REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
Hang in there, Ruinel. I'm in the process of writing the continuation of my above post.

That's fine, I'm actually going to have to come back later. I have a headache right now and a thousand things to do.

Originally posted by Valandil
But Ruinel, do you see validity for it within a church which accepts the Bible as the basis for its beliefs?

And, btw, my own church does ordain women (and with what we believe to be a scriptural basis) - we have throughout our 100 +/- year history. Still, not many women pursue this (and less now, ironically, than 100 years ago). Also - I certainly understand those churches which do otherwise...

Do I see the validity in it? No "validity" per se. I can see clinging to tradition: "we've always done it this way". But I do not see the validity of it. Things have changed in the Catholic Church from the first conception of it. And each change was valid and justified. The only reason I see the Catholic Church NOT allowing women as priests, is because women are taught to be mild and patient (something I never was), to sacrifice for their family, and put their needs and desires above her own. She is to aspire to be like Mary in all ways. When a girl child is baptised, often the priest will put the name Marie or Mary or Maria in front of the girl's name on the baptismal certificate. And basically, when Mary gave birth to Jesus her job was done. That was her worth... as the incubation chamber for Jesus... period.

I'm glad that your church ordains women. I think it is a step in the right direction.

[Arien the Maia]

Wow Guillaume you are really knowledgable in Catholic theology! I myself hope to go back to school in a few years and get a degree in theology (for my own personal fulfillment...not that I can do much else with it except back up my beliefs! )

[brownjenkins]

thanks for clearing that up before me Ruinel... you make good points as well... and yes Valandil, there may be some validity in a biblical perspective, and this is exactly why i am against this persective... at least the unswerving "this is the absolute truth" POV...

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Do I see the validity in it? No "validity" per se. I can see clinging to tradition: "we've always done it this way". But I do not see the validity of it. Things have changed in the Catholic Church from the first conception of it. And each change was valid and justified. The only reason I see the Catholic Church NOT allowing women as priests, is because women are taught to be mild and patient (something I never was), to sacrifice for their family, and put their needs and desires above her own. She is to aspire to be like Mary in all ways. When a girl child is baptised, often the priest will put the name Marie or Mary or Maria in front of the girl's name on the baptismal certificate. And basically, when Mary gave birth to Jesus her job was done. That was her worth... as the incubation chamber for Jesus... period.

Actually Mary is probably the most important human ever to exist. What I mean by that is that since she is the Immaculate Conception, she is the ONLY one who was born free from the stain of Original Sin. a pretty big honor in my opinion and it was bestowed upon a woman who was asked to be Our Lord's mother and who said yes. Again this is according to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

[Valandil]

Hmmmm... now we're touching on some of the dividing lines between Catholicism and most Protestants: Transubstantiation and the Immaculate Conception...

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Arien the Maia
Actually Mary is probably the most important human ever to exist. What I mean by that is that since she is the Immaculate Conception, she is the ONLY one who was born free from the stain of Original Sin. a pretty big honor in my opinion and it was bestowed upon a woman who was asked to be Our Lord's mother and who said yes. Again this is according to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

If she had said "no", one wonders if there was a backup plan.

GOD: "She said 'no'?!! come again?"
GABRIEL: "yes sir, she said 'no'. She didn't want to risk getting stoned to death. You know how those humans are."
GOD: "did you use my line? You know: 'Greetings, favored one. The lord is with thee.' Did you do that?"
GABRIEL: "yeah... she's a no go on the pregancy thing."
GOD: "*sigh* Ok... go see Susan then."

*Gabriel flies off to Susan*
GABRIEL: "Greetings, favored one. The lord is with thee."
the virgin SUSAN: *blinks* eh?
GABRIEL: "Do not be afraid, Mar..Susan, for you have found favor with God...."

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Ruinel
That was aimed at Gwai and his C.S. Lewis post. To say that there are "spiritual differences" between men and women... that one can lead a congregation and the other can't by some innate gift that one possesses and the other lacks, is "pish posh". Give me some cold hard evidence of this and I'll take the "pish posh" statement away. Until then... it remains, "pish posh".

No; no-one said that one could not lead a congregation; he specifically said "Why should a woman not in this sense represent God? Certainly not because she is necessarily, or even probably, less holy or less charitable or stupider than a man. In that sense she may be as "God-like" as a man; and a given women much more so than a given man." But there is something else, something more to the priesthood than that sort of thing; that is, the sacramental side of it. IMO, it is the male's counterpart to birth. By birth does a woman bring forth physical children; by priesthood does a man bring forth spiritual children.


Firstly, the bible was written in a time in which women were generally chattel, they could own no property, make no decision on their own, and followed orders of their husbands or fathers or even brothers (whoever was the head male of the family she belonged to).

Second, you want me to believe that because of a book written ages ago, and because Lewis thinks women have nothing relevant and intellectual to discuss that I'm going to buy that piece of tripe? Let's get real!!! Women can ballance their checkbooks, run their families, run their businesses, go to war, fix their cars. And that archaic view that we want men to take over for us, is bull sh... "pish posh".

I think you missed a big point; Lewis said in fact that they were probably more intelligent than men. I don't know what "book" you refer to. No-one denies in any way that women can balance checkbooks, run families, run businesses, go to war, fix cars, advise people, comfort the sick, etc. etc. and so on and so forth. But that is not all there is to the priesthood. The priesthood has (and in fact is defined by) a sacramental nature.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Ruinel
If she had said "no", one wonders if there was a backup plan.

GOD: "She said 'no'?!! come again?"
GABRIEL: "yes sir, she said 'no'. She didn't want to risk getting stoned to death. You know how those humans are."
GOD: "did you use my line? You know: 'Greetings, favored one. The lord is with thee.' Did you do that?"
GABRIEL: "yeah... she's a no go on the pregancy thing."
GOD: "*sigh* Ok... go see Susan then."

*Gabriel flies off to Susan*
GABRIEL: "Greetings, favored one. The lord is with thee."
the virgin SUSAN: *blinks* eh?
GABRIEL: "Do not be afraid, Mar..Susan, for you have found favor with God...."

lol! I'm not sure what His back up plan would have been...that's one for the theologians!

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem


No; no-one said that one could not lead a congregation; he specifically said "Why should a woman not in this sense represent God? Certainly not because she is necessarily, or even probably, less holy or less charitable or stupider than a man. In that sense she may be as "God-like" as a man; and a given women much more so than a given man." But there is something else, something more to the priesthood than that sort of thing; that is, the sacramental side of it. IMO, it is the male's counterpart to birth. By birth does a woman bring forth physical children; by priesthood does a man bring forth spiritual children.[/b]

So, what you are saying is that by making women priests, it denies a man the chance to "bring forth spiritual children"?

Trust me when I say, that I bet any woman would give a man the chance to bear physical children.

I think you missed a big point; Lewis said in fact that they were probably more intelligent than men. I don't know what "book" you refer to. No-one denies in any way that women can balance checkbooks, run families, run businesses, go to war, fix cars, advise people, comfort the sick, etc. etc. and so on and so forth. But that is not all there is to the priesthood. The priesthood has (and in fact is defined by) a sacramental nature.

sacramental nature... meaning... what in terms of men and women being priests. I'm not following you here.

[Valandil]

On a different tack... and with Christmas only 8 days away, I thought this would be an appropriate thread to share what I received in an email today:

You are cordially invited to: A BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION!!!

Guest of Honor: Jesus Christ

Date: Every day. Traditionally, December 25 but He's always around, so the
date is flexible....

Time: Whenever you're ready. (Please don't be late, though, or you'll miss
out on all the fun!)

Place: In your heart. He'll meet you there. (You'll hear Him knock.)

Attire: Come as you are... grubbies are okay. He'll be washing our clothes
anyway. He said something about new white robes and crowns for everyone who
stays till the last.

Tickets: Admission is free. He's already paid for everyone... (He says you
wouldn't have been able to afford it anyway...It cost Him everything
He had. But you do need to accept the ticket!!

Refreshments: New wine, bread, and a far-out drink He calls "Living Water,"
followed by a supper that promises to be out of this world!

Gift Suggestions: Your life. He's one of those people who already has
everything else. (He's very generous in return though. Just wait until you
see what He has for you!)

Entertainment: Joy, Peace, Truth, Light, Life, Love, Real Happiness,
Communion with God, Forgiveness, Miracles, Healing, Power, Eternity in
Paradise, Contentment, and much more! (All "G" rated, so bring your
family and friends.)

R.S.V.P. Very Important! He must know ahead so He can reserve a spot for
you at the table.
Also, He's keeping a list of His friends for future reference. He calls it
the "Lamb's Book of Life."

Party being given by His Kids (that's us!!)! Hope to see you there! For
those of you whom I will
see at the party, share this with someone today!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

We know, for example, that the Eucharist is indeed the sacramental real presence of Jesus Christ because an ordained priest follows the form of the Eucharist liturgy and consecrates unleavened bread and wine.

IIRC, the bread being leavened is not in fact invalidating, but only under the Roman law illicit.

And each change was valid and justified.

Now, I doubt you REALLY believe that. But there are some things about the Church that can be changed; and some that cannot. For instance, the celibacy of the priesthood, (IIRC) is something that can be changed. But it has been proclaimed by the teaching Magisterium of the Church of the living God that women cannot validly be priests; and this proclamation was of a type of proclamation that the Church teaches is preserved by God from teaching inaccuracy.

And basically, when Mary gave birth to Jesus her job was done. That was her worth... as the incubation chamber for Jesus... period.

Wow...I have absolutely no idea how you got that impression, growing up. Firstly, Mary was not an "incubator". She was a MOTHER; it was from her that the human nature of the Christ was taken; it is because of her that he is the God-man. Secondly, the Church also teaches that she is "the Queen of Heaven", the greatest of intercessors, and much, much more.

she is the ONLY one who was born free from the stain of Original Sin.

Or rather, conceived. I think that the Church teaches that some other people were born (though not conceived) without Original Sin; John the Baptist, for instance. I'm not sure about that, though.

Transubstantiation and the Immaculate Conception...

Do you refer to actual Transubstantiation (i.e. that the accidents of the bread and wine actually are transformed into the body and blood of Christ), or the Real Presence, i.e. that Christ is really, truly, and uniquely present at the Eucharist?

As for the Immaculate Conception; if you could've made your mother perfect, wouldn't you?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Do you refer to actual Transubstantiation (i.e. that the accidents of the bread and wine actually are transformed into the body and blood of Christ), or the Real Presence, i.e. that Christ is really, truly, and uniquely present at the Eucharist?

As for the Immaculate Conception; if you could've made your mother perfect, wouldn't you?

Hmmm... on the Eucharist, perhaps some Protestant misunderstanding of actual Catholic teaching. I'll check with my pastors (and other smart people I know) about any beliefs we might have about Christ's 'presence' therein. My own impressions are partly based on the words, "Do this in remembrance of me"... ie, that it's largely a symbolic presence. Like I say, I'll check.

The issue I have with this belief about Mary is just that: it almost seems like someday, someone was just thinking about it too much. I know of no scriptural justification for the Immaculate Conception (is there one?). It seems as though someone decided that God could not send His Son to be born into mankind unless the sinful nature was absent (almost a gnostic notion itself, perhaps? )... but I say, "Why not?" ... and doesn't it make the Redemption of mankind all the more glorious?

Re: Priests - we Protestants generally don't even use the term (perhaps Anglicans and some others do, I don't know...). It's not seen in the New Testament Church. Martin Luther expressed the notion of "priesthood of all believers" - that we ALL have access to God (as a priest serves an intercessory role between God and mankind). Hebrews tells us that Jesus is our 'Great High Priest'.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

I’m happy you brought up the following, Ru:

Second, you want me to believe that because of a book written ages ago, and because Lewis thinks women have nothing relevant and intellectual to discuss that I'm going to buy that piece of tripe? Let's get real!!! Women can ballance their checkbooks, run their families, run their businesses, go to war, fix their cars. And that archaic view that we want men to take over for us, is bull sh... "pish posh".

I can say with confidence that there is nothing in Catholic theology or dogma that states woman have nothing relevant or intellectual to discuss. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case both from Scripture and the history of Church. Saint Teresa of Avila is considered a “doctor of the Church.” Saint Paul writes equally to men and women, as is obvious for anyone who would sit down and read just the introductions to his each of his letters in the New Testament. Jesus’ followers were well represented by women, and the most important of saints in the Catholic Church is Mary, Jesus’ mother.

However, I do agree with Lewis when he wrote: “The innovators are really implying that sex is something superficial, irrelevant to the spiritual life.” In order to be honest about ourselves and the world we live in, we have to be willing to recognize and appreciate real differences in reality. Ruinel has picked up on something that I consider just as erroneous in Lewis’ position. He seems to be saying that women are somehow inferior to men in certain professions, especially when he wrote: “To say that men and women are equally eligible for a certain profession is to say that for the purposes of that profession their sex is irrelevant.” I disagree with this statement, and I think given some further reflection, Lewis may well have retracted this.

From my Catholic perspective, we aren’t talking about a profession when we say the priesthood is limited to men only. There is no profession that I can think of for which a woman would not be qualified based solely on the fact that she is a woman. As I’ve said though, ordination is not the hiring of an administrator, leader of a congregation, or a preacher. The priesthood is not a profession, it is a sacrament. As a sacrament, ordination must conform to both the form and species of the sacrament.

As far as administration of the Church, preaching, leading a congregation in prayer or liturgy, representing God (something that everyone is called to do, anyway), etc. are concerned, any woman, given the proper training, can be more than qualified. The laity, which women a central and important role therein, have always been instrumental in the administration, protection, and the evangelical mission of the Church. Thankfully women have always been apart of all these aspects, and their role continues to grow in the modern Church. The Church would not exist without the unique experiences of women throughout her history. Women add an important element that men can not, because, simply, they are men. However, as far as being a sacrament, in specific, acting in persona Christi--the sacramental presence of Christ in His priests--the Church is bound to follow the stipulations set out by Jesus, Himself concerning form and species. This, I’m sure, was not intended by Jesus to limit the voice of women in His Church.

Regards,
Dave

Aside:

the bible was written in a time in which women were generally chattel, they could own no property, make no decision on their own, and followed orders of their husbands or fathers or even brothers (whoever was the head male of the family she belonged to).

You are mistaking Greco-Roman and Hebrew culture with Victorian England.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Or rather, conceived. I think that the Church teaches that some other people were born (though not conceived) without Original Sin; John the Baptist, for instance. I'm not sure about that, though.

yes conceived (my mistake ) I'm not sure about the whole being born from Original sin....that would imply that the person was still conceived with Original Sin on their soul...so what would be the point of being born without it? I guess I'm a little confused...

also another note on Mary...she was taken up body and soul into Heaven right after she died to reign as Queen of Heaven....I think that's an honor as well...again this is according to Catholic doctrine...I don't think that Protestants accept the Assumption

[Valandil]

PS - not at all intending to start a Catholic-Protestant war... (we've had enough of those... seems the fiercest fighting is often between those who are in closest agreement - and just dispute on a few minor points! )

I did however, want to make sure everyone is aware that not all Catholic teachings are adhered to by Protestants - and vice-versa. There's also a wide range of Protestant beliefs, let me tell ya!

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
... As I’ve said though, ordination is not the hiring of an administrator, leader of a congregation, or a preacher. The priesthood is not a profession, it is a sacrament. As a sacrament, ordination must conform to both the form and species of the sacrament.

...However, as far as being a sacrament, in specific, acting in persona Christi--the sacramental presence of Christ in His priests--the Church is bound to follow the stipulations set out by Jesus, Himself concerning form and species. This, I’m sure, was not intended by Jesus to limit the voice of women in His Church.

Explain why a woman can not receive the same "sacrament" of priesthood then? And if this is so, that a woman can not be a priest because of her sex, then what of the other Christian religions that allow it?
This is an interesting read... http://www.womenpriests.org/theology/rossi1.htm

You are mistaking Greco-Roman and Hebrew culture with Victorian England.

No, actually, I was talking about when the bible was written.
passages such as the following lead me to believe such things...

Ephesians 5: 22
'Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.'

Exodus 21:22
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

There's more... lots of stuff about men selling their daughters into slavery (most often, sexual slavery) and how female slaves could never be free from their masters, though provisions are made for male slaves. Stuff like that.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Explain why a woman can not receive the same "sacrament" of priesthood then?

This isn’t about “receiving” a sacrament, its about being a sacrament. It would be invalid to consecrate koolaid instead of wine, as I explained above, because koolaid is not the species of the sacrament presented by Jesus. The priest doesn’t receive a sacrament when he acts in persona Christi. His body is the visible sign of the invisible reality, as such the priest, himself, must conform in species. The same is true for marriage. A married couple doesn’t merely receive a sacrament, they are the sacrament. Thus they, body and soul, must conform to the species; thus, they must, according to Catholic doctrine, be man and woman.

what of the other Christian religions that allow it?

We Catholics respectfully disagree with them, and point out the doctrinal, theological, and historical facts as to why we disagree.

Its easy to pick and choose from the bible to support just about any position, Ruinel. Allow me to place Saint Paul’s words in context. The rest of the passage from Ephesians reads thus:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her [in other words, He died for the Church] to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present himself to the church in slendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body.

Its clear that Saint Paul puts a much greater burden on the husband, who must go so far as to die for his wife, than he places on the wife. What’s more, the submission he speaks of is the same submission that is to be practiced by all Christians in regards to God. This submission is a paradox for Saint Paul. Its a happy slavery, for in the Christian’s commitment to God, the Christian finds her greatest freedom--the fulfillment of human nature:

For when you were slaves of sin, you were free from righteousness. But what profit did you get then from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now that you have been freed from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefits that you have leads to sanctification, and its end is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 6:20-23)

There is nothing subordinating in Christian submission. Christian submission is a humility that leads to eternal life and ultimate human freedom. Saint Paul’s instructions for married people is analogous with the Church’s relationship with the Godhead--it is both in submission to God, and in sharing the sacrifice of Calvary with Jesus.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Ephesians 5: 22-24
'Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. ...'

Originally posted by Guillaume
Ephesians 5: 25-30
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her [in other words, He died for the Church] to sanctify her, ..."

[Guillaume:] Its clear that Saint Paul puts a much greater burden on the husband, who must go so far as to die for his wife, than he places on the wife.

Hey, Guillaume, you saved me some typing! I was just going to quote the rest of the passage from Ephesians, and you beat me to it

[Rían]

Originally posted by Valandil
PS - not at all intending to start a Catholic-Protestant war... (we've had enough of those... seems the fiercest fighting is often between those who are in closest agreement - and just dispute on a few minor points! )

I did however, want to make sure everyone is aware that not all Catholic teachings are adhered to by Protestants - and vice-versa. There's also a wide range of Protestant beliefs, let me tell ya!

I agree - and for one, I totally disagree about the Ritz cracker (esp. in the case of there being no unleaved bread around), but don't have time to take that one up now. Also, to me, it's a non-critical point.

I was going to start my answer to Artanis about the range of beliefs on different topics in Christianity in this thread, but since this topic is going strong, I think I'll put it over in the Offshoot thread, just to keep things clearer. I hope you guys can join in over there

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Valandil
[B]Hmmm... on the Eucharist, perhaps some Protestant misunderstanding of actual Catholic teaching. I'll check with my pastors (and other smart people I know) about any beliefs we might have about Christ's 'presence' therein. My own impressions are partly based on the words, "Do this in remembrance of me"... ie, that it's largely a symbolic presence. Like I say, I'll check.

But he also said, "This is My body"; "This is My blood". And again, in John 6, "My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." I could go on, but that's just a sidetrack, so I won't.

The issue I have with this belief about Mary is just that: it almost seems like someday, someone was just thinking about it too much. I know of no scriptural justification for the Immaculate Conception (is there one?). It seems as though someone decided that God could not send His Son to be born into mankind unless the sinful nature was absent (almost a gnostic notion itself, perhaps? )... but I say, "Why not?" ... and doesn't it make the Redemption of mankind all the more glorious?

Firstly: one of the unique things about the Catholic and Orthodox churches is that they do not come from the Bible; the Bible came from them. The Catholic Church is older than the Scriptures. It was the Catholic Church that compiled the Scriptural canon we have today. And, arguably, it was Catholics who wrote the Scriptures.
Secondly, there is actually Scriptural justification. In the first place, a short writing on the phrase "full of grace" or "highly favoured"

"It’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference can be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is more accurate than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was only as "full" or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called "full of grace."