Church of England backs women bishops

[Novocastrian]

Unbelievably clueless arguments like this do little to persuade dissenters that the traditional position is true.

I was convinced of the orthodoxy of the ordination of women not by its proponents (who, in my area, were largely unorthodox themselves) but by the lack of theologically rigorous, coherent, orthodox arguments against the ordination of women. It became a non-issue.

 

[SteveVH]

I was convinced of the orthodoxy of the ordination of women not by its proponents (who, in my area, were largely unorthodox themselves) but by the lack of theologically rigorous, coherent, orthodox arguments against the ordination of women. It became a non-issue.

Have you read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? Do you think that a philosopher and theologian like St. Pope John Paul, II might have some insight or is he just going along with the good ole’ boys club?

 

[KP3243]

(1) I’m curious about your exorcism stats. Based on my imperfect memory of the Gospels, I’d say that the Biblical evidence re: exorcism, at least as encountered by Christ and the early Church, shows more men requiring exorcism than women.

(2) This argument here represents one of the major red-lights for me when it comes to the non-ordination of women. A traditional position is so often defended by completely un-traditional, ad hoc arguments. I’m not convinced that that’s good theological method.

Father Gabriel Amorth is the head Exorcist in Rome. He has a book.
freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1260364/posts

 

[Novocastrian]

Because Jesus didn’t tell us we could, it’s His Church not ours.

I agree. The Church has a divine constitution. And *nowhere *do we have Christ telling his Church that women cannot be ordained. Sure, he picked only men to be apostles. But he also picked only Jews. We ordain Gentiles; why not women, etc.

I’m not saying you can’t make a more sophisticated argument that this, but you appear to be choosing not to.

 

[Elizium23]

For goodness sake, actually defend these assertions!

In particular:

• How are physical fatherhood and the priesthood intrinsically linked?
• How are physical motherhood and the Church intrinsically linked?
• If both are true, yet men can be members of the Church, why can’t it also be the case that women can be members of the priesthood? There seems an obvious equivalence here.

Call No Man “Father”?
The Priest as Spiritual Father
‘Many Are Called’ to Spiritual Fatherhood

Mulieris Dignitatem

 

[SteveVH]

Physical fatherhood and the priesthood are intrinsically linked. Physical motherhood and the Church are likewise intrinsically linked. They each share qualities which cannot be replicated or exchanged between the sexes. I suggest for anyone who cannot grasp this to undertake a good, reputable study of the Book of Revelation. This misunderstood book is about liturgy, the Church, and marriage. Sure, it’s about the End Times and good and evil, too, but that is but a tiny part of its import. Revelation is a book that’s not just good for predicting the future, but for exploring the present, and the relationship of the faithful to God, the relationship of the Holy Trinity to itself, and by extension, all human relationships, especially that of conjugal love.

The parallel of men trying to become pregnant is a perspicacious one, in light of the onslaught of homosexualism and transgender controversies beseiging the Church and modern technology at the same time. Someday in the future it may be possible for men to become “pregnant”, but that will not make them into women, and will not change the nature of God’s vision of motherhood, any more than attempting to ordain women changes God’s vision of the priesthood.

Thank you for your eloquent explanation.

 

[KP3243]

It was Adam’s job to dress and keep the garden. We can argue over whether שׁמר here means protect. I’d ask, protect from what?

But even so, you’re dodging the theological issues here. Image and sin. Both are icons, both sin, both are redeemed in Christ. The Eden story is unhelpful for your side in this debate.

But Jesus became incarnate as a male not both. You are using an inclusive language Bible.

 

[Novocastrian]

Have you read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? Do you think that a philosopher and theologian like St. Pope John Paul, II might have some insight or is he just going along with the good ole’ boys club?

I have. I don’t think that it’s just a boys’ club. I think he’s mistaken and his arguments are surprisingly weak. As I read it, there are two main arguments:

(1) That Christ only picked male apostles.

(a) This doesn’t necessarily mean that only males could have been chosen. We all accept that, which Christ called only Jews, acting in a free and sovereign manner, etc., it is still legitimate to ordain Gentiles. The late Pope doesn’t offer a theological reason as to one should be an obstacle and the other not so.

(b) There’s a strong argument to be made, though admittedly an historically contingent one, that there is a female apostle in the NT, namely Junia, at Romans 16.7. Textual criticism and knowledge of ancient nomenclature seem to eliminate the ‘Junias’ variant reading; it’s then a question of Greek grammar and whether said Junia is actually described as an apostle.

(2) The unbroken tradition of the Church.

This could be a strong argument, but I don’t think it is.

On the one hand, conservatism in the Church is good, a source of stability, etc. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. But, traditional *practice * as opposed to the Faith handed down through the ages are not identical, as Catholic apologists are wont to remind Protestants. Traditions are not the same as the Tradition; there seems to be a burden of proof on the Roman Church to explain why the non-ordination of women is a necessary Tradition of the Faith, and not a historically-conditioned tradition ecclesiastical.

Secondly, though, as I’ve previously intimated, I find it weak that appeals to traditional practice nowadays tend to avoid the arguments traditionally put forward. If you read the great doctors of the mediaveal church, they will tell you exactly why women are not ordained: because they are weaker, inferior versions of men. I find it hard to accept an appeal to tradition which won’t acknowledge its traditional basis.

 

[Elizium23]

Statement from the Ordinary - Women Bishops

Monsignor Newton of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham says this will be a “very happy day” for Anglicans while scarcely concealing his own joy at the chance to reunite more disillusioned Anglicans with the fullness of Truth. He takes this opportunity to announce the “Called To Be One” initiative whereby the Ordinariate will make itself known and available to all who feel called to the One Church.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I have. I don’t think that it’s just a boys’ club. I think he’s mistaken and his arguments are surprisingly weak. As I read it, there are two main arguments:

(1) That Christ only picked male apostles.

(a) This doesn’t necessarily mean that only males could have been chosen. We all accept that, which Christ called only Jews, acting in a free and sovereign manner, etc., it is still legitimate to ordain Gentiles. The late Pope doesn’t offer a theological reason as to one should be an obstacle and the other not so.

Does the Scriptural record show that Gentiles were ordained to the priesthood?

Does it show that women were ordained to the priesthood?

 

[SteveVH]

I have. I don’t think that it’s just a boys’ club. I think he’s mistaken and his arguments are surprisingly weak. As I read it, there are two main arguments:

(1) That Christ only picked male apostles.

(a) This doesn’t necessarily mean that only males could have been chosen. We all accept that, which Christ called only Jews, acting in a free and sovereign manner, etc., it is still legitimate to ordain Gentiles. The late Pope doesn’t offer a theological reason as to one should be an obstacle and the other not so.

(b) There’s a strong argument to be made, though admittedly an historically contingent one, that there is a female apostle in the NT, namely Junia, at Romans 16.7. Textual criticism and knowledge of ancient nomenclature seem to eliminate the ‘Junias’ variant reading; it’s then a question of Greek grammar and whether said Junia is actually described as an apostle.

(2) The unbroken tradition of the Church.

This could be a strong argument, but I don’t think it is.

On the one hand, conservatism in the Church is good, a source of stability, etc. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. But, traditional *practice * as opposed to the Faith handed down through the ages are not identical, as Catholic apologists are wont to remind Protestants. Traditions are not the same as the Tradition; there seems to be a burden of proof on the Roman Church to explain why the non-ordination of women is a necessary Tradition of the Faith, and not a historically-conditioned tradition ecclesiastical.

Secondly, though, as I’ve previously intimated, I find it weak that appeals to traditional practice nowadays tend to avoid the arguments traditionally put forward. If you read the great doctors of the mediaveal church, they will tell you exactly why women are not ordained: because they are weaker, inferior versions of men. I find it hard to accept an appeal to tradition which won’t acknowledge its traditional basis.

Well, Pope John Paul, II felt so strongly about it that that he made it a doctrine of the Church. I think I’ll stick with his judgment.

 

[Novocastrian]

But Jesus became incarnate as a male not both. You are using an inclusive language Bible.

I’m not at all.

Genesis 1.27:

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ: זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בָּרָא אֹתָם.

And God created the human in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

*Adam *is grammatically masculine but means ‘human’ in an inclusive sense; the exclusive word would be ish, which has the feminine equivalent ishah. The distinction between *adam *and ish is roughly equivalent to that between anthropos and aner in Greek. The former can legitimately be translated inclusively, the latter cannot.

