V-tech Digital Answering System Manual

The issue of women priests

In this post I take, make changes, my work on a public forum which addressed the issue of women priests by an evangelical point of view only, analyzing those passages in which Jesus was handed down against or in favor of the priesthood as a religious institution is well established in the first-century Palestine. This analysis is necessary because by many Christians is postulated the prohibition of women, required nothing less than Jesus, from priestly ordination! In reality, this requirement has no scriptural basis, except in those few passages from letters Pauline pseudopaoline and that, as I will try to document, do not prove anything except that Saul on the issue of gender equality was a bit too puritanical and 'back, not since the days he lived in, but compared to the Gospel itself.

steps aside extrapolated from the Letters of the "School of Paul," we consider only those related to genuine letters, which are: Letter to the Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Letter to the Philippians and Romans.
begin with an invitation to read the writings of Paul with a spirit free from critical and apologetic intent, because such statements as "the concepts of Paul all reside in the ancient Testament "means nothing less than to misunderstand the Pauline theology and Christology. Paul, writing to the Romans, says, "you are no longer subject to the law, but to grace" (Romans 6:14), and Galatians, "... the works of the law shall not be justified" (Gal. 2, 16), or "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, he having made a curse for us ..." (Gal. 3, 13).

There is only one step in the entire New Testament in which Jesus says (or an author's New Testament does say) the exclusion of women from the priesthood. It makes no sense to lean against the tradition of the Church to endorse a belief, a dogma that is based on practices that took off from the third century (and then three centuries after Jesus), since it is now accepted by all scholars and the more progressive Christians themselves that much of the tradition of the Church dates back the Gospel, and indeed in many ways incompatible with it.
Jesus would never have ordered such a precept for a number of reasons:

1. He has never created any male priesthood as opposed to the priestly class of the temple of Jerusalem, as did the Essenes of Qumran, where the temple priests were impure, then illegal. Even the stracitato group of "Twelve Apostles ", considered the model of the church hierarchy, it seems there has never been in the priestly vestment that was ascribed to the rear, the only one to mention the word Apostolos (in greek" the one that goes on, before ') as the title of "Twelve," in Luke is Luke. 6.13 and that title has no religious connotation. The apostles were the ones that preceded Jesus in the villages where he preached the good news. The fact that Jesus has entrusted only to men the message of Good News in the villages of Palestine is simply explained by a practical reason: for women at that time was dangerous to travel miles of road by itself, could be attacked at any time, also, the Jews, very traditional in terms of teaching, would never accept the preaching of a female person. Nevertheless, Jesus encouraged women to convey the good news, ears for a real change in social mores and a breach of the taboo imposed by tradition, which was first starting his faithful disciples. If his disciples after his death, have not been able to go beyond the traditional means that have implemented 100% the message of their master.

2. Jesus never set up a clergy as it has been gradually established in the first three centuries of the Christian era. When, in Mt from 6.5 to 6 states that "when you pray do not be like the hypocrites who love to pray standing in synagogues and at street corners to be noticed by men ... But thou, when you pray, go into your room and , shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret ... "does nothing but reveal the same passing of the priesthood as a sacred institution tied to a place of worship. For Jesus there is no need of the figure of the priest, understood as a mediator between God and the common man's prayer, the high point of communication between man and his Creator, can be direct and not mediated by 'intercession of the priest, charge of the administration of the cult. Nothing was more radical than this in his ad.

3. It follows that if Jesus never talked about women priests or, even less, of male priesthood, it is because he has never crossed my mind to create one, and that the issue of admission / exclusion of women from the priesthood is not placed at all for the Son of God The reason for this apparent "indifference" is very easy to be found in the Gospels:

"Believe me woman, now is the time when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem worship the Father. You worship what you do not know, we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the time comes, even now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth . "(Matthew 21-24).

