[MR] Women Priests and objectivity

[EoganOg at aol.com]

In a message dated 3/3/02 10:12:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
rgaddy at bellsouth.net writes:


> I would think that heresy in particular but the other terms as well would be
> rather subjective depending on one's position.
> 

In the sense that "heresy" means "people who don't agree with me," then yes.  
It is completely subjective.  But has it always been so?  No.  Prior to the 
Reformation era, people seemed to have a pretty good notion that "heresy" 
meant that which was contrary to Church teaching.  When the question of 
heresy arose, as in the Arian heresy mentioned earlier, the church met in 
council and resolved it.  They did not resolve it by means of two groups 
trying to convice each other that they are right.  They resolved it by 
sitting down, arguing the issue (in the purest, classical sense of the term 
argue), and determining what is and is not in line with traditional Apostolic 
teaching as handed down in the Church.  What is not is then determined 
heretical.

Jump ahead to Luther's time, when for the first time the political as well as 
religious climate was ripe for someone to accuse the Church itself of being 
heretical. (Anyone who thinks the Reformation didn't have as much, if not 
more, to do with politics as with theology needs to read more Reformation 
history).  Throw Calvin and Zwingli on the bandwagon, each accusing not only 
the Church but other Protestant camps of heresy, and you start to get a new 
subjective definition of "heresy" that means "not in line with what *I* think 
is correct."

Notice the difference.
Heresy = "Teaching contrary to the *Church*"  Now let's sit down and figure 
out what the Church actually teaches and resolve this.
vs.
Heresy = "Teaching contrary to what *I think is right*"  Now let's sit down 
and let me tell you why you should agree with me.

I was using heresy in the classical sense.  Contrary to Church teaching.

> When one adds the question of by what authority....tradition or solo
> scriptoria or some combination?, then one muddies the waters even farther.
> 

Yes, and there is no need to muddy these waters.  The theoretical women 
priests in question date from at least 1000 years before anyone even dreamed 
up the phrase "sola scriptura."  There is no need to even bring it us (unless 
you are trying to undermine the authority of the Church that taught us from 
the beginning that women's ordination is heretical).


> Since as has been pointed out, the church doctrines have not been static,
> rather an evolution, one must define these terms in a specific time period
> as well (sometimes a very brief time period indeed) Take for example the
> Female Pope, the requirement for single (non married state)of the priest,
> and other doctrines that have changed rapidly within our period of study.

What?

There has never been a female pope.  Never.  This is a myth.  It is a 
medieval myth, but the fact that it is an old myth doesn't make it any more 
true.  

The celebate priesthood is a discipline.  It is not a doctrine of the church, 
and therefore it can change.  In fact, not only is it a discipline, not a 
doctrine, it is not even a doctrine for the whole Catholic church, just the 
Roman rite.  Other rites (the Byzantine rite, for example) do have married 
clergy, and always have.  And in fact, it is a discipline in the Roman rite 
that can be waived under special circumstances.  There are about 100 married 
Roman Catholic priests in America today.

What are these other doctrines that you think have changed?


> One must also include the Mary issues in this as well.

What Mary issue?  And why does it need to be included?  No one to my 
knowledge has claimed her to be an ordained priest.

> .I am just as glad I have fled to Geneva where I am in the
> majority and get to burn Catholics (actually not done, banishment seems to
> work as well) rather than be on the receiving end.
> 

Are you suggesting that Catholics were not killed at the hands of the 
Protestants?  The Reformation was a bloody time, and there were plenty of 
tragic victims on both sides, I assure you.  St. John Fisher?

> Perhaps we should leave such questions in the modern day, were we are more
> 

Let me just point out that the question of women being ordained in the early 
church, and the question of women being ordained today are two seperate 
questions.  One should be able to examine the first question without being 
influenced by the other.

Trying to determine whether or not women were ordained in the early church 
doesn't require us to be "tolerant of differences."  It just requires us to 
look at the evidence objectively and come to a conclusion.

If I say 2 + 2 = 4, and you say 2 + 2 = 5, I don't need to be "tolerant of 
your differences."  I should just point out to you your error in arithmetic.  
After that, if you still want to believe 2 + 2 = 5, then fine.  You have a 
right to be wrong.  But the right to be wrong doesn't make being wrong right.

(I know any question of historic research is not going to be as simple as 
elementary mathmatics, but I am merely illustrating a point).

Aye,
Eogan


Tighearn Eoghan Og mac Labhrainn, OPE, CP
Sacred Stone Pursuivant, Baronial Bard
WWW.ALBANACH.ORG
-------------------------------------------------------------
1 out of every 4 babies in America dies of CHOICE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/atlantia-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20020303/3d2cd35d/attachment.htm>