Female priests in the Roman Catholic Church ....

uck51js9zml2yt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

professore

hinault wrote: »

He appointed 13 apostles.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

Steve012

To the OP

Yes, they should and also let priests get married.

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

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:

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

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.

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

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.