EXCERPTS:
...the two churches that split during the Reformation over issues of papal authority are as divided as ever.
“Christians have very diverse views about the nature of the vocation that belongs to the See of Rome.”
"Both Anglicans and Catholics say that dialogue aimed at full communion — in which the two churches work toward mending the rift of the Reformation — has grown nearly impossible since the Church of England opened the way for female bishops. It first ordained women as priests in 1994."
"In the coming years, the Church of England is on track to ordain the first female bishops, a move that is expected to divide the Anglican Communion even further, including pitting more liberal communities in England and elsewhere against more traditional ones in Africa."
"Once women become bishops, more Anglican traditionalists are widely expected to leave — although it remains to be seen whether they will join the Roman Catholic Church, which recently ruled that ordaining women as Catholic priests is a crime against the faith, punishable by excommunication."
Bridget Mary's Reflection:
Sexism is a sin. The Vatican needs to repent and recognize the gift that womenpriests bring to our church. We practice prophetic obedience to the Gospels. Jesus treated women and men as equals. The Risen Christ gave prominence to Mary of Magdala by appearing to her first and calling her to be the apostle to the apostles. Jesus did not ordain anyone according to the Gospels. Womenpriests remind all that women are equal images of Christ, and therefore can preside at Eucharist and all the sacraments. Right now the institutional church has six sacraments for women and 7 for men. Catholics are voting with their feet by their enthusiastic acceptance of womenpriests. They do not believe that it is a crime to ordain women. The real crime is the Vatican's policy of discrimination against women! The Vatican's punitive action against womenpriests has been condemned by Catholics and non-Catholics alike throughout the world. Not one pedophile or bishop who shuffled predator priests was excommunicated! The sexual abuse of thousands of youth and the unjust treatment of women in the church are real crimes from which the Vatican should repent ! Bridget Mary Meehan 703-505-0004, sofiabmm@aol.com
13 comments:
Any kids at all in your parish? The pictures always seem to be of people 40+, and often 60+.
Not anymore Mike, they are all out working and earning a living, while witnessing and supporting he RCWP and they are still attending Mass all over the world, I doubt at your seminary !
Why don't you actually go and attend a Mass that you are critical of. Oh yea, the Rome thing. Earthling Powers making EARTHLING rules. How silly of any organization that represents our Lord to think that Women do not have the same right through baptism and calling to serve in the priesthood. They have been serving in the priesthood for many years, just was not a lot of internet hatred out there to vent through.
And do NOT even try to start that talk about it is written and cannon law. If we followed everything in the bible, you and I should each have a slave or two. Then take a real long look at who wrote and translated and re-translated the bible...oh yea, women were not allowed to be educated way back in the day. So how could translations be anything but a male view of importance. Last time I checked, the followers of Jesus are the true Catholic church - THE PEOPLE, not a bunch of theologians who run around in cassocks all day to stand out from the people. That is a club in Rome.
Oh yes we can ! And yes we have !
Have a blessed day Mike.
Crusader,
First: Ordination is NOT a right- that is what you don't seem to get. Ordination is a GIFT and a CALLING, not an entitlement which comes through Baptism. Men have no more a "right" to ordination then women. Men are not entitled to be ordained- in order for a man to be ordained, they must first be called by God, and this call must be recognized by the Church.
Second: Earthling powers making Earthly rules? So you are saying the Church is not a divine institution, but a mere human organization? If this is so, then I agree with you- let's have women's ordination, and while we are at it let's allow homosexual unions, abortion, contraception, and everything else. For if the Church is a mere human organization, there would be no point to being a part of it, as Faith would be based on human passions and whims rather then anchored in the Word of God.
The people, not a bunch of theologians running around in cassocks are the real Church? Now here we have an inrony. Tell me- are theologians who do NOT run around in cassocks part of the real Church? You people simply replace the infalliblity of Rome with the infalliblity of Gary Macy-you never escape the problem of authority, you simply choose to place authority in a different magesterium.
Apologist --
I think everyone agrees that ordination is a CALLING and not a RIGHT.
The question is, why do you maintain that God cannot CALL a woman? And why do you maintain that women do not have a RIGHT to DISCERN a calling? (That is different than a right to ordination.)
Some of you nay-sayers keep insisting that we are saying women have a RIGHT to ordination. NO, that is not what we are saying. We are saying that God can call men AND women. We are also saying that everyone has a right to a discernment process and that discernment process is not based on anatomical features.
Rav,
"The question is, why do you maintain that God cannot CALL a woman?"
First, the question has nothing to do with what God CAN do, the question is what God DOES.
Second: I do not maintain anything. The Faith does not belong to me, it belongs to the Church. I merely testify to what The Church has given to me, namely that God does not call women to Holy Orders.
The real question is why do you and your cohorts not respect nor trust the judgment of the Church in this matter, and other moral issues?
Apologist said:
Second: I do not maintain anything. The Faith does not belong to me, it belongs to the Church. I merely testify to what The Church has given to me, namely that God does not call women to Holy Orders.
Dude they already have been called to holy orders ...Catch up ! Did you not read the part about Man translating everything ?
Apologist said:
"The real question is why do you and your cohorts not respect nor trust the judgment of the Church in this matter, and other moral issues?
Who brought in "other MORAL issues" ?
WE only trust the Lord !
THE CHURCH ...to many is a building of a defined contained... Perhaps you and your following/cohorts/club..visionary group or whatever.
To others THE CHURCH is an abundance of sacraments most important to ALL humankind filled with the LOVE of CHRIST.
Without "Definition" of how I love thee !
Apologist SAID...
"Second: I do not maintain anything. The Faith does not belong to me, it belongs to the Church. I merely testify to what The Church has given to me..."
Well Buddy, THE CHURCH sold you a piece of ocean front property in Arizona !
Jesus, OUR LORD, does not expect you to testify to anything but the honest acceptance of the Lords love and calling of all.
Show me where it says it is NOT so !
You just be you and sail around on your own Arizona Ocean front Blog !
Not that you are from Arizona (check out the secular song with George Strait).
Bless you Apologist on this 26th Sunday.
Blessings plus for Ravenbarque.
And Bridget Mary ...keep on Walking and they shall know it is true !
Crusader,
"Dude they already have been called to holy orders ...Catch up ! Did you not read the part about Man translating everything?"
"Dude"- They might be called to "Holy Orders" but whatever is meant by that it is not in the Roman Catholic sense.
"To others THE CHURCH is an abundance of sacraments most important to ALL humankind filled with the LOVE of CHRIST.
Without "Definition" of how I love thee !"
Indeed the Church is filled with the Love of Christ. That is not the question. The real question is what it means to love. It seems you and your cohorts confuse the concept of love with the concept of niceness. It is not nice to tell women God is not calling them to Holy Orders, therefore you conclude the Church is not acting in a loving manner. I submit the Church IS acting in a loving manner, but not a NICE manner.
As for "man" translating everything, that might be an issue for those who are Scriptura Sola, but Roman Catholics do not subscribe to Scriptura Sola. Translation issues, then, are irrelavent. The Church preserves the meaning of the words in her Tradition. The Faith is not only preserved in Scripture, but in Tradition as well. In the second place, I think it is difficult to get wrong the fact that Jesus called 12 men to be apostles. Even modern feminists cannot translate themseves out of that.
The Church is to be understood as "The Body of Christ" but Scripture and Tradition make it clear that this Church is composed of a heirarchy, and that we are to obey our leaders. Again, why don't you and your cohorts obey?
For me, the issue is not so much WHAT is said, but WHO is saying it. You and your cohorts might make good arguments for your position- but you have no CREDIBILITY becasue you do not speak with the authority of the Church. For Catholics, (myself) good argumentation and scholarship is important, but CREDBILITY is more important- this is to say what is being argued for must be manifested with not only HUMAN authority, but DIVINE authority as well.
Rav,
"Well Buddy, THE CHURCH sold you a piece of ocean front property in Arizona!"
And your proof for this? Your basis for making this assertion? The testimony of the Universal Church is that the Church has no authority to confer orders upon women. Why should I trust YOUR judgement over that of the Universal Church? It seems to me YOU and your cohorts are the ones selling ocean front property in Arizona, and it is the Univesrsal Church which continues to try to warn of the fact that you are wolves in sheep's clothing.
"Jesus, OUR LORD, does not expect you to testify to anything but the honest acceptance of the Lords love and calling of all."
Jesus expects me to testify to the Faith he has given the apostles, who in turn entrusted this Faith to the Church. This "honest acceptance of the Lord's love and calling of all" business is exactely what I mean by wolves in sheep's clothing. You take nice words that no one can possibly disagree with and throw them around indescriminately.
The question is not the Lord's calling of all, but the NATURE of his calling, and what this call entails. EVERYONE is called by the Lord for service of God, but not EVERYONE is called to be priests. The Lord indeed loves and accepts everyone, but it does not follow that the Lord loves and accepts SIN, or that the Lord wants to leave people dead in their Sin. The Lord's love and acceptance of all does NOT entail we do not have to do anything or CHANGE ourselves.
"Show me where it says it is NOT so !"
The fact that Jesus called and ordained 12 men and commissioned them, and them alone does not mean anything to you? The ACTIONS of Christ mean nothing to you?
And though I disagree with your theology (if indeed it could even be called that) I wish you blessings as well.
Apologist --
You said to Crusader, "It seems to me YOU and your cohorts are the ones selling ocean front property in Arizona"
Of course we are selling ocean front property in Arizona! After all, I live in Arizona and I know this state needs an economic boost. Besides, since we do have London Bridge here (and if you don't believe that, look it up -- assuming you know how to Google), so we must have something resembling an ocean. Actually, if we look at the geological record....
MAN translating everything does not equate to Sola Scriptura. Who else besides humans could be translating? Amoebas? You clearly do not speak any language besides English -- and I question your accuracy there sometimes. If you did, you would know that there is virtually never just one translation of any sentence -- even the simplest of sentences -- when going from one language to another. Translation issues are NOT irrelevant!
AND, you keep forgetting that Jesus never ordained anyone -- male or female. Did he commission them? Sure! Male AND female. What do you think he did at the Last Supper -- and remember, it could not have been a Passover meal without the women and children being there? Did he say, "OK, women and kids. Get out of here! I've gotta commission these 12 men. You can come back and clean up after it is over. Oh, and you won't get to partake in the First Eucharist either because I have to say 'Do this in remembrance of me.'"
You talk about ARGUMENT, SCHOLARSHIP, and CREDIBILITY. Your arguments are basically weak and replete with non sequiturs. You are fairly good and changing the subject -- often in mid-paragraph.
You scholarship is poor. I have called you on this before. You do not document what you are saying. You say the same thing over and over but you show absolutely no proof -- other than, "It's so because the Church says it's so." and (paraphrase) "This is a discussion and not an academic excercise. I know my stuff but I don't have to show it here." The truth is, you do NOT know your stuff. Yes, it is a discussion but that does not mean it cannot be academic too. Your credibility is probably just fine -- with the ostriches.
Rav,
I didn't say "Man translating everything equates Scriptura Sola." You are saying becasue only men have translated the Scriptures throughout the years, they have translated them to benefit men rather then women. I am calling this hogwash, becasue the Faith is also preserved through Tradition. We do not base our Faith on the Scriptures Alone, therefore translations while important will NOT IMPACT THE TRUTH OF THE FAITH. This would only be an issue for Protestants becasue they base their Faith entirely upon Scripture. Thus nuances in translation is going to impact their Faith.
That women and children were present at the last supper? Indeed- and your statement proves too much! Should we ordain children to the priesthood as well simply becasue they were present at the last supper?
Sir, I have dealt with this on my blog before- the question is not "Who was present at the last supper" but WHO CELEBRATED THE LAST SUPPER.
"Do this in memory of me" indeed- applies to everyone present as the Eucharistic celebration is the action of the whole community. However, the action of the whole community depends upon the action of the priest, for the offering of the people is through the mediation of the priest who CELEBRATES the Eucharist as head of the community.
The rest of your post is simply one giant ad hominum. You are attacking my credentials, not my arguments. Sir, what you don't seem to get is that even if I had ten PhD's after my name- it wouldn't matter. When one argues for a position based on scholarship and logic- one is demonstrating the position based upon HUMAN authority. This is useful, but not sufficient to demonstrate that something is Revealed Truth. In order to sufficiently demonstrate that something is Revealed Truth, the Church must testify to that fact based on her Divine authority. Unless the Church does so, the argumentation while interesting only amounts to a HUMAN testimony, and therefore does not command the assent of Faith, nor for that matter obedience.
So you argue for women's ordination, and you do so in a "scholarly" and "academic" way. Great- but in the end that doesn't mean anything if the Church does not testify to it with her Divine authority.
Apologist --
You said: "So you argue for women's ordination, and you do so in a "scholarly" and "academic" way. Great- but in the end that doesn't mean anything if the Church does not testify to it with her Divine authority."
I'd like to remind you that just because the Church testifies that something is stated on Divind authority does not make it so. Consider geocentrism. Consider the various Inquisitions. Consider the selling of priests' wives and children into slavery. Consider the Jewish ghettos. Consider the forced baptisms of native peoples. Consider the ripping of native children from their families and forcing them to have a new religion and to never speak their native languagae again. Shall I go on? All of these were Church testified as being done on Divine authority.
Rav,
The examples you provide demonstrate that there is sin in the Church. They demonstrate sometimes there are abuses which creep into the Church. However none of the examples you provide are things where the Church demanded the assent of Faith.
Forcing baptism upon native children is not a teaching it is a misapplication of a teaching, namely that Baptism is necessary for Salvation. In fact all of the examples you produced involve the misapplication of a teaching, not a teaching.
Geocentrism: misapplies the teaching that man is the pinnacle of creation and bears the image of God
The Inquisition: misapplies the teachings that obedience to the Church is necessary
Jewish Ghetto's: misapplies the notion of retribution. The decendants of the ancient Jews cannot be blamed for killing Christ.
Forcing religion upon natives: misapplies the truth that Christianity is the true religion, and God desires everyone come to know Christ. This is so- but people must do so freely without force or coersion.
Post a Comment