Rev. Judith Marie Gentle

[Filia Mariae]

She is ordained in the Anglican tradition and I'm going to hear her speak this week. Just wondering if anyone has heard her speak or read her any of her work?

[karen freeinchristman]

She is ordained in the Anglican tradition and I'm going to hear her speak this week. Just wondering if anyone has heard her speak or read her any of her work?

I haven't, but she has a nice last name!! :)

[Filia Mariae]

I haven't, but she has a nice last name!! :)

:) The talk is tonight, I'll update you all afterwards.

[gtsecc]

Here are 2 reviews of her book. And, from them, I would say I am in complete agreement with her.

JESUS REDEEMING IN MARY

Rev. Judith Marie Gentle, Ph.D.
Bay Shore, NY: Montfort Publications
ISBN: 0-910984-62X

http://www.udayton.edu/mary/resources/jesusredeeming.jpgAn Anglican Church scholar's understanding of the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the work of our Redemption, according to St. Louis de Montfort

Despite the progress made at many levels of the ecumenical conversation, the possibility for the meditation of grace by anyone, other than the one Mediator, Jesus Christ, remains a consistent and significant theological source of division between Protestant and Catholic Christians. Jesus Redeeming in Mary sheds significant light on this dilemma by consideration of Mary as the "Second Eve." Judith Gentle demonstrates well that the Marian mediation neither takes nor adds anything to the person and work of Jesus Christ but, rather, fully reveals the efficacy of the savior's redeeming power and love. This book is a much-needed explanation of how Marian meditation--as well as the issue of the one true Mediator and many mediations--is related to a doctrine at the heart of the "hierarchy of truths," namely, that in Christ Jesus, God is redeeming and reconciling all things to himself.

Harvey D. Egan, S.J
Professor of Systematic and Mystical Theology
Boston College

The work of Mother Judith Gentle, an Anglican priest of the diocese of Pittsburgh, should be of interest to all contemporary followers of Jesus Christ. As Christendom is being riddled with ever deeper divisions, this book fills a true need. The author has discovered in St. Louis de Montfort's teachings what may be called a fundamental source of unity for all Christians: the Mother of the Redeemer is the Mother of us all. Her book is a must for those interested not only in ecumenism but also in the entwined disciplines of Christology and Mariology.

Fr. Patrick Gaffney, S.M.M.
Professor Emeritus of Theology
St. Louis University

[karen freeinchristman]

Here are 2 reviews of her book.
That was a good find, gtsecc! :)

[DarthDigger]

thanks!

[DarthDigger]

She is ordained in the Anglican tradition and I'm going to hear her speak this week. Just wondering if anyone has heard her speak or read her any of her work?


I've never heard of her though!

[Filia Mariae]

Guys, this woman and this talk are absolutely amazing. She is incredibly bright and very humble, really an excellent teacher. I am trying to get ahold of her book somewhere right now. If you ever have the chance to hear her speak, please do. She is an adjunct professor at Duquesne and Seton Hill so if you are in that area, you may be able to see her sometime.

Her description of why we call Mary "Mother of the Eucharist" brought tears to my eyes. I am not even going to try to paraphrase it, because it would be a miserable familiar. But this is an absolutely beautiful woman with a real gift for humility and love. :)

[Filia Mariae]

Here's the abstract to here dissertation:

http://escholarship.bc.edu/dissertations/AAI3007656/

[jdemnyan]

I was actually fortunate enough to have her as my Intro. to Bible prof when I attended Duquesne. I can only hope and pray that she is tenured and more like her will be willing, shameless, and tireless in the propagation of the TRUTH in Duq's Theo Dep. Call it Divine Will or Providence, but she was always willing to talk about the Faith, life issues, and whatever else hit you. There were times we ended up talking after class longer than the class time itself.
"Well done, good and faithful servant." God to Dr. Gentle

[karen freeinchristman]

I was actually fortunate enough to have her as my Intro. to Bible prof when I attended Duquesne. I can only hope and pray that she is tenured and more like her will be willing, shameless, and tireless in the propagation of the TRUTH in Duq's Theo Dep. Call it Divine Will or Providence, but she was always willing to talk about the Faith, life issues, and whatever else hit you. There were times we ended up talking after class longer than the class time itself.
"Well done, good and faithful servant." God to Dr. Gentle
That's neat!

Welcome to CF, jdemnyan! :wave:

[Thutch04]

I'm a theology student at Duquesne, and I've had the privilege of having her teach my human morality class. She is absolutely amazing.

[enelya_taralom]

Wow she sounds like an amazing teacher!!

I have to admit that when doing a search on churches in my area I was a bit put off that some Anglican ones had women as their leaders. I am not sure what I believe in regard to whether or not women religious leaders are a biblical thing or not, it is such a controversial area that I kind of wanted to stay away from it.

Anyway, again, it's really great reading such positive reviews / experiences with a female religious leader. I especially love that non-Anglicans are finding truth in her teachings. There seems to be much more focus on finding faults in other deminational beliefs rather than the unity displayed in this thread :)

I do wonder though, if this teacher holds such similar beliefs to Catholicism, why she isn't Catholic? I just wonder, because I am not a bit of a spiritual journey myself. I have attended an Evangelical church for years, but am starting to feel led to a more tradition based church. I am considering Anglican, Roman Catholic, Old Catholic or possibly Lutheran, but can't really figure out which of those I am being led to. As such, I find it really interesting to hear peoples stories on how they wound up where they are etc.

