Apr 19, 2012 -- 8:29PM, gilg wrote:

Well, SeraphimR, If I found such a community of worhsip I would have joined it - the only two considerations would be the Orthodox or the Romans; I have much in common with both, probably more with the Orthodox but I sincerely don't see that God really cares if the person leading the worship is black, brown, white, male, female, hermophrodite, rich, poor or illiterate, so that leaves me out from the two possible communities that I might join; I also don't believe in anyone being infallible and I don't believe the Incarnation teaches us to differentiate on gender how one might best serve God.

It is interesting that the two communities that you feel drawn too are probably the most intransigent with regard to male-only ordination.

Maybe you should regard that as a clue as to its correctness.

jlb said:

"How does that address my point that schisms from Christ cannot produce the Church’s teaching"

I said that the Catholic Church refers to itself as "Christ", you responded that the Church does not call itself Christ.  Neither of us was talking about schismatic churches or what they teach. I provided you with excerpts and a link to  Catholic Encyclopedia confirming that the Catholic Church DOES indeed refer to itself as Christ. Hewy provided reference to Mysticii Corporis (Pius XII) providing the pope's theological basis for referring to itself as Christ.

Now rather than simply acknowledge your ignorance of Catholic theology as it relates to the Church as Christ, you challenge me to address another one of your diversions. You needn't expect me to address every little non-sequitor you can dream up.

------------------

jlb said:

"Why would anyone who has little derefence for Scripture or Church teaching care about the Church’s teaching on the priesthood since they’re probably not members of said Church.

The only people that would care are those who regard the teaching of the Church – that Christ is the Church’s head – allow that Christ is actually the head of the Church, HG"

There seem to be a good many well informed Catholics  (al least as well informed as you) who support the idea of women's ordination.  You'll have to excuse my saying that I don't believe you are in any position to judge the degree of deference to Scripture or the Church for anyone other than yourself.

jlb said:

"Then I have yet another reason for why I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian and not RC.  That said, The EOC doesn’t have such a policy and yet there are no rumblings for priestesses and the RC considers the EOC to be a part of the Church.  Of course, there’s no need for priestesses because we have plenty of priests since we follow the ancient tradition that Rome used to follow, that is, we ordain married men to the priesthood."

So after a week or so of posts in which you have erroneously argued Catholic theology (the Church as Christ) and Catholic policy and practice ( for handling sexually abusive priests), now you go for the old EOC escape hatch.  One thing I can say for you, jlb, you're quite predictable.

jlb posted,

>>If they do not defer to the Creeds, which the Church says were written under divine inspiration, then they are in schism from the Church, <<

RESPONSE:

What's the obvious flaw in this argument?

jlb says:

"The fact of the matter is that while the Church is the Body of Christ, a group can go into schism from the Body of Christ; therefore, they cannot produce the Church's teaching.  That's scripture, HG."

It is the Catholic Church that says the Church is Christ, not a schismatic sect. Schismatic sects are not, and have never been a topic of our conversation here, in spite of your repeated attempts to deflect attention from your own clumsy errors with those references.

jlb says:

"Your ignorance of scripture and ecclesiology is the issue here."

I won't argue that I'm not ignorant of scripture and ecclesiology, but that's not the issue here. I've had the good sense to confirm my understanding of the issues with some reliable source material before posting my thoughts, and have thus avoided the embarrassing situation you find yourself in today, that is making your ignorance so painfully obvious.

jlb says:

"If they do not defer to the Creeds, which the Church says were written under divine inspiration, then they are in schism from the Church, HG. "

I understand that. Since you say you've aligned yourself with what is presumably the oldest schismatic church in Christendom, I do recognize your expertise in defining schism. You know, "it takes one to know one".

jbl says:

"Your last argument, informed by two erroneous conclusions, is equally erroneous.

Even if it were a point founded upon other conclusions, the RCC shares the teaching of a male priesthood with the EOC and the EOC hasn't been rocked by the same scandals so the RCC can't be doing everything wrong.  I'm sure that there might be some cases where EO bishops have hid pedophile priests, but I don't know of any.  It certainly was never an official teaching of the any Orthodox Church to do so.  Of course, the hierarchical structure of the EOC is nothing like the RCC with the Ecumenical Patriarch issuing encyclicals to which all the other Patriarchs must defer."

What on earth are you talking about?  This paragraph is a collection of strawman arguments, none of which I have made. You've been quick to advise other posters to study posts before reacting, and that's good advice....