From: Matthew Malthouse <matthew.malthouse@guardian.co.uk>
Subject: Re: (urth)  Re:  Torturers as priests
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 03:19:18 +0100

mary whalen wrote:
> 
> This is Sean Whalen (prion).
> 
> I just thought of the fact that the Autarch Ymar ordered that the
> female Jailers/torturers no longer be allowed to be members because of
> their cruelty.  This seems a pretty strong reason supporting the
> torturers-are-priests theory. It symbolizes that there are no women
> priests in the RCC.
> 
> I'm glad Jason Voegele and I agree on this one.

I find that the logic fails me here.

The existance of women in the order is a difference that distinguishes it from
the priesthood that we know. Lacking any history between times the presence of
women in a previously all male hierarchy is inexplicable.

More generally: the development of priest as torturer isn't too far fetched,
it's happened before after all. But what has become of the theological and
liturgical functions of the priesthood?

The Order has its ceremonies in the Citadel chapel in contrast to the
Archivists who use the city cathederal. While this is seen as a mark of
distinction at the time it would imply a theocratic structure over which the
order did not have any control or influence which strikes me as odd.

How does the order stand in relation to the other guilds attached to the
citadel such as the witches? Are they all remnants of clericals? The question
is prompted because Sev. sees a spiritual aspect to the order, but that
strikes me as a late development. Falible memory puts me at risk here but my
impression of the order in the time of Ymar was that they lacked any such
aspect and I take Mstr Pal's unquoted (and apparnetly variable) history of the
order at the ceremony to be a developed mythology rather than a plausible
explication of origins.

The order serves. Yet it's origin might as well been in a secret or military
police and inteligence force.

Matthew

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/