[karen freeinchristman]

:) Hi enelya_taralom!

I do wonder though, if this teacher holds such similar beliefs to Catholicism, why she isn't Catholic? It could be because she felt she had to be obedient to her calling into ordained ministry, and of course, she was not allowed to in the Roman Catholic church. (that's just a guess; I have no real idea why).

[pmcleanj]

I do wonder though, if this teacher holds such similar beliefs to Catholicism, why she isn't Catholic? It could be that the Anglican Church is a full and sufficient expression of the Catholic Faith and that to adopt the restrictions and dogmatic additions presented by the Roman Catholic Church would detract from the Catholicism in which she, as an Anglican, already fully participates.

[enelya_taralom]

It could be that the Anglican Church is a full and sufficient expression of the Catholic Faith and that to adopt the restrictions and dogmatic additions presented by the Roman Catholic Church would detract from the Catholicism in which she, as an Anglican, already fully participates.



Great post, thanks :)



I'm probably getting off on a tangent here, and if so then feel free to PM any replies to me, or ignore, but again seeing how I am church searching right now, I wonder if perhaps the restrictions of the RCC should be observed i.e.: perhaps this female reverend was called to be a nun rather than minister? (Just a thought, again I am searching and not certain about anything, but I’m wondering, myself, if maybe I’m being called to be a nun, so…).

Another thing that I kind of worry about in regard to the Anglican Church is the issue it is facing with ordaining gay ministers. One thing about the RCC system of the Pope is that all their churches are on the same page. Anglican churches are quite divided and I personally believe some of the leaders to be in error in ordaining homosexual ministers. I know any minister will have sin, but I don’t know, in doing this, it seems to be more of an acceptance of that particular sin. And in this regard it doesn't really seem as the Anglican church is being protected as Christ promised he would do with his church. One thing about Catholicism is despite all the corrupt leaders it has had, the truths and practice of the church has always remained teh same (ie: they have never been divided on ordaining homosexuals, women etc). Anyway, sorry didn't mean to get off like that, again just wondering. Otherwise, I love what I have thus far learned about Anglican churches :)

[higgs2]

Great post, thanks :)



I'm probably getting off on a tangent here, and if so then feel free to PM any replies to me, or ignore, but again seeing how I am church searching right now, I wonder if perhaps the restrictions of the RCC should be observed i.e.: perhaps this female reverend was called to be a nun rather than minister? (Just a thought, again I am searching and not certain about anything, but I’m wondering, myself, if maybe I’m being called to be a nun, so…).

Another thing that I kind of worry about in regard to the Anglican Church is the issue it is facing with ordaining gay ministers. One thing about the RCC system of the Pope is that all their churches are on the same page. Anglican churches are quite divided and I personally believe some of the leaders to be in error in ordaining homosexual ministers. I know any minister will have sin, but I don’t know, in doing this, it seems to be more of an acceptance of that particular sin. And in this regard it doesn't really seem as the Anglican church is being protected as Christ promised he would do with his church. One thing about Catholicism is despite all the corrupt leaders it has had, the truths and practice of the church has always remained teh same (ie: they have never been divided on ordaining homosexuals, women etc). Anyway, sorry didn't mean to get off like that, again just wondering. Otherwise, I love what I have thus far learned about Anglican churches :)
No, I think she would know if she was being called to be something other than a priest. Nuns are great, though. We Anglicans have them too. Different call, different vocation. But great.

[enelya_taralom]

No, I think she would know if she was being called to be something other than a priest. Nuns are great, though. We Anglicans have them too. Different call, different vocation. But great.

I didn't know that, I thought the sisterhood was a RC thing. I know Anglican pastors don't have to be celibate, do Anglican nuns?

[gtsecc]

Teaching that Homosexuality is ok is a change in teaching.
Women Priests is a sacramental Change - much much bigger change.
If you are OK with women Priests, you can't possibly have a problem with gay men priests.

[karen freeinchristman]

Teaching that Homosexuality is ok is a change in teaching.
Women Priests is a sacramental Change - much much bigger change.
If you are OK with women Priests, you can't possibly have a problem with gay men priests.I'm having a problem with this post, I just don't know how to word my reply...

[gtsecc]

I'm having a problem with this post, I just don't know how to word my reply...

Well, I think you are for women Priests but not for Gay clergy.
I do think you have to take it seriously that Roman Catholics would echo what I said, as would Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox. You can disagree with them, I do, but we can't dismiss them.

[karen freeinchristman]

Well, I think you are for women Priests but not for Gay clergy.
Well, it's probably pretty obvious that I am for women priests, but I might remind you that I have posted somewhere in a different thread that I am not against gay clergy. Making assumptions can be very harmful.

[karen freeinchristman]

Teaching that Homosexuality is ok is a change in teaching.
Women Priests is a sacramental Change - much much bigger change.
I don't understand what is meant by claiming that having women priests is a 'sacramental' change, rather than a change in teaching.

