Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
Sarcasm is the protest of the weak, Angry.

A better response would have been, “Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I did learn that in 3rd grade, but I slipped up.”

Especially since you have claimed you would do as much.
Click to expand...
There is very little evidence thus far to substantiate any of AA’s claims.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

Of course.
For instance, do you really think that privates are as important as generals in an army?
The answer is (or at least should be) obvious.

You’re missing the point.
Generals make the decisions, and their harder to replace, therefore a general is much more important than a private.
Click to expand...
Generals aren’t that hard to replace. General dies, his 2nd in command takes over, G1 orders a new general [yeah orders like a piece of equipment], new general arrives, gets a battle hand off from the 2nd in command. The military is a machine, it would be kinda stupid to design it to fall apart if 1 piece [the general] breaks.

Also, generals don’t make the important decisions. That would be the leader on the ground. No plan survives contact.
 
PRmerger said:
Sarcasm is the protest of the weak, Angry.

A better response would have been, “Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I did learn that in 3rd grade, but I slipped up.”

Especially since you have claimed you would do as much.
Click to expand...
Lochias has been trying to have a flame war with me.
I was merely returning (to a small extent) the ‘courtesy’ he had shown me:shrug:

Besides, I was genuinely amused by the fact that it took him that long to come up with something I had actually done wrong considering how long he’s been badmouthing me in this thread.

Moreover sarcasm is used by powerful people all the time.
 
Lochias said:
There is very little evidence thus far to substantiate any of AA’s claims.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Unlike the vast majority of people at CAF, I frequently use evidence and sources to back up my claims (the post below is an example from this thread), as my posting history at this forum shows.

I would like it if you used a bit more fact based commentary Lochias, it would be a pleasant change from your apparent M.O.

Apr 24, '12, 5:09 pm
AngryAtheist8
Regular Member Join Date: October 7, 2010
Posts: 3,319
Religion: Agnostic

Re: Pope reaffirms ban on women priests
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tantum ergo
Strawman.

YOU are the one claiming that the Church has labeled areas of life that it ‘admits it has no authority over TEACHING OR OTHERWISE and people should just do their own thing’.

You made the claim with no support. You just throw the words out there as though by your stating them they are inerrant fact.

And if we tried going piece by piece even with statements from the Catechism about lawful government etc., you would pull some kind of example that you would say ‘proves’ your point. Argumentum ad infinitum.

Uh-uh, nope. We aren’t going to play the game.

When you start making actual specific statements which you can back up with proven facts, and not just throw out broad generalizations and unsupported assertions, we’ll be happy to have a dialogue, but why should anybody here give you a bully pulpit for your strawman arguments which you attempt to pass off as Church teaching???

Strawman

Hardly.

What could be a more purely secular matter than Economics, yet the Pope feels it is his place to set the guidlines for this aspect of life too.

Here’s a link to an article on the subject:
onfaith.washingtonpost.com/on…c_justice.html
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Moreover sarcasm is used by powerful people all the time.
Click to expand...
And it’s a demonstration that this powerful person is weak and cannot refute the argument proposed. 🤷

Surely you know that even people in power can be weak, right?
 
PRmerger said:
And it’s a demonstration that this powerful person is weak and cannot refute the argument proposed. 🤷

Surely you know that even people in power can be weak, right?
Click to expand...
Actually people frequently use sarcasm simply to be mean, or because they are in a situation where they feel that they must at least observe pseudo-politeness.
Moreover, many very sarcastic people think that their behavior is funny (such as Jerry Seinfeld).

To be honest I used to think Seinfeld was funny too.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Actually people frequently use sarcasm simply to be mean,
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t think that applied to you here.
or because they are in a situation where they feel that they must at least observe pseudo-politeness.
Click to expand...
Or this one.
Moreover, many very sarcastic people think that their behavior is funny (such as Jerry Seinfeld).
Click to expand...
As I don’t know if you think your sarcasm is funny, I’ll defer this one. But my guess is that you didn’t do it to be funny.

No. I think I was right the first time. It was the protest of the weak. 🙂
 
PRmerger said:
Well, I don’t think that applied to you here.

Or this one.

As I don’t know if you think your sarcasm is funny, I’ll defer this one. But my guess is that you didn’t do it to be funny.

No. I think I was right the first time. It was the protest of the weak. 🙂
Click to expand...
I am actually a relatively sarcastic and snarky person, although I am not as bad as my Dad (who I got it from).
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Wrong.

Unlike the vast majority of people at CAF, I frequently use evidence and sources to back up my claims (the post below is an example from this thread), as my posting history at this forum shows.

I would like it if you used a bit more fact based commentary Lochias, it would be a pleasant change from your apparent M.O.
Click to expand...
Your “evidence” hasn’t won anyone over yet. So, either you’re the lone, shining light in a sea of misinformation and darkness…or, your “evidence” is bunk. I know which one my money’s on.

And, yes, I’m sure you’d like a lot of things. I like a great many things, too.
 
How can there be a ban on women clergy when women can not be clerics in the first place?

I already avoid women EMHCs. Just think what I’ll do with a woman acting like a priest… not go at all. I’ll go to a real Catholic Church, not one of those make believe ones. Might as well become Protestant, without valid sacraments, we might as well do our own thing. At least we have Eastern Orthodox Churches to look towards if it turns out that papal infallibility isn’t real. What are those people that "support women that try to impersonate legitimate priests? They’re just causing more and more division into a new kind of Protestant religion, one without authentic apostolic succession.
 
Lochias said:
Your “evidence” hasn’t won anyone over yet. So, either you’re the lone, shining light in a sea of misinformation and darkness…or, your “evidence” is bunk. I know which one my money’s on.
And, yes, I’m sure you’d like a lot of things. I like a great many things, too.
Click to expand...
Coming from someone who doesn’t use evidence to back up his arguments at all, that means very little.
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Wrong.

Unlike the vast majority of people at CAF, I frequently use evidence and sources to back up my claims (the post below is an example from this thread), as my posting history at this forum shows.

I would like it if you used a bit more fact based commentary Lochias, it would be a pleasant change from your apparent M.O.
Lochias said:
Your “evidence” hasn’t won anyone over yet. So, either you’re the lone, shining light in a sea of misinformation and darkness…or, your “evidence” is bunk. I know which one my money’s on.

And, yes, I’m sure you’d like a lot of things. I like a great many things, too.
Click to expand...
I kind of assumed that would be expecting too much:rolleyes:
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Coming from someone who doesn’t use evidence to back up his arguments at all, that means very little.
Click to expand...
I claim what the Catholic Church teaches. I don’t need to do your research for you. You have a brain and two eyes…go use them.
 
This woman priest issue has been explained umpteen times and some very immature kiddies can’t get over the fact that the priesthood is not a social thing or a “rights” thing. No woman could confect a valid mass. She can go through the motions but it would not do any good. There would be no true mass. This is a theological issue and the church has the power to hold on to the true teachings of the church. If people keep changing things, then there is no continuity and no security in such a church and I would leave it to go elsewhere that holds on to tradition. These experimenters just want to destroy the church because ordaining women would split the church asunder and all the trads would form another church that would hang onto the truth. Then the change fanatics would try to change that group, ad nauseam so that they could claim special powers. If these people were normal thinkers, they would go over to another church that already has women “priests.” The fact that they don’t, proves that they are interested only in power over others, and not the true Catholic faith of the centuries.
 
mtngal25 said:
This woman priest issue has been explained umpteen times and some very immature kiddies can’t get over the fact that the priesthood is not a social thing or a “rights” thing. No woman could confect a valid mass. She can go through the motions but it would not do any good. There would be no true mass. This is a theological issue and the church has the power to hold on to the true teachings of the church. If people keep changing things, then there is no continuity and no security in such a church and I would leave it to go elsewhere that holds on to tradition. These experimenters just want to destroy the church because ordaining women would split the church asunder and all the trads would form another church that would hang onto the truth. Then the change fanatics would try to change that group, ad nauseam so that they could claim special powers. If these people were normal thinkers, they would go over to another church that already has women “priests.” The fact that they don’t, proves that they are interested only in power over others, and not the true Catholic faith of the centuries.
Click to expand...
A-freaking-men.
 
poorsinner7 said:
I already avoid women EMHCs.
Click to expand...
Then I don’t think you really understand the rationale for why women can’t be priests.

Women being EMHC has nothing to do with the priesthood.

Which is why the Church has permitted this.
 
RobbyS said:
I second that. It is no big deal for Protestants to have women ministers because they are essentially a lay group.
Click to expand...
'zactly. I have no problem with women ministers in Protestant churches. For, essentially, they are doing the exact thing that a male minister is doing–preaching the gospel, managing a parish, counseling parishioners. And of course a woman can do things things as well as a man. Better even. 😉

Of course, one understands that the priesthood is NOT about what he does, for if it were, then naturally women ought to be able to do what jobs a priest does.

At ordination an ONTOLOGICAL change occurs in the man. What existed 10 seconds prior to ordination, exists no more. The universe is changed forever at the confection of this sacrament.
 
PRmerger said:
Then I don’t think you really understand the rationale for why women can’t be priests.

Women being EMHC has nothing to do with the priesthood.

Which is why the Church has permitted this.
Click to expand...
Bless you too, sweety.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top