|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Thanks, paigeb - that's helpful.
Ruth - I have no desire to annoy you, and certainly don't want any part of a contest to see who can annoy the other party the most. Because I'm now running out of time till tomorrow I'll leave today with a couple of short comments and a request. So -
1. quote:
Christians of all sorts have suffered for their faith just because they were Christians
Of course. But you've gone and done it again and changed the frame of reference. I am desparately trying to answer you in terms of the comment that you made. Is it that you are taking the condition or experience of all humanity to be the same? You were talking about male, white etc. and I responded in context. Whatever the reason, maybe a change of approach is called for that involves neither generalisations nor aggrieved examples to refute the generalisations.
2. Hurt. I'm not going to buy this argument and I would suggest it is in your interest not to either. Hurting is what stops us damaging ourselves by putting our hands in a flame. The derelict human use of pain is to cause grief to others who we don't like. So pain can be either a good thing that saves us from something worse, or a human sin that is used to curtail the full flourishing of another. Surely the whole discussion is as to which it is (or I suppose possibly is it both to some extent?). Hurt always requires pastoral care. Whether it needs action to remove the source of the hurt depends on the cause. Concerning which there is much argument. Basing a decision on hurt will simply short circuit the process with unpredictable results.
3. You finally say quote:
I don't see how or why men and women would have different roles in the economy of salvation.
I can see that men or women could, but the how or why is what I am interested in, should it be so. Can you explain why you think men & women have identical roles, please?
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by BuzzyBee:
If not, you will need some quite detailed records to keep track of which male priests are really priests. Some kind of gonad purity certificate.
Have more than one bishop present at every ordination of priests - as we do now with consecrations of bishops.
(Ideally 3 - one an Anglican, one a Methodist, and one a Presbyterian ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) )
Ken -- but there is a respectable body of opinion that differentiates between consecration as a bishop and ordination as a priest/presbyter. The former has usually (but not always) been done by one or more bishops. The latter is carried out by other priests, who are adding to their number. The specific historical context is that groups of presbyters were frequently alternatives to bishops in the early church, not delegates. The bishop, being a presbyter and by convention the leader, presides at this ordination. But the other presbyters share in the ordaining.
Here, they cluster around like a mob, and those who can't touch the candidate hold out their hands in blessing.
So if you need a wholly male ordination history, you also have to ask what priests were there as well as what bishop.
Only madness lies that way.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
...ordination as a priest/presbyter. ...is carried out by other priests, who are adding to their number...
Actually, that solves the problem entirely. If priests make priests, as long as not all of those participating in the ordination are female, then the ordination would be valid by any standard.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
So, if you take the view that women cannot be priests, what do you suppose happen when a lady puts on a collar and a cassock and a chasuble and stands in front of or behind an altar and puts her hand on the biscuit and says the magic words in the Prayer Book.
Does nothing happen since she's not a priest?
Or does something Bad happen like the mouth of hell yawns open?
If nothing happens and I later eat this biscuit upon which the aforementioned lady in a brocade poncho laid hands and over which spoke words from the Prayer Book, have I not just eaten a rather bland biscuit?
Or have I done something very terrible by eating the biscuit, and possibly open yawning hell for myself?
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
So, if you take the view that women cannot be priests, what do you suppose happen when a lady puts on a collar and a cassock and a chasuble and stands in front of or behind an altar and puts her hand on the biscuit and says the magic words in the Prayer Book.
Does nothing happen since she's not a priest?
Or does something Bad happen like the mouth of hell yawns open?
If nothing happens and I later eat this biscuit upon which the aforementioned lady in a brocade poncho laid hands and over which spoke words from the Prayer Book, have I not just eaten a rather bland biscuit?
Or have I done something very terrible by eating the biscuit, and possibly open yawning hell for myself?
That's exactly what happens - Nothing!
Don't you think that there's a reason that people don't go around pretending to do mass on TV, You would never see a actor pretending to be a priest saying the eucharistic prayer on tv would you?
So I guess that you shouldn't partake in a mass that is celebrated by a women if you believe that they aren't really priests!
-103
[ 16. July 2004, 09:21: Message edited by: The103rd (The Ship's Boatboy) ]
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_grip
Apprentice
# 7831
|
Posted
i'd agree with 103.
i would also add two points:
1. Anyone could offer bread and wine in their household and say the mass. Does it give it the real presence of Christ? Who knows? How could i tell? Having a priest in apostolic succession gives assurance that this is within the bounds of the church and thus assurance that the Holy Spirit has sanctified the bread and wine to be a means of grace to us who partake. Thus, from my perspective, i have no assurance when this is given outside of the authority of the church (in this case and in my opinion, by a female priest).
2. i take Paul's words about receiving the Eucharist very seriously (1 Cor. 11:23-34). That is not to say that people who receive communion via a female priest are necessarily being judged - however, because i take this seriously, i would rather err on the side of caution. i say this in humility - again, i'm not condemning anyone here. i'm just saying that in my own personal practice i observe this. To parallel, i'm a vegetarian b/c of the way animals are treated in the meat industry - but this doesn't mean i force others to follow suit. This is very important to understand on this point - i am not the one to pronounce judgement, but i am the one to listen to my convictions.
Posts: 48 | From: Dallas, TX, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IanB:
1. quote:
Posted by me:
Christians of all sorts have suffered for their faith just because they were Christians
Of course. But you've gone and done it again and changed the frame of reference. I am desparately trying to answer you in terms of the comment that you made. Is it that you are taking the condition or experience of all humanity to be the same? You were talking about male, white etc. and I responded in context. Whatever the reason, maybe a change of approach is called for that involves neither generalisations nor aggrieved examples to refute the generalisations.
I don't follow what you mean by changing the frame of reference. I still think your bringing martyrs into the discussion is comparing apples and oranges. Martyrs by definition are people who are killed for their faith, so any Christian unfortunate enough to be living in the wrong place at the wrong time may be martyred. Women who seek ordination and gay people are told by some folks in the church that they must make a huge personal sacrifice for the sake of the unity of the church, a sacrifice of an order not required of men or straights living in the same time and place. I truly find it difficult to think that unity is the real issue; if it were then the people who want women seeking ordination and gays to make tremendous sacrifices for church unity would be willing and indeed offering to make comparably large sacrifices for the sake of unity.
But unity is not pre-eminent for them, IMO. Getting their way in the end is what they're after. And that's fine with me - I just wish they'd be honest about it and quit saying that they care so much about unity.
quote:
From IanB:
2. Hurt. I'm not going to buy this argument and I would suggest it is in your interest not to either. Hurting is what stops us damaging ourselves by putting our hands in a flame. The derelict human use of pain is to cause grief to others who we don't like. So pain can be either a good thing that saves us from something worse, or a human sin that is used to curtail the full flourishing of another. Surely the whole discussion is as to which it is (or I suppose possibly is it both to some extent?). Hurt always requires pastoral care. Whether it needs action to remove the source of the hurt depends on the cause. Concerning which there is much argument. Basing a decision on hurt will simply short circuit the process with unpredictable results.
