homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women] (Page 27)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  ...  51  52  53 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
duchess

Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764

 - Posted      Profile for duchess   Email duchess   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
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!] 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.

I know you have read the Scriptures on this topic.
My church is working out the way they are handling things when it comes to women being involved (deaconesses or not? It looks like we are going to have them). My church holds not to Charismata Doctrine but Cessationalism Doctrine so I am only talking about leadership postions. As to head coverings, some actually do cover their heads. I interepet the verse differently and do not. My church does not hold to that doctrine. The study of the bible of looking at what they met by a certain text is a great one, and I could not do it justice in a soundbite. Unless you were not asking a question but just making a point, I don't know, I think I will pass on trying to tackle this. All I can say is the question of what is cultural and what is applicable is a very good one to have and I agree with you that it is not an easy one to answer.

I don't expect everyone to study the bible in my manner. But I am saddened that people caould not stop disrupting the said thread in Kergy to the point that Moo had to close it. Hopefully, after a bit of time, it can be re-opened and the discussion on Scripture, bearing differnt points of view, can be discussed in this manner again.

[edited out bad grammar...there is probably more since I am at work trying to do this quickly...]

[ 22. March 2007, 16:40: 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      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:

I don't expect everyone to study the bible in my manner. But I am saddened that people could not stop disrupting the said thread in Kergy to the point that Moo had to close it. Hopefully, after a bit of time, it can be re-opened and the discussion on Scripture, bearing different points of view, can be discussed in this manner again.


Actually I had to close it, Duch. Moo and I were consistantly on the same page in our discussions about it, I just happened to be around when people started saying things like "If you go by Scripture alone, there can only be one conclusion." We had decided together that that was one of the signals to Dead Horse it.

Having said that, I really am geniunely grateful to you for trying to understand the reasons for the closure.You respect is apparent in your tone.

[ 22. March 2007, 18:20: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posts: 35051 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Duchess, sorry about being particularly snarky in my last paragraph. [Hot and Hormonal] [Frown]

I guess I was making an already well-hammered point that sola scriptura is never precisely sola scriptura without any taint of tradition or current or past cultural influence. My church's interpretation of first century, Biblical traditions of treating women and their abilities as limited in function is that those traditions go in the same file as that of the rules for the behavior of slaves and owners. Women and slaves were not treated equally or actually particularly respectfully in that society, Christian or not; I don't think that was a "God breathed" thing. Our society dumped slavery a while ago and is working on dumping other forms of putting people in second class roles. And I think supporting such efforts are in line with the Great Commandment Pt 2. What is loving about locking in a box a person's ability to fulfill any role without looking at them as an individual rather than as a member of a subclass? I'd be a crap pastor but I know a good number of excellent female ones. Stopping them from doing the specific good they do as church leaders would be as unloving as making someone sit in the back of the bus or use different restrooms or go to different schools. Sure, limiting women as a class from certain types of ministry doesn't effect their salvation. Riding in the back of the bus doesn't effect where you are going geographically either, but it was part and parcel of the ways to limit the lives of Black people and their participation in society. Not loving.

--------------------
"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: 21258 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Me:
quote:
Stopping them from doing the specific good they do as church leaders would be as unloving as making someone sit in the back of the bus or use different restrooms or go to different schools.
[Hot and Hormonal] [Snigger]

Okay, I guess women can go on using women's restrooms.

I guess.

Carry on. [Smile]

--------------------
"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: 21258 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Geneviève

Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098

 - Posted      Profile for Geneviève   Email Geneviève   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Glad to have the restroom question settled! [Razz]

Duchess said:
quote:
I just wish people could have stuck to the Scriptures and not veered off. . .
I agree with Lyda*Rose's well-stated post. And want to emphasize that part of the difficulty in such a discussion is that some denominations attempt seriously to use sola scriptura (although I agree that it can't be done as if there are no cultural, personal influences. Just as science isn't completely "objective."). Other denominations, such as mine, use other methods as well--e.g. the well worn scripture-tradition--reason stool.

--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)

Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So, to pick up a thread in ecclesiantics, what does 'catholic' mean to those who support the ordination of women to the priesthood. Because if it is understood as something to do with the universal faith and practice of the church, then it is hard to see how being a(n) (anglo) catholic is consistent with supporting the ordination of women (unless, I suppose, one is in favour in principle but only if and when it is the mind of the whole catholic church)
Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lukacs:
I'll assume the moderators are hovering anyway, and just make it official: if we understand by "Catholicism" the state, or mind, of the universal church, at all times and in all places, it would seem to be contradictory to make a claim to Catholicism and support WO. Takers of a contrary position will need to define what they mean by "Catholic"; I begin to suspect that they really mean they are high in churchmanship, but Protestant in doctrine.

Well, if by the "the universal church" you mean the Roman Catholic Church, then I guess I depart from the practice of the universal church, and that would not be news to me. But the problem is that there obviously hasn't been one practice on OoW in all times and in all places. There may once have been (though I doubt it).

Further, I suspect that most Protestants would disown any attempts to associate my doctrinal views with them. I hold a "localised" view of the Real Presence, and believe in the intercession of the saints - living and departed, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception and Assumption. I also believe that the sacraments bestow grace ex-whatever the technical Latin term is (though the efficacy of this grace is incumbent on faithful reception of it).

If by Protestant you mean accepting the Reformation principle that the Church Catholic can and has erred, and its emphasis on the conscience of the believer, then yes, I would concede that I have incorporated some of what I perceive to be the positive aspects of Protestant thought. (Hans Kung in On Being a Christian argues that Catholicism and Protestantism are not contradictory, but complementary world-views).

Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Extol
Shipmate
# 11865

 - Posted      Profile for Extol   Email Extol   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
if by the "the universal church" you mean the Roman Catholic Church, then I guess I depart from the practice of the universal church, and that would not be news to me. But the problem is that there obviously hasn't been one practice on OoW in all times and in all places. There may once have been (though I doubt it).
Where were women priests accepted in the ancient Church, East or West? Feel free to direct me to some page of this thread.
Posts: 1287 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, lots of things have changed in the practice and theology of the church over time. "No salvation outside the church," for one; ecclesiastically-sanctioned anti-Semitic teachings and practices, for another.

A "Motu Proprio" issued early in the 20th Century forbade women from singing in the choir, and religious sisters from singing solos. Gimme a break about this.

But personally I'd be fine with reserving the term "Anglo-Catholic" for FiF types; time marches on and we probably need something new anyway, without all the negative connotations.

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Liturgy Queen: Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but it sounds like by Catholic you mean subscribing to a selection of Catholic teachings, but by no means the whole package.

I have to say that seems like reducing Catholicity to a shopping list, rather in the manner of Protestant confessions/statements of faith.

There is of course a problem in reconciling the notion of 'universal faith and practice' with the fact that there have been variations in faith and practice over the centuries. I would have to say that where such variations are at odds with Catholic teaching, then they cannot be considered catholic. And the undisputable fact is that from the birth of the church until the 1970s, and in the greater part of the church until now and for the forseeable future, the practice of the church has not been to ordain women, and in those cases where it is claimed to have taken place in the early church it was, if it happened, an irregular occurence that was not received by the wider church.

[ 12. June 2007, 15:09: Message edited by: Scotus ]

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For me, Anglo-Catholicism is primarily about maintaining faithfully the belief that the Anglican communion is a whole and living part of the universal Catholic church in exactly the same sense in which the Roman Catholic church is.

I believe Anglican orders to be valid, and also to be apostolic. (I reject Apostolicae Curae, as I would expect the overwhelming majority of Anglo-Catholics to do.) I believe the Church of England, as an autonomous church in the Western Catholic tradition, has the right to appoint and ordain such priests as it chooses, as may best serve the people in their need.

I believe the Church of England therefore acted validly when it passed the Measure which approved the ordination of women to the priesthood. The validity of Anglican priestly orders is a single issue of church governance. I reject the Anglo-Papalist argument that women priests are an obstacle to fuller union with other catholics, since the Papacy declines to accept the validity of Dr Williams' orders, let alone anyone else's.

The Church of England is, in my view, a part of the Catholic church, and its priests are apostolically ordered, regardless of sex.

T.

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Extol
Shipmate
# 11865

 - Posted      Profile for Extol   Email Extol   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Tefelchen, your post is filled with references like "I believe" and "for me." Forgive me, but in what way is this Catholic? As Scotus posts above, the mind of the Church is what determines Catholicity, not our private interpretations of Church history. So, unless the mind of the Church is such that WO is accepted, individual claims to the Catholicity of that act are simply that, individual claims. Of course, this begs the question of "on whose authority is the mind of the church settled?" and this is where the thorny issue of Anglo-Catholics vs. Anglo-Papalists becomes even thornier.
Posts: 1287 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lukacs:
Tefelchen, your post is filled with references like "I believe" and "for me." Forgive me, but in what way is this Catholic? As Scotus posts above, the mind of the Church is what determines Catholicity, not our private interpretations of Church history. So, unless the mind of the Church is such that WO is accepted, individual claims to the Catholicity of that act are simply that, individual claims. Of course, this begs the question of "on whose authority is the mind of the church settled?" and this is where the thorny issue of Anglo-Catholics vs. Anglo-Papalists becomes even thornier.

In what way does a "Motu Proprio" represent "the mind of the Church"?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Extol
Shipmate
# 11865

 - Posted      Profile for Extol   Email Extol   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Who said it did?
Posts: 1287 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lukacs:
Tefelchen, your post is filled with references like "I believe" and "for me." Forgive me, but in what way is this Catholic? As Scotus posts above, the mind of the Church is what determines Catholicity, not our private interpretations of Church history. So, unless the mind of the Church is such that WO is accepted, individual claims to the Catholicity of that act are simply that, individual claims. Of course, this begs the question of "on whose authority is the mind of the church settled?" and this is where the thorny issue of Anglo-Catholics vs. Anglo-Papalists becomes even thornier.

If I ever meet a Pope, I'll ask him the same.

I was asked for my perspective. I'm expressing a personal opinion, so I've used appropriate language. I could have left out all those qualifiers, and you still wouldn't have agreed with me.

Why is the mind of the church (of England) not adequately expressed by the General Synod, elected by members of the church, which passed the Measure?

T.

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
For me, Anglo-Catholicism is primarily about maintaining faithfully the belief that the Anglican communion is a whole and living part of the universal Catholic church in exactly the same sense in which the Roman Catholic church is.

What sense is that then? What are the limits on the autonomy of a church which is part of the universal Catholic Church? There must be some limits. No catholic church could, for instance, announce through whatever mechanism it has for such things that God is no longer the Holy Trinity, and still be considered a catholic church. So do questions concerning the sacrament of Holy Orders (and all the sacraments, which depend on Holy Orders) fall within those limits of an individual local church's autonomy? In some practical respects (e.g. the selection of the invidiuals to be ordained) yes it does. But is a decision about whether women should be ordained merely a practical issue within the competence of local autonomy, or is it something more basic, which falls outside that limit? Pope John Paul II certainly insisted it was something outisde the limits even of his authority.
Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lukacs:
Who said it did?

You accept its determinations and rulings, don't you? Well, then, your argument about "the mind of the Church" is irrelevant. Anyway, now you're making a different argument; the original claim was about what "all Catholics, everywhere, at all times" believed. Now it's only the current "mind of the Church" that counts?

Well, then....

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
But is a decision about whether women should be ordained merely a practical issue within the competence of local autonomy, or is it something more basic, which falls outside that limit? Pope John Paul II certainly insisted it was something outisde the limits even of his authority.

I believe that in Christ there is no male or female. I think I may be said to have reasonable scriptural justification for this. The practical issue is indeed well within the competence of local autonomy. The 'big issue' has already been decided, in the reconciliation of humanity with God, be they male or female, in the person of Jesus Christ.

T.

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Extol
Shipmate
# 11865

 - Posted      Profile for Extol   Email Extol   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Why is the mind of the church (of England) not adequately expressed by the General Synod, elected by members of the church, which passed the Measure?

It's the (of England) part that is at issue here. Granted, it was ECUSA that started this ball rolling after the Philadelphia ordinations in the early 70s, but the principle is the same. A branch of the church has no business making changes to doctrine or discipline without consulting the wider church.
Posts: 1287 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Extol
Shipmate
# 11865

 - Posted      Profile for Extol   Email Extol   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum: in reply to Lukacs
You accept its determinations and rulings, don't you?

Any more red herrings and we're pickling! No Motu Proprio was issued over the ordination of women priests. As Scotus asserts above, the Holy Father made it clear that such matters were not within his authority to change. MPs are issued over far lesser matters than WO.

[ 12. June 2007, 23:44: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posts: 1287 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lukacs:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Why is the mind of the church (of England) not adequately expressed by the General Synod, elected by members of the church, which passed the Measure?

It's the (of England) part that is at issue here. Granted, it was ECUSA that started this ball rolling after the Philadelphia ordinations in the early 70s, but the principle is the same. A branch of the church has no business making changes to doctrine or discipline without consulting the wider church.
So the Roman Catholic church should have had a formal consultation with the Anglican church before issuing Apostolicae Curae?

T.

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Extol
Shipmate
# 11865

 - Posted      Profile for Extol   Email Extol   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We have flown far afield of genitalia now, and these are still red herrings.

That may be the finest sentence I have ever typed.

[ 12. June 2007, 15:53: Message edited by: lukacs ]

Posts: 1287 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lukacs:
quote:
if by the "the universal church" you mean the Roman Catholic Church, then I guess I depart from the practice of the universal church, and that would not be news to me. But the problem is that there obviously hasn't been one practice on OoW in all times and in all places. There may once have been (though I doubt it).
Where were women priests accepted in the ancient Church, East or West? Feel free to direct me to some page of this thread.
Some research has suggested that women presided over the eucharist in the very early church if they were the had of a household.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23024 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lukacs:
We have flown far afield of genitalia now, and these are still red herrings.

That may be the finest sentence I have ever typed.

Don't give yourself airs. The genitalia argument was bollocks to start with.

Either individual churches make decisions for themselves (and thus Anglican women priests are priests); or all decisions should be wholly in common (in which case many prized Catholic dogmas are invalid); or the Pope is sovereign (in which case Anglican male priests aren't priests either).

T.

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Extol
Shipmate
# 11865

 - Posted      Profile for Extol   Email Extol   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
*puts on airs*

I'll take #3, with the caveat that the Bonn Agreement rendered Apostolicae Curae irrelevant, thus preserving Anglican orders. Note Msgr Leonard's reception as a priest in the Roman Church, with no "conditional reordination" necessary.

Posts: 1287 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lukacs:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lukacs:

quote:
You accept its determinations and rulings, don't you?
Any more red herrings and we're pickling! No Motu Proprio was issued over the ordination of women priests. As Scotus asserts above, the Holy Father made it clear that such matters were not within his authority to change. MPs are issued over far lesser matters than WO.

Your argument has been, alternately (depending on the situation), that the "mind of the Church" should determine what's "catholic," and/or that "catholic" is "what all Catholics everywhere and at all times have believed."

Women's ordination is only the focus on which these arguments turn. I've given you arguments to refute both claims made above; the church has indeed changed its own determinations over the centuries, and the "mind of the Church" is not, in fact, the sole authority that binds Catholics.

In any case, I wonder what the "mind of the Church" actually means, since laypeople have virtually no authority at all in the modern Catholic Church, as far as I can tell. When was the last time the hierarchy consulted them to determine what "the mind of the Church" actually is? I know they're not consulted on, say, birth control - to avoid the embarrassing reality that the "mind of the Church" is fer it, as opposed to the "mind of the hierarchy."

So how can we even know what "all Catholics, everywhere" believe today? And why are you switching back and forth between these arguments, anyway?

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Extol
Shipmate
# 11865

 - Posted      Profile for Extol   Email Extol   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
the church has indeed changed its own determinations over the centuries, and the "mind of the Church" is not, in fact, the sole authority that binds Catholics.
Lets focus on these then. When you introduce other forms of administration such as the motu proprio, it muddles things. The MP is what it says it is, "of [the Pope's] own accord." It deals with matters of discipline in the Roman church.

How has the church "changed its determinations" over the centuries? I'm not saying it hasn't, I am asking how that process has worked. Largely it has been the work of a council. Bishops come together, and determine how to resolve problems in light of the magisterium. We can put to one side the place of the Bishop of Rome on this matter--some of us believe he is the final arbiter, others, such as many Anglicans and Orthodox, beleive that it is the council that settles matters (the "conciliarist" position). In both instances, however, it is the bishops who settle matters.

This goes to your second point about the "mind of the church." That mind is settled by the stewards of the church: the bishops. The Church is not a democracy; it is a hierarchy. We may chafe at this, but it is in the end the least worst system in order to preserve the deposit of faith and prevent the people from lapsing into error. I see nothing in the current state of the Anglican Communion to persuade me otherwise!

I have to run to a meeting so do not interpret my silence for the next few hours as petulance or surrender.

Posts: 1287 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:

Either individual churches make decisions for themselves (and thus Anglican women priests are priests); or all decisions should be wholly in common (in which case many prized Catholic dogmas are invalid); or the Pope is sovereign (in which case Anglican male priests aren't priests either).

No, I think that is too simplistic. There are some things which fall within the proper sphere of local decision making, some things which can only be decided by the entire catholic church, and some things cannot be decided by anyone, since they are part of divine revelation. (though defining these things falls within the middle category)

Where does the OoW fall? Teufelchen thinks in the first category, others think the second or even possibly the third.

The second question is how are things which fall in the second sphere decided? By ecumenical council? By the pope? Clearly, in a fractured church, reaching such unanimous decisions is difficult if not impossible.

I would agree with the Catholic teaching that the Pope has a solemn duty as guardian of the deposit of faith to interpret the scriptures, tradition and sensus fidelium, and that in the exercise of this duty he is aided by the Holy Spirit. Therefore I fully accept not only the definitions of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption (two of the prized dogmas I assume T. was referring to) but also the competance of the Pope to make such definitions. Apostolica Curae on the other hand is not a dogmatic definition, and whilst I respect the pope's right to make such a pronouncement for the safeguarding of the sacraments for the benefit of the Roman Catholic Church I would disagree with the content of that teaching and not consider it to have a universal force.

So on Teufelchen's categorisation I would straddle the second and third positions. Certain decisions should be taken by the whole church in common, but since that is impossible, I believe the Pope has an authority to speak not just for the Roman Catholic Church, but for the whole body of Christ.
ETA and if they can't practically be taken in common, perhaps they just shouldn't be taken. It is, after all, the C of E and other churches who have chosen to alter the status quo, not something the pope has decided to change on behalf of the universal church.

[ 12. June 2007, 16:46: Message edited by: Scotus ]

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lukacs:
quote:
the church has indeed changed its own determinations over the centuries, and the "mind of the Church" is not, in fact, the sole authority that binds Catholics.
Lets focus on these then. When you introduce other forms of administration such as the motu proprio, it muddles things. The MP is what it says it is, "of [the Pope's] own accord." It deals with matters of discipline in the Roman church.

How has the church "changed its determinations" over the centuries? I'm not saying it hasn't, I am asking how that process has worked. Largely it has been the work of a council. Bishops come together, and determine how to resolve problems in light of the magisterium. We can put to one side the place of the Bishop of Rome on this matter--some of us believe he is the final arbiter, others, such as many Anglicans and Orthodox, beleive that it is the council that settles matters (the "conciliarist" position). In both instances, however, it is the bishops who settle matters.

