First female bishop in England

Nomis21

A milestone has been reached in equality with the announcement of the appointment of Reverend Libby Lane as the new Bishop of Stockport.

This appointment suggests that the church is coming more into line (even though several years behind) with modern times and trends.

Would anyone now like to speculate how long before the Catholic Church follows suit by allowing female priests?

How long before there will be a female Archbishop in the C of E?

Could this eventually lead to a female Pope in the next 500 years?

I think the C of E will now move forward with the ordination of openly gay clergy leading to the possibility of a Lesbian Archbishop in about 100 years from now.

I say that it cannot be too soon for the wind of change to blow through.

lazybones32

Love her name...

If people want a 'church' that follows trends and current attitudes, they should just create their own.

katydid

Nomis21 wrote: »

A milestone has been reached in equality with the announcement of the appointment of Reverend Libby Lane as the new Bishop of Stockport.

This appointment suggests that the church is coming more into line (even though several years behind) with modern times and trends.

Would anyone now like to speculate how long before the Catholic Church follows suit by allowing female priests?

How long before there will be a female Archbishop in the C of E?

Could this eventually lead to a female Pope in the next 500 years?

I think the C of E will now move forward with the ordination of openly gay clergy leading to the possibility of a Lesbian Archbishop in about 100 years from now.

I say that it cannot be too soon for the wind of change to blow through.

Somehow I can't see the Roman Catholic church giving equality to women just because the Church of England has. The fact that other members of the Anglican communion have moved forward in this regard in the past, including the CofI, hasn't influenced them one whit.

Remember, these changed happened in then churches of the Anglican communion because of their democratic nature - it was the laity who initiated the change, and who were in a position to vote for it. There's no such mechanism in the Roman Catholic church, and no sign of one being developed.

newmug

katydid wrote: »

Somehow I can't see the Roman Catholic church giving equality to women just because the Church of England has. The fact that other members of the Anglican communion have moved forward in this regard in the past, including the CofI, hasn't influenced them one whit.

Remember, these changed happened in then churches of the Anglican communion because of their democratic nature - it was the laity who initiated the change, and who were in a position to vote for it. There's no such mechanism in the Roman Catholic church, and no sign of one being developed.

Yea........ Their democratic nature. Sure I suppose if they voted that other fella was God instead of Jesus, well then that would make it ok. Cos it would be democratic. Yea.

katydid

newmug wrote: »

Yea........ Their democratic nature. Sure I suppose if they voted that other fella was God instead of Jesus, well then that would make it ok. Cos it would be democratic. Yea.

Huh? The tenets of Christianity are not up for discussion or voting... We're talking about practices and traditions.

Benny_Cake

katydid wrote: »

Somehow I can't see the Roman Catholic church giving equality to women just because the Church of England has. The fact that other members of the Anglican communion have moved forward in this regard
Remember, these changed happened in then churches of the Anglican communion because of their democratic nature - it was the laity who initiated the change, and who were in a position to vote for it. There's no such mechanism in the Roman Catholic church, and no sign of one being developed.

Actually, in the case of the Church of England it was the laity who were the holdup, the bishops and priests were ready to move a couple of years ago.

Generally I'd agree that bringing a wider group of people into decision making roles in churches is a good thing - the downside of synods and so on is that they tend to attract the involvement of people who love church politics!

Though I think that the RCC shouldn't restrict ordained ministry to men, it's ultimately a matter for that church to decide. There is nothing to say that it will inevitably happen. A bigger question is: what is the role of the priesthood and is too much expected of Roman Catholic priests? There is a lot more that the laity could be doing, male and female.

a person.

Nomis21 wrote: »

A milestone has been reached in equality with the announcement of the appointment of Reverend Libby Lane as the new Bishop of Stockport.

This appointment suggests that the church is coming more into line (even though several years behind) with modern times and trends.

Would anyone now like to speculate how long before the Catholic Church follows suit by allowing female priests?

How long before there will be a female Archbishop in the C of E?

Could this eventually lead to a female Pope in the next 500 years?

I think the C of E will now move forward with the ordination of openly gay clergy leading to the possibility of a Lesbian Archbishop in about 100 years from now.

I say that it cannot be too soon for the wind of change to blow through.

There's nothing new under the sun. It was very common in the time of St. Paul and Christ, when St. Paul was setting up the church in the city of Corinth, the temple in the Acropolis overlooking Corinth had over 1000 temple priestesses.

A lesbian anglican archbishop of cantubury that believes in God, would at least make a change from the current one, who recently announced he doubts God even exists. Despite all the pandering to everything and anything, they continue to hemorrhage members in england at an astonishing rate, and what's left of the international anglican communion continues to fracture and disintegrate.

katydid

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Actually, in the case of the Church of England it was the laity who were the holdup, the bishops and priests were ready to move a couple of years ago.

Generally I'd agree that bringing a wider group of people into decision making roles in churches is a good thing - the downside of synods and so on is that they tend to attract the involvement of people who love church politics!

Though I think that the RCC shouldn't restrict ordained ministry to men, it's ultimately a matter for that church to decide. There is nothing to say that it will inevitably happen. A bigger question is: what is the role of the priesthood and is too much expected of Roman Catholic priests? There is a lot more that the laity could be doing, male and female.

Yes, I was thinking more of the initial move towards the ordination of women. In the CofI the issue of female bishops didn't arise as a separate issue as it was included in the initial acceptance of the principle of equality.

You're absolutely right about the kind of people who get involved in such things; whether it's the GAA or the CofI, there will be the engaged and the unengaged. But from years of serving on vestries (local parish councils), and having elected representatives to the diocesan synod, I can assure you that while they tend to be people who are "committee heads" they are also very dedicated and devout people, who do have a genuine commitment to getting church matters right. And I have seen how being involved in the democratic process has brought around the hardliners who would have been suspicious or doubtful about some of the changes. When our vestry members appointed to interview and select a new rector appointed a female rector for the first time, it was heartening to see the positive and accepting reaction from the more conservative members. They felt, I think, that because the choice was made by people they had voted for and who had been selected by the vestry, rather than having these things imposed from above, they were willing to give the person a chance. And of course once the individual occupied the post, they learned to interact with her personally, and the issue of her gender became less important than whether she was going to use the old or new version of the Lord's Prayer!

I agree that it's down to the Roman Catholic church to decide in the end. The problem is that the vast majority of members have no input into the decision. And the powers that be show no inclination to move in this direction; John Paul II banned all discussion of the matter and none of his successors, while not as dogmatic, have shown any desire to promote the issue or even engage in an honest debate about it.

Certainly the role of the priest in general has to be looked at in general, but it is very much tied up with the present structure of "them and us". The laity is not really involved; they are allowed have parish councils which can be consulted but have no rights, and it's hard for laity to do more and to commit themselves when they lack a feeling of ownership/partnership. Rather than say the role of the priest has to be looked it, would it be more appropriate to say that the role of all members should be looked at?

Dan_Solo

a person. wrote: »

There's nothing new under the sun. It was very common in the time of St. Paul and Christ, when St. Paul was setting up the church in the city of Corinth, the temple in the Acropolis overlooking Corinth had over 1000 temple priestesses.

I can't find any evidence that there were ever official women bishops before, but the case has been made that abbesses in several locations had equivalent power and function to bishops. TBH it shows how the RCC, which originally had women priests, was corrupted over time by power.

newmug

katydid wrote: »

Huh? The tenets of Christianity are not up for discussion or voting... We're talking about practices and traditions.

Really? Like the 5th, 6th, and 7th commandments? Don't kill, don't abuse sex, don't steal? Kinda what the "Church" ofI was founded on, no?

katydid wrote: »

I agree that it's down to the Roman Catholic church to decide in the end.

Wrong. Its down to Jesus. He decided already, about 2000 years ago. It aint up for discussion.

katydid wrote: »

The problem is that the vast majority of members have no input into the decision.

Yup. Nobody has. We don't mess with what Jesus said.

katydid wrote: »

And the powers that be show no inclination to move in this direction

Yup again. Why would they? We're not in the business of twisting Jesus's teachings for our own ends.

katydid wrote: »

Certainly the role of the priest in general has to be looked at in general, but it is very much tied up with the present structure of "them and us".

For someone who's not a Catholic, you seem to think you know all about Catholicism. But you're so far off the mark, its embarrassing really.


There is no "them and us" situation. Priests are people who have such deep faith, such conviction, that they forego the natural urge to find a partner and start a family. They love God too much. That's not to say they don't have the same desires as the rest of us, but they sacrifice their potential for a "normal" life to ultimately go to Heaven when they die. Admirable really.


Just out of curiosity, do you know of any CofI "priests" who choose to be celibate?

Benny_Cake

newmug wrote: »

There is no "them and us" situation. Priests are people who have such deep faith, such conviction, that they forego the natural urge to find a partner and start a family. They love God too much. That's not to say they don't have the same desires as the rest of us, but they sacrifice their potential for a "normal" life to ultimately go to Heaven when they die. Admirable really.


Just out of curiosity, do you know of any CofI "priests" who choose to be celibate?

What does that have to do with anything though? Clerical celibacy in the RCC is a law, not a doctrine and could be changed any time. Priests in the eastern-rite Catholic churches which are in full communion with the Pope can marry. Orthodox priests can marry and as far as I know, no Catholic questions the validity of Orthodox holy orders.

There are Anglican clergy who choose to remain celibate, no doubt, just as plenty of non-clergy to do. That's their business, surely. Incidentally there are religious communities within Anglicanism, such as Franciscans, whose members practise celibacy. Trevor Huddleston, the anti-apartheid activist and priest (no inverted commas necessary) was a member of one such community.

newmug

Benny_Cake wrote: »

What does that have to do with anything though? Clerical celibacy in the RCC is a law, not a doctrine and could be changed any time.

The mechanism for the celibacy rule, whether it be law or doctrine, is not the issue.


First point, sex is a sin. In fact, its THE original sin. So if you want to go around trying to live a Christian life, you cant be having sex. Usually that means not being married.


Second point, Jesus said to Peter, "If you follow me lad, you'll have some hard decisions to make. You'll have to leave the missus and kids". That's bad enough now, imagine how tough a decision that would have ben back then, when the women of society basically depended on their husband.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Priests in the eastern-rite Catholic churches which are in full communion with the Pope can marry. Orthodox priests can marry and as far as I know, no Catholic questions the validity of Orthodox holy orders.

Being in full communion with "The Pope" has nothing to do with anything. You's non-Catholics put far too much emphasis on the Pope. He's not God, Jesus is. The Pope is just a priest, who's elected to the position of head priest. That's all. He cant change Jesus's rules.



As for no Catholic questioning the validity of another religion? Haha, yea right. Catholicism is the cornflakes of religion, the original and best.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There are Anglican clergy who choose to remain celibate, no doubt, just as plenty of non-clergy to do. That's their business, surely. Incidentally there are religious communities within Anglicanism, such as Franciscans, whose members practise celibacy. Trevor Huddleston, the anti-apartheid activist and priest (no inverted commas necessary) was a member of one such community.

Fair play to them. But no, its not their business, its Gods business. As stated above, Jesus laid down that, in order to follow him, there had to be no family ties. No sex is a no brainer seeing as its number 1 on the list of sins.


I'm sorry if my last 2 posts seem a bit narky, its just that I'm sick and tired of the Catholic bashing attitude on this site in general. And when a poster who I know from previous experience is NOT Catholic, comes swaggering in here stating this and that and the other about Catholicism as if they're an expert, it really grinds my gears. Why isn't there a Catholic mod anyway?

katydid

newmug wrote: »

Really? Like the 5th, 6th, and 7th commandments? Don't kill, don't abuse sex, don't steal? Kinda what the "Church" ofI was founded on, no?






Wrong. Its down to Jesus. He decided already, about 2000 years ago. It aint up for discussion.






Yup. Nobody has. We don't mess with what Jesus said.






Yup again. Why would they? We're not in the business of twisting Jesus's teachings for our own ends.







For someone who's not a Catholic, you seem to think you know all about Catholicism. But you're so far off the mark, its embarrassing really.


There is no "them and us" situation. Priests are people who have such deep faith, such conviction, that they forego the natural urge to find a partner and start a family. They love God too much. That's not to say they don't have the same desires as the rest of us, but they sacrifice their potential for a "normal" life to ultimately go to Heaven when they die. Admirable really.


Just out of curiosity, do you know of any CofI "priests" who choose to be celibate?

Commandments? What on earth are you on about?

Remind me again when Jesus decided that priests should be male and celibate? Can you quote the particular verse of the Gospel? I know the Bible pretty well, and I'm not aware of any.

Actually I am a Catholic. Just not a Roman Catholic. And I don't need to be a Roman Catholic to know how the church functions. It's called being educated. From what you evidence, I seem to know a bit more about your denomination than you do...

Actually I know two celibate CofI priests. One has been a lifelong celibate, out of personal choice. The other has had relationships in the past, but chooses at this point in her life to be celibate. She has the option to change this should she wish.

katydid

newmug wrote: »

The mechanism for the celibacy rule, whether it be law or doctrine, is not the issue.


First point, sex is a sin. In fact, its THE original sin. So if you want to go around trying to live a Christian life, you cant be having sex. Usually that means not being married.


Second point, Jesus said to Peter, "If you follow me lad, you'll have some hard decisions to make. You'll have to leave the missus and kids". That's bad enough now, imagine how tough a decision that would have ben back then, when the women of society basically depended on their husband.







Being in full communion with "The Pope" has nothing to do with anything. You's non-Catholics put far too much emphasis on the Pope. He's not God, Jesus is. The Pope is just a priest, who's elected to the position of head priest. That's all. He cant change Jesus's rules.



As for no Catholic questioning the validity of another religion? Haha, yea right. Catholicism is the cornflakes of religion, the original and best.






Fair play to them. But no, its not their business, its Gods business. As stated above, Jesus laid down that, in order to follow him, there had to be no family ties. No sex is a no brainer seeing as its number 1 on the list of sins.


I'm sorry if my last 2 posts seem a bit narky, its just that I'm sick and tired of the Catholic bashing attitude on this site in general. And when a poster who I know from previous experience is NOT Catholic, comes swaggering in here stating this and that and the other about Catholicism as if they're an expert, it really grinds my gears. Why isn't there a Catholic mod anyway?

Actually the mechanism for the celibacy rule IS the issue, as well as the mechanism for the gender of priests, as these are man-made rules, and have no scriptural basis, despite what you seem to think.

I find it sad that you see sex as a sin. Why do you think God created us with a natural urge which ensures the future of our species, and then made it sinful?

J C

newmug wrote: »

The mechanism for the celibacy rule, whether it be law or doctrine, is not the issue.

Perhaps.

newmug wrote: »

First point, sex is a sin. In fact, its THE original sin. So if you want to go around trying to live a Christian life, you cant be having sex. Usually that means not being married.

Sex is a pro-creative gift from God to Humanity to take forward His Creative work by producing children in His image and likeness within the bounds of Christian marriage.
Like every good thing, sex can be great or disastrous depending on how it is used. It can be sinful or edifying again depending on the circumstances.

... and you are completely wrong that sex was the original sin that caused The Fall of Adam and Eve. You would be correct that sex transmits original sin, along with life itself, down the generations ... but it was the fateful decision by Adam to acquire Satan's occult tree system of the knowledge of good and evil that caused the Fall.

newmug wrote: »

Second point, Jesus said to Peter, "If you follow me lad, you'll have some hard decisions to make. You'll have to leave the missus and kids". That's bad enough now, imagine how tough a decision that would have ben back then, when the women of society basically depended on their husband.

Where in the Bible does it say that Peter was a 'dead beat dad'?

There are, unfortunately some selfish and irresponsible fathers, who abandon their wives and children, but its not something to be proud of ... and certainly not something to found a Church on (with any claim to moral responsibility).
The following statement from St Paul confirms not only the Cephas (or Peter) was married, but that he continued to have his wife with him after his salvation and during his preaching ministry.

1 Cor 9:3-5
3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

newmug wrote: »

Being in full communion with "The Pope" has nothing to do with anything. You's non-Catholics put far too much emphasis on the Pope. He's not God, Jesus is. The Pope is just a priest, who's elected to the position of head priest. That's all. He cant change Jesus's rules.

That would be an ecumenical question allright.;):)

newmug wrote: »

As for no Catholic questioning the validity of another religion? Haha, yea right. Catholicism is the cornflakes of religion, the original and best.

'Cornflake Catholics' ... whatever next, eh?:):eek:

newmug wrote: »

Fair play to them. But no, its not their business, its Gods business. As stated above, Jesus laid down that, in order to follow him, there had to be no family ties. No sex is a no brainer seeing as its number 1 on the list of sins.

Not only is sex not a sin ... it's the is the number one commandment and the first blessing of God, given to Adam and Eve at the moment of their Creation!!!

Genesis 1:28 New International Version (NIV)

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

newmug wrote: »

I'm sorry if my last 2 posts seem a bit narky, its just that I'm sick and tired of the Catholic bashing attitude on this site in general. And when a poster who I know from previous experience is NOT Catholic, comes swaggering in here stating this and that and the other about Catholicism as if they're an expert, it really grinds my gears.
Why isn't there a Catholic mod anyway?

I wouldn't describe your last posts as 'narky' ... but they certainly don't present sex, and indeed Christian beliefs about sex in anything like a proper context ... and they serve to feed the anti-christian myth that Christians have hangups about sex being 'bad' and 'sinful' ... when the reverse is actually true ... with sex and marriage being marvelous gifts and blessings from God.

J C

katydid wrote: »

Actually the mechanism for the celibacy rule IS the issue, as well as the mechanism for the gender of priests, as these are man-made rules, and have no scriptural basis, despite what you seem to think.

I find it sad that you see sex as a sin. Why do you think God created us with a natural urge which ensures the future of our species, and then made it sinful?

Sex isn't a sin and God didn't make it sinful.

Sex is actually our most powerful capacity ... the ability to produce other eternal Human Beings that are made in the image and likeness of God and thus to share in the very Creative work of God ... and you cannot get anything more powerful or important than that.
... and as an added bonus it is also the most loving an intimate thing that a Human Being can engage in ... and the intimacy is so all-encompassing that they become 'one flesh' as the Bible so eloquently describes it.

Gen 2:20-25
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

J C

a person. wrote: »

There's nothing new under the sun. It was very common in the time of St. Paul and Christ, when St. Paul was setting up the church in the city of Corinth, the temple in the Acropolis overlooking Corinth had over 1000 temple priestesses.

... 1000 pagan temple priestesses are not an argument in favour of Christians priestesses, whatever else it may be.

tommy2bad

newmug wrote: »

The mechanism for the celibacy rule, whether it be law or doctrine, is not the issue.

Actually it is the issue.

newmug wrote: »

First point, sex is a sin. In fact, its THE original sin. So if you want to go around trying to live a Christian life, you cant be having sex. Usually that means not being married.

Ahem, no. Disobedience was the original sin, if it were a metaphor wouldn't a cherry tree be a better one?

newmug wrote: »

Second point, Jesus said to Peter, "If you follow me lad, you'll have some hard decisions to make. You'll have to leave the missus and kids". That's bad enough now, imagine how tough a decision that would have ben back then, when the women of society basically depended on their husband.


Being in full communion with "The Pope" has nothing to do with anything. You's non-Catholics put far too much emphasis on the Pope. He's not God, Jesus is. The Pope is just a priest, who's elected to the position of head priest. That's all. He cant change Jesus's rules.

Nothing to do with anything apart from the fact it demonstrates that the RCC position is based on it's rule, not the actuality of celebasy.

newmug wrote: »

As for no Catholic questioning the validity of another religion? Haha, yea right. Catholicism is the cornflakes of religion, the original and best.






Fair play to them. But no, its not their business, its Gods business. As stated above, Jesus laid down that, in order to follow him, there had to be no family ties. No sex is a no brainer seeing as its number 1 on the list of sins.

I thought failing to love God and your fellow man was the number one sin? I must have misunderstood Jesus, your probably right He was entirely obsessed with sex and stopping that kind of thing.

newmug wrote: »

I'm sorry if my last 2 posts seem a bit narky, its just that I'm sick and tired of the Catholic bashing attitude on this site in general. And when a poster who I know from previous experience is NOT Catholic, comes swaggering in here stating this and that and the other about Catholicism as if they're an expert, it really grinds my gears. Why isn't there a Catholic mod anyway?

I do understand your view, it is a little grating to have people who don't know what their talking about expounding on Catholicism. However it would add weight to your gripe if you knew what the hell you were talking about.
Anyway this is about the first CoE female bishop, good for her, hope she dose a good job. I see she's a man U supporter, the're are people, not me mind, who would say it's apt that the first female bishop follows the red devils....

J C

tommy2bad wrote: »

Anyway this is about the first CoE female bishop, good for her, hope she dose a good job. I see she's a man U supporter, the're are people, not me mind, who would say it's apt that the first female bishop follows the red devils....

... this could lead to schism ... with the ABU section of her flock :pac::)

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100205231455AA4Jzzf

Peregrinus

newmug wrote: »

First point, sex is a sin.

No, it isn’t.

newmug wrote: »

In fact, its THE original sin.

No, it isn’t.

newmug wrote: »

So if you want to go around trying to live a Christian life, you can’t be having sex.

Yes, you can.

newmug wrote: »

Second point, Jesus said to Peter, "If you follow me lad, you'll have some hard decisions to make. You'll have to leave the missus and kids".

No, he didn’t.

newmug wrote: »

That's bad enough now, imagine how tough a decision that would have ben back then, when the women of society basically depended on their husband.

Which is possibly one of the many reasons why Jesus never said anything like that? Just a thought.

newmug wrote: »

Being in full communion with "The Pope" has nothing to do with anything.

Actually, it does; it’s the definition of “Catholic”. You’re a Christian in communion, through your bishop, with the Bishop of Rome and all the other Christians in the same communion? You’re a Catholic. You are a Christian not in communion with the Bishop of Rome in this way? You’re not a Catholic. It’s that simple.

newmug wrote: »

Jesus laid down that, in order to follow him, there had to be no family ties.

And yet Jesus instituted the sacrament of matrimony. So there’s a special sacrament for repudiating following Christ? Some mistake, surely?

newmug wrote: »

And when a poster who I know from previous experience is NOT Catholic, comes swaggering in here stating this and that and the other about Catholicism as if they're an expert, it really grinds my gears.

I can put up with that. But when a poster who claims that he is a Catholic is so woefully ignorant of Catholic teaching as to post stuff like this, I begin to despair.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, it does; it’s the definition of “Catholic”. You’re a Christian in communion, through your bishop, with the Bishop of Rome and all the other Christians in the same communion? You’re a Catholic. You are a Christian not in communion with the Bishop of Rome in this way? You’re not a Catholic. It’s that simple.

.

Not correct, as I've gone to great pains to explain in the past, and I am not going to go into again. I am an Anglican, not in communion with Rome, and I am a Catholic, whether you choose to accept that or not...

Nick Park

While this was the first female bishop in England, the Church of Ireland appointed Pat Storey as their bishop for Meath and Kildare just over a year ago. A fine Christian minister.

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Protestant failure at its finest.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there not a verse in the Bible that says that women should not be leaders? I vaguely remember reading this and thinking to myself that the PC brigade would have an absolute field day. Too late to quote now but might have a look tomorrow.

shruikan2553

Zyaire Fast Saddlebag wrote: »

Protestant failure at its finest.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there not a verse in the Bible that says that women should not be leaders? I vaguely remember reading this and thinking to myself that the PC brigade would have an absolute field day. Too late to quote now but might have a look tomorrow.

Think these are the ones, it wouldnt be the first time a part of the bible is ignored. The PC brigade's issue is probably the whole submission thing.

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

Not correct, as I've gone to great pains to explain in the past, and I am not going to go into again. I am an Anglican, not in communion with Rome, and I am a Catholic, whether you choose to accept that or not...

I accept that, katydid. What I should have said is that in the [Roman] Catholic conception of Catholicism, Catholicity consists in a relationship of communion with your bishop, with the Bishop of Rome, and with all Christians in the like communion. But Newmug, who thinks of himself as a [Roman] Catholic, appears to be unaware of this fairly basic [Roman] Catholic self-understanding.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

I accept that, katydid. What I should have said is that in the [Roman] Catholic conception of Catholicism, Catholicity consists in a relationship of communion with your bishop, with the Bishop of Rome, and with all Christians in the like communion. But Newmug, who thinks of himself as a [Roman] Catholic, appears to be unaware of this fairly basic [Roman] Catholic self-understanding.

Fair enough :-) Mod: <SNIP> Let's not make this personal!

katydid

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Think these are the ones, it wouldnt be the first time a part of the bible is ignored. The PC brigade's issue is probably the whole submission thing.

St. Paul. Who is entitled to his opinion. But his opinion is not Gospel :-)

j80ezgvc3p92xu

Quote:
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

Quote:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)

I knew I read it somewhere. To be honest, this should finalize the discussion.

St. Paul. Who is entitled to his opinion. But his opinion is not Gospel :-)

Well I would be more inclined to go with the opinion of Paul, who spoke to Jesus and performed miracles, than say a bunch of modern feminists who pull their opinions out of thin air. I hope this makes sense.

shruikan2553

katydid wrote: »

St. Paul. Who is entitled to his opinion. But his opinion is not Gospel :-)

Its just what I found about the subject, wasnt sure who said it or to who but as you said, its something a person said, wasn't a direct order from the boss.

Zyaire Fast Saddlebag wrote: »

I knew I read it somewhere. To be honest, this should finalize the discussion.



Well I would be more inclined to go with the opinion of Paul, who spoke to Jesus and performed miracles, than say a bunch of modern feminists who pull their opinions out of thin air. I hope this makes sense.

Schools which are run by the church have no problem with women teaching, primary schools are mostly filled by them. Woman also make up a large part of the choir, when you're singing you arent being very silent. Women are also allowed to speak as part of the things like prayers of the faithful. Paul's opinion seems to be ignored often enough as it is.

katydid

Zyaire Fast Saddlebag wrote: »

I knew I read it somewhere. To be honest, this should finalize the discussion.



Well I would be more inclined to go with the opinion of Paul, who spoke to Jesus and performed miracles, than say a bunch of modern feminists who pull their opinions out of thin air. I hope this makes sense.

Er, St. Paul never met Jesus,and himself never claimed to have performed miracles. The only account of miracles is in Acts, written as a hagiography a generation later. Paul said he had a vision of Jes and spoke to him, but let's be honest, how much of that was enthusiasm or wishful thinking we can't be sure. If he DID have a conversation with Jesus, I doubt if they spent their time talking about the role of women in the as yet non-existent church.

Paul was a good man, and had a lot to wise things to say, but he wasn't infallible. He also said some quite ambiguous things about slavery, for example. In other words, he was a man of his time.

We have had two millennia of thought and scholarship since then to work out how Christianity fits with the human condition. And it's not just "modern feminists" who expect men and women to be treated as equals in the church. You'll find that in Christian denominations that have such equality, it is accepted and acknowledged by the vast majority of members, of both genders. The notion of the equality of women was not pulled out of thin air; it is a basic concept, promoted and acknowledged by Jesus, who reached out to women and men equally, and who never gave any sign that he considered women as less than equal to men.

katydid

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Its just what I found about the subject, wasnt sure who said it or to who but as you said, its something a person said, wasn't a direct order from the boss.
.

Exactly!