REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
Two thousand years of sacramental theology and dogma is summed up as “pish-posh� on a Tolkien forum... [sarcasm]The very ground is shaking with the thunderous roar of reform![/sarcasm]

I don't get it... what about Entmoot?

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
It seems so easy for others to accuse a religion of being dictatorial, bigoted, etc., just because a given religion has teachings. Any teaching seems to be regarded by certain people as necessarily tyrannical. Well... not any teaching... only those teachings they don’t agree with. That’s the seed bed of tyranny, not religious doctrine!

Two thousand years of sacramental theology and dogma is summed up as “pish-posh� on a Tolkien forum... [sarcasm]The very ground is shaking with the thunderous roar of reform![/sarcasm]

Actually, it would be pish-posh no matter where it was summed up- or how old it is, for that matter.

But, as has been said, it's an internal matter for the believers.

A note on celibacy- AFAIK Judaism requires rabbis to be married.

the first positive commandment of the Bible according to rabbinic understanding (Maimonides, Minyan ha-Mitzvet, 212) is that dealing with the propagation of the human race (Genesis 1:28); thus it has been considered the duty of every member of the House of Israel to marry at an early age. The late rabbis set 18 as the age for marriage (Ab. v.24); and anyone, they maintained, who remained after 20 without was cursed by God Himself (Kid. 29b). Earlier traditions, however, persistently encouraged children to marry as soon as they reach the age of puberty (Sanh. 76b) and many important Jews are known to have been married at such an early age. Indeed, so important was marriage regarded in ancient Israel that frequently men who had passed 20 without marrying, were compelled by the courts to take a wife (M. Zvi Udley, Th.M., Ph.D).

Further checking shows that only Orthodox Judaism still considers it absolutely necessary, but Conservative and Reform very strongly recommend it.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins ... teaching people to make decisions for themselves, especially the tough ones, is a more difficult route, but a much more positive one in my view [/B]

I agree, and I make my own decisions, thankyouverymuch , and one of them is that the Christian worldview is by far the most sensible one around And I hope to elaborate on this soon, when we're done in the Gay/Les. thread.

[Nurvingiel]

Speaking of Judaism, has any one read The Chosen by Chiam Potok? (Its sequel is The Promise.) Awesome books, about Jewish people obviously.

[brownjenkins]

Guillaume le Maréchal
It seems so easy for others to accuse a religion of being dictatorial, bigoted, etc., just because a given religion has teachings. Any teaching seems to be regarded by certain people as necessarily tyrannical. Well... not any teaching... only those teachings they don’t agree with. That’s the seed bed of tyranny, not religious doctrine!

actually, i've tried to be pretty consistant in expressing my belief that any orthodox teaching (i.e. one that cannot be challenged or questioned) is a bad thing... i even put it in my sig

RÃ*an
And I hope to elaborate on this soon, when we're done in the Gay/Les. thread.

i hope we don't have to wait that long

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
Thanks for providing the article by C.S. Lewis. It was interesting reading an Anglican version of the argument. Catholic dogma regarding sacrament and ordination differs somewhat from Lewis’ formulation, though.

Regards,
Dave

Could you provide some of the Catholic "version"?

1. It seems so easy for others to accuse a religion of being dictatorial, bigoted, etc., just because a given religion has teachings. Any teaching seems to be regarded by certain people as necessarily tyrannical. Well... not any teaching... only those teachings they don’t agree with. That’s the seed bed of tyranny, not religious doctrine!

1. I know, it's amazing, isn't it? Any religion which is not an empty name (insert whatever doctrine you like) is always labeled that way. As you pointed out, this only applies if the doctrines are ones "they" don't agree with.

Actually, it would be pish-posh no matter where it was summed up- or how old it is, for that matter.

Please note: "two thousand years of", not "two thousand years old". There's a difference.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
actually, i've tried to be pretty consistant in expressing my belief that any orthodox teaching (i.e. one that cannot be challenged or questioned) is a bad thing... i even put it in my sig

But, why do I have the feeling that you wouldn't react as strongly about the Golden Rule (if at all) being unquestionable as about something you disagree with, like this?

[brownjenkins]

Gwaimir Windgem
But, why do I have the feeling that you wouldn't react as strongly about the Golden Rule (if at all) being unquestionable as about something you disagree with, like this?

i agree that it's a hard maxim to refute... though there may be an instance where it could be... i'll have to think on this

on the flip side... may religious "truths" are very easy to refute... and to be fair, so are many non-religious "truths"... all in all, i think catholicism contains more good than bad... i think this is true of all the prominent religions (muslim, hindu, buddism)... but that does not mean they are 100% good...

saying everything should be questioned does not necessarily mean that everything is questionable... i prefer eclecticism over ecclesiasticism

[Gwaimir Windgem]

i think this is true of all the prominent religions (muslim, hindu, buddism)...

I definitely agree with that. I believe strongly that most (or perhaps all) religions have truth in them.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Actually, it would be pish-posh no matter where it was summed up- or how old it is, for that matter.

Please note: "two thousand years of", not "two thousand years old". There's a difference.

Thanks, Gwaimir. I’m glad that my sarcasm was picked up by someone . Brown, what I meant was that for two thousand years sacramental theology and doctrines regarding ordination have been thought about, formulated, debated, rejected, and accepted by better intellectually equipped people than what you find here. To sum it up as “pish-posh� is just a tad on the arrogant and presumptuous side. Reading a single article, even by C.S. Lewis, hardly gives one the education or authority to pass such a sweeping judgement. Now, I don’t know much about physics, so I stay away from labeling anything written by physicists about physics as “pish-posh�; to do so would be prejudicial and arrogant, and I would probably come off as an ignorant blowhard to my physicists friends.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Gwaimir, I think the main difference between Lewis and Catholic doctrine is demonstrated by this line from Lewis’ article:

To us a priest is primarily a representative, a double representative, who represents us to God and God to us.

While a priest may be a representative, at times, of God, being a representative is not the primary nature of the priesthood as a sacrament. To explain this, even in brief, requires a bit of ground work in sacramental theology.

A sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible reality. The sacraments are founded on the history of God’s revelation to his people, and most importantly on the incarnation--the Word made flesh. God does enter into the world He created to lead all people to salvation. The incarnation not only signifies that the world was made good and that God longs to bring us to Himself, but that the world is worthy to contain in itself the invisible reality of the creator--to be a vessel of the divine. The sacraments, then are the continuing signs that God still enters into the world He created, so that His light might “shine out of darkness,� but “we hold this treasure in earthen vessels� (2 Cor 4:6,7)--humble things such as water and chrism, bread and wine, and frail human bodies.

Sacraments, then are not just a re-enacting of an historical event or a passion play for edification. Sacraments are the entering of God into our world under real visible signs. The Eucharist for a Catholic is not just bread and wine and a passion play re-enacting the last supper, but is the real presence, the body and blood, of Jesus Christ, the presence of his timeless sacrifice that brings us to salvation. Baptism isn’t just an initiation ceremony where we make babies cry by splashing cold water on their heads, but is a real transformation of a person’s soul by the power of God contained in the visible signs of water and chrism. In the sacred bond between a man and woman in holy matrimony, God is truly present through all of their expressions of love.

For me, this has very powerful spiritual implications. God not just enters my life as some distant mystical force in the cosmos, but in a very personal and physical way. God uses not just our intellects to touch our lives, but uses His very creation, our world and our bodies; He contacts me, so to speak, through the earthen vessels of water and chrism, bread and wine, in the loving support of my wife, and even through her caresses, her smiles, and her just being here with me and our children. Through marriage, I become an earthen vessel of God’s love for my wife in the same way, a way that incorporates all aspects of our lives together.

As a sacrament, then, ordination is not just the hiring of someone as an administrator, teacher, or even as a preacher. Ordination signifies that God uses the priest as a visible and intimate sign of His invisible presence. The priest is not just a representative of God, but acts in persona Christi. When the priest lifts the host and says the words of institution at Mass, Jesus Christ is truly present in the priest’s words. When the priest reads the Gospel at Mass, it is Jesus Christ, Himself, speaking through the priest to His people, personally teaching us His wisdom. When the priest says the words of absolution at Confession, it is not the priest speaking, but Jesus Christ, who is sacramentally present, who is speaking through the priest.

cont.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The Eucharist for a Catholic is not just bread and wine and a passion play re-enacting the last supper, but is the real presence, the body and blood, of Jesus Christ re-sacrificed for our salvation.

The Real Presence is an absolutely awesome thing, no mistake about that. But one note: is not the sacrifice of the Mass actually not a "re-sacrificing", but one and the same with the sacrifice of Calvary? I thought Christ, working through the priest, bridges the time from Calvary to the utterance of the words of consecration; in fact, that the only difference between the bloody sacrifice of Calvary and the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, is the manner of offering; the High Priest is the same, the Victim is the same, the sacrifice is the same. Is that incorrect?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
Thanks for providing the article by C.S. Lewis. It was interesting reading an Anglican version of the argument. Catholic dogma regarding sacrament and ordination differs somewhat from Lewis’ formulation, though.

Regards,
Dave

btw Dave, (and I'm not Anglican myself) CS Lewis was never really an official spokesman for the Anglican Church - so I don't know whether or not what he writes is any kind of "official" Anglican view.

He was simply an articulate, educated, thinking man (and a layman at that), who became a Christian later in life - and who wrote extensively. I personally think that much of what he wrote is very sound, but he wasn't actually speaking as an official representative of any particular church.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Gwaimir... LOL... we are on the same sheat of music... I realized the error and edited that particular statement probably while you were in the process of posting

Nice catch, btw

[Ruinel]

EDIT: since this thread has grown... I'll explain. The original question was: how do you feel about women as priests?

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
Two thousand years of sacramental theology and dogma is summed up as “pish-posh� on a Tolkien forum... [sarcasm]The very ground is shaking with the thunderous roar of reform![/sarcasm]

That was aimed at Gwai and his C.S. Lewis post. To say that there are "spiritual differences" between men and women... that one can lead a congregation and the other can't by some innate gift that one possesses and the other lacks, is "pish posh". Give me some cold hard evidence of this and I'll take the "pish posh" statement away. Until then... it remains, "pish posh".


Firstly, the bible was written in a time in which women were generally chattel, they could own no property, make no decision on their own, and followed orders of their husbands or fathers or even brothers (whoever was the head male of the family she belonged to).

Second, you want me to believe that because of a book written ages ago, and because Lewis thinks women have nothing relevant and intellectual to discuss that I'm going to buy that piece of tripe? Let's get real!!! Women can ballance their checkbooks, run their families, run their businesses, go to war, fix their cars. And that archaic view that we want men to take over for us, is bull sh... "pish posh".

[brownjenkins]

Guillaume le Maréchal ~ i didn't call it pish-posh (as a matter a fact, i doubt i've even used that expression before ), i believe it was Ruinel... i said that it was a dangerous way to think... believing in absolute truths is fine and well when they're truths accepted by society at large... when they are not, is when the problems arise

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Hang in there, Ruinel. I'm in the process of writing the continuation of my above post.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
Guillaume le Maréchal ~ i didn't call it pish-posh (as a matter a fact, i doubt i've even used that expression before ), i believe it was Ruinel... i said that it was a dangerous way to think... believing in absolute truths is fine and well when they're truths accepted by society at large... when they are not, is when the problems arise

It was me who said "pish posh". But see my above post for further explanation

[Valandil]

But Ruinel, do you see validity for it within a church which accepts the Bible as the basis for its beliefs?

And, btw, my own church does ordain women (and with what we believe to be a scriptural basis) - we have throughout our 100 +/- year history. Still, not many women pursue this (and less now, ironically, than 100 years ago). Also - I certainly understand those churches which do otherwise...

(EDIT: Whew... I'm 3-4 posts down! Shoulda quoted your post)

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

The sacraments are perceptible signs (words and actions... the form) accessible to our human nature through real objects (the species). By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present in a real and endearing manner the grace they signify. As such, the sacraments are recognizable by means of perceptibly identifiable criteria: the form and species. We know, for example, that the Eucharist is indeed the sacramental real presence of Jesus Christ because an ordained priest follows the form of the Eucharist liturgy and consecrates unleavened bread and wine. We know that baptism is the sacramental real presence of God’s saving grace by the use of real water (the species) and the words “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit� (the form).

If we were to substitute either the form or the species of a given sacrament, the sacrament no longer remains identifiable. If the sacrament is not identifiable, then it would no longer be a perceptibly visible sign; if this is so, then it would no longer be a perceptibly visible sign of the invisible reality of God’s presence. Thus, it would no longer be a sacrament. If a priest consecrates a Ritz cracker, such a species is not identifiably the Eucharist, and thus the sacrament is invalid. If a deacon were to baptize a child in the name of Homer Simpson, such a form is not identifiably the sacrament of Baptism, and thus the sacrament is invalid. If two men were to be married by a priest, such a species is not identifiably the sacrament of marriage, and thus the sacrament is invalid (a shot at those in the G/L/B thread ); etc., etc., etc.

Both form and species of the sacraments are not randomly chosen by the Church, but are those presented to the Church in her Tradition, most specifically in the Scriptures. The form of the Eucharist is the words of institution, not because they sound good, but because these were the words used by Jesus. The species of the Eucharist isn’t unleavened bread and wine because they taste good or are easy to preserve, but because Jesus, Himself, used unleavened bread and wine. The species of baptism is water, because the use of water is stipulated by both Scripture and Tradition; the species of marriage, man and woman, is stipulated by Scripture and Tradition. The use of certain forms and species is so because there must be continuity not just throughout the history of the Church, but continuity with the words and actions of Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit through the People of God.

If the sacraments are to be real visible signs of an invisible reality, Christians must admit real differences between words spoken and physical objects used. It must be admitted that there are real differences between Ritz crackers and unleavened bread, between Koolaid and wine, between water and sand, between chrism and motor oil, and, yes, between man and woman. This isn’t an issue of equality, its an issue of species. Both Scripture and Tradition stipulate that the species of ordination is a man. To substitute this would render the sacrament something other than the perceptible sign it ought to be, and thus invalid.

cont.