Pope reaffirms ban on women priests

[LucyLight]

mtngal25:
I’m curious how you know that women weren’t invited to the last supper, especially Mary. If its because they simply weren’t mentioned then you can’t be sure that they weren’t there. Is there some tradition that teaches this or does it actually say this in the bible? I don’t know my bible as well as I should:shrug:

Thanks

 

[Fiasco]

I’m curious how you know that women weren’t invited to the last supper, especially Mary.

Thanks

Capital “T” Tradition would teach it.

All of the pagan religions had their priestesses for their godesses. The descendents of the Israelites were the exception: no goddesses, so no priestesses.

 

[PRmerger]

Capital “T” Tradition would teach it.

I’m going to have to disagree with you here, Fiasco. There is no revelation in Sacred Tradition that declares that women were not at the Last Supper.

It may be a small “t” tradition, but it’s not part of the deposit of faith that we must believe that there were no women at the Last Supper.

And even if there were women present (for who cooked and served the meal?? ), that’s not an argument for priestesses any more than having women present at the wedding at Cana is an argument for priestesses.

All of the pagan religions had their priestesses for their godesses. The descendents of the Israelites were the exception: no goddesses, so no priestesses.

Now this, I think, is a good point.

 

[LucyLight]

Capital “T” Tradition would teach it.

All of the pagan religions had their priestesses for their godesses. The descendents of the Israelites were the exception: no goddesses, so no priestesses.

Thank you. My understanding of why we don’t have women priests is because the pope said so and because he is guided by the Holy Spirit that’s good enough for me. Some of the reasons why people believe that women can’t be priests aren’t convincing for me I think its just a mystery. Are you saying that it is Tradition that women weren’t at the last supper and it’s not biblical? I’m really just curious?

Edit: I didn’t refresh my browser so i missed the answer above. That makes sense that it wouldn’t be a big T.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Really? It’s the secular humanists who are offended to be called feminine?

Indeed. The Christian (Catholic) perspective is quite respectful of femininity. And this is limned quite well by assigning this attribute to all of humanity–our souls are feminine.

Your soul is feminine, according to the Church, Angry.

I love saying that to you. It makes me smile to think that you now know that your soul is viewed as feminine.

That is, by itself, a great proclamation that the Church views the feminine with great respect, assigning to it your very soul.

I have no doubt that you could find lots of churchmen preaching on the sinfulness of women. And the sinfulness of men, too, of course you’ll find.

As far as the intellectual inferiority of women? I challenge you to find something from a Catholic theologian or Magisterial document on that! Something from this century would be really powerful. But anything from the Magisterium, from 1st century on, will be considered.

All right, here are some relevant quote:

Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men has arisen the abuse of the Scriptures and have heresies been born.
-Dogmatic Constitution issued by Pope Clement XI on Sept. 8, 1713

Link to source:
papalencyclicals.net/Clem11/c11unige.htm

I have actually had a great deal of trouble finding any official Church documents from the modern era that are clearly misogynistic the way that the Church Fathers and many Biblical passages are.

A few possible reasons for this occur to me.

1. The Catholic Church was never inherently misogynistic and prominent Churchmen like Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas were merely showing the influence of secular society on them when demonstrating anti-woman attitudes.
2. The Catholic Church has become more pro-woman over time.
3. The Church has always been somewhat misogynistic but it realized within the last century or so that acting that way openly was counterproductive.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Really? It’s the secular humanists who are offended to be called feminine?

Indeed. The Christian (Catholic) perspective is quite respectful of femininity. And this is limned quite well by assigning this attribute to all of humanity–our souls are feminine.

Your soul is feminine, according to the Church, Angry.

I love saying that to you. It makes me smile to think that you now know that your soul is viewed as feminine.

**That is, by itself, a great proclamation that the Church views the feminine with great respect, assigning to it your very soul. **

I have no doubt that you could find lots of churchmen preaching on the sinfulness of women. And the sinfulness of men, too, of course you’ll find.

As far as the intellectual inferiority of women? I challenge you to find something from a Catholic theologian or Magisterial document on that! Something from this century would be really powerful. But anything from the Magisterium, from 1st century on, will be considered.

Not really.
Remember that God is masculine according to Catholicism.

 

[PRmerger]

All right, here are some relevant quote:

Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men has arisen the abuse of the Scriptures and have heresies been born.
-Dogmatic Constitution issued by Pope Clement XI on Sept. 8, 1713

Link to source:
papalencyclicals.net/Clem11/c11unige.htm

LOL!

Are you serious? This is another elevation of women.

Do you see that this pope is dissing men?

You must not have realized this, Angry, or you would not have posted this. Of that, I am certain.

 

[PRmerger]

Not really.
Remember that God is masculine according to Catholicism.

I think that you just have a problem having anything feminine assigned to your essence.

That’s especially egregious given your attempts to act as if you’re standing up for women.

Yet, really, you don’t like the fact that your soul is assigned feminine attributes by the Church.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I’m curious how you know that women weren’t invited to the last supper, especially Mary. If its because they simply weren’t mentioned then you can’t be sure that they weren’t there. Is there some tradition that teaches this or does it actually say this in the bible? I don’t know my bible as well as I should:shrug:

Thanks

Considering the attitudes of those who wrote the Bible, there could have been dozens of women at the last supper and the early Churchmen considered none of them worth mentioning:shrug:

 

[PRmerger]

I have actually had a great deal of trouble finding any official Church documents from the modern era that are clearly misogynistic the way that the Church Fathers and many Biblical passages are.

It would seem.

You have been gone a long time from the CAFs. Doing some research, eh?

Couldn’t come up with much.

So sad. :bighanky:

(I’m just messin’ with cha, Angry. I missed you! :flowers

A few possible reasons for this occur to me.

1. The Catholic Church was never inherently misogynistic and prominent Churchmen like Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas were merely showing the influence of secular society on them when demonstrating anti-woman attitudes.

Possible.

1. The Catholic Church has become more pro-woman over time.

Another possibility.

1. The Church has always been somewhat misogynistic but it realized within the last century or so that acting that way openly was counterproductive.

This doesn’t make any sense. Counterproductive in what way? Making it lose credibility?

That doesn’t seem to have bothered the Church in any other forum, so it’s curious that this would be a possibility you’re considering.

Like, “The Church has always been against birth control, but it realized that acting openly this way was counterproductive so she changed her position.”

If you’re going to climb on that hill, that’s the argument you should proffer, because if anything gives the Church bad PR it’s our teaching against birth control.

 

[PRmerger]

All right, here are some relevant quote

Again, you’re just making it so easy to mess with you, but you seemed to have lost some steam here.

You proffered: here “are” some relevant quote(s).

But you only gave one. (And, it turns out, it had the opposite opinion: it’s *men *who are the dum dums in your quote.)

Did you have some more in your arsenal?

 

[PRmerger]

Considering the attitudes of those who wrote the Bible, there could have been dozens of women at the last supper and the early Churchmen considered none of them worth mentioning:shrug:

That’s entirely possible.

But Catholicism, as you know, does not rely on Scripture alone.

Perhaps if you were in a dialogue with some Fundamentalist Bible-Only Christians this comment would make them go

 

[AngryAtheist8]

LOL!

Are you serious? This is another elevation of women.

Do you see that this pope is dissing men?

You must not have realized this, Angry, or you would not have posted this. Of that, I am certain.

That’s debatable:shrug:
Like a said I am having some trouble finding Church documents to support my position.
A major issue is just that so many of the really important Church documents aren’t available online, and even if they are, aren’t available in English (the only language I’m fluent in).
For instance I wanted to cite Decretum Gratiani (a 12th century document that became the basis for much of Canon Law) which apparently has some really nasty stuff about women’s supposed inferiority in it. However, I can’t find a translation that I would be comfortable citing as evidence:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I think that you just have a problem having anything feminine assigned to your essence.

That’s especially egregious given your attempts to act as if you’re standing up for women.

Yet, really, you don’t like the fact that your soul is assigned feminine attributes by the Church.

To be perfectly honest, I have thought once or twice that it would be fun (or at least interesting) to spend a day as a woman, assuming that I could easily change back the next day. It would be an interesting way to test the nature versus nature theories of sexual orientation

Moreover, I frankly think that (assuming God created us in its image) a Mother Goddess makes more sense. Giving birth to the universe would fit, because that’s how *we *reproduce.

But there are no times or places that I would ever want to be a woman other than the modern West (and places that have largely adopted our values such as Japan). Women simply haven’t been respected or valued very much in any other time and place:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

It would seem.

You have been gone a long time from the CAFs. Doing some research, eh?

Couldn’t come up with much.

So sad. :bighanky:

(I’m just messin’ with cha, Angry. I missed you! :flowers

Possible.

Another possibility.

This doesn’t make any sense. Counterproductive in what way? Making it lose credibility?

That doesn’t seem to have bothered the Church in any other forum, so it’s curious that this would be a possibility you’re considering.

Like, “The Church has always been against birth control, but it realized that acting openly this way was counterproductive so she changed her position.”

If you’re going to climb on that hill, that’s the argument you should proffer, because if anything gives the Church bad PR it’s our teaching against birth control.

I was busy working actually.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

1. The Church has always been somewhat misogynistic but it realized within the last century or so that acting that way openly was counterproductive.

This doesn’t make any sense. Counterproductive in what way? Making it lose credibility?

That doesn’t seem to have bothered the Church in any other forum, so it’s curious that this would be a possibility you’re considering.

Like, “The Church has always been against birth control, but it realized that acting openly this way was counterproductive so she changed her position.”

If you’re going to climb on that hill, that’s the argument you should proffer, because if anything gives the Church bad PR it’s our teaching against birth control.

I admit its not a perfect theory.
Its based on the presumption that the men who control Catholicism would realize that alienating women as women continued to gain more respect and recognition in the West was a bad idea, and would be rational and dynamic enough to act on that knewledge in a reasonable amount of time.

To be honest, theory # 2 (The Catholic Church has become more pro-woman over time)
most closely matches my own beliefs.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

That’s entirely possible.

But Catholicism, as you know, does not rely on Scripture alone.

Perhaps if you were in a dialogue with some Fundamentalist Bible-Only Christians this comment would make them go

I’ve tried dialoguing with them actually.
Messing with them can be fun (and its so easy) but ultimately has all the intellectual substance of smashing your head against a wall repeatedly.

 

[jsaldar]

THUMBS UP TO THE POPE:thumbsup:

He is definitely defending the one and only true Church.

God Bless Him.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s debatable:shrug:

Well, then, if you’re already conceding that it’s debatable that this is an anti-woman comment by a pope, what’s your point?

I cannot help but relish re-posting your braggadocio here:

I could easily fill up a dozen posts with statements and teachings from Catholic and Protestant Churchmen preaching on the special sinfulness, weakness, Lustiness, selfishness, intellectual inferiority, etc. of women.

As it turns out, not so much, eh? :ehh:

Perhaps you’re going to say, “Well, I was really going to use Protestant comments, but you limited me to only Catholics. And I also was going to offer evidence of the lustiness, and selfishness and weakness of women that your Church has proclaimed, but you challenged me to only find something about their intellectual inferiority. So, yes, I could still easily post a dozen posts, like I said.”

Is that your story that you’re going to stick with?

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve tried dialoguing with them actually.
Messing with them can be fun (and its so easy) but ultimately has all the intellectual substance of smashing your head against a wall repeatedly.

Indeed. Dialoguing with fundamentalists (of any sort) can have that effect.

But it does help the lurkers to see how ridiculous his position is, even if the fundamentalist is immutable and as firmly entrenched in his viewpoint as ever.