Ordination of female Catholic priests at Protestant church

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

I wasn't slandering you!
Don't you remember the recent discussion that we had in which you deplored the use of the term and concept of "the slippery-slope"?

You claimed that it wasn't a legitimate argument & I claimed that it was simply an elaborated discussion of consequence.

I'm sorry for using your name in vain, your high majesty

[Lemur]

Don't you remember the recent discussion that we had in which you deplored the use of the term and concept of "the slippery-slope"?

You claimed that it wasn't a legitimate argument & I claimed that it was simply an elaborated discussion of consequence.

Hmm, the "slippery slope" is a pretty well-established logical fallacy. You see it most commonly in the debate over gay marriage, with all sorts of outlandish and unlikely events being foretold if teh gayzorz are allowed to commit to lifelong pair bonding.

Anyway, forgive me for skimming this thread and not giving it the in-depth read it deserves, but I'm not even clear on how the slippery slope applies in this case. So some women got ordained outside of the Catholic Church, 'cause they want to be priests. Okay. Goofier things have been done. Just check out Pope John XII, who "gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife." The church survived him, so I think it can outlast some women whose activities fall entirely outside of orthodoxy.

I'm sorry for using your name in vain, your high majesty

Don't make me turn you into a pillar of salt.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The choice made is clearly schismatic.

This does NOT mean that these women have rejected God, only that they have rejected some of the teachings of Holy Mother Church. This is serious, but not necessarily damning.

Historically, any number of schisms have been resolved and the schismatic brought back to the fold. I pray these women will return to the church. Atonement and forgiveness are central to the faith.

According to the Gospels, many of Jesus' disciples were women. Moreover, the gospels assert that Jesus did not require women to conform stricly to the traditional model of "Kirk, Kurch, und Kinder." One sister derided another for not helping with the chores, choosing instead to listen and join in the discussion of the disciples and Jesus' took the part of the "non-traditional" sister.

So why were all of the Apostles male? I do not know.

[seireikhaan]

Personally, I see no reason for the Catholic church's position regarding married priests and female priests to continue. For one, the whole reason for the ban on priest's marriage(corruption with passing down property and position to offspring) is frankly, imo, non existent anymore. At the very least allowing priests to marry should be considered a conservative belief, getting back to the way things were originally, before the church got so corrupted thanks to Leo "the Great". As for female priests; I think there is no reason to forbid them. Are they not capable of being in touch with God? Are many of them not just as in touch with the needs and struggles of common people as the current priests? I frankly just don't see a need or reason to ban the consideration of a female for ordination.

*This comes from a Catholic, btw.

[seireikhaan]

So why were all of the Apostles male? I do not know.

Lets see, because this is the first century A.D.? And because a female would almost certainly have been ignored/derided in such a position of prominence? Its one thing to be a tax collector, a whole other to be a woman.

[Rhyfelwyr]

@TuffStuff: OK, I just wanted to be sure you thought it was debatable. That's sorted then.

@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)

[HoreTore]

How can they concieve this is somehow right?

Because they believe in a different faith than that of the catholic church, more in line with the protestant church who accepted them?

Kinda like Martin Luther did, perhaps?

[naut]

Historically, any number of schisms have been resolved and the schismatic brought back to the fold. I pray these women will return to the church. Atonement and forgiveness are central to the faith.

What right does the church have to forgive? They are just men after all. One of the many reason's the Roman Catholic Church (the institution itself not it's follower's mind you) has always bothered me. Over the centuries, like any other human social institution it's done alot of bad in the world. Yet it always does so under the guise of being God's organisation and it's actions being the "will of God". But, it's not really anymore. Compare it to the Jesus followers back in the day, they didn't have ranks and strange rituals etc, they just chilled with friends and had good times together in the name of the Lord. Heck, if I had a choice of sitting in a stuffy, cramped, uncomfortable, old, drafty church or sitting on the beach with a couple mates drinking a few, having a laugh and praying as the sun sets, I know where I'd be.

Peace.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think the problem is that these women still claim to achnowledge the Pope and have Roman Catholic beliefs.

Thefore, they should not use a Protestant church to defy the Pope they claim to follow.

[HoreTore]

I think the problem is that these women still claim to achnowledge the Pope and have Roman Catholic beliefs.

Thefore, they should not use a Protestant church to defy the Pope they claim to follow.

Why not? They're following their own conviction, what's wrong with that? Isn't that what we want people to do in the first place?

[Kralizec]

Why not? They're following their own conviction, what's wrong with that? Isn't that what we want people to do in the first place?

Of course they should do whatever they think is right. It's a matter of internal consistency between their own beliefs.

[HoreTore]

Of course they should do whatever they think is right. It's a matter of internal consistency between their own beliefs.

When did we start demanding consistency when it comes to spiritual beliefs...?

[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.

[Cronos Impera]

The best solution so far was given by the Pope's arch-rival and I don't speak about Cromwell, Luther, Calvin or QE.
No, I'm talking about Orthodox Christianity (the eastern branch of The Holy Church).

Orthodox priests can get married but lose their rights to be ordained as bishops. Also if they divorce they lose the right to preach, permanently.
Women can't be ordained but so far the sistem hasn't recieved attacks by feminist organisations.
Also Orthodox priests have 2 organisations.
1. A Socialist-styled Union (defends priests against the abuses of the bishops in terms of wage gains)
2. The Holy Gathering (an organisation which elects the Patriarch and which is comprised of both clerigy and seculars)
The secular elements in this organisation are equivalent to the Presbyterian Elders but can only express themselves when electing a Patriarch or financing the errection of a church).


A priest can get married if he wishes but he can only remain a parish. He cannot advance through the church hierachy.
Women are admitted in the Orthodox Theological University with career oportunities such as Graveyard manager, a parish's wife, a professional wheeping lady and a candle merchant. No woman thus far has expressed wishes to be ordained a priest.


Just take a peak a Mt. Athos, an Orthodox Holy Mountain inhabited by monks from which women are banned. If Mt. Athos ware in Britain militant feminist organisations would have been at the gouverment's throat in just a few hours and that ban lifted.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What right does the church have to forgive? They are just men after all.

If you subscribe to scripture, Jesus himself gave them this privilege/duty. "Whose sins you...." This is at the core of the apostolic tradition.

One of the many reason's the Roman Catholic Church (the institution itself not it's follower's mind you) has always bothered me. Over the centuries, like any other human social institution it's done alot of bad in the world. Yet it always does so under the guise of being God's organisation and it's actions being the "will of God". But, it's not really anymore.

Impossible to discern, at least for believers, since our understanding of the "will of God" is perforce incomplete. Mistakes made by those in leadership roles in the church -- many of which were, historically, made for very secular objectives -- do not necessarily deny the role of the will of God.

Compare it to the Jesus followers back in the day, they didn't have ranks and strange rituals etc, they just chilled with friends and had good times together in the name of the Lord. Heck, if I had a choice of sitting in a stuffy, cramped, uncomfortable, old, drafty church or sitting on the beach with a couple mates drinking a few, having a laugh and praying as the sun sets, I know where I'd be.

Actually, the Nestorian Christians followed an approach to Christianity that is very much in keeping with your "chillin'" model. The Paulist tradition was more organized, and ended up superceding it.

[Incongruous]

Why not? They're following their own conviction, what's wrong with that? Isn't that what we want people to do in the first place?

You just seem to be attacking organised religion in general (yeah I know that's what you want to do)without taking into account the faith of the Catholic Church, by their actions they are not keeping within the beliefs of the Catholic Church they know this and this excercise is just a finger up at the church and self indulgence. The whole idea of being a Catholic is that in order to remain faithfull you must curb your human wants and selfish desires, these woman clearly lack the determination.

That they call themselves Catholics and yet are ordained in a Schismatic church is what I do not understand.

[ajaxfetish]

Going back to the debate taking place on the previous page, the bible may not include any accounts of female priests or apostles, but it does make note of female judges, female prophetesses, and numerous female disciples of Jesus, some in very prominent positions. The human involved in Jesus' birth was a woman. The first person to see the resurrected Jesus was a woman. In later Catholic tradition, numerous prominent figures, including heads of abbeys, mystics, advisers to Popes, and saints, including of course the ultimate Catholic saint, have been women. Considering all the roles, authority, and respect women have been given within the church, it seems strange that there is no mention of women serving as priests.

Explanations could include some important reason either unrevealed by God or revealed and lost, mention of female priesthood purposefully left out by the compilers of the bible, or the influence of the writings attributed to Paul, which seem quite sexist in comparison to the rest of the new testament, and which also contain the theological basis for the similarly controversial celibacy requirement for priesthood.

Ajax

[Cronos Impera]

Going back to the debate taking place on the previous page, the bible may not include any accounts of female priests or apostles, but it does make note of female judges, female prophetesses, and numerous female disciples of Jesus, some in very prominent positions. The human involved in Jesus' birth was a woman. The first person to see the resurrected Jesus was a woman. In later Catholic tradition, numerous prominent figures, including heads of abbeys, mystics, advisers to Popes, and saints, including of course the ultimate Catholic saint, have been women. Considering all the roles, authority, and respect women have been given within the church, it seems strange that there is no mention of women serving as priests.

Explanations could include some important reason either unrevealed by God or revealed and lost, mention of female priesthood purposefully left out by the compilers of the bible, or the influence of the writings attributed to Paul, which seem quite sexist in comparison to the rest of the new testament, and which also contain the theological basis for the similarly controversial celibacy requirement for priesthood.

Ajax

Just because they ware some proeminent Christian female disciples in the early Church doesn't imply that women should serve as priesthood.
Just look at the Jews in Israel.
They had a woman prime minister and women commanders in the Army yet there isn't a single Jewish lesbian female rabbi.
In the Early Church and Orthodox ones men and women knew their place in the Church and noone wanted to cross the line just for the sake of "it's possible". If you check the other 2 branches of The Old Testament (Mosaism and Mahomedism) you'll see the whole issue of ordaining women in the Church is C**P.
The Biblical reason for not ordaining female priests lies after the assencion of Christ.
Mary Magdalena dissapears completely after spreading the news about Christ's resurection and noone hears about her again. Virgin Mary travels to Greece where she founds a small Christian settlement at the foothills of Mt. Athos.
There are some Christian martyrs that ware female canonised both in Orthodox and Catholic Churches but that's about it.
Women can't serve as priests in Church just as men can't give birth. You can't have gay priests either because Paul wrote a special letter to the Corinthians which blames the gays of sodomy.

Every reformation of the Church has ended badly.
1. The Schism created a highly volatile Pontif in the West who would later crusade against his ailing followers
2. The Reformations and Counter-Reformations also had their share of blood
3. Luther was a Judas to the Baumakrieg and Calvin a Moloch to Geneva
4. The Anglican Church was made for the sole purpose of helping the King divorce
5. People are so buisy now with Rome and Protestantism that they forgot Jerusalem and Orthodoxy.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Just look at the Jews in Israel.
They had a woman prime minister and women commanders in the Army yet there isn't a single Jewish lesbian female rabbi.

That has to be the most singular non sequitur this year.

Congratulations.

[Sigurd]

Scripture should always come before tradition.

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

Quoting scriptures are we ?
Here is one for ya:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

I guess it would be hard to be a priest and be not permitted to speak in the church.

[Ironside]

The Biblical reason for not ordaining female priests lies after the assencion of Christ.
Mary Magdalena dissapears completely after spreading the news about Christ's resurection and noone hears about her again.

Are you familiar with the gospel of Mary?

[HoreTore]

You just seem to be attacking organised religion in general (yeah I know that's what you want to do)without taking into account the faith of the Catholic Church, by their actions they are not keeping within the beliefs of the Catholic Church they know this and this excercise is just a finger up at the church and self indulgence. The whole idea of being a Catholic is that in order to remain faithfull you must curb your human wants and selfish desires, these woman clearly lack the determination.

That they call themselves Catholics and yet are ordained in a Schismatic church is what I do not understand.

Uh.... First of all, where did I attack anyone?

I don't see this as self-indulgence or anything like that at all. I see it simply as a wish from these women to slightly reform the church to be more like what they thinks God wants it to be. Like so many before them has done, and a few of them to great success. Where's the shame in that?

[Don Corleone]

Wow. Doesn't take long before a fairly simple question devolves into a hundred concerning Faith, the bible, Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular.

1) By right of free association, the Catholic Church has the right to set up its own rules regarding office holders and membership. Regardless of my personal views regarding the ordination of women or homosexuals, the Church itself is the final arbiter on whether or not women should be priests.

2) The bible is a lot more accurate than most people would have thought. The Dead Sea Scrolls, beyond giving us some wonderful insights into the grammatical constructs of Aramaic, demonstrated that for the most part, the fidelity of transcriptions through the centuries has been astounding.

3) The bible itself does not prohibit women from serving as ministers, and it doesn't say concretely that there were no female disciples, just that there were no female apostles. Bishops, not priests, are the modern descendants of the apostles. Priests are descendants of the disciples.

4) The thread title is misleading. The women in question are NOT Catholic priests, any more than I am the NFL defensive MVP from last year, even though I just publicly declared that I was and a group of guys at work agreed and recognized me as such.

5) Those of you boo-hooing about tradition... I have news for you, there is no such thing as an organized body of Christianity without some tradition of one sort or another.

6) Finally, on the off chance that anybody interpreted number (2) to mean that I personally believe in the infallibility of the bible, despite what some denominations hold, the bible itself never claims to be infallible, and no where in it does Jesus confer any special authority upon it. He does however confer special authority upon His church.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wow. Doesn't take long before a fairly simple question devolves into a hundred concerning Faith, the bible, Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular.

1) By right of free association, the Catholic Church has the right to set up its own rules regarding office holders and membership. Regardless of my personal views regarding the ordination of women or homosexuals, the Church itself is the final arbiter on whether or not women should be priests.

2) The bible is a lot more accurate than most people would have thought. The Dead Sea Scrolls, beyond giving us some wonderful insights into the grammatical constructs of Aramaic, demonstrated that for the most part, the fidelity of transcriptions through the centuries has been astounding.

3) The bible itself does not prohibit women from serving as ministers, and it doesn't say concretely that there were no female disciples, just that there were no female apostles. Bishops, not priests, are the modern descendants of the apostles. Priests are descendants of the disciples.

4) The thread title is misleading. The women in question are NOT Catholic priests, any more than I am the NFL defensive MVP from last year, even though I just publicly declared that I was and a group of guys at work agreed and recognized me as such.

5) Those of you boo-hooing about tradition... I have news for you, there is no such thing as an organized body of Christianity without some tradition of one sort or another.

6) Finally, on the off chance that anybody interpreted number (2) to mean that I personally believe in the infallibility of the bible, despite what some denominations hold, the bible itself never claims to be infallible, and no where in it does Jesus confer any special authority upon it. He does however confer special authority upon His church.

In spite of the length of your post, you have provided a simple and correct answer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wow. Doesn't take long before a fairly simple question devolves into a hundred concerning Faith, the bible, Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular.

1) By right of free association, the Catholic Church has the right to set up its own rules regarding office holders and membership. Regardless of my personal views regarding the ordination of women or homosexuals, the Church itself is the final arbiter on whether or not women should be priests.

I don't think anyone is argueing the issue under secular law. The question is whether they are making the right decision before God.

2) The bible is a lot more accurate than most people would have thought. The Dead Sea Scrolls, beyond giving us some wonderful insights into the grammatical constructs of Aramaic, demonstrated that for the most part, the fidelity of transcriptions through the centuries has been astounding.

Fidelity of transcription does not answer the question of the selection of the canon. Though I grant you it is an important point, even so there are errors.

3) The bible itself does not prohibit women from serving as ministers, and it doesn't say concretely that there were no female disciples, just that there were no female apostles. Bishops, not priests, are the modern descendants of the apostles. Priests are descendants of the disciples.

Paul's first letter to Timothy specifically prohibits women from being priests and the Old Testemant makes a number of distinction between men and women.

4) The thread title is misleading. The women in question are NOT Catholic priests, any more than I am the NFL defensive MVP from last year, even though I just publicly declared that I was and a group of guys at work agreed and recognized me as such.

They are heretics against the Church, under Church law. This is, however, the choice of the Church to excomunicate them.

5) Those of you boo-hooing about tradition... I have news for you, there is no such thing as an organized body of Christianity without some tradition of one sort or another.

So we should just keep on with traditions just because we have them? Other branches of Christianity, including Anglicanism, do not create Dogma in the way in which the Roman Church has.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So we should just keep on with traditions just because we have them? Other branches of Christianity, including Anglicanism, do not create Dogma in the way in which the Roman Church has.

Look where that has taken them. Dwidling numbers and a massive international schism between "conservstives" and "liberals". I've read that Roman Catholicism has replaced Anglicanism in Britain as the largest religious Denomination. I'm never happy to hear about the way the Anglican Church was founded on immoral concepts and is failing miserably around the world, but I won't pretend it hasn't led to more Catholics in the long run - which is a positive outcome.

Liberalizing Churches in the modern era generally leads to a fracturing disunity and a massive defection rate. So, all-in-all, nobody else should have Dogma except the Catholic church.

I didn't mind female alter servers or anything like that - but certain things like not offering wine at communion were bad ideas in my book. Anyway I like the club and the the club itself. Why should we change the club for people who are already leaving? Especially when scripture and tradition ere on our side? Because God wants us to? Don't you think that he would have hinted at it somewhere other than in the philosophies of non-believers?

[Don Corleone]

Paul's first letter to Timothy specifically prohibits women from being priests and the Old Testemant makes a number of distinction between men and women.

Hmm, I could be wrong, but I believe the passage relates to women not speaking in church, not from serving as a priest. Some have jested that practically removes the possibility of female priests, but it wouldn't if religious services were conducted with the congregation segregated by gender.

So we should just keep on with traditions just because we have them? Other branches of Christianity, including Anglicanism, do not create Dogma in the way in which the Roman Church has.

I see. So every word in the Book of Common Prayer comes directly from scripture? You'll have to show the gospel passage where Jesus instituted Shrove Tuesday, or perhaps it was St. Paul and St. Timothy wandering around Galatia that started it....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmm, I could be wrong, but I believe the passage relates to women not speaking in church, not from serving as a priest. Some have jested that practically removes the possibility of female priests, but it wouldn't if religious services were conducted with the congregation segregated by gender.

I see. So every word in the Book of Common Prayer comes directly from scripture? You'll have to show the gospel passage where Jesus instituted Shrove Tuesday, or perhaps it was St. Paul and St. Timothy wandering around Galatia that started it....

1 Timothy 2:11-15 Identify women as the original trnasgressors and forbid them to teach or have authority over men. You can quibble over it but given that a Bishop or a priest is supposed to control his wife as well and all the other sexist elements in the letters I would say Paul would not have allowed women to preach.

As to the BCP the answer is that it can and is rewritten and updated. It can be changed, or not used at all. It may be the basis of the Anglican tradition but it is no Dogma.

[Don Corleone]

1 Timothy 2:11-15 Identify women as the original trnasgressors and forbid them to teach or have authority over men. You can quibble over it but given that a Bishop or a priest is supposed to control his wife as well and all the other sexist elements in the letters I would say Paul would not have allowed women to preach to men.

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.

As to the BCP the answer is that it can and is rewritten and updated. It can be changed, or not used at all. It may be the basis of the Anglican tradition but it is no Dogma.

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.

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?

[rory_20_uk]

I don't understand how a person can believe they are Catholic with what that entails, then one day decide "sod it - I'm CoE now as I want to get ordained". People who can alter their beliefs in such a way aren't believers in the first place IMO.

All official churches have a great history of destroying information that doesn't agree with their view of the holy word, to the extreme of killing everyone they can lay their hands on who doesn't quite get it. Still there's a mass of information that hasn't been destroyed. But far from this bieng accepted by the church and allow them to adapt it is ignored. Apparently a grouping of men hundreds of years ago have perfect insight into what is the holy truth and what is a load of nonsense. I've read a fair amount of non canonical texts and unsurprisingly the amount of text is greater thant he entire Bible. I fear that the true message has been distorted beyond recognition somewhere down the line.

Then we have the age old fun and games of quoting bits of the bible and extrapolating that this shows... well, whatever it is you are wanting to show today.