Carpatho Russian said:
Montalban,
Here is the problem...
You begin a statement with the words "I believe that dogma is..." Unless you are the Pope of Rome and your words are infallible, by saying "I believe that dogma is..." you are stating nothing more than what you believe. You may back it up with proof texts but by the way you phrased the statement, at that point, it is nothing more then your belief. And, your belief is open to debate.
To prove your point, you need to say "The Church has defined dogma as..." and then list the points/proof texts. Then, you will need to show how a male-only priesthood fits into the Church's definition of dogma.
Until you do that, 1) you may believe that a male-only priesthood is dogma, but,
2) someone else may believe that a male-only priesthood is not dogma.
And the debate continues...
If only it were that simple.
I can't say "I believe it is dogma" to mean what myself and only myself believes, when in fact I've evidenced opinion as to what dogma is as well. You could argue that it is just 'us' (whether it is a few, or thousands) but it certainly isn't just 'me'; I find that annoying, that someone would reduce the argument I present to merely the opinion of little old me, the rude lone-wolf Montalban —v- the rest of the world.
I recognise that there’s a problem in defining dogma
dogmatically. I am not aware of a Church Council that ruled what dogma is defined as (though they may have). However I note that those that are opposed to women priests also state, as I have ‘what has always been taught’. Given that there’s no variation here, Holy Tradition is dogmatic, as it’s always been taught. Even if its not defined
dogmatically. Thus (as I’ve noted now several times), when arguments arose in the Christalogical controversy of the 300s it was stated emphatically “This is what we’ve always taught”. It was true before it was a teaching ‘defined’ as dogma, and thus was dogma, even if not stated “This is dogma…!”
Thus in post #766 I cited one meeting held in Rhodes…
montalban said:
"The consultation reaffirmed the "male character of the ‘sacramental’ priesthood", citing "these ecclesiastically rooted positions": on the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, who did not select any women as one of His Apostles;
on the example of the Theotokos, who did not exercise the sacramental priestly function in the Church, even though she was made worthy to become the Mother of the Incarnate Son and the Word of God;
on the Apostolic Tradition, according to which the Apostles, following the example of the Lord, never ordained any women to this special priesthood in the Church;
on some Pauline teachings concerning the place of women in the Church, and
on the criterion of analogy, according to which, if the exercise of the sacramental priesthood by women were permitted, then it should have been exercised by the Theotokos (IV,14)"
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/vilemov-08-e.html
If it were only a matter of opinion then what are the reasons the church has not ordained women? (if not dogmatic reasons). Why is the church holding out? Very early on I asked OzGeorge what are the reasons for change. He never answered. You could argue that if there were valid reasons for changing, they’d have been stated. One might, if they believe that there was a case here. I asked this as early as post #159.
OzGeorge said
ozgeorge said:
The doctrines can be made clearer and clearer.
To which I asked
montalban said:
I agree. What can be made more clearer about accepting women as priests?
No response.
So against this he’s offered NO evidence for change! I asked for evidence in many posts (#204, #231, #232, #348). I am not the only one to ask him to provide argument for change.
So in summary he’s avoided all questions to prove that women should be made priests. Granted he later claimed not to be wishing to do this, but to merely ask questions on the issue (thus absolving him of the need to have any particular point to defend) but in light of the fact that
a) he’s been recorded saying everything is up for change
and
b) he’s only argued against/questioned the status quo
I am not convinced of that claim to motives, especially in light of the fact that direct questions to him (seeking proofs for change) aren’t answered. Speculation for it’s own sake is all I see.
I also note that you address the ‘opinion’ idea to me alone. Surely you’d make this a general statement towards everyone; as you believe we’re all equally operating on opinion. You do not. A fairer approach would be to address this ‘concern’ to
all those you believe doing such things.
So, if you feel that this is a matter of opinion, then what ‘opinion’ can you show for change? If this were a case of opinion —v- opinion then please forward the Church Fathers that support you ‘opinion’ on women’s ordination.