C.S. Lewis and Women Priests

[seeingeyes]

Nothing new really...expect that he seems to intentional convolute the issue by interchanging the terms "leader" and "priest" when it suits his argument.

How do you mean?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think I understood you. There is comfort in familiarity, and awe at such deep history (which, as Americans especially, we don't come in contact with very often!) and I can appreciate that.

We'll I don't want to derail your thread, but just very basically things like there are paintings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in 4 directions, signifying the Gospel spreading to the 4 directions; the bread of the Eucharist is made of two separate loaves baked together symbolizing Christ's two natures in union (man and God). I may not be saying it exactly, but every tiny detail has a "reason" such as this - everything has meaning and recounts Scripture. That's what I mean. It's not familiarity at all, not comfort. I understand awe at history in some of the edifices of other churches, but it's not that either. One Orthodox Church I visited is really quite simple. But the elements of representation are still there.

It's the meaning that matters to me, not the beauty or history. Though that argument in terms of your thread is perhaps a weaker one. I suppose it's the "priest standing in for Christ" argument.

This is all fairly new to me, so I may have appreciation, but not fully formed arguments.

 

[seeingeyes]

We'll I don't want to derail your thread, but just very basically things like there are paintings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in 4 directions, signifying the Gospel spreading to the 4 directions; the bread of the Eucharist is made of two separate loaves baked together symbolizing Christ's two natures in union (man and God). I may not be saying it exactly, but every tiny detail has a "reason" such as this - everything has meaning and recounts Scripture. That's what I mean. It's not familiarity at all, not comfort. I understand awe at history in some of the edifices of other churches, but it's not that either. One Orthodox Church I visited is really quite simple. But the elements of representation are still there.

It's the meaning that matters to me, not the beauty or history. Though that argument in terms of your thread is perhaps a weaker one. I suppose it's the "priest standing in for Christ" argument.

This is all fairly new to me, so I may have appreciation, but not fully formed arguments.

Oh! Ok, I think I gotcha now. It's like a puzzle where all the pieces fit perfectly.

What if the finished picture is not the one that Jesus drew, though?

 

[Albion]

Oh! Ok, I think I gotcha now. It's like a puzzle where all the pieces fit perfectly.

What if the finished picture is not the one that Jesus drew, though?

As I read the posts on this thread, though, it appears that you have argued that what's old doesn't matter and is probably out of date in any case, so go with what you think fits the times. It's the other side that's said it's important to respect what the church has always believed on this subject--and has the Bible to back it up--which essentially IS to follow "what Jesus said."

 

[seeingeyes]

As I read the posts on this thread, though, it appears that you have argued that what's old doesn't matter and is probably out of date in any case, so go with what you think fits the times.

I certainly have not said that. My argument is that "oldness" does not equal "rightness".

Jesus demonstrated this every time he said, "You have heard it said...but I say..."

It's the other side that's said it's important to respect what the church has always believed on this subject--and has the Bible to back it up--which essentially IS to follow "what Jesus said."

C.S. Lewis did not mention "Biblical backing" in his argument (I'm sure he would have if he had found sufficient grounds...it's not like he was shy about scripture), and I've posted a link (post #36) that demonstrates that the Catholic Church sees no "Biblical backing" for that stance either.

 

[Strong in Him]

Christians do not have priestesses, simple enough

No, we don't.
We have women who are called to be ministers, pastors and preachers. AFAIK, the catholic church is the only one which calls their clergy priests, and they do not admit women to this office.

We don't talk about doctoresses, teacheresses or whatever, so why priestesses?

 

[Albion]

I certainly have not said that. My argument is that "oldness" does not equal "rightness".

Well, I certainly agree with you on that. However, I don't find that Rhamiel or anyone else has argued that if it's old it must be right.

C.S. Lewis did not mention "Biblical backing" in his argument (I'm sure he would have if he had found sufficient grounds...it's not like he was shy about scripture), and I've posted a link (post #36) that demonstrates that the Catholic Church sees no "Biblical backing" for that stance either.

So, you want to keep the discussion to what C. S. Lewis thought on the subject, NOT to speak to the merits of the issue itself? All right. I really don't care what C. S. Lewis thought about this particular matter myself, so if that's it, I'll move along.

 

[Kristos]

How do you mean?

Meaning someone can be a leader and not be a priest.

Someone can be a minister and not be a priest.

Someone can be a servant (aka deacon) and not be a priest.

Someone can be a pastor and not be a priest.

Pointing out examples of women leaders (or any of the above) during an apology for ordination of women priests only confuses the issue.

 

[seeingeyes]

Well, I certainly agree with you on that. However, I don't find that Rhamiel or anyone else has argued that if it's old it must be right.

That is the heart of "it has 'always' been this way, therefore it should always be this way".

So, you want to keep the discussion to what C. S. Lewis thought on the subject, NOT to speak to the merits of the issue itself? All right. I really don't care what C. S. Lewis thought about this particular matter myself, so if that's it, I'll move along.

The argument of C.S. Lewis is what I was primarily addressing, yes. Do you find his argument lacking?

And as a side note: What do you think of the findings of the Pontifical Biblical Commission? After all, these guys are hardly long-haired hippies looking to overthrow the establishment because they have nothing better to do...

 

[Albion]

That is the heart of "it has 'always' been this way, therefore it should always be this way".

Absolutely not! I've read over the posts in this thread, and there were specific reasons given for the retention of an all-male clergy. It was NOT just said that "it's always been this way, therefore...." And I have to say also that the record shows that Rhamiel bent over backwards to point you to specific evidence.

The argument of C.S. Lewis is what I was primarily addressing, yes. Do you find his argument lacking?

Yes. He was a dear man and a deep thinker, but looking too deeply into eternal mysteries with an eye to finding new insights doesn't always yield the most reliable results.

As for the Pontifical Biblical Commission, I believe it's correct to say that it reported that Scripture or the New Testament closes the door to women's ordination, but since that church doesn't base its beliefs totally upon God's revelation, there was the feeling that they might be priested (or was it only to be admitted to the duties assigned to the diaconate?) according to some other logic. That wouldn't have any particular affect upon me, but the commission report wasn't acted upon by the RCC anyway, which I suppose is the answer that matters.

 

[ebia]

there were women who were respected members of the early Christian community

More than just "respected members". The attitude that Martha objects to in Mary is one of apprentice rabbi. Saul is off to arrest men and women, which would be laughable unless women were serious leaders in the movement.,...

but we do know that they were not priestesses because Christianity has never had priestesses

Now your argument seems a very tight circular one: "we know there were never women priests because we know there never were women priests." Of course you don't know that. Repeating it to each other doesn't make it true.

if people want to invent a new religion, that is fine, just don't call it "Christianity"

You are not at liberty to make that implication.

 

[ebia]

No, we don't. We have women who are called to be ministers, pastors and preachers. AFAIK, the catholic church is the only one which calls their clergy priests, and they do not admit women to this office. We don't talk about doctoresses, teacheresses or whatever, so why priestesses?

Anglican also have priests - male and female.

Priest is derived from presbyter.

Priestess connotes only pagan sacrificial feminine priests. It's used by many to be derogatory. Rather silly, IMO, because it implies their own priests (the word being feminised) are priests in the pagan sense as well. But there you go.

 

[seeingeyes]

Absolutely not! I've read over the posts in this thread, and there were specific reasons given for the retention of an all-male clergy. It was NOT just said that "it's always been this way, therefore...." And I have to say also that the record shows that Rhamiel bent over backwards to point you to specific evidence.

The one point made other than "Christians don't have priestesses" (i.e. tradition) was that all the Apostles were men, therefore all priests should be men.

To which I replied that all the Apostles were Jews, so by the same logic all Priests should be Jews. :shrug:

The rest is "Christians don't do that, go start your own religion".

Well, ok then...

Yes. He was a dear man and a deep thinker, but looking too deeply into eternal mysteries with an eye to finding new insights doesn't always yield the most reliable results.

How do you find his argument lacking?

 

[ebia]

ok, let me put it this way, why SHOULD Christians accept the idea of priestesses?

Because ones reading of the NT suggests that's imperative.

 

[ebia]

It's a bit of both. The line I posted was about representation, which is one point he makes in order to build evidence toward his conclusion that a Church with female priests would not be "near so much like a Church".

His only reason for saying what a church should be like is the representational one. The rest of the article is rhetoric.

 

[MKJ]

From the links and the bit I've read today, Gary Macy's premise is that "ordination" itself changed around that time. That previously it meant "here is a job for you to do in the Church (in this district)" and that it changed to "you have the power to consecrate the bread and the wine".

Yes, that is precisely what he is saying. Yes, women were considered to be ordained, but not in the modern use of the term which has become much more specific.

His study was important though because it impacts how historians will interpret documents that talk about women being ordained.

 

[MKJ]

I certainly have not said that. My argument is that "oldness" does not equal "rightness".

Jesus demonstrated this every time he said, "You have heard it said...but I say..."



C.S. Lewis did not mention "Biblical backing" in his argument (I'm sure he would have if he had found sufficient grounds...it's not like he was shy about scripture), and I've posted a link (post #36) that demonstrates that the Catholic Church sees no "Biblical backing" for that stance either.

Lewis was not saying that oldness equals rightness. He was saying that the Tradition of the Church is more than just an old opinion. There are some things done in the Church that were just old things and could be changed easily, or others with good reason.

He is placing the male only priesthood in the class of things that were given to us in a different and more fundamental way, like Scripture itself. He considers I suspect that it is obvious that it is in this catagory, and that is probably because his audience was a little different than a general audience today - he doesn't feel the need to explain at length why he things that. His audience would have known.

So the audience he is speaking to are people who feel that it is ok and possible to make changes of that kind. And he is saying - if that is possible in the case of priestesses, you could say it about every other big T Tradition - priests, Scripture, whatever.

If you want to know why a male only priesthood is something he would consider in that catagory of Tradition, it just isn't in this text - that wasn't its purpose.

 

[Strong in Him]

Anglican also have priests - male and female.

Priest is derived from presbyter.

They do talk about women priests - true. But the clergy are known as vicars and curates. If someone is ill on a hospital ward, they might say, "will you get the chaplain, my vicar or Minister". A catholic would very likely say "please send for my priest."
In the Methodist church, the congregations mostly use the term Minister, but the official name is Presbyter - all Christians are ministers in one sense, and the term covers ordained deacons too.

Priestess connotes only pagan sacrificial feminine priests. It's used by many to be derogatory.

True - sadly.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I do not know that "it has always been this way, therefore it should always be this way" is a good argument for Christians though...for the simple fact that it hasn't always been "this way". Jesus changed quite a bit, I would say, and the church itself makes a point of progressive revelation.

I'm not sure why this particular topic should be set in stone while so many others have changed over time.

The Church has development of doctrine but not progressive revelation. Revelation reached its climax and completion in Jesus Christ. The apostles transmitted the revelation of God in Jesus Christ as a completed revelation to which no added revelations are expected in this world.

 

[ebia]

They do talk about women priests - true. But the clergy are known as vicars and curates. If someone is ill on a hospital ward, they might say, "will you get the chaplain, my vicar or Minister".

Chaplain and vicar are positions. Catholics use chaplain as much as anyone else. Vicar is essentially shorthand for "the parish priest", as opposed to some random priest. Minister I only hear in Anglican circles when being generic - eg when talking with other denominations. Within higher Anglican circles you'd hear priest all the time.

A catholic would very likely say "please send for my priest." In the Methodist church, the congregations mostly use the term Minister, but the official name is Presbyter - all Christians are ministers in one sense, and the term covers ordained deacons too. True - sadly.

Strictly speaking minister should refer to deacons. Both essentially mean servant.