|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Women's Ordination and "Equivalence of Opportunities"
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I am not claiming that one must believe that if God has prevented women from ever having a certain role in society and/or the Church, He must have provided them with a role of equal dignity and worth that men, in turn, cannot fill. However, it would make the teaching that the Church has no authority to ordain women (or other phrasings of the prohibition of the OoW used in other denominations that prohibit it) easier to explain if we could write a list of all the opportunities that only men can have and those only women could have and see that one list was not longer than the other. Even in many large denominations that do not allow the OoW (Ordination of Women), these lists of roles exclusive to men and those exclusive to women would, I would hope, not be very long. Note that these lists are only of limitations in roles of the sexes that the list-maker (someone trying to explain the prohibition of the OoW) was saying were set by Church teaching. Let me provide sample lists:
Roles only for men: father, husband (other family relations could be named), religious brother (including monks), ordained minister
Roles only for women: mother, wife (other family relations, etc., etc.), religious sister (including nuns)
(I will not differentiate between bishops, priests, and deacons here although I know that in some denominations people say that women may never ever be ordained a priest or bishop but do not have as definitive an answer (yet) as to the absolute possibility/impossibility of the ordination of female deacons (or whether deaconesses were in fact ordained deacons).)
I think that, no matter how many different lists of sex-specific roles you could make, if you are explaining that women cannot be ordained the list of roles only for men would be longer than that for women. A critic would be inclined to ask why this is, especially in those Christian traditions that allow ordained ministers (such as bishops or the Pope) to have the final word on disputes concerning both the doctrine (which is not decided by humans but revealed by God, but humans still have to determine what it is that God has revealed) and discipline of the Church. Possible explanations that the explainer of the prohibition of the OoW could give are:
-Some roles only for women (like motherhood) are so expansive and important that they make up from women's exclusion from being ordained. (This would, I think, entail arguing that human motherhood is somehow more expansive or important than human fatherhood. I do not know how to make this argument.)
-The Blessed Virgin Mary, who was not ordained, had unique role in the Church during her life spent on Earth and although no other human can have all the unique attributes of the BVM, women can be more like her than men (I do not know how to make that argument either. This argument, for obvious reasons, would not work in certain denominations.)
People can point out that lists of sex-specific roles do not give definitive proof of any flaw in the argument that women cannot be ordained. Some proponents of women's ordination deny that there are any roles that God has designated as only for men or only for women. As flawed as this discussion topic is, I would like to hear people's thoughts about it.
I will end this post with an admission that I am Roman Catholic and I have read that RC's cannot even discuss women's ordination as a possibility without putting themselves out of full communion with the Church. Please let the discussion of whether I am sinning in conducting a discussion of the topic in this forum be between me and a confessor. Thank you.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
crynwrcymraeg
Shipmate
# 13018
|
Posted
If i was gonna sin, I'd want something more naughty - more enjoyable !
But I came on to say, what about / don't forget
male sea-horses ?
--------------------
I ignored the admins and now I'm Erin's bitch.
Posts: 522 | From: Ty'n Coed | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
Were you living/working abroad before 1994 then?
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am fascinated that the Vatican is so terrified of the OOW that it has declared it sinful even to discuss it.
Define sin. The late pope just said, that that was enough talking about it in public, because nothing was going to change. But many still talk about it, Just not in public.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am fascinated that the Vatican is so terrified of the OOW that it has declared it sinful even to discuss it.
Define sin. The late pope just said, that that was enough talking about it in public, because nothing was going to change. But many still talk about it, Just not in public.
The RCC seems to want to define 'sin'.
Things have changed in mainstream churches other than the RCC, who seems to want to be a fossil.
The idea that you cannot/must not discuss something in public seems like the Soviet Union in days of yore.
For all that I have been tempted to go over to Rome, this sort of issue reminds me why my freedom in Christ is of more value than joining the politburo.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Were you living/working abroad before 1994 then?
What? 20 years ago was 1991 when we had our first woman vicar.
