Anglican leaders prepare new drive to approve women bishops

  • Thread starter Thread starter jwinch2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
donna369 said:
😃 i love having these little tidbits of trivia. i heard this a long time ago and just searched for it for you:)
this is just one site that gave a pretty straightforward set of answers to why priests can’t marry, informing you of the fact that they did indeed used to be allowed to:
wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_aren%27t_Catholic_priests_allowed_to_marry

here is just one of the explanations:
**Answer
In the early days of the Catholic Church, the leaders ended the practice of priests marrying in order to stop the property, money and land of the church from being “inherited” away from the church. That is, from priests leaving money and land to wives and children when they died. If a priest was never married, then he had no family to leave anything to, therefore all the wealth accumulated by the church would stay in the Church. **
and
**Priests were allowed to marry during the 1st century and after only when the catholic church wanted to change this tradition while the orthodox church wanted to keep around 1054 AD this was one of the issues that caused the schism between the orthodox and catholic church.

It can be seen from two aspects - Political and Religious:

Political - the bishop of Rome as he was called then did not want the priests family inheriting his wealth so by letting priests not get married this was solved.

Religious - that the priest is married to the Church, and should be at her disposal at all times.
**
theres much more to see if you care to look
Click to expand...
I think you (and all the answers) are mistaken. A priest was never allowed to marry. A married man could be and was ordained into the priesthood, but could never marry after he became a priest. That is a very important distinction. It also should be noted, that after the 6th century, a majority of priests were religious, and therefore celibate. As religious took vows. The rise and dominance of religious orders in the west probably really influenced the priesthood in general. As religious increased people expected all priests to be celibate. Also, as far as the property thing, this I think is overblown as the real reason. It was not so much that priests would leave their money and property to their children, it was that priests were able to leave church buildings to their children, that sons would get pushed for “promotions” within the church, and general corruption.

Remember, anyone can write anything on the internet, it doesn’t make it true. Check your sources.
 
jilly4ski said:
I think you (and all the answers) are mistaken. A priest was never allowed to marry. A married man could be and was ordained into the priesthood, but could never marry after he became a priest. That is a very important distinction. It also should be noted, that after the 6th century, a majority of priests were religious, and therefore celibate. As religious took vows. The rise and dominance of religious orders in the west probably really influenced the priesthood in general. As religious increased people expected all priests to be celibate. Also, as far as the property thing, this I think is overblown as the real reason. It was not so much that priests would leave their money and property to their children, it was that priests were able to leave church buildings to their children, that sons would get pushed for “promotions” within the church, and general corruption.

Remember, anyone can write anything on the internet, it doesn’t make it true. Check your sources.
Click to expand...
Amen, God Bless, Memaw
We tend to believe what we want to believe whither its true or not.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Yep! Relativism at its best! Catering to folks and compromising the Truth. How sad!
Click to expand...
Casey123 said:
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Roll your eyes…but that is exactly what it is…like it or not! Ordaining openly gays folks is not compromising the Truth? They rather please humans and conform to them rather comforming to God.
 
FWIW, I wholeheartedly support the ordination of women. I have grave reservations about much of what the leadership of the Episcopal Church does, and I’m glad I don’t have to always do what they say, but I have no reservations about this.
 
masuwerte said:
FWIW, I wholeheartedly support the ordination of women. I have grave reservations about much of what the leadership of the Episcopal Church does, and I’m glad I don’t have to always do what they say, but I have no reservations about this.
Click to expand...
And do you support the ordination of openly gay men and women to be bishops?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
And do you support the ordination of openly gay men and women to be bishops?
Click to expand...
masuwerte said:
No. But that’s off topic for this thread, anyway.
Click to expand...
No it is not. Both involve relativism and its influence on religious institutions. No offense, but it is the classic case of: I support that position, but I reject the other. Both are very related.
 
Haha, I guess we were typint at the same time. No, I don’t believe the positions are closely related at all.
 
masuwerte said:
Exactly, the topic is women bishops, not openly gay male or female bishops. It’s possible to support the former without supporting the latter.
Click to expand...
And nonetheless, but both involve relativism…no way around it.
 
From your perspective, doesn’t the very existence of non-Catholic Christianity involve relativism?
 
masuwerte said:
Haha, I guess we were typint at the same time. No, I don’t believe the positions are closely related at all.
Click to expand...
Granted not the same issue, I’ll give you that much. But both involve relativism…Women ordination and ordination of openly gay men and women in your respective communities.
 
masuwerte said:
From your perspective, doesn’t the very existence of non-Catholic Christianity involve relativism?
Click to expand...
That is a very broad topic and very complex due to the fact there are so many denominations out there and many teachings involved. Some more than others and others a lot less, I am making an educated guess here. Case in point, ordination of openly gay folks is one and females as priests and bishops- both relativism.
 
I think those two things are very far apart indeed. But perhaps it depends on one’s point of view, to some extent. May I ask, in your opinion, may celibate homosexual men be candidates for ordination?
 
Nicea325 said:
Roll your eyes…but that is exactly what it is…like it or not! Ordaining openly gays folks is not compromising the Truth? They rather please humans and conform to them rather comforming to God.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not. We’re all God’s children, no exceptions, and when God calls you to serve, whether you’re gay or straight, man or woman, you answer.
40.png
Nicea325:
And do you support the ordination of openly gay men and women to be bishops?
Click to expand...
Of course I do.
40.png
nicea325:
Case in point, ordination of openly gay folks is one and females as priests and bishops- both relativism.
Click to expand...
I’ll leave you with this, “I know there are some people who cannot understand why women are allowed to become priests. People who are worried that soon there will be pantyhose drying on the vestry radiator and that ‘hymns’ will have to be called ‘hers’. But you know, they shouldn’t worry; because why they’re worrying about these little things, they’re forgetting to worry about the big things - like how much you help those who need help and how much you love people and show your love to them.”
 
Casey123 said:
No, it’s not. We’re all God’s children, no exceptions, and when God calls you to serve, whether you’re gay or straight, man or woman, you answer.

Of course I do.

I’ll leave you with this, “I know there are some people who cannot understand why women are allowed to become priests. People who are worried that soon there will be pantyhose drying on the vestry radiator and that ‘hymns’ will have to be called ‘hers’. But you know, they shouldn’t worry; because why they’re worrying about these little things, they’re forgetting to worry about the big things - like how much you help those who need help and how much you love people and show your love to them.”
Click to expand...
Agree completely. I see this as a teaching moment to prepare some Roman Catholics for what is most definitely facing them. Will they flee to another denomination to be “right” or apply their God-given compassion to their fellow man?
 
To suggest that people cannot believe in objective truth and also be compassionate to those in need is to create false dichotomy. The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world. Can we do more? Of course. Should we? Absolutely. Should we compromise the truth while doing so? Never.
 
jwinch2 said:
To suggest that people cannot believe in objective truth and also be compassionate to those in need is to create false dichotomy. The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world. Can we do more? Of course. Should we? Absolutely. Should we compromise the truth while doing so? Never.
Click to expand...
The “truth” that you may cling to is not the Gospel in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top