 

[Novocastrian]

Well, Pope John Paul, II felt so strongly about it that that he made it a doctrine of the Church. I think I’ll stick with his judgment.

Feel free to do so. I’m just questioning his grounds.

 

[KP3243]

I agree. The Church has a divine constitution. And *nowhere *do we have Christ telling his Church that women cannot be ordained. Sure, he picked only men to be apostles. But he also picked only Jews. We ordain Gentiles; why not women, etc.

I’m not saying you can’t make a more sophisticated argument that this, but you appear to be choosing not to.

Matthew 18:3

 

[Elizium23]

There is an interesting parallel here between the matter used for the Eucharist and the subjects of ordination (not the matter of that sacrament as is often repeated.)

The matter for the Eucharist is ordinary wheat bread and grape wine. No other substances are acceptable and the Church has made many rulings about the purity and nature of these ingredients. The chief argument here is that Jesus confected the Sacrament at the Last Supper using these ingredients, and the Church has no authority to use anything else.

Likewise, Jesus ordained only men at the Last Supper. In the Apostolic Age, we didn’t have a lot of women jumping up to say they were presbyters or overseers, and so that matter was also seemingly settled in the kernel of Tradition that is unbroken to this day.

It is an interesting parallel to see, since the Priesthood and the Eucharist are so inexorably linked, and both to the Church. It’s also a key theological distinction being made: the Church is not simply unwilling or unlikely to reverse her decisions, the Church is actually unable, has no authority, to change these so-called “policies”. The Church here has knelt down and acknowledged the Sovereignty of Christ in regards to these two manners, and the “door is [now] closed”, as our Holy Father has said.

 

[Novocastrian]

Does the Scriptural record show that Gentiles were ordained to the priesthood?

Yep.

Does it show that women were ordained to the priesthood?

Possible. Cf. Romans 16.7.

That said, it’s the doctrine of the Church of England (following Hooker et al) that Church polity does not require the explicit warrant of Scripture in all matters. Some things (e.g. the ministry itself) is demanded of Scripture; other things (e.g. roles like archdeacon, archbishop, etc.) are adiaphora, which need not be proven from the Scriptures. I’d say that the sex of the ordinand may well be one such adiaphoron.

 

[Novocastrian]

Matthew 18:3

Tell that to the Fathers…

 

[Elizium23]

Tell that to the Fathers…

Are you sure we shouldn’t tell it to the Mothers too?

 

[KP3243]

I’m not at all.

Genesis 1.27:

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ: זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בָּרָא אֹתָם.

And God created the human in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

*Adam *is grammatically masculine but means ‘human’ in an inclusive sense; the exclusive word would be ish, which has the feminine equivalent ishah. The distinction between *adam *and ish is roughly equivalent to that between anthropos and aner in Greek. The former can legitimately be translated inclusively, the latter cannot.

It says man not human.

 

[Novocastrian]

There is an interesting parallel here between the matter used for the Eucharist and the subjects of ordination (not the matter of that sacrament as is often repeated.)

The matter for the Eucharist is ordinary wheat bread and grape wine. No other substances are acceptable and the Church has made many rulings about the purity and nature of these ingredients. The chief argument here is that Jesus confected the Sacrament at the Last Supper using these ingredients, and the Church has no authority to use anything else.

Likewise, Jesus ordained only men at the Last Supper. In the Apostolic Age, we didn’t have a lot of women jumping up to say they were presbyters or overseers, and so that matter was also seemingly settled in the kernel of Tradition that is unbroken to this day.

It is an interesting parallel to see, since the Priesthood and the Eucharist are so inexorably linked, and both to the Church. It’s also a key theological distinction being made: the Church is not simply unwilling or unlikely to reverse her decisions, the Church is actually unable, has no authority, to change these so-called “policies”. The Church here has knelt down and acknowledged the Sovereignty of Christ in regards to these two manners, and the “door is [now] closed”, as our Holy Father has said.

I agree that, in general, this is what the Church should do. And I agree with regard to the Eucharist; Christ’s command “Do this” clearly applies to what he was doing with bread and wine, and nothing else.

I see no such similar command which restricts ordination to the male sex.