>>> Megan McLaughlin <[log in to unmask]> 12/24 12:32 PM >>>
I am not a Catholic--never claimed to be--so I am certainly not
trying to
make the modern Catholic Church implode by accepting the ordination
of
women. However, I think Dennis Martin is off the mark when he claims
that
the Catholic Church cannot change its position on an issue central to
the
faith if it has held that position for a long time. As someone who
has
written quite a bit on the theology behind the practice of prayer for
the
dead, I can tell you that the Church's position on that
subject--presumably
a fairly central one to the faith--has undergone considerable
modification
over time. And as a feminist scholar, who has looked at much of the
early
Christian and medieval writings on gender and ordination, I can also
tell
you that there was no single authoritative position on this subject
before
modern times, since most theologians didn't think it needed
discussing. I
*****
This indicates a strong consensus, which is what you claim to be
arguing against. It is a basis for authority in Catholic theology,
given the Catholic understanding of the origin of the Church in Jesus
Christ, God-incarnate. It is anathema to a modern historicist
understanding.
****
haven't read what John Paul II has to say, so I won't comment on
that, but
I will say that it cannot be coming out of a very long tradition of
writings on the subject, since a real "tradition" (as opposed to a
few
comments here and there) doesn't exist.
******
Try reading him on the subject of women. You might be surprised at
what you find.
To deny that a real tradition exists on sacramental priesthood and
ordination is to deny what was explicitly affirmed at Trent. You may
not like the tradition but it did exist, namely, that the origins of
the episcopacy and priesthood lie in direct institution by Jesus
Christ, in Mt. 16, John 20 and elsewhere where he explicitly gives
them authority to bind and loose sins and to speak in his name. This
point was explicitly denied by sixteenth-century Protestants and
reaffirmed explicitly at the Council of Trent not as an innovation but
as a confirmation of long-standing consensus against the incipient
Protestant historicist interpretation relying on the argument ab
silentio, just as a number of posts to this list have argued.
This is not to say that no historical development in the
understanding of the apostles/bishops/priesthood took place in the
early centuries,but it is to say that the basics of sacramental
leadership in the Church were established directly by Christ. The
details were filled in over the centuries. At issues is whether
beginning to ordain women is merely another such "filling in of the
details" or constitutes a violation of the fundamental principles
established by Christ. _Ordinatio sacerdotalis_ affirms the latter.
If you reject the entire idea of bishops and priestly mediation, along
with the whole idea of objective sacramental efficacy as later
(illegitimate) filling in of details, which is one of the few points
where all Protestants agreed (re-catholicized Anglicans now reject
these Protestant rejections and prefer not to be called Protestant for
that reason),then you will have no problem with women "cult leaders"
to use John Hine Mundy's phrase. But they will not be priests in the
Catholic sense.
Which, as far as I can see,would be a rather pyhrric victory.
Dennis Martin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|