Ship of Fools: A decision to cross the Tiber

Thread: A decision to cross the Tiber Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028599

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

In April of this year, I joined the Catholic Church via the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. It was the end point of more than a decade of discernment. I was brought up in the Baptist Church, rejected it as a teenager, and became an Anglican in my early 40's. But I gradually came to agree more with Catholic Eucharistic theology, praying for the dead, and invoking the intercessions of the Communion of Saints. So becoming a Catholic was a logical outcome.

Yet, and here I want to stay out of dead horse territory, some on this forum, Marvin the Martian, Pyx_e and Evensong, suggested, in a thread in May, that I must be a misogynist, to join a Church which doesn't ordain women. If one accepts the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of Bread and Wine, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and the intercession of the saints and the BVM, the only logical conclusion is to become Catholic, or, possibly Orthodox. Catholics and Orthodox don't ordain women. The Ordinary, of the Ordinariate, Monsignor Keith Newman was asked in an interview if he would accept women priests if the Magisterium sanctioned it. He said, of couse he would. I am the same.

It is my agreement with Catholic theology that led me over the Tiber, not a personal objection to women priests. So I seriously object to being accused of misogyny. How do those accusers account for the fact that Forward in Faith, and now the Ordinariate, has more women members than men? Are the women anti-women?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Link please. Or you are just making it up.

All the best, Pyx_e.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

From the Cache

Paul th* wrote;

quote:
The first is that there is any misogyny. I can assure you that we love our women! We just obey the, so far, revealed doctrine of the Universal Church, that women aren't ordained to the priesthood. This isn't about misogyny, rights, or equality. It's about the received teaching of the Church.

I replied:

quote:
Paul, I disagree. I accept that in the two valid for reasons for joining the Ordinariate (Scripture and Tradition) the only one that holds any water is Tradition. And I accept that you personally are not misogynistic.

However there has always been a underbelly. No one is prepared to be labelled a women hater in this day and age and are very careful about what they say or do and would rightly cry for evidence but the “tainted alters” debacle and my personal experience at for instance St Stephens House clearly indicates that some male priest are not coming from a rational or loving place when it comes to women priests. This is all at best weak, but it is unhelpful to write “we love our women!” Some of you don’t.

Secondly and more strongly me this has always been a justice issue. You deny a women the opportunity to fulfil her calling for biological reasons. You can wrap it up in tradition but it only applies because she is a women and or no other reason. While misogyny is too strong a word to describe this you have to accept that it is a far stretch from “we love our women!” It is discriminatory in the same way that discrimination by race is. If you truly loved your women (in its self a patronising phrase) you would be at the forefront of the struggle in the church to ensure this 2000 years of patriarchal nonsense was overcome. Not fleeing into a bastion.

Sorry if I have drawn to close to a Dead Horse but I could not let it pass.

All the best, Pyx_e

Today you wrote:

quote:
Yet, and here I want to stay out of dead horse territory, some on this forum, Marvin the Martian, Pyx_e and Evensong, suggested, in a thread in May, that I must be a misogynist , to join a Church which doesn't ordain women.

My bold.

So I re-quote what I said about you from the previous thread

quote:
And I accept that you personally are not misogynistic.

Clear? I did not say you were a misogynist. What now?

All the Best, Pyx_e

[ 02. July 2011, 19:44: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Paul: If you will accept women priests if the Magisterium sanctions it but not unless then it seems to me that you have no objection in principle to woman priests.

If that is so then why cant you stand up for your own convictions (either for or against) instead of hiding behind some "authoritative" decree?

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Shamwari:
If that is so then why cant you stand up for your own convictions (either for or against) instead of hiding behind some "authoritative" decree?

I don't know what you mean by standing up for my own convictions. My convictions are Catholic and not Protestant. Some Protestant groups ordain women. Many Protestant groups don't believe in an ordianed priesthood. So I choose to join the Catholic Church which, entirely incidentally to my theological position, doesn't ordain women. So I stand by my conviction that Catholic theolgy is what I accept.

Posted by lunar (# 16251) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If one accepts the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of Bread and Wine, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and the intercession of the saints and the BVM, the only logical conclusion is to become Catholic, or, possibly Orthodox.

Well no, actually. All of that would be assented to by most, if not all the congregation, and certainly by all the clergy, at my liberal catholic Anglican parish church. However, they also embrace the ordination of women - and two of our regular celebrants at Mass are female. If that is not the reason why you couldn't be a member of our congregation, could you spell out what that reason is?

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

Paul

your decision is one I respect very much. I don't think I will make that journey myself probably, but I think for many Christians, they wonder, whether in their churches, they hear a clear call of doctrine and teaching at all now. Maybe in the Catholic church you have found this and it sounds very positive.

I thought you'd made a mistake by saying you'd ''crossed the Tiber'', I thought you meant the Rubicon (I checked the phrase out and I understand its meaning). May God bless you in that journey. I for one have a part of me that wishes to cross the Tiber too. Maybe one day.

Saul the Apostle

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lunar:
Well no, actually. All of that would be assented to by most, if not all the congregation, and certainly by all the clergy, at my liberal catholic Anglican parish church. However, they also embrace the ordination of women - and two of our regular celebrants at Mass are female. If that is not the reason why you couldn't be a member of our congregation, could you spell out what that reason is?

Perhaps there isn't one. Does church membership have to be mutually exclusive? Who's to say that you can't be a member of more than one church?

The trouble with the idea that membership of church A invalidates membership of church B, is that in order for church B to be able to revoke membership from one of its members, on the grounds that that member is also a member of church A, the rules of church B need to be written in a way that concedes the possibility of being a member of churches other than itself - which in turn requires the rules to acknowledge the existence of churches other than itself.

Generally speaking, churches don't like to admit that they're not the only church in town. For that reason, it's unlikely that exclusivity of membership will be properly formalised - and if it is, chances are, the rule will have the odd loophole or two, and will never be enforced.

Which means that there's really no point in playing one church off against another - and, personally, I think it sucks when people do.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Jessie, I believe the RCC most explicitly holds that once a Catholic always a Catholic. Which does not require admitting any other body is a church.

The Orthodox Church doesn't have an official teaching on this, but once you're baptized Ortho, you can be remembered at the altar forever, whatever so-called church you go to. So it's pretty much the same idea.

Thanks for playing.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Please read the DH Guidelines.

In particular this para

quote:
1. Types of threads

This board is dedicated to those topics that recur with tedious regularity on nearly every multi-denominational religious debate forum on the internet. Specifically: biblical inerrancy, homosexuality, the role of women, evolution, abortion, closed communion and bitching about church music. If you want to talk about any aspect of those subjects, post your thread here. (bold mine)

The OP seeks to discuss accusations of mysogyny in the context of the Catholic Church's guidelines on the role of women. Discussions of the nature of mysogyny in general could take place in Purgatory, provided they steered clear of the role of women in churches. However the OP placed the discussion firmly in the context of the role of women in church. Therefore mysogyny as an aspect of guidelines re the role of women in church is centre stage.

That makes this thread a Dead Horse. A DH Host has, correctly, requested the transfer of the thread. Off it goes.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

I thought you converted to Judaism a couple of years ago?

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Jessie, I believe the RCC most explicitly holds that once a Catholic always a Catholic. Which does not require admitting any other body is a church.

The Orthodox Church doesn't have an official teaching on this, but once you're baptized Ortho, you can be remembered at the altar forever, whatever so-called church you go to. So it's pretty much the same idea.

Yep, thanks for that.

The reason I draw attention to the non-mutual-exclusivity of different churches, is that it makes a nonsense of the idea that a decision to join one church can be rightfully seen as a rejection of another church.

However, the argument that joining the Catholic Church is misogynistic seems to be based on the idea that it constitutes a rejection of some other church that ordains women. So it's an argument from a false premise, in my opinion.

But it might be a straw man. Does anyone really think that joining the Catholic church is a misogynistic decision?

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :

Well, in practical rather than ideological or doctrinal or theological terms, the end result could be seen as mysogynistic.

It seems likely, in human, practical, terms that the church-segment most adamantly opposed to the OoW will probably also turn out to be comprised largely those who are also persuaded, consciously or unconsciously, of the inferior nature of the female sex. It seems likely that these will be the folk who argue longest and hardest against the OoW.

To the extent that any one individual decides, even if for quite different reasons, to align him/herself with a Magisterium which opposes OoW, even if also for other reasons, that person can certainly be seen as in alliance with that opposition.

Protests to the contrary will therefore always be seen as somewhat suspect by those favoring OoW.

If I claim to be, oh, say, pro-union, but also ally myself with an environmental group which finds that unions tend, incidentally, to work against one of my environmental group's goals, I am in something of a pickle.

It's not so much that I cannot support both environmental and pro-union stances; I certainly can. But members of either group may be forgiven, perhaps, for regarding my alliance with the other group as cause for unease concerning my motives.

The result is going to be something like this thread: a lot of energy put forth justifying my stances and explaining away any apparent contradictions to people unlikely to find these explanations convincing.

And such time and energy might better be put toward furthering the goals of one or the other group.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

Yet, and here I want to stay out of dead horse territory, some on this forum, Marvin the Martian, Pyx_e and Evensong, suggested, in a thread in May, that I must be a misogynist, to join a Church which doesn't ordain women.

Only by association. If I recall correctly.

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
It's not so much that I cannot support both environmental and pro-union stances; I certainly can. But members of either group may be forgiven, perhaps, for regarding my alliance with the other group as cause for unease concerning my motives.

The result is going to be something like this thread: a lot of energy put forth justifying my stances and explaining away any apparent contradictions to people unlikely to find these explanations convincing.

A very good analogy, in my opinion, I'm sure the OP will be pleased with it.

I could be proved wrong, though - but I can't help suspecting that OoW supporters are more likely to question a decision to join the Catholic church, than Catholicism supporters are to question a decision to join a group of OoW supporters.

Is the OP able to comment on whether or not he holds any formal affiliations with OoW supporter groups? The reason I ask is because, the idea that the decision to swim the Tiber constitutes a form of misogyny is perhaps more understandable (if not necessarily more correct) if such formal affiliations with OoW groups do exist than if they don't.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lunar:

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If one accepts the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of Bread and Wine, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, and the intercession of the saints and the BVM, the only logical conclusion is to become Catholic, or, possibly Orthodox.
Well no, actually. All of that would be assented to by most, if not all the congregation, and certainly by all the clergy, at my liberal catholic Anglican parish church. However, they also embrace the ordination of women - and two of our regular celebrants at Mass are female. If that is not the reason why you couldn't be a member of our congregation, could you spell out what that reason is?

Same here.

Posted by lunar (# 16251) on :

It's absolutely correct that to join one church does not imply rejection of another.

However, to leave one church for another, citing difficulties with one's former home, is another matter.

The OP'er explained his move to the RC church in terms of doctrine and practice which he stated were only present in the Roman church, or possibly the orthodox. I pointed out that this is not the case, and asked what else he might find inimical in his former tradition.

In the contemporary climate, it is an obvious question whether the ordination of women, and the prospect that women bishops will be consecrated in the Church of England, may be an issue here. If the OP'er says that is not the case, I will absolutely accept that.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Does anyone really think that joining the Catholic church is a misogynistic decision?

Not of itself no but I know of at least one instance where it does seem to have been.

BTW, I can also be a partial third to lunar and leo - the CofE church I attend ticks all the boxes in the OP but has signed resolutions A and B. [Frown]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

One of the important doctrines within the Catholic church is that the bishop of Rome is considered as the successor of St Peter and that it is bets for Christians to be in communion with the Holy See.I don't think that this is an integral part of the doctrine of any other Christian community.

It is further Catholic doctrine that the teachings of the Church are thjose of Jesus Christ and are not changed just because we feel it would be better to do so.It is part of Catholic doctrine that bishops meeting in ecumenical council can determine what should be the mind of the Church,being guided in those moments by the Holy Spirit.

An understanding that the priesthood belongs to men ,an understanding which has been there for 2000 years cannot easily be changed and it takes some time for the whole Church under the leadership of the successor of Peter to come to a conclusion that the ministry of women in the priesthood is something which Jesus wanted from the beginning.

Of course there are mysogynistic Catholics just as they can be found in any other society,but to say that Catholics per se are necessarily mysogynistic is arrant nonsense.I don't think that this was actually being said,but it is being perhaps implied that unless one speks out and says this is wrong one is being mysogynistic.

Obviously with over a billion Catholics they can't all be mysogynistic,but of those who come into the Church voluntarily like Paul Th there is no reason to count them as mysogynistic unless one has other reasons for doing so.

Of those who joined our Catholic community this past Easter two were married women,one was an un married woman,one was a boy of 15 and two were young men about to be married soon. I, who prepared them for this step ,saw no evidence that they believed women to be an inferior sex,but they did believe the teachings of the Church.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
An understanding that the priesthood belongs to men ,an understanding which has been there for 2000 years cannot easily be changed and it takes some time for the whole Church under the leadership of the successor of Peter to come to a conclusion that the ministry of women in the priesthood is something which Jesus wanted from the beginning.

I hope you taught your catechumens that the Church does not appear to be in the process of "coming to the conclusion" that Christ wills women priests, but that in fact it has been settled definitively and without ambiguity in the negative. And that this conclusion is not "misogynistic" either.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

There is only one certainty in this life - and that is death.
Amongst those coming into the community there was only one catechumen,the others being already baptised.
Actually the question of women priests never came up .No asked about it.
As you will no doubt agree Catholic doctrine as such does not change,but we sometimes come to clearer understandings of the teachings of the Church.It was not for me to state that the Church
will never admit women into the priesthood. We know for example that a Czech bishop ordained women in exceptional circumstances to the sacred priesthood and it is possible that these circumstances might arise again.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lunar:
In the contemporary climate, it is an obvious question whether the ordination of women, and the prospect that women bishops will be consecrated in the Church of England, may be an issue here. If the OP'er says that is not the case, I will absolutely accept that.

Of course it's an issue. But not because I have personal issues about women priests. It's an issue for me bacause I believe in the unity of the Church, in response to Christ's command that we be ONE. The consecration of women to the priesthood and episcopate sunders all possibility of Church unity, because the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, who together comprise around two thirds of Christendom, don't ordain women. I want to belong to the undivided Church of the first millennium. The repository of this faith lies within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Women's ordination is a minor matter against that wish.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Forthview, Catholics believe that there are other certainties than death: solemnly defined doctrines, for example. You must know as well as I do that the Church categorically judged on the invalidity of such attempts at ordination.

Here's what Bl. JPII said in his Ordinatio sacerdotalis (1994):

quote:
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren, I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

In their response to a dubium submitted to them about whether this doctrine was really to be held definitively (i.e., was part of the ordinary infallible magisterium), the CDF responded in the affirmative:

quote:
In response to this precise act of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, explicitly addressed to the entire Catholic Church, all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein. To this end, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of the Holy Father, has given an official Reply on the nature of this assent; it is a matter of full definitive assent, that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church. In fact, as the Reply explains, the definitive nature of this assent derives from the truth of the doctrine itself, since, founded on the written Word of God, and constantly held and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. You of course are not compelled to accept it. Fine. But when you exercise a duly delegated official teaching position you must not allow your doubt to replace what the Church teaches - that would be an abuse of a privileged position entrusted to you, not by Bishop X or Father Y as individuals who may or may not agree with you - but by the Church herself who has settled the issue definitively.

I understand that you were not called upon you to comment on the issue of women's ordination, but if you were it very much would be "for [you] to state that the Church
will never [because she can't] admit women into the priesthood."

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Only by association. If I recall correctly .

i'm not used to posting in DH. I know I can't make the horse any deader than it already is, so I ask Evensong:

Do you consider the Catholic Church to be institutionally misogynist? Even if you let me off the charge for my personal conviction to join it. Pope John Paul II said that he didn't consider women's ordination to be within his remit, as it wasn't sanctioned by Christ. Now we all know that a Pope, a generation down the line, may receive an updated revelation which could overturn that stance. Do you accept that the Church acts out of a theological conviction, even when you disagree with it, rather than out of any tendency to undermine Women?

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

PaulTH, see above - and all the best for your journey.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
It seems likely, in human, practical, terms that the church-segment most adamantly opposed to the OoW will probably also turn out to be comprised largely those who are also persuaded, consciously or unconsciously, of the inferior nature of the female sex. It seems likely that these will be the folk who argue longest and hardest against the OoW

I'm sorry, but this is a complete load of shite. There are at least as many women joining the Ordinariate as there are men. Are they "persuaded consciously or unconsciously of the inferior nature of the female sex?"

There is a big world out there. And a big Christian world, most of which doesn't ordain women. This is not the biggest or mosty pressing problem which confronts 21st century Christianity.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

So you've decided to throw women's ordination under a bus and this is the bus that from your privileged position as a white heterosexual male, you've decided to throw it under:

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Of course it's an issue. But not because I have personal issues about women priests. It's an issue for me bacause I believe in the unity of the Church, in response to Christ's command that we be ONE. The consecration of women to the priesthood and episcopate sunders all possibility of Church unity, because the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, who together comprise around two thirds of Christendom, don't ordain women. I want to belong to the undivided Church of the first millennium. The repository of this faith lies within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Women's ordination is a minor matter against that wish.

[italics for emphasis]

Great, but it would be nice if proponents of this view could please not try to make claims for how non-discriminatory it is. It's a decision, in this case by the privileged, that the less-privileged are expendable in the light of their lofty thoughts about unity, theology and authority.

I might want to belong to a 'whites-only as key office bearers' golf club because I reckoned it was the only golf club which had access to the original, beautiful and true rules of golf which I love for their purity because I'm a golf nut. I might never think a bad thought about non-white golfers in my life. But you know what? If I let my beautiful historical speculations and love for golf trump the equal treatment of black golfers, I'd still be an institutional racist.

But but but... some of my black golfing buddies love the club's ancient and unique character so much, and they think the course is so sublimely beautiful, that they dont mind being relegated to waiting upon the white golfers, being allowed to run the kitchen and the hospitality events, and being consigned to having a blacks-only team which is never ever allowed to be part of the sacred deliberations on the Rules Of Golf or to play in the Most Sacred Original Tournament, because that's traditionally for whites only and always has been.

Why, some of them have even written books on what a privilege it is to be allowed into the clubhouse, and how what they do is Just As Important as what the white people do - because who could imagine a Most Sacred Original Tournament without the serving roles being taken on by black people!

This is what is called 'internalised racism' where people having been brought up with ideas of what people of their race are good for and what a 'good person' of their race does, buy into those organisations which have institutionalised racism. There are often benefits for them in doing so. They get to play on the beautiful beautiful Most Ancient Course, don't they? With the Most Authentick Rules! That feels so great, and it's so worth putting the telescope to the blind eye for.

And to the white chaps, that proves that what they are doing is fine, because they see so many happy black chappies who are so contented with their assigned roles, not like those nasty uppity ones!

For a white person to ditch a golf club trying to undo its racist legacy to go to one where the racist legacy is in full force is a racist act. It may not be done for racist reasons. It may be done for pure love of the game. But for someone to decide from a position of privilege that their lofty thoughts about the One True Pure Game of Golf trump the need to worry about justice for black people, and that equal treatment for them is a 'minor matter' is a manifestation of unconscious never-questioned white privilege.

So to return to your question, fine, it's a beautiful experience full of spiritual richness for you, but to get it, it's necessary to throw women and gay people under a bus and to sign up for institutional discrimination against them. I hope it's worth it for you.

L.

[ 03. July 2011, 23:25: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
for someone to decide from a position of privilege that their lofty thoughts about the One True Pure Game of Golf trump the need to worry about justice for black people, and that equal treatment for them is a 'minor matter' is a manifestation of unconscious never-questioned white privilege.

You have a lot more faith than I do in the hardiness of any social justice whatsoever if it were cut off from the nourishment of the church, i.e. the one true church. I do not regard the church as an ornament or accessory to the extent that it reflects approved values in western secular society, but as the historical and spiritual foundation of most of them. Even without the claims of the RCC to infallibility, its size commends it to the greatest respect and assurance as at least fully a part of the true church. The claims e.g. of Anglicanism are less certain, and possibly less still as time goes by and its differences from the RCC widening. I must admit this even as an Anglican myself: one takes a risk, and one can only hope and pray that one's reasons for doing so are worthy. The time may come, as it apparently has for PaulTH, that the risk no longer seems worth taking.

If the ordination of women is the will of God, then it will surely happen in the RCC.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

Do you consider the Catholic Church to be institutionally misogynist?

It clearly is.

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
There are at least as many women joining the Ordinariate as there are men. Are they "persuaded consciously or unconsciously of the inferior nature of the female sex?"

Maybe they are. It is possible to collaborate in your own oppression. Read what Louise said about internalising.

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The claims e.g. of Anglicanism are less certain...

I'm not sure what that means.

quote:

...and possibly less still as time goes by and its differences from the RCC widening.

Widening? It doesn't look like that from where I'm sitting.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The claims e.g. of Anglicanism are less certain...
I'm not sure what that means.

Apostolicae curae etc. To those for whom valid orders are a concern, every Anglican must acknowledge those of Rome, but no RC is permitted to return the favor.

quote:
Widening? It doesn't look like that from where I'm sitting.

Then from where you're sitting you must be able to see RC bishops secretly ordaining and consecrating women. I can't, from where I'm sitting.

[ 04. July 2011, 01:01: Message edited by: Alogon ]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
You have a lot more faith than I do in the hardiness of any social justice whatsoever if it were cut off from the nourishment of the church, i.e. the one true church. I do not regard the church as an ornament or accessory to the extent that it reflects approved values in western secular society, but as the historical and spiritual foundation of most of them. Even without the claims of the RCC to infallibility, its size commends it to the greatest respect and assurance as at least fully a part of the true church.

Thanks but as a woman I'm doing just fine without the 'one true church' as far as social justice is concerned, and arguments that 'size is important' don't impress me one bit.

L.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

Apostolicae curae etc. To those for whom valid orders are a concern, every Anglican must acknowledge those of Rome, but no RC is permitted to return the favor.

Yes, but so?

quote:

quote:
Widening? It doesn't look like that from where I'm sitting.
Then from where you're sitting you must be able to see RC bishops secretly ordaining and consecrating women.

I've seen RC bishops - including an actual Pope on TV - worshipping in Anglican churches. I've seen the new RC Catechism which recognises Protestant churches as churches. I've seen & attended joint services with RC and Protestant ministers co-operating to lead them. I've read papers written by the present Pope that are nearer to Protestant ecclesiology than anything since the Reformation. I've seen even Evangelical Anglican churches, and Methodist ones too, use a form of Eucharistic service that no-one but a liturgy geek could tell from the current RC Mass in English if it wasn't for a few Hail Marys here and there and prayers for the Pope (and my local Anglo-Catholic parish church has those as well). That is literally true - I've seen Polish and Hungarian and Czech visitors to London walk into our low-church evangelical Anglican church and not notice that it was Protestant until they were talking to us after the service. I've attended RC masses and been able to follow the words without a book. Just last week I went to both Cathedrals in Liverpool and their bookshops were selling books about the other one. I've seen (again on TV) the Roman and Anglican bishops of that city leading joint services. I've seen a Presbyterian church near Glasgow whose woman minister is married to a Catholic man. I've been in the house of my Mum's cousin in Glasgow, a Boy's Brigade leader and an elder of the Kirk, and he (or his Catholic wife) has an RC Missal on their shelves. On TV I've seen Taize brothers (technically Presbyterian) and RC bishops taking Communion together at the funerals of both the late Pope and of Brother Roger.

None of that would have happened a hundred years ago. Most of it would have been impossible forty years ago. Yes, we are getting more like each other. The gap is narrowing.

If Martin Luther was alive today he'd probably be able to stay in communion with the Pope. If the present Pope had been alive in the 16th century with the theological opinions he has now he would almost certainly have become a Lutheran. Less divides Protestant and Catholic than ever before.

The ordination of women is a side-issue. Its a done deal in the Protestant churches and we are not going back on it. When Rome gets round to ordaining women - which they will one day and I would not be surprised if it was in my lifetime - the Vatican lawyers and legislative drafters will no doubt find a form of words to prove that it does not contradict the last few hundred years of teaching. They are good at that. Its what they do.

What really divides Protestant and Catholic is the papacy, and nothing else. The strange idea that the Church on earth needs a single human boss - whether he is the Bishop of Rome or anyone else. When they get over that one, the splits of the Reformation will be done with. Being human, we'll no doubt have found some other issues to fight about by then.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I want to belong to the undivided Church of the first millennium. The repository of this faith lies within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Does anyone else see the massive problem in the second sentence?...

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Thanks but as a woman I'm doing just fine without the 'one true church' as far as social justice is concerned, and arguments that 'size is important' don't impress me one bit.

Cars can continue a few hundred feet down the road after they have run out of gas. I assume that you have been able to avoid living in any Muslim enclaves on the European continent.

If size doesn't matter, the other side of that coin is the idea that one's small minority alone could be right when everyone else is wrong-- not only wrong but hell-bound. I'm not that arrogant.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I want to belong to the undivided Church of the first millennium. The repository of this faith lies within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
Does anyone else see the massive problem in the second sentence?...

Not until you pointed it out. Not so much in the second sentence alone but in the two combined.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Yes, it really is the two sentences combined. It's during the second sentence that it hits you, though.

Frankly, if one is aiming for undivided church of the first millennium, the Orthodox would seem to be the best bet. Rome was the odd one out who split off and went in a different direction, separate from the other four patriarchs.

And I say all this as a Protestant.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thank you Ken , well said.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

My liberal parents crossed the Tiber a couple of years ago (Maybe more, they didn't consult me about it [Biased]

).

I go to a very liberal TEC church, and they've come to church with me a few of times. (Dad is really big into the obligation business, Mom not so much)

Their reasons for crossing had much more to do with local church politics than theology or liturgy.

I know that they still hold to their previous liberal convictions, although they are aware that their church heads don't. How that works for them, I'm not sure, but it does.

Would they ever go back? Probably not. They burned (and so did their previous church) too many bridges when they crossed.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Only by association. If I recall correctly .
Do you consider the Catholic Church to be institutionally misogynist?

Yes.

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Pope John Paul II said that he didn't consider women's ordination to be within his remit, as it wasn't sanctioned by Christ. Now we all know that a Pope, a generation down the line, may receive an updated revelation which could overturn that stance. Do you accept that the Church acts out of a theological conviction, even when you disagree with it, rather than out of any tendency to undermine Women?

I would ask what they are basing their premise on.

Can't be scripture or tradition.

The Pope doesn't accept slavery.

That was both scriptural and traditional.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I want to belong to the undivided Church of the first millennium. The repository of this faith lies within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
Does anyone else see the massive problem in the second sentence?...

Yes.

Why is unity more important than truth Paul?

And if you equate unity with truth then you have to go back far further than the Reformation.

And like others have pointed out and I have previously, the orthodox and the catholic are not undivided.

The divisions go even further back.

And if you study any church history you will know most of the councils were not undivided at all.

There was hard core politics going on all the time. Not reminiscent of the accord of the Holy Spirit.

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
It seems likely, in human, practical, terms that the church-segment most adamantly opposed to the OoW will probably also turn out to be comprised largely those who are also persuaded, consciously or unconsciously, of the inferior nature of the female sex. It seems likely that these will be the folk who argue longest and hardest against the OoW
I'm sorry, but this is a complete load of shite. There are at least as many women joining the Ordinariate as there are men. Are they "persuaded consciously or unconsciously of the inferior nature of the female sex?"

There is a big world out there. And a big Christian world, most of which doesn't ordain women. This is not the biggest or mosty pressing problem which confronts 21st century Christianity.

Oh, I love this argument: "Group XYZ can't possibly be anti-ABC because there's a large contingent of ABC in Group XYZ!"

Which, I suppose, only means that you are either unaware of what "unconsciously" means, or think there's no such thing as unconscious motivation.

As a result, there can never exist any such phenomenon as anti-semitic Jews, mysogynistic women, homophobic gays, or bigoted black people, etc.

Some years back, I read somewhere there's reputed to be one or two African-American members of the Ku Klux Klan. Your impeccable logic proves that this organization is an upstanding representative of racial equality.

As for the OoW being a minor issue, I might agree -- except insofar as it represents, in the "big world out there," a longstanding, deep-rooted, world-wide, ongoing discrimination against half of the human race.

Not so minor after all, I think.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Thanks but as a woman I'm doing just fine without the 'one true church' as far as social justice is concerned, and arguments that 'size is important' don't impress me one bit.
Cars can continue a few hundred feet down the road after they have run out of gas. I assume that you have been able to avoid living in any Muslim enclaves on the European continent.

If size doesn't matter, the other side of that coin is the idea that one's small minority alone could be right when everyone else is wrong-- not only wrong but hell-bound. I'm not that arrogant.

I suspect the only proper place for responding to your comments is Hell, but let me have one last go.

This statement smacks of really ugly racism:

quote:
I assume that you have been able to avoid living in any Muslim enclaves on the European continent.

and thank you, but yes, I have lived and worked in Woodlands, the main Muslim community area in Glasgow. I work with Muslim colleagues. Right next to me in the parliament we have Muslim MSPs. Their record on social justice is just fine, thank you. If you think waving the scary muslim bogey card is the way to promote Catholicism, I think you will find the Scots Catholics posting here will want nothing to do with your arguments. People like Cardinal O'Brien have set an excellent example on interfaith relations. It's not normal for Catholics here to make racist arguments attacking Muslims to promote their faith. I'm sorry if that's the case where you live.

quote:
If size doesn't matter, the other side of that coin is the idea that one's small minority alone could be right when everyone else is wrong-- not only wrong but hell-bound. I'm not that arrogant.

The last time I looked, women were not a small minority. However when you think of these things historically or in world terms, people who think it's fine for women to be be treated as inferior or to have inferior rights or opportunities to men are a vast majority.

Within that group you can also count millions upon millions of women who have been brought up to internalise those values and to go along with customs and traditions which harm them and their daughters. So 'size commends' a body or party to respect does it? Well, no it fucking doesn't when the big battalions are on the side of making sure your uppity arse is kept down.

These arguments about unity and tradition are fine if you're a bloke. Even if you're a gay bloke, so long as you are willing to sacrifice a normal gay partnered family life for what you get out of the church, you can go all the way to the top and play a full part in ecclesiastical life. For women, they involve buying into a system of historic institutional sexual discrimination.

That this registers as only a 'minor matter' or leads to people being puzzled because the word 'misogyny' was mentioned - well what can I say? - it must be nice to be so privileged that one can be oblivious of such issues.

L.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

quote:
If you think waving the scary muslim bogey card is the way to promote Catholicism

Oh, is that what he was doing? It looked like a complete non sequitur to me.

Louise [Overused]

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lunar:
Well no, actually. All of that would be assented to by most, if not all the congregation, and certainly by all the clergy, at my liberal catholic Anglican parish church. However, they also embrace the ordination of women - and two of our regular celebrants at Mass are female. If that is not the reason why you couldn't be a member of our congregation, could you spell out what that reason is?

In February, on another thread, I wrote:

quote:
Absolutely! And that is what The Church should always be! Though Christianity has been spread throughout the world by colonisers, historically it's the religion of Europe which spread West into the Roman Empire. It stands to reason, IMO, that those churches closest to the source, ie the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches, which were founded by the Apostles, are the closest thing we have to "real" Christianity. St Mark founded the Coptic Orthodox Church. St Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch, as well as Rome. Although many accretions may have grown up in those churches, by the end of the first century, they all believed in the Apostolic Succession, the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, the sacrifice of the Mass and the real presence of Christ in the elements of Bread and Wine. Despite their differences, such is still held to this day by Orthodox and Catholic Christians. Theological differences arose between the Greek speaking East and the Latin speaking West and, after the fall of the Western Empire and its overrun by heathen barbarians, the Western Patriarch was forced to exercise political power to a degree unaceptable to the other patriarchs. Hence schism. When the Protestant reformers wanted to challenge the many corruptions in the medieval Church, they threw the baby out with the bathwater and reinvented the wheel. New ideas such as penal substitutionary atonement, sola fide, sola sciptura, double predestination, te abolition of bishops and in some cases clergy and the Eucharist as a memorial only, were never taught or believed within the Universal Church in its first 1500 years.

While I fully expect our Protestant members to disagree with this anlysis of history, you will see that nowhere do I mention women. It is just my personal take on the Church, and demonstates that I don't consider women's ordination to be anything like as important as the Apostolic Succession. I have long believed that the Church of England avoided some of the excesses of European, or even Scottish Protestantism by retaining a strong liturgical tradition and keeping the threefold ministry.

Ken has pointed out many times on this forum that the Church of England is, and always has been Protestant. This is in spite of the attmpts by the Oxford Movement and later Anglo-Catholic tradition to try to reconnect it with its Catholic roots. Though I've been to many Anglican Churches where prayers are said for the dead, and the intercessions of the saints are sought, none of this comes from authorised Church of England canon. The use by Anglo-Catholic parishes before 1980, of the English Missal, and later of the Novus Ordo Rite has always been canonically illegal, and Diocesan bishops would be quite within their rights to crack down on such practices.

Once I accepted the Mass as a Sacrifice for the living and the dead, the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of Bread and Wine, the intercessions of the saints and praying for thr repose of the souls of the departed, it became a logical step to become Catholic, which has little to do with women's ordination. Although some of these things may be found in lunar's parish, they are contrary to the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and can only be found in the C of E in canonically illegal liturgy.

That it took me a decade to reach this conclusion isn't the point. We are all evolving our consciousneess throughout our lives. I agree with Ken that eventually women's ordination will come in the Catholic Church. Should I live to see it, I will welcome it. But to me it is less important than the faith and practice of the Church to which I belong.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I agree with Ken that eventually women's ordination will come in the Catholic Church. Should I live to see it, I will welcome it. But to me it is less important than the faith and practice of the Church to which I belong.

Fair enough.

We all choose the lesser of all evils according to our tastes.

But why bring it up again then?

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Once I accepted the Mass as a Sacrifice for the living and the dead, the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of Bread and Wine, the intercessions of the saints and praying for thr repose of the souls of the departed, it became a logical step to become Catholic, which has little to do with women's ordination.

Interestingly, these are all part of the liturgy of the US Episcopal Church (although "sacrifice" is a bit ambiguous - and some people here object to this idea in any case). "Real Presence," of course, is also left to be a bit of a mystery and is not "transubstantion" in any case (I don't think even Anglo-Catholics here go there). But prayers for the dead are definitely in each version of our Prayers of the People - and in the Burial Rite, too, I believe.

Not arguing; just pointing it out, that's all.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

PaulTH*, your latest post still doesn't clear up why you went Catholic. If anything it merely strengthens the point that you should have, by your own logic, converted to Orthodoxy.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But why bring it up again then?

Simply because I've been ruminating for a few weeks on the idea that a decision to join the Catholic Church must have some misogynistic element in it. But I don't have much more to say on the issue!

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
PaulTH*, your latest post still doesn't clear up why you went Catholic. If anything it merely strengthens the point that you should have, by your own logic, converted to Orthodoxy.

As some members of this board will remember, I did seriously consider conversion to Orthodoxy at one time. I certainly accept that from both a historical and geographical perspective, it is the cradle of Christianity, and founded by the Apostles. So, incidentally, would Pope Benedict XVI accept that. I am also quite partial to elements of Orthodox theology. There are probably two things which make Orthodoxy difficult for me. Much as I admire its beauty and authenticity, I feel uncomfortable with the Orthodox Divine Litugy and the use of icons, as extensively as they are used in the Orthodox Church.

Also, I could never have belonged to the pre Vatican II Catholic Church, where it taught that it was the only form of Christianity, and refused any ecumenical contacts. The Orthodox does this still. It's attitude to ecumenism seems to be that, "when the rest of the world repents from its schism from us, we can talk. Until then we have nothing to talk about." I don't find this very helpful. The Ordinariate is ideal for me. We can retain elements of Anglican litugy and hymnody, which I love, while being in communion with the See of Peter. We can even recognise Orthodox orders and sacraments, even though they afford us no such courtesy.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
You have a lot more faith than I do in the hardiness of any social justice whatsoever if it were cut off from the nourishment of the church, i.e. the one true church. I do not regard the church as an ornament or accessory to the extent that it reflects approved values in western secular society, but as the historical and spiritual foundation of most of them.

You know, I read the above, and then I read my history textbooks. I see that the Roman Catholic Church often used to preach about social justice when it was the most important political entity in Europe. And I see it used to make token efforts to try to implement something, while upholding the Divine Right of Kings. I then see the giant leaps forward we have made since first the Reformation and the Enlightenment. And even the giant leaps forward the Roman Catholic Church has made in the last hundred years at being civilised, and I come to the conclusion that the less power the RCC has the better an entity it is. And the less we bend the knee before priests and kings the closer to those ideals rooted in history, preserved by the RCC and brought to the fore by the Enlightenment and still further by the 20th Century we are.

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

Welcome.

That is all. :-)

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
There is only one certainty in this life - and that is death.
Amongst those coming into the community there was only one catechumen,the others being already baptised.
Actually the question of women priests never came up .No asked about it.
As you will no doubt agree Catholic doctrine as such does not change,but we sometimes come to clearer understandings of the teachings of the Church.It was not for me to state that the Church
will never admit women into the priesthood. We know for example that a Czech bishop ordained women in exceptional circumstances to the sacred priesthood and it is possible that these circumstances might arise again.

The Czech bishop in question did no such thing. They were lay women before the "ceremony" and they remained lay women after the "ceremony". Invalid matter is invalid matter; he may as well have tried to ordain a tree or a car or a horse.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

Apostolicae curae etc. To those for whom valid orders are a concern, every Anglican must acknowledge those of Rome, but no RC is permitted to return the favor.
Yes, but so?

quote:

quote:
Widening? It doesn't look like that from where I'm sitting.
Then from where you're sitting you must be able to see RC bishops secretly ordaining and consecrating women.
I've seen RC bishops - including an actual Pope on TV - worshipping in Anglican churches. I've seen the new RC Catechism which recognises Protestant churches as churches. I've seen & attended joint services with RC and Protestant ministers co-operating to lead them. I've read papers written by the present Pope that are nearer to Protestant ecclesiology than anything since the Reformation. I've seen even Evangelical Anglican churches, and Methodist ones too, use a form of Eucharistic service that no-one but a liturgy geek could tell from the current RC Mass in English if it wasn't for a few Hail Marys here and there and prayers for the Pope (and my local Anglo-Catholic parish church has those as well). That is literally true - I've seen Polish and Hungarian and Czech visitors to London walk into our low-church evangelical Anglican church and not notice that it was Protestant until they were talking to us after the service. I've attended RC masses and been able to follow the words without a book. Just last week I went to both Cathedrals in Liverpool and their bookshops were selling books about the other one. I've seen (again on TV) the Roman and Anglican bishops of that city leading joint services. I've seen a Presbyterian church near Glasgow whose woman minister is married to a Catholic man. I've been in the house of my Mum's cousin in Glasgow, a Boy's Brigade leader and an elder of the Kirk, and he (or his Catholic wife) has an RC Missal on their shelves. On TV I've seen Taize brothers (technically Presbyterian) and RC bishops taking Communion together at the funerals of both the late Pope and of Brother Roger.

None of that would have happened a hundred years ago. Most of it would have been impossible forty years ago. Yes, we are getting more like each other. The gap is narrowing.

If Martin Luther was alive today he'd probably be able to stay in communion with the Pope. If the present Pope had been alive in the 16th century with the theological opinions he has now he would almost certainly have become a Lutheran. Less divides Protestant and Catholic than ever before.

The ordination of women is a side-issue. Its a done deal in the Protestant churches and we are not going back on it. When Rome gets round to ordaining women - which they will one day and I would not be surprised if it was in my lifetime - the Vatican lawyers and legislative drafters will no doubt find a form of words to prove that it does not contradict the last few hundred years of teaching. They are good at that. Its what they do.

What really divides Protestant and Catholic is the papacy, and nothing else. The strange idea that the Church on earth needs a single human boss - whether he is the Bishop of Rome or anyone else. When they get over that one, the splits of the Reformation will be done with. Being human, we'll no doubt have found some other issues to fight about by then.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I want to belong to the undivided Church of the first millennium. The repository of this faith lies within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
Does anyone else see the massive problem in the second sentence?...
Yes.

Why is unity more important than truth Paul?

It's not, hence Ken's assertions are tosh. All that has happened is that some theological misunderstandings have been cleared up and we can all stand in the same room without killing each other. Far worse theological divisions have now emerged though which have ended any prospect of successful true ecumenism with the Reformation churches. ARCIC III is a face saving exercise to spare the (further) humiliation of +Cantuar as Benedict quite likes him, on a personal level, but beyond that an utter waste of time. There will be no ARCIC IV.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Once I accepted the Mass as a Sacrifice for the living and the dead, the Real Presence of Christ in the elements of Bread and Wine, the intercessions of the saints and praying for the repose of the souls of the departed, it became a logical step to become Catholic

I accept all those things. I would go further and accept Petrine ministry if wasn't so centralised.

But I remain an Anglican.

Many of my friends have joined the ordinariate - what amuses me is that they are, by their own admission' less 'catholic' than me.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

That depends what you mean by 'catholic'.Following a 'catholic'rite,teaching 'catholic' doctrine doesn't make one Catholic.Even wanting to be in communion with the successor of St Peter doesn't make one 'catholic'.

One can be in full communion with the successor of Peter and that is an essential part of what makes one fully Catholic.

In the question of the possible ordination of women to the hieratic priesthood I see nothing in the Gospels which necessarily rules this out.Certainly Jesus chose only men to be his apostles but does he tell us that he doesn't ever want women chosen for this role.

In instructing people who wish to enter full communion with the Catholic church I would never tell people that I think women ought to be ordained to the priesthood,but I would also not say that this could never be the case.

Again I accept that what the Czech bishop did in extreme conditions is not anything which would be approved of in the Vatican,but there may come a day when other bishops will petition the Holy See for permission to ordain women and this in spite of what Blessed John Paul has said so authoritatively.

Is the ordination of women something that the Church has not just thought of or is it something that we absolutely know that Jesus Christ did not want.

Being a Catholic and recognising the 'unique' nature of the Catholic church does not preclude recognising and valuing as authentic Christians others with differing points of view.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
One can be in full communion with the successor of Peter and that is an essential part of what makes one fully Catholic.

Yes, and being in full communion with Peter means accepting his teaching on those things which have been solemnly defined. And the ordination of women is unambiguously one of those things. If you continue to contest it, you are rejecting the very authority you are using to distinguish leo from yourself as a Catholic.

A defining part of what it is to be a Catholic is to accept that the Church has the divine authority to decide certain issues without error. The Church has defined this issue.

If when asked by one of your catechumens what the Church teaches on this issue you fail to say that the Church has definitively ruled out the ordination of women you are not teaching what the Church has entrusted you to teach. It's that simple.

Withhold as much credence from what the Church teaches as you see fit - you must act as your conscience dictates - but don't accept a position of teaching within the Church and then teach others that there is doubt in what the Church has authoritatively settled.

[ 05. July 2011, 18:07: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Chesterbelloc, I accept fully and without any reservation all that the Church teaches in the historic creeds.

I accept further that the Church in its magisterial statements speaks the Word of God.
I accept that the successor of St Peter has the right to speak in the name of the whole Church and that he speaks infallibly when he does so in some way or another with the consent of the whole Church as when Pius XII solemnly defined the dogma of the Assumption.

In instructing any possible candidates for reception into full communion with the Catholic Church I would never teach as Catholic doctrine anything which is not defined as such by the Church.That doesn't mean that I am personally infallible and I may slip in a few minor or major 'heresies' inadvertently,of course and for that I hope for the forgiveness of the Good Lord.

In 15 to 20 years of work in this field no-one has ever asked about the ordination of women. No-one has ever asked about homosexuality but lots of people have posed all sorts of questions on divorce,annulment,second marriages in church.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Alright, Forthview. I'm absolutely not someone you have to answer to, and appreciate your response.

My concern was that you implied that if asked you would not tell an enquirer that the Church has definitively (infallibly) ruled out the ordination of women to the priesthood. If you would in fact, despite whatever personal reservations you may have about this teasching (which really is none of my business), tell them what the Church has ruled on this issue I withdraw my criticism.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I accept all those things. I would go further and accept Petrine ministry if wasn't so centralised.

But I remain an Anglican.

Many of my friends have joined the ordinariate - what amuses me is that they are, by their own admission' less 'catholic' than me.

Far be it from me to criticise someone who wants to remain Anglican, after all, I did so myself for more than a decade while I had doubts growing in me about whether I could remain. But all the things which you claim to accept go against Anglican teaching. The sacrifice of the Mass for the living and the dead isn't to be found in authorised C of E material. Only by borrowing from the Catholic Church, can you incorporate these ideas into your worship.

I don't know in what context you are using the word "catholic" but your friends in the ordinariate who have come into communion with the See of Peter are much more Catholic than you are. Adopting a bit of Catholic liturgy and practice, while retaining the freedom of thought from the Protestant tradition, is what makes an Anglo-Catholic, because you've no need to obey anything you don't like. That may make you catholic, but certainly not Catholic.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Just as an aside, the interesting thing is that this is being talked about in quite a few places now, including in this article in the National Catholic Reporter, "Ordination Ban Not Infallibly Taught."

I don't know exactly what this publication is; it calls itself "The Independent News Source." But this topic has also been broached in "US Catholic": "Why Church Teaching on Women's Ordination Isn't Infallible ."

Just interesting, that's all; I haven't seen anything on this in what seem to be mainstream publications. (Of course, JPII's ban on even talking about it could be the reason!)

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I don't know exactly what this publication is; it calls itself "The Independent News Source."

The NCR is "independent" in the sense that it feels free to dissent radically from Catholic teaching and praxis and is proud to do so. As such, what ever else it is, it can't properly be seen to be a Catholic source at all. The editorial you linked to has been eviscerated by several online Catholic sources, including Fr Z here - seriously, read that link to see just how wrong the NCR piece is.

The U.S. Catholic piece was so thin and inaccurate that it was refuted in toto by one of the first comments below it (Richard M's "Hello Mr McRory").

I'm not necessarily saying there are no coherent dissenting voices on this issue (wrong, but coherent and deserving of attention) - just that these really aren't them.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Chesterbelloc - many thanks for your gracious words which are much appreciated.

CL - Catholic doctrine and practice can often seem harsh and intolerant both to outsiders as well as to those of the household of faith.It is incumbent upon us to interpret it with a maximum of charity.I entirely agree with you that what the Czech bishop did many years ago was outwith the bounds of canonical norms.However we have to look at his reasons - namely a love of the eucharist and a wish to make it available in appalling circumstances to as many of the faithful as possible.At that time Extraordinary ministers of the eucharist ,now reinstated,had been forgotten for centuries .The bishop would have known,I think, that a woman could bring the eucharist to the faithful.He would also have known,I think,that it would have been difficult for a table leg to celebrate the Eucharist and distribute the Sacred Species to the faithful.
As Catholics,who perhaps live in circumstances where the church does not suffer such difficulties,apart from those of her own making, we have to try to speak charitably of the said bishop.

Ken said that the church does not need one single 'boss' namely the pope.In religious terms,of course the pope is not the boss.God is the boss,Jesus Christ is the founder of the Church and the pope is the 'Servant of the servants of God.Anglicans,I think,recognise that,if the pope is to be seen as 'boss' so also is in each diocese of the Church of England the local bishop 'boss' in the same sense and indeed a 'boss' who before he (o she ?) can take up his(her) post has to swear allegiance to the secular 'boss',the English sovereign.In each individual parish the incumbent is also 'boss' In each case,however, that 'boss' is committed to the ministry of service of the faithful,the buiding up of the people of God on their way towards eternity.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

CL, I'm glad to see that you approved of my post so much you reposted it without comment [Smile]

As for your later post about ARCIC, so what? Who really cares about ARCIC? That kind of bureaucratic centralist search for a form of words to cover over differences is certainly very Anglican (Some Archdeacons seem to be able to talk like that ex tempore) but it has little relevance to what has actually changed on the ground between individuals and local churches, which is what really counts.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I accept all those things. I would go further and accept Petrine ministry if wasn't so centralised.

But I remain an Anglican.

Many of my friends have joined the ordinariate - what amuses me is that they are, by their own admission' less 'catholic' than me.

Far be it from me to criticise someone who wants to remain Anglican, after all, I did so myself for more than a decade while I had doubts growing in me about whether I could remain. But all the things which you claim to accept go against Anglican teaching. The sacrifice of the Mass for the living and the dead isn't to be found in authorised C of E material. Only by borrowing from the Catholic Church, can you incorporate these ideas into your worship.

I don't know in what context you are using the word "catholic" but your friends in the ordinariate who have come into communion with the See of Peter are much more Catholic than you are. Adopting a bit of Catholic liturgy and practice, while retaining the freedom of thought from the Protestant tradition, is what makes an Anglo-Catholic, because you've no need to obey anything you don't like. That may make you catholic, but certainly not Catholic.

The formularies of the C of E are not necessarily what many, indeed most Anglicans believe.

It is possible to define 'catholic' as wider than 'Roman Catholic.'

My friends who tell me I am 'more catholic than....' have been shocked by the number of RCs who do not go to confession, keep Sunday obligation, do not believe in the real presence (witness dodgy ablution practices by some priests) etc.

The one thing that put me off, when on the verge of crossing the Tiber, was to be told that:

a) if I didn't, I would go to Hell

and/or

b) that I was 'invincably ignorant.'

I know that 'invincible ignorance' is a technical term but the sheer arrogance of the RCC in using such a term made me decide that this was not a church where one journeyed in faith but one who had all the answers sewn up in advance. If I want that, I could just as easily become an evangelical fundamentalist.

[ 06. July 2011, 13:08: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

The one thing that put me off, when on the verge of crossing the Tiber, was to be told that:

a) if I didn't, I would go to Hell

and/or

b) that I was 'invincably ignorant.'

Really?

Gosh. How archaic.

Poor things.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
that I was 'invincably ignorant.'

Perhaps it was your spelling. [Biased]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
that I was 'invincably ignorant.'
Perhaps it was your spelling.

Indeed - I saw that but missed the edit button.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Leo - might one not be equally shocked at the nimber of Anglicans who do not go to church ?It is good that you are a practising Christian whatever community you belong to.

I should have thought that you would have enough experience of Catholicism to know that any Catholic (presumably this was a Catholic who told you this) who told you that unless you become a paid up member of the Roman church you would go to Hell ,was talking rot.While the Church does say 'extra ecclesiam nulla salus'(outside of the church no salvation) we know that many ,many people are part of the Catholic church without being in full communion.Unless you are convinced that the Catholic church is what it claims to be you are under no obligation to try to become a full member of it and you are morally obliged to remain where you believe you are in the right place.

If you really believe that this is the official view of the Catholic Church you are indeed far away from the Catholic church and could hardly be defined as 'catholic'

If what you say is indeed the official view of the Church why would the successor of St Peter have taken part in 'heretical worship' in a former Catholic ,but now Anglican church,conducted by a soi-disant'archbishop' who ,being a heretic,must clearly be destined for Hell ?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Leo - might one not be equally shocked at the nimber of Anglicans who do not go to church ?It is good that you are a practising Christian whatever community you belong to.

I should have thought that you would have enough experience of Catholicism to know that any Catholic (presumably this was a Catholic who told you this) who told you that unless you become a paid up member of the Roman church you would go to Hell ,was talking rot.While the Church does say 'extra ecclesiam nulla salus'(outside of the church no salvation) we know that many ,many people are part of the Catholic church without being in full communion.Unless you are convinced that the Catholic church is what it claims to be you are under no obligation to try to become a full member of it and you are morally obliged to remain where you believe you are in the right place.

If you really believe that this is the official view of the Catholic Church you are indeed far away from the Catholic church and could hardly be defined as 'catholic'

If what you say is indeed the official view of the Church why would the successor of St Peter have taken part in 'heretical worship' in a former Catholic ,but now Anglican church,conducted by a soi-disant'archbishop' who ,being a heretic,must clearly be destined for Hell ?

When has any pope rescinded these?:

quotes [Pope Eugenius IV, A.D. 1431-1447, at the Oecumenical Union Council of Florence]: "The Holy, Roman Church .... firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will 'go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels', unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

or

Pius IX: "It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord…….... the Catholic Church ..... is the temple of God, outside of which, except with the excuse of invincible ignorance, there is no hope of life or salvation."

My RC friend pointed these out to me as still being part of the teaching of the Majesterium. He has a PhD and has written much on theology.

He is my 'friend' no longer as I cannot tolerate any longer such arrogance.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

ALSO, "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." Note well that this is from Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, paragraph 14,

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Ken said that the church does not need one single 'boss' namely the pope.In religious terms,of course the pope is not the boss.God is the boss,Jesus Christ is the founder of the Church and the pope is the 'Servant of the servants of God.Anglicans,I think,recognise that,if the pope is to be seen as 'boss' so also is in each diocese of the Church of England the local bishop 'boss' in the same sense and indeed a 'boss' who before he (o she ?) can take up his(her) post has to swear allegiance to the secular 'boss',the English sovereign.In each individual parish the incumbent is also 'boss' In each case,however, that 'boss' is committed to the ministry of service of the faithful,the buiding up of the people of God on their way towards eternity.

The English sovereign is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England (whatever that means), not just the "secular boss".

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Thanks to those who wrote about the importance of the Church ,which is the very Ark of salvation,the mystical Body of Christ whom many Christians believe to be the Saviour of the world and the only mediator and advocate.

Leo quoted a Catholic passage from relatively modern times,saying that those who recognise the Catholic Church as the Body of Christ and who refuse to enter it are condemned.This supposes that those who do not recognise the Church as what she claims to be are not condemned.

Indeed no pope has rescinded what has been written before but there is a wider interpretation of what the 'Catholic church' is according to the present Catholic catechism in its Profession of Faith,Chapter 3 ,para.3

'From the beginning this one Church has been marked by a great diversity...Within the unity of the People of God,a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together....Sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity and the apostle has to exhort christians to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace ... The sole Church of Christ is that which our Saviour,after his resurrection entrusted to Peter's pastoral care,commissioning him and other apostles to extend and to rule it...This Church,constituted and organized as a society in the present world,subsists in the Catholic Church,which is governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.

However one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into those communities (resulting from such separation) and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as BROTHERS.

Furthermore,many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the VISIBLE confines of the Catholic Church : the written Word of God,the life of grace,faith,hope and charity.Christ's Spirit uses these churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ entrusted to the Catholic Church.

Who belongs to the Catholic Church ? All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of
God....And to it belong or are ordered :
the Catholic faithful,
others who believe in Christ,
all mankind called by God's grace to salvation.

These are all words from the catechism of the Catholic Church and aim to reconcile the teachings of earlier popes with a wider,more charitable,possibly even more Christian definition of what the Catholic Church understands of itself.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I don't know exactly what this publication is; it calls itself "The Independent News Source."
The NCR is "independent" in the sense that it feels free to dissent radically from Catholic teaching and praxis and is proud to do so. As such, what ever else it is, it can't properly be seen to be a Catholic source at all. The editorial you linked to has been eviscerated by several online Catholic sources, including Fr Z here - seriously, read that link to see just how wrong the NCR piece is.

The U.S. Catholic piece was so thin and inaccurate that it was refuted in toto by one of the first comments below it (Richard M's "Hello Mr McRory").

I'm not necessarily saying there are no coherent dissenting voices on this issue (wrong, but coherent and deserving of attention) - just that these really aren't them.

Well, Chesterbelloc, to be honest I'm not very convinced by Father Z.'s screed, which is mostly name-calling ("National Catholic Fishwrap," I believe it was) and only a very small scintilla of argument. Already I'm turned off.

But I will try reading it again sometime to see if I can get more than that out of it....

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Please do, TubaMirum - because there's more there than just polemic.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The Czech bishop in question did no such thing. They were lay women before the "ceremony" and they remained lay women after the "ceremony". Invalid matter is invalid matter; he may as well have tried to ordain a tree or a car or a horse.

This demands a Hell call but I can't be a***d.

I attended a Mass the other evening celebrated by a newly-ordained woman priest, assisted by her (visibly pregnant) vicar. It was one of the most moving liturgies I have ever witnessed. Both women radiated joy and happiness which was shared by the very diverse congregation. The traditional 'catholic' ceremonies of the new priest presenting flowers to Our Lady and her own mother, and the individual blessings after communion, took on a heightened significance. The priest as an ikon of the Christ who compared himself to a mother hen gathering the chicks under her wing, was far easier to recognise in them than in many a po-faced and finger-wagging male priest.

I just can't believe that God does not bless the ministries of these and countless other women priests. And call us all, male and female alike, to celebrate the inclusive generosity of the incarnate Christ.

I know that many Roman Catholics, unlike CL, yearn for the day when their church will recognise this development as God-inspired. Until then I am happy to remain an Anglican and be glad that our part of the Catholic Church can pioneer this and other insights for the eventual benefit of the whole. If that sounds triumphalist, so be it: I've had enough of Vatican triumphalism thank you very much.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
The English sovereign is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England (whatever that means), not just the "secular boss".

It means "secular boss".

Henry VIII wanted to be called "supreme head" of the Church of England. Elizabeth I reckoned that that job could only belong to Jesus and had the title changed to "Governor".

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I attended a Mass the other evening celebrated by a newly-ordained woman priest, assisted by her (visibly pregnant) vicar. It was one of the most moving liturgies I have ever witnessed. Both women radiated joy and happiness which was shared by the very diverse congregation. The traditional 'catholic' ceremonies of the new priest presenting flowers to Our Lady and her own mother, and the individual blessings after communion, took on a heightened significance. The priest as an ikon of the Christ who compared himself to a mother hen gathering the chicks under her wing, was far easier to recognise in them than in many a po-faced and finger-wagging male priest.

I just can't believe that God does not bless the ministries of these and countless other women priests. And call us all, male and female alike, to celebrate the inclusive generosity of the incarnate Christ.

Ahh, you've got me! How can I possibly argue against the theological, scriptural and magisterial weight of the "but they're lovely people" argument. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
I know that many Roman Catholics, unlike CL, yearn for the day when their church will recognise this development as God-inspired.

The Parousia will have come and gone and they'll still be waiting.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Ahh, you've got me! How can I possibly argue against the theological, scriptural and magisterial weight of the "but they're lovely people" argument.

I think you may have missed the "Mary, Mother of God" argument in your choler....

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Originally posted by CL:

quote:
Ahh, you've got me! How can I possibly argue against the theological, scriptural and magisterial weight of the "but they're lovely people" argument.

Read for comprehension. Did I say that? (They are, of course, but I am prepared to believe that you are a lovely person too.) That is not my point: it is that an inclusive priesthood helps to demonstrate the inclusiveness of God, in my view, and in that of many others. That might be a subjective judgement, but I would make a similarly subjective judgement by deciding to accept the Pope's teaching.

I also said

quote:

I know that many Roman Catholics, unlike CL, yearn for the day when their church will recognise this development as God-inspired.

and CL commented

quote:
The Parousia will have come and gone and they'll still be waiting.

It is good to know that you have inside knowledge of God's mind. Is that given at a recognised Catholic ceremony, and if so, why are so many orthodox Catholics reluctant to be so dogmatic?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Angloid is right. Its not the "nice people" agument.

Our parish church got its first woman vicar about 16 years ago. (The very wonderful April Keech) Some people objected. Some of them left. Many of them came back a while later. Many of those who didn't went to a nearby Baptist church which then promptly chose a woman minister - and some of them are still there. When she left about seven years later we has a big farewell service. Some of us stood up and said a few words. I said that no-one in that congregation (rather larger than the one we had had when she arrived) now doubted that God blessed the ordained ministry of women. That was true then and its still true now. It was our experience of her ministry that convinced the doubters, not any fluffy thoughts about niceness.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

The late great Cardinal Hume put it succinctly: we have been growing closer together, but as two parallel lines might grow closer. We are not converging.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Any sensible argument as to why women can't be priests has to be based in the actual requirements of the function.

And I have yet to see any evidence that having 'dangly bits' is remotely relevant to the function, so the argument will have to be based on some fundamental emotional/mental difference that means women can't quite do what men can do.

The alternative, of course, is that any valid reasons in the past for not allowing women to be priests was not because of their intrinsic 'faults' but because of external factors - culture, power and so on - that prevented it. And if those external factors belong to the past, then so does the conclusion that women are not suitable as priests.

This is why it's so vital to identify the REASONS for a decision like this. Saying 'it's just the way things are' isn't good enough. Because it's possible that it was because of the way things were. If the reasons can be properly identified, then we're in a position to ask whether the reasons still apply.

[ 08. July 2011, 03:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Angloid is right. Its not the "nice people" agument.

Our parish church got its first woman vicar about 16 years ago. (The very wonderful April Keech) Some people objected. Some of them left. Many of them came back a while later. Many of those who didn't went to a nearby Baptist church which then promptly chose a woman minister - and some of them are still there. When she left about seven years later we has a big farewell service. Some of us stood up and said a few words. I said that no-one in that congregation (rather larger than the one we had had when she arrived) now doubted that God blessed the ordained ministry of women. That was true then and its still true now. It was our experience of her ministry that convinced the doubters, not any fluffy thoughts about niceness.

A very similar experience to mine, in a traditional anglo-catholic parish that welcomed its first woman curate. Practically nobody left, and the initial 50-50 scepticism was quickly transformed into 100% acceptance. The woman whose first Mass I attended this week was part of that congregation.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The late great Cardinal Hume put it succinctly: we have been growing closer together, but as two parallel lines might grow closer. We are not converging.

Maybe it's me being thick, but I cannot come up with any way of parsing this sentence that makes sense. How do parallel lines ever grow closer together? I thought the whole point about them was that they always stayed exactly the same distance from each other?!?!

Posted by Yangtze (# 4965) on :

They might be one mile apart or one millimetre apart.

Like this | |

or like this | |

or like this | |

ETA: Hmm, well on my screen in the dialogue box those lines are a different number of spaces away from each other but after posting they're all right next to each other. So not such a good illustration after all. How about if I do this

|..........|

|.....|

|..|

[ 08. July 2011, 10:02: Message edited by: Yangtze ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I think that there is more to the difference between men and women as well as the obvious 'dangly bits'.Both men and women have 'dangly bits' anyway.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The late great Cardinal Hume put it succinctly: we have been growing closer together, but as two parallel lines might grow closer. We are not converging.
Maybe it's me being thick, but I cannot come up with any way of parsing this sentence that makes sense. How do parallel lines ever grow closer together? I thought the whole point about them was that they always stayed exactly the same distance from each other?!?!

It could make sense in some multi-dimensional geometries, for instance think of time zone lines on the earth, but I don't think that was what the Cardinal meant!

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The late great Cardinal Hume put it succinctly: we have been growing closer together, but as two parallel lines might grow closer. We are not converging.

Exactly.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

In a thread about perceived misogyny, it might not be wise to compare a woman with "a tree or a car or a horse."

Just sayin'.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that there is more to the difference between men and women as well as the obvious 'dangly bits'.Both men and women have 'dangly bits' anyway.

Well then. Someone ought to be able to identify the differences that are relevant to excluding women from the priesthood. Whether there are differences is not the question. The question is whether any of the differences mean something when it comes to fulfilling that function.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The late great Cardinal Hume put it succinctly: we have been growing closer together, but as two parallel lines might grow closer. We are not converging.
Exactly.

Exactly a meaningless contradiction? I'm not sure you meant that. If two lines are getting closer they aren't paralel,

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

The lines could have been bulging more...

(Coat, hat etc.)

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Exactly a meaningless contradiction? I'm not sure you meant that. If two lines are getting closer they aren't paralel,

erm, there's a helpful diagram above to show how parallel lines might get closer and remain parallel. No meaningless contradiction at all.

Posted by wilson (# 37) on :

It's a confused metaphor at best.

He was talking about the relative positions of the RCC and CoE over time. One would deduce from that that the "lines" trace the journey of each Church, i.e. that they are continuous. But if they're continuous they can either be parallel or moving closer but not both.

If instead of continuous lines we have line segments which are moveable markers representing the current position of each Church then these could remain parallel and come closer together. However I wouldn't say that's the straightforward reading of the phrase.

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that there is more to the difference between men and women as well as the obvious 'dangly bits'.Both men and women have 'dangly bits' anyway.
Well then. Someone ought to be able to identify the differences that are relevant to excluding women from the priesthood. Whether there are differences is not the question. The question is whether any of the differences mean something when it comes to fulfilling that function.

If there is indeed a question, Christ has answered it for us.

Women cannot be ordained to the Priesthood.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that there is more to the difference between men and women as well as the obvious 'dangly bits'.Both men and women have 'dangly bits' anyway.
Well then. Someone ought to be able to identify the differences that are relevant to excluding women from the priesthood. Whether there are differences is not the question. The question is whether any of the differences mean something when it comes to fulfilling that function.

People are not ordained to a 'function'.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that there is more to the difference between men and women as well as the obvious 'dangly bits'.Both men and women have 'dangly bits' anyway.
Well then. Someone ought to be able to identify the differences that are relevant to excluding women from the priesthood. Whether there are differences is not the question. The question is whether any of the differences mean something when it comes to fulfilling that function.
If there is indeed a question, Christ has answered it for us.

Women cannot be ordained to the Priesthood.

Christ? Or the Pope? If the latter, I seem to remember a pope stating that the earth didn't go round the sun. The sun went round the earth.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that there is more to the difference between men and women as well as the obvious 'dangly bits'.Both men and women have 'dangly bits' anyway.
Well then. Someone ought to be able to identify the differences that are relevant to excluding women from the priesthood. Whether there are differences is not the question. The question is whether any of the differences mean something when it comes to fulfilling that function.
If there is indeed a question, Christ has answered it for us.

Women cannot be ordained to the Priesthood.
Christ? Or the Pope? If the latter, I seem to remember a pope stating that the earth didn't go round the sun. The sun went round the earth.

What a thoroughly specious comparison. The pope is Christ's vicar on Earth, thus eminently qualified to express the mind of the Church that women not merely won't be ordained but in fact cannot be ordained (i.e it is an impossibility, in the dictionary definition of that word). Last time I checked they weren't required to be astronomers as part of the job description.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
It's a confused metaphor at best.

Please yourself. I find it quite simple and clear - and accurate.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
If there is indeed a question, Christ has answered it for us.

Women cannot be ordained to the Priesthood.

Where does Christ say that men can?

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I seem to remember a pope stating that the earth didn't go round the sun. The sun went round the earth.

OK, this chestnut is so old and rotten that it needs throwing on the fire straight away. The Church has NEVER had a defined, required-belief position on this issue.

So let's hear you argument first, before implying that the Church has been guilty of a dogmatic u-turn. You can start with telling me which pope it was that defined it, if you like.

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
It's a confused metaphor at best.

Oh indeed...

quote:

He was talking about the relative positions of the RCC and CoE over time. One would deduce from that that the "lines" trace the journey of each Church, i.e. that they are continuous. But if they're continuous they can either be parallel or moving closer but not both.

That's not necessarily true. You could apply a transformation that moved the whole of each line closer together.

This would make the metaphor suggest that the transform would retrospectively change the view of Pius IX. Or the transformation happened eternally before all ages...

quote:

If instead of continuous lines we have line segments which are moveable markers representing the current position of each Church then these could remain parallel and come closer together. However I wouldn't say that's the straightforward reading of the phrase.

But it does demonstrate that, regardless of their position on astronomy, cardinals are not that good at mathematics.

[ 08. July 2011, 22:41: Message edited by: 3rdFooter ]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

You could also say that some people miss the wood for the trees, over-analyse and apply mathematical theory to what is no more than an image. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

I rather liked the analogy.

I would be interested to see in what part of the bible Jesus is reported to have said anything about the gender of his priests. Or how the BVM and Mary Magdalene are seen in this respect.

Jesus selected Judas & Peter as disciples, does this mean all priests should conspire in the death of a friend and the denial of God at least once during their ordained life. Perhaps then going on a ritual journey of penance afterwards - maybe, as for Peter, at the time they enter in the role of bishop ?

[ 09. July 2011, 07:37: Message edited by: Think² ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:

I would be interested to see in what part of the bible Jesus is reported to have said anything about the gender of his priests.

Me too.

My current understanding is that Holy Tradition builds on the (well known) restrictive scriptures in the Pauline letters which were discussed (ad nauseam!) in the run up to the OoW within Anglicanism.

Also on the fact that Jesus' group of 12 disciples, who with the exception of Judas became regarded as foundational Apostles, were all males.

Also on the fact that the Last Supper was held with the Twelve and, after Judas had left, the Bread and Wine were demonstrated to them, with the injunction "Do this". In other words, they were authorised as priests over the feast and, being all male, there is no authorisation for females in that central act.

There is also something in the notion of the priest as an Ikon (representation?) of Christ involved in the thinking.

+++ John Paul 11 made the definitive statement that "the Church has no authority whatsoever to ordain women"; I think this meant "not in the past, not now, not ever". Here's the text.

Here is a link to a summary in "Catholic Answers"

The whole position is arguable, and arguable against. But JP11's missive is intended to be definitive and authoritative for Catholics. Whether they like it or not.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

PS. Should have included this link as well, since the Declaration is key to understanding JP11's missive.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Pretty much everything that Barnabas just said.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

You are going to have great difficulty finding Jesus say anything about the priesthood at all! The Twelve are limited to that number - why? Because of the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 foundational brothers of those tribes. After Judas just Matthias is appointed to keep to the number 12. Paul puts the kaybosh on that by being named as an Apostle as well.

This sort of discussion boils down to whether you accept the maxim of "that which I received, that also I pass on to you" from St Paul. That is the Catholic and Orthodox view on doctrine - it's not as fluid as it is for other traditions. There may be very good, totally valid arguments for something else, but if one is going to receive something then you receive it as it is.

That ultimately is what the Catholic Church's argument with the Anglican Church is: it has tinkered too often with the Sacrament of Orders. That's their business - but it does also mean they cannot at the same time argue that they have that which has been handed on. Because they have changed that which was handed on so that it is now something else.

[ 09. July 2011, 11:20: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Yes. The argument is as always about the essence of what has been handed on. The argument against OoW is that equality of worth should not be construed as identity of role. The counterbalance is "why not?" Or, in my case, "isn't that ultimately a matter of the sovereignty of God and the gifting He distributes?" In short, not everyone is cut out for such responsibilities, that's clear, but why limit the search and testing for who is on the basis of gender? In short, if someone displays the necessary character and aptitude, why should the question of gender matter?

The resolution of those questions continues to be disputed; which explains why we are in DH.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
That ultimately is what the Catholic Church's argument with the Anglican Church is: it has tinkered too often with the Sacrament of Orders. That's their business - but it does also mean they cannot at the same time argue that they have that which has been handed on. Because they have changed that which was handed on so that it is now something else.

Handed on = traditio - is tradition static. I am reminded of a talk I gave back in the year 2000 called CATHOLIC TRADITION: FOSSIL OR CHAMELION?:

"Through the Spirit....the power of what is remembered is made present afresh, and succeeding generations appropriate the event remembered....From the earliest times also the prophetic role has been linked to the apostolic, since the Spirit reminds us what may have been forgotten." (Disciples of Christ/RC Commission)

Sociology asks whether episcopacy is an adaptation of Roman imperial provincial government and whether the apostolic succession was stressed to secure the office of bishop against the erosion by C19 liberalism and secularism.

'Prince Albert's bedroom exactly as he left it?

"Tradition has been viewed in different ways. One approach is primarily concerned never to go beyond the bounds of scripture. Under the guidance of the Spirit undiscovered values and truths are sought in the Scriptures to illuminate the faith according to the needs of each generation. This is not slavery to the text of Scripture. It is an unfolding of the riches of the original revelation. Another approach, while different, does not necessarily contradict the former. In the conviction that the Holy Spirit is seeking to guide the Church into the fullness of truth, it draws upon everything in human experience and thought which will give to the content of revelation its fullest expression and widest application. It is primarily concerned with the growth of the seed of God's word from age to age." (ARCIC Final Report)

"But tradition is a dynamic process with inevitable admixture of truth and error; and formulations of faith change through the ages, not least because of changing contexts and situations." (Baptist response to Lima text)

"We are agreed that the development of doctrine and the production of confessions of faith is a dynamic process." (WCC)

Tradition is a passing on of skills and resources, tools for induction into a way of belonging.
The test for orthodoxy is if the classical models can still nourish life.
Things may often seem to be innovations to those who do not fully know the tradition.
Your experience, your story is of value. Tradition permits change and expects the unexpected.

"The tradition..and in particular the doctrinal tradition, is truly itself only when it throws itself away. That is, it is not the last word, just as it is not the first word. It is only within the dynamism of history as the place and the time of irreversible personal decisions that the Word is truly heard, and faith truly active." (R. Gregor Smith)

BETRAYING THE TRADITION?

'prodidomi' - to betray; paradidomi - to hand over
'traditor' - traitor; 'traditio' - to hand on.

God takes a risk with us in giving us tradition.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:
Originally posted by wilson:
It's a confused metaphor at best.

Please yourself. I find it quite simple and clear - and accurate.

But those are different lines in the diagram

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You could also say that some people miss the wood for the trees, over-analyse and apply mathematical theory to what is no more than an image.

Actually it wasn't until the idea of a mathematical transformation came up that I had any idea what the image was meant to be - that's a much simpler model than that diagram which looks like two broken lines which aren't paralell and isn't intuitive at all.

If the image is harder to understand than a vector transformation, I'd not advise using it as a sermon illustration!

I suppose the sermon illustration might be to move the palms of your hands closer together until they are almost touching but there is still an airgap between them. If you held them up so the congregation could see they would be in a traditional praying position. Praying together but not holding hands... that might work,

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Thank you, leo, for that explanation of the approach to Tradition held by those outside the Catholic Church. That was very helpful.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Also on the fact that the Last Supper was held with the Twelve and, after Judas had left, the Bread and Wine were demonstrated to them, with the injunction "Do this". In other words, they were authorised as priests over the feast and, being all male, there is no authorisation for females in that central act.

Of course, they were all Jewish, too. And all from Palestine....

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

Sorry to be really stupid but I still haven't worked out what Cardinal Hume meant. Was it that the C of E and Catholic church are getting closer by occasional step changes rather than gradually ? Or was it that they are becoming more similar but won't end up joining together ? Or was it something else entirely ?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Thank you, leo, for that explanation of the approach to Tradition held by those outside the Catholic Church. That was very helpful.

Though some of the statements that I quoted are agreements between the RCC and others.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Sorry to be really stupid but I still haven't worked out what Cardinal Hume meant. Was it that the C of E and Catholic church are getting closer by occasional step changes rather than gradually ? Or was it that they are becoming more similar but won't end up joining together ? Or was it something else entirely ?

Gosh, I am flummoxed by how much trouble this has all caused. So here goes.

It is asserted that we are moving closer together, which is true. However, it is not in a way that means we are converging. If you picture that as two lines, convergence would look like this:

/ \

Those two lines will eventually meet as their ends move towards each other. One would call that unity.

However, our getting closer isn't happening like that in reality. For a time it seemed as if it was, but in fact we were simply getting closer to each other side-by-side as it were. Hence two parallel lines:

| |

They might be moving closer to each other, but there is no real meeting between them, no point at which there is an intersection and they join.

We are travelling on two different tracks. Sometimes those tracks are close, sometimes the gap is widened.

Of course, some would argue that something else completely has happened: we WERE converging but are once again diverging:

\ /
/ \

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

Pondering the people I know, it looks more like this:

| | /\\\ ->

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Those lines represent, from left to right:

The Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, URC, Lutherans and post-evangelicals. Not a bad diagram [Big Grin]

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

Close, but no cigar.#

They represent (L to R)

| Conservative Evangelical

| A certain snooty kind of Anglicanism

/ A type of Roman Catholic (a lot in the Ordinariate are going to be very disappointed with what they find)

\ Liberal URC

\ Liberal Anglican who aren't as liberal as they like to think

\ Methodist desperately trying to catch up with the Liberal Anglicans

-> a very peculiar type of Anglican who don't quite get the concept of the rest of the CofE.

Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:

I would be interested to see in what part of the bible Jesus is reported to have said anything about the gender of his priests.
Me too.

My current understanding is that Holy Tradition builds on the (well known) restrictive scriptures in the Pauline letters which were discussed (ad nauseam!) in the run up to the OoW within Anglicanism.

Also on the fact that Jesus' group of 12 disciples, who with the exception of Judas became regarded as foundational Apostles, were all males.

Also on the fact that the Last Supper was held with the Twelve and, after Judas had left, the Bread and Wine were demonstrated to them, with the injunction "Do this". In other words, they were authorised as priests over the feast and, being all male, there is no authorisation for females in that central act.

There is also something in the notion of the priest as an Ikon (representation?) of Christ involved in the thinking.

