homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women] (Page 17)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  ...  51  52  53 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
I heard second-hand (via my husband, actually, who unlike me has never been known to lie) so hearsay only, for any lawyers who are waiting to pounce, that he was told by a Roman Catholic with whom he had a long conversation yesterday that this guy’s church, having received a slow trickle of disaffected Anglicans for some time, was now receiving them in a steady flow – three families in the last two weeks alone. Now, I don’t know where this guy lives, (my husband never asks all the right questions) nor whether all these incomers were from the same parish, diocese or whatever, which is a probability, so it might be an isolated case, but if perchance this were the case up and down the country it could have dire consequences for the poor old C of E.

Oh dear. I heard from a friend of a friend that someone left a church, so that church is doomed. Heck I heard someone became an atheist because they couldn't believe the Bible was the literal word of God! We better pack up our things and find a new religion.

What exactly was the point of posting that bit of rubbish? Shall someone publish an equally as crap bit of hearsay about people leaving Anglican and RC churches that won't allow women priests/bishops?

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

 - Posted      Profile for HenryT   Author's homepage   Email HenryT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here's the OP for this thread, just to remind everyone where we started in July 2001 ...

quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
"A real woman," said a (male) speaker at a Forward in Faith* rally some months ago, "knows that a woman cannot be a priest."

(*the organisation of Catholics within the Church of England opposed to women's ordination.)

Not a new idea, of course - John Chrysostom in the fourth century said there were some things women couldn't do.

Unhelpfully, neither elaborated on this - so we don't know the reasoning behidn these conclusions.

So, what arguments are there against the priesting of women? What reasons do opponents give?

I'll start with one that was offered to me in all seriousness: there were no women at the Last Supper.

(Of course, logically, this means that no woman should ever receive communion or be in the room, let alone celebrate it. But I only thought of this after I'd got home.)

The final point is quite interesting.

Now Flossie appears to take the "impossibilist" position. Would you care to expound on what kind of resemblance male human beings have to Christ that females lack?

--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788

Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584

 - Posted      Profile for Flossie   Email Flossie   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, I wouldn’t, Henry Troup. I’m sure that really is a dead horse and has been covered already, and if it hasn’t, I’m afraid you’ll have to ask somebody else because I feel sure you are trying to lure me into a heffalump trap. Besides which, I don’t know the answer, and haven’t got the time to look it up at the moment.

To Mr sneery-scoffy, though, I would say, you might well poke fun at me – some people do seem to get their jollies by rubbishing others, which is a bit pathetic and juvenile in my view, but it troubles me not one jot – but I have a number of pieces of evidence from a number of sources, just in my locality alone, of a church in decline, and it is no secret, it has been in the national press. But here we have lots of people, waving placards about their ‘rights’ and ‘inclusiveness’ which is really exclusiveness, and that totally old-hat and discredited but still-quite-useful-apparently card called ‘homophobia’, and meanwhile the people are leaving the churches in droves. If all you can do is sit round and make silly comments and laugh about it, then God help you.

With two divisive innovations in the pipeline – one being engineered by WATCH and the other by Inclusive Church – how is this going to help, apart from helping the decline?

Here is an article by Fr Robbie Low, who used to do a lot of work on statistics in the Church of England before going on the well-trod path to Rome.

http://trushare.com/81FEB02/FE02RLOW.htm

To the person who asked me for the address of the survey, I’m sorry, I’ve lost your message and don’t know how to find it again. But there is the address of Christian Research: Vision Building, 4 Footscray Road, Eltham, London SE9 2TZ, Tel 020 8294 1898. Good luck!

Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
No, I wouldn’t, Henry Troup. I’m sure that really is a dead horse and has been covered already

You could find out by reading this thread. [Big Grin]

Go on, we'll wait.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
I have a number of pieces of evidence from a number of sources, just in my locality alone, of a church in decline

No-one is denying that numbers are down. What we are denying is that it is anything to do with ordained women. If that was true then surely the Roman Catholics wouldn't also be losing numbers? But they are.

quote:

If all you can do is sit round and make silly comments and laugh about it, then God help you.

All you seem to be able to do about it is sit round and make nasty comments. God help all of us.

quote:

Here is an article by Fr Robbie Low, who used to do a lot of work on statistics in the Church of England before going on the well-trod path to Rome. http://trushare.com/81FEB02/FE02RLOW.htm

And a fine little article it is too. Have you read it? It is based on some research by CRI. Have you ead that?

The conclusion of the research was that most churches are shrinking but a large minorioty are growing. Four factors seemed statistically significant in that:

- small churches tend to grow faster
- churches with young adults in the congregation tend to grow faster
- all white churches tend to shrink, ethnically mixed churches to grow
- churches that put on alpha courses are more likely to grow

Nothing about ordained women there.

If we can believe that article, and if you want to see your parish numbers growing, then you should forget about these whinges and put on an alpha course - while trying to make your church more attractive to young adults and Africans and Asians.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Here's the OP for this thread, just to remind everyone where we started in July 2001 ...

quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
"A real woman," said a (male) speaker at a Forward in Faith* rally some months ago, "knows that a woman cannot be a priest."


Of course, really if this were true it would solve the whole problem -- if a real woman knows that a woman cannot be a priest, then if one does not believe this, then she must not be a real woman, and, therefore, is eligible to be a priest. [Razz]

Thank you, thank you. For my next trick...

David
was, in fact, convinced of the validity of female priests, even here on this thread, but he won't say where

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Flossie:

quote:
No, I wouldn’t, Henry Troup. I’m sure that really is a dead horse and has been covered already, and if it hasn’t, I’m afraid you’ll have to ask somebody else because I feel sure you are trying to lure me into a heffalump trap. Besides which, I don’t know the answer, and haven’t got the time to look it up at the moment.
What, you think Henry has a knock down answer, decisively refuting all the arguments against OoW tucked up his sleeve and only awaits your incautious response to triumphantly flourish it? Henry is undoubtedly clever, but not that clever.

When you came among us just a few short posts ago, you berated supporters of OoW for holding their views on the grounds of justice and fairness rather than theology. (The suggestion that justice and fairness are not theological categories strikes me as being reactionary pietism but let that pass.) However asked for theological grounds for opposition to OoW all you can do is parrot this stuff about churches that ordain women being in terminal decline (despite the fact that evangelical churches, by and large, are growing and ABC parishes are, by and large, not).

I find it interesting that despite all their accusations of capitulation to secularism that right-wing Christians throw at the rest of us their arguments invariably boil down to a depressing consequentialism about bums on seats. I don't recall that when Karl Barth proclaimed his celebrated "Nein" to natural theology, he did so by demonstrating that churches which didn't teach natural theology had a higher level of teenage confirmands, let alone that some bloke in a pub had told him that he'd met this other bloke who'd stopped going to church because the pastor kept using Aquinas' Five Ways in the sermon.

[ 28. October 2005, 17:50: Message edited by: Callan ]

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
I was led off the track onto the H issue which I think is important here but which I only wanted to include because of its ability to get rid of Christians. (Much evidence already posted).

Those who don't hate gay people, and tell fibs about gay people, and who do not perpetuate false stereotypes about gay people, and who do not seek to exlude, marginalise and silence gay people, and who do not hold gay people in absolute contempt on literally every level are not Christians?

Wow.

Then I would much rather not be a Christian, if it is all the same to you.

As for your other points - Someone can be honest whilst also being completely and utterly wrong, and those who are opposed to women priests - just find a church without a woman priest. What's the problem? Why do you need to set up a little rivel church?

FWIW - Both those who say that they could never serve a female priest AND those who say they could never serve a male priest are BOTH sexist, ignorant bigots whose opinion is worth precisely shit. In my non-Christian opinion, of course.

(Typing)

[ 28. October 2005, 18:07: Message edited by: Papio. ]

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio.:
As for your other points - Someone can be honest whilst also being completely and utterly wrong, and those who are opposed to women priests - just find a church without a woman priest. What's the problem? Why do you need to set up a little rivel church?

A Puritan is someone who is deathly afraid that someone, somewhere, is having fun.

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

 - Posted      Profile for HenryT   Author's homepage   Email HenryT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A bit of a tangent here ...

Is anyone aware of a church that has mandatory celibacy and female priests? I can't think of one, but that doesn't mean much.

--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788

Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:


Host Mode <ACTIVATE>

While the thread title refers to 'Priestly Genitalia' it is concerned with the type rather than the use!

Please take all discussion about homosexuality to the appropriate thread(s).

Thank you

Host Mode <DE-ACTIVATE>

Papio, did you miss Tony's post on the previous page?

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
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Papio, did you miss Tony's post on the previous page? L.

Yes. Sorry.

--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page

Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
ananke
Shipmate
# 10059

 - Posted      Profile for ananke   Email ananke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio.:
FWIW - Both those who say that they could never serve a female priest AND those who say they could never serve a male priest are BOTH sexist, ignorant bigots whose opinion is worth precisely shit. In my non-Christian opinion, of course.

(Typing)

Was ths at all aimed at me?

I think I got slightly misread - there are things about my spiritual awakening I am not comfortable talking to a man about. We've got some fantastic male priests about who I talk to about other things, and have worked with on a few different things. But when it comes to my personal spiritual growth, I choose a female priest because I am not willing to sacrifice my mental equilibrium on someone else's idea of what is holy.

--------------------
...and I bear witness, this grace, this prayer so long forgotten.

