Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  

do you agree with Women being Priests/Ministers
yes
80%
 80%  [ 20 ]
no
20%
 20%  [ 5 ]
Total Votes : 25

Author Message
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
Religion is not a negative in society. People who don't understand true religion are!


Indeed...people having only a superficial connection - to the object and goal of faith...
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sheila wrote:
I believe that the Catholic religion has always been about keeping women down. Well not just women, most everyone that wouldn't conform to the doctines. I can't even imagine how many people were burnt at the stake turning the Inquisition. But like you said there are prenty that allow women ministers. Have any of you read the Gospel of Mary found amongst the dead sea scrolls? She was a very powerful member of the church. Some believe she was married to Jesus. One book I read said that Jesus was an essene. A defender of the truth at all costs.


Bet you it the number doesn't even come close to the number of folks persecuted or fed to the Lions so to speak over the ages for being a Christian. Thinking the Chinese atheists alone made that number look down right insignificant.
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Women can't be priests any more than men can give birth, and no amount of complaining about either of those things will change them. The ordination of women is strictly impossible, no matter how strong peoples' opinions are.

Catholics believe that Holy Orders is a sacrament which was instituted by Christ, and confers the grace of the priesthood only under the conditions, and using the matter, which Christ used.

Since the priesthood was restricted by Christ to males, the Church has no authority to change this. If it attempted to confer priestly ordination on women, the sacrament would have no effect. A woman could simulate receiving the sacrament and pretend to be a priest, but if they attempted to offer the sacrifice of the Mass or confer any sacrament, it would be invalid - nothing would happen.

The problem with people who criticize the Church for lack of female ordination is that they approach a religion with a purely secular perspective. They assume that a priest is merely a "community leader", instead of a one who acts in the person of Christ and exists to perpetuate the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass. Anyone who has respect for the integrity of the Catholic faith and her sacred tradition can't help but laugh at the idea of female ordination.
paisley_cross





Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Posts: 806
Reputation: 124.9
votes: 3
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dauphin wrote:
Women can't be priests any more than men can give birth, and no amount of complaining about either of those things will change them. The ordination of women is strictly impossible, no matter how strong peoples' opinions are.

Catholics believe that Holy Orders is a sacrament which was instituted by Christ, and confers the grace of the priesthood only under the conditions, and using the matter, which Christ used.

Since the priesthood was restricted by Christ to males, the Church has no authority to change this. If it attempted to confer priestly ordination on women, the sacrament would have no effect. A woman could simulate receiving the sacrament and pretend to be a priest, but if they attempted to offer the sacrifice of the Mass or confer any sacrament, it would be invalid - nothing would happen.


One thing people don't lack is a choice of religions. If female clergy is important then people can choose a denomination that permits it.
Habsrwfan





Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 688
Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm a member of the Salvation Army myself. I'm very comfortable with female ministers, as such, and feel that they can make many excellent contributions.

That being said, the Catholic church is for Catholics. If they're comfortable with the role that gender currently plays in their church, then that is strictly their business.

One thing that I dislike about modern liberalism is how it frequently encourages a busy-body approach to life - not only in finances, but also in culture. Even if 80% of society lives a lifestyle, and attends institutions, approximating ones that the modern liberal would nod approvingly of, that's not good enough - the other 20% need to be 'modernized' as well.

If that other 20% isn't doing anything to harm you, then you should leave them well enough alone. It is the membership of a church, or of any institution for that matter, that should determine the policies and procedures of that membership.

If the Catholics one day decide, amongst themselves, to have female Priests - great. If not, fine. It's not the business of non-Catholics, just as Salvation Army uniform wearing is not the business of non-Salvationists.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

paisley_cross wrote:
Dauphin wrote:
Women can't be priests any more than men can give birth, and no amount of complaining about either of those things will change them. The ordination of women is strictly impossible, no matter how strong peoples' opinions are.

Catholics believe that Holy Orders is a sacrament which was instituted by Christ, and confers the grace of the priesthood only under the conditions, and using the matter, which Christ used.

Since the priesthood was restricted by Christ to males, the Church has no authority to change this. If it attempted to confer priestly ordination on women, the sacrament would have no effect. A woman could simulate receiving the sacrament and pretend to be a priest, but if they attempted to offer the sacrifice of the Mass or confer any sacrament, it would be invalid - nothing would happen.


One thing people don't lack is a choice of religions. If female clergy is important then people can choose a denomination that permits it.


Exactly...

This is why folks I know are leaving the Catholic faith in droves. If God or Jesus wanted to minimize the placement of women in the church he wouldn't have had Jesus born unto a mere woman. He wouldn't have had Jesus appearing to Mary and Mary first, mere woman when he rose from the dead.

Lets face it men are not the usually the social calender type people, it tends to be women that arrange that sort of thing. Most women set the agenda....just not a really guy sort of thing ( I do make exceptions for certain activities however.) If women don't make Church a priority in the home a great number of families would not be there. That old axiom holds true "If Mamma ain't happy...ain't nobody happy." Just my thoughts on this issue, not the Gospel.
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Since the priesthood was restricted by Christ to males, the Church has no authority to change this.


Protestants call their clergy Ministers or Pastors. They are not in the line of apostolic succesion. There were female deaons the the New Testament so a female Pastor of Minister is not out of line for The Protestant church.
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
Quote:
Since the priesthood was restricted by Christ to males, the Church has no authority to change this.


Protestants call their clergy Ministers or Pastors. They are not in the line of apostolic succesion. There were female deaons the the New Testament so a female Pastor of Minister is not out of line for The Protestant church.


There were women referred to as deacons. This practice began due to the full-immersion naked baptism which was practiced in the early Church. Obviously, it would cause scandal and be a near occasion of sin for a male to perform such a baptism on a female, making the role of female "deacons" necessary.

However, these women did not receive ordination to the diaconate since this is strictly impossible - a woman cannot receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Its immutable character restricts it to men.

I was unaware that female deacons are recorded in scripture. Could you please refer me to the passage?
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:
paisley_cross wrote:
Dauphin wrote:
Women can't be priests any more than men can give birth, and no amount of complaining about either of those things will change them. The ordination of women is strictly impossible, no matter how strong peoples' opinions are.

Catholics believe that Holy Orders is a sacrament which was instituted by Christ, and confers the grace of the priesthood only under the conditions, and using the matter, which Christ used.

Since the priesthood was restricted by Christ to males, the Church has no authority to change this. If it attempted to confer priestly ordination on women, the sacrament would have no effect. A woman could simulate receiving the sacrament and pretend to be a priest, but if they attempted to offer the sacrifice of the Mass or confer any sacrament, it would be invalid - nothing would happen.


One thing people don't lack is a choice of religions. If female clergy is important then people can choose a denomination that permits it.


Exactly...

This is why folks I know are leaving the Catholic faith in droves. If God or Jesus wanted to minimize the placement of women in the church he wouldn't have had Jesus born unto a mere woman. He wouldn't have had Jesus appearing to Mary and Mary first, mere woman when he rose from the dead.

Lets face it men are not the usually the social calender type people, it tends to be women that arrange that sort of thing. Most women set the agenda....just not a really guy sort of thing ( I do make exceptions for certain activities however.) If women don't make Church a priority in the home a great number of families would not be there. That old axiom holds true "If Mamma ain't happy...ain't nobody happy." Just my thoughts on this issue, not the Gospel.


"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence." - 1 Timothy 2:12

If God is a feminist, why does St. Paul, in canonical scripture, write that women should not teach in Church or exercise authority? Why does he "minimize the placement of women in the church"?

Catholics believe that scripture is the word of God. Therefore, we're not a liberty to dismiss what scripture says. A woman may not teach in Church (ie. offer the sermon at Mass), nor do women exercise any ecclesiastical authority. We've remained true to the instructions of St. Paul, whom we believe to be have written those words under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

Obviously, the teaching of the gospel doesn't diminish the dignity of women. Playing a different, even less visible, role from men does not make one inferior.

If remaining true to Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the immutable teaching of the Magisterium is causing a loss of faith, then so be it. The Church is incapable of doing otherwise.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dauphin:

It's all in the interpertation:

“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men. She is to keep silent.” (verse 12)

There is no doubt about the fact that the author of 1 Timothy had imposed a prohibition on women that forbade them to teach or to have authority in his Christian assembly.
However, the main question is: was this just a local and temporal prohibition, or a universal norm imposed under inspiration for all time to come?
We can deduce that it was only a temporary and local prohibition from the following considerations:

When the verb ‘to permit’ (epitrepsein) is used in the New Testament, it refers to a specific permission in a specific context (Matthew 8,21; Mark 5,13; John 19,38; Acts 21,39-40; 26,1; 27,3; 28,16; 1 Corinthians 16,7; etc.) Moreover, the use of the indicative tense indicates an immediate context. The correct translation, therefore, is: “I am not presently allowing" (Spencer; Hugenberger); “I have decided that for the moment women are not to teach or have authority over men” (Redekop; see also Payne).
We know for a fact that Paul allowed women to speak prophetically in the assembly (1 Corinthians 11,5). Women functioned in the Church as deaconesses. We know, therefore, that women did speak in the assemblies. 1 Timothy 2,12 is an exception, a later ruling to counteract a specific threat.
The immediate context of the prohibition was the danger of Gnostic teaching that at the time affected mainly women. Enlarging its purpose to including a permanent norm for all time goes beyond the “literal sense” of the text and the intended scope of the biblical author.
The overall meaning of this verse is, therefore: “Until women have learned what they need in order to get a full grasp of the true teaching, they are not to teach or have authority over men.” (Redekop)
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:
Dauphin:

It's all in the interpertation:

“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men. She is to keep silent.” (verse 12)

There is no doubt about the fact that the author of 1 Timothy had imposed a prohibition on women that forbade them to teach or to have authority in his Christian assembly.
However, the main question is: was this just a local and temporal prohibition, or a universal norm imposed under inspiration for all time to come?
We can deduce that it was only a temporary and local prohibition from the following considerations:

When the verb ‘to permit’ (epitrepsein) is used in the New Testament, it refers to a specific permission in a specific context (Matthew 8,21; Mark 5,13; John 19,38; Acts 21,39-40; 26,1; 27,3; 28,16; 1 Corinthians 16,7; etc.) Moreover, the use of the indicative tense indicates an immediate context. The correct translation, therefore, is: “I am not presently allowing" (Spencer; Hugenberger); “I have decided that for the moment women are not to teach or have authority over men” (Redekop; see also Payne).
We know for a fact that Paul allowed women to speak prophetically in the assembly (1 Corinthians 11,5). Women functioned in the Church as deaconesses. We know, therefore, that women did speak in the assemblies. 1 Timothy 2,12 is an exception, a later ruling to counteract a specific threat.
The immediate context of the prohibition was the danger of Gnostic teaching that at the time affected mainly women. Enlarging its purpose to including a permanent norm for all time goes beyond the “literal sense” of the text and the intended scope of the biblical author.
The overall meaning of this verse is, therefore: “Until women have learned what they need in order to get a full grasp of the true teaching, they are not to teach or have authority over men.” (Redekop)


When scripture is taken alone, it can be interpreted in any way you please, even so far as to make St. Paul a closet feminist. Only in the context of Sacred Tradition and Magisterial teaching can it be properly and objectively understood. Both of these sources of authority unequivocally and definitively reject the ordination of women.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dauphin wrote:
crazymamma wrote:
Dauphin:

It's all in the interpertation:

“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men. She is to keep silent.” (verse 12)

There is no doubt about the fact that the author of 1 Timothy had imposed a prohibition on women that forbade them to teach or to have authority in his Christian assembly.
However, the main question is: was this just a local and temporal prohibition, or a universal norm imposed under inspiration for all time to come?
We can deduce that it was only a temporary and local prohibition from the following considerations:

When the verb ‘to permit’ (epitrepsein) is used in the New Testament, it refers to a specific permission in a specific context (Matthew 8,21; Mark 5,13; John 19,38; Acts 21,39-40; 26,1; 27,3; 28,16; 1 Corinthians 16,7; etc.) Moreover, the use of the indicative tense indicates an immediate context. The correct translation, therefore, is: “I am not presently allowing" (Spencer; Hugenberger); “I have decided that for the moment women are not to teach or have authority over men” (Redekop; see also Payne).
We know for a fact that Paul allowed women to speak prophetically in the assembly (1 Corinthians 11,5). Women functioned in the Church as deaconesses. We know, therefore, that women did speak in the assemblies. 1 Timothy 2,12 is an exception, a later ruling to counteract a specific threat.
The immediate context of the prohibition was the danger of Gnostic teaching that at the time affected mainly women. Enlarging its purpose to including a permanent norm for all time goes beyond the “literal sense” of the text and the intended scope of the biblical author.
The overall meaning of this verse is, therefore: “Until women have learned what they need in order to get a full grasp of the true teaching, they are not to teach or have authority over men.” (Redekop)


When scripture is taken alone, it can be interpreted in any way you please, even so far as to make St. Paul a closet feminist. Only in the context of Sacred Tradition and Magisterial teaching can it be properly and objectively understood. Both of these sources of authority unequivocally and definitively reject the ordination of women.


But I didn't, I used other scripture to back up my assertion. You stand on one foot, on a rock in the middle of an ocean of knowledge with out dipping into it. Your choice.

Tradition is a wonderful thing in it's own way, it can be used as a glue, a binder of sorts to keep the congregation together. To provide consistency thru all times, be they good or bad, be they fruitful or famine. I have no expectation that the current Pope would or even could change the church's position.

Pity, as Christ was the great equalizer, his only differentiation between peoples was those that sinned and those that sinned and repented. His word and grace was equal for all and still is.
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:
Dauphin wrote:
crazymamma wrote:
Dauphin:

It's all in the interpertation:

“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men. She is to keep silent.” (verse 12)

There is no doubt about the fact that the author of 1 Timothy had imposed a prohibition on women that forbade them to teach or to have authority in his Christian assembly.
However, the main question is: was this just a local and temporal prohibition, or a universal norm imposed under inspiration for all time to come?
We can deduce that it was only a temporary and local prohibition from the following considerations:

When the verb ‘to permit’ (epitrepsein) is used in the New Testament, it refers to a specific permission in a specific context (Matthew 8,21; Mark 5,13; John 19,38; Acts 21,39-40; 26,1; 27,3; 28,16; 1 Corinthians 16,7; etc.) Moreover, the use of the indicative tense indicates an immediate context. The correct translation, therefore, is: “I am not presently allowing" (Spencer; Hugenberger); “I have decided that for the moment women are not to teach or have authority over men” (Redekop; see also Payne).
We know for a fact that Paul allowed women to speak prophetically in the assembly (1 Corinthians 11,5). Women functioned in the Church as deaconesses. We know, therefore, that women did speak in the assemblies. 1 Timothy 2,12 is an exception, a later ruling to counteract a specific threat.
The immediate context of the prohibition was the danger of Gnostic teaching that at the time affected mainly women. Enlarging its purpose to including a permanent norm for all time goes beyond the “literal sense” of the text and the intended scope of the biblical author.
The overall meaning of this verse is, therefore: “Until women have learned what they need in order to get a full grasp of the true teaching, they are not to teach or have authority over men.” (Redekop)


When scripture is taken alone, it can be interpreted in any way you please, even so far as to make St. Paul a closet feminist. Only in the context of Sacred Tradition and Magisterial teaching can it be properly and objectively understood. Both of these sources of authority unequivocally and definitively reject the ordination of women.


But I didn't, I used other scripture to back up my assertion. You stand on one foot, on a rock in the middle of an ocean of knowledge with out dipping into it. Your choice.

Tradition is a wonderful thing in it's own way, it can be used as a glue, a binder of sorts to keep the congregation together. To provide consistency thru all times, be they good or bad, be they fruitful or famine. I have no expectation that the current Pope would or even could change the church's position.

Pity, as Christ was the great equalizer, his only differentiation between peoples was those that sinned and those that sinned and repented. His word and grace was equal for all and still is.


The Word doesn't change. It doesn't morph itself to appease all people.

When I refer to Tradition (with a capital T), I'm referring to the immutable teaching which was passed down by the apostles not through the written word, but by word of mouth - the Sacred Oral Tradition. It is maintained by the Church in its perfection by the power of the Holy Ghost, according to the promises of Christ, and passed on by the successors of the Apostles (the Bishops) through the generations. The restriction of ordination to men forms part of this Sacred Oral Tradition.

St. Paul's teaching doesn't directly touch on the issue of ordination, but it is enough to refute that female ordination is even possible. He doesn't provide a temporary ban on females teaching and wielding authority within the Church in order to combat some heresy. The context simply doesn't support that. Instead, he says that women should not do these things by virtue of the fact that Eve led Adam into error. This is an unchanging condition.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (verse 13)
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (verse 14)
Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty” (verse 15).


It is clear that these verses are not carefully considered theological statements. Because, strictly speaking, they do not make sense. If Eve is subject to Adam because she was created later, Adam and Eve are subject to the animals which were created first. Then, according to the first creation story Adam and Eve were created simultaneously: “God created him, male and female he created them” (Genesis 1,27). Also, Adam was equally deceived and equally guilty as the story makes clear (Genesis 3,17-19). Pain in childbirth and being dominated by their husbands were seen as punishments for Eve (Genesis 3,16), but the victory of woman over evil (Genesis 3,15) is ignored by our author. Are these heavy doctrinal pronouncements?

It was very convenient for men to think that they were not deceived, yet Adam took that bite didn't he??? Yet he was not deceived? It is that all mighty power that women have to lead men by their penis? Be very afraid of women...be very afraid of male weakness should be the lesson of Adam, if we were to take it literally we could not trust men to make a single coherent decision when a woman was a round because his judgment is not absolute/he is a weak minded/weak in faith/weak in adherance to the Lord .

The most glaring flaw with the theory is that men/adam was lead astray by a woman, an earthly creature, who some say is his inferior as she was made from bits of him, Yet Eve was lead astray by a supernatural being, whose powers were second only to God at that time.
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 1:40 pm    Post subject: church Reply with quote

a church should have the choice it should not be forced on them by the law. would the gov try to force womens rights on muslums, no. so why are christians any differnt, things should be a two way street. Either fight womens opression in all religons or don't do it at all.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2

Goto page Previous  1, 2  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Women Priests/ministers Yah or Nay

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB