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


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women] (Page 36)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  ...  51  52  53 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I also don't think the eternal Word that became flesh is limited to a specific time and place.

Yes and no, I get the impression from the gospel accounts he was, but now that he is seated at the right hand of God where I guess he is beyond our local experience of time and place.
I am pleased to agree with you on this one. The whole point of the Incarnation is 'the scandal of particularity.'

'The Wonderful Counsellor, boundless in might,
The Father’s own image, the beam of His light;
Behold Him now wearing the likeness of man,
Weak, helpless, and speechless, in measure a span. Refrain

O wonder of wonders, which none can unfold:
The Ancient of Days is an hour or two old;

He is that He was, and forever shall be,
But becomes that He was not, for you and for me.'

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

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
quote:
So, we're in a fuzzy grey area between being too particular and too vague. Seems reasonable.
Although you could say everything exists in that fuzzy area, "through a glass darkly." It's kind a like that ancient Greek maths problem about the arrow approaching the target, you can keep halving the distance ad infitum, yet the arrow eventually reaches the target somehow. I think therefore we can operate with for all intents and purposes using fairly clear parameters in a world that may appear fuzzy.
I don't think you've really understood Zeno's Paradoxes, but that's a tangent. On topic, I think you're engaging in special pleading.

You say that Jesus's nature as a Jewish man in no way inhibits his ability to be a High Priest for all of humanity, yet insist that his maleness (but not his Jewishness) is normative for priesthood. You need to provide reasons why these aspects of his humanity are to be treated differently, especially once you've accepted that his particular nature in no way changes his underlying and all-encompassing humanity.

I also think your denial of Bullfrog's argument of special revelation in favour of OoW would carry more weight if you'd provided more of an argument to the contrary, but maybe that's just me.

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
You say that Jesus's nature as a Jewish man in no way inhibits his ability to be a High Priest for all of humanity, yet insist that his maleness (but not his Jewishness) is normative for priesthood. You need to provide reasons why these aspects of his humanity are to be treated differently, especially once you've accepted that his particular nature in no way changes his underlying and all-encompassing humanity.

Male- and female-ness goes all the way back to the begining. It's inherent in being a human being in a way ethnicity is not.

Genetically, some find it a good argument that someone with both and "X" and "Y" chromosome can stand in for humanity better than somebody without a "Y". I'm not sure I buy it, but there it is.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Male- and female-ness goes all the way back to the begining. It's inherent in being a human being in a way ethnicity is not.

Yeeessss, I can see that if I squint at it. But bearing in mind that the whole of the OT does a pretty good job of marking the Jews out as objectively different (inasmuch as they are the Chosen People), I'm not really convinced that it's all that watertight.

Even accepting that, though, it still leaves the question of why we should assume either is normative for priests, rather than a convenient and theologically insignificant aspect of the incarnation.

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Luke

Soli Deo Gloria
# 306

 - Posted      Profile for Luke   Author's homepage   Email Luke   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I also think your denial of Bullfrog's argument of special revelation in favour of OoW would carry more weight if you'd provided more of an argument to the contrary, but maybe that's just me.

OoW is not directly connected to special revelation because I thought Bullfrog was following his earlier question:

quote:
First, whose revelation is authoritative?
quote:
You say that Jesus's nature as a Jewish man in no way inhibits his ability to be a High Priest for all of humanity, yet insist that his maleness (but not his Jewishness) is normative for priesthood. You need to provide reasons why these aspects of his humanity are to be treated differently,
Um, I haven't defined what is normative for priesthood, although if you mean my reference to Hebrews, I'd say that you would assume you'd have to be Jewish to be a high-priest! I haven't singled out gender as an aspect that is more important than any part of his humanness. Although as this entire thread is focused on the gender question, the gender of Jesus naturally rises to the surface as the one most discussed. Jesus ethnicity is just as equally significant. (As for every single aspect of Jesus' humanity; I'm still thinking about them, although if Scripture draws attention to them, I'd rank them as important.)

quote:
...especially once you've accepted that his particular nature in no way changes his underlying and all-encompassing humanity.
Eh? What I have accepted here? I agree Jesus the Jewish male can save South American women, if that's what you mean by all-encompassing humanity. But I don't believe Jesus was or is androgynous.

--------------------
Emily's Voice

Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is a reply to Zwingli's assertions in this post on a thread about religion and gender and subsequent posts which were ruled off-topic by the hosts.

quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
As with at least one other Dead Horse, this "blind adherence to certain Biblical passages" is really just agreeing with the straightforward meaning of every or almost every biblical passage which mentions the subject. If you can't understand why sola scriptura types believe it then I have no idea why not.

There are many areas where the Bible is unclear; female leadership of churches is not one of them. Where precisely the line is to be drawn on female ministry can be less clear.

That's not true either. I think it is very clear from the NT that there were at least some women in all main branches of Christian ministry that existed at the time, and taking a few verses of Paul to prove otherwise is the twisted exegesis.

First, the word "leadership" is a red herring - there should be no place in churches for a secular-style boss or a mini-king. Male or female. Even if he is the Pope. Christian ministry is not management. And Christian ministers are presbyters, elders, not sacrificial priests nor princes of the church. What is at stake is the exclusion of women from some or all of the many diverse ministries in the Church.

There are plenty of Bible-believing evangelical types who support women's ministry in churches because they think it is in accordance with scripture. Not just wishy-washy liberal Anglicans either - its common among Pentecostalists all over the world. Its also frequently cropped up in the extreme radical end of Protestantism, fromt eh Anabaptists to the weird sects that blew up in the 17th century in England, the early 19th-century Adventists, the early Methodists and later movements that grew out of them such as the the Salvationists and the Holiness movements and the Pentecostals.

It seems quite common for such movements to start off with a place for women at the front, and to increasingly restrict women's ministry as they get more formal and bureaucratic. The restrictions on the ministry of women were an imposition of the secular values of the world on the spiritual liberty of the churches.

I guess if you want to claim otherwise you could resurrect one of the old threads that was more explicitly about this.

But your simple assertion of the opposite in the face of the Biblical text that says otherwise, without any discussion, just tends to reinforce my idea that you are reading worldly values into church government.

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As its been ruled off-topic by the hosts I posted my reply to Zwingli, disagreeing with him (and therefore sort of agreeing with Cliffdweller & Patrick) on the Priestly Genitalia thread here

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Laurie17
Shipmate
# 14889

 - Posted      Profile for Laurie17   Email Laurie17   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Bible is so clear that we have 100s of churches based on it, from Unitarians to Anglicans, from URC to RC, from Methodist to E. Orthodox, from Salvation Army to Quaker --

all coming up with very different versions of what the Bible says / means

and often at daggers drawn with each other.

--------------------
when thee touched my heart
I were undone like dropped blossom
Daw'r ffordd yn glir yn araf deg.

Posts: 659 | From: off hand | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
As its been ruled off-topic by the hosts I posted my reply to Zwingli, disagreeing with him (and therefore sort of agreeing with Cliffdweller & Patrick) on the Priestly Genitalia thread here

Ken, I think you meant for this post to go on the other thread.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Ken, I think you meant for this post to go on the other thread.

Nuts!

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438

 - Posted      Profile for Zwingli   Email Zwingli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ken, thanks for replying, though I didn't really mean to start discussing this topic, only to mention it as it was relevant to the other thread.

As for reading worldly values into the church - no, not even close. For a start, my worldly values don't preclude female leadership in secular organisations. I believe the opposite is the case; increasing female leadership in the secular world has spilled over into the church, not vice versa.

No doubt some evangelicals do believe that female leadership of churches is OK. I believe they are mistaken. Given all the bizarre things that people have claimed the Bible teaches over the centuries, that some people claim it clearly teaches something doesn't mean it does, or even that that is a plausible interpretation.

I don't want to get into an exegetical debate on this matter; I have read widely about the issue, from both perspectives, and I've come to the conclusion that one side's arguments aren't plausible. As I said on the other thread, i don't think the matter must be ambiguous, simply because there is disagreement. We could get into a detailed discussion, but all I would be doing is repeating arguments I've read elsewhere (which I found to be compelling; not just mindlessly repeating arguments because I agree with their conclusions) and I don't think that would be very productive. I likely won't follow this thread, so if you have anything to add, PM me.

Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Orlando098
Shipmate
# 14930

 - Posted      Profile for Orlando098   Email Orlando098   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:

The modern woman, with access to education, contraception, money, employment and the vote is unknown to the bible writers and completely outside what they could imagine.

They have no more to say about the role of a woman in 21st century than they do about the role of the motor car in the 21st century. [/QB]

I suppose that is largely true - perhaps the most liberated women would have been well-off widows. I think it's possible this was what Mary Magdalene was - I think I read she is unique in the Bible as being identified only with the town name she came from as opposed to as Mary daughter of X or wife of X.

Regarding this women priests debate, isn't there good evidence that they had them in the early church and it was quite late in the first millennium when it became a fixed rule that they could not be?

As for Jesus only calling people without family responsibilities , I'm not sure there is much evidence of that - I know Peter (the first "Pope"!) had a wife, for example, and Jesus is quoted saying things like: 26“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." I presume he does not really mean "hate", but he does seem to be saying you must be willing to drop overy other responsibilit to be his follower. I suppose that might have been a bit harder for a mother than a father, but it does not seem ideal in either case

Posts: 1019 | From: Nice, France | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged
Son of Dearmer
Apprentice
# 13652

 - Posted      Profile for Son of Dearmer   Email Son of Dearmer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:

Regarding this women priests debate, isn't there good evidence that they had them in the early church and it was quite late in the first millennium when it became a fixed rule that they could not be?

Good? Evidence? Well we know that if people tried it it was being banned PDQ in antiquity, female deacons died out in the Eastern Church, though they only baptised ladies - naked, immersion. They didn't function as liturgical deacons, at Mass, no that has always been one for the boys.

The point is that there isn't evidence for female ordination. It is a liberal/modernist/feminist idea which makes Old Nick rejoice - he's got another way to make trouble. It is taking the mindset of the modern, fallen corrupt world and putting it where it was neither needed nor wanted, save by those who wished to refashion the church in their own 'liberal' image.

Posts: 40 | From: U.K. | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can't remember if this has been seen here before, so here goes: I think it is time we reviewed the Ten Top Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained

In particular, I would like people to eliminate all the comments which are just the gender-reversed version of what appears in the link, to see if there is actually a REAL reason for the "But we've never done it that way before" gang to be so persistent.

After all, if "we've never done it that way before" was true, we'd never have had a Reformation, a Henrician divorce, or a split between Orthodox and Catholic. Come to that, we'd all be living in mud-brick houses along with our farm animals. There is always a perfectly good reason why the different idea should be put down.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Son of Dearmer
Apprentice
# 13652

 - Posted      Profile for Son of Dearmer   Email Son of Dearmer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
After all, if "we've never done it that way before" was true, we'd never have had a Reformation, a Henrician divorce, or a split between Orthodox and Catholic. Come to that, we'd all be living in mud-brick houses along with our farm animals. There is always a perfectly good reason why the different idea should be put down.

I'm not saying that doctrine cannot develop, Gregory of Nazianzus' Fifth Theological Oration can be read as showing how the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit developed. John Henry Newman showed quite convincingly that doctrine can develop, something which flourished at Vatican II. Doctrine can develop, but it a) takes time and b) discernment by the Church (in its widest possible sense).

The desire of liberals and feminists in a couple of provinces of the Anglican Church to change things for the sake of 'gender equality' is not the will of the Church. It may be nice, feel right, but like Arius' denial of the divinity of the Son it is Wrong.

Posts: 40 | From: U.K. | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
After all, if "we've never done it that way before" was true, we'd never have had a Reformation, a Henrician divorce, or a split between Orthodox and Catholic.

The great schism was a GOOD thing? Now I've heard everything.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Didn't say that all changes are necessarily good, but they do happen, despite one coming up with theological reasons not to.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is a good presentation on YouTube which goes through a few studies of adult males who molest young boys.

You Tube: Gay Males and Boys

Almost none of the men who molested boys interviewed after the fact have any history of homosexual relationships, nor do they self identify as gay. So why boys?

Otherwise heterosexual men who are attracted to children may pick prepubescent boys because they generally don't look all that different from prepubescent girls. Both have hairless bodies and other than the plumbing itself, don't look all that different. Boys don't have adult male physiques and strong masculine facial features, and the girls don't have breasts yet. Their voices are similar; males voices go through a greater change at puberty. Their facial features aren't all that different. So it's fairly easy for a child oriented adult to transfer their attraction between genders in a way that normal functioning homosexuals and heterosexuals who are attracted to adults, who generally have much greater gender differentiation, do not.

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have been pondering how to ask this question for some while; hopefully it might elicit some enlightening debate without rehashing too much of the last 30-odd pages.

The debate on women's ordination seems to start from the question of whether a woman can or cannot be a priest.

So - on what basis can we demonstrate that a man can be priest?

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

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Easy - Jesus was a man. The apostles he chose were men. The men they ordained were men.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Son of Dearmer:

The desire of liberals and feminists in a couple of provinces of the Anglican Church to change things for the sake of 'gender equality' is not the will of the Church. It may be nice, feel right, but like Arius' denial of the divinity of the Son it is Wrong.

YOu misrepresent us, I hope not wilfully. We joyfully accept the ordination of women because of what it proclaims about the nature of God. More accurately we reject the churches history of limiting ordination to men because of what that says about God. Male-only priesthood encodes an anti-incarnational Gnostic view of God as entirely concerned with some spirit world.

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The men they ordained were men.

But how do we know that the eldership to which they were appointed was the same kind of thing as the neo-sacrificial priesthood that some Christian churches later made it?

We know from the New Testament that women were prophets and deacons (i.e. "church workers") and sometimes led worship. There is no clear record in the New Testament of a distinctive and universal order of elders (whether all-male or not) who are the only ones allowed to rule over churches, or to preside at the Lord's table.

And not the slightest hint anywhere of any order of Christian sacrificial or hierarchical "priests" in some sense successors to the Temple priests. Jesus is our great High Priest and we priests in him.

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ken:
quote:
Male-only priesthood encodes an anti-incarnational Gnostic view of God as entirely concerned with some spirit world.
I'm not sure what you meant by this remark, but it rings a bell in my mind.

If only men can represent Jesus Christ in the priesthood, because he is "ontologically different" from women as I've heard some anti-OOW folks like to argue, then I infer that only men can receive his salvation. On that basis he did not unite humankind with the Godhead but only mankind. So I guess I'll have to wait until the Second Coming and hope the Christ arrives as a woman to unite me with God.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:


If only men can represent Jesus Christ in the priesthood, because he is "ontologically different" from women as I've heard some anti-OOW folks like to argue, then I infer that only men can receive his salvation. On that basis he did not unite humankind with the Godhead but only mankind. So I guess I'll have to wait until the Second Coming and hope the Christ arrives as a woman to unite me with God.

I think you are probably right - women were simply posessions untill well after Victorian times. After all, Eve was only created to help Adam, cook the food and wash the dishes.

The word 'mankind' probably did mean just that.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228

 - Posted      Profile for MSHB   Email MSHB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Easy - Jesus was a man. The apostles he chose were men. The men they ordained were men.

Jesus had a beard. The apostles he chose had beards. The men they ordained had beards.

Priests must have beards.

Ditto sandals, long flowing robes, and many negatives too (Jesus didn't have a car; the men he chose didn't have cars...)

Jesus was also a certain height, skin colour, etc. The issue is: why choose one particular quality and not another? We know that men and women have very different roles in pre-industrial societies, just as pre-industrial societies were all monarchies of some kind, and generally allowed slavery and other forms of non-free statuses.

The prohibition on women looks like a legacy of pre-industrial prejudices and lack of liberty, and should be given up as much as slavery and serfdom and absolute monarchies have been given up.

(edited to include absolute monarchies)

[ 10. October 2010, 11:38: Message edited by: MSHB ]

--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade

Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The men they ordained were men.

But how do we know that the eldership to which they were appointed was the same kind of thing as the neo-sacrificial priesthood that some Christian churches later made it?

We know from the New Testament that women were prophets and deacons (i.e. "church workers") and sometimes led worship. There is no clear record in the New Testament of a distinctive and universal order of elders (whether all-male or not) who are the only ones allowed to rule over churches, or to preside at the Lord's table.

And not the slightest hint anywhere of any order of Christian sacrificial or hierarchical "priests" in some sense successors to the Temple priests. Jesus is our great High Priest and we priests in him.

Indeed - that is the catholic understanding of priesthood.

However, church rules are not based merely on scripture, unless you are a protestant. the early fathers soon established the 3 fold ministry and the teaching about eucharistic sacrifice.

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

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
women were simply posessions untill well after Victorian times. .

I know the point you are trying to make but that is just nonsense. Well in our culture anyway, things might be different in some other places. Neither women nor anyone else were "simply possesions" until Victorian times. Never mind "well" after them.

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... church rules are not based merely on scripture, unless you are a protestant.

Which I am, and so are you, unless you Poped since last commenting about your parish here.

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
pre-industrial societies were all monarchies of some kind

Not that I'm disagreeing with your general point, but this isn't true.
Athens famously wasn't a monarchy; Rome wasn't a monarchy for perhaps the most important phase in its history; Venice remained a republic right up until it was conquered by Napoleon.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... church rules are not based merely on scripture, unless you are a protestant.

Which I am, and so are you, unless you Poped since last commenting about your parish here.
We've had this tangent before.

I am a member of the Church of England, which is not a protestant church.

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Easy - Jesus was a man. The apostles he chose were men. The men they ordained were men.

Jesus had a beard. The apostles he chose had beards. The men they ordained had beards.

Priests must have beards.

Ditto sandals, long flowing robes, and many negatives too (Jesus didn't have a car; the men he chose didn't have cars...)

Jesus was also a certain height, skin colour, etc. The issue is: why choose one particular quality and not another? We know that men and women have very different roles in pre-industrial societies, just as pre-industrial societies were all monarchies of some kind, and generally allowed slavery and other forms of non-free statuses.

The prohibition on women looks like a legacy of pre-industrial prejudices and lack of liberty, and should be given up as much as slavery and serfdom and absolute monarchies have been given up.

(edited to include absolute monarchies)

Gender has a more profound difference to one's being than skin-colour, beardedness/smoothness, circumcised/uncircumcised, dress.

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

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am a member of the Church of England, which is not a protestant church.

What is it then? The Pope says it's not Catholic, and the Ecumenical Patriarch says it's not Orthodox. If it looks like a duck...
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To rehash what I have posted here before - but I said it was a tangent:

The religious settlement that eventually emerged in the reign of Elizabeth gave the Church of England the distinctive identity that it has retained to this day. It resulted in a Church that consciously retained a large amount of continuity with the Church of the Patristic and Medieval periods in terms of its use of the catholic creeds, its pattern of ministry, its buildings and aspects of its liturgy, but which also embodied Protestant insights in its theology and in the overall shape of its liturgical practice. The way that this is often expressed is by saying that the Church of England is both 'catholic and reformed.' http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/history/

The Church of England understands itself to be both Catholic and Reformed:[3]
• Catholic in that it views itself as a part of the universal church of Jesus Christ in unbroken continuity with the early apostolic and later medieval church. This is expressed in its strong emphasis on the teachings of the early Church Fathers, in particular as formalised in the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds.[4]
• Reformed to the extent that it has been shaped by some of the doctrinal and institutional principles of the 16th century Protestant Reformation. The more Reformed character finds expression in the Thirty-Nine Articles of religion, established as part of the settlement of religion under Queen Elizabeth I. The customs and liturgy of the Church of England, as expressed in the Book of Common Prayer, are based on pre-Reformation traditions but have been influenced by Reformation liturgical and doctrinal principles
As the Church of England bases its teachings on the Holy Scriptures, the ancient Catholic teachings of the Church Fathers and some of the doctrinal principles of the Protestant Reformation (as expressed in the 39 Articles and other documents such as the Book of Homilies), Anglicanism can therefore be described as 'Reformed Catholic' in character rather than Protestant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England

Protestant churches generally reject the Catholic and Orthodox doctrines of apostolic succession and the sacramental ministry of the clergy.

The separation of the Church of England (then including the Church in Wales) and Church of Ireland from Rome under King Henry VIII did not take a Protestant form. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism

The Anglican Church does not generally understand itself to be 'Protestant' as it believes itself to be a continuation of the English Church before this period. Anglicans often describe themselves as Catholic (but not Roman Catholic) and Reformed (but not Protestant). http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_Protestant_and_Anglican

Classically a protestant is a Lutheran, following Luther's actions in protesting against the papacy .In 1791 Roman Catholics described themselves as ,'Protestant, Catholic Dissenters' in a letter to the House of Lords!!!
Anglicans are Catholics with a history of some two thousand years development in Britain. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_differece_between_anglicans_and_protestants

The Church of England considers itself to be both a Reformed (but not Protestant) and Catholic (but bot Roman Catholic) church tradition: Reformed insofar as it has been influenced by many of the principles of the reformation and does not accept Papal authority; Catholic in that it views itself the unbroken continuation of the early apostolic and later mediæval Church rather than a new formation. In its practices, furthermore, the Church of England remains closer to Roman Catholicism than the Protestant Churches. Its theological beliefs are relatively conservative, its form of worship can be quite traditional and ceremonial, and its organisation retains the historical episcopal hierarchy of bishops and dioceses. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Church_of_England

Despite its link with the Protestant break, the Church of England is not considered a Protestant church. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-church-of-england.htm

"The Episcopal Church" became the name to replace PECUSA in the sixties. The reason had to do with elmination of the word 'Protestant'-- and so this was also the period when the shortened 'TEC' declared itself a constituent member of the Anglican Communion (and not a protestant denomination in the US) in Communion with the See of Canterbury. http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/004475.html

In the first case, the Anglican church, and especially the Church of England is not Protestant. It is an episcopally ordered Catholic Reformed Church. The reasons for this distinction are many, and in the reign of Elizabeth I, the distinction was not made, since Elizabeth was much more of the Protestant persuasion. James I and VI brought things to their present stand, more or less. A few acts of Parliament refer to 'Protestant' religion, but the church's own rules and formulas do not. Members of the Church of England do not generally refer to themselves as Protestant, unless they wish to strike some special contrast. The Anglican church is in many respects the direct successor of the original Catholic order in England, and although few would want to challenge the right of the Roman Catholic church to operate in that capacity as well, it is a role that the Church of England takes seriously. http://everything2.com/title/Protestant

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Easy - Jesus was a man. The apostles he chose were men. The men they ordained were men.

Jesus had a beard. The apostles he chose had beards. The men they ordained had beards.

Priests must have beards.

Yes! My son, you are not far from Orthodoxy.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Male-only priesthood encodes an anti-incarnational Gnostic view of God as entirely concerned with some spirit world.

I don't follow. The chief argument usually given for an all-male priesthood has to do with the gender of Christ and the apostles. Which is very much an incarnational thing -- it's all about flesh and bones. Whether or not one agrees with this argument, I don't see how it can be twisted into being anti-incarnational.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Gender has a more profound difference to one's being than skin-colour, beardedness/smoothness, circumcised/uncircumcised, dress.

Gender is the ONLY difference mentioned at the creation of human beings. It goes all the way back; it is the most fundamental difference between human beings.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Protestant churches generally reject the Catholic and Orthodox doctrines of apostolic succession and the sacramental ministry of the clergy.

This is untrue. Either you honestly believe it and are merely astoundingly ignorant of non-Anglican theology and eccelesiology, or you are engaging in a deliberate lie.

Either way, take a train ride up to Edinburgh and get a clue at a Kirk Divinity School, or your nearest Methodist or United Reformed Church establishment.

It's "Minister of Word and Sacrament".

Ministers in Presbyterian polity are ordained by other ministers. Apostolic Succession here we come!

Please do no conflate "Real Presence" with sacramental ministry. Even the Orthodox will get a bit shifty when discussing Transubstantiation.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

 - Posted      Profile for Knopwood   Email Knopwood   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Easy - Jesus was a man. The apostles he chose were men. The men they ordained were men.

But a man whose human nature derived in its entirety from a woman, so that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis would seem to put Maundy Thursday in trouble!

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Ministers in Presbyterian polity are ordained by other ministers. Apostolic Succession here we come!

Whether you agree with it or not, you surely know that this is not "the Catholic and Orthodox doctrine of apostolic succession." Our traditions have discovered a good deal of common ground on episcope, but it remains the case that Anglicans regard the episcopate and presbyterate and distinct orders.

I'm curious too about leo's characterization of Anglicanism as "Reformed but not Protestant," which would seem an inversion, Reformed theology being a more specific category than Protestantism. Personally, I'm happy with either term in the lowercase - like Lutherans, Anglicans saw themselves as preserving the integrity of the Catholic faith while testifying (pro testare) to its Gospel (evangelical!) foundations, asserting the prerogative of the national church to reform itself in non-essential matters over papal primacy.

Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Gender has a more profound difference to one's being than skin-colour, beardedness/smoothness, circumcised/uncircumcised, dress.

Gender is the ONLY difference mentioned at the creation of human beings. It goes all the way back; it is the most fundamental difference between human beings.
How does that work when we have people with XXY and XYY chromosomes wandering around? It's not unknown for doctors to choose a gender for an intersex baby at birth.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
How does that work when we have people with XXY and XYY chromosomes wandering around? It's not unknown for doctors to choose a gender for an intersex baby at birth.

That I do not know. Thankfully it's not my call. I'm not even sure I buy that argument anyway; I was just countering a common objection raised against it.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Easy - Jesus was a man. The apostles he chose were men. The men they ordained were men.

But a man whose human nature derived in its entirety from a woman, so that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis would seem to put Maundy Thursday in trouble!

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Ministers in Presbyterian polity are ordained by other ministers. Apostolic Succession here we come!

Whether you agree with it or not, you surely know that this is not "the Catholic and Orthodox doctrine of apostolic succession." Our traditions have discovered a good deal of common ground on episcope, but it remains the case that Anglicans regard the episcopate and presbyterate and distinct orders.

I'm curious too about leo's characterization of Anglicanism as "Reformed but not Protestant," which would seem an inversion, Reformed theology being a more specific category than Protestantism. Personally, I'm happy with either term in the lowercase - like Lutherans, Anglicans saw themselves as preserving the integrity of the Catholic faith while testifying (pro testare) to its Gospel (evangelical!) foundations, asserting the prerogative of the national church to reform itself in non-essential matters over papal primacy.

That was another of the objectionable theories in leo's post.

I don't argue that we have difference over order structure. Reformed churches do however have a strong theology of apostolic succession and ordered ministry, the difference from Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican/Some Lutherans being in its implementation and details. To say we reject it utterly is just wrong.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Reading through this ---

I will say the contents of a person's heart is more important than anatomy. That little quotes to reinforce the male only ideas from the bible are misuse and misconstrual designed to abuse.

We actually don't know how many women Jesus had in his inner circle, we only know what later bible writers and revisionists suggested for various reasons including to reinforce connection with the OT.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
That was another of the objectionable theories in leo's post.

I don't argue that we have difference over order structure. Reformed churches do however have a strong theology of apostolic succession and ordered ministry, the difference from Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican/Some Lutherans being in its implementation and details. To say we reject it utterly is just wrong.

Don't shoot the messenger.

I have often received Communion from Lutherans and Methodists and, very occasionally, a Baptist. More often, from a woman.

I was explaining what the 'traditionalists' believe about the ordination of women.

Also the official view of the C of E. We are not in full communion with churches that have not retained tactile apostolic succession.

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cottontail

Shipmate
# 12234

 - Posted      Profile for Cottontail   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Leo is engaging in self-definition. The trouble with self-definitions, however, is that they rarely take account of other self-definitions, so that he has perhaps unwittingly trod all over Reformed Christian toes. So in support of SPK and the Reformed position, I offer my church's self-definition for consideration alongside leo's. No doubt I will tread on Anglican and Catholic toes in the process:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... a Church that consciously retained a large amount of continuity with the Church of the Patristic and Medieval periods in terms of its use of the catholic creeds, its pattern of ministry, its buildings and aspects of its liturgy, but which also embodied Protestant insights in its theology and in the overall shape of its liturgical practice. The way that this is often expressed is by saying that the Church of England is both 'catholic and reformed.'

Ditto the Church of Scotland. "Catholic and Reformed" is our own self-description.

quote:
The Church of England understands itself to be both Catholic and Reformed:[3]
• Catholic in that it views itself as a part of the universal church of Jesus Christ in unbroken continuity with the early apostolic and later medieval church. This is expressed in its strong emphasis on the teachings of the early Church Fathers, in particular as formalised in the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds.[4]

Ditto. In every aspect.
quote:

As the Church of England bases its teachings on the Holy Scriptures, the ancient Catholic teachings of the Church Fathers and some of the doctrinal principles of the Protestant Reformation. Anglicanism can therefore be described as 'Reformed Catholic' in character rather than Protestant.

For us, "Reformed Catholic" = Protestant.
quote:
Protestant churches generally reject the Catholic and Orthodox doctrines of apostolic succession and the sacramental ministry of the clergy.
As SPK pointed out, not true. We don't fuss about tactile succession, but it is there nevertheless, in the laying on of hands at ordination. We don't see individual bishops as necessary to the process, but our Presbyteries are a kind of collective episcopacy, and only they can ordain ministers of Word and Sacrament. This may be a different understanding of apostolic succession, but it is not a rejection. And we certainly don't reject in any sense the sacramental ministry of the clergy.
quote:
The Anglican Church does not generally understand itself to be 'Protestant' as it believes itself to be a continuation of the English Church before this period.
The Church of Scotland does understand itself to be Protestant, and believes itself to be a continuation of the Scottish Church before this period.
quote:
Anglicans are Catholics with a history of some two thousand years development in Britain.
As a continuation of the Scottish Church before this period, the Church of Scotland has a history of some two thousand year development in Britain.
quote:
The Church of England considers itself to be both a Reformed (but not Protestant) and Catholic (but bot Roman Catholic) church tradition: Reformed insofar as it has been influenced by many of the principles of the reformation and does not accept Papal authority; Catholic in that it views itself the unbroken continuation of the early apostolic and later mediæval Church rather than a new formation.
The Church of Scotland considers itself to be both a Reformed (and therefore Protestant) and Catholic (but not Roman Catholic) church tradition: Reformed insofar as it has been influenced by many of the principles of the reformation and does not accept Papal authority; Catholic in that it views itself the unbroken continuation of the early apostolic and later mediæval Church rather than a new formation.
quote:
Its theological beliefs are relatively conservative, its form of worship can be quite traditional and ceremonial ...
Ditto.
quote:
... and its organisation retains the historical episcopal hierarchy of bishops and dioceses.
Okay, I'll give you that. But with the usual 'Presbyteries as collective episcopacies' caveat.
quote:
Despite its link with the Protestant break, the Church of England is not considered a Protestant church.
Yet I presume you would consider the Church of Scotland to be a Protestant church, despite the huge similarities in our self-description. Is it simply because we claim the term 'Protestant', so that you accept it too, out of politeness more than anything? Or is it because your self-description requires the existence of its negative: that your 'not Protestant' relies for its content upon our 'Protestant'? Or is the real reason why the Church of England is Reformed (but not Protestant), while the Church of Scotland is Reformed (and Protestant) to be located in the specific doctrines of the priesthood and of eucharistic theology? If so, that is fair enough. But your 'not Protestant' is no less and no more to do with historic continuity, or with apostolic succession and the sacramental ministry, than is our 'Protestant'.

And finally:
quote:
The Anglican church is in many respects the direct successor of the original Catholic order in England, and although few would want to challenge the right of the Roman Catholic church to operate in that capacity as well, it is a role that the Church of England takes seriously.
Ditto re. the Church of Scotland, in Scotland.

--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."

Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596

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

quote:
Protestant churches generally reject the Catholic and Orthodox doctrines of apostolic succession and the sacramental ministry of the clergy.
As SPK pointed out, not true. We don't fuss about tactile succession, but it is there nevertheless, in the laying on of hands at ordination. ... This may be a different understanding of apostolic succession, but it is not a rejection.
But you are arguing against a point leo didn't make. No one said Presbyterians reject any doctrine of apostolic succession, but the "Catholic and Orthodox" ones, and without prejudice to which view is correct, theirs does fuss about tactile succession and individual bishops. So while your points are all very fair, they don't show that leo's post is "not true." There's no shame in not sharing such a view: indeed as an Anglican I myself am not so inflexible about the physical unbrokenness of the chain of hands at all times and in all places. But there's no use denying that you reject the Roman view before outlining all the various ways in which you (or I, for that matter) do

[ 12. October 2010, 16:11: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As Cottontail said, at best leo's post is misrepresentation of the Reformed position. We don't reject the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, but we differ in our view of how it is to be implemented. I really can't see how an Anglican can argue that differing in details is equal to utter rejection.

The thrust of his post was also clear from his assertion that we reject the doctrine of the sacramental ministry of the clergy, which is simply wrong, wrong, wrong.

And that's aside from his playing fast and loose with the meaning of the word "Protestant" which Cottontail covered so cogently.

In addition to what Cottontail said, the United Church of Canada has always been acutely aware of the meaning of being a "Catholic Church". When you engage in a union between Methodists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists, it helps to have some theology to sustain your actions.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cottontail

Shipmate
# 12234

 - Posted      Profile for Cottontail   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:

quote:
Protestant churches generally reject the Catholic and Orthodox doctrines of apostolic succession and the sacramental ministry of the clergy.
As SPK pointed out, not true. We don't fuss about tactile succession, but it is there nevertheless, in the laying on of hands at ordination. ... This may be a different understanding of apostolic succession, but it is not a rejection.
But you are arguing against a point leo didn't make. No one said Presbyterians reject any doctrine of apostolic succession, but the "Catholic and Orthodox" ones, and without prejudice to which view is correct, theirs does fuss about tactile succession and individual bishops. So while your points are all very fair, they don't show that leo's post is "not true." There's no shame in not sharing such a view: indeed as an Anglican I myself am not so inflexible about the physical unbrokenness of the chain of hands at all times and in all places. But there's no use denying that you reject the Roman view before outlining all the various ways in which you (or I, for that matter) do
Absolutely, LQ. I think there may be a difference in how we are reading this.

As I read leo's remark - and SPK too, I think - I understood him to be saying, that "Protestants generally reject the doctrines of Apostolic Succession and the sacramental ministry of the clergy, which Catholics and the Orthodoxen accept." That would be an untrue statement, for the reasons given above.

However, it may be that leo means it as you have explained, that "Protestants generally reject the Catholic and Orthodox [I]understanding[I/] of the doctrines of Apostolic Succession and the sacramental ministry of the clergy" - which is much closer to the mark. Although of course, we don't reject these understandings as invalidating the aforesaid Apostolic Succession or sacramental ministry of anyone in the Catholic or Orthodox churches.

Does that clarify things? (And maybe leo could let us know what he meant!)

[x-posted with SPK]

[ 12. October 2010, 16:59: Message edited by: Cottontail ]

--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."

Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'understanding of' will do

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

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

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

The Church of England understands itself to be both Catholic and Reformed

That is, Protestant.

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So how come the word 'protestant' (unlike the word 'catholic') appears absolutely nowhere in the prayer book, nor in the ordinal not in the 39 articles?

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

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So how come the word 'protestant' (unlike the word 'catholic') appears absolutely nowhere in the prayer book, nor in the ordinal not in the 39 articles?

A word can be a fair description of a document without appearing in it. The New Testament doesn't say very much about the 'Holy Trinity' but that doesn't mean it is not Trinitarian.

The 39 Articles has 'the Church of Rome has erred' (and likewise Constantinople...) which it is reasonable to sum up as a protestant statement.

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So how come the word 'protestant' (unlike the word 'catholic') appears absolutely nowhere in the prayer book, nor in the ordinal not in the 39 articles?

Because back then the usual terms used were (1) catholic and (2)reformed. You won't find protestant in the Westminster confession either, but you will find both of those two words. You're surely not going to attempt to tell me the Free Kirk and Church of Scotland are not Protestant because of that?

People we now call Protestants thought of themselves as catholic because they adhered to the councils of the early church eg. Calvin's adherence to the positions of the council of Chalcedon, and saw themselves as being part of an unbroken continuity with the early church, though I think doctrines about where this continuity came from varied eg. apostolic succession or the notion of the visible/invisible church.

L.

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

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  ...  51  52  53 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

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