Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[Luminesa]

I mean, I’m pro-gun rights, but I don’t have to bring in our Lord and Savior to defend those rights. Secular progressives point to people like her that call themselves Christian just to feel superior to other people.

Oh, I'm pro-gun, too, I just think that even if Jesus had an AR-15 He wouldn't have used it to prevent his execution.

I mean... one of the disciples cut a legionnaire's ear off, and He just... reattached it, even as He knew what the guy was taking him away for and what was going to happen to Him as a result. If that's not a spirit of self-sacrifice on display, I don't know what is.

My point is that it indicates Mrs. Boebert wanted to own the left, and bastardized the Gospel in the process because she clearly cares more about clout than about God.

EDIT: Also she's clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer lol

Boebert is a nihilistic scum-sucking fraud and a liar who has never read her Bible and Christ cries blood at her stupidity.

[Prima Scriptura]

Oh, I'm pro-gun, too, I just think that even if Jesus had an AR-15 He wouldn't have used it to prevent his execution.

I mean... one of the disciples cut a legionnaire's ear off, and He just... reattached it, even as He knew what the guy was taking him away for and what was going to happen to Him as a result. If that's not a spirit of self-sacrifice on display, I don't know what is.

My point is that it indicates Mrs. Boebert wanted to own the left, and bastardized the Gospel in the process because she clearly cares more about clout than about God.

EDIT: Also she's clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer lol

Boebert is a nihilistic scum-sucking fraud and a liar who has never read her Bible and Christ cries blood at her stupidity.

I pray for her soul and I hope she gets educated on the why Christ’s Passion was necessary for humanity. Without His Passion, there is no atonement.

[Sordhau]

Well, you can take it up with whatever poor Orthodox parish priest you end up harassing over it if you ever actually get around to attending an Orthodox Church.

Why would I harass a random priest? It's not like it's within his power to do anything about it.

Maybe sex and gender aren't arbitrary characteristics.

When you're filling a symbolic role in place of a literal person they absolutely are. Does the substitute teacher need to be the same sex as the one they're replacing?

First of all, pleasedon't splice my posts. I don't care if you don't think it's relevant, you don't get to wax about weak arguments and while burrying them. If they're so weak then leave them to be self evidently weak.

Having to respond to multiple things at once in order to address multiple things necessitates cutting down on irrelevant content (such as arguments repeated earlier) in order to make posts less wordwall-y. No reason to get upset about it.

Your mistake is assuming you're entitled to an argument. You realize the Church would be fully justified in saying "cause we said so" right? The Church doesn't actually have an obligation to justify its practices. That might be frustrating, but it is the reality.

Fucking what lmao. You realize this is the exact same line of thinking that led to the Protestant Reformation? People questioned why the Church was doing X, and the Church told them to shut up or be excommunicated rather than try to defend it's questionable practices? I feel like if your default modus operandi is going to lead to widespread schism and heresy then maybe it fucking sucks and needs to change for your own sake.

Secondly, I think you've misunderstood the dynamic of the conversation, here. We're not arguing with you, so much as we're telling you how it is. You're the one who has something to argue for, not us. . That you can find fault with Tradition is irrelevant, i mean come on you know me, i find fault with it all the time. But Tradition isn't a logical battle that has to hold up to every logion, half cocked or otherwise, or be struck down. The only standard Tradition really has is to be internally consistent with itself, i.e it's only invalid if it contradicts Scripture or established Doctrine and Dogma.

The mistake your making here is that you and Salus both seem to think I'm arguing from a position of secular, progressive politics rather than a genuine belief that the priesthood shouldn't restrict access based on sex and the Church's reasons for doing so are at best misguided and at worst potentially blasphemous.

I'd say it does. The Priesthood isn't an equal opportunity employment opportunity. It's whatever God, and/or the Church wants it to be.

There is no reason to restrict the priesthood to only half the total human population. Arguments in the defense of this practice are based purely on speculation, and that conveniently nobody seems to have the actual authority to override this decision again because of pure speculation.

It's an intellectually dishonest line of thinking wherein we are being told not to question something when there is no valid defense for it that doesn't amount to "because God said so, that's why" even though God's entire role in this tradition is entirely suspect.

Just because something does not work once, it doesn't follow (logically) that it will not work forever.

There is literally no evidence that it has "never worked" (whatever the fuck that means). This is just a Fascist being a Fascist and instinctively opposing anything remotely contradictory with their reactionary worldview.

[Washington Resistance Army]

There is no reason to restrict the priesthood to only half the total human population. Arguments in the defense of this practice are based purely on speculation, and that conveniently nobody seems to have the actual authority to override this decision again because of pure speculation.

It's an intellectually dishonest line of thinking wherein we are being told not to question something when there is no valid defense for it that doesn't amount to "because God said so, that's why" even though God's entire role in this tradition is entirely suspect.

Can't the same be said of virtually all church tradition?

[The United Front Empire]

Fucking what lmao. You realize this is the exact same line of thinking that led to the Protestant Reformation? People questioned why the Church was doing X, and the Church told them to shut up or be excommunicated rather than try to defend it's questionable practices? I feel like if your default modus operandi is going to lead to widespread schism and heresy then maybe it fucking sucks and needs to change for your own sake.

The Protestant Reformation was a total failure with inconsistent beliefs across the board and endless schisms within itself. The father of it voiced his regrets on causing it on his deathbed. Meanwhile the Catholic Church is still here just fine. I wouldn't be worried about another one lol.

What is this weird angle of saying there is no evidence for a male only priesthood? The very beginnings of a male only priesthood come from God being masculine, creating man in his image, and then woman from man, not from God.

The entire chronology of The Bible is God appointing MEN to lead his church, and the mission, all prophecies, all preaching, is passed down through the Bible only from God to Men.

There is literally no evidence that it has "never worked" (whatever the fuck that means). This is just a Fascist being a Fascist and instinctively opposing anything remotely contradictory with their reactionary worldview.

Any Protestant denomination that has welcomed female priests has had them immediately preaching absolute heresy and upsetting their congregation. It's been a total failure. Nice buzzwords too.

[PhilTech]

There is no reason to restrict the priesthood to only half the total human population. Arguments in the defense of this practice are based purely on speculation, and that conveniently nobody seems to have the actual authority to override this decision again because of pure speculation.

It's an intellectually dishonest line of thinking wherein we are being told not to question something when there is no valid defense for it that doesn't amount to "because God said so, that's why" even though God's entire role in this tradition is entirely suspect.

Noble? Maybe, yes. But it's Church Tradition, breaking the Catholic status quo is like trying to reach the moon with a steam engine.

And I'll quote:

Another thought on why Christ established the priesthood as male only, though it's a more subjective take, is that fatherhood is something that's always needed but often lacking. I may just be projecting my own experience (as well as a wider 21st century experience) onto an ancient event, but deadbeat and absent fathers seem like a constant, and finding a worthwhile figure to fill that need is beyond difficult (in my experience it seems much easier to find willing and present maternal figures than a paternal one). So God establishing the priesthood as a fatherhood, partially in my view according to my experience, is a healing thing and a place where someone can find that kind of figure.

Another thought on why Christ established the priesthood as male only, though it's a more subjective take, is that fatherhood is something that's always needed but often lacking. I may just be projecting my own experience (as well as a wider 21st century experience) onto an ancient event, but deadbeat and absent fathers seem like a constant, and finding a worthwhile figure to fill that need is beyond difficult (in my experience it seems much easier to find willing and present maternal figures than a paternal one). So God establishing the priesthood as a fatherhood, partially in my view according to my experience, is a healing thing and a place where someone can find that kind of figure.

Speaking from experience as a former Altar Server in our Church, yes, I think this is correct at some degree based on the sermons given to us by our elders during one of our Sunday meetings. It's like, God chose men to be priest to heal and protect them from their sinful and destructive temptations.

If I can recall, it's something like: It's not that women are not prone to these destructive temptations, they are. But the idea is that men are way more turbulent, so finding a good father figure and exclusively granting priesthood only to men will balance the forces of nature.

[Asucki]

Any Protestant denomination that has welcomed female priests has had them immediately preaching absolute heresy and upsetting their congregation. It's been a total failure. Nice buzzwords too.

Not trying to argue one side or another here, but this is a pretty flimsy argument against female priesthood in my opinion. While there's certainly no lack of heretical and misled female pastors, there's just as many, if not more, male pastors with the same issue. Chances are that if a denomination is willing to appoint a woman openly speaking heresy, they will just as willingly appoint a man with the same beliefs to the same role. It doesn't make sense to say that "women can't be pastors because they preach heresy" when men can and will do the exact same thing.

I'd also like to add something from personal experience. I attended a Church of the Brethren church for most of my childhood that was pastored by a woman, and though I have serious disagreements with most Protestant denominations including that one nowadays, nothing was preached there that would be considered outside of orthodoxy for that denomination. Obviously my experience in a little Anabaptist church in Nowheresville, Indiana, isn't indicative of Christianity as a whole, but I think that it demonstrates women are not magically incapable of believing in and preaching correct (or at least correct to their specific denomination) doctrine. If a woman can hold correct beliefs, she should be more than capable of expressing and sharing them. Lack of capability is not the reason that women have historically been disallowed from the office of the priesthood. Heretics and false teachers can be any race or sex and there's nothing special about women that makes their heretical views worse than anybody else's.

[Red Lake Circle]

Protestantism shouldn't be considered a failure because it spawned a bunch of denominations. Luther never sought to spawn a central church at all; in fact, in the beginning he didn't even want to create a schism, merely to reform the church as it existed. As such, that infrastructure was never set up. His theological teachings remain strong in the Lutheran denomination, but the fact that there are now Seventh-Day Adventists and Baptists and all that does not make his attempt at a reformation a failure.

I barely even consider myself a Protestant anymore and I can see this.

As to Martin Luther's deathbed regrets... I can't find a single viable source for that. Best I can find is Catholic BlogSpot posts and what-have-you making that claim.

[Salus Maior]

1.Why would I harass a random priest? It's not like it's within his power to do anything about it.

2.When you're filling a symbolic role in place of a literal person they absolutely are. Does the substitute teacher need to be the same sex as the one they're replacing?

3.Fucking what lmao. You realize this is the exact same line of thinking that led to the Protestant Reformation? People questioned why the Church was doing X, and the Church told them to shut up or be excommunicated rather than try to defend it's questionable practices? I feel like if your default modus operandi is going to lead to widespread schism and heresy then maybe it fucking sucks and needs to change for your own sake.

4.The mistake your making here is that you and Salus both seem to think I'm arguing from a position of secular, progressive politics rather than a genuine belief that the priesthood shouldn't restrict access based on sex and the Church's reasons for doing so are at best misguided and at worst potentially blasphemous.

5.There is no reason to restrict the priesthood to only half the total human population. Arguments in the defense of this practice are based purely on speculation, and that conveniently nobody seems to have the actual authority to override this decision again because of pure speculation.

6.It's an intellectually dishonest line of thinking wherein we are being told not to question something when there is no valid defense for it that doesn't amount to "because God said so, that's why" even though God's entire role in this tradition is entirely suspect.

1.Nobody has the power to change it because it's part of Holy Tradition, as I've said. That you personally don't think it's part of it is irrelevant because that's not how it works. Again, the Church didn't decide the composition of the priesthood, Christ did when He chose the Apostles and that has become the precedent. If you wanted this to change, you would have to argue from Holy Tradition to positively support the idea women can be ordained priests, and no an absence of commentary isn't considered evidence in this case. In which case good luck.

2. A substitute teacher isn't a symbolic representative of anyone, so it's a poor comparison. A better comparison is perhaps an educational documentary on a real life figure. Let's say we had to cast the role of Napoleon Bonaparte in this educational drama, who would we choose to represent him in this context? A Corsican male with dark hair would be best, but in the absence a french male would do. In the absence of a french male, maybe a general male actor would do. What wouldn't ever do and couldn't really be justified is a female actor representing Napoleon.

3. We have been, you've just been rejecting any answer. Which sure, is a lot like what a lot of Protestants did. There is a point in any doctrinal or dogmatic argument where an appeal to authority is simply the answer, and rejection of that authority means a rejection of the community. Whether that's the Trinity, Transubstantiation, or whatever.

4. As if your politics and beliefs about gender and sex aren't present here. But, even going along with the lie that it isn't present, it's wrong anyway and isn't supported by Holy Tradition. Yeah, and you're nowhere near an authority on what's "blasphemous", and calling what the Church upholds as holy and sacred "blasphemous" is problematic in itself. And certainly a Protestant vibe.

5. That Jesus only picked men to be His Apostles is concrete fact, not speculation. If anything, your view is more speculative and relies on a positive affirmation on something Christ didn't mention explicitly in the Bible. The male priesthood is working off of what we know, which again is that Christ ordained the Apostles as male only, and the Apostles only ordained men after Him and since then. And besides, half of the human population isn't on the table in the first place. Most men aren't going to be priests, and it's not something you choose to become in the first place as I've already pointed out.

6. You can question it. The answer is just no, because Holy Tradition doesn't support it. There is no permission to ordain women priests, there just isn't.

[Salus Maior]

There is no reason to restrict the priesthood to only half the total human population. Arguments in the defense of this practice are based purely on speculation, and that conveniently nobody seems to have the actual authority to override this decision again because of pure speculation.

It's an intellectually dishonest line of thinking wherein we are being told not to question something when there is no valid defense for it that doesn't amount to "because God said so, that's why" even though God's entire role in this tradition is entirely suspect.

Can't the same be said of virtually all church tradition?

Or religious traditions in general.

[Tarsonis]

First of all, pleasedon't splice my posts. I don't care if you don't think it's relevant, you don't get to wax about weak arguments and while burrying them. If they're so weak then leave them to be self evidently weak.

Having to respond to multiple things at once in order to address multiple things necessitates cutting down on irrelevant content (such as arguments repeated earlier) in order to make posts less wordwall-y. No reason to get upset about it.

Not upset, it's a polite request. this is the CDT, we like text walls here.

Your mistake is assuming you're entitled to an argument. You realize the Church would be fully justified in saying "cause we said so" right? The Church doesn't actually have an obligation to justify its practices. That might be frustrating, but it is the reality.

Fucking what lmao. You realize this is the exact same line of thinking that led to the Protestant Reformation? People questioned why the Church was doing X, and the Church told them to shut up or be excommunicated rather than try to defend it's questionable practices? I feel like if your default modus operandi is going to lead to widespread schism and heresy then maybe it fucking sucks and needs to change for your own sake.

That's not really what I meant. My point wasn't whether or not the Church Should operate that way. My point was that it functionally can. Orthodox teaching (small o) is not established, and predicated by reason. It's predicated in faithfulness to the Gospel and the Apostolic Authority. Just because one can formulate even a fairly reasonable argument against Church doctrine, the Church doesn't have to consider it. It used to drive me nuts back when Fr. Mike was on the thread. I'd butt heads with him and he'd just be like "I'm just telling you what the Church teaches, whether you want to accept if or not is your deal." The Church isn't tasked with trying to keep as many people in the Church as possible, the task is Churched with preserving orthodoxy.

Secondly, I think you've misunderstood the dynamic of the conversation, here. We're not arguing with you, so much as we're telling you how it is. You're the one who has something to argue for, not us. . That you can find fault with Tradition is irrelevant, i mean come on you know me, i find fault with it all the time. But Tradition isn't a logical battle that has to hold up to every logion, half cocked or otherwise, or be struck down. The only standard Tradition really has is to be internally consistent with itself, i.e it's only invalid if it contradicts Scripture or established Doctrine and Dogma.

The mistake your making here is that you and Salus both seem to think I'm arguing from a position of secular, progressive politics rather than a genuine belief that the priesthood shouldn't restrict access based on sex and the Church's reasons for doing so are at best misguided and at worst potentially blasphemous.

No I get that. As a fellow person with heartfelt belief the Church is wrong on an issue, believe me I get it. But one of the hardest things to cope with is that the authority of the Clergy over doctrine is paramount. As every anathamatized heretic in history learned, there's a time for informed disagreement, but when the Church makes its decision, you either yield or get shown the door, no matter how right you feel.

I'd say it does. The Priesthood isn't an equal opportunity employment opportunity. It's whatever God, and/or the Church wants it to be.

There is no reason to restrict the priesthood to only half the total human population. Arguments in the defense of this practice are based purely on speculation, and that conveniently nobody seems to have the actual authority to override this decision again because of pure speculation.

It's an intellectually dishonest line of thinking wherein we are being told not to question something when there is no valid defense for it that doesn't amount to "because God said so, that's why" even though God's entire role in this tradition is entirely suspect.

You can question it all you want, you can think it's utter hogwash. The point is it's also kind of irrelevant. Nobody is entitled to the priesthood, people are chosen to it. The discernment process to become a priest has actually very little to do with a person deciding if they want to be a priest, and has pretty much everything to do with the Clergy assessing whether or not they think said person is fit to be in the next generation. Which is where the esoteric bits come into play. They're picking their successors based on prefigured criteria, not picking the most qualified candidates from a pool of applicants. And really regardless of what we think, on how or why they pick their successors, it's their purogative to pick them now they see fit. And as the laity, were obligated to yield go their authority.

[Lord Dominator]

the task is Churched with preserving orthodoxy.

I’m curious as to how this works

[Tarsonis]

the task is Churched with preserving orthodoxy.

I’m curious as to how this works

6 doctrines enter the cage, with one knife

[The Archregimancy]

I’m curious as to how this works

6 doctrines enter the cage, with one knife

The Ecumenical Patriarch leaves alone.

There can be only one.

[Tarsonis]

6 doctrines enter the cage, with one knife

The Ecumenical Patriarch leaves alone.

There can be only one.

*Moscow didn't like that*

[Red Lake Circle]

The Ecumenical Patriarch leaves alone.

There can be only one.

*Moscow didn't like that*

*Constantinople didn’t like that*

[The Archregimancy]

The Ecumenical Patriarch leaves alone.

There can be only one.

*Moscow didn't like that*

Moscow is fifth in the Orthodox hierarchy behind Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

Frankly, it can go take a running leap at <expletive deleted>.

[Prima Scriptura]

*Moscow didn't like that*

Moscow is fifth in the Orthodox hierarchy behind Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

Frankly, it can go take a running leap at <expletive deleted>.

I thought you were Russian orthodox.

[The Archregimancy]

Moscow is fifth in the Orthodox hierarchy behind Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

Frankly, it can go take a running leap at <expletive deleted>.

I thought you were Russian orthodox.

Yes, but I'm Orthodox before I'm Russian Orthodox.

[Prima Scriptura]

I thought you were Russian orthodox.

Yes, but I'm Orthodox before I'm Russian Orthodox.

I’m just wondering how much of this is because of wanting to be on Putin‘s good side and how much is this true belief

[Tarsonis]

*Moscow didn't like that*

Moscow is fifth in the Orthodox hierarchy behind Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

Frankly, it can go take a running leap at <expletive deleted>.

Hear hear. Though, We who know appreciate how difficult that is for you to say. So ill just say cheers.

[The Archregimancy]

Yes, but I'm Orthodox before I'm Russian Orthodox.

I’m just wondering how much of this is because of wanting to be on Putin‘s good side and how much is this true belief

This doesn't even deserve my wasting the necessary effort to express my contempt.

[Prima Scriptura]

I’m just wondering how much of this is because of wanting to be on Putin‘s good side and how much is this true belief

This doesn't even deserve my wasting the necessary effort to express my contempt.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they wind up saying only ethnic Russians can be saved.

[Tarsonis]

This doesn't even deserve my wasting the necessary effort to express my contempt.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they wind up saying only ethnic Russians can be saved.

You're not making your points very clear here.

[Red Lake Circle]

On a different note, I have some close friends who worship under the Church of Jerusalem, and they have some, uh… opinions on the legitimacy of the current Patriarch, unless I misinterpreted what they were saying.

I’m not well-versed enough in Orthodox theology or hierarchy to have an informed opinion, so I’m wondering what you folks’ thoughts were.