|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
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.
I don't have a horse in this race, not being a Christian, but I cannot accept that God would ever withhold grace from those who pray for it in good faith. 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
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
Christ came down amongst us as male and died for us all, whilst man.
He was also born lived and died as a Jewish man and as unmarried man too.
Do you also believe that Christian priests have to be unmarried and/or of Jewish background?
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Let's see -- a Muslim/Jewish man gets two points out of three (male and circumcized) whereas a female Christian gets only one (Christian). Isn't it obvious which should be the priest?
(And lest you claim I'm taking the mickey, let me assure you, that seems to me to be a perfectly good interpretation of what VPG seems to be saying.)
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
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.
There is an assumption at work here that there is one "Catholic" line on OoW.
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.
I have a problem with this. It seems to me that symbolism is an insufficient argument. If the symbols cease to serve us, we should re-examine them.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Symbolism was considered so important for the early church that they forbade priests to remarry and encouraged celibacy.
I would of course, argue that there is one official Catholic position.
--------------------
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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
What has remarriage to do with symbolism?
And who is denying symbolism here?
Anyways, I find the two arguments "in the person of Christ" and "symbolism" to be quite off the mark here... Just like I find the argument "we are all in the image of God" to be off the mark as well...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Let's see -- a Muslim/Jewish man gets two points out of three (male and circumcized) whereas a female Christian gets only one (Christian). Isn't it obvious which should be the priest?
But John, it's even worse than that. Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian, and so were the 12, at least when he called them. From this, we can determine that the scores should be:
Jewish man: 3/3
Muslim man: 2/3
Christian woman: 0/3 Must try harder
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
VPG, the Catholic Church teaches explicitly that invalid sacraments, received inculpably and in a state of charity, can and do confer grace. The difference is that they do not confer grace by virtue of being sacraments. I would not bolster any argument about anything sacramental by commenting on the grace received, or otherwise, by certain people. God will communicate God's life to whom God will.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
Symbolism was considered so important for the early church that they forbade priests to remarry and encouraged celibacy.
I would of course, argue that there is one official Catholic position.
Priestly marriage was not forbidden until well after 1200 in law. I don't know how you define the "early church" but it sure as heck was long gone before 1200.
In practice, priestly marriage continued until close to the Reformation. And there are lots of historians who will suggest it continued, again in practice, in the Roman church until the present day.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Whilst your facts are at some official level correct, any reading of the complete letters of Leo and Gregory the Great(s) would suggest otherwise and that there was a real concern for celibacy in the western church, probably at least as early (from a written point of view) as the 3rd Century - Leo I know is the 5th. (Having read all of both those Pope's surviving surviving letters word for word I assure you they bang on about celibacy, both as meaning sexual abstinence within marriage and no marriage at all pretty much every letter).
[ 08. November 2006, 19:20: 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
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Even during the Reformation living with concubines was common yes true, even to the point where the majority of agricultural communities considered it normal - but marriage was not and this sort of thing was discouraged by the church hierarchy - although of course there is the small problem of Alexander VI !
--------------------
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
To be perfectly blunt, it could not matter less what various Western Bishops or Popes wanted prior to the Great Schism. Until that point at least, the witness of the undivided church was the same as that still provided in an unbroken line in the Eastern churches, in which priests can be married. That's not a change. That's not an innovation. It's not an evil Orthodox blemish on the unsullied face of Catholic purity. It was the law and practice of "The Church" at least until the Schism, and of course in practice until much later.
That sundry bishops and popes wanted celibate priests is undoubtedly true, and over several centuries, they eventually got their way at least as regards the law.
But I come back to your original comment that priestly singleness was the practice of the "early church": that's simple nonsense, if words have their normal meaning.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
there was a real concern for celibacy in the western church, probably at least as early (from a written point of view) as the 3rd Century - Leo I know is the 5th. (Having read all of both those Pope's surviving surviving letters word for word I assure you they bang on about celibacy, both as meaning sexual abstinence within marriage and no marriage at all pretty much every letter).
Leo is mild compared with Jerome or Chrysostom!
Celibacy and virginity were obessions of aristocratic Roman society of the time, pagan as well as Christian. (And as for the Manichees...) It wasn't something that arose naturally or organically from within the Church, still less was it part of the revealed tradition handed down from the apostles. It was the Church conforming to the fashions and obsessions of pagan and secular culture.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
...but marriage was not and this sort of thing was discouraged by the church hierarchy - ...
I'm sorry I cannot provide any references, but it's my understanding that part of the push for celibacy among the clergy was to eliminate any possibility of church property being treated as an inheritance. If a priest has no children, then he doesn't have to worry about not having an estate to leave them. Of course, this resulted in lots of "nephews" receiving preferment in the church in lieu of an inheritance. 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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It wasn't something that arose naturally or organically from within the Church, still less was it part of the revealed tradition handed down from the apostles.
Of course... I mean, it's not that the head of our religion is a virgin born of a virgin...
Anyway, what is to be stressed is purity and the hatred of lusts. Justin the Martyr for example, in his first apology, explains:
quote:
And many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years; and I boast that I could produce such from every race of men.
quote:
But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children; or whether we decline marriage, we live continently.
Of course, in an era obsessed with sex like ours, these things, i.e. the hatred of pleasures, sound strange and perhaps even mistaken opinions, but nevertheless, they are the faith of the Saints delivered to them by Christ.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
VPG, the Catholic Church teaches explicitly that invalid sacraments, received inculpably and in a state of charity, can and do confer grace. The difference is that they do not confer grace by virtue of being sacraments. I would not bolster any argument about anything sacramental by commenting on the grace received, or otherwise, by certain people. God will communicate God's life to whom God will.
{{Sigh}} My confessor (who is from the university chaplaincy - and the uni is in an ultraliberal diocese) is trying to persuade me that if I go up for Communion, in, say, a United church, with the intention of meeting my saviour, I will do so. I think this view of the Eucharist is overly subjective. She thinks mine puts God in a box.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It was the Church conforming to the fashions and obsessions of pagan and secular culture.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose . . .
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Liturgy Queen - please don't misunderstand me. I don't, for one moment, think people should deliberately receive invalid sacraments. Sacraments are not simply dollops of grace, they are expressions of communion with the Church and her Lord. All I was doing was questioning VPG's pronouncing on the presence of grace.
If I were you, I'd ignore your chaplain.
[ 09. November 2006, 19:21: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
"Unimpressed by the calibre of women clergy"? I've never heard any such allegation about ++Rowan before, nor heard anybody suggest that female clergy are in any sense less competent than their male counterparts - indeed, FiF are always very careful to emphasise that this is not the substance of their objection.
Those of use who have seen our parishes "significantly renewed" by female clergy will certainly feel rather aggrieved, but I think that this is indeed just ++Rowan being punctilious and politic rather than casting serious doubt over female ministry.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
It's rather hard to see past the Torygraph's fairly predictable spin on that article. The BBC News site appears to have a more level-headed approach.
My response, in any case, is the same as in Purg. To say he can "just about envisage" the possibility of the church reconsidering "over a very long period" sounds like a precise, polite ecclesiastical equivalent of saying "OK, if a huge meteor hit the Earth, and if we were the only two human beings left alive, then I might consider going out with you."
It's nothing more or less than a very thoughtful and honest ABC considering the process, outcome and future with half an eye on his specific audience in this instance, i.e. Catholic Herald readers, followed by lots of tired old hacks completely misrepresenting his views, either through laziness, or in some cases malice or personal agendas.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
That's impression I got from it.
There is a precedent though for a church in communion with the C of E to reverse its decision (not that I'm implying the C of E will) - its the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia - obviously very sensible as far as I am concerned.
--------------------
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
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Do you know any of the circumstances under which this happened? Had any women actually been ordained in Latvia, and, if so, what became of them?
I doubt they can have been very happy...
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
And this is lukewarm about wone's ordination in what way?
quote:
... we did it because we thought it was right
[...] I think there was sufficient depth of theological conviction in the Church of England to feel that it would somehow be wrong and no real compliment to the Roman Catholic Church if we held back and said, 'Well, you know, we won't hurt your feelings'."
[...]
his conviction that he had done the right thing by backing women's ordination had not been fundamentally shaken.
[...]
"I don't think it has transformed or renewed the Church of England in spectacular ways. Equally, I don't think it has corrupted or ruined the Church of England in spectacular ways. It has somehow got into the bloodstream and I don't give it a second thought these days in terms of worship."
The article does nothing to shake my opinion that reporting on church and Christian matters in the British press is, by and large, biased bollocks.
--------------------
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
I think you're right Ken.
I have a feeling that none had been ordained when the reversal decision came. I will check up for you.
--------------------
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
++Rowan’s comments are interesting regarding the ordination of women and any possible future reconciliation with Rome. The Daily Telegraph link posted earlier:
quote:
He said that the fact that the Church of England was moving towards consecrating its first woman bishop would not make relations with Rome "any easier.”
Also from the same article, ++Rowan says:
quote:
"I don't think it has transformed or renewed the Church of England in spectacular ways. Equally, I don't think it has corrupted or ruined the Church of England in spectacular ways.”
.
I’m not sure how widespread this is among those who support the ordination of women but some people I’ve spoken to in Anglican circles have said the one the main things the Anglican Church can do to survive and thrive is to ordain women.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
I’m not sure how widespread this is among those who support the ordination of women but some people I’ve spoken to in Anglican circles have said the one the main things the Anglican Church can do to survive and thrive is to ordain women.
I guess I'm not understanding what the mechanism would be. That would change declining church attendance... how?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Well that’s my question exactly, how does the ordination of women help a church/diocese with declining attendance/membership?
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cranmer's baggage
Ship's Opinionated Dame
# 1662
|
Posted
Firstly Luke, I'm not sure that quote:
"one the main things the Anglican Church can do to survive and thrive is to ordain
women."
and quote:
"how does the ordination of women help a church/diocese with declining attendance/membership?"
are logical equivalents. That is to say - the ordination of women may be a sign of a healthy church, but that doesn't mean that ordaining women will, as a matter of course, reverse declining attendances.
Secondly, I've been involved in the OoW debate for as long as I can remember (at least 20 years - probably rather longer), and I've never heard anyone argue that ordaining women, simply because they were women, would be a benefit to the church. I have, however, heard two rather more nuanced arguments that might be caricatured in that way.
The first would be to contend that the future life of the church will be enhanced if the best available people are ordained to ministry. If women cannot be ordained, then half the potential pool of people whom God might call to priesthood is rendered unavailable, and the church is potentially impoverished thereby. (I know that for some opposed to OoW the notion of God calling women to priesthood is risible. That is, I'd suggest, a separate issue.)
The second argument is premised on two beliefs - that a healthy and growing church is one which is open to change in response to the leading of the Holy Spirit; and that the movement for the OoW is an example of such divine leading. The ordination of women is then one (of many possible) indicator of the openness and responsiveness of the church, and might therefore be expected to be accompanied by life and growth.
--------------------
Eschew obfuscation!
Posts: 1537 | From: the apple isle | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Cranmer's Baggage writes:
quote:
Secondly, I've been involved in the OoW debate for as long as I can remember (at least 20 years - probably rather longer), and I've never heard anyone argue that ordaining women, simply because they were women, would be a benefit to the church. I have, however, heard two rather more nuanced arguments that might be caricatured in that way.
Perhaps they are more nuanced in the Antipodes. In the 1970s and 1980s I heard that argument play a role in two forms. First, that a church with no gender bar for the priesthood would be taken more seriously by Canadian society at large, which did not bar women from the professions, judiciary, etc. Second, that for both profoundly personal as well as other reasons, many women believers would be more open to accept sacramental ministrations from women clergy than males. Certainly, the time of the debate in Canada, the former of the two arguments was fairly influential.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Second, that for both profoundly personal as well as other reasons, many women believers would be more open to accept sacramental ministrations from women clergy than males.
Not just women; I have a standing policy against seeing male confessors (doctors, too, in fact...).
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Second, that for both profoundly personal as well as other reasons, many women believers would be more open to accept sacramental ministrations from women clergy than males.
Not just women; I have a standing policy against seeing male confessors (doctors, too, in fact...).
Understood LQ (I too have a female GP), but the discussion at the time related to sexual abuse of women by clergy/teachers, which (according to those making the argument) had ended the ability of such women to have confidence in any male in a role involving trust. What men felt about it was not part of the discourse.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
In the 1970s and 1980s I heard that argument play a role in two forms. First, that a church with no gender bar for the priesthood would be taken more seriously by Canadian society at large, which did not bar women from the professions, judiciary, etc.
In the US, I think ordaining women doesn't make unchurched people think better of us, it just keeps them from thinking worse of us than they otherwise would. They see churches as old-fashioned, behind the times, so ordaining women just means we're reasonably up-to-date. It doesn't make unchurched people sit up and go, "Wow, how cool are they?! They ordain women!"
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Anglican church depends on having ordained priests to run parishes.
There weren't enough men wanting to be ordained in the 1970s & 80s
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Anglican church depends on having ordained priests to run parishes.
There weren't enough men wanting to be ordained in the 1970s & 80s
In Ontario, during that period, we had waiting lists, and prospective ordinands often had to take other jobs waiting for a curacy to open up. Mind you, it's always been difficult to staff northern and western parishes-- I am told that Saskatchewan dioceses have found the priesting of women very useful.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
The original interview with Rowan Williams, which was quoted by the Daily Telegraph, was conducted by the Catholic Herald.
I suspect there were some conservative Catholic agendas behind the interview, judging from the following quotes:
quote:
The archbishop expressed sadness that the expected ordination of women bishops in his Church would further damage Catholic-Anglican relations.
“Those of us who care about our relations with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches are going to find it very hard that this is going to be another cause of concern,” he said. “But we are in the process of discerning how and when [to ordain women bishops] and I don’t want to foreclose on that. I can’t see a theological objection, but we know that the practical cost is high. We all know that.”
quote:
One Vatican source said that the Anglican leader had “taken on board” the concerns of Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, who recently called on the Church of England not to ordain women bishops.
The source said: “Archbishop Williams has taken the cardinal’s points in this regard very seriously, so that while the Church of England doesn’t see theological obstacles to the ordination of women, they are thinking hard about how they can do so without tearing the episcopate apart.”
It's not clear to me that Rowan Williams has actually 'taken on board' the 'advice' not to have women bishops; it looks like hopefulness from conservative Roman Catholic opponents of women's ordination.
Also, let's not forget that the Pope has recently reiterated the rule of priestly celiacy for Roman Catholic priests. To my mind, this effective ban on married priests also suggests that he would not be in favour of women priests, seeing as many people tend to put the two together. The Catholic Herald article might be cynically using the Rowan Williams interview in order to shore up conservative Roman Catholics views on ordination.
Lastly, look at what Damian Thompson is quoted as saying to the Daily Telegraph in the original Telegraph article:
quote:
Damian Thompson, the editor-in-chief of The Catholic Herald, said: "Rowan Williams spent years campaigning for women priests, but now all he can say is that they have not spectacularly renewed or corrupted the Church of England.
"These comments will add to speculation that the archbishop is unimpressed by the calibre of many women clergy, which may be why he shows so little enthusiasm for the prospect of women bishops.
"No one seriously imagines the Church of England will stop ordaining women — but the fact that he even mentioned the possibility will cause apoplexy."
Damian Thompson's words here are downright unacceptable as journalism. He is putting words into Rowan Williams' mouth. Also it's a bit rich for him as the editor of the Herald to say that Williams' words will 'cause apoplexy' because Williams' words were replies to questions given in the interview by the Catholic Herald. It looks suspiciously like a setup to me.
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
I’m not sure how widespread this is among those who support the ordination of women but some people I’ve spoken to in Anglican circles have said the one the main things the Anglican Church can do to survive and thrive is to ordain women.
I guess I'm not understanding what the mechanism would be. That would change declining church attendance... how?
Thought #1
For a summer college job in the middle of 1975, I was out in the middle of nowhere Kansas surveying buildings for fallout shelters and the Crisis Relocation Program. (Didn't you know we would have at least 2 days notice before The Bomb would be dropped, so there would be time to prepare the middle of Kansas to receive people from Kansas City?)
Many of the church buildings I surveyed were pastored by women in part-time positions. The congregation could never had supported a full-time pastor, but the spouse of a full-time employed husband was deemed acceptable.
Please don't blame me for that reason. I know it sounds very sexist today, but this is the reason given to me when I asked one of the female pastors why I saw this more here than where I (then) lived in Missouri. What I did notice after that point was that generally the male pastors had the full-time positions and the women the part-time positions.
Even today in the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia, many of our priests serving as interim rectors are female. (Iterims tend not to be full-time in single priest parishes.) The congregation where The Pianist (my partner) serves as Interim Music Director is, after two years, moving from one part-time female priest to another part-time female priest in the iterim position. (The current interim has two part-time callings—which equals more than one full-time calling—and is moving to one full-time associate position in December.)
So, maybe that sexist-sounding reason given to me around 1975 still holds up in people's minds 2006? I'm curious about the male:female ratio of aspirants-postulants-candidates-ordained what is sometimes called Total Common Ministry (or Mutual Ministry) congregations in Episcopal dioceses where this model is encouraged. That would tell us the answer.
Reason #2
When I went back to college in the 1980s to get teaching certification, the head of the department wanted me to seriously consider elementary education rather than secondary certification. The reason? Elementary school boys need to see men as teachers in order to have roll models.
Many police departments seek "under represented" groups as recruits so that the ranks of officers look like the communities they are serving. This makes it easier for those communities to identify with their officers, rather than looking upon them as outsiders.
Having the clergy ranks look like the communities they are serving would fall into this category.
I know that there is more to identifying with a community than simply gender.
For me, for example, I think it is wonderful that ++Katharine has a mind trained as a research scientist; her gender has nothing to do with it. I was thrilled when I heard her cut and slice an issue as a scientist (a polite, caring one, but still a scientist), rather than someone trained elsewhere. But, one cannot discount too much having your leadership looking like the communities you serve.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
The Catholic Herald article might be cynically using the Rowan Williams interview in order to shore up conservative Roman Catholics views on ordination.
I would be surprised if very many Roman Catholics, conservative or not, were likely to care much about Rowan's opinions. And probably almost none at all outside England.
Much rumour has it that the present pope is more interested in getting the Lutherans closer to Rome than he is Anglicans.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Worm in the Grass
Shipmate
# 10999
|
Posted
Ken,
I suspect that I'm not the only person from both the other side of the equator and the Tiber who is interested in what ++ Rowan says and does. I find him a most prayerful and thoughtful person. In fact , I the local RC Arch quote him in a sermon only a couple of months ago. I often pray for him, because I think in many ways he is more burdened than the Pope
--------------------
Christian satire attracts people who are serious about religion. It's a method of coping with the difference between what religion ought to be about and what it is. (Jengie Jon)
Posts: 273 | From: somewhere near Canberra | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
A lot of Roman Catholics I come across, not just British ones but French and Italian ones, for example, are interested in Rowan Williams. Stories about him are printed in foreign newspapers. It is relevant because ordination of women by Anglo-Catholics gives some Roman Catholics an example to point to.
Remember that Rowan Williams is the top person (in the human sense) of the Anglican Communion.
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ken
I would be surprised if very many Roman Catholics, conservative or not, were likely to care much about Rowan's opinions. And probably almost none at all outside England.
It's not unusual, in my experience. Back in Wales I knew many RC's who would chat with me about Rowan, as we stood after Mass outside their Church on the green grass. Of home and Church relationships we tended to speak.
[Edited to fix quote]
[ 23. December 2006, 16:07: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
A lot of Roman Catholics I come across, not just British ones but French and Italian ones, for example, are interested in Rowan Williams. Stories about him are printed in foreign newspapers. It is relevant because ordination of women by Anglo-Catholics gives some Roman Catholics an example to point to.
Remember that Rowan Williams is the top person (in the human sense) of the Anglican Communion.
What, not the Queen - oh that's only in the UK.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
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.
I don't have a horse in this race, not being a Christian, but I cannot accept that God would ever withhold grace from those who pray for it in good faith. OliviaG
May I offer the distinction that, while they may be receiving grace, they are not receiving grace by virtue of receiving the Sacrament if receiving the Eucharist is not what they are actually doing?
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
Just wanted to say that GRITS nailed the topic when it comes to Scripture and I am going to take the liberty of pasting her post in here out of respect from the thread "Can we have women elders in the church" in Kergy that was just closed. This way I can defer it whenever this topic comes up again on the ship for me...(I read that thread with interest and was sad to see it closed since it was discussing things from a Scripture prespective from everybody)...
GRITS's post...
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Well elders aren't well defined things in the NT. That's the problem of reading back from today's church. So you could ask to name men elders and you might well also find an absence depending on what you understood men elders to be.
What exactly do you mean? I actually think the qualifications and duties of elders are one of the MORE well defined things in the NT! Are you just speaking to the view that there are many elders actually named in the NT?
quote:
quote:The problem I alluded to at the end of Roman's is one such problem. It is possible that it does name a female elder and then there is Priscilla. Really a tricky one, Paul even refers to Priscilla and Aquila in that order.
This is a perfect example of a woman's role in teaching, IMO. She taught with her husband in personal one-on-one teaching. We have no record of her launching out on her own nor of her speaking in any public setting or gathering.
quote:
quote:Then there was Lydia, what precisely was her position as someone who insisted that Paul stayed at her house. No meekly consulting a husband there and clear a determined woman used to running her own affairs. Somehow I don't think I can see her sitting quite in the decision making process.
But that is just speculation, not based on any scripture. In any situation where there are no men to lead, I would hope a woman would assume that role. However, again, there is no word nor example of Lydia leading in any type of public way after the arrival of Paul.
Why does everyone equate weakness or uselessness with women who choose to follow the NT example of leadership roles with the church?
[ 19. March 2007, 15:54: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Who said they are weak or useless? I say they've bought into a cultural prejudice that limits their possibilities of Christian service in ways that men aren't limited. If they are happy in churches that are discriminatory and they don't mind the limitations, then fine for them.
--------------------
"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
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Who said they are weak or useless? I say they've bought into a cultural prejudice that limits their possibilities of Christian service in ways that men aren't limited. If they are happy in churches that are discriminatory and they don't mind the limitations, then fine for them.
I transfered the posts over from the other CLOSED thread (GRITS was responding to others).
I take Scripture very seriously* and am honestly sick of emotive discussions without Scripture as the focus on this very topic. Persuasioin only comes not be what common sense might say, but continued study of God's Word. I am open to my mind being changed but after being on the ship for 5 years...I have yet to see it happen.
I think I am a little frustrated that thread had to be closed (sorry Moo, Kelly, not your fault). I just wish people could have stuck to the Scriptures and not veered off. This thread is full of veering off and while that is useful and valid at times, sometimes it has gotten a bit frustrating for me.
In another forum, people outright just kept name-calling and this topic never really got totally discussed right.
*and I NOT saying others don't here. Thx. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 21. March 2007, 16:08: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I think I am a little frustrated that thread had to be closed (sorry Moo, Kelly, not your fault).
Thank you for that.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Duchess, I've read all the scriptural texts you and others have brought to fore to argue your point of view. AND I've read all the texts people have brought up to support a non-discriminatory manner of worship and service. All of us think over what we have read and choose how we will apply our study to our lives. And that prayerful thought leads us towards the church home which seems best for us. And we all seem to believe the Holy Spirit is with us.
There probably are churches where women are entirely silent in church -no praying aloud, no amens, no hymn singing, no making announcements, no reading any bits of scripture aloud, churches that enforce covered heads, forbid all gold jewelry (wedding rings?) and distracting ornaments, and that don't invite questions from their female parishioners but refer all teaching questions back to their husbands. Not to mention they somehow differentiate between "teaching" and "prophesying" and determine how one can prophesy in silence to anyone's edification. Or perhaps women only prophesy to women? Is this what your church is like? If not, how do your pastor and elders parse the bits they don't enforce? Or are the unenforced bits to do with cultural ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) differences?
See, if I look at the "plain sense" Bible reading often trumpeted by people who take the Bible "seriously", this is the kind of church I'd expect to see. Yet there are very few churches like this, even though there are many, many churches that seem absolutely sure that their versions of restricting women in their ministries and worship are scripturally correct ones.
Feel free to whop us with your steel-plated Bible and shower us with proof-texts. But don't expect everyone else to approach Bible study in your manner or answer you in our understanding of scripture in the way people in your congregation would.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
