P
PRmerger
Guest
Dear poorsinner,
I sense some rancor in this blessing.
Am I right?
I hope that I am incorrect, because it would be a great irony to be invoking a spiritual blessing yet having malice while offering it.
Just sayin’…
- Status
I sense some rancor in this blessing.
Am I right?
I hope that I am incorrect, because it would be a great irony to be invoking a spiritual blessing yet having malice while offering it.
Just sayin’…
R
RobbyS
Guest
Well, it is more like baptism is it not? Protestants also do not acknowledge the efficacy of the sacraments.'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.
R
RobbyS
Guest
Women priests makes sense only if one is accustomed to thinking of the priesthood as a position of power. But even from that perspective, the fact si that when women do gain a position of power, that position is diminished in status, and men tend to avoid it. Look at what is happening in the universities, as women graduates become the majority. The value of the degree is diminished.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Coming from someone who doesn’t use evidence to back up his arguments at all, that means very little.
Lochias;9256344**:
But in a debate you’re supposed to PROVE your arguments.
You can’t expect your opponent to do your research and argue your case.
Any lawyer who did that would soon be unable to find work, and he would deserve such treatment.
Coming from someone who doesn’t use evidence to back up his arguments at all, that means very little.
Lochias;9256344**:
.
But in a debate you’re supposed to PROVE your arguments.
You can’t expect your opponent to do your research and argue your case.
Any lawyer who did that would soon be unable to find work, and he would deserve such treatment.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I kind of assumed that would be expecting too much
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I kind of assumed that would be expecting too much
It would be nice if you would stop projecting your own behavior onto me:shrug:…wow. Well, no-one can ever accuse you of being overly humble, I suppose. Jolly good show.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Originally Posted by heaintheavy
Because.
In time, we see that some rules are made to be broken…or at least, revised.
This is one of them.
But I guess it’s just not time…yet.
It makes no sense not to have women as priests. Being a priest is something spiritual and a calling of the soul, it is not linked to specific male sex organs, as childbirth is.
Jesus himself, we are told, did not take part in any sexual activity involving his gender-specific organs.
If several women–including Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ favorite–could hang out and move around with the apostles/disciples and help preach, why can’t women do so today?
It is unfortunate that mortal men–who exactly was this?–interpreted words collected in the Christian canon centuries after Jesus died to mean that women cannot be priests.
Very much so.
I hope that our granddaughters and their daughters after that will live in a time that is less rigid.
That’s one of the most sexist things I have ever heard!
Because.
In time, we see that some rules are made to be broken…or at least, revised.
This is one of them.
But I guess it’s just not time…yet.
It makes no sense not to have women as priests. Being a priest is something spiritual and a calling of the soul, it is not linked to specific male sex organs, as childbirth is.
Jesus himself, we are told, did not take part in any sexual activity involving his gender-specific organs.
If several women–including Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ favorite–could hang out and move around with the apostles/disciples and help preach, why can’t women do so today?
It is unfortunate that mortal men–who exactly was this?–interpreted words collected in the Christian canon centuries after Jesus died to mean that women cannot be priests.
Very much so.
I hope that our granddaughters and their daughters after that will live in a time that is less rigid.
You’re arguing that when women have something it automatically decreases in value?
That’s one of the most sexist things I have ever heard!
R
Ranp
Guest
Because God said women cannot be ordained into the priesthood. This has been part of Holy Tradition (the Word of God) for 2,000 years. Pope Saint Peter, nor any Pope since him, has had the authority to change it. It is an absolute beyond any man. Just as no man has the authority to change the gravitational constant of the universe, so no man has the authority to allow women into the priesthood of the Catholic Church.
Ran
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
If several women–including Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ favorite–could hang out and move around with the apostles/disciples and help preach, why can’t women do so today?
If several women–including Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ favorite–could hang out and move around with the apostles/disciples and help preach, why can’t women do so today?
I am fairly certain I did not write that (at the top of the post).
L
LucyLight
Guest
Says who? Can you back up that claim with some evidence. I don’t have a problem with the priesthood being limited to men. I do have a problem with mysogynists who use the all male priesthood to back up their ridiculous sexist assertions. This is probably one of the worst posts I have seen in a while.
R
RobbyS
Guest
It shows that feminists have a point when they claim they are discriminated against. Hillary Clinton lost the nomination when Kennedy decided to support Obama. Not much doubt tin my mind that Kennedy had great contempt for women. Not only that, but while visiting the German Chancellory in Bonn about twenty years ago, the name of the present Chancellor came up in discussion with a CDU rep. I naively suggested that she might be the first woman chancellor. The official curtly replied, “She will never be chancellor. This about a woman who had already shown great ability.Originally Posted by heaintheavy
Because.
In time, we see that some rules are made to be broken…or at least, revised.
This is one of them.
But I guess it’s just not time…yet.
It makes no sense not to have women as priests. Being a priest is something spiritual and a calling of the soul, it is not linked to specific male sex organs, as childbirth is.
Jesus himself, we are told, did not take part in any sexual activity involving his gender-specific organs.
If several women–including Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ favorite–could hang out and move around with the apostles/disciples and help preach, why can’t women do so today?
It is unfortunate that mortal men–who exactly was this?–interpreted words collected in the Christian canon centuries after Jesus died to mean that women cannot be priests.
Very much so.
I hope that our granddaughters and their daughters after that will live in a time that is less rigid.
You’re arguing that when women have something it automatically decreases in value?
That’s one of the most sexist things I have ever heard!
R
Ranp
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
How do you know the official said this because she was a woman? Maybe the official knew something about her that precluded her from ever being chancellor?
L
LucyLight
Guest
Got it. I agree that democrats should of nominated Hillary over Obama. I’m not a fan of either but she seems to have more sense. I read your post to mean that you believed the value of something to decrease when a woman had it. My apologies if that is not what you meant. There are a few posters who pop up on here and seem to use the all male priesthood to fuel their agenda of women’s place in society. All they seem to do is help make the case for those who object to women being excluded from the priesthood.
L
LucyLight
Guest
I think the best evidence of the priesthood not being discriminatory to women is the fact that priests are not living it up. They take vows to be celebate, make little money, and have to put the needs of their parish above their own. They don’t always receive respect from society and in some countries are martyed. Perhaps Jesus chose men as an act of chivalry. Not because women are weak but because chivalry helps men to be holy.It teaches men to put the needs of others before their own. I can’t think of position that stresses this more than the priesthood.
E
edwest2
Guest
The radical feminists used the Marxist class warfare idea to put wrong ideas into the minds of women - Women are the eternal victims. Men are the eternal enemy.
The Church has no authority to ordain women. End of story. The Catholic Church is not a Democracy. However, those who love the word misogynist (a person who hates women) usually do not know what the Church teaches about the value and dignity of women. Some just wish to promote a class warfare agenda.
But, that will not be the end of it here.
Peace,
Ed
L
LucyLight
Guest
I’m not sure I understand you so correct me if I’m wrong.
Your saying that radical marxist feminists fuel the belief that women should be allowed to the priesthood. I would agree with that and I am glad that you called them radical feminists instead of just feminists. There is nothing wrong with feminism(the belief that women deserve equal rights). Without those women we wouldn’t be allowed to vote, own property etc.
However, I also think that those catholics who promote ideas that women should be submissive to men shouldn’t be allowed to work outside of the home etc. also misrepresent the church and lead people to believe that the church is discriminatory towards women. Both radical beliefs fuel each other and ultimately misrepresent the Church.
E
edwest2
Guest
I was born in the mid-1950s and the average number of kids in my neighborhood was two. My mother not only looked good dressed up, she could also mix cement, do a little carpentry and paint the house. I never once experienced the women should be “submissive” idea until the 1970s when women were threatening to burn their bras (as it turns out, men were the primary designers of ladies’ undergarments). They wanted to burn them because they represented a sign of their “oppression” by men.
I’ve never seen any logical, rational argument that the Church discriminates against anyone. And if women think that all men are the enemy - and the radical feminists were calling for the downfall of the patriarchy, which included the Church - then the easy answer is stay away from men.
The radicals feminists’ job was to sow the seeds of discontent. Women, referred to as Sisters, had to “Throw off the chains of their oppression!” I was there for this. They agitated for a radical departure from a family model that worked. All the moms in my neighborhood were stay at home moms. They created fictional pictures of women living lives of drudgery, cooking and cleaning and raising the kids while the man did virtually nothing. (My dad worked hard 5 and a half days a week and he helped out as necessary.)
That was pure 100% baloney. All the moms I knew had something that many no longer have now: neighbors who cared about them, friends who cared about them, and in-laws and relatives. Our Catholic Community included our friends and neighbors involved in our lives, and visiting with each other.
The radical feminists wanted radical separation and nothing less than the destruction of the family under the smokescreen of what was complete fiction for most women in the early 1960s:
- All men cheat.
- He’ll dump you for another woman one day and leave you with the kids.
- Be afraid. Be very afraid.
So women capitulated to the “true” voice of all women and got their marching orders:
- Get out of the house and get a career.
- Forget about trust - get a contract - a pre-nuptial argreement.
- If there’s any kids, put them in day care.
- Gradually, it became, Once they turn 18, kick those kids out of the house.
- And there was also a movement to get teenagers “emancipated” from their parents.
How are you going to support my daughter? Where do you plan on living? Have you talked about having kids? And all the other practical questions. I went through it, though things did not work out.
The Church, as it is written in the Bible, teaches: husbands love your wives, wives love your husbands. Marriage was always taught to be a partnership. Did women who had moms and likely friends who were married, need the National Organization for Women to dictate anything to them? To create false fear? To make them feel trapped and to demonize having children? Abortion became law because of lies and deception. That story is just coming out.
If anyone sincerely believes that a man they want to marry will force them to be submissive, end the relationship. Women didn’t become “smarter” because of a group of radicals. My mother worked outside the home until a few months before I was born, and paid cash for our house. They were both refugees and had 6th and 7th grade educations. Guess what? They did alright. They had a boy and a girl, and a dog. Something that a small group of sometimes vicious radicals hated with a passion.
Let me be clear. We had crime and all the rest, but we did not lock our doors at night. Neighbors watched out for other neighbors, included the neighborhood kids. NO, it was not perfect, but it was without doubt, much better than what male-female relationships are today. And you got married for life.
Peace,
Ed
L
LucyLight
Guest
I was born in the mid-1950s and the average number of kids in my neighborhood was two. My mother not only looked good dressed up, she could also mix cement, do a little carpentry and paint the house.
***I love it! Your mom sounds awesome. ***
I’ve never seen any logical, rational argument that the Church discriminates against anyone. And if women think that all men are the enemy - and the radical feminists were calling for the downfall of the patriarchy, which included the Church - then the easy answer is stay away from men.
Even the radical feminists still want a man
The radicals feminists’ job was to sow the seeds of discontent. Women, referred to as Sisters, had to “Throw off the chains of their oppression!” I was there for this. They agitated for a radical departure from a family model that worked. All the moms in my neighborhood were stay at home moms. They created fictional pictures of women living lives of drudgery, cooking and cleaning and raising the kids while the man did virtually nothing. (My dad worked hard 5 and a half days a week and he helped out as necessary.)
That was pure 100% baloney. All the moms I knew had something that many no longer have now: neighbors who cared about them, friends who cared about them, and in-laws and relatives. Our Catholic Community included our friends and neighbors involved in our lives, and visiting with each other.
The radical feminists wanted radical separation and nothing less than the destruction of the family under the smokescreen of what was complete fiction for most women in the early 1960s:
I do agree that their agenda is driven by fear and the idea that you cannot rely on a man
- All men cheat.
- He’ll dump you for another woman one day and leave you with the kids.
- Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Guess what? Divorce was rare. Abortion was not legal. The Pill was not yet in widespread circulation. And if a woman was “dumped,” she had her own family and/or relatives to help her through, kids or no kids.
