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 | | 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 28)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  ...  51  52  53 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Henry Troup on the previous page wrote@
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?

I outlined a case for this 5 posts back, both in terms of Jesus' free and sovereign choice, despite the fact that he did go against cultural norms in other ways (noone has come close to addressing why a woman could be a witness of the resurrection at a time when the testimony of a woman was invalid, and yet Jesus choice of 12 apostles was some how constrained by prevailing cutlure), and in terms of the theological significance which might be attached to such a free choice.

Even further back, I addressed some of the issues to do with authority in the church.

If you attack one strand of the argument in isolation from the rest, you may indeed be able to unpick it. If that weren't the case we could all pack up now. The argument in favour of maintaining the status quo comes from the combined weight of all of these lines of argument. And, pace your last comment, I would say that the burden of proof lies with those who wish to break away from the status quo.

(edited to add quote because of the page break!)

[ 13. June 2007, 14:28: 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 Scotus:
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.

There are quite a number of prominent women leaders cited in the Book of Acts. It's just not that big a stretch to assume that Paul referred to one or several as "Apostles" - which, after all, only means "Emissary." And of course, we do have the "No Jew nor Greek, no slave nor free, no male nor female" citation; quite clear, I think, that there are no important distinctions for those who are in Christ.

The Church itself is another story, of course. But it's telling, to me, that the Church and the culture were hand-in-hand for centuries in terms of attitudes towards women in leadership - and also that Christian culture was really no different from any other in this respect. In fact, Christian culture, both West and East, seems in many ways far less liberal on the topic than either Jesus or Paul was. And again, this was not much different from any other culture - so how can any sort of claim be made for the unique revelation of God in Christ in re this?

There are female Judges and Prophets, the latter cited right up into the New Testament. Ken has argued the case for female preachers on these boards from the Pentecost story, Acts 2:17: "In the last days it will be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams."

So it wouldn't surprise me at all if Junia was referred to by Paul as an Apostle - and that, due to cultural attitudes, the Church decided to totally ignore this. It has ignored everything else, after all - and has made, as I've mentioned, many very serious errors.

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | 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 Scotus:
I outlined a case for this 5 posts back, both in terms of Jesus' free and sovereign choice, despite the fact that he did go against cultural norms in other ways (noone has come close to addressing why a woman could be a witness of the resurrection at a time when the testimony of a woman was invalid, and yet Jesus choice of 12 apostles was some how constrained by prevailing cutlure), and in terms of the theological significance which might be attached to such a free choice.

Oh, that's an easy one. The Apostles wandered with Jesus, and had "no place to lay their heads." They had to go into strange places and possibly be beaten or killed. They had to arm themselves, after all.

They wouldn't have asked a woman to do this at that time and place. And the women were naturally the first to see the risen Christ, because they were doing what women did in those days: anointing and caring for the body. (This is true even today, BTW; women do most of the caretaking when their loved ones die - and not because it's a role that's "assigned" to them by Jesus.)

But now that you mention it: most male priests today aren't asked to wander around homeless, either, or to carry two swords.

And of course, none are Jews.

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 Henry Troup:
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?
So how come Mary Magdalene is called 'The apostle to the aposatles.'

And would someone please answer by earlier question? - 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: 23198 | 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 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But now that you mention it: most male priests today aren't asked to wander around homeless, either, or to carry two swords.

And of course, none are Jews.

Being pedantic, but quite a few Christian priests are Jews, including two recent Anglican bishops. Well, I can only remember one at the moment but I'm sure there was another...

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But now that you mention it: most male priests today aren't asked to wander around homeless, either, or to carry two swords.

And of course, none are Jews.

Being pedantic, but quite a few Christian priests are Jews, including two recent Anglican bishops. Well, I can only remember one at the moment but I'm sure there was another...
Well, I take it back, then. But I meant, Jews in the religious sense....
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 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And would someone please answer by earlier question? - What is the Bonn Agreement? I googled it and got stuff about climate change.

See this answer posted by lukacs two posts after your original question.

And re 'apostle to the apostles', we can easily distinguish between an honorific title recognising Mary Mag's role as witness to the resurrection, and the office of Apostle. Similarly, if we read Junias as the female name Junia and assume that prominent among the apostles means she is an apostle - both disputable - it still doesn't necessarily follow that she is an Apostle, to whom oversight of the church has been given by another Apostle through the laying-on of hands.

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 Scotus:
And re 'apostle to the apostles', we can easily distinguish between an honorific title recognising Mary Mag's role as witness to the resurrection, and the office of Apostle. Similarly, if we read Junias as the female name Junia and assume that prominent among the apostles means she is an apostle - both disputable - it still doesn't necessarily follow that she is an Apostle, to whom oversight of the church has been given by another Apostle through the laying-on of hands.

Speaking of Jesus: where is this "laying-on of hands" commanded by him again? I always forget....
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 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And of course, none are Jews.

Ah, that hoary old chestnut. The fact is, in the earliest days of the church, non-Jews shared in the apostolic minsitry of oversight, a development rapidly received by the whole church.

There is a deep-running theme through scripture of marriage as a metaphor for the relationship between God and his chosen people, Christ and his body the Church, from Genesis 2.24 to the marriage feast of the Lamb in Revelation. There is no distinction between male and female in Christ, for all our part of his body, and yet the complimentarity of male and female does seem to reveal something about the relationship between God and his people. This, perhaps, could be a theological reason for Christ's free choice of 12 men.

On the other hand, there is no such complimentarity between Jews and non-Jews. Rather, the Jews where the chosen people of God until in the fullness of time God revealed that all people where included in his plan for salvation and consituted the new Israel. Christian priests (including the whole royal priestly people of God, male and female) are therefore in a fundamental continuity with the old Israel, and are, in a sense 'Jews'. (I am aware that such language can be used to justify anti-semitism so needs to be used with care. It is the language of Matthew and Romans, the latter being quite clear that the new Israel should include, not replace, the old)

[ 13. June 2007, 16:29: 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 Scotus:
Speaking of Jesus: where is this "laying-on of hands" commanded by him again? I always forget....

I was under the impression that the canon of the New Testament included not just the exact words of Jesus in the Gospels. Acts 6.6 records the laying-on of hands as the means by which the first deacons were ordained. Laying on of hands is associated with apostolic minsitry in Acts 13.3. More generally in other places in Acts, the laying-on of hands accompanies prayer invoking the Spirit. And - lest we fall into the heresy of Marcion - if we look at the Old Testament we find that laying-on of hands is frequently used as a sign of conferring authority.

It is hardly concievable that laying-on of hands wasn't a consistent feature of apostolic commissioning (ordination) from the very beginning.

Did Jesus command it? Who knows. What is clear is that he chose his 12 apostles and commissioned them for the work of the church, which necessarily required them to enlist the help of others and appoint successors.

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 Scotus:
Ah, that hoary old chestnut. The fact is, in the earliest days of the church, non-Jews shared in the apostolic minsitry of oversight, a development rapidly received by the whole church.

There is a deep-running theme through scripture of marriage as a metaphor for the relationship between God and his chosen people, Christ and his body the Church, from Genesis 2.24 to the marriage feast of the Lamb in Revelation. There is no distinction between male and female in Christ, for all our part of his body, and yet the complimentarity of male and female does seem to reveal something about the relationship between God and his people. This, perhaps, could be a theological reason for Christ's free choice of 12 men.

Hmmm. In one place here you seem to argue for "Apostle" as equivalent to "those who shared in the apostolic minsitry of oversight" in the early Church.

In another place, you argue that the original 12 are the ones with real significance - and they are all men.

So which is it?

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | 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 Scotus:
I was under the impression that the canon of the New Testament included not just the exact words of Jesus in the Gospels.

Again here. At times you argue that it's what Jesus himself does that's crucially significant; at other times it's the early church that gets the nod.

I can't follow the argument.

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 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I can't follow the argument.

To reduce it to very simple terms, Jesus' life and teachings are normative for the Church. But we only know about Jesus' life and teachings through the witness of the early church. Moreover Jesus promised to send the Spirit of Truth to remind the apostles of all he had taught them. Therefore the early church (indeed, the church in every generation) bears witness to the teachings of Jesus under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

To ask 'what did Jesus do or say' without reference to the early church, especially when the matter in question is to do with the church itself, is not only bananas, it is impossible.

[ 13. June 2007, 16:49: 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 
Anyway, perhaps Jesus chose 12 men to directly signify the 12 (Highly Patriarchal) Tribes of Israel - but meant the world to understand that considering that he certainly had female followers, and since he treated them no differently than he treated men, that that system was now obsolete. Twelve Apostles to begin with - but many more than that followed, including many women.

And let's not forget that the men all ran away after the Crucifixion. Only women were left to care for Jesus' body, and as you note, women were the first to see him risen. "Apostle to the Apostles," indeed - and for a good reason.

What would the significance of Jesus' life have been, after all, if he had left everything exactly the way he found it? Isn't that the whole point - that the world is transformed by his coming? Didn't his actions precisely point to the total equality of men and women? He refused to allow men to stone an adulterous woman. He healed men and women without distinction. And, after all, the command is that we are to "make disciples of all nations" - not to "lay hands on men and make them priests."

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 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So which is it?

Both.

My point in the particular post that you reference is that the rapdily-established practice of the early church underlines the fact that the Jewishness of the 12 has a different significance from their maleness, and therefor the over-worn observation that priests are no longer required to be circumcised Jews who refrain from eating pork or working on Saturdays (I wish!*) cannot bear the weight that is put on it in this debate. Perhaps the maleness of the 12 cannot bear the weight of the opposing argument by itself - fortunately it doesn't have to.


(*referring only to the last of those things of course [Biased] )

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 TubaMirum:
Anyway, perhaps Jesus chose 12 men to directly signify the 12 (Highly Patriarchal) Tribes of Israel - but meant the world to understand that considering that he certainly had female followers, and since he treated them no differently than he treated men, that that system was now obsolete. Twelve Apostles to begin with - but many more than that followed, including many women.

The apostles obviously beleieved they had been charged with a particular task in the church once Jesus had left - but then they were just pig-headed men I suppose.

quote:

And let's not forget that the men all ran away after the Crucifixion. Only women were left to care for Jesus' body, and as you note, women were the first to see him risen. "Apostle to the Apostles," indeed - and for a good reason.

And as I've already said, the "look how much better the women were" argument only serves to underline the fact that they weren't given this particular task - not because the men were better, but because Jesus had a particular reason for this.
quote:

What would the significance of Jesus' life have been, after all, if he had left everything exactly the way he found it? Isn't that the whole point - that the world is transformed by his coming? Didn't his actions precisely point to the total equality of men and women? He refused to allow men to stone an adulterous woman. He healed men and women without distinction. And, after all, the command is that we are to "make disciples of all nations" - not to "lay hands on men and make them priests."

But doesn't this then highlight the fact that he didn't go against the grain when he could so easily have done by appointing women to this one partiuclar office in his church.

You are quite right, Jesus did command his disciples to "make disciples of all nations". He also gave us the sacrament of his body and blood and commanded his disciples to "do this in memory of me". He also gave specific instructions to Peter, and to all the 12, concerning their role in the church's mission. Quite possibly, he said or did some things that weren't recorded in the gospels (John kind of suggests that)

And let's not forget the poor old Holy Spirit. Is He not also sovereign? Does being a disciple of Christ mean ignoring the work of His Spirit in the formative years of His Church? As soon as we reduce the practice of the Church to only the express commandments of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels we limit ourselves considerably. Not even the sola scriptura protestants are quite that drastic.

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 
My intention was to continue a debate that had begun in Ecclesiastics about whether supporters of the ordination of women could legitimately consider themselves catholic, and if so how they defined that term.

I did not intend to rehash the arguments of the previous 27 pages, much as I'm enjoying the opportunity to flesh out some thoughts. I'm about to go off on my own pre-ordination to the priesthood retreat in a couple of days, so shouldn't be spending quite so much time on the ship. I think we might have to agree to disagree on this.

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 Scotus:
To ask 'what did Jesus do or say' without reference to the early church, especially when the matter in question is to do with the church itself, is not only bananas, it is impossible.

And yet you did it twice yourself, with the insistence that the original 12 were what really counted.

Anyway, arguing for the importance of the early church on this topic is very convenient. Male domination was the rule in every culture in the world at that time, so what makes the early church special in this regard in any way? Particularly since the evidence shows that there were in fact many women with prominent roles in the early church as well - and given Jesus' own actions and the writings of Paul, who (in addition to the examples given already) gives explicit instruction to women about prophesy?

Another interesting thing, I think, is that there were many Desert Mothers - large crowds of them, in fact, perhaps larger in number than the Desert Fathers - but we only have the writings of the Desert Fathers. Hmmmm.

So continue to argue that this is eternal truth, if you must. Lots of people aren't buying it anymore, though - and have plenty of good arguments to back that up, including the ones given here.

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | 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 Scotus:
And let's not forget the poor old Holy Spirit. Is He not also sovereign? Does being a disciple of Christ mean ignoring the work of His Spirit in the formative years of His Church?

Whatever you say. As long as we can then blame the Holy Spirit for the Church's long history of anti-Semitism, too....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | 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 Scotus:
My intention was to continue a debate that had begun in Ecclesiastics about whether supporters of the ordination of women could legitimately consider themselves catholic, and if so how they defined that term.

I did not intend to rehash the arguments of the previous 27 pages, much as I'm enjoying the opportunity to flesh out some thoughts. I'm about to go off on my own pre-ordination to the priesthood retreat in a couple of days, so shouldn't be spending quite so much time on the ship. I think we might have to agree to disagree on this.

Fine with me. Enjoy your retreat.
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:
we only have the writings of the Desert Fathers.
This would be a surprise to Sister Benedicta Ward! There are several volumes of writings of the Desert Mothers available.
Posts: 1287 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Scotus, I'm not entirely sure what you want. Ostensibly it is a definition of Anglo-Catholicism that encompasses the ordination of women and more than one of us has quite cogently elucidated how it is that we both affirm OoW and consider ourselves ACs. The best you seem to be able to do is to reiterate that ours is not your definition, but that is not really at issue. My instinctive definition of Anglo-Catholicism would not include a group who sets up for themselves a ghetto-like church-within-a-church. But I defer to those who minister under such a model and also consider themselves Anglo-Catholics.
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 
quote:
Originally posted by lukacs:
quote:
we only have the writings of the Desert Fathers.
This would be a surprise to Sister Benedicta Ward! There are several volumes of writings of the Desert Mothers available.
You mean like this one: The Sayings of the Desert Fathers?

There are no writings at all that I know of; there's one book I've seen that elaborates on "9 sayings."

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 
I don't have the books at hand, but I seem to recall Sr. Ward citing a professor named Swan who edited a book of writings of the Desert Mothers.
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:
I don't have the books at hand, but I seem to recall Sr. Ward citing a professor named Swan who edited a book of writings of the Desert Mothers.

I think what happpened is that there are four better-known Mothers, and several of their "sayings" got passed down through the writings of some of the men. These few sayings have been emphasized lately because of the complete lack of awareness that these women even existed - but there's still very little material to work with.

I could be wrong, though, and I'll see if I can find out.

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 Scotus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And would someone please answer by earlier question? - What is the Bonn Agreement? I googled it and got stuff about climate change.

See this answer posted by lukacs two posts after your original question.

And re 'apostle to the apostles', we can easily distinguish between an honorific title recognising Mary Mag's role as witness to the resurrection, and the office of Apostle. Similarly, if we read Junias as the female name Junia and assume that prominent among the apostles means she is an apostle - both disputable - it still doesn't necessarily follow that she is an Apostle, to whom oversight of the church has been given by another Apostle through the laying-on of hands.

Thanks/sorry - must have missed it.

Knew about the old catholics - but don't they now have women bishops so won't that be rescinded in more recent cases?

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

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose the point is that at the time there were no worries about the validity of their orders, so by their bishops participating in Anglican consecrations they could make good any perceived deficiancies in the Anglican succession. That being achieved (and I heard from somewhere that something like 95% of serving Anglican bishops now have old catholic 'blood' in their lineage), their participation in consecrations is no longer necessary. I've no idea if old catholic bishops still take part routinely now though.
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 
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
Scotus, I'm not entirely sure what you want. Ostensibly it is a definition of Anglo-Catholicism that encompasses the ordination of women and more than one of us has quite cogently elucidated how it is that we both affirm OoW and consider ourselves ACs. The best you seem to be able to do is to reiterate that ours is not your definition, but that is not really at issue. My instinctive definition of Anglo-Catholicism would not include a group who sets up for themselves a ghetto-like church-within-a-church. But I defer to those who minister under such a model and also consider themselves Anglo-Catholics.

Indeed and there's part of me that says that those who call themselves Catholic in a Church which ordains women ought to be obedient to that Church in recognising all the priests of that Church.* I personally find Flying Bishops to be less Catholic than women priests.

Carys

*And TBF there are some priests who are not sure about the ordination of women because of Tradition who do take this line and I respect them for that.

--------------------
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
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 
Emphasis added by cor ad cor in both quotes.
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
...My instinctive definition of Anglo-Catholicism would not include a group who sets up for themselves a ghetto-like church-within-a-church. But I defer to those who minister under such a model and also consider themselves Anglo-Catholics.

Indeed and there's part of me that says that those who call themselves Catholic in a Church which ordains women ought to be obedient to that Church in recognising all the priests of that Church.* I personally find Flying Bishops to be less Catholic than women priests.

Carys

*And TBF there are some priests who are not sure about the ordination of women because of Tradition who do take this line and I respect them for that.

The words I have emphasised seem exactly right to me. Well said, LQ and Carys. I don't see that there is room for "ghetto-like churches within a church" in a Church that calls itself Catholic. The RCC allows some breadth in a range of celebrating communities, from groups like the FSSP to parishes with praise bands. But she doesn't allow the modernists to condemn the FSSP's Tridentine celebrations as "invalid", or the other way around. There are married priests in the RCC, typically converts from Anglicanism or Orthodoxy. It would be unthinkable for a parish or any group of Roman Catholics to reject their ministry as invalid; I think that would constitute schism.

In many ways the question comes down to the nature of the Church's polity: hierarchy, democracy, or collection of loosely affiliated tribes?

--------------------
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
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997

 - Posted      Profile for Archimandrite   Author's homepage   Email Archimandrite   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I personally find Flying Bishops to be less Catholic than women priests.

Doesn't that rather depend on how you define "diocese", "bishop", "presbyter" and "collegiality"?

--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).

Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Carys

Ship's Celticist
# 78

 - Posted      Profile for Carys   Email Carys   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I personally find Flying Bishops to be less Catholic than women priests.

Doesn't that rather depend on how you define "diocese", "bishop", "presbyter" and "collegiality"?
So what do those words mean to you? Are you disowning most of the Anglican Church?

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
Archimandrite
Shipmate
# 3997

 - Posted      Profile for Archimandrite   Author's homepage   Email Archimandrite   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
Originally posted by Archimandrite:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I personally find Flying Bishops to be less Catholic than women priests.

Doesn't that rather depend on how you define "diocese", "bishop", "presbyter" and "collegiality"?
So what do those words mean to you? Are you disowning most of the Anglican Church?

Carys

Hardly.

The Church of England hasn't disowned people opposed to the OoW, as the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod of 1993 makes clear. If the Anglican Church holds things which are, as it says, consistent with the Faith of the Church as the Church of England received it, and if it is to act in a way consonant with its past, then it is
a) not tied to a notion of diocese as purely territorial, and
b) capable of tolerating debate and difference of views, and pragmatic in its approach to them.

If the words that I mentioned are to be defined and related to one another in the way that many of those opposed to the OoW believe - and, it has to be said, these definitions are shared by many of those in favour, but the understanding of fundamental matters in how they do relate are different - then the structural evolution and pragmatism which Anglican tradition offers the Catholic Church are ways in which our differences can be reconciled, and we can continue to build up the Body of Christ.

We can work it all out, and we won't disown it or allow ourselves to be pushed out.

--------------------
"Loyal Anglican" (Warning: General Synod may differ).

Posts: 1580 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2003  |  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 cor ad cor loquitur:
The RCC allows some breadth in a range of celebrating communities, from groups like the FSSP to parishes with praise bands. But she doesn't allow the modernists to condemn the FSSP's Tridentine celebrations as "invalid", or the other way around. There are married priests in the RCC, typically converts from Anglicanism or Orthodoxy. It would be unthinkable for a parish or any group of Roman Catholics to reject their ministry as invalid; I think that would constitute schism.

It would be unthinkable for the RCC to introduce a degree of contingency with regard to its orders in the way the C of E has, not only de facto (which would be the case if the opponents where simply voicing their own doubts) but de jure. The C of E has created a situation where it is entirely legitimate not to accept the sacramental ministry of all those canonically ordained to the priesthood. Introducing and legitimising uncertainty into the sacramental economy in this way is, to my mind, profoundly uncatholic.

FiF is therefore not a schismatic group, but represents a point of view which is permitted and indeed honoured within the Church of England. That such a situation would be unthinkable within the RCC does not mean that it is the FiFers who are acting uncatholicly, but the other way round*, a point of view which has the support of the Holy Father, no less.

*Though I do accept that many people supporting this innovation within the C of E consider themselves catholics on their understanding of the term.

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 
I would not suggest that FiF is in schism, but it does seem to have sect-like approach to its relations with the rest of the CofE. The idea of separate bishops strikes me as unneccessary, for instance. The CofE does not (yet) permit women bishops, so people who don't recognise OoW needn't worry about the validity of their bishops' orders--unless they subscribe to a "theology of taint" that has no grounding in Catholic thought.

Personally, I believe the Act of Synod should be repealed. As Colin Slee writes:

quote:
In the UK, the strategy for a divided Church was actually institutionalized by the Act of Synod. Those who chose to reject the validity of women's orders were given the privileged position of remaining in the Church (and in many cases continuing to subvert it) whilst rejecting its carefully debated path.
Stephen Bates argues that PEVs set the precedent for APO over the same-sex issue:

quote:
This effectively undermined traditional diocesan Episcopal oversight and set a precedent that would allow parishes to choose their own bishops. If they could do it for this reason, why not for some other in the future?

Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Where it not for the provision made for those unable to accept the development, the ordination of women to the priesthood might not have made it through synod, and certainly would not have got through parliament.

It looks like the same can be said of the ordination of women to the episcopate.

As for PEVs, how hard is it to understand the concept of collegiality. Father A does not accept that Mother B is a priest. How can they possibly belong to the same presbyteral college, and by definition how can they look to the same bishop for oversight? (because that is what a presbyteral college is, one bishop and his priests). It is a catholic understanding of episcopal collegiality which necessitates flying bishops (and collegiality seems to me to have a greater claim to be considered a sina qua non of catholic episcopal oversight in the church's tradition than non-overlapping territorial jurisdiction does).

I can see how to an evangelical mind provision of alternative oversight for opponents of OoW and gay priests are justifiable on the same grounds. But for (many) catholics, they are different order issues: one is about the nature of the sacrament, one is about biblical authority in moral matters, which does not, according to long established tradition, cast doubt on the validity of the sacraments themselves. Therefore provision for opponents of OoW on the grounds of collegiality does not necessarily lead to provision for opponents of liberal sexual ethics. On the other hand, the latter case is tied up with other issues of authority and intention which impair proper collegial relations and so justify alternative provision.

Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
As for PEVs, how hard is it to understand the concept of collegiality. Father A does not accept that Mother B is a priest. How can they possibly belong to the same presbyteral college, and by definition how can they look to the same bishop for oversight?

It's hard because it doesn't resolve the issue, only moves it one step back - Father A and Mother B may not be in the same presbyterial college, but their oversees - Bishop C and Bishop D - are in the same episcopal college, answerable ultimately to the same Primate, with differing views of each other's presbyters. The oddness remains.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Scotus - indeed! One of the points Bates makes is the strange bedfellows OoW made between conservative ACs and Reformistas, "who under other circumstances would have been most censorious of the Anglo-Catholics gays' behaviour".
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 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 dyfrig:
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
As for PEVs, how hard is it to understand the concept of collegiality. Father A does not accept that Mother B is a priest. How can they possibly belong to the same presbyteral college, and by definition how can they look to the same bishop for oversight?

It's hard because it doesn't resolve the issue, only moves it one step back - Father A and Mother B may not be in the same presbyterial college, but their oversees - Bishop C and Bishop D - are in the same episcopal college, answerable ultimately to the same Primate, with differing views of each other's presbyters. The oddness remains.
But at the moment - whilst Bishop C and Bishop D are universally recognised as bishops (and no opponent of the ordination of women actually denies the valid episcopal orders of any male bishop consecrated in the apostolic succession) - their episcopal collegiality is impaired by this disagreement but not fractured. It is not the same as a putative presbyterial college, some of whose members do not believe others actually qualify for membership becuase they do not consider them to be priests. That will, of course, change the moment a women is introduced into the college of bishops (clearly, one can no longer talk of an anglican-communion-wide college of bishops in the same way one could in the past).
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 
Or I could have just said - yes indeed, and that's really why we need a third province; and why something that is desirable at the moment becomes an absolute necessity if women ever become bishops in the C of E.
Posts: 422 | From: Diocese of Brentwood | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
seasick

...over the edge
# 48

 - Posted      Profile for seasick   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Question from a dumb Methodist: Has the 'period of reception' which accompanied the decision to ordain women ever been brought to an end? If not, would it not be more appropriate to come to a decision on that before consecrating female bishops?

--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley

Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Don't remember you as being particularly 'dumb'!

No one has said how long the 'period of reception' will be.

The experience of the Lutherans in Sweden is that the anti-women priests group has grown larger over time.

A third province is going to be the only way to solve the issue.

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
SCotus is of course discussing and arguing as if the CofE stood alone, and had no ties of order or faith with anyone else.

He knows that in fact there are female Anglican bishops, some of whom attended the last Lambeth and were accepted as full participants by the other (male) bishops.

He knows that none of his arguments stand the minute he admits that other branches of the Anglican communion exist, since in none of them do his CofE lifelines exist.

(In this he is not alone, of course: the CofE is full of people, lay and ordained, from many sides of every argument, who want to treat the CofE as if it and it alone constituted Anglicanism and as if the rest of us really didn't exist, or weren't "real" Anglicans.)

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

He knows that none of his arguments stand the minute he admits that other branches of the Anglican communion exist, since in none of them do his CofE lifelines exist.

Why not?

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

He knows that none of his arguments stand the minute he admits that other branches of the Anglican communion exist, since in none of them do his CofE lifelines exist.

Why not?
Why do they not exist? Because there are no conscience clauses or arrangements equivalent to the PEVs. Outside the CofE (and I offer no comment on whether this is good or wise, or not), opponents of the Ordination of WOmen put up with it, treating female priests just like male priests in all circumstances, or get out. (Most of them got out, in fact, 20-25 years ago, and no one really noticed them going.)

Why, without the lifelines in question, do Scotus' arguments fail? Because he has made clear that he holds on to Anglicanism and the CofE because he has the choice. Without the choice given him in the CofE, he would have a different choice -- the one I referred to above, that was made in those branches of the Anglican CHurch which ordain women -- to treat female priests just like male priests or to get out.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anthropax
Shipmate
# 11234

 - Posted      Profile for Anthropax   Email Anthropax   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What about Wales and our PAB? And it's important to remember the Manchester Statement that both parties are 'loyal Anglicans'.

--------------------
Be joyful and keep the faith! St David

Posts: 142 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Apr 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 John Holding:
Without the choice given him in the CofE, he would have a different choice -- the one I referred to above, that was made in those branches of the Anglican CHurch which ordain women -- to treat female priests just like male priests or to get out.

Quite right too (the latter option, btw, not the former).

But I am well aware the C of E does not stand alone. Scroll back a few posts and you will see that I make a comment about episcopal collegialty no longer existing across the Anglican Communion as a whole. And since the AC has (misguidedly, imho) adopted the principle of provincial automony, extending it to the very heart of the sacramental economy, I think I can quite reasonably concentrate my considerations on the C of E alone. Accused of ignoring the rest of the Anglican Communion from someone in North America? Pot calling kettle black I think.

[ 15. June 2007, 19:38: 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
Accused of ignoring the rest of the Anglican Communion from someone in North America? Pot calling kettle black I think.

That is almost worth a hell-call. No province has been called upon to justify its internal decision-making to the degree that ECUSA has, and no province has bent over backwards more graciously to do so than they have.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

Why, without the lifelines in question, do Scotus' arguments fail? Because he has made clear that he holds on to Anglicanism and the CofE because he has the choice. Without the choice given him in the CofE, he would have a different choice -- the one I referred to above, that was made in those branches of the Anglican CHurch which ordain women -- to treat female priests just like male priests or to get out.

John

Forgive me: but I still fail to see how the existence of other Anglican provinces counts against Scotus' argument. The CofE has, in fact, made provision for people who disagree with its decision to (unilaterally) ordain women. The reasons they cite for this are likely to be those provided by Scouts. I simply don't understand what bearing the existence of other Anglican provinces has to do with this, unless you want to deny provincial autonomy, which (given you own position) would seem rather like shooting yourself in the foot.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scotus
Shipmate
# 8163

 - Posted      Profile for Scotus   Email Scotus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
LQ (and others in TEC): please forgive my inflammatory language.

DOD has put it a little better.

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:
If you attack one strand of the argument in isolation from the rest, you may indeed be able to unpick it. If that weren't the case we could all pack up now. The argument in favour of maintaining the status quo comes from the combined weight of all of these lines of argument. And, pace your last comment, I would say that the burden of proof lies with those who wish to break away from the status quo.

A little while ago in the US Anglican lectionary was the commemoration of first ordination of a Black man in 1845.

I have to ask if the same "composite" argument was applied to establish for many years that Jesus didn't intend Black priests/presbyters/apostles. My point is that as far as I can see you take gender to be a essential determining factor. Our ancestors took race the same way, and we no longer find that "obvious" or even defensible.

So, looking at the thread title, why are the genitals or the chromosomes so important? What is important and what is unimportant? There was a time when left-handed men were not ordained, for similar reasons, after all.

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

Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  ...  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

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools