Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Marchionni on women priests
Message-ID: <567@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 10:04:43 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.567
Posted: Wed Feb 20 10:04:43 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Feb-85 20:35:17 EST
References: <1580V6M@PSUVM> <533@pyuxd.UUCP> <1255@shark.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 44

>>>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?
>>> [MARCHIONNI]

>> *This* is an argument?  (I'm asking a serious question!)  [ROSEN]

> 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.  [HUTCH]

No "smart assed remarks" offered.  This doesn't apply just to "religious"
reasoning.  You're right, it is not the strongest argument.  Unfortunately,
it is probably closer to the weakest, ranking only millimeters above "because
I say so" (assertion) in validity.  I am asking why such an admittedly weak
argument convinces some people.

>>>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.)

> In my own (probably not humble enough) opinion, the "whom" in question is
> the body of believers in this case. ...
> 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.

But part of so much religious doctrine involves teaching one NOT to question
such "authorities", teaching one to accept what they say DESPITE what an
individual or collective will offers.  Catholicism has come right out and
claimed infallibility for their clerical leadership (though that's changing),
but Protestant sects do much the same.  Think about it:  when you offer such
people the power to teach and indoctrinate you and yours, are they likely to
indoctrinate you to question their authority?
-- 
Otology recapitulates phonology.
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr