Would you be more likely to join…

[Paidiske]

It’s not personal paidiske, it’s doctrine or lack thereof

Of course it's personal. It's personal when this kind of thing is brought up, in a way that is completely off topic, in order to discredit the person with whom you are engaged in conversation.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

No new Church was started, rather, a legate of the Pope caused a schism, one which is deeply regretted by a great many Catholics and Orthodox who have spent many decades of ecumenical dialogue in recent years seeking to rectify it, by attempting to wield a power he did not have according to canons 6 and 7 of the council of Nicaea, and in defiance of other canonical legislation.

The correct procedure, if he thought the Patriarch of Constantinople was in error, would have been to call an ecumenical council, which is what was done with Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus. Pope St. Celestine positively regarded Patriarch Nestorius as a heretic, but he did not depose him, rather, he worked with St. Cyril the Great, the Pope of Alexandria, to get Patriarch John I of Antioch to agree that Nestorius needed to be removed, and once that was arranged, an ecumenical council was convened and Nestorius was deposed. This was the canonical precedent. Nothing changed between 433 AD and 1054 AD to give a representative of the Pope the power to unilaterally excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople (and furthermore, if the Patriarch were actually in error, he should have been deposed, and not excommunicated; also, according to ancient canon law, under most conditions, clergy could not be excommunicated but rather could only be deposed, since excommunicating clergy violated the principle that one could only be punished once for a given offense - the exceptions were doctrinal points agreed at the councils which were enforced by anathemas, but the legate did not anathematize the Patriarch, rather, without warning, he placed a writ of excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia while the clergy were preparing to celebrate the liturgy, and then left the city.

And since your church now permits Orthodox to receive the sacraments, and allows its members to receive the sacraments from us (although most Orthodox churches neither allow their members to receive the sacraments from Catholic clergy nor allow Catholics to receive the sacraments without converting), well, the argument that we were rendered excommunicate falls apart.

What else falls apart is your story. If what you say is true in that the excommunication was improper and not legitimately issued, then why was it used as an excuse to go into schism rather than call an ecumenical council and depose everyone? Why accept the schism? The only answer is human pride. It was certainly not Christian humility
Christ took the jeers, mockery and derision during His passion yet opened not His mouth. Orthodox? Well they just took a teenage tizzy. You excommunicate us? We excommunicate you and guess what? We are not coming back, nah, nah, na nah nah. Wow great Christian virtue, not. It is more noble to accept unjust punishment and offer it it up to God, than to cry foul and demand satisfaction. The Lord says return not evil for evil, rather overcome evil with good. Guess not in this instance

Also, I do not tell you want you believe. I read orthodox positions and try to understand their doctrine. Your taking offense is just a way of avoiding a discussion. A purveyor of truth would sense my misunderstanding and show references that clarify my error, or show me the websites that are teaching false orthodox doctrine because if what you say is true, there are a lot of them out there.

My person? You are free to offend me all you want. In the kingdom of God my flesh is an unclean thing worthy of all derision. I don’t take it personal

My position? It’s the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Any errors that you want to point out in there? We can discuss them with scripture and references. I would not take offense if you get a Catholic doctrine wrong, because at least you’d be trying

Have you ever considered Our Lord’s words The last will be first and the first will be last? If you are in error and I preach to you, if perchance that you have a change of heart and repent, it would be that you would have a higher position in heaven than me and all I would gain would be the joy that you have taken your rightful place in the kingdom of God. There is no gloating or offense taken. A Christian gives up all to God and seeks not his own

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Of course it's personal. It's personal when this kind of thing is brought up, in a way that is completely off topic, in order to discredit the person with whom you are engaged in conversation.

