We have no Priests, but we have non-Priests

[Raphael]

There are apparently at least two Almean religions that officially have no priests, but have groups of people who fulfil some of the functions of priests: Jippirasti with its Officials, Teachers, Caregivers, and Celebrants; and Irreanism with its Wise Ones.

http://www.almeopedia.com/almeo.html?Jippirasti

http://www.almeopedia.com/almeo.html?Ji ... %20clerics

http://www.almeopedia.com/almeo.html?Irreanism

Now, are two instances enough to constitute a trend inside zompist's mind? If so, where does that trend come from?

[WeepingElf]

Protestantism?

[zompist]

If so, where does that trend come from?

From earthly religions. I'm using "priest" as a cleric who performs rituals, or serves as an intermediary between humans and deities. (Wikipedia agrees, but my dictionary is more vague.)

Given that, quite a few religions have no priests per se. Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism come to mind. (Caveats abound-- e.g. Temple Judaism had priests; modern Judaism does not. In some of these religions a cleric may lead the service, but is not needed to do so.)

Protestantism is kind of a middle ground. Pastors act pretty much like priests, but may or may not be required for sacraments, and in some theologies (e.g. Lutheranism) it's denied that an intermediary is needed.

[Raphael]

Thank you, interesting. Hm, now I'm reminded of a slightly blasphemous old joke I saw somewhere a while ago:

More: show

A passenger train is travelling through the countryside, and suddenly, a man starts running up and down the aisle shouting, "Is there a Catholic priest here?". No one responds. After a while, the man switches to shouting "Is there an Anglican priest here?". Again, no one responds. A while later, the man switches to shouting "Is there a rabbi here?". At first, no one responds. Finally, a man slowly rises from his seat and says "Excuse me, sir, perhaps I could help you? I'm a Methodist minister." The shouting man stops, looks at him, and responds "No, you're no use to me, I need a corkscrew."

[fusijui]

From earthly religions. I'm using "priest" as a cleric who performs rituals, or serves as an intermediary between humans and deities. (Wikipedia agrees, but my dictionary is more vague.)

Given that, quite a few religions have no priests per se. Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism come to mind. [...]

Unless by Buddhism you actually only mean contemporary Western meditation practitioners and philosophy students, I can't think of any kind of Buddhism that doesn't involve plenty of priests, as you define them.

[zompist]

Unless by Buddhism you actually only mean contemporary Western meditation practitioners and philosophy students, I can't think of any kind of Buddhism that doesn't involve plenty of priests, as you define them.

My understanding is that Buddhist clergy are monks (bhikkhu). I don't think Buddhism says that monks are required for salvation, though they're helpful. Ritual is a bit more tricky... it can be argued that the Buddha implemented no rituals at all except ordination, but religions do seem to accumulate ritual over time.

[keenir]

From earthly religions. I'm using "priest" as a cleric who performs rituals, or serves as an intermediary between humans and deities. (Wikipedia agrees, but my dictionary is more vague.)

Given that, quite a few religions have no priests per se. Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism come to mind. [...]

Unless by Buddhism you actually only mean contemporary Western meditation practitioners and philosophy students, I can't think of any kind of Buddhism that doesn't involve plenty of priests, as you define them.

Using the definition supplied by Zompist,

From earthly religions. I'm using "priest" as a cleric who performs rituals, or serves as an intermediary between humans and deities.

, then technically everyone (read: all practitioners) are priests, at least in terms of performing ritual.* The intermediaries are generally bodisatvas(sp) who are not exactly human or god but can be handled and addressed as either.

* = yes, the monks perform more rituals than, say, farmers. That implies greater spiritual authority/knowledge, sure, but thats all.

[zompist]

Using the definition supplied by Zompist,

From earthly religions. I'm using "priest" as a cleric who performs rituals, or serves as an intermediary between humans and deities.

, then technically everyone (read: all practitioners) are priests, at least in terms of performing ritual.* The intermediaries are generally bodisatvas(sp) who are not exactly human or god but can be handled and addressed as either.

* = yes, the monks perform more rituals than, say, farmers. That implies greater spiritual authority/knowledge, sure, but thats all.

This is kind of a weird semantic area! It's definitely understandable to say that everyone in a religion is a priest... that's the official position of Lutheranism, too (where it's called the "priesthood of all believers"). At the same time, if everyone is a priest, no one is a priest... that is, the protoypical "priest" is part of a separate class of people.

[keenir]

Using the definition supplied by Zompist,

From earthly religions. I'm using "priest" as a cleric who performs rituals, or serves as an intermediary between humans and deities.

, then technically everyone (read: all practitioners) are priests, at least in terms of performing ritual.* The intermediaries are generally bodisatvas(sp) who are not exactly human or god but can be handled and addressed as either.

* = yes, the monks perform more rituals than, say, farmers. That implies greater spiritual authority/knowledge, sure, but thats all.

This is kind of a weird semantic area! It's definitely understandable to say that everyone in a religion is a priest... that's the official position of Lutheranism, too (where it's called the "priesthood of all believers"). At the same time, if everyone is a priest, no one is a priest... that is, the protoypical "priest" is part of a separate class of people.

Maybe what we should look for, is less of a special class of people, and more of people who are trained to lead their fellow believers - which i think is what the Amish and Sunnis and some Lutherans do.

[Civil War Bugle]

Given that Irreanism was always described as severely downplaying ritual, I always sort of envisioned (possibly incorrectly on my part) its clerics as being glorified counselors/therapists, with a heavy emphasis on the social work type stuff you might see many other religions' clerics doing but not so much of the smells and bells type stuff. The Irrean monks, sure, they must do monklike stuff such as meditating but I think most religions with a vibrant monastic tradition would acknowledge that monks and priests aren't necessarily the same thing. Look at Catholicism: a monastery may have one or two priests out of all the monks, and as Catholicism denies the possibility of female priests, any nunnery will have to bring in priests from outside for any duties where a priest is needed.
(I'd be interested in Zompist's comments on whether I am totally off base here about Irrean clerics, if you care to delve into it.)

Re Jippirasti, their clerics definitely seem to straddle the fuzzy semantic line in a manner more similar to most Sunni or Protestant sects, from my point of view.

[zompist]

Given that Irreanism was always described as severely downplaying ritual, I always sort of envisioned (possibly incorrectly on my part) its clerics as being glorified counselors/therapists, with a heavy emphasis on the social work type stuff you might see many other religions' clerics doing but not so much of the smells and bells type stuff. The Irrean monks, sure, they must do monklike stuff such as meditating but I think most religions with a vibrant monastic tradition would acknowledge that monks and priests aren't necessarily the same thing.

Accurate enough, except that counseling is just one thing buxeler could do. Just about anything mentioned in the "Irreanist practice" section could be a buxel's specialty. Including cooking meals!

But it's fair to say that counseling is something Irreanists are good at, and trained in. They don't assume, as many Christian sects unfortunately do, that a solid education in theology will prepare one to help people with their problems.

[fusijui]

Unless by Buddhism you actually only mean contemporary Western meditation practitioners and philosophy students, I can't think of any kind of Buddhism that doesn't involve plenty of priests, as you define them.

My understanding is that Buddhist clergy are monks (bhikkhu). I don't think Buddhism says that monks are required for salvation, though they're helpful. Ritual is a bit more tricky... it can be argued that the Buddha implemented no rituals at all except ordination, but religions do seem to accumulate ritual over time.

Besides monks proper, I can't think of any Buddhist societies that don't also have other ritual practitioners that mediate with ~ connect to ~ invoke the powers of deities... though I suppose that just kicks the ball over to the 'definition of a deity' phase But, to be fair, I get the impression you're looking at religion (or Buddhism, at least) more as a theory than as praxis, and me the other way around.

[Raphael]

Well, the distinction between priests and clerics-who-are-not-officially-priests is probably more a matter of theory than of practice.

[zompist]

Besides monks proper, I can't think of any Buddhist societies that don't also have other ritual practitioners that mediate with ~ connect to ~ invoke the powers of deities... though I suppose that just kicks the ball over to the 'definition of a deity' phase But, to be fair, I get the impression you're looking at religion (or Buddhism, at least) more as a theory than as praxis, and me the other way around.

My understanding is I guess theological (Buddhological?)— that a layman doesn't need the rituals— after all, Amitabha supposedly offers salvation simply for calling on his name. But then others come along and say that you don't get the really good salvation that way and you do need someone's help.

But I'm feeling that the question of whether religions have "priests" or not is not very clear or helpful, and I should express things a different way. I do think multiple religions have a tension between rejecting and embracing the apparatus of ritual and clergy. Often there's a cycle: sage A sweeps away some of the cruft, sage B reintroduces it under another name.

[fusijui]

Calling on Amitabha by name is ritual, surely?

And there's no need to distinguish 'theology' from some made-up 'Buddhology' -- again, I can't think of any form of Buddhism, outside its late Western extremist tendencies, that doesn't thoroughly involve deities.

Anyway, yeah, I do agree that defining "religion" about the presence of "priests" (vs./plus "monks") isn't very useful; FWIW, it feels pretty parochial.

[Raphael]

I do find it interesting if there's a point in a religion's or denomination's historical development when it decides to get rid of "priests", and then later, clergy of some kind reappears under a different name.

[zompist]

Calling on Amitabha by name is ritual, surely?

And there's no need to distinguish 'theology' from some made-up 'Buddhology' -- again, I can't think of any form of Buddhism, outside its late Western extremist tendencies, that doesn't thoroughly involve deities.

Anyway, yeah, I do agree that defining "religion" about the presence of "priests" (vs./plus "monks") isn't very useful; FWIW, it feels pretty parochial.

Look, please don't treat me as an idiot because I am trying to be careful about terms or don't use them exactly as you do. Some Buddhists presenting the religion try hard not to say that Buddhism believes in gods. I think it's important for conworlders not to expect all religions to approximate Catholicism in belief and practice, so it's valuable to know that at least one religion doesn't have a god that works like the Catholic God. I am trying to avoid the parochialism of treating all religions as variants of the most common Western one. If you're more comfortable calling bodhisattvas or devas gods, I have no problem with that; obviously you can use these terms however you find it to be useful.

[keenir]

Calling on Amitabha by name is ritual, surely?

dressing up to call on Amitabha by name for hours at a time, at least once a day, for over a year...I suppose that might qualify as the dreaded word ritual.

And there's no need to distinguish 'theology' from some made-up 'Buddhology' -- again, I can't think of any form of Buddhism, outside its late Western extremist tendencies, that doesn't thoroughly involve deities.

You're over-crediting syncreticism, then. The Buddha said "It does not matter whether or not gods are real."

Is it his fault that gods were later adopted as boddisatvas and Buddhas? That'd be like calling Christianity polytheistic only because it turned gods into saints.

Anyway, yeah, I do agree that defining "religion" about the presence of "priests" (vs./plus "monks") isn't very useful; FWIW, it feels pretty parochial.

o.0 ?
Last I checked, having either intermediaries or intercessors between the public and (pick anything - spirits, government, animist objects, ancestors, gods, etc) was perfectly normal and common. Shamans, heads of the extended family, etc. I don't think thats parochial, but i could be wrong.

Though I think the point that was being made, was that, like in Buddhism (at least in some denominations) and denominations of other faiths, priests are not required to exist. Its a bonus, yes - if the local lord is getting irritated with the peasants on his land, a monastary or temple is handy to back up the coreligionist peasants and stay the lord's hand (also, saying Amitabha's name saves yourself - most if not all denominations of Buddhism aim to save everyone if possible, so you need to be saying the name a lot more than a peasant working a field can do)

[Vilike]

Is it his fault that gods were later adopted as boddisatvas and Buddhas? That'd be like calling Christianity polytheistic only because it turned gods into saints.

Related: a Haredi Jew told me once that she couldn't enter churches because it counts as a polytheistic place of worship (mosques are fine). In this case the doctrine of the Trinity is the likely culprit.

Speaking from Catholic experience, at times it really looks like saints and angels (re)turn into minor gods.

[Torco]

Is it his fault that gods were later adopted as boddisatvas and Buddhas? That'd be like calling Christianity polytheistic only because it turned gods into saints.

I don't think this is a bad thing to do! like, in the real world it's impolite to call christians polytheistic, but as far as their religious practices and sentiments are concerned, I think that a lot of catholic people, deeply religious ones, are indistinguishable from a polytheist other than if asked he'd say "oh, no, no, you see, the saints are intercessors to god, nothing more". an alien (or a conworlder) might as well describe christianity as 'blending monotheistic and polytheistic elements', at least.

That being said, 'buddhism' is not a monolith, and therevada, tibetan, zen and pure land buddhists all have very different ideas about things, which would put them at different points in the 'have / not have clerics' continuum. yes, of course it's a continuum, because 'having priests' means something pretty close to 'having what we call priests', which means the catholic guys who perform mass in a church, and things are more or less similar to that. 'intermediate to god' is way too stringent, cause of course some religions aren't about god: some forms of buddhism, for example, are more about just meditate and clean your mind and git good and you'll reach samsara but you really gotta git good, and that's the goal of the religion. nevertheless, even in those buddhisms, monks not only meditate and ask for alms but also lead services, perform dhamma talks, and bless new houses and stuff like that: for this reason, I'd say it's fair to say monks are kind of priest-ish. but, then again, so are rabbis, and those kinds of very religious mothers that actively go to church and organize charity drives for stacy's mum who's got cancer didn't you hear? ultimately, religion is work, so *somebody's* going to be... you know, performing the work that's required for the religion to function: make rituals, say things in funerals, complain about the morality of the youth, burn the offerings to the opal serpent that rules the underworld, persuade people to build large temples somehow, etcetera, so there's always going to be someone, to use the catholic term, ministering to some community