Ordination of female Catholic priests at Protestant church

[Incongruous]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/18/america/18priests.php

I find it hard to truly believe these woman are really Catholics, obviously the Church no longer considers them so, but what I mean is, they themselves personally.
They are going directly against a fundamental part of the Church and by being "ordained" in a protestant church they seem to be waving the big finger at Rome, disrespecting the Church and thus Catholics completley.

How can they concieve this is somehow right? For the cause of feminism? I fond their actions self serving and rather pathetic.

What do others think?

I have practically handed you Church haters a knife have I not?

[CountArach]

I have practically handed you Church haters a knife have I not?
Yup.

I see the inability of women to be ordained as a bigotted and sexist idea that is done for no other reason that tradition. Protestant churches allowed women to be ordained and the sky did not fall down - why can't The Vatican get with the program?

Then again what do I know? I'm just an Atheistic Baby-killing Communist...

[Incongruous]

Yup.

I see the inability of women to be ordained as a bigotted and sexist idea that is done for no other reason that tradition. Protestant churches allowed women to be ordained and the sky did not fall down - why can't The Vatican get with the program?

Then again what do I know? I'm just an Atheistic Baby-killing Communist...

no you do not kill babies I am sure of that, but you are a non-believer and also a champagne communist, but then again what other kind is there really?

It has nothing to do with being bigotted but everything to do with the words and actions of Christ, these women by their inability to lay down their modern pretenstions and pride hav rejected him and his Church, they know this I suspect but probably care little.

As for Protestants, who cares what they do? They are schismatics...

[CountArach]

It has nothing to do with being bigotted but everything to do with the words and actions of Christ, these women by their inability to lay down their modern pretenstions and pride hav rejected him and his Church, they know this I suspect but probably care little.
Seeing as they are becoming Ordained I severely doubt they have turned away from God.

As for Protestants, who cares what they do? They are schismatics...
I'm getting my popcorn, I sense a fight coming on!

[Incongruous]

Well they are being ordained away from the Catholic and thus universal Church, going against the teachings of Christ to persue selfish and pridefull ends, therefore they are not with God, they have rejected him.

As for the Protestant Church allowing this to take place, it is their choice, but it simply shows how far that Church has strayed. They are willing to do anything it seems...

[CountArach]

Well they are being ordained away from the Catholic and thus universal Church, going against the teachings of Christ to persue selfish and pridefull ends, therefore they are not with God, they have rejected him.

As for the Protestant Church allowing this to take place, it is their choice, but it simply shows how far that Church has strayed. They are willing to do anything it seems...
With declining Church attendance it is a solution to the problem that the Catholic Church should consider for Pragmatic reasons alone ie - Their own survival.

[Incongruous]

With declining Church attendance it is a solution to the problem that the Catholic Church should consider for Pragmatic reasons alone ie - Their own survival.

Declining services in the developed world yes, but that is not a reason (as if there is one) to pervert the teachings of Christ as given to the Church by him, such ideas are precisley the category I put this stunt into, its absurd to even consider such things.
This is not the Church of England.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well I will agree with Bopa as far as pragmatism goes. The purpose of the Church is salvation, if the Bishops go against their collective concience and conviction then the Church ceases to be a Church governed by faith and becomes just another organisation. Ergo it cannot bring salvation.

As far as "Going against the teachings of Christ" goes I'll want actual proof. What they are doing is going against the orthadox Catholic interpretation, which also prevents priests from marrying, a purely political move introduced quite late in the history of the Catholic Church.

[CountArach]

Well I will agree with Bopa as far as pragmatism goes. The purpose of the Church is salvation, if the Bishops go against their collective concience and conviction then the Church ceases to be a Church governed by faith and becomes just another organisation. Ergo it cannot bring salvation.
On the other hand if they allow women to be ordained they can reach more people, thus increasing the number of people who they "save". Isn't that their ultimate goal anyway?

Why am I advising the enemy... I feel the need to go yell at some Conservatives now to make up for it...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Considering many non-Anglican Protestants would argue that the position of Priest/Bishop/Pope etc means nothing, and have a pretty good case for doing so, I don't think you need to get so angry at Protestants in general.

The ordination of female priests is definetely debatable, the only bibilical evidence against it is limited, and certainly in the Anglican Church the traditionalist argument is based as much on tradition as anything else. And tradition should not in any way be a better excuse to openly oppose the teachings of the bible than the excuses given by homosexual Christians (ie adapting to to 21st Century life).

The real problem here is that these women are showing no respect for what they claim to be their beliefs as Catholics by going to the Protestant church and disobeying their hierarchy. Equally, the individual Protestant church that is allowing this ceremony to take place should be ashamed of itself.

This isn't a reason to get angry at Catholics or Protestants in general, its just some rogue women and a rogue church being idiotic. Its nothing to worry about - as a Catholic you can excommunicate them, and as a Presbyterian I have nothing to do with them anyway.

EDIT: If these women do genuinely share the rest of their beliefs with the Catholic Church, I suppose the right them for them to do would be to set up their own Papacy. A female anti-Pope, how does that sound?

[DemonArchangel]

See, the biggest problem here is that there are two sides to this story, the Catholic side and the Protestant side, both of whom think that their actions are correct and justified. Therin lies the problem. I'm not going to take sides on who is correct regarding the issue of female ordination, because I'm not a Christian. But I'm just going to note that in a conflict where both sides think they're correct and don't want to back down on the issue, there frequently tends to be nasty, nasty things over said issue, things like massive, counter-productive exchanges of insults, physical violence, and even wars (30 Years War anyone?). This issue just seems so absolutely minor that it doesn't seem to be worth fighting over at all.

[KukriKhan]

Reynolds and the others are part of an organization called Roman Catholic Womenpriests, which has been holding ordination ceremonies for women since 2002. The organization says there are now 28 women Catholic priests in the United States.

So tomorrow, those women will longer be Catholic, but something else - Presbyterian, perhaps; and any sacraments issued by them will be no more valid than if I issued them.

Rather than reforming the RC church, it sounds like they're intent on establishing their own, new one.

Very un-Catholic, yet: very American. :beam:

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is the beauty of the RC Church. The women can ordain themselves until they are blue in the face, but it won't be recognized by the Church. There is a word for when people who are part of the church deem it necessary to reform without the consent of the Pope and church hierarchy - it is called Protestantism. You can disagree with the Catholic church, but you will never have a gay marriage that is blessed by a Catholic church, have the Church accept your abortion if it wasn't to save the life of the mother, or have an official position made that your unmarried sexual relationship is a special gift from God.

Protestants will ruin themselves and their legitimacy by bending to popular opinion over and over again. Also - taking suggestions from atheists probably won't help church attendence grow either, so I'd advise against that as a Catholic.

If these women believe that it is better to fall out of the communion and start their own church, let them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

On the other hand if they allow women to be ordained they can reach more people, thus increasing the number of people who they "save". Isn't that their ultimate goal anyway?

Why am I advising the enemy... I feel the need to go yell at some Conservatives now to make up for it...

If their view is bogus they are leading people astray and damning them to hell, though. See how it gets a bit tricky there?

In any case I have more of a problem with Papal Supremacy and Infallibility. Neither of which is more tha 150 years old, and both of which keep the Church in schism.

[ICantSpellDawg]

In any case I have more of a problem with Papal Supremacy and Infallibility. Neither of which is more tha 150 years old, and both of which keep the Church in schism.

You should probably write them a letter.

Off Topic - I just found out that Jim Jones was a leftist Atheist! How ironic that the character so often used to defame Christians for their cult like characteristics turned out to be a communist, sexual degenerate who preached that there was no God.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And on what issues has the Church of Scotland bent to public opinion? We are very different from our Anglican neighbours.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And on what issues has the Church of Scotland bent to public opinion? We are very different from our Anglican neighbours.

You are different. I'm just saying that cutting yourself off from the Roman Church is like being adrift at sea with no sight of land. The storm may not have hit you yet, but when and if it does you will be in a similar position to our Anglican brothers.

You are discussing the problems of Anglicanism now. On some level is this not because you believe that their decisions will impact the clamoring of your own flock regarding the same matters? When you hear reports of a ravaging and unstoppable storm, come back into land - or you can try to weather it on your own.

[Lemur]

If these women do genuinely share the rest of their beliefs with the Catholic Church, I suppose the right them for them to do would be to set up their own Papacy. A female anti-Pope, how does that sound?
That would totally, completely rock. I would pay good money to see that, based on entertainment value alone.

Also, for those who get upset about Papal infallibility, please be aware that this only applies when the Pontiff speaks ex cathedra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_cathedra#Ex_cathedra). So if the Pope invokes a point of doctrine that applies to the entire church, and he makes it clear he is speaking ex cathedra, then he is infallible. On the other hand, if he looks out his window and says, "Sure looks like rain," he is not infallible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And on what issues has the Church of Scotland bent to public opinion? We are very different from our Anglican neighbours.

Are you saying the Church of Scotland has never changed its position on predestination.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think the actions of the Archibishop of Canterbury and his top men have proved that church hierarchies will do little in the end to save the Papacy from following a similar path eventually.

A small but committed congregation of puritanical calvinists is what you need.

I tend not to be openly religious in RL, but from some of the comments I make I can get accused by my more modern-minded liberal friends of being amongst the people in Scotland who wish to portray the country as a seventeenth century sectarian backwater.

And, as much as I am in no way sectarian (beyond arguments of theology, but that's debating not being biggoted), I would rather have Scotland be seen that way than as another England that turns its church into an abomination. And I have relatives in Northern Ireland who feel pretty similarly, from what I can gather.

And I am tired of Scotland's national identity being corrupted. So many people want to wear kilts, fight for the Jacobites, and eat too much haggis. Our modern liberals tend to like the romanticism of such ideas, and they are forgetting their nations true history.

Bah.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think the actions of the Archibishop of Canterbury and his top men have proved that church hierarchies will do little in the end to save the Papacy from following a similar path eventually.

A small but committed congregation of puritanical calvinists is what you need.

I tend not to be openly religious in RL, but from some of the comments I make I can get accused by my more modern-minded liberal friends of being amongst the people in Scotland who wish to portray the country as a seventeenth century sectarian backwater.

And, as much as I am in no way sectarian (beyond arguments of theology, but that's debating not being biggoted), I would rather have Scotland be seen that way than as another England that turns its church into an abomination. And I have relatives in Northern Ireland who feel pretty similarly, from what I can gather.

And I am tired of Scotland's national identity being corrupted. So many people want to wear kilts, fight for the Jacobites, and eat too much haggis. Our modern liberals tend to like the romanticism of such ideas, and they are forgetting their nations true history.

Bah.

Canterbury has no power - it really just calls people together. Failed hierarchy.

[Crazed Rabbit]

On the other hand if they allow women to be ordained they can reach more people, thus increasing the number of people who they "save". Isn't that their ultimate goal anyway?

Why am I advising the enemy... I feel the need to go yell at some Conservatives now to make up for it...

The ends don't justify the means. We should not lose ourselves (that is, our moral values) to save others. There's a long path if we take it.

CR

[Reverend Joe]

Y'all are living in a different world than me... I don't get how something can feel like the right path to you and still be wrong. And I'm not talking about "it's right because it feels good;" that's a load of bull. What confuses me is how someone can feel that they are on the correct and holy path for themselves and be condemned as a sinner; the end result is that either they have to deny their true beliefs and attend a church they don't believe in, or go the way they were born to follow and be condemned to hell.

What kind of God would do things like that to people?! :dizzy2::help:

[Rhyfelwyr]

He didn't condemn them he just said they couldn't be priests. Well, the latter part depending on how you interpret things.

[Lemur]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the pontiff has ever spoken ex cathedra about women being priests. So from a Catholic perspective, the rule against female priesthood is orthodox, but not divinely ordained or infallible.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the pontiff has ever spoken ex cathedra about women being priests. So from a Catholic perspective, the rule against female priesthood is orthodox, but not divinely ordained or infallible.

Right. They don't believe that the position should change, similar to not allowing priests to marry. I think that it has worked so far, why not keep it up?

The Catholic church takes its cues from the life of Jesus and the traditions of its Church. If neither suggest that women should be priests or that priests should marry - they won't and shouldn't change.

Just because some people want something means nothing. This is my favorite part about the Catholic Church - that they stand as a bulwark against modern "morality", which I hold largely in contempt.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Scripture should always come before tradition.

Bending the churches principles to suit tradition is no better than bending them to suit modern morality.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Scripture should always come before tradition.

Bending the churches principles to suit tradition is no better than bending them to suit modern morality.

No. Scripture and the revealed word come first. Church tradition that is compatible with the word comes second.

Why would a church be better served by adopting modern moral concepts than it would be preserving the compatible traditional teaching? The reality is that priesthood for males only is more scripturally sound and more traditionally sound than a co-ed priesthood would be.

Tradition alone means very little, but when tradition and scripture are in line with one another why change to something that is less scripturally or traditionally based? Modern emotion?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I just thought you were saying to stick with it because it was tradition. Like I've always said, women clergy is a debatable issue, based on scripture, whatever side you take.

I definetely never said to adopt modern moral principles.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I just thought you were saying to stick with it because it was tradition. Like I've always said, women clergy is a debatable issue, based on scripture, whatever side you take.


I don't see how its debatable based on scripture. If there are no women clergy in scripture it is only debatable whether scripture establishes male only clergy or not. It isn't like some parts of scripture call for co-ed priesthood and others call for male-only.

Priests being allowed to marry is debatable using scripture because Jewish tradition as well as early Christian tradition allowed for rabbi's and Priests to wed - BUT Jesus supposedly took no wife and celibacy was celebrated. This was a much more scripturally debatable topic and the Church decided pragmatically that priests should remain celibate and unmarried except under extenuating circumstances. They could switch that decision much more easily than co-ed priesthood, but I don't believe that it is necessary and neither does most of the Church.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I thought that the issue with women priests was the Jesus did not choose women for his disciples when he could have.

[Fragony]

Why don't they just open their own club, do they need the vatican daddy after all, I am sure the feminist movement can spare a few coins for this one too good to be true I would say. But of course they have to have just this.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why don't they just open their own club, do they need the vatican daddy after all, I am sure the feminist movement can spare a few coins for this one too good to be true I would say. But of course they have to have just this.

The Anglican church is perfect for them. They want all of the pomp and circumstance, but they want it with a sexually liberated "we don't need no stinking pope" tint. Enjoy.

[woad&fangs]

I thought that the issue with women priests was the Jesus did not choose women for his disciples when he could have.

Well duh, Jesus was a pretty smart guy. If you want to convert people then you have to have apostles that people will listen to. The average 0th century Middle Easterner was probably much more likely to listen to a man than to a woman. I would hope that we have moved on as a society to the point where we can listen to and respect women as equals.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well duh, Jesus was a pretty smart guy. If you want to convert people then you have to have apostles that people will listen to. The average 0th century Middle Easterner was probably much more likely to listen to a man than to a woman. I would hope that we have moved on as a society to the point where we can listen to and respect women as equals.

That is what I was about to say!

I would have thought that Jesus would take into account the circumstances at the time. I remember one passage where Jesus questions one of the points of the ten commandments (basically for not being strict enough IIRC), and says to one follower that God designed such commandments with the weaknesses and attitudes of men in mind.

Even the words and actions God have therefore taken into account the attitudes of society at the time, and I think we should look at this as a possibility for Jesus not appointing any women disciples.

I am still in the early stages of my learning when it comes to scripture, so debate is good. What do you think of this post TuffStuff?

[ICantSpellDawg]

That is what I was about to say!

I would have thought that Jesus would take into account the circumstances at the time. I remember one passage where Jesus questions one of the points of the ten commandments (basically for not being strict enough IIRC), and says to one follower that God designed such commandments with the weaknesses and attitudes of men in mind.

Even the words and actions God have therefore taken into account the attitudes of society at the time, and I think we should look at this as a possibility for Jesus not appointing any women disciples.

I am still in the early stages of my learning when it comes to scripture, so debate is good. What do you think of this post TuffStuff?

What do I know?

Maybe when God thinks we need new laws he'll tell us like he did the last time and the time before that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What do I know?

Maybe when God thinks we need new laws he'll tell us like he did the last time and the time before that.

Tuff, that would be Armaggedon, wouldn't it?

Nice to see we've moved back towards an actual debate here.

A few things strike me. Where does it say only men can minister to the congregation? In the Old Testemant, actually. The OT also allows divorce though, in the same book no less. So scriptural authority there is compromised.

Where does Jesus say women cannot minister to a congregation?

Nowhere.

The is entirely an issue of interpretation, just as the issue of the marriage of priests is. I look it up, it was Pope Gregory in the 11th Century who first forbade marriage and the actual ban did not enter Church law until 1139. In other words clerics were marrying for longer than they were celebate. Peter was married and he's supposed to be the final source of Papal and episclical authority.

If the Catholic Church wishes to forbid women and those with spouses from entering the Church that's its buisiness but as far as I can see it has no hard basis in scripture at all.

Edit: Further checking indicates that Anglican ministers who enter the priesthood are allowed to remain married. That implies that the Catholic Church recognises an Anglican marriage as valid within the Church, which is interesting as an anglican marriage isn't a scrament like a Roman Catholic one.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Tuff, that would be Armaggedon, wouldn't it?

Nice to see we've moved back towards an actual debate here.

A few things strike me. Where does it say only men can minister to the congregation? In the Old Testemant, actually. The OT also allows divorce though, in the same book no less. So scriptural authority there is compromised.

Where does Jesus say women cannot minister to a congregation?

Nowhere.

The is entirely an issue of interpretation, just as the issue of the marriage of priests is. I look it up, it was Pope Gregory in the 11th Century who first forbade marriage and the actual ban did not enter Church law until 1139. In other words clerics were marrying for longer than they were celebate. Peter was married and he's supposed to be the final source of Papal and episclical authority.

If the Catholic Church wishes to forbid women and those with spouses from entering the Church that's its buisiness but as far as I can see it has no hard basis in scripture at all.

Edit: Further checking indicates that Anglican ministers who enter the priesthood are allowed to remain married. That implies that the Catholic Church recognises an Anglican marriage as valid within the Church, which is interesting as an anglican marriage isn't a scrament like a Roman Catholic one.

Why did God come to earth as a man and not a woman? Sounds like God might be brought to court today for sexual discrimination.

There is nothing in scripture to forbid female priests. I've already said this. There is also nothing to suggest that there were ever female priests (unless they were believed to be males at the time of ordination). If there is no precedent for female priests, there seems to be enormous precedent for ministers to be males (including God's choice of body to visit earth in.)

Why did God create Man first? Then come to Earth as a man? Why were only males Rabbi's? And why did Jesus have only Male apostles? Maybe you (general you) are thinking "Oh that is because Man made the bible and God didn't have anything to do with it" - maybe you (not you personally) shouldn't be playing this game. That would mean that scripture doesn't mean anything to you either - so why bother citing it?

http://www.womenpriests.org/index.asp - this is the way you do it appropriately.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why did God come to earth as a man and not a woman? Sounds like God might be brought to court today for sexual discrimination.

There is nothing in scripture to forbid female priests. I've already said this. There is also nothing to suggest that there were ever female priests (unless they were believed to be males at the time of ordination). If there is no precedent for female priests, there seems to be enormous precedent for ministers to be males (including God's choice of body to visit earth in.)

Why did God create Man first? Then come to Earth as a man? Why were only males Rabbi's? And why did Jesus have only Male apostles? Maybe you (general you) are thinking "Oh that is because Man made the bible and God didn't have anything to do with it" - maybe you (not you personally) shouldn't be playing this game. That would mean that scripture doesn't mean anything to you either - so why bother citing it?

Scripture is quite clearly flawed and contradictory. Neither Christ nor any other prophet was present when the decision to admit or reject books from the canon was taken. I would argue that an acknowledgement of biblical fallacy is built into the very document. The Gospels do not even agree with each other in several cases and the fact that four were selected to begin with suggests no one account was considered definitive.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Scripture is quite clearly flawed and contradictory. Neither Christ nor any other prophet was present when the decision to admit or reject books from the canon was taken. I would argue that an acknowledgment of biblical fallacy is built into the very document. The Gospels do not even agree with each other in several cases and the fact that four were selected to begin with suggests no one account was considered definitive.

Many people who argue for female priests believe that not even scripture can be trusted because of this, that or the other thing. If we can't trust scripture as Christians, why do we trust anything? More importantly, why is it even important that women can be ordained to preside over nonsense with no meaning? We are left with modern "morality" at the root of the desired change which is the danger.

This opens us up to something similar to Unitarian Universalism as far as I am concerned. Unitarian Universalism is a hogs throw away from Nihilism, once they get past all of their right meaning confusion. I can't wait for Lemur to come into our discussion to cite that there is no such thing as a slippery slope. Tell that to the Unitarians that used to belong to a Christian church.

[Kralizec]

I'm not a religious guy and have a personal aversion to most organized religion, but it always seemed to me that "rebels" within a denomination are usually clueless rather than inspired. It's more obvious with aspiring priests who happen to be gay: what's keeping them tied to their church, anyway?

EDIT: argh, I just realised that the last part rhymes

[Rhyfelwyr]

I respect the scripture 100%. I just think you are giving too much weight to Papal traditions.

If women are so godless, why should they be present in a congregation at all? After all, Eve was created out of Adam's rib and so by that logic women are no different from any of God's creatures in that they would be here to serve men only.

But that is clearly not true from everything Jesus does and his treatment of women.

And what is the point bringing up Rabbi's?

[woad&fangs]

I think he is trying to say that Christian priests are a continuation of Jewish Rabbis.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm not a religious guy and have a personal aversion to most organized religion, but it always seemed to me that "rebels" within a denomination are usually clueless than inspired. It's more obvious with aspiring priests who happen to be gay: what's keeping them tied to their church, anyway?

As someone who believes himself to be "gay" he would be under the same celibacy rule as heterosexual clergy, as many are. However, because many in the Church hierarchy don't believe homosexuality to be a legitimate sexuality, rather a perverted and corrupt outlook on life - they have ordered that gay seminarians with deep-seated homosexual leanings be removed from the program. Yet another concurrence between the church and myself that is at odds with modern "morality".

[Kralizec]

As someone who believes himself to be "gay"....

That caused me to snicker in mid-sentence :beam:
I love cutting and pasting :smash:

I'm not sure what you meant with the last sentence. Do you mean that you have no problem with priests who admit being gay, as long as they're celibate?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Many people who argue for female priests believe that not even scripture can be trusted because of this, that or the other thing. If we can't trust scripture as Christians, why do we trust anything? More importantly, why is it even important that women can be ordained to preside over nonsense with no meaning? We are left with modern "morality" at the root of the desired change which is the danger.

This opens us up to something similar to Unitarian Universalism as far as I am concerned. Unitarian Universalism is a hogs throw away from Nihilism, once they get past all of their right meaning confusion. I can't wait for Lemur to come into our discussion to cite that there is no such thing as a slippery slope. Tell that to the Unitarians that used to belong to a Christian church.

You think Scripture can be trusted? That book isn't God, it's Man. It's just as fallable as you are, just as flawed and untrustworthy and even if it wasn't your interpretation would still be in error.

all you really have at the end of the day is your faith.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I respect the scripture 100%. I just think you are giving too much weight to Papal traditions.

If women are so godless, why should they be present in a congregation at all? After all, Eve was created out of Adam's rib and so by that logic women are no different from any of God's creatures in that they would be here to serve men only.

But that is clearly not true from everything Jesus does and his treatment of women.

And what is the point bringing up Rabbi's?

Who is saying that women are godless? They have a special place in the Church, but it is different from that of males. The Bible is patriarchal - chalk that up to bigotry through the ages, but it is really the way things are. Men hold the first place in the home and there are laws regulating a man and his wife. They have very different general functions. The modern society may be trying to destroy these differences, but if you believe in the Bible as divine truth - I'm sure that you wouldn't presume to know more about the male/female dynamic than the writer of that divine truth, would you? The God of the Bible IN NO WAY is parallel or in sync with modern morality as a whole and it is both foolish and futile to believe he ever was. The Lord of the old testament ordered the death of sinners and whole cities of men, women and children. Sure, the New Covenant established a new order, but didn't reveal what many today wish that it had. To believe that you know more than God is Hubris and thoroughly lacking in sound biblical judgment. Adam and Eve were cast out for such pride.

Read that pro-female ordination site and the reasons that they women should be allowed to be priests. I found a number of wild overstatements, but they aren't being disrespectful to the Pope or ordaining female priests illegally outside of the Church.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You think Scripture can be trusted? That book isn't God, it's Man. It's just as fallable as you are, just as flawed and untrustworthy and even if it wasn't your interpretation would still be in error.

all you really have at the end of the day is your faith.

Right - my point is that you believe none of it, so I'm not sure what you really expect people who disagree with female ordination to say to you. They clearly believe that those things matter and are divinely inspired.

[woad&fangs]

So we should all just go along with the established order just like christians have done for 2000 years.....

[ICantSpellDawg]

That caused me to snicker in mid-sentence :beam:
I love cutting and pasting :smash:

I'm not sure what you meant with the last sentence. Do you mean that you have no problem with priests who admit being gay, as long as they're celibate?

Hehe. I should have thought of a better way to say it.

Technically that is the position of the church - not including those who have "deep-seated" homosexual tendencies. A celibate man is a celibate man and if gay sexual activity is the only distinguishing characteristic of a "gay" person - then no sexual activity would make both of them indistinguishable, wouldn't it?

[ICantSpellDawg]

So we should all just go along with the established order just like christians have done for 2000 years.....

Unless a change would be good for the church and is supported by scripture - why not? Female ordination hasn't done anything for piety and church attendance in other denominations. In fact, it seems to be a pre-cursor to the opposite.

In reality it is a hard sell if you ask me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Right - my point is that you believe none of it, so I'm not sure what you really expect people who disagree with female ordination to say to you. They clearly believe that those things matter and are divinely inspired.

Tuff, take a look at my other posts, I should more properly have said, "In the end all we have is our faith."

Just because I recognise a 1,700 year old anthology for what it is does not mean I am not a committed Christian.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Tuff, take a look at my other posts, I should more properly have said, "In the end all we have is our faith."

Just because I recognise a 1,700 year old anthology for what it is does not mean I am not a committed Christian.

You believe that Jesus Christ not only was 100% God but also 100% man? Where did this idea come from? Or do you believe that he was just a man, because him being God wouldn't be sensible or it was just a superstition of the people at the time? If he was just a man, what superlative insight did he really have and where did he get it? Do you follow Jesus like some follow Confucius? If so, you are less of a mainstream Christian than a Muslim is, who believes in general that Jesus was a Prophet from God.

I'm not claiming that you don't hold the teachings of Jesus dear in your ethical outlook on life, but you might want to ask yourself: "what is he to me and where did I get that particular idea?"

If the answer is Church and Family tradition along with scripture, you may want to think long and hard about what it is that you really believe. If you believe that God tells you directly, then maybe you have more in common with the Church fathers than you think...:book:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You believe that Jesus Christ not only was 100% God but also 100% man? Where did this idea come from? Or do you believe that he was just a man, because him being God wouldn't be sensible? If he was just a man, what superlative insight did he really have and where did he get it? Do you follow Jesus like some follow Confucius? If so, you are less of a mainstream Christian than a Muslim is, who believes in general that Jesus was a Prophet from God.

I'm not claiming that you don't hold the teachings of Jesus dear in your ethical outlook on life, but you might want to ask yourself: "what is he to me and where did I get that particular idea?"

Oh, I got those ideas from the Bible but I spent a great deal of time thinking and praying and ultimately reached an essentially mainstream Christian outlook. My point is that although I believe the Bible is genuinely inspired by God and a record of the works of God as Man upon Earth I am nevertheless aware that the people who wrote down these things were likely no better than me, and I'm not that great. I didn't just pick up the Catholic, Anglican or Baptist hymn sheet, I tried out the various heresies first and I had what I believe was a genuine conversion BUT I am constantly aware of my flawed human judgement and I every day I ask myself if I am doing as god wishes, I never get more than a half answer.

The point is that for me ultimately God was unescapable, but that doesn't change the fact that rationaly it might all be nonsense.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Oh, I got those ideas from the Bible but I spent a great deal of time thinking and praying and ultimately reached an essentially mainstream Christian outlook. My point is that although I believe the Bible is genuinely inspired by God and a record of the works of God as Man upon Earth I am nevertheless aware that the people who wrote down these things were likely no better than me, and I'm not that great. I didn't just pick up the Catholic, Anglican or Baptist hymn sheet, I tried out the various heresies first and I had what I believe was a genuine conversion BUT I am constantly aware of my flawed human judgement and I every day I ask myself if I am doing as god wishes, I never get more than a half answer.

The point is that for me ultimately God was unescapable, but that doesn't change the fact that rationaly it might all be nonsense.

So you believe primarily that God reveals any new changes in his will directly to you? I personally believe that this concept is dangerous (which is probably why I find so much in common with Roman Catholicism). I get my faith from Family Tradition, Church Tradition, Scriptural understanding and, to a small degree - my own personal feelings about things. You have to remember that God isn't the only one talking to you and instructing your desires. A safety net like Scripture and Tradition are pretty helpful if you believe that some supernatural things are working against you. Look at all of the people who looked to themselves primarily for insight...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So you believe primarily that God reveals any new changes in his will directly to you? I personally believe that this concept is dangerous (which is probably why I find so much in common with Roman Catholicism). I get my faith from Family Tradition, Church Tradition, Scriptural understanding and, to a small degree - my own personal feelings about things. You have to remember that God isn't the only one talking to you and instructing your desires. A safety net like Scripture and Tradition are pretty helpful if you believe that some supernatural things are working against you. Look at all of the people who looked to themselves primarily for insight...

You're missing my primary point. I don't believe that God reveals himself to me in a concrete way. I think it is unbelievably short sighted to make such claims but it seems to me that blindly trusting in the pronouncements of men who claimed just that is even worse because you are committing the same sin and even as you do it you abdicate responsibility and shortcut your own concience and judgement. The Pope claims to speak with divine authority, but the person who decided he could do that was another Pope, backed by some Bishops. Before then the Pope couldn't speak within Divine Authority.

So is it true that the Pope always had this ability, did the Lord only confer this recently, or is it a human superstition? I don't know but I'm not going to let someone else decide for me and then follow him blindly. It works exactly the same way with the Bible.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Tuff, surely you can tell from my contributions in other threads that I am not trying to push modern morality into religion?

And I am not saying I know better than God, but you seem to be drawing too much influence on your beliefs from tradition.

And I'm undecided on the issue of women priests (well I don't believe in Priesthood but you know what I mean), I just think that it is debatable. Not because I am debating against God, but the evidence given in the scriptures is definetely up for interpretation.

[Incongruous]

For me I find issue with the way these women have gone about it. They are clearly going without the Catholic Church and within a Schismatic tradition. By going ahead with this they are surley rejecting the primacy of Rome and thus divocing themselves from the Catholic Faith? This group of female Catholic "priests" is surley now divorced from the Church and is just another Protestant organisation?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Tuff, surely you can tell from my contributions in other threads that I am not trying to push modern morality into religion?

And I am not saying I know better than God, but you seem to be drawing too much influence on your beliefs from tradition.

And I'm undecided on the issue of women priests (well I don't believe in Priesthood but you know what I mean), I just think that it is debatable. Not because I am debating against God, but the evidence given in the scriptures is definetely up for interpretation.

Of course not. I've gotten from this thread that you are not particularly inclined to look favorably on female ordination.

And of course you think that I am drawing too much influence on my beliefs from tradition. I'm a Catholic and you are a Presbyterian!

But we aren't talking about your beliefs. We are talking about the beliefs of the Catholic Church. In reality, ordination of women could go either way. So why can't it go either way? Some denominations have it, others don't. Is anyone here a Catholic who is looking for the ordination of women? So far, all I'm reading are Protestants.

I'm not pushing for it and would rather not have it. It doesn't seem to be against God's will not to have women priests and, if anything it seems like he never made a big deal about it before. So who is making a big deal about it? Not God, then whom? Man. If we are talking about the error of man then why can't we include his/her wanton spur of the moment desires as well: being corrupt, inaccurate and un-biblical. The arguement that man is fallible is a double edged sword. I'll err on the side of established Scriptural and Church tradition rather than the same voices I constantly reject.


For me I find issue with the way these women have gone about it. They are clearly going without the Catholic Church and within a Schismatic tradition. By going ahead with this they are surley rejecting the primacy of Rome and thus divocing themselves from the Catholic Faith? This group of female Catholic "priests" is surley now divorced from the Church and is just another Protestant organisation?

Right. There are organizations within the Church who are approaching it more reasonably. Just because people are clamoring for things doesn't mean that they should happen, but they can keep on trying to their hearts content.


I think it is unbelievably short sighted to make such claims but it seems to me that blindly trusting in the pronouncements of men who claimed just that is even worse because you are committing the same sin and even as you do it you abdicate responsibility and shortcut your own concience and judgement.

First of all - What sin?
Secondly, why do you think that I am shortcutting my own conscience? Are you telling me that deep down I believe that women should be priests? I can assure you that I do not.
The mind invents logic for the whims of the will; my will is that they not become priests, yours is that they should. I am using tactics that would deter them from doing so, which happen to be somewhat in unison with Church teaching and not contradicted by scripture, while you are using opposing tactics that are not in unison with Church teaching and not supported in any way by scripture.

Furthermore, It sounds to me as though you are essentially arguing that Catholics shouldn't be Catholics at all because the pope is a man of sin and has no divine authority. You are arguing a Protestant line in the hopes that it will change the Roman church. It may have worked when they were first having this discussion in protestant churches, but it doesn't hold much water with Catholics.

[Lemur]

I can't wait for Lemur to come into our discussion to cite that there is no such thing as a slippery slope. Tell that to the Unitarians that used to belong to a Christian church.
Why, exactly, is my name bein taken in vain? Have I posted anything in this thread that was inaccurate or hostile to the Catholic Church? As for the slippery slope thread, are you referring to the one where the Baptists or the Mennonites were playing a double game, telling the government that a beach shack was public when they wanted repair grants, and then turning around and telling the lesbians it was private and religious? They got busted, the shack lost its tax-exempt status, end of story. As it turns out, there was no slope.

Anyway, if you're going to slander me, please be specific.

P.S.: I think the fact that the Bible contradicts itself is one of the greatest gifts Christianity has. Religions based on texts that can be treated as inerrant are dangerous, dangerous creatures.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why, exactly, is my name bein taken in vain? Have I posted anything in this thread that was inaccurate or hostile to the Catholic Church? As for the slippery slope thread, are you referring to the one where the Baptists or the Mennonites were playing a double game, telling the government that a beach shack was public when they wanted repair grants, and then turning around and telling the lesbians it was private and religious? They got busted, the shack lost its tax-exempt status, end of story. As it turns out, there was no slope.

Anyway, if you're going to slander me, please be specific.

P.S.: I think the fact that the Bible contradicts itself is one of the greatest gifts Christianity has. Religions based on texts that can be treated as inerrant are dangerous, dangerous creatures.

I wasn't slandering you!
Don't you remember the recent discussion that we had in which you deplored the use of the term and concept of "the slippery-slope"?

You claimed that it wasn't a legitimate argument & I claimed that it was simply an elaborated discussion of consequence.

I'm sorry for using your name in vain, your high majesty :egypt::skull:

[Lemur]

Don't you remember the recent discussion that we had in which you deplored the use of the term and concept of "the slippery-slope"?

You claimed that it wasn't a legitimate argument & I claimed that it was simply an elaborated discussion of consequence.
Hmm, the "slippery slope" is a pretty well-established logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope). You see it most commonly in the debate over gay marriage, with all sorts of outlandish and unlikely events being foretold if teh gayzorz are allowed to commit to lifelong pair bonding.

Anyway, forgive me for skimming this thread and not giving it the in-depth read it deserves, but I'm not even clear on how the slippery slope applies in this case. So some women got ordained outside of the Catholic Church, 'cause they want to be priests. Okay. Goofier things have been done. Just check out Pope John XII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_XII), who "gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife." The church survived him, so I think it can outlast some women whose activities fall entirely outside of orthodoxy.


I'm sorry for using your name in vain, your high majesty
Don't make me turn you into a pillar of salt.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The choice made is clearly schismatic.

This does NOT mean that these women have rejected God, only that they have rejected some of the teachings of Holy Mother Church. This is serious, but not necessarily damning.

Historically, any number of schisms have been resolved and the schismatic brought back to the fold. I pray these women will return to the church. Atonement and forgiveness are central to the faith.

According to the Gospels, many of Jesus' disciples were women. Moreover, the gospels assert that Jesus did not require women to conform stricly to the traditional model of "Kirk, Kurch, und Kinder." One sister derided another for not helping with the chores, choosing instead to listen and join in the discussion of the disciples and Jesus' took the part of the "non-traditional" sister.

So why were all of the Apostles male? I do not know.

[seireikhaan]

Personally, I see no reason for the Catholic church's position regarding married priests and female priests to continue. For one, the whole reason for the ban on priest's marriage(corruption with passing down property and position to offspring) is frankly, imo, non existent anymore. At the very least allowing priests to marry should be considered a conservative belief, getting back to the way things were originally, before the church got so corrupted thanks to Leo "the Great". As for female priests; I think there is no reason to forbid them. Are they not capable of being in touch with God? Are many of them not just as in touch with the needs and struggles of common people as the current priests? I frankly just don't see a need or reason to ban the consideration of a female for ordination. :shrug:

*This comes from a Catholic, btw.

[seireikhaan]

So why were all of the Apostles male? I do not know.
:inquisitive: Lets see, because this is the first century A.D.? And because a female would almost certainly have been ignored/derided in such a position of prominence? Its one thing to be a tax collector, a whole other to be a woman.

[Rhyfelwyr]

@TuffStuff: OK, I just wanted to be sure you thought it was debatable. That's sorted then.

@Philipus: Do you not think you should put more trust in the scriptures?

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

[HoreTore]

How can they concieve this is somehow right?

Because they believe in a different faith than that of the catholic church, more in line with the protestant church who accepted them?

Kinda like Martin Luther did, perhaps?

[naut]

Historically, any number of schisms have been resolved and the schismatic brought back to the fold. I pray these women will return to the church. Atonement and forgiveness are central to the faith.
What right does the church have to forgive? They are just men after all. One of the many reason's the Roman Catholic Church (the institution itself not it's follower's mind you) has always bothered me. Over the centuries, like any other human social institution it's done alot of bad in the world. Yet it always does so under the guise of being God's organisation and it's actions being the "will of God". But, it's not really anymore. Compare it to the Jesus followers back in the day, they didn't have ranks and strange rituals etc, they just chilled with friends and had good times together in the name of the Lord. Heck, if I had a choice of sitting in a stuffy, cramped, uncomfortable, old, drafty church or sitting on the beach with a couple mates drinking a few, having a laugh and praying as the sun sets, I know where I'd be.

Peace. :bow:

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think the problem is that these women still claim to achnowledge the Pope and have Roman Catholic beliefs.

Thefore, they should not use a Protestant church to defy the Pope they claim to follow.

[HoreTore]

I think the problem is that these women still claim to achnowledge the Pope and have Roman Catholic beliefs.

Thefore, they should not use a Protestant church to defy the Pope they claim to follow.

Why not? They're following their own conviction, what's wrong with that? Isn't that what we want people to do in the first place?

[Kralizec]

Why not? They're following their own conviction, what's wrong with that? Isn't that what we want people to do in the first place?

Of course they should do whatever they think is right. It's a matter of internal consistency between their own beliefs.

[HoreTore]

Of course they should do whatever they think is right. It's a matter of internal consistency between their own beliefs.

When did we start demanding consistency when it comes to spiritual beliefs...?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

@Philipus: Do you not think you should put more trust in the scriptures?

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

So Paul says that Scripture is inspired by God. Ok fine, my Bible (NRSV) notes an alternate translation, "Every scripture inspired by God is also useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." 2 Tim 3.16.

In any case you are using the Bible to authenticate the Bible, and who is ultimately deciding to authenticate the authentication? You, you choose to believe what is written. It always comes back to your choice.

Observe:

1. The Sky is Blue

2. These words are true.

Where's the independant verification? You look out the window, that's where. Although, even then your eyes may be decieved and the sky might be green. The point is that the words themselves have no weight save that which you give them. They're just words written down. I could type anything into the "Book of Philip" I could write one hundred times that it was true and it would change nothing.

Even so, Paul's letter refers to the Old Testemant, as the New had yet to be written, so the statement cannot be applied to itself, because it is not refering to itself. In which case it is just the assertion of a Bishop, albeit an eminant one.


I'm not pushing for it and would rather not have it. It doesn't seem to be against God's will not to have women priests and, if anything it seems like he never made a big deal about it before. So who is making a big deal about it? Not God, then whom? Man. If we are talking about the error of man then why can't we include his/her wanton spur of the moment desires as well: being corrupt, inaccurate and un-biblical. The arguement that man is fallible is a double edged sword. I'll err on the side of established Scriptural and Church tradition rather than the same voices I constantly reject.

You're essentially erring on the side of other men's errors. That's also a double edged sword. Until the coming of Christ the Lord required animal sacrifice, or so we are told. Then Christ died on the Cross and blood became unnecessary.


First of all - What sin?
Secondly, why do you think that I am shortcutting my own conscience? Are you telling me that deep down I believe that women should be priests? I can assure you that I do not.
The mind invents logic for the whims of the will; my will is that they not become priests, yours is that they should. I am using tactics that would deter them from doing so, which happen to be somewhat in unison with Church teaching and not contradicted by scripture, while you are using opposing tactics that are not in unison with Church teaching and not supported in any way by scripture.

I am saying that by just going "tradition says" you are abdicating responsibility. You let someone tell you what to think and then you rubber stamp it if you do that. Apart from "Jesus only had male Apostles" and "tradition" you haven't produced an arguement. In any cast the Catholic Church recently named Mary Magdaline "Apostle to the Apostles" because she brought the news of the resurection to them.


Furthermore, It sounds to me as though you are essentially arguing that Catholics shouldn't be Catholics at all because the pope is a man of sin and has no divine authority. You are arguing a Protestant line in the hopes that it will change the Roman church. It may have worked when they were first having this discussion in protestant churches, but it doesn't hold much water with Catholics.

I am argueing that the Church should not have an elected monarch. If the Pope were willing to be the Patriarch of Rome and admit that one of his predecessors about 1,600 years ago was a bit egotistical the Church would probably not be in schism to the extent that it is.

[Cronos Impera]

The best solution so far was given by the Pope's arch-rival and I don't speak about Cromwell, Luther, Calvin or QE.
No, I'm talking about Orthodox Christianity (the eastern branch of The Holy Church).

Orthodox priests can get married but lose their rights to be ordained as bishops. Also if they divorce they lose the right to preach, permanently.
Women can't be ordained but so far the sistem hasn't recieved attacks by feminist organisations.
Also Orthodox priests have 2 organisations.
1. A Socialist-styled Union (defends priests against the abuses of the bishops in terms of wage gains)
2. The Holy Gathering (an organisation which elects the Patriarch and which is comprised of both clerigy and seculars)
The secular elements in this organisation are equivalent to the Presbyterian Elders but can only express themselves when electing a Patriarch or financing the errection of a church).


A priest can get married if he wishes but he can only remain a parish. He cannot advance through the church hierachy.
Women are admitted in the Orthodox Theological University with career oportunities such as Graveyard manager, a parish's wife, a professional wheeping lady and a candle merchant. No woman thus far has expressed wishes to be ordained a priest.


Just take a peak a Mt. Athos, an Orthodox Holy Mountain inhabited by monks from which women are banned. If Mt. Athos ware in Britain militant feminist organisations would have been at the gouverment's throat in just a few hours and that ban lifted.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What right does the church have to forgive? They are just men after all.

If you subscribe to scripture, Jesus himself gave them this privilege/duty. "Whose sins you...." This is at the core of the apostolic tradition.


One of the many reason's the Roman Catholic Church (the institution itself not it's follower's mind you) has always bothered me. Over the centuries, like any other human social institution it's done alot of bad in the world. Yet it always does so under the guise of being God's organisation and it's actions being the "will of God". But, it's not really anymore.

Impossible to discern, at least for believers, since our understanding of the "will of God" is perforce incomplete. Mistakes made by those in leadership roles in the church -- many of which were, historically, made for very secular objectives -- do not necessarily deny the role of the will of God.


Compare it to the Jesus followers back in the day, they didn't have ranks and strange rituals etc, they just chilled with friends and had good times together in the name of the Lord. Heck, if I had a choice of sitting in a stuffy, cramped, uncomfortable, old, drafty church or sitting on the beach with a couple mates drinking a few, having a laugh and praying as the sun sets, I know where I'd be.

Actually, the Nestorian Christians followed an approach to Christianity that is very much in keeping with your "chillin'" model. The Paulist tradition was more organized, and ended up superceding it.

[Incongruous]

Why not? They're following their own conviction, what's wrong with that? Isn't that what we want people to do in the first place?

You just seem to be attacking organised religion in general (yeah I know that's what you want to do)without taking into account the faith of the Catholic Church, by their actions they are not keeping within the beliefs of the Catholic Church they know this and this excercise is just a finger up at the church and self indulgence. The whole idea of being a Catholic is that in order to remain faithfull you must curb your human wants and selfish desires, these woman clearly lack the determination.

That they call themselves Catholics and yet are ordained in a Schismatic church is what I do not understand.

[ajaxfetish]

Going back to the debate taking place on the previous page, the bible may not include any accounts of female priests or apostles, but it does make note of female judges, female prophetesses, and numerous female disciples of Jesus, some in very prominent positions. The human involved in Jesus' birth was a woman. The first person to see the resurrected Jesus was a woman. In later Catholic tradition, numerous prominent figures, including heads of abbeys, mystics, advisers to Popes, and saints, including of course the ultimate Catholic saint, have been women. Considering all the roles, authority, and respect women have been given within the church, it seems strange that there is no mention of women serving as priests.

Explanations could include some important reason either unrevealed by God or revealed and lost, mention of female priesthood purposefully left out by the compilers of the bible, or the influence of the writings attributed to Paul, which seem quite sexist in comparison to the rest of the new testament, and which also contain the theological basis for the similarly controversial celibacy requirement for priesthood.

Ajax

[Cronos Impera]

Going back to the debate taking place on the previous page, the bible may not include any accounts of female priests or apostles, but it does make note of female judges, female prophetesses, and numerous female disciples of Jesus, some in very prominent positions. The human involved in Jesus' birth was a woman. The first person to see the resurrected Jesus was a woman. In later Catholic tradition, numerous prominent figures, including heads of abbeys, mystics, advisers to Popes, and saints, including of course the ultimate Catholic saint, have been women. Considering all the roles, authority, and respect women have been given within the church, it seems strange that there is no mention of women serving as priests.

Explanations could include some important reason either unrevealed by God or revealed and lost, mention of female priesthood purposefully left out by the compilers of the bible, or the influence of the writings attributed to Paul, which seem quite sexist in comparison to the rest of the new testament, and which also contain the theological basis for the similarly controversial celibacy requirement for priesthood.

Ajax

Just because they ware some proeminent Christian female disciples in the early Church doesn't imply that women should serve as priesthood.
Just look at the Jews in Israel.
They had a woman prime minister and women commanders in the Army yet there isn't a single Jewish lesbian female rabbi.
In the Early Church and Orthodox ones men and women knew their place in the Church and noone wanted to cross the line just for the sake of "it's possible". If you check the other 2 branches of The Old Testament (Mosaism and Mahomedism) you'll see the whole issue of ordaining women in the Church is C**P.
The Biblical reason for not ordaining female priests lies after the assencion of Christ.
Mary Magdalena dissapears completely after spreading the news about Christ's resurection and noone hears about her again. Virgin Mary travels to Greece where she founds a small Christian settlement at the foothills of Mt. Athos.
There are some Christian martyrs that ware female canonised both in Orthodox and Catholic Churches but that's about it.
Women can't serve as priests in Church just as men can't give birth. You can't have gay priests either because Paul wrote a special letter to the Corinthians which blames the gays of sodomy.

Every reformation of the Church has ended badly.
1. The Schism created a highly volatile Pontif in the West who would later crusade against his ailing followers
2. The Reformations and Counter-Reformations also had their share of blood
3. Luther was a Judas to the Baumakrieg and Calvin a Moloch to Geneva
4. The Anglican Church was made for the sole purpose of helping the King divorce
5. People are so buisy now with Rome and Protestantism that they forgot Jerusalem and Orthodoxy.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Just look at the Jews in Israel.
They had a woman prime minister and women commanders in the Army yet there isn't a single Jewish lesbian female rabbi.

That has to be the most singular non sequitur this year.

Congratulations.

:dizzy2:

[Sigurd]

Scripture should always come before tradition.

Bending the churches principles to suit tradition is no better than bending them to suit modern morality.
Quoting scriptures are we ?
Here is one for ya:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

I guess it would be hard to be a priest and be not permitted to speak in the church. :mellow:

[Ironside]

The Biblical reason for not ordaining female priests lies after the assencion of Christ.
Mary Magdalena dissapears completely after spreading the news about Christ's resurection and noone hears about her again.

Are you familiar with the gospel of Mary? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mary)

[HoreTore]

You just seem to be attacking organised religion in general (yeah I know that's what you want to do)without taking into account the faith of the Catholic Church, by their actions they are not keeping within the beliefs of the Catholic Church they know this and this excercise is just a finger up at the church and self indulgence. The whole idea of being a Catholic is that in order to remain faithfull you must curb your human wants and selfish desires, these woman clearly lack the determination.

That they call themselves Catholics and yet are ordained in a Schismatic church is what I do not understand.

Uh.... First of all, where did I attack anyone?

I don't see this as self-indulgence or anything like that at all. I see it simply as a wish from these women to slightly reform the church to be more like what they thinks God wants it to be. Like so many before them has done, and a few of them to great success. Where's the shame in that?

[Don Corleone]

Wow. Doesn't take long before a fairly simple question devolves into a hundred concerning Faith, the bible, Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular. :dizzy2:

1) By right of free association, the Catholic Church has the right to set up its own rules regarding office holders and membership. Regardless of my personal views regarding the ordination of women or homosexuals, the Church itself is the final arbiter on whether or not women should be priests.

2) The bible is a lot more accurate than most people would have thought. The Dead Sea Scrolls, beyond giving us some wonderful insights into the grammatical constructs of Aramaic, demonstrated that for the most part, the fidelity of transcriptions through the centuries has been astounding.

3) The bible itself does not prohibit women from serving as ministers, and it doesn't say concretely that there were no female disciples, just that there were no female apostles. Bishops, not priests, are the modern descendants of the apostles. Priests are descendants of the disciples.

4) The thread title is misleading. The women in question are NOT Catholic priests, any more than I am the NFL defensive MVP from last year, even though I just publicly declared that I was and a group of guys at work agreed and recognized me as such.

5) Those of you boo-hooing about tradition... I have news for you, there is no such thing as an organized body of Christianity without some tradition of one sort or another.

6) Finally, on the off chance that anybody interpreted number (2) to mean that I personally believe in the infallibility of the bible, despite what some denominations hold, the bible itself never claims to be infallible, and no where in it does Jesus confer any special authority upon it. He does however confer special authority upon His church.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wow. Doesn't take long before a fairly simple question devolves into a hundred concerning Faith, the bible, Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular. :dizzy2:

1) By right of free association, the Catholic Church has the right to set up its own rules regarding office holders and membership. Regardless of my personal views regarding the ordination of women or homosexuals, the Church itself is the final arbiter on whether or not women should be priests.

2) The bible is a lot more accurate than most people would have thought. The Dead Sea Scrolls, beyond giving us some wonderful insights into the grammatical constructs of Aramaic, demonstrated that for the most part, the fidelity of transcriptions through the centuries has been astounding.

3) The bible itself does not prohibit women from serving as ministers, and it doesn't say concretely that there were no female disciples, just that there were no female apostles. Bishops, not priests, are the modern descendants of the apostles. Priests are descendants of the disciples.

4) The thread title is misleading. The women in question are NOT Catholic priests, any more than I am the NFL defensive MVP from last year, even though I just publicly declared that I was and a group of guys at work agreed and recognized me as such.

5) Those of you boo-hooing about tradition... I have news for you, there is no such thing as an organized body of Christianity without some tradition of one sort or another.

6) Finally, on the off chance that anybody interpreted number (2) to mean that I personally believe in the infallibility of the bible, despite what some denominations hold, the bible itself never claims to be infallible, and no where in it does Jesus confer any special authority upon it. He does however confer special authority upon His church.

In spite of the length of your post, you have provided a simple and correct answer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wow. Doesn't take long before a fairly simple question devolves into a hundred concerning Faith, the bible, Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular. :dizzy2:

1) By right of free association, the Catholic Church has the right to set up its own rules regarding office holders and membership. Regardless of my personal views regarding the ordination of women or homosexuals, the Church itself is the final arbiter on whether or not women should be priests.

I don't think anyone is argueing the issue under secular law. The question is whether they are making the right decision before God.


2) The bible is a lot more accurate than most people would have thought. The Dead Sea Scrolls, beyond giving us some wonderful insights into the grammatical constructs of Aramaic, demonstrated that for the most part, the fidelity of transcriptions through the centuries has been astounding.

Fidelity of transcription does not answer the question of the selection of the canon. Though I grant you it is an important point, even so there are errors.


3) The bible itself does not prohibit women from serving as ministers, and it doesn't say concretely that there were no female disciples, just that there were no female apostles. Bishops, not priests, are the modern descendants of the apostles. Priests are descendants of the disciples.

Paul's first letter to Timothy specifically prohibits women from being priests and the Old Testemant makes a number of distinction between men and women.


4) The thread title is misleading. The women in question are NOT Catholic priests, any more than I am the NFL defensive MVP from last year, even though I just publicly declared that I was and a group of guys at work agreed and recognized me as such.

They are heretics against the Church, under Church law. This is, however, the choice of the Church to excomunicate them.


5) Those of you boo-hooing about tradition... I have news for you, there is no such thing as an organized body of Christianity without some tradition of one sort or another.

So we should just keep on with traditions just because we have them? Other branches of Christianity, including Anglicanism, do not create Dogma in the way in which the Roman Church has.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So we should just keep on with traditions just because we have them? Other branches of Christianity, including Anglicanism, do not create Dogma in the way in which the Roman Church has.

Look where that has taken them. Dwidling numbers and a massive international schism between "conservstives" and "liberals". I've read that Roman Catholicism has replaced Anglicanism in Britain as the largest religious Denomination. I'm never happy to hear about the way the Anglican Church was founded on immoral concepts and is failing miserably around the world, but I won't pretend it hasn't led to more Catholics in the long run - which is a positive outcome.

Liberalizing Churches in the modern era generally leads to a fracturing disunity and a massive defection rate. So, all-in-all, nobody else should have Dogma except the Catholic church. :yes:

I didn't mind female alter servers or anything like that - but certain things like not offering wine at communion were bad ideas in my book. Anyway I like the club and the the club itself. Why should we change the club for people who are already leaving? Especially when scripture and tradition ere on our side? Because God wants us to? Don't you think that he would have hinted at it somewhere other than in the philosophies of non-believers?

[Don Corleone]

Paul's first letter to Timothy specifically prohibits women from being priests and the Old Testemant makes a number of distinction between men and women.
Hmm, I could be wrong, but I believe the passage relates to women not speaking in church, not from serving as a priest. Some have jested that practically removes the possibility of female priests, but it wouldn't if religious services were conducted with the congregation segregated by gender.


So we should just keep on with traditions just because we have them? Other branches of Christianity, including Anglicanism, do not create Dogma in the way in which the Roman Church has. I see. So every word in the Book of Common Prayer comes directly from scripture? You'll have to show the gospel passage where Jesus instituted Shrove Tuesday, or perhaps it was St. Paul and St. Timothy wandering around Galatia that started it....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmm, I could be wrong, but I believe the passage relates to women not speaking in church, not from serving as a priest. Some have jested that practically removes the possibility of female priests, but it wouldn't if religious services were conducted with the congregation segregated by gender.

I see. So every word in the Book of Common Prayer comes directly from scripture? You'll have to show the gospel passage where Jesus instituted Shrove Tuesday, or perhaps it was St. Paul and St. Timothy wandering around Galatia that started it....

1 Timothy 2:11-15 Identify women as the original trnasgressors and forbid them to teach or have authority over men. You can quibble over it but given that a Bishop or a priest is supposed to control his wife as well and all the other sexist elements in the letters I would say Paul would not have allowed women to preach.

As to the BCP the answer is that it can and is rewritten and updated. It can be changed, or not used at all. It may be the basis of the Anglican tradition but it is no Dogma.

[Don Corleone]

1 Timothy 2:11-15 Identify women as the original trnasgressors and forbid them to teach or have authority over men. You can quibble over it but given that a Bishop or a priest is supposed to control his wife as well and all the other sexist elements in the letters I would say Paul would not have allowed women to preach to men. There, fixed that for you. Seriously, I hear what you're saying, St. Paul had some other misogynistic statements as well. But he's hardly issuing a commandment. He could definitely speak more clearly on topics when he chose to.


As to the BCP the answer is that it can and is rewritten and updated. It can be changed, or not used at all. It may be the basis of the Anglican tradition but it is no Dogma. You say toh-mah-toe, I say toe-may-toe. And then I get one of these to the kisser :tomato: All jokes aside, I guess I'm not quite seeing why you're being so derisive of the term 'tradition' as it relates to the Vatican, when in reality, any organization (not just religious ones) have traditions of some form or another.

And while I'm playing devil's advocate on the matter, one of the best arguments I've ever heard for the notion of tradition is as follows: Reading scripture, do you really think that you're smarter than the sum total (the summa theologica if you will) of all work performed in the past 2000 years? I mean, I'm sure you're familar with the teachings of John Wesley. Do you plug your ears and murmur "John Wesley didn't author an epistle so I won't listen to what he had to say?" I imagine you probably take it for what it is, the intelligent and insightful writings of a man who dedicated his life to understanding his Lord better and getting to know God and worship Him as properly as he possibly could.

So what's so awful about John Wesley? Or Thomas Aquinas for that matter? Oh, I know... John Wesley is okay, but Aquinas, he's one of those deviant Catholics, so we have to forget anything he said. How close am I?

[rory_20_uk]

I don't understand how a person can believe they are Catholic with what that entails, then one day decide "sod it - I'm CoE now as I want to get ordained". People who can alter their beliefs in such a way aren't believers in the first place IMO.

All official churches have a great history of destroying information that doesn't agree with their view of the holy word, to the extreme of killing everyone they can lay their hands on who doesn't quite get it. Still there's a mass of information that hasn't been destroyed. But far from this bieng accepted by the church and allow them to adapt it is ignored. Apparently a grouping of men hundreds of years ago have perfect insight into what is the holy truth and what is a load of nonsense. I've read a fair amount of non canonical texts and unsurprisingly the amount of text is greater thant he entire Bible. I fear that the true message has been distorted beyond recognition somewhere down the line.

Then we have the age old fun and games of quoting bits of the bible and extrapolating that this shows... well, whatever it is you are wanting to show today.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There, fixed that for you. Seriously, I hear what you're saying, St. Paul had some other misogynistic statements as well. But he's hardly issuing a commandment. He could definitely speak more clearly on topics when he chose to.

I'm not saying it's a commandment, but frankly I'm surprised that no one against female priests trotted it it out first. You know that you are interpreting the passage ingeniously. The point of Paul's arguement is that women are inferior to men. Paul then goes on to lay the qualifications for a Bishop and Deacon and he explicitely indicates that they would be men, no question. The letters quite clearly assume that priests and up will be men and that women should stay home and spit out babies, something Paul actually says. The fact that he prefaces his dicussion of the qualifications for office in the church with a prohibition against women preaching is implicit, but not, I grant, explicit.


You say toh-mah-toe, I say toe-may-toe. And then I get one of these to the kisser :tomato: All jokes aside, I guess I'm not quite seeing why you're being so derisive of the term 'tradition' as it relates to the Vatican, when in reality, any organization (not just religious ones) have traditions of some form or another.

I'm not being at all derisive of tradition, but I am not going to keep things as they are just because they have been so for a thousand years. Tradition is a good thing, but it isn't law. The Anglican Church has tradition, as do the Methodists, Paptists etc but the Roman Church has Dogma which the Church proclaims is always right and cannot be changed.

Wiki definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

Dogma assumes that some guy, who made a point of having a beard or not having a beard depending on the era, was absolutely perfectly right. This is my basic objection because all Dogmatic decisions post-dates Christ.


And while I'm playing devil's advocate on the matter, one of the best arguments I've ever heard for the notion of tradition is as follows: Reading scripture, do you really think that you're smarter than the sum total (the summa theologica if you will) of all work performed in the past 2000 years? I mean, I'm sure you're familar with the teachings of John Wesley. Do you plug your ears and murmur "John Wesley didn't author an epistle so I won't listen to what he had to say?" I imagine you probably take it for what it is, the intelligent and insightful writings of a man who dedicated his life to understanding his Lord better and getting to know God and worship Him as properly as he possibly could.

So what's so awful about John Wesley? Or Thomas Aquinas for that matter? Oh, I know... John Wesley is okay, but Aquinas, he's one of those deviant Catholics, so we have to forget anything he said. How close am I?

Miles and miles away, I spent six months with Boethius on my bedside table and I read all his tracts, including those against heresy. Aquinus is on my reading list right after Saint Augustine of Hippo. I read them, I study them, I don't swallow them without looking.

As a branch of Christianity I find Roman theology really rather agreeable in a lot of cases but I am the quintesential protestant. I refuse to do something just because the Pope says so, or because a dead Pope said so. Do I think I am smarter than the ancient divines, no, but I don't think I'm necessarily any more stupid either.

what is Aquinus, what is Augustine, John Paul II, Rowan Williams? What distinguishes them from each other or from the rest of us? A man who spent his whole life studying the Bible a thousand years ago is no different from one doing the same thing today. The amount of knowledge never increases, the book never gets any bigger.

Theology never moves fowards, all that happens is sucessive generations produce their own comentaries on the same set of texts.

[Cronos Impera]

So as far as the Calvinist argument goes anyone can become a parish.
Hell, if that is the case than I can ordain my minor cousin (7 year old with some biblical knowledge) as parish. To your criteria he would be an ideal candidate. Clean, innocent, God-fearing, and even Jesus said "Bring the children to Me" but the Church only accepts major priests (over 18+) but when the Hell does God make any distinction between minors and grown-ups. Never.
So the fact is simple. Either follow the Orthodox Tradition and Bible and call yourself a Christian or shove them and call yourself Agnostic or any other way but you cannot be a Christian if you don't respect Christian traditian following the New and Old Testaments.

[rory_20_uk]

So the fact is simple. Either follow the Orthodox Tradition and Bible and call yourself a Christian or shove them and call yourself Agnostic or any other way but you cannot be a Christian if you don't respect Christian traditian following the New and Old Testaments.

Which orthodox tradition? And lets not forget the dozens of new churches, as well as the ones stamped out by the current "orthodox" faith.

To equate "orthodox" as "right" is frankly ridiculous - as though the loudest voice at this moment in time is of course correct.

Agnostics are something completely different in case you were oblivious.

The Bible. Coptic? Orthodox? Protestant? Catholic? Ethiopian? Samaritan? Mormon? Jehova's Witness? Not as simple as some make out is it? All are of course right. All are wildly different and all are Christian.

And let's not get onto the different Bibles available to every denomination...

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So as far as the Calvinist argument goes anyone can become a parish.
Hell, if that is the case than I can ordain my minor cousin (7 year old with some biblical knowledge) as parish. To your criteria he would be an ideal candidate. Clean, innocent, God-fearing, and even Jesus said "Bring the children to Me" but the Church only accepts major priests (over 18+) but when the Hell does God make any distinction between minors and grown-ups. Never.
So the fact is simple. Either follow the Orthodox Tradition and Bible and call yourself a Christian or shove them and call yourself Agnostic or any other way but you cannot be a Christian if you don't respect Christian traditian following the New and Old Testaments.

Who's the Calvanist? When did we start talking about Calvin? Has the word election even been uttered here?

Are you saying that only Orthodox Christians are Christians?

Further, what on Earth are you talking about 7 year old priests for?

Your post seems to be a major case of baby-and-bath-water.

Maybe I'm not explaining this very well, let me try again.

1. You have the Bible, written down by fallable men, copyed by fallable men, translated by fallable men, none of which was even written while Jesus was alive.

2. You have Church tradition, codified from 1 by another generation of fallable men and then built on by successive generations.

3. You have us.

Explain to me why I should swallow 1 and 2 without any consideration at all? Then expalin to me why my willingness to question tradition makes me an apostate and means I automatically reject the teachings of the Church?

Prime example, Saint Paul says Bishops and Deacons should be married only once. In the fourth century some Bishops decree that Churchmen should be celebate, then at the Council of Nicea 300 Bishops decide that this is wrong and declare that it is right and proper for priests to marry, then in the 13th Century the Pope and the Council of Trent declare that priests should be celebate.

Are you telling me that none of those men EVER questioned tradition?

Tell me where in my posts in this thread I have actually committed aposty

To be honest I'm with Rory on this whole issue, if the Church didn't spend so much time fighting itself it might want to consider some of the non-canonical texts which have surfaced in the last 20 or 30 years. My own Bible contains all the Apophrica of the Olt Testemant, including the bits only recognised by the Orthodox Church.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Which orthodox tradition? And lets not forget the dozens of new churches, as well as the ones stamped out by the current "orthodox" faith.

To equate "orthodox" as "right" is frankly ridiculous - as though the loudest voice at this moment in time is of course correct.

Agnostics are something completely different in case you were oblivious.

The Bible. Coptic? Orthodox? Protestant? Catholic? Ethiopian? Samaritan? Mormon? Jehova's Witness? Not as simple as some make out is it? All are of course right. All are wildly different and all are Christian.

And let's not get onto the different Bibles available to every denomination...

~:smoking:


You beat me, and you are more sucinct. I'm pretty sure he means Greek Orthodox.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Who's the Calvanist? When did we start talking about Calvin? Has the word election even been uttered here?

That might have been me. :sweatdrop:

Also what's your point Cronos? That sounds like the "only my denomination is Christian" talk I tend to hear more from Evangelicals.

I still say tradition means nothing. If like TuffStuff you feel a system works, then keep it because it works, not because it is tradition. I suppose the Orthodox churches hold similar views to the Roman Catholic Church on this issue.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Either follow the Orthodox Tradition and Bible and call yourself a Christian or shove them and call yourself Agnostic or any other way but you cannot be a Christian if you don't respect Christian traditian following the New and Old Testaments.

Essentially.

you could be a "Christian", but it would rely more heavily on personal divine revelations... I'm sure everyone condemning Catholicism would have a field day with a bunch of Joseph Smiths running around. Next time you say "I know what God wants" think to yourself; isn't that what the guys who said that "women shouldn't be priests" thought? Who's communication with God trumps all? In the eyes of the Church the church founders opinions on revelation trump yours for the time being.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That might have been me. :sweatdrop:

Also what's your point Cronos? That sounds like the "only my denomination is Christian" talk I tend to hear more from Evangelicals.

I still say tradition means nothing. If like TuffStuff you feel a system works, then keep it because it works, not because it is tradition. I suppose the Orthodox churches hold similar views to the Roman Catholic Church on this issue.

Tradition doesn't mean "nothing". I don't know why you would say that. In that case drop all of your calvinist beliefs that don't work.

Anyway, Christianity isn't about "what works" in the temporal field - but what works eternally.

It "works" to give up your faith in Jesus 3 times to save your temporal life. It makes sense - but you are called not to do this even though it clashes with what works.

[KarlXII]

How can they concieve this is somehow right? For the cause of feminism? I fond their actions self serving and rather pathetic.

Is it somehow bad that women want to become priests?

[KarlXII]

I thought that the issue with women priests was the Jesus did not choose women for his disciples when he could have.

And Jesus did not have a dog, should excommunications be handed out because you own one?

[Rhyfelwyr]

And Jesus did not have a dog, should excommunications be handed out because you own one?

I was pointing out part of another sides argument, not my own. :rolleyes:

[KarlXII]

I was pointing out part of another sides argument, not my own. :rolleyes:

You mean the Catholic Church's argument?

And some wonder why we Protestants split :juggle2:

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Well they are being ordained away from the Catholic and thus universal Church, going against the teachings of Christ to persue selfish and pridefull ends, therefore they are not with God, they have rejected him.

As for the Protestant Church allowing this to take place, it is their choice, but it simply shows how far that Church has strayed. They are willing to do anything it seems...



As Being a Protestant, I will ask you this. Does It Matter? I mean, Can't they serve God and be ordained just like Men? Or Are They just some footstool for Catholic Priests since Jesus had men as part of his 12 Dispicles?.......

[Incongruous]

As Being a Protestant, I will ask you this. Does It Matter? I mean, Can't they serve God and be ordained just like Men? Or Are They just some footstool for Catholic Priests since Jesus had men as part of his 12 Dispicles?.......

Um as a Catholic, yes it does matter...
They have gone against the Church, thus divorcing themselves from their faith. They are thus un-faithful. Footstool, yeah that's what I want my damned woman to be.

The concept of accepting Papal authority should not be a hard one to grasp.

[HoreTore]

Um as a Catholic, yes it does matter...
They have gone against the Church, thus divorcing themselves from their faith. They are thus un-faithful.

Why is that any of your business though?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Um as a Catholic, yes it does matter...
They have gone against the Church, thus divorcing themselves from their faith. They are thus un-faithful. Footstool, yeah that's what I want my damned woman to be.

The concept of accepting Papal authority should not be a hard one to grasp.




We have not done anything wrong. Women are humans also I think, unless they look like humans and are something else.

We are not un-faithful. Do you think God cares if Women are Ordained? No offense, but are your Catholics afraid that we doing something logical and still not be anal about all these things? Like someone said eariler here, People Wonder why we broke away from the church :dizzy2:.

[Cronos Impera]

My point was that The Greek Orthodox Church, The Coptic Church and the Aethiopian ones allow priest to marry while bishops and theologians must remain or become celibate. Women and children cannot become priests because it is written in the Bible and the Bible is the law if you are a devout believer of your particular confession.
All those people in between who want to reshape the Bible according to their own conviction are no longer Christians in their particular confession but heretics.
Agnostics are all those people who believe in God but don't trust the Revelation or the following events.
It is an excellent term used to describe all rogue preachers and false prophets.

The Church fell after The Council of Niceea because of all those theologians who shaped the Cult to suit their immediate needs.
In the East the Church remained strong and righteous because noone dared in their pride and power to challange the apostolic tradition. Thus there ware no religious wars,no crusade, no Inquisition, no Reformation, no Counter-Reformation and no Jonestown.
Challenging tradition is more dangerous than following it sometimes.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree with the priestly celibacy rule. One reason (not the only) It is helpful in keeping priests focused on their parish rather than family and allows for a more regular rotation of clergy that would be much more difficult if whole families were involved. Additionally if rotating clergy wasn't possible and an individual family was deeply rooted, people might tust the family over the church. If there are any ideas deemed to be heretical or unsupported by mainline catholicism people might have more of an allegiance with the Priest than the church itself. We have seen that play out so many times in so many denominations.

Also, if an idea is heretical and is not expunged, the offspring of the heretical priest lives on and may retain the loyalties of the parish. It is a recipe for disaster - let the protestants experiment with it.

Roman Catholic parishes shift priests to give a healthy different angle to parishoners. If one priest is rotten, he will be gone soon enough. If another is excellent, people will remember him and another parish will get to benefit as well. It also connects parishes together without giving out to regionalism that can be deadly for a global community. The RC church does it very well. Ideas are circulated internationally along with cultural knowledge. My church currently has an Irishman, 2 Americans, a Philipino and a Nigerian.

If you want to get married and look like a priest become a Deacon or convert to the Church from Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Orthodoxy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Essentially.

you could be a "Christian", but it would rely more heavily on personal divine revelations... I'm sure everyone condemning Catholicism would have a field day with a bunch of Joseph Smiths running around. Next time you say "I know what God wants" think to yourself; isn't that what the guys who said that "women shouldn't be priests" thought? Who's communication with God trumps all? In the eyes of the Church the church founders opinions on revelation trump yours for the time being.

It's not the Church founders though, it's an ecumunical Council nearly 300 yeards after the Lord's death.


Why is that any of your business though?

He believes they are going to hell for their beliefs, and he doesn't want that.


My point was that The Greek Orthodox Church, The Coptic Church and the Aethiopian ones allow priest to marry while bishops and theologians must remain or become celibate. Women and children cannot become priests because it is written in the Bible and the Bible is the law if you are a devout believer of your particular confession.
All those people in between who want to reshape the Bible according to their own conviction are no longer Christians in their particular confession but heretics.[quote]

That, sir, is Crusading talk.

[quote]Agnostics are all those people who believe in God but don't trust the Revelation or the following events.
It is an excellent term used to describe all rogue preachers and false prophets.

No, Agnostics are those who believe it is impossible to know the truth of such things. Going back to Tuff's post, to claim an absolute knowledge would be to claim personnal revelation.


The Church fell after The Council of Niceea because of all those theologians who shaped the Cult to suit their immediate needs.
In the East the Church remained strong and righteous because noone dared in their pride and power to challange the apostolic tradition. Thus there ware no religious wars,no crusade, no Inquisition, no Reformation, no Counter-Reformation and no Jonestown.
Challenging tradition is more dangerous than following it sometimes.

The Church in the East schismed just as it did in the West, at the start of your post you mentioned three denominations.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree with the priestly celibacy rule. One reason (not the only) It is helpful in keeping priests focused on their parish rather than family and allows for a more regular rotation of clergy that would be much more difficult if whole families were involved. Additionally if rotating clergy wasn't possible and an individual family was deeply rooted, people might tust the family over the church. If there are any ideas deemed to be heretical or unsupported by mainline catholicism people might have more of an allegiance with the Priest than the church itself. We have seen that play out so many times in so many denominations.

Also, if an idea is heretical and is not expunged, the offspring of the heretical priest lives on and may retain the loyalties of the parish. It is a recipe for disaster - let the protestants experiment with it.

Roman Catholic parishes shift priests to give a healthy different angle to parishoners. If one priest is rotten, he will be gone soon enough. If another is excellent, people will remember him and another parish will get to benefit as well. It also connects parishes together without giving out to regionalism that can be deadly for a global community. The RC church does it very well. Ideas are circulated internationally along with cultural knowledge. My church currently has an Irishman, 2 Americans, a Philipino and a Nigerian.

If you want to get married and look like a priest become a Deacon or convert to the Church from Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Orthodoxy.

Ah, now here is a coherent arguement, and one that works. On the other hand it is I believe a relatively modern thing in the Catholic Church where priests would remain in place for decades in the past. In any case it is something that the Anglican Church does now as well, move people around.

You do know that an Agnlican priest or Bishop can convert and keep his wife though, don't you? I assume the same is true for Orthodox priests.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You do know that an Agnlican priest or Bishop can convert and keep his wife though, don't you? I assume the same is true for Orthodox priests.

That's what I said! Convert to the Church FROM Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Orthodoxy. I should have put in "priests can convert..." sorry.

It is also not an automatic thing - it takes a serious consideration and dispensation from the Church.

[Ronin]

*grabs another bag of popcorn*

this is great guys...keep it going! :2thumbsup:

[ajaxfetish]

I agree with the priestly celibacy rule. One reason (not the only) It is helpful in keeping priests focused on their parish rather than family and allows for a more regular rotation of clergy that would be much more difficult if whole families were involved. Additionally if rotating clergy wasn't possible and an individual family was deeply rooted, people might tust the family over the church. If there are any ideas deemed to be heretical or unsupported by mainline catholicism people might have more of an allegiance with the Priest than the church itself. We have seen that play out so many times in so many denominations.
I hadn't thought about it from that angle yet. Just as a random aside, the Mormon response to that problem is to have a lay clergy. Instead of rotating priests/bishops from area to area, we rotate out local leaders and replace them with other local members. Of course it doesn't foster the kind of international perspective you also mention, but then the missionary program goes at least some way towards making that up.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's what I said! Convert to the Church FROM Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Orthodoxy. I should have put in "priests can convert..." sorry.

It is also not an automatic thing - it takes a serious consideration and dispensation from the Church.

That's what I thought, but you seemed to be implying such mean were not priests when your Pope says they are.

[drone]

I thought the Catholic Church rotated clergy to...
:creep:
probably shouldn't say it~D


*grabs another bag of popcorn*

this is great guys...keep it going! :2thumbsup:

As entertaining as this thread is, it reinforces my belief that organized religion is a plague upon mankind. :yes:

[atheotes]

*grabs another bag of popcorn*

this is great guys...keep it going! :2thumbsup:

yes... its been interesting to read some well constructed arguments :2thumbsup:

[KarlXII]

Um as a Catholic, yes it does matter...
They have gone against the Church, thus divorcing themselves from their faith. They are thus un-faithful.

They're unfaithful because they went against the Catholic Church due to a sexist policy? Very medieval.


Footstool, yeah that's what I want my damned woman to be.

Glad you admit you believe women as nothing more than property.


The concept of accepting Papal authority should not be a hard one to grasp

Why does one man need to be the voice of the Church?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

They're unfaithful because they went against the Catholic Church due to a sexist policy? Very medieval.



Glad you admit you believe women as nothing more than property.



Why does one man need to be the voice of the Church?

Argee on all 3 counts. Can't say it better myself :yes:



Besides, Does God Talk To The Pope Himself? :juggle2:

[ICantSpellDawg]

I hadn't thought about it from that angle yet. Just as a random aside, the Mormon response to that problem is to have a lay clergy. Instead of rotating priests/bishops from area to area, we rotate out local leaders and replace them with other local members. Of course it doesn't foster the kind of international perspective you also mention, but then the missionary program goes at least some way towards making that up.

Ajax

I just made it up after the fact. I think it is a good idea in general, so I came up with a reason that people might like. It may be the modern rationale for all I know.

I like Mormons. They remind me of Catholics in a number of ways. In some ways better, in other worse. Better includes tighter knit societies and family groups, abstinence from alcohol, drugs among many others. The idea that you get your own planet if you were good in life is a bit bizarre to me, though.

[Ironside]

The Church fell after The Council of Niceea because of all those theologians who shaped the Cult to suit their immediate needs.
In the East the Church remained strong and righteous because noone dared in their pride and power to challange the apostolic tradition. Thus there ware no religious wars,no crusade, no Inquisition, no Reformation, no Counter-Reformation and no Jonestown.
Challenging tradition is more dangerous than following it sometimes.

Have you ever red Byzantine (the leaders of the Orthodox church) history?

for starters you can read about:

Arianism
Monophysitism
Iconoclasm
Monothelitism

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Um as a Catholic, yes it does matter...
They have gone against the Church, thus divorcing themselves from their faith. They are thus un-faithful. Footstool, yeah that's what I want my damned woman to be.

The concept of accepting Papal authority should not be a hard one to grasp.

I find it very easy to understand, just impossible to justify.

Who first declared the Pope the monarchial head of the Church?

The Pope.

Tuff has said that it is dangerous to rely on personal revelation and direct authority claimed from God, but that's exactly what the first Pope did.

[Sigurd]

Tuff has said that it is dangerous to rely on personal revelation and direct authority claimed from God, but that's exactly what the first Pope did.
I guess you deny the Catholic claim to Peter as the first Pope.

I suspect from reading your posts that you have read a great deal about the topic of Christianity.
Probably more so than I, but I must ask; what are your thoughts about religion directed by revelation?

And on the topic in a more serious way than my earlier flippant comment.
Catholics breaking away from the mainstream and doing their own thing is just one more incident of a long disease that has troubled the church since the original Apostles were murdered. Individuals within the church tries to change tradition or teachings in the church and gain supporters. This will end like it did with the Donatists, Pelagians, Arians and many other groups. The orthodoxy of the church will prevail yet again.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I find it very easy to understand, just impossible to justify.

Who first declared the Pope the monarchial head of the Church?

The Pope.


"The Rock upon which I will build my church" - what does that mean, he established him as a literal rock, or the writer made that line up? Jesus didn't really elaborate on the specifics, but it seems that he made Peter the head of his church and in Rome no less. I understand where issues may have arisen with it in its present form, but it is pretty clear that the New Testament establishes Peter.

[KarlXII]

Tuff has said that it is dangerous to rely on personal revelation and direct authority claimed from God, but that's exactly what the first Pope did.

The first Pope was Peter, and he was appointed I believe.

I find it hard to grasp that I need an elected man to tell me that he is the voice of God.

[Ronin]

or the writer made that line up?

you know...you may be on to something...

*goes back to his popcorn*

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I guess you deny the Catholic claim to Peter as the first Pope.

I suspect from reading your posts that you have read a great deal about the topic of Christianity.
Probably more so than I, but I must ask; what are your thoughts about religion directed by revelation?

In what sense directed? If a man says he has had a revelation I would find that difficult to accept straight off. I believe revelation is possible, given my own circumstances I suppose I must have had a revelation at some point, but I'm very wary of affirming any revelation.

As regards Peter as the first Pope, I deny that he was an absolute monarch. That does not mean he was not head of the Church.


And on the topic in a more serious way than my earlier flippant comment.
Catholics breaking away from the mainstream and doing their own thing is just one more incident of a long disease that has troubled the church since the original Apostles were murdered. Individuals within the church tries to change tradition or teachings in the church and gain supporters. This will end like it did with the Donatists, Pelagians, Arians and many other groups. The orthodoxy of the church will prevail yet again.

More troubling is the Catholic propensity to excomunicate, which to a Christian is horrific and damning. It could be said that Papal Bulls of excomunication have caused the most schisms because they place dissidents outside the Church.


"The Rock upon which I will build my church" - what does that mean, he established him as a literal rock, or the writer made that line up? Jesus didn't really elaborate on the specifics, but it seems that he made Peter the head of his church and in Rome no less. I understand where issues may have arisen with it in its present form, but it is pretty clear that the New Testament establishes Peter.

He made him the head of the Church in Judea, then Peter traveled to Rome. In any case Peter was annointed, since then Popes have been elected. So how can later Popes have Peter's power, namely the power of excomunication.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Do you question the physics of angel flight? He said that Peter was the Rock, not Judea. I understand people ridiculing the bible for believed absurdities in logic, but I have never been able to understand people who; believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God and literally ascended into heaven and is seated next to god and will come again to judge the living and the dead; and simultaneously condemn other Christians for believing fanciful things when they are written in the same text as the fanciful beliefs of the ridiculer.

I just don't get that.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Isn't there an issue with the translations where it appears to mean more a smaller rock and so Jesus probably literally meant the single church that was being built there?

[Sigurd]

In what sense directed? If a man says he has had a revelation I would find that difficult to accept straight off. I believe revelation is possible, given my own circumstances I suppose I must have had a revelation at some point, but I'm very wary of affirming any revelation.
Directed as in changing its traditions or even doctrine based on revelations.

Take Peter as an example.
Christ gave Peter charge to lead the church, and it was not the rock statement.
On the beach after the resurrection Christ made a small meal for some of his apostles. Peter got the chance to exonerate himself after having denied Him three times. Three times Christ asks if Peter loves him and three times Peter answers yes. But three times Christ admonishes Peter to lead his flock by the statements; feed my sheep and feed my lambs. It would be Peter’s responsibility to direct the Disciples of Christ.

A while after Christ’s ascension, Peter receives a vision about unlawful beasts on a sheet. The Lord commands him to eat things that the Jews are not allowed to. Christ had earlier forbidden the apostles to preach to the gentiles, but the interpretation of this vision was that now was the time to spread the gospel to non Jews or so called Gentiles.
So a direct revelation from the Lord changed an established rule or doctrine about not preaching to the gentiles and it became a commandment to do so.

This is what I mean about revelation directing the church. In Old Testament times the prophets were guided by the Lord by revelation and in New Testament times the leader of the Christian sect was guided by the Lord by revelation too.

The church (as the body or flock of Christ) sorely needs guidance and what we have discussed here only adds to this need.

[Sigurd]

Isn't there an issue with the translations where it appears to mean more a smaller rock and so Jesus probably literally meant the single church that was being built there?
I think this particular verse is interpreted out of context.
If you put it in context with the previous verse you will quickly see that it is not Peter the church will be built upon but something entiredly different. I am not saying that Jesus didn't appoint Peter as the head of the church, just that this is not where He did so.

Let's take a quick look:
And Jesus came into the region of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples: who do people say that the Son of man is?
But they said: Some John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Jesus said to them: But who do you say I am?
Simon Peter answered and said: You are Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed are you, Simon son of Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I say to you: That you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
It is what was revealed to Peter, that Jesus is the Son of the living God, that is the rock which upon the church will be built i.e. Revelation from the Father who is in heaven.
And he does continue with apointing Peter with the keys of heaven and the binding and the loosening of things.

However, either the church died with Peter and no one whatsoever has these keys and authorities today, or Peter could pass them on to the next apostle and him to the next etc. and the power to bind on earth and in heaven and receive guidance on behalf of the kirk is still in function.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think this particular verse is interpreted out of context.
If you put it in context with the previous verse you will quickly see that it is not Peter the church will be built upon but something entiredly different. I am not saying that Jesus didn't appoint Peter as the head of the church, just that this is not where He did so.

Let's take a quick look:

And Jesus came into the region of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples: who do people say that the Son of man is?
But they said: Some John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Jesus said to them: But who do you say I am?
Simon Peter answered and said: You are Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed are you, Simon son of Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I say to you: That you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
It is what has revealed to Peter that Jesus is the Son of the living God that is the rock which upon the church will be built i.e. Revelation from the Father who is in heaven.
And he does continue with apointing Peter with the keys of heaven and the binding and the loosening of things.

However, either the church died with Peter and no one whatsoever has these keys and authorities today, or Peter could pass them on to the next apostle and him to the next etc. and the power to bind on earth and in heaven and receive guidance on behalf of the kirk is still in function.

well the Greek is actually Petra, he calls Peter "rock" litterally. So Peter was, as you say, made the cornerstone of the Church. We are now moving into the realm of exegisis (yay!) but that is going to require hitting the books pretty hard for me. I'm going to take 24 hours or so to consult my Bibles.