|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestesses & bishopesses?
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
Is referring to priests and bishops who are female as priestesses & bishopesses ever in order, even in DH or Hell?
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
I would take it on the chin and point to valid apostolic succession and conformity to and descent from the Early Church Fathers and the disciples and scripture and tradition.
I respect CofE bishops professionally rather than spiritually.
The Church of England can trace Apostolic succession under precisely the same rules that the RCC does. The RCC chose not to acknowledge this for political purposes and now can't dig itself out of that hole because Cardinal Ratzinger absurdly decided to nail it to the mast as something Catholics have to believe.
The Dutch touch, you mean? Not for much longer, with bishopesses as well as priestesses in the system. And technical apostolic validity doesn't at any rate make up for those areas where the CofE has rejected Christian teachings and practices retained by the Church proper.
From the DH thread on Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women].
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
The post has been up for less than two hours, and our Hosts do have lives outside the Ship. Give them a chance!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
FWIW, I call it "giving people enough rope to hang themselves."
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
Whoa. Are skins so thin?
It is grammatical, it is correct, it is relatively commonplace, and it is non-derogatory.
Do we not all have the right to use X or Y grammatical form, provided one is not also being abusive?
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
It also
(a) implies that that the writer is coming from a standpoint that bishops must be male, instead of allowing the term to be gender-neutral (for instance, we don't talk of bus-drivers and bus-driveresses)
(b) fails to reflect current trends in language - for instance, terms like "actress" are falling out of fashion and others, such as "aviatrix", have already gone. We prefer to think that a word describing a person's office or occupation has no gender connotation.
Having said this, underlying attitudes are more important than the use of English - although such usage may betray those attitudes.
[ 15. July 2014, 14:55: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
I have seen abuse, and it does not rest on points of grammar.
Can we please be adult about this? Plenty of Anglicans have used the terms without censure. Are we sure we are not taking this as more than it looks people I am papist and others are not? C.S.Lewis even used it, for goodness sake, let alone the blogosphere.
Abuse? No.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Not only is it inherently derogatory, it is more often than not intentionally derogatory.
And believe me when I say that it is very much frowned upon on this website. Desist.
Marvin
Admin
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Invictus_88 - hand on heart - do you only use it as a point of grammar?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
Moot point Boogie. The admin has spoken. We shall not call them priestesses because it is inherently derogatory.
Perhaps the pagans should be told?
Either way, I shall use alternative terms.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Perhaps the pagans should be told?
It is not necessarily derogatory of pagans if, in fact, the particular type of pagans in question had an exclusively female priesthood.
But no Christian church has an exclusively female priesthood. In fact, the very point of the churches that decide to have both male and female priests is that they are priests irrespective of gender. Making a point of the gender distinction is, in the modern Christian context, an attempt to be derogatory.
And if I were you I would stop picking fights with an Admin ruling in the way you are currently, very very soon.
[ 15. July 2014, 15:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mertseger
Faerie Bard
# 4534
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Perhaps the pagans should be told?
It is not necessarily derogatory of pagans if, in fact, the particular type of pagans in question had an exclusively female priesthood.
It is not derogatory at all in modern Pagan communities, and the fact that is not derogatory does not require a Pagan tradition to have an exclusively female priesthood.
In fact, because many Pagans have experienced various degrees of prejudice from the dominant Christian culture around them, the male members of Pagan traditions often prefer to be called a "witch" rather than "priest" (if the tradition does not have a specific name for the priestly role which many Pagan Revival traditions do). It's even not unheard of in our circles to use "priestess" as verb for whoever will lead a particular ritual no matter what the gender of person ("Hey, Jack, do you want to priestess the Esbat on Friday"?).
[ 15. July 2014, 17:22: Message edited by: Mertseger ]
--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.
Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Technically, the word "boy" is perfectly fine and inoffensive. Except for a few contexts. And, anywhere near those contexts, it is frowned upon to use it even when it is technically correct and meant inoffensively.
Such is the case for "priestess" et al here.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I should point out that Lewis used the word "priestess" in 1948, 66 years ago, when (1) -ess and -ix and so on were pretty much standard suffixes for female versions of traditionally male things, and (2) (not counting Li Tim-Oi) about thirty years before the first ordained female priests in the Anglican Communion at all. We're talking a whole generation here.
I would assume (and welcome Hostly correction or confirmation) that in Hell, since all gloves are off and rudeness is allowed if not positively encouraged, one can use "priestess," "bishopess," etc. along with all sorts of other words, though I imagine that would be adding more glitter and neon to the target one already paints on oneself when posting in Hell.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
My real life certainly did interfere!
I think context is all. For example, there is no harm in discussing "Priestess of the White" in Heaven should the regular book threads choose it. It comes from a fascinating series.
But in serious discussions of the role of women in the church the use of the term priestess is obviously provocative, rather than descriptive (as it is in the "Priestess of the White" context.)
If I'd been around, I would have posted something along these lines in the thread. In general, provocative posting gets in the way of serious discussion, pisses people off and gets you a call to Hell. If you make a habit of it, you can get the reputation of being a bit of a jerk, and too much of that can get you banned by Admin (see Commandment 1).
So it's best avoided. It's a discourtesy (Purg Guideline 5 also applies in Dead Horses.) Sure, there is a balancing act between that and Commandment 5 (Don't easily offend, don't be easily offended) but in this case I think the balance tips in favour of not using the term.
[ 15. July 2014, 21:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I would assume (and welcome Hostly correction or confirmation) that in Hell, since all gloves are off and rudeness is allowed if not positively encouraged, one can use "priestess," "bishopess," etc. along with all sorts of other words, though I imagine that would be adding more glitter and neon to the target one already paints on oneself when posting in Hell.
The Hellhosts would be quite disappointed if the Hellions did not treat this usage as applying a laser target designator to some low part of the user's anatomy.
Moreover even Hell has its limits: Amongst others, C1, our 'anti-jerkishness' commandment is in effect in Hell, and while that includes the negative "isms" such as sexism, hosts invoke it sparingly and reluctantly.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It also
(a) implies that that the writer is coming from a standpoint that bishops must be male, instead of allowing the term to be gender-neutral (for instance, we don't talk of bus-drivers and bus-driveresses)
(b) fails to reflect current trends in language - for instance, terms like "actress" are falling out of fashion and others, such as "aviatrix", have already gone. We prefer to think that a word describing a person's office or occupation has no gender connotation.
Having said this, underlying attitudes are more important than the use of English - although such usage may betray those attitudes.
Back in another century when I was young(er), the lady who sold you a bus ticket was always the conductress. On the other hand, my occasionally atheistic brother-in-law will only refer to female ministers as ministeresses, as he feels they are somehow unnatural and need to be distinguished on that account. But surely 'priestess' is a term that has been used for ever.
I give thanks that in my own profession we do not find it necessary to designate engineeresses.
It's good to be reminded that the language is evolving - a point well made, BT.
--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)
Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
Here's another perspective: official job titles. Churches that ordain women do not confer "priestess" as a job title. When I was in the position, at a certain cathedral in San Francisco, to fill out marriage licenses, "Priestess" would not have been an acceptable way to fill in the blank for "official title" of the officiant.
Not that ordination is always a job, nor is it ever only a job. But when it is, the title is never "priestess" or "bishopess."
(On a side note, I once met a woman on a bus who claimed she left the Episcopal Church because, although they would ordain her, they wouldn't let her call herself a "Priestess.")
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Marvel Comics are turning their superhero, Thor, into a woman.
"If we can accept Thor as a frog and a horse-faced alien, we should be able to accept a woman"
You'd think so wouldn't you? But I suspect there are many who would prefer frog faced alien priests to woman priests.
Note, they are not calling her 'Thorina' or 'Thoresse' just 'Thor'.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Persephone Hazard
Ship's Wench
# 4648
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Perhaps the pagans should be told?
It is not necessarily derogatory of pagans if, in fact, the particular type of pagans in question had an exclusively female priesthood.
It is not derogatory at all in modern Pagan communities, and the fact that is not derogatory does not require a Pagan tradition to have an exclusively female priesthood.
Yes, this.
Also, frankly, this is one of the excusable types of tone argument. I quite like the word "priestess". It's sort of beautiful. "Bishopess" sounds made-up, though, in a way that the other doesn't; I'd never heard or thought of it before this thread. And the trouble with both of them is that in context it sounds like they're being used to mean "not quite a legit priest/bishop".
--------------------
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it's a lot easier to make up a thousand words than one decent picture. - ken.
Posts: 1645 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Marvel Comics are turning their superhero, Thor, into a woman.
"If we can accept Thor as a frog and a horse-faced alien, we should be able to accept a woman"
You'd think so wouldn't you? But I suspect there are many who would prefer frog faced alien priests to woman priests.
Note, they are not calling her 'Thorina' or 'Thoresse' just 'Thor'.
The ordination of extraterrestrials should perhaps belong to another thread, but Þora is a common Norse woman's name (indeed, I know a skateboarding nephrologist by the name) and perhaps here we have a North American anglophone tendency to avoid genderizing. At least one place on the planet, every day, someone is unconsciously imposing their world view on somebody else.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
There is also the problem, in a CofE context, that a Deaconess was not equivalent to a Deacon but was a lower rank.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I have never heard anyone use the terms in other than a derogatory way.
I have, but about 15 years ago.
I think it is now pretty firmly established that at least in the Church of England, women priests do not generally like being referred to as priestesses, and that it is not, within the CofE, the technically correct way to refer to such office-holders. Therefore using 'priestess' is both incorrect as a matter of terminology and by now is known by almost everyone who has followed the OoW debate to be highly offensive.
If anyone reading this thread is learning that for the first time, I would hope that their response is more "Oh, I didn't know - I'll avoid that term in future", than "It's an ordinary English word and I don't care who it offends".
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Marvel Comics are turning their superhero, Thor, into a woman.
Well... not technically, no. Thor, the son of Odin guy, is still around but due to something we haven't seen yet will lose the worthiness to lift the hammer, and this will be a new female character taking on his mantle as the new Thor. (He was turned into a frog, and Loki did become female for a while, though the alien horse character was also a different person taking on the mantle back in the 80s.)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
[QUOTE]I think it is now pretty firmly established that at least in the Church of England, women priests do not generally like being referred to as priestesses, and that it is not, within the CofE, the technically correct way to refer to such office-holders. Therefore using 'priestess' is both incorrect as a matter of terminology and by now is known by almost everyone who has followed the OoW debate to be highly offensive.
If anyone reading this thread is learning that for the first time, I would hope that their response is more "Oh, I didn't know - I'll avoid that term in future", than "It's an ordinary English word and I don't care who it offends".
I suppose the first thing to say is that bishopess is not an ordinary English word at all, and AFAIK it never has been. Priestess has ever only been used of women priests in the Anglican Church here in a highly derogatory and offensive sense. In any event, it is incorrect as there is no order of priestesses in the Anglican Church.
As to some other comments, the only dioceses here which will not ordain women as priests are Sydney and NW Australia - both predominantly evangelical of an idiosyncratic style. The other holdout, Ballarat, was as Anglo-Catholic as eg Chichester, and it now accepts and will ordain women as priests.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Marvel Comics are turning their superhero, Thor, into a woman.
Well... not technically, no. Thor, the son of Odin guy, is still around but due to something we haven't seen yet will lose the worthiness to lift the hammer, and this will be a new female character taking on his mantle as the new Thor. (He was turned into a frog, and Loki did become female for a while, though the alien horse character was also a different person taking on the mantle back in the 80s.)
Chast - it is good to have you back!
--------------------
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
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Loki did become female for a while...
Loki has form for turning into a female. Thor, as far as I recall, limited himself to a bit of cross-dressing...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
Please note that nerdish talk about comic book characters belongs in Heaven, not here! Ta muchly
Spike
Styx Host
--------------------
"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
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Is referring to priests and bishops who are female as priestesses & bishopesses ever in order, even in DH or Hell?
In the same way that it's in order to refer to doctoresses and lawyeresses and judgesses. In fact, let's go the whole hog - let's have human beings and human being-esses. Wouldn't want to confuse women with people, would we. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Is referring to priests and bishops who are female as priestesses & bishopesses ever in order, even in DH or Hell?
Why is it so difficult to accept someone's statement that using certain words is hurtful, and just not do it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jerrytheorganist
Shipmate
# 4720
|
Posted
I just had a very odd thought,,,
If using a female form of a word is wrong,, then perhaps we should start calling Mary the "Mediator" instead of "Mediatrix".
What does everyone think?
Posts: 94 | From: Plainville, Kansas, United States | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jerrytheorganist:
I just had a very odd thought,,,
If using a female form of a word is wrong,, then perhaps we should start calling Mary the "Mediator" instead of "Mediatrix".
What does everyone think?
Except the term "Mediatrix" has its footing in a very specific understanding of Mary's role in salvation; someone who merely says "Mary is a mediator between us and God" is saying something quite different from "Mary is the Mediatrix." The term is loaded with centuries of meaning. "Mediator" is not. Therefore, "mediatrix" is not merely the feminine form of a masculine word the way "aviatrix" is the feminine form of "aviator" or "waitress" of "waiter."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Is referring to priests and bishops who are female as priestesses & bishopesses ever in order, even in DH or Hell?
In the same way that it's in order to refer to doctoresses and lawyeresses and judgesses. In fact, let's go the whole hog - let's have human beings and human being-esses. Wouldn't want to confuse women with people, would we.
In the US we have corporations and corporationesses.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
In the US we have corporations and corporationesses.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why is it so difficult to accept someone's statement that using certain words is hurtful, and just not do it?
.
Sorry, don't understand. I said precisely that on the DH board in question.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Sorry, don't understand.
What precisely don't you understand?
...That the words like "priestess" have a default derogatory definition in the SoF context?
...That derogatory material affecting Shipmates should be confined to Hell?
...That the effective meanings of words in English are based on what the majority construe them to be, not what individuals (or even dictionaries) think they should be?
That last one bugs me, a lot. But it is true.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Is referring to priests and bishops who are female as priestesses & bishopesses ever in order, even in DH or Hell?
Why is it so difficult to accept someone's statement that using certain words is hurtful, and just not do it?
Didn't think iamchristianhearmeroar was querying that - in fact, I thought (s)he was (implictly) querying why this hadn't been pointed out on the thread after Invictus_88 used the term.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by jerrytheorganist:
I just had a very odd thought,,,
If using a female form of a word is wrong,, then perhaps we should start calling Mary the "Mediator" instead of "Mediatrix".
What does everyone think?
Except the term "Mediatrix" has its footing in a very specific understanding of Mary's role in salvation; someone who merely says "Mary is a mediator between us and God" is saying something quite different from "Mary is the Mediatrix." The term is loaded with centuries of meaning. "Mediator" is not. Therefore, "mediatrix" is not merely the feminine form of a masculine word the way "aviatrix" is the feminine form of "aviator" or "waitress" of "waiter."
Just because it is old, does not make it right. Still seems like
priestess or bishopess to me.
--------------------
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
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
Yo, yo, I'm the one that started this thread y'all. I'm also the one that pulled Invictus_88 up on this in the DH thread.
I have absolutely no difficulty in accepting "someone's statement that using certain words is hurtful" as mousethief put it, not least as I was the one making that statement about how hurtful and offensive I found the use of the terms...
What I don't understand is exactly what mousethief's point was.
Stejjie gets it.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Since "Mediatrix" is Mary-specific (nay, Mary-exclusive), till we know she is offended by it, perhaps we can keep using it?
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
(Jokishness aside here, since in that case it is her specific title, given in a specific church, and honestly it's not treated interchangeably with "Mediator." It's like "Mary, Queen of Heaven"--I don't think anyone out there wants to change that to "Mary, Monarch of Heaven" (which even carries a bit of a different meaning!).)
[ 22. July 2014, 23:15: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
What is someone does not consider someone a legitimate priest or bishop? I consider Katherine Jefferts Schori a raving apostate and therefore not a legitimate bishop of God's Holy Church. Am I allowed to put quotes around bishop, i.e. Presiding "Bishop" Schori, when referring to her?
Also, could those who consider women priests or bishops in general not actual priests and bishops use quotes in a similar manner? (I am not quite that dogmatic myself. But if someone is, they should feel free to express that in their grammar.)
[ 22. July 2014, 23:44: Message edited by: St. Punk the Pious ]
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Well, I don't put quotes around pope when I use it, despite not being RC or believing the claims made by that church for itself or its leader. I would consider that unnecessarily sectarian and divisive.
I am not sure how the Schori situation is different.
I don't use scare quotes around the terms rabbi and imam either. If I needed to make my theological position clear - I state or explain my position (intelligibly I hope).
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Am I allowed to put quotes around bishop, i.e. Presiding "Bishop" Schori, when referring to her?
No.
You call a Bishop a Bishop, even if you have doubts about the validity of her orders, or the orthodoxy of her beliefs. You call a doctor "Doctor", even if his degrees are from a medical school that you hold in low regard. And you call John Smith, who was born with XX chromosomes and the usual complement of female sexual organs "Mr. Smith" if he now presents himself as a man, whatever your opinions on transgender.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
Those points are well taken. Sometimes (usually?) courtesy is more important than making a point. But there are times, methinks, when refusing to indulge a pretense is called for. And one should certainly be allowed to so refuse with one's choice of words and/or grammar.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
If you fail to have the courtesy to give the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church the title she is due, I will refer to your ecclesial community as "that sad little band of retrograde schismatics" at every opportunity.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
"schismatics"
Weren't they a punk band in the 70's?
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Ha! If they weren't, they should have been. With righteous guitar riffs and off-key vocals.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
What if someone does not consider someone a legitimate priest or bishop?
If you want to be generally offensive, use the fucking petty little scare quotes - with the understanding that you may be called to Hell by somebody who gives a crap, and that it might accrete a fractional addition to your Commandment 1 dossier.
I generally refuse to capitalize "god" whenever I mention the amusingly soft-minded concept, so why should I insist on you being any less shitty than myself? Like two festering little malignant peas in a scrotum, you and I - hard to tell us apart. Welcome, brother.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
