One Sunday, the bishop at my church remarked that too many women were standing around chatting after the meeting. He said they needed to proceed quickly to their Sunday school classes.
Disapproving female whispers erupted from the congregation. Then, one of the prominent women in the church barked loudly, “I’m sorry…” and stormed out of the chapel. The bishop did not apologize or back down. He calmly ordered members of the church to behave like adults, and explained that church should be a spiritual learning environment, not social hour.
The next week, I was surprised to see the angry woman sitting quietly. After the service, the congregation proceeded reverently to their classes. This experience as a boy taught me a powerful lesson how men should lead in a church. I learned that if the men take charge, the women follow.
Religions today have become sanitized and weak. Shamed by our cultural overmasters, religions seek “tolerance” and “acceptance.” This destroys a productive spiritual environment, and we yearn for strong leaders to speak boldly the hard truths.
The loss of our holy spaces leads men to flee the church, and this is tragic. Spirituality fulfills men as they act with righteous dominion. It is possible to expel the poisonous social justice ideology from religion, and it can be done by restoring patriarchal leadership. The world desperately needs this, for without religion we spiral into pride, apathy, and confusion.
Gender Equality Is Poison
Many churches are falling prey to the poison of “gender equality.”
Writer Kelly Bishop recently listed several ways for churches to practice “egalitarian theology.” She suggests that the church “assign passages about women in the Bible to men” to talk about. She says sermons can be given to “both men and women” for editing before being delivered. She also says pastors should “teach gender reconciliation from the pulpit.”
If she had her way, would church become a Women’s Studies course?
Priesthood is not a feel-good counsel or public-relations office, Kelly. It is a man’s direct connection to God, with authority to act and speak the words of God, and this is not something that is achieved through political correctness exercises.
Feminists love to preach their non-scriptural philosophies to the masses, so it is no surprise that they strive to occupy the church pulpit. They love the glory and image of superiority. You hear the same sermons in newspapers, television media, classrooms, and social media.
In the 5th century, a female priestess accidentally burned down the temple of Hera at Argos. “Oopsie!” (Thucydides 2:2.1)
In Bali, female priestesses would dope up slaves on opium, and then coax them into jumping into a fire, where they burned to death. At Pythia, they breathed toxic fumes and spoke gibberish, which was “translated” in prophesies.
Over at the LDS church, a feminist named Kate Kelly pressured the church to ordain women into priesthood leadership. When it looked like she wouldn’t get her way, she lashed out at fellow church members for having standards of obedience:
Sadly, the Mormon faith has become a place that incentivizes the survival of the least fit. Since strict obedience is demanded and harshly enforced, only the least talented, least articulate, least nuanced thinkers, least likely to take a stand against abuse, and the least courageous people thrive in the Church today.”
Does it strengthen religion if people are not expected to follow a set ofles? Is that what feminism is about? What is the point of religion if it does not require adherence to a moral code?
I was struck by how similar Kate sounded to anti-Christian Roman Celsus. In the 2nd century, Census said Christians “are able to convince only the foolish, dishonorable and stupid” to follow their doctrine.
He said: “Let no one educated, no one wise, no one sensible draw near. For these abilities are thought by us to be evils. But as for anyone ignorant, anyone stupid, anyone uneducated, anyone who is a child, let him come boldly.”
The LDS church wisely excommunicated Kate Kelly for apostasy. But leftists continue to attack anyone who separates themselves from profane worldly philosophies, such as gender equality.
Many women and weak-minded men give in to the shame. We need men to weather these attacks, publicly expose the apostates, and boldly declare the rigid standards for obedience.
Universal Salvation
Martin Luther opened up the possibility of female ordination with a poorly-worded definition of priesthood which made women equal to men.
“Every Christian man is a priest, and every Christian woman a priestess… All Christians are, properly speaking, members of the ecclesiastical order, and there is no difference between them except that they hold different offices.”
The left’s obsession with “equality” is tearing churches apart. What is the point of religion if we are all equal no matter what we do?
This is the most acidic element of Social Justice ideology. Is the woman who confesses adultery every week to her female priest on the same level as an ancient prophet? If our actions have no bearing on our salvation, why not permit any kind of aberration?
No, you cannot wave your hands in the air and declare yourself “saved.” It is our job as men to figure out how to access redemption and atonement, through justice and mercy. We need to get to the core falsehoods behind the Social Justice ideology and understand how it opposes true doctrine.
We also need to depart from Dante’s version of hell, with grinning goblins and “bad boy” devils, and look critically at what organized evil really is. How does the devil oppose truth? Isn’t universal salvation a demonic doctrine?
Absolutely it is. Religion should improve people’s behavior, not make excuses for their refusals to change. The devil is the omega who attacks men who have a higher IQ for their “white male privilege.” The devil is the androgynous feminist who blames men for the misery in her life. Constantly, the devil is pulling down the strong and excellent, and demanding conformance to the perverted and weak.
This is why the devil told Eve that she would be equal to God if she ate the forbidden fruit. All it would take was a bite of an apple and exaltation would be achieved–no work or merit needed! No need for Adam either! But of course, justice turned out to be very different. She would be plunged into a dark and lonely world, where she toiled for her achievement and gained joy through marriage with Adam, who would be her priesthood authority.
Government Persecution
“Childish leaders oppress my people, and women rule over them. O my people, your leaders mislead you; they send you down the wrong road.” (Isaiah 3:12)
America was once a land where the state separated itself from the church. This used to allow men to pursue the dictates of their conscience. But lately, un-elected leaders of the government took it upon themselves to redefine marriage–a religious institution.
The government is further being used to punish religions that do not include gays. Just the other day, President Obama published a “shame list” of Christian colleges that exclude transgenders from their staff.
It is important to realize that this is not a case of secularism versus religion. This is not government versus faith. Rather, this is a case of one religion oppressing another, with government as a weapon. The government is being used by the abominable religion of social justice to stamp out opposition.
Feminism is a church, a very intolerant church, and it dismantles the separation of church and state that should exist. They are no different, really, than the witches of old who worked dark magic.
You may think there is multitude of churches claiming to be true, and the alternative choice of a secular lifestyle. But really, there are two ways only, the right way and wrong way. Regardless of how you feel about religion, you are on one of those roads.
The time for a pacific attitude is over. Through research, pondering and personal prayer, we have what it takes to discern the devil’s destructive elements in our society and to walk the good path.
It was prophesied that childish leaders would place women in positions of authority over people. You must not give any concessions to them. Do not budge an inch. Because the moment you do, that gives them room to inject their poison and their inquisitions grow more severe.
This is a scary prospect when you have the government being used against you. The incessant propaganda in the media makes you think everyone is against you. But you must not apologize for being right.
If it becomes overwhelming, do not run away from spirituality completely, because the devil points his guns in the areas that are most vital for our growth and happiness. Look inside yourself.
Conclusion
The first thing to do is to stop the ordination of women in the churches. Commodus in Antioch appointed female priestesses if they were able to recite hymns or if they won a wrestling match. Today, all a woman needs to gain moral authority is a liberal arts degree. But they do not bring us closer to truth.
The second thing is to enforce good behavior through obedience to scripture. Yes, we can gain atonement for our mistakes, but that does not mean ignoring divine justice. It means a firm grasp of scriptural doctrine.
Finally, carefully consider the spiritual blessings and responsibilities that come with being a man. It is not your place as a man to submit to a church public-relations board or diversity officer. God is a Father in Heaven, and we grow closer to Him as men by emulating the great compassion, justice, and holiness that we see in His grand creations.
The church begins with this personal relationship, and then it grows as the enlightened and chosen lift up the humble and faithful.
Read More: UCKG Church Affiliate Tells Women “Blue-Ball English Men Until They Marry You”
Pope Francis must go. If he gets his way, not only will Catholicism be dealt a fatal blow, but Christianity itself will be weakened greatly, possibly forever.
Christianity has already been greatly weakened forever, but it started well before this new pope.
“If he gets his way, not only will Catholicism be dealt a fatal blow, but
Christianity itself will be weakened greatly, possibly forever.”
“Eastern” Orthodoxy is pure Christianity, and on many levels it is a good thing that Heterodox churches become more and more debased, because it means more and more people will look around and find Orthodoxy.
Eastern Orthodox is where I’m starting to look myself actually, for precisely the reason you mention.
They’re pretty corrupt as well, according to Moner.
That’s true of anything humans touch.
I don’t expect perfect. What I do expect is to not walk into a church and have to listen to some dude wail on a guitar while singing faux rock lyrics. It just seems so little to ask.
Absolutely, but they’ve been playing all holy and clean now, when they’re very far from that.
Ah yes… or doing group hugs during mass.
I’ve read that the SSPX is fairly rare in the US, but that you have a Sedevacantist stronghold.
I say that because a part of why I enjoy the Latin Mass is because I know that my ancesters, and probably yours too at some point, were doing it too, not necessarely by disdain toward the Orthodoxes.
I would encourage you to look at the SSPX or SSPV, just because I truly do believe the Catholic Faith is the more orthodox, after having studied the disagreements of both sides exhaustively. But I certainly understand how you feel. I will say that the Catholic Church itself teaches that Francis and those who have apostatized with him cannot be Catholics, let alone hierarchs (or popes) of the Church. But so many Catholics are so attached to Rome, that they cannot accept Rome’s teaching on when to break even with Rome!
I certainly found much to love in the ROCOR – but ultimately, you will always be a “stranger” in an Eastern Church, unless that is somehow part of your heritage. “East is East and West is West,” and all that; I love Eastern Liturgy, the Eastern Fathers, etc. But you will always feel a slight sense of exile, there. If you find the wrong Orthodox jurisdiction, expect to find the same old garbage – bad music (though no electric guitars, yet), matriarchy, open lesbos/trannies, pseudo-spirituality, etc.
In an orthodox Catholic parish, you will find high standards across the board, except for the fact that sometimes they are too mechanical in their liturgical style.
SSPX is probably commoner than the SSPV, the group of Sedevacantists with valid orders; there are actually a good many SSPX Churches in the USA.
The CMRI may have valid orders (it’s probable, even), but one cannot take a “probable” course with Sacraments.
By the way, I am each sunday more amazed by the Red pillness of my SSPX parish.
Last sunday for example the priest has done a very inspiring preach on Joan of Arc and on patriotism, “In the name of God! The soldiers will fight and God will give the victory!”
and explicitely attacked the “spirit of the French Revolution”. I also have free private catechism lessons each week.
Think you would like Pierre Hillard.
Yep, I do. Have you seen his speech at the Joan of Arc celebrations ?
Glory to God! May He reward them!
If Christian Orthodoxy becomes the only branch, then it will only be a matter of time before it is infected as well.
I’ve been in plenty of Orthodox parishes that are just as debased – matriarchal, gay-friendly, beta-male priests with no spiritual lives, etc. It’s a product of contact with Modernism; it bleeds all piety out of any institution that touches it.
There are still orthodox Catholics, and I’ll tell you plainly what I’ve found: the standards are higher, the spiritual life more deeply rooted and graceful, the knowledge of Tradition, East and West, is keener. I have great respect for old-school strongholds like ROCOR, the Serbian Orthodox, Greek Old Calendarists, etc. But the parish near me has open lesbians, trannies and matriarchy galore. It’s basically for people who want to seem “different,” who are essentially vegan Buddhists but appreciate Eastern Christian aesthetics. They talk a lot about Theosis, the vegan diet of the fasting calendar, Hesychasm and how organic juicing is a way of life.
I am considering Eastern Orthodox. But I am still having a problem with the use of Ikons in worship and certain doctrines. So I will stay reformed.
Great. Now all we have to do is kill off Judaism and Islam and we can start moving forward again.
Yes ! Religion is for retards, Science damn it !
Science? Or SCIENCE!
God is the Alphamale for Beta male genetic subordinates.
You’re a degenerate extraordinate
And here he is, just like Pavlov’s dog, our first genetic subordinate Beta coming to the defense of his imaginary Alphamale (God). That’s a good little bitch.
Ok don’t ask me to help you with the Muslims when all your childless Transgender faggy drug addled atheist friends are too busy playing with underage butt holes or groveling to the multicultural gods to fight because I hate ya’ll as much as you hate yourselves.
There are passages in the bible expressly forbidding women to speak out in religious congregation. You shouldn’t need any more justification than that: the holy book the whole faith is based on says so.
… not that I give a shit. Religion is kids stuff.
Yeah, amorality, the religion of socialism, is so much more suited to our atomistic minds. Nothing like drifting rudderless as a society, great spot of fun all around, that.
Religion of Feelz is the future. Do not hurt my Feelz, for They are sacred.
What about scaring your Feelz?
As I walk the valley of Rape, my Feelz protects me from the eyes of the Rapist.
FREE Hugzizezz from Rapey Smurf!
No, what’s mine is mine.
Gimme the marker Dude, I’m marking it 8.
Dorj !
Pass the Soma and start the drums.
One thing I recall in my lifetime is that it wasn’t the religiously inclined who were calling for gay (and other deviant) acceptance, it was a big murmur throughout my community when divorce started getting more common, and the idea of cohabitation out of wedlock, before that women working, talking back to their husbands, voting and so on.
As pure observation it has routinely been the Christian who were criticized and lectured on Jesus and intolerance when it came to being against all this.
I like to study different religions as philosophy, analogy, parable, metaphor, etc. (keeping my personal beliefs to myself), but there is no secularist collection of thought or writing that I am aware of which goes so far as to give an actual blueprint to a healthy and productive society. Maybe an individual can find peace with it, but I don’t think it was ever viable for social construction and hence why Communists and others have implemented it intentionally to bring about Western destruction.
False dilemma. You don’t have to choose between being an amoral socialist or living a present day life according to make-believe stories from thousands of years ago.
Then create your own atheist moral system, and show us why it is better than our “make-believes stories from thousands years ago” on which our civilisations were built, and how it will make the world better, and thus prove us how you’re not just living on watered down and / or perverted Christian moral values like most western atheists do.
Agree. By the way, I see you killed off the old M de Charette and created a new. Glad to see you kept the old name. Welcome back.
I was forced to. I was recently banned for criticizing Forney on his last article. Thank you.
Makes me think of AVFM. All the moderators seemed to agree with my posts, but pissed them off one time. So I got kicked off.
Never tried to get back on. I will have to check out Forney. I like some of his stuff, but not all.
Hope you stay on here. M de Charette has been one of the regulars at ROK for a while.
Went back to try to see what got you kicked off. Saw a “deleted” and someone referring to “Monsieur”.
Oh well, it is what it is. But I definitely think we need a French right wing perspective here. Have no idea what your comment was.
The stuff like Meridien zero you recommended a while back I still listen to. Also check out now and then Boulevard Voltaire.
Was listening to political commentary with headphones as I worked in my garden on Wednesday. But got distracted on Wednesday and almost got bit by a copperhead. Bad news, you are lucky not to have venomous snakes in France. I got bit 3 years ago. Entire leg turned purple, vomited and shit on myself in bed, leg swelledl up like a basketball. When I went back to work five days later, the first thing I heard when I walked in the door was, “You look like hell !”.
In the American South, you have to pay attention in Nature.
But after just missing getting bit again, I was delighted to chop that snake in several pieces with my ax. The stench of his rotting carcass still in my backyard is a sweet perfume to me.
Damn’ snakes ! Glad that you’ve gotten better !
He deleted my comments and banned me without warning nor explanation.
I knew I crossed a line by stating that touristsexing the last traditional women from the Philipines was morally questionnable, and then basically calling him an overweight political groupie who embodies the carricature our enemies make of us, but still, erasing me like I never existed, Stalin style, that’s weak. Lolknee got banned too for the same reason.
We have fewer feminazis in Dixie Land. But with the copperheads here, I guess things kind of balance out.
http://www.copperhead-snake.com/
By the way, this is a piece of video Americana. Like how he is just sitting around smoking after his copperhead snake bite. (not me by the way).
Totally the dude !
Well, your mind is clearer on the matter than many folks’. If women are not even allowed to open their mouths in a Church, it would obviously be hard for them to say Mass for anyone.
I’ll agree – but…
I disagree with the Catholics on the celibate priests. Quite obviously this weeds out many qualified men and opens the door to deviants. Let them marry and become part of the communities they serve.
Where they came up with that rule is anybody’s guess. They didn’t used to have that qualification I believe, way back forever ago. Could be wrong, maybe I’m just thinking about Orthodox, who have always allowed priests to marry?
Here’s a brief history of it:
https://www.futurechurch.org/brief-history-of-celibacy-in-catholic-church
And here’s an interesting entry:
“Fourteenth Century
Bishop Pelagio complains that women are still ordained and hearing confessions.”
“Bishop Pelagio complains that women are still ordained and hearing confessions.’ ”
Notice the lack of source for that. If there is any truth to that sentence, it would probably be in context of an abbess hearing confessions of her nuns, or some such.
There are other instances though where Bishops report women being ordained.
It’s kind of an ongoing problem, though lately it’s been much more prominent. Just Eve’s curse passed down to all women really.
“There are other instances though where Bishops report women being ordained.”
Yes, there other instances of bishops reporting various fringe heresies having female clergy, but that’s about it. That entire website is devoted to seeking “changes that will provide all [sodomites and women] Roman Catholics the opportunity to participate fully in Church life and leadership.” Yet, they don’t footnote and reference their claims, because they can’t or don’t want to reveal how they’re distorting whatever sources they may have.
“Bishop Pelagio” was quite the long lived fellow. Apparently he lived from between the 12th and 14 century, although his full name and city and region are always unmentioned/unknown.
http://www.sisterfidelma.com/FAQS.htm
“It is fascinating, therefore, we find Bishop Pelagio, in the 12th century, complaining that women were still being ordained in the Western Church and hearing confessions.”
Every heretical website on the internet seems to use these same garbage quotes, just copy and pasting from other heretical websites without regard to fact checking or truth or copyright/plagiarism.
Good catch. That link is indeed making a false claim.
According to the “History of Sacerdotal Celibacy,” Pelagio complained that women were hearing confessions and “taking orders,” not that they were being ordained.
https://books.google.com/books?id=33jQAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA57
There is a big difference between taking part in sacred ceremonies and being anointed to be a priest.
In the footnote of that my source, it mentions that Ephiphanius “denies that women had ever been permitted to rise beyond the diaconate, and asserts that their function in that grade were simply to render to women such offices as decency forbade to men.”
I’m well read in Church history. There is no hint of women’s ordination in any real way. That page’s statements about “implicit” wymynprystysys in the early Church are laughably inconsequential.
There are occasional curiosities – “pope Joan,” half-understood hints at the ordination of St. Bride, etc. They always stand out clearly as legends or as hilarious breaches of discipline on the part of some nincompoop or nutjob.
Yes, the female deaconate is more akin to the subdiaconate. It is not a Major Order like the male diaconate.
Well, what about Jesus’s extremely clear instructions to refrain from lustful thoughts? He doesn’t really classify them, he just says basically that “if you even THINK lustfully, then you have already sinned.” Lust is a slippery slope. It’s really difficult to manage. I’d wager that for many men and women, it’s the last thing they have to worry about overcoming as they give up their ties to base materialistic urges.
Sex within marriage is encouraged by God Himself. Lust is a sin only outside the confines of marriage. So yeah.
Also, how is not being married or being married tied to lust precisely? A non-married man can and will lust just as heavily as a married man.
Yep that’s why the slope is so slippery. I mean, even within marriage, I can imagine situations where the drive to procreate crosses the line and becomes something totally different. A very slippery slope indeed.
Isn’t that based on what Saint Paul said about celibacy ?
And a non-married man avoids this how? Seems to me that the urge would be greater due to lack of availability to fulfill it. Willpower and all that yes, sure, but without release it will bear heaving on a younger man’s mind no matter what lies he tells in public about it not bothering him. Seems like a good way to ensure that you end up with men who start out good in the office and then become twisted perverts.
Yeah you’re right, especially about that last point you made. I’m just glad I never wanted to be a priest too badly, and never had to face these kinds of questions. But I guess that’s the price of becoming an ordained man of God. I do think the key, for a priest or anyone else, is finding a healthy balance of sex drive and unattachment. That’s really the struggle with any vice, though.
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
1 John 2:15-16
Jesus specifically says Adultery….an act which is physically impossible to commit unless married. now it should be noted that back in those days men got married almost no matter what due to women basically being handed off as baby making factories.
while scriptures warn against lust and sexual sin….Jesus was also specifically talking to married men as only married men can commit adultery
all that to say though….its physically impossible to have a healthy sexual relationship with your wife and not to some extent lust after her. lust can be anything from OMG SHES HOT i want to go talk to her and court her all the way to i’ll move heaven and earth to bend you over and fuck you right here and now…..the latter is what porn breeds and a lot of the red pill plate spinning breeds.
Dude THAT, for me, is the craziest aspect if this insanely awesome community. The juxtaposition of really deep philosophical reflection will often be sandwiched in between posts about optimizing your chances to smash some ass. It’s really unique and for me at least it’s what makes this part if the internet so rich.
If that were the case, hopefully gays and pedos would be cloistered and unseen!. As a matter of fact celibacy is not the problem but the quality of people you get into the institution. Homos shouldn’t be allowed, however they were allowed into service during the 60s under the condition that they “control” their urges, a recipe for disaster. Of course the institution seems to have been infiltrated for a long time with communists, in line with the confessions of Bella Dodd, former american Communist who helped indoctrinate and prepare young men who would later enter seminaries
https://www.amazon.com/School-Darkness-Illustrated-Bella-Dodd-ebook/dp/B00R55IUG4?ie=UTF8&keywords=bella%20dodd&qid=1463165840&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
To answer your question, Jesus himself stated that no man who put his wife, family or anything else before Him could bear his cross and follow him. He didn’t condemn marriage but as Paul stated later, a married man is a divided man, he really CANNOT focus and devote 100% of his energy to the preaching. A urban priest might be a candidate for marriage but someone who is expected to go , preach and convert the pagans and heathens risking his own life in the process? Please.
Adultery is actually based upon the marital status of the woman, rather than the man – so, an unmarried man can still commit adultery, simply by sleeping with a married woman.
King David, for example, did not commit adultery by having multiple wives and concubines, but he did commit adultery by going after Bathsheba, because she was another man’s wife.
All throughout the Old Testament we see this – Abraham, for example, did not commit adultery by sleeping with Hagar while he was still married to Sarah. (He sinned by not submitting to God’s will, however, and then abandoning Hagar and Ishmael to the wilderness afterwards).
It is actually not clear either whether adultery means something different in the New Testament, because in both the Old and New Testaments, the scriptures are directed towards the societies in which the people of the day lived. In the Old Testament, the Israelites, as well as all the cultures around them, had marriages with multiple wives, and men were free to sleep with women outside of marriage (so long as the woman was not married to someone else). But when we get to the New Testament, Paul et. al. were writing to Christians in Greece (ie. Corinth, Galatia etc), and in Greece at the time, the culture was already practicing monogamous marriage, however, husbands frequently slept with prostitutes outside of marriage in said culture without much of a fuss.
Marriage is about Patriarchy – thus the importance of female fidelity within marriage, to ensure that the husband has children of his own, rather than being a cuckold.
Feminism and cuckholdery are intellectual descendants of Christ, the cuck who saved the whore who deserved to be punished. The Romans hated Christianity for good reason: it was a religion of pacifism, martial weakness and ultimately self degradation (what else is turning the other cheek?). The reason SJWs have so much ammunition against Strong Men in the West is that Christianity can easily be interepreted as being pro weak, egalitarian and anti-masculine, and so things like colonialism, or nationalism, which are well justified in Traditional religions (i.e. Roman, Greek, Hindu) are generally opposed by the Ideological religions (Christianity, Islam, Socialism, Communism). Gods in the Hindu holy texts say that, in war, the wisest and most merciful thing to do is to eradicate totally the enemy, to prevent any resurgent and future conflict, for example. Mars and Apollo would have said little different.
The conflicts and doublethink Ideological religions inspire, preaching unhuman, saintlike virtue (which in my view is true degeneracy) on the one hand; while permeating societies that are riddled with “sin” (which really just means masculine domination when applied to non-self-destructive pursuits), as all societies are; results in a total division between those who hate hypocrisy and those who hate unnatural virtue on the one side, and the cucks and genuinely religious on the other.
This opposition between reality and ideology is the reason that Christianity and capitalism have been so often at odds in the West (e.g. the French revolution) and in Muslim countries, but Gods, the Spirit and the Universal Being (to generalise across all Traditional religions) were not at all opposed to conquest, domination and cultural and religious hegemony, for those who followed Traditional religion.
The fact that Christianity has birthed socialism and communism as organic children should be evidence enough of its weakness as a religion and it’s long term unsustainability. While Islam is not much better, these two religions have resulted in a huge amount of unnecessary bloodshed, while avoiding the destruction of those who need to be destroyed in the name of virtue. This has, in the long term, created a society which favours weakness and penalises failure. The birth was the an unnatural “virtue” based social order of Christ and the priesthood, and the inevitable and logical consequence is a system that praises “victims” and destroys “oppressors” – postmodern Christianity, or Social Justice with the State as God.
I hope and pray that one day Christians rediscover their pre-Christian roots. The Roman Empire, for all its flaws, was the height of Western civilisation. Modern and postmodern Europe has mostly spread emptiness, misery and shallow materialism to the world.
Atheists and pagans are so unoriginal it’s painful to read. All those second hand thoughts and lies. Socialism for starters was the product of the rejection of tradition, hierarchy and Christian religion that happened in the “Enlightenment”, whose intellectual structure was assembled by Marx a few decades later. There is nothing christian about them except their “caricatured” forced kindness. Feminism the bastard daughter of Socialism follows the footsteps of its ideological parentage, but instead of the class war is a war between sexes, that’s all the difference. BTW both streams hate Christianity with a passion.
The lack of intellectual honesty tells me everything I need to know about you and how irrational your thoughts are.
Adultery involves corrupting a man’s wife, his property to use a feminist term. Penalty was death. Sleeping with a woman that you are not married to is fornication, for which the penalty is not death. Women sleeping with men other than their owner (husband) is fornication, or whoredom.
Women could not divorce men. Only men are permitted that choice and only under very limited circumstances (fornication before marriage or adultery during) and with the caveat that is always an affront to god.
Can you clarify? I am trying to be as objective as possible. Aside from the mild ego boost I would get from your upvote, I have no horse in this race. And I never thought originality had much to do with Truth – the opposite, in fact.
The reason they hate them is because they are heretical sisters. The reason SJWs don’t care much about Islam is because heathens do not matter for the spiritual (or ideological ) conflict that heresies have with each other.
Aurini’s video on Atheistkult would be deeply illuminating on this point. Here is a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hegXAo8IdUs&user=Aurini
The fact of the matter is, Feminism, Socialism and Communism are Christian creations and are in the Christian tradition. No other religion or society has created such faiths, because Christianity within it contains the seeds of egalitarianism in a way that even Islam does not. Islam’s egalitarianism was moulded to support Arab expansionism and manifests today as suicide bombers, but Christianity’s was created to Destroy Rome through subversion, and everything Rome stood for as a result: Masculinity, Honour, Conquest and Pride. As such, it succeeded, and in my view Catholicism could only survive by restricting the books of Christ from the peasantry and forcing them to follow a Roman-like feudal model, which is contrary to Christianity. As soon as Protestantism and the printing press changed that, Christianity very rapidly degraded. Not because people rejected Christianity, but because they saw that Christianity was ample justification for rejecting the neo-Roman feudal order that existed at the time. The Pope’s and clergy’s tightly controlled and exercised centralised power inevitably led to corruption and opulence.
A reality based religion would accept these as not corruption but the rightful gains of those who got power. However, for a Christian reading the bible, he would find Jesus talking about the impossibility of a rich man’s journey to heaven being comparable to a camel’s through a needle. He would see Jesus talking about the acceptability of pouring perfumes over his feet, as he only came once. Then he would see the massive opulence of the Church, be compelled to reject Papacy,, and realise Catholics are totally corrupt. Then a new heresy would come along to undermine Protestantism, being even more “virtuous” than the Protestants – early socialists, then communists, now SJWs.
Herein lies the problem of virtue signalling. No religion founded as totally as Christianity was on virtue signalling can survive the Real World – without degenerating through the gravity of it’s own conclusions into extreme Marxism.
Unlike in Christianity, every Muslim is required to learn the Koran – whose values are a lot closer to Reality than the New Testament’s are, and literacy was not restricted in Hinduism because the tenets of the religion – and indeed all Ancestral religions – (aristocracy, polytheism or the multiplicity of God, the glory of War and the beauty of domination) are self-evident to any who is truly connected to God. Thus there are no massive and inherent internal conflicts that have led to the division and downfall of the West.
As for intellectual honesty, in my view the reason that Christianity has declined is the fundamental dishonesty that the religion forces on its practitioners. Pacifism on the one hand but genocide on Native Americans, or Indians? Equal before God, but then for some reason not in life? Redeemable on death despite having lived a life of sin? Christian morality has few true and beautiful answers for these easily answerable questions, other than “We did it to save their souls” for the first question, which is usually a contemptible lie masking colonialism, and the reason that Christian missionaries are brutalised worldwide. The modern descendant is Just War Theory. AKA Liberalism and Globalism. Globalism can easily be viewed as Catholicism’s intellectual descendant, and it uses mostly the same arguments to advance itself.
SJWs, in contrast to most Christians, have the perfect answer to these questions: Christians are evil oppressors according to their own morality. Therefore we reject our parent faith as immoral, for it is associated intrinsically with its most faithful practitioners, who were immoral according to their own tenets. Teutonic Christianity might have been glorious, but it was not Christian in most meaningful ways.
The inevitable answers in more detail are as follows. Not because they are true, but because the gravity of their intrinsic rationality cannot possibly lead to base reduction in any other way (as I mentioned above), especially as knowledge becomes universalised and non-specialist (the average person won’t read Aquinas, they will read key parts of the bible) and technology progresses.
1) War is wrong. All those who wage(d) war were evil.
2) God views us as equals. Because we now have the technology to create heaven on earth, we must try to do so using force and suppression to create an equal society. Granted the satanism in this viewpoint is not only Christian but the equality element certainly is.
3) If one is redeemable on death after living a sinful life, there is nothing that is truly moral (as the writer of this article well understands) and therefore morality is subjective. I will do what I want because it feels good.
The real answers are:
1) Conquest and domination are intrinsic to life, and inherently beautiful. The brutality and sorrow conflict creates defines the human condition and without it we are little more than spoiled boys. Human life is, then, defined not as something of intrinsic value in the way that a modern liberal understands it (i.e. it should extend as long as possible). No Christian would ever arrive at this conclusion.
2) We are not equal and we will never be equal, even in the eyes of God. In this sense the reincarnation system, although it was created to reduce social dissent through spiritual means, makes sense: only by being a Superior Man do you become connected to God (or ascend through the reincarnation hierarchy). In my view there is no reincarnation, and most people rot into the ground without ever having become One with God. Life, and death, is unfair, and there is no afterlife.
Some (heretical?) Christians may arrive at this one, but the Judaic (and hence more basic Christian) concept of heaven describes all humans simply ascending after death, without the hell concepts introduced by Revelations.
3) Obvious.
When Christians give up the forced self-flagellation of the cognitive dissonance Anti-Rome subversion that is Christianity, the West will be saved, and true civilisational level intellectual honesty may return. I pray for the day.
Many early converts were from the ranks of the Roman military; too many people associate the milquetoast “Christianity” of today, with the more authentic impulses of charity and mercy in the early Church. But in the early Church punishment (“I handed him over to Satan to sift his soul”, the death of Ananias, etc.) and discipline (“if any man will not work, neither let him eat”) were not unknown!
It’s the two poles of the mind of man – ascent to the transcendent, on the one hand, or the recurring distraction of descent to the bedsheets, on the other. We men are tragic, godlike creatures.
Obviously sex in marriage is allowed; but the Christian should cultivate manliness and detachment from pleasure, or the domination of sensuality. “All things are profitable for me, but not all things are expedient; I will not be brought under the power of anything.” And again, “let those that have wives be as if they had none… and they that use this world and its goods be as if they used them not, for the fashion of this world passeth away.” A man should not let the passion of lust rule him, even if he is allowed to have sex with his wife. Neither should gluttony rule us, though we are allowed to eat.
Again, one foot in and one foot out. The man leaning towards the world should remember not to lose sight of his Christian obligation to practice virtue and detachment even in the things he is allowed to do; the man leaning towards heaven should remember not to condemn the world and its legitimate pleasures as evil.
That is an interesting fact and view. However, disregarding the fact that today those passages of the bible are generally unknown, in general I think they outweighed by the (today much better known) subversive passages. And even if they are not, the subversion exists in sufficient quantity to be a good enough root to the Atheist Christian heresies (socialism etc.). Undeserved mercy (the whore), emotional non-reality based charity (poor woman’s donation worth more than rich man’s due to higher proportion) and making food appear magically (i.e. there is such a thing as a free lunch) inspire the following Marxisms:
Being a whore is fine and good men defend whores (Charlemagne and his daughters would suggest that even Teutonic Christianity suffered from this); the rich need to be taxed at a level proportionate to how much a poor person thinks is right (as we move away from a charity-based-personal-morality society to a universal suffrage, tax-funded-state-social-services one, due to urbanisation) not the rich person themselves – thus beginning a class war; and trying to recreate Christ’s magic by impressing people with false free lunches to inspire their loyalty and devotion to the state as God.
In my view, when one understands Christianity as anti-West subversion, it makes a lot more sense. The Old Testament, even though it is, like the Koran is for Muslims, a political manifesto for the Jews, is much better grounded and conducive to strong and sustainable societies than the New Testament is.
You make some very good points, as well as some things I wish to hell I had time today to ask about in more detail. But on the whole I don’t think there has to be this animosity and disrespect of Christianity as a cuck-generator. I mean even just a cursory look at Christianity through the ages will turn up just as many strong, masculine leaders, as firm in their virtue as in their willingness to destroy their enemies, as it will weak, pathetic SJW’s-for-Christ…like this ridiculous shameful dolt who currently saws his logs on the silky Vatican pillows. It seems dishonest to me to discount all the great deeds accomplished, say, in the name of Christ, just because others use that same moniker to promote a lifestyle that contains the seeds of its own extinction.
For me, the really big singular takeaway from the religions that have borne the most influence on my own particular mindset (mainly Christianity, Taoism and Buddhism), is that the path to the most “peaceful” existence possible is the renunciation of those worldly desires that, when indulged, conflate the ego and create an inability to “let go” of some particular thing. It’s a lot like how we talk about women: you love that really nice poosy and you might wish you could keep a great one all for yourself forever, but that shit ain’t what’s happening. The harder you try to hold on to it, the more it wants to escape; even if you are Mr alpha-as-fuck and can hold down that one legendary vagina for decades, that thing itself is gonna degrade and dry up until finally it’s like an old sneaker that you never really take out of the closet anymore. A far better approach, like we here know, is to game it masterfully and enjoy it fully in the moment, but when that moment’s come and gone (LOL PUN), you simply let it go. You know it belonged to the moment, and you know other similar treats will arrive punctually on your doorstep, again and again, forever. This is actually exactly the same as the fundamental basis of Taoism, Buddhism, and also of the teachings of Christ — though the teachings of the Christian religion don’t always ring true to it. Attachment to any sense object creates pain, and learning to live with a happy, engaged sense of unattachment is the solution. I could pop in a bunch of scriptures here to illustrate this, from each school of religious thought that I noted above, plus a number from our dear darling Stoicism, but the fact is that most guys who’ve been here long enough don’t need them, they know what I’m saying is accurate.
Now…I better say what I actually came here to say and then get to work. The beauty of “my” big 3 religions is that they all 3 kinda offer 2 versions of the Way. For the layperson who doesn’t want to renounce the whole damn world, that’s cool, you don’t have to…just follow a few general guidelines, and though you won’t reach Buddha-hood, your life will improve markedly. But for those who really feel called, there is the option of priesthood. Historically it’s supported financially by the church, because it’s important to have holy men who are willing to go all-in and give up completely on the fetters that tie us all to this cycle of pain mixed with fleeting happiness. Those holy men are the guys who inspire your Charlemagnes, your Constantines, your Richard the Lionhearts…in fact, it could easily be argued that our civilization has been built on the backs of holy men.
Anyway TFL;DFR: I don’t disagree with the title or substance of this piece at all. There have been very holy women throughout history — Hildegarde of Bingen, for example, had her shit waaaay the fuck together. But because evolution has made the female of the species what it has, it’s a thousand times more difficult for a woman to fully bear the mantle of a holy life than it is for a man, whom nature has programmed to be strong-willed, loyal, and persistent to a sometimes insane degree. It is our place and our burden to set this example for everyone else, and nobody here should disrespect the men among us who choose to take up that mantle and keep the ageless traditions alive.
God dammit. I guess I better start writing about this stuff again. As if I didn’t have enough to do….
>I don’t know a fucking thing about Christianity
>The post
Kindly enlighten me.
Aurelius Moner did a perfectly fine job, but since the closest thing you can make to an argument is screaming “CUCK!!!!” as if that automatically made you right, I’m not sure it’s worth it.
It’s a discipline that developed out of Middle Ages. During the Middle Ages, almost all priests, were members of monastic orders, and were celibate by default. “If you want to join the monastery, you need to be celibate.” After 2000 years, celibacy is what has worked best.
The Eastern Catholic, and Orthodox Church have a similar discipline: Married men can become priests, if they were married first, but they can’t become Bishops.
The discipline of celibacy could change tomorrow if the need arose.
The rule was developed in the Middle Ages to prevent bishops and cardinals from becoming hereditary positions.
Hardly a risk these days.
It actually has roots in Scripture and is already a fait accompli by the 6th century. It was fully codified and formalized at the Quinsext, and later the Lateran, councils.
32 “I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33 But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided.” — 1 Corinthians 7:32-34
So…we’re not to go forth and reproduce then?
Seems a bit, oh I don’t know, contradictory don’t ya’ think?
He said that about those that wished to follow the priesthood path (even though in those times it was not called priesthood back then). The rest of the people were better off marrying (his own words in modern english)
I’ll disagree there; the context of 1 Corinthians 7 was to married v. unmarried, not priests.
I think, however, 1 Corinthians 7:37 sums it up:
Like you said; it’s a discipline, and moreover, since they are entering the service of God, choosing celibacy should done not hastily.
Thanks, I stand corrected.
Devote yourself to your wife and children or to G-d. For catholics, a handful of men will hear “the call.” The decision remains with them to choose. The politics of the catholic church… completly different animal.
Yeah, the Bible is full of contradictions. It’s just that you asked where they came up with that…
Interestingly, this concept is extra-biblical, and relates often to the concept of “genius” and the “transmutation of sexual energy,” which was often discussed by the philosophers of days gone by. For example, when a young man showed a particular “genius” in a certain discipline, he was often encouraged to remain unmarried so as to devote his energies fully to his area of genius, rather than dilute them by dividing it between his studies and his wife/family.
And, if you look throughout history, many of the most prominent people were, in fact, unmarried, or at least, achieved their “genius” before becoming saddled with a wife and children. In other words, they channelled their energies to their studies, rather than dividing them.
Isaac Newton reportedly died a virgin. The Wright Brothers were both unmarried. Beethoven, while having several lovers, never married. Einstein married, but barely spent any time with his wife. Bill Gates made his fortune before bequeathing Melinda with all his worldly goods. Buddha abandoned his wife to seek enlightenment. Leonardo DaVinci never married. And so forth. Of course, NAGALT (Not All Geniuses Are Like That), but keep this in mind when you read of “the greats,” and you will see that indeed, a significant, if not majority, of people who contributed significantly to history were either celibate, or were single when they acheived their greatness. The common man, however, was always encouraged to marry, so as to attach his sexual desire to wife and children, in order to saddle him as a productive ass, erm, member of society, who did the mundane tasks which needed to be done.
It would therefore, make sense that the priesthood, which is involved in intellectual philsophies of “the Truth,” would also be encouraged to transmute their sexual desires in a similar fashion.
Btw, as a side-note, priests are not actually rampant pedophiles, and you are twice as safe leaving your child in the care of a priest than the average man… however, the media has made a campaign to highlight the sexual crimes of priests in order to demonize the Catholic Church (of which, btw, I am NOT a member). But think about it… there is something like 500 Million or a Billion Catholics worldwide… so there also must be something like a million or two priests… and, as within any population, a few people will steal, some will be drunks, some will screw your wife, and some will bugger your children… they are, after all, still human. However, if the media highlights every single Catholic Priest who is a deviant, while never reporting on the average deviant, it will quickly seem to the average shmoe watching the Shmuck News on BSTV, that every priest is a pedophile in hiding.
Yes, the Fathers of the Church also noticed this. Marriage, they said, was necessary to preserve the race until the Christ came. After Christ came, marriage still remains good and has God’s blessing, but the more perfect path is to be “not of this world,” to return to the virginity of paradise and to live like the angels. The Kingdom of God has come in the Church, and we now have one foot in and one foot out of it, insofar as we still live in this world, but now have received the Holy Ghost, Baptism into Christ the Heavenly Man, etc. “In the Kingdom of God, they are neither married nor given in marriage.” The Christian can choose to go with the foot in this world (marry) or the foot out of this world (stay celibate), either is morally licit; but celibacy is superior. Such, at least, is the Tradition handed down by the Fathers, and which follows clearly from the bits of Scripture that have been coming up here.
Humility perfects wisdom. Good on you.
Orthodox allow priests to marry, but:
1) They have to abstain from sex during all fast periods and before/after they say Mass (this is about 2/3 of the year, all told).
2) The way this used to work, was that young men married and went to school, and had already had most of the kids they wanted by the canonical age of ordination (30), after which point many priests began to live with their wives as sisters, or at least with drastically reduced sexual activity. The modern approach, of ordaining 25-year-old newlyweds, would have scandalized the Fathers!
So, yes, married priests – but married men who had already plowed the fields for ten years, and were now beginning to draw near to a celibate lifestyle.
This sounds like a good compromise – let horny young dudes get married and get it out of their systems; when the hormones have subsided and some maturity prevails, they can become priests. That way a priest can have the help of his wife in running the church (not in any ecclesiastical matters of course – she’d be doing things like organising the church fete, baking cakes for said fete, maybe at most running a women’s-only prayer group) and she won’t be too much of a distraction.
Yes, I wouldn’t mind married priests, even in the Latin Rite, if they were as rigorously trained as celibate priests are (by traditional standards), were not ordained until they had been married for 10 years, obeyed Church teaching by having the mother be a full-time homemaker, and understood that they would be celibate for more than 2/3 of the year, with a voluntary desire to strive for more perfect abstinence as time went on.
Even amongst married laypersons, it has always been a pious understanding that, especially after the menopause of the woman, the couple would strive to limit sex and prepare themselves more perfectly to meet their makers. One shouldn’t mistake this for a hang-up about sex alone; people also embraced greater asceticism in respect to food and drink and other things. The last years of our lives comprise a time to grow in holiness and detachment from the world we are about to leave. When I see Viagra commercials, I always shake my head. I look forward to downgrading the condition under my tunic to Defcon 4 or 5. I can’t imagine pelting the warhead with horny pills just as soon as it finally gives me some peace and quiet.
You know that there are many deviant married men as well.
That is true. I think the point however is that you’re odds of getting a homosexual child molster in as a priest decreases if you have a married heterosexual man in the office.
I never understood the reasoning, but it’s not my place to really question I guess, it’s just the rule and it’s been there for a long ass time.
Yeah well I’m not very well versed on the subject… All I know is that it’s like in the army : when you start taking out old traditions that look silly to you, the all thing might crumble down. And it does, accross all western armies.
I also know from personal experience that total celibacy (I’m at my 72th week ! and I’m 23 years old) doesn’t turn you into a pervert unless you already are one.
I’m not even sure that it would decrease greatly the odds of recruiting deviants, since secular married teachers often bugger their schoolboys as well.
Even before celibacy was mandatory in the Catholic Church, it was encouraged in priests in order that they might devote full attention to their spiritual duties, and also so that they may imitate Christ. Celibacy was always the rule for bishops, however. I really like my earthly pleasures though, so I’m not sure it’s my calling.
I think it’s intuitive to assume this is true. Statistics, however, show that abuse rates were always higher in groups with married ministers, and in schools, etc., than it ever was in the Church. But, certain voices in our culture want especially to run down the Church, so they have focused on that.
Statistically, most child molestation happens with family members and other close friends of the family.
Yes, where celibacy is truly lived and practiced, obviously purity of heart and body begin to reign and the risk of such things is dramatically reduced.
The issue is that single unmarried men in a cloistered environment seem to be a magnet for homosexuals.
Priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine.
Doctrine: Priests can only be men.
Discipline: Priests must be celibate.
The doctrine can’t change. The discipline could be changed tomorrow with a single command from the Pope.
the thing is the scriptures never really say the prophet and priests cant be married….in fact they say just the opposite.
Timothy 1 Chapter 3:
1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
not to mention Moses gets married too among others.
so said discipline is unbiblical at the very least making is grade A horseshit.
Sorry pal. The other commenter is right about celibacy being a discipline, not a command, however as a discipline, it has biblical support:
Others have already mentioned Paul statements regarding marriage and celibacy. The very fact that 99% of protestant pastors are pro-women and/or henpecked idiots tells you something about the “divided man” St. Paul described back then.
Paul was writing towards widowers. Look at the context.
Paul himself was celibate. Even Jesus Christ described men that “turned themselves into eunuchs” for the kingdom of heaven” .
If that doesn’t tell the context, nothing will.
I believe preists are celibate because virginity is purity and is the most pure state of man. Naturally Catholics would want their preists to be as pure as possible. Also the church did not want priests who were not totally committed to her.
No, he wasn’t. He was a member of the Sanhedrin. Membership therein required marriage. His wife is never mentioned because she’s immaterial. He might have been celibate after being married but he was certainly married.
Second, he is also speaking to widows in the passage. To compare widows to single men has no connection.
Historical and linguistic contexts are your friends.
Just to be clear, The men who chose the path of priesthood were to be men, and men with options, in order to make a sacrifice, in order words it was more about purity than about virginity.
That’s why the saints were not betas or omegas unable to get women but men that were either rich or were warriors in spirit and deed (Jean la Valette, St. Ignatius etc) and in some cases, would have been MGTW but with more discipline and backbone and prone to reject social mores and conventions. Betas and omegas are the last ones who should apply for priesthood, when the institution existed that is.
1 Corinthians 7
“Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let
every woman have her own husband… But I speak this by indulgence, not by
commandment. For I would that all men were even as myself : but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I…
But if any man think that he seemeth dishonoured, with regard to his virgin, for that she is above the age, and it must so be: let him do what he will; he sinneth not, if she marry.
For he that hath determined being steadfast in his heart, having no
necessity, but having power of his own will; and hath judged this in his
heart, to keep his virgin, doth well. Therefore, both he that giveth his virgin in marriage, doth well; and he that giveth her not, doth better.”
It’s pretty clearly stated here…
Exactly it takes a lot of balls to be a priest if your doing it right.
I think intellectual honesty is a better friend. Moreover celibacy within marriage is not recommended and even might be equivalent to provoke someone else (the wife in this case) to sin. Marriage has an specific purpose.
Again, historical and linguistic context. Sanhedrin membership required marriage and to speak to unmarried men and widows requires something in common. Read the Greek.
Further, Paul in preaching celibacy would also be preaching against the Old Testament: the only Bible in existence at the time.
For bonus points, the Church of Corinth was a hotbed of sexual immorality. See 1 Cor 5. This was a church of rampant sexual sin considering that they allowed an incestuous congregant to remain. They did not understand marriage in a Christian fashion.
Since Scripture interprets Scripture, Paul teaching on celibacy would contradict I Tim 3 and Titus 2 wrt qualifications for elders.
Twist ye not Scripture lest ye be like Satan.
See above
See below.
Proof from the text?
Of?
Corinthians 7:8 : “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.”
Hard to get more explicite.
Paul as a member of the Sanhedrin. Because it isn’t explicitly stated that he was and there are several very strong implicit reasons that he wasn’t. Also, wouldn’t you think that would be an important thing for St. Luke to mention in Acts?
Are you insinuating that protestant pastors are less conservative than catholic priests? If so, do you have any stats or a solid hypothesis on that?
Even Peter was married, as his prepares dinner in one part of the New Testament.
You are misapplying the verse. Husband of one wife means what it says, he cannot have been married more than once and be consecrated bishop.
It is understood by the Church, for those who know Church history, that a married man cannot be a bishop. So either she had died, or they both became Religious before he could be ordained.
Even in the Orthodox church there are the married priests and the unmarried. Only the unmarried can be consecrated bishop.
Yes, that has always been the case. Hence contraception was accepted in Protestant churches (1930s) long before “catholic” hierarchy did, even then, it required the very complete subversion of the institution’s hierarchy in order to accomplish this (natural methods are accepted throughout all the “Catholic” world and coming soon, the pill and “therapeutic” abortion).
Moreover Protestant denominations have decades head start with the topic of women priests (Anglicans) and “pastors” in many Evangelical and Pentecostal denominations, even in Latin America.
In reference to henpecked and misandrist pastors my hypothesis (such as those described by Dalrock http://www.dalrock.wordpress.com) is that these men, without mooring in tradition and before the onslaught of feminism, have surrendered in order to go with the flow and keep the donations and money flowing. This is even more true for those pastors with daughters, who think they are doing them favors by throwing every other male under the bus.
For all we know he was either a divorcee (highly unlikely) or was a widower himself (less unlikely but still why not mention this in a sermon for widows and widowers?), however there is no support in Scriptures and Tradition for this. The point is that unless you have a better reference, he was celibate and admonished men and women that if they are to serve God, they’d better remain single, since married men are divided men, but if need be and they couldn’t control their urges they should marry in order to avoid sin.
Moreover when you talk about Sanhedrin are you talking about the Sanhedrin, or the sanhedrins where a man like him might have been a judge?
The Bible speaks about a mother-in-law, not a wife. In those times, death after giving birth was a common occurrence for many women. However is unclear if his wife was still alive. Is unlikely they were together due to his Ministry.
And you accuse others about twisting Scriptures? By your logic Jesus, Elias and many others were deviants.
Uh, Jesus healed Peter’s WIFE.
Sorry but that’s not true
But let’s agree to disagree since you will never be convinced. The matter of fact is that Francis is as Catholic as I am hindu (none of my ancestors came from India).
Ok, his wife’s mother.
My point is, Peter was married.
Compared to orthodox, Catholic priests, I’m sure it would be a slam-dunk win for the Catholics, yes! Compared to VII hippy “priests,” not so much, I’m sure.
St. Paul was not a member of the Sanhedrin. So far as I know, no early tradition holds that he was, and the Scriptures themselves testify that he was a young man when he participated in the stoning of St. Stephen and asked permission to persecute the Church. Young men did not sit on the Sanhedrin.
He also explicitly states that he is not married in his first letter to the Cornithians: “For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.”
St. Paul also makes reference to St. Peter’s wife, and it is the tradition of the Church that he was married. But it is only to be expected that men coming from Paganism and Judaism would be married in the earliest years of the Church.
Once the Church was dominant in the culture, or had seen children raised up in the Faith, her preference for celibate clergy became more the norm, as we already see occurring in the epistles of St. Ignatius, etc. But many early apostles and bishops were married (there are even some married bishops up until the 6th and 7th centuries) in the early Church. Many of them lived with their wives as sisters, and all of them were bound to abstain from their wives’ beds when serving at altar.
Our Lord Himself said: “In the Kingdom of Heaven they are neither married nor given in marriage.”
The Old Covenant prophesied the celibacy of the New Covenant. It is only appropriate that, when the Kingdom had come – which it already has in part, in the Church, in Baptism, in the descent of the Holy Ghost, in the reconciliation of man and God – some will choose to lead the life of detachment. The teaching of our Lord and of St. Paul are explicitly in favor of celibacy.
Thanks for the explanation. I stand corrected. I guess you are talking about 1 Corinthians 9:5.
That worked out great…
There is no marriage without sexual union. One is not joined unto one flesh without it.
It cannot be called marriage otherwise.
99% is a bullshit number. There are many unknown pastors that are not henpecked ball less wonders.
Man, if Catholics were willing to listen to us, then only Protestantism would exist within Christianity. The Reformation happened to make the people return to the scriptures, which the Catholic Church has never done.
Yes, he said “Kingdom of Heaven”. This ain’t it currently. The New Jerusalem prophesied in Revelation is yet to come. There is no marriage upon one’s death. However, in this fallen world we yet live in, it’s here. Otherwise it would not need to be mentioned in the Bible nor would it need to be ordained pre-Fall as it was in Genesis 3.
Okay, I’ll play along: if celibacy is such a wonderful thing, why doesn’t Jesus say so in Matthew 19 or Mark 10? He’s given a chance whilst being questioned by the Pharisees regarding divorce. Why not just come out and say “Listen, guys, forget asking me about divorce. You should just be celibate instead. There’s no reason to get married at all since it all goes away upon your death.”
If celibacy is such a thing, how exactly is one supposed to go forth and multiply? Marriage is ordained in Genesis 3 and the command to “Go forth and multiply” is Genesis 9, post Fall.
You’re making, or attempting to make, the same argument the others have tried. Why would he address the unmarried and widows at the same time? Widows were married at one time.
Doctrinally, it doesn’t really matter whether Paul was married or not. It would give further meaning to his “I count it all as loss” if he was… and I think personally he was abandoned by his wife. God determined we did not need to know if he was or not so it’s not part of Scripture.
“The point is that unless you have a better reference, he was celibate”
Stomping your foot and threatening to take your ball and go home isn’t a recognized method of argumentation for anyone more than 5 years old.
Funny you should mention Acts because that’s where the admittedly circumstantial evidence for Paul being Sanhedrin exists. He’s the one holding the cloaks in the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7 and he’s calling the Sanhedrin brothers in Acts 23.
One cannot say for certain either way since God did not put it into Scripture.
Well considering that your entire argument for Paul having been married is founded on him having been a member of the Sanhedrin, I’ll take this as your concession of that point. But that doesn’t even really matter anyway, since apparently marriage wasn’t even a requirement.
“It is understood by the Church, for those who know Church history, that a married man cannot be a bishop.”
You are mistaking the Roman Babylonian religion for Christianity. If you Roman Babylonians actually followed the bible and not the traditions of men, you would discover that Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, does not declare this.
” But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment….”
Do you even read; or do do your traditions of the elders automatically overwrite Scripture? I think the latter is the case. Other Apostles – St. Peter for one – were married.
Yes, we are accusing you of twisting scripture, even denying it on behalf of your Babylonian tradition of the elders.
No, there’s the historical likelihood.
Maybe then you can also get to the Greek of 1 Cor 7 and how the word for widow is the same for unmarried: agamos.
Plus there’s also the Greek for I Cor 7 using the same word for “unmarried” as “widow”. It’s someone that is not under the law of marriage. A woman who leaves a husband is also agamos.
certainly a possible reason for it. honestly I’ve never looked into why they had that rule now that we mention it
Im misapplying jack shit. the verses talk about a bishop having his family in order basically. which means a wife, kids, grandkids, and so on. that verse says nothing about he must be divorced.
so what the church says and what its cannonized scripture say are at odds with each other.
how does he must have his family in order including wife and kids translate to “he must have been divorced” or even “cannot have been married more than once”
seriously i swear some people cannot read.
yeah the catholic church has lost its mind….which is sad because its also how christianity has managed to survive.
Who is twisting scripture now? You’re tearing apart the plain meaning of the text and making St. Paul contradict Christ’s teaching on divorce.
Based on your worship of John Calvin?
Either you are lying or you haven’t read it. They’re two different words. Also, widows is feminine in the text and unmarried is masculine. If Paul was a widower, dont you think he would have used the masculine version of the greek word? But all this is really beside the point because if you really want to argue that St. Paul didn’t highly praise celibacy, you are just ignoring what you are reading. It is no different than a pro-sodomy reading of Romans 1.
“Only” Protestantism? Under which of its hundreds of thousands of competing sectarian forms?
No, the Kingdom of Heaven is already here. Modern men easily make this mistake, because we think of a “kingdom” as a place. But in Greek (and technically even in English, based on the meaning of the suffix “dom”), the kingdom is actually kingship – the royal power and influence of the King – itself. In Christ, the Reconciliation has been made. Men are now baptized into Him, the fire of the Holy Ghost has descended and made His tabernacle among men, and the Church now exists already as the first-fruits of the Kingdom on earth. Colossians 1:13 explicitly speaks of how Catholics have already been transferred into this kingdom; the book of the Apocalypse says that Catholics have already been made into a royal nation of priests.
Most importantly, in a long discourse on the Church, our Lord gives the keys of the kingdom to St. Peter – a thing that makes no sense if the Kingdom only comes on Doomsday. The Lord’s prayer prays for the Kingdom to be realized here, as it is in heaven, both as a goal to be perfectly realized in the future, but also as a present reality in part. Many of our Lord’s parables make it clear that the kingdom, though fully to be realized in the future, has already begun its “conquest,” in part, on earth. For example, He likens the Kingdom to a field of wheat, saying that the tares should not be pulled up until Doomsday. But if the Kingdom only comes after Doomsday, then the field of wheat is nothing like it.
Cornelius a Lapide gives the ancient and Apostolic, Christian Tradition on the topic:
“In His Kingdom.” You will ask what was this kingdom of Christ; and when some of the Apostles standing there beheld it? S. Gregory answers (Hom. 32, in Evang.), and Bede, that this kingdom of Christ was the Church, and its diffusion throughout all nations, which verily the Apostles beheld, yea, brought about. Christ says this, says S. Gregory, that from the spread of the Church’s kingdom, which they were about to behold, they might learn how great would be their future glory in the heavenly kingdom, which in this life is invisible. For God, by the visible things, which He sets forth, confirms the hope of the invisible promises. And, 2. Some think that it was to take place at the resurrection, and in the day of judgment, of which Christ spake in the preceding verse. But I say it took place in the Transfiguration of Christ. For in it they beheld Christ’s glorious kingdom as in a glass. Three of the Apostles, namely, Peter, James, and John, had a foretaste of this kingdom. This view is plain from what follows. All the three Evangelists who relate the Transfiguration, place it immediately after this promise, as though it were the fulfilment of it. Thus SS. Hilary, Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose, Theophylact, and others, passim.
Incidentally, our Lord does come out and tell them that celibacy is better at the end of his discussion in Matthew 19.
His disciples say unto him: ‘If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.’ Who said to them: ‘All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’ s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.’ (Matt 19:9-12)
As to the seeming contradiction between the preference of our Lord and of St. Paul for celibacy, and the command to “go forth and multiply,” I answered Ghost of Jefferson on this same point:
“Yes, the Fathers of the Church also noticed this. Marriage, they said, was necessary to preserve the race until the Christ came. After Christ came, marriage still remains good and has God’s blessing, but the more perfect path is to be “not of this world,” to return to the virginity of paradise and to live like the angels. The Kingdom of God has come in the Church, and we now have one foot in and one foot out of it, insofar as we still live in this world, but now have received the Holy Ghost, Baptism into Christ the Heavenly Man, etc. “In the Kingdom of God, they are neither married nor given in marriage.” The Christian can choose to go with the foot in this world (marry) or the foot out of this world (stay celibate), either is morally licit; but celibacy is superior. Hence St. Paul also encourages celibacy, allowing marriage with the caveat that “let they that have wives be as if they had none… and they that use the goods of this world as if they used them not, for the fashion of this world passeth away.”
Such, at least, is the Tradition handed down by the Fathers from the Apostles, on the clear words of Scripture commanding procreation in the Old Covenant, and commending celibacy in the New.
Strawmen, I was starting to miss them my friend
In scripture twisting olympics my friend you (protestants )earn the gold fair and square.
There can be; some saintly persons have married but remained in Virginity – though, the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and raising of children, so going into it without that intent is grounds for nullity if it is not by mutual consent. If there is mutual consent and sexual abstinence is maintained, the marriage bond can continue to exist for the mutual edification of the spouses. But yes, in the ordinary course of things the sexual act consummates the union, and a marriage can be recognized as null before that, in certain cases.
Yup. No worries, either; there’s lots to know, and nowhere near enough time to have learned it all!
I think calling just living as if they are roommate marriage is dishonest in a way. Why not call it something else?
How did people read the Bible before the Printing Press? The Protestant Reformation could never have happened without the printing press. Where is the Sola Fide in the Bible? If everyone can interpret it accurately then why are there thousands of denominations. Who in fact put together the Bible? It was the Catholic Church ofcourse.
The word for widow is χήρα.
Perhaps I was wrong in my interpretation of I Cor 7. My apologies.
Divorced is your idea. If he were divorced he would be ineligible for consecration.
I will give you a partial quote of the annotation from the REAL Douay Rheims upon this verse, which states what I have said, and which is the historical and traditional understanding:
“The Apostle then, by this place we now treat of, neither commandeth, nor counseleth, nor wisheth, nor would have Bishops or Priests to marry, or such only to be received as have been married: but, that such an one as hath been married (so it were but once, and that to a virgin) may be made Bishop or Priest. Which is no more than in inhibition that none having been twice married or being bigamous, should be admitted to that holy Order. And this exposition only is agreeable to the practice of the whole Church, the definition of ancient Councils, the doctrine of all the Fathers without exception, and the Apostle’s tradition. Which sense St. Chrysostom wholly followeth upon the Epistle to Titus (though here he follow not wholly the same sense.) Ho. 2 in ep. ad Tit. St. Ambrose also upon this place, and most plainly and largely in his 82nd Epistle post med. giving the cause why bigamists cannot be made Bishop or Priest, in fine affirmeth, not only the Apostle but the holy Council of Nice to have taken order that none should be received into the Clergy, that were twice married. ….”
Oh, please. Matt.16:18 states the Church (that is the Catholic Church) cannot fail. The reformers whom you uphold said it did, so they had to start new churches (each differing and denying the others) to reform Christ’s Church.
Jesus said the Church can never fail. The “Reformers” say it did. Who lied, Jesus or the “Reformers”?
I understand, in some ways. In the past, this was usually done because people were forced into marriage; the modern idea of “falling in love” and settling down with a person of your choice is very new-fashioned. So, in the past, when people who wished to remain celibate were forced into marriage by their relatives, they went through the Sacramental rite, got married and then kept their virginity by mutual consent. There is less need for this approach now, of course.
Exactly. If celibacy was adopted by this institution it was because was the most convenient state for someone who was hellbent (no pun intended) on others salvation and in traveling to the ends of the earth or face certain death in order to extend the message (or take votes of poverty or of war against the Infidel like the old Teutonic knights, the Hospitaler knights and others). Such kind of life was a sure fire way to: get divorced, get cuckolded, or get your whole family killed.
And it prevented the formation of dynasties.
This is true… though the Sacred Tradition is quite strict about sexual abstinence during a priest’s course at the altar, which is why even in the ancient Church with married priests, the priests served in turns, so that they could be with their wives when not serving. In the Orthodox church, where priests are married, they are forbidden from sexual relations at least on the night before and after serving the Mass/Liturgy.
This would mean each parish would need at least two priests on a rotation, or that parishes would have to cease offering daily Mass. Really, the pope has to conserve the Apostolic Tradition, and our age is too libertine and undisciplined to have married priests while also respecting the discipline about intermittent fasting from sex. The Council of Trent reiterated the ancient discipline that fast periods (Lent, Fridays, etc.) also require fasting from sex – but even traditionally-minded folk often forget/ignore that.
The point of celibacy is prevent family politics and dynasties from arising within the church.
Something many people overlook, but which I often saw on display in the Orthodox Church, when I was amongst them – especially between the priest’s wife and other ladies.
If it makes you feel any better, Catholic priests aren’t actually celibate.
Most Catholic priests (this does not include silly VII fairies) strive and succeed in celibacy.
I think thats a universal statement with no proof behind it. Whats your source?
You mean you’re not capable of celibacy, so no one else can be either.
Celibacy requires full focus upon the ministry he has been ordained to. St. Paul talks about a married man being at his wife’s call. This is the primary reason for celibacy.
St. Paul was himself celibate and encouraged this. St. Timothy, whom he ordained, was ordained a celibate bishop. I actually don’t think married men are very well qualified for the priesthood – if we’re talking about the traditional duties of a real, traditional priest – especially in the modern world, where there is immense confusion and a tremendous need for pastoral guidance. A priest has to spend a minimum of three and an half hours a day just in prayer, then he also has Mass and his other duties – sick calls, house calls, marriage counselling, confessions, baptisms, catechism, etc., etc. Celibacy is put before candidates for the priesthood to ensure that they are men of the highest caliber, willing to sacrifice themselves like Christ did, renouncing to a large extent any private life or time.
Of course, if “celibate” priests aren’t really celibate, or don’t spend several years in intensive theological formation and spend their whole day in service, like many modern “priests,” then there isn’t any point. But if one does things in harmony with traditional standards, it is an iheavy burden for a married man.
I am a traditionalist Catholic but I think it’s a good time to reexamine priestly celibacy. Orthodox don’t do it and nobody would mistake them for leftists.
Having read so many discussions on this topic, why does no one mention:
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Or:
Deuteronomy 6, or when they are commanded to gather once a year so any who haven’t heard many hear and understand.
Don’t all three teach that a man/husband is the savior, preist or bishop of his family? If so how can a man actually be in the role of a man if he refuses to marry?
Isn’t husband also translated as steward?
Also consider Isaiah 4.
It also weeds out a lot of deviants that would want to infiltrate the Church to destroy it. Celibacy has many good reasons behind it but its hard to picture it in a sex-obsessed culture. Think with God’s mind not Man’s.
A big part of celibacy, no sex before marriage, yadda, yadda, is about the Catholic doctrine of Charity. Sex for gratification’s sake is using another human being for your pleasure. That’s why it’s bad. And also why gays can’t be priests, because they identify their whole existence as sexual. Yeah, Catholic priests have to be celibate as a discipline, but it’s also an expression of thier stoic teachings about respecting others.
I was under the impression that the male-only priesthood was a matter of Catholic dogma that could not be changed by the Pope.
In fact it is but the “Pope” is not catholic and hasn’t been in a long time…
Then what is he?
The false prophet?
Could be. There is an interesting website with extensive documentation about the Church’s transformation throughout the years http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/
As someone in Roosh forum said there are urinals in gas stations that deserve more respect than this “Pope”…he is not a Christian, in all likelihood a Freemason like the rest of the Post-conciliar popes…
A manifest heretic, whom the faithful are morally obliged to avoid.
So the Holy See is empty? Damn this is confusing.
Distressing, yes; confusing, no. It seems plain enough to me!
I thought so too. I’m not positive if it’s ever been formally pronounced to be dogma, but changing it would fly in the face of over a thousand years of tradition, so it’s dogma for all practical purposes at this point.
It is an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium; Traditionalists know this well, and even John Paul II affirmed that such was the case in his own writings.
I feel really sheepish now, because I am a traditionalist. It just occured to me yesterday that I wasn’t sure if celibacy was a rule introduced to help priests leave behind the things of this world, or if it is an essential property of Holy Orders, like unity (monogamy) and indissolubility are for marriage. The existence of married priests in the early church gave me pause.
I feel really sheepish now, because I am a traditionalist. It just occurred to me yesterday that I wasn’t sure if celibacy was a rule introduced very early on to better ensure priests leave the things of this world behind, or if it is an essential property of Holy Orders, like unity (monogamy) and indissolubility are for marriage. The existence of married priests in the early have me pause.
It is indeed.
Feminism = Babylon the Great
“Feminism = Babylon the Great”
Heterodoxy and the western half of European civilization (post Great-Schism) and all its derivatives (USA/NATO/EU) are Mystery Babylon the Great Whore.
There is much truth in what you say. The Catholic Faith is the True Faith; but the apostates from the Faith resurrected, through Freemasonry, Roscrucianism and manifold other, profane groups, the occult ways of the old gods. To be most accurate, apostate Jewry did this in the Kaballah, and this was itself the inspiration and driving force behind the “Reformation” and the subsequent revolutions of Humanism, Jacobinism, Socialism, Marxism, etc.
Women and fags. And by banning fags, I mean screening the passt of every aspirant Priests in search of any deviancy.
That could b a substantial proportion of the Catholic priesthood, at least if detractors are correct
I fear that it is real. And that would explain a lot about how they’re now becoming all gay friendly.
I think the Vatican in particular has a powerful gay subculture. I was going to say lobby but its behind the scenes allegedly at least in part. On the other hand I learned this from reading Leo Zagami who’s an Italian conspiracy theorist so I can’t say how accurate it is
During the last century, communists and gays infiltrated the structure of the church en masse. That’s how, when Vatican II hit the church, there was almost no opposition.
Pretty sure that’s have always been attracted to the church for reasons of camouflage. Communists on the other hand….
Buttbanditing has always happened every where. The army, prisons, sailors, the church, cadet schools … There even was an openly faggy pope in the 1000s. But since the recent creation of an homosexualist identity, I think that is possible, that an infiltration of full time politicized butt bandits could have happened in the sixties, as Untergang07 says it.
https://www.amazon.com/School-Darkness-Illustrated-Bella-Dodd-ebook/dp/B00R55IUG4?ie=UTF8&keywords=bella%20dodd&qid=1463165840&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
That would be Pope Fabulous
Thanks for the link
Bella Dodd.
Edit: OK, you got that already. It’s available on archive.org as well, I believe.
John XXIII “I am Joseph, your brother.”
Yes, Benedict XVI and others openly referred to a powerful gay cabal on more than one occasion. Most of the infiltrators are Masons and Socialists, and are doing it precisely because they want to flout the Church and Her morals.
Yes, and the popes had warned that such a day was coming for over a century before it happened. Likewise, Marian apparitions at La Salette, Fatima (whose anniversary is today) and elsewhere, made similar warnings.
This is why Catholics should wake up to what is happening, and remind themselves of the Church’s definitive teaching that all heretics, even presumptive popes, are automatically out of the Church if their heresy is manifest and public (whether it is material or formal). They should not continue to submit themselves to manifest apostates.
Any idea what the third prophecy of Fatima is? Has it been revealed yet?
Yes, there really was no concept of a “gay” person over a century ago. There was an understanding that some men were effeminate and recurred to such acts routinely, but otherwise it was viewed primarily as a sin of opportunity which any man might seek, in the absence of available women (in the active role, obviously). It was just one of the variety of possible, sexual sins – and, in fact, it was probably more widespread in earlier times, because men did not think of themselves as “gay” for getting off in that way (it was not emasculating, so long as they were not passives), and girls did not put out as a general rule. Though, wherever whorehouses were tolerated, it probably wasn’t an issue.
Nowadays, the “gay identity” does immense damage, causing people to build their core identity and sense of self, upon a disordered impulse that people of the past often knew would pass or correct itself given time and experience.
Here it is for free. Thanks for the recommendation. I’ve never heard of this book.
http://genus.cogia.net/
It hasn’t; but I think the date, and the subsequent events, leave us with near certainty of its contents: a false council that would signal a massive apostasy and crisis of the Faith. This also fits well with the first words of the Third Secret, which are known: “In Portugal the Dogma of the Faith will always be preserved…” implying that the Dogma of the Faith is at issue in the Secret, and that it may not be preserved elsewhere.
Yes, its called the Lavender Mafia. There have been many steps taken to prevent them from entering the priesthood since Pope Benedict.
Makes me think of that Father Ted episode.
“Call 0800 800 800. Priest Chatback. Meet the Priests you want to meet”
Pope Benedict tried to get butt-bandit-priests out. And the same SJW’s who kept attacking the church for having gays in it, attacked it for trying to get gays out of it.
Benedict was great! I’ve read most of his books, and he emphasizes the Church’s base in Stoicism and the best of Greek Philosophy. You don’t have to be Catholic to use his works for self-improvment.
(And Pedos)
In the Newchurch, it is sadly quite common.
You want to ban fags? I know that suicide is a severe sin and smoking is basically committing suicide veeeeerrry slooooowly, but still, seems a bit harsh to ban fags completely. I mean, if you wanted to go down the route of ‘banning stuff that’s bad for you’ then you’d have to ban alcohol too, and then what would you use for Communion?
Just got it.
lol got eem
Unfortunately, since the 60s, the opposite policy seems to have been in place for seminaries…
A man once came to visit us at the Orthodox monastery where I lived. He was Catholic. His wife had gone insane and he divorced her, but he knew this meant he could not marry or have sex again. So he sold everything, including his law firm, and went to join up with a Franciscan priory. Shortly after moving in to the house, it became clear that all the men in the house liked to diddle each other, and were uncomfortable with him being there unless he approved and participated.
Now he was trying to figure out what to do. He ultimately found a better place in an Eastern Catholic monastery, thank God.
Catholics need to get out of the Conciliar church. It does not believe or practice the Catholic Faith, in its doctrine, morals or laws, and its only mission is to discredit the Faith and ruin your souls, the few hangers-on notwithstanding. Get out!
(I’m glad it turned out well for him, because the guy’s tactics really made me chuckle; his wife was glad to file for divorce so she could get a bunch of his stuff and bilk him for a lot of cash as a fairly wealthy lawyer. He nipped that in the bud by selling it all and becoming a friar with no direct, personal income. He told me he had almost become a friar in his youth; now he would become one for real and deny his ex-wife the satisfaction. Ha!)
I’m glad it worked out for your friend, but I wouldn’t advise other men who are about to be divorce-raped to take that “sell all your stuff as quickly as you can” route. That might lead to them being accused of financial dishonesty, and lead to a case like this:
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/oct/14/women-right-reopen-divorce-settlements-supreme-court
Well, when you sell everything, it’s not misleading to say “I don’t have a penny to my name.” Besides, they can’t get blood from a turnip.
Honest question: what did your friend do with the money?
You do not judge the faith by those that fail to practice it. Eastern Catholic Churches are still under the umbrella of the Catholic Church, they are unified. Leaving the church is not going to help anything except create more fracture. Abuses have to be corrected not abandoned, that is cowardice. Don’t be foolish like Martin Luther.
Except that the very Church precepts contemplate the possibility when the pope and all the hierarchy become heretics/apostates and are no longer part of the Catholic church. For starters…
My point, is that the Conciliar church is not the Church, which is demonstrable by many proofs.
Catholics are obliged to stay with the Church; the Church is to be found where there is unity of Faith and Sacraments, and submission to legitimate pastors. The Church’s doctrine itself tells us that public heretics (whether material or formal) are automatically excommunicated, and that it is mortally sinful to remain subject to them and to share in their heresies. To remain with Francis deliberately, is to go into schism from the Catholic Church. This means Catholics are obliged to break with the Conciliar church and find a Catholic one.
Unfortunately, he gave it to the Franciscan sodomites.
How do you know when something is a duck?
The issues of fags and faith are all mixed up by the SJW’s who alternately point to the church as guilty, and then criticize it for wanting to get the fags out.
I don’t think that all of the priests who’ve molested young boys in their congregations over the years were gay. I think that they were convinced that their mandatory vows of celibacy – which is just one of the many reasons the Catholic Church is apostate – would somehow make their God-given desires vanish like a vapor.
Repressed sexuality has really ugly ways of manifesting itself.
Yeah, no. Bullshit. I know celibacy is hard to understand for simple people like you in this days and age but not every one go crazy without it.
And un-“repressed” sexually active often married secular teachers or pastors still rape their schoolboy. You’ll have to find a better explanation.
In most every case where a woman is made a pastor in the sects that condone it, lesbian shit comes out. They’re unfit to do it. Not knocking them; it’s just not plausable for them to be priests. Just like a guy who can’t pass basic math in school isn’t fit for the space program. What the world needs is someone to tell them to shut up, they’re not capable, and to go back to housecleaning or something.
Off topic but that picture of the serpent tempting Eve reminds me a bit of Rod Hull and Emu
The Bible commands it in both books of Timothy and Titus. This builds on the tradition of Levite males being the priests in the Old Testament.
That is good enough for me.
here follow a link to somethings related to the post:
http://www.repubblica.it/vaticano/2016/05/12/news/diaconato_vaticano_apertura_alle_donne-139640661/
it says: “Women in the Church, the Pope opens to the diaconate for women”
….meanwhile, in Milan, muslims sued the mayor of Milan for a new Mosque!
Once the church will fall, you better sit, have a beer and enjoy the final blow, the decline of patriarchy, and the rise of islam!
p.s.: i bet Hillary will be the next president of Usa, i bet a beer!
On the contrary, if Islam takes over patriarchy will return, permanently.
sure, if you are a muslim man you have nothing to worry about…otherwise you’ll become a dhimmi..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
Beer however will vanish forever. Unless you are willing to risk public beheading from making homebrew.
I didn’t say it would be good. I just said that patriarchy would return forever. We would lose far more than we would gain, however.
La chiesa cattolica e il cristianesimo in generale sono morti da tempo nel crematorio delle illusioni.
Quello che vediamo adesso non sono che le ceneri del rogo che il vento degli interessi umani soffia intorno a suo piacimento. Lascia che quello che deve avvenire avvenga. Il vero uomo rimane saldo in sé stesso e la sua Presenza è immune agli avvenimenti esterni. L’epoca di dissoluzione che stiamo vivendo deve fare il suo corso fino in fondo. Se poi l’Umanità potrà risollevarsi, ancora non lo sappiamo, né è utile saperlo a questo punto.
Papa Francesco non è che un burattino fra gli altri burattini che servono i loro maestri, consapevolmente o meno.
Noi Uomini sovrani, continuiamo a fare quello che possiamo con quello che abbiamo in qualsiasi ambiente ci troviamo, con l’integrità e la fermezza proprie dell’Uomo che sa stare saldo da solo sulle sue proprie due gambe.
Poi, avvenga ciò che deve.
È la Passione della Chiesa. Le Scritture hanno profetizzato l’ apostasía e la diminuzione dei fideli.
Francesco davvero non è Catollico; la Chiesa, come il suo Signore, risorgerà.
Priesthood? If we had not allowed them to vote to begin with we would have been better off.
Yeah, the march for eekwallitee should have been halted long before they stretched their hands out towards a miter.
The Islamic community is probably shitting their pants with laughter.
Why would Cuck Francis white-knight if he knows he is never going to get laid?
This shit is bonkers…
Political interests, no doubt.. trying to approach the church to feminist movements to gather more members…. and rotting mainstream Christianity in the process while Islam keeps getting stronger…
Damn, why do my fellow Christians think they need to be cucks to everyone else?? You see guys.. it’s not anti-Christian to stand against someone when what they say/do goes against the Law of God…
I’m amazed the writer does not bring up the example of the disastrous consequences of ordaining women in the Church of England. It’s funny I just left a comment about this very topic over at Dalrock.
The Church of England, starting with its American branch, the Episcopal Church began ordaining women as deacons, then priests and it quickly expanded to ordaining open, practicing homosexual priests, and then homosexual Bishops like Vicky Gene Robinson and LA Bishop Mary Glasspool(The other LA bishop, Frank Bruno is being sued for trying to sell church property for his own profit). Along with women priests came women like Dean Katherine Ragsdale of the Episcopal Seminary declaring “Abortion is a blessing” repeatedly. Add to this abandoning the Eucharist for the ‘U2-charist’, embracing pagan ideas like Ubuntu, and welcoming Muslims to pray in Christian churches. Now, the Episcopal Church is led by a black archbishop who tries to play the race card infront of Anglican archbishops from Africa(Not surprisingly, the African bishops were not impressed…). He replaced the likely to be lesbian archbishop Katherine Jefford Schiori(No one has been able to find Mr. Schiori for quite some time…) who sued traditional Anglican parishes out of existence. The current head of the entire Church of England and Anglican Communion, Justin Welby is a product of cuckoldry.
The women priests in the CoE now want to refer to God as female….
Seriously folks. I truly love Anglican liturgy but look at the mess and collapse of the Anglican Churches in the West to see prime, real world examples of how to destroy your denomination by ordaining women. FYI, the traditional Anglicans in America formed the Anglican Church of North America and are doing alright despite having to start their churches from scratch after being sued by the national Episcopal church. You have been warned!!! No women priests!!!
Ladies playing dress up are a death knell for any sect. I once saw an “ordination” ceremony for a mitred Episcopalian she-beast. Native American dancers and a rock concert were the “ceremony.” At some point a male dressed in vestments reminiscent of a bishop came on stage, murmured something for maybe five seconds, popped a stole on her, and vamanoosed.
Of course, that’s what they want; the only purpose they have, is the destruction of the institutions. If they can milk it for a few years and pocket some tithes, misappropriate a lovely, hundred-year-old rectory etc., great! But they don’t give a s(#t about the institution.
Yeah, they can’t think beyond themselves and what THEY want. Religious orders and groups are about things beyond what one individual wants. Women getting in positions of authority ANYWHERE bring the whole scope and mission down to base levels about keeping everyone happy. Which means giving in to decadent groups out to pervert things.
Yeah, go on to youtube some time and (try) to watch a video where Peter Hitchens debates Christian feminists. You have never heard such inane, self-centered, “inclusive” prattling in your life. There is a reason why women are supposed to zip it in the public sphere.
I was raised Episcopal, and I should attend church. I will attend church. I just hope the one here in town is good. It appears to be a High Church, so that is good. However, there is also an Anglican church, closer. I shall attend both a number of times to see what is what.
The Anglican one is ACNA, I read, so I have a local choice, praise God.
This deserves an article itself, in my opinion.
All through history man, all through history. When women were appointed heads of religious sects or governments things quickly degraded into scandals, and then over time they collapsed.
All religions are a form of madness, none excluded. They have been created by people who had their brain drugged and/or infected wih all kinds of s**it who found other weak-brained people to believe in them and what they said. Get real and get rid of the delusions they have been feeding you which you then in turn keep on feeding because you became the host of the parasites. Clean out the cellar, the attic, and everything in between. You will then realize how much junk has been put there which you were not even aware of. Once it is all been disposed of you will feel like you know life for the first time.
Thanks, you opened my eyes.
Si tu as la chance de vivre assez longtemps ou le courage de regarder les choses vraiment en face tu vas le découvrir par toi-même de toute façon, pas besoin de perdre du temps précieux en faisant du sarcasme inutile. De toute manière c’est prendre ou laisser. Je ne suis pas là pour ramasser des approbations ou des désapprobations. Je m’en fiche grandement. Mon intérêt c’est simplement de mettre l’accent sur la nécessité pour nous les hommes de nous réveiller au réel si on veut encore avoir une petite chance de survivre les prochaînes 50 anées. Ce qui n’est évidemment pas si sûr que cela…
Marrant le ton paternaliste, pour se donner une allure de sage à deux sous…
Tu viens d’un milieu religieux ? Si c’est le cas j’ai fait exactement le chemin inverse de toi. C’est en “me réveillant au réel” que j’ai retrouvé la Foi de mes ancêtres. C’est en utilisant ma Raison, en lisant des auteurs comme Aristote et Platon, puis Saint Augustin, que j’en suis venu à croire.
Sinon, c’est davantage l’humanisme et le modernisme qui nous ont plongé dans cette fuite en avant où notre survie à court terme est maintenant menacée.
Ah pu*ain, les types comme toi c’est les pire. 🙂
C’est comme les ex-fumeurs enragés!!!
Ne t’en fais pas. Le temps soigne toute chose.
Oui, c’est ça, bonne chance à toi aussi, petit scarabée 🙂 <3
LOL, merci, c’est entendu.
“To remain an atheist a man must be very careful in his reading.”
-C.S. Lewis
Dear Lord, how true that is.
Salutations sur la fête de Notre Dame de Fatima!
I came to Christianity through medieval alchemy. The synchronicity and correspondences of various “as above below” makes a lot of sense.
We are experiencing below in our realm a repeat of what happened above. Satan has been cast down onto the earth, and through the Archangel Michael and Christ, we have to cast him from our realm. (See book of Daniel and Apocalypse of Saint John)
Just as the angels were accused before the throne by Satan, so the elect will be accused for doing the divine will. I see all the PC and materialistic accusations against traditional ethics as the corrupt accusing righteous before God’s throne.
(Satan is the Accuser)
I
More hallucinations…
Voir ci-dessus.
Qui a parlé d’athéisme?
Awwwwww… keep suffering in the name of some fantasy, you’ll evntually wake up as well. 🙂
You both did. That was pretty much the point of M. de Charette’s story about going from being raised in a nonreligious family to a rediscovery of his faith through reading, dumb ass.
Facere me tibi loqui in lingua Galliae possum, sed infeliciter similem bufoni me inflare non velim, sicut videtur te amare agere.
Eh bien, ma belle, לא שם על זה is the way to go then.
Ching chong wing Wong. Not impressed. Quit trying to flirt with me you faggot.
C’est quoi maintenant, du coup tu as peur des Hommes?
🙂
Gosh, how profound.
Get back to me when you can explain how the universe came into being.
That is all.
Why waste my time? If you are interested in the topic, you go ahead and answer for yourself. But it has to be YOUR answer, thickhead, not the one from someone else. YOU as YOU have to KNOW, from yourself as the source of your knowledge, not from some “belief” that someone forced down your throat before you could even say or think anything on your own. Just do it and see what you come up with if you feel like it. Thickhead! 🙂
Because you can’t answer it, that’s why.
Nobody can. Not without using faith. That is, a statement with no way to actually provide proof.
You’re trying to personalize it. I’m asking you a direct question which I know that you cannot ever, ever, not in all the time of history, answer. Because I want you to realize that you work on faith, ultimately, just like I do.
Your “argument” is nothing more nor less than the same tired arrogant spew I’ve heard from countless university professors as they indoctrinate young minds into their valueless world. Once they’re indoctrinated the conversion to socialism is made that much easier. Because, like, that’s just your opinion…man.
I have two university degrees btw. Talk to me about thickhead when you can make a serious attempt to prove or disprove Riemann’s hypothesis (without using Google, ya see). Until then, save your insults, child.
OK, you are a good egg.
I sang my song, you sang yours.
I’m not here to provide solutions and I am not interested in debating.
I’m sure you can find plenty of solutions where other religious peddlers and con-men abide, and debate there as well.
Thank you.
Yes, you’re not here to argue or debate, you’re just here to sneer arrogantly at people and belittle them with your “superiority”. That’s very effeminate and catty. If you can’t back up your position, and ultimately you can’t, then just fess up and be done with it, or at least try to make a case for it. Sneering and cackling at others from your rather dirty ivory tower (seriously, hose that thing off now and then), well, that’s just girl and hipster stuff, dooood.
My family was by and large agnostic btw. Nobody forced anything down my throat. You’d be amazed at the profound thinking one can go through while gazing at the stars through a Schmidt Cassegrain telescope and searching for open clusters.
Yesss… thickhead 🙂
Hey, bring in some humor!
Even clusters have it, I’m sure.
Think about the name Cassegrain: does it not sound funny? Casse (break) – grain (grain, seed, by extension… b*lls), therefore il casse les grains…
🙂
There is not always a need to be down at the bar with the other dudes and to have a few pints of beer in one’s system to find humor in life…
And yes, I am sincere if I say you are a good man. I have read lots of posts by you.
So thanks again and keep up the good work. Just… well, it’s OK even to have a thickhead.
Who knows, for some I might have one too! Don’t they say “it takes one to recognize one?”
🙂
Be well.
A true answer will probably be found by more than one person. Agreement is not the same thing as conformity or intellectual laziness.
I submit to the Catholic Church. That took me 20 years of study in three languages in texts spanning millennia of history. Far from it being forced down my throat, I had to go in search of this stuff, spending time in the UofA Library basement going through the stacks and the Corpus Christianorum series (until googlebooks and archive.org, which have saved a ton of time!). There’s nothing inherently “thick” or obtuse about assenting to a Church’s teaching.
For real. Religious cults, including big ones like Christianity, serves two purposes: to get the people at the top paid and laid.
I guess I’m doing it wrong.
Up to you.
Atheist are always so unoriginal. What a dissapointment but something to be expected since those arguments stem from emotion and not from reason.
Good, it’s OK, keep dreaming!
Once the eyes open the dream ends by itself… 🙂
You are more right than you know. The borders between madness, inspiration, and revelation are very thin.
I’ll take the fervent ravings of a poet or a prophet over the cold machinations of a “rationalist” any day.
Good for you, farewell.
“All religions are a form of madness, none excluded.”
If true, who cares. The religion that demands you subjugate and kill those not like you are the “mad” religions everyone should be concerned about. There is only one current “religion” that fits that bill and many want to ignore.
Besides, ideological wars have killed more than all religious wars put together. Funny you don’t mention that.
All ideological wars as you call them have their root in religions.
Yeah right i guess when you look at atheism snd utopianism as religions you are right…
“All religions are a form of madness, none excluded.
Since the western world has abandoned religion it sure has worked well hasn’t it?
Although I have struggled with faith all my life I still consider myself a believer. A life without faith is an empty existence. No reward in the end for doing right, no judgement for doing wrong, the only thing higher than you is the government, that’s who would determine good or bad, right or wrong. A world with no religion would only be one of two things, anarchy or totalitarian. At least religion (Christian) would give you a choice do right=reward, do wrong=judgement the choice would be yours only.
I’ve given this some thought over the years, it appears to me that a religion that spells out right and wrong and promises inescapable judgement in the end is one of those things to keep people on the right path, when they think of doing wrong there is that twinge in the back of the mind that says”I will have to pay for this”. Without that ones only fear would be getting caught by the omnipotent government who says “you can’t do that”, so why care? Sometimes that twinge in the back of the mind is the only thing that keeps me from being a ruthless mother fucker.
The ruthless m*f* is well and alive whether on the “right path” or not, isn’t it, and some right paths are more right than others, right? So if your right path tells you to kill all those who are not on your “right path” and that if you are not going to do that you will suffer the pains of eternal hell you are going to to it right?
So where’s the difference?
Well, anyway, good luck on the “right path.”
The right path says not to do that, it’s all right there in the Book.
By all means, buddy, keep it tight.
I started writing this article 9 days ago. The Pope made his announcement 2 days ago. Isn’t that interesting? When I wrote this, I asked myself why I was approaching such a silent subject. Nobody had talked about ordaining women for months. What told me to write this and submit it to RoK? Would you call that a miracle?
Gee, no, it must be BECAUSE of you!
I wonder if the priestess wrestling matches in Antioch drew large crowds.
“The white male athlete, holding a water bottle marked “Yale,” eventually wins the race without even having to run – he takes his place on a fast-moving conveyor belt as the word “privilege” follows him. He crosses the finish line just ahead of the white female.” This is a description of a video that was shown at a school, man this is fuckin bullshit they indoctrinate the living hell out of kids these days i almost can’t blame white males for being absolute total pussies anymore, but alas i still do. If i ever have a child which i severly doubt id never ket them go to public school, idk if private is any better but homeschooling seems like the only way.
I laughed out loud at that video… if I had been in school watching it I probably would have been expelled.
One of the main issues if not the main issue with the church now is ecumenicalism. That is its OK to believe in whatever you want all beliefs are ok. If the church won’t even stand for what it says it believes in what is the point to going to church? This is where all this Gospel of love crap comes from its just feeding people a good feeling without giving them any truth. Good feeling plus no substance what does that remind you of? Drugs, that’s right priests are little more than drug dealers now a days who push good feelings and cute slogans on the layity while witholding true Christian living.
I shudder to think how many souls have been destroyed of people who died believing all was right with God because their new age preists told them so.
Two points.
One, Roman Catholicism isn’t Christianity. Christ is.
Secondly, Christianity requires no help from humans and will always “be”. It has survived Eli and Solomon and David, the Roman church and Mormonism, and it will last long after Christine Caine, Jen Hatmaker and Mary Kassian have passed.
Hahahahaha! It’s getting more and more funny today…
Will it survive forced Protestant misreadings of the Bible?
Cute. Papists telling others they’re misreading the Bible.
We wrote it, copied it, aggregated it and canonized it. The canon you have, is the canon officially approved by Pope St. Damasus (you’re welcome). We understand our own books better than you do, for we have the Apostolic and Catholic Faith, the context necessary for interpreting those books, and the criterion by which we judged those books to be canonical. I mean, when a Protestant reads the Bible and finds the Greek word “old man” used for Christian clergy, he hasn’t got the faintest idea what that means, because Scripture nowhere spells out the role of such a clergyman. But we know. When St. Paul says “we have an altar, from which they have no right to eat,” or talks about elementary doctrines of baptisms and the laying on of hands, the impossibility of renewal unto repentance, etc., Protestants are confused. But it is clear as a bell to us. We don’t have to form our best guesses at what the Bible probably means; we know what it means, without a doubt. Our opinions don’t enter into it. We understand the books; they are ours.
We kept the Church going for four centuries before there was an official canon, and for another 1000 years before the half-literate masses could easily get their hands on bad translations of it, and fascinate us all with their historically uninformed opinions about it. 😉 This is because the Church is the Pillar and the Bulwark of the Truth, and the Bible doesn’t say anything that the Church doesn’t first already know. The Church did not need a Bible to conduct her affairs through the centuries, though of course the Scripture is always revered as infallible, pristine, most ancient and authoritative.
I used to be a fervent, non-denominational Protestant. I tell you truly: anyone who makes the most cursory study of Church history will be embarrassed ever to have been a Protestant. It is immediately apparent that the first Christians were either Catholic or Orthodox. I can admit that to understand the nature of the primacy in the Church fully, if one is trying to deduce this from historical study, is a somewhat more complex undertaking. But that the first Christians believed in the Church, the Mass, the Real Presence, the Hierarchy, the Priesthood, the centrality of Sacraments, the appropriateness of honoring the Saints and Martyrs and their relics, etc., etc., is all quite clear, immediately upon the most superficial study. Just go and read the Apostolic and other, pre-Nicene Fathers. Long before Constantine, man.
God bless.
This reply will be fun for me to write.
“We wrote it”. No, no you didn’t. Men wrote it through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Theopneustos in the Greek: God breathed. Had it been written by men in the thoughts of men, it wouldn’t be the Bible. It would be “Josh’s Wonderful Odyssey” or “Life Tips from Josh”.
“Protestants are confused.” No, I submit that it’s the other way around. Surely, if the Roman church wasn’t confused, they wouldn’t have brought in such rampant paganism (Patron Saints of ______? Really?), unbiblical ideas like purgatory and limbo, and such nonsense as states of grace or last rites. Furthermore, it’s the Roman church’s confusion as to salvation by works that led to the Reformation. Paying indulgences so as to rescue people from purgatory? “Every time a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs?” Salvation is not of works but of Grace. Paul’s pretty clear about that in the entire book of Romans.
“We kept the Church going….” This is really just applied Biblical theology and you’re horribly and arrogantly wrong. Sola ekklesia, indeed. It’s Christ’s Bride and God keeps the church going. John 17 is clear that God will not lose any of those which are the elect. The apostate Roman church denies predestination and the finished work of Christ leading….
“…the first Christians believed…. the Mass, the Real Presence…” Again, not so. Justin Martyr, Clement, Ignatius, Athanasius et al did not believe the mass was the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. The Didache itself says the Communion is a commemoration not a sacrifice. Is the Didache far enough back? It’s okay, I understand. Next you’ll likely use Ignatius and his fights against the heretics in the East like the Docetists as your support for the Real Presence…
” The Church did not need a Bible”. Finally, something we can sort of agree on. Faith comes by hearing, Romans 10, but the Bible was important enough that Jesus quotes it time and time again. So does Paul. The first Bible, the OT, that is.
“I used to be a fervent, non-denominational Protestant.” Houses built upon sand. I’m Reformed by conviction and evidence not like the “Protestants” of convenience like the followers of Osteen, TD Jakes and the others of that ilk. I’m a fervent denominational Protestant of conviction. I’ve read the Bible, Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon (maybe the name’s a giveaway?), et al. I pray for those caught within the web of the apostate Roman church. For those caught in the mysticism and the faith in that which is unchristlike. I’ve listened to Mitch Pacwa stutter trying to answer James White’s question about peace and states of grace within the Roman faith.
I pray that you realize the error of your ways in heading to the apostate church.
Nobody doubts that God wrote the Scriptures, founded the Church and sustains Her (and all things); in terms of the human element, the Catholics are obviously the original and only Church, from the Apostles onward. St. James says that “he who converts a sinner has saved him and covered over many sins.” Nobody doubts that God converts and saves men and forgives their sins, but one can speak in this human way, too. So I have no problem saying that Catholics wrote the Bible; we did, under divine inspiration. We also copied it and canonized it and delivered it to you. You wouldn’t have it, if it weren’t for us.
Ss. Justin Martyr, Clement, Ignatius, Athanasius, and the other early Fathers absolutely did believe the Mass was a solemn re-presentation of the one Sacrifice of Christ. As to the term “commemoration,” you do not know what it means. That’s why the context of the Apostolic Tradition is so important. Scripture is not explicit about many terms – what is a “supervisor?” A “helper?” An “old man?” What is an “anamnesis” in the Christian context? Hint: Catholics still use this title for certain of the prayers of the Canon of the Mass! Nor is this a uniquely “Roman” thing – all the Churches believed this Apostolic Faith, from Ireland to India, Mauritania to Dalmatia; the Orthodox Churches believe almost all of it to this day, differing only in a latter-day dispute over the papacy.
Nor is there anything unbiblical about saints, relics, purgatory, indulgences, etc. In fact, they are all in the Bible, some explicitly and some implicitly. But really, this is the point. The Bible nowhere teaches “Bible only,” so it’s especially absurd to think your faith could be Biblical, if its core tenet that everything must be found in the Bible, is not itself in the Bible. Nobody denies the importance of Scripture; but even without Scripture, we would have the entirety of the Apostolic Faith.
Indeed, it is by the criterion of the Apostolic Faith, that the Church was able to recognize the canonical books four centuries after the fact, separating them from non-canonical works. The New Law is not so much written down, as it is set directly in the hearts of the faithful; that is the difference between the Church and the Synagogue. The Synagogue had only written records, veiled; the veil is removed in Christ, by Whom men partake of the divinity and are made temples of the Holy Ghost Himself.
Hence the Apostles taught that it is the Church, not the mere written record of Scripture, which is the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth. Our Lord didn’t say “If they won’t listen to the Bible, let them be to you as the heathen and publican,” He said “if they won’t hear the CHURCH,” etc. He didn’t say, “thou art Rock, and upon this rock I will write my Bible;” He said “thou art Rock, and upon this rock I will build my CHURCH.” He didn’t say, “the gates of Hell will never prevail over My bible” (for the devil can quote scripture to his purpose); He said the gates of hell would never prevail against His CHURCH.
Christianity is not a Bible-based religion. The Church is not built on the basis of the Bible; the Bible is produced and confirmed on the basis of the Church, Whom the Holy Ghost leads into all truth.
I’ve read Luther, Calvin and Spurgeon, too. Have you read – really, truly, thoroughly read – the Apostolic and pre-Nicene Fathers? It is a slam-dunk case, hence I am no longer a Protestant…
Incidentally, St. Justin Martyr does say that the Mass fulfills the Old Testament prophecy of God’s name being great amongst the Gentiles, who would offer Him a clean Sacrifice in every place (rather than only at the temple).
Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord: but ye profane it.’ He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane. Dialogue with Trypho XLI
ὅθεν περὶ μὲν τῶν ὑφ’ ὑμῶν τότε προσφερομένων θυσιῶν λέγει ὁ θεός, ὡς προέφην, διὰ Μαλαχίου, ἑνὸς τῶν δώδεκα· Οὐκ ἔστι θέλημά μου ἐν ὑμῖν, λέγει κύριος, καὶ τὰς θυσίας ὑμῶν οὐ προσδέξομαι ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν ὑμῶν· διότι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου ἕως δυσμῶν τὸ ὄνομά μου δεδόξασται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι, καὶ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ θυμίαμα προσφέρεται τῷ ὀνόματί μου καὶ θυσία καθαρά, ὅτι μέγα τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι, λέγει κύριος, ὑμεῖς δὲ βεβηλοῦτε αὐτό. 3 περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ὑφ’ ἡμῶν τῶν ἐθνῶν προσφερομένων αὐτῷ θυσιῶν, τοῦτ’ ἔστι τοῦ ἄρτου τῆς εὐχαριστίας καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου ὁμοίως τῆς εὐχαριστίας, προλέγει τότε, εἰπὼν καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ δοξάζειν ἡμᾶς, ὑμᾶς δὲ βεβηλοῦν.
The Didache also confesses this explicitly.
St. Ignatius confesses that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ (his epistles to the Smyrnaeans and Philadelphians); so also does St. Justin:
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. (Apologia Prima LXVI)
Καὶ ἡ τροφὴ αὕτη καλεῖται παρ’ ἡμῖν εὐχαριστία, ἧς οὐδενὶ ἄλλῳ μετασχεῖν ἐξόν ἐστιν ἢ τῷ πιστεύοντι ἀληθῆ εἶναι τὰ δεδιδαγμένα ὑφ’ ἡμῶν, καὶ λουσαμένῳ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἀφέ σεως ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ εἰς ἀναγέννησιν λουτρόν, καὶ οὕτως βιοῦντι ὡς ὁ Χριστὸς παρέδωκεν. οὐ γὰρ ὡς κοινὸν ἄρτον οὐδὲ κοινὸν πόμα ταῦτα λαμβάνομεν· ἀλλ’ ὃν τρόπον διὰ λόγου θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθεὶς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἔσχεν, οὕτως καὶ τὴν δι’ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ’ αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφήν, ἐξ ἧς αἷμα καὶ σάρκες κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου τοῦ σαρκοποιηθέντος Ἰησοῦ καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν εἶναι.
Now, we both know that Christ offered Himself to God the Father as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the sins of the world; so if the early Christians taught that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ, and that it was a Sacrifice, what other Sacrifice could it be?
I have got to comment, though I myself am a Lutheran (who also went to Catholic school for 12 years), who has respect both for the vast learning and history of the Roman Catholic church and the objections raised by Luther, I have been learning a lot by reading this discussion between you. Both of you raise great points and seem extraordinarily well educated in theology. Socrates would have called this discussion between two men seeking truth a thing of beauty. Thanks also for keeping it on topic and civil.
For me, the change came when I learned more about history and read more about Catholicism, and realized that her learning (which I already perceived to be vast) was far vaster than I had ever imagined. She so utterly defeated every argument I could raise against her – and I was very anti-Catholic! – that in the end I could not continue to resist.
I’m glad you’re enjoying the exchange.
Depends on what sect you speak too. How many are there these days?
“Hour of Power” with the original Schuller was destroyed when the daughter took over. The son has a small following with name Hour of Power, but the original held in the Crystal Cathedral in Los Angeles when buried by female leadership.
What, you don’t love the idea of clergy posting yoga pants selfies in-between sermons? What’s wrong with you?
Note sarcasm.
The New Testament clearly states that the Pastor must Male AND married, AND have children.
.
Heck, even Peter was MARRIED.
Neither Ss. John nor Paul (nor Timothy nor Titus) were married; our Lord and the early Church praised celibacy very highly (our Lord of course was celibate, as were some Apostles and many early bishops; also cf: Matthew 19:9-12; 1 Corinthians 7; Apocalypse 14:1-5). The caveat was that celibates must have self control; when the women from the order of widows in Ephesus proved that they did not have self-control, the celibate St. Paul’s advice to the celibate St. Timothy, was that the younger widows should marry, but older ones, if they had led worthy lives, could be enrolled.
The earlier passage in that same epistle, to which you allude, is saying that a bishop must not be a bigamist (or polygamist) and, if he has a family, it should be clear that he manages his own household well before he is asked to manage the household of God.
Jesus would not marry because He WAS GOD IN THE FLESH.
.
However, True Christians like me are to “preach to every creature”, not copycat Christ’s actions, like refusing a wife and family.
I was not saying that all men must imitate Christ in His celibacy and complete renunciation of the usual manner of life in the world. Though, that is the more prefect path, and is recommended, as our Lord and St. Paul both taught. Still, there is no sin in marrying, again, as they both taught… with the caveat that the Christian must aim for this detachment as much as possible even if he still uses the world – “let they that have wives be as if they had none…and they that use this world, as if they used it not, for the fashion of this world passeth away.”
Aurelius – how do you maintain enthusiasm in your social life with other people when you’re so comfortable with isolation and solitude?
You talk about detachment from earthly pursuits. How do you re-engage your mind to be social and kind to people?
I was very apathetic and isolated for a few years in a depressive state. Definitely ‘detached’ from society in some ways. Not pursuing God like you, but nonetheless a similar detachment from society and how most people socialize/live. I view it all as trivial, temporary, and almost child-like state of being.
Parties, socializing, sports games, etc… I’m somewhat of a deep thinker, combined with introversion I started to see normal life pursuits as pointless.
As a result of seeing the temporary, trivial nature of it all, I really stopped socializing and developing relationships with other people. Kind of like Asperger’s in some ways.
I’m just curious how you are so detached from our primitive desires and the way we childishly socialize yet at the same time you aren’t a complete introverted hermit asshole?
Is it a consistent theme in your life that other people think you’re too serious/intense?
hope that makes sense.
I can relate to what you have described. I sort of divided myself in 2 halves: one, of a spiritual and “serious” nature, where I can be free, but where I am also always lonely; the other, the more materialistic, which allows me a normal social life, a job, and a respectful status, but feels inherently like a mask, or a (childish) play.
Women end up calling me cold, heartless, unpassionate… even cruel, if I don’t abide by their narcissism. I don’t care anymore. I have a few good old (male) friends and they know this is my way.
yea. introverted, intellectual men you just come off as overly serious. girls have said similar things to me. To function socially you have to revert to the trite stuff you normally view as pointless BS. Even if you have some great epiphanies and understandings about life, what good is it if you can’t hold relationships?
Indeed. It fits my view that our “modern world” strives to “break” men in all aspects of their existance (jobs are temporary, families are fragile, your intellect is seen as odd/shameful, your strenght/beauty is presented to you as obsolete or pointless).
As you said, this requires us to be extremely pragmatic. We work to earn our money, we invest in women to satisfy our lust, we show up in places to get closer with useful people… But I admit I can’t get around that fruitless state of loneliness that’s imposed on me. A traditional man (in the sense Evola wrote about) cannot be (fully) satisfied with mere tokens of true life (sex is not love, objects are not a legacy and definitely, titles aren’t glory…).
I guess I’m lucky it drives me to harshness and not to despair.
Yes, most people think I’m too serious/intense, though a lot of this simply comes from having real convictions, I think. I also think keenness of mind sometimes perturbs some people, who are used to passively taking in what the world offers.
I tend to form few, but close, friendships. I have a good friend, but we live over an hour apart; about once a month I go and stay with his family, and once a month he comes and stays on the farm. He’s married with an handful of kids, so often my time with him is also time with his whole family; we carpool to Church from time to time, too. I have another buddy in Ohio, with whom I talk about once every other week, usually for a few hours. I take care of an elderly relative on our family cotton farm, so on the weekends I tend to see a relative or two, in addition to spending time with my grandmother. The isolation is not total.
Finally, at the risk of sounding like I’m putting on airs, I’d quote Cardinal Newman: “never less alone than when alone.” I’m never alone; God and the saints are real presences to me, and I am with them all day. I talk to them for at least 2-3 hours during the Office and Rosary, and then more informally for much of the rest of the time. There is also an old saying that “a monk whose face is bright during the day, has done his crying at night.” Isolation without an element of contemplation and self-transcendence could indeed make one into a miser or an old coot. Even many of the “cranky” hermit-saints put that on primarily as a way of undermining people’s desire to respect (or bother) them. But I find that religious isolation, far from making me cranky, tends to lend a great liberty and affability to my humor; there is a regular catharsis in compunction and penance. Not that I don’t have bad days, of course.
I would again posit that the issue is not strictly about the Church, but rather about female authority.
Basically if you boil it down to basics this, in our speak, is again just a shit test. I will not pray in a house that has female authorities. End of discussion.
Don’t marry a woman who won’t submit to your authority if this stuff matters to you. Do not work in a position where you are under a female direct superior.
Don’t do the things every wisdom of the world warns you against, be a man of honor and use your power to make the part of this world you have power over be a reflection of the truth you know, the right and proper order.
A righteous man is righteous in the eyes of God whatever name you call him by. But make sure, you know, God IS MALE.
An article with a good point; thanks.
Women are a reflection of the creation; they have the preeminence in earthly parentage, carrying the child in their womb and nursing it bodily. Men are a reflection of the Creator; they have the preeminence in spiritual parentage, siring spiritual life through the insemination of the Word, and raising up children spiritually. The priesthood is for men only, just as gestation and nursing are for women only.
Woman are a reflection of God:
Gen 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
But, indeed, the priesthood is for men only.
That human nature is made in the divine image, is a different thing entirely from the reflection of God and the subordinate creation, manifest in the hierarchy of the genders.
“The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.” 1 Corinthians 11:7
Men are a direct reflection of God; women are a reflection of man (king and microcosm of creation). Woman reflects God in this system, too, but as a reflection of a reflection; i.e., of God in His creature. I find nothing to amend in my statement.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
It should be emphasized here that man owes his authoritative pre-eminence in society not to personal achievements but to the appointment of the Creator according to the world of the Apostle: “The man . . . is the image and glory of god; but the woman is the glory of the man” (1 Corinthians 11:7). The Apostle in this reference to the creation of the first human pair presupposes the image of God in the woman. As this likeness manifests itself exteriorly in man’s supremacy over creation (Genesis 1:26), and as man as the born leader of the family first exercised this supremacy, he is called directly God’s image in this capacity. Woman takes part in this supremacy only indirectly under the guidance of the man and as his helpmeet. It is impossible to limit the Pauline statement to the single family; and the Apostle himself inferred from this the social position of woman in the Church community. Thus her natural position is assigned to woman in every form of society that springs necessarily from the family. This position is described by St. Thomas Aquinas with classic clearness (Summa theol., I:92:1, ad 2um). This doctrine, which has always been maintained by the Catholic Church, was repeatedly emphasized by Leo XIII.
Thank you my friend!
The best and most accessible explanation I’ve seen on why only men can be priests is this:
“Let’s define masculinity and femininity with two axioms:
The essence of masculinity is INITIATION.
The essence of femininity is RESPONSE.
In all aspects of life, from sociology to courtship to sexual intercourse itself, men are vocationally the initiators – or at least they SHOULD BE. Men lead. Men make decisions. Men command armies and wage war. Men initiate courtship. Men are the head of the household. Even the male anatomy is initiatory. The man introduces his body into that of his wife.
….
So why do we call God “He” exclusively? Because in the God-man relationship, God is the INITIATOR and mankind is the RESPONDER. The relative disproportion here is so great that it can be said to be practically infinite.
….
BUT, there is exactly ONE MOMENT wherein God, so utterly consumed and infinitely condescending in His love for mankind, actually goes so far as to permit man to take the role of initiator (masculine), and God Himself voluntarily, for just a moment, RESPONDS TO THE INITIATING ACT OF MAN. Yes, God makes His feminine nature manifest before mankind. That moment of total condescension of God to man is in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, specifically at the moment of consecration of the Host and the Chalice.
“The One About WHY PRIESTS CAN ONLY EVER BE MEN.” ~ Ann Barnhardt at barnhardt dot biz.
More:
“The priest puts his elbows down on the altar because the altar is A MARRIAGE BED, and the act of consecration is the consummation of the nuptial union between God and man, but in that moment the condescension of God is so utterly complete that God becomes, just for a moment, the feminine responder to the masculine initiating action of man who says the words of consecration.”
….
After the consecration, Our Lord goes right back to being the masculine initiator and the priest and the faithful become the normal relative feminine in relation to God in our nature as human beings as we RECEIVE Our Lord by taking Him physically into our bodies in the Eucharist, of which the marital embrace is also an image, only with the gender roles the other way.
http: //www.barnhardt.biz/the-one-about/the-one-about-why-priests-can-only-ever-be-men/
You do not have sex with Jesus; this smacks of Satanism.
