Female ordination

[Hmm]

We go on as we are. Over time more churches will embrace the ordination of women. Whether they all do, this side of the eschaton, remains to be seen.

As I said upthread, I'd just be happy to settle for a world where disagreement about this could happen in a context of genuine mutual respect, rather than what we face now.

Let's hope so. I'm not optimistic though I think only actual personal experience of ordained women will achieve this. As far as I'm concerned if this has to come about by state intervention, so be it - the prize is too great for considerations like that.

 

[Paidiske]

I realise that for you, in the UK where Establishment is the norm, ways of thinking about this might be different, but I would also be concerned about establishing precedent of governments interfering in church matters.

Today they might be enforcing something I like, but tomorrow, who knows what they will deem necessary? It's one thing for governments to establish basic parameters which apply to everyone - like safety regulations about building design, or whatever - or preventing specific harms (like conversion therapy), but once they start telling churches what to believe or how to practice, we're in a deeply problematic space.

 

[Hmm]

I realise that for you, in the UK where Establishment is the norm, ways of thinking about this might be different, but I would also be concerned about establishing precedent of governments interfering in church matters.

Today they might be enforcing something I like, but tomorrow, who knows what they will deem necessary? It's one thing for governments to establish basic parameters which apply to everyone - like safety regulations about building design, or whatever - or preventing specific harms (like conversion therapy), but once they start telling churches what to believe or how to practice, we're in a deeply problematic space.

It's not an established church thing. It is illegal, for example, for any church of whatever denomination, not just the Church of England, to say that being LGBTQ+ is sinful and this applies to Mosques and Synagogues too. Whether that's enforced is a different question I guess. And I know that applies to some other European countries too, France and Germany for sure, and hopefully many other countries around the world - I don't know though.

 

[Strong in Him]

But what's more important, not doing the right thing because a certain element of people sincerely believe it is wrong. I'm not questioning their sincerity, I'm questioning how much importance shout be given to that.

The thing is that if someone tries to impose something upon another group and that group believes it is sincerely wrong and against their beliefs, you could be looking at a persecution situation.

After all, a king tried to force everyone to worship an image of himself, Daniel and his friends refused and got thrown to the lions. Yes, God protected them; but the point is that the king said that the law said that everyone had to bow down to his statue, so keeping the law was the right thing to do. The conflict came because Daniel said; my faith is more important than 'the right thing to do'.

Not everyone believes that ordaining women is the right thing to do; some seem to genuinely see it as a denial of Scripture.

 

[Hmm]

The thing is that if someone tries to impose something upon another group and that group believes it is sincerely wrong and against their beliefs, you could be looking at a persecution situation.

I know but it's hard to believe but Christian slave owners in the Confederate States for instance sincerely thought that their God given right to own slaves and their consequent standard of living was being stolen from them by the United States. They genuinely felt that they were persecuted victims.

Not everyone believes that ordaining women is the right thing to do; some seem to genuinely see it as a denial of Scripture.

I know and that's why.the church needs to learn from the state, as Jesus told the Pharisees to learn from the tax collector and the prostitute.

 

[Strong in Him]

I know and that's why.the church needs to learn from the state, as Jesus told the Pharisees to learn from the tax collector and the prostitute.

My point is, "should the church listen to the state, or to the Scriptures?"
If someone really believes that the Scriptures, God's word, say that it is wrong to ordain women, and the state said "you WILL do this"; could, and should, they say "oh, ok then", if they are totally convinced that God has said otherwise?

 

[Root of Jesse]

The sale of Indulgences is hardly "the truth."

No kidding. But the Church didn't sell indulgences. Tetzel did. Tetzel was wrong.

What a sure-fire excuse. It exonerates all wrongdoing on a non-stop and never ending basis. [/QUOTE]

 

[Root of Jesse]

You've been told that it is, certainly.

If the angel had said, "greetings Mary, queen of heaven"; I'd believe it.
But the angel didn't say that - all we have is your argument "the angel greeted her as 'favoured' and 'full of grace', that must mean she was someone very important, even royalty. And there are some verses in Rev 12 which speak of a woman who must be Mary; put those together, and you have it that Scripture teaches that Mary is queen of heaven."
1+1 = 4.

Since I am not supposed to believe what Christ said, show me where Jesus gave his mother, or addressed her by, the title of queen of heaven. Not, "well he said this which must mean this"; the words "Mother, you are the queen of heaven."

So, because it doesn't use the language you like, you discount it. What does "full of grace" mean? And who, in human history, was more important than the Mother of God? And who gave birth to the child in Scripture? Mary. 1+1=2.
Even the early Protestants believed Mary was the woman in Revelation, that Jesus was the child she gave birth to, and that she was the Mother of God. But just like the current administration wants to get rid of anything Trump, the later Protestant churches wanted to get rid of anything smelling like Catholic.

 

[Root of Jesse]

This is the thing, he's simply being direct about what the Catholic church officially declares and only soft-peddles because they don't have the authority to maintain it anymore. It's no different from excluding fringe groups based on conviction, except fringe groups don't have the numbers to force their inclusion. If he honestly believes that non-Catholics are outside of Christ it's better he say so than soft-peddle.


If he truly believes that only Catholics are true Christians, why should we try to force him to hide that? Certainly, we can disagree with his assessment but he's entitled to whatever conviction he wants.

I honestly don't believe that non-Catholics are outside of Christ. Their Trinitarian baptism says otherwise. I believe Catholicism is the full banquet, the whole Whopper. While others are "hold the pickles, hold the lettuce". Is it still a Whopper? Yeah.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I can hardly imagine anyone defending hate speech in this day and age, but yet here it is.

Where's the 'hate' speech, Albion?

 

[Root of Jesse]

That may be your definition, but almost everyone else, including the law, defines it like the following examples do.

"Hate speech is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as 'public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation'". Wikipedia

"The term 'hate speech' is generally agreed to mean abusive language specifically attacking a person or persons because of their race, color, religion, ethnic group, gender, or sexual orientation."
The First Amendment Encyclopedia

Accepted. Now you have to prove that I expressed hate or encouraged violence toward anyone, or attacked them because of their religion.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, and every other era before and since. Sadly, it never seems to go out of style.

I accept that most Catholics are not consciously misogynistic. But I think they fail to see the ways the church and its institutions are structurally perpetuating misogyny, nonetheless. This is not surprising as it is a problem with patriarchal structures more widely.



Different, not less. From a point of view of overcoming misogyny, in fact, perhaps even more.



This site requires that posters accept as Christians all those who adhere to the Nicene Creed. "Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed."

I did no such thing.

FWIW, I haven't understood Root of Jesse as saying that the rest of us are not Christians, simply that we are inferior or incomplete or "less" as Christians. Which he can get away with here, but what I was noting was the inconsistency of doing so while claiming to be respectful.

I didn't do that, either.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yeah, no. There's no respectful way to indicate your sincere belief that someone else is inferior.

Which I did not do.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Right. But don't tell me I'm deficient, and then in the next breath tell me you respect me. You can't have it both ways!

I didn't tell you you're deficient.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I am a Methodist because years ago I had M.E and, after we moved house, I was unable to get to our Anglican church for the morning service. It started way too early and there were too many people there.
There was a point when I was hardly going to church at all, and my husband encouraged me to find one that was more suitable, "even if it's a different denomination". The small, friendly Methodist church suited me. After only a few months there, someone suggested that I might be called to be a preacher, and the nature of their training course meant that I could do it in my own home, in my own time. The church were very encouraging about this and did not believe that my illness was a barrier to serving God or being used by him - unlike others who were saying that I'd be more effective when I'd been healed.
I kept going to the church because, at a time when I'd had to give up work and was feeling pretty useless, they encouraged me to believe that I had a gift and could still serve God even in my weakness.

I am still a Methodist for reasons of church politics. I once resigned, went back to the Anglican church, told them I was a preacher with 8 years experience and asked if I could join their preaching team. I was told, "no, we don't need any more preachers, and besides, you'd have to do the Anglican preacher's training (3 years) before you'd be allowed to do that."

When we moved to the north of the country 5 years ago, my nearest Methodist church was actually a joint Methodist/United Reformed Church. I, and most of the congregation, chose to be a member of both denominations.

So you don't hold to all of the Methodist Church's teaching? or URC? If you read my history, this was one of my questions...Why UCC, or Presbyterian or whatever? Is it just because it's close? Is it because the choir is really good? None of those reasons is "Because of Christ". Indeed, it's to worship Him, I suppose. I became Catholic because I see that Christ is really there, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. In all the Church's teachings. Yes. Every one.

 

[Fervent]

I honestly don't believe that non-Catholics are outside of Christ. Their Trinitarian baptism says otherwise. I believe Catholicism is the full banquet, the whole Whopper. While others are "hold the pickles, hold the lettuce". Is it still a Whopper? Yeah.

Fair enough, the extent of denial may run the gamut though the fact that the Catholic church only recognizes the sacraments of the EO as also valid kind of implies that the position of the church denies legitimacy to all other churches. This recognition seems to be changing in baptism, though that is not always the case. So how can we truly be Christians if we haven't had a Christian baptism?

 

[Strong in Him]

So, because it doesn't use the language you like, you discount it.

It's not a matter of disliking the language; it's about reading into Scripture something that isn't there.

What does "full of grace" mean?

What it says.
It doesn't mean "Queen".

And who, in human history, was more important than the Mother of God?

Jesus.

And who gave birth to the child in Scripture? Mary. 1+1=2.

No, that's what I mean.
When you read Luke 1:28, it seems that your reasoning is something like; 'full of grace' is a lovely greeting to give to someone, no doubt Mary was greeted in that way because she was important/had done something to earn such a greeting. As Jesus was the Messiah, his mother must have been even more important, so Mary was important and special. If we go to Revelation we have a picture of a woman wearing a crown. This must be Mary - so combine the angel's greeting with the vision that was given many years later, and Scripture "proves" that Mary was queen of heaven.

Scripture does not say that Mary is queen of heaven; neither Anna, Simeon, Jesus nor the early church addressed her as such. If Scripture taught this, you would just point out the verse to me, instead of "well it says this, and this must mean that ...."
After the resurrection, the early church never said "Mary, queen of heaven, would you start our prayer meeting/have a word with your Son about the coming of the Spirit and his return?" No such doctrine about Mary is to be found in Scripture - in fact she was so unimportant to the story of the church, we don't hear of her again after Acts 2.

Even the early Protestants believed Mary was the woman in Revelation, that Jesus was the child she gave birth to, and that she was the Mother of God.

Maybe they did; it doesn't mean they were correct.

Mary, queen of heaven is not even a Scriptural teaching; it certainly isn't part of the Gospel of salvation. So saying that those who don't believe it only have "the partial truth" or "a subset of the truth", is incorrect.

 

[Strong in Him]

So you don't hold to all of the Methodist Church's teaching? or URC?

As the Methodist church preaches the Gospel, yes, I do.
You seem to have an idea that we sit around paying homage to John Wesley, singing all of Charles' hymns and that those who disagree with what these men said, are not allowed in.

.Why UCC, or Presbyterian or whatever? Is it just because it's close? Is it because the choir is really good? None of those reasons is "Because of Christ".

I go to a Methodist Church to worship, and preach, Christ.
I sometimes go to an Anglican church to worship Christ.
I have been to Baptist, free churches and the Salvation Army to worship Christ.
Even when I have been to Catholic churches (not often), I have been worshipping Christ.

I can assure you that I do not go to church for the biscuits after the service.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Fair enough, the extent of denial may run the gamut though the fact that the Catholic church only recognizes the sacraments of the EO as also valid kind of implies that the position of the church denies legitimacy to all other churches. This recognition seems to be changing in baptism, though that is not always the case. So how can we truly be Christians if we haven't had a Christian baptism?

And yet the main sacrament-baptism-is recognized of all the Churches that baptize in the Trinitarian formula. Baptism formally makes you Christian, in our understanding. And the fact is that other than Orthodox Churches, most others don't believe in the sacraments. In this thread, we've seen some that deny that marriage is a sacrament, or Confirmation, or Eucharist. But you know what? We also recognize as sacramental any Christian marriage.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It's not a matter of disliking the language; it's about reading into Scripture something that isn't there.

But it is there. You don't see it.

What it says.
It doesn't mean "Queen".

I didn't say it means Queen. I said that Hail would be a greeting for a queen. Mary wasn't yet a queen until she died and went to heaven.

Jesus.

Followed by "most blessed among women" Mary.

No, that's what I mean.
When you read Luke 1:28, it seems that your reasoning is something like; 'full of grace' is a lovely greeting to give to someone, no doubt Mary was greeted in that way because she was important/had done something to earn such a greeting. As Jesus was the Messiah, his mother must have been even more important, so Mary was important and special. If we go to Revelation we have a picture of a woman wearing a crown. This must be Mary - so combine the angel's greeting with the vision that was given many years later, and Scripture "proves" that Mary was queen of heaven.

It's not a greeting, it's a title, actually. It's God addressing the young woman who would give birth to His only Son. Mary did only one thing special. She said Yes to God. And no, Mary is not more important than Jesus.

Scripture does not say that Mary is queen of heaven; neither Anna, Simeon, Jesus nor the early church addressed her as such. If Scripture taught this, you would just point out the verse to me, instead of "well it says this, and this must mean that ...."

That's just it. Scripture is not the sole rule of faith for us. Scripture only covers the first generation, and slightly the second, of Christianity. We know what we know from the writings of those who learned from the apostles.

After the resurrection, the early church never said "Mary, queen of heaven, would you start our prayer meeting/have a word with your Son about the coming of the Spirit and his return?" No such doctrine about Mary is to be found in Scripture - in fact she was so unimportant to the story of the church, we don't hear of her again after Acts 2.

Again, only the first generation.

Maybe they did; it doesn't mean they were correct.

If you believe Jesus when he promised the Advocate to guide the Church in all truth, then it would mean they were...And if not, that's one of those Scriptural things you don't believe.

Mary, queen of heaven is not even a Scriptural teaching; it certainly isn't part of the Gospel of salvation. So saying that those who don't believe it only have "the partial truth" or "a subset of the truth", is incorrect.

Well, if you read what I wrote above, you'd know what I'm saying, but sometimes we aren't speaking the same jargon.