Denominations which allow Women Pastors.

[Peter_J]

The other option, of-course, is to stay in the Anglican Communion, as you have, and avoid, at all costs, any interaction with female clergy. What does one do when visiting other parishes? Do you call ahead to ask if the priest is a male?

Didn’t your mother ever tell you that accommodation means accommodating liberals only?

 

[Telstar]

I think we should leave this thread to the subject of the OP, and take the discussion of the Bible Canon to this thread, instead.

Just a thought.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Didn’t your mother ever tell you that accommodation means accommodating liberals only?

:sad_yes:

 

[Sy_Noe]

believe

1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town. Verb phrases

know

1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.
2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?
3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.
4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.
5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually followed by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.
6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another: to know right from wrong.

I happen to believe that believe and know are two different words with two different meanings even tho there seem to be many that use these words as if they mean the same exact thing.

Sometimes God rewards our belief with knowledge but even fervent belief, in my opinion, does not change belief into knowledge.

One of the strange things about knowledge from God is that, sometimes at least, one finds what one is not necessarily looking for, God can be quite the surpriser.

Great post Tom. I think too believe and know are 2 different words but that many seem to believe they are the same.

 

[Novocastrian]

Well, it simply makes one an easy target for a non-believer.

When a Christian, who has rejected the authority of the CC to discern the NT canon, says, “Well, Jesus said that unless you have to come through Me to get to heaven”, all the non-believer has to say is: “well, since you’re not sure that the CC got it right about the Gospel of John being inspired, I guess you’re not really sure that Jesus said that, so why should I be a Christian?”

Let’s assume that this is the case. That being so, why can’t the same non-Christian ask the Roman Catholic, “But how do you know that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible?” Surely you either have an infinite regress of infallibilities, or you (at some point) have a faith which is not epistemologically certain?

 

[TheSeeker2014]

Ah, yes. Thank you. Finally a list of criteria.

Who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews? How do you know?

And where did the Gospel of Mark come from?

And why does that list exclude the Shepherd of Hermas? Wouldn’t it also be considered theopneustos if one applies the same critera?

Hey look you actually read this time … perhaps you should scroll backwards and see what I said.
It is a little unknown who wrote the book… but I believe paul did. How? because the pattern of speech and his style of writing.
The Gospel ACCORDING to Mark would be the correct term. I doubt there is script of Mark being Jesus.
Havent read Hermas yet so I cannot answer that for myself.

Well since you actually are interested in actually reading and considering ones answer to be an answer, perhaps you should just re-read what I have posted as my answers are there. Have a good rest of your days. only replied because you actually observed this time that I had answered you.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Let’s assume that this is the case. That being so, why can’t the same non-Christian ask the Roman Catholic, “But how do you know that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible?” Surely you either have an infinite regress of infallibilities, or you (at some point) have a faith which is not epistemologically certain?

Exactly

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s assume that this is the case. That being so, why can’t the same non-Christian ask the Roman Catholic, “But how do you know that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible?” Surely you either have an infinite regress of infallibilities, or you (at some point) have a faith which is not epistemologically certain?

Best answer here:

Infallibility of the Church proved from Scripture
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5122730&postcount=91

 

[PRmerger]

Hey look you actually read this time …

I find this comment curious.

Was it not you who made an accusation about me stating that “they just picked up whatever Christians at that time were reading”?

When, in fact, I never said that at all. You never read that in a post I made.

It appears, then, that it is YOU who are not reading my posts. Or at least imagining things that are not there.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

I find this comment curious.

Was it not you who made an accusation about me stating that “they just picked up whatever Christians at that time were reading”?

When, in fact, I never said that at all. You never read that in a post I made.

It appears, then, that it is YOU who are not reading my posts. Or at least imagining things that are not there.

now you share my annoyance. Goodbye.

 

[PRmerger]

now you share my annoyance. Goodbye.

That’s too bad. sad face

It seems though that I am correct.

You can accuse me of not reading your posts but it turns out that it is actually you who are guilty of your own criticism.

And when that is pointed out to you, you are annoyed.

 

[Novocastrian]

Best answer here:

Infallibility of the Church proved from Scripture
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5122730&postcount=91

That’s an (unconvincing) answer to the hypothetical question, not to my actual question. I repeat: what use is infallibility if it can only be apprehended fallibly?

 

[TheSeeker2014]

yes. Took a year or two (worked on everyday) it was only the basics on them. example who wrote or who could be the writer from this and this as clues … ect
way of lift at that time and the traditions that was commonly held in that place and time. ect

Nah, just annoyed at the fact you did not observe my answers I gave, hint you kept asking for the criteria. You share that annoyance from my comment i made just recently. Hard to discuss with someone about something who refuses to observe an answer unless of course it is one they agree with. This was from july 1. Just an example for you. Thought i would make this post to refer to july 1.

anywho, looks like this discussion between us is over with. I answered and you finally observed and had your question answered. took a while but it happen… can’t criticize progress not matter how slow. :clapping:

This is just advice that when you are ready to post take the time to really look at someones answer and ask them to expand on it if you need more clarity rather than just dismissing it. Makes you look more interested in learning or even the consideration that perhaps there is some truth to another poster rather than just proving your way is the only way by rejecting the whole entire thing. Also makes you look less arrogant. (not saying you are but how you may appear to other posters.) that is not the way to witness if your way is really the only way (relying only on the Church for answers about scripts). I recommend really thinking about something before dismissing it completely. I have enjoyed our conversation despite the tiny annoyance of you being a little hasty in wanting to reply and missed my answer(s). There are nuggets of truth everywhere and there are reasons why different people have different beliefs. not saying they are all true…but understanding is key and from just understanding yourself could learn something. Hopefully others who have been reading this forum will also consider what I have wrote.
God bless RPMerger. May you grow ever closer and take this as a consideration rather than a bashing criticism. not intended to be but your choice. Farewell. :tiphat:

EDIT only did that last post about those two things that you did not say to get your attention about what you were doing and how annoying it can be for someone who just wants to learn from another…
of course this whole thing would be vain if that was not your intention.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s an (unconvincing) answer to the hypothetical question, not to my actual question. I repeat: what use is infallibility if it can only be apprehended fallibly?

Well, that’s interesting, since I never saw that question at all. What you asked was this: “But how do you know that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible?”

Let’s assume that this is the case. That being so, why can’t the same non-Christian ask the Roman Catholic,** “But how do you know that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible?” **Surely you either have an infinite regress of infallibilities, or you (at some point) have a faith which is not epistemologically certain?

And I answered it with a very logical, reasoned and Scriptural response, via poster Randy Carson.

Now, if you want me to answer the new question that you just posed, I can certainly do that:

I answer this new question with the same answer that you give when I ask you: how do you know that Jesus died for your sins? Do you think that this revelation that you have been given is true and without error? How do you know it is without error?

 

[Contarini]

Best answer here:

Infallibility of the Church proved from Scripture
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5122730&postcount=91

But there are two fatal problems with this:

1. Not everyone agrees with your or Randy’s interpretation of these texts (so we’re back to private interpretation) and
2. The authority of Scripture rests on the testimony of the Catholic Church in the first place.

The “spiral argument” fails utterly, because, again, the idea that one can prove the authenticity of the passages in question by purely historical means is far from certain. Indeed, it isn’t shared by most scholars, even most Christian scholars.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

But there are two fatal problems with this:

1. Not everyone agrees with your or Randy’s interpretation of these texts (so we’re back to private interpretation) and

Irrelevant.

1. The authority of Scripture rests on the testimony of the Catholic Church in the first place.

The “spiral argument” fails utterly, because, again, the idea that one can prove the authenticity of the passages in question by purely historical means is far from certain. Indeed, it isn’t shared by most scholars, even most Christian scholars.

Edwin

I think the bolded section is backwards.

It is through the authority of the Church that we know what is theopneustos.

Authority belongs with the Church, not with the Scriptures, as this argument is being presented.

But we first start with the historical reliability of the ancient Christian texts, which I keep hearing from Catholic apologists is quite reliable.

You are the only person I’ve ever encountered in all my years here who has ever said that the historical reliability of the NT is suspect.

The ONLY one.

 

[Novocastrian]

I answer this new question with the same answer that you give when I ask you: how do you know that Jesus died for your sins? Do you think that this revelation that you have been given is true and without error? How do you know it is without error?

By my faith, which is all too weak and fallible.

This is precisely my point. Any argument for infallibility, which you clearly consider the sine qua non of defensible Christianity, is at some point going to have to be accepted by a fallible human being. You are building upon sand.

 

[rinnie]

You are truly a sweet and caring person but this has been done before and I’m mentally not going there. My point was merely that I think that people have to believe they have no choice in order to make those assertions. If they are struggling and believe in the Church, they will just be told they have to ignore their feelings and believe it. No matter what. If they see this is the only place that can stamp their ticket they will have no choice but to agree with something even if they don’t --they will MAKE themselves believe it. I’m just saying if they don’t believe in the Church they should just leave. That would make all of this arguing unnecessary.

I have learned long ago on here that expressing what I believe will get my stuffed deleted. This is, after all, a Catholic forum. I like hearing from people and I read things because the forum is gracious enough to allow non-Catholics on here and there is a huge variety of comments and ideas. Don’t cast your pearls before swine. I hate pearls.

I disagree with you. I believe there are many things in the RCC that people don’t truly understand, and Christ never said we have to understand everything we just have to obey.

Like when he explained the Eucharist, he said unless you eat and drink my body and blood you have no life in you, many left saying he was crazy. Do you think Peter understood what Christ was saying?

He was like the rest and it is still a mystery to us, but we don’t leave because we have not the wisdom given to us by God to understand everything. We are like Peter to whom shall we go?

No one understands the many mysteries of the RCC. But how could we, if we never had it revealed to us by God?

So we don’t understand, but instead of disagreeing we have trust in God and his Church to lead us, and we RC are like Peter, where would we go?

There is no where for us to go without separating ourselves from Christ and his true Communion in his Church.

So we have faith and put it in Christ and his teachings in his Church. There are many things we cannot explain.

But it comes down to do you believe what Christ taught and are you going to obey, or go? And where can you go to get the true Eucharist, Confession, all of the Sacraments outside of the house of Christ?

 

[Sy_Noe]

By my faith, which is all too weak and fallible.

This is precisely my point. Any argument for infallibility, which you clearly consider the sine qua non of defensible Christianity, is at some point going to have to be accepted by a fallible human being. You are building upon sand.

You make a good point. Well said.

 

[Brophius]

I grew up in a Catholic environment. I am sorry to say that this environment did not bring me closer to knowing God or accepting Jesus Christ as my Savior. I woman pastor found me after I had wandered in the darkness for many years. I would not have listened to a priest or a man. They would have just tried to make me a conquest or simply not give me the time of day. This pastor loved me and showed me the love that Christ had for me. My wife and I will never forget how she started us on the path with God. For anyone to say that women have no place in the leadership of a church, shows a complete breakdown of Christ’s concepts of reaching everyone for the glory of God. We do not live in the same time period of Paul. What is required is a balance. This was how God created us. We have turned it into something dark and incorrect. Perhaps it is time for all of us to look at how we can work together help promote God’s Kingdom to those that have yet to hear of it?