Female priests in the Roman Catholic Church ....

solodeogloria

Good morning!

kelly1 wrote: »

So what was going on here?:

John 20:21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

It's not helpful to refer to this as ordination considering the Bible doesn't refer to ordination. But let me come in as a middle man here.

I don't think there's anything wrong with having an ordination service. I just think we need to acknowledge that it is a matter of church governance rather than a Biblical concept. I was at an ordination service at my church recently for our curate. The vicar explained about the reforms put in by the Church of England after Thomas Cranmer which made it a lot more interesting to watch. For example being given a Bible rather than a cope.

These things are human renderings of what the Bible commands us to do. tatranska is right to say that the concept of priest isn't found in the Bible either this side of the cross. When Cranmer was rendering the Book of Common Prayer in the Church of England he stuck with priest because it was the closest translation of presbyteros.

Peregrinus wrote: »

At the risk of oversimplifying:

The notion of apostleship clearly does appear in the new testament church. Then we have the development of bishops/overseers, initially to assist/supplement the apostles but, as the first generation of apostles died, to take on the apostolic role. And in time the bishops in turn acquire assistants - first the deacons, who assist the bishops with the "social care" ministry of the church, and finally the priests/presbyters, who assist with sacramental ministry.

I think historians agree that the three-fold ministry - bishops, priest, deacons - was firmly established by the end of the first century. Much of the process took place during the OT period and is reflected in the OT texts. The last step was the emergence of a distinct presbyterate, to assist the bishops in a different area than the diaconate was already doing, and that step is not reflected in the OT texts - it happened just too late for that.

An interesting post and an interesting discussion. Basically we're talking about episcopal versus congregationalist church structures. I disagree that the next generation of ministers after the apostles were apostles or took on the apostolic role. If they had done we would see this language in terms of Timothy and Titus in the New Testament but we don't. There's no concept of apostolic succession in the Bible. This also doesn't mean it is wrong but we need to be clear it is a human way of expressing faith rather than a Biblically mandated one.

The argument in respect to sacraments we also have to understand is human language. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong I just doubt that there would have been as high a view of sacraments as there is in Catholic, Orthodox and some Anglican churches today.

The Old Testament isn't the model of Christian ministry. If it were I think we would have seen Jesus couple it more tightly. The traditional ministry of a Jewish priest in terms of sacrificing to the congregation is over. Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice once and for all as the great high priest (Hebrews 9-10 I think for the broad reference). There's no Biblical warrant for claiming that Christian ministers are a continuation of the Aaronite priesthood.

The balance for me is that it doesn't bother me that I have a bishop in our church. It's the Church of England's way of expressing that. Would I care if I was in a church with a congregationalist structure? Not really. The most important thing for me as an evangelical in this church is that the Bible is put in the driving seat and preached faithfully.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

. . . An interesting post and an interesting discussion. Basically we're talking about episcopal versus congregationalist church structures. I disagree that the next generation of ministers after the apostles were apostles or took on the apostolic role. If they had done we would see this language in terms of Timothy and Titus in the New Testament but we don't. There's no concept of apostolic succession in the Bible. This also doesn't mean it is wrong but we need to be clear it is a human way of expressing faith rather than a Biblically mandated one.

I may not have been clear. I don't mean that as the first apostles died, the bishops said "right, we're the apostles now". I mean that they took on the leadership functions that was initially exercised by the first generation of apostles. And that function was seen as an aspect of the apostolic role. Therefore, the bishops were acting in succession to the apostles.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The argument in respect to sacraments we also have to understand is human language. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong I just doubt that there would have been as high a view of sacraments as there is in Catholic, Orthodox and some Anglican churches today.

Yes, I agree. The church spends its first several centuries reflecting on these things, and developing a language to speak about them. That language wouldn't have meant anything to the first generation of Christians.

If you take the eucharist, for example, if you'd asked the first generation of Christians why they celebrated the eucharist, they wouldn't have understood what you meant by "eucharist". And when you'd got past that barrier in comprehension, they'd have said something like "Oh, you mean tha business with the bread and wine? We do it because we remember that the Lord told us to." Fuller reflection on why the Lord told them to do it, and what it meant when they observed the Lord's command and did it, came later (and, arguably, is still coming). Similarly with understandings about who Christ was and how he related to God; if you had talked to them about Incarnation or Trinity, even after you had explained what you meant by those terms, they would have looked very surprised.

