Thursday, January 03, 2013

Ordain a Lady



This is jolly - a kind of 'Spice Priests' girl-power. If it makes No1 in the pop chart, it will be confirmation of the vocational will of God.

"Ordain a Lady"

I had a dream as a girl
Like Therese of Lisieux
I need to give this whirl
So I can lead the way

Woman priest is my call
Women preaching for all
Don't listen to St. Paul
'Cuz I can lead the way

My ministry is growing
Excommunication? I'm still glowing.
M.Div, chasuble flowing
Where you think the Church is going?

Hey, I was baptized, and this is crazy,
But God just called me, so ordain a lady!
Justice doesn't look right, with only male priests,
But God just called me, so ordain a lady!

Hey, I was baptized, and this is crazy,
But God just called me, so ordain a lady!
All the other Churches, try to schmooze me,
But I'm a Catholic, so ordain a lady!

My call is a fact, but some Pope in a hat,
Closed discussion on that, and now he's in my way
I pray, sing, and feel
At first communion it's real
I but I refuse to kneel,
To Patriarchy's way

My ministry is growing
Excommunication? I'm still glowing.
M.Div, chasuble flowing
Where you think the Church going?

Hey, I was baptized, and this is crazy,
But God just called me, so ordain a lady!
Justice doesn't look right, with only male priests,
But God just called me, so ordain a lady!

Hey, I was baptized, and this is crazy,
But God just called me, so ordain a lady!
All the other Churches, try to schmooze me,
But I'm a Catholic, so ordain a lady!

With women priests in my life, I was so glad
I missed them so bad, I missed them so, so bad
With women priests in my life, I was so glad
We want our Church back, we want it all, all back

Justice doesn't look right with only male priests
But God just called me, so ordain a lady!

Hey, I was baptized, and this is crazy,
But God just called me, so ordain a lady!
All the other Churches, try to schmooze me,
But I'm a Catholic, so ordain a lady!

With women priests in my life, I was so glad
I missed them so bad, I missed them so, so bad
With women priests in my life, I was so glad
We want our Church back, we want it all, all back

130 Comments:

Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Gah !

3 January 2013 20:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Take it away, it's horrible...

3 January 2013 20:18  
Blogger bluedog said...

Oh, I don't know Mr Inspector, they look like pretty decent sorts. May be an opportunity for you?

3 January 2013 20:30  
Blogger Preacher said...

Not really the Spice Girls, Perhaps they needed Madonna?. LOL!

3 January 2013 20:42  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Hang on, Preacher! Madonna is suposed to be one of "ours." She imagines herself to be a kabbalist and somehow "spiritually Jewish."

Now, now, bluedog, the Inspector has principles and knows where to draw the line. He is not that shallow to fall to drop it all for swinging skirts and bouncing long hair. Isn't that right, Inspector? Inspector?

3 January 2013 21:03  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

It will never be no.1
No guns.
Where are the chicks with guns?
Guns for God baby.

Don'tcha just love amirkin crap!

3 January 2013 21:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This offence to the sensibilities has so affected the Inspector, he has the vapours. He will not post again tonight.


3 January 2013 21:38  
Blogger Jimmy Savilating said...

I dunno. Feels catchy to me. She can hear my confession anytime.

3 January 2013 21:40  
Blogger bluedog said...

Aw, Mr Inspector @ 21.38, don't come over all bashful, think of the possibilities for your church, the RCC.

Boy priest meets girl priest, one thing leads to another, and hey presto! Lots of baby priests. Could solve the demographic problem of falling vocations at the stroke of a pen.

Admittedly, a threshold issue is the removal of the vow of celibacy, although this may not be strictly necessary!

3 January 2013 21:50  
Blogger Preacher said...

Hiya Avi. Poor lass, I think she IMAGINES lots of things. But surely Madonna is not Kosher, or is it?

3 January 2013 22:05  
Blogger Corrigan said...

I think it'll take more than this to sway Benedict. He, Karl Rahner and Hans Kung all die on the same day, and go to meet St. Peter to know their fate.

St. Peter approaches the three of them, and tells them that he will interview each of them.

He then points at Rahner and says “Karl! In my office…” After 4 hours, the door opens, and Rahner comes stumbling out. He is highly distraught, and is mumbling things like “Oh God, that was the hardest thing I’ve ever done! How could I have been so wrong! So sorry…never knew…” He stumbles off into Heaven, a testament to the mercy of Our God.

St. Peter follows him out, and sticks his finger in Kung’s direction and “Hans! You’re next…” After 8 hours, the door opens, and Kung comes out, barely able to stand. He is near collapse with weakness and a crushed spirit. He , too, is mumbling things like “Oh God, that was the hardest thing I’ve ever done! How could I have been so wrong! So sorry…never knew…” He stumbles off into Heaven, a testament to the mercy of Our God.

Lastly, St. Peter, emerging from his office, says to Benedict, “your turn.” TWELVE HOURS LATER, St. Peter stumbles out the door, exhausted, saying “Oh God, that’s the hardest thing I’ve ever done…”

3 January 2013 22:12  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

And in the real mad, mad, mad, mad, mad world!
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2013/01/02/monty-pythons-life-of-brian-i-want-to-be-a-woman/

3 January 2013 22:20  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Haiya, Preacher. Not in my books, but the stock answer would be, depends on whom you ask.

3 January 2013 22:30  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Well at least she has the decency to admit that it flatly contradicts Paul's teaching, she just doesn't care.

3 January 2013 22:39  
Blogger ukFred said...

@Thomas Keningley

That just leaves the question which other parts of Scripture does she claim to know but ignore, The Virgin Birth, The Resurrection, The Divinity of Jesus, A Triune God, Marriage as a union of one man and one woman for life, and the list goes on. And all of it preached by heretics.

3 January 2013 23:11  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

What has all this to do with making sandwiches?

carl

3 January 2013 23:44  
Blogger Galant said...

No such thing as bad publicity, they say.

Still, if this is recent then they're a bit behind the times. If anything they should have gone with Nuna Vatican-style.

3 January 2013 23:52  
Blogger NamronMit said...

I was so close to considering the idea of women being ordained.

Then I heard this song.

3 January 2013 23:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OK, so my daughter informs me that this is a parody of something called "Call Me Maybe" sung by Carly Rae Jepsen - who just happens to be Canadian. And suddenly everything makes a whole lot of sense.

carl

4 January 2013 00:09  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Your anticanadianism is showing through, Carl, just as you intended. Yes, I'm on guard and I'm watching you. I never sleep.

4 January 2013 00:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

Justin Bieber is Canadian, you know. There are strong correlations here. Patterns are being uncovered. Comprehension slowly emerges from the fog. Just sayin...

carl

4 January 2013 00:44  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

No, Carl, no! You didn't have to bring up Justin Bieber. Your cruelty knows no bounds. I don't know how they trusted you in SAC; the world is lucky that you retired without pushing a few buttons and turning a few keys just for fun. Bieber got Jesus' name in Hebrew tattooed while on a visit to Israel, so he's one of yours. In any case, plenty of Canadian musicians, such as Neil Young and Rush to make up for the loss of cool factor.

4 January 2013 01:18  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Apparently she refuses to kneel to patriarchy's way, thus presumably she refuses to kneel to the Patriarchy of our Father in heaven as well.

Also, if she's excommunicated and doesn't recognise the authority of the Pope, in what sense is she a Catholic? This video is just so ridiculous in so many ways... *shakes head*

4 January 2013 01:40  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Has the Pope tweeted a response to this video yet?

4 January 2013 01:48  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Avi 1:18 You did not mention the musical genius Canadian Glen Gould.

These crap lyrics were written by an Amirkin not a Canadian. I take it you are not in the support gig named Jews For Justin.

Go Canada!Stick to your guns Avi.
(oops just in the figure of speech manner of course!)

4 January 2013 02:46  
Blogger non mouse said...

Thank you, Your Grace: for providing the definition of "YUCK."

4 January 2013 03:14  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 January 2013 03:32  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 January 2013 03:41  
Blogger John Magee said...

I had a dream as a girl
Like Therese of Lisieux"

HG. Why the need to post this trash? Christians are being persecuted by Muslims and dying for their faith from Nigeria to Egypt and all the way to Indonesia as we type.

Looking at the video closely I observed the church sign to the left of the door behind the "dancers" as a shield with a red cross (The Cross of St George C of E Shield). Clearly the church in the video is not a Roman Catholic Church one...

Why the need of this priestess wannabee (if she is even a Roman Catholic) to drag the name St Therese de Lisieux into her rap "song" about priestesses? What is her name and why the need for the plaid mini skirted Catholic Girl School uniform worn by the female dancers usually associated with soft porn movies or comedies mocking the church? If she is not a Catholic why should she care about the issue of female priestesses in the RC Church? And if she is a Catholic there is no issue. The Magisterium in Rome says there will never be female priestesees. Case closed. Then there is the name of St Therese of Lisieux, a Saint she obviously knows nothing about. Literally, it is true that Therese once wrote that she wanted to be a priest, and described with what love she would handle the sacred host if she were a priest. But that does not in any way shape or form mean she advocated a female priesthood.

To say she did is pure fantasy.

St Therese of the Child Jesus, the saint in question, would have never dreamed of such a concept as female priestesses. Her life as a Carmelite nun was about prayer, working in the convent and in it's gardens helping to support and feed her sisters at the convent, and most importantly loving her Savior Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. I've read her autobiography and other books about her short life and not once did this sweet young nun ever mention female priestesses other than the one time I mentioned above. Like all nuns she took life long vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience when she professed her final vows.

St Therese of Lisieux is one of the most beloved modern saints in the Roman Catholic Church (she is also venerated by some High Church Anglicans). Pope John Paul II named her a Doctor of the Church. She died in 1897 at 23 at the Carmel of Lisieux, France (Normandy). Her real dream as a girl was to become a Carmelite nun like her older sister (and later two other of her siblings) and live a life of work and prayer which is what being a cloistered nun is all about. The young Therese Martin on a pilgrimage to Rome at age 14 during an audience with the pope begged him to allow her to enter the convent before the permitted age of 16. She got her wish and became a postulant at the Carmelitr Convent at Lisieux. Therese died from TB at age 24. She left behind her autobiography called "Journey of a Soul" which is about her life as a nun and her love of Christ and His Church and what suffering from the agony of TB meant to het spiritual life. This autobiography catapulted this unknown nun to sainthood in 28 years. Unheard of in modern times. She died in great pain with the words "My God, I love thee". Therese was canonized in 1925 and is beloved all over the Roman Catholic world today.

This video is trash.

Priestesses are not a negotiable issue with the Universal Church of Rome.

Is this the best the a C of E "Archbishop" can come up with while their national Church disintegrates over issues like bishopettes and possible disestablishment and a slow death by disinterest from it's members?

Very sad.

This is video is an insult to St Therese de Lisieux and to all Roman Catholic's who know and love her.

All Anglicans who venerate the Roman Catholic St Therese of Lisieux should protest this fantasy video too

4 January 2013 03:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The sign in the video displays the shield of the Episcopal Church - which explains the "shmoozing church" line. It appears the sign has been pixelated, but it almost certainly says "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You." Can't make out a church name though.

carl

4 January 2013 04:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

I am not convinced this "anti-Canadian" stuff is for real. All the Google hits on the subject seem to trace back to the 'Red-Green' show. Are you sure it doesn't refer to a brand of duct tape?

carl

4 January 2013 04:23  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 January 2013 04:38  
Blogger John Magee said...

carl jacobs

Thank you. You confirmed my suspicion.

By the way. The nun on my profile photo is atcually a photo of St Therese of Lisieux. Her real sister, Celine, who also became a nun at the same convent in Normandy was an excellent photographer, and documented Therese's life and the life of all the nuns at the convent from the late 1880's until Celine's (Sister Genevieve)death until the 1959 at age 90. The beautiful ancient Medieval town of Lisieux, about 50 miles from the Normandy landings, was regretably mostly destroyed by RAF and American bombers after the invasion of the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944 because of SS resistence. But the convent and Basilica dedicated to St Therese survived. The Nazi SS were going to fight it out in the Basilica but agreed to a truce and left the great church undamaged.

Cloistered nuns never leave their convents during their lives unless they are "transfered" to another convent. The only time the nuns at Lisieux left their convent was to help clear the ruins of the town of Lisieux in late June 1944.

4 January 2013 04:43  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 January 2013 05:58  
Blogger Flossie said...

Come now, Your Grace, enough of this levity. You must stop teasing your communicants, and get on with the serious business of transforming the Church of England during what is left of your interregnum.

You could start by endowing every church with your great and glorious work, the Book of Common Prayer, to be read, marked, learned and inwardly digested on a daily basis. This would iron out a few of the problems. It would also get rid of 'The Peace' (which should be more appropriately named 'The Disruption') and put a damper on the horrible hymns and crappy choruses which seem to abound in churches these days.

4 January 2013 08:49  
Blogger Emlyn Uwch Cych said...

The credits at the end of the video (you see I studied it all very closely!) thank the Parish of St Thomas' Episcopal Church. I expect the young ladies are doing their nice liturgical dance on Anglican property, wearing borrowed Anglican eucharistic tat.

The would be priestesses complain how "All the other Churches try to schmooze me / But I'm a Catholic". However, they're quite willing to accept the help of their schmoozey Anglican sisters and brothers. Oy vey!

As to the short kilts, well I'm afraid that's normal school uniform in Catholic schools in much of the world. Nothing to do with making pornos as one of YG's communicants suggested; just a sign of sweet virginal innocence.

Thanks for the video, YG. I for one am convinced that ladies are for ordaining to the highest orders of every Christian denomination. And if it takes a bit of hip hop to convince the waverers, so be it!

4 January 2013 12:51  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Hi Miss Cressida, a happy new year to you! "Jews for Bieber"? Oy. There was a rumour that he's Jewish, which he's not, and it appears it's true his agent taught him the Shema, the Hear O Israel prayer for some inexpicable reason and also that he has "Y'shua" in Hebrew tattooed on his side which symbolically renders him treif...but probably made his church-lady mom feel better. She was apparently stressed over him hanging out with music business Jews...not an entirely unreasonable concern, I'll concede. There. I have young daughters, in case you're wondering how I know of such things. I believe this is the first time ever I engaged in pop culture talk and I'll understand if His Grace issues a stern warning or tosses me off his blog...but, hey, he started it.

4 January 2013 14:18  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl, I also noticed the Anglican crest when I saw the video. It's Anglican, you incorrible Yank, not "Episcopalian" (what an awkward term). Try pronouncing the word: A-n-g-l-i-c-a-n. The Brits here don't know about your post-American Revolution allergy to words with anything relating England.

As for the Red-Green show, I hereby confirm that I never watched it for longer than it takes to find the tv tuner. I believe that more than our War of 1812, it is the root cause of all anticanadianism. That and Anne Murray.

4 January 2013 14:29  
Blogger how life is changing said...

May the Holy Spirit guide her, as it does all Christians, to all truth.

4 January 2013 14:45  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 January 2013 16:34  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 January 2013 17:02  
Blogger Enemyof the State said...

This is somewhat "off" your Grace.

4 January 2013 17:18  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 January 2013 17:29  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 January 2013 17:54  
Blogger John Magee said...


The crest or emblem mentioned above is that of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. The Protestant Episcopal Chuch in the USA traces it's roots back to 1607 in Virginia. That was the year the first Anglican Holy Communion was celebrated in what is now Jamestown, Virginia. The only Anglicans in the USA today are the result of a recent schism by the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania diocese.

Americans (citizens of the USA) who are members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA, which is part of the world wide Anglican Communion call themselves Episcopalians. I say this as a former EPISCOPALIAN living in the USA who was baptized in the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1948 and having once called myself an Episcopalian along with my family and members of my former church.

Until recently 99% of Episcopalians in the USA traced their roots to the Church of England, the Church of Ireland, or the Scottish Episcopal Church. But they all call themselves Episcopalians today.

Today we live in a Republic founded by British subjects in the 18th century and not a monarchy.

DEO GRATIUS.

The Anglican Church was the official church for most of the American colonies for 170 years prior to the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States being created in 1789. In 1789representatives clergy from nine dioceses met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to ratify the Church's initial constitution. The Episcopal Church was formally separated from the Church of England in 1789 so that clergy would not be required to accept the supremacy of the British monarch in the new country that became the USA after 1776. Prior to that event many colonies had the Anglican Church as the "state church" Virginia, had a state Church which was the Anglican Church. My state, Pennsylvania, after founded as a colony by the Quakers in the 1680's which granted freedom of religion for all faiths never had an official "state church" yet it was a part of the British Empire. The colony (now state) of Maryland was founded in 1634 by Lord Baltimore as a refuge for English Roman Catholics.

It's interesting to note that Anglicans in Scotland call their Church, the Scottish Episcopal Church.

By the way, the word Episcopal refers to to the see (diocese) of a bishop, an overseer in the Christian church.

PS

I was the first to point out the Red Cross of St George on the left side of the door of the church in this obnoxious video:

4 January 2013 03:57

"Looking at the video closely I observed the church sign to the left of the door behind the "dancers" as a shield with a red cross (The Cross of St George C of E Shield). Clearly the church in the video is not a Roman Catholic Church one..."

Thank you carl jacobs for clarifying my observation, difficult for my tired eyes to see clearly sometimes, by your pointing out there was blue in the upper left quadrant of the shield making it absolutely certain it is the emblem of the Protestant Episcopal Church USA.

The video was most likely made by an Episcopalian priestess who should keep her nose out of RC business and her hands off of St Therese of Lisieux's life story.

4 January 2013 18:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

This rubbish was published by the 'Women's Ordination Conference'.

It embarrasses me to say so but this organisation, based in Washington, claims to be Roman Catholic - though most of its leaders have been excommunicated.

"The Women's Ordination Conference (WOC) is the world's oldest and largest organization working solely for the ordination of women as priests, deacons, and bishops into an inclusive and accountable Catholic Church."

Its mission IS to respond to "the yearning of Roman Catholic women to become priests". Predictable they attempt to misuse St. Theresa's calling.

It also supports the blessing of gay unions, and the offering of the Eucharist to non-Catholics.

Closely associated with 'Roman Catholic Womenpriests', they defy the authority of the Vatican and boast they are at the forefront of a model of equality and diversity.

"The voice of the Catholic people --- the sensus fidelium ---has spoken. We women are no longer asking for permission to be priests. Instead, we have taken back our rightful God-given place ministering to Catholics as inclusive and welcoming priests."

In truth they are protestants masquerading as Roman Catholics, putting their own interpretation of scripture over the authority of the Magisterium and ignoring Canon Law.

4 January 2013 19:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Women, eh !

4 January 2013 19:47  
Blogger len said...

I find it rather ironic that Catholicism places Mary as 'Mother of God'(wrongfully... her proper term is Mother of Jesus)but the Catholics despite venerating(not 'worshipping' Mary)would not let her be ordained.

I was also quite surprised to learn there are female Rabbis.... are the Jews more liberated than the Christians?

4 January 2013 19:55  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! I don't know what all the fuss is about - I've been the power behind the episcopal throne in Barchester for years...

4 January 2013 20:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len, why would Mary Mother of God wish to be ordained ?

She is the mother of God you know, otherwise Jesus is not of God and you are not a Christian...

heh heh !


4 January 2013 20:07  
Blogger len said...

Jesus pre existed Mary .

How can a son pre exist his mother?.

4 January 2013 20:13  
Blogger len said...

It is partly the Catholic Church`s [false]claim that Mary was the' Mother of God 'that gave birth to Islam.

Mohammed rejected the 'Mary mother of God' as a heresy, he believed the Christians were claiming that the Trinity consisted of Father Son and Mother(Mary).Not altogether surprising that Mohammed came to this conclusion having been given this false information.

4 January 2013 20:23  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dodo

I smelled a rat when I saw the Red Cross of St George on the sign beside the church door (what an insult these women are to St George) in the video. I grew up Episcopalian so this Red Cross of St George is embedded in mind being the emblem of my old church. Carl inspected the sign and confirmed it was the Episcopal Church USA.

You are correct. These 'Women's Ordination Conference' hags are anathema to our Church and the RC Hierarchy in the USA.
They and their tiny group can only find refuge in liberal Episcopal Churches here but the liberal media gives them a lot of attention as an "official" Catholic women's group here.

This happens in the UK too I think.

Traditional Episcopal Churches ignore them.

They support every left wing "Catholic" cause from ordination of women to gay "marraige. They refuse to condemn abortion as murder. It was interesting to listen to one of them stumble over words when asked when was the last time she attended Mass at a Catholic Church which she claims to be a member of.
To give these women this attention is disgraceful.

Shame on the Episcopal (Anglican)Church USA for giving these women refuge and for HG for posting this travesty.

