No, that isn’t really it. The bishop in my diocese is a woman. But since woman have not been in the priesthood for long (not at all in some places), in some places it is only recently become an issue to have women bishops.
indeed, I want to add that you will find very little scriptural reasoning behind the ordination of women because most of the Anglican Churches’, especially those in the West, feel there are no major scriptural barrier to ordaining women. Christ’s saving grace does not discriminate, neither should we. Separate but equal is a big big falsehood Many early church fathers and other saints clearly thought of women as poorly made men or somehow disordered, obviously our feelings have changed, so should man made rules.
Zundrah,
so, when God said that women is not to speak in teh Church. what do you think he meant?
I don’t think that is quite right. Perhaps you don’t remember how controversial female ordination was in the Church of England. On this side of the Atlantic it seemed a bit strange because The Episcopal Church already had female priests. But during the early 1990s, there was a lot of heat over the issue in Britain. After the approval of female priests in 1994, some traditional Anglicans left for the Catholic Church. Others decided to remain and reluctantly put up with female priests by simply avoiding them.
Paul said that (though some have suggested that that statement was interpolated later). The Church has accepted that this text is divinely inspired and the Word of God, so your terminology isn’t entirely wrong, but I think it’s misleading to put it quite that way. It implies an Islamic view of inspiration in which historical context and personal bias become irrelevant.
I’m perfectly calm thanks and I have no intention of biting my tongue.
the holy father agrees with you? humnnm!
I should have provided the link. Here it is, and here’s the relevant passage:
And yes, I know that this is not covered by the charism of infallibility–but it is deserving of the respect of Catholics, right?
), he forgave sins, you name it, overthrew the money changers’ tables and blasted the commercialization of the temple, claimed he was the Son of Man, etc. etc. So, given all those factors that show Christ had zero fear of angering people if he felt he was on the side of truth and God, why, if women deserved to be and by their biological nature should be equal with men in the priesthood, why did Christ ordain 12 men? Surely there were good, holy, devout women who would be deserving, right? What about Mary Magdelene, Mary and Martha, the BVM, etc? So either there was a huge shortage of women (which I doubt), Christ was a chauvenist who hated women like the bigoted Fathers (which is impossible as He is perfection and God’s Son), or a third option----Christ felt women shouldn’t be in the position of presbyter or episkopos…Also, the priesthood of Israel was all-male as well. Either the Mosaic Law is more of man than of God and is deeply misogynist or perhaps that’s the way God wanted it?No, that’s a caricature of what I’m saying. I don’t condemn them morally at all. They had an honest, apparently well-founded belief about female inferiority. We (not just liberal Episcopalians but practically everyone, certainly including the Pope and most defenders of the male-only priesthood) now think that those views were wrong.
Not at all. It’s not about “trust.” It’s about the implications of something on which nearly everyone is agreed. I think they had a lot of wise things to say about sexuality–for instance, their ethic of restraint of the passions, while not without its flaws, is badly needed today, when passions are seen as unqualified goods. And even with regard to gender I wouldn’t assume that they have nothing of value to say. They certainly opposed the double standard in sexual morality held by the Roman pagan world. And Perpetua or Olympias or Monica would be much better role models for contemporary Christian women than many contemporary figures I could mention
Yes, although the slavery they were dealing with wasn’t race-based in the way 19th-century slavery was, and in the form in which the Christians tolerated it was really just an extreme form of social inequality. So while it wasn’t desirable, I wouldn’t put it in the same category as later American slavery.
It ends at the point where we are no longer applying the principles of the historic Faith, but subverting them.
You say that as if we don’t do exactly that as a matter of course.
Well, of course I don’t think He was a shrinking violet! But that’s a very modern way of putting it. Respecting the traditions of your culture isn’t being a “shrinking violet”–it’s only proper and virtuous
. And Jesus clearly was a real first-century Jew who thought and acted as a first-century Jew except when this would be sinful and/or conflict with His mission. We won’t convince each other on this one–I think this is one of the very weakest anti-WO arguments out there, and there are a lot of weak ones.Because it isn’t about “deserving.” Jesus did not become incarnate to establish feminism or egalitarianism. I have said this over and over, and I wish people would believe that I mean it!
Then we agree!
Exactly what I’m saying! (Well, I wouldn’t speak for all the Orthodox–or even all the Catholics–but definitely the Pope and most Catholics in the Western world don’t feel that way, and the defenses of the male-only priesthood in traditional Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox circles don’t rest on this premise.)
I think that your reluctance to believe this is based in your assumption that it’s a moral flaw, instead of simply an erroneous view about biology, similar to geocentrism or the view that worms are generated by the sun from decaying matter (or the flatness of the earth, though that was only held by a few of the Fathers and practically none of the medieval theologians). I don’t blame you for starting out with that assumption, since it’s indeed the assumption of most feminists. But I wish you and others would believe me when I say over and over that that’s not what *I *think. (No doubt sinfulness entered into it in many cases–obviously it’s flattering to the male ego to believe itself superior–but it was a sincerely held intellectual belief.)
I appreciate your colorful language, but unfortunately your metaphors often distort what we are talking about. I don’t think that’s what the Fathers did or what they advocated. I think that they treated women like “weaker vessels” who were less rational and more subject to the passions, but who could overcome this to some degree by divine grace. Hence they could be saints and martyrs and ascetics but should not be given any regular office that involved rule.
Because either women’s bodies, being softer and less fully formed and hence imperfect, limit the extent to which women can be rational and bear rule, or they don’t. It really is an either/or. If the traditional belief is true, then the kind of benevolent patriarchy advocated by Chrysostom is a wonderful thing. If it isn’t, then it isn’t. Either women have the hegemonic faculty or they don’t.
But this doesn’t make any sense. The two things went together for the Fathers–for everyone until recently. Women couldn’t be ordained for *exactly *the same reasons that they couldn’t be city magistrates, or university professors, or any other non-hereditary position that involved authority over men (even hereditary positions of royalty or nobility were controversial, but in those cases you had two different hierarchical principles in conflict).
Gurney, with all due respect, you frequently attribute to me (and I think to others as well) “tones” and attitudes that conflict with what we are actually saying. I think it is a theological imperative and only a moral imperative for that reason. And as I said, I could be wrong. I am proposing this view for consideration, because what I hear from conservative Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox defenders of tradition is a constant chorus of straw man arguments, dismissals, pure appeals to authority, innovative new theories about human nature that make no sense in terms of the tradition, and so on. I don’t hear this issue being dealt with in terms of the Church’s theological tradition. It may well be that when these arguments are dealt with, someone will show that I and other advocates of WO are heard. But as long as advocates of WO are simply silenced, as is the case in the Roman Communion right now, the issue is never going to be resolved properly one way or the other.
Gurney, please tell me when I have used the phrase “social justice gospel” once in this discussion? Those aren’t my grounds.
But you repeatedly claim that I’m making a social-justice argument, no matter how often I say that I’m making an argument based on traditional Christology and anthropology.
I agree with what you say about the Father’s view of women, and think having rejected that is a good reason to reconsider what is meant by some of the “traditional” understandings of marriage, men’s headship, and so on.
No, that’s a caricature of what I’m saying. I don’t condemn them morally at all. They had an honest, apparently well-founded belief about female inferiority. We (not just liberal Episcopalians but practically everyone, certainly including the Pope and most defenders of the male-only priesthood) now think that those views were wrong.
You admit later on that you think we *do *hold to more adequate views of the dignity of women today. We don’t actually differ on this. All I’m saying is that when their view of the role of women was clearly directly dependent on these views we now think were wrong, we need to look fairly and honestly at the consequences of this.
**I think it is about trust. We’re trusting them as religious authority figures, moral agents to comment on areas that inform our sexual ethos religiously. We indeed are trusting them on many levels. A Catholic or Orthodox trusts them on matters when speaking of the Eucharist, Christology, obedience to the monarchical episcopacy, etc. We also put a lot of stock into what they say on sexual relationships and female priestesses, etc. **
Not at all. It’s not about “trust.” It’s about the implications of something on which nearly everyone is agreed. I think they had a lot of wise things to say about sexuality–for instance, their ethic of restraint of the passions, while not without its flaws, is badly needed today, when passions are seen as unqualified goods. And even with regard to gender I wouldn’t assume that they have nothing of value to say. They certainly opposed the double standard in sexual morality held by the Roman pagan world. And Perpetua or Olympias or Monica would be much better role models for contemporary Christian women than many contemporary figures I could mention
I didn’t put it in the category of Antebellum age of the South, etc.? I wouldn’t draw such a parallel anyway because the types of slavery, as you said, are totally different. I’m not sure why you say this?
Yes, although the slavery they were dealing with wasn’t race-based in the way 19th-century slavery was, and in the form in which the Christians tolerated it was really just an extreme form of social inequality. So while it wasn’t desirable, I wouldn’t put it in the same category as later American slavery.
Human sexuality is made by God. Homosexuality is disordered to say the least and it is plainly condemned by Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. Reason cannot put two men sodomizing each other on a par with a heterosexual couple. Only reason informed by this liberal age can draw such conclusions. Christians cannot agree to disagree on such an important issue as homosexuals, gay marriage, etc. It is moral relativism on steroids.
. And Jesus clearly was a real first-century Jew who thought and acted as a first-century Jew except when this would be sinful and/or conflict with His mission. We won’t convince each other on this one–I think this is one of the very weakest anti-WO arguments out there, and there are a lot of weak ones.
Gurney, with all due respect, you frequently attribute to me (and I think to others as well) “tones” and attitudes that conflict with what we are actually saying. I think it is a theological imperative and only a moral imperative for that reason. And as I said, I could be wrong. I am proposing this view for consideration, because what I hear from conservative Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox defenders of tradition is a constant chorus of straw man arguments, dismissals, pure appeals to authority, innovative new theories about human nature that make no sense in terms of the tradition, and so on. I
Gurney, please tell me when I have used the phrase “social justice gospel” once in this discussion? Those aren’t my grounds.
But you repeatedly claim that I’m making a social-justice argument, no matter how often I say that I’m making an argument based on traditional Christology and anthropology.
Therefore, men are the more perfect instantiations of the one human nature, and in becoming a male human being Christ assumed the common human nature in its more perfect form
Therefore, only men can represent Christ sacramentally.
I believe that
There is one human nature, assumed by Christ for our salvation
Men and women both possess that human nature, neither more perfectly than the other, though they express it differently because of their different bodies
Therefore, both men and women can represent Christ sacramentally
Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox defenders of the male-only priesthood seem to believe for the most part that
There is a bifurcated human nature, and Christ assumed the male form of it
Yet, neither form of human nature is superior to the other–they are just different
Since Christ assumed the male and not the female version of human nature, women cannot represent Christ sacramentally
Yet, women can somehow be saved by the male Christ, even though they do not participate in the nature He assumed (otherwise they could be ordained)
This contradicts basic principles of orthodox Christianity.
Note this: I’m making an argument about *orthodoxy. *Any response by you that treats my argument as a social-justice argument instead of an argument about Christological and anthropological orthodoxy is not a response to me at all. It’s a response to those hordes of raging feminists who rule the Episcopal Church
Edwin