Name 3 reasons you are not Catholic (yet).

[Good_Fella]

Contarnini, no Catholic is making a bear assertion without proof in arguing that
the apostles and their appointed successors must be male. Jesus himself
obviously considered it significant that his twelve apostles be males. And his
apostles themselves obviously considered it necessary to ordain and commission
males to succeed them and carry on their mission of purveying the word and
the sacraments. You suggest that Jesus and his apostles acted by mere coincidence.
If Jesus had wanted females to become priests, he would have invited his female
disciples, Mary Magdalen i.e, to table when he instituted the Holy Eucharist and Holy
Orders at the Last Supper. Obviously Jesus thought it was significant to invite
only his close male apostles, or else he would not have given us this example which
must be followed. By your line of reasoning, we may as well question whether
God is actually our heavenly Father, for it is not necessary that God be a male.
God is spirit, neither biologically male or female, but Jesus asked us to address God
as our Father. As Christians we address God as Father because Jesus addressed
God as Father. Again, our Lord had left us an example we must follow without
questioning the significance of the choice of gender.

 

[Contarini]

Contarnini, no Catholic is making a bear assertion without proof in arguing that
the apostles and their appointed successors must be male. Jesus himself
obviously considered it significant that his twelve apostles be males.

No, it’s not obvious at all. How do you know Jesus considered this significant? How do you know He didn’t just pick the twelve people who happened to be the most appropriate people at that place and time?

You suggest that Jesus and his apostles acted by mere coincidence.

No, I am not suggesting that.

If Jesus had wanted females to become priests, he would have invited his female
disciples, Mary Magdalen i.e, to table when he instituted the Holy Eucharist and Holy
Orders at the Last Supper.

You do not know that he didn’t.

Obviously Jesus thought it was significant to invite
only his close male apostles, or else he would not have given us this example which
must be followed.

This is a highly speculative argument from silence. That is all you have. It’s an incredibly weak basis for any doctrine or practice. The more you pile up your “ifs” and “would haves” the more hollow your argument appears.

By your line of reasoning, we may as well question whether
God is actually our heavenly Father, for it is not necessary that God be a male.

Since “Father” is not an indication of gender when used of God, your argument makes no sense at all.

God is spirit, neither biologically male or female, but Jesus asked us to address God
as our Father. As Christians we address God as Father because Jesus addressed
God as Father. Again, our Lord had left us an example we must follow without
questioning the significance of the choice of gender.

Bad analogy. You are the one “questioning the significance” in the sense that you are ascribing significance to the gender of the Apostles beyond anything stated in the Gospels. Similarly, if you were to argue that God is called our Father because God is in some way male, then you would be doing the same thing. But of course you are not. We both agree that God is our Father and this does not mean that God is male. Similarly, the fact that priests represent both God the Father and Christ does not mean that they have to be male.

Your analogy works in my favor.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Techno2000]

No, it’s not obvious at all. How do you know Jesus considered this significant? How do you know He didn’t just pick the twelve people who happened to be the most appropriate people at that place and time?

No, I am not suggesting that.

You do not know that he didn’t.

This is a highly speculative argument from silence. That is all you have. It’s an incredibly weak basis for any doctrine or practice. The more you pile up your “ifs” and “would haves” the more hollow your argument appears.

Since “Father” is not an indication of gender when used of God, your argument makes no sense at all.

Bad analogy. You are the one “questioning the significance” in the sense that you are ascribing significance to the gender of the Apostles beyond anything stated in the Gospels. Similarly, if you were to argue that God is called our Father because God is in some way male, then you would be doing the same thing. But of course you are not. We both agree that God is our Father and this does not mean that God is male. Similarly, the fact that priests represent both God the Father and Christ does not mean that they have to be male.

Your analogy works in my favor.

In Christ,

Edwin

Protestants are lost on things like this, Because they have no Sacred Traditions to follow

 

[kujo313]

First, although you have been told time and again that we Catholics do not worship and adore Mary, you continue to propagate that falsity. There was actually a movement that was deemed heretical by the Church many years ago (can’t think of what it was called at the moment) where some misguided Catholics had raised Mary up to “goddess” status.

Your basic problem is your assumption that everything about the faith is explicitly found in scripture. It is not:

John 20:30: Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.

John 21:25: But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Plus, you also assume that the Word is only just that - words. That is incorrect. God (Jesus) is the Word made flesh!

John 1:14: And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

You truly have blinders on to think that the full truth of Christ could be found in the written works of the entire world, let alone the bible by itself. Furthermore, to think that your fallible interpretation of those scriptures is fully sufficient is naive. Again, that’s why we have the three legs of the Catholic Church: the Bible, the Traditions, and the Magisterium - just like Christ set it up, so that we humans could have the fullness of the Truth.

I’m still waiting for you to give me some credible historical evidence as to there being another “Christian” church before the Catholic Church. I would also still like you to explain to me why there are thousands of different protestants and protestant denominations who all would say they are being guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations of scripture teaching thousands of different things.

You’ll have to include your denomination to that list, too. Claiming to be THE true church of Jesus Christ yet, there are those who are “Maryologists” others who DO worship other people in and out of the Bible and build shrines to them.
The RCC lists all other denomintations as false yet parts of the RCC, itself are anti-Scripture and anti-Christ.

Sure, the gates of Hell will not prevail against the TRUE Church, but it’s not found in any one denomination including the RCC.
Peter put it right in Matthew 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20. He said that Jesus IS the Christ. He went on with the rest of his life proclaiming just that.
Read Acts 2:14-39; Acts 3: 11-26; Acts 4: 8-12 … Peter’s words.
Those words are fact. Those words are enough. Find a denomination that does not go outside those boundries.

One “church” that seems totally Biblical can be found at
atruechurch.info/home.html .

I’m looking at it carefully and with an open mind. One link there you’d find interesting is

atruechurch.info/catholicism.html

But, then again, it quotes Scripture. You’d probably say “sola scriptula”, shake your head and quote some pope, bishop or priest who nullify the Word of God.

We do not need the “teaching of the ages” (the tradition of men) to understand the Word of God. The Holy Spirit is all we need to understand the Word of God. 1 John 2:26-27 says,

These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

You’ll have to include your denomination to that list, too. Claiming to be THE true church of Jesus Christ yet, there are those who are “Maryologists” others who DO worship other people in and out of the Bible and build shrines to them.
The RCC lists all other denomintations as false yet parts of the RCC, itself are anti-Scripture and anti-Christ.

Sure, the gates of Hell will not prevail against the TRUE Church, but it’s not found in any one denomination including the RCC.

There are no denominations within the Catholic Church. There are two rites; Latin and Eastern, but both in full communion with Rome.

There is no such thing as Maryologist

Yes there are shrines to Mary. I can think of two off the top of my head, Fatima and Loures. The statue of Mary crys tears of blood, and the water of Loures has healed millions.

 

[pedja]

There are no denominations within the Catholic Church. There are two rites; Latin and Eastern, but both in full communion with Rome.

There is no such thing as Maryologist

Yes there are shrines to Mary. I can think of two off the top of my head, Fatima and Loures. The statue of Mary crys tears of blood, and the water of Loures has healed millions.

I don’t know what the devil has installed in you and others like you to make you belive that Mary is less then she is but knowing that the devil hates the name of Mary it doesn’t surpise me.

Wow, now everyone who disagrees with the excessive Mary adoration is from the devil?? Ill try to think about it next time I open the Bible or pray to God, maybe after all Im not even realising that my whole Christian life I was actually led by the devil

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Wow, now everyone who disagrees with the excessive Mary adoration is from the devil?? Ill try to think about it next time I open the Bible or pray to God, maybe after all Im not even realising that my whole Christian life I was actually led by the devil

Don’t twist my words.

 

[pedja]

Don’t twist my words.

“I don’t know what the devil has installed in you and others like you…”

For you the fact is that the devil **has **installed something in him/us, you just dont know what it is. Its one thing to disagree with him but it`s another thing to state it as a matter of fact that the devil made him do so. Who on earth gives you the right to do that and claim such thing?!

 

[Goth_Catholic]

“I don’t know what the devil has installed in you and others like you…”

For you the fact is that the devil **has **installed something in him/us, you just dont know what it is. Its one thing to disagree with him but it`s another thing to state it as a matter of fact that the devil made him do so. Who on earth gives you the right to do that and claim such thing?!

I really have to learn how to ethier just shut up or explain myself better. And I’m not gonna be able to explain myself better tonight

 

[kujo313]

There are no denominations within the Catholic Church. There are two rites; Latin and Eastern, but both in full communion with Rome.

There is no such thing as Maryologist

Yes there are shrines to Mary. I can think of two off the top of my head, Fatima and Loures. The statue of Mary crys tears of blood, and the water of Loures has healed millions.

I don’t know what the devil has installed in you and others like you to make you belive that Mary is less then she is but knowing that the devil hates the name of Mary it doesn’t surpise me.

**Mariology (also Maryology): **n

“The body of belief or dogma or the systematic study of the Virgin Mary and her role in the Incarnation.”

Dude, do a GoogleSearch on “Mariology”.

rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/mary.htm

contenderministries.org/Catholicism/mariology.php

catholicanalysis.blogspot.com/2005/12/mariology-is-biblical.html

 

[Goth_Catholic]

**Mariology (also Maryology): **n

“The body of belief or dogma or the systematic study of the Virgin Mary and her role in the Incarnation.”

Dude, do a GoogleSearch on “Mariology”.

rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/mary.htm

contenderministries.org/Catholicism/mariology.php

catholicanalysis.blogspot.com/2005/12/mariology-is-biblical.html

I see

And this is a bad thing because…

 

[pedja]

I really have to learn how to ethier just shut up or explain myself better. And I’m not gonna be able to explain myself better tonight

haha, ok then. peace and good night

 

[kujo313]

I see

And this is a bad thing because…

1. It’s anti-Scriptual. Your denomination’s “rules” say that if your tradition contradicts Scripture then Scripture “rules”.
2. It’s anti-Christ. Matthew 4:10

Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”

1. God has, and continues to, use His creation to speak to the believers, Satan does, too. He’ll use anybody and anything. Even an appriation of Mary.

Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22

For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.

What is the Church’s warcry?

Matthew 16:16

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Later, Peter DENIED Jesus three times. THAT is not the “rock”. Those who keep Matthew 16:16 in focus IS the rock.

Matthew 7:25

The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.

What is that “rock”? Look one verse before:

Matthew 7:24

Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

The rock is those who hears Jesus’ Words and puts them into practice. The apostles Peter, Paul, James, John, Mark, Matthew, and Luke put their words and the words of Jesus in writing. Your “RCC” or so, put them in what is today’s Bible. Every author centers around Jesus being the Christ.
Anything off that focus is the enemy taking you away from the Church’s “warcry” which will deceive you and take you straight to Hell.

 

[Mannyfit75]

1. It’s anti-Scriptual. Your denomination’s “rules” say that if your tradition contradicts Scripture then Scripture “rules”.
2. It’s anti-Christ. Matthew 4:10

Our tradition does not contradict Scripture. St. Paul said, 'hold fast the tradition we have given you either by written or oral."

Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”

3. God has, and continues to, use His creation to speak to the believers, Satan does, too. He’ll use anybody and anything. Even an appriation of Mary.

The Catholic Church teaches private revelation (which include visions of Mary) is not consider the part of the deposit of faith (unchanging). A faithful can believe or not believe it.

There are in fact few approved apparitions. The Church carefully look into these.

The CCC states

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong

, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.

The Catholic Church which has given us the Christogy of the Trinity is making false prophets. No. There isn’t.

Matthew 16:16

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Later, Peter DENIED Jesus three times. THAT is not the “rock”. Those who keep Matthew 16:16 in focus IS the rock.

After Jesus resurrection, he ask Peter. Do you love me three times. This is to make up for Peter’s denial of Jesus. He also told Peter to feed his sheep.

Matthew 7:25

The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.

What is that “rock”? Look one verse before:

Matthew 7:24

Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

The rock is those who hears Jesus’ Words and puts them into practice. The apostles Peter, Paul, James, John, Mark, Matthew, and Luke put their words and the words of Jesus in writing. Your “RCC” or so, put them in what is today’s Bible. Every author centers around Jesus being the Christ.
Anything off that focus is the enemy taking you away from the Church’s “warcry” which will deceive you and take you straight to Hell.

Likewise, we are to persevere in the end and remain faithful to the Lord. Who are you to judge who goes to Hell? You are not the Eternal Judge. I would be careful who you judge who will go hell and who does not. That judgement is reserved to the Son of Man; Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church worship is centered on the Blessed Eucharist. For in the Catholic Church, we believe the Real Presence of Jesus Christ present within the Eucharist. His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is there. Though the physical appears remain Blood and unleaven Bread, the Eucharist during the consecration becomes Jesus. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith.

If you come here to share you faith you are welcome. But we do not tolerate individuals who claims to know what the Church teaches but they don’t. If you are an Ex-Catholic, you were probably poorly catechized, or just another misinform Catholic who did not know his faith, and just left the Church because some Bible-Evangelical Christian told you the Church is wrong on many grounds.

If you are not an ex-Catholic, and was raised Protestant tradition, you probably heard some beliefs Catholic have. You are welcome but don’t be so foolish as to know what we believe. I can see in your post, that you don’t know the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[sosayi1960]

Mannyfit75;2157473:

more like the celebration of contradictions because of Sola Scriptura’s varies interpretation like OSAS, Rapture, etc…[/QUOTEH

How about contradictions like limbo? When I was growing up Catholic, we were taught that unbaptized babies go to limbo. Whether limbo was official doctrine or not, it was definitely something that was believed by Catholics during my growing-up years in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Now it seems, the teaching on limbo has changed.

No contradiction there? Right!

I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s. Limbo and Purgatory always seemed like a bunch of nonsense to me. I have respect for Mary and her “Choice” in her response to God.
My wife remains Catholic, I have been taking our kids to Protestant services. I do believe the Eucharist is a special gift from the Lord Jesus.I can’t understand why so many Catholic’s would say that I can’t experience the Lord outside the Catholic Church. Jesus said" When two or more are gathered together in my name, I AM there in their midst". It’s very difficult to believe in a Church which is “Obsessed” with being “Pro-Life”. This same Church allowed children to be sexually abused, for years, only God knows how long. I know of several people my age who have left the Church in droves. I buried both my parents and my mother-in-law in the Catholic Church. I met my wife on a Franciscan Retreat. Now, the newest thing is to make the Mary the CO-Redeemer. It is Blasphemy! Jesus is the one mediator, not Mary.
I pray that my wife will let go of the church. It’s been a real problem between the two of us. I feel hurt that the Catholic church has taught me, my wife and kids, false doctrine. I was brought up through 16 years of theology, instruction, etc. Yes, it was conservative, my parents had a obsession with Mary, statues etc.
The divsion in my house is in serving the Lord and not the Catholic church.
Come Lord Jesus!

[/quote]

 

[Antwill]

You’ll have to include your denomination to that list, too. Claiming to be THE true church of Jesus Christ yet, there are those who are “Maryologists” others who DO worship other people in and out of the Bible and build shrines to them.
The RCC lists all other denomintations as false yet parts of the RCC, itself are anti-Scripture and anti-Christ.

Sure, the gates of Hell will not prevail against the TRUE Church, but it’s not found in any one denomination including the RCC.
Peter put it right in Matthew 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20. He said that Jesus IS the Christ. He went on with the rest of his life proclaiming just that.
Read Acts 2:14-39; Acts 3: 11-26; Acts 4: 8-12 … Peter’s words.
Those words are fact. Those words are enough. Find a denomination that does not go outside those boundries.

One “church” that seems totally Biblical can be found at
atruechurch.info/home.html .

I’m looking at it carefully and with an open mind. One link there you’d find interesting is

atruechurch.info/catholicism.html

But, then again, it quotes Scripture. You’d probably say “sola scriptula”, shake your head and quote some pope, bishop or priest who nullify the Word of God.

We do not need the “teaching of the ages” (the tradition of men) to understand the Word of God. The Holy Spirit is all we need to understand the Word of God. 1 John 2:26-27 says,

These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

Just because there are Catholics who do not follow the Church’s teachings on certain things does not mean they are a separate denomination within the Church. They are simply dissenters within the Church. The official Church teachings do no accept their dissention, but it attempts to work with them where they are in hopes of bringing them to a fullness of the Truth. For example, unfortunately, there a thousands (if not millions) of “Catholics” who do not follow the Church’s teaching on contraception. However, those Catholics are not a separate denomination, they simply are “dissenters within.” Of course, if their dissention is public and aggregious enough, they risk excommunication.

I will simply ask you again to provide credible historical evidence for you assertion that there was any other Christian church than the Catholic Church from the time of Christ. All these “Jack Chick” type websites you link are nothing but more of the made up fundamentalist stuff that has only been around for the last hundred years or so.

As for your “sola scriptura” contention that I will quote some pope, bishop, or priest to “nullify the word of God.” No, I would quote the Church to nullify your fallible interpretation of scripture. Nothing the Church teaches nullifies or contradicts the word of God.

I will also again ask you to explain all the contraditory teachings of protestants and protestant denominations (again, supposedly all led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations of scripture). The fruits of that is thousands of different protestant denominations and your “atruechurch” website is a great example of the confusion and denunciation that has led to with its condemnation of all different evangelical, protestant and Catholic leaders, who, according to that site, are all going to hell. I find it interesting that you haven’t even tried to answer that yet.

Again, why are they right in their interpretation and everyone else is wrong? What is their AUTHORITY outside their interepretation of scripture, to which all these others can lay claim, as well?

Until you can answer those questions, your argument is dead in the water; and if you don’t want to address those questions, so is our conversation.

God Bless.

 

[believers]

Priscilla Ann;2157509:

I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s. Limbo and Purgatory always seemed like a bunch of nonsense to me. I have respect for Mary and her “Choice” in her response to God.
My wife remains Catholic, I have been taking our kids to Protestant services. I do believe the Eucharist is a special gift from the Lord Jesus.I can’t understand why so many Catholic’s would say that I can’t experience the Lord outside the Catholic Church. Jesus said" When two or more are gathered together in my name, I AM there in their midst". It’s very difficult to believe in a Church which is “Obsessed” with being “Pro-Life”. This same Church allowed children to be sexually abused, for years, only God knows how long. I know of several people my age who have left the Church in droves. I buried both my parents and my mother-in-law in the Catholic Church. I met my wife on a Franciscan Retreat. Now, the newest thing is to make the Mary the CO-Redeemer. It is Blasphemy! Jesus is the one mediator, not Mary.
I pray that my wife will let go of the church. It’s been a real problem between the two of us. I feel hurt that the Catholic church has taught me, my wife and kids, false doctrine. I was brought up through 16 years of theology, instruction, etc. Yes, it was conservative, my parents had a obsession with Mary, statues etc.
The divsion in my house is in serving the Lord and not the Catholic church.
Come Lord Jesus!

You’re absolutely right about limbo and purgatory. It doesn’t matter whether it was official doctrine. That fact of the matter is that it was taught that both exist and Catholics believed it. I too had a hard time getting my mind around both.

What I find interesting on these forums is that most people here are converts and not “cradle Catholics”. These RCIA type Catholics don’t know the real under belly of this religious institution. The true fruit of the RCC is seen in the cradle Catholics who seem to be far from love, joy, and peace. The teaching (if you want to call it that) is so far removed from the truth. An RCIA Catholic gets indoctrinated, then their children go to CCD get indoctrinated. As each generation passes, you get a typical “cradle Catholic” who thinks being water baptized, confirmed, and 1 hour on Sunday is all you need.

 

[Good_Fella]

Contarini, you say you are not suggesting that Jesus and the apostles acted out
of coincidence by selecting male apostolic successors. But in the same breath you
ask how do I know that Jesus just didn’t pick twelve people at random at that place
and time. I would consider the random selection of twelve males, and not any females
included, a remarkable coincidence, unless Jesus had a reason for selecting only males.
I’m afraid you contradict yourself, leaving your argument in shambles.

I fail to see any faulty analogy on my part. For we are still left with the biblical fact
that Jesus asked us to address God as our Father. Notwithstanding
God’s spiritual transcendence, our Lord did not ask us to call God our Mother. Nor
did he address his heavenly Father as Mother. Again, there was no random choice
of words on our Lord’s part. The paternal appellation was used by Jesus for a reason.
Of course, our Lord refrained from getting into needless explanations about
his preference for the male gender when addressing God and choosing his apostles.
He simply left us an example to follow by his solemn words and deeds. The Catholic Church
recognizes and espouses our Lord’s wishes without the rationalizations Protestants
are noted for, fallible speculations on their part that explains the doctrinal divisions and discord
in the Protestant movement of a plurality of Churches. The Sacred Magisterium infallibly
teaches that females cannot be ordained as priests primarily because Jesus left us no example.
Nor did the apostles and the early Church. I have my sacred Traditions which are based on
Sacred Scriptures to guide my beliefs. I do not have to speculate and rationalize like you do.

Our discussion is getting nowhere, so I will end it now on my part. God bless you.

 

[Contarini]

Contarini, you say you are not suggesting that Jesus and the apostles acted out
of coincidence by selecting male apostolic successors. But in the same breath you
ask how do I know that Jesus just didn’t pick twelve people at random at that place
and time.

No, I said absolutely nothing of the kind. If you can’t even repeat my argument correctly, this discussion really is pointless. I never used the word “random.” I said that Jesus picked the twelve people who were most appropriate in that time and place.

Ironically, you are thinking in modern egalitarian terms. You are assuming that if someone picks twelve people and they are all men, then he must have some deep objection to picking women. And typically when this argument develops, Catholics say things like “Jesus had no regard for social customs,” which is nonsense. He didn’t regard them when they interfered with His mission. Clearly picking twelve men did not interfere with His mission. So clearly abolishing gender inequalities and establishing some sort of quota system was not part of His mission. That is all you can prove from the fact that the Twelve were men.

I fail to see any faulty analogy on my part. For we are still left with the biblical fact
that Jesus asked us to address God as our Father. Notwithstanding
God’s spiritual transcendence, our Lord did not ask us to call God our Mother. Nor
did he address his heavenly Father as Mother. Again, there was no random choice
of words on our Lord’s part.

And again, I never said that it was random. You assume that if it didn’t have the precise reason you allege, then it was random. That is an unwarranted assumption in both cases.

You are the one engaging in unwarranted speculation about Jesus’ reasons.

Edwin

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Not to get us too far off track, but…

Re: Women and the priesthood, I find the Legend of St. Brigid of Kildare to be inspiring. It is said that when St. Mel was making her an Abbess that he accidentally read the Rite of Confirmation of a Bishop over her. St. Mel did not rescind the rite. Indeed, he could not. This is why a Bishop’s crozier is one of Brigid’s symbols.

Apparently, the subsequent abbesses of Brigid’s monastery were given Episcopal dignity as well. Until the synod of Kells.

Whether or not St. Mel actually did consecrate Brigid a Bishop is, in many respects, beside the point. She exercised a Bishop’s authority, and she was seen (at least according to tradition) as being worthy of this authority and consecration, even as a woman.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!