|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yes. And I distinctly remember, back in the early 90s, opponents of (the then proposals for) women priests saying that if women were ordained to the priesthood there would be no reason for them not to be able to be consecrated as bishops. But then a lot of that crowd- whether BiB or CE- have never exactly been known for consistency.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I have no idea what Anglicans past or present may have said about this. But since the minister of ordination is a bishop, not a priest, there is a distinct difference between an invalid ordination to the episcopate and to the priesthood. Basically, whatever spiritual damage an invalidly ordained priest may do, it will always remain limited to the immediate actions of that priest. Whereas an invalidly ordained bishop will in addition ordain invalidly, and thus spread this state to other individuals. If we compare this to a disease, then bishops are infectious, priests are not.
On can deal with invalidly ordained priest by simply going elsewhere, to a validly ordained priest. One cannot do so with an invalidly ordained bishop, at least not in the long run. At normal levels of episcopal activity, it may only take a few generations before the entire episcopate and all priests are invalidly ordained.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
What's the situation in the UK regarding breakaway groups?
In the UK the era of disgruntled congregations in mainstream denominations going their own way seems to be largely in the past. The Baptists probably do it more often than most, but their congregationalist system must make it less of a problem than in more centralised denominations.
To tell the truth, ongoing church decline has probably made many congregations more reliant on their institutional structures rather than less. Despite attempts to 'equip the laity' in the face of overworked clergy I don't have much sense that lay church leaders are becoming more powerful than before. In addition, neither the CofE nor the Methodists are used to tithing, so there's no culture of paying the ministers' salary directly out of the congregations' pockets.
My guess is that it's the biggest, most confident and most dynamic of the mainstream church congregations that have something to gain from independence. Such churches are almost always evangelical. But are they majorly concerned about women bishops? From what I've read here it's not a top priority for CofE evangelicals. Disestablishment is more likely to be the cause of the CofE breaking up.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... At normal levels of episcopal activity, it may only take a few generations before the entire episcopate and all priests are invalidly ordained.
But surely you think that this is the case with the CofE already, don't you? Or are CofE ordinations/ consecrations merely illicit from your POV ('Dutch touch' and all that)?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
hosting
Hello people,
There is a perfectly good open Hell thread if you are less than thrilled and delighted with IngoB and his manner of posting.
Sorry, I got this confused with the Hell thread. Apologies to all.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Alright, here I go again.
quote:
IngoB: I don't think that these are useful questions. We were not really discussing any concrete world plan (with cogs), so we also cannot give a concrete answer.
Wait a minute. So now a machine with cogs isn't a good analogy anymore? Remind me who brought it up.
quote:
IngoB: Well, with that flow diagram S would be full to the brim. But it also would not have any interesting properties. For example, you have no idea then how many changes were actually made to any universe in S.
I'm glad you understand now that there was no contradiction. The cardinality of S would be infinite of course, but it would still be infinitely smaller than the set of all hypothetically possible universes. Don't tell me I need to instruct you on set theory.
quote:
IngoB: I have lots of feelings about the people I discuss with. I try to not let that interfere with my arguments though, and I rarely find it useful to mention these feelings to them.
Good idea to focus on the word 'feeling' here.
quote:
IngoB: The problem is that you think of this as a kind of brainwashing operation, as if God hired the KGB and they did something to your brain so that you think hurting people is good though it really isn't.
No, I understand that part.
quote:
IngoB: Rather this is your glaring misunderstanding of my reasoning. I don't hold God to any standards. I rather simply analyse what God's known (non-moral) properties imply for His actions in this world.
We're getting lost in semantics here. Let's try an axiomatic approach.- God is perfect.
- What 'perfect' means is defined by god. There's no external standard of perfection he adheres to.
- God created the universe in accordance with his perfection, with us in it.
- God imbued us with a set of morals which derives from how he made this universe. What 'good' and 'bad' mean depends on this universe.
- From these morals follow a set of rules that the church adheres to.
- We cannot call these rules immoral, because morality doesn't apply to god.
Is that more or less it?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I don't have a problem with claiming an unchanging nature for God.
Just with me claiming an unchanging nature for God, then.
quote:
I have a problem with claiming a specific nature for God, where those specifications are derived from creation as we know it and are not sufficiently abstracted (i.e., retain created detail).
I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. The specific nature of God that I claim is derived from revelation, although St. Paul says God's nature can be known from what He has created.
quote:
To keep it in Orthodox terms, I think you are confusing (in the sense of "mixing") God's energies with God's essence here. We cannot take a commandment like "thou shalt not commit adultery" and directly project it all the way into God's essence. Of course, that God should command this has to do with His essence, I am not denying that. I'm not even denying that we can in some very abstract way reverse-engineering from such concrete detail to God's essence. But we cannot just flip around the causal arrow and expect to see the essence of God revealed in this. This commandment is something that operates within the limits and feature space of the creation God has made by His free choice. There could be a universe where there is no such thing as adultery, since there is no such thing as sex. You cannot point at this commandment and say "God is constrained by that." That is wrong not because God can be expected to commit or make others commit adultery left, right and centre. But because saying that reverse the actual order, it turns the Governor into the governed.
