|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The order of deacons purifies and discerns those who do not carry God's likeness within themselves and it does so before they come to the sacred rites performed by the priests.
Did Dionysos not belive that lay persons are created in the image of God?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Orthodox soteriology distinguishes between "image" (which we all bear) and "likeness" (toward which we strive).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The order of deacons purifies and discerns those who do not carry God's likeness within themselves and it does so before they come to the sacred rites performed by the priests.
Did Dionysos not belive that lay persons are created in the image of God?
What Mousethief said.
See especially the first Genesis creation narrative, where man is created in God's image, but after or according to God's likeness. This ties in with the Orthodox understanding of man created not in a perfect state from which we fell, but in an immature state, form which we were to grow and develop in the process of theosis. It is this path from which we fell.
As for exactly how this fits into the role of deacons, I'm not sure, but image and likeness as theological terms don't mean the same thing.
--------------------
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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
cocktailgirl, I think there is a problem with your thinking that priests share in priesthood fully. From the Orthodox point of view, only the bishop shares in priesthood fully, not the priest!
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
cocktailgirl, I think there is a problem with your thinking that priests share in priesthood fully. From the Orthodox point of view, only the bishop shares in priesthood fully, not the priest!
After re-reading cocktailgirl's post of February 21st, to which I think you're responding, I don't see any real relevance here. Could you unpack this remark more?
In fact, I reviewed the whole late February flurry, and this still seems unrelated. I could argue that it appears to contradict your own posting of:
quote:
The Orthodox Church views priesthood in a certain way. Since there are three degrees of priesthood (diacons, presbyters, bishops), then all three are for men only, because priesthood is for men only.
Since, by your statement today, only bishops would necessarily have male gender.
I mean, then you said in effect "priest is a priest is a priest" (after Gertrude Stein), but today you say "only bishop is priest, priest is not priest".
Since I doubt that you meant to contradict your February 21 post, perhaps you could explain it in more than a one-liner?
--------------------
"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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Sure. Cocktailgirl said that the higher in hierarchy shares in the faculties of the lower in hierarchy, but the opposite is not true. Therefore, she said, the deacon does not share in priesthood, while the bishop does.
I replied by saying that the Orthodox have one priesthood, that of the bishop. There are three degrees of priesthood, but full priesthood is for the bishop only. Therefore, deacons are not excluded from priesthood just because they are lower in hierarchy than the priests.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cocktailgirl
mixer of the drinks
# 8684
|
Posted
Except that the priest does share in the ministry of the bishop, to the extent that it is the bishop who is the primary pastor: in the C of E it is quite clearly stated that priests share in the bishop's cure of souls. I preside at the parish communion because it would be impractical for the bishop to be there every Sunday. Likewise I can absolve, anoint, and bless. I don't think there's anything lacking in my priesthood because I may not confirm or ordain. That belongs to the order of bishop, with which I share certain characteristics but not all.
And priests don't share in the diaconate because priesthood is 'better' than diaconate. They share in the diaconate because they have also been ordained deacons, which ordination is not subsumed into their priestly one, but remains a permanent character.
Posts: 841 | From: in hac lacrimarum valle, propping up the bar | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
Cross-purposes, I think, Henry Troup.
As I see it, Andreas and cocktailgirl are both saying the same thing, but are using different terminology. Andreas is using the word "priesthood" where cocktailgirl is using the expression "sacred ministry". They are both using the terms to refer to the same concept, and I'll presume to say that they would both agree that in the bishop subsides the fullness of the Sacred Ministry, and that priest and deacons share in this to lesser degrees.
While both "Sacred Ministry" and "priesthood" are correct terms in this context, the problem in discussions such as this one is that the word "priesthood" is also used to refer to what, for the sake of simplicity, I'll call the prebyterate - i.e. the level of sacred ministry between the diaconate and the episcopate, and so we end up with one word being used in two mdifferent ways in the same discussion, which can cause the confusion that we have seen above.
--------------------
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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cocktailgirl:
I don't think there's anything lacking in my priesthood because I may not confirm or ordain.
Just like you say that, I could also say that there is nothing lacking in a deacon's priesthood just because he may not celebrate the sacraments.
But the fact is that neither of these priesthoods, i.e that of the deacon and that of the presbyter means anything on their own. They are real so long they operate under their bishop. A priest cannot just leave his parish and continue celebrating the sacraments unless the bishop allows him to do so.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
...A priest cannot just leave his parish and continue celebrating the sacraments unless the bishop allows him to do so.
