Female RC Priests

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by DHK, Jul 26, 2005.

  1. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Nine women challenge Roman Catholic Church ban on female priests
    at 21:10 on July 25, 2005, EST.

    Read more at:
    Natonal News
    DHK
     
  2. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    People who believe that female priestly ordination is possible in the Cathollic Church simply do not understand that the Church's hand are tied on matters of faith. The Church can deepen/expand its knowledge of truth but once something is taught as a matter of faith it can't be untaught.

    Protestant pastors have the authority to contradict previously held matters of faith, a Pope has no such authority. A pastor could just start teaching that having female pastors was ok when he previously taught against it. The Pope hand are tied on this matter by Sacred Tradition, Scripture and the previous teaching of the Magesterium. This is why the Catholic faith has remained consistent over 2,000 years and this is why female priestly ordination is impossible.

    JPII on this issue....


    "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 (see Luke 22:32), I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer, priestly ordination on women and this judgment is to be definatively held by all the Church's faithful."
     
  3. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    I agree with the Catholic Church to stand firm against the ordination of women for Scriptural reasons.
    However I disagree with the celibacy of priests as Peter himself was married. The Bible speaks specifically of his mother-in-law.

    Your commparison with the Protestants' faith changing while the "Catholic faith has remained consisstent over 2,000 years is bogus and ludicrous. The fact is that Catholic doctrine is in a continual change or flux. While the Baptists have held to the same doctrine since the time of Christ. Their doctrine is the Bible. The Bible is only rule of faith and order. That is why we believe the same as the early believers did.

    The assumption of Mary wasn't even declared a doctrine of the church until 1950. It took the Catholic church almost 2,000 years to decide that this heresy should become a part of their doctrine. And now there is a movement within the Catholic Church to try and make Mary a part of the trinity (however that would work??). Catholic Church doctrine changes more often than the colors of a chameleon.
    DHK
     
  4. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great

    DHK you seem to consitently show your ignorance of even basic Catholic teaching, yet act as if you are an expert. Did you attend Catholic school but never learn anything.

    There are 22 rites within the Catholic church 21 of those rites allow their Catholic priest to marry the Latin right generally does not but has allowed exceptions (i.e. anglican priests who have come home) Celibacy was recommeneded by Paul as the best for those who could accept it, it is a gift of the Spirit. Having priests who follow this is a matter of discipline not a matter of faith. Our faith does not demand all priests be celibate but look on it as the best as did paul but each rite within the Church may administer matters of discipline as they see fit some require celibacy some do not.

    You confuse consitent with no change. Please show me all the places where one truth was taught by the Church as a matter of faith that were later reversed.

    Scripture promises that God will send the Holy Spirit to guide us to all truth, not that there is no more understanding to be achieved. Scripture fortells a deeper understanding of our faith thus we would not expect it to be stagnant.

    This is really a cop out biblical interpretations are change from generation to generation thus ensuring an inconsistent faith

    Contraception is a good example because all Christians denominations interpreted the bIble against contraception and taught agianst contraception until the 1930's. When the Anglicans started teaching that contraception may be ok under special circumstances, the reaction of the Christian world was of disgust and absolute scandal, similar to how the world feels todfay about the Episcopalians (Anglicans) taking the lead in teaching that ordianing practicing homosexuals is a holy act. Now Just two generations later protestants can't phathom that all christianity biblically taught against contraception for 1900 years and see nothing wrong with it. Adjusting previously held biblical reasons against contraception for non-sensical reasons to support it. I see the same result happening with homosexuality within 2 generations virtually all protestant churches will accept homosexuality.

    The rapture, acceptance of divorce and remarriage would be others, as well as the acceptance of female pastors among many "bible believing" christians would be other examples.
    Again see my comment regarding a deeper understanding. Orthodox Christians who broke away from the Church in 1054 ad believe basically the same thing with some minor twists

    Mary is a creature, created by and blessed by God. Understanding her not as a creature would throw all Catholic teaching on Mary on its head. There are 1.1 billion Catholics if you found a few nut jobs who have such little understanding of the basic teachings on Mary to promote this, so what I know a few nutty Baptists as well.


    References please
     
  5. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    ASSUMPTION OF MARY

    And new doctrine changes and has been added throughout the centuries. This is but one example.
    DHK
     
  6. Chemnitz

    Chemnitz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh now guys we all know that neither the Baptists or the Roman Catholics have held to the historic apostolic doctrine, only the conservative Lutheran Churches have held to the historic doctrine. [​IMG]
     
  7. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    DHK

    I will try to do this again.

    You follow that unbibilical man-made tradition of sola scriptura. This is simply not taught in the bible, infact its counter point regarding tradition and church teaching are directly taught in the scripture but protestants reject the bible verses that teach this, most by artificially adding exparation date to certain biblical texts when scripture does not give experation dates.

    Thus most support their belief in sola scriptura with extra biblical reasons that are simply not in the text, it is tough to argue that type of circular rerasoning. Yet they also accept some Sacred Tradition (i.e. the cannon of the NT, or does scripture provide a table of contents I am not aware of.)

    Rghtly Catholics do not hold to sola scriptura they follow the Biblical teaching regarding the passing on of faith.

    All of what the Church teaches is harmonious with scripture, tradition and what the church has on taught on matters of faith previously. You simply do not see that harmonious procession of faith among protestant faiths. From generation to generation their faith can be radically different not harmonious at all with what they previously taught. I know what my Catholic great,great....granparents were taught will be harmonious with what my Catholic great, great....grandchildren will be taught, (certainly certain matters of faith me be calrified or expounded upon, i.e. the additions you claim but nothing will contradict previous teaching) that kind of harmony simply does not exist on your side of the aisle.


    So if you can find where the Church's teachings have not been harmonious with what it previously taught on matters of faith over the last 2,000 years please show me. I have already given you several example showing how your faith changes its beliefs from generation to generation.

    [ July 27, 2005, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Born Again Catholic ]
     
  8. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    purgatory,
    lent,
    indulgences,
    the assumption of Mary,
    the perpetual virginity of Mary,
    the immaculate conception,
    confession to a priest,
    celibacy,
    the very office of a pope,
    transubstantiation,
    infant baptism,
    baptismal regeneration,
    penance,
    praying to the dead,
    canonization of "saints"
    kissing the pope's ring,
    etc., etc.,

    All of these "damnable heresies" as the Bible calls them (2Pet.2:1), are man-made inventions of the Catholic Church at different periods in the history of the Catholic Church. Not one of them is supportable by Scripture. Every last one of them is totally unscriptural. It shows how the Bible remains unchanged, but the RCC changes constantly. It also shows how those who believe in SS have the same doctrines today as they did in the days of the early believers, and yes it is a Biblical doctrine in spite of your assertion that it isn't. The only reason you say it isn't is because it is one of the most hated doctrines of the RCC. It devastates their doctrines.
    DHK
     
  9. Chemnitz

    Chemnitz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never realized, "lent" was a heresy.
    Sola Scriptura does not devestate all of the above doctrines, i.e. Baptism,Confession/Absolution, particularly when one realizes that God is working through something as mundane as simple words and water. I have read many times the passages that tell us that Baptism gives new life, saves us, and cleanses us. If you are going to condemn something as heresy you are really going to have to prove it and I haven't seen it done.
     
  10. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Indeed. Arguably the "damnable heresies" of baptismal regeneration (and hence infant baptism) (Jn 3:5; I Peter 3:21), transubstantiation (Jn 6:48-58), and confession (James 5:16 read in conjunction with Jn 20:23) can be held by someone adopting a SS position; it just depends on one's interpretation of such Scriptures. Even prayers to and for the dead can be, if one accepts the DCs as being part of the Canon. Most if not all of the other doctrine you list flow very easily from that.

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  11. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    I support the RCC for standing firm in its position of scriptural and apostolic revelation to limit the clergy to men.

    I also support these women who passionately wish to serve God by shepherding His people in the face of an institution that doesn't acknowledge their calling.

    I hope that these women will be able to find less rebellious ways to express the calling they so strongly feel God pulling them towards. And I hope the Roman Catholic Church will have discernment to continually re-evaluate their understanding of God's written and un-written revelation and stand firm on it.

    Contradictions are not always as contradictory as they first appear.
     
  12. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    DHK

    All you did is provide a list of things you don't agree with not a list showing where the Church has contridicted a previously held teaching on faith or morals in the last 2000 years. Yet just using the last 70 years I have provided I have provided you examples of the massive flip flops in "sola scriptura" christianity.

    Sola scriptura is an unbiblical fraud which allows men to justify whatever they believe, then as the record clearly demonstrates suceeding generations change previously held biblical interpretations to justify their new moral and faith norms.

    The the Bible clearly indicates that scripture, the Church, and Sacred Tradition have authority and this Biblical model is exactly what the Catholic Church has followed for 2000 years without contradiction.
     
  13. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    BAC,
    There are many threads on SS, most of which have demonstrated that Sola Scriptura is a Biblical doctrine beyond any shadow of a doubt. All you can do is deny it.

