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

[Camelone]

That’s understandable. I grew up Catholic so it’s not the biggest thing in the world to me as it has the connotation of a formality instead of a serious thing. Now I use father, reverend, pastor, etc. to point out someone’s general churchmanship in a quick manner.

"Eh Padre!"

Just got off a long shift not the most precise at the moment.

[Sordhau]

Poor phrasing on my part. Let me try again:

If women who aren't clergy can have authority over men who are why is the clergy exclusive to men? Clearly there is no issue with women having authority over men.

The Eucharist. During the Mass the Priest is stands in persona Christi.

So?

Poor phrasing on my part. Let me try again:

If women who aren't clergy can have authority over men who are why is the clergy exclusive to men? Clearly there is no issue with women having authority over men.

I've already said why more than once. You just choose to reject the answers.

Because they're not answers, they're excuses.

[Tarsonis]

The Eucharist. During the Mass the Priest is stands in persona Christi.

So?

So, Christ was male. To the consecration of the Eucharist, Traditionally speaking, emulates last supper, the species of the Eucharist must be red wine and plain bread, and the presider a male priest as Christ was.

I've already said why more than once. You just choose to reject the answers.

Because they're not answers, they're excuses.

Oh cut the bs. You not liking the answers, and the 2000 years of Sacred Tradition, doesn't make it wrong. He's not making excuses; he's telling you how it is, and the simple fact is the Church has no obligation to you or anyone else to change. Women aren't owed the priesthood, and if you're holding out on the Church, especially the Orthodox Church, to change on this, you have a better chance of winning the megamillions drawing tonight.

[Punished UMN]

Imo the urge to "open up" the priesthood to women is a consequence of viewing the priesthood as just another profession. Once you accept that being a priest isn't a day job, esoteric rules like this make more sense.

[Salus Maior]

Another thought on why Christ established the priesthood as male only, though it's a more subjective take, is that fatherhood is something that's always needed but often lacking. I may just be projecting my own experience (as well as a wider 21st century experience) onto an ancient event, but deadbeat and absent fathers seem like a constant, and finding a worthwhile figure to fill that need is beyond difficult (in my experience it seems much easier to find willing and present maternal figures than a paternal one). So God establishing the priesthood as a fatherhood, partially in my view according to my experience, is a healing thing and a place where someone can find that kind of figure.

[Duvniask]

The Eucharist. During the Mass the Priest is stands in persona Christi.

So?

I've already said why more than once. You just choose to reject the answers.

Because they're not answers, they're excuses.

Hey, careful there! You're out to win the debate, which is a big no-no!

[Salus Maior]

So?



Because they're not answers, they're excuses.

Hey, careful there! You're out to win the debate, which is a big no-no!

There's nothing to win. She asked why the priesthood is male only and I told her.

[Tarsonis]

I knew this summer was too quiet

[Duvniask]

Hey, careful there! You're out to win the debate, which is a big no-no!

There's nothing to win. She asked why the priesthood is male only and I told her.

Not to her satisfaction. You are being asked that you further defend your position, and that you justify it logically, too (without excuses).

Now that is a big no-no if you want this to be a place to meekly put forth questions and answers with people never expected to be held to account for what they believe in.

[Old Tyrannia]

Personally I have always taken the prohibition on women's ordination as a rule instituted by the church, rather than one passed down from God Himself, and therefore falling within the purview of the church to revise if it sees fit to do so. In modern times with a shrinking church, a shortage of people entering into holy orders and an increased emphasis on the equality of men and women in the public sphere, extending the priesthood to include women seems to me to be a reasonable and pragmatic measure. Obviously this is a position that rests on an Anglican understanding of the church as a thing that is open to reform and evolution and, yes, capable of error rather than an infallible institution preserving an unchanging doctrine from the time of the Apostles as Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians view it. I accept the right of the Church of England as a valid branch of the holy catholic church to set or repeal whatever strictures it chooses to with regards to its own hierarchy, so long as the historic episcopate is maintained. It doesn't really make sense to argue that priests must be male in order to act in persona Christi; by that standard it could be argued that only Palestinian Jews should be ordained as priests. There's no reason to ascribe greater significance to gender than to any other human attribute that Christ would have possessed during His time on Earth.

[Tarsonis]

There's nothing to win. She asked why the priesthood is male only and I told her.

Not to her satisfaction. You are being asked that you further defend your position, and that you justify it logically, too (without excuses).

Now that is a big no-no if you want this to be a place to meekly put forth questions and answers with people never expected to be held to account for what they believe in.

Her satisfaction is irrelevant. As is yours

[Salus Maior]

There's nothing to win. She asked why the priesthood is male only and I told her.

Not to her satisfaction. You are being asked that you further defend your position, and that you justify it logically, too (without excuses).

Now that is a big no-no if you want this to be a place to meekly put forth questions and answers with people never expected to be held to account for what they believe in.

The problem is that she doesn't accept Holy Tradition to be authoritative as a concept when Catholics and Orthodox do.

