I went to a Parish event last night that featured a female Anglican "Priest". This was a Catholic event, one which I was motivated to go to because of the speaker and the topic involved. Something to do with women lay leadership.
I expected some sort of coherent argument as to the legality of women "priests". Something striving to be at least slightly intellectual that people could nod at and agree to. But no, all we got was a hope that our "hierarchy" would "recognise" that women were the "equal" of men. That, and the most incredible fashion show of embroidered priest gear that was handed around for the audience to touch. I got the impression that the whole "priest" thing was a real chance to dress up and have fun "connecting with people" and getting them to "tell their story".
Now, I have no beef with the lady "priest". She's from a denomination that went off the rails centuries ago when their King wanted a divorce and couldn't get one, so became his own pope instead. But who in their right mind invited her to speak to us. And why???
For there is no way Catholics are going to ordain women "priests". It's just not possible. We have a definitive statement from the last Pope as to the absolute impossibility of this. So it really makes no sense to be even entertaining the idea.
Oh well, certainly makes for an interesting time!
Related Link:
I expected some sort of coherent argument as to the legality of women "priests". Something striving to be at least slightly intellectual that people could nod at and agree to. But no, all we got was a hope that our "hierarchy" would "recognise" that women were the "equal" of men. That, and the most incredible fashion show of embroidered priest gear that was handed around for the audience to touch. I got the impression that the whole "priest" thing was a real chance to dress up and have fun "connecting with people" and getting them to "tell their story".
Now, I have no beef with the lady "priest". She's from a denomination that went off the rails centuries ago when their King wanted a divorce and couldn't get one, so became his own pope instead. But who in their right mind invited her to speak to us. And why???
For there is no way Catholics are going to ordain women "priests". It's just not possible. We have a definitive statement from the last Pope as to the absolute impossibility of this. So it really makes no sense to be even entertaining the idea.
Oh well, certainly makes for an interesting time!
Related Link:
Maybe it was an Anglican recruitment drive?
ReplyDeleteI've noticed quite a few Catholics that want to convert the Church to protestantism rather than work just on themselves.
I put it down to confusing collegial chumminess with ecclesial unity.
ReplyDeleteGiven that NZ is so small there is a relatively small pool of "religious professionals" to rub shoulders with and thus it seems rude to shun your common room pals because of edicts issued half a world away.
On the other hand, that professional isolation didn't seem to affect Pompallier.
These are not serious people...
ReplyDeletePerhaps the most effective way to destroy a great institution is to popularise and trivialise its core values.
She was invited because the Bishop of your diocese has made it known to his illuminati that he knows better than Rome. Hence, those in the diocese who organise such events think its OK.
ReplyDeleteArchibishop Dew really needs prayer for a Damescene conversion.
I have never figured why suddenly after 2000 years the "entitlement" to be ordained to the Priesthood has suddenly been discovered.
ReplyDeleteEach of us as members of the Church are called upon to serve in our own unique ways.
What I think is the devil is always trying to find wedge issues to divide the Church and this is one of them. What is beyond dispute is the 'liberal' churches that have gone down this path are in decline and those that haven't are maintaining their adherents or even increasing.
And if anyone thinks that that women are dishonored in some way because they a ineligible for the priesthood, as are most of us perhaps that should consider that the most honored of all the Saints
is the Theotokos, the Virgin Mary.
A agree with every word here.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s the world coming to with this heathen talk of women Priests in the Catholic Church?!
This is another outrage, and is what happens once you allow woman speak in churches.
We should be guided by The Lords words in 1 Corinthians chapter 14: “ As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church”.
The rot has set-in & women should all be at home where the holy scriptures say they belong!
Your humble servant.
Paul.
Paul, those words are selective, and in light of other passages in the bible, are seen to restrict women from public teaching of the word, not private teaching.
ReplyDeleteThere are many examples in the Bible where women are held to be equal to men, so you needn't fear that all Catholics want to see women house bound.
I hope your time spent here doesn't take you away from the blog that is fighting for the right for men to join ladies gyms before the rot sets in - I sense you could achieve much as a Canterbury Atheist in that specialist field.
O.K then point taken Z.T,
ReplyDeleteI’ll need to be much, much more ‘selective’ in future when venturing here.
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord”
“For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man”
“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”
“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression”
“For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband”
“To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed”
“Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives”
“For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands”
“Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered”
“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”
Do you want me to continue with my ‘selective’ Biblical quotes, or do you get the general gist of what The Scriptures have to say about the place of woman (or should I say ‘weaker vessels’?)
Am I not interpreting the likes of “To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed” correctly?
There’s about another 50-100 other sexist passages, but, I’m sure your local Priest (robed or unrobed) can run you through them & explain why woman are unworthy of ordination, saving me the trouble.
That’s to say connect the dots, from The Bible to ‘The Holy Ordering’ which sees woman placed as second class citizens in the ‘divine institutions’ hierarchy.
By the way I couldn’t find any references in its pages concerning gyms (unisex or otherwise)but I'm an ungodly Atheist who believes in equality - so what do I know?
Gotta shoot out.
Cheers.
Paul.
Paul, what's your point? The bible has some sexist passages, but the Catholic Church has moved beyond that in its teachings.
ReplyDeleteOther than the ordination of women priests, which you choose to make a purely sexist issue and ignore or remain ignorant of the other factors.
And in this context, you imply to talk about a difference between men and women can only ever been taken in a negative context.
My point about women gyms was obviously not from the bible. It was society's acceptance that women are allowed to have gym membership that exclude men, have separate change rooms at swimming pools and even get their own government department. Does that make it all sexist and unequal?
Hmmm, let me get this right here in my mind ZT (twisted as it may be).....
ReplyDelete-You agree The Bible IS sexist in parts, and it's O.K to be selective in the passages one chooses to believe-in & not believe - now it's 2008 and not 1508?
- The Catholic Church does not follow these passages, it too is selective. Besides it's not fair to mention unpalatable parts of The Bible like this any way?
- The 'Holy Ordering' from Pope down is not sexist &
in no way discriminates on gender?
-Society also now accepts same sex marriages and single sex gyms, so that's O.K?
One hell of a confused Atheist seeking devine clarity.
Thx.
Paul.
Paul, rather than discuss the various reasons in depth, perhaps it would be simpler to agree that yes, to your way of thinking, the Catholic Church only allows male priests and is therefore sexist in terms of this specific role/vocation.
ReplyDeleteOn that basis it is as sexist as some gyms only accepting female members, and each has its reasons.
I note that many find the Maori seats racist, and they are. However, saying there is no good reason for them is to fail to understand the history of this country and the importance we place on positively representing Maori interests. I can appreciate why many people want to abolish these Maori seats, personally I can live with them during these times.
Perhaps you might find some parallels with the above examples that might help temper your criticism?
Another very important point is that the Catholic Church teachings on the equality of women in relationships and many other aspects of life are cherished, and the membership of the Catholic Church is certainly equal opportunity for all sexes, races and creeds.
I guess women who wish to become celibate, chaste non-married priests in the Catholic faith certainly are limited in that particular career path. It seems that the women who want to become Catholic priests, and don't accept the doctrinal authority have up to 33,000 other denominations to choose from, so the news isn't all bad.
Same sex marriage is another topic, and I'm sure the posts will eventually come up for you to have your say.
With regard to the "selective nature" of reading the bible, I can perhaps address that further.
Some Christian denominations take the entire Bible literally in every way, but Catholicism is not one of those.
Some Christians also base their interpretation sola scriptura, by scripture alone.
Catholics do not rely sola scriptura, and have the benefit of guidance from the successors of St. Peter.
It is a key difference between Catholicism and the protestant groups.
The Popes have the divine power to provide clarity to the bible. And they have provided much clarity; there are many wonderful documents concerning women by the late Pope John Paul II for you to read that would possibly change your understanding and discover the Church may not be as "sexist" as your one example would imply.
Suffice to say, it is not a matter of being selective, as you put it, it is a matter of weighing up various sections of the bible and being able to provide the full context of the underlying message.
You selectively seek the negative, but then selectively ignore the positive. Tell me how your interpretation is superior?
The best question you could have is "how do we reconcile the mixture of positive and negative statements about women when looking at individual passages in the Bible?" And the answer is through the ongoing divine inspiration of the Pope and looking at the underlying messages in full, not a handful of words alone.
PS: I think you can drop the false self-mockery. I haven't suggested you are twisted in any way, no need for you to assume so.