Why doesn't God destroy the devil now?

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post

The interesting part to me is that while the Catholic “rigidifying” process EXPOSES our axioms as axioms (which we tend to state upfront AS axioms), the atheistic “rigidifying” process is INTERPRETED by the atheist as showing their axioms as non-axiomatic “reasons” contingent on elsewhat.

The thing that their “reasons” are contingent on is nearly always “I don’t know but we will know eventually”.

Actually, this point presents an ancient philosophical argument, which St. Paul address as, “At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face” (1 Corinthians 13:12). This presents an ever receeding horizon that leave all but Paul (who claims to have seen God in his vision that occurred at Damascus) not seeing clearly.

The “ever receding horizon”, which the atheist refuses to admit to happening because he’s looking only at the “progress” of his feet (and not noticing that the goal-post is receding faster than his feet carry him forward), is why the “progressive” (atheist) can SAY they are “moving forward” while those not so blind can say that the atheist is actually moving backward, and we are BOTH CORRECT based on our chosen “evidence”.

Both the atheist and the non-atheist are thereby “driven” further into their respective “hardened stances”. So, what is the “reconciliation with reality”? That happens when the atheist is forced to notice the horizon, which seldom occurs until an impending “death” (or threat thereof) suddenly appears.

The objection to the fact that “there are no atheists in foxholes” which you hear from some atheists is simply proof of either inexperience with “foxholes” or that propping up one’s previously professed “belief system” is more important than being honest.

Quote:
Driving an atheist toward the logical consequences of his belief, by exposing his axioms AS axioms, is always very disconcerting to him, and either loosens his bonds with his axiomatic beliefs, or gives him greater reason to avoid thinking about his axiomatic beliefs.

The avoidance used most often is, “I believe only what I can see!”, and then go on to tell you how unreliable our (human) sight is to prove that you’re wrong, thinking that that doesn’t completely undermine every belief that they assert.

But, since you can’t literally tie them down and MAKE them admit their contradictions, they can (and will, and do) always simply flee, like the unclean spirits we’re all so fond of talking about in the bible.

Well, there certainly are a lot of assumptions built into this scenario! You seem to be saying that you know another’s motives better than they do. What happened to ‘presumed innocent’ in all of this assigning of motives of guile?

Generally, I do know others motives as expressed by their actual words better than they do, because what they say is a distilled version of their whole being, and that “distillate” is easier to interpret by me than the “massive bulk” in their own head is by them.

We can only make interpretations (of motives or elsewhat) based on what is given to us (voluntarily, by the way), so as the “data” changes (increases by further conversation) we tend to become more accurate, and at any time the “data giver” can correct and expand any misunderstandings that the “data getter” feeds-back to the “data giver” during the conversation.

It’s not a question of “guilt or innocence”. It’s a matter of “what have you shown me”.

 

[Q_Bee]

It’s not a question of “guilt or innocence”. It’s a matter of “what have you shown me”.

Maybe a certain evil has a way of creeping in to distract us by taking us on a tangent that seeks to analyze others’ motives and thoughts more than we would otherwise focus on the spiritual journey. Is there a potential that the analytical process reinforces the ego, counter to spiritual progress? One of my professors once poignantly said, “One has to defer the rush to judgment”. From that we can learn many spiritual lessons. I ask myself, does my tendency to draw a conclusion give me a false impression of safe haven?

Q<

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
It’s not a question of “guilt or innocence”. It’s a matter of “what have you shown me”.

Maybe a certain evil has a way of creeping in to distract us by taking us on a tangent that seeks to analyze others’ motives and thoughts more than we would otherwise focus on the spiritual journey.

Sometimes it is appropriate to interpret others motives (thoughts). Making explicit what one THINKS others use to arrive at what they actually do say is a valuable way to check whether those interpretations are correct or not.

For example: An atheist says something. I say he’s saying that because of a particular motive on his part. He says I’m wrong and corrects me as to his motive. I say things that test whether his professed motive fits his “implied by his statements” (interpreted by me) motive. I see some mis-fit between his professed motive and his motive displayed by his statements and make this interpreted mis-fit expicit in our conversation. And the dance continues…

It IS my “spiritual journey” in forums where this type of conversation takes place to honestly feed-back what I interpret from other’s words so that both of us can more explicitly see what we each believe and why.

Would I do this as a server in a soup-line for the homeless? No.

What is the function of these forums?

Is there a potential that the analytical process reinforces the ego, counter to spiritual progress?

ABSOLUTELY! I’m a recovering hyper-intellectual, and know all-to-well the life-destroying addiction of basing interpersonal (me and others) and intra-personal (me and me) communications on “non-God”!

In other words, being brainy tends to make you an idiot if God isn’t the authority brainyness is based on.

One of my professors once poignantly said, “One has to defer the rush to judgment”. From that we can learn many spiritual lessons. I ask myself, does my tendency to draw a conclusion give me a false impression of safe haven?

I agree. None of my conclusions are really conclusive (other than statements of dogma) because they can always be corrected.

But, to NOT draw conclusions and feed them back to those involved because they’re not “objectively perfectly correct” is to not feed the conversation, and starve those involved in it of potential “meat”.

(( I’m not a vegetarian, and I do bite. ))

 

[Q_Bee]

Sometimes it is appropriate to interpret others motives (thoughts). Making explicit what one THINKS others use to arrive at what they actually do say is a valuable way to check whether those interpretations are correct or not.

For example: An atheist says something. I say he’s saying that because of a particular motive on his part. He says I’m wrong and corrects me as to his motive. I say things that test whether his professed motive fits his “implied by his statements” (interpreted by me) motive. I see some mis-fit between his professed motive and his motive displayed by his statements and make this interpreted mis-fit expicit in our conversation. And the dance continues…

It IS my “spiritual journey” in forums where this type of conversation takes place to honestly feed-back what I interpret from other’s words so that both of us can more explicitly see what we each believe and why.

Would I do this as a server in a soup-line for the homeless? No.

What is the function of these forums?

ABSOLUTELY! I’m a recovering hyper-intellectual, and know all-to-well the life-destroying addiction of basing interpersonal (me and others) and intra-personal (me and me) communications on “non-God”!

In other words, being brainy tends to make you an idiot if God isn’t the authority brainyness is based on.

I agree. None of my conclusions are really conclusive (other than statements of dogma) because they can always be corrected.

But, to NOT draw conclusions and feed them back to those involved because they’re not “objectively perfectly correct” is to not feed the conversation, and starve those involved in it of potential “meat”.

(( I’m not a vegetarian, and I do bite. ))

However, this all seems to be more about intellectual exercises than theology, per se. Given that the entirely of dogma is contained in the Nicene Creed, the rest is a rather large portion of material invested to personal interpretation of semantics, another’s assumed intentions, etc.

Q<

 

[CatsAndDogs]

However, this all seems to be more about intellectual exercises than theology, per se. Given that the entirely of dogma is contained in the Nicene Creed, the rest is a rather large portion of material invested to personal interpretation of semantics, another’s assumed intentions, etc.

Q<

And your point would be…?

Catholics have their non-negotiable axioms. Atheists have their non-negotiable axioms. We’re not going to change each others axioms. That is not the goal of our conversations about hypotheticals such as, " Why doesn’t God destroy the devil now?"

The goal for the Catholic (or rather the non-atheist) is to make explicit both of our axioms.

The goal for the atheist, on the other hand, is to NOT make his axioms explicit, but only to attempt to have a Catholic show him some contradiction between two or more Catholic axioms.

The “lesser educated” Catholic will eventually show the atheist some contradiction within Catholic belief, due to some misapplied axiom of the atheist and incorrect interpretation of the Catholic.

Then, the Catholic scrambles to correct the impression that he’s shown Catholic belief to be self-contradictory.

This is the “atheistic runaround” that we see so much when dealing with atheists. That IS their intention. They are deathly afraid of making explicit their own axioms, because then it’s very easy to simply laugh at them, and so the redundant misinterpretations and axiom-substitutions that they engage in are what pass for “conversation” for them.

Theology is about explaining facts, and not testing hypotheses.

To the atheist, who has no theological facts to work with, it’s entirely about testing hypotheses, so a “conversation” regarding some aspect of theology is a conversation between people who don’t understand each others language.

So why converse at all? To illustrate that while Catholics do (demonstrably) understand the language of the atheist, the atheist shows interest only in NOT understanding the language of the Catholic.

The exposure of the “why” behind the atheists behavior (purposeful misunderstanding) is the only reason for having these conversations with atheists. They won’t be converted, though God does work in mysterious ways and may “crack” their self-constructed intellectual walls at times, I suppose.