[gtsecc]

I am personaly for both, however, I can't reconcil that desire with the teachings that have been handed to us.
Adding women to the all male priesthood is a bigger change than any teaching on orientation. It can be argued that it is a change in the sacrament, like baptism with sand (which has been done in Egypt - but is not considered normative)or the Eucharist with melba toast.

[karen freeinchristman]

I am personaly for both, however, I can't reconcil that desire with the teachings that have been handed to us.
Adding women to the all male priesthood is a bigger change than any teaching on orientation. It can be argued that it is a change in the sacrament, like baptism with sand (which has been done in Egypt - but is not considered normative)or the Eucharist with melba toast.I'm sorry, I can't let this go! In your post you claim that it can be argued that it is a change in the sacrament, but then an argument is not presented. Analogies are given (and ones that are not really very relevant IMV).
Women are not men. I will grant you that! ;)
I can understand from previous threads the reasoning that sexual orientation might not be as big a change as such, due to common previous knowledge of homosexual priests throughout history.
But, what is it about a sacrament that would change if presided over by a woman priest, when all other elements to it were the same, and when her Church, as the Wider Church, ordained her to that ministry? Are you saying that God would not work his grace though that sacrament?

[karen freeinchristman]

I didn't know that, I thought the sisterhood was a RC thing. I know Anglican pastors don't have to be celibate, do Anglican nuns?
Some are celibate, and some are not.

Here is a link that describes Episcopalian Holy Orders (nuns and monks)
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/8020_8847_ENG_HTM.htm?menupage=61981

[gtsecc]

But, what is it about a sacrament that would change if presided over by a woman priest, when all other elements to it were the same, and when her Church, as the Wider Church, ordained her to that ministry? Are you saying that God would not work his grace though that sacrament?
The sacrament of Holy Orders itself is changed.

I am not saying anything - I don't really have a position.
I think the Church needs to embrace female and gay clergy.
However, I am stuck with the reality, that it hasn't done so yet.
Until the rest of the church does it, our doing so teaches nothing other than the confession that Anglicans generally do what ever they want without regard to how it affects other parts of the communion. Maybe 2,000 years from now, we Anglicans will be seen as forerunner of this change. But, from our position, in our life time, we have no way of knowing how what we ahve done will affect the entire church.

[karen freeinchristman]

The sacrament of Holy Orders itself is changed.Ahhh...
I forgot that is considered a sacrament by those of the more Catholic persuasion. I thought you meant that baptism and the Lord's Supper were changed.:doh:

I am not saying anything - I don't really have a position.
I think the Church needs to embrace female and gay clergy.
However, I am stuck with the reality, that it hasn't done so yet.
Until the rest of the church does it, our doing so teaches nothing other than the confession that Anglicans generally do what ever they want without regard to how it affects other parts of the communion. Maybe 2,000 years from now, we Anglicans will be seen as forerunner of this change. But, from our position, in our life time, we have no way of knowing how what we ahve done will affect the entire church.OK, we're pretty clear now. :)

[enelya_taralom]

Does anyone know where I can buy Rev. Judith Marie Gentle's books? I did a search on Amazon and came up with nothing :(

[Filia Mariae]

I do wonder though, if this teacher holds such similar beliefs to Catholicism, why she isn't Catholic? I just wonder, because I am not a bit of a spiritual journey myself. I have attended an Evangelical church for years, but am starting to feel led to a more tradition based church. I am considering Anglican, Roman Catholic, Old Catholic or possibly Lutheran, but can't really figure out which of those I am being led to. As such, I find it really interesting to hear peoples stories on how they wound up where they are etc.

She currently attends a Catholic parish and is not participating in Anglican ministry. She was in Boston and basically got the boot for refusing to stand on the altar with an actively gay deacon. I think she is considering conversion.

[Filia Mariae]

Does anyone know where I can buy Rev. Judith Marie Gentle's books? I did a search on Amazon and came up with nothing :(

Try calling:

Montfort Publications
26 South Saxon Avenue
Bay Shore, NY 11706
Phone: 631-665-0726

Her book isn't on their website, but they are the publishers and may have some or know where to get some.

Here is the text of her talk: http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=521&Itemid=40

[karen freeinchristman]

She currently attends a Catholic parish
I'm guessing you mean Roman Catholic, here. ;)

[Filia Mariae]

I'm guessing you mean Roman Catholic, here. ;)

;) As you would describe it. Some of us have the courtesy to refer to other people's communities by the names they use to describe themselves, rather than that which we feel would be most accurate.

[higgs2]

She currently attends a Catholic parish and is not participating in Anglican ministry. She was in Boston and basically got the boot for refusing to stand on the altar with an actively gay deacon. I think she is considering conversion.
Well, she certainly sounds like she should convert if she's going to behave that way as an Anglican.

[Filia Mariae]

Well, she certainly sounds like she should convert if she's going to behave that way as an Anglican.

What way?

[Fish and Bread]

;) As you would describe it. Some of us have the courtesy to refer to other people's communities by the names they use to describe themselves, rather than that which we feel would be most accurate.

I think I am going to open up a church down the street called the "One and Only Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and Country Club" or "The Apostolic Church" for short. :) What do you think of "The Apostolic Church"? ;)

[Filia Mariae]

I think I am going to open up a church down the street called the "One and Only Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and Country Club" or "The Apostolic Church" for short. :) What do you think of "The Apostolic Church"? ;)

There's one down the street from me. Founded in 1976 (seriously).

