V6M@PSUVM.BITNET (02/12/85)
<<>> Most of what follows is my recall from NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGESTER. some reasons on why there are no women priests... We haven't done it in 2000 years and the apostles didn't so we SHOULDN'T. This is called Tradition. If it is correct why wasn't it done sooner? N.B. Tradition is NOT infallible but it gives strong evidence for continuing a practice or custom. Christ was(is?) a man. The essence of the priesthood is sacrfice. Christ is offered to the Father at every Mass through the actions of the priest. He is both victim and principal priest. The priest takes the place of Christ in the eyes of the faithful in most things, so since Christ was a man, his earthly representative should also be a man. Christ came as a man and said the first Mass at the last supper therefore his reps should be as like Him as possible..therefore men. (I didn't say it was written in a stone memo..:-) ) There is a vast difference between being an apostle and a priest. They are seperate entities. So that Jesuit mentioned is not teaching IAW the Magesterium. Please tell your sister that she is NOT getting the proper position. BTW there are very FEW things a women can't do in the Church with the exception of those positions which require ordination such as priest monsignor bishop pope. She can be a theologian lay or cleric and can be a cardinal. Although the only lay cardinal was Bellermine. (BTW if any one can find something in Canon Law on this please post ASAP. My source, a priest professor, said he thinks that I am correct on this one.) As an aside this may be God's way of thwarting androgeny. But I can't prove it. BTW all laity in attendance at Mass can assist in offering the Mass and offer the sacrifice BUT NOT the same way as the priest. In the Oratre Fratres note.. Pray brothers that MY sacrafice and YOURS may be acceptable.................... so the laity are called to offer sacrfice, just not at the same level. I doubt that this is going to satisfy anybody but I tried. Marchionni V6M@PSUVM.BITNET
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/14/85)
> We haven't done it in 2000 years and the apostles didn't so we SHOULDN'T. > This is called Tradition. If it is correct why wasn't it done sooner? *This* is an argument? (I'm asking a serious question!) > N.B. Tradition is NOT infallible but it gives strong evidence for > continuing a practice or custom. To whom? When other evidence shows that change would be beneficial, how strong is Marchionni's "evidence" in comparison? (I consider this a universal issue and not just a "Christian" issue.) -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (02/16/85)
In article <533@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) writes: >> We haven't done it in 2000 years and the apostles didn't so we SHOULDN'T. >> This is called Tradition. If it is correct why wasn't it done sooner? > >*This* is an argument? (I'm asking a serious question!) OK, yes, it is an argument. It is not the strongest argument. In religious reasoning (no smart-assed remarks please) you give weight to arguments by what type they are. In this case, the appeal to tradition is that we haven't made women priests in 2000 years (untrue, 198? != 2000) and so we should not now. An appeal to tradition can be countermanded by an appeal to changing cultural circumstances or by an appeal to scripture. Appealing to changing circumstance we note that women are no longer required to keep their heads covered at all times; hair-length arguments are usually ignored as well. These were traditions formed because of cultural standards of "good behaviour". In the case of women as priests, appeal to scripture makes it a lot less sure that the tradition really reflects the practice in the early church. Many women are referred to with exactly the same word which we have come to translate as "bishop", but the translation is often "deacon" in their cases. We know that the Jewish tradition (Law, for that matter) allowed only men, and men from certain families, in fact, to act as priests. We also know that when Paul told Timothy what to look for in a bishop, he described the candidate in male terms. The candidate was to be a man who had shown himself a good husband, etc. If we start appealing to that for tradition then there is a whole tradition of priestly celibacy to be challenged as well. >> N.B. Tradition is NOT infallible but it gives strong evidence for >> continuing a practice or custom. > >To whom? When other evidence shows that change would be beneficial, how >strong is Marchionni's "evidence" in comparison? > >(I consider this a universal issue and not just a "Christian" issue.) >-- >Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. > Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr In my own (probably not humble enough) opinion, the "whom" in question is the body of believers in this case. It is essentially irrelevant for us as Christians just what the cultural whim of the day has to say about our fundamental doctrines, although of course the superficial doctrines, and many of the traditions, might be subject to criticism (and should be). There are theologians and there are authorities appointed by methods agreed upon within the church, and these people generally determine what practices we are going to follow. When they ignore the collective will of the people we often toss them out on their ears, or just split off and let them be happy with those who will put up with them. This is one reason why there are so many thousands of subsects of Christianity... not because of disagreement on the basic beliefs, but because of disagreement on the traditions and the secondary doctrines. If I can make this any clearer, I will try. Honest questions are always welcome. Hutch
das@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/19/85)
In article <1580V6M@PSUVM> V6M@PSUVM.BITNET writes: >Most of what follows is my recall from NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGESTER. >some reasons on why there are no women priests... ... > The priest takes the place of Christ in >the eyes of the faithful in most things, so since Christ was a man, >his earthly representative should also be a man. Christ came as a man >and said the first Mass at the last supper therefore his reps should >be as like Him as possible..therefore men. ... >Marchionni V6M@PSUVM.BITNET I have never understood why the Roman Catholic Church uses this reasoning, that priests must be male and celibate because Jesus was. Jesus had two legs and two arms, therefore amputees can't be priests. Jesus could see and hear, therefore no blind or deaf man can be a priest. Jesus was Jewish, so only those Christians who obey Mosaic Law can be priests. Jesus was Semitic, so no blacks, Latinos, Asians, or Europeans can be priests. Jesus never saw his fortieth birthday, so no middle-aged or elderly man can be a priest. Etc., etc., etc. There may be other reasons to support a celibate male priesthood, but I wish this one were laid to rest. -- David Smallberg, das@ucla-cs.ARPA, {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!das
sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (02/19/85)
Vince does a very good job relating official R.C. Church positions, but I
would like occasionally to hear his own opinion (that is, if it ever
differs.) It is important to realize that when we discuss the possibility
of ordination of women, we are not treading on issues of faith and morals--
we are discussing custom. The customs of the Church can change. They are
open to dispute. The history of the Church, is, often, the history of
such disputes, proposed by people of good will, people who care about
the Church.
It is well known that the "official position" of the Roman Catholic Church
on the ordination of women is a subject of great controversy for many of its
members. Vince relates it pretty succinctly, but it certainly does not
provide an airtight argument. One can invoke "tradition" as often as one
wants, but that is to beg the question.
If "tradition" is so overwhelmingly powerful, why did John XXIII convene
Vatican II? If "tradition" is such a guiding force, why then is the
Tridentine Rite for the Mass no longer observed? Even the recent dispensation
by the Pope for its occasional use is simply a "bone" thrown to hard-core
traditionalists. If "tradition" is so powerful, why then are we not bound
to the same traditions and practices which were in use back in the fifth
century A.D.? The fact is that the Church is NOT static, that it changes
as the needs of its members change, on matters unrelated to faith and morals.
Even the issue of "representation" seems weak to me. Why choose one's sex
as the discriminant? Why not insist that all priests wear long hair and
beards and sandals? What is it in "priesthood" which is truly
representative of Christ? This is a far more important question than the
present perfunctory arguments advanced by those in the Church who are
unhappily pressed to give an answer.
It is clear that ministry by women was completely outside the realm of
the possible up until this century. I feel that our sister Churches,
especially the Lutherans and Episcopalians, whose liturgy we share, are
serving a Prophetic role in showing us what is feasible and possible in
today's Church.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbnccv.ARPArlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/20/85)
>>>We haven't done it in 2000 years and the apostles didn't so we SHOULDN'T. >>>This is called Tradition. If it is correct why wasn't it done sooner? >>> [MARCHIONNI] >> *This* is an argument? (I'm asking a serious question!) [ROSEN] > OK, yes, it is an argument. It is not the strongest argument. In religious > reasoning (no smart-assed remarks please) you give weight to arguments by > what type they are. [HUTCH] No "smart assed remarks" offered. This doesn't apply just to "religious" reasoning. You're right, it is not the strongest argument. Unfortunately, it is probably closer to the weakest, ranking only millimeters above "because I say so" (assertion) in validity. I am asking why such an admittedly weak argument convinces some people. >>>N.B. Tradition is NOT infallible but it gives strong evidence for >>>continuing a practice or custom. >>To whom? When other evidence shows that change would be beneficial, how >>strong is Marchionni's "evidence" in comparison? >>(I consider this a universal issue and not just a "Christian" issue.) > In my own (probably not humble enough) opinion, the "whom" in question is > the body of believers in this case. ... > There are theologians and there are authorities appointed by methods agreed > upon within the church, and these people generally determine what practices > we are going to follow. When they ignore the collective will of the people > we often toss them out on their ears, or just split off and let them be happy > with those who will put up with them. This is one reason why there are so > many thousands of subsects of Christianity... not because of disagreement > on the basic beliefs, but because of disagreement on the traditions and the > secondary doctrines. But part of so much religious doctrine involves teaching one NOT to question such "authorities", teaching one to accept what they say DESPITE what an individual or collective will offers. Catholicism has come right out and claimed infallibility for their clerical leadership (though that's changing), but Protestant sects do much the same. Think about it: when you offer such people the power to teach and indoctrinate you and yours, are they likely to indoctrinate you to question their authority? -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
nlt@duke.UUCP (N. L. Tinkham) (02/21/85)
[From Vince Marchionni:] > Christ was(is?) a man. The essence of the priesthood is sacrfice. Christ is > offered to the Father at every Mass through the actions of the priest. He is > both victim and principal priest. The priest takes the place of Christ in > the eyes of the faithful in most things, so since Christ was a man, > his earthly representative should also be a man. Christ came as a man and > said the first Mass at the last supper therefore his reps should be as like > Him as possible..therefore men. I too have heard this argument (in an Anglican context). Although it seems plausible at first glance, upon reflection I am not convinced of its validity. Let us grant that the priest is an image of Christ at the Eucharist. Even so, we do not require that the priest be exactly like Christ in all details: It is not necessary that the priest be of Jewish ancestry, of Israeli nationality, have (I'm making an assumption here) a dark complexion, speak fluent Aramaic, or -- perhaps the most important quality -- be sinless. Why then should masculinity be singled out as Christ's one characteristic that must be shared by the priest before the priest can act in place of Christ? I could see requiring sinlessness of one who acts as a representative of Christ -- except no one would qualify -- but masculinity hardly seems the essential attribute of the Christ. N. L. Tinkham duke!nlt
barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (02/21/85)
And don't forget, Jesus was of middle eastern origins, therefore no caucasians can be priests. We are all part of a whole. When churches recognize that ALL beings can represent god, AND god represents all beings, maybe I'll go back to organized religion. Until then, I remain Pagan.
jsl@osiris.UUCP (Jeffrey S. Levine) (03/05/85)
> In article <533@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) writes: > >> We haven't done it in 2000 years and the apostles didn't so we SHOULDN'T. > >> This is called Tradition. If it is correct why wasn't it done sooner? > > > >*This* is an argument? (I'm asking a serious question!) > > OK, yes, it is an argument. It is not the strongest argument. In religious > reasoning (no smart-assed remarks please) you give weight to arguments by > what type they are. In this case, the appeal to tradition is that we haven't > made women priests in 2000 years (untrue, 198? != 2000) and so we should not > now. > > An appeal to tradition can be countermanded by an appeal to changing cultural > circumstances or by an appeal to scripture. Appealing to changing circumstance > we note that women are no longer required to keep their heads covered at all > times; hair-length arguments are usually ignored as well. These were traditions > formed because of cultural standards of "good behaviour". > > In the case of women as priests, appeal to scripture makes it a lot less > sure that the tradition really reflects the practice in the early church. > Many women are referred to with exactly the same word which we have come to > translate as "bishop", but the translation is often "deacon" in their cases. > We know that the Jewish tradition (Law, for that matter) allowed only men, > and men from certain families, in fact, to act as priests. > > We also know that when Paul told Timothy what to look for in a bishop, > he described the candidate in male terms. The candidate was to be a man > who had shown himself a good husband, etc. If we start appealing to that > for tradition then there is a whole tradition of priestly celibacy to be > challenged as well. > > >> N.B. Tradition is NOT infallible but it gives strong evidence for > >> continuing a practice or custom. > > > >To whom? When other evidence shows that change would be beneficial, how > >strong is Marchionni's "evidence" in comparison? > > > >(I consider this a universal issue and not just a "Christian" issue.) > >-- > >Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. > > Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr > > In my own (probably not humble enough) opinion, the "whom" in question is > the body of believers in this case. It is essentially irrelevant for us > as Christians just what the cultural whim of the day has to say about our > fundamental doctrines, although of course the superficial doctrines, and > many of the traditions, might be subject to criticism (and should be). > > There are theologians and there are authorities appointed by methods agreed > upon within the church, and these people generally determine what practices > we are going to follow. When they ignore the collective will of the people > we often toss them out on their ears, or just split off and let them be happy > with those who will put up with them. This is one reason why there are so > many thousands of subsects of Christianity... not because of disagreement > on the basic beliefs, but because of disagreement on the traditions and the > secondary doctrines. > > If I can make this any clearer, I will try. Honest questions are always > welcome. > > Hutch Hope you don't mind my getting involved in this. I'm rather new to net.religion.christian. I just wanted to say I whole heartedly agree with the previous statement, that subsects of Christianity arose because of disagreement on traditions and secondary doctrines. I cannot begin to enumerate the various discussions in which I have been involved over things like (1) which way of baptism is correct, (2) can you use grape juice instead of wine at holy communion, etc. No one being can say which tradition is the most pleasing to God except God. And when it comes to matters like this, all I can say is: God, thank God, is God. Jeff Levine (Yes, it's a Jewish name. I accepted Christ in my sophomore year at Johns Hopkins Univ.)
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (03/14/85)
> [Professor Wagstaff] > But part of so much religious doctrine involves teaching one NOT to question > such "authorities", teaching one to accept what they say DESPITE what an > individual or collective will offers. Catholicism has come right out and > claimed infallibility for their clerical leadership (though that's changing), > but Protestant sects do much the same. Think about it: when you offer such > people the power to teach and indoctrinate you and yours, are they likely to > indoctrinate you to question their authority? Yes. -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois | --+-- | "...still waiting for my name..." |