This point, about only men being acceptable stand-ins for the disciples, is a good illustration of what I was trying to express.
That is the point, that is not the belief. It is merely a practice. That it is somewhat arbitrary and that we are sophisticated enough that we do not the need the stand-ins to actually be men is a good point. But it is our discipline nonetheless.
I see another issue here besides gender. It's not like this is anything new, it's not like the practice has not always been clearly stated, it's not like there is any good reason for them to be surprised. I support changing the discipline, and as discipline it can be changed. But I do not support their means. I do not support simply defying the discipline of our Church. Nor do I support distracting from the Triduum with protests and demonstrations .. especially as such actions are more likely to hinder change than foster it, for exactly the reasons that I stated at the beginning.
Ours is a Church whose liturgy is under constant assault, it's meaning being stripped from it by abuses and frivolous and selfish innovations. Experience has taught us that defiance on small matters typically accompanies defiance on large matters. I'm happy to see one of our bishops take a stand, even if it is on a practice that I don't necessarily agree with.
Some in the early church wanted to view gender as irrelevant.
Some did, but the early Church in general recognized the differences between men and women and not being irrelevant.
Some of the non-canonical literature shows Mary and Martha and Salome and other women conversing with Jesus as though they were equal to the disciples in knowledge and virtue. This same scripture shows awareness of the controversy, casting Simon Peter as the one with the most vehement complainst about equal female participation (see for example Pistis Sophia, The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene).
I would say that women are the same in knowledge and dignity. Again, we come down to the idea that the priesthood is about power. But it is not, and it is losing sight of this that causes problems, not embracing the true nature of the priesthood.
I think these scenes have a different implication. They come from works that sought to undercut the theological authority of the contemporary Church. There are few figures to be found in the Gospel tradition to use. I see two implications. Not only is there the assault on the early Church's notion about the material world, which included but was not limited to notions about gender. But I think that the larger issue was making the canonical apostles look bad, impugning their character and wisdom in order to undermine their message and thus supplant it.
From my standpoint, refusing to allow women to serve as stand-ins in itself makes the matter a gender issue.
You have a certain point there. However, for us, there are far more issues at stake than just those of gender roles.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-04-09 07:24 pm (UTC)That is the point, that is not the belief. It is merely a practice. That it is somewhat arbitrary and that we are sophisticated enough that we do not the need the stand-ins to actually be men is a good point. But it is our discipline nonetheless.
I see another issue here besides gender. It's not like this is anything new, it's not like the practice has not always been clearly stated, it's not like there is any good reason for them to be surprised. I support changing the discipline, and as discipline it can be changed. But I do not support their means. I do not support simply defying the discipline of our Church. Nor do I support distracting from the Triduum with protests and demonstrations .. especially as such actions are more likely to hinder change than foster it, for exactly the reasons that I stated at the beginning.
Ours is a Church whose liturgy is under constant assault, it's meaning being stripped from it by abuses and frivolous and selfish innovations. Experience has taught us that defiance on small matters typically accompanies defiance on large matters. I'm happy to see one of our bishops take a stand, even if it is on a practice that I don't necessarily agree with.
Some in the early church wanted to view gender as irrelevant.
Some did, but the early Church in general recognized the differences between men and women and not being irrelevant.
Some of the non-canonical literature shows Mary and Martha and Salome and other women conversing with Jesus as though they were equal to the disciples in knowledge and virtue. This same scripture shows awareness of the controversy, casting Simon Peter as the one with the most vehement complainst about equal female participation (see for example Pistis Sophia, The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene).
I would say that women are the same in knowledge and dignity. Again, we come down to the idea that the priesthood is about power. But it is not, and it is losing sight of this that causes problems, not embracing the true nature of the priesthood.
I think these scenes have a different implication. They come from works that sought to undercut the theological authority of the contemporary Church. There are few figures to be found in the Gospel tradition to use. I see two implications. Not only is there the assault on the early Church's notion about the material world, which included but was not limited to notions about gender. But I think that the larger issue was making the canonical apostles look bad, impugning their character and wisdom in order to undermine their message and thus supplant it.
From my standpoint, refusing to allow women to serve as stand-ins in itself makes the matter a gender issue.
You have a certain point there. However, for us, there are far more issues at stake than just those of gender roles.