[Fish and Bread]

There's one down the street from me. Founded in 1976 (seriously).

LOL! I have to admit, even as a sometimes defender of Protestantism, I do find things like that amusing. :)

[enelya_taralom]

She currently attends a Catholic parish and is not participating in Anglican ministry. She was in Boston and basically got the boot for refusing to stand on the altar with an actively gay deacon. I think she is considering conversion.

Yeah the whole ordaining of actively gay ministers is one of my biggest stumbling blocks with the Anglican church right now. Otherwise I think I might run to my nearest Anglican parish and convert right there and then :D However, while I agree they shouldn't be ordained I don't really agree with the Rev.'s actions here. Refusing to stand next to someone because of that person's sins seems a bit judgemental and unloving to me. Christ, the sinless Son of God walked, dined and interacted with some of the most shunned people in His society, something the church leaders of the time looked down upon. Somehow I can't really see Christ refusing to stand on the alter with someone. :confused:

[Aymn27]

Yeah the whole ordaining of actively gay ministers is one of my biggest stumbling blocks with the Anglican church right now. Otherwise I think I might run to my nearest Anglican parish and convert right there and then :D However, while I agree they shouldn't be ordained I don't really agree with the Rev.'s actions here. Refusing to stand next to someone because of that person's sins seems a bit judgemental and unloving to me. Christ, the sinless Son of God walked, dined and interacted with some of the most shunned people in His society, something the church leaders of the time looked down upon. Somehow I can't really see Christ refusing to stand on the alter with someone. :confused:
Jesus ate with/associated with unbelievers. Of course his apostles were sinners, but they were "walking the road". The Bible is very clear on how to treat believers who refuse to repent. She did the right thing if he was openly practicing.

[PaladinValer]

I do wonder though, if this teacher holds such similar beliefs to Catholicism, why she isn't Catholic?

Anglicans are Catholic, just not of the Vatican variety. Just like EOs are Catholic too in the same way; truly Catholic but just not of the Vatican type.

I'm probably getting off on a tangent here, and if so then feel free to PM any replies to me, or ignore, but again seeing how I am church searching right now, I wonder if perhaps the restrictions of the RCC should be observed i.e.: perhaps this female reverend was called to be a nun rather than minister? (Just a thought, again I am searching and not certain about anything, but I’m wondering, myself, if maybe I’m being called to be a nun, so…).

Lambeth suggested and affirmed that woman are called to Holy Orders. Nearly all provinces allow women to be deacons. More than half allow them to be priests, and a whopping fourteen allow them to be bishops, to which in four of these, there are women bishops.

There was no mistake for this woman. She is a priest and, because of the indellible character of Holy Orders, she is a priest for life.

Well, I think you are for women Priests but not for Gay clergy.
I do think you have to take it seriously that Roman Catholics would echo what I said, as would Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodox. You can disagree with them, I do, but we can't dismiss them.

Fallacy of Appealing to the Masses. The "Roman" (Vatican) Catholics constitute the majority of all Christians, yet they by and large don't allow their clergy to be married. Must we then do as they do?

Remember the difference between doctrine and discipline; it is key here.

Incidentally, where is the canons that say no women clergy? Heck; where are the canons that say no elepant clergy?

[enelya_taralom]

Thanks so much for this post PaladinValer!

[PaladinValer]

Thanks so much for this post!!

Now that I am starting to look into this a bit more, I am starting to believe that women definitely have a place as church leaders. However, that one comment made by another poster you quoted that said one couldn't possibly be in favour of female priests and at the same time oppose the ordaining of actively gay ministers, struck me as odd.

I am not a mind-reader, so unless I am misreading your post, it seems that this is a statement for him, not for me. In which case, I will of course allow him the opportunity to comment.

True, women being ordained does constitute a change in the sacrament, but since when is change necessarily a bad thing?

Fallacy of Begging the Question. You are assuming it constitutes a change in the Sacrament without proving such a change is there.

Like I said, please show me canons that specifically state no women clergy.

The current Pope, for example, is rethinking the idea of Purgatory, so right there, a change that might end up being for the better i.e.: closer to the truth.

He's rethinking the idea of Limbo, which was never declared to be doctrine in their church. It is an optional belief that has always been open to debate in their church. In their church, you are free to believe in Limbo's existence and you are free not to, and each is still in good order according to their church.

The concept of Purgatory, however, is considered a doctrine in their church. A doctrine is something that is essential (see below paragraph). It may be a dogma, although for some reason, I doubt it is (dogmas are always doctrines that have been defined; the Holy Trinity is an example of a dogmatized doctrine), although if a Vatican Catholic could come here and tell us whether it is or isn't a dogma, would be helpful.

Like I said to gtsecc, please remember the difference between doctrine and discipline. Doctrines are essential beliefs. Disciplines are those behaviors and the occasional belief that is optional. It is part of Church tradition, but it isn't Holy Tradition per se.

So even if you were trying to give an example, it really isn't a logical one. Disciplines and devotions are all optional. You can eat no meat on fridays or you can; that's a discipline. The doctrine is that you do some form of penance on fridays. You can be a priest and be married or not married. There are married priests in all four of these: the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, the Old Catholic Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church. The pope could later today snap his fingers and say that Latin (Roman) Rite priests could also now be married if they want to. Who is to be ordained is largely discipline.

There has never been a pope who actually said "no women priests." Never. What has been said is that the Church "doesn't have the power" to do so. Its basically a fancy way of saying "right now, there is no true definitive answer, and the issue is closed." Again, the pope could snap his fingers and do either of three things: declare women's ordination to be fine, to declare women's ordination to be unallowed by doctrine, or to simply reopen the issue for debate.

Obviosuly this thread is evidence that a great many people, from all sorts of walks of life are learning and being inspired by what the work Christ is doing through Rev. Gentle, and I am not convinced that anything against scripture is being done here.

Good!

However, with gays, I think the bible is pretty clear that such a lifestyle is a sin, so I fail to see why someone who accepts and doesn't repent from a sinful lifestyle (thanks for pointing this out, Aymn27 :hug: ) should be ordained as a church leader.

1. I'm not going to get into a debate over an issue that has no place here. I would politely suggest that you review the official CF rules.
2. I am, however, going to remark that you are again committing the Fallacy of Begging the Question. Regardless of one's views on this topic, a logical argument is necessary and is only proper.

[enelya_taralom]

You're right Valer, this isn't the thread for debate. My post wasn't written with that intention, it was just me making comments and rambling. But I can certainly understand how those comments etc invite debate, even if debate is not their intent. As such, I edited it right down to thanks :)

[Aymn27]

enelya,
In response to PV's lengthy post - I would say (RE: women's ordinations), the AMiA did a lengthy study on the issue and published the paper - pro and con. Each side in the issue was able to state their position and then back it up by Scripture/exegesis. The AMiA has decided NOT to ordain women to the priesthood at this time. I suggest you read the paper (it is lengthy) and see exactly how biblically solid the reason for NOT having female priests is laid out - and how very weak the reason for is. In addition, PV is incorrect in stating that women priests can be changed. JPII issued a statement a few years back saying that the debate was closed because the Church did not have the power to change it (and they won't suddenly get it in the future - it is NOT discipline). There are those who continue to insist it be discussed, but they are barking up the wrong tree - they could just as soon propose KoolAid to be a valid element in Holy communion. Similarly, the Vatican has sent word to Canterbury that should female bishop ordinations continue in the CofE, it would cause (I think I'm using the right word here - forgive me if I'm wrong) irreparable damage to intercommunion talks. The EO don't even address such issues as they too believe it is part of Traditon (with a capital T). The women's ordination paper is here (http://www.anglicanmissioninamerica.org/files/WOMEN'SORDINATIONSTUDY.pdf).

[Aymn27]

Here is the articles concerning Rome addressing England on women bishops:

Catholics warn C of E over women bishops

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
THE TELEGRAPH
11/23/2005)

The Roman Catholic Church has issued a scathing critique of Church of England plans to admit women bishops, warning that the reform would "radically" impair their relations.

In an official paper, the Catholic bishops said that consecrating women was "a tremendous and intolerable risk" that could cause "irreparable damage", both within and outside the Anglican Church.

It said that while the Church of England was free to do as it wanted, such a step was at odds with the "texts and spirit" of recent statements on unity drawn up between the two Churches.

While the Catholic Church's opposition to women priests and bishops is well known, the blunt tone of the 10-page document will disappoint the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams.

Dr Williams has made no secret of his desire for greater unity with the Catholic Church, from which the Church of England separated during the reign of Henry VIII.

He became the first serving archbishop to attend a papal funeral in April and he led an Anglican delegation to meet Benedict XVI the day after the new Pope's inauguration.

Despite tensions over issues such as homosexuality, Dr Williams has also built up a warm rapport with Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, his Catholic counterpart.

Drawn up by the Department of Dialogue and Unity, headed by the Archbishop of Southwark, the Most Rev Kevin McDonald, it is the bishops' official response to the Church of England Rochester report, published in 2004.

END

[higgs2]

Here is the articles concerning Rome addressing England on women bishops:

Catholics warn C of E over women bishops

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
THE TELEGRAPH
11/23/2005)

The Roman Catholic Church has issued a scathing critique of Church of England plans to admit women bishops, warning that the reform would "radically" impair their relations.

In an official paper, the Catholic bishops said that consecrating women was "a tremendous and intolerable risk" that could cause "irreparable damage", both within and outside the Anglican Church.

It said that while the Church of England was free to do as it wanted, such a step was at odds with the "texts and spirit" of recent statements on unity drawn up between the two Churches.

While the Catholic Church's opposition to women priests and bishops is well known, the blunt tone of the 10-page document will disappoint the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams.

Dr Williams has made no secret of his desire for greater unity with the Catholic Church, from which the Church of England separated during the reign of Henry VIII.

He became the first serving archbishop to attend a papal funeral in April and he led an Anglican delegation to meet Benedict XVI the day after the new Pope's inauguration.

Despite tensions over issues such as homosexuality, Dr Williams has also built up a warm rapport with Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, his Catholic counterpart.

Drawn up by the Department of Dialogue and Unity, headed by the Archbishop of Southwark, the Most Rev Kevin McDonald, it is the bishops' official response to the Church of England Rochester report, published in 2004.

END
Well, if they want to pursue union with us, it looks like they have some work to do.

[karen freeinchristman]

Well, if they want to pursue union with us, it looks like they have some work to do.Yes, but do they even care about pursuing union with us, or is it just a one-sided affair, with us chasing them (like an obsessive shamed lover)? I cannot see them making any concessions for unity with us.

[higgs2]

Yes, but do they even care about pursuing union with us, or is it just a one-sided affair, with us chasing them (like an obsessive shamed lover)? I cannot see them making any concessions for unity with us.
Yes, I totally agree. I think we should simply move on, until they change their minds, and put our energy into something more productive. My comments were meant to be ironic, but the truth is *they* are welcome to commune with *us*!

Good analogy, btw.

[Fish and Bread]

The bottom line, I think, is that because of the nature of dogma and doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church, ecumenical dialogue has to consist almost entirely as rephrasing what they're saying to seem nicer and as making very small concessions. The RCC is incapable of accepting certain practices because it considers itself bound by past dogmatic declarations made by Popes and church councils.

Ultimately, the best that the Roman Catholic Church can offer the Anglican Communion is that the AC adopt every Roman Catholic stand on faith and morals, rephrased suitably to our sensibilities, but the same in the meaning of the content, while acknowledging the Pope's authority. In return, they could offer us our own rite (Like their Eastern Rites for former Eastern Orthodox dioceses) headed by the Archbishoip of Canterbury (Who would be below the authority of the Pope, of course) where we could elect our own bishops, have married priests, and adopt a revised Book of Common Prayer (That drops the Protestant influences); since those are all concessions on discipline and not dogma or doctrine. Even if they wanted to offer more than that, their hands are kind of tied.

[PaladinValer]

enelya,
In response to PV's lengthy post - I would say (RE: women's ordinations), the AMiA did a lengthy study on the issue and published the paper - pro and con. Each side in the issue was able to state their position and then back it up by Scripture/exegesis. The AMiA has decided NOT to ordain women to the priesthood at this time.

Ah, but they do allow women to the priesthood. There are at least two women priests among them.

I suggest you read the paper (it is lengthy) and see exactly how biblically solid the reason for NOT having female priests is laid out - and how very weak the reason for is.

See my above.

In addition, PV is incorrect in stating that women priests can be changed. JPII issued a statement a few years back saying that the debate was closed because the Church did not have the power to change it (and they won't suddenly get it in the future - it is NOT discipline).

Fallacy of Equivocation. Saying the issue is closed isn't the same as delcaring doctrine.

There are those who continue to insist it be discussed, but they are barking up the wrong tree - they could just as soon propose KoolAid to be a valid element in Holy communion.

And I'm quite sure you can offer a resource to backup this wild, audacious, and rediclous claim?

Similarly, the Vatican has sent word to Canterbury that should female bishop ordinations continue in the CofE, it would cause (I think I'm using the right word here - forgive me if I'm wrong) irreparable damage to intercommunion talks. The EO don't even address such issues as they too believe it is part of Traditon (with a capital T). The women's ordination paper is here (http://www.anglicanmissioninamerica.org/files/WOMEN'SORDINATIONSTUDY.pdf).

And yet there are two women priests in their little group. I of course can explain it; quite easily in fact. Plus, it doesn't change the fact that Lambeth suggested and promoted that women be allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders; the same Sacrament for each office of the Ordained Ministry.

[Fish and Bread]

Ah, but they do allow women to the priesthood. There are at least two women priests among them.

AMiA refuses to ordain or accept the transfers of women priests at this point. However, when it started, it allowed both. I'd imagine that the priests you referred to joined while it was still allowed and are thus "grandfathered in", so to speak.

[PaladinValer]

They still allow women deacons.

And since it is the same Sacrament each time for each office, it is only logical that to allow women deacons is to allow woman priests and bishops.

Now they may "halt" the process, but they are just refusing to follow a logical argument. If they have no problem with women deacons, logically, they shouldn't have a problem with women priests and bishops.

However, deacons are still among the Major Orders; it is a Sacramental Order: Deacons may administer the Sacraments of Holy Matrimony and Holy Baptism. They are a part of the broader aspect of the presbuteroi, which is the NEW priesthood of three offices: deacon, priest, and bishop.

So I still hold to what I said. True, I cannot say anymore that they can become of the office of priest, but to the idea of the NT priesthood, I am still correct.

[Fish and Bread]

They still allow women deacons.

And since it is the same Sacrament each time for each office, it is only logical that to allow women deacons is to allow woman priests and bishops.


I don't think AMiA thinks that way. The AMiA parish I visited a couple times was very evangelical/charismatic -- hands waving in the air, quasi-lay presidency over the Eucharist (A lay person said the words of consecration, the priest said the blessing), a projector screen on the wall, etc. There was even one service where they omitted the words of consecration completely. Maybe that pairsh was atypical, but to me they didn't seem very Anglo-Catholic. In fact, they were more evangelical than I've ever seen in an ECUSA parish. So I doubt they think in terms of sacramental orders and so forth in the same way an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian might.

[gtsecc]

Bizarre.
I have no problem with a female pastor.
I only have a problem with Changing the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which is not somethign I think anyone can do, maybe not even an eccumenical council.

[jdemnyan]

How foolish am I! I would have rejoined this thread, but since I'm new to this website, I didn't realize that there were more posts after mine!

It's good to see people taking seriously the sacraments and their natures.

Alot has been said about the priesthood and Rev. Gentle

I add only these two observations as one who personally knows Rev. Gentle

She is too Anglican for assimilation for the Roman Catholics and too Catholic for comfort for the Anglicans. She is pro-Rome, and the only way she sees the Anglican church getting back on track is by rejoining Rome, not in a total take-over but in a corporate,spiritual sense. Very much like the Byzantine Catholics.

Yes, her biggest "stumbling block" is the Roman Catholic's teaching on male exclusive priesthood. There are papers written on this subject, but to summarize the discussions I used to have with her, the real crux of the matter is "what does 'in persona Christi' mean?" particularly in ordination and then administering the Sacraments, particularly the Holy Eucharist and Confession.

[Filia Mariae]

Yeah the whole ordaining of actively gay ministers is one of my biggest stumbling blocks with the Anglican church right now. Otherwise I think I might run to my nearest Anglican parish and convert right there and then :D However, while I agree they shouldn't be ordained I don't really agree with the Rev.'s actions here. Refusing to stand next to someone because of that person's sins seems a bit judgemental and unloving to me. Christ, the sinless Son of God walked, dined and interacted with some of the most shunned people in His society, something the church leaders of the time looked down upon. Somehow I can't really see Christ refusing to stand on the alter with someone. :confused:

Let me clarify the situation, because I feel as though I may have inadvertently misrepresented what happened. Her bishop in Boston informed her that this deacon who is actively and openly homosexual would be joining her for a visit at her parish. She said she would not celebrate the service with him because she feels that his lifestyle is an affront to God and violates the moral teachings of revelation, The bishop said too bad he's coming. So she informed the bishop she would not attend the service and explained to her parishioners why she would not be present. He then told her essentially, buh-bye. She didn't cause some public debacle wherein she stomped off the altar or anything like that. I apologize if I gave the impression that that is what occurred!

[Filia Mariae]

Yes, but do they even care about pursuing union with us, or is it just a one-sided affair, with us chasing them (like an obsessive shamed lover)? I cannot see them making any concessions for unity with us.

Catholics are very interested in pursuing union with Anglicans. It was one of JP II's most significant ecumencial goals. Sadly, progress seems to have moved backwards rather than forwards. However, you are correct that doctrinal and dogmatic concessions will never be made, because that would not serve real unity.

[jdemnyan]

Yes, I would agree with Filia Mariae on that point.
Ecumenism, it seems, has been a word that has been used and defined a little loosely.

Real ecumenism and a real goal for unity doesn't mean lowering the respective doctrines and canons to the lowest common denominator. By doing so, we might lose the wonderful and rich history from both communities.

In the case of the Anglican and R.C. Church, the issue of women priests will need to be addressed some point along the way. The Magisterium will have to decide first whether or not Anglican orders are valid (they are currently not, according to the Vatican). If they would agree that the Orders are valid, would this imply that all the women priests are validly ordained? I am not sure, but using logic... But wait! What about form, matter, and intention? All three criteria must be met for any sacrament to be valid. Could it be that the Magisterium would say that they do not intend for women to be priests and therefore declare their orders to be invalid? Now, the Magisterium has caused even more division for the sake of unity. Could they possibly say, "Ok Anglicans, come on board, but all you Mothers out there, hit the bricks!" I don' t think they would- a situation happened a few years ago with unification between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The Greek patriarch was ready to come on board, but JPII said no. Why? The Russian patriarch said no way, and the Pope did not want to cut a "healthy lung" in two, even if it was detached from the other.
Conversely, if the Magisterium would say that women priests were allowed, there would be, I am sure, certain division among the Catholics. A good friend of mine who is currently studying for the priesthood down in Washington D.C. stated quite frankly that "If the Church would ever allow women priests, I would have no other option than do believe the Church has defected from the Deposit of the Faith, and therefore asked to be removed from the clerical state; and not only that, but to have no regard for my lifestyle afterwards as salvation history, as we know it, is done, the towel has been tossed."
That is some strong verbage from a young man who gave up a full ride at Princeton for graduate studies to enter the seminary, wouldn't you agree?

[Filia Mariae]

Conversely, if the Magisterium would say that women priests were allowed, there would be, I am sure, certain division among the Catholics. A good friend of mine who is currently studying for the priesthood down in Washington D.C. stated quite frankly that "If the Church would ever allow women priests, I would have no other option than do believe the Church has defected from the Deposit of the Faith, and therefore asked to be removed from the clerical state; and not only that, but to have no regard for my lifestyle afterwards as salvation history, as we know it, is done, the towel has been tossed."
That is some strong verbage from a young man who gave up a full ride at Princeton for graduate studies to enter the seminary, wouldn't you agree?

This could never happen because this matter has already been dogmatically defined in Ordinatio Sacredotalis. Dogma is not and by nature cannot be reversed, nor would there ever be a need or reason to do so.

[jdemnyan]

Yes, my point exactly-

which goes back to real ecumenism and what I said before about it


By the way, I am sure it was a simple oversight, but I believe you spelled the Latin in the feminine-

Anyways, I think for clarification, JPII did not declare this to be dogma, as in the case of the Immaculate Conception, but said the Magisterium lacked the authority to do so-

[Filia Mariae]

Yes, my point exactly-

which goes back to real ecumenism and what I said before about it


By the way, I am sure it was a simple oversight, but I believe you spelled the Latin in the feminine-

Anyways, I think for clarification, JPII did not declare this to be dogma, as in the case of the Immaculate Conception, but said the Magisterium lacked the authority to do so-

That's just the dogmatic bit, that there has been no authority given to ordain women:


Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

[higgs2]

I am fine not being somehow united with the Roman Catholic Church now, and I am fine with it in the future. Any RC who wants to have communion in an Episcopal Church is welcome.

[Naomi4Christ]

I really can't get excited about additional unity with the Roman Catholic Church. I am of the mind that they are welcome to participate in any aspect of our church life, including HC. We actually have quite a few practicing Catholics who regularly worship in our church because they value the worship and teaching; we have quite a few Catholics on our current Alpha course, and I actually recruited a Catholic group leader to minister to them.

I'm not interested in moving our beliefs and practices to meet the requirements of the RCC. I feel that what we do and believe is biblical and if they don't like it - tough.

I feel that there is plenty of room for both of us, and our proper focus should be those who do not know the Lord - there are rich pickings there!

I like to keep in mind the ecumenical practices that we already have - for example, Churches Together in England (and in the local community); shared ministries, for example in hospitals and schools; collaboration between the aid agencies - Tear Fund, CAFOD etc.; representation in one another's activities - installations, funerals, synod etc.

As an evangelical, I think our front line is out in the community, and there we stand shoulder to shoulder with our brothers and sisters in Christ that come from other traditions, including RC. We have a unity within our evangelical practices and I am happy with that. I think the RCs are too.

It saddens me when RCCs downplay our worship, but I think that is their problem rather than ours. When RCs 'come and see' what we do, the scales are soon removed from their eyes - that's why we have so many RCs in our congregations.

[jdemnyan]

It saddens me when RCCs downplay our worship, but I think that is their problem rather than ours. When RCs 'come and see' what we do, the scales are soon removed from their eyes - that's why we have so many RCs in our congregations.


On the whole, I don't nescessarily seeing many Catholics downplaying the Book of Common Prayer, if that is what you are referring to as worship.

In fact, you may be surprised that there is a pastoral provision within the Catholic Church that adapts the Book of Common Prayer within the context of the Roman Liturgy.

My general feeling towards other forms of worship generally tends to be the idea that what you do on Sunday is fantastic, but a Mass-going Catholic,
I invite you to come and see something of which you might not know about.


Anways, I digress, as I believe this whole entire thread has since the original was about the personhood of Rev. Gentle. I suppose that it is only natural though, to expand on her situation as an Anglo-Catholic. It must be, in a real sense, a cross for her to bear.

I thank the Anglicans for their hospitality and charity in allowing me to post in their domain.

I think it is quite apparent that there's some work in the Anglican Church and there's some dust sweeping in the Roman Catholic Church.

Some may be OK with status quo, but I see disunity and schism as an ultimate affront to Christ and His Church.

UT UNUM SINT!!!!!!!!!!!

[pmcleanj]

Some may be OK with status quo, but I see disunity and schism as an ultimate affront to Christ and His Church.
I do, too.

I have two lovely friends, sisters from Hungary, who live in adjacent attached townhouses (or row-condominia). They have a doorway cut between the two homes, which usually stand open. Their children come and go between Mama's house and Auntie's house with complete freedom. The two families live in gracious unity nearly all the time. They have differences, of course, but they respect and validate their differences as choices not as wrongs.

The door can be locked from either side, or both sides. If one sister takes offense at something and locks the door, the two united households become ordinary separated condominia. The children who are locked out could, I suppose, go live with Aunty, but only by leaving their own home and submitting to her authority. Or their mama could surrender her dignity and integrity, and submit to her sister's domination, in order to win them back their unity. Or she could keep her side of the door unlocked, and hope her sister returns to a spirit of unity without dictating terms.

[karen freeinchristman]

I have two lovely friends, sisters from Hungary, who live in adjacent attached townhouses (or row-condominia). They have a doorway cut between the two homes, which usually stand open. Their children come and go between Mama's house and Auntie's house with complete freedom. The two families live in gracious unity nearly all the time. They have differences, of course, but they respect and validate their differences as choices not as wrongs.

The door can be locked from either side, or both sides. If one sister takes offense at something and locks the door, the two united households become ordinary separated condominia. The children who are locked out could, I suppose, go live with Aunty, but only by leaving their own home and submitting to her authority. Or their mama could surrender her dignity and integrity, and submit to her sister's domination, in order to win them back their unity. Or she could keep her side of the door unlocked, and hope her sister returns to a spirit of unity without dictating terms.:scratch: Come on, that can't possibly be a true story! That sounds so much like.... :doh:
OHHH! :blush:

:thumbsup:
:)