Bree Mcdonough wrote:
But I still say the Catholic church the fundamentals will never change; Sanctity of life thus no to abortion..euthanasia. Holy Matrimony..between a man and a woman..no to gay marriages...no to women priests. (reasoning: All the apostles were male) So if one can not abide by these rules/laws ...then one should leave. The Church is not going to change with the times..suddenly become liberal..humanist..it ain't going to happen. SO really that was my point.None of those doctrines were a part of the early church, they developed later, much later in some cases, and have not been timeless in the Roman Church let alone in Christendom prior to the split between the west and east, what later became the Catholic (western) tradition and the eastern (Orthodox) tradition.
I wouldn't consider any of those doctrines fundamental to the Roman church. They are outgrowths of other things which have become doctrine, but not fundamental to the Roman church. In a sense this is nit-picking because some of these doctrines are deep rooted in the psyche, but not fundamental to the church. And I am making an academic distinction, but it is an essential theological assertion. What would be fundamental would be the creeds, understanding of ministry, etc.
The difference is, there could be woman clergy in the Roman Church and it would not change the Roman Church - ok it would be a shock to some, but it changes nothing essential to Roman Catholicism. John Paul II told the former Archbishop of Canterbury - and I got this straight from the archbishop - that women Roman priests may come with the next pope, but not with him.
The primacy of the bishop of Rome is a fundamental teaching of the Roman Church - that would never change without changing the essence of Roman Catholicism. None of the encyclicals, for example, makes the point at all about male only clergy being foundational, fundamental, essential. It is the way that Roman theology considers the way it ought to be, but it is not essential to the very essence of the ministry as is the primacy of the bishop of Rome and those under the authority of the same.
Teachings, doctrines, that are deep rooted are not necessarily fundamental.
The development of the catholic tradition is covered in a lot of written material, Crossan, Pelikan, and Williston Walker among the best out there. Jesus did not deliver a set of doctrine or dogma to anyone. That took centuries to develop.
The question remains that Bree raises - who is the church, who makes the final decisions, who should stay and who should go, etc. And I am not going to get into that area because I am not Roman Catholic and I have strong views as an evangelical catholic (i.e., a certain type of protestant) but it is not my battle and I will not get in what ends up being a very intramural argument. in which in the end I have no stake.
And I realize that a lot of people have a sense of what is "Roman" and what is not and that so depends on time and place in a person's life.
Vince
