A Contradiction?

[MrS]

RESPONSE

“It was and always will be.” Shall I start listing the exceptions?

The declaration of the Assumption is an easier example to show “new truth.” When was it first heard of?

“So when the Pope does speak with infallibility, EVERYONE is subject to that Truth.”

Really? Do you believe that it is the will of God that all (Luthran) heretics be burned at the stake? The pope infallibly says you must!

Exsurge Domine. Pope Leo X. Bull. Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther. June 15, 1520

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, **we decree and declare **that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and **under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication… **Condemned thesis: “33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

You do believe that, don’t you?

ah yes, another Catholic confused by what criteria are required for a Pope, or a Pope with all the bishops in union with him… to speak or teach infallibly.

Me thinks you are also unaware of the difference between Truth, and the “truth” that heresies must be condemned.



.

 

[GeorgeSword]

RESPONSE

Exsurge Domine. Pope Leo X. Bull. Condemning the Errors of Martin Luther. June 15, 1520

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, **we decree and declare **that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . . We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and **under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication… **Condemned thesis: “33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

You do believe that, don’t you?

By all means, see the above post. But I don’t see where it says anything about burning… all I see is a rejection of the errors and a call for their excommunication. And that, I do believe.

 

[JP_Marat]

And do you suppose that you are right on this matter and St. Paul is wrong?

RESPONSE:

I don’t know. Should we allow women to teach?

I got into some trouble in Cathlic elementary school over that issue. Each fifth grade student was to select a passage of scripture to read to the class. I chose:

1 Timothy 2:12 " But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

But Sister Josephine was quite put out by my selection.

 

[EnterCanaan]

BIBLICAL ANSWER:
It is not OK for a woman to preach in a church. **I Corinthians 14:34 **says:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

This teaches that when the whole congregation comes together, women are to be silent.
**I Timothy 2:11-12 **declares:

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

The matter of women preaching, women elders, and women deacons, is all a violatino of the Word of God, and it indicates the rebellion that is in the churches against the authority of the Scriptures.

The same is true for women evangelists; women are not to preach to or teach men. A woman missionary can be a translator for a Bible translator organization, that is, translate from one language to another, or teach women of a different culture, but women are not to lead a Bible study that includes men, and women are not to preach in the congregation.

We read in judges 4 and 5 that Deborah was an Old Testament judge; we read in II Kings 22 that Huldah was a prophetess; and Anna came into the temple and made declarations, according to Luke 2; there are maybe a half a dozen examples like these in the Bible. this is true even though every apostle was a man, every prophet with these few exceptions was a man, every priest with no exceptions was a man, and so to set the record straight and make sure there was no misunderstanding, god clearly states in I Corinthians 14 that women are to be silent in the congregation.

God had His own reasons for making those exceptions, for example, in the days of the judges, there was a lot of rebellion against God, but when God commanded the assault on the Philistines, Deborah would not go unless Barak the king went with her.

I Timothy 3, God declares that churches are to have bishops, which is another name for elders, and He gives the qualifications that these men must meet. In no circumstances can a women meet these qualifications.

Mankind today thinks he knows more than God. They are taking a terrible risk because the moment we start to violate God’s rules, we do not have God’s blessing. We cannot afford to violate God’s rules. It is much better and far more God-glorifying to always try to do things God’s way.

They have to make their alibi though, so they read in Galatians 3:28:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

But in order to understand this passage, we must find another passage with similar doctrine, similar teaching, and so this fits in perfectly with another scripture that we read in Acts 10:34-35:

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

This has one meaning, and that is that if you are a child of God, it matters not what color of your skin is, what language you speak, if your maimed, retarded, poor, rich, male or female. God is not a respecter of persons in that He loves all those who would become saved. But any other interpretation would be an incorrect interpretation as this can only mean one thing, So to use these verses as proof to show women are indeed able to teach, would be in violation of the rest of Gods law, which is the Bible, because clearly that is a contradiction. So compare scripture to scripture to fully get the meaning.

Comparing scripture with scripture is the only way to understand the meaning of the Bible, which is God’s law book. Taking a verse here or there will lead to a incorrect understanding, as you only looked superficially. But by comparing scripture to scripture a person can get a harmony which does not violate any of Gods laws.

God Bless

 

[adriancombe]

RESPONSE:

The doesn’t “Sacred Tradition” require that priests be male, of the Jewish faith, and have a background in the fishing inductry or tax collection too?

