Jewish community thinks the Reform Temple is nuts, and should stop being such a pain.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A Jewish synagogue is ordaining Catholic priests?
I don't see how this matters. Clearly none of it is official for either end, and people have been doing crazy things for ages. D'you know can get ordained over the Internet?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I was actually curious as to what it really means to someone who is hardcore Catholic. The following is assuming that framework:
AFAIK, the Pope recently declared that there is no limbo (in the past, this is where virtuous pagans and unbaptized babies would go), so I guess when you die you either go to Heaven, the remaining levels of Hell, or Purgatory.
Previously in the past (we're talking medieval past), I was under the impression that you're right, excommunication would literally mean you would get sent to Hell after death.
However, I get the impression that today's kinder gentler Catholic would not believe that. So if you're a decent person (let's assume that these women are virtuous in every way, but their ordination), where do you go? Are you stuck in Purgatory forever with no chance of getting to Heaven? Or is it that you're just in a less wonderful part of Heaven?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This "kinder, gentler Catholic" believes that denying the sacraments for political purposes is wrong. Also, that history has often proved right people who have risked excommunication by "pushing the Catholic envelope". And that the Church should be about administering sacraments rather than withholding them. And that, although the sacraments are a vital conduit of God's grace, that God is capable of finding other conduits when necessary.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This certainly isn't taken from the catechism or anything, but my assumption would be that Excommunication now-a-days would mean that yep you were going to Hell, in that I can only picture someone being excommunicated for something so directly against the "known" fabric of the church that damnation was certain (that being said if the above claims about Burke are accurate I'd have a hard time believing he was really speaking for the Church there...)
It would be interesting though to get an official answer on whether this would guarontee damnation or just increase likelyhood, and/or whether you could theoretically repent and be reinstated into the church.
but it is a tricky situation because the concept was largely a political one and revolved around a very different understanding of the afterlife (as already mentioned here)
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This 'kinder, gentler Catholic' believes that although these women are basically asking for excommunication by so blatantly ignoring the rules and traditions of the church, that doesn't mean they're going to Hell. I'm perfectly fine with the idea of non-Catholics going to Heaven.
However, I would say that for someone who truly believes in the teachings of the Catholic church, excommunication is punishment in its own right. Being banned from the sacraments and the church at large wouldn't be much fun, although I suppose that since they'll consider themselves priests these women will perform their own sacraments.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does make sense to me that if members clearly have no intention of being part of the organization as it exists that maybe both parties would be better off not being attached to each other.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You would then likely be surprised at the number of people who, once denounced as heretics, are now revered as saints. Catholicism is often improved by dissent.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You would then likely be surprised at the number of people who, once denounced as heretics, are now revered as saints. Catholicism is often improved by dissent.
This might be true, but it's also the case that lots of dissent would have been terribly destructive and evil had it been adopted.
The fact that some dissent ended up being adopted does not mean that all dissent is good.
quote:AFAIK, the Pope recently declared that there is no limbo (in the past, this is where virtuous pagans and unbaptized babies would go), so I guess when you die you either go to Heaven, the remaining levels of Hell, or Purgatory.
The press reported this very inaccurately. Limbo was never an official teaching of the Church, nor did the Pope's statement on it totally disregard the possibility of its existence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoops :-p I was agreeing with Hugo. If you want to change the Church, there's probably better ways to do it. I don't see how these ladies are justifying that their ordinations are valid within the church in any way.
I'd like to see the church allow women priests, and I'd even more like to see the church allow priests to marry, but is this really the way to do it?
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You would then likely be surprised at the number of people who, once denounced as heretics, are now revered as saints. Catholicism is often improved by dissent.
This might be true, but it's also the case that lots of dissent would have been terribly destructive and evil had it been adopted.
The fact that some dissent ended up being adopted does not mean that all dissent is good.
Nor are all things that have been considered orthodox good. And without the "good" dissent, we would be missing a lot. Do you think, for example, that we would be better off without John Courtney Murray? Whether a particular dissent is good, I believe that the challenge is healthy and the the good will "rise" to the surface and that we will be better for it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whether a particular dissent is good, I believe that the challenge is healthy and the the good will "rise" to the surface and that we will be better for it.