Sticking with the whole priesthood business, the picture that emerges from Paul's letters is mixed. On the one hand, you've got a whole variety of different people filling a whole variety of roles in the church, according to talent and aptitude, and Paul celebrates this diversity. On the other hand, you have clear evidence of various people attempting to pull rank and assert authority over one another, or over particular Christian communities, and of disputes about this, and of conferences, etc, to try to resolve these disputes.

I think what you have here is the emergence of a structure for the church. In the early days, nobody probably thought they needed much in the way of structure; I mean, the Lord was coming back imminently, wasn't he? Structure emerged in response to immediate needs (like the appointment of deacons to oversee the distribution of alms), but the need for a stable structure, that wasn't dependent on individual personality or talents but would endure for generations, didn't become apparent, well, for a generation, when it became clear that the Second Coming wasn't quite as imminent as initially thought.

Jesus did not hand the church an enduring structure of this kind; once they recognised that they needed one they had to nut one out for themselves. The conclusion they came to, not unsurprisingly, was that although the Lord had not given them a structure, he had given them authority to develop and put in place a structure which would be consistent with his teaching and modelling of how to live, and in particular of how to exercise leadership. The threefold ministry is what emerged. It didn't have to emerge like that; it could, e.g., have been a fourfold ministry. But equally it wasn't haphazard or random. And, crucially, it's something that the church was authorised to do. When the church made bishops and deacons and priests, this wasn't a bunch of people trying to choose a committee to run their club. This was the body of Christ, responding to the commands of Christ.

EirWatchr

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, I agree. The church spends its first several centuries reflecting on these things, and developing a language to speak about them. That language wouldn't have meant anything to the first generation of Christians.

A lot of it would, as shown in the documents of the ante-nicene fathers. The notion of a bishopric existed in the life of the apostles and at least one of the apostles (James) was declared a bishop (with strong indications that it was conferred on him by the other apostles).

uck51js9zml2yt

Peregrinus wrote: »

At the risk of oversimplifying:

The notion of apostleship clearly does appear in the new testament church. Then we have the development of bishops/overseers, initially to assist/supplement the apostles but, as the first generation of apostles died, to take on the apostolic role. And in time the bishops in turn acquire assistants - first the deacons, who assist the bishops with the "social care" ministry of the church, and finally the priests/presbyters, who assist with sacramental ministry.

I think historians agree that the three-fold ministry - bishops, priest, deacons - was firmly established by the end of the first century. Much of the process took place during the OT period and is reflected in the OT texts. The last step was the emergence of a distinct presbyterate, to assist the bishops in a different area than the diaconate was already doing, and that step is not reflected in the OT texts - it happened just too late for that.

Thanks for the reply.

Firstly,Apostleship is clearly a thing in the NT Church as were the other 4 ministries of Prophet,Teacher,Pastor,Evangelist. Paul refers to his Apostleship numerous times. There is no suggestion of succession in any of these ministries. We also see clearly in Antioch that there were prophets and teachers( of which Paul and Barabas were counted) were instrumental in the appointing of Paul and Barnabas at the command of God.

If we look in Timothy, Paul makes it clear that Timothies ministry was verified by the many prophecies given to him. Clearly the Church had also seen his ministry develop and attested to the validity of the prophecies.

We also see deacons appointed very early in the process in Acts. Its of note that Barnabas seems to have increased in his sphere of ministry. He initially gets mentioned a "selling some land".The next thing he has an equal ministry to Paul as they are both separated by God.

There was clearly no separation of clergy/laity in the early Church with many of the leaders knowing Jesus personally I'd have thought that if such a separation was of God, Jesus would have mentioned it and we'd have seen in it the NT.

It's interesting that you mention the OT quiet a lot. My own view is that much of what we see is a carry over from the OT and not what we see in the NT.
Priests mediating between God and men is not a NT principle.

Mutant z

The way things are going with the RCC, there wont be any male priests let alone female.

nuac

Thanks for the learned discussion guys, which I am trying to absorb

Meanwhile dealing with the current situation there was a debate on Radio One this forenoon between Fr Hoban of Mayo and Patsy McGarry of Irish Times

Main thrust was dearth of clergy. Fr Hoban stated case for re-admitting priest who had left for marriage, and ordination of women deacons should be considered. He mentioned that at least one of the Irish bishops, Dr O'Reilly was supporting this.

lazybones32

nuac wrote: »

Thanks for the learned discussion guys, which I am trying to absorb

Meanwhile dealing with the current situation there was a debate on Radio One this forenoon between Fr Hoban of Mayo and Patsy McGarry of Irish Times

Main thrust was dearth of clergy. Fr Hoban stated case for re-admitting priest who had left for marriage, and ordination of women deacons should be considered. He mentioned that at least one of the Irish bishops, Dr O'Reilly was supporting this.

Leo O'Reilly was open to discussing it but in the 2 years since the project began, there is no consensus and it has fallen away.

The ACP are the only ones beating this drum. They are given so much airtime/column inches.

nuac

lazybones32 wrote: »

Leo O'Reilly was open to discussing it but in the 2 years since the project began, there is no consensus and it has fallen away.

The ACP are the only ones beating this drum. They are given so much airtime/column inches.

I think it is an important topic for the Church today.

I know some lay Catholics who are concerned.

I know some of the ACP priests. I think they should be listened to, both in Maynooth and Rome

imho the Church has major manpower problems. It is time to call all hands up on deck.

Marinjohn45

I think if there were female priests ( and why the hell shouldnt there be) a lot more people would attend mass...I myself am a Buddhist and there are female Buddhist nuns who have the very same rights as male Buddhist monks and everything has been going swimmingly in Buddhism for the last 2500 years.

hinault

nuac wrote: »

I think it is an important topic for the Church today.

I know some lay Catholics who are concerned.

I know some of the ACP priests. I think they should be listened to, both in Maynooth and Rome

imho the Church has major manpower problems. It is time to call all hands up on deck.

The Church in Ireland may have manpower problems, but this can be addressed by the Church worldwide.

In the past Ireland supplied missionary clergy to places throughout the world.
That past missionary work will be reciprocated by the world sending it's clergy to Ireland, if required. In fact it is already happening!

Peregrinus

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

Thanks for the reply.

Firstly,Apostleship is clearly a thing in the NT Church as were the other 4 ministries of Prophet,Teacher,Pastor,Evangelist. Paul refers to his Apostleship numerous times. There is no suggestion of succession in any of these ministries. We also see clearly in Antioch that there were prophets and teachers( of which Paul and Barabas were counted) were instrumental in the appointing of Paul and Barnabas at the command of God.

Most of what we have on ministry in the NT church we have from Paul. Paul doesn’t address succession because, at the time he was writing, the issue hadn’t presented itself. Paul’s letters come from the very earliest period of the church; all of them had been written before any of the four gospels. The first generation of leaders was still around, still active, and the question of who would succeed them wasn’t something that needed to be addressed. (Or something that, at the time, many people expected would ever need to be addressed.)

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

There was clearly no separation of clergy/laity in the early Church with many of the leaders knowing Jesus personally I'd have thought that if such a separation was of God, Jesus would have mentioned it and we'd have seen in it the NT.

Not necessarily. As I said to solo, an awful lot of stuff that we now regard as pretty foundational gets nutted out in the early centuries of the church, but after the period in which the NT scriptures are written. The church’s view is not that Jesus dictated all this stuff, but that Jesus authorised the church to work this stuff out. The church is, after all, the body of Christ, and understands itself as embodying the continuing presence of Christ on earth.

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

It's interesting that you mention the OT quiet a lot. My own view is that much of what we see is a carry over from the OT and not what we see in the NT.
Priests mediating between God and men is not a NT principle.

I haven’t mentioned the OT at all; you’re possibly confusing me with other posters.

For what it’s worth, though, I think it’s probable that when the church came to grapple with questions of leadership, minstry, succession, etc, they were consciously influenced by what is in the OT.

solodeogloria

Marinjohn45 wrote: »

I think if there were female priests ( and why the hell shouldnt there be) a lot more people would attend mass...I myself am a Buddhist and there are female Buddhist nuns who have the very same rights as male Buddhist monks and everything has been going swimmingly in Buddhism for the last 2500 years.

Good morning!

Two things.

Firstly - and why the hell shouldn't there be isn't a good argument. It needs to be argued on the basis of Christian faith and practice and in my view from God's word the Bible. There are arguments that you can present. Why the hell shouldn't there be isn't an argument.

Secondly - you say you are a Buddhist. Fair enough but the matter of ordination of female clergy in a Christian church is a matter for Christians to deal with in their relevant churches.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Firstly - and why the hell shouldn't there be isn't a good argument. It needs to be argued on the basis of Christian faith and practice and in my view from God's word the Bible. There are arguments that you can present. Why the hell shouldn't there be isn't an argument.

Actually, I think "why not?' is a good argument in relation to any restriction/exclusion. If nothing else, in this context it's a challenge to produce sound arguments from Christian foundations as to why ministry should be limited in this way.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Secondly - you say you are a Buddhist. Fair enough but the matter of ordination of female clergy in a Christian church is a matter for Christians to deal with in their relevant churches.

Mmm. I see where you're coming from. But Christianity is a missionary and evangelical religion which offers itself to the world and seeks a response from the world. So, yeah, the views of non-Christians about Christian beliefs, faith, life, practice etc are something we actively seek. We can't get all sniffy when they are offered.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, I think "why not?' is a good argument in relation to any restriction/exclusion. If nothing else, in this context it's a challenge to produce sound arguments from Christian foundations as to why ministry should be limited in this way.


Mmm. I see where you're coming from. But Christianity is a missionary and evangelical religion which offers itself to the world and seeks a response from the world. So, yeah, the views of non-Christians about Christian beliefs, faith, life, practice etc are something we actively seek. We can't get all sniffy when they are offered.

Good morning!

Why not? isn't a good argument because it absolves the proponent of women ministers / priests from having to make a positive argument for their position. Both sides should be able to see out their stall.

I don't share your view that being an evangelical religion means that you have to change the religion. Most of the time to hold a distinctive Christian position that requires being different to the world whilst being in the world.

Matters of immaterial human matters of practice are certainly malleable with justification. For Biblical matters we need to establish the Biblical position and contend for it. The Bible speaks about this subject, so we need to engage with it. This is why arguing for both positions is essential.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Why not? isn't a good argument because it absolves the proponent of women ministers / priests from having to make a positive argument for their position. Both sides should be able to see out their stall.

In which case a challenge to the other side to set out their stall is a good argument.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't share your view that being an evangelical religion means that you have to change the religion.

That's not my view. I haven't said anything remotely like that.

nuac

A Bishop Mary Meehan on radio today.

Says she is a Catholic, was ordained a priest and later consecrated a Bishop by a legit Catholic bishop who is in the Apostolic succession. She has ordained other women as priests - about 50, working in the States

Admits that she and those she ordained have been excommunicated by either Pope John Paul 11 or Benedict.

She mentioned that they have been in touch with the Vatican. Says two of her congregation have been invited to a Mass to be said by Pope Francis. Says that that invitation goes some way to negate the excommunication

She is also hopeful that the commission Pope Francis has set up to consider admitting women deacons indicates a possible change of attitude in Rome towards female priests

imho all good news for the Church here

martingriff

nuac wrote: »

A Bishop Mary Meehan on radio today.

Says she is a Catholic, was ordained a priest and later consecrated a Bishop by a legit Catholic bishop who is in the Apostolic succession. She has ordained other women as priests - about 50, working in the States

Admits that she and those she ordained have been excommunicated by either Pope John Paul 11 or Benedict.

She mentioned that they have been in touch with the Vatican. Says two of her congregation have been invited to a Mass to be said by Pope Francis. Says that that invitation goes some way to negate the excommunication

She is also hopeful that the commission Pope Francis has set up to consider admitting women deacons indicates a possible change of attitude in Rome towards female priests

imho all good news for the Church here

We that on Clare Fm this morning only heard the end if not they have been on various shows

lazybones32

There isn't much more to be added to this thread that hasn't already been said on why the RCC cannot ordain female priests, so i'll add a prayer from mary meehan's book "delighting in the feminine divine"


"Womb of creation,
Shekinah, She-Who-Dwells Within
God, the breasted One
Woman mentor
Sophia, holy wisdom
Help women to delight in their identity as imago Dei (images of God)
Angry woman preacher
Liberator of the oppressed
Welcoming hostess
Washerwoman God
Seamstress
Elegant

Transform patriarchial structures and sexist attitudes that prevent us from acknowledging women as imago Dei.

Jesus-Sophia, the crucified One,
Mother Jesus, birthing the world
Merciful Mother Jesus,
Jesus-Sophia,
Healer of our stress
Jesus, mirror of Sophia
Reveal your saving power through women, imago Dei".

That reads like a poem but is listed as a prayer. I liked "the breasted One" bit tbh...made me think of Total Recall and the need for three hands.

So readers, judge for yourself regarding this woman.

Marinjohn45

nuac wrote: »

A Bishop Mary Meehan on radio today.

Says she is a Catholic, was ordained a priest and later consecrated a Bishop by a legit Catholic bishop who is in the Apostolic succession. She has ordained other women as priests - about 50, working in the States

Admits that she and those she ordained have been excommunicated by either Pope John Paul 11 or Benedict.

She mentioned that they have been in touch with the Vatican. Says two of her congregation have been invited to a Mass to be said by Pope Francis. Says that that invitation goes some way to negate the excommunication

She is also hopeful that the commission Pope Francis has set up to consider admitting women deacons indicates a possible change of attitude in Rome towards female priests

imho all good news for the Church here

So good to hear this,equality for all human beings !

nuac

lazybones32 wrote: »

There isn't much more to be added to this thread that hasn't already been said on why the RCC cannot ordain female priests, so i'll add a prayer from mary meehan's book "delighting in the feminine divine"


"Womb of creation,
Shekinah, She-Who-Dwells Within
God, the breasted One
Woman mentor
Sophia, holy wisdom
Help women to delight in their identity as imago Dei (images of God)
Angry woman preacher
Liberator of the oppressed
Welcoming hostess
Washerwoman God
Seamstress
Elegant

Transform patriarchial structures and sexist attitudes that prevent us from acknowledging women as imago Dei.

Jesus-Sophia, the crucified One,
Mother Jesus, birthing the world
Merciful Mother Jesus,
Jesus-Sophia,
Healer of our stress
Jesus, mirror of Sophia
Reveal your saving power through women, imago Dei".

That reads like a poem but is listed as a prayer. I liked "the breasted One" bit tbh...made me think of Total Recall and the need for three hands.

So readers, judge for yourself regarding this woman.

Thanks for that, LB32
. I know and have known a number of women active over a broad range of Church work r.g. running schools, hospitals, V de P confeences etc. Those women would be ideal for leadership positions in the Church.

Those I know would not be much into this Earth Mother stuff.

btw I was at a Humanist wedding last year. Was hard to keep a straight face at some of the Celtic pagan stuff. Each to their own

Altho in fairness to the fair sex I know some men in religion whose ideas would not be mainstream

hinault

nuac wrote: »

A Bishop Mary Meehan on radio today.

Admits that she and those she ordained have been excommunicated by either Pope John Paul 11 or Benedict.

Quite right too.

I wonder what the standing is of the "bishop" who "ordained" this woman?

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

Quite right too.

I wonder what the standing is of the "bishop" who "ordained" this woman?

She was ordained a bishop in April 2009 by Bishop Patricia Fresen.

Fresen, in turn, was ordained a bishop in 2003 by Bishop Romulo Antonio Braschi. Braschi is not in communion with Rome, but the sacramental validity of his episcopal ordination is not (so far as I know) in doubt from a Catholic perspective.

So, from a Catholic point of view, the question over the validity of Meehan's ordination comes down to this: is it possible for a woman to be ordained a bishop? Not, is it licit? Or, is it permitted? But, is it possible?

If it is, then Meehan is a bishop, albeit not one in communion with Rome. If it isn't, then she isn't.

The official Catholic teaching on this is that the church lacks the authority to ordain women. This is subtly different from a teaching that women can't be ordained; it's a teaching about the authority of the church, not the capacity of women. This creates a space in which some argue that the ordination of a woman, though unauthorised, is nevertheless valid. I think the predominant theological opinion within the Catholic church, though, is otherwise; the church can only ordain at all because authorised to do so and, if not authorised to ordain women, can't ordain them. And "the church" in this context doesn't mean that part of the church which is in communion with Rome; it means the entirety of the baptised Christian community.

On this view, any movement towards ordaining women in the Catholic church (or accepting the ordination of women in other denominations) has to involve revisiting the teaching that the church lacks the authority to ordain women. Until that's done, the Catholic position will be the Fresen and Meehan are not bishops.

lazybones32

nuac wrote: »

Thanks for that, LB32
. I know and have known a number of women active over a broad range of Church work r.g. running schools, hospitals, V de P confeences etc. Those women would be ideal for leadership positions in the Church.

Those I know would not be much into this Earth Mother stuff.

btw I was at a Humanist wedding last year. Was hard to keep a straight face at some of the Celtic pagan stuff. Each to their own

Altho in fairness to the fair sex I know some men in religion whose ideas would not be mainstream

The point isn't about women being inferior, it is that God has reserved the priesthood for men. The RCC doesn't see itself as having the right or the ability to change that if it wants to remain faithful to the word and example of the Lord.
Human ability isn't the only factor that makes a person suitable for a position of authority or leadership in the Church because thr Church isn't just a human institution...

The ACP have their own ideas that media sources edit when reporting on, and they are airy-fairy too. I'd quote them but i had enough nonsense written for one day.

uck51js9zml2yt

lazybones32 wrote: »

The point isn't about women being inferior, it is that God has reserved the priesthood for men. The RCC doesn't see itself as having the right or the ability to change that if it wants to remain faithful to the word and example of the Lord.
Human ability isn't the only factor that makes a person suitable for a position of authority or leadership in the Church because thr Church isn't just a human institution...

The ACP have their own ideas that media sources edit when reporting on, and they are airy-fairy too. I'd quote them but i had enough nonsense written for one day.

priesthood is an old testament concept and has no place in the new testament. if it were to carried over we surely would have seen it in Acts.

nuac

lazybones32 wrote: »

The point isn't about women being inferior, it is that God has reserved the priesthood for men. The RCC doesn't see itself as having the right or the ability to change that if it wants to remain faithful to the word and example of the Lord.
Human ability isn't the only factor that makes a person suitable for a position of authority or leadership in the Church because thr Church isn't just a human institution...

The ACP have their own ideas that media sources edit when reporting on, and they are airy-fairy too. I'd quote them but i had enough nonsense written for one day.

LB 32 How do you prove that God has reserved the priesthood for men?

lazybones32

That has already been answered by others on the thread.

nuac

lazybones32 wrote: »

That has already been answered by others on the thread.

There have been some assertions here than Jesus reserved the priesthood to men only.

What proof? Pls refer me to the texts upon which you rely?

Or it just ye are afraid of the wimmin?

lazybones32

nuac wrote: »

There have been some assertions here than Jesus reserved the priesthood to men only.

What proof? Pls refer me to the texts upon which you rely?

Or it just ye are afraid of the wimmin?

The texts and basis' you seek are written in this thread between pages 1 and 28.

nuac

lazybones32 wrote: »

The texts and basis' you seek are written in this thread between pages 1 and 28.

Between GAA ( Mayo/Kerry ) and family I do not have much time for theology just now.

Could you refer me to the three most reliable texts from your POV, pls

hinault

nuac wrote: »

There have been some assertions here than Jesus reserved the priesthood to men only.

What proof? Pls refer me to the texts upon which you rely?

Or it just ye are afraid of the wimmin?

You've already been directed to the texts and what the texts describe.

uck51js9zml2yt

lazybones32 wrote: »

The texts and basis' you seek are written in this thread between pages 1 and 28.

It only goes to 9 pages on the PC !

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.

Where in the Bible is it stated that Paul/Saul met Jesus?

uck51js9zml2yt

nuac wrote: »

Where in the Bible is it stated that Paul/Saul met Jesus?

ROad to Damascus

Its interesting to note that Pauls Mentor, Gamaliel is mentioned as advising caution when dealing with Jesus. HE no doubt would have see and heard Him speak. Its quiet likely that the young Paul would have accompanied his teacher on these excursions and heard Jesus for himself ( pure conjecture but plausible)

nuac

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

ROad to Damascus

Its interesting to note that Pauls Mentor, Gamaliel is mentioned as advising caution when dealing with Jesus. HE no doubt would have see and heard Him speak. Its quiet likely that the young Paul would have accompanied his teacher on these excursions and heard Jesus for himself ( pure conjecture but plausible)

Thanks. My recollection is while on the way to Damascus Paul ( then Saul ) was knocked off his horse by a blinding flash. His companions did not refer to anybody else, nor did they hear any conversation.

If Paul had met Jesus then, or at some other time. surely he would described the meeting




.

uck51js9zml2yt

nuac wrote: »

Thanks. My recollection is while on the way to Damascus Paul ( then Saul ) was knocked off his horse by a blinding flash. His companions did not refer to anybody else, nor did they hear any conversation.

If Paul had met Jesus then, or at some other time. surely he would described the meeting




.

Quiet possibly, but we should also remember that we don't have all his writings. There was another letter to the Corinthians that he refers to which we don't have and also one to the Laodicean church. He says to the Colossians to swap theirs with Laodicea.

There's also the book of the wars of the lord and the book of Gad mentioned that we don't have in the OT.

Peregrinus

I think if Paul had met Jesus (other than on the road to Damascus) he would have mentioned it more than once. He regularly defends his authority and standing as an apostle along which those who actually did encounter Jesus, so it would obviously be relevant in those passages to mention any encounters that he had. So it's not just that there might or might not be lost writings that mention encounters with Jesus; it's that there are surviving writings in the context of which you'd expect him to mention any encounters with Jesus, but he doesn't.

As for Gamaliel "no doubt" having seen and heard Jesus preach, there's no reason to think this. Gamaliel was based in Jerusalem; Jesus mostly avoided Jerusalem until the week before his death. Gamaliel does not "advise caution when dealing with Jesus"; he advises caution when dealing with Jesus's followers in Jerusalem, after the death of Jesus.

uck51js9zml2yt

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think if Paul had met Jesus (other than on the road to Damascus) he would have mentioned it more than once. He regularly defends his authority and standing as an apostle along which those who actually did encounter Jesus, so it would obviously be relevant in those passages to mention any encounters that he had. So it's not just that there might or might not be lost writings that mention encounters with Jesus; it's that there are surviving writings in the context of which you'd expect him to mention any encounters with Jesus, but he doesn't.

As for Gamaliel "no doubt" having seen and heard Jesus preach, there's no reason to think this. Gamaliel was based in Jerusalem; Jesus mostly avoided Jerusalem until the week before his death. Gamaliel does not "advise caution when dealing with Jesus"; he advises caution when dealing with Jesus's followers in Jerusalem, after the death of Jesus.

I stand corrected. It is indeed Acts 5.
It would be foolish ( at least in my opinion) to not think that Gamaliel heard Jesus. We do know that the Pharisees regularly went to hear Him speak.
With regards the missing letters by Paul and his hearing Jesus,as I said, pure conjecture but possible.
Is it critical to my faith...No!

Peregrinus

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

I stand corrected. It is indeed Acts 5.
It would be foolish ( at least in my opinion) to not think that Gamaliel heard Jesus. We do know that the Pharisees regularly went to hear Him speak.
With regards the missing letters by Paul and his hearing Jesus,as I said, pure conjecture but possible.
Is it critical to my faith...No!

We know that he was regularly heard by Pharisees. But we have no reason to think that Gamaliel was one of them and, since Gamaliel was mostly in Jerusalem and Jesus mostly wasn't, on the whole it seems more likely not. It's not as if there were a shortage of Pharisees in Palestine at the time.

Lamentabli sane

St John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994):

"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of Our ministry of confirming the brethren. We declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

Roma locuta; causa finita est. (:

feargale

Lamentabli sane wrote: »

St John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994):

Roma locuta; causa finita est. (:

You hear that, folks? You'll all go to hell for talking about it.

uck51js9zml2yt

feargale wrote: »

You hear that, folks? You'll all go to hell for talking about it.

Its OK...they're not talking about us....we're "apostates":D

feargale

Zainab Jealous Wardroom wrote: »

Its OK...they're not talking about us....we're "apostates":D

We could be lucky. We could get away with a belt of an ould crozier.