OK, let's not put it in terms of hurt. Let's talk about the fruits of the Spirit. If women truly could not be priests, their ministries as priests would not be blessed with the fruits of the Spirit. Yet they clearly are, as so many of us who have had experiences with women priests can testify.
quote:
IanB again:
3. You finally say quote:
I don't see how or why men and women would have different roles in the economy of salvation.
I can see that men or women could, but the how or why is what I am interested in, should it be so. Can you explain why you think men & women have identical roles, please?
Because first and foremost, we are human. Because male and female, we are created in the image of God. Because I can see no basis for men and women having different roles in the economy of salvation.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_grip:
Having a priest in apostolic succession gives assurance that this is within the bounds of the church and thus assurance that the Holy Spirit has sanctified the bread and wine to be a means of grace to us who partake.
Majic juice again.
The Pope has magic juice and gives it to the bishops and they give it to the priests and they can perform the miracle and produce Christ.
In what way is that better than the assurance of being in an assembly where the word of God is preached, the sacraments administered, and the fruits of the Spirit in evidence?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ce
Shipmate
# 1957
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The Pope has magic juice and gives it to the bishops and they give it to the priests and they can perform the miracle and produce Christ.
I guess that some would like to think that apostolic succession goes back somewhat further than a mere parvenu! quote:
In what way is that better than the assurance of being in an assembly where the word of God is preached, the sacraments administered, and the fruits of the Spirit in evidence?
You know that there is a chance that you've got one out of three right?
--------------------
ce
Posts: 376 | From: Middlesex, U.K. | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_grip
Apprentice
# 7831
|
Posted
quote:
Majic juice again.
Lol ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
The Pope has magic juice
i can't speak for the Pope because i'm Anglican, not RCC.
quote:
they can perform the miracle and produce Christ
"They" don't perform nor produce anything. God performs and produces. That's why we ask the Holy Spirit to "bless and sanctify" the gifts of bread and wine that God has given us.
quote:
In what way is that better than the assurance of being in an assembly where the word of God is preached, the sacraments administered, and the fruits of the Spirit in evidence?
This line of logic is what led me to A.S. (apostolic succession) - based on exactly what you stated above:
1. "The word of God is preached." Under what authority? How do you know the word of God is actually preached? Because someone picked up a Bible and maybe even learned a smattering of Greek and Hebrew? Are they teaching heresy? How do you know?
2. "The sacraments administered." Again, by what authority? How do you know they are truly the sacraments? To reiterate, what if i offered communion (being a layman) in my house? What if i wanted to use rose petals to baptize with instead of water?
3. "Fruits of the Spirit in evidence." Again, how do you know what the fruits of the Spirit are? What if i attended a congregation where everyone spouted off in tongues, handled venomous snakes, and rolled around and barked like a dog? How do i know those aren't fruits of the Spirit?
A.S. is not just RCC. It's Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and even some Lutherans observe it and can trace their lineage of ordination back to the apostles.
[ 16. July 2004, 18:04: Message edited by: the_grip ]
Posts: 48 | From: Dallas, TX, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_grip:
1. "The word of God is preached." Under what authority? How do you know the word of God is actually preached? Because someone picked up a Bible and maybe even learned a smattering of Greek and Hebrew? Are they teaching heresy? How do you know?
We know just the same way we know when a man preaches.
quote:
2. "The sacraments administered." Again, by what authority? How do you know they are truly the sacraments? To reiterate, what if i offered communion (being a layman) in my house? What if i wanted to use rose petals to baptize with instead of water?
We know the sacraments administered by female priests are truly the sacraments the same way we know when they are administered by male priests. And by the same authority, one you as a layperson don't have.
quote:
3. "Fruits of the Spirit in evidence." Again, how do you know what the fruits of the Spirit are? What if i attended a congregation where everyone spouted off in tongues, handled venomous snakes, and rolled around and barked like a dog? How do i know those aren't fruits of the Spirit?
And again, the same way we always recognize the fruits of the Spirit. I don't recall snake handling and barking like a dog being in Paul's lists of the fruits of the Spirit. Speaking in tongues is in the lists, of course - though without anyone to interpret I'd be dubious about the point of the whole thing.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_grip
Apprentice
# 7831
|
Posted
quote:
And again, the same way we always recognize the fruits of the Spirit. I don't recall snake handling and barking like a dog being in Paul's lists of the fruits of the Spirit. Speaking in tongues is in the lists, of course - though without anyone to interpret I'd be dubious about the point of the whole thing.
Actually, i believe the fruits don't include speaking in tongues - Galatians 5:22-23 reads "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control" - not sure though as doubtless there are other references in the Scriptures (you could look at 1 Cor. 14:14, but i think that is referencing a mode of prayer not a "fruit"). However, my point was how do you *know* these are really the fruits of the Spirit. If you answer, "Because Paul wrote them," or, "They are in the Bible" then an acknowledgement of authority is given. Where does that authority originate? From what sounds good? From what feels good? Because so-and-so told you? That's my point with my above reply to ken. i look at the actions of the apostles in Acts and the ECF as confirmation of the importance of A.S. It's no wonder that groups like the Mormons hinge their beliefs on a failure of A.S. ("the Great Apostacy"). i was using extremes perhaps but i was showing how we discriminate certain things (say, barking like a dog) from fruits of the Spirit.
This whole digression was a bit O.T., but i appreciate you bringing it back to bear on the questions of the OoW Ruth
i would like your opinion on these:
quote:
We know just the same way we know when a man preaches.
quote:
We know the sacraments administered by female priests are truly the sacraments the same way we know when they are administered by male priests.
How do you "know"? Can you define that?
Also, as you are quick to point out:
quote:
And by the same authority, one you as a layperson don't have.
Quite right - and i don't mean to sound as if i'm claiming such authority. Which ties back yet again to A.S. - i can't just jump up and say, "Yo, i'm a priest now!"
Posts: 48 | From: Dallas, TX, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
How we know whether the word of God is being preached, how we know the sacraments are being administered, and how we recognize the fruits of the Spirit are all off-topic if we're going to consider them separately from the question of ordaining women. My point is simply that knowing these things, however we know them, is no different when the priest is a woman than when the priest is a man.
The authority female priests have they get from the same source male priests have. They are priests because they have been ordained by bishops, and they act as priests on authority delegated to them by their bishops.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_grip
Apprentice
# 7831
|
Posted
quote:
My point is simply that knowing these things, however we know them, is no different when the priest is a woman than when the priest is a man.
Ah ha - i think my thick skull gets it. i thought you were making a statement on the substance of the "knowing" versus a statement on "it makes no difference on gender". You're not commenting on the "how" but on the result - male or female priest makes no difference... they are a priest (i.e. bread from a man would be the same as bread from a woman). i got my wires crossed from the A.S. discussion.
i do disagree with your latter point, but i'm sure that part of the horse was pummeled several pages back by other folks.
Posts: 48 | From: Dallas, TX, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_grip:
2. "The sacraments administered." Again, by what authority? How do you know they are truly the sacraments?
Ruth got this one already, but the authority we are speaking of is the authority of the Church.
(not the authority of the penis).
If you believe that the Church is the Body of Christ and is inspired by the Holy Ghost then you must believe that the Church's priests are valid celebrants and administrants of her holy sacraments.
Unless you know better than the Church and the Holy Ghost.
And the 103rd tells us
quote:
That's exactly what happens - Nothing!
If NOTHING happens then how in the world can a female concelebrant possibly harm or damage the sacrament being concelebrated by men?
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by the_grip:
2. "The sacraments administered." Again, by what authority? How do you know they are truly the sacraments?
Ruth got this one already, but the authority we are speaking of is the authority of the Church.
(not the authority of the penis).
If you believe that the Church is the Body of Christ and is inspired by the Holy Ghost then you must believe that the Church's priests are valid celebrants and administrants of her holy sacraments.
Unless you know better than the Church and the Holy Ghost.
And the 103rd tells us
quote:
That's exactly what happens - Nothing!
If NOTHING happens then how in the world can a female concelebrant possibly harm or damage the sacrament being concelebrated by men?
Because those priests are indicating that they accept those women as valid priests.
It's just like the RC Church not allowing Anglicans to partake in holy mass (which I completly and utteraly agree with and respect) they don't allow us to partake in their mass because it would mean that the priest would have to accept the anglicans as coming from valid orders.
But they don't because they believe that our church has invalid orders. Surely they must believe that having an anglican concelebrating at mass must damage the entire eucharistic service.
We believe the same with women priests - they aren't valid priests so therefore they will mess up our mass.
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd (The Ship's Boatboy):
We believe the same with women priests - they aren't valid priests so therefore they will mess up our mass.
-103
Forgive me, but it seems to me that if your mass can be messed up by a priest without a penis raising her hands in the vacinity, then your mass was pretty messed up to begin with.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_grip
Apprentice
# 7831
|
Posted
quote:
Ruth got this one already, but the authority we are speaking of is the authority of the Church.
(not the authority of the penis).
Hahaha i got a kick out of that. However, we are sidestepping the argument... did i say the authority of the church stems from the male gender? Disagreeing with the ordination of women is not about making authority come from males - authority comes from God.
quote:
If you believe that the Church is the Body of Christ and is inspired by the Holy Ghost then you must believe that the Church's priests are valid celebrants and administrants of her holy sacraments.
Unless you know better than the Church and the Holy Ghost.
i don't know what quite what you are driving at here either - i'm not disagreeing to what you said regarding the celebrants and sacraments.
Further, if you think that the ordination of women is in line with the Church and the Holy Ghost and those opposed are not, i'll kindly ask you to point out where exactly this happened in history prior to the 20th century. Was the same Holy Ghost leading back then, or was He just too old fashioned?
Again, this is not an issue of superiority of the male gender. This is about the order that God has established - something that is not a hierarchy of rank but a voice of love, praise, and thanksgiving.
Posts: 48 | From: Dallas, TX, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd (The Ship's Boatboy):
We believe the same with women priests - they aren't valid priests so therefore they will mess up our mass.
-103
Forgive me, but it seems to me that if your mass can be messed up by a priest without a penis raising her hands in the vacinity, then your mass was pretty messed up to begin with.
Don't worry - I will forgive you.
Another thing - Mass has been celebrated by a male only priesthood since approx AD 33.
Who are we to suddenly say that a women can celebrate mass?
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
What do you mean by "the order that God established"? What order has God established? How do you know about it? Somehow or other along the way I got the impression that we are all equal before God. Have I been wrong all this time?
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Forgive me, but it seems to me that if your mass can be messed up by a priest without a penis raising her hands in the vacinity, then your mass was pretty messed up to begin with.
I love this! When we get tired of using the abbrevition OoW, we can use PWP*.
*Not forgetting of course that in fan fiction PWP stands for "plot? what plot?" or "porn without plot."
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_grip:
authority comes from God.
And comes to us through his Church.
quote:
originally asked by the 103rd
Who are we to suddenly say that a women can celebrate mass?
Hmm. I think the words of the Credo go
"I believe in one Holy Catholick and Apostolic Church."
I happen to think that the Church of which I am a communicant member, being also the Body of Christ and inspired by the Holy Ghost, cannot be wrong.
I also don't remember the part in the Credo that says "I believe in the Holy Catholick and Apostolic Church, except when she makes mistakes and ordains false priests without penises."
I don't mind if one doesn't like lady priests (I actually go an all-male-priest parish). But as an Anglican, I have a hard time understanding how the Church can be deficient in authority so to order her as the Holy Ghost seems to direct.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by the_grip:
authority comes from God.
And comes to us through his Church.
quote:
originally asked by the 103rd
Who are we to suddenly say that a women can celebrate mass?
Hmm. I think the words of the Credo go
"I believe in one Holy Catholick and Apostolic Church."
I happen to think that the Church of which I am a communicant member, being also the Body of Christ and inspired by the Holy Ghost, cannot be wrong.
I also don't remember the part in the Credo that says "I believe in the Holy Catholick and Apostolic Church, except when she makes mistakes and ordains false priests without penises."
I don't mind if one doesn't like lady priests (I actually go an all-male-priest parish). But as an Anglican, I have a hard time understanding how the Church can be deficient in authority so to order her as the Holy Ghost seems to direct.
Look here - The Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church does not ordain women. Now us Anglicans come from the Roman Catholic Church (and some of us from the orthodox church), now - Women Priests has come up alot in the RC Church, and recently one of the patriarks (I'm not sure which - I don't actually know how the patriark system works in the Orthodox Community) said that he was tired of women priests being brought up and he would not allow women priests.
Think to yourself - why won't they have women priests???
If they have a reason not to have women priests then we have a reason not to have women priests!
What was wrong with the tridentrine mass? Again, its a change that some people can't take and there are still groups of people who keep to the Tridentrine Mass!
