Posted on 06/17/2008 1:37:24 PM PDT by NYer
.- The Times of London reported this week that the Anglican Church is facing a new crisis with 500 priests threatening to leave if women are ordained bishops.
The newspaper reported that the priests have said they would leave the Church if the proposal is approved at the next general synod scheduled for July of this year.
Many priests said they feel betrayed by the proposal, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams and Archbishop John Sentamu of York have responded by saying they would work for a compromise rather than allow female bishops, even though both are in favor of female clergy.
Fifteen provinces of the Anglican Communion have voted in favor of female bishops, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Central America, Mexico, the Philippines, South Africa and the United States.
Does the name Mary Magdeline mean anything to you?
Hey here's a question for you Catholics. If there were 12 Apostles, why are there not 12 books in the New Testament?
L
>....or did you leave Anglicanism altogether?<
I left the Episcopal church. I am an Evangelical Christian, and a member of a nondenominational Christian church.
The question of 12 Apostles and 12 books of the NT is really a non-issue. The 12 Apostles is a fullfillment of the Typological prefigurement of the Twelve Tribes of Israel finding their fullfillment in The Church, which is the body of Christ. Thus, the Christ chose twelve apostles showing the connection to the OT and the “reconstituted Twelve”, after Judas’s replacement was selected in Acts 2:26 (i.e. Matthias).
So the Twelve Apostles is a fullfillment of salvatoin history and all of the OT prophets and convenants that find their fullfillment in the person of Christ, in whom God’s plan of salvation was accomplished. Thus, Christ, through his body, the Church, continues to be present in the world and salvation is now offered to all the world through him (c.f. Acts 4:12).
Thus, the number of NT books has no relation to the Twelve Apostles as in addition to the reconstituted 12 (c.f. Acts 2:26), St. Paul himself was called to be an Apostle (c.f. Romans 1:1) thus Christ chose Twelve plus St. Paul, which is 13. So, by your logic, it should be 13, but in the end, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit settled on 27 books in the NT as the late 4th century Synods (Rome 382 AD) and Councils (Hippo 393 AD and Carthage 397 AD) decreed.
Regards
So if I follow the logic, the Eucharist (in part) represents the mystical marriage between Christ (male) and the Church (female), and since the priest represents Christ in the Eucharist, the priest should be male. But if the Church is female, the people receiving communion should be female, if the logic is to be preserved. But I, and half of the congregation receiving the sacraments, happen to be male. Well, at any rate, I still don’t understand why we must hew to a literal reading of the marriage between Christ and the Church regarding the genders involved.
Not to me it isn't.
Why is the Gospel of Matthew any more valid than the Gospel of Phillip?
L
That's a pretty good paraphrase of what the serpent told Eve. But liberals don't believe that part of the Bible, do they?
Well, the gospel of Philip was from around 300 AD, and is cleary a “Gnostic Text”, which is why it was not ever considered an orthodox Gospel. The early Church (the orthdodox) clearly viewed the Gnostic movement as heretical and after Marcion demanded that the Church of Rome only accept Luke’s Gospel as canonical, along with 10 epistles of St. Paul, he and his followers were excommunicated at Rome in 144 AD. Within 35 years, St. Ireneaus of Lyon in his work “Against Heresies” would be the first orthodox Church Father to state that the Church only recognized 4 canonical Gospels, MT, MK, LK, and JHN. The other “so called” Gospels that were written in the 2nd and 3rd century (Thomas, Peter, Judas, Philip) were written by Gnostics who were not in communion with orthodox Christians and the Church of Rome, which St. Ireneaus (ca 170-175 AD) stated “all churches should agree with this Church [Rome] because of its premminent authority”
As I stated earlier, the four-fold Gospel was recogized by the end of the 2nd century and the 27 book NT was decreed by the councils of the Church in the late 4th century.
Hope this explanation helps.
This isn't really my thread, but that is balderdash based on "the 'real' G-d wouldn't do or say anything that I personally don't agree with.'"
G-d didn't just write the "big ten" (as you chose to call them, perhaps thinking you were being cute). G-d wrote the entire Torah, every single letter, before the Creation of the World. The entire world is based on the Torah and was created for the Torah. But of course, to understand that you'd have to understand that right and wrong are simply what G-d has said they are and that "modern society" has nothing whatsoever to say on the matter.
Time to get current.
Au contraire. Time to stay eternal.
There were plenty of priestesses at the time in other religions. It wouldn’t have been unusual at all if Jesus had chosen a female apostle. But he chose not to.
It would have been extremely unusual for Jesus to pick female leadership, in a culture and a religion that had always had a male leadership (Jesus and his disciples were still Jewish). I would suggest that if Jesus had chosen “priestesses,” he would have been accused of emulating pagan religions, and therefore of being pagan.
Interesting theory. Wrong, but interesting.
By 300 AD Philip had been dead for nearly, oh well, three hundred years.
Those 'Gnostic' gospels were as authentic as anything Luke or John wrote. There's not a shred of historical or archeological evidence proving otherwise.
Ireneaus of Lyon in his work “Against Heresies” would be the first orthodox Church Father to state that the Church only recognized 4 canonical Gospels, MT, MK, LK, and JHN.
In other words, the Catholic Church has been making sh** up as it goes along since the Council of Nicea...
L
Hey Lurker:
No need to get into profanity stuff here. Most Church Historians and Scholars of early Church manuscripts do in fact date the Gnostic Gospel of Philip the the late 3rd century, so my date of 300 AD is the upper limit of the dating of that text. However, some put it as early as 180 AD. So, my previous post would have been more precise had I said “Scholars date the Gnostic Gospel of Philip from 180 AD to 300 AD”. St. Ireneaus of Lyon, in about 170-175 AD, was the first orthodox Church Father, that we have written evidence of, to clearly state there are Four canonical Gospels, which of course are MT, MK, LK, and John,.
The first canonical listing of NT books was compiled by the Church of Rome in about 190-200 AD in what today is referred to as the “Muratorian Fragment”, and it lists MT, MK, LK, and John as the only four orthodox Gospels.
If you personally think Philip of inspired, this is the United States and we have a 1st amendment. And, you have the ability to go to a church that recognizes this Gnostic Gospel as canonical, or hey, “start your own church” and make the Gospel of Philip part of your canon.
However, I as an orthodox Catholic in communion with the Bishop of Rome, currently Pope Benedict XVI, will not be joining your church.
Regards and God Bless
I never said 'inspired', I said 'authentic'.
The Catholic Church simply picked those Gospels that supported their world-view at the time and declared all others to be 'heresies' not to be spoken of upon pain of death.
They did no scientific research, and in fact tried to destroy every single copy of them they could lay their hands on.
In short they were a bunch of barbarians.
You may not like it, but those are the facts.
The Gospels of Philip and Timothy are every bit as historically valid as those of MT, MK, LK, and John. They simply don't fit in with whatever the Catholic Church is calling 'orthodox doctrine' this century.
L
And the Jews interperet the Torah as allowing women Rabbi’s...time for the Christians to get on board.
Women were property when the bible was written (by males) and thus excluded. If YOUR religion would damn women to hell for acting in that role.....then shame on you.
I would propose that God likes people who reason through issues..and then do the “right” thing....not just those who sit back and let the Mullahs think for you!
But thanks for your thoughtful response.
Well, you are sounding like a marxist-deconstructionist with your argument. I don’t think the early Church when dealing with the Gnostics were interested in 21st century polemics. They were defending the faith. As for destroying the Gnostic Gospels, well they sure did not do a good job because numerous manuscripts were found in 1947.
Furthermore, the Church was not allowed to worship publicly until Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 313 AD and Christianity did not become the state religion until the emperor Theodosius in about 380 AD. Thus, your thesis that the Church used the state to persecute “heretics” from 100 AD to 313 AD is untenable, as Chrisitianity itself was the subject of persecution by the Roman state.
On the other hand, the debates against Gnosticism can clearly be seen in the Gospel of John itself, as it is a Gospel written in about 90-95 AD with a “high Christology” as evidenced by the First chapter where we read “In the begining was the Word and the word was with God and the Word was God......and the Word became flesh and made his dwellling among us” (c.f. John 1:1; 1:14).
Shortly after John’s Gospel, we see in St. Ignatius of Antioch’s writings (ca 105 to 110AD) are clear rejection of the Gnostic movement known as the “Docetists” who rejected, not the divinity of Christ, but the incarnation, that is that the “Word became Flesh”. Thus, St. Ignatius defends the incarnation by pointing to the reality of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Thus, the debates against Gnosticism pre-date the establishment of the Church and Christiantity as the state religion by over 200 years and while those debates were going on, the Catholic Church did not have the ability to use the state (i.e. Roman government) to use the courts to sanction heretics.
In summary, your entire thesis is not supported by the evidence.
Excuse me, but is it possible that you are that naive? "The Jews?" The fact is that only heretical movements have done this. Orthodox Judaism doesn't even allow men and women to sit together, much less have women "rabbis."
Women were property when the bible was written (by males) and thus excluded.
Did you not read what I said? The Torah was not written by any human being whatsoever. It was written by G-d. It was written before the world was ever created. The only reason the world exists at all is so that the Jewish people can observe the Torah (including all those "old-fashioned sexist" laws we've all "grown beyond"). Do you even know what a Sefer Torah is? Do you have any inkling of the strictness of the rules for copying one down? This is because the very letters were written by G-d Himself and not any human being or group of human beings whatsoever.
If YOUR religion would damn women to hell for acting in that role.....then shame on you.
Excuse me . . . where does this "eternal damnation to hell" thing come from? Did I say a single thing about it? No I did not. In fact, if you ever actually have the nerve to read a translation of the TaNa"KH you won't see anything about "heaven and hell" at all. These concepts exist, but they are very esoteric. Religion isn't about being "saved from hell." It's about obeying G-d's laws--period.
I would propose that God likes people who reason through issues..and then do the “right” thing....not just those who sit back and let the Mullahs think for you!
The "right" thing is whatever G-d says it is. In one instance it may be forbidden to kill someone. On another it may be mandatory to kill someone. One law may be something you can wrap your twenty-first century mind around (like laws against stealing). Another may be something you can't understand at all, like the ritual of the red heifer or the correct performance of an animal sacrifice. And btw, a man is allowed to have as many wives as he can handle, but a woman may only have one husband. How does that grab you?
You don't have the competence to decide what is right and what is wrong. I don't have the competence to decide what is right and what is wrong. Only G-d does. And His laws are not subject to human critique. Is this really so hard for you to understand?
As for the "mullahs," I am one of the few FReepers (maybe the only one) who has never condemned the moslems for refusing to compromise with or update to the modern world. The only problem with the moslems is they're practicing the wrong religion. Period.
Except I never posited any such thing. Go back and reread what I said.
Thus, the debates against Gnosticism pre-date the establishment of the Church and Christiantity as the state religion by over 200 years and while those debates were going on, the Catholic Church did not have the ability to use the state (i.e. Roman government) to use the courts to sanction heretics.
"Sanction"...cute word. Don't you mean murder?
L
Ding we have a winner! To think of all the things Jesus said even to the point of being called a blasphemer but yet didn’t want to offend anyone by including women apostles,well that’s silly.
Lurker:
Well, we are getting closer and your thesis is getting shot down as we speak. And no, you did not state exactly what I stated but what you did state is consistent with what I wrote. With respect to heresy, it was viewed as a “capital offense”, in some cases. So, some heretics were indeed given the death penalty, as were murderers, horse thieves, rapist, etc. So while we in the 21st century have come to agree that the state should not be used to punish heretics, and this was done every where in Europe in both Catholic and Protestant countries at various times during the 16th and 17th centuries, etc., heresy in that period was seen as a threat to national order and security in that period, hence treated as a capital offense as was the case in Isabella’s Spain (Catholic country) and King Henry VIII’s England (Protestant country).
Again sanction heretics is accurate, as all heretics were not condemned, but at the same time the term is broad enough to capture the fact that some branded heretics were indeed put to death.
Good day
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.