|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
I don't know where you get this view that women are subordinated to me. I think that is assumption ?
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
I don't know where you get this view that women are subordinated to me. I think that is assumption ?
I hope I never assumed or wrote that all women are subordinate to you. That would be an interesting situation to be in.
If what you meant was "that women are subordinated to men", then I'll reply that the highly literalist evangelicals are explicit about it -- e.g. quote:
The headship of God over Christ involves Christ’s subordination to the Father. In the same way, man’s headship over the woman involves the woman’s subordination to the man.
(from the evangelical newsletter I referred to in the last post).
And I think traditionalist Catholics are almost as explicit: quote:
we must remember that the role of a priest in the liturgy is to stand in the person of Christ, not as part of the people but as their head. In the liturgy we witness a union between the bride (the Church) and the groom (Christ). That spousal union is made visible and sacramental through a male priesthood--and only through a male priesthood.
Or this: quote:
Priesthood is a male function, for the reason that a priest is an icon of Christ, and Christ is male. The maleness of Christ is an important sign of His relationship to the Church, His Bride. As in nearly all cultures a man takes the initiative in winning a wife, so Christ took the initiative in winning souls and establishing His Church.
Or: quote:
As to the text of Timothy [1 Tim 2.12, "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent"], the practice of the Catholic Church is quite consistent with the teaching of St. Paul. Women do not have authority over men in the worship setting. Preaching is restricted to the ordained, which is restricted to males. And by the way, if any of you are in a parish in which lay people are preaching, this is expressly forbidden by the Vatican, and reiterated in a recent statement from Vatican authorities, with Papal approval for its contents. Do not be duped by pastors who claim that such preaching in Mass is now allowed.
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Thanks Teufelchen for your clear response. Would most here hold this view?
I think that a reasonable amount of that would be agreed with by most of the people here who approve of the ordination of women, but I'm more than ready to admit that impression may be wrong. It's an approach I take more generally, and may be characterised as 'liberal' without undue prejudice, I hope.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Yes I did mean 'men' - what a stupid typo for which I profusely apologise with everything I have !
That doesn't subordinate women surely - it defines what a role of men is ? John Paul II in his 1995 Letter to Women doesn't subordinate anyone
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Though of course Paul and Timothy were both single childless men, at least at the time the Epistles were written ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
As, of course, was Jesus.
All the more reason not to interpret the Titus passage as a list of formal requirements.
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
I think its purely conjecture to assume he could have chosen a women when its pretty clear he never does ever.
As it is to assume that it was impossible to appoint a woman merely because he did not.
quote:
I've never understood this 'back then they had to conform to the stereotypes of their time' arguement. Ok, I see the logic, but actually Christianity itself its entirely counter cultural to the culture of the 1st Century AD isn't it ?
No one has to conform. By definition, most will.
But my point is that the fundamental equality of men and women, like the obliteration of social and racial boundaries, has always been part of the Gospel. It was and is counter-cultural, and it is difficult to accept fully, which is why St Peter sometimes had such a problem accepting Gentiles, and St Paul was sometimes sceptical of the leadership gifts of women, and why even now there are snobs, racists and misogynists in the Church.
That women are now recognised by some part of the church as being as capable of receiving God's grace in ordination as men are, seems to me to be an unequivocally good thing. It isn't in the least articially or externally imposed - it is the natural and proper development of a Gospel which teaches that every single human soul can and should be conformed to the likeness of Christ.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Roman Catholic women's options of ministry are restricted in ways that men's aren't, but women aren't subordinated. Women have no effective voice in the decision making of the Roman Catholic Church except for non-binding, "consultive" input, but they aren't subordinated. You can point to no area that women have an important function in Church life that is not matched by a function that men have in family or monastic life. You haven't given any persuasive evidence that women in the Church aren't subordinate to men. So it comes down to that women aren't subordinated because you and a bunch of (mostly) men say women aren't subordinated.
Also:
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Love is Hate.
[ 25. October 2006, 00:00: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
You see you are laying out lines of conflict men do this - women don't, where are things which women are doing that men don't do.
That is not how the church should be viewing the world - it is not symbiotic, it is confrontational
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
VPG: quote:
You see you are laying out lines of conflict men do this - women don't, where are things which women are doing that men don't do. emphasis L*R
That was my question. You dodged it.
You'd prefer "symbiotic", a nice and soft term, because then you don't have to think about the Church's inherent injustice.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
What I am trying to suggest is that asking the question presupposes an incorrect approach - it exactly epitomises why I am railing polemically against feminism - I am not saying you are one - but the arguement you are trying to have seems to me to come down to the injustices women have faced in the past (which I don't obviously deny -I actually own an antique coin in which 'vote for women' has interesting been etched on round about 1911) but that line of thinking I think, has no relation really to this theological question.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I am a feminist -not a man hater, however- and I don't consider it an epithet. Women are able to be the people they want to be and have most of the options in their lives they have now because of feminists. I don't agree with all the positions of all feminists; some I think go over the top. But I won't give up the term because some others have opinions I don't. I won't play the "I'm not a feminist, but..." game.
I wish you would just admit that all women in the Roman Catholic Church are subordinate to the men (only men) who govern the Church. Don't try to pay lip service to egalitarianism when you don't believe in it. Have the courage of your convictions and say "God wanted all RC women to be subordinate and under the authority of the hierarchy of the all male episcopate. Period. I've said why I think so, and so has the Church. Deal."
--------------------
"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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I'm sure I've posted this before, but I couldn't find it on this thread (although I didn't look at every post on all 20+ pages), and it may have been on that other thread on the same topic that I posted on extensively way back when.
Anyway, if you want to understand the Orthodox view of the meaning of gender, of the reason men are bishops and priests and women aren't, of marriage, and of the Church (because it's all related), you couldn't do much better than reading The Mystery of Gender and Human Sexuality -- in particular the first essay, "Gender as Prophecy and Revelation" by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo.
In the essay, Archbishop Lazar explains that the function of gender is prophetic, and that it exists to reveal the nature of the relationship between Christ and the Church. He makes it clear in his preface that
quote:
This realization that gender is connected to prophecy and revelation has been lost largely because man, in his arrogance, began to relate the respective roles of men and women to relative value. When "role" was identified with "value" humanity was degraded, women were reduced to serfdom and the whole mystery and meaning of human gender and marriage was lost.
If we understand gender as prophetic, if we see that men are a revelation of Christ and women of the Church, and that marriage is not simply a path of salvation, but that it reveals what salvation is, then we understand why there will be neither male nor female in heaven: "because the Church on earth will have fulfilled her mission, and the revelaiton and prophecy about her will no longer be needed; likewise, the visible presence of Christ will bring to an end the prophetic role of the male."
Since the function of gender is revelation, and the function of maleness is to reveal Christ, it makes sense that priests (who manifest the priesthood of Christ) are men and not women.
It's not about who is in charge. It's not about authority or subordination or qualifications to perform a particular job. It's about salvation, about revelation, about the mystery of Christ and the Church.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
So that makes all laymen symbolically...women. If Christ/priest is the male then everyone else is Bride/female. Of course, the fact that the male priests are also part of the Bride gets lost in the muddled metaphors.
--------------------
"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
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I am a feminist ...
And for the record, so am I.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
I am not denying that feminism has led to some good things such as full human suffrage etc - of course it has. I think the suggestion that I pay lip service to egalitarianism is just polemic. In fact, in my family, for the last two generations, women have been the most successful of any of the rest of us (rest of us meaning the VPG familial diaspora)!
"would just admit that all women in the Roman Catholic Church are subordinate to the men (only men) who govern the Church. Don't try to pay lip service to egalitarianism when you don't believe in it. Have the courage of your convictions and say "God wanted all RC women to be subordinate and under the authority of the hierarchy of the all male episcopate"
No - I don't accept the initial starting point of your arguement, which to me appears to be that of confrontation between men and women.
The church isn't some monolithic hotbed of people who are just waiting to 'subordinate women' - its a community of believers who try to respond to the calls that God gives them. This obsession with priesthood denegrates the importance of other forms of vocation in the church. You speak of 'nuns' as though they are just some rubbish generic thing - they are not - there are loads of different types of ministries which women can perform under religous vows. Some of the most moving moments of my life have revolved round women consecrated in the religious life have ministered to me at a personal and pastoral level. I wouldn't denegrate them for a moment.
