|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Are there any outside Reform et al who oppose OoW? Maybe some charismatics?
Probably a few who have a personal (as opposed to a pressure group view on the matter).
Not sure about charismatics in the CofE but there's certainly a few outside it who do - take New Frontiers for example.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
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.
Is it so mad? We accept it in other spheres without question and entirely legitimately.
An MP is an MP because they have fulfilled certain pre-existing requirements for selection, and have then by a recognised process come to hold a position of responsibility.
If an MP commits a crime or acts imorally, they are still an MP but they are an MP who should face appropriate consequences.
If a person comes to stand in the House of Commons, but is not a British/RoI/Commonwealth Citizen, or is under 18, then whatever else they might be they are not an MP.
We accept this for teachers, doctors, legal guardians, etc. Yet when Catholics understand their priesthood in the same way it becomes antiquated, "utterly ridiculous", and like "a madhouse really, an alternative universe, where the people are apparently speaking coherently to each other, but to no-one else".
Not exactly fair-minded, considered overall.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Not exactly fair-minded, considered overall.
Completely fair minded. None of the others include completely arbitrary exclusions based on attributes with no bearing on the tasks involved. If they did, as many of them did at one stage, they would get exactly the same treatment, and rightly so.
Not that this is the basis of the argument for me; to my mind it has more to do with the fact that God calls people to the priesthood. But nevertheless, if you want to make that comparison, you are comprehensively hoist on your own petard.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The qualifications for MPs, doctors, teachers et al have a logic that connects to their function, and it is straightforward to see how they are going to be generally beneficial to that function. The requirement that priests be male does not have any clear reason or demonstrable benefit. In addition, one may attain the necessary skills, qualifications and/or status required to be an MP, a doctor or a teacher - no-one is excluded on the basis of a status that is neither changeable nor relevant to the requirements of their role. Gender, at least in the RC understanding, is fixed and immovable.
Incidentally, a teacher or doctor can be "struck off", and in the doctor's case prescriptions they write will not then be valid. An MP will lose their seat if sentenced to a prison term of sufficient length.
In short, the comparison fails on pretty much every level.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
AIUI, a priest can be prevented from performing priestly duties in consequence of bad behaviour, but that he cannot cease to be a priest, which is, in effect, a life sentence.
Similarly, his sins or misdeeds cannot interfere with the validity of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, since he is only the agent of God, not the actual transformer of Bread and Wine into Something Else (whether "Memorial" or "Body and Blood")
Does the existence of his penis have anything to do with this?
Presumably, if a woman is ordained to priestly status, the same rules apply (unless the actual penis, not to be confused with clitoris, makes difference, I suppose).
At this level (pun intended) the whole argument looks rather stupid.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
Not exactly fair-minded, considered overall.
Completely fair minded. None of the others include completely arbitrary exclusions based on attributes with no bearing on the tasks involved. If they did, as many of them did at one stage, they would get exactly the same treatment, and rightly so.
Not that this is the basis of the argument for me; to my mind it has more to do with the fact that God calls people to the priesthood. But nevertheless, if you want to make that comparison, you are comprehensively hoist on your own petard.
This is what I hoped someone would say.
What we have here is a disagreement with the Catholic understanding of priesthood. By all means. We can have a sensible discussion about the requirements we ought to have for a teacher to be a teacher, an MP to be an MP, and a priest to be a priest, if we have now moved on from silly surprise that those things have their requirements and definitions.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Horseman Bree;
quote:
Similarly, his sins or misdeeds cannot interfere with the validity of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, since he is only the agent of God, not the actual transformer of Bread and Wine into Something Else (whether "Memorial" or "Body and Blood")
And then again, if the Communion meal is just a memorial made more because the participants 'feed on (Jesus)in their hearts by faith with thanksgiving' (1662 Prayer Book)....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
In short, the comparison fails on pretty much every level.
No. Read back. It falls short, according to your argument, in ONE way only, in the belief that the priesthood was established as male. Therefore, discussion should be on that one point, not on drumming up rhetoric about how mad it all is or how the Catholic notion of priesthood falls short on "pretty much every level'.
[ 16. August 2014, 21:36: Message edited by: Invictus_88 ]
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Oh for God's sake, we're talking about ritual magic here (just a profound, transcendent, deeper magic than anything else in the world kind of magic), all about ceremony and tradition, not about hiring someone for an earthly job with ordinary sorts of qualifications.
And I say this as someone who is convinced of the validity of the ordination of women. But the question of changing a tradition like that is certainly not an immediately obvious one to lots of people, and it doesn't make them bad people or crazy people or whatever. It took me a long time to accept OOM, but people being snarky about it didn't help at all. (Note: People being snarky against OOM doesn't help either.)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
So how does this work with intersex people?
I can think of several possibilities.
A mix of XX and XY and other combinations means you're ineligible the way cripples and bastards were barred.
It's like bi-racial categories where having less than 1/64 of the your cells containing non XY chromosomes means you're in.
The chromosomes don't count, it all depends on the genitals being just a penis.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Bastards are probably acceptable, but I know of very few, if any, "cripples" - at least "cripples" with visible physical deformities. I DO know quite a few in the ministry/priesthood who are deformed by intransigent hanging-on-to irrelevant beliefs*.
*Examples provided over beer.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Bastards are probably acceptable, but I know of very few, if any, "cripples" - at least "cripples" with visible physical deformities. I DO know quite a few in the ministry/priesthood who are deformed by intransigent hanging-on-to irrelevant beliefs*.
*Examples provided over beer.
The priest assistant at a friend's (anglican) church was permanently in a wheel chair long before he was ordained.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So how does this work with intersex people?
I can think of several possibilities.
A mix of XX and XY and other combinations means you're ineligible the way cripples and bastards were barred.
It's like bi-racial categories where having less than 1/64 of the your cells containing non XY chromosomes means you're in.
The chromosomes don't count, it all depends on the genitals being just a penis.
I don't know if the Church has defined that yet, but I'm not convinced that it is relevant to the topic at hand.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
bumping up for housekeeping reasons
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BabyWombat
Shipmate
# 18552
|
Posted
Ah…. In reading the many posts here, and the points of theology and points of view, all that comes to mind is Matthew 7:20: “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
Living most of my adult life in TEC I have seen and known many female priests, and some female bishops. I have had them as pastors, I have had them as teachers, I have had them as colleagues. They have indeed shown me not just the face of Christ, but Christ-ness (to coin a word). They have held up the wholeness of Christ, the fruitfulness of Christ, the devoted compassion of Christ in ways that not every man, or very few, can do. Their essential femininity does not just balance the masculine view and ethos, it rounds it out, completes it in a way not known before. Their presence as priests and bishops makes the church whole at long last.
I suppose there are some women who cite the civil rights issue. Yet how many male priests are where they are today simply because they saw it as their right to be ordained? I have served on my diocese’ Commission on Ministry for several terms (in TEC such a group assesses and makes recommendation re ordination) and seen that sense of privilege in both sexes. But I have also seen that deep sense of call, of service, of holy fear in being called to represent the All Holy in both as well. It is good.
Posts: 102 | From: US | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doone
Shipmate
# 18470
|
Posted
Couldn't agree more BabyWombat ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posts: 2208 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
