Female priests in the Roman Catholic Church ....

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

If you'd care to read these threads more carefully, it was pointed out earlier, at least once, that even some non-Catholic systems of belief do actually contain some traces of Truth.

Thus Paisley's denomination's views concerning abortion do accord with truth.

The real difficulty here is that in those same systems of belief, non-Catholic beliefs, is that large elements of falsity are simultaneously advocated by the same belief system.

Still the same line that the RCC is the only one true church.
Despite that, the RCC leaders happy to engage in ecumenicism. Either they believe in what they are doing or they don't believe what they are doing and are openly lying to the world by their hypocrisy.

feargale

hinault wrote: »

If you'd care to read these threads more carefully, it was pointed out earlier, at least once, that even some non-Catholic systems of belief do actually contain some traces of Truth.

Thus Paisley's denomination's views concerning abortion do accord with truth.

The real difficulty here is that in those same systems of belief, non-Catholic beliefs, is that large elements of falsity are simultaneously advocated by the same belief system.

Again you miss the point, whether inadvertently or otherwise. This is what I responded to:

lazybones32 wrote: »

Interesting to see that the catholics who post here seem to be in favour of priestly celibacy but the prods and atheists seem to want to change it...such interest in topics that is of no actual concern to you. Your opposition can actually be a sign that the Church's position is correct.

One approach to "prods and atheists", a different one to Paisley.

We could go around and around in circles about this. That seems to suit some here who engage in dishonest argument, ignoring and/or sidetracking inconvenient points.
I would prefer to avoid prolonged engagement with such puerile tactics.

hinault

feargale wrote: »

One approach to "prods and atheists", a different one to Paisley.

We could go around and around in circles about this. That seems to suit some here who engage in dishonest argument, ignoring and/or sidetracking inconvenient points.
I would prefer to avoid prolonged engagement with such puerile tactics.

Except that it is accurate to say that Paisley considered himself and his "church" to be protestant.
Whereas Billy Graham, who supports abortion, considers himself and his "church" to be protestant too.

The point stands however that there are systems of non-Catholic belief which retain traces of truth (see Paisley). Unfortunately these traces of truth are subsumed by the falsehoods contained too in these same belief systems (see Graham and Paisley).

LordSutch

Really don't like the term 'non catholic', with or without a capital c .....

feargale

LordSutch wrote: »

Has anyone been involved in, or been part of an Anglican parish church where a married female priest is the incumbent Rector?

Experiences & thoughts would be most welcome.

No, but I have a passing acquaintance with a married female CoI priest who is not a hundred miles away from me - a very sharp intellect, but perhaps not over endowed with human warmth. It takes all types. I also know a Methodist clergywoman who was formerly a Moravian, but not well enough to say good or bad.
I have also met a married female Norwegian Lutheran pastor.
The only other experience that I can recall was meeting in Akureyri, Iceland the pastor of the local Lutheran church.

Incidentally we have been presented here with the unlikely scenario of a garda having to choose between his sick child and another person's. I don't want to go down the road of the bolshiest of the A&A brigade, who can never speak of the RCC without going on endlessly about the paedophilia scandal, but I would suggest that it is a far more compelling scenario than that of the sick child, and that while the existence of married and female priests would not entirely eliminate the problem it would go a long way towards doing so.

hinault

LordSutch wrote: »

Really don't like the term 'non catholic', with or without a capital c .....

Why so?

LordSutch

Well there was s time when the term was used as an insult to other catholics/Christians who were not of the Roman persuasion, that's why.

hinault

LordSutch wrote: »

Well there was s time when the term was used as an insult to other catholics/Christians who were not of the Roman persuasion, that's why.

Or maybe there was a time when the term was used to distinguish between the only church founded by Jesus Christ and all other churches not found by Jesus Christ.

nuac

I always wondered about "Roman Catholic". It purported to qualify "Catholic" = universal.

I think it is a British invention, especially on listing religions of recruits to the army, and for census purposes etc.

I note my local church has on its front gate

St XXXXX's Catholic Church
Roman Rite ( in smaller letters )

I am happy with that

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

Or maybe there was a time when the term was used to distinguish between the only church founded by Jesus Christ and all other churches not found by Jesus Christ.

The sad thing is with this sentiment that Jesus never founded the RCC. He founded His Church who were called "Christians".
Hinault et al like to ignore the historical fact the the RCC came into being when it split with the Eastern Patriarch over who was really THE POPE. The Roman one taking the title Pontiff Maximus.
It's a church founded in division and superiority.

LordSutch

nuac wrote: »

I always wondered about "Roman Catholic". It purported to qualify "Catholic" = universal.

I think it is a British invention, especially on listing religions of recruits to the army, and for census purposes etc.

I note my local church has on its front gate

St XXXXX's Catholic Church
Roman Rite ( in smaller letters )

I am happy with that

I think the question on the Irish census has it right; Religion: Roman Catholic, Church of Ireland, Islam, Presbyterian, Other, etc etc...

Us Anglicans are also catholics, it just that we're not Roman Catholics, ergo we don't believe that the Pope is the supreme leader of Christianity.

PS; Full respect to the Pope, but as Anglicans he is not our spiritual leader.

hinault

LordSutch wrote: »

I think the question on the Irish census has it right; Religion: Roman Catholic, Church of Ireland, Islam, Presbyterian, Other, etc etc...

Us Anglicans are also catholics, it just that we're not Roman Catholics, ergo we don't believe that the Pope is the supreme leader of Christianity.

PS; Full respect to the Pope, but as Anglicans he is not our spiritual leader.

This is classic protestantism.

EirWatchr

LordSutch wrote: »

We're not Roman Catholics, ergo we don't believe that the Pope is the supreme leader of Christianity.

Neither are the Chaldean Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, or Maronite Catholics calling themselves Roman Catholic, but they are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Additionally, for clarity, Catholics believe that the supreme leader (to use your phrase) of Christianity is God, not the Pope.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

One thing this thread has done is take things well off topic.

To be fair to the Roman Catholics on the thread, the question of women ministers in Protestant churches is a fairly recent introduction. In Anglicanism it's only happened in the last 20ish years. And there are clear disagreements between the Anglo-Catholic, Reformed and conservative evangelical groupings of the church and the more liberal wings of the church. This disagreement is more pronounced in the Church of England than it is in Ireland where the liberal broad church wing of the church dominates the landscape. The liberal Protestants need to acknowledge that there is a diversity in Protestantism on this issue. As do Roman Catholics who would like to caricature all as being liberal on this issue.

I think we should all agree that if one is to advocate for women ministers or priests that we should present the Biblical case for it rather than just arguing for the sake of it.

From what I can tell the more liberal side of the argument would argue that the key passage on this 1 Timothy chapter 2 where it says that a woman cannot have authority over man doesn't refer to preaching or ministry in the church. Or that it was culturally bounded to its time. Some will notice passages like Romans or Acts where it says churches met in women's houses (it's with pointing out that this argument is quite speculative). Another argument that would be stressed is Galatians 3:28 which stresses the equality of the genders in respect to salvation. This position is called egalitarianism.

From the Reformed side it seems to be that 1 Timothy 2 and other passages are directly referring to preaching and ministry positions where there is pastoral authority involved for a congregation. There is a wariness to accept that this isn't good enough for us today given that it was good enough for the early church. There is an argument that women and men have different roles in their families and also within ministry. Men and women are considered equal in status even if roles differ. This argument is called complementarianism.

The Anglo-Catholic position is probably very similar to the Roman Catholic position in that it seems to be more based on tradition. The apostles were men. Jesus set this precedent. This precedent doesn't seem to have been broken in the church until the 20th century.

I hope we can engage with our respective positions rather than engaging in fruitless arguments about which church is better.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Thinkingaboutit

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

The sad thing is with this sentiment that Jesus never founded the RCC. He founded His Church who were called "Christians".
Hinault et al like to ignore the historical fact the the RCC came into being when it split with the Eastern Patriarch over who was really THE POPE. The Roman one taking the title Pontiff Maximus.
It's a church founded in division and superiority.

Eh no, not remotely right. The Latin Rite attained a stable form between 340 and 370AD with the Roman Canon of an even older date (Pope St Gregory re-ordered portions of the Mass, added to some orations while Pope St Pius V codified the Latin Rite and permitted various uses like Sarum, Braga or Milan), no eastern anphora is remotely as old. The Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople didn't somehow have an attack of the vapours causing him to decide he was 'really The Pope' . The Pope could be accepted as the Patriarch of Rome, accorded an honorary primacy as Rome was place where SS Peter and Paul and so many others won the crown of martyrdom, and as Rome was the Queen of Cities, and the Pope a successor of St Peter, but Papal claims of universal jurisdiction over even the Eastern Emperor were rejected, despite the words of Our Lord to St Peter in Matthew 18:19 (And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shalt loosed also in heaven). The Patriarch of Constantinople in adding 'Oecumenical' to his title appears to be making a claim to universality based really on his physical proximity to the Eastern Roman Emperor. Anyhow, Eastern and Western Rites, and most liturgical uses seen today, had long attained a stable and and differing form (one Canon against multiple anaphoras) before Cardinal Humbert threw down an excommunication issued on the authority of a Pope who had just died.

uck51js9zml2yt

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Eh no, not remotely right. The Latin Rite attained a stable form between 340 and 370AD with the Roman Canon of an even older date (Pope St Gregory re-ordered portions of the Mass, added to some orations while Pope St Pius V codified the Latin Rite and permitted various uses like Sarum, Braga or Milan), no eastern anphora is remotely as old. The Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople didn't somehow have an attack of the vapours causing him to decide he was 'really The Pope' . The Pope could be accepted as the Patriarch of Rome, accorded an honorary primacy as Rome was place where SS Peter and Paul and so many others won the crown of martyrdom, and as Rome was the Queen of Cities, and the Pope a successor of St Peter, but Papal claims of universal jurisdiction over even the Eastern Emperor were rejected, despite the words of Our Lord to St Peter in Matthew 18:19 (And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shalt loosed also in heaven). The Patriarch of Constantinople in adding 'Oecumenical' to his title appears to be making a claim to universality based really on his physical proximity to the Eastern Roman Emperor. Anyhow, Eastern and Western Rites, and most liturgical uses seen today, had long attained a stable and and differing form (one Canon against multiple anaphoras) before Cardinal Humbert threw down an excommunication issued on the authority of a Pope who had just died.

Who said the pope is the successor of Peter? In fact, where in the Bible does it mention succession.

I'd have thought something so important would have been mentioned by Jesus.

As for the keys..Keys only have to be used once, unless of course the door is locked again to control access.

Peter used those keys to open the door of salvation to to the Jews, Gentiles and Samaritans in Acts. There is no mention of that door being closed.
Of course the RCC does try control access by putting people through a load of hoops and then leaving them in death hoping they've done enough and been good enough to make it, when the Gospel is much simpler and summarised in 3 words. Repent and believe.
I won't get into purgatory!

nuac

Interesting item on p 2 of today's Irish Times.

Fr Roy Donovan, a Co. Limerick PP has called for the Catholic Church to ordain women.

He also stated that he was upset that a working group set up by the Archbishop of Cashel was to consider a male only diaconate in the diocese.

He pointed out that Pope Francis had already set up a commission to look at the introduction of women deacons. That commission is due to report in "year or two". That of course is the speed of light in Vatican terms, but indicates the Pope's think on the issue

antiskeptic

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

1. Papal claims of universal jurisdiction over even the Eastern Emperor were rejected,

2. despite the words of Our Lord to St Peter in Matthew 18:19 (And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shalt loosed also in heaven).

Could you tell me how on earth it is you manage to connect what Jesus said to the subject matter you say it relates to. I mean, a connection from the actual text - not what you imagine the text can be made to encompass.

I just don't get the point of citing a text which doesn't, of itself, support what it is claimed to support.

lazybones32

Nothing new in the ACP's position.


BBC have Donovan quoted as saying that women would make better priests because they are more familiar with the shedding of blood. "A woman saying 'this is my body, this is my blood' during tje Sacrament of tje Eucharist could give it more meaning". Did he ever consider that Mary the mother of Jesus would have been an ideal candidate for this...flesh of her flesh, blood of her blood and yet Christ didn't confer it on her. Why not?

nuac

LB32

May be a few reasons for Jesus not sending Mary with the apostles. E.g.

1..Joseph must have been getting on by that time, and Mary might have had to look after him

2. Jesus seems to have been friendly with Mary Magdelene. Perhaps Mary was doing the Irish Mammy thing about that. He may have preferred to keep them apart

3. At the time and place males dominated in public life. It is much different now.

If Jesus were starting His ministry now in Ireland He would have availed of all available means of spreading His message. That would have included enlisting the help of some of the many able women who are at the top of their professions.

I have already outlined the position in my own parish. I know there is a shortage of able priests all over Ireland. Before it is too late married priests should be allowed serve, and capable women should be ordained.

feargale

Jesus never condemned slavery. Does that mean that slavery is ok today?

nuac

feargale wrote: »

Jesus never condemned slavery. Does that mean that slavery is ok today?

How do we know that?

lazybones32

nuac wrote: »

LB32

May be a few reasons for Jesus not sending Mary with the apostles. E.g.

1..Joseph must have been getting on by that time, and Mary might have had to look after him

2. Jesus seems to have been friendly with Mary Magdelene. Perhaps Mary was doing the Irish Mammy thing about that. He may have preferred to keep them apart

3. At the time and place males dominated in public life. It is much different now.

If Jesus were starting His ministry now in Ireland He would have availed of all available means of spreading His message. That would have included enlisting the help of some of the many able women who are at the top of their professions.

I have already outlined the position in my own parish. I know there is a shortage of able priests all over Ireland. Before it is too late married priests should be allowed serve, and capable women should be ordained.

Women are called to spread his message too. That was never forbidden and there is no-one going to prevent anyone from doing so. Christ used different criteria in choosing apostles: i doubt those men were Israel's finest fishermen and tax collectors, so human ability and qualities aren't the deciding factor in who should be a priest. We can make a church as we think it should be or we can help Christ build His Church, how he wants it to be.

uck51js9zml2yt

Perhaps someone can answer this question.

At what point in church history did the idea of the necessity of priests arise.

Its obvious that it wasn't a feature of the New Testament Church. When did things change?

kelly1

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Jesus did not ordain anyone.

So what was going on here?:

John 20:21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

feargale

feargale wrote: »

Jesus never condemned slavery. Does that mean that slavery is ok today?

nuac wrote: »

How do we know that?

Ok. Cross the Ts. There is no report of him doing so. My point is that neither is there any report of him expressly putting a bar on ordaining women, but it suits some to imagine non-existent nods and winks that can be interpreted as keeping the boys club safe from having the party crashed by females.

feargale

lazybones32 wrote: »

Women are called to spread his message too. That was never forbidden and there is no-one going to prevent anyone from doing so.

No. They were never barred from making the tea and sandwiches. Ah, yes, we mustn't forget humility.

lazybones32 wrote: »

Christ used different criteria in choosing apostles: i doubt those men were Israel's finest fishermen and tax collectors, so human ability and qualities aren't the deciding factor in who should be a priest.

Or a bishop, or an archbishop. Who are you telling? Maybe if the field were widened there would be a bit more competition for the jobs.

lazybones32 wrote: »

We can make a church as we think it should be or we can help Christ build His Church, how he wants it to be.

Indeed. Take care lest we ever think. But you can tell us what Christ thinks/thought.
What gobbledygook!

EirWatchr

feargale wrote: »

Indeed. Take care lest we ever think. But you can tell us what Christ thinks/thought.
What gobbledygook!

Thinking we know God's thoughts can be hazardous,
but less perilous than thinking we know better than Him.

antiskeptic

EirWatchr wrote: »

Thinking we know God's thoughts can be hazardous,
but less perilous than thinking we know better than Him.

I doubt anyone thinks they know better than him. I suspect people suppose they are correctly discerning his thoughts. The hazard lies in incorrectly discerning his thoughts for all the wrong, or should I say, sinful reasons.

Peregrinus

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

Perhaps someone can answer this question.

At what point in church history did the idea of the necessity of priests arise.

Its obvious that it wasn't a feature of the New Testament Church. When did things change?

At the risk of oversimplifying:

The notion of apostleship clearly does appear in the new testament church. Then we have the development of bishops/overseers, initially to assist/supplement the apostles but, as the first generation of apostles died, to take on the apostolic role. And in time the bishops in turn acquire assistants - first the deacons, who assist the bishops with the "social care" ministry of the church, and finally the priests/presbyters, who assist with sacramental ministry.

I think historians agree that the three-fold ministry - bishops, priest, deacons - was firmly established by the end of the first century. Much of the process took place during the OT period and is reflected in the OT texts. The last step was the emergence of a distinct presbyterate, to assist the bishops in a different area than the diaconate was already doing, and that step is not reflected in the OT texts - it happened just too late for that.