+++ John Paul 11 made the definitive statement that "the Church has no authority whatsoever to ordain women"; I think this meant "not in the past, not now, not ever". Here's the text.

Here is a link to a summary in "Catholic Answers"

The whole position is arguable, and arguable against. But JP11's missive is intended to be definitive and authoritative for Catholics. Whether they like it or not.

I see your Catholic Answers Forum and raise you with a Cardinal quoted in the
National Catholic Reporter.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Think I'd better clarify! I'm a nonconformist who believes in the priesthood of all believers (all really meaning all) and attends a church which has had women elders for 20 years (a change for which I campaigned in the 70's and 80's).

My information about the Catholic position has been gained mostly through my time on SoF; reading loads of interesting posts and links. Quoting sources doesn't mean I agree with them. I said the position was arguable, and arguable-against. I'm one of those who argues against the Catholic position.

Perhaps Cardinal Policarpo's pronouncement needs to be read carefully in conjunction with JP11's Apostolic letter? On the face of it, he's flying in the face of it! But what do I know? Some Catholics are actually rather good in using words precisely, in order to stay in line and sound out of line at the same time. It's not a knack I have myself. My lot just argue interminably and split from time to time. I love them despite their argumentativeness and also because of it.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

Thanks for taking the time to explain, Triple Tiara, it makes sense to me now.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
I see your Catholic Answers Forum and raise you with a Cardinal quoted in the
National Catholic Reporter.

See what I mean about the NCR? Dissident to it's very bones. This is not a neutral news source.

Unfortunately for those who are trying to subvert the teaching authority of the Church, the Cardinal has retracted his recent comments.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Close, but no cigar.#

They represent (L to R)

/ A type of Roman Catholic (a lot in the Ordinariate are going to be very disappointed with what they find)

I think this is why the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament has just donated £1 million to the Ordinariate. Insulate themselves from the harbingers of disappointment.

quote:
-> a very peculiar type of Anglican who don't quite get the concept of the rest of the CofE.

Isn't that most of us??!

[ 10. July 2011, 08:44: Message edited by: FooloftheShip ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Some Catholics are actually rather good in using words precisely, in order to stay in line and sound out of line at the same time.

In our neck of the woods, this is called "Anglican Fudge."

Of course, Catholics have a lot more doctrine 'n' discipline to work with, so their version will be more intricate, no doubt....

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
I see your Catholic Answers Forum and raise you with a Cardinal quoted in the
National Catholic Reporter.
See what I mean about the NCR? Dissident to it's very bones. This is not a neutral news source.

Unfortunately for those who are trying to subvert the teaching authority of the Church, the Cardinal has retracted his recent comments.

Thank goodness Anglican's don't have the thought police and can say what they like - until, that is, the dreaded 'Covenant' comes in.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
I see your Catholic Answers Forum and raise you with a Cardinal quoted in the
National Catholic Reporter.
See what I mean about the NCR? Dissident to it's very bones. This is not a neutral news source.

Unfortunately for those who are trying to subvert the teaching authority of the Church, the Cardinal has retracted his recent comments.

I still don't see that the Pope or anyone else has given a theological reason for the non-ordination of women. Unless you believe that by definition any papal statement is theological.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

"That which we have received" is a pretty solid theological argument, I would suggest Angloid. At least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. There are all sorts of things to do with the sacraments that we receive without trying to think up some reason for them. What is the theological reason for using bread and wine, or water at baptism? Or oil for anointing. Why not use some other materials instead? Well, some do of course, as eccles discussions regularly show. But the Catholic Church uses that which we were instructed to use, and don't feel the need to delve into the psychology of Jesus to show why he was wrong and we now know better so think we should change what he handed on to us.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Thank goodness Anglican's don't have the thought police and can say what they like - until, that is, the dreaded 'Covenant' comes in.

Thank goodness for the Magisterium which is able to say when someone has moved beyond what the Church teaches. We've seen far too many people down the ages coming up with novel and deceptive ideas which have distracted and divided the Church. Oh hello there Arius and Marcion and Pelagius. I hadn't spotted you hovering over there in the corner!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
"That which we have received" is a pretty solid theological argument, I would suggest Angloid.

Which being interpreted is simply 'we've always done it that way.' In many cases that is not a knock-down argument against change. Anyway, Jesus said 'do this' with respect to bread and wine, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that he laid down the rules for who should do this. Or how it should be done.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Which being interpreted is simply 'we've always done it that way.'

As the Orthodox Mousethief once interjected when someone used that as some sort of put-down: "What's wrong with that?"

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

What undermines the 'we've always done it that way' argument is that is used so selectively. The Roman Catholic Magesterium has decided to alter the tradition on its own infallibility, the preference for a celibate presbyteriat, papal supremacy, the bodily assumption of Mary and the filioque*, yet somehow gets all rigid about changes in understanding (as opposed to changes in tradition) in other parts of the catholic church.

Don't give me 'the Catholic magesterium has never changed anything' because if it were true the great schism would never have happened. Most of the distance between the RC church and the rest of the church is laterly out of the RCC's inability to listen to anyone else.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Thank goodness Anglican's don't have the thought police and can say what they like.

Yeah, cos it's so oppressive to expect Cardinals to assent to the magisterium.

3rdFooter, that would be a whole 'nother dead horse.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

And marriage! Don't forget marriage, added as a Sacrament in the 11th C.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Don't be silly, TubaMirum. St Augustine, for example, was talking about the status of marriage as an established sacrament as early 400.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Don't be silly, TubaMirum. St Augustine, for example, was talking about the status of marriage as an established sacrament as early 400.

And,

quote:
Jerome wrote: "It is not disparaging wedlock to prefer virginity. No one can make a comparison between two things if one is good and the other evil" (Letter 22). Tertullian argued that marriage "consists essentially in fornication" (An Exhortation to Chastity") Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage said that the first commandment given to men was to increase and multiply, but now that the earth was full there was no need to continue this process of multiplication. Augustine was clear that if everybody stopped marrying and having children that would be an admirable thing; it would mean that the Kingdom of God would return all the sooner and the world would come to an end.

This negative view of marriage was reflected in the lack of interest shown by the Church authorities. Although the Church quickly produced liturgies to celebrate Baptism and the Eucharist, no special ceremonial was devised to celebrate Christian marriage, nor was it considered important for couples to have their nuptials blessed by a priest. People could marry by mutual agreement in the presence of witnesses. This system, known as Spousals, persisted after the Reformation. At first the old Roman pagan rite was used by Christians, although modified superficially. The first detailed account of a Christian wedding in the West dates from the 9th century and was identical to the old nuptial service of Ancient Rome.

Posted by Invictus_88 (# 15352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
"That which we have received" is a pretty solid theological argument, I would suggest Angloid.
Which being interpreted is simply 'we've always done it that way.' In many cases that is not a knock-down argument against change. Anyway, Jesus said 'do this' with respect to bread and wine, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that he laid down the rules for who should do this. Or how it should be done.

In terms of obeying Christ, it makes more sense to obey sacred tradition (as you say, "because we've always done it that way"), than it does to establish protestant 'innovations' (read: "make things up").

Who knows what's most appropriate in a priesthood: Christ, or some political radicals in the 1600s? I know who I would put my faith in..

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Yeah, cos it's so oppressive to expect Cardinals to assent to the magisterium.

Well if senior clergy won't re-examine understanding and and anyone minor gets excommunicated for it, how do you protect against invincible ignorance? What are cardinals for then accept making sure the new pope is the same as the old pope? (we have established that is ain't doing the maths [Big Grin]

)

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

3rdFooter, that would be a whole 'nother dead horse.

First the out-riders, then the whole bleedin' cavelry

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

(BTW: apparently Augustine thought that the Lord's Prayer and the Creed were sacraments, too, I'm reading.

I'm not quite sure what's actually meant by "sacrament," then, according to old Auggie....)

Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
In terms of obeying Christ, it makes more sense to obey sacred tradition (as you say, "because we've always done it that way"), than it does to establish protestant 'innovations' (read: "make things up").

Who knows what's most appropriate in a priesthood: Christ, or some political radicals in the 1600s? I know who I would put my faith in..

Ooh! Ooh! Me Sir! I know this one! Its one of those iregler verbs that only the one true church can conjugate.

* We know the mind of Christ in interpreting the tradition
* You are thinking things that the magisterium has views on, please present yourself to the CDF
* He is a protestant innovator

Of course the "Ecumenical" [Killing me]

Council of Trent was clearly doing nothing new in the 16th Century.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
a lot in the Ordinariate are going to be very disappointed with what they find

I can only speak for myself, but I have experienced no disappointment at joining the Catholic Church via the Ordinariate. From September of this year, Mass will be celebrated in the Ordinary Form, using the new, dignified and faithful to the Latin, English translation, where we won't have to cringe at the awful English. Thanks to Pope Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae, all the Catholic faithful now have the right to attend Masses celebrated in the Extraordinary Form, the Mass of Ages, time honoured for hundreds of years, and a repository of the true faith.

In the Ordinariate, once the CDF has approved our traditional language liturgy, we will have a magnificent rite largely based on Sarum (according to Mgr Andrew Burnham). We will also have one of the great treasures of Anglican Patrimony, Evensong (hopefully with Benediction). We have true scaramental assurance, and received doctrine, free of the reinventions of the Protestant reformers. Compared with such an Aladdins Cave of treasures, things like womens ordination pale into insignificance.

The only things I miss about the Church of England are its beautiful choral tradition and the magnificent English church buildings. Catholic buildings in England tend to be uninspiring with exceptions like St Etheldreda's, Ely Place, and Brompton Oratory, both of which I've recently visited. But the choral tradition is something we may be able to build up in the Ordinariate, and architecture is quite unimportant in the face of all the advantages. I am totally happy and confident at having taken this big decision after a decade of soul searching.

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that there is more to the difference between men and women as well as the obvious 'dangly bits'.Both men and women have 'dangly bits' anyway.
Well then. Someone ought to be able to identify the differences that are relevant to excluding women from the priesthood. Whether there are differences is not the question. The question is whether any of the differences mean something when it comes to fulfilling that function.
If there is indeed a question, Christ has answered it for us.

Women cannot be ordained to the Priesthood.

Oh, Christ has answered it for us? Thank goodness for that - and just in time, it's the episcopate debate at deanery synod tomorrow.

Sorry to be dim, could you just remind me of the verses where he is asked "can women be ordained to the priesthood?" and answers "no"? It's just that I have the 'justice' verses and the 'woman learning at his feet' verses and the 'woman witnesses news of the resurrection' verses and the 'woman telling the news of the Messiah to the Samaritans' verses - but I haven't found the 'women cannot be ordained Christian priests' verses. Of course I haven't found the 'Men can be ordained Christian priests' verses either, so I may be looking in the wrong place.

anne

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

PaulTH:

quote:
We have true scaramental assurance, and received doctrine, free of the reinventions of the Protestant reformers. Compared with such an Aladdins Cave of treasures, things like womens ordination pale into insignificance.

Yeah, keeping half of humanity in a theological and administrative ghetto. No prob.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

TubaMirum, your quotes proves nothing except that viginity was, and is, considered ontologically preferrable to marriage, many of the Fathers thought the end-times were "nigher" than they were, and that matrimony had and still has as its ministers no-one but the couple themselves. What does it say about whether Christian marriage was early considered sacramental? Nothing. Given that they had the Gospels and Paul's epistles, we can be sure that in general the early Church put a high status (like Jesus and Paul) upon matrimony - that "great mystery". If it was so bad, according to the early Church, why did it (and they) not just die out?

[ 10. July 2011, 21:48: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Yeah, keeping half of humanity in a theological and administrative ghetto. No prob.

Suspend your disbelief for just one second, Lyda*Rose: supposing it were not God's will for the Church that the ordained ministry be open to women, would the Church's adherence to His will be unjust? Because that, generally, is what the Catholics I know and whose authority I serve under do believe.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Yeah, keeping half of humanity in a theological and administrative ghetto. No prob.

Of the 1.2 billion people in the world who are Catholic, if approx half of them are women, and I have no statistics on that, then 0.6 billiom women are willingly being kept in a theological and administrative ghetto. This is nonsense. People can genuinely believe in the Catholic or Orthodox faith and de facto belong to churches which don't ordain women.

I am getting fed up of saying this amid accusations of misogyny: I embrace and uphold Catholic doctrine. I reject and totally do not support Protestant doctrine. Protestants (some of them) ordain women. But they usually don't believe in a sacramental priesthood. Catholics don't ordain women. But we do believe in a sacramental priesthood handed down from the Lord's Supper. This is not a man/woman issue.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
TubaMirum, your quotes proves nothing except that viginity was, and is, considered ontologically preferrable to marriage, many of the Fathers thought the end-times were "nigher" than they were, and that matrimony had and still has as its ministers no-one but the couple themselves. What does it say about whether Christian marriage was early considered sacramental? Nothing. Given that they had the Gospels and Paul's epistles, we can be sure that in general the early Church put a high status (like Jesus and Paul) upon matrimony - that "great mystery". If it was so bad, according to the early Church, why did it (and they) not just die out?

Chesterbelloc, let's not go on about this. What I said was this: Marriage was not added to Catholic doctrine as a Sacrament until the 11th Century. It's really not a disputable question; it's a plain fact.

Actually, I think it was not officially pronounced "one of the seven sacracments" until some council or other in the 14th Century. This is clearly a change in doctrine, which is what was on the table for discussion at the time. It doesn't matter what Augustine said in the 4th Century; lots of people have said lots of things over time. The point is that the church didn't decide to make this an official part of doctrine for over 1000 years - that is, the church changed its teaching on something.

Really, it's quite simple.

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Yeah, keeping half of humanity in a theological and administrative ghetto. No prob.
....
I am getting fed up of saying this amid accusations of misogyny: I embrace and uphold Catholic doctrine. I reject and totally do not support Protestant doctrine. Protestants (some of them) ordain women. But they usually don't believe in a sacramental priesthood. Catholics don't ordain women. But we do believe in a sacramental priesthood handed down from the Lord's Supper. This is not a man/woman issue.

PaulTH,
I understand that it must be really irritating for people who are not misogynistic, but are opposed to the ordination of women, to be constantly accused of sexism. I know that it can be an unfair accusation and please understand that it is usually not made from a desire to hurt. Rather, it usually stems (as does much of the tone of this entire debate) from our different experiences.

When one has heard and been the recipient of sexist attitudes to a greater or lesser degree for many years, one may become more sensitive to them and perhaps see them where they don't exist.

But I'm afraid that that doesn't mean that there is never sexism underlying anti OoW attitudes. Many people manage to easily combine good old-fashioned misogyny with their theological, ecclesial and other objections to the ordination of women and I'm afraid that some people don't have any objections other than misogyny.

In the light of that, comments such as

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This is not a man/woman issue.

and

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
We have true scaramental assurance, and received doctrine, free of the reinventions of the Protestant reformers. Compared with such an Aladdins Cave of treasures, things like womens ordination pale into insignificance.

may sometimes be heard as:

This is not a man/woman issue for me

and

We have true scaramental assurance, and received doctrine, free of the reinventions of the Protestant reformers. Compared with such an Aladdins Cave of treasures, things like womens ordination pale into insignificance for me

And I'm afraid that for me, at least, this is a 'man/woman' issue and it won't be fading into insignificance anytime soon.

anne

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

The idea of the development of doctrine is no news. Almost everything developed and evolved to some extent. If you wanted to be really radical you should have referred to the Canon of the New Testament, which was not formally declared as the 27 Books as we now accept them until the Council of Trent. Yes, you read that right.

Doctrine is still developing and unfolding, and so is moral teaching. John Paul II's stance on life and the "seamless robe" idea has led to a fairly robust Catholic stance against the death penalty in recent years, for example. It was not thus before.

It is not a Catholic claim that everything came down to us as is directly from Jesus. A few posts above I point out that you won't find anything from Jesus about the priesthood as such.

However ......

there are indeed some things which have come down and which we do not dare to alter. Allowing for the remarriage of divorcees - immensely painful and pastorally problematic - is a big example. The unaltered fact of a male apostolic ministry is another.

Now, if it were up to me today, I totally would say yes to the ordination of women. I would also say yes to the remarriage of (some) divorcees. But it's not up to me, or anyone else for that matter, Pope included, because the weight of "that which we have received" bears to heavily.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Well, TT: IMO, the Church should stop looking for any other justification, and just argue straight out that it's "tradition" and nothing else that's at play. I don't think anybody could argue with that - as they are not arguing the issue with the Orthodox, for instance. (That I know of, that is; maybe there is some movement in that direction I haven't heard of.)

But the whole "not proper matter" line of argument is kind of tired at this point. And it's bizarre to boot - and probably heretical.

So just stop it now, RCC.

(I've just begun to think there may be some sort of major division in the Church in the future over this issue; one part will keep to "tradition" and one part will change. I don't see the status quo holding much longer, anyway....)

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anne:
. . . But I'm afraid that that doesn't mean that there is never sexism underlying anti OoW attitudes. Many people manage to easily combine good old-fashioned misogyny with their theological, ecclesial and other objections to the ordination of women and I'm afraid that some people don't have any objections other than misogyny.

In the light of that, comments such as

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This is not a man/woman issue.
and

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
We have true scaramental assurance, and received doctrine, free of the reinventions of the Protestant reformers. Compared with such an Aladdins Cave of treasures, things like womens ordination pale into insignificance.
may sometimes be heard as:

This is not a man/woman issue for me

and

We have true scaramental assurance, and received doctrine, free of the reinventions of the Protestant reformers. Compared with such an Aladdins Cave of treasures, things like womens ordination pale into insignificance for me

And I'm afraid that for me, at least, this is a 'man/woman' issue and it won't be fading into insignificance anytime soon.

anne

This is approximately the argument I tried to make lo these many posts back (though anne makes it better than I did).

But IMO, the tack is worse than "it's not a man/woman issue for me", etc.

Because what it comes down to, regardless of the purest of motives held by the (masculine) utterer, is that the OoW becomes, with this statement, is "it's not a man/woman issue for you" (the female recipient of the utterance).

ISTM that telling a woman she's disqualified from certain roles on the basis of her sex, and then claiming that's not a "man/woman" issue is simply not a tenable position to take. In fact, it's preposterous as well as untenable. If it's her "womanness" that disqualifies her, how can it be anything BUT a "man/woman" issue?

I don't claim that you, PaulTH, are mysogynistic; I don't know you. But as I noted earlier, those who align themselves with what can legitimately be seen as a mysogynistic stance are going to be seen, rightly or wrongly, by many people as sharing that value.

It's an awfully difficult balancing act. While (as an ex-Christian) I hold no brief for those on either bank of the Tiber, and trust that you have followed where your conscience has led, I can only continue to wonder what your self-reported non-mysogynistic conscience has to say on this issue.

The fact is that the majority of people reared in a particular faith tradition seem to remain in it. It's no good pointing to half-a-billion women (or whatever the numbers) claiming the RCC as spiritual home as proof of non-mysogyny. How many of them are actually observant? How many are actually satisfied with the status quo? How many are actively working for change? How many are mysogynists themselves?

Lots of people claim to be Democrats, too, but that doesn't mean they won't vote for their good buddy Joe for City Council when he runs as a Republican.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I think that there is more to the difference between men and women as well as the obvious 'dangly bits'.Both men and women have 'dangly bits' anyway.
Well then. Someone ought to be able to identify the differences that are relevant to excluding women from the priesthood. Whether there are differences is not the question. The question is whether any of the differences mean something when it comes to fulfilling that function.
If there is indeed a question, Christ has answered it for us.

Women cannot be ordained to the Priesthood.

Nice way to COMPLETELY miss my point, which is that some explanations of the reasons is required so that it's possible for a person like me, who doesn't just assume these things, can work out whether this was a rule for all eternity or for a particular period of time.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Which being interpreted is simply 'we've always done it that way.'
As the Orthodox Mousethief once interjected when someone used that as some sort of put-down: "What's wrong with that?"

It's the difference between blind following of a procedure without having a clue why it was thought up in the first place, and following a procedure because you understand the reasoning behind it.

I'm all for following rules, but that's because I consider the rationale for them. I understand what the rule achieves. It also puts me in a position to point out when a rule is no longer working and then propose a better alternative.

Lest anyone think that rules should never change, I point you to your Bible. It has an Old Testament and a New Testament. There's a reason it's divided into two distinct sections like that.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The idea of the development of doctrine is no news. Almost everything developed and evolved to some extent. If you wanted to be really radical you should have referred to the Canon of the New Testament, which was not formally declared as the 27 Books as we now accept them until the Council of Trent. Yes, you read that right.

Doctrine is still developing and unfolding, and so is moral teaching. John Paul II's stance on life and the "seamless robe" idea has led to a fairly robust Catholic stance against the death penalty in recent years, for example. It was not thus before.

It is not a Catholic claim that everything came down to us as is directly from Jesus. A few posts above I point out that you won't find anything from Jesus about the priesthood as such.

However ......

there are indeed some things which have come down and which we do not dare to alter. Allowing for the remarriage of divorcees - immensely painful and pastorally problematic - is a big example. The unaltered fact of a male apostolic ministry is another.

Now, if it were up to me today, I totally would say yes to the ordination of women. I would also say yes to the remarriage of (some) divorcees. But it's not up to me, or anyone else for that matter, Pope included, because the weight of "that which we have received" bears to heavily.

So what is it that leads to the MC Hammer approach to OOW, when the number of books in the NT and sacrament of marriage were altered. You are telling me there is less weight of tradition behind the contents of the bible ? How do you determine that ?

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

The point is that once something is settled, it is not up for discussion anymore Think. So the NT Canon, for example, is a settled matter - no-one is proposing a change to the Canon now, though once upon a time the arguments raged: should the Book of the Apocalypse be included, for example. Luther wanted the Epistle of James excluded. The usage of Books varied for a long time, but eventually that ceased because the Canon was closed. There has been no such variation in the case of ordaining men only - which is why some people search for evidence that there were in fact instances of ordaining women. They never come up with anything substantial. The arguments I have seen usually invoke mosaics and the like which are said to portray women presbyters - like the famous Theodora Episcopa in the Church of Sta Prassede in Rome.

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Well, TT: IMO, the Church should stop looking for any other justification, and just argue straight out that it's "tradition" and nothing else that's at play.

I would agree. I tend to wince st some stuff that is said, including by eminent commentators.

[ 11. July 2011, 12:25: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Custom without truth is the antiquity of error.

- Cyprian

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Custom. Hmmmm. Custom is not the same as Tradition.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

I have Holy Tradition
You have customs
He has Protestant "innovations"

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Custom. Hmmmm. Custom is not the same as Tradition.

I honestly do not see how you can possibly sustain this point, especially when dealing with a quote that was written close to 2 millennia ago in a different language which has been translated a variety of different ways. But even in modern English the words are readily interchangeable. Whether you use the word 'custom' or 'tradition', the point is exactly the same - the fact that a practice has been handed down for a long period of time does not, in and of itself, mean that the practice is correct.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The point is that once something is settled, it is not up for discussion anymore Think.

Surely you can only know that a thousand years hence, celibacy/marriage for priests has been settled and then unsettled. I imagine people thought marital status was settled until someone came up with a liturgy.

There is an argument going on now about the role of women. Ordinations may have been performed only very rarely - but you could easily make an argument from the existence of female saints that God has repeatedly shown the possibility of the revelation of the Holy Spirit in the lives of women *and thereby* pointed the way to a priesthood.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I'd like to agree with you but being a saint is not a prerequisite for priesthood. Quite the reverse, in most cases.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Yeah, keeping half of humanity in a theological and administrative ghetto. No prob.
Suspend your disbelief for just one second, Lyda*Rose: supposing it were not God's will for the Church that the ordained ministry be open to women, would the Church's adherence to His will be unjust? Because that, generally, is what the Catholics I know and whose authority I serve under do believe.

Then for your God, women are mere appendages swiped from the side of Adam to be helpmeets to the male sex. And if Christ as a male, is so ontologically different from female, I doubt his salvation is even meant for my sisters or me. In the Incarnation he only joined his maleness to Divinity, not his general humanity. If a woman does not share enough of his humanity to represent him at the altar, it doesn't seem like any of her nature was significantly joined with his.

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :

Lyda Rose: [Overused]

I recently watched, or re-watched, Gentleman's Agreement. The film makes its point in the laborious style of the era, but even so: The character Dave helps Kathy see that offering silence (even if the silence is an apalled one) in response to an anti-Semitic joke is exactly what allows anti-Semitic jokes to continue to be made.

Silence -- or as in this case, re-direction to some other point (it's tradition; it's settled; it's a direct order from Christ / the Pope / the Magisterium, so I must bow to it even though I disagree with it) -- in response to unequal treatment of allegedly equal believers fosters the continuation of unequal treatment -- which, of course, is what has made it a 2,000 y.o. tradition.

Considering the number of sincere US Catholics I know who are actively working for change in exactly this position of the church, it seems entirely possible that this tradition is closing in on the latter part of its shelf-life.

How will your conscience deal with that?

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Custom. Hmmmm. Custom is not the same as Tradition.
I honestly do not see how you can possibly sustain this point, especially when dealing with a quote that was written close to 2 millennia ago in a different language which has been translated a variety of different ways. But even in modern English the words are readily interchangeable. Whether you use the word 'custom' or 'tradition', the point is exactly the same - the fact that a practice has been handed down for a long period of time does not, in and of itself, mean that the practice is correct.

