|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A decision to cross the Tiber
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
When the Lord is silent on a matter you assume he must agree with the Pope. That's not a respectable way of arguing.
When the Lord is silent and nobody contests a tradition that is not in any obvious way undermineded by His teaching for 1900 years - and even then only by a comparatively small minority of Christians - then I think people are entitled to draw some conclusions and share them critically with others. That is not a disreputable way of arguing in my book.
The problem is people are contesting it. People from within the RC church as well as people outside it.
Is there a certain number of people who have to contest it for there to be questions?
(I mean Peter in Acts pretty much has to be hit over the head by God several times before he gets the message that Gentiles can be Christian. It's not a good outlook on the rest of the Church and changing tradition OR listening to the Holy Spirit...)
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
The problem is people are contesting it. People from within the RC church as well as people outside it.
Now some people are. After 1900 years - and even then only a comparatively small minority of Christians. For faithful RC the matter is closed - to the extent that RCs are contesting that doctrine they are to the same extent not being faithful to the Church's legitimate authority to teach definitively.
Your example of Peter being smacked upside of the head about admitting Gentiles is actually quite telling: he was put right promptly and explicitly by God so as to leave no doubt over a matter of such great importance. There was and has been no such explicit divine clearing-up of the matter of ordaining women. Nothing close, in fact. Surely that, plus 1900 years of undisputed tradtion in the other direction, entitles people at the very least to doubt whether God calls women to ordained ministry.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Your example of Peter being smacked upside of the head about admitting Gentiles is actually quite telling: he was put right promptly and explicitly by God so as to leave no doubt over a matter of such great importance. There was and has been no such explicit divine clearing-up of the matter of ordaining women. Nothing close, in fact. Surely that, plus 1900 years of undisputed tradtion in the other direction, entitles people at the very least to doubt whether God calls women to ordained ministry.
You can't have it both ways, Chesterbelloc. If Peter's reluctance to change the tradition was contradicted 'promptly and explicitly by God', then you could surely argue that the lack of a prompt and explicit rebuke from God to those ordaining women as priests, and a seemingly clear blessing of God on many if not most of those women's ministries, suggests that God expects us to develop tradition, not be restricted by it.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
You can't have it both ways, Chesterbelloc. If Peter's reluctance to change the tradition was contradicted 'promptly and explicitly by God', then you could surely argue that the lack of a prompt and explicit rebuke from God to those ordaining women as priests, and a seemingly clear blessing of God on many if not most of those women's ministries, suggests that God expects us to develop tradition, not be restricted by it.
I'm not trying to have it both ways, Angloid. I'm drawing a distinction between apostolic precedent and contemporary preoccupations.
I happen to think that what happened in the immediate post-Ascension, Apostolic era - and what has been faithfully followed therefrom until very recently - has more evidential weight than any particular novel way of altering that tradition right now or how we discern God's pleasure or displeasure with such innovations. God hasn't quite so explicitly intervened in plenty of Church stuff that has gone wrong since the post-Apostolic period.
I'm not arguing that current interpretations have no weight - just that the burden of proof for altering such well-founded traditions lies very heavily with those who want to alter them. Christ and the Apostles are the source, to use terminology already employed on this thread.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
But the issue of whether or not Gentiles should be admitted to the Church was very much a live one in the earliest years. The issue of whether or not women should be ordained was not. It would not have occurred to the vast majority of early Christians that anyone other than men should exercise authority because society did not see women in any similar role of secular authority.
I still haven't heard a convincing argument from those against OoW why it was right after hundreds of years to abolish slavery, yet wrong to allow women priests.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
That's a good point, Angloid, and shouldn't be forgotten.
Most women have not had any secular rights in most places for most of history - not only in the West, but pretty much everywhere on earth. No right to vote (where there was a right to vote); no right to own property; no right to an education or to go to university; no real possibility of supporting themselves.
It's not really at all surprising that the priesthood was simply one more thing denied women. So the "1900" years argument is more or less a "blame the victim" stance, as well as being rather unconvincing. I mean, let's make it 5,000 years, why don't we, while we're at it, and include Melchizedek?
(And of course, we do notice that women are being ordained now as rabbis, too, after lots of debate - even among Conservative Jews. It does seem to be a pattern....)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(BTW, you find this quote at Jewish Virtual Library, about the Orthodox position on women's ordination:
quote:
Zevulum Charlop, dean of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary of Yeshiva University argues that women can not receive smicha because it originated with Moses and was passed down only to men (Goodstein). “
![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
[ 16. July 2011, 23:35: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
That's a good point, Angloid, and shouldn't be forgotten.
Most women have not had any secular rights in most places for most of history - not only in the West, but pretty much everywhere on earth. No right to vote (where there was a right to vote); no right to own property; no right to an education or to go to university; no real possibility of supporting themselves.
It's not really at all surprising that the priesthood was simply one more thing denied women. So the "1900" years argument is more or less a "blame the victim" stance, as well as being rather unconvincing. I mean, let's make it 5,000 years, why don't we, while we're at it, and include Melchizedek?
(And of course, we do notice that women are being ordained now as rabbis, too, after lots of debate - even among Conservative Jews. It does seem to be a pattern....)
Sigh. This is soooo obvious, which is why arguing it really does seem like beating a dead horse. The idea that women cannot lead, make decisions, nuture a flock, represent Christ on Earth as he represents humanity in the Godhead is stinking and moribund. The only reason it might seem alive is because people who are afraid this might make the unchangeable (God) change, keep jiggling the corpse. "It's alive! It's alive!" ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But the issue of whether or not Gentiles should be admitted to the Church was very much a live one in the earliest years. The issue of whether or not women should be ordained was not. It would not have occurred to the vast majority of early Christians that anyone other than men should exercise authority because society did not see women in any similar role of secular authority.
Secular authority? You made the secular qualification remember. So, what about religious authority? There were plenty of women priests around at that time in other religions. It would not have been a novel concept.
quote:
I still haven't heard a convincing argument from those against OoW why it was right after hundreds of years to abolish slavery, yet wrong to allow women priests.
Slavery was a sacrament?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
The problem is people are contesting it. People from within the RC church as well as people outside it.
Now some people are. After 1900 years - and even then only a comparatively small minority of Christians.
Just because you're only aware of it now, doesn't mean it's only happening now. I find it hard to believe that there haven't been women down the millennia wondering, even if only very, very quietly, why the menfolk think that only they have the right kind of connection to God.
--------------------
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
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
It's also interesting that (I believe) even the Catholic Church acknowledges the existence of women deacons in the early church. So in fact there is indeed precedent anyway; I suppose deacon was as far as anybody dared go - which was, in fact, pretty far.
I agree, LydaRose: this debate is so over at this point. It seems beyond absurd that we're still talking about it, really.
(A Catholic friend says that the Church is going to have to ordain women soon, anyway - because it's running out of priests....)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Secular authority? You made the secular qualification remember. So, what about religious authority? There were plenty of women priests around at that time in other religions. It would not have been a novel concept.
It would have been, in Judaism - the wellspring from which Christianity flowed.
But that was then - and this is now.
[ 17. July 2011, 01:43: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
That's a good point, Angloid, and shouldn't be forgotten.
Most women have not had any secular rights in most places for most of history - not only in the West, but pretty much everywhere on earth. No right to vote (where there was a right to vote); no right to own property; no right to an education or to go to university; no real possibility of supporting themselves.
It's not really at all surprising that the priesthood was simply one more thing denied women. So the "1900" years argument is more or less a "blame the victim" stance, as well as being rather unconvincing. I mean, let's make it 5,000 years, why don't we, while we're at it, and include Melchizedek?
Well yes, precisely, which is where I came in on this thread. In the words of the sainted Basil Fawlty, it's stating 'The Bleeding Obvious' that ecclesiastical 'Tradition' is institutionally sexist and homophobic, and historically always has been. When challenged about 'The Bleeding Obvious' that this is unjust, the proponents of Tradition argue that it's precisely because they have such a long and appalling track record of institutional discrimination that it must be right!
It's like Creationism, the very ludicrousness of the belief, flying in the face of all that we have learned, makes the person who holds it feel extra special. They have access to The Truth denied to us mere mortals and unbelievers. The very fact that we cheeky sods outside the church point out 'The Bleeding Obvious' that this means their church is fundamentally flawed in terms of justice and equity, that the Emperor has no clothes, only makes them feel that they must be wearing the very very finest of tat! It's so fine, that the proles can't possibly appreciate it. So it must be wonderful and right.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Which is where I came in on this debate. You either accept the principle of "that which we have received that we pass on to you" or you don't.
I'm quite happy for those Christian groups who do not accept that principle of Tradition to order themselves as they wish.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
What TT said, basically.
There is no unambiguous or uncontroversial evidence even of women deacons (i.e., in orders rather than licensed), so I really don't think that argument from tradition will bark. Much better to argue as Louise does that tradition is just wrong than to try to stretch it to fit accommodate stuff it just can't.
Once again, the spade is turned. I'll go with the living exercise of tradition that is the Roman magisterium, thanks. I wish all who don't, won't or feel they can't every good thing.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
[Sorry - ran out of time on the edit - fuller version below.]
What TT said, basically.
Slavery is a socio-economic political contingency like the form of govenment a state has: monarchy, oligarchy, theocracy, aristocracy, etc. In the same way that the early Church was happy to go along with Roman imperial govenment as a legit form of authority but the Church has never taught that other forms of govenmnet are explicitly wrong (think Leo XII and the French monarchists), so the early Church did not sanctify the insitiution of slavery just because it (and the Lord) did not campaign for its abolition from the beginning.
Orders, however, are very much of the essence of the Church and are considered holy - as TT says, they're a sacrament. Comparing how the Church ordered one of her own holy institutions (over which she exercised due authority) with her attitude towards an external institution like slavery is comparing apples with motorbikes.
There is no uncontroversial evidence that I'm aware of even of women deacons (i.e., in orders rather than licensed), so I really don't think that argument from tradition will bark. Much better to argue as Louise does that tradition is just wrong than to try to stretch it to fit stuff it just can't.
Once again, the spade is turned. I'll go with the living exercise of tradition that is the Roman magisterium, thanks. I wish all who don't, won't or feel they can't every good thing.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I liked the parallel lines analogy earlier - so I shall try for something equally abstract.
Imagine you have red squares, yellow circles, and blue triangles. Jesus picks a set of red squares.
I now have a set of squares, circles and triangles in all three colours. I want to pick all the reds, you are telling me I can only pick squares.
Same evidence but different category sort.
Or to tie back to the original situation - Jesus picked faithful people who had a chance of being listened to.
In that time and place, that first meant Jewish men of some maturity - other things will also have been true of them. They probably mostly had beards, and didn't wear trousers, and didn't live in houses made of red brick - and had all sorts of *incidental* characteristics. Later gentiles were included, because they could be faithful people with a chance of being listened to. It has taken until the latter part of the 20th century for women to have a equal chance of being listened to.
But the important thing was that the apostles were faithful people who had a chance of being listened to.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Secular authority? You made the secular qualification remember. So, what about religious authority? There were plenty of women priests around at that time in other religions. It would not have been a novel concept.
It would have been, in Judaism - the wellspring from which Christianity flowed.
But that was then - and this is now.
Irrelevant anyway. Christians aren't ordaining Old Testament priests, or their pagan equivalents. In the Church that role is taken by our Great High Priest.
We're ordaining servers, elders, & overseers to be pastors, teachers, preachers and so on. To make the OT precedent support an all-male ordained mimistry you would have to show that no women were ever prophets, pastors, teachers, or leaders. And you'd be on to a loser there.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
AdamPater
Sacristan of the LavaLamp
# 4431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Irrelevant anyway. Christians aren't ordaining Old Testament priests, or their pagan equivalents. In the Church that role is taken by our Great High Priest.
Is it relevant that the Catholic priest stands in loco Christus(sp?), and as such continues, in a sense, a sacrificial priesthood?
--------------------
Put not your trust in princes.
Posts: 4894 | From: On the left of the big pink bit. | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Irrelevant anyway. Christians aren't ordaining Old Testament priests, or their pagan equivalents. In the Church that role is taken by our Great High Priest.
Is it relevant that the Catholic priest stands in loco Christus(sp?), and as such continues, in a sense, a sacrificial priesthood?
Yeah - I have a higher view of the priesthood than the one Ken seems to hold, too. One which I'm quite certain women can fulfill.
Actually, the very fact that this issue is not being argued along those lines any longer points to doubts about the theological soundness of the all-male priesthood. "Tradition" is the argument now - but at that point, we're not really having a theological/doctrinal discussion anymore.
I've linked to this post here before, which points out some of the problems with the theology.
[ 17. July 2011, 13:12: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Irrelevant anyway. Christians aren't ordaining Old Testament priests, or their pagan equivalents. In the Church that role is taken by our Great High Priest.
Is it relevant that the Catholic priest stands in loco Christus(sp?), and as such continues, in a sense, a sacrificial priesthood?
Here, my attempts to understand the 'anti arguments' start to fail as the red mist descends. The pure tradition stance (from within the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches) doesn't convince me, but is clear and coherent, particularly when it is restated as 'what is handed on to us from the post-apostolic church is what we should hand on', which I hope is a fair summary of what some posters are saying.
The in loco Christus argument - that Jesus was a man and therefore priests should be men - is superficially clear but lacks internal coherence, and I recently promised myself that I wouldn't take it from ordained men who were not themselves both celibate and Jewish.
Jesus was many things which most priests from any part of the Church are not, and He was some things that no priest is. We do not insist that Christian priests are genetically or culturally jewish, or that they are born in Israel, or that they are under 35, or that they speak Aramaic, or that they are circumcised or that they are an oldest (or only) child or have long hair. His gender is an important part of defining His incarnated being - but it is far from the only part of that definition.
Sorry - you pushed my buttons.
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's also interesting that (I believe) even the Catholic Church acknowledges the existence of women deacons in the early church. So in fact there is indeed precedent anyway; I suppose deacon was as far as anybody dared go - which was, in fact, pretty far.
I agree, LydaRose: this debate is so over at this point. It seems beyond absurd that we're still talking about it, really.
(A Catholic friend says that the Church is going to have to ordain women soon, anyway - because it's running out of priests....)
A deaconess was not a female deacon. It was a lay office.
--------------------
"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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
A deaconess was not a female deacon. It was a lay office.
Do you really think that the current distinction between lay ministers and ordained ministers existed in New Testament times?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
Besides which the whole thing is a fudge. The word used of Phoebe in the New Testament (diakonon) is exactly the same word as that used of a man in the same position. The only reason to suggest she was doing something different is an a priori assumption that she couldn't have been doing the same job because she was a woman. The text itself gives no evidence of this.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
A deaconess was not a female deacon. It was a lay office.
This article says you're wrong. Quote:
quote:
Unless I am mistaken, the author is precisely correct that there is historical evidence that women were actually ordained as deacons, using the same, or very similar, formulas and prescriptions as used presently for the ordination to the diaconate. The attempt to gloss over this to preserve the integrity of an exclusively male priesthood is admirable in its intention, but intellectually dishonest.
I don't think "glossing it over" is particularly "admirable in its intention" - but that should be a selling point for you, CL.
At any rate: no.
[ 19. July 2011, 14:59: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
An interesting additional point from the article referenced in the above quote; apparently all this is right there in the historical documents:
quote:
As time and practice accrued, women were ordained to the diaconate in rituals identical to those used to ordain men to the diaconate. The ordination ritual of the Apostolic Constitutions for women deacons, codified by the Councils of Nicea (325) and Chalcedon (421) begins: “O bishop, you shall lay hands on her in the presence of the presbytery.” Perhaps the oldest known complete rite of ordination for women deacons, a mid-eighth century Byzantine manuscript known as Barbarini 336, requires that women be ordained by the bishop within the sanctuary, the proximity to the altar indicating the fact of a true ordination.
[ 19. July 2011, 15:56: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
When are we talking about?
It doesn't really matter if they had downgraded women deacons to mere deaconesses by the whateverth century, its whats in the New Testament that convinces.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
ancient Coptic
So so what? It doesn't affect Chesterbelloc's, IngoB's., Trisaigion's et al aruments which are based on a Pope the Copts don;t and never did recognise. They've got their own and always did.
Nor mine in favour of ordaining women which are based on the New Testament.
All a bit irrelevant.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
Is there a contradiction between this
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
An interesting additional point from the article referenced in the above quote; apparently all this is right there in the historical documents:
quote:
As time and practice accrued, women were ordained to the diaconate in rituals identical to those used to ordain men to the diaconate. The ordination ritual of the Apostolic Constitutions for women deacons, codified by the Councils of Nicea (325) and Chalcedon (421) begins: “O bishop, you shall lay hands on her in the presence of the presbytery.” Perhaps the oldest known complete rite of ordination for women deacons, a mid-eighth century Byzantine manuscript known as Barbarini 336, requires that women be ordained by the bishop within the sanctuary, the proximity to the altar indicating the fact of a true ordination.
and this
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The rites for deaconesses spoke of ''keepers of your holy gates' - similar to a 'doorkeeper in the house of the Lord' - 'doorkeeper' was a minor 'order' like acolyte - certainly not 'deacon'
?
Or are we talking about different times or strands of church history?
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Apparently there have been both "female deacons" and "deaconesses."
And it seems maybe (from what I'm gathering, although I'm not 100% certain yet) that the two functions existed simultaneously.
Although that doesn't make much sense, does it? OTOH, use of the English word "deaconess" could have been - as was hinted at in an earlier post - a way to erase "female deacons" out of existence, substituting this apparently non-ordained position for the ordained one. As you notice above, CL immediately tried that tack; I mentioned "women deacons" and he went right with "deaconesses," in a sort of sleight-of-hand "translation"!
But there could have been two completely different words in Greek, or Latin, for these two functions, if they existed together at the same time.
Still reading....
[ 19. July 2011, 22:25: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It does seem pretty bizarre, linguistically speaking, to have a distinction between female deacons on the one hand and deaconesses on the other. If there was in fact a distinction, it obviously loses something in the translation. Alternatively, there was no distinction and people are arguing that deaconesses aren't deacons of female gender purely to arrive at a predetermined result.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
I really don't want to get caught up in this argument too much - time doesn't allow - but I just want to point out what I hope are a couple of uncontroversial things.
1) There is nothing close to scholarly consensus about whether there were ever female deacons ordained in the full sense in which men were: i.e., with precisely the same key indicators, including the laying on of hands with the explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit for that office. That's just a fact.
2) The Roman Catholic Church has not definitively ruled on whether women can be ordained to the diaconate.
3) This has no bearing for Catholics on whether women can be ordained to the priesthood because that has been definitively ruled out, as discussed above.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc
While you are right to caution about building too much on e.g "Phoebe, diakonos" (Romans 16:1) there is an equal and opposite danger of being too dismissive. Much can be made, indeed is made, of the ambiguity of "diakonos", meaning both "servant" and "office". But that's a post-facto rationalisation. The truth is that this is a uniquely commended servant of the church, and she is undoubted female. She is also a clear "ikon" of Christ in this context, since on the testimony of Paul, she mirrors the teaching that he came among us not to be served but to serve. There is a tradition that she was entrusted to carry the Epistle itself to its destination. And if one looks at the further instruction viz "that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.(ESV)" this is a high commendation indeed.
Not suggesting you build a whole edifice on this, but I don't think this can be easily argued away either. It should give pause for thought. Treat with dignity and respect. She's earned it through her faithful service. Isn't that a principle which shines through the cultural differences? Why can't we build on that?
The great majority of us now accept, following MLK, that content of character is more important than colour of skin, and that is a Christian virtue. Is it such a big stretch to replace "colour of skin" by "gender" and say that is the criterion to apply to those entrusted with serving the church? Why cannot that be done? When it comes to the priesthood, it is surely just one aspect of Holy Tradition conversing with another. Surely the outworking of theology is about such conversations?
"We've never done it this way before" just doesn't seem adequate somehow. I'm not saying I don't understand the reservations, but where is that conversation?
--------------------
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
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
ancient Coptic
So so what? It doesn't affect Chesterbelloc's, IngoB's., Trisaigion's et al aruments which are based on a Pope the Copts don;t and never did recognise. They've got their own and always did.
Nor mine in favour of ordaining women which are based on the New Testament.
All a bit irrelevant.
Not irrelevant to those who search antiquity in search of crumbs of evidence that there is a precedence for the OOW.
--------------------
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
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not irrelevant to those who search antiquity in search of crumbs of evidence that there is a precedence for the OOW.
In case you're interested, this is rather an insulting turn of phrase, and isn't actually what's happening anyway.
What's actually happening is that people are taking a closer look at history to see where the role of women has been purposely ignored, demeaned, or totally erased. The "diakonon" incident is just one of many.
For another very clear example: Mary Magdalene was turned into a whore by some Pope or other - a false trope that is absolutely nowhere to be found in the Bible. Instead of being praised as the very first Apostle - which she was - she was turned into a "fallen woman," fit for nothing but eternal repentence and reform. The church has been heavy on the misogyny over the centuries, along with most of the rest of the world.
Yet even in his misogynistic culture, Paul gives high honor to numerous women working closely with him. Jesus, of course, did the same, by including women among his closest companions and confidants - and, BTW, disciples. They traveled with him, and learned from him - in some ways better, apparently, than most of the "Twelve," who are in fact often portrayed as dunces in the Bible. People have erased them from history (and "tradition") because that has served their purpose - but there they most definitely are.
Martha and Mary are Christ's disciples as much as any of the "Twelve" - who are, of course, a sign of and metaphor for the Twelve Tribes of Israel - which in turn are a sign of and metaphor for the sons of Isaac. Those were patriarchal societies, all of them.
One might say, in fact, if one actually looked at the stories, that his female companions were far more in tune with what Jesus was about than the men, who are almost always portrayed and thick and dense and uncomprehending of Jesus' message. Mary, for one, has "chosen the better part." A woman anoints Jesus' feet (or head), and the men are told that she's doing the right thing. Magdalene saw Jesus in the garden - and he commissions her right there, saying, "Go tell them to meet me in Galilee." (That's an "Apostle," BTW: sent.)
It's quite possible to make that interpretation if one wanted to, that is - but one (i.e., "the church") definitely has not felt like doing that over the last couple of millennia.
So nobody's looking at "crumbs"; we're staring at gigantic boulders that have been dismissed and ignored in order to perpetuate the status quo.
(There. I feel better now.... )
[ 20. July 2011, 12:47: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(Because, you know: we don't actually need a precedent for the ordination of women; we could "break new ground" if we wanted to, because we believe our theology points to the breaking of new ground.
I thought that was the whole idea of "revelation" anyway....)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
** Sons of Jacob, of course.
(All those darned Patriarchs look alike to me....)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So nobody's looking at "crumbs"; we're staring at gigantic boulders that have been dismissed and ignored in order to perpetuate the status quo.
These 'boulders' prove that women are equal to men in discipleship or even better at it.
It does not prove that they were 'ordained'.
I often think that ordination is for those who are not much good at discipleship because they cannot cope as laity, it being much harder to live out the faith in secular than within the confines of the gathered church.
[ 20. July 2011, 16:32: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So nobody's looking at "crumbs"; we're staring at gigantic boulders that have been dismissed and ignored in order to perpetuate the status quo.
These 'boulders' prove that women are equal to men in discipleship or even better at it.
It does not prove that they were 'ordained'.
Only you and Chesterbelloc are fixated on the (false) idea that this is what's being argued on this thread.
But by all means, keep harping on it, if that's your pleasure....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So nobody's looking at "crumbs"; we're staring at gigantic boulders that have been dismissed and ignored in order to perpetuate the status quo.
These 'boulders' prove that women are equal to men in discipleship or even better at it.
It does not prove that they were 'ordained'.
Only you and Chesterbelloc are fixated on the (false) idea that this is what's being argued on this thread.
But by all means, keep harping on it, if that's your pleasure....
Wow! Chesterbelloc and me in the same sentence - we are at loggerheads usually.
Going back to ordained women, much as I would like it to be the case, the evidence is flimsy and what has been dragged out smacks of conspiracy theory - the women had important roles but the men wrote them out of the documents.
--------------------
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
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Wow! Chesterbelloc and me in the same sentence - we are at loggerheads usually.
Going back to ordained women, much as I would like it to be the case, the evidence is flimsy and what has been dragged out smacks of conspiracy theory - the women had important roles but the men wrote them out of the documents.
Be clear in what you're saying. Exactly who has dragged exactly what out, in terms of "ordained women"? Name names; give examples.
[ 20. July 2011, 18:55: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
That is a long one, worthy of a separate thread - I can do it, if you want to.
However this thread is about the Ordinariate, which both you and I are not wanting to do, with good reasons.
By all means, have the debate, but remember that you and I are both in favour of the OOW and accept it as a DEVELOPMENT of our tradition - but I do not need to find a precedent from what has gone before - because there is none.
--------------------
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
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(Because, you know: we don't actually need a precedent for the ordination of women; we could "break new ground" if we wanted to, because we believe our theology points to the breaking of new ground.
.... as I have been saying.
This is the important distinction between the RC Church and others and we need to recognise that.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(Because, you know: we don't actually need a precedent for the ordination of women; we could "break new ground" if we wanted to, because we believe our theology points to the breaking of new ground.
.... as I have been saying.
This is the important distinction between the RC Church and others and we need to recognise that.
But, TT: I think the RCC could do this, too.
And I insist that it has, actually. Every bit of doctrine and discipline that came after Christ was a new development from previous Christian theology, no?
Listen: I'm not arguing that the RCC should ordain women; I'm simply saying that it could - and alongside that, that everything it's developed over the years was an innovation, pointed to by a new theology.
But of course, it's not my business to insist the RCC do anything - I'm not a member of that church! I do respect that church, though - and I should add that I've been tempted to join it strictly because of all the great things I believe it's accomplished.
Oh, well. Maybe next lifetime. (Ooops! I'm sure I'm not supposed to say that.... )
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
well I sometimes get the feeling I was Caligula in a previous lifetime
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Except, of course, that the RCs would argue that doctrinal developments have to be in keeping with scripture and Tradition. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many RCs who would argue that scripture and Tradition point towards the ordination of women without some kind of adjustment or special pleading ... just as you are unlikely to find many 'low church' Protestants claiming that they point towards the idea of an ordained priesthood in the first place ...
And of course, to an extent, the RCs (and the Orthodox) are more positive and facilitating about some aspects of women's ministry than a number of very literalist Protestant sects I could mention.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Except, of course, that the RCs would argue that doctrinal developments have to be in keeping with scripture and Tradition. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many RCs who would argue that scripture and Tradition point towards the ordination of women without some kind of adjustment or special pleading ... just as you are unlikely to find many 'low church' Protestants claiming that they point towards the idea of an ordained priesthood in the first place ...
And of course, to an extent, the RCs (and the Orthodox) are more positive and facilitating about some aspects of women's ministry than a number of very literalist Protestant sects I could mention.
Well, "adjustment" in point of view was the very point of my long post above.
Ah, well - back to the Anglican thing now....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
ancient Coptic
So so what? It doesn't affect Chesterbelloc's, IngoB's., Trisaigion's et al aruments which are based on a Pope the Copts don;t and never did recognise. They've got their own and always did.
Nor mine in favour of ordaining women which are based on the New Testament.
All a bit irrelevant.
Not irrelevant to those who search antiquity in search of crumbs of evidence that there is a precedence for the OOW.
We don't need to search antiquity, the Bible trumps it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
