Absolutely it does play out. CHRIST WASHED THE FEET OF THE APOSTLES!so can i go stay in the pope’s room at the vatican then?
why does he not kiss the rings of the people instead of the other way around?
i am not trying to be rude as i think the pope (especially JPII and John XXIII) were amazing men. but there are plenty of times, in practice, that your reverse hierarchy does not play out.
i never said that. that is a gnostic heresy. my statements do not say this and i stand by what i said as being correct. we are not defined any longer by our physical state (i.e. ugly/attractive, tall/short, male/female, black/white, slave/free, etc.) but by our spiritual state.again, as I stated before, this is incorrect. It isn’t “sprit good body bad”.
of course we don’t abandon it, but we don’t solely rely on it either. i would disagree that our bodies are manifestations of who we are though. is an ugly person on the outside ugly on the inside? that is what flows from that logic.Our bodies are manifestations of who we are, not simply shells. We are not to abandon the physical.
no need to shout. i have read it. many times. great document but that doesn’t mean i agree with everything in it.READ THEOLOGY OF THE BODY
i didn’t know Jesus wore a ring.Absolutely it does play out. CHRIST WASHED THE FEET OF THE APOSTLES!
Our bishop washed the feet of the seminarians.
Kissing the ring is not honoring the person, it is honoring Christ.
You version of how things are playing out are gross misunderstandings.
Passive aggressive arguments bear no fruit.i didn’t know Jesus wore a ring.
.
you need to not be uncharitable. i have been very civil in this whole thing.YOu said stop focus on the phsycial and put it back on the spiritual. This is incorrect.
You show great ignorance for having read theology of the body “many times”.
You disagree with a pretty big teaching of the church if you disagree with the bodies being manifestations of who we are. Your example is greatly flawed about “being ugly”. that is merely a subjective evaluation of looks. THis has absolutely no bearing on the discussion.
so when did Jesus give that sign? i thought He gave peter the keys not a ring.Passive aggressive arguments bear no fruit.
The ring is a sign of the office, the vicar of Christ.
well, i have felt a lack of charity from you whether you have intended it or not.I have not been uncharitable.
Apparently you haven’t read theology of the body. It isn’t a document. I also invite you to read “Love and responsibility”.
I stand by the statement. Your argument has no bearing. the ordained priesthood is different than the priesthood of the people.
The mere fact that you are saying “ugly people” shows the ignorance of the very essence of the argument.
Our bodies are manifestations of who we are. NO-NOT ugliness. Ugly/pretty/beautiful in our world’s terms are not what we are talking about. this has no place at all in this discussion
Our bodies…male and female, are very unique. God can count every hair on our head. This is how he designed us. The subjective value of “beauty” made up in this world does not have anything to do with the discussion.
I have consistently been able to defend and explain things here, to which you argue back with “Since when did Jesus wear a ring” type arguments. Kidding or not, they do not aid the discussion. I proved my point very well. I’m done here. Go read, please.
um…wow. Ths shows me that there was no point in even having started a discussion with you.****i read quite a bit. having been an ordained minister and getting another master’s degree, i think i might even read more than you. ***musicians aren’t known for their intellect very often. ***
. you have been condescending and rude and i hope you will be able to see that someday.
when you called me ignorant.um…wow. Ths shows me that there was no point in even having started a discussion with you.****
just…wow.
I have never ever ever been condescending or rude. Point it out, please. It’s not there.
Yet, you have just…oh my. Never mind.
I think that God made our physical bodies, and always intended for us to have them. So no, I don’t agree with you at all. I’m not denying the spiritual, I’m saying that, just as Jesus was human and divine, we’re both physical and spiritual, and they can’t be separated. God decided to create our physical bodies the way that He did, He did not create us to ignore what He made.but Christ transcends the physical. and, actually our basis is spiritual not physical. it was not until after the fall that we began to base things on the physical. now that Christ has reconciled us to Himself, we can stop the focus on the physical and put it back on the spiritual. that is why i said you were stuck in that thinking.
With this argument, I actually think it’s you that’s not paying attention to the spiritual where it is needed.so can i go stay in the pope’s room at the vatican then?
why does he not kiss the rings of the people instead of the other way around?
i am not trying to be rude as i think the pope (especially JPII and John XXIII) were amazing men. but there are plenty of times, in practice, that your reverse hierarchy does not play out.
I feel nothing but protected, loved, and lifted up by the Church. I would consider it a gross denial of who I am, who all women are, if they were expected to deny who God made them just to “prove” they were as “good” as a man.i didn’t know Jesus wore a ring.
they aren’t gross misunderstandings, they are how i see them and how many, many others have understood them. if you look throughout history, you get lots of popes who did not live out this ideal. of course you get some who did as well. that is my point. many people throughout history have been wronged by the church and women are one of those groups.
“Jew nor Greek” was in reference to salvation, not being a priest. Last I checked, everyone else is as able to be saved as any priest.it has every bearing. why is it no longer jew nor greek when it comes to the priesthood… or slave or free but not male or female?
It’s 129 speeches. Pretty long. You’ve really read it 8 times? Good for you, I’ve only read parts of it, and I consider myself to have studied it for a while.it is a written out speech.
It used to be years ago, but you are right, not anymore.It doesn’t. The word OBEY is no where in the vows
The following article and video seems very timely with this topic.
“Women Enter ‘Priesthood’ ***in Defiance ***of Roman Catholic Church”
voanews.com/english/2008-04-10-voa27.cfm
If they "enter ‘priesthood’ In DEFIANCE of the Roman Catholic Church" they are not entering into the Priesthood of The Roman CATHOLIC Church and have nothing to do with it. Therefor, using that to argue that it is possible/right/acceptable within the the Roman Catholic Church is pointless. Woman enter into whatever positions are allowed in other denominations and organizations, but that has NO bearing on the Catholic Church…Thank God.