NEW YORK: Lesbian [Episcopal ] Priest Nominee on List to be Next Bishop of New York

[via_media]

now regarding Anglican Orders check this out:

this is a recognition Anglican Orders via one of the Orthodox Churches…remember that this document is not Authorotive in anyway…it was never ratified by all orthodox Churches it only represents the opinion of this particular Orthodox synod:

orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/romania.pdf

Im not actually saying that this mean Anglican Orders are Valid, but it does prove that Anglicans don’t have to listen to Rome’s rot regarding our denomination.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

it’s true that Orthodoxy is unsure…but its cause of that Unsureness that I know for a fact he wouldn’t have been accepted into Orthodoxy unless it was via one of the Mysteries…when in doubt Orthodox always make sure. but preforming some Sacramental action. to my Knowledge it has never happened that a schismatic was received into the EO Church without one mystery (sacrament) or another.

Ya, on the day I was received into the Church I made a profession of faith, took the name of an “approved” Orthodox saint (St. Theodoros Stratelates), and received the Eucharist. When I returned to the Catholic Church, I retained the Western variant of the same saint as my patron, St. Theodore of Amasea.

I was told that I had to have a “Christian” name, and that Scott was not acceptable. There is no Orthodox Saint Scott.

 

[anp1215]

In regards to my question as to why women are allowed to be lectors/EMsHC, I received two answers, one of which stated that there aren’t enough men for these roles. I don’t really understand that answer. We shouldn’t really be doing it, but there’s not enough men, so let’s just do it anyway?

Another answer said that Catholics don’t take that passage in the Bible literally. OK…why not? I thought the New Testament was always taken literally, unlike the Old Testament. If you don’t take this part literally, than what’s to stop you from not taking the rest of the NT literally?

I don’t get it.

 

[ringil]

Me neither. I wish I could find a good Spiritual Director. Many people use the confessional for it, but that is not its purpose. Also, most people don’t realize that a priest has to be trained to be a Spiritual Director. Most priests are not. I know that sounds weird, but spiritual direction is a little more than people think it is.

Yes, I would like one also. I tried to get one (a well known Franciscan in Boston) before but he told me “you aren’t ready.” I was a bit disappointed but I was younger and was going through some stuff so maybe he was right. I did feel a little put off.

The Eastern’s and Orthodox put a big emphasis on having a “Spiritual Father” which in some ways I think is great. On the other hand I have seen this lead to a cult of personality and a clanish mentality so I think it can be problematic. I worked wit a woman who became part of a break-away Russian/American Orthodox community that left an established Orthodox parish. They all followed this “holy” monk figure seeking a more aesetic community of believers. Just seemed strange.

Also, I believe that the "Spiritual Father/Mother relationship is more authoritative than that known as Spiritual Direction in the west. It can become like a mini-monastic and superior sort of thing. Putting so much responsibility on another person in such a personal way makes me nervous

 

[ringil]

In regards to my question as to why women are allowed to be lectors/EMsHC, I received two answers, one of which stated that there aren’t enough men for these roles. I don’t really understand that answer. We shouldn’t really be doing it, but there’s not enough men, so let’s just do it anyway?

Another answer said that Catholics don’t take that passage in the Bible literally. OK…why not? I thought the New Testament was always taken literally, unlike the Old Testament. If you don’t take this part literally, than what’s to stop you from not taking the rest of the NT literally?

I don’t get it.

You “don’t get it”

We follow the Pope not our interpretation of Sacred Scripture. That’s not Catholicism, that’s Protestantism.

 

[anp1215]

You “don’t get it”

We follow the Pope not our interpretation of Sacred Scripture. That’s not Catholicism, that’s Protestantism.

You’re right. I don’t think I will ever get that. I don’t see how a Pope can say something is OK when Scripture says that it’s not.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

You’re right. I don’t think I will ever get that. I don’t see how a Pope can say something is OK when Scripture says that it’s not.

He can’t. Not sure why you’d say that?

 

[anp1215]

He can’t. Not sure why you’d say that?

I already asked the question in an above post.
women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
Then why are female lectors allowed?
You said it was because there weren’t enough men.
I don’t understand that line of thought. Why does there not being enough men (if that is the reason) justify going against scripture?

 

[TMC]

If the Pope releases an encyclical that decrees that the Anglican and Catholic Church are in agreement on the form and substance of the Eucharist, who am I to argue against it? Has he done that yet and I missed it?

Why do you pick encyclicals as the point where you draw the line as to agreement? The documents I pointed to are not infallible teaching or necessariliy doctrinal, but neither are encyclicals. At any rate, the point is that there is nothing wrong with recognizing what other faiths believe - that does not mean that Catholics agree they are correct, but you can’t start a conversation unless you at least acknowledge that they believe their own theology.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Why do you pick encyclicals as the point where you draw the line as to agreement? The documents I pointed to are not infallible teaching or necessariliy doctrinal, but neither are encyclicals. At any rate, the point is that there is nothing wrong with recognizing what other faiths believe - that does not mean that Catholics agree they are correct, but you can’t start a conversation unless you at least acknowledge that they believe their own theology.

I never doubt that someone believes their own theology. I mean, if they don’t even believe their own theology, where is the basis for conversation. And of course we can agree to the points we agree on. You don’t hear us discussing the divinity of Christ, because I don’t think there is any question on that. Throw a Jehovah’s Witness into the mix, and you have a different conversation. Conversations such as this always arise from the differences, since that is the only place left for the conversation to go.

 

[CMatt25]

BEcause there are not encough men who volunteer for these positions. In actuality, the idea of the EMofHC only exists because there aren’t enough ORDINARY ministers of Holy Communion (Deacons and Priests) to facilitate Mass.

Interesting reason. There aren’t enough men called to be priests either, but the Church doesn’t allow women to speak in that position.

 

[anp1215]

Interesting reason. There aren’t enough men called to be priests either, but the Church doesn’t allow women to speak in that position.

Yes, that’s why I don’t understand that line of thought. To clarify, I’m not in favor of women priests. I just don’t understand why in the RCC, they are allowed to speak in church as lectors.

 

[CMatt25]

I will not denigrate them for their faith, even if I feel they are mistaken on this matter.

:clapping: Ringil, I pray you still represent the majority of those in the pews and on the altar. And if so, that this shall forever remain to be so. God bless you.

 

[CMatt25]

Yes, that’s why I don’t understand that line of thought. To clarify, I’m not in favor of women priests. I just don’t understand why in the RCC, they are allowed to speak in church as lectors.

I know. But I think maybe Ringil has done a better job of explaining it. Ringil said the Paul passage about women not speaking is not taken literally. So they are free to to be lectors and EMHC. But are not called to the ministerial priesthood.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Interesting reason. There aren’t enough men called to be priests either, but the Church doesn’t allow women to speak in that position.

Its not that the Church doesn’t allow it. It is an immutable doctrine that cannot be changed.

 

[CMatt25]

Yes, that’s why I don’t understand that line of thought. To clarify, I’m not in favor of women priests. I just don’t understand why in the RCC, they are allowed to speak in church as lectors.

Anp, I just read your other post about not understanding how the Pope can change literal words of the Bible. I guess try to remember faithful Catholics believe Jesus is the head of the Church but they believe the Pope is the successor of Peter and they believe he to be the visible head of the Church on earth. The belief then follows to them that as the head teacher on earth, he is led by the Holy Spirit and can not err when defining doctrine concerning faith. If the Holy Spirit tells the Pope to bind and loosen, then so be it seems to be the belief.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Anp, I just read your other post about not understanding how the Pope can change literal words of the Bible. I guess try to remember faithful Catholics believe Jesus is the head of the Church but they believe the Pope is the successor of Peter and they believe he to be the visible head of the Church on earth. The belief then follows naturally that as the head teacher on earth, he is led by the Holy Spirit and can not err when defining doctrine concerning faith. If the Holy Spirit tells the Pope to bind and loosen, then so be it seems to be the belief.

That is generally a good explanation of things.

 

[louis91766]

Please state where I ever claimed that the Orthodox Church is in communion with the Catholic Church.

I was born and baptized Catholic and I was received into the Orthodox Church with a simple meeting with the priest. No rebaptism, no reconfirmation, nothing. All of my sacraments were accepted as valid. So…I don’t know where YOU get your information, but most of it is wrong. Again, I will attributed it to your divorce agitation from the Catholic Church and continue to pray for your peace of mind.

Are you Catholic or Orthodox?

 

[louis91766]

I already asked the question in an above post.
women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
Then why are female lectors allowed?
You said it was because there weren’t enough men.
I don’t understand that line of thought. Why does there not being enough men (if that is the reason) justify going against scripture?

The problem is that Scripture appears to be contradictory. On the one hand, women are to keep silent in the Church, but on the other hand we are to commend female deaconesses and ministers in the Church (Romans 16, 1).

 

[ringil]

The problem is that Scripture appears to be contradictory. On the one hand, women are to keep silent in the Church, but on the other hand we are to commend female deaconesses and ministers in the Church (Romans 16, 1).

I’d recommend you speak with a priest if this issue is bothering you or join a bible study at your local Catholic Church.

Place your trust in the authority of the Church don’t seek out portions of scripture which trouble you. The Magisterium is the authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture, but the Church certainly doesn’t make a business of giving official interpretations of the living word of God.

Are you doubting the Church? Why look for inconsistencies in Scripture if you are Catholic? Sacred Scripture is one sourse, but not the only source of dogmatic thought. If something is bothering you seek the council of a priest and have peace in your heart.