Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Pope reaffirms ban on women priests


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#46    ChloeB

ChloeB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:26 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Female

Posted 11 April 2012 - 11:09 PM

View PostStar of the Sea, on 11 April 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

Hi Leonardo,

I have never come across any other Catholic female who doesn't fully 'grasp' what Christ put into motion when he chose his Apostles. Catholic females recognise that if Christ wished to appoint woman as his Apostles, then he would of done so. But, he didn't! Therefore in our opinion, as Christ is the font of all wisdom, we follow his judgement as being 'sound and valid'. So what follows on from Christ is echoed in the RCC tradition of not appointing female priests.

The Catholic Church is not being 'sexist' IMO by not ordaining females as Priests. The RCC has 'NO' authority to 'usurp' Christ. That is the bottom line, we follow and reverie Christ's decisions. If Christ had chosen females, then there would of been females ordained from the very beginning, it's really as simple as that. This is why it's not a big deal to us, as we know the reasoning comes from Christ and not just from the Church. With female Catholics there is no offense taken by Christ's decision at all or at the RCC following Christ's example.  Even though we are 2000 year or so on nothing will change the words of Christ having the same impact on us. We could go deeper into the reason for Christ's decision for only appointing men, but I dare say that is another thread!

But do you really think the RCC is a credible source that Jesus did only choose male Apostles?  After all, they were behind making out Mary Magdalene to be a prostitute and later had to right that wrong?  I know this is going to sound so Da Vinci Code, but the gnostic writings show the tension between Peter (the rock which the Catholic church was built) and Mary Magdalene and the story goes from there, her being made out to be a prostitute while she may have very well been an Apostle.  This is all very "what the RCC says" more than what Jesus says, imo, or that's how I see it, but I'm not Catholic so I guess I don't have the faith in them a I think my hesitance is trusting everything they say is well-deserved based on their history.  But I guess in carrying on in St. Peter's tradition, the not allowing female priests makes sense and it really does seem to me in my eyes, more his church than Jesus'.  To me, it's hard not to wonder if Jesus didn't give Mary Magdalene an important role, very well an apostle, maybe even a leadership role.

Edit:  Because my laptop mouse thingy is a demon from hell and has a mind of its own. :P

Edited by ChloeB, 11 April 2012 - 11:14 PM.

“You've gotta dance like there's nobody watching,
Love like you'll never be hurt,
Sing like there's nobody listening,
And live like it's heaven on earth.”
― William W. Purkey

#47    Copen

Copen

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 500 posts
  • Joined:15 May 2011

Posted 12 April 2012 - 12:31 AM

View Postjugoso, on 09 April 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

The older I get, The harder it is for me to "swallow" statements such as those above. I find it to be "out-of-date" and also quite insulting to women.
Thank You!!!!


#48    Copen

Copen

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 500 posts
  • Joined:15 May 2011

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:10 AM

View PostParanoid Android, on 10 April 2012 - 05:35 AM, said:

I have checked it out.  And in the earliest days (aka, the centuries immediately after Christ) women were given Rights previously unheard of.  When Christianity became the "Official Religion" (4th-5th Centuries) even then women largely retained those Rights.  Then as the Church gained in power and influence, so they grew in their desire for more power and more influence, and slowly the Rights of women were taken away.  By the time the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox church split, the Rights of women were virtually non-existent.  None of that takes away from the early centuries of Christianity when women were given greater Rights than they had previously had.

~ PA

I agree with you about womens' places of leadership in the church. Also, from the beginning of the Tabernacle and the Temples there was only ONE high priest. The high priest was the earthly high priest until the heavenly one, Jesus, came. He is now the high priest and all believers are now "a priesthood of believers." That means all believers - - women as well as man. That eliminates ALL POPES as high priest because they are earthly. The book of Hebrews tells us that that form was just foreshadows and was taken away when Jesus came. There can't be two high priests -- one on earth and one in heaven. The high priest makes intercession for the congregation. The POPE can't do that now. That's Jesus' place.

Instead of getting rid of the women leadership in the church, THE POPE is out of place and should cease.

In the New Testament and the first century women functioned in every capacity as men in the church and shed their martyred blood just as freely. Phoebe was a "diakonos" of the church at Cenchrea. (Same word is translated servant, deaconess, deacon, & minister other places.) She was a minister of the church at Cenchrea. Typhaena and Tryphosa were women who "labor in the Lord." Persis "labored much in the Lord." Phil. 4:3 "help those women who labored with me (Paul) in the gospel." In 2nd John letter he wrote to the "elect lady and her children" meaning a female pastor of a church and her congregation. Never was/is a male pastor addressed as "lady." My church history tells how the Roman military was trying to crush Christianity by killing the leaders. A letter was written asking whether to kill two women who were called deaconesses since they were women. This was about 100 A.D.

Little by little women's religious place has been put down. It was never so with Jesus. If, "in the last days your daughters shall prophesy" how are they going to do that when they are told to be seen and not heard??

Just as Muslim women accept such a degrading subordinate place because that is all they have been taught, I suspect Catholic women take such a subordinate place in church worship because they don't know better.
God bless us all


#49    Beany

Beany

    Government Agent

  • 3,789 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

  • If music is the most universal language just think of me as one whole note. Nikki Giovanni

Posted 12 April 2012 - 01:31 AM

A friend of mine, who was raised in the RCC, said Mary Magdalene could have been an apostle, as she went everywhere with Jesus, spreading his message. She also believes Mary could have been present at the last supper; there is no list in the bible that says who exactly was there, and if she wasn't there, it could have been because of an old Jewish tradition of not allowing men & women in the same room, or that her presence wasn't mentioned after the fact. She said Mary Magdalene wrote a gospel, which was excluded from the bible at the Council of Nicea. RE: indoctrination, how about catechism, a ritual set of questions with required answers?

I know several women who've left the Church for several reasons, among them gender bias. I also have friends who would never consider leaving the church. It's a very personal decision and everyone needs to do what's right for them.


#50    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 18,410 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 12 April 2012 - 06:35 AM

View PostStar of the Sea, on 11 April 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

Hi Leonardo,

I have never come across any other Catholic female who doesn't fully 'grasp' what Christ put into motion when he chose his Apostles. Catholic females recognise that if Christ wished to appoint woman as his Apostles, then he would of done so. But, he didn't! Therefore in our opinion, as Christ is the font of all wisdom, we follow his judgement as being 'sound and valid'. So what follows on from Christ is echoed in the RCC tradition of not appointing female priests.

The Catholic Church is not being 'sexist' IMO by not ordaining females as Priests. The RCC has 'NO' authority to 'usurp' Christ. That is the bottom line, we follow and reverie Christ's decisions. If Christ had chosen females, then there would of been females ordained from the very beginning, it's really as simple as that. This is why it's not a big deal to us, as we know the reasoning comes from Christ and not just from the Church. With female Catholics there is no offense taken by Christ's decision at all or at the RCC following Christ's example.  Even though we are 2000 year or so on nothing will change the words of Christ having the same impact on us. We could go deeper into the reason for Christ's decision for only appointing men, but I dare say that is another thread!

Christ said nothing regarding the ordaining of women as priests. However I can understand that spinning his actions - made to be acceptable within the culture he was operating in - can be made to suggest his intentions.

Christ also never spoke about female emancipation, or the women's rights movement - because that also would have been unacceptable in the culture he operated in. Do you see those modern social phenomena as "anti-God", or "anti-Christ"? Does the CC endorse women's rights, among other modern social freedoms either not mentioned in the bible, or actually contrary to the common practices in the culture of that time?

If so, and the CC is comfortable 'second-guessing' Christs thoughts despite his silence on modern issues, then why can they not 'second-guess' the issue that the gender of the priest is irrelevant - except that this issue relates directly to the Church's own authority?

Christ is not portrayed in the bible as a sexual being, despite the references to him being "the Son of God/Man" and his undoubted maleness. The message Christ carried would work whether Christ was man, woman or asexual. This asexuality of Christ as portrayed in the bible is actually very much against the tradition of the culture he lived in, as a good Jewish man of his age would be expected to be married and probably have children. An argument relying on Christ's traditionality and adherence to culture, to invoke tradition as the reason for doctrine, falls flat right there.

So why is it necessary, and forgive the coarseness, for the ecclesiastical representative of that non-sexual Christ to own a pair of testicles?
Especially in light of the Church's own admonition that those testicles should be non-functional (through the practice of celibacy) in order that the priest properly represent that Christ? Do those two contradictory edicts not suggest a reason other than "being faithful to Christ" for the edict on a male-only priesthood?

Unless it is also held in Catholic tradition that only the male, and a celibate male, is 'holy' enough to represent the Christ in the flesh?

Edited by Leonardo, 12 April 2012 - 06:36 AM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#51    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 7,635 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 12 April 2012 - 08:52 AM

Star

Thank you for the feedback. It is always tricky to analyze the sacred by analogy to the profane. I really am glad that I managed it in this case without straying into offense.


Chloe

Quote

After all, they were behind making out Mary Magdalene to be a prostitute
That doesn't start with "them," but was directly and personally Pope Gregory I, during a sermon around the turn of the Seventh Century. It was a plain misreading, a conventional rhetorical point about penitence badly propped up by an example that isn't in the text.

Note how far removed in time this is from any "Gnostic" knock-off scripture being in circulation. There is no political agenda here. It is a mistake, like Obama mentioning the wrong number of states. Yes, he does know better.

A better question, I think, is how Gregory's lapse survived the Reformation. Behold, Jesus Christ Superstar, not only post-Reformation, but post-modern in the bargain, and its chief female character is Mary the Prostitute who "doesn't know how to love" Jesus, and in some productions, holds up her end of a triangle with Judas. Let's not even go to Dan Brown's spectacle of Mary as the priestess of a pagan fertility cult. Prostitute indeed. Dan, not Mary.

Neither contemporary example displays sympathy toward Roman Catholicism. The Church plain and simple doesn't teach this about Mary. Both Gregory's ancient slip and its enduring enthusiastic reception, even by people who wouldn't take a Catholic Pope's word for anything else, are windows into the human mind.

Quote

while she may have very well been an Apostle.
No maybe about it. John 20 is the institution of the apostleship, and his first apostle is Mary. The chapter is visibly organized with Paul's analysis of the apostolic office in mind, and emphasizes the favorable contrast of Mary's claim with his.

The issue before us, however, is who shall preside at the sacrifice. It is not at all obvious that the chief teachers, administrators and managers of the church should be the same people as the priests. It is obvious that Jesus did not command that form of ecclesiastical organization. He didn't offer specifications for the sacrificial office, either. What difference does that make?

Let's bring Leo into the conversation.

Quote

Christ said nothing regarding the ordaining of women as priests. However I can understand that spinning his actions - made to be acceptable within the culture he was operating in - can be made to suggest his intentions.
Again, this is all very interesting from a Protestant perspective, but does not reflect the theory of spiritual and ecclesiatical authority in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. For these, the churches to which the majority of Christians belong, apostolic succession is the basis of authority.

The reasoning here, however repugnant to the Protestant mind, is really not so different from secular constitutional interpretation. Because Jesus said to the original apostles, "Do this in memory of me," it becomes the responsibility of the living successors of the apostles to do it, in memory of him. With responsibility comes authority, and so the specifications of the performance are the sole province of those responsible for bringing it about.

As Star points out, their paramount concern is to carry out what they understand Jesus' intentions to have been. Those intentions are the ultimate foundation of all ecclesiastical authority, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, until Jesus returns. If somebody else understands Jesus' intentions differently, or feels that the Holy Spirit guides them differently, then that's what authority means, whose opinion shall prevail.

There is the Reformation in a nutshell. "It's not in the Bible."

"No," says the Catholic or Orthodox bishop, "but  in the Bible my antecedent had personal responsibility for that subject matter. Authority and reponsibility should coincide, according to reason. If I inherit my antecedent's responsibility, then I inherit my antecedent's authority as well. I do inherit his responsibility by virtue of being consecrated in an unbroken chain of consecrations reaching back to the commissioning of the first apostles by Jesus."

"But it's not in the Bible."

And so, the discussion goes on. It is important to keep track of what each disputant's position actually is, and not suppose that a Catholic will be swayed by Protestant reasons, or vice versa. Apostolic authority trumps biblical silence, according to the people making the specific decision that concerns us in this thread.

Posted Image

#52    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 18,410 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 12 April 2012 - 09:21 AM

View Posteight bits, on 12 April 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

"But it's not in the Bible."

And so, the discussion goes on. It is important to keep track of what each disputant's position actually is, and not suppose that a Catholic will be swayed by Protestant reasons, or vice versa. Apostolic authority trumps biblical silence, according to the people making the specific decision that concerns us in this thread.

A well-reasoned post, eb, but I would expect nothing less.

I do not question that the CC have their reasons for ordaining only males as priests. My argument concerns whether those reasons are reasonable according to the only source of authority we have, the bible.

My arguments are also not based on the Protestant position. I have no religious affiliation, and my only duty is to my own reason - not to any religious ideology.

As for the interpreting of Jesus' words to suit an agenda, I give you this...

John 15:12 "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."

...which I interpret to mean all are to be treated equally, as loved friends, as Jesus treated all equally. Not making of a man or a woman to a specific role, but allowing each of them to fulfil what they are best suited to them. If that means a woman be well suited to be a priest, then let that woman be a priest, for Jesus would not have denied one he loved to do this thing.

How's that for "doing in the memory of Jesus"?

Edited by Leonardo, 12 April 2012 - 09:24 AM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#53    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 7,635 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 12 April 2012 - 11:34 AM

Quote

My argument concerns whether those reasons are reasonable according to the only source of authority we have, the bible.
Who's we? Surely not a heathen like me.

Among Christians, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox both disagree that the Bible is the only source of authority. That's why there is such a thing as a Protestant church, to accommodate the minority of Christians who do think of the Bible as the only source of authority.

Quote

My arguments are also not based on the Protestant position. I have no religious affiliation, and my only duty is to my own reason - not to any religious ideology.
Nobody said you were religiously affiliated. I said the ideas were Protestant. To describe the Bible as "the only source of authority we have" is exactly religious ideology. It is to assert the view of Martin Luther in rebuttal to the position of his native church.

Sola scriptura plays no role in the thinking of the older churches. Really none; it is another faith's tenet. To judge anyone's reasonableness according to a standard that neither they nor I  accept is unattractive to me. You're welcome to do it, but it'll have to be with someone else.

Posted Image

#54    Star of the Sea

Star of the Sea

    Pienso en ti siempre

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts
  • Joined:10 Jan 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

  • 'The light of the world'

Posted 12 April 2012 - 07:50 PM

[quote name='Leonardo' timestamp='1334212513' post='4262766']
Hi Leonardo,

What I think you are missing as Eight Bits has pointed out is that the RCC and the Orthodox Churches continue the line of tradition from what Christ established in appointing his Apostles.. If Jesus as you say was/is 'asexual' and actually against the tradition of the culture at that time  then that was his perfect opportunity to prove his point by appointing several/or an equal mix of male and female Apostle's don't you think? The RCC is not 'spinning it' do you think Jesus was a bit slow on the uptake about picking his Apostles and didn't understand the consequences in the short or long term? I think I would give Jesus much more credit than that!!  I'm not saying Jesus was anti woman either, as it's clear by scripture his love of woman.  Actions speak louder than words at times. He was sending a clear message.... "Do this in memory of me" I don't think the RCC are 'second guessing' at all.. it's there for all to see whom he appointed and how he wanted it played out and that is what the RCC have done in time in memorial.

Your quote:

Christ also never spoke about female emancipation, or the women's rights movement - because that also would have been unacceptable in the culture he operated in.

To be fair Leonardo Jesus never minced his words, you only have to look at scripture to see that, if he wanted to he would of done, so I think your point is 'moot'.

The RCC endorses the rights of woman by encompassing the teachings of Christ.. which does protect woman and give them status through lots of different avenues for example: the sanctity of marriage. What I find very interesting Leonardo is that Catholic woman are more than happy with tradition, but it appears it causes a storm with non-Catholics,  almost everything the RCC stands by (notwithstanding the sex scandals) is contested, isn't that an enigma? Those who don't have a horse in the race complain...  I have to ask myself why???  As Shakespeare eloquently said  "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Edited by Star of the Sea, 12 April 2012 - 07:54 PM.

"Love one another as I have loved you" John 15:9-17

#55    ChloeB

ChloeB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:26 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Female

Posted 12 April 2012 - 08:00 PM

View Posteight bits, on 12 April 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

Chloe


That doesn't start with "them," but was directly and personally Pope Gregory I, during a sermon around the turn of the Seventh Century. It was a plain misreading, a conventional rhetorical point about penitence badly propped up by an example that isn't in the text.

Note how far removed in time this is from any "Gnostic" knock-off scripture being in circulation. There is no political agenda here. It is a mistake, like Obama mentioning the wrong number of states. Yes, he does know better.

No Gnostic knock-off scripture in circulation, but the Vatican vault, the Vatican vault!  Secret hidden, guarded documents are there!!  LOL, I'm teasing, in the spirit of Dan Brown, :P  

View Posteight bits, on 12 April 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

A better question, I think, is how Gregory's lapse survived the Reformation. Behold, Jesus Christ Superstar, not only post-Reformation, but post-modern in the bargain, and its chief female character is Mary the Prostitute who "doesn't know how to love" Jesus, and in some productions, holds up her end of a triangle with Judas. Let's not even go to Dan Brown's spectacle of Mary as the priestess of a pagan fertility cult. Prostitute indeed. Dan, not Mary.

Oh it's probably the same as why we see a light-brown, blue-eyed Jesus.  Once those things get implanted in the psyche, they stick.  Hahaha, no Mary as priestess, but you gotta admit, the hieros gamos ritual was an interesting theory between Mary and Jesus. I kind of liked the idea.

View Posteight bits, on 12 April 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

Neither contemporary example displays sympathy toward Roman Catholicism. The Church plain and simple doesn't teach this about Mary. Both Gregory's ancient slip and its enduring enthusiastic reception, even by people who wouldn't take a Catholic Pope's word for anything else, are windows into the human mind.  

No maybe about it. John 20 is the institution of the apostleship, and his first apostle is Mary. The chapter is visibly organized with Paul's analysis of the apostolic office in mind, and emphasizes the favorable contrast of Mary's claim with his.


Well I guess they righted that wrong, but if you are so convinced Mary was an apostle, just based on John 20, no secret Gnostic text required; a strong patriarchal institution might have some investment in the idea of her as a prostitute, but we're venturing into conspiracy, I realize this.  The fact is, Star says as I understand, it's not the RCC's fault, women don't get to be priests, they're just following Jesus lead, so it's not really on them, but Jesus made that decision and they really had no choice.  So what is the deal then?  You seem convinced she was an apostle, the first one, in fact so is this ignored and denied by the RCC?  And if so, why?  Because if we're saying women are only priests because Jesus only had male apostles, well this contradicts that in Mary Magdalene.  That's about as simple as I can see it, that either they deny she was or the all-male apostleship isn't the reason women can't be priests.


Quote

The issue before us, however, is who shall preside at the sacrifice. It is not at all obvious that the chief teachers, administrators and managers of the church should be the same people as the priests. It is obvious that Jesus did not command that form of ecclesiastical organization. He didn't offer specifications for the sacrificial office, either. What difference does that make?

Let's bring Leo into the conversation.


Again, this is all very interesting from a Protestant perspective, but does not reflect the theory of spiritual and ecclesiatical authority in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. For these, the churches to which the majority of Christians belong, apostolic succession is the basis of authority.

The reasoning here, however repugnant to the Protestant mind, is really not so different from secular constitutional interpretation. Because Jesus said to the original apostles, "Do this in memory of me," it becomes the responsibility of the living successors of the apostles to do it, in memory of him. With responsibility comes authority, and so the specifications of the performance are the sole province of those responsible for bringing it about.

As Star points out, their paramount concern is to carry out what they understand Jesus' intentions to have been. Those intentions are the ultimate foundation of all ecclesiastical authority, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, until Jesus returns. If somebody else understands Jesus' intentions differently, or feels that the Holy Spirit guides them differently, then that's what authority means, whose opinion shall prevail.

There is the Reformation in a nutshell. "It's not in the Bible."

"No," says the Catholic or Orthodox bishop, "but  in the Bible my antecedent had personal responsibility for that subject matter. Authority and reponsibility should coincide, according to reason. If I inherit my antecedent's responsibility, then I inherit my antecedent's authority as well. I do inherit his responsibility by virtue of being consecrated in an unbroken chain of consecrations reaching back to the commissioning of the first apostles by Jesus."

"But it's not in the Bible."

And so, the discussion goes on. It is important to keep track of what each disputant's position actually is, and not suppose that a Catholic will be swayed by Protestant reasons, or vice versa. Apostolic authority trumps biblical silence, according to the people making the specific decision that concerns us in this thread.

You kind of lost me here, I'm sorry.  I get the Protestant deal, with all that is, is what the bible says, full stop, not the same for Catholicism.  It's been a long week, so forgive me, but so Jesus' intentions and do this in memory of me......so Jesus' intentions were only females to be priests?  Is this that kind of rare thing where the holy spirit whispers answers in the Pope's infallible ear?  LOL, I feel like a dufus, but I'm not sure what you mean.

Edited by ChloeB, 12 April 2012 - 08:04 PM.

“You've gotta dance like there's nobody watching,
Love like you'll never be hurt,
Sing like there's nobody listening,
And live like it's heaven on earth.”
― William W. Purkey

#56    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 18,410 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 12 April 2012 - 08:24 PM

View Posteight bits, on 12 April 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

Nobody said you were religiously affiliated. I said the ideas were Protestant.

The ideas are my own, eb. If they are similar to those arguments and ideas which caused the Schism and instigated the Protestant Church then that is just a coincidence of reason.

View PostStar of the Sea, on 12 April 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

Hi Leonardo,

What I think you are missing as Eight Bits has pointed out is that the RCC and the Orthodox Churches continue the line of tradition from what Christ established in appointing his Apostles.. If Jesus as you say was/is 'asexual' and actually against the tradition of the culture at that time  then that was his perfect opportunity to prove his point by appointing several/or an equal mix of male and female Apostle's don't you think? The RCC is not 'spinning it' do you think Jesus was a bit slow on the uptake about picking his Apostles and didn't understand the consequences in the short or long term? I think I would give Jesus much more credit than that!!  I'm not saying Jesus was anti woman either, as it's clear by scripture his love of woman.  Actions speak louder than words at times. He was sending a clear message.... "Do this in memory of me" I don't think the RCC are 'second guessing' at all.. it's there for all to see whom he appointed and how he wanted it played out and that is what the RCC have done in time in memorial.

Your quote:

Christ also never spoke about female emancipation, or the women's rights movement - because that also would have been unacceptable in the culture he operated in.

To be fair Leonardo Jesus never minced his words, you only have to look at scripture to see that, if he wanted to he would of done, so I think your point is 'moot'.

The RCC endorses the rights of woman by encompassing the teachings of Christ.. which does protect woman and give them status through lots of different avenues for example: the sanctity of marriage. What I find very interesting Leonardo is that Catholic woman are more than happy with tradition, but it appears it causes a storm with non-Catholics,  almost everything the RCC stands by (notwithstanding the sex scandals) is contested, isn't that an enigma? Those who don't have a horse in the race complain...  I have to ask myself why???  As Shakespeare eloquently said  "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

You are entitled to your beliefs, Star. My only wish for you is that they are your beliefs - and not those of someone else you have accepted as your own.

As my reasoning appears to be causing a bit of vexation to some on this thread, and this is not the forum for skepticism (although, in my defence I do not consider my argument to be antithetical to the belief in God, or Jesus) I will retire. And I graciously accept the faint praise with which eb has damned me.  ;)

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#57    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,196 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 12 April 2012 - 08:53 PM

View Post~C.S.M~, on 11 April 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

Nope a Pope cannot go against the doctrine. The pope is infallible through the light of the rcc theology,

Strange... It was  the pope that once  made up his version as to how Mary did not die but went to heaven  back in the 1950's.. and people believed him..No bible required...   No proof required..

And his infallibility  is argued  many times over  ..  He can pick and chose what he feels like defending..

It was  noted that pope John Paul would start a new page of its history...   Remember the pardon he gave to  Galileo, ?  

The pope can change over what suits...

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 12 April 2012 - 08:53 PM.

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#58    Star of the Sea

Star of the Sea

    Pienso en ti siempre

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts
  • Joined:10 Jan 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

  • 'The light of the world'

Posted 12 April 2012 - 09:01 PM

View PostChloeB, on 11 April 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

But do you really think the RCC is a credible source that Jesus did only choose male Apostles?  After all, they were behind making out Mary Magdalene to be a prostitute and later had to right that wrong?  I know this is going to sound so Da Vinci Code, but the gnostic writings show the tension between Peter (the rock which the Catholic church was built) and Mary Magdalene and the story goes from there, her being made out to be a prostitute while she may have very well been an Apostle.  This is all very "what the RCC says" more than what Jesus says, imo, or that's how I see it, but I'm not Catholic so I guess I don't have the faith in them a I think my hesitance is trusting everything they say is well-deserved based on their history.  But I guess in carrying on in St. Peter's tradition, the not allowing female priests makes sense and it really does seem to me in my eyes, more his church than Jesus'.  To me, it's hard not to wonder if Jesus didn't give Mary Magdalene an important role, very well an apostle, maybe even a leadership role.

Edit:  Because my laptop mouse thingy is a demon from hell and has a mind of its own. :P

Hi Chloe,

The Da Vinci Code was a good read and I enjoyed it even though it was heretical!:P Eighbits beat me to it... Mary Magdalene was much maligned and her reputation has been quite rightly restored in the RCC. Augustine saw her as an 'Apostle to the Apostles' apostolarum apostola. We only need to look at when the Gnostic Gospels were dated which refer mostly to Mary Magdalene and that was 2nd and 3rd centuries... . She is seen as a Disciple to Christ in the RCC.

At the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper which was celebrated with the 12 Apostles. Jesus tells the twelve explicitly that he is confering his Father's kingdom on them, and then addresses Peter directly...

It is you who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.
(Luke 22:28-32)

The word apostle comes from the Greek word ἀπόστολος (apostolos), a broad definition of which is "one who is sent on a mission". In fact, the word 'missionary' is related to this word. Because the Twelve are sent by Jesus on a mission to "make disciples of all nations", ipso facto they are missionaries or apostles.

What is the difference between a Disciple and an Apostle?Jesus separated those two terms here:

{6:13} And when daylight had arrived, he called his disciples. And he chose twelve out of them (whom he also named Apostles)







Edited by Star of the Sea, 12 April 2012 - 09:13 PM.

"Love one another as I have loved you" John 15:9-17

#59    Star of the Sea

Star of the Sea

    Pienso en ti siempre

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts
  • Joined:10 Jan 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

  • 'The light of the world'

Posted 12 April 2012 - 09:16 PM

View PostRafterman, on 10 April 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

It's just like the Church's positions on homosexuality, abortion, birth control, etc., etc. - if you don't agree with it, don't be a Catholic.

Pretty simple actually.


Well said!!!!:w00t:

"Love one another as I have loved you" John 15:9-17

#60    Star of the Sea

Star of the Sea

    Pienso en ti siempre

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts
  • Joined:10 Jan 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

  • 'The light of the world'

Posted 12 April 2012 - 10:08 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 12 April 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

The ideas are my own, eb. If they are similar to those arguments and ideas which caused the Schism and instigated the Protestant Church then that is just a coincidence of reason.



You are entitled to your beliefs, Star. My only wish for you is that they are your beliefs - and not those of someone else you have accepted as your own.

As my reasoning appears to be causing a bit of vexation to some on this thread, and this is not the forum for skepticism (although, in my defence I do not consider my argument to be antithetical to the belief in God, or Jesus) I will retire. And I graciously accept the faint praise with which eb has damned me.  ;)


Hehe Leonardo it's good to thrash things out! I have faith in what I believe, if I didn't then I wouldn't be in for the long haul! It aint easy being a Roman Catholic in this day and age... ah well the hymn "Faith of our Fathers" comes to mind a real anthem for Catholics!...:st

"Love one another as I have loved you" John 15:9-17




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users