JPM

No. We also don’t require them to be Martians or be able to levitate. Any other off the wall questions?

 

[LilyM]

This makes me wonder…Rome has now opened her doors to married Anglican priests who convert to the Catholic faith, allowing them to continue in their priesthood. Will she next allow female Anglican priests to continue their calling as Catholics? Probably not immediately (or for many, many years), but it seems to follow naturally.

Not at all. The difference between ordination of married men and ordination of women is that the requirement that priests be celibate is discipline, not dogma. Ordination of women is dogma.

Discipline is capable of change, and in fact the discipline regarding celibate priests DID change - for the first 1,000 years or so of Church history (half its history), priests could be and were married. Even today, priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches, who are just as much Catholic as Latin Rite Catholics, can still be married.

On the contrary there have NEVER been any woman in church history who we know beyond doubt to have been validly ordained as priests. I’d love anyone to name a few. So far we have St Brigid allegedly being MISTAKENLY (not validly) ordained, and the utter myth of Pope Joan that doesn’t even deserve the dignity of a response.

 

[Richleebruce]

The binding and loosing probably refer the sacrament of reconciliation. Obviously they do not give the Pope the right to teach things contrary to Jesus and the earlier tradition of the Church.

 

[adrift]

RESPONSE

The declaration of the Assumption is an easier example to show “new truth.” When was it first heard of?

the Feast of the Assumption of Mary was celebrated in Syria in the fifth century but that does not mean it originated then. It began with the Apostles who found her empty grave.

The pope infallibly says you must!

This statement demonstrates a misunderstanding of what infallibility is. Unless of course you can provide a document that says the Pope intended it to be infallible?

Please demonstrate specifically in a writing before 1900 that the Church claimed that the only reason for the nonordination of women was that priests have to be male. That wasn’t the original reason given.

Ephraim the Syrian, St [306-373 AD] On the Nativity of Christ in the Flesh

"If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God.

Tertullian [160-240 AD] On the Veiling of Virgins

It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church [1 Cor 14:34–35], but neither [is it permitted her] . . . to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say sacerdotal office"

 

[JP_Marat]

Adrift posted:

Re: A Contradiction?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Marat
RESPONSE

The declaration of the Assumption is an easier example to show “new truth.” When was it first heard of?

the Feast of the Assumption of Mary was celebrated in Syria in the fifth century but that does not mean it originated then. It began with the Apostles who found her empty grave.<<

RESPONSE:

Please present your evidence for that yarn.

Quote:
The pope infallibly says you must!

This statement demonstrates a misunderstanding of what infallibility is. Unless of course you can provide a document that says the Pope intended it to be infallible? <<

RESPONSE:

The Apostolic Constitution declaring that the Assumption is an infallible teaching was promulgated by Pope Pius XII in 1950. It’s on the web in a number of places.

Quote:
Please demonstrate specifically in a writing before 1900 that the Church claimed that the **only reason **for the nonordination of women was that priests have to be male. That wasn’t the original reason given.

Ephraim the Syrian, St [306-373 AD] On the Nativity of Christ in the Flesh

Quote:
"If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God. <<

RESPONSE:
Where does it say that the only reason for non-ordination is that a woman has to be male? It says that a woman cannot assume ecclesiastical office, **but does not use the “persona of Christ” argument. **That is a recent invention

Tertullian [160-240 AD] On the Veiling of Virgins

Quote:
It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church [1 Cor 14:34–35], but neither [is it permitted her] . . . to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say sacerdotal office" <<

RESPONSE:

Where does it say that the **only reason **for non-ordination is that a priest has to be a male. It says the **reason women cannot be a priest is that a woman in not allowed to speak in church. ** Again **no “persona of Christ” argument **is attempted.

 

[MrS]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/WHYWOMEN.TXT

History, however, shows that the first Christians believed that Christ intended a male-
only priesthood.

“We know it is so because early in even the second and third centuries some people
went ahead and admitted women to at least priestly functions, if not to ordination, and
those people were considered heretics,” she explained. “The response was that this was
not what Christ willed, and it’s against apostolic teaching.”

, a 1976 declaration by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith, details the early Church’s response to the Gnostics and other radical
Christian sects that supported women priestly roles. The Fathers of the Church, the
Vatican said, “immediately censured this step, judging it a novelty which should on no
account be accepted into the Church.”

The declaration, which was approved by Pope Paul VI and remains the Church’s most
explicit explanation of its teaching on women’s ordination, recounts that beginning
with early Church leaders such as St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and St. John
Chrysostom, and extending through the Middle Ages down to the current popes, the
male-only priesthood was an unquestioned tradition.

Even the Oriental or Eastern churches, which split with the Roman Church over many
theological issues, never questioned that tradition. The question came up with the
Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. The Protestant churches effectively
abandoned the idea of the priesthood in favor of “a pastoral ministry” in which men
and women could participate.

 

[JP_Marat]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/WHYWOMEN.TXT

History, however, shows that the first Christians believed that Christ intended a male-
only priesthood.

“We know it is so because early in even the second and third centuries some people
went ahead and admitted women to at least priestly functions, if not to ordination, and
those people were considered heretics,” she explained. “The response was that this was
not what Christ willed, and it’s against apostolic teaching.”

, a 1976 declaration by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith, details the early Church’s response to the Gnostics and other radical
Christian sects that supported women priestly roles. The Fathers of the Church, the
Vatican said, “immediately censured this step, judging it a novelty which should on no
account be accepted into the Church.”

The declaration, which was approved by Pope Paul VI and remains the Church’s most
explicit explanation of its teaching on women’s ordination, recounts that beginning
with early Church leaders such as St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and St. John
Chrysostom, and extending through the Middle Ages down to the current popes, the
male-only priesthood was an unquestioned tradition.

Even the Oriental or Eastern churches, which split with the Roman Church over many
theological issues, never questioned that tradition. The question came up with the
Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. The Protestant churches effectively
abandoned the idea of the priesthood in favor of “a pastoral ministry” in which men
and women could participate.

RESPONSE:

No. Jesus merely accepted the male dominance in his time. How many women were physicians, lawyers, etc. at that time?

Please show evidence of the claims that you are asserting. And also an explanation of their revelance today.

Did women occupy leadership roles in the early Churches? Were there ever ordained women deacons in the Eastern Churches?

Perhaps you’d like to check out these documents:

The text of the ordination rituals for women deacons has been preserved in a few precious manuscripts:

an abbreviated form in the Apostolic Constitutions (500 AD);

a Greek Byzantine ritual, as found in the Barberini gr. 336 manuscript (the manuscript dates to around 780 AD);

a Greek Byzantine ritual, as found in the Grottaferrata gr. Gb1 manuscript (around 1020 AD);

a Greek Byzantine ritual, as found in Vatican manuscript gr. 1872 (the manuscript is from the 11th century or older);

a Greek Byzantine ritual as found in the Coislin gr. 213 Manuscript;
in seven Greek manuscripts from which a reconstructed rite for the ordination of women deacons was compiled by Goar;

a Syriac ritual in an Indian, Nestorian manuscript

I think most are on the web. Use your search function.

The reasons originally argued against an male only Holy Orders were that Paul did not allow women to teach, women were naturally inferior to men and were to live in subjection, and women had a defect in their reasoning such as found in imbeciles (thank Aquinas for that one).

Do we still consider these to correct teachings today?

 

[MrS]

do we still have women deacons today?

 

[MrS]

RESPONSE:

No. Jesus merely accepted the male dominance in his time. How many women were physicians, lawyers, etc. at that time?

hahahaha Yeah, Jesus was no rebel and no one to change things… He merely accepted… hahahahahahaha

So, who is it that you want so desparately to be the first (invalid) woman priest in your family?

.

 

[adrift]

Adrift posted:

Re: A Contradiction?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Marat
RESPONSE

Please present your evidence for that yarn.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

The Pope said he did not have the authority since the Pope decides what is true, not what he wants. The Pope does not have the authority to decide that Coffee can be used instead of wine for the Eucharist, or that berr can be used for baptism instead of water. The Church also does not have the authority to dissolve a valid sacramental marriage between two Catholics that consummated it. Pope’s job is to teach the Faith, he is the final judge, he has the Holy Spirit backing him, he does not have the authority to do what he wants, he can’t canonize himself a saint

 

[adrift]

RESPONSE:

No. Jesus merely accepted the male dominance in his time. How many women were physicians, lawyers, etc. at that time?

Wrong question. The question should be were there priestesses? They were common.
The priesthood was established by God. God chose Aaron the older brother of Moses to establish the priesthood. It would have been acceptable to have had women. Aaron’s sister Marion was a leader. It was God’s will that it be men only. To believe that God wanted women but men thwarted His will is pure fiction.

Did women occupy leadership roles in the early Churches? Were there ever ordained women deacons in the Eastern Churches?

Apphia ,Lydia of Thyatira, and Nympha of Laodicea. There were never any women ordained into the priesthood. That includes deacons.

Perhaps you’d like to check out these documents:

The text of the ordination rituals for women deacons has been preserved in a few precious manuscripts:

an abbreviated form in the Apostolic Constitutions (500 AD);

a Greek Byzantine ritual, as found in the Barberini gr. 336 manuscript (the manuscript dates to around 780 AD);

a Greek Byzantine ritual, as found in the Grottaferrata gr. Gb1 manuscript (around 1020 AD);

a Greek Byzantine ritual, as found in Vatican manuscript gr. 1872 (the manuscript is from the 11th century or older);

a Greek Byzantine ritual as found in the Coislin gr. 213 Manuscript;
in seven Greek manuscripts from which a reconstructed rite for the ordination of women deacons was compiled by Goar;

a Syriac ritual in an Indian, Nestorian manuscript

They do not support women being ordained as priest.

If you walk into any secular (and perhaps even Catholic) bookstore, you’ll inevitably run across any number of books that claim to have unearthed ancient evidence in favor of the Catholic Church ordaining women to the priesthood. The average Catholic might not know where to begin when refuting these texts, but a review of what the Church Fathers said on the matter is a good place to start (see catholic.com/answers/tracts/_wpriest.htm ).

Some early Christian women belonged to orders of virgins, widows, and deaconesses, which are all forerunners of modern nuns. However, none of these orders were ordained to the priesthood. Since there were sects in the first centuries, especially within Gnosticism, that allowed women to become priestesses, the Church Fathers too the question under consideration but rejected the idea as incompatible with the faith.

The reasons originally argued against an male only Holy Orders were that Paul did not allow women to teach, women were naturally inferior to men and were to live in subjection, and women had a defect in their reasoning such as found in imbeciles (thank Aquinas for that one).

Can you provide evidence that this was the original argument especially that Paul taught women were inferior to men and has a defect in their reasoning?

Do we still consider these to correct teachings today?

The Church couldn’t be plainer so I do not know why you are confused.

 

[JP_Marat]

hahahaha Yeah, Jesus was no rebel and no one to change things… He merely accepted… hahahahahahaha

So, who is it that you want so desparately to be the first (invalid) woman priest in your family?

.

RESPONSE:

Why would I want anyone in my family to be a priest at all?

 

[JP_Marat]

JP Marat;5936416:

Adrift posted:

Re: A Contradiction?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Marat
RESPONSE

Warren H. Carroll “A History of Christendom” The Catholic Encyclopedia.

Ah! Your comment was not about the Assumption

This statement demonstrates a misunderstanding of what infallibility is. Unless of course you can provide a document that says the Pope intended it to be infallible?

So you say. Why does it have to be the ONLY reason. That they attest that it was men only is enough.

RESPONSE:

Warren H. Carroll “A History of Christendom” The Catholic Encyclopedia. ? Would you narrow that down a bit. Or can I just quote you the World Book Encyclopedia as proof of anything? And after reading Warren H. Carroll’s works, do you consider them to be reliable references or apologetic texts?

The popes did not use the word “infallible” in either the decrees about the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption.

“That they attest that it was men only is enough”

Did they attest that Psalm 104 was literal and that the earth doesn’t move and the sun revolves around the earth? Is that proof that it is so or only proof that they were mistaken?

 

[JP_Marat]

The Pope said he did not have the authority since the Pope decides what is true, not what he wants. The Pope does not have the authority to decide that Coffee can be used instead of wine for the Eucharist, or that berr can be used for baptism instead of water. The Church also does not have the authority to dissolve a valid sacramental marriage between two Catholics that consummated it. Pope’s job is to teach the Faith, he is the final judge, he has the Holy Spirit backing him, he does not have the authority to do what he wants, he can’t canonize himself a saint

RESPONSE:

“since the Pope decides what is true,” Catholics can’t decide; the pope does that for them, Right?

“The Pope does not have the authority to decide that Coffee can be used instead of wine for the Eucharist, or that berr can be used for baptism instead of water.”

RESPONSE:

Sure he does if you believe the line “Whatever you bind on earth…etc.”

“he has the Holy Spirit backing him”

RESPONSE:

And all Catholics have to believe that, right?

 

[JP_Marat]

do we still have women deacons today?

RESPONSE:

I don’t know. But we have women priests.