ItIsFinished!
Jesus Christ is our only hope.
- Sep 1, 2018
- 1,678
- 1,134
- 51
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
So everyone is saved?Once they’re dead they believe in God, because they meet him.
Upvote
0
So everyone is saved?Once they’re dead they believe in God, because they meet him.
Yes, God forces them to be saved.
That is exactly what I was inferring when I wrote:
"Yes, atheists can go to Heaven."
Please read posts before replying. Please reply to what was written.
However the first person he picked to preach the Good News of His resurrection was a woman.Manmade churches can do anything they please, but Jesus Christ clearly indicated His intentions for the ONE Church He founded, by appointing 12 out of 12 men as its first pastors/priests/bishops, even though many holy women were available. His Church therefore does not have the authority to ordain women, and therefore cannot "decide" to do so, as doing so would violate the clearly expressed will of its founder.
First one He picked, or the first one who observed?However the first person he picked to preach the Good News of His resurrection was a woman.
My answer to your question is "why"? The bible is the source of our understanding. Anybody who teaches the bible has two choices. One, they can teach and preach the bible, or two, they can gloss over everything in the bible and in essence lie to those they are attempting to bring into the fold. The bible is clear on the understanding of the roles that men, women, and children are to play in the relationship between God and mankind. So, again, "why"?So I just heard about this documentary film "Pink Smoke Over the Vatican" and it got me wondering about everyone's views on female priests/pastors.
Let me know what you think and I'll collect my thoughts and post my views here in a bit
But before he sent his Apostles out to convert Anybody he met St Photini at the well, and she brought her whole town to believe in him. And since Jesus’ departure in the First Century, the most powerful evangelist he has sent into the world to convert masses of people has been his mother, Mary. Her visitation at Guadeloupe brought a whole continent of Amerindians to her son, something that the Spanish priests had been unable to do. Likewise, the greatest geopolitical impact by a messenger of God was God’s choice of a woman, St. Joan of Arc, to save France for the Church just in the cusp of time before the Reformation. God sent Mary to Fatima, to Lourdes, to other places, with miracles to vouch for the divine origin of the embassy. God could have sent a man as his ambassador, one of the Apostles, but he never did. Only Mary. There are very few true military saints, sent on a mission from God to lead battles, like Joshua of old. St. Joan is the only one in the first tier of magnitude. Again, a woman, sent by God to command men. Jesus revealed the resurrection to the women. So, in that Judaic and Roman world with their heavy masculinity, Jesus chose men to send out on the road. We could make a religious point of it, but it may have been a question of modesty, safety and propriety in that society. Certainly he had no hesitation regarding the Samaritan woman. We can choose to read many things into Jesus’ choices. Obviously some here read Paul’s view of it, expressed in his letter to Timothy, and because of their beliefs about the Bible they feel that it has been permanently revealed by God that women cannot be ministers. But women have always been ministers and teachers in the Church. The Church would limit the priesthood and episcopacy to men, and that is the current rule, but it is based on the example of Jesus, not the opinion of Paul. God’s using Mary as his ambassador time and again certainly demonstrates that the cranky views about women perpetually silent and subject to men, “because Bible”, is just that: cranky.Manmade churches can do anything they please, but Jesus Christ clearly indicated His intentions for the ONE Church He founded, by appointing 12 out of 12 men as its first pastors/priests/bishops, even though many holy women were available. His Church therefore does not have the authority to ordain women, and therefore cannot "decide" to do so, as doing so would violate the clearly expressed will of its founder.
Isn't God able to call whoever he wants to serve him?
He called Deborah to be judge over all Israel.
He called Deborah, Huldah, Miriam, Isaiah's wife and Philip's 4 daughters to prophesy and take God's word to men.
Jesus chose a woman to be the first witness to the resurrection - all the men were in hiding.
Paul worked alongside women, see Romans 16. He chose a woman to take his letter to the Romans, and was aware that a woman had taught Apollos. He included, and commended, women.
Are you aware that επισκοπης/episkopés the Greek word translated "bishop" is feminine, not masculine?And as has already been pointed out the vs. does not say "if a man" it say "if anyone."
But before he sent his Apostles out to convert Anybody he met St Photini at the well, and she brought her whole town to believe in him. And since Jesus’ departure in the First Century, the most powerful evangelist he has sent into the world to convert masses of people has been his mother, Mary. Her visitation at Guadeloupe brought a whole continent of Amerindians to her son, something that the Spanish priests had been unable to do. Likewise, the greatest geopolitical impact by a messenger of God was God’s choice of a woman, St. Joan of Arc, to save France for the Church just in the cusp of time before the Reformation. God sent Mary to Fatima, to Lourdes, to other places, with miracles to vouch for the divine origin of the embassy. God could have sent a man as his ambassador, one of the Apostles, but he never did. Only Mary. There are very few true military saints, sent on a mission from God to lead battles, like Joshua of old. St. Joan is the only one in the first tier of magnitude. Again, a woman, sent by God to command men. Jesus revealed the resurrection to the women. So, in that Judaic and Roman world with their heavy masculinity, Jesus chose men to send out on the road. We could make a religious point of it, but it may have been a question of modesty, safety and propriety in that society. Certainly he had no hesitation regarding the Samaritan woman. We can choose to read many things into Jesus’ choices. Obviously some here read Paul’s view of it, expressed in his letter to Timothy, and because of their beliefs about the Bible they feel that it has been permanently revealed by God that women cannot be ministers. But women have always been ministers and teachers in the Church. The Church would limit the priesthood and episcopacy to men, and that is the current rule, but it is based on the example of Jesus, not the opinion of Paul. God’s using Mary as his ambassador time and again certainly demonstrates that the cranky views about women perpetually silent and subject to men, “because Bible”, is just that: cranky.
Saying you need Jesus to be saved is not saying isolated pagans tribes all go to hell.
And , yet God chose all male apostles.But before he sent his Apostles out to convert Anybody he met St Photini at the well, and she brought her whole town to believe in him. And since Jesus’ departure in the First Century, the most powerful evangelist he has sent into the world to convert masses of people has been his mother, Mary. Her visitation at Guadeloupe brought a whole continent of Amerindians to her son, something that the Spanish priests had been unable to do. Likewise, the greatest geopolitical impact by a messenger of God was God’s choice of a woman, St. Joan of Arc, to save France for the Church just in the cusp of time before the Reformation. God sent Mary to Fatima, to Lourdes, to other places, with miracles to vouch for the divine origin of the embassy. God could have sent a man as his ambassador, one of the Apostles, but he never did. Only Mary. There are very few true military saints, sent on a mission from God to lead battles, like Joshua of old. St. Joan is the only one in the first tier of magnitude. Again, a woman, sent by God to command men. Jesus revealed the resurrection to the women. So, in that Judaic and Roman world with their heavy masculinity, Jesus chose men to send out on the road. We could make a religious point of it, but it may have been a question of modesty, safety and propriety in that society. Certainly he had no hesitation regarding the Samaritan woman. We can choose to read many things into Jesus’ choices. Obviously some here read Paul’s view of it, expressed in his letter to Timothy, and because of their beliefs about the Bible they feel that it has been permanently revealed by God that women cannot be ministers. But women have always been ministers and teachers in the Church. The Church would limit the priesthood and episcopacy to men, and that is the current rule, but it is based on the example of Jesus, not the opinion of Paul. God’s using Mary as his ambassador time and again certainly demonstrates that the cranky views about women perpetually silent and subject to men, “because Bible”, is just that: cranky.
Curb your attitude and stop telling others what to do.
No one needs your condescending attitude.
Especially when you are CLEARLY WRONG.
Except it does not work that way even in Catholic theology. Popes can not decide to make something possible that goes against Scripture and Holy Tradition. Now some of our other Christian brothers and sisters would argue they have, but those debates are separate. The Pope can not wake up and decide That Scripture and Holy Tradition and the informed Dogma from them can be changed.
Not anyone...just Protestant history of church leadership/teaching certainly differs from Roman Catholic practice thus you claim is invalid.So? No belief of anyone is.
Interesting, question.
There's undeniable scripture such as 1 Timothy 2:12 suggesting that women can't have authority over a man.
Ultimately, it comes down to if you interpret this as applying to everyone, just to the church or it's a cultural thing (such as the head covering in 1 Corinthians 2-16).
I'm not going to comment. Just here for the show.
You know, I was reflecting on this and other recent related conversations this morning with an old friend and sometimes-visitor to my parish, and it struck me that it might be worth saying something about the difficulty of these conversations.
A conversation like this is, for me, at the same time very remote and extremely close to the bone.
On the one hand, this is like a parallel universe. All of these claims that women cannot do xyz - preach, teach, lead faith communities, whatever - they bear no relation to my actual life. I had that conversation this morning standing outside church, after I'd preached and presided at the Eucharist twice; set up pastoral visits for the week to come, dealt with parish administrative matters, and looked ahead at liturgical planning with the director of music. All the rest. That's my daily and weekly round; I live that life of ministry in a social context where being a Christian is far more controversial than being a woman in leadership in any context. Most of the Christians I know in real life who don't accept women's ordination still seem to feel a sense of common cause and mutual respect with those of us who do. I truly don't really understand people who oppose women in ministry more than being grateful for women who are committed to the gospel and the mission of God; surely that's the more urgent and pressing need?
On the other hand... as noted, this is the fabric of my life. This is who I am, my identity, the purpose and vocation to which I have committed all that I am, the web of relationships that makes up most everything that matters to me. When people seek to invalidate it, it's not a theoretical or academic or abstract question. It goes to the heart of who I am as a human person, to my integrity before God, and it's difficult not to take that extremely personally. Not just for myself, but having in mind all my sisters with vocations, present and future, and their ability to give their all to Christ in whatever Christ calls them to do, and to be supported and encouraged and nurtured in that by the church, in the way that each Christian deserves as one part of the church's commitment to them in baptising them. I look at my daughter (who turned 7 yesterday) and hope that the church never tells her there's anything God disqualifies her from because of her genetics; and yet I know that, while she might hear it less than I have (because things have improved and I pray continue to improve) the chances that doors might open to her without sex ever being an issue are small. Few things make me want to fight as fiercely as my desire to give her, and every girl like her, a church which is what the church should be for them, and yet often I feel so helpless and overwhelmed in the face of what seems like an enduring wall of negation, dismissal, silencing and outright hostility and attack. It's a fearful thing to wonder how raising your child in the church will harm her, but I do.
The point of this post isn't to persuade anybody to change their mind; but maybe to think about what's at stake when we talk about these things, and whether the way we talk about them might be more important, sometimes, than the positions we hold.