Women Ordination in Old Catholic Church
Patrick Ludwa
In <4p6de0$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> umll...@aol.com (UMllerBo)
writes:
>
>On May 27, 1996, the German bishop of the Old Catholic Church (OCC),
>Joachim Vobbe, has ordained two women, Angela Berlis and Regina
>Pickel-Bossau, to priests of the OCC in Konstanz, Germany. The two
>are the first women ever ordained in OCC.
>
>Now, as far as I understand the OCC is a descendant church
>which seperated from the RCC in 1870 after Vatican I.
>However in press releases and other publications it has been
>stated, that bishops of the OCC are within apostolic succession
>and that this has been recognized by the RCC. The consequence
>would be, that the ordination might be in opposition to legal
>provisions of RCC, yet not invalid.
>
>Is someone able to comment on this? I am neither a theologian
>nor an expert in church law, but I would be very interested in
>knowing if this concept of the apostolic succession of OCC's
>bishops is right and when an where RCC has recognized this.
>
>Thanks,
>Ulrich
From my understanding, the Church of England, the Anglican's, also
retained Apostolic succession since many of their bishops followed
Henry VIII out of the Church. But since they are outside the See of
Peter, their teachings and doctrines are not under the protection of
Papal Infallability. So the OCC (never heard of them before) can
ordain women, but it is an error, and wouldn't be recognized by the See
of Peter.
Pax Christi, Pat
UMllerBo
John Médaille
In article <4p6de0$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, umll...@aol.com (UMllerBo) wrote:
>On May 27, 1996, the German bishop of the Old Catholic Church (OCC),
>Joachim Vobbe, has ordained two women, Angela Berlis and Regina
>Pickel-Bossau, to priests of the OCC in Konstanz, Germany. The two
>are the first women ever ordained in OCC.
>
>Now, as far as I understand the OCC is a descendant church
>which seperated from the RCC in 1870 after Vatican I.
>However in press releases and other publications it has been
>stated, that bishops of the OCC are within apostolic succession
>and that this has been recognized by the RCC. The consequence
>would be, that the ordination might be in opposition to legal
>provisions of RCC, yet not invalid.
>
is invalid, regardless of the status of the ordaining authority.
John
Bill Silverthorn
pl9...@ix.netcom.com(Patrick Ludwa) wrote:
> From my understanding, the Church of England, the Anglican's, also
>retained Apostolic succession since many of their bishops followed
>Henry VIII out of the Church. But since they are outside the See of
>Peter, their teachings and doctrines are not under the protection of
>Papal Infallability. So the OCC (never heard of them before) can
>ordain women, but it is an error, and wouldn't be recognized by the See
>of Peter.
>Pax Christi, Pat
___________________________________________________________
posted 5/27 but guess this missed a few here:
On the subject of denominatons, woman priests, infallibility, etc......
this just out (5/27/96):
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
BONN (Reuter) - Germany's Old Catholics, who reject papal
authority, ordained two women priests Monday in a move certain
to make harder any future understanding with Rome.
The Old Catholics belong to the Utrecht Union of Christians,
who split from the Roman Catholic church after it declared in
1870 that the Pope could make infallible rulings on dogma.
After ordaining Angela Beris, 33, and Regina Pickel-Bossau,
48, Bishop Joachim Vobbe told 1,000 worshippers in the Rhineside
town of Konstanz that the move should be ``an impulse to think
more and harder about including women in responsible church
positions.''
The naming of women priests lined Germany's Old Catholics up
with many European Protestant denominations in Germany and
elsewhere. The Vatican flatly rejects women's ordination.
Vicar-General Hans-Werner Schlenzig told Reuters the move by
the democratically organized church, which followed a decision
in principle in 1994, was not intended as a challenge to Rome.
``This is not meant to be a provocation or a slap in the
face for Rome,'' he said. ``For us the ordination of women is
something that is right and natural, and 95 percent of our synod
voted in favor.''
The Old Catholics, who share mutually recognized sacraments
with the Roman Catholic church, have in the past sought a formal
accord of understanding with Rome.
But when the Church of England, also theologically close to
the Roman Catholic church, decided in 1992 after years of
agonising to ordain women priests, relations with the Vatican
slumped to their lowest point in centuries.
Rome's answer to growing pressure from its own faithful for
a bigger role for women was an emphatic declaration last
November that a ban on their ordination was an infallible part
of Catholic doctrine that could not be disputed or changed.
Thomas Paul
w...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Silverthorn) wrote:
> Vicar-General Hans-Werner Schlenzig told Reuters the move by
>the democratically organized church, which followed a decision
>in principle in 1994, was not intended as a challenge to Rome.
This is one of the scariest statements in the world - "the
democratically organized church."
----------------
A nation must have a religion and that religion must
be under the control of the government.
---Napoleon Bonaparte 1801
UMllerBo
Im Artikel <4p756d$t...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, w...@ix.netcom.com (Bill
Silverthorn) schreibt (citing Reuter's press release):
> Rome's answer to growing pressure from its own faithful for
>a bigger role for women was an emphatic declaration last
>November that a ban on their ordination was an infallible part
>of Catholic doctrine that could not be disputed or changed.
This strucks me again: Was this an infallible statement or not? As far as
I understand this is "controversial". But is it so difficult to determine
which papal statements are infallible? If you consider the consequences
infallibility bears, one should think that there can't be a debate on
which teaching is infallible and which isn't and that there should be
procedural safeguards to on the one hand guarantee the claim to
infallibility and on the other hand protect from its misuse. Doesn't the
pope or Joseph Ratzinger have a stamp or something like that to put on
statements saying "INFALLIBLE" or "NOT INFALLIBLE=DEBATABLE=CHANGABLE".
Peace, Ulrich
UMllerBo
Im Artikel <4p6rhh$s...@news-f.iadfw.net>, joh...@server.iadfw.net (John
Médaille) schreibt:
>The Church does not have the authority to ordain women; hence any such
>is invalid, regardless of the status of the ordaining authority.
>
>
Well, the Old Catholic Church claims such authority for herself, and the
RCC could change her attitude in this respect too, could'nt it? Also, in
legal terms there is a difference between a certain behaviour being
illegal and the consequences of such behaviour. You can think of illegal
actions which still are valid. For example: If you buy stolen goods, then
the sale of course is illegal (assuming the seller knows about the
circumstances), however under certain circumstances (your innocence) you
might be protected and the sale is valid (meaning you gain ownership of
the goods)! I understand that according to canon 968 para 1 a necessary
condition for becoming a priest is the male sex. Now if you happen to be a
female and your bishop (in Apostolic succession) ordains you (in
opposition to this legal provision), is this void from the very beginning
or would you or someone else have to start a legal procedure and take an
action for a declaratory judgement to have such ordination annuled(canones
1993-1998)?
(excuse me for linguistic unpreciseness, but English is not my native
language)
Peace, Ulrich
Bill Silverthorn
More news on the same:
Germany's Old Catholic Church ordains first women priests
Constance, Germany (ENI). The Old Catholic Church in
Germany has ordained two married women as priests. The women,
Angela Berlis, a theologian aged 33, and Regina Pickel-Bossau, a
schoolteacher aged 48, are both former Roman Catholics. One
prominent newspaper described them as "the first women to be
openly ordained as Catholic priests in Western Europe, although
the Vatican disputed the validity of the service and of their
priesthood". [ENI-96-0314, 216 words]
Tarasius
In article <4p9p96$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, umll...@aol.com (UMllerBo)
writes:
>
>Im Artikel <4p6rhh$s...@news-f.iadfw.net>, joh...@server.iadfw.net (John
>Médaille) schreibt:
>
>>The Church does not have the authority to ordain women; hence any such
>>is invalid, regardless of the status of the ordaining authority.
>>
>>
>Well, the Old Catholic Church claims such authority for herself, and the
>RCC could change her attitude in this respect too, could'nt it?
NO. NO. The answer is NO.
From Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:
------------------
4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men
alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the
Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents,
at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open
to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to
ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of
great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine
constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren
(cf. <Lk> 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to
confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be
definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
-------------------
IN ORDER THAT ALL DOUBT MAY BE REMOVED -
TO BE DEFINITIVELY HELD BY ALL THE CHURCH'S FAITHFUL.
The answer is NO. Rome has spoken - the debate has ended for
the faithful. What part of "NO" isn't understood? Those who continue
to debate it are in (at least) denial, or not the church's faithful.
The OCC claims authority for herself. So what? Anybody can do that.
But which position is true? Only the Papal office has claim to the
ministry of confirming the brethren from Luke 22:32.
Disobedience is so democratic and marketable. I don't know about where
you are, Ulrich, or if you've been to the United States - but you ought to
take
a look at the Yellow Pages Phone Book under "Churches" over here.
We have just about every variety of church under the sun.
In fact, in California, for 35 dollars you can file and become a church.
On What Authority? On the authority of the 35 dollars!
In the final analysis it is authority and not popularity, marketability
or numbers in the pew that determines truth.
Tarasius
UMllerBo
Im Artikel <4pf6oh$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, tara...@aol.com (Tarasius)
schreibt:
>Well, the Old Catholic Church claims such authority for herself, and the
>RCC could change her attitude in this respect too, could'nt it?
>
>>NO. NO. The answer is NO.
Church changed her view on various issues throughout history, and lets be
glad she did! She is put into human history, and even if you think her
authority takes her beyond this dependablity on times, she has proven to
be "wrong" (from the perspective of a later time, which certainly is
wrong in the future!) so many times! In contrast to many other (more
popular) religions Christianity in general is based on this concept of
historic development, meaning that we are put into this time which has a
beginning and an end and lots of movement in between. Chances are that
your children or grandchildren (depending on your age) will see the first
regularily ordained women at the altar in a Roman Catholic Church..
>Disobedience is so democratic and marketable.
Do you have a problem with democracy? Whats wrong with forming an opinion,
expressing it, discussing it with others, compromising and trying to find
the best sollution suitable not only to a few, but to as many as possible.
I admit, it's not the easiest way of organizing a group, it requires much
responsibility from everyone involved and may leave you at times in
uncertainty, yet I guess its the best form of organized human interaction
that you can think of. God has provided us with a creative and independent
mind, he wants us to use it and to live to our full potential. This
includes the freedom to make decisisons and to work on changes - it is the
"Rome has spoken and that's the point of no return!" which makes it hard
for me to agree to your concept of church.
> I don't know about where you are, Ulrich, or if you've been to the
United States - but >you ought to take a look at the Yellow Pages Phone
Book under "Churches" over >here.
Well, Tarasius: I am writing from Germany to this newsgroup. I am glad to
be a member of RCC and wouldn't leave it. It is part of my personal
individual and collective history, and I believe its basically this church
which holds and preserves the concepts of solidarity, love and respect for
each other that our (western) societies have vastly lost. As a German
peculiarity my membership to RCC finds also expression in the fact that I
pay "church-tax", meaning that a certain percentage of my income is taken
by the state and put forward to RCC - an odd concept to US-ears and the
idea of separation of church and state, I imagine. For this reason (among
others) it is not quite as easy around here for any given group or idea to
gain the legal title "church" (regarding scientology it has been an issue
lately). But his could be another subject.
peace to you, Ulrich
TimothyCTX
In article <4pk5i3$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, umll...@aol.com (UMllerBo)
writes:
>Church changed her view on various issues throughout history, and lets be
>glad she did! She is put into human history, and even if you think her
>authority takes her beyond this dependablity on times, she has proven to
>be "wrong" (from the perspective of a later time, which certainly is
>wrong in the future!) so many times! In contrast to many other (more
Like what?
>popular) religions Christianity in general is based on this concept of
>historic development, meaning that we are put into this time which has a
>beginning and an end and lots of movement in between.
Historic development my foot. What do you back this up with? This sounds
like the heresy of Modernism - that its faith and morals must be brought
'up to date' in the modern world - contrary to what the Bible teaches:
Heb 13:7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you:
whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation, 8 Jesus
Christ, yesterday, and today: and the same for ever.
> Chances are that
>your children or grandchildren (depending on your age) will see the first
>regularily ordained women at the altar in a Roman Catholic Church..
They most certainly will not. No one on earth has the authority to ordain
women as priestesses.
This has been part of the deposit of faith since the time of Christ. To
change this, you would need to change what Christ taught.
TimothyCTX
In article <4pn4mu$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, umll...@aol.com (UMllerBo)
writes:
>Well according to Christian (not only catholic) beliefs, I understand
that
>this world does have a beginning and that it will come to end, when the
>kingdom of God is fully established and that this is what our
>eschatological hope is all about. In between there is something that we
>call "time" or in personalized terms "history". We are right there in
>between and church is as well. It's so easy to label any development and
>change as "heresy of Modernism".
Not unless it tries to change a divinely revealed truth - I think you
might have missed the point.
Below is a good, working definition of Modernism:
The term given a broad attempt by some thinkers at the beginning of the
twentieth century to bring Catholic thought into line with the advances of
current biblical, historical, philosophical, and scientific findings. In
the process, some “modernists” ended up altering Catholic doctrine in
their attempt to make it more palatable to contemporary men and women,
thus earning the condemnation of Pope St. Pius X in his decree Lamentabili
(Sept. 8, 1907), and then his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (Sept.
8, 1907). Prominent Modernists [hold] the belief that a questioning,
critical, accommodating theology was necessary if the Church was to reach
twentieth-century humanity. In its extreme form, it doubted the divinity
of Christ, posited the Church as a purely sociological enterprise, viewed
Scripture as mere literature, and held that doctrines must change to suit
the time.
[Reverend Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.L. Our Sunday Visitor's
Catholic Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, Our Sunday Visitor.]
>Vatican II was heretical?
ABSOLUTELY NOT. I have never made that assertion, expressed or implied.
Vatican II is the work of the Holy Spirit - that which was promised by
Christ Himself.
>What did Jesus Christ TEACH on this? I don't find much. But I do find
that
Jesus chose only men.
Matt 10:1 And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them
authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every
disease and every infirmity.
Luke 6:13 And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from
them twelve, whom he named apostles; 14 Simon, whom he named Peter, and
Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, 15
and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was
called the Zealot, 16 and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who
became a traitor.
1 Tim 4:13 Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to
preaching, to teaching. 14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was
given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their
hands upon you.
>e.g. Paul mentions a women named Junia to be an apostle (Romans 16.7),
Rom 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners;
they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before
me. (RSV)
Nowhere is Junias / Junia / Iuniam / Iounian (or however you want to spell
it) mentioned as being an Apostle.
Jerome Bible Commentary: Andronicus and Junias: Early Jewish-Christian
converts, otherwise unknown, who were related to Paul, at least in the
sense of "fellow countrymen," if not of "fellow tribesmen." Junias is a
man’s name, which makes the latter part of the verse easily
understandable. But Iounian could also be translated Junia, a woman’s.
name, which some ancient commentators took as the name of Andronicus’
wife. Moreover... some versions read "Julia." Most modern commentators,
however, understand it as a masc. name.
>another by the name Phoebe as a deacon (Romans 16.1); I see that women
>evidently where leaders of early Christian parishes (Acts 16.14 and
>12.12and Collos. 4.15) and that they where working missionaries (Romans
>16). It was a women who first met Jesus at Easter and was given the
>responsibility to preach (John, 20. 11-18).
Deaconesses never received the sacrament of Holy Orders. This is not the
same as an ordained ministry.
UMllerBo
Im Artikel <4pldiu$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, timot...@aol.com
(TimothyCTX) schreibt:
>>Church changed her view on various issues throughout history, and lets
be
>>glad she did! She is put into human history, and even if you think her
>>authority takes her beyond this dependablity on times, she has proven to
>>be "wrong" (from the perspective of a later time, which certainly is
>>wrong in the future!) so many times!
>
>Like what?
>
In order not to go too far back into history, just think of the changes
Vatican II has put forward.
>>In contrast to many other (more popular) religions Christianity in
general is based on >>this concept of historic development, meaning that
we are put into this time which has >>a beginning and an end and lots of
movement in between.
>Historic development my foot. What do you back this up with? This sounds
>like the heresy of Modernism - that its faith and morals must be brought
>'up to date' in the modern world
Well according to Christian (not only catholic) beliefs, I understand that
this world does have a beginning and that it will come to end, when the
kingdom of God is fully established and that this is what our
eschatological hope is all about. In between there is something that we
call "time" or in personalized terms "history". We are right there in
between and church is as well. It's so easy to label any development and
change as "heresy of Modernism". Vatican II was heretical?
>> Chances are that your children or grandchildren (depending on your
age) will see the >>first regularily ordained women at the altar in a
Roman Catholic Church..
>They most certainly will not. No one on earth has the authority to ordain
>women as priestesses. This has been part of the deposit of faith since
the time of Christ. > To change this, you would need to change what Christ
taught.
What did Jesus Christ TEACH on this? I don't find much. But I do find that
e.g. Paul mentions a women named Junia to be an apostle (Romans 16.7),
another by the name Phoebe as a deacon (Romans 16.1); I see that women
evidently where leaders of early Christian parishes (Acts 16.14 and
12.12and Collos. 4.15) and that they where working missionaries (Romans
16). It was a women who first met Jesus at Easter and was given the
responsibility to preach (John, 20. 11-18).
peace to you
Ulrich
Matthew Ian Haines
> I'm joining this thread a little late I think.
>
> I would like initially to say I have never been
> in favour of the Ordination of women in the past
> but I am beginning to change my viewpoint somewhat.
> I would just like to make one observation / comment
> if I may !!
>
> It may well be that what you say may be right about
> no one on earth having tha authority. However God himself
> has the authority and I pose this question.
> Have you ever stopped to ask why vocations to
> the priesthood are on the decline. Christ himself
> assured us that that nothing could destroy His Church.
> However without priests the Church would be hard put to
> survive. I now have a theory that perhaps God is deliberately
> slowing down admissions to the priesthood in order to force
> the hierachy of the Church to re think its position on the
> Ordination of women. If it comes down to allowing women
> priests or having no priests at all what would the faithful
> choose, and more important what would God choose. Perhaps
> he has choosen already, but as usual no one is really listening.
> We humans have a tendancy to decide that we always know
> best and we have through history interpreted Gods word to suit
> ourselves hence all the different denominations.
> Perhaps we should all let go and let God.
> --
> Margaret
>
>
I think that you pose a good question. Why is there a "lack" of
vocations to the priestly orders? I have done a little research and have
talked to several vocation experts as I myself explore my own vocation.
I believe that God still calls many men to be priests. I know of many
men who get no support from family or friend when they are discerning a
religious vocation. At the risk of sounding nostalgic toward a Church I
never knew, if a man or woman wanted to be a religious, families not only
approved but nurtured them. What would your reaction be to a son who
wanted to be a priest? In our society this lifestyle is not considered
successful. Secondly, many factions within the church want to see womwn
as priests. Often those in charge of vocation offices discourage men
with orthodox beliefs who celebrate a celibate male clergy and are loyal
to Humane Vitae.
We need to pray always and support young men in our parishes who
are dicerning a vocation to the priesthood. We can learn a lot from such
people. They need to know that we care for them and pray for them. As
someone who feels called to be a priest, nothing means more to me than when
someone in the parish prays for vocations especially at the Prayers of
the Faithful. Parishes with stong prayer and eucharistic Adoration in our
diocece seem to yield more vocations.
If is very interesting to notice that the places in the Church
where vocations are the highest are in dioceses such as Lincoln Neb. and
Orders such as the Legionaries of Christ which are loyal to the
magesterium. This makes sense. What man
would want to give his life to
an organization tht doesn't believe in itself. As a college student i
have noticed a generation gap paradoxal to that of the past. Todays
youth want tradition and a Church whioch they can be proud of. even in
Newman Centers many of the more spiritual students are more orthodox than
their pastors and Sisters.
I think that God still calls men to the priesthood as he calls
all of us to be Holy and to serve each other.
After all, to suggest that God calls less men to the priesthood today
just because less men join up, is perhaps like saying that God must call
less people to the Eucharist, since fewer people attend Mass.
Please pray for our priests and that we will all be there for
those who are brave enough to accept God's call.
pax, Matt
UMllerBo
Im Artikel <4pnhk8$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, timot...@aol.com
(TimothyCTX) schreibt:
>>>No one on earth has the authority to
>>>ordain women as priestesses. This has been part of the deposit of faith
>>>since the time of Christ. To change this, you would need to change
what
>>>Christ taught.
>>What did Jesus Christ TEACH on this? I don't find much.
>
>Jesus chose only men.
I dont quite understand this logic. If I abstain from doing something for
no matter what reason, this is not a TEACHING! If I prefer not to eat meat
- and I might have many reasons for this - , I am not teaching to be a
vegetarian! Of course Jesus only chose men, because he lived in a very
patriarchal society. He also chose only Jews, none of the twelve was a
Gentile. Did church ever draw the conclusion, that only Jews could be
ordained? Jesus did not talk about ordination of priests or priestesses,
did he?
Thanks for your explanations!
Ulrich
Margaret Jackman
In article <4pldiu$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, TimothyCTX
<timot...@aol.com> writes
>>glad she did! She is put into human history, and even if you think her
>>authority takes her beyond this dependablity on times, she has proven to
>>be "wrong" (from the perspective of a later time, which certainly is
>
>Like what?
>
>>popular) religions Christianity in general is based on this concept of
>>historic development, meaning that we are put into this time which has a
>>beginning and an end and lots of movement in between.
>
>Historic development my foot. What do you back this up with? This sounds
>like the heresy of Modernism - that its faith and morals must be brought
>
>Heb 13:7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you:
>whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation, 8 Jesus
>Christ, yesterday, and today: and the same for ever.
>
>>your children or grandchildren (depending on your age) will see the first
>>regularily ordained women at the altar in a Roman Catholic Church..
>
>women as priestesses.
>This has been part of the deposit of faith since the time of Christ. To
>change this, you would need to change what Christ taught.
Hello,
Dan Norr
In article <eqCb0DAU...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> Margaret Jackman <Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> writes:
>From: Margaret Jackman <Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Women Ordination in Old Catholic Church
>Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 23:30:44 +0100
<snip>
Have you ever thought that vocations are on the decline because God intends
for us as lay people to take the responsibility that *we've* been "ordained"
(by baptism and confirmation) to do? This would be a dynamic shift back to
the beginnings of our Church when ministers were "ordained" (raised up) by
the call of God to specific ministries.
Daniel
jop...@m5.enet.dec.com
In article <eqCb0DAU...@trocaire.demon.co.uk>, Margaret Jackman <Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> writes:
|>
|>I now have a theory that perhaps God is deliberately
|>slowing down admissions to the priesthood in order to force
|>the hierachy of the Church to re think its position on the
|>Ordination of women.
This suggests that God is admitting to an error. Worse, it is
suggesting that God would injure His Church -- even risk its
demise -- to get His message across.
I just can't fathom either of these possibilities.
The Church holds fast to her premises because those were the
premises under which Jesus formed her. Opponents of the Church's
position argue that Jesus was forced to pick only men because the
society at that time would not have accepted such a radical concept
as female leadership. I ask in return, "If He really wanted women
clergy, why didn't Jesus come in 1996?" The song 'Jesus Christ,
Superstar' asks the same question:
'...you'd have managed better if you had it all planned.
Why'd you pick such a backwards time and such a strange
land?
If you'd come today you would have reached a whole nation.
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication...'
The point is that Jesus *didn't* come in 1970. He came when He
chose to come. If He wanted women priests He could have just as
easily come at a time that the idea would have been acceptable.
Jesus did what He did. Who are we to second-guess Him?
|>We humans have a tendancy to decide that we always know
|>best and we have through history interpreted Gods word to suit
|>ourselves hence all the different denominations.
It seems to me that rationalizations of female priesthood is a great
example of humans deciding what's best.
|>Perhaps we should all let go and let God.
What exactly does this mean? God has already done His thing.
Calls for female priesthood seem to me to be a call for us to
let go and let God be formed in man's preferred ideals.
--
Joe Oppelt
*************
The opinion of my employer should not be inferred from my posting.
John Medaille
>It may well be that what you say may be right about
>no one on earth having tha authority. However God himself
>has the authority and I pose this question.
>Have you ever stopped to ask why vocations to
>the priesthood are on the decline.
Are you suggesting that God has changed his mind? The truth is,
either the Chruch is right or she has *always* been wrong. There
is no other alternative.
> Christ himself
>assured us that that nothing could destroy His Church.
>However without priests the Church would be hard put to
>survive. I now have a theory that perhaps God is deliberately
>slowing down admissions to the priesthood in order to force
>the hierachy of the Church to re think its position on the
>Ordination of women. If it comes down to allowing women
>priests or having no priests at all what would the faithful
>choose, and more important what would God choose. Perhaps
>he has choosen already, but as usual no one is really listening.
>We humans have a tendancy to decide that we always know
>best and we have through history interpreted Gods word to suit
>ourselves hence all the different denominations.
>Perhaps we should all let go and let God.
>
Or perhaps he saying ordain married men, which requires no change in doctrine,
or perhaps he is saying ordain practicing homosexuals, which requires the end
of all truth.
However, maybe he is saying neither. The amount of priest is a function of the
amount of faith. A faithless people deserves no priests. The traditional
orders have no problem filling their seminaries, so I have heard. I understand
Mother Theresa cannot build convents fast enough. Further, there is a
deliberate effort to exclude the orthodox from many seminaries; how many youg
men have we lost?
John
Margaret Jackman
In article <4ps3uu$d...@news-f.iadfw.net>, John Medaille
<joh...@server.iadfw.net> writes<Margaret@t
>rocaire.demon.co.uk>
> <4pldiu$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> wrote:
>
>Are you suggesting that God has changed his mind? The truth is,
>either the Chruch is right or she has *always* been wrong. There
>is no other alternative.
Hello John,
What are you trying to say here ?
Does God not have the right to change His mind if he wants to ?
May be he always intended to have Women ordained around
the turn of the century and he is now paving the way for this.
If God never changes His mind, what is the point of some prayer,
We are encouraged in the Bible to " ask and you will receive"
so I pray tonight that my friend may be allowed the grace to
cope with a trauma in her life, or that such and such a person
be healed if possible, but God has already ordained what will happen
so why do I bother to pray ? if he never changed His mind, let Him get
on with it and I will save my time.
Catholics are encouraged to approach Mary the Mother God and ask
her to interceed for them, what is the point if God has already
made up is mind what will happen and will never change it ?.
When the first miracle took place at the wedding feast Mary
approached Jesus with the problem of no wine. He told her His
time had not yet come, but she instructed the servants to do
whatever He commanded them. Christ performed the miracle, question
is, did he change His mind ? or did he always intend to perform
that miracle and if so why say that to his mother ?.
>
>> Christ himself
>>assured us that that nothing could destroy His Church.
>>However without priests the Church would be hard put to
>>survive. I now have a theory that perhaps God is deliberately
>>slowing down admissions to the priesthood in order to force
>>the hierachy of the Church to re think its position on the
>>Ordination of women. If it comes down to allowing women
>>priests or having no priests at all what would the faithful
>>choose, and more important what would God choose. Perhaps
>>he has choosen already, but as usual no one is really listening.
>>We humans have a tendancy to decide that we always know
>>best and we have through history interpreted Gods word to suit
>>ourselves hence all the different denominations.
>>Perhaps we should all let go and let God.
>>
>Or perhaps he saying ordain married men, which requires no change in doctrine,
>or perhaps he is saying ordain practicing homosexuals, which requires the end
>of all truth.
Perhaps he is, and has the Church not started down that road by allowing
Church of England clergy to convert to Catholicism and become priests
since the Anglican Church decided to allow women ministers, quite a few
of whom are married.
Whether this should be I have my doubts, not because they are married
but because I do not believe they have converted for the right reason.
If they truely believed in the Catholic Doctrine how come they did not
come over before. Seems to me that most of them have come over to escape
the prospect of Women priests not because they believe in the teachings
of the Church.
Regarding homosexuals I have to pass on that one, I do not know enough
about the Churches viewpoint nor about homosexuals in general to make
a comment one way or the other.
>
>However, maybe he is saying neither. The amount of priest is a function of the
>amount of faith. A faithless people deserves no priests. The traditional
>orders have no problem filling their seminaries, so I have heard. I understand
>Mother Theresa cannot build convents fast enough. Further, there is a
>deliberate effort to exclude the orthodox from many seminaries; how many youg
>men have we lost?
>
I take your points re the above and would add one more to it, people who
are possible late vocations are often turned away because of their age.
It seems God couldn't possibly be calling you if you are "elderly"
and I pass, on what age is considered elderly.
By nature I am what is termed, I suppose, a traditionalist. I mourn the
passing of a lot of things since Vatican II. My heart no longer soars
in the Mass as it used to do when we had the Sung Latin, a lot of the
symbols of the Church that I used to help me center on God were swept
away over night and not many have appeared to take their place, that
speak to me, but I hang in there and keep the faith, but I also try to
have an open mind and heart as I try to discern Gods will.
Our exchange of views highlights very strongly the immense task of
interpreting Gods will, different people read different things into
events etc, but at the end of the day Gods will, will prevail despite us
all.
Thank you John for sharing your comments and views.
>
--
Margaret
Margaret Jackman
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960613201540.19395B-100000@gladstone>, Matthew
Ian Haines <miha...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> writes
>
Snip
call
> Please pray for our priests and that we will all be there for
>those who are brave enough to accept God's call.
>
> pax, Matt
Hello Matt,
I identify with a lot of what you are saying. When I decided to enter
Religious life my parents violently opposed it and I had to fight long
and hard before they reluctantly accepted it.
If I had a son, which I don't, I would be pleased and proud if he
wanted to enter the priesthood. I think the numbers applying are on
the decrease, I know that when the Bishop of our Diocese was here
here last he spoke of the decrease in the numbers coming forward,
the same applys to the Religious Life. It is not really surprising
when you look at the Society we have today. Children are being
raised in an environment that has placed God firmly on the fringe
of our Society if he is placed anywhere at all. They do not grow
up believing in the values the Church preaches and therefor do not
identify with the concept of Service to the Lord either as lay or
Religious. I am only speaking generally of course because not all
the young are like this but it is the prevailing trend.
I have heard that the priests coming out of the seminary these days are
on the whole much more traditional than they used to be, and frankly
I welcome this. I feel that when your faith is made too easy then
the challenge goes out of it. Look at the early Church and at History
in general, a thing that has had to be fought for and worked hard for
is valued much more and grows.
God I belive does still call people to the Priesthood and Religious Life
but so many no longer listen and answer. Those that do are to be praised
and prayed for. We here at Trocaire will remember you in our prayers.
Thank you for your comments and views, God Bless.
--
Margaret
Margaret Jackman
In article <dnorr.124...@ix.netcom.com>, Dan Norr
<dn...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>In article <eqCb0DAU...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> Margaret Jackman <Margaret@tr
>ocaire.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>From: Margaret Jackman <Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk>
>>Subject: Re: Women Ordination in Old Catholic Church
>>Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 23:30:44 +0100
>
><snip>
>
>>Hello,
>> I'm joining this thread a little late I think.
>
>>I would like initially to say I have never been
>>in favour of the Ordination of women in the past
>>but I am beginning to change my viewpoint somewhat.
>>I would just like to make one observation / comment
>>if I may !!
>
>>no one on earth having tha authority. However God himself
>>has the authority and I pose this question.
>>Have you ever stopped to ask why vocations to
>>assured us that that nothing could destroy His Church.
>>However without priests the Church would be hard put to
>>survive. I now have a theory that perhaps God is deliberately
>>slowing down admissions to the priesthood in order to force
>>the hierachy of the Church to re think its position on the
>>Ordination of women. If it comes down to allowing women
>>priests or having no priests at all what would the faithful
>>choose, and more important what would God choose. Perhaps
>>he has choosen already, but as usual no one is really listening.
>>We humans have a tendancy to decide that we always know
>>best and we have through history interpreted Gods word to suit
>>ourselves hence all the different denominations.
>>Perhaps we should all let go and let God.
>>Margaret
>
>Have you ever thought that vocations are on the decline because God intends
>for us as lay people to take the responsibility that *we've* been "ordained"
>(by baptism and confirmation) to do? This would be a dynamic shift back to
>the beginnings of our Church when ministers were "ordained" (raised up) by
>the call of God to specific ministries.
>
>Daniel
Hi Daniel,
Yes, and I think you have a point. It is a view point that is quite
close to our hearts here in our Parish. We are isolated and have one
elderly priest who has to serve several islands. We have one main
Church and three small Chapels and it is mainly the laity who minister
from the Chapels to their specific island communities. At the moment
here at Trocaire we are trying to form a Community of Lay and
Consecrated life that will serve these islands and assist the priest.
One day we may not have a priest and this Community will have to take on
an even more active role. I think that is why the Bishop has
asked me to form a Community here because one day he envisages that
there will be no priest to send except perhaps monthly to renew
the Blessed Sacrament.
During Vatican II Religious orders were instructed to enter into a
process of renewal that involved going back to their roots, I think
the Church in general has slowly begun the same journey, an example,
for instance, is the return of the offering of the Chalice to the
people. There is a debate for ever raging about whether women were
or were not Ministers of some sort in the early Church. I do not
know enough to comment one way or another, but I do believe that
we as humans are forever sounding forth about Jesus did this and
not that so thats what he wanted, or Jesus said this or said that
so this is what he meant. God is greater than the sum of us all and
I doubt that he really puts much store on our interpretation of things.
I belive in my heart that all these points that are so important to us
in fact are unimportant to him. Will He, I wonder, mind who does what so
long as things are done and we continue to love and praise him
God Bless Daniel,
--
Margaret
Margaret Jackman
In article <4pscnd$q...@inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com>,
jop...@m5.enet.dec.com writes
>
>In article <eqCb0DAU...@trocaire.demon.co.uk>, Margaret Jackman <Margaret@t
>rocaire.demon.co.uk> writes:
>|>
>|>I now have a theory that perhaps God is deliberately
>|>slowing down admissions to the priesthood in order to force
>|>the hierachy of the Church to re think its position on the
>|>Ordination of women.
Thank you for your posting, I will try and explore the points you
have raised.
> This suggests that God is admitting to an error. Worse, it is
> suggesting that God would injure His Church -- even risk its
> demise -- to get His message across.
>
> I just can't fathom either of these possibilities.
>
called to the Ministry at this time. God allowed injury to His only Son
in order to save us and get His message across, so is it not posible
that he could do the same with His Church. I do not believe He is
risking it, because he already knows the outcome. Using this argument is
like saying, if God had intended us to fly He would have given us wings,
or if God had intended us to enter the Kingdom of heaven he would not
have allowed the existence of the Devil and free will.
> The Church holds fast to her premises because those were the
> premises under which Jesus formed her. Opponents of the Church's
> position argue that Jesus was forced to pick only men because the
> society at that time would not have accepted such a radical concept
> as female leadership. I ask in return, "If He really wanted women
> clergy, why didn't Jesus come in 1996?" The song 'Jesus Christ,
> Superstar' asks the same question:
>
I believe there may be a little of " The Church holds fast to her
premises because the Clergy do not want to let Women share what they see
as their power base.
I also believe that if Jesus had wanted Women in that role at the time
He would have called them. He did call them to Himself in other ways
admitted. It was a Women who was given the highest honour of the Human
race ie. to bear Gods only son. It was a woman that Jesus first appeared
to after the ressurection, not you note, the apostles first.
However all this does not necessarily indicate that God NEVER THROUGH
ALL ETERNITY did not want Women Ministers. Look at Gods creation as an
example, if a thing does not grow, change, evolve then it dies. Watch
the wild life programmes where they tell us this species or that has
changed and evolved to survive in its changing habitat. Look at the
worlds History re the weather conditions, how it has changed over long
periods of History, species have had to change, and evolve in order to
survive. Maybe Gods Church has to do the same.
I will give an example, I once met an Asian man who was a pharmacist. He
lived in Britain for many years, he returned to his homeland for a
holiday and when he came back he was very worried. He said he was
concerned for all the Asian children here in Britain because on his
visit home he found that the culture in his homeland had moved on, it
was growing and evolving as all cultures do if they are to survive.
However in Britain those who had emmigrated here had brought their
culture with them and had set about steadfastly and fiercely protecting
it, to the point where it hardly ever changed. The outcome was that the
young people back in the Homeland had more freedom to make decisions in
their life than those living in Britain and the ones in Britain no
longer was a part of the " real culture " that they were trying to
preserve.
The point I am struggling to make is that maybe we too are confining and
and limiting Christs Church because we refuse to consider that he always
intended it to grow, mature, evolve with time. Look at the
Human race in particular in all other aspects of our lives. God has
given us the will, the intelligence, the power to progress and grow, to
invent and to to reason. He was never one to stand on old ceremony and
tradition his teaching and very exisistence challenged the Jewish Church
of the time. I read earlier on in another posting a point about Christ
only called Jews to be Apostles so from that do we read into it that
only Jews should be allowed to be Priests ?.
> '...you'd have managed better if you had it all planned.
> Why'd you pick such a backwards time and such a strange
> land?
> If you'd come today you would have reached a whole
nation.
> Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication...'
>I think you answer your own point here. He could have come now when
there was Mass media but he didn't, was that stupid ? NO it was always
His intention that Man would struggle, grow and suffer and help, in
order to bring about Gods Kingdom on earth. Can we take it then that
God never intended us to use Mass media to spread His word and His
Church seeing as Christ never used it himself ?.
> The point is that Jesus *didn't* come in 1970. He came when He
> chose to come. If He wanted women priests He could have just as
> easily come at a time that the idea would have been acceptable.
>
> Jesus did what He did. Who are we to second-guess Him?
>
My point exactly, that is what I meant by Let go and Let God, but that
means all of us, not just those who want to see Women priests but the
other side too. Let God get on with it and if HE WANTS IT THEN IT WILL
SURELY HAPPEN, IF NOT IT WON'T.
>|>We humans have a tendancy to decide that we always know
>|>best and we have through history interpreted Gods word to suit
>|>ourselves hence all the different denominations.
>
> It seems to me that rationalizations of female priesthood is a great
> example of humans deciding what's best.
>
Or on the other hand, a beleagured male clergy doing the same.
>|>Perhaps we should all let go and let God.
>
> What exactly does this mean? God has already done His thing.
> Calls for female priesthood seem to me to be a call for us to
> let go and let God be formed in man's preferred ideals.
Are you saying that God did His thing two,thousand years ago and
therefor will not be doing His thing anymore ?.
The funny thing is I have never wanted Women priests I am by nature
very traditionalist, but I am trying to disern what is happening and I
am trying to keep an open mind wherever possible while still keeping
within the laws and teachings of the Church, if we all do that we have
no need to worry, God will protect His own. The poor Jews missed out on
the Mission of Christ because they ridgedly stuck to their belief that
the Saviour would come, as it were, to save them from the hands of their
oppressors, a warrior. They could not and would not accept what God
intended. Pray God that Christs Church does not fall into the same big
headed pitfall.
I have enjoyed our exchange, it is good to talk and explore thank you.
--
Margaret
John Medaille
In article <0ain1DAV...@trocaire.demon.co.uk>, Margaret Jackman <Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk>
<eqCb0DAU...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> <4ps3uu$d...@news-f.iadfw.net> wrote:
>Does God not have the right to change His mind if he wants to ?
It is very dangerous to ascribe mutability to God. Dangerous, because if he is
mutable, He is not God. So what do we do with lines like "perhaps he will
relent and leave behind a blessing"? The hope in this line is conditioned on
the repentance called for in the previous verse. Thus, it is man that changes,
not God. We may change our attitudes and actions; in doing so we change
ourselves and history; in doing so we change our relationship to God. BUT, we
do not change God. He is (as the OT insists), the Rock, by which the Jews
meant that he was solid, reliable, and immutable.
>
>May be he always intended to have Women ordained around
>the turn of the century and he is now paving the way for this.
Maybe a lot of things. This falls between speculation and wishful thinking,
but the case for ordination (or anything else) will stand or fall on its own
merits.
>
>If God never changes His mind, what is the point of some prayer,
>We are encouraged in the Bible to " ask and you will receive"
>so I pray tonight that my friend may be allowed the grace to
>cope with a trauma in her life, or that such and such a person
>be healed if possible, but God has already ordained what will happen
>so why do I bother to pray ? if he never changed His mind, let Him get
>on with it and I will save my time.
>
His mind is not the issue; your's and mine are.
>When the first miracle took place at the wedding feast Mary
>approached Jesus with the problem of no wine. He told her His
>time had not yet come, but she instructed the servants to do
>whatever He commanded them. Christ performed the miracle, question
>is, did he change His mind ? or did he always intend to perform
>that miracle and if so why say that to his mother ?.
A perfect case for the intercession of Mary. But we are dealing with
different things. Christ has already decided to "do" everything for us. Most
things come purely from His will, not ours (our birth, our daily bread, our
good health, the overflowing of blessings we enjoy each day without either
thinking or thanking). In his perfect will, however, he wants us to ask and be
thankful for at least some things, and he is more pleased when we ask in
concert with others. His good will is already there; what is lacking is ours.
We change, not him.
In any case, women's ordination is not like the granting of a favor. Either it
involves a question of truth or it don't. If it does, then it is immutable,
like god. If it don't, then there is no reason now and never was not to change
it. The Question is not "will God change His mind", but will we conform our
minds to the will of God?
>Perhaps he is, and has the Church not started down that road by allowing
>Church of England clergy to convert to Catholicism and become priests
>since the Anglican Church decided to allow women ministers, quite a few
>of whom are married.
The requirement of celibacy is a disciplinary matter, not a doctrinal one. As
such it is subject to change at any time, or to be suspended in individual
cases.
>
>Whether this should be I have my doubts, not because they are married
>but because I do not believe they have converted for the right reason.
>If they truely believed in the Catholic Doctrine how come they did not
>come over before. Seems to me that most of them have come over to escape
>the prospect of Women priests not because they believe in the teachings
>of the Church.
>
Well of course you might be right, but I would be hesitant to judge another on
such evidence. Further, if one believed that ordination was impossible for
women, it is quite just, proper, and corageous to leave a Church that says it
is.
>I take your points re the above and would add one more to it, people who
>are possible late vocations are often turned away because of their age.
>It seems God couldn't possibly be calling you if you are "elderly"
>and I pass, on what age is considered elderly.
A few years ago our Bishop ordained a man in his 70's.
> Our exchange of views highlights very strongly the immense task of
>interpreting Gods will, different people read different things into
>events etc, but at the end of the day Gods will, will prevail despite us
>all.
At the end of time, yes, but not necessarily at the end of the day. It is
certainly not God's will that I sin, yet that happens hourly. God will
preserve his Church through time, but this does not mean that he will prevent
every self-inflicted wound.
John
Nancy
My non Catholic view:
Paul wrote that women should be silent in church. I have never been in a
church, Catholic or Protestant, where a woman didn't read from the bible,
or in certain Protestant churches, actually preach. So no church I've ever
been in follows the bible in this, if you want to get technical about it.
However, back then, women were considered property and pretty much treated
as much, so I can understand him writing this, just as he wrote that women
should have their heads covered, etc.
So is this a cultural thing? Or does God really not want women preaching?
I have to admit, I cannot imagine a female Catholic priest!
Do the Jews have women Rabbis?
nancy
John Medaille
In article <4putlb$e...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, n1...@usa.pipeline.com(Nancy) wrote:
>Paul wrote that women should be silent in church.
You need to understand the context of that statement. It is in Corinthians, a
very angry letter on reform of the liturgy. (Already, they were reforming it).
The letter is so intemperate that Paul writes a second letter as a sort of
apology. Apparently, the Eucharistic meal was becoming a hen party cum
charismatic revival. In any case, I think the sense of that quote is "let the
gossips be silent".
Far more difficult to handle is the line (in James, I think) "I will not
accept instruction from a woman." I'll do some research on that and get back
to you.
I have never been in a
>church, Catholic or Protestant, where a woman didn't read from the bible,
>or in certain Protestant churches, actually preach. So no church I've ever
>been in follows the bible in this, if you want to get technical about it.
>However, back then, women were considered property and pretty much treated
>as much, so I can understand him writing this, just as he wrote that women
>should have their heads covered, etc.
The principle of the head covering still applies, even if the cultural millieu
has changed. A women's hair was a part of the sexual appeal and needed to be
covered in Church as a question of modesty and not providing distractions.
While this is not so, modesty should certainly be part of proper church dress.
>So is this a cultural thing? Or does God really not want women preaching?
There are certainly cultural aspects. On the second question, I doubt it. The
preaching office during Mass is reserved to the ordained ministry, which
excludes women. Nontheless, women are and have been powerful in preaching in
the history of the church.
>
>I have to admit, I cannot imagine a female Catholic priest!
Many can, but it won't happen, at least not validly.
>
>Do the Jews have women Rabbis?
They do today, in some branches of Judaism.
John
Tarasius
umll...@aol.com (UMllerBo) writes:
<snip>
>
>Do you have a problem with democracy?
Yes I do, it is only a tool. It is not a panacea - a cure all. All this
waving of the "democracy flag" and looking for a consensus in Church
matters is bogus. The Kingdom of God is not a democracy and God
isn't looking for consensus. All this "democracy talk" has resulted in
most people of the United States believing that it is a democracy.
No, the United States was formed as a constitutional republic using
some democratic tools.
Whats wrong with forming an
opinion,
>expressing it, discussing it with others, compromising and trying to find
>the best sollution suitable not only to a few, but to as many as
possible.
Truth is not to be compromised. God's Laws of Physical Science cannot
be legislated or violated. But a mystery of human life is that God's
Laws of moral behavior can be legislated or violated by man without
immediate fatal consequences. This allows for disobedience and
reconcilliation.
>I admit, it's not the easiest way of organizing a group, it requires much
>responsibility from everyone involved and may leave you at times in
>uncertainty, yet I guess its the best form of organized human interaction
>that you can think of.
In some human interactions - maybe. But Who is the Boss when it
comes to morals and His Church?
God has provided us with a creative and independent
>mind, he wants us to use it and to live to our full potential.
But on our terms? I thought we were to know, love and serve Him.
I have difficulty resolving "becoming holy" with the self fulfillment or
human potential movement. Disobedience is as the sin of sorcery
(and VERY independent too).
This
>includes the freedom to make decisisons and to work on changes - it is
the
>"Rome has spoken and that's the point of no return!" which makes it hard
>for me to agree to your concept of church.
<snip>
My concept of the Church includes the Pope and the bishops in union
with him as the true magisterium, and that there is no other final
teaching authority regardless of how many they are - how many degrees
they have after their names - how popular they are in a vote or some
other popularity contest.
The voice of the people is rarely the voice of God.
Tarasius
TimothyCTX
In article <4ppjv8$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, umll...@aol.com (UMllerBo)
writes:
>Of course Jesus only chose men, because he lived in a very
>patriarchal society. He also chose only Jews, none of the twelve was a
>Gentile. Did church ever draw the conclusion, that only Jews could be
>ordained? Jesus did not talk about ordination of priests or priestesses,
>did he?
So if the question is dependent cultural relativity, then that can only
mean that Jesus tolerated sexism and was himself a chauvinist. (You see
how ridiculous this is becoming?)
Why would he tolerate sexism when he rebuked such customs as his apostles
eating with unclean hands or by telling the Jews who followed Him that
they must eat His flesh and drink His blood? After all, these were
man-made traditions.
Why didn't Jesus condemn this patriarchal society (who had only males in
their priesthood) for not allowing women to be ordained like he rebuked
the pharasaical traditions did in Mark 7?
Mark 7:7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of
men.’ 8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of
men.”
John Medaille
In article <4q1vtc$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, tara...@aol.com (Tarasius) wrote:
> umll...@aol.com (UMllerBo) writes:
>
><snip>
>>
>>Do you have a problem with democracy?
I spoke with a Baptist preacher this am who was complaining about "democracy"
in his Church. In Baptistry, the congregation chooses the ministers. In
applying for jobs, he found himself unconsciously modifying his views to
please the interviewers. He had just come from such an interview and was
feeling throughly disgusted with himself.
We talked about Moses, not a leader the Jews particularly wanted. He had to
put down several bloody rebellions, some led by his own sister and brother.
Had they been more democratic, we might have been falling down before a golden
calf, these days, in the intervals between making bricks for the Egyptians.