How did that work then? Legislation allowing women to be priested wasn't passed until 1992 and it was 1994 before the first women were ordained as priests.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
So she wasn't a priest 20+ years ago then
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
crynwrcymraeg
Shipmate
# 13018
|
Posted
Fwiw :--
Florence Li Tim Oi was Ordained Priest during world war 2, in the diocese of Hong Kong and Macao.
--------------------
I ignored the admins and now I'm Erin's bitch.
Posts: 522 | From: Ty'n Coed | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Were you living/working abroad before 1994 then?
What? 20 years ago was 1991 when we had our first woman vicar.
How did that work then? Legislation allowing women to be priested wasn't passed until 1992 and it was 1994 before the first women were ordained as priests.
I was in Houston, Texas lying on a hotel bed in 1990 or 1991 when the news came ofg the radio that George Carey was to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury. And I remember saying out loud to myself something like "So we are going to have women priests then". Because it then seemed entirely inevitable. (And a good thing too as far as I was concerned)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos navis
# 5818
|
Posted
This might be on point. It certainly is funny.
Reasons why men shouldn't be ordained.
Here are some excerpts:
10. A man's place is in the army.
5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshippers.
3. Men are more prone to violence than women. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. This would make them poor role models, as well as unstable leaders.
--------------------
Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.
Posts: 1443 | From: Between Broken Bow and Black Mesa | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
The most straightforward explanation is that God believes in hierarchical gender relations and that modern trends towards legal gender equality (women's suffrage, woman office holders, etc.) is contrary to the lives lived by the bronze age pastoralists in the Bible that God thinks we should emulate.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The most straightforward explanation is that God believes in hierarchical gender relations and that modern trends towards legal gender equality (women's suffrage, woman office holders, etc.) is contrary to the lives lived by the bronze age pastoralists in the Bible that God thinks we should emulate.
That's pretty much the explanation my "conservative" friends speak - Christian or non. In the extreme (to me) the claim is woman is a subordinate being, less competent in every way than a man.
Some Christians are not convinced women are less competent, but believe God "ordained" that women should take a subordinate role. Theories range from "Eve was made to be a helper for Adam" to "Eve was deceived and caused all this mess which proves women are not to be trusted" to "Jesus chose only male, Jewish, Aramaic speaking, early adult, physically healthy people to be apostles, the only significant feature was their maleness, so that proves only males can be in high spiritual positions" to "Jesus was a male, that proves males are superior to females." (If you figure God likes to use "the least of these," it's an argument that males are inferior, but we won't go there, tee hee.)
i.e. those who believe in male-only roles do NOT believe there is, should be, or can be an equally long list of roles for women.
To me that makes the claim that women (although limited just because they are female) are just as much respected and valued as men sound bogus.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
That's pretty much the explanation my "conservative" friends speak - Christian or non. In the extreme (to me) the claim is woman is a subordinate being, less competent in every way than a man.
Some Christians are not convinced women are less competent, but believe God "ordained" that women should take a subordinate role. Theories range from "Eve was made to be a helper for Adam" to "Eve was deceived and caused all this mess which proves women are not to be trusted" to "Jesus chose only male, Jewish, Aramaic speaking, early adult, physically healthy people to be apostles, the only significant feature was their maleness, so that proves only males can be in high spiritual positions" to "Jesus was a male, that proves males are superior to females." (If you figure God likes to use "the least of these," it's an argument that males are inferior, but we won't go there, tee hee.)
i.e. those who believe in male-only roles do NOT believe there is, should be, or can be an equally long list of roles for women.
To me that makes the claim that women (although limited just because they are female) are just as much respected and valued as men sound bogus.
He he of course there are also the passages to be quoted as back-up where Paul says that women should ask their husbands to explain it all to them at home, and not speak at all in church, and the one where Peter's mother-in-law could return to her job of administering to the men once she had been healed.......
Seriously though, it's deeper than all this, isn't it? It's not about lists of jobs one can or cannot do. It's about whether the administration of the sacraments 'works' or not.
What priests can do, and nobody else can, is administer the sacraments within which God, by grace, bestows blessings. Those who sincerely believe that God would not call a woman into priesthood think that they will not receive God's blessings. Surely people know whether or not they have received God's blessings: if those with female priests were not receiving them, wouldn't they be saying so? If a male priest were in post who had not been called by God into priesthood, the situation would be the same.
I'm not sure about the whole concept of people trying to manipulate and predict when and in what circumstances God will bestow blessings. Everyone may invite them, and it's for God to give them as and when he (or she) pleases.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Surely people know whether or not they have received God's blessings: if those with female priests were not receiving them, wouldn't they be saying so?
No - this is just it. I was taught that a Sacrament was an outward sign of an inward grace. The outward sign (the physical elements) you can see. But the inward Grace, you cannot see.
So you could be receiving what you think is Holy Communion for years, but it could be that it is not administered according to the Faith once received, and be ineffectual. How would you know?
[ 19. May 2012, 17:20: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Surely people know whether or not they have received God's blessings: if those with female priests were not receiving them, wouldn't they be saying so?
No - this is just it. I was taught that a Sacrament was an outward sign of an inward grace. The outward sign (the physical elements) you can see. But the inward Grace, you cannot see.
So you could be receiving what you think is Holy Communion for years, but it could be that it is not administered according to the Faith once received, and be ineffectual. How would you know?
What difference would that make? Serious question.
Would it make a difference to your salvation? Are you 'less saved' than one who has been receiving valid sacraments?
Would it make a difference to your happiness? Would you be less at peace with yourself and with God?
Would it make a difference to your state of grace?
Does God give less grace to those who have communicated invalidly than to those who have communicated validly? If so, how is such 'less grace' manifested?
So I throw the question back to you: if the sacrament is ineffectual, how would you know?
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Surely people know whether or not they have received God's blessings: if those with female priests were not receiving them, wouldn't they be saying so?
No - this is just it. I was taught that a Sacrament was an outward sign of an inward grace. The outward sign (the physical elements) you can see. But the inward Grace, you cannot see.
So you could be receiving what you think is Holy Communion for years, but it could be that it is not administered according to the Faith once received, and be ineffectual. How would you know?
Because the 39 articles state that the effectiveness of the communion is independent of the administrator.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
No - this is just it. I was taught that a Sacrament was an outward sign of an inward grace. The outward sign (the physical elements) you can see. But the inward Grace, you cannot see.
So you could be receiving what you think is Holy Communion for years, but it could be that it is not administered according to the Faith once received, and be ineffectual. How would you know?
You surely know whether or not you are blessed, as you will be growing in faith until you are mature and producing the fruit of the spirit.
Of course, this requires our reception, response and co-operation, and God's grace which should never be considered predictable as that might imply that we could control and harness God's power.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
What difference would that make? Serious question.
Would it make a difference to your salvation? Are you 'less saved' than one who has been receiving valid sacraments?
None of us are "saved" (past tense) while we are still in this transitory life - the correct term is "being saved" - and yes, it does make a difference if we are not receiving the body and blood of Christ.
quote:
Would it make a difference to your happiness?
I don't know.
quote:
Would you be less at peace with yourself and with God?
If these are nothing more than feelings, then it makes no difference.
quote:
Would it make a difference to your state of grace?
Yes
quote:
Does God give less grace to those who have communicated invalidly than to those who have communicated validly? If so, how is such 'less grace' manifested?
Honestly, we don't know - but there is a risk if you are disobedient
quote:
So I throw the question back to you: if the sacrament is ineffectual, how would you know?
If you are just counting on experience as your measuring stick, then the answer is simple - you don't!
But a far better measuring stick than "experience" would be if we could see the person we are becoming. Growing in Grace = becoming more Christ-like.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Because the 39 articles state that the effectiveness of the communion is independent of the administrator.
Aha - this is the first time I've ever asked this question, but... what Authority do the 39 articles have?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
You surely know whether or not you are blessed, as you will be growing in faith until you are mature and producing the fruit of the spirit.
Of course, this requires our reception, response and co-operation, and God's grace which should never be considered predictable as that might imply that we could control and harness God's power.
I can agree with all this - the problem is that we are good at deceiving ourselves, so may not see our spiritual state as it really is.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...Of course, this requires our reception, response and co-operation, and God's grace which should never be considered predictable as that might imply that we could control and harness God's power.
As an aside, you should tell that to Benny Hinn and Co!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
You surely know whether or not you are blessed, as you will be growing in faith until you are mature and producing the fruit of the spirit.
Of course, this requires our reception, response and co-operation, and God's grace which should never be considered predictable as that might imply that we could control and harness God's power.
I can agree with all this - the problem is that we are good at deceiving ourselves, so may not see our spiritual state as it really is.
Agreed, which is why we must rely on each other in community and be honest with those who are called into spiritual direction, so that we may overcome any obstacles.
If it were the case that nobody was growing in faith when a female presided over the sacraments, this would have become apparent by now.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Surely people know whether or not they have received God's blessings: if those with female priests were not receiving them, wouldn't they be saying so?
No - this is just it. I was taught that a Sacrament was an outward sign of an inward grace. The outward sign (the physical elements) you can see. But the inward Grace, you cannot see.
So you could be receiving what you think is Holy Communion for years, but it could be that it is not administered according to the Faith once received, and be ineffectual. How would you know?
Because the 39 articles state that the effectiveness of the communion is independent of the administrator.
That is a serious misquotation. For a start, it says nothing about an 'administrator'. It talks of a 'minister'.
It does not use the word 'independent'.
As for the later question about who takes the articles seriously, I do. I have sworn a canonical oath along with all other ministers.
Doesn't mean I agree with them. Simply states that I acknowledge their existence as 'historic formularies.' Rather like i acknowledge that Aunt Maude is part of my family tree, even though i didn't like her.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Because the 39 articles state that the effectiveness of the communion is independent of the administrator.
That is a serious misquotation. For a start, it says nothing about an 'administrator'. It talks of a 'minister'.
It does not use the word 'independent'.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Well excuse me for not quoting Article 26 in its full Elizabethan glory. The unworthiness of the minister does not hinder the effect of the Sacrament - which is exactly what I said.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Because the 39 articles state that the effectiveness of the communion is independent of the administrator.
That is a serious misquotation. For a start, it says nothing about an 'administrator'. It talks of a 'minister'.
It does not use the word 'independent'.
Well excuse me for not quoting Article 26 in its full Elizabethan glory. The unworthiness of the minister does not hinder the effect of the Sacrament - which is exactly what I said.
No it isn't. You said: quote:
Because the 39 articles state that the effectiveness of the communion is independent of the administrator.
That is Sydney-speak and quite un Anglican.
[ 19. May 2012, 20:26: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Agreed, which is why we must rely on each other in community and be honest with those who are called into spiritual direction, so that we may overcome any obstacles.
You mean, like, "sharing our burdens?..." now we are getting somewhere! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
If it were the case that nobody was growing in faith when a female presided over the sacraments, this would have become apparent by now.
Well, we're talking about two different things here. I don't think there is a reliable "scientific" test which could prove it one way or the other. In any case, I prefer talking about the fundamentals of christianity - although we have to deal with more uncomfortable questions (like OOW) at some point...
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That is Sydney-speak and quite un Anglican.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I've been through the BCP, Rite A, ASB and Common Worship. The word 'minister' is interchangeable for a lot of other words in the CofE. As are various words used to describe 'Holy Communion'.
By insisting on one form of wording, you are being un Anglican. But enough of this tangent. I've answered Mark's question.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...As for the later question about who takes the articles seriously, I do. I have sworn a canonical oath along with all other ministers.
Doesn't mean I agree with them. Simply states that I acknowledge their existence as 'historic formularies.' Rather like i acknowledge that Aunt Maude is part of my family tree, even though i didn't like her.
I'm not sure who asked about taking the articles seriously, but I asked what Authority they have - and I mean in the sense of Holy Tradition.
I used to take the Articles seriously (which is more than can be said for some!) but since converting I feel I can (and should) ask that question. Maybe they are at least partially based on "historic formularies", but they are not the real thing - they are a "reformed" version.
I liked your "Aunt Maude" analogy - come on though, I'm sure she wasn't that bad!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If it were the case that nobody was growing in faith when a female presided over the sacraments, this would have become apparent by now.
Well, we're talking about two different things here. I don't think there is a reliable "scientific" test which could prove it one way or the other. In any case, I prefer talking about the fundamentals of christianity - although we have to deal with more uncomfortable questions (like OOW) at some point...
We surely don't need a scientific test to observe whether or not people are becoming more Christ-like and more loving, patient, kind, gentle, self-controlled, etc.
This issue is inextricably linked with women's ordination. If, as some believe, the sacraments are invalid when a woman presides over them, those they minister to will not grow in faith.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Agreed, which is why we must rely on each other in community and be honest with those who are called into spiritual direction, so that we may overcome any obstacles.
If it were the case that nobody was growing in faith when a female presided over the sacraments, this would have become apparent by now. [/QB]
So, if a woman is "called into spiritual direction", we have to be honest and say:
"Sorry, honey, you just don't understand"
"But women don't have the right parts to have spiritual sense"
"You're making me uncomfortable because I am going to have to think about something you said"
Just how honest are you going to be, and how much fun will the rest of the congregation have as you are told more precisely where to go?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So, if a woman is "called into spiritual direction", we have to be honest and say:
"Sorry, honey, you just don't understand"
"But women don't have the right parts to have spiritual sense"
"You're making me uncomfortable because I am going to have to think about something you said"
Just how honest are you going to be, and how much fun will the rest of the congregation have as you are told more precisely where to go?
Funny but not so funny. Honesty is of paramount importance, there's no point otherwise. And if a spiritual director were patronising and unkind, he or she would be demonstrating a lack of calling to it.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If, as some believe, the sacraments are invalid when a woman presides over them, those they minister to will not grow in faith.
Just one final point for tonight (it's quite important):
What you said above isn't quite right. Some (including me) believe the sacraments may not be valid (not "will not") when a woman presides, thus there is a risk that they may not benefit from the same. Even then, it still doesn't mean they will not grow in Grace in other ways.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Just one final point for tonight (it's quite important):
What you said above isn't quite right. Some (including me) believe the sacraments may not be valid (not "will not") when a woman presides, thus there is a risk that they may not benefit from the same. Even then, it still doesn't mean they will not grow in Grace in other ways.
If there is a possibility that God's grace will be given if a woman presides, and there is no certainty that it will be given when a man presides, this is surely not sufficient grounds for turning away from priesthood a woman who has been called to it.
The risk that God's grace will not be received must be ever present.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So, if a woman is "called into spiritual direction", we have to be honest and say:
"Sorry, honey, you just don't understand"
"But women don't have the right parts to have spiritual sense"
"You're making me uncomfortable because I am going to have to think about something you said"
Just how honest are you going to be, and how much fun will the rest of the congregation have as you are told more precisely where to go?
You can have your women priests (and bishops) if you want them - it's your choice and your risk. I just don't think people of your persuasion should impose them on others who don't feel the same way.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Just one final point for tonight (it's quite important):
What you said above isn't quite right. Some (including me) believe the sacraments may not be valid (not "will not") when a woman presides, thus there is a risk that they may not benefit from the same. Even then, it still doesn't mean they will not grow in Grace in other ways.
If there is a possibility that God's grace will be given if a woman presides, and there is no certainty that it will be given when a man presides, this is surely not sufficient grounds for turning away from priesthood a woman who has been called to it.
The risk that God's grace will not be received must be ever present.
But more so if you willfully ignore/disobey/change the Faith once delivered to the Saints.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
MB: But there are quite a lot of people whose viewpoints on Chritianity have changed since the last Ecumenical Council (AD 850 or so).
Said Ecumenical Council made some shanges in the way Orthodoxy was done, so they have also changed from the times of the Saints and the Fathers.
One might also question the use of Russian during service, since that is clearly an innovation.
The RC church has had quite significant changes since 850, without going into the whole Protestant Reformation. Is there any particular reason we who are not Orthodox must act in the spirit of 850? And is there any particular reason that no changes can ever happen?
Given cheap energy and the consequent loss of slavery, not to mention telecommunication as a means of making us quite aware that there are different ways of doing things among various human groups, it would be rather odd if that one part of humanity dealing with how churches see things didn't change in some way.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But more so if you willfully ignore/disobey/change the Faith once delivered to the Saints.
I don't understand why you think that our Lord told the apostles that women couldn't be called by God to be priests? You do know that Peter and Paul didn't agree on everything, particularly in relation to matters concerning the instruction of the new followers of Christ. Does this mean that they didn't share the same faith, or that one was trying to change it?
The Holy Spirit guides us now, and while this must be strictly discerned and should not transgress the spirit of the law and teaching of Christ, nobody should stand in the way of what someone is called to do in the service of God on the grounds of 'it isn't what we've always done'. Jesus very clearly threw this out.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You can have your women priests (and bishops) if you want them - it's your choice and your risk.
Risk of what? I'm serious.
I'm really bothered by the claim the "sacraments" are ever so important, because that means the important is not available to those most in need -- soldiers on a battlefield, prisoners in prison camp, explorers lost in the wilderness, the sick, old, depressed, disabled, bedridden, isolated, those with phobia about leaving the house, those allergic to both modern wheat and alcohol.
Only the pretty people - young and healthy and city dwellers - get this ever so important help from God. God isn't really everywhere, only in the few places where there's a "priest."
If some specific aspect of God is critically important, God surely would make it easily accessible by all. Just a prayer away.
Funny thing about claims there are effects no one EVER can see, taste, try out, experience, point to, but must solely rely on an abstract theory handed down -- Jesus wasn't like that! He was real, practical. "Taste and see that the Lord is good" has been turned into "don't expect to taste anything or see anything."
By their fruits you shall know them. I suppose some are saying the fruits are things only God can see, but then why are WE told to know people by their fruits? What fruit are the (sorry to raise the topic again but isn't it an obvious example?) small percentage of career priests abusing children showing? How did it matter that they were receiving Eucharist daily? Are they better off spiritually than a single Mom who works 3 jobs and never can get to a mass because masses aren't offered the hours she's off work?!
Risk of WHAT! I'm not seeing that Eucharist or no Eucharist makes any difference in people's lives, so thinking it does might be going about the whole thing backwards somehow, depending on a "priest" to do God to you, instead of learning to see God in and through ALL people.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Masha
Shipmate
# 10098
|
Posted
quote:
Belle Ringer: I'm really bothered by the claim the "sacraments" are ever so important, because that means the important is not available to those most in need -- soldiers on a battlefield, prisoners in prison camp, explorers lost in the wilderness, the sick, old, depressed, disabled, bedridden, isolated, those with phobia about leaving the house, those allergic to both modern wheat and alcohol.
Armed Forces have a Padre. Prisoners in prison have a chaplain or two, every sacramental church I've ever come across takes Communion to anyone sick, old, depressed, bedridden, disabled, isolated and agoraphobic. We have gluten free wafers and non-alcoholic wine available.
If you get lost in the jungle or imprisoned and denied access to what's important to your faith then I believe God can and will meet you anyway.
But I'm at the Eucharist as often as I can be.
Posts: 308 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Masha:
quote:
Belle Ringer: I'm really bothered by the claim the "sacraments" are ever so important, because that means the important is not available to those most in need -- soldiers on a battlefield, prisoners in prison camp, explorers lost in the wilderness, the sick, old, depressed, disabled, bedridden, isolated, those with phobia about leaving the house, those allergic to both modern wheat and alcohol.
Armed Forces have a Padre. Prisoners in prison have a chaplain or two, every sacramental church I've ever come across takes Communion to anyone sick, old, depressed, bedridden, disabled, isolated and agoraphobic. We have gluten free wafers and non-alcoholic wine available.
And we periodically have threads about our elderly NOT being contacted once they become too old to get themselves to the church building, or move away to a place where they have no history with the local church.
I once lived in a town that had no church of any kind! There are plenty of those around the world.
SOME sick, elderly, prisoners, soldiers, get visited, most don't.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Masha
Shipmate
# 10098
|
Posted
I get that but that's OUR problem to sort out. It doesn't mean there's anything 'wrong' with the sacraments, or with the idea of priesthood, it just means we need to work it out better.
I missed the edit window but wanted to add this:
I think God would be delighted with that single mom working hard for her children.
Last I checked, despite what some may imply, God was not an unreasonable bastard.
I hope God is pleased with every effort to please him and every person's wandering in his direction. For some the sacraments are not possible every week, or for much of the time. I don't think God takes marks away like some kind of obnoxious schoolteacher. I think they are his offering in love to us rather than an exam we have to sit every week.
At least that's how the Eucharist feels to me.
[ 20. May 2012, 19:31: Message edited by: Masha ]
Posts: 308 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Masha
Shipmate
# 10098
|
Posted
In fact, come to think of it, that should be the spur to MAKE us think about those who can't get there.
We should ensure that 'the church' visits and takes Communion out to them. Not because it's a 'nice' thing to do, but because it IS important.
We. Us. The church. If this is God's gift to us all then we need to be proactive in offering it.
Again, that's down to people organisation rather than an issue with sacraments themselves.
Though this may not be much of an argument in non-sacramental traditions!
[ 20. May 2012, 19:37: Message edited by: Masha ]
Posts: 308 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Of course, as well as Holy Communion, there is also the sacrament of holy baptism. Might this not 'work' if the 'wrong' person presides - or marriage, etc seen as sacraments too by some..... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
ISTM that as soon as we start to try to control God, we're in trouble!
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Masha
Shipmate
# 10098
|
Posted
I'd agree with that Raptor Eye!
As soon as we start to try to control God we should just laugh at ourselves and slap ourselves hard.
Within my tradition it's the priest's role, and I agree with that. That's why I'm Anglican.
I don't actually believe that non-conformist baptisms are invalid and I don't know anyone who does.
Sorry, just realised this is a total tangent. Apologies if I've continued something I should have left alone in BR's post. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 20. May 2012, 20:12: Message edited by: Masha ]
Posts: 308 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Masha:
I'd agree with that Raptor Eye!
As soon as we start to try to control God we should just laugh at ourselves and slap ourselves hard.
Within my tradition it's the priest's role, and I agree with that. That's why I'm Anglican.
I don't actually believe that non-conformist baptisms are invalid and I don't know anyone who does.
Sorry, just realised this is a total tangent. Apologies if I've continued something I should have left alone in BR's post.
Thanks Masha - I was starting to think you must be Orthodox! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) But, hey, we're talking doctrines and principles here, and I can't disagree with anything you've said.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
...to continue off on a tangent, neither do I believe non-conformist baptisms are invalid PROVIDED they are of a trinitarian nature. That doesn't mean these "churches" have a right understanding of the sacrament (some don't even believe baptism is a sacrament at all) - but they are still effective, including baptisms administered by women (eg nurses).
It is the other main sacrament, the Eucharist, where all the problems are, and this is at the heart of the controversy surrounding women priests and bishops.
OK, some will say it isn't my problem (it isn't) but it is causing huge problems in serious ecomenical dialogue. Maybe Ecumenism is a problem in itself for some (don't I know it!) but Jesus' wish was for the Church to be one, so talking to each other can't be wrong.
...besides, there may be opportunities to proselytise! (joke! )
[ 20. May 2012, 21:54: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Just for further tangenting, I presume that the Salvation Army is not really a church, then, given their attitude to sacraments.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
