Org Mobile Site
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. 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.
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.
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.
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?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.
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?
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?
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.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?
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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?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...
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.
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.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.
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.
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.And on what issues has the Church of Scotland bent to public opinion? We are very different from our Anglican neighbours.
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.
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.And on what issues has the Church of Scotland bent to public opinion? We are very different from our Anglican neighbours.
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. 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...
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?!
What kind of God would do things like that to people?!
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.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO