Discrimination in the Catholic Church

[9-10ths_Penguin]

His appointing was not from the Pope. His excommunication was legit.

Though the Orthodox excommunication was legit, they did not break away for selfish reasons.

What does excommunication have to do with anything?

Id also like to point out, that to say it is invalid because of the schism is not donatism. It has nothing to do with moral characteristics, but with schism

... IOW, with the past actions of the priest, just as I said.

Being in schism does not invalidate the sacraments, including ordination, or the Orthodox orders would be invalid too.

Changing the form, however, does do so. That is why their orders are deemed invalid, not because of a characteristic of the men performing the rite, but because they, for a period of time, did not perform valid ordinations. This time was long enough that all of those who had been properly ordained had passed on, and with them apostolic succession.

Looking at the justification in the Catholic Encyclopedia for how the Anglican form is invalid, it seems pretty weak, IMO.

 

[sojourner]

It would have been the job of the Archbishop to refuse Henry. Just like if the American government told the ArchBishops they had to allow something that was against the Church teaching (homosexual marriage; women ordination) they would have to refuse.

The American government wouldn't put dissenting bishops to death. What you're failing to take under consideration is that the king is soveriegn over his domain, including the bishops who live in his realm. This is what made the Reformation possible: The sovereigns using the local clergy as pawns in their power games against Rome.

The Pope is the head of the church. Not some king.

Only if the king agrees to that arrangement. Obviously, Henry did not.

The act of supremacy sealed their schism.England was removed from the Pope.

Which did nothing to affect the fact that they were well within apostolic succession...

Of course hopefully one day they will return to the one true church that has stayed the same.

You're deluding yourself. It hasn't "stayed the same." The political power of the church has been vastly diminished. It no longer sells indulgences. And what about Vatican II, with its policies of openness and ecumenism? Nah. the RCC isn't "the same."
Perhaps you ought to consider that the "one true church" is -- and always has been -- multifaceted.

Just like hopefully the whole East will come back and we can be one whole church.

From my perspective, it's the Romans who ventured further afield than the Orthodox. Perhaps it's you who need to do the "returning." More likely, it's both -- or all -- who need to return to each other.

But their ordination is meaningless. The Holy See didn't assaign anyone since Reginald Pole

the Holy See hasn't assigned anyone in the Orthodox Church since 1045, either... But somehow, you don't seem to feel it has affected their inclusion in the apostolic succession.

Apostolic origin does not equal to Apostolic succession nor authority.

Of course it does. Go to any Anglican Church, and you'll hear over and over how they're well within the apostolic succession. Once a bishop has been consecrated in the succession, he's (or she's) in. All it takes is three bishops, consecrated in the succession, to consecrate others. That's happened within the Anglican Communion ever since.

Being in schism does not invalidate the sacraments, including ordination, or the Orthodox orders would be invalid too.

Changing the form, however, does do so. That is why their orders are deemed invalid, not because of a characteristic of the men performing the rite, but because they, for a period of time, did not perform valid ordinations. This time was long enough that all of those who had been properly ordained had passed on, and with them apostolic succession.

The RCC needs to realize that they aren't the only ones making rules. It's so Barney Fife! Do you not realize that, early on in the church, there was no uniform "form." Even the Eucharistic prayer was extemporaneous for years before it was standardized. You all need to realize that some of the Orthodox practices are older than Rome's, and come to a realization that, in the grand scheme, form doesn't matter. It's nice -- but not necessary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The American government wouldn't put dissenting bishops to death. What you're failing to take under consideration is that the king is soveriegn over his domain, including the bishops who live in his realm. This is what made the Reformation possible: The sovereigns using the local clergy as pawns in their power games against Rome.

Historically, wasn't it common practice for diocesean appointments of bishops to be done by local lords and kings rather than the Pope or the Vatican?

 

[sojourner]

Historically, wasn't it common practice for diocesean appointments of bishops to be done by local lords and kings rather than the Pope or the Vatican?

That's the way Justo Gonzalez tells it...

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Since we're having a discussion about Anglicans and apostolic succession (take your Advil, folks) I'd also remind everyone of the Union of Utrecht as well. Old Catholics also have apostolic succession.

 

[Quiddity]

Dang, wasn't this thread about discrimination at one point?

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Dang, wasn't this thread about discrimination at one point?

It turns out the Catholic Church isn't actually guilty of discrimination, since by definition it isn't discrimination when the Catholic Church does it.

Or something.

-Nato

 

[sojourner]

It turns out the Catholic Church isn't actually guilty of discrimination, since by definition it isn't discrimination when the Catholic Church does it.

Or something.

-Nato

I said it wasn't discrimination because no one has the "right" to be ordained.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I said it wasn't discrimination because no one has the "right" to be ordained.

No one has a "right" to a donut, either.

But if the local donut shop starts turning customers away because they're the wrong gender or color, there's gonna be trouble.

-Nato

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I said it wasn't discrimination because no one has the "right" to be ordained.

Not even those called to ordination by God?

I think the Catholic stance on this issue basically amounts to a declaration with certainty that God would never, ever, choose to call a woman to the priesthood.

Of course, if women can be just as sure of their calling as men, and if we're taking it as given that all of them are wrong despite feeling strongly to the contrary, then how can we be certain that any man was actually called to be a priest?

 

[sojourner]

No one has a "right" to a donut, either.

But if the local donut shop starts turning customers away because they're the wrong gender or color, there's gonna be trouble.

-Nato

No. That's a different matter. Krispy Kreme expects its clientele to come from the general public, and everyone has a right to be the general public, according to the constitution. The church calls her clergy from among those people whom God has set apart for such ministry. That's not a right. It's not even a privilege. It's a call.

 

[sojourner]

Not even those called to ordination by God?

I think the Catholic stance on this issue basically amounts to a declaration with certainty that God would never, ever, choose to call a woman to the priesthood.

Of course, if women can be just as sure of their calling as men, and if we're taking it as given that all of them are wrong despite feeling strongly to the contrary, then how can we be certain that any man was actually called to be a priest?

Because a call works according to a three-fold formula. The call is issued by God. The church, in conjunction with the individual, discern the call. If the church doesn't discern it, it ain't a call. If the individual doesn't discern it, it ain't a call. If God doesn't issue it, it ain't a call.

 

[Songbird]

Because a call works according to a three-fold formula. The call is issued by God. The church, in conjunction with the individual, discern the call. If the church doesn't discern it, it ain't a call. If the individual doesn't discern it, it ain't a call. If God doesn't issue it, it ain't a call.

The church doesn't work in conjunction with other callings, though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. That's a different matter. Krispy Kreme expects its clientele to come from the general public, and everyone has a right to be the general public, according to the constitution.

So the Church's actions in this regard are legally protected discrimination. Still discrimination, though.

The church calls her clergy from among those people whom God has set apart for such ministry. That's not a right. It's not even a privilege. It's a call.

So it's more chauvinism than discrimination?

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

The church calls her clergy from among those people whom God has set apart for such ministry. That's not a right. It's not even a privilege. It's a call.

My least favorite pastime is the Christian sport of Blame the Big Guy. Whenever it comes down to baldfaced bigotry, misogyny, or homophobia among His flock, we're told that it's okay because the Big Guy said so. Thus the claim or behavior is immune to rational criticism or responsible correction.

-Nato

 

[sojourner]

The church doesn't work in conjunction with other callings, though.

What "other callings" are you referring to? The church deals exclusively with calls to ministry of various kinds.

 

[sojourner]

So it's more chauvinism than discrimination?

That's what I'd say. But I'd bet RCs would disagree.

 

[sojourner]

My least favorite pastime is the Christian sport of Blame the Big Guy. Whenever it comes down to baldfaced bigotry, misogyny, or homophobia among His flock, we're told that it's okay because the Big Guy said so. Thus the claim or behavior is immune to rational criticism or responsible correction.

-Nato

Well, God does call people to ministry. Whether the church is correctly discerning such a call is another matter...

 

[Falcon]

From what you write ,then we must conclude that you are also saying that Jesus is a chauvinist,why? Because He is the Chief Shepherd of His Church. and He only appointed men as the nucleus of His Church. I believe this , if it was good enough for Jesus and His Church , then it's good enough for me and it should be good enough for you. If some can't accept the ways of Jesus , then tough luck,go join the other guy's church, there are many others to pick from.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From what you write ,then we must conclude that you are also saying that Jesus is a chauvinist,why? Because He is the Chief Shepherd of His Church. and He only appointed men as the nucleus of His Church.

Are you sure? The Gospels describe Mary Magdalene as being tasked with spreading the news of the Resurrection even before the Twelve (or more accurately at that point, the Eleven)

I believe this , if it was good enough for Jesus and His Church , then it's good enough for me and it should be good enough for you. If some can't accept the ways of Jesus , then tough luck,go join the other guy's church, there are many others to pick from.

The "nucleus of Jesus' Church" included only:

- men
- Jews
- circumcized people (presumably, since they were brought up as Jews)
- Palestinians
- Aramaic speakers
- subjects of Rome

What in the Bible tells you that Jesus really cared about their gender and not at all about their other attributes?