New religious wars

[Hawkmoon]

Catholic vs. "Catholic":

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/living/religion/article147737594.html

Woman gets herself ordained as a priest, despite the Pope and the Vatican having stated unequivocally that women cannot be ordained as priests. Apparently the women are claiming apostolic succession by virtue of the first female Roman Catholic "bishop" having been ordained by a (heretical) male Roman Catholic bishop. Of course, the position of the Vatican is that both the renegade bishop and the first woman he ordained were immediately and automatically excommunicated from the Church as a result of the defiant act, which puts all the subsequent ordinations under a rather large cloud.

To me it's another manifestation of the liberal mindset: "I love the Church, and I love its teachings when they are convenient for me but I should be allowed to decide which rules I want to follow, and remain a Catholic in good standing even when I ignore the rules I don't like."

[230RN]

FYI:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan

--------------------


SOS:  "I establish tenets ABCDEFGH as the word of the Deity."

SOS:  "But what about 'E?'  I don't believe 'E.'"

SOS:  "Then you are excommunicated! "  (Pounds scepter on the floor three times.)

SOS:  "Then nuts to you.  I'm starting my own religion.  And it will be the One True Faith, believing ABCD FGH and I."

And now we have two sects.

And stupid *expletive deleted*ing wars start over E and I.

SOS.

Same old *expletive deleted*it, and save our souls.

[MechAg94]

Since we have freedom of religion, go find another church or start your own.  No wars are required or needed.

[Perd Hapley]

Since we have freedom of religion, go find another church or start your own.  No wars are required or needed.

That would not serve their purpose, which is to gut a conservative (sort of) institution.

[Hawkmoon]

Since we have freedom of religion, go find another church or start your own.  No wars are required or needed.

Fistful isn't far off. There's just something about the liberal mindset that sane people can't understand.

It reminds me of an incident many years ago, when I was still married to wife v.2. She was a high school teacher, and involved in some outside activities relating to counseling and social work. We attended some kind of a professional get-together, where we were introduced to a young woman who had just moved to the area from another state. During a conversation, she expressed an interest in networking. We responded that we had a number of contacts and that if she'd give us a better idea of her interests, we could probably introduce her to several groups where she could network.

Her response?

"Oh, no. I don't want to join an existing network. I want to start my own network."

I classified it under the heading "Unclear on the concept."

[HeroHog]

Fistful isn't far off. There's just something about the liberal mindset that sane people can't understand. (HH: quoted for truth!)


"Oh, no. I don't want to join an existing network. I want to start my own network."

I classified it under the heading "Unclear on the concept."

Well, good luck with that! (turns and walks briskly away to snicker unseen)

[lee n. field]

Since we have freedom of religion, go find another church or start your own.  No wars are required or needed.

The RCs have this belief that they, the visible Roman Catholic Church, is the one and only true church you have to be a part of.  Which means they have to accomodate all kinds of things.  It's not like the Lootherns or the Baptists, where you can just cut out and do your own thing.

[MechAg94]

The RCs have this belief that they, the visible Roman Catholic Church, is the one and only true church you have to be a part of.  Which means they have to accomodate all kinds of things.  It's not like the Lootherns or the Baptists, where you can just cut out and do your own thing.

My post was more of a response to 230RN's SOS post than the OP.  I am distantly aware of the Roman Catholic beliefs regarding their relationship with God though I never bothered to read up on it.  I think the comment about liberals attempting to destroy every traditional societal institution they find is close to the truth.  I thought they were doing a fine job of that from within.  I guess this is just an example. 

[RevDisk]

To me it's another manifestation of the liberal mindset: "I love the Church, and I love its teachings when they are convenient for me but I should be allowed to decide which rules I want to follow, and remain a Catholic in good standing even when I ignore the rules I don't like."

Na. Well, maybe in this case. But folks have been arguing over whether women can be priests for a long time.

Brief googling confirms. "Pope Paul VI echoed these points when he wrote to Archbishop Coggan, Archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual leader of the Anglican Church, concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood (November 30, 1975):  “[The Catholic Church] holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons.  These reasons include:  the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing His apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for His Church.” "

Short answer is "Because we say so" is the answer. I'm not handwaving away Pope Paul, just saying he's not relying on specific instructions in the Bible.

That said, I do understand the Catholic answer as being valid from their perspective. Their theology, their rules, their business. If you disagree and want to start your own religion, so be it. But there's shakey theological grounds if one solely restricts oneself to the Bible for moral/theological grounds for claiming only men can be priests. The Bible only mentions dudes, but it does not forbid chicks.

If you are of the opinion that only that which is specifically mentioned is allowed, it's probably not kosher.
If you are of the opinion of that which is not expressly forbidden is permitted, it's kosher.

Instead, the Bible is pretty silent on how the priesthood is supposed to act.

[makattak]

Na. Well, maybe in this case. But folks have been arguing over whether women can be priests for a long time. (1)

Brief googling confirms. "Pope Paul VI echoed these points when he wrote to Archbishop Coggan, Archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual leader of the Anglican Church, concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood (November 30, 1975):  “[The Catholic Church] holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons.  These reasons include:  the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing His apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God’s plan for His Church.” "

(2) Short answer is "Because we say so" is the answer. I'm not handwaving away Pope Paul, just saying he's not relying on specific instructions in the Bible.

That said, I do understand the Catholic answer as being valid from their perspective. Their theology, their rules, their business. If you disagree and want to start your own religion, so be it. But there's shakey theological grounds if one solely restricts oneself to the Bible for moral/theological grounds for claiming only men can be priests. The Bible only mentions dudes, but it does not forbid chicks.

(3) If you are of the opinion that only that which is specifically mentioned is allowed, it's probably not kosher.
If you are of the opinion of that which is not expressly forbidden is permitted, it's kosher.

(4) Instead, the Bible is pretty silent on how the priesthood is supposed to act.

(1) Roman Catholic church claims to be ~1970 years old.

You posted a link from 1975.

"A long time" means something different to them.

(2) That's a LONG way from the case. The Catholic church relies on Tradition a great deal more than the Protestant churches (in differing degrees), but you ought to note that many protestant churches (for whom "Sola Scriptura" is a tenet) also agree with the ban on women in pastoral positions.

(3) That would be ok if the Bible was silent on women in positions of authority. It isn't. To the point that many "feminist theologians" try to claim that the prohibitions were all things that Paul added and Paul was just misogynist. (I'm simplifying the arguments, of course.)

So, no, it's not just a "Because we say so" issue.

(4) Wow. And this is coming from someone that thinks the Roman Catholic church is massively mistaken to require its Priests to be abstinent.

[Jocassee]

Instead, the Bible is pretty silent on how the priesthood is supposed to act.

There's a lesson there for those to care to find it.

[makattak]

There's a lesson there for those to care to find it.

I assume the lesson is "Read the Bible" before making statements about it?

[Jocassee]

I assume the lesson is "Read the Bible" before making statements about it?

Sorry, I shouldn't have been so oblique. The lesson is that the priesthood isn't found in the New Testament and modern Christianity was never intended to have an intermediary to forgive sins. We go directly to the Highest Priest, Jesus Christ.

The reason that there's not much on the behavior of (Modern) priests in the New Testament is that they are an institution of Man, not God.

There are a few passages on the behavior of pastors, elders, and deacons.

[Jocassee]

For those of you who are not religious--I'm sorry if I seem pedantic. But the lack of a priesthood is at the heart of Christianity.

[AJ Dual]

The other unspoken part in it is that if you dig too deep into why Jesus only chose men as his apostles. It runs dangerously close to heresy which threatens to debase Christianity as a whole. Not of course that it's actually "threatened" per-se, but it's definitely unseemly, and a topic they'd rather not give any credence to, even if it's only acknowledging it to for the purpose of a rebuke.

The church can and would obviously counter with "God's Will", "God's Plan", etc. but it creates an opening for someone to argue that in 30-ish A.D. Judea, only men had the social freedom and capital to actually be a disciple, and that Jesus was simply a product of his times. And anything that calls the divinity of Christ into question is a non-starter. Can't even touch it, just to deny it.

Of course, there's more fringe-y stuff that got culled by the Council of Nicea, the Gnostic Gospels and others that had Mary Magdalene as a disciple, or possibly even Jesus' wife. And that has the exact same problem, if not worse, because it's a double-whammy. Unwanted questions if maybe "Jesus was just like, this guy... ya know?" and/or that if which Gospels were included and which weren't, or what role women took in them was based in local biases of the time, it calls the divine inspiration of the authors into question as well.

I don't want to give the impression of Christian bashing here. Because I'm not. And there's no point, because faith and logical arguments don't intersect, and you just butt heads from two completely different paradigms.

I certainly appreciate Christianity's role in Western Civ, and view it as an "ally" from a historical perspective, and as one of cultural practice, even if I can't from a spiritual or religious one. And those who seem hell-bent on actively tearing it down "just because" irks me to no end. When they could just not participate and live their own lives so easily. And these others who don't want to follow the rules of the club, and then insist they're still in the club... that's irritating too.

[makattak]

The other unspoken part in it is that if you dig too deep into why Jesus only chose men as his apostles. It runs dangerously close to heresy which threatens to debase Christianity as a whole. Not of course that it's actually "threatened" per-se, but it's definitely unseemly, and a topic they'd rather not give any credence to, even if it's only acknowledging it to for the purpose of a rebuke.

The church can and would obviously counter with "God's Will", "God's Plan", etc. but it creates an opening for someone to argue that in 30-ish A.D. Judea, only men had the social freedom and capital to actually be a disciple, and that Jesus was simply a product of his times. And anything that calls the divinity of Christ into question is a non-starter. Can't even touch it, just to deny it.

