I’ve watched this three times. The first time I was 3/4 of the way through before I realised that it isn’t a parody.
Then I doubted myself and watched again while telling myself: it has to be a parody. Until the 1/2 way mark this time – when the gnawing realisation gripped me once more: these people are serious.
So after a stiff drink, I cleaned my glasses, girded my loins, recalibrated my NEC Multisync 3090WQXi monitor with an X-Rite MDSVSensor wide-gamut display calibrator and – it still looks like a parody.
See what you think about this definitive argument in favour of lady priests in the Roman Catholic Church:
I know how you feel… I think it’s real, but it’s just too bad to be real. Within the very first stanza, she sings, “Don’t listen to St. Paul, cause I can lead the way…”
Yes, you’ll make a great priest if the first theological comment you make is discounting the apostolic witness.
I think it is a parody.
Ordination of women is only an issue for the Micks in the western world. The Micks in the rest of the world could care less.
There are enough men out there in the Roman Catholic world – ordained, seminary trained but lay, and lay – who agree with, and some work toward – the concept of women’s ordination. Likely only in Western Catholicism.
This is a parody sketch of something real –
Catchy tune though.
I too watched it through once before I realised that these women were serious. It was on my second viewing, enjoying what I perceived as a parody, when it hit me – these people are sincere.
I find it interesting that every off-the-beaten-path group claims that their church belongs to them, and has somehow been “stolen” from them. This despite the fact that the RCC has never ordained women priests and, given the current leadership, is unlikely to do so in the near future. Yet, they want to “retake” their church by imposing upon it a form of doctrine and practice completely alien to it since time immemorial.
The similarities between what these women are trying to do, and what gay groups actually have succeeded in doing with the Anglican Church is striking. The only difference is that while the Vatican still retains some moral fortitude, the pusillanimous Anglican leadership have caved in the belief that permissiveness equates to greater enlightenment.
Typical liberal arguments here!
I feel it is right to do so in the name of social justice, or whatever modern Zeitgeist thing, but never in the name of God. This name is almost anathema. See how they outrightly dismiss Paul, oucch his writings are canonical!
By the way, I think those proponents of WO should move over to the ACoC or their local unorthodox episcopal/anglican church. Oups, those churches are disappearing, too bad.
I noted the sign that says “Priestly people come in all genders.” Not both, mind you, but all.
I lose track. How many genders are there again?
I’m contemplating ceasing to refer to most of the Anglican (male) counterparts as ‘priests.’ ‘Church employees’ is more like it.
Coincidentely–today I was reading 1Tim.:11,12, and noted my scribblings beside the verses.
Beside Verse 11–“Gabbing in the back of the church.”
Beside Verse 12–“I gotta pray on this some more.”
Betcha these gals are always gabbing in the back.
No other comment- Karen reads this.
Right. Came back for another viewing, then followed the link to the original YouTube page. It’s real, not a parody, and it’s sponsored by the “Women’s Ordination Conference.” The mind boggles.
Do any of the young women in this video have any idea they are actually giving a lot of credibility to St. Paul’s attitude toward women in ministry?
That depends on whether Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles or not. I happen to think he didn’t. There’s no doubt that the author of the Pastorals was opposed to women in ministry, but the undisputed Pauline letters are far more supportive.
The part about don’t listen to Saint Paul is revealing. Appearently this woman beleives the Holy Bible to have be written by mere men, and thus subject to human changes. Which goes very much against 2000 years of Christain knowldedge that the true author of the entire Holy Bible is God Himself, and therefore cannot be chnaged by people.
She seems to indicate that she has been excommunicated. So the RC Church reallu is not “her church” anymore. Simply put, she knowingly and blatantly broke the rules so much that they (the leadership within the RC Church) had to say “despite what you say, your behaviour is such that you are obviously no longer a real member of this Church”
Overall she comes across as a full fledged member of the “me generation”. It’s all about me and what I want. Nothing else matters, not even what God says. And she has the audacity to claim that she will make a good priest.
Boy is this confused.
First she seems to be confusing the priesthood of all believers with the ministry of Word and Sacrament, which are not the same thing at all.
Second, she seems confused about the meaning of justice, which Biblically is a fundamentally relational term: the just are those in a right relationship with God. She seems to be taking an Aristotelian view that justice is giving everyone his or her due and that public opinion is the supreme arbiter of what is right.
For the record, I am in favour of women’s ordination, but this is one of the worst arguments for it I’ve ever seen.
Gordon, WOC says here “St Paul has many wonderful quotes ….” (It’s not much worth reading, although a few of the comments are.)
http://womensordination.org/blog/2013/01/02/ordainaladybehindthescenes/
The quote of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is the only statement in the undisputed Pauline letters that appears to argue against women’s ordination, but in Greek the connotation is “stop gossiping and pay attention”, an injunction that could also usefully be applied to many men, and in addition it is thought by many to be a later insertion.
We should also remember 1 Timothy 3 for this is also part of God’s Holy Bible.
and this Chapter bigins:
“This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.”
not
“…if anyone…”
That’s an interpretation, not a translation. Anthropos can refer to any human, not just a man.
Hello Gordon,
But it is not an interpretation. It is from the King James Version, and is thus a translation. In the KJV, the word “man” in 1 Timothy 3:1 is not italisized, meaning it is not an inserted or substituted word word, but is in fact translated directly from the source Manuscript.
Also, I believe the KJV to be the most accurate and most reliable English version of the Holy Bible ever produced.
The Hebrew word baruch and the Greek word makarios both cover the full range of the English words happy and blessed. How do we translate them? On every occasion we use them, we have to interpret. So did the translators of the King James Bible. There is no such thing as a literal, word for word translation.
As for the KJV being the only reliable translation, which KJV do you mean: the 1611 original or the 1758 revision that is virtually the only one still used?
If we’re using 1611 or 1758 English, we might observe that during that period, the word “men” was fully inclusive. See for example, Article XIX of the Church of England:
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.
By that argument, women are not allowed in the Church at all.
Hello again,
Possibly you have signed onto the notion that there are several “revisions” to the KJV. But from my research I have learned that this is not the case. Ther have been several reprintings over the years, and almost all of the differences in these reprintings are attributable to two things, Firstly the standardation of English spelling. Secondly the correction of typesetting errors commited by the printers.
With respect,
AMP
Correct, AMPisAnglican, 1 Tim 3 is the Word of God, Gordon has a point about, the indefinite pronoun that it can be generic, so they (King James translators) have interpreted it. However, the reality is they have interpreted it Correctly (sorry Gordon), via the context of verse 2 “A bishop then must be blameless, the HUSBAND (Aner 435 strong’s) of one wife(gune strong’s 1135), vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach.”. as well as vs 4,5. The context of the section of 1-7 gives ample evidence as to the gender of the ‘someone’ who desires the work of the oversight, and qualifications.
Sincerely,
OpenAir
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Gordon. I agree completely trivialization is the problem, pretty much whatever is the topic.
Isn’t tbis funny… a group of ANiC’s arguing against women’s ordination. It’s coming baby – a splinter in the church. You left ACoC over gay inclusiveness and now you’re going headstrong against the ladies. So I guess we are headed for 2 ANiC’s – one that supports women’s ordination and the other that doesn’t. Beautiful!
What you perceive as “haedstrong against the ladies” I perceive as Faithfullness to God. If it is the Will of God that His Priests be only men than we shound, and must, accept it.
I agree. I don’t care of which gender the priests are, I just want them to be devoted to a religious vocation rather than to a career in the church. Same as I don’t object to the ordination of priests with same-sex attraction, so long as they remain chaste and in no way promote homosexuality as a lifestyle.
That is to say, ‘of which of the TWO genders’.
Oh good grief. You’d really like that, wouldn’t you? Generalizing one blog conversation to the movement as a whole? You are smarter than that.
Ahh – splinters in the church.
I am left wondering – was the first great split really that of East/West in the 11th century – or perhaps the Celt/Roman split at Whitby, led by Abbess Hilda in/about 664 A.D.?
e.g. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15610a.htm
Of course, Hilda and the Celts did not ‘remove’ themselves from the church, but Celtic Christianity is alive and well on the outskirts of the British Isles, even if ‘Latin Christianity’ has the priority.