|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Or let's try this another way.
I do not wish to have my horizons limited by my gender, my ethnicity or my sexuality (although because of the existing prejudices and structural barriers that's actually quite unlikely on all three grounds). Therefore the application of the Golden Rule tells me I should not be willing to compass the limiting of any other person's horizons for the same causes.
That is what I mean by equality in this context, and this is why I consider it a moral good.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
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.
Is it authoritative because it's authentic, or is it authentic because it's authoritative?
--------------------
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
|
|
Kitten
Shipmate
# 1179
|
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?
Just call them Priests, that's what they are
--------------------
Maius intra qua extra
Never accept a ride from a stranger, unless they are in a big blue box
Posts: 2330 | From: Carmarthenshire | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
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.
Depends on geography and generation. As a tangent, actress etc are terms often used in English in Canada by francophones who speak English as a second language (and, by extension, some anglos in minority situations). Discussing this with a scholarly Québécoise of my acquaintance, she said that she had the correct feminine forms of occupations drummed into her as a teenager-- she believes it is different now, but she felt that most educated Québécois of a certain age will cheerfully refer to an aviatrix or a seamster, confident that their teachers were correct and that the anglos, as is so often the case, do not speak their own language properly (in the case of verbs, they're almost always right!). Those whose English is imperfect will be known to speak of an engineeress or pilote and will be surprised when corrected.
Bishopess, in any case, is well-known in literary circles as a wife of a bishop (such as Mrs Proudie), but priestess only refers to pagan clerics with a sacrificial tendency. The suggestion that the CoE has engaged itself in non-Xn directions needs to be substantiated or dropped (I can give you a few TEC and ACC examples, but the CoE, for its many flaws, is so far pretty innocent of this accusation.)
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I am not arguing here for the ordination of women. I am arguing against the idea that equality is a "merely human" idea.
Well, given these clarifications I don't think that you are fairly addressing what I was trying to talk about. A lot could be said about "equality", in particular of men and women, but my point was not that "equality" has no basis in Divine creation or no support from scripture. My point was that the "equality and justice" argument for the ordination of women largely follows the secular discussion about fairness in the job market, and that is just not sufficient. The priesthood certainly is a job as well, but it is more than that, and the difference is essential. A discussion of the ordination of women has to go beyond "job equality" and must play in the field of (sacramental) theology.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
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?
The latter, in a religious context where accepting bread and wine would signal accepting their valid consecration. There is obviously no problem with sharing bread and wine at a regular meal.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
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.
It is indeed simply due to past practice, though it is not merely by "inference". There is the underlying assumption that this past practice was concretely established by the direct and/or mediate (via the original apostles, and their successors in the office) instruction of Jesus Christ and/or the Holy Spirit. We have no indication that anybody ever cared about the handedness of priests, as long as they could perform the ritual manipulations in the proscribed fashion, so we do not care now either.
Christianity is essentially a tradition. While it has probably produced more argument and analysis than any other religion ever, all those thoughts and words ultimately rest on tradition (as captured in part in scripture). There just is no assumption here that every bit of Christian practice must be defensible by rational analysis from self-evident philosophical principle or perhaps utilitarian optimisation. If you don't believe in some Divine "deposit of faith", the Christianity will never make sense to you. That's just the way it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just so we're clear, are XX males "clearly male"?
Frankly, I'm not sure that this plays at the level of genetics in the cellular sense. Though I do think that it plays at the consequent level of embodiment (and not at the level of "gender" understood as socio-cultural construct). A brief glance at Wikipedia suggests that XX males generally present as recognisably male in their embodiment, so I think they would generally qualify for the priesthood.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Really? Because it seems like you're judging by the very physical criteria "does he have a penis". That doesn't seem particularly esoteric.
What is esoteric is the reason why it would be important "to have a penis". It is quite obvious why one would require a penis in a male porn actor, but the relation of one's junk to the job to be done is not as straightforward here.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
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.
This is just blatant misrepresentation in order to score cheap points. I was in fact providing an analogy why RCs are so overprotective about their sacraments, I was not at all making a statement about women poisoning the Church.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not only did he have a penis, but it was circumcised. Does that mean that the priesthood should also be circumcised?
The question whether one could be uncircumcised and a Christian, never mind a priest, was of course one of controversy in the early Church (as chronicled in scripture). In this case, the correct teaching was ultimately established by the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. However, there is no indication about similar disagreements concerning the male priesthood. And given the male priesthood of the Jews, and the often non-male priesthood of the Greeks and Romans, there is just no question that we would have heard a lot about this if it had been even remotely an issue.
One can of course ask "why sex, why not some other bodily characteristic?" That is a reasonable and interesting question, but not if we pretend that sex is just one feature among many. Quite apart from all religious considerations, whether one is a man or a woman is in general far more significant than whether one is left or right handed, short or tall, etc. And of course, it is this bodily distinction, not any other, that is flagged in the creation story of Genesis.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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.
The person delivering the sacraments has power only because they deliver the sacraments. But yes, I feel that having an exalted view of the sacraments is key to agreeing with the RC position. And understanding that the RCC maintains such an exalted view, at least officially, is key to understanding where they are coming from in this debate.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider :
Aye. It starts looking a bit like a magical formula.
I entirely agree, the traditional position is best explained in modern terms by saying "it is magic, and one needs to get the incantations right in order to make the spell work."
The problem is that this particular "magic" is not worked by the virtue of the "spell" as such, or by some arcane power in the "magician" himself. Rather, it comes about because of God honouring a specific promise. It's more like calling 999 (in the UK) to reach the police in an emergency. If you dial 987 instead, you won't get the response you want. But that does not mean that dialling 999 as such, or the person dialling, has the power to apprehend criminals. It is merely the case that the police has specifically promised to respond to 999 calls, whereas no such promise exists for 987 calls.
Were it not for this important subtlety, then the best explanation of sacraments would indeed be that they are magic.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
You see women as contamination? God save us from your mysogynistic 'faith' ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
No, I do not see women as contamination. I really find this a quite annoying conclusion, see my response to Crœsos above. I am thankful that orfeo, to whom I responded, correctly understood my point.
FWIW, I do see the ordination of women as a potential "contamination" of the priesthood, since it may be invalid in the eyes of God. Given the nature of the priesthood (or more importantly, "bishophood"), which is passed on from persons to persons, such a problem could rapidly spread and abolish the entire priesthood in short order given indiscriminate acceptance. Basically, if women cannot be validly ordained, then a man ordained by a female bishop will not be validly ordained either. And so the problem spreads.
--------------------
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
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Or let's try this another way.
I do not wish to have my horizons limited by my gender, my ethnicity or my sexuality (although because of the existing prejudices and structural barriers that's actually quite unlikely on all three grounds). Therefore the application of the Golden Rule tells me I should not be willing to compass the limiting of any other person's horizons for the same causes.
That is what I mean by equality in this context, and this is why I consider it a moral good.
You say limited, but I think you mean unjustly limited, as we are all naturally limited in different ways by our nature quite apart from the ill fruits of prejudice.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Bishopess, in any case, is well-known in literary circles as a wife of a bishop (such as Mrs Proudie)...
That would be reason enough not to use it.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: It's more like calling 999 (in the UK) to reach the police in an emergency. If you dial 987 instead, you won't get the response you want.
I don't subscribe to your 'magical spell' interpretation of the Sacraments, but if God doesn't do whatever you think He does during the Sacraments when they are officed by a woman, then I can see two explanations:- He's unable to.
- He doesn't want to.
Option 1 is at odds with His All-Mightiness. Option 2 makes Him a mysoginist pig.
In the case of the police operator, if you dial 987, he won't give me the response I want because he won't be able to know that I want his response. But what if the operator is all-knowing? In that case not answering ("I didn't promise to answer if you'd call 987") makes him an asshole.
[ 15. July 2014, 16:59: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
It is perhaps instructive that, in the context of that analogy, 911 now also works on some British phones to contact the emergency services. I would be astonished if, in the event that women for some mysterious reason can't be ordained, God doesn't have a way of dealing with it. I can't for the life of me see a situation where God will invalidate the sacraments because they are performed by someone he didn't want to be ordained. Woe betide any mistakes made by BAPs and their equivalents if he does.
[ 15. July 2014, 17:23: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceannaideach
Shipmate
# 12007
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not only did he have a penis, but it was circumcised. Does that mean that the priesthood should also be circumcised?
The question whether one could be uncircumcised and a Christian, never mind a priest, was of course one of controversy in the early Church (as chronicled in scripture). In this case, the correct teaching was ultimately established by the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Even when the new teaching introduced by the Holy Spirit seemed to contradict the Scriptures of the time? Could we not argue that in the fullness of time, the Holy Spirit is slowly guiding us to another correct teaching?
--------------------
"I dream of the day when I will learn to stop asking questions for which I will regret learning the answers." - Roy Greenhilt OOTS
Posts: 199 | From: Shakespeare's County | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
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.
This is just blatant misrepresentation in order to score cheap points. I was in fact providing an analogy why RCs are so overprotective about their sacraments, I was not at all making a statement about women poisoning the Church.
Not at all. It's a fairly accurate representation of your preferred metaphor. I understand that you don't believe women are literally poisonous/venomous. You were just saying they are metaphorically like something that might be toxic.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not only did he have a penis, but it was circumcised. Does that mean that the priesthood should also be circumcised?
The question whether one could be uncircumcised and a Christian, never mind a priest, was of course one of controversy in the early Church (as chronicled in scripture).
That's a separate question, surely? Your whole premise is that the requirements for the priesthood are different than the basic requirements for being a Christian. By your reasoning the fact that lay Christians don't have to be circumcised is no more relevant to priestly requirements than the fact that lay Christians don't have to be men.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
One can of course ask "why sex, why not some other bodily characteristic?" That is a reasonable and interesting question, but not if we pretend that sex is just one feature among many. Quite apart from all religious considerations, whether one is a man or a woman is in general far more significant than whether one is left or right handed, short or tall, etc. And of course, it is this bodily distinction, not any other, that is flagged in the creation story of Genesis.
If it's a reasonable and interesting question, how about an attempt to address/answer it? Given that making the sign of the cross with the left hand is considered by some to be blasphemous (more in history than in modern times but, as you say, "Christianity is essentially a tradition"), and the way scripture seems to regard anything associated with the left hand as bad (e.g. the parable of the sheep and the goats) handedness surely requires a certain amount of scrutiny.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider :
Aye. It starts looking a bit like a magical formula.
I entirely agree, the traditional position is best explained in modern terms by saying "it is magic, and one needs to get the incantations right in order to make the spell work."
The problem is that this particular "magic" is not worked by the virtue of the "spell" as such, or by some arcane power in the "magician" himself. Rather, it comes about because of God honouring a specific promise. It's more like calling 999 (in the UK) to reach the police in an emergency. If you dial 987 instead, you won't get the response you want. But that does not mean that dialling 999 as such, or the person dialling, has the power to apprehend criminals. It is merely the case that the police has specifically promised to respond to 999 calls, whereas no such promise exists for 987 calls.
Were it not for this important subtlety, then the best explanation of sacraments would indeed be that they are magic.
Given that there are numerous magical traditions wherein the sorcerer uses an incantation to get some external spirit to do his will rather than to unlock some power inside himself, I'm not sure this is as big a distinction as you claim.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB: quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
You see women as contamination? God save us from your mysogynistic 'faith'
No, I do not see women as contamination. I really find this a quite annoying conclusion, see my response to Crœsos above.
Right. It's a metaphor. Women aren't a contamination, they're just like a potential contamination.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
FWIW, I do see the ordination of women as a potential "contamination" of the priesthood, since it may be invalid in the eyes of God. Given the nature of the priesthood (or more importantly, "bishophood"), which is passed on from persons to persons, such a problem could rapidly spread and abolish the entire priesthood in short order given indiscriminate acceptance. Basically, if women cannot be validly ordained, then a man ordained by a female bishop will not be validly ordained either. And so the problem spreads.
To use another popular metaphor, sort of like a Zombie Apocalypse of the priesthood? Each contaminated member passing along the contamination to others?
Please note that I'm not saying clergy are literally mindless flesh-eaters spreading their infection wherever they go. Just that they're like mindless flesh-eaters spreading their infection wherever they go. It's a metaphor! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 15. July 2014, 17:39: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
My impression of the use of the word priestess is not only that it implies pagan rites of a sacrificial nature, but also that it involves dance of an inappropriate fashion. It isn't just diminishing, but also putting into a context where the male gaze is directed in a particular way and becomes paramount.
As Rabbi Jonathan Sachs said of women in his synagogue being confined to the gallery, men seeing the women would find their minds wandering from the prayer and from God. Using the word priestess is a less careful way of saying the same thing.
And on the possibility that God will refrain from consecrating the sacrament offered by a woman, does He ensure that when offered by a man who has profound failings - you know the sort I mean - are also invalid? Because if He can work round that, why not the offering of a good woman?
[ 15. July 2014, 17:59: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
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.
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.
I think you meant to say, "I don't believe..." and/or "My church teaches..." above.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Reading the comments from IngoB and Invictus_88, I am beginning to think that Ian Paisley and Jack Glass had a point...
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Getting back to main point in hand - that women can now be bishops in the C of E. Am I alone in being spectacularly underwhelmed by the vote? I know I should be rejoicing, but actually all I feel is relief that the C of E hasn't embarrassed itself still further. Apart from that, I am afraid that the events of the past few years have meant that I can't get excited about something that should have happened years ago.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
(great big post in which various things are made clearer, even with "I believe" statements and the like)
Thank you. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) My views are actually not too far away from yours--I would add, most seriously, as someone who has wrestled with this a lot, that it is OK to say "I believe" without implying that you think other views are "equally valid" or some other nonsense. I believe that life has meaning--and to say that with "I believe" doesn't at all (heh, I believe) suggest that I give any credence to the notion that life is merely a meaningless empty pit of despair. But if you're arguing with a bunch of philosophy students, it really does help to say "I believe" about life having meaning. (Indeed, I would say that I think it's one of those self-evident things, but since obviously there are people who don't, it helps the discussion continue. In some discussions--again, with a certain type of atheist, and not really on the Ship--I think some things come down to first principles that I think to be so self-evident there is no real argument for or against them--they simply are, and various crucial things rest on them, and without them I honestly think that the atheist position being argued doesn't have a leg to stand on either, but that's a long story--the point is at that point I usually say, "Well, we'll just have to disagree on that." It doesn't mean for a moment that am conceding they're right or even might be right. Just--that we don't agree.)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
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. [/QB]
I'm awfully curious about this, IngoB, so I'm starting a thread in Purgatory to ask what you mean and discuss it.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
trouty
Shipmate
# 13497
|
Posted
It's funny how the One True Church types on here are perfectly fine with the validity of orders when it comes to kiddie fiddlers in their church but not with women (or men for that matter) being priests in the universal church.
Posts: 205 | From: Somewhere out there | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
It's funny how the One True Church types on here are perfectly fine with the validity of orders when it comes to kiddie fiddlers in their church but not with women (or men for that matter) being priests in the universal church.
Does an Unworthy Minister Invalidate the Sacrament?
[ 15. July 2014, 19:48: 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
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
There's also another section in the above link:
Are There Some Occurrences Which Might Invalidate a Sacrament?
I'm pretty sure that covers everything from a Roman Catholic perspective.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Unworthy ministers don't but incorrectly plumbed ones apparently do. Which makes the RC position look utterly ridiculous - because it is.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Speaking as someone who has been, in the past, not convinced of the validity of the ordination of women, but now has accepted it, for me, at least, and I think for many others, "contamination" is an unfortunate word, with all sorts of malodorous or venomous associations. For me the concern was whether or not the sacraments would be valid. And, of course, this includes... ordination.
In other words, if women can't be truly ordained, would priests ordained by a female bishop therefore not be "real priests" at all? And so on (given a non-acceptance of OOW), with the ... lack of apostolic succession sort of spreading through the church, so that eventually, if one was not convinced of the validity of the ordination of women, one would have to get a sort of pedigree even of a male priest before being sure that communion was definitely real communion at a given church?
This drove me crazy, by the way. I wrestled with it for years. I did come to accept the validity of OOW (and I'm quite glad, as one of the best priests I've known was a woman, the priest I mentioned above, Mother Leslie), but the doctrinal/ecclesiological/sacramental matters remained precisely the same. I understand the concern, though often I've seen it expressed in... aggressive and uncharitable and unhelpful ways by an array of people (and while it might apply in some cases, I'm not talking about on the Ship). Heck, some years ago there was an Episcopalian/Lutheran Concordat called "Called to Common Mission"--and on the same doctrinal grounds, with apologies to any Lutheran Shipmates, I remain unconvinced of the definite validity of Lutheran communion for precisely the same reasons, but at far as I understand it, all new Lutheran bishops are being ordained in a way which grants Apostolic Succession via Episcopal bishops. Which from my point of view means it's a temporary problem, but honestly from some other Lutheran points of view it essentially says that their prior ordinations weren't necessarily quite good enough, and if I believed in Lutheranism then I'd be unhappy too, like this guy, and for both reasons I think it was a bit of a mistake for both churches. I'm almost (?) tedious in my concern for Apostolic Succession, but if I were a Lutheran I'd feel a bit like Anne in Adrian Plass being told by Mrs. Flushpool, "You must come round to see us soon, and have a proper meal." I wish we'd just decided to work together where we can, and with mutual charity accept our differences as the natural outgrowth of different notions of doctrine.
(Am I weird? Am I a rare and unique creature to be sacramentally Anglo-Catholic but accepting the validity of OOW? Answers on a postcard...)
PS: The stuff I've been saying about being rude applies to both sides of the issue but I'm going to give up on begging everyone to make "I statements" now. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
[ 15. July 2014, 20:05: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To use another popular metaphor, sort of like a Zombie Apocalypse of the priesthood? Each contaminated member passing along the contamination to others?
It is absence rather than infection by some positive 'thing'. It is more like a plant withering.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Unworthy ministers don't but incorrectly plumbed ones apparently do. Which makes the RC position look utterly ridiculous - because it is.
When you put it like that - I sometimes feel like I've wandered into the 1950s, when I hear discussions like this. Or into a madhouse really, an alternative universe, where the people are apparently speaking coherently to each other, but to no-one else. Strange.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't subscribe to your 'magical spell' interpretation of the Sacraments, but if God doesn't do whatever you think He does during the Sacraments when they are officed by a woman, then I can see two explanations:- He's unable to.
- He doesn't want to.
Option 1 is at odds with His All-Mightiness. Option 2 makes Him a mysoginist pig.
Clearly it is option 2 (minus your judgement thereof). And Job is perhaps the most important book of the bible (well, OT) for moderns.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In the case of the police operator, if you dial 987, he won't give me the response I want because he won't be able to know that I want his response. But what if the operator is all-knowing? In that case not answering ("I didn't promise to answer if you'd call 987") makes him an asshole.
You are entitled to your own opinion, of course, but you are not entitled to your own reality. I see very little mileage indeed in discussing just how much of an asshole God happens to be. I couldn't bear a child even if I wanted to, and a woman (probably) couldn't consecrate a host even if she wanted to. Them's the breaks. Feel free to rail against that, and about water being wet if it makes you feel better, but kindly keep the shrieks and wails out of my earshot.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would be astonished if, in the event that women for some mysterious reason can't be ordained, God doesn't have a way of dealing with it.
Of course He does. He raises up people who tell you that this is the case, so that you can correct your assumptions and adapt your practices. I can take a little bow at this point, if you like?
quote:
Originally posted by Ceannaideach:
Even when the new teaching introduced by the Holy Spirit seemed to contradict the Scriptures of the time? Could we not argue that in the fullness of time, the Holy Spirit is slowly guiding us to another correct teaching?
We could, if there has been continuing doubt about this issue. For example, the matter of predestination still remains unresolved in spite of being of obvious importance to salvation. One can expect that in the fulness of time the Holy Spirit will teach us just how predestination works. But all male clergy wasn't in any doubt whatsoever till rather recently. It simply is a consistent practice of the Church "at all times and everywhere" (scare quotes because that criterion is never meant entirely literally). Hence we can be spiritually certain that the Holy Spirit has in fact guided the Church into adopting the correct practice there.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I understand that you don't believe women are literally poisonous/venomous. You were just saying they are metaphorically like something that might be toxic.
Are you genuinely incapable of understanding the difference between "women" and "the ordination of women" and "the sacraments provided by ordained women"?
If you ever wonder why I have little respect for you as a discussion partner, look no further than this. It is not because you are an atheist. It is not because I doubt your intelligence. It is quite simply because you habitually twist people's words to make them look as horrible as you can. It's a rhetorical shtick, and it is just plain tedious to be forced into umpteen iterations of "no, that's not what I was saying, rather..." Just cut it out.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
By your reasoning the fact that lay Christians don't have to be circumcised is no more relevant to priestly requirements than the fact that lay Christians don't have to be men.
