|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
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.
No! I very definitely don't do that and I have tried to explain why dozens of times in this bloated thread! Christian priests are elders, persons appointed to an office in the church. They are not ikons of Christ, representatives of Christ to the congregation, representatives of the congregtion to God, mediators, sacrificers, sacrifices, or any of those things. (we all participate in those things in Christ, not individually)
It was GPV & some of the other catholics and Anglo-catholics here who are saying that the priest has to in some way model the incarnation. Not me
quote:
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.
Well yes they do. People are claiming that on this thread. They are saying that Jesus's maleness is significant for salvation, and that priests must be male because of that. I'm arguing the exact opposite.
quote:
it does not follow that priesthood is possible because one (in this example: Christ) is something else along with being a man.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this.
--------------------
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
I agree that priests are not icons of Christ and that Christ's maleness is not essential to salvation.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
I do believe that priests offer the Mass and absolve penitents in persona Christi. But I do not believe that they need to share any particular biological characteristic of His to do so. And, I'm afraid, Andreas, that I do not consider "maleness" to be anything more than that.
MouseThief, I don't know about the Eastern Orthodox tradition, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church concedes that God is above gender, and that all terms we use to refer to Him (including that one) are human and imperfect.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear Liturgy Queen, we are not gnostics. Matter matters! The Word's humanity saves us, therefore biological characteristics do matter! And if priesthood is not a characteristic of God, then it is a characteristic of biological character!
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Dear Liturgy Queen, we are not gnostics. Matter matters! The Word's humanity saves us, therefore biological characteristics do matter! And if priesthood is not a characteristic of God, then it is a characteristic of biological character!
An interesting question, for another thread....
--------------------
"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
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
An interesting question, for another thread....
In Purgatory, Ordaining AIs and uplifted organisms
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
MouseThief, I don't know about the Eastern Orthodox tradition, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church concedes that God is above gender, and that all terms we use to refer to Him (including that one) are human and imperfect.
You clearly didn't understand what it was I was saying to ken.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Ah. In that case, I apologise.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
But I do not believe that they need to share any particular biological characteristic of His to do so.
I would be suprised if you actually believed this. For example, membership of the species homo sapiens is a biological characteristic. The point you are making is that a certain type of biological characteristic doesn't matter for the reception of orders.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Okay, any biological characteristic beyond our humanity in which Christ shared.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
In that case that's circular logic. You don't believe that maleness is important for priesthood, because you don't believe that maleness is important for priesthood.
[ 31. October 2006, 19:39: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
By the way, maleness is not just a biological characteristic. It is a set of characteristics, and it is because maleness and femaleness exist that it is meaningful to speak of humanity. Humanity exists in males and females, therefore, it is deeply connected with humanity!
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
By the way, maleness is not just a biological characteristic.
Yes it is "just biological". Masculinity might be a set of social characters emerging from and constrained by malenesas, but that's different.
quote:
it is because maleness and femaleness exist that it is meaningful to speak of humanity.
This looks like obscurantist sentimental handwaving to me. What does it actually mean?
quote:
Humanity exists in males and females
So do herrings.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Ken's right about the maleness/ masculinity thing. Difference between sex and gender, and all that.
Doesn't settle the question of women's ordination. von Balthasar, for example, has a wonderfully baroque, if not entirely convincing, theology of gender. But it does clarify the question which is being asked. And that is no bad thing.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
"Yes it is "just biological". Masculinity might be a set of social characters emerging from and constrained by malenesas, but that's different."
That is a load of codswallop. Men and Women do act differently only partly for social reasons. Do you not think that these arise out of biological ones ?
--------------------
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 Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
"Yes it is "just biological". Masculinity might be a set of social characters emerging from and constrained by malenesas, but that's different."
That is a load of codswallop. Men and Women do act differently only partly for social reasons. Do you not think that these arise out of biological ones ?
Yes, that's what I said in the sentence you quioted. What made you think I didn't think that?
What I don't belive is that these differences reflect any fundamental spiritual insights into the nature of God.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
...or rather that, it they do, it is not to the benefit of human males any more than of females. What's being debated is not whether men and women differ, but whether being able to validly respond to a calling to the Sacred Ministry is one of these differences.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
I would have thought that was pretty clear from scripture, reason and tradition.
--------------------
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
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
If it was perfectly clear we would not be on page 25 of this thread!
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
I would have thought that was pretty clear from scripture, reason and tradition.
And that is the problem in a nutshell - I completely agree with this statement but in the other direction! Tricky, no?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Well I would say that there is no way you can justify your position on the basis of those three.
I think its one we will have to disagree on ![[Smile]](smile.gif) !
--------------------
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:
Well I would say that there is no way you can justify your position on the basis of those three.
I think its one we will have to disagree on !
VPG---can you read?!?!? There are 25 pages of justification on all three. The Scriptures say that we are all made in the image of God. Tradition has changed over the centuries to include the marginalized. Experience tells many of us that women priests are indeed called by God.
We can most certainly justify our position. You may not agree with the outcome we reach, but you *cannot* say we have not justified our position!
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
I think they are justificatory in the minds of those who have already decided on the outcome before they start.
If you start from the beginning and look outwards towards where we are now, it seems patently irrational.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
With the best will in the world, I think that brick wall feeling will just have to remain mutual !!
I'm actually in the curious position of previously supporting the OoW but have actually changed it. I considered it obvious that it should happen when the first C of E 'ordinations' happened in 1994(? I think) I even watched it on TV. Certainly wasn't watching anything today though
--------------------
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 think they are justificatory in the minds of those who have already decided on the outcome before they start.
Pot, meet kettle... ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
I'm actually in the curious position of previously supporting the OoW but have actually changed it. I considered it obvious that it should happen when the first C of E 'ordinations' happened in 1994(? I think) I even watched it on TV. Certainly wasn't watching anything today though
That is quite a curious position. If you didn't object, I would be quite interested to know how this change came about...
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
The short story (although I can elaborate further privately if you wish) is that when I came to study it, I couldn't find any reason for it and, indeed, came increasingly to see it as something deriving not out of revalation, but out of purely wordly concern.
--------------------
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
And I see the exclusively male priesthood as an archaic remnant of the culture(s) from which Christianity sprang and that people who are clinging to this anachronism are clinging to a concept that has had built around it a mighty edifice of rationalizations to prop up what is essentially ancient, patriarchal misogyny: that women aren't essentially human in the way that men are and thus can't bear any essential likeness to Christ. I'm not saying you, VPG, believe that way, but to bolster "tradition" which people have decided must be true "because we've always done it this way" volumes of justifications have been written.
Egalitarianism is part and parcel of our culture; misogyny was part and parcel of the Roman Empire, Hellenism, and the Hebrew world. Both are and were cultural assumptions of "worldly concern" IMO. I think ours is better. Just because yours is older doesn't make it better or more valid.
[ 07. November 2006, 00:18: 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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
The short story (although I can elaborate further privately if you wish) is that when I came to study it, I couldn't find any reason for it and, indeed, came increasingly to see it as something deriving not out of revalation, but out of purely wordly concern.
And I find that so insulting I cannot reply within the rules of this forum.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Sigh - Ken with respect it is that spittle flying attitude which polarises my view even more, seeing the rampant discrimination against good priests and laity in the C of E who take a Catholic line at present. I'm not vitriolic or anything, merely stating a view which isn't exactly so out of the ordinary its ridiculous, being to all intents doctrine since Christ Himself founded the church.
Lyda*Rose as I think I've said before I believe God is beyond cultural norms so if you want to deny what's in the Bible as purely a cultural context that's fine, its just not for me. If you respond to that well there are lots of bits in it which need interpreting and are potentially wrong/contradictory/difficult I would respond, that is why we have the Church to interpret it for us. Am I going to think what I want, or go with one of the instruments given to us to do so. No one has really challenged my position that the OoW movement derives in part from the feminist movement. The only responses have been 'ok yes it has, but does that make it wrong ?'. Well obviously it does because if anything is a purely cultural norm, that is it !
I don't think its a question of whether its better, its a question of 1) is it right ? or 2)if its part of a discipline, learning to live with it. No one said Christianity would be easy.
I similarly think Christianity was counter cultural in the Roman Empire and Hellenistic World as I've said before and again, will point out that a no women priesthood would have actually been counter cultural for the time, society being full of high priestesses 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
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
There are a couple of grammatical blips in that. Sorry about those.
--------------------
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
|
|
JimS
Shipmate
# 10766
|
Posted
We have had a women priest for about 18 months. She is head and shoulders above the previous male incumbent in terms of quality of worship and pastoral work, and our congregation has shown steady growth since she arrived. One of the congregation told me that although she intellectually believed that women could be priests, she still found that she was prejudiced against the women priest. She (the congregant) is a life-long feminist.
On another matter, surely it is the point of 1 Timothy 2:1 that there were women priests in the early church.
--------------------
Jim:Confused of Crewe
Posts: 137 | From: uk | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Sorry, which part of 1 Timothy 2:1 are you referring to ? My reading of it says something opposite. I mean 1 Timothy 2.12 states "I do not permit women to teach".
I'm not questioning that women who would see themselves as priests can be and in many cases are effective pastorally. I have had a deeply moving experience in that regard at a time of huge personal distress. I am saying that they aren't priests and that their Eucharist isn't valid therefore, laity are not receiveing the Grace they should be receiving. This may be offensive, but I would rather be honest with people as to where I stand, as opposed to hide behind many words.
[ 07. November 2006, 09:43: 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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
Sigh - Ken with respect it is that spittle flying attitude which polarises my view even more
What I think is offensive, VPG, is not your opposition to women priests, but your criticism of those who disagree with you as arguing in bad faith. You seem to characterise our position of being one of justifying with specious arguments a decision which we made from cultural prejudice without thinking and without trying to discern God's will.
As this is palably untrue in fact, and intellectually dishonest in method (because you use it to dismiss arguments without engaging with them), it is unsurprising that it draws a small amount of spittle, although on this occasion, less than its merits.
quote:
No one has really challenged my position that the OoW movement derives in part from the feminist movement. The only responses have been 'ok yes it has, but does that make it wrong ?'. Well obviously it does because if anything is a purely cultural norm, that is it !
How is the feminist movement a "purely cultural norm"? Is God quite indifferent to whether we treat a set of human beings as equals or not? How could he be?
In so far as feminism has abolished injustice, increased charity, deepened understanding, and sought to work out in life the gospel truth that in Christ male and female alike find equal value and fulfillment, then it is not a purely cultural norm. It is the instrument of God, sent in answer to the prayer of his Church that his will should be done on earth as in heaven.
There may well be all manner of bad results from feminism. As a human movement, motives are bound to be mixed. That does not discredit the ordination of women any more than it discredits the principle of equal pay. If you want to argue that association with feminism is a taint, it is for you to show that it arises from the elements in that movement that proceed from sinful humanity, and not those elements that may be providential. This you have failed to do.
You have also failed to set out any clear argument against ordaining women. You have said that it's against scripture (which is doubtful) reason (which is incomprehensible) and tradition (which until recently was true, but is an incomplete answer). Presumably there is a reason why tradition did not sanction the ordination of women for some time - either because it served, and still serves, some important purpose to have a male only priesthood, or because human beings were resisting the Holy Spirit. There is some evidence that human beings were resisting the Spirit, because in ever other field, it can be seen that human cultures dominated by one sex (male) have treated the other very badly, and denied them all sorts of rights. There isn't a particularly clear argument why the priestly sphere is the one place where God wants us to deny female competence.
--------------------
"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
quote:
I don't think its a question of whether its better, its a question of 1) is it right ? or 2)if its part of a discipline, learning to live with it. No one said Christianity would be easy.
Easy for you to say; you are not one that has been denigrated by Tradition™.
As to Roman pagan priestesses, you say that a priest has to represent Christ which is the function of Christian priests; whatever pagan priests and priestesses represented, it was a matter of each cult's theology. This is an example written by a Roman contemporary of the role of a priestess. If you think this is analogous to Christian worship that's your perogative.
Being human as Christ was isn't enough for you; it has to be a male human. The fact that "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" just means that man was created in God's image and woman was a kind of side project with little similarity to God. And "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" means a Jewish or Gentile or slave or free man can represent the humanity of Christ, but women need not apply.
Yeah, real counter-cultural.
There was and is nothing counter-cultural about relegating women to the "colored people" counter of our faith.
--------------------
"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
Christ came down amongst us as male and died for us all, whilst man.
--------------------
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
|
|
Cranmer's baggage
Ship's Opinionated Dame
# 1662
|
Posted
Christ came down to earth as a Jew, and died for us, while a Jew.
It's a hoary old argument, the scandal of particularity. Most scholars agree that the particularity of the incarnation was necessary to the incarnation, but not to salvation. (i.e. Jesus had to be one thing, not another, but this does not mean that only those who share in that particular thing (gender, ethnicity, whatever) are or can be saved by the work of Christ.
If the particularity of gender is not relevant with regard to salvation, why should it be pertinent to priesthood?
Note: I'm not expecting to hear anything new in reply - 'tis the nature of dead horses that they don't seem to go anywhere new. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Eschew obfuscation!
Posts: 1537 | From: the apple isle | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
I assure you no anger flowed from my typing as I wrote that before. Perhaps it is utter anguish as opposed to anything else.
I suppose the Scripture(Doubtful), Reason (rubbish), Tradition (once was true, but now isn't) is what I don't understand the most.
It seems obvious to me, as people have said on this thread many moons before I have that it is all pretty clear. Scripture is clear and my previous comment about Acts I was rejected as purely being a cultural norm of the time and not worth bothering about.
The reason for doing it has to be within the context of the whole corpus of the system of thought, coming from within it, rather than from the outside. I think the OoW comes from that outside. I will go and dig up my books on feminist theory from the 1960s to highlight this point - your point (Eliab's) about needing more examples being, I think, fair.
To say that tradition has now decided to move in another direction I can't accept as it is only in a minority of churches (even provinces if we zoom in on the Anglican Comunion) which do this. The Anglican Communion, Anglicanism in fact, has no real coherent system of thought of its own which is why it could just take things from the context of the time I think.
--------------------
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
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Did He not choose men Himself to represent Him in a particular way Cranmer's Baggage ?
--------------------
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
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
I should have added its symbollically more sensible if one considers the Church as Bride of Christ, to have a male priest to represent Christ, otherwise the notion of Church as Bride is somewhat skewed.
--------------------
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
|
|
Cranmer's baggage
Ship's Opinionated Dame
# 1662
|
Posted
If you mean "were not the 12 disciples all male?" then the answer is, obviously, yes. However, He also chose to allow women to serve him in a variety of ways which were outside the societal norms of the day, a pattern which appears to be reflected in the ordering of the earliest churches.
I'm not sure how far this takes us, however, because you are assuming that there is a direct equivalency in nature and order between the disciples and the 3-fold priesthood, of which I am far from convinced.
--------------------
Eschew obfuscation!
Posts: 1537 | From: the apple isle | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cranmer's baggage
Ship's Opinionated Dame
# 1662
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
I should have added its symbollically more sensible if one considers the Church as Bride of Christ, to have a male priest to represent Christ, otherwise the notion of Church as Bride is somewhat skewed.
Again, I have heard this argument many times (and I'm sure I'm not alone in that) and remain unpersuaded. It presumes a certain understanding of what it means for the priest to be the icon of Christ, and ignores the fact that the priest is at the same time representative of the Church - on which grounds one could argue, though I am not doing so, that it is more fitting to have a female priest.
--------------------
Eschew obfuscation!
Posts: 1537 | From: the apple isle | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
"If you mean "were not the 12 disciples all male?" then the answer is, obviously, yes. However, He also chose to allow women to serve him in a variety of ways which were outside the societal norms of the day, a pattern which appears to be reflected in the ordering of the earliest churches."
I agree with you completely and Amen to it ! However even in the earliest churches the roles the women are performing are different - just as important but different. Ok we will just have to disagree on the three fold order.
--------------------
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
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Yes but not at the words of instutition.
--------------------
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
|
|
Cranmer's baggage
Ship's Opinionated Dame
# 1662
|
Posted
Again, I think we are stuck at an impasse on two issues - firstly, the nature of sacerdotal priesthood, and secondly, the scandal of particularity.
Having read the thread in full, I'm sure you're aware of how many times we've been round this loop already. I don't expect to persuade you. I don't even want to try. But I do think you need to accept that many of us have, in good faith, studied the same material as you have, with equal care and diligence, and reached an entirely different conclusion.
--------------------
Eschew obfuscation!
Posts: 1537 | From: the apple isle | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
As I have said before, I accept that those discussing this issue here do so in good faith and confidence in their convictions.
It ultimately for me comes down to whether it is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit or not. I would imagine our differing ecclesiologies lead us to different conclusions.
--------------------
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 Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
Sigh - Ken with respect it is that spittle flying attitude which polarises my view even more,
Spittle-flying?
What are you on?
I was trying hard not to be insulting to you in return to your continued accusation that the only reason anyone supports the ordination of women is is all worldliness and fashion and going with the flow.
So, being boringly repetitive, we have good theological and scriptural reasons for supporting the ordination of women. Some have been mentioned here. You have not talked about them at all - merely claimed that you once supported it and now have some sort of revelation from God that it is all worldliness.
--------------------
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:
No one has really challenged my position that the OoW movement derives in part from the feminist movement. The only responses have been 'ok yes it has, but does that make it wrong ?'. Well obviously it does because if anything is a purely cultural norm, that is it !
There are three possible ways you could have written that sentence:
1) you have not in fact read this thread, where your position has been challeneged a bumber of times
2) you have read this thread but have forgotten or ignored what others have been saying
3) you have read this thread but are lying to wind us up
Which is it?
--------------------
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 Lyda*Rose:
you say that a priest has to represent Christ which is the function of Christian priests;
This might be Roman Catholic argument, but it is not an Orthodox argument. We do not connect human priests with Christ, because we understand Christ Himself performing the spiritual priestly roles during the sacraments. So, justified opposition against a possible Roman understanding does not clarify the issue from an Orthodox point of view.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
