Ordination of female Catholic priests at Protestant 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
I love cutting and pasting

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
I love cutting and pasting

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...

[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.