I myself cannot accept women celebrating mass! What will be next - lay lead masses? (Oh wait, I think that could be happening already ![[Frown]](frown.gif) )
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd (The Ship's Boatboy):
The Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church does not ordain women. <snip> recently one of the patriarks (I'm not sure which - I don't actually know how the patriark system works in the Orthodox Community) said that he was tired of women priests being brought up and he would not allow women priests.
You should understand that our patriarchs aren't in charge of the church in the same way that the Pope is in charge of the RC church. No single patriarch, nor even all of them together, has the power to decide that we will have women priests, or the power to decide that we won't.
For the Orthodox Church to have women priests, we'd have to have an Ecumenical Council. We haven't had an Ecumenical Council since well before the Schism with the West, and we're not likely to have one until that Schism is healed. So, for us, it's a moot point.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd (The Ship's Boatboy):
If they have a reason not to have women priests then we have a reason not to have women priests!
Very poor logic. If we have a reason to have female priests, then don't they have a reason to have female priests? Why should we take our marching orders from the Romans or the Orthodox?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd (The Ship's Boatboy):
If they have a reason not to have women priests then we have a reason not to have women priests!
Very poor logic. If we have a reason to have female priests, then don't they have a reason to have female priests? Why should we take our marching orders from the Romans or the Orthodox?
Because we originally came from them and they are almost the original christains (probably the Orthodox are closest to the early christians I think)
Yeah - I agree with the above post too! Unity would be great!
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
Oh and Ruth - who are you to say that my beliefs are "poor logic"?
I believe what I believe and nobody can stop me from believing that.
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
No, we didn't "come from" them. The church divided several times, and the Anglican Communion is the result of one of those divisions. As has already been pointed out, it's more than a little bit silly for us to do as the Romans do just because they're the Romans when they don't even recognize the validity of our priests' orders.
Edited to add: Who am I to criticize your logic? I'm one who recognizes a poor argument when I see one. "I believe what I believe" is no argument at all.
[ 16. July 2004, 23:42: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd (The Ship's Boatboy):
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd (The Ship's Boatboy):
If they have a reason not to have women priests then we have a reason not to have women priests!
Very poor logic. If we have a reason to have female priests, then don't they have a reason to have female priests? Why should we take our marching orders from the Romans or the Orthodox?
Because we originally came from them and they are almost the original christains (probably the Orthodox are closest to the early christians I think)
Yeah - I agree with the above post too! Unity would be great!
-103
I take it you therefore disapprove of married clergy as well? Based on what you said above, you ought for that matter to realize that your own vicar is, by your preferred standard, not a priest. Your preference for following Rome rather than Canterbury suggests to me you need to consider letting your body follow your spirit across the Tiber. Alternatively, of course, you could actually start examining the subject rather than just taking your rector's word for it and refusing to listen to anyone else. Most of us at least go through the motions of trying to understand positions other than our own. Sometimes we even change our minds. Watch out -- it could happen to you.
I really think it is time you got a grip, 103. Having an opinion isn't supposed to mean you scream "nyah, nyah, nyah" at other people who suggest you re-examine your logic.
And for what it's worth, the delightful and clear simplicity of your belief that since 33, the eucharist has always and only been presided over by males is highly suspect from an historical perspective. There is another Dead Horse about this somewhere. Suffice it to say that the history of who did what in the early church is murky, fuzzy, and largely conjectural -- contrary to what generations of sincere RC and AC priests have taught. Moreover, it is fairly clear the early church accepted both female deacons and female apostles (=bishops in this context), apparently altering one of Paul's letters to conceal the latter fact when it became uncomfortable -- you will find the matter explained on that Horse.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erina
Apprentice
# 5306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
And for what it's worth, the delightful and clear simplicity of your belief that since 33, the eucharist has always and only been presided over by males is highly suspect from an historical perspective. There is another Dead Horse about this somewhere. Suffice it to say that the history of who did what in the early church is murky, fuzzy, and largely conjectural -- contrary to what generations of sincere RC and AC priests have taught. Moreover, it is fairly clear the early church accepted both female deacons and female apostles (=bishops in this context), apparently altering one of Paul's letters to conceal the latter fact when it became uncomfortable -- you will find the matter explained on that Horse.
I can't seem to find that discussion. Could someone kindly point me to it?
I do have to agree, though. Throughout the Gospels and the Epistles are scattered the names of many different women. For the last year, I have been trying to research this subject as thoroughly as I can, and, for me, one major "aha" moment came when I sat down and made a roll of all the women mentioned in the New Testament. There was Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha, Joanna, Salome, the four daughters of Philip, Lydia, Dorcas, Junia, Phoebe, Priscilla, Tryphaena, Euodia, Syntyche, Nympha, Chloe, the chosen lady of the third letter of John, and many others. Some sat at the feet of Jesus and listened to his teachings. Some supported Jesus financially during his ministry. Some were the first witnesses to the risen Christ. Some were prophets, some were teachers, at least one was an apostle. Some had churches in their homes. Some were businesswomen who aided the apostles. Some contended alongside Paul for the faith, and I'm sure there are many others whose stories we will not know until heaven.
The point of all that is that the story of the early church is a story of men and women working together to further the gospel, and of men and women as full participants in the work of the Holy Spirit. Sadly, at least in my experience, it seems that the work of the women has been downplayed, ignored, or deliberately obscured, depriving many of some great examples of faith.
Posts: 34 | From: Mr. Jefferson's University | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_grip
Apprentice
# 7831
|
Posted
Let's back up here a second:
quote:
What do you mean by "the order that God established"? What order has God established? How do you know about it?
i know about it from Scripture - from Genesis 1 & 2 all the way up through Paul's explanations of the created order through the explanations of the headship of Christ reflected in the headship of man (male).
God has structured creation in such a way that we all fulfill different roles but to the same end. It's like different instruments all participating in a chorus of praise - but the trumpet doesn't try to be the violin, nor the oboe the cello.
quote:
Somehow or other along the way I got the impression that we are all equal before God. Have I been wrong all this time?
Not at all. i've said it multiple times in this thread and i'll say it again - created order is not about not being equal or a hierarchy or some sort of higher worth above others. This isn't about equality, rights, or anything of that sort. To illustrate, is a priest better than a lay person? Is someone who has gifts to teach better than those that have gifts of service, or vice versa? Your logic is headed in that direction. No man is better than any woman, and vice versa. No priest, no lay person, no monk, no nun, no anyone is better than another.
Reading the account of creation, we see that things get more complex and move "up" (not better) an order. Guess what was created last? Woman! As it has been said in other venues, woman is creation's "crowning jewel." This is not mysoginy, belittling of women, or anything of the sort. If anything, woman is mankind's most sacred member - it is she that is the bearer of our humanity and indeed was the bearer of our salvation.
Such an order does, however, dictate to everyone a place in the symphony of praise to God. As Paul says, everyone fits differently in the body of Christ, but it does not make anyone "better" or anything like that. Rather, we all submit to God's authority through His structure of creation - and this includes men submitting to women and women to men in all their different roles.
quote:
There was Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha, Joanna, Salome, the four daughters of Philip, Lydia, Dorcas, Junia, Phoebe, Priscilla, Tryphaena, Euodia, Syntyche, Nympha, Chloe, the chosen lady of the third letter of John, and many others.
Quite right, and i can list hundreds since their time. Many wonderful works of Christian understanding have been composed by women - one of my current favorites is Evelyn Underhill. Which inevitably leads to:
quote:
The point of all that is that the story of the early church is a story of men and women working together to further the gospel, and of men and women as full participants in the work of the Holy Spirit.
Exactly! But that is outside the context of this discussion.
quote:
Sadly, at least in my experience, it seems that the work of the women has been downplayed, ignored, or deliberately obscured, depriving many of some great examples of faith.
If we want to discuss people in the Church, either past or present, who have put down women, then i'm game. i would never condone such evils. That is, however, separate from the discussion of the ordination of women. i believe in the Scriptures and the voice of the Church throughout the ages when it speaks regarding this, and that's why i stand fast on it. As josephine mentioned, were the Church to come back together and affirm such a decision, then i would submit to its authority in the matter. At the same time, i cannot simply bend the knee to the modern thought that influxes into some parts of the Church that suddenly gives birth to a rather significant change apart from Church authority and tradition.
[ 17. July 2004, 04:10: Message edited by: the_grip ]
Posts: 48 | From: Dallas, TX, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd (The Ship's Boatboy):
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd (The Ship's Boatboy):
If they have a reason not to have women priests then we have a reason not to have women priests!
Very poor logic. If we have a reason to have female priests, then don't they have a reason to have female priests? Why should we take our marching orders from the Romans or the Orthodox?
Because we originally came from them and they are almost the original christains (probably the Orthodox are closest to the early christians I think)
Yeah - I agree with the above post too! Unity would be great!
-103
I take it you therefore disapprove of married clergy as well? Based on what you said above, you ought for that matter to realize that your own vicar is, by your preferred standard, not a priest. Your preference for following Rome rather than Canterbury suggests to me you need to consider letting your body follow your spirit across the Tiber. Alternatively, of course, you could actually start examining the subject rather than just taking your rector's word for it and refusing to listen to anyone else. Most of us at least go through the motions of trying to understand positions other than our own. Sometimes we even change our minds. Watch out -- it could happen to you.
I really think it is time you got a grip, 103. Having an opinion isn't supposed to mean you scream "nyah, nyah, nyah" at other people who suggest you re-examine your logic.
And for what it's worth, the delightful and clear simplicity of your belief that since 33, the eucharist has always and only been presided over by males is highly suspect from an historical perspective. There is another Dead Horse about this somewhere. Suffice it to say that the history of who did what in the early church is murky, fuzzy, and largely conjectural -- contrary to what generations of sincere RC and AC priests have taught. Moreover, it is fairly clear the early church accepted both female deacons and female apostles (=bishops in this context), apparently altering one of Paul's letters to conceal the latter fact when it became uncomfortable -- you will find the matter explained on that Horse.
John
I would love to join the other side, but at the moment it's not quite as simple
I'd rather not talk about that at the moment.
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
Oh, going onto a tangent about that comment made about married priests.
Some rites of the Roman Catholic Church have married priests: Anglican Rite and Byzantine Rite being two of them.
None of them have women priests!
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_grip:
Disagreeing with the ordination of women is not about making authority come from males - authority comes from God.
Ultimately of course. But the classical Anglican position, which I shouldn't have to belabour here, as articulated by the Blessed Richard Hooker, is that authority derives from Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. Using our God-given Reason to interpret Tradition and Scripture has been a hallmark of Anglican theology and practice ever since the days of Archibishop Cranmer.
quote:
Was the same Holy Ghost leading back then, or was He just too old fashioned?
There are a number of possible ways to see this. One (shocking!) is that the Holy Ghost changed His Holy Mind.
Another is that the Holy Ghost was pro-ladies-in-orders all along and the Church just had it's head too far up it's own arse to realise it til now.
Then we get to this rather specious argument:
quote:
i'll kindly ask you to point out where exactly this happened in history prior to the 20th century.
Which the 103rd also makes
quote:
Another thing - Mass has been celebrated by a male only priesthood since approx AD 33.
Generally when people say "it's never been done like this before" what they really mean is "I don't like it." But it sounds silly to just say "ick, I don't like it" so they try to dress it up with the authority of persistence.
I know all about this. Please see my very pompous pronouncements elsewhere about "modern" language and the abomination of "and also with you."
One more, and this is a real gem:
quote:
the 103rd reminds us
Look here - The Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church does not ordain women.
Well good for them! If I thought that the Roman Catholic and/or the Orthodox Church had a monopoly on the Holy Ghost or the Truth I would...
...wait for it...
become a Roman Catholic or Orthodox!
But since I am NOT a Roman Catholic, nor Orthodox, it is irrelevant to me what they do.
It seems to me when you come to believe (as, say John Henry Newman did) that the Holy Church of England (or the Holy Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America) has got it wrong, and the Church of Rome or the Orthodox Churches have got it right, then the thing to do with integrity would be to become a communicant member of the church you think is right.
Because I am content to remain in communion with the See of Canterbury I cannot (with integrity) feel that the Church has "got it wrong." Whether or not I like lady priests, I have to reconcile myself to the fact that the Holy Church of which I am a member ordains women to the priesthood (and the episcopacy. Shock! Horror!).
If I cannot reconcile myself to that then I have no choice but to admit that I believe that the Holy Ghost has gone out of the Church, the Church has fallen into error and is no longer the Body of Christ and I need to become a communicant member elsewhere.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_grip
Apprentice
# 7831
|
Posted
quote:
Generally when people say "it's never been done like this before" what they really mean is "I don't like it." But it sounds silly to just say "ick, I don't like it" so they try to dress it up with the authority of persistence.
Some folks might do this, and i don't deny that. This is not at all what i am saying, however. i think because some people prefer to ordain women in certain areas of the church does not give that act validity nor authority without the backing of the entire church. i've nothing against the ordination of women if it could be shown to be correct. i mistrust our personal desires when they run contrary to what has been upheld for centuries.
Thusly,
quote:
authority derives from Scripture, Tradition, and Reason
all of which speak differently to affirmation of the ordination of women on this matter as i see it.
Posts: 48 | From: Dallas, TX, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_grip:
all of which speak differently to affirmation of the ordination of women on this matter as i see it.
But not, it seems, as the bishops see it.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
As St John Chrysostom said: There are just some things that women can't do!
And of Course, there are some things that men can't do!
Also - don't you think that the church just wasn't ready for women priesthood? If it was a really good thing, prehaps it wouldn't need a thread that goes on for 9 pages in Dead Horses and prehaps it wouldn't need to have opposition from FiF! It's caused countless splits between people and even churches when the anglican communion allowed women priests!
Think about it - would Jesus really want us all fighting over women priests just because somebody thought it would be a good idea. We should've just kept it how it was and let the church run it's own course.
If it hadn't have been for women priests, we may have had unity with the Roman Catholic Church - don't you agree that unity would've been better than splitting?
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd (The Ship's Boatboy):
As St John Chrysostom said: There are just some things that women can't do!
Maybe St John Chrysostrom was thinking of peeing standing up.
Because it certainly seems that women can do this.
quote:
Also - don't you think that the church just wasn't ready for women priesthood?
No, I think some people in the church just weren't ready. I expect The BVM wasn't ready to give birth to Divinity either, but she acquiesced.
quote:
If it was a really good thing, prehaps it wouldn't need a thread that goes on for 9 pages
That doesn't follow. Buried in the depths of limbo there is a FOURTEEN page thread on GIN , which we all know is one of the excellencies of creation.
quote:
Think about it - would Jesus really want us all fighting over women priests
No, I don't think that He would. I think he would want us to grow up and stop moaning.
It's not like the Church took the maniples away from all the men. If you don't like ladies-in-orders, just make sure you confine your worship life to a parish wherein all the priests have penises and the problem is sorted.
I managed to worship as a member of a Diocese with a lady bishop and I don't think it's brought eternal damnation upon me.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd (The Ship's Boatboy):
As St John Chrysostom said: There are just some things that women can't do!
And of Course, there are some things that men can't do!
What are the things that men can't do in the church? I ask because this comes back to my much-reiterated point that some would have the church require sacrifices of women and gays that it doesn't require of straight men.
quote:
Originally posted by me:
What do you mean by "the order that God established"? What order has God established? How do you know about it?
quote:
Originally posted by the_grip:
i know about it from Scripture - from Genesis 1 & 2 all the way up through Paul's explanations of the created order through the explanations of the headship of Christ reflected in the headship of man (male).
<snip>
i've said it multiple times in this thread and i'll say it again - created order is not about not being equal or a hierarchy or some sort of higher worth above others. This isn't about equality, rights, or anything of that sort. To illustrate, is a priest better than a lay person? Is someone who has gifts to teach better than those that have gifts of service, or vice versa? Your logic is headed in that direction. No man is better than any woman, and vice versa. No priest, no lay person, no monk, no nun, no anyone is better than another.
Reading the account of creation, we see that things get more complex and move "up" (not better) an order. Guess what was created last? Woman! As it has been said in other venues, woman is creation's "crowning jewel." This is not mysoginy, belittling of women, or anything of the sort. If anything, woman is mankind's most sacred member - it is she that is the bearer of our humanity and indeed was the bearer of our salvation.
That's if you only read the second account of creation, and if you assume that the point of the second story is the establishment of order. The other account of creation simply says that "God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." They are together instructed to be fruitful and to subdue the earth, but nothing is said of there being separate roles for men and women.
The second account of creation, the one with woman being created from man's rib, says nothing at that point about there being any order established when woman is created. The explicit point is this: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and the two become one flesh." The line "he shall be your master" only comes after the fall, and there is no particular reason to read this as a commandment rather than a prediction.
Finally, I don't buy your symphonic metaphor of different roles for men and women not implying any hierarchy. Culturally prescribed roles determined by one's sex are so closely tied to making women second-class citizens that it's laughable that you think "separate but equal" works any better with regard to roles for men and women than it did with schools for white people and black people. How many examples can you cite of religions or cultures that have prescribed very separate roles for men and women that have not made women second-class in one way or another?
quote:
quote:
The point of all that is that the story of the early church is a story of men and women working together to further the gospel, and of men and women as full participants in the work of the Holy Spirit.
Exactly! But that is outside the context of this discussion.
No, it is very relevant to this discussion. Women and men all being full participants in the work of the Holy Spirit is exactly what we're talking about here. IMO, the church got off on the right foot, but somehow went wrong later. The church should have continued as it began; throughout the centuries it should have gone against the cultural norms that almost always put men in charge of everything. It should have been way ahead of the curve on this, not lagging behind, only waking up to its failure to treat women as the beloved children of God we are after secular feminism pointed out the oppression promulgated by narrow, culturally prescribed roles for women.
quote:
If we want to discuss people in the Church, either past or present, who have put down women, then i'm game. i would never condone such evils. That is, however, separate from the discussion of the ordination of women.
No, it is the very heart of the discussion. One of the ways the church has put down women has been to deny their ministries, their calling by God. You do condone such evils.
quote:
i believe in the Scriptures and the voice of the Church throughout the ages when it speaks regarding this, and that's why i stand fast on it. As josephine mentioned, were the Church to come back together and affirm such a decision, then i would submit to its authority in the matter. At the same time, i cannot simply bend the knee to the modern thought that influxes into some parts of the Church that suddenly gives birth to a rather significant change apart from Church authority and tradition.
As Hooker's Trick has quite ably shown, this significant change has been accomplished well within the church's authority. And believe it or not, I have a high regard for tradition. Look at the root of the word - tradition is what is handed on. We are responsible for it, and we are responsible to the people who come after us. If we hand on the continued pigeon-holing of women into certain roles that we know are not God-given, we sin against future generations of Christians, just as earlier generations in the church sinned against us in handing on to us a tradition laced through with racial hatred.
If the Orthodox want to wait until the church is reunified to convene a council that would consider the question of women's ordination, that is their business. I am not willing to wait. The western and eastern churches have been in schism for 1000 years, and the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church have been in schism for over 450 years. It is no blasphemy to say God only knows how long it will be before these divisions are healed. In the meantime, there is no reason for the Anglican Communion to refuse to go where the Holy Spirit seems to be leading us.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
[QB] quote:
Originally posted by The103rd (The Ship's Boatboy):
As St John Chrysostom said: There are just some things that women can't do!
And of Course, there are some things that men can't do!
What are the things that men can't do in the church? I ask because this comes back to my much-reiterated point that some would have the church require sacrifices of women and gays that it doesn't require of straight men.
Well, I'm not allowed to be Mother Superior of the convent
I also can't sing a wonderful soprano solo during the communion!
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
NO
Shipmate
# 5477
|
Posted
[musicianly intervention]
The Gabrieli Consort and Players (with their director Paul McCreesh) have recorded several CDs reconstructing various masses from 16th and 17th Century Venice, and they make use of some very impressive male singers who can only be said to be sopranos. They are not castrati, more countertenors with an extended high range, and to hear them soaring up to a top G in a piece of early Venetian solo music is to hear your point about vocal solos disproved, 103. A few years of vocal training and you might be able to contradict yourself!
[/musicianly intervention]
I'll leave others to deconstruct the rest of your arguments.
Posts: 1250 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Norman the Organ:
[musicianly intervention]
The Gabrieli Consort and Players (with their director Paul McCreesh) have recorded several CDs reconstructing various masses from 16th and 17th Century Venice, and they make use of some very impressive male singers who can only be said to be sopranos. They are not castrati, more countertenors with an extended high range, and to hear them soaring up to a top G in a piece of early Venetian solo music is to hear your point about vocal solos disproved, 103. A few years of vocal training and you might be able to contradict yourself!
[/musicianly intervention]
I'll leave others to deconstruct the rest of your arguments.
Erm.. yeah. Problem is that I'm a bass at the moment, going onto Baritone (almost)
I used to sing treble when I was younger.
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd (The Ship's Boatboy):
I'm not allowed to be Mother Superior of the convent
I also can't sing a wonderful soprano solo during the communion!
You are not forbidden from being an abbott nor from singing in church, providing that you have the gifts and skills required. There is nothing men are not allowed to do which is comparable or on the level with women not being ordained.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd (The Ship's Boatboy):
I'm not allowed to be Mother Superior of the convent
I also can't sing a wonderful soprano solo during the communion!
You are not forbidden from being an abbott nor from singing in church, providing that you have the gifts and skills required. There is nothing men are not allowed to do which is comparable or on the level with women not being ordained.
Abbots have to be priests don't they? Mother Superiors don't (and can't)
And they also get to wear a habit which a monk doesn't wear!
-103
[ 18. July 2004, 00:20: Message edited by: The103rd (The Ship's Boatboy) ]
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erina
Apprentice
# 5306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd (The Ship's Boatboy):
Abbots have to be priests don't they? Mother Superiors don't (and can't)
And they also get to wear a habit which a monk doesn't wear!
Are you seriously saying that being able to wear a habit makes up for not being able to be ordained?
Posts: 34 | From: Mr. Jefferson's University | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
103rd, I'm starting to think you're just being obstreperous now. Yes, there are requirements for being an abbott, and you're not going to be allowed to sing a solo if you don't sing well. There are all sorts of requirements for all sorts of positions and jobs in the church.
The point is that there is nothing that men are forbidden from doing - singing solos, taking holy orders, being ordained, whatever - just because they are men. But you and others are trying to argue that there is at least one thing women shouldn't or can't do just because they are women.
To the best of my knowledge, the leader of a men's monastery is almost certainly going to be a priest as well as a monk. If we do things your way, the leader of a women's monastery would not be allowed to be a priest as well as a nun.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The103rd (The Ship's Boatboy):
If it hadn't have been for women priests, we may have had unity with the Roman Catholic Church
103 -- if you really believe that, then in the US jargon, I have a bridge to sell you.
You really must not be misled into thinking that issues like the ordination of women are what separates Rome and Canterbury. There are major theological differences, at least as wide as those between Rome and Constantinople. And offical Rome has not the slightest interest in unity with the Anglican Communion, except on its own terms. And that is called "surrender" not unity.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
If I might be permitted to thrown in a few minor observations. First, women can -- and in the middle ages were, albeit rarely -- collated to abbeys of (male) monks. Abbeys/abbotships are offices which can be assigned to the unordained and there were a few instances of German abbeys being handed on to minor royals--in at least one case to a married princess-- so that their temporalities could be managed from within the royal house.
Even to the 1820s, unordained abbots were collated/enthroned in RC circles, often held in plurality with cardinalatial or curial dignities (and cardinals were sometimes not ordained at all!! or just to the diaconate as late as the reign of St Pius X). In Anglican circles, Aelred Carlyle was enthroned as Abbot of Caldey in 1911 while but a deacon of the Diocese of Fond du Lac.
O. And abbots wear habits. Or should, at any rate.
I fear that I must agree with John Holding in that any real prospects for Anglican/RC unity were always very slim indeed-- I think that they died entirely when Michael Ramsay left office-- the reasons I think are more historical and political than theological, but they have always been overwhelming.
The priesting of women has only given another string to the bow of RCs determined not to recognize Anglican orders, especially as their already tenuous reasoning was weakening in the wake of the spreading tentacles of the Dutch touch and the revision of Anglican ordinals. However, the key is an assimilationist and culturally anti-Anglican attitude on the part of most English-speaking RC clerics. If you seek proof of this, all one has to do is look at the travails of the few US parishes of the Anglican Use, with no prospect of new clergy aside from possible future converts and no security from unsympathetic bishops. Indeed, attempts to establish the Anglican Use in Los Angeles and other places have been denied and No. Provision. Whatsoever. has ever been made in England, Canada or Australia for the Anglican Use.
Like it or lump it, and I lump it, the RCs are not interested in Anglicanism as a phenomenon within their communion.
As a further aside, Canadian RC leaders have not made any hay at all on account of Anglican divisions/ departures over the priesting of women in the quarter-century since. At least two Anglican priests of my acquaintance were told when they made initial enquiries that, if their wish to cross the Tiber was predicated on opposition to women priests, they should forget it. It was not an important issue, they were told, and the decision might well come through a pope or two down the line. One recounted that the Latin-rite bishop he met gave indications of his own sympathy to the priesting of women.
As one of the very few Canadian holdouts on the question (for canonical and ecclesiological, not essential or theological reasons), I can assure you that my isolation is almost total, and my RC friends are more puzzled and less tolerant than my Anglican ones. And my objections almost totally disappeared when, for a few weeks, it looked possible that Victoria Mathews of Edmonton might get the primacy (cancer and necessary therapy prevented it), as she was clearly the most apostolic and catholic (and capable) of the contenders. Are we to reject apostolic and catholic leadership because of a few chromosomes???
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Thanks very much for the side discussion of laypeople being made abbotts, Augustine - it's quite fascinating.
Might I inquire, what are your canonical and ecclesiological reasons for holding out on this issue? I'm very curious, as this -
quote:
Are we to reject apostolic and catholic leadership because of a few chromosomes???
- made me renew my wish for a standing up and cheering smiley.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
RuthW-- to answer your question. I agree with ++Michael Ramsay on what he called the radical provisionality of Anglicanism. To mix the metaphor further, we were cast on to a self-managing sea by dynastic politics and the upheavals of the reformation period. Our mandate was simply to keep things going, matins, vespers and mass said until it could all get straightened out again. With this reasoning, we could tidy up abuses, using as a touchstone apostolic and sub-apostolic practice, as much as could be done. Which meant that simplification of the liturgy, return to the vernacular, involvement of the laity, marriage of clergy etc etc, was all kosher.
However, major changes such as could not be found in the nigh-universal practice of the early church were out of our jurisdiction-- our responsibilities were purely functional. Like it or not, priesting women was one of those areas, as would be the abolition of the diaconate (recently proposed, and rejected in ECUSA).
A parallel might be to imagine the Township of Osnabruck being set into another dimension and required to operate without being able to contact the Province of Ontario or the Federal Government. Schools would be kept running, the clinic maintained, the roads kept up, and so forth. It would not be to the Township Council to re-write the Charter of Rights because they thought it could be improved.
I cannot see how national synods have any jurisdiction to allow the priesting of women and most arguments to the contrary (that I've heard-- there may be others out there) betray a misunderstanding of canonical competence or (eek) suggest an astonishing degree of arrogance.
I believe that our canonical limitations did not permit the licitness of the priesting (and inevitable bishoping) of women. BUT---This does not affect the validity of such ordinations in any way. The rite of ordination, with the intent to do what the church has always done, makes the recipient a priest. That their teaching is orthodox and their behaviour godly is pertinent, their gender and other characteristics are not.
While much of the reasoning for the change was flawed (and sometimes ludicrous), it is clear to any observer that economia justified it if, for no other reason, there are circumstances where male priests had no or limited access, or their presence was unacceptable (such as to women who had suffered abuse), and only women priests could ensure that sacraments of the Mass and of absolution could be delivered.
Almost everyone I know outside the canon law profession or the bureaucracy believes my reasoning to be tortured. I have thought about it and discussed it for several years-- I still think that it holds water.
To my fellow spikes, including 103d, there is no question but that a woman, such as the Bishop of Edmonton, with strong orthodox beliefs and apostolic principles, would have served us and everybody else far better than a theologically imprecise and fuzzy (male) Archbishop of Montréal.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_grip
Apprentice
# 7831
|
Posted
quote:
That's if you only read the second account of creation, and if you assume that the point of the second story is the establishment of order. The other account of creation simply says that "God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." They are together instructed to be fruitful and to subdue the earth, but nothing is said of there being separate roles for men and women.
So the second is to be read in favor of the first or to read that it somehow contradicts it? i think the point of the second account of creation is not the abolishment of order but a "zoomed-in" account (if you will) of the creation of man and woman. Interestingly enough, the second account would be more offensive to women (at least as it would seem), as woman is created as a "helper" for man and is described as "taken out of man".
quote:
The explicit point is this: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and the two become one flesh." The line "he shall be your master" only comes after the fall, and there is no particular reason to read this as a commandment rather than a prediction.
The "two become one flesh" doesn't abolish some sort of created order either. Rather, men and women are not to be separate but find their fulfillment joined together. Regardsing the last point about master, you could also read it as a curse that men would dominate women sinfully. That man and woman would strive against one another because they began to view their differences in creation as giving value to one over the other.
The cure to the abuse of women is the restoration of right order and perspective, not the abolishment of it.
quote:
Culturally prescribed roles determined by one's sex are so closely tied to making women second-class citizens
Here we go again - you keep trying to tie this to the abuse or oppression of women. The two are miles apart - we might as well bring up racism when we are talking about Noah and the ark.
Maybe another illustration will help - does the existence of rape in the world nullify all sex? You keep twisting the argument to point at women's rights - this has nothing to do with rights. i might as well get pissed because as a man i can't get pregnant.
The right for women's suffrage, equal pay in the work place, and all such good things are commendable and wonderful - but they don't apply here. Again, this is not a symbol of worth - this is a symbol of worship, of how creation relates to itself, how creation relates to God, and how God relates to Himself.
quote:
that it's laughable that you think "separate but equal" works any better with regard to roles for men and women than it did with schools for white people and black people.
i'm glad this is laughable to you, but i don't see any correlation with racism, the oppresion of women, and this discussion. i know where you're coming from as i myself used to think women should be priests so i'm not missing what you're saying. However, i have come to see that this is an issue much deeper than the shallow sins committed by those who would abuse it.
quote:
How many examples can you cite of religions or cultures that have prescribed very separate roles for men and women that have not made women second-class in one way or another?
Let's see - all of Christendom? How is one supposed to answer this? We definitely see where mankind has abused their place in creation and indeed in the gender's place in it. Does it inviolate the whole thing simply because some have committed evil by it?
quote:
Women and men all being full participants in the work of the Holy Spirit is exactly what we're talking about here.
No it's not at all. Using your reasoning, you're assuming that priests somehow are more of a participant in the work of the Holy Spirit than lay people are.
quote:
IMO, the church got off on the right foot, but somehow went wrong later.
Can you cite where it was on the right foot? Can you show the condition it was in and the condition it somehow switched to later? Where did this turn occur? Has the Holy Spirit been absent for 2000 years?
quote:
It should have been way ahead of the curve on this, not lagging behind, only waking up to its failure to treat women as the beloved children of God we are after secular feminism pointed out the oppression promulgated by narrow, culturally prescribed roles for women.
You're somehow equating that equal pay in the workplace, women's suffrage, the right treatment of women, etc. somehow meant that the church has never treated women as "the beloved children of God" until now. i think you're letting "secular feminism" speak to you over "right reason." The tenets of the church have always upheld women. Nowhere in the church's claims have you ever found a proclaimation that women are inferior to men before God.
quote:
One of the ways the church has put down women has been to deny their ministries, their calling by God. You do condone such evils.
This is where i'm seeing more fully the narrow-mindedness of your argument. i'm lumped in with those who want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen only because i say that place in God's order doesn't indicate value over another's place. Hum.
The world will tell you that place does indicate worth, that a man/woman can rise to more value than another - and you're listening to it quite well.
quote:
tradition is what is handed on
Quite right - does this mean that we change it at will or according to our own personal views?
quote:
If we hand on the continued pigeon-holing of women into certain roles that we know are not God-given, we sin against future generations of Christians, just as earlier generations in the church sinned against us in handing on to us a tradition laced through with racial hatred.
Racial hatred? Please show me where the church's tradition upholds racial hatred. Much of our tradition is from ancient liturgies preserved in the Book of Common prayer - does it say somewhere in the BCP that we should hate someone because of race? Where? Can you find one church father that the church commends who would show such a position? Where is this in scripture or in the testimony of the church throughout history? You're putting up a puppet here - certainly there are those who have abused their positions by trying to claim religious doctrine to back it up, but this has never inviolated church tradition.
quote:
I am not willing to wait... there is no reason the Anglican Communion to refuse to go where the Holy Spirit seems to be leading us.
i seem to have missed impatience and disunity as being fruits of the Spirit.
Posts: 48 | From: Dallas, TX, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
