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


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women] (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  51  52  53 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
Mouse
Shipmate
# 315

 - Posted      Profile for Mouse         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well said, AlistairW.

If Father, Son and Holy Spirit have consented to take up abode in me, I don't see why any human being needs to "image" that for me, nor to "administer" bread and wine in Eucharist/Communion. His presence consecrates and blesses me inwardly. And hopefully I learn to "image" that myself.

But then, if more people believed that there would be a lot of men looking for a new job.


Posts: 142 | From: England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Let's get on with gospel.

I wondered when someone was going pull that little corker and claim the moral high ground.

This is about that Gospel, Gregroy - whether our church structures, our underlying assumptions and our teachings truly embody the Gospel.

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


Posts: 6916 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

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

Given the totalitarian behaviour of our so-called “host”, RuthW, I am forced to put this here.

Some have questioned the meaning of my words to Karl (see ”Plumbing”). For their benefit I will set out below their meaning. Patristic scholars will notice that my ideas draw heavily uupon those of St Origami of Neurosthesia and St Stilettos the Pachyderm.

The words must be taken in their fuller, spiritual sense. When I say to Karl, “You are an angel”, I am equating him with the cherubim and the seraphim. I see him as pure mind, standing so close to God in worship that they reflect the uncreated light of God’s nature.

As mind, Karl has no need for carnality. But as the Logos is begotten of the Father, so too Karl/the angel begets pure thoughts. These are his babies.

I wish, with my whole being, to be impregnated by Karl’s mind and bear his thought-children! I then wish to clutch them to my bosom so that they can suckl- Cont. p.94

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


Posts: 6916 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
????????????????????????????

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17448 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hooker's Trick

Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89

 - Posted      Profile for Hooker's Trick   Author's homepage   Email Hooker's Trick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Chastmastr (how does one pornounce that?)

I can't make head or tails of your argument. You say the catholic church universal hasn't changed its mind about the celibate priesthood and then demonstrate how Romans and Anglicans and Othodox understanding all differ. What are you saying?

Also, I'm always entertained when Anglicans talk about modern innovations and things that have been thought up in the last 500 years. Let's see -- does 1534 ring any bells? The Church of England as currently constituted is only 500 years old. Yes, yes, I know some catholics are going to tell me the Church of England after 1534 was the very same church that the blessed Augustine brought to England. But if so, it's a church that has undergone some rather significant changes in both practice and theology. Have a quick flick through the 39 articles. And then come to grips with the fact that without the Oxford Movement we wouldn't be sitting here talking about the Anglican Church as Catholic at all! And that's only 150 years old.

My point here is that it seems as though innovation is fine when it suits (when it's catholic) and abhorrent when it doesn't. It's clearly not the INNOVATION that's the problem, it's whether one likes it or not.

Ian -- I don't follow the drift of your argument. I guess I would say in breif that those 16th century Anglicans had to worry a little bit about what they were doing, but I think even the most hyper-orthodox reactionary would be hard-pressed to declare the Church of England a bunch of looney-fringe heretics.

HT


Posts: 6733 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  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 Karl:
????????????????????????????

I don't know why I bother sometimes.

In a hundred years time I will be recognised for the comic genius that I am, d'you hear? Oh well. Prophets not being honoured, etc.

[Exit LEWIS in despair at the youth of today...]

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


Posts: 6916 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
HT wrote -
quote:
Ian -- I don't follow the drift of your argument. I guess I would say in breif that those 16th century Anglicans had to worry a little bit about what they were doing, but I think even the most hyper-orthodox reactionary would be hard-pressed to declare the Church of England a bunch of looney-fringe heretics.

Certainly not my desire to do that! I'm thinking of raccoon spirit guides, syncretism, reincarnation... that sort of thing. But this takes us away from the purpose of this thread so I won't pursue it here - elsewhere perhaps. My point related simply how the ordination of women to the priesthood gets mixed up with other issues in this context.

Ian

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic


Posts: 4759 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hi Ian,

Odd how both you and Gregory have introduced the concept that the ordination of women is linked to syncretistic/pagan undercurrent. It reminds me of the "taint" argument put forward during the early 90s - that somehow women can "infect" the body and blood at the Eucharist - as if the Presence of God could be made dirty by the touch of a woman's hands. Not that the pride, arrogance, stupidity, ignorance or sin of a man could ever taint the Eucharist of course.....

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


Posts: 6916 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
on the other thread, someone used a line about god impregnating creation.

excuse me? this seems theologically unsound. if something is impregnated by something else, that to me implies two seperate individuals. i was impregnated by my husband, and we are certainly seperate individuals. i hope no one is impliying that the creation exists seperatly from god... if so, where did it come from? now if this is simply a metaphor, then it seems to me that an equally appropriate one is god giving birth to creation, which is a female image.

though an even better one is god impregnating him/herself, which then gives us male and female as simply being two halves of the divine nature.

after all, you know, in nature, not everything is either male or female. some are both together (and i don't mean just plants!). some start as one and change later in llife.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!


Posts: 11621 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
I can't make head or tails of your argument. You say the catholic church universal hasn't changed its mind about the celibate priesthood and then demonstrate how Romans and Anglicans and Othodox understanding all differ. What are you saying?


Sorry if my long parenthetical thingies made things unclear; what I was trying to say was
quote:
I consider those areas on which ... Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans all agree, or have agreed up till very recently ... to be doctrinally more important than our differences.

In other words, while we have differences regarding a celibate priesthood, we have all agreed that only men can be ordained to that priesthood, until very recently.
quote:
Also, I'm always entertained when Anglicans talk about modern innovations and things that have been thought up in the last 500 years. Let's see -- does 1534 ring any bells? The Church of England as currently constituted is only 500 years old.
As currently constituted, yes. But do we not claim valid Apostolic succession nonetheless, not as if we were a group of laymen who suddenly decided to "consecrate" ourselves. (There are other Anglican churches and probably others who have broken away from the Anglican Communion, but whose bishops' validity is not in doubt (so far as I am aware) on the grounds that they were in that Succession when they broke off; in one sense they only date back a few years, in another sense they can rightly claim to be in a direct line to the early Church.)
quote:
Yes, yes, I know some catholics are going to tell me the Church of England after 1534 was the very same church that the blessed Augustine brought to England.

Actually I'd say it's the very same church which dates back to Peter and Paul, as well as Augustine (both), Cuthbert, and the Popes and Patriarchs. It's rooted, I believe, in the same apostolic "tree," though with some roots stretching all over the place. The issue of proper succession is still important nonetheless; when the US broke away from England, for example, and the English bishops were "forbidden by law to consecrate anyone who would not take an oath of allegiance to the British Crown," (see link below) the church in the US had to find someone to consecrate Samuel Seabury, so in the words of this link, he "was consecrated to the Episcopate by the Bishop and the Bishop Coadjutor of Aberdeen and the Bishop of Ross and Caithness. He thus became part of the unbroken chain of bishops that links the Church today with the Church of the Apostles." Link: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/282.html

Now one could argue, "Aha, the US church is even younger than the C of E," and in one sense that's true but in another we believe (and the C of E agrees) that we are indeed in proper succession there also.

(The complications we're now going through with the Lutheran Concordat make me very nervous about the future of the church in the US, at least as nervous as the whole female priesthood issue does if not more so; not sure how the Lutherans view it either...)

quote:
But if so, it's a church that has undergone some rather significant changes in both practice and theology. Have a quick flick through the 39 articles. And then come to grips with the fact that without the Oxford Movement we wouldn't be sitting here talking about the Anglican Church as Catholic at all! And that's only 150 years old.

Yes, and I think we have been brought back to some of our roots very well by it. But in no case did we break the succession, by my reckoning. We've had turbulent times over the years, but so have the others; Rome is no longer at all in favour of, say, Tetzel, and I have no idea what the EO's have been through.

In some ways I barely see 1534 as a real break; certainly not in our succession, though of course our Roman friends disagree with us on that. (I believe the Pope is truly the valid Bishop of Rome, just not that he is the earthly head of the Church, and that the RC church is indeed one of the "valid" ones in that sense. And therefore I don't see the Church in England as having any true break as such before, during or after the "Roman Catholic" period.)

quote:
My point here is that it seems as though innovation is fine when it suits (when it's catholic) and abhorrent when it doesn't. It's clearly not the INNOVATION that's the problem, it's whether one likes it or not.


No, it's whether we think it fits with Catholic Christian Tradition or not. Saying it's "whether one likes it or not" implies intellectual dishonesty, doesn't it? And I think we're all (on both sides) trying to be as honest as we can in this, aren't we?
quote:
Chastmastr (how does one pornounce that?)

"Chaste Master." But to explain all of that would take us into other territories not specifically related to women and the priesthood. (I had to spell it like that because when I got my AOL account, it limited me to ten characters, so I subtracted the E's.)

Once again I implore everyone to remember to love one another, and yes these are serious matters, but not worth -- nothing in the cosmos is worth -- our hating one another. And to my more Protestant brethren, I know we disagree about the whole "Apostolic Succession" thing, not to mention "priests" and "bishops," but I would hope you accept me despite what I am sure must look like a "snooty" and "idolatrous" doctrinal position to take...

Tempers are high, yes, especially on matters where one feels marginalized, but I think part of the point of this sort of debate is to show people where we come from and why. I'm not even convinced one person will be convinced the "other side" is right here; but perhaps the best that we can hope for and aim for is that each side will understand that the other isn't acting out of immoral motives and intellectual dishonesty.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity


Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
on the other thread, someone used a line about god impregnating creation.

excuse me? this seems theologically unsound. if something is impregnated by something else, that to me implies two seperate individuals. i was impregnated by my husband, and we are certainly seperate individuals. i hope no one is impliying that the creation exists seperatly from god... if so, where did it come from?


Not sure if I understand you correctly; I thought part of our basic theology was that all creation is indeed separate from God -- that He created it, I mean, out of nothing, not some sort of self-existent thing -- that the world was by no means a part of God as some Eastern religions teach.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OOPS! Said
quote:
But do we not claim valid Apostolic succession nonetheless, not as if we were a group of laymen who suddenly decided to "consecrate" ourselves.
when I meant to say
quote:
But do we not claim valid Apostolic succession nonetheless? Only not as if we were a group of laymen who suddenly decided to "consecrate" ourselves.

The point being we do claim such succession, but not in a "self-consecrating" way -- we claim it based on being validly consecrated by others, by having roots connected up properly.

All clear(er), I hope!

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity


Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ChastMastr has a point Nicole - though creation exists because and "in" God, creation is not "God". Subtle but necessary distinction.

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

Posts: 6916 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
no, no, i think your missing my point here. ok, he created it, how? by impregnating it? no, that implies it already exists. he created it out of himself? as in giving birth? thats more to the point.

so after creation exists, then maybe he can get all masculine and impregnate it, but since creations already been, um, created, whats the point?

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!


Posts: 11621 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
no, no, i think your missing my point here. ok, he created it, how? by impregnating it? no, that implies it already exists. he created it out of himself? as in giving birth? thats more to the point.

so after creation exists, then maybe he can get all masculine and impregnate it, but since creations already been, um, created, whats the point?



But we don't think He "created it out of Himself," as if He took some of Himself and split creation off, like an amoeba; we think He made it up like a writer.

As for the purpose of later "impregnation," I do not know, wholly; we are to bear "the fruit of the Spirit" ourselves, Mary gave birth to Jesus, the Creation "groaneth in travail waiting for the manifestation of the Sons of God," etc. Certainly it is because He loves us but I don't know what you mean...

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity


Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
look, i'm not the one who came up with the "god impregnating the world" line in the first place. i'm just commenting on it. if you agree with me that it doesn't make sense, then we're in agreement.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11621 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
oh, and how is giving birth like an amoeba splitting? what a ghastly image. please don't impute things to me that i never implied.

as to god writing creation as a book, i thought we were supposed to be the children of god, not a bunch of his literary creations?

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!


Posts: 11621 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hooker's Trick

Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89

 - Posted      Profile for Hooker's Trick   Author's homepage   Email Hooker's Trick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Chas Mas--

You said:

"In other words, while we have differences regarding a celibate priesthood, we have all agreed that only men can be ordained to that priesthood, until very recently."

I still don't understand. You privilege the masculine nature of the priesthood but you think it doesn't matter if they're married or not? Why is one position more "catholic" than the other?

And actually you seem to be saying that what makes a priest a priest is the laying on of hands in apostolic succession. All except women? So when the Bishop lays hands on a woman, she doesn't receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit (imagine the Holy Ghost saying -- Oh, gross! I detect a vagina!)?

And while we're talking about the Historic Episcopate -- doesn't that imply obedience to our bishops? Is the Archbishop of Canterbury WRONG about the ordination of women? Is the Bishop of Washington not a true priest because she's a woman? Perhaps you, like the vicar of the parish of the Ascension and St Agnes or the wanna-be vicar of Christ Church Accoceek do not recognise the Episcopal authority of our bishop? That doesn't seem very Catholic to me.

Oh -- and if the ordination of women is wrong, and all the bishops who do it are wrong, does that mean that the Holy Ghost has gone out of the Anglican Church?

HT


Posts: 6733 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For those of you who have not read my last post on the closed thread "plumbing" ... here is why I am not contributing on this thread anymore. No condescending comments about not having any arguments please! I just think that there cannot be any meeting of minds on this kind of subject. I came to that conclusion once in the CofE. This thread has convinced me of it again. Too much personal investment at stake. If this thread proves anything, it is that gender DOES matter.

QUOTE FROM PLUMBING ...

I think we just have to agree to disagree. Some of us here feel that gender is incidental to being human ... some feel that it is essential to being human. For those who posit difference having male and female priests is essential because otherwise God and humans are not being properly represented, imaged or talked about / acted upon. Others feel that such differences do not compromise equality if certain functions or modes of being are reserved to either sex. Often we ALL (me included) use symbolic language to bolster an a priori position which has either sociological or personal references, or both. I don't see this one being solved through discourse. Let Gamaliel have the last word. I'm off this (and the other) thread now. Thanks.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™


Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
oh, and how is giving birth like an amoeba splitting? what a ghastly image. please don't impute things to me that i never implied.

as to god writing creation as a book, i thought we were supposed to be the children of god, not a bunch of his literary creations?


Okay! Glad to know I misunderstood you; but there are people who see the act of Creation in just that way -- Eastern religions, as I say, which teach that God is everything and everything is God, and that only when it comes back together in the state of Nirvana will things be well.

We become His children, don't we, through Jesus? I did not think we started out that way.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity


Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
chastmaster, uh.... no.

we are all gods children. always have been. how could it be otherwise?

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!


Posts: 11621 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gill
Shipmate
# 102

 - Posted      Profile for Gill   Email Gill   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is there any point continuing here if FG has taken the moral high ground AND decided further posting is superfluous?

(By the way, what DOES it mean when he puts GH before a reply?)

--------------------
Still hanging in there...


Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My Little Rant

By David

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

quote:
"In other words, while we have differences regarding a celibate priesthood, we have all agreed that only men can be ordained to that priesthood, until very recently."

I still don't understand. You privilege the masculine nature of the priesthood but you think it doesn't matter if they're married or not? Why is one position more "catholic" than the other?



I don't "privilege" it; the Church has. And I didn't say one position was "more 'catholic'"; I said that I thought the areas in which we all agreed down through history (male priesthood) mattered more than areas in which we differ (celibate priesthood).
quote:
And actually you seem to be saying that what makes a priest a priest is the laying on of hands in apostolic succession.
As a required element, yes, just as water and a baptized person is for baptism. Is this not what all three churches teach?
quote:
All except women?
I'm not convinced of it yet, no. There is another position one could take, that whosoever gets hands laid on them in that way is gifted and burdened with priestly responsibility, power and authority, but that one should not do this to women. -- that it happens but that one should not do it. This is a position I never hear of, but a possible one to take.
But no, I am not yet convinced that The Church Was Wrong From The Beginning Till Now.

(Warning! Mild explosion next -- no malice to any person here intended -- but this is how all this makes me think and feel. It's more exasperation than anything else.)

Is that not the position one is expected to take? That's a lot of what stands in my way. (burst of frustration) I'm not about to tell the holiest saints, the ones who taught us all about Jesus in the first place, passed on, developed, and preserved the Christian faith, people far wiser and holier than I, that from Peter and Paul down to now, They Were All Just A Bunch Of Woman-Hating Twits. Why should the twentieth century, with its lack of faith, lack of good judgement, lack of wisdom, ultra-democratising notions of theology (we didn't elect God Creator and Ruler of All That Is, after all), have gotten this one bit right and say that everyone from the Apostles on down got it horribly, unjustly and immorally wrong?

(Explosion ended.)

quote:
imagine the Holy Ghost saying -- Oh, gross! I detect a vagina!
LOL! No, I don't think of it that way at all.
quote:
And while we're talking about the Historic Episcopate -- doesn't that imply obedience to our bishops? Is the Archbishop of Canterbury WRONG about the ordination of women?
I think that John Paul II is WRONG about being head of the earthly church; doesn't mean he's not a valid bishop. Being a bishop does not mean one is magically right about everything. There is obedience to our bishops (and priests); there is also deeper obedience to God. If a bishop, or my own bishop, ordered me to do something I believed to be immoral (and we know that there have been countless immoral clergy down through the centuries), then I would be duty-bound to refuse. Even the RC church, which is fairly keen on obedience (which I sometimes applaud and sometimes not), says that people must follow their consciences first and foremost -- which leads to some conflicts at times.
quote:
Is the Bishop of Washington not a true priest because she's a woman?
If my lack-of-being-convinced is correct, that would follow, yes.
quote:
Perhaps you, like the vicar of the parish of the Ascension and St Agnes or the wanna-be vicar of Christ Church Accoceek do not recognise the Episcopal authority of our bishop?
No idea who these people are, but that would also follow, yes. Happily I live in northern Virginia.
quote:
That doesn't seem very Catholic to me.

Well, it does put many of us in a bind; on the one hand we are not convinced of such things, on the other we believe in hierarchy, sometimes more than some clergy do! But who ever said doing what we believe was easy? Or even that solutions were easy -- or even forthcoming? Perhaps (from our point of view) we are a bunch of sheep baa-ing in a cluster, refusing to follow people we are not sure are shepherds, into territory we think may be the wrong way to go? If we are wrong, then show us why we should trust them, when TO US this sounds contrary to what all our old shepherds seemed to tell us -- if we are right, for instance if we are being urged into very avalanche-ridden territory, isn't huddling like that better than following people into the falling-rock zone?

(As a side note -- which ultimately is another issue -- it does not help when some of the advocates of women in the priesthood have basic theology which is vague at best and absolutely heretical at worst. Nor does it help when people on "my" side are arrogant and self-righteous. I find it disturbing, too, that we have had clergy for decades now -- Lewis wrote about this in the 1940s! -- who don't even believe Jesus died and rose again (physically, for real, not a legend, etc.) to save humanity from sin and death -- and yet people (my lot, that is, the ostensible traditionalists) get much more upset over something comparatively minor like women in the priesthood. Look at Bishop Spong -- the man doubts the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection and Lord knows what else -- and what do so many people on my "side" complain about? His stance on gay people! A serious issue, yes, but not the primary thing which makes us Christians in the first place! Which I notice they didn't raise nearly the same hue and cry over. As someone who came to Christianity from outside, this baffles and saddens me.

Sigh. So you can see, surely, that I am happy to stand united with someone -- even if I am not sure she's truly ordained in that way -- as a fellow Christian?