It is not off topic to discuss positions. You yourself said that all the arguments about the roles of men and women were tired and old. You wanted something new, so we go in this direction. By your words

The other ironic point is that you claim to be a minister, yet cannot maintain your cool.
A minister does not take offense, but has the peace that passes understanding. Paul rejoiced in suffering, yet you want me to tickle your ears instead? Paul says men can detach themselves more easily from the world and become all things to all people so that by all means they might save some. Women are more caught up in the world and feelings. It’s how God created them, which is why they are not ministers. He has a more special place for them

I don’t care what you or anyone thinks about me. There is all kinds of accusations you could bring against me and they would all be true, but that is not what the Gospel is about

Why do you care what I think of you? My opinion matters nothing in eternity. The doctrine that you represent or choose to associate with does have eternal consequences. That matters more than our feelings. Do you demand that those to whom you preach acknowledge your goodness? Their is none good save God only

A minister must remember and live the words of Job. Blessed is the man whom God chastises. Do not reject the punishment of the almighty. For he wounds, but he binds up; he smites, but his hands give healing

 

[Paidiske]

Paul rejoiced in suffering, yet you want me to tickle your ears instead?

I expect people engaging in discussion in these forums to strive to be mutually considerate and respectful.

Paul says men can detach themselves more easily from the world and become all things to all people so that by all means they might save some. Women are more caught up in the world and feelings.

Paul didn't say either of those things.

Why do you care what I think of you?

I care about whether we can actually have a discussion of the topic at hand that doesn't descend to personal attacks.

 

[jas3]

It was the Lambeth conference that started it. I grant you that it was not the intention of Lambeth to start the sexual revolution, but it is hard to deny that it gave it much more traction than it otherwise would have and continues to have today.

To play devil's advocate, are you sure this isn't a post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy? It's common knowledge that the Lambeth Conference was the first instance of Protestants in any official capacity compromising on birth control, but it might be a bridge too far to say it "caused" the successive compromises in other denominations. There were other, widespread liberal movements like the feminist movement and the eugenics movement that preceded Lambeth by a considerable length of time, and which both promoted birth control.

Why accept the schism? The only answer is human pride. It was certainly not Christian humility
Christ took the jeers, mockery and derision during His passion yet opened not His mouth. Orthodox? Well they just took a teenage tizzy. You excommunicate us? We excommunicate you and guess what? We are not coming back, nah, nah, na nah nah. Wow great Christian virtue, not. It is more noble to accept unjust punishment and offer it it up to God, than to cry foul and demand satisfaction. The Lord says return not evil for evil, rather overcome evil with good. Guess not in this instance

In the first place, you're wrong that the Orthodox returned "evil for evil" (and are you saying that what was supposed to be an official act of your church was evil?) because they only excommunicated Cdl. Humbert and the two men who were accompanying him, not the pope and not the whole of Western Christendom; proportionally speaking, theirs was a very humble response. In the second, it is not "Christian humility" to follow the pope or any other hierarch into heterodoxy, which is why the fifth ecumenical council struck Pope Vigilius from the diptychs for his refusal to appear at the council after he had expressed reluctance to condemn the Three Chapters, and which is why St. Augustine said that a pope could be corrected by an ecumenical council, as in the case of Pope Honorius.
I'm with you on your condemnation of birth control and women's ordination, but it is not historically accurate to argue that the schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is of the same kind as that between Catholicism and Anglicanism.

 

[The Liturgist]

It’s not personal paidiske, it’s doctrine or lack thereof

Forgive me, but you can’t proffer an argumentum ad hominem and then say “It’s nothing personal” since ad hominem arguments are personal by definition.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I expect people engaging in discussion in these forums to strive to be mutually considerate and respectful.

Paul didn't say either of those things.

I care about whether we can actually have a discussion of the topic at hand that doesn't descend to personal attacks.

I would have expected more out of you. As a Christian, the first thing we are called to do is to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Jesus. The theme over and over is we are dead to the world and alive to Christ.

I am speaking about Christian doctrine and the history of certain groups, one of which you represent, yet you think I attack you personally.

Your thoughts have not left your person and turned to the Church. Why is that?

Do you believe Jesus when He says unless a grain of wheat fall to the Earth and die it remains alone? He who loves his life will lose it, and he that hates his life in this world will keep it unto life eternal?

I don’t know who you are and it does not make a difference what you think of me. My questions and discussion were to refocus your thoughts, and you have been resistant. That brings me no joy

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Forgive me, but you can’t proffer an argumentum ad hominem and then say “It’s nothing personal” since ad hominem arguments are personal by definition.

Show me where it says as argumentum ad hominem. I know nothing about the woman personally. She identifies with a group that has abandoned basic Christian teaching. That is the issue, not her person. It is a red herring to say I have attacked her personally

The Church has declared that women cannot be priests. She disagrees. The Church has declared contraception to be mortally sinful, her group disagrees with that also, and was even the one that started the disagreement. Those are facts. She has dodged the issue
She has morphed it into a personal attack, and so have you
That is not right

 

[Paidiske]

The Church has declared that women cannot be priests. She disagrees. The Church has declared contraception to be mortally sinful, her group disagrees with that also, and was even the one that started the disagreement. Those are facts.

That is one interpretation of the facts. I would say that "The Church" does not have only one position on any of these matters. "The Church" is bigger than any one denomination.

And that is why a thread like this can exist, and we can engage in discussion about what we believe, and why, and explore those differences. But there's not much discussion to be had, if the contribution comes in the form of accusations and criticisms against those with whom we disagree.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

That is one interpretation of the facts. I would say that "The Church" does not have only one position on any of these matters. "The Church" is bigger than any one denomination.

And that is why a thread like this can exist, and we can engage in discussion about what we believe, and why, and explore those differences. But there's not much discussion to be had, if the contribution comes in the form of accusations and criticisms against those with whom we disagree.

By your words. My opinion of you matters little, as does your opinion of me. We have the word of God. To purport to be a preacher of the word is a grave responsibility. Nothing unclean will enter the kingdom of heaven. God will not have a discussion about that.

The concept that God is “bigger than that” in that He will tolerate sin and not require repentance is absurd.

God can forgive all sin, but He tolerates no sin. It is non negotiable. We read in Ezekiel

18- If, when I say to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die: thou declare it not to him, nor speak to him, that he may be converted from his wicked way, and live: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand 19 But if thou give warning to the wicked, and he be not converted from his wickedness, and from his evil way: he indeed shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul. 20 Moreover if the just man shall turn away from his justice, and shall commit iniquity: I will lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die, because thou hast not given him warning: he shall die in his sin, and his justices which he hath done, shall not be remembered: but I will require his blood at thy hand.


Jesus says if we look at a woman with lust, we have committed adultery. Paul tells us to fly fornication, as he who commits it sins against his own body. There is also a list of sins that cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, of which are adulterers and fornicators.

The Anglican community took it upon themselves, despite 1900 years of Christian teaching against it, to say that contraception is no longer mortally sinful. What gave them that right? Did God appear and say it’s ok? Or did they assume it for themselves?

You can call it an accusation but those are facts, and the position of the group you represent. What would you like to discuss?

God calls all men everywhere to repent and He does not tolerate sin, no matter the opinions of modern men

 

[Paidiske]

The Anglican community took it upon themselves, despite 1900 years of Christian teaching against it, to say that contraception is no longer mortally sinful. What gave them that right?

By what right does any church make an ethical judgement?

What would you like to discuss?

How about the topic of the thread?

 

[The Liturgist]

Show me where it says as argumentum ad hominem. I know nothing about the woman personally. She identifies with a group that has abandoned basic Christian teaching. That is the issue, not her person. It is a red herring to say I have attacked her personally

No she hasn’t. If you would bother to talk to her you would find that she agrees with the Nicene Creed and the 39 Articles of Religion of traditional Anglicanism. Furthermore, I would note that according to you, even the Eastern Orthodox have abandoned basic Christian teaching, by refusing to follow the dictates of the Pope, despite the fact that the Papal Legate in Constantinople did not, according to the precedent set by Canons 6 and 7 of the Council of Nicaea, and by the acts of the Council of Ephesus which deposed Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople, have the power to unilaterally excommunicate a Patriarch and all members of the Church of Constantinople. It would have required an ecumenical council to depose him and to anathematize him, and it would not have been possible under the canon low of the early church to excommunicate him, since clergy in the early church, unless they were anathematized, could not be both deposed and excommunicated, due to the prohibition on punishing someone twice for the same offense. Don’t believe me? Read the Eastern Orthodox Rudder, or its Roman Catholic counterpart, the Decretals; these nomocanons largely overlap, although the Rudder is more reliable, but much of what is in it is also in the Decretals.

The Church has declared that women cannot be priests. She disagrees.

Your jurisdiction determined that. Her jurisdiction determined that they can be priests. Since the Roman Catholic church has parishes in Australia, the solution is for people who believe that women cannot be priests to attend Roman Catholic or other denominations that do not ordain women to the priesthood.

The early canon law of the church does not appear to envisage female priests, but it also does not explicitly prohibit them, and it does explicitly establish the Order of Deaconesses, who were ministers of the font in the same way that the Deacons are ministers of the chalice. Frankly I wish we still had them, because baptizing infants and women makes me nervous. The Armenians never abolished the order of Deaconesses, and the Copts have brought them back.

But of course, you don’t regard anything not in communion with Rome as being the Church, which is your perogative; I would not expect a Roman Catholic to agree with a non-Roman Catholic model of ecclesiology.

But I do find it objectionable the way in which you needlessly attack the legitimacy of her ministry, not recognizing the fact that she is a professional who does a very good job within the context of Anglicanism and who is not doing anything that impedes the ability of your church to efficiently minister to Australians. The correct approach is to recognize someone as being a valued minister in another denomination, even if one personally does not agree with that denomination and subscribes to a traditional Roman Catholic eccelsiology. The reason for this is simple: since she is not Roman Catholic, she is not the concern of Roman Catholics, but indeed is a potential ally over issues such as the repression of religious freedom or attempts by some to deprecate the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, or other heretical movements which span multiple denominations.

The other thing that ticks me off about ad hominem arguments, such as the one you continue to make against @Paidiske , is that she really cares about providing high quality pastoral care and about not harming her constituents. So whether you agree with the idea of female priests or not, she would be, if she were in the Roman Catholic church, someone who you would want in service of the church in a position of power and authority, such as Mother Angelica of the EWTN. I have not met many clergy who care as much about pastoral care as she does.

Likewise, there is a local Presbyterian chaplain who is female, who I greatly admire - she works every Thursday for the Ventura County Fire Department, ministering to bereaved families, and she also runs a homeless shelter. And she was also ripped off by a seminary, who after taking her money for an MDiv program decided that, despite PCUSA policy allowing the ordination of women, and despite her passing the required courses, they weren’t going to give her her MDiv, which was fraudulent. If they were opposed to the idea of giving a woman an MDiv they should not have wasted her time and her money but instead referred her to another seminary. That sort of thing really ticks me off.

 

[PloverWing]

The other ironic point is that you claim to be a minister, yet cannot maintain your cool.

Seriously? Paidiske has maintained an extraordinary degree of grace and self-control throughout this exchange.

Your last few posts have been deeply offensive and insulting -- to women, to the Anglican tradition, to non-Catholic Christianity in general. Perhaps you do not hear the misogyny in the posts. I have been silent in this thread for the last week, because it has taken me that long to find words that are not flames.

I will return to the original topic of this thread -- namely, would I be more likely to join the Catholic Church if they had female clergy. There is much of value in the Catholic tradition. I can think of Catholic saints and theologians who have inspired me, Catholic poetry and liturgy and music and art that have been windows to God for me. But the Catholic branch of Christianity also has the feature that it resists change and reform. This can be positive: the Catholic church doesn't usually get distracted by the latest theological novelties. It gives the church an important groundedness. But it can also be negative: the Catholic Church can be very resistant to reform, even when reform is called for. The belief in infallibility compounds this; if you believe you are infallible, how then can you correct your errors when they arise? Your recent posts have illustrated this problem very well.

So, if the Catholic church began to ordain women, I would see that as a positive step, but it wouldn't be enough for me in itself. I would want to see the Anglican Communion remain separate from the Catholic Church until I saw more humility on the Catholic side.

 

[The Liturgist]

Seriously? Paidiske has maintained an extraordinary degree of grace and self-control throughout this exchange.

Your last few posts have been deeply offensive and insulting -- to women, to the Anglican tradition, to non-Catholic Christianity in general.

That about sums it up, because in the past few posts the Orthodox were attacked, Anglicanism was attacked, women were attacked and my friend @Paidiske was attacked. I don’t care how one feels about women’s ordination, I was taught not to talk to women that way and not to talk about ordained ministers of any church that way. And Paidiske falls into both categories, and is a professional who cares about her congregation, and within Australia there exist numerous denominations which do not ordain women, including the Anglican Archdiocese of Sydney and the Roman Catholic Church, so it is not as though she is in any way imposing herself on people, quite the opposite, she is serving multiple parishes under conditions which strike me as an American clergyman as extremely difficult, even before I became ill and had enough energy to function normally I would not have been able to do what she does.

