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 29)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  ...  51  52  53 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
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 
I've some sympathy with the motivation behind those questions: although, of course, it in no way answers the question of whether particular churches ought to take, what a large proportion of Christendom consider to be an illegitimate step, without wider agreement.

But the analogy with 'race' doesn't really hold. There is no such real biological property as 'race'. Whereas there is such a property as 'sex'.

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

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I remain, however, just as uncomfortable with the use of sex as a distinction as with race. Someone asked rhetorically further back, if biological characteristics were irrelevant, then why couldn't an animal be ordained? My feeling on that would be that Christ did not share in "animal-ness" as he shared in our humanity. I think that humanity is the defining characteristic - not biological existence on the one hand, or maleness on the other. Was it Anselm who said that what was taken on was redeemed and what was not, was not? If Christ shared only in maleness, then the implications of that frighten me. But it seems to me that if you feel that only a male can be an icon of Christ, then that's the logical conclusion of what you're arguing.

[ 16. June 2007, 13:44: 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
I remain, however, just as uncomfortable with the use of sex as a distinction as with race. Someone asked rhetorically further back, if biological characteristics were irrelevant, then why couldn't an animal be ordained?

Because they can't sing the Eucharistic Prayer?
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 
(That reminds me of Santorum's anti-gay argument about Bestiality: if "gay is OK," then what's wrong with a little man-on-dog action?

Hey! Two DH's on one thread! Not bad!)

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 Liturgy Queen:
Was it Anselm who said that what was taken on was redeemed and what was not, was not? If Christ shared only in maleness, then the implications of that frighten me. But it seems to me that if you feel that only a male can be an icon of Christ, then that's the logical conclusion of what you're arguing.

I don't see the logic there. Christ shared in our humanity in the incarnation, but he was, in fact, male. Soteriologically speaking, it is his assumption of every aspect of humanity (accept our sin) that is important. It does not follow all who are saved and make up the royal priestly people of God are also called to the particular sharing in Christ's High Priesthood that is the ordinaed priesthood, nor does restricting this to men necessarily detract from the fact that Christ assumed humanity in the incarnation to save men and women.
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 
BTW it was Gregory of Nazianzen who came up with that argument to refute the apollinarian heresy, though St Anslem may well have said it as well.
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 
Christ was male, but did he need to be? Could he not have been otherwise? If so, what difference would it make? If not, why not?

As for whether OoW "follows" from the Incarnation, Susan Dowell and Jane Williams write:

quote:
Opponents of the ordination of women have attempted to demonstrate that maleness is theologically essential to the priesthood, not just a historical accident. In its contemporary forms, this is in fact a radically new theological argument - obviously, since the question was not seriously raised in previous centuries...But do theologies of the essential maleness of the priesthood hold water?

[A description of the "priest as icon" argument follows]. Opponents of the ordination of women have argued that a priest cannot stand as the icon of Christ in this way. A woman breaks the threads of connection with the historical Jesus, who was undoubtedly male. The argument is that the particularly dense and satisfying sacramental framework is shattered by changing the sex of the priest...

But no one has ever argued that the Eucharist is a kind of play. Priests are not chosen for their likeness to first-century Palestinian Jews. If the priest does not have to look or sound like Jesus - and how could he, since we don't know what Jesus was like - in any other way, why is his maleness non-negotiable?...

The danger is that if maleness is made the only non-negotiable tie with the historical Jesus, it has to be given such heavy symbolic weight to explain why this one characteristic cannot be changed that the argument often seems to imply that Christianity is not a religion for women at all.

For all that the anti group protest their recognition of the equality of women and their devotion to Our Lady, the theological implications of denying orders to women are severe. There is no other class of people that we say are saved, but unable on a blanket basis to participate in the ministerial priesthood. The elevation of maleness to a status of theological import is difficult to accept for those of us who don't recognise any real ontological difference between the sexes in the first place.
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 Liturgy Queen:
I remain, however, just as uncomfortable with the use of sex as a distinction as with race.

My point was that you need to supply additional argument in the sex case. In the case of race, you can just respond 'no such thing'. In the sex case, you need to argue that sex is not relevant, since there clearly is such a thing as sex. Liturgy Queen is simply incorrect in stating that there is 'no ontological difference' between the sexes. Chromosomes, hormones and genitals look like ontology from where I'm sitting. His point is - I assume - that this ontology is not symbolically relevant. As I've said, it's a view which I find persuasive. I don't, however, think that the fact that I personally find a view persuasive is sufficient grounds for the Church to act.

[ 16. June 2007, 18:10: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]

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

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  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 Liturgy Queen:
...The elevation of maleness to a status of theological import ...

(well said)

The practical issue I have is that somehow the priesthood becomes an essential qualification for all the jobs with any real authority. For example, name a Catholic university with a female president. (I'm taking a risk there ... but a very small one.) Back about 1950, that was identical in the civic/public universities, of course.

I was at a public lecture in Ottawa, sponsored by St. Paul University. All the senior professors were introduced by their priestly titles (even though wearing "civilian" shirts and ties.)

--------------------
"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
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
DOD is correct in pointing out my problematic choice of words. I should say that I do not believe in an inherent spiritual difference between males and females.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  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:

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.
If you are denying that there are any ties of belief and order among provinces of the Anglican Communion, then you are admitting that the COmmunion exists (for you) only in England. That suggests to me that you (general, not DOD in particular) do not accept as valid priests ordained in any other province -- and would act yourself if in Wales or Scotland as if not a priest in the CinW or the Epsicopal CHurch.

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:
If you are denying that there are any ties of belief and order among provinces of the Anglican Communion, then you are admitting that the COmmunion exists (for you) only in England. That suggests to me that you (general, not DOD in particular) do not accept as valid priests ordained in any other province -- and would act yourself if in Wales or Scotland as if not a priest in the CinW or the Epsicopal CHurch.

So, apparently, the decisions of synodical bodies in the US and Canada bind members of the Church of England, in spite of us having no input into the decisions made by those bodies? Might one suggest that 'ties of belief and order' tie two ways? Give me a vote, and you make have the beginnings of a point.

--------------------
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:
If you are denying that there are any ties of belief and order among provinces of the Anglican Communion, then you are admitting that the COmmunion exists (for you) only in England. That suggests to me that you (general, not DOD in particular) do not accept as valid priests ordained in any other province -- and would act yourself if in Wales or Scotland as if not a priest in the CinW or the Epsicopal CHurch.

So, apparently, the decisions of synodical bodies in the US and Canada bind members of the Church of England, in spite of us having no input into the decisions made by those bodies? Might one suggest that 'ties of belief and order' tie two ways? Give me a vote, and you make have the beginnings of a point.
They bind as much as decisions of the CofE are taken to bind life in other provinces. We bore with the CofE's reluctance to ordain women for decades, and still bear with its reluctance to consecrate women as bishops. Our female bishops so far bear with the CofE when visiting that they do not function as bishops liturgically. But the CofE only speaks for itself -- just as we do. It does not speak for the Communion anymore than we do. If you take the CofE as your guide, you are limited to the CofE -- just as if you take Canada for your guide, you are limited to Canada.

Apart from grace, that is. Grace by which we acknowledge, each in our own province, that we are sister churches and function that way. (Though, to the best of my knowledge, although no CofE priest or bishop has been denied the right to function according to his or her order in Canada, our priests and bishops have not been accorded the same courtesy.)

I rather think you are confusing Canada with the US if you are under the impression that any decision has been taken on any current issue --either with or without consideration of what other provinces think. At least, if that nasty gibe a couple of posts back had any content. And when our General Synod does make a decision it may or may not be one with which you agree, but you can be assured that the views of the CofE and the rest of the communion will be taken into account. Unlike the CofE in action so often, you see, we do acknowledge that we are part of a greater whole called the Anglican communion, that does have parts other than ourselves.

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 
I'm still not entirely clear what point you are making. Do you, or do you not, think that members of the CofE are legitimately able not to accept the desirability of Canada's having consecrated women?

'Nasty gibe'? Where?

--------------------
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 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
'Nasty gibe'? Where?

I assume it was a reference to my pot and kettle comment, for which I apologised, and I admit to a certain laziness in lumping the Candian and US churches together.

