Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[nickybr38]

My point isn’t that America is run by Catholic morals but that to an Atheist it certainly seems like Christians are attempting to force their morals ON them.

We all have to be a bit more charitable when approaching each other, no matter HOW hostile the person is to us, responding in kind solves nothing.

And I agree with much of what PR said. I just think we do poorly when we stoop to name calling and badgering.

I’ve been in atheist forums. I’ve engaged them in discussion and been TORN APART. But never once have I responded in kind… because we lead by example, not just by our words.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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 kind of like that idea actually

On a more serious note…
I have noticed that most people react poorly when you challenge them back up their claims with proof.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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

And what do you think the point of this thread is?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Nope, just matching the tone you’ve held through most of this thread. Not very pleasant, is it?

I don’t mind:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, would that we all had your forbearance. 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.

This is a wonderfully contradictory post.
In the 2nd sentence you complain about people insulting your faith (while insulting them in the process).
In the 3rd sentence, you say that if people can’t take some metaphorical punishment (such as what you are complaining about) they should leave or learn to suck it up.

Bravo sir:thumbsup:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

Then what are you saying exactly?

Does the Catholic Church have limits on its supposed authority or not?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

All the more reason for women who want spiritual authority/prestige/responsibility to leave the Catholic Church.

Assuming that the above post is accurate, the Church has never had a real place for such women.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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:

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’.

I have.
For that matter I have defended Christians *on this *forum.

There are many dubious assumptions built into your post.
Perhaps the biggest is that D’Souza is any sort of objective and accurate judge of Western society.

 

[gus]

The accomplishments of Catholic women are mind boggling
from Sts;Drsof the Church: founding school systems and hospitals to the founding of the largest TV network
What other women come even close.(all by faithfully)

 

[nickybr38]

Then what are you saying exactly?

Does the Catholic Church have limits on its supposed authority or not?

Sometimes leaders of the Church speak for themselves. When they do so, they do not speak infallibly (even the Pope).

Sometimes the leaders of the Church speak FOR the Church on MORALS and FAITH. When they do this they are not speaking infallibly.

But, when the POPE, the Vicar of Christ, the leader of our Church, speaks on Morals and Faith and makes statements in certain settings (while on the seat of Peter), he speaks infallibly. This does not happen all the time! This is a very rare thing.

It is not that there are limits TO the authority but that the Church is very careful what it voices as firm truth.

We trust that God is guiding us and our leaders but on the same hand we are VERY careful with the gift He has given us.

Anyway. That’s just my take on Infallibility (the take of a newborn Catholic).

 

[Lochias]

I don’t mind:shrug:

That much is clear.

 

[Lochias]

This is a wonderfully contradictory post.
In the 2nd sentence you complain about people insulting your faith (while insulting them in the process).
In the 3rd sentence, you say that if people can’t take some metaphorical punishment (such as what you are complaining about) they should leave or learn to suck it up.

Bravo sir:thumbsup:

No, sir. In the second sentence I was complaining about the old, tired, hackneyed complaints that people use, not the people themselves.

And what about the third sentence contradicts the second (and actual) sentence?

If you try a little harder, I bet you can cram a few more words into my mouth. Tell me, are you naturally this obtuse and arrogant, or do you practice?

 

[Lochias]

All the more reason for women who want spiritual authority/prestige/responsibility to leave the Catholic Church.

Assuming that the above post is accurate, the Church has never had a real place for such women.

The teaching of the Church have never been about authority or prestige, and there are plenty of women with lots of responsibility. The nuns at my parish, my Franciscan formation director, and the organist we rely on are just a few of the very responsibility-laden women that come to mind.

It’s called “researching your facts.” You should try it sometime.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Sometimes leaders of the Church speak for themselves. When they do so, they do not speak infallibly (even the Pope).

Sometimes the leaders of the Church speak FOR the Church on MORALS and FAITH. When they do this they are not speaking infallibly.

But, when the POPE, the Vicar of Christ, the leader of our Church, speaks on Morals and Faith and makes statements in certain settings (while on the seat of Peter), he speaks infallibly. This does not happen all the time! This is a very rare thing.

It is not that there are limits TO the authority but that the Church is very careful what it voices as firm truth.

We trust that God is guiding us and our leaders but on the same hand we are VERY careful with the gift He has given us.

Anyway. That’s just my take on Infallibility (the take of a newborn Catholic).

So the Church believes itself to be all-powerful (in relation to this Fallen World)?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I don’t mind:shrug:

That much is clear.

I am fairly thick skinned.

 

[scipio337]

This ^

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Then what are you saying exactly?

Does the Catholic Church have limits on its supposed authority or not?

Supposed authority on what exactly?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No, sir. In the second sentence I was complaining about the old, tired, hackneyed complaints that people use, not the people themselves.

And what about the third sentence contradicts the second (and actual) sentence?

If you try a little harder, I bet you can cram a few more words into my mouth. Tell me,** are you naturally this obtuse and arrogant**, or do you practice?

Counter question:

Would you accept direct insults like the ones you’re aiming my way right now with a smile, or would you be a hypocritical and complain?

I am not attempting to be snarky or sarcastic, this is a real question.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The teaching of the Church have never been about authority or prestige, and there are plenty of women with lots of responsibility. The nuns at my parish, my Franciscan formation director, and the organist we rely on are just a few of the very responsibility-laden women that come to mind.

It’s called “researching your facts.” You should try it sometime.

I have.
It tells me that no women are *even allowed *to become part of the Church Hierarchy.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So the Church believes itself to be all-powerful (in relation to this Fallen World)?

No, where ever did you get that impression?

Please show where PR ever said anything at all about the Church’s being all powerful in relation to this fallen world.

Those are your words or, to be more accurate, your impressions either that you received or that you wish to present. . .or both.

But thank you because I see that you are now making an effort, in using a question mark, to actually ascertain what people said, and not put your words into their mouths.

And considering that you are pretty much trying to respond to a dozen people, thank you for being sincere in your questioning and continuing to address several different conversations without dismissing any of them.