I completely fail to follow this. What exactly do you think I said that you are refuting?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
What's the situation in the UK regarding breakaway groups?
In the UK the era of disgruntled congregations in mainstream denominations going their own way seems to be largely in the past. The Baptists probably do it more often than most, but their congregationalist system must make it less of a problem than in more centralised denominations.
To tell the truth, ongoing church decline has probably made many congregations more reliant on their institutional structures rather than less. Despite attempts to 'equip the laity' in the face of overworked clergy I don't have much sense that lay church leaders are becoming more powerful than before. In addition, neither the CofE nor the Methodists are used to tithing, so there's no culture of paying the ministers' salary directly out of the congregations' pockets.
My guess is that it's the biggest, most confident and most dynamic of the mainstream church congregations that have something to gain from independence. Such churches are almost always evangelical. But are they majorly concerned about women bishops? From what I've read here it's not a top priority for CofE evangelicals. Disestablishment is more likely to be the cause of the CofE breaking up.
I would say that the majority of CoE evangelicals are fine with women bishops. They would tend to not have a high view of the episcopate, but also wouldn't generally believe in male headship - so to them a bishop is more like a secular boss. Most evangelicals would be fine with a female boss in a secular job, and so it's the same with a bishop. It's the evangelicals who believe in male headship who have issues with women bishops - IME they are a minority, just loud.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes. And I distinctly remember, back in the early 90s, opponents of (the then proposals for) women priests saying that if women were ordained to the priesthood there would be no reason for them not to be able to be consecrated as bishops. But then a lot of that crowd- whether BiB or CE- have never exactly been known for consistency.
The "compromise" never made any sense. If women can be priests, they can, ipso facto, be bishops.
Two decades of "reception" have done enormous harm to the church. If anything ought to disabuse it of its laissez-faire tolerance, it ought to be the harm done to its members and its reputation by coddling the intolerant.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But surely you think that this is the case with the CofE already, don't you? Or are CofE ordinations/ consecrations merely illicit from your POV ('Dutch touch' and all that)?
My comment was not about what I think of CofE ordinations. It was saying that if some Anglicans think that invalidly ordaining a bishop is more problematic than invalidly ordaining a priest, then I think they have a point.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm glad you understand now that there was no contradiction. The cardinality of S would be infinite of course, but it would still be infinitely smaller than the set of all hypothetically possible universes. Don't tell me I need to instruct you on set theory.
There certainly was a contradiction in what you wrote. But if the flow diagram is what you meant, then fine. And yes, while I certainly am no expert in set theory, I understand what you are saying. I just doubt that it will contribute anything to our discussion here. Surprise me, I guess.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
We're getting lost in semantics here. Let's try an axiomatic approach.- God is perfect.
- What 'perfect' means is defined by god. There's no external standard of perfection he adheres to.
- God created the universe in accordance with his perfection, with us in it.
- God imbued us with a set of morals which derives from how he made this universe. What 'good' and 'bad' mean depends on this universe.
- From these morals follow a set of rules that the church adheres to.
- We cannot call these rules immoral, because morality doesn't apply to god.
Is that more or less it?
Not really, sorry. Your use of "perfect" in the above (points 1-3) may or may not be OK in its own right. It is interesting that the first part of point 2 is probably intended to reflect my thinking, but it actually would be for me the most obvious error here. Anyway, this simply does not represent the way I have used God's perfection in my argument so far. I have used God's perfection to argue against internal incoherence in the universe and in God's interaction with the universe. Point 4 is also off, namely because it seems to use "universe" in contrast to "us", when in fact the morals we have to obey basically depends on how we were made, rather than how other things were made. Point 6 is weird. We call these rules "moral", not just "not immoral", if by your own definition they are identical or at least closely and validly derived from the morals given to us.
You are still working towards saying "these rules are immoral, hence they cannot be from God." My basic counterpoint is that it makes no sense to call creation immoral. "Water is wet" is not a moral statement even if you are drowning. I think you are over-attacking by trying to make everything moral, and I'm over-defending by going on about God's moral status. The real question here is quite simply whether we can guess with sufficient confidence an imperceptible, supernatural reality (who is given the grace to provide sacraments) from a perceptible natural / cultural one (modern ideas about work place equality, essentially). My answer is "no", your answer is "yes". And ultimately this boils down to the question how confident we are that we have understood God. Ironically, for all my preoccupation with doctrines and theology, and all your disinterest in them, it turns out that it is you who is a lot more confident about having understood God.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I don't have a problem with claiming an unchanging nature for God.
Just with me claiming an unchanging nature for God, then.
No, with you claiming more than that. Specifically, you said
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't believe God has choice in any meaningful sense. God's actions derive from his nature. The only choices would be, from our point of view, inconsequential. Anything that has a moral component, God has no choice. God's actions and God's person cannot be distinguished.
Clearly, there is a lot more going on there than just that God is unchanging. In fact, this is not even mentioned here though it could possibly be derived from what is being said. Now, I have plenty of issues with what you say there. Basically I think every single sentence there is wrong, or at least misleading. However, for the case at hand I think the key statement is "Anything that has a moral component, God has no choice." This I consider wrong (or perhaps better inapplicable) in principle, since God is no moral agent. Furthermore, even if we allow this as a kind of effective description of God's coherence, this has the practical problem of you imposing on God your creaturely ideas of what it means to be moral. This is what I meant earlier with projecting very specific constraints on the nature of God. I really think that this makes little sense, and that the book of Job is an antidote to such thinking.
--------------------
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
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
So back to the actual topic...
I've never understood the need to make an actual separate ruling for female bishops once female priests were approved, but perhaps things are just done differently in the UK.
One thing I wonder... here in the US, we had a lot of people leave the Episcopal Church for some splinter groups calling themselves "continuing Anglicans" (but not all leaving for one breakaway church--there were several), and it was over a period of time pretty much from the original Ordination of Women in 1977 till basically now. Some of those groups went on to join the RCC recently when Pope Benedict set up a provision for them to come over as well. There have even been lawsuits about whether church property (the land, the buildings, etc.) belong to the congregation (and thus can leave the Episcopal Church with them) or to the Episcopal Church itself (which is what's been basically established).
What's the situation in the UK regarding breakaway groups?
There have been, and remain, a few groupings of "continuing Anglican", but it has never caught on in the same way as it has in the States. There's a few of reasons for this, I think.
1) The Security of the "Parson's Freehold" has allowed many priests simply to continue to do what they have always done and (largely) say what they like without consequences for their income and accommodation. They (and their congregations) are largely happy to stay in such circumstances.
2) The established, top-down nature of the temporal structure of the CofE makes it pretty much impossible for any departing group to even attempt to take property with them. It's a non-starter. Thus continuing groups would have no buildings and would have to start from scratch. I think there's also a little less of a rich philanthropist streak in British society than in American. A continuing church in the States might have a congregation member who gifts land for a new church. That is much rarer over here. Higher land prices probably also play a part in that.
3.) Lack of growth begat lack of growth. Those continuing churches that sprung up in the early 90s are hardly visible. I think anybody who might otherwise think about doing something similar in 2014 may look at those groups and think twice.
If a new continuing church is to appear, I think it would be a grouping of conservative low-churches - the disciples of the illegal church plants of the 1980s and early 1990s who are not willing to play ball with the Dioceses to a sufficient extent to play nicely within the "Fresh Expressions" tent.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
hosting
Hello people,
There is a perfectly good open Hell thread if you are less than thrilled and delighted with IngoB and his manner of posting.
Sorry, I got this confused with the Hell thread. Apologies to all.
Same here. My apologies.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I don't have a problem with claiming an unchanging nature for God.
Just with me claiming an unchanging nature for God, then.
No, with you claiming more than that. Specifically, you said
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't believe God has choice in any meaningful sense. God's actions derive from his nature. The only choices would be, from our point of view, inconsequential. Anything that has a moral component, God has no choice. God's actions and God's person cannot be distinguished.
Clearly, there is a lot more going on there than just that God is unchanging. In fact, this is not even mentioned here though it could possibly be derived from what is being said. Now, I have plenty of issues with what you say there. Basically I think every single sentence there is wrong, or at least misleading. However, for the case at hand I think the key statement is "Anything that has a moral component, God has no choice." This I consider wrong (or perhaps better inapplicable) in principle, since God is no moral agent.
You are misrepresenting me. Whether or not God is a "moral agent," her actions toward us can be (or rather could be, in a logical sense) either kindly or hostile, from whatever point of view you want to use. But can God act arbitrarily? Can God say, "Well, yesterday I gave good things to Man, but today I'm going to be an asshole"? No. Everything God does reflects God's character. God cannot not be God. In this sense God does not have a choice. God can't choose to be evil. Not because there is something external to God saying, "No, Jehovah, you dolt, you are not allowed to be evil." That's a straw man of the first degree. But because God is God and is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
Do you think God can do something that goes against her character? And do not the things God does to us, whether strictly speaking "moral" or not (your choke-hold definition of that word can be a topic for another day), at least seem to us to be in keeping (or not in keeping as the case may be) with what we understand of a god of whom we can say, "God is Love"? You keep arguing against something I'm not saying, and don't address this.
quote:
Furthermore, even if we allow this as a kind of effective description of God's coherence, this has the practical problem of you imposing on God your creaturely ideas of what it means to be moral.
No, not really. I'm saying in this argument that WHATEVER God's nature is, God cannot act against it.
I am further saying that if we can trust the revelation we have been given by the Holy Spirit, then we must be able to say, in some sense or other, that God is Love. If that's imposing creaturely ideas of what it means to be moral, then talk to St. John, not me. If "love" is merely a moral term, and morality doesn't apply to God, then that statement is meaningless, as is much of both Testaments. Further, if "love" is so different from anything we understand in our creaturely minds to be "love" -- if "love" as applied to God is some code word that we have no access to at all, then this statement is meaningless. Why do we have all these scriptures telling us what God is like if they're not actually telling us what God is like?
