Women's Ordination Heresy?

[mikew262]

Mike?

(My emphasis.)

Protestantism is a heresy. Persons born into Protestant traditions do not sin by remaining in them. Catholics who leave the Church for a Protestant church, however, are another matter. A priest who leads his flock out of the Church commits a very grave sin.

Well as long as we continue to refer to Protestantism as a heresy and they refer to us in the same vein, we’ll continue to have a unhealable rift within Christianity. Hopefully, with God’s help, Christianity, through the openmindedness (not sure this is a word) of future Christian leaders from all sides, will find a way to end this foolishness and reunite.

On a side note, Islam has the same problem with their different sects within their religion, except they are killing each other over it. With an occasional exception, thank goodness we’ve gotten past that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well as long as we continue to refer to Protestantism as a heresy and they refer to us in the same vein, we’ll continue to have a unhealable rift within Christianity. Hopefully, with God’s help, Christianity, through the openmindedness (not sure this is a word) of future Christian leaders from all sides, will find a way to end this foolishness and reunite.

Hopefully. But until then, let us not sink into Neo-Syncretism (“It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you believe something.”)

It is a sin for a Catholic to leave the Church and a graver sin for a priest to lead his flock out of the Church.

On a side note, Islam has the same problem with their different sects within their religion, except they are killing each other over it. With an occasional exception, thank goodness we’ve gotten past that.

Except in Northern Ireland, of course.

 

[MilesXpisti]

Well as long as we continue to refer to Protestantism as a heresy and they refer to us in the same vein, we’ll continue to have a unhealable rift within Christianity. Hopefully, with God’s help, Christianity, through the openmindedness (not sure this is a word) of future Christian leaders from all sides, will find a way to end this foolishness and reunite.

On a side note, Islam has the same problem with their different sects within their religion, except they are killing each other over it. With an occasional exception, thank goodness we’ve gotten past that.

The simple fact is, Mike, that the Protestant sects separated from us. They are the prodigal son, not we. And it is the duty of the prodigal son to bring himself to his father’s house, not the father to sweetly cajole them into submission. Until this happens, I will pray for the soul of all Protestants, for whom I hold some hope of salvation, only by a singular act of God’s mercy and not their personal righteousness, but not great hope (Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors). If or when it happens, I will welcome each and every one of them with love, joy and open arms.

 

[lumendelumine]

Except in Northern Ireland, of course.

Where they have been fighting about transubstantiation for decades I guess… \sarcasm

Northern Ireland is a national(ist) conflict. It has nothing whatever to do with religion. “Catholic”/“Protestant” there are labels to denote political allegiance (either to the Republican or to the Unionist cause).

 

[vern_humphrey]

Where they have been fighting about transubstantiation for decades I guess… \sarcasm

Northern Ireland is a national(ist) conflict. It has nothing whatever to do with religion. “Catholic”/“Protestant” there are labels to denote political allegiance (either to the Republican or to the Unionist cause).

Ah, how perspicacious of you.

Indeed, religious wars are often really cultural or political – if the nobles of northern Germany had not wanted to shake off the Austrians, Martin Luther would be a mere footnote in Church history today.

Be that as it may, however, religion is the great dividing line in Northern Ireland. You see few Catholics in the Red Hand Commandos, or marching on the Glorious 12th behind the banners of King Billy.

 

[lumendelumine]

Ah, how perspicacious of you.

Indeed, religious wars are often really cultural or political – if the nobles of northern Germany had not wanted to shake off the Austrians, Martin Luther would be a mere footnote in Church history today.

Be that as it may, however, religion is the great dividing line in Northern Ireland. You see few Catholics in the Red Hand Commandos, or marching on the Glorious 12th behind the banners of King Billy.

Sure, but Northern Ireland is even less about religion than the religious wars of Central Europe.

Ultimately, like always, it’s Henry VIII who is to blame - if he had not taken the English Church into schism and heresy, they would n’t be fighting each other with religious labels, but with something else (red vs. brown hair, maybe? ).

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sure, but Northern Ireland is even less about religion than the religious wars of Central Europe.

Or maybe not – it depends on your interpretation. Certainly there are Protestants (Ian Paisley comes to mind) who are virulently anti-Catholic and who whip their followers up with religious themes. These men are as committed as anyone who was involved in the 30 Years War.

Ultimately, like always, it’s Henry VIII who is to blame - if he had not taken the English Church into schism and heresy, they would n’t be fighting each other with religious labels, but with something else (red vs. brown hair, maybe? ).

Glad you brought Henry up – his case is an excellent example of a political feud cloaked in religion.

 

[El_camino]

El_camino;2026143:

Well, I’m Catholic, so hopefully we have an Episcopelian (sp?) come online and refute that. However, I suspect you are off base on this one.

Keep in mind, there are many who think the CC doesn’t preach the true gospel. Try going to a non-catholic forum, its full of that nonsense.

BTW, bashing another denomination doesn’t solve anything. They are your fellow Christians, keep that in mind.

No bashing Mike, as I am not judging the sinner but the SIN. To accept active homosexuality is not being in the Gospel. So they are preaching a different Gospel when they support it like they do.

Mikew262:

Quote:
Originally Posted by El_camino
.
Again, our foundation of faith would topple for not being sure what the truth is.

Blessings,

E.C.

Maybe yours would topple, not mine.

So you are telling me that if the Church were to be mistaken on an issue that was supposed to dogma (i.e., infallible), your faith would not topple?

So then let me ask you, how do you know that the bible is the word of god and it is not missing books? or that it does not have too many books for that matter.

If tomorrow it happens that the Church was wrong in some dogma, she could also have been wrong when she closed the canon of Scripture, or wrong in any other her teachings, such as whether Christ really died for us, or whether Christ really came to save us, or some many other things. There would NOT be any security of anything! there would be NO RULE OF FAITH.

St. Augustine used to say:

" I will not believe in the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moves me to do so" meaning, that the Gospel came to him because God chose the Church to deliver it, and if the CHurch is wrong at some point, there would not be any security at all that the gospel she has preached for almost 2000 years is the truth.

Anyway,

Blessings,

E.C.

 

[heavenly]

I wonder why this metaphor was chosen above others, to conceptualize this relationship. Why not “ulitimate friend” etc. Why does it have to be a sexualized metaphor? What if women don’t see themselves in this way, what if they see themslves as whole human beings not as a “bride”. Is this an arbitrary metaphor? metaphor?

 

[heavenly]

Whether or not W.O. turns out to be a heresy, depends on…
what God, who has no gender, decides to do about it or change it. GOD has not said anything to date about female priests, it’s all man made rules. Taking a look at what males did with the Bible and its many changes and deletions and scribings, the genderless God could very well tell you that you all blew it by establishing a hierarchy where males were designated religious leaders and women were not. The genderless God could also describe what HE/She saw in history, where in history there were most likely women disciples and apostles suppressed. What is not written down disappears for a while. History is written by those in power. what is we found out that psychological and physical violence was down against women who were acting as apostles by men who were prideful and jealous.It is ridiculous to say that if Jesus had wanted female apostles, he would have designated them, because we all know that all the scribes had to do was DELETE any evidence, being the wretched little sinners they could have been. “Just because some women are stronger than men doesn’t mean that some women should think she can lead a Church.” Gosh, sounds like what the world said to various races out of power over the course of history. The genderless God
has not made a decision or statements about women’s ordination, and in fact, the part of the genderless God that must be female, has waited, looking down at the males prancing around in amusement and probably disgust.

 

[fix]

Whether or not W.O. turns out to be a heresy, depends on…
what God, who has no gender, decides to do about it or change it. GOD has not said anything to date about female priests.

How do you know any of that?

 

[DallasCatholic]

Whether or not W.O. turns out to be a heresy, depends on…
what God, who has no gender, decides to do about it or change it. GOD has not said anything to date about female priests, it’s all man made rules. Taking a look at what males did with the Bible and its many changes and deletions and scribings, the genderless God could very well tell you that you all blew it by establishing a hierarchy where males were designated religious leaders and women were not. The genderless God could also describe what HE/She saw in history, where in history there were most likely women disciples and apostles suppressed. What is not written down disappears for a while. History is written by those in power. what is we found out that psychological and physical violence was down against women who were acting as apostles by men who were prideful and jealous.It is ridiculous to say that if Jesus had wanted female apostles, he would have designated them, because we all know that all the scribes had to do was DELETE any evidence, being the wretched little sinners they could have been. “Just because some women are stronger than men doesn’t mean that some women should think she can lead a Church.” Gosh, sounds like what the world said to various races out of power over the course of history. The genderless God
has not made a decision or statements about women’s ordination, and in fact, the part of the genderless God that must be female, has waited, looking down at the males prancing around in amusement and probably disgust.

What an interesting screed, although totally irrelevant. We are discussing Women’s Ordination in the Roman Catholic Church, not the Church of some genderless God…if there even is a church of such.

Your claims MIGHT carry a little more weight if you could give specific references. Like what was deleted, where…or is this just totally baseless speculation based on wishful thinking?

 

[heavenly]

Doesn’t the Cathecism say God has no gender, is too big to be contained by human conceptualizations of gender?
Dioes the Roman Catholic Church think God is male? I thought this implies the belief that Jesus appeared as a male, but the ultimate God from whom he came is genderless, as it is a human concept.
Answer to poster asking how do I know…that God, ultimate God has not made statements about W.O.- because there’s nothing explicitly in the written Bible as it was preserved. So God has the right to continue making statements and has waited apparently to see how you guys do, and it ain’t pretty sometimes what you’ve done. How do I know that God is not finished talking about this issue? Because all churches may have interrupted God, who is probably wondering why male led churches so vehemently opposed W.O. As in waiting to see what you did with your authority, how you interpreted recorded scriptures etc, how you used your interpretations and who you harmed in the process. You don’t think God is bigger than any church?

 

[heavenly]

BTW, “leadership” is a human concept. Enhanced by 19th-20th century social scientists. Thanks for the ref about Mathew authoring the bridegroom concept, I will study that. Somehow that got changed or translated into the A.D. era of male authority in marriage. Could he have been referring to a more egalitarian type of marriage and we humans were too proud to see that?

Why are people always on a heresy hunt in the Catholic Church? Why so defensive and protective if the truth is self evident? This isn’t communist china you know, and ideology is so aggressive.

 

[DallasCatholic]

BTW, “leadership” is a human concept. Enhanced by 19th-20th century social scientists. Thanks for the ref about Mathew authoring the bridegroom concept, I will study that. Somehow that got changed or translated into the A.D. era of male authority in marriage. Could he have been referring to a more egalitarian type of marriage and we humans were too proud to see that?

Why are people always on a heresy hunt in the Catholic Church? Why so defensive and protective if the truth is self evident? This isn’t communist china you know, and ideology is so aggressive.

Yes, I see heretics being burned every day. No one is on a “heresy hunt”, if you read the OP that was the question that was asked and it has been answered. Your comments are totally off the mark and do not address the question.

 

[fix]

Doesn’t the Cathecism say God has no gender, is too big to be contained by human conceptualizations of gender?
Dioes the Roman Catholic Church think God is male? I thought this implies the belief that Jesus appeared as a male, but the ultimate God from whom he came is genderless, as it is a human concept.
Answer to poster asking how do I know…that God, ultimate God has not made statements about W.O.- because there’s nothing explicitly in the written Bible as it was preserved. So God has the right to continue making statements and has waited apparently to see how you guys do, and it ain’t pretty sometimes what you’ve done. How do I know that God is not finished talking about this issue? Because all churches may have interrupted God, who is probably wondering why male led churches so vehemently opposed W.O. As in waiting to see what you did with your authority, how you interpreted recorded scriptures etc, how you used your interpretations and who you harmed in the process. You don’t think God is bigger than any church?

Now we have it. It is a dead end. Your position can’t be defended.

 

[mikew262]

The simple fact is, Mike, that the Protestant sects separated from us.

They separated from us because they felt the Church had become corrupt, among other things. Probably true to some extent at that time. I suspect if the Vatican all of sudden declared female priests were ok, the Eucharist is not what we believe, or contraception was now ok, we’d have another massive separation. The question of the “true” Church would surface all over again. Of course, I don’t ever see that happening.

 

[mikew262]

mikew262;2026176:

So you are telling me that if the Church were to be mistaken on an issue that was supposed to dogma (i.e., infallible), your faith would not topple?

I suppose it depends upon the issue. If the Church said contraception was ok, that wouldn’t bother me in the least, in fact I’d applaud. If they said Jesus Christ was not the Son of God, then we’d have a problem.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Here is my question in regards to that:

In John’s Gospel does not Jesus say quite a few times to the Apostles ask anything of my Father and it shall be given to you? Since the church has apostolic succession, could she simply not ask God for the power to ordain women as priests? Jesus said ask ANYTHING and ti shall be GRANTED. Would not God theoretically then grant the Church this power if she asked it of Him? and if not, would Jesus then be considered a liar?

Or, do I simply have the context of this passage wrong? if you can provide me with a good solid answer as to why the above scenario would not be possible, I could accept the Church’s teaching that she has not the power.

The English language is a fallible language. Of course he said anything, but God cannot contradict Himself and therefore His message would not be contradicted. It is precisely because the Church has apostolic succession that She cannot ordain women. Apostolic Succession was conferred to men alone (the twelve apostles) chosen by Our Lord and Savior Himself. Women played rolls in the early Church, sure, nobody denies that. The Church had deaconesses (which was an unordained lay position) to help assist priests in baptizing female converts to the Catholic Faith for baptism in full immersion.

 

[heavenly]

Why is this reference to “God is beyond gender” in there? Can anybody help with this?