Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 10      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,775
Reply with quote  #16 
Jovan, in practice I can live with female permanent deacons, sort of, since they don't claim to celebrate the Eucharist, but in principle of course you're right.  I never claimed to have the most coherent of positions.

Peter, I'm sorry that all the arguments I marshaled on that other thread with Ponocrates didn't make more of an impression, and I don't understand why Tradition is not accepted as an argument in itself.  You seem to think that the burden of proof is on opponents, but I don't accept that; since religion without tradition makes no sense to me, it is the advocates of a break with tradition who are obliged to prove their case, and I don't feel they have.  When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change, especially in matters of religion.  Undeniably the introduction of women's "ordination" has created bitter divisions among Christians where none existed previously, and that in itself ought to be enough to prove its defenders wrong.  I do not however see that Pope Benedict did anything wrong by that standard, since the divisions related to Anglicanorum Coetibus would exist with or without it.

This is not only about vocal ranges, though I've emphasized that issue since Choral Evensong and its repertoire are important to me.  Female "priests" cannot represent Christ at the altar, they cannot produce His Body & Blood, they cannot continue a 2,000-year-old tradition that itself derives from the even older Jewish priesthood, and they cannot allow people like me who hate contemporary egalitarian ideologies to take refuge from them in the Church and have a reasonably comforting experience on Sunday morning that evokes a powerful feeling of continuity with the experience of Christians of past generations and eras.  If had to sum up everything I oppose in contemporary religion with one word, that one word would be "Novelty."  For anyone with a sense of history there is nothing more novel in a Christian context than female "priests," whereas if anyone believes that gay priests are a novelty, I have a bridge to sell them in Brooklyn.

I am nearly as emphatically opposed to modernized liturgical language and "happy clappy" contemporary "Praise" services, even though it would be difficult to construct a definitive purely Biblical argument against them, for the same kinds of reasons.  To put it bluntly, if something doesn't feel like it could have stepped out of a BBC period drama set in Edwardian England (or earlier), I don't want it in church! Anglican women (including Queens Regnant) managed just fine for 400 years without being "priests," and for 1500 years before that when there was no distinction between Anglican and Catholic, and I really don't care about their so-called "calling," any more than modernists of all kinds care about people like me who just want to go to church without being reminded of how "special" the Modern World is.  Frankly I'm not always sure that I've entirely overcome the agnosticism I used to share with you, but that's all the more reason to insist on the preservation of external Tradition as much as possible.  You should be able to understand that, and yes your opinions are relevant since for whatever reason you seem to know more and care more about the faith than far too many nominal "Christians."

BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #17 
This particular Evangelical has Serious, read Non Negotiable Objections based on Flat Text Scripture to having a women pretend to be in spiritual authority over me.  There is also of course a couple thousand years of tradition. 

Now lest you think it 'sexism' be advised that my wife won't even take communion WITH a woman who thinks she is a priest (I can, I don't think the error in understanding the calling necessarily means she's listening to a deceitful spirit, only that she IS deceived, as was Eve; my wife thinks such direct refutation of the text is possible only from a deceitful heart, and spirit).

Neither of us 'fundamentalists' would have issues with a celibate homosexual male as priest.

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,665
Reply with quote  #18 
Well, I revisited the thread, then hastily exited when it became apparent that we were approaching the Great Evolution Wrangle. I had thoughts on women's ordination at the time, but refrained from offering them since I was already heavily involved in debating matters closer to home for me.

See, my attitude is different to yours. I understand that you are not misogynistic and am not accusing you of that. You just wish this one sphere of life to be the same as it always was, which is understandable. Since I don't participate in that sphere of life I have no reason to be concerned about it changing, and I am a supporter of feminism and women's equality. Being so I need better reasons than gut opposition to turn my view against women's equality in that particular field.

Maintaining tradition is a good reason. Not promoting disharmony in the Church, whichever one, is a better reason. But what both these say is that women's ordination can never happen, there will never be a time for it. And I can't entirely find it in my heart to blame women who decided that the time is now, when no better reasons are given other than "it has always been thus" and "don't make waves". Not that those aren't good reasons, but I can see why they would not be enough. Why has it always been thus is the question I posed earlier, and I think it's a hard one to answer.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,665
Reply with quote  #19 
Replying to the Baron, the Duchess of Kent left the Church of England over women's ordination, so I well understand that some women are opposed to it, for the same reasons that some men are. It is not in that sense an equality issue, but equality is, or to me should be, an issue in the question.

I take it that you don't require your heterosexual male priests to be celibate? The acceptance of celibate homosexual priests is then comfort as cold as their beds, I'm afraid. Either celibate or in a committed, vowed relationship would be a different matter, being the same requirement that I presume you do impose on heterosexual priests.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,775
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I understand that you are not misogynistic and am not accusing you of that. You just wish this one sphere of life to be the same as it always was, which is understandable.


Thanks for your understanding, which alas is not often demonstrated by those within Anglicanism holding the pro-WO view.  I confess I have a hard time returning such understanding to the other side, though that has a lot to do with my sense that the battle is over and my side has lost.  It's easier to be a gracious "winner" than a gracious "loser," and WO supporters have not been gracious in "victory."   The discussion here on this forum is a little odd in that neither you nor Ponocrates, the only members who have defended WO at all, claim to be practicing Christians; all of those who do so claim and post regularly are opposed.  ["BlueEmperor" is a practicing (and otherwise fairly conservative) Anglican who supports WO, but shows little inclination to return to the forum though he and I are still in touch on Facebook.]


Quote:
Since I don't participate in that sphere of life I have no reason to be concerned about it changing


That might be true if you were an American, but as you're a patriotic Englishman it's not quite that simple.  As long as the Church of England is intertwined with the Monarchy, those of its policies which pertain to public ceremonies are relevant to all loyal monarchists even if they are not believers.  Somehow I can't imagine that even you would be completely indifferent to the sight of a female "Archbishop" of Canterbury "crowning" King William V.  Look at pictures or footage of the present Queen's Coronation when she is surrounded by clergy at Westminster Abbey.  Is there not something poignant and chivalrous about the fact that she is the only woman up there?   While I'm actually not too worried that there will be an Archbishopess of Canterbury any time soon, thanks to Jane Hedges and her ilk that ideal of the clergy as quasi-Knights is all gone.     Anglicanism is still the religion of your Queen and Royal Family, the religion of your medieval Cathedrals, the religion of most of your elite schools, and the religion of the collegiate Chapels of your ancient Universities; you cannot completely avoid it even if you wanted to (exactly what is so offensive to disestablishmentarians).

Quote:
Maintaining tradition is a good reason. Not promoting disharmony in the Church, whichever one, is a better reason. But what both these say is that women's ordination can never happen, there will never be a time for it. And I can't entirely find it in my heart to blame women who decided that the time is now, when no better reasons are given other than "it has always been thus" and "don't make waves". Not that those aren't good reasons, but I can see why they would not be enough. 


But as you know other reasons have been given, both here and elsewhere...
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,665
Reply with quote  #21 
Yes, but I'm not convinced by them either, I just gave the two arguments that seem strongest to me. I'm not passionate on the question anyway. But if we had a female Archbishop (I'm not sure there is or should be a feminine form) then I would expect her to crown the monarch, should a coronation occur during the archiepiscopal term, and wouldn't find it troubling. Like you I don't though expect one any time soon. Either one, despite the Queen's advanced age I hope Her Majesty has a good few years still to come.

Which leads to an interesting side-point, well I thought it was; when looking up misogyny to make sure I had the right word, I found that the -gyn part has the same root as Queen. Which word in itself is a unique feature of English, almost all other languages use a feminine form of their word for King, not a completely different word as we do.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #22 
It was not with intent that the comfort is cold, only to address the question raised (women and queers in orders).  I've much more objection to women who think they are priests than homosexual men who really are!  The qualifications are given in the Text, it is not something to be trifled with over some 'egalitarian dream'.  Muslims can't be priests either (not even in TEc, thank you Bishopess Wolf!), though some have tried. 

It wouldn't be orientation that disqualified.  Some men are willing to endure the cold sheets (of both orientations) for the cloth.  Others are not. 

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 429
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
But of course that would have been a major policy change, the present policy being that no church that does not submit to Rome is truly Christian.

Not true -- Catholics hold that the Orthodox churches (Eastern, Coptic, Oriental, etc.) are genuine Christian churches, even though we have non-neglegible differences in theology and discipline, and even though they do not submit to the authority of the pope. Unlike other Christian denominations, we recognize their orders and sacraments as genuine and efficacious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I start from the standpoint that discrimination must be justified, and of course excluding women from orders is discrimination.

Then what is the justification of supporting monarchy? Inherited titles in general? Are those not closed to people of certain bloodlines? What about nations whose monarchs can only be male? How can these things be justified, yet the 2000 year old tradition started by Christ within the scope of Christianity not be?
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,665
Reply with quote  #24 
Oh good. I hadn't realised that Rome accepted that there can be Christian churches that are not only not under the authority of the Pope, but ought not to be. Perhaps it should add the Church of England to the list. When was Unam sanctam repealed, by the way?

Well indeed, what is the justification for private property while we're at it. I think hereditary constitutional monarchy is a good system of government. It is sort of necessary for it to be confined to a certain line if it is to be hereditary. If it were necessary for a priest to be male then your comparison would be relevant. Is it? I don't know, and no one so far has been able to show me that it is.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #25 
Peter, do you take the Scripture as Defining in the matter?
If so, the 'requirements list' is in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by "Titus 1"

 5For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,

 6namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.

 7For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain,

 8buthospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled,

 9holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.




__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,775
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Well indeed, what is the justification for private property while we're at it. I think hereditary constitutional monarchy is a good system of government. It is sort of necessary for it to be confined to a certain line if it is to be hereditary. If it were necessary for a priest to be male then your comparison would be relevant. Is it? I don't know, and no one so far has been able to show me that it is.


But it's not, in the strict sense, necessary for the throne to be inherited by the eldest son rather than the eldest child in order to have hereditary constitutional monarchy, yet you have sided with traditionalists on that issue.  You've even acknowledged that traditionalists have a point on the chorister issue, which though important and perhaps more biologically compelling I am forced to admit does not carry the theological or sacramental weight of the priesthood.  So why not side with traditionalists on this issue when it means so much to us and female "priests" can hardly mean all that much to you as an atheist?  I was actually a little shocked that the idea of a female "Archbishop" of Canterbury crowning a future monarch doesn't bother you at all, with your sense of history.

I must admit that I prefer the perspective of an Anglo-French online friend who I think used to post here as "GrumpyTroll," once a staunch trad Catholic, who has lost his faith and now identifies as an agnostic, but remains a traditionalist, opposed to female "priests" (and much other modern silliness).  The Bible says a lot of things, I realize that, that's why I don't argue exactly the way Baron does, but if worship is not going to be respect tradition, it's not something I want any part of.  And it's not even necessary to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead to feel that way.   Though to believers who support WO, I would ask, if the Church has been so completely wrong about something so basic and fundamental to the way it conducts its public ceremonies for 2,000 years, why believe its teachings on anything else?
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,665
Reply with quote  #27 
It isn't necessary to have male preference. I though prefer existing systems of succession to not change, as change creates possible doubt as to who is the proper successor. However I have said that where the system has been changed to absolute primogeniture then I accept the change, if done according to law. I would accept it here, as one day if I live long enough I will possibly have to.

Boys have a different quality of voice to girls, and to my mind better. And girls have every opportunity to develop their soprano voices as adults, boys only a limited time. For both these reasons I support traditional boys' choirs, for whom so much music has been written that girls' choirs simply cannot do as well. So there is a practical issue involved, as there is with changing succession laws.

I have said that I am not passionate on the question of ordaining women. I just observe that so far I have not been convinced that ordaining a woman is a theological impossibility. Though clearly going by the text the Baron quoted the Catholic male priesthood is in a spot of trouble, as they fail to comply in all sorts of ways.
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 429
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Oh good. I hadn't realised that Rome accepted that there can be Christian churches that are not only not under the authority of the Pope, but ought not to be. Perhaps it should add the Church of England to the list. When was Unam sanctam repealed, by the way?

I said nothing about "ought not". Rome contends that they should, but that alone isn't keeping them from being valid churches. From our perspective, they are in schism, but they have valid orders. The Church of England, according to our theology, does not. Valid orders = valid sacraments = valid Christian church. The same was true with regards to other schismatic groups. Prior to the changes in the CoE ordination ritual (I don't know the specifics -- this isn't my area of expertise), Rome recognized CoE orders. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Well indeed, what is the justification for private property while we're at it. I think hereditary constitutional monarchy is a good system of government. It is sort of necessary for it to be confined to a certain line if it is to be hereditary. If it were necessary for a priest to be male then your comparison would be relevant. Is it? I don't know, and no one so far has been able to show me that it is.

I also think hereditary monarchy is a good system of government, but it's far from a necessary form of government. I can't speak for the traditionalist Anglican theological justification for excluding women, but the Roman understanding is that all sacraments were instituted by Christ, and Christ clearly chose to ordain only men. He certainly could have chosen to ordain women, but he did not. And the argument of it not being socially acceptable at the time is a red herring -- Christ did PLENTY that wasn't socially acceptable, and that got him killed. What, did he refrain from ordaining women because he didn't want to be crucified again? Anyway, the church has no authority to ordain women because Christ did not. Also, the priest, during the mass, consecrates the Eucharist standing <i>in persona Christi</i>, and, let's face it, Christ was a guy. The bible is also pretty darn clear on its defense of male leadership in the Church -- St. Paul forbade women from preaching in church!
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,775
Reply with quote  #29 
The traditional Anglican position is substantially the same as the Roman, the same as the Orthodox, the same as virtually all Christians before the world went insane.  (Or rather even more insane, since a lot of other things were destroyed first.)

The only difference is that some otherwise quite traditionalist Anglicans are comfortable with female deacons, not (yet?) authorized by Rome, on the grounds that there is evidence of deaconesses in the early Church and Mary Magdalene could perhaps be considered some sort of deacon.  I am not sure about this.  I think that the original deaconesses mainly baptized adult female converts (since baptisms were performed in the nude) and were probably not Ordained Clergy in the vestment-wearing, Gospel-reading, assisting-at-the-altar sense.

AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 429
Reply with quote  #30 
Rome has no theological problems with deaconesses -- there is no sacramental ordination. It is an area of discipline, much like mandatory celibacy of priesthood. I think it's good that Rome does not have deaconesses currently, in that the role of the deacon in the liturgy really should not be performed by a woman for too many reasons to get into right now. If we were to go back to baptizing adults in the nude (egad, I hope that doesn't happen!), then I could understand a potential need for deaconesses.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: