Yes, christianity was originally a spiritual doctrine, Jesus himself advocated selling all your posessions, that was a way of showing that, in order to follow him you don't need any worldy things such as altars or sacrificies or special rituals or icons. One-ness with god comes from within, by the spirit, through the word of the son aka Jesus.
The Catholic Church had strayed from the teachings of Jesus and was only interested in money, idol worship, pagan traditions, sex with their sisters and, as it turns out, sex with little children as well (although Luther was not aware of the latter).
All Catholics will burn in Hell for their heresy against The Lord. So will the Orthodox for refusing to believe the Bible.
>>606241 Christ was a religious Jew, Christianity is a continuation of Judaism, not an abrogation of it. The spirit *fulfills* the carnal, making it corporeal. It doesn't say, "Okay, forget the material now."
>>606176 In the New Testament a twofold attitude to tr adition can be discerned. The tradition of the (Jewish) elders, together with ot her human traditi on, is rejected. 7 At the same time there is good apostolic tradition which is simply the Christian faith as it was proclaimed and transmitted by the apostles and their associates. 8 The New Testament writings sprang out of this latter tradition at different stages in its history. There is therefor e an important sense in which (apostolic) tradition precedes Scripture, an aspect largely ignored by traditional Protestant theology. But although this has important implications for the origin of the New Testament it does not foreclose the question of the subsequent relation between Scripture and tradition. The New Testament may derive from th e original apostolic tradition but once it was produced it became distinct from that traditi on and the relation between the two became an open question. It also became a question which c ould not long be ignored for the original apostolic tradition did not sudde nly die when the New Testamen t was produced but remained as the context in which it was read and interpreted.
>>606266 a bold statement for which you have no evidence, to be honest. the very first christians were the disciples, and they had no business with the modern day traditions of the orthodox churches, i assure you.
>>606271 Christ was an orthodox Jew who supported the Sacred Tradition (Matthew 23:32-33). He was an Essence, but was on board with pretty much everything the Pharisees taught--the main reason he disliked them is that they were hypocrites.
>>606176 He had good intentions, but things spiraled out of control, and he went way further that what he originally intended. Which is a shame. Then protestantism became increasingly reductionistic, which will be the death of us. >>606247 >So will the Orthodox for refusing to believe the Bible. Weird, early lutherans liked the Greek Church a lot and provided it as a standard from which Rome deviated.
>>606293 Because both Luther and the Catholic Church are wrong, and the Catholic Church has a long history of compromising with whatever is trendy. But Luther is far worse, he advocated wholesale murder of Jews and peasants, and was the most spiteful of men who wanted to remove seven books from the NT for daring to defy his doctrines.
>>606323 I think you are correct, that's why i think Luther was right, he wanted to return to the true teachings of Jesus, away from the cultural appropriation of Jesus's image, perpetrated by the catholic church.
>>606308 I think music and art were extremely crucial Christians and all the Jews before them because there is a precise way of conveying worship that expresses the proper feelings and beliefs. There is some room for variety within that, but there are limitations you have to work within, and if you worked outside of those, they would not be comfortable anymore than with you calling God some degrading insult to act overly familiar with him during worship.
>>606308 No, but they are signs from which we can deduce ancient-ness. But you want to compare on how the "disciples" did things, fine. Shall we start with the Didache? early 2nd century church fathers? Archeology?
>>606427 >This means that we can trust the accuracy of the Old Testament Scriptures which he mentions as being inspired a) He didn't mention explicitly which; b) he may have quoted from deuterocanonicals;
>>606486 For one, without a clear and cut definition of what is and not canonical Scripture, the faithful could easily pick up a heterodox work and consider it to be Divinely Inspired Scripture in their ignorance.
Secondly, when we have those like Marcion who decide to chip off the OT and define his own canon would it not be the case that a definition of what is Canonical Scripture be necessitated?
No, it would be just as foreign to them as modern Protestantism is to you.
Early Christianity wasn't one faith, it was a spectrum of religions similar to how we think of Hinduism today. Being an underground religion for so long meant that it was hard for people on opposite sides of the Mediterranean to communicate, so numerous interpretations of Christianity appeared. Ebionites, Marcionists, Docetists, Donatists, Arians, Adoptionists, Montanists, Origenists, etc weren't deemed heresies until the Ecumenical councils decided they were. Nicene Christianity became dominant because it was founded on consensus and was the most organized.
>>606486 >Could you perhaps explain why this is so important? (which books are "canon" and which are not). I'm interested to hear... Because without determining which books are legit, we cannot determine which books constitute the Bible in the first place, and we have no reason to not include other words that were ancient and claimed to be holy scripture. Or we might exclude(as Luther did, btw) books which are inspired. >>606494 >pagan heretics Those 2 terms exclude one another.
>>606498 >For one, without a clear and cut definition of what is and not canonical Scripture, the faithful could easily pick up a heterodox work and consider it to be Divinely Inspired Scripture in their ignorance.
And where's the harm in that? I fail to see.
>Secondly, when we have those like Marcion who decide to chip off the OT and define his own canon would it not be the case that a definition of what is Canonical Scripture be necessitated?
No? I don't think so, no.
>>606500 >Because there a numerous Gnostic Gospels, and if you say they are canon, and the main four aren't, it really changes the fundamentals of the faith.
What some person defines as "canon" and not, does not change my perception of the cristian faith. I'm not going to pretend that God actually put pen to paper and wrote some parts, and not others, the scripture was written by men, that doesn't change the philosophy of the faith, for me anyways. Maybe for some people it does.
I think Luther was right, but his actions unleashed a whole can of worms he couldn't have forseen. Catholicism has sufficiently reformed since his time, and meanwhile Protestantism gets a bad rap because of all the batshit insane denominations in rural America.
>>606503 The Church didn't deem any of them as irrelevant, just provisional. Christian logic here is really compatible with Judaism, because Jews don't think anyone outside their race is has to follow the Law to be good with God, an in fact Orthodox Jews strongly discourage gentiles from converting. So if Christ is saying to preach the new covenant to all nations, the idea that peoples who aren't Jewish (except by Christian definition, of the heart) wouldn't have to follow it, and if this covenant for all nations supersedes the old covenant, neither would Jews of the new covenant. The idea of Jewish law applied to all nations is not compatible with Judaism or Christianity.
>>606519 Ok, let's put it another way. You are currently living in the 3rd century, there is no book which you can call a bible, just a dazzling array of gospels, epistles, and other books. Some are holy, some are heretical. How do you determine which are true(again, you have no Bible in the modern sense at that point)?
>>606521 So you mean it's ok for me to take say Marcion's canon as the Canon of Scripture (?_?)
>I don't think so, no. Why not?
I think it's important when your boundaries are still flexible and fluid thus necessitating efforts to further solidify its boundaries. In the case of Marcion, it's about defending the canonicity of the OT.
Even then, the Canon was still fluid and never really settled. The only formal closure on this issue came about in the Council of Trent.
>>606540 >Which books you say are legit, and which are not, means nothing to God. It's actually arrogant to think that you would be a just judge in the matter, in my opinion anyways. Given some of them made God into a monster that wants to enslave our souls, Jesus saying very heretical things, Satan being good and all that, it matters. A LOT.
>>606539 If you mean the idea of their separation, yes, it was common, but that is crypto-Arianism, since the Gospels talk about Christ as a human, and so saying the humanity and the divinity are separate would mean the divinity is not chronicled in the Gospels. It would also mean that you are not your body, which is not a Christian teaching. You are your spirit, but also your body, to say your body isn't you is Gnostic.
In Early Christianity there was a flexible canon of Scriptures where whilst core texts are agreed upon, there are still books that can make their way in or out of the canon.
The so called "additional books" are included in many lists of Canonical Scripture and are cited by the Church Fathers as well to varying degrees.
Even Church Fathers like Athanasius who is mistakenly claimed to be proof that the Protestant canon is correct does not in practice, see the additional books as you call it as uninspired. He cites them as he cites Canonical texts according to him as FF Bruce notes in the Canon of Scripture.
Well the Council was the one to decide who was and wasn't in line with the Apostles, and they were also the ones who decided what was and wasn't canonical scripture. It was done by consensus, and those works which contradicted the consensus were burned so we have little notion of how valid or invalid they were. The only reason we even know about half of those heresies is because of Nicene Christian tracts shitting on them, and these aren't exactly unbiased sources.
We can even say that God guided the Catholic Church to include the Deuterocanon as Canonical Scripture if we follow your line of thought here. And they aren't even wrong in doing this as history shows widespread acceptance of these books as proven by texts such as Codex Sinnaiticus
>>606613 just leave him, he fails totally to comprehend that god's word is divine, and is completely above and beyond what some bearded faggots decided was "canon" at some meeting in a gay club 1800 years ago.
Books by the apostles were in the Bible. These books are in due to the apostles direct interaction with Christ. Plus, they were given power of the Holy Spirit in Acts. All of Paul's letters were added as well. Even though he was not around during Jesus' time on earth, he saw the Lord during his transformation from Saul to Paul iirc. There was and still is some controversies surrounding Hebrews since the author has not been determined. Originally, 2 3 Peter were not considered due to their short lengths.
The Apocrypha is not in Protestant bibles due to it not being directly from God. These books were written from the time between the last prophets and Jesus. Since God was not directly involved (through a prophet), it is not considered biblical canon. However, the Catholic church adopted the Apocrypha after the Reformation in order to differentiate themselves from Luther.
I'm trying to remember some other reasons why books did or did not get in. I was recently at a seminar that covered this exact topic.
>>606430 Tripfag, you should just read the Bible. Regardless of your faith, its a fascinating and beautiful read. It essential shaped western culture.
>>606637 Your direction could be wrong since you yourself don't have a definition of what is and what is not canonical in your 66 book canon of Scriptures which means some books could be left out, maybe there's too much or maybe, none of them are Divinely Inspired to begin with.
We can take liberties with the Quran since there isn't really a tradition of Sola Quran in Islam in its early stages.
>>606176 yes he was right in calling out the corruption of the church and inviting a discussion on how to reform the church to put it back on course.
to put some context into it, nailing fliers on the church door was pretty normal at the time for people who wanted to voice their thoughts and invite discussion between the publishers and the presiding bishops, but most fliers were just small things like asking for money for a pilgrimage or a discussion about the Council of Nicaea's importance.
Luther's theses asked the questions that the Church didn't want to be addressed, and created the controversy that led to the entire reformation.
as Luther's message spread, the less control he had over it, to the point where people outright ignored what he said to pursue division, instead of Luther's actual goal of a a reformation of the Catholic church to prevent splintering.
tl;dr he was right, but the movement became bigger than him and turned into something he didn't want.
>>606675 Exactly, they are part of the spritual realm, just as God, although it's a weak analogy, since God has much more spiritual influence today than elves do. But yeah, you're getting the hang of it.
It's impossible to tell how much was lost. They weren't all destroyed but many of the ones which various sects from across the Empire brought with them to Nicaea were burned. Shit, they might even have burned a copy of the Q-source if someone had brought it along because it contradicted one of the books written later.
My point is that the Christianity that emerged from Council of Nicaea was founded on consensus and did not encompass the entire spectrum of beliefs of early Christians, so to say that an early Christian would find the Orthodox church the most palatable out of any extant sect is rather presumptuous. The Orthodox Church's cult of Mary would be especially foreign to many of them.
>>606711 >Orthodox Church's cult of Mary would be especially foreign to many of them. It isn't. Elements of it is already there as shown by the existence of texts such as the Odes of Solomon and the Protoevangelium.
By 250, we also get the first ever known prayer to Mary.
fair enough, I'll concede that the cult of Mary is older than I gave it credit. But, referring back to your original post
>The Orthodox Church is probably the only one the original Christians would feel remotely comfortable worshiping in.
I guess it depends on who we're calling the "Original Christians." Was it just the Jews that Jesus preached to in Jerusalem during his lifetime, or should we include Paul's ministry and the gentiles he brought in? If the former, then Messianic Judaism would possibly be the modern sect an "Original Christian" would be most comfortable with.
>>606822 That wasn't my post. I'm not Constantine though she's cute.
>Was it just the Jews that Jesus preached to in Jerusalem during his lifetime, or should we include Paul's ministry and the gentiles he brought in? Both. Initially, the main Christians are Jews but the inclusion of Gentile converts that was bought in raised questions as to whether they need to abide by the Torah.
The Council of Jerusalem in Acts narrates this and the decree is that Jews can continue to abide by the Torah as long as they don't shove it down the throats of the Gentiles. The Gentiles don't need to follow the Torah.
>>606176 Between the HRE and the papacy at the time? No one is right. The situation in germany between the coronation of Otto I and the times of Martin Luther are basically Game of fucking Thrones played out between whore-popes, greedy secular princes, and a more-and-more emmasculated emperor.
As for Luther himself? I actually haven't read much by him other than the 95 Theses, and that's ok, since most of what we call "Lutheranism" is more rightly called "Melanchthonism", as it's confessional documents were written by and apologised on behalf of by Phillip Melanchthon.
I think he was good in opposing that bastard Iohannes Tetzel, but that his movement ended in caesaropapism and the rise of the princes...well, that's unfortunate.
Overall, though, I find that he's an inevitability -- the princes would have jumped at anything to undermine the emperor, the papacy and the bishops who were appointed on behalf of the both of them.
Was Luther right? Who cares, when every one else (princes, popes and emperor alike) is clearly more-wrong.
Aren't all organized religions kind of wrong? Jesus wasn't walking around and saying that people needed churches and to donate money to said church and that tithing physical money was one of the only ways to get to Heaven.
>>606925 oh, that's how the greeks initially broached it. Eventually (iirc), some Lutherans got so persistent about it that they went to constantinople, got an audience with the big whigs of the orthodox church, and (after a lot of polite ignoring on behalf of the greeks) basically got BTFO and called heretics for their notions of how the sacrament works, how sola fide is incomplete, and how failing to invoke saints is utterly mortifying.
>>606932 The serpents are the Evangelical faith healers. They deceive people with some sophistry and trick. In the case of the Evangelical faith healers, it's basic psychology and stage hypnosis as Darren, the former Evangelicuck shows
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
>>606998 I will agree with the fathers...hell, even the post-nicene fathers.
I'm not one of those protestants who bitches about "oh woe unto constantine" like a retard...no, the whoredom began after the fall of rome proper, and wasn't really felt until (at latest) after Otto I (in the west...I'm not studied enough on the greeks to give a timeline for thier whoredom).
But yeah, the fathers were 100% good imo. The whoredom of the churches comes in later when you understand the roots of where they derive authority from.
>>607033 arguments over petty pieces of doctrine aren't my concern.
The actual foundations of "who is the root of authority" are more relevant, as it is in this office that petty matters of doctrine are decided.
The papacy, who is rome's authority, was adulterated by germanic kings and emperors.
The orthodoxy's source of authority was tranferred to a secular ruler.
Protestantism, although it claims to lay it's trust in "scripture alone", leaves the interpretation of that scripture to the church, who's authorities are (historically) appointed by the secular prince of whatever hellhole in the HRE you're standing in, and thus it's root authority is a secular leader.
so we have two caesaropapist traditions and one that's been corrupted by rubbing up against germanic barbarians too much.
Screw this or that doctrine, though: interpretation and issuance of doctrine lies with the authorities, so authority is a far more relevant thing to consider.
And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight. Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.
>>607113 14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:
21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
I think many people in the Dark Ages were simply brainwashed to think that the RC church was the ONLY church, therefore they had no other option but to stick with it and try to change it from within. Even Luther never wanted to leave it - he was forced to when they sought to kill him.
>>606654 >the Catholic church adopted the Apocrypha after the Reformation in order to differentiate themselves from Luther. False. If so, the eastern, oriental and assyrian church would have not had deuterocanonicals.
>>608308 Jesus gets angry several times at the Pharisees.
What Jesus did wasn't some random fit of rage, it was driving the merchants out of the Temple, an icon of His Body, something that fulfills the old covenants words about removing the Canaanites from Israel ("Canaanite" was basically what Jews called people for a putdown like people would later use the term "Jew"--a Canaanite was a way of calling someone a greedy merchant or usurer or money changers)
>>608514 KJB is fairly regarded by Orthodox Christians, it's not at all a particularly Protestant translation. In fact, the Orthodox NT would probably be more agreeable to most Protestant theology than the King James would, since the King James translations episkopos as "bishop", whereas the Orthodox NT uses "overseer".
>>608514 God is just playing with his toys. He's also angry at them and decides to beat his own son up to vent his anger and so that he can forgive his toys who are the whole time, he was intentionally controlling them. You worship a psychopath
>>608555 God forgives through Christ, but he could forgive before Christ's birth, and Christ's death has nothing to do with taking your place for punishment (or else it wouldn't technically be "forgiveness", would it?)
>>606488 you don't. the list of canonical books wasn't codified until the 4th century. it's a very late and artificial attempt to manufacture a canon and to stop the endless addition of new gospels, acts of the apostles etc, so they just said fuck it, everything that's not on this list is apocryphal. the list as we know it first appears in a festal letter by athanasius of alexandria
>>608559 Q1a: Concerning women being barred from the clergy.
A1a: Our Mother is Mary (the Church is the Body of Christ, of whom she is the Mother), Our Father is God. A priest, being called "Father", is an appointed representative of God's paternal function, taking Confession (see A6 of the Protestant FAQ) and intoning the Gospel and performing the other Sacraments. God as Our Father is figurative, as God is beyond being male or female, but at the same time it is important to make a distinction between God and Mary. Since the priest is not a representative of Mary's maternal function, having a priest as Mother would be inappropriate.
Secondly, being a practicing lesbian, as if there is nothing wrong with it, and having a live in partner, is not acceptable for obvious reasons.
God does not contradict Himself. If God wanted to accomplish a Reformation on the scale that the so-called Reformers wished to accomplish, He would have sent ONE preacher and endowed that preacher with the power to work miracles in order to prove his authority.
It turned out that the Protestant Reformers had no authority from God whatsoever, and this is easily proven by the fact that they contradicted and argued among themselves, leading to them to divide into countless sects and constantly invent new opinions, and that no miracles followed their works.
Protestants brought with them the spirit of division, not unity; and the spirit of division is the spirit of the devil, the word devil coming from the Greek diabolos, which means division.
Protestantism is so obviously false that I can't understand why honest men sincerely hold to it. I can only think that it's because they grew up in a Protestant sect and had their minds filled with emotional anti-Catholic calumnies at an early age, "Whore of Babylon", "pagan", "Antichrist", etc.
Another great proof is how barren the Protestant religion itself is. It is so empty.
>>606266 This is a disgraceful slander against the Catholic Church. Not even Catholics would slander the Orthodox in this way. Of course the early Christians would feel at home in good Catholic or Orthodox churches because they both preserve the essentials such as the sacraments, the priesthood, the liturgy, the devotion to Mary and the saints, etc.; they would just wonder why the Orthodox lacked unity with Rome which was the apostolic tradition.
>>608598 Jesus said to the Pharisees “your tradition makes the word of God ineffectual” (Mark 7:13). Many traditions of catholicism fall into the same category that Jesus condemned: they are basically “traditions of men” that serve to detract from the power of the Word of God.
and evidently Jesus believed in Sola Scriptura, which can be clearly seen in his denunciation of the Pharisees for their traditions which made the word null and void! Think about it!
This a highly unfair comparison. You are comparing the very best of Orthodox celebration with among the worst of Catholic celebration, in a time when, admittedly, great liturgical decadence has seeped into the Catholic Church.
>>608614 >his denunciation of the Pharisees for their traditions which made the word null and void! He denounced the Pharisees for being hypocrites, not for their traditions, which he said were orthodox (Matthew 23:1-3). Christ was an orthodox Essene
>>608625 Christ was not an Essene. It's ridiculous to limit the Messiah of the Jews that they had waited for since Abraham to a single sect that only lasted a few centuries.
>The external cause of attention was the bias of English deists and Continental Rationalists who strove to metamorphize the Essenes into predecessors from whom gradually and quite naturally Christians developed; and Freemasons pretended to find in Essenism pure Christianity. In reference to such chimeras it is enough to say that between Essenism and Christianity there are some points of resemblance; it could not very well be otherwise because Essenism was Judaic in its foundation and Christianity was not destructive but progressive. On the other hand, the differences are fundamental. That John the Baptist and Christ were Essenes are mere assumptions based on similarities which spring naturally and independently from asceticism and voluntary poverty. So likewise the vaunted dependence between Essenism and monasticism can be resolved into necessary traits of any ascetic, communistic life (see "Wuku" in "Studien u. Mittheilungen d. Ben. Cist. ordens", 1890, I 223-30; Berlière in "Revue Bénéd", 1891, VIII, 12-190). "The attitude of Jesus and his disciples is altogether anti-Essenic" (Jewish Encyc.).
>>608642 The Wisdom of Solomon is heavily alluded to in the NT, the Wisdom of God seen as synonymous with the Word of God.
>he Wisdom of Solomon talks about the Wisdom of God in this sense. (“And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself, she maketh all things new: and in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God, and prophets.”, Wisdom of Solomon 7:27, KJV; “And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. “, Revelations 21:5; “For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness.”, Wisdom of Solomon 7:26; “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high”, Hebrews 1:3; “For she is more beautiful than the sun, and above all the order of stars: being compared with the light, she is found before it.”, Wisdom of Solomon 7:29; “Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.”, Hebrews 1:4; )
Also, see "Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled." - Proverbs 9:5
>>608642 >Where is Christ among all those statues in your temple?
Those statues are of Christ, the angels, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints, i.e. they represent God, or those who have been sanctified by God. This representation of holy persons was used by the ancient Christians, and it was even used by the Jews. The Jews had statues of angels built on top of the Ark of the Covenant, at the express order of God. These holy images raise our minds to God. Study the Iconoclast heresy.
>Your beloved apocrypha certainly was never recognized by the Jews as part of the Old testament canon
The Jews don't accept the New Testament canon either. So should we throw out the New Testament on the grounds that the Jews don't accept it? It's not the Jews that have authority, it is the Church of Christ.
>The RC sacrifice of the mass (a continuing sacrifice for what’s already been completed) is an affront to God for the completed work of Calvary
The Mass makes us mystically present at Christ's one and only sacrifice. It also allows us to share in His body, blood, soul & divinity as the apostles did at the Last Supper. This is ancient apostolic tradition. Your idea that the Eucharist is just a symbol was virtually unheard of until the Reformation.
>>608642 It was. The Alexandrian Jews included it in their Septuagint. And there's no such thing as a closed canon amongst the Jews as McDonald notes. Also, the whole council of Jamnia is considered as bullcrap by the scholarly community
>Since the priest is not a representative of Mary's maternal function, having a priest as Mother would be inappropriate.
...so the only reason (other than tradition) women are barred from the priesthood is because using the term "Mother" for them would cause confusion with Mary? That sounds more like an excuse than a reason. If that's really such a concern then why not just use "father" regardless of the priest's gender?
>Secondly, being a practicing lesbian, as if there is nothing wrong with it, and having a live in partner, is not acceptable for obvious reasons.
The live in partner would only be an issue with Catholicism because they have celibate clergy, but I don't see why the Orthodox church should regard homosexuality as a worse sin than any other. The fact that certain Orthodox patriarchates are more comfortable letting their priests advocate ethnic cleansing than being homosexual says something to me about skewed priorities.
>>608655 The bible is complete, authoritative and true. The roman catholic church has made it’s traditions superior in authority to the bible. The result is that many roman catholic practices are in fact contradictory to the bible. These include prayer to saints/Mary, immaculate conseption, transubstantiation, indulgences and papal authority to name only a few.
>>608640 Mainly, not in itself, but as a culmination of all the modernism that had been slowly incorporated over the periods prior and making them uniform, such as modernist music and worshiping sitting down. I also think, while it wasn't technically modernist, "Low Mass" was a predecessor of modernist worship.
>>608559 It's because it's unnatural. It's simply unnatural for women to do what the priest does. The priest acts in the person of Christ as the mediator between God and man, he acts as a teacher and as a father to the congregation. Not even the Blessed Virgin Mary took on the role of the priesthood, and every Christian acknowledges that she is the holiest of saints and above them all in dignity. Still, she was a woman and did not usurp the role of a man to be priest and father. St. Paul said it was a shame for a woman to have her head uncovered or speak in Church, nevermind act as a priest.
Christ had women disciples but all of His apostles were men. It's always been the tradition of the Church that only men can be ordained. I'm not even sure if a woman's soul can be a valid recipient of the sacrament of Holy Orders even theoretically.
>>608674 How are prayers to Mary and the saints anti-Biblical? The new covenant, unlike the old one, entails everlasting life, so they are no longer among the dead, but live communicants of the Church.
I also don't see how the bread and wine being literally Christ's Body is unbiblical.
>>608674 It is not complete for this presupposes existence from the beginning which opposes what history have to say on this issue. Furthermore, even the Jews haven't even settled their Canon of Scripture even during the time of Jesus. These are the historical reality that debunks sola ScriptUra
The majority of women are no longer confined to their traditional gender roles, I fail to see why it's prudent to continue to uphold this sexual divide especially considering the Catholic Church's recent shortage of priests. A woman is not automatically less capable of being a spiritual teacher and leader because of her anatomy. St. Paul was giving his own opinion on that matter and which reflected the culture of the time, and while he is an incredibly important figure for the Church it does not and should not regard every word of his as law.
Christ's apostles were men because the culture of the 1st century would not have heeded women apostles, and because most adult women were tied down with domestic responsibilities they could not abandon.
>>608840 Yeah, priests mean something very different to you, you don't bow to them or kiss their hands, you don't do Confession with them. Priests for your are very similar to the Protestant conception of pastors. You have Sacraments and vestments, but your priest's relationship to the laity is very different from ours, so you can't understand.
>>608877 I don't think even Anglo-Catholics have traditional Confession, neither do I think they kiss the hand of the priest or bow. But fact that "Mother" seems wrong to be calling a priest, right there should indicate the problem. It's the natural equivalence to "Father", yet no one uses it--why?
>>608882 Christianity is a Jewish religion, it isn't Gnosticism.
>Don't those same reasons make the absence of "Father" just as much of a problem?
No, and it's actually easier to mentally distinguish the person administering the sacraments from the Father when you don't use the same word for both figures. The particular reasons you gave that I was referring to was avoid conflation with Mary and any implications that using the term Mother would have when used alongside the term Father. I should have specified.
because "father" as an honorific stretches back to the earliest days of Christianity and is shared across multiple branches. Since the ordination of women is a very recent thing we should take extra caution in how we incorporate them so as to avoid confusion and accusations of conflating them.
>>609020 So you're appealing to ancient tradition, the same tradition which would absolutely exclude women from the priesthood? Since this tradition means nothing to you except for cosmetics, that hardly seems enough to support something which you paint as very dangerous, namely the the priest can be conflated with God himself by being called "Father".
it's appealing to an ancient tradition, that doesn't mean we need to accept all of the ancient traditions.
>that hardly seems enough to support something which you paint as very dangerous
I actually just thought of that on the spur of the moment and it was a silly statement to make. I retract it.
It's 7am over on my side of the world and I need to get ready to fall asleep at work. This thread will probably die before I get back, but I've enjoyed our chat and I hope you did too. Until next time!
>>609131 >it's appealing to an ancient tradition, that doesn't mean we need to accept all of the ancient traditions. You do where it's dogma. Otherwise tradition is nothing but cosmetics.
>ctually just thought of that on the spur of the moment and it was a silly statement to make. I retract it. Then there's no reason not to call a priestess, Mother.
>It's 7am over on my side of the world and I need to get ready to fall asleep at work. This thread will probably die before I get back, but I've enjoyed our chat and I hope you did too. Until next time! Have a fine day.
>>608661 >The live in partner would only be an issue with Catholicism because they have celibate clergy, but I don't see why the Orthodox church should regard homosexuality as a worse sin than any other. The fact that certain Orthodox patriarchates are more comfortable letting their priests advocate ethnic cleansing than being homosexual says something to me about skewed priorities. This desu. Doesn't sound very Christian like. Sounds like a bunch of whiners wanting to keep Jesus exclusive to their special club instead of spreading the word world wide to all class and creeds.
Thread replies: 360 Thread images: 55
Thread DB ID: 465608
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.