He is claiming greater authority than St. Paul, then.
Posted on 03/02/2016 3:15:04 PM PST by marshmallow
The Vatican newspaper has published essays suggesting that women should be allowed to preach at Mass.
Under existing canon law, only priests and deacons are authorized to preach at Mass. But in a special section of L'Osservatore Romano dedicated to women's role in the Church, three writers call for a re-examination of that policy.
"This topic is a delicate one," acknowledges Enzo Bianchi, the founder and head of the Bose ecumenical community; "but I believe it is urgent that we address it." He says that allowing women to preach would be "a fundamental change in their participation in Church life."
Sister Catherine Aubin, a Dominican theologian, adds an observation that women have been effective evangelists throughout the history of the Church, and today are regularly invited to lead spiritual retreats. Sister Madeleine Fredell remarks that she is allowed to preach in Lutheran churches, and says, "I believe that listening to the voice of women at the time of the homily would enrich our Catholic worship."
Meant to say “fake Jew”.
He is claiming greater authority than St. Paul, then.
Troll.
???
Signupdate is 2001, so not a n00b.
“Sister Madeleine Fredell remarks that she is allowed to preach in Lutheran churches...”
We all know the sort of Lutherans that would allow a Catholic nun to preach to them. I mean come on already.
Freegards
No, I just have my own opinions.
Once in awhile there is an honest atheist, I've known a couple on this site; but most just like getting a rise out of people or baiting them into arguments.
But -- you've been here long enough, telling you the above is likely merely redundant.
Won’t happen.
Galations 3:27-28:
27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
Thank-you.
Pre-Vatican II, there was no homily at daily Mass. Also, I read a few years back that at some time (maybe during the Middle Ages - I forget) the priest would remove the chasuble for the sermon to demonstrate that it was not a part of the Mass.
The Bible does not provide internal proof for the authorship of the Books of Moses nor the four Gospels nor several of the Epistles. It does not even "authenticate" what its own books are.
The Bible does not define itself: it does not have a "ship manifest" to tell you what's on board, what's part of the cargo and what is not. It doesn't have its own Table of Contents. It did not drop down from Heaven as a set of handsome matched scrolls, and it did not put itself together in leather binding with an index tab for each book. It could not, since so many Bibles have different books.
Somebody put the Bible(s) together. Some assembly was needed.
In order to do that, the person (or body or community) that did that, would have to have authority; because otherwise you have a supposedly authoritative book with no fully authoritative content: impossible.
Either Yohanan ben Zakkai and his circle had the authority, or the 70 scholars of the Septuagint had the authority; or Beth Shammai, or Beth Hillel; or the Masoretes had the authority (6th-10th century AD --- and they were the first ones to devise a Hebrew text with vowels!); or the early Church in its practice and its councils had the authority; or the Syriac, or Armenian, or Georgian, or Egyptian Coptic and Ethiopian Churches had the authority; or a committee of 17th century British royalists in London; or maybe the Latter Day Saints in Salt Lake City; maybe they had the authority --- or not.
You've heard this before.
Where in the above list would you put your checkmark? Or do you have a different authority? Your own?
In what sense can the Bible be said to be self-authenticating?
I’m walking out of the door and won’t be back home until sometime late tonight, so I really don’t have time to give a full thoughtful answer. But I’ll say this much, it’s not a book that can be read and understood by men. Of course the can read and understand words, but the real truths are spiritual in nature. They can only be understood by those to whom they are revealed by the Lord. When the Lord opens your eyes to the truth there can be no doubt as to Divine Authorship. Things that seem foolish or perplexing to most become precious to one who has experienced the miracle of the new birth.
Christ speaking from John 6
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Referencing Isaiah 54, that section of John tells us all those who are saved have been “taught of God.” That doesn’t mean they are taught about God, but they are specifically taught BY God. It’s God who opens eyes to see and ears to hear. And every single person taught by By God will come to Christ and be saved. I believe part of being taught by God is the ability to read the Scriptures with spiritual eyes. A friend of mine likes to say, “if you get it, you got it.” He’s exactly right. Now that doesn’t mean we understand everything. God doesn’t work that way.
Later in John 10, some of the Jews ask Jesus if he is the Christ.
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
They didn’t believe because they weren’t among the sheep given to Him by the Father. But His sheep hear His voice. Well, His voice is on every single page of the Bible. I was saved 40 years ago, graduated from a Christian university where I studied a lot of Bible, I have studied it constantly throughout my adult life, yet I have just barely scratched the surface. New truths leap off the page all the time. Books written by men don’t have that power.
Because of our fall in Adam, we are, one and all, spiritually dead from the moment of conception. A fruit tree bears fruit after its kind. It can’t do anything else. We sprung from Adam’s loins, ergo when Adam died, we died. A dead man can’t see or perceive spiritual things unless he has been given new life, which is the gracious gift of God. That’s what happens when a man is born again. At that point we are no longer in Adam, but in Christ, which means he has been by reborn by a miracle of the Holy Spirit.
Now contrary to popular opinion, a man can’t simply decide he will be born again any more than he decided to be born the first time. The early verses of John 3 make that clear. When asked how a man can be born again, Christ likened the work of the Spirit to the wind and said that no one knows where it comes from and it blows where it wishes.
So the New Birth is is a miracle performed in the heart by the Lord. And when that happens, everything changes. A man who has been reborn begins to hate things he once loved, love things he once hated. And he begins to be able to perceive and understand spiritual things in a way that up until that point would have been impossible. For the person to whom this has happened, the Bible becomes self-authenticating. There’s simply no doubt as to its otherworldly origin. As the Bible tells us, it was written by the hands of men as they were directed by the Holy Spirit.
Ok, that’s a rambling answer and, while I could say much more, maybe something in there is helpful for you. I really do have to leave.
Or maybe the Oral Torah is to be included, since according to the sages, it was communicated to Moses on Mount Sinai along with the written Torah (the Scriptures). For centuries, the Torah appeared as a written text only when transmitted in parallel with the oral tradition, whichguaranteed its authentic interpretation. ("Authentic." What does this do to the concept of "self-authenticating"?)
This authentic communication was memorized and often transmitted ipsissimi verbi by singing/chanting through the generations until Rabbi Yehudah haNasi was granted authority to inscribe it. His edition of Oral Torah is called The Mishnah. If that's part of God's Own revelation of Himself at Sinai, and it originated from God and had been preserved by His Providence for all the generations of His Chosen People from Moses to Yehuda haNasi, that's Torah, too.
St. Jerome didn't advert to it, as far as I know, though the Mishna in written form had been around for a century or more.
Interesting.
To clarify: I have no doubts at all about the Bible's Divine Authorship.
None at all.
We may have a dispute about what constitutes the Bible.
Not all of it was transmitted verbally. See Deuteronomy 6:4-9.
Verse 9 (NASB)
“You shall write them [These words, which I am commanding you today (v.6)] on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.”
You’re very welcome. I find great beauty & reverence in the Catholic & Orthodox Churches.
So God’s Truth changes with the times?
Is he Catholic? I didn't assume that/take that from his posts, but maybe I missed it?
Very happy with my first two SSPX Masses. Also with a very thoughtful Examination of Conscience and Absolution by SSPX priest.
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.