|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
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?
Good, but what happens to the spiritual wellbeing of congregations who have received the sacraments from them before they were identified?
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
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?
Good, but what happens to the spiritual wellbeing of congregations who have received the sacraments from them before they were identified?
Well, unless they're Donatists they should still consider them to be true sacraments.
[ 16. July 2014, 16:54: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
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.
Seriously, you have been around on this website for a dozen years, and you still believe that the bible is clear testimony about something or the other? This really just is ideology speaking, it has nothing to do with observable reality. I have very little time for postmodernism, generally speaking, but the one thing that it has correctly and successfully done is to kill the notion that a text speaks for itself. This idea is no more. RIP. And just to make sure let's drive a stake through its heart, because something that dumb should not be allowed to rise again from the dead. All exegesis is eisegesis. The only choice that you have is what you read into the text together with whom.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
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.
God voluntarily adopts the moral to not be adulterous? The god that wants to bang mortal women is Zeus/Jupiter, not the Father. God voluntarily adopts the moral to not murder? He's killing the innocent by the millions, He is the grim reaper, or at the very least is His employer. God voluntarily adopts the moral not to steal? He owns everything and can create whatever He wants. Etc. The idea that God Himself is adopting human morals just does not make any sense. What people usually mean when they say that is basically soft Marcionism. God did not order Abraham to kill Isaac, God did not order various genocides, etc. The bible is in these cases according to them adopting the barbaric viewpoint of fundamentalist nut cases and/or bronze age tribal hatred. That's actually not God adopting human morals for Himself though, which is absurd, but rather God never imposing other morals on humans than the "natural" ones. That's not an absurd proposition, just one contrary to the clear sense of the bible. (Hey, that didn't take long for you to repudiate the "clear teaching of the bible", did it now?)
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
He said nowhere that only men could break bread.
By "breaking" bread you mean consecrating it? And how would you know that he didn't? Do you have an actual audio recording of all things Jesus Christ ever said? Or are you simply operating on the assumption that the bible contains all that we need to know, in spite of John 21:25: But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written? And do you really think that all the Christian truths that you hold dear are "in the bible"? In a clear sense that a person entirely naive to Christianity would understand from the text?
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
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?
I'm not sure why you are not getting this. That God cannot have any morals does not mean that you don't have any, or don't need any, or can ignore the ones that you have. The moral calculus that you have to perform remains exactly the same, because it never ever was about God in the first place. It was and is about you. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Well, don't. And if someone or something recommends committing adultery to you, then it is the world, the flesh or the devil. How is this rocket science?
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
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.
Ah, I see. It's that sense of scripture again, becoming clearer and clearer by the minute... Positively leaps of the page, the plain meaning that you give the text, does it?
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
There is no equality if men decide how the church is run.
And there is no equality as long as men have to convince women to have their children for them. Anyway, the question of Church governance is not exactly the same as the question of performing sacramental functions.
But again the simple "grab for power" equation falls short of reality. The Church is a feminising influence. Well, these days one is probably not allowed to associate any features with any gender any longer. But it is pretty obvious that in the cultures in which Christianity was operating, the virtues it preached were those women might be proud of. Men, not so much. Meekness, caring, self-sacrifice, etc. wasn't exactly top of the male agenda in 1stC Palestine, or 11thC England for that matter. And whatever else one may say about this today, it still remains true that a lot more women are engaged in matters of Church than men. So, quite frankly, I think to put men in power over the Church is a beautifully subversive move. Let them struggle to rise to the top, to become servant of servants. Let them be heroically meek and powerfully self-sacrificial. Indeed, let their top achievement become being the best at caring and service.
These things do go wrong. They always do where people are concerned. But the main failure modes are really where Churches have become secular, where men could get into their usual power games of politics and money and even warfare via the Church. As long as we are talking about the Church proper, what is the power they are grasping for? The power to crucify themselves for others, of course. It's a deeply clever move to make men run that race, rather than their usual ones. And it is very good advertising to other men, those who would not run the priestly race themselves, to have a male standing there in front as its representative. That is attractive, where much of the rest that Church offers might not be...
So maybe, just maybe, Jesus Christ knew what He was doing when He selected an all male apostolate. Maybe there was wisdom in that, a deep knowledge of human nature, not just patriarchal stupidity. If so, has this trick run its course now? Are we finally at a point where we don't need this any longer? Frankly, I wouldn't bet on it. Anyway, the experiments are on their way, and we will just have to wait a few centuries to see how they work out.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You're saying things about your image of God, pretending it's about God. Yes, haughty is the word.
Dude, you are voicing opinions about God here just as much as I do. If that's haughty, then let's be naughty...
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
There is a difference between saying I reject your image of God and saying you're wrong.
Sorry, are you saying that you are rejecting my image of God even though you know that I'm right? Or perhaps that you are rejecting my image of God even though you have no idea whether I'm right or wrong?
I suggest that if you don't think that I'm wrong, then you should stop rejecting what I say. It's the sane thing to do.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Another word play. I've already noticed before that you used different meanings of the word 'good' to conflate the natural and the ethical.
I'm guessing "natural moral law" draws a blank with you, does it? Here's the deal: while I do not share the optimism of some natural moral law enthusiasts that moral law can be derived by us in all its details from the observation of nature, I do agree with the fundamental premise that "morals" are nothing else than "goods" under the voluntary control of a sapient agent. It is good for a dog to eat meat, not chocolate, and it is good for you to sleep with your wife, but not other women. The difference is that that the dog cannot really understand and decide about meat and chocolate, but you can understand and decide about your wife and other women. Hence the latter is a special kind of good, a so-called moral good. That's all there is to that.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
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.
Just as the hand of God had to relate in some way to human terms, yes. Once more, these things can be cashed out philosophically. In this case, we can simply say that "loving" means "wishing good for another". But doing that tends to make the emotional types go all sad and quiet, because they can't really relate to a God who is not awash in incorporeal hormones. So I tend to avoid it these days.
--------------------
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:
God voluntarily adopts the moral to not be adulterous? The god that wants to bang mortal women is Zeus/Jupiter, not the Father. . . . The idea that God Himself is adopting human morals just does not make any sense.
Hold on a second. God adopting human morals doesn't make any sense, but God adopting human titles like "father" does? Especially given that one of the requirements of the title (banging mortal women) is one of the things you say God doesn't want to do?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Seriously, you have been around on this website for a dozen years, and you still believe that the bible is clear testimony about something or the other?
And yet your arguments kinda sound like you believe it does.
Not saying you do, but the duck impression is very strong.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
God adopting human morals doesn't make any sense, but God adopting human titles like "father" does? Especially given that one of the requirements of the title (banging mortal women) is one of the things you say God doesn't want to do?
Do you actually think that the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity as God wanders into the Trinitarian kitchen, sees the First Person and says "Morning, Dad"?
The Second Person of the Trinity as man, called Himself Son and the First Person "Father" when talking to other men and women. It's a human communication strategy, it's an analogy used to a purpose (well, multiple purposes actually). One thing you can do with it is to cash this out philosophically and consider it as indicating that the Second Person is consubstantial with the First Person, and proceeding from it. Another thing you can do is to cash it out emotionally and understand it as an appeal to widen your familial feelings to the entire family of God. Etc.
But God as God is certainly not adopting human linguistic labels and semantic categories. That's a lot more absurd than saying that a supernova sat down right next to you in the bus.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And yet your arguments kinda sound like you believe it does.
Not saying you do, but the duck impression is very strong.
I do not believe that Jesus Christ instituted the bible to teach mankind the path to salvation. I believe that Jesus Christ instituted the Church to do so. One of the most prominent means that this Church has produced to educate the world in the faith is the bible. So who do you ask if you are unclear about something in the bible? The Church, obviously. If you do so, then you can be pretty certain about many things in the bible. You have made your choice about what to interpret into the bible, and whom with. You have settled on a specific eisegesis as the proper exegesis. I believe that you have made the right choice then.
--------------------
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: Seriously, you have been around on this website for a dozen years, and you still believe that the bible is clear testimony about something or the other?
Okay, I may have been a little too adamant here. Forget about the word 'clear'. When I read the Bible, I still see God allowing us to look at Him through a moral lens though. I've already given examples of that. There are more.
quote:
IngoB: God voluntarily adopts the moral to not murder? He's killing the innocent by the millions, He is the grim reaper, or at the very least is His employer.
Well, I have some questions about that, too.
I believe that God voluntarily adopts the moral not to demand from us to kill eachother. I don't believe that God wanted Abraham to kill Isaac, in fact the way I read this story is exactly about God adopting this moral.
There are stories in the Bible about God making promises to His people. I'd say that He voluntarily adopted the moral to keep these promises. Otherwise, they wouldn't mean very much.
I can't follow the rest of your paragraph very well.
quote:
IngoB: And how would you know that he didn't?
Your word games are starting to get sillier. Jesus said nowhere that only women can consecrate bread. So I assume that this isn't the case. If it weren't, He would have said so.
Jesus said nowhere that we have to touch our noses three times before we put on our trousers. So I assume that this isn't the case. If it weren't, He would have said so.
quote:
IngoB: I'm not sure why you are not getting this. That God cannot have any morals does not mean that you don't have any, or don't need any, or can ignore the ones that you have. The moral calculus that you have to perform remains exactly the same, because it never ever was about God in the first place. It was and is about you. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Well, don't. And if someone or something recommends committing adultery to you, then it is the world, the flesh or the devil. How is this rocket science?
Once again you've managed to not answer my question.
IngoB, if we can't look at God through a moral lens, how do we distinguish between Him and the devil?
quote:
IngoB: And there is no equality as long as men have to convince women to have their children for them.
In your world "a woman can't consecrate bread" may be on the same semantical level as "a man can't have a baby". I don't accept this though. You haven't put forward any arguments that convince me of this.
And there are so many things wrong with you as a man saying "the fact that women can't decide in your church is ok because the church is a feminizing influence." (Exagerrating a bit for effect here:) It's like a slaveholder saying that what he does isn't a power grab because through his slave-owning he has an Africanizing influence on society.
quote:
IngoB: Dude, you are voicing opinions about God here just as much as I do. If that's haughty, then let's be naughty...
At least I admit that I'm voicing opinions on my image of God. You haven't reached that level yet.
quote:
IngoB: Sorry, are you saying that you are rejecting my image of God even though you know that I'm right?
I'm rejecting your image of God because I believe it is wrong. And if it were right, I would reject this god too (deliberately small caps here).
quote:
IngoB: I'm guessing "natural moral law" draws a blank with you, does it? Here's the deal: while I do not share the optimism of some natural moral law enthusiasts that moral law can be derived by us in all its details from the observation of nature, I do agree with the fundamental premise that "morals" are nothing else than "goods" under the voluntary control of a sapient agent. It is good for a dog to eat meat, not chocolate, and it is good for you to sleep with your wife, but not other women. The difference is that that the dog cannot really understand and decide about meat and chocolate, but you can understand and decide about your wife and other women. Hence the latter is a special kind of good, a so-called moral good. That's all there is to that.
I understand the basics of what 'natural moral law' is, but I reject your analogy about the dog eating chocolate. You're employing a semantical trick here, based on the fact that the word 'good', especially combined with the preposition 'for' can also mean 'healthy'. Like in "candy is not good for you".
It isn't good (healthy in a physical sense) for a dog to eat chocolate. Then you argue that it isn't good (I guess you could use 'healthy' here too, but in a moral sense) to cheat on your wife. I even agree with you, but this has to be argued. When you say that it isn't good for a woman to consecrate bread, it really needs to be argued.
quote:
IngoB: In this case, we can simply say that "loving" means "wishing good for another".
This definition is ok for me as a first approximation.
[ 16. July 2014, 17:50: 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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I'm sorry, let me unpack this a bit more:
quote:
IngoB: Thou shalt not commit adultery. Well, don't. And if someone or something recommends committing adultery to you, then it is the world, the flesh or the devil. How is this rocket science?
Yes, when someone recommends committing adultery to you, then this is a bad thing. This is so because the Bible says so and because my own morals also tell me so. No problem here.
But what if someone says to me: "women can't consecrate bread"? The Bible doesn't say whether they can or can't, so it isn't much help here. And you say that I can't use morals to decide whether it's wrong or right, because you say they don't apply to God.
So, what's left? How do I decide whether this comes from the devil or not?
If I can't look to God through a moral lens, how do I distinguish between Him and 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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
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.
The CofE claims tactile succession through the English hierarchy, back to and before Matthew Parker, back to Augustine of Canterbury and thence to the Apostles. The intent has always been to "do what the church does", as part of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church. The form has had no defect not found in primitive Roman forms, and the only defect of matter is the alleged one under discussion in this thread - the claim that women cannot be priests. It's not a supportable notion to claim that every difference of opinion over precisely the nature of a sacrament has an effect on its efficacy, and indeed the RCC itself recognises this with regard to Baptism.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
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?
Good, but what happens to the spiritual wellbeing of congregations who have received the sacraments from them before they were identified?
Nothing - but think about it this way:
Why should people of good faith, who do everything according to Holy Tradition, be penalised for things they know nothing about?
The Priest, at the last, will be answerable to God for his misdoings. But that is so for all of us.
--------------------
"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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
<crosspost with several posts, including one by LeRoc>
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
When I read the Bible, I still see God allowing us to look at Him through a moral lens though.
God certainly teaches us morals through the bible. However, you apparently want to say a lot more. That's where your language becomes all stilted though, so who knows what you really want to say.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
There are stories in the Bible about God making promises to His people. I'd say that He voluntarily adopted the moral to keep these promises. Otherwise, they wouldn't mean very much.
I would simply say that He kept His promises. And that is a human analogy expressing what it is like when an unchanging and eternal God interacts with humanity. In fact, God is entirely incapable of "breaking His promise". Because unlike for you, giving and keeping a promise are not two different things separated by an amount of time for Him. They are one and the same eternal act of His will. You need to stop thinking about God as a superhuman. Seriously, it's wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I can't follow the rest of your paragraph very well.
Really? Well, here's the executive summary: God doesn't do human things, so why on earth would He adopt human morals? Indeed, what does it even mean to adopt morals if you are not doing the things these morals are about?
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Your word games are starting to get sillier. Jesus said nowhere that only women can consecrate bread. So I assume that this isn't the case. If it weren't, He would have said so.
What word games? I have pointed out to you a simple truth: You do not know what Jesus said. You do not even know what Jesus said to the apostles. You do not even know what Jesus said to the evangelists. You know some things Jesus said, perhaps verbatim, perhaps paraphrased, which the evangelists chose to write down.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Once again you've managed to not answer my question. IngoB, if we can't look at God through a moral lens, how do we distinguish between Him and the devil?
Just because you refuse to listen does not mean that I'm not answering your question. Anyway, I can simply answer: God essence is identical with His existence, but not so for the devil. Happy? I bet not. Why? Because you are not in fact asking the question that you want to ask. The question you want to ask is something like "How can we differentiate between God commanding us to do something and the devil enticing us to do something, if we cannot make a moral evaluation?" Why are you not asking that question then? Because you know (at least intuitively) that I don't need to admit that "God adopts human morals" in order to answer it successfully.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In your world "a woman can't consecrate bread" may be on the same semantical level as "a man can't have a baby". I don't accept this though. You haven't put forward any arguments that convince me of this.
Both statements have the structure "the sex one has determines sufficiently that one cannot carry out a specific action".
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
And there are so many things wrong with you as a man saying "the fact that women can't decide in your church is ok because the church is a feminizing influence." (Exagerrating a bit for effect here:) It's like a slaveholder saying that what he does isn't a power grab because through his slave-owning he has an Africanizing influence on society.
I'm not actually a priest, much less a bishop. My own influence on Church governance is close to zero. Anyhow, we can make much the same argument about Church governance as for the sacraments, if we concentrate on the teaching aspect, in particular the parts where teaching becomes infallible (by council of bishops or ex cathedra of the pope). At this point, those in power have to act in the person of Christ, and we can make the same representational argument. Furthermore, it would seem unwise to separate Church governance from sacramental function, if only to protect the latter from the former. Thus if the sacraments require an all male priesthood, then the governance should come along with it. So I can make all the same moves again.
Instead I tried to offer a more "utilitarian" perspective, because I thought that might be thought provoking. Of course, the only thought it does provoke is that that offers more room to attack. I should know better...
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Dude, you are voicing opinions about God here just as much as I do. If that's haughty, then let's be naughty...
At least I admit that I'm voicing opinions on my image of God. You haven't reached that level yet.
What sort of levels are you talking about? Levels of logorrhoea?
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
You're employing a semantical trick here, based on the fact that the word 'good', especially combined with the preposition 'for' can also mean 'healthy'. Like in "candy is not good for you".
How is that a semantic trick? Indeed, the good in question is health (or more precisely, the healthiness of nutrition).
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It isn't good (healthy in a physical sense) for a dog to eat chocolate. Then you argue that it isn't good (I guess you could use 'healthy' here too, but in a moral sense) to cheat on your wife. I even agree with you, but this has to be argued.
Yes, it has to be argued, or demonstrated. Just as the unhealthiness of chocolate for a dog has to be argued, or demonstrated. I did not make a claim here that good and bad are obvious, merely that they rest in and to some extent can be derived from observing the natural ends of beings.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
When you say that it isn't good for a woman to consecrate bread, it really needs to be argued.
But I have not said that. I have said that a woman (probably) cannot consecrate bread. If that is the case, then in fact it is obvious that it would not be good for a woman to attempt to consecrate bread. Because we should not try what we cannot do. For example, you should not jump out of a window attempting to fly (by your own natural powers). While that's probably not your biggest problem at that point in time, it is immoral to do so. Anyway, I have not argued here that women cannot consecrate bread because that would be immoral.
[ 16. July 2014, 19:18: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
But what if someone says to me: "women can't consecrate bread"? The Bible doesn't say whether they can or can't, so it isn't much help here. And you say that I can't use morals to decide whether it's wrong or right, because you say they don't apply to God.
So, what's left? How do I decide whether this comes from the devil or not? If I can't look to God through a moral lens, how do I distinguish between Him and the devil?
Human morals do not apply to God, but human morals do apply to humans. God made those human morals, and God will not ultimately contradict Himself (actually, He cannot). The word "ultimately" there has a function, because I think that much as God can disrupt the regular physical laws with interventions, miracles, He can disrupt the regular moral laws with interventions. That's terribly interesting, but not for the case at hand. Because we are discussing a "regular" question here.
So, to put it quite simply, you can judge this claim for moral content just as you would judge any other claim. You don't need anything extra here. But that is decidedly not so because God "adopts human morals", which really does not make sense at all on multiple levels. It is because God gives humans their morals and hence would not give them something else that would contradict their morals.
The problem here is of course that you would likely use this to come to the conclusion that this claim is "from the devil", whereas I would disagree. But people often disagree on morals.
To me, as indicated by my comparison with having children, this may not even be something morals can tell us anything about. Just as we do not apply our standards of (basically) "work place equality" to judge that the inability of men to bear children is morally evil and hence "from the devil", I think we cannot judge a purported inability of women to consecrate a host as morally evil and hence "from the devil". God did not make men and women exactly equal, that's after all why we call them by different names. And this may be just one more thing in which they differ.
--------------------
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
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
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?
Good, but what happens to the spiritual wellbeing of congregations who have received the sacraments from them before they were identified?
Nothing - but think about it this way:
Why should people of good faith, who do everything according to Holy Tradition, be penalised for things they know nothing about?
The Priest, at the last, will be answerable to God for his misdoings. But that is so for all of us.
Hmm. So, as they would obviously know that there was a woman at the altar, they would not be receiving in good faith. Assuming they are traditional in all other ways.
There are so many ways* of being separated from a proper relationship with God, one wonders why He bothers with the few who fit the criteria. Whatever critieria one's group feels most important.
*Depending on how one has been brought up.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: God certainly teaches us morals through the bible.
And He also says something about His own morals there.
quote:
IngoB: And that is a human analogy expressing what it is like when an unchanging and eternal God interacts with humanity.
When God interacts with us, His actions start to have a moral dimension. If God would materialize in human form before me and say "You suck!" (something that as an Almighty being He could easily do), then this is an action that we can judge from a moral perspective. We have examples in the Bible of people questioning God's actions from a moral perspective.
quote:
IngoB: Really? Well, here's the executive summary: God doesn't do human things, so why on earth would He adopt human morals?
He does human things sometimes, the Bible has plenty of examples of that. At one point, He even became human. I believe He adopted human morals because He chose to.
You have already said a lot of things that God cannot do. He can't do this and He can't do that because He's not human. I say being Almighty means He can do anything He wants.
quote:
IngoB: What word games? I have pointed out to you a simple truth: You do not know what Jesus said. You do not even know what Jesus said to the apostles. You do not even know what Jesus said to the evangelists. You know some things Jesus said, perhaps verbatim, perhaps paraphrased, which the evangelists chose to write down.
Yes. And they don't include "women cannot consecrate bread". You can't argue this back to Jesus or the Bible, because they don't say anything about this.
quote:
IngoB: Just because you refuse to listen does not mean that I'm not answering your question. Anyway, I can simply answer: God essence is identical with His existence, but not so for the devil. Happy? I bet not. Why? Because you are not in fact asking the question that you want to ask. The question you want to ask is something like "How can we differentiate between God commanding us to do something and the devil enticing us to do something, if we cannot make a moral evaluation?" Why are you not asking that question then? Because you know (at least intuitively) that I don't need to admit that "God adopts human morals" in order to answer it successfully.
Another great effort in answering avoidance. I suspect my question hit home somewhere.
quote:
IngoB: Both statements have the structure "the sex one has determines sufficiently that one cannot carry out a specific action".
There is a difference though. "Men cannot bear children" is objectively true. "Women cannot consecrate bread" is not, even you admit to that. Yet, you choose to treat women differently because of it.
Treating men and women differently can be justified at times. Women have some rights related to childbirth and breastfeeding that men don't. I have no problem with that. But they need to be argued. "I'm giving women less rights because I think that maybe they cannot do something" isn't a justification.
quote:
IngoB: I'm not actually a priest, much less a bishop.
I didn't say or think you were.
quote:
IngoB: Anyhow, we can make much the same argument about Church governance as for the sacraments, if we concentrate on the teaching aspect, in particular the parts where teaching becomes infallible (by council of bishops or ex cathedra of the pope). At this point, those in power have to act in the person of Christ, and we can make the same representational argument. Furthermore, it would seem unwise to separate Church governance from sacramental function, if only to protect the latter from the former. Thus if the sacraments require an all male priesthood, then the governance should come along with it. So I can make all the same moves again.
Yes, "women (maybe) cannot consecrate bread" becomes "women cannot decide in church" and you have all kinds of arguments to justify that. I know that.
quote:
IngoB: What sort of levels are you talking about? Levels of logorrhoea?
I explained this above.
quote:
IngoB: Yes, it has to be argued, or demonstrated. Just as the unhealthiness of chocolate for a dog has to be argued, or demonstrated. I did not make a claim here that good and bad are obvious, merely that they rest in and to some extent can be derived from observing the natural ends of beings.
You've put forward no argument that comes even close of convincing me of this.
quote:
IngoB: But I have not said that. I have said that a woman (probably) cannot consecrate bread. If that is the case, then in fact it is obvious that it would not be good for a woman to attempt to consecrate bread. Because we should not try what we cannot do. For example, you should not jump out of a window attempting to fly (by your own natural powers). While that's probably not your biggest problem at that point in time, it is immoral to do so. Anyway, I have not argued here that women cannot consecrate bread because that would be immoral.
The word if doesn't get you off the hook here, because you still treat women differently based on this if.
You're right, I should not try to jump out of a window attempting to fly. Yet, I have the freedom to do so. When it comes to trying to consecrate bread, you're denying this freedom to women.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Tell you what, I'm done here. It was silly to get into this. You don't need to answer my last post.
--------------------
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
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I was suddenly seized by the urge to jump out of the French door* in my living room. On the first floor.
But I can't be bothered to go down and get the bungee cords from the garage.
*Original architect designed feature. Lord knows why.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Jesus Christ is God, and he ordained only men as His apostles, even though He had plenty of dedicated female followers.
If this is true*, wouldn't it be equally true to say "Jesus Christ is God, and he ordained only Jews as His apostles, even though He had non-Jewish followers."
I genuinely find it difficult to understand why one of these sentences is relevant to the Church's decisions about who she should ordain today and the other is not.
anne
*Only 'if' to avoid arguments about whether Jesus ordained anyone
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
If this is true*, wouldn't it be equally true to say "Jesus Christ is God, and he ordained only Jews as His apostles, even though He had non-Jewish followers."
You might have a point were the priesthood some kind of continuation of the Levitical priesthood, yet it is not. The only reason the Apostles were Jews was because it was to the Jews that Christ preached first. The Christian priesthood however is in the order of Melchisedech, who was a Gentile.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
OK, why are people with ginger hair priests ? None of the apostle were ginger, or aborigine, or vegetarians, or French speakers, or over 6 foot in height, or are known to have had a mole on their left buttock, or known to have had an unseparated ear lobe, or wore glasses, or any of a thousand other things
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
OK, why are people with ginger hair priests ? None of the apostle were ginger, or aborigine, or vegetarians, or French speakers, or over 6 foot in height, or are known to have had a mole on their left buttock, or known to have had an unseparated ear lobe, or wore glasses, or any of a thousand other things
I don't see how that's relavant. I would argue thus, that the priesthood is preserved for men alone simply because Christ willed it to be (and you can take it or leave it). I was merely pointing out that to me, at least, the Apostles were also Jews argument as a refutation of a men only priesthood is weak.