A Perfect Circle - Magdalena

Posts: 617 | From: australia | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
I think I got slightly misread - there are things about my spiritual awakening I am not comfortable talking to a man about. We've got some fantastic male priests about who I talk to about other things, and have worked with on a few different things. But when it comes to my personal spiritual growth, I choose a female priest because I am not willing to sacrifice my mental equilibrium on someone else's idea of what is holy. [/QB]

Your choice, Ananke, but I am not quite sure if I understand what you are saying.

I would see holiness described as in the following quotation…
quote:
…holiness is to be interpreted positively in spiritual and functional rather than in moralistic terms. It is for this reason that the sense of mission is an essential mark of holiness, while a morality of prohibitions is not.
…which comes from a Church in Wales Doctrinal Commision report on Holiness.

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Is anyone aware of a church that has mandatory celibacy and female priests?

Shakers.

(If you reckon they are a Christian church)

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wow, Ken, thanks for reminding me of them. Here's a wiki article for anyone else who wants to know.

Shakers

L.

[ 29. October 2005, 14:18: Message edited by: Louise ]

--------------------
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
ananke
Shipmate
# 10059

 - Posted      Profile for ananke   Email ananke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alliebath:
Your choice, Ananke, but I am not quite sure if I understand what you are saying.

I would see holiness described as in the following quotation…
quote:
…holiness is to be interpreted positively in spiritual and functional rather than in moralistic terms. It is for this reason that the sense of mission is an essential mark of holiness, while a morality of prohibitions is not.
…which comes from a Church in Wales Doctrinal Commision report on Holiness.
What I'm saying that as a personal choice, there are things in my past I am reluctant to talk about with a man. Things that have an impact on my spirit.

To deny female priests is to either silence my faith or force me into a position where I am not only uncomfortable but where I will be at serious risk mentally and emotionally.

I regularly talk to male priests and monks. Just not about certain things. It's not about them and their holiness, but me and my issues. Issues that aren't entirely uncommon.

--------------------
...and I bear witness, this grace, this prayer so long forgotten.

A Perfect Circle - Magdalena

Posts: 617 | From: australia | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547

 - Posted      Profile for Alliebath   Email Alliebath   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
quote:
Originally posted by Alliebath:
Your choice, Ananke, but I am not quite sure if I understand what you are saying.

I would see holiness described as in the following quotation…
quote:
…holiness is to be interpreted positively in spiritual and functional rather than in moralistic terms. It is for this reason that the sense of mission is an essential mark of holiness, while a morality of prohibitions is not.
…which comes from a Church in Wales Doctrinal Commision report on Holiness.
What I'm saying that as a personal choice, there are things in my past I am reluctant to talk about with a man. Things that have an impact on my spirit.

To deny female priests is to either silence my faith or force me into a position where I am not only uncomfortable but where I will be at serious risk mentally and emotionally.

I regularly talk to male priests and monks. Just not about certain things. It's not about them and their holiness, but me and my issues. Issues that aren't entirely uncommon.

Sorry, I wasn’t trying to make you justify your position or put you on the spot: I was just in the general sense of what you were saying in regard to holiness. It is your choice, and there is the breadth of choice gender-wise which is good.

--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles

G. K. Chesterton

Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Niënna

Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652

 - Posted      Profile for Niënna   Email Niënna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have a issue with this issue.

It doesn't make sense to me that God would bless gifts of leadership, pastoral care, preaching, and teaching to women but want them to use for his glory solely in the context of other women and children. I think the Church has really been hampered by not permitting women to fully utilise their gifts.

This is one of my bugbears with the church.

Earlier this year, it took me two months to read through all 16 pages (the 17th is the newest page).

--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land

Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
duchess

Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764

 - Posted      Profile for duchess   Email duchess   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I have a issue with this issue.

It doesn't make sense to me that God would bless gifts of leadership, pastoral care, preaching, and teaching to women but want them to use for his glory solely in the context of other women and children. I think the Church has really been hampered by not permitting women to fully utilise their gifts.

This is one of my bugbears with the church.

Earlier this year, it took me two months to read through all 16 pages (the 17th is the newest page).

I will say respectfully that any serving in the church is valuable and glorifying to the LORD, from cooking, cleaning to childcare to ushering, to teaching women to teaching kidlets. ALL of it is blessed and blesses others. Why is it that preaching is the what people focus on?

It does not say anywhere that women can not share the Gospel. The debate is over a woman being an elder/priest/pastor.

I remember a guy who taught bible classes in a church I used to go to. He supervised a group of engineers at a well-known Silicon Valley Firm. He still felt though he would be a big rock star (my impression) if he got to be a pastor in Fresno...where he eventually moved to. He sold his house and took a pay cut.

All that is fine and dandy however he acted like somehow he was more valuable in the KOG as a pastor than a supe at this company.

That is the one thing I find hard to fathom. He had many chances to share the gospel with peeps he worked with and God's light. He was not more valuable in the KOG, just doing a different duty.

At my church, there is a man who quietly handles putting out the toys and supplies (diapers etc) for the babies and kidlets cared for. He also cleans up a bit too. Why is his job any less important than a minister's?

I think the KOG is blessed whenever men step up to the plate and lead their church. Deborah in the bible told a man he was not getting any glory since he would not step up to the plate.

Anyway, I step in here since I saw you post and I luvs you Joyfulsoul. Hopefully I won't be sucked into this discussion once again since I will woefully neglect the discussion due to Xmas crunch stuff. (Fearing 3 posts picking bone with me to my one demanding response).

Anyway, how do "think the Church has really been hampered by not permitting women to fully utilise their gifts" in the setting of being ministered from your own experience? Momma is listening.

[eta: I have PAID my dues in this thread...I have said all I can say earlier times when I had more time...]

[ 22. December 2005, 21:33: Message edited by: duchess ]

--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party

Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Niënna

Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652

 - Posted      Profile for Niënna   Email Niënna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
The debate is over a woman being an elder/priest/pastor.

Exactly. I don't see any reason why women should be excluded from this.

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I think the KOG is blessed whenever men step up to the plate and lead their church.Deborah in the bible told a man he was not getting any glory since he would not step up to the plate.

I agree with you that all jobs in the KOG are important and valuable - from wiping an infant's poo to preaching etc. Which is why I can't figure out why women should be excluded from any of them.

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
Anyway, I step in here since I saw you post and I luvs you Joyfulsoul.

Thanks Duchess, I'm honored and completely flattered [Hot and Hormonal] that you would respond to this. [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
Anyway, how do "think the Church has really been hampered by not permitting women to fully utilise their gifts" in the setting of being ministered from your own experience? Momma is listening.

I feel [Hot and Hormonal] about sharing my experience since I haven't had the best experience with churches in the last 15 years...

But here's my point of view:

A couple of years ago, when I was at university - I co-led with two other people (a guy and another girl) a large bible study of roughly around 30+ regular attenders. Our partnership was mutually beneficial and very effective in serving our bible study because we were able to incorporate different ways of seeing scripture as well as different ways of ministering to people. It wasn't just that our personalities were compatible or something (though, that too worked out) - it was the fact that our genders played a huge role in ministering to people and relating to God.

If a church is mainly dominated by male leadership, then it is sad because they are missing out on a lot of valuable input from women. God has blessed both genders with wisdom and understandings. I feel that a church or organization is hampered if it is hugely dominated by one gender or another.

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
[eta: I have PAID my dues in this thread...I have said all I can say earlier times when I had more time...]

[Overused] Truly!

--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land

Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
duchess

Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764

 - Posted      Profile for duchess   Email duchess   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Exactly. I don't see any reason why women should be excluded from this.


All I can say on that topic has been said in this thread (which I give you accolodes for reading through the whole thread! It has gotten long.)


quote:


If a church is mainly dominated by male leadership, then it is sad because they are missing out on a lot of valuable input from women. God has blessed both genders with wisdom and understandings. I feel that a church or organization is hampered if it is hugely dominated by one gender or another.


I think all churches could benefit more from the wisdom of godly women. My own head pastor admitted that we need to be open to more dicussions with women in community groups (what we call our home bible groups) and also women praying out loud during church.

I agree the balance is not always there, sometimes men can totally disregard imput from women, which is hurtful and unloving, to say the least. But I do think leadership is clearly from my own POV re: Scripture (411 by my own POV in my previous posts in this thread) run by men.

Anyway, I appeciate your candid and open response. It is something I know was not easy to talk about. [Axe murder]

[ 24. December 2005, 04:18: Message edited by: duchess ]

--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party

Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sump Pump
Apprentice
# 10853

 - Posted      Profile for Sump Pump     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Priests have genitalia? I didn't know that priests had priestly staffs or holy rods!

I was aware of rabbis possessing them however. As a gawking, awkward teen, I occasioned to be using the urinal adjacent to the one that our rabbi was administering. I happened to catch sight of his mohel's handiwork!

After years of therapy, I have recovered nicely!

Posts: 25 | From: Moneyapolis, MiniSoda | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sump Pump:
After years of therapy, I have recovered nicely!

After reading that post, I'm not too sure that you have!

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

 - Posted      Profile for HenryT   Author's homepage   Email HenryT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've been wondering if it is possible to construct a self-consistent and credible theology that permits all of (female priests, no female bishops, married priests, married bishops) with some parallel to the Orthodox position on married priests but no married bishops.

(John Holding has pointed out to me that this isn't actually the Orthodox position, as Orthodox bishops are all from monastic orders, but never mind the quality, feel the width.)

Anyone care to try?

--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788

Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not sure.

The rule about Orthodox bishops all being monastics and, therefore, celibate, while married men may become priests, is not a theological issue, but merely one of canonical order. It could be changed at any time by an Oecumenical Council with no doctrinal probelm whatsoever. I don't think that can be used to form a model for the OOW, where there are doctrinal issues because of what it is to be a bishop or priest.

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

 - Posted      Profile for HenryT   Author's homepage   Email HenryT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes ... but I'm actually seeking to play with the CofE "position" of the last n years, where women can be ordained but not consecrated.

--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788

Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638

 - Posted      Profile for The Scrumpmeister   Author's homepage   Email The Scrumpmeister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I see, yes.

I suppose the canonical parallel would be that CofE men would be the Orthodox monastics, and CofE women would be like Orthodox married men (but with less testosterone, hopefully).

As for where that can be taken theologically, God only knows.

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809

 - Posted      Profile for Fiddleback     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On the 'headship' argument, many Evangelicals, Dr Stott included, can accept women priests if they are part of a 'pastoral team', but cannot accept women as incumbents of parishes, and certainly will not countenance them as bishops.

Ken, before you chirp in to contradict, you are not an Evangelical.

Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, FB, I always suspected you were a true-blue Low Church Prayer-Book Reform Calvinist posing as and Anglo-Catholic to set them up for ridicule.

[ 19. January 2006, 16:06: Message edited by: ken ]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
On the 'headship' argument, many Evangelicals, Dr Stott included, can accept women priests if they are part of a 'pastoral team', but cannot accept women as incumbents of parishes, and certainly will not countenance them as bishops.

Absolutely.

There was an online petition to that effect from the conservative evangelical Anglican groups which was petitioning the Guildford Report on that basis.

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

 - Posted      Profile for HenryT   Author's homepage   Email HenryT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
... can accept women priests if they are part of a 'pastoral team', but cannot accept women as incumbents of parishes...

Good enough for God, but not for the church? OK, this is definitely "headship", and I don't read that thread, so I should hold my tongue.

--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788

Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bernard Mahler
Shipmate
# 10852

 - Posted      Profile for Bernard Mahler   Email Bernard Mahler   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have read somewhere that Orthodox Bishops were originally chosen from among celibate monastics so as to prevent episcopal dynasties arising.

--------------------
"What does it matter? All is grace" Georges Bernanos

Posts: 622 | From: Auckland New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809

 - Posted      Profile for Fiddleback     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bernard Mahler:
I have read somewhere that Orthodox Bishops were originally chosen from among celibate monastics so as to prevent episcopal dynasties arising.

Quite possibly true. I know that in parts of the Orthodox world, e.g. Egypt, the priesthood is rather like a family trade, and the village priest is often succeeded by his son.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have been quite properly redirected here from Purgatory concerning a new article what I wrote on my new web site on why us Orthodox can't have bishops with mammaries.

Feel free to sharpen your knives. Go to the question I answered at the bottom of the page. In a sense nothing new here ... but I am exercised about the tendency in the west to see the clergy as a profession in which you are promoted through the ranks from deacon to bishop.

Women Bishops and Orthodoxy

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leetle Masha

Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209

 - Posted      Profile for Leetle Masha   Email Leetle Masha   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bernard Mahler said:

quote:
I have read somewhere that Orthodox Bishops were originally chosen from among celibate monastics so as to prevent episcopal dynasties arising.
Perhaps, but if you look back through history, especially in the Christian East for many centuries, monasteries were the best places to find people who were not only theologians, but who were literate as well. Often, especially after the fall of Constantinople, a village priest would be anything but a theologian--he might have been, before ordination, the village blacksmith or the cobbler--so he couldn't be expected to do the work of a bishop that required, in addition to pastoral care of all the priests and deacons and oversight of the whole diocese, administrative duties that needed encyclical letters, organising synods to straighten out local theological problems, and so forth.

[The monastics chosen to be made bishops were often even more reluctant to become bishops simply because they loved the "life of the cell". Sometimes, they literally had to be chained up and dragged from their monasteries. A priest friend of mine who is currently studying church history mentioned that at one time, it was a custom to bring a priest about to be consecrated as a bishop to the altar in chains!

This is just a "Historical Note", however, not a basis for the tradition that Fr. Gregory has very ably explained on his new blog.

Leetle M.

Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It happened in the Orthodox west of course LM ... cf. St. Cuthbert being nagged out of his cell.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leetle Masha

Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209

 - Posted      Profile for Leetle Masha   Email Leetle Masha   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks, Father! I didn't realise it happened in the West too--but I do dimly remember some rubric or other in the 39 Articles or prefaced to the Order for the Consecration of a Bishop in the old 1928 prayer book, I forget where it is, that enjoined church people "That they shall lay hands suddenly upon no man...." Maybe that was a reaction to the "nagging"!

But we were talking of desperate times and desperate situations. And today's times and situations are no less desperate, I suppose, in a somewhat different way.

Leetle M.

Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

 - Posted      Profile for HenryT   Author's homepage   Email HenryT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
... a village priest would be anything but a theologian--he might have been, before ordination, the village blacksmith or the cobbler...

Do we, in fact, expect and get theologians as parish priests? The best theologian we ever had was the worst priest. He didn't like people very much, for one thing.

And some of us consider that getting the priests back to being blacksmiths or cobblers might not the worst thing.

(Or should I take this to Purgatory?)

--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788

Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Interestingly enough, in the Celtic/Irish church priestly and episcopal orders were frequently hereditary. Ireland dealt with this by make Abbots superior to bishops -- so that the Abbot of a large monastery might have 3 or 4 men in episcopal orders under his authority.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leetle Masha

Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209

 - Posted      Profile for Leetle Masha   Email Leetle Masha   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi John Holding:

quote:
getting the priests back to being blacksmiths or cobblers might not the worst thing
Indeed it might not! [Smile]

I was just commenting on a social condition, rather than on the "desirable or undesirable" qualities. Sorry if it looked like I intended to start a debate.

Leetle M.

Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leetle Masha

Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209

 - Posted      Profile for Leetle Masha   Email Leetle Masha   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry for garbled post--I intended to credit the quoted portion to Henry Troup, but missed the edit window! Also wanted to thank John Holding for that interesting observation--I did not know about the "passing down" of the vocation in the British/Celtic churches.

Thanks!

Leetle M.

--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner

Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

 - Posted      Profile for HenryT   Author's homepage   Email HenryT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Sorry for garbled post--I intended to credit the quoted portion to Henry Troup, but missed the edit window! ...

Hey, we live in the same city, no big.

--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788

Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
a new article what I wrote on my new web site [...] Women Bishops and Orthodoxy

I've got to say that although it is very clear, Fr. Gregory's website doesn't really address what look like the issues to some of us. Seeing as this horse is dead, I have little guilt about reposting something I posted earlier on another thread (though I can't remember where...) which more or less says why I disagree with it. And which I kept in Another Place and stumbled across while looking for something else.

===================

Its not completely obvious that only men were apostles. Romans 16.7 probably talks of Junia as an apostle. But this only has influence over whether or not we consecrate women bishops if we think that the modern episcopate is in some sense the current instantiation of a limited order of apostles. It is pretty clear that in the NT this was not the case. Quite a number of people are called "apostles" in Paul's letters - including Barnabas and Silas & not all of them (or any?) are called bishops. They were apparently different things in those days.

It seems that "Apostle", like "priest" (elder) or "bishop" or "deacon" (or for that matter "prophet", "pastor", "teacher", "evangelist", or "leader" (either hegemon or leitourgos) was a name that might be applied to a function, a role, an office, or an order; and it is not always clear which is meant, or even if they were distinguished.

Most scholars seem to think that the episcopate was the same as the presbyterate, i.e. that "bishop" and "priest" were the same. I'm not sure about that, but I'm not exactly a Greek scholar myself. My feeling from the NT is that right from the start practice differed in different times and places. If so then presumably the church has space to order itself differently in different times and places - over matters of church government of course, not of doctrine.

If the naming of Junia as "apostle" has any bearing on the ordination of women these days, it is that it is one more piece of evidence that in NT times although Christian ministry was mostly male, there were at least some women in recognised positions. There were more than just three kinds of Christian minister in the earliest churches. Even if Junia was not a woman, or not an apostle, we know that at least two named ministries are undeniably associated with women in the NT: deacon and prophet.

That's significant because then the question we have to ask is not "can women be part of an ordained ministry at all?" but, knowing that they at least sometimes can, "is this particular woman being called to any particular ministry?" (one of which might be the episcopate). It means that we aren't talking about theology, but about church government. A decision that the CofE came to for itself when the synod said there was no theological objection to the ordination of women. Since then I think, it has been more or less inevitable that there will be women bishops in England.

If it is a matter of church government and not of doctrine, then other local churches are surely free to order themselves as seems convenient to them? That we have women priests does not, in itself, mean that Greece or Russia or Egypt or even Rome has to have them. I personally think might think it would be a good idea if they did of course.

That's the opposite of being sectarian. A sectarian is someone who cuts themselves off. A sectarian church is one that denies the church nature of other churches, that says that true sheep are only found in our fold. The CofE isn't sectarian because it recognises the doctrines of the scriptures and the historic creeds, shared with the vast majority of other churches; and recognises the validity of those other churches as churches. Those things that are distinctive about it are mostly matters of church government or local tradition, not doctrine. The opposite of a sect.

If the reasons for having, or not having, women priests, bishops, or apostles are biological or social, because women have different strengths, skills, bodies, or brains than men; then they don't need to be universal.

On the whole men are taller than women. But many women are taller than many men. If you were choosing people for some job based on nothing but great height, you'd find you'd get more men than women, but some women. There would be no need to ban women from the job. Let anyone who wants apply, choose the tallest, you will get mostly men but some women. The differences between women's & men's brains (real but these days almost universally exaggerated) insofar as they are measurable, almost certainly work the same way. There are some things women in general are more suited to than men - but a few men will still be better than almost any woman at them. There are some things men in general are more suited to than women - but a few women will still be better than almost any man at them. If there was some biological or psychological prerequisite for being a bishop that women mostly lacked, then there would be no need to ban women bishops. Just choose the best candidate and it will usually turn out to be a man, but sometimes it might be a woman.

As far as I know this is not the Orthodox position. (And I am sure it is not the Roman one). They would argue that if a woman apparently had all the qualities desirable in a priest to a greater degree than any man available, she still could not be a priest. For them there is something fundamentally masculine in the character and nature of a priest that a women cannot - cannot, not should not - share in. These are not biological reasons at all. They are matter of gender rather than sex. (Even pondscum has sex - but humans have gender, which isn't quite the same.)

Some opponents of the ordination of women seem to argue as if God has gender - as if God is in some sense masculine. (Obviously God isn't male - that would be a bit like asking what God's shoe size or blood group was).

Others find gendered qualities to be inherent to the created universe, as if masculine and feminine are ideals that exist before and above any actual male or female. (CS Lewis's excellent interplanetary trilogy, especially the 2nd book Perelandra, is in part a defence of this idea). If you believe this than it might be consistent to believe that God is symbolising something fundamental about the Gospel to us by appointing men and women to different roles within the church.

If someone is opposed to the ordination of women on those sorts of grounds then there is no point telling them that some women founded churches, or that other women are powerful preachers, or that many Christians are happier with women in a pastoral role. That would be missing the point. It would be as absurd as complaining that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist weren't as good as the bread and wine available in the restaurant down the road.

Some other people really don't see the universe as gendered. I don't. I think that gender roles are socially constructed from sex, and aren't necessarily universal even within the human species , and certainly not outside it. My working definition of male is that in a heterogametic species the name "male" is given to that mating type that produces the smaller or more motile gametes. Not even all humans are clearly male or female. There is no reason to think that our local gender differences - whether innate or learned, whether real or imagined - instantiate any laws of the universe or fundamental Platonic ideas.

It seems to me that a lot of the gendering of the church was derived from the culture of the Roman Empire, from Greek philosophy and from antimaterialistic Gnostic religions. For years I've supported the ordination of women on theological grounds, as a fence against heresy. There are certain heresies that have plagued the Church in the past that you probably can't consistently hold while ordaining women.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Father Gregory's website has a passage which reads:
quote:
The ordained ministry in the Orthodox Church is not a bottleneck that none can pass but rather a fertiliser that spends itself that others may grow.
and which I will likely repeat to several of my clerical fiends in the next few days as the Diocese of O enters yet another mini-crisis (over the licensing of a woman priest with a woman partner/spouse).

I have just spent some time looking for an almost-twenty year old back copy of Sobornost which had an interesting article on how women priests in Orthodoxy could be seen as icons of the Theotokos of the Protecting Veil- a very powerful image in Orthodox piety. I will continue looking for it and will post the reference when I find it (some serious snow-shovelling will take up much time today), as I have always thought that it was one of the strongest arguments I have seen for OOW, even if its success in Orthodox circles is most unlikely. IIRC, +Kallistos of Diokleia caused some controversy a few years ago by suggesting that it was a discussable issue.

However, Fr Gregory's article is interesting in that it reminds us that the three orders are not an automatic ladder of promotion, but have different functions. I know of Orth deacons who have stayed in their orders for their entire lives (usually involved in church music or admin) and have noticed in ecclesiastical obituaries (my favourite reading!) that bishops had often spent 4-5 years or more as deacons before being ordered priests, which would sometimes only happen after they had been elected bishops.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If someone is opposed to the ordination of women on those sorts of grounds then there is no point telling them that some women founded churches, or that other women are powerful preachers, or that many Christians are happier with women in a pastoral role. That would be missing the point. It would be as absurd as complaining that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist weren't as good as the bread and wine available in the restaurant down the road.

Ken, thanks for an excellent post. As you note, your position on the ordination of women is different from the Orthodox position because we start from different premises -- not, as some believe of us, from the premise that women are inferior to men, because inferiority or superiority misses the point. If we were given a choice between using a truly excellent beer for the Eucharist, or a really lousy wine, we have to use the wine. The quality is wholly and entirely beside the point.

In fact, even the suggestion that this is a choice that could be made is foreign to us. We don't use bread and wine because it's better than rice cakes and apple juice; we don't decide to use bread and wine and not rice cakes and juice. We use bread and wine because that is the Tradition that was given to us. I don't know why bread and wine are suitable for the Eucharist and rice cakes and apple juice are not. In fact, I can think of many reasons why rice cakes and apple juice would be a better choice. Some of the reasons are quite compelling. Nevertheless, we use bread and wine.

It's the same with the episcopacy and the priesthood. We ordain men, not because they're superior to women, but because that is the Tradition that was given to us. Maybe it has something to do with some sort of underlying genderedness of the Universe. Maybe it doesn't. I don't know.

It does seem fairly arbitrary. But much about the celebration of the Eucharist is arbitrary. And the only ministries, in the Orthodox Church, that are reserved for men are those that have to do with consecrating the Eucharist. Women can be, and are, choir directors, singers, teachers, preachers, administrators, evangelists, bell-ringers, and everything else. (Except deacon -- women can be deacons, but currently aren't, and it's my hope that that will change soon!)

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Niënna

Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652

 - Posted      Profile for Niënna   Email Niënna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ken, [Axe murder] thank you for that excellent post.
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
badman
Shipmate
# 9634

 - Posted      Profile for badman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
ken, [Axe murder] thank you for that excellent post.

I second that.

This horse isn't dead at all. After 17 pages of flogging, there's still life in it.

Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Bede's American Successor

Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042

 - Posted      Profile for The Bede's American Successor   Author's homepage   Email The Bede's American Successor   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
It's the same with the episcopacy and the priesthood. We ordain men, not because they're superior to women, but because that is the Tradition that was given to us. Maybe it has something to do with some sort of underlying genderedness of the Universe. Maybe it doesn't. I don't know.

Tradition can be a funny thing.

There is evidence women were "ordained" in the early church (whatever that means in the various time periods). This continued for the first 300-500 years of the Church. Yes, it was not universally accepted, but it did happen.

What makes the last 1500 +/- years of Tradition any more relavent than the first 500 +/- years? Why can't we say "it happened once; it can happen again."

Maybe there is a parallel to be had with respect to the ordination of women to the baptism of infants:

quote:
Minute differences in interpreting the literal word of the Scripture have contributed to the great variety of denominations and the continuing debate on issues such as the mode and timing of baptism. This debate was settled by one Ozarker who, when asked if he believed in infant baptism, replied, “Ah shore do, Ah've seen ‘em do it hundreds of times.” —"Ozark Culture" from Ozarks by Tom Beveridge


--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.

—Ezekiel 16.49

Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
What makes the last 1500 +/- years of Tradition any more relavent than the first 500 +/- years? Why can't we say "it happened once; it can happen again."

That's actually a very good question, Bede. Because, as you know, the way we work things out in the Orthodox Church gives a lot of weight to what happened in the first 500 +/- years. When we are trying to settle a disputed point, we look to antiquity, and we figure the ancient practice or belief is preferable to the new.

But that, by itself, isn't the whole answer. Some things developed in the Church over time. Like the canon of Scripture. There were texts read as Scripture during the first 500 years -- the Shepherd of Hermas, for example, or the Gospel of Nicodemus -- that, when the canon was finally set, were determined not to be Scripture. One can't, today, say, "The Shepherd of Hermas was considered Scripture once, so it can be again." It just doesn't work that way.

The determination of exactly what writings constitute Scripture was worked out over a long time by many holy people (and some who were clearly not so holy), all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For a long time, it's debatable. But, at some point, it's no longer open for debate.

It's the same with other matters. Like the Incarnation. Doubtless, in the early centuries, there were Christians who believed that Jesus became God at his baptism, or who believed that Jesus only appeared to be human, or who believed that he was a son of the Jewish God, in much the same way that some Greek hero might have been the son of a Greek God. But over time, that was all hashed out, and the Church came to a consensus over what it means for Jesus to be the Son of God, and said these views are true, and these others are not.

And if you could find, in a text from the first 500 years or so, some view other than that Jesus is the only-begotten Son and immortal Word of God -- well, those views were put aside, and the Church no longer admits them.

So, one of the things that the Church had to work out over time was exactly who could be a bishop. Early on, there was probably a great deal of variation. One would expect that. But over time, the requirements were settled on, in much the same way that the canon of Scripture was settled on.

And I don't think that a woman will ever be made an Orthodox bishop (or a priest, since a priest is the personal representative of the bishop), although I do think that women will be made deacons in the not-too-distant future.

It's possible, of course. If we've got it wrong, and have had it wrong for 1500 years or so, the Holy Spirit is quite capable of leading us to have the sort of council where such things are decided.

And that's a much-too-long answer to a short and simple question. I hope I haven't confused the issue by my long-windedness.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  ...  51  52  53 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools