Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site osiris.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!osiris!jsl
From: jsl@osiris.UUCP (Jeffrey S. Levine)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Marchionni on women priests
Message-ID: <162@osiris.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Mar-85 19:33:43 EST
Article-I.D.: osiris.162
Posted: Mon Mar  4 19:33:43 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Mar-85 06:32:07 EST
References: <1580V6M@PSUVM> <533@pyuxd.UUCP> <1255@shark.UUCP>
Organization: Johns Hopkins Hospital
Lines: 76

> In article <533@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) writes:
> >> We haven't done it in 2000 years and the apostles didn't so we SHOULDN'T.
> >> This is called Tradition.  If it is correct why wasn't it done sooner?
> >
> >*This* is an argument?  (I'm asking a serious question!)
> 
> OK, yes, it is an argument.  It is not the strongest argument.  In religious
> reasoning (no smart-assed remarks please) you give weight to arguments by
> what type they are.  In this case, the appeal to tradition is that we haven't
> made women priests in 2000 years (untrue, 198? != 2000) and so we should not
> now.
> 
> An appeal to tradition can be countermanded by an appeal to changing cultural
> circumstances or by an appeal to scripture.  Appealing to changing circumstance
> we note that women are no longer required to keep their heads covered at all
> times; hair-length arguments are usually ignored as well.  These were traditions
> formed because of cultural standards of "good behaviour".
> 
> In the case of women as priests, appeal to scripture makes it a lot less
> sure that the tradition really reflects the practice in the early church.
> Many women are referred to with exactly the same word which we have come to
> translate as "bishop", but the translation is often "deacon" in their cases.
> We know that the Jewish tradition (Law, for that matter) allowed only men,
> and men from certain families, in fact, to act as priests.
> 
> We also know that when Paul told Timothy what to look for in a bishop,
> he described the candidate in male terms.  The candidate was to be a man
> who had shown himself a good husband, etc.  If we start appealing to that
> for tradition then there is a whole tradition of priestly celibacy to be
> challenged as well.
> 
> >> N.B.  Tradition is NOT infallible but it gives strong evidence for
> >> continuing a practice or custom.
> >
> >To whom?  When other evidence shows that change would be beneficial, how
> >strong is Marchionni's "evidence" in comparison?
> >
> >(I consider this a universal issue and not just a "Christian" issue.)
> >-- 
> >Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
> >					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr
> 
> In my own (probably not humble enough) opinion, the "whom" in question is
> the body of believers in this case.  It is essentially irrelevant for us
> as Christians just what the cultural whim of the day has to say about our
> fundamental doctrines, although of course the superficial doctrines, and
> many of the traditions, might be subject to criticism (and should be).
> 
> There are theologians and there are authorities appointed by methods agreed
> upon within the church, and these people generally determine what practices
> we are going to follow.  When they ignore the collective will of the people
> we often toss them out on their ears, or just split off and let them be happy
> with those who will put up with them.  This is one reason why there are so
> many thousands of subsects of Christianity... not because of disagreement
> on the basic beliefs, but because of disagreement on the traditions and the
> secondary doctrines.
> 
> If I can make this any clearer, I will try.  Honest questions are always
> welcome.
> 
> Hutch

Hope you don't mind my getting involved in this.  I'm rather new to
net.religion.christian.  I just wanted to say I whole heartedly agree
with the previous statement, that subsects of Christianity arose because
of disagreement on traditions and secondary doctrines.

I cannot begin to enumerate the various discussions in which I have been
involved over things like (1) which way of baptism is correct, (2) can
you use grape juice instead of wine at holy communion, etc.  No one being
can say which tradition is the most pleasing to God except God.  And when
it comes to matters like this, all I can say is: God, thank God, is God.

Jeff Levine
  (Yes, it's a Jewish name.  I accepted Christ in my sophomore year
   at Johns Hopkins Univ.)