Do I have a problem with democracy? As a person who has been five times
elected to public office, not much, if the issues are how to spend tax dollars
and other "weighty" matters. But it is less certain on matters touching the
truth. In our own country, the question of slavery was resolved not by
democracy (it was a popular institution), but by force of arms in what was by
far our bloodiest war, even bloodier than that little (to us) fracas in the
forties.
John
Thomas Paul
Margaret Jackman <Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I now have a theory that perhaps God is deliberately
>slowing down admissions to the priesthood in order to force
>the hierachy of the Church to re think its position on the
>Ordination of women. If it comes down to allowing women
>priests or having no priests at all what would the faithful
>choose, and more important what would God choose.
This would be interesting if it were true but it is not. It is true
that ordinations are down in developed countries but the less
developed nations (the so-called Third World) have seen great
increases in ordination. We will be seeing more and more foriegn
priests in our parishes. A friend of mine who is a priest from the
Phillipines told me that his mother was very proud that her son was
being sent to be a missionary among the Americans!
------------------------------------------------------------
Death in the defense of liberty is no tragedy.
--- Daniel William Cloud (killed defending the Alamo, 1836)
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Paul
n1...@usa.pipeline.com(Nancy) wrote:
>Do the Jews have women Rabbis?
>
Reformed do. Orthodox and Conservative do not.
Thomas Paul
Margaret Jackman <Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Does God not have the right to change His mind if he wants to ?
If God changes His mind then He is a fickle God. How can we correctly
worship God if He tells us something on Monday and then changes His
mind on Tuesday. If God changes His mind then He is no different than
the gods of the ancient world who told men to do one thing and then
when the men obeyed them the gods squashed them anyway because they
had changed their minds.
Margaret Jackman
In article <4q2nhk$d...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, Thomas Paul
<TOM...@PIPELINE.COM> writes
earlier point I raised which is " If God cannot be persuaded
to change His mind what is the point of prayers of petition.
If God has already decreed what will happen and NEVER changes
his mind then what is the point of praying and asking Him for
help etc.
In the Old Testament God appeared to be persuaded when He was
going to destroy a city but then announced that if one just man
was to be found in the city he would spare it. He starts by saying
he will destroy it and ends up, after some stiff bargaining, agreeing
to spare it if one just man is to be found inside.
Question is .... Did He always intend to save it if one just man was
inside, and if so, why did he begin by saying He would destroy it ?.
On the other hand did He intend to destroy it but when His servant
pleaded and bargained with Him did He change is mind ?.
It does not worry me at all to think God is able to change His
mind in fact it gives one a sense of hope. I trust God enough
to know that whatever He decides to do it will be for the best.
--
Margaret
UMllerBo
Im Artikel <eqCb0DAU...@trocaire.demon.co.uk>, Margaret Jackman
<Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> schreibt:
> I now have a theory that perhaps God is deliberately
>slowing down admissions to the priesthood in order to force
>the hierachy of the Church to re think its position on the
>Ordination of women. If it comes down to allowing women
>priests or having no priests at all what would the faithful
>choose, and more important what would God choose.
Margret, don't you think God would choose a more direct way
and be less sneaky? As far as I understand - but I am always
willing to accept advise on this - there is no serious scriptural
or theological obstacle to ordaining women. Could't He
just have church leaders be inspired by the Holy Spirit rather than
taking the risk of his Church being almost priestless before?
Peace, Ulrich
Dan Norr
In article <d2xnwDAQ...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> Margaret Jackman <Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> writes:
>From: Margaret Jackman <Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: Women Ordination in Old Catholic Church
>>In article <4q2nhk$d...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, Thomas Paul
><TOM...@PIPELINE.COM> writes
>>>Margaret Jackman <Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Does God not have the right to change His mind if he wants to ?
>>If God changes His mind then He is a fickle God. How can we correctly
>>worship God if He tells us something on Monday and then changes His
>>mind on Tuesday. If God changes His mind then He is no different than
>>the gods of the ancient world who told men to do one thing and then
>>when the men obeyed them the gods squashed them anyway because they
>>had changed their minds.
>I take your point but no one seems to be able to answer the
>earlier point I raised which is " If God cannot be persuaded
>to change His mind what is the point of prayers of petition.
>If God has already decreed what will happen and NEVER changes
>his mind then what is the point of praying and asking Him for
>help etc.
>In the Old Testament God appeared to be persuaded when He was
>going to destroy a city but then announced that if one just man
>was to be found in the city he would spare it. He starts by saying
>he will destroy it and ends up, after some stiff bargaining, agreeing
>to spare it if one just man is to be found inside.
>Question is .... Did He always intend to save it if one just man was
>inside, and if so, why did he begin by saying He would destroy it ?.
>On the other hand did He intend to destroy it but when His servant
>pleaded and bargained with Him did He change is mind ?.
>It does not worry me at all to think God is able to change His
>mind in fact it gives one a sense of hope. I trust God enough
>to know that whatever He decides to do it will be for the best.
>--
>Margaret
To me, it's important to remember that God's ways and my ways may not
necessarily agree -- and that He doesn't change.
When we look at what "appears" to be the changing of God's mind we have to
keep one idea concretely focused in our thoughts: God is not in time, He's in
eternity. He doesn't need to bargain with us and come up with, "Say that's a
great idea! Why didn't I think of that?" Before we even ask, He knows our
prayers.
What this says to me is that God (in eternity) ALREADY KNOWS WHAT I'M GOING TO
DO OR SAY. He already sees the end of the picture.
So what's the necessity of my praying? Everything. *i* still have to walk
through all of life's situations to get the the end of my journey. God sees,
knows, and answers everything -- yet also is aware of the outcome. i will
reap what i sow. If i don't pray, repent, turn to Him, acknowledge Him and
others, love God with my whole heart (etc.) and my neighbor as myself there is
a place established for me. If i do all these things God has a dwelling place
prepared for me from all eternity. i cannot just sit back and say "i've
already committed my life to God. That's all i have to do."
The words come back to me that i am to die to my sinful ways and become like
Christ. For me, this is "death on the installment plan" -- one day at a time.
i pray for others because i am in need of their prayers for me as well.
Sometimes it's difficult for us to remember that there is only one body of
Christ -- we are ALL members -- the good and the bad of us. (Eph. 2:11-22)
The door of opportunity has been made available to us; we must enter in.
This is one of the primary reasons i do not judge another person's conduct. i
do not know what God has in store for them "up the road".
When we pray, fast, intercede for (ourselves and) others, we may (or may not)
see the effects here on earth. But this is a spiritual program. We pray,
trusting and believing that a loving God hears and answers our prayers. We
just don't know the timing of the answer! That's where faith must enter in.
My $0.02.
Daniel
TimothyCTX
In article <eqCb0DAU...@trocaire.demon.co.uk>, Margaret Jackman
<Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Have you ever stopped to ask why vocations to
>the priesthood are on the decline. Christ himself
>assured us that that nothing could destroy His Church.
>However without priests the Church would be hard put to
>survive. I now have a theory that perhaps God is deliberately
>slowing down admissions to the priesthood in order to force
>the hierachy of the Church to re think its position on the
>Ordination of women.
I think its because orthodoxy is on the decline and moral relativism is on
the rise.
Maybe this shortage is being artificially created by the powers that be so
they can promote what THEY want the church to be?
Let's test your theory. If God is deliberately slowing down admissions to
the priesthood, there are some things we need to be able to answer:
Keep in mind Christ's own words: Jn 15:16 You have not chosen me: but I
have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should
bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall
ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
-- Why is it that there are an abundance of vocations in dioceses like
Lincoln, Neb.; Arlington, Va; and Scranton, Pa? Could it be because these
dioceses have courageous, faithful and orthodox bishops who teach the
Catholic Faith, in its entirety, without watering it down - without
compromising and pandering to special interest groups?
-- Why are such strong, orthodox and traditional orders like the Priestly
Fraternity of St. Peter and Legionaries of Christ experiencing such growth
that they sometimes have to turn applicants away because they don't have
enough space?
Bottom line is that we ALL need to pray for vocations.
Bill Silverthorn
Margaret Jackman <Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4q2nhk$d...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, Thomas Paul
><TOM...@PIPELINE.COM> writes
>>Margaret Jackman <Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Does God not have the right to change His mind if he wants to ?
>>
>>If God changes His mind then He is a fickle God. How can we correctly
>>worship God if He tells us something on Monday and then changes His
>>mind on Tuesday. If God changes His mind then He is no different than
>>the gods of the ancient world who told men to do one thing and then
>>when the men obeyed them the gods squashed them anyway because they
>>had changed their minds.
>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>Death in the defense of liberty is no tragedy.
>>--- Daniel William Cloud (killed defending the Alamo, 1836)
>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>I take your point but no one seems to be able to answer the
>earlier point I raised which is " If God cannot be persuaded
>to change His mind what is the point of prayers of petition.
>If God has already decreed what will happen and NEVER changes
>his mind then what is the point of praying and asking Him for
>help etc.
>In the Old Testament God appeared to be persuaded when He was
>going to destroy a city but then announced that if one just man
>was to be found in the city he would spare it. He starts by saying
>he will destroy it and ends up, after some stiff bargaining, agreeing
>to spare it if one just man is to be found inside.
>Question is .... Did He always intend to save it if one just man was
>inside, and if so, why did he begin by saying He would destroy it ?.
>On the other hand did He intend to destroy it but when His servant
>pleaded and bargained with Him did He change is mind ?.
>It does not worry me at all to think God is able to change His
>mind in fact it gives one a sense of hope. I trust God enough
>to know that whatever He decides to do it will be for the best.
>--
>Margaret
Moses also is recorded in scriptures as calming God down and preventing Him
from destroying the Jewish people who He was very disappointed with ...
Seems like God changed his mind here as well.
Bill
GMDowns
In article <4q1dmv$h...@news-f.iadfw.net>, joh...@server.iadfw.net (John
Medaille) writes:
> The
>preaching office during Mass is reserved to the ordained ministry, which
>excludes women.
This is not always true. Preaching, as a general term, can be done by any
member of the church, lay or ordained. As far as giving a homily or a
sermon, those activities are reserved to the ordained. Canon law provides
that at a Eucharistic liturgy, the laity may preach if the gospel is read
by an ordained person and that reader first makes a few remarks by way of
summary.
I travel extensively preaching missions in Catholic Churches, I am
female, and I preach at weekend Eucharistic liturgy at these parishes
under the above conditions.
GMDowns
GMDowns
In article <4q4d3g$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, timot...@aol.com
(TimothyCTX) writes:
> Why is it that there are an abundance of vocations in dioceses like
>Lincoln, Neb.
Can you give actual numbers to support this statement? I would really
like to know what they are. Many others have made the same statement and
not given any basis for it. At one time I did have some figures on the
number of active priests and the number of parishes in the diocese of
Lincoln. There were many more parishes than priests to staff them. I can
no longer find those statistics and would appreciate some authentic
information along these lines.
GMDowns
Tarasius
In article <4q4tst$3...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, w...@ix.netcom.com (Bill
Silverthorn) writes:
<snip>
>Moses also is recorded in scriptures as calming God down and preventing
Him
>from destroying the Jewish people who He was very disappointed with ...
>Seems like God changed his mind here as well.
>
>Bill
>
>
Moses went down and got upset. Then he went back up and who calmed Moses
down?
Hmmm? Miss something here did you?
Tarasius
TimothyCTX
In article <4q8jop$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, gmd...@aol.com (GMDowns)
writes:
>
>Can you give actual numbers to support this statement? I would really
>like to know what they are. Many others have made the same statement and
>not given any basis for it. At one time I did have some figures on the
>number of active priests and the number of parishes in the diocese of
>no longer find those statistics and would appreciate some authentic
>information along these lines.
The most Recent Catholic Almanac I have is from 1992, which quotes the
Annuario Pontificio 1991 from the Vatican. (Does anyone have the 1996
Catholic Almanac?)
In the Lincoln, NE Diocese in 1991 there were:
No of Catholics: 79,721 (15.4% of the total population)
Diocesan Priests: 136
Religious Priests: 13
Total No of Priests: 149
Parishes: 133
--An average of 1 priest for every 586 Catholics.
In the Sioux Falls, SD Diocese in 1991 there were:
No of Catholics: 113,880 (23.8% of the total population)
Diocesan Priests: 132
Religious Priests: 42
Total No of Priests: 174
Parishes: 159
--An average of 1 priest for every 654 Catholics.
In the Richmond, VA Diocese in 1991 there were:
No of Catholics: 147,240 (3.5% of the total population)
Diocesan Priests: 183
Religious Priests: 47
Total No of Priests: 240
Parishes: 120
--An average of 1 priest for every 614 Catholics.
In the Scranton, PA Diocese in 1991 there were:
No of Catholics: 351,140 (35.4% of the total population)
Diocesan Priests: 377
Religious Priests: 98
Total No of Priests: 475
Parishes: 219
--An average of 1 priest for every 739 Catholics.
In the Dallas Diocese in 1991 there were:
No of Catholics: 226,129 (9.1% of the total population)
Diocesan Priests: 98
Religious Priests: 82
Total No of Priests: 180
Parishes: 55
--An average of 1 priest for every 1,256 Catholics.
In the Chicago Archdiocese in 1991 there were:
No of Catholics: 2,350,000 (41.8% of the total population)
Diocesan Priests: 1,131
Religious Priests: 973
Total No of Priests: 2,104
Parishes: 389
--An average of 1 priest for every 1,116 Catholics.
John Medaille
Thank-you for the clarification.
BTW, what is your preaching mission?
John
UMllerBo
Im Artikel <4q2c22$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, timot...@aol.com
(TimothyCTX) schreibt:
>>Of course Jesus only chose men, because he lived in a very
>>patriarchal society. He also chose only Jews, none of the twelve was a
>>Gentile. Did church ever draw the conclusion, that only Jews could be
>>ordained? Jesus did not talk about ordination of priests or priestesses,
>>did he?
>
>So if the question is dependent cultural relativity, then that can only
>mean that Jesus tolerated sexism and was himself a chauvinist. (You see
>how ridiculous this is becoming?)
That's what I mean. From not opposing as well as from not doing something
you cannot draw any conclusion at all. I just replied to a statement
saying that women ordination was against the teachings of Jesus Christ
because he did not choose women as apostles. My point was: If you - for
what reason ever (e.g. cultural reasons) - decide not to do something (or
not to oppose to something), it seems not very logic to me that this
necessarily indicates that you are in opposition or tolerating. Doing
things or not doing things is not a TEACHING. I can accept that the
exclusion of women from ordination is a teaching of Church (Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis), but I have no evidence that this is a teaching of Jesus
Christ.
Ulrich
Thomas Paul
gmd...@aol.com (GMDowns) wrote:
>In article <4q4d3g$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, timot...@aol.com
>(TimothyCTX) writes:
>> Why is it that there are an abundance of vocations in dioceses like
>>Lincoln, Neb.
>Can you give actual numbers to support this statement? I would really
>like to know what they are. Many others have made the same statement and
>not given any basis for it. At one time I did have some figures on the
>number of active priests and the number of parishes in the diocese of
>Lincoln. There were many more parishes than priests to staff them. I can
>no longer find those statistics and would appreciate some authentic
>information along these lines.
The Diocese with the highest number of seminarians is the diocese of
Northern Virgina which is an extremely conservative diocese.
GMDowns
In article <4qa2hu$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, timot...@aol.com
(TimothyCTX) writes:
>>Can you give actual numbers to support this statement?
this question was directed at your statement that there are a large number
of seminarians in the Lincoln Nebraska Diocese and the Scranton Diocese.
I wanted to know if you had numbers to support that statement.
GMDowns
Tarasius
In article <eqCb0DAU...@trocaire.demon.co.uk>, Margaret Jackman
<Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> writes:
> I now have a theory that perhaps God is deliberately
>slowing down admissions to the priesthood in order to force
>the hierachy of the Church to re think its position on the
>Ordination of women. If it comes down to allowing women
>priests or having no priests at all what would the faithful
>choose, and more important what would God choose. Perhaps
>he has choosen already, but as usual no one is really listening.
>We humans have a tendancy to decide that we always know
>best and we have through history interpreted Gods word to suit
>ourselves hence all the different denominations.
>Perhaps we should all let go and let God.
>--
>Margaret
>
>
I now have a theory that perhaps Satan is deliberately
slowing down admissions to the priesthood in order to get
women to try and force the hierachy of the Church to
re think its position on the Ordination of women. If it
comes down to allowing women priests or having no
priests at all what would the faithless choose, and
more important what would Satan have the the choice
be? Some of us have a tendancy to decide that we
can know more than the Church's Majesterium. Rebellion
through history interpreted Gods word to suit itself hence
all the different denominations with invalid ordinations of
women.
Tarasius
TimothyCTX
In article <4qgiki$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, gmd...@aol.com (GMDowns)
writes:
>
>this question was directed at your statement that there are a large
number
>of seminarians in the Lincoln Nebraska Diocese and the Scranton Diocese.
>I wanted to know if you had numbers to support that statement.
Go back 4 postings. I listed the numbers from the 1992 Catholic Almanac
for Lincoln, Sioux Falls, Richmond, Scranton, Dallas and Chicago.
I am still looking for a 1996 Catholic Almanac
Margaret Jackman
In article <4qgkgt$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Tarasius
<tara...@aol.com> writes
>In article <eqCb0DAU...@trocaire.demon.co.uk>, Margaret Jackman
><Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> I now have a theory that perhaps God is deliberately
>>slowing down admissions to the priesthood in order to force
>>the hierachy of the Church to re think its position on the
>>Ordination of women. If it comes down to allowing women
>>priests or having no priests at all what would the faithful
>>choose, and more important what would God choose. Perhaps
>>he has choosen already, but as usual no one is really listening.
>>We humans have a tendancy to decide that we always know
>>best and we have through history interpreted Gods word to suit
>>ourselves hence all the different denominations.
>>Perhaps we should all let go and let God.
>>--
>>Margaret
>>
>>
>
> I now have a theory that perhaps Satan is deliberately
>slowing down admissions to the priesthood in order to get
>women to try and force the hierachy of the Church to
>re think its position on the Ordination of women.
Oh dear Tarasius,
It would appear that you have very little
faith in the Power of God if you think that
He would allow Satan to to even do such a thing,
unless of course God intended him to do so in order
to bring about God's own designs.
>If it
>comes down to allowing women priests or having no
>priests at all what would the faithless choose, and
>more important what would Satan have the the choice
>be?
I am sure the Faithless would choose no priests
at all, if one is faithless one has no need of
priests, me thinks.
>Some of us have a tendancy to decide that we
>can know more than the Church's Majesterium.
Too true for you. However I never said I was
interpreting anything I merely put forward a theory.
There is no need for anyone to oppose the Magesterium
on this issue because God will, I am sure, sort it all
out for Himself. ( Thought ) Do I recall that Christ
during His time on earth spoke out and stood firm against
the Jewish Church at the time over some issues He felt
strongly about
>Rebellion
>through history interpreted Gods word to suit itself hence
>all the different denominations with invalid ordinations of
>women.
Christ was considered a Rebel at the time by the Jewish
Hirearchy, hence they Crucified Him. It seems to me the
world is full of people who want to crucify others for what
they believe in.
Do not worry, I'm not, my trust in God is implicit and explicit.
" Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church
and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it"
So if God wants women to be ordained he will make it happen
despite all opposition, Magesterium included, and if He doesn't
then it won't happen and I shall be satisfied either way because
His will is all that matters.
