Female ordination

Status
Not open for further replies.

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
As the Methodist church preaches the Gospel, yes, I do.
You seem to have an idea that we sit around paying homage to John Wesley, singing all of Charles' hymns and that those who disagree with what these men said, are not allowed in.


I go to a Methodist Church to worship, and preach, Christ.
I sometimes go to an Anglican church to worship Christ.
I have been to Baptist, free churches and the Salvation Army to worship Christ.
Even when I have been to Catholic churches (not often), I have been worshipping Christ.

I can assure you that I do not go to church for the biscuits after the service.
The Methodist Church preaches the Gospel through the eyes of John Wesley. Grace alone and Faith alone are wrong and not Scriptural.
Again, this is part of the problem. You say you follow the Gospel as taught by Wesley, but you don't have to agree with all he taught. But Wesley is a man who came along 1500 or so years after Christ. So you agree with some of what he taught, which is fine, but no two people can believe the same body of what Wesley taught, so how many denominations of Methodism are there??? This is true of a lot of Catholics, too, they don't agree with everything. It is a human condition. Faithful Catholics believe what the Church teaches and has taught for 2000 years from those who heard Christ teach it, or from those authorities he appointed (ordained).
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,802.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But it is there. You don't see it.

If it was there, I would see it.
I doubt any Catholic "sees" it until they are specifically taught.

I said that Hail would be a greeting for a queen.

Might be a greeting for a lot of other people too.
That's not evidence. "Queen of heaven", is evidence, yet that title's never used.

Scripture only covers the first generation, and slightly the second, of Christianity.

It tells us of their stories; yes.
But God speaks to us through Scripture today.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,905.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And yet the main sacrament-baptism-is recognized of all the Churches that baptize in the Trinitarian formula. Baptism formally makes you Christian, in our understanding. And the fact is that other than Orthodox Churches, most others don't believe in the sacraments. In this thread, we've seen some that deny that marriage is a sacrament, or Confirmation, or Eucharist. But you know what? We also recognize as sacramental any Christian marriage.
I was under the impression that the Catholic church had not extended full recognition to the validity of every protestant baptism universally, but that they limited to the extension to a few select ones. Has this changed? Where in the annals of Catholic tradition is this expressed?
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,802.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Methodist Church preaches the Gospel through the eyes of John Wesley.

No; the Methodist church preaches the Gospel as laid down in Scripture.
The Gospel being that mankind sinned, rebelled against God and deserved eternal death, or separation from God, but that God didn't want that for us. He loved us so much that he wanted to reconcile us to himself - which he did, through Jesus and the cross.

Grace alone and Faith alone are wrong and not Scriptural.

Grace alone and faith alone are not the Gospel.
The Gospel is Jesus - both God and man, born, live, died, raised to life, ascended, who sent his Spirit to live in his followers so that they might live for him, and who will return one day in glory.
Jesus said that whoever believes in him has eternal life, John 3:16, John 3:36; it is the work of God that we believe in Jesus, John 6:29, and the will of God that we come to him to receive eternal life, John 6:40.
Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, John 1:29, 1 Peter 1:19-20. He said himself that he came to give his life as a ransom for many, Mark 10:45, that he is the Good Shepherd who would lay down his life for the sheep, John 10:11, John 10:15, that his blood would be shed for the forgiveness of sins, Matthew 26:28. He said that he is the only Way to the Father, John 14:6, and Peter said that he is the only Saviour, Acts of the Apostles 4:12. Jesus died to reconcile us to God, Romans 5:11, 2 Corinthians 5:18 and through him we have peace with God, Romans 5:1.
Having been crucified, Jesus was later raised from the dead. He was raised a) because he was God and the tomb could not hold him and b) God wanted everyone to know that he was who he had claimed to be, Romans 1:4-5.

Everyone who believes in Jesus, believes and accepts who he was and what he taught and died for, has eternal life. Jesus came that we should have life, John 10:10; eternal life is the work, will and gift of God, Romans 6:23 and is available to everyone, 2 Peter 3:9.
If someone accepts Jesus, believes in him, receives eternal life but then dies - 5 weeks, days, hours or minutes later; they will have died with Christ and eternal life.
That is the Gospel.

In your burger analogy, that is the burger. The relish is the church practices - baptism at a certain age, ordaining/not ordaining women, speaking in tongues, dancing in the aisles, prophesying, using incense, praying to the saints, tithing/ or not.
Both literally and metaphorically, I hate relish. It doesn't taste nice (except for a bit of cheese occasionally) and spoils the taste of the burger. In fact sometimes it seems that there is so much relish that the burger can't be seen.
Just as in the church.

You say you follow the Gospel as taught by Wesley, but you don't have to agree with all he taught.

No, I don't have to agree with all he taught - and if he hadn't taught the Gospel, I wouldn't agree with that either.
You seem to have missed the bit of my post where I said that I heard the Gospel and became a Christian long before I joined the Methodist church.

But Wesley is a man who came along 1500 or so years after Christ. So you agree with some of what he taught, which is fine, but no two people can believe the same body of what Wesley taught, so how many denominations of Methodism are there???

It makes no difference how many denominations there are - there is ONE Gospel and ONE Saviour.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
If it was there, I would see it.
I doubt any Catholic "sees" it until they are specifically taught.



Might be a greeting for a lot of other people too.
That's not evidence. "Queen of heaven", is evidence, yet that title's never used.



It tells us of their stories; yes.
But God speaks to us through Scripture today.
You're right. And he always has. And those who knew did write that Mary is Queen of Heaven. Again you don't see it because you refuse. I wasn't taught it, I was shown the logic.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I was under the impression that the Catholic church had not extended full recognition to the validity of every protestant baptism universally, but that they limited to the extension to a few select ones. Has this changed? Where in the annals of Catholic tradition is this expressed?
As long as its Trinitarian. I don't know how long its been that way.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
No; the Methodist church preaches the Gospel as laid down in Scripture.
The Gospel being that mankind sinned, rebelled against God and deserved eternal death, or separation from God, but that God didn't want that for us. He loved us so much that he wanted to reconcile us to himself - which he did, through Jesus and the cross.



Grace alone and faith alone are not the Gospel.
The Gospel is Jesus - both God and man, born, live, died, raised to life, ascended, who sent his Spirit to live in his followers so that they might live for him, and who will return one day in glory.
Jesus said that whoever believes in him has eternal life, John 3:16, John 3:36; it is the work of God that we believe in Jesus, John 6:29, and the will of God that we come to him to receive eternal life, John 6:40.
Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, John 1:29, 1 Peter 1:19-20. He said himself that he came to give his life as a ransom for many, Mark 10:45, that he is the Good Shepherd who would lay down his life for the sheep, John 10:11, John 10:15, that his blood would be shed for the forgiveness of sins, Matthew 26:28. He said that he is the only Way to the Father, John 14:6, and Peter said that he is the only Saviour, Acts of the Apostles 4:12. Jesus died to reconcile us to God, Romans 5:11, 2 Corinthians 5:18 and through him we have peace with God, Romans 5:1.
Having been crucified, Jesus was later raised from the dead. He was raised a) because he was God and the tomb could not hold him and b) God wanted everyone to know that he was who he had claimed to be, Romans 1:4-5.

Everyone who believes in Jesus, believes and accepts who he was and what he taught and died for, has eternal life. Jesus came that we should have life, John 10:10; eternal life is the work, will and gift of God, Romans 6:23 and is available to everyone, 2 Peter 3:9.
If someone accepts Jesus, believes in him, receives eternal life but then dies - 5 weeks, days, hours or minutes later; they will have died with Christ and eternal life.
That is the Gospel.

In your burger analogy, that is the burger. The relish is the church practices - baptism at a certain age, ordaining/not ordaining women, speaking in tongues, dancing in the aisles, prophesying, using incense, praying to the saints, tithing/ or not.
Both literally and metaphorically, I hate relish. It doesn't taste nice (except for a bit of cheese occasionally) and spoils the taste of the burger. In fact sometimes it seems that there is so much relish that the burger can't be seen.
Just as in the church.



No, I don't have to agree with all he taught - and if he hadn't taught the Gospel, I wouldn't agree with that either.
You seem to have missed the bit of my post where I said that I heard the Gospel and became a Christian long before I joined the Methodist church.



It makes no difference how many denominations there are - there is ONE Gospel and ONE Saviour.
Wesley taught grace alone and faith alone, which informs the Methodist understanding.
For example, Matt 16:18-20, you deny Peter is the rock upon which Christ would build His Church. Or you believe it but deny that Peter was head of that Church. Or some variant.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
No; the Methodist church preaches the Gospel as laid down in Scripture.
The Gospel being that mankind sinned, rebelled against God and deserved eternal death, or separation from God, but that God didn't want that for us. He loved us so much that he wanted to reconcile us to himself - which he did, through Jesus and the cross.



Grace alone and faith alone are not the Gospel.
The Gospel is Jesus - both God and man, born, live, died, raised to life, ascended, who sent his Spirit to live in his followers so that they might live for him, and who will return one day in glory.
Jesus said that whoever believes in him has eternal life, John 3:16, John 3:36; it is the work of God that we believe in Jesus, John 6:29, and the will of God that we come to him to receive eternal life, John 6:40.
Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, John 1:29, 1 Peter 1:19-20. He said himself that he came to give his life as a ransom for many, Mark 10:45, that he is the Good Shepherd who would lay down his life for the sheep, John 10:11, John 10:15, that his blood would be shed for the forgiveness of sins, Matthew 26:28. He said that he is the only Way to the Father, John 14:6, and Peter said that he is the only Saviour, Acts of the Apostles 4:12. Jesus died to reconcile us to God, Romans 5:11, 2 Corinthians 5:18 and through him we have peace with God, Romans 5:1.
Having been crucified, Jesus was later raised from the dead. He was raised a) because he was God and the tomb could not hold him and b) God wanted everyone to know that he was who he had claimed to be, Romans 1:4-5.

Everyone who believes in Jesus, believes and accepts who he was and what he taught and died for, has eternal life. Jesus came that we should have life, John 10:10; eternal life is the work, will and gift of God, Romans 6:23 and is available to everyone, 2 Peter 3:9.
If someone accepts Jesus, believes in him, receives eternal life but then dies - 5 weeks, days, hours or minutes later; they will have died with Christ and eternal life.
That is the Gospel.

In your burger analogy, that is the burger. The relish is the church practices - baptism at a certain age, ordaining/not ordaining women, speaking in tongues, dancing in the aisles, prophesying, using incense, praying to the saints, tithing/ or not.
Both literally and metaphorically, I hate relish. It doesn't taste nice (except for a bit of cheese occasionally) and spoils the taste of the burger. In fact sometimes it seems that there is so much relish that the burger can't be seen.
Just as in the church.



No, I don't have to agree with all he taught - and if he hadn't taught the Gospel, I wouldn't agree with that either.
You seem to have missed the bit of my post where I said that I heard the Gospel and became a Christian long before I joined the Methodist church.



It makes no difference how many denominations there are - there is ONE Gospel and ONE Saviour.
Where is it where Jesus was interested in division?
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,802.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Where is it where Jesus was interested in division?

It isn't.
So why does your church say, "you can't do this (share in the eucharist); you're not one of us. We are the true church with the truth"?

Actually, don't answer that; I know what you'll say, and this is all way off topic from women's ordination.

Bottom line; God is calling women to ordination, and has been for some time. It's happening, it has happened, it does happen; accept it or not.
You don't accept it, I know that - and believe it or not, if you sincerely believe the Scriptures teach that women can't be ordained, then you clearly have to go with what you believe to be true. And I respect that.

I believe that you're wrong.
Whether or not you can also believe and respect my position and the reasons I believe you are wrong, is up to you.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
It isn't.
So why does your church say, "you can't do this (share in the eucharist); you're not one of us. We are the true church with the truth"?
question for a question: if its not what we believe it is, why would you want to receive it? Because communion is based in unity. And you're not.
Actually, don't answer that; I know what you'll say, and this is all way off topic from women's ordination.

Bottom line; God is calling women to ordination, and has been for some time. It's happening, it has happened, it does happen; accept it or not.
You don't accept it, I know that - and believe it or not, if you sincerely believe the Scriptures teach that women can't be ordained, then you clearly have to go with what you believe to be true. And I respect that.

I believe that you're wrong.
Whether or not you can also believe and respect my position and the reasons I believe you are wrong, is up to you.
I respect you and your right, even in disagreement. And mean that sincerely.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Strong in Him
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,130
19,010
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,719.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I'm here to correct the multitude of mis-statements about the Catholic Church, one of which, here, was about the Catholic Church being misogynist.

Treating women as less than men - which is what refusing to ordain us does - is misogyny. It may not be conscious or intended as such (although when we look at the ancient arguments about it, that women can't be ordained because they're basically deficient in their development, malformed men, it's certainly been fairly explicit at times), but it is "ingrained and institutionalised prejudice against women," the literal dictionary definition of misogyny.

Aren't you saying "My church is right because it allowed me to be ordained"?

Of course. On this point, I believe my church to be right. The difference is that I'm not here arguing that your church is "less" because I disagree with it.

I didn't tell you you're deficient.

How can I have "less" of the faith, an incomplete faith, a subset of the truth, without that being deficient?

Come on, RoJ, this is the clear implication of all the piles of words you've written. At least own up to it rather than being in denial about it.

I was under the impression that the Catholic church had not extended full recognition to the validity of every protestant baptism universally, but that they limited to the extension to a few select ones. Has this changed? Where in the annals of Catholic tradition is this expressed?

My understanding is that, as long as baptism is done in water with the threefold name, by someone who intends to baptise*, the Catholic church recognises that as a valid baptism. I am not aware that this is something which has changed over time, but I could be mistaken.

*This gets murky with, say, LDS baptisms (which are not recognised as valid) because although they use the threefold name, they do so with such a radically different understanding - rejecting the Trinity - that what they do is seen to not amount to the same thing. But at least with Trinitarian Christians, this is not an issue.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,934
5,592
49
The Wild West
✟461,677.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
We're probably straying way off topic here, but was there anything left to say on topic?

I had hoped and believed that to be the case, but such hopes as hopes in anything of this world are destined to be, dashed in pieces as it were.

I'm not sure about pity being a form of disrespect, but I think it's often perceived as being in some way condescending. I guess to the extent that condescension is read as an "I'm better than you" attitude it will likely provoke resentment!

This involves the complex realm I think of pathos, which takes us into sympathy, empathy, but also the concept of the pathetic, which I would think hypothetically is a perverse, sinful alternative to genuine empathy that occurs in some individuals, a sort of “thank God that I am not like them” holier-than-Thou sensation which the mere thought of creates a revulsion, thus we resent well meaning people trying to help us because we internally accuse them of regarding us as pathetic. Does this sound plausible?

I am aware that awareness of these issues does nuance the way care is given in some circumstances (for example, miscarriage and stillbirth particularly). I am not sure I'd make a claim for bereavement generally?

Well, I think any scenario where a person is suffering, there is a risk of resentment due to implied pity, or rather the malicious condescension towards the suffering I outlined above, which is dangerous both where it exists in reality, and where someone suffering, supposes it to exist. So it becomes a particularly pernicious influence, because a suffering person might refuse sincere assistance in any situation which could be potentially a humiliation, which in turn would connect us to pride, which John Climacus and other Byzantine theologians regarded as being particularly dangerous.

And insofar as condescension equates to arrogation and vainglory, it represents a dangerous pride as well.

But what makes pathological condescension-pity disturbing and of special to concern to us is that it is a pernicious manifestation of pride around suffering which can be real or erroneously perceived by the sufferer, or real and not perceived by the sufferer, but in any of these states, the sufferer will be harmed.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Treating women as less than men - which is what refusing to ordain us does - is misogyny. It may not be conscious or intended as such (although when we look at the ancient arguments about it, that women can't be ordained because they're basically deficient in their development, malformed men, it's certainly been fairly explicit at times), but it is "ingrained and institutionalised prejudice against women," the literal dictionary definition of misogyny.
First, you'd have to prove that the Catholic Church treats women as less than men. Why? Just because women can't be ordained? Most men are deemed by the Church as not able to be ordained, too. So that's an equal opportunity denier.
FWIW, intent is everything. For example, if a man walks into a bar with his buddies with the thought of getting hammered, or someone enters a buffet with the intent of eating everything in sight, it's gluttony or intemperance. If they go in to have a drink, or eat a meal, and accidentally drink or eat too much, it's not.
Of course. On this point, I believe my church to be right. The difference is that I'm not here arguing that your church is "less" because I disagree with it.
And I never said your church is less because I disagree with it. I simply said that we believe you don't have the fullness of faith.
How can I have "less" of the faith, an incomplete faith, a subset of the truth, without that being deficient?
Deficient is not the word I would use. What's the difference between a meal you sit down to, and a banquet? Both are meals where you feed your body. That doesn't say that the dinner you had last night is less than the banquet.
Come on, RoJ, this is the clear implication of all the piles of words you've written. At least own up to it rather than being in denial about it.
You know, at this point, I don't really care what you think. I never was trying to convince you or Strong In Him. I was simply providing the Catholic perspective, not looking for agreement.
My understanding is that, as long as baptism is done in water with the threefold name, by someone who intends to baptise*, the Catholic church recognises that as a valid baptism. I am not aware that this is something which has changed over time, but I could be mistaken.

*This gets murky with, say, LDS baptisms (which are not recognised as valid) because although they use the threefold name, they do so with such a radically different understanding - rejecting the Trinity - that what they do is seen to not amount to the same thing. But at least with Trinitarian Christians, this is not an issue.
LDS uses Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier, which is not a valid formula.

There was a cardinal who, when he was made cardinal, they did an examination of his baptismal record, and found he had been baptised in the name of Jesus, Mary and Joseph. That meant that ALL the sacraments he had ever performed were, at least, irregular. With his proper baptism, they all were normalized, but that's how important the correct formula is to the Catholic Church. Living water, Sacred Chrism, invoking the Holy Spirit, and the formula.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,338
5,024
New Jersey
✟332,494.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
LDS uses Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier, which is not a valid formula.

Are you sure? This source (Lesson 5: Performing Priesthood Ordinances) gives the LDS baptismal formula as "Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen".

I'm not necessarily arguing for the validity of LDS baptism. The Nicene theologians and LDS theologians can have a conversation about the nature of the Trinity and get back to me when they've figured out how bad their disagreement is. o_O But the words themselves look like the proper words.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Are you sure? This source (Lesson 5: Performing Priesthood Ordinances) gives the LDS baptismal formula as "Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen".

I'm not necessarily arguing for the validity of LDS baptism. The Nicene theologians and LDS theologians can have a conversation about the nature of the Trinity and get back to me when they've figured out how bad their disagreement is. o_O But the words themselves look like the proper words.
The words may be as you say, but the point being made there was that the LDS teaching about the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is that these are three separate individuals (hence the LDS preference for the term "Godhead"), that Jesus was one of the Father's literal offspring by a heavenly Mother, and some other unorthodox teachings. If that is so, the words would not carry the meaning that is necessary for Christian Baptism.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,338
5,024
New Jersey
✟332,494.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The words may be as you say, but the point being made there was that the LDS teaching about the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is that these are three separate individuals (hence the LDS preference for the term "Godhead"), that Jesus was one of the Father's literal offspring by a heavenly Mother, and some other unorthodox teachings. If that is so, the words would not carry the meaning that is necessary for Christian Baptism.

I agree with Paidiske that the LDS view of the nature of God is a problem. However, I disagree with Root of Jesse, who said that the wording itself is a problem.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
  • Friendly
Reactions: PloverWing
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,130
19,010
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,719.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
This involves the complex realm I think of pathos, which takes us into sympathy, empathy, but also the concept of the pathetic, which I would think hypothetically is a perverse, sinful alternative to genuine empathy that occurs in some individuals, a sort of “thank God that I am not like them” holier-than-Thou sensation which the mere thought of creates a revulsion, thus we resent well meaning people trying to help us because we internally accuse them of regarding us as pathetic. Does this sound plausible?

Perhaps. I suspect that for some people, simply having their weakness exposed is intolerably humiliating.

First, you'd have to prove that the Catholic Church treats women as less than men. Why? Just because women can't be ordained? Most men are deemed by the Church as not able to be ordained, too. So that's an equal opportunity denier.

No man is denied ordination because he is a man. I am not arguing that every person who thinks they might have a call should be ordained; far from it! But I am arguing that every person who thinks they might have a call should have that carefully and prayerfully discerned. Not rejected on the basis of biology.

So yes, I see this as treatment of women as less-than, unable to represent Christ, unable to stand in particular relation to God and God's people, on no sound basis whatsoever.

FWIW, intent is everything.

No. It's something, but it isn't everything. Manslaughter will still get you a prison sentence, and quite rightly, because you can do harm without meaning it.

And I never said your church is less because I disagree with it. I simply said that we believe you don't have the fullness of faith.

You specifically used the word "less." But how can we not have the fullness of faith, without that being somehow "less"? Aren't we just playing with words now?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.