Re: I have been CHALLENGED. . .
- From: Phil Launchbury <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:12:48 +0100
In article <36ed44595b7pdjfu7felak634g42rjekm1@xxxxxxx>, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:35:56 -0600, Robert Uhl
<eadmund42@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said in
No, it has nothing to do with women supposedly being second-class
citizens; it's because they _can't_ be priests any more than a man can
be a mother. The RC position appears to be that there is something
essential about maleness, in the same sense that there's something
essential about using wheat bread and grape wine in the Liturgy.
I'd be interested to know where they can find a scriptural
justification for an exclusive ordained ministry, if it comes down
to that level of detail. I am told by my theologically trained
friends that this is one of the issues on which the major churches
tend to go quiet and look at their feet a lot.
Easy answer - they can't. It was something that grew up gradually (and
with different emphasis in various strains - for example the early
Celtic Church allowed/required it's priests to marry. The Roman church
of the time didn't.. And the Roman church had the big armies on their
side (starting with Charlemagne and his brood) and so they won.
The 1st Century Christians didn't have an ordained priesthood at all -
they either took direction from elders appointed by the apostles or
elected their own.
And (shockingly!) they allowed women to serve as church officers..
 A practice that most of the non-conformist churches down the ages
Phil Launchbury, IT PHB
'I'm training the bats that live in my cube
to juggle mushrooms'
- Prev by Date: Re: ZFS, from hell's heart I stab at thee!
- Next by Date: Re: ZFS, from hell's heart I stab at thee!
- Previous by thread: Re: I have been CHALLENGED. . .
- Next by thread: Re: I have been CHALLENGED. . .