Ordination of female Catholic priests at Protestant church

[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 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...

[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...

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.

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.

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.

[KarlXII]

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

You mean the Catholic Church's argument?

And some wonder why we Protestants split

[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 .

[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.

[quote=Cronos Impera;1974899]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.

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!

[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...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

probably shouldn't say it

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

*grabs another bag of popcorn*

this is great guys...keep it going!

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

[atheotes]

*grabs another bag of popcorn*

this is great guys...keep it going!

yes... its been interesting to read some well constructed arguments

[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



Besides, Does God Talk To The Pope Himself?

[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