Perhaps some knowledgeable  brethren would like to discuss the Synod at Whitby, the role of women in the Celtic church, and how Rome  dealt with ancient British Christianity.

Frank 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: gc_mccomas McComas<mailto:gc_mccomas@...> 
  To: faithandlife@...<mailto:faithandlife@...> 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:11 AM
  Subject: Re: [FaithandLife] Covenant Union & WO


  > wm+: IMHO - Women cannot be presbyters - not in the sense of "they are not
  > allowed" but in the sense of "they are unable" (and for that reason not
  > allowed) ....They are not created with the right features....
  > 
  > gms+: IMHO - they cannot be in holy order period. That includes the deacon. Holy 
  > order is holy order - a bishop is no more in holy order than a deacon. If a 
  > person can be made a deacon there is no good reason that they cannot be made a 
  > bishop. 

  Regarding WO, when the debate focuses on "it cannot happen/they are unable" it is theological, in the realm of Reason. When the focus is "it must not happen/they are not allowed" the argument includes every base: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

  IM(often not so)HO - Women must not be presbyters or deacons for exactly the reason "they are not allowed" by the Holy Scriptures. We have our Lord's example, and St. Paul bases his reasons for "not allowing" on the eternal Word, not anything subjective. Further, they are not allowed by the unambiguous weight of Church Tradition. And finally, they are not allowed by the weight of Reason, which includes the theological conclusion that: "they are unable" is behind both the Divine statements "they are not allowed," and also the Holy Tradition "they are not allowed." We should be aware that WO advocates tend to isolate the discussion to the realm of "Reason" (ignoring and/or distorting Tradition and Scripture) and push for arguments as "pragmatic" and "rights-based" as possible.

  The particular Sacramental Office and Iconography of the presbyterate make clear that women not only "must not" but also "cannot" be priests. I don't know, however, if this applies equally to the diaconate. Just because a woman must not have hands laid upon her for the diaconate (I know we currently allow setting apart to a "deaconessate" that is different from the diaconate, as confusing as it may be), does that mean these wrongful ordinations (to the diaconate) are always ineffectual when they occur in the Network? Is there any room for non-sacramental calling under the rubric of "Holy Orders"? or is "non-sacramental Holy Orders" inherently a contradiction? And the natural question (which has been answered), where do our Nuns and Deaconesses fit with our theology?

  I actually hope our unity and state of communion with the Network and Global South get to the point where we're wrestling with these questions of women and the diaconate; because to get that far, it would first require an AMiA-like decision on behalf of the current Network clergy/churches to reject women's "ordination" to the presbyterate.

  gcm+






  --
  To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@...<mailto:faithandlife-unsubscribe@...>

--
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: faithandlife-unsubscribe@...