Twelve Women 'Ordained' as Catholic Priests (ritual, gospel, tradition, churches)

[Bishka]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

I'm not completely unsympathetic to these women, but this seems a very odd approach to take. If I understand this correctly, they have ceased to be Roman Catholics and have entered into the Independent Catholic movement, even if they choose to call themselves Roman Catholics -- and there are already plenty of Independent Catholics who ordain women. If they deny the authority of the Vatican to rule on this, why would they want to be Roman Catholics, anyway?

To prove a point, to get publicity, etc.

[lunamoth]

Why, the nerve of those uppity women!

As the account of the creation in the first chapter is in harmony with science, common sense, and the experience of mankind in natural laws, the inquiry naturally arises, why should there be two contradictory accounts in the same book, of the same event? It is fair to infer that the second version, which is found in some form in the different religions of all nations, is a mere allegory, symbolizing some mysterious conception of a highly imaginative editor.
The first account dignifies woman as an important factor in the creation, equal in power and glory with man. The second makes her a mere afterthought. The world in good running order without her. The only reason for her advent being the solitude of man.
There is something sublime in bringing order out of chaos; light out of darkness; giving each planet its place in the solar system; oceans and lands their limits; wholly inconsistent with a petty surgical operation, to find material for the mother of the, race. It is on this allegory that all the enemies of women rest, their battering rams, to prove her. inferiority. Accepting the view that man was prior in the creation, some Scriptural writers say that as the woman was of the man, therefore, her position should be one of subjection. Grant it, then as the historical fact is reversed in our day, and the man is now of the woman, shall his place be one ofsubjection?
The equal position declared in the first account must prove more satisfactory to both sexes; created alike in the image of God -The Heavenly Mother and Father.
Thus, the Old Testament, "in the beginning," proclaims the simultaneous creation of man and woman, the eternity and equality of sex; and the New Testament echoes back through the centuries the individual sovereignty of woman growing out of this natural fact. Paul, in speaking of equality as the very soul and essence of Christianity, said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." With this recognition of the feminine element in the Godhead in the Old Testament, and this declaration of the equality of the sexes in the New, we may well wonder at the contemptible status woman occupies in the Christian Church of to-day.
All the commentators and publicists writing on woman's position, go through an immense amount of fine-spun metaphysical speculations, to prove her subordination in harmony with the Creator's original design.
It is evident that some wily writer, seeing the perfect equality of man and woman in the first chapter, felt it important for the dignity and dominion of man to effect woman's subordination in some way. To do this a spirit of evil must be introduced, which at once proved itself stronger than the spirit of good, and man's supremacy was based on the downfall of all that had just been pronounced very good. This spirit of evil evidently existed before the supposed fall of man, hence woman was not the origin of sin as so often asserted. E. C. S

[lunamoth]

For goodness sake!

Rosa Parks was physically tired, but no more than you or I after a long day's work. In fact, under other circumstances, she would have probably given up her seat willingly to a child or elderly person. But this time Parks was tired of the treatment she and other African Americans received every day of their lives, what with the racism, segregation, and Jim Crow laws of the time.

"Our mistreatment was just not right, and I was tired of it," writes Parks in her recent book, Quiet Strength, (ZondervanPublishingHouse, 1994). "I kept thinking about my mother and my grandparents, and how strong they were. I knew there was a possibility of being mistreated, but an opportunity was being given to me to do what I had asked of others."

The rest of Parks' story is American history...her arrest and trial, a 381-day Montgomery bus boycott, and, finally, the Supreme Court's ruling in November 1956 that segregation on transportation is unconstitutional.
But Parks' personal history has been lost in the retelling. Prior to her arrest, Mrs. Parks had a firm and quiet strength to change things that were unjust. She served as secretary of the NAACP and later Adviser to the NAACP Youth Council, and tried to register to vote on several occasions when it was still nearly impossible to do so. She had run-ins with bus drivers and was evicted from buses. Parks recalls the humiliation: "I didn't want to pay my fare and then go around the back door, because many times, even if you did that, you might not get on the bus at all. They'd probably shut the door, drive off, and leave you standing there."

[!Fluffy!]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Maybe they should try this?

1 In the year that the supreme commander, sent by Sargon king of Assyria, came to Ashdod and attacked and captured it- 2 at that time the LORD spoke through Isaiah son of Amoz. He said to him, "Take off the sackcloth from your body and the sandals from your feet." And he did so, going around stripped and barefoot. (Isaiah 20)

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

What in the world are you talking about MaddLlama?

This:

The group advocates changes in the church far beyond women's ordination.
They called for a church that would be "non-hierarchical and non-clerical."
The bishops pledged to practice "servant leadership." Those ordained did not promise obedience to any bishop.

The ceremony opened with each woman bringing a vial of water from someplace special to her, and mingling the waters in a bowl that would later be poured into the river.

"Today we give honor to our mother God," said Dagmar Celeste, a priest of the group and former first lady of Ohio. "Just as the water broke in the womb of our mother, so we open the waters of mother church."

In the most traditional part of the rite, the women prostrated themselves on the floor before a makeshift altar, while the congregation sang a litany of saints, invoking many traditional holy men and women. But they also named non-Catholics, such as Martin Luther King Jr., including some whose causes were at odds with church teaching -- including the murdered San Francisco politician and gay activist, Harvey Milk.

Which was very similar to this incident:

For those wondering what inspired the Episcopal Church's newly-elected, female presiding bishop to refer to "Mother Jesus" during the General Convention, the answer might be found on the "Office of Women's Ministries" (OWM) page on the official national church website.

Indeed, this is not the first time that the OWM has gotten into liturgical mischief.

The phrase used by Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori appears in a "Eucharist Using Female Nouns and Pronouns" on the OWM's section of the Episcopal Church (TEC)-sponsored website. The rite is accompanied by "Morning Prayers to the Lady" - and this does not mean our Lord's mother. Both services offer worship to "Our Lady" and to the "Holy Mother," and end with the salutation "Blessed be" - a common statement of farewell among Wiccans.

http://www.challengeonline.org/modul...hp?storyid=119

[Green Gaia]

The ceremony opened with each woman bringing a vial of water from someplace special to her, and mingling the waters in a bowl that would later be poured into the river.

Sounds like our UU tradition of the Gathering of the Waters. Maybe these ladies should just convert to UU.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

This: (reference to The group advocates changes in the church far beyond women's ordination. )
Which was very similar to this incident: (reference to the New Bishop's homily--seee below)
http://www.challengeonline.org/modul...hp?storyid=119

Hi ML, Thank you for the clarification. I would still be interested in the source for the first story, but it's not a big deal. But is it really so outlandish and shocking that these women performed this ceremony?

I do not know a lot about our new Bishop but from the full context of the homily in which she referred to Mother Jesus, I think I'm going to like her.

I would also like to say that I find it very intresting that the overwhelming response to the 'ordination' of the Catholic women by people on this forum is that it is shocking or rude and uncalled for. I also think it is very interesting how it is then compared unfavorably to the work done by the Holy Spirit in the Episcopal Church, THE ONLY MAINLINE CHURCH TO HAVE CONSECRATED A GAY BISHOP, for those of you who have an interest in these things. The consecration of Gene Robinson was done prayerfully, and with the support of the Church, yet still it has caused an uproar. Instead of a few uppity women pushing the envelope, it was the entire Episcopal Church USA pushing the envelope of the Anglican Communion.

Change is upsetting because we fear. Things that are different and challenge the status quo are upsetting because we fear.

"Do not be afraid, for I am with you."

Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori preached the homily at the Closing Eucharist June 21 at General Convention in Columbus, Ohio. The text of Jefferts Schori's homily follows:
Homily preached the General Convention's Closing Eucharist
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
The Right Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Grow in All Things into Christ
Lections for the Reign of Christ
Colossians 1:11-20
Canticle 18
John 18:33-37

This last Sunday morning I woke very early, while it was still dark. I wanted to go for a run, but I had to wait until there was enough light to see. When the dawn finally began, I ventured out. It was warm, and still, and very quiet, and the clouds were just beginning to show tinges of pink. I ran by the back of the Hyatt just as two workers were coming out one of the service doors. They were startled, I'm afraid, but I nodded at them, and they responded. I went west over the freeway, and encountered a man I'd seen here in the Convention Center. Neither of us stopped, but we did say a quiet good morning. Then I found a lovely green park, and started around it. There was a man with a reflective vest, standing in the street by some orange cones, as though he were waiting for a run or a parade to begin. I said good morning, and he responded in kind. Around the corner I came to a bleary-eyed fellow with several bags who looked like he'd just risen from sleeping rough. I said good morning to him too, but I must admit I went past him in the street instead of on the sidewalk. Then I met a rabbit hopping across the sidewalk, and though we didn't use words, one of us eyed the other with more than a bit of wariness. Around another corner, a woman was delivering Sunday papers from her car. She was wary too, and didn't get out of her car with the next paper until I was a long way past her. Back over the freeway, and a block later, two guys seemingly on their early way to work. We nodded at each other.

As I returned to my hotel, I reflected on all those meetings. There was some degree of wariness in most of them. There were small glimpses of a reconciled world in our willingness to greet each other. But the unrealized possibility of a real relationship -- whether in response of wariness, or caution, or fear -- meant that we still had a very long way to go.

Can we dream of a world where all creatures, human and not, can meet each other in a stance that is not tinged with fear?

When Jesus says that his kingdom is not of this world, he is saying that his rule is not based on the ability to generate fear in his subjects. A willingness to go to the cross implies a vulnerability so radical, so fundamental, that fear has no impact or import. The love he invites us to imitate removes any possibility of reactive or violent response. King Jesus' followers don't fight back when the world threatens. Jesus calls us friends, not agents of fear.

If you and I are going to grow in all things into Christ, if we're going to grow up into the full stature of Christ, if we are going to become the blessed ones God called us to be while we were still in our mothers' wombs, our growing will need to be rooted in a soil of internal peace. We'll have to claim the confidence of souls planted in the overwhelming love of God, a love so abundant, so profligate, given with such unwillingness to count the cost, that we, too, are caught up into a similar abandonment.

That full measure of love, pressed down and overflowing, drives out our idolatrous self-interest. Because that is what fear really is -- it is a reaction, an often unconscious response to something we think is so essential that it takes the place of God. "Oh, that's mine and you can't take it, because I can't live without it" -- whether it's my bank account or theological framework or my sense of being in control. If you threaten my self-definition, I respond with fear. Unless, like Jesus, we can set aside those lesser goods, unless we can make "peace through the blood of the cross."

That bloody cross brings new life into this world. Colossians calls Jesus the firstborn of all creation, the firstborn from the dead. That sweaty, bloody, tear-stained labor of the cross bears new life. Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation -- and you and I are His children. If we're going to keep on growing into Christ-images for the world around us, we're going to have to give up fear.

What do the godly messengers say when they turn up in the Bible? "Fear not." "Don't be afraid." "God is with you." "You are God's beloved, and God is well-pleased with you."

When we know ourselves beloved of God, we can begin to respond in less fearful ways. When we know ourselves beloved, we can begin to recognize the beloved in a homeless man, or rhetorical opponent, or a child with AIDS. When we know ourselves beloved, we can even begin to see and reach beyond the defense of others.

Our invitation, both in the last work of this Convention, and as we go out into the world, is to lay down our fear and love the world. Lay down our sword and shield, and seek out the image of God's beloved in the people we find it hardest to love. Lay down our narrow self-interest, and heal the hurting and fill the hungry and set the prisoners free. Lay down our need for power and control, and bow to the image of God's beloved in the weakest, the poorest, and the most excluded.

We children can continue to squabble over the inheritance. Or we can claim our name and heritage as God's beloveds and share that name, beloved, with the whole world.

respectfully,
lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by TwinTowers

My point is that, whether you agree with it or not, you can't disregard the message in spite of not liking the way the message is presented. Prophets are not typically people you invite over for dinner, and what they do and say is not always considered 'polite.'

Are these women prophets? Only time will tell.