J
John_of_Woking
Guest
Someone posted of a picture of a buch of woman having a picnic…what was all that about? 
- Status
D
dalcent
Guest
No it doesn’t. Your translation into 1950’s English says that. The Scriptures were written in ancient languages and scholars translate them into contemporary English for each generation.
אדם
'âdâm
a human being (an individual or the species, humankind, etc.)
Dalcent
K
katherine2
Guest
AMEN!
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
2000 years after the Church of Christ is a formed a few disobedient catholic souls start having a tantrum and want to become priests even though it is metaphysically and ontologically impossible. Should they be granted their wish? Or should they show obedience like Mary who never wanted to become a priest or the thousands of female saints who submitted their will to Holy Mother Church and accepted their Blessed Vocation
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
The priesthood is about service, not about power. Those women who are seeking to be priests are seeking it for the wrong reason.
In Christ,
Nancy
S
Steven_Merten
Guest
Why does America put one person in unequaled authority over all other American citizens? Is it to discriminate? No. Putting one person, the president, in unequaled authority over all the rest of Americans is done to unite our people in the direction that we all will go as a nation. Why does God put man in authority in the family? Is it to descriminate? No. It also is to keep the family united. Like the Protestants and Catholics, when you no longer have one person in ultimate authority, you have division. What is more important to God, having equal decision making power in the family unit or Church unit or unity in the Church unit or family unit through unequalled decision making authority? Unity in the family unit or Church unit through unequalled decision making authority is what God wills.
NAB LUK 11:17
“Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste. Any house torn by dissension falls.”
**NAB MAR 3:24 **
"If a kingdom is torn by civil strife, that kingdom cannot last. If a household is divided according to loyalties, that household will not survive.
Though it is accepted in the modern world to have one person in ultimate athority to unite nations, it is not accepted to have ultimate authority in the family unit to unit families. This goes against Christ’s teachings which directly compares the two. A good nation or family leader puts the wealfare of his citizens or wife and children first, above themselves. Authority, national or family, is not about making one person a king. It is about unity. Fight the problem of those who abuse authority for self gain, not the fact that authority unites nations and families. Divorce is often a problem of struggle for power. It is important not to destroy God commanded positions of family authority when abuse of power is the real issue.
God is our Father because the father of the family unit is above all others in the family unit, as ordered by God, when it comes to deciding the direction the family body will go. The position of father is a position of authority to unite the family unit. Unity is why man is put at the head of the family and not discrimination. Man in authority in the family unit is exactly the same reason America puts one person in ultimate authority over all other Americans.
Let us not destroy the unity of authority in a struggle for power. Let us not allow this male female power struggle in the world to flow over into our interpitation of God as our, unequalled in authority, Father.
NAB 1CO 11:3
I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ; the head of a woman is her husband; and the head of Christ is the Father.
NAB COL 3:18
You who are wives, be submissive to your husbands. This is your duty in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives. Avoid any bitterness toward them.
Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
NAB LUK 11:17
“Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste. Any house torn by dissension falls.”
**NAB MAR 3:24 **
"If a kingdom is torn by civil strife, that kingdom cannot last. If a household is divided according to loyalties, that household will not survive.
Though it is accepted in the modern world to have one person in ultimate athority to unite nations, it is not accepted to have ultimate authority in the family unit to unit families. This goes against Christ’s teachings which directly compares the two. A good nation or family leader puts the wealfare of his citizens or wife and children first, above themselves. Authority, national or family, is not about making one person a king. It is about unity. Fight the problem of those who abuse authority for self gain, not the fact that authority unites nations and families. Divorce is often a problem of struggle for power. It is important not to destroy God commanded positions of family authority when abuse of power is the real issue.
God is our Father because the father of the family unit is above all others in the family unit, as ordered by God, when it comes to deciding the direction the family body will go. The position of father is a position of authority to unite the family unit. Unity is why man is put at the head of the family and not discrimination. Man in authority in the family unit is exactly the same reason America puts one person in ultimate authority over all other Americans.
Let us not destroy the unity of authority in a struggle for power. Let us not allow this male female power struggle in the world to flow over into our interpitation of God as our, unequalled in authority, Father.
NAB 1CO 11:3
I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ; the head of a woman is her husband; and the head of Christ is the Father.
NAB COL 3:18
You who are wives, be submissive to your husbands. This is your duty in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives. Avoid any bitterness toward them.
Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
R
rayne89
Guest
AMEN! Completely agree with ya!The priesthood is about service, not about power. Those women who are seeking to be priests are seeking it for the wrong reason.
In Christ,
Nancy
P
patg
Guest
I totally disagree with you - and just how would you know that? I believe I mentioned plenty about women being able to provide the service expected of a priest.
M
mercygate
Guest
My experience in the early days of women’s ordination in my protestant denomination completely echoed this sentiment. Though a small minority were seeking ordination out of a sense of call and desire to serve, the power behind the movement was openly and unabashedly directed towards “empowerment” and changing the doctrine of God.The priesthood is about service, not about power. Those women who are seeking to be priests are seeking it for the wrong reason.
In Christ,
Nancy
I quote one of those women: “It’s time to tell the old boys to move over and that we WANT the power and we WANT the perks!”
At the meeting where that sentence was delivered from the podium, a woman priest-candidtate stepped up to the microphone during the floor discussions and offered the opinion that such views might be contradictory to the model given by Our Lord. She was hooted down.
That was some time ago. I have been out of the game for more than a decade; perhaps that attitude has changed. But recent developments in my former denomination lead me to doubt it.
B
bones_IV
Guest
Patg I’m sorry about the anger and bitterness you have towards Mother Church, I will be sure and pray for you.
Padre Pio “Don’t worry, work and pray.”
P
patg
Guest
Disagreeing with someone or something is “anger and bitterness”???
Explaining why I think women would do as good or better a job than men is “anger and bitterness”???
What the heck are you talking about?
B
bones_IV
Guest
You missed the whole point! The Catholic faith is not something to be debated about, but our Catholic is a faith of action. The truth of the Catholic Church is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I challenge you to point out where specifically in the bible does it say that women should be priests. You’ll never find it. The Old testement forbade women to be priests. Only men of the Levite tribe could be priests. It even says that others became priests, namely men of other tribes and women, which the law of Moses clearly forbade. The Church Fathers testify to the fact that only Men could be priests. Over 2/3 of the canonized saints in the Church are women, and all of them, yes that’s right, all of them accepted that only men could be priests and were obedient to everything the Church said.
Padre Pio “Don’t worry, work and pray.”
P
patg
Guest
Ok, I challenge you to show me anywhere in the New Testament where it says women can’t or shouldn’t be priests. It’s sad there are only legalistic and traditional arguments against this - that must be because it is so obvious there are no practical arguements.
M
mercygate
Guest
patg, I thought you were Catholic. My error, I guess.
T
Teresita
Guest
That’s an ad hominem response unless it’s explained. However, the basic point you make is quite correct. Patg, your challenge (‘Show me in Scripture’) would be fair were we all Protestants; and there are plenty of places in Scripture which I could quote back at you (as, for instance, 1 Corinthians 14:34 or 1 Timothy 2:11-12). But you would then tell me that ‘in Christ there is no…male or female’, or mention the daughters of Whatsisname who were all prophetesses, and we’d be no further on. As we’re Catholics, we listen to the Magisterium and to the voice of tradition (which is one part of the Magisterium): Scripture is not open to Tom, Dick and Harry’s interpretation, but is read with the eyes of 2,000 years of Church teaching.
Since teaching, both explicit and implicit, since the very earliest days of the Church, has uniformly showed that men can be priests and women can’t, the appeal to Scripture is ultimately (for a Catholic) either despairing (“I can’t find anything in Church teaching, so let’s try what I can do with the Bible”) or heretical - because it assumes that the Church is not the Body and Bride of Christ, and can err in this major fashion. Either way, it isn’t a Catholic position to set Scripture against Church. So although Mercygate’s reply looked like semi-abuse, it is, in fact, quite a profound comment.
Sue
P
patg
Guest
Actually, you are a little off in your interpretation of me also. I only made the reference to scripture to counter the comment of BONES_IV who stated: “I challenge you to point out where specifically in the bible does it say that women should be priests. You’ll never find it. The Old testement forbade women to be priests.” I notice no one chastised him/her for relying on a scriptural argument!
That’s ALL I was doing! I have been various forms of Catholic all my life and am fully aware of the reality of the teachings. I still think they are nuts and have yet to see a practical reason as to why this absurd restriction is held. I listed numerous reasons women should be priests and no one responded to them with anything other than insults or “that’s just the way it is and the way its always been”. I’m sure most of the Jews felt the same way about Jesus and his teachings but he eventually changed things.
If I were using scripture, I would have merely stated the old joke that Jesus only chose Jewish men from his neighborhood to be apostles - so all priests naturally must be Jewish men from around Nazereth.
I obey the magesterium (I have never consecrated a woman to be a priest). I also strongly oppose this policy at every opportunity.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
CCC 1577 states, “Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination. The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord Himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.”
This is official Church teaching. Do you chose to seperate yourself from this? If you do you make yourself a Protestant.
Did you not say, “I obey the magesterium (I have never consecrated a woman to be a priest).** I also strongly oppose this policy at every opportunity**.” Is this not Protestant in nature?
You can’t have you cake and eat it too.
I read this great quote resently. It said, “To be married to the spirit of the age is to be soon widowed.”
Also, in order for the Church to “change” on this point means going against 2000 years of established teaching. This it can not do and remain the Apostolic Church.
This is official Church teaching. Do you chose to seperate yourself from this? If you do you make yourself a Protestant.
Did you not say, “I obey the magesterium (I have never consecrated a woman to be a priest).** I also strongly oppose this policy at every opportunity**.” Is this not Protestant in nature?
You can’t have you cake and eat it too.
I read this great quote resently. It said, “To be married to the spirit of the age is to be soon widowed.”
Also, in order for the Church to “change” on this point means going against 2000 years of established teaching. This it can not do and remain the Apostolic Church.
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Inclusive language: Proof of the observation that, since the Church in the West seemed to lack persecution, God sent it liturgists.
Blessings,
Gerry
Blessings,
Gerry
S
serendipity
Guest
It depends on where the language is. I think God transcends gender, and would hoep that any one who reads the Bible and reads that man and woman were created in his image, will come to that inclusion. I don’t like when people change reference to God. The fact that he is usally represented by the singualr form means that it was how he was intended to be protrayed linguistically. Because singular forms typically have one gender atached to them.
But I think not to use inclusive language when referring to groups is erroneously exclusive. Most languages aside from English use masculine forms of plurals if there are 30 women peresent and only one man. People who speak those languages generally know that. But I think that when an English translation only says, men, men, men, father, and bothers, when in truth there are elements of both genders in the groups to wich the terms concern, it encourages people to not think that anything is relevant to women and that women are lacking from the Bible. So yes, in those situations I think plurals like people or brethren are more accurate than men.
But I think not to use inclusive language when referring to groups is erroneously exclusive. Most languages aside from English use masculine forms of plurals if there are 30 women peresent and only one man. People who speak those languages generally know that. But I think that when an English translation only says, men, men, men, father, and bothers, when in truth there are elements of both genders in the groups to wich the terms concern, it encourages people to not think that anything is relevant to women and that women are lacking from the Bible. So yes, in those situations I think plurals like people or brethren are more accurate than men.
B
buffalo
Guest
I heard Mother Angelica say on the radio that inclusive language is satanic and that we should run from it.
- Status