Christianity news

[kisekileia]

A very, very interesting decision by the Catholic Church.

I think this is a good thing. It'll allow conservative Anglicans to become part of a church that fits with their beliefs, and therefore free up the Anglican communion to be progressive.

Comments

[dustyfro]

I don't know why I didn't get in on the Episcopal Church while I was looking for something different than First Baptist, because I think liturgy is cool and I appreciate that they ordain women, but let me tell you, if the Catholic Church started to ordain women, I'd be signing up for the first Adult Confirmation class. There's something ancient and legitimate about Catholic Mass that really appeals to me, but there are some things still standing in my way. I'd rather Catholics and Anglicans join together for serious than try to get people from the other side to make a bigger divide.

[kisekileia]

I'd be pretty cautious about joining the Catholic Church if I were you, because their doctrines about birth control, abortion, and divorce are pretty uncompromising. I have a friend whose mother divorced and remarried, and she can never again take communion within the Catholic Church, even though she has been married to her second husband for many years and he is the father of her children.

[dustthouart]

If you're thinking of the situation I'm thinking of, you're either being unfair or you don't know the whole situation. She could get her marriage regularized; it's just that the father refuses to cooperate with anything RCC. And this is only one symptom of this particular father's spite and desire to prove that he's boss of his family, even to the point of denying people things truly important to them. But she chooses to bow to it

[kisekileia]

Oh...I didn't realize it was possible for that marriage to be regularized if the father were to be cooperative. I apologize. And WOW--I'm disgusted that they would even consider not going to the wedding unless they absolutely could not afford it..

I think you're right that a lot of the Anglo-Baptist types wouldn't go over to the Catholic Church. However, I'm not sure those types are as big an influence outside the U.S.

And yeah, I think the coverage of this has been overly unfavourable towards the pope.

[dustthouart]

The Anglo-Baptists are more than anything a dominant force in the global south. This makes the progressive Anglicans squirm because it brings out so much latent racism. A lot of the Anglican leaders have put their feet in their mouth with statements like that the African Anglicans just don't know any better because they're still oppressed by colonialism and that's why they foolishly believe such silly things, poor dears. Whereupon the African bishops say things like "I've got a Ph.d from Oxford, I am not the superstitious caricature that you think I am. STFU."

The ECUSA is liberal as all get out.

[kisekileia]

I don't think the claims that the African Anglicans are influenced by colonialism are as bogus as you do. U.S. evangelical and charismatic churches continue to have a major missionary presence in Africa, which has resulted in some of the more negative aspects of those churches (homophobia, prosperity doctrine, fear of demons and witchcraft) combining in very toxic ways with African culture. I think it's reasonable to conclude that the laity, at least, in the African Anglican churches are unduly influenced by U.S. evangelical beliefs. (See this article).

[dustthouart]

Have you ever read in their own words why the Catholics don't ordain women? This was one of my big blocks to becoming Catholic, and I figured I had nothing to lose by reading their explanation. I figured I would just think it was a bunch of nonsense. You may feel that it's a bunch of nonsense when you read it, but you won't know until you read some, and if you do think it's a bunch of nonsense, you'll be better informed anyway. So win/win.

I can give you some links or book recs if you want.

[kaph]

I've read it. I think it's nonsense.

I think the best theological argument to the refusal to ordain women is the simple "Ordain women or stop baptizing them."

[dustthouart]

That doesn't have anything to do with the Church's explanation why women cannot be ordained (there are indeed refutations that address the Church's argument, but that's not one of them; for example, arguments that the maleness of Jesus Christ and his apostles are not intended as a model but rather as a capitulation to contemporary social mores, and that as the Church has grown and changed in other areas this is one that could be changed since in Christ we are neither male nor female... that's probably the best argument I know against an all-male priesthood, but one I have to reject based on the ridiculous notion that Jesus ever capitulated to social mores), but I'll accept that you have indeed read and disagreed with the Church's own words and not someone else's representation of them, and wish you grace in your walk with Christ.

[kaph]

Actually, arguments based on the maleness of Christ as it relates to the vicarious celebration of his sacrifice in the mass are still being talked about, so the baptizing of women into the image and likeness of Christ, combined with the refusal to ordain women because they don't share his maleness, is still an issue. Whether this language is coming from papal statements or letters/essays/sermons by other RC leaders, it's still alarming.

I totally agree with you about the idea of Jesus capitulatng to social mores - ridiculous!

[dustthouart]

Actually, arguments based on the maleness of Christ as it relates to the vicarious celebration of his sacrifice in the mass are still being talked about, so the baptizing of women into the image and likeness of Christ, combined with the refusal to ordain women because they don't share his maleness, is still an issue.

Could you rephrase this? I think I know what you mean, but I'm not sure.

[kaph]

Christ's maleness is not an issue in a Christian's baptism into Christ. Both men and women represent Jesus as "little Christs" though the sacrament of baptism. So the argument that the maleness of Christ is essential in his vicar during the celebrating of the Eucharist is nonsensical. Maleness cannot be an issue in representing Christ in communion if it is not an issue in representing Christ in baptism.

[dustthouart]

I'm not sure if it's a valid comparison. For if one compares the reception of baptism and the reception of ordination, should we not also compare the administration of each

[kaph]

I really don't think the comparison of the administration is valid when what I'm talking about is the inherent representation of Christ. And anyway, I'm talking about those who ARE baptized, not the ones doing the baptizing.

I am so glad I do not have to deal with a magisterium. It's all I can do to be part of any church tradition. My husband was baptized in a nondenominational church, and I sometimes envy him.

On the other hand, there's the liturgy, which is sublime, and of course, the aforementioned Real Presence. I guess things balance out. :)

Ultimately, though, what matters is seeking and serving Christ in others.