The Florida woman I mentioned before (very good minister, I am just not convinced of her priesthood) and I talked once about bad theology among clergy, and she did find it frustrating at times that often those whose basic doctrines she agreed with opposed her ordination, and those who favoured her ordination held beliefs she thought heretical.

quote:
Oh -- and if the ordination of women is wrong, and all the bishops who do it are wrong, does that mean that the Holy Ghost has gone out of the Anglican Church?

No more than it did during far worse things in history. Churches have done some terrible things in the past but I don't think it means the Holy Ghost just abandoned them (us). Some Popes, for instance, were quite bad at different times but that didn't make them stop being bishops. I know people who have left the ECUSA and I pondered joining them, but (1) in my opinion -- sorry if any of these people are reading this -- these groups have a terribly arrogant and un-Christian chip on their shoulders, and are focused on The Bad Things They Have Left Behind more than on moving on and loving God and their neighbours and (2) I do not think all is lost in the Episcopal Church. Right now I think my duty is to be obedient and do the best I can where I am. If I have to choose between (1) a denomination in which there is much genuine heresy from the pulpit (apart from female ordination -- I mean on the deeper issues), but in which if I look I can find a good church to go in range -- or (2) one which has impeccable theology, but not love and charity -- then I have to pick the first one. Obviously the best would be good theology and genuine charity.

I think doctrine is immensely important -- but one of those doctrines is that some things matter more. That doesn't mean the lesser ones don't matter at all.

Baa-ing out in a field somewhere,

David

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity


Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Honest opinion Gill ... not superiority.

GH stands for Gregory Hallam, my name. Sorry.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™


Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
chastmaster, uh.... no.

we are all gods children. always have been. how could it be otherwise?



I thought we were adopted by God when we became Christians; being "born again" in faith and baptism, not merely born that way as such. Certainly not His children in the same way that Jesus is His Son; He is the Only-Begotten and all...

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gill
Shipmate
# 102

 - Posted      Profile for Gill   Email Gill   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
okay...

To the irate poster above FG (or GH) - which is preferable THEOLOGICALLY - a woman preaching traditional Christianity, or a man preaching that the Resurrection never happened?

Serious question.

Is his heresy okay cos he's male?

--------------------
Still hanging in there...


Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
chastmaster, not quite sure what to say to that. if thats how you want to see things, go ahead. sort of hard on people who aren't christian though.

seems to me that the essence of the good news is that god loves everyone, and we are all his children. god loved everyone enough to come and die for us... the love was there before the death obviously. or else what would the point be?

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!


Posts: 11621 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill:
okay...

To the irate poster above FG (or GH) - which is preferable THEOLOGICALLY - a woman preaching traditional Christianity, or a man preaching that the Resurrection never happened?

Serious question.

Is his heresy okay cos he's male?



Heresy is never OK. A woman preaching traditional Christianity is fine by me. It's the issue of her priesthood which troubles me, and if that is the dilemma you present, I don't know quite how to answer; the woman's doctrines are preferable as doctrines, certainly.

Heck, if it comes to the point I'd say that many non-Christians show more charity than many Christians, including the clergy! I get on better in Wiccan chat rooms on AOL than in Christian ones most of the time.

If you mean "if I were presented with two churches, and only two, no other options available, and one had a female priest (like the one in Florida), and the other a male priest (but like Spong), which one would I go to?"

Oy Vey Maria! What a choice! Either (1) Go where the sermons will be crap but have Communion I'm sure of, (2) go where the sermons will be good but where I won't be sure of Communion, (3) not take Communion at all. I think I'd have to go for (1). Though I could perhaps take Communion at the Spong place and listen to sermons at the woman's church. Skipping Communion is not an option for me, I think...

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity


Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
chastmaster, not quite sure what to say to that. if thats how you want to see things, go ahead. sort of hard on people who aren't christian though.

seems to me that the essence of the good news is that god loves everyone, and we are all his children. god loved everyone enough to come and die for us... the love was there before the death obviously. or else what would the point be?



It's not the way I want to see things. And I believe God loves all of us, Christian and non. I thought a sizable chunk of Jesus' dying was to make it possible for us to become God's children -- that He loves us whether we are or not.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
chastmaster, how can we not be his children if he created us and loves us?

thats not something that changed with the incarnation. thats the way its always been.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!


Posts: 11621 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
nicole - again, CM's is correct. There is an element of "adoption" as children of God. Read Romans.

And just in case you thought I was being overly nice to you, David , -

I'm not about to tell ... Peter and Paul down to now, They Were All Just A Bunch Of Woman-Hating Twits.

Erm, why not? Paul had to tell Peter to stop dithering so much and get his mind around the fact of the experience that Gentiles had had of God (this appears to be despite God telling Peter direct!). Respect your elders, CM, but don't forget you are as much a part of the communion of saints as they. Mary could have told her reprobate son to get out of her house and never come back to Galilee; Peter seems to have taken quite a few goes at grasping things; and I bet not even you go along with everything that Paul says about women

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


Posts: 6916 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Emphasising again *bleat bleat*...

We're all brothers and sisters in Christ.

This is an important issue to discuss (at least for us in the catholic/orthodox churches).

Loving one another is much more important, even when we disagree over bigger things than this.

These last two are not in contradiction with one another.

Bleat

Bleat

Bleat

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity


Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
HoosierNan
Shipmate
# 91

 - Posted      Profile for HoosierNan   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I read something strange (or, it sounds strange to one of us poor, benighted Protestants, even those who used to be Episcopalian at one point):
quote:
It's very difficult I think in the Protestant tradition to appreciate what a high value we place in the feminine in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy. That also doesn't help.

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

Yours in Christ

Fr. Gregory


What sort of "high value" do you place on the feminine? Why are females valuable? Is it because we are servants, who keep the buildings clean and the fair linens pressed, so that the males can do the real work of administering the sacraments? (Time saving appliances can be very "expensive," which is a possible synonym for "value.") Or because we pop out the babies that can be made into new bodies in the pews?

Because we are certainly not good enough, in these "traditions," to be doing the "highly valued" tasks.


Posts: 795 | From: Indiana, USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Re Dyfrig:

Well, because we're not talking about a lapse in Peter's judgement (which was corrected in Scripture also); we're talking about the doctrine of the whole church down till now, not only Peter and Paul but everyone. Some things in the Old and New Testaments do indeed confuse and at times even worry me (posted about Canaanite infants in another thread just today) but I have to work with what I have; I try to synthesise it all together as best I can, though the Church has done this for two millennia.

I'm not sure which bits you mean that Paul says, but I try to understand it as best I can.

And it's not some bit taken out of Scripture and perhaps out of context -- the people who taught us how to interpret and understand Scripture -- who came up with the Creeds, explicated the Trinity, and so forth -- are the ones, and their successors down till now -- seemed to believe this way. And if people holier and wiser than I (part of the Body of Christ though I am) who am I to gainsay them? These are the people who taught me -- or who taught the people who taught me -- about Jesus and His teachings in the first place... if 2000 years of different Christians from different places the world over have not seen fit to change this, despite female saints, despite the veneration of the Virgin Mary to heights some Protestants consider idolatry -- and yet still did not make women priests -- if St. Teresa of Avila was recognised as a Doctor of the Church in the RC church -- yet not as a priest... why, of all cultures and times, would we suddenly get this one thing right? The verses people use as reasons were certainly not unknown to the church, especially to the people teaching and exploring church doctrine; and in fact if anyone could explain what they mean, surely the people closest to the time and culture would better than we, 2000 years later? So why should we distrust their understanding? Why would the Apostles, and their successors, and THEIR successors, so on and on, get this bit horribly wrong for hundreds of generations... and all of a sudden we understand what Jesus "really meant"?

Baa...


--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity


Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I respect Gregory's desire to withdraw from this discussion at this point, therefore will not pursue much that I thought still needed to be said. Instead, merely some concluding thoughts on our conversation:

  • I think this far too important a subject where we can "agree to disagree" - since it emerges not solely from individual preference but from perceptions of the work and being of God. This are theological issues, in that how the Church presents itself is an outworking of what it believes about its God.
  • The arguments put forward against women priests are, I believe, fourfold: it has been traditionally barred, it is ontologically impossible, male language is more appropriate in talk about God, and finally it's verging on paganism.

    In reverse order, I'd say the last is malevolant and is unworthy - if you're forced into that argument, you've gone through the bottom of the barrel with all your scraping already; the third, if honestly held, ignores not only the biblical witness but the work of God's Spirit in people throughout Christian history, as well as being just down right insulting to half the world's population; the second is as secure as the Welsh football team's ability to hold on to a lead (i.e. non-existent); and the first is open to quite serious challenge.

There, I'm done with this. ChastMastr, the floor is yours.

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


Posts: 6916 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Doh! Cross-posting Hadn't realised you'd already taken it!

Definitely going now .....

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


Posts: 6916 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dixit Dyfrig:
quote:
Odd how both you and Gregory have introduced the concept that the ordination of women is linked to syncretistic/pagan undercurrent. It reminds me of the "taint" argument put forward during the early 90s - that somehow women can "infect" the body and blood at the Eucharist - as if the Presence of God could be made dirty by the touch of a woman's hands. Not that the pride, arrogance, stupidity, ignorance or sin of a man could ever taint the Eucharist of course.....



Taint? Sounds more like Donatism to me - don't go there! But it wasn't me who introduced syncretism, pantheism et. al. - it was people like Michael Ingham, Bp. Swing, and, yes some feminist theologians - try Daphne Hampson, Sallie McFague, Carter Heyward... And what about Mary Daly (no males allowed in my lecture theatre!)? Did somebody mention taint?

BTW, I've been trying to find a way forward on this very topic for over a decade now, and whilst I cannot claim to be much closer to resolving it, the exchanges between Fr. Gregory and yourself were helpful, as well as those of others. However, this "taint" thing again - where did it come from? I keep hearing it (it figured largely in a recent series of pamphlets edited by Monica Furlong - if I recall Angela Tilby was the author of one(?)) - primarily to be held to ridicule. Yet whenever I speak to convinced "Forward-in-Faith" types they also consider it ridiculous. What's going on? It doesn't seem to figure in the thought-processes of anyone I have spoken to or read on this matter.

The reason I mentioned these things together is as follows. Take a deep breath.

From Schleiermacher onwards, the school of thought that we broadly call "liberal theology" has been categorised by the project of explaining God from our own experiential data. As against classical Christianity, which seeks to do the opposite. This is not to say that the liberal view on any point is necessarily wrong. Simply that it has forfeited the ability to tell, because it has (implicitly) abandoned the seriousness of what God's self-revelation, as mediated through the witness of his prophets and the apostolic witness, has said in the past. The "righteousness of God" (i.e. that God does the right thing, he is not capricious etc.) means nothing. If the ordination of women as priests arises from within this sort of milieu - as I believe accurately characterises the predominant view in the episcopal churches of Canada and the USA, it will likely be associated with theological liberalism. If liberalism cannot tell that syncretism et. al. is heretical, predominantly liberal denominations will ultimately suffer increasing ostracism from the others as heresies develop AND ARE NOT REJECTED. (Heresies can of course pop up anywhere). As I said, if the priesting of women is right and proper, they risk going under with the other stuff. And that is over and above any other thing, such as those matters Fr. Gregory mentioned - my own thoughts were elsewhere on this occasion.

As to HT's queries concerning current matters at Accokeek - I guess I would ask the same question - how will you know if it's right? Just for the record, the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury is that he firmly believes women should be priested, but that he may be wrong. The agreement of the entire communion - proposed by the Eames Commission and endorsed by the whole communion - is that until a common mind is developed, it is imperative that both views be respected. If Fr. Sam Edwards cannot be a priest at Accokeek because of his stated views on women priests, then what happens to your argument about obedience? Is ECUSA not disobedient?

Just asking of course...

Ian

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic


Posts: 4759 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, and Dyfrig, I agree with your views that it's too important to fudge. Others obviously agree with us. I have been told that I should get out of the Anglican communion, both explicitly and implicitly. Heaven only knows what it's like for those whose views are settled "con" this matter.

What should I do?

Seriously.

Ian

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic


Posts: 4759 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marinaki

Varangian Guard
# 343

 - Posted      Profile for Marinaki   Author's homepage   Email Marinaki   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gill:
PLUS they don't have willies telling them what to think all the time! QUOTE]

Perhaps that's part of the problem, that the men they would pastor do have "willies telling them to think all the time".
Aside from the theological arguments there's also a 'psychological' argument - that whether you like it or not, many men cannot cope in many ways with a woman priest.

BTW I'm a female Orthodox theologian, who is very active in the Church, does not feel at all oppressed and has no intention of becoming a priest! Besides, I'd have to grow a beard

--------------------
IC I XC "If thou bear thy cross
---+--- cheerfully, it will bear
NI I KA thee."


Posts: 696 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hooker's Trick

Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89

 - Posted      Profile for Hooker's Trick   Author's homepage   Email Hooker's Trick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Chas Mas: I still don't get it. You say that the things we share in common are more important than what divides -- but you pick and choose. Celibacy, Eucharistic theology, liturgy, sacramentalism all divide but these you overlook. Gender of the celebrant, tho, this ONE thing must remain the same. And since the CofE and ECUSA have begun ordaining women, does this slowly slide over to the side of things that are different but don't matter?

Also, you speak of telling the holiest of saints that they were wrong. Surely in some sense when Blessed Cranmer wrote the prayer book, and diverged from Roman practice, he was also, in a sense, telling the holy saints they were wrong?

In any case, if you truly believe in the Communion of Saints, then those holy saints are still with us in the church now.

It just seems to strange to me to say that some things are sacrosanct because we've done them a long time, and other things can be changed because they are incidental. And to claim all this in an ecclesiological environment which claims that Bishops have authority and that the Church is inspired by the Spirit.

Ian -- I obviously don't have a problem with the gender of the celebrant. Actually, I'm quite happy with lady vicars and bishops. If I *did* have a big problem with it, though, I doubt I could in conscience remain within a community so different from my personal faith. For what it's worth. However, I also think the Church has a better grasp on these matters than I do, and I'm tempted to aquiesce to the better judgement of the Church.

I'll try to think of an agenda the church could follow that would prompt me to leave it. Truthfully, it would have to be a grave enough matter that would convince me that the Holy Ghost had gone out of the church.

HT


Posts: 6733 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:


quote:
Chas Mas: I still don't get it. You say that the things we share in common are more important than what divides -- but you pick and choose.
I am not "picking and choosing"; I am saying that the things that the three strains of traditional catholic orthodoxy has agreed upon are the most important things. How is this personally, as an individual, "picking and choosing"? It's not as if I'm saying, "Oh, I like that doctrine but not that one." If anything, by looking to the areas on which we have all agreed as more important, I am trying to avoid personally "picking and choosing." I am trying to learn from the traditional church.
quote:
Celibacy, Eucharistic theology, liturgy, sacramentalism all divide but these you overlook.
I'm not overlooking them; these are weighty matters, but I think the details of (say) whether Jesus is or is not present in Holy Communion in a deeper-than-symbolic way is more important than precisely how, isn't it? The details of how sacraments in general work are less important than our shared belief that they really exist, aren't they?
quote:
Gender of the celebrant, tho, this ONE thing must remain the same.
No, not this one thing; from all my references to concerns over positive heresy in the church and how in many ways I'd be on the same side of That Woman In Florida more than That Bishop I Keep Referring To, isn't it clear that it's by no means the only or even the most important thing? It's the topic I talk about here because that's the nature of the thread.
quote:
And since the CofE and ECUSA have begun ordaining women, does this slowly slide over to the side of things that are different but don't matter?
No, because as I said before this is based on the traditional doctrines of the church. Or do you mean, "If this situation continued for another two thousand years exactly as it is now?" I have no idea what the future holds, in that event; our church (Episcopal in the US) is being immensely vague about what it believes right now, up to and including accepting priests and bishops whose stated doctrines are mind-bogglingly heretical (if they don't believe in the Resurrection, or that Jesus died to save us from sin and death... what's the point? Why repeat a creed at the service which they overtly don't believe in?). I cannot imagine that the church will continue that line permanently, and I hope very much that these are some kind of temporary growing pains. It is traditional, "old-fashioned," barbarian, etc. call it what you like, Christianity to which I was converted. I am quite happy to participate in what some would consider ritual cannibalism every week -- and I think those people see something many people don't about how truly shocking it is. But I think "shocking" things like that are at the heart of reality itself, and unfortunately our period is having more and more trouble believing in such shocking or archaic things -- which may be why I get on better with some modern Pagans than with some modern Christians. Oy, rambling again...
quote:
Also, you speak of telling the holiest of saints that they were wrong. Surely in some sense when Blessed Cranmer wrote the prayer book, and diverged from Roman practice, he was also, in a sense, telling the holy saints they were wrong?
Perhaps; I thought he was trying to get us back to where the earliest ones were. I'm reminded of a long poem -- Pope? Dryden? -- in which the author told the story of three brothers, Peter, Jack and... someone. Their father gave them three coats and said to keep them in good shape but not to over-decorate them. Peter put too many on his and convinced the others to do the same; then Jack and the other one (John? It'll do) decided they'd put too much on, so they removed them -- but Jack ripped them off willy-nilly and tore the coat to shreds, while "John" very carefully and painstakingly removed the extra bits so as not to damage the coat. And of course the author meant that Peter was the RC church, Jack was the more Protestant stream, and "John" was the Anglican one. Cranmer was also not trying to be, say, a Calvinist. He was, if I understand the facts correctly, trying to bring things back in line with the earliest saints, or at least before (in his opinion, approved by the C of E) things diverged (Papacy and such). Obviously not all these saints agreed on everything -- but in the most essential matters, they do.

Can I ask you a question? What is your view of Scriptural authority and of Christian tradition? Because someone above (can't view their name in this window) talked about different views of theology in the first place and views of tradition, Scripture, etc. and this may -- or may not -- explain our different positions.

quote:
In any case, if you truly believe in the Communion of Saints, then those holy saints are still with us in the church now.
I agree! But do you mean that they are inspiring people to take positions opposite to their own on Earth? If so, how do we know which ones those are? Or do you mean something else?
quote:
It just seems to strange to me to say that some things are sacrosanct because we've done them a long time, and other things can be changed because they are incidental.
Then on what grounds do we believe anything at all? We believe the Bible to be inspired -- and that the inspired books are these, these and these but NOT those and those -- based on the wisdom and decisions of the early Church. Don't we? Don't we also look to Christian tradition to interpret Holy Scripture? There are denominations founded on doctrines which they claim to get out of the Bible, though we would say they are taking things out of context -- but that context itself -- even the notion that context matters -- is, itself, a tradition, isn't it? If we each had to devise our own theology out of whole cloth from scratch, we'd have hard going, wouldn't we? Or am I misunderstanding you? Because I would think the logical conclusion of not trusting tradition is that everything, every doctrine, is perpetually in question, from the Trinity on down. Not even the sacraments, but even issues such as the Nature of Christ himself, etc. Some people (say, the Jehovah's Witnesses) have radically different views of the Nature of Jesus which most Christians would call heretical, and they claim to get it out of the Bible. (Not to mention various early heresies the church struggled with early on.)
quote:
And to claim all this in an ecclesiological environment which claims that Bishops have authority and that the Church is inspired by the Spirit.
Yes. This is also part of our traditional theology. What do you mean exactly?
quote:
However, I also think the Church has a better grasp on these matters than I do, and I'm tempted to aquiesce to the better judgement of the Church.
What if they changed their minds, decided it had been a mistake, and went back to not ordaining women to the priesthood?
quote:
I'll try to think of an agenda the church could follow that would prompt me to leave it. Truthfully, it would have to be a grave enough matter that would convince me that the Holy Ghost had gone out of the church.
Which is why I have not left, though I have been tempted at times. I'd say that allowing bishops and priests to preach overtly non-Christian theology (e.g., against the Resurrection, etc.) would be a big warning sign, and I pray that things will improve...

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
gbuchanan
Shipmate
# 415

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

Heresy is never OK. A woman preaching traditional Christianity is fine by me. It's the issue of her priesthood which troubles me, and if that is the dilemma you present, I don't know quite how to answer; the woman's doctrines are preferable as doctrines, certainly.

...but then for many, the idea of the "priesthood of all believers" bypasses the debate. Women can be believers, hence...

Coming from a rather "low" Anglican tradition, the division of roles through gender seem to fundamentally misapprehend discipleship...

The sad problem with this whole debate is, frankly, the abject appearance of selfishness of many on both sides.

Coming from a more inclusive (though distinctly in Church terms evangelical) background - refusing the free expression of conviction of others to satisfy ones own spiritual needs shows many undesirable traits. This is a two-edged sword I happen to strongly believe in.

In N.Ireland, there are plenty of people who like to say "no" to others - sadly in the church we all too often do the same. As it seems to me, this is a question of great personal significance to many, and inclusiveness of each calling is the only appropriate way forward - trying to say "yes" to each other instead.

Not an easy path, but Jesus' footsteps are not guaranteed to rubber-stamp our own convictions, nor to be unchallenging.


Posts: 683 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
AlastairW
Apprentice
# 445

 - Posted      Profile for AlastairW   Email AlastairW   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Someone queried where the taint idea came from as everyone denies believing it.
Well, it was certainly strongly around certain very Anglo Catholic churches in the North Midlands at the height of the debate on the ordiantion of women in the 1980s. Ineed a female colleageu of mine visiting a church as a guest speaker in a debate about the ordination question was specifically instructed by the clergyman whose church the meeting happened to be at that she must not go into the pulpit or enter the Chancel area as the whole sanctuary would then have to be re-consecrated!
So there are certainly some around who believe this!

Posts: 14 | From: West of England | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gill
Shipmate
# 102

 - Posted      Profile for Gill   Email Gill   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
*horrified*

Perhaps God has ALLOWED my three chin hairs to grow, to encourage me to become an Orthodox priest?

And I've been plucking them! Dear Lawd, forgive me!!

--------------------
Still hanging in there...


Posts: 1828 | From: not drowning but waving... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ROTFL

Good one!

Perhaps my abruptly-turning-white hair (I'm 33!!) is a sign of... of... something!

Other than getting really really really old fast...

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity


Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
...but then for many, the idea of the "priesthood of all believers" bypasses the debate. Women can be believers, hence...

This seems to play on an equivocation in the word "Priest." On the one hand there is "priest" as in "intermediary between God and man" -- of which there is only one, viz., Christ (cf. Hebrews). Then there is the priesthood of all believers. Then there is the presbytery, which (alas!) is called the 'priesthood' in English-speaking countries (The greeks still use the word "presbyter" -- not the Gk. word for "priest" which I don't remember just now).

Women are clearly part of the priesthood of all believers. This doesn't mean, however, prima facie, that they are in the presbytery.

Reader Alexis

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28


Posts: 62943 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hooker's Trick

Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89

 - Posted      Profile for Hooker's Trick   Author's homepage   Email Hooker's Trick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I am saying that the things that the three strains of traditional catholic orthodoxy has agreed upon are the most important things. How is this personally, as an individual, "picking and choosing"?

First -- how about Swedish Lutherans? Do they get to be in the "catholic club"? They maintain Apostolic Succession.

This whole "what is agreed on is the most important thing" is a sticking point for me. Let's say the reformers in the 16th century HAD decided to ordain women in the Church of England? Would the Anglican Church still be Catholic even if it had had women priests for 500 years?

Well, of course it would, because of the 3-fold ministry and the historic episcopate.

I hear you saying "but they DIDN'T start ordaining women 500 years ago." Very well. But in 1534 and subsequent years the Church of England took on a very different aspect from the Roman church. It seems to me that you're saying the liturgy (which changed) is a detail but the gender of clergy (which stayed the same) isn't. In other words, the 16th century changes are all details, and everything that didn't change til now is not.

See I just don't get that.

When you say the three strains of catholic orthodoxy agree, I always read "agree now".

If the events of the 16th century were not enough to make the Anglican church heretical, how then are the events of the late 20th?

quote:
The details of how sacraments in general work are less important than our shared belief that they really exist, aren't they?

Except that this is a belief that we also share with Lutherans and Methodists.

Which raises another point. Our ordination of women might distance us from the "catholic" churches like Rome, but does it not align us with Apostolic churches (i.e. churches that believe themselves to be Apostolic whether or not they possess the Historic Episcopate)?

quote:
Why repeat a creed at the service which they overtly don't believe in?).

The Nicene Creed is not a statement of personal faith. It is a profession of corporate faith; "we believe". The Church believes. And in any case, it doesn't say anywhere that you have to sign up to the Creed to be an Anglican.

I personally don't believe in the filioque, but I say it anyway, because I worship in a church that theologically holds to the filioque.

quote:
Perhaps; I thought he [Blessed Cranmer] was trying to get us back to where the earliest ones were.

Now see, that sounds very Protestant to me.

quote:
I'm reminded of a long poem -- Pope? Dryden? -- in which the author told the story of three brothers, Peter, Jack and... someone.

Swift. You're thinking of TALE OF A TUB. The brothers are Peter (pope), Jack (John Calvin) and Martin (Martin Luther, the original protestant, who Swift considered to be the founder of the tradition in which Anglicanism exists. Swift was also a Dean in the Church of Ireland).

quote:
Can I ask you a question? What is your view of Scriptural authority and of Christian tradition?

Well, if my monicker isn't a dead give-away, I'm pretty much a scripture, reason, and tradition man.

quote:
[/QB]But do you mean that they [Holy Saints] are inspiring people to take positions opposite to their own on Earth?[/QB]

Are you saying you've never changed your mind? And that Holy Saints or the Holy Church can't either...?

quote:
Don't we also look to Christian tradition to interpret Holy Scripture?

But tradition isn't some static thing like a rule book you must consult. Tradition is the Authority by which the church as the Body of Christ interprets. Living God. Living Church.

quote:
Because I would think the logical conclusion of not trusting tradition is that everything, every doctrine, is perpetually in question, from the Trinity on down.

Now see, this is the same "baby and bathwater" question oen gets with Fundamentalists when discussing the inerrency of the Bible. Well, if "x" bit of the Bible isn't true, how do you know any of it is?

I don't have any problem questioning the Trinity. Question away. Questions make a strong faith stronger. Locking up Truth in a tabernacle and never letting anyone see it for fear of questioning it sounds like the paranoia of a weak or uncertain faith.

If all the little ducks aren't in a row the whole thing goes out the window, is that it?

quote:
Yes. This [episcopal authority] is also part of our traditional theology. What do you mean exactly?

What I mean exactly is that Bishops ordain women. In the ECUSA some bishops ARE women (mine is). Refusal to acknowledge or obey one's bishop strikes me as extremely un-episcopal, and untenably un-catholic.

It also is tantamount to saying "I am right about this issue and the Bishops and Church are wrong."

quote:
What if they changed their minds, decided it had been a mistake, and went back to not ordaining women to the priesthood?

Like tomorrow? While I think that would be extremely odd, and would look rather silly to backpeddle, I would accept it.

As Presiding Bishop Griswold said "schism is a worse sin than heresy."

HT

[UBB fixed]

[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]


Posts: 6733 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Carys

Ship's Celticist
# 78

 - Posted      Profile for Carys   Email Carys   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Having just about managed to catch up on this thread, having been on the ship weekend and then being ill! And now I've found the other I've caught up on that too!

Just a few comments. Some of which may repeat things that other people have said to an extent.

On page 4 Father Gregory wrote

quote:
It is about how in a sacramental-sacrificial system (which Protestants generally do not have) the priest images the divine action in and through him. The Jews were not blind to the fact that only God can deal with sin and the maleness of the priest that imaged this had everything to do with the fact that Israel had to be distinguished from her pagan neighbours who also had sacramental-sacrificial systems. In these, of course, fertility and not redemption was a primary theme. Not unsurprisingly this gave rise to a debased religiosity where divinity was naturalised and human sexuality divinised. Interestingly, in those sacramental-sacrificial Christian systems where the earth-feminine-mother has reasserted itself (see Rosemary Radford Ruether's "Women Church") the priesting of women (why do Christians resist the term "priestess"?) is part and parcel of a religious reconstruction in which the Universe is born out of the God-Womb or Cosmic Egg.

The reason why Christians resist the term 'priestess' is because priestess would imply the sort of pagan fertility religion to which you refer. By refusing to use the term we are making the point that female Christian priests are not like that. They are PRIESTS not PRIESTESSES.

quote:
I have tried to show that gender is an essential and not incidental aspect of our common humanity. I then went on to consider whether or not Christ could have been female. I think I showed that maleness was not incidental or accidental to the Incarnation. I then claimed that the burden of proof ... that God didn't know what He was doing or that 1st century Judaism was a defective culture for the Incarnation (by excluding women from certain functions sacred functions) or that Christ would have knowingly held back from the truth for pragmatic reasons ... this burden of proof falls on those who would ordain women to the priesthood, (and I don't mean Methodist ministers here, I mean priests).

It is certainly true that he could not have been both male and female, and that in the culture into which he came, as male he was able to travel, speak etc which he would have had far more trouble doing as a woman. Therefore he came as a man when he became man. However, if you look at how he treated women, he did not treat them as second class citizens – he spoke to them; allowed them to sit at his feet and listen; appeared to them first after his resurrection. He challenged the cultural norms of his day – 1st century Jewish culture was not perfect even though it was the culture God had formed and nurtured and taught and led in preparation for the coming of the Messiah.

quote:
So Ruth, your gentle goading about "tell us the disabling differences ... anything you can do we can do ... misses the mark by a long way. There is nothing that a man could DO in priesthood or anything else that a woman couldn't DO as well if not better. Let's be clear about that. Arguments concerning female ordination from the Orthodox/Catholic side have nothing to do with function and everything to do with being man or woman, sexuality and imaging God as transcendent to the material realm.

So although a woman could do the job just as well she is debarred from doing the job just because she doesn’t have the magic Y chromosome? And you say that

quote:
at no point am I indicating inferiority to the female

I accept that you think you are not, but statements like the above do not come across like that to this female. I am less able to represent God because I’m a woman.

Chastmastr

quote:
(1) God is masculine in relationship to His creation and to the Church; He is the Bridegroom and we are the Bride; He impregnates us, not we Him. Masculinity and femininity, as part of the order of the universe (and not merely in human culture, certainly not merely human constructions), exist to represent/symbolise/more? these two mystical poles of reality.

And if the human race is feminine in relation to God then how the gender of the celebrant make a difference?

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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Fools rush in where wiser men bow out gracefully. Let me have another stab at presenting the Orthodox understanding (at least as far as I am able, given what I have been taught and how well I remember it!).

What can a husband do that a wife can't, aside from sire children?

Answer: be a husband. A husband can do everything a wife does (except bear and suckle children), but he does these things as a man.

St. Paul tells us that marriage is somehow an image of the relationship between Christ and the Church. The church is the Bride of Christ. It is not the husband of Christ; Christ is not the bride.

When the presbyter (or bishop) stands between the altar table and the nave, he represents Christ qua* bridegroom. He "icons" Christ the Bridgegroom, as we say.**

Like so:

Christ:Church: :presbyter:congregation

Only a male can be a husband. It is a male thing. Thus, only a male can be a presbyter.

One reason God created us male and female, rather than making us unisex, was to teach us something about the relationship between himself and ourselves. The two are not interchangeable. Each has its own dignity and power and glory.

This does not mean that for us, women are inferior to men. You might just as well say that men are inferior to women because they cannot give birth or suckle children. Neither is correct.

Nor does it mean that men are more "in the image of God" than women are. Indeed God brought us all into being, and feeds us (do we believe it when we say "give us this day our daily bread"?), which are analagous in some ways to the roles of a mother, but that doesn't mean women are more "in the image of God" than men are. Neither is correct.

So I have been taught; so I believe.

Reader Alexis

*please forgive the philosophism; it's the easiest and most succinct way to say what I mean here.

**The icon of Christ as Bridegroom is one of suffering, not of exaltation or earthly power; "nymphios" (bridegroom) in the Orthodox Church indicates the one who suffers for his beloved, not the one who rules over or abuses his beloved:

[disabled smilies]

[ 27 July 2001: Message edited by: RuthW ]

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28


Posts: 62943 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oops. Forgot about the smilies. Grr.

Maybe one of the ship's elves can fix that for me; it should read:

Christ:Church::presbyter:congregation

(hope this works!)

Rdr. Alexis

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28


Posts: 62943 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  51  52  53 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

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