 |
|
BlackCat
|
|
Does that correspond to a female priest, cardinal or pope in severity ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
severity? Im not sure what you mean. |
I think about the outrage in the religious society.
Oh, and no bad thoughts behind my question - we have some local priests and religious societies that think female priests is blasphemy despite that the protestant church has accepted them for ages.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BlackCat
I think about the outrage in the religious society.
Oh, and no bad thoughts behind my question - we have some local priests and religious societies that think female priests is blasphemy despite that the protestant church has accepted them for ages. |
Well Im not sure if the reaction from the Orthodox would qualify as outrage, since most of them dont take CJ too seriously anyway, and those who do are not outraged. Many C Jewish rabbis, opposed the decision 20 years ago - im not sure that many laypeople did (I was still Reform at the time, where female ordination was quite accepted). Many of those rabbis have since come around. Some have actually attempted to form a new movement, called Traditional Judaism, and started there own seminary. Their synagogues are few and small however - most lay Jews either want to go all the way and be Orthodox, or prefer the approach of female ordination. The position that accepts the Conservative approach to Jewish texts (including the idea that the bible is principally a human document) yet insists on very traditional readings of Jewish law, is a possition that appeals to certain rabbis, but has little lay following.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
Since you insist of speaking of these different groups as if they were well-known entities, could you give a quick rundown or post a link to same? |
Reform Judaism - we're modern now, the Torah is the product of human beings (maybe inspired by G-d), we must follow its ethical injunctions, guided by conscience, but as to ritual, each jew may choose for himself
Conservative Judaism - we're modern now, the Torah MAY be the product of human beings inspired by G-d, but those human beings were acting as a people, creating a civilization. Tinkering with an organic tradition is dangerous (see Edmund Burke) so it should be done slowly and by folks who are trained experts in the law -there fore ritual laws must still be considered binding (IE individual jews cant just choose what they want - not if they want to follow an authentic Judaism) Of course the ritual law must change - but this must be done by rabbis, and they must do so following traditional methods of jurisprudence. They can, and indeed SHOULD look to laity and its behavior to see where the law needs changing, but should focus on the generally observant laity ("Catholic Israel" wierd term, I know - remember Catholic means universal) to keep from changing too fast.
Orthodox - what do you mean "inspired by G-D"???? Its the literal word of G-d, and Jews MUST follow it - not to be "authentic" but cause G-d expects it. And yes, rabbis can change the law, but they generally shouldnt let the laity lead that - they should change only where the old law is not clear in a new circumstance, generally speaking. Oh, and rabbis who dont believe the torah is the literal word of G-d are NOT qualified to interpret it.
Modern Orthodox - all the above being said, its still proper to live a thoroughly modern life to the extent the law allows.
Ultra Orthodox - no its NOT, leading a modern life, even to the extent the law allows, will sooner or later lead to Reform and C heresies, secularism etc. We should observe the customs of our ancestors, and keep away from modern life, except as the need to make a living requires it.
Hassidic - same as ultra O, except we differ on range of things having to do with mysticism (which we like) and forms of leadership,etc.
Reconstructionism - there is NO G-d, and Kaplan is his prophet. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
"Not sure what you mean by ahistorical. There have been examples of the laity directing the clergy, and reform within the clergy."
Something about being a catholic and defying the pope making no sense. I think alot of medieval Cardinals, abbots, etc would have found that amusing.There was a time when the Papacy had a much more limited role in the RCC.
"It is an interesting discussion though, about the balancing between the clergy and the laity, how the clergy has a responsibility to care for their flock, just as the laity has a responsibilty to obey the church. "
In CJ the clergy are not just to care for the laity, but to look to them to see where the law needs changing. It being accepted by CJews that the interpretation of the law was something human "it is not in heaven ...." and that rabbis can adjust it to follow the minhag, the customs, of lay jews, the question comes up of how to do so - if most lay jews are more or less completely unobservant, does that mean complete non-observance is licit? Solomon Schecter, first chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, looked at Jewish legal history, and derived the concept of "Catholic Israel" - the broad (universal, hence "Catholic") body of the laity that is essentially observant, observant in MOST particulars, but that in practice changes or drops certain past observances. When such change among the laity occurs, it is the duty of the rabbinate to actively SEEK a textual justification. When no such justification can be found, of course, the laity must defer. But when textual justification CAN be found, the rabbinate must follow the laity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Last Conformist
"So, your Conservatives are modernists?  "
I would say so, but cautious, Burkean modernists. Perhaps we need to define modernist. Some Reform jews would say that conservative judaism is orthodoxy-lite. Others would say that CJudaism is Reform without the courage of its convictions. In practice, Cjudaism tends to maintain a very traditional approach to the ritual of prayer, etc - and is close to OJudaism - but on theology, and the hot button questions of gender, etc is closer to Reform. In some ways i see parallels to Anglicanism. IN practice most Lay Cjews tend to act like what Reform says THEIR laity should do - taking ritual observance seriously, but making individual choices about what to follow.
"I'm tired of monotheists. Can't we have Tlaloc, Huitzilopochtli & Co back?"
This is about the only thing all the Jews, even the atheist ones, are pretty much agreed on.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-07-2005 22:42
- you seem to have 
|