[ 16. July 2014, 21:08: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Am I the only one wondering why so many Orthodox and Roman Catholics seem stirred up by the fact that the CofE ordains women? Why is it a matter of concern to you all? Let's not pretend we're all hurting because of some imagined impairment of a possible reunification - that ship sailed with the RCs in 1896, and with the Orthodox in ... well, pick any one of half a dozen dates in the last thousand years.
You guys have your ways; we have ours. Why the fuss?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
...Hmm. So, as they would obviously know that there was a woman at the altar, they would not be receiving in good faith. Assuming they are traditional in all other ways.
That's what I believe.
quote:
There are so many ways* of being separated from a proper relationship with God, one wonders why He bothers with the few who fit the criteria. Whatever critieria one's group feels most important.
*Depending on how one has been brought up.
We can't be sure that knowingly receiving communion wrongly separates us from God - all we know is that we are being disobedient.
quote:
John 8:31-32
"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Am I the only one wondering why so many Orthodox and Roman Catholics seem stirred up by the fact that the CofE ordains women? Why is it a matter of concern to you all? Let's not pretend we're all hurting because of some imagined impairment of a possible reunification - that ship sailed with the RCs in 1896, and with the Orthodox in ... well, pick any one of half a dozen dates in the last thousand years.
You guys have your ways; we have ours. Why the fuss?
Oh, what Anglicans do, of course, is their own business. At the same time you can't expect us to see this as anything other than yet another obstacle to Christian unity.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Oh, what Anglicans do, of course, is their own business. At the same time you can't expect us to see this as anything other than yet another obstacle to Christian unity.
But part of my point is that the "obstacle to Christian unity" is a fake argument. RCs and Orthodox haven't the slightest intention of welcoming Anglicans into unity, and never really have had. And among us, there are plenty who respond to that with "So what?"
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Am I the only one wondering why so many Orthodox and Roman Catholics seem stirred up by the fact that the CofE ordains women?
Not stirred up exactly, just saddened.
quote:
Why is it a matter of concern to you all? Let's not pretend we're all hurting because of some imagined impairment of a possible reunification - that ship sailed with the RCs in 1896, and with the Orthodox in ... well, pick any one of half a dozen dates in the last thousand years.
But that is the reason. None of us know how different churches will change, or what will happen in the future, but we do know Christ desires that we should be one. It is no joy to see us move further and further apart.
quote:
You guys have your ways; we have ours. Why the fuss?
It is true that the Russian Orthodox Church said women priests in the C of E would finish any meaningful dialogue towards unification - and now, twenty years later, they are saying exactly the same thing about women bishops! But still, we live in hope... at least we ought to.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Oh, what Anglicans do, of course, is their own business. At the same time you can't expect us to see this as anything other than yet another obstacle to Christian unity.
But part of my point is that the "obstacle to Christian unity" is a fake argument. RCs and Orthodox haven't the slightest intention of welcoming Anglicans into unity, and never really have had. And among us, there are plenty who respond to that with "So what?"
And that's your prerogative. And no, we have no intention of welcoming Anglicans, or RC's or whatever in unity as they are because our starting point is always, confess the orthodox faith first, then we can talk about unity.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You might have a point were the priesthood some kind of continuation of the Levitical priesthood, yet it is not. The only reason the Apostles were Jews was because it was to the Jews that Christ preached first. The Christian priesthood however is in the order of Melchisedech, who was a Gentile.
I could equally say the only reason the Apostles were men is because an itinerant woman preacher in those days would have been at best shunned for hanging around with men who were not relatives, and at worst at serious risk of sexual violence.
Poor Junia was turned into a man to hide any suggestion that a woman in the early church might have been an Apostle. Mary Magdalene was branded a prostitute. Is it so hard to imagine society trying to tear down a woman evangelist with lies, when the church itself has done so? Perhaps that is why Jesus chose men - not as a sign of what must always be, buy simply of what had to be at the time.
[ 16. July 2014, 22:02: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
If this is true*, wouldn't it be equally true to say "Jesus Christ is God, and he ordained only Jews as His apostles, even though He had non-Jewish followers."
You might have a point were the priesthood some kind of continuation of the Levitical priesthood, yet it is not. The only reason the Apostles were Jews was because it was to the Jews that Christ preached first. The Christian priesthood however is in the order of Melchisedech, who was a Gentile.
Sorry, where did those goalposts go? I was responding to the statement that "Jesus Christ is God, and he ordained only men as His apostles" and the implication that therefore only men could be ordained Christian priests 2000 years later. Apparently it is relevant that the apostles were men - after all he preached to both men and women. So if the apostles are what counts, why is it irrelevant that the apostles were Jews - after all he preached to both Jews and gentiles.
If the apostles do not count - if their Jewishness is not relevant, merely a consequence of time and geography - because we are following the order of the gentile Melchisidek, then what is the relevance of their gender?
Or is the person that priests should resemble Melchisidek? In which case we may need to re-visit a number of the arguments in these last few pages.
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
...our starting point is always, confess the orthodox faith first, then we can talk about unity.
That's not seeking unity, it's demanding acquiescence.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Poor Junia was turned into a man to hide any suggestion that a woman in the early church might have been an Apostle. Mary Magdalene was branded a prostitute. Is it so hard to imagine society trying to tear down a woman evangelist with lies, when the church itself has done so? Perhaps that is why Jesus chose men - not as a sign of what must always be, buy simply of what had to be at the time.
My thoughts exactly. Jesus already pushed the boundaries when it came to relating with those considered by his fellow Israelites to be outsiders - tax collectors, women, Samaritans etc.
Maybe in his wisdom he decided that having any women among his closest followers was a step too far, one that would have alienated many of those he wished to reach. Or (this is more speculative) maybe he did have women as some of his closest followers but this got a bit obscured in the surviving accounts, thanks to the cultural biases which he had to navigate.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
If this is true*, wouldn't it be equally true to say "Jesus Christ is God, and he ordained only Jews as His apostles, even though He had non-Jewish followers."
I genuinely find it difficult to understand why one of these sentences is relevant to the Church's decisions about who she should ordain today and the other is not.
It is likely that St Paul established a Gentile episcopate already during his missionary travels. We have for example St Titus, an uncircumcised Greek (Gal 2) highly esteemed by St Paul, who according to tradition ended up becoming bishop of Crete. Clearly the "Gentile question" was live among the original apostles and the Church practice of ordaining gentiles was established in that generation and was never in question thereafter. Within a hundred years, there was Marcus, the first Gentile bishop of Jerusalem itself. And if you believe the biblical account then the treatment of the Gentiles was established by full on Divine intervention (road to Damascus for St Paul, Cornelius for St Peter). Furthermore, in order to build on Jewish faith as Jesus very much did it was an obvious choice to start out with a group of actual Jews. But it is not in the same way required to start with men. Certainly there were plenty of faithful Jewish women around, and they feature strongly in the gospel. There is hence a clear difference in what actually happened historically; and there are fairly clear reasons why one would want to start a Jewish sect with Jews, even if the plan was from the beginning to integrate Gentiles rapidly.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
No one is arguing that Christ didn't have close female followers, only that they were never among the twelve or their successors.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
...And no, we have no intention of welcoming Anglicans, or RC's or whatever in unity as they are because our starting point is always, confess the orthodox faith first, then we can talk about unity.
I don't think that's true. We still talk to other churches for all sorts of reasons, without requiring them to confess the (Eastern) Orthodox Faith. We still talk about unity, it is just that it seems to be moving further and further away.
The way you put it is like we say "we won't talk to you unless you confess the Orthodox Faith" as if we were the Bolshevics forcing people to sign up to Communist ideologies.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
That's not seeking unity, it's demanding acquiescence.
Er, how can any unity have any meaning if there is no unity of faith? Such is no unity at all.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Am I the only one wondering why so many Orthodox and Roman Catholics seem stirred up by the fact that the CofE ordains women? Why is it a matter of concern to you all? ... You guys have your ways; we have ours. Why the fuss?
Try re-reading my original post on this matter. Do I sound particularly fuzzed to you? Quite clearly a "who cares" attitude just wouldn't do for the resident Anglicans (and their sympathisers). But fair enough, I probably should resist responding to such outrage (or, to be honest, having some fun with its predictable eruption ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ).
--------------------
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
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No one is arguing that Christ didn't have close female followers, only that they were never among the twelve or their successors.
But you are arguing that the reason why they were not among the twelve, is that Jesus intended only men to be ordained for all time. When there are plenty of other reasons why He may have done so.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
...And no, we have no intention of welcoming Anglicans, or RC's or whatever in unity as they are because our starting point is always, confess the orthodox faith first, then we can talk about unity.
I don't think that's true. We still talk to other churches for all sorts of reasons, without requiring them to confess the (Eastern) Orthodox Faith. We still talk about unity, it is just that it seems to be moving further and further away.
The way you put it is like we say "we won't talk to you unless you confess the Orthodox Faith" as if we were the Bolshevics forcing people to sign up to Communist ideologies.
We start with the faith first, then unity, for there can be no meaningful unity without unity of faith. I never said we don't speak only that our starting points are entirely different as to make any discusion of unity futile. First we must establish that we confess the same faith and that's the way it's always been. That's true ecumenism.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
If the teaching of the magestirum changed, to accept females in the priesthood - would you stay or go IngoB ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
No one is arguing that Christ didn't have close female followers, only that they were never among the twelve or their successors.
But you are arguing that the reason why they were not among the twelve, is that Jesus intended only men to be ordained for all time. When there are plenty of other reasons why He may have done so.
Obviously I don't buy those reasons for the simple reason that it doesn't make sense that he would hold back on that one issue. It would make our Lord a hypocrite.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Why is it a matter of concern to you all? Let's not pretend we're all hurting because of some imagined impairment of a possible reunification - that ship sailed with the RCs in 1896, and with the Orthodox in ... well, pick any one of half a dozen dates in the last thousand years.
But that is the reason. None of us know how different churches will change, or what will happen in the future, but we do know Christ desires that we should be one. It is no joy to see us move further and further apart.
But as South Coast Kevin has pointed out, your Church isn't interested in discussion, only in acquiescence. And that has always been the way and always will be. I really don't like the Orthodox/RC attitude that seems to think the world is full of Anglicans who are just waiting for that lightbulb moment when we all realise how mistaken we are. Thanks all the same, but I'm an Anglican for several good reasons. One of those reasons is that we're finally coming round to giving women the respect they have always deserved.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Poor Junia was turned into a man to hide any suggestion that a woman in the early church might have been an Apostle.
