Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site shark.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!tektronix!orca!shark!hutch
From: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Marchionni on women priests
Message-ID: <1255@shark.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Feb-85 21:17:45 EST
Article-I.D.: shark.1255
Posted: Fri Feb 15 21:17:45 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Feb-85 06:14:00 EST
References: <1580V6M@PSUVM> <533@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison)
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 61
Summary: 

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