Ordination of female Catholic priests at Protestant church

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/.../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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

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

---

I'm getting my popcorn, I sense a fight coming on!

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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...

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

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. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

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

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:

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Scripture should always come before tradition.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caledonian 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 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.