homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women] (Page 6)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  51  52  53 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear One and All

I know that ChastMastr wanted me to post here because of something I said on another thread in Purgatory. I don't know what tickled his fancy (steady boy!) but maybe I should repeat it here so whoever can respond accordingly. Prepare to be shocked. The so called rigid Orthodoxy not quite so unbending after all.

quote:
Would there ever be any way that the Orthodox would accept the ordination of women to the priesthood?
.... ERIN

... and this may surprise some of you ... YES!

HOW? .... Ecumenical Council. On what grounds ... more detailed investigation into the relationship between the ministerial priesthood and the Eucharist. Orthodox do not accept for example the iconic argument against the ordination of women as we have never believed that the priest stands as a mini-Vicar of Christ ... in His place so to speak. Our great High Priest himself presides at the Eucharist and this is quite clear from our liturgical texts. I don't want to open this one up again but you can see I hope how Orthodoxy does recognise that there are many things that have not as yet been fully explored. If they had we would not be here .... the New Creation would have come upon us most fully.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So then, what would have to happen -- what conclusion would the Orthodox have to reach to permit female priests? What chain of reasoning is involved? And can you compare and contract this method of reaching this conclusion with the way the Episcopal Church and the C of E have?

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As to the process .... I am not the Holy Spirit but I can say that no part of the Orthodox Church would do it against any other part, (unlike in the Anglican Communion). This WOULD be a matter for an Ecumenical Council. To those who say that's its hundreds of years since you had one. Yes, but we've been preparing for the next one for the last few decades. When (not if) it happens, the ministry of women, (which we already have), will be pretty high up on the agenda).

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951

 - Posted      Profile for Panda   Email Panda   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Neat! When will it happen?
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Who would be involved in the Ecumenical Council? Would it just be the Orthodox, the Anglican Communion, and the Roman Catholic Church? What's the criteria for involvement?

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412

 - Posted      Profile for anglicanrascal   Email anglicanrascal   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
When (not if) it happens, the ministry of women, (which we already have), will be pretty high up on the agenda).

Wot will happen if they say "no-way Josie" to women-priests. Do you think that would have any influence on OoW in the Anglican Church?
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Panda

Only God knows that.

It would be much the same as the Second Vatican Council. Only Orthodox would vote ... other churches would have observers. There's no way that a non-Orthodox person / group can be an executive part of a process that legislates for the Orthodox Church. "Ecumenical" for us has its original meaning of the whole world .... not collaboration with churches with which we are not in communion.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Anglican Rascal ...

Sorry I forgot my answer to your post. I predict that that would have absolutely no impact on the Anglican Communion whatsoever. The Anglican Church knew precisely the Orthodox Church's position was (something with no precedent can't be done outside your relationship with other Christians) when it embarked on this course in the first place.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, OK -- so how would the Ecumenical Council determine this? What would be involved, what arguments are at issue, etc.? What arguments -- on the "pro-women's ordination to the priesthood" -- are being looked at more seriously in Orthodox circles?

--------------------
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      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Still eagerly waiting... [Smile]

--------------------
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      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
While we wait for Fr. G's return (I have now seen that he's not got net access for about a week -- oops!), I thought I'd post two possible solutions which has occurred to me:

1.) Most arguments for WO (that I have seen) treat the matter as "correcting a terrible injustice which has been carried on for nearly the whole life of the Church." Is anyone arguing that it was not wrong to forbid WO beforehand, but that the time is now appropriate to ordain women to the priesthood?

2.) Most arguments against WO (that I have seen) take for granted that though the words are spoken and the hands laid on the ordinand, she is not a real priest in Apostolic Succession, etc. Is it a tenable position that while it may not be wise (for various possible reasons) to ordain women to the priesthood, that the Sacrament of ordination is still valid regardless?

I would very much like to see people's positions on these two possible approaches. Someone might argue "Oh, but if it was a mistake to do in that way, it's all invalid," but then many of us in the Anglican Communion don't at all approve of Henry VIII's approach to the Church -- but that does not (in our view) change whether the C of E, regardless of Henry's motives, is a valid church in Apostolic Succession. So, perhaps, with this. Any thoughts?

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
CM --

I regard as important (but not definitive) the evidence that records of female leadership in the early church were suppressed or downgraded.

Moving on from there, however, I believe that the theological underpinning of WO is a reassessment of the interpretation of the letters of Paul and the practice of the early church. Any argument I have seen relies on his statement about there being neither male nor female in Christ. I know that, especially in the US in the early days, justice was raised -- but that was not used as a primary argument in other places, and I have not seen it used anywhere recently.

As for your actual questions, when Lambeth accepted that WO was valid, it also acknowledged that the appropriateness would depend on local circumstances. At the time, I think it envisaged that the African provinces would have problems for cultural reasons, although I believe some are now moving to do so.

So Lambeth could envisage, though it never said so, a cultural situation where only women would be ordained. One thinks of a matriarchal society where all the elders are female (the original state of some Iroqouis groups comes to mind), and where insisting on mem sharing or dominating the ordained group would ensure no-one would even listen to the gospel, much less accept it, for reasons that had nothing to do with what it is about. One thinks of the parallel situation illustrated in northern Canada, among the Inuit, where to be unmarried is to be incapable of leading: the Anglican church is having no trouble at all finding Inuit priests, but the Roman Catholic church, which does continue to insist on celibacy here, has none -- it must continue to rely on foreign imports, and on its present model will never have local priests.

