we are not discussing female ordination, we are discussing why a woman who is a cleric in another religion is at the Synod. Well thats my discussion anyway. I will bow out until that becomes the discussion again, because I don’t want to discuss female ordination. It will never happen because of the model Jesus left, as stated by a couple of Popes, so … we can’t all be what we want to be, we must learn the words NO.
Well, no we’re not. And could I suggest that your use of “priestess” is somewhat offensive. A priestess is pagan; the lady in question is Christian. I can understand why you would not want to accord her the title “priest”, but “minister” is perfectly right and proper and appropriately respectful.
Priestess is simply the feminine form of priest. Consult any dictionary and you’ll see it is nowhere marked as a pejorative. Interestingly you betray your own Christian sensibilities by experiencing the word “priestess” as connoting paganism. It only has that connotation for Christians because traditional Christianity does not acknowledge the concept of a “female priest”. Ironic, isn’t it?
Ah, this isn’t about female ordination, is it? We have an “ordained” female who demonstrates by her attire that she is firmly in favor of female ordination, and we have her participating on a panel that discusses precisely that topic. And yet this isn’t about female ordination, right? This attempt to distinguish between the girl’s presence and the view she is representing, is pure sophistry. It’d be no different if some youth at the synod wore a T-shirt saying “LGBT rights now!”, and people try to argue that his presence has nothing to do with a discussion on the Church’s views on SSA. You’re inventing distinctions as they suit you in order to justify having this girl there.
So it is not simply the feminine form of priest. As you say, it has the connotations of paganism for Christians like yourself.
I’m a different breed of Christian, Picky. I live and breathe with the staunch believers of other religions. Not that my Christianity isn’t heart-felt – it is – but I don’t share the sensibilities of most mainstream Christians. (I do, however, have my own sensibilities.)
Ah, you are implying I should not think of this discussion (or any discussion) as a contest or battle, right?
I know. I’m an open book.
Can you identify it for me?
Most of us have beliefs that are fundamental to the way we view the world and our place in it, and we guard those beliefs closely and with vigour. But when we start seeking a conspiratorial goblin under every bed – under our own bed, in fact – and opposing opportunities for “a reasonable talk” with others, or at least with those others who are fundamentally our allies (yes, you too, Mr President), then I respectfully suggest that we should reconsider, not what our beliefs are, but where they are taking us.
Mr Motley has no doubt seen me trying to multitask.
I don’t see why. What is your objection? It can’t be that they reject the Catholic Faith because they absolutely do. In fact many make it a point to list all the things they reject.
I agree we don’t see some of this as controversial. That is really the problem. Jan Hus was in fact a heretic. We don’t see heresy as a big deal. The particular punishment was carried out by the state, not the Church.
I am a bit of a cynic as well. So I observe that if women priests become a reality it is because the Lord led the Church to that. I am sure the Church of Hus’ time were confident they were following the Lord’s leading burning him at the stake and I am also sure the Pope felt he was following the Lord’s leading in giving an apology.PickyPicky:
We Catholics sadly have to remember that we let Jan Hus get burned at the stake over matters we see as not that controversial today and the Pope apologized for it.
Of course, I’m sure the Hussites aren’t above exploiting that little piece of history (I’m a cynic).
But still, who’s to say in another 500 years if women priests will still be controversial or not?
It’s really up to the Lord, where he leads His Church.
This is a much repeated excuse. It doesn’t wash. In these instances the Church simply used the State to carry out its punishments, Had the Church wanted to avoid Hus’s dreadful execution that would have been perfectly possible. We have to judge people of the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period with due regard for the normal morality of the time, but we shouldn’t dodge what happened.
Learning from all is a product of relativism. Of course any wise person knows he can learn things from people different from him. But this particular phrase comes from corrupt relativism.
It does have connotations of paganism. Of course for some groups in the WCC even priest has connotations of paganism. A pagan is simply a non Christian. The Catholic Church says you are a Christian by virtue of baptism. But whether a person espouses Christian doctrine is a different matter. Many supposedly Christian religions teach homosexuality, same sex marriage, and priestesses are good and Christian. But these being a non Christian teaching it is really pagan.
It isn’t an excuse. It is a fact. Now, what you seem to be saying is that the Church should have judged no man a heretic, or stripped any priest of his right to preach or administer the sacraments publically during this time because in doing so the state might execute the man. You can certainly argue that. But there would of course be consequences to not keeping the Faith pure. We see in our own time how much unclear teachings and a failure to discipline damage the faith of the faithful. I imagine in the past it would have been no different.