|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Women's Ordination, Pastor vs. Priest
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
So the thread on WO in purgatory got me thinking, what if the CofE and Anglicanism at large had from the very beginning gone with a more clearly Protestant understanding of church ministry where the principle role of the minister is not the sacrifice of the Mass (priest), but rather preaching of the word and shepherding of the flock (pastor)? Would this have made women's ordination less controversial in Anglicanism? Would it have happened earlier?
To me, if one has a protestant, low church understanding of church ministry, there's no real convincing theological reason to deny ordination of women. It's much harder (and I think, impossible) to reconcile it with a catholic (even a small-c) understanding.
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
...what if the CofE and Anglicanism at large had from the very beginning gone with a more clearly Protestant understanding of church ministry where the principle role of the minister is not the sacrifice of the Mass (priest), but rather preaching of the word and shepherding of the flock (pastor)?
It did. No-one much claimed otherwise from about 1640 to 1840. Some wished that it was otherwise (George Herbert?), but did not pretend that it was.
Almost all 16th, 17th, & 18th century Anglican writers would have been quite clear that "priest" was but "presbyter" write small. An elder of the congregation, not a sacrificing mediator.
[ 10. July 2012, 18:26: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
It did. No-one much claimed otherwise from about 1640 to 1840. Some wished that it was otherwise (George Herbert?), but did not pretend that it was.
Hmm ok, so what if the Oxford Movement never happened, would womens ordination have happened sooner with less controversy? For example, IIRC some Methodists denominations that later formed part of the UMC were ordaining women in the late 19th Century.
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
There would probably have been a low church faction that would have disagreed on 'headship' grounds like elements of Reform do today.
It is untrue to claim that a more 'catholic' understanding of ministry only emerged with the Oxford movement, or during the time of Laud.
The Oxford fathers claimed descent from the High Church seam that has always been present since the Reformation. This movement would not have used phrases such as 'sacrifice of the Mass', but certainly held a high view of ministry and the sacraments. A notable figure was Dr Routh, the President of Magdalen College, Oxford. The young Newman frequenty went to consult this venerable patristic scholar. Indeed it was Routh who suggested the Scottish episcopate to ensure the succession for America. There are other similar examples of high church clergy (not just in the snese of church and state) throughout the 18th century and into the 19th.
It IS possible to hold a catholic understanding of the priesthood and support the ordination of women. If the priest is the icon of Christ, and Christ is the Word made Flesh, the importance of gender, it may be argued, is insignificant. The importance lies in the Word becoming Human. This would be part of the position taken by the Society of Catholic Priests - a sacerdotal society of both women and men, having Rowan Williams as their patron.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
It IS possible to hold a catholic understanding of the priesthood and support the ordination of women. If the priest is the icon of Christ, and Christ is the Word made Flesh, the importance of gender, it may be argued, is insignificant. The importance lies in the Word becoming Human.
This whole discussion seems premised on the rather dubious notion that opposition to women acting as clergy is based on some high-flown scriptural and philosophical principle instead of fairly commonplace misogyny. See, for example,this blog post citing some Reformation-era Protestants on the idea of women holding any positions of leadership, let alone within the church.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
It IS possible to hold a catholic understanding of the priesthood and support the ordination of women. If the priest is the icon of Christ, and Christ is the Word made Flesh, the importance of gender, it may be argued, is insignificant. The importance lies in the Word becoming Human.
This whole discussion seems premised on the rather dubious notion that opposition to women acting as clergy is based on some high-flown scriptural and philosophical principle instead of fairly commonplace misogyny. See, for example,this blog post citing some Reformation-era Protestants on the idea of women holding any positions of leadership, let alone within the church.
I couldn't care less what you think about this topic. It was directed at other Christians, especially Anglicans.
[ 11. July 2012, 02:48: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Dude, you are just asking for a roasting in hell. In fact, I may start one momentarily.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
It IS possible to hold a catholic understanding of the priesthood and support the ordination of women. If the priest is the icon of Christ, and Christ is the Word made Flesh, the importance of gender, it may be argued, is insignificant. The importance lies in the Word becoming Human.
This whole discussion seems premised on the rather dubious notion that opposition to women acting as clergy is based on some high-flown scriptural and philosophical principle instead of fairly commonplace misogyny. See, for example,this blog post citing some Reformation-era Protestants on the idea of women holding any positions of leadership, let alone within the church.
I couldn't care less what you think about this topic. It was directed at other Christians, especially Anglicans.
Crœsos has a point.
The arguments against women's ordination, from scripture and from Catholic tradition are as strong as ever they were. The importance of the Bible in Anglican spirituality has not dramatically declined in the last century, and the importance of Catholc tradition has likely increased. And yet within a generation of civil society making a serious effort to organise itself on the basis that men and women are equal, the support that the arguments for and against ordination enjoy have basically been reversed.
That's not to say that everyone who opposes ordination of women is a misogynist. But it seems quite obvious that theological reasons opposing this are strong enough to command widespread assent in a sexist society, but unable to do so in an increasingly non-sexist one. It is not surprising that a Christian who believes men and women to be essentially equal in importance, worth, dignity and ability needs a much better reason for saying that a woman cannot be a priest than he would if he were used to treating women as second class citizens. For most Anglicans, the arguments against, no weaker in themselves but deprived of the support of a sexist culture, were simply not good enough.
I don't think Crœsos has proved that the theological arguments are irrelevant, or that they are not an important factor, or even the sole factor, for many individual Christians, but the contention that is was the erosion of sexism, rather than any significant shift in the strength of the theological arguments, that decided the issue for Anglicans would be a hard one to refute.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
All I know is the more an extreme view is exposed the more I'm polarized the other way. The extremism in question was some Synod member on the BBC over the weekend concerned that only a man can administer the sacraments. How far we have come from the simplicity of Christ.
As even conservatives are acknowledging the Apostle Junia and the roles of Tabitha, Priscilla (the probable author of Hebrews), Phoebe, Chloe, Apphia, Nympha, I find myself losing yet another pair of scales from my eyes.
And please forgive me my sexist decades.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
So the thread on WO in purgatory got me thinking, what if the CofE and Anglicanism at large had from the very beginning gone with a more clearly Protestant understanding of church ministry where the principle role of the minister is not the sacrifice of the Mass (priest), but rather preaching of the word and shepherding of the flock (pastor)?
That's a misunderstanding of much Protestant theology. In Presbyterian and their associated United Churches, the full form of "minister" is "Minister of Word and Sacrament". The title is very clear, the Sacrament is just as important as the Word. In fact the tradition of taking the Lord's Supper quarterly stems from the fact that three months was seen as the minimum personal preparation time and reflection on the Word required for such a serious thing as partaking of the Lord's Supper. Before partaking you would be visited by an Elder who would recommend (or not) that you might partake at the next Communion service at a meeting of the Session.
It may be Protestant, but there is an incredible amount of theology behind it and it comes very close to some Catholic practices and even Orthodox ones, closer than those last two would like to admit.
You want your High Kirk, I've got your High Kirk right here.... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
