Are you offended/disturbed by female clergy in Protestantism?

[JonNC]

I often wonder if evangelicals allow women because they don’t have a sacerdotal view of the priesthood/pastorate? It seems that if all a pastor is is a person who presents the Eucharist or leads a celebratory event of praise and didactic sermoning, then there is no one standing in persona christi to offer sacrifice and why limit it to men? The Catholic, Orthodox, and even Anglican (generally) understanding should preclude women completely.

I certainly think the Lutheran view should, too. Of course, our brothers and sisters in the ELCA and Episcopal Churches share a like-minded alternate view.

Jon

 

[1234]

You are quite wrong there. There are Anglican priests who want to be Catholic. I was reading an Anglican conversion story and this man said that his priest told him that he believe that the Catholic Church is the true Church and he himself would have converted as well. But he is a priest and that is all he knows and that is all he wants to do and he doesn’t want to lose that. I think that may have been prior to the granting of a special permission to Anglican priests to remain priests even after their conversion.

I think they do they just don’t voice it.

You have a certain point there but it does not entirely invalidate this thread.

It is good to get what people’s musings are on the subject if for no other reason than to show how far down the wrong track protestant denominations have gone in contravention of Christ’s will.

Anglican clergy who want to become RCC priests now have an opportunity to do so, tho’ it will take longer than the fast-track of the 3 AC bishops in England, a very opportunistic move on Rome’s part. Whether those newly minted RCC former Anglican priests can find ordinariates in which to serve is another matter. Whether in time, converts to the ordinariates, whether lay or priests will regret their decisions, only time will tell. I suspect that many will become perennial malcontents like those who are frequent contributors to this forum.

 

[benedictus2]

All of this is only your opinion. There are so many converts from the RCC to the Protestant denominations and the AC, it is hard to generalize.

That is true. But most converts to protestantism say that they converted because they did not know the Bible when they were in the Catholic Church. So it seems the time they got acquainted with the Bible was when they became Evangelical.

But if you look at the Catholic converts, they convert because of a deeper knowledge of the Bible and history.

The point is that ecumenism to the RCC means converting to the RCC.

Because that is the only way Christ willed.

Christ established only one Church. Why would the Catholic Church compromise Truth by saying that the wrong protestant doctrines have equal standing with the truth that the Church proclaims ?

To Protestants and Anglicans, it means finding common ground, which the Protestants and Anglicans are now doing.

All they will find is the least common denominator. Once you’ve found that, the doctrines that you do no have in common come into stark relief. You realize that yes you all believe in ABC but then there’s the DEF and GHI that you can’t agree on. The other protestant Churches will not give up their DEF and the Anglicans will fight tooth and nail to keep GHI. That leaves you right back where you started - square one.

The ACC is now in communion with about 6 different denominations, including the Moravians and the Evangelical Lutherans, the largest Lutheran denomination in the US. Protestant mergers have been going on for some time. Still other denominations are in communion with each other, if not actually merged.

To say that theological differences is equivalent to stealing and fornication is very insulting to non-Catholic churches.

No I was not equating stealing and fornication to doctrinal differences. The point of the analogy is that you have a wrong view of doctrines and you are asking us to accept your wrong view and abandon the truth.

I don’t think that Protestant denominations feel that they need the RCC, just as the AC and orthodoxy don’t need it.

Whether they feel they need the Catholic Church is beside the point. Feelings have nothing to do with it.

What we have to focus on is Christ not our feelings.

As far Christ is concerned the Catholic Church is needed by the world and that is the only opinion that counts.

The all don’t endorse a celibate clergy either, especially now that they see the potential consequences.

But that again is a misreading of the cause of the clergy scandal. Sexual abuse abound in all the other denominations (actually more than the Catholic Church) and yet they have married clergy. White’s father who was also a pastor abused his daughter and yet he is married.

So that argument is bogus.

Which brings me to question of why there is much fanfare when abuse happens in the Catholic Church but you hardly hear about it when it happens in protestant and secular institutions. Does that not say something ? Does it not highlight the fact that to the world the Catholic Church is the last bastion right moral teaching that is why the failings of her clergy shock us?

Another poster has said that if women want to become priests they should become nuns…? They are not equivalent.

If the reason protestants have priestesses because they do not have a sacerdotal or sacramental view of the priesthood, then the functions of the nun and the protestant priestess are the same.

