V6M@PSUVM.BITNET (02/25/85)
<<>> At the risk of A) Excommunication from my Church when I disagree or B) Excommunication from the secular society when I agree Here goes. Female priests: I agree with the Church here. Christ had the opportunity to "ordain" women when He ordained the Apostles. The Early Church also had ample opportunity to ordain women. Why is Tradition so IMPORTANT? Precisley because not all contingencies could be written down. Can you see it now?? Something out of "Foundation" where Christ would appear every so many years in pre-recorded form to tell us what to do. Since Christ wasn't stupid He left the Spirit to guide the Church. And it is the Spirit which helps the Church UNDERSTAND Revelation. As of this writing the Church understands it to mean only male priests. By the way an amputee would need permission to be a priest if he couldn't pick up the host. (See Jogues, Isaac; Saint and Martyr) Celibacy is an ecclesiastical rule and can be revoked as necessary. As for other characteristics: Christ said teach all nations therfore males of all nations can be priests since a worldwide apostolic succession is NEEDED. Why didn't Christ come as a women? He didn't tell me. (maybe He told Ken Arndt :-) ) If He had then all priests would have been women. I know of no infallible teaching on it YET but if it is allowed then I'll abide by it (GRUDGINGLY) since I look at the priesthood as the last masculine role model intact; it being the perfect example of fatherhood. (NO I don't feel like explaining it) Vince V6M@PSUVM.BITNET
sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (02/27/85)
> Female priests: > > I agree with the Church here. Christ had the opportunity to "ordain" women > when He ordained the Apostles. The Early Church also had ample opportunity > to ordain women. Come, now, Vince. The role of women at that time was tightly circumscribed. Christ worked within the conventions of society. This is hardly a renegade opinion. What seems unfortunate to me is the importance you (and the R.C. Church hierarchy) ascribe to a legitimate (for that time) omission. > Why is Tradition so IMPORTANT? Precisley because not all contingencies could > be written down. Can you see it now?? Something out of "Foundation" > where Christ would appear every so many years in pre-recorded form to tell us > what to do. > Since Christ wasn't stupid He left the Spirit to guide the Church. And it is > the Spirit which helps the Church UNDERSTAND Revelation. As of this writing > the Church understands it to mean only male priests. I wasn't saying that Tradition isn't important, only that it isn't the last word by any means. In a sense, Tradition has no power unto itself-- rather, it is fallible evidence of the Spirit working within the Church. You seem to have rather conveniently sidestepped my other examples, such as the reforms which were introduced into the Church subsequent to Vatican II which demonstrate the Spirit working in a rather anti-Traditional fashion (at least as seem by the ecclesiatical Luddites.) An appeal to tradition should be respected AS SUCH, but it alone is a very very weak prop. If we look at work of the Spirit in the Church writ large, there is significant evidence that our fellow Churches, such as the Episcopal and Lutheran, have a Prophetic role to play in the eventual ordination of women by the Roman Catholic Church. The Church comes to UNDERSTAND Revelation through the working of the Spirit. Some of the ways in which the Spirit works are in the aspirations of millions of lay and religious women in the Church, through the discussion of this topic by people of good will, and by the examples of our sister Churches. Out of what looks like controversy will eventually arise consensus. > I know of no infallible teaching on it YET but if it is allowed then I'll > abide by it (GRUDGINGLY) since I look at the priesthood as the last > masculine role model intact; it being the perfect example of fatherhood. > (NO I don't feel like explaining it) A testament to Vince's faith in the Church, I suppose. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (03/06/85)
In article <1613V6M@PSUVM> V6M@PSUVM.BITNET writes: >Female priests: > >I agree with the Church here. Christ had the opportunity to "ordain" women >when He ordained the Apostles. The Early Church also had ample opportunity >to ordain women. What makes you think that Christ did not "ordain" women? He most certainly did teach them, send them out as missionaries, and he defended them when they acted against the traditions of their society in their pursuit of knowledge of God. Women are not allowed to be priests under the order of Levi, if I recall correctly, but they WERE prophets, judges, and leaders of the community and the temples. Further, there is strong evidence in the Letters that women held positions as apostles, as bishops, and as teachers of scripture. Phoebe was called an apostle. We know that the Twelve had a special place as leaders of the church. We also know that they did not pass on their roles. The name "apostle" was given to anyone who saw Jesus alive before and after His death and resurrection. >Since Christ wasn't stupid He left the Spirit to guide the Church. And it is >the Spirit which helps the Church UNDERSTAND Revelation. As of this writing >the Church understands it to mean only male priests. This is not obvious at all. The RC church claims that it means only male priests, but they also have hangups about celibacy that make it impossible for them to follow the teachings of Scripture in regard to the choosing of a Bishop. Other branches of the Church which have equally valid reason to claim the presence of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, have determined that scripture DOES permit women in the role of priests. Hutch