Or we can counter with the fact that fisherman and tax collectors weren't exactly known to have a lot of "social capital", as an example.

[RevDisk]

I read Paul. Most of the statements he made about celibacy were "definitely encouraged, but not forbidden." Paul specifically listed properties of married priests he found best. Well disciplined kids, only one wife, no debauchery, etc? Again, I don't specifically recall any specific passages on lists of strict qualifications for priesthood. Lots and lots of firm suggestions.

My take on reading the whole Bible was that nearly all of the folks in the Bible assumed women would never be treated as relative equals. It was as foreign as traveling to the moon. They didn't even think it was a real possibility, so they didn't bother forbidding it. Just like we're currently not passing strict emission laws on fusion drives used in interstellar space. Or making firm statements on specifications for nuclear isomer batteries.

As I'm not a christian and solely going off reading the Bible a couple times, I'm perfectly happy to not to step on any sensitive toes and step out of the conversation if desired by anyone here.

[AJ Dual]

Or we can counter with the fact that fisherman and tax collectors weren't exactly known to have a lot of "social capital", as an example.

Why?

Women naturally still had even less than than fishermen and tax collectors.

[RevDisk]

I don't want to give the impression of Christian bashing here. Because I'm not. And there's no point, because faith and logical arguments don't intersect, and you just butt heads from two completely different paradigms.

I certainly appreciate Christianity's role in Western Civ, and view it as an "ally" from a historical perspective, and as one of cultural practice, even if I can't from a spiritual or religious one. And those who seem hell-bent on actively tearing it down "just because" irks me to no end. When they could just not participate and live their own lives so easily. And these others who don't want to follow the rules of the club, and then insist they're still in the club... that's irritating too.

As usual, AJ said it perfectly for me. I'm not trying to knock Christianity. Or the Catholic church. For the same reasons. And find zealot anti-religious people and "I don't want to follow the rules but I still want to belong" folks just as annoying.

[KD5NRH]

I read Paul. Most of the statements he made about celibacy were "definitely encouraged, but not forbidden." Paul specifically listed properties of married priests he found best. Well disciplined kids, only one wife, no debauchery, etc?

Guess it depends on whether you translate ἐπίσκοπον as priest, bishop, (KJV, ASV) minister, (WNT) elder, overseer (NAS) etc.  On the other hand, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα is pretty clear, so whatever it is should be of one wife the husband.

[KD5NRH]

Why?

Tax men for obvious reasons.  Fishermen likely reeked even worse than the average person of the time.  (Hence pleasant smelling perfumes and ointments being so prized.)

[AJ Dual]

Tax men for obvious reasons.  Fishermen likely reeked even worse than the average person of the time.  (Hence pleasant smelling perfumes and ointments being so prized.)

I get that part of it. Fishermen, Lepers, Samaritans, Zacchaeus up in the tree... but the point is that a woman of any of these men's households would have even less social freedom to move about in public at-will, much less the ability to go follow Jesus if they wished.

Or... maybe they did, and there were female disciples, but were omitted from the Gospels, or left out in the years of oral tradition predating them being written down.

And either option is not something that someone from an orthodox viewpoint of catechism wants to have to discuss. There will be boilerplate, faith, and "because we said so", but at the end of it, it opens up room to debate either the non-divinity of Jesus as a "man of his times", or that he did go beyond even social stratification to include women, but then that begs the question of if the authors of the Gospels were less than divinely inspired.

And that's fine. From the viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church there are a million reasons to maintain theological consistency and not ordain women as priests, and only one reason to do so.

Same for celibacy.

If you're going to be some sort of an institution, I can certainly see the point of not "changing with the times" until one day you're not that institution anymore. They're aging out, but there's still plenty of folks still sore about Vatican II.

And trying to tell the Roman Catholic Church what they "ought to do" is arrogant for sure.

[Mannlicher]

and it's not just the Roman Church with problems.  The dang Methodists just headed off an attempt to frock  a lesbian bishop.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/28/methodist-court-ruling-blow-for-openly-lesbian-bishop.html

[Andiron]

and it's not just the Roman Church with problems.  The dang Methodists just headed off an attempt to frock  a lesbian bishop.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/28/methodist-court-ruling-blow-for-openly-lesbian-bishop.html

Where DID I put that facepalm jpg...

To me it's another manifestation of the liberal mindset: "I love the Church, and I love its teachings when they are convenient for me but I should be allowed to decide which rules I want to follow, and remain a Catholic in good standing even when I ignore the rules I don't like."

This.  So much.

[TommyGunn]

The RCs have this belief that they, the visible Roman Catholic Church, is the one and only true church you have to be a part of.  Which means they have to accomodate all kinds of things.  It's not like the Lootherns or the Baptists, where you can just cut out and do your own thing.

Don't all denominations/religions have this idea that THEY have the monopoly on truth?