This goes to your second point about the "mind of the church." That mind is settled by the stewards of the church: the bishops. The Church is not a democracy; it is a hierarchy. We may chafe at this, but it is in the end the least worst system in order to preserve the deposit of faith and prevent the people from lapsing into error. I see nothing in the current state of the Anglican Communion to persuade me otherwise!

I have to run to a meeting so do not interpret my silence for the next few hours as petulance or surrender.

Yes, the MP point is the weakest argument, I agree. Which is why you chose it, I'm sure! [Biased] Still, it points out that (Roman) Catholics are bound in ways other than via "the mind of the Church" as you define it.

As to your other point, it does go to nullify any claims made about what all Catholics believe. So why make them? Why not honestly argue for what "all Bishops have always believed"? Then we'd be getting someplace! We could then point to the numerous - even criminal - errors made by Church councils through the centuries, and be done with it. The old question about who's watching the watchers applies here. In any case, many Catholics do support women's ordination - and have good arguments to justify this support.

So the real question is, I think, why should the Roman Church control the word "catholic"? The meaning of the word is "universal," but you're describing its "mind" as "hierarchical" and in fact quite exclusive. In any case, the Church has been demonstrably wrong in the past, and it might well be wrong on this issue as well. Who can really say?

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lukacs:
*puts on airs*

I'll take #3, with the caveat that the Bonn Agreement rendered Apostolicae Curae irrelevant, thus preserving Anglican orders. Note Msgr Leonard's reception as a priest in the Roman Church, with no "conditional reordination" necessary.

What is the Bonn Agreement? I googled it and got stuff about climate change.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23024 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The universal church is the victorious Bride of Christ in the eternal presence of the Father. Not any human organisation, even one as large and long-lived as the church of Rome. And its not subkect to the church government arrangements of any one denomination - even the Roman Catholics.

And just because they are the biggest that's no reason to assume they are specially in tune with the Church Triumphant in a way that the rest of us aren't.

And even if it was true that being the biggest was important because it was evidence of God's special belssing oin them, and even if we did restrict ourselves to considering the Church on earth and only bothered with the past, present and future instead of eternity, then howq could we say that it's doctrines were the settled mind of the whole universal church when its so local in time and space?

For all we know the churches may spread across the galaxy and last for another million years. The few centuries that Rome was the biggest boy on the block might be no more statistically significant to the whole history of the Church Militant than any of a thousand other church connexions we've forgotten the names of or that don't even exist yet.

If numebrs were the important thing, whch they probably aren't.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Extol
Shipmate
# 11865

 - Posted      Profile for Extol   Email Extol   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
back from the meeting. I never invoked the Motu Proprio. Someone else made mention of an MP banning women singers, but it wasn't me. As for the question of who is to decide, well, Scotus has responded to that better than I could.

The Bonn Agreement (also affectionately known as the "Dutch touch") is an agreement between Old Catholics and Anglicans, effectively infusing Anglican orders with validity given the unbroken line of succession through the churches of the Utrecht union that split with Rome after Vatican I.

And Ken, if my claims are nonsensical, why bother to pursue them here? Why not just make your cheap shot on the other thread where the mods can break it up and be done with it?

Posts: 1287 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580

 - Posted      Profile for Comper's Child     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ken, you took the words right out of my mouth - or I should say my brain - as I couldnt' get the mouth to do the work.

Lucaks - I wouldn't call it a cheap shot at all.

[ 12. June 2007, 17:29: Message edited by: Comper's Child ]

Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ken: the sacred Tradition is not simply a numbers game or a competition to see who has the most powerful voice. It is what each generation since the apostles has passed on to the next, following St Paul's instruction to Timothy to safeguard the deposit of faith.

The Roman Catholic Church's claim to an authoritative interpretation comes not simply from its size (though I would suggest the two are connected) but from the direct line of descent from the apostles to the present day bishops, headed by the Pope, whose direct line comes from Peter, the prince of the apostles. Disagree with this understanding of apostolic and petrine authority if you will, but that is the basis of the Roman Catholic claim to authority.

Wrt the OoW, the sacramants, their form and matter, have always been seen by the universal church as part of that which is handed on from generation to generation (the Tradition). It is a matter of simple observation that the OoW has never been a feature of that Tradition. So it all boils down to the earlier point: is the gender of the person to be ordained an arbitrary matter which a local church can rule on, or not. The Tradition seems pretty clear that the answer is "no it isn't".

To back-track I can see where Teufelchen is coming from with his claim that all are reconciled in Christ therefore the basic question has already been decided, however, it is not clear to me that all are reconciled/saved implies all may be called to exercise the particular vocation of ordained priesthood. The argument from Tradition is not simply saying, only men have been priests so only men can be priests, it is saying that the maleness of the priesthood is part of the givenness of the sacraments as handed down, so it is not for local churches to change this.

[ 12. June 2007, 17:48: Message edited by: Scotus ]

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wow. So much activity in a few hours' absence. Where to begin?

Well, the original question was, how do those ACs who support OoW define Catholicism? (I could engage lukacs' question about women presbyters in the early church and might do if it were sincere but really it's irrelevant. I understand Sr. Lavinia Byrne's book is considered one of the most authoritative on the subject, though I've not yet read it). I would agree that, as someone said, "it has something to do with the practice of the early church", but I don't accept that said practice is infallible as a guide to our own. Certainly the permitting of the use of contraception came about only in the previous century, but I would raise eyebrows at any Anglican who dissented from it. Let's face it, if I believed that all practices that were condemned by the Church Fathers ought to be condemned today, then I would have far more immediate problems than my rector's privy parts, wouldn't I?

Scotus speaks of a selection vs. a package. If Rome is defining the package, then yes, I reject the package. But I do not recognise Rome's right to so define. Many Anglicans of a certain ilk do, thus baffling the rest of us by their continued nominal affiliation with the See of Canterbury. The Church Fathers considered the presence of more than one bishop in one area to be the definition of schism, but most ACs under the care of flying bishops don't seem too bothered by this.

I believe that the Anglican Communion is a constituent part of the Catholic Church. I do not believe in branch theory as such, but I do believe that the Anglican Communion is within its rights to reconsider even long-held positions and to act accordingly, even if to our regret other Catholics do not follow suit. Certainly our decision-making process has more of a right to call its results "the mind of the church" (though we are loathe to do so) than those of the RCC, where "extraordinarily" only one person's decision makes a difference*.

I don't expect Anglo-Catholics on the other side of the debate to agree with me, but I expect not to hear words like "Protestant" bandied about. You may dislike our identification as ACs because you doubt our catholicity. We are baffled by your self-identification as Anglo-Catholics because of the apparent lack of the "Anglo" factor. It does not seem to me either Anglican or Catholic to conform to the doctrine and discipline of a church to which you do not belong and which does not recognise your confirmation or the orders of your clergy**.

LQ

--

*(I realise that ordinarily it should be "received", but when push comes to shove it can be imposed, and the grassroots dissatisfaction in the West with the male-only priesthood is an example of this).

*(Apostolicae Curae is hardly moot. It has yet to be rescinded, Dutch touch or no. Bishop Leonard was dispensed only from conditional ordination to the diaconate. He did undergo a putative ordination to the priesthood. His episcopal orders remain unrecognised).

[ 12. June 2007, 20:30: Message edited by: Liturgy Queen ]

Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Now that you mention it, it sure does seem odd that women could be Apostles - and there are some so named in the NT - and yet never priests.

What with "Apostolic Succession" and all, I mean....

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816

 - Posted      Profile for cor ad cor loquitur   Email cor ad cor loquitur   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Scotus, if that is your belief then I'm puzzled as to why you don't join the Roman Catholic Church.

The challenge, as I see it, is that if a church is to be global or universal ("catholic") then someone has to interpret the tradition, to sort genuine doctrinal development from corruption of doctrine. It is possible to proceed without a central (and hierarchical) doctrinal authority, if you are prepared to accept the church being split into many enclaves, based either on allegiance to a given leader or on individual choice. As far as I can tell this is what has happened both to Anglicanism and to Orthodoxy. Only the Roman church has remained (though even it is fragile) as a single, global institution, with a single hierarchy and centrally determined doctrine. That doesn't mean that the other churches are wrong, or bad, or that their sacraments are invalid. It could be that all RCs are collectively wrong. I don't think we are. But at least we are doctrinally aligned.

I personally hope that the ordination of women will eventually be defined by the magisterium as a legitimate development of doctrine; in my judgement it is scriptural and reasonable. But this is not my judgement to make. The most likely outcome, of course, is that the magisterium will move in the opposite direction, defining the non-ordination of women as a divinely revealed doctrine (de fide credenda); right now it is one level below that: de fide tendenda, i.e. calling for assent based on faith not in the authority of the Word of God but in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Magisterium. So even if I cannot (yet) give intellectual assent to the doctrine, I obey it (I guess this is de fide agenda). The same goes for the invalidity Anglican orders, also defined as a doctrine de fide tendenda. I wish that this weren't the case, and I'm not convinced by Apostolicae Curae. But that is the teaching of the Church. Perhaps these doctrines will develop. Perhaps I will change my understanding of them. Meanwhile, living in communion with the see of Peter means, for me, obeying them.

You seem to agree with the petrine primacy, with the "the direct line of descent from the apostles to the present day bishops, headed by the Pope, whose direct line comes from Peter, the prince of the apostles." You therefore reject the ordination of women. So why remain in the Church of England?

--------------------
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
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A good question indeed, one I often ponder. My reasons for remaining in the C of E are many and varied, perhaps none of them entirely satisfactory. As LQ suggested, I do indeed sit lightly to the 'anglo' part of anglo-catholicism: my belonging to (albiet imperfectly) the universal church of God is of far greater importance to me than my allegience to a particular local manifestation of it which has been in a bit of a mess since the 16th century. Nevertheless, this is the local church within which I received the sacrament of baptism, the church in which I have grown in the faith, and the church in which I believe God has called me to exercise my ministry, for the forseeable future at least. I pray earnestly for reunion with Rome, and I hope it will be corporate rather than individual, but if the C of E finally chucks away any credible claim to catholicity I may be left with little choice.

I take heart from Pope Benedicts comments in Salt of the Earth about faithful catholic anglicans.

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Further up this thread this was a rather prolonged interchange with Vesture, Posture, Gesture over how he could hold the views of the Church of England that he did (basically: that it was no longer a Catholic church) and remain in it. Ultimately, if I'm not mistaken, he didn't.

But I'm also writing from a context with the least accomodation for dissenters on the issue (even ECUSA can't rein in their "noncompliant" dioceses) whereas England and Wales probably are the opposite extreme.

Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting

Lukacs and Teufelchen,
kindly knock off the personal comments or take it to Hell. That also goes for this, Lukacs.

quote:
And Ken, if my claims are nonsensical, why bother to pursue them here? Why not just make your cheap shot on the other thread where the mods can break it up and be done with it?
We have a board where you can get personal but it's not this one.

cheers,
Louise

Dead Horses Host

hosting off

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6891 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JimS
Shipmate
# 10766

 - Posted      Profile for JimS   Email JimS   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As this is live again could someone answer this query?
We had a new Rural Dean installed. He was priested years ago long before OoW and two years ago his parish got a female priest. The first Deanery Synod meeting was a eucharist at which he presided, although the incumbent is a woman.
The FIFers in the deanery either didn't receive communion or arrived after the eucharist had finished.
What's going on?

--------------------
Jim:Confused of Crewe

Posts: 137 | From: uk | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151

 - Posted      Profile for Fifi   Email Fifi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JimS:
What's going on?

They were probably following the advice given by the FiF Statement on Communion and Code of Practice .
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Now that you mention it, it sure does seem odd that women could be Apostles - and there are some so named in the NT -

That there are women apostles in the NT is by no means certain: it is one possible interpretation, and the arguments in favour of such an interpetation are far from rock solid. At best the claim is 'not proven'.

What I find more striking is that, despite the prominence given to women in the gospels, e.g. their role as first heralds of the resurrection, they are not counted as apostles either in the NT or the Tradition, except in a couple of highly disputed references that are, in any case, little more than asides.

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Carys

Ship's Celticist
# 78

 - Posted      Profile for Carys   Email Carys   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One thing which often seems to be missing in these discussions is mention of the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth. Yes, tradition is important, but that's because it's informed by the Holy Spirit.

At the end of the day, the reason that I am in favour of the ordination of women to the priesthood because I believe that God is calling women to the priesthood. That and the fact I cannot buy arguments about `maleness' being essential to priestly orders because I don't believe there is such a great gulf between men and women as that implies. Over the last century or so, the perception of what women can do has changed and we have therefore been able to fulfil our God-given potential in many fields and I truly believe the Church should be at the forefront of this not lagging behind. A century ago many people held that women couldn't be trusted with the vote, couldn't be doctors, lawyers, engineers but that has changed. I thus see much of what the ECFs wrote on women as being very much culturally conditioned rather than Spirit-led.

Galations 3:28 -in Christ there is no Jew no Greek, no slave no free, neither male nor female (Carys' memory version!)- is a key verse for me on this matter. The working out of the implications of that verse can be seen through Church history. The council of Jerusalem tackled the first, but the second took until at least the 19th Century to be sorted out (and think how many churchmen opposed it) and we're only just getting to grips with the third. A speaker at a conference I went to in the autumn made the point that at the Council of Jerusalem it was the Judaisers who relied heavily on scripture and tradition while Paul and his supported said `look what God is doing'. I think there is a parallel here on women's ministry and that is why I don't see a conflict between being Anglo-Catholic (where I see Catholic as being much about a Incarnational/Sacramental approach which values the Tradition that we have received) and being in favour of the Ordination of Women which I belive to be a better working out of the core parts of the Tradition (at the heart of which is scripture, and primarily our Lord's incarnation) than the restrictions that have been placed on women historically.

Carys (who will now catch up on the past three hours' worth of posts -- work happened!)

[ 13. June 2007, 11:22: Message edited by: Carys ]

--------------------
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
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Holy Spirit's role is of course crucial, and I believe it is the Holy Spirit who safeguards the handing down of the faith from one generation to the next, the same Spirit who inspired the authors of sacred scripture, who guided the fathers of the Ecumenical councils in formulating key expressions of doctrine, and guided the church in so many other ways.

I think we can certainly see the Spirit at work making the church more aware of the equality between the sexes. However, it does not follow that equal means same. The one point that your argument doesn't address is Jesus free and sovereign choice of 12 men as his apostles. I am prepapred to give weight to an argument that says that the early church fathers where guided in some respects by culture rather than the spirit (though would be very cautious about such an approach); I simply cannot believe that Jesus choice of the 12 was culturally conditioned, nor that the evangelists have blatently distorted the truth. It isn't a knockdwon argument by itself, but nor can it simply be trumped by Galatians.