Female non-Catholic clergy aren’t equivalent to religious sisters nor do they want to be. Most are married, for one thing. Most feel called to be pastors, for another.

You are right there to a degree. Nuns are better because they consecrate themselves to Christ without contravening His will.

 

[benedictus2]

Anglican clergy who want to become RCC priests now have an opportunity to do so, tho’ it will take longer than the fast-track of the 3 AC bishops in England, a very opportunistic move on Rome’s part.

Why is it opportunistic. If they want to convert then why should the Church put blocks if after discernment she felt it was not necessary?

Whether those newly minted RCC former Anglican priests can find ordinariates in which to serve is another matter.

And that we leave onto God’s hands. God has led them home. God will provide what is necessary.

Whether in time, converts to the ordinariates, whether lay or priests will regret their decisions, only time will tell. I suspect that many will become perennial malcontents like those who are frequent contributors to this forum.

That is true. But as in the story of St Peter, when one takes the focus off Christ, one sinks. If they keep their focus on Christ and not on their wishes then God’s Will will triumph. The focus should always be Christ and Christ’s will not our piddly wishes and wants.

 

[Bran_Stark]

Because it is pagan.

I don’t know though how you can not believe the sacramental understanding of priesthood and yet believe that the priest stands “in persona Christi”.

Haha well I am a strange person. I admit it.

But what I mean is that I understand the Catholic theology of Holy Orders. I think it is a compelling and beautiful notion, and priestesses are logically and aesthetically incompatible with it. But what is beautiful is not necessarily true.

 

[benedictus2]

Haha well I am a strange person. I admit it.

But what I mean is that I understand the Catholic theology of Holy Orders. I think it is a compelling and beautiful notion, and priestesses are logically and aesthetically incompatible with it. But what is beautiful is not necessarily true.

Why do you think it is not true?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Sometimes truth and beauty are symbiotic. They are with the priesthood.

Haha well I am a strange person. I admit it.

But what I mean is that I understand the Catholic theology of Holy Orders. I think it is a compelling and beautiful notion, and priestesses are logically and aesthetically incompatible with it. But what is beautiful is not necessarily true.

 

[Roy5]

Benedictus2

Just a quick note. You seem hung up on the notion that anyone who takes issue with any aspect of Catholicism is egotistic, sure that his opinion (mine in this case) is the correct one.

Apparently I don't make my position clear enough for you to understand. I am only suggesting that the Church should provide room for differences of opinion on certain issues. I feel that it has boxed itself in with too many 'infallible' doctrines that more and more thoughtful people find unbelievable and/or unreasonable.

As for me, I certainly don't claim any monopoly on the truth. I simply share my thoughts. This seems to anger you, and I guess I don't fully understand the intensity of your responses. Actually, I think there are vast areas where we don't know the truth - me included, of course. I find that Eastern Orthodoxy, much of Judaism and much of mainline Protestantism leave many things undefined, open to different interpretations. I have been chased away by the style of Catholicism that is so dogmatic that it crushes the right of the faithful to think other than what the Church says it must think.

 Has American democracy influenced me to much that I find it hard to view a church or a book or a preacher as the one and only fountain of spiritual truth? I enjoy the freedom to roam intellectually, ask questions, perhaps reinterpret - and I don't feel that I have to agree with every Catholic teaching that comes down the pike. Millions of other Catholics - many priests and nuns included - agree with me, and many have left the Church because of this intolerance.

 Relax and enjoy these stimulating conversations. And have a happy St. Valentine's Day. After all, the key teaching of our faith is love. "And now abide these three, faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love."

 

[PRmerger]

Benedictus2

Just a quick note. You seem hung up on the notion that anyone who takes issue with any aspect of Catholicism is egotistic, sure that his opinion (mine in this case) is the correct one.

Apparently I don't make my position clear enough for you to understand. I am only suggesting that the Church should provide room for differences of opinion on certain issues.

So there’s the rub, Roy. There’s only “room for differences of opinion on certain issues” that you feel are tolerable.

You allow *yourself *to draw a circle of what’s tolerable, but not the Catholic Church.

Of course, if you want to argue with that, then I’m going to ask if you feel like you “box yourself in” by proclaiming that white supremacists are preaching a different gospel?

 

[1234]

That is true. But most converts to protestantism say that they converted because they did not know the Bible when they were in the Catholic Church. So it seems the time they got acquainted with the Bible was when they became Evangelical.

But if you look at the Catholic converts, they convert because of a deeper knowledge of the Bible and history.
Because that is the only way Christ willed.

Christ established only one Church. Why would the Catholic Church compromise Truth by saying that the wrong protestant doctrines have equal standing with the truth that the Church proclaims ?

All they will find is the least common denominator. Once you’ve found that, the doctrines that you do no have in common come into stark relief. You realize that yes you all believe in ABC but then there’s the DEF and GHI that you can’t agree on. The other protestant Churches will not give up their DEF and the Anglicans will fight tooth and nail to keep GHI. That leaves you right back where you started - square one.

No I was not equating stealing and fornication to doctrinal differences. The point of the analogy is that you have a wrong view of doctrines and you are asking us to accept your wrong view and abandon the truth.
Whether they feel they need the Catholic Church is beside the point. Feelings have nothing to do with it.

What we have to focus on is Christ not our feelings.

As far Christ is concerned the Catholic Church is needed by the world and that is the only opinion that counts.

But that again is a misreading of the cause of the clergy scandal. Sexual abuse abound in all the other denominations (actually more than the Catholic Church) and yet they have married clergy. White’s father who was also a pastor abused his daughter and yet he is married.

So that argument is bogus.

Which brings me to question of why there is much fanfare when abuse happens in the Catholic Church but you hardly hear about it when it happens in protestant and secular institutions. Does that not say something ? Does it not highlight the fact that to the world the Catholic Church is the last bastion right moral teaching that is why the failings of her clergy shock us?

If the reason protestants have priestesses because they do not have a sacerdotal or sacramental view of the priesthood, then the functions of the nun and the protestant priestess are the same.

You are right there to a degree. Nuns are better because they consecrate themselves to Christ without contravening His will.

Regarding the prevalence of sexual abuse, name for me one non-Catholic diocese that has gone bankrupt because of sexual scandal among its clergy. So far in the US, EIGHT dioceses, including two ARCHdioceses have had to declare bankruptcy because of payments for sexual scandals. When sexual scandal becomes known in schools and other secular institutions it is dealt with swiftly, without coverup, and certainly without coverup for decades. The RCC has paid out over TWO BILLION dollars in the US in sexual abuse reclamation cases. I would like to see some facts, please, in your allegations regarding sexual abuse among the Protestant clergy. Each day, new abuses by RCC priests are revealed, one in the New York Times yesterday, Feb. 11, and another in the Catholic News service (which the NYT missed) on Feb. 10, the day before.

You are very wrong to try to say as a defense “Others do it too”. No diocese has made this defense, most notably not the Milwaukee archdiocese, which, in declaring bankruptcy recently, took full responsibility for its culpability.

And do you personally know the extent of Biblical knowledge among Catholic converts? I doubt it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

On another thread, 1234, you said that most Catholics aren’t faithful to the Church and are rogues who do what they want. You actually have no way of knowing that and yet here you tell this poster that he can’t possibly know the extent of biblical knowledge of the average Joe in the pews of the CC. True enough, but just as he doesn’t know the average biblical IQ of Catholic parishoners, you don’t know the piety and obedience levels of said parishoners either?

Bringing up the sex abuse scandal is pointless. It’s a painful, sad, depressing, and tragic blot on the history of this great Church. I’m ashamed and sickened by the clergy that did these things. The Church is full of fallible men. And these men were monsters. I personally think the cardinals, bishops, pastors, and even the last two popes did not do enough to prevent or stop this nightmare. I’m very disappointed at the payouts, the cover-ups, and the lies, and the emails that have come out. I’m disappointed at the slow pace with which it was dealt as well. It took the media and a lot of $$$ and angry folks to wake up the Vatican.

But this has nothing to do with this thread—female clergy. It only serves to hurt Catholics and deliver a low blow. We can’t control some of our sinful clergy anymore than you can yours in the Anglican realm, and yes there are molestors there as well, sadly. They are everywhere. Catholicism has been forced to take a hard look at this and make changes. And finally Benedict XVI is doing something about it and getting aggressive.

Pray for the Catholic Church and all churches that face these trying issues and pray that we can all not have such child predators. But reminding Catholics about it constantly and using it as a tactic to de-legitimize the Church isn’t beneficial IMO.

Regarding the prevalence of sexual abuse, name for me one non-Catholic diocese that has gone bankrupt because of sexual scandal among its clergy. So far in the US, EIGHT dioceses, including two ARCHdioceses have had to declare bankruptcy because of payments for sexual scandals. When sexual scandal becomes known in schools and other secular institutions it is dealt with swiftly, without coverup, and certainly without coverup for decades. The RCC has paid out over TWO BILLION dollars in the US in sexual abuse reclamation cases. I would like to see some facts, please, in your allegations regarding sexual abuse among the Protestant clergy. Each day, new abuses by RCC priests are revealed, one in the New York Times yesterday, Feb. 11, and another in the Catholic News service (which the NYT missed) on Feb. 10, the day before.

You are very wrong to try to say as a defense “Others do it too”. No diocese has made this defense, most notably not the Milwaukee archdiocese, which, in declaring bankruptcy recently, took full responsibility for its culpability.

And do you personally know the extent of Biblical knowledge among Catholic converts? I doubt it.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus2

Just a quick note. You seem hung up on the notion that anyone who takes issue with any aspect of Catholicism is egotistic, sure that his opinion (mine in this case) is the correct one.

You see this is just one of your posts that completely miss what I am getting at. I suggest that you digest what I write better so that we converse properly. There are other protestants who seem to be able to do that…

Point 1: As I keep reiterating it is not about opinion. Truth is not a matter of opinion. Either you are wrong or I am right (hope you get that one).

But seriously you keep harping on about opinion. What we are trying to establish here is what is true. You are a relativist and the relativist position is just self -contradictory.

Point 2: If you want your opinion taken seriously… dialogue. If we say X is Y and provide support, then come back with X is not Y and provide support. The problem with your position as I have said so many times in different threads is that you claim to not to know much and yet you insist that those who know much more than you bow to you. Don’t you think that line of thinking is highly illogical to say the least?

Apparently I don’t make my position clear enough for you to understand. I am only suggesting that the Church should provide room for differences of opinion on certain issues.

But you are not suggesting room for difference of opinion, what you are suggesting is that your opinion (which is that all these opinions are equal) be the guiding opinion. Did you follow that?

I feel that it has boxed itself in with too many ‘infallible’ doctrines that more and more thoughtful people find unbelievable and/or unreasonable.

Boxed itself in? Is there such a thing as boxing oneself in if one has the truth. No. The truth sets one free. Relativism is what imprisons.

Let’s take the example of abortion. Is that a matter of opinon or of truth? Is it really wrong to kill your own child or is that up to you to decide whether murdering your own child is permissible?

You don’t even see the unreasonableness of your position. You say that your are all for differing opinions and yet because the Catholic Church differs in opinion to you call it boxed in, inflexible, etc, etc.

If you are truly for allowing different opinions, then you will respect that this is the Church’s opinion : that there are certain absolute truths that we cannot deny and that the Church has the God given authority to decide on these truths when it pertains to faith and morals.

As for me, I certainly don’t claim any monopoly on the truth.

Good! There is nothing new in that. No human being can claim a monopoly except for that one Man who was the Word in the Beginning.

simply share my thoughts. This seems to anger you, and I guess I don’t fully understand the intensity of your responses.

I am not angered by your thoughts. What annoys me is your manner of posting.

You vent out steam leave and then vent out steam again without even addressing the points that I have raised. It is like you are using this forum just to vent your steam without even wanting to hear what the other is saying.

What annoys me too is your insistence that the Church bow to you. As I have said before this is sheer arrogance considering that you admit yourself that you do not know much.

Unlike the other protestants on this thread who truly express their thoughts, you have this attitude that somehow your position is right and the Church is wrong when you know almost zilch as to the foundations of her doctrine.

That is why I said to you on another thread start reading Catholic Literature. The subject here are priestsses. Before you say the Church should allow this or that, find out first what the Church’s reason are. If the Churches reason are not good enough for you then explain why they are not good enough. That is how you dialogue.

Bran Stark said that he thought the idea of a sacramental view of the priesthood is beautiful but not necessarily true. So I asked him why he does not think it is true. You see, that is the way you dialogue.

You cannot dictate how the Church should and should not do something, The only thing you can say is that you think one of the church’s doctrine is wrong and you set out to prove why it is wrong.

I have explained to you many times that your relativist position of “all faiths are equal” just does not hold water.

Maybe that is something we should settle before you get into any other discussion.

So perhaps the first thing you should process under your thinking cap is the truth or falsity of your main position - relativism - which colours all your discussions and how you perceive reality.

 

[benedictus2]

So there’s the rub, Roy. There’s only “room for differences of opinion on certain issues” that you feel are tolerable.

You allow *yourself *to draw a circle of what’s tolerable, but not the Catholic Church.

Of course, if you want to argue with that, then I’m going to ask if you feel like you “box yourself in” by proclaiming that white supremacists are preaching a different gospel?

Exactly! Succinct and to the point!

 

[benedictus2]

Regarding the prevalence of sexual abuse, name for me one non-Catholic diocese that has gone bankrupt because of sexual scandal among its clergy. So far in the US, EIGHT dioceses, including two ARCHdioceses have had to declare bankruptcy because of payments for sexual scandals. When sexual scandal becomes known in schools and other secular institutions it is dealt with swiftly, without coverup, and certainly without coverup for decades. The RCC has paid out over TWO BILLION dollars in the US in sexual abuse reclamation cases. I would like to see some facts, please, in your allegations regarding sexual abuse among the Protestant clergy. Each day, new abuses by RCC priests are revealed, one in the New York Times yesterday, Feb. 11, and another in the Catholic News service (which the NYT missed) on Feb. 10, the day before.

You are very wrong to try to say as a defense “Others do it too”. No diocese has made this defense, most notably not the Milwaukee archdiocese, which, in declaring bankruptcy recently, took full responsibility for its culpability.

And do you personally know the extent of Biblical knowledge among Catholic converts? I doubt it.

Actually you completely missed the point.

Your argument was that celibacy is the root of the abuse. I said you are wrong, because even in protestant denominations where marriage is allowed sexual abuse happens as well.

Or take for example the statistics. Most of the sexual abuse do not involve women but teenage boys. Are you advocating that to avoid the abuse of teenage boys we should allow homosexuality in clergy and that they should be allowed to marry teenage boys? Ooops, I forgot that some denominations have actually gone down that depraved path.

 

[benedictus2]

Benedictus2
Relax and enjoy these stimulating conversations. And have a happy St. Valentine’s Day. After all, the key teaching of our faith is love. “And now abide these three, faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love.”

And on another note. I do enjoy these conversations. I would not waste my time typing when my knuckles hurt if I don’t. But the problem with you Roy is that you don’t converse.

When you start doing that, it will be even more interesting. At the moment the only reason I respond to your post is to correct the errors in your post for the lurkers.

It would be nice when you actually respond to our posts with a point by point rebuttal. When that happens then you can say we are really conversing. Take a cue from the other posters here. I disagree with 1234 but he does address our points. And i think that’s great.

 

[dzheremi]

For myself, when I converted to the Catholic Church I certainly did learn more of the Bible than I had known as a Protestant. It’s kind of hard not to when there are suddenly several “new” books to contend with that hadn’t been present in the bibles used in my former denomination. Honestly, I felt a little ripped off, like how anyone must feel when they find that something of great importance has been kept from them. Anyway, Gurney’s right, it’s not on topic…which in itself is revealing, as there’s no easier way of ending an argument you can’t win then to switch the focus onto something else…

Back on track: Female “clergy” are truly an abomination, as the original Latin abominari apparently means “shunned as an ill omen” (source), which is no doubt the best to put what we see happening in those errant churches that “ordain” women. Who can claim otherwise? Has the ordaining of women actually been a boon to any church, or has it caused splits, rifts, and weakening everywhere it has been accepted? Ordaining women to a clerical position in the church is like broadcasting a shorthand message to the world: “My church doesn’t know the first thing about Christianity, nor do we care to. We are frivolous. Please come invade us with every heresy imaginable, but for the love of the gods, don’t take away our good time and happy feelings.” I do not take joy in another’s ruin (especially since I know that many people who support women’s ordination really do not understand how utterly anti-Christian it is, and hence are not being purposely defiant), but neither am I terribly surprised when these churches collapse under the weight of the many concessions they have made to the world. It is a sad story, really. Definitely not any sort of moral high ground to stand on amidst any scandal that has hurt other churches. In fact, I would point this out, at the risk of perhaps receiving some sort of infraction: The Catholic Church sex abuse crisis/pandemic hurts all Catholics and Christians everywhere because we have a deep-seated conviction, as people who strive to follow the laws of our God, that it is an especially heinous evil to hurt a child. We do not see a similar fidelity to God in the case of the pro-women’s ordination people, but the exact opposite. They’re instead hurt because some people (mean old Catholics, Orthodox, and some Lutherans) won’t bless their disobedience.

It really makes me wonder if they have any convictions at all about anything.

 

[Bran_Stark]

Why do you think it is not true?

Hm well that’s a very broad and interesting question of course… I guess one reason is that Sola Scriptura part of me which scans the Epistles in vain for the formal hierarchy of Bishops, Priests, & Deacons. But I don’t wish to sound at all like I’m against it. I want to believe it. And when it comes down to it I think I do. But unlike 50 years ago there’s not much of an Anglican church left for protestants of my ilk. Only Rome. Which is rather a bigger leap.

Sometimes truth and beauty are symbiotic. They are with the priesthood.

*“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. *

But I also seem to recall hearing that Satan can appear like an angel of light …

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The priesthood is not of Satan though. It is 2,000 years old, well-documented by the testimony of the Fathers, tradition, and is a sacrament (holy orders) that delivers wonderful blessings to us all in the Church. Tonight I was given absolution at confession and I could feel that forgiveness coming from my priest and it is indeed powerful, just as the Holy Eucharist is the medicine of heaven, brother Bran. Keep your mind open to the priesthood and its wonderous origin in Christ Himself. It is not of Satan. Quite the opposite. God bless you!

Hm well that’s a very broad and interesting question of course… I guess one reason is that Sola Scriptura part of me which scans the Epistles in vain for the formal hierarchy of Bishops, Priests, & Deacons. But I don’t wish to sound at all like I’m against it. I want to believe it. And when it comes down to it I think I do. But unlike 50 years ago there’s not much of an Anglican church left for protestants of my ilk. Only Rome. Which is rather a bigger leap.

*“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. *

But I also seem to recall hearing that Satan can appear like an angel of light …

 

[benedictus2]

Hm well that’s a very broad and interesting question of course… I guess one reason is that Sola Scriptura part of me which scans the Epistles in vain for the formal hierarchy of Bishops, Priests, & Deacons.

Do you think you can be more specific as to what exactly in Scripture you think makes this sacrament not true.?

Also, are you acquainted with Newman’s development of doctrine?

Another thing that I would raise in relation to your objection is the doctrine of the Trinity. This is not exactly set out in the Bible and was determined I think even prior to the determination of the Canon of Scriptures.

But I don’t wish to sound at all like I’m against it. I want to believe it. And when it comes down to it I think I do. But unlike 50 years ago there’s not much of an Anglican church left for protestants of my ilk. Only Rome. Which is rather a bigger leap.

What in your opinion is the biggest divide or rather the biggest hurdle that you need to cross to finally cross the Tiber?

*“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,” – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. *

But I also seem to recall hearing that Satan can appear like an angel of light …

Yes, that is true. And that is why there is such a thing as discernment. This is when St Ignatius Exercises helps a lot.

I have posted in many threads that if Luther at that time had had the Spiritual Exercises he would have woken his obstinance was leading him.

As regards the priesthood which is a matter of doctrine, we can rely on Christ’s promise that He will send the Holy Spirit to lead His Church into all truth.

If the Catholic priesthood is an error whispered by the the father of lies, then what we have here is that Christ has abandoned His Church. The implications are staggering because that means billions have been lead into idolatry and to error.

If the Church is wrong about this, then how do we know that she is right about everything else? Perhaps she also got the Canon of Scripture wrong, and perhaps the doctrine of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ is doubtful as well.

So we open up doubt on the very bedrock of Christianity - that God became incarnate to save us all from sin.

 

[benedictus2]

Ordaining women to a clerical position in the church is like broadcasting a shorthand message to the world: “My church doesn’t know the first thing about Christianity, nor do we care to. We are frivolous. Please come invade us with every heresy imaginable, but for the love of the gods, don’t take away our good time and happy feelings.”

Oh dzheremi, you are brilliant! :clapping::clapping: