Ed Dionne: Papal election turns back on Vatican II

as I don't recall any such nor do I believe you can find such.

You most likely were thinking of

Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

If such was the case you should take the time to familiarize yourself with the full of Galatians because you will discover that taking a passage completely out of context as you have done offers it meaning that is not present within the full context of the book.

Galatians 4:7 - And because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father.

Galatians 4:7 - Therefore, now he is not a servant, but a son. And if a son, an heir also through God.

The warrant and commission of the apostles and their successors, the bishops and pastors of Christ's church were explained in Luke and John and the inclusion of women was not provided for within the leadership.

Maybe a court decision to invalidate this chauvinism would make you happy? Woops, "Congress shall pass no law..." so the tenets of the church prevail.

document. The right judge looking at that provision could.....

and I bet the country would meekly submit.

discussed homosexuality, you were rejecting Paul. I guess you just pick out the parts that agree with your preconceived views? That's not the way it's supposed to work Dave. The Holy Spirit's job is to teach you what the Bible says and means. That means you learn new things and change your preconceived ideas.

What does that mean to you? The ?New Catholic Encyclopedia? by The Catholic University of America, under the subject ?Salvation, Necessity of the Church For,? states that one comes into contact with God?s arrangement to be saved through faith and ?through the Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation.? Further on it states: ?The necessity of the Church for salvation is explicitly defined by the Church as a revealed truth ... Thus, Boniface VIII asserts in his bull ?Unam sanctam? that outside the Church of Christ there can be neither salvation nor remission of sins.?
Doesn't that bar five sixths of the human population from any prospects whatever?

The full quote from Paul is ?YOU are all, in fact, sons of God through YOUR faith in Christ Jesus. For all of YOU who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for YOU are all one [person] in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if YOU belong to Christ, YOU are really Abraham?s seed, heirs with reference to a promise.? (Ga 3:26-29) Further, the letter to the Galatians had a major purpose in lifting the vision of Christians there above the now-petty requirements of the old Law and its focus on physical things.
So you rightly take it as counsel against focussing our everyday vision on "race, creed, or national origin," or sex.

Since there are so few RC priests compared to the lay population- and the ratio declines apace- why not focus on the role of women in the Christian congregation? I haven't seen anything demeaning about that in the bible. What do you think?
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

do, say, or teach. In other words, God's revelation to man was compromised by the culture of the day, and Jesus didn't have the courage or wisdom to overcome it. Rigghhhttt! It sure would have helped a lot if Jesus would have had access to modern thought. Right? I guess He kinda blew it, and we've got to make up for His mistakes.

Hmmmm, I wonder how He summoned the courage to go to Jerusalem where He knew He would be crucified.

It's funny though. God sure didn't have any problem telling the apostles that gentiles were to be accepted into the church. I guess women were forgotten at that time also.

'So, it was OK for the above to make changes'

Excuse me, who said it was OK? Obviously the churches who did it. However, it is not generally accepted among the churches that these actions were correct. The Bible puts limitations on a woman's service. Paul says that he does not put women in positions of authority over men. He grounds this teaching in relationships established by the creation. If a woman can serve within this limitation, I do not see a problem. By that, I do not presume to tell the RCC that it should loosen its restrictions.

... is one I agree on, and I think it probably has considerable support. Perhaps only those "married to the Church" should be elevated in the heirarchy. We had our premarital counseling (and were married by) an Episcopal priest that was married. In one of the counseling sessions he asked us if either had family secrets the other should know. He shared his own experience that his father had committed suicide and he hadn't shared this with his wife until several years after their marriage. When he was having problems with a situation due to this "past" that his wife couldn't comprehend because she knew nothing of this. I think sharing his own experiences about marriage made his counseling meaningful. Priests can marry in the Ukrainian Catholic church -- before they are ordained which I think makes sense and cuts down on potential scandal. So this tradition is not bound up in the identity of the church. An all-male priesthood, however, seems to be at the very core of the Church. As Kiddpeat pointed out, if one believes Jesus was sent by God, it is hard to square that with Jesus "getting it wrong" about male priests.

Evie

ages with a 'legitimate chain of sacramental succession from the Apostles' don't you? It seems to me there were some VERY suspect popes in that and other periods plus the fiasco when there were two popes (Italy and France). Sounds like you're in trouble. The chain was broken long ago.

That's why I used the owrd "scramental."

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

mean much? You'll have to excuse a misinformed protestant. I thought the pope had a bigger role in the RCC.

interrupting these lovely flames with plain, rational questions.
Google
> advanced search
>> "vatican ii"

Quickie: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v1.html

Where, if you look closely, you'll find that Ms. Clinton has been canonized.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico