Female priests in the Roman Catholic Church ....

LordSutch

hinault wrote: »

He appointed 13 apostles.

And I dare say if he was appointing them today, seven would be female.

21st century Gender equality + recognition of him mothers role might play a part too.

Female priests are a great success in the Anglican Church, as are married male priests!

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

A catholic accepts church teaching.

By that logic even a large amount of priests, bishops etc are not Catholic.

Face it hinault, to be a Catholic you cherry pick the church teachings and follow what you like and disregard the stuff you don't. The vast, vast majority of self discribed Catholics do exactly that.

Time and time again this is proven throughout the world.

uck51js9zml2yt

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!

Cabaal

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!

As I said, it's about cherry picking. Both the Bible and "church teachings", of course the church itself also cherry picks from the Bible so I suppose a good Catholic learns from the best.

uck51js9zml2yt

Cabaal wrote: »

As I said, it's about cherry picking. Both the Bible and "church teachings", of course the church itself also cherry picks from the Bible so I suppose a good Catholic learns from the best.

I'm not RCC so you can't be referring to me

_Brian

Much of the argument avoids the obvious issue in that the bible was pieced together, and catholic theology formed during a time when attitudes towards women were so tainted and society was skewed towards believing that men were ultimately superior.

Do people who follow it verbatim not worry that its content was intentionally skewed against women ?

I'm a catholic by label, but now a sort of a la carte catholic as I seriously disagree with many stances of the Catholic Church that I can't resolve. If I were more interested in religion I would probably have to change.

Cabaal

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

I'm not RCC so you can't be referring to me

I wasn't

hinault

_Brian wrote: »

Much of the argument avoids the obvious issue in that the bible was pieced together, and catholic theology formed during a time when attitudes towards women were so tainted and society was skewed towards believing that men were ultimately superior.

Do people who follow it verbatim not worry that its content was intentionally skewed against women ?

I'm a catholic by label, but now a sort of a la carte catholic as I seriously disagree with many stances of the Catholic Church that I can't resolve. If I were more interested in religion I would probably have to change.

Presumably therefore you do not accept that the Bible is the word of God, too?
You've studied in detail how the Bible was compiled too?

Your disagreement with the Church separates you from the Church.

LordSutch

The Church.

Different denominations, different interpretations of the Bible & God's word all under the umbrella of Christianity.

Anglicans, Roman Catholics, etc ...

Different strokes & all that.

keano_afc

The Church is the people, not the steeple.

uck51js9zml2yt

_Brian wrote: »

Much of the argument avoids the obvious issue in that the bible was pieced together, and catholic theology formed during a time when attitudes towards women were so tainted and society was skewed towards believing that men were ultimately superior.

Do people who follow it verbatim not worry that its content was intentionally skewed against women ?

I'm a catholic by label, but now a sort of a la carte catholic as I seriously disagree with many stances of the Catholic Church that I can't resolve. If I were more interested in religion I would probably have to change.

You must have read the RC Bible....the one I read restores women to their rightful place and puts them in position of ministry and influence within the Church.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Chapter 9 of the Gospel of St.Luke tells the account of Jesus personally appointing 12 apostles.

And who, according to your version of the Bible, personally appointed the other 72?

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

This from the church of one.

Millions share the view expressed.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Verse 1 is proof of the transfer of Jesus power and authority to the 12 apostles.

The 12 were ordained with power and authority by Jesus Christ. This is called apostolic succession and this succession only resides in the Catholic Church and has done since inception.

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

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

If it did happen, Luke would have told us so.

False premise. We have four gospels, each which tell us different things that others don't. And we have the declaration that many other things were said and done which aren't recorded in the gospels.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

You'll be able to cite where the gospel says that only Aramaic-speaking Israelite Jews, need apply.

You would also have to cite where the gospels say that women need not apply.

You can't have it both ways hinault: darkglasses makes a fair point. You lay one thing onto the text (no women now because no women then) but refuse to lay something else onto the text (aramaic jew can only be apostolic successors now because it was only aramaic jews then) , which can equally be presumed of it if what occurred then is to be your guide now

How do you wriggle out of this (apart from Da Church sayz so)

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

And who, according to your version of the Bible, personally appointed the other 72?

St. Lukes gospel is not my version.

St.Lukes gospel is St.Lukes gospel, not hinault's gospel.

Why do you persist in refusing to recognise the qualitative and quantitative differences of what Luke describes in Chapter 9 and Chapter 10?

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Chapter 10 does not include any reference to Jesus personally bestowing power and authority.
If He had done so, Chapter 10 would have said so. Chapter 10 doesn't.

From whence did the power and authority they reported back as having come from?

Remember, absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

False premise. We have four gospels.........

No false premise, apart that is from you and your heresy.


We have within one single gospel - namely St.Luke's gospel - the ordination of the apostles in Chapter 9 and something different described in Chapter 10.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

From whence did the power and authority they reported back as having come from?

Read St.Luke's gospel chapter 9 and read St.Luke's gospel chapter 10 instead.

dr.fuzzenstein

It's good that the RCC is incapable and unwilling to move with the times and remains stuck somewhere between 0 and the middle ages.
It will only hasten the slide into obscurity and irrelevance while scholars debate over dusty tomes hundreds or even thousands of years old.
It may finally be a sign of evolution and people will start to think for themselves instead of needing a crutch to get through life.
So I say stay the course! Do not waver one iota! Never give in and never listen. Protect the status quo at all costs, no matter what they may be, you are on the right track, guided by God himself and don't let any mere mortal tell you otherwise.
In fact I think they should bring back Latin masses.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would also have to cite where the gospels say that women need not apply.

Women were not personally ordained by Jesus Christ as testified by St.Luke chapter 9.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Women were not personally ordained by Jesus Christ as testified by St.Luke chapter 9.

Neither are non aramaic jews.

I asked you how you'd wriggle out of this:

You can't have it both ways hinault: darkglasses makes a fair point. You lay one thing onto the text (no women now because no women then) but refuse to lay something else onto the text (aramaic jew can only be apostolic successors now because it was only aramaic jews then) , which can equally be presumed of it if what occurred then is to be your guide now

So have at it man.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

No false premise, apart that is from you and your heresy.

I'm interested in the substance of your argument. Can you make your stand, rather than flinging mud and dodging. Look at you here

We have within one single gospel - namely St.Luke's gospel - the ordination of the apostles in Chapter 9 and something different described in Chapter 10.

I was questioning you supposing we'd have been told something if it happened. You say:

If it did happen, Luke would have told us so.

Off which stone did you lick this idea? Given gospels frequently don't tell us something which we find out elsewhere is the case.

uck51js9zml2yt

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

He forgets that Paul wasn't among the 12!

uck51js9zml2yt

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm interested in the substance of your argument. Can you make your stand, rather than flinging mud and dodging. Look at you here




I was questioning you supposing we'd have been told something if it happened. You say:



Off which stone did you lick this idea? Given gospels frequently don't tell us something which we find out elsewhere is the case.

Not to mention all the things which Jesus did and said which were not written.

antiskeptic

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

Not to mention all the things which Jesus did and said which were not written.

We have a choice:

Hinault: "if a gospel doesn't say so then it didn't happen"

The Bible: Jesus did and said many things which aren't reported in the Bible.

Since Hinault declares himself the local authority on all things Catholic (going so far as to denounce self-proclaimed Catholics as heretics if they don't agree with him) then we have a clear choice: The Roman Catholic Church or The Bible.

*rolls fingers*

antiskeptic

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

He forgets that Paul wasn't among the 12!

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.

nuac

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.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Neither are non aramaic jews.

Supply where this claim is evidenced in the Bible.