"One Church, one God" (Jesus, priest, Latter Day Saints, hell)

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by sojourner

There is ample Biblical evidence to show that the proto-church employed female presbyters. it has been suggested that the practice of an all-male clergy is a later adaptation by the Church, in order to gain credibility in cultures that were largely patriarchal in nature.

An opinion that I share... but I believe us to be in the minority... especially in Orthodox circles (at least by my limited experience).

What Leo did was largely politically -- not ecclesially -- motivated.

Motivation aside, hopefully I answered your question

[Scott1]

As a side note... an interesting development is the frequency of Anglican preists and lay people who seek the Pastoral Provision.

Since 1983 over 70 men have been ordained as Catholic priests, seven personal parishes been established, and the Book of Divine Worship has been authorized.

[sojourner]

Motivation aside, hopefully I answered your question

History will bear out that Leo was in the wrong to do this. therefore, it probably doesn't "count," in any real, spiritual sense.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by sojourner

History will bear out that Leo was in the wrong to do this. therefore, it probably doesn't "count," in any real, spiritual sense.

Fair enough... but again, motivation aside, the spiritual/theological points he offered have been supported by the Church for the last 100+ years.... I'm fairly certain THAT counts.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Fair enough... but again, motivation aside, the spiritual/theological points he offered have been supported by the Church for the last 100+ years.... I'm fairly certain THAT counts.

That is the Roman Pontiff's POV. Since Rome doesn't hold a monopoly on the Faith, it only counts insofar as we view that office with any authority for us.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by sojourner

That is the Roman Pontiff's POV. Since Rome doesn't hold a monopoly on the Faith, it only counts insofar as we view that office with any authority for us.

To be clear... it is the POV of the entire Church, not just the Bishop of Rome.... and while the RCC does not hold a "monopoly" on the faith, we certainly have the power to decide who is a valid Bishop or not... seems kinda silly to argue the validity of orders based upon any other understanding.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Scott1

To be clear... it is the POV of the entire Church, not just the Bishop of Rome.... and while the RCC does not hold a "monopoly" on the faith, we certainly have the power to decide who is a valid Bishop or not... seems kinda silly to argue the validity of orders based upon any other understanding.

The "entire Church" includes parts that do not view the Roman Pontiff as having any authroity over them. The POV you offer only applies to those parts of the Body who have decided that the Bishop o Rome does have authority over them.

You're right -- the RCC doesn't have a monopoly. You only have the power to decide who is or is not a valid bishop, based upon a polity that you adhere to. Those who do not espouse your particular polity do have power to decide who are valid bishops (or other leaders) within the bounds of their polity. it is, therefore, up to the various leaders whether or not they choose to play ball with the other leaders. IMO, whenever a leader decides to claim "sole authority," he (or she) loses the allegiance of significant portions of the Body of Christ.

[rheff78]

well, the word catholic simply means universal. Many protestant churches recite the same creed with the exact same words.