Also in the Anglican church, but as a matter of church discipline, not the nature of sacred ministry. We use the "thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizidek" and at least seem to mean it. So, if a priest leaves a diocese, the sacraments cease to be licitly exercised. But the priest does not lose the ontological capability (the "real"-ness of the priesthood.
I don't think that we would regard the priest's presbyterate (sp?) as lapsing if he leaves the territorial authority of a bishop. If this is fully realized in the Orthodox church, then what method is used to restore the lapsed presbyterate when a priest moves from one bishop's jurisdiction to another. Surely they are not re-ordained?
As far as I know no church polity routinely requires reordination of priests originally ordained in that polity. This you imply from your claim that the priest's priesthood would cease to be real.
--------------------
"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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
A priest celebrates the sacraments as long as he is part of the Orthodox Church. There are no sacraments outside the Church.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
A priest celebrates the sacraments as long as he is part of the Orthodox Church. ...
I really wish you'd avoid the one-liners... About two posts up, you suggest that a priest may celebrate as along as he is under the aegis of a bishop. I ask what you do to transfer this special relationship between bishops. If the priest's sacred ministry is not self-contained, then there must be some means of restoring it. If it is self-contained, there will only be administrative paperwork nor religious ceremonial.
--------------------
"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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Let's assume that an Orthodox priest becomes Protestant and he goes on celebrating the sacraments in Protestant churches. From the Orthodox point of view this man no longer celebrates the sacraments of Christ. Now, if this man understands his error, and repents, and wants to turn back to the Orthodox Church, the Church can take him back, and let him celebrate the sacraments once again, but only the sacraments he will be celebrating after his being received in the Orthodox Church and, being thus incorporated in the Church, is placed under the hierarchy of a bishop, are considered to be the sacraments Christ instituted.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Once again you have failed to understand the question, so your answer is not to the point.
Henry has said that as he read your earlier posts, the clear implication is that it would require re-rodination when a priest leaves one diocese (the jurisdiction of Bishop A) and enters another (the jurisdiction of BIshop B) -- both parts of the Orthodox segment of the Christian church.
ANd your answer to that is.....
John Holding
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear John,
my point was that it is not self-contained in an absolute manner.
We started this discussion when I said that the role of women deaconesses is not a female equivalent of male deacons (a historical fact).
Then people said about a male sacramental role. I said that priesthood is much more to the sacraments, and that there is a male priestly role.
Then people said that deacons are not priests; they are to assists, like the seven deacons in the Acts. I said that this has been rejected by an ecumenical council.
Then I tried to explain that there is more to priesthood than the sacraments, and that the deacons are not just part of sacred ministry, but part of the priesthood. I said that this is so, because they share in priesthood through the bishop, just like the priests do.
Then people spoke about self-contained priests. I pointed out that this is not the case. In fact, there are canons describing the order of the Church. Now, I don't have all the canons in mind right now, and it's a bit early and I'm rather busy, I really shouldn't be here, but Henry, what if a priest is deposed when he leaves his diocese without his bishop's consent? Would that be a reply to your question? Oh well, let me check...
epitome of canon 16 (first ecumenical council): "Such presbyters or deacons as desert their own Church are not to be admitted into another..."
epitome of canon 10 (4th ecumenical council)
epitome of canon 13 (4th ecoumenical council): No cleric shall be received to communion in another city without a letter commendatory.
epitome of canon 20 (4th ecumenical council): "...If any bishop receives clergymen from without his diocese he shall be excommunicated as well as the cleric he receives."
And so on...
What do you think?
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
OK, some more canons now I have time to spare:
epitome of canon 20 (sixth ecumenical council): "If the bishop of one city has been shown to teach publicly in another, he shall be deprived of the episcopate and shall perform the functions of the presbyter."
epitome of canon 10 (seventh ecumenical council): "A clergy man who after leaving his own parish... he shall be deposed.... should they receive him... they shall be deposed."
epitome of canon 15 (canons of the apostles): "If any presbyter... shall leave his own parish... we ordain that he shall no longer perform divine service... But let him communicate there as a layman." and canon 16: "If, however, the bishop, ...shall disregard the command, and shall receive them as clergymen, let him be excommunicated, as a teacher of disorder."
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Dear John,
[a great deal ermoved]
And so on...
What do you think?
I think if you want to participate in a discussion, you need to be prepared to read what other people have written. And that if you are claiming to respond to them, that's what you ought to do. You haven't.
My point remains -- you claimed to be responding to Henry. Because you didn't read (or understand?) his point, your "answer" wasn't. I re-phrased his question for you. You have just taken up a great deal of electronic space ignoring both what he said and what I said.
This is discussion how?
You are responding how?
It would be nice to get an answer, but I confess that based on your past posting record, I'm not optimistic.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
John, I find your post disturbing. You present your opinion that I did not respond as an objective truth.
I don't think there is any point in this dialogue. Every time I establish a truth (e.g. women never were deacons) someone pushes the issue further and instead of having a consensus on the issue, we move from issue to issue, until we cover all issues and create a version of Damascene's De Fide for the Ship.
Henry said that his denomination thinks that priests are according to the order of Melchisedec. This is both heretical and blasphemous. There is only one person according to the order of Melchisedec, without a father, without a mother, of whom the genealogy nobody can tell, Jesus Christ.
He said: "I don't think that we would regard the priest's presbyterate (sp?) as lapsing if he leaves the territorial authority of a bishop."
I replied by pointing out that such a priest is deposed, i.e. he is no longer a priest.
But you are saying that I haven't replied.
The fact that no re-ordination takes place, it does not mean that we are left with Henry's dilemma "either self-contained or administrative paperwork".
Both, absolute self-containment and the administrative thing are wrong ways of looking at what happens.
I repeat: this is a false dilemma.
The sacrament of orders, like all other sacraments, needs to get activated. It's not something that takes place once, i.e. when the bishop ordains the priest or the deacon.
My reply avoided what I see as a false dilemma, and established a third way, but you think I have not replied to Henry because I am not replying by defending one of his "either... or" theses.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
P.S. I meant "either self-contained and adiminstrative paperwork, or re-ordination", not "either self-contained or administrative paperwork".
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cocktailgirl
mixer of the drinks
# 8684
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The sacrament of orders, like all other sacraments, needs to get activated. It's not something that takes place once, i.e. when the bishop ordains the priest or the deacon.
I understood Henry to be asking what happens when an Orthodox priest moves from one diocese to another, such as I might do if I get a new job. I cannot believe that the answer is that he would be deposed. I can believe this if the priest moves without permission and tries to exercise ministry without reference to a bishop, but that is not what Henry asked.
I find the part of your post I've quoted above very worrying. My understanding (which I understand to be the way the C of E, at least, understands it) is that the sacrament of ordination is only performed once, for each order to which one is ordained (so I have been ordained twice: as a deacon and a priest). I will not be ordained again, regardless of where in the C of E or Anglican Communion I minister. The sacrament has been 'activated': once a priest, always a priest. It's an ontological status.
Posts: 841 | From: in hac lacrimarum valle, propping up the bar | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Once again you have failed to understand the question, so your answer is not to the point.
Hmmm.
With respect to you and Henry, I think Andreas post was to the point. I explain below.
quote:
Henry has said that as he read your earlier posts, the clear implication is that it would require re-rodination when a priest leaves one diocese (the jurisdiction of Bishop A) and enters another (the jurisdiction of BIshop B).
And this, I think, is the problem.
I honestly don't see why this is an obvious implication. This seems to me to be based on a Roman Catholic understanding of Sacramental validity, and so is misplaced if used to approach the Orthodox understanding of Sacraments.
As another example, as Andreas has said, from the Orthodox perspective, there are no Sacraments outside of the Church. In the Orthodox Church, a person is made a Christian through the two Sacraments of Baptism and Chrismation.
I'll put forward the hypothetical situation of a woman who is baptised in, say, a Methodist church, by triple immersion, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". If she were to later wish to be received into Orthodoxy, while some jurisdictions would perform the full rites and Baptise and Chrismate her, there are also some jurisdictions who would simply Chrismate her. Neither approach implies that her Methodist baptism was actually a Baptism. In the latter approach, the Chrismation would be seen as completing the initiation rite and bringing it into the context of Orthodoxy, in which its Sacramental reality is "activated" (for want of a less mechanical sounding word).
In the same way, a priest who severs communion with his bishop and goes and lives as a Hindu for a year, upon being brought back into communion with the Church and placing himself once more under the authority of the Bishop, would be able to continue his priestly ministry. Anything he does in the intervening period, however, would not be considered priestly. It is only within the Church that the Sacraments operate.
(That is not to say that God is incapable of bestowing grace by any means he pleases where he pleases, but we're speaking here specifically of the Sacraments of the Church, in which we are assured of God's grace).
--------------------
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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cocktailgirl:
It's an ontological status.
Ontological changes are not made automatically. They are only brought when, one's being changes. For example, just because one has been baptised, this does not mean anything. We need to work hard in order for our baptism to be activated. Sure, God's Grace is all over the Universe, but what use is it when we do not partake in that Grace the way we are supposed to partake?
In the Church, no "magical" acts should exist. Just because someone celebrates a sacrament, it doesn't automatically mean that God operates during the sacrament. We don't force God to do anything. Rather, we beg God to give us Grace.
It's like marriage. What good is marriage when the man beats his wife? In order for the couple to share in God's Grace in marriage, they have to make themselves receiving to Grace.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cocktailgirl:
I find the part of your post I've quoted above very worrying. My understanding (which I understand to be the way the C of E, at least, understands it) is that the sacrament of ordination is only performed once, for each order to which one is ordained (so I have been ordained twice: as a deacon and a priest). I will not be ordained again, regardless of where in the C of E or Anglican Communion I minister. The sacrament has been 'activated': once a priest, always a priest. It's an ontological status.
I know we cross-posted, cocktailgirl, but my post above may help shed light on why this doesn't necessarily hold true in Orthodoxy.
Yes, priesthood is indeed an ontological status, and so once one is ordained to a particular order, one is always ordained to that particular order. However, the Sacraments do not exist on their own, but only within the context of the Church. they are a means of God's grace, imparted through the Church to those within the Church, and so they only exist in that context. Therefore, a priest's priesthood is only operative when he performs his priestly duties as the icon of a bishop whose Sacramental authority he has to perform such functions within the Church.
I know that this is markedly different to the RC view of this, and this manifests itself in the difference between the RC and Orthodox understandings of the stataus of "independent" churches of the episcopi vagantes ilk.
For example, the Roman Catholic church takes the same view that you do of the implications of the ontological nature of ordination, and so it recognises the validity of the orders of such vagantes groups. I believe the official formula is something to the effect of "valid, but illicit". If, therefore, such a group were to be formed, having broken away from the RC church, its sacraments would be condsidered to be real and true sacraments of the Church.
However, if such a group were to be formed, having broken away from the Orthodox church, its orders would not be considered valid, and its Sacraments would not be considered to be sacraments at all, until they were to return to Orthodoxy. Any subsequent ordinations that happened in the intervening period could then be recognised by economy.
As I said above, the Sacraments are Sacraments of the Church and do not exist outside of it - even those with an ontological character cease to be functional outside of the Church.
--------------------
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
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cocktailgirl:
... My understanding (which I understand to be the way the C of E, at least, understands it) is that the sacrament of ordination is only performed once, for each order to which one is ordained (so I have been ordained twice: as a deacon and a priest). I will not be ordained again, regardless of where in the C of E or Anglican Communion I minister. The sacrament has been 'activated': once a priest, always a priest. It's an ontological status.
Obviously you might be ordained again - as a bishop, in due course.
Can we fit you for a mitre, in ooh, what are you doing in the year 2011 ?
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
H'mmmmm
I think we are on a definite tangent here, guys.
Perhaps arguments about 'When does a deacon/priest/bishop no longer have the necessary status/authority to perform their role' should be taken to another place.
Yours aye ... Tony King
Host, Dead Horses
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
brackenrigg
Shipmate
# 9408
|
Posted
Admit it girls, you can't become a Canon if you don't have any balls!
(although I suspect some priests fire blanks)
Posts: 196 | From: s yorks | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cocktailgirl
mixer of the drinks
# 8684
|
Posted
Wow. 19 pages of nuanced, challenging, thoughtful discussion, and that's your response?
Do you have a point to make?
Posts: 841 | From: in hac lacrimarum valle, propping up the bar | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
His only point is the one he wishes he had in his pants.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brackenrigg:
Admit it girls, you can't become a Canon if you don't have any balls!
There, there, brackenrigg. You can always make the teas.
--------------------
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
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Ummmmm...scanned through all this, lovely stuff, but I got a particular question. Nobody talked about a certain bible passage. Well, not sure anybody talked about any bible passage, but I was looking for some insight on the elder bit in 1 Timothy about the women staying quiet..tends to be the one viewpoint's favourite section/prooftext.
Is there a thread about that passage somewhere?