My point is very specific and you miss it: the Tradition is not just some custom. It is that to which we are called to remain faithful. You ought to read fully the context of the sentence which you lift from Cyprian. I do not think he backs your argument as you might imagine.

quote:
9. But if there be among us, most beloved brother, the fear of God, if the maintenance of the faith prevail, if we keep the precepts of Christ, if we guard the incorrupt and inviolate sanctity of His spouse, if the words of the Lord abide in our thoughts and hearts, when he says, Do you think, when the Son of man comes, shall He find faith on the earth Luke 18:8 then, because we are God's faithful soldiers, who war for the faith and sincere religion of God, let us keep the camp entrusted to us by God with faithful valour. Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, to prevent the truth from prevailing and conquering; for custom without truth is the antiquity of error. On which account, let us forsake the error and follow the truth, knowing that in Esdras also the truth conquers, as it is written: Truth endures and grows strong to eternity, and lives and prevails for ever and ever. With her there is no accepting of persons or distinctions; but what is just she does: nor in her judgments is there unrighteousness, but the strength, and the kingdom, and the majesty, and the power of all ages. Blessed be the Lord God of truth! This truth Christ showed to us in His Gospel, and said, I am the truth. John 14:6 Wherefore, if we are in Christ, and have Christ in us, if we abide in the truth, and the truth abides in us, let us keep fast those things which are true.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

And he continues thus:

quote:
But there is a brief way for religious and simple minds, both to put away error, and to find and to elicit truth. For if we return to the head and source of divine tradition, human error ceases; and having seen the reason of the heavenly sacraments, whatever lay hid in obscurity under the gloom and cloud of darkness, is opened into the light of the truth. If a channel supplying water, which formerly flowed plentifully and freely, suddenly fail, do we not go to the fountain, that there the reason of the failure may be ascertained, whether from the drying up of the springs the water has failed at the fountainhead, or whether, flowing thence free and full, it has failed in the midst of its course; that so, if it has been caused by the fault of an interrupted or leaky channel, that the constant stream does not flow uninterruptedly and continuously, then the channel being repaired and strengthened, the water collected may be supplied for the use and drink of the city, with the same fertility and plenty with which it issues from the spring? And this it behooves the priests of God to do now, if they would keep the divine precepts, that if in any respect the truth have wavered and vacillated, we should return to our original and Lord, and to the evangelical and tradition; and thence may arise the ground of our action, whence has taken rise both our order and our origin.

Proof texting the Fathers is as dangerous as proof-texting the Scriptures.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

No it's not. Because I agree entirely with what he's saying.

Go to the source. Find out where your tradition came from. That's precisely what I've been saying. If the source is a good one, then the tradition is good. If the source ISN'T a good one, then the tradition is in error and the fact that the tradition is of long-standing doesn't make it any better.

There's been one shot at glibly asserting that Christ's teaching is the source. And it's precisely that assertion that I am challenging, because - as others have already pointed out - Christ never did anything quite so obvious as saying 'thou shalt not have women priests'.

[ 12. July 2011, 01:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Then for your God, women are mere appendages swiped from the side of Adam to be helpmeets to the male sex.

Whoah. That is a complete non-sequitur.

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
In the Incarnation [our Lord] only joined his maleness to Divinity, not his general humanity.

Where did you get this from? That's certainly not what the Catholic Church teaches...

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
If a woman does not share enough of his humanity to represent him at the altar, it doesn't seem like any of her nature was significantly joined with his.

...Which makes this misguided too, I'm afraid.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Christ never did anything quite so obvious as saying 'thou shalt not have women priests'.

But the burden of proof for an all-male presbyterate being mere custom lies with those who reject it.

If Christ had wanted to do anything as radical (to His followers) as establishing a ministry that included women he would have had to do something pretty explicitly obvious - like including a woman in the twelve, or at least some explicit spoken teaching on this controversial issue (He was good at those) - in order to get the message across. Since He 100% "failed" to get that message across to anyone for practically the whole history of the Church until now...

Prima facie, Christ not commissioning any woman whatsoever as one of the twelve (with whom the ordained ministry began) and the Apostolic tradition being a universally male episcopate (and subsequently presbyterate) is proof for Christ's will for the Church. It's not knockdown proof, of course - but it means those who want to argue otherwise need even stronger and more explicit arguments from Christ Himself. And those simply don't seem to exist. Any doubt that remains, therefore, must be outweighed by the Tradition and therefore gives us no authority for ordaining women whatsoever - which is precisely what the Church's teaching says.

On the isssue of "settledness", you must know that your example of a celibate priesthood is a poor one. That has NEVER been settled as a matter of doctrine - and in not even now settled as a matter of universal custom or discipline. You're comparing apples and oranges.

[ 12. July 2011, 09:10: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Christ never did anything quite so obvious as saying 'thou shalt not have women priests'.
But the burden of proof for an all-male presbyterate being mere custom lies with those who reject it.

If Christ had wanted to do anything as radical (to His followers) as establishing a ministry that included women he would have had to do something pretty explicitly obvious - like including a woman in the twelve, or at least some explicit spoken teaching on this controversial issue (He was good at those) - in order to get the message across. Since He 100% "failed" to get that message across to anyone for practically the whole history of the Church until now...

Prima facie, Christ not commissioning any woman whatsoever as one of the twelve (with whom the ordained ministry began) and the Apostolic tradition being a universally male episcopate (and subsequently presbyterate) is proof for Christ's will for the Church. It's not knockdown proof, of course - but it means those who want to argue otherwise need even stronger and more explicit arguments from Christ Himself. And those simply don't seem to exist. Any doubt that remains, therefore, must be outweighed by the Tradition and therefore gives us no authority for ordaining women whatsoever - which is precisely what the Church's teaching says.

On the isssue of "settledness", you must know that your example of a celibate priesthood is a poor one. That has NEVER been settled as a matter of doctrine - and in not even now settled as a matter of universal custom or discipline. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I would be grateful if you could explain why Jesus' failure to include women amongst the 12 is evidence that he did not intend women to be priests - but his failure to include gentiles amongst the 12 does not seem to have prevented the valid ordination of non-jewish men to the priesthood.

anne

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Anne, I actually said:

quote:
Prima facie, Christ not commissioning any woman whatsoever as one of the twelve (with whom the ordained ministry began) and the Apostolic tradition being a universally male episcopate (and subsequently presbyterate) is proof for Christ's will for the Church.

In other words, it's the fact both that Christ never said or did anything to suggest women were meant to be included in the ordained minisrty and that the Church did not at any time even question let alone attempt to change this Dominical precedent (until the last few decades) that makes it a very heavy burden of proof for the proponents of OoW. Gentiles were admitted to ministry roles pretty much from the get-go.

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Anne, I actually said:
quote:
Prima facie, Christ not commissioning any woman whatsoever as one of the twelve (with whom the ordained ministry began) and the Apostolic tradition being a universally male episcopate (and subsequently presbyterate) is proof for Christ's will for the Church.
In other words, it's the fact both that Christ never said or did anything to suggest women were meant to be included in the ordained minisrty and that the Church did not at any time even question let alone attempt to change this Dominical precedent (until the last few decades) that makes it a very heavy burden of proof for the proponents of OoW. Gentiles were admitted to ministry roles pretty much from the get-go.

Thank you, that's helpful as (if I understand you correctly) we seem to have moved on from simply looking at Christ's words on the subject and choice of disciples to the actions of the early church. If Christ had anything to say on the matter it has not been passed on to us, and in terms of his disciples, he chose 12 Jewish men, but chose women to bring them the news of the resurrection, so I can see that the evidence here is equivocal.

In terms of the early church - 'from the get-go' as you say, there is evidence of gentiles being admitted to ministerial roles (is it appropriate to say 'called'?) Is there no evidence of women in such roles? I don't know whether the references in Acts and the Epistles to women such as Priscilla, Joanna and Phoebe provide sufficient evidence but, for the sake of argument, if there were in fact women in ministerial roles at the get-go, but their ministry was subsequently lost to the church - for reasons of cultural pressures, for example - does this have any impact on the 'tradition' argument?

Is there a difference, in terms of this argument, between practices which used to be part of the tradition and have since been lost then perhaps reclaimed, and practices which have been maintained? That may sound like an inane question, but I'm really trying to understand. Are 'lost and reclaimed traditions' poorer evidence of Christ's will (as opposed to, for example, evidence of church submission to cultural or secular pressures) than maintained traditions?

For example, the much less important (don't tell ecclesiantics I said so) issue of clergy vesture. When I preside at the altar I wear robes which have evolved from those worn in the early church. The tradition of this style of vesture was lost for many years during the history of the church I am part of - to the extent that a previous holder of my office was hanged from the church tower in his "papish attire" partly for the crime of wearing them. Many years later the tradition has been reinstated. Is the value of this tradition reduced by it's long absence or enhanced by it's reclamation?

anne

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
supposing it were not God's will for the Church that the ordained ministry be open to women, would the Church's adherence to His will be unjust? Because that, generally, is what the Catholics I know and whose authority I serve under do believe.

I think that's an important point. There is a real difference between starting from a surprising and not fully understood command of God, and saying that one's trust in God's goodness is enough to say that one believes that there must be a reason which makes it fair, and starting from the position of not liking the idea of treating women equally, and looking for a church which will tell you that God agrees.

So I think a defecting Anglican has a burden of proof to show that he is not sexist which a cradle Roman Catholic does not. As an Anglican, having maintained that one can be a properly catholic Christian in a church which dissents from Rome on all manner of issues, great and small, and which is not bounden to Rome for the endorsement of its orders and sacraments, it doesn't look good if the one divergence that cannot be endured is the priestly ministry of women.

Those for whom the RCC is the default church, or who become Catholics because they are persuaded that it is the true Church, are stuck with the teaching authority of the RCC on all sorts of issues, and it would be unfair to infer misogyny from what is perfectly well explained as obedience. An Anglican has no such excuse - we reject the teaching authority of the RCC by the very fact that we refuse submission to the bishop of Rome when he claims it as being due from all Christians. We are not required, as a matter of simple obedience, to accept that women cannot be priests. It is OK - indeed, I would say it is a moral duty - for us to ask for the reasons behind that prohibition, and not accept a tradition which we have already questionned as a reason for condoning what appears to be injustice. An Anglican who says that it is God's will that women cannot be ordained presumes to know the mind of God much better than a Catholic who makes the same claim, because the Anglican has already and necessarily rejected the best argument that the Catholic can advance in support of that curious proposition.

I'll willingly accept that the OPer has made a good defence - his views on a range of issues have changed or crystalised to the point where becoming a Catholic is right and proper, and he would accept the RCC's authority whichever way it called the OoW question.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

missed edit:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
So I think a defecting Anglican...

On re-reading, that word has connotations which are not intended. Read "departing..."

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Thank you, that's helpful as (if I understand you correctly) we seem to have moved on from simply looking at Christ's words on the subject and choice of disciples to the actions of the early church.

Yes, but principally as evidence of what (they thought) Christ Himself taught and what His disciples understood of His model of ministry.

quote:
Originally posted by anne:
If Christ had anything to say on the matter it has not been passed on to us, and in terms of his disciples, he chose 12 Jewish men, but chose women to bring them the news of the resurrection, so I can see that the evidence here is equivocal.

It's a lot less equivocal if you factor in the fact that Christ must have known that if He said nothing explicit about about women in apostolic ministry the result would be that His apostles and their followers would never think of admitting them (based on His own practice of selecting only men and on the prevailing culture of the time). The proof? They didn't! His exclusion of gentiles from the 12 has a completley different kind of explanation: his ministry was first of all to the Jews and for the Jews, in fulfillment of the prophesies about the Jews. His initail following was made up almost entirely of other Jews! But there were plenty good Jewish women followers who would have been eligible as apostles - but none were appointed. To make it clear that He did nonetheless intend that women should be ordained would have required some pretty explicit teaching on His part. Any evdience of such is completely lacking. In other words, that burden of proof that Christ intended women to be admitted to ordained ministry lies with those who want to claim He did.

quote:
Originally posted by anne:
In terms of the early church - 'from the get-go' as you say, there is evidence of gentiles being admitted to ministerial roles (is it appropriate to say 'called'?) Is there no evidence of women in such roles? I don't know whether the references in Acts and the Epistles to women such as Priscilla, Joanna and Phoebe provide sufficient evidence but, for the sake of argument, if there were in fact women in ministerial roles at the get-go, but their ministry was subsequently lost to the church - for reasons of cultural pressures, for example - does this have any impact on the 'tradition' argument?

There is no evidence that I know of to be widely accepted amongst scholars that shows that women were ever admitted to the presbyterate or episcopate - nor even much that they were to a the diaconate (i.e., not "merely" to a diaconal auxiliary office). But if it could be shown that there were women presbyters and that this was something that the Early Church accepted in general (i.e., was not an aberrant, short-lived eception in a few places only), that would alter the debate somewhat, yes.

quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Are 'lost and reclaimed traditions' poorer evidence of Christ's will (as opposed to, for example, evidence of church submission to cultural or secular pressures) than maintained traditions?

It depends on what kind of tradition is is/was, I suppose. Your vestment example is interesting, but don't forget that the tradition wasn't dropped by the Catholic Church - it developed, continued and continues! In non-essentials, a departure from ancient norms for due cause would usually be acceptible - like changing from Greek to Latin for the liturgy. But some things seem to be handed down as unchangeable - like using bread and wine for the Mass. Those the Church does not have the authority to change.

But in any case, remember that, for Catholics, the pope has the authority to define and settle certain disputed issues permanently and conclusively - and John Paul II certainly excercised that authority with regard to women priests. And there really hadn't been any teaching or tradition in the other direction before either - all the evidence was on the other side. Whatever the state of the debate prior to his pronouncement, it is a closed matter for Catholics now. That some Catholics chose to dissent from it does not alter the fact that it has been defined by due authority.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Eliab, thanks for your recent and thoroughly decent last one(s) - much appreciated.

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

But in any case, remember that, for Catholics, the pope has the authority to define and settle certain disputed issues permanently and conclusively - and John Paul II certainly excercised that authority with regard to women priests. And there really hadn't been any teaching or tradition in the other direction before either - all the evidence was on the other side. Whatever the state of the debate prior to his pronouncement, it is a closed matter for Catholics now. That some Catholics chose to dissent from it does not alter the fact that it has been defined by due authority.

Thank you for addressing my queries - of course, the entire issue is very different from the perspective of the the Roman Catholic church and so it is even more gracious of you to spend so much time on my ramblings.

As a catholic anglican ordained woman I find myself spending far too much of my time and energy wrestling with these issues (OoW and the consecration of women to the episcopate) as I try to understand the point of view of those who deny the validity of my vocation*. Frankly I've got other stuff to do. But I do want to empathise with my brothers and sisters and I am trying to understand.

Of course sometimes the desire to empathise is less pronounced - such as when I am being lectured on the iniquities of the ordination of women by a fellow priest who was, I should estimate, about 5 years old in 1992 when the vote was taken. But in the intervals when I'm not seething and grinding my teeth, I am trying to understand. And even whilst seething, I'm trying to love.

anne

*my vocation to the priesthood, rather than anything more elevated, I hasten to add

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Thank you, Anne - and God bless.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No it's not. Because I agree entirely with what he's saying.

Go to the source. Find out where your tradition came from. That's precisely what I've been saying. If the source is a good one, then the tradition is good. If the source ISN'T a good one, then the tradition is in error and the fact that the tradition is of long-standing doesn't make it any better.

There's been one shot at glibly asserting that Christ's teaching is the source. And it's precisely that assertion that I am challenging, because - as others have already pointed out - Christ never did anything quite so obvious as saying 'thou shalt not have women priests'.

He didn't say anything about 'priests' at all!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Anne, I actually said:
quote:
Prima facie, Christ not commissioning any woman whatsoever as one of the twelve (with whom the ordained ministry began) and the Apostolic tradition being a universally male episcopate (and subsequently presbyterate) is proof for Christ's will for the Church.
In other words, it's the fact both that Christ never said or did anything to suggest women were meant to be included in the ordained minisrty and that the Church did not at any time even question let alone attempt to change this Dominical precedent (until the last few decades) that makes it a very heavy burden of proof for the proponents of OoW. Gentiles were admitted to ministry roles pretty much from the get-go.

You've used the existence of a tradition as part of the argument for the correctness of the tradition. My entire point is that this simply doesn't work. It only goes as far as allowing you to say that the tradition was correct at some point, but if you don't know the reasons it was 'correct' you can't tell the difference between "that's the way things are" and "that's the way things were".

I will grant you your onus of proof idea - that there is some burden on those who wish to show the tradition should no longer be followed. But the problem is that the arguments in favour of women priests are stacking up, and what people aren't giving me are arguments AGAINST women priests other than 'tradition'. This is what I've been asking for - actual concrete rationales. And not only have they not been forthcoming, Triple Tiara has explicitly stated a desire that theological commentators stop trying to give them and just rely on 'tradition'.

Sorry, not good enough. If 'tradition' is the only reason you've got, then the burden of proof against is going to be rapidly satisfied.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Just go back and re-read the whole of the passage from St Cyprian above.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

Prima facie, Christ not commissioning any woman whatsoever as one of the twelve (with whom the ordained ministry began) and the Apostolic tradition being a universally male episcopate (and subsequently presbyterate) is proof for Christ's will for the Church.

Of course its not. Its no such thing. We are ordaining ministers for parish churches. Elders of the local church. That's not what the Twelve were.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

A very concise explanation of why Anglican Orders are considered invalid, ken [Biased]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But the burden of proof for an all-male presbyterate being mere custom lies with those who reject it.

If (hypothetically) the Pope had not settled the issue, what evidence would be admissible to show this from a Catholic point of view?

For me, the testimony of Angloid here, which is echoed by ken and would be endorsed by thousands of Anglicans of all varieties of churchmanship, is pretty strong evidence that whatever grace one looks for in priestly ministry, and whether it is objectively or subjectively assessed, no deficiency whatever can be discerned where women are admitted to the priesthood. And, of course, we Anglicans aren't striking out on our own here - we are merely repeating the successful experiments of all those other churches with women pastors, and confirming their results.

There is, to me, an air of unreality about the argument that women cannot be priests against the experience of the Christian church every time the attempt has been made to ordain them. It's like hearing someone at the Farnborough Air Show arguing from learned and eminent authorities that heavier-than-air vehicles will never fly. The reasoning may be wise and venerable, supported on every point by the most respectable ancient opinion, but the refutation isn't exactly difficult to find.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Just go back and re-read the whole of the passage from St Cyprian above.

So you have a lovely channel. Is there still any water coming from the spring?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

ADDENDUM: Which is the entire POINT of the passage you keep suggesting I re-read, and which everytime I read makes perfect sense to me. The logic is impeccable. The quality of any doctrine depends on two elements: the ability to continue to communicate it effectively (the channel), and the quality of the original source - the fountainhead.

So you can carry on talking about the wonderful ability of the Church to pass on traditions as much as you like. My entire point is that if the original source isn't a satisfactory one, you're not going to end up with a good result, and I am far from persuaded that the original source for this tradition is any good.

It's not clearly based on a Biblical doctrinal teaching. As leo pointed out, Christ doesn't talk about priests, never mind say that women can't be priests. At best you might manage that women can't be apostles, but apostles aren't priests, and in any case there is a fundamental problem with treating a narrative (male apostles) as normative (only males are allowed).

Nor does it accord with the practical experience of women's ministry, as neatly summed up by Eliab.

Basically, using Cyprian's analogy, your high-quality channel is delivering water that a lot of us think looks a bit muddy and tastes bad. Repeatedly pointing to how nice the channel is just isn't working for me.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Custom without truth is the antiquity of error.

A long, impressive channel kept in excellent repair that delivers something icky has been connected to something icky for a long, long time.

In some cases there might have been a nice layer on top, but the ick was somewhere in the reservoir and the channel's still connected.

[ 13. July 2011, 10:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
A very concise explanation of why Anglican Orders are considered invalid, ken

There is a reason why he was not asked to write Saepius Officio, the archbishops' response to Leo XIII.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's not clearly based on a Biblical doctrinal teaching. As leo pointed out, Christ doesn't talk about priests, never mind say that women can't be priests. At best you might manage that women can't be apostles, but apostles aren't priests, and in any case there is a fundamental problem with treating a narrative (male apostles) as normative (only males are allowed).

Not really. There's Mary Magdalene, too - "The Apostle to the Apostles." That label is an early one (perhaps originating with Bishop of Rome Hippolytus in the 3rd century), continued throughout the middle ages, and was used even by JPII (if I'm not mistaken)! In any case, it's a fairly obvious fact, whether or not it's been used for so long. If Magdalene wasn't an Apostle, you could have fooled me.

And Junia, mentioned in the Bible as well, at Romans 16:7. "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."

And how's that for "tradition"?

[ 13. July 2011, 13:26: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Well, there ya go. Even THAT little concession in my argument was wrong. Thanks for the pointers.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

I do wonder why, though, the "tradition" argument is accepted at face value in the case of the Orthodox and not in the case of the Catholic Church?

What's the difference here? Is it because the Catholic Church is bigger? Or because it's in the Western tradition? Or precisely because it HAS changed in other respects? Was it Vatican II that made the difference?

I'm just wondering, that's all....

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
A very concise explanation of why Anglican Orders are considered invalid, ken

More likely, Ken does not know what the Anglican ordinal DOES teach - the presbyterate is about a heck of a lot more than localised ministry.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I do wonder why, though, the "tradition" argument is accepted at face value in the case of the Orthodox and not in the case of the Catholic Church?

What's the difference here? Is it because the Catholic Church is bigger? Or because it's in the Western tradition? Or precisely because it HAS changed in other respects? Was it Vatican II that made the difference?

I'm just wondering, that's all....

I would guess it's due to the history of the medieval "schoolmen" and their mode of argumentation in the church of the west - a phenomenon that entirely passed the eastern churches by.

Orfeo - any chance of being a bit more specific about what you have described as "ick"?

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You've used the existence of a tradition as part of the argument for the correctness of the tradition. My entire point is that this simply doesn't work.

If it can be shown that a particular tradition was apostolic and undisputed until very recently, then that IS prima facie (not knockdown) evidence that it is at least not catastrophically wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I will grant you your onus of proof idea - that there is some burden on those who wish to show the tradition should no longer be followed.

Thank you.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But the problem is that the arguments in favour of women priests are stacking up, and what people aren't giving me are arguments AGAINST women priests other than 'tradition'. This is what I've been asking for - actual concrete rationales.

But my argument is not just that it was never done in the past - there's the dominical example strand too. Given His life, teachings, practice and the historical and cultural context, Jesus must have expected the apostles not even to consider ordaining women. So why didn't He do or say soemthing explicit if it was His will that women should be included in the presbyterate? That is a concrete rationale.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
There is, to me, an air of unreality about the argument that women cannot be priests against the experience of the Christian church every time the attempt has been made to ordain them.

Whilst I am sympathetic to the testimony of good fruit being borne on the branches of women's ministry (heck, there can be good fruit from anyone exercising good pastoral and teaching care regardless of sex or orders), it cannot in the end count for more than the weight of tradition and the startling lack of any dominical teaching or example to head an all-male ordained ministry off at the pass, it seems to me.

I'm afraid there's just no way of confirming an objective state of affairs like being in Holy Orders purely subjectively or on empirical grounds. Consider the example of marriage. If two people love each other very much and marry and the go on to be a shining example of mutual self-giving and raise marvellous children together, but it later turns out that one of them was still married to someone else, or that they are brother and sister, Catholics would have to judge that there never was a state of matrimony between them in the first place - appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Jesus must have expected the apostles not even to consider ordaining women. So why didn't He do or say soemthing explicit if it was His will that women should be included in the presbyterate? That is a concrete rationale.

Jesus did not ordain anyone.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
There's Mary Magdalene, too - "The Apostle to the Apostles." That label is an early one (perhaps originating with Bishop of Rome Hippolytus in the 3rd century), continued throughout the middle ages, and was used even by JPII (if I'm not mistaken)! In any case, it's a fairly obvious fact, whether or not it's been used for so long. If Magdalene wasn't an Apostle, you could have fooled me.

Then I'm sorry to say it, but...

The meaning of the phrase "apostle to the apostles" is very clear in context. It means the messenger to the apostles - the message being that Christ had risen. It's a beautiful phrase, and striking too. But it's a turn of phrase, not a declaration of admission to the office of Twelve.

There is no evidence that Mary was treated as one of the twelve - by them or by anyone else. Why was Matthias appointed by lot to replace Judas if Mary was already elevated in truth to the apostolate? Where was her Church over which she presided? Who were her disciples, deacons, delegates? Where is there any reference whatsoever to her Apostoic status after the Resurrection at all, in fact?

And you don't get Junia in as an actual apostle unless you take Andronicus in too. Read the wiki entry on Junia(s) and tell me there is anything like clear enough evidence from that single Pauline sentence to overturn the tradition that men alone were apostles, episkopoi and presbyteroi.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Jesus must have expected the apostles not even to consider ordaining women. So why didn't He do or say soemthing explicit if it was His will that women should be included in the presbyterate? That is a concrete rationale.
Jesus did not ordain anyone.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Given His life, teachings, practice and the historical and cultural context, Jesus must have expected the apostles not even to consider ordaining women. So why didn't He do or say soemthing explicit if it was His will that women should be included in the presbyterate?

That doesn't make sense. You seem have made a typo there. Its more meaningful if you remove the words "not even" and write:

quote:

"Jesus must have expected the apostles to consider ordaining women."

which fits the evidence of the New Testament better.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Given His life, teachings, practice and the historical and cultural context, Jesus must have expected the apostles not even to consider ordaining women. So why didn't He do or say soemthing explicit if it was His will that women should be included in the presbyterate?
That doesn't make sense. You seem have made a typo there. Its more meaningful if you remove the words "not even" and write:

quote:

"Jesus must have expected the apostles to consider ordaining women."
which fits the evidence of the New Testament better.

Whilst there is a typo, it's not the one you seem to think. I mistyped "something". But the rest is exactly as I intended. Given that He didn't include a woman in the Twelve, and given the socila nd religious roles of women in 1st c. Judaism and Jewish society - and given that He said nothing explicit at all about including women in the apostles' ministry - how could Jesus just have expected His apostles to teach and practise their inclusion in ordained ministry? Why would He imagine that they would even consider it?

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
There's Mary Magdalene, too - "The Apostle to the Apostles." That label is an early one (perhaps originating with Bishop of Rome Hippolytus in the 3rd century), continued throughout the middle ages, and was used even by JPII (if I'm not mistaken)! In any case, it's a fairly obvious fact, whether or not it's been used for so long. If Magdalene wasn't an Apostle, you could have fooled me.
Then I'm sorry to say it, but...

The meaning of the phrase "apostle to the apostles" is very clear in context. It means the messenger to the apostles - the message being that Christ had risen.

And what did you think "Apostle" means? (Hint: it means "messenger.")

Paul obviously didn't think that "Apostle" was equivalent to "Disciple," BTW, either. Of course, by your definition, he's not an "Apostle," either - which I think would in fact be problematic with an appeal to "Tradition."

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

The modern RC church does not function like the early church. I think it is fair to say the 12 could not have conceived of it in its current form. But presumably just because it would never have occurred to St Peter to tweet, or that his successors would celeberate the eucharist using coin sized discs of something noone would usually recognise as food - doesn't mean you think these developments aren't in keeping with the faith. What exactly, do you think Jesus as a man knew about the current form of the mass ?

[ 13. July 2011, 18:53: Message edited by: Think² ]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So you can carry on talking about the wonderful ability of the Church to pass on traditions as much as you like. My entire point is that if the original source isn't a satisfactory one, you're not going to end up with a good result, and I am far from persuaded that the original source for this tradition is any good.

Basically, using Cyprian's analogy, your high-quality channel is delivering water that a lot of us think looks a bit muddy and tastes bad. Repeatedly pointing to how nice the channel is just isn't working for me.

Nope, you misread Cyprian. He speaks explicitly of introducing something to the Tradition which muddies the water. Then he goes on to spell out that the authentic Tradition goes back to Christ. If you introduce something which does not go back to Christ and the Apostles, then you have a problem.

The ordination of the Twelve - Christ breathes on them and gives them the Holy Spirit for the Office to which he commissions them - is the origin of ordination. Note: he breathes on the Twelve. They later lay hands on others to commission as well. Christ does not initiate the Office of deacon and presbyter and episcope, but the Twelve do. They too limit their selection to men. There is your source. That is the source you are judging as not being "any good".

[ 13. July 2011, 18:58: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And what did you think "Apostle" means? (Hint: it means "messenger.")

Come off it, TubaMirum - I'm not quite that stupid.

The phrase "messenger to the messengers" is clearly a nice turn of phrase, but how does it (a non-scriptural epithet, by the way) prove, in the lack of ANY other evidence WHATSOEVER that St Mary Mag was an apostle in the same sense that the Twelve were?

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Paul obviously didn't think that "Apostle" was equivalent to "Disciple," BTW, either. Of course, by your definition, he's not an "Apostle," either - which I think would in fact be problematic with an appeal to "Tradition."

Um, wrong. Why do you say that?

[ 13. July 2011, 21:44: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You've used the existence of a tradition as part of the argument for the correctness of the tradition. My entire point is that this simply doesn't work.
If it can be shown that a particular tradition was apostolic and undisputed until very recently, then that IS prima facie (not knockdown) evidence that it is at least not catastrophically wrong.

Yes, that makes sense. Now, I just need someone to show me that it is, in fact, apostolic.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So you can carry on talking about the wonderful ability of the Church to pass on traditions as much as you like. My entire point is that if the original source isn't a satisfactory one, you're not going to end up with a good result, and I am far from persuaded that the original source for this tradition is any good.

Basically, using Cyprian's analogy, your high-quality channel is delivering water that a lot of us think looks a bit muddy and tastes bad. Repeatedly pointing to how nice the channel is just isn't working for me.
Nope, you misread Cyprian. He speaks explicitly of introducing something to the Tradition which muddies the water. Then he goes on to spell out that the authentic Tradition goes back to Christ. If you introduce something which does not go back to Christ and the Apostles, then you have a problem.

The ordination of the Twelve - Christ breathes on them and gives them the Holy Spirit for the Office to which he commissions them - is the origin of ordination. Note: he breathes on the Twelve. They later lay hands on others to commission as well. Christ does not initiate the Office of deacon and presbyter and episcope, but the Twelve do. They too limit their selection to men. There is your source. That is the source you are judging as not being "any good".

I don't misread Cyprian. What I am suggesting is that I tend to suspect the rule about no women priests IS the introduction of something muddy to the water.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Given that He didn't include a woman in the Twelve, and given the socila nd religious roles of women in 1st c. Judaism and Jewish society - and given that He said nothing explicit at all about including women in the apostles' ministry - how could Jesus just have expected His apostles to teach and practise their inclusion in ordained ministry? Why would He imagine that they would even consider it?

Aha. NOW we're really hitting on something.

Given the social and religious roles of women in 1st century Judaism and Jewish soceity.

This is the crux of my concern. Are we following a tradition because it reflects the views of God about the role of women? Or are we following a tradition because it reflects the views of 1st Century Jews about the role of women?

This is exactly what I've been trying to get at. This is precisely why the reason for doing something is so important. The views of eternal God about the differences and similarities between men and women, and their roles, I'm interested in. The views of 1st Century Jews that God coped with at the time but didn't endorse, I'm not so interested in.

It's untangling one from the other that's not so simple.

But this is one reason I'm also interested in the success of women as ministers. In those denominations that have had the temerity to raise up women into these positions, there isn't a lot of evidence of God making his views known by striking them down or causing their ministries to falter.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, that makes sense. Now, I just need someone to show me that it is, in fact, apostolic.

Well, it seems to have been the universal and undisputed practice of the Apostles and their disciples. What more were you looking for?

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Given that He didn't include a woman in the Twelve, and given the socila nd religious roles of women in 1st c. Judaism and Jewish society - and given that He said nothing explicit at all about including women in the apostles' ministry - how could Jesus just have expected His apostles to teach and practise their inclusion in ordained ministry? Why would He imagine that they would even consider it?
Aha. NOW we're really hitting on something. [...] This is the crux of my concern. Are we following a tradition because it reflects the views of God about the role of women? Or are we following a tradition because it reflects the views of 1st Century Jews about the role of women?

I'm not sure you got the jist of my argument, which was about Christ's will for the Church. It is claimed that Christ clearly desires and intends there to be women in ordained ministry. He must also have known how radical that was given the cultural and religious concepts and practices of His time on earth, and must have known His own disciples well enough to know that this wasn't going to happen without some pretty explicit teaching or action from Him. So where is it, and why did it fail? Did Christ just get it wrong?

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But this is one reason I'm also interested in the success of women as ministers. In those denominations that have had the temerity to raise up women into these positions, there isn't a lot of evidence of God making his views known by striking them down or causing their ministries to falter.

Are you serious? We have to assume it's what God wants because it doesn't make him smighty?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Not 'assume', no. It's merely one factor I would take into account.

I do understand the gist of your argument, but I'm yet to work out whether I think the reasoning is sound. I can't shake the sense that the basic flavour is: 'he didn't stop us following our usual practices so it must be okay'.

Which is fine as far as it goes, but I'm not entirely convinced that it logically leads to 'and any OTHER practice besides our usual practice is therefore NOT okay, so we must never change our practice'.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't misread Cyprian. What I am suggesting is that I tend to suspect the rule about no women priests IS the introduction of something muddy to the water.

There was no introduction of such a rule - it comes from the source and it just continued. There was no sudden explicit ruling about this until Pope Paul VI in the 1970s when the opposite was being proposed.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Chesterbelloc, my (obvious, to me at least) point was that the word "Apostle" does not necessarily imply "one of the Twelve."

Paul is an Apostle and was not "one of the Twelve." Barnabas is also called an Apostle in Acts - which the tradition counts as being written by Luke - and he wasn't "one of the Twelve," either. So quite obviously being an Apostle is not equivalent to being one of Jesus' original 12 disciples.

So, from both Scripture and Tradition, the word is used in a wider way than you are using it, and includes other people. I don't think this is at all controversial.

And I contend that Magdalene and Junia are among these Apostles - as Paul and the Tradition both have it.

[ 14. July 2011, 12:24: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And I contend that Magdalene and Junia are among these Apostles - as Paul and the Tradition both have it.

But I really don't see the evidence for their being apostles even in the extended sense.

For a start, Mary Magdalen is never referred to as such in Scripture at all, and I've explained how I think the "apostle to the apostles" thing works. And the most recent research I have heard of (although I confess to not having read it) apparently concludes decisively that the phrase about Juna and Andronicus should not be taken to mean they were apostles themselves but that there were well known to the apostles.*

Even if either were apostles in the extended sense, would this tell us anything about women being in presbyter's orders? Since we still have no documentary evidence whatsoever of women being in presbyter's orders, even if Mary and Junia were "apostles" wouldn't this be even stronger evidence for the strength of the universal tradition?

*Daniel B. Wallace and Michael H. Burer, "Was Junia Really an Apostle?" New Testament Studies 47 (2001): 76-91.

[ 14. July 2011, 12:56: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Given that He didn't include a woman in the Twelve, and given the socila nd religious roles of women in 1st c. Judaism and Jewish society - and given that He said nothing explicit at all about including women in the apostles' ministry - how could Jesus just have expected His apostles to teach and practise their inclusion in ordained ministry? Why would He imagine that they would even consider it?

Well, Jesus did a lot of things that people didn't expect him to do, and that was maybe one of them.

But we have no evidence at all that Jesus ever gave any instructions to anyone about ordaining people as presbyters, so for you to assume that if he had given such instructions he would have excluded women is a bit stringy.

We do, however, know that the earliest churches recognised many different ministries, formal and informal. Paul lists them, three times (and the lists are different from each other).

And we know that in NT times Christian ministers were not neatly divided into bishops, priests, and deacons. (Even using those ecclesiological words is overloading early texts anyway - "overseers, elders, and church workers" woudl be a better translation).

And we know that women are described in various church ministries in other parts of the New Testament. We know that women are described as prophets (which in context quite probably implies preaching as much as some kind of ecstatic utterance, if only because Paul distinguishes the two in the same sentence). We know that women are described as deacons ("worker" might be a better translation, and it might not imply any formal ordination, but then exactly the same is true of male deacons of the time) We know that some women taught some men. We know that some women were the heads of households in which churches met (one of the origins of eldership and later ordained presbyters). We know that Lydia was leading some sort of public worship or prayer in the open air when Paul met her (how does that fit with our current image of the "social and religious roles of Jewish women in first century society"?) We know that Priscilla is described as "expounding the way of God" to Apollos.

Insofar as there is any evidence for formal ordination at all in the New Testament (I'm convinced there is but I know clever people who say there isn't) there is no evidence that it was restricted to men.

So as we know women were in at least some kinds of church ministry, and as we know ordain people when the church sets them aside for those kinds of ministry, then our question is not "can women be ordained?" but "can women be ordained to this particular ministry?" And we'd have to answer that ministry by ministry, case by case, church by church, woman by woman.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And I contend that Magdalene and Junia are among these Apostles - as Paul and the Tradition both have it.
But I really don't see the evidence for their being apostles even in the extended sense.

For a start, Mary Magdalen is never referred to as such in Scripture at all, and I've explained how I think the "apostle to the apostles" thing works. And the most recent research I have heard of (although I confess to not having read it) apparently concludes decisively that the phrase about Juna and Andronicus should not be taken to mean they were apostles themselves but that there were well known to the apostles.*

Even if either were apostles in the extended sense, would this tell us anything about women being in presbyter's orders? Since we still have no documentary evidence whatsoever of women being in presbyter's orders, even if Mary and Junia were "apostles" wouldn't this be even stronger evidence for the strength of the universal tradition?

*Daniel B. Wallace and Michael H. Burer, "Was Junia Really an Apostle?" New Testament Studies 47 (2001): 76-91.

If you go back and read the discussion again, I was speaking with orfeo about whether or not women could be considered Apostles. You decided to enter into this limited discussion and brought these other elements into it yourself - and now we've gone on this tangent for a page and a half. And at the end of it, again it simply boils down to your preference for the "universal tradition."

The fact is that I'm simply not anywhere near as invested in "the strength of the universal tradition" as you seem to be. I'm really perfectly OK with changing "universal tradition," if there's no good reason not to. As are you, as a matter of fact, since the RCC has done it numerous times. Some of these have been offered here: priestly celibacy, marriage as one of Seven Sacraments, etc.

The early church did it, too, when it did not demand circumcision, and forwent the kashrut laws. As you've noted, doctrine develops; I'm just taking that argument seriously, that's all.

[ 14. July 2011, 14:26: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
our question is not "can women be ordained?" but "can women be ordained to this particular ministry?" And we'd have to answer that ministry by ministry, case by case, church by church, woman by woman.

Ok then. If that's our question the answer would seem to be there's no evidence, biblical or patristic, that any woman was ever ordained by any church to the particular ministry of presbyter.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
If you go back and read the discussion again, I was speaking with orfeo about whether or not women could be considered Apostles. You decided to enter into this limited discussion and brought these other elements into it yourself - and now we've gone on this tangent for a page and a half. And at the end of it, again it simply boils down to your preference for the "universal tradition."

Limited discussion? You asserted that there had been women apostles and I replied with evidence to the contrary. Sorry to have intruded. But it's no tangent. "At the end of it", that evidential claim boils down to the balance of actual evidence, I'd have thought.

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
The fact is that I'm simply not anywhere near as invested in "the strength of the universal tradition" as you seem to be. I'm really perfectly OK with changing "universal tradition," if there's no good reason not to.

Fine. But then why did you bother with the whole Junia "tangent" in the first place?

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
As are you, as a matter of fact, since the RCC has done it numerous times. Some of these have been offered here: priestly celibacy, marriage as one of Seven Sacraments, etc.

The early church did it, too, when it did not demand circumcision, and forwent the kashrut laws. As you've noted, doctrine develops; I'm just taking that argument seriously, that's all.

The Apostolic Church did not change a pre-existing Christian tradition - it established one in the light of Christ's teaching.

The classic statement of the development of doctrine is Newman's - and he argued that it always builds upon the uniform past, confirms it but never reverses a uniform pattern of past traditon. Celibacy isn't a case of doctrinal development, because the rule of clerical celibacy is merely a dsiciplinary matter for Latin Rite clerics.

The explicit inclusion of matrimony as a fully-fleged sacrament is a very good example of genuine development of doctrine, however, because it builds on and confirms the existing and emerging practice and theology of Christian marriage in accordance with CVhrist's teaching. It contradicts nothing of the Church's past teaching or mainstream praxis.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Fine. But then why did you bother with the whole Junia "tangent" in the first place?

If you'd gone back to look at the point where this came up in the thread, as I suggested before, you'd already know the answer to this question....

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Humour me...

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
There is, to me, an air of unreality about the argument that women cannot be priests against the experience of the Christian church every time the attempt has been made to ordain them.
Whilst I am sympathetic to the testimony of good fruit being borne on the branches of women's ministry (heck, there can be good fruit from anyone exercising good pastoral and teaching care regardless of sex or orders), it cannot in the end count for more than the weight of tradition and the startling lack of any dominical teaching or example to head an all-male ordained ministry off at the pass, it seems to me.

I'm afraid there's just no way of confirming an objective state of affairs like being in Holy Orders purely subjectively or on empirical grounds.

I know this is a bit unfair, because you have made it clear that you see this as a settled question, not as one that is still open, but you ignored the question to which that quote was an addendum. What would you accept as discharging the ‘burden of proof’ that you say is on us?

Assuming that there is no radically new documentary evidence waiting to be found in caves of catacombs to reveal the long list of women ordained by St Peter, we are stuck with the documents that we’ve got, and cannot really expect any new material on apostolic practice. So saying that we could prove the case by showing it was part of an apostolic tradition is effectively saying that we’ll never be able to prove it. Are you saying that on the strength of the new testament material, NOTHING could persuade you that women can be ordained? If not, what could?

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But this is one reason I'm also interested in the success of women as ministers. In those denominations that have had the temerity to raise up women into these positions, there isn't a lot of evidence of God making his views known by striking them down or causing their ministries to falter.
Are you serious? We have to assume it's what God wants because it doesn't make him smighty?

Orfeo (unusually) underplays his hand here. We don’t need to look at who God causes the earth to swallow to make the case.

Read ken’s posts, and Angloid’s, on this thread. They summarise the experience of many, many Anglicans. There were thousands of doubters in our churches who were not sure about the ordination of women, and the experience of women’s ministry has largely convinced them. In my church this Sunday, there will be, in at least every other pew, someone who wasn’t sure whether God wanted women to be priests, and now wonders what the fuss was all about. I can’t think of anyone, not one person at all, who was doubtful, and was persuaded by experience that woman priests are an impossibility.

You don’t need to ask why God didn’t send a plague of locusts over the land. You DO need to ask why it was not the general experience of Anglicans that our worship was less inspiring once ordained women started leading it. Why we did not come away from the communion rail feeling somehow less comforted when a woman had celebrated eucharist, or why we did not feel the words of absolution suddenly fail to lift our burdened consciences when a woman pronounced them. Why are our churches not filled with doubters saying “Of course, she’s very nice, I wouldn’t here a word against her, but somehow it’s not the same when she leads. I feel, less in touch with God, somehow.” Because they aren’t. Practically everyone who was at all open-minded on the issue has moved in the same direction, towards acceptance.

To me, that’s compelling. That’s as close to undeniable evidence of the Spirit at work as you’re going to see, absent actual tongues of fire. If God were firmly against women’s ordination, you might, I think, expect that at least as many Christians who where open to being persuaded either way would find the experiment moved them against the change as were moved to favour it. That didn’t happen. And it seems to be true across the board – high church, low church, MOTR, rich, poor, black, white – we have been blessed by women priests.
It seems to me that if you are at all open to persuasion on this issue, experience will convince you that women can be priests. The proof being that in the CofE, and as far as I can tell, every other denomination that has made the attempt, practically everyone who was open to persuasion HAS been convinced.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Indeed, what Chesterbelloc refers to as God being 'smighty' was more about whether or not the ministry thrives and prospers. I wasn't requesting thunderbolts from the sky. I was looking for some kind of evidence that having a female priest does not, in fact, work and work rather well.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Short (and doubtless inadequate, because it's very late here) answer to you both...

As far as I'm concerned, purely subjective answers to what the Catholic Churh considers objective questions (whether any particular person is in Holy Orders) are inevitably inadequate - as I think I said above.

I'm not going to be popular for adding this, but I also would need any such subjective responses to be in the context of an indisputably Catholic context - not an Anglican one - to count as any kind of relevant evidence anyway. Imagine a trad anglo-catholic hearing the same argument about the efficacy of a Baptist minister's sacramental ministry. Any evidence of spiritual nourishment from a non-episcopally ordained individual would likely seem strictly irrelevant in a discussion between them about the sacramental grace of orders.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Imagine a trad anglo-catholic hearing the same argument about the efficacy of a Baptist minister's sacramental ministry.

I personally can't see any problem with evidence that a different approach in another denomination works. But that probably just proves that I'm not a trad ango-catholic! I come from a low Anglican church that often had more in common with some of the non-Anglican churches around town than it did with the ones in its own denomination.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I do wonder why, though, the "tradition" argument is accepted at face value in the case of the Orthodox and not in the case of the Catholic Church?

What's the difference here? Is it because the Catholic Church is bigger? Or because it's in the Western tradition? Or precisely because it HAS changed in other respects? Was it Vatican II that made the difference?

I'm just wondering, that's all....
I would guess it's due to the history of the medieval "schoolmen" and their mode of argumentation in the church of the west - a phenomenon that entirely passed the eastern churches by.

Sorry, I missed this.

So, essentially, the Catholic Church is being asked to give its reasons on the matter because that's what it does. It's how Church itself operates, and the "tradition" argument alone won't cut it.

I think you're right about that. And what's really interesting about this, when you get right down to it, is that "tradition" is really the only argument we're seeing here.

It doesn't really seem to be a matter of "doctrine" at all! I was thinking about this today, having recently been reading Inter Insignores, the 1977 "Declaration of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the question of admission of women to the ministerial priesthood."

There's really not much there at all, except appeal to "Tradition" - the "Apostolic Tradition," in particular. And it does seem to me that pressing people on this issue brings up all kinds of strange arguments that attempt to inject "doctrine" into the discussion - the "women are not proper matter" being one of the more bizarre.

Of course, appealing to "Apostolic Tradition" has its own problems - the fact that Christ never spoke about priests one way or another, for instance - and the examples of Magdalene and Junia (and other women) in ministry and other roles in the Apostolic era. But people just attempt to explain these things away.

But I do think you're right; the Church is being asked instead to use its usual method - appeal to doctrine. But there just isn't anything that works, so it's this instead.

[ 15. July 2011, 02:04: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
S Imagine a trad anglo-catholic hearing the same argument about the efficacy of a Baptist minister's sacramental ministry. Any evidence of spiritual nourishment from a non-episcopally ordained individual would likely seem strictly irrelevant in a discussion between them about the sacramental grace of orders.

And to the rest of us that would seem like "more fool them". Their 19th-century faux-mediaeval obsessions about bureaucratic or legalistic "validity" would likely seem strictly irrelevant in a discussion about Christian ministry in either New Testament times or today.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Of course, appealing to "Apostolic Tradition" has its own problems - the fact that Christ never spoke about priests one way or another, for instance - and the examples of Magdalene and Junia (and other women) in ministry and other roles in the Apostolic era. But people just attempt to explain these things away.

Hold on a mo, TubaMirum.

First, the fact that Christ never spoke explicitly about the presbyterate is no more a problem for a Catholic doctrine of orders than the fact that He never spoke explicitly about the Sacrifice of the Mass is a problem for a Catholic eucharistic theology. It is what Christ instituted and what the Apostles (and their successors) having received the Holy Spirit developed and passed down that matters. And one thing they passed down, without equivocation, was an all-male presbyterate.

As for attempting to "explain away" Mary Magdalen and Junia's status as apostles, I think a more accurate description of what has happened on this thread is that they theory has been floated and relevantly critiqued. If you don't think the arguments against are good enough, by all means respond to them. But please don't just dismiss them tacitly and then say the claims have been merely "explained away" when in fact they have been fully engaged with.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
As far as I'm concerned, purely subjective answers to what the Catholic Churh considers objective questions (whether any particular person is in Holy Orders) are inevitably inadequate - as I think I said above.

I see that, but if it never makes a discernable subjective difference whether someone is in Holy Orders, wouldn't that be a cause for concern? I might, and doubtless do, make all sorts of mistakes about my experiences of God in worship, but if the sacraments are meant to have any tangible effect on this world at all, invalidating them ought to make a difference on average to the way in which the church experiences God.

Since the Catholic Church effectively sets the parameters for the "objective" question, it seems to me that what you are saying is that no evidence whatever could convince you that it is possible for a woman to be ordained so long as the Catholic Church defines a male human as the only valid matter for that sacrament.

That's not a criticism of you in any way - you've said clearly that you think this is a settled question. But it does mean that any talk of ‘burden of proof' is a red herring, doesn't it? There never could be any proof that you would accept.

quote:
I'm not going to be popular for adding this, but I also would need any such subjective responses to be in the context of an indisputably Catholic context - not an Anglican one - to count as any kind of relevant evidence anyway. Imagine a trad anglo-catholic hearing the same argument about the efficacy of a Baptist minister's sacramental ministry. Any evidence of spiritual nourishment from a non-episcopally ordained individual would likely seem strictly irrelevant in a discussion between them about the sacramental grace of orders.

I take the point, but the Anglican experience seems to work across the board, and to be consistent with that of non-Anglican traditions. It's not the case that one sort of churchmanship found that OoW was blessed by God but another did not.

I suppose you could say that there aren't any priests at all in the Church of England, but then we're back to the flight-sceptic at Farnborough, advancing a position that is sublimely unreal, while evidence to the contrary skims his hair at six hundred miles per hour, blowing coloured smoke out of its arse.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But it does mean that any talk of ‘burden of proof' is a red herring, doesn't it? There never could be any proof that you would accept.

That there is no evidence that I do accept does not mean that there never was going to be any evidence I could accept. For instance, if it could have been conclusively be shown that there were a string of unquestionable and undisputed women presbyters in the Apostolic or immediately-post-Apostolic period, then that would certainly count. But there is no such evidence. The absence of evidence was enough for JPII conclude the Church has no authority to proceed in that direction.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I suppose you could say that there aren't any priests at all in the Church of England, but then we're back to the flight-sceptic at Farnborough, advancing a position that is sublimely unreal, while evidence to the contrary skims his hair at six hundred miles per hour, blowing coloured smoke out of its arse.

That's where the Fanborough analogy falls down, I think. Let me tweak it a bit. The Catholic position on non-Catholic orders is more like a person at the airshow who is sceptical about the continued existence of flyable Spitfires. The guy next to her keeps saying, "Look - there's one right there above your head!" There's too much speed and smoke and other engine-noise and glaring sunlight to make her certain, but she's pretty sure that it's a Hurricane instead.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
any talk of ‘burden of proof' is a red herring

Can I just add to my comment above in response to this bit.

Although the matter is settled for Catholics, it remains true that others continue to criticise that settlement on various grounds. One of those grounds is that it is clearly Christ's will that women should be ordained, another is that there were women apostles and/or prebyters in the apostolic church: those who make them have to bear the burden of proof for those claims. This is no red herring, merely because the issue is already settled for me.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Of course, appealing to "Apostolic Tradition" has its own problems - the fact that Christ never spoke about priests one way or another, for instance - and the examples of Magdalene and Junia (and other women) in ministry and other roles in the Apostolic era. But people just attempt to explain these things away.
Hold on a mo, TubaMirum.

First, the fact that Christ never spoke explicitly about the presbyterate is no more a problem for a Catholic doctrine of orders than the fact that He never spoke explicitly about the Sacrifice of the Mass is a problem for a Catholic eucharistic theology. It is what Christ instituted and what the Apostles (and their successors) having received the Holy Spirit developed and passed down that matters. And one thing they passed down, without equivocation, was an all-male presbyterate.

As for attempting to "explain away" Mary Magdalen and Junia's status as apostles, I think a more accurate description of what has happened on this thread is that they theory has been floated and relevantly critiqued. If you don't think the arguments against are good enough, by all means respond to them. But please don't just dismiss them tacitly and then say the claims have been merely "explained away" when in fact they have been fully engaged with.

Well, to be precise:

Earlier, you claimed that "in context," the description of Mary Magdalene as "apostle to the apostles" was clear - except that you haven't given any "context" at all. That certainly appears to be an attempt to "explain the idea away"; it doesn't seem to me that you've "fully engaged with" it - or even made any sort of real argument at all!

Also: the attempt to make "Apostle" equivalent to "the Twelve," when this is explicitly not the case right in Scripture. That problem was never "fully engaged with," either.

Paul regards himself as an Apostle, and so of course does the Church. Then we must ask: what, exactly, is meant by the word "Apostle"? Here's a list of New Testament apostles: Barnabas (Acts 14:14); Timothy and Silas (1 Thessalonians 1:1 and 2:6: "We were not looking for praise from people, not from you or anyone else, even though as apostles of Christ we could have asserted our authority."); Andronicus and Junia (using the straightforward, rather than the convoluted, interpretation); Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25, in which Epaphroditus is described as a "messenger" - but the same word in the Greek, apostolon, is used.

It's fairly obvious to me that the word "Apostle" is used, at least by Paul (himself an "Apostle"), in a much wider way. The attempt to cut Junia alone out of this group is, yes, "explaining her away." (Originally, of course, she was "explained away" by making her a man! You'll forgive me if I see the very same process at work here.)

In any case: she was the first to see the risen Christ - and spread the word about it. I mean, while we're "extrapolating" from the story of Christ on the topic of the Eucharist and Presbyters - why don't we "extrapolate" from this at the same time? This was as "passed down" as any of the things you mention - and I do call this "explaining away," honestly. Not on your part personally, but on the part of the Church - because women and their roles were simply not considered at all.

[ 15. July 2011, 14:56: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

(Is, really, outrage!)

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That there is no evidence that I do accept does not mean that there never was going to be any evidence I could accept. For instance, if it could have been conclusively be shown that there were a string of unquestionable and undisputed women presbyters in the Apostolic or immediately-post-Apostolic period, then that would certainly count. But there is no such evidence. The absence of evidence was enough for JPII conclude the Church has no authority to proceed in that direction.

(my italics)

Thank you, that helps, I think, as I try to untangle the 'tradition' argument in my head. Of course, I appreciate that it might take us into a whole new world of convolutions as the 'what is unquestioned?' and 'undisputed by whom?' conversations unfolded, but even so, I find it very useful as it establishes that, at least for some holders of the 'tradition position' (?) evidence could trump tradition.

Which means that it's worth continuing to unpack the historical record, to understand the roles of men and women in the early church and how those roles map onto our current understanding of ordained ministry. The way in which those roles were understood and handed on then feeds into the tradition as received today. Which explains to some extent the evidential value given to tradition, for some people and some churches.
(I think!)

anne

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Aha. NOW we're really hitting on something.

Given the social and religious roles of women in 1st century Judaism and Jewish soceity.

This is the crux of my concern. Are we following a tradition because it reflects the views of God about the role of women? Or are we following a tradition because it reflects the views of 1st Century Jews about the role of women? ...

Supposing Jesus had wanted to include women among the twelve. Back in the day, it's likely that a woman would have needed permission from her father / husband / sons to leave her family duties to become an apostle. If she were independent e.g. a financially self-supporting wealthy widow with no children or other relatives (and how many of those were there?), she might have been able to join in, but would probably be subject to quite a bit of public disapproval, what with the hanging around with men she wasn't related to, travelling alone, etc. The disapproval would probably extend to the entire faith community for including such women in leadership positions. To me, it's perfectly reasonable to see that this wasn't a hill to die on at the time.

Things are different now, at least in our culture.

And how is it possible that possession of a Y chromosome creates some sort of special relationship with God, but having two X chromosomes makes a person "invalid matter"? Would Jesus have equated a woman's spiritual worth to that of a tree? [Disappointed]

OliviaG

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

(I meant Mary Magdalene, of course, in my last para above! I see now that's not clear, but of course that was my intent.

And of course, she's not alone in being among the first to testify to the Risen Christ! There are others - all women - involved as well....)

[ 15. July 2011, 16:45: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Earlier, you claimed that "in context," the description of Mary Magdalene as "apostle to the apostles" was clear - except that you haven't given any "context" at all. That certainly appears to be an attempt to "explain the idea away"; it doesn't seem to me that you've "fully engaged with" it - or even made any sort of real argument at all!

What I meant was that the epithet was used in the context of the resurrection, where Mary is the one to bring the message to the apostles - that's the reference. But since we're talking about context, we simply don't know where and in what context the epithet was first coined, merely that it is early - not who coined nor what they meant to imply by it nor what the context of the comment was. Really, nothing. That's a very unclear precedent upon which to base a claim that there's apostolic tradition in favour of women prebyters. I really don't think it will bear the weight you're putting on it.

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's fairly obvious to me that the word "Apostle" is used, at least by Paul (himself an "Apostle"), in a much wider way. The attempt to cut Junia alone out of this group is, yes, "explaining her away."

Actually, Paul is extremely sparing with that term, tending to restrict it to himself and the Twelve. The exceptions are Timothy and Silas, who are called apostles in 1st Thes. (and who seem to function as such in their ministries) and Apollos who is called an apostle in 1st Cor.

Now to Junia and Andronicus (not "Junia alone"). I definitely tackled that thorny issue by citing the latest scholarship I could find on it. I have now read that paper in it's entirety myself (available here ). The conclusion of the authors is that the most obvious reading of the phrase is that Andronicus and Junia were known to the apostles - not noted among them as apostles themselves. They cite lots of evidence for this, and the wiki article on "Apostle (Christian)" [sorry - can't link to it because of parentheses] cites them as the last word on it. Amongst their conclusions:

quote:
In sum, over the past three decades the exclusive view [i.e., that Junia and Andronicus are not referred to as apostles] has been only scarcely attested in translations or exegetical and theological literature. Yet the arguments against it are largely a kind of snowballing dogma that has little of substance at its core [...] one has to wonder how there could be such a great chasm between the scholarly opinion about Rom. 16:7 and what the data actually reveal. Our sense is that the unfounded opinions of a few great scholars of yesteryear have been, frankly, canonized.

I do recommend reading the whole thing. Once you have, we can have the debate about Junia again, if you like, but I'll need some correspondingly strong evidence to convince me to the contrary. At any rate, I really don't think this can be dismissed as "explaining her away."

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
In any case: she was the first to see the risen Christ - and spread the word about it. I mean, while we're "extrapolating" from the story of Christ on the topic of the Eucharist and Presbyters - why don't we "extrapolate" from this at the same time?

Two things: 1) extrapolate to what, though? What does that unabiguously tell us? And, 2) it's not for us to extrapolate it into, say, an argument for women priests since it didn't seem to have anything like that particular significance to anybody at the time. We "extrapolate" from the last supper to the Eucharist precisely because the apostles and their disciples did (which is why we have the Eucharist in the first place). If they hadn't, it would not be for us suddenly to do so after 2000 years.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
To me, it's perfectly reasonable to see that this wasn't a hill to die on at the time.

Fair enough. But why though doesn't our Lord - who knew his time well enough and how his ministry would devlop in it - give the later, more enlightened Church something substantial to go on, like a "hard saying" which they "cannot bear now" to his disciples about inclusive ministry? That would have let them off the hook whilst being something that we today could pick up and use as clear evidence for women priests? Too much of this "the times wouldn't allow for it" stuff is basically implying that Jesus got it wrong or failed to see something which we grasp.

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
And how is it possible that possession of a Y chromosome creates some sort of special relationship with God [...]? Would Jesus have equated a woman's spiritual worth to that of a tree? OliviaG

Here you've lost me. Who's been saying this? The "invalid matter" term is merely a way of describing unfittedness to a particular sacrament - like using orange juice and fillet steak for communion. It's not about individual personal worth.

[ 15. July 2011, 17:48: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Chesterbelloc, you really have to stop insisting that I'm making a "claim that there's apostolic tradition in favour of women prebyters."

Nowhere have I said anything remotely like this; you yourself have made this claim several times now, but I haven't - not even once. Please do stop saying I have.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Then what's your point in raising Mary Mag and Junia in the first place? Were you not suggesting there was apostolic precedent for women in such roles? [Confused]

[ 15. July 2011, 17:53: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Then what's your point in raising Mary Mag and Junia in the first place? Were you not suggesting there was apostolic precedent for women in such roles?

Oh, brother....

(Q: How many times do I have to say the same thing on this thread? A: So far, at least three, I believe.)

[ 15. July 2011, 17:55: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Why not just answer my question? I doubt I'm the only person here who's under the impression you've been using Mary and Junia to try to undermine the argument from tradition against female priests. What is it you've said "three times"? When I last expressed incomprehension about this ("Humour me..."), you just ignored me.

[ 15. July 2011, 17:59: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Why not just answer my question? I doubt I'm the only person here who's under the impression you've been using Mary and Junia to try to undermine the argument from tradition against female priests. What is it you've said "three times"? When I last expressed incomprehension about this ("Humour me..."), you just ignored me.

I ignored you because I'd already told you why, precisely, here.

I was referring back to this.

It really isn't my fault if you pay no attention when you ask for an explanation and one is given. It's also a perfectly reasonable topic to be discussing on this thread, so I'm not sure why I need to defend it at all. You decided to interject your own opinion in a discussion I was having with somebody else; the very least you could do it acknowledge what's actually being talked about.

[ 15. July 2011, 18:10: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

First, the fact that Christ never spoke explicitly about the presbyterate is no more a problem for a Catholic doctrine of orders than the fact that He never spoke explicitly about the Sacrifice of the Mass is a problem for a Catholic eucharistic theology.

This is weird. On the one hand you say that women can;'t be ordained because Jesus never explicitly said they could be. On the other hand you say that only men can be ordained even though Jesus never explicitly said they could be. You are having your cake and eating it. When the Lord is silent on a matter you assume he must agree with the Pope. That's not a respectable way of arguing.

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Aha. NOW we're really hitting on something.

Given the social and religious roles of women in 1st century Judaism and Jewish soceity.

This is the crux of my concern. Are we following a tradition because it reflects the views of God about the role of women? Or are we following a tradition because it reflects the views of 1st Century Jews about the role of women? ...
Supposing Jesus had wanted to include women among the twelve. Back in the day, it's likely that a woman would have needed permission from her father / husband / sons to leave her family duties to become an apostle. If she were independent e.g. a financially self-supporting wealthy widow with no children or other relatives (and how many of those were there?), she might have been able to join in, but would probably be subject to quite a bit of public disapproval, what with the hanging around with men she wasn't related to, travelling alone, etc.

But women did go araound with Jesus and support him with money. Ands they were in different situations. Mary and Martha and the other Mary (whichever one it was) don't seem to have had husbands. Salome was presumably there with the agreement or permission of her husband - at any rate she was travelling with her sons as well as Jesus so among family, maybe Zebedee was fed up with the whole thing. The same might apply to "Mary of Clopas" if Clopas is in fact the same person as Cleopas. No-one is quite clear about who Susanna was. Joanna the wife of Chuza on the other hand presumably did not have the public approval of her husband. But she followed Jesus and she helped pay the bills.

Later in the time of the earliest church at least some Christian women travelled around, perhaps as merchants, and at least some of them taught the faith as they went, and some of them supported churches financially or held them in their own homes. Priscilla seems to have been going about with her husband, but no-one mentions any husband for Lydia.

Also, if there are any Bible-believing fundamentalist types reading this, I have to mention the Perfect Wife in Proverbs 30. She gets up early and works hard running her own business and dealing in property so that she can fund her husband who doesn't have to go to work at all but can sit around talking to his friends. Sounds perfect to me! Where's mine?

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

[To TubaMirum]

Nope. You've lost me.

You were talking to orfeo about whether or not there were women apostles - you cited Junia and Mary Mag - and I responded with scepticism about both cases. Is it the connection between women apostles and women presbyters you're contesting? Because the connection is pretty obvious on a thread like this: the one is most often cited to prove the appropriateness of the other.

Really, you're not being as clear as you seem to think here. To me, at any rate. I'll try again after supper...

[ 15. July 2011, 18:22: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[To TubaMirum]

Nope. You've lost me.

You were talking to orfeo about whether or not there were women apostles - you cited Junia and Mary Mag - and I responded with scepticism about both cases. Is it the connection between women apostles and women presbyters you're contesting? Because the connection is pretty obvious on a thread like this: the one is most often cited to prove the appropriateness of the other.

Really, you're not being as clear as you seem to think here. To me, at any rate. I'll try again after supper...

I wasn't "contesting" anything. I simply wrote to respond to something orfeo had said, plain and simple (I've now said this quite a number of times, too; why is this so difficult to understand?).

You're the one doing all the contesting; you decided you wanted to talk about what I said. Now I'm talking about it.

What in the world is the problem?

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... Here you've lost me. Who's been saying this? The "invalid matter" term is merely a way of describing unfittedness to a particular sacrament - like using orange juice and fillet steak for communion. It's not about individual personal worth.

CL on page 2 of this thread:

quote:
Invalid matter is invalid matter; he may as well have tried to ordain a tree or a car or a horse.

And whether a woman feels devalued by exclusion is up to her, no? I certainly found that comment insulting. OliviaG

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
On the one hand you say that women can;'t be ordained because Jesus never explicitly said they could be. On the other hand you say that only men can be ordained even though Jesus never explicitly said they could be.

What? I have said no such things. I have argued that the Catholic Church has no authority from Scripture or Apostolic Tradition to ordain women. Not simply because the Lord never says anying explicit to allow it, but because the balance of what He does (and does not) say combined with the way the Apostles interpreted that did not in fact lead to women being ordained from then till now. The apostles were given the gift of the Holy Spirit to discenr His will for the Church, after all. From all that I take it - could be wrong - that the Lord did not intend that they should be. Not conclusive, but...

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
When the Lord is silent on a matter you assume he must agree with the Pope. That's not a respectable way of arguing.

When the Lord is silent and nobody contests a tradition that is not in any obvious way undermineded by His teaching for 1900 years - and even then only by a comparatively small minority of Christians - then I think people are entitled to draw some conclusions and share them critically with others. That is not a disreputable way of arguing in my book.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... Here you've lost me. Who's been saying this? The "invalid matter" term is merely a way of describing unfittedness to a particular sacrament - like using orange juice and fillet steak for communion. It's not about individual personal worth.
CL on page 2 of this thread:

quote:
Invalid matter is invalid matter; he may as well have tried to ordain a tree or a car or a horse.
And whether a woman feels devalued by exclusion is up to her, no? I certainly found that comment insulting. OliviaG

Right, sorry - missed that. Get the reference now. I see what CL is getting at but prefer my own example, and won't be using CL as my press officer any time . [Biased]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I wasn't "contesting" anything. I simply wrote to respond to something orfeo had said, plain and simple (I've now said this quite a number of times, too; why is this so difficult to understand?).

Because you keep responding critically to my critique of your suggestion that Junia and St Mary Mag were apostles? Are you not arguing that we should accept them as apostles?

This is getting just the tiniest bit bizarre - like the Python argument sketch...

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I wasn't "contesting" anything. I simply wrote to respond to something orfeo had said, plain and simple (I've now said this quite a number of times, too; why is this so difficult to understand?).
Because you keep responding critically to my critique of your suggestion that Junia and St Mary Mag were apostles? Are you not arguing that we should accept them as apostles?

This is getting just the tiniest bit bizarre - like the Python argument sketch...

Yes it is. I can't for the life of me comprehend why you don't understand why I object to being told I've said something I haven't.

But let's just drop it at this point, because we obviously aren't getting anywhere....

[ 15. July 2011, 22:20: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Fine. I'm still none the wiser.

Hot tip for the future: respond to honest questions for clarification with direct answers rather than repeated, eye-rolling "I've-already-told-you" elipsis. Result? You don't look as if you're dodging the issue and I don't end up questioning your sincerity and/or my sanity, and there's more good-will all round. Heverywan's heh winner.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
When the Lord is silent on a matter you assume he must agree with the Pope. That's not a respectable way of arguing.
When the Lord is silent and nobody contests a tradition that is not in any obvious way undermineded by His teaching for 1900 years - and even then only by a comparatively small minority of Christians - then I think people are entitled to draw some conclusions and share them critically with others. That is not a disreputable way of arguing in my book.

The problem is people are contesting it. People from within the RC church as well as people outside it.

Is there a certain number of people who have to contest it for there to be questions?

(I mean Peter in Acts pretty much has to be hit over the head by God several times before he gets the message that Gentiles can be Christian. It's not a good outlook on the rest of the Church and changing tradition OR listening to the Holy Spirit...)

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
The problem is people are contesting it. People from within the RC church as well as people outside it.

Now some people are. After 1900 years - and even then only a comparatively small minority of Christians. For faithful RC the matter is closed - to the extent that RCs are contesting that doctrine they are to the same extent not being faithful to the Church's legitimate authority to teach definitively.

Your example of Peter being smacked upside of the head about admitting Gentiles is actually quite telling: he was put right promptly and explicitly by God so as to leave no doubt over a matter of such great importance. There was and has been no such explicit divine clearing-up of the matter of ordaining women. Nothing close, in fact. Surely that, plus 1900 years of undisputed tradtion in the other direction, entitles people at the very least to doubt whether God calls women to ordained ministry.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

Your example of Peter being smacked upside of the head about admitting Gentiles is actually quite telling: he was put right promptly and explicitly by God so as to leave no doubt over a matter of such great importance. There was and has been no such explicit divine clearing-up of the matter of ordaining women. Nothing close, in fact. Surely that, plus 1900 years of undisputed tradtion in the other direction, entitles people at the very least to doubt whether God calls women to ordained ministry.

You can't have it both ways, Chesterbelloc. If Peter's reluctance to change the tradition was contradicted 'promptly and explicitly by God', then you could surely argue that the lack of a prompt and explicit rebuke from God to those ordaining women as priests, and a seemingly clear blessing of God on many if not most of those women's ministries, suggests that God expects us to develop tradition, not be restricted by it.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
You can't have it both ways, Chesterbelloc. If Peter's reluctance to change the tradition was contradicted 'promptly and explicitly by God', then you could surely argue that the lack of a prompt and explicit rebuke from God to those ordaining women as priests, and a seemingly clear blessing of God on many if not most of those women's ministries, suggests that God expects us to develop tradition, not be restricted by it.

I'm not trying to have it both ways, Angloid. I'm drawing a distinction between apostolic precedent and contemporary preoccupations.

I happen to think that what happened in the immediate post-Ascension, Apostolic era - and what has been faithfully followed therefrom until very recently - has more evidential weight than any particular novel way of altering that tradition right now or how we discern God's pleasure or displeasure with such innovations. God hasn't quite so explicitly intervened in plenty of Church stuff that has gone wrong since the post-Apostolic period.

I'm not arguing that current interpretations have no weight - just that the burden of proof for altering such well-founded traditions lies very heavily with those who want to alter them. Christ and the Apostles are the source, to use terminology already employed on this thread.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

But the issue of whether or not Gentiles should be admitted to the Church was very much a live one in the earliest years. The issue of whether or not women should be ordained was not. It would not have occurred to the vast majority of early Christians that anyone other than men should exercise authority because society did not see women in any similar role of secular authority.

I still haven't heard a convincing argument from those against OoW why it was right after hundreds of years to abolish slavery, yet wrong to allow women priests.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

That's a good point, Angloid, and shouldn't be forgotten.

Most women have not had any secular rights in most places for most of history - not only in the West, but pretty much everywhere on earth. No right to vote (where there was a right to vote); no right to own property; no right to an education or to go to university; no real possibility of supporting themselves.

It's not really at all surprising that the priesthood was simply one more thing denied women. So the "1900" years argument is more or less a "blame the victim" stance, as well as being rather unconvincing. I mean, let's make it 5,000 years, why don't we, while we're at it, and include Melchizedek?

(And of course, we do notice that women are being ordained now as rabbis, too, after lots of debate - even among Conservative Jews. It does seem to be a pattern....)

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

(BTW, you find this quote at Jewish Virtual Library, about the Orthodox position on women's ordination:

quote:
Zevulum Charlop, dean of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary of Yeshiva University argues that women can not receive smicha because it originated with Moses and was passed down only to men (Goodstein). “

)

[ 16. July 2011, 23:35: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
That's a good point, Angloid, and shouldn't be forgotten.

Most women have not had any secular rights in most places for most of history - not only in the West, but pretty much everywhere on earth. No right to vote (where there was a right to vote); no right to own property; no right to an education or to go to university; no real possibility of supporting themselves.

It's not really at all surprising that the priesthood was simply one more thing denied women. So the "1900" years argument is more or less a "blame the victim" stance, as well as being rather unconvincing. I mean, let's make it 5,000 years, why don't we, while we're at it, and include Melchizedek?

(And of course, we do notice that women are being ordained now as rabbis, too, after lots of debate - even among Conservative Jews. It does seem to be a pattern....)

Sigh. This is soooo obvious, which is why arguing it really does seem like beating a dead horse. The idea that women cannot lead, make decisions, nuture a flock, represent Christ on Earth as he represents humanity in the Godhead is stinking and moribund. The only reason it might seem alive is because people who are afraid this might make the unchangeable (God) change, keep jiggling the corpse. "It's alive! It's alive!" [brick wall]

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But the issue of whether or not Gentiles should be admitted to the Church was very much a live one in the earliest years. The issue of whether or not women should be ordained was not. It would not have occurred to the vast majority of early Christians that anyone other than men should exercise authority because society did not see women in any similar role of secular authority.

Secular authority? You made the secular qualification remember. So, what about religious authority? There were plenty of women priests around at that time in other religions. It would not have been a novel concept.

quote:
I still haven't heard a convincing argument from those against OoW why it was right after hundreds of years to abolish slavery, yet wrong to allow women priests.

Slavery was a sacrament?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
The problem is people are contesting it. People from within the RC church as well as people outside it.
Now some people are. After 1900 years - and even then only a comparatively small minority of Christians.

Just because you're only aware of it now, doesn't mean it's only happening now. I find it hard to believe that there haven't been women down the millennia wondering, even if only very, very quietly, why the menfolk think that only they have the right kind of connection to God.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

It's also interesting that (I believe) even the Catholic Church acknowledges the existence of women deacons in the early church. So in fact there is indeed precedent anyway; I suppose deacon was as far as anybody dared go - which was, in fact, pretty far.

I agree, LydaRose: this debate is so over at this point. It seems beyond absurd that we're still talking about it, really.

(A Catholic friend says that the Church is going to have to ordain women soon, anyway - because it's running out of priests....)

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Secular authority? You made the secular qualification remember. So, what about religious authority? There were plenty of women priests around at that time in other religions. It would not have been a novel concept.

It would have been, in Judaism - the wellspring from which Christianity flowed.

But that was then - and this is now.

[ 17. July 2011, 01:43: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
That's a good point, Angloid, and shouldn't be forgotten.

Most women have not had any secular rights in most places for most of history - not only in the West, but pretty much everywhere on earth. No right to vote (where there was a right to vote); no right to own property; no right to an education or to go to university; no real possibility of supporting themselves.

It's not really at all surprising that the priesthood was simply one more thing denied women. So the "1900" years argument is more or less a "blame the victim" stance, as well as being rather unconvincing. I mean, let's make it 5,000 years, why don't we, while we're at it, and include Melchizedek?

Well yes, precisely, which is where I came in on this thread. In the words of the sainted Basil Fawlty, it's stating 'The Bleeding Obvious' that ecclesiastical 'Tradition' is institutionally sexist and homophobic, and historically always has been. When challenged about 'The Bleeding Obvious' that this is unjust, the proponents of Tradition argue that it's precisely because they have such a long and appalling track record of institutional discrimination that it must be right!

It's like Creationism, the very ludicrousness of the belief, flying in the face of all that we have learned, makes the person who holds it feel extra special. They have access to The Truth denied to us mere mortals and unbelievers. The very fact that we cheeky sods outside the church point out 'The Bleeding Obvious' that this means their church is fundamentally flawed in terms of justice and equity, that the Emperor has no clothes, only makes them feel that they must be wearing the very very finest of tat! It's so fine, that the proles can't possibly appreciate it. So it must be wonderful and right.

L.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

Which is where I came in on this debate. You either accept the principle of "that which we have received that we pass on to you" or you don't.

I'm quite happy for those Christian groups who do not accept that principle of Tradition to order themselves as they wish.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

What TT said, basically.

There is no unambiguous or uncontroversial evidence even of women deacons (i.e., in orders rather than licensed), so I really don't think that argument from tradition will bark. Much better to argue as Louise does that tradition is just wrong than to try to stretch it to fit accommodate stuff it just can't.

Once again, the spade is turned. I'll go with the living exercise of tradition that is the Roman magisterium, thanks. I wish all who don't, won't or feel they can't every good thing.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

[Sorry - ran out of time on the edit - fuller version below.]

What TT said, basically.