It'd be like a foreigner asking why, according to U.S law, a person has a right to free speech in this country, and then when you explain the first amendment says that you can't argue from the Constitution because it's not authoritative in their view.

[PhilTech]

Another thought on why Christ established the priesthood as male only, though it's a more subjective take, is that fatherhood is something that's always needed but often lacking. I may just be projecting my own experience (as well as a wider 21st century experience) onto an ancient event, but deadbeat and absent fathers seem like a constant, and finding a worthwhile figure to fill that need is beyond difficult (in my experience it seems much easier to find willing and present maternal figures than a paternal one). So God establishing the priesthood as a fatherhood, partially in my view according to my experience, is a healing thing and a place where someone can find that kind of figure.

Speaking from experience as a former Altar Server in our Church, yes, I think this is correct at some degree based on the sermons given to us by our elders during one of our Sunday meetings. It's like, God chose men to be priest to heal and protect them from their sinful and destructive temptations.

If I can recall, it's something like: It's not that women are not prone to these destructive temptations, they are. But the idea is that men are way more turbulent, so finding a good father figure and exclusively granting priesthood only to men will balance the forces of nature.

[Duvniask]

Not to her satisfaction. You are being asked that you further defend your position, and that you justify it logically, too (without excuses).

Now that is a big no-no if you want this to be a place to meekly put forth questions and answers with people never expected to be held to account for what they believe in.

The problem is that she doesn't accept Holy Tradition to be authoritative as a concept when Catholics and Orthodox do.

It'd be like a foreigner asking why, according to U.S law, a person has a right to free speech in this country, and then when you explain the first amendment says that you can't argue from the Constitution because it's not authoritative in their view.

That would naturally invite a discussion on why it should be authoritative, would it not.

Now you may not be interested in doing that, which is entirely fair, just as the person in your example would be a cause of annoyance in everyday life, but if one really wishes to broach the subject of either why Holy Tradition should be accepted or why the Constitution as the law of the land should, why not.

[Tarsonis]

Not to her satisfaction. You are being asked that you further defend your position, and that you justify it logically, too (without excuses).

Now that is a big no-no if you want this to be a place to meekly put forth questions and answers with people never expected to be held to account for what they believe in.

The problem is that she doesn't accept Holy Tradition to be authoritative as a concept when Catholics and Orthodox do.

It'd be like a foreigner asking why, according to U.S law, a person has a right to free speech in this country, and then when you explain the first amendment says that you can't argue from the Constitution because it's not authoritative in their view.

i think SCOTUS decisions would be a better analog than the constitution itself.

[Old Tyrannia]

The problem is that she doesn't accept Holy Tradition to be authoritative as a concept when Catholics and Orthodox do.

It'd be like a foreigner asking why, according to U.S law, a person has a right to free speech in this country, and then when you explain the first amendment says that you can't argue from the Constitution because it's not authoritative in their view.

That would naturally invite a discussion on why it should be authoritative, would it not.

Now you may not be interested in doing that, which is entirely fair, just as the person in your example would be a cause of annoyance in everyday life, but if one really wishes to broach the subject of either why Holy Tradition should be accepted or why the Constitution as the law of the land should, why not.

Holy Tradition is accepted as authoritative in traditional Christianity on the same basis that Scripture is, that is to say, on the basis of faith. Any debate between Christians over matters of doctrine or theology is impossible without the mutual acceptance of the authority of those sources from which doctrine is ultimately drawn, otherwise there's no metric by which right or wrong can be judged.

[Diarcesia]

Personally I have always taken the prohibition on women's ordination as a rule instituted by the church, rather than one passed down from God Himself, and therefore falling within the purview of the church to revise if it sees fit to do so. In modern times with a shrinking church, a shortage of people entering into holy orders and an increased emphasis on the equality of men and women in the public sphere, extending the priesthood to include women seems to me to be a reasonable and pragmatic measure. Obviously this is a position that rests on an Anglican understanding of the church as a thing that is open to reform and evolution and, yes, capable of error rather than an infallible institution preserving an unchanging doctrine from the time of the Apostles as Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians view it. I accept the right of the Church of England as a valid branch of the holy catholic church to set or repeal whatever strictures it chooses to with regards to its own hierarchy, so long as the historic episcopate is maintained. It doesn't really make sense to argue that priests must be male in order to act in persona Christi; by that standard it could be argued that only Palestinian Jews should be ordained as priests. There's no reason to ascribe greater significance to gender than to any other human attribute that Christ would have possessed during His time on Earth.

That is an interesting opinion. Regarding the usage of human authors as "divinely inspired", is it taken like "what they wrote in the Bible is equivalent to the words of God himself"?

[Old Tyrannia]

Personally I have always taken the prohibition on women's ordination as a rule instituted by the church, rather than one passed down from God Himself, and therefore falling within the purview of the church to revise if it sees fit to do so. In modern times with a shrinking church, a shortage of people entering into holy orders and an increased emphasis on the equality of men and women in the public sphere, extending the priesthood to include women seems to me to be a reasonable and pragmatic measure. Obviously this is a position that rests on an Anglican understanding of the church as a thing that is open to reform and evolution and, yes, capable of error rather than an infallible institution preserving an unchanging doctrine from the time of the Apostles as Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians view it. I accept the right of the Church of England as a valid branch of the holy catholic church to set or repeal whatever strictures it chooses to with regards to its own hierarchy, so long as the historic episcopate is maintained. It doesn't really make sense to argue that priests must be male in order to act in persona Christi; by that standard it could be argued that only Palestinian Jews should be ordained as priests. There's no reason to ascribe greater significance to gender than to any other human attribute that Christ would have possessed during His time on Earth.

That is an interesting opinion. Regarding the usage of human authors as "divinely inspired", is it taken like "what they wrote in the Bible is equivalent to the words of God himself"?

I would not consider everything written in the Bible to be "equivalent to the words of God Himself."

[Salus Maior]

The problem is that she doesn't accept Holy Tradition to be authoritative as a concept when Catholics and Orthodox do.

It'd be like a foreigner asking why, according to U.S law, a person has a right to free speech in this country, and then when you explain the first amendment says that you can't argue from the Constitution because it's not authoritative in their view.

That would naturally invite a discussion on why it should be authoritative, would it not.

Now you may not be interested in doing that, which is entirely fair, just as the person in your example would be a cause of annoyance in everyday life, but if one really wishes to broach the subject of either why Holy Tradition should be accepted or why the Constitution as the law of the land should, why not.

I would say it's because it's an established authority which defines Christianity, and connects the present Church to its original, revered roots as described in the Bible.

I mean, you pull apart Holy Tradition and Scripture (which, in the Catholic/Orthodox view is an elevated part of Holy Tradition as opposed to something separate), there really isn't any Christianity left and then we've just become Unitarian Universalists. The same would happen to any entity when you pull apart their established authorities, because all group identities, polities, and belief systems are built upon certain established authorities. Once you pull those authorities apart, the aforementioned identities, polities, belief systems, etc. dissolve.

[Tarsonis]

Personally I have always taken the prohibition on women's ordination as a rule instituted by the church, rather than one passed down from God Himself, and therefore falling within the purview of the church to revise if it sees fit to do so. In modern times with a shrinking church, a shortage of people entering into holy orders and an increased emphasis on the equality of men and women in the public sphere, extending the priesthood to include women seems to me to be a reasonable and pragmatic measure. Obviously this is a position that rests on an Anglican understanding of the church as a thing that is open to reform and evolution and, yes, capable of error rather than an infallible institution preserving an unchanging doctrine from the time of the Apostles as Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians view it. I accept the right of the Church of England as a valid branch of the holy catholic church to set or repeal whatever strictures it chooses to with regards to its own hierarchy, so long as the historic episcopate is maintained. It doesn't really make sense to argue that priests must be male in order to act in persona Christi; by that standard it could be argued that only Palestinian Jews should be ordained as priests. There's no reason to ascribe greater significance to gender than to any other human attribute that Christ would have possessed during His time on Earth.

en persona cristi is certainly the weakest of all the positions. My only point in bringing it up was to address why a woman can have a teaching role, and authoritative position in the Church but can't be consecrated to the Priesthood, is the liturgical role in consecrating the Eucharist. There's a lot of reasons the Church won't, but this is one reason why they'd say they can't. Coincidentally, though, Deacons can't do that either, so there really isn't anything barring female deacons beyond momentum.

[Luminesa]

The difference is that I’m not a Catholic and don’t recognize their position. If they are not comfortable with me using “reverend”, then I simply won’t address them. My intention is not to be disrespectful, my intention is to uphold what Jesus said in Matthew 23:9

I call Protestant Pastors "Pastor" or whatever is honoring to them despite my disagreements with them. It's about respect, not affirmation of everything they believe about themselves or from their group.

And besides, if you're going to take what Jesus said literally then you can't call anyone father. He said "call no man father" not "don't call priests father".

I call my priest “Pastor” because it’s a Southern thing and I live in a community with a lot of Baptists. *Shrugs.*

[Dreria]

I want to visit an anglo-catholic church

[Salus Maior]

I want to visit an anglo-catholic church

They're pretty rare, at least on this side of the pond. Though I have visited an Anglican Ordinariate a few times.

[Dreria]

I want to visit an anglo-catholic church

They're pretty rare, at least on this side of the pond. Though I have visited an Anglican Ordinariate a few times.

there's an anglo catholic parish 30 miles from me, and a small ordinariate 15 miles away as well.

[Salus Maior]

They're pretty rare, at least on this side of the pond. Though I have visited an Anglican Ordinariate a few times.

there's an anglo catholic parish 30 miles from me, and a small ordinariate 15 miles away as well.

Sounds like you've got pretty good options then.

I've always wanted to visit an Armenian Church myself. I need to get around to that sometime.