However, either we have a communion with a centralised authority, in which individual proivnces cannot go their own way on fundamental issues to do with sacramentl order (the question of what counts as fundamental being decided by this authority), or we let each province make up their own mind on such things. Since the latter is evidently the case, whilst there are ties of belief and practice (including, where possible, recognition of orders), they are necessarily weakened by this approach.

I am now about to jump in the car and will be away from my computer for a week.

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 
Bit of a change of pace. I considered starting a thread in Purg but it would probably wind up here anyway. Does anyone else find this interesting, curious, or bizarre?

[edit Freudian keyslip on glue factory]

[ 17. June 2007, 16:43: 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
Bit of a change of pace. I considered starting a thread in Purg but it would probably wind up here anyway. Does anyone else find this interesting, curious, or bizarre?

Nope. Some people go Anglican-to-Catholic, some go Catholic-to-Anglican. I think this will always happen; different people have different religious needs.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scotus:
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
Was it Anselm who said that what was taken on was redeemed and what was not, was not? If Christ shared only in maleness, then the implications of that frighten me. But it seems to me that if you feel that only a male can be an icon of Christ, then that's the logical conclusion of what you're arguing.

I don't see the logic there. Christ shared in our humanity in the incarnation, but he was, in fact, male.
Only with respect to his humanity. With respect to his Divinity, he was not male. I've never quite seen why Christ's High Priesthood is a function of His humanity alone and not His Divinity... nor, if it was, why it is so important that his humanity was of a male variety, as opposed to being, oh I don't know, 5'8 or whatever he might have been.

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 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 
Particularly as the point of Christ's being human is not that he was male but fully human.

--------------------
"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
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 DaisyM:
Particularly as the point of Christ's being human is not that he was male but fully human.

And therefore of a single gender. If Christ had been female, would we be having a similar debate about letting males into the priesthood?

That's why I'm looking for the argument that "maleness" is essential, not accidental, not merely "obvious" - as it was for so many years.

--------------------
"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
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not quite sure that that is the argument - after all, we accept that women can be baptised into Christ's male Body. We also accept that the Church of this male Body is female, but that men can be members and priests of it nevertheless. So what I'm looking for is a reason why the requirements for ordination to the priesthood differ from those of baptism.

As others have pointed out, it does not necessarily follow that 'neither male nor female in Christ' applies to ordination just because it does to baptism, but, if it doesn't, I'd quite like to know why. Arguments based on Headship are clear enough, but I think that (i) as presented by Paul they seem very much of the culture of the day and (ii) priests are servants not heads so I don't think the model applies.

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
priests are servants not heads so I don't think the model applies.

On that logic there are no heads, which rather makes a cipher of Paul's discussion about heads.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 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 Henry Troup:
And therefore of a single gender.

Normally, not quite always. At least some people are genuinely intersex, and at least some others never develop any biological sexual characters at all. But they are still human. So if you are talking in terms of "essential" characters (which biology and science tend not to of course) then sex is not an "essential" character to humanity.

[ 19. June 2007, 00:23: Message edited by: ken ]

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
And therefore of a single gender.

Normally, not quite always. At least some people are genuinely intersex, and at least some others never develop any biological sexual characters at all. But they are still human. So if you are talking in terms of "essential" characters (which biology and science tend not to of course) then sex is not an "essential" character to humanity.
I've thought of that with regard to other debates, but not this one. How do those who insist on male priests handle that uncertainty? What do you have to have chromosomally or in terms of genital formation to be valid male priest for Orthodox/Catholic/FiF purposes?

For instance, if you have both a y chromosome and a vagina are you right out? Like the old fashioned stereotype about Russian 'lady' shot putters, how do you tell if 'Father' is male?

L.

[ 19. June 2007, 01:07: Message edited by: Louise ]

--------------------
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: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Louise's is the first genuinely on-topic posting for about twenty pages [Two face]

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  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 Louise:
... What do you have to have chromosomally or in terms of genital formation to be valid male priest for Orthodox/Catholic/FiF purposes?...

There's that traditional curious chair that new Popes were alleged to use to prove their somatic gender ... which may be a myth.

And I realize that there's an argument that the Messiah had to be male so that he could be circumsized, which is the sign of the covenant with Abraham. But since Christian priests are not required to be circumsized, that resemblance became inoperative after the Resurrection.

--------------------
"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
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:
I'm still not entirely clear what point you are making. Do you, or do you not, think that members of the CofE are legitimately able not to accept the desirability of Canada's having consecrated women?


Of course members of the CofE are legitaimately able not to accept the desirability of Canada's having consecrated women.

Those who do so object, though, have to consider whether they are part of the Anglican Communion, or whether they are members of an (anglican) church that is limited to England. If they are happy there, using the appropriate provisions made for them in the CofE, that's fine with me. But if they do, it seems to me, they implicitly limit their ministry and their concept of being anglicans to England.

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 
Why can they not just turn the argument round on you? The Church in Canada is free to ordain whomsoever it wishes. But in so doing it needs to consider what it means to be Anglican, part of a communion. Does it really have an understanding of communion which extends beyond Canada?

I think both approaches are as good, or as bad, as the other. I think there is no such thing as an Anglican Communion - in the sense of a body of particular churches having fully interchangeable ministries. This is not just a factor of the ordination of women: there are a good number of A-Cs (both Affirming and FiF) who don't accept Porvoo. Then there are conservative evangelicals who, whilst having no concept of 'validity', would consider active homosexuals (and those of us who, whilst fortunate enough to be married to people of the opposite sex, aren't severe enough in our views on sexuality) to be 'ministers of the gospel'.

The situation is a mess. Firstly, we need to accept that it is a mess, and stop pretending we inhabit a perfect communion. Secondly, we need to find some vaguely Christian way of living with the mess.

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

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  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 dj_ordinaire:
I've never quite seen why Christ's High Priesthood is a function of His humanity alone and not His Divinity...

Because priesthood is what human beings do towards God. It is qua human being that Christ is a priest: he renders human (and therefore, priestly) the worship which the logos eternally offers to the Father.

In any case, it is nonsensical (if not idolatrous) to suggest that a human being can be an icon of the divine nature. Note that even Christ, in his humanity, is not some kind of photographic image of the divine. He is God, of course, but that's an altogether different story.

None of which is incredibly on-topic. Sorry, Ken.
[Two face]

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

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
In any case, it is nonsensical (if not idolatrous) to suggest that a human being can be an icon of the divine nature.

You mean we weren't created in the image (eikonos) of God? Dang, another brick in my theological wall, blown away.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
... What do you have to have chromosomally or in terms of genital formation to be valid male priest for Orthodox/Catholic/FiF purposes?...

There's that traditional curious chair that new Popes were alleged to use to prove their somatic gender ... which may be a myth.

And I realize that there's an argument that the Messiah had to be male so that he could be circumsized, which is the sign of the covenant with Abraham. But since Christian priests are not required to be circumsized, that resemblance became inoperative after the Resurrection.

The throne story came from the use (until the 1600s IIRC) at one of the Lateran Cathedral's chapels of a particularly elegant marble throne which had survived from classical Rome. However, the benighted dark age ecclesiastical furniture recyclers had not been aware that it had served as a palatial privy chair, and simply filled up the aperture with a marble medallion. Urban legends then arose to explain this peculiar throne seat and what had likely been a crude joke around the time of Pope Joan (which had to do with a very influential Roman noblewoman who was Good Friends of a pontiff or two, and whose influence had helped others achieve the 9c papacy) entered the legend books. Perhaps more learned shipmates can tell us if the throne is still about.

I was going to use my typical *snip* to omit the final paragraph as it was not germane to my post, but thought better of it.

In any case, as a frequent swimmer at the local public pool, just around the corner from the Orthodox cathedral, I can inform shipmates that at least one of the clergy is circumcized and so there will be no uncomfortable process required to bring him into line with iconic identification principles.

[ 20. June 2007, 12:53: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mertseger

Faerie Bard
# 4534

 - Posted      Profile for Mertseger   Author's homepage   Email Mertseger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, yes, the good old story of Pope Joan, and the absolutely wonderful phrase, "Testiculos habet et bene pendentes," which was never used, but don'tcha wish it had been?

