Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Female priests in the Roman Catholic Church ....

12357…12

Comments

  • #122
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,252 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    hinault wrote: »
    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.

    Just to balance hinault misinformation.
    Paul refers to himself as an apostle and at times defends his apostleship to those who said he wasn't.
    Peter refers to Paul's writings as scripture. He would have known Paul's claims to be an apostle and didn't disagree.
    In all likelihood, Paul would have heard Jesus preaching at some point while he was studying to be a Pharisee in Jerusalem. Apart from Paul saying that Jesus revealed Himself to him.


  • #123
    nuac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,769 ✭✭✭nuac


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    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.

    I know some women who would be excellent priests.

    I have outlined upthread the dearth of priests in my own parish. I understand same applies around the country.

    Women are now prominent and active in medicine and law. They would be well fit to take leadership positions in the Church


  • #124
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,215 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »
    In all likelihood, Paul would have heard Jesus preaching at some point while he was studying to be a Pharisee in Jerusalem. Apart from Paul saying that Jesus revealed Himself to him.
    While Paul says that he studied in Jerusalem, there's no reason to think that this makes it likely that he heard Jesus preaching. In the first place, the timeline was wrong; Paul's period of studying in Jerusalem as a young man would most likely have preceded the start of the public ministry of Jesus. Secondly, the Gospels indicate that Jesus didn't spend a lot of time in Jerusalem anyway. He made a point of staying away, in fact, until the week of the Passion.

    In none of Paul's writings does he ever claim to have met or seen Jesus during his earthly life. Given that Paul is concerned to advance his own claims to be an Apostle, you'd expect that if there had been such an encounter Paul would mention it; it could only bolster his claims to apostolic standing. But the only encounter he mentions is a post-resurrection epiphany.

    Furthermore, he makes it clear in Gal 1 that he did not receive the gospel from a human source, but received it as a revelation after he had been persecuting the Christians for some time (and so, necessarily, some time after the death and resurrection of Jesus). The statement that he did not receive the gospel from a human source seems inconsistent with his having had any encounter with the public ministry of Jesus.

    None of the extra-biblical sources suggest and encounter with Jesus during his earthly life, either.


  • #125
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    While Paul says that he studied in Jerusalem, there's no reason to think that this makes it likely that he heard Jesus preaching. In the first place, the timeline was wrong; Paul's period of studying in Jerusalem as a young man would most likely have preceded the start of the public ministry of Jesus. Secondly, the Gospels indicate that Jesus didn't spend a lot of time in Jerusalem anyway. He made a point of staying away, in fact, until the week of the Passion.

    In none of Paul's writings does he ever claim to have met or seen Jesus during his earthly life. Given that Paul is concerned to advance his own claims to be an Apostle, you'd expect that if there had been such an encounter Paul would mention it; it could only bolster his claims to apostolic standing. But the only encounter he mentions is a post-resurrection epiphany.

    Furthermore, he makes it clear in Gal 1 that he did not receive the gospel from a human source, but received it as a revelation after he had been persecuting the Christians for some time (and so, necessarily, some time after the death and resurrection of Jesus). The statement that he did not receive the gospel from a human source seems inconsistent with his having had any encounter with the public ministry of Jesus.

    None of the extra-biblical sources suggest and encounter with Jesus during his earthly life, either.

    Exactly.

    Some of the claims made on St.Paul's behalf by some here are actually as bizzare, as they are inaccurate.

    The New Testament tells of how St.Paul visited the apostles on two separate occasions. One of those meetings refers to St.Paul asking the apostles to ensure that what he is preaching is accurate.

    In another section of the New Testament, Scripture confirms that St.Paul was received in to the Church by Ananias.


  • #126
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,252 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    While Paul says that he studied in Jerusalem, there's no reason to think that this makes it likely that he heard Jesus preaching. In the first place, the timeline was wrong; Paul's period of studying in Jerusalem as a young man would most likely have preceded the start of the public ministry of Jesus. Secondly, the Gospels indicate that Jesus didn't spend a lot of time in Jerusalem anyway. He made a point of staying away, in fact, until the week of the Passion.

    In none of Paul's writings does he ever claim to have met or seen Jesus during his earthly life. Given that Paul is concerned to advance his own claims to be an Apostle, you'd expect that if there had been such an encounter Paul would mention it; it could only bolster his claims to apostolic standing. But the only encounter he mentions is a post-resurrection epiphany.

    Furthermore, he makes it clear in Gal 1 that he did not receive the gospel from a human source, but received it as a revelation after he had been persecuting the Christians for some time (and so, necessarily, some time after the death and resurrection of Jesus). The statement that he did not receive the gospel from a human source seems inconsistent with his having had any encounter with the public ministry of Jesus.

    None of the extra-biblical sources suggest and encounter with Jesus during his earthly life, either.


    I agree, it doesnt say he met Jesus and but its a probability that he heard Him.
    He would have been young but Israel is a small place and Jesus was the main thing happening for 3 years.
    Paul had a particular hatred for the Christians...that didn't come out of no where.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    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)?

    I think the symbolic nature of that vision points to the work of the apostles as being the foundation of the work of salvation. Matthias was chosen by God too (if you read the scriptures) and he was chosen years ahead of Paul - Paul having spent 3 years in damascus/arabia.


  • #128
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »
    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!

    I'm tired of listening to you.

    To recap: when you wrote that celibacy was invented to retain church property (or whatever phrasing you used) you were and still are wrong.


  • #129
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭professore


    hinault wrote: »
    He appointed 13 apostles.

    Don't think he ever "appointed" them. They were his closest followers.


  • #130
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Hinault wrote:
    He appointed 13 apostles.
    professore wrote: »
    Don't think he ever "appointed" them. They were his closest followers.

    They were His closest followers for sure.

    But Jesus Christ, God incarnate, personally commissioned the 12 men to be His apostles.

    The Gospel of St.Mark Chapter 3.
    The Gospel of St.Matthew Chapter 10.


  • #131
    nuac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,769 ✭✭✭nuac


    professore wrote: »
    Don't think he ever "appointed" them. They were his closest followers.

    "apostle" derives from the Greek "apostellein" = to send, to send on an expedition, to send away.

    It seems that they were appointed or directed by Jesus


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    feargale
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,639 ✭✭✭feargale


    hinault wrote: »
    I don't think that we will ever see female priests in the Catholic Church.

    This stems from the teaching that Jesus Himself only directly called 13 men to serve.

    How many Poles, Germans, Argentines were called by Jesus?
    And before someone says that couldn't arise, how many Gentiles did he appoint? How many "others" of one kind or another did he appoint?
    Give me a woman any day before another Judas Iscariot.
    Tom Paine said that which is not specifically forbidden must be allowed. Some persist in interpreting laws by means of hints and nods and winks. That's all very well in Stalin's Russia or Mao's China, but most of us have moved on since the French Revolution.


  • #133
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    feargale wrote: »
    Tom Paine said that which is not specifically forbidden must be allowed.

    This is an especially weak point.

    Tell me where, by means of a link, where you say that Paine made this claim?


  • #134
    feargale
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,639 ✭✭✭feargale


    hinault wrote: »
    This is an especially weak point.

    Tell me where, by means of a link, where you say that Paine made this claim?

    Correction:

    It's in the Declaration of the Rights of Man:

    Article V – The law has the right to forbid only actions harmful to society. Anything which is not forbidden by the law cannot be impeded, and no one can be constrained to do what it does not order.

    Incidentally I believe Paine wrote something similar but perhaps my recollection is faulty.

    If the point remains weak please demonstrate. I take it my other points are strong.


  • #135
    Steve012
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 938 ✭✭✭Steve012


    To the OP

    Yes, they should and also let priests get married.

    Running out of new priests fast, in Ireland to begin with.


  • #136
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    feargale wrote:
    Tom Paine said that which is not specifically forbidden must be allowed.
    hinault wrote:
    This is an especially weak point.

    Tell me where, by means of a link, where you say that Paine made this claim?

    feargale wrote: »
    Correction:

    It's in the Declaration of the Rights of Man:

    Article V – The law has the right to forbid only actions harmful to society. Anything which is not forbidden by the law cannot be impeded, and no one can be constrained to do what it does not order.

    Incidentally I believe Paine wrote something similar but perhaps my recollection is faulty.

    If the point remains weak please demonstrate. I take it my other points are strong.

    Avalon Project website uses different language to the words you attribute to Article V
    Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp

    And you forgot to include the other parts of the same declaration
    Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

    The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected, and, lastly, in order that the grievances of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all.

    Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:


  • #137
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,252 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    I'm tired of listening to you.

    To recap: when you wrote that celibacy was invented to retain church property (or whatever phrasing you used) you were and still are wrong.

    You're free to follow hinault and put me on ignore..but it smacks of loosing the argument:)

    Bedtime reading for you on the history of celibacy and marriage within the RCC including the pope's who were married:eek:
    https://www.futurechurch.org/brief-history-of-celibacy-in-catholic-church


  • #138
    feargale
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,639 ✭✭✭feargale


    hinault wrote: »
    Avalon Project website uses different language to the words you attribute to Article V

    It amounts to the same thing. Where's the difference?
    hinault wrote: »
    And you forgot to include the other parts of the same declaration

    You have written "sacred rights" and "Supreme Being" in bold. Your point? They don't seem to add to or subtract from anything said heretofore or any point made.


  • #139
    Raven Runner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 740 ✭✭✭Raven Runner


    I believe Mary Magdalene was one of his chosen Disciples but that was covered up and she was written out of the bible


  • #140
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    feargale wrote: »
    You have written "sacred rights" and "Supreme Being" in bold. Your point? They don't seem to add to or subtract from anything said heretofore or any point made.

    If you're quoting to quote people here, you should try to cite quotes made by the person and not try to attribute statements to people who never made them.

    And when you're going to cite documents here, be prepared to account for all parts of the same document that you cite.


  • #141
    feargale
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,639 ✭✭✭feargale


    hinault wrote: »
    If you're quoting to quote people here, you should try to cite quotes made by the person and not try to attribute statements to people who never made them.

    You have noticed ( haven't you? ) that the quote is now correctly attributed. Does its existence in the Declaration make it less significant?

    hinault wrote: »
    And when you're going to cite documents here, be prepared to account for all parts of the same document that you cite.

    You are raising silly points. Are you seriously suggesting that all of the Declaration should be cited? If you highlight words you should state how you consider them relevant.
    This is descending to the level of junior cert debating society,


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »
    You're free to follow hinault and put me on ignore..but it smacks of loosing the argument:)

    Bedtime reading for you on the history of celibacy and marriage within the RCC including the pope's who were married:eek:
    https://www.futurechurch.org/brief-history-of-celibacy-in-catholic-church
    I won't put you on ignore because before long you'll misrepresent your fellow Christians again and someone has to correct and counter your effect.
    Call my lack of patience with you 'losing', if you wish. I'd have walked away from you long ago if this were a real-life conversation.

    Regarding the popes, cardinals, bishops and priests who were married, how many of them got married after ordination? I'm asking, not because I care, but because having the last word will be important to you.


  • #143
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    feargale wrote: »
    It amounts to the same thing. Where's the difference?



    You have written "sacred rights" and "Supreme Being" in bold. Your point? They don't seem to add to or subtract from anything said heretofore or any point made.
    But what does a founding father of America (if i've got the right man) have to do with God choosing men only for the priesthood? The roots of male-only priests goes back much further than any declaration, etc.


  • #144
    feargale
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,639 ✭✭✭feargale


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    But what does a founding father of America (if i've got the right man) have to do with God choosing men only for the priesthood? The roots of male-only priests goes back much further than any declaration, etc.

    It is a fundamental principle, in the absence of self evident situations ( e.g. murder ) that rules and laws are based on explicit statements, not hints or nods or winks. Men only chosen for the priesthood? Proof, please.


  • #145
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,252 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    I won't put you on ignore because before long you'll misrepresent your fellow Christians again and someone has to correct and counter your effect.
    Call my lack of patience with you 'losing', if you wish. I'd have walked away from you long ago if this were a real-life conversation.

    Regarding the popes, cardinals, bishops and priests who were married, how many of them got married after ordination? I'm asking, not because I care, but because having the last word will be important to you.

    you obviously didn't look at the link to the RC website I provided :)


  • #146
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    feargale wrote: »
    You have noticed ( haven't you? ) that the quote is now correctly attributed.

    Only after you were corrected first, for falsely attributing statements.
    feargale wrote: »
    Are you seriously suggesting that all of the Declaration should be cited?

    Just pointing out what the same declaration contains.


  • #147
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    feargale wrote: »
    It is a fundamental principle, in the absence of self evident situations ( e.g. murder ) that rules and laws are based on explicit statements, not hints or nods or winks. Men only chosen for the priesthood? Proof, please.

    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?


  • #148
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    spurious wrote: »
    The only way the RCC can survive is with women.

    It really is incredibly ironic that women do so much work for the RCC church paid and voluntary but get so little thanks, respect and recognition. If the women went on strike from their paid and voluntary work the RCC simply could not survive.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #149
    nuac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,769 ✭✭✭nuac


    Raven Runner wrote: »
    I believe Mary Magdalene was one of his chosen Disciples but that was covered up and she was written out of the bible

    They were just very good friends - very good and close friends indeed


  • #150
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,215 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Raven Runner wrote: »
    I believe Mary Magdalene was one of his chosen Disciples but that was covered up and she was written out of the bible
    An extraordinary belief, given that she is referenced numerous time in the bible. She turns up in all four Gospels, and is referred to more often than most of the Twelve, if we're counting.

    Whoever "wrote her out" of the Bible did a pretty poor job of it.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,157 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    I won't put you on ignore because before long you'll misrepresent your fellow Christians again and someone has to correct and counter your effect.
    Call my lack of patience with you 'losing', if you wish. I'd have walked away from you long ago if this were a real-life conversation.

    Regarding the popes, cardinals, bishops and priests who were married, how many of them got married after ordination? I'm asking, not because I care, but because having the last word will be important to you.

    MOD NOTE

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

    Thanks for your attention.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



Advertisement