|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
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.
Thanks, Luke. The article on the net says that the Sydney is growing because of changes to worship styles and organizational practices, but the Dean says the other dioceses are shrinking because they ordain women. In the absence of additional data, one could just as easily claim that Sydney is growing despite not ordaining women and the other dioceses are shrinking because they haven't changed their worship or reorganised. 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
|
|
Cranmer's baggage
Ship's Opinionated Dame
# 1662
|
Posted
I'd suggest the Anglican church growth data needs further analysis. Firstly, only 2 of the 4 dioceses listed as growing have declined to ordain women (Sydney & Armidale).
Secondly, while the official Sydney position is not to ordain women, and notwithstanding the outcome of their recent synod, the views of churches (and even clergy) in the Diocese, are, thanks be to God, not monochrome. For Dean Jensen's position to be proven, it would have to be shown that those churches which were growing were those which opposed women's ordination.
Thirdly, it is difficult to show that the growth is not linked to other factors (worship styles, demographics, etc).
Finally, I think Diocesan figures are a pretty blunt instrument. I know that overall, my diocese is in decline. I also know that there are a number of churches in this Diocese which are growing. They are, almost without exception, evangelical churches that have worked hard to understand and connect with their local communities, offer a range of opportunities for worship with distinctive styles, that provide dynamic preaching and engagement with contemporary issues. Oh, and there was another thing. ... That's right - they almost all have women priests in senior leadership roles.
Looking more broadly at the evangelical spectrum, I can see no correlation between opposition to women's ministry and rates of growth.
--------------------
Eschew obfuscation!
Posts: 1537 | From: the apple isle | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
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.
It takes a lot of balls to allude to the Albigensian crusade, in which thousands of innocent people died by ecclesiastical decree, and assert the infallibility of the Church, in the same post. I can almost respect that.
I don't go as far as you on the Church not being in error. I think that we have been promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church, and assured of her ultimate triumph, but not given a guarantee that we would be obediently following God's will at any given moment. But you miss the point that the Church does ordain women. You are asserting that the Church is in error if you think that they are not valid priests.
--------------------
"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
The church cannot err and so it isn't in error when it says that women can't be priests.
Without getting into the nitty gritty, don't label the church as somehow responsible for that particular 'crusade'. Most studies places the murders at the feet of the French King (ie: Jonathan Sumption, Emmanuel le Roy Lauderie, Rene Weiss being the most accessible and easy read ones)
My point with that example was to illustrate that sects can be in error even though their leaders are considered great teachers and to give comfort to many. That analogy is one I am ascribing to the situation where some communities 'ordain' women. It was the heresy I was alluding to as opposed to the response.
Fortunately the church has always maintained a distinction between office and personality (with regard to massacres etc).
--------------------
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
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
So it's personality when the church does something you disagree with ("massacres etc."), and office when they declare a doctrine you do agree with (male-only priests)?
(Assuming momentarily for the sake of argument your implicit monolithic definition of "the church.")
[ 27. October 2006, 15:16: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
In that point, yes the church does seem monolithic but of course I was referring to the teaching side, the magisterium.
"But you miss the point that the Church does ordain women. You are asserting that the Church is in error if you think that they are not valid priests." - apologies could you explain that again ?
Last time I checked, the Church doesn't ordain women.
--------------------
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 Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
The church cannot err and so it isn't in error when it says that women can't be priests.
Except that the Church (at least the bit of it that you are part of) admits that it can err (articles 19 and 21), and doesn't say that women can't be priests.
The Church does ordain women. I was at a service taken by an Anglo-Catholic female priest only the other week. My sister and her husband were married by another Anglican female priest. There are, I understand, more female priests and bishops in the Anglican communion.
I'm fairly certain that the Church of England is part of "the Church" of Jesus, because we believe all the ancient creeds of His church, our clergy stand in succession to His Apostles and we worship Him.
Now either you can excommunicate me and most of the rest of the Church of England (something I doubt that you have the authority to do), or you can accept that the Church does in fact ordain women - you can still say it is wrong to do so, but if it is, then the Church is in error.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
In that point, yes the church does seem monolithic but of course I was referring to the teaching side, the magisterium.
Vesture, Posture, Gesture, either I was too terse in what I said or you have misunderstood me or I have misunderstood your reply. "Monolithic" was perhaps a poor choice of words on my part. What I meant to be referring to is that you seem to have a subset of all Christians that you identify as the Church.
So, to clarify: what do you mean by the church?
Your reference to the magisterium has me puzzled, since by your profile you are CofE. (I hadn't checked your profile before I posted before, and was thinking that you were RC, based on how you were talking about the church.)
quote:
Last time I checked, the Church doesn't ordain women.
Eliab's reply to this point illustrates what I was trying to get at -- if you can say "the Church doesn't ordain women" then you appear to be defining "the church" differently, and more narrowly, than how I would. And apparently excluding large parts of the CofE, of which you are a member, from actually being the church.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Your reference to the magisterium has me puzzled, since by your profile you are CofE.
Back in August, on Why don't Anglo-Catholics swim the Tiber? s/he said
quote:
I personally am very culturally anglican in fact it is probably that which is the only thing keeping me within the C of E fold.
--------------------
"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
"Eliab's reply to this point illustrates what I was trying to get at -- if you can say "the Church doesn't ordain women" then you appear to be defining "the church" differently, and more narrowly, than how I would. And apparently excluding large parts of the CofE, of which you are a member, from actually being the church."
Does my first and subsequent posts (starting on page 20) not deal with the last part of this ?
--------------------
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
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
Does my first and subsequent posts (starting on page 20) not deal with the last part of this?
I've just reread your posts on page 20 and I cannot see how it throws any light on this conundrum.
You take the catholic view that the church cannot err. You consider OOW to be in error, so by your definition it cannot be done by the church. But the church of which you are a member (CofE) does ordain women. Do you therefore believe that the CofE is not part of the church? If so why are you still there? I'm genuinely confused by your reasoning.
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Yes its part of the church in some sense - I am still working out how though - not totally any more that is for sure.
I mean we can go into the particular position of the C of E etc but I have been speaking generally when I speak against the OoW - not just out of a response to what is happening throughout the Anglican Communion.
--------------------
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
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
It probably won't help, but the (by far) most "catholic" Anglican bishop in Canada is a woman. Victoria Matthews was a pillar of the church of St. Mary Magdalene in Toronto before seeking ordination -- think a mixture of St. Mary's Bourne Street and All Saints Margaret Street in terms of its beliefs and assumptions. I have to assume that she, who quite clearly does believe in the Real Presence and has a "catholic" understanding of orders, has no doubts about the validity of her standing as a priest and a bishop in the Church Catholic.
And, FWIW, though a "feminist" in terms of substance, at least 25-30 years ago when she was ordained, I rather think she would be surprised and a little disappointed to see VGP's statements about feminism and the church -- unless of course he is 60ish years old -- since they are so clearly those adduced 30 years ago, and admitted by Anglo-Catholics (many of whom then opposed but now support OoW, following the argument attributed in Acts to Gamaliel), to have been wrong.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
But you see just because she believes what she does now doesn't mean it is where it stems from which is why I am suggesting its rationality is running in parallel with that of the church catholic. I don't think you can say that simply a 'catholic' understanding of orders or belief in the real presence is a sign of catholicity - surely one has to accept the whole corpus or it frankly isn't catholic.
--------------------
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:
But you see just because she believes what she does now doesn't mean it is where it stems from which is why I am suggesting its rationality is running in parallel with that of the church catholic.
VPG, I truly haven't a clue what that sentence means. No idea whatsoever. quote:
I don't think you can say that simply a 'catholic' understanding of orders or belief in the real presence is a sign of catholicity - surely one has to accept the whole corpus or it frankly isn't catholic.
And I'm almost as confused by this statement. If you accepted the 'whole corpus' of your own church's teachings, you wouldn't have trouble with the ordination of women. On the other hand, if you accepted the whole corpus of RC teaching, you wouldn't be in the C of E. And if you accepted the whole corpus of every church that claimed to be catholic, you would believe in the procession of the Spirit from the Son and also that the filioque has no place in the creed. You would simultaneously belive in and decry the authority of the Pope. You would use the Julian and Gregorian calendars. You would use leavened and unleavened bread in the eucharist.
I suppose you could always say, "I believe everything the Church teaches" and then define the Church as those who teach what you agree with, and everything else as "heterodox". Perhaps you're really Orthodox after all.
[ 28. October 2006, 20:19: Message edited by: cor ad cor loquitur ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Ok - my first statement refers round things I have said several time on this thread that I believe whilst the OoW is rational, it is part of a rational system which is in parallel, rather than converging or part of, the huge system which is a Catholic one, including a Catholic understanding of orders.
As regarding the second, the question is whether the C of E has an entire system, or corpus of belief, or whether its system is a few things leaving the rest to interpretation. I would say the second of those options.
I reject your second statement re: the filioque.
The C of E has always claimed with its orders to be Catholic in one way or another and that is easy to prove historically. The two major other churches who claim to have catholic orders are the RC's and the Orthodox (obviously there are churches like the Syrian Orthodox etc as well). The OoW in the C of E casts serious doubts for me on its own catholicity.
--------------------
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
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
So, cutting through all the fancy stuff, your definition of "catholic" is "what Rome says". I really cannot interpret all you've written in any other way, since your only objection to Bp. Matthews boils down to "Rome hasn't done it".
We've had this one before on the Ship, and the person involved finally did what his intellect and his logic and his heart told him to, and swam the Tiber.
And by the way, though I'm sure you didn't do it intentionally, your omitting of the Lutherans as a major western church believing itself to be catholic is most illuminating. Either you don't understand that the Lutherans believe themselves to be catholic, or you don't (being in the UK) realize that throughout the western world, the Lutherans are at least as major a denomination as the Anglicans.
And, as a Canadian, can I say that your position (not on OoW specifically) smacks a great deal of "I'm English, I belong to the Church of England, and anyone outside the southern part of this island who claims to be anglican can take a running jump."
John
[ 29. October 2006, 00:33: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Its a shame you are focussing in on my membership of the C of E - a position I have elaborated on other threads rather than the arguement I am presenting.
I am arguing generally against the ordination of women - I am not just thinking about the C of E/Anglican Communion - whatever.
I probably do see myself more as a member of the C of E as opposed to the Anglican Communion. Thats more to do with the fact that some provinces I think are so far gone that there is nothing that can be done about them - as opposed to my 'englishness' - actually I am a dual US/UK national who probably has more foreign blood in him than English blood - I certainly don't consider myself English.
--------------------
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
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
Its a shame you are focussing in on my membership of the C of E
There's a simple reason for that - it's relevant to your argument here.
You have said to ordain women is wrong. You have also says that "the Church" cannot err. The CofE, of which you are a part, ordains women. Therefore either the CofE has erred, and its position as part of "the Church" is in doubt, or it is not wrong to ordain women.
Which do you think it is?
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
I have never on the thread said I am taking a C of E standpoint. That has been an assumption by others.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) But that is not the point! Late Paul and I have both put the question to you in similar terms - it seems to me that you are trying to wriggle out where no wriggle room exists!
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
If I understand you correctly, you are asking how I reconcile my statement that the church cannot err with the fact that in my view, that C of E has done just that.
I have already said someone on this thread that I believe that the C of E has erred and, consequently, I now have serious doubts about it being 'the Church'.
--------------------
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
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
VPG, it sounds to me like you're in an untenable position.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
If you mean churchwise, I would agree - increasingly so.
--------------------
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 Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
The OoW in the C of E casts serious doubts for me on its own catholicity.
This might be unfair (tell me if it is), but I'm seeing a circular line of reasoning here.
You seem to be defining "catholic" as if part of the definition was "opposed to the (purported) ordination of women". Thus you can question the catholicity of Victoria Matthews without citing any other fact except that she is a female bishop.
But then you give as your main reason for opposing OOW the fact that it's not catholic. Well, obviously it's not, if you define "catholic" specifically to exclude it.
--------------------
"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
I don't just define catholic as women exclusion -it for me consists of a whole corpus of beliefs, one of the consequenses/knock on's is that cannot be any grammatical connection between women and priests in the same way that saying I as a man can give birth makes no sense.
I find it really difficult to include within catholicity. There is no arguement which to me stands up either from scripture, tradition or anything. I can only see it as wishful thinking.
Some one the thread accept that really there is no biblical evidence for it yet persist. Similarly, there are those who say whilst it hasn't been a part of revealed tradition it should be now. Then there are those who I would argue's initial starting point derives from the subjugation of women in history which is, for some reason I can't quite work out, some form of justification for a female priesthood - I really apologise to all for this post of exasperation which I am sure is entirely mutual (and in all your cases completely justified) but if you will allow me to relapse into slang - I just ain't getting 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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
That makes some sense to me.
I think where we differ is that the fact that ordaining women is (relatively speaking) a new thing is for you a very powerful argument against it, but for me it is no argument at all either way.
--------------------
"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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
So what defines this "whole corpus" of Catholic belief and practice?
The ealiest Church of the Apostles? Or the early church of people like Ignatius and Clement? The Church as it was at the time of the undeniably ecumenical Councils? Or the western church that split into Protestant and Roman Catholic at the Reformation? Or modern Roman doctrine?
If the last of those, how do you justify accepting the innovations of Rome since the Reformation - in doctrine as well as practice - while rejecting anything done by the Protestants?
How far back do you have to wind the clock?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
It's clearly a contradiction in terms to speak of a "male girl" or a "female uncle". And not that long ago it would have been unheard of in many parts of the world, though not illogical in the same way, to speak of a female doctor or a female voter.
The fact is that Anglicans and Lutherans (among other groups) have for some time been ordinaining women as priests and bishops and have now chosen the American equivalent of a female archbishop.
These haven't been the decisions of despotic individuals, but of clergy and laypeople, seeking in councils to discern God's will and the moving of the Holy Spirit. I have no reason to think that they haven't been prayerful or that they haven't meditated on the scriptures. All sorts of Biblican arguments have been cited, for and against female ordination. From the perspective of these churches and synods or councils, this is part of tradition, part of the development of doctrine, just as the Catholics and, yes, even the Orthodox, have seen developments in teaching and practice.
There are loyal Catholics who believe that the Magisterium will eventually move in this direction, and who see advocacy for this development as part of a calling within the Church.
It has been suggested on this thread that no Orthodox has ever advocated that women be ordained, though this article suggests otherwise, and here is an interview with Bishop Kallistos Ware full of thoughtful perspectives -- for example, quote:
In Greece, for example, theological schools are full of women, and what are they going to do when they have completed their studies? Many of them will go on to teach religion at the state schools where there is religious education. But how is the Church going to use them, and will they be given roles as teachers in the pastoral ministry of the Church? I hope they will. That is something we might think about. All these women who go with enthusiasm to study theology, are they going to be disappointed by finding that the Church authorities say to them that we really don’t need you? Surely that is not good enough.
and quote:
The best definition I know of Holy Tradition is that given by Vladimir Lossky: “Holy Tradition is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.” In that definition, let us notice particularly the word, life. Holy Tradition is not simply definitions that are written down, fixed and irrevocable. Holy Tradition is something alive—it is not simply mechanical acceptance of things from the past; it is listening to the Holy Spirit in the present. Lossky even says that “Tradition represents the critical spirit of the Church.” All right then, in full loyalty to Tradition, let us adopt a critical position over such rules as women not being allowed to receive communion during their monthly periods and against the rules that girls are not to be brought into the sanctuary at churching. Let us be critical of this and say, “Why do these rules exist?” If there is no good reason, we should change them.
and, finally, quote:
Women now in all spheres of life are doing work alongside men… What about the Church? Here, too, women are asking to be given a share, and they are right to ask for that. If there are certain things within the Church that women cannot do, we must give a reason—not just say it has always been so and it will always be so. We must give a reason.
Now it's possible to take the view that ordination of women is a precipitate move on the part of some Christians, and that a change this serious can't be made without the assent of more of the whole catholic church. It's also possible to take the view that this is simple heresy or that the devil and not the Holy Spirit has inspired the decision to ordain women. In this case, I guess some would say, the groups that ordain women have left the catholic Church, or that Bishop Kallistos (whom I met, many years ago, and experienced as a deeply learned, humble and saintly man) is no longer Orthodox. I think this is entirely wrong, but it's at least a consistent position.
What doesn't work for me, at least, is an assertion that a female priest or bishop is a logical or inherent contradiction in terms.
[ 29. October 2006, 21:20: Message edited by: cor ad cor loquitur ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
I think I have suggested myself on this thread (if not on this one, on another one) that the position of the Orthodox Church is more open on this - I do seem to remember reading a collection of essays which called for the reintroduction of the female diaconate asap in which Bishop Kallistos wrote something - though I'm neither sure what on, or what the title of the book was.
I think though that that view is that of a tiny minority although I concede that from an Orthodox perspective, it seems to me, as a non Orthodox, potentially pretty powerful.
I am not accusing those who support the OoW as being despotic. I believe them, with prayerful hearts, to truly believe that they are doing the right thing and even though they know they cause hurt, they believe it will ultimately be for the best.
Naturally, I believe the opposite and think that they had already decided the OoW was ok before they started debating and thinking about it. I suppose that is what we have been discussing over the last few pages. I similarly think some things are finite for a reason.
In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, there has been consistent and continuous teaching against the OoW. Pope Shenouda III of the Coptic Church has also clearly ruled it out.
Whilst there may be loyal Catholics who want the church's teaching to change, the magisterium is not moving in that direction at all and so its teaching at present must be upheld - that is part of the nature of being disciplined. Otherwise, people just believe what they want. Within Orthodoxy generally, there has been more moves against the OoW than for it although Lossky clearly has a fair point. If one goes to the website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and to the Multimedia Video section, Patriarch Bartholomew whom I have met, seems pretty definitive against the OoW. That's one example of a senior orthodox prelate - lets not even think about Patriarch Alexei II (too OTT for me !).
I've read Lossky's 'Mystical Theology'. I'm not actually sure what his position was on this issue - I'd be interested to know.
Ken - I think the greatest innovation in Christianity has been sola scriptura. I think that's a discussion for another thread.
I'm pretty sure there is something I haven't addressed response wise here - so do press me on it !
[ 29. October 2006, 22:23: 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
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
It's clearly a contradiction in terms to speak of a "male girl" or a "female uncle". And not that long ago it would have been unheard of in many parts of the world, though not illogical in the same way, to speak of a female doctor or a female voter.
Amusingly in Irish, the word for girl (cailín) is masculine.
More seriously, I think a major part of disagreement over the OoW comes down to whether you think that female priest as inherently as illogical as male girl or female uncle (i.e. gender is part of the definition of priest) or whether it is like female doctor/voter* ruled out by culture not logic.
I have yet to be convinced why priest is inherently male.
Carys
*Avoiding questions of grammatical endings for now
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
I'm pretty sure there is something I haven't addressed response wise here - so do press me on it !
Yes, you haven't addressed the question of how you can talk of "The Church" having a view on something when you are a member of "a church" which has a different view. And the church which takes your view thinks your church is no church at all.
--------------------
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 Carys:
I have yet to be convinced why priest is inherently male.
I have yet to be convinced that the opponents of women priests do not think of God as inherently male.
Every attempt we've seen here to fudge the issue by constructing some idea of "masculine" that is quite separate from "male" just seems to dig the pit deeper.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I have yet to be convinced that the opponents of women priests do not think of God as inherently male.
How fortunate we don't care what you think about our concept of God or how you arrive at this conclusion, and that it has nothing to do with the conversation so far.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
Paige said:
quote:
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.
Hear, hear!!
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I have yet to be convinced why priest is inherently male.
And I doubt I ever will be, seeing as both women and men are created in the image of God.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
"Yes, you haven't addressed the question of how you can talk of "The Church" having a view on something when you are a member of "a church" which has a different view. And the church which takes your view thinks your church is no church at all."
Well I am coming round to their view - soon I would imagine it will be my church.
I suppose the question really is whether Jesus' coming down in male form was necessary. He did come down among us as truly man and truly God. Is it that we need to represent at the altar ?
--------------------
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 MouseThief:
How fortunate we don't care what you think about our concept of God or how you arrive at this conclusion
Then why have you stuck with this conversation about a church you are not a member of through over two years and hundreds and hundreds of posts?
quote:
and that it has nothing to do with the conversation so far. [/QB]
On the contrary. It is one of the most central points. The ordination of women to the priesthood is a defence against the unintenitonal but inevitable propagation the heretical (and nonesensical) view of God as male.
It is also a defence against the inherent tendency of a celibate all-male priesthood to reproduce anti-material anti-incarnational Gnostic heresies - again probably uninentional (though I have my doubts about some of the weirder shores of self-flagellation) but certainly there.
There are theological reasons for all this. Ordination of women speaks of the fullness and reality of the Incarnation.
--------------------
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 Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
I suppose the question really is whether Jesus' coming down in male form was necessary. He did come down among us as truly man and truly God.
Yes. But why do you think maleness is more important than any other biological character that he must have had? Why is his sex more important to salvation history than the colour of his hair?
quote:
Is it that we need to represent at the altar ?
Bread and wine represent him at the altar.
If you want to take the argument about sex being imnportant to Eucharistic repreentation to its absurd conclusion, the grain and fruit used to make it were presumably borne on female parts of their parent plants. Both wheat and vines are dioecious - more or less what we'd call hermaphrodite. No-one would think that the sex of the plants was very relevant. Why the sex of the priest?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
I think I have suggested myself on this thread (if not on this one, on another one) that the position of the Orthodox Church is more open on this - I do seem to remember reading a collection of essays which called for the reintroduction of the female diaconate asap in which Bishop Kallistos wrote something - though I'm neither sure what on, or what the title of the book was.
Throughout the centuries, there can be examples of women diaconesses. In fact, I think that even in the 1960's, such women existed. They were not in much use, but they existed. The key point, however, is that they are not female deacons! Their role is different and very specific. The name might seem similar, but the essence of their role is different. Hence women diaconesses are not ordained into priesthood.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I have yet to be convinced why priest is inherently male.
And I doubt I ever will be, seeing as both women and men are created in the image of God.
Priesthood is not a role of God. Therefore, it does not have to do with us being in the image of God. Priesthood is about us creatures. Hence, Christ becomes our High Priest when He becomes man, but not before He became a man. So, I don't think that it has to do with our humanity. Hence the idea that it has to do with our manhood does not fall by the use of the "in the image of God" argument.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But why do you think maleness is more important than any other biological character that he must have had? Why is his sex more important to salvation history than the colour of his hair?
Priesthood is not the most important thing. Therefore it is not a matter of maleness being the most important biological character. Salvation is traditionally brought through the Incarnation. However, this says little about what happens with His High-Priesthood. Salvation is one thing, priesthood is another.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
It has been suggested on this thread that no Orthodox has ever advocated that women be ordained, though this article suggests otherwise, and here is an interview with Bishop Kallistos Ware full of thoughtful perspectives
If bishop Kallistos wanted to question the manhood of priests, he could have done so. But he didn't. He questioned things like menses, etc. I join him in his questioning, but I do not think that this has something to do with women priests.
Regarding the article, diaconesses have nothing to do with the diaconate. It's something else. Diakono is a common word that means help.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Paige said:
quote:
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.
Hear, hear!!
This is the most important empirical evidence for women priests, but Paige being a non-Orthodox, I cannot take his word for it...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
Bishop Kallistos said, in the interview quote:
The order of deaconess was never abolished, it merely fell into disuse. Should we not revive it? If we do, what are to be the functions of deaconesses? They should not necessarily, in the twentieth or twenty-first century, be doing exactly what they were doing in the third or fourth century. The order may be the same, yet shouldn’t we rethink the functions that the deaconess might have? On my understanding of the evidence, they were regarded as ordained persons on an equal footing as the male deacons. (There is some dispute in the Orthodox world about that, but my reading of the evidence is quite clear—that they have not just a blessing but an ordination).
With that, I'm going to end my participation in this thread.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But why do you think maleness is more important than any other biological character that he must have had? Why is his sex more important to salvation history than the colour of his hair?
Priesthood is not the most important thing. Therefore it is not a matter of maleness being the most important biological character. Salvation is traditionally brought through the Incarnation. However, this says little about what happens with His High-Priesthood. Salvation is one thing, priesthood is another.
So you agree with me and disagree with GPV?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear cor ad cor loquitur
OK. When the Church in Greece a few years ago discussed the issue, a committee was created to study all the historical evidence and the theological implications. Their unanimous conclusion was that while ordained (in the Orthodox Church even readers are ordained; ordination per se does not imply priesthood), their status and role was different to that of deacons. Hence, after discussion, the bishops said that diaconesses are not women deacons, but something else. Moreoever, they said that this has been the faith of the Church, and this is what they knew about diaconesses even before the discussion was made.
It's not just the historical evidence from the ancient times... Like I said, we had diaconesses in Greece even in the 60's. The people who ordained them know well why they ordained them and to what role they ordained them....
Dear ken,
I disagree with Vesture-Posture-Gesture's ecclesiology. I do think however that what it means to be male needs to be examined very carefully in this debate. If maleness has nothing to do with priesthood, then women can become priests.
I am more inclined to think that priesthood is connected with maleness. I also think that the experience of the women Saints and mothers of the ancient Church agrees with that understanding. However, if this debate was to be held in Orthodoxy, I would follow the majority opinion as expressed in a pan-Orthodox council.
I want to express my sadness though that what it means to be male and what it means to be female are not examined by the people in depth.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear cor ad cor loquitur
I see now that bishop Kallistos says what you said he says. I was not aware of his opinion on the matter. I want to reply that in Orthodoxy, in such issues, the majority opinion of the council is followed by the Church. Bishop Kallistos would be one bishop of the council, if a council was to be held. Is his opinion the majority opinion? I think not.
Dear ken
No, I don't agree with you! You seem to place on priesthood a far more important character than what it has. You bind it with salvation.
You say: "But why do you think maleness is more important than any other biological character that he must have had?" As far as I can tell, nobody says that maleness is more important than any other biological character Christ had. However, one does not have to say that in order to claim that priesthood is connected with maleness!
You also say that: "Why is his sex more important to salvation history than the colour of his hair?" As far as I can tell, some linked priesthood with sex, not salvation with sex. Is priesthood linked to salvation? I think not. Salvation is possible because the Word became human, but it does not follow that priesthood is possible because one (in this example: Christ) is something else along with being a man.
[ 30. October 2006, 14:20: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Whilst I would never wish to denigrate the wondrous and saving miracle of the Incarnation, is it really the teaching of the Orthodox churches that Christ's offering of hisself on the Cross - that is to say, his priesthood – is unimportant for our salvation? I was under the impression that one of the most vital aspects of the Holy Incarnation was that it provided us with a spotless High Priest whose blood spoke more powerfully than that of bulls… or am I mistaken here?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I haven't thought about it that way... This explains why ken linked priesthood with salvation...
I can only give a personal opinion here. When I think about salvation, I focus on kenosis, not offering. I see that the two are inter-connected. Hm... Now that gives an interesting spin to our discussion (from my point of view, that is)...
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
