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 37)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  ...  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 FreeJack:
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.

No. It is reasonable to sum up as a reforming statement. We wanted to reform Catholicsm and we did.

--------------------
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
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

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

Well I certainly agree about going back to the Fathers. Interesting post.

[ 13. October 2010, 21:05: Message edited by: Louise ]

--------------------
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:
We wanted to reform Catholicsm and we did.

Not really. Catholicism is still around, and they don't recognize you as Catholics. Catholicism did change, but that's only natural. You are not part of a reformed Catholicism, but part of a different church. Essentially, "you" broke the Western Church apart, split, and continued splitting for centuries over minor issues, until in the late twentieth century it got so ugly you had to acknowledge other people's Christianity.

To say you reformed Catholicism and you are part of it, is like saying Christians are Jews because they believe in the Jewish Messiah. You might say so, but you can't expect others to take you seriously.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  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:
... We wanted to reform Catholicsm and we did.

So why are you not a member of the Roman Catholic Church now?
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 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 
For one reason alone: although I accept Petrine primacy, I do not accept papal infallibility.
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:
We wanted to reform Catholicsm and we did.

And that reformed branch of Catholicism is popularly called "Protestant"

That's the way the word is used in Britain, you know that's the way the word is used, but your distaste for evangelicals and women priests somehow makes you want to keep on disassociating yourself from it, inm the face of the facts.

--------------------
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 El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We wanted to reform Catholicsm and we did.

Not really. Catholicism is still around, and they don't recognize you as Catholics.
Really. The different denominations, including the contemporary Roman Catholics, are all descendents of the pre-Reformation western Catholic churches but none of them are identical with it.

In fact these days the visible face of RC churches, their liturgy and praching, is often more like 16th or 17th century Lutherans than it is like 16th or 17th century Romans. Luther has won.

--------------------
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 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We wanted to reform Catholicsm and we did.

And that reformed branch of Catholicism is popularly called "Protestant"

That's the way the word is used in Britain, you know that's the way the word is used, but your distaste for evangelicals and women priests somehow makes you want to keep on disassociating yourself from it, inm the face of the facts.

MY distaste for women priests? I was virtually a founder member of the Movement for the Ordination of Women, have had had women priests in our ministry team and once had a woman incumbent.

As for evangelicals, I certainly think that fundamentalists do great harm to evangelism but am aware that not all evangelicals are fundamentalists.

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 El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We wanted to reform Catholicsm and we did.

Not really. Catholicism is still around, and they don't recognize you as Catholics. Catholicism did change, but that's only natural. You are not part of a reformed Catholicism, but part of a different church. Essentially, "you" broke the Western Church apart, split, and continued splitting for centuries over minor issues, until in the late twentieth century it got so ugly you had to acknowledge other people's Christianity.

To say you reformed Catholicism and you are part of it, is like saying Christians are Jews because they believe in the Jewish Messiah. You might say so, but you can't expect others to take you seriously.

I don't often agree with Andy but this time he hits the nail on the head.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 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 
It is not I who say so - I quoted the C of E's official website.

--------------------
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 ken:
The different denominations, including the contemporary Roman Catholics, are all descendents of the pre-Reformation western Catholic churches but none of them are identical with it.

No group remains the same when a couple of centuries pass. No church today is identical with first century churches. Not even the Orthodox are identical with fifth century Orthodox.

Before the Reformation, and after the Great Schism, there was one church in the West, under the Pope. There were not many "western Catholic churches, as you posit. One Pope, one Church.

The papacy still exists today. And there is one church in which the Pope reigns. And this ain't the Anglican Church.

quote:
In fact these days the visible face of RC churches, their liturgy and praching, is often more like 16th or 17th century Lutherans than it is like 16th or 17th century Romans. Luther has won.
No. Luther hasn't won. He began a movement that did in fact influence the developments in other churches, via the counter-Reformation etc etc.

But the movement that began with Luther got quickly out of hand. Luther would move restless in his grave if he knew what happened in the churches he helped founded. Views that were abhorrent to Luther are now considered normative in much of the Protestant world. Things Luther saw as abominations are considered normal. Luther has by no means won. History was much greater than the Pope, Luther or even Jesus. Things followed their course no matter what the important historical figures have planned, willed, or intended.

[ 17. October 2010, 09:00: Message edited by: El Greco ]

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  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 El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
We wanted to reform Catholicsm and we did.

Not really. Catholicism is still around, and they don't recognize you as Catholics. Catholicism did change, but that's only natural. You are not part of a reformed Catholicism, but part of a different church.
Bollocks - it's purely "he said, she said." I could just as easily turn around and say "we" don't recognize "them" (assuming you mean the RCC) as Catholics (or indeed, on the issue pertaining to this thread, even as Chalcedonian Christians). The argument begs the question, only holding if you already accept the premise of RCism's claim to be coterminous with Catholicism.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Precisely. Well put. Thank you.

--------------------
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
Rusty John
Shipmate
# 9305

 - Posted      Profile for Rusty John     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I really like John Mason Neale's argument about the word protestant (which I know I've linked to before.

His argument is, as you can see in the few pages following the one I linked to, to ask, what do people mean when they say Protestant, as in, "The Church of England is Protestant"?

(In his imagined dialogue) they don't mean the 16th century meaning, in which it was applied to Lutherans as against Calvinists.

They say that they mean that the Church of England protests against "Popery." But so does the Eastern Church! And his interlocutor says, why, they're just as bad!

Which is the rub--"Protestant" is taken to mean a protest against something the RCC and the Orthodox have in common, which the person asserting that the Church of England is Protestant doesn't like. Neale suspects that these things are:
- the sacramental system of the church
- baptismal regeneration
- the divine gift of the Holy Ghost in confirmation
- the real presence
- the apostolic succession
- the power of absolution

And if that's what is meant by Protestant, then the Church of England can't be protestant, because "she holds, as most necessary truths, every one of those blessed doctrines." (page 8 of the link.)

Posts: 76 | From: Chicago | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rusty John:
...if that's what is meant by Protestant...

But that's not what is meant by Protestant. I can call myself a Protestant without implying anything at all about the doctrinal positions which you cite.

For most Anglicans I know IRL, saying that the CofE is a Protestant church is about as controversial as saying that it is a Christian church. We'd agree with the ACs for whom it is controversial that we are just as much a 'real' church as the Roman Catholics, of course, but we don't share the cultural aversion to the label 'Protestant'.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rusty John
Shipmate
# 9305

 - Posted      Profile for Rusty John     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But that's not what is meant by Protestant. I can call myself a Protestant without implying anything at all about the doctrinal positions which you cite.

For most Anglicans I know IRL, saying that the CofE is a Protestant church is about as controversial as saying that it is a Christian church. We'd agree with the ACs for whom it is controversial that we are just as much a 'real' church as the Roman Catholics, of course, but we don't share the cultural aversion to the label 'Protestant'.

Hmm. Well, maybe this is a pond difference, or a difference for me, coming from a secular background and mostly picking up common perceptions in American culture, but here's an example of where I think Neale is on to something about the way words are used sometimes. My wife is Catholic, and was taught various things in Sunday school in the form "Protestants believe X, but we Catholics believe Y." Those aren't going to be deep theological statements, but it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that when you pair up theological positions (the way they might be stated in a history class for children), the relationship to the Protestant column for Anglicans is going to be a lot less strong than the relationship to the Catholic column.

Obviously there's a common historical, cultural, geopolitical sense in which the Church of England is Protestant. It'd be silly to deny that. But at least the way I was taught as a non-member of either but in the generic-Protestant American South, the differences asserted between Protestants and Catholics were not just historical and jurisdictional (the way they were more likely to be talking about the split of East and West), but really, fundamentally, here-and-now doctrinal. "Anglicans are Protestant" sure sounds to *me* like it is intended to have theological implications.

People really do start statements by saying, "I'm Catholic so I do/believe X" or "I'm Protestant so I do/believe Y," and that "so" implying something about current practice doesn't make sense if Protestant is restricted to meaning only "belonging to a church with organizational or doctrinal continuity with those who ceased to be in communion with the Pope during the 16th century" (and not before, meaning the Orthodox, and not after, meaning the Old Catholics) without any implication about life/belief.

Posts: 76 | From: Chicago | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
TonyK

Host Emeritus
# 35

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

I know we got into this discussion about the CofE's 'protestant' status or otherwise from the thread subject, but it now seems to have become the theme of the thread (which admittedly I should have spotted earlier!)

Could I suggest that this is taken to another place (Purgatory? Ecclesiantics?) and that we return to the equally unedifying subject of 'Priestly Genitalia'

Thank You

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting
Here we go, one large thread for all your women's ordination related needs. Please cool off and don't turn it into a sneerfest at each other's traditions.
thanks!
Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting off

[ 27. May 2012, 17:49: Message edited by: Louise ]

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

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Moved from closed thread

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
moved over from closed thread on Bishop's legislation

quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
At the risk of finding a deceased equine's head on my pillow tomorrow morning...but this is a specific point, and I don't see it being discussed anywhere on the ship.

The group of six have voted (by a majority) that the amendments made by the house of bishops to the draft women bishops legislation do not change the substance of the measure, so this will go before general synod this July for a final vote.

The amendments haven't exactly been greeted with favour from any side of the debate. WATCH don't like them; Reform doesn't like them; Forward in Faith doesn't like them. In trying to please everyone has the House of Bishops in fact enraged everybody?

When this goes back to synod should it pass as amended? If the measure is voted down what does that mean for the future of women in the episcopate in the CofE?


Will Watch actually vote against though? Would they really scupper the ministry of potential women bishops for at least 6 or 7 years because the proposal wasn't purist enough for them. Only a hardened few.

Arguably the vote is better for Reform than the current legislation where they can choose a theologically acceptable bishop rather than a PEV who are all conservative anglo-catholic currently.

Because of the defections to the Ordinariate, the FiF / catholic group in General Synod must be smaller than last time.



--------------------
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
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Moved from closed thread


quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It would help, of course, if we knew exactly what the two ammendments by the House of Bishops were. Here's a summary (courtesy of BBC news):


Female authority

The House made two changes to the draft measure.

The first centres on whether a female bishop's legal authority would be diminished, if a traditionalist parish requested access to an "alternative" male bishop.

The amendment addresses a situation in which, if a parish in the diocese of a female bishop refused to recognise her authority, the bishop could delegate her powers to an alternative male colleague.

It makes it clear that though the alternative male bishop derives his legal authority from the diocesan woman bishop who appoints him, the authority to exercise the office of a bishop comes from his own ordination.

This is an area of serious disagreement - supporters of women bishops are anxious a woman should not be a "second class bishop" and their opponents are concerned the alternative bishop should not derive his authority from a woman.

The second change adds to a new code of practice for bishops, being drawn up for approval if the consecration of women bishops is passed by the general synod.

Not "far-reaching"

It states further guidance will be issued, surrounding the opting-out of parishes who decide on the grounds of theological conviction, that they do not want a female bishop.

That guidance will be directed at ensuring the exercise of ministry by bishops and priests appointed to serve in parishes which object to women bishops, will be consistent with those objections.

In statement the House said: "We rejected more far reaching amendments that would have changed the legal basis on which bishops would exercise authority, when ministering to parishes unable to receive the ministry of female bishops."

But supporters of women bishops fear the creation of a "double-standard" of authority, where so-called "untainted" male bishops (those who have not ordained female clergy or received ordination from a woman) become sought after by traditionalist parishes.
___________________

The main problem is Authority, and this has not really been resolved at all. Still, the ultimate Authority (within a Diocese) is with the Diocesan Bishop (who might in future be a woman).

The second amendment is nothing more than a promise of "further guidance" - it is not even worth commenting on!



--------------------
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
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Moved from closed thread

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't understand why Forward in Faith are unhappy with this amended code of conduct. As an ex-FiF type, I think the concessions are generous and the very best they could hope for, realistically.



--------------------
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
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...The main problem is Authority, and this has not really been resolved at all. Still, the ultimate Authority (within a Diocese) is with the Diocesan Bishop (who might in future be a woman)...

quote:
Originally posted by Leo:
The crucial bit for Fifers will be that the bishops who have delegated powers are in a male line of succession - it is typical of how the 'traditionalists' are misunderstood that the BBC has not picked up on this crucial point. The Church Times HAS.

OK - I didn't know this, but it is important. It does seem, however, that things are going to get very messy in the future, especially when calls for further "equality reforms" come into play (as they doubtless will, amidst protests that it is still a "two-tier system.")

I don't really think there's any hope for the few remaining FiFers in the C of E - they would be best to cut their ties and leave the C of E to degenerate into an ever shrinking protestant/liberal sect, and join the Ordinariate - or better still, convert to Orthodoxy! [Smile]

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
hosting
Here we go, one large thread for all your women's ordination related needs. Please cool off and don't turn it into a sneerfest at each other's traditions.
thanks!
Louise
Dead Horses Host

hosting off

Oops! Sorry, I only just noticed this [Ultra confused] Anyway, I'll let other people have their say and take a back seat for a while...

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  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 Mark Betts:
...leave the C of E to degenerate into an ever shrinking protestant/liberal sect...

Two delusions in one slashphrase, no wonder they don't understand.

First, obviously, and undeniably, the Church of England is protestant and has been since the reformation, and if their personal sensitivity to the word goes so far that they can't bear to hear it used of themselves then they have a problem - and if they really think the CofE *isn't* (protestant rather than just saying it isn't as a sort of rhetorical dogwhistle which is the more usual case) then they have got other deeper problems.

Secondly, the lie that all supporters of ordaining women are theological liberals. There is more plausibilty in this as many of them are of course - but so are many of the anti-women side. Again, its really just a bit ogf political rhetoric, an attempt to get a claim in on some slogan territory - in this case the purpose seems to be to try to get some more evangelicals on their side.

But wither way, if they really believed it, then its like that Bob Dylan song: "something is happening. but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones".

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...leave the C of E to degenerate into an ever shrinking protestant/liberal sect...

Two delusions in one slashphrase, no wonder they don't understand.

First, obviously, and undeniably, the Church of England is protestant and has been since the reformation, and if their personal sensitivity to the word goes so far that they can't bear to hear it used of themselves then they have a problem - and if they really think the CofE *isn't* (protestant rather than just saying it isn't as a sort of rhetorical dogwhistle which is the more usual case) then they have got other deeper problems.

Secondly, the lie that all supporters of ordaining women are theological liberals. There is more plausibilty in this as many of them are of course - but so are many of the anti-women side. Again, its really just a bit ogf political rhetoric, an attempt to get a claim in on some slogan territory - in this case the purpose seems to be to try to get some more evangelicals on their side.

But wither way, if they really believed it, then its like that Bob Dylan song: "something is happening. but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones".

So, are you saying that FiFers think they are "catholic", but in fact they have never been anything other than protestant, and with more liberalism amongst them than they'd care to admit?

If so, I think you are right - I should know, because I used to be one!

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  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 Mark Betts:
So, are you saying that FiFers think they are "catholic", but in fact they have never been anything other than protestant,

Mostly. Obviously they were always protestants because they were members of an established protestant church. They are also catholic as well - but so are (for example) the Lutherans and Presbyterians - Reformed Catholics, that's what Protestants are.

quote:

and with more liberalism amongst them than they'd care to admit?

Thaty's probably true as well, but the point I was tryng to make was that their opponents, the Anglicans who accept the ordained ministry of women, are not all theologically liberal, and its not helpful to pretend they are.

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It is possible to be liberal in some catagories, but not others. I knew a priest who was adamant that women could not preside at the communion table, yet when it came to inter-faith he was a complete pluralist. So it's not hard to imagine that some might be the other way round.

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I didn't get far into the first page before I found someone with my pov, that if God calls a woman as a priest it's for no-one to stand in the way.

The response to this was that our definition of a priestly role is fitting for men, now as always. Women may be called to some aspects of the role, perhaps preaching and teaching, which may be facilitated without ordination into priesthood.

This raises two questions for me:

What does it actually mean for a woman to be called into 'ordination' ?

Is the role of a priest in the Church today man-made, created for men?

It may be that these questions have been addressed over the last 10 years on this thread somewhere, but I'd be interested in your thoughts today.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  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 Raptor Eye:
I didn't get far into the first page before I found someone with my pov, that if God calls a woman as a priest it's for no-one to stand in the way.

No. It is for the church to test that call and ratify it. Feeling 'called' is notoriously subjective and lots of nutcases of either gender would be causing lots of trouble were it not for selection systems.

(I am pro-OOW btw)

--------------------
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
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I didn't get far into the first page before I found someone with my pov, that if God calls a woman as a priest it's for no-one to stand in the way.

No. It is for the church to test that call and ratify it. Feeling 'called' is notoriously subjective and lots of nutcases of either gender would be causing lots of trouble were it not for selection systems.

(I am pro-OOW btw)

I agree that a call must be tested by the Church, and there are various criteria for doing so. If one such is tradition, women will always be rejected on the grounds of failing the test......

I remain of the view that if God calls a woman as a priest, nobody should stand in the way. At what point will it be accepted by the Church that man-made rules get in the way of God's work, and will genuine attempts be made to carry out God's will?

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...If one such is tradition, women will always be rejected on the grounds of failing the test......

This is true - but I think you underestimate how important Holy Tradition is...

..Oh! ..just one more thing - please understand the difference between Holy Tradition and "tradition" meaning local customs or "the way things have always been done in this church".

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...If one such is tradition, women will always be rejected on the grounds of failing the test......

This is true - but I think you underestimate how important Holy Tradition is...

..Oh! ..just one more thing - please understand the difference between Holy Tradition and "tradition" meaning local customs or "the way things have always been done in this church".

We understand just fine. "Holy Tradition" are your traditions (which are infallible), ordinary "tradition" is the other guy's traditions (which are probably wrong, especially since they're not yours).

The big problem with waiting for God's personal say-so is that He always seems to sound exactly like whoever is hearing Him.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
We understand just fine. "Holy Tradition" are your traditions (which are infallible), ordinary "tradition" is the other guy's traditions (which are probably wrong, especially since they're not yours).

Wrong! Try again...

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  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 Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I didn't get far into the first page before I found someone with my pov, that if God calls a woman as a priest it's for no-one to stand in the way.

No. It is for the church to test that call and ratify it. Feeling 'called' is notoriously subjective and lots of nutcases of either gender would be causing lots of trouble were it not for selection systems.

(I am pro-OOW btw)

I agree that a call must be tested by the Church, and there are various criteria for doing so. If one such is tradition, women will always be rejected on the grounds of failing the test......

I remain of the view that if God calls a woman as a priest, nobody should stand in the way. At what point will it be accepted by the Church that man-made rules get in the way of God's work, and will genuine attempts be made to carry out God's will?

I am not thinking of 'tradition'. I mean selection procedures such as 'BAPS' Two friends of mine, both women, will shortly be ordained, having undergone such a procedure before their training.

Without this procedure, any women can stand up and say she has been called. I can think of some disastrous consequences if either men or women were allowed to be ordained simply on their say-so.

--------------------
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 Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
We understand just fine. "Holy Tradition" are your traditions (which are infallible), ordinary "tradition" is the other guy's traditions (which are probably wrong, especially since they're not yours).

Wrong! Try again...
We know the high opinion the Orthodox churches have of themselves and I'm sure we don't need reminding every third post.

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
We know the high opinion the Orthodox churches have of themselves and I'm sure we don't need reminding every third post.

Wait a minute - don't you think we should at least try to understand what we mean by Holy Tradition before we dismiss it out of hand? It applies to RCs as well, and surely must be better than relying on man's (and woman's) wisdom alone. Or do you want to replace the Church that Christ builds with the one which mankind builds? ...or have the Protestants done that already?

[ 31. May 2012, 23:06: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Or do you want to replace the Church that Christ builds with the one which mankind builds? ...or have the Protestants done that already?

This is a silly, spiky tangential argument. Considering you've just called every Prod on the Ship an apostate, I'd be tempted to either (a) open a Purg thread on Holy Tradition, (b) leave it, or (c) brace for a Hell thread with your name on it.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Let's not forget we shall soon have a new Archbishop of Canterbury.

Archbishop of Wales on CNC

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This is a silly, spiky tangential argument. Considering you've just called every Prod on the Ship an apostate, I'd be tempted to either (a) open a Purg thread on Holy Tradition, (b) leave it, or (c) brace for a Hell thread with your name on it.

Anyone would think that I was the first person to ever say that - but you know very well that's not true!

Yes, you're very welcome to start a thread on Holy Tradition (it doesn't belong in Hell!) - but you might hear some uncomfortable things which you won't like! Go for it! [Big Grin]

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  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 Mark Betts:
Wait a minute - don't you think we should at least try to understand what we mean by Holy Tradition

I do understand

quote:

before we dismiss it out of hand?

I don't dismiss it out of hand

quote:

It applies to RCs as well

And other denominations, not just yours.

quote:

..and surely must be better than relying on man's (and woman's) wisdom alone.

Which is exactly why the Bible must be our guide and regulator.

quote:

Or do you want to replace the Church that Christ builds with the one which mankind builds?

No, which is why I cannot in conscience be Roman Catholic or Orthodox, because joining those denominations woudl require me to sign up to man-made doctrines that I belive to be false, and to submit my conscience to the rule of men other than Jesus Christ.

And if you don't want to discuss thse things here why do you keep on bringing them up again and again as if they were some sort of trump card that allowed you to win a debating trick without arguing your point?

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

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

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...If one such is tradition, women will always be rejected on the grounds of failing the test......

This is true - but I think you underestimate how important Holy Tradition is...

..Oh! ..just one more thing - please understand the difference between Holy Tradition and "tradition" meaning local customs or "the way things have always been done in this church".

I don't underestimate how important and infallible some see 'Holy Tradition' to be. From where I stand, it seems to be placed higher than God's will.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't underestimate how important and infallible some see 'Holy Tradition' to be. From where I stand, it seems to be placed higher than God's will.

OK.. I'm glad to see that you, Ken and myself are at least speaking on the same wavelength now.

Here's the thing. How do you think the Faith once delivered to the Saints was transmitted before the Bible was compiled? Answer - Holy Tradition!

How do you think the Bible itself was compiled? How did the Church know which books to include and which books to exclude? Answer - Holy Tradition!

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't underestimate how important and infallible some see 'Holy Tradition' to be. From where I stand, it seems to be placed higher than God's will.

OK.. I'm glad to see that you, Ken and myself are at least speaking on the same wavelength now.

Here's the thing. How do you think the Faith once delivered to the Saints was transmitted before the Bible was compiled? Answer - Holy Tradition!

How do you think the Bible itself was compiled? How did the Church know which books to include and which books to exclude? Answer - Holy Tradition!

The New Testament shows us clearly how the good news of Christ, ie our faith, was transmitted. It was passed on orally, and it was passed on in written form, as people were guided by the Holy Spirit. As then, so now.

As I understand it, the early gathered communities used a diversity of written sources. When the New Testament was put together, those whose origin was considered to be removed from direct witness testimony were left out, and there was some disagreement as to whether or not to include the book of Revelation.

There were clearly disagreements between the first disciples in the early Church, as is illustrated in the New Testament. Paul said that if people disagreed with what he said they should pray about it and God would make it clear. He didn't say it was all set in stone and people shouldn't argue with him. He wanted God's will to be done.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
As I understand it, the early gathered communities used a diversity of written sources.

Yes - Holy Tradition (at least some of it)
quote:
When the New Testament was put together, those whose origin was considered to be removed from direct witness testimony were left out, and there was some disagreement as to whether or not to include the book of Revelation.
Yes - and how could they judge whether documents were removed from direct witness testimony? Answer - by their authenticity. And what was the yardstick for measuring this? Holy Tradition - written and oral!

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Mark Betts

Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Betts   Email Mark Betts   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't underestimate how important and infallible some see 'Holy Tradition' to be. From where I stand, it seems to be placed higher than God's will.

No - not higher than God's will - but it was and is a means to discern God's will.

What was the subject again? Ah yes, OOW, so yes, it can be used here to discern God's will.

Pope JP II said that he didn't have the authority to legitimise OOW - because even he couldn't strive against Holy Tradition!

[ 01. June 2012, 20:45: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]

--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290

 - Posted      Profile for Jahlove   Email Jahlove   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Votive] For those amongst us suffering from Convertitis vulgaris.

--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain

Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting
Please keep the personal sniping for the hell board thanks.

Can people keep the discussion more on topic, please? You can have a whole thread to yourselves on Holy tradition and the nature of authority on the Purgatory board. The nature of authority is not a Dead Horse.

Thanks,
Louise

hosting off

[ 01. June 2012, 23:59: Message edited by: Louise ]

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

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213

 - Posted      Profile for Anglo Catholic Relict   Author's homepage   Email Anglo Catholic Relict   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I hope I will be forgiven for not reading the billions of posts in this thread before commenting; my apologies if what I say has already been covered.

I am Anglo Catholic, but although my priest is not convinced by the ordination of women I have no problem myself accepting the Eucharist from a woman.

However, I read an interesting comment once, in a book about the Holy Grail mythologies, and their connections with Ancient Egyptian mythologies.

This book suggested that the reason why priests are predominantly male is because the Temple (or church) is always female. In pretty well any ancient faith ritual you care to mention, at some point the chosen representative male is enabled to ritually enter the sanctuary of the female in order to begin the process of rebirth of whichever god happens to be involved.

And the rest you can work out for yourself; it brings a whole new dimension to the Mass. I am far too respectable a Christian matron to go into more detail than that. Suffice it to say, a woman priest would not be efficacious.

I have not told Father this one; he is far too sweet and innocent.

If anyone is interested I can get the name of the book in the morning; it is a bit late tonight to start searching the shelves for the title.

Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267

 - Posted      Profile for Spiffy   Author's homepage   Email Spiffy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
As I understand it, the early gathered communities used a diversity of written sources.

Yes - Holy Tradition (at least some of it)
quote:
When the New Testament was put together, those whose origin was considered to be removed from direct witness testimony were left out, and there was some disagreement as to whether or not to include the book of Revelation.
Yes - and how could they judge whether documents were removed from direct witness testimony? Answer - by their authenticity. And what was the yardstick for measuring this? Holy Tradition - written and oral!

You seem to be under the impression Holy Tradition is something that stopped happening around 400CE in the Roman Empire. We've had 1600 years of Holy Tradition since then, in many places around the globe.

--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account

Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433

 - Posted      Profile for Zappa   Email Zappa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
I hope I will be forgiven for not reading the billions of posts in this thread before commenting; my apologies if what I say has already been covered.

I am Anglo Catholic, but although my priest is not convinced by the ordination of women I have no problem myself accepting the Eucharist from a woman.

However, I read an interesting comment once, in a book about the Holy Grail mythologies, and their connections with Ancient Egyptian mythologies.

This book suggested that the reason why priests are predominantly male is because the Temple (or church) is always female. In pretty well any ancient faith ritual you care to mention, at some point the chosen representative male is enabled to ritually enter the sanctuary of the female in order to begin the process of rebirth of whichever god happens to be involved.

And the rest you can work out for yourself; it brings a whole new dimension to the Mass. I am far too respectable a Christian matron to go into more detail than that. Suffice it to say, a woman priest would not be efficacious.

I have not told Father this one; he is far too sweet and innocent.

If anyone is interested I can get the name of the book in the morning; it is a bit late tonight to start searching the shelves for the title.

(sorry - not meaning to stalk you!)

That puts a whole new perspective on what I do each Sunday. I've never enjoyed it that much! Phwarrrr!

--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/

Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  ...  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