John Holding

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Forgot something --

Your question One. Lambeth's approach is that because ordination is not a personal right, local circumstances will determine who can function as a priest. I think this is based on the fact that priesthood developed from eldership -- the etymology of the word shows that -- so that eligibility to be a leader in the society was a key element of eligiblity to be a leader in the church. Of course, the church moved away from there at least in practice, leading to a "professional" clerical class not rooted in the communities the individuals served.

I suspect it is wrong to speak of women being denied access to ordination in the past, unless there was a situation where society was matriarchal. Maybe society shouyld have been different, and in that case maybe access to ordination should have been different, but that is not history but polemics.

Mainly, we don't know now who God was calling at any specific time in the past, or how the church responded to any requests.

What we have to deal with is that in our society and century, God is calling women to priestly and episcopal ministry, both by the witness of those called, by the witness of the processes of the church in validating (and rejecting) perceived calls, and by the fruits of their ministry once ordained.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I regard as important (but not definitive) the evidence that records of female leadership in the early church were suppressed or downgraded.

I would be very interested in seeing the evidence of this. Someone was going to send me a book on it but they haven't had time to...

I've mainly heard arguments rooted in the notion that the Church was wrong and unjust from the beginning until now, rather than that the time is now appropriate to move to ordain women to the priesthood. Maybe it's a US thing?

If people are basing their reasoning on that one statement of Paul's -- a statement known to the Church for two thousand years -- it seems rather odd to me that no one noticed until now.

quote:
I think this is based on the fact that priesthood developed from eldership -- the etymology of the word shows that -- so that eligibility to be a leader in the society was a key element of eligiblity to be a leader in the church.
I'm not sure this is correct. There were fishermen among the Apostles and many other Christians were from the lower classes in society, weren't they? And being able to be a leader in society would be hampered by the various persecutions, wouldn't they? Wasn't being a societal leader and a Christian, much less a priest, something which largely became possible only once the Church was legal and more dominant?

quote:
Mainly, we don't know now who God was calling at any specific time in the past, or how the church responded to any requests.

But that's part of what's at issue here -- if a woman cannot be truly ordained a priest, then God cannot have been calling them. If they can, then perhaps -- though God would also certainly know that, short of Divine intervention, women wouldn't have been able to be ordained because it wasn't allowed by the Church (in, say, the Middle Ages).

quote:
What we have to deal with is that in our society and century, God is calling women to priestly and episcopal ministry, both by the witness of those called, by the witness of the processes of the church in validating (and rejecting) perceived calls, and by the fruits of their ministry once ordained.
But first we have to determine -- which is what my two questions above ask -- whether or not a woman can be ordained to the priesthood in the first place.

I'm trying to find out if there is indeed a tenable position which does not say "the Church was being cruelly unjust for two millennia from the very beginning" nor "a woman cannot ever be a priest." If it could be argued, without going against reason, that either it is indeed a new development and that the old ways were not wrong, they were just appropriate for the time, and this is appropriate in ours -- or that a woman can indeed become a priest (and always could) but it has not been a generally good idea, though her priesthood remains real, by virtue of Ordination -- then either argument would allow for the Church being basically right for 2000 years. But if I have to accept that the Church has been all wrong on this from the very beginning -- well, that I can't accept. Are there any resources you could point me toward on this? Because most of the ones I know on the pro-WO side tend to be like this:

1999 Barbara Harris sermon

The tone of the sermon is pretty much the kind of thing I'm used to (apart from on the Ship, I'm happy to say). And this kind of thing is not going to convince me. [Frown] Both sides can be kind of shrill. I found Lewis' essay ("Priestesses in the Church?") helpful on the anti-WO side but I don't recall him saying that a woman could not be ordained a priest, which is interesting -- he didn't argue on the grounds that it was not possible, just that it would be unwise. There's a big difference. And I find it interesting that many anti-WO people (some of whom use his essay as background material) go much further and say that a woman cannot be a priest for any number of reasons (reasons I thus far have not found convincing).

I guess what I want to know is this:

What tenable position is there to allow for women's ordination being valid (whether a good idea or not), which does not say "The Church was horribly wrong all those years"?

If Fr. Gregory's suggestion that the Orthodox church could indeed change its stance and ordain women -- that it is not intrinsically impossible -- could apply to the Anglican churches -- then, whether or not women (or a given woman, just as a given man) ought to be ordained, the Sacraments at her hand would be valid Sacraments, etc. But if not, then (for those of us who believe in Apostolic Succession, etc.) they'd be no more valid than from someone else not truly ordained. (Not to mention the issue of whether a priest consecrated by a female bishop is a real priest, etc.) So this is a very important issue: If a woman can be a priest (and bishop) then while the rightness of the idea may be debated for years to come, the Apostolic Succession of the Church is not called into doubt; but if a woman cannot be one, and especially a bishop, then it is, because not only is the question of valid sacraments at one's parish church in doubt, but the very ordination of people to the priesthood. I think it's a very valid struggle -- but I once again am going to shout to the heavens that I don't want to be like certain people (not on the Ship) who are full of shrill angry self-righteousness who are on the "anti-WO" side.

So I'm hoping that maybe I've found a tenable solution (leaning toward #2 at the moment, but I am not sure) -- I've just never heard anyone even suggest it before.