You appear to want to say that God's nature is completely opaque, and cannot, contrary to St. Paul and St. John and all the prophets, be determined in any way, shape, or form. I mean apophatic theology is all well and good, but we DO have God's energies, and we DO have the created realm, and we DO have the Scriptures and the teachings of the Fathers. If absolutely none of these can tell us anything at all about God, then God is a cipher and we are worshipping the hole in the middle of a doughnut.
"Will not the judge of the whole earth do what is right?" That has to actually mean something that we can understand, or at least partially understand, or there's no point in reading the Bible at all, at least to find out what God is like. All that's left are some derivative mythology, a bit of droll history, a fair bit of decent poetry, and a lot of moral platitudes. Oh, and Ecclesiastes, which says all the rest of it is nonsense. Perhaps it's the only book we should have, and toss the rest.
And if nothing else, the Bible appears at least to show us that God is the sort of god who would give us this particular set of moral platitudes.
quote:
This is what I meant earlier with projecting very specific constraints on the nature of God. I really think that this makes little sense, and that the book of Job is an antidote to such thinking.
I don't want my constraints to constrain God. I am arguing that God's very nature constrains God. If that makes little sense about your god, then your god is not God. And don't pull out some bullshit about "well then whoever made God's nature constrains God." We both believe that nobody made God, and that God's nature is intrinsic in God, and from everlasting, and not of anybody's devising, even God's. God is what God is. Always has been, always will be. And I daresay God is comfortable enough in her skin not to chafe at her nature.
Vis-a-vis Job, God commends Job for insisting on God's righteousness, and commands his false comforters to honor him (Job). And further displays His might to Job, as if that answers the question of what her character is like. In fact Job shows exactly the opposite of your claim.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: Not really, sorry.
Alright, could you help me then? I don't understand what "Your use of 'perfect' in the above (points 1-3) may or may not be OK in its own right" means. Could you explain that? And if the first part of point 2 is my most obvious error, how should I reformulate it?
I'm still wondering about how I should formulate point 4. There obviously is a link between the universe and morals in your beliefs. I mean, you have to make the step from "a woman cannot consecrate the bread" to "a woman should not (try to) consecrate the bread" somewhere. The first may be a natural fact, but the second is very much a rule.
I mean, I don't arrive easily at a rule, starting from "water is wet". "People should not try to make water dry" doesn't make any sense.
From "I cannot lift a 500lb stone", no rule derives that says "I should not (try to) lift a 500lb stone".
Or, from "men can't get pregnant" no rules are derived. There is no rule "men should not try to get pregnant". That's just nonsense.
It becomes even more obvious when I read what you've been saying about homosexuality (I'm glad we're in DH already, so I can bring this up). You seem to make the step from "homosexuality isn't natural" to "people shouldn't practice it".
So, how do you do that? How do you go from the natural to the moral?
Would it be better if I formulated the last points like this? (Unfortunately, UBB Code doesn't seem to allow me to start a list at number 4.)
- ...
- ...
- ...
- From the way the universe —with us in it— was created, a set of morals derives.
- The church has encoded these morals in a set of rules.
- We cannot call these rules immoral, since they derive directly from the nature of the universe. We wouldn't call "water is wet" immoral either.
Something like this?
Of course I'm planning to attack your system, but I haven't decided on my strategy yet. I don't think it's going to be "these rules are immoral, hence they cannot be from god". I haven't guessed anything about a supernatural reality here, nor am I claiming to understand anything about god at this point.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Two decades of "reception" have done enormous harm to the church. If anything ought to disabuse it of its laissez-faire tolerance, it ought to be the harm done to its members and its reputation by coddling the intolerant.
I think this has been the case in its own way in the US. Essentially, if someone (including priests and bishops) did not accept the validity of women's ordination, they didn't have to, which meant that we had this weird tug of war for decades in which one batch of clergy didn't believe the other batch of clergy were real clergy, in which bishops could basically say that their dioceses were women's-ordination-free, in which the whole thing was treated as a non-settled issue, and so on. Eventually a lot of them left but not without decades of conflict and increasing nastiness on both sides--if it had simply been set up that women were now going to be ordained and everyone had to accept that, it might have taken longer to set up, but people leaving might have been a bit of a clean break rather than a festering wound.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
God cannot not be God. In this sense God does not have a choice. God can't choose to be evil. Not because there is something external to God saying, "No, Jehovah, you dolt, you are not allowed to be evil." That's a straw man of the first degree. But because God is God and is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
I've argued this very idea throughout all my explanations.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Do you think God can do something that goes against her character?
Here however we start to part ways. I don't think that God has a character, other than in a loose manner of speaking. A man might be brave or craven, but God is just God. There is no modifier that one could apply.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And do not the things God does to us, whether strictly speaking "moral" or not (your choke-hold definition of that word can be a topic for another day), at least seem to us to be in keeping (or not in keeping as the case may be) with what we understand of a god of whom we can say, "God is Love"?
I have addressed this several times. Indeed, in general one would expect that God interacts with humans in ways that are aligned with the goods God has given to humans. So in general we would expect to experience God as "loving" (in a simple sense). However, God can act aligned with other goods in the universe, with other supernatural goods, or indeed with our supernatural goods. And these acts may well not feel "loving" to us. God may do something aligned with a different good, which severely disrupts our good, and the we may even experience Him as "uncaring" or "punishing" (in a simple sense). And often the goods God is pursuing may be entirely opaque to us, so that God appears to act "arbitrarily". If "God is Love" is a purely experiential truth to you, then you lead a very blessed life. Few humans experience life like that, and the bible (in particular but not only the OT) doesn't read like that. "God is Love" is a programmatic statement, almost defiant. Considered as regular speech, I see it in the mode of the psalms ("WTF God?! but I know you will come through for me"). Of course, one can also give consistent philosophical meaning to that. But probably John didn't have that in mind when he said it.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If "love" is merely a moral term, and morality doesn't apply to God, then that statement is meaningless, as is much of both Testaments. Further, if "love" is so different from anything we understand in our creaturely minds to be "love" -- if "love" as applied to God is some code word that we have no access to at all, then this statement is meaningless. Why do we have all these scriptures telling us what God is like if they're not actually telling us what God is like?
The main point of saying that God is not a moral agent is not to say that God acts immorally, but to say that there is no external force, no moral handbook, that dictates terms to God. Furthermore, that God does not act plain immorally does not require the presence of some external moral law to restrain Him. It simply is a matter of God being consistent with Himself. He cannot in general write a law on our heart and then make us act against. God is not divided against Himself. Consequently we can understand a lot about what God does in the world - as far as we are concerned, at least. Because it will be aligned with our goods. But one has to be careful not to push this too far. God does not in the end become a kind of superhuman, who is guided by human morals in His actions but very powerful. God's "action range" is much greater than what the human moral system can contain, and even so where humans are concerned.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You appear to want to say that God's nature is completely opaque, and cannot, contrary to St. Paul and St. John and all the prophets, be determined in any way, shape, or form. I mean apophatic theology is all well and good, but we DO have God's energies, and we DO have the created realm, and we DO have the Scriptures and the teachings of the Fathers. If absolutely none of these can tell us anything at all about God, then God is a cipher and we are worshipping the hole in the middle of a doughnut.
Yes, but we have also plenty of hard sayings of Jesus, we have an OT which leaves many modern "God is Love" Christians as de facto Marcionists, and we have the poetic books like the psalms and Job which paint a rather different picture of God than being "Love" in the sense of being Super-Mom. And well, I guess most of us have personal experiences that are not exactly compatible with a simplistic concept of God as All-Powerful Loving Machine. I'm not denying your human descriptors, I have no problems with the evangelists and prophets. But I am making room in these descriptors, I open up their regular usage, so as to catch all that is there. "God is Love" indeed must remain comprehensible, otherwise why say it? But before we into apologetic overdrive to explain why that isn't a lot more obvious, I think we need to consider that scripture isn't really that simplistic. A much fuller picture is painted in the bible, and if we adjust our philosophy, our meanings of words to accommodate all that is there, then I think lots of apology turns out to be quite unnecessary.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't want my constraints to constrain God. I am arguing that God's very nature constrains God. If that makes little sense about your god, then your god is not God. And don't pull out some bullshit about "well then whoever made God's nature constrains God." We both believe that nobody made God, and that God's nature is intrinsic in God, and from everlasting, and not of anybody's devising, even God's. God is what God is. Always has been, always will be. And I daresay God is comfortable enough in her skin not to chafe at her nature.
The problem is here that you cannot speak like that about God's nature, in a principle sense. God's nature basically is to be. That's it. That sort of nature delivers no constraint whatsoever but that God is. This is not just good philosophy, by the way, but revealed through God naming Himself before Moses (giving a name has a much deeper significance there than just assigning a sound, of course). Creation just is not part of God's nature, properly speaking. What we are discussing is something like a non-essential operation of God's nature, an expression, an energy I guess. And we are discussing how God appears in that process. So I'm not saying that you are wrong to demand that God is good by nature. But I'm saying that you are already discussing more than just God's nature as such, you are discussing a work of God, and that is important.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Vis-a-vis Job, God commends Job for insisting on God's righteousness, and commands his false comforters to honor him (Job). And further displays His might to Job, as if that answers the question of what her character is like. In fact Job shows exactly the opposite of your claim.
God does all this after Job repents unreservedly. My claim presumably stands (I don't know what my claim is supposed to be, but I bet it didn't topple).
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Two decades of "reception" have done enormous harm to the church. If anything ought to disabuse it of its laissez-faire tolerance, it ought to be the harm done to its members and its reputation by coddling the intolerant.
