Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Suriyanakhon]

"Tradition" is not a valid excuse for anything. Tradition is not in and of itself a good thing.

This is a good point secularly, but religiously, no. Religions are inherently founded on traditions.

It was "tradition" to burn heretics at the stake once upon a time.

It wasn't though.

[The Land of the Ephyral]

Have you ever considered that the Church may be wrong on some things?

The veracity of Catholic doctrine is irrelevant to its legitimacy.

In any event, its principles regarding the role of women are not something you can subject to an empirical analysis.

"Tradition" is not a valid excuse for anything. Tradition is not in and of itself a good thing.

It was "tradition" to burn heretics at the stake once upon a time. Would you prefer we revitalize such practices?

Tradition, the transmission of ancient and non-arbitrary practice, is the only means by which what is good can be understood.

[Kowani]

"Tradition" is not a valid excuse for anything. Tradition is not in and of itself a good thing.

This is a good point secularly, but religiously, no. Religions are inherently founded on traditions.

It was "tradition" to burn heretics at the stake once upon a time.

It wasn't though.

traditions evolve, no?
not all of them, obviously
but saying "religions are inherently founded on traditions" masks the power dynamics inherent in choosing which traditions evolve and which do not

[Lady Victory]

Equal doesn't mean identical. There are different roles for men and women in the church.

I didn't say it was, but I fail to see why what your sex/gender is should matter when being assigned a role in the Church.

"Tradition" is not a valid excuse for anything. Tradition is not in and of itself a good thing.

This is a good point secularly, but religiously, no. Religions are inherently founded on traditions.

It was "tradition" to burn heretics at the stake once upon a time.

It wasn't though.

Ideally everything should be questioned. If it can't be questioned then how can you be made to understand it? This should, logically, apply to traditions as well; religious or secular. How can we understand why a tradition is needed if we can't ask why we have it in the first place?

[Lady Victory]

Have you ever considered that the Church may be wrong on some things?

The veracity of Catholic doctrine is irrelevant to its legitimacy.

In any event, its principles regarding the role of women are not something you can subject to an empirical analysis.

"Tradition" is not a valid excuse for anything. Tradition is not in and of itself a good thing.

It was "tradition" to burn heretics at the stake once upon a time. Would you prefer we revitalize such practices?

Tradition, the transmission of ancient and non-arbitrary practice, is the only means by which what is good can be understood.

The "tradition" of not ordaining women into the priesthood wasn't "ancient" in 100 AD.

And by what measure are you arguing a tradition is "non-arbitrary"? How do you define this?

[Punished UMN]

There were female preachers in Christ's ministry and the ancient Mediterranean was no stranger to female priesthoods. Moreover, it's not as though Christ bowed to customs of the time, much of his ministry actively contradicted Jewish orthodoxy at the time. Read the part of the New Testament about the Last Supper, and the reactions people had to it. The Eucharist was a more radical departure from Jewish culture and orthodoxy at the time than women's ordination ever could have been.

Ordination does not make one superior. If anything it is a burden.

That is true enough, I suppose.

But why should men alone be allowed to carry this burden? That seems rather unfair IMO.

The best explanation is that there is a metaphysical property of men that makes them able to carry the charism of the priesthood. To say that it's "unfair" that men can be priests is like saying that it's "unfair" that women can give birth.

[Immortan Khan]

I didn't say it was, but I fail to see why what your sex/gender is should matter when being assigned a role in the Church.

Because that is the holy tradition, which has been passed down through the ages. Why God decided to only ordain men, who is to know. What we know is that women have their own separate role within the church as do men. Just as there is a separate role between clergy and laity.

[Suriyanakhon]

traditions evolve, no?
not all of them, obviously
but saying "religions are inherently founded on traditions" masks the power dynamics inherent in choosing which traditions evolve and which do not

I don't disagree, and hypothetically if the RCC and Orthodox Church decided to allow female ordination tomorrow, I think it would be great. But I find LV's exact argument to be heavily flawed and somewhat ironic since she's trying to become a member of a heavily ideologically traditionalist church, while using theologically Protestant logic.

[Lady Victory]

That is true enough, I suppose.

But why should men alone be allowed to carry this burden? That seems rather unfair IMO.

The best explanation is that there is a metaphysical property of men that makes them able to carry the charism of the priesthood. To say that it's "unfair" that men can be priests is like saying that it's "unfair" that women can give birth.

I guess?

I'm not so sure about the souls of men and women are so different so as to justify excluding women from the priesthood tbh. That seems like a rather flimsy excuse to me.

I didn't say it was, but I fail to see why what your sex/gender is should matter when being assigned a role in the Church.

Because that is the holy tradition, which has been passed down through the ages. Why God decided to only ordain men, who is to know. What we know is that women have their own separate role within the church as do men. Just as there is a separate role between clergy and laity.

The issue though is that just because Christ chose all men for His Apostles does not necessarily mean He was trying to exclude women from the priesthood, and while I can understand that viewpoint I think it's rather too quick to make assumptions based not on what He did but what He didn't do.

[Tarsonis]

There is no reason whatsoever for the Catholic Church to ordain women.

There's no good reason for them not to.

Scripture forbids it, but I digress.

[Punished UMN]

It's worth noting that there is actually a lot of important symbolism that is spiritually important to the sacraments. The priest acts in the person of Christ. When administering the sacraments, he is an icon of Christ, and the receiver is acting as a symbol of the Church. This isn't just exclusive to the Eucharist either, and isn't just exclusive to the priest. For example, during baptism, the member of the congregation which is sponsoring your reception in the Church is acting symbolically as your father (regardless of if they're a man or woman), and, sacramentally, they are to maintain this relation to you. This understanding of the sacraments should help to understand our place in them and why we are participants in the redemption of the world and not just people who are doing something mundane.

[Lady Victory]

traditions evolve, no?
not all of them, obviously
but saying "religions are inherently founded on traditions" masks the power dynamics inherent in choosing which traditions evolve and which do not

I don't disagree, and hypothetically if the RCC and Orthodox Church decided to allow female ordination tomorrow, I think it would be great. But I find LV's exact argument to be heavily flawed and somewhat ironic since she's trying to become a member of a heavily ideologically traditionalist church.

I never made the claim that I agree wholeheartedly with the OCC on everything, no matter what Tars or Salus may think. But I do believe it is the True Church and as a result I am drawn towards it. I'm not going to picket churches and demand change or anything, and I can respect the hierarchy, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with all stated positions so long as I don't physically oppose them; which I don't intend to do. Rebellion only ends up spawning heresies. Reform has to come from from the upper echelons itself, not laity or lower ranking clergy who happen to disagree.

[Immortan Khan]

Because that is the holy tradition, which has been passed down through the ages. Why God decided to only ordain men, who is to know. What we know is that women have their own separate role within the church as do men. Just as there is a separate role between clergy and laity.

The issue though is that just because Christ chose all men for His Apostles does not necessarily mean He was trying to exclude women from the priesthood, and while I can understand that viewpoint I think it's rather too quick to make assumptions based not on what He did but what He didn't do.

Well what he did do was only ordain men. What he did do was establish that there are separate roles for men and women. It's not as if women are too be neglected or do not play a massive role within the Church or its history - far from it, women have often been among the greatest defenders and patrons of the Church. But Christ wasn't afraid of breaking down barriers, the role that women played in his ministry which was continued by the apostles was something already a radical departure from Judaism. If God wished for there to be female bishops then there would have been.

[Lady Victory]

It's worth noting that there is actually a lot of important symbolism that is spiritually important to the sacraments. The priest acts in the person of Christ. When administering the sacraments, he is an icon of Christ, and the receiver is acting as a symbol of the Church. This isn't just exclusive to the Eucharist either, and isn't just exclusive to the priest. For example, during baptism, the member of the congregation which is sponsoring your reception in the Church is acting symbolically as your father (regardless of if they're a man or woman), and, sacramentally, they are to maintain this relation to you. This understanding of the sacraments should help to understand our place in them and why we are participants in the redemption of the world and not just people who are doing something mundane.

Oooohhh, is that why Reverends are typically referred to as "Father"?

[Immortan Khan]

I don't disagree, and hypothetically if the RCC and Orthodox Church decided to allow female ordination tomorrow, I think it would be great. But I find LV's exact argument to be heavily flawed and somewhat ironic since she's trying to become a member of a heavily ideologically traditionalist church.

I never made the claim that I agree wholeheartedly with the OCC on everything, no matter what Tars or Salus may think. But I do believe it is the True Church and as a result I am drawn towards it. I'm not going to picket churches and demand change or anything, and I can respect the hierarchy, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with all stated positions so long as I don't physically oppose them; which I don't intend to do. Rebellion only ends up spawning heresies. Reform has to come from from the upper echelons itself, not laity or lower ranking clergy who happen to disagree.

It's not that you have to agree on everything, it's just, to be frank, I can't see what you agree with because honestly it seems like the vast majority of your views run up against Orthodox views.

[Lady Victory]

The issue though is that just because Christ chose all men for His Apostles does not necessarily mean He was trying to exclude women from the priesthood, and while I can understand that viewpoint I think it's rather too quick to make assumptions based not on what He did but what He didn't do.

Well what he did do was only ordain men. What he did do was establish that there are separate roles for men and women. It's not as if women are too be neglected or do not play a massive role within the Church or its history - far from it, women have often been among the greatest defenders and patrons of the Church. But Christ wasn't afraid of breaking down barriers, the role that women played in his ministry which was continued by the apostles was something already a radical departure from Judaism. If God wished for there to be female bishops then there would have been.

Well, there were female Deacons.

[Kowani]

traditions evolve, no?
not all of them, obviously
but saying "religions are inherently founded on traditions" masks the power dynamics inherent in choosing which traditions evolve and which do not

I don't disagree, and hypothetically if the RCC and Orthodox Church decided to allow female ordination tomorrow, I think it would be great. But I find LV's exact argument to be heavily flawed and somewhat ironic since she's trying to become a member of a heavily ideologically traditionalist church, while using theologically Protestant logic.

fair enough, yeah

[Sundiata]

Oddly, the masses insist.

Of what relevance should populism be to the teachings of the Church?

None.

[Lady Victory]

I never made the claim that I agree wholeheartedly with the OCC on everything, no matter what Tars or Salus may think. But I do believe it is the True Church and as a result I am drawn towards it. I'm not going to picket churches and demand change or anything, and I can respect the hierarchy, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with all stated positions so long as I don't physically oppose them; which I don't intend to do. Rebellion only ends up spawning heresies. Reform has to come from from the upper echelons itself, not laity or lower ranking clergy who happen to disagree.

It's not that you have to agree on everything, it's just, to be frank, I can't see what you agree with because honestly it seems like the vast majority of your views run up against Orthodox views.

Largely their views on the Papacy and it's role in Christianity, their claim of being the original One Church, and some other stuff I'm really too tired to think of right now. I think I already spoke about this before when UMN (I think it was UMN) asked?

[Punished UMN]

It's worth noting that there is actually a lot of important symbolism that is spiritually important to the sacraments. The priest acts in the person of Christ. When administering the sacraments, he is an icon of Christ, and the receiver is acting as a symbol of the Church. This isn't just exclusive to the Eucharist either, and isn't just exclusive to the priest. For example, during baptism, the member of the congregation which is sponsoring your reception in the Church is acting symbolically as your father (regardless of if they're a man or woman), and, sacramentally, they are to maintain this relation to you. This understanding of the sacraments should help to understand our place in them and why we are participants in the redemption of the world and not just people who are doing something mundane.

Oooohhh, is that why Reverends are typically referred to as "Father"?

Not the same reason, but a priest cannot be your sponsor/godparent. It is though, why your sponsor/godparent cannot be someone who is younger than you and why you cannot later develop any kind of romantic or sexual relationship with your sponsor (because that would be incestuous). One of the best arguments for not allowing priests to marry is that it is incestuous; early Christianity and today's Eastern Christianity kind of got around this by only allowing men who had married prior to their ordination to become priests and assigning the role of a mother of the congregation to the priest's wife (this is why in many Orthodox countries, you address the wife of the priest as "Mother" and her formal title is "Priestess") to the priest's role as the Father of the parish.

[Immortan Khan]

Well what he did do was only ordain men. What he did do was establish that there are separate roles for men and women. It's not as if women are too be neglected or do not play a massive role within the Church or its history - far from it, women have often been among the greatest defenders and patrons of the Church. But Christ wasn't afraid of breaking down barriers, the role that women played in his ministry which was continued by the apostles was something already a radical departure from Judaism. If God wished for there to be female bishops then there would have been.

Well, there were female Deacons.

There is one mention, that of Saint Phoebe, and we know nothing about the differences in authority. Deaconesses are also something that existed but were not ordained. It was also a title that was given to women who were the wives of deacons. There's nothing to show that she was ordained.

[Tarsonis]

The best explanation is that there is a metaphysical property of men that makes them able to carry the charism of the priesthood. To say that it's "unfair" that men can be priests is like saying that it's "unfair" that women can give birth.

I guess?

I'm not so sure about the souls of men and women are so different so as to justify excluding women from the priesthood tbh. That seems like a rather flimsy excuse to me.

Because that is the holy tradition, which has been passed down through the ages. Why God decided to only ordain men, who is to know. What we know is that women have their own separate role within the church as do men. Just as there is a separate role between clergy and laity.

The issue though is that just because Christ chose all men for His Apostles does not necessarily mean He was trying to exclude women from the priesthood, and while I can understand that viewpoint I think it's rather too quick to make assumptions based not on what He did but what He didn't do.

2000 years of Sacred Tradition is too quick?

[Lady Victory]

Oooohhh, is that why Reverends are typically referred to as "Father"?

Not the same reason, but a priest cannot be your sponsor/godparent. It is though, why your sponsor/godparent cannot be someone who is younger than you and why you cannot later develop any kind of romantic or sexual relationship with your sponsor (because that would be incestuous). One of the best arguments for not allowing priests to marry is that it is incestuous; early Christianity and today's Eastern Christianity kind of got around this by only allowing men who had married prior to their ordination to become priests and assigning the role of a mother of the congregation to the priest's wife (this is why in many Orthodox countries, you address the wife of the priest as "Mother" and her formal title is "Priestess") to the priest's role as the Father of the parish.

I didn't know that part about a priest's wife, that's neat.

That was another thing I agreed with Orthodox on, though: allowing married men to be ordained.

Well, there were female Deacons.

There is one mention, that of Saint Phoebe, and we know nothing about the differences in authority. Deaconesses are also something that existed but were not ordained. It was also a title that was given to women who were the wives of deacons. There's nothing to show that she was ordained.

Fair enough I suppose.

[Punished UMN]

Not the same reason, but a priest cannot be your sponsor/godparent. It is though, why your sponsor/godparent cannot be someone who is younger than you and why you cannot later develop any kind of romantic or sexual relationship with your sponsor (because that would be incestuous). One of the best arguments for not allowing priests to marry is that it is incestuous; early Christianity and today's Eastern Christianity kind of got around this by only allowing men who had married prior to their ordination to become priests and assigning the role of a mother of the congregation to the priest's wife (this is why in many Orthodox countries, you address the wife of the priest as "Mother" and her formal title is "Priestess") to the priest's role as the Father of the parish.

I didn't know that part about a priest's wife, that's neat.

That was another thing I agreed with Orthodox on, though: allowing married men to be ordained.

It is also worth noting that many aspects of a priest or deacon's ordination also apply to his wife. For example, if a priest or deacon dies, his wife cannot remarry because she is "ordained" with her husband (though in special cases, special discretion can be granted by a bishop).

[North Washington Republic]

Oddly, the masses insist.

Of what relevance should populism be to the teachings of the Church?

There's no good reason for them not to.

Tradition itself is good enough.

Jesus did break tradition from time to time..
Just saying..