Posted on 06/17/2008 1:37:24 PM PDT by NYer
I'm sure that's true.I'd also wager that a fair number of Catholic priests do too.And as for Unitarian/Universalist "ministers",well.....pffffft!
There’s the small issue of the NT.
Ha ha, he said broad minded, ha ha... get it? broad minded... broad... you know, like chicks...
Well I thought it was funny
I guess it would be dependent on their formation, this could be discerned by discussions with a good rector or Bishop.
Heck let them interview with Bruskowitz
“There’s the small issue of the NT.”
Timothy is in the NT.
Yeah!!
Who needs that ol’ Biblical stuff, anyway?
...and the teaching & practices in Timothy abound throughout the NT.
Theology shouldn’t be static. At least we Catholics don’t believe it is. Theological understanding is on a trajectory and our present day is a point on that trajectory.
The truth is static, of course, but out understanding grows.
For instance, slavery was seen as tolerable during Paul’s time, not so now.
Sounds to me as if it's the two archbishops who are OK with female clergy. Granted, the priests didn't leave over female clergy . . . probably figured they could avoid and ignore them . . .
That's enough out of you Stewie.
Something tells me they should have left long before this.
Jesus did not condemn slavery, but condemnation of slavery is universal now (at least in the West). Jesus did prohibit remarriage after divorce, but many Anglicans (including the Episcopal Church and the Church of England) allow remarriage after divorce (on grounds other than infidelity of a spouse). So I do not think it is unreasonable for Anglicans to rely on reason as well as tradition and the Scriptures, to decide that apostolic leadership is not always inappropriate for women—considering that some women have excelled in leadership roles throughout the rest of society.
Didn’t a bunch of them move to the Roman Catholic church when the Anglicans decided to have female priests?
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
Just watch TEC...
Traditionally, men have been priests. I have never been comfortable with women in that roll. I prefer women to fill the helpmate roll in life.
I left the Anglican Church many years ago, and this was just one of the reasons. Even then they condoned active homosexuals to serve in the church. Also, I didn’t want my money going to the National Council of Churches - a very leftist organisation.
To paraphrase a sign often seen in this region, “The Catholic Church Welcomes You”.
Yes, but - with respect - the society in which He operated was the one He - God - the Trinity - was busy creating throughout the First Testament. The existence of an all-male hierarchy in the Jewish Faith was God's doing. There were plenty of co-ed religions around at the time, so to speak: Astarte, Baal, and so on.
The world not being ready for Female Priests is not a sufficient reason for Christ not to have included them. Was society ready to "Eat My Flesh" and "Drink My Blood"? Were the Jews ready for God Almighty to enter the world in the flesh? Was Jesus keen to introduce female celebrants but was too worried that the Jews might, you know, crucify Him?
Introducing female Priests would have been a walk in the park compared with introducing Himself as the Son of God - and its not as if there weren't any suitable female candidates. I can't help thinking that something else - some universal principle we're just not seeing was - and is - at work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.