>
>Tarasius
>
God Bless,
--
Margaret
GMDowns
In article <4qgkgt$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, tara...@aol.com (Tarasius)
writes:
> Rebellion
>through history interpreted Gods word to suit itself hence
>all the different denominations with invalid ordinations of
>women.
Why do you choose to limit the Holy Spirit? Is any human the arbiter of
when or to whom the Spirit calls? I find that second guessing God is not
the best way to use my time.
I am female, do NOT hear a personal call to ordination, but am convinced
that the Spirit calls where the Spirit will, regardless of what some
people do to limit the action of the Spirit.
TimothyCTX
In article <4qik7h$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, gmd...@aol.com (GMDowns)
writes:
>
>I am female, do NOT hear a personal call to ordination, but am convinced
>that the Spirit calls where the Spirit will, regardless of what some
>people do to limit the action of the Spirit.
What about discernment?
How are we to know what IS the calling of the Holy Spirit - and what IS
NOT?
Tarasius
In article <b0WwFCAD3$yxE...@trocaire.demon.co.uk>, Margaret Jackman
<Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> writes:
He isn't allowing Satan to do it. See Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
>
>>If it
>>comes down to allowing women priests or having no
>>priests at all what would the faithless choose, and
>>more important what would Satan have the the choice
>>be?
>
>I am sure the Faithless would choose no priests
>at all, if one is faithless one has no need of
>priests, me thinks.
And a woman priest is that no priest that they choose.
>>Some of us have a tendancy to decide that we
>>can know more than the Church's Majesterium.
>
>Too true for you. However I never said I was
>interpreting anything I merely put forward a theory.
Not true for me. I was shooting down your theory.
>There is no need for anyone to oppose the Magesterium
>on this issue because God will, I am sure, sort it all
>out for Himself. ( Thought ) Do I recall that Christ
>during His time on earth spoke out and stood firm against
>the Jewish Church at the time over some issues He felt
>strongly about
>
>>Rebellion
>>through history interpreted Gods word to suit itself hence
>>all the different denominations with invalid ordinations of
>>women.
>
>Christ was considered a Rebel at the time by the Jewish
>Hirearchy, hence they Crucified Him. It seems to me the
>world is full of people who want to crucify others for what
>they believe in.
I always like this tactic. Jesus was a Rebel. My buddies
south of the Mason-Dixon line will like to hear this. I can
see the painting now - Jesus in a Confederate uniform with
musket, halo and the "stars and bars" flying in the
background. "His Truth Goes Marching On!"
This smells like liberation theology that was condemned by
CDF documents of Sept 3, 1984 and Apr 5, 1986.
Excuse me? I though Satan was the rebel.
This is an important point for you to figure out.
>
>Do not worry, I'm not, my trust in God is implicit and explicit.
>
>" Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church
>and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it"
>
Do you realize that this is the institution of the Papal Office?
>So if God wants women to be ordained he will make it happen
>despite all opposition, Magesterium included, and if He doesn't
>then it won't happen and I shall be satisfied either way because
>His will is all that matters.
The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and with the bishops in union
with him is the teaching authority of the Church. God would
oppose Himself? A house divided will not stand!
If you don't think the Pope is Catholic - then stop pretending
to be a Catholic yourself by dividing the house.
-------------------from Ordinatio Sacerdotalis----------------
4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men
alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the
Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents,
at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open
to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to
ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of
great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine
constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren
(cf. <Lk> 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to
confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be
definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
If you don't hold this judgement, you have fallen out from the Church's
faithful. Please seriously re-evaluate your stance and
come back home to Holy Mother Church.
Tarasius
"Flee! Save Yourselves! Be like a wild ass in the desert!"
-Jeremiah 48:6 RSV-CE
Maryann Ruege
In <pr4inBAy...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> Margaret Jackman
<Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>In article <4pscnd$q...@inet-nntp-gw-1.us.oracle.com>,
>jop...@m5.enet.dec.com writes<Margaret@t
>>rocaire.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> The Church holds fast to her premises because those were the
>> premises under which Jesus formed her. Opponents of the
Church's
>> position argue that Jesus was forced to pick only men because
the
>> society at that time would not have accepted such a radical
concept
>> as female leadership. I ask in return, "If He really wanted
women
>> clergy, why didn't Jesus come in 1996?" The song 'Jesus
Christ,
>> Superstar' asks the same question:
>>
In my opinion, it didn't matter back then what society was like. That
is a cop-out excuse. Jesus could have chosen women back then if His
intention was that women become priests. If that would have been
considered a radical idea, an unpopular idea, back at that time, what
would Christ have had to lose by doing it? Would He have been
threatened with the death penalty for choosing women for a role that
was not part of customs back then?
If it was his intention to have women priests, Christ would have chosen
women back then.
Nancy
On Jun 23, 1996 19:46:59 in article <Re: Women Ordination in Old Catholic
Church>, 'tara...@aol.com (Tarasius)' wrote:
>
>>>If it
>>>comes down to allowing women priests or having no
>>>priests at all what would the faithless choose, and
>>>more important what would Satan have the the choice
>>>be?
My .02 worth:
If it comes down to allowing women priests or having no priests, I think
the church will allow married, male priests.
Am I right?
nancy
Tarasius
>
>In article <4qgkgt$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, tara...@aol.com
(Tarasius)
>writes:
>
>> Rebellion
>>through history interpreted Gods word to suit itself hence
>>all the different denominations with invalid ordinations of
>>women.
>
>Why do you choose to limit the Holy Spirit?
Not me! I didn't design the universe!
I have no suggestions for improvements in God's designs -
-how dare I?- and that goes for His greatest creation,
sex, and the respective roles given them.
God defines them - not some boogey man called
"patriarchy" or "cultural bias". Those concepts come
from people who do think they can improve God's
creation.
The other cultures around the Israelites of the time
had priestesses. It was very common, but not for the
People of God who were called out.
>I find that second guessing God is not the best way to
>use my time.
That's what I'm saying.
>
>I am female, do NOT hear a personal call to ordination,
Deo gratias.!
but am convinced
>that the Spirit calls where the Spirit will, regardless of what some
>people do to limit the action of the Spirit.
>
Agreed. However.....
The Israelites saw God's miracles, but Moses learned His
ways.
Tarasius
"Flee! Save yourselves! Be like a wild ass in the desert!"
TimothyCTX
In article <4qnoin$3...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
n1...@usa.pipeline.com(Nancy) writes:
>
>If it comes down to allowing women priests or having no priests, I think
>the church will allow married, male priests.
Possibly - since the discipline of celibacy is practiced only in the Latin
church. The Eastern rites of the Catholic church have always allowed the
ordination of married men.
Even in the Latin church, there are a few married priests who have been
dispensed from vows of celibacy by the Vatican. Most of them are clergymen
from Anglican, Episcopal and Lutheran churches who have sought full
communion with Rome.
Thomas Paul
>Correct. And they only ordain celibates to the Episcopacy. I think deacons
>in the Latin church are forbidden to marry again if they become widowers.
That is correct. They have a deferred vow of celibacy if they are
married when they become deacons.
Tarasius
Here's a recap -
In article <4qkl1j$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, tara...@aol.com (Tarasius)
writes:
>Subject: Re: Women Ordination in Old Catholic Church
>From: tara...@aol.com (Tarasius)
>Date: 23 Jun 1996 19:46:59 -0400
>
>In article <b0WwFCAD3$yxE...@trocaire.demon.co.uk>, Margaret Jackman
><Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>In article <4qgkgt$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Tarasius
>><tara...@aol.com> writes
>>>In article <eqCb0DAU...@trocaire.demon.co.uk>, Margaret Jackman
>>><Marg...@trocaire.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> I now have a theory that perhaps God is deliberately
>>>>slowing down admissions to the priesthood in order to force
>>>>the hierachy of the Church to re think its position on the
>>>>Ordination of women.If it comes down to allowing women
>>>>priests or having no priests at all what would the faithful
>>>>choose, and more important what would God choose. Perhaps
>>>>he has choosen already, but as usual no one is really listening.
>>>>We humans have a tendancy to decide that we always know
>>>>best and we have through history interpreted Gods word to suit
>>>>ourselves hence all the different denominations.
>>>>Perhaps we should all let go and let God.
>>>>--
>>>>Margaret
>>>>
>>>>
Then I (Tarasius) came back reversing key logical
components and operands trying to maintain
validity. Kind of like if - A= - B; then A=B.
>>>
>>> I now have a theory that perhaps Satan is deliberately
>>>slowing down admissions to the priesthood in order to get
>>>women to try and force the hierachy of the Church to
>>>re think its position on the Ordination of women.
Then Margaret replied:
>>Oh dear Tarasius,
>>
>>It would appear that you have very little
>>faith in the Power of God if you think that
>>He would allow Satan to to even do such a thing,
>>unless of course God intended him to do so in order
>>to bring about God's own designs.
Then my reply:
>
>He isn't allowing Satan to do it. See Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
>
This next section is a continuation (by Tarasius) of the
"Boolean" attempt:
>>>If it
>>>comes down to allowing women priests or having no
>>>priests at all what would the faithless choose, and
>>>more important what would Satan have the the choice
>>>be?
Notice I negated "faithful" with "faithless". Perhaps I should
of said "of less faith"? Then Margaret came back with:
>>
>>I am sure the Faithless would choose no priests
>>at all, if one is faithless one has no need of
>>priests, me thinks.
And Tarasius replied to that statement in agreement,
continuing the Boolean gymnastics:
>And a woman priest is that no priest that they choose.
>
Which affirms Ordinatio Sacerdotalis' teaching that
a priest is not a woman -contrary to the activities of the
women's ordination movement's desires.
Welcome to the newsgroup, Nancy. It took me a
while to figure out all the >>>>>>s too.
Don't sweat it. Misunderstanding is easy to do.
Tarasius