Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[PRmerger]

Exactly.
You worship a male god.

Ok. If you want to put it that way. Jesus is a male and is God.

 

[LilyM]

I’m not sure if the issue is with God changing his mind.Can’t God do away with an old law for a new law?

Not all laws (or whatever you mean by ‘laws’) are created equal. Some disciplines are of relatively small importance. These can, and some have, have been done away with.

Others are of greater importance. These, for example the commandment against theft, are as changeless as He is. He is never going to change the law against theft. He is never going to change the law that priesthood is for males.

 

[PRmerger]

All the top leaders of the Catholic Church are priests.

Oh, okay. You moved the goal post then. All the TOP leaders of the CC (and good for you for excluding ""Roman in your discourse! That was like pulling teeth to get you to learn this, but I’m glad you are amenable! ) are male, yes.

Your original premise was that women weren’t fit to lead, at all.

Because then they could join an organization that feels women are fit to lead (even in a spiritual setting).

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure if the issue is with God changing his mind.Can’t God do away with an old law for a new law?

It might help you if you took a truth that you believe to be immutable and apply it here.

Take, for example, the Trinity. God could never “do away” with this truth and now reveal that He is a Quadrinity, and that it includes Mary.

Similarly, it is an immutable truth that the women cannot be ordained priests. There cannot be a modification of this law any more than God could declare Mary to be part of the Godhead.

 

[RobbyS]

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?

because of his posture and tone.Later that day I spoke about it to an SPD spokesman. He smiled, and said she had chosen the wrong party, because the CDU was not woman friendly. “She’s like Thatcher, you know."

 

[AngryAtheist8]

With respect, *I * am not the one trying to confuse anything.

You keep on saying that ‘religions are false’. By what criteria of what you take is ‘true’ have you compared ‘religions’ to, that you find they are false, and how do you KNOW what you claim as true (as opposed to the ‘falsity’ of religion) is true?

If you do not know and cannot give us the reason you can ‘judge’ the falsity of a religion, how can you claim it is false? That is what I would like to know.

Otherwise all you are doing is claiming ‘religions are false’ based on as much of a ‘personal assumption’ as you imply that we use to claim our religion is true.

I cannot say with any degree of certainty that ALL religions are false.
I am not even familiar with *all *religions.
However, I do feel fairly confident saying that most of the major faiths are false.
Since they do not seem to live up to their claims.
They certainly have nothing to support their supernatural claims.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Good. You see, Lucy, what you are doing is the equivalent of the "Can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it’ type of argument.

Since God has already declared (infallibly) that the Church has no authority to ordain women, He is not going to change HIs mind in future. ** Part of God’s being God is that He is unchanging.** The idea that He could make a dogmatic decision and then completely reverse it would be an example of God both ‘creating a rock too heavy to lift’ and ALSO being ‘all powerful God who can lift anything.’ The two premises here are COMPLETELY antithetical. They cannot BOTH be true. God cannot make a square circle for example because such a thing does not logically exist. It’s absurd.

Here is a comparison. God is God, yes? He can do “anything” right? He is a Trinity, right? So, an equivalent argument to your "well, this infallible teaching can be changed if God wants’ would be, "If God wants to be a quartet in the future, He can do it.’

Or, "If God wants the Eucharist to be confected with beer and pretzels instead of bread and wine, he can do it.’

The people who believe (unknowingly) in the illogical kind of God who can both make a rock too heavy to lift and yet still be all powerful God despite the ABSOLUTE opposition of those two terms do not see it is not logical to believe in a God who does ILLOGICAL THINGS.

God is not illogical. God does not change what He has decreed. He will not suddenly change Jesus Christ into a woman. He will not become a quartet. He will not be made Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, from Fritos and beer. And He will not suddenly change the nature of the priesthood.

Male clericalism is a dogmatic truth which cannot be changed.
Unmarried men only in the priesthood is a DISCIPLINE which can be changed.

That’s the big difference. Women ‘priests’ are not an area of discipline open to change.

So no, God will not change in the future about ‘women priests’ (or the Eucharist or the Trinity).

If God cannot change then He is not all-powerful.
Even human beings can change, if God cannot…
Then in at least one important area, humans are better.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Good. You see, Lucy, what you are doing is the equivalent of the "Can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it’ type of argument.

Since God has already declared (infallibly) that the Church has no authority to ordain women, He is not going to change HIs mind in future. Part of God’s being God is that He is unchanging. The idea that He could make a dogmatic decision and then completely reverse it would be an example of God both ‘creating a rock too heavy to lift’ and ALSO being ‘all powerful God who can lift anything.’ The two premises here are COMPLETELY antithetical. They cannot BOTH be true. God cannot make a square circle for example because such a thing does not logically exist. It’s absurd.

Here is a comparison. God is God, yes? He can do “anything” right? He is a Trinity, right? So, an equivalent argument to your "well, this infallible teaching can be changed if God wants’ would be, "If God wants to be a quartet in the future, He can do it.’

Or, "If God wants the Eucharist to be confected with beer and pretzels instead of bread and wine, he can do it.’

The people who believe (unknowingly) in the illogical kind of God who can both make a rock too heavy to lift and yet still be all powerful God despite the ABSOLUTE opposition of those two terms do not see it is not logical to believe in a God who does ILLOGICAL THINGS.

God is not illogical. God does not change what He has decreed. He will not suddenly change Jesus Christ into a woman. He will not become a quartet. He will not be made Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, from Fritos and beer. And He will not suddenly change the nature of the priesthood.

Male clericalism is a dogmatic truth which cannot be changed.
Unmarried men only in the priesthood is a DISCIPLINE which can be changed.

That’s the big difference. Women ‘priests’ are not an area of discipline open to change.

So no, God will not change in the future about ‘women priests’ (or the Eucharist or the Trinity).

I am glad you admit that it is clericalism.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No. The Church cannot change on this issue any more than it can change on the issue of Mary being assumed or Jesus being God. It has no more authority from God to change the teaching on women’s ordination than to change of these teachings.

And no, God will not change His mind (by the way God is eternal - He does not change His mind) about this issue any more than He can change His mind about any other doctrine or dogma.

This doesn’t sound admirable.
If something already knew everything (and therefore already had an opinion on everything) and never changed (its mind) would it really think at all?
Or be more like a pre-programmed machine?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I’m not sure if the issue is with God changing his mind.Can’t God do away with an old law for a new law?

If God CANNOT change His mind then He is limited in a very real basic way.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Exactly.
You worship a male god.

Ok. If you want to put it that way. Jesus is a male and is God.

I am glad you agree.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Oh, okay. You moved the goal post then. All the TOP leaders of the CC (and good for you for excluding ""Roman in your discourse! That was like pulling teeth to get you to learn this, but I’m glad you are amenable! ) are male, yes.

Your original premise was that women weren’t fit to lead, at all.

No, I was merely saying that that was the Church position.
And frankly there are plenty of Christians (including some Catholics) who believe that Scripture backs up that position.

Why would you assume that because something was a Church position it was also mine?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

It might help you if you took a truth that you believe to be immutable and apply it here.

Take, for example, the Trinity. God could never “do away” with this truth and now reveal that He is a Quadrinity, and that it includes Mary.

Similarly, it is an immutable truth that the women cannot be ordained priests. There cannot be a modification of this law any more than God could declare Mary to be part of the Godhead.

This reminds me of something the late Mary Daly said.
If God is male.
Then the male is God.

Which would be good for me (since I’m a guy).

 

[mtngal25]

I think it was a poster who used the name, The Holy Trinity, that mentioned that the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc had priestesses, and that the Jews had only men for the priesthood. That is correct. Priestesses are a pagan practice because they had goddess worship. The Jews were patriarchial, therefore they had only men as priests and God was spoken of in masculine terms even though He is a spirit. Women priests indicate goddess worship and always leans that way as many women involved in this trend worship Gaia or a female deity. In order to stay away from pagan influences, it is only right to keep up the male priesthood, otherwise, we drift into the pagan realm. Our original basis of our religion is Judaism, not paganism, therefore, it would be distructive to our church to change any of these things.
It does not matter in protestantism, because they do not have the ordained priesthood. They are just ministers that teach and preach. They are not part of the true priesthood that comes from the order of Melchesidech. They are merely a social entity which anyone can fulfill.
Mtngal

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I think it was a poster who used the name, The Holy Trinity, that mentioned that the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc had priestesses, and that the Jews had only men for the priesthood. That is correct. Priestesses are a pagan practice because they had goddess worship. The Jews were patriarchial, therefore they had only men as priests and God was spoken of in masculine terms even though He is a spirit. Women priests indicate goddess worship and always leans that way as many women involved in this trend worship Gaia or a female deity. In order to stay away from pagan influences, it is only right to keep up the male priesthood, otherwise, we drift into the pagan realm. Our original basis of our religion is Judaism, not paganism, therefore, it would be distructive to our church to change any of these things.
It does not matter in protestantism, because they do not have the ordained priesthood. They are just ministers that teach and preach. They are not part of the true priesthood that comes from the order of Melchesidech. They are merely a social entity which anyone can fulfill.
Mtngal

Doesn’t that indicate that the masculinity of God is just due to the Jewish influence though?

 

[vsedriver]

Okay so this is more of a question. Posters keep saying that it is impossible for women to be priests. I would say that presently this is true because the Pope guided by the Holy Spirit has spoken infalliably on this. I say presently because certainly God can decide that he now wants women priests and he could communicate this to the pope. So isn’t it possible that women can be priests? I have also heard posters say that if the pope ordained a woman to the priesthood that they would know that the pope was not being guided by the Holy Spirit. So I guess my question is isn’t it possible that a woman could be ordained a priest just not presently?

Oh and please no lectures this is not wishful thinking on my part. I’m fine with the priesthood being all male.

If God were to change His mind that would presume that he got it wrong the first time. Since God is perfect and never gets anything wrong then there would never be a case where God would need to change His mind.

 

[vsedriver]

No it is not.
Experience shows that no one stays happy forever.

no one experiences the ‘feeling’ of happiness forever. That is not the same as having true happiness.

It’s the same way that the Church teaches love is an action, not just a feeling.

 

[vsedriver]

I honestly think you’re confusing the term influence and leadership.
An advisor is not a leader (at least not in his or her role as advisor).

I think you don’t understand how the Church is lead.

 

[vsedriver]

This reminds me of something the late Mary Daly said.
If God is male.
Then the male is God.

Which would be good for me (since I’m a guy).

But God has no gender. Only the second person of the Trinity has male gender.

 

[RobbyS]

Doesn’t that indicate that the masculinity of God is just due to the Jewish influence though?

Well, the Jewish influence primarily religious not cultural. The God of Abraham established a personal relationship with Abraham, and loyalty to “him” developed over the centuries into a rejection of all other gods. The constant fight to keep the Israelites from also worshipping other gods required a specific rejection of male-female fertilty duos. God does not “beget,” Which is where the Muslims also come from, that God does have a son. Which is why they reject the Incarnation. Which is why rationalists also reject the incarnation. The difference between Jews (and Muslims) is of course that for religious Jews, The Lord is a person, who is able to covenant with human being,m and for modernists he is reduced to a mere first principle, like the God of the philosophers who Pascal rejected. To them, of course, the Incarnation is a reversion to paganism, as it seems to Jews and Muslims. Arius followed the same impulse in advancing his Christology, But unitarianism does not save the evidence as well as Trintarianism. Nowhere can one deduce from the testimony of the Jews who were the first Christians any “simple” explanation for the events they depict. Arius was like Einstein when confronted with quantum physics:" God does not play dice,” he protested. Trintarianism is the quantum physics of theology. On the other hand, it is very different from the Hindu notion of trinity.