From: jbuffer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James J Buffer)
Subject: Re: women priests (yet again)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:52:14 GMT

In article <Tck5RB2w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.l
a.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>Some rambling thougts and questions:
>
>1.  Is there any precedent for women priests in any historical documents?  I
>believe there are precedents for women deacons, but I don't know of any for th
e
>priesthood.  Also, are there any examples of women rabbais?
>
No precedent for women priests or priestesses. The early Church was surrounded 
by other religions who had priestesses, but the Christians rejected the 
practice.
There were women called deacons who assisted with baptisms by immersion, but 
whether they were considered ordained is a disputed question.
Don't know much about Rabbis--some segments of Judaism have them but this is a 
fairly recent thing. Anyway, a rabbi is very different from a priest, once you 
get beyond the commonality--that they are both designated representatives of a 
religion.
>2.  Is there any scriptural precedent for women priests
(other than Genesis)?
>        No. On the contrary, St. Paul, who was very grateful for the 
contributions of women to his ministry, was firm about this. I'm not sure what 
the reference to Genesis is all about.

>3.  Given that the RCC has taken so adamant a stand against women priests, wha
t
>justification has the Episcopal Church used to allow ordination of women?
>
Good question. In fact, given the wide range of beliefs tolerated by that 
communion, it's surprising that they speak of priests at all. Not so long ago, 
no good Episcopalian would have used such a "Romish" word--except for the 
"high" party. The Anglican communion has always harbored within itself 
contradictory opinions on matters of import; e.g., some say the Eucharist is a 
reception of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, some say it 
isn't. Both are good Episcopalians. How can this be?

>4.  Are there any examples of the Church reversing itself on matters as
>important as the makeup of the priesthood?  Mass in the vernacular comes to
>mind as an example of something done for so long as to become part of
>Tradition, yet it was reversed.
NOl There is a difference between Tradition, meaning part of God's revelation 
"handed down" (from the Latin, "tradere", to hand down, hand over), and 
long-standing practices which may not have doctrinal significance; e.g., using 
Ahses on Ash Wednesday.>  Once upon a time, in certain dioceses, including the 
Diocese of Rome, Latin WAS the vernacular. Other Dioceses celebrated the 
Eucharist in ARamaic, Syriac, Greek, and even Gothic. Eventually Latin became a
>sort of "high tongue" spoken only by the learned, as the common people in the 
Romance countries spoke
degenerate dialects of Latin which became French, Italian, Spanish, Portugese, 
etc.
The Second Vatican Council ALLOWED use of the vernacular but did not cancel 
Latin. It only looks that way. Presently many theologians and liturgists, 
including Avery Dulles and Michael Joncas, are calling us to preserve the use 
of at least some Latin within the Latin rite. Right?
..

Well, enough questions.  Just one more observation:  for
the Church to say tha
t
>women should not seek ordination as a means of social advancement seems to put
>the Church in the same position as the US Congress.  Congress passes a lot of
>laws designed to promote social justice and equality, yet they exempt
>themselves from most of those same laws.  The Church works for social justice
>around the world, sometimes going to extremes to promote it.  Yet the Church
>excmpts itself from this same movement towards equality.  Interesting.
>
The parallel is defective, since ordination is not a universal human right. 
Males do not have a right to ordination, either. Only those who have a vocation 
to the priesthood should be ordained, and the Church teaches that God does not 
call women to be ordained. Otherwise, the Son would have picked some female 
apostles. He did not, and we profess that Jesus was perfectly obedient to the 
will of the Father.
In trying to further human rights for all, let us remember the wise saying of 
the franch: vive la difference!>
>
>|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
>|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU