Do you think that the church will ever accept gay marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hellopeople
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Janet1983 said:
Hold on. In the Roman Catholic Church as it is in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands there is a position called “Pastoralreferent” (if you wanted to translate it directly it might be something like a pastoral advisor).
These are men and women who have the equivalent of at least a masters degree in theology. They take over a lot of the priestly tasks apart from the sacraments in regions where the priests are just overwhelmed with work and several parishes at once.
They are allowed to preach in the liturgy of the word if there is no liturgy of the Eucharist. I have worked with a woman in that kind of a position while I was a catechist 8 years ago. She did preach once in a while.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that women do the readings all the time.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
If I’m wrong, please show me the canon law that allows women to preach during a Mass.
Click to expand...
I never said that is was during Mass… it is something that is split off in the Catholic Church in Germany. A priest may or may not be present when the “Pastorareferent” preaches. The whole form is exactly the same. In most cases a priest will preach even when it is just a liturgy of the word, but there is a possibility for him to let her do the preaching. I just found out that there was a difference in the first place, but she does exactly what he would have done had he been preaching. I have never seen anybody who did not have a theological education (master’s degree) do that in Germany.

We are so going off topic with this… All I wanted to say is that some women in Germany are allowed to preach (and that is what it is being called) within the Catholic Church. She reads the gospel passage and holds a sermon on it.
 
*Not to mention that women do the readings all the time. *

This is certainly not the same as preaching. 🙂

Janet

*I never said that is was during Mass… *

But Paul is talking about “in the churches,” which we take to be Mass. Neither women nor lay men can preach during Mass.

*She reads the gospel passage and holds a sermon on it. *

You and she may call it a sermon or a homily. I doubt that the Church does. When I reflect on the gospel at the prison, I’ve been told by the Catholic chaplain that I must refer to my talk as a reflection, not a homily. Only priests and deacons can give sermons or homilies.

But we are getting way off topic.
 
crazzeto said:
A woman would never be able to offer a homily durring any form of Mass, and I doubt durring a prayer service. Could you please provide documentation for what you’re posting here? Perhaps that will make the point your trying to make clearer.
Click to expand...
What about doing readings? Women certainly do readings in mass, and that is talking within the church.
 
hellopeople

*But Paul doesn’t say preach, he says they should stay silent. *

They can’t even cough or sneeze? 🤷 😃
 
hellopeople said:
Well the church isn’t following something that Paul preaches.
Click to expand...
Well I am not attending a Catholic Mass anymore. In our church I have never seen a woman read Scripture aloud during the service (that is always done by a man).
I have never seen a woman teach Bible studies (apart from Women’s Bible studies and children’s groups - under 12 years of age).
The only time that I raise my voice above a whisper is when I am singing in the choir or in the congregation. On some occasions I do something called special music and I say a couple of words before I sing a song about why I chose it.
I don’t know whether all of that is a rule in my church, I just have not seen it any different in the year (well almost) that I am there now.
 
hellopeople said:
Well the church isn’t following something that Paul preaches.
Click to expand...
You cannot prove that when St. Paul meant that women could not speak in a church even to read the Word of God as given in Scripture. So you can’t prove that the church isn’t following something that St. Paul requires.

You know, we’re not reclining at table in a private home to receive the Eucharist. But that is the way that the services would have been done in the time of St. Paul. (There weren’t any local buildings standing around with crosses on top, ya know?) So we’re doing the service in a different way and different building than St. Paul would have.

So what?
 
hellopeople said:
But Paul doesn’t say preach, he says they should stay silent.
Click to expand...
Actually, what he says is that women shouldn’t interrupt the Mass with questions, but should ask their husbands at home. (Keep in mind that this was the first time in history that women had been permitted to be present in the same space where the Scriptures were being proclaimed and opened up - under the Old Covenant, the women were kept in an outer room, and most likely, they couldn’t hear what was going on with the preaching and the Scripture readings.)

Even in St. Paul’s own time, there was a woman named Priscilla helping him to evangelize, and he praised her for this, so obviously, he never meant that women have to keep quiet all the time, on the subject of God.
 
jmmcrea

*Even in St. Paul’s own time, there was a woman named Priscilla helping him to evangelize, and he praised her for this, so obviously, he never meant that women have to keep quiet all the time, on the subject of God. *
In fact, during Paul’s lifetime the Gospels had not yet been written. There was no Gospel for either men or women to read from. Bringing the good news meant as much the Old Testament as relaying by oral tradition the teachings of Jesus. Men would have known those teachings better and witnessed the events far more closely than women, as Jesus’s apostles were all men. It was fitting then that the official declaration of the good news should be conducted by the men who had heard it and passed it on to other men. There is no Gospel of Mary. There is no Gospel of Mary Magdalene, nor of any other woman Jesus is said to have known. Mary remained silent, though doubtless she was a source of tremendous strength in the early Church. If Christ the teacher was to be the model for his priesthood, Mary was to be the model for silent submission of all women to his teachings.

Yet the Church has preserved for Mary the respect and devotion it gives to no male saint. In Mary the principle of submission to God’s will is more perfectly manifested than in the life of any other mortal. Christ is King and Mary is Queen. Every priest at altar or ambo ranks below Mary, for she was the first to bring His body and blood into this world.
 
I believe the Roman Catholic Church will never accept gay marriage as valid. True marriage is between a man and a woman as God designed and that Truth never changes.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
You cannot prove that when St. Paul meant that women could not speak in a church even to read the Word of God as given in Scripture. So you can’t prove that the church isn’t following something that St. Paul requires.

You know, we’re not reclining at table in a private home to receive the Eucharist. But that is the way that the services would have been done in the time of St. Paul. (There weren’t any local buildings standing around with crosses on top, ya know?) So we’re doing the service in a different way and different building than St. Paul would have.

So what?
Click to expand...
My point is that the church doesn’t follow everything that Paul mentions, so why do they keep to the teachings on homosexuality?
 
The Church **CAN NOT **accept “gay marriage” and still be the Church.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is eternal, natural law, God given truth.

God Bless
 
Charlemagne_II said:
SugarMagnolia
*
Then this is the strategy Catholics should take. What everyone seems to be forgetting is that they’re quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church to non-Catholics. This is a political issue. Catholics aren’t the only ones voting.** If you want non-Catholics to vote against gay marriage don’t quote the cathechism to them; offer them a secular argument***.

When discussing this with non-Catholics, that’s what I do. I don’t bother with the Catechism, except to the extent that I repeat what the Catechism says, which is common sense: the parts don’t fit. That is, homosexuality is against the natural law.
Any atheist can see that, and so we have a common ground.

But the reason I would quote the Catechism (or Scripture) to other Catholics or Protestants would be to affirm that the Church teaches what is already self-evident … just in case there are cafeteria Catholics among us who want to go about making up their mind to the contrary for some nefarious reason.

Paul is very emphatic about homosexuality … and that is why he fell into disfavor among some Christians when homosexuals were coming out of the closet back in the 60s.
Click to expand...
This is what we all need to do when discussing this issue with non-Catholics. Now I know you and many others here do believe heterosexual fornication is equally as bad as homosexuality, but I would try my best to prove to you that it is not so. For practical reasons. If cafeteria Catholics (apparently I’m in the cafeteria lol) are alienated, then they will side with the gays rather than with the Christians. Telling a Catholic couple that when they use a condom they are equally as bad as two people of the same gender doing stuff that isn’t even sex is so insulting that they will turn away from the Church and side with the gays. A lot, and I mean a lot, of Catholic couples cannot manage NFP and use condoms to manage the side of their families. Whether they are using ABC or having premarital sex, tell them that what they are doing is normal and natural (i.e. the parts fit), but the circumstances under which they are doing it should be morally improved (i.e. learn NFP or get married); meanwhile what the gays are doing is totally unnatural and so morally wrong that no change in the circumstances can improve it.

Perhaps a lot of people here do not realize the magnitude of the threat posed by the gay marraige issue. You cannot barricade yourselves in the Church if this comes to pass. Next, gay couples will start adopting children and female gays will have artifical insemination. They will train this younger generation to be bisexual. It is already beginning to happen. Polyamory is already being practiced: what will happen when polyamorous marriage is considered normal and natural? To those of you who don’t know what this is, I’ll spare you the disgusting websites you’ll see if you google it: it’s three or more people of various genders and sexual orientations in what they consider a group marriage. They raise their children to beleive this is normal and natural. This is why I implore you to use secular arguments with the cafeteria Catholics and not lump them in with these people who will totally destroy, not only our concept of marriage, but even our concept of gender.
 
hellopeople said:
My point is that the church doesn’t follow everything that Paul mentions, so why do they keep to the teachings on homosexuality?
Click to expand...
You should try to understand Church teaching less superficially. If your question was valid then it would apply not just to homosexuality but to literally everything Paul wrote. Of the 27 books in the New Testament - including the gospels - Paul wrote 14. Which to you think is more reasonable: that Paul’s works should be considered untrustworthy and deleted or that your interpretation of his comments on homosexuality and head coverings for women needs more work?

Ender
 
hellopeople said:
Not to mention that women do the readings all the time.
Click to expand...
The Layity always do the OT, Responsorial Psalm and NT reading. The Lay may never do the Gosple reading, or Homily. Because the Layity do the first 3 readings, it’s perfectly OK for women to participate here.
 
*The Layity always do the OT, Responsorial Psalm and NT reading. The Lay may never do the Gosple reading, or Homily. Because the Layity do the first 3 readings, it’s perfectly OK for women to participate here. *
Again, the homily cannot be read or given at Mass because only priests and deacons have that authority.

However, at a Communion service, where no priest or deacon is present, any lay person (male or female) can do the readings (including the Gospel) and give a “reflection.” But this is not at variance with Paul, who clearly bars women from speaking during the official Mass service in Church.

The Church therefore has never rejected Paul’s teaching, but rather has clarified the limits of when and where a woman may speak. The Church has this authority.

If anyone was qualified to write a Gospel, surely it was Mary. But silent submission was Mary’s gift.

If any of the above is error, please show me the official ruling of the Church.
 
jmcrae said:
Actually, what he says is that women shouldn’t interrupt the Mass with questions, but should ask their husbands at home. (Keep in mind that this was the first time in history that women had been permitted to be present in the same space where the Scriptures were being proclaimed and opened up - under the Old Covenant, the women were kept in an outer room, and most likely, they couldn’t hear what was going on with the preaching and the Scripture readings.)

Even in St. Paul’s own time, there was a woman named Priscilla helping him to evangelize, and he praised her for this, so obviously, he never meant that women have to keep quiet all the time, on the subject of God.
Click to expand...
Yeppers.
hellopeople said:
My point is that the church doesn’t follow everything that Paul mentions, so why do they keep to the teachings on homosexuality?
Click to expand...
Because that teaching had to do with S-A-L-V-A-T-I-O-N. There ya go. All spelled out for you. 😉
 
For decades, we have been hammered by the false doctrine of ‘tolerance.’ What it actually means is: I want you to not only accept, but embrace my sins, and shut your mouth eternally about your morality and your God.

So what’s tolerant about that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top