www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings a serious theological issue

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.

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.

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

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


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

"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

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.

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.

Bill

Just wondering why did you mention it in relation to the married-celibate priesthood discussion?

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

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

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

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,"


or St. Paul,


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

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

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

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