Slavery is a socio-economic political contingency like the form of govenment a state has: monarchy, oligarchy, theocracy, aristocracy, etc. In the same way that the early Church was happy to go along with Roman imperial govenment as a legit form of authority but the Church has never taught that other forms of govenmnet are explicitly wrong (think Leo XII and the French monarchists), so the early Church did not sanctify the insitiution of slavery just because it (and the Lord) did not campaign for its abolition from the beginning.

Orders, however, are very much of the essence of the Church and are considered holy - as TT says, they're a sacrament. Comparing how the Church ordered one of her own holy institutions (over which she exercised due authority) with her attitude towards an external institution like slavery is comparing apples with motorbikes.

There is no uncontroversial evidence that I'm aware of even of women deacons (i.e., in orders rather than licensed), so I really don't think that argument from tradition will bark. Much better to argue as Louise does that tradition is just wrong than to try to stretch it to fit stuff it just can't.

Once again, the spade is turned. I'll go with the living exercise of tradition that is the Roman magisterium, thanks. I wish all who don't, won't or feel they can't every good thing.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

I liked the parallel lines analogy earlier - so I shall try for something equally abstract.

Imagine you have red squares, yellow circles, and blue triangles. Jesus picks a set of red squares.

I now have a set of squares, circles and triangles in all three colours. I want to pick all the reds, you are telling me I can only pick squares.

Same evidence but different category sort.

Or to tie back to the original situation - Jesus picked faithful people who had a chance of being listened to.

In that time and place, that first meant Jewish men of some maturity - other things will also have been true of them. They probably mostly had beards, and didn't wear trousers, and didn't live in houses made of red brick - and had all sorts of *incidental* characteristics. Later gentiles were included, because they could be faithful people with a chance of being listened to. It has taken until the latter part of the 20th century for women to have a equal chance of being listened to.

But the important thing was that the apostles were faithful people who had a chance of being listened to.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Secular authority? You made the secular qualification remember. So, what about religious authority? There were plenty of women priests around at that time in other religions. It would not have been a novel concept.
It would have been, in Judaism - the wellspring from which Christianity flowed.

But that was then - and this is now.

Irrelevant anyway. Christians aren't ordaining Old Testament priests, or their pagan equivalents. In the Church that role is taken by our Great High Priest.

We're ordaining servers, elders, & overseers to be pastors, teachers, preachers and so on. To make the OT precedent support an all-male ordained mimistry you would have to show that no women were ever prophets, pastors, teachers, or leaders. And you'd be on to a loser there.

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Irrelevant anyway. Christians aren't ordaining Old Testament priests, or their pagan equivalents. In the Church that role is taken by our Great High Priest.

Is it relevant that the Catholic priest stands in loco Christus(sp?), and as such continues, in a sense, a sacrificial priesthood?

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Irrelevant anyway. Christians aren't ordaining Old Testament priests, or their pagan equivalents. In the Church that role is taken by our Great High Priest.
Is it relevant that the Catholic priest stands in loco Christus(sp?), and as such continues, in a sense, a sacrificial priesthood?

Yeah - I have a higher view of the priesthood than the one Ken seems to hold, too. One which I'm quite certain women can fulfill.

Actually, the very fact that this issue is not being argued along those lines any longer points to doubts about the theological soundness of the all-male priesthood. "Tradition" is the argument now - but at that point, we're not really having a theological/doctrinal discussion anymore.

I've linked to this post here before, which points out some of the problems with the theology.

[ 17. July 2011, 13:12: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Irrelevant anyway. Christians aren't ordaining Old Testament priests, or their pagan equivalents. In the Church that role is taken by our Great High Priest.
Is it relevant that the Catholic priest stands in loco Christus(sp?), and as such continues, in a sense, a sacrificial priesthood?

Here, my attempts to understand the 'anti arguments' start to fail as the red mist descends. The pure tradition stance (from within the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches) doesn't convince me, but is clear and coherent, particularly when it is restated as 'what is handed on to us from the post-apostolic church is what we should hand on', which I hope is a fair summary of what some posters are saying.

The in loco Christus argument - that Jesus was a man and therefore priests should be men - is superficially clear but lacks internal coherence, and I recently promised myself that I wouldn't take it from ordained men who were not themselves both celibate and Jewish.

Jesus was many things which most priests from any part of the Church are not, and He was some things that no priest is. We do not insist that Christian priests are genetically or culturally jewish, or that they are born in Israel, or that they are under 35, or that they speak Aramaic, or that they are circumcised or that they are an oldest (or only) child or have long hair. His gender is an important part of defining His incarnated being - but it is far from the only part of that definition.

Sorry - you pushed my buttons.

anne

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's also interesting that (I believe) even the Catholic Church acknowledges the existence of women deacons in the early church. So in fact there is indeed precedent anyway; I suppose deacon was as far as anybody dared go - which was, in fact, pretty far.

I agree, LydaRose: this debate is so over at this point. It seems beyond absurd that we're still talking about it, really.

(A Catholic friend says that the Church is going to have to ordain women soon, anyway - because it's running out of priests....)

A deaconess was not a female deacon. It was a lay office.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
A deaconess was not a female deacon. It was a lay office.

Do you really think that the current distinction between lay ministers and ordained ministers existed in New Testament times?

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Besides which the whole thing is a fudge. The word used of Phoebe in the New Testament (diakonon) is exactly the same word as that used of a man in the same position. The only reason to suggest she was doing something different is an a priori assumption that she couldn't have been doing the same job because she was a woman. The text itself gives no evidence of this.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
A deaconess was not a female deacon. It was a lay office.

This article says you're wrong. Quote:

quote:
Unless I am mistaken, the author is precisely correct that there is historical evidence that women were actually ordained as deacons, using the same, or very similar, formulas and prescriptions as used presently for the ordination to the diaconate. The attempt to gloss over this to preserve the integrity of an exclusively male priesthood is admirable in its intention, but intellectually dishonest.

I don't think "glossing it over" is particularly "admirable in its intention" - but that should be a selling point for you, CL.

At any rate: no.

[ 19. July 2011, 14:59: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

An interesting additional point from the article referenced in the above quote; apparently all this is right there in the historical documents:

quote:
As time and practice accrued, women were ordained to the diaconate in rituals identical to those used to ordain men to the diaconate. The ordination ritual of the Apostolic Constitutions for women deacons, codified by the Councils of Nicea (325) and Chalcedon (421) begins: “O bishop, you shall lay hands on her in the presence of the presbytery.” Perhaps the oldest known complete rite of ordination for women deacons, a mid-eighth century Byzantine manuscript known as Barbarini 336, requires that women be ordained by the bishop within the sanctuary, the proximity to the altar indicating the fact of a true ordination.

[ 19. July 2011, 15:56: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

The rites for deaconesses spoke of ''keepers of your holy gates' - similar to a 'doorkeeper in the house of the Lord' - 'doorkeeper' was a minor 'order' like acolyte - certainly not 'deacon'

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

When are we talking about?

It doesn't really matter if they had downgraded women deacons to mere deaconesses by the whateverth century, its whats in the New Testament that convinces.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

ancient Coptic

The issue is what a 'gatekeeper' is - there is a theory, now disputed, that the main role of the deacon, in the days of persecution, was to keep an eye on the door to see if any soldiers were coming and, therefore, whether it was safe to leave - hence the deacon's final part in the liturgy 'Go in peace...'

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
ancient Coptic

So so what? It doesn't affect Chesterbelloc's, IngoB's., Trisaigion's et al aruments which are based on a Pope the Copts don;t and never did recognise. They've got their own and always did.

Nor mine in favour of ordaining women which are based on the New Testament.

All a bit irrelevant.

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

Is there a contradiction between this

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
An interesting additional point from the article referenced in the above quote; apparently all this is right there in the historical documents:

quote:
As time and practice accrued, women were ordained to the diaconate in rituals identical to those used to ordain men to the diaconate. The ordination ritual of the Apostolic Constitutions for women deacons, codified by the Councils of Nicea (325) and Chalcedon (421) begins: “O bishop, you shall lay hands on her in the presence of the presbytery.” Perhaps the oldest known complete rite of ordination for women deacons, a mid-eighth century Byzantine manuscript known as Barbarini 336, requires that women be ordained by the bishop within the sanctuary, the proximity to the altar indicating the fact of a true ordination.

and this

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The rites for deaconesses spoke of ''keepers of your holy gates' - similar to a 'doorkeeper in the house of the Lord' - 'doorkeeper' was a minor 'order' like acolyte - certainly not 'deacon'

?
Or are we talking about different times or strands of church history?

anne

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Apparently there have been both "female deacons" and "deaconesses."

And it seems maybe (from what I'm gathering, although I'm not 100% certain yet) that the two functions existed simultaneously.

Although that doesn't make much sense, does it? OTOH, use of the English word "deaconess" could have been - as was hinted at in an earlier post - a way to erase "female deacons" out of existence, substituting this apparently non-ordained position for the ordained one. As you notice above, CL immediately tried that tack; I mentioned "women deacons" and he went right with "deaconesses," in a sort of sleight-of-hand "translation"!

But there could have been two completely different words in Greek, or Latin, for these two functions, if they existed together at the same time.

Still reading....

[ 19. July 2011, 22:25: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It does seem pretty bizarre, linguistically speaking, to have a distinction between female deacons on the one hand and deaconesses on the other. If there was in fact a distinction, it obviously loses something in the translation. Alternatively, there was no distinction and people are arguing that deaconesses aren't deacons of female gender purely to arrive at a predetermined result.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

I really don't want to get caught up in this argument too much - time doesn't allow - but I just want to point out what I hope are a couple of uncontroversial things.

1) There is nothing close to scholarly consensus about whether there were ever female deacons ordained in the full sense in which men were: i.e., with precisely the same key indicators, including the laying on of hands with the explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit for that office. That's just a fact.

2) The Roman Catholic Church has not definitively ruled on whether women can be ordained to the diaconate.

3) This has no bearing for Catholics on whether women can be ordained to the priesthood because that has been definitively ruled out, as discussed above.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Chesterbelloc

While you are right to caution about building too much on e.g "Phoebe, diakonos" (Romans 16:1) there is an equal and opposite danger of being too dismissive. Much can be made, indeed is made, of the ambiguity of "diakonos", meaning both "servant" and "office". But that's a post-facto rationalisation. The truth is that this is a uniquely commended servant of the church, and she is undoubted female. She is also a clear "ikon" of Christ in this context, since on the testimony of Paul, she mirrors the teaching that he came among us not to be served but to serve. There is a tradition that she was entrusted to carry the Epistle itself to its destination. And if one looks at the further instruction viz "that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.(ESV)" this is a high commendation indeed.

Not suggesting you build a whole edifice on this, but I don't think this can be easily argued away either. It should give pause for thought. Treat with dignity and respect. She's earned it through her faithful service. Isn't that a principle which shines through the cultural differences? Why can't we build on that?

The great majority of us now accept, following MLK, that content of character is more important than colour of skin, and that is a Christian virtue. Is it such a big stretch to replace "colour of skin" by "gender" and say that is the criterion to apply to those entrusted with serving the church? Why cannot that be done? When it comes to the priesthood, it is surely just one aspect of Holy Tradition conversing with another. Surely the outworking of theology is about such conversations?

"We've never done it this way before" just doesn't seem adequate somehow. I'm not saying I don't understand the reservations, but where is that conversation?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
ancient Coptic

So so what? It doesn't affect Chesterbelloc's, IngoB's., Trisaigion's et al aruments which are based on a Pope the Copts don;t and never did recognise. They've got their own and always did.

Nor mine in favour of ordaining women which are based on the New Testament.

All a bit irrelevant.

Not irrelevant to those who search antiquity in search of crumbs of evidence that there is a precedence for the OOW.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not irrelevant to those who search antiquity in search of crumbs of evidence that there is a precedence for the OOW.

In case you're interested, this is rather an insulting turn of phrase, and isn't actually what's happening anyway.

What's actually happening is that people are taking a closer look at history to see where the role of women has been purposely ignored, demeaned, or totally erased. The "diakonon" incident is just one of many.

For another very clear example: Mary Magdalene was turned into a whore by some Pope or other - a false trope that is absolutely nowhere to be found in the Bible. Instead of being praised as the very first Apostle - which she was - she was turned into a "fallen woman," fit for nothing but eternal repentence and reform. The church has been heavy on the misogyny over the centuries, along with most of the rest of the world.

Yet even in his misogynistic culture, Paul gives high honor to numerous women working closely with him. Jesus, of course, did the same, by including women among his closest companions and confidants - and, BTW, disciples. They traveled with him, and learned from him - in some ways better, apparently, than most of the "Twelve," who are in fact often portrayed as dunces in the Bible. People have erased them from history (and "tradition") because that has served their purpose - but there they most definitely are.

Martha and Mary are Christ's disciples as much as any of the "Twelve" - who are, of course, a sign of and metaphor for the Twelve Tribes of Israel - which in turn are a sign of and metaphor for the sons of Isaac. Those were patriarchal societies, all of them.

One might say, in fact, if one actually looked at the stories, that his female companions were far more in tune with what Jesus was about than the men, who are almost always portrayed and thick and dense and uncomprehending of Jesus' message. Mary, for one, has "chosen the better part." A woman anoints Jesus' feet (or head), and the men are told that she's doing the right thing. Magdalene saw Jesus in the garden - and he commissions her right there, saying, "Go tell them to meet me in Galilee." (That's an "Apostle," BTW: sent.)

It's quite possible to make that interpretation if one wanted to, that is - but one (i.e., "the church") definitely has not felt like doing that over the last couple of millennia.

So nobody's looking at "crumbs"; we're staring at gigantic boulders that have been dismissed and ignored in order to perpetuate the status quo.

(There. I feel better now.... [Biased]

)

[ 20. July 2011, 12:47: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

(Because, you know: we don't actually need a precedent for the ordination of women; we could "break new ground" if we wanted to, because we believe our theology points to the breaking of new ground.

I thought that was the whole idea of "revelation" anyway....)

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

** Sons of Jacob, of course.

(All those darned Patriarchs look alike to me....)

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So nobody's looking at "crumbs"; we're staring at gigantic boulders that have been dismissed and ignored in order to perpetuate the status quo.

These 'boulders' prove that women are equal to men in discipleship or even better at it.

It does not prove that they were 'ordained'.

I often think that ordination is for those who are not much good at discipleship because they cannot cope as laity, it being much harder to live out the faith in secular than within the confines of the gathered church.

[ 20. July 2011, 16:32: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So nobody's looking at "crumbs"; we're staring at gigantic boulders that have been dismissed and ignored in order to perpetuate the status quo.
These 'boulders' prove that women are equal to men in discipleship or even better at it.

It does not prove that they were 'ordained'.

Only you and Chesterbelloc are fixated on the (false) idea that this is what's being argued on this thread.

But by all means, keep harping on it, if that's your pleasure....

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So nobody's looking at "crumbs"; we're staring at gigantic boulders that have been dismissed and ignored in order to perpetuate the status quo.
These 'boulders' prove that women are equal to men in discipleship or even better at it.

It does not prove that they were 'ordained'.

Only you and Chesterbelloc are fixated on the (false) idea that this is what's being argued on this thread.

But by all means, keep harping on it, if that's your pleasure....

Wow! Chesterbelloc and me in the same sentence - we are at loggerheads usually.

Going back to ordained women, much as I would like it to be the case, the evidence is flimsy and what has been dragged out smacks of conspiracy theory - the women had important roles but the men wrote them out of the documents.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Wow! Chesterbelloc and me in the same sentence - we are at loggerheads usually.

Going back to ordained women, much as I would like it to be the case, the evidence is flimsy and what has been dragged out smacks of conspiracy theory - the women had important roles but the men wrote them out of the documents.

Be clear in what you're saying. Exactly who has dragged exactly what out, in terms of "ordained women"? Name names; give examples.

[ 20. July 2011, 18:55: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

That is a long one, worthy of a separate thread - I can do it, if you want to.

However this thread is about the Ordinariate, which both you and I are not wanting to do, with good reasons.

By all means, have the debate, but remember that you and I are both in favour of the OOW and accept it as a DEVELOPMENT of our tradition - but I do not need to find a precedent from what has gone before - because there is none.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(Because, you know: we don't actually need a precedent for the ordination of women; we could "break new ground" if we wanted to, because we believe our theology points to the breaking of new ground.

.... as I have been saying.

This is the important distinction between the RC Church and others and we need to recognise that.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(Because, you know: we don't actually need a precedent for the ordination of women; we could "break new ground" if we wanted to, because we believe our theology points to the breaking of new ground.
.... as I have been saying.

This is the important distinction between the RC Church and others and we need to recognise that.

But, TT: I think the RCC could do this, too.

[Biased]

And I insist that it has, actually. Every bit of doctrine and discipline that came after Christ was a new development from previous Christian theology, no?

Listen: I'm not arguing that the RCC should ordain women; I'm simply saying that it could - and alongside that, that everything it's developed over the years was an innovation, pointed to by a new theology.

But of course, it's not my business to insist the RCC do anything - I'm not a member of that church! I do respect that church, though - and I should add that I've been tempted to join it strictly because of all the great things I believe it's accomplished.

Oh, well. Maybe next lifetime. (Ooops! I'm sure I'm not supposed to say that.... [Biased]

)

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

[Big Grin]

well I sometimes get the feeling I was Caligula in a previous lifetime [Biased]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Except, of course, that the RCs would argue that doctrinal developments have to be in keeping with scripture and Tradition. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many RCs who would argue that scripture and Tradition point towards the ordination of women without some kind of adjustment or special pleading ... just as you are unlikely to find many 'low church' Protestants claiming that they point towards the idea of an ordained priesthood in the first place ...

And of course, to an extent, the RCs (and the Orthodox) are more positive and facilitating about some aspects of women's ministry than a number of very literalist Protestant sects I could mention.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Except, of course, that the RCs would argue that doctrinal developments have to be in keeping with scripture and Tradition. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many RCs who would argue that scripture and Tradition point towards the ordination of women without some kind of adjustment or special pleading ... just as you are unlikely to find many 'low church' Protestants claiming that they point towards the idea of an ordained priesthood in the first place ...

And of course, to an extent, the RCs (and the Orthodox) are more positive and facilitating about some aspects of women's ministry than a number of very literalist Protestant sects I could mention.

Well, "adjustment" in point of view was the very point of my long post above.

Ah, well - back to the Anglican thing now....

[Big Grin]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
ancient Coptic

So so what? It doesn't affect Chesterbelloc's, IngoB's., Trisaigion's et al aruments which are based on a Pope the Copts don;t and never did recognise. They've got their own and always did.

Nor mine in favour of ordaining women which are based on the New Testament.

All a bit irrelevant.
Not irrelevant to those who search antiquity in search of crumbs of evidence that there is a precedence for the OOW.

We don't need to search antiquity, the Bible trumps it.

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Well, I guess that about sums it up; all present and accounted for. RCC, Anglican, and Evangelical reasoning: check, check, and check. It's all right there.

Now we need a representative from the Quakers. ("Priests"? Why "priests"?.....)

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I really don't want to get caught up in this argument too much - time doesn't allow - but I just want to point out what I hope are a couple of uncontroversial things.

1) There is nothing close to scholarly consensus about whether there were ever female deacons ordained in the full sense in which men were: i.e., with precisely the same key indicators, including the laying on of hands with the explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit for that office. That's just a fact.

2) The Roman Catholic Church has not definitively ruled on whether women can be ordained to the diaconate.

3) This has no bearing for Catholics on whether women can be ordained to the priesthood because that has been definitively ruled out, as discussed above.

The priesthood encompasses the three degrees of diaconate, presbyterate and episcopate. Women cannot be ordained deacons for the same reasons they cannot be ordained presbyters. Ordinatio Sacredotalis applies across the board.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

If you say so, CL - but you're the first I've heard saying so explicitly.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The priesthood encompasses the three degrees of diaconate, presbyterate and episcopate.

You're making this up. More charitably, you're confusing orders as such with the ministerial priesthood.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
We don't need to search antiquity, the Bible trumps it.

For protestants, maybe.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
We don't need to search antiquity, the Bible trumps it.
For protestants, maybe.

For pretty much all Christians I'd hope because its our only direct witness to the life of Jesus, who is God incarnate.

And its a lot better basis for an argument than "the Pope said so" which is the one about a third of the RCs on this thread are using (mysteriously it seems to go with usernames begining with the letter "c")

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Scripture, tradition and reason - as far as Anglicans are concerned.

For Methodists, there is a fourth = experience.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Leo, I find that on this side of the pond Episcopalians talk increasingly of the Church's "lived experience" in addition to scripture, tradition and reason. Indeed, sometimes here the formula now seems to one of scripture, tradition, and lived experience, the last of these seemingly either doing double duty for reason or having displaced it. This was not, however, the formula thirty or forty years ago (it maybe gained currency only in the last decade).

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

But reason is not and cannot be a "leg" in this context. Its just how we think about the "legs", that is our sources of knowledge of God, such as experience, Scripture, tradition, revelation.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

I don't see how you can imply that reason - the intellect - isn't a primary source of our "knowledge" (is that really the best word for it?), i.e. our understanding , of God.

Or is your rejection of that just some characteristically evo-low church thing?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I don't see how you can imply that reason - the intellect - isn't a primary source of our "knowledge" (is that really the best word for it?), i.e. our understanding , of God.

Reason isn't a source of information, it is just a name for thinking done right. Logical rather than illogical. Any understanding must involve reason, whatever it is based on. Our understanding of revelation has to be reasoning, our understanding of tradition has to be reasoning. That's what understanding is. Unreasoning or illogical thought is the opposite of understanding.

"Reason" cannot be a leg of our metaphorical three-legged stool of authority, any more than "lack of woodworm" could be a leg of a real wooden stool.

I think some people are loosely using the word "reason" instead of "experience" but that is unhelpful, because it is perfectly possible to believe nonsense based on your own experience, unless you think about it reasonably and logically. Also because it implies - maybe it is meant to imply - that people who derive their understanding from Scripture are doing it in an unreasoning way.

[ 22. July 2011, 13:20: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I see ken's point. It's the difference between the source of information and the method of processing it.

Almost Cyprian's fountain and channel again, actually.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

Is it really beyond the realm of possibility that the development and growth of the idea that women are equal to men is also the work of the Holy Spirit? OliviaG

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

Here's an interesting article from yesterday's NYTimes: In 3 Countries, Challenging the Vatican on Female Priests. Excerpt:

quote:
More than 150 Roman Catholic priests in the United States have signed a statement in support of a fellow cleric who faces dismissal for participating in a ceremony that purported to ordain a woman as a priest, in defiance of church teaching.

The American priests’ action follows closely on the heels of a “Call to Disobedience” issued in Austria last month by more than 300 priests and deacons. They stunned their bishops with a seven-point pledge that includes actively promoting priesthood for women and married men, and reciting a public prayer for “church reform” in every Mass.

And in Australia, the National Council of Priests recently released a ringing defense of the bishop of Toowoomba, who had issued a pastoral letter saying that, facing a severe priest shortage, he would ordain women and married men “if Rome would allow it.” After an investigation, the Vatican forced him to resign.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:

quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
That's a good point, Angloid, and shouldn't be forgotten.

Most women have not had any secular rights in most places for most of history - not only in the West, but pretty much everywhere on earth. No right to vote (where there was a right to vote); no right to own property; no right to an education or to go to university; no real possibility of supporting themselves.

It's not really at all surprising that the priesthood was simply one more thing denied women.
Well yes, precisely, which is where I came in on this thread. In the words of the sainted Basil Fawlty, it's stating 'The Bleeding Obvious' that ecclesiastical 'Tradition' is institutionally sexist and homophobic, and historically always has been. When challenged about 'The Bleeding Obvious' that this is unjust, the proponents of Tradition argue that it's precisely because they have such a long and appalling track record of institutional discrimination that it must be right!

Those are good points.

What I sometimes find hard to appreciate is how far, and how quickly, we have come even in living memory. For some of my parent's lifetime, it was a common practice for employers to have an explicit policy of paying women less than men for the same work. For some of my grandparent's lifetime, women couldn't vote on the same terms as men. For some of my great-grandparent's lifetime, they couldn't vote at all. There are people alive today who were born when women did not have the vote.

And today you would have to search very hard to find anyone willing to defend to old order. We still have sexism, of course, but the idea of an intrinsically inferior legal status for women has gone from being ordinary and unexceptional to being literally indefensible.

If you want to exclude women from a certain role, it isn't at all convincing to refer back to a time when they are excluded from practically everything as authority. We all agree, on both sides of the ordination debate, that past ages were wrong about almost everything that they restricted women from doing. There's not the slightest desire to revive their inequalities in any sphere but this. If women are to be excluded from ordination, then it must be a special case, an exception to a universal rule. The onus is on those making the exception to explain why. "Tradition" doesn't cut it, because "tradition" justifies being unfair to women in all sorts of ways which have been rightly abandoned.

Against that, it is telling that as soon as the social restrictions on women (which everyone agrees were wrong) began to disappear, the churches began to realise that women could be priests, and when they have been ordained, it has been found by experience that they are no less able or blessed by God than men. If the special reason for restricting women from this ministry is an inscrutable divine disapproval, it makes no sense that the overwhelming trend is for the doubtful or undecided to become convinced of the validity of women's ordination.

If, on a hypothetical view, the Church had, because of a deeply sexist social environment, made an understandable but serious error in perpetuating sexual inequality, and the Holy Spirit wished to correct us while respecting our free will, what would the result look like? Isn't it a fair surmise that what we would expect to see would be extremely sexist practices in the church endorsed by socient, but with a latent trend throughout church tradition saying that despite appearances, men and women were on some deep and important level of equivalent value, and as soon as the social prejudice against putting that into effect were removed, women's ministry being recognised and blessed? And how does that differ from what we actually see?

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :

And those are good points, too, Eliab....

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0