I think it is a mistake to say that the Mass is a manifestation of the feminine nature of God on account of it being a response to man’s initiation. Rather, the priest himself is doing nothing other than standing in the place of Christ, Who took the initiative in both the Dispensation for our salvation and the ordination of the Sacraments and rites of the Church.
It would, however, be accurate to say that, in the Incarnation, God Himself entered into the sphere of things that are acted upon, and of course submitted to the Passion, which shares a root with “passive.” If we truly understood the condescension and kenosis of God in this act, we would never cease from compunction and gratitude. And in this sense, in His Sacred Humanity and Passion (of which the Mass is the Sacrament par excellence), Christ has entered the world of that which responds and is passive, i.e., feminine in relation to the initiative and activity of God.
And this is why you are actually saying the same thing I was saying: God as actus purus, is reflected in man; the creation as the object of God’s action is reflected in woman. Hence, the priesthood corresponds to the male sex, since it is the vicarious power of God and of the Bridegroom of the Church.
I would have to say you use words too often that are going to put off anyone without theological training. Sorry but that’s how it is.
I know why as well, but what I wonder is if you have ever tried something different?
I have eaten simple soba noodles at the falls of Kiyomizu Dera after hours of prayer and to me, nothing either the Catholic or Protestant church has had to offer comes remotely close.
I’m not Christian (obviously) but I have been baptized and confirmed as Protestant Lutheran, but also I have been part of many things with the Catholic Church.
The kinds of debates that are allowed within churches and communities scream to me it is dying, there is no more a living root at least in Western Europe. If you allow for women to speak and bring their opinion to bear you lose a LOT. Non negotiable anymore. You failed their shit test and that’s it.
And both the Protestant and Catholic Churches failed the shit tests. Japanese Buddhism did not, so whatever else you say it won. Jeesus lost the shit test of the women of our time, that’s it.
I understand what you’re saying; most groups calling themselves “catholic” are not; I move in traditional circles, and have certainly found God there. Women are not permitted to speak or teach in the Churches I attend. I also find God hiking and backpacking, watching the sunset, praying my Office, etc.
So, if some women start calling themselves Japanese Buddhists, will it lose, too? That fact that some women run around claiming to be Catholics, does not affect my Catholic Faith. I go to real Catholic Churches where Catholic discipline is enforced, and I don’t put up with the nonsense.
The only institution where women need play any important leadership role is your local whorehouse. Anywhere else they ruin everything they touch—the government and the business world as well as the church.
Honestly, women are best kept out of the church entirely. Let the women pray at home with the children.
Salty much :’)
Rather many men aren’t good leaders either but aren’t prevented from trying.
They are not prevented from trying, nor should they be.
It seems you’re going for the “but men do it too!” canard. Nice try, buddy.
The only real problem of Christian groups today is that they are not Catholic. Simply put, the only church founded by Christ is the Catholic church (Orthodox are a part of the church, but due to a schism, follow another bishop instead of the bishop of rome). We see many problems today due to modernism (a synthesis of all heresies), which drives cultural marxism and division among man. Women will never be priests in the Catholic church due to the priesthood being given to men as a form of leadership for the community (See Aaron and the apostles). It is plainly taught in traditional catholicism, it is the fathers job of the family to teach the faith and to be leaders in the church. Way too many problems today comes from weak men and too many emotionally made arguements from the leadership.
I don’t know man, that pope feller seems awful cozy with homersexuals and feminiazis.
Lately it seems every branch of Christianity has jumped ship from the Ark and climbed into the hippy Jesus’ VW microbus.
Sorry but Jesus founding the church is like the flimsiest argument ever
Women priests? Egads. Don’t give the libs any ideas on what to force on us next.
That’s the kind of Christians I grew up to know.
Little correction: Pythia was the title of the prophetess. The temple itself was at Delphi, though “Pythia” may be derived from the original name (it was where Apollo was said to have slain the dragon Python).
Thanks!
I personally don’t reach out to leftists or their criticisms of the church. I thought it was, so, significant that Megan kelly soon become a pro-abortion advocate after she got excommunicated.
I agree with a lot of the points about leadership, but I believe you’re jumping over a few hoops and reading into a view scriptural points for dramatic effect. We’re rollin down to through the last days. We have to do everything we can to promote this material, but have the faith to know God’s ultimately got the plan on tap.
I can’t remember who else said it here, but someone of another faith said in a post that feminism was ultimately a “rejection of patriarchy” and because patriarchy has lineage to God through kings/priests, its a rejection of God.
I am reading your blog now, btw
I believe I said something similar, in my article that compared modern feminism, Communism, and ancient Babylon. Some leftist sites ridiculed me for that. But I believe this is a very important issue. Otherwise, what told me to start writing this article days before Pope Francis’s big announcement?
Sorry, but the fact is the Catholic Church is a teeming hotbed of pedophiles and homos. And the “Church” has done basically everything in its power to coddle and protect them, until only recently forced to take at least some (very mild and limited) corrective actions. We don’t need to argue scripture when the poof, I mean proof is in the pudding.
The Catholic Church was taken over by SJWs in the 1960s. And as we all should know, SJWs are either pervs or cover for them.
not a big religion fan, but I am not a fan of women talking morality and ethics. even if it it is based around religion.
Requirements for Bishops from Scripture:
”1This is a true saying, If a man desires the office of a bishop, he desires a good work.
2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3Not given to wine, not violent, not greedy of dishonest gain; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all respect;
5(For if a man knows not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7Moreover he must have a good report of them who are outside; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”
Bishops in other words are married with children who manage their household well.
Well if they can get women to be the heads of state and exercise Authority over Men despite being forbidden by divine imperative:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm
They will try to make women priests as well.
Most times, we think this as “they are trying to include women here and there”. Shouldn’t we think of the corollary: “they are trying to exclude men from here and there (families, jobs, church, political institutions, etc)”
Yeah agreed. Its not like any man can get into those positions either. But they function on the Apex fallacy.
All it takes is one woman in a group of men to change the energy configuration.
I turn on the Christian radio while driving today, sometimes they have good political analysis or interesting viewpoints. But I hear this preacher start talking, and he says that something like 25% of women are on antianxiety or antidepressants. Then he says that women are more depressed or have more anxiety because they are more moral. No joke. He says that women are more sensitive and moral and therefore they feel when things aren’t right before men do. Then he says men need to get off the couch and blah blah blah. I switched the station at this point because it was getting too stupid.
But the thing is these preachers preach this fuckin “man up” and women are holy saints bullshit like fire and brimstone. Everything’s men’s fault. And I guess when you think about it, it is. But not in the way these mainstream Christian preachers talk about it. Their solution is not for men to put women in line, and for women to submit, but for men to “man up” and do more work for fat bitchy nags. It’s the same cultural message that gets men to be subservient to women’s neverending made up bullshit “needs” and this shit has seriously infected the church. I have never heard a sermon on the radio that puts any responsibility on women for their behavior ever, it’s all about men “manning up.”
I wonder what is happening to Christianism. Centuries ago, one missionary from the North Presbiterian Church travelled to my country to preach to the natives the word of God. The Brazilian Presbiterian Church was founded, and nowadays is one of the greatest churchs in Brazil. This church was the first to open schools and teach the poor people how to read. They founded one of the first Colleges, which is nowadays one of the most important colleges in Brazil, and they changed the lifes of many brazilians, including my parents. I had born in this comunity and I had never fall in the words of liberals because I have a solid foundation.
Now, the same church that has sent his missionaries to Brazil centuries ago fell in the Social Justice, and accepted female ordenance and homossexual behavior.
The true christians were forced to leave the church, and now they ask us to send brazilian preachers to their churchs because they have none.
If christianity fall apart, then western society falls at the same rate, because Christianity is one of the most important foundations of western civilization.
All branches of Chistianianism suffer from that, and that is the most important issue here: are the churches still a way to God (spirituality) and wholesome moral or are they a trojan horse used by cultural marxists (SJWs, liberation theologists, leftists of all sorts, etc.)?
First off, I see no miracles from that church you preach so I take it neither you nor anyone following those rules or claiming to follow them are authorized by God or else you would be able to do them.
Second, am I drunk or is this the blog of a guy who travels the world looking for women to have sex without compromise and then he is angry at women who like to have sex without compromise? So basically you don’t like what you exactly are looking for?
Lol, keep us posted.
Firstly, they’re following teachings written by people who supposedly performed miracles. As to whether those miracles ever truly happened, that’s another debate, but the teachings in the Bible are supposedly authorized by God.
Second, not all the writers here are play-boys, nor are all the readers (I’m not). I cannot speak for Moser, though. Some points, however…
There’s a difference between men and women having casual sex, even outside the morals of any church. That is, when a man does it nobody cares (in fact, most women prefer sexually dominant/experienced men), whereas a promiscuous woman is considered undesirable for long-term relationships (especially by males who have options).
Now, while men might like having casual sex, they are all too aware of how it negatively effects the chances of women having successful long-term relationships (for women). So the above article, obviously, speaks in regards to the women in our lives who we care about (as opposed to the ones loitering at the bar). It’s advice for us in regards to our wives, sisters, and daughters, see. You missed that point.
Firstly I do not have why to trust a book that allegedly comes from a miraclous person, because people have an ugly tendency to lie as long as it benefits them. If you want to prove your authority comes from God, you go and do miracles proper of a God, or you shut the fuck up and insert your scripture inside your butt.
Secondly, a difference between casual sex between sexes is pure and blatant hypocrisy, because there cannot be casual sex among both sexes if both sexes aren’t willing to do casual sex. Your perception on the matter goes to my first point: If you claim you have the moral upper ground , do prove you are a person that comes directly from God, which is the only one that should be declaring what’s moral here and do miracles that we may see your moral authority.
As for how parenting is affected, that depends on your views on parenting and your views of family and so on. Not everybody is a two-person-marriage advocate.
You dislike it? Cool. Dislike it as much as you want, but the moment you claim to have a moral ground is the moment you have to prove this.
And as for the women “you care about”: You certainly don’t care much about a person whom you are enslaving and forcing your invented and self decided morals and views on family upon.
I started writing this article 9 days ago. The Pope made his announcement 2 days ago. When I wrote this, I asked myself why I was approaching such a silent subject. Nobody had talked about ordaining women for months….
What told me to write this and submit it to RoK? Would you call that a miracle?
“Every Christian man is a priest, and every Christian woman a priestess…
All Christians are, properly speaking, members of the ecclesiastical
order, and there is no difference between them except that they hold
different offices.”
If you read the bible, you would discover Luther was paraphrasing Paul. You would also realize that the kingdom of God is not the kingdom of flesh; because, if you took Luther’s words in a worldly manner, they can also be justifying believing eight year olds as having authority as priests and teachers of doctrine; for, “All Christians are, properly speaking, members of the ecclesiastical
order.”
Your understanding of Gender roles is commendable, your understanding of Christian theology is not. Salvation is by Grace Alone through Faith Alone in Jesus Christ Alone to the Glory of God Alone as revealed in Scripture Alone. Those who are truly saved will live in light of this and our Lord’s teachings, yes, but they do nothing to contribute to or earn our salvation. There is no need for a Priesthood of any kind, since we have access to God directly in Christ. This does not mean that there is no need for a leadership (and yes, it should consist of men) but they are not a set-apart caste with special or intercessory access to God.
Ιησους Κυριος
You cannot be saved if woman is your first pedestal or the second or any pedestal. God 1st. God 2nd. Be a man 3rd. -This should be the priest thought process. Woman are the accessories of life not the focus. Whether a man sends his sperm into the world is irrelevant – that is a hole at best. I don’t understand why religion would pedastalize sperm and get into that mind warfare.. I think the church made a mistake back when they decided priest not to marry………The entire original sin is when man put a woman above gods orders.Think about what that means. It means the day you start putting your “man/woman” over god in defiance- your gonna lose. Gods creation of nature triumphs – and the unknown thought process of the mind of god is what you need to pray to……. I have no issue with woman becoming a priest. I do have an issue with the teachings of the church on marriage vows and gender capacity of roles…. I was a victim of that. I am not proud of my years under the misaligned teachings of the church or society. You only know your in the matrix as to when you step out of it. 90% of men never do. I humbly will spend my entire life getting cut from it.
I fail to see how that comment was a response to my own…
-Men have balls; priest do not? Men need to do as they please. .
Kelly is right, men should discuss Bible verses pertaining to women. Here is one to start. Something tells me Kelly wouldn’t like this one.
Proverbs 5:3-4 For the lips of an immoral woman are as sweet as honey, and her mouth is smoother than oil. But in the end she is as bitter as poison, as dangerous as a double-edged sword.
First of all Christianity is in no danger from women joining any kind of priesthood. Christ is the head of Christianity and his power is absolute.
You will have to open the Bible and read it. It’s full of profound truths!
1 Corinthians 14:34.35,34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
If ones “church” operates outside what is in the bible on this, chances are they are not as concerned with God’s word as they are their own, that is heresy . And there is also a high likelihood you may be in a cult. Don’t be fooled!
RoK will need a serious discussion about the nature of Christianity. Is it an essential link to Constantine’s “civilizational project”? Is it the ultimate stronghold of moral and identity in the West?
Or is it just a convenient front for communists like “Francis”? Maybe just a comfortable gathering place for those who have long ago quitted a truthful search of their own spirituality in exchange for heart-pleasing charity and ritualistic folklore?
Is this Charlemagne’s religion? Or is it just another step into the spiritual desert socialists hungrily seek and shout about?
Yes, the West is in chaos because Christianity has been abandoned. They can search far and wide but there is nothing to replace it. Atheism and Spiritual but not religious has no power to enforce self-sacrificial morality, the basis of ordered civilizations.
I fully agree with you, and I am not advocating for replacing religion with chaotic individual spirituality (although faith and religion are needed for different reasons). I am only stating (and this is verifiable by any of you) that churches these days (and clergy people) are so “busy” with “social” work that they don’t care about spirituality at all.
I had contact with Roman Catholics for decades. Years ago, they had a lot of charity but you could see them praying the novenas at the right times, and celebrating the saints of the day, etc. Now, even nuns see those things as “oh, yes, we still do it, but it’s just accessory”.
Anglican services are an absolute mockery, these days, too (a woman dressed as a priest is a travesty). Lutheran, not so much, but it’s heavily dependant on where you go to the church.
Between having your spirituality poisoned by apostate churches and cultivating your own spirituality, it seems an obvious choice to me.
It should be coming clear to see that Christianity has been ruined by the Protestant revolution and its logical conclusion in fracture and dissolution. So many thousands of denominations that Christianity has lost its unity and strength. People don’t know what is true and choose their denomination based on subjective, emotional, and personal factors. Each new one teaching something more heretical then the next. Every preacher is free to make his own doctrine and decide what is true. If the “church elders” or the general laity vote on allowing female clergy, there you go, another destructive revolution implemented with such nonchalance. Only the Orthodox Churches, Eastern and Oriental, as well as the Catholic church have any verifiable claims to legitimacy. Rather then the Protestant propaganda that the Church was created by Constantine, there is abundant evidence of the early church being Catholic in every way. A study of the writings of the early church fathers will make this clear in abundance. Like Cardinal Newman (convert from Anglicanism) said, “the study of history is the enemy of Protestantism.” Of course the Catholic Church has grown and developed over the years under the protection of the Holy Spirit which prevents it from falling into doctrinal error and erroneous teaching. Over the centuries the church continues to more clearly explicate and define doctrine, but nothing has been altered from the past. There is continuous Apostolic Succession from the time of Christ itself.
The male priesthood is integral to the Church. Luckily, no pope, even Pope Francis, which is more concerned with pastoral care then doctrinal clarity, has the power to change the priesthood. The male only priesthood is not subject to change under Catholic theology. This is of course an oversimplification, but it is because priests are supposed to be “In persona Christi” which means he acts in the person of Christ. The masculinity of Christ was integral to his personality and character. The maleness of Christ was not arbitrary but essential to his identity. Also, another reason is because Christ chose only male apostles on purpose. This was not because “it was in those times” because Christ did many things, including involving women, that were contrary to the norms of the era. A male only priesthood was purposely instituted by Christ himself, the Church has no power to alter this doctrine. This will NEVER CHANGE unless the Church is false because the Christ has promised the Church from following into heresy. Even if there was a significant amount of high ranking clergy that supported changing this, the Church would fracture along those lines and experience another Schism. The church has been preserved from error because it is not democratic in nature, where popularity wins the day. For non-catholics, it would be interesting to ponder what would be the organizational structure God would create if he wanted his religion to maintain unity of doctrine.
The celibate priesthood is a matter of discipline rather then unchangeable doctrine. This is something that can be changed and in fact there are married priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches as well as from Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism and become Catholic priests. Although this can be changed, it is not a good idea. The church has been prevented from infiltration by those that want to destroy it in part because of the strict demands of the priesthood. If celibacy was not part of the requirement, those that want to destroy the church have much more room to infiltrate because less is demanded of them. Also, a priest is likely to be taken away from his duties and influenced morally by his wife. His total dedication is not to the Church and God anymore but rather to his family. Money from donations would have to also be able to support his family and his mind turns more readily to worldly concerns. He is no longer fully invested in the well-being of those under his care but is distracted by his family. Also, in the modern West with the prevalence of divorce, such a thing would be scandalous in the priesthood.
The sex abuse crisis had a large part to do with homosexual infiltration of the Church, and the homosexual orientation had a large part to do with predilection for pederasty. Before homosexuality was parading itself everywhere in the public square like today, homosexuals often went into priesthood because it was a normalized way from them to live without being ostracized. They were not motivated by love of God and a calling but rather by selfish and malicious interests. There have been steps taken to prevent this today and homosexuals have no shame living in the open so it is less of a concern. Many pedophiles also go into other jobs that have access to children such as teachers, coaches, and so on. Where would they get access to children if they became an engineer? So celibacy is a complicated topic but there are many good reasons for its maintenance. It is a sacrificial role but it is maintained for many reasons.
I started writing this article May 5th, and I did so hesitantly because nobody had been talking about this issue for many months and I did not know how important this was to everybody.
But I followed my gut, and something must have told me to write it and publish it on Return of Kings, because Pope Francis announced days later that he would explore the possibility of ordaining women. I did not even know about his announcement when I submitted this.
Great except Mormons are not Christians.
“We also need to depart from Dante’s version of hell, with grinning goblins and “bad boy” devils”
…You’ve never read Dante in your life, have you?
Here’s a little experiment for you (and one that I have done myself).
Go to your local pastor or priest and ask him what gender causes the most conflict in the church. He will tell you hands down, it is the women.
I do believe that Scripture makes room for women elders and deacons in rare and unusual circumstances (Phoebe in Rom. 16:1; Lydia in Acts 16:14), but they are never to serve solo.
Personally, I would never attend a house of worship where a woman was the preeminent leader. Ninety nine percent of the time, the congregation would not hold to orthodoxy anyway.
Here’s a little experiment that will confirm your suspicions:
Go to your local pastor or priest and ask him to do a miracle.
So yeah, let them go to their godless only men churches because they are alone and without God.
Let me remind you that if these were old testament days, idiots that proclaim these churches would be claiming that pure evil consists on having bacon for breakfast as it is pork, meanwhile the very people who would be accusing you of being evil for having bacon for breakfast, won’t have any actual problem of conscience for belittling you for the mere reason of being a woman.
I myself believe in God, I just don’t believe people that proclaim that bacon is evil and shit like that. It’s better to ask God by yourself to send you His blessed people to teach you His ways and the true Christ, you’re certainly more sure to find people that is actually able to prove their words by miracles this way.
Yeah nah, I doubt the moral authority of people who claim that eating pork is evil incarnate and that having sex at will is a monstrosity while don’t have a problem with making the life of their alleged human sister a living hell.
After all, the very bible they so dearly proclaim claims two things that are very interesting the first one (Jeremiah 8:8) is that the bible lies, and the other one is that we live among sons of the devil in human form.
It is difficult for me to see how your response deals with my main point in any way, shape, or form. In fact, your non sequitor response only effectively drives home my point that women should not be in leadership roles at all.
But for what little sense I can construct from your screed, I can tell you that I have no problem with people eating pork and I would never advocate having sex at will. Not everybody on Return of Kings is into pick up artistry and anyway, neo-masculinity has rapidly grown past that stage.
I would strongly encourage you to get professional help to deal with your issues. That is not me being cruel or sarcastic, but my professional advice as a full-time counselor. Good luck.
So…basically…you have no answer to his question?
Where in the bible does it say that Phoebe and Lydia were elders or deacons?
There are few verses about women. In marriage, a woman is under direct authority of her husband. This makes it hard to become a church leader if the husband disagrees and also speaks for his wife. It is also said women were not allowed to speak, they are to listen in silence (later speaking of authority and the suggestion to ask a husband at home), and a head covering was common.
It is also mentioned ‘older’ women should abstain from strong drink among other suggestions. Single women, like single men, are told to be celibate, fornication is a sin. There’s a few other verses.
No where does a women hold position in a church built to function as a sole temple to God.
Phobe is an evangelist, she travels great distances to speak to unbelievers in foreign lands, if I remember.
Other women in the letters are spoken to as kuria/lady, the opposite of lord. Most owned spacious houses that they held congregations in, functioning as the pastor. Nympha and a couple others were among the ladies, chosen sisters, whatever you may call them. Well respected, as much as a ‘deacon’, but they did not lead temples.
Other women are described as priestess or prophet. The gifts of the holy spirit are given to both male and female, prophecy being one of the gifts, so females are allowed to be prophets. They don’t have to speak out in a church/temple to do their duty. A priestess is likely a single woman who maintains celibacy who devotes her time to God’s service.
In the excerpt where a woman takes a man to teach him the ways of God more accurately, it is important to note ‘he is taken’. This implies he is taken in private, perhaps even outside the church, to be spoken to. He is not called out verbally by a woman mid-sermon.
Either way, many churches have deacons as symbolism of the twelve disciples, who were men. It breaks the meaning to have a female deacon. The Lord’s Supper and all that, it’s a custom.
Women would downplay anything that seems hard or severe. We need principles of justice also.
E. Michael Jones, needs to be read especially Libido Dominandi, Sexual Liberation & Political Control.
Unlike the standard version of the sexual revolution, Libido Dominandi shows how sexual liberation was from its inception a form of control. Those who wished to liberate man from the moral order needed to impose social controls as soon as they succeeded because liberated libido led inevitably to anarchy. Aldous Huxley wrote in his preface to the 1946 edition of Brave New World that “as political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase.” This book is about the converse of that statement. It explains how the rhetoric of sexual freedom was used to engineer a system of covert political and social control. Over the course of the two-hundred-year span covered by this book, the development of technologies of communication, reproduction, and psychic control – including psychotherapy, behaviorism, advertising, sensitivity training, pornography, and plain old blackmail – allowed the Enlightenment and its heirs to turn Augustine’s insight on its head and create masters out of men’s vices. Libido Dominandi is the story of how that happened.
“Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is worse, as many masters as he has vices.” – St. Augustine,City of God
Also by E. Michael Jones, Degenerate Moderns, Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior.
Jones shows how some of the major determining leaders in modern thought and culture have rationalized their own immoral behavior and projected it onto a universal canvas. The main thesis of the book is that, in the intellectual life, there are only two ultimate alternatives: either the thinker conforms desire to truth or he conforms truth to desire.
In the last one hundred years, the western cultural elite embarked upon a project which entailed the reversal of the values of the intellectual life so that truth would be subjected to desire as the final criterion of intellectual value. In looking at recent biographies of such major moderns as Freud, Kinsey, Keynes, Margaret Mead, Picasso, and others, there is a remarkable similarity between their lives and thought. After becoming involved in sexual license early on, they invariably chose an ideology or art form which subordinated reality to the exigencies of their sexual misbehavior.
“the freest of people are they who are most friendly to murder.” – Marquis De Sade, maybe the first sexual liberal that showed what can be done with freedom from God.
I needed to read this today, still searching for a church in my home town after moving back. Finding a solid C of E church is hard work, especially with a shift pattern that restricts most Sundays. Most of the local vicars are women…. Although interested in learning about Catholicism or Orthodox Christianity, at this time they’re too ‘alien’ for me to feel at home in.
I find if you have a strong masculine culture, some women can step up to the plate as we see in Yemen. Most sheikhs (alphas of the clan) are male, but sometimes in a rare case a woman rises to the occasion and becomes a Sheikha. In Islam Aisha was a leading female scholar who taught many men. Now to have an Aisha, or Khansa (powerful Saudi woman warrior) you need a strong traditional masculine culture. The occasional woman who can keep up with the boys humanizes men’s wives for them, otherwise they stop respecting their wives who stage a mass revolt and viola, feminism.
In a masculine society like Yemen 20% of women are warriors and that means many fight in battle. I had to fight 6 armed men and my land, defended my home, kicked the bad guys and kicked them out (father wasn’t home then). I was also in Trump’s beauty pageant Miss Universe later. Most women are the housewife type, and they are emotional and in war… oh my God, they fall for whatever the enemy says because of their nurturing emotions. I once ran a war forum and had to kick out a couple cucks and most of the women out for drama and falling for enemy disinfo. Most women are just cucks who are motivated by emotion, not by logic. There are exceptions to this rule, and I have been able to mentor some women and de-cuckify them and make them logical. This isn’t easy and requires a strong masculine culture.
If 500 priests are men, and the norm is that priests are men, and a woman can prove that she can keep up with the boys, than fine, you can have a female monk. For the purpose of ceremony, you must keep it the same across the centuries, so if there weren’t women in the beginning, don’t mess with that. Messing with a religious ceremony causes SJWs. I think its important to allow female scholars who are approved to advance, if they do some weird gender babble, out. It’s important to be strict and not indulge women, I like the example of that priest. It’s surprising how if you have a masculine culture some women can keep up and exceed the boys… but no masculine culture, forget it, few women would step up to the plate and most will cause a mess. Many women just want to be loved and popular, and those ladies can’t be in leadership positions.
I love this article as without a masculine culture, most women will indulge in their emotions and just not step up to the plate in terms of leadership. About 80% of women, 20% of men are dominated by emotions instead of logic
Agreed, there are real differences between the sexes and their roles within the church. In my opinion, that is a good thing.
I am a Mormon. Within the church there is very little professional work. Most leadership is patriarchal, the Bishop is the head of the local ward and asks various members to speak on Sundays. I am a scout leader, and teach elders quorum every other week. My wife teaches the 7-8 year olds and helps the sister missionaries once a week. There is the Relief Society, the women in the church do tend to people within the ward boundaries and perform acts of service.
Every now and then, one of these feminists do pop up and protest the church. In my opinion, they have a twisted view of what the priesthood is about. First of all, the Priesthood is the authority from God, delegated to man. It is not the right to rule over others. We will use the Priesthood to administer ordinances, give blessings, and direct the portion of church that we are delegated to (our family, or as we are called, the quorum, ward, stake, area, or the church as a whole in the case of the prophet). The Priesthood is established in a clear line of authority, much like any military is. To change that would introduce chaos, which is not of God.
Good for you. Visit a mosque or an Orthodox church (a hardcore one like Ukrainian or Egyptian Coptic), if Catholic, then Eastern Catholic. You’ll see they have many kids, happily married young families. Patriarchy works. Even immigrant Hasidic jewish orthrodox. Then go to a shopping mall/university/where ever feminists hang out.
It’s really worth it. I would check out as many different alpha places of worship, you’ll see they have different ways of worshiping God, but they are all red-pilled and traditional, and thus have happy healthy communities. “Every now and then, one of these feminists do pop up and protest the church. In my opinion, they have a twisted view of what the priesthood is about. ” Fully agree with you. You should watch Honey Badger radio on youtube as they give a more detail explanation of what you are saying. Just don’t mess with stuff that survived the ups and downs in the cycles of civilizations that works, produces healthy happy communities that we don’t know why its there.
Bravo. Don’t cave into feminists or youth won’t come to your church a generation from now and you’ll have to close your church.
Recently there has been polemics within the SDA (Seventh-Day Adventist Church) about this very subject, but a recent congress kept women away for now.
Beware fellow men, the serpent is attacking everywhere and it will not stop, ever. Be ever vigilant. Many a church has fallen to it already, many more will follow.
See my comment above on the name giver/name receiver principle.
It has been my observation that the powers that be within the Adventist Church are determined to force this issue through in favour of women. There will be another attempt to do this in another General Conference.
Your name giver/name receiver principle post is very good. Names have power.
Many believe in the power of names, too. Some say you can attack people through spiritual (read: Demonic) means by knowing their names, or affect and bind spiritual entities by knowing their True Names. The ancient jews also had the Tetragrammaton, and to this day it seems they can’t even write “God”, writting instead G-D.
Are you a adventist? Nice to see a fellow redpilled Adventist! Althrough I’m only sorta one…
Could that be because the powers that be in the SDA are mainly euro-anglos and such? I wans’t much onside for the matter, althrough my dad watched the conference via internet, he’s not a english speaker so I dare say he would’t catch the nuance. I have a feeling that not just in the SDA, but in many other global christian churches, that the ones trying to impose that sort of modernity are from the USA and Europe. Africa and South America seem more conservative.
Have you read “The Apocalyptic Vision and the Neutering of Adventism?” When the author starts to show what happened to churches that fell to the progressive plague, its like seeing a comic book flashback showing the villain going through multiple worlds, scorching all in its way, yours is next. There was one that had a book written about it, and the last words were something like “We all succumbed to the heresy and our church fell apart! Don’t let it happen to you! Amem!” Utterly chilling.
Yes I am Adventist. If you’re on FB you can find me on Adventist Kings.
As I said over at Aurini’s YouTube video, It’s a comfort to know that the alt-Right is figuring out the role of radical feminists in the degradation of Christianity.
@ 7:12 “How many of you are mouthing off to your your bishop or to your pastor in church? How many of you are demanding that we twist religion so that you can lecture men? ”
Oh, you are from the true christianity? Do a miracle.
I’m sure the guy who says to belittle women and not to eat pork and not to have whatever sex you want is actually good and nice.
Definition of love: To belittle your brothers if they are female and to not have sex.
Yup.
Totally coming from God and not the devil.
I have no idea what your hangup is. Nor do I care. Grow up, lady.
Oh, so you don’t have the intellect to discuss with a woman and be able to understand her thoughts yet you claim you are smarter and more able?
Die painfully.
You’re a lunatic.
“The left’s obsession with “equality” is tearing churches apart. What is the point of religion if we are all equal no matter what we do?”
Pardon me if I’m wrong but i think that removing religion is their goal.
One priesthood leader in the family = the father
Two priesthood leaders in the family = confusion and contention
There are some inconvenient biblical facts for those who would push women’s equality.
The bible supports a principle that can be stated as such. “The name giver has authority over the name receiver”.
Parents have authority over their children and generally they are the ones that name their children. Children universally recognise the authority their parents have over them. This is important for more reason than one may realise. How often does a child say to a step parent “You’re not my father/mother” as a way of diminishing that person’s authority over them.
In Australia there is a dirty big red rock in the middle of the country that was known as Ayer’s Rock for many years. It was named after the explorer who first discovered it. A couple of decades ago it was given back to the Aborigines who promptly gave it a new name “Uluru” as a way of showing their authority over that lump of sandstone.
So this principle is recognised in secular society. It is also recognised in the bible. Consider just two examples of many in the bible. When Joseph went to Egypt as a slave he was given a new name. Daniel and his three Hebrew buddies were given Babylonian names when they were taken to Babylon.
Now when Jesus was born His name was not given Him by His parents but an angel told Mary what His name should be. The same occured with John the Baptist.
Now in Genesis 1 God the atmosphere and sea and gave them their names. He proved his authority over these elements when as Jesus He stood up in the boat on Galilee in the middle of the storm and told it to put a sock in it. The disciples response was to ask who this was that would command the wind and waves and they would obey.
Finally God created man and gave him dominion over the animals. In Genesis 2 we find out what this means. It meant among other things that man was given naming rights over the animals. The animals were brought by God to man who then named all the animals. At the end of the this process God creates the female, He then brings her before man and man names her “woman” in recognition of the dominion(authority) that God has given man over her.
So say what you will about her being equal to man one cannot deny that he had authority over the woman from the moment he named her. When one takes into account the fact that she was not there to name the animals (They’d still be arguing over names to this day if she had existed at that time.) the best we can manage for her is that she would be queen of the dominion while he is king.
Those who would argue that Adam’s authority over Eve came about as a result of the curse have not studied this principle closely.
Adam’s authority over Eve came about as a result of her being Adam’s wife. Wives should defer to their husbands. Both unmarried Christian men and women should be respectful of each other and submit to the authority of their church.
Judges 4: 4 “And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.” Judged means she was a leader of Israel.
Example of two women teaching is found in Acts 18:26. “And he [Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.”
While I have no argument with your post it seems to me that you have entirely missed my point.
I agree, I didn’t clearly address your point enough. I think your point is interesting but there are, in my opinion, several holes. God renamed Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, and the apostle Paul
I didn’t clearly address your point enough. Your point is interesting but there are, in my opinion, several holes.
I’m not certain whether names always correlate to authority, many other factors supersede the name giver-name receiver principle. The Babylonians had authority over the Hebrews because they were captured and parents have authority over children because they created and bore them. I think names can often be the natural conclusion of having possession/authority/responsibility for someone or something.
Also, we see several biblical stories where names call attention to the role the human being will enact in life. God renamed Abraham, Sarah, Jacob became Israel, and the apostle Paul.
Also, angels foretold that Abraham would have a son called Isaac (Gen 17:19) and an angel told Zechariah that he and Elizabeth would have a son named John, this does not mean that Isaac, John, or even Jesus were not under the authority of their parents.
Gen 1:26 ‘And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
God had already given mankind dominion over the earth, even before Adam started naming animals in Gen 2:19 and before Adam named Eve. Then God saw it wasn’t good for man to be alone so he created a help meet for Adam. God had already defined the authority of man and defined the role of women as helpers and assistants.
Overall, I agree that names are powerful.
Brothers you may want to read, The Woman Question by Kenneth Hagin, a powerful man of God who I’ve learned from and goes into much better detail on what I’m going to say.
The New Testament was translated from Greek. Anér, the Greek word for man is the same word for husband. Guné, the Greek word for wife is the same word for woman. We must read the entire scripture to understand whether it’s talking about husbands & wives or just women & men in general. If we have an agenda, we can make the bible say what we want it to say instead of what it actually is saying.
Think, “I now pronounce you man and wife.” Does the preacher mean that the groom is now a man or a husband?
Wives were created to be a help-mate to their husbands and are therefore under the authority of their husbands in the MARRIAGE relationship. But wives are subject to husbands only when their husbands’ rules/orders/requests are in line with a harmonious marriage and follow the Lord. If a husband commands his wife to steal, should she? No. If a husband asks his wife to cook and clean, should she? Yes, in most cases this benefits the family because the man can often work longer and harder than a woman.
If all women had to obey all men then any man could tell another man’s wife to sleep with him and she’d have to. No, wives are subject only to their own husbands, and only if those husbands provide good and moral leadership directed by the Lord. See: http://www.returnofkings.com/83132/the-husband-is-the-head-of-the-wife
Ephesians 6:1 “Children, obey your parents IN THE LORD for this is right.” How many redpillers realized that their parents (despite being good people) were feminists, emasculated, or just misinformed? Conversely some of us have come to understand that our parents were right all along. Same principle applies, adult children and minor children are to follow God’s teaching which hopefully aligns with what their parents say. If my hippie mom and dad want me to smoke with them, I don’t have to obey them in that, though I should obey them in other things.
Where does this leave society and the general relationship between men and women? Moral wives agree with/obey/seek guidance of husbands who set a good example. Children obey moral parents. Adult/unmarried women and men are to have opinions, personalities, and ideas of their own but are still to have a moral compass outlined in the Lord’s teachings given to them in the bible and hopefully by their parents as well. The natural result is responsible and ladylike women, as well as responsible and masculine men.
****Now let’s discuss the subject of women priests****
Luke 2:36 -38 “And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. ”
SPAKE of him to ALL, in other words she preached to everyone (both men and women).
Acts 2:17-18 “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”
Genesis 21:12 “And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice.”
God told Abraham to listen to Sarah. Men are less emotional and so I do think that this usually makes them better leaders than women but a women can and should lead a situation if God agrees it is right. But, make no mistake, man is the head.
Scripture outlines many examples that prove that women, if called, can preach or be priests. But I’d doubt any woman spouting feminist doctrine is qualified to preach the gospel and I likewise doubt any man who’s puffed up about all women being subject to all men is qualified to preach the gospel as well.
Perhaps the Catholic Church is correct not only that all priests be men, but that they be *celibate* men. Protestant ministers are constantly putting women on a pedestal and criticizing everything men do, portraying themselves as the only real man in the room. Requiring poverty, chastity, and obedience would put such self-aggrandizers on notice that they are not welcome in the priesthood.
That has nothing to do with celibacy in the priesthood, and everything to do with having a clergy that gets his income based on the number of followers he can bring into the church. You have it that way, and you have a guy who will say what the masses want him to say (or at least what he thinks they want to hear, often conjured up by the liberal media) You have a volunteer ministry, and you have a priesthood preaching what the Lord directs through the Spirit, not a priest-craft.