Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[AngryAtheist8]

Okay.

No doubt.

Now, to the question: do you believe that a woman who leaves a church to seek a church that conforms to her own opinions is creating a false image of her own design? yes or no?

No, she is merely seeking out something that more closely conforms to her already existing values and beliefs.

 

[PRmerger]

Not in any way, shape, matter, or form.

For instance,
The Aztec priests created their system of human sacrifice and thought that it had value.
Did that make it good?

Of course not. But they saw some good in demanding this sacrifice.

What good do Christian priests have in creating a celibate priesthood? And in creating a concept that divorce and re-marriage is sinful?

 

[Lochias]

The Church didn’t keep records during the time of the Roman persecutions:shrug:
At least not that I’m aware of.

And since they were an underground movement the Roman authorities did not have good records in their habits either.

Then your claims of Christianity demeaning women comes from where? Individual persons’ horrible actions do not affect Church teaching, and the Church has never condoned persecution of women.

 

[PRmerger]

No, she is merely seeking out something that more closely conforms to her already existing values and beliefs.

And, as such, she is creating a church in her own image.

Christians proclaim that we conform our beliefs to Christ’s.

Logic dictates, then, that our own views will need to be amended. Not that we amend Christ’s views to conform to ours.

 

[Lochias]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I hope you realize that to outsiders, that’s what it appears that Christians in general and Catholics in particular have already done

Hardly

I understand the basic premises of Catholicism, I simply see no reason to accept them.

No, clearly, you don’t understand the basic premises of Catholicism, or else you wouldn’t be saying the things you are. And, apologies, but “I see no reason to accept them” amounts to exactly squat. It’s like someone seeing no reason to accept that 2+2 = 4, and then refusing to research all the math books that prove it.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course not. But they saw some good in demanding this sacrifice.

What good do Christian priests have in creating a celibate priesthood? And in creating a concept that divorce and re-marriage is sinful?

I’m also interested in knowing what good Christian priests see in making up a concept of One God in Three Persons.

And in claiming that Mary was conceived immaculately?

 

[curlycool89]

Okay, I read the long answer. And it still doesn’t answer the question, or make sense to me.

Why would women not being able to be fathers–a person who deposits sperm is how it is defined in that post, I think?-- still preclude them from being a priest?
Male priests don’t make use of their sperm.
Jesus didn’t make use of his sperm.

Ok, lets try this. I’m going to be frank and a little graphic, but I’m tired and should be doing homework so whatever (also: I may ramble a bit).

You need to understand that it’s not just about actions, but what a person could do. In Catholic speak, what they are ordered towards doing (what they could normally do).

It does not matter whether or not they use them, but that they could use them. A man who is a priest could if he chose to go out and have sex and father a child because he has that ability to give sperm. It does not matter whether or not he does or not (emphasis on the not preferably), he could do it. A man is ordered towards doing this, whether he does or doesn’t is irrelevant.

Can you cite some sources for this, heaintheavy?

If I may say so, that’s a fair statement that heaintheavy made. There probably have been some men throughout history who have seen priesthood as more of a job or occupation. That’s why so many priests and religious left after VII, because they were told to look back at their lives as a calling to priesthood or brotherhood or sisterhood and they went into it as a job.

Just as some women feel called to marry a particular man, but it turns out that they were simply misled by their emotions.

Feeling called to do something does not necessarily imply that this calling is correct.

Hence why you always test callings through the Church. The devil’s chief tool that he uses is to tempt us by his whisperings (think Wormtongue in The Two Towers). It’s very easy to start to believe in a lie and to make that lie the basis of your life. “You’re not good enough” or “no one can ever love you” or “what if you’re wrong?” are some of the devil’s favourites.

We’re a very insecure people nowadays, even though some people claim we have been “liberated”. Because having a population so depressed that it’s affecting the fish is definitely liberated, right?

 

[Vladd]

Indeed. It’s amazing what reading some basic books on the subject of the Catholic Faith would do for many. Catholicism For Dummies is a great starting point, and many folks on here speak of it glowingly.

Well I’m no dummy and I’m not sure your aware of what I was really getting at.

 

[Vladd]

Why is this disucssion contuing? Fact: There will NEVER be a woman priest. It is not possible. The Pope himself does not have the authority to allow this. Also it is not natrual. The concept of a woman priest is like a man getting pregnant. It is not possible.

I wouldn’t exactly say the possibilities are the same as a man getting pregnant, haha.

 

[Vladd]

Perfect, perfect Post.

Now I’ll give it to you, this is a very good reply so the church will not progress ?

 

[Brendan]

I wouldn’t exactly say the possibilities are the same as a man getting pregnant, haha.

you are correct, with transplant surgery technology growing as it is, the IS a possibility of a man eventually being able to get pregnant.

Not so with the chances of women priests

 

[Brendan]

Now I’ll give it to you, this is a very good reply so the church will not progress ?

To progress means to move towards some ideal state. The Catholic Church is always progressing, towards the ideal state as defined by God.

In many cases, that differs from man’s.

 

[LilyM]

To progress means to move towards some ideal state. The Catholic Church is always progressing, towards the ideal state as defined by God.

In many cases, that differs from man’s.

True, in detail but not in essence. In essence it has already reached the zenith in possessing God Himself, come to earth in human form and remaining with us in Eucharistic form.

What significant ‘progress’ could be made beyond this? Is it not, should it not be, essentially enough and more than enough? Is not everything that has occurred since merely by way of greater depth of understanding, more explication and analysis, more consideration of how the timeless applies in different times and places?

 

[Marybeloved]

Now I’ll give it to you, this is a very good reply so the church will not progress ?

Whose definition of “progress” are we talking here? God’s or man’s? Perhaps modernism’s or secularism’s definition? Progress that contradicts God’s will is the kind that Lucifer invented and in that case, we are happy to remain in “the 3rd world” (as you put it) thank you very much!

 

[Marybeloved]

Now I’ll give it to you, this is a very good reply so the church will not progress ?

Whose definition of “progress” are we talking here? God’s or man’s? Perhaps modernism’s or secularism’s definition? “Progress” that contradicts God’s will is the kind that Lucifer invented and in that case, we are happy to remain in “the 3rd world” (as you put it) thank you very much!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Sure

Re-read what I actually posted.
I was saying that the early Churchmen came up with sayings like that because it matched what they already believed.

Really? So the Church looked for things to support what they already believed?

You’re talking about the Church which was based on a God who became incarnate, suffered, died and rose from the dead to save sinful people–not just the good ones.

NONE of these concepts jibed with what people ‘already believed’. All these concepts and more were absolutely outside the norm of matching ‘beliefs’, whether in pagan religions or even in Judaism as the Jews understood it.

But you say (without any kind of evidence to support your statement) that the Church–a persecuted group even by the Jews they considered themselves to be ‘coheirs’–in the midst of suffering and dying for Christ, latched onto teaching only the kind of ‘beliefs’ that matched what they believed.

Sorry it just doesn’t sound plausible to me.

 

[saveusfromhell]

can someone explain to me why pagan’s and atheists want women priests

 

[Splagchnizomai]

can someone explain to me why pagan’s and atheists want women priests

They need to propagate feminist dogma.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

To misquote a famous lesbian/feminist militant statement:

“The Church needs women priests like a fish needs a bicycle.”

:tiphat:

Kudos to Pope Benedict! (You watch, he’s gonna end up just as popular as his predecessor, although very different in temperament.)

 

[heaintheavy]

Well, heaintheavy, why do you allow yourself to believe something that’s not stated in the Bible (“all God’s teachings must be found in the Bible!”)
yet not afford Catholics this very same allowance?
That doesn’t seem very fair, does it? :nope:
Of course they are based on what God said.
Catholics proclaim to believe in God’s Word. ALL of God’s Word.
However, God’s Word is not contained to Sacred Scripture. In fact, Scripture says as much. (2 Thes 2:15, John 16:12-13, John 20:30)
God’s Word is contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Not sure I understand your first question…
But I can comment on the second part. How do you define sacred tradition?
Tradition is a way of doing something that is passed down through generations…but that doesn’t always mean it is the best way to do something. Two thousand years ago, it was tradition to crucify people if they were found guilty of a crime. We realize now there are more humane ways to punish a criminal.
There are many traditions in religion that are no longer followed because we re-look at them and know more now, after the passage of time, and can make wiser choices.
We have to be brave enough to change something that is not working, do we not?
So if a tradition is not working, we can’t just stick to it because we are used to it or have sentimental feelings toward it or because our parents did it…if there is a better, more logical, smarter way, to do something.
You don’t agree?