Priest Stripped of Duties for Celebrating Mass with Woman Priest

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
Their house, their rules. Don't like, fine, don't go.

There ya' go. Exactly. If someone doesn't like the fact that the Catholic Church doesn't allow women priests .. and won't ever allow women priests ... then they can LEAVE and go to the Episcopal church down the road.

The Catholic Church has two kinds of laws .. those that are considered demanded by Christ and those that are based on suggestions by scripture.

- Catholic Priests Not Being Married ... this is one of the laws that can change because it's considered based on suggestions in scripture. Matthew 19:10-12 and again later St. Paul said that it's better to remain single when in the service of The Lord because then the person serving won't be distracted by having to deal with family issues.

- Catholic Priests Can Not Be Women ... this is one of the laws that is considered to be 'not able to change' because it's based on Christ ordaining only men at the last supper as his first priests. No women.


If people don't like those interpretations ... then don't be Catholic. It's just that simple.




posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
There is no such thing as a Roman Catholic woman priest, no matter what 'advocacy group' says that they ordained them. For a person to be a Roman Catholic priest, there must be apostolic succession and the approval of Rome. No woman has this .. no woman will ever have this. It goes against the laws of the church.
Ah yes, the good ol' Catholic Church. Once again charging full throttle into the Middle Ages.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
...like enforcing celibacy on priests, that didn't come from Jesus. So instead of a catholic priest having sex with their wife, they go and have sex with little boys instead. Be much better to allow them to marry. But like i said Rome has a habit of placing man made laws that Christ never commanded on a man's shoulders.


Catholic priests molest probably less but so far studies show they are no different than other males.

LINK

Numerous impartial studies point this out too. You hear about it through the media so often, for awhile there, but anyone who goes by the MSM is brain dead anyway and easily deceived...imo.

Also, remember Jesus never married or had relations either and he was in his 30s.

Most likely there are some positives for segments of society to remain celibate just to show that it can be and imo is more normal than just pulling your pants down at the first chance.

OP, women as priests may be good but there are many areas where it is male only or female only.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

- Catholic Priests Not Being Married ... this is one of the laws that can change because it's considered based on suggestions in scripture. Matthew 19:10-12 and again later St. Paul said that it's better to remain single when in the service of The Lord because then the person serving won't be distracted by having to deal with family issues.

- Catholic Priests Can Not Be Women ... this is one of the laws that is considered to be 'not able to change' because it's based on Christ ordaining only men at the last supper as his first priests. No women.


If people don't like those interpretations ... then don't be Catholic. It's just that simple.




Thanks for explaining this, as I'm sure many of us had no idea exactly from where this prejudicial policy originated. And thanks for at least admitting that it's an interpretation, and not Stated-Directly-By-God Truth. A bad interpretation, IMHO.

Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever in all of the early christian writings that there were ever female disciples, or that females played any kind of role in the religion, right?

What is that saying a lot of the wealthy conservatives use in their whining? "Rob Peter to pay Paul?" Is that how it goes?

Well, in this case you're robbing Mary to pay Peter.

But I'm sure Mary M was just some skanky harlot who jesus was nice enough not to backhand straight into hell, right? That old gem.
(At least it proves that disinformation is not a modern invention.)

Let us also not forget that the modern canon was chosen by a group of "Roman" Men but I'm sure there was no agenda other than making an awesome religion. No ulterior motive.

I find it funny that some people can be very highly intelligent in certain regards, and even very skeptical and critical, but when it comes to religion they believe whatever the official story is, just because they've been told that's how it is and they should.






Originally posted by Gregorian
reply to post by Julie Washington
 



In the not too distant past they would have been burned at the stake - together. What a pity that the Catholic Church has lost sight of "doing the right thing"
Hopefully the pendulum will 'swing' back to the right in the not too distant future.





Heart-warming to see such moral upstanding in one thread. I'll bet they give extra awesome rewards in Heaven for those who condemn, in act or word, their fellow man. Torch a few suspected witches for Sky Mansion 2.1 upgrade. Oh, sorry, wait.... I was actually thinking of "hell" and "satan." They're the ones that reward cruelty. Or at least, that's how I would imagine it if I believed in Satan / Hell the way some do.

As Eric D above me points out, I hope all of the moral cheerleaders and regulators aren't fornicating out there. I find it amusing how many christians I've seen who would condemn a homosexual to hell, and yet themselves fornicate like it's going out of style.

Maybe they're just trying to put the Hip into "Hypocrisy"



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Julie Washington
 


I don't have a problem with the Catholic Church's decision. It is their organization, their rules. Don't like 'em? Don't be a member. That is what religious freedom is. The woman in question could not have been ordained, so the article calling her ordained is being untruthfull.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
...So instead of a catholic priest having sex with their wife, they go and have sex with little boys instead. Be much better to allow them to marry.
I think that is a simplistic attitude. Nobody develops a predilection for little boys because they cannot marry a woman. If you like the idea of forbidden sex with a women, you're gonna sneak around with women. Correspondingly...well, you get my drift. I think it's more accurate to say that a certain number of paedophiles have found a haven within the Church.

As far as ordination of women is concerned, you wanna bet that 'God' would have a sudden change of mind if they all left the Catholic Church en masse. I don't know why any woman in modern society would willingly be a member of an institution that does not deem them equal to men.

And you can always toast Papal Infallibility with a ham sandwich on any given Friday...well, except Lent, eh?



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Better than being beheaded, I'll tell ya..



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcher
 





Also, remember Jesus never married or had relations either and he was in his 30s


Jesus didn't need to marry he was already betrothed, to the people called by his name, who become New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:9-13). He's the temple of New Jerusalem.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 





And you can always toast Papal Infallibility with a ham sandwich on any given Friday...well, except Lent, eh?


I don't celebrate the 40 days of weeping for Tammuz and the "Pope" is not infallible and he never will be. No man wearing a corrupted meat suit is infallible. Even Peter and Paul were not infallible and it's a mite bit blasphemous for a mere man to make that claim.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by Malcher
 





Also, remember Jesus never married or had relations either and he was in his 30s


Jesus didn't need to marry he was already betrothed, to the people called by his name, who become New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:9-13). He's the temple of New Jerusalem.


Who did Jesus have sex with? I always thought Jesus was celibate. Nothing wrong with celibacy as far as i am concerned and i would be more weary of oversexed people having no self control, this is a sign of mental illness though.

Still cant understand why you, a follower of Jesus, would make such a claim knowing Jesus was celibate at least in his human form here on Earth.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by Malcher
 





Also, remember Jesus never married or had relations either and he was in his 30s


Jesus didn't need to marry he was already betrothed, to the people called by his name, who become New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:9-13). He's the temple of New Jerusalem.


Who did Jesus have sex with? I always thought Jesus was celibate. Nothing wrong with celibacy as far as i am concerned and i would be more weary of oversexed people having no self control, this is a sign of mental illness though.

Still cant understand why you, a follower of Jesus, would make such a claim knowing Jesus was celibate at least in his human form here on Earth.


When did i ever say he had sex? I said he was betrothed.

be·trothed [ bi trṓd ] 1.person somebody will marry: the person to whom somebody is engaged to be married
Synonyms: engaged, affianced, spoken for, involved, promised, tied up.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Ya'll seriously don't know what the Catholic faith is about ...


INFALLIBILITY does not mean that they can't sin. It does not mean that they are mistake-free. It means that, when the pope speaks ex-cathedra (from the 'chair of peter') that he can't make a mistake in doctrine because Jesus said that 'the gates of hell will not prevail against his church' Matthew 16:18-19.

THAT is what they are speaking about when it comes to INFALLIBILITY.
Not personal sin ... it's ex-cathedra declarations.

You are free to disagree with that interpretation of scripture by the Catholic Church. (I certainly do) But you guys really ought to know what you are bashing before you say anything. Otherwise .. ya'll just look silly.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 

No where in scripture does it say Jesus was betrothed.And why would he bother? He knew he came to die. That would be a little bit selfish on his part .. to tell a woman he'd marry her when all the while he knows he came to fulfill Isaiahs 'suffering servant' prophecy.

And no .. for those whose minds tend in this direction ... just because Jesus didn't have sex with anyone doesn't mean he turned into a pedophile.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 

No where in scripture does it say Jesus was betrothed.And why would he bother? He knew he came to die.



Well, you're right that it doesn't explicitly mention his betrothal / marriage, however, a couple things for you to consider:



1- In Jesus' time and location (culture), when there was a wedding celebration, whose responsibility was it to provide the wine?

2- In Jesus' time and location (culture) who was allowed to teach at temple and be called "rabbi?"



The answers to these questions are :

1- The Groom's responsibility.

2- One of the main prerequisites was being a Married Man.


Regarding number one, I'm sure we all recall a certain story where there was not enough wine for a wedding celebration... and who was it that provided (most spectacularly) the wine for this celebration?

Regarding number two, Jesus is most definitely described as teaching in the temple, and being called "Rabbi." That would have been unheard of in his day unless he were a married man.

You may or may not be aware that some scholars do believe there is scriptural evidence of Christ having been a married man. I know that probably seems inexcusably blasphemous to Catholics, especially with all their woman-degrading (yet alleged promotion of family values) and yet the idea of Christ being married is heretical? Some scholars also believe there may have been a deliberate cover-up of this fact. Again, I remind you that the modern canon was chosen by a group of Roman Men. But I'm sure they had no ulterior motives to choose the books they did, and trash the rest... some to the point of actively hunting down and destroying copies of certain texts....



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by iwilliam

Well, you're right that it doesn't explicitly mention his betrothal / marriage, however, a couple things for you to consider:



1- In Jesus' time and location (culture), when there was a wedding celebration, whose responsibility was it to provide the wine?

2- In Jesus' time and location (culture) who was allowed to teach at temple and be called "rabbi?"



Are you implying in 1 that this was his wedding? If so, then why did his mother have to implore him to do what was his duty?

He was teaching at the temple at the age of 12, so this is clearly not an absolute.

Eric





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix is on-air in 6 minutes.
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP6

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def