Why Do Anglicans/Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, etc ordain women?

[tomarin]

**I would ask a different question: how do we know that what is said to be traditions or Tradition, really is or are ? ISTM that Tradition as a concept lacks a determinate unified meaning - so it can contain anything the Church of the moment chooses. **​

i take that as a “no.”

well, from a purely utiliatarian perspective, if the catholic church were to ordain women priests (which pope john paul II has already said the church has no authority to do since it contradicts 2,000 years of tradition but let’s leave that aside) i think we would cease to be distinguishable from the mainline protestant denominations who are themselves fading because, as i see it, they offer no difference from the teachings of the modern secular world. it seems like a lot to sacrifice for the sake of “gender equality”.

you seem to be concerned about whether the catholic church cuts its conscience to suit this year’s fashions (to adapt dorothy parker’s phrase) but surely it’s the modern world which is perpetually guilty of promoting everything that is fashionable – usually in opposition to the catholic church. female priests is a case in point; its pedigree within christianity (protestant christianity only so far) is only a few decades old and has had disastrous results. that’s why i choose to be catholic, and not simply “modern” – the former is a reliable source of enduring values, whereas the latter is just a reiteration of the flavor of the moment.

this conversation reminds me of chesterton’s quote, to the effect that tradition is true democracy in that it takes our ancestor’s views into account, and not simply the views of those who happen to be alive at this moment in time.

 

[peary]

i take that as a “no.”

well, from a purely utiliatarian perspective, if the catholic church were to ordain women priests (which pope john paul II has already said the church has no authority to do since it contradicts 2,000 years of tradition but let’s leave that aside) i think we would cease to be distinguishable from the mainline protestant denominations who are themselves fading because, as i see it, they offer no difference from the teachings of the modern secular world. it seems like a lot to sacrifice for the sake of “gender equality”.

you seem to be concerned about whether the catholic church cuts its conscience to suit this year’s fashions (to adapt dorothy parker’s phrase) but surely it’s the modern world which is perpetually guilty of promoting everything that is fashionable – usually in opposition to the catholic church. female priests is a case in point; its pedigree within christianity (protestant christianity only so far) is only a few decades old and has had disastrous results. that’s why i choose to be catholic, and not simply “modern” – the former is a reliable source of enduring values, whereas the latter is just a reiteration of the flavor of the moment.

this conversation reminds me of chesterton’s quote, to the effect that tradition is true democracy in that it takes our ancestor’s views into account, and not simply the views of those who happen to be alive at this moment in time.

Chesterton also pointed out that there were times in history when the Church wed itself to the world. When it did that, it always ended up widowed.

 

[tomarin]

why not?

because just because the modern world says something is good and desirable doesn’t mean it is so. look at abortion, premarital sex, homosexual marriage, cloning, euthanasia, stem cell research, etc. etc. ad infinitum. the unvarying teachings of catholicism offer the best guarantee against taking a small part of the truth and blowing it out of all proportion as the Truth.

 

[tomarin]

The answer is in understanding the nature of priesthood.

In historical Christianity, ordination is understood as the means by which one is included in the priestly orders of either deacon, priest or bishop. It is understood that only men are ordained to the priesthood. The Church does not ordain women because Christ did not mandate it, and it is not an apostolic tradition which has come down to us.

In protestant Christianity, the priesthood as understood by historical Christianity is rejected. It is understood more in line with general pastoral work. Thus, it is then permissible to allow women to serve in a more direct role as ‘pastor’.

i agree completely. it’s perfectly fine for protestants to ordain female clergy if they wish – it is entirely in keeping with their rejection of the sacrificing priesthood that is central to our sacramental faith. but what purpose would it serve to pressure us to do the same? it would just be the kiss of death for a religion that is barely holding its own against secular modernism.

 

[tomarin]

Chesterton also pointed out that there were times in history when the Church wed itself to the world. When it did that, it always ended up widowed.

too true – and i have no desire to be an orphan.

 

[peary]

No, it wasn’t.

Since you have offered no argument, I need offer no refutation. When you give me a justification for ancient slavery, I will tell you why the justification is wrong. (I do agree, however, that slavery as practiced in 19th-century America was far more clearly contrary to natural law than Greco-Roman slavery.)

Just butting my nose in here. The Church had no problem with the form of slavery known as ‘servitude’. The racial slavery as practiced by England and later the United States was something that the popes were totally against from the very beginning.

Serfdom is not quite the same thing as slavery. Russian serfdom was fairly close (inasmuch as serfs could be bought and sold, which I don’t think was the case in more strictly “feudal” serfdom in the medieval West). But at any rate that serfdom had been abolished in 1861.

In 1917 Russia, the proletariat became the new serfs of the state overlords.

You don’t seem to understand what the word “theory” means in a scientific context. Let’s cut to the chase: are you saying that germ theory does not make it easier to prevent disease and save lives? If it does, then why didn’t Jesus teach it (or some other paradigm that would help people prevent or cure infectious disease)? Does the fact that He didn’t mean that He didn’t care about human life? We know it can’t mean that. So the only possible conclusion is that the Incarnation is far more closely related to cultural particularity than your argument implies.

HUH?

Let’s not get into the question of Constantine’s sainthood! Anyway, you’re making my point for me. Jesus and Augustine (leaving the murderer of Fausta and Crispus out of the picture) got on without germ theory. Yet germ theory clearly saves lives. Similarly, Jesus and Augustine got on without an egalitarian social structure. That doesn’t make such a social structure wrong. The entire assumption that Jesus disregarded cultural norms is clearly wrong. Not just wrong, but absurd and foolish.

**HUH? **

I am probably alive today because of (under God) modern medical science (I have a blood-clot condition that would probably have killed me more than eight years ago if not for recent advances in hematology). So some of us do need science to survive in the literal sense. Spiritually and culturally, I agree with you. Modern science is a mixed blessing and we could have a decent society without it. But it does in many cases save lives. That is my point.



I would hope that most scientists would have something better to do, but some of them are ignorant bigots (just as many of us non-scientists say silly things about science from time to time, like your use of the phrase “just a theory”). Historians, however, have not used the phrase “dark ages” in the sense you are using it for about a century.

**The “dark ages” weren’t exactly ‘dark’ - just ‘remote’. **

So much for sticking my nose into conversation.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

i take that as a “no.”

**If I had meant “no”, I would have said “no” **​

well, from a purely utiliatarian perspective, if the catholic church were to ordain women priests (which pope john paul II has already said the church has no authority to do since it contradicts 2,000 years of tradition but let’s leave that aside) i think we would cease to be distinguishable from the mainline protestant denominations who are themselves fading because, as i see it, they offer no difference from the teachings of the modern secular world. it seems like a lot to sacrifice for the sake of “gender equality”.

**What is wrong with “ceas[ing] to be distinguishable from the mainline protestant denominations” ? In principle, I don’t see that as a bad thing at all - the problems arise with the practicalities. **​

Are we so different from “the modern secular world” ? Not entirely. Difference for its own sake is not important.

If difference is **so important, why not require all aspiring priests to be eunuchs ? That would make the clergy very different from other Christian clergies - & child-molestation would be impossible, so there would be no legal cases to worry about. A large number of evils could never happen again. There is a Biblical case for it. And it would be an obstacle to having women clergy. **

you seem to be concerned about whether the catholic church cuts its conscience to suit this year’s fashions (to adapt dorothy parker’s phrase)

Evidence, please ?​

but surely it’s the modern world which is perpetually guilty of promoting everything that is fashionable – usually in opposition to the catholic church.

The CC is not always right, & there are times when it has to be opposed, for its own good & for the safety of others. The CC is owed no thanks for its obstructiveness in protecting paedophiles & other criminals. When there is a collision between the CC, & what is right, the CC must lose, every time; for it is not, & cannot possibly be, the ultimate standard of right & wrong - it is as subject to the Righteousness of God as any other body on earth. So the mere fact of opposing the CC is of no moral consequence by itself - much depends on why it is being opposed.​

female priests is a case in point; its pedigree within christianity (protestant christianity only so far) is only a few decades old and has had disastrous results. that’s why i choose to be catholic, and not simply “modern” – the former is a reliable source of enduring values, whereas the latter is just a reiteration of the flavor of the moment.

**This is a shaky argument - not all “enduring values” are Christian. In the early days, one of the objections to Christianity was its lack of a long tradition - unlike the Classical cults, which had been founded centuries before by gods or heroes. Conversely, that something is new, is a bad reason for rejecting it - there would be fewer awkward Catholics around if medicine was still as it was in 1500, but that’s hardly a convincing argument for returning to the past in that respect. **​

**Some things we are well rid of, no matter how old - the demonising of Jews is one example; the Papal States are another. Modernity is not beyond criticism, but nothing is: uncritical veneration of the past can be no less damaging than the sillier manifestations of modernity. **

this conversation reminds me of chesterton’s quote, to the effect that tradition is true democracy in that it takes our ancestor’s views into account, and not simply the views of those who happen to be alive at this moment in time.

You won’t get any disagreement from me - I wish that did happen ​

 

[GKC]

“you seem to be concerned about whether the catholic church cuts its conscience to suit this year’s fashions (to adapt dorothy parker’s phrase)”

Lillian Hellman.

GKC

 

[tomarin]

**If I had meant “no”, I would have said “no” **​

**What is wrong with “ceas[ing] to be distinguishable from the mainline protestant denominations” ? In principle, I don’t see that as a bad thing at all - the problems arise with the practicalities. **​

Are we so different from “the modern secular world” ? Not entirely. Difference for its own sake is not important.

If difference is **so important, why not require all aspiring priests to be eunuchs ? That would make the clergy very different from other Christian clergies - & child-molestation would be impossible, so there would be no legal cases to worry about. A large number of evils could never happen again. There is a Biblical case for it. And it would be an obstacle to having women clergy. **

Evidence, please ?​

The CC is not always right, & there are times when it has to be opposed, for its own good & for the safety of others. The CC is owed no thanks for its obstructiveness in protecting paedophiles & other criminals. When there is a collision between the CC, & what is right, the CC must lose, every time; for it is not, & cannot possibly be, the ultimate standard of right & wrong - it is as subject to the Righteousness of God as any other body on earth. So the mere fact of opposing the CC is of no moral consequence by itself - much depends on why it is being opposed.​

**This is a shaky argument - not all “enduring values” are Christian. In the early days, one of the objections to Christianity was its lack of a long tradition - unlike the Classical cults, which had been founded centuries before by gods or heroes. Conversely, that something is new, is a bad reason for rejecting it - there would be fewer awkward Catholics around if medicine was still as it was in 1500, but that’s hardly a convincing argument for returning to the past in that respect. **​

**Some things we are well rid of, no matter how old - the demonising of Jews is one example; the Papal States are another. Modernity is not beyond criticism, but nothing is: uncritical veneration of the past can be no less damaging than the sillier manifestations of modernity. **

You won’t get any disagreement from me - I wish that did happen ​

you can’t serve two masters. modernity and catholicism are in opposition to each other; if they weren’t, why would the modern world oppose and ridicule the church so vigorously – despite everything she has given western civilization?

the teachings of the church and those of the modern world are not, in my view, morally equivalent because i believe the church has a divine origin and that god is the source of everything good and true. this doesn’t mean that i approve of everything every pope ever said or did – they are men after all and prone to sin – but overall christianity has been a positive force in history (“black legends” and the so-called “pedophile” priest scandal to the contrary).

you ask why it would be a bad thing if the church became just like the protestant mainline denominations. these denominations have been withering on the vine for quite some time, largely, i think, because they have accomodated themselves to modernity to such a degree that they don’t offer an alternative to its excesses and errors. we shouldn’t want to go down that route. our church is far from being in the best of health – i for one am quite pessimistic about her future – but it would be the kiss of death certainly to adopt their views about abortion, gay marriage, female priests, etc.