Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[Salus Maior]

That's not how biconditionals work.

Let me make it simpler for you.

If taxation without representation is unfair, then so is representation without taxation.

The church has been influencing the state for centuries, while not being charged a single cent, penny, dime, or dollar of tax.

Henceforth, to make it fair, the church must be taxed.

Don't be patronizing, we understood you perfectly the first time.

In summary, Orthodox and Catholics have the same conception of the priesthood in that it's not a manmade institution as you clearly conceive it to be,

I never said it was man-made.

that Christ instituted it intentionally to be male only,

1.There is no evidence for this; only hearsay.

and that this fundamental to what we understand the Priesthood to be in Holy Tradition, and thus it cannot be departed from because people don't have the right to define what the priesthood is because God is the one who defined it.

2.God did not define what the priesthood is. He left that task to Peter.

3.All your sources do is just rehash the same argument you already made before; that it's coming from a position of authority doesn't suddenly make it any more correct than when it's coming from a layperson.

So, to reiterate:

Present an actual argument in defense of male-only clergy.

4."God only picked men" is not an argument for the exclusion of women from ordination because, again, there is no divine mandate that states women cannot assume a clerical position. That God never meant for women to partake in the priesthood is not a statement of fact but an assumption based purely on speculation. If God truly did not intend for women to be ordained he would have very expressly stated to keep women out of the priesthood; yet as I have said before, He did not do so.

Ergo it is clearly not a critical issue to Him seeing as He made no rule against it.

1. It's not hearsay, it's Holy Tradition. A fundamental piece of ancient Christian Tradition.

2. No, that's not what happened and you completely made it up. The priesthood was established when Christ selected the 12 Apostles (Luke 6:12-16), to whom He then granted authority (Matthew 16:5-20, 18:18, John 20:22-23,etc.). The Apostles were directly appointed by Christ, given authority directly by Christ, and thus the priesthood was directly defined by Him. That is the origin of the Priesthood.

3. So I suppose in your opinion the Orthodox Church is then just "Orthodox" in name only and does not actually, as the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese puts it, "preserve...the historic Christian Faith, free from error and distortion, from the time of the Apostles" and in fact it is not true that "there is nothing in the body of her teachings which is contrary to truth or which inhibits real union with God"? After all, you've been pointing out plenty of supposed errors this whole time. So maybe we need to question what "Orthodox" really means to you.

4. Holy Tradition precludes women from the priesthood, this being understood as the community of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit and inspired by Him. That the priesthood excludes women is evident in the precedent of the Church, again guided by the Holy Spirit and acting in Christ's example, to maintain the priesthood as Christ established it. If Christ wanted women to be Apostles or successors to the Apostles He would have done that, and He would have certainly picked His Mother considering she was sinless and had a leading and advisory role in the early Church anyhow. So if a perfect woman, or blameless woman if we want to use more Orthodox terminology, who was the greatest Saint and greatest woman of all time wasn't selected to be an Apostle, then we don't have a right to grant it to anyone else ourselves. The priesthood isn't ours to change.

[Red Lake Circle]

My advice there was mainly for Prima Scriptura, since he was asking for the verse. Obviously it’s bad to be led astray by false idols, but I’ve seen it used as a dig against people the presenter disagrees with, and I feared Prima might just have that purpose in mind.

Oh, and what made you come to that conclusion?

You just tend to be a very combatitive person, at least from my experiences on the forums. It seemed like the sort of thing you might try and pull out in an argument.

[The Archregimancy]

The Catholics in this thread - rightly - often get a little bit irritated when the Orthodox posting in this thread start to outline to Catholics what they think Catholics believe. I've tried to be much, much, better about this in the last year or two (not necessarily always successfully, I grant).

But could I perhaps gently suggest that the reverse might also apply.

Over time, I've noticed that the Orthodox tendency in these discussions is to emphasise the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, while the Catholic tendency is to emphasise the similarities. If we're being honest with each other, both positions are likely driven by internal agendas.

I don't intend to come across as holier than thou (no subcontext intended); I know I've been as guilty of this as anyone, and Matthew 7 and all that. But it does mean that we're often talking past each other, and lecturing each other on what we think the other's position is or should be, which is unhelpful.

I don't really intend to get into specifics here - that's likely counterproductive - but it might help if we could avoid lecturing people on "why are you Orthodox or interested in / sympathetic to Orthodoxy when you disagree with my interpretation of Orthodoxy?". I only ask that you consider how you'd react if an Orthodox Christian was doing the same thing on a regular basis with converts to Catholicism, or individuals considering conversion to Catholicism, and was using Catholic websites to make their point, but was inevitably approaching those websites from an Orthodox understanding. Hackles would likely be raised.

[Prima Scriptura]

Oh, and what made you come to that conclusion?

You just tend to be a very combatitive person, at least from my experiences on the forums. It seemed like the sort of thing you might try and pull out in an argument.

My intention was not to start an argument on this thread.

[Sundiata]

I didn't think changes were necessary but maybe Pope Francis sees what I don't.

https://youtu.be/ONqifldmFqU

[Sundiata]

How so? It is literally easy to calculate how much revenue a church makes.

We don't make enough money to tax.

[Palmyrion]

How so? It is literally easy to calculate how much revenue a church makes.

We don't make enough money to tax.

Ah yes, not enough, and you guys seem to buy fancy stuff
and real estate every now and then, while spending millions on child abuse lawsuits and political lobbying.

[The Alma Mater]

How so? It is literally easy to calculate how much revenue a church makes.

We don't make enough money to tax.

I thought telling lies, especially outrageous lies like this, was a sin?

[Sordhau]

No, that's not what happened and you completely made it up.

Creating it is not the same as defining it. Christ did not write the rules on who can and cannot become a priest; that was Man.

I really don't know how else to explain to you that Christ not picking women is not the same as Christ forbidding women from becoming clergy. You can try to drag out any holy woman from the Bible as an example but it really doesn't work like that. Christ picked the Apostles because they were the right ones for the job, not because they had fucking dicks.

[Tarsonis]

That's not how biconditionals work.

Let me make it simpler for you.

If taxation without representation is unfair, then so is representation without taxation.

The church has been influencing the state for centuries, while not being charged a single cent, penny, dime, or dollar of tax.

Henceforth, to make it fair, the church must be taxed.

Not quite, the state, being a representative body, does not have freedom from religion, as it represents people of faith. The church has the right to free exercise, against government overreach however. In McCalluck v Maryland, the court held that "The power to tax, is the power to destroy." Giving the State the power to tax religious groups, gives the state the power to destroy them, which would violate the free exercise clause. Whether or not you feel the state should tax the churches is irrelevant, the state legally cannot.


Further, I reject your logion. In your first premise there you infer the inverse. taxation without representation being unfair does not inherently imply that representation without taxation is unfair. It's pretty demonstable that its not. For example: not all citizens pay income or property taxes due to, either not owning property, or not making enough money to pay taxes(I paid no taxes for 6 years when I was in college) Is it unfair that they still get to vote?

The other problem js religions aren't the only tax exempt organizations that influence the government. Planned Parenthood is also tax exempt, and spent over $1M USD in 2021 on lobbying. Should they also lose their tax exempt status? I don't believe you'll agree that they should.


Lastly it's debatable that in this case the Church is being represented without being taxed. The Church itself is not a person and (nor technically a corporation) and itself does not vote, thus the Church organization itself, is not represented. However It is comprised of people who do vote, and who are taxed. The fact that they tend to vote with their congregation is really no different than caucussing.


Do try harder next time.

[Tarsonis]

No, that's not what happened and you completely made it up.

Creating it is not the same as defining it. Christ did not write the rules on who can and cannot become a priest; that was Man.

I really don't know how else to explain to you that Christ not picking women is not the same as Christ forbidding women from becoming clergy. You can try to drag out any holy woman from the Bible as an example but it really doesn't work like that. Christ picked the Apostles because they were the right ones for the job, not because they had fucking dicks.

In fist century Judea, swinging a mushroom would actually be important for the task. Patriarchal society and all that.

[Diarcesia]

No, that's not what happened and you completely made it up.

Creating it is not the same as defining it. Christ did not write the rules on who can and cannot become a priest; that was Man.

The relevant question is, "How do we know something is valid exegesis?"

[Sordhau]

Creating it is not the same as defining it. Christ did not write the rules on who can and cannot become a priest; that was Man.

I really don't know how else to explain to you that Christ not picking women is not the same as Christ forbidding women from becoming clergy. You can try to drag out any holy woman from the Bible as an example but it really doesn't work like that. Christ picked the Apostles because they were the right ones for the job, not because they had fucking dicks.

In fist century Judea, swinging a mushroom would actually be important for the task. Patriarchal society and all that.

Which is exactly my point: the exclusion of women from the priesthood has nothing to do with God forbidding it and everything to do with patriarchal Jewish and misogynistic Greco-Roman social values influencing the development of Christianity.

[Sundiata]

We don't make enough money to tax.

Ah yes, not enough, and you guys seem to buy fancy stuff
and real estate every now and then, while spending millions on child abuse lawsuits and political lobbying.

Lobbying organizations and law firms are not the church. Individual parishes don't make enough to tax and the money distributed between them is sparse.

[Tarsonis]

In fist century Judea, swinging a mushroom would actually be important for the task. Patriarchal society and all that.

Which is exactly my point: the exclusion of women from the priesthood has nothing to do with God forbidding it and everything to do with patriarchal Jewish and misogynistic Greco-Roman social values influencing the development of Christianity.

Perhaps, but insistence on remaining male priests only is not so much that there's a moral necessity (though some will make that claim sure), but really that the Church doesn't have the purogative to change it. Christ instituted an all male priesthood at the beginning. Whether this was meant to have theological significance or was merely just accordance with the times, doesn't really matter. Absent new revelation from God, the Church has no basis to open the priesthood to women. All we know is what was done, so that is what we must keep doing so as to not override God's will.

It's not that nobody can think of reasons why it can or should be done, it's just not in the realm of their authority to do so. If God were to peel back the heavens and say "one more thing guys, female clergy are groovy" there'd be little hesitation to start ordination of women. But until that happens, this is what we got.

[The Blaatschapen]

Ah yes, not enough, and you guys seem to buy fancy stuff
and real estate every now and then, while spending millions on child abuse lawsuits and political lobbying.

Lobbying organizations and law firms are not the church. Individual parishes don't make enough to tax and the money distributed between them is sparse.

And how are those lobbying organizations funded?

[Sundiata]

In fist century Judea, swinging a mushroom would actually be important for the task. Patriarchal society and all that.

Which is exactly my point: the exclusion of women from the priesthood has nothing to do with God forbidding it and everything to do with patriarchal Jewish and misogynistic Greco-Roman social values influencing the development of Christianity.

God's human body is male. He is a priest. Why did he not make any woman disciples priests like he did the 12 apostles? God is not a misogynist.

[Sundiata]

Lobbying organizations and law firms are not the church. Individual parishes don't make enough to tax and the money distributed between them is sparse.

And how are those lobbying organizations funded?

The same way any other non-profit organization is funded: donors. Wealthy, non-wealthy, and corporate donors.

[Diarcesia]

Which is exactly my point: the exclusion of women from the priesthood has nothing to do with God forbidding it and everything to do with patriarchal Jewish and misogynistic Greco-Roman social values influencing the development of Christianity.

God's human body is male. He is a priest. Why did he not make any woman disciples priests like he did the 12 apostles? God is not a misogynist.

God is not a misogynist. His followers, being flawed people and sinners, can be.

[Sundiata]

God's human body is male. He is a priest. Why did he not make any woman disciples priests like he did the 12 apostles? God is not a misogynist.

God is not a misogynist. His followers, being flawed people and sinners, can be.

With respect to the all-male priesthood, his followers are not doing anything he did not. That does not make God or his followers "misogynists."

[The Blaatschapen]

God is not a misogynist. His followers, being flawed people and sinners, can be.

With respect to the all-male priesthood, his followers are not doing anything he did not.

...

Are you saying that if priests did something horrible, that Jesus did said horrible thing as well?

Because that's a take I wouldn't want to defend.

[Sundiata]

With respect to the all-male priesthood, his followers are not doing anything he did not.

...

Are you saying that if priests did something horrible, that Jesus did said horrible thing as well?

Because that's a take I wouldn't want to defend.

Not at all.

I am saying that Jesus Christ, a priest, likewise made twelve men priests. These twelve men with the permission of Jesus Christ proceeded to make more men priests.

This tradition and way does not make Jesus Christ, his apostles, or billions of his disciples "misogynists."

[Sordhau]

Which is exactly my point: the exclusion of women from the priesthood has nothing to do with God forbidding it and everything to do with patriarchal Jewish and misogynistic Greco-Roman social values influencing the development of Christianity.

Perhaps, but insistence on remaining male priests only is not so much that there's a moral necessity (though some will make that claim sure), but really that the Church doesn't have the purogative to change it. Christ instituted an all male priesthood at the beginning. Whether this was meant to have theological significance or was merely just accordance with the times, doesn't really matter. Absent new revelation from God, the Church has no basis to open the priesthood to women. All we know is what was done, so that is what we must keep doing so as to not override God's will.

It's not that nobody can think of reasons why it can or should be done, it's just not in the realm of their authority to do so. If God were to peel back the heavens and say "one more thing guys, female clergy are groovy" there'd be little hesitation to start ordination of women. But until that happens, this is what we got.

I'm sorry but that's just not how it has ever worked. The Christian Church has gone through twenty centuries worth of changes from what it originally was in the times of Peter and the Apostles, to the point that early Christians would scarce recognize it. To say we can't change something about the Church because God hasn't told us to yet is tantamount to embracing the Protestant heresy of the 'Great Apostasy' by suggesting any change brought about to the Church in the past 2,000 years is essentially "overriding God's will", which is nonsense. You are right that there is no pressing need to change it to avert disaster or whatnot but this doesn't mean the status quo should be maintained at all costs. The Church doesn't have to change it's stance on this issue, no. It doesn't even necessarily need to change it's stance on this issue, no. But it should change it's stance on this issue. Whether the clergy is exclusively male or is open to both sexes isn't, frankly, relevant to the Church's ultimate mission. That being said if women wish to become priests and possess the ability to lead the Church with the humility and grace expected of that position then I see no reason why they should be denied. God has never been shy about condemning things He deems unacceptable. If He truly, vehemently did not wish for there to be priestesses in the Church He would not have hesitated to expressly state as much. Yet He did not, therefor there is no logical reason to assume such a thing would be counter to His will. There is nothing about being a priest that a woman cannot possibly do. The clerical functions do not necessitate the presence of gonads to be performed.

[Suriyanakhon]

Things are so crazy in this thread sometimes. You want to tax churches. You're not going to get what you think you're going to get but I won't stop you.

The treasure of the church isn't money; it's the poor.

I mean, if you taxed televangelist “churches” then you would actually get a substantial amount of income.

[Sundiata]

Things are so crazy in this thread sometimes. You want to tax churches. You're not going to get what you think you're going to get but I won't stop you.

The treasure of the church isn't money; it's the poor.

I mean, if you taxed televangelist “churches” then you would actually get a substantial amount of income.

I agree with that argument in specific cases like that one but I don't think that broadly taxing churches is good policy because there are easy ways around it, especially for rich people.