Wasn’t arguing that at all. Episcopalians have ordinations. They are real events, and real ordinations. They aren’t the same as the Catholic Church’s though. That is all that had to be said.Arguing that because Episcopalians “ordain” women and call them “priests” the Roman Catholic Church should do likewise is absurd.
True enough.They are real events
Maybe to them they are. Just as same sex “marriage” is real…to them.and real ordinations
The arrogance is in taking the word “ordain” and applying the Catholic definition of the word to everyone who walks the face of the earth.Stop asking Catholics to be relativists. It is the position of their religion that Anglicans do not have ordinations, due to modifications of their rites after the death of Henry VIII. It’s not arrogance for them to believe in the teachings of their church, and it’s really quite silly for you to come into their place and demand that they put things in terms you prefer.
An argument made by no one. And if I called you “delusional” for saying people made that argument that nobody made then I’d probably get banned.the specious argument that “because Episcopalians, Methodists, UCC, etc. do something, Catholics must recognize it as valid”
No, not “just as evil”.Different in some ways, yes. But just as evil in most of the ways that matter in its most common forms. I’ve studied this fairly extensively.
I noticed that you gave that as ‘proof’ that the Church considers women to be inferior. You are operating under an assumption that serving at the altar is a sign of superiority. Why do you consider a person serving at the altar to be superior to one who is not?Church has a rule that bishops and even individual priests can ban women from serving at the altar just because they’re women.
I accept Catholic teaching on male priesthood, and I understand this argument.Remember that in that time and that world, priestesses were the norm. The Gentiles were incredibly accustomed to priestesses. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for the early Christians to have priestesses, and they would have been listened to and respected, in fact, probably the male.
The prevailing view of the Roman slave
was that he was a thing and not a person.
i. He could have no family. The union of male and
female was a mere fact, not a legal marriage.
2. He could have no property, could not be creditor or
debtor, could not have an heir.
3. He was unable to appear in court. Injury to him
constituted a tort against his master, as in case of any dam-
age to property.
4. He was an object of property and possession, alienable
like other property. He might be the joint property of sev-
eral, or one might have a usufruct in him, another the
bare title. Like other things he might be abandoned by
his owner, not becoming free, but subject to occupation by
the first comer.
The causes of slavery were: (I) Birth;
(2) Facts; events or circumstances occurring
after birth.
I. The child of a slave mother was a slave-no matter
who was the father-as a slave woman could
not marry. and it was only in marriage that
child was linked to father.
There were few bond-slaves in the south…You could say all of those same things about slavery in the American South. There were examples of loyal, happy, and well treated slaves. These were held up by slave owners to justify their evil system. The vast majority of slaves were exploited and mistreated and the system itself was built on a foundation of dehumanization.
Saying that slavery can take different forms is not “white-washing” it. No one here is defending the practice. I was merely pointing out that the institution as it existed in the ancient world, particularly among Jews such as St. Paul, was not anything like the same as it was practiced in the US between 1600-1800. There was a great deal more variation in the treatment of slaves at that time, all the way from essentially indentured service by very educated people (and protection from enslavement in worse conditions) to “cog in the economy” slavery such as was the case in the Roman mines.Slavery is dehumanizing in all its forms, and should not be whitewashed in any way. It denies the equality of all people and always leads to subjugation and oppression. There were people who underwent indentured servitude in the Americas, but it would be abhorrent for me to point to those as a reason why people should not object to slavery at that time. Slavery in Rome included sex slaves and child slaves, and the great majority of slaves were forced into slavery after being conquered by the army.
That’s sillyBut they cannot be consecrated as such. The consecration of virgins is only for women.