Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vatican opposes female clergy anywhere, gives reasons from Bible
Associated Press ^ | Saturday, July 8, 2006 | Richard N. Ostling

Posted on 07/08/2006 9:23:38 AM PDT by WestTexasWend

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 381-391 next last
To: Conservative til I die

Sure we would. But the Scriptures say otherwise. I believe the teachings for church structure as set out in the book of Timothy is more relevant.


101 posted on 07/08/2006 3:11:30 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

"I read the same passage and come to a different conclusion."

You're replying to my post 92, try reading my post number 99.


102 posted on 07/08/2006 3:13:04 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius
Rather, you are saying that you choose not to worship at a church which does not believe/practice what you think the Word says. I read the same passage and come to a different conclusion.

In other words, they are popes unto themselves.

103 posted on 07/08/2006 3:13:49 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

"In other words, they are popes unto themselves."

Well isn't that what Catholic Church believes?


104 posted on 07/08/2006 3:15:29 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Guess you haven't read the gospel of John?

As one who adheres to the exact words of the bible....

What do you make of John 6:53-57...

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;

he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life...."
105 posted on 07/08/2006 3:15:43 PM PDT by dollars_for_dogma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: NYer

In the 20th Chapter of Luke, where he is hit by the puzzle of wives and husbands, Our Lord says something interesting. He says not only do those in heaven not marry but that they are some on earth in the kingdom who are are already like the angels in that respect. Not only did Our Lord live like a monk, or to be more exact like a Friar, but, as Luke points out, as he was writing there were already those who lived celibate lives in imitation of Our Lord. Of course there is also the example of St. John, whose life and our Lord paralleled, and then of course the life of St. Paul followed much the same course.


106 posted on 07/08/2006 3:16:16 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: dollars_for_dogma

Are you talking about communion? The Catholic Church doesn't follow that either? They get a wafer? Not bread and wine.


107 posted on 07/08/2006 3:16:47 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Well isn't that what Catholic Church believes?

No, the Catholic Church does not believe in individual popism.

108 posted on 07/08/2006 3:16:48 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

Freepmail incoming


109 posted on 07/08/2006 3:18:01 PM PDT by stands2reason (ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

So what about Peter? Upon whom the Church was built?


110 posted on 07/08/2006 3:18:08 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Try II Peter first chapter verse 20.

2 Peter 1:20
Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
I am not denying the inspiration of the passage in 1 Timothy, only your interpretation of it. Indeed I would hold that what St. Peter states above also applies to how we read Scripture, i.e. that we should read it through the eyes of the Church and not by private interpretation.
111 posted on 07/08/2006 3:18:33 PM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

Sure it does. Whatever the Pope says is a discipline is what it practices does it not?


112 posted on 07/08/2006 3:18:48 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ichabod1
There are large flocks and small flocks. Some flocks are hale and hearty, watched over by vigilant and faithful shepherds. Others are dwindling in apostasy and unbelief as wolves make incursions freely through them, slaughtering at will because there is no shepherd. Other flocks are preyed upon by the shepherds themselves that should have protected them.
113 posted on 07/08/2006 3:18:51 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius

" ... that we should read it through the eyes of the Church..."

That's not the scripture says. Where is what you are saying in scripture?


114 posted on 07/08/2006 3:20:01 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Are you talking about communion? The Catholic Church doesn't follow that either? They get a wafer? Not bread and wine.

It's called the Eucharist: the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

You are a firm believer that the Bible means what is says...

Again, what does John 6:53-57 mean to you?
115 posted on 07/08/2006 3:20:10 PM PDT by dollars_for_dogma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Sure it does. Whatever the Pope says is a discipline is what it practices does it not?

I really don't understand how that is applicable to what we were saying. Hey, by the way, how come you never answered Dogma's and mine question about women learning in submission and not being allowed to teach in church. I'm asking you again, do you or do you not agree with Scripture on that?

116 posted on 07/08/2006 3:22:22 PM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die

Respectfully stated/asked...

"Have to disagree. I feel that it's mistreating the wound. The problem with the homosexualization and liberalization of some of the clergy won't be cured just by ending the celibacy tradition."





I do agree with you, that probably wouldn't stop the multitude of homosexuals from trying to become priests...

My questions is what number of married men, who firmly meet the standards put forth in Timothy, do not get the chance to spread the Faith as priests/Bishops because they are married? I'm not slamming the RCC just curious if there have ever been numbers tallied?

My father was a minister in the Wisconsin Synod and I can assure you that my brother/sister/Mom/me NEVER came before his duties as a servant of God and we understood that his role was to serve the congregation first. I guess I just find that this argument is a convenient one to support unmarried priests. There will always be more loyal and less loyal priests, whether they have a wife/family or not is not the only reason they are strong or weak servants...just my opinion, but I do tire of hearing that a married man can't be devoted to God's service as it's simply untrue...Obviously we know Peter was married and he did a "rock" solid job...nice play on words, eh? ;-)...

God's blessings to you and yours!


117 posted on 07/08/2006 3:22:50 PM PDT by phatus maximus (John 6:29...Learn it, love it, live it...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: dollars_for_dogma

The bread is his Word, the body, and the wine his blood, his sacrifice on the cross.

You injest a wafer.


118 posted on 07/08/2006 3:22:56 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

Indeed, I found the next sentence even more confusing. It's as if he's saying, on the one hand, that the Anglicans should not have women bishops until the Catholics can approve, and on the other, they never will approve.
I'm trying to read it in such a way that it doesn't sound vaguely sarcastic, and more befitting the head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
At the moment I'm blaming the reporter who wrote this up. Possibly in full context his comments would be clearer.


119 posted on 07/08/2006 3:23:26 PM PDT by Graymatter ("Put only Americans on guard tonight." -- George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

"I really don't understand how that is applicable to what we were saying."

Of course you don't. You believe that what the Pope say is a discipline is what you practice. I don't. I believe what the word of God says is what you practice.


120 posted on 07/08/2006 3:25:34 PM PDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 381-391 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson