Female priests in the Roman Catholic Church ....

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

The proof has been cited earlier.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=104183079

You don't accept what St.Mark Chapter 3, or what St.Matthew Chapter 10 states?

If not, why not?

He of course wont see this but from the link I provided earlier it appears there may have been women priests at some point due to one of the popes banning them!

lazybones32

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

Please refrain from the personal comments. "attack the post, not the poster".

Thanks for your attention.

Excuse you but it has already been shown that the user has either lied or has ignorantly misrepresented the rcc.

And there has been no personal comment against the user bar my being tired of him. That doesn't infringe the charter.

Thanks for your selective attention.

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

Excuse you but it has already been shown that the user has either lied or has ignorantly misrepresented the rcc.

And there has been no personal comment against the user bar my being tired of him. That doesn't infringe the charter.

Thanks for your selective attention.

MOD NOTE

Personal attacks are against the general site rule "attack the post, not the poster". You posted ->"because before long you'll misrepresent your fellow Christians again" which is clearly attack the poster. That's not allowed.

If you see a poster post incorrect information, feel free to respond to that information.

It's also against the rules to argue with mod instructions on thread. If you have a problem use the PM facility.

Thanks for your attention.

lazybones32

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

Personal attacks are against the general site rule "attack the post, not the poster". You posted ->"because before long you'll misrepresent your fellow Christians again" which is clearly attack the poster. That's not allowed.

If you see a poster post incorrect information, feel free to respond to that information.

It's also against the rules to argue with mod instructions on thread. If you have a problem use the PM facility.

Thanks for your attention.

So i can counter incorrect information but it's offensive to say that a person has posted incorrect information before and is very likely to post incorrect information again, despite them having a proven track record of doing so? (Even current evidence of accusing other believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of being devil-worshippers)

There is no point in me pm'ing you about something that is valuable to the other forum users to see and understand.

hinault

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

Personal attacks are against the general site rule "attack the post, not the poster". You posted ->"because before long you'll misrepresent your fellow Christians again" which is clearly attack the poster. That's not allowed.

If you see a poster post incorrect information, feel free to respond to that information.

It's also against the rules to argue with mod instructions on thread. If you have a problem use the PM facility.

Thanks for your attention.

Please provide a link where selective moderation can be publicly reported on this site.

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

So i can counter incorrect information but it's offensive to say that a person has posted incorrect information before and is very likely to post incorrect information again, despite them having a proven track record of doing so? (Even current evidence of accusing other believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of being devil-worshippers)

There is no point in me pm'ing you about something that is valuable to the other forum users to see and understand.

I've replied here to avoid ongoing derailment of this thread

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

Please provide a link where selective moderation can be publicly reported on this site.

As I understand it, HelpDesk is the forum you're looking for.

hinault

Delirium wrote: »

As I understand it, HelpDesk is the forum you're looking for.

Thanks.

For clarification, I'm permitted to post screen shots of PM's sent to moderators at that link?

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

Thanks.

For clarification, I'm permitted to post screen shots of PM's sent to moderators at that link?

Nope (open to correction though). That's for Dispute Resolution when discussing bans/cards.

But you could ask the question when you open your thread.

hinault

Delirium wrote: »

Nope (open to correction though). That's for Dispute Resolution when discussing bans/cards.

But you could ask the question when you open your thread.

To be clear.

I want to discuss the content of private messages sent to moderators and the outcome of those sent messages.

Do I address the issue in the Help Desk section of this site, or do I address the issue to the Disputes Resolution section of the site?

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

To be clear.

I want to discuss the content of private messages sent to moderators and the outcome of those sent messages.

Do I address the issue in the Help Desk section of this site, or do I address the issue to the Disputes Resolution section of the site?

The thread should be opened in HelpDesk.

But you need to ask the mods in your thread about discussing PMs. It's not something I can answer.

LordSutch

All this argy-bargy and we're still no closer on whether the RC Church will ever allow Female Priests... lets keep this thread on track!

They are a great success in the Anglican Church, that's for sure, so I wonder will the Pope ever catch up with the Archbishop of Canterbury's more enlightened & more current socially aware thinking?

feargale

LordSutch wrote: »

All this argy-bargy and we're still no closer on whether the RC Church will ever allow Female Priests... lets keep this thread on track!

They are a great success in the Anglican Church, that's for sure, so I wonder will the Pope ever catch up with the Archbishop of Canterbury's more enlightened & more current socially aware thinking?

Jaypers, Sutch, you're really stoking and poking hinault's fire now. Wait till he gets back! I believe he's on a short sabbatical.

keano_afc

feargale wrote: »

Jaypers, Sutch, you're really stoking and poking hinault's fire now. Wait till he gets back! I believe he's on a short sabbatical.

Another one? He's been banned more times than Joey Barton that lad.

hinault

feargale wrote: »

Jaypers, Sutch, you're really stoking and poking hinault's fire now. Wait till he gets back! I believe he's on a short sabbatical.

So much for your beliefs.

As for the COE.

A house built without any real foundation will eventually subside more rapidly with the passage of time.

The COE decision to ordain women in that denomination illustrates that effect of that subsidence.

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

So much for your beliefs.

As for the COE.

A house built without any real foundation will eventually subside more rapidly with the passage of time.

The COE decision to ordain women in that denomination illustrates that effect of that subsidence.

That will teach you Lord Such

feargale

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

That will teach you Lord Such

Sutch how would you like your stake?

LordSutch

hinault wrote: »

A house built without any real foundation will eventually subside more rapidly with the passage of time..

Indeed, specially if the self appointed head of the house is bound by some 'embroidered' historic rules & regulations that crept into the house through the back door over millennia.

hinault wrote: »

The COE decision to ordain women in that denomination illustrates that effect of that subsidence.

The Anglican communion is much broader than just the Church Of England (thank goodness).

hinault

LordSutch wrote: »

The Anglican communion is much broader than just the Church Of England (thank goodness).

The Anglican Communion and the Anglican Church are two separate concepts.

You specifically referred to the Anglican Church in your post at 16.12 hrs.

LordSutch

Yes indeed, and thank you for your post @20:54.

My main point being, the CoE 'for example' is not the Church of Ireland.

hinault

LordSutch wrote: »

Yes indeed, my point being, the CoE 'for example' is not the Church of Ireland.

Who here made the point that COE is the COI, for example?

LordSutch

Nobody, as far as I'm aware ...

Now lets here more about those foundations you speak of please.

hinault

LordSutch wrote:

The Anglican communion is much broader than just the Church Of England (thank goodness).

hinault wrote:

The Anglican Communion and the Anglican Church are two separate concepts.

You specifically referred to the Anglican Church in your post at 16.12 hrs

LordSutch wrote:

Yes indeed, my point being, the CoE 'for example' is not the Church of Ireland.

hinault wrote:

Who here made the point that COE is the COI, for example?

LordSutch wrote:

Nobody, as far as I'm aware ...

Apart from you.:rolleyes:

LordSutch

Well done, you're a bright one, and you can repeat sentences too, bravo!

I think you're on a roll there...

But can you actually contribute anything worthwhile to this thread (Re the main topic/Thread title)?

hinault

LordSutch wrote: »

Well done, you're a bright one, and you can repeat sentences too, bravo!

I think you're on a roll there...

But you actually contribute anything worthwhile to this thread re the main topic?

Rich coming from you given your "contributions".

LordSutch

hinault wrote: »

Rich coming from you given your "contributions".

My main contribution is the thread itself Re Female Priests in the Roman Catholic Church, so can you please argue your point (Re the topic in the title), instead of arguing with everybody else including the Mods and potentially derailing/closing the thread.

lazybones32

Yes, you started the thread and then pretty much disappeared until tonight.

The reason why the RCC sees itself as not having the power or authority to ordain female clergy has already been given. But by all means continue with your thoughts on why the RCC should abandon the example of its founder, Christ, and instead follow the example of the coE's founder, Henry. (Wed, bed, behead...if he did it nine times, you guys would have a novena of your own!)

uck51js9zml2yt

lazybones32 wrote: »

Yes, you started the thread and then pretty much disappeared until tonight.

The reason why the RCC sees itself as not having the power or authority to ordain female clergy has already been given. But by all means continue with your thoughts on why the RCC should abandon the example of its founder, Christ, and instead follow the example of the coE's founder, Henry. (Wed, bed, behead...if he did it nine times, you guys would have a novena of your own!)

They had already abandoned it with the 4th century seeing us with councils banning priests from sleeping with their wife's the night before mass, the women were not to be ordained and a pope leaving his wife so he could become pope!

nuac

About the issue of possible ordaining of women as Catholic Priests?

Any chance of a poll on it?

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

Rich coming from you given your "contributions".

MOD NOTE

Carded for continuing to get personal with other posters despite a mod warning earlier this week.

Please refrain from such behaviour in future posts.

Thanks for your attention.