|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: White Smoke! Discuss the new pope...
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I don't buy the argument from silence either, especially as John's gospel says at the end that there was a whole lot more that Jesus did that wasn't included. IngoB's argument that it was an intimate gathering only supports that there wasn't a big crowd. But perhaps there were 15 or 16 people present. Maybe a couple of them were female. We don't know. The point is that they were Jesus' disciples, and we women too claim to follow Jesus. Gender shouldn't matter here. The claim that the Catholic Church's reasons for excluding women from the priesthood aren't rooted in institutional sexism is badly undercut if women can't be included in the foot-washing ritual.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Ah, the old argumentum a silentio. I guess Aquinas didn't teach that that's a fallacy. (tr: argument from silence)
Did you not have enough egg on your face already? An argument from silence is not generally a fallacy, but can be a legitimate tool depending on circumstances. In this case, all the text tells us for certain is that "disciples" had their feet washed. I have argued above why that most likely means the twelve only (and hence no women). But beyond that it is perfectly legitimate to point out that Christ washing women's feet would have been rather remarkable at that historical time, and hence likely would have been remarked upon. That's not proof negative, of course, but it sure does lessen the likelihood of any female feet having been washed there even further.
I must say that this concentration on the historical circumstances mystifies me. There simply is not much doubt from scripture what most probably happened, namely that Jesus washed the feet of the (male) apostles. Rather I would question whether the point Christ was making depended essentially on the "personnel" involved, or just accidentally. Was Christ making a point about the apostles specifically, or was he making a point using the apostles since they happened to be around? If it's more the latter, then obviously it doesn't matter much what the precise historical circumstances were.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I bet that if there had been a larger group of disciple present, among them women, and if they all had their feet washed by Jesus, then we would have heard about these women getting their feet washed. That surely would have been a reversal of the usual social hierarchy of service that would have been remarkable beyond a mere reversal of the master - servant relationship, and hence would have been remarked upon, back then! The idea that we can read off a gender-egalitarian treatment from silence in the gospel seems anachronistic to me.
I think you're projecting a modern sensibility which focuses on gender onto an ancient system much more interested in social hierarchy. To consider an historical example from another time entirely, as moderns we're titillated/intrigued by the fact that male actors played female roles in Shakespeare's time. To an Elizabethan, a male actor dressing up like a woman was nowhere near as transgressive as a commoner dressing up like a king.
I'm not intimately familiar with sumptuary laws in first century Judea versus laws dealing with transvestism, but it seems like a modernist assumption that of course gender distinctions are more important than distinctions of social hierarchy.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Ah, the old argumentum a silentio. I guess Aquinas didn't teach that that's a fallacy. (tr: argument from silence)
Did you not have enough egg on your face already?
I put forward a fact and asked a question. Asking a question puts egg on one's face? In what private Hell?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I don't buy the argument from silence either, especially as John's gospel says at the end that there was a whole lot more that Jesus did that wasn't included. IngoB's argument that it was an intimate gathering only supports that there wasn't a big crowd. But perhaps there were 15 or 16 people present. Maybe a couple of them were female. We don't know. The point is that they were Jesus' disciples, and we women too claim to follow Jesus. Gender shouldn't matter here. The claim that the Catholic Church's reasons for excluding women from the priesthood aren't rooted in institutional sexism is badly undercut if women can't be included in the foot-washing ritual.
I've read that sentence several times and I still don't understand it. The fact that the Church is unable to to ordain women is either true or false. No argument on any grounds will alter the fact that it is either possible or impossible. Accusations of sexism or otherwise are totally irrelevant. The whole reason why the ritual is restricted to men is because of the enormous confusion doing otherwise causes. Frankly I wish the ritual didn't exist as it is an innovation only a few decades old and subject to massive amounts of abuse. A small mercy is that it is optional so a priest can refuse to do it.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The fact that the Church is unable to to ordain women is either true or false. No argument on any grounds will alter the fact that it is either possible or impossible.
Indeed, except if one goes one deeper and asks why it is, as it claims, unable (I assume you refer to the "non possumus (tr. "we cannot")).
Where does this inability stem from? Because a stone tablet fell from heaven with the "fact" inscribed on it? Because of something in the Ten Commandments? Because of something Jesus said? Because of some natural law (as in "the Pope is unable to levitate")?
I am quite possibly unaware of most of the reasons that underlie this "fact", so please do enlighten me. Until then, I will continue to see it as an old tradition based on culture (which in itself is of course not completely un-respectable).
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The gospel of John does not used the noun "apostle" (except for once, in 13:16 as it happens, and then precisely not to indicate Christ's followers but simply general "messengers"). It's "disciples" for the twelve apostles throughout the Fourth Gospel, and yes, sometimes also for others (St John the Baptist's disciples) and in a more general sense for larger groups of Christ's disciples. But in chapter 13 it's pretty clearly Jesus and the twelve having supper together.
In Da Vinci's "Last Supper" it's clear that it's just Jesus and the 12. In John, I don't see it. I've always just assumed "disciples" in John 13 refers to the 12, but now that I'm looking for it, I don't find justification for that assumption.
But I take it that you do -- what are you seeing that I'm not?
Ruth - of course da Vinci is authoritative! Haven't you read Dan Brown?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think you're projecting a modern sensibility which focuses on gender onto an ancient system much more interested in social hierarchy. To consider an historical example from another time entirely, as moderns we're titillated/intrigued by the fact that male actors played female roles in Shakespeare's time. To an Elizabethan, a male actor dressing up like a woman was nowhere near as transgressive as a commoner dressing up like a king. I'm not intimately familiar with sumptuary laws in first century Judea versus laws dealing with transvestism, but it seems like a modernist assumption that of course gender distinctions are more important than distinctions of social hierarchy.
We are not discussing Shakespeare's England, and we are certainly not discussing transvestism (WTF? here's my bet how 1stC Palestine Jews would have handled transvestism: stone first, ask questions later). The society of 1stC Palestine was indeed highly interested in social hierarchy. And as a general rule, if you were a woman, then all other things equal your social status was a crapload lower. Do you have an serious doubts that we are talking about a patriarchy there? So Christ acting against that would have been remarkable.
Oh, FWIW, here is the
quote:
Jewish Encyclopedia
FEET, WASHING OF. ... —In Rabbinical Literature:
This was a service which the wife was expected to render her husband (Yer. Ket. v. 30a); according to Rab Huna, it was one of the personal attentions to which her husband was entitled, no matter how many maids she may have had; likewise, according to the Babylonian Talmud (Ket. 61a), besides preparing his drink and bed, the wife had to wash her husband's face and feet (comp. Maimonides, "Yad," Ishut, xxi. 3; Shulḥan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, 80, 4).
But of course, if in this setting Christ - an unmarried Rabbi - had started washing women's feet, nobody would have batted an eyelid...?
[ 03. April 2013, 22:17: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
As I suspected, then.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
There are explicit prohibitions in the bible which most Christians ignore. Oh, but wait, those need context.
Women in ministry, women getting their feet washed, oh, not cannot do those. Prohibitions? Well, no. Just kinda sorta what we think was done. No, that it was all men, in a male dominated society that made those decisions isn't relevant. Why would you think so?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
(as I reattach my head to my shoulders) Are we agreeing that the historical reference indicated seems to define Jesus's foot-washing as a wifely act? Acted upon his disciples?
Holy crap, especially if you claim Jesus as the second person of the Trinity, doesn't that stand all the assumptions of hierarchy on its head?
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Are we agreeing that the historical reference indicated seems to define Jesus's foot-washing as a wifely act?
The explicit context (John 13:12-16) for this was simply that of "master - servant". I have not read any claim that washing of feet was exclusively done by women (wives). Rather, I read that normally it was done by the person themselves, and in a rich place perhaps by a slave. Actually, that precisely is indicated by the Talmud rule that a husband could ask this of a wife even if there were servants (i.e., the normal thing would have been to let the servants do it, but this was considered as a symbolic gesture between husband and wife). The point I made was simply that it likely would have been mentioned if Jesus had washed the feet of a woman there.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The claim that the Catholic Church's reasons for excluding women from the priesthood aren't rooted in institutional sexism is badly undercut if women can't be included in the foot-washing ritual.
I've read that sentence several times and I still don't understand it.
It makes perfect sense to me. The Catholic Church has some teachings which present a greater cross to women than to men. I don't see how this simple fact can be evaded. It also has teachings that could have arisen out of misogyny, or at least androcentrism. In fact, misogyny and androcentrism both exist in the Church. I'd like to think they exist to a lesser extent than they do in a society as a whole, but that may well be wishful thinking on my part.
As someone who loves the Church, clings to our teachings, and is responsible for preaching God's love through them, I really want people to believe that those teachings do not have as their chief cause misogyny and androcentrism (even though these demonic forces were at times complicit in the determination and promotion of the church's teaching). I want people to believe that because I think it's true, but mostly because it will allow people to experience God's love mediated through the Church, including the Church's teaching office.
Hence, we need to stop doing unnecessary things that reinforce the idea that we think women are second-class Christians. Restricting the foot-washing rite to men would be one (of many, unfortunately) things that communicates that to some people. If you understand that rite as symbolizing God's kenotic love for humanity, but the only members of humanity you depict are men, you start ferment suspicion in people's heads: "Do they really think that God only emptied himself for men?"
[ 04. April 2013, 19:30: Message edited by: Hart ]
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Are we agreeing that the historical reference indicated seems to define Jesus's foot-washing as a wifely act?
The explicit context (John 13:12-16) for this was simply that of "master - servant". I have not read any claim that washing of feet was exclusively done by women (wives). Rather, I read that normally it was done by the person themselves, and in a rich place perhaps by a slave. Actually, that precisely is indicated by the Talmud rule that a husband could ask this of a wife even if there were servants (i.e., the normal thing would have been to let the servants do it, but this was considered as a symbolic gesture between husband and wife). The point I made was simply that it likely would have been mentioned if Jesus had washed the feet of a woman there.
Uh, no. You still need to prove that a servant washing feet wouldn't wash both the men and women's feet (and that a male servant would not wash women's feet). If Jesus is washing the feet of his disciples and taking on a servants role to all the honoured guests, then unless women were specifically excluded from having their feet washed by a male servant, it wouldn't be a problem. Now I'm no authority on Second Temple Jewish foot-washing practices, so I can't answer that question.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
If you understand that rite as symbolizing God's kenotic love for humanity, but the only members of humanity you depict are men, you start ferment suspicion in people's heads: "Do they really think that God only emptied himself for men?"
Thank you.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Thank you indeed! What Hart said was exactly what I meant, except, you know, kinder and from an insider's point of view rather than an outsider's.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
I'm still puzzling over the comment a few pages back that because only men's feet were washed at the Last Supper, that therefore only men's feet should be washed at our (or at least, the Roman Catholic) ritual use of that action. Makes me wonder why, on that logic, women are admitted to the Eucharist, another ritual action going back to the Last Supper.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Well AR it is a tendentious position. I share Hart's very well expressed position. I get worked up in the same way by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's insistence on the expression "for us men and our salvation". Not, ICEL, not Vox Clara, not the Congregation for Divine Worship, but the CDF itself insisted on that. This despite the very clear fact that the English language has shifted significantly and "men" means males. If I said at Mass next Sunday "for us men there will be a meeting afterwards" I don't expect the women would think to show up. I want to send a dubium to the CDF to ask them to clarify whether it is in fact Catholic doctrine that the definitive version of the human species is the male and the female is merely an adjunct.
That being said, the main issue that is at stake is that the Pope has acted lawlessly. It's one thing for me to do that because I am a non-entity, quite another for the supreme authority in the Church. That's despotism - "I make the law for you but I do not feel constrained by it myself". That's the real criticism of the pope's action.
