Dear all,
I am not happy with the way how this current thread has developed, and,
besides being unhappy, I feel that as a list-owner I should throw in a word.
I would like to remind us all that we have gathered on this list for
discussing matters of medieval religion, and for discussing them from a
historical point of view. When we discuss concepts of papal authority, of
female priesthood or of difference of gender, we refer to these matters as
they were conceived by, or of importance for, medieval culture. The truth
of these concepts is no issue here. Nor do we address medieval concepts
with the purpose of scoring points against, or in favour of, current
positions of faith. If anybody feels like professing his own religious
concepts and beliefs, or like discussing the religious views of other
members, or even of telling them that they should have the "honesty" of
admitting that they are no "true" Christians but rather Cathars, please
feel invited -- and strongly -- to reserve postings of this kind to private
discussions or to other lists.
Also, speaking of honesty, if we criticize the views of certain scholars or
schools of thought, especially if we criticize them heavily and at length,
we should have the honesty or at least the courtesy of putting a name to
these views and of quoting, if possible, a reference. In the course of the
current discussion I have seen views being attributed to "feminist scholars
(not all of them)" where I strongly doubt that *any* "feminist scholar"
would seriously subscribe to these views. Bashing feminist scholars (or
anti-feminist scholars) may be fun to some, but bashing phantoms is only a
waste of our patience and time.
All yours nevertheless,
Otfried
-------------------------------------------------------------
Otfried Lieberknecht ([log in to unmask], http://www.lieberknecht.de)
D-12163 Berlin, Schoeneberger Str. 11, tel. ++49 +30 8516675
-------------------------------------------------------------
At 10:51 24.12.99 -0600, you wrote:
>What you enunciate here about the origins of the clergy is a
>protestant view. It is a perfectly legitimate view if one is not
>committed to the Catholic magisterium. But it was condemned by the
>Council of Trent. If it makes more sense to you than the Council of
>Trent's dogmatic statement, fine. But have the intellectual honesty
>to admit that you have rejected a fundamental priniciple of Catholic
>teaching, not merely one among many options available to Catholics.
>
>Dennis Martin
>
>>>> <[log in to unmask]> 12/24 9:47 AM >>>
>
>>If the Church was unjustly captive to culture for 1900 years and
>only
>>realized this after being prompted by post-Christian modern
>culture,
>>then the Church does not transcend culture and the
>>Kulturprotestantismus of the 19thc was correct and historic
>Catholic
>>claims about the nature of the Church were incorrect all these
>>centuries. This may indeed be true, but then one has become a
>>Protestant.
>
>One need not be a protestant to believe that the church is an
>institution
>bound to history and its vagaries. It is indeed a matter of faith
>over
>which the pope reigns that the church transcends history but I don't
>think
>that is a question that need concern a scholar. From that mundane
>point of
>view, the sources do not support the argument.
>
>In the Pauline and deutero-Pauline letters (which are earlier than
>the
>Gospels) there are not ordained priests in evidence and sacraments as
>we
>understand them are only present in the interpretation of the
>believer. The
>clergy include apostles (both male and female). In case Junia is
>not
>acceptable, I would further point out that what Jesus chose twelve
>men to do
>was go forth with the news and he also chose Mary Magdalene and the
>Samaritan woman for the same task. But Junia is acceptable by every
>objective standard. Then there are deacons (both male and female)
>and
>presbyters (both male and female). Finally there are widows (an
>ambiguous
>category, I admit) who are exclusively female and bishops who are
>exclusively male (and must be married). The condition that they be
>the
>husbands of one wife fits in with the official practices of the Roman
>Empire
>and (I think) contemporary Judaism.
>
>The harsh fact is that the development of the clergy as a sacramental
>body
>and the development or ordination took place somewhere in the
>obscure
>century or so between the New Testament authors and the Apostolic
>Constitutions, etc. We just don't know what arguments may have
>occurred
>except for the snippets already cited in the Apocrypha) and we don't
>know
>what the variations among various churches may have been.
>
>Catholics (and other folk) are naturally welcome to believe anything
>they
>want to about what may or may not have happened or what the scripture
>means
>in its deeper interpretations, and so forth. But this is religious
>truth,
>not historical evidence.
>
>Jo Ann
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|