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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Chastmastr (how does one pornounce that?)

---

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...

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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?

QUOTE FROM PLUMBING ...

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.

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?

---

quote:

---

And actually you seem to be saying that what makes a priest a priest is the laying on of hands in apostolic succession.

---

quote:

---

All except women?

---

(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!

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Is the Bishop of Washington not a true priest because she's a woman?

---

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?

---

quote:

---

That doesn't seem very Catholic to me.

---

(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?

---

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,

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
chastmaster, uh.... no.

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

---

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.

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?

---

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?"

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?

---

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.

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?

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.

• 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.

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.....

---

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...

What should I do?

Seriously.

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.

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.

---

quote:

---

Celibacy, Eucharistic theology, liturgy, sacramentalism all divide but these you overlook.

---

quote:

---

Gender of the celebrant, tho, this ONE thing must remain the same.

---

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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

Good one!

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

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.

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]

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?

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]

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

Christ:Church::presbyter:congregation

(hope this works!)