Jesus choice then begs the question 'why only men?' It is unthinkable that Jesus was a chauvinist, and hardly plausible that such a definite choice (not even one woman among the 12, despite his evident affection for his women followers and his reliance on them in other ways) would be arbitrary. We cannot adequately plumb the depths of this mystery, but on the basis of what is revealed in scripture, it seems that it has something to do with the complimentarity of the sexes, and what that signifies about the relationship between Christ and his church.

[ 13. June 2007, 12:28: Message edited by: Scotus ]

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151

 - Posted      Profile for Fifi   Email Fifi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
The Holy Spirit's role is of course crucial, and I believe it is the Holy Spirit who safeguards the handing down of the faith from one generation to the next, the same Spirit who inspired the authors of sacred scripture, who guided the fathers of the Ecumenical councils in formulating key expressions of doctrine, and guided the church in so many other ways.

I think we can certainly see the Spirit at work making the church more aware of the equality between the sexes. However, it does not follow that equal means same. The one point that your argument doesn't address is Jesus free and sovereign choice of 12 men as his apostles. I am prepapred to give weight to an argument that says that the early church fathers where guided in some respects by culture rather than the spirit (though would be very cautious about such an approach); I simply cannot believe that Jesus choice of the 12 was culturally conditioned, nor that the evangelists have blatently distorted the truth. It isn't a knockdwon argument by itself, but nor can it simply be trumped by Galatians.

Jesus choice then begs the question 'why only men?' It is unthinkable that Jesus was a chauvinist, and hardly plausible that such a definite choice (not even one woman among the 12, despite his evident affection for his women followers and his reliance on them in other ways) would be arbitrary. We cannot adequately plumb the depths of this mystery, but on the basis of what is revealed in scripture, it seems that it has something to do with the complimentarity of the sexes, and what that signifies about the relationship between Christ and his church.

Quite.

Fr Scotus has clearly read - and understood - this excellent book .

Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951

 - Posted      Profile for Panda   Email Panda   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And yet, and yet. Scotus says Jesus' calling of 12 male apostles is not a knock-down argument: I would say it's on its knees. I don't believe either that the later evangelists 'blatantly distorted the truth' if by blatantly you mean 'with the deliberate intention of concealing the truth'. But I do believe that there was a significant amount of editing of the facts of Jesus' female followers, in order to tally better with the direction the new church was apparently taking - away from female leadership.

I do not say this as some sort of male-bashing conspiracy theory - it is perfectly true the Roman Catholic lectionary, in use today, has left out large chunks of the Bible that show women's roles, both in the OT and the NT. This editing is simply a continuation of the evangelists' editing, 2000 years on. But there is more in the Bible than what you hear read in the lessons.

At any rate, I'm not convinced that Jesus' calling of 12 male apostles is as crucial as opponents of OoW make it. When you consider, I'm not sure those 12 were necessarily the best example to us of how to follow Jesus - and in some cases, they are appallingly bad. They misunderstood Jesus over and over, they squabbled over their place in heaven, they abandoned him at his trial and at the cross, while the women remained, having supported his ministry throughout.

And to whom did Jesus first reveal himself, risen again? Mary Magdalen. If he did not trust one of his chosen male 12, but instead chose a woman, the argument of the male supremacy of the 12 really doesn't stand up at all.

Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually, I think precisely the opposite is true. Jesus chose weak, cowardly and foolish men, for reasons best known to himself, as his apostles (weak cowardly men who, it has to be pointed out, became rather less weak and cowardly when they were called upon to die for the faith). His followers included many women, who did not run away after his arrest, and he chose to reveal himself first to them after his resurrection. But he did not appoint them as apostles.

Your last line betrays a key fallacy. It is not about male supremacy, but male apostleship. Apostle does not = better. Apostleship is a particular office within the body of Christ to which some are called. Mary was not an apostle, but she was crowned by her Son as Queen of Heaven. Now that's what I call a leadership role in the church.

[ 13. June 2007, 14:02: Message edited by: Scotus ]

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
But I do believe that there was a significant amount of editing of the facts of Jesus' female followers, in order to tally better with the direction the new church was apparently taking - away from female leadership.

Though they chose not to edit out the one thing that confounded Jewish culture and, according to you, strikes at the heart of 'male supremacy', namely the risen Lord's first appearance to Mary Magdalene (and the other women). Why?
Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

 - Posted      Profile for HenryT   Author's homepage   Email HenryT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
It is not about male supremacy, but male apostleship. Apostle does not = better. Apostleship is a particular office within the body of Christ to which some are called.

Absolutely. In that time and place, only a male could be an apostle; to be sent out into the world to preach and teach. The question is: is the fact that in 1st century Judea only males could be apostles "essential" or "accidental". You now have to prove it to be essential for all time. Where's the case for that?

[ 13. June 2007, 14:12: Message edited by: Henry Troup ]

--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788

Posts: 7229 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  ...  51  52  53 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools