The problem of Witchcraft/Paganism

[heartwood010]

All from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I’ll include footnotes

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt3.shtml#a

All from footnote 67
Mk 3

This is all catechism (written by the Church) or scripture that doesn’t say that women should be excluded.

Any other examples?

 

[crazzeto]

This is all catechism (written by the Church) or scripture that doesn’t say that women should be excluded.

Any other examples?

I started wtih the CCC, and linked to the Bible, I simply expanded out footnote #67 for you so you wouldn’t have to look it up your self. Footnote #67 is the scriptual passages which provides the reasoning:

Cf. Mk 3:14-19; Lk 6:12-16; 1 Tim 3:1-13; 2 Tim 1:6; Titus 1:5-9; St. Clement of Rome, Ad Cor. 42, 4; 44, 3: PG 1, 292-293; 300.

I only provided the biblical references. The exclusion of women is clear from the bible alone. You have to ignore scripture to argue this point.

 

[masha]

Let’s all have some tea and relax a bit.

Heartwood, I agree that a lot of women and young girls are attracted to paganism because of the goddess-element. The role of priestess must be very attractive to those who feel left out in Catholicism - not only because of Catholicism’s male-only priesthood, but perhaps also by Catholicism’s particular priesthood, as opposed to neo-paganism common priesthood. I really can see why they would be. And the male & female priesthood of paganism is natural to paganism, just as the all male priesthood is natural to Catholicism. The all mal priesthood is refered to in Scripture (crazzeto gave some references) and it is directly in Tradition (remember that Catholics hold Tradition in very high esteem - as the oral and spiritual companion of Scripture; but it is also in the very nature of the priesthood itself. In the Catholic priesthood, the priest acts “in persona Chrisi” in relation to his “bride” the Church.

Imagine if, in a ritual (and I can only speak of the rituals I know, but I think this holds true across the board) you were to have the priest and priestess exchange roles - the priest representing the goddess and the priestess the god, or imagine if you were to use a knife to symbolize receptivity? The ritual itself would be flawed - it’s nature would be out of balance. In the church, we have that feminine role taken up already by the Church herself - as she is spiritually and in eternity, a spiritual entity made up of many but acting in the feminine role of Bride in relation to Christ, and the priest in the role of Christ acts in the role of her Bridegroom. The church would be out of balance if women were in that role, just as any ritual would be out of balance if roles were reversed.

I hope that makes sense to you.

As for the Church not being the only place for prayer, you’re right. Prayer can be anywhere, but because it is a sacred space, and because of the presence of Christ, the Church is the ideal place. It is also the ideal (but not the only) place for the Liturgy, which is more than a prayer it is the essence of worship.

But Crazzeto is wrong if he thinks that a Mother Superior has less power than a deacon or even a priest in her own convent. It varies according to the order, but although the Mother Superior cannot administer the sacraments, she acts in the role of God for her sisters, obedience to her is obedience to God, etc. You’re right in saying she woud have no control of her convent if she had to give way to every priest who came along. There are plenty stories (modern and premodern) of Mother Superiors who defy plenty of priests and bishops. Some orders are under their local bishop, but many are only under their own superiors and the pope. They are essentially ruled by the Mother Superior.

 

[crazzeto]

Let’s all have some tea and relax a bit.

If you got the impression we were excited (or at least I was), then that wasn’t an accurate image.

Heartwood, I agree that a lot of women and young girls are attracted to paganism because of the goddess-element. The role of priestess must be very attractive to those who feel left out in Catholicism - not only because of Catholicism’s male-only priesthood, but perhaps also by Catholicism’s particular priesthood, as opposed to neo-paganism common priesthood. I really can see why they would be. And the male & female priesthood of paganism is natural to paganism, just as the all male priesthood is natural to Catholicism. The all mal priesthood is refered to in Scripture (crazzeto gave some references) and it is directly in Tradition (remember that Catholics hold Tradition in very high esteem - as the oral and spiritual companion of Scripture; but it is also in the very nature of the priesthood itself. In the Catholic priesthood, the priest acts “in persona Chrisi” in relation to his “bride” the Church.

More over, it was directly commanded by God through inspired scripture as I was busily stating. However I have to disagree, I can’t see why anyone would be attracted to a religion which will lead you squarly down the wrong road in the name of a confused sense of modernism. Christ is the truth and the way, he left a living Church to guide the flock to heaven. Which is exactly what I’ve been getting at in all of this.

Imagine if, in a ritual (and I can only speak of the rituals I know, but I think this holds true across the board) you were to have the priest and priestess exchange roles - the priest representing the goddess and the priestess the god, or imagine if you were to use a knife to symbolize receptivity? The ritual itself would be flawed - it’s nature would be out of balance. In the church, we have that feminine role taken up already by the Church herself - as she is spiritually and in eternity, a spiritual entity made up of many but acting in the feminine role of Bride in relation to Christ, and the priest in the role of Christ acts in the role of her Bridegroom. The church would be out of balance if women were in that role, just as any ritual would be out of balance if roles were reversed.

I don’t think heartwood is totally unfamilliar with SS. I do think however he has a bone to pick with Christianity due to his bad experience at his previous church.

I hope that makes sense to you.

As for the Church not being the only place for prayer, you’re right. Prayer can be anywhere, but because it is a sacred space, and because of the presence of Christ, the Church is the ideal place. It is also the ideal (but not the only) place for the Liturgy, which is more than a prayer it is the essence of worship.

But Crazzeto is wrong if he thinks that a Mother Superior has less power than a deacon or even a priest in her own convent. It varies according to the order, but although the Mother Superior cannot administer the sacraments, she acts in the role of God for her sisters, obedience to her is obedience to God, etc. You’re right in saying she woud have no control of her convent if she had to give way to every priest who came along. There are plenty stories (modern and premodern) of Mother Superiors who defy plenty of priests and bishops. Some orders are under their local bishop, but many are only under their own superiors and the pope. They are essentially ruled by the Mother Superior.

Ok, I will admit to being fustrated now. Where did I write any of what you’re commenting on here? Did you read my posts? I do believe the entire point of what I’ve been posting to this point is in direct contradiction to your comments here.

 

[heartwood010]

If you got the impression we were excited (or at least I was), then that wasn’t an accurate image.

I am enjoying the debate and have yet to be insulted or irritated.

More over, it was directly commanded by God through inspired scripture as I was busily stating. However I have to disagree, I can’t see why anyone would be attracted to a religion which will lead you squarly down the wrong road in the name of a confused sense of modernism. Christ is the truth and the way, he left a living Church to guide the flock to heaven. Which is exactly what I’ve been getting at in all of this.

“Directly inspired by God through inspired scripture?” So inspired scripture is different than Biblical scripture? I thought the Bible was inspired. Or is it interpreted?

And a wrong road is actually what we are debating, isn’t it?
I don’t think heartwood is totally unfamilliar with SS. *

I don’t know what SS is. I am sure I will have a Duh! moment when you tell me.

I do think however he has a bone to pick with Christianity due to his bad experience at his previous church.

It is irrelevant to the conversation but I am female. And no, I don’t really have a bone to pick with Christianity. I just don’t believe everything I am told simply because hundreds of generations have believed it. Regardless of how Holy, how revered, how Divinely inspired someone was, even if the prophets and Apostles wrote down verbatim what God told them to say, it has still been interpreted by very human priests and scholars with their own agendas and prejudices.

 

[crazzeto]

I am enjoying the debate and have yet to be insulted or irritated.

“Directly inspired by God through inspired scripture?” So inspired scripture is different than Biblical scripture? I thought the Bible was inspired. Or is it interpreted?

And a wrong road is actually what we are debating, isn’t it?

All of which, you should know refers directly to the Bible which is in fact the inspired word of God. I’m not sure if you were trying to just play with words, or were seriously some how confused, but at any rate, all of what your’e talking here is the bible. Which is what I quoted, which is the reason why women can not be Preists or Bishops.

I don’t know what SS is. I am sure I will have a Duh! moment when you tell me.

The Bible or Sacred Scripture or if you want to use short hand “SS”. I’m assuming you have familiarity.

It is irrelevant to the conversation but I am female.

Thank you for that clarification

And no, I don’t really have a bone to pick with Christianity.

But you do, you went to great length to discuss that very fact in this very thread. You used words like “disillusioned” rather than bone to pick, but there you are.

I just don’t believe everything I am told simply because hundreds of generations have believed it. Regardless of how Holy, how revered, how Divinely inspired someone was, even if the prophets and Apostles wrote down verbatim what God told them to say, it has still been interpreted by very human priests and scholars with their own agendas and prejudices.

You claim to be a neo-pegan, why are you bothering? Neo-Peganism has no real tradition, no real roots. It’s a bunch of people, that made up a bunch of Gods based loosely on old polytheisitic idea’s. Christindom however, has a host of archeological, scriptual, traditional and historical evidence to support it.

But regardless, I see you are now dodging the whole “who ever said a woman can’t be a preist” issue. Do you now accept a firm scriptual basis for this? More over, I’m still quite perplexed as to why you would start walking your self down the wrong road.

I beleive this whole conversation started because you made assertions that neo-peganism and Christianity was largely interchangeable. But I think I effectivly just proved how this is not the case. More over I assert that Christianity is where the truth of God may be found, while some paths (non-christian) will lead you back towards God, (Jewdism is the easiest example, if you start fairly reading the Torah and compare to Christ, there are others), some other faiths such as all this new age, neo-pegan stuff really doesn’t have a whole lot of anything to point you back to the truth of God.

 

[heartwood010]

All of which, you should know refers directly to the Bible which is in fact the inspired word of God. I’m not sure if you were trying to just play with words, or were seriously some how confused, but at any rate, all of what your’e talking here is the bible. Which is what I quoted, which is the reason why women can not be Preists or Bishops.

What I was referring to was whether or not the verses in question were altered in some way from the time they were written or are they still the exact word of God. That was why I requested the clarification.

The Bible or Sacred Scripture or if you want to use short hand “SS”. I’m assuming you have familiarity.

I am as familiar as anyone who has not worshiped in a Christian church in over 20 years can be. And even then, it was Protestant and interpreted in a vastly different way than in the RCC.

*But you do, you went to great length to discuss that very fact in this very thread. You used words like “disillusioned” rather than bone to pick, but there you are. *

I gave a little bit of my background so that I could be better understood. It wasn’t to advance an agenda or raise anyone’s hackles. At first I was frustrated with the entire thing (with the church I belonged to) and started looking around. Again, churches are governed by humans and therefore vulnerable to corruption. I have gotten over the concept that churches are corrupt a very long time ago. I think people can be corrupt, and generally given the opportunity, will be corrupt, even if it is in a very small way. That isn’t to say that everyone is looking for a way to be corrupt, to the contrary actually. I know many people who are righteous. I just have a problem with those who claim to be living according to the Bible and the will of the Divine, yet have no problem lying, cheating, or performing under-handed practices for money.

You claim to be a neo-pegan, why are you bothering? Neo-Peganism has no real tradition, no real roots. It’s a bunch of people, that made up a bunch of Gods based loosely on old polytheisitic idea’s. Christindom however, has a host of archeological, scriptual, traditional and historical evidence to support it.

I actually denied being Neo-Pagan. I didn’t deny being a witch. I believe, also, that there are several hundred sets of Standing Stones scattered all over Europe that would be considered archeological evidence.

But regardless, I see you are now dodging the whole “who ever said a woman can’t be a preist” issue. Do you now accept a firm scriptual basis for this?

Not yet. And I believe the original reason for the comment was to illustrate a possible reason for young people to look toward paganism. Not that I believe, one way or another, that women should or should not be admitted to the clergy.

*More over, I’m still quite perplexed as to why you would start walking your self down the wrong road. *

Not relevant for this particular debate.

*I beleive this whole conversation started because you made assertions that neo-peganism and Christianity was largely interchangeable. But I think I effectivly just proved how this is not the case. *

There are many many similarities that are evident. The ritualistic nature of the RCC is almost a direct parallel to several pagan rites. There are differences in semantics but the purposes are similar. But this post is getting long so I will elaborate further at a later time.

 

[NoWings]

I’ll make it simpler…

All hollows eve - Halloween. Following day: All Saints Day.

Eh… yeah. What’s your point? Heathen folk were celebrating the harvest and honoring the souls of their ancestors long before the Church appropriated it into All Saints and All Souls Day, respectively.

If you’re implying that this was somehow Christian before Samhain was celebrating and the Church ‘took it back’ so to speak, then thats nothing but intellectually dishonest retconning.

 

[latin_rite]

1. So then, define a miracle. And explain to me how it is different than what some people call magic. .

Jesus turning water into wine is a miracle.
Sorry i can’t give you example of magic. As there no magic.

1. what some people call occult practices, others call gifts. Explain then the ability of some people to know future events, or the psychics who can “see” kidnapped victims and help police to solve mysteries, and faith healers who can heal those who are terminally ill. Are these occult practices or gifts from God?.

They don’t know future events. Noone does. Psychic? If psychics are so " pyschic" why do they feel the need to advertise? Surely if they were pyschic they would know who needs their help and are willing to pay for it and just call them.
. Which faith healer has ever healed a terminally person? I’ve seen a few “police shows” where they have used pyschic in their investigations I really couldn;t see how any normal person couldn;t have done what they did. It shows even the police can be guilible. All i believe it is a case of , is its a outsiders veiw. Like when you are working on a problem for a while and you’re stuck. And another person comes along looks at it for a minute or two and fixes it straight away. And its normaly a problem that in hindsight is very obvious. Like they say. when you’re stuck on a problem the best thing to do is walk away from it for a while and do something else.

 

[latin_rite]

There is absolutely no reason to ever combine the two. Christianity already has parallels to pretty much anything paganism has, with volumes of commentary from Church Fathers, Church Doctors, Theologians, and so forth.

Wicca is nothing but Catholicism with no clergy and a different view of the divine which focuses on natural cycles.

Really, how interesting. can you point out some of these “paralllels”?

 

[rinnie]

Jesus turning water into wine is a miracle.
Sorry i can’t give you example of magic. As there no magic.

[SIGN]They don’t know future events. Noone does. Psychic[/SIGN]? If psychics are so " pyschic" why do they feel the need to advertise? Surely if they were pyschic they would know who needs their help and are willing to pay for it and just call them.
. Which faith healer has ever healed a terminally person? I’ve seen a few “police shows” where they have used pyschic in their investigations I really couldn;t see how any normal person couldn;t have done what they did. It shows even the police can be guilible. All i believe it is a case of , is its a outsiders veiw. Like when you are working on a problem for a while and you’re stuck. And another person comes along looks at it for a minute or two and fixes it straight away. And its normaly a problem that in hindsight is very obvious. Like they say. when you’re stuck on a problem the best thing to do is walk away from it for a while and do something else.

One point to make also it is against the Catholic faith to go to them. It is breaking one of the ten commandments.

 

[masha]

If you got the impression we were excited (or at least I was), then that wasn’t an accurate image.

Sorry, you seemed stressed. Computers can be confusing that way.

More over, it was directly commanded by God through inspired scripture as I was busily stating. However I have to disagree, I can’t see why anyone would be attracted to a religion which will lead you squarly down the wrong road in the name of a confused sense of modernism. Christ is the truth and the way, he left a living Church to guide the flock to heaven. Which is exactly what I’ve been getting at in all of this.

Try to see, its easier to have a dialogue if you try to understand where the other person is coming from. All our mistakes are a result of a mistake pursuit of the good - either from a misunderstanding of goodness, or from a desire for a temporary good over an eternal good. Remember that you too have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, now think of what attracted you to sin.

But really, can you honestly not see why someone who has learned the faith improperly (no surprise), learn about roles, rights, and equality improperly (again, very common) and feels neglected, unimportant, powerless, passed over by her church would be drawn to a faith that offers her both inclusion and power? Can you honestly not see that so many of our Catholic churches lack any display of reverance for God, and inspire no sense of the sacred in their parishoners? Do you really expect young people to be raised with such weak, semi-protestant theology and still choose to remain Catholic? Most of paganism still has the ritual and mystery that many of our churches have long given up - it’s not so much a sense of modernism as a sense of something ancient and powerful; and that is a very powerful draw.

Ok, I will admit to being fustrated now. Where did I write any of what you’re commenting on here? Did you read my posts? I do believe the entire point of what I’ve been posting to this point is in direct contradiction to your comments here.

Sorry if I’ve upset you here, I was commenting on something in Heartwood’s post, maybe you missed it:

for crying out loud, what you are saying is ridiculous. How would a Mother Superior in a convent have any authority over her charges if even a deacon can over-rule her in the eyes of the Church?

But I think you missed the whole point of my post, which was to give a natural explination for why women can’t be Catholic priests, rather than a Scriptural one. Scripture is all well and good, but I’m assuming that since Heartwood isn’t a Christian, she doesn’t necessarily view it as the inspired word of God. Another reason is that the Church herself doesn’t base her decision on Scripture alone.

 

[CesarAugustus]

What?

Public Confessions ?

That sure is an post VC II abuse!

Obviously isn’t Catholic Doctrine

And about the female Priestess… did you know that the function of the Priest IS because of the Eucharist?

Christ was male or female?

Priest acts in persona Christi while celebrating a Sacrament

God Bless You!!!

 

[heartwood010]

One point to make also it is against the Catholic faith to go to them. It is breaking one of the ten commandments.

And which one of the Commandment is it?

ONE: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’

TWO: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.’

THREE: ‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.’

FOUR: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’

FIVE: ‘Honor your father and your mother.’

SIX: ‘You shall not murder.’

SEVEN: ‘You shall not commit adultery.’

EIGHT: ‘You shall not steal.’

NINE: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’

TEN: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.’

Or here is 3 more versions positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

So, which commandment does it break?

 

[mangy_dog]

Eh… yeah. What’s your point? Heathen folk were celebrating the harvest and honoring the souls of their ancestors long before the Church appropriated it into All Saints and All Souls Day, respectively.

If you’re implying that this was somehow Christian before Samhain was celebrating and the Church ‘took it back’ so to speak, then thats nothing but intellectually dishonest retconning.

Oh! so you do understand.

Halloween = pagan celebration… very different from thanking God for a good harvest. Pagans took the goodness of thanking God for a good harvest and hijacked it thru the years to what it represents today.

 

[rinnie]

And which one of the Commandment is it?

ONE: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’

TWO: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.’

THREE: ‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.’

FOUR: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’

FIVE: ‘Honor your father and your mother.’

SIX: ‘You shall not murder.’

SEVEN: ‘You shall not commit adultery.’

EIGHT: ‘You shall not steal.’

NINE: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’

TEN: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.’

Or here is 3 more versions positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm

So, which commandment does it break?

You could have stopped at number one. Thats it. You shall not have any other gods before me. If you have faith in God you have prayer. You do not have to go to someone else to tell you the future. You know that if God wants you to know something he will tell you. If you have enough faith in him, you trust him completely. You know that whatever happens it happens for a reason and he will take care of you.

 

[rinnie]

Oh! so you do understand.

Halloween = pagan celebration… very different from thanking God for a good harvest. Pagans took the goodness of thanking God for a good harvest and hijacked it thru the years to what it represents today.

Exactly. It was never a bad thing. It was a time everyone got together house to house enjoyed cake, etc and prayed for the dead souls. And were thankful to God. Then someone had to make it evil and try to hurt kids.

 

[heartwood010]

You could have stopped at number one. Thats it. You shall not have any other gods before me. If you have faith in God you have prayer. You do not have to go to someone else to tell you the future. You know that if God wants you to know something he will tell you. If you have enough faith in him, you trust him completely. You know that whatever happens it happens for a reason and he will take care of you.

So, all of the prophets in the bible were breaking the 1st of 10 commandments by foretelling the future and anyone who believes in or seeks out the prophets to learn from them, were also breaking the first commandment? By your reckoning, the Apostle John, when writing the book of Revelation to the 7 churches, was breaking God’s 1st law.

Interesting.

 

[crazzeto]

So, all of the prophets in the bible were breaking the 1st of 10 commandments by foretelling the future and anyone who believes in or seeks out the prophets to learn from them, were also breaking the first commandment? By your reckoning, the Apostle John, when writing the book of Revelation to the 7 churches, was breaking God’s 1st law.

Interesting.

Profits are those people who have speacial revelation, a speacial message from God, to his people. You have to try pretty hard to make that into some sort of violation of “you will have no other Gods”. These people got their message from God, God didn’t tell them this information for no reason at all. It was to fortell of something, specifically that God would make the Word, Flesh.

 

[heartwood010]

But really, can you honestly not see why someone who has learned the faith improperly (no surprise), learn about roles, rights, and equality improperly (again, very common) and feels neglected, unimportant, powerless, passed over by her church would be drawn to a faith that offers her both inclusion and power? Can you honestly not see that so many of our Catholic churches lack any display of reverance for God, and inspire no sense of the sacred in their parishoners? Do you really expect young people to be raised with such weak, semi-protestant theology and still choose to remain Catholic? Most of paganism still has the ritual and mystery that many of our churches have long given up - it’s not so much a sense of modernism as a sense of something ancient and powerful; and that is a very powerful draw.*

This was actually my point. Thank you for making my point far more clearly than I was able. Modern churches (the ones I have attended anyway) have a tendency to:

1. scare people to church (preach only about Revelations and that if you don’t repent and accept Jesus as your personal Savior, you will burn for eternity in the Lake of Fire.)

2)spend so much time studying obscure scripture that they miss the point of submitting yourself to the will of the Divine completely,

or

1. they blather vaguely about Jesus while passing the collection plate.

It has been my experience that the people who need to be preached to the most are not the ones who go to church.(there are exceptions) Sacred spaces should be places to worship and pray, not be told that you are doomed.

Granted the majority of my experience is with Protestant denominations. It very well could be different in the RCC.

But I think you missed the whole point of my post, which was to give a natural explination for why women can’t be Catholic priests, rather than a Scriptural one. Scripture is all well and good, but I’m assuming that since Heartwood isn’t a Christian, she doesn’t necessarily view it as the inspired word of God. Another reason is that the Church herself doesn’t base her decision on Scripture alone.

Again, you make my point for me. Billy Graham, for all that I find him to be a very spiritual man and a very good man and quite worthy to preach the gospel, is inspired by the word of God. Does that mean that every word he speaks is as a mouthpiece of God? Nope. Regardless of how inspired he is, he still puts his own spin on it. When you base your beliefs on those who have an agenda like the early church did, you have to wonder just how much of it is the actual truth and how much is simply propaganda.

I did not say that to incite a riot. But seriously, just what, exactly was the purpose of Vatican II? Or even the First Council of Nicaea? Everyone gets together, decides what they want to believe, then tell the world that is the Truth and the Way, go forth and multiply. It is the hand of man, perhaps inspired, perhaps not, that is directing the Church.

Just my opinion.