FWIW, this is entirely inaccurate. The confusion over gender arises because until the 9thC the relevant accent that would have distinguished a female from a male name in Greek was not written down in the manuscripts. Usage among the Church fathers actually points to a female name. Furthermore, the most likely translation - likely by a comparative search of Greek literature from that period - is not (as most bibles currently have it) that Junia/s was an apostle, but rather that Junia/s was known to the apostles. See here for an extensive discussion.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...But as South Coast Kevin has pointed out, your Church isn't interested in discussion, only in acquiescence. And that has always been the way and always will be. I really don't like the Orthodox/RC attitude that seems to think the world is full of Anglicans who are just waiting for that lightbulb moment when we all realise how mistaken we are. Thanks all the same, but I'm an Anglican for several good reasons. One of those reasons is that we're finally coming round to giving women the respect they have always deserved.
Have you, South Coast Kevin or Ad Orientum ever witnessed an Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Discussion? No, I didn't think so.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If the teaching of the magestirum changed, to accept females in the priesthood - would you stay or go IngoB ?
J2P2 tried to nail this door shut, but a determined pontiff can find a way to open it. I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future, but it is interesting to see how women are taking fair;y major admin posts in RC activities here-- there's no real interest in opposing it.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If the teaching of the magestirum changed, to accept females in the priesthood - would you stay or go IngoB ?
That's a difficult question. It would very much depend on the circumstances. Basically, if clear evidence emerged for female ordination in the early Church - and not just among some obscure heretic groups - then the core claim of the current magisterium that the Church does not know that she can ordain women falls. (I note that this claim is not in itself a dogma.) I do not think that the theological arguments for an all male priesthood are strong enough to carry the weight of that decision without a clear tradition of orthopraxis. So in that case I could theoretically be convinced to stay. I really have no issue as such with women providing the sacraments, if indeed they can do that.
But unfortunately this cuts deeper. If evidence emerges that female ordinations were considered orthodox in the early Church, then this might make me leave the Church no matter what policy the Church subsequently adopts. After all, it is pretty hard to believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church if she gets it wrong on a core issue for nearly two millennia. I don't think that I could adopt a Protestant attitude (the Church was right for a century or two, then lost her way for well over a thousand years, and now we correct the errors...), it really makes very little sense to me.
The most likely outcome hence would be that I move on to some other monotheistic faith compatible with the metaphysical God and my own mystical experiences (if I may call them that). I really like Rumi and have Sufi friends, so I probably would look into that first.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...But as South Coast Kevin has pointed out, your Church isn't interested in discussion, only in acquiescence. And that has always been the way and always will be. I really don't like the Orthodox/RC attitude that seems to think the world is full of Anglicans who are just waiting for that lightbulb moment when we all realise how mistaken we are. Thanks all the same, but I'm an Anglican for several good reasons. One of those reasons is that we're finally coming round to giving women the respect they have always deserved.
Have you, South Coast Kevin or Ad Orientum ever witnessed an Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Discussion? No, I didn't think so.
No, but I'll tell you what. When one of those discussions involves a whole bunch of Patriarchs saying, "Hey guys, you were right and we were wrong. We'll be ordaining women from next Sunday" - let me know. I'll be really interested.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...No, but I'll tell you what. When one of those discussions involves a whole bunch of Patriarchs saying, "Hey guys, you were right and we were wrong. We'll be ordaining women from next Sunday" - let me know. I'll be really interested.
I'll keep you posted. Watch this space! ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Precisely my point: your kind of unity isn't going to happen; but our ordaining women isn't the reason it isn't going to happen, and never has been. So talk of an "impairment to unity" is at best a red herring and at worst a fraud.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Do you actually think that the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity as God wanders into the Trinitarian kitchen, sees the First Person and says "Morning, Dad"?
Well, apart from the "kitchen" existing beyond all space and time (and thus perhaps not permitting wandering into or out of, since that implies both, though the image of a kitchen does perhaps suggest the concept of creation (we're like gingerbread people, you see)), and the Son eternally beholds and communicates with the Father in an endless realm of light (would that count as "morning" in a sense if it never begins nor ends?)...
I'll get me coat. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
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 Mark Betts:
The way you put it is like we say "we won't talk to you unless you confess the Orthodox Faith" as if we were the Bolshevics forcing people to sign up to Communist ideologies.
This is precisely how it feels for some us discussing things with some of the RCs. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
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:
But unfortunately this cuts deeper. If evidence emerges that female ordinations were considered orthodox in the early Church, then this might make me leave the Church no matter what policy the Church subsequently adopts. After all, it is pretty hard to believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church if she gets it wrong on a core issue for nearly two millennia. I don't think that I could adopt a Protestant attitude (the Church was right for a century or two, then lost her way for well over a thousand years, and now we correct the errors...), it really makes very little sense to me.
So... if the church had ordained women once, and then somehow the tradition was lost... and not brought back till now... you'd decide this was proof that all of the church's teachings, and basically all of Christianity, the worship of Jesus as God made flesh to save us from sin, the Divine Love... were wrong?
I'm... baffled at this. And, I'm sorry, kind of horrified. And not about anything to do with women in the clergy or any of that, just... I find that really alien.
Seriously, why would this... do this to your faith in Christ in the first place?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
