X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:01:22 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: The Real Presence

"John R. Covert 26-Jan-1993 0802" <covert@COVERT.ENET.DEC.COM> writes:

>>John, despite your disagreement with your church's policy on ordaining
>>women, would you go to a Mass celebrated by a women?

>No; when travelling, if I cannot be assured that a priest whose orders
>are certain to be valid will be the celebrant, I go to a Roman Catholic
>Church and make a spiritual communion.

This last Sunday, at our adult CC, we had a diocesan priest come and give
a talk about the Mass. One of his points was that it was not the particular
"priest's" Mass, but _all_ the participants Mass. Is it that you would not
feel like celebrating with these people? (The old "wherever two or more" bit)

>>Do you not believe in the real presence in a Host consecrated by a woman?

>For the sake of the souls of my fellow Episcopalians who do believe in
>the ordination of women, I hope the Real Presence is created on the altar
>when a woman presides at the Mass.  For the sake of my own soul, and as an
>expression of solidarity with Catholic tradition until the whole Church
>decides that women may be ordained, I take no chances.

If you only make a spiritual communion at a Roman Catholic Mass (In your
mind, not in your Hand:-), I don't really see your problem with receiving
a Host consecrated by a woman. The worst it could be would be merely a
spiritual communion. (I'd say the odds favor the Real Presence:-)

>>I don't know if you have Confession as Roman Catholics, but would you not
>>confess your sins to a priest simply because of their sex?

>Yes, we do.  The Rite of the Reconciliation of a Penitent appears on pages
>446-452 of the Book of Common Prayer.  "Simply because of their sex"
>trivializes the possibility that the absolution that would be pronounced by
 ^^^^^^^^^^^ Yes, another blatantly obvious cheap shot, sorry:-)
>someone not in Holy Orders might not be effective.  One can make a confession
>to any other person and ask God's forgiveness.  A lay person or deacon can
>issue a "declaration of forgiveness" (a statement that Christ forgives the
>sins of those who are penitent).  But _assurance_ of that forgiveness
>(absolution) can only be granted by a priest whose orders are valid.  Again,
>I hope that the women who claim to be priests are priests, and there is
>certainly "salvific grace" (as the Vatican says) in rites practiced by those
>without the fullness of Apostolic Orders, but I will hold out for agreement
>from the whole Church on women's ordination.
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^
This means "over my dead body", as I sense you (as part of the whole Church)
would never be in agreement:-)

>For the past couple of weeks I've been wondering why I am being asked to
>submit to the decision to ordain women, made by local councils in violation
>of two millenia of tradition and in opposition to the majority of bishops
>in the Whole Church, yet when I posted the rules adopted by that same
>local council which require visitors wishing to receive Communion to do so
>only if they hold a belief in The Real Presence (something which agrees
>with two millenia of tradition and with the bishops of the Whole Church)
>I am accused by readers of Anglican@American.Edu of being unkind and told
>that not everyone believes the same as I do.  (I.E. believes the officially
>adopted guidelines.)

You are a Roman Catholic in Anglican clothing. Maybe there is a push
from both sides asking you to convert:-).

>I also wonder why the most recently consecrated woman bishop (there are
>now three -- Barbara Harris, assistant in Boston, Penelope Jamieson,
>diocesan bishop of Dunedin, New Zealand, and Jane Dixon, assistant in
>Washington) immediately announced that she would disobey recent decisions
>of the same council which authorized women's ordinations and ordain
>practicing and unrepentent homosexuals to the priesthood.

Is that one of three, or all three, that are announcing this change in policy?
.. and are there any male Bishops agreeing to this also?

>If the women who were being ordained would agree with all the other aspects
>of the historic Faith, I would be more convinced that their callings were
>valid.  As it is, I see so many of them attempting to create a new religion
>which feminist theologians call "post-Christian".  This is why so many
>Episcopalians are concerned that their Church is not only no longer Catholic,
>but will soon no longer be Christian.

I think perhaps the only thing aspect of the historic Faith you would see
them needing to agree with is that they should not be ordained:-) -J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU