Female priests in the Roman Catholic Church ....

hinault · 18-07-2017 11:31pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm interested in the substance of your argument..

Chapter 9 and Chapter 10, St.Luke's gospel.

hinault · 18-07-2017 11:34pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since Hinault declares himself the local authority on all things Catholic

I made no such declaration.

You continue to lie, heretic.

hinault · 18-07-2017 11:39pm

nuac wrote: »

Leavng aside the theology and scripture, imho the Church to survive will have to ordain married priests and women

The fact that the first apostles were men should not be relevant now.

If Jesus were on earth now starting His ministry he would use all means available to spread the word, including all modern media and means of transport.

He would have noted that women are prominent in nearly all professions - education, law, medicine journalism, entertainment etc, and that their numbers are gradually increasing in politics, civil service, engineering, architecture etc.

If Jesus were founding a church now I am sure he would have included some of the many able women available in His group..

However we have to leave the Time Machine and deal with what is here.

Modern Church leaders facing declining congregations, an ageing male clergy and an increasing secular society have to avail of the talents of the many able women available.

I know some priests now in their late seventies and eighties who are still working full time in parishes. The church badly needs more manpower and womanpower.

Learned theological and scriptural studies at this stage seems like arranging deckchairs on the Titanic as it heads towards iceberg waters.

Jesus established His church at a time of His choosing.

Jesus is God incarnate. Therefore He is omnipotent and transcendent.

Being omnipotent and transcendent, He foresaw what will happen for all time after the establishment of His church.

With this knowledge He decided to establish His church when He did, regardless of what He had foreseen.

nuac · 18-07-2017 11:49pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I must read up the account again - cos if it doesn't follow the pattern of the 12 in Luke 9 then Paul might just be relegated to the postion of junior apostle.

I often wonder about Paul ( Saul ). He was persecuting the first Christians. While he was riding to Damascus to persecute some more his companions noticed a blinding flash. They heard nothing, saw nobody else, but immediately appointed himself spokesman for the Church,

He started writing all those letters to the Galatians etc. He had never met Jesus. Afaik none of the Gospels had not been written by then. Did he become dominant in the movement because he was better educated than the apostles, as he came from a Pharisiac family?.

nuac · 19-07-2017 12:19am

hinault wrote: »

Jesus established His church at a time of His choosing.

Jesus is God incarnate. Therefore He is omnipotent and transcendent.

Being omnipotent and transcendent, He foresaw what will happen for all time after the establishment of His church.

With this knowledge He decided to establish His church when He did, regardless of what He had foreseen.

Hinault

I admire your faith.

Our parish once had six priests covering very wide areas. They now have three, one of them being the very elderly man I mentioned above. Traditionally priests visit the sick. Not easy for an old man.

I recall that in the fifties an average diocese would have 15 to 20 students entering Maynooth each year. Those numbers now sadly reduced.

Congregations thinning out in many places. Some former committed Catholics leaking to the wide range of churches now available.

I hope Pope Francis can save matters. Thank God he is a Jesuit. They tend to be men of action. That is what is needed now

Delirium · 19-07-2017 8:46am

hinault wrote: »

I made no such declaration.

You continue to lie, heretic.

MOD NOTE

Please refrain from the name-calling/ getting personal with other posters.

Thanks for your attention.

uck51js9zml2yt · 19-07-2017 12:45pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I must read up the account again - cos if it doesn't follow the pattern of the 12 in Luke 9 then Paul might just be relegated to the postion of junior apostle.

Definitely wasn't a junior. Some thought he was ..I think Corinthians. "Am I behind any of the of the other Apostles?" Peter however refers to Pauls writings as scripture.
Don't forget the Jerulsaem council with Paul. It changed how they did things with regards the Gentiles. We didnt need to get circumcised

hinault · 19-07-2017 3:10pm

nuac wrote: »

Our parish once had six priests covering very wide areas. They now have three, one of them being the very elderly man I mentioned above. Traditionally priests visit the sick. Not easy for an old man.

I recall that in the fifties an average diocese would have 15 to 20 students entering Maynooth each year. Those numbers now sadly reduced.

I take those points. And you're absolutely correct to highlight the fact that the workload for hardworking clergy is increasing as they become older. I am very empathetic to clergy in that situation.

What is interesting though is that the number of seminarians enrolling at "traditional" orders is actually far higher than the number of seminarians enrolling at the likes of Maynooth.

So why are "traditional" seminaries bursting with men discerning their vocation? One explanation appears to be that "traditional" orders have remained faithful to the liturgy and practice of time immemorial perhaps.

nuac wrote: »

I hope Pope Francis can save matters. Thank God he is a Jesuit. They tend to be men of action. That is what is needed now

This papacy has been disasterous.

keano_afc · 19-07-2017 4:49pm

hinault wrote: »

I made no such declaration.

You continue to lie, heretic.

You continue to dodge antiskeptics question. You havent blocked him, so I guess you are unable to answer, all seeing oracle.

nuac · 19-07-2017 5:30pm

hinault wrote: »

I take those points. And you're absolutely correct to highlight the fact that the workload for hardworking clergy is increasing as they become older. I am very empathetic to clergy in that situation.

What is interesting though is that the number of seminarians enrolling at "traditional" orders is actually far higher than the number of seminarians enrolling at the likes of Maynooth.

So why are "traditional" seminaries bursting with men discerning their vocation? One explanation appears to be that "traditional" orders have remained faithful to the liturgy and practice of time immemorial perhaps.

This papacy has been disasterous.

Great to hear of these bursting seminaries. Where are they? Any women going thru there?

Following ordination will these men and/or women be available to work in parishes as part of the diocesan team?

Why do you claim that the papacy of His Holiness Pope Francis I has been disastrous? How?

imho his elevation to the papacy has been like a fresh breeze thru' the stuffy corridors of the Vatican, bringing hope and inspiration to Catholics all over the world.

uck51js9zml2yt · 19-07-2017 7:15pm

nuac wrote: »

Great to hear of these bursting seminaries. Where are they? Any women going thru there?

Following ordination will these men and/or women be available to work in parishes as part of the diocesan team?

Why do you claim that the papacy of His Holiness Pope Francis I has been disastrous? How?

imho his elevation to the papacy has been like a fresh breeze thru' the stuffy corridors of the Vatican, bringing hope and inspiration to Catholics all over the world.

Since its meant to be Gods choice, God obviously got it wrong! I'm glad hinault knows more than God:)

hinault · 19-07-2017 8:33pm

nuac wrote: »

Following ordination will these men and/or women be available to work in parishes as part of the diocesan team?

It would be the responsibility of the diocesan bishop to grant permission to these orders to work in respective dioceses.

nuac wrote: »

Any women going thru there?

Women can't become priests.

nuac wrote: »

Where are they?

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2015/06/10/the-priestly-fraternity-of-st-peter-traditional-liturgy-booming-vocations/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-denounces-traditional-orders-bursting-with-young-people

lazybones32 · 21-07-2017 4:53pm

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

Hinault is ignoring the fact that celibacy is a recent thing within the RCC and was brought in to stop the inheritance of church property by family members.
He also ignores what the Bible says on the matter, that those who teach it , teach a doctrine of demons.
As for the pope bring the head of the church. There is only One Head and that's Jesus Christ, we are but His Body !

Interesting how a person will ignore the bible to justify their position!

The council of elvira (306AD) dealt with priestly celibacy and Pope Siricius wrote decretals to Spanish clergy about 50 years later about the Apostolic origin of celibacy among the priests and presbyters. Even the eastern churches that split away around 500 maintained degrees of continence and some acknowledged that in allowing priests to marry, they were breaking an ancient tradition.

Christ himself said that some men become don't marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Paul encourages people to remain celibate so they can devote themselves to the things of heaven and in Rev. the visionary speaks of those who have refrained from sexual relations as being given a song onlt they can sing (they can praise and glorify God in a way others can't - my take on it).

hinault · 21-07-2017 5:09pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

The council of elvira (306AD) dealt with priestly celibacy and Pope Siricius wrote decretals to Spanish clergy about 50 years later about the Apostolic origin of celibacy among the priests and presbyters. Even the eastern churches that split away around 500 maintained degrees of continence and some acknowledged that in allowing priests to marry, they were breaking an ancient tradition.

Christ himself said that some men become don't marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Paul encourages people to remain celibate so they can devote themselves to the things of heaven and in Rev. the visionary speaks of those who have refrained from sexual relations as being given a song onlt they can sing (they can praise and glorify God in a way others can't - my take on it).

Behold we have left all things, and have followed Thee: what therefore shall we have

Gospel of St.Matthew 19 verse 27.

28 Then Peter said: Behold we have left all things, and have followed Thee?

29 He said to them: Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake,

30 Who shall not receive much more in this present time, and in the world to come, life everlasting.

Gospel of St.Luke 18 verses 28-30

lazybones32 · 21-07-2017 5:39pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Jesus transferring power to the 12 doth not further succession make. You need assumption to extrapolate the idea on down the ages.

But there is scriptural precedence. After Judas' suicide, the apostles chose a successor to fill his position. Matthias' role and function is the same as the other apostles, so that the work of salvation can continue.

uck51js9zml2yt · 21-07-2017 10:51pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

The council of elvira (306AD) dealt with priestly celibacy and Pope Siricius wrote decretals to Spanish clergy about 50 years later about the Apostolic origin of celibacy among the priests and presbyters. Even the eastern churches that split away around 500 maintained degrees of continence and some acknowledged that in allowing priests to marry, they were breaking an ancient tradition.

Christ himself said that some men become don't marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Paul encourages people to remain celibate so they can devote themselves to the things of heaven and in Rev. the visionary speaks of those who have refrained from sexual relations as being given a song onlt they can sing (they can praise and glorify God in a way others can't - my take on it).

Paul also asked what was stopping him bringing his wife with him just like peter and the rest of the apostles did,
He also said that those who teach that you should be celibate teach a doctrine of demons.
Personally ill stick with the authority of scripture over that of a council,pope or church leader.

nuac · 21-07-2017 11:22pm

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

Paul also asked what was stopping him bringing his wife with him just like peter and the rest of the apostles did,
He also said that those who teach that you should be celibate teach a doctrine of demons.
Personally ill stick with the authority of scripture over that of a council,pope or church leader.

Thanks for that. Can you give me the references, pls

lazybones32 · 22-07-2017 12:15am

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

Paul also asked what was stopping him bringing his wife with him just like peter and the rest of the apostles did,
He also said that those who teach that you should be celibate teach a doctrine of demons.
Personally ill stick with the authority of scripture over that of a council,pope or church leader.

Get your sources straight first. Paul says that he teaches a doctrine of demons?! He advises and promotes celibacy but says it wasn't a command or directive from the Lord; the Lord himself says that certain men do not marry for the sake of the kingdom and the author of Rev. also shows that celibacy for God's sake is something He rewards. That's 3 NT sources right there but you refuse to see them for whatever reason.
It is laughable that you say you'll stick with the authority of scripture over a council, pope or church leader: it is an inescapable fact that the bible came to us through Catholic bishops after repeated discussion and discernment. Scripture itself calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of truth" and if scripture is the word of God, and you place it in such high regard, then maybe it's time you stop fighting against the Body of Christ - His Bride, the Church.
You also wrote how scripture says that the Lord said and taught many things that weren't contained in the gospels, yet you decry any ancient source, even those who wrre taught by the Apostles as not being legitimate or worthy of consideration.

"my people perish for want of knowledge." Hos 4:6

Comte de Mirabeau · 22-07-2017 12:31am

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

He also said that those who teach that you should be celibate teach a doctrine of demons.

If you're going to tell sectarian porkies pies, and attempt to troll other Christian denominations, and not love your neighbours as yourself, and think your getting away with it all . . .you're only fooling yourself.

Celibacy isn't a doctrine in the catholic church, it's was discipline that church councils introduced to resolve a discipline problem in the forth century, and unlike a doctrine, can be removed at will whenever they like.

uck51js9zml2yt · 22-07-2017 10:01am

Verse 1 and verse 3.

1 Timothy 4 King James Version (KJV)

4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

So much for celibacy !
1 Corinthians 9:5

5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

Paul also says elders and deacons should be married.

1 Timothy 3New King James Version (NKJV)

Qualifications of Overseers
3 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[a] he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Qualifications of Deacons
8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

But as always, lets not let the word of God get in the way of doctrine and tradition

lazybones32 · 22-07-2017 11:01am

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

Verse 1 and verse 3.

1 Timothy 4 King James Version (KJV)

4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

So much for celibacy !
1 Corinthians 9:5

5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

Paul also says elders and deacons should be married.

1 Timothy 3New King James Version (NKJV)

Qualifications of Overseers
3 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[a] he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Qualifications of Deacons
8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

But as always, lets not let the word of God get in the way of doctrine and tradition

No-one is forbidden from marrying. A man can choose to become a priest and if afterwards decides he wants to marry, he can choose to marry but he cannot legitimately remain a priest to do so. The church won't deny him the right to sacramental marriage on he and she are free to enter it.

And the much cited, little understood, quote about bishops/deacons. You focus on the bit about him having one wife yet ignore the other aspects that he must qualify to be a bishop or deacon? If a bishop's kids aren't subject to him, must he step down? If his wife dies must he marry so that he has one wife? He must be the husband of one wife...

Cherrypick scripture as you see fit but you are ignoring the words of your Lord. Do i need to point them out a third time?

uck51js9zml2yt · 22-07-2017 4:56pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

No-one is forbidden from marrying. A man can choose to become a priest and if afterwards decides he wants to marry, he can choose to marry but he cannot legitimately remain a priest to do so. The church won't deny him the right to sacramental marriage on he and she are free to enter it.

And the much cited, little understood, quote about bishops/deacons. You focus on the bit about him having one wife yet ignore the other aspects that he must qualify to be a bishop or deacon? If a bishop's kids aren't subject to him, must he step down? If his wife dies must he marry so that he has one wife? He must be the husband of one wife...

Cherrypick scripture as you see fit but you are ignoring the words of your Lord. Do i need to point them out a third time?

it was a prerequisite to becoming a leader in the church. A priest cannot become a priest if married. Spot the difference!

Of course going back to the beginning, God said it wasn't good for a man to be alone and gave him woman. In English , not good is seen as bad!
If God thought it was bad, then those who enforce celibacy are doing something contrary to what God said was good.

lazybones32 · 23-07-2017 7:53pm

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

it was a prerequisite to becoming a leader in the church. A priest cannot become a priest if married. Spot the difference!

Of course going back to the beginning, God said it wasn't good for a man to be alone and gave him woman. In English , not good is seen as bad!
If God thought it was bad, then those who enforce celibacy are doing something contrary to what God said was good.

Oh come off it! It was never a requisite to being given a position of leadership - John and Paul being excellent examples. I have no idea where you get your info from but it isn't reliable.
A married man can become a priest: the rcc issued new guidelines in the last few years regarding married converts from the Anglican clergy. The same is required now as back in the beginning of the Church though: the couple must agree to live lives of continence. Both must agree. Even in the Eastern Church, a married man can become a priest but a priest cannot marry or remarry. Bishops are mostly chosen from the celibate or widowed clergy because they recognise the dignity of the office. Orth. priests must abstain from sexual relations for an amount of time before celebrating mass.

So here we have the two churches, who can trace their lineage back to the apostles, being vety close in essence on the same issue. The RCC have gotten stricter on the issue while the Orth. have relaxed.

If God says celibacy is bad, can you explain Mt 19:12? I've mentioned it already but you've consistently refused to even acknowledge it. God does not say celibacy is bad; maybe you should learn what He actually has said before speaking on His behalf.

No-one in the rcc is forced to be celibate; none is forced to be a priest, brother or sister. All are free to choose their state in life. Stop lying about your brothers and sisters. It's getting very tiresome.

antiskeptic · 23-07-2017 9:08pm

nuac wrote: »

I often wonder about Paul ( Saul ). He was persecuting the first Christians. While he was riding to Damascus to persecute some more his companions noticed a blinding flash. They heard nothing, saw nobody else, but immediately appointed himself spokesman for the Church,

He started writing all those letters to the Galatians etc. He had never met Jesus. Afaik none of the Gospels had not been written by then. Did he become dominant in the movement because he was better educated than the apostles, as he came from a Pharisiac family?.

But he did meet Jesus - the Bible says so.

I mean, how do we know anyone met Jesus or that there even was a Jesus? Somehow or other you have to decide that the canon of scripture is divinely authentic and true.

antiskeptic · 23-07-2017 9:28pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

But there is scriptural precedence. After Judas' suicide, the apostles chose a successor to fill his position. Matthias' role and function is the same as the other apostles, so that the work of salvation can continue.

Which name will be written on the twelfth foundation stone in the heavenly Jerusalem do you think? Matthias (chosen by the apostles) or Paul (chosen by God)?

antiskeptic · 23-07-2017 9:40pm

nuac wrote: »

Learned theological and scriptural studies at this stage seems like arranging deckchairs on the Titanic as it heads towards iceberg waters.

If the Roman Catholic church is dying for want of vocations, will the opening up of the priesthood to women change very much? If the Roman Catholic church is not attractive to men, it's hardly likely to be very attractive to women.

uck51js9zml2yt · 23-07-2017 10:25pm

lazybones32 wrote: »

Oh come off it! It was never a requisite to being given a position of leadership - John and Paul being excellent examples. I have no idea where you get your info from but it isn't reliable.
A married man can become a priest: the rcc issued new guidelines in the last few years regarding married converts from the Anglican clergy. The same is required now as back in the beginning of the Church though: the couple must agree to live lives of continence. Both must agree. Even in the Eastern Church, a married man can become a priest but a priest cannot marry or remarry. Bishops are mostly chosen from the celibate or widowed clergy because they recognise the dignity of the office. Orth. priests must abstain from sexual relations for an amount of time before celebrating mass.

So here we have the two churches, who can trace their lineage back to the apostles, being vety close in essence on the same issue. The RCC have gotten stricter on the issue while the Orth. have relaxed.

If God says celibacy is bad, can you explain Mt 19:12? I've mentioned it already but you've consistently refused to even acknowledge it. God does not say celibacy is bad; maybe you should learn what He actually has said before speaking on His behalf.

No-one in the rcc is forced to be celibate; none is forced to be a priest, brother or sister. All are free to choose their state in life. Stop lying about your brothers and sisters. It's getting very tiresome.

Not sure where your first paragraph comes from. Paul asks can he not being by is wife as Peter and the other apostles did. As a good Jew and a Rabbi, he would have been married.

You'll have to excuse my ignorance.
, what's a "life of continence"?
As you've seen aid yourself, a man cannot be a priest unless he is single. Thats "forbidding someone to marry" Yes Paul says it's better not to for the freedom it gives in serving God but he never said it was forbidden to marry to be a leader in the church. In fact he said it was a prerequisite.
You can quote as much of the antics of the RCC and eastern orthodox as you want. It doesn't mean they are right. They don't trump the bible!

nuac · 23-07-2017 11:29pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

But he did meet Jesus - the Bible says so.

I mean, how do we know anyone met Jesus or that there even was a Jesus? Somehow or other you have to decide that the canon of scripture is divinely authentic and true.

Thanks for that; can you give me the reference in the Bible to Paul meeting Jesus?

antiskeptic · 23-07-2017 11:55pm

nuac wrote: »

Thanks for that; can you give me the reference in the Bible to Paul meeting Jesus?

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
— 1 Cor. 15:3–8, NIV

hinault · 24-07-2017 1:29am

nuac wrote: »

Thanks for that; can you give me the reference in the Bible to Paul meeting Jesus?

Paul never met Jesus during His ministry on Earth. If Jesus willed that He should meet Paul during that ministry, that would have taken place, it didn't however. If Jesus had willed Paul to be an apostle Paul would have been personally called during that ministry. He wasn't either.

You're allowing yourself be dragged into another round of boards.is alternative scripture revisionism. By the usual suspects.

Female priests in the Roman Catholic Church ....

Comments