Vatican opposes female clergy anywhere, gives reasons from Bible

Associated Press ^ | Saturday, July 8, 2006 | Richard N. Ostling

[marajade]

Maybe we would argue then that just maybe both the Pope and Mormon prophet are both right? And how would know they aren't? Neither can justify it Biblically.

[Conservative til I die]

What the heck does this mean? We've got all these different rites and latin and eastern whatevers that are taking different stances on the issue.

Your confusion/frustration tells me you should read up on this to better understand the relationships/hierarchy/authority structure/history of the Eastern Churches.

[AlaninSA]

Actually it says Bishops if you want to get technical.

Let's turn your argument around on you though. Logically, how can a woman be the husband of one wife?

What do you do with the passages from Scripture that disallow women to teach in church, learn in silence and submission? What do you do with the fact that Jesus never chose a woman as an Apostle, nor did the Apostles ever ordain women.

That one there...again, nice point.

[marajade]

Read up on what? Like I stated in my post, why not just practice what the book of Timothy says and be done with it. Much simpler to me.

[FJ290]

Huh? That's not what I said, and neither did Timothy.

Your first comment to this thread. Post #9So the Church cites first timothy when it comes to reason why women can't be priests but it overlooks timothy when it says that priests should be married. Okie dokie.

It seems to me that perhaps you were advocating for women in the clergy. It also seems to me that you are ridiculing the Church for not ordaining women.

Are you a woman? I think by your ID it would seem you are. It sounds feminine.

[Conservative til I die]

No, they wouldn't be considered to be a priest.

According to who? You? The Pope?

[dollars_for_dogma]

So I guess when the prophet of the Mormon Church received revelation from God because he too as a leader is infallible it was okay for them to practice polygamy.

The only witness the these "revelations" was Joseph Smith himself. The Mormons are not Christian, they reject the doctrine of the Trinity.

So, can we please stay on topic?

The topic was your statement that the Pope isn't "just following the word of God."

I have explained the error of your comment.

If not satisfied....The Holy Spirit will be happy to hear your complaints.

[marajade]

No, according to the Book of Timothy. Have you read it? I guess you only read it when it comes to whether or not women should be priests instead of them being married.

[sitetest]

Dear marajade,

"What the heck does this mean?"

It means that the Catholic Church acknowledges that the practice of the faith grew up in different cultures, and took on different local customs and practices. It means that the Church doesn't believe that in non-doctrinal matters that there must be absolute uniformity between all cultures represented in the Church.

As for doing just what the "Book of Timothy" (I suppose you mean the first letter of Paul to Timothy) does, well, Paul's first letter to Timothy isn't the only book in the Bible. The fact is that St. Paul expressed a strong preference for celibacy among those who would devote themselves wholly to the service of the Lord, and Jesus, too, indicated a preference for celibacy. In fact, both St. Paul and Jesus were celibate men. Were they unworthy for the priesthood, in your view?

Thus, you see diverse practices among the different cultures and traditions that comprise the Catholic Church, and exceptions granted even where a general rule exists in a specific place.


sitetest

[marajade]

I listen intently to the holy spirit. I follow the word of God and when says that priests should be married I believe him.

[FJ290]

No, according to the Book of Timothy. Have you read it? I guess you only read it when it comes to whether or not women should be priests instead of them being married.

Why wouldn't you answer my question about whether or not you are a woman? I had to go on a search of your posts and find out for myself you are. Are you sure this isn't sour grapes on your part? You have never answered my questions what it says about women not being teachers in the Bible and to learn in silence and submission. Do you or do you not agree with those passages?

[dollars_for_dogma]

I listen intently to the holy spirit. I follow the word of God and when says that priests should be married I believe him.

Fair enough...then, what about this:

"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." 1Co 14:34

[Clemenza]

No big deal. Most females ignore the Catholic Church anyway (except for the minority of women who are Catholic).

Not meant as an attack on the RCs, just a non-affiliate pointing out the obvious.

[Mazi83]

And written for a community that worshiped the Goddess Artemis--yes, a community that considered a female superior to all men. If you were trying to convince them to follow a dead Jewish guy, wouldn't you want them to abolish their idea of female superiority?

As I am sure you know, there are a lot of things in the bible that need to be evaluated by their context. The discrepancies in the gospels, for instance, are often attributed to the communities they were written in. For example, Matthew being written in a Jewish-Christian community, compared to Luke being written in a Hellenic community (with vastly different traditions and little prior understanding of Judaism) led to some glaring differences in those two gospels.

[FJ290]

"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." 1Co 14:34

I keep asking her that, but she won't answer. The silence is deafening.

[dollars_for_dogma]

"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." 1Co 14:34

I keep asking her that, but she won't answer. The silence is deafening.

And golden.

[ichabod1]

YEah, I think I see married priests to be right around the corner. It's not doctinal, it's law (policy). So it can be changed. I'm not altogether for it, but I think it would help reverse the homosexualization of the clergy, along with other measures. And, of course, the main reason would be to get an increase in vocations.

I know there are negatives, I'm not going to go into that now.

[FJ290]

And golden.

LOL! Good one.

[ichabod1]

For us Catholics, we believe that it is the Church, who received her authority from the Apostles, and thus from Jesus Himself, who has the authority to definitively interpret Scripture.

M7y take would be that the "Church" doesn't interpret anything. The "Church" does not teach, although we say that a lot. PEOPLE interpret and teach. We simply believe in a hierarchical structure that keeps us all singing from the same page, to some extent. We don't just make it up as we go along. I think we say the "Church" because it's not just this Pope, but all the popes who establish the church's teachings. Moreover, it's not just the Pope, the Cardinals have huge input, and they, as well as all Archbishops and Bishops have significant power over their own Bishoprics.

[Graymatter]

The cardinal said women bishops should be elevated only after "overwhelming consensus" is reached with Catholicism and like-minded Eastern Orthodoxy.

Would someone please explain what is meant here? Is he saying that the Anglican church should not have women bishops until and unless the Roman Catholic church approves?