Catholic group defies church, ordains woman priest in NC

[Albion]

Men and women were both created equally in God's image. A woman can represent Christ at the altar just as much as any man. There is no gender in Christ for all are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

That argument might fly if Scripture did not speak of men and of women separately and instruct us on what one is to do and what the other is to do, etc. But it does, so that "generic" argument is rendered dubious. I recognize that the pro-women's ordination side doesn't have much else to go on, however, so this verse has become one of its favorites.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

You won't see this happening in the Armenian Church anytime soon... I'm sure Pope Francis will not approve of this either.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

This idea that God created men and women equally is a bastardization of Scripture. God created us equal in dignity under God, and yes, in His image.

Creating us in His image means that He gave us a Rational Soul. It is the rational soul that gives us the characteristics God intended us to have -- love, awareness of Him, awareness of mortality, creativity, ability to worship Him, etc.

He did not, however, give us equal roles to play, or equal talents, intelligence, or gifts.

What's true about that is, yes, there are many women who are more intelligent than their male counterparts. However, God did indeed create men and women to be equal. In fact, all humans are created in the image of God and we live in partnership.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

That argument might fly if Scripture did not speak of men and of women separately and instruct us on what one is to do and what the other is to do, etc. But it does, so that "generic" argument is rendered dubious. I recognize that the pro-women's ordination side doesn't have much else to go on, however, so this verse has become one of its favorites.

I think that egalitarians have a great deal to go on including moral and ethical arguments in favour of the equal treatment of women and the rejection of subjugation and sexism, many Scriptural references to women, in both the OT and NT, who were called to serve God in religious contexts, and the early Church example of women being able to serve as deacons and even as presiding over worship as many frescoes and mosaics show.

 

[Albion]

However, God did indeed create men and women to be equal. In fact, all humans are created in the image of God and we live in partnership.

Equal in what? I cannot give birth. I'm being created and treated unequally by God then, right? No.

The idea of equality doesn't cover every last thing that happens to us or that makes us what we are intellectually or in a number of other ways. That doesn't mean that all are not equally important to God, equally loved and value by him, and so on. And it is entirely fair of him to select different people for different roles, as we see in Scripture time and time again.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

Equal in what? I cannot give birth. I'm being created and treated unequally by God then, right? No.

The idea of equality doesn't cover every last thing that happens to us or that makes us what we are intellectually or in a number of other ways. That doesn't mean that all are not equally important to God, equally loved and value by him, and so on. And it is entirely fair of him to select different people for different roles, as we see in Scripture time and time again.

Not all women can give birth either. We are equal in the image of God that we bear and we are equally called to ministry.

 

[Albion]

and the early Church example of women being able to serve as deacons and even as presiding over worship as many frescoes and mosaics show.

Women weren't deacons in the Apostolic church and there is no evidence that they presided over worship. That's something of a side comment in reply to your post, but it should be mentioned, particularly when people start using vague terminology like "leadership" and "equal treatment."

 

[Albion]

Not all women can give birth either.

Most can, and I'm not equal to them. It's clearcut.

 

[BroIgnatius]

What's true about that is, yes, there are many women who are more intelligent than their male counterparts. However, God did indeed create men and women to be equal. In fact, all humans are created in the image of God and we live in partnership.

All men are created equal in dignity before God. That is all. Otherwise we are all different with different roles. This is not about intelligence, talent, temperament, or skills. It is about who God calls, and that calling to the priesthood and deaconate (Holy Orders) is made to men only (actually to a small number of men only).

 

[BroIgnatius]

I think that egalitarians have a great deal to go on including moral and ethical arguments in favour of the equal treatment of women and the rejection of subjugation and sexism, many Scriptural references to women, in both the OT and NT, who were called to serve God in religious contexts, and the early Church example of women being able to serve as deacons and even as presiding over worship as many frescoes and mosaics show.

Women were unordained deaconesses. And women never at any time presided over the Mass. That is reserved to priests only.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Not all women can give birth either. We are equal in the image of God that we bear and we are equally called to ministry.

Called to ministry, yes. To Holy Orders, presiding over Mass and the seven Sacraments, no.

 

[tulipbee]

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome and the successor of Peter.

Peter? We're successor of Jesus Christ

we go back to jesus

 

[BroIgnatius]

Peter? We're successor of Jesus Christ we go back to jesus

Interesting chart. but listing a laughable bogus history based on anti-Catholic bias with no relationship to truth.

The Catholic Church is the only group that goes back to 33 AD. Both Scripture and history proves that.

 

[Philip_B]

Interesting chart. but listing a laughable bogus history based on anti-Catholic bias with no relationship to truth.

The Catholic Church is the only group that goes back to 33 AD. Both Scripture and history proves that.

I am happy for the assertion, subject to your understanding of the Catholic Church.

 

[DamianWarS]

Interesting chart. but listing a laughable bogus history based on anti-Catholic bias with no relationship to truth.

The Catholic Church is the only group that goes back to 33 AD. Both Scripture and history proves that.

Any group that splits off from the parent inherits all the history of the parent, so we all come from Christ, just as we come from Adam and all come from Abraham. First a follower of Christ then whatever tradition of the church you are a part of. If you are a Catholic first then you need to surrender your identity of catholicism to follow Christ; as is the demand of Christ. The Catholic church in practice is unrecognizable from 33 AD. Just because there is a claim to starting on track doesn't mean it has continued on track and such is the great debate of the church; but at the very least all come from Christ and saying yours is the true start disvalues other traditions as genuine and separates Christ's church.

 

[Albion]

But the history is even less in agreement with Broignatius' claim than that (which I know is just the standard revisionist stuff that his church teaches all its people, so nothing very personal or special there).

Yes, when a "branch" of any such "tree" develops, it's part of that tree, not something that just came out of nowhere. However, the tree of early Christianity was non-denominational. That was the church referred to in history as the "Undivided Church." Later on, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Oriental Orthodox, the Armenian, the Church of the East, and several others developed separately, coming from it.

All of these have claims on the history going all the way back to the Apostolic church founded in AD 33. Each of them could boast that it alone can make the claim, but in truth they all have the same early history.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Rebel Catholic group defies church, ordains woman priest in NC

I don't get why there's something against women priests. The only reason the Bible supposedly says that is because the Bible and the society at the time was formed by men, and women were seen as lesser and more property than people. We rightly see men and women as equal now.

 

[Albion]

I don't get why there's something against women priests. The only reason the Bible supposedly says that is because the Bible and the society at the time was formed by men, and women were seen as lesser and more property than people. We rightly see men and women as equal now.

Whichever way you decide, bear this in mind. The minute you dismiss part of the Bible on those grounds, you call the entirety of the Bible into question. If the Bible (which is the only resource we have for most of what we know of Jesus Christ and is considered to be revelation by almost every denomination) is rendered unreliable, where are we?

 

[Paidiske]

There's dismissal of Biblical text either way. If you want to take a stand for women's ordination, you have to "dismiss" (or reinterpret) the texts which make that problematic. If you want to take a stand against women's ordination, you have to "dismiss" (or reinterpret) the texts which point to radical equality, women in leadership, etc etc.

The truth is that both of those things are there, and the reader (and the believing community) has to work out which is supposed to be determinative for our own practice.

 

[Albion]

There's dismissal of Biblical text either way. If you want to take a stand for women's ordination, you have to "dismiss" (or reinterpret) the texts which make that problematic. If you want to take a stand against women's ordination, you have to "dismiss" (or reinterpret) the texts which point to radical equality, women in leadership, etc etc.

I maintain that that's a different matter. If we dispute the Lord's Supper, for example, we are disagreeing on interpretation.

As we've seen with the threads which lately have dealt with that particular topic, the "divide" is over the meaning of this or that phrase found in Scripture. There was no assumption made by any poster that whatever verse was cited, either pro or con, it had no importance for us.

If, however, we say that some of what's in the Bible is just cultural, i.e. what some people of another time and place thought for reasons applicable to them but not to us, the rest of the Bible is undermined as well, and no doctrine is safe from the claim that "X is just what those people believed to be true, but we know better. Here's what we think the truth is now."

And what do we suppose determines the new truths? It's our own cultural and social standards, of course.