Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Puerto Tyranus]

What would your opinion be if the Orthodox or Catholic Church decided to allow female ordination?

My opinion could range anywhere between "probably not a good move, but it's no big deal" and "this is horrendous and toying with heresy, I can't believe they did that", depending on how and in what context such a decision is made, and especially depending on the kinds of arguments used to support it.

I've explained the reason for having all-male priests and bishops before:

The Eucharist is the sacrament that unites us with each other and with God; it heals the unnatural division between humanity and divinity. We were created for communion with God, but through sin we break that communion. Once broken, this communion cannot be restored in any way by ourselves acting alone. It can only be restored by God, with our cooperation. Christ became man, died and rose from the grave in order to enable the restoration of communion between human and divine, in order to make it possible for us to become One again. This principle - the communion of humanity and divinity, two natures joining together, two becoming one - is represented and revealed to us in nature by the union of male and female. Ultimately, we believe that God created the two sexes (and sexual reproduction) as a revelation or "icon" of the communion between human and divine.

This is also, by the way, the reason why we must be monogamous: sexual union is an icon of the Eucharist, we are to have one partner as we have one God, and adultery is an icon of idolatry.

So if the two sexes are a representation of the two natures - human and divine - that are to be joined in the Eucharist, then the priests and bishops who consecrate the Eucharist (and who are icons of Christ during the Divine Liturgy) must be of one sex only, because, when they celebrate the Eucharist, they represent the divine side of the union. The Christian Eucharistic priesthood must be either all-male or all-female, to underline the fact that God is one of the two parts of a union which is to be accomplished. And since Christ and the Apostles were male, we have an all-male priesthood rather than an all-female one.

Now, you will notice that this is all about symbolism. Christian symbolism matters and should be taken extremely seriously, but it is not, strictly speaking, unchangeable. It's certainly not dogma. So if the Orthodox or Catholic Church made a decision to change the symbolism surrounding the Eucharist in such a way that priests and bishops of both sexes could exist, and if a serious and comprehensive argument was made on purely theological grounds (i.e. NOT political grounds) about why the change is necessary and why it is somehow consistent with Holy Tradition and does not constitute a repudiation or condemnation of earlier Church practice... then I still wouldn't like it very much (unless the argument is really persuasive), but I would accept it as completely legitimate and no big deal.

If the above conditions are not satisfied and the decision to begin female ordination is taken simply out of a desire to "modernize", or for political reasons, or in a way that represents a break with Holy Tradition or a repudiation or condemnation of earlier Church practice, then I would consider it to be a dangerous act, maybe even bordering on heresy (if it was done really badly) and I would actively support the faction(s) within the Church that are campaigning to have it reversed. Even in this case, however, I would oppose any schismatic groups that might break away from the Church over this issue. Schism is never justified unless the Church completely falls into apostasy and stops being the Church - which is a very, very far cry from a mere dispute over ordination.

However, the whole scenario of female ordination in the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is impossible anyway - certainly within our lifetimes, if not forever. In the Orthodox Church, support for female ordination is almost completely non-existent, and in any case the only body that could possibly authorize it is an Ecumenical Council. Ecumenical Councils only meet in cases of dire need, we haven't had one in over a thousand years, and there is absolutely no way that one would be called over the issue of female ordination, even if it actually had some support.

As for the Catholic Church, if I remember correctly, Pope John Paul II ended the discussion by declaring it an infallible doctrine that the clergy must be male. So if the Catholic Church wanted to allow female ordination now, it would have to overturn the authority of the Pope in order to do it.

Agreed, and of JP II, he didn't declare it with the infallible doctrine thing, (that's still limited to mostly stuff about Marian ideology) but he and Francis have declared the matter "closed to discussion". Maybe not infallible, but it would take an infallible to overturn it, really.

[Puerto Tyranus]

On that same note, the only 2 "Infallible" doctrines that I know of are:
1) Mary, through the intercession of the Lord was born without sin so that she may bare the Lord Jesus.
and
2) Mary was, is, and forever will be a virgin, meaning she was pure before, during, and after the Birth of Christ.

Most of the other stuff people think are infallible doctrines are generally Tradition that the Church feels has no reason to be discussed.

[Angleter]

On that same note, the only 2 "Infallible" doctrines that I know of are:
1) Mary, through the intercession of the Lord was born without sin so that she may bare the Lord Jesus.
and
2) Mary was, is, and forever will be a virgin, meaning she was pure before, during, and after the Birth of Christ.

Most of the other stuff people think are infallible doctrines are generally Tradition that the Church feels has no reason to be discussed.

They're infallible doctrines under the Church's ordinary and universal magisterium, or as defined by Ecumenical Councils, rather than infallible doctrines defined by the Pope. All-male priesthood comes under the ordinary and universal magisterium - that which the Church has consistently taught as long as it's existence.

[Pope Joan]

I claim a philosophical descent from the Donatists, myself. That heresy said that it mattered whether or not the priest was immoral. (Look at what modern grief could have been spared if this doctrine had been followed.) But Augustine said oh no, all that matters is the ongoing institution.

There's a very good reason for that. If, as the Donatists claimed, the sacraments performed by an immoral priest are invalid, then the people baptized by an immoral priest are not really baptized, the people who confess to an immoral priest don't actually have their sins forgiven, and the people who receive the Eucharist consecrated by an immoral priest have not really taken Communion. In other words, if the Donatists were right, then God punishes innocent people for the sins of an immoral priest, by withholding grace from them. Obviously you can see why that's a heretical doctrine.

It feels to me like a doctrine which is intended mainly for institutional stability.

If you allow priests to be immoral, as Augustine did, how can you avoid the modern pedophile controversy? After all, the office of that priest had not sinned, so how could it be all that bad? and in the Donatist case these were apostate priests, so people knew what they were in for when they went to them.

[Angleter]

I claim a philosophical descent from the Donatists, myself. That heresy said that it mattered whether or not the priest was immoral. (Look at what modern grief could have been spared if this doctrine had been followed.) But Augustine said oh no, all that matters is the ongoing institution.

There's a very good reason for that. If, as the Donatists claimed, the sacraments performed by an immoral priest are invalid, then the people baptized by an immoral priest are not really baptized, the people who confess to an immoral priest don't actually have their sins forgiven, and the people who receive the Eucharist consecrated by an immoral priest have not really taken Communion. In other words, if the Donatists were right, then God punishes innocent people for the sins of an immoral priest, by withholding grace from them. Obviously you can see why that's a heretical doctrine.

Moreover, could you imagine the hyper-clericalism from priests who were officially recognised as saints? The haughty attitude, the hairdryer treatment sermons ("YOU DEPRAVED, FILTHY, SINFUL CHILDREN OF DEATH WILL SURELY BURN FOR ALL ETERNITY...") - all the worst aspects of pre-Vatican II Catholicism would be magnified 1000 times.

[Puerto Tyranus]

There's a very good reason for that. If, as the Donatists claimed, the sacraments performed by an immoral priest are invalid, then the people baptized by an immoral priest are not really baptized, the people who confess to an immoral priest don't actually have their sins forgiven, and the people who receive the Eucharist consecrated by an immoral priest have not really taken Communion. In other words, if the Donatists were right, then God punishes innocent people for the sins of an immoral priest, by withholding grace from them. Obviously you can see why that's a heretical doctrine.

Moreover, could you imagine the hyper-clericalism from priests who were officially recognised as saints? The haughty attitude, the hairdryer treatment sermons ("YOU DEPRAVED, FILTHY, SINFUL CHILDREN OF DEATH WILL SURELY BURN FOR ALL ETERNITY...") - all the worst aspects of pre-Vatican II Catholicism would be magnified 1000 times.

But that isn't why it was heresy. It's heresy because, as Constantinopolis said, it punishes innocents for the sins of another. Trust me, no one wants immoral priests, but declaring anything they do invalid doesn't solve the problem of their immorality.

[The Rich Port]

It makes me wonder how far gone my relationship with my mother is that she has told me I am going to Hell because I don't believe in God.

Needless to say, it has nothing to do with Christianity, and yet that's the first thing she falls back on. Why?

Maybe to justify her belief that you're living the wrong way?

Yeah, actually, I was thinking about it. Makes sense to appeal to something so big to try to scare me into obeying her.

[Benuty]

Maybe to justify her belief that you're living the wrong way?

Yeah, actually, I was thinking about it. Makes sense to appeal to something so big to try to scare me into obeying her.

Simply troll her by stating the Unitarian/ Unitarian-Universalist position since they pretty much think hell is bullshit. Well the Christianized fiery hell anyway.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Yeah, actually, I was thinking about it. Makes sense to appeal to something so big to try to scare me into obeying her.

Simply troll her by stating the Unitarian/ Unitarian-Universalist position since they pretty much think hell is bullshit. Well the Christianized fiery hell anyway.

it is bullshit. Dante's works are not canonical. I have the same problem with the whole devil thing. it comes from Milton's paradise lost, not any canonical text.

[The Rich Port]

Simply troll her by stating the Unitarian/ Unitarian-Universalist position since they pretty much think hell is bullshit. Well the Christianized fiery hell anyway.

it is bullshit. Dante's works are not canonical. I have the same problem with the whole devil thing. it comes from Milton's paradise lost, not any canonical text.

There's a lotta things in Christianity that don't make sense. Kinda why I left.

It's equally hilarious and sad: my mother's probably gone to church 12 times her whole life and she's acting like she's the goddamn Virgin Mary or something.

[Benuty]

Simply troll her by stating the Unitarian/ Unitarian-Universalist position since they pretty much think hell is bullshit. Well the Christianized fiery hell anyway.

it is bullshit. Dante's works are not canonical. I have the same problem with the whole devil thing. it comes from Milton's paradise lost, not any canonical text.

Tell that to the literalists maybe then they might shut up about the Satanists as well.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

it is bullshit. Dante's works are not canonical. I have the same problem with the whole devil thing. it comes from Milton's paradise lost, not any canonical text.

Tell that to the literalists maybe then they might shut up about the Satanists as well.

literalism is a 20th century construct stemming from Seventh Day Adventists. Ironically the founders the fundamentalist movement argued against 90% of what fundamentalists today support.

Inerrancy of scripture was defined as innerency of theological intent, not inerrency of content like it is today. YEC was contradicted by fundamentalist founders and never existed until the 1920's.

[Benuty]

Tell that to the literalists maybe then they might shut up about the Satanists as well.

literalism is a 20th century construct stemming from Seventh Day Adventists. Ironically the founders the fundamentalist movement argued against 90% of what fundamentalists today support.

Inerrancy of scripture was defined as innerency of theological intent, not inerrency of content like it is today. YEC was contradicted by fundamentalist founders and never existed until the 1920's.

Funny how memetic mutation works in interesting ways.

[The Rich Port]

Yeah, actually, I was thinking about it. Makes sense to appeal to something so big to try to scare me into obeying her.

Simply troll her by stating the Unitarian/ Unitarian-Universalist position since they pretty much think hell is bullshit. Well the Christianized fiery hell anyway.

I'm afraid she's not open-minded enough to either know what Unitarians are or care.

[Benuty]

Simply troll her by stating the Unitarian/ Unitarian-Universalist position since they pretty much think hell is bullshit. Well the Christianized fiery hell anyway.

I'm afraid she's not open-minded enough to either know what Unitarians are or care.

Which denomination is she?

[The Rich Port]

I'm afraid she's not open-minded enough to either know what Unitarians are or care.

Which denomination is she?

... Something.

Catholic, more or less.

I seriously doubt they're anything. They haven't gone to any church in a WHILE. So, 1970's Catholic.

[Puerto Tyranus]

Which denomination is she?

... Something.

Catholic, more or less.

I seriously doubt they're anything. They haven't gone to any church in a WHILE. So, 1970's Catholic.

It's called lax Catholic, and she doesn't sound like the kind of Catholic we try to be. After all, some righteous heathens got into the lowest level of Purgatory! Maybe you still have a chance!

All jokes aside, while what she is saying is technically true, it's not exactly the best way to bring people back into the fold. After all, if someone leaves the Church in disgust, threats aren't the best way to bring them back.

[The Rich Port]

... Something.

Catholic, more or less.

I seriously doubt they're anything. They haven't gone to any church in a WHILE. So, 1970's Catholic.

It's called lax Catholic, and she doesn't sound like the kind of Catholic we try to be. After all, some righteous heathens got into the lowest level of Purgatory! Maybe you still have a chance!

All jokes aside, while what she is saying is technically true, it's not exactly the best way to bring people back into the fold. After all, if someone leaves the Church in disgust, threats aren't the best way to bring them back.

I doubt anything's gonna get me to go back, at this point. You got anything?

[Benuty]

It's called lax Catholic, and she doesn't sound like the kind of Catholic we try to be. After all, some righteous heathens got into the lowest level of Purgatory! Maybe you still have a chance!

All jokes aside, while what she is saying is technically true, it's not exactly the best way to bring people back into the fold. After all, if someone leaves the Church in disgust, threats aren't the best way to bring them back.

I doubt anything's gonna get me to go back, at this point. You got anything?

Yeah, 72 white grapes that will make you shit gold .

[The Rich Port]

I doubt anything's gonna get me to go back, at this point. You got anything?

Yeah, 72 white grapes that will make you shit gold .

Eesh. That sounds like an inevitable haemorrhoid.

[The Flood]

What would your opinion be if the Orthodox or Catholic Church decided to allow female ordination?

My opinion could range anywhere between "probably not a good move, but it's no big deal" and "this is horrendous and toying with heresy, I can't believe they did that", depending on how and in what context such a decision is made, and especially depending on the kinds of arguments used to support it.

I've explained the reason for having all-male priests and bishops before:

The Eucharist is the sacrament that unites us with each other and with God; it heals the unnatural division between humanity and divinity. We were created for communion with God, but through sin we break that communion. Once broken, this communion cannot be restored in any way by ourselves acting alone. It can only be restored by God, with our cooperation. Christ became man, died and rose from the grave in order to enable the restoration of communion between human and divine, in order to make it possible for us to become One again. This principle - the communion of humanity and divinity, two natures joining together, two becoming one - is represented and revealed to us in nature by the union of male and female. Ultimately, we believe that God created the two sexes (and sexual reproduction) as a revelation or "icon" of the communion between human and divine.

This is also, by the way, the reason why we must be monogamous: sexual union is an icon of the Eucharist, we are to have one partner as we have one God, and adultery is an icon of idolatry.

So if the two sexes are a representation of the two natures - human and divine - that are to be joined in the Eucharist, then the priests and bishops who consecrate the Eucharist (and who are icons of Christ during the Divine Liturgy) must be of one sex only, because, when they celebrate the Eucharist, they represent the divine side of the union. The Christian Eucharistic priesthood must be either all-male or all-female, to underline the fact that God is one of the two parts of a union which is to be accomplished. And since Christ and the Apostles were male, we have an all-male priesthood rather than an all-female one.

Now, you will notice that this is all about symbolism. Christian symbolism matters and should be taken extremely seriously, but it is not, strictly speaking, unchangeable. It's certainly not dogma. So if the Orthodox or Catholic Church made a decision to change the symbolism surrounding the Eucharist in such a way that priests and bishops of both sexes could exist, and if a serious and comprehensive argument was made on purely theological grounds (i.e. NOT political grounds) about why the change is necessary and why it is somehow consistent with Holy Tradition and does not constitute a repudiation or condemnation of earlier Church practice... then I still wouldn't like it very much (unless the argument is really persuasive), but I would accept it as completely legitimate and no big deal.

If the above conditions are not satisfied and the decision to begin female ordination is taken simply out of a desire to "modernize", or for political reasons, or in a way that represents a break with Holy Tradition or a repudiation or condemnation of earlier Church practice, then I would consider it to be a dangerous act, maybe even bordering on heresy (if it was done really badly) and I would actively support the faction(s) within the Church that are campaigning to have it reversed. Even in this case, however, I would oppose any schismatic groups that might break away from the Church over this issue. Schism is never justified unless the Church completely falls into apostasy and stops being the Church - which is a very, very far cry from a mere dispute over ordination.

However, the whole scenario of female ordination in the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church is impossible anyway - certainly within our lifetimes, if not forever. In the Orthodox Church, support for female ordination is almost completely non-existent, and in any case the only body that could possibly authorize it is an Ecumenical Council. Ecumenical Councils only meet in cases of dire need, we haven't had one in over a thousand years, and there is absolutely no way that one would be called over the issue of female ordination, even if it actually had some support.

As for the Catholic Church, if I remember correctly, Pope John Paul II ended the discussion by declaring it an infallible doctrine that the clergy must be male. So if the Catholic Church wanted to allow female ordination now, it would have to overturn the authority of the Pope in order to do it.

Would it be possible to increase the presence of Nuns in the Church to equal that of Priests?

Could it be possible to make it so that a Nun could be a Bishop, or even Pope / Patriarch?

This particular issue is one I find conflicting. On one hand, barring women from having the same authority in the Church as men seems sort of sexist, but on the other hand, I also value the Church's traditions and authority, and I can't advocate against Church teaching as that would be heretical. As a result, I just keep my stance neutral because I can't decide.

[Puerto Tyranus]

It's called lax Catholic, and she doesn't sound like the kind of Catholic we try to be. After all, some righteous heathens got into the lowest level of Purgatory! Maybe you still have a chance!

All jokes aside, while what she is saying is technically true, it's not exactly the best way to bring people back into the fold. After all, if someone leaves the Church in disgust, threats aren't the best way to bring them back.

I doubt anything's gonna get me to go back, at this point. You got anything?

Hey man, if you don't feel spiritually satisfied, then, by all means, seek out that which makes you feel better as a person. And, with your obviously poor experiences with the Roman Catholic Church, I doubt that I can currently convince you to go to Church...but...maybe that is it. Try to go to Church without your mother, speak to the priest, ask your friends, seek out all the help you can find, and, if all that guides you on another path, so be it. All that I am currently sure of is that your mother is not being a Proper Catholic in her treatment of you.

[The Rich Port]

I doubt anything's gonna get me to go back, at this point. You got anything?

Hey man, if you don't feel spiritually satisfied, then, by all means, seek out that which makes you feel better as a person. And, with your obviously poor experiences with the Roman Catholic Church, I doubt that I can currently convince you to go to Church...but...maybe that is it. Try to go to Church without your mother, speak to the priest, ask your friends, seek out all the help you can find, and, if all that guides you on another path, so be it. All that I am currently sure of is that your mother is not being a Proper Catholic in her treatment of you.

I didn't realize being "spiritually satisfied" would get me into Heaven. If it doesn't, why does it matter?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I doubt anything's gonna get me to go back, at this point. You got anything?

Yeah, 72 white grapes that will make you shit gold .

they make a pill for that now

[Puerto Tyranus]

Hey man, if you don't feel spiritually satisfied, then, by all means, seek out that which makes you feel better as a person. And, with your obviously poor experiences with the Roman Catholic Church, I doubt that I can currently convince you to go to Church...but...maybe that is it. Try to go to Church without your mother, speak to the priest, ask your friends, seek out all the help you can find, and, if all that guides you on another path, so be it. All that I am currently sure of is that your mother is not being a Proper Catholic in her treatment of you.

I didn't realize being "spiritually satisfied" would get me into Heaven. If it doesn't, why does it matter?

Dude, I'm trying to help you here. If you are unhappy trying to get into heaven, then I'm sure Purgatory, Limbo, and Hell all have openings. I'm just trying to make the point that God want you to be happy, bottom line.