As it happens, I think what he did was a magnificent display of exactly what the rite is about - seek to serve not to be served, and that means all people, and especially the poor and the outcast. But better to clarify the liturgical law to reflect that and then act upon it, rather than simply thumb his nose at it.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Uh, no. You still need to prove that a servant washing feet wouldn't wash both the men and women's feet (and that a male servant would not wash women's feet). If Jesus is washing the feet of his disciples and taking on a servants role to all the honoured guests, then unless women were specifically excluded from having their feet washed by a male servant, it wouldn't be a problem. Now I'm no authority on Second Temple Jewish foot-washing practices, so I can't answer that question.
I'm no expert in that either. But even if male servants were in fact washing the feet of the lady of the house or her female guests, I would still expect that Christ washing women's feet would have been remarkable beyond Christ washing His (male) disciples feet. Because Christ would have reversed not only the teacher - student hierarchy, but also the male - female hierarchy at the same time. Admittedly through adopting a single lowly role (the servant), but I doubt that this "extra reversal" would have gone unnoticed in a deeply patriarchal society. But perhaps male servants did not wash female feet anyway. Again, patriarchal societies tend to be rather cagey about women showing too much of their body to men other than their husbands. All in all, I just don't think that this would have been glossed over.
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I'm still puzzling over the comment a few pages back that because only men's feet were washed at the Last Supper, that therefore only men's feet should be washed at our (or at least, the Roman Catholic) ritual use of that action. Makes me wonder why, on that logic, women are admitted to the Eucharist, another ritual action going back to the Last Supper.
Good question, though I think it overthinks the matter. The Last Supper was, or at least stands in the tradition of, the Jewish Passover meal. And that is celebrated with all the family, irrespective of gender. So in that case the gender of the apostles could be seen as accidental (as far as partaking in the celebration goes). Furthermore, clearly Christ gave instructions on how to use the Eucharist. It was a celebration explicitly passed on by Him to the apostles. So we can assume that what we have now was built on His instructions initially. Whereas in the case of the washing of the feet, we have ourselves turned something that Christ did not command us to repeat into a rite. And while the washing of feet certainly was ancient custom, the role reversal wasn't, and there's no long Jewish tradition to connect to. Again, I think it really is fair to assume that behind the old rule "only men" nothing deeper (or more sinister) is to be found than a simple "historical match" to what actually happened back then. A bit like a passion play also goes for a "quasi-accuracy", because the intention is to depict the events of the past (albeit in a stylised form).
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
That being said, the main issue that is at stake is that the Pope has acted lawlessly. It's one thing for me to do that because I am a non-entity, quite another for the supreme authority in the Church. That's despotism - "I make the law for you but I do not feel constrained by it myself". That's the real criticism of the pope's action. As it happens, I think what he did was a magnificent display of exactly what the rite is about - seek to serve not to be served, and that means all people, and especially the poor and the outcast. But better to clarify the liturgical law to reflect that and then act upon it, rather than simply thumb his nose at it.
For once, we seem to be in near perfect agreement. The only thing I would quibble with is that you are by no means a "non-entity", and are not excused of following the law due to that. Not even I can say that of myself. (I'm guessing you did not mean it quite that way, but it could be read like that.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
That being said, the main issue that is at stake is that the Pope has acted lawlessly. It's one thing for me to do that because I am a non-entity, quite another for the supreme authority in the Church. That's despotism - "I make the law for you but I do not feel constrained by it myself". That's the real criticism of the pope's action.
Hell, we've been saying that about the pope for 1500 years.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
... I really want people to believe that those teachings do not have as their chief cause misogyny and androcentrism (even though these demonic forces were at times complicit in the determination and promotion of the church's teaching). ...
Do you really mean that or are you using 'demonic' rhetorically? Isn't it a bit of a cop out to attribute our prejudices and misuse of scripture to bolster up our own authority to the malign activity of demons?
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I'm still puzzling over the comment a few pages back that because only men's feet were washed at the Last Supper, that therefore only men's feet should be washed at our (or at least, the Roman Catholic) ritual use of that action. Makes me wonder why, on that logic, women are admitted to the Eucharist, another ritual action going back to the Last Supper.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Game, set and match to Autenrieth Road.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Many thanks to Kelly, Hart, Autenrieth Road, and anyone talking along the same lines.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
For once, we seem to be in near perfect agreement. The only thing I would quibble with is that you are by no means a "non-entity", and are not excused of following the law due to that. Not even I can say that of myself. (I'm guessing you did not mean it quite that way, but it could be read like that.)
No, I was not using it as an excuse for not keeping the law, but rather that the consequences of my defaulting are not as grave as the consequences of the supreme authority not keeping the law.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Hell, we've been saying that about the pope for 1500 years.
You may well have been, but then you may have been tilting at windmills. It's not usual for a pope simply to ignore a universal law. Indeed, they are usually rather fastidious about it.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
"Of all the Protestant groups today, it is The Salvation Army that represents the best chance of entering into full communion with Rome... I'm serious, for I see The Salvation Army as an authentic expression of classical Christianity. (They) are clear about the person and nature of Jesus Christ. You are close to Rome on many ethical issues. The ordination of your officers is for function and good order within the denomination and would not be an issue affecting priesthood."
Cardinal Bernard Law
You are quoting Cardinal Bernard Law on this, the poster child of the sex scandal cover-ups in the US? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I'm sorry; but does that negate everything he ever said on other matters?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do you really mean that or are you using 'demonic' rhetorically? Isn't it a bit of a cop out to attribute our prejudices and misuse of scripture to bolster up our own authority to the malign activity of demons?
This is both rather off-topic for the thread, and deserves a longer response than I have time for now, but I'll offer a few thoughts.
Firstly, I don't think that recognizing structural sin completely removes individual responsibility; rather it helps us understand what our response should be. Studies like this one show that sexism is not just the result of 'a few bad eggs' (individual sinners) but of structures beyond the control of individuals, structures in which men and women are complicit. That doesn't mean we give up; it means we respond differently.
Secondly, I do believe that there is something demonic in a quite literal sense in the structures of privilege and dehumanization that at times seem to choke the world. I also believe that these are the death throes of a world that is passing away, and that ultimately the light of Christ will vanquish them completely. We see by dawn's first light, longing for the fullness of day. We can cooperate with that inbreaking grace, and help move closer to a love-based communion of persons, one less dimmed and defiled. But we can't fix it on our own. "These ones only come out by prayer."
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You may well have been, but then you may have been tilting at windmills.
Sometimes I think that tilting at windmills is what the Orthodox do best. Sigh.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
"Of all the Protestant groups <snip>
Cardinal Bernard Law
You are quoting Cardinal Bernard Law on this, the poster child of the sex scandal cover-ups in the US?
I'm sorry; but does that negate everything he ever said on other matters?
Yeah, it kinda does. You have a major lapse in a given arena, you lose all credibility in anything related. Does his cock-up mean everything else he says is incorrect? No. Does it mean he loses massive amounts of credibility? Yes.
[ 05. April 2013, 21:18: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Maybe it does on related subjects but on other things that had nothing to do with it, of course not.
You take your attitude to its logical conclusion and every mass he performed, every wedding, every confession he heard, every baptism... all void?
I think not.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I don't think that is the logical conclusion at all.
Read the part where I said credibility. This has naught to do with his function as a priest, merely his credibility.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Has this been quoted above?
“Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”
The Pope saying what I would have completely agreed with not so long ago on same sex marriage. Now I don't. I think Islam will go the way of Steve Chalke, Rob Bell, Brian McLaren et al before the Papacy does.
I still embrace Pope Francis of course. Despite his exclusion of more than just me. Because of it.
[ 06. April 2013, 09:40: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You may well have been, but then you may have been tilting at windmills. It's not usual for a pope simply to ignore a universal law. Indeed, they are usually rather fastidious about it.
And adding a word to the creed agreed by the universal church in council isn't ignoring/breaking a universal law?
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
No.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
No.
The Pope is allowed to do whatever he wants in spite of established custom or even the rulings of universal councils when it matters; he's not allowed to only when it doesn't.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The fact that the Church is unable to to ordain women is either true or false. No argument on any grounds will alter the fact that it is either possible or impossible. Accusations of sexism or otherwise are totally irrelevant. The whole reason why the ritual is restricted to men is because of the enormous confusion doing otherwise causes.
Well, it is interesting that so many of these theological stances, supposedly having nothing to do with sexism, seem to have the effect of "confusing" many into thinking that these same stances (always promulgated by males) are indeed designed to keep women in a place inferior to those making the promulgations. As Dana Carvey's Church Lady character would say, "How con-VEEN-ient!"
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
It seems to me a most inconVEENient matter, frankly...unless one subscribes to some kind of conspiracy theory.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
It seems to me a most inconVEENient matter, frankly...unless one subscribes to some kind of conspiracy theory.
No conspiracy theory (I'm definitely not into that sort of thing) -- just observing what is out there to be openly seen. I'm not even saying that, on an abstract theoretical level anyway, that it is possible that sexism is irrelevant to the issue, but on a human experience and a "by their fruits you shall know them" level, many humans might not find it irrelevant.
[ 07. April 2013, 07:00: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
That being said, the main issue that is at stake is that the Pope has acted lawlessly. It's one thing for me to do that because I am a non-entity, quite another for the supreme authority in the Church. That's despotism - "I make the law for you but I do not feel constrained by it myself". That's the real criticism of the pope's action.
Well, TT, there is this other term which might be more accurate. If indeed the Pope was signalling a general change to a Rite, rather than dispensing himself specifically for a particular occasion, I think I'd describe it as an isolated act of benevolent dictatorship!
Apart from IngoB's prudent comments about follow up and the dangers of PR demonstrations, no one seems to see this as anything other than a benevolent action. I'm pretty happy with the Pope or anyone else demonstrating benevolence, even if that includes a fairly obvious clarification of what the act of benevolence means. Sure, there might be some dangers of despotism setting in, if this were to become a trend, but that hardly seems likely.
When it comes to legitimate concerns over despotic tendencies, if I were Catholic and had such fears I'd cut the Pope and myself quite a lot of slack. Regardless of how I see any formal needs for submission. It's very early days.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
No.
The Pope is allowed to do whatever he wants in spite of established custom or even the rulings of universal councils when it matters; he's not allowed to only when it doesn't.
Wrong again. My bland "No" in response to the filioque issue, as raised by MarsmanTJ, is because it is a woefully misinformed idea to suggest that a Pope simply willy-nilly inserted the clause off his own bat. It took a long time, with much discussion (including with Eastern Fathers) and repeated petitions from Synods and others before a Pope eventually made the formal insertion of "filioque". And that's the right way round: he formalised the insertion, he didn't just decide one day to say it.
You need an ethnic Greek here to get a true picture of why it was so contentious - they have a crusade against the "Franks" and their polluting influence on the pure "Greek" Church. Or "Roman" as they prefer to call themselves - the ones called "Romans" by Anglicans being "Franks" in their eyes, and the ones called "Greeks" being the real "Romans".
It's messy, and trying to reduce it to a simple capricious action by a pope is silly.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
No conspiracy theory (I'm definitely not into that sort of thing) -- just observing what is out there to be openly seen. I'm not even saying that, on an abstract theoretical level anyway, that it is possible that sexism is irrelevant to the issue, but on a human experience and a "by their fruits you shall know them" level, many humans might not find it irrelevant.
Fair comment.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
If the fact that John's gospel fails to mention that any of those whose feet Jesus washed were women is an argument that there were in fact no women's feet washed, what are we to make of the fact that the synoptic gospels don't mention anyone having their feet washed? Such a remarkable action, clearly offered according to John as a crucial piece of teaching could hardly have been overlooked. If it really happened.
Incidentally, in at least one of the synoptics (I'm too lazy to look this up) Jesus sends two disciples on ahead to prepare the room for the his last supper, then arrives later with the twelve. So there were at least fifteen people present, unless the two skivvies were expected to go down the chippy for their supper.
In other places in the gospels the male disciples are often referred to or even named, and we tend, like da Vinci to picture an all male scene, but Jesus is able to put a child in their midst as a teaching aid, so there was at least one child present on at least one occasion. Perhaps there were normally children present. Perhaps women were normally present, like Martha serving the men, but only referred to when, like Mary sitting at Jesus' feet (which I think means being a disciple) they become part of the 'action' of the story.
So I have long tried to correct the Sunday School pictures in my mind of thirteen men walking round Palestine and see a group mixed in age and gender - as Luke encourages when he mentions at the cross the women who had followed him from Galilee.
At the Last Supper, if it was a Passover meal, family groups would assemble, and I assume that Jesus as head of his group would have been in a group of perhaps thirty people including as well as the twelve, the wives and relatives who were with them, and perhaps children, too.
John's story of the foot washing replaces this. The bread and wine are mentioned only in miracles in Galilee. The foot washing distils the essence of the last supper in another form. It has to be for women as well as men.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Incidentally, in at least one of the synoptics (I'm too lazy to look this up) Jesus sends two disciples on ahead to prepare the room for the his last supper, then arrives later with the twelve. So there were at least fifteen people present, unless the two skivvies were expected to go down the chippy for their supper.
Not to mention the two on the road to Emmaus who return to meet the Twelve (possibly the same two?) having recognised Jesus in that most iconic of actions--the breaking of bread...
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I LIKE this Pope. I liked JP I and I was MOST unreconstructed (to the right of Ian Paisley) in those days. JP II too. But Francis. DESPITE and because of what we (and for that I thank Peter Rollins and Brian McLaren) get wrong, I LIKE him. Footwashing prisoners. That's BEAUTIFUL. His attitude on sexual abuse by priests - superb.
Tangent, what I find intriguing about the abuse: it's by English speakers. I've heard that it's further correlated with a particular U.S. seminary in the '70s. Worth a thread?
Anyway, Francis is MY Pope too. I'd wash his feet any time. If he'd let me. Would he wash mine?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I LIKE this Pope. [...] His attitude on sexual abuse by priests - superb.
It is as it should be - and is just like his predecessor's. He recently credited Benedict XVI as pointing the way here. But you wouldn't know that from reading the MSM.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Anyway, Francis is MY Pope too. I'd wash his feet any time. If he'd let me. Would he wash mine?
Given that he's recently washed a female Muslim prisoner's, I'd say you were in with a chance.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Tangent, what I find intriguing about the abuse: it's by English speakers. I've heard that it's further correlated with a particular U.S. seminary in the '70s. Worth a thread?
Perhaps you've only heard of the abuse by English Speakers.
Marcial Marciel comes to mind.
There's plenty more non-English cases Eurpean Priest Sexual Abuse Cases
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Tangent, what I find intriguing about the abuse: it's by English speakers. I've heard that it's further correlated with a particular U.S. seminary in the '70s. Worth a thread?
Well, the US seminary can't be blamed for the abuse in Canada, or for the abuse in Ireland, or for the abuse in Germany, or for the abuse in Australia, or for the abuse in the UK, or for the abuse....
The common thread that I've noticed in a lot of cases is Ireland -- the Christian Brothers in Canada, clergy frequently from the Irish version of the RC church in Canada, the US and Australia, and of course Ireland itself. But I'd be hard pressed to claim that this common thread indicates very much more than one cultural issue among many.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I have long wondered if there were an unpleasant aspect of an internal culture of the Christain Brothers. When (in the mid-70s) an anti-clerical Irish friend of mine was in conversation with the RC chaplain at Trinity College, Dublin, he was asked who had taught him. When he replied, the Christian Bothers, he was asked if: "the Brothers treated you all right, if you know what I mean." That was about forty years ago....
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc - I am blown away. Truly. What a guy. And point taken on Benny. Frankie fills me with hope. Not that he will change on anything doctrinally, but that a move of the Spirit is occurring. No, that's a CERTAINTY. This man is a great man of God. Less than 20 years ago I was a rabid Whore-Of-Babylon man of which I am utterly ashamed. As far as I'm concerned that was scoured from me, against my will, by the Holy Spirit. Something definitely is going on.
I, a schismatic heretic till my dying breath, honour Francis whom I hope will declare me such till his.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
