The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Colleen Ev, That latin friend, Deacon Eric, Pastor Freed, Sebastian
5,837 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 29 guests, and 22 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,155
Posts414,847
Members5,837
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
To answer your question, it is a logical fallacy. I teach this in my Argument and Reason class. The fallacy even goes by an official name: the fallacy of Personal Attacks.

I would note that logically even if Sr Nona is in favor of women's ordination, this does not necessarily mean that she cannot be relied upon for her patristic commentary. In point of fact, Sr Nona is a brilliant academic whose commentaries on the fathers are universally recognized as outstanding. I would also note that she is a disciple of Bishop Kallistos Ware who is also universally recognized as one of the greatest patristic scholars of our age.

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
L
lm Offline
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Logically, however, the fact is that if she is in favor of women's ordiantion, she undoubtedly does not hold to the faith of the Fathers and hence whatever commentary she may have is very likely skewed in some way. If I recall your book on, "The Ladder," you quote John Climacus who tells his disciples to be wary of Origen because of the fundamental error in his thinking. I simply the suggest that the same line of thinking be applied to anyone who dabbles in the thought of women's ordination which of course is contrary to the Divine Economy as expressed in Ephesians and elsewhere.

In any event, as Catholics, we have a living magisterium! And we know what it has said on the issue.

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 1
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 1
Inclusive language and women's ordination to the Orthodox priesthood...hmmm I would pay to listen and watch that discussion, make sure that there is representation from the MP and ROCOR...

Amazing...

james





Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 11
ajk Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 11
Originally Posted by PrJ
I know Sister Nona well and can testify to her outstanding commitment to Christ and His Church. Why do people feel the need to attack those with whom they disagree? I still do not understand this.

The poster Im simply gave a quote and a source. How is the quote an attack? Is it inaccurate?

Originally Posted by PrJ
As far as I know, with a few exceptions, St. Thomas Aquinas is not recognized as a theological authority within the Eastern Church. St. Gregory is -- and I would much rather adopt his positions.

Certainly, as you will. Aquinas is a Catholic theologian and Doctor of the Church, and the Truth doesn't distinguish between East and West.

Dn. Anthony

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
R
Bill from Pgh
Member
Offline
Bill from Pgh
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
"I think it is fairly well known that she is in favor of women's ordination. Women's ordination doesn't comport with Catholic teaching by which you and I are bound."

I am not in favor of ordaining women, but I do believe that one can be in favor of the ordination of women and remain a Catholic in good standing, as long as one complies with and accepts the present laws, rulings (or however you want to phrase it) of the Pope and the magisterium.

I stand in favor of a married priesthood in the Roman Church as well as the Eastern Churches. Does that make me not Catholic or less of a Catholic as long as I accept the decisions of the Church?

Bill

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,652
Likes: 3
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,652
Likes: 3
Bill, you are buying the feminist anti-Catholic party line. The ordination of married/celibates to priesthood is a discipline of the Church that can be changed, removed, lifted, etc. That women cannot be ordained to the priesthood is unchangeable doctrine.
The two have nothing in common.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
R
Bill from Pgh
Member
Offline
Bill from Pgh
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
Dear Micael,
"That women cannot be ordained to the priesthood is unchangeable doctrine."

I'm not buying into anything. As I said, I don't agree with the ordination of women. People who do think that women should be ordained are as welcome in the church as I am as long as they abide by the rules.

I can be a Democrat and still be against abortion, can't I. smile

Bill

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,652
Likes: 3
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,652
Likes: 3
Just wondering why did you mention it in relation to the married-celibate priesthood discussion?

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
R
Bill from Pgh
Member
Offline
Bill from Pgh
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
Dear Michael,

I mentioned it for no reason other than a married priesthood in the Roman Church is, at the present time, as likely as allowing women to the priesthood. I'm not implying anything or trying to go deeper than what you read on the surface.

God Bless,
Bill

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,867
Likes: 22
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,867
Likes: 22
Quote
. . . but I do believe that one can be in favor of the ordination of women and remain a Catholic in good standing, as long as one complies with and accepts the present laws, rulings (or however you want to phrase it) of the Pope and the magisterium.

rcguest:

Actually this position was formally repudiated in 1994 by HH JP2 of blessed memory. He issued a formal statement that clearly binds all Catholics as a matter of faith. The statement clearly states that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood and that Catholics can no longer argue this point and still consider themselves in good standing as far as the Faith is concerned. He even included a statement that this teaching of his was to bind all Catholics in conscience to submission.

We Catholics have lost the idea that when Rome speaks, the case is closed. I believe this started to go by the boards in 1968 when Humanae Vitae was issued and the idea took hold that "conscientious dissent" ought to be allowed if one made the claim of personal conscience. That, too, is a shaky argument because Catholics are to form their conscience in conformity with the Magisterium and its official teaching in all areas.

But we don't have the right to hold positions like this just because we think we can for one reason or another.

In Christ,

BOB

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,279
Likes: 15
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,279
Likes: 15
Is Sister Nona in favor of women's ordination as deaconesses or priests. In the Eastern Church there is a world of difference between the support for one versus the other and most Orthodox women who are criticized for being for the ordination of women have, in my readings, been only for the restoration of the order of deaconess, not for the ordination of women to presbyterate.

Fr. Deacon Lance


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,279
Likes: 15
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,279
Likes: 15
There is an icon that portrays Christ creating Adam in the Garden, they are presented as identical, so our iconographic tradition would seem to support Fr. John's statement because to produce a type, Adam, one must have the prototype, Christ.


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 11
ajk Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 11
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
There is an icon that portrays Christ creating Adam in the Garden, they are presented as identical, so our iconographic tradition would seem to support Fr. John's statement because to produce a type, Adam, one must have the prototype, Christ.

Dogmatically, how does the "iconographic tradition" serve as a source of revelation compared to the words of Sacred Scripture? Which has precedence?

Is it Fr. John who has it "backwards,"

Originally Posted by PrJ
Quote
And of course if you eliminate the memory of the first man, there is no need for the second -- for Christ himself.

You have it backwards.

According to the Eastern Church Fathers, Christ is the first and Adam the second man. The Fathers state that Adam was made in the image of Christ -- not the other way around.

See Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way for an excellent introduction to this topic. See also Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Orthodox Church.

or St. Paul,

Originally Posted by ajk
RSV 1 Corinthians 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first (prōtos) man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.

Bishop Kallistos, V. Lossky and even the Fathers get trumped by scripture; perhaps more specific references would clear things up.

???????????????????

So far, ALL explicit quotes from the indicated and other references have adhered to the terminology of Scripture, i.e. the terminology of St. Paul and not Fr. John.

Dn. Anthony

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
R
Bill from Pgh
Member
Offline
Bill from Pgh
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 704
Originally Posted by theophan
Quote
. . . but I do believe that one can be in favor of the ordination of women and remain a Catholic in good standing, as long as one complies with and accepts the present laws, rulings (or however you want to phrase it) of the Pope and the magisterium.

rcguest:

Actually this position was formally repudiated in 1994 by HH JP2 of blessed memory. He issued a formal statement that clearly binds all Catholics as a matter of faith. The statement clearly states that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood and that Catholics can no longer argue this point and still consider themselves in good standing as far as the Faith is concerned. He even included a statement that this teaching of his was to bind all Catholics in conscience to submission.

We Catholics have lost the idea that when Rome speaks, the case is closed. I believe this started to go by the boards in 1968 when Humanae Vitae was issued and the idea took hold that "conscientious dissent" ought to be allowed if one made the claim of personal conscience. That, too, is a shaky argument because Catholics are to form their conscience in conformity with the Magisterium and its official teaching in all areas.

But we don't have the right to hold positions like this just because we think we can for one reason or another.

In Christ,

BOB

Dear Bob,

I thank You too for this clarification!

My use of the word "welcome" is my mistake.
I accept the teachings of the Church. This does not mitigate the fact there are people out there who would accept the ordination of women just like I would accept the ordination of married men to the Roman Catholic priesthood. The point I was trying to make is that as long as they accept the teachings of the church they are still Catholics in good standing. Because some of these people attended a conference and applauded a nun(whom I know nothing about, nor do I know anything about the conference) who spoke on women's ordination, does not necessarily put them outside the church.

I do not fear for my Church and its decisions. I do fear much of what the "Neo-Con Traditionalist" movement that is afoot spews all over the internet.

In the past forty or so odd years much of the Latin Church's laundry has been hung out to dry. I, for one, am grateful for this and being an optimist believe things can and will only get better.

In Christ,
Bill

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,867
Likes: 22
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,867
Likes: 22
Quote
I do not fear for my Church and its decisions. I do fear much of what the "Neo-Con Traditionalist" movement that is afoot spews all over the internet.

Bill:

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The danger from the "neo-Con Traditionalist" is every bit as much as that fromt he liberal who would throw out everything except the latest fad idea.

OTOH, I think the danger is that in listening to the radical nun, one can come away with confusion--there are still many who think that anyone in religious life must somehow be an authority figure to listen to--and may pick up some of the arguments that are made. Remember that many who go to such talks are spiritually hungry people who go hoping to add to their faith growth. They are not usually prepared to critically assess what is being said and are often not able to be say to the speaker that she is off the mark and not in line with Church teaching. Then if they do say something, they are often ridiculed about not being "up to date" and back off because no one wants to be thought of as "out of date": part of the damage of the "spirit of Vatican II thinking."

BOB

BOB

Last edited by theophan; 03/15/08 10:10 PM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5