While I do believe we will be better for it, I do not believe that all challenge is healthy. Some is destructive and leads other people to commit evil acts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kate, I would tend to agree that the church does not guarantee damnation, but I was just throwing it out there as a possibility. It's just that with the current take on non-Catholics making it into heaven Excommunication would seem an almost entirely toothless penalty. though presumably Excommunication could be viewed as a sort of anti-reconciliation... the priesthood having the authority to absolve sins wouldn't mean too much of a stretch to the priesthood having the authority to deem a certain sin unforgivable... all that being said, if that is the official stance of the church it would be one I couldn't stand behind.
But I don't see anything out of the ordinary and/or apalling with these women being excommunicated, because in my eyes they are to all intents and purposes leaving the church anyway by their actions... I support the concept they are attempting to promote, but when you go directly against the doctrines of the church, then you are effectively leaving the church (even if it's because it's the only way you think you can change false doctrines).
now after the fact (i.e. 50 years from now if the church has changed its stance on things) I would be all for re-instating these individuals and whatnot, but not currently. you can either accept things as they currently are and work for change from within or you can leave and work for change from without, but pretending to still be within when you're going directly against the rules of the organization just seems silly. if they tried playing the "to all extents and purposes other than this we're Catholics" card I'd be ok with it.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"D'you know can get ordained over the Internet?"
When I worked at a Christian bookstore in Tucson, we sold cases of anointing oil to this guy who called himself "Brother Bob" and ordained priests over the Internet for just $99.99! They really expected us to suck up to this guy because he gave us "such good business" but I guess we were supposed to ignore the fact that he was a huge jerk-off.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grimace, in 1932 my grandmother was excommunicated for marrying my Lutheran grandfather. They apologized and rescinded the excommunication some 50 years later. I watched my grandmother watch her brothers and sisters participate in communion. It was hardly a toothless punishment. Communion is not about getting where we go when we die; it is about being in communion. And that is important whether or not we are in entire agreement.
Without dissent, gentiles would not have been included into Christianity. Peter and Paul were rather at odds over this.
posted
So how would you use anointing oil when anointing someone over the internet? Put a drop on the computer screen?
Posts: 208 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
kate, I suppose you're right and I was being a bit too flippant calling it completely toothless, as certainly it would be painful as a truly devout person to be forcibly removed from communion with the church. And especially in a case such as your grandmother (who's "sin" was not really even spiritual in nature according to my take on things) seems to have been unjust.
And I agree that dissent can improve the church in any number of ways (but often times hurts it as well). But that's why I say that particularly in a case like this, these women should accept it for now while continuing to campaign against it...
When you actively and publicly act to undermine/circumvent the organization and chain of command of the organization it's hard to argue that you aren't in fact leaving it. Do they think that by effectively proclaiming themselves to be valid that somehow this will translate into still being in full communion with the rest of the Catholic community? They are leaving their parish to preach elsewhere, they are going directly against pretty much the entirety of the established clergy and are ignoring the will/belief of a large portion of the church's general population (I don't know off-hand if the majority of Catholics would be in support of their move). So frankly, even if they believe they will now have the right to consecrate the Eucharist, and that it will be transubstantiated as in a normal mass, I don't see how they would maintain an illusion of being in full communion with the church.
At the same time realize that this is coming from someone who currently would not feel comfortable recieving communion because I am not 100% in line with the Church's current stance on certain issues. But I think it's important to accept that. If I were to refer to myself at the moment I would have to say "lapsed catholic" or "cradle catholic" or something like that, because to claim to be a member of the church in good standing would be a lie. I'd rather that weren't the case, but until either the church or I change our stances such that they better mesh, it will be the truth.
All that being said, I suppose I am not devout enough for an excommunication to terribly bother me (unless perhaps it was supposed to be a guaranteed statement of damnation) but I also do not live in a time/place where there is any social stigma attached to being disconnected from the church.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt that most Catholics are 100% in line with the Church's current stance on every issue. Some may be. Most priests and nuns that I know are not. Most American Catholics are not in agreement about birth control or divorce, for example. The Vatican is not the Church. It lead the Church, but the sense and the consent of the faithful should be heeded as well. There are faithful men and women who prayerfully and faithfully disagree. I will borrow words from a famous dissenter, John Henry Newman,*
"I think certainly that the Ecclesia docens is more happy when she has such enthusiastic partisans about her as are here represented, than when she cuts off the faithful from the study of her divine doctrines and the sympathy of her divine contemplations, and requires from them a fides implicita in her word, which in the educated classes will terminate in indifference, and in the poorer in superstition."
* from the conclusion of "On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine." 1859
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Without dissent, gentiles would not have been included into Christianity. Peter and Paul were rather at odds over this.
There was a lot more to the resolution of that issue than "dissent."
Moreover, nobody was dissenting against an official doctrine of the Church in that one. They disagreed about a point that had not yet been clearly established one way or the other.
Finally, Peter spoke in favor of including gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem. Even before that he acknowledged that Gentiles were included in Christianity.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I should clarify my intent for my original question. I guess what I'm trying to find out is when the situation that a Catholic does something and is the position of being threatened with excommunication, I fully realise that the "target" may have many interpretations of what that means.
What I'm more interested in is the mindset of a person who is advocating excommunication as a threat (or a target that actually views it as a big threat). This is to get a feel for what is at stake when a situation like this comes up for the people in question. While a "denial of service" attack may potentially be disturbing, I get the sense that the threat is supposed to be more ... substantial.
So looking briefly, kmbboots, your own personal position is perfectly reasonable, I'm not arguing with that, its just that your personal views might be from "too much" of a kindler and gentler soul to gain understanding of these people
So to sum up:
A) A person* that IS advocating excommunication as a threat, what do they think they are threatening with? B) As a target that takes excommunication seriously, but knows they are personally quite reasonably virtuous, what does it mean when you die?
* i.e. hardcore enough to believe that the Church should be in the business of denying sacraments and that excommunication means more than social pressure ... but liberal enough to believe that it would hubris to declare by fiat where someone is going to end up eternally
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
It seems to indicate, and this lines up with what kate was saying I believe:
Excommunication would mean the complete removal from the community of the church, and the way the article describes it that would mean both spiritual and temporal communion. Basically that you would not be included in any intercessory prayer unless specifically directed towards you from one individual to another, that God's grace would be withdrawn to the extent that it is more present in faithful Catholics than others, that the community would regard you as a stranger and give you no special comfort or consideration...
Now it appears that it does not strictly bar you from heaven so much as it just leaves you in the stead of the non-faithful (or perhaps a bit worse off because you've apparently shown yourself to be guilty of a mortal sin).
So to answer A) it would be the threat of removing any protection and benefit of the community of the church as well as any special treatment by God shown to those of the faithful.
to answer B) it would seem to be the part at the end about unjust excommunication. if you believe yourself to be virtuous and your excommunication unfounded, then presumably it would have no spiritual effect (though the temporal effect of loss of the community would still be present).
now the trouble is the level to which you take excommunication seriously but at the same time think you are not deserving of the punishment. If for example the church believed you to be guilty of a certain sin that you knew you were not, then no problem on your end. However in this kind of case it's probably a lot hairier, as the "sin" is clear and now it's a debate over whether or not it's actually a sin... (and to be honest if you're getting excommunicated it's probably for something you don't think is a sin, or you just don't care...)
so a question for you kate: if we switch around the situation a bit, and remove the hot-button issue of women priests... say this is a couple guys who would normally be allowed to enter the priesthood, but they decide that they won't go through seminary first. Now they find someone, maybe even say a former bishop of the church who was officially stripped of his rank for saying that you shouldn't need to go through seminary before being ordained. Would it be reasonable to bar these men from claiming to be rightfully ordained and doing something (call it excommunication) if they went through with it. Seeing that the church deems this to be a necessary step on the way to becoming a suitable shepherd of it's flock.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, sure. Peter changed his mind. The established authority of the Church (Peter) had a position, someone (Paul) disagreed and fought him on it. And changed the position of the established authority of the Church. That is dissent. Paul didn't just say, "Peter is the authority so I am going to be a good Catholic and believe him."
Sure it is more complicated, but it is still more complicated. Things aren't just settled because the hierarchy says we aren't going to talk about them.
I think you would like reading Newman's article (if you haven't already). It is on line and isn't very long.
Grimace, I am in no way claiming that these women have been legitimatly ordained. I am saying it is good for the Church to be pushed/prodded/challenged on this issue.
Also, being in communion is not just about social stigma or protections and benefits nad it isn't about what happens when we die. It is difficult to explain but it is about being in a relationship with the Body of Christ and having the most tangible expression of that relationship denied.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There was a lot more to the resolution of that issue than "dissent."
I would say so! According to the Bible in Acts Ch. 10:9-18, Peter saw a vision that proclaimed the Gentiles clean and worthy of Salvation. And he was a person of authority in the Church so it wasn't just some regular member arguing for a change. If you don't believe in Church authority then you should become a Protestant.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course I'm not surprised by a reference to history. I knew it before.
If someone radically disagrees with fundamental tenets of an organization and a resokution is not forthcoming, I don't see the objections to the individual and the organization separating from one another. The ideas are still out there - the dissenters are not silenced. They are simply no longer sanctioned.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You would then likely be surprised at the number of people who, once denounced as heretics, are now revered as saints. Catholicism is often improved by dissent.
And on the other hand, we now have protestants because certain catholics thought they knew better than the pope.
First off, no catholic, who knows their faith, will ever tell someone else if they are going to hell or heaven. Catholics believe that's a judgement call for God, not you or anyone else.
Secondly, excommunication means that you aren't in communion with the church, and are not able to take part in the sacraments.
A politician who is pro-choice and opposed to the church's stance on abortion and other life issues is exactly that, not in communion with the church. And SHOULD be denied the sacraments. For their sake as well as the church's sake. Allowing someone to take part in the sacrament of communion when they are in a state of mortal sin causes them more damage than it does bestow grace, and any other sacrament attempted would not be valid. And any catholic that goes to communion in a state of sin without confession first should keep that in mind as well.
Finally, there's no such thing as a woman priest. Therefore these foolish women are just playing pretend. Only men can be priests. And anyone hoping this will change should stop now. Pope JPII has declared this definitively, and infallibly, over 10 years ago. Which means it is set in stone, cannot be reversed or changed. Period.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The Vatican is not the Church. It lead the Church, but the sense and the consent of the faithful should be heeded as well.
Sorry, that's not how God works, that's not how His church works. Jesus doesn't speak of the democracy of heaven, He speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven. A Kingdom has a King, and that King sets the rules. God doesn't offer referendums, and neither does the catholic church.
Furthermore I think that the above usage of this passage is specious.
quote: "I think certainly that the Ecclesia docens is more happy when she has such enthusiastic partisans about her as are here represented, than when she cuts off the faithful from the study of her divine doctrines and the sympathy of her divine contemplations, and requires from them a fides implicita in her word, which in the educated classes will terminate in indifference, and in the poorer in superstition."
The passage talks about not cutting the faithful off from the study of the church's docterine and contemplations. Which is correct. The faithful should study, and endeavor to understand the church's stance on issues. The church doesn't ask to blindly follow just because they say. And it's also why the church releases documents in exacting detail. It is important to understand the teachings of the church, and in doing so come into communion with the teachings.
This quote doesn't give license to the faithful to stand up and demand a referendum on docterine or dogma though.
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: Finally, there's no such thing as a woman priest. Therefore these foolish women are just playing pretend. Only men can be priests. And anyone hoping this will change should stop now. Pope JPII has declared this definitively, and infallibly, over 10 years ago. Which means it is set in stone, cannot be reversed or changed. Period.
I'm pretty darn sure that he didn't say it ex cathedra.
Please don't be calling people foolish. The issue of women who feel called to the priesthood needs to be taken seriously, and arrogant statements like yours make me want to support these women. Statements like that drive people from the Church.
Women do feel a call to the priesthood. Why this happens and what it should result in are questions that need answers. Answers beyond "Tough. Suck it up." These women and their calling is dismissed out of hand, as if it couldn't possibly be anything other than foolish vainglory. Dismissed by people who do not share their calling or the pain of denial.
I don't agree with the action these women are taking, but I sure as heck think that they need to be taken seriously. They need to be treated as honest, intelligent, and sincere members of the Church (regrettably, the drastic action they are taking may close the door to that last point). Should women be allowed ordination? I'm not sure. But it's high time we took the question seriously.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a pity that the manner in which this is occurring seems (from the admittedly sparse details available) to be rather flashy and irreverant. The issue of women in the Church is one that could stand some real scrutiny, and this looks like it amounts to thumbing noses at the powers that be; at best, the powers in question will find it irrelevant and meaningless, and at worst, heresy and/or blasphemy.
Ordinations have dropped sharply in recent years, and recent scandals have left many shaken; a female priesthood, even in extremely limited numbers, might be helpful.
Though I admit, from what I hear of the current Pope, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "King" in the Kingdom of God would be God. Otherwise it would be called the Kingdom of Pope.
Eaquae Legit, you are correct. Infallability has only been invoked once (maybe twice if you retro it a bit) since it was formalized in 1870.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it's high time we took the question seriously.
Doesn't this imply that it hasn't been taken seriously so far?
I doubt that - I doubt that the idea simply has never occurred to anyone in a position to make it happen.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not believe the Church has yet atoned for all its sins of the past. Just look at what they did during the Medieval period.
Posts: 44 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, sure. Peter changed his mind. The established authority of the Church (Peter) had a position, someone (Paul) disagreed and fought him on it. And changed the position of the established authority of the Church. That is dissent.
Can you source this, please? It's not consistent with my reading of Acts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. It will take a while as my sources are books, though. To start, read Galatians 2 where Peter is rebuked by Paul.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not believe the Church has yet atoned for all its sins of the past. Just look at what they did during the Medieval period.
You'll not find an organization on Earth that has been around as long as the Catholic Church has (or even half or even a quarter as long) without some serious past sins to deal with.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it's high time we took the question seriously.
Doesn't this imply that it hasn't been taken seriously so far?
I doubt that - I doubt that the idea simply has never occurred to anyone in a position to make it happen.
There's been a lot written and said about it. Ordinatio sacerdotalis, the letter by the late John Paul II which stihl is probably thinking of, was supposed to end the issue.
Problem is, every discussion of it so far has come from the top down, pretty much as an ultimatum. This is the way it is. Yet I've seen a little too much of the Church's history to be comfortable with that - many of the things people assumed to be "divine law" have changed over the years. No one is listening to the women themselves. There are many women who are loving and loyal daughters of the Church who feel the pain of being denied their vocation. Not just denied, but told that what they feel is wrong and impossible. That the call they hear is not from God. That they are foolish.
I want, at the least, a document that takes their pain seriously. Even if women's ordination still is barred, I'd like the Church to acknowledge that this vocational calling is more than foolishness or disloyalty.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps the Church believes that it is in fact disloyal foolishness, and that whatever the women are hearing is not the call of God.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Dag, Michael Goulder's book, "St Paul Versus St. Peter: A tale of Two Missions" might be helpful. Even in Galations, we are shown that, sometimes, the leadership (in this case Peter) gets it wrong (even if they know better) and needs to be corrected or at least reminded. Peter didn't always get it right by himself. From the beginnings of the Church, there was discussion, differences of opinion, consensus building, not dictates from one person. Catholicism is collaborative.
Did you get a chance to read the Newman article? I am interested in what you think of it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To start, read Galatians 2 where Peter is rebuked by Paul.
That doesn't describe a dispute of doctrine. In the previous passage it is clear that Peter and the other pillars all support the mission to the Gentiles.
quote:From the beginnings of the Church, there was discussion, differences of opinion, consensus building, not dictates from one person. Catholicism is collaborative.
You know what? I've said nothing that contradicts this in this or any other thread.
My single point has been that not all dissent is of the quality of the "dissent" of St. Paul. Some of it is qualitatively different and not beneficial.
I'm not quite sure how examples of good dissent are meant to refute that point, since I've acknowledged the existence of good dissent from the beginning.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I didn't think that we were arguing about that. (I didn't really think we were really disagreeing at all.) I'm sorry if the way I phrased things made it seem as if we were.
I agree that not all dissent is beneficial. I would only argue with those, like Occasional and Stihl, who seem to be arguing that dissent is impossible and has never happened and that those who disagree with the Vatican should "just become Protestant".
I don't think that you were arguing that. I thought that you and I were having an interesting discussion about first century theological politics.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not a synagogue. It's a temple. And the fact that many of the people who belong to it are Jewish doesn't make it a synagogue.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that Temple was the title more reserved than Synagogue within the Jewish faith. What are your criteria for calling a place of worship a synagogue?
and Kate, hopefully the feeling is reciprocal, but I like theological discussions with you because I always get the feeling that for the most part we're agreeing, but still can get in fairly heated debate (a la with Dag and you there) Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: My single point has been that not all dissent is of the quality of the "dissent" of St. Paul. Some of it is qualitatively different and not beneficial.
I'm not quite sure how examples of good dissent are meant to refute that point, since I've acknowledged the existence of good dissent from the beginning.
I'd like to second this. I don't think what these women are doing is "good dissent." I'm not supporting their actions.
However, as much as these women are not very good "Pauls," I think in this case Rome has not been a very good "Peter" either. The Church documents and debates that I've read on this (and I'm not saying there could be others I haven't gotten to) have not engaged the other side to a point where I can feel the debate is mutual. I honestly don't think that they have been heard and understood. It's more along the lines of an ultimatum, shutting down the debate before it can even really be had.
It is possible to be a daughter of the Church, to love her and uphold her and uphold her teachings, and still disagree on an issue. Feeling a call to ordination doesn't make you foolish or disloyal - until you take steps like the women in the original article.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
