I don’t know how you read enjoyment into it. I’m just following logic:
Here a good discussion on the properties of hell:
The fact that you cannot conceive of Jesus not starting a church in order to effect his purpose is not evidence. You are of course free ot believe what you wish. In either case, the teachings of Jesus remain the same.
Actually it matters a great deal if one is attempting to discern to the best possible extent what our Lord did in fact say and what he meant. If the words were added later in the form of Gospel writings by the respective writers, and were not the words of Jesus, then yes it means Jesus did not say them. It is unlikely that we have verbatim texts of what Jesus said, since the actual writings were not written down into a present form until nearly 40 years later. Additionally, we don’t have any copies of the originals, the most original copies we have are from around 200 CE I believe. We have no idea what changes occured during that time of course. It may be that the words are exact as Jesus spoke them, but then we have 4 different versions of some events, with him saying somewhat different things, so it’s hard to imagine that all 4 gospel writers recalled EXACTLY his words. They recorded it seems the tenor of what he said and what they thought he meant. There are copies of various NT and OT documents wherein the writer warned scribes NOT to tamper with the words, so big a problem was error in those days, diliberate and otherwise.
Yes, I realize there have been three women recognized as “doctors of the church” in 2000 years. I am not “demeaning” anyone, the Church has a long history of doing that all by itself. I also realize that not a single woman has ever been directly involved in any magisterial decision of the church for the simple reason that they can’t be members of the magisterium. I also understand that some think it is perfectly ok to ignore the (name removed by moderator)ut of half the membership when discussing and making decisions that affect the spiritual life of all members and that the Spirit simply does not talk to women. From what I have seen of many of the bishops who* are* members of the magisterium, we certainly couldn’t do any worse.
SpiritMeadow, keeping the Magisterium exclusively male for 2,000 years is certainly an ingenious strategy for ensuring that all its decisions about the “revelations” communicated to it by “the Holy Spirit” will favor the continuation of an all-male Mageisterium!
Ironic you would make that statement on the Feast of the Visitation.
From the tone of the prior poster, that’s a surprise.
That is not what I said. I said that Jesus tell us in Matthew 25:41 that hell was prepared for the devil and his angels. He also condemns people to hell for their failure to feed, give water, clothe, and tend Him in the person of the poor, sick and imprisoned.
As I am neither Hitler or God, I don’t know. He’s probably in Hell, but we don’t know that for certain.
“Roman Catholicism was, according to archaeological evidence, distributed fairly widely over the planet Earth in the twentieth century. As far as the Western Hemisphere is concerned, it appears to have been characterized by a complex system of sexual taboos and rituals. Intercourse between married partners was restricted to certain limited periods determined by the calendar and the body-temperature of the female. Martian archaeologists have learned to identify the domiciles of Roman Catholics by the presence of large numbers of complicated graphs, calendars, small booklets full of figures, and quantities of broken thermometers, evidence of the great importance attached to this code. Some scholars have argued that it was merely a method of limiting the number of offspring; but as it has been conclusively proved that the Roman Catholics produced more children on the average than any other section of the community, this seems untenable. Other doctrines of the Roman Catholics included a belief in a Divine Redeemer and a life after death.”
So true. Please patg-look at Our Lady. She was humble. She was in the background, yet so important. Ask her to help you know what true femininity is. Let her be your example. You can’t go wrong.
So do you think David Lodge and your other sources know more than Jesus, Himself Who founded the Church? Why are you putting your faith in mere men and this world??
You raise this point as if you were speaking of the participation of women in government. I suppose if you look at the Church as merely a form of religious governance then your objection makes some sense. The Church of course doesn’t look at herself that way and the concept of “magisterial decisions” is foreign to her thinking. The magisterium doesn’t make decisions on what behaviors should be defined as moral or immoral. Let’s start with recognizing that point.
I’m wondering what (name removed by moderator)ut you think would be relevant in determining questions of faith and morals. The Church is not a political party or a debating society - the personal views of her members are irrelevant. Her task is to faithfully interpret the word of God handed down to her; she may not decide for herself what should or should not be allowed.
The Church believes that she is protected from serious error not by the intellectual and emotional capacities of her members but by the intercession of the holy spirit. What deficiency in the holy spirit would the presence of women make up for?
NOMAD says: Non sequitir. Your facts are uncoordinated.
Except for Muslims who eventually became the largest religious group in the world.
Wikipedia says that David Lodge “was brought up as a Catholic — though he later described himself as an agnostic Catholic”10 points to whoever gets the reference.
True. But if one considers that Jesus gave His teaching to the apostoles to be preserved and handed down through the generations, then this objection doesn’t have much relevance or value.
BuZZZZZZZ! I wasn’t referring to David Lodge, I was referring to “NOMAD: Non sequitir. Your facts are uncoordinated.”Wikipedia says that David Lodge “was brought up as a Catholic — though he later described himself as an agnostic Catholic”
That’s a pretty good description for Catholic dissenters. They’re Catholic by birth or cultural identify – and agnostic in belief.
As for the reference: David Lodge’s novel, The British Museum is Falling Down (1965)
I am up 10 points!!!
“Some historians have maintained that the disappearance, in the second half of the 21st Century, of the Genderist Cults of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries, was an inevitable consequence of their own preoccupation with population limitation and infertile, often perverse, sexual activity. More recent scholarship, however, supports the more likely view that their disappearance from the pages of history was due to the waning popularity of nihilistic philosophies generally, as improvements in the material condition of populations, following reversal of the narrowly averted Population Depression threat in the mid-21st Century, made the foundational premises of such philosophies increasingly untenable. The influence of the Catholic Church on the eventual demise of these cults is hotly debated. The Harvard Research Group has ably pointed out that an offshoot of the cultist movement, for a time, exercised influence even among some Catholics. It must be recognized, however, that the Church’s doctrinal stability during the final climactic years of the cults when the aging, but still influential, remnants of the latter finally coalesced around worship of a deity they called “Androgyna Scientist”, played a role somewhat similar to the Church’s preservation of classic knowledge during what are referred to as the “Dark Ages” in Europe, and was at least instrumental in worldwide recovery from the depopulation threat which could have been catastrophic had it continued beyond 2030. Far less certain are conclusions drawn by some from the fact that well over half the world’s population is now Catholic, is due to preservation of Catholic populations during the years preceding the Population Recession or simply due to conversion.”
With all due respect Bob, I don’t know how much plainer I can be. I am not attempting to prove anything to you. I have given you some ideas should you be interested in pursuing the matter but beyond that I’m not doing it for you. Some have already challenged me that such evidence cannot overcome the magisterium of the Church which is what they define as authority. If that is the case, then there is no reason to give you chapter and verse, since it will be rejected as “not authoritative.”