lapidary sentence that "The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how he may please the Lord, but the married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife (I Cor. 7.32) have provided Church to the theological argument for justifying the creation of celibacy with the fact that the unmarried have more time to devote to God
Sure, you can not expect that the thought of a jew, Paul of Tarsus from the diaspora, who lived in the century. AD, with the religious ideas a bit 'confused, and in addition in accordance with the smell of deceit the emissaries of James, is consistent in the field of gender equality to that of the Son of God, which for Catholics is the second person of the Trinity. But it remains the claim, by some, ignorant of the Gospel - the real one preached by Jesus - that the thought of Saul of Tarsus descend directly from the alleged provisions that would have given Jesus to his disciples, or even resulting from a personal revelation that Christ would be devoted to Paul, this, with all due respect to believers of the Catholic confession, it seems a nonsense that in addition to offend common sense, also offends God Unless you consider Saul of Tarsus as infallible as the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ...

Anyway, back to more serious things than the infallibility of the Vicar of Christ, the point is not the historical context of certain precepts Pauline called into question by some to interpret correctly some ambiguous passages of his letters. The point is taken as an article of faith all that Saul had given to the communities founded by him in the first century AD is equivalent to distort the Gospel in some of its most innovative and revolutionary, those that explicitly break not only with the Jewish tradition and, specifically, with the Law, but also with all the cultural systems steeped in misogyny and discrimination of the 'other', where "other" means all those marginalized in the ancient world: women, slaves, barbarians, lepers, mentally ill, prostitutes, etc.. E 'Paul of Tarsus who commands his followers, in one of his flights of fancy more negative "... not to have relationships with those who bear the name of his brother, was fornicator or drunkard, thief, slanderer, greedy, idolater. With people like you do not even take food together "(1 Cor. 5.11). I do not know that Jesus never avoided frequent misunderstandings, and indeed often gave scandal eating with "publicans and sinners," so as to arouse the disapproval of his closest disciples of the Pharisees legalistic aversion. Jesus replied to criticism of his opponents that "the doctor came for the sick, not the healthy" and that "the publicans and prostitutes will precede the kingdom of heaven."

At this point a question arises: is fine that Paul most likely has never met Jesus during his earthly life, but then, as the Gospel has ever received? Certainly not the one preached by Jesus! In some of his attitudes Paul still seems very attached to Pharisaic tradition rather than inspired by the good news. More than a impostor is the figure of schizophrenic : first writes that "you are all one in Christ Jesus" then preaches social isolation for the "different", and more for the "brothers" different, that is, those who belong to the community Christian! I do not think Saul follow the letter of the most important commandment given by Jesus: Love your neighbor as yourself. Yet the commandment Jesus has put into practice in all its actions until the crucifixion. When you are sandwiched between adultery and stoning him, the risk of being stoned, or when he healed the lepers that fell on the social segregation imposed by Leviticus, or when he discussed with the Samaritan woman, a woman and more heretical, and entrusted the announcement of the coming of the Messiah in his village, he certainly did the Father's will, not the will of Saul.
So I can understand the concern of Catholics to defend the reputation of Saul by the attacks of his dettratori. But I can not pretend that in the authentic letters of Saul there are inconsistencies and incompatibilities than the announcement of the Nazarene. Highlighting does not mean worse or do not contextualize the anti-Catholic propaganda.

That said, the battle continued for many women to obtain the opening of celibacy to the female sex does not see me as a participant in I am convinced, and this is supported by many passages of Scripture, that Jesus' intention was not to build on new foundations, a new priestly class in contrast to the Sadducees who referred to the temple, but on the contrary, to abolish altogether. For him, in fact, the house of the Lord was not a stone building but - and in this he was truly revolutionary - the temple was replaced with the his body, that is, with constantly putting his words into practice .

Gnostic

Ways Of Congratulating Pregnancy

Lc. 18, 10-14: Scàndalon and Agape

The Pharisee and the Publican

In this parable is the theme of justification and, more generally, the issue of relationship with others. In the collective Jewish
the Pharisee represents purity observance of moral law and transparency, the public, by contrast, the morally compromised by the exercise of a profession unholy and impure. This is the classic confrontation focused on the purity / impurity governing the relations between members of the Jewish community in Jesus' time any religious system of sustaining life creates duality, good / evil, pure / impure, circumcised / uncircumcised etc., and Israel is no exception to this rule, indeed, Israel is founded on duality and separation.

