Protestants, why?

[Mystophilus]

Surely the Catholic Church has gay priests - but they are “required” to remain chaste.

As far as women and the priesthood - what do you make of the lack of women among Jesus’s twelve apostles?

There have been self-report studies in which some Catholic priests have identified as being gay, yes, and I have heard quite a few comments from lay Catholics on this topic.

One (straight) priestly friend’s comment upon the Anglican situation was that it was “about time that we admitted what has long been the case”, i.e., that some of the people whom we have been ordaining are gay. Interestingly enough, a few synods have shown that there is even more support for gay ordination from our clergy than from our laity, which might be a result of their more intimate knowledge of that situation.

Certainly, Jesus’ Top Twelve were all men, but the society was so male-dominated as to make female leadership hardly practicable. I cannot see that it indicates a divine ordering of things.

What do you think of the movement within the Catholic Church for the ordination of women?

 

[Mystophilus]

Hostility? I simply said it is an opinion of yours,not a confirmed fact. And just because you studied and dislike it makes it an ugly language? Thus, it is an opinion no matter how much you wish to deny it.

No. As you have just yourself quoted, you said that it was “a **biased **and **bogus **opinion”. It is the pejorative representation of it which is hostile, as is your accusation that I am wishing to deny that this is an opinion when I have just said, “This is explicitly stated as a personal bias”, as are your accusations of misunderstanding.

Find someone else to berate.

Understood.

 

[Rhuarc]

[BIBLEDRB]2 Timothy 3:14-15[/BIBLEDRB]

I am not Catholic because the ones who taught me were not Catholic. I know that these men and women are godly; I have seen God’s blessing upon them. Admittedly I have not known many Catholics, but I do know these teachers of mine. Catholic doctrine states that Protestants do not have the fulness of the truth. Well as I look at these godly Protestants, I cannot fathom how this doctrine can be.

It is simple, you do not have Christ truly present in the Eucharist. Why constantly long to be with Christ knowing that you will have to wait until you go to heaven, when a few miles down the road Jesus is right there in that small Catholic Church you pay no mind to?

 

[trskms]

Most people’s beliefs do change over time. That does not stop them from being devoutly held at a certain moment.

******What good are devoutly held beliefs if they are not True?

 

[enickman]

they listened for a time and then eventually sinned. I have no doubt that Mary sinned both before and after she listened.
how did her obedience require a faith greater than that of Daniel (for example)?..his life was truly on the line.
her selection to give birth to Jesus is most certainly unique, but then we have Jesus’s own assessment of that task:
As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”
He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

…it wasn’t the most blessed thing.

You Catholics seem to focus only on the Luke passage where she is termed blessed and disregard the other verses where Jesus downplays the importance of the birth role, the mother role and the importance of the physical family all in favour of the spiritual family. The result IMHO is a distorted view b/c it fails to consider all scripture….it builds a grand edifice of Marian doctrine on one passage well disregarding how other passages are not consistent with that grand edifice.
and I agree…it is what you add to that limited role that I find so terribly unfounded
its words, ideas, claims and inaccuracies
that should set off alarm bells. The author isn’t James (a false claim)and isn’t familiar with Jewish practise (with the resulting inaccuracies nicely demonstrating that the details are fabricated). If your “only basis” is a work of such untrustworthy quality, then you should understand why others would view any claim derived from it as being extremely suspect.
where have you looked?

1. Why is Mary the only person (that isn’t Jesus) regarded has full of grace? What does that mean to you? How can you know for a fact she sinned? You don’t think God could make the person that would bring His Son into the world without sin?
2. Was Daniel told he was to do something physically impossible? All I’m saying is Mary showed extraordinary faith and is the Mother of God. That’s sort of a big deal.
3. Again I think you’re missing the point here. He’s not downplaying His mother. You keep giving me the same quote. What is the 4th Commandment? That seems like a big part of Scripture.
4. What is added to the “limited” role? And how is her role “limited”?
5. Alarm bells are certainly set off. I probably shouldn’t reference a work that receives such hostility, even if it has truths within it.
6. How do you explain the apparitions of Mary throughout history? Do you dismiss all these as false? Our Lady of Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc. Have you even done research on these?

 

[enickman]

There have been self-report studies in which some Catholic priests have identified as being gay, yes, and I have heard quite a few comments from lay Catholics on this topic.

One (straight) priestly friend’s comment upon the Anglican situation was that it was “about time that we admitted what has long been the case”, i.e., that some of the people whom we have been ordaining are gay. Interestingly enough, a few synods have shown that there is even more support for gay ordination from our clergy than from our laity, which might be a result of their more intimate knowledge of that situation.

Certainly, Jesus’ Top Twelve were all men, but the society was so male-dominated as to make female leadership hardly practicable. I cannot see that it indicates a divine ordering of things.

What do you think of the movement within the Catholic Church for the ordination of women?

I think it won’t pass. I also don’t understand why it is an issue at all. Even if the society was male dominated, Jesus could have easily chosen women as a few of His 12.

I don’t think the Church denies men who are gay the right to be ordained. I know they call them to be celibate, just like heterosexual priests. I have a friend who is openly bisexual and is in the seminary. Some seminaries may be different though.

 

[enickman]

No. As you have just yourself quoted, you said that it was “a **biased **and **bogus **opinion”. It is the pejorative representation of it which is hostile, as is your accusation that I am wishing to deny that this is an opinion when I have just said, “This is explicitly stated as a personal bias”, as are your accusations of misunderstanding.

Find someone else to berate.

Understood.

This is a pointless argument. Both sides need to let it go.

 

[stewstew03]

There have been self-report studies in which some Catholic priests have identified as being gay, yes, and I have heard quite a few comments from lay Catholics on this topic.

One (straight) priestly friend’s comment upon the Anglican situation was that it was “about time that we admitted what has long been the case”, i.e., that some of the people whom we have been ordaining are gay. Interestingly enough, a few synods have shown that there is even more support for gay ordination from our clergy than from our laity, which might be a result of their more intimate knowledge of that situation.

Certainly, Jesus’ Top Twelve were all men, but the society was so male-dominated as to make female leadership hardly practicable. I cannot see that it indicates a divine ordering of things.

What do you think of the movement within the Catholic Church for the ordination of women?

I side with the Venerable Pope John Paul II, who stated:

“…in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” (OrdinatioSacerdotalis 4).

 

[enickman]

First, I agree. Many people of many different faiths can trip up. Goodness knows it’s happened to Protestants as well. I have no ill feelings toward the priest who snubbed my mother. I am disappointed with him, but I continue to pray for him. Your assertion that the Catholic Church teaches anyone can go to heaven is surprising to me. I haven’t heard that message before now, but I accept what you say. But I’m interested in the believer’s culpability that you speak of. Are you saying that Protestants do not know a true version of Christ and thus, are not culpable? In other words, can Catholics alone know Christ fully? I’m not searching for an argument–I’m just trying to learn Catholic doctrine.

That is big of you to pray for him. Not many would do so, you are obviously forgiving and compassionate. As far as salvation, you can get it all from the Catechism. I’m not saying Protestants don’t know who Christ was/is. I’m saying Protestant churches leave things out such as His real presence, all the Sacraments, moral teachings, etc. He established one Church, and any broken off sect doesn’t fully contain everything that the original Church does.

 

[Mystophilus]

******What good are devoutly held beliefs if they are not True?

They are good externally for the actions to which they can motivate us. They are good internally for the experience of life which they provide: we grow, we make mistakes, and we learn.

Most importantly, though, beliefs are crucial to our ability to engage with the world around us, and the fact that some of those beliefs are going to turn out to be incorrect does not change that.

 

[Mystophilus]

I think it won’t pass. I also don’t understand why it is an issue at all. Even if the society was male dominated, Jesus could have easily chosen women as a few of His 12.

I don’t think the Church denies men who are gay the right to be ordained. I know they call them to be celibate, just like heterosexual priests. I have a friend who is openly bisexual and is in the seminary. Some seminaries may be different though.

Jesus could have picked women for the Top Twelve, but the responses which they would have received when preaching would have been markedly different. It was also much more difficult and dangerous for a woman to travel alone than for a man to do so. Unfortunately, since, he did not leave us an explanation of why he had no women in the group, we can hardly prove our speculations correct.

As regards your Church, there is an instruction to gay people not to enter seminaries (catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican_says_prohibition_against_gays_in_seminaries_is_universal/). Then again, it is not universally accepted (gaycatholicpriests.org/about/). It will be interesting to see how that all plays out, especially since it has become an issue on which the secular world sees Christianity as having lost its way.

 

[Mystophilus]

I side with the Venerable Pope John Paul II, who stated:

Fair enough.

I was rather impressed by a comment from an Orthodox theologian, who said, “We have never ordained women as priests. This either means that we have a tradition of not ordaining them, in which case we cannot, or that we do not have a tradition of ordaining them, in which case we can start one.”

 

[stewstew03]

Jesus could have picked women for the Top Twelve, but the responses which they would have received when preaching would have been markedly different. It was also much more difficult and dangerous for a woman to travel alone than for a man to do so. Unfortunately, since, he did not leave us an explanation of why he had no women in the group, we can hardly prove our speculations correct.

As regards your Church, there is an instruction to gay people not to enter seminaries (catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican_says_prohibition_against_gays_in_seminaries_is_universal/). Then again, it is not universally accepted (gaycatholicpriests.org/about/). It will be interesting to see how that all plays out, especially since it has become an issue on which the secular world sees Christianity as having lost its way.

I don’t think this is a very strong argument. Jesus could have also quietly rebuked the Pharisees and whispered to His inner circle that He is the Messiah. It was very dangerous for these early Christians to reject Judaism and Roman Paganism in favor of a convicted criminal who was humiliated and hung on the cross.

Certainly Jesus was not afraid of “bucking the establishment” so to speak.

 

[stewstew03]

Fair enough.

I was rather impressed by a comment from an Orthodox theologian, who said, “We have never ordained women as priests. This either means that we have a tradition of not ordaining them, in which case we cannot, or that we do not have a tradition of ordaining them, in which case we can start one.”

This is a rather obtuse statement from an Orthodox theologian; perhaps that is why he or she remains anonymous.

 

[Mystophilus]

I don’t think this is a very strong argument. Jesus could have also quietly rebuked the Pharisees and whispered to His inner circle that He is the Messiah. It was very dangerous for these early Christians to reject Judaism and Roman Paganism in favor of a convicted criminal who was humiliated and hung on the cross.

Certainly Jesus was not afraid of “bucking the establishment” so to speak.

It is merely a demonstration that the mere fact of the Top Twelve being men can be explained by reasons other than it being divinely required for them to be so: men were more effective as preachers, and as missionaries, because of the way in which the society operated. Since the phenomenon of the all-male Top Twelve could be caused by reasons other than a gender-specific fiat alone, we cannot logically claim that the all-male Top Twelve is proof of such a fiat.

 

[stewstew03]

It is merely a demonstration that the mere fact of the Top Twelve being men can be explained by reasons other than it being divinely required for them to be so: men were more effective as preachers, and as missionaries, because of the way in which the society operated. Since the phenomenon of the all-male Top Twelve could be caused by reasons other than a gender-specific fiat alone, we cannot logically claim that the all-male Top Twelve is proof of such a fiat.

Indeed, I understand. I was merely pointing out the weakness of that argument.

 

[enickman]

It is merely a demonstration that the mere fact of the Top Twelve being men can be explained by reasons other than it being divinely required for them to be so: men were more effective as preachers, and as missionaries, because of the way in which the society operated. Since the phenomenon of the all-male Top Twelve could be caused by reasons other than a gender-specific fiat alone, we cannot logically claim that the all-male Top Twelve is proof of such a fiat.

As said above, it didn’t seem Jesus cared much for how the society operated. It could be caused by other things rather than gender. But what has close to 2000 years of Tradition kept as the belief? Men are priests, women are not. God, the Father, sent Jesus, His Son, who sent the Apostles, all who were men. This doesn’t make women of no use or importance. They can still join the sisterhood and live God’s will in other various ways.

 

[Taestron]

Sorry for butting in here, but the conversation went along a different path while I was away

I agree with much of what you’re saying here but must ask, How do you interpret Matt 16:18?

I would say that this means that the Church will never be destroyed nor will its mission of revealing Christ and mission to the world ever be compromised. On some issues, I believe the Church must teach truthfully or else the Church’s mission would be compromised. On other issues… not so much. This is the vague, protestant notion of essential and unessential beliefs. Let us take the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Can we really say that the Assumption of Mary is dogmatic for the gospel of Christ on the same level that the Resurrection is? I would think not, so I really cannot say that the Church must believe this doctrine or else its mission would be compromised.

Actually, it had to do with reforming the practice of almsgiving, as they relate to indulgences. Here is a good resource for you: Myths About Indulgences.

Ah… Thank you for the correction. I actually knew this already, but I was just using the shorthand to which I am accustomed. I will change this in the future to avoid perpetuating misunderstanding.

The practice of offering indulgences in return for alms giving was never Church doctrine. If praxis is the greatest judge of doctrine, it’s nonsensical to claim that “even the best doctrines can have a corrupt practice.” This is double-speak to an absurd degree.

I really need to leave my computer for an hour or so and come back and read these posts before I submit them. However, I stand by what I was trying to say. Why is it that the gates of hell would prevail if the Church teaches false doctrine but not when the praxis is corrupt? This puts belief in extreme supremacy over and above praxis, much like the Gnostics did. I am not saying this as a jab against Catholics; Evangelical Christianity at least in the U.S. has much the same problem.

It is simple, you do not have Christ truly present in the Eucharist. Why constantly long to be with Christ knowing that you will have to wait until you go to heaven, when a few miles down the road Jesus is right there in that small Catholic Church you pay no mind to?

Well you could say that we don’t have Christ in the Eucharist. I say we do. But did Christ not say “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I with them?” So why do you say we believe we must wait until heaven to be with Christ?

There is also the issue that we have been baptized into the Body of Christ and as such we are the presence of Christ in this world. I had a professor who once said the difference between EO and RC is the mystical and the literal body of Christ. Catholics believe that the bread of the Eucharist becomes the literal body of Christ and the Church is the mystical body of Christ. Orthodox, on the other hand, believe the Church to be the literal body of Christ and the bread to be the mystical body. Now I have no idea if that is true or not, but the fact remains is that due to our valid baptisms, Protestants have every right to claim to be the body of Christ.

P.S. On an unimportant note: “pay no mind to” is about as far from what I do to the Catholic Church that a Protestant can get. For purely selfish reasons, I wish I could be Catholic, but I refuse to be a “cafeteria Catholic” and cannot join until my issues are clarified.

 

[stewstew03]

I would say that this means that the Church will never be destroyed nor will its mission of revealing Christ and mission to the world ever be compromised. On some issues, I believe the Church must teach truthfully or else the Church’s mission would be compromised.

Right. As corrupt as some leaders in the Catholic Church might be (and have been), it’s miraculous that the Church numbers over a billion adherents covering all continents. Not that “size matters” - but one would think (from listening to some protestants) that the Church today would be little more than a diminished sect of Christianity. I believe it thrives because its doctrines are Christ’s revelation to the world.

This is the vague, protestant notion of essential and unessential beliefs. Let us take the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.

Well… point out some scripture verses to me that inform us which beliefs are essential, and which are nonessential.

Can we really say that the Assumption of Mary is dogmatic for the gospel of Christ on the same level that the Resurrection is?

I’m not sure what you mean by “same level.” Can you rank-order Christian beliefs?

Why is it that the gates of hell would prevail if the Church teaches false doctrine but not when the praxis is corrupt? This puts belief in extreme supremacy over and above praxis, much like the Gnostics did.

No - it places doctrine over practice. Was Paul a sinner who preached the Gospel?

I am not saying this as a jab against Catholics; Evangelical Christianity at least in the U.S. has much the same problem.

You may jab all you like. And, yes, we find agreement with evangelicals on many issues. Unfortunately, they tend to reveal their prejudices toward the Church on occasion.

For purely selfish reasons, I wish I could be Catholic, but I refuse to be a “cafeteria Catholic” and cannot join until my issues are clarified.

Great - you’ve come to the right place. And it sounds like we could use your on our side.
Keep learning as much as you can.
I (along with many other former protestants) was in your position once too.

 

[Taestron]

Alright one more reply, and then I really need to go to bed.

Right. As corrupt as some leaders in the Catholic Church might be (and have been), it’s miraculous that the Church numbers over a billion adherents covering all continents. Not that “size matters” - but one would think (from listening to some protestants) that the Church today would be little more than a diminished sect of Christianity. I believe it thrives because its doctrines are Christ’s revelation to the world.

Point taken. Although I would hesitate to say that all of the Church’s doctrines are Christ’s revelation, and as such there is not as great of need for the Church to be infallible in those (if we can identify them).

Well… point out some scripture verses to me that inform us which beliefs are essential, and which are nonessential.

There are none; that is the major weakness of the Protestant viewpoint. However, see if my reasoning below makes sense.

I’m not sure what you mean by “same level.” Can you rank-order Christian beliefs?

I believe you can. Let us say the Assumption of Mary was never taught or believed by the Church. Would Church doctrine look different? A little, but most would be unchanged. Now let us say the Resurrection was never taught or believed by the Church. Then all of Christianity is changed. So could we say that the Assumption of Mary is unessential doctrine and the Resurrection is essential?

No - it places doctrine over practice. Was Paul a sinner who preached the Gospel?

Yes. I will admit that doctrine should be placed over practice. I really want to speak my objection clearly, so I’ll wait until I get some sleep.

Great - you’ve come to the right place. And it sounds like we could use your on our side.
Keep learning as much as you can.
I (along with many other former protestants) was in your position once too.

Thanks for the encouragement. You know, I said to myself, quite honestly, that if the Great Schism was healed, I would join the resulting Church in a heartbeat. So I know my objections can’t be too great.