<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 3/3/02 6:04:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, sfdowns@pinn.net writes:
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">The standard I asked of you was not merely precise, but precise, scientific
<BR>definitions. You are claiming to practice a science, yet you:
<BR>
<BR>1) Use circular reasoning. You define the disputed terms by referring to
<BR>other disputed terms. What is orthodox and correct is what is Catholic,
<BR>what is heretical is what is not Catholic. You completely disregard the
<BR>documentable fact that many people use these words with a different
<BR>understanding of what they mean.
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>Circular reasoning would be saying that the definition of heretical is "not Catholic" and the definition of Catholic is "not heretical." That is not what I said at all.
<BR>
<BR>Catholic teaching can be defined as the doctrines and dogma proclaimed by the Magesterium (the teaching body of bishops).
<BR>
<BR>Heresy can be defined as that which goes against the teaching proclaimed by the Magesterium.
<BR>
<BR>In each case, the standard by which any teaching is judged is the word of the Magesterium, the word of the Church. Either it is, or it isn't. Nothing circular about it. Anyone can objectively examine Church records to see what the Magesterium does and does not teach.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">2) Appeal to authority. Scientists use observation to formulate hypotheses
<BR>and experimentation to test the validity of these hypotheses and thus draw
<BR>conclusions. Appeals to authority are a strict no-no.
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>I have observed that the evidence presented for the historic practice of ordaining women to the priesthood has been lacking. Thus far, the majority of evidence I have seen has been of three main types:
<BR>
<BR>1) Early references to women being called deaconesses, priestesses and bishopesses. However, in the early church, married men could be ordained. When they were ordained, certain privledges were granted to their wives, among which was the use of the feminine version of their husband's title. However, that title conferred no ordination nor did it imply any priestly duties. It has been the consensus of historians as a whole that these women were the wives of deacons, priests, and bishops. If anyone is to suggest otherwise, he would need to present convincing evidence that these women were in reality not wives of ordained men, but were ordained themselves. So far, no one has done this. Am I appealing to authority? No.
<BR>
<BR>2) References from letters by bishops expressing concern over certain priests encouraging women to assist or assume roles at the altar. Nowhere in these letters is there any mention made of women actually being ordained. There is every reason to assume that these are heretical groups, and they are a rare exception, not the norm. I have only seen 2 or 3 of these letters thus far presented. They may be of use to prove that certain heretical sects were encouraging women to take on priestly roles. But they don't even really show that these heretical sects ordained women, let alone that the Church as a whole accepted women's ordaintion. Likewise references from early church writers in treatises "Against Heresies," which very well may be referring to the same heretical groups. Once again, I am only examining the evidence presetented on its own merits. Am I appealing to authority? No.
<BR>
<BR>3) Various early church records of female deacons. These in no way prove the existence of female priests. The deacon and the priest are two different offices. Ordination in one does not, never has, never will confer or imply ordination in the other. The Church's teaching is that women cannot be ordained *as priests*. Evidence for women deacons does not prove anything one way or the other regarding women priests. Again, am I appealing to authority? No.
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">3) Ignore data -- the cardinal sin of scientific inquiry. You allude to the
<BR>Pope as infallible when there is clear evidence to the contrary -- e.g.
<BR>Popes reversing other Popes. You refer to Catholic "as the name of the
<BR>church because the term means 'universal.'" when it demonstrably isn't and
<BR>never has been.
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>What? Catholic teaching is that the Pope is infallible when exercising his office to teach on matters of faith and morals. Show me where one Pope has exercised his infallibility and then another Pope has reversed it. It has not happened. What data are you claiming that I am ignoring?
<BR>
<BR>Regarding the name of the Catholic church, are you saying that it "isn't and never has been" the name of the Church, or are you saying it does not mean "universal." I think it is pretty straightforward that "Catholic" is the name of the Catholic Church, and that "catholic" means universal. I don't even know what you are objecting to here, and I haven't a clue as to how it relates to women's ordination.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I certainly understand the catholic church as the invisible spiritual union
<BR>of all believers in Christ -- the Bride of Christ. And I understand that
<BR>the Catholic Church is a different thing altogether.
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">This is a very modern understanding of "Christianity" as an "invisible" church. It did not exist in period. I'm not saying your beleif is right or wrong, or that you don't have the right to believe as you wish. I'm just saying that if you want to make a study of early or medieval church history, you need to realize that this is not what people thought "the Church" was then. It's a modern way of thinking.
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I understand that many different practices claim to be Orthodox, and I know
<BR>what I hold to be orthodox.
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">And what does your opinion of orthodoxy have to do with whether or not women were ordained as priests in the early church?
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I understand heresy to be teaching contradictory to scripture, such as
<BR>claiming that a man other than Christ can be infallible in contradiction to
<BR>"There is no one righteous, not even one," (Rom. 3:10, NIV) and "All of us
<BR>have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like
<BR>filthy rags." (Is. 64:6, NIV)
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>Infallible does not mean "righteous." They are two different things. You can't prove the Pope is not infallible by citing Scripture as saying "no one is righteous." They are two difference concepts, having nothing to do with eachother.
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">You can talk about what people in the past said was orthodox and heretical,
<BR>because then you're describing their stated value judgements, but as soon as
<BR>you use these terms to describe someone's beliefs, you're making an
<BR>unscientific value judgement. </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">And how have I used these terms to talk about anyone's beliefs here? I have not. I have used these terms in this discussion of the possible ordination of women in the early church, in a historical context.
<BR>
<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I am not denying "the entire study of Church history, and indeed the history
<BR>of early and medieval Europe," I am denying that you are doing it
<BR>scientifically.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>Then show me some evidence that tells me I am wrong, and that the early Church did indeed ordain women to the priesthood. So far you have not. You have nit-picked my definitions of "Catholic" and "heretical," and called into question Papal Infallibility. But you have not illustrated at all that women were ordained into the priesthood.
<BR>
<BR>I have a feeling that people are trying to turn this little discussion into a personal discussion of religion, and all I am trying to do is talk about history from the evidence we have.
<BR>
<BR>Aye,
<BR>Eogan
<BR>
<BR>Tighearn Eoghan Og mac Labhrainn, OPE, CP
<BR>Sacred Stone Pursuivant, Baronial Bard
<BR>WWW.ALBANACH.ORG
<BR>-------------------------------------------------------------
<BR>1 out of every 4 babies in America dies of CHOICE</FONT></HTML>