The logic used to reject the necessity of circumcision also makes it pointless to require this as an extra of priests. To put it simply, baptism replaces circumcision as sign of belonging to the New Covenant, and there hence is no particular reason why one should require the old sign of (baptised) priests.
Yes, in theory we can imagine all sorts of special requirements for priest. No, in practice we find just one (or perhaps a handful of related ones). You can now say that this demands an explanation. And it sort of does, really. But as inspiration, not as motivation. There is no requirement for God to tightly argue His rules before we deign to obey them. Nevertheless, it is of spiritual value to consider why God might have chosen male representation.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If it's a reasonable and interesting question, how about an attempt to address/answer it?
I have done so already, briefly, see above. You can listen to Kreeft in the link I have provided, if you are genuinely interested in hearing some thoughts about this.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that making the sign of the cross with the left hand is considered by some to be blasphemous (more in history than in modern times but, as you say, "Christianity is essentially a tradition"), and the way scripture seems to regard anything associated with the left hand as bad (e.g. the parable of the sheep and the goats) handedness surely requires a certain amount of scrutiny.
If there is a tradition of doing certain things with the right hand, then intentionally doing them with the left hand just is a sign as well, a counter-sign to that tradition which could indeed be blasphemous. Anyway, all this is is an attempt to goad me into providing reason and argument why this is part of tradition, but not that. However, it just doesn't work like that. "Tradition" is not a synonym for "established reasoning." There certainly could be a rule that all Christian priests must be vegan, but there isn't. We can meditate on the question why food laws largely did not become part of the Christian tradition. The results of that can be interesting and inspiring. Still, if Christian priests were required to be vegan, then we would be meditating about that now. Tradition is not established by logical and factual necessity, it is a kind of choice among infinite possibilities.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that there are numerous magical traditions wherein the sorcerer uses an incantation to get some external spirit to do his will rather than to unlock some power inside himself, I'm not sure this is as big a distinction as you claim.
Well, the sacraments can be considered as magic along those lines then.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Right. It's a metaphor. Women aren't a contamination, they're just like a potential contamination.
Will you ever grow tired of these immature games? No, the ordination of women can be considered as a kind of potential contamination for the sacramental system.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To use another popular metaphor, sort of like a Zombie Apocalypse of the priesthood? Each contaminated member passing along the contamination to others?
Yes, it is bit like the spreading of disease. However, Zombies are easily identified as Zombies, whereas invalid ordination can be basically undetectable for us other than by observing the ordination itself. So it's more like a highly infectious and deadly disease, which however has a very long incubation time with no clear symptoms.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Unworthy ministers don't but incorrectly plumbed ones apparently do. Which makes the RC position look utterly ridiculous - because it is.
When you put it like that - I sometimes feel like I've wandered into the 1950s, when I hear discussions like this. Or into a madhouse really, an alternative universe, where the people are apparently speaking coherently to each other, but to no-one else. Strange.
I'm sure there now will be a huge outcry about how pompous your posts are, so full of contempt and condescension. Hold your breath. ... No, really, do hold your breath. If you pass out while waiting for the outcry, we will at least be spared further posts like this.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: And Job is perhaps the most important book of the bible (well, OT) for moderns.
My favourite book by a distance. I guess what you're saying is that I shouldn't criticize God, just like God said at the end of the book that Job's friend shouldn't. I'm not criticizing God though, I'm criticizing your image of Him.
quote:
IngoB: You are entitled to your own opinion, of course, but you are not entitled to your own reality. I see very little mileage indeed in discussing just how much of an asshole God happens to be. I couldn't bear a child even if I wanted to, and a woman (probably) couldn't consecrate a host even if she wanted to. Them's the breaks. Feel free to rail against that, and about water being wet if it makes you feel better, but kindly keep the shrieks and wails out of my earshot.
Once again, you've left the Almighty God out of the picture. An Almighty God could easily make it so that you could bear a child. And an Almighty God could make it so that a woman could consecrate a host. These things wouldn't be a problem to Him at all.
Also once again, I'm not railing against reality; I'm railing against your image of it. And an important reason for this is because it makes God an asshole.
You may reason that it isn't important whether God is an asshole or not. After all (and in line with Job) who are we to question His morality?
I do think it matters though. I think you'll agree with me that we have a choice of whether we'll follow God or not. So, on what do we base this choice?
Suppose for a moment that the devil exists (I don't believe in him, but I imagine you do). Your image of God has morals that I find questionable. So does the devil. How would I choose between the two?
Or to put it more bluntly: God is Almighty and He may do whatever He bloody wants. But I also have the right to reject Him if I don't agree with what He does.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
.. if I were a Lutheran I'd feel a bit like Anne in Adrian Plass being told by Mrs. Flushpool, "You must come round to see us soon, and have a proper meal."
Now that made me smile. As well as hitting a nail on the head. There is a certain fastidiousness at work. Ann Plass observed about the Flushpools that they had a certain "emetic" quality. At a certain level, propriety does become pretty emetic.
" Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?" (Twelfth Night).
Or bread and wine. Being essentially a meal for thankful sinners, rather than an exercise in piety, or propriety.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't subscribe to your 'magical spell' interpretation of the Sacraments, but if God doesn't do whatever you think He does during the Sacraments when they are officed by a woman, then I can see two explanations:- He's unable to.
- He doesn't want to.
Option 1 is at odds with His All-Mightiness. Option 2 makes Him a mysoginist pig.
Clearly it is option 2 (minus your judgement thereof). And Job is perhaps the most important book of the bible (well, OT) for moderns.
I'm really not sure why you're bringing Job in to the discussion here.
Job (a righteous man) railed against God because of what he perceived (rightly) to be injustice. At the end of the book of Job, God doesn't explain the reasons for all that has happened to Job. But equally, Job is not criticised in the way that his friends are.
I think what you're trying to pull here is "God's ways are mysterious and we shouldn't dare question them." Which, of course, is typical authoritarian claptrap for "if my argument can't hold water, I'll remove the legitimacy of any avenue of questioning it."
This just won't do. It belittles the whole thrust of the book of Job, which is a majestic exercise in challenging the norms and assumptions and givens of the time. And trying to play the "God's ways are not our ways" won't work here. God's ways are always higher than our ways. God's morality is always better than our morality. If God's ways seem to be LESS than the morality of even an average, reasonable person, then that is normally the time to start re-examining what we have understood as "God's ways" - because we've almost certainly got it wrong.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I guess what you're saying is that I shouldn't criticize God, just like God said at the end of the book that Job's friend shouldn't. I'm not criticizing God though, I'm criticizing your image of Him.
You were calling God a misogynist pig, if He chooses to not respond to a woman performing sacramental rites. That has nothing to do with my image of God at all. That is quite plainly you critiquing a (potential) action of God, because it is according to your human judgement unjust. And if you like the book of Job that much, then you will know what it has to say about that.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
An Almighty God could easily make it so that you could bear a child. And an Almighty God could make it so that a woman could consecrate a host. These things wouldn't be a problem to Him at all.
But He didn't. Neither did He make water dry - which means that if you are going to cry about it all, your face will get wet.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Also once again, I'm not railing against reality; I'm railing against your image of it. And an important reason for this is because it makes God an asshole.
No, you are railing against reality and you are calling God an asshole. This time, you didn't even leave yourself the wiggle room of potential action. It is a plain and simple matter of fact that God is denying me as man the opportunity to bear children. No matter how much I may desire this, God will ignore me. Even if I feel that bearing children is the very calling God has given me in this world, He just refuses to execute His omnipotence to make me pregnant. According to you, God is hence an asshole.
Once more, this has nothing to do with my image of God. Zip. Zilch. I find the very approach you have there ridiculous.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Or to put it more bluntly: God is Almighty and He may do whatever He bloody wants. But I also have the right to reject Him if I don't agree with what He does.
Nope. That you can reject Him does not at all mean that you have a right to do so. You merely have the ability to do so.
The idea that you can choose whether you will side with God after evaluating His actions according to your moral standards is based on the silly idea that morals are some kind of independent measuring stick which somehow comes before even the eternal God.
Actually, what you are calling morals are simply a subset of the natural ends that God has designed into you when creating you as human being, namely those ends which are under your voluntary control. That's all. Rather obviously, the only thing such morals have to do with God is that He designed them for us humans. No more, no less.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: You were calling God a misogynist pig, if He chooses to not respond to a woman performing sacramental rites. That has nothing to do with my image of God at all.
Of course it has. It is your image that God (maybe) wouldn't respond to a woman performing sacramental rites. And I reject that image, because I find it immoral.
Suppose that a shipmate called IngoC would be in this forum would tell me "My image of God is that He would stand in front of you, pick His nose and eat what He got." I would answer him: "Well, if He'd do that, He'd be a filthy weirdo."
About the book of Job, first I think we read it differently. I don't see it as an authority of what God wants, I see it as a human attempt —inspired by God— to try to understand something about Him.
And the conclusion I draw from it isn't "We shouldn't question God's morals, irrespectively of what He does." I haven't read the book right now to check it, but I don't think it says that. What it says is something like "We should trust that God always does the right thing, even if we don't understand it."
Of course, you could argue that I should trust that God did the right thing when He instated male-only consecration, even if I don't understand it. But the problem is, He didn't. Humans did.
(And yes, if God would really burn my house down and kill my family, I would question Him. You can count on that!)
If God would suddenly do the same thing the devil does, of course we should question Him.
quote:
IngoB: But He didn't.
You say He didn't (make it so that a woman can consecrate a host). I don't agree with that.
quote:
IngoB: It is a plain and simple matter of fact that God is denying me as man the opportunity to bear children. No matter how much I may desire this, God will ignore me. Even if I feel that bearing children is the very calling God has given me in this world, He just refuses to execute His omnipotence to make me pregnant. According to you, God is hence an asshole.
No, because I find nothing immoral about the fact that women can get pregnant and men can't. Exactly because a man and a woman can raise a child together, in equality.
quote:
IngoB: Once more, this has nothing to do with my image of God. Zip. Zilch.
Of course it does. In my (admittedly imperfect) image of God, anyone can consecrate a host.
The rhetorical trick you're using here is to say things about your image of God as if you're saying things about God. I'd say this is rather haughty.
quote:
IngoB: Nope. That you can reject Him does not at all mean that you have a right to do so. You merely have the ability to do so.
Ability, schmability. Let me just say that I completely, utterly, thoroughly reject your image of God.
quote:
IngoB: Actually, what you are calling morals are simply a subset of the natural ends that God has designed into you when creating you as human being, namely those ends which are under your voluntary control. That's all. Rather obviously, the only thing such morals have to do with God is that He designed them for us humans. No more, no less.
What you're saying is that God created a moral standard for us and a different one for Himself. This may not come as a surprise to you, but I'd reject such a God. It's not the image I get of Him from the Bible. And once again, how would this make Him different from the devil?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Your whole premise is that the requirements for the priesthood are different than the basic requirements for being a Christian. By your reasoning the fact that lay Christians don't have to be circumcised is no more relevant to priestly requirements than the fact that lay Christians don't have to be men.
The logic used . . .
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Tradition is not established by logical and factual necessity
Sorry, I'm having whiplash from your wavering between acceptance and rejection of reason. If tradition is not established by logic, then why would the logic about circumcision as it applies to generic Christians also necessarily apply to the priesthood specifically? It could just as easily be argued that since, as you put it "[t]he priest acts "in the person of Christ" in his sacramental powers" so it is therefore necessary for him to have a penis like Jesus did, a priest should model Jesus' Holy Penis as closely as possible through circumcision.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
One can of course ask "why sex, why not some other bodily characteristic?" That is a reasonable and interesting question
If it's a reasonable and interesting question, how about an attempt to address/answer it?
I have done so already, briefly, see above. You can listen to Kreeft in the link I have provided, if you are genuinely interested in hearing some thoughts about this.
I gave Kreeft about ten minutes of my time. He said virtually nothing about bodily characteristics other than gender. If you're going to insist on that as an "answer" as to why bodily characteristics other than genitals don't matter for the priesthood, some kind of time index would be appreciated.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would be astonished if, in the event that women for some mysterious reason can't be ordained, God doesn't have a way of dealing with it.
Of course He does. He raises up people who tell you that this is the case, so that you can correct your assumptions and adapt your practices. I can take a little bow at this point, if you like?
I think this gets at the true heart of your "argument", which boils down to "because [I/God] sez so". I've always distrusted the idea that God just coincidentally happens to share the exact same prejudices most deeply rooted among His followers.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Job (a righteous man) railed against God because of what he perceived (rightly) to be injustice. At the end of the book of Job, God doesn't explain the reasons for all that has happened to Job. But equally, Job is not criticised in the way that his friends are.
Indeed, Job is vindicated by God.
quote:
After the Lord had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has. 8 So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.” 9 So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did what the Lord told them; and the Lord accepted Job’s prayer.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mousethief: Indeed, Job is vindicated by God.
That's my understanding of it too.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm sure there now will be a huge outcry about how pompous your posts are, so full of contempt and condescension. Hold your breath. ... No, really, do hold your breath. If you pass out while waiting for the outcry, we will at least be spared further posts like this.
Already done:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
PS: The stuff I've been saying about being rude applies to both sides of the issue but I'm going to give up on begging everyone to make "I statements" now.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Rather obviously, the only thing such morals have to do with God is that He designed them for us humans. No more, no less.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I can't imagine you really mean that. If I understand you rightly (and I hope I don't), then God could have "designed" morals such that hatred and cruelty would be commanded, and charity and kindness forbidden.
(My understanding of the matter is that what we call "morality" and "goodness" and "rightness" are reflections of God's Love--not that goodness is something God has to follow, like an external law, nor something He made arbitrarily, like the color of a flower, but that since He is Love, then what we call "goodness" is the way things are supposed to be, rooted in the Creator's own Eternal Nature and reflected in the order of His Creation--and in the way we are supposed to behave.)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Unworthy ministers don't but incorrectly plumbed ones apparently do. Which makes the RC position look utterly ridiculous - because it is.
That's how it is, and that's how it has always been. But statements like that give a very skewed view of what it's really all about.
EDIT TO ADD: You would make a good politician.
[ 16. July 2014, 07:05: 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
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Unworthy ministers don't but incorrectly plumbed ones apparently do. Which makes the RC position look utterly ridiculous - because it is.
That's how it is, and that's how it has always been. But statements like that give a very skewed view of what it's really all about.
EDIT TO ADD: You would make a good politician.
Please, then, unskew it, for the benefit of a woman who keeps her brain well away from her plumbing. And, indeed, has proved as incapable of bearing a child as any man. And finds it deeply, deeply insulting that one glance at me proves my unsuitability to embody that Genesis 1 declaration that woman is created in the image of God, while a string of crimes against the innocent does not deprive a man of the powers implicit in that embodiment.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I think what you're trying to pull here is "God's ways are mysterious and we shouldn't dare question them." Which, of course, is typical authoritarian claptrap for "if my argument can't hold water, I'll remove the legitimacy of any avenue of questioning it."
I agree that it won't do. Saying 'I don't understand but the institution to which I have submitted says so, and I feel obliged to follow it' is one thing. But that just won't wash with people who don't wholeheartedly accept that institution's authority claims. It comes across as authoritarian claptrap to me too.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
(My understanding of the matter is that what we call "morality" and "goodness" and "rightness" are reflections of God's Love--not that goodness is something God has to follow, like an external law, nor something He made arbitrarily, like the color of a flower, but that since He is Love, then what we call "goodness" is the way things are supposed to be, rooted in the Creator's own Eternal Nature and reflected in the order of His Creation--and in the way we are supposed to behave.)
I think this has to be the case, otherwise what does 'God is love' mean? It'd be stupidly arbitrary for a character trait to mean wildly different things when applied to God. 'The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace...' but we can't understand what these things mean because the concepts get changed beyond recognition when God's involved. That would make no sense at all, ISTM.
--------------------
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
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
What about the situation we are seeing in many churches (and the RCC notably), where men are not rising up to take on leadership positions and there is a shortage of clergy?
Is the response of many Anglican churches - to ordain women - more of an offense to God than the response of the RCC, which was sadly to allow unfit and sinful men to remain in their positions, quietly shuffling them around when necessary?
If - and that's a mighty big if - God intended church leadership to be the preserve of men, I would have to conclude that He has since guided the church to accept women into leadership due to the failure of men to take on the responsibility.
I am of the opinion overall that there were women among Jesus' disciples and as leaders in the early church (Scripture supports this), and that the sin of sexism invaded the church (as has racism in the past as well) to exclude women as equal partners in preaching and spreading the Gospel.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Or let's try this another way.
I do not wish to have my horizons limited by my gender, my ethnicity or my sexuality (although because of the existing prejudices and structural barriers that's actually quite unlikely on all three grounds). Therefore the application of the Golden Rule tells me I should not be willing to compass the limiting of any other person's horizons for the same causes.
That is what I mean by equality in this context, and this is why I consider it a moral good.
You say limited, but I think you mean unjustly limited, as we are all naturally limited in different ways by our nature quite apart from the ill fruits of prejudice.
Don't tell me what I mean. I mean limited solely and arbitrarily by one of those factors, in the sense of being told "you can't be allowed to do that because you're a man" - Stan, Loretta, foetuses gestating in a box questions aside.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Please, then, unskew it, for the benefit of a woman who keeps her brain well away from her plumbing. And, indeed, has proved as incapable of bearing a child as any man. And finds it deeply, deeply insulting that one glance at me proves my unsuitability to embody that Genesis 1 declaration that woman is created in the image of God, while a string of crimes against the innocent does not deprive a man of the powers implicit in that embodiment.
I just want to pick up on one point - despite mistakes in the past, now for any priest involved in crimes against the innocent they are MOST DEFINITELY barred from being a priest. Now they are digging up the archives from more than 40 years ago - what more do you want, the death penalty?
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What intrigues me is why the RCC priesthood has only 2% paedophiles when the rest of the population has 5%?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
South Coast Kevin: I think this has to be the case, otherwise what does 'God is love' mean? It'd be stupidly arbitrary for a character trait to mean wildly different things when applied to God. 'The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace...' but we can't understand what these things mean because the concepts get changed beyond recognition when God's involved. That would make no sense at all, ISTM.
I'm thinking about the refrain "Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good; His love endures forever" that's repeated often in the Psalms and a couple of times in Chronicles.
The word 'good' only has meaning within a moral/ethical standard. It is this standard which defines what 'good' means. If we weren't allowed/capable of looking at God through a moral lens, the word 'good' wouldn't have meaning when applied to Him. The sentence would be gibberish.
Moreover, in this refrain the goodness of God is directly connected to His love for us. Love isn't just a sentiment, it's a relational thing. By loving us, God is placing Himself within the moral standard He gave to us.
God is Almighty and can do whatever He wants. But endowing us with a moral standard and not following this standard Himself in His relationship with us wouldn't be love. His love means that He chooses to follow this standard, even if He doesn't have to.
The Bible is full of people talking about God in moral terms, and in a critical way sometimes. I find it weird that IngoB says that we can't do this.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It is your image that God (maybe) wouldn't respond to a woman performing sacramental rites. And I reject that image, because I find it immoral.
First, your usage of "image" is odd here. To have an "image of X" is more comprehensive than just focusing on one tiny feature. Second, no, it is your image of God that you are dealing with here, not mine. You are simply adding my claim (that God may not respond) to your ideas (of God as a kind of superhuman king), and then you proceed according to your method (of human moral judgement of God). This simply has nothing to do with my image of God, at best it is a failure mode of how I see God. If I caught myself thinking like that, I would say to myself "Dang, here I go anthropomorphising God again..."
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
And the conclusion I draw from it isn't "We shouldn't question God's morals, irrespectively of what He does." I haven't read the book right now to check it, but I don't think it says that. What it says is something like "We should trust that God always does the right thing, even if we don't understand it."
God does not have any morals whatsoever, of course. He has no end but Himself, there is no "this is good and this is bad" list for Him. Think about it, He is the Creator. What He wants, just is. You cannot define moral targets for a Being like that, there is no limit of any sort. There is no Super-God wagging His finger, saying "you should not have done that." You are projecting your own state as a creature with given final causes onto God. It is not a sensible projection.
Indeed, we can trust that God does the right thing, even if we do not understand it. But not because God looks at human morals and goes "Oh yes, Ten Commandments, I remember those... I really need to start obeying them." Rather because God is one and unchanging, and hence utterly coherent. So the stuff He has give us as "right and wrong" will be in some kind of harmony with the "rights and wrongs" he has given to other things.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Of course, you could argue that I should trust that God did the right thing when He instated male-only consecration, even if I don't understand it. But the problem is, He didn't. Humans did.
Jesus Christ is God, and he ordained only men as His apostles, even though He had plenty of dedicated female followers. The Church is guided by God the Holy Spirit, and has for close to two millennia only ordained men, in spite of having many holy women in her ranks. You can of course claim that Jesus either was smitten by patriarchal ideology Himself, or did not dare challenge it. You can of course claim that the Holy Spirit was not able to muster the power to overcome patriarchal ideology until very recently in the West. That's a theory. I find it highly unconvincing for various reasons. Among them is the simple fact that religion in antiquity did field a fair number of female priests. It would have been a novelty in Judaism, perhaps, but hardly unheard of in the wider cultural context of 1stC Palestine.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(And yes, if God would really burn my house down and kill my family, I would question Him. You can count on that!)
In case you haven't noticed, people's houses do get burned down and people's families do get killed. The problem that would make you question God is right there in front of you, you don't have to wait until it has become your problem in a narrow sense.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
If God would suddenly do the same thing the devil does, of course we should question Him.
Do you believe that the devil is some kind of independent being, struggling against God? He is a creature. Yes, he has his own corrupted will and follows his own devices; but if God really did not wanted Him to act, then the devil would simply stop existing. Nothing has being but by the will of God. You can say that God does no evil directly, but you have to have a rather sophisticated definition of evil for this to pass the laugh test (basically, you need to define all evil as some kind of privation). And God sure as heck permits evil to be done. In fact, just go back and read how the book of Job starts... God clearly is an accessory to the crimes against Job there, isn't He?
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
No, because I find nothing immoral about the fact that women can get pregnant and men can't. Exactly because a man and a woman can raise a child together, in equality.
And men and women can have communion together, in equality. But women (probably) cannot consecrate hosts, while men (definitely) cannot bear children.
Look, all this is really besides the point. The nonsensical move happens when you write "I find nothing immoral about X," and expect that this determines the space of action for God. This absurdity merely gets highlighted by the fact that you have somehow convinced yourself that your moral point of view is more binding to God than mine. Perhaps we should have a vote of all people to dictate terms to God? These are democratic times after all.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The rhetorical trick you're using here is to say things about your image of God as if you're saying things about God. I'd say this is rather haughty.
I'm saying things about God, because I want to talk about God. That's not haughty, that's ... well, there's not even a word for doing what you are doing. Let's call it normal.
What you so ineptly are trying to get at is that what I say about God is not automatically right just because I say it. Let's call this trivial truth about human discussion number one, and move on, shall we?
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Let me just say that I completely, utterly, thoroughly reject your image of God.
And you want a medal from me for being so proudly and intensely mistaken, or what?
I will continue to systematically refute you, until you are reduced to standing on your little soapbox proclaiming "You are wrong. Wrong! Wrong, I say." And then I will leave you to your "victory". Sound good?
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What you're saying is that God created a moral standard for us and a different one for Himself.
No. What I am saying is that the very concept of a moral standard for God is nonsense. God cannot have any morals, because He is no creature, and hence is not made with final causes. The only good God can be said to aim for is God again. God can, and of course does, create consistently. Hence you can make some arguments about how God should interact with the world based on the morals that God has built into you. But those arguments are severely limited, because you do not in fact understand the world at the necessary level (which is pretty much the final point of the book of Job).
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's not the image I get of Him from the Bible. And once again, how would this make Him different from the devil?
You should perhaps re-read how the book of Job starts, and then ask yourself that question.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It could just as easily be argued that since, as you put it "[t]he priest acts "in the person of Christ" in his sacramental powers" so it is therefore necessary for him to have a penis like Jesus did, a priest should model Jesus' Holy Penis as closely as possible through circumcision.
And indeed we could try to replicate Jesus hairstyle, or require all priests to study carpentry, or whatever. But we don't. The problem is that you now want some compelling reason for this choice, before you accept it. But that's not really possible. As you well know by intense practice, one can argue the toss out of near everything. If I now insist that carpentry is essential to becoming Christ-like, you will not be able to shake me off that. What one can do is to look at the choices that have been made, and see if one can derive meaning from them. But ultimately you have to invest trust here. That's why it is called a faith. Of course, we are having an argument here about what exactly to trust in. Some people of roughly the same faith that I have disagree with me on the proper investment of trust. But this cannot be solved by an argument based on objective data. That's just the wrong paradigm for this kind of thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you're going to insist on that as an "answer" as to why bodily characteristics other than genitals don't matter for the priesthood, some kind of time index would be appreciated.
Try 26:45 to 44:40.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I've always distrusted the idea that God just coincidentally happens to share the exact same prejudices most deeply rooted among His followers.
Actually, I have no problem with you saying that kind of thing. Because you are an atheist. Whereas I have a problem with my co-religionists saying it (which happens quite frequently). Religion is not some kind of observable entity in the world, it comes to us through the followers of that religion. You cannot ultimately distrust the followers and trust the religion. That makes no sense at all. When used by religious people, this sort of statement is really just a way to associate with one side vs. another in a divided community.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Indeed, Job is vindicated by God.
After four entire chapters of God sternly rebuking Job, and Job finally answering "I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes," then we have your passage where God takes Job's friends to task. Vindication? Well, perhaps, sort of. But for the repentant Job.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I can't imagine you really mean that. If I understand you rightly (and I hope I don't), then God could have "designed" morals such that hatred and cruelty would be commanded, and charity and kindness forbidden.
No, God could not have done that. But not because there is some law that binds Him. Rather because what hatred, cruelty, charity and kindness mean is based upon the morals that God designed into us. They are not some kind of independent ideas floating about, by which men and God alike can be judged. If I say that you are cruel, I'm actually saying that you are acting against the moral ends God has given you, in a specific way.
That God cannot design us to be "cruel" is not because it would be bad if He did, but simply because "cruel" is a particular behaviour God designed us against. It's like saying that an perfect engineer is not designing a motor to blow up. Of course he isn't. That's not what one constructs a motor for, it is not the purpose the engineer has in mind for this piece of machinery. The engineer does not need the CEO to walk in and say "but don't design the motor to blow up, please." At least he certainly doesn't need that comment if he is a perfect engineer.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
(My understanding of the matter is that what we call "morality" and "goodness" and "rightness" are reflections of God's Love--not that goodness is something God has to follow, like an external law, nor something He made arbitrarily, like the color of a flower, but that since He is Love, then what we call "goodness" is the way things are supposed to be, rooted in the Creator's own Eternal Nature and reflected in the order of His Creation--and in the way we are supposed to behave.)
That's correct, and that's basically what I'm saying. I just make two simple points: 1) In this scheme there is in fact nothing beyond God that tells God how to behave, hence God has no morals in the human sense. 2) One cannot simply invert from human morals to God's morals (or better, to how God behaves, see previous point). That's like saying that the job of an engineer is to run smoothly and deliver power, because that's what the motor he has constructed is supposed to do. One can say things like "since the engineer wants the motor to run smoothly and deliver power, we can conclude that he designed the fuel delivery to be steady and adjustable." That is to say, we can assume a certain harmony in how the engineer constructs things. And so there is some possibility to argue about "what God must do." But it is way, way more limited than the facile assumption of God essentially having to follow human morals.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
The word 'good' only has meaning within a moral/ethical standard. It is this standard which defines what 'good' means. If we weren't allowed/capable of looking at God through a moral lens, the word 'good' wouldn't have meaning when applied to Him. The sentence would be gibberish.
This if false in multiple ways. First, the scope of "good" goes way beyond the moral/ethical sphere. It is for example good for dogs to eat meat, but it is not good for them to eat chocolate. That's not a moral/ethical statement. Morals arise where a specific good is under voluntary control. Second, obviously God is described in human terms in scripture. That's the world of our experience, so that is what we use. And in an analogical sense, that is entirely capable of capturing deep truths about God. However, there is no a priori reason to believe that talking about say the love of God is any less analogical than talking about the hand of God. God does not really have human hands, and He does not really have human love. Nevertheless, one can say valid things about God by using either. Third, scripture is not a philosophical text (in the modern sense), but an inspiring one. It is more like a politician's speech than like a scientific paper. It is far from clear a priori that "God is Love" was meant as a kind of ontological statement. I think it is mostly a programmatic statement and the programme in question is for humans. It is more a call to action, a motivation, than an attempt at analysis. So we need to be careful about what sort of truth we attribute to this. Anyway, this statement certainly can be given proper philosophical meaning. However, the careful definitions and distinctions needed to make that happen tend to frustrate those who were motivated by the programmatic call to action. And that's fine. It just becomes a problem when they turn around and declare that their emotional engagement determines the philosophical analysis. It doesn't.
--------------------
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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Wow. Who'd have thought that the words "Do this" could have so much subtext?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
EDIT TO ADD: You would make a good politician.
I would suggest that the politician's response is the one that uses many dozens of words trying to claim that they are not doing what everyone with eyes can see that they are.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: To have an "image of X" is more comprehensive than just focusing on one tiny feature.
Yes, no problem. Although I'm not sure if this is tiny.
quote:
IngoB: Second, no, it is your image of God that you are dealing with here, not mine. You are simply adding my claim (that God may not respond) to your ideas (of God as a kind of superhuman king), and then you proceed according to your method (of human moral judgement of God). This simply has nothing to do with my image of God, at best it is a failure mode of how I see God. If I caught myself thinking like that, I would say to myself "Dang, here I go anthropomorphising God again..."
You don't understand my reasoning. I don't see God as a superhuman king, I'm simply taking the ideas of Almightiness that exist within your tradition and taking them to their logical end.
I'm not trying to create an image of God. In fact I'm trying to avoid it. Language implies that images will slip in from time to time though, I admit that.
But even without creating a clear image of God, I can look in a moral sense at the ways He reveals Himself to us. Because God allows me to do that. The Bible is a clear testimony of that.
quote:
IngoB: God does not have any morals whatsoever, of course. He has no end but Himself, there is no "this is good and this is bad" list for Him. Think about it, He is the Creator. What He wants, just is. You cannot define moral targets for a Being like that, there is no limit of any sort. There is no Super-God wagging His finger, saying "you should not have done that." You are projecting your own state as a creature with given final causes onto God. It is not a sensible projection.
I believe that God has morals because He created them for us and He voluntarily decided to adhere to them Himself. The One who would hypothetically be wagging His finger would be God Himself.
quote:
IngoB: So the stuff He has give us as "right and wrong" will be in some kind of harmony with the "rights and wrongs" he has given to other things.
And to Himself. God created morals for us. His Souvereignity means that He can choose to either adhere to them Himself too, or not. My faith in a loving God is that He chose the former option.
quote:
IngoB: Jesus Christ is God, and he ordained only men as His apostles, even though He had plenty of dedicated female followers.
He said nowhere that only men could break bread.
quote:
IngoB: You can of course claim that the Holy Spirit was not able to muster the power to overcome patriarchal ideology until very recently in the West.
I'd say She has still problems doing so. I don't believe that the Holy Spirits works by 'mustering power' in the sense you describe here. I prefer to think of her of a small voice close to our hearts that's often ignored.
quote:
IngoB: In case you haven't noticed, people's houses do get burned down and people's families do get killed.
They do and I notice. I question God on that too (while trying not to evade my own responsibility at the same time).
quote:
IngoB: Do you believe that the devil is some kind of independent being, struggling against God?
Like I said before, I don't believe the devil even exists. But you do. My question —which you've carefully avoided to answer— is: if we're not allowed/capable to look at God through a moral lens, how do we distinguish between Him and the devil?
quote:
IngoB: In fact, just go back and read how the book of Job starts... God clearly is an accessory to the crimes against Job there, isn't He?
I don't see the beginning of Job (or indeed the whole book) as a fact. I see it as a hypothetical excercise "what if God would do this?", set in the form of a play.
quote:
IngoB: And men and women can have communion together, in equality.
There is no equality if men decide how the church is run.
quote:
IngoB: I'm saying things about God, because I want to talk about God. That's not haughty, that's ... well, there's not even a word for doing what you are doing. Let's call it normal.
You're saying things about your image of God, pretending it's about God. Yes, haughty is the word.
quote:
IngoB: And you want a medal from me for being so proudly and intensely mistaken, or what?
I will continue to systematically refute you, until you are reduced to standing on your little soapbox proclaiming "You are wrong. Wrong! Wrong, I say." And then I will leave you to your "victory". Sound good?
I'm not expecting anything from you, neither am I interested in 'victory'. I was just stating a fact. Your word plays will probably drive me to the point where I'll throw in the towel eventually, but I won't be shouting "You are wrong!" at that point. I haven't said that so far. There is a difference between saying I reject your image of God and saying you're wrong.
quote:
IngoB: First, the scope of "good" goes way beyond the moral/ethical sphere. It is for example good for dogs to eat meat, but it is not good for them to eat chocolate.
Another word play. I've already noticed before that you used different meanings of the word 'good' to conflate the natural and the ethical.
quote:
IngoB: However, there is no a priori reason to believe that talking about say the love of God is any less analogical than talking about the hand of God.
I can readily understand 'the hand of God' as a metaphor for 'His interaction with the world'. You don't have to be a genious to see this. The term 'the love of God' becomes meaningless however unless it relates in some way to human terms.
I do agree with you that it is a call to action though.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
There is no equality if men decide how the church is run.
That's it.
If the RC want inequality, then that's their right. But, IngoB, don't go pretending it's something else.
I imagine its root is fear, most exclusion has fear deep down (covered liberally in righteous, wordy justifications)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
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.
Bollocks. The CofE may trace "tactile" succession from the odd Catholic bishop turned heretic much as the Church of Sweden claims to, but that does not and never has amounted to apostolic succession because of the need for valid form, matter and intent. Anglicanism does not ordain Catholic (or Orthodox) priests because Anglicanism does not hold the same understanding of Holy Orders. You can stamp your feet and hold your breathe all you want but them's the facts; no politics, no big bad Ratzinger, just plain inconvenient fact.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
