Conquer Club

churchy women haters

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: churchy women haters

Postby heavycola on Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:03 pm

tzor wrote:The main reason is that the church is "comfortable" with the signs and symbolism of a male priesthood. It rests that comfort upon the solid apostolic tradition.


What signs and symbolism of a female priesthood would be so uncomfortable? Tampons? Stiletto heels? Uncontrolled weeping?
Is misogyny part of a solid tradition? Because that is what it amounts to, plain and simple.
At some point, after all the squishing of the copernicuses and the gallileos, the CC decided that actually genesis is broadly symbolic and we don't live in a geocentric universe. Nothing is fixed in stone. Except, apparently, this hatred of women. Are you comfortable with your church's stance on this?

No regulated business in the UK or the US would last two seconds with policies like that, although why the church gets to ignore basic gender equality laws is another thread. But this all comes down to the inherent and outdated attitudes that lead to celibate men being 'disappointed' that women who share their faith might get a look in. Screw the 'solid apostolic tradition', and screw comfort. The Vatican is obviously a comfortable enough place as it is.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

Re: churchy women haters

Postby heavycola on Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:08 pm

OnlyAmbrose wrote:
tzor wrote:The main reason is that the church is "comfortable" with the signs and symbolism of a male priesthood. It rests that comfort upon the solid apostolic tradition.


I'd say the MAIN reason is that it's in the Bible...


OK... as has been pointed out many, many times before, so are laws forbidding teh faithful from wearing different kinds of cloth together, cutting their hair etc etc. Why ignore those and listen to Paul - who wasn't jesus or even a prophet - hating on women? There are deeper issues here than 'following the bible'.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

Re: churchy women haters

Postby tzor on Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:42 am

heavycola wrote:What signs and symbolism of a female priesthood would be so uncomfortable? Tampons? Stiletto heels? Uncontrolled weeping?


Well the tampons might make some of the traditional Orthodox uncomfortable. :twisted: No seriously there used to be a general prohibition among the Orthodox preventing women from receiving communion when they were having their period because they were uncomfortable with the thought of a flow of blood after receiving the Blood of Christ. Western stigmatiasts who were priests (Padre Pio is a good modern example) would have probably driven them crazy.

But it comes down to a general notion that the priest acts in the "person" of Christ. In some ways he also becomes an "icon" or "image" of Christ. Since Jesus was a guy, the argument goes a priest should be a guy as well. I'll admit that this doesn't hold much water, he was also Jewish and circumcized as well. He probably had a beard. (Do we prevent men who can't grow facial hair and who are not circumcized from being priests?)
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: churchy women haters

Postby tzor on Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:55 am

As heavycola pointed out, it's hard to base an argument on just one person alone. Paul is a nice guy, an Apsoitle, but he is only one person. The Catholic Church, like that man who stood on the roof with the fiddle, relies on tradition. When everyone says "NO" you don't suddenly say, "YES."

The following comes from Catholic Answers. You can see that in the early church the question was indeed asked and the answer was a resounding "NO."

Hippolytus

"When a widow is to be appointed, she is not to be ordained, but is designated by being named [a widow]. . . . A widow is appointed by words alone, and is then associated with the other widows. Hands are not imposed on her, because she does not offer the oblation and she does not conduct the liturgy. Ordination is for the clergy because of the liturgy; but a widow is appointed for prayer, and prayer is the duty of all" (The Apostolic Tradition 11 [A.D. 215]).

The Didascalia

"For it is not to teach that you women . . . are appointed. . . . For he, God the Lord, Jesus Christ our Teacher, sent us, the twelve [apostles], out to teach the [chosen] people and the pagans. But there were female disciples among us: Mary of Magdala, Mary the daughter of Jacob, and the other Mary; he did not, however, send them out with us to teach the people. For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us" (Didascalia 3:6:1–2 [A.D. 225]).

Firmilian

"[T]here suddenly arose among us a certain woman, who in a state of ecstasy announced herself as a prophetess and acted as if filled with the Holy Ghost. . . . Through the deceptions and illusions of the demon, this woman had previously set about deluding believers in a variety of ways. Among the means by which she had deluded many was daring to pretend that, through proper invocation, she consecrated bread and performed the Eucharist. She offered up the sacrifice to the Lord in a liturgical act that corresponds to the usual rites, and she baptized many, all the while misusing the customary and legitimate wording of the [baptismal] question. She carried all these things out in such a manner that nothing seemed to deviate from the norms of the Church" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74:10 [A.D. 253]).

Council of Nicaea I

"Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity" (Canon 19 [A.D. 325]).

Council of Laodicea

"[T]he so-called ‘presbyteresses’ or ‘presidentesses’ are not to be ordained in the Church" (Canon 11 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

"Certain women there in Arabia [the Collyridians] ... In an unlawful and blasphemous ceremony ... ordain women, through whom they offer up the sacrifice in the name of Mary. This means that the entire proceeding is godless and sacrilegious, a perversion of the message of the Holy Spirit; in fact, the whole thing is diabolical and a teaching of the impure spirit" (Against Heresies 78:13 [A.D. 377]).

"It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess, nor for any kind of work of administration, but for the sake of the dignity of the female sex, either at the time of baptism or of examining the sick or suffering, so that the naked body of a female may not be seen by men administering sacred rites, but by the deaconess" (ibid.).

"From this bishop [James the Just] and the just-named apostles, the succession of bishops and presbyters [priests] in the house of God have been established. Never was a woman called to these. . . . According to the evidence of Scripture, there were, to be sure, the four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who engaged in prophecy, but they were not priestesses" (ibid.).

"If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God. . . . But he did not find this [the conferring of priesthood on her] good" (ibid., 79:3).

John Chrysostom

"[W]hen one is required to preside over the Church and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also, and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature" (The Priesthood 2:2 [A.D. 387]).
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: churchy women haters

Postby Dancing Mustard on Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:58 am

So once again we're spiralling closer and closer to the "All priests (etc) are sausage-jockeys" thesis?



Good stuff.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!

Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
User avatar
Corporal Dancing Mustard
 
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:31 pm
Location: Pushing Buttons

Re: churchy women haters

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:17 pm

For myself and many Protestants, there is a distinction between cultural proclamations (undoing slavery could not happen overnight, for example), predictions (this will be ... for a time or forever), and law. The Roman Catholic Church draws the lines one way, other churches differ.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: churchy women haters

Postby tzor on Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:06 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:For myself and many Protestants, there is a distinction between cultural proclamations (undoing slavery could not happen overnight, for example), predictions (this will be ... for a time or forever), and law. The Roman Catholic Church draws the lines one way, other churches differ.


Ironically the first reference to racial slavery (as oppopsed to the other varieties of slavery over the centuries) was just before the discovery of America in a Papal Bull against the enslavement of the people of the Canary Islands. The Bull was strongly opposed to the slavery on moral grounds. Rome was constant against the slavery of Africans (although the Bishops in the United States conveniently misplaced the various letters once they received them).
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: churchy women haters

Postby btownmeggy on Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:33 am

tzor wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:For myself and many Protestants, there is a distinction between cultural proclamations (undoing slavery could not happen overnight, for example), predictions (this will be ... for a time or forever), and law. The Roman Catholic Church draws the lines one way, other churches differ.


Ironically the first reference to racial slavery (as oppopsed to the other varieties of slavery over the centuries) was just before the discovery of America in a Papal Bull against the enslavement of the people of the Canary Islands. The Bull was strongly opposed to the slavery on moral grounds. Rome was constant against the slavery of Africans (although the Bishops in the United States conveniently misplaced the various letters once they received them).


The Guanches were "white". Once acculturated they were difficult to otherize. Race as we understand it was developed with the colonization of the Americas. It was a useful tool in determining who it was okay to enslave. No matter what a population's culture or industry or raison d'etre, if they could be easily physically distinguished from Europeans, they would always be different, read inferior, and not deserving of the same standard of humanity.

So far as "Rome" being against the slavery of Africans... Very early on the slavery debate, (1500s, 1600s), many American clerics were against the slavery of Indigenous Americans (folks like Bartolome de las Casas--who recommended bringing enslaved Africans to the Americas to alleviate the Indians' struggles). Rome listened to THIS, and issued many bulls condemning the slavery of Indians. It wasn't until the 19th century, when everybody and their granny was an abolitionist, that Rome actually got serious about condemning the African slave trade.
User avatar
Corporal btownmeggy
 
Posts: 2042
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:43 am

Re: churchy women haters

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:18 pm

btownmeggy wrote:
tzor wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:For myself and many Protestants, there is a distinction between cultural proclamations (undoing slavery could not happen overnight, for example), predictions (this will be ... for a time or forever), and law. The Roman Catholic Church draws the lines one way, other churches differ.


Ironically the first reference to racial slavery (as oppopsed to the other varieties of slavery over the centuries) was just before the discovery of America in a Papal Bull against the enslavement of the people of the Canary Islands. The Bull was strongly opposed to the slavery on moral grounds. Rome was constant against the slavery of Africans (although the Bishops in the United States conveniently misplaced the various letters once they received them).


The Guanches were "white". Once acculturated they were difficult to otherize. Race as we understand it was developed with the colonization of the Americas. It was a useful tool in determining who it was okay to enslave. No matter what a population's culture or industry or raison d'etre, if they could be easily physically distinguished from Europeans, they would always be different, read inferior, and not deserving of the same standard of humanity.

So far as "Rome" being against the slavery of Africans... Very early on the slavery debate, (1500s, 1600s), many American clerics were against the slavery of Indigenous Americans (folks like Bartolome de las Casas--who recommended bringing enslaved Africans to the Americas to alleviate the Indians' struggles). Rome listened to THIS, and issued many bulls condemning the slavery of Indians. It wasn't until the 19th century, when everybody and their granny was an abolitionist, that Rome actually got serious about condemning the African slave trade.

Protestants are guilty as well. Though Christians believe the church and the Bible stem from God, its "body" is certainly human ..

However, in amongst all this, there have always been those who stood apart to take a "higher" road. It is the ironic truth that both slavery and abolition owe a lot to Christian churches.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Previous

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DirtyDishSoap