Posted on 05/02/2009 7:10:09 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
It would be unkind to flame an idiot for being an idiot.
Bourgeois is a liberal dead-soul. When a 'reverend' stands himself/herself up into a position of telling God what He is doing is right or wrong, that soul is lost in the service of the evil one. There cannot be a more discriminating event than the judgment seat of Christ. Would the 'reverend' tell us now that such an event is not going to occur because that would be the height of discrimination? ... I think a dead soul like Roy Bourgeois or Gabriella Velardi-Ward would indeed try to convince us of such foolery.
So she can call herself a priest all she wants, but she isn't a ROMAN CATHOLIC priest, no matter how much she wants to tell that to herself or others. If the headline in the newspaper read the way the FR headline reads, it's no wonder half-listening Catholics are confused about what the Church teaches anymore.
Beginning Catholic: The Sacrament of Holy Orders: Priests of the New Sacrifice [Ecumenical]
Thanks for your orthodox opinion!
Well said. It’s hard for folks to understand that, sometimes, but God knows what He’s doing.
VERY well said!
You are believing too much Hollyweird stuff!
I’m sure you’ll do a much better job than ‘That One’!
Never say never. The church changes all the time, just takes 500 years or so to turn the boat.
Do tell! I'd love to hear it.
They have started their own religion. But they have been allowed to remain within the Catholic Church, sadly, working to draw people away from the Truth and into apostasy. Satan has been present in one way or another in every church since Christ established Salvation in Him.
Mary Magdalene was a follower of Jesus, as were many women, but she was not an Apostle. The Apostles are NAMED as such in the Scriptures.
It's been over 2000 years. I don't think this one's turning around.
....................a moment in time for the church.
My opinion is not based on political correctness but on the very practical consideration that the Church is not currently attracting enough qualified priests even for their declining membership. I would like to see the Catholic Church change in a manner that would bring more priests and better priests into the priesthood, so that the church could grow again, but without losing any essential element of Christianity. I consider the Church to be one of the greatest forces for good in the world. I do not want any essential doctrine changed, nor do I think the Church should change to suit my whims. I do hope and pray that they are giving the issue a great deal of thought; something needs to change to reverse the current membership slide and scarcity of leaders.
Do you have an answer that addresses the nearly worldwide shortage of priests?
Infection in the ranks ping.
It’s not about sexism, it’s about the qualifications laid out in Scripture about who can serve.
God puts His own qualifications as to who can serve. Way back in the OT times only males that met certain standards, and were born in the tribe of Levi were allowed to be priests. Is that fair? Probably there were plenty of good candidates in the other 11 tribes but they were excluded because they weren’t born in the Levi tribe. It seems unfair, but are you saying God is unfair for setting the criteria He wants for those who will serve Him?
Same thing here. Paul lists the characteristics of the priests (elders, deacons) in Acts and Timothy, some of which are: men of dignity; not addicted to wine; not lovers of money or gain; have a clear conscience, and above reproach; the husband of one wife; manages his household well, and his children are under control and are believers; not a new convert; self-controlled; and able to teach others (and there are more).
Now you can see that just because you are a man, many will not qualify to be a church leader. Many will not pass the qualifications. Is that fair? Of course it is. Is it fair that God wants the men to be church leaders? Of course it is. The RCC throws ‘celibacy’ in there as a requirement - which it is not - and that reduces their candidate field much more, to their own detriment and complicates the defense of their position. But to the extent that they attempt to stay faithful to the qualifications for church leaders, it isn’t about barring women from being priests. It’s like men getting upset that they cannot be mothers. Or women being upset they cannot be fathers.
People assume as the popes have done that the fact that Jesus had no female apostles meant that he didn't want there to be women priests.
This is not founded upon any of Christ's teachings just human supposition.
Jesus may just as well have picked men so that he wasn't traipsing around Judea traveling with women and men in his "entourage." certainly would have been a major distraction at the time.
It is men who make up the rules of the church and interpret God's intentions and some day men will see the light. Of course, all conservative catholics will be scandalized for a hundred years and line up in the longest line for communion.
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.