|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Arguments about equality are not necessarily "merely human." St. Paul did say there was no male or female in Christ. Interpreting that verse to grant the possibility of female presbyters/episcopoi, especially in the absence of verses denying female presbyters/episcopoi, is not perforce "merely human," unless all scriptural exegesis is merely human.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Yeah, I think that words like "renegade" and "play-acting" are not quite clinical per se, and really do come across as rude in this case. Obviously we don't agree about these matters, but we can still be respectful to each other.
But I am not respectful of either the Anglican church or her celebration of the sacraments in the relevant sense. I can be respectful of Anglicans who honestly believe that this is their best way to God, sure. I can be respectful of Anglicans doing charitable works. Etc. But I do not respect the heresy and schism of the Anglican church, and I do not respect her ineffective sacramental rites beyond the show of good intentions and religious zeal of the participants that they represent and channel. If that offends you, then be offended. I do not think that such fundamental differences should be glossed over. There is no need to stress such differences all the time either, of course, but this is not all the time. This is the time of a significant change in the sacramental practice of the CofE. And I note that the outcome of my blunt assessment is not some call to sectarian violence, but simply a shrug of the shoulders.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
<crosspost, answers Crœsos>
It sure wasn't a diplomatic post, but is it "pompous" just because I state clearly what the official RC position on Anglican orders actually implies for RCs?
No, it's pompous because of its contempt and condescension. So yes, I understand that you consider Anglicanism contemptible and worthy of condescension, but that doesn't make your post non-pompous. One can be accurate and pompous at the same time.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But of course then they run immediately into RC problem with the ordination of women. And that is not that we know that women cannot be ordained. But that we do not know that they can be ordained, and that we have no definitive way of finding out.
So the Catholic Church can determine, within a reasonable level of confidence, the postmortem status of the souls of various saints, but doesn't know anything about whether women can relate to their God in this life? That seems rather bizarre.
[Yes, the above post is vaguely pompous and definitely snarky, but also accurate.]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
It's an interesting question if you get into the "nuts* and bolts" of it. Does God insist on karotypic maleness (XY chromosome set) in His clergy, or does He just insist on an expressed SRY gene, permitting XX male clergy? Whatever the answer, how does the RCC "know" it's right and what was the "definitive way of finding out" that answer? Are there any other forms of genetic purity required of clergy, and how was that answer definitively reached?
--------------------
*No apologies for the pun.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But I am not respectful of either the Anglican church or her celebration of the sacraments in the relevant sense.
I'm not expecting that--I do not "respect" notions that I think are false either. But to use such terminology is disrespectful to the people with whom you disagree. When you drop out "I statements," such as "I believe" or "the RCC believes," then it comes across... well, like this:
quote:
But I do not respect the heresy and schism of the Anglican church, and I do not respect her ineffective sacramental rites
See, if you said, "I do not respect what I believe to be the heresy and schism of the Anglican church, and I don't believe her rites to be sacramentally effective," that's a very different thing, and part of respectful dialogue.
quote:
I do not think that such fundamental differences should be glossed over.
It's not a matter of glossing over them at all. It's a matter of how those differences are expressed to people whom one knows to believe the opposite. If someone, knowing that you and I believe in Jesus being God incarnate, was talking with us and casually said, "Of course, Christians are just playing silly idol-worship games," can you see how that would pretty much stop the conversation dead? This is where "I believe" and "I don't believe" and "my faith teaches" and "I understand things to be such and such" become helpful. I have exactly the same kinds of frustrating discussions with a certain type of aggressive atheist, and it doesn't help build bridges of understanding at all, no matter what the beliefs involved may be. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
I'm delighted to have had my Anglican identity so clearly defined for me by people who are not Anglican (but may once have been). My catholicity must be just a figment of my imagination.
And Anglicanism is more than the Church of England. We have five bishops who are women, one of whom is a diocesan. The Australian bishops have a seven-point protocol to manage this situation, but there are no flying bishops or provision of "resolutions". There are whole dioceses without ordained women, but no no-go declared parishes.
If ordained/consecrated women are a barrier to unity, then this went up around the Anglican Communion some considerable time ago.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
but doesn't know anything about whether women can relate to their God in this life?
I must say that I don't think this is quite accurate--it suggests that only ordained priests and bishops can "relate to their God," and that lay people of whatever gender are left out.
Clergy are ordained to certain sacramental functions, but it's not like they're supposed to be "super-Christians."
One priest I know has said that the way some people ask for her prayers, it's as if they think that God is thumbing through humanity's prayer requests, going, "Right.. right... yep... got it... right... OH! LESLIE!! HI, LESLIE!! It's so nice to hear from you!!" when He gets to hers. Thank God (literally!) it's not like that! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
but doesn't know anything about whether women can relate to their God in this life?
I must say that I don't think this is quite accurate--it suggests that only ordained priests and bishops can "relate to their God," and that lay people of whatever gender are left out.
Clergy are ordained to certain sacramental functions, but it's not like they're supposed to be "super-Christians."
If you say so. But clergy ordained to perform "certain sacramental functions" are clearly relating to God in a manner different than that of laypeople, at least in their sacramental role. If you want to phrase it differently, go ahead.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Rephrase: the RCC believes women can't relate to their God as priests. In this lifetime or in any other, presumably, although in the next lifetime we shan't need priests.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Arguments about equality are not necessarily "merely human." St. Paul did say there was no male or female in Christ. Interpreting that verse to grant the possibility of female presbyters/episcopoi, especially in the absence of verses denying female presbyters/episcopoi, is not perforce "merely human," unless all scriptural exegesis is merely human.
Interpreting that verse is quite easy actually Mousethief - it's about Baptism, nothing to do with women's ordination.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Arguments about equality are not necessarily "merely human." St. Paul did say there was no male or female in Christ. Interpreting that verse to grant the possibility of female presbyters/episcopoi, especially in the absence of verses denying female presbyters/episcopoi, is not perforce "merely human," unless all scriptural exegesis is merely human.
Interpreting that verse is quite easy actually Mousethief - it's about Baptism, nothing to do with women's ordination.
I keep being told this by people who oppose the ordination of women, but I still don't buy it. Even if it is about Baptism, why, if amongst the baptised there is no male or female, does this distinction reappear for Ordination? Secondly, having read the whole of Galations because I was told it would be clear to me that it was only about baptism if I did, I can say that doing so convinced me that, no really it isn't; being defined by gender is a return to the law not freedom in Christ.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
<crosspost, answers Crœsos>
And that is not that we know that women cannot be ordained. But that we do not know that they can be ordained, and that we have no definitive way of finding out.
We have the fact that women have been called by God to the priesthood, and have had their call assessed on the same basis as men. You believe, do you not, that the Holy Spirit guides the choice of Priests and Bishops, just as she guided the choice when the disciples needed to choose a replacement for Judas Iscariot? If the RCC were to assess the calling of women on the same basis as men, they would soon find, as Anglicans have, that there are women being called to serve.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
With respect, CofE bishops do not have valid orders and are not in communion with the Church and have not completed a recognised catechesis. They do not have the authority to correctly assess whether of not a person's call to the priesthood is true.
They can assess a person's suitability for being a CofE minister though, and that seems to me OK.
As a Catholic, I don't think we have a horse in this race.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
With respect, CofE bishops do not have valid orders and are not in communion with the Church and have not completed a recognised catechesis. They do not have the authority to correctly assess whether of not a person's call to the priesthood is true.
They can assess a person's suitability for being a CofE minister though, and that seems to me OK.
As a Catholic, I don't think we have a horse in this race.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
With respect, CofE bishops do not have valid orders and are not in communion with the Church and have not completed a recognised catechesis. They do not have the authority to correctly assess whether of not a person's call to the priesthood is true.
Put the shoe on the other foot for a moment, and imagine someone telling you that the bishops of your church don't have 'valid orders' and 'do not have the authority to correctly assess whether of not a person's call to the priesthood is true'. I'm not sure it's possible to say such things 'with respect'...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
I would take it on the chin and point to valid apostolic succession and conformity to and descent from the Early Church Fathers and the disciples and scripture and tradition.
I respect CofE bishops professionally rather than spiritually.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Who on earth suggested Galatians is only about baptism?! A lot of it is about circumcision...
Not the whole of Galations - just that verse/passage.
--------------------
"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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But of course then they run immediately into RC problem with the ordination of women. And that is not that we know that women cannot be ordained. But that we do not know that they can be ordained, and that we have no definitive way of finding out.
On what basis, though, is that kind of precautionary principle chosen? As opposed to the opposite principle of 'permitted unless clearly forbidden'?
It's quite clear that the RC can't apply that kind of precaution in all cases. To point out the kind of trivial examples that are handy for this kind of thing, Roman Catholics are comfortable using all sorts of technology for which there is no evidence of God's approval.
It's certainly not obvious to me, at least, why the gender of priests should be considered of such importance that your response is "we better not because we're not sure", rather than "there's nothing saying we can't".
That goes right to the heart of this issue - it is remarkably difficult for supporters of male-only priesthood to demonstrate any sensible connection between gender and priestly functions that would suggest that gender is important, and that therefore care needs to be taken before extending priestly functions to women.
And there certainly isn't any demonstration that, in churches that have allowed women priests for a long period of time, the women are showing themselves to be deficient in some way. Nothing has come up that would cause people to say "Ah! So that's why God said it should only be men!"
The idea that everything must be supported by a positive statement is, in itself, insupportable, and just comes across a lame excuse. It is simply impossible to write rules and pronouncements in this way. And if you try, people complain about the length of the rules and pronouncements. Forget the 10 commandments, your Bible would come in 29 volumes and occupy an entire large bookcase.
[ 15. July 2014, 10:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Remind me why I bothered defending Roman Catholics?
Because they are at least as validly Christian as you?
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
I would take it on the chin and point to valid apostolic succession and conformity to and descent from the Early Church Fathers and the disciples and scripture and tradition.
I respect CofE bishops professionally rather than spiritually.
The Church of England can trace Apostolic succession under precisely the same rules that the RCC does. The RCC chose not to acknowledge this for political purposes and now can't dig itself out of that hole because Cardinal Ratzinger absurdly decided to nail it to the mast as something Catholics have to believe.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
(It's a good job I have enough good RC friends to know that this kind of twaddle is not universally held among RCs)
None of the RCs I know outside the Ship are anything like IngoB - indeed, few of the Ship's RCs are either. With them, I have the feeling that we are talking about a common faith, a seeking after God in which we all share. IngoB, I hate to say it, but I do not have that feeling with you. When you post about Catholicism it seems to be a religion as remote to me as that of the ancient Aztecs.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Interpreting that verse is quite easy actually Mousethief - it's about Baptism, nothing to do with women's ordination.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Who on earth suggested Galatians is only about baptism?! A lot of it is about circumcision...
Not the whole of Galations - just that verse/passage.
But the point of that passage is surely that baptism has brought us into Christ: into the One in whom the old divisions of race/ethnicity, gender, social status etc. no longer hold true? We are now "one in Christ" as Paul says at the end of that passage and, although the differences between us are not erased (nor should they be - we're supposed to be diverse!), neither are they any longer a reason to negatively discriminate between us - including in matters pertaining to ordination. Otherwise:
1) This passage includes everything to do with us now being "in Christ" except ordination. Why? Why should be excluded? Or...
2) Race and social status are no barriers to exclusion (presuming you don't object to people from different ethnic origins or social classes being ordained/made bishops), but gender is. Again, why? Why is that one category different from all the others? Or...
3) Baptism doesn't really change that much and the "old" categories of division still hold true. Again, why? And isn't that a rather odd thing for people from a sacramental tradition to suggest?
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post: on further reflection, that first sentence in my first paragraph should probably read that baptism has brought us into " the One in whom the old divisions of race/ethnicity, gender, social status etc. should no longer hold true" - sadly, they all too frequently do still hold true within the body of Christ.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
I would take it on the chin and point to valid apostolic succession and conformity to and descent from the Early Church Fathers and the disciples and scripture and tradition.
I respect CofE bishops professionally rather than spiritually.
The Church of England can trace Apostolic succession under precisely the same rules that the RCC does. The RCC chose not to acknowledge this for political purposes and now can't dig itself out of that hole because Cardinal Ratzinger absurdly decided to nail it to the mast as something Catholics have to believe.
The Dutch touch, you mean? Not for much longer, with bishopesses as well as priestesses in the system. And technical apostolic validity doesn't at any rate make up for those areas where the CofE has rejected Christian teachings and practices retained by the Church proper.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
No, it's pompous because of its contempt and condescension. So yes, I understand that you consider Anglicanism contemptible and worthy of condescension, but that doesn't make your post non-pompous. One can be accurate and pompous at the same time.
The generalisation to "Anglicanism" here is all yours, not mine. I have clearly defined issues with Anglicanism. It is not the case that I consider Anglicanism or Anglicans contemptible, and hence also their sacraments invalid. Rather I consider some of their sacraments invalid, and hence can be said to have a kind of contempt for those. Indeed, I would not willingly consume their consecrated hosts, because I believe that they remain bread and wine. But that does not mean that I spit every Anglican in the face at every opportunity. As far as condescension goes, I actually do believe that Anglicans are wrong about many issues of faith and morals, and I am not, or perhaps better, the RCC is not. It is near impossible to make clear statements in that regard without opening yourself up to the accusation that one feels superior. Indeed, fair enough, as far as the contested issues are concerned I do feel superior, otherwise I would not contest them. But once more this is not an overall state of mind. I've said many times on SoF that I do not consider myself to be a particularly good Christian, or for that matter, that I consider the RCC to be far from flawless. So if some Anglican wishes to claim that they are a better Christian than I am, or that the Anglican Church is better than the RCC in some other way (which I am not contesting), then I can honestly say "good on you".
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So the Catholic Church can determine, within a reasonable level of confidence, the postmortem status of the souls of various saints, but doesn't know anything about whether women can relate to their God in this life? That seems rather bizarre.
The RCC can determine with absolute certainty that women can relate to God in this life. Indeed, the RCC believes that the most holy and saintly human person that has ever lived is a woman, and encourages and celebrates the faith of women in general. The RCC is not able however to determine whether women can carry out sacramental priestly functions. And that's because the RCC has no power whatsoever over the sacraments, she essentially just follows Divine instructions. God said "do X, then I will do Y." What if we do Z, will God also do Y? Maybe. Perhaps even probably. But not certainly. And since Y must happen, we are stuck with X. That's all. As far as the canonisation of saints goes: individual heroic sanctity tends to be evidenced by a person's actions in this life. On top of that, there is a supernatural confirmation process (two miracles...). It is simply something else.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Does God insist on karotypic maleness (XY chromosome set) in His clergy, or does He just insist on an expressed SRY gene, permitting XX male clergy? Whatever the answer, how does the RCC "know" it's right and what was the "definitive way of finding out" that answer? Are there any other forms of genetic purity required of clergy, and how was that answer definitively reached?
I have no idea whether there are specific rules concerning this, or whether there ever has been an individual case where such detail had to be considered. But the situation is really quite simple. We know that men can become priests. We can identify a huge number of people (about 50% of the population) as clearly male. They hence can become priests. We can identify a huge number of people (about 50% of the population) as clearly not male, namely female. They cannot become priests - in the sense of "we do not know if they can become priests, hence we cannot risk ordaining them." In the small number of cases where reasonable doubt persists whether somebody is male or female (or indeed "something third", if you wish), the principle applied to women holds just as well. If we are unsure, then we should not ordain.
There are probably some inherited diseases that would make it difficult to impossible for the person to become a priest. But those would be more a judgement whether the a person is mentally and physically fit for the work that a priest has to do. I don't think that there would be much general controversy there, or at least no more than for similar judgements in other jobs. The core difficulty with the ordination of women is that there is no "performance spec sheet" against which we are judging. Nobody is saying that women could not understand and speak the words of consecration and physically lift the host etc. (Or at least I hope that nobody is saying that...) Rather we are judging in the esoteric realm of spiritual representation and realised symbols. This is more like the question whether a host made from rice flour would be acceptable, or whether cider could replace wine. There clearly is a discrimination there, but not one that is concerned directly with the things as such. This is not about men being better than women, just as it is not about wine being better than cider. This is about getting a particular religious performance right to attain a specific outcome.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
See, if you said, "I do not respect what I believe to be the heresy and schism of the Anglican church, and I don't believe her rites to be sacramentally effective," that's a very different thing, and part of respectful dialogue.
My original post started with the following qualifier: "As a RC, I believe that ..." And you now have selectively snipped away an explicit list of things that I do respect in Anglicanism. Frankly, I consider it tiresome to endlessly repeat that I am saying certain things because I believe in them, and largely so because I am RC. Indeed, it seems to me that the overall effect of this is just to turn my statements into a personal opinion that is easily dismissed precisely as a personal opinion. I'm sorry, but that is not at all my intention. I say these things because I think they are true, and hence that contrary opinion is false. And furthermore, I generally only bother discussing matters that I consider to be significant. So if you feel disrespected because I think you are wrong, and in a way that matters, then that is as it must be. I am not willing to effectively reduce to an opinion what I consider to be truth just because that makes you feel better. I am willing to concede though that much of what I believe to be true cannot be compellingly argued without sharing certain core beliefs of mine. So I am willing to state where I am coming from, as I did in this case. But to constantly reiterate that is to create a false impression, namely that I consider contrary opinion as equally valid. I do not.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
On what basis, though, is that kind of precautionary principle chosen? As opposed to the opposite principle of 'permitted unless clearly forbidden'?
On the basis that the sacraments are essential to the individual life in faith and totally indispensable for the mission of the Church in this world. This is like asking "Why do we not allow all sorts of things to be dumped into our source of water, unless they are proven to be poisonous?" The answer is that we cannot risk contamination of our water source, because water is essential for individual life and indispensable for the community.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That goes right to the heart of this issue - it is remarkably difficult for supporters of male-only priesthood to demonstrate any sensible connection between gender and priestly functions that would suggest that gender is important, and that therefore care needs to be taken before extending priestly functions to women.
The priest acts "in the person of Christ" in his sacramental powers. Jesus Christ is a man, not a woman. But can a woman not perform all the sacramental rites just as well as a man can? Sure, there is no exercise of male genitalia involved in those rites. Also rice is as nutritious as bread, and cider is as nice a drink as wine (more or less..). But utilitarian functionalism is not what religious rites are about. Consecrating a host is not like hammering a nail into the wall: there is no power in the actions themselves but only in what they may mean to God. But we cannot change the sign language given to us by God at will, it is not really in our hands. Do we have evidence that God meant these to be signs made by men? Sure we do, the apostles Jesus Himself chose were all men, in spite of arguably some of His most dedicated followers being women. And then there is the unbroken practice of the Church across over a millennium as well. So that just is the status quo. We know we can make these realised signs this way, we don't know that we can make them in another way, and we do want to make them. The end.
Of course, there also are additional ways to theologically argue about this. For example, one can claim that God's Creativity is essentially "masculine" if considered in analogy to our pro-creativity, that hence the attribution of masculinity to God throughout the bible is not merely a linguistic or socio-cultural accident, and hence finally that the representation of God in the sacraments through men is an appropriate sign. But such arguments are always attackable, and inevitably will be viciously attacked. You can listen to some of the arguments here. But there are no "killer arguments" available. The reality is that for RCs (of the orthodox kind...) such arguments are more about understanding the rules, than establishing them. There is no claim here for a watertight argument against heated opposition. And while having such an argument would be great, it is not needed, since what needs to be done is clear.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
'Bishopess' is a new one on me, but even you must be aware that 'priestess' is an extremely offensive term when used in a Christian context, carrying as it does strong connotations of paganism and cult worship, even devil-worship. Your veneer of respectability needs a brush-up, so at least pretend, if you'd be so kind.
[ 15. July 2014, 12:49: Message edited by: Panda ]
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
None of the RCs I know outside the Ship are anything like IngoB - indeed, few of the Ship's RCs are either.
Actually, I would say that on the Ship RC orthodoxy is overrepresented. If not in the number of Shipmates, then certainly in the number of posts made...
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
With them, I have the feeling that we are talking about a common faith, a seeking after God in which we all share. IngoB, I hate to say it, but I do not have that feeling with you. When you post about Catholicism it seems to be a religion as remote to me as that of the ancient Aztecs.
Beats me why you are shy about saying this. The feeling is entirely mutual, and I consider this to be more praise than insult.
We seem to be living in a time where a particular heresy, let's call it modernism, has become so dominant and widespread that it actually starts to overcome prior divisions due to heresy and schism. I usually have little hope for Christian unity, but if there is one thing that could bring together RCs, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Calvinists, ..., Copts, Syriac Orthodox, ..., heck, perhaps even Muslims (which might have been a strand of the Ebionite heresy) and Jews, then it is that. Seriously.
Given my beliefs where the Church is at, I think the most important showdown will happen within the RCC. But that does not mean that there isn't a bigger picture. These sure are interesting times in religion, and perhaps (perhaps!) even apocalyptic ones. Certainly one can argue that a new world religion is emerging, a new Westerndom, even if it is not identifiably monolithic as Christendom used to be.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Arguments about equality are not necessarily "merely human." St. Paul did say there was no male or female in Christ. Interpreting that verse to grant the possibility of female presbyters/episcopoi, especially in the absence of verses denying female presbyters/episcopoi, is not perforce "merely human," unless all scriptural exegesis is merely human.
Interpreting that verse is quite easy actually Mousethief - it's about Baptism, nothing to do with women's ordination.
You 100% missed the point. You may interpret that verse to be about baptism. Fine. But that verse exists, and it is ostensibly about equality, therefore discussions about equality are not perforce "merely human."
ETA: I am not arguing here for the ordination of women. I am arguing against the idea that equality is a "merely human" idea.
[ 15. July 2014, 13:27: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
And moreover, what is the implication of talk of equality being "merely human"? Is it that God doesn't go along with it? If so, then surely neither should we and rather than defending equality everywhere else but in the priesthood should be advocating sexism. After all, the opposition to sexism is merely human. God doesn't agree.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And there certainly isn't any demonstration that, in churches that have allowed women priests for a long period of time, the women are showing themselves to be deficient in some way. Nothing has come up that would cause people to say "Ah! So that's why God said it should only be men!"
But here's the thing. RCs and Orthodoxen have not said that women can't preach, can't teach, can't lead or administrate, can't provide pastoral comfort and counselling, or any of the other day-to-day visible functions of a priest.
They are explicitly claiming that they have at least prudent doubt that a woman can stand in persona Christi in the Mass, meaning that a Mass celebrated by a woman isn't a Mass, and the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of our Lord. That's it - no more and no less.
And this is why it's hard to demonstrate a deficiency. Can you look at two hosts, and tell me which one has been consecrated? I can't.
Might one expect some kind of slow spiritual decay in a church which used to have a genuine Mass, but stopped having one? Sure - but remember from an RC point of view, the Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and so on don't have valid priests or a genuine Mass anyway, so they'd expect no change at all.
I think the only people this description could be applied to (RCs used to think their sacraments were valid, then they got women priests) would be the Union of Utrecht folks. So that's about the only place you could look for data that would test the RC theory.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
No, it's pompous because of its contempt and condescension. So yes, I understand that you consider Anglicanism contemptible and worthy of condescension, but that doesn't make your post non-pompous. One can be accurate and pompous at the same time.
The generalisation to "Anglicanism" here is all yours, not mine. I have clearly defined issues with Anglicanism. It is not the case that I consider Anglicanism . . . contemptible, and hence also their sacraments invalid. Rather I consider some of their sacraments invalid, and hence can be said to have a kind of contempt for those.
To-mat-to, to-mah-to.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Indeed, I would not willingly consume their consecrated hosts, because I believe that they remain bread and wine.
Sorry, but are Catholics forbidden from consuming either bread or wine if they're not consecrated, or just if they're offered to you by heretics/infidels? Must be tough finding a good bakery.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The RCC is not able however to determine whether women can carry out sacramental priestly functions. And that's because the RCC has no power whatsoever over the sacraments, she essentially just follows Divine instructions. God said "do X, then I will do Y." What if we do Z, will God also do Y? Maybe. Perhaps even probably. But not certainly. And since Y must happen, we are stuck with X. That's all.
How exactly does the RCC "know" that men can become priests? Is it just inference from past practice? What about other characteristics beyond maleness? For example, is the church certain that left-handed men can become priests? If so, how does it know that. If it's not certain, why is there no rule barring the left handed from the priesthood? Or is there such a rule? I admit to not knowing.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Does God insist on karotypic maleness (XY chromosome set) in His clergy, or does He just insist on an expressed SRY gene, permitting XX male clergy? Whatever the answer, how does the RCC "know" it's right and what was the "definitive way of finding out" that answer? Are there any other forms of genetic purity required of clergy, and how was that answer definitively reached?
I have no idea whether there are specific rules concerning this, or whether there ever has been an individual case where such detail had to be considered. But the situation is really quite simple. We know that men can become priests. We can identify a huge number of people (about 50% of the population) as clearly male. They hence can become priests.
Just so we're clear, are XX males "clearly male"?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Nobody is saying that women could not understand and speak the words of consecration and physically lift the host etc. (Or at least I hope that nobody is saying that...)
Well, nobody today is saying that. I wouldn't be surprised if it were a common sentiment in earlier times when it was argued in all seriousness that women lacked the mental capacity for a wide range of professions.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Rather we are judging in the esoteric realm of spiritual representation and realised symbols.
Really? Because it seems like you're judging by the very physical criteria "does he have a penis". That doesn't seem particularly esoteric.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is more like the question whether a host made from rice flour would be acceptable, or whether cider could replace wine. There clearly is a discrimination there, but not one that is concerned directly with the things as such. This is not about men being better than women, just as it is not about wine being better than cider. This is about getting a particular religious performance right to attain a specific outcome.
"Better" is always contextual. Steel is "better" than butter for structural supports, but butter is "better" than steel for spreading on toast and eating. So yes, in this context it is about wine and men being "better" than cider and women.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is like asking "Why do we not allow all sorts of things to be dumped into our source of water, unless they are proven to be poisonous?" The answer is that we cannot risk contamination of our water source, because water is essential for individual life and indispensable for the community.
Yeah, I can't see why anyone would conclude that regarding women as a poisonous contaminant to the Church is in any way disrespectful or contemptuous of women.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The priest acts "in the person of Christ" in his sacramental powers. Jesus Christ is a man, not a woman.
Jesus had a lot of characteristics besides penis-having. Not only did he have a penis, but it was circumcised. Does that mean that the priesthood should also be circumcised? He doubtless had a specific handedness (probably right, both statistically and given how important being "at the right hand of . . ." is scripturally, though
this is not a certainty). Does that mean only circumcised men with the same handedness as Jesus can be Catholic priests? If not, why not? What's the process by which the Church decides what are the important characteristics and which are optional? This seems fairly critical, given your assertion that ordaining those not qualified is disastrous.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
On what basis, though, is that kind of precautionary principle chosen? As opposed to the opposite principle of 'permitted unless clearly forbidden'?
On the basis that the sacraments are essential to the individual life in faith and totally indispensable for the mission of the Church in this world. This is like asking "Why do we not allow all sorts of things to be dumped into our source of water, unless they are proven to be poisonous?" The answer is that we cannot risk contamination of our water source, because water is essential for individual life and indispensable for the community.
Ah, well, this is something where your RC views and my fairly low Anglican ones will just have to part company. I just don't ascribe that level of power to the sacraments, or rather to the individual person delivering the sacraments.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Aye. It starts looking a bit like a magical formula.
"
Consecrate Host
Level: 8
Components: S,V,M
This spell can only be cast by a male cleric
"
etc. etc.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
If the CofE freely innovates new common ground with paganism, it can't very well protest the connotations of those innovations. If you don't mind me saying, the pagans had them before you did.
Just as the early Christians faced suspicion of cannibalism by the connotations of the sacrifice and Jesus' body and blood, the CofE will have to wait for the passage of time to make its own assessment.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Equality isn't "paganism". It's a moral good.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
The Dutch touch, you mean? Not for much longer, with bishopesses as well as priestesses in the system. And technical apostolic validity doesn't at any rate make up for those areas where the CofE has rejected Christian teachings and practices retained by the Church proper.
The participation of Old Catholics (can you refer to anything to do with Anglicanism without being condescending and rude?) in consecrations is only relevant if you accept the assertions in Apostolicae Curae in the first place. What you're really saying is that "all real Christians agree with me" - you're using circular logic so nothing will convince you.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
The Dutch touch, you mean? Not for much longer, with bishopesses as well as priestesses in the system. And technical apostolic validity doesn't at any rate make up for those areas where the CofE has rejected Christian teachings and practices retained by the Church proper.
The participation of Old Catholics (can you refer to anything to do with Anglicanism without being condescending and rude?) in consecrations is only relevant if you accept the assertions in Apostolicae Curae in the first place. What you're really saying is that "all real Christians agree with me" - you're using circular logic so nothing will convince you.
How can I be convinced of an error while the Church still stands there to teach me?
It's not about 'me', it's about the persuasiveness and authority of the authentic Church compared to unpersuasive and ungrounded stuff coming from certain of the the schismatic religious groups.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Equality isn't "paganism". It's a moral good.
Priestesses =\= equality.
Equality =\= moral good.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
How can I be convinced of an error while the Church still stands there to teach me?
It's not about 'me', it's about the persuasiveness and authority of the authentic Church compared to unpersuasive and ungrounded stuff coming from certain of the the schismatic religious groups.
Like I said, circular logic.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Could you please stop saying "priestesses". Thanks.
I can, of course. I didn't mean to upset you so much.
I don't pretend to comprehend how you can be so thin-skinned about grammatical usage, but live and let live. For the time being I will call them female ministers, if that is acceptable to you?
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Could you please stop saying "priestesses". Thanks.
Given that the DH Hosts appear to be busy with real life, I'm going to step in to provide Official Support to this request. Except I'm not going to phrase it as a request or use the word "please".
Invictus_88, stop saying "priestesses" and/or "bishopesses". Now.
Marvin
Admin
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
"Why do we not allow all sorts of things to be dumped into our source of water, unless they are proven to be poisonous?" The answer is that we cannot risk contamination of our water source, because water is essential for individual life and indispensable for the community.
You see women as contamination?
God save us from your mysogynistic 'faith' ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Could you please stop saying "priestesses". Thanks.
I can, of course. I didn't mean to upset you so much.
I don't pretend to comprehend how you can be so thin-skinned about grammatical usage, but live and let live. For the time being I will call them female ministers, if that is acceptable to you?
No, it isn't acceptable. They are priests. Unless you also call your celebrants male ministers, it is an insult, full stop.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Equality isn't "paganism". It's a moral good.
Priestesses =\= equality.
Equality =\= moral good.
You think inequality is a good thing then? Who do you think should be at the bottom of the pile? Who should we all piss on?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
If the CofE freely innovates new common ground with paganism, it can't very well protest the connotations of those innovations. If you don't mind me saying, the pagans had them before you did.
Just as the early Christians faced suspicion of cannibalism by the connotations of the sacrifice and Jesus' body and blood, the CofE will have to wait for the passage of time to make its own assessment.
Priestess is actually not permitted by these boards generally, because it is so incredibly offensive. And actually I find it offensive for reasons other than any Pagan association.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Could you please stop saying "priestesses". Thanks.
I can, of course. I didn't mean to upset you so much.
I don't pretend to comprehend how you can be so thin-skinned about grammatical usage, but live and let live. For the time being I will call them female ministers, if that is acceptable to you?
But it's not just grammatical usage - it implies inferiority. It's why female actors are just called actors now, not actresses.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
