Ordination of female Catholic priests at Protestant church

[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.

[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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.