--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.

Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   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? 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.

This seems to be the weak spot in the Anglo-Catholic opposition to the Ordination of Women. If women priests are against the Catholic faith, then why has He allowed the Anglican Communion to ordain them at all?

It seems to me there are three possibilities:
  • The Holy Spirit leads the Catholic church into all truth, including the all-male priesthood, as in the RCC and the Orthodox churches. The Anglican church is a schismatic body which does not form part of the Catholic church, and so the Spirit leaves her to her own devices - in which case Catholic-minded Anglicans should jump ship.
  • The Anglican church is really part of the Catholic church. The Holy Spirit guides her into all truth. Since the Anglican church has ordained women, women priests form part of the Catholic faith and Forward in Faith should stop worrying.
  • The Holy Spirit may point to the truth, but the Catholic church, through wilfulness, may deviate from it, which is how the Anglicans, though authentically Catholic, have been able to ordain women. The consequence of this is that Holy Tradition cannot, in any meaningful sense, be described as infallible, and so appealing to it as a clinching argument in the debate over female ordination is futile.
Put briefly, FiF-style Anglo-Catholics seem to show a remarkable inconsistency in their faith in the Holy Spirit - they have great confidence in His abilities to steer the Roman Catholic Church, but very little when it comes to their own communion.

[ 25. June 2007, 09:00: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Put briefly, FiF-style Anglo-Catholics seem to show a remarkable inconsistency in their faith in the Holy Spirit - they have great confidence in His abilities to steer the Roman Catholic Church, but very little when it comes to their own communion.

Except that, apparently, the Holy Spirit was taking a short holiday when Pope Leo XIII wrote Apostolicae Curae.

--------------------
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
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ricardus,

Might it not be more that traditionalist Catholic Anglicans feel that, were the Holy Spirit to be inspiring the Church to ordain women to the priesthood, s/he/it might have let a group wider than an obscure Anglo-Saxon sect in the late twentieth century know about it?

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  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 Thurible:
...in the late twentieth century ...

I thought ordination of women started in the 19th century, in Protestant groups? See the Religious Tolerance site for a number of 1800s landmarks.

--------------------
"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
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 Thurible:
Ricardus,

Might it not be more that traditionalist Catholic Anglicans feel that, were the Holy Spirit to be inspiring the Church to ordain women to the priesthood, s/he/it might have let a group wider than an obscure Anglo-Saxon sect in the late twentieth century know about it?

Thurible

Excellent post! (I am pro-women's priestly ordination but think that the claim of Anglicans to be part of the wider Catholic Church was seriously weakened when we went ahead alone.)

--------------------
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
Yangtze
Shipmate
# 4965

 - Posted      Profile for Yangtze   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Or could it be that the Holy Spirit has spoken to the wider church but they have not responded? (None so deaf as they that will not hear).

Or that the OOW by the Anglican (and other) churches is the mechanism by which the Holy Spirit is speaking to the wider Catholic/Orthodox church?

(The latter seems unlikely I admit, but hey, ours is a faith of the unlikely and of God working through the small and insignificant)

--------------------
Arthur & Henry Ethical Shirts for Men
organic cotton, fair trade cotton, linen

Sometimes I wonder What's for Afters?

Posts: 2022 | From: the smallest town in England | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Ricardus,

Might it not be more that traditionalist Catholic Anglicans feel that, were the Holy Spirit to be inspiring the Church to ordain women to the priesthood, s/he/it might have let a group wider than an obscure Anglo-Saxon sect in the late twentieth century know about it?

Thurible

Excellent post! (I am pro-women's priestly ordination but think that the claim of Anglicans to be part of the wider Catholic Church was seriously weakened when we went ahead alone.)
When the Pope forbids even any discussion of the matter, how can anyone know how many Catholics support the Ordination of Women?

Here's a 1977 Time magazine article that suggests many people do in fact favor OOW. Here's a more recent article.

And of course, many Protestant denominations do ordain women, so the claim about "one sect" is incorrect.

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  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 Thurible:
, were the Holy Spirit to be inspiring the Church to ordain women to the priesthood, s/he/it might have let a group wider than an obscure Anglo-Saxon sect in the late twentieth century know about it?

You mean the Methodists I assume? Or maybe the Lutherans? Or perhaps the Presbyterians?

And at least a large minority of the Baptists and perhaps a larger minority of the Pentecostals.

Maybe a fifth to a quarter of the churchgoing Christians in the world are in denominations that ordain women.

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cusanus

Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692

 - Posted      Profile for Cusanus         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Ricardus,

Might it not be more that traditionalist Catholic Anglicans feel that, were the Holy Spirit to be inspiring the Church to ordain women to the priesthood, s/he/it might have let a group wider than an obscure Anglo-Saxon sect in the late twentieth century know about it?

Thurible

Maybe She has and the others just aren't listening.

--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."

Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Donne

Renaissance Man
# 220

 - Posted      Profile for John Donne     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cusanus:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Ricardus,

Might it not be more that traditionalist Catholic Anglicans feel that, were the Holy Spirit to be inspiring the Church to ordain women to the priesthood, s/he/it might have let a group wider than an obscure Anglo-Saxon sect in the late twentieth century know about it?

Thurible

Maybe She has and the others just aren't listening.
Thurible's argument doesn't really work when you consider other things like African Americans ordained to the Episcopate. First black Archbishop in US is in 1988. The Holy Spirit might be calling and urging and whispering but it aint gunna happen wholescale until society is ready for it.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Might it not be more that traditionalist Catholic Anglicans feel that, were the Holy Spirit to be inspiring the Church to ordain women to the priesthood, s/he/it might have let a group wider than an obscure Anglo-Saxon sect in the late twentieth century know about it?

That still seems to me to imply that the Holy Spirit leaves the Anglican communion to its own devices.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614

 - Posted      Profile for Vesture, Posture, Gesture     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That would be my view

--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"

Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(Anyway, the Anglican Communion is the third-largest Christian body in the world; it's hardly an "obscure sect."

I recognize that not all churches in the Communion ordain women; still.)

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
, were the Holy Spirit to be inspiring the Church to ordain women to the priesthood, s/he/it might have let a group wider than an obscure Anglo-Saxon sect in the late twentieth century know about it?

You mean the Methodists I assume? Or maybe the Lutherans? Or perhaps the Presbyterians?

And at least a large minority of the Baptists and perhaps a larger minority of the Pentecostals.

Maybe a fifth to a quarter of the churchgoing Christians in the world are in denominations that ordain women.

I quite clearly referred to the ordination of women to the priesthood. I understand some Lutherans have bishops and priests but I'm not aware of many Baptists who do!

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37

 - Posted      Profile for Paul.   Author's homepage   Email Paul.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
, were the Holy Spirit to be inspiring the Church to ordain women to the priesthood, s/he/it might have let a group wider than an obscure Anglo-Saxon sect in the late twentieth century know about it?

You mean the Methodists I assume? Or maybe the Lutherans? Or perhaps the Presbyterians?

And at least a large minority of the Baptists and perhaps a larger minority of the Pentecostals.

Maybe a fifth to a quarter of the churchgoing Christians in the world are in denominations that ordain women.

I quite clearly referred to the ordination of women to the priesthood. I understand some Lutherans have bishops and priests but I'm not aware of many Baptists who do!
You think Baptist ministers don't consider themselves priests?
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206

 - Posted      Profile for Thurible   Email Thurible   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In the Catholic sense of the word? Yep, I'd bet money on it.

Thurible

--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."

Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37

 - Posted      Profile for Paul.   Author's homepage   Email Paul.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
In the Catholic sense of the word? Yep, I'd bet money on it.

But that's rather begging the question then isn't it?

[too many then's]

[ 26. June 2007, 14:29: Message edited by: Late Paul ]

Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 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 
No, it's very much part of the question.

Incidentally, I am aware that many RCs support women's ordination in the Western world (but probably not so much in the Third World). In the early Church, where lay people urged people from their own ranks to be priests, we might day that the Holy Spirit is speaking through His Church. Now that the churches (other than congregational ones) have hierarchies the Spirit is going to have to convince bishops, principally he who sits on the throne of Peter.

--------------------
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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  ...  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