Women Priests in Catholic Church (Only Theological discussion)

The Smurf

SonOfAdam wrote: »

Can you have it both ways ?

Yeah. Because on the one hand, you don't tell your mother how to run the home. Whereas, what your mother says goes, even if you have, as the child, run away from home and disowned your mother. She's still your mother even if you ignore her and deny her.

The Smurf

antiskeptic wrote: »

Again, you seem to be missing the point. The point wasn't that Catholics are less reasonable than anyone else. The point was that any denomination that doesn't claim itself the one true church sounds more reasonable (given the impossibility of proving the claim true - I might add)

ps: I just see that the Orthodox church does claim itself to be the One True Church, and reading back I see that Slav is objecting to Rome claiming that title and not that the title shouldn't be claimed at all. It looks like the Orthos and the Romans are as unreasonable as each other in this regard,

Except that Catholics have verses Is. 22:22 and Mt. 16:18 on their side of the argument, amongst many others.:p

antiskeptic

The Smurf wrote: »

Except that Catholics have verses Is. 22:22 and Mt. 16:18 on their side of the argument, amongst many others.:p

Lots of people have lots of verses on their side of the argument. The Devil is in the interpretation hitched onto said verses. For example: we might agree that healthy dollops of eigegesis are requried to derive The Institution Currently Known As Rome from this snippet..

Isaiah 22:22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.


Me? I prefer scriptural support for a position to stand on scripture. Not on the presuppositions that are supposed to be supported by scripture.

antiskeptic

The Smurf wrote: »

Yeah. Because on the one hand, you don't tell your mother how to run the home. Whereas, what your mother says goes, even if you have, as the child, run away from home and disowned your mother. She's still your mother even if you ignore her and deny her.

Oh know she isn't...

What point an approach that can be 'rebutted' using precisely the same technique? Seriously, I'm curious..

SonOfAdam

Well.... you've used that reasoning before yet few would agree with you here that the RCC is their mother ..... if I were a convert from judaism would the RCC still be my mother ? if so , how ?

The Smurf

antiskeptic wrote: »

Lots of people have lots of verses on their side of the argument. The Devil is in the interpretation hitched onto said verses. For example: we might agree that healthy dollops of eigegesis are requried to derive The Institution Currently Known As Rome from this snippet..

Isaiah 22:22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.


Me? I prefer scriptural support for a position to stand on scripture. Not on the presuppositions that are supposed to be supported by scripture.

I'm not getting into this again. Really. Beyond saying this: only the Catholic Church has a totally coherent and reasonable and consistent approach to the entire Bible. As thew man says, only the catholic Church has the answer.

Slav

The Smurf wrote: »

Additionally, I would say that the Catholic Church has put a lot more thought into why it can't have women priests than the Orthodox

True. Orthodoxy does not produce encyclicals on this issue because Orthodoxy is not facing with this issue it on any measurable scale.

and also, since it has a living, teaching Magisterium, is able to articulate Christian teaching according to new circumstances and technologies

Magisterium is considered to be ecclesiological heresy and alteration of the authentic faith, so thank you very much!

especially concerning sexual morals and reproductive ethics, whereas the Orthodox have really nothing to say to the modern world about these problems and challenges.

Perhaps because everything has already been said about it? If a new problem arises reaction is followed but what if it does not? Or if the problem is an old one and has already been addressed?

Slav

antiskeptic wrote: »

Again, you seem to be missing the point. The point wasn't that Catholics are less reasonable than anyone else. The point was that any denomination that doesn't claim itself the one true church sounds more reasonable (given the impossibility of proving the claim true - I might add)

To be honest, I don't see the definition of OTC being much different among all Christians (i.e. those who adhere to Nicene and/or Apostles Creed).

Everyone believes in that there is Christ's Church.

Everyone believe that the Church is the True Church - otherwise they would not be there.

Everyone I think thinks of the Church as of Christ's Body. Therefore the Church is One in the sense that it cannot be divided: indeed there might not be any two members who are not in communion with each other.

The difference is in understanding of communion. For RCC and OC it's essentially the Eucharistic communion so that's why they see the boundaries of OTC limited to themselves.

ps: I just see that the Orthodox church does claim itself to be the One True Church, and reading back I see that Slav is objecting to Rome claiming that title and not that the title shouldn't be claimed at all. It looks like the Orthos and the Romans are as unreasonable as each other in this regard,

The confusion comes from the abuse of the term. I think it only has meaning when used internally so saying that "X is One True Church" is self-identification of X and declaration of unity of its members. However it has no use in dialogue with those outside of X.

The Smurf

Slav wrote: »

True. Orthodoxy does not produce encyclicals on this issue because Orthodoxy is not facing with this issue it on any measurable scale.

Magisterium is considered to be ecclesiological heresy and alteration of the authentic faith, so thank you very much!

Perhaps because everything has already been said about it? If a new problem arises reaction is followed but what if it does not? Or if the problem is an old one and has already been addressed?

I'm not talking about modernism, changing the faith, I am talking about the need for an authority to teach about morality as new challenges come up, such as stem cell research and other such things as birth control (the pill - a new contraceptive and abortifacient invented in the 20th century, and the orthodox apparently don't have too much of an issue with contraception, as far as I know).

Slav

The Smurf wrote: »

I'm not talking about modernism, changing the faith, I am talking about the need for an authority to teach about morality as new challenges come up, such as stem cell research and other such things as birth control (the pill - a new contraceptive and abortifacient invented in the 20th century, and the orthodox apparently don't have too much of an issue with contraception, as far as I know).

Unfortunately, abortifacients is not a 20th century invention. Perhaps it's actually one of the oldest contraception methods. Same for the steam cell research - the issue of medical ethics is probably as old as medicine itself.

Contraception itself is not sinful but sin is to murder and therefore things like morning after pill or a hormonal method that leaves the possibility for fertilisation but prevents the further development of the egg are sinful.

Same selfishness is the sin and therefore using contraception to serve it is sinful no matter if it's an evil condom or the blessed fertility awareness method.

The list goes on.

In other words, contraception is only a technology. Can it be used in sinful way? Yes, most certainly. Is there a legitimate use for it? I believe there is.

The Smurf

Slav wrote: »

Unfortunately, abortifacients is not a 20th century invention. Perhaps it's actually one of the oldest contraception methods. Same for the steam cell research - the issue of medical ethics is probably as old as medicine itself.

Contraception itself is not sinful but sin is to murder and therefore things like morning after pill or a hormonal method that leaves the possibility for fertilisation but prevents the further development of the egg are sinful.

Same selfishness is the sin and therefore using contraception to serve it is sinful no matter if it's an evil condom or the blessed fertility awareness method.

The list goes on.

In other words, contraception is only a technology. Can it be used in sinful way? Yes, most certainly. Is there a legitimate use for it? I believe there is.

The natural family planning techniques can indeed be used in a sinful way and even the pill may be used for therapeutic, non-contraceptive reasons*. But only the Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception is not morally acceptable. I understand that the Orthodox (with some exceptions) don't have too much of a problem with it and in practice have gone much the same way as the Anglicans. The trouble is, there is really no authority in Orthodoxy to proclaim what is the truth of the matter, whereas the Catholic has the Magisterium to teach faith and morals without error.

Anyhow, here is the teaching of the Church from the Catechism:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

(I'm not going to get into further wrangling or squabbling about this. I've stated what is the Church's position on this, and that should be enough.)

* http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=161727

Slav

The Smurf wrote: »

But only the Catholic Church teaches that artificial contraception is not morally acceptable.

I think the problem of the teaching is that it's not convincing for those who are not ready to accept it only because of an important man's signature on it. I can assure you that the rest of Christendom would immediately accepted it if only RCC could present a strong case supporting it. It's not the origin of the teaching but poor reasoning that people have issues with.

The trouble is, there is really no authority in Orthodoxy to proclaim what is the truth of the matter, whereas the Catholic has the Magisterium to teach faith and morals without error.

Specifically for the Orthodox Church, I think you have a very wrong idea about its ecclesiology.


PS. The thread is hijacked and we are now 100% off-topic. Maybe create a new one if we are about to discuss it further?

The Smurf

Slav wrote: »

I think the problem of the teaching is that it's not convincing for those who are not ready to accept it only because of an important man's signature on it. I can assure you that the rest of Christendom would immediately accepted it if only RCC could present a strong case supporting it. It's not the origin of the teaching but poor reasoning that people have issues with.

No. You greatly misunderstand the power of the fallen nature and man's natural attraction to what is sinful and disordered. The trouble is, most Catholics haven't bothered to entertain the Church teaching or reasons for it and don't want to be convinced, becuase that would necessitate a dying to self and amendment of life. The ignorance among Catholics is staggering. I know, because I know a lot of Catholics, and even among those who still bother to go to Mass, their ignorance is absolutely staggering. The Church teaching is reasonable and logical. This is ideal reading for those still on the fence.

Ignorance + concupiscence + attachment to sin = rejection of Church teaching on contraception.

Plus, even if one does accept the reasonableness and truth of Church teaching, one doesn't necessarily have to incorporate it into one's life. One can know and understand the truth and resist it. I think of many Catholics who use birth control and know deep down its wrong and feel the sting of conscience, but do it anyway, without any effort or interest to even begin to try to understand the Church teachings. They heard the media spin around the time of HV, liked what they heard, and did what they wanted to do.