Thanks...
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I was looking for some insight on the elder bit in 1 Timothy about the women staying quiet..tends to be the one viewpoint's favourite section/prooftext.
The trouble is that that letter comes from the same Paul who in other places recognises women as prophets (or if it doesn't it isn't apostolic and authoritative so ner-ner-ner ner-ner(
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
I once heard (you can tell this is not a truly rigorous post!) someone claim that "I would not let that woman preach" was a valid reading of the Greek.
Certainly Paul did not have a general policy on women; In Corinthians, he suggests that women with questions should ask their husbands at home. I think that's more about good order than anything else.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Assuming it's Paul, and many scholars do not, can we dismiss the passage because we don't like him?
Even if it's not Paul, 1 Timothy is certainly canonical.
I'm told there are differnt ways of looking at this section.
No thread on the ship on this yet?
I is surprised if so.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Second Mouse
Citizen of Grand Fenwick
# 2793
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Ummmmm...scanned through all this, lovely stuff, but I got a particular question. Nobody talked about a certain bible passage. Well, not sure anybody talked about any bible passage, but I was looking for some insight on the elder bit in 1 Timothy about the women staying quiet..tends to be the one viewpoint's favourite section/prooftext.
Is there a thread about that passage somewhere?
Thanks...
Have you tried the Headship thread, also here in Dead Horses? It does the whole ordination of women debate over again, but from a con-evo perspective, rather than a FiF perspective. I suspect you're more likely to find 1 Tim discussed there, if I remember rightly.
[ 06. April 2006, 16:08: Message edited by: Second Mouse ]
Posts: 1254 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
David: It's all up in Purgatory.
I have a question that definitely belongs here, from the Diocese of Fort Worth (ECUSA):
quote:
The Panel is asked to help find a way for the Diocese to remain a full member of the Anglican Communion, while maintaining the historic practice of the church catholic of a male priesthood.
Can one maintain the "historic practice" while allowing the male priests to marry? (and divorce and re-marry.)
It seems to me one's either Roman in one's catholicism or one's not. Half-way is on the fence, and hurts.
--------------------
"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
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Can one maintain the "historic practice" while allowing the male priests to marry? (and divorce and re-marry.)
It seems to me one's either Roman in one's catholicism or one's not. Half-way is on the fence, and hurts.
Don't know about divorce and re-marriage but the Catholics in the East never stopped allowing priests to marry.
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
More precisely, Chastmastr, the eastern Catholic churches ordain married men, in the same way as the Orthodox churches. Those already ordained may not marry, unless they resign their orders.
As well, married Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed and Methodist clerics converting to the Latin-rite Roman Church have been ordained since WWII. An acquaintance of mine in San Francisco has his papal dispensation framed-- his mischievous and disrespectful university-age daughter calls it Daddy's Licence to Bonk.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Sure, but he needed the dispensation -- married clergy are not the usual practice in the Latin Rite and not at this point the historic practice either. So I think Henry Troup has a point. Either be catholic about it or don't, but this halfway-inbetween business is ridiculous.
And I ask, rhetorically, and for the umpteenth time, where was all the excitement when clergy started getting divorced? Oh, wait -- that was male clergy. So all right then. Despite it being something Jesus actually talked about.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Look -- Lambeth 20 or 30 years ago agreed that women could be ordained -- that was the theological statement that defines the matter for Anglicans. As I recall, the resolution didn't differentiate between the orders of ordination either.
The same conference also said individual dioceses or provinces had the right to decide when or if to ordain women, recognizing that some societies would find it difficult to cope with women in authority. THe whole thing is a matter of discipline, therefore. We can talk about how wise it is to ordain women or not, but not about whether they can be ordained.
The interesting thing is that for a good long while after just about every other Canadian diocese accepted ordained women, The Arctic did not train, ordain or appoint women, ostensibly because inuit society would not accept women as spiritual leaders. About 10 years ago there was a shift -- I don't know why, the bishop didn't change -- and up to half the ordinands are now female. It turns out that the inuit don't have a problem with female priests after all. Makes one think.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Don't know about divorce and re-marriage but the Catholics in the East never stopped allowing priests to marry.
We have never allowed priests to marry. We allow married men to become priests.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Look -- Lambeth 20 or 30 years ago agreed that women could be ordained -- that was the theological statement that defines the matter for Anglicans. As I recall, the resolution didn't differentiate between the orders of ordination either.
The same conference also said individual dioceses or provinces had the right to decide when or if to ordain women, recognizing that some societies would find it difficult to cope with women in authority. THe whole thing is a matter of discipline, therefore. We can talk about how wise it is to ordain women or not, but not about whether they can be ordained.
And eight years ago, Lambeth said this:
RESOLUTION III.2
The unity of the Anglican Communion
This Conference, committed to maintaining the overall unity of the Anglican Communion, including the unity of each diocese under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop,
(a) believes such unity is essential to the overall effectiveness of the Church's mission to bring the Gospel of Christ to all people;
(b) for the purpose of maintaining this unity, calls upon the provinces of the Communion to uphold the principle of 'Open Reception' as it relates to the ordination of women to the priesthood as indicated by the Eames Commission; noting that "reception is a long and spiritual process." (Grindrod Report);
(c) in particular calls upon the provinces of the Communion to affirm that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and eiscopate are both loyal Anglicans;
(d) therefore calls upon the Provinces of the Communion to make such provision, including appropriate episcopal ministry, as will enable them to live in the highest degree of Communion possible, recognising that there is and should be no compulsion on any bishop in matters concerning ordination or licensing;
(e) also affirms that "although some of the means by which communion is expressed may be strained or broken, there is a need for courtesy, tolerance, mutual respect, and prayer for one another, and we confirm that our desire to know or be with one another, remains binding on us as Christians". (Eames, p.119).
Which is of course the one most frequently ignored! Ho, hum.
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
In any event, the resolutions of Lambeth Conferences are not binding upon the Church of England.
--------------------
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
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Don't know about divorce and re-marriage but the Catholics in the East never stopped allowing priests to marry.
We have never allowed priests to marry. We allow married men to become priests.
Thank you for the clarification! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) (And, yes, I meant the Orthodox in my post.)
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
The scores on the doors from the General Synod of the Church of England.
CofE
quote:
‘That this Synod welcome and affirm the view of the majority of the House of Bishops that admitting women to the episcopate in the Church of England is consonant with the faith of the Church as the Church of England has received it and would be a proper development in proclaiming afresh in this generation the grace and truth of Christ.’
The motion was carried after a division by houses:
Bishops For 31; Against 9
Clergy For 134; Against 42
Laity For 123; Against 68
Five votes short of a 2/3rds majority in the House of Laity so far, though that doesn't matter yet.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sinistærial
Ship's Lefty
# 5834
|
Posted
Well, it is less than a week until the big vote™ in the Lutheran Church of Australia.
For the first time in LCA history, the General Church Council has not been able to provide a recommendation to the synod because they themselves are split!
Arguments for and against are here.
Another interesting point in our case is that the poster boys on either side are brothers!
--------------------
People laugh at me because I am different.
I laugh at other people because they are all the same.
æ = æ
Posts: 894 | From: The Holy City - Adelaide | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ephriam b.
Apprentice
# 11883
|
Posted
You guy's can't be serious. right. When there has been so much evidence that Mary Magdilene was an ever present influance in the Jesus camp. Besides, why are we so concernd about the womens presents, when most archialigical studies have shown that up untill 3000years ago. Or the influance of the Roman Empire. Women were pretty much in charge of spirtual actions in most regional cultures. As they should be. Am I the only person here that finds it rather interesting that since most religions on this planet have become praternicaly Issolated, that world violence has only increased? Sorry about the spelling folks, I've done my best here. And if God (or Godess) wants to condem me for that....Well, I'll deal with that when it happens.
Posts: 1 | From: Lynnwood,Wa. | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
You can't be serious, right?
Looking past the trauma I was caused just by beginning a post in such a fashion, I cannot believe that anybody could possibly have read this thread and responded by saying:
quote:
You guy's can't be serious. right.
Ephriam b., it seems to me from your post that you have either posted without making any effort to understand the very reasoned positons and explanations that have been painstakingly offered over the past 18+ pages of this discussion or you have read them and chosen to disregard them.
Either way, your post makes you look ignorant and self-important ("I'll post my views here for you to read but I can't be bothered reading any of yours"). I suggest that you may perhaps wish to get a feel for how things around here work before diving in at the tail end of a conversation that has been going on for five years and dismissing everybody else's contributions by telling us that we cannot possibly be serious.
Welcome aboard.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
epfraim b: quote:
You guy's can't be serious. right.
For what it's worth, I often feel that way, too. But they are serious, and they have their reasons. Happy reading!
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
