Female ordination

Root of Jesse · Jun 14, 2021

Strong in Him said:
I don't know what Sola Scriptura means, or involves.
The Bible is not a science textbook and was not written as one.

The reason a number of people are put off the Bible is because some Christians say, "the earth was formed in 6 days/the earth is flat; it says so in the Bible". And non Christians say "well it's easy to disprove that", give the scientific evidence, declare the Bible to be false and mock at Christians who either don't know how to read their own book, or are simple and deny scientific facts.

The Bible tells us that GOD created; was behind creation, had a plan and purpose for it and for us. It does not give us scientific details about God's universe - as John Stott said, "it's the job of the scientists to do that." The Bible reveals God; that's its purpose.

Well, to be honest, I believe the universe was created in 6 days. I wasn't there to know what a 'day' was, but if you look at the ages of those first humans spoken of, we really don't know. There is no scientific data to disprove what Genesis says about the creation of the universe or the flood, or anything else. There simply isn't. In fact, there are a lot of scientists proving exactly what the Bible says.
I agree with you though, the Bible doesn't tell us how the heavens go, it tells us how to go to heaven. But my point was to Hmm about Galileo, and the real controversy that existed then. It's very easy to snort and say 'look at the Catholic Church, totally anti-science', when many of the greatest scientists of the 2000 year history since Christ were, in fact, Catholic. Catholics invented architecture as we know it, education and the university system, and the scientific method. The theory of heliocentrism was proposed by a Catholic, pushed forward by Catholics, and so was the Big Bang Theory. So please, take that comment for what it was about.

Root of Jesse · Jun 14, 2021

Hmm said:
See post #228. I believe you replied to it earlier.

But I don't see a quote from Galileo. You quoted something he's supposed to have said, but the vast evidence is that he never said or wrote it.

Root of Jesse · Jun 14, 2021

Strong in Him said:
I'm not carrying on with this; it's pointless.

What is noticeable that in my post, way back, I commented that I could not speak until after the Mass and reflected that this might be because they didn't agree with women speaking in church. I later mentioned how I felt unwelcome and excluded.

Well, no, they don't, and I was explaining to you why you spoke after Mass.

If anyone had said, "I'm sorry you felt hurt. Actually, it's standard policy for non Catholics to speak after the Mass, and I'm afraid it's also our belief that non Catholics can't take Mass" - not only might it have helped, but this argument would have been over ages ago.

Did you attempt to speak to the pastor about it? Or do you just hold a grudge because your feelings were hurt?

Instead of which, various Catholics have rushed to say "YOU didn't find out.... YOU refuse to believe... YOU should have... YOU don't understand." In other words, like I said "The Catholic church can't be blamed for your non belief/ignorance".

Well, that's all true, though.

Which doesn't put the Catholic church in a very good light at all - and thank heavens I won't be going there again.

Doesn't put you in a very good light, either, if you're grousing about it 20 years later. Or even a week later. Rather than complain, air your feelings to the person who could do something about it.

Root of Jesse · Jun 14, 2021

Paidiske said:
This is just the first source I could find on google, but it seems to me to match what I've encountered in real life: Fact sheet on Catholic Women's Ordination - Women's Ordination Conference

So a woman with an agenda finds a fact sheet on a group she agrees with and assumes it's a main-stream idea? That's a riot.

I think trying to claim you're "one" with the Orthodox while not also being "one" with (say) the Anglicans, despite the formal Orthodox rejection of you (plural), is an argument more full of holes than the average colander.

Well, I don't claim that. I know that I'm not even one with my spouse-she is different than me. So my thought is that every two people will not be together completely. But I choose to try to meet where we agree.

Your very first point in this thread was "Women should not be in church leadership." So yeah, I see you criticising.

Can you show me where this quote is? Cuz I don't believe I said that. I said women shouldn't be priests, but I believe women can be, and are, in leadership. In fact, I've named several. St. Theresa of Avila, Mother Theresa, Mother Angelica, St. Joan of Arc.

Ah, gender-based stereotypes. Always such a solid basis for limiting and pigeonholing.

This is not about what "the world" thinks. And it's not about what women or men can do; even the most ardent opponents of the ordination of women generally concede that we can physically do the work required. But arguing that women cannot stand in persona Christi because Christ's maleness is so very much the point of his humanity (when we make no such argument about any other trait) does denigrate women.

It is ALL about what the World thinks, and not what the Church believes. In fact, your church split from the Catholic Church over something the World thinks.

Click to expand...

Are we denying the plain words of Scripture now?

No, and we're not adding to what was said, either. FYI.

Even in your own church, this is not true.

Name another formal vocation that women can be ordained to, in the Catholic Church?

Strong in Him · Jun 14, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
But my point was to Hmm about Galileo, and the real controversy that existed then. It's very easy to snort and say 'look at the Catholic Church, totally anti-science', when many of the greatest scientists of the 2000 year history since Christ were, in fact, Catholic. Catholics invented architecture as we know it, education and the university system, and the scientific method. The theory of heliocentrism was proposed by a Catholic, pushed forward by Catholics, and so was the Big Bang Theory. So please, take that comment for what it was about.

That's fine.
I can't argue science and that's not what this thread is about. Nor is it about Catholics.

I do feel that it's the same principal though - some Christians believe that, as the Bible is true, we have to apply all of it to ourselves today. Which is why we get very heated threads on women's ordination, whether or not we are under the law, when exactly the world was created etc - it all comes down to "it's in the Bible, therefore it's true, therefore we have to apply it, literally, today". I've written posts about taking verses in context, understanding the language and so on - and some have said that I'm "explaining the Bible away"; or, worse, "twisting it to fit your agenda."
Some Christians just feel that every word of the Bible is literal and has to be applied to us today. And they get irate with anyone who disagrees with that position - even to the point, on this topic, of dismissing women who are called to be ordained, or are ordained, as disobedient, deluded feminists. It couldn't possibly be their own position and understanding of the Bible that's at fault; so it must be these sinful women, who have apparently deceived various male clergy into doing what they want. It seems that God himself is not able to correct these women who claim to be led by him and speak for him - apparently he has no choice but to carry on letting them do it.

Creationism, female ordination and other contentious topics - it's all down to Biblical interpretation.

Strong in Him · Jun 14, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
Doesn't put you in a very good light, either, if you're grousing about it 20 years later. Or even a week later. Rather than complain, air your feelings to the person who could do something about it.

No, maybe it doesn't - but we tend to remember things that have hurt us.
And I hate all denominations, and do feel deeply upset when we bicker amongst ourselves, hurt and belittle one another, and present a lousy witness to the world.

The priest couldn't do anything about it; it was too late after the event - and if those were his deeply held beliefs, it actually would have been wrong for him to have gone against them.
He COULD have easily had a word with me beforehand to make sure I understood the situation; he COULD even have chosen not to take part in the pulpit exchange. He didn't. I know you don't want to hear anything said against a Catholic priest; but that was a fact.

Anyway, like I said, my perception was that it was because the church didn't ordain women. You say I was wrong; fine. That still doesn't explain why the local Anglican vicar preached IN the service, but it doesn't matter - and certainly not to the topic of this thread.

Hmm · Jun 14, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
But I don't see a quote from Galileo. You quoted something he's supposed to have said, but the vast evidence is that he never said or wrote it.

Oh dear

Root of Jesse · Jun 14, 2021

Strong in Him said:
That's fine.
I can't argue science and that's not what this thread is about. Nor is it about Catholics.

I do feel that it's the same principal though - some Christians believe that, as the Bible is true, we have to apply all of it to ourselves today. Which is why we get very heated threads on women's ordination, whether or not we are under the law, when exactly the world was created etc - it all comes down to "it's in the Bible, therefore it's true, therefore we have to apply it, literally, today". I've written posts about taking verses in context, understanding the language and so on - and some have said that I'm "explaining the Bible away"; or, worse, "twisting it to fit your agenda."
Some Christians just feel that every word of the Bible is literal and has to be applied to us today. And they get irate with anyone who disagrees with that position - even to the point, on this topic, of dismissing women who are called to be ordained, or are ordained, as disobedient, deluded feminists. It couldn't possibly be their own position and understanding of the Bible that's at fault; so it must be these sinful women, who have apparently deceived various male clergy into doing what they want. It seems that God himself is not able to correct these women who claim to be led by him and speak for him - apparently he has no choice but to carry on letting them do it.

Creationism, female ordination and other contentious topics - it's all down to Biblical interpretation.

Explain this: Jesus didn't ordain any women, meaning no female apostles. He had female disciples, but no female apostle. That's why we don't ordain women-because we know Jesus didnt.

Hmm · Jun 14, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
Explain this: Jesus didn't ordain any women, meaning no female apostles. He had female disciples, but no female apostle. That's why we don't ordain women-because we know Jesus didnt.

Did He ordain US or European citizens I wonder?

Root of Jesse · Jun 14, 2021

Strong in Him said:
No, maybe it doesn't - but we tend to remember things that have hurt us.
And I hate all denominations, and do feel deeply upset when we bicker amongst ourselves, hurt and belittle one another, and present a lousy witness to the world.

The priest couldn't do anything about it; it was too late after the event - and if those were his deeply held beliefs, it actually would have been wrong for him to have gone against them.
He COULD have easily had a word with me beforehand to make sure I understood the situation; he COULD even have chosen not to take part in the pulpit exchange. He didn't. I know you don't want to hear anything said against a Catholic priest; but that was a fact.

Anyway, like I said, my perception was that it was because the church didn't ordain women. You say I was wrong; fine. That still doesn't explain why the local Anglican vicar preached IN the service, but it doesn't matter - and certainly not to the topic of this thread.

You could have talked to him afterward and gotten your perception straightened. And I'm not defending the priest. Some priests are better than others. Don't know why, about the Anglican.

Root of Jesse · Jun 14, 2021

Hmm said:
Oh dear

Dear, dear.

Root of Jesse · Jun 14, 2021

Hmm said:
Did He ordain US or European citizens I wonder?

No, but his kingdom is not of this world. He did ordain men who were Roman citizens...

Paidiske · Jun 14, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
So a woman with an agenda finds a fact sheet on a group she agrees with and assumes it's a main-stream idea? That's a riot.

Feel free to find evidence to the contrary.

Root of Jesse said:
Can you show me where this quote is?

Post #60. You say, "Women should not be in church leadership."

Root of Jesse said:
Name another formal vocation that women can be ordained to, in the Catholic Church?

Not every vocation requires ordination (and nuns aren't ordained, anyway). For example, a lay Catholic may be a seminary professor, lead an education or health institution, and so on and so on.

Root of Jesse said:
Explain this: Jesus didn't ordain any women, meaning no female apostles.

Jesus didn't ordain anyone, in the sense we understand and practice ordination today.

Root of Jesse · Jun 14, 2021

Paidiske said:
Feel free to find evidence to the contrary.

every diocese in the world.

Post #60. You say, "Women should not be in church leadership."

and yet I have said over and over that women can and do serve in church leadership. I was speaking of priesthood and hierarchy.

Not every vocation requires ordination (and nuns aren't ordained, anyway). For example, a lay Catholic may be a seminary professor, lead an education or health institution, and so on and so on.

you missed a key word...formal. which is what the topic is. Female ordination.

Jesus didn't ordain anyone, in the sense we understand and practice ordination today.

I know that one of the signs of ordination is laying on of hands. The apostles did it with Mathias and Paul, so it is apparent Jesus had done it to them.

Paidiske · Jun 14, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
every diocese in the world.

My argument is that, in my experience and according to what I can find online, a majority of lay Catholics want and would welcome women's ordination. If you can find a source which has surveyed Catholics and found otherwise, I'd be interested to see it.

Root of Jesse said:
and yet I have said over and over that women can and do serve in church leadership. I was speaking of priesthood and hierarchy.

