Women Priests

delthedriver

What would be the effect of having women Priests and Bishops in Christian Churches?

tony81

delthedriver wrote: »

What would be the effect of having women Priests and Bishops in Christian Churches?

There are women priests and Bishops in some Christian Churches.

philologos

tony81 wrote: »

There are women priests and Bishops in some Christian Churches.

You might want to look at the thread "Should churches change with the times"

7ofBrian

delthedriver wrote: »

What would be the effect of having women Priests and Bishops in Christian Churches?

Ask members of the Protestant community...

LordSutch

Church of Ireland
The Church of Ireland approved the ordination of women as priests and bishops in 1990, and ordained its first women as priests in that year.

From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_in_the_Anglican_Communion

angeleyes

I would love if the Catholic Church would introduce women priests but I know they won't. I think from a female point of view, women find it easier to talk about issues with other women. There is no way I would ever talk or ask a male priest for help/support on any personal issue.

delthedriver

If the Catholic Church is to survive and put murky past behind it , the ordination of women priests may be the way forward.

Onesimus

delthedriver wrote: »

If the Catholic Church is to survive and put murky past behind it , the ordination of women priests may be the way forward.

The Catholic Church has outlived every empire and government since 33AD. Sometimes it grew small and then great again, and then small again but will always remain the true Church.

delthedriver

Onesimus wrote: »

The Catholic Church has outlived every empire and government since 33AD. Sometimes it grew small and then great again, and then small again but will always remain the true Church.

So where do you see the Catholic Church at this point in time? Are you in favour of the ordination of women priests? If not , why not?

tony81

Onesimus wrote: »

The Catholic Church has outlived every empire and government since 33AD. Sometimes it grew small and then great again, and then small again but will always remain the true Church.

+1

Most of these paedo priest problems originated in Ireland, while the state-institutions "religious order" abuses can be traced back to more lay people than the ordained.

I also don't see what point delthedriver is trying to make, given that sisters were responsible for the magdelene laundry abuses. Ordaining women sounds a bit gimmicky given that argument.

I think Ireland needs to do a lot of inward reflection rather than jumping on Enda Kenny's bandwagon of Church-bashing (oh, and the very progressive step of texting on his phone when the Pope was talking).. well if it gains his popular opinion who can blame him?

Galwayguy35

I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be women priests.

I think they will have to do this and also let priests marry, a person doesn't stop thinking about sex the moment they are ordained, celibacy should be optional.

delthedriver

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be women priests.

I think they will have to do this and also let priests marry, a person doesn't stop thinking about sex the moment they are ordained, celibacy should be optional.

Galwayguy, Well said. I think too many people are sticking their heads in the sand.

Onesimus

So where do you see the Catholic Church at this point in time?

Oh ya know, I see it has grown small. When one looks towards Fatima, Garabandal and Medjugorje as well as True Life in God by Vassula Ryden one can understand why.

Are you in favour of the ordination of women priests? If not , why not?

Its not even debateable. It is banned by the ordinary and universal magisterium. Jesus chose 12 apostles to act in the person of him at the Mass. Women can no more represent Christ than men can the Blessed Mother.

Women priests is nothing new though. there has always been a group crying for it. Even goes right back the 2nd century when St.Irenaeus wrote about Mark the gnostic who foolishly thought he could ordain women and even tried doing so. He described how these women who thought they were priests would foolishly act as if the bread they ate was consecrated.

No change! always dissident priests who do this, most notably the united states of America, that modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. :rolleyes::)

And all the other Churches by ordaining women have only shown themselves up all the more to not be the true Church. The biggest lure the devil has is ''hey, that doctrine is soooo not modern and very medieval, time to change it now to suit our convenience and weakness of flesh''.

Doing that is kind of asking your maths teacher to bend the law of physics and allow you to come up with 2+2=5 because your too weak to get the sum of 2+2 = 4. You know its not going to happen. The teacher will rather keep at you and help you apply yourself to the sum, and when your ready with enough preparation you'll get it.

Same with the truth. Many of us who are weak and unable to accept truths such as ''contraception is wrong'' etc etc often want the Church to lean down and bend the truth so they can ''feel better'' and go ahead and indulge in such behaviour. But like the math teacher, the Church is always teaching such truths again and again until they accept it and eventually get it. In order to get it one has to abandon themselves, and work at developing an authentic relationship with Christ. They must prepare with all this before they will ever be able to understand.

So back to the ''church getting with the modern times''. I think what people need to understand is that the Church and her truths will always be more fundamental than the fundamentalist and more modern than the modernist.

We are always fooled into thinking we are ''modern''. I don't remember one generation that ever thought of themselves otherwise right back to the Eygptians etc. ( taking into account that the very word ''modern'' has only been coined in recent centuries ).

Thanks for the replies by the way and I take your thread as a serious one on your part no doubt.

Blinkus

Onesimus is right on this one. Because he has read his Theology, like myself. A woman becoming persona christi is an impossibility. Theologically, it makes no sense (and it must) for it to even be considered. It is spiritual lesbianism, woman marrying woman (her own church, Christs bride). I just wish my fellow Catholics here would educate themselves on this one. Just because loud, angry Feminists want it, it doesn't make it alright. These women also demand the right to Lord over and destroy the bodies of Gods unborn children, in the name of choice - "My body", the slogan of hell by the way.

Peter Kreeft gives a great talk on this, for those who are interested.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses/peter-kreeft_priestesses_.mp3

delthedriver

Onesimus wrote: »

Oh ya know, I see it has grown small. When one looks towards Fatima, Garabandal and Medjugorje as well as True Life in God by Vassula Ryden one can understand why.



Its not even debateable. It is banned by the ordinary and universal magisterium. Jesus chose 12 apostles to act in the person of him at the Mass. Women can no more represent Christ than men can the Blessed Mother.

Women priests is nothing new though. there has always been a group crying for it. Even goes right back the 2nd century when St.Irenaeus wrote about Mark the gnostic who foolishly thought he could ordain women and even tried doing so. He described how these women who thought they were priests would foolishly act as if the bread they ate was consecrated.

No change! always dissident priests who do this, most notably the united states of America, that modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. :rolleyes::)

And all the other Churches by ordaining women have only shown themselves up all the more to not be the true Church. The biggest lure the devil has is ''hey, that doctrine is soooo not modern and very medieval, time to change it now to suit our convenience and weakness of flesh''.

Doing that is kind of asking your maths teacher to bend the law of physics and allow you to come up with 2+2=5 because your too weak to get the sum of 2+2 = 4. You know its not going to happen. The teacher will rather keep at you and help you apply yourself to the sum, and when your ready with enough preparation you'll get it.

Same with the truth. Many of us who are weak and unable to accept truths such as ''contraception is wrong'' etc etc often want the Church to lean down and bend the truth so they can ''feel better'' and go ahead and indulge in such behaviour. But like the math teacher, the Church is always teaching such truths again and again until they accept it and eventually get it. In order to get it one has to abandon themselves, and work at developing an authentic relationship with Christ. They must prepare with all this before they will ever be able to understand.

So back to the ''church getting with the modern times''. I think what people need to understand is that the Church and her truths will always be more fundamental than the fundamentalist and more modern than the modernist.

We are always fooled into thinking we are ''modern''. I don't remember one generation that ever thought of themselves otherwise right back to the Eygptians etc. ( taking into account that the very word ''modern'' has only been coined in recent centuries ).

Thanks for the replies by the way and I take your thread as a serious one on your part no doubt.

Why do you think you or the Catholic Church are correct in your views ie. not to ordain women priests or bishops.
Meanwhile the Anglican Church has ordained women priests,
I find it hard to accept that 2 Christian Churches should have such opposing views.
Equally I find it difficult to accept that the Catholic Church , is the one true church.

Onesimus

Why do you think you or the Catholic Church are correct in your views ie. not to ordain women priests or bishops.

They are not our expressed views or opinions, they are Dogmatic truths in which we look and listen to.

Meanwhile the Anglican Church has ordained women priests,

Their ordinations of men are not true ordinations, neither are their ordinations of women. Mark the Gnostic tried to ordain women to the priesthood too like I said before. There are even many Catholic priests who did the same and by effect have cut themselves off from the Church. Now the Anglicans do as well. whoop de doo da. But the Catholic Church remains firm from 33ad in that Dogma.

I find it hard to accept that 2 Christian Churches should have such opposing views.

And the Anglicans held this view for hundreds of years and suddenly changed it and buckled in compromise to the so-called ''modern age'' proving even all the more that they are not the true Church. Even the Orthodox have been found to accept things like contraception and divorce and remarry too.

But the Catholic Church stands strong and our house is built on rock, not on sand.

Matthew:7:24 Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, [25] And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

The rain, floods, the wind are the pressures of society and the ''modern'' age. The Rock is St.Peter who Jesus built the Church upon. When we turn our backs on St.Peter and his embrace, we crumble and we fall, because anything that is built on a lie is doomed to fail.

Equally I find it difficult to accept that the Catholic Church , is the one true church.

Only because it does not bend its knee to your ( and the worlds ) every convenience. Yet every vegetable ( truth ) the child refuses to eat because he/she has had its taste of chocolate ( the world and all it has to offer ), which in the end will only ruin his body, is the very vegetable ( truth ) that is good and nourishes his body and gives him life.

Attabear

Blinkus wrote: »

Onesimus is right on this one. Because he has read his Theology, like myself. A woman becoming persona christi is an impossibility. Theologically, it makes no sense (and it must) for it to even be considered. It is spiritual lesbianism, woman marrying woman (her own church, Christs bride). I just wish my fellow Catholics here would educate themselves on this one.

Spiritual Lesbianism!

This is definitely the most interesting viewpoint on the ordination of women I've heard.

FISMA

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be women priests.

How about 2000+ years of precedent?

delthedriver wrote: »

Meanwhile the Anglican Church has ordained women priests,

How's that working out? Are women now flocking to the Church because there is someone that understands them better? Nope.

How about the Protestant Churches that are allowing gay marriages and gay priests. Are these Churches flourishing or floundering?

delthedriver wrote: »

Equally I find it difficult to accept that the Catholic Church , is the one true church.

How much more definitive could Jesus have been when he said in Matt 16:18: "You are Peter and upon this rock, I will build my church" - "my" - possessive, "church" - singular?

Galwayguy35

FISMA wrote: »

How about 2000+ years of precedent?

The church changes rules when it suits them, for hundreds of years clergy could marry and then it was changed because they wanted to hold on to their lands. Enforced celibacy is wrong.

Just because a rule has been around for 2000 years doesn't make it right.

J C

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Just because a rule has been around for 2000 years doesn't make it right.

It certainly makes it well established!!:)

Benny_Cake

FISMA and JC - let's keep this thread on topic and keep the Catholic / Protestant debate to the relevant megathread.

publicious

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Just because a rule has been around for 2000 years doesn't make it right.

True. But we most ensure continuity and make sure we're not introducing rupture for the sake of "change".

delthedriver

Surely the followers of the Catholic Church have a say in this?
The church is not just the Vatican, church buildings.
Has anyone asked the laity what they want? Surely these people are the church.
To quote scriptures in a rather selective and brainwashed fashion for 2000 years is unacceptable.The future of the church lies with its congregation. It is time to open the ears and listen to what people want going forward.

publicious

delthedriver wrote: »

Surely the followers of the Catholic Church have a say in this?
The church is not just the Vatican, church buildings.
Has anyone asked the laity what they want? Surely these people are the church.
To quote scriptures in a rather selective and brainwashed fashion for 2000 years is unacceptable.The future of the church lies with its congregation. It is time to open the ears and listen to what people want going forward.

The laity aren't educated to the same standards. The uneducated masses are not best placed to be making decisions on matters pertaining to faith and morals.

Very unegalitarian, but that's the way it is and nobody should apologise for the reality that the church is not a democracy.

Onesimus

Matthew:7:6 'Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls in front of pigs, or they may trample them and then turn on you and tear you to pieces.

I am out of this thread now. We can argue with these people until the cows come home but reality is, it is not an intellectual argument that will persuade them of the truth of the faith, only seeking out a sincere relationship with Christ will do that. I pray that Jesus will give us all the grace to be close to him.

J C

delthedriver wrote: »

What would be the effect of having women Priests and Bishops in Christian Churches?

7ofBrian wrote: »

Ask members of the Protestant community...

The Church of Ireland (or indeed the CoE) haven't ordained women bishops yet.

... anyway, I was recently at a Roman Catholic funeral ... and the priests (who all seemed to be in their seventies) sat through most of the ceremony ... as women (and it was nearly all women in this particular church) brought stuff belonging to the deceased up to the altar (including, as I recall, a bicycle pump and a flashlight), did readings, said prayers, sang psalms, gave the eulogy, brought up bread and wine to the Altar, distributed communion ... and the altar servers were also all girls ... who were dressed in similar ceremonial garments to the priests.

It sounds like 'women priests' in almost everything but name, is already well on the way to being a reality within Roman Catholocism ... as lay women (and presumably some lay men) take over much of the role of the Roman Catholic priesthood ... and with the apparent decline in male vocations to practically none ... the 'problem' of women priests (if there is one) will solve itself ... so to speak.

... or am I missing something here?

BTW, I'm not commenting on whether this is bad or good ... as this is entirely a matter for the Roman Catholic Heirarchy, who presumably make these decisions.
I'm merely observing on what I have seen ... and drawing a conclusion that is open to correction by anybody who sees any error in it.

angeleyes

delthedriver wrote: »

Surely the followers of the Catholic Church have a say in this?
The church is not just the Vatican, church buildings.
Has anyone asked the laity what they want? Surely these people are the church.
To quote scriptures in a rather selective and brainwashed fashion for 2000 years is unacceptable.The future of the church lies with its congregation. It is time to open the ears and listen to what people want going forward.

Excellent post. The Catholic Church have never done this and from the looks of it never will.

martinnew

angeleyes wrote: »

Excellent post. The Catholic Church have never done this and from the looks of it never will.

As Catholics we believe in Scripture and Holy Tradition. Tradition being what has been handed down for generations. It is the faith that was given. There are many many examples of women who have risen up in the Church and who have left profound footsteps in its history. Its not about being this or that, if you are really a Catholic, its about following the will of God.

To name one, Take Chiara Lubich,

PopePalpatine

I always wonder what "the Catholic Church is the one true Church"-types have to say about the various abuses which led to the Reformation?

J C

Mr Piglet wrote: »

Priests without penises ain't gonna fly with the big cheese upstairs !

... it seems to be happening anyway (in various ways) in many western Churches.
Here is a neat summary from Wikipedia about it:-

"The Church of England appointed female lay readers during the First World War. Later the United Church of Canada in 1936 and the American United Methodist Church in 1956 also began to ordain women.

Meanwhile, women's ministry has been part of Methodist tradition in Britain for over 200 years. In the late 18th century in England, John Wesley allowed for female office-bearers and preachers.

The Salvation Army has allowed the ordination of women since its beginning, although it was a hotly disputed topic between William and Catherine Booth. The fourth, thirteenth, and nineteenth Generals of the Salvation Army were women.

Today, over half of all American Protestant denominations ordain women, but some restrict the official positions a woman can hold. For instance, some ordain women for the military or hospital chaplaincy but prohibit them from serving in congregational roles. Over one-third of all seminary students (and in some seminaries nearly half) are female."

newmug

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I always wonder what "the Catholic Church is the one true Church"-types have to say about the various abuses which led to the Reformation?

Heres what - they were terrible, they were wrong. But we're all sinners. People do bad stuff. Jesus's church however, which he set up himself, is NOT the problem. Its not wrong, its exactly as Jesus set it up originally, it has stood the test of time and it should not be changed. If you REALLY loved God, you would be a Catholic.

martinnew

J C wrote: »

... it seems to be happening anyway (in various ways) in many western Churches.
Here is a neat summary from Wikipedia about it:-

Fine, let it happen in the other Churchs. It won't happen in the Catholic or Orthodox Church because its not in the power of any bishop or Pope or Patriarch to change the faith.

martinedwards

newmug wrote: »

If you REALLY loved God, you would be a Catholic.

If God wanted me to change denomination, he would reveal that to me through prophesy, visions, prayer etc.

As a prod, my book of reference is the Bible. if someone wants to persuade me that something i'm doing is in error, then refer to the Bible and I'll listen and discuss it, just like that Catholic Monk...... what was his name..... Oh yeah, Martin Luther.

the idea of the Tradition being as important (or nearly) as the scripture has always worried me. just because an organisation has had a habit for a long period of time doesn't make it RIGHT.

which is why the reformation happened, Priests used to be able to marry and that tradition was changed.... not for spiritual reasons but purely for practical. ie to stop church lands being handed off to children.

the world has changed. Just as the Jewish sect of Christians were allowed to drop the food laws because of Gods guidance in a vision, and non jews were baptised without being circumcised because God filled them with his Holy Spirit, I can be happy that the tradition of centuries can be overturned because there are MANY women who are full of the Holy Spirit and are bubbling over ith gifts FROM GOD that make them excellent candidates for the priesthood. My own priest is a woman and she is as good (or bad) as any man would be in the job.

I am not anti catholic. some people who I consider to be holding Gods hand VERY tightly are RC, but I disagree with your attitude that Catholicism is the best and possibly only way, and that if I'm not RC then I don't really love God.

thankfully God, and his love, is much bigger than the narrowness of human minds.

philologos

newmug wrote: »

Heres what - they were terrible, they were wrong. But we're all sinners. People do bad stuff. Jesus's church however, which he set up himself, is NOT the problem. Its not wrong, its exactly as Jesus set it up originally, it has stood the test of time and it should not be changed. If you REALLY loved God, you would be a Catholic.

So other Christians who aren't Roman Catholic don't live God? I really wasn't expecting that type of comment from you newmug.

getz

newmug wrote: »

Heres what - they were terrible, they were wrong. But we're all sinners. People do bad stuff. Jesus's church however, which he set up himself, is NOT the problem. Its not wrong, its exactly as Jesus set it up originally, it has stood the test of time and it should not be changed. If you REALLY loved God, you would be a Catholic.

catholic church,set up by constantine in rome 313 ad ,before that christianity had woman teachers to the gentiles[no such thing as christians priests in those days] doubt me ?read pauls letters,also mary magdalen the apostle was told by jesus ,to go out and teach.

Keylem

getz wrote: »

catholic church,set up by constantine in rome 313 ad ,before that christianity had woman teachers to the gentiles[no such thing as christians priests in those days] doubt me ?read pauls letters,also mary magdalen the apostle was told by jesus ,to go out and teach.

That myth flies in the face of historical evidence, it's Propaganda spun by anti-Catholics. ("To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant". Bl. Henry Newman.)

The Myth of Constantine

getz

Keylem wrote: »

That myth flies in the face of historical evidence, it's Propaganda spun by anti-Catholics. ("To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant". Bl. Henry Newman.)

The Myth of Constantine

historical evidence,this is historical evidence the fresco on the upper front wall of a small underground catacomb of st priscilla in rome provides evidence of woman celebrating eucharist, even in the celtic church the irish life of brigit describes her ordination as a bishop,

publicious

getz wrote: »

historical evidence,this is historical evidence the fresco on the upper front wall of a small underground catacomb of st priscilla in rome provides evidence of woman celebrating eucharist, even in the celtic church the irish life of brigit describes her ordination as a bishop,

What a load of codswollop.

Onesimus

getz wrote: »

historical evidence,this is historical evidence the fresco on the upper front wall of a small underground catacomb of st priscilla in rome provides evidence of woman celebrating eucharist, even in the celtic church the irish life of brigit describes her ordination as a bishop,

Dan Brown is that you? I thought Da vinci code was not doing well selling at a mere 1cent on amazon but coming to boards.ie to promote yourself is really putting your reputation at an all time low.

J C

martinnew wrote: »

Fine, let it happen in the other Churchs. It won't happen in the Catholic or Orthodox Church because its not in the power of any bishop or Pope or Patriarch to change the faith.

I wouldn't bet on it ... and the high profile involvement of women at the Roman Catholic funeral that I attended would indicate that it's already well underway within the Roman Catholic Church ... or are you saying that everything is done by the priests in all other parishes ... and the funeral that I attended is some kind of exception in relation to the high profile involvement of women in the ceremony?

Frankmortis

the bible forbids women priests, you can't have women priests just to fit in with this modern world and please people, its gods way or mans way.

J C

Frankmortis wrote: »

the bible forbids women priests, you can't have women priests just to fit in with this modern world and please people, its gods way or mans way.

Have you no Roman Catholic women in ministry roles in your parish?

.

Galwayguy35

J C wrote: »

It certainly makes it well established!!:)

It is, but let's look at some of the rules that used to be "well established":

Unbaptised babies had to be buried in unconsecrated ground, ofton times with the mother not even allowed to be present.

People who died by suicide were treated the same.

Women had to be "churched" after having a baby.

Single mothers were put in laundries run by sadistic nuns and ofton had their babies taken away from them against their will.

These "rules" seem barbaric today and rightly so.

I'm Catholic and will remain so but I think the Church needs to listen to it's followers and change, but that won't happen while the present pope is there.

getz

Onesimus wrote: »

Dan Brown is that you? I thought Da vinci code was not doing well selling at a mere 1cent on amazon but coming to boards.ie to promote yourself is really putting your reputation at an all time low.

care to explain these,CANON 19 of the first council of tours[ca 567] presbyter cumsua presbytera :priest with his priestess.......CANON 13,let no entourage of women accompany a bishop who does not have a bishopess[ episcopum episcopam non habentem nulla sequartur turba mulierum] .then take pope pascal 1, and his mother theodora,a incription to the side of and over her head on the mosaic,theodora episcopa [theodora the bishopess] its there in front of you eyes,but first you must open them.

Peregrinus

These references are very easily explained. "Presbyter cum sua presbytera" refers to the priests wife; if presbytera referred to a woman who was a priest in her own right, in what sense would she be coupled with a male priest in this way? Indeed, if you had bothered to read canon 19 beyond the bit you quoted, you'd see that it's directed towards the obligation of clerical continence, as applied to married priests. It might be relevant to a discussion of clerical celibacy, but it has nothing to do with the ordination of women. Similarly, episcopa is the wife of a bishop, as the context again makes clear.

As for Theodora, she's a ninth century figure. There is no possiblity whatsoever that Christians were ordaining women in the ninth century. In the mosaic she is not depicted with the clerical regalia that clerics represented in icons normally get (unlike Pascal, who is) and the most likely explanation for her title is that she was the wife or widow of a bishop.

getz

Peregrinus wrote: »

These references are very easily explained. "Presbyter cum sua presbytera" refers to the priests wife; if presbytera referred to a woman who was a priest in her own right, in what sense would she be coupled with a male priest in this way? Indeed, if you had bothered to read canon 19 beyond the bit you quoted, you'd see that it's directed towards the obligation of clerical continence, as applied to married priests. It might be relevant to a discussion of clerical celibacy, but it has nothing to do with the ordination of women. Similarly, episcopa is the wife of a bishop, as the context again makes clear.

As for Theodora, she's a ninth century figure. There is no possiblity whatsoever that Christians were ordaining women in the ninth century. In the mosaic she is not depicted with the clerical regalia that clerics represented in icons normally get (unlike Pascal, who is) and the most likely explanation for her title is that she was the wife or widow of a bishop.

Giogio Otranto has spent a lifetime researching letters in the vatican archive,one letter from pope gelasius [494 ad] wrote his concerns of women in the church who ministered as presbyterae for their communities,bishop atto of vercelli wrote [10th century] in the church because of the scarcity of workers.devout women were ordained to help men in leading worship,and not only men but also women presided over the church because of great need,now unless the pope and the bishop were lying, it proves women were priests in the early church.

delthedriver

publicious wrote: »

The laity aren't educated to the same standards. The uneducated masses are not best placed to be making decisions on matters pertaining to faith and morals.

Very unegalitarian, but that's the way it is and nobody should apologise for the reality that the church is not a democracy.

If it is not a democracy, it has no future. To survive it also needs to be transparent.

Peregrinus

getz wrote: »

Giogio Otranto has spent a lifetime researching letters in the vatican archive,one letter from pope gelasius [494 ad] wrote his concerns of women in the church who ministered as presbyterae for their communities,bishop atto of vercelli wrote [10th century] in the church because of the scarcity of workers.devout women were ordained to help men in leading worship,and not only men but also women presided over the church because of great need,now unless the pope and the bishop were lying, it proves women were priests in the early church.

In the first place, the tenth century is not "the early church"; it's very squarely medieval. In the second place, what Otranto's work shows - as I suspect you know - is that where women were ordained this was done in defiance of church teaching and practice; it was a schismatic act. All the documentation which we have that mentions the practice does so to condemn it. Far from ordaining women, the church sought to supress the ordination of women.

Whether this was a good think or a bad thing is a matter of theological controversy. But I don't think anybody's cause is advanced by falsifying the facts of history. When the only reason we know about the ordination of women is that we have evidence of the church condemning it, we can no more say that the church ordained women than we can say that it taught Montanism.

publicious

delthedriver wrote: »

If it is not a democracy, it has no future.

It's been around 2000 years. Not going anywhere any time soon. What about your ideas?

delthedriver wrote: »

To survive it also needs to be transparent.

"transparent"? What do you mean?

dazzler454

I recently took part in a cultural trip to a small village in Bosnia, where a minute Catholic branch is practicing, with about 38 bodies making up the Parish(or Pzistc as it's called there). Some of their ideas may be radical (sacrificial murder of doormice for example), however, of the 6 practicing priests, 2 are women. To me this was odd but as I became more and more involved in the daily routines of the church itself I realised that a female influence is vital to the success of any active, open Parish.

newmug

martinedwards wrote: »

If God wanted me to change denomination, he would reveal that to me through prophesy, visions, prayer etc.

Or by becoming man 2012 years ago, and explaining physically what he considers ok, and whats not ok. Like women priests. He actually told Peter, the very first Pope, to say goodbye to his family if he wanted to follow Him.

martinedwards wrote: »

As a prod, my book of reference is the Bible. if someone wants to persuade me that something i'm doing is in error, then refer to the Bible and I'll listen and discuss it, just like that Catholic Monk...... what was his name..... Oh yeah, Martin Luther.

Martin Luther was right to kick up about the abuses that were happening at the time. But things should have reverted back to the way jesus instructed, not from one form of man-inspired religion to another. And with the Bible being your reference, (as a Catholic, its mine too!), you should be even more aware of what Jesus intended!

martinedwards wrote: »

the idea of the Tradition being as important (or nearly) as the scripture has always worried me. just because an organisation has had a habit for a long period of time doesn't make it RIGHT.

The "tradition" arguement is only being used as a counter to the "move with the times" arguement. Just because something is in vogue now doesn't make it RIGHT EITHER! The right way, is the way Jesus taught. And thats what Catholicism is all about.

martinedwards wrote: »

which is why the reformation happened, Priests used to be able to marry and that tradition was changed.... not for spiritual reasons but purely for practical. ie to stop church lands being handed off to children.

The only priests who were properly allowed to be married were the original apostles, and even at that, Jesus instructed them to leave their families as spiritual matters are infinately more important. I know some priests DID get married after that, but that was wrong and shouldn't have happened. Indeed, wasn't that one of the gripes that caused the reformation in the first place! As for this thing of passing land on to children, thats nothing short of bull TBH, because at the time, bishops just ordinated their children anyway! In fact, that was ANOTHER reason for the reformation! But look, nobody's perfect, even Judas strayed from Jesus's teachings. The point is, we all fail at times, but the truer you stay to Jesus's teachings, the better. Which is what Catholicism is all about.

martinedwards wrote: »

the world has changed. Just as the Jewish sect of Christians were allowed to drop the food laws because of Gods guidance in a vision, and non jews were baptised without being circumcised because God filled them with his Holy Spirit, I can be happy that the tradition of centuries can be overturned because there are MANY women who are full of the Holy Spirit and are bubbling over ith gifts FROM GOD that make them excellent candidates for the priesthood.

But those Jewish Christians changing their laws and the pagans being baptised without circumcision were a landmark ONCE OFF. Jesus himself came as man, told people to stop what they were doing, and do it this way from now on. He didnt mean people could just chop and change any time they felt like it. He gave explicit instructions on how to live in order to get to Heaven when they expire from their Earthly shells. He guillotined through the centuries of changes, custom, and tradition, which had been tacked-on by man since Moses's revelation at the burning bush, and he laid out in his own words, how he wanted things done. Thats it. And thats what the Catholic Church is, Jesus Word originally passed down from the very first pope, St. Peter. It is not for me, any man, or any pope to change. And that is why there are no, nay, never can be, women priests.

martinedwards wrote: »

My own priest is a woman and she is as good (or bad) as any man would be in the job.

Maybe in an Earthly sense. But not in the supernatural sense I'm afraid.


***********************************************************

martinedwards wrote: »

I am not anti catholic. some people who I consider to be holding Gods hand VERY tightly are RC, but I disagree with your attitude that Catholicism is the best and possibly only way, and that if I'm not RC then I don't really love God.

thankfully God, and his love, is much bigger than the narrowness of human minds.

philologos wrote: »

So other Christians who aren't Roman Catholic don't live God? I really wasn't expecting that type of comment from you newmug.

I just want to address these two posts seperately. I apologise if I came across dick-ishly there. I was not suggesting that non-Catholics dont love God, I was merely answering another posters question about what do "Catholics-who-believe-Catholicism-is-the-one-true-Church" think about non-Catholics. That is what I find most Catholics opinion is, it is not my personal view.