Ramanisblog

Tag: Christianity

  • Why No Woman Pope?

    There has been no woman Pope  in the History of The Catholic Church.

    Christianity is touted to be a religion which treats every one equally, it is its USP.

    But no woman?

    Pope Joan.
    Pope Joan.

    There is also the controversy that Jesus Christ had left Christianity in the hands of Mary Magdalene.

    Why are women not allowed and what is so unique in Men ?

    In Hinduism, right from the Vedic Ages, there have been  many Rishis, like Gargi to Modern ‘Amma(Ma Anandmayi)’

     

    ” There has never been a female pope. There is a myth about a Pope Joan that in recent times has been revived, but which has been clearly rebutted by scholars.

    Wikipedia has a good outline of the Pope Joan myth here:

    – Roman Catholic Answer

    The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, if he is not a Bishop when elected to the Papacy, he is tonsured, ordained a lector, then an acolyte, then a deacon, then a priest, and finally consecrated a bishop. Up until the ninth century, bishops were never elected popes as bishops never moved out of their diocese. Regardless, he is always a bishop, and only a man can be consecrated a bishop, so, no, there has never been a female pope.

    – In the legend she was supposed to have been very talented, and, disguised as a man, to have risen through the church hierarchy to become pope, sometime in the Middle Ages.
    It has been a popular story since the thirteenth century, but no one has ever found any reason to believe it actually happened.
    Since there have always been women who felt they were really men, it is most likely that one was unmasked trying to become a priest. This would have started a rash of ‘what if she hadn’t been discovered’ stories, culminating in the Pope Joan myth.(wiki answers)

    Ordaining of Woman in Catholic Church.

    As more Protestant denominations, including the Church of England, have begun ordaining women, the Catholic Church’s teaching on the all-male priesthood has come under attack, with some claiming that the ordination of women is simply a matter of justice, and the lack of such ordination is proof that the Catholic Church does not value women. The Church’s teaching on this matter, however, cannot change. Why can’t women be priests?

    Answer:

    In the Person of Christ the Head

    At the most basic level, the answer to the question is simple: The New Testament priesthood is the priesthood of Christ Himself. All men who, through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, have become priests (or bishops) participate in Christ’s priesthood. And they participate in it in a very special way: They actin persona Christi Capitis, in the person of Christ, the Head of His Body, the Church.

    Christ Was a Man

    Christ, of course, was a man; but some who argue for the ordination of women insist that His sex is irrelevant, that a woman can act in the person of Christ as well as a man can. This is a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on the differences between men and women, which the Church insists are irreducible; men and women, by their natures, are suited to different, yet complementary, roles and functions.

    The Tradition Established by Christ Himself

    Yet even if we disregard the differences between the sexes, as many advocates of women’s ordination do, we have to face the fact that the ordination of men is an unbroken tradition that goes back not only to the Apostles but to Christ Himself. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (para. 1577) states:

    “Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.” The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.

    Priesthood Not a Function But an Indelible Spiritual Character

    Still, the argument continues, some traditions are made to be broken. But again, that misunderstands the nature of the priesthood. Ordination does not simply give a man permission to perform the functions of a priest; it imparts to him an indelible (permanent) spiritual character that makes him a priest, and since Christ and His Apostles chose only men to be priests, only men can validly become priests.

    The Impossibility of Women’s Ordination

    In other words, it’s not simply that the Catholic Church does not allow women to be ordained. If a validly ordained bishop were to perform the rite of the Sacrament of Holy Orders exactly, but the person supposedly being ordained were a woman rather than a man, the woman would no more be a priest at the end of the rite than she was before it began. The bishop’s action in attempting the ordination of a woman would be both illicit (against the laws and regulations of the Church) and invalid (ineffective, and hence null and void).

    The movement for women’s ordination in the Catholic Church, therefore, will never get anywhere. Other Christian denominations, to justify ordaining women, have had to change their understanding of the nature of the priesthood from one which conveys an indelible spiritual character on the man who is ordained to one in which the priesthood is treated as a mere function. But to abandon the 2,000-year-old understanding of the nature of the priesthood would be a doctrinal change. The Catholic Church could not do so and remain the Catholic Church.

    http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/f/Women_Priests.htm

     

     

  • ‘The Choosing Of A Pope’ Cardinals Conclave Live

    Now the process of selecting Pope by a Conclave of Cardinals(115 in number this time) to select a successor to Pope  Benedict XV who resigned.

    The Conclave is  in progress and  watch Live the Conclave.

    Black Smoke Vatican, Indicates Pope is yet to be chosen.
    Black Smoke Vatican, Indicates Pope is yet to be chosen.

    Here’s a summary of today’s events.

    The Conclave to Elect The Pope.
    The Conclave to Elect The Pope.

    • Some 115 cardinals have begun their conclave to choose the next pope. A puff of black smoke from the chimney above the Sistine Chapel this evening signalled that the cardinals had not yet come to a decision. They will now retire to the isolation of St Martha’s House, within the Vatican walls, and reconvene tomorrow morning at 8.30am GMT for more deliberations. They are expected to choose a new pope within the next couple of days.

    • The favourite remains Cardinal Angelo Scola of Milan, with Cardinal Odilo Pedro Scherer in second place. But in truth no figure goes into the conclave with the kind of strong prospects Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had when he became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005.

  • Mother Teresa Blog,Comment, Origin of The Bible.

    For my post ‘Mother Teresa, No Saint, Glorified Suffering Media Creation, I received a comment and i have sent a reply.

    I felt that the reply can be posted as a Blog for others also to know the story behind The Bible and the Role of Constantine.

    Emperor Constantine
    Emperor Constantine
    Eastern Orthodox icon depicting the First Council of Nicea
    Eastern Orthodox icon depicting the First Council of Nicea
    “hi,
    Thank you for your comments.
    My comment on the subject is based  on
    1.That the bible was compiled and not revealed ;
    2.It was compiled by Constantine after calling for a Conclave of Cardinals.
    3.They were asked to choose among some three hundred versions of the Life and preaching of Christ..
    4.Constantine chose one Text it would keep his regime in tact , in the wake of protests in his regime..
    He also wanted a temporal authority to control this Religion and ensured that he created one that would support the Regime.
    This is the origin of papacy.
    Now, why one should go by this ‘Beatification’ by a body is ,fist of all , Political by Nature?
    Mother Teresa is one who is by The Church and she was involved in Conversions and the medical Miracles are not.miracles?
    Kindly refer my posts on Christianity for more on Christianity.

    —

    Ref:Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted 220,[19] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[20] and Eustathius of Antioch counted 270[21] (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,[22] and Evagrius,[23] Hilary of Poitiers,[24] Jerome[25] and Rufinus recorded 318. Delegates came from every region of the Roman Empire except Britain. In Ethiopic Christian literature including both theFetha Negest and the Kibre Negest, the First Council of Nicea (Niqya) is traditionally referred to as “the three hundred and eighteen Orthodox Fathers”.

    The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council, as well as lodging. These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him two priests and three deacons; so the total number of attendees could have been above 1800. Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons and acolytes.

    A special prominence was also attached to this council because the persecution of Christians had just ended with the Edict of Milan, issued in February of AD 313 by Emperors Constantine and Licinius.

    The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the three patriarchs: Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Many of the assembled fathers—for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea and Paul of Neocaesarea—had stood forth as confessors of the faith and came to the council with the marks of persecution on their faces. This position is supported by patristic scholar Timothy Barnes in his book Constantine and Eusebius.[26] Historically, the influence of these marred confessors has been seen as substantial, but recent scholarship has called this into question.[27]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

    According to Professor John Crossan of Biblical Studies at DePaul University the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), (a bust of Constantine is pictured below) who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered “holy” and thus “the word of God” and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God.

    http://www.deism.com/bibleorigins.htm

    * The Comment may be seen on Mother Theresa post by me.

    Related articles

  • ‘Mother Teresa’ No Saint, Glorified Suffering,Media Creation

    I am of the view that Mother Teresa is a creature appointed by The Vatican to proselytize , promoted by the Media in a slick manner and swallowed hook line and sinker by the gullible

    Mother Teresa’s Mission was to convert.  people of other faith to Christianity, making use of the economic backwardness and poor health of the People.