I think this has been the case in its own way in the US. Essentially, if someone (including priests and bishops) did not accept the validity of women's ordination, they didn't have to, which meant that we had this weird tug of war for decades in which one batch of clergy didn't believe the other batch of clergy were real clergy, in which bishops could basically say that their dioceses were women's-ordination-free, in which the whole thing was treated as a non-settled issue, and so on. Eventually a lot of them left but not without decades of conflict and increasing nastiness on both sides--if it had simply been set up that women were now going to be ordained and everyone had to accept that, it might have taken longer to set up, but people leaving might have been a bit of a clean break rather than a festering wound.
You seem to be ignoring the role of the Dennis Canon in determining if and when opponents of WO left.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
You seem to be ignoring the role of the Dennis Canon in determining if and when opponents of WO left.
No, I've never heard of it. This is just my observation of the Episcopal Church from around 1985 till now, and having been on both side of the fence on the issue of WO, plus having various friends and clergy I have known (Bishop Iker was once my parish priest in Sarasota; one old (alas, now former) friend jumped ship from the Episcopal Church to the Anglican Church in America and now his whole parish has joined with Rome; and so on...).
(Looks up Dennis Canon)
Oh, that! I hadn't actually thought of church building and land property rights affecting when people would leave--I thought of it mainly as a matter of doctrine, conscience, etc. Certainly the anti-WO people I have known who were staying seemed to think that perhaps WO would ... blow over someday, or something. (And others on the opposite side sometimes seemed to be just waiting for the others to die off, which wasn't too charitable...)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
...That only follows if you imagine God will abrogate free will.
God does indeed desire your salvation. He wants you to trust in him, and walk in his ways. The door has been opened, and he stands ready to welcome you. He won't close the door - even if you slam it in his face - but nor will he drag you through against your will. You have to choose to go in.
[TANGENT]I thought it was your door which you had to open. Or possibly your church's door.[/TANGENT]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
It always seemed ambiguous to me that opponents of WO in the anglican church have to acknowledge women priests as "priests indeed", yet at the same time they can be opposed to them. How does that work?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It always seemed ambiguous to me that opponents of WO in the anglican church have to acknowledge women priests as "priests indeed", yet at the same time they can be opposed to them. How does that work?
I would think by believing that ordaining them was a mistake, but that the ordination "took" regardless?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Over here the opponents of women's ordination don't have to acknowledge that ordained women are 'priests indeed'. They are allowed to assert that such women are lay-workers labouring under a misapprehension, to whom it is necessary to be gracious.
[ 05. August 2014, 05:40: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Over here the opponents of women's ordination don't have to acknowledge that ordained women are 'priests indeed'. They are allowed to assert that such women are lay-workers labouring under a misapprehension, to whom it is necessary to be gracious.
Oh, I think it's been like that here in the US too--but if someone was against WO yet believed that women had been truly ordained, then I thought that would be their logical position.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by ;
quote:
I would think by believing that ordaining them was a mistake, but that the ordination "took" regardless?
This illustrates one of the major issues here, namely what is 'ordination' in the first place?
If it is conceived as a 'recognition' of gifts, then it's not a major problem to consider women may have the gifts needed.
If on the other hand 'ordination' is thought to confer some special status or powers - such as the consecration of holy water, or what I saw one (then) would-be woman priest refer to some years ago as 'making God' in the 'Mass' (i.e., 'transubstantiation') then it's hard to see how that could happen whatever we humans thought and no matter how much we might go on about equality. If women were inherently dis-qualified in God's eyes, how would the 'magic' work?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If women were inherently dis-qualified in God's eyes, how would the 'magic' work?
And many opposed to WO believe that, but my thought process here was that if "opponents of WO in the anglican church have to acknowledge women priests as "priests indeed", yet at the same time they can be opposed to them" then therefore they'd have to believe that ordination "took" even though it was a mistake. I suppose it might be, in that case, like someone marrying someone who was not a good match--but the marriage would still be valid, and one would have to make the best of it.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If women were inherently dis-qualified in God's eyes, how would the 'magic' work?
And many opposed to WO believe that, but my thought process here was that if "opponents of WO in the anglican church have to acknowledge women priests as "priests indeed", yet at the same time they can be opposed to them" then therefore they'd have to believe that ordination "took" even though it was a mistake. I suppose it might be, in that case, like someone marrying someone who was not a good match--but the marriage would still be valid, and one would have to make the best of it.
--------------------
‘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
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
Apologies for the mis-post above.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If women were inherently dis-qualified in God's eyes, how would the 'magic' work?
And many opposed to WO believe that, but my thought process here was that if "opponents of WO in the anglican church have to acknowledge women priests as "priests indeed", yet at the same time they can be opposed to them" then therefore they'd have to believe that ordination "took" even though it was a mistake. I suppose it might be, in that case, like someone marrying someone who was not a good match--but the marriage would still be valid, and one would have to make the best of it.
I think that there are those who hold the position that the Anglican church can - and has - ordain women as priests but that for ecumenical or other reasons it should not. From that position it would be reasonable to acknowledge duly ordained women as 'priests indeed' but still consider that it was a mistake for the church to ordain them.
[ 05. August 2014, 15:32: Message edited by: 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
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I should note--and indeed it is one of the things that got me more open to WO--that in C.S. Lewis' article "Priestesses in the Church?" in which he argued against WO, not once did he say that they could not be ordained, unlike many opponents today--only that they should not. He seemed to treat it as an unwise move by the church but not one it could not take.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Having read that article for the first time it occurs to me that the argument could easily have been summed up as "You musn't, it's bad and wrong and will ruin everything" and not lost any particular argument or detail of importance.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I don't agree, but my point is that--despite a lot of the modern anti-WO people's approach--nowhere did Lewis say that women couldn't be ordained. To me that's a quite critical distinction--if it's a question of "this is not the best idea" vs. "this is completely impossible" then there's a lot more room to sort things out, and I think things were indeed sorted out fairly well as far as the basic approach in the C of E, which didn't involve any change in theology, just in practice. I actually think that much of the argument on the "women intrinsically cannot ever be ordained" side is frankly kind of its own "innovation," much as--for example--Fundamentalist Christianity is also an "innovation" over the last century or so.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
(I, too, found the arguments used by many in the US on the "pro" side--which really often have been "women can do all sorts of jobs men can" and things involving earthly social matters--as unconvincing as the "anti" side.)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Apologies for the mis-post above.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If women were inherently dis-qualified in God's eyes, how would the 'magic' work?
And many opposed to WO believe that, but my thought process here was that if "opponents of WO in the anglican church have to acknowledge women priests as "priests indeed", yet at the same time they can be opposed to them" then therefore they'd have to believe that ordination "took" even though it was a mistake. I suppose it might be, in that case, like someone marrying someone who was not a good match--but the marriage would still be valid, and one would have to make the best of it.
I think that there are those who hold the position that the Anglican church can - and has - ordain women as priests but that for ecumenical or other reasons it should not. From that position it would be reasonable to acknowledge duly ordained women as 'priests indeed' but still consider that it was a mistake for the church to ordain them.
IME that tends to be the Conservative Evangelical* position, though naturally they don't believe in an ontological change at ordination anyway.
*used in the opposing-OoW sense - are there any outside Reform et al who oppose OoW? Maybe some charismatics?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Are there any outside Reform et al who oppose OoW? Maybe some charismatics?
Probably a few who have a personal (as opposed to a pressure group view on the matter).
Not sure about charismatics in the CofE but there's certainly a few outside it who do - take New Frontiers for example.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Unworthy ministers don't but incorrectly plumbed ones apparently do. Which makes the RC position look utterly ridiculous - because it is.
When you put it like that - I sometimes feel like I've wandered into the 1950s, when I hear discussions like this. Or into a madhouse really, an alternative universe, where the people are apparently speaking coherently to each other, but to no-one else. Strange.
Is it so mad? We accept it in other spheres without question and entirely legitimately.
An MP is an MP because they have fulfilled certain pre-existing requirements for selection, and have then by a recognised process come to hold a position of responsibility.
If an MP commits a crime or acts imorally, they are still an MP but they are an MP who should face appropriate consequences.
If a person comes to stand in the House of Commons, but is not a British/RoI/Commonwealth Citizen, or is under 18, then whatever else they might be they are not an MP.
We accept this for teachers, doctors, legal guardians, etc. Yet when Catholics understand their priesthood in the same way it becomes antiquated, "utterly ridiculous", and like "a madhouse really, an alternative universe, where the people are apparently speaking coherently to each other, but to no-one else".
Not exactly fair-minded, considered overall.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Not exactly fair-minded, considered overall.
Completely fair minded. None of the others include completely arbitrary exclusions based on attributes with no bearing on the tasks involved. If they did, as many of them did at one stage, they would get exactly the same treatment, and rightly so.
Not that this is the basis of the argument for me; to my mind it has more to do with the fact that God calls people to the priesthood. But nevertheless, if you want to make that comparison, you are comprehensively hoist on your own petard.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The qualifications for MPs, doctors, teachers et al have a logic that connects to their function, and it is straightforward to see how they are going to be generally beneficial to that function. The requirement that priests be male does not have any clear reason or demonstrable benefit. In addition, one may attain the necessary skills, qualifications and/or status required to be an MP, a doctor or a teacher - no-one is excluded on the basis of a status that is neither changeable nor relevant to the requirements of their role. Gender, at least in the RC understanding, is fixed and immovable.
Incidentally, a teacher or doctor can be "struck off", and in the doctor's case prescriptions they write will not then be valid. An MP will lose their seat if sentenced to a prison term of sufficient length.
In short, the comparison fails on pretty much every level.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
AIUI, a priest can be prevented from performing priestly duties in consequence of bad behaviour, but that he cannot cease to be a priest, which is, in effect, a life sentence.
Similarly, his sins or misdeeds cannot interfere with the validity of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, since he is only the agent of God, not the actual transformer of Bread and Wine into Something Else (whether "Memorial" or "Body and Blood")
Does the existence of his penis have anything to do with this?
Presumably, if a woman is ordained to priestly status, the same rules apply (unless the actual penis, not to be confused with clitoris, makes difference, I suppose).
At this level (pun intended) the whole argument looks rather stupid.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Not exactly fair-minded, considered overall.
Completely fair minded. None of the others include completely arbitrary exclusions based on attributes with no bearing on the tasks involved. If they did, as many of them did at one stage, they would get exactly the same treatment, and rightly so.
Not that this is the basis of the argument for me; to my mind it has more to do with the fact that God calls people to the priesthood. But nevertheless, if you want to make that comparison, you are comprehensively hoist on your own petard.
This is what I hoped someone would say.
What we have here is a disagreement with the Catholic understanding of priesthood. By all means. We can have a sensible discussion about the requirements we ought to have for a teacher to be a teacher, an MP to be an MP, and a priest to be a priest, if we have now moved on from silly surprise that those things have their requirements and definitions.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Horseman Bree;
quote:
Similarly, his sins or misdeeds cannot interfere with the validity of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, since he is only the agent of God, not the actual transformer of Bread and Wine into Something Else (whether "Memorial" or "Body and Blood")
And then again, if the Communion meal is just a memorial made more because the participants 'feed on (Jesus)in their hearts by faith with thanksgiving' (1662 Prayer Book)....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
In short, the comparison fails on pretty much every level.
No. Read back. It falls short, according to your argument, in ONE way only, in the belief that the priesthood was established as male. Therefore, discussion should be on that one point, not on drumming up rhetoric about how mad it all is or how the Catholic notion of priesthood falls short on "pretty much every level'.
[ 16. August 2014, 21:36: Message edited by: Invictus_88 ]
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Oh for God's sake, we're talking about ritual magic here (just a profound, transcendent, deeper magic than anything else in the world kind of magic), all about ceremony and tradition, not about hiring someone for an earthly job with ordinary sorts of qualifications.
And I say this as someone who is convinced of the validity of the ordination of women. But the question of changing a tradition like that is certainly not an immediately obvious one to lots of people, and it doesn't make them bad people or crazy people or whatever. It took me a long time to accept OOM, but people being snarky about it didn't help at all. (Note: People being snarky against OOM doesn't help either.)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
So how does this work with intersex people?
I can think of several possibilities.
A mix of XX and XY and other combinations means you're ineligible the way cripples and bastards were barred.
It's like bi-racial categories where having less than 1/64 of the your cells containing non XY chromosomes means you're in.
The chromosomes don't count, it all depends on the genitals being just a penis.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Bastards are probably acceptable, but I know of very few, if any, "cripples" - at least "cripples" with visible physical deformities. I DO know quite a few in the ministry/priesthood who are deformed by intransigent hanging-on-to irrelevant beliefs*.
*Examples provided over beer.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Bastards are probably acceptable, but I know of very few, if any, "cripples" - at least "cripples" with visible physical deformities. I DO know quite a few in the ministry/priesthood who are deformed by intransigent hanging-on-to irrelevant beliefs*.
*Examples provided over beer.
The priest assistant at a friend's (anglican) church was permanently in a wheel chair long before he was ordained.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So how does this work with intersex people?
I can think of several possibilities.
A mix of XX and XY and other combinations means you're ineligible the way cripples and bastards were barred.
It's like bi-racial categories where having less than 1/64 of the your cells containing non XY chromosomes means you're in.
The chromosomes don't count, it all depends on the genitals being just a penis.
I don't know if the Church has defined that yet, but I'm not convinced that it is relevant to the topic at hand.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
bumping up for housekeeping reasons
--------------------
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
|
|
BabyWombat
Shipmate
# 18552
|
Posted
Ah…. In reading the many posts here, and the points of theology and points of view, all that comes to mind is Matthew 7:20: “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
Living most of my adult life in TEC I have seen and known many female priests, and some female bishops. I have had them as pastors, I have had them as teachers, I have had them as colleagues. They have indeed shown me not just the face of Christ, but Christ-ness (to coin a word). They have held up the wholeness of Christ, the fruitfulness of Christ, the devoted compassion of Christ in ways that not every man, or very few, can do. Their essential femininity does not just balance the masculine view and ethos, it rounds it out, completes it in a way not known before. Their presence as priests and bishops makes the church whole at long last.
I suppose there are some women who cite the civil rights issue. Yet how many male priests are where they are today simply because they saw it as their right to be ordained? I have served on my diocese’ Commission on Ministry for several terms (in TEC such a group assesses and makes recommendation re ordination) and seen that sense of privilege in both sexes. But I have also seen that deep sense of call, of service, of holy fear in being called to represent the All Holy in both as well. It is good.
Posts: 102 | From: US | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doone
Shipmate
# 18470
|
Posted
Couldn't agree more BabyWombat ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posts: 2208 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