In the academic study of history, feminist history as a discipline attempted in the 1980s to transmute into gender history in an attempt deliberately to get away from its increasingly polemical stance. Even so, its still a field of history which started off as something polemical and then tried to find legitimacy. This so clearly applies to the ordination of women. It started off as a spin off of feminism and then with other arguements has tried to find legitimacy.
The problem is of course that priesthood, I would say, is divinely instituted and so the precepts of humankind and transcended. I don't deny there is potentially a rational arguement for the ordination of women, I do however argue that that rationality doesn't initially stem from theology, but rather something else. Is that putting human desire before the love of God and if it is, is it idolatry ?
[ 25. October 2006, 09:07: Message edited by: Vesture, Posture, Gesture ]
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
VPG: quote:
In the academic study of history, feminist history as a discipline attempted in the 1980s to transmute into gender history in an attempt deliberately to get away from its increasingly polemical stance. Even so, its still a field of history which started off as something polemical and then tried to find legitimacy. This so clearly applies to the ordination of women. It started off as a spin off of feminism and then with other arguements has tried to find legitimacy.
And I think the position the Church took on the domination/subordination of the sexes started off as a spin off of the culture it grew up in, and then tried to legitimize it by pointing to precedent (circularly rooted in the customs of its era); and by pointing to the metaphor of the Christ/Priest (male) and the Church/Bride (female) while ignoring the fact that every member of the Church including the priest is the Bride (female); and also ignoring the fact that we are also all members of the Body of Christ (male). Basically, the Church did a pick-and-choose of metaphors to support its position theologically. But it was always a given that women were subordinate to men because that was the hierarchial position of the cultures -Jewish and Greco-Roman- in which the Church arose. And theology was put in place that reflected that. As you said, history cannot be judged by our values. There was no other way to think or act at that time and I accept that. It was unimaginable so they didn't imagine the possibility of men and women being in any other relationship than that of man as head over woman. There was certainly nothing counter-cultural about the Church's stand on this at all.
quote:
The church isn't some monolithic hotbed of people who are just waiting to 'subordinate women'...
Hell, no, they aren't waiting to subordinate women. They've been doing it for two thousand years, no waiting involved.
Yes, I know people have different calls to ministry, but assuming that the call to priesthood can never be a legitimate one for women is clinging to first century culture which is not necessarily to the will of God, IMO.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
This so clearly applies to the ordination of women. It started off as a spin off of feminism and then with other arguements has tried to find legitimacy.
I can understand what you are saying, but it seems to me to be completely beside the point. If there is a good argument for ordaining women, what on earth does it matter whether it was conceived 2000 years ago or last week? It must still be answered on its merits.
I think the link with secular feminism is a red herring, to be honest. Clearly it is a lot easier to see a female priest as an icon of Christ in an egalitarian society than in a patriarchy. But the idea of female Christians being ‘sons of God', men and women being made in God's image, an (at the time) male-led Church being the bride of Christ, and in Christ there being neither male nor female, were all there from the beginning. There is no reason why human gender should make it impossible for a woman to represent God to the Church. It may have been difficult for human eyes to see that image at some times, but why on earth would we choose, now that the veil has been torn and Christ's image can be clearly seen when a priest of either gender celebrates the Eucharist, should we want to reject the sight?
If a social process has made that easier for us to see, then we may well discern the hand of God in that process (albeit that it may stem from mixed motives). God has used all sorts of undesireable processes to work out his plan. However much you hate feminism, I'm willing to bet that you'd rather endure that than a Babylonian invasion, or slavery in Egypt.
quote:
The problem is of course that priesthood, I would say, is divinely instituted and so the precepts of humankind and transcended. I don't deny there is potentially a rational arguement for the ordination of women, I do however argue that that rationality doesn't initially stem from theology, but rather something else. Is that putting human desire before the love of God and if it is, is it idolatry ?
Only if ordaining a woman is a denial of the love of God. Which it isn't, and never has been.
One might better ask whether a refusal to see God's grace in the sacraments is a matter of human prejudice denying the revealed image of Christ. And isn't that iconoclasm?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
If we understand gender as prophetic, if we see that men are a revelation of Christ and women of the Church, and that marriage is not simply a path of salvation, but that it reveals what salvation is
I think I can accept that.
quote:
Since the function of gender is revelation, and the function of maleness is to reveal Christ, it makes sense that priests (who manifest the priesthood of Christ) are men and not women.
Well, yes, but only for a narrow view of a priest's functions and of Christ's activity.
When a woman priest speaks to other people, on behalf of a community of believers, then as a woman she would be a fit and prophetic representative of the Church. When she prays, or leads worship, she again represents the Church. When she baptises a new believer, or joins Christians in marriage, or commits the faithful dead to God, she represents the action of God's Spirit in the Church. When she stands in the place of Christ at the altar she shows in prophetic figure that we, the Church, as feminine to God, are called also to represent Christ.
The prophetic view of gender seems to me a good reason why the representative function of the priest can be performed by either sex and (in a society which is able to see God's image in a woman) should be performed by both.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
.Hell, no, they aren't waiting to subordinate women. They've been doing it for two thousand years, no waiting involved.
Maybe 1700 - the rather fragmentary evidence suggests that the pre-Constantine underground church met in homes, and was often led by women, as a "home sphere" thing. When the church went from hidden to state-sponsored, it became a "public sphere" thing, where men led.
***
Has everyone read Lewis' Priestesses in the Church (note: his word, not mine!)? He offers an argument similar to some of these, to the effect that we are all so feminine by comparison to the masculinity of Jesus that only a male can reflect that. It doesn't wash with me; and he means "feminine" = "passive"; "masculine = active" in a way that we don't now accept as "natural".
[ 25. October 2006, 12:48: Message edited by: Henry Troup ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
"The church isn't some monolithic hotbed of people who are just waiting to 'subordinate women'... " - I should have made myself more clear linguistically - I'm using this phrase as a figure of speech.
"But it was always a given that women were subordinate to men because that was the hierarchial position of the cultures -Jewish and Greco-Roman- in which the Church arose"
Well I wouldn't be so dogmatic. Ancient Rome had priestesses of course ie: Vestal Virgins or the most famous of all at Delphi, the Pythia who was treated to all intents and purposes as the mouthpiece of Apollo. Actually Christianity was being counter cultural by not having a female priesthood !
Yes of course the Priest is part of the Bride but at the words of institution, He is, at the words of institution, mediating for Christ the Son so is representing Christ and our Lord's bridegroom at the same time.
"Yes, I know people have different calls to ministry, but assuming that the call to priesthood can never be a legitimate one for women is clinging to first century culture which is not necessarily to the will of God, IMO"
Apologies for not knowing what IMO means. Fine that's the first century culture arguement - what about you being stuck with this 20th century mentality ? The arguement there is circular and I don't think we can get anywhere with it.
Eliab my main problem with the OoW is primarily that when those in favour look for arguements in favour, they have already reached their conclusions before they even start. Its that which constitutes an inorganic development for me and makes me think it is untheological ie: Gender History already has conclusions before it begins.
"Only if ordaining a woman is a denial of the love of God. Which it isn't, and never has been.
One might better ask whether a refusal to see God's grace in the sacraments is a matter of human prejudice denying the revealed image of Christ. And isn't that iconoclasm?"
I probably would say that the OoW in the sense that I, from a catholic perspective understand ordination, is a denial of God's love. If one is going against a divinely inspired order of things, that is conscious rejection.
Could you elaborate on your point re the sacrament ? Are you suggesting that say, someone who rejects Christ's presence in the Sacrament as 'consecrated' by an episcopally ordained woman equivalent to iconoclasm ? If that's what you mean, I suppose yes I would agree in that if I'm wrong, then I would be iconoclastic.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I am a feminist ...
And for the record, so am I.
Insofar as a man can be a feminist, so am I.
Anyone who is a femisist shoudl be proud fo it.
Anyone who isn't has some explaining to do.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Has everyone read Lewis' Priestesses in the Church (note: his word, not mine!)? He offers an argument similar to some of these, to the effect that we are all so feminine by comparison to the masculinity of Jesus that only a male can reflect that.
If that was true it would be an argument for the ordination of women tot he priesthood, not against it.
quote:
It doesn't wash with me; and he means "feminine" = "passive"; "masculine = active" in a way that we don't now accept as "natural".
Natural or not, God has no gender. Any more than God has sex.
One of the theological benefits of ordaining women is that it removes the symbology of God as male or masculine. That's a heresy after all. God has "no body parts or passions"
(a comma can be so important )
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Very good arguments, Eliab. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Better than mine, because they don't have the feminist baggage my words have that VGP discounts as a matter of course.
ETA: IMO means "in my opinion" for future reference, VPG. Sorry, I shouldn't assume everyone knows all the net lingo. Also, when I said you weren't "egalitarian" I was only referring to your position on Church polity. I didn't mean to cast aspersions on the rest of your social philosophy. I also apologize for expressing myself unclearly on that.
[ 25. October 2006, 19:51: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Not at all. No need !
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paige:
quote:
Originally posted by liturgyqueen:
But I also enjoyed the bit about how women priests inevitably lead to fewer bums in the pews and seminary classrooms.
I wonder how Dean Jensen would explain the fact that we are having to build our second new building in 5 years to acommodate all the new parishioners? (We've had the same female priest for over 12 years now...) ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Sorry about the delay in responding Paige but it seems Dean Jensen was indirectly referring to this survey which indicates the Sydney diocese is growing at the fastest rate in Australia. There may be individual parishes that are an exception to this rule but the survey results seem to support his comments that the ordination of women does not lead to numerical growth overall and may be a contributing factor to a decline in church attendance.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I am a feminist ...
And for the record, so am I.
Insofar as a man can be a feminist, so am I.
Not having expected to ever quote Margaret Cho on the boards, nonetheless:
"You don't have to be a woman to be feminist. You should just f***ing be a feminist."
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Has everyone read Lewis' Priestesses in the Church (note: his word, not mine!)...
I have. It is one of his more inane essays -- and that's saying a lot -- exceeded in this regard only by the passage in Mere Christianity about headship within the family: quote:
If there must be a head [of the family], why the man? Well, firstly is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? ... even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say, 'Poor Mr X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.' ... There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule.
After drivel like this it's challenging to take Lewis seriously on the issue of women in the priesthood.
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Sorry about the delay in responding Paige but it seems Dean Jensen was indirectly referring to this survey which indicates the Sydney diocese is growing at the fastest rate in Australia. There may be individual parishes that are an exception to this rule but the survey results seem to support his comments that the ordination of women does not lead to numerical growth overall and may be a contributing factor to a decline in church attendance.
That Sydney diocese doesn't ordain women is the only difference between it and the other dioceses in Australia? There are no other factors that could explain the difference in numbers?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Speaking of Lewis, it's been a while so this might not be totally accurate, but I remember being stunned by his comments in Four Loves where he doubted whether women could experience true "philia" since in his experience women were catty and competitive with each other or just talked about inanities not about the deep stuff that he and his friends talked about. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) He admitted that he might be wrong since in his milieu, he didn't have much chance to know many women. I hope marriage opened his eyes later in his life.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I just found that Four Loves was published the same year his wife died. Maybe it didn't matter to him if his wife could or couldn't make female friends as long as she liked him.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Sorry about the delay in responding Paige but it seems Dean Jensen was indirectly referring to this survey which indicates the Sydney diocese is growing at the fastest rate in Australia. There may be individual parishes that are an exception to this rule but the survey results seem to support his comments that the ordination of women does not lead to numerical growth overall and may be a contributing factor to a decline in church attendance.
That Sydney diocese doesn't ordain women is the only difference between it and the other dioceses in Australia? There are no other factors that could explain the difference in numbers?
Causality hasn’t been proved but an interesting correlation does exist.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
...After drivel like this it's challenging to take Lewis seriously on the issue of women in the priesthood.
Exactly - but the same arguments were coming forward. Lewis wrote them well, but they're like last week's porridge - didn't age well!
--------------------
"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
|
|
magnum mysterium
Shipmate
# 3418
|
Posted
Gordo couldn't be bothered to drag his sorry arse into this territory so he planted this into our lovely Australian thread in All Saints. I'm putting it here where it belongs.
Posts: 3095 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
What a lovely headline. Now, Gordon wouldn't normally have written that part. But!
--------------------
"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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Lyda Rose:
quote:
Speaking of Lewis, it's been a while so this might not be totally accurate, but I remember being stunned by his comments in Four Loves where he doubted whether women could experience true "philia" since in his experience women were catty and competitive with each other or just talked about inanities not about the deep stuff that he and his friends talked about. He admitted that he might be wrong since in his milieu, he didn't have much chance to know many women. I hope marriage opened his eyes later in his life.
That's not how I read it. I read it as saying that men and women's interests often don't coincide and that if women insist on mixed company then they will end up making inane small talk whereas if the blokes go into a huddle they can talk about boy things and the women can talk about girl things and everyone will be happy. Lewis was an academic and socially inept and doubtless was much happier talking about the finer points of Medieval poetry than he was making small talk and during his lifetime universities were very male environments so I think I can see where he is coming from on this. He does say that in some circles this isn't the case and that you can have proper conversations in mixed company. I think his point is not that women are incapable of friendship but that it is difficult for people who have incompatible interests to be friends and that, in practice, men and women frequently have incompatible interests which was probably true when he was writing and certainly less true now.
--------------------
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
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
VPG---you have constructed a box that you have no interest in getting out of. Using your "logic" (and I use the term loosely), there wouldn't be any way for God to even let you know that "mistakes had been made." Since Jesus didn't say flat out "Ordain women!", it can't happen. (The fact that he never said "Ordain men!" is apparently irrelevant...)
Luke--as any first-year stats student will tell you, "Correlation does not equal causation."
People will come to Christ and the Church for two reasons---because we give them a reason to (i.e., we give them the Good News), or because they are afraid not to. I know the only reason that appealed to me, but I recognize that others respond differently.
In the United States, the fastest growing churches are those that tell you what to think and how to vote (i.e., gay marriage will mean the end of life as we know it and Republican). Most of those also refuse to ordain women.
In my experience, most people like churches that tell them to follow The Rules (many of which have nothing to do with the Gospel, AFAICT) and don't ask them to think for themselves--or actively discourage them from doing so. I think this is because they believe in a very harsh, thunderbolt-throwing God, which means the stakes are too high to risk "getting it wrong." So if you just follow The Rules, that mean ol' God will let you into Heaven---as soon as He takes a break from throwing all those other heathens into Hell.
The churches that ordain women in the U.S. tend to be those that encourage believers to think for themselves--to examine their faith against the Bible, tradition, and their own personal experience. If you want someone to give you a list of The Rules---if you must be CERTAIN that you know the mind of God---those churches are not going to be for you.
I'm an Episcopalian because I believe that scripture, tradition, and reason are ALL important to finding the will of God for my life. I distrust churches that believe they have all the answers or have settled the questions for all time (hello, Sydney "Anglicans").
And I don't give a damn about numbers. I know what I have experienced in the Eucharist---with both male and female priests. I know what it feels like to experience God in the breaking of the bread---and it doesn't seem to matter what the chromosomal makeup of the person doing the breaking is. The Holy Spirit, the mystery, the grace---all there, regardless of the sex of the priest.
Oh, and I'm a feminist too--which, to paraphrase Rebecca West, is simply a way of stating "I am not a doormat."
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
...Dean Jensen was indirectly referring to this survey ...
...
Causality hasn’t been proved but an interesting correlation does exist.
Luke, the article you linked to does not seem to contain the words "women" or "ordination". It does say:
quote:
The adoption of a generic format and contemporary worship may have insulated the diocese from losses experienced elsewhere.
and quote:
Going to where the people are resulted in inner city consolidation and the opening of new parishes in western suburbs.
Do you have a link to the complete survey results? If not, could you outline in more detail how you (I don't expect you to speak for Dean Jensen ) have found a correlation with the ordination of women? Many thanks, OliviaG
PS Normally I would hunt for the data myself, but sydneyanglicans have now crashed my browser three times...
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
sydneyanglicans have now crashed my browser three times...
Sketchy. I myself tried to sign up for their boards (because their brand of Anglicanism fascinates me) and upon registering was told that I would have to be manually added before I could actually participate.
Still waiting...
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
"VPG---you have constructed a box that you have no interest in getting out of. Using your "logic" (and I use the term loosely), there wouldn't be any way for God to even let you know that "mistakes had been made." Since Jesus didn't say flat out "Ordain women!", it can't happen. (The fact that he never said "Ordain men!" is apparently irrelevant...)" - Paige
Well Jesus did choose twelve male apostles and, when one of them went wrong, another man was chosen by the Holy Spirit.....
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
And yet the first person Jesus appeared to, post-Resurrection, was Mary Magdalene---and he charged her to go and tell the good news to the men....
(I wonder if that had anything to do with the fact that only three people stuck it out with him to the end...and two of them were women. "O thou good and faithful servants...")
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
I don't deny that - of course - but her role is clearly different to that of Christ's chosen twelve otherwise she would have been included amongst them.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
I don't deny that - of course - but her role is clearly different to that of Christ's chosen twelve otherwise she would have been included amongst them.
You state that she was not included among them as fact---I don't know that. What I know is that Jesus valued her--after all, she had proved faithful when all those blokes with the penises had run away and hid to save their skins. And I know that he gave her the News first, commissioning her to go out and tell it. If that isn't good enough to make her an Apostle in your eyes, I'm not sure what would be...
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Acts Chapter I is pretty clear isn't it ?
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
Only if you are sola scriptura and mired in 1st century Palestine...
Bottom line...I believe that the Holy Spirit still moves in the world and is leading us into all truth. And the truth is that women---and black people, and gays, and lesbians, etc.--are made in the image of God, beloved of God, and full members of the church. Which means that there is no absolute bar to ordination for any of them...
[spelling...]
[ 26. October 2006, 17:39: Message edited by: Paige ]
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
"Only if you are sola scripture and mired in 1st century Palestine..."
Do you happen to know (I don't which is why am asking as opposed to trying to sound cynical) when the first arguements were aired going along the lines of being mired in 1st century palestine ?
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
Do you happen to know (I don't which is why am asking as opposed to trying to sound cynical) when the first arguements were aired going along the lines of being mired in 1st century palestine ?
Probably in the year 101 CE. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
I don't deny that - of course - but her role is clearly different to that of Christ's chosen twelve otherwise she would have been included amongst them.
Obviously. But the role of a priest or bishop in the church today - or even in the church a generation after the Resturrection - is clearly different to that of the Twelve, or of Mary.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
Eliab my main problem with the OoW is primarily that when those in favour look for arguements in favour, they have already reached their conclusions before they even start. Its that which constitutes an inorganic development for me and makes me think it is untheological ie: Gender History already has conclusions before it begins.
I’m sure there is prejudice on both sides of the debate. For what it’s worth (which I accept isn’t much) I know more people who have changed their minds on the basis of experience, looking at scripture, and argument, from being against OOW to being in favour, than have gone the other way. Which suggests that at least some of us form our conclusion from honest enquiry.
quote:
I probably would say that the OoW in the sense that I, from a catholic perspective understand ordination, is a denial of God's love. If one is going against a divinely inspired order of things, that is conscious rejection.
I don’t know anyone who thinks that a male-only priesthood is God’s will, but supports female ordination because it suits their personal preference. I suppose someone like that might exist, and I would certainly think that they need to get their priorities straight. Personally, I think that ordination of suitable people to the priesthood is divinely inspired, and that both men and women can be suitable. I think that no one, male or female, should seek ordination at all except at God’s call.
quote:
Could you elaborate on your point re the sacrament ? Are you suggesting that say, someone who rejects Christ's presence in the Sacrament as 'consecrated' by an episcopally ordained woman equivalent to iconoclasm ? If that's what you mean, I suppose yes I would agree in that if I'm wrong, then I would be iconoclastic.
A female priest is an icon of Christ. I say that not as a theological assertion, but as a statement of plain fact. It is possible to see Christ in the figure of a female priest because thousands of Christians do in fact see this when they join in worship with one.
The opponents of female ordination say that such symbols of Christ ought not to exist. They would remove such symbols from the worship of his Church, despite the fact that the presence of female priest is a source of inspiration, encouragement, sound teaching, and (through the sacraments) divine grace, to their brothers and sisters.
Their error is exactly that of the iconoclasts – the problem is not that they cannot rightly read the symbol (we are not, IMO, all intended to be moved by the same symbols) - but that they deny that it is possible for anyone who does read it to have done so rightly. They would deny others spiritual food by proclaiming that it is impossible that something not to their taste could truly be nourishing.
[ 26. October 2006, 18:12: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Thanks for clarifying that position. Its what I thought you were saying re: iconoclasm.
To say people experience these things because of women ministers is a misnoma. In the middle ages, similarly things are said of the Cathars who, incidentally, did have women Perfecti who had the same status and were as revered as men - they were still heretics though.
And yes you could say that about men as well which is why we have the church, the body of Christ in which His charism resides to teach us. That is why it cannot, for me, be in error otherwise it wouldn't be divinely instituted. I appreciate for those of you who don't come from a catholic minded perspective this isn't obviously an issue.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
...Dean Jensen was indirectly referring to this survey ...
...
Causality hasn’t been proved but an interesting correlation does exist.
Luke, the article you linked to does not seem to contain the words "women" or "ordination". It does say:
quote:
The adoption of a generic format and contemporary worship may have insulated the diocese from losses experienced elsewhere.
and quote:
Going to where the people are resulted in inner city consolidation and the opening of new parishes in western suburbs.
Do you have a link to the complete survey results? If not, could you outline in more detail how you (I don't expect you to speak for Dean Jensen ) have found a correlation with the ordination of women? Many thanks, OliviaG
PS Normally I would hunt for the data myself, but sydneyanglicans have now crashed my browser three times...
Dean Jensen said: quote:
The Church has declined. The ordination of women as presbyters has not led to a great revival of church going. There has been no great increase in attendance. Just the reverse, it is the dioceses that have accepted women's ordination that have seen the greatest decline. The dioceses that have not accepted this practice are the ones who have seen church growth.
I went to the national Church Life Survey site but couldn’t find the survey itself, but here is a quote from the site I linked to earlier.
quote:
On any of these measures, Sydney looks different. It was one of only four dioceses where weekly attendance grew (11 per cent) along with Bunbury (four per cent), Armidale (two per cent) and Canberra & Goulburn (one per cent). It exceeded the population growth rate (nine per cent compared to 6.3 per cent between 1996 and 2001). The proportion of Anglicans in Sydney increased from 24 per cent to 29 per cent and the diocese had the same number of people aged 15-39 as all other dioceses combined.
Now I could be wrong but I imagine it is results like this that the Dean is referring to. Like I acknowledged earlier causality is not the same as correlation but that does not diminish Jensen’s observation.
Paige, you may not be impressed by the correlation and that's OK but then again I was not convinced by your anecdotal evidence. (I’m hazy on the American Church scene so I can’t comment on what you’ve said about attendance and theology in America.)
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
A female priest is an icon of Christ. I say that not as a theological assertion, but as a statement of plain fact. It is possible to see Christ in the figure of a female priest because thousands of Christians do in fact see this when they join in worship with one.
The opponents of female ordination say that such symbols of Christ ought not to exist. They would remove such symbols from the worship of his Church, despite the fact that the presence of female priest is a source of inspiration, encouragement, sound teaching, and (through the sacraments) divine grace, to their brothers and sisters.
Their error is exactly that of the iconoclasts – the problem is not that they cannot rightly read the symbol (we are not, IMO, all intended to be moved by the same symbols) - but that they deny that it is possible for anyone who does read it to have done so rightly. They would deny others spiritual food by proclaiming that it is impossible that something not to their taste could truly be nourishing.
Eliab---you said that beautifully. Thank you.
VPG--I consider myself a catholic Christian. I revere scripture and tradition, can say the Nicene Creed without crossing my fingers (most of the time, anyway), and believe strongly in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I also believe in the ordination of women. I believe I *do* come from a "catholic-minded perspective"--and I strongly disagree with you. I am not the only one, either.
Is there *anything* that would make you accept the possibility that the ordination of women is A Godly Thing?
Luke---you answered while I was typing this. So I would ask you the same question---what evidence do you need? How do you answer Eliab's points?
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