    But to go through it again:
    Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
    --What did the Bereans do? Using the principle of SS, they searched the Scriptures to verify the message that Paul was preaching.

    Acts 8:34-35 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
    35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
    Philip, using only the Sciptures (SS), preached Jesus to the Ethiopian Eunuch.

    Acts 2:14-16 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
    15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
    16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
    --Read Peter's sermon on the Day of Pentecost. What he says is based solely on the Scripture (SS). He quotes from the Psalms and the Prophets. He shows from the Old Testament that what is happening on that day is prophesied fulfilled. His message is verified from the Old Testament. It is Sola Scriptura.

    The Apostles commanded all believers to use sola scriptura to study the Bible, and not anything else but sola scriptura:

    2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
    2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
    --Be mindful of the words of the prophets.
    --Be mindful of the commandments of the Apostles and of the Lord.
    There were three sources of inspired Scripture that Peter says were authoritative: the prophets (O.T., the Lord--Gospels, the Apostles--rest of NT). Peter says to mindful of the words of the Lord and the Apostles (the N.T. Scriptures), for they are just as important as the O.T. Scriptures which the Jews regarded so highly.
    Either way, the Scriptures, both Old and New were to be the believer's guide book, his authority, his sole rule of faith and order. Thus sola scriptura. The hatred of the RCC against this doctrine used by the believers in the New Testament and early believers is obvious. Using sola scriptura we devastate the unscriptural doctrines of the RCC. The doctrines of the RCC cannot be found in Scripture. Thus SS is so hated by the RCC. When the challenge of: demonstrate it through Scripture comes to the Catholic Church, they can't. They have to rely on "Tradition." Thus SS is hated. The evangelical demands that God's Word be the only authority, not Tradition or any other authority. God alone is our authority, and he has set down his words in a Book that we call the Bible.
    DHK
     
  14. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    You provided several quotes proving that scripture is useful for teaching the Christian faith, no christian disputes this, but you provided no scriptures which say you are to use the Bible alone.

    NOT ONE. BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SCRIPTURES WHICH TEACH SOLA SCRIPTURA. NOT ONE

    SS is a total farce

    So what does the Bible really teach,

    "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)

    The Bible does not give an expiration date for this scripture if you believe in one you most have gotten it from and extra-biblical source.

    Here are some other scriptures you may find interesting

    "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

    "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

    "You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2).

    "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

    "‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (2 John 12).
     
  15. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Thank you for proving my case. Everyone of the above quoted verses support SS. They don't work against, but for it. Your understanding of them is greatly misconstrued. Let's go through them, for your sake.
    Then what did you read when you read my post, or did you even read it. Every thing I posted demonstrated that SS is a Biblical doctrine, and totally refutes a teaching authority such as the Magesterium or Tradition. There is nothing in the Scripture that is taught to rely on but the Scripture itself. Let me reiterate this again:

    Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
    --This is the premise of SS. If what you say is not according to the Word of God, then it is the very proof that that you do not have the light of God in you but remain in spiritual darkness.

    Now for the Scripture that you provided:
    1. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
    --First let us define "tradition according to RCC theology. I read this definition in a Catholic Encyclopedia:
    "The unwritten precepts and doctrines, or any one of them, held to have been received from Jesus and his apostles and handed down orally since then from generation throughout the centuries."

    Now in the light of this accepted definition by the RCC, I ask you: What tradition?? Christ died 29 A.D. The epistle to the Thessalonians was written in 53 A.D., one of his earlier epistles. Now I ask you: How much "tradition" was able to be gathered in the 24 intervening years between the death of Christ and the writing of this letter. I'll answer it for you. None! Your very definition defines tradition as those precepts which are passed on from generation to generation throughout the centuries. How many centuries had passed? How many generations had passed? Your definition of traditin contradits the definition of this verse. Your definition of tradition does not fit the context of this verse. What does it mean then?
    "Tradition" as defined by Paul, simply means the truth of the Word of God, as taught by Paul, whether orally or written. Paul taught the Word of God. That is all that he taught them--SS. He expounded to him the Scriptures, even as Ezra the Scribe did in the Old Testament. The tradition is the truth that he taught, and nothing more. It is truth, not tradition passed on from generation to generation to generation. That obviously doesn't fit the context.

    2. "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
    --The meaning: "Maintain the 'truth of the Word of God' even as I have delivered them to you." What did Paul deliver unto them--the Word of God. What did he teach them? The Word of God. These were the so-called traditions, and that which he taught them. There were no other traditions that expired in simply 24 years.

    3. 1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
    --Of course your translation is not the best one here. The word "ordinance" as used in the KJV is more of a command. In the first part of the 11th chapter he is referring to the command of wearing headcoverings, and in the second part of the 11th chapter he refers to commands relating to the Lord's Supper. Ordinances are commands; laws to keep.

    4. "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim. 1:13-14).
    --Follow the pattern of sound words is obviously follow the Word of God, and nothing else. It is SS, and nothing else. Guard the truth. Guard the Word of God. Again more SS.

    5. "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21).
    --The interpretaion of Scripture comes from God, not from men. No organization has a monopoly on the Word of God, including the Catholci Church. That is the meaning of this verse. This passage the RCC continues to flaunt and carelessly disobey. It advocates SS. It puts personal responsibility upon every person to study the Scripture on their own--that is SS, and come to their own conclusions. Why? Because no organization can have a monopoly on Scripture--that is no Scripture if of private interpretation. Every believer is illumined of God, as they are led by the Spirit of God, not the Magesterium. What you espouse here is just pure heresy.

    6. "‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (2 John 12)
    --This was a desire by the Apostle John. But he did use paper and ink that did become the Word of God. Whether his desire was ever fulfilled we don't know, and it is not important to us. What is important to us, is what he wrote, what became Scripture--what became the infallible Word of God. It is that Scripture from which we take our doctrine, SS, a doctrine that rings true througout every book of the Bible. It cannot be avoided.
    DHK
     
  16. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
  17. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are still unable to provide even one passage states that you are to follow the Bible alone. NOT ONE

    Now your own explanation devastates your case

    Here you admit the truth of Word of God can be transmitted either orally or written, yet this is exactly what SS denies, its basic premise is that you must rely on the written truth alone, your post points out the from the beginning of Christianity Sola Scriptura was not the norm, that truth came from the oral and the written, and that clearly Sola Scriptura which demanded just the written was a man-made invention brought in later.

    Imaginethe two two of us were transported back in time to when apul was alive and we were debating what paul's teachings were on a subject, and one day you come up with a interpretation of pauls written worfd which is noy consistent with what paul taught then you say somethong ridiculous like BAC you must prove your point from pauls's written letters alone (sola scriptura) and I point out that paul letters say to follow paul's oral as well as written teachings(biblical christianity/Cathollic Church). Sola Scriptura would have been ridiculous from the beginning that is probably why it took man so long to invent it.

    Tradition gives you the proper context to interpret scripture again that is why you see 2,000 years of consistent teaching from the Catholic Church not the generation flip flop of "sola scriptura" christianity whose faith and morals change so rapidly.

    [ July 29, 2005, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Born Again Catholic ]
     
  18. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    You still don't understand the sense in which the word "tradition" is used here, do you? It is used in the sense of truth. Paul was explaining to him the truth of the Word of God, which in turm did become the Word of God in written form. Paul, himself, used SS with Timothy. This was ont age-old tradition that was being passed down. There was none, and it is ludicrous to think there was. What tradition could be gathered in a period of just 24 years? Your not making sense. Look at all the examples I have given you. The appeal was to Scripture every single time. There was no appeal to any other authority but Scripture. Scripture remained supreme in every case. SS was the only way of interpreting the Word of God. There was no tradition to follow. The Catholic Church invented tradtion for their heretical doctrines which cannot be substantiated through Scripture.
    DHK
     
  19. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    DHK

    The Bible says to "maintain traditions" as well as to "hold traditions" but you say their were no traditions to maintain or hold. What extra biblical source do you get that their were no traditions when the Bible say there is.

    I will give you another easy one,

    In what year do you believe the doctrine of sola scriptura first became binding on christians and provide Biblical support
     
  20. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
    --The Jews had to appeal to the Scriptures at all times for their authority. The only time they did not was in the intertestamental period with the rise of the Pharisees and Saducees who then began to refer to the Talmud, which Jesus condemned in Matthew 23, and in other passages.

    Ezra, a ready scribe in the hand of God, preached from the Word of God, and expounded it to the people so that they could understand it. The Word of God was the basis of his teaching. It was his only authority. He had no other authority but God's Word. It was that Word that he caused the people to understand.

    The mark of a prophet (whether he was true or false), was whether he spoke accroding to the Word of God. If he spoke contrary to the Word of God, he was a false prophet. The authority in all cases was the Word of God. All of the above are examples of SS, and it carried on right into the New Testament.

    After Jesus rose from the dead what did he do on the road to Emmaus? He went through all the Scriptures explaining to them all things concerning himself. He opened their eyes using the Sciptures only--SS. This is the method that Christ used.

    Every where in Scripture SS is used; there is no other method that was used.
    DHK
     

Share This Page

Loading...