Mormon PR Campaign: Do Good Individuals Equal A Good Church?

[Jim_Dandy]

Interesting. Y’all were celebrating Mass two years or so before Jesus was crucified?
…and lay women are allowed to celebrate Mass?

Jesus was crucified, as nearly as we can calculate, in A.D. 33. The First Mass was the Last Supper, at the Passover, just before the crucifixion.

Women are NOT allowed to celebrate Mass – not then, not now – one must be a priest in apostolic succession (ordained by an Apostle or one of the successors to the Apostles) to have the power and authority to celebrate Mass. To be a Catholic or Orthodox priest, one must be male.

Jim Dandy

 

[dianaiad]

ive never viewed LDS women to be subservient and downtrodden. but…correct me if im wrong my friend, is it not taught in the COJCOLDS that a woman must have a husband to be ressurected?

Absolutely not, benidict. Resurrection comes to all of us. We believe that ultimate exhaltation is reserved for spouses, though…it’s not that a woman cannot get there without a husband–it’s that neither man NOR woman can get there without each other.

and that their eternal state is that of an eternal incubator?

ehrm…no…unless you believe that God’s role as Creater is that of an eternal incubator…

Never mind all that…no. We don’t teach that.

But I have to wonder something—why is it that, when a masculine God is given credit for creating the entire human race, He is given all honor and worship as the creator, but if you let a woman in on it, all of a sudden it’s something shameful, salacious and awful? Not that this actually reflects our beliefs, because it doesn’t…but I am curious about the attitudes of those who have no problems at all worshiping a Being Who eternally creates souls, but when that eternal creator is female, suddenly all it is is 'being an eternal incubater?" Why is it noble and creative when a man does it, but somehow distasteful when a woman does?

Sorry…just went off there for a moment…

that in a sense puts them in a lower class than the men.

And there you go. Think about what you just wrote for a moment.

its interesting to note too, that humanly speaking, women do not need men. men however for some odd reason really need a female! then of course there are the odd balls like myself, who are complete in and of themselves and need no-one. i hope to God your Church is wrong about polygamy in heaven. i wouldnt even want to deal with one on earth here…lol! Peace

Well, there’s a place in heaven for you, even in our family/couple oriented theology, benidict–but great googly moogly, sir, I thought you knew better than THIS!!

 

[dianaiad]

Jesus was crucified, as nearly as we can calculate, in A.D. 33. The First Mass was the Last Supper, at the Passover, just before the crucifixion.

Actually, there is some controversy over the actual birthdate…there seems to be a six year window. He could have been crucified at any time betweem 30 AD and 36 AD. Just so you know…the last time I looked, someone was making a pretty good claim for Jesus being born in the year 3 AD. Calendars are a little messed up, y’know.

Women are NOT allowed to celebrate Mass – not then, not now – one must be a priest in apostolic succession (ordained by an Apostle or one of the successors to the Apostles) to have the power and authority to celebrate Mass. To be a Catholic or Orthodox priest, one must be male.

Jim Dandy

Well, mostly that is true, however, there was at least one woman, the Abbess of the Cistercian Monastery of Santa Maria l Real de las Huelgas, near Burgos, in Spain, who was given great authority to issue letters of ordination, preside over religious courts, convess her nuns and to preach. I’m not sure that extended to celebrating Mass, however.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I answer PM’s, PRmerger! (well, I do unless the person sending it is on my ignore list, anyway…in which case I don’t even see them) Have you sent me one I didn’t answer? If so, I’m sorry.

…and yeah, that’s pretty close to what I wrote. So…do you have the answer to this question regarding whether laywomen can celebrate Mass? (I found out where in some period of history an Abbess could.) I haven’t found anything about that.

Mormon women have been allowed to offer public prayer and speak in Sacrament meeting since the beginning.

Whether women can celebrate Mass has nothing to do with equality of the sexes. Absurd. Any Abbess or any other woman attempting to celebrate Mass would be excommunicated.

The Catholic Church has changed entire male-dominiated cultures because of the veneration of the Mother of God through the centuries. Mary was certainly not equal to her Son, who was God, but she is extolled by the Church above all other women in the human race because of her role in Salvation history. She is Mother of the Redeemer. She was in the Upper Room when the Spirit arrived at Pentecost to birth the Church. But could Mary celebrate Mass? No.

The Church is the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:25-33; 2 Cor 11:2; Rev 21:9-14, 22:17). The priest is alter Christus. Christ acts through his priest in the Mass and the Sacraments. Christ offers Himself to the Father though the Mass; He hears confessions and grants absolution of sins through His priests; it is He who anoints the sick. A female priest would be in a homosexual relationship with the Church – Christ’s Bride. It’s utterly unthinkable.

Jim Dandy

 

[dianaiad]

Whether women can celebrate Mass has nothing to do with equality of the sexes. Absurd. Any Abbess or any other woman attempting to celebrate Mass would be excommunicated.

The Catholic Church has changed entire male-dominiated cultures because of the veneration of the Mother of God through the centuries. Mary was certainly not equal to her Son, who was God, but she is extolled by the Church above all other women in the human race because of her role in Salvation history. She is Mother of the Redeemer. She was in the Upper Room when the Spirit arrived at Pentecost to birth the Church. But could Mary celebrate Mass? No.

The Church is the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:25-33; 2 Cor 11:2; Rev 21:9-14, 22:17). The priest is alter Christus. Christ acts through his priest in the Mass and the Sacraments. Christ offers Himself to the Father though the Mass; He hears confessions and grants absolution of sins through His priests; it is He who anoints the sick. A female priest would be in a homosexual relationship with the Church – Christ’s Bride. It’s utterly unthinkable.

Jim Dandy

The claim was that Catholic women have more rights than Mormon women do. Mormon women do not hold the priesthood–so now we have established that Catholic women do not hold the priesthood, either.

So…what rights do Catholic women have that Mormon women do not have? Nobody has actually mentioned one, y’know.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Actually, there is some controversy over the actual birthdate…there seems to be a six year window. He could have been crucified at any time betweem 30 AD and 36 AD. Just so you know…the last time I looked, someone was making a pretty good claim for Jesus being born in the year 3 AD. Calendars are a little messed up, y’know.

Shall we take your word for it, or do you have evidence?

Well, mostly that is true, however, there was at least one woman, the Abbess of the Cistercian Monastery of Santa Maria l Real de las Huelgas, near Burgos, in Spain, who was given great authority to issue letters of ordination, preside over religious courts, convess her nuns and to preach. I’m not sure that extended to celebrating Mass, however.

Only bishops in succession to the Apostles have the power and authority to ordain priests. Women cannot hear confessions and grant absolution. They do not preach at Mass. They do have the power and authority to manage their monastery – period. Quote these allegations from your source, please.

Please use the quote funcation to answer posts so we’ll be clear on which post your comments apply to.

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The claim was that Catholic women have more rights than Mormon women do. Mormon women do not hold the priesthood–so now we have established that Catholic women do not hold the priesthood, either.

So…what rights do Catholic women have that Mormon women do not have? Nobody has actually mentioned one, y’know.

I told you that civil rights (like voting, holding public office, etc.) are under the purvue of the State, not the Church.

 

[dianaiad]

Shall we take your word for it, or do you have evidence?

Well, since Herod died in 4 BC, and according to the gospels he had a rather large role to play in His birth, then Jesus was born before then. On the other hand, since Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6AD, He may have been born after that, because Luke declares that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem to be taxed when Cyrenius was first made governor. Africanus and Eusebius seemed to think He was born in 2 BC. …a great many other scholars toss around other dates, for some very interesting reasons. About the only thing everybody DOES agree on is this: He wasn’t born on December 25th, year 0.

Who cares? The important thing is, He was born.

Only bishops in succession to the Apostles have the power and authority to ordain priests. Women cannot hear confessions and grant absolution. They do not preach at Mass. They do have the power and authority to manage their monastery – period. Quote these allegations from your source, please.

Of course. The Catholic encyclopecia, entry 'Abbess." Go here. newadvent.org/cathen/01007e.htm

Please use the quote funcation to answer posts so we’ll be clear on which post your comments apply to.

Jim Dandy

Please check out post #123, to which yours was the reply. You’ll find that I, uhmn…DID use the ‘quote’ function. Perhaps you had a problem in your reply window?

 

[dianaiad]

I told you that civil rights (like voting, holding public office, etc.) are under the purvue of the State, not the Church.

Fine…I got that. However, when the church has as much influence over the ‘state’ as Catholicism did over the centuries, and as Mormonism did over the communities in which they gathered, this point becomes, well—a tad disengenuous.

(shrug) Whatever—whether YOU made the claim or not the claim was still made that Catholic women have more rights than do Mormon women. That is what this particular exchange was about. I take it, then, that you are agreeing with me that they don’t?

…

 

[Jim_Dandy]

But I have to wonder something—why is it that, when a masculine God is given credit for creating the entire human race, He is given all honor and worship as the creator, but if you let a woman in on it, all of a sudden it’s something shameful, salacious and awful? Not that this actually reflects our beliefs, because it doesn’t…but I am curious about the attitudes of those who have no problems at all worshiping a Being Who eternally creates souls, but when that eternal creator is female, suddenly all it is is 'being an eternal incubater?" Why is it noble and creative when a man does it, but somehow distasteful when a woman does?

God has no gender. He is Pure Spirit.

Mormonism says God is a man like us of flesh and bones who was “exalted” and became God. He has body parts. He procreates with his multiple goddess wives. This notion is
abhorrent to a Christian.

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Smith and others close to him (including Brigham Young) also practiced polyandry…ie, men took for them a polygamous wife who was already married to another man.

Right on, Rebecca!

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Well, since Herod died in 4 BC, and according to the gospels he had a rather large role to play in His birth, then Jesus was born before then. On the other hand, since Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6AD, He may have been born after that, because Luke declares that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem to be taxed when Cyrenius was first made governor. Africanus and Eusebius seemed to think He was born in 2 BC. …a great many other scholars toss around other dates, for some very interesting reasons. About the only thing everybody DOES agree on is this: He wasn’t born on December 25th, year 0.

Who cares? The important thing is, He was born.

Quote your sources please, and give your citations.

Of course. The Catholic encyclopecia, entry 'Abbess." Go here. newadvent.org/cathen/01007e.htm

You failed to note that all these actions by an abbess were abberant and censured. It was the time of Charlemagne, don’tchaknow when they didn’t communicate by email.

–quote–

Abbesses have no spiritual jurisdiction, and can exercise no authority that is in any way connected with the power of the keys or of orders. During the Middle Ages, however, attempts were not infrequently made to usurp this spiritual power of the priesthood, and we read of Abbesses who besides being guilty of many minor encroachments on the functions of the sacerdotal office, presumed to interfere even in the administration of the sacrament of penance and confessed their nuns. Thus, in the Capitularies of Charlemagne, mention is made of “certain Abbesses, who contrary to the established discipline of the Church of God, presume to bless the people, impose their hands on them, make the sign of the cross on the foreheads of men, and confer the veil on virgins, employing during that ceremony the blessing reserved exclusively to the priest,” all of which practice the bishops are urged to forbid absolutely in their respective dioceses. (Thomassin, “Vetus et Nova Ecclesae Disciplina,” pars I, lib. II, xii, no. 17.) The “Monastieum Cisterciense” records the stern inhibition which Innocent III, in 1220, placed upon Cistercian Abbesses of Burgos and Palencia in Spain, “who blessed their religious, heard the confession of their sins, and when reading the Gospel, presumed publicly to preach.” (Thomassin, op. cit., pars I, lib. III. xlix, no. 4.) The Pope characterized the intrusion of these women as a thing “unheard of, most indecorous, and highly preposterous.” Dom Martene, the Benedictine savant, in his work “De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus,” speaks of other Abbesses who likewish confessed their nuns, and adds, not without a touch of humour, that “these Abbesses had evidently overrated their spiritual powers a trifle.” And as late as 1658, the Sacred Congregation of Rites categorically condemned the acts of the Abbess of Fontevrault in France, who of her own authority, obliged the monks and nuns of her obedience to recite offices, say Masses, and observe rites and ceremonies which had never been sanctioned or approved of by Rome. (Analecta Juris Pontificii, VII, col. 348.)

In this connection it must, however, be observed, that when the older monastic rules prescribe confession to the superior, they do not refer to sacramental confession, but to the “chapter of faults” or the culpa, at which the religious accuse themselves of ordinary external fault patent to all, and of minor infractions of the rule. This “confession” may be made either privately to the superior or publicly in the chapter-house; no absolution is given and the penance assigned is merely disciplinary. The “chapter of faults” is a form of religious exercise still practised in all the monasteries of the ancient orders.

–end quote-- color added

Jim Dandy

 

[dianaiad]

God has no gender. He is Pure Spirit.

Not the point, Jim Dandy.

 

[dianaiad]

Quote your sources please, and give your citations.

What part of giving you the names of the men who did this, and the historically accurate times of Herod’s death ane Cyrenius’ advent of becoming the governor of Syria seems to be inadequate, Dandy?

I’m willing to back up my sources…as you have seen.You are being unreasonable. Check out the sources I DID give you.

You failed to note that all these actions by an abbess were abberant and censured. It was the time of Charlemagne, don’tchaknow when they didn’t communicate by email.

Dandy, read the whole article.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Fine…I got that. However, when the church has as much influence over the ‘state’ as Catholicism did over the centuries, and as Mormonism did over the communities in which they gathered, this point becomes, well—a tad disengenuous.

You’re confusing political matters that concern the State with religious and moral matters that concern the Catholic Church.

(shrug) Whatever—whether YOU made the claim or not the claim was still made that Catholic women have more rights than do Mormon women. That is what this particular exchange was about. I take it, then, that you are agreeing with me that they don’t?..

The Catholic Church has no teaching on voting rights for women.

The women’s suffrage movement can be said to have begun in 1837 with Susan B. Anthony’s fight for equal pay for women teachers. This coincides with the founding of the LDS by Joseph Smith in 1830.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

What part of giving you the names of the men who did this, and the historically accurate times of Herod’s death ane Cyrenius’ advent of becoming the governor of Syria seems to be inadequate, Dandy?

I’m willing to back up my sources…as you have seen.You are being unreasonable. Check out the sources I DID give you.

How about the sources you DIDN’T provide?

Sorry, Diana, but history comes from real, genuine, accredited, university-trained, peer-reviewed historians. I want to know your source to verify that the information you have provided is, as you claim, “historically accurate.”

Dandy, read the whole article.

Please quote the section of the article that you think proves your point. The allegation is yours to prove.

Actually, any comparison of the 2,000-year-old Catholic Church, the Mother of all Christendom, and the LDS, a non-Christian entity, one of many come-lately religions born in the USA in the 19th century, is absurd, prima facie.

Jim Dandy

 

[dianaiad]

How about the sources you DIDN’T provide?

Sorry, Diana, but history comes from real, genuine, accredited, university-trained, peer-reviewed historians. I want to know your source to verify that the information you have provided is, as you claim, “historically accurate.”

As you wish, then. The information about the appointment of Cyrenius (also known as Quirinius) is found in several places: Josephus writes of his appointment in the year 6-7 CE. You can find that information, if you want to go 'peer review only" in *The History of the Jeusish people in the age of Jesus Christ vol.I, *page 424 where it refers specifically to the census which Cyrenius ordered immediately upon becoming governer of Syria.

You can also find references to it in Josephus, and in the histories of Julius Caesar, who honored Quirinius as a 'valiant soldier."

As to Herod. Herod the Great died in 4 BC. Not to be confused, of course, with Herod Antipas, whose dealings with John the Baptist and the adult Christ are described in the NT.

How big a bibliography do you need for this, by the way? I can provide you over 40 peer reviewed articles and books at in four mouse clicks…and hundreds more if you make me go to a data base and actually do a search on the man.

…in actuality, I have to ask you–are you KIDDING here? I do understand demanding references for information and facts that are actually controversial–but stuff like this? There is nothing about these dates that is in the slightest bit controversial, y’know; nobody argues against them. The question is not, after all, whether Jesus was born; we know He was. Who cares what the year was?

Please quote the section of the article that you think proves your point. The allegation is yours to prove.

"But reference must be made to certain exceptional cases, where Abbesses have been permitted, by Apostolical concession and privilege, it is alleged, to exercise a most extraordinary power of jurisdiction. Thus, the Abbess of the Cistercian Monastery of Santa Maria la Real de las Huelgas, near Burgos, in Spain, was, by the terms of her official protocol, a “noble lady, the superior, prelate, and lawful administratrix in spirituals and temporals of the said royal abbey, and of all the contents, churches, and hermitages of its filiation, of the villages and places under its jurisdiction, seigniory, and vassalage, in virtue of Bulls and Apostolical concessions, with plenary jurisdiction, privative, quasi-episopal, nullius diacesis.” (Florez, “España sagada,” XXVII, Madrid 1772, col. 578.) By the favour of the king, she was, moreover, invested with almost royal prerogatives, and exercised an unlimited secular authority over more than fifty villages. Like the Lord Bishops, she held her own courts, in civil and criminal cases, granted letters dismissorial for ordination, and issued licenses authorizing priests, within the limits of her abbatial jurisdiction, to hear confessions, to preach, and to engage in the cure of souls. She was privileged also to confirm Abbesses, to impose censures, and to convoke synods. (“España sagrada,” XXVII, col. 581.) At a General Chapter of the Cistercians held in 1189, she was made Abbess General of the Order for the Kingdom of Leon and Castile, with the privilege of convoking annually a general chapter at Burgos. The Abbess of Las Huelgas retained her ancient prestige up to the time of the Council of Trent. "

The fact that she had it is only confirmed by the fact that the Council of Trent actually had to TAKE IT AWAY from her, Dandy.

Actually, any comparison of the 2,000-year-old Catholic Church, the Mother of all Christendom, and the LDS, a non-Christian entity, one of many come-lately religions born in the USA in the 19th century, is absurd, prima facie.

Jim Dandy

I see. So…first you demand that I prove things that are in the area of ‘common knowledge,’ as historical facts–like the death date of Herod the Great and the assumption of Governorship of Cyrenius in Syria–and then cover your assets by claiming that it doesn’t matter anyway because of who I am—that even if I’m right about this, that since I’m a Mormon, I’m automatically wrong so it doesn’t matter what I say?

Interesting debate style. there.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Originally Posted by dianaiad
But I have to wonder something—why is it that, when a masculine God is given credit for creating the entire human race, He is given all honor and worship as the creator, but if you let a woman in on it, all of a sudden it’s something shameful, salacious and awful? Not that this actually reflects our beliefs, because it doesn’t…but I am curious about the attitudes of those who have no problems at all worshiping a Being Who eternally creates souls, but when that eternal creator is female, suddenly all it is is 'being an eternal incubater?" Why is it noble and creative when a man does it, but somehow distasteful when a woman does?

Originally Posted by Jim Dandy
God has no gender. He is Pure Spirit.

Not the point, Jim Dandy.

It is exactly to the point. To repeat your words: “Why is it noble and creative when a man does it *, but somehow distasteful when a woman does?” (emphasis added)

God is neither male or female, neither man nor woman. He is Pure Spirit.

It can’t be repeated too often. In Mormon doctrine, God is merely a man like us, who has been “exalted,” a fate that is available to all Mormons. If they tithe faithfully and obey all the rules, men can become Gods and rule over their own world, assisted by their (plural) goddess wives, just as their God, “Heavenly Father” does with his goddess wives.

“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s. . .” Doctrine and Covenants 130:22

“For I am going to prove it to you by the Bible . . . If you were to see him [God] today, you would see him like a man in form – like yourselves in all the person, image, the very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.” Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345.

So Joseph Smith based his beliefs in the humanity of God on his literal reading of Genesis – his belief that God actually walked on His own two legs in the garden . . . Hmmm. Strange that Genesis is the Jewish Scriptures and the Jews never believed that God is a man – and they were adamant monotheists! God chose them as His People to convey the Truth about Himself to the world, that He is the One and Only God. “Hear O Israel, the Lord Our God, the Lord is One” (Dt 6:4).

And Mormons are polytheists: “In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods, and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and the people in it…” Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 349. They claim to be monotheists, because they only worship the Earth God. Actually, it’s henotheism – the worship of a particular God without disbelieving in the existence of others.

Christian? :nope:

Jim Dandy*

 

[Jim_Dandy]

As you wish, then. The information about the appointment of Cyrenius (also known as Quirinius) is found in several places: Josephus writes of his appointment in the year 6-7 CE. You can find that information, if you want to go 'peer review only" in *The History of the Jeusish people in the age of Jesus Christ vol.I, *page 424 where it refers specifically to the census which Cyrenius ordered immediately upon becoming governer of Syria.

You can also find references to it in Josephus, and in the histories of Julius Caesar, who honored Quirinius as a 'valiant soldier."

As to Herod. Herod the Great died in 4 BC. Not to be confused, of course, with Herod Antipas, whose dealings with John the Baptist and the adult Christ are described in the NT.

How big a bibliography do you need for this, by the way? I can provide you over 40 peer reviewed articles and books at in four mouse clicks…and hundreds more if you make me go to a data base and actually do a search on the man.

…in actuality, I have to ask you–are you KIDDING here? I do understand demanding references for information and facts that are actually controversial–but stuff like this? There is nothing about these dates that is in the slightest bit controversial, y’know; nobody argues against them. The question is not, after all, whether Jesus was born; we know He was. Who cares what the year was?

I asked that you provide your source(s) for this quote (from a previous post):

“Actually, there is some controversy over the actual birthdate…there seems to be a six year window. He could have been crucified at any time betweem 30 AD and 36 AD. Just so you know…the last time I looked, someone was making a pretty good claim for Jesus being born in the year 3 AD.”

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

"But reference must be made to certain exceptional cases, where Abbesses have been permitted, by Apostolical concession and privilege, it is alleged, to exercise a most extraordinary power of jurisdiction. Thus, the Abbess of the Cistercian Monastery of Santa Maria la Real de las Huelgas, near Burgos, in Spain, was, by the terms of her official protocol, a “noble lady, the superior, prelate, and lawful administratrix in spirituals and temporals of the said royal abbey, and of all the contents, churches, and hermitages of its filiation, of the villages and places under its jurisdiction, seigniory, and vassalage, in virtue of Bulls and Apostolical concessions, with plenary jurisdiction, privative, quasi-episopal, nullius diacesis.” (Florez, “España sagada,” XXVII, Madrid 1772, col. 578.) By the favour of the king, she was, moreover, invested with almost royal prerogatives, and exercised an unlimited secular authority over more than fifty villages. Like the Lord Bishops, she held her own courts, in civil and criminal cases, granted letters dismissorial for ordination, and issued licenses authorizing priests, within the limits of her abbatial jurisdiction, to hear confessions, to preach, and to engage in the cure of souls. She was privileged also to confirm Abbesses, to impose censures, and to convoke synods. (“España sagrada,” XXVII, col. 581.) At a General Chapter of the Cistercians held in 1189, she was made Abbess General of the Order for the Kingdom of Leon and Castile, with the privilege of convoking annually a general chapter at Burgos. The Abbess of Las Huelgas retained her ancient prestige up to the time of the Council of Trent. "

The fact that she had it is only confirmed by the fact that the Council of Trent actually had to TAKE IT AWAY from her, Dandy.

And you allege that this means … what?

I see. So…first you demand that I prove things that are in the area of ‘common knowledge,’ as historical facts–like the death date of Herod the Great and the assumption of Governorship of Cyrenius in Syria–and then cover your assets by claiming that it doesn’t matter anyway because of who I am—that even if I’m right about this, that since I’m a Mormon, I’m automatically wrong so it doesn’t matter what I say?
Interesting debate style. there.

My comments are about Mormonism, never about you personally.

I never asked you for the death date of Herod the Great, etc. You misunderstood, as I explained in a separate post.

Jim Dandy