    Note Teresa’s concentration on the North Eastern parts of India and her popular Office is in Kolkata with easy access to the North east of India.

    I have been told by  people whom I met ( of Her Order) that she used to ill-treat the patients , had tantrums thrown in private but in Public she was the personification of Sobriety and ,Piety and concern for the sufferings of the Poor while she glorified ‘Suffering’ in private.

    This has been confirmed by a Study by a Canadian Group.

    Also it is worth remembering how she was ‘beatified’ by The Vatican even when thee were murmurs against it.

    I have always looked down on ‘beatifying’ people by The Church!’

    How an Institution which earmarks billions of Dollars for religious Conversion, goes about the task of converting people and setting targets for Conversion can ‘beatify’ if not as an incentive for future people to convert more.

    Please read my post on the spending of Money by the Vatican.

    Now Read on.

    Mother Teresa
    Mother Teresa

    A study conducted by Canadian researchers has called Mother Teresa “anything but a saint”, a creation of an orchestrated and effective media campaign who was generous with her prayers but miserly with her foundation’s millions when it came to humanity’s suffering.

    The controversial study, to be published this month in the journal of studies in religion/sciences called Religieuses, says that Teresa — known across the world as the apostle of the dying and the downtrodden — actually felt it was beautiful to see the poor suffer.

    According to the study, the Vatican overlooked the crucial human side of Teresa — her dubious way of caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it.

    Instead, the Vatican went ahead with her beatification followed by canonization “to revitalize the Church and inspire the faithful especially at a time when churches are empty and the Roman authority is in decline”.

    Researchers Serge Larivee and Genevieve Chenard from the University of Montreal‘s department of psychoeducation, and Carole Senechal of the University of Ottawa’s faculty of education, analysed published writings about Mother Teresa and concluded that her hallowed image, “which does not stand up to analysis of the facts, was constructed, and that her beatification was orchestrated by an effective media campaign”.

    According to Larivee, facts debunk Teresa’s myth. He says that the Vatican, before deciding on Teresa’s beatification, did not take into account “her rather dubious way of caring for the sick, her questionable political contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views regarding … abortion, contraception, and divorce.”

    At the time of her death, Teresa had 517 missions or “homes for the dying” as described by doctors visiting several of these establishments in Kolkata. They welcomed the poor and sick in more than 100 countries. Two-thirds of the people coming to these missions hoped to a find a doctor to treat them, while the other third lay dying without receiving apt care.

     http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/Mother-Teresa-saint-of-the-media-controversial-study-says/articleshow/18760028.cms

    Related:

    If a Religion is strong in its fundamentals , it does not need money to propagate it.

    One of my reader friends in a comment stated that God’s  words  needs to be propagated

    I disagree.God , if He needs propagation, He is no God.

    Religion’s strength lies  not in numbers but in the solace offered to Man.

    Fixing targets for conversion and calling ‘Age of Asia’ is anathema to Religion.

    While some religions resort to sword some resort to bribing.

    Story:

    This report is released by the Ministry of Home Affairs, GOI, & gives details
    of Contribution received by the NGO’s under the Foreign Contribution
    Regulation Act 1976:-
    1 crore (100,00,000) = 10 million (10,000,000)
    1. Highest receivers of Foreign Contribution state-wise:
    TAMIL NADU — Rs 2244 crores
    DELHI — Rs 2186 crores
    ANDHRA PRADESH — Rs 1,211 crores
    2. Highest receivers of Foreign Contribution city-wise:
    CHENNAI — Rs 928 crores
    MUMBAI — Rs 891 crores
    RANCHI — Rs 653 crores
    3. Largest Donors:
    USA — Rs 2971 crores
    GERMANY — Rs 1650 crores
    UK — Rs 1425 crores
    4. List of foreign Donors topped by:
    MISEREOR POSTFECH, GERMANY — Rs 1243 crores
    WORLD VISION INTERNATIONAL, USA — Rs 469 crores
    FUNDACION VICENTE FERRER, SPAIN — Rs 399 crores
    5. The Highest Contribution received by:
    RANCHI JESUITS RANCHI JHARKHAND — Rs 621 crores
    SONTHOME TRUST OF KALYAN NEAR MUMBAI — Rs 333 crores
    SOVERGEIN ORDER OF MALTA DELHI — Rs 301 crores
    To know more about the amounts received by the NGOs for Evangelisation
    in India, read the FCRA Report 2006-07, Ministry of Home Affairs, GOI:

    http://ramanisblog.in/2010/10/11/donations-to-missionaries-in-india/

     

    Related articles

  • How Jesus Became ‘White”

    Though I know a bit of Christianity, it never occurred to me to question why Jesus Christ is portrayed as a White, though he was from the Middle east.

    I did some search.

    First I came up with this article in Salon.

    Is Jesus White?

    The first century Jewish writer Josephus (37-100 AD) penned the earliest non-biblical testimony of Jesus. He reportedly had access to official Roman records on which he based his information and in his work Halosis or the “Capture (of Jerusalem),” written around 72 A.D., Josephus discussed “the human form of Jesus and his wonderful works.” Unfortunately his texts have passed through Christian hands which altered them, removing offensive material. Fortunately, however, Biblical scholar Robert Eisler in a classic 1931 study of Josephus’ Testimony was able to reconstruct the unaltered testimony based on a newly-discovered Old Russian translation that preserved the original Greek text. According to Eisler’s reconstruction, the oldest non-Biblical description of Jesus read as follows:

    “At that time also there appeared a certain man of magic power … if it be meet to call him a man, [whose name is Jesus], whom [certain] Greeks call a son of [a] God, but his disciples [call] the true prophet … he was a man of simple appearance, mature age, black-skinned (melagchrous), short growth, three cubits tall, hunchbacked, prognathous (lit. ‘with a long face’ [macroprosopos]), a long nose, eyebrows meeting above the nose … with scanty [curly] hair, but having a line in the middle of the head after the fashion of the Nazaraeans, with an undeveloped beard.”

    This short, black-skinned, mature, hunchbacked Jesus with a unibrow, short curly hair and undeveloped beard bears no resemblance to the Jesus Christ taken for granted today by most of the Christian world: the tall, long haired, long bearded, white-skinned and blue eyed Son of God. Yet, this earliest textual record matches well the earliest iconographic evidence.

    The earliest visual depiction of Jesus is a painting found in 1921 on a wall of the baptismal chamber of the house-church at Dura Europos, Syria and dated around 235 A.D. The Jesus that is “Healing the Paralytic Man” (Mark 2:1-12) is short and dark-skinned with a small curly afro – see below.

    Scroll down for video.

    http://fed-up-with-republicans.newsvine.com/_news/2013/02/28/17135412-how-did-jesus-and-the-hebrews-become-white

    Jesus earliest Image
    Jesus earliest Image

     

    Image Of Jesus
    Image Of Jesus

    Then I checked Wiki and I came up with this information.

    The race and appearance of Jesus have been discussed on a number of grounds since early Christianity, although the New Testament includes no description of the physical appearance of Jesus before his death and its narrative is generally indifferent to racial appearances.[1]

    Despite the lack of direct biblical or historical references, from the second century, various theories about the race of Jesus were advanced and debated.[2][3] By the Middle Ages a number of documents, generally of unknown or questionable origin, had been composed and were circulating with details of the appearance of Jesus. Now these documents are mostly considered forgeries.[4][5][6] While many people have a fixed mental image of Jesus, drawn from his artistic depictions, these images often conform to stereotypes which are not grounded in any serious research on the historical Jesus, but are based on second or third hand interpretations of spurious sources.[7]

    By the 19th century theories that Jesus was European, and in particular Aryan, were developed, as well as theories that he was of black African descent. However, as in other cases of the assignment of race to biblical individuals, these claims have been mostly subjective, based on cultural stereotypes and societal trends rather than on scientific analysis.[8] For two millennia a wide range of artistic depictions of Jesus have appeared, often influenced by cultural settings, political circumstances and theological contexts.[9][10] Beyond being Jewish, there is no general scholarly agreement on the ethnicity of Jesus.[11]

    Images of Jesus Through the Ages.
    Images of Jesus Through the Ages.