I am steamed.

4 January 2013 20:40  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Hi, Len. You asked: "I was also quite surprised to learn there are female Rabbis.... are the Jews more liberated than the Christians?"

Yes, not in my Orthodox stream yet, but female rabbis are common in the Reform, Reconstructionist and lately in some of the Conservative denominations, especially ihe US.

There is no outright prohibition against a woman becoming a rabbi in Jewish law; it's a minhag, or an aknowledged religious custom for men to be rabbis. The position of rabbi is different from that of a Christian priest and is more analogous to that of a Protestant minister. Technically, a rabbi is primarily a teacher and a leader able to instruct in and interpret Jewish law and custom. Currently there are several ordained Orthodox female rabbis in Israel, but they are non-pulpit rabbis, who don't lead congregatios and deal mainly with law and custom issues, counselling and teaching. Orthodoxy has a wide spectrun too and those on the Haredi or "ultra-Orthodox" end have arguments against woman rabbis, centred around the notion of different functions for men and women. Those on the "Open," "Religious Nationalist" or "Modern" side are more open to the change, provided that it is brought in gradually, without causing strife and divisions. Acceptance of women rabbis does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with a liberal approach to other issues, e.g., being on the left in politics, openness to same sex marriage, openly Gay clergy or conregant lifestyles, changes to Sabbath observace and kashruth or even mixed sanctuary seating and women cantors. I welcome the notion of woman rabbis personally, as long as it is made palatable to the majority in Orthodox world and the change is introduced in a a gradual, orderly and non in-yer-face manner.

4 January 2013 20:41  
Blogger John Magee said...

Len

One person's liberation is another's loss of freedom. Roman Catholic,Eastern Orthodox Christians, as well as Coptic Christians decided almost 2,000 years ago chose to have a male priesthood for a long list of reasons which for us are valid and non negotiable. We want the freedom to keep our traditions and not be forced to change them to please one tiny radical group at this point in history. We know from the past that one radical step leads to another and another and finally what is left is a hollow shell of what was once a bastion of moral strength of the original belief structure.

The Reformation proved this.

This video mocks that concept of the traditionalist Church's right to have the freedom to keep it's beliefs within the present church belief system unchanged and also drags in a beloved saint into the bargain.

You can count on Catholics not rioting over this video. Mainly because we don't do that sort of thing. It's been viewed by 50,000 people on the entire planet. There almost a billion Catholics and 400 million Eastern Orthodox Christians. Still it is, and was meant to be offensive, and succeeded.

We are used to this sort of insult.

4 January 2013 21:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len, Jesus pre existed Mary. How can a son pre exist his mother?.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Jesus was an entity, spiritual or otherwise until his conception. As a man, he certainly exhibited behaviour to confirm this. Father, why do forsake me”

Right then, off you trot to your liars site. You have 72 hours on this one, if you can...


4 January 2013 21:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mohammed was a psychopath. Anyway Len, how is your mental health these days. You must be half mad to keep 7 cats in the house. The smell of piss must be overpowering...

4 January 2013 21:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

len said...
"Jesus pre existed Mary .
How can a son pre exist his mother?."


Once again you reveal your sheer ignorance of the doctrine of the Trinity. We've covered all this before yet you continue with the same nonsense.

Are you a Jehovah Witness or a Unitarian now?

And then this:
"It is partly the Catholic Church`s [false]claim that Mary was the' Mother of God 'that gave birth to Islam."

Yeah sure! It was the Catholics who tempted Eve too in the guise of the serpent. We're probably responsible for global warming too.

What a conflicting theology you hold. Now your praising Judaism as "liberated" whilst on a thread below you cite Christ as having condemned Rabbinical Judaism!

Perhaps having flirted with Greek Orthodoxy for a time it is now time for you to explore Judaism? Then, who knows, maybe Hinduism and Buddhism. Finally, you could even establish the 'Church of Len'.

Born again? That'll be right.

4 January 2013 21:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Inspector

Pssst ... on the QT old chap.

Jesus eternally existed as God before taking on human form. He Has two distinct natures - human and Divine.

4 January 2013 21:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


No problem there Dodo. Jesus is of God, and when he left us, he took his place as part of the trinity.

4 January 2013 21:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Inspector

The truly wonderful thing is that He returned to His Father as both God and Man and once we are united with Him, on our death, we also join the Godhead - God willing.

Sounds too good to be true, eh? No wonder Satan is going crazy with hatred!

4 January 2013 22:28  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Ps
He was and is always a member of the Trinity - even when on earth. He had a Divine nature and will and also a human nature and will in perfect union.

4 January 2013 22:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo After what the Christ did for us, arguing over the mechanics is so small, don’t you agree ?

4 January 2013 22:56  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Yes and no, Inspector.

Whilst there are people who spread confusion about Christ's true nature and His Mother then simple expositions have to be given. Hope you agree.

4 January 2013 23:07  
Blogger len said...

Do Catholics deny the pre existence of Jesus now?..

In John 8:56-59 says, "'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.' The Jews therefore said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them, 'Truly truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.' Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple

(The response of Catholics to intelligent debate on scriptural facts to me at least highlights the problems Catholics have in elevating' tradition' over and above scripture.. your Catholic tradition makes the scriptures void.)

If Catholics cannot come up with intelligent debate it would probably be better to remain silent and give the impression of wisdom rather than open your mouths and convince everyone of the opposite?.


5 January 2013 09:54  
Blogger len said...

This discussion about the validity of 'Mary' being the 'Mother of God'highlights the necessity of examining 'tradition'to see if it is valid(or in this case)invalid.

Mary could not possibly be the 'Mother of God (because if this were true Mary would have had to have pre existed God!.)

At the best Mary was the Mother of Jesus (His Humanity).Jesus was of course full God and fully man.This is the reason Jesus Christ is the perfect[ and only] Mediator between God and Man .

Elevating Mary to the 'Mother of God ' is a very dangerous heresy because this has led to Mary having a 'Goddess'role,' co -redemptrix' in Catholic tradition an equal with the Saviour which detracts from the Saviour and puts Mary into as totally false role equal in fact with the Pagan Goddess`s.

The lesson here is examine your 'traditions 'in the light of the truth of scriptures that is why we have the Bible God`s Word to know the Truth which will set you free from the lies of the enemy.

5 January 2013 10:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

len said...
"Do Catholics deny the pre existence of Jesus now?

Clearly you have a problem comprehending the written word if you think that.

And your understanding of the Catholic Church's teaching on Mary is wrong too.

No Catholic regards Mary as a 'Goddess' or coequal to Christ. What a ridiculous statement!

This exposes your confusion:

"At the best Mary was the Mother of Jesus (His Humanity).Jesus was of course full God and fully man."

Why the need for the qualification "at best?

Jesus did not have two split and separate natures - God and man. His natures were distinct, yet were united. He was the God-man. In giving birth to one Mary gave birth to both.

5 January 2013 15:02  
Blogger len said...

God is a Spirit can a human give birth to a Spirit?.

Are you unaware of the teaching of the Catholic Church?.Mary as' Mother of God' ?
The' Perpetual Virginity'?
The' Immaculate Conception'?
The 'Assumption of Mary'
Mary as 'Mediatrix' and' Redemptrix?'


5 January 2013 18:29  
Blogger John Magee said...

len

I'm sure you are familiar with this quote from the Bible:

King James Version of Luke 1:28.

And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

What does it mean when the angel says Mary is ""highly favored"?

I'm sure you are aware this quote is also most of the words in the "Hail Mary" prayer Catholics and even many High Church Anglicans know so well.

5 January 2013 18:53  
Blogger len said...

Mr Magee, I have no argument with the fact that Mary was' highly favoured.

But to call Mary 'the Mother of God' is a nonsense.A 'mother' is only the mother of what originates within her womb. The second person of the blessed trinity did not originate in Mary’s body. He is without beginning – has always existed – and has no mother.

5 January 2013 19:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len.A 'mother' is only the mother of what originates within her womb.

heh heh !


5 January 2013 19:14  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Len

We must neither divide the person nor confound the natures. The Lord Jesus is one person with two separate and distinct natures. He is fully God and fully man. He is not God squashed into a man's body. He is both Infinite Eternal God and finite limited man at the same time - and yet one person. You are correct that the Second person of the Trinity has always existed. The man Jesus has a definite beginning point in time. That's when the Second person of the trinity acquired the distinct nature of man within time and existence. That is why it is correct to call Mary the Mother of Jesus. That is why Jesus called Mary His mother. That is why why we confess that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

To deny this is serious heresy.

carl

5 January 2013 19:24  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Carl said ...

"The Lord Jesus is one person with two separate and distinct natures. He is fully God and fully man ...

The man Jesus has a definite beginning point in time. That's when the Second person of the trinity acquired the distinct nature of man within time and existence.

That is why it is correct to call Mary the Mother of Jesus."


Take it further Carl and acknowledge that Jesus the Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, still exists - with a resurrected body. That in being the Mother of Jesus, Mary is indeed the Mother of God.

If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism.

Fundamentalists like len assert that Mary did not carry God in her womb, but only carried Christ’s human nature. This is an old heresy recently resurfacing.

It runs aground on the fact that a mother does not merely carry the human nature of her child in her womb. She carries the person of her child. Women do not give birth to human natures; they give birth to persons. Mary carried and gave birth to the person of Jesus Christ, His divine and human united as one, and the person she gave birth to was God.

5 January 2013 19:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Theotokos was originally intended to demonstrate the Divinity of Christ. It was not intended to indicate anything about the status of Mary. Indeed, it would be just as legitimate to say that Joseph was the 'father of God' but who says such a thing? We don't even really know what "Conceived by the Holy Spirit" means. It would be ridiculous speculation to assume something like "divine sperm and mortal egg." That being the case, Mary and Joseph occupy very similar roles vis-a-vis the Son of Man. My own understanding is that Joseph died young so that Joseph would not obscure the true relationship between Jesus and the Father. Like John the Baptist,
Joseph had to decrease. Mary didn't get in the way of the manifestation of the Trinity.

So I am not sure where you are going with this except possibly to provide some philosophical support for the position accorded Mary in RC theology. I have no problem with the title 'Mother of God.' But what does this convey? She certainly is not logically prior to God as you would agree. She has no authority over the Lord Jesus. There is no Scriptural evidence that she is accorded any special status because of the role for which she was chosen. We cannot even say what becomes of these temporal relationships in the Kingdom of heaven. Joseph & Mary were given a unique responsibility for a short time. That time is past, and that responsibility has long since ended.

carl

5 January 2013 21:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Carl

You need to correct your fellow protestant. As a Catholic I am quite clear what the title Mother of God means and Mary's role in our salvation.

Now what on earth are you suggesting here?

"Indeed, it would be just as legitimate to say that Joseph was the 'father of God' but who says such a thing? We don't even really know what "Conceived by the Holy Spirit" means. It would be ridiculous speculation to assume something like "divine sperm and mortal egg." "

Are you seriously suggesting Jesus had a natural father? That His conception was not of God? What heresy is this?

From the very first formulations of Christianity the Church has believed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, without human seed. The Fathers recognised in the virginal conception that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own.

To Mary's question, "How can this be, since I do not know man?" the angel replied, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you". By the Spirit, Mary conceived the eternal Son of the Father in a humanity drawn from her own.

In His pre-temporal, eternal existence and obedience, the Son differed profoundly from naturally engendered human beings, who are not asked whether they wish to come into being or not; the Son permitted, in full consciousness and with full consent to the divine plan for redemption, Himself to be used as the Father wished. He did so in obedience.

Mary consented to.

Are you seriously questioning this?

5 January 2013 23:45  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Are you seriously suggesting Jesus had a natural father?

Ummm ... no. Joseph was the legal father of Jesus. That's why Jesus would have called him 'father' and rightfully so. Mary was the mother of Jesus in the sense that He was conceived in and came forth from her womb, but she was not His mother in the sense that she provided the egg for the conception. That places her biological relationship to Jesus on exactly the same level as that of Joseph. She is no more His biological mother that Joseph is his biological father. To assert otherwise you must engage in ridiculous speculation about "divine sperm and mortal egg?"

Mary consented

Mary was chosen just as Paul was chosen. She was a prepared vessel. Her consent was neither sought nor required. She submitted but there was no chance she would not have done so.

carl

6 January 2013 00:56  
Blogger John Magee said...

carl jacobs and len

Try this on for size.

Here is The Magnificat, taken from Luke’s Gospel (1:46-55), it is the Blessed Virgin Mary’s hymn of praise to the Lord:

My soul magnifies the Lord
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior;
Because he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaid;
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed;
Because he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name;
And his mercy is from generation to generation
on those who fear him.
He has shown might with his arm,
He has scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and has exalted the lowly.
He has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
He has given help to Israel, his servant, mindful of his mercy
Even as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his posterity forever.

What do the two of you think about the "For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed" line?

This is exactly what Roman Catholics call Mary the mother of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and it's entirely Biblical as you can see above.

6 January 2013 00:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Carl

This is sheer heresy!

" ... but she (Mary) was not His mother in the sense that she provided the egg for the conception. That places her biological relationship to Jesus on exactly the same level as that of Joseph. She is no more His biological mother that Joseph is his biological father. To assert otherwise you must engage in ridiculous speculation about "divine sperm and mortal egg?"

Mary was chosen just as Paul was chosen. She was a prepared vessel. Her consent was neither sought nor required. She submitted but there was no chance she would not have done so."


It's not a question of asserting anything - its written in the Gospels.

What you're saying is that Jesus temporal body had no earthly, human component. That His physical body was created exclusively by the Holy Spirit - without the participation of humanity. There was no physical union between God and man - that a human ovary was used? And no consent from His mother to be with child and carry Him in her womb? Just choice less submission to God's plan of salvation?

Perhaps I've misunderstood you for this is indeed a wide gulf between your church (or your own private opinion) and mine.

6 January 2013 01:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

This is sheer heresy!

Nothing I have written is heresy.

What you're saying is that Jesus temporal body had no earthly, human component. That His physical body was created exclusively by the Holy Spirit - without the participation of humanity.

I am saying we don't have a clue what it means to say Mary was 'found with child by the Holy Spirit.' If you want to assert that Mary provided genetic material for the conception then prove it by Scripture. Is it a necessary condition for Jesus' conception? No, for all things are possible with God. Would it be a necessary condition for Jesus to be considered fully human? No. This is already established because He doesn't have a human father. Is it a back-door way for you to differentiate Mary from Joseph and thus assert the necessity of Mary's sinlessness? Absolutely not.

It's not a question of asserting anything - its written in the Gospels.

Yes, and in the Gospels, the angel never asks of her "Hey, Mary, do you agree to do this? Because you can say 'No.' " You clearly do not understand the concept of Providence.

carl

6 January 2013 02:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Carl

What a different understanding of God we have and both supposedly drawn from the one text.

Catholics do not believe all of the profound message of salvation is clearly spelt in scripture. It has be understood. It's Truth becomes clearer as the Church grows from age to age. St. Paul in his epistles doesn't reference the nature of Christ's birth. Christology and the nature of the Trinity developed in time. Don't you suppose the early Apostles and disciples discussed these things and that not everything Jesus said to them, or they believed and taught is written down?

We all have a choice. Adam and Eve, created good, without sin, had a choice. Mary, who was "full of grace" had a choice; Jesus, in His human will, had a choice. Because of the carnation, death and resurrection, we all have a choice now too.

Yes we certainly do have different understandings on the Providence of God! I don't believe the story of our salvation consists of people simply submitting to the will of God.

6 January 2013 02:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

i.e. incarnation.

6 January 2013 03:00  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

First you say ...

What a different understanding of God we have and both supposedly drawn from the one text.

Are they? Immediately thereafter you say ...

Catholics do not believe all of the profound message of salvation is clearly spelt in scripture.

Precisely. You declare the Scripture insufficient having pondered how we could come to different conclusions. It is no mystery. You draw from the text plus something else. Technically, this is supposed to Sacred Tradition - which is what you refer to to when you say "not everything Jesus said to them, or they believed and taught is written down." Can you however identify even so much as one phrase spoken by Jesus or the Apostles that is not recorded in Scripture? No, you can't. The RCC has never defined any such thing. That is why there is no content to Sacred Tradition. It is instead a Gnostic mist that becomes incarnate in the the utterances of the Magisterium. Great work if you can get it. But we are not commanded to test all things against an amorphous cloud of unknowable unwritten teachings devoid of provenance. We are commanded to test all things against Scripture.

Jesus, in His human will, had a choice.

Could Jesus in His human will have chosen to sin? Was there an actual contingency? If you say 'Yes' you are making a profound error in Christology. You are saying that nature follows will - that the perfect Son of Man could have become imperfect. In truth, the perfect nature produces perfect obedience. That's why we can have peace with God - the peace that never again breaks out into warfare. The Redeemed will not sin because the new creation will perfectly and freely obey. It will exhibit a free choice with no contingency.

The legitimacy of a choice does not require an actual contingency in the outcome of that choice. I have told you this before. It requires only the free exercise of human will. Men have a choice. That doesn't mean there is any uncertainty in the outcome. As I said, you don't understand Providence. You should study Exodus and the choices of Pharoah. You would learn much.

On the positive side, I see you have given up the ghost on the argument about the hypothetical relationship between Mary's egg and the Incarnation. Well and good.

carl

6 January 2013 03:47  
Blogger len said...

Mr Magee ,

The item you posted proves my point not yours.(6 January 2013 00:58)

Mary calls Jesus 'my Saviour.'

Now if Mary had all the attributes claimed for her by the Catholic church she would need no Saviour.





6 January 2013 10:41  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Carl:

I'll admit to not being terribly well read on the finer points of predestination, so these questions are genuine rather than rhetorical "hurrahs".

You say that a 'perfect nature produces perfect obedience' - is this specific to Christ? I've always understood that God made man without flaw, which would imply a perfect nature, yet man chose of his and her own volitions to disobey God.

Also, unless I'm misreading you the "Redeemed will not sin because the new creation will perfectly and freely obey" refers to the present Church yes? That the elect cannot sin?

6 January 2013 11:32  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

I have to say that the priestesses on this video have colourful cassocks and seem pretty cheerful- especially if they have been excommunicated (which I always thought was the worst thing that could spiritually happen to a Catholic?).

6 January 2013 12:11  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

AIB

Unless I'm misreading you...

I tend to use the phrase 'the Redeemed' to refer to the resurrected Church after the Last Day. This is not technically correct, however. Sometimes I am not careful with this usage - especially when I post while watching a football game. When I reviewed the post, I wondered if someone would draw the inference you mentioned. I should have edited the post. The Elect can most certainly sin.

I've always understood that God made man without flaw, which would imply a perfect nature, yet man chose of his and her own volitions to disobey God.

Natural man cannot obey. Regenerated man can obey. We only have experience with these two types. We know very little about the original created nature of Adam. We do know that Adam's nature is not the same as that of a redeemed man post-resurrection. How do we know this? Because the redeemed man post-resurrection will never again sin. Adam did sin. The question you are asking is "Why did Adam sin?" I don't have a good answer for that other than it was within the Providence of God.

carl

6 January 2013 13:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Carl

Where to begin?

Perhaps the Nicene Creed which settled the Christological uncertainties and speculations after 300 plus years:

"For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man."


Christ had a truly human body and soul - He came from Mary and was conceived in her womb.

He had a human body and soul, they could be separated — as they were on the Cross — and thus cause His death.

He had a human body and soul and truly suffered in both, and thus redeemed us by enduring both bodily and spiritual pain.

He had a human body and soul and when he rose from the dead he was reunited in body and soul.

He had a human body and soul and can be truly imitated by us in our striving after sanctity. The virtues He practiced as man were the attributes of God in human form. As we become more like Jesus in His life as man, the more we become like Jesus who is our God.

He now has a glorified human body and soul, the Second Person of the Trinity in one Divine Person.

The true humanity of Jesus implies that He had a free human will. It was because of this that He could merit our redemption. By the willing sacrifice of His life on the Cross, He won for us the graces we need for our salvation.

Sacrifice means the willing surrender to God of something precious - not predetermined submission. Jesus made this surrender by His own free human will, voluntarily offering Himself on Calvary to expiate our sins and save us for heaven and from hell.

While saying this, Christians acknowledge although He could really choose with a real human will, yet He could never sin because his human nature was united with His Divine nature in one Person who is God.

The implications of this mystery are practical in the extreme. It does not belong to the essence of human freedom to be able to choose what is contrary to God’s will. Jesus Christ could choose with His human will. In fact, He did so. But His choices were always what was most pleasing to His heavenly Father - because He was God and man.

Mary is somewhat different, being entirely human. She, like the first Eve, was possessed of a sinless free will.

Since apostolic times it was assumed that since Jesus Christ is true God, Mary is the Mother of God.

It then follows that Mary’s own conception, without original sin, is a logical preparation for her divine maternity. Since the child she was to bear would be God it is unthinkable that His Mother would ever have been stained with sin.

And that's why you deny He came from her flesh - her egg. It wrecks predestination as you understand it. She had a free and uncorrupted choice.

The Fathers of the Church — like St. Irenaeus and St. Cyprian —wrote of Mary as not only immaculate but entirely immaculate, not only spotless but most spotless, that she alone was to be the dwelling place of all the graces of the Holy Spirit, because she was predestined to become the dwelling place of the Son of the Most High.

Mary possessed sanctifying grace from the moment she was conceived. Since our Lady was conceived without original sin, she was preserved from the one consequence of this sin that all of us so painfully experience. She did not have concupiscence that is the heritage of all other descendants of man’s original estrangement from God. She was in the same state as Adam and Eve.

Mary’s virginal conception of Jesus was foretold in the Old Testament - “Behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (Isaiah 7:14).

As for Exodus and the Pharaoh. Yes, God hardened his heart i.e. He withdrew any chance of grace from him after giving him opportunities to cooperate. Just as Satan entered the soul of Judas.

Did God know the choices of Adam and Eve? Yes. The choices of Mary and Jesus? Yes. The choices of Pharaoh and Judas? Yes. Does this mean the choices were not real? Apart from Jesus', who could not sin being God, - no.

6 January 2013 16:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Carl

The reason you cannot answer , or will not, is because you know the implications of your answer.

The answer is in the great Easter Proclamation:

"O happy fault,
O necessary sin of Adam,
which gained for us so great a Redeemer!"

6 January 2013 16:32  
Blogger len said...

Dodo you are citing 'Catholicism' here not Christianity(do not muddy the waters by quoting Catholic doctrine as Biblical truth.)

Mary herself needed a Saviour and indeed she calls Jesus 'her' Saviour.

Catholic 'tradition' places Mary as an equal of Christ which is pure heresy.

6 January 2013 16:36  
Blogger len said...

According to 'Catholic doctrine 'we do not need Jesus at all.We have'Mary' instead.

But of course we do not!. There are irreconcilable problems with the unscriptural title given to Mary as' Mother of God.' If Mary is the Mother of God, then how could he have been in existence before his mother? Impossible. Jesus has always been God from the very beginning who became man when born in Bethlehem. Jesus only got his humanity from Mary and, therefore', she can't be correctly labelled Mother of God.'
The Mary of Catholicism is not the Mary of the Bible. They are totally two different characters, with the similar trait of bearing the man Jesus. Once we realize this it will be much easier for us to extend a 100% trusting-submitting faith in Jesus alone for our soul's salvation, as the Bible teaches to be saved. Jesus is the all-sufficient Saviour, who needs no help from another to save us. In fact, to believe on Jesus and Mary for salvation, as some do, is to be in disobedience to what the Bible teaches and will not bring true salvation.

6 January 2013 16:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

len

You still haven't grasped the essence of the incarnation even though Carl spelled it out for you. It follows you don't understand the Trinity too.

Really you should at least try to read what Catholics actually believe before condemning them.

How can you claim to love and follow a God you don't know or understand?

6 January 2013 16:46  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Dodo what is your understanding of Satan? An evil spirit that invades humans? There are evil people. Are they Satan clones?

6 January 2013 19:52  
Blogger len said...

Dodo I had some very interesting (and enlightening ) talks with Albert(where has he gone?)

I understand the hypostatic union(partly) I don`t think anybody this side of Heaven totally understands it but I am willing to learn if you have anything to add?.

I have taken on board what Carl has said.

6 January 2013 21:52  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Cressida

My computer has crashed no less than five times whilst replying to your enquiry - I tell no lie!

Here's a link to an article that should answer your questions:

www.catholicbible101.com/thedevil

I suggest following the links too as they lead to some of the Vatican's senior Exorcist's writings.

6 January 2013 22:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

len

No nothing to add; my own understanding is limited too. I too wish Albert or Old Jim were here as they are more knowledgeable than I and far better at this.

I will say that Carl's position and my own (above) are wide apart on the question of human cooperation in God's plan for our salvation and, in particular, on Our Blessed Lady's role in this and the issue of free will.

Why not research genuine Catholic teachings on these points? Google key terms and then add 'Catholic'.

Disagree if you choose but at least you will be better informed for a debate with Catholics and, who knows, maybe more influential. Alternatively, you might just discover they contain some Truths you have been overlooking.

6 January 2013 22:21  
Blogger Hugh Oxford said...

Question from a papist: what is the CofE position on male nuns?

6 January 2013 22:27  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Re 22:27. A guess from a Pharisee: A compromise solution whereby nunneries must provide urinals to avoid conflict over toilet bowl seat positions.

6 January 2013 23:24  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

@22:27

Do you mean transgendered nuns?

6 January 2013 23:42  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Carl:

We appear to be on the same page then.

6 January 2013 23:48  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Avi did you know that Muslim men are not permitted to stand to urinate. They must sit down like women do. I do not know the religious reason.
Is this the same for orthodox jews?

7 January 2013 00:02  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 00:35  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 03:25  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Re, 23:42. Can't see that working, Dodo. A nun who thinks of herself as a male will smack into reality, er, meet her...Waterloo...in the loo at the urinal.

Didn't know that about Muslims and can't imagine reasons for such a custom, Miss Cressida. Nothing like that for Orthodox Jews; I sometimes walk over to a small "ultra-Orthodox" synagogue when I'm too lazy to go to ours for evening prayers and they have urinals there. Unless they are there for Dodo's transgender nuns.

7 January 2013 03:26  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 04:01  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 09:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Avi - well what about transsexual nuns then (post and/or pre op)?

7 January 2013 12:22  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

You're straining my knowledge of these issues, Dodo, and probably horrifying John, a recent convert, with our...uh...unorthodox inter-religious dialogue. I don't know how it is in your religion, but in mine the Rambam, Maimonides, reminded us to go easy on converts and not over-load them with unbearable burdens.

I don't get out much; I'm either around truckers, wharf and warehouse workers or folks from my congregation...groups not known for gender spectrum experimentation. So, I had to google this one, "transsexual vs transgender," and the short answer I got is that there is no firm definition and that "transsexual" is the politically preferred term in their communities nowadays. Remember that.

In any event, the thought struck me that the Hassidic folks at the shul I sometimes drop by on and the nuns at a nunnery a short bus ride away could save money by pooling their laundry. An easy split between dark and light loads, as both wear only black and white. And it would give any transvestites in either group easy access to interesting costumes. Tra-da-boom.

7 January 2013 14:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Avi

Having just completed Part II of my 'Diversity Awareness Training' (for Senior Managers, no less) I can help you.

Transsexual is a person who is in the process of changing their sex, physically. Their 'bits and pieces', so to speak.

Transgender is a person who wants to live their life in a gender role opposite to their sex, without changing said sex. Their 'bits and pieces' being left intact.

Transvestites are different again. They retain their gender and sexual identity but dress as women or men from time to time.

Confused? Imagine having to try to implement policies under the British Equality Act to ensure fair and even treatment of all these groups! And that's without adding homosexuals and/or heterosexuals to mix. The single biggest issue centres on toilets - I kid you not.

Life is rich and John needs to understand it in its full complexity.

7 January 2013 15:30  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Good Heavens, Dodo, life is indeed rich, with all these "bits and pieces" getting shovelled about and switched around willy-nilly and all leading to wars over loos. And I thought I'm imposing by asking for a few days off on our festival days and Sabbaths or avoiding pot lucks and Hawaiian pig roasts.

7 January 2013 16:27  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Avi,

Perhaps a change of subject then. But which one?

Me and my sister think you'd know, if we asked you, about China's thorium reactor research, hot salt energy reactors, viscous oil sands, the Swiss currency peg, the implications of Japanese global QE, the fiscal cliff or Inspector's 'dark matter'.

7 January 2013 16:48  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Or there is the Israeli elections. I don't really follow the politics, but I know my relatives and friends over there usually either vote Shas,Meretz or Kadima. The Jewish Home party, lead by Mr Bennett, is apparently getting quite a bit of support as well.

7 January 2013 17:14  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Hannah,

I am sure Avi doesn't want to be bombarded by a list of topics.

Besides which I think even uncle Jacob no longer votes Shas, after the leadership's opinions on gay people. Mr Bennett- I think he was in the Israeli SAS?

I am intrigued by this though, what is Inspector's 'dark matter'?

7 January 2013 17:45  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi David,

Inspector's 'dark matter' is from a discussion thread above, in which he was postulating about early morning starts being the same as dark matter. (Dark Matter, is, as we all know is what scientists think makes up 96% of the universe).

7 January 2013 18:35  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Not at all, David, the young ladies demand answers from my Excellent and Enertaining Theories on Just About Anything and Everything. So, without further ado:

All gung-ho for thorium and while China is putzing about with stolen reactor plans, Canadian CANDU reactors are easily convertible. The liquid salt systems are the promising, provided new corrosion-resistant materials are up for it. Hurrah for the oil sands, Canada's most promising export...the Saudis are freaking over that one. The Swiss and the Japanese issues will be shelved after the oil sands and gas fracking booms juggle the money flow about and viable thorium energy supply in 30-40 years will shake everything up, so let's not waste time on them. The fiscal cliff ruins the party for us all temporarily, at least until the Big O is put out to pasture and the US resumes business. The Inspector's dark matter is a mystery on account of its darkness and no, I'd never vote for Shas, being a religious Zionist, of the hill-top settlement, knitted-kippah sort and have been voting Likud, although a good showing for Yisrael Beiteinu might toughen Bibi up and focus him a little.

See? Wasn't all that hard.

7 January 2013 18:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Let's keep the Inspector's 'dark matter' out of this, please!

7 January 2013 18:49  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 18:55  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Avi,

I must admit I know nothing of the political parties in Israel, just bits and bobs I hear from the news and family. In terms of politics, I think my uncle Jacob who would approve of your stance, as outlined above.

The last time I spoke to him he was fuming at Obama for not agreeing to bomb Iran's nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

Re the other stuff.

My sister said "Gosh, you do think long term. What about the potential for a currency war, when the Japanese start buying Loonies and overvalue the Canadian currency? (as they are apparently hell bent on printing Yen and buying every major currency in the world)".

7 January 2013 19:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One would roll about the floor biting the carpet if the 90%+ mass missing from the universe turned out to be God.

Gregory Tingey, where are you when you're needed ?

7 January 2013 19:07  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Finance is not my thing, Miss Hannah, but from the little that penetrates, methinks that buying up the Loonie with over-prints and jacking it up will make it hard for them to buy our oil they'll need badly.

Hmm, Inspector, I think you are going out on quite a theological limb, there, what with assigning quantifiable mass to G-d. (As I clear my throat, step back and away and whistle innocently)

7 January 2013 19:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Not at all Avi, just imagine. The erstwhile God, of whose composition was literally God knows what, being of this universe. The only universe. The only possible existence. And man, a fruitful seed planted on Earth. We cease, and are returned to him, he loves us that much. To exist in a future life of sorts and be about with him.
Sounds like the definition of heaven to this man, and you ?

7 January 2013 20:23  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 21:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Inspector

From 'Roman Catholicism' to 'Roman Pantheism' via 'Roman Protestantism'!

All this chatting with Kinderling is surely muddling your mind.

God is pure Spirit and exists outside of space and time. He holds the Universe in place in ways we may come to understand but I very much doubt He is a physical part of it.

7 January 2013 22:00  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 22:30  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Avi

I don't really understand currency and finance either, so I would agree with you on the logic of that one. Anyway as you say the shale oil and gas and also nuclear power is the new big thing to focus on.

7 January 2013 22:32  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

As long as we don't get to find out we will be making up that missing mass out there, Inspector. Me, I remain agnostic on the hereafter, an acceptable position. The promise of resurrection is the only required belief, according to Maimonides, although no details on that one and the Torah is quite mum about such things as well. There are opinions by our sages of the Talmud and the kabbalists, discussing a temporary purgatory sentence in the Valley of Hinnon, rather than an eternal damnation or a Hell, and appealing tales and legends of a Paradise, the Gan Edhen, as well as reincarnation and notions that the Sabbath is a fore-taste of the World to Come, a concept including eternal study of the Torah with the sages at a full table with fancy foods. This means scrambling up a bit of shmaltz herring and a bottle of single malt shouldn't be too much trouble. But seriously, being in the starker, classical rationalist stream, I accept the traditional notion that we are not meant to know and should not speculate or meditate on the question.

Your version does not strike me as traditional, perhaps because I know so little of the Catholic views on this matter. In fact, it seems closer to Buddhism and even to Kabballah, the notion of living things passing from a temporal to a spiritual state and returning to G-d. One thing's for sure, though, we're sliding towards that inevitable event horizon where we may get our answers.

7 January 2013 23:16  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ah, I see Dodo has put you straight on your assigning temporal limits and mass to G-d, Inspector. Must admit I agree with his assessment. You could get us in trouble with such talk and we might have to sip instant coffee with whitener, instead of goblets of golden single malt.

Hold it there, Miss Hannah, you're not moving Kavanagh assets and bullions in Swiss tunnels and from Carribbean isles on my musings about future energy trends, I hope? I can take no responsibility. Mind you, if it works out by some miracle, I'm open to accepting a modest percentage....

7 January 2013 23:29  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 January 2013 23:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Mr McGrannon

WTF are you wittering on about? Are you talking with yourself or hoping for an exchange of opinion?

7 January 2013 23:54  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Avi,

Nah, we're not moving our pot of gold, after all, having an Irish background, that is up to the leprechauns!

10 January 2013 23:16  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

It would be a horrible spiritual wrong; if it was not Catholics mocking God.

12 January 2013 05:34  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older