There is a beautiful essay, always topical, social anthropologist Mary Douglas , Purity and Danger , in which to question the ancestral fear of dissolving the specificity of biblical Israel as chosen people. The obsession with the Jews for ritual purity and differentiation resulting in the formation of Leviticus, that system of legal requirements so restrictive fanatically idolized by the Jews shared by Jesus as it was considered unnecessary for the preparation of the Kingdom of heaven.

What differentiates the figure of the Pharisee than the Publican is not his position towards the law and to God, but the location to the next: the first shows to have a dismissive attitude and superior to public sinners, the other , aware of his shortcomings, will humble themselves and ask God's forgiveness, it is considered the last of the last.
The Pharisee is the epitome of skandalon , the public penance of the quintessential ' · ga'pe , love of neighbor.

I make a brief digression on the meaning of the Greek word skandalon . skandalon is generally translated as "scandal", "trap", "trap" placed along the path. The word and the derived verb skandalizo, "causing scandal," are the root Skazi, meaning "lame." In the Gospels we are a group of texts centered on the notion of skandalon and under which the only plausible meaning of scandal is as follows: alienation from oneself, the temptation that moves the disciple of Christ from the kingdom of heaven and therefore the opposite of love in the Christian sense, "Whoever loves his brother lives in the light and in him there is no scandal. But who hates his brother lives and walk in darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes. " (1 John 2: 10-11). What then is the
skandalon quite human in the sense of human error, it reveals another fundamental text of the Gospel, Matthew 16, 22-23, in which Peter reacts shocked the announcement by Jesus, the passion, "Peter, trattolo him, began to rebuke him, saying: "God forbid, Lord! No, this never happen to you! "But he turned and said to Peter, 'Go away from me, Satan! You are my obstacle, because your thoughts are not those of God, but those of men. " Although Jesus instructs his disciples on the nature of skandalon (John 16.1 "I have said these things to protect from scandal"), Peter is shocked by the revelation of the passion, because for him the passion that can not be a scandal, like the Pharisee perfectionist is scandalized by the presence in the Temple publish the hardened sinner. The

skandalon , we said, is the negation of agape . In the episode of the Pharisee and the publican is the exemplification of the judge who tries to escape the view that expresses on the other: "Do not judge, lest you be judged, because with the trial judge with whom you will be judged, and with the measure which will be measured measured. Why look at the speck in your brother, but you can not see the plank in your own eye? "(Mt. 7.1 to 3). This text shows very well how controversial they are always the hypocrites, the "lame," those who believe they get away with exposing the hypocrisy of others. With the skandalon perpetuated endlessly spiraling double : fair / unfair, according to the law / profane, and for this reason that Jesus seeks to break the circularity of the dualisms enshrined in the Act (which, again, today in religious institutions like the Catholic Church), to the point of putting himself outside the community and to be put to death as a blasphemer?

Or is it not true that the Church bases its existence on the duality clergy / base of the faithful? The church hierarchy is considered a rung above the common believers. And here is the symbolism of the pyramid : down offenders, the profane, the sinners, above the spiritual elite, the clergy impeccable, infallible, untouchable.

Holders of clerical power should draw the following lessons from this parable: the over-confidence in his own immortality (in the infallibility and arbitrarily assigned to the vicar of Christ) apodictically postulated, is not a justification before God This idea, in fact, as stated in the opening words of the parable (told this parable to some who assumed to be righteous and despised others "), is nothing less than a presumption, since the ' only truth and that man, beyond the faith and personal actions, is a sinner and that the true dichotomy is not between sinners and sinners, but rather between sinners are not justified (category represented by the Pharisee presumptuous) and sinners justified . The dividing line between the two categories human types is the acceptance of their condition before God as a sinner, according to the famous reversal of values: "Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
Infallibility and the Christian faith can not coexist, because one is the negation of the other, the rise in the chair is opposed to giving service to others. In fact, the Old Testament skandalon , the stumbling block for excellence, is the ' idolatry, that despite popular belief, is not only the worship of idols, but worship of self-sufficiency of its ego or, conversely, worship of the satanic power (cf. Mt 4, 6-10), the power that opposes God, He denies it and replace it. Satan is not only the prince of this world dominated by selfishness and violence, but also the prince of disorder, the scandal that arose ever across on our way to thwart our efforts toward the kingdom of heaven.

You can not shut up the scandal for the Jewish society of that time was the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes that by overthrowing the existing order, announcing the coming of the Kingdom of God and Jesus were both a danger a subversive who had placed outside the group, to remove as soon as possible? (Cf. Lk. 4.28 to 30). Oh yes, because he was not a Messiah by the powerful, of the establishment politico-religious gave scandal, the same way today for the Vatican is a cause for scandal that some believers will not submit to his authority, the Catechism of the death of Christianity and consciousness. Recently, there was a news item that has caused uproar in the Vatican hierarchy, a dangerous precedent to be sealed, a young girl during a catechism lesson banner of homophobia, dared to challenge the bishop, who had just finished to educate those present on the need to keep gays out of the Church, saying openly that you think " is not right." All hell broke loose: the anti-Christian bishop has been silenced by giving the girl the "silly", parents were asked to keep an eye on the girl and the other comrades who have defense, actually a real diplomatic incident. I do have a question, and there I can to you: Who do you think has more scandal (in the sense of alienation from the love explained above), the girl or the bishop intolerant?

Gnostic

Colon Cancer Undigested Food

We All Saints!

Saturday, August 11 the daily La Stampa has published an interview with Vittorio Messori , the Messiah of the grid cattoconservatore journalists, as well as flagship publications Vatican's most fiercely extremist on hot topics such as PACS, abortion etc..
The content of this interview is nothing short of scandalous, bundled up as the prejudices and stereotypes made in Vatican, however, taken to extremes dell'autoassoluzione than pedophilia in cassock. In short, the usual interview-rejection at the terminus of a Catholic intellectual, whose efforts, despite the aging and the derivative intellectual mold, do not cease to pour on the pages of national newspapers that serve as the caste clericoltranzista stool and the train of political baciapile, Apples and Sircana in the front row.

analyze, therefore, the depth of the duct Vatican.

Our pennivendolo begins with a sentence of shock, than to frame a future memory of the shambles of this country's intellectual Paraculo.

"A man of the Church does good and sometimes fall into temptation? So what? If so for Don Pierino Gelmini, if every time he touched some of these guys, but boy he had saved thousands, and then ?

So tell me, dear popularizer of the good news of impunity and the jackals!

First. Vittorio from Sassuolo believes that faith is a penalty point: a point of doing charity here, a point beyond any saving from self-doped ... and then acquires a bonus "to pedophilia .... Then it matters little if the public image of the savior of the moment, as Don Gelmini , both from the private ... slightly differ from these matters is the public respectability, acclaim of the masses and media coverage. Now, I wonder - I did not even ask really, because Messori is not a fool - if Messori from Sassuolo is aware of intrepid companies archangel Gelmini. His hagiography is full of twists worthy of a celebrity, of persecution by the judiciary, of slander and provocation ... a true precursor of nano Arcore clerical sauce ... that coupled with reflectors! To hagiographic commentary: pluripregiudicato (arrested three times, the first of fraudulent bankruptcy, the second extradited to Italy from South Vietnam, for having defrauded the widow of President Diem, the third for corruption), arcifamoso for his harmless "temptations" ( so harmless that the prison where he is serving a sentence of four years often kept him in solitary confinement for not taking the risk that put their hands on the other prisoners), Nawab of a thousand and one night (in the seventies turned to Rome with a Jaguar and was owner of several companies in Latin America). A true saint before his time! According

. Messori probably is not in full possession of his mental faculties (the Vatican should commission a psychiatric report), if boldly claims that the harassment suffered by some drogatello worth all the lives that Gelmini has saved over the years. What's more, what harm would be to sexually molest children already disadvantaged and mentally unstable? Nothing! Should we kiss their elbows for the good that Don Gelmini has done to society and do not spit judgments radical passerby just because the redeemer of drug addicts is given to some peccadillo. Basically

"These stories are the recognition of human weakness that is part of the greatness of the Gospel. Jesus says he has not come for the healthy but for sinners. "

Unfortunately Messori, it is believed that a great communicator of the Gospel, misunderstood texts that condemn the sin of pedophilia, putting even murder.
Here is the passage: "Who scandalize one of these little ones which believe in me, it's better for him that is tied a millstone around his neck and fell on his sea" (Mt. 9.42). Got it, Victor? For criminals who harm the young, the defenseless, like junkies don Gelmini, Jesus calls for suicide, or the cutting off of hands, just to stay on the subject of "prohibited touching". And then, shut the Gospel of exploit for your vulgar moral standards! It 's true that Jesus came for the sick, but it is equally true that he condemned sin against the person. When he met with the sinners, not condemning them but invited them to repent and sin no more! Faith is not a prize collection, is a radical adherence to the Gospel , this becomes even more odious hypocrisy with which the Pharisees of today pontificating on the moral conduct of other ad hoc inventing new sins (like homosexuality ) and then in the private giving to the excesses and "deviance."

Thirdly, how dare the Messori to equate homosexuality and pedophilia, characterizing both as sexual deviancy? Perhaps does not know the difference between abuse and consent? Homosexuality is a relationship between two individuals (not age) will. Pedophilia is a violence instead of an individual to another individual does not consent. Come on, we want to go Neanderthal era, once and for all?

"And 'the realism of the Church: there are those who do not know to stop before the spaghetti amatriciana, if you can not avoid making the whore and who, without having sought him, he drives homosexuals. And then on what basis the human justice sanctifies demonize pedophilia and homosexuality? "

Based on the concept of good and evil, which completely escapes Messori, he Death is the "divine" common sinners, and the redeemer of pedophiles that are also good. Expose the concept better. If I eat a platter of spaghetti amatriciana or a bowl of ice cream do not hurt anybody, except maybe to myself because the food swallowed is high in fat and sugar that are not just good for my body. Take the case of Apple and his night of madness: the fact that Apple has spent a night with two rings, unbeknownst to the family, should not be a cause of scandal to the public (in fact which are quanro privacy Member of Parliament), but the fact that the drug has passed the girls and then failed to rescue one of them, but this falls within the concept of evil, because that gesture reckless Mele has endangered the life of a person. Anyone can have a personal vision of sin, and consider homosexuality as frequenting prostitutes and a sinful act, but must separate the concept of sin from that of Evil. If the charges against Don Gelmini prove unfounded, he would not only have committed a sin in the Christian sense, but would have harmed people, therefore, should be pursued by human justice. It seems so elementary a concept to understand, that there can only Vittorio Messori, a demonstration of his intellectual poverty , As well as its bad faith as a Christian .

Our continued: "The Church has always known that seminaries and monasteries attract homosexuals. Before he was very careful to place barriers and supervise the training. Who showed gay tendencies were put out. Then no discrimination has allowed the entry into force of homosexuals and the Church now pays quell'imprudenza.

You read that right? Homosexuals are at the root of preto-pedophilia. Of course! Messori not know, or pretends not to know that the basic input in the workshops of the boys is not morally irreproachable decline in vocations, so it was necessary to fill vacancies with people with mental illness. As the Marine Corps, the Church is not so much for the subtle in terms of followers.
to say: "Better a church with a pedophile priest without a shepherd." But homosexuality has nothing to do! Homosexuality is not synonymous with pedophile. Since the actual problem is the temptation, the "disordered sexuality", why not prevent entry into the workshops to those who show heterosexual tendencies? The child sex abuse of girls and even young girls. Or why not make the preventive castration? Or better yet, why not give candidates priests a normal sexual life, and those who persist in sexual disorders excommunication and the court complaint Messori ... but why is not ejected from the register of journalists for the atrocities he says, proving he does not understand poker emerita of psychology and sociology and, much more serious, as Christian is lacking the gift of mercy? Why not start to take drugs, and to be accommodated by the community of Don Gelmini, so it can receive the charitable collection of Don and experience the holiness, since, as he claims, " holiness is absolutely compatible with a sexually disordered life ?