T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I have actually made quite a few statements about the charism of infallibility, which is NOT limited simply to the Pope teaching infallibly when it comes to matters of faith and morals.
- Status
R
RICKY_RASPER
Guest
While there is a large body of scripture and tradition that points to the will of God being opposed to the ordination of women priests. The opposite is true when it comes to women deacons. The early church was full of such women. At what point was this expression of godly work taken from them?
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
At least you admit (now) that the Catholic Church reserves the right to teach infallibly on anything and everything.
L
Lochias
Guest
Catholics choose to live their lives in a Catholic way. We appreciate the rules and guidelines that the Church sets forth for us, so that we CAN LIVE IN A CATHOLIC WAY.
What in the world is your point? Did someone wizz in your cornflakes this morning?
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Not that I’m aware of.
Do you have any other juvenile comments you would like to make?
N
nickybr38
Guest
I have to agree that comment was kind of crossing a line.
Angry - for someone who is angry you manage to maintain your cool. Good for you.
But I suggest you change your name to: MakesPeopleAngryAtheist.
I
Ignats75
Guest
Well, without getting into the vernacular, I too wonder what A/A’s point is. It appears to me hat he smugly misses the point
L
Lochias
Guest
Nope, just matching the tone you’ve held through most of this thread. Not very pleasant, is it?
L
Lochias
Guest
I have to agree that comment was kind of crossing a line.
Angry - for someone who is angry you manage to maintain your cool. Good for you.
If this thread has been indicative of him maintaining his cool, I’d hate to see him when he becomes ReallyAngryAtheist.
L
Lochias
Guest
Agreed. Emphasis on the “smugly.” I dearly, dearly hate being talked down to like a wayward pup or an 8-year old child by someone who has, at best, a woefully tenuous grip on the information at hand.
N
nickybr38
Guest
I’ve dealt with ReallyAngryAtheists… he doesn’t even come close.
Compared to most atheists I’ve talked to he’s a sweet little puppy nipping at our heels. And I mean that in all teasing!Personal attacks are really not necessary in any discussion though. I haven’t read all the responses on this thread (quite frankly I found topics that interested more and moved on) but in my discussions with AA he has never really stooped to personal attacks.
L
Lochias
Guest
Well, would that we all had your forbearance.I’ve dealt with ReallyAngryAtheists… he doesn’t even come close.
Personal attacks are really not necessary in any discussion though. I haven’t read all the responses on this thread (quite frankly I found topics that interested more and moved on) but in my discussions with AA he has never really stooped to personal attacks.
I, personally, am sick and tired of seeing my faith become a dumping ground for every person out there with an illogical, ill-thought, inarticulate and uneducated axe to grind. If they don’t like the heat, they are more than welcome to go bug someone else’s kitchen.
N
nickybr38
Guest
I’m sure they’re just as tired of feeling as if they’re being governed and controlled by our morality.Well, would that we all had your forbearance.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Excuse me? That is not what I said. You know I am getting really, really tired of you putting words in my mouth that I never said.
I know I have mentioned it before.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to phrase this, as Alex Trebek might say, “in the form of a question.”
I’ll do it for YOU.
Are you, AA, being unsure of what I said, thinking that I said “At least. . .the Catholic Church reserves the right to teach infallibly on anything and everything?”
And now I’ll answer. No, AA, that is not what I said. I said the charism of infallibility is not limited to the Pope speaking on matters of faith and morals.
YOU seem to believe that means infallibility is something the Catholic Church claims to teach on ‘everything and anything’. But that is not what infallibility is. And it’s not what I said.****
Now, when you read this post of mine, and respond as I am sure you will, please do so in the form of a ‘question’ when you ‘think’ that you have heard me say something. That way I will be able to respond with a yes or a no.
Thank you.
L
Lochias
Guest
Whatever. I suspect you and I do not see eye to eye on this particular matter, so I’m letting it drop.I’m sure they’re just as tired of feeling as if they’re being governed and controlled by our morality.
R
RobbyS
Guest
Beg pardon? The Church has the right to address any issue, but only on the basis of the deposit of faith. The USCCB says a lot about politics, but it doesn’t get that right more often than not. Where it does is where the policies are clearly inconsistent with the Gospel.
M
mtngal25
Guest
Many people don’t understand that women “ministers” or deaconesses were not of the ordained type. They served the church by giving the use of their homes for worship, or serving meals, helping the poor, helping the sick, helping with women’s preparation for baptism, etc. They did not do priestly liturgical activities. Some may have taught or spoken to a group but did not get ordained as priests. The episcopal church has or had deaconesses and they were like nuns. They even dressed like them, were celebate, and helped out in serving the church. They did not serve at the altar. There were no nuns yet in the early church, so deaconesses were like nuns and they were dedicated to the church in serving it as nuns would.
One has to realize that as the church grew and expanded, religious orders were founded and steps to the priesthood were formed, like porter, lector, acolyte, subdeacon, deacon, and priest. Deaconesses sort of faded out as religious orders took over many of the charitable activities and serving the church. Only men were in the roles in seminary training in the steps to the priesthood as mentioned before. Some women who may have been deaconesses in the early church became nuns later as things progressed on in time. Women have always had a chance to serve in the church in many ways.
One has to realize that as the church grew and expanded, religious orders were founded and steps to the priesthood were formed, like porter, lector, acolyte, subdeacon, deacon, and priest. Deaconesses sort of faded out as religious orders took over many of the charitable activities and serving the church. Only men were in the roles in seminary training in the steps to the priesthood as mentioned before. Some women who may have been deaconesses in the early church became nuns later as things progressed on in time. Women have always had a chance to serve in the church in many ways.
L
Lochias
Guest
Good post, very good post indeed. Thank you.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
If America (I’m assuming AA is American) is being governed and controlled by Catholic morality, then, boy… I must have missed the new Catechism!I’m sure they’re just as tired of feeling as if they’re being governed and controlled by our morality.
All joking aside though, I’m with Lochias on this one. There’s a lot of minimally-polite hostility on these forums.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Whether Angry is rude OR tolerant and the Catholics on this thread have been rude OR tolerant, I am staying out of that discussion, except to say this:If America (I’m assuming AA is American) is being governed and controlled by Catholic morality, then, boy… I must have missed the new Catechism!
All joking aside though, I’m with Lochias on this one. There’s a lot of minimally-polite hostility on these forums.
Atheists, in general, living in our Judeo-Christian society, have reaped the benefits of the Christian ethos yet, selfishly, peculiarly and dishonestly, have refused to give Christianity its due respect.
Christian apologist Dinesh D’souza says something like, “Atheists have been parasites on the backs of Christianity, but refuse to acknowledge that it is ONLY because of Christians that they have received justice, compassion and charity.”
The picture that has been painted on this thread limns my point quite well: it is thanks to Christians that an atheist is being protected and supported here.
Think about the converse scene: image a Christian going to an Atheist forum and being a bit rancorous, provocative, and offering minimally polite hostility on the thread. ***Do you think there would be a single atheist who would come to the succor of this lone Christian?
:nope:
Not a one, is my guess. Why? Because it’s not part of the atheistic ethos to offer charity when it is not deserved.
But, thanks to the Christian ethos, AngryAtheist has been offered succor.
And, if he’s going to be a man of integrity, he ought to acknowledge it, be grateful for it, and let it penetrate his heart into imagining what the world would be like without Christians who come to his aid.
Just sayin’.
- Status