Apotheoun Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 For example: Fr. Kimel (the Anglican priest who used to run the old Pontificator blog) was given a dispensation and ordained as a Roman Catholic priest back in December 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangetholic Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share Posted March 4, 2013 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangetholic Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share Posted March 4, 2013 Sainte-Empire is the Holy Roman Empire if anyone read my posts and wondered--I did not remember what it's called in English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 What the heck? I have never seen this thread until today and suddenly my obvious masculinity is questioned. We shall have a long talk about our friendship on the way home after we sing show tunes from Broadway, THAT'S for sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangetholic Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share Posted March 4, 2013 What the heck? I have never seen this thread until today and suddenly my obvious masculinity is questioned. We shall have a long talk about our friendship on the way home after we sing show tunes from Broadway, THAT'S for sure... I defended you. And the mask is manly, in a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) Edited March 4, 2013 by CatholicCid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Sainte-Empire is the Holy Roman Empire if anyone read my posts and wondered--I did not remember what it's called in English. Whenever I hear the name Holy Roman Empire it always makes me think of Voltaire's statement that that political entity was ". . . neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." :smile3: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autumn Dusk Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Aren't there also bible verses about women of worth and how a woman goes to the market, yadda, yadda. That said, God also built his church on St. Peter, not St. Paul, so Paul's commands to his church may literally have been just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangetholic Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share Posted March 4, 2013 Well Autumn your understanding of scripture (as stated here) does not appear to be that of the Church. Whenever I hear the name Holy Roman Empire it always makes me think of Voltaire's statement that that political entity was ". . . neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." :smile3: I always thought that was Napoleon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 . . . I always thought that was Napoleon. I don't know, but I did find this: The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autumn Dusk Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Well Autumn your understanding of scripture (as stated here) does not appear to be that of the Church. I always thought that was Napoleon. Err no link. But there is some understanding that the commands that were given were given to a time and a place. It doesn't mean that we can't garner information, but it does mean that we don't need to take everything literally. What I take literally is words of Jesus or commands the Apostles enacted after that were based on Jesus' teachings. Jesus never said that a woman must not speak or teach, which leads me to the conclusion that it was a command to the people of that time, in Paul's congregation only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappo Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 Also, FYI, if something isn't the same than it is by definition not equal. That's what equal means. 2+2*12-15=11 These are not the same. One side has 9 characters, the other side has 2 characters. Women can be mothers, men can be fathers. Fatherhood and motherhood is not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 2+2*12-15=11 These are not the same. One side has 9 characters, the other side has 2 characters. The two sides of the equation are quantitatively the same. Because that's what equality means in the context of algebra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Equal does not mean the same, unless you are talking about math. If by equal you mean "fair," equal does not mean the same. We cover this over and over again in first grade. I am legally mandated to provide equitable instruction to all students. This means that I must give many of them extra interventions, work modifications, behavior plans, etc. This is called differentiation. I teach my students what "fair" means with this lesson: http://saylorslog.blogspot.com/2011/08/differentiation.html No. It is. It's not just math. It's also a pretty unconditional aspect of ontology that was formalized by Leibnez. That doesn't mean that the the word can't be used ambiguously or imprecisely Wikipedia does a nice summation of the formalized principles There are two principles here that must be distinguished (equivalent versions of each are given in the language of the predicate calculus).[1] Note that these are all second-order expressions. Neither of these principles can be expressed infirst-order logic. The indiscernibility of identicals For any x and y, if x is identical to y, then x and y have all the same properties. The identity of indiscernibles For any x and y, if x and y have all the same properties, then x is identical to y. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatitude Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Err no link. But there is some understanding that the commands that were given were given to a time and a place. It doesn't mean that we can't garner information, but it does mean that we don't need to take everything literally. What I take literally is words of Jesus or commands the Apostles enacted after that were based on Jesus' teachings. Jesus never said that a woman must not speak or teach, which leads me to the conclusion that it was a command to the people of that time, in Paul's congregation only. Another possibility is simply that Paul was himself misogynistic, and it affected his writing. Even if it had been 'a command to the people of that time', could there have been any sensible reason for a Corinthian woman to keep silent or to have no authority, when the first heralds of the risen Jesus were women? When Jesus sent a Samaritan woman into her city as missionary, rather than one of the Twelve? I know this may not be a popular view here, but Paul was a product of his time after all. He came from a very legalistic background with a heavy reliance on order and categorisation, which was used to keep people in their places. In his letters there are some remarkably moving passages that show how he had come to challenge these things (the famous 'there is neither male nor female...all are one in Christ Jesus', for example) but there are other parts where his personal weaknesses are all too plainly apparent. This for me does not detract from the sacredness of scripture at all - it gives us a very beautiful insight into the transformative power of divine grace. Paul described his ongoing conversion of heart as like running a race, and I think it's reasonable to say that in his letters we do get glimpses of some of the personal obstacles he faced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now