I also don’t see how such harsh criticism is supposed to do any constructive good. It’s a bit like members of a certain denomination which shall go unmentioned who constantly write posts criticizing nearly every other Christian denomination on CF.com. In so doing, they alienate us. It’s profoundly offputting as an Orthodox Christian to have people unfamiliar with the history of our church criticize it, and as someone who was also Episcopalian, its likewise profoundly offputting for someone unfamiliar with the history or nature of Anglicanism to criticize it based on the unpleasant conduct of King Henry VIII, which has actually become almost totally irrelevant to Anglicanism as a form of Christianity except insofar as it restored to the English church the independence that it lost as a result of the Norman conquest, since it seems clear that the church in Brittania was an autonomous province in the Western church, under the omophorion, or aegis, of the Pope, but I digress. And likewise for those of us who have friends who are female clergy it is deeply offensive to just have their work and their professionalism completely rubbished. Even if one does not agree with the idea of there being any female clergy, there is no need to make it personal or to dismiss the very good work that female clergy have done and continue to do, as Christians and for Christianity and in accordance with Christian principles, in a number of different fields of ministry.

I reject entirely the idea that there are no valid ministries for women, since St. Paul did not say that, and he actively worked with St. Theclas, and indeed it looks like there is quite a lot that women can do, of the highest importance, considering that the entire nation of Georgia was evangelized by the Armenian princess St. Nino*

*St. Nino Equal to the Apostles is known as St. Nina in Armenian; Georgian is an unusual language in that unlike most languages, with the exception of West Syriac, it has an a to o vowell substitution, so Aleluia becomes Alilo, not unlike how in West Syriac Marth Miriam, meaning St. Mary, becomes Morth Mariam.

 

[Paidiske]

While I appreciate the praise, @The Liturgist, I feel obliged to point out that I am serving one parish with three centres of worship. Which might seem pedantic, but I promise it is a good thing to only deal with one parish council, not three! (I am also pleased to be able to report that some of the extra demands I was juggling have abated, or are about to, so that there is some light at the end of the tunnel and towards the end of the year I can look forward to something more closely approximating a "normal" clergy workload. For what that's worth!)

 

[The Liturgist]

While I appreciate the praise, @The Liturgist, I feel obliged to point out that I am serving one parish with three centres of worship. Which might seem pedantic, but I promise it is a good thing to only deal with one parish council, not three! (I am also pleased to be able to report that some of the extra demands I was juggling have abated, or are about to, so that there is some light at the end of the tunnel and towards the end of the year I can look forward to something more closely approximating a "normal" clergy workload. For what that's worth!)

Yes you are of course quite right. And I am glad to hear that the very difficult workload conditions you were under are finally going to be relaxed! I have been praying for you and for your ministry.

By the way, your prayers and those of others reading this thread would be appreciated because on Thursday morning I stepped into an area where unbeknownst to me the city had torn up the road and was in the process of laying down fresh asphalt, but they had not cordoned off the construction or done anything to prevent me from wiping out, and as a result I injured my ankle and my left arm, and then in attempting to stand up I fell again and injured my right hand, although I am extremely thankful to our loving God that I did not hit my head, and I am also still able to type, since it was my little finger that took the brunt of it. But it was very painful, I did have to crawl across the unfinished asphalt to get back on the paved surface, which was in fact a railroad crossing, but fortunately this was early enough in the morning so that there were no trains.

 

[prodromos]

You excommunicate us? We excommunicate you and guess what? We are not coming back, nah, nah, na nah nah. Wow great Christian virtue, not.

The Council held after Humbert's hissy fit, only excommunicated the three legates, Cardinal Humbert, Archbishop Pietro of Amalfi and Deacon Frederick of Lorraine, and if anyone was guilty of saying "we are not coming back", it would be the Church in Rome who chose to crown one of the three excommunicated legates as Pope of Rome when Frederick became Pope Stephen IX in 1057. That is an ecclesiastical middle finger if there ever was one.

 

[concretecamper]

Your last few posts have been deeply offensive and insulting -- to women, to the Anglican tradition, to non-Catholic Christianity in general. Perhaps you do not hear the misogyny in the posts. I have been silent in this thread for the last week, because it has taken me that long to find words that are not flames

So far @boughtwithaprice has been spot on. Sometimes the truth hurts, so be it.

 

[concretecamper]

I also don’t see how such harsh criticism is supposed to do any constructive good

What is constructive good? Is it confirming someone in their error in the name of false ecumenism? I don't think so.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Seriously? Paidiske has maintained an extraordinary degree of grace and self-control throughout this exchange.

Your last few posts have been deeply offensive and insulting -- to women, to the Anglican tradition, to non-Catholic Christianity in general. Perhaps you do not hear the misogyny in the posts. I have been silent in this thread for the last week, because it has taken me that long to find words that are not flames.

I will return to the original topic of this thread -- namely, would I be more likely to join the Catholic Church if they had female clergy. There is much of value in the Catholic tradition. I can think of Catholic saints and theologians who have inspired me, Catholic poetry and liturgy and music and art that have been windows to God for me. But the Catholic branch of Christianity also has the feature that it resists change and reform. This can be positive: the Catholic church doesn't usually get distracted by the latest theological novelties. It gives the church an important qgroundedness. But it can also be negative: the Catholic Church can be very resistant to reform, even when reform is called for. The belief in infallibility compounds this; if you believe you are infallible, how then can you correct your errors when they arise? Your recent posts have illustrated this problem very well.

So, if the Catholic church began to ordain women, I would see that as a positive step, but it wouldn't be enough for me in itself. I would want to see the Anglican Communion remain separate from the Catholic Church until I saw more humility on the Catholic side.

yes seriously

A minister of God stands for the truth of the Gospel without reference to self, else one is not Christian by definition. Do Jesus words, if any man come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me have any meaning ?

Paidiske has not addressed any points of theology and neither has Liturgist. They reference themselves. That is not the Gospel that any believer is supposed to live and follow, let alone one that claims to be a minister or the Gospel

I have nothing against them personally. I am sure they wish to be fine people, but their arguments are weak to the point of being absurd.

Pretty much can be summed up as “you hurt me, therefore you are wrong “ No where does Christ say that is true. No where. He even says the opposite. He says you will be hated by all men for my name’s sake, yet we are to love our enemies. Where does the Lord tell us to ignore the challenge of our beliefs?? Nowhere
He says be always ready to give an answer to anyone that asked you to give the reason for the hope that you have. He does not tell us to hide behind the charge of ad hominem. I would expect more from ministers of the Gospel.

Go ahead and flame me. I assure you it will have no effect. The truth does not stand or fall based on whether my person is offended. The cross itself is an offense. God is not a respecter of persons. We need to stand and be ready to be martyred for our faith, not run and hide.

You have brought up some important points.
Infallibility, misogyny, and humility.

First infallibility. The Catholic Church did not claim infallibility for herself, but it was given to her by God. Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. (Paraphrase and not exact quote) The question is , who is doing the building? Is it the Holy Spirit of God or the decisions of men?
All the alleged denominations can be traced back to the decision of a man. One could hardly argue that the Holy Spirit inspired Henry VIII to desire a male heir so much that he would be willing to commit adultery and murder in defiance of the Pope to break away and start a new church. If you do, how is there any credibility in scripture?

The Orthodox could make an argument that they were wrongfully excommunicated, and in the arguments from the Liturgist, I can see that may be the case. The problem arises not in the excommunication itself, rather in their response to it. Rather than staying in humility and keep the body of Christ intact, they used the excommunication as an excuse to break away.
We see the effects of the passions of men, rather than the Holy Spirt of God. What does Christ say in the Gospels?
Man, who hath appointed me judge or divider over you? Luke 12:14, yet we see the Orthodox demand God do just that. The fruits of which are that the Orthodox are a more ethnic assembly, rather than universal. God has mercy on them,
and they have valid sacraments and apostolic succession, but they do not have the great commission to bring the Gospel to the whole world, they stay ethnic or tribal not universal or Catholic.

You are aware of the scripture that says unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it ?


Misogyny? No, I am anti-modern feminism because it is not in line with the word of God. Scripture says, I suffer not a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man. Also, let women keep silence in the Church. If they have any questions, let them ask their husbands at home.
This situation is not ideal, but it is the state of things in this fallen world. Adam and Eve both fell, but they had different sins and God cursed them in different ways.

Adam told God that it was the woman’s fault that he ate the fruit and he even tried to blame God, by saying well you put her here with me. God cursed him to work by the sweat of his brow, and the Earth will bring forth thistles. Oh no, you are not going to sit back and blame women for all your problems, you now have to take full responsibility and provide for her. Modern men tend to still play the blame game and look for a woman to be more of a mommy for them rather than a wife, so we have the modern stereotype of the bumbling man that needs an intelligent woman to straighten him out. If men would obey God, provide for their families and follow God’s command to love their wives and give themselves for her, they would not need straightening out. If a man does not love his wife, he hates himself and certainly does not love God
To the woman, Eve was deceived first, God says your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you, also in pain shall you bring forth children. The word also says wives be subject to your husbands as to the Lord. That is the word of God. If a wife will not submit to her husband that she can see, and to whom God has told her to submit, how can she claim to be submitting to God whom she cannot see?
Feminism treats women like objects to use men for their own ends. “I don’t want kids, I want a career” “I don’t want to submit to a man, so I will use contraception and have sex with whoever I want, I will use sex to force a man to bow to my will instead of submit to him” Yep that sounds so Christian (sarcasm)

God has given men and women proper roles for them to live in obedience to Him. Modern culture says there is no difference between women and men, and now we are told that men can be women and vice versa. Do you think modern thought comes from God?

Who suffers from this ignorance of God’s word? Primarily the children. They grow up without a mother cause she is too busy at work. Men also lose their masculinity in this environment. Those that wish to obey God and retain their masculinity are called toxic or misogynistic.
If you want to call me misogynistic, you have to tell me what a woman is without reference to “gender feelings” and how I am disparaging her.
If all you can say is that I do not agree with modern feminism, your charge of misogyny is false.

This brings us to the last point of humility. God says I desire obedience rather than sacrifice. God calls us to repentance in the denial of self.
We are dead to the world with its fleshly desires, yet we are in constant battle. God knows we are weak, but has promised help, if we ask for it
Modern man does not want to obey. He wants to use the sacrifice of Christ to justify all kinds of behavior. He says the Church must keep up with the times and change her doctrine. It’s almost like saying God must repent toward man, as His commands are too harsh. Where did we ever think that is a good idea? Seriously, as you say

WE need to repent toward God, not He toward us!! That is humility. Not my will, but thine be done. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

The Anglican communion took it upon themselves to change 1900 years of Christian doctrine. They need to repent and stop taking the name of God, yet scoffing at His commands.
We see what happened over the last 90 years, in that all Protestants followed suit, the Orthodox are equivocal on the subject. It is the Catholic Church alone that proclaims the truth of God’s command. Do you not understand what happens when one separates procreation from sexual intercourse and calls that separation a need?
Sex is not a need, it is a lust, a work of the flesh. Christians are called to mortify the deeds of the flesh, not promote them.

I don’t care what you have to say about me, that the word of God. I used to think like you and say the Church needs to evolve. It is only when I submitted to the authority of the Church, that God set me free from the sin that so easily beset me. Grace is real, now is the day of salvation.

God calls Everyman everywhere to repent and believe the Gospel. Does your minister call people to repentance, or does he(she) call God to repent before you?

We die to self and our feelings to follow Christ’s commands. There is no other way. He says if you love me, keep my commandments. The old question is Who do you love? God and His commands, or yourself and your feelings?

When you choose God, He gives you the peace that passes understanding. When you choose yourself and demand that God change toward you instead of you repenting toward Him, there is no peace as there is no repentance and the salt has lost its savor

The Romans hated the Christians because they followed the Apostolic teaching. They persecuted and martyred them, but they could say nothing against them, as they had love for God and one another. Now, in the modern world, Christianity is a running gag, as we have tried to bring God down to ourselves instead of repenting toward Him

Read the apostolic teaching by Iraneus from the second century and see if it bears any resemblance to what we are now being told. Then you may know what humility is.