Praying for Women Priests?

[Wigglesworth]

Anybody have this calendar?

Confusion Amongst the Faithful (http://konicki.com/blog2/2007/08/02/confusion-amongst-the-faithful/)

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[Yeznik]

Its not going to happen in any orthodox church.

[WarriorAngel]

It's not going to happen in the Catholic Church.

[Knowledge3]

No.

[Don5925]

I didn't read it that way, I read it as a prayer for female laity and religious. No, it won't happen in the Catholic Church, especially under Pope B.

[rrguy]

Yes thats what I got from it, to pray for all of us . I think it is important to realize we all have an important role as servants of God. To pray that we may serve God by doing his will & answer his calling to us. I feel allot of us want serve God by doing what we want to do?

[stray bullet]

Well, it can't happen in any Church. You can call a woman a priest all you want, but they can never be one.

[Albion]

I didn't read it that way, I read it as a prayer for female laity and religious. No, it won't happen in the Catholic Church, especially under Pope B.

Hmmm. There is a certain ambiguity in the wording. At first it looked to me that it meant to say women as deacons, etc., but after reading it again, I think it was intended to be insulated against that conclusion in that men and women are lumped together as those to lead us in both clerical and lay ministries. The question probably is, "Should any parish or diocese promote that ambiguity by distributing this calendar?"

[WarriorAngel]

I think there is a distorted view on 'the religious life' so the wording can be twisted to mean women priests.

But no, it will not happen because if Jesus intended to make women priests, He would have.

He was not into worrying about conventionalism.
IF He would have ordained them, we would have had women..
His point was to have men be His choosen for this particular ministry...and women have another.

So, just saying.....

[Albion]

I think there is a distorted view on 'the religious life' so the wording can be twisted to mean women priests.

The concern was not over "the religious life," but was about men and women being called to lead with regard to deacons and priests. That was also part of the same sentence. Had there been no mention of that but just the religious life and lay ministries, I am sure no particular note would have been taken of this item.

" to encourage men and women to lead us through the ministries of priesthood, diaconate, religious life, and lay ministry. Amen."

[karen freeinchristman]

:doh: I thought in this forum we were of a mind not to bring up this subject, which we all know to be contentious for the Anglicans. Why aren't we all complaining that this topic has been brought up now? If I had brought up the topic in a positive light, that would be a different thing, then, wouldn't it? :sigh:
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[Albion]

:doh: I thought in this forum we were of a mind not to bring up this subject, which we all know to be contentious for the Anglicans. Why aren't we all complaining that this topic has been brought up now? If I had brought up the topic in a positive light, that would be a different thing, then, wouldn't it? :sigh:
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

1. It's a consequence of "thread drift." The OP was not intending to debate the issue again, only to point to a surprising development.

2. The development concerned ROMAN CATHOLIC policies.

3. No one said anything about Anglican practice.

4. The posters who pushed the OP in the direction of "who's right about women priests" and away from the OP were EO and RC, but not Anglicans. And my participation was confined to explaining the wording to one of them, commenting NOT AT ALL on whether or not I favor women in the ordained ministry.

[a_ntv]

:doh: I thought in this forum we were of a mind not to bring up this subject, which we all know to be contentious for the Anglicans. Why aren't we all complaining that this topic has been brought up now? If I had brought up the topic in a positive light, that would be a different thing, then, wouldn't it? :sigh:
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Because to see a women dressed with vestments, monkering a true priest is, in my opinion, absolutly horrible.

If we dont discuss it, if we dont firmly condamn it, it could seem as something acceptable, while it is absolutly to condamn

It is our duty to confirm our anglican brothers in the ancient faith, the faith of the Fathers, the faith without women priests.

[Albion]

Because to see a women dressed with vestments, monkering a true priest is, in my opinion, absolutly horrible.

And to me, some of the practices of Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox liturgy are absolutely horrifying. But is it necessary to say everything you think in the face of other Apostolic communions who have as much right to be here as you do?

Karen has a good point. If this forum is to be worth anything, it can't be based upon endless one-upping the other communion, sneering at what you don't like in them, looking down on them in your remarks, and so on.

If we dont discuss it, if we dont firmly condamn it, it could seem as something acceptable, while it is absolutly to condamn

Maybe so, but what you said is a lot more than
"discussing it." You gratuitously personalized it, made it a point to use language that trivializes the other communion, and it was not germaine to the thread in the first place.

IMO, this was just as bad as WA's constant riding of the Pope issue or EOs insisting on pretending that they can't understand what Western Christians are saying unless they use the terminology EOs use. Except I don't think I recall her ever using such disrespectul language as you did here. Sorry, but I wish we'd all think of this as NOT the place to ridicule the other guy's faith, even if we find elements in it to disagree with.

[zhilan]

Because to see a women dressed with vestments, monkering a true priest is, in my opinion, absolutly horrible.

If we dont discuss it, if we dont firmly condamn it, it could seem as something acceptable, while it is absolutly to condamn

It is our duty to confirm our anglican brothers in the ancient faith, the faith of the Fathers, the faith without women priests.

a_ntv,

You might not have been here during some of the earlier discussions about this, but this is not the forum for you to make sweeping judgments about women priests, not is it your place to "confirm" to the Anglicans what the ancient faith is. Sadly, it seems like this is the OBOB missionary board for OBOB members to "witness" to us misguided heretics under the guise of fellowship.

When this board was created, it was decided that "Apostolic" would include Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans. That means that regardless of your opinion on women priest, for the purposes of this forum we are accepting them as full members. Obviously that does not mean we are asking you or anyone else to accept the theology. But the Anglicans are members of this forum and it is not your job to swoop down on a white horse and bestow upon them the ancient faith anymore than it is their job to call Catholics and Orthodox mean and close minded for not allowing women priests.

[zhilan]

And to me, some of the practices of Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox liturgy are absolutely horrifying. But is it necessary to say everything you think in the face of other Apostolic communions who have as much right to be here as you do?

Karen has a good point. If this forum is to be worth anything, it can't be based upon endless one-upping the other communion, sneering at what you don't like in them, looking down on them in your remarks, and so on.



Maybe so, but what you said is a lot more than
"discussing it." You gratuitously personalized it, made it a point to use language that trivializes the other communion, and it was not germaine to the thread in the first place.

IMO, this was just as bad as WA's constant riding of the Pope issue or EOs insisting on pretending that they can't understand what Western Christians are saying unless they use the terminology EOs use. Except I don't think I recall her ever using such disrespectul language as you did here. Sorry, but I wish we'd all think of this as NOT the place to ridicule the other guy's faith, even if we find elements in it to disagree with.

I agree with you, but in a_ntv's defense, I think if I remember correctly (please tell me if I'm wrong) that English is not his first language. I think sometimes the reason he comes off a bit harsh is not out of curtness but that he is trying to communicate complex ideas in a second language.

[karen freeinchristman]

Thank you, Albion and zhilan.

[WarriorAngel]

This is not about women priests... or the title says it is?

Regardless, ...I thot this was about the Catholic Church's writings on the religious work of women...
Nuns...which take the place of deaconess BTW.

[WarriorAngel]

Deaconess was no longer a service in the Church since women are not undressed for baptisms.

[Albion]

This is not about women priests... or the title says it is?

Regardless, ...I thot this was about the Catholic Church's writings on the religious work of women...
Nuns...which take the place of deaconess BTW.

Certainly it wasn't about women religious; it was about women clergy. Or, shall we say, that it was ambiguous.

That doesn't mean that the Church is going to change its position, so there's no need to reassure yourself and us, too. But it's interesting that something like this could be found in an official RC publication, don't you agree?

[Albion]

I agree with you, but in a_ntv's defense, I think if I remember correctly (please tell me if I'm wrong) that English is not his first language. I think sometimes the reason he comes off a bit harsh is not out of curtness but that he is trying to communicate complex ideas in a second language.

Well, I didn't remember that, and I have doubts that the colorful phraseology he used indicates an inability to use the language well, but I appreciate the information and agree that it might have something to do with this.

[WarriorAngel]

Certainly it wasn't about women religious; it was about women clergy. Or, shall we say, that it was ambiguous.

That doesn't mean that the Church is going to change its position, so there's no need to reassure yourself and us, too. But it's interesting that something like this could be found in an official RC publication, don't you agree?

It might be interesting, but it does not mean anything more than the roles established.
;)

Yes too ambiguous. These days ppl will always see things as a place to put a square peg into a round hole...and they will do what they can to do it too.

Wont work, but they do try.:)