Either way, my point that you came into this thread criticising others seems to be substantiated.

Root of Jesse said:
you missed a key word...formal. which is what the topic is. Female ordination.

Ordination isn't the only "formal" ministry.

Root of Jesse said:
I know that one of the signs of ordination is laying on of hands. The apostles did it with Mathias and Paul, so it is apparent Jesus had done it to them.

"It is apparent" - what, not even a Scripture quote to back this up?

I would argue that it is not at all clear that Jesus set the twelve apart in a way which amounted to ordination.

Strong in Him · Jun 15, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
Explain this: Jesus didn't ordain any women, meaning no female apostles. He had female disciples, but no female apostle. That's why we don't ordain women-because we know Jesus didnt.

Jesus didn't have any Gentile disciples.
Jesus didn't ordain anyone; he called them to follow him and then told them to go and be his witnesses. And the word "Apostle" means sent. Everyone who was sent by Jesus was an Apostle; including Mary Magdalene.

And I really wouldn't down the route of not doing something because Jesus didn't, if I were you:
Jesus never spoke of his mother as the Queen of heaven.
Jesus never said that his mother was a perpetual virgin.
Jesus never said "you can only do this in memory of me if you have the correct beliefs and theology".
Jesus never said that only ordained clergy can preside at a communion service (most denominations say that).
Jesus never said "if it can be proved after your death that you did enough good deeds and 2 miracles, you can become a saint". In the NT ALL God's people are saints - even the Corinthians, who had incest in their church.
Jesus certainly never said that the Catholic church was the only church and all others were "apostate"; implying that any members of these churches weren't true Christians. Or, as someone has said "yes, you believe the same Gospel as us, but you still only have 'a subset' of the truth."

Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold water.

Strong in Him · Jun 15, 2021

Root of Jesse said:
I know that one of the signs of ordination is laying on of hands. The apostles did it with Mathias and Paul, so it is apparent Jesus had done it to them.

No, we are not told that Jesus "laid hands on" his disciples. He could have done, but as the text doesn't say; that is an assumption.

Laying hands on someone is not what defines ordination. Being called by God, having that call recognised, being sent by the Spirit and the church and performing that ministry in the name of Jesus, in the power of the Spirit and on behalf of the church - that is what ordination is about.
I would guess that, during this pandemic, some clergy were ordained without hands being laid upon them; that doesn't mean that they haven't been ordained. The Holy Spirit can fill a person without anyone else touching them at all.

Paidiske · Jun 15, 2021

Strong in Him said:
I would guess that, during this pandemic, some clergy were ordained without hands being laid upon them;

Really? I'd be genuinely surprised. I thought pretty much every tradition did that. (Except maybe groups like the Salvation Army? I know nothing about their processes for becoming an Officer).

Strong in Him · Jun 15, 2021

Paidiske said:
Really? I'd be genuinely surprised. I thought pretty much every tradition did that. (Except maybe groups like the Salvation Army? I know nothing about their processes for becoming an Officer).

I'm sure they do, normally.
I was just thinking of the pandemic and social distancing that we've all been observing; laying on of hands may not have actually been allowed.
When our Anglican deaconess was ordained many years ago, there were hundreds in the cathedral and many clergy laid hands on her - and all the other ordinands. But a local URC Minister was ordained last year, with only a few in the church and I don't think anyone was able to physically lay hands on her. Yet I would still say that she was ordained.

Paidiske · Jun 15, 2021

We did not hold ordinations when physical contact was not allowed, here.

I wouldn't say your minister was not ordained, since clearly your church felt the process had been satisfactory to meet their criteria, but such a process would not be considered adequate in many traditions.

But there we get into distractions about the difference between what is essential, what is beneficial, and what is the fulness of Christian practice.

Female ordination

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Great is thy faithfulness

Great is thy faithfulness

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Clara bonam audax

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Clara bonam audax

Great is thy faithfulness

Great is thy faithfulness

Clara bonam audax

Great is thy faithfulness

Clara bonam audax

Similar threads