Women Priests?

[Moonbug]

That is not the meaning of humbug. What you really are saying is you have no idea what mistake (and it was a lulu) that you made. You tried to cover by saying it was a typo hoping that would dig you out of it but it only dug you further. You ignore others question about what typo you are referring to because if you answered that you would have to admit that you really didn’t understand what is being referred to. You are to (embarrassed) to ask and I think those who know what mistake you made are having a bit of fun with you because they believe you are only padding and being a troll.

You really should consider therapy for your anger, adrift. There is no shame in your condition. Many fine people suffer from it. :stretcher:

 

[benjohnson]

No, when the term is used alike for men and women, the onus is on you to prove that the men were ordained and the women weren’t.
Edwin

We have deaconesses - they’re very well trained and are really hard workers.

 

[adrift]

You really should consider therapy for your anger, adrift. There is no shame in your condition. Many fine people suffer from it. :stretcher:

You are funny. Adhominems are used by trolls and those who have a week point.

Haven’t figured out your error either.

 

[Contarini]

Sure, you point is mostly true - Women of the time were not as powerful as men.

More than that. There was a systematic, pretty much universal belief that women were less rational and less perfect than men. In particular, in the Greco-Roman world it was believed that their bodies got in the way of their minds. That’s why the early Christian or quasi-Christian groups that ordained women were groups that in one way or another downplayed or denied the physical, incarnational aspect of Christianity.

If women’s bodies are not imperfect in the way ancient people believed, then the fundamental convictions of orthodox Christianity about human nature and the Incarnation would seem to point toward, rather than away from, women’s ordination. Opponents of women’s ordination have resorted to some form of “complementarian” anthropology. But this anthropology really is totally innovative, as far as I can see, and it makes it very hard to explain coherently how women can be saved.

This is where the argument that “Jesus was a bigot from his culture” falls down

But no such argument has been introduced into this discussion, except by you, as a straw man.

• the good man had the audacity to not stay dead. That’s the biggest cultural taboo of all. He washed the feet of women. He was God and chose a women as his Mother.

Let the last one sink in - in the culture of His time, this would be just crazy to think that God was born of Woman. That’s absolutely crazy!

How is this relevant, since I have not remotely suggested that Jesus was incapable of violating cultural taboos? But it’s a big step from “Jesus chose not to violate this particular taboo” to “Jesus intended it to bind the Church for all eternity.” No one, it seems to me, has provided an argument to bridge that gap.

Now it’s up to you to show the God given instructions to change the priesthood.

Straw man again. It assumes that the male-only priesthood is divinely ordained in the first place (and that the doctrine of priesthood of all believers is incorrect . . . . )

Also, I don’t believe that Christianity is fundamentally about “instructions.” That seems to me to be a more characteristically Islamic understanding. Christianity is about the Incarnation.

I agree on the caution. I am not trying to get the Catholic Church to change its practice. I am not competent to say (in the absence of a clear mandate of conscience, which I do not have) that the Church should do so. But it seems clear to me that in spite of all the sound and fury on this issue, a genuinely theological discussion of the subject has barely begun. Most people haven’t even heard of the one really strong argument for women’s ordination, which is the argument from the Incarnation and the principle “what is not assumed is not saved.”

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

I agree on the caution. I am not trying to get the Catholic Church to change its practice. I am not competent to say (in the absence of a clear mandate of conscience, which I do not have) that the Church should do so. But it seems clear to me that in spite of all the sound and fury on this issue, a genuinely theological discussion of the subject has barely begun. Most people haven’t even heard of the one really strong argument for women’s ordination, which is the argument from the Incarnation and the principle “what is not assumed is not saved.”

Edwin

Then we sort of agree - either by caution or tradition.

Frankly, I would agree than hardly any theological discussion has begun - most arguments devolve into secular feminism vs parochial conservatism. Frankly, the church’s teaching makes me deeply uncomfortable, but I’ve come to learn that my relationship with God is more important than assuaging my rational mind.

I’d like to hear you expound on your last argument if you have the time at some point.

 

[benjohnson]

Straw man again. It assumes that the male-only priesthood is divinely ordained in the first place (and that the doctrine of priesthood of all believers is incorrect . . . . )
Edwin

Given that men and women are roughly divided in sexuality, then the fact that all 12+1 disciples/apostles were male is either instruction or chance. The probability that this is chance 1:8192 - or about 0.01%

So, frankly, you’re going to need God’s instructions to change my mind on this, as how I look at it rationally is that there’s a 99.99% possibility that God wanted it this way.

 

[GKC]

This thread is a laugh, though I wonder somewhat whether our brother Moonbug is aware of that fact or not.

Back on topic, I wonder what would happen if, by some strange and unexpected miracle, the leading bodies of the Lutheran and Anglican communions were to vote against women’s ordination and decide that all attempted ordinations of females were invalid–besides a massive public uproar, that is.

My life would be simplified, I think.

GKC

 

[steido01]

My life would be simplified, I think.

GKC

And Anglicans would certainly become less motley.

 

[Moonbug]

For me, it’s books. Has been for over 55 years. You should see the house. And other places.

Beetles are not in the picture, for me.

GKC

Just pulling your chain. Actually, I’m a reader myself. Bugs are not my forte I have kept a journal for over thirty years of each and every book I read—Name, author, fic/non-fic. I have a spurt in authors I have read, and I get a wild hair on occasion for a particular subject and read a number of books in that area until I’m satisfied. I find it revealing to glance back in my journal and recall the books I favored in years past.

 

[GKC]

Just pulling your chain. Actually, I’m a reader myself. Bugs are not my forte I have kept a journal for over thirty years of each and every book I read—Name, author, fic/non-fic. I have a spurt in authors I have read, and I get a wild hair on occasion for a particular subject and read a number of books in that area until I’m satisfied. I find it revealing to glance back in my journal and recall the books I favored in years past.

I suspected you were bugging me.

I envy you your journal. I started my hobby at around age 10. Been accumulating the collection for around 58 years now. To a total of perhaps 35,000 volumes, currently in hand. Specializing in a number of areas and subjects, on which I am World’s Greatest Authority, within a range of 10 miles. The results often appear in venues like this. Moved 5 boxes of less than essential books to storage this week. Eventually must build an addition to the house, sketched out at 1000 sq. ft., as planned. Spent 5 years working in a library, 4 years in the rare OP book business, 8 in the shiny new book trade. I too get the itch for everything in a given area. Makes my wife smile when I say “I need to know more about this”. Fortunately, she shares the affliction.

Books are the bomb.

GKC

 

[edwest2]

The Church cares.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[GKC]

And Anglicans would certainly become less motley.

A consummation devoutly to be wish’d.

GKC

 

[hn160]

Now that is interesting. A friend of my wife was a Dominican Nun for many years. She left the Church and was ordained a Lutheran minister.

Probably in the liberal ELCA.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I suspect you did, from your previous posts. That’s the name of the National Cathedral, when it’s being formal.

GKC

I suppose if we had a National Cathedral in England it wouldn’t be a cathedral at all, but the Collegiate Church of St Peter, Westminster.

 

[GKC]

I suppose if we had a National Cathedral in England it wouldn’t be a cathedral at all, but the Collegiate Church of St Peter, Westminster.

Likely it is.

GKC

 

[Moonbug]

I suspected you were bugging me.

I envy you your journal. I started my hobby at around age 10. Been accumulating the collection for around 58 years now. To a total of perhaps 35,000 volumes, currently in hand. Specializing in a number of areas and subjects, on which I am World’s Greatest Authority, within a range of 10 miles. The results often appear in venues like this. Moved 5 boxes of less than essential books to storage this week. Eventually must build an addition to the house, sketched out at 1000 sq. ft., as planned. Spent 5 years working in a library, 4 years in the rare OP book business, 8 in the shiny new book trade. I too get the itch for everything in a given area. Makes my wife smile when I say “I need to know more about this”. Fortunately, she shares the affliction.

Books are the bomb.

GKC

Now, THAT’S a library. It must be a full time job just keeping it properly indexed. At the height of my collection , I believe I had no more than 2,000 books. Over the years, I’ve loaned many out to friends who all have somehow got it into their heads that I’m making the book a gift when I have clearly stated it was just a loan. In my misguided desire to impart my enthusiasm for a particular book, I’ve lost many cherished treasures. Your experience working with rare books must have been an education in itself. You are truly blessed to have your wife on board with your avocation.

Reminds me of a pleasant surprise I had many years ago while reading the second edition of the “Memoirs of General Grant. It’s a wonderful book with clear, simple prose reminiscent of Mark Twain. When the Union Army, immediately after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, started firing their cannon in celebration of the surrender, Grant asked one of his aids what that racket was all about. When informed it was in celebration of the surrender, he told him to have it stopped. He felt there was no reason to embarrass the Confederates for " FOR THEY ARE OUR FELLOW COUNTRYMEN, NOW.”

Some years later, I had a chance to read the first edition of his memoirs In the first edition, he didn’t say what was printed in the second edition I read earlier. What he actually said on hearing the cannon fire, “Tell them to stop. THEY ARE OUR PRISONERS, NOW.” Dyeing of throat cancer, Grant read the proofs of his book personally making the final corrections before it was published. So, that is what he actually said. But a few years after his death, the publisher came out with the second edition with the “FELLOW COUNTRYMEN.” quotation. I’m not sure, but I think the change, which was in subsequent editions, was not made for any altruistic desire to bind up the wounds of the country, but solely for the crass reason to increase sales in the southern states by making it more palatable.

The revelation made me wonder how many other documents down through history have been changed to serve a given purpose. In religion, isn’t that what we term, “REDACTION?”

 

[JHow]

I have two ancestors that were paroled at Appomattox CH. Paroles would certainly support the “prisoners” version.

 

[GKC]

Now, THAT’S a library. It must be a full time job just keeping it properly indexed. At the height of my collection , I believe I had no more than 2,000 books. Over the years, I’ve loaned many out to friends who all have somehow got it into their heads that I’m making the book a gift when I have clearly stated it was just a loan. In my misguided desire to impart my enthusiasm for a particular book, I’ve lost many cherished treasures. Your experience working with rare books must have been an education in itself. You are truly blessed to have your wife on board with your avocation.

Reminds me of a pleasant surprise I had many years ago while reading the second edition of the “Memoirs of General Grant. It’s a wonderful book with clear, simple prose reminiscent of Mark Twain. When the Union Army, immediately after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, started firing their cannon in celebration of the surrender, Grant asked one of his aids what that racket was all about. When informed it was in celebration of the surrender, he told him to have it stopped. He felt there was no reason to embarrass the Confederates for " FOR THEY ARE OUR FELLOW COUNTRYMEN, NOW.”

Some years later, I had a chance to read the first edition of his memoirs In the first edition, he didn’t say what was printed in the second edition I read earlier. What he actually said on hearing the cannon fire, “Tell them to stop. THEY ARE OUR PRISONERS, NOW.” Dyeing of throat cancer, Grant read the proofs of his book personally making the final corrections before it was published. So, that is what he actually said. But a few years after his death, the publisher came out with the second edition with the “FELLOW COUNTRYMEN.” quotation. I’m not sure, but I think the change, which was in subsequent editions, was not made for any altruistic desire to bind up the wounds of the country, but solely for the crass reason to increase sales in the southern states by making it more palatable.

The revelation made me wonder how many other docum ents down through history have been changed to serve a given purpose. In religion, isn’t that what we term, “REDACTION?”

Twain published Grant’s memoirs, as you likely know. Charles L.Webster was founded by Twain and named for his nephew, who ran the firm for a while. Grant’s book was the first Webster imprint, followed by HUCKLEBERRY FINN.

I suspect that what you read, in the two variants of that sentence, reflected not different editions, but a later printing.Technical difference. But I was not familiar with the change.

The books are indeed a challenge. I’m going on a buying binge this Friday, to make it harder.

GKC

 

[adrift]

I have two ancestors that were paroled at Appomattox CH. Paroles would certainly support the “prisoners” version.

 

[GKC]

Sometimes a thread just goes sort of …adrift.

GKC