[Help]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"What tenable position is there to allow for women's ordination being valid (whether a good idea or not), which does not say "The Church was horribly wrong all those years"?"

Lambeth Conference -- 78 or 88, I don't rememebr which. Accepted that women could be called, but left it up to individual churches whether it was appropriate or not in their circumstances. Seems to me that says precisely what you want. Doesn't judge or ascribe motives to the past, but looks at the present.

Eldership in the community -- well, not all fishers were among the poor and oppressed, but the institution of eldership (see for example James and some of the pastorals) clearly imitated the common secular model of the time. Leaders in the church community were elders, regardless of age (at least in theory), fulfilling for the church community the roles carried out by elders in villages.

Yes, the sentence from Paul has been known all along. It talks about neither bond nor free, and the church tolerated slavery for 1600 years -- but now says it is (and was wrong). Neither Jew nor gentile -- the church got rid of the problem by ignoring its Jewish heritage for nearly two millennia, but now recognizes a different reality. The idea that interpretation of scripture is locked up forever once the church has taken a position is, I think, fairly disturbing.

John Holding

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Lambeth Conference -- 78 or 88, I don't rememebr which. Accepted that women could be called, but left it up to individual churches whether it was appropriate or not in their circumstances. Seems to me that says precisely what you want. Doesn't judge or ascribe motives to the past, but looks at the present.

So what were their reasons/claims/arguments for making the change?

quote:
Eldership in the community -- well, not all fishers were among the poor and oppressed, but the institution of eldership (see for example James and some of the pastorals) clearly imitated the common secular model of the time. Leaders in the church community were elders, regardless of age (at least in theory), fulfilling for the church community the roles carried out by elders in villages.

Or was it that both church leadership (bishops, priests and deacons) and secular models are imitating something else?

And, even if it did turn out that that church hierarchy was (partly?) inspired by secular models, how is the question of female ordination altered by this? Surely people knew of queens, even a female Judge in Old Testament times, both then and later, so female authority was not a wholly new innovation.

quote:
Yes, the sentence from Paul has been known all along. It talks about neither bond nor free, and the church tolerated slavery for 1600 years -- but now says it is (and was wrong).

And not all of us agree with that change. Racially-based slavery -- a fairly modern development -- was, in my understanding, heretical. But traditional slavery and hierarchy in general -- I go with the 1600-year-old view rather than the modern one, with the Pauline and other rules regarding proper behaviour of Christian masters and slaves (and once again, I specifically mean historic slavery) and other forms of hierarchy -- noblesse oblige, for example.

quote:
Neither Jew nor gentile -- the church got rid of the problem by ignoring its Jewish heritage for nearly two millennia, but now recognizes a different reality.
I don't know if "nearly two millennia" is correct here; we certainly see in the New Testament the question of whether even to let the Gentiles in the Church in the first place. If we grant that anti-Semitism started even shortly thereafter (and I am sad to say that it might have, but I don't have the references handy), anti-Semitism does seem to go strongly against both the Old and the New Testaments altogether. Can we say this about the ordination of women issue?

quote:

The idea that interpretation of scripture is locked up forever once the church has taken a position is, I think, fairly disturbing.

But is that idea true? And being decisive on interpretation of Scripture is not the same as saying other aspects of it cannot come out -- but there is a difference between mutually exclusive interpretations, and ones which can complement one another. I think the Church ruled pretty firmly on some things very early on -- and there may be other levels to them, but that is not the same as doing an about-face on, say, the Resurrection of Jesus, His Divine and human nature, and such.

Sorry this is so long... [Embarrassed]

It sounds as if the tack Lambeth took might have been a bit different than the one in the US. Anyone have appropriate links?

On a different note, are there any people here who are opposed to women's ordination who have thoughts on my possible solutions? Any holes you can pick in them?

David

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
halibut
Shipmate
# 3115

 - Posted      Profile for halibut   Email halibut   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
While we wait for Fr. G's return (I have now seen that he's not got net access for about a week -- oops!), I thought I'd post two possible solutions which has occurred to me:

1.) Most arguments for WO (that I have seen) treat the matter as "correcting a terrible injustice which has been carried on for nearly the whole life of the Church." Is anyone arguing that it was not wrong to forbid WO beforehand, but that the time is now appropriate to ordain women to the priesthood?

Hello CM.
I'm certainly not sure about the historical rightness or wrongness -- though I think that the context can and does change - and that tradition is not static. Nor should it be. If we as individuals are on a journey to God through Christ, so is the Church.

However, my own position in favour of the ordination of women, is not that the refusal to do so is unjust to women, but that it denies the freedom of the Holy Spirit to call people to the priesthood. If we believe that vocation is a divine calling, then it's grievously sinful to presume to tell God whom He may or may not call.

quote:

2.) Most arguments against WO (that I have seen) take for granted that though the words are spoken and the hands laid on the ordinand, she is not a real priest in Apostolic Succession, etc. Is it a tenable position that while it may not be wise (for various possible reasons) to ordain women to the priesthood, that the Sacrament of ordination is still valid regardless?

I certainly do know people who're quite happy to admit that Scripture is ambiguous on the subject, and Tradition itself a little less inflexible than it might appear. (Eg. the the Blessed Virgin's role as patron saint of priests - her role in offering the original sacrifice of Christ etc. - but tht's a different post) Many of those people also take the position that it's still not a good idea - usually for reasons relating to unity with Rome.

(Oh, some of these people are quite happy to say that the ordintions are valid too - just a bad idea. I disagree with them. Amicably [Smile] )

H

[Edited to replace incorrect text as requested (obliquely)]

[ 23. October 2002, 12:50: Message edited by: TonyK ]

Posts: 59 | From: Cape Town | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
halibut
Shipmate
# 3115

 - Posted      Profile for halibut   Email halibut   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:


However, my own position in in favour of organisation,

Pah, obviously I'm on too much of the old "Prinkash Basilica".

I mean "ordination of women" in place of "organisation"

H
[Previous post fixed - I'll delete this later. TK]

[ 23. October 2002, 12:51: Message edited by: TonyK ]

Posts: 59 | From: Cape Town | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by halibut:
Oh, some of these people are quite happy to say that the ordintions are valid too - just a bad idea.

Where are these people? Is this a British thing? [Frown] Or have I just been hanging around all these years with the wrong sort?

I was frankly thinking that I had developed this notion all on my own -- wow! But I am coming to see them as two separate issues -- can or should women be made priests? (Though of course if they can't, then shouldn't is kind of a given.) It might even be that only very rarely should a woman be a priest, or perhaps that in the past it should have been rare, and now it is OK. (Certainly I believe many male priests are very bad indeed (denying basic theology, etc.), so I think many people of whatever gender are being made priests who should not be... and that their priesthood is not in doubt, any more than a baptised person stops being baptised if they lose their faith, or Communion stops being Communion if the communicant doesn't truly believe...)

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Benedictus
Shipmate
# 1215

 - Posted      Profile for Benedictus   Email Benedictus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
CM, what happens to your set of questions if you add "Does God give women vocations to the priesthood?" Should that be the first question asked? The only question?

--------------------
Resentment: Me drinking poison and expecting them to die

Posts: 1378 | From: Hertfordshire | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Benedictus:
CM, what happens to your set of questions if you add "Does God give women vocations to the priesthood?" Should that be the first question asked? The only question?

But if women cannot be priests -- if it is intrinsic to the priesthood that they cannot -- then whatever calling they may perceive, it is not to the priesthood. So this question is still dependent on that one as far as I can tell -- it must be resolved first that a woman can be ordained to the priesthood before it can be determined that God is calling her.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Benedictus
Shipmate
# 1215

 - Posted      Profile for Benedictus   Email Benedictus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But is it up to us to limit who we allow God to call? We may choose, in our fallenness, not to recognize the call, but that's a different issue. Is it our priesthood or God's?

--------------------
Resentment: Me drinking poison and expecting them to die

Posts: 1378 | From: Hertfordshire | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Benedictus:
But is it up to us to limit who we allow God to call? We may choose, in our fallenness, not to recognize the call, but that's a different issue. Is it our priesthood or God's?

It's God's, of course (though He has given authority to the Church in certain ways), but if it is not possible for a woman to be a priest, then it is not us who have limited the priesthood, but the nature of the thing -- which would then be God limiting it by the way He has ordered His priesthood. So we're still back at "can a woman be a priest in the first place, or not?" as far as I can tell. One priest I have known said it was in the way we need water for baptism and bread for Communion -- he knew of someone who was being confirmed, who had been "baptised" in a somewhat unusual church using rose petals instead of water, and they had to baptise her with water very quickly before the confirmation, on the grounds that you at least have to have water in order to baptise. Perhaps this sounds crude and materialistic -- that one needs real water for a spiritual event like baptism -- and that one might need not only a real body (presumably one cannot be made a priest after death) but a real male body (whatever non-physical differences there may be between men and women) -- but it fits with my understanding of Christianity.

So whether a woman can be a priest or not still seems to me to be a necessary issue to resolve before we can determine whether God is calling them. People consider themselves inspired to other things as well -- mutually exclusive religious doctrines, etc. -- and they cannot all be right, can they?

Still want to see anti-WO people try to poke holes in my hypothesis -- that while one should not (or should not usually, or previously should not have) ordain women to the priesthood, that women still can be so ordained. Maybe this is the right time and place for it and the 14th century wasn't. It still seems a possible argument in favour of it to me.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575

 - Posted      Profile for Xavierite         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, a couple of things...

1. I don't understand on what grounds women shouldn't be ordained if such an ordination were possible. If it were possible for a woman to receive the sacrament of holy orders, then I'd agree with those women who demand that they be allowed to - since there seems no good reason other than sexism to bar her from the ministry.

2. However, I don't think women can be ordained - although not for sexist reasons.

Are we going into the anti-WO arguments here, or have they been dealt with in depth on the thread already? (Can't bear to dig through...!)

Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Perhaps since the thread is so long we might have a refresher for new people -- or what your own arguments against it are.

I have no idea how many people are even reading this thread. Personally I'd guess under ten, as it is in Dead Horses and stuff. [Frown]

My own concerns are rooted primarily in Tradition rather than any specific doctrinal thing; the arguments against it as an impossibility which I have seen have not yet convinced me that it is impossible, but the apparent (unless it does turn out the Church ordained women and then stopped) "never happened for almost two thousand years" is a major, major obstacle for me. Which is why those two options above could convince me otherwise. At the moment.

--------------------
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      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
... still eagerly waiting...

Anyone...? [Frown]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laudate Dominum
Shipmate
# 3104

 - Posted      Profile for Laudate Dominum   Author's homepage   Email Laudate Dominum   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ok, not sure what arguments you have already heard, but I'll go as far into it as I am capable.

1. We are not somehow limiting who God can call to the priesthood by not ordaining women. If Christ had intended to call women to the ministerial priesthood, than some of the 12 Apostles would have been women. And don't give me anything about "he wouldn't have because it went against social conventions of the day." This implies that Jesus was afraid of persecution, which is silly. After all, the Jewish authorities wanted to crucify him for comitting blaphemy. He did not choose women as Apostles, and as the Twelve serve as the model for priesthood, there is no reason to think that he intended to have women as priests. In fact, there seems to be every reason to think otherwise. Jesus is God, and Jesus did not call women to the priesthood. Therefore God does not call women to the priesthood.

2. Symbolism is so important to the Church. And the symbolism of a woman behind the altar is all wrong. When the priest says the words of consecration, the priest is acting as Christ, the Bridegroom, giving himself to his Bride, the Church. If a woman were acting in the place of the Bridegroom, the symbolism would be bride to Bride, which is wrong for what I think are fairly obvious reasons.

--------------------
"They think us barbarians because we cling to the past. We think them barbarians because they do not cling to the past." --G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 518 | From: Lala Land | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
These sound like plausible arguments against ordaining women to the priesthood, though they could be argued with -- but what of whether women can be ordained?

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mrs Toad
Shipmate
# 2883

 - Posted      Profile for Mrs Toad     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just nipping back a bit, Chast Mastr, to your plea for 'can but shouldn't' arguments:

I think some people hold this view because they are looking at the damage that may be done to the church's ministry as a result of WO fuelled schism. While believing that it is all right to ordain women, they believe that now is not the time.

My belief (and that of Forward in Faith) is that we don't KNOW if women ordained in the Church are truly priests. Basing the future apostolic succession on 'possible' priests and bishops sprouts a family tree of possible priests, both male and female. In a couple of hundred years, it may be discovered that the 'possibles' are 'no-ways', in this situation, the whole priesthood may be 'no-ways': where would that leave us?

We can't have 'no-way' priests so lets not ordain 'possible' priests before doing the research and ensuring that all priests are 'definite' priests.

So I guess that this view can also be described as 'maybe but shouldn't (until we are sure).

--------------------
Here to-day, up and off to somewhere else to-morrow! Travel, change, interest, excitement! The whole world before you, and a horizon that's always changing!

Posts: 136 | From: London | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575

 - Posted      Profile for Xavierite         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The following may be of interest:

Texts on the Ordination of Women

Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575

 - Posted      Profile for Xavierite         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually, rather more interesting is Michael Novak's article on the topic in First Things magazine.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Both are interesting, and sound like possibly valid arguments why women should not be priests. But I'm still at a loss to see that they are definitive arguments that -- even if it is a mistake to so ordain them -- women cannot be priests, i.e., that the Sacrament is not efficacious regardless (which would leave the question of Apostolic Succession intact). In my considered opinion, for example, Bishop Spong of Newark, due to his theology, should not be a priest or bishop, but despite his doctrinal heresy, he still is, and the priests he has ordained are still valid priests, the other sacraments valid sacraments; so even if it is a mistake to ordain a woman (orthodox or otherwise) to the priesthood, is it still a valid ordination?

I'm a tad confused by the "women should not baptise" bits in link 1 though -- but since anyone can be baptised by a baptised Christian (of whatever gender), perhaps this is also a useful analogy -- i.e., if a woman can validly baptise (but oughtn't) then perhaps a woman can indeed be ordained a priest (but oughtn't).

I hope this helps explain my concern -- yes, Saecula's post sums up my own concerns very well. So I am trying to find out what arguments there are for women's ordination being valid at all, even if it is a mistake or not, because on that hinges a lot about the future of our churches' Apostolic Succession, valid sacraments, etc.

David

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575

 - Posted      Profile for Xavierite         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ChastMastr,

Well, that's where things get a bit complicated. Personally, I accept the authority of the magisterium and so also accept its teaching that the sacrament can only, by its nature, be conferred on men. Ordinations of women are therefore not only illicit, but invalid - according to this view.

For someone who doesn't accept the authority of a magisterium-type body, I'm not sure whether Scripture and Tradition can provide a definitive answer to a subtle distinction like that.

Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
For someone who doesn't accept the authority of a magisterium-type body, I'm not sure whether Scripture and Tradition can provide a definitive answer to a subtle distinction like that.

[Waterworks] Fr. Gregory, where are youuuu? [Waterworks]

I'm assuming the Orthodox don't have a magisterium-type body -- so they may have some clues for us Antiquated Anglicans...

But the info is indeed helpful! Many hugs...

David

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My thought on reading the Michael Novak article is that the debate, fundamentally, appears to be about the nature of the incarnation. The point of the incarnation, to be brutally simplistic, was the redemption of human nature through it's incorporation into the divine via the sinless divine and human natures of Jesus.

It seems to me that the Eucharist is the continuation or extension of the incarnation, inasmuch as we encounter our Lord in the material, i.e. Bread and Wine. The priest, as Eucharistic Minister, operates in virtue of the incarnation. He (for the sake of argument!) acts as a kind of icon of our Lord and, in a wider sense of redeemed humanity. The redemption of humanity means that humans can celebrate the Eucharist.

Thus far, I think, so uncontroversial. But at this point opinions diverge. I would argue that a priest acts in virtue of their humanity. Which obviously entails the propostion that a woman can be a priest. Novak takes a different line. He argues that through the incarnation Jesus became a man and that, therefore, only a man can represent Jesus in the sacrament. He appeals, quite properly, to the sound catholic principle that the divine becomes incarnate in the specific. It is the same sentiment that makes catholics wince when they hear that a 'eucharist' was celebrated using milk and cookies.

I think the key issue, therefore, is over the nature of the incarnation. It seems appropriate to make a distinction using Aristotelian terminology so let us say that the substance of human nature becomes holy through the incarnation but that the accidents do not. So the incarnation changes humanity but the specifics of Jesus' life are not especially sanctified. We are not expected to become Jewish, be circumcised, grow a beard, be 5' 7" tall with dark hair and brown eyes (the last four, obviously, are sheer guesswork). For those of us who do think that women can be priests Jesus maleness belongs with his hair colour. For Novak, the fact of Jesus' maleness belongs with his humanity and alters how God related to the Church and humanity.

I hope that I have done justice to Novak's argument. I don't myself accept it, but I think that he has put his finger on the key issue. I think that if one accepts it then women cannot be priests. If one does not accept it then I think women can be priests, although there may be other grounds for their non-ordination (e.g. the argument from ecumenism).

On a slightly tangential note, should Father Gregory return to this thread, I am under the impression that a pronouncement from an ecumenical council holds an equivalent status to a pronouncement by a Pope speaking ex cathedra (i.e. infallible). I await his correction if I am wrong.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Benedictus
Shipmate
# 1215

 - Posted      Profile for Benedictus   Email Benedictus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nicely done, Professor.

Genesis 1:27 (RSV) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Logical conclusion: Male and female are both required to fully (as fully as humanly possible) constitute the image of God. The priesthood requires both male and female to represent God. And when David points out, as is surely trembling on his lips, that in that case it appears God was willing to wait 2000 years to work with that full priesthood, I would remind him that God is infinitely patient with us.

--------------------
Resentment: Me drinking poison and expecting them to die

Posts: 1378 | From: Hertfordshire | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Astro
Shipmate
# 84

 - Posted      Profile for Astro   Email Astro   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
My belief (and that of Forward in Faith) is that we don't KNOW if women ordained in the Church are truly priests. Basing the future apostolic succession on 'possible' priests and bishops sprouts a family tree of possible priests, both male and female. In a couple of hundred years, it may be discovered that the 'possibles' are 'no-ways', in this situation, the whole priesthood may be 'no-ways': where would that leave us?

Do you really believe that a God who could include gentiles (contary to his commands) in the geneology of his son would worry about the validity of the priesthood of someone who had unknowningly been ordained by someone who had been ordained by someone ..... who had been ordained by someone who was irregular?

The God I know is a God of grace not a legalist.

--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)

Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well said, Professor.

Like you and David, I am looking forward to Fr Gregory's return - as I would like him to explain how he can reconcile now saying that the "iconic" argument is not an issue for Orthodoxy whilst a year ago his main arguments were on grounds of "congruity" and "imaging" Christ.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
The God I know is a God of grace not a legalist.

I eagerly await Fr. G's return as well, but wanted to point out that this doesn't stop causes from having effects -- i.e., that it may not be a matter of God looking down, shaking His head, and saying, "Oh ick! Those naughty humans! I'll withhold the validity of ordination because they Broke The Rules," but that it may be more like whether someone is a carrier of a sort of "good infection" and is able to pass it on to someone else. And if the priesthood is bodily as well as spiritual (just as bread and wine and water are to other Sacraments) then laying on the hands of someone who has had the hands laid on them who has (etc.) might be intrinsically necessary -- so finding out if women can do this or not really is important to us.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laudate Dominum
Shipmate
# 3104

 - Posted      Profile for Laudate Dominum   Author's homepage   Email Laudate Dominum   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Re-reading it, I think I left a few things out of my previous post. As Professor Yaffle noted, the idea of a woman becoming a priest does make us RC's wince for the exact same reason we wince when we hear of a "eucharistic celebration" with cookies and milk (or beer and chips, as a friend of mine said the other day).

For a Sacrament to be valid, it is necessary to have the correct minister, intention, and matter. (The intention bit is self-explanitory--won't deal with it here.) Examples:

Minister Matter
Eucharist: Priest bread and wine
Baptism: Anyone water
Holy Orders: Bishop Baptized Male

A woman can no more be ordained than chips and beer can become the Body and Blood of Christ. It is impossible. That's the Roman Catholic Church's position.

--------------------
"They think us barbarians because we cling to the past. We think them barbarians because they do not cling to the past." --G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 518 | From: Lala Land | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951

 - Posted      Profile for Panda   Email Panda   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Laudate Dominum said:
quote:
A woman can no more be ordained than chips and beer can become the Body and Blood of Christ. It is impossible. That's the Roman Catholic Church's position.


All right, but you have to say why. If you're going to get into the specifics about real substance, and accidents, and milk and cookies (that is certainly a scary thought, though) you need to be equally specific on this issue, not just saying, as in your earlier post, that the symbolism would be 'all wrong' That would seem to place too strong an emphasis on the Church as the bride.

Why is it impossible? Are women not able to hear the voice of God and act upon it as men do? History would say otherwise. Mother Theresa and Julian of Norwich come to mind.

Is it their physical construction? Are genitals so much more vital than breasts? (I don't mean to be crude, but a nerve has been touched here). Is it neurological? A left brain vs right brain issue? Is map-reading such a vital element?

ChastMastr said:
quote:
but what of whether women can be ordained?


If a woman could bear Christ in her womb for nine months, why can a woman not bear Christ in the Eucharist?

All these arguments seem to fall back on the right of men to be ordained. Men have no right to be ordained, any more than women do. It is a matter of God's grace. I cannot believe that God would limit His grace to half of those he has created.

You may say, but He hasn't. If God doesn't want tomen to be ordained, then he will pour out His grace upon them in different ways. What ways? Do you seriously think that a 'calling' to arrange flowers and vaccuum the carpet is the same kind of calling as that to the priesthood? Even teaching Sunday School can't really be compared.

Can you truly tell me that every single ordained woman in the world, thousands of thousands of them, has somehow 'misheard' God? What on earth should they be doing instead?

Sorry to fire off in all directions like that; as I said, it's a delicate point. I hang around altogether too many FiF places.

Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
That would seem to place too strong an emphasis on the Church as the bride.
Why too strong? Compared with what?
Why is it impossible? Are women not able to hear the voice of God and act upon it as men do? History would say otherwise. Mother Theresa and Julian of Norwich come to mind.
But neither of them were priests.
Is it their physical construction? Are genitals so much more vital than breasts? (I don't mean to be crude, but a nerve has been touched here). Is it neurological? A left brain vs right brain issue? Is map-reading such a vital element?
I think it might be mystical symbolism -- not merely physical. But if we believe in Sacramentalism in the first place, then the physical mattering certainly makes sense.
ChastMastr said:
quote:
but what of whether women can be ordained?

If a woman could bear Christ in her womb for nine months, why can a woman not bear Christ in the Eucharist?
I don't see how this follows, sorry.
All these arguments seem to fall back on the right of men to be ordained. Men have no right to be ordained, any more than women do.
Agreed! But I don't think it *does* fall on such a specious "right" any more than you do.
It is a matter of God's grace. I cannot believe that God would limit His grace to half of those he has created.
Then why did He allow His greatest saints -- or at least those He sent to teach us about Himself -- to so limit it for two millennia?
You may say, but He hasn't. If God doesn't want tomen to be ordained, then he will pour out His grace upon them in different ways. What ways? Do you seriously think that a 'calling' to arrange flowers and vaccuum the carpet is the same kind of calling as that to the priesthood? Even teaching Sunday School can't really be compared.
Agreed. But if it is not a matter of "rights" then how is this an issue?
Can you truly tell me that every single ordained woman in the world, thousands of thousands of them, has somehow 'misheard' God? What on earth should they be doing instead?
But we (catholic/orthodox/sacramental types) also believe that every single non-Sacramental Christian has somehow "misheard" Him -- as well as every single non-Christian. Not to mention countless Christians in those churches we accept as valid whose theology is off. Or even ourselves at various times. Mishearing God is part of fallen human nature.
Sorry to fire off in all directions like that; as I said, it's a delicate point. I hang around altogether too many FiF places.

I understand completely. The people in groups like that tend to frustrate me more than people with whom I disagree. I still remain unconvinced (Oh, Father GRE-goryyyy...?) [Wink] but I definitely understand how the position looks to someone who does not share it -- unfair, misogynist, etc. But looking like that doesn't make it untrue.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951

 - Posted      Profile for Panda   Email Panda   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
CM, I hope to reply to your post more fully tomorrw (I have more time when I'm at work!) but I wouldn't mind saying how much nicer it is to debate with someone who describes himself as unconvinced, rather than someone who just says, that's my position, and it's not going to change. I met another priest who said that last week, and it's so depressing to think that people have cut themselves off from hearing God speak to them.

Nor by that do I wish to imply that I think mine is the only God-inspired position - I hope I'm open to God speaking to me too. It's hard to know sometimes.

Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks, Panda! [Smile] I *may* be convinced one way or the other, though -- which if that happens, then my position may be pretty firm, depending on what the arguments are.

Still awaiting Fr. G's further comments...

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I know I've said this on another thread a little while ago, so apologies for being boring, but given some of the previous posts here from Laudate and Panda, I thought I'd repeat it.

As I understand it, the priest as representative of Jesus Christ - specifically at the Eucharistic Table, which is where most of the fuss originates - is argued by some that because Jesus was a man, so the priest needs to be a man. My simple-minded take on this is, that it is the Christ - the Anointed One of God - that the priest represents, not merely the man Jesus of Nazareth. It is the indwelling Christ-life, inspired by the Holy Spirit that the priest mediates between God and congregation, not the outward show of a 1st century Palestinan Jew.

Just as the ministry and salvation of the Christ - as portrayed in the man Jesus - is efficacious for both men and women, so it seems logical to my dim brain that both men and women are by grace enabled to represent that Christ, even in its fullest degree.

This is also how I understand the saying: in Christ there is no male or female etc. In Jesus, we have the perfect or complete man; but we don't stop there, we can go on to say that in Christ (where gender distinctions lose their normal earthly relevance) we have the trandscendent humanity which is the destiny of each one of us. By which, then, we are able to say we are all priests in the order of Melchizedek. And from amongst this priesthood of ALL believers, we appoint those specifically called to function in the presbyteral roles developed by the churches.

Barring women from the earthly presbyteral role, when in the 'order of Melchizedek' their priesthood is already assured, is a backward step for which the Church has been paying, and continues to pay, a high price.

I grant you that the notion that because a priest is a man he is somehow more 'Christlike' and more 'adequately' suited to the role of priestly representative of Christ must be very affirming and reassuring for those who think this way. But IMHO it's a delusion.

I think Christ's humanity was, of course, essential - blasphemous to say otherwise, and that I celebrate the fact of the Incarnation. But to say that the issue of the temporary earthly reproductive possibilities of our Lord's anatomy should have precedence over his Messianic salvific mission and Godly person is, to me, not a viable argument.

--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013

 - Posted      Profile for ChristinaMarie         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When Adam was first created, he was male and female, a true bisexual. He had his rib removed to form Eve, and he became just male.

Jesus is the second Adam. Jesus never had His rib removed. Therefore, I claim that Jesus represents both male and female, as Adam did before his rib was removed.

The brain structure of men and women is different. The XY chromosomes cause the male fetus brain, to change, during pregnancy. It's quite possible that Jesus was androgynous in his brain structure. Stress during the 14th week or so, of pregnancy, can cause interruption of the male brain development. Mary, being a virgin, would most likely have suffered stress at this time, as this was the time that her pregnant state would be visible to others.

It may be, that in our resurrection bodies, we will have all the strengths of masculinity and femininity, when we are like the angels. Not sexless, but like God, having both aspects of gender.

Christina

Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well (as I await Fr. G's arrival), I don't see Jesus as androgynous. (Presumably you mean that He is androgynous in brain structure (now that He has been resurrected) rather than was?) He is masculine to us, just as God the Father is masculine to Him and us. But this is a sense of gender apart solely from biological sex, and gets into Jesus as our Bridegroom and us (the Church) as His bride, among other things. The question of whether only those who are biologically male can represent Him to us, or not, remains where it is for me. If Orthodoxy might allow for women to be priests, then how they get over this hurdle might solve some of this.

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Laudate Dominum
Shipmate
# 3104

 - Posted      Profile for Laudate Dominum   Author's homepage   Email Laudate Dominum   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Panda--in case you're wondering why I haven't responded to your above post, it's because ChastMaster got there first and made my arguments for me. Probably better than I could have.

--------------------
"They think us barbarians because we cling to the past. We think them barbarians because they do not cling to the past." --G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 518 | From: Lala Land | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

As I understand it, the priest as representative of Jesus Christ - specifically at the Eucharistic Table, which is where most of the fuss originates - is argued by some that because Jesus was a man, so the priest needs to be a man.

There are other reasons to reject the "in persona Christi" requirements as well:

1. This is not the universally accepted idea people think it is. Orthodoxy does not regard the priest in this position, nor did many in the early Church (Ignatius of Antioch described the Bishop as God (but then he would say that!), the Presbyters as Apostles, and Deacons as Christ). It is therefore not even necessary to be "in persona Christi".

2. The priest qua sacerdotos/hieros (rather than as bishop or presbyter) is actually representing the Church, not Christ. She is acting, through her body and her words, to carry out the mechanical necessities of worship. This is akin to the priestly role in the OT - the priest stands with the worshipper, facing God, and then carries out the required physical acts - and of courswe matched the concept of the priesthood of Christ in Hebrews - as representative of all humanity (and even creation) going into the sanctuary before the face of God. Frankly, if you're "she-ifying" the Church, the most appropriate representative for it is a woman, not a man.

3. Even if you accept priesthood as being "in prrsona Christi" you have reached a logical fault if you insist that only a man can do this - because Christ's (Jesus') own priesthood was not limited to his particular sex, but to all, therefore it is odd to then limit the representative abilities of Christ's own representatives.

4. If you're really concerned about proper symbolism, then the Church service would involve a man coming forward as Christ's representative from the east end, and a woman coming forward from the congregation as representative of the Church and then having sex on the alter.

Okay, maybe point 4 isn't all that serious.

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716

 - Posted      Profile for ChastMastr   Author's homepage   Email ChastMastr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
4. If you're really concerned about proper symbolism, then the Church service would involve a man coming forward as Christ's representative from the east end, and a woman coming forward from the congregation as representative of the Church and then having sex on the alter.

Okay, maybe point 4 isn't all that serious.

Jumping in very quickly as I have work which must get done today, but technically this is correct symbolism -- it's just part of the sacrament of marriage rather than the Eucharist. [Smile] As I understand it this is indeed part of the symbolism of marriage, sex and gender -- it represents the grand mystical archetype of God and Creation, masculine and feminine, which runs all the way down (if I understand it correctly) from the First and Second Persons of the Trinity, into Form and Matter (and, if there is anything else, beyond). (It's not so much that "everything is all sex" but that sex is one level on which the interplay of cosmic gender archetypes appears...)

As for the other bits -- which are very relevant and may also help resolve some of this -- doesn't the priest both represent us to God and God to us? Or no?

Father Gregory, where are youuuu? [Help]

--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity

Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  51  52  53 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools