V
VARC
Guest
Please see post #16. The church sanctioned, practiced and condoned it many times.
- Status
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
People who speak of things like the Vatican’s “party line” on the subject are exposing their own prejudices and biases.
VARC, you’ve made up your mind already and nothing that we ‘bring’ will change it because you refuse to accept Christ’s authority in His Church. By separating Christ from His One True Church, you put up a false scenario in which you claim God says X by your ‘interpretation’, and the Church says not-X. In fact, though, it is **you **who are falsely claiming that God and the Church are at odds. In fact, If the Church says not-X, then God, likewise, says not-X as well.
But you see, in the Church of “ABC” (Anything but Catholic–with the exception of the Orthodox who likewise do not ordain women and use exactly the same Scriptural and Traditional rationale that we Catholics do but I notice you’re not complaining about them, are you?
), the only authority is usually “the Bible”. But a book cannot be an authority and the Bible is not self-interpreting. For better or for worse, those who claim “Bible authority” privately interpret the Scripture --I mean, how can anybody possibly read John chapter 6, taught as literal, factual truth by Catholics and Orthodox, meaning all Christianity, for 1500 years and still taught as such today–but denied the last 400-500 years by people reading the same scriptural passages with the **same Christian heritage **of that 1500 years, suddenly read it as saying exactly the opposite of the Catholic/Orthodox teaching? Talk about a ‘different gospel’ and it isn’t the Catholics or Orthodox who ‘changed Scripture’, now is it? And these ‘changers’ have the audacity to insist their ‘new’ gospel is more ‘authoritative’ than Christ’s Church? Sheesh. . .
BTW, I’m a woman, not a guy, heard this 'subjugated woman and oppressive men baloney all my life, rejected it then and reject it now. Read my sig, I’ve had it for more than a year.
Valid matter, VARC.
We don’t consecrate beer and pretzels as the Eucharist. . .valid matter is bread and wine.
We don’t ordain women as priests. Valid matter --a male. Not because a woman is inferior to a man (that idea is pure 20th century psychobabble). . .but because God chose it. Jesus (God) could have easily ordained women if He had wished–the One who died on the cross for us surely would not have been constrained by “cultural difficulties”. The peoples evangelized not only accepted women in religious authority, they expected them. . .it was the Jewish people (the ones who were given the instructions by God, remember?) who followed God’s own directives in ordaining men as priests.
So. . .you have a trouble with the idea that God has definitive ‘roles’ for men and women? Take it up with Him. But don’t insist that the Catholic Church (the Bride of Christ, who is One with Christ) disobey God and follow man-made rules because you think God is unfair, wrong, and chauvanist.
Sorry, but just like Joshua and his household, we Catholics intend to follow the Lord–and not mere fallible men.
VARC, you’ve made up your mind already and nothing that we ‘bring’ will change it because you refuse to accept Christ’s authority in His Church. By separating Christ from His One True Church, you put up a false scenario in which you claim God says X by your ‘interpretation’, and the Church says not-X. In fact, though, it is **you **who are falsely claiming that God and the Church are at odds. In fact, If the Church says not-X, then God, likewise, says not-X as well.
But you see, in the Church of “ABC” (Anything but Catholic–with the exception of the Orthodox who likewise do not ordain women and use exactly the same Scriptural and Traditional rationale that we Catholics do but I notice you’re not complaining about them, are you?
), the only authority is usually “the Bible”. But a book cannot be an authority and the Bible is not self-interpreting. For better or for worse, those who claim “Bible authority” privately interpret the Scripture --I mean, how can anybody possibly read John chapter 6, taught as literal, factual truth by Catholics and Orthodox, meaning all Christianity, for 1500 years and still taught as such today–but denied the last 400-500 years by people reading the same scriptural passages with the **same Christian heritage **of that 1500 years, suddenly read it as saying exactly the opposite of the Catholic/Orthodox teaching? Talk about a ‘different gospel’ and it isn’t the Catholics or Orthodox who ‘changed Scripture’, now is it? And these ‘changers’ have the audacity to insist their ‘new’ gospel is more ‘authoritative’ than Christ’s Church? Sheesh. . .BTW, I’m a woman, not a guy, heard this 'subjugated woman and oppressive men baloney all my life, rejected it then and reject it now. Read my sig, I’ve had it for more than a year.
Valid matter, VARC.
We don’t consecrate beer and pretzels as the Eucharist. . .valid matter is bread and wine.
We don’t ordain women as priests. Valid matter --a male. Not because a woman is inferior to a man (that idea is pure 20th century psychobabble). . .but because God chose it. Jesus (God) could have easily ordained women if He had wished–the One who died on the cross for us surely would not have been constrained by “cultural difficulties”. The peoples evangelized not only accepted women in religious authority, they expected them. . .it was the Jewish people (the ones who were given the instructions by God, remember?) who followed God’s own directives in ordaining men as priests.
So. . .you have a trouble with the idea that God has definitive ‘roles’ for men and women? Take it up with Him. But don’t insist that the Catholic Church (the Bride of Christ, who is One with Christ) disobey God and follow man-made rules because you think God is unfair, wrong, and chauvanist.
Sorry, but just like Joshua and his household, we Catholics intend to follow the Lord–and not mere fallible men.
A
ac_claire
Guest
Very well put!
D
Dauphin
Guest
Right, and what’s the problem? There’s a distinction between the forms of slavery which were condoned in scripture and by the Church’s authority, and the abuses which arose during the slave trade, in which a person is wholly owned by another and deprived of all rights and freedom of will.
This latter form of slavery has always been condemned by the Church as contrary to the natural law. The abuses of the slave trade were consistently condemned by the Church, starting with Pius II in 1462, including Paul III (1537), Urban VIII (1639), Benedict XIV (1741), Gregory XVI (1839) and Leo XIII (1888).
See especially the encyclicals Sicut Dudum, Sublimus Dei, and In Sepremo Apostolatus.
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,
You can’t really interpret 1 Cor. 14 in light of 1 Tim. 2. It has to be the other way around. Otherwise, as I said, you end up declaring that women must always be silent. That is not what St. Paul meant. That wasn’t part of his culture. But, your interpretation of these passages necessarily leads to that conclusion. My interpretation of these passages doesn’t require me to hold to the absurd conclusion that St. Paul had no problem with immodestly dressed women, outside of ‘church.’
Again, every (almost, at least) Bible commentary will situate this passage of 1 Tim. in the context of proper assemblies.
You seem like a well-read person. Have you read “Inter insigniores”? If not, here’s a link. It is a bit more developed argument regarding this issue.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFINSIG.HTM
Thanks again.
Dan
V
VARC
Guest
blah blah blah. I didn’t ask for a lesson in papal talking points. I know the RCCs position on WO. I just aked for some reasons to ban it based on scripture and you went on a rant about papal authority and biblical authority. You believe WO is wrong beacuse the pope says so. :clapping: Congradulations. I’m proud of you. But please don’t feel left out if I try to discuss this issue who put a little thought into the question such as dans0622 and MaryJ
D
Dauphin
Guest
Your approach assumes that Sacred Tradition has no role, and that the Magisterium has no authority. How is a Catholic supposed to engage with a view which is so utterly foreign to the faith?
It makes about as much sense as a protestant taking a single Papal Encyclical (let’s say, Singulari Quidem), and saying “I believe in Sola Singulari Quidem! Since I don’t see anything in here about women’s ordination, that must mean it’s ok!”
It comes across as totally absurd. The faith has a complete deposit contained in Scripture and Tradition which is maintained in its integrity by the Magisterium. Sola Scriptura is utterly untenable (in fact, it’s incoherent. Sola scriptura admits of the role of tradition - namely, the Bible’s table of contents).
R
ricko
Guest
It would be best if my fellow Catholics would just stop posting to this thread. The question has been answered and the answer refused. I’ve seen enough rudeness. Time to end this.
R
ralphinal
Guest
No protestant denomination that ordains women allows openly homosexual clergy? Or homosexual unions? And all of them are vocally against homosexuality?
And there IS no diversity of opinion in the RCC about these things. There is the Church teaching and those who oppose it to their own downfall.
A
ac_claire
Guest
M
maryj
Guest
To know Jesus, is to model your words and actions after His. I put no more thought into what I posted than in what Tantum ergo posted. Please don’t feel affended if I discontinue this discussion. God Bless.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
United Methodists ordain women and do not allow self-avowed homosexuals to be ordained. Nor do they allow homosexual unions to be celebrated.
I wonder why no one has addressed my earlier post:
L
LRThunder
Guest
I just fail to see what slavery has to do with the issue of women’s ordination.
G
GKC
Guest
R
ralphinal
Guest
I did not address it because I missed it. Sorry.
Deconesses were needed at one time because adult baptisms were performed without the aid of modesty protecting clothing. In that era, if an adult was baptised, it was either in the nude or in undergarments that, when wet, were not exactly modest. This made it needed for women to be baptised by women. Hence the role of a deconess.
Now, about UMC, have the condemned abortion as an intrinsic evil? What is the official stance of the UMC on abortion?
A
ac_claire
Guest
From what I’ve learned about the early Church, a deaconess was not the same thing as a deacon. And certainly an entirely different office than the priesthood. Phoebe was an assistant or server in the Church, which is how St. Paul referred to her.
A deaconess would have assisted primarily with the baptism of women. Remember in the early Church baptisms were usually done via total immersion with the catechumens completely nude. It was a practical modesty issue.
Hope that helps to answer your question.
D
djconklin
Guest
In his book Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women Swartley notes that the same arguments used about women are also used about slavery. I spent ab’t 3 years studying the subject and am now confident that I can rip both sides of the argument! As Swartley noted we shouldn’t assume that a dispassionate search for the truth motivates the comments that are made on the subject.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I find it ‘interesting’ that posters can cavalierly ‘assume’ that posts (and posters) with whom they disagree put ‘no effort and/or judgment’ into the post.
What astonishing arrogance to dismiss the words of another on such a basis.
You don’t agree with me, VARC–that’s one thing. You’re certainly free to disagree. But if you’re going to be contemptuous and insulting of me on a personal level, I wish you’d find some of my actual failings to castigate me for (God knows they are many) so that we would both profit. . .me from hearing about my real failings and thus trying to do better, and you from a righteous admonishment of such.
What astonishing arrogance to dismiss the words of another on such a basis.
You don’t agree with me, VARC–that’s one thing. You’re certainly free to disagree. But if you’re going to be contemptuous and insulting of me on a personal level, I wish you’d find some of my actual failings to castigate me for (God knows they are many) so that we would both profit. . .me from hearing about my real failings and thus trying to do better, and you from a righteous admonishment of such.
D
djconklin
Guest
People do that kind of thing when they subconsciously know that they are losing the argument.
D
dzheremi
Guest
I don’t know how she can be “losing” an argument that the Church already says is pointless to have. The Church will not ordain women. Period. The reasons why have been given. By continuing on with this line of questioning, you’re not “winning” anything - just making it obvious that you’re not actually interested in the Church position, just in making yourself feel good because you feel your church’s position or your personal position to be more enlightened and correct than the Catholic one. Fine. You’re free to think that. It’s not going to change the reasons given for disallowing women’s ordination. If you disagree with those reasons, continue not being Catholic, but don’t think that you can “argue” us into accepting what is not part of our tradition just because your church doesn’t have any outside of scripture.
Personally, I would be happy to lose every argument on the internet with every Protestant on the face of the planet if it was to the preservation of the Church and its Tradition. I doubt you would find a Catholic here who does not feel the same (and the same could be said for the Orthodox, who definitely agree with our position on this matter).
Personally, I would be happy to lose every argument on the internet with every Protestant on the face of the planet if it was to the preservation of the Church and its Tradition. I doubt you would find a Catholic here who does not feel the same (and the same could be said for the Orthodox, who definitely agree with our position on this matter).
- Status