|
0 members (),
356
guests, and
76
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,493
Posts417,362
Members6,137
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773 |
Well, I personally don't believe that. But, I don't believe certain other official teachings of either Church as well. Instead, I (like many others) are private dissenters over certain matters. We normally keep our views to ourselves, and we stay with one church or another because there are more things about that we like than what we dislike. John very well said. This reflects my thinking and position, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Lance, your post made sense !  No worries, dude.  And thank you for your thoughts. -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
The problem is that in general we have lost the iconic significance of gender, as well as paternity and maternity. The redemption of Christ in the temporal mission of the Church does not somehow eliminate the significance of these things. Rather it elevates them sacramentally to a supernatural level.
[ . . . ]
Christianity, specifically the Church, saw both women and men as particiating in the common royal priesthood of baptism, and so they were both to be in the nave offering the sacrifice of praise according to their ordo. As the Church expanded into Greek missionary territory, it had ample opportunity to establish a female presbyterate, since the Greeks HAD (and in fact expected to have) female priests. But the Church did no such thing. This was not a simple slavish nod to their Jewish heritage, IMHO, rather it was something far more systemic [ . . . ] Gordo, that is the first new food for thought on this subject that I've read in quite a while. Thank you, sir, for posting that. I will think on it. -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Yes, thank you folks. I echo Alice's sentiments. This is quite a stimulating discussion.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Gordo, that is the first new food for thought on this subject that I've read in quite a while. Thank you, sir, for posting that. I will think on it.
-- John John, Thanks for your comments. I am only re-presenting some of the analysis done by both Bouyer and Hauke, which is very valuable, IMHO. If you are looking for more, I would definitely recommend reading their works mentioned above. God bless! Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,306 Likes: 91
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,306 Likes: 91 |
lanceg posted: John,
I made a huge mistake; I did not mean to say "We in the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church do not ordain women because we believe it is an apostolic doctrine;"
I meant to say: "We in the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church do ordain women because we believe it is an apostolic doctrine;"
I did not mean to insert the Not! I'm asking for some clarification here. Maybe it's age that has caused my mind to cloud today. When I strip down the sentences, I think I am understanding exactly the opposite of what Lance intends to say. Is it "We in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches do ordain women . . ."? Do I understand Lance to say he did not mean to state "We in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches do not ordain women . . ."? I thought we didn't ordain women.  In Christ, BOB
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214 |
I was wondering the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10 |
It got me a bit confused too!?! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,306 Likes: 91
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,306 Likes: 91 |
Terry and Alice: Then maybe it's not my Alzheimer's kicking up!!  BOB
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
Me four!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
I made a huge mistake; I did not mean to say "We in the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church do not ordain women because we believe it is an apostolic doctrine;"...
I did not mean to insert the Not! My good brother, Lance, was trying to say that we do NOT ordain women, but got a little bit confused in his use of negatives when making a clarification. It happens to the best of us. All of us have made our share of misteaks. God bless! Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,214 |
In Middle English, a double and triple negative enforces the negativity of the statement. It wouldn't be hard to never not be unconfused.
Terry
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 571
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 571 |
Huh??? I'm confused.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
In Middle English, a double and triple negative enforces the negativity of the statement. It wouldn't be hard to never not be unconfused.
Terry I believe it is the same in Ukrainian as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,306 Likes: 91
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,306 Likes: 91 |
Gordo: Glad to see there is a disconnect between the fingers and the brain with someone other than me. But maybe you were hungry--I just go a mail-order steak offer that would make them "mi-steaks." BOB
|
|
|
|
|
