Originally Posted By X-san <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07/08/women.bishops/index.html" target="_blank">http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WO...dex.html</a> **The move by the Anglican Church's General Synod "is a rift to the apostolic tradition" of ordaining only men as bishops, the Vatican said in a statement, and is another obstacle to reconciliation between Anglicans and Roman Catholics.** In other words, "how dare you bring unwanted attention to our blatant sexism?". **Retired Canon Alan Duke, a longtime supporter of women in church leadership posts, said those arguments "simply do not stack up." Duke said that while Jesus named no female disciples, he used and valued woman in radical and different ways for his time. "He was hardly going to choose women and send them into a situation where they might have been in grave risk," Duke said.** This guy is AWESOME. And that is an incredibly interesting point about Jesus and his forward thinking "feminism" considering the times he lived in. Too bad the church can't be so forward thinking, I say. A real pity.
Originally Posted By dshyates Church? Forward thinking? Not gonna happen. All controlling religious sects perfer their members to live in the stone age/ dark ages. If they could the church would still controll all media access. For our own good, you know.
Originally Posted By X-san ***If they could the church would still control all media access.*** Depending on who you talk to, they still do.
Originally Posted By dshyates I was just looking at some stuff on the internets that I'm pretty sure the church doesn't control.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf I think the whole woman/priest thing is more about tradition than anything else. The Catholic Church is entrenched in tradition as it claims to continue the Christianity of 2000 year ago. However, we all know that they have strayed over the years. I think humans are naturally resistant to change when it hits close to home (family life, religion, etc.). It's hard to feel stability when the things closest to you change. But I agree that change is needed here.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Hey, if you want all the pomp but none of the "Tradition", be Anglican! Curiously, there are few takers. In fact, the Episcopal Church USA saw its membership decline 4% in 2006. On the flip side, there have been entire Epsicopal congregations,a nd even a few Bishops that switched to the RCC. The RCC even made a provision for them where they could retain their Anglican style of worship.
Originally Posted By ecdc You know, maybe I'm just grumpy today, but I'm out of patience. It's 2008, for the love of god. How on earth are we talking about whether women should become bishops or not, whether gays should get married or not, etc. Maybe next we can talk about whether Asians belong on TV or whether kids with Down's Syndrome should be allowed in public.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf What I find ironic is that Jesus seemed to be remarkably tolerant and loving. What happened along the way??? Imagine this scene in one of the gospels: "And the Pharisees sought to trick Jesus by bringing an educated woman before Him and saying, "Teacher, this woman claims to be a priestess of god and has even taught in the temple. Is it not a sin for a woman to claim the priesthood? Did not God instruct Aaron and his sons to establish the priesthood?" And Jesus answered unto them and said, "What was it this woman was teaching that offends you?" And they replied by saying, "She was teaching the law as the Levites do." And Jesus replied "It is written in the law that God will call unto Him those who are holy and that by their fruits you shall know them. Those who are holy speak the word of God, those who are not speak of other things." And with that the Pharisees were silenced and marched off to conspire of other ways to ensnare him. And to the woman Jesus said, "Go now for you are called to preach the word of God. Let no man stop you and state to all that Jesus has sent you. Fruits you have shown and many more will you have before the harvest."
Originally Posted By hightp While the above scene may be true, it is also true (according to the Bible) that here were no women present at the Last Supper (the 1st mass) or Pentecost (the 1st Ordination). That would lead one to beleive that although women can be called to bear witness to Jesus (He appeared to the women 1st, after his resurrection), they can not become priets and perform the consecration. That's just my own interpretation of what's written, I actually don't think there's any difference between a man or woman priest.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf ^I agree with your interpreation. There certainly isn't much evidence to support women were elevated to the status of apostle. However, I think Jesus did show compassion and wisdom that went against the religious beliefs of the day. And that was what I was trying to get at. However, Jesus did appear to women first after his resurrection. And he clearly held Martha and Mary (sisters of Lazarus) in very high regard. So who knows....
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<It's 2008, for the love of god. How on earth are we talking about whether women should become bishops or not, whether gays should get married or not, etc. Maybe next we can talk about whether Asians belong on TV or whether kids with Down's Syndrome should be allowed in public. >> Not everyone on this earth shares your points of view. Get used to it.
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle >>What I find ironic is that Jesus seemed to be remarkably tolerant and loving. What happened along the way???<< This is what gets me. I did a Theology course last year (because I want to teach in a Catholic school) and the first assignment I did was on the history of women in the church. It's amazing how much MORE progressed the Church was 2000 years ago - when home churches were the norm women ran the show, basically making them the equivalent of Priests. And, as a lot of people have mentioned, Jesus was always shown as valuing women and being pretty "forward-thinking" for the time. Anyway, I hate the fact that there's a shortage of priests in the world and yet women and married men can't take on the role ... it's ridiculous.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Not everyone on this earth shares your points of view. Get used to it.<< Yes, bigotry and sexism is the same as differing on matters of opinion. Next time I hear about how blacks are inferior, I'll keep in mind that not everyone shares my point of view.
Originally Posted By X-san ***it is also true (according to the Bible) that here were no women present at the Last Supper (the 1st mass) or Pentecost (the 1st Ordination).*** That could also be taken to mean that women shouldn't be allowed to attend Mass either, no?
Originally Posted By X-san ***Not everyone on this earth shares your points of view. Get used to it.*** So if someone has the point of view that the Emancipation Proclamation was incorrect and that blacks deserve to be returned to slavery, we should be okay with that point of view?
Originally Posted By hightp "That could also be taken to mean that women shouldn't be allowed to attend Mass either, no?" No, I don't think that's a valid assumption. Jesus said "Do this in rememberance of me". When the apostles were given the Holy Spirit at Penticost, they were charged with preaching to the masses. They were to share the teachings and the Eucharist. It's just that only men were charged with that delivery. I don't doubt that at some time in the future women will be allowed into the priesthood, but I don't forsee it happening in my life time (say, the next 40 years). The Church is too conservative currently for that to happen. Still, it would be kind of funky to address a woman priest as 'Father'.
Originally Posted By jdub The Vatican should shut up on the decisions of a non-Catholic religion; the only "regretting" they should be doing is over their OWN actions--or lack thereof.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I keep seeing this thread title and I keep thinking "I regret the Vatican", but that's just me.