So women capitulated to the “true” voice of all women and got their marching orders:
In the 1960s, you dated, then you might go steady, followed by courtship where both families got to know each other, followed by engagement. And it was necessary to go her Dad, who had been your age once and knew exactly what you were feeling, and he would cut through the hormones and ask the following:
- Get out of the house and get a career.
- Forget about trust - get a contract - a pre-nuptial argreement.
- If there’s any kids, put them in day care.
- Gradually, it became, Once they turn 18, kick those kids out of the house.
- And there was also a movement to get teenagers “emancipated” from their parents.
How are you going to support my daughter? Where do you plan on living? Have you talked about having kids? And all the other practical questions. I went through it, though things did not work out.
The Church, as it is written in the Bible, teaches: husbands love your wives, wives love your husbands. Marriage was always taught to be a partnership. Did women who had moms and likely friends who were married, need the National Organization for Women to dictate anything to them? To create false fear? To make them feel trapped and to demonize having children? Abortion became law because of lies and deception. That story is just coming out.
If anyone sincerely believes that a man they want to marry will force them to be submissive, end the relationship. Women didn’t become “smarter” because of a group of radicals.
***I’m definitely in agreement with this. ***
My mother worked outside the home until a few months before I was born, and paid cash for our house. They were both refugees and had 6th and 7th grade educations. Guess what? They did alright. They had a boy and a girl, and a dog. Something that a small group of sometimes vicious radicals hated with a passion.
Let me be clear. We had crime and all the rest, but we did not lock our doors at night. Neighbors watched out for other neighbors, included the neighborhood kids. NO, it was not perfect, but it was without doubt, much better than what male-female relationships are today. And you got married for life.
Your childhood sounds nice. There are a lot of things from that era that would be nice to have again. We can still strive for those things.
Peace,
Ed
R
RobbyS
Guest
When a woman begins to occupy a position that is traditionally male, she has to accomodate herself to the existing standards. Look at how relatively rarely women succeed in the professions. Whether law or medicine or politics, or science or even in academia. Feminists attribute this to a patriarchal society. But it may because the professions demand that kinds of strength that most women do not have. In the rawest form, consider the military. Women occasionaly have the attributes of “GI Jane.” but they are generally handicapped by their physiques and by their lack of agressiveness. I would never ban women from such position, but do understand that we will never have fifty-fifty division in combat arms, any more than we will even again have a fifty-fifty black-white NBA. We are approaching a 50-50 split in law, because women do not and never have lacked brains and the other capabilities needed to excell in the field, including the critical clerical skills that make up most of the work done by laws. But rising to the top? There is another dynamic involved, which is not just a lack of a peer group but the kind of bonding that helps build the sort of bonding needed for climbing the ladder. In short, our whole culture is hierarchial and that hierarchy is patriarchial.
M
mtngal25
Guest
In reply to Scoobyshme,
These people are totally dependent on Rome to give them “power.” If they went to another church that already ordained women, then no one would pay any attention to them. They want people to think that they can change everybody and therefore get public notice as to how great they are.
The reformers like Luther, had the fortitude to get out of the church and form their own, and therefore was freer to do what they wanted. However, Catholic liberals have no courage and therefore have to hang onto Mommy to push their agenda. They are very immature and parasitic.
As long as the church allows these people to stay in “good standing”, then they will still think the issue is open. Excommunication was and still could be a good tool to bring people to repentence and/or to keep the church united as the four marks of the church states: ONE, holy Catholic and apostolic.
mtngal
These people are totally dependent on Rome to give them “power.” If they went to another church that already ordained women, then no one would pay any attention to them. They want people to think that they can change everybody and therefore get public notice as to how great they are.
The reformers like Luther, had the fortitude to get out of the church and form their own, and therefore was freer to do what they wanted. However, Catholic liberals have no courage and therefore have to hang onto Mommy to push their agenda. They are very immature and parasitic.
As long as the church allows these people to stay in “good standing”, then they will still think the issue is open. Excommunication was and still could be a good tool to bring people to repentence and/or to keep the church united as the four marks of the church states: ONE, holy Catholic and apostolic.
mtngal
- Status