 

[Q_Bee]

And your point would be…?

Catholics have their non-negotiable axioms. Atheists have their non-negotiable axioms. We’re not going to change each others axioms. That is not the goal of our conversations about hypotheticals such as, " Why doesn’t God destroy the devil now?"

If one party does not believe in God, then the point is moot, is it not?

The goal for the Catholic (or rather the non-atheist) is to make explicit both of our axioms.

The goal for the atheist, on the other hand, is to NOT make his axioms explicit, but only to attempt to have a Catholic show him some contradiction between two or more Catholic axioms.

The “lesser educated” Catholic will eventually show the atheist some contradiction within Catholic belief, due to some misapplied axiom of the atheist and incorrect interpretation of the Catholic.

So, if I understand you, this is an exercise by which the theist has something to prove, while the atheist sits back and waits for a blunder?

Then, the Catholic scrambles to correct the impression that he’s shown Catholic belief to be self-contradictory.

This is the “atheistic runaround” that we see so much when dealing with atheists. That IS their intention. They are deathly afraid of making explicit their own axioms, because then it’s very easy to simply laugh at them, and so the redundant misinterpretations and axiom-substitutions that they engage in are what pass for “conversation” for them.

Then, my questions is, if you already know the drill, why take the bait?

Theology is about explaining facts, and not testing hypotheses.

To the atheist, who has no theological facts to work with, it’s entirely about testing hypotheses, so a “conversation” regarding some aspect of theology is a conversation between people who don’t understand each others language.

So why converse at all? To illustrate that while Catholics do (demonstrably) understand the language of the atheist, the atheist shows interest only in NOT understanding the language of the Catholic.

The exposure of the “why” behind the atheists behavior (purposeful misunderstanding) is the only reason for having these conversations with atheists. They won’t be converted, though God does work in mysterious ways and may “crack” their self-constructed intellectual walls at times, I suppose.

So, again, if I understand you correctly, the purpose is to expose the crack, and thus to ‘win’ in some sense. And if, as you say, ‘they won’t be converted’, wouldn’t time be better spent in spreading the word where there is a potential? Evidently, unless I’ve misunderstood, God does the work in such cases, not the person who argues endlessly with an intractable person who is playing an intellectual game.

But for the theist (OK, that’s a specific term applicable elsewhere, but before it was hijacked as the designation for a specific narrower group, it did designate ‘a believer in God’), they are going in with eyes wide open to the fact that they are being run around the track as an intellectual exercise that has almost zero potential of having any effect. It seems to me that this is similar to working with a sociopath; the more you explain the parameters of normal behaviors the more they become adept at mimicking normalcy in order to deceive others, all to their own self-serving end.

Soooo, I’m cocking my head like a cocker spaniel and saying, Huh? What’s up with that? Can this be equated to the gambling addict that attempts to quit, but ends up on eBay bidding on junk they don’t actually need or want just for the rush of anticipation or the thrill of a potential win?

Q<

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
And your point would be…?

Catholics have their non-negotiable axioms. Atheists have their non-negotiable axioms. We’re not going to change each others axioms. That is not the goal of our conversations about hypotheticals such as, " Why doesn’t God destroy the devil now?"

If one party does not believe in God, then the point is moot, is it not?

The question is why an atheist chooses to enter this discussion!

The POINT of the atheist choosing to talk about this (or any theological question) is to make Catholics appear foolish.

Quote:
The goal for the Catholic (or rather the non-atheist) is to make explicit both of our axioms.

The goal for the atheist, on the other hand, is to NOT make his axioms explicit, but only to attempt to have a Catholic show him some contradiction between two or more Catholic axioms.

The “lesser educated” Catholic will eventually show the atheist some contradiction within Catholic belief, due to some misapplied axiom of the atheist and incorrect interpretation of the Catholic.

So, if I understand you, this is an exercise by which the theist has something to prove, while the atheist sits back and waits for a blunder?

The “theist” (the non-atheist) has nothing to PROVE, but rather something to explain. No non-atheist should ever try to “prove” anything related to God, but just show the effects of what accepting these unprovable truths are.

Quote:
Then, the Catholic scrambles to correct the impression that he’s shown Catholic belief to be self-contradictory.

This is the “atheistic runaround” that we see so much when dealing with atheists. That IS their intention. They are deathly afraid of making explicit their own axioms, because then it’s very easy to simply laugh at them, and so the redundant misinterpretations and axiom-substitutions that they engage in are what pass for “conversation” for them.

Then, my questions is, if you already know the drill, why take the bait?

There are a few of reasons:

To sharpen my Catholic blade on an atheistic whetstone. To show atheists for what they are. To show that people can engage atheists and show them for what they are. To waste time in goofy verbal battle with fools. To practice my typing skills. To annoy folks like yourself. To annoy folks like myself. To use the nifty “thumbsup” emoticon. Opportunities for bad punnage. There are several others, but you get the idea…

 

[Q_Bee]

There are a few of reasons:

To sharpen my Catholic blade on an atheistic whetstone. To show atheists for what they are. To show that people can engage atheists and show them for what they are. To waste time in goofy verbal battle with fools. To practice my typing skills. To annoy folks like yourself. To annoy folks like myself. To use the nifty “thumbsup” emoticon. Opportunities for bad punnage. There are several others, but you get the idea…

OK, so unless I’m extrapolating something that is not being said, you feel some sense of a need to expose atheists for what you assume they are, waste time, practice typing, be an irritant, use emoticons, and find opportunities for puns. . . . ‘Whatever blows your skirt up’, as they say.

Q<

 

[Matariel]

How did the material world begin existing?

 

[Matariel]

…Given that the entirety of dogma is contained in the Nicene Creed…

Q<

The Holy Assumption and Immaculate Conception are dogma, and they are not found in the creed.

 

[Q_Bee]

The Holy Assumption and Immaculate Conception are dogma, and they are not found in the creed.

If one does not understand the ‘Collegiality of the Patriarchs’, then one can assume that new dogma can be created at the will of one of the patriarchs. Once the Great Schism took place there was no occassion for a great council to formulate points of new dogma. One patriarch creating a ‘collegiality of bishops’ who are all under the one patriarch’s jurisdiction does not create a substitute for the orignial group. As evidence of the Collegiality of the Patriarchs, we can note that no other patriarch has even made an attempt to formulate dogma within their jurisdiction. Ask an Orthodox Catholic and you will discover the scandal they sense that any patriarch would declare a dogma on their own.

Of course, any patriarch may make statements of doctrine within his own jurisdiction, and acceptance of such doctrines is subject to the sensus fidelium.

But, regardless of what we might have been taught, “Catholic Dogma” must be accepted by all of the patriarchs, otherwise what we are talking about is simply “Roman Catholic doctrines”.

Q<

 

[Matariel]

If one does not understand the ‘Collegiality of the Patriarchs’, then one can assume that new dogma can be created at the will of one of the patriarchs. Once the Great Schism took place there was no occassion for a great council to formulate points of new dogma. One patriarch creating a ‘collegiality of bishops’ who are all under the one patriarch’s jurisdiction does not create a substitute for the orignial group. As evidence of the Collegiality of the Patriarchs, we can note that no other patriarch has even made an attempt to formulate dogma within their jurisdiction. Ask an Orthodox Catholic and you will discover the scandal they sense that any patriarch would declare a dogma on their own.

Of course, any patriarch may make statements of doctrine within his own jurisdiction, and acceptance of such doctrines is subject to the sensus fidelium.

But, regardless of what we might have been taught, “Catholic Dogma” must be accepted by all of the patriarchs, otherwise what we are talking about is simply “Roman Catholic doctrines”.

Q<

That sounds like doubletalk, Q. No disrespect intended. If you believe this, why aren’t you Orthodox?

 

[Q_Bee]

That sounds like doubletalk, Q. No disrespect intended. If you believe this, why aren’t you Orthodox?

If you don’t know the history, I suppose what I’ve written may sound like doubletalk, but I assure you that it is not.

All Catholics are already Orthodox, provided they know what they are aligning themselves with. It would be worth your while to consider getting familiar with the history of created dogmas if you are going to present the topic for discussion.

I’m sure you are already familiar with the fact that a pope added the filioque to the Nicene Creed and that it is not a part of the agreed formula from the Council of Nicaea, right?

By the way, are you familiar with the historical evidence on Theodora Episcopa, the historic mosaic that attests to women bishops in the early church?

Q<

 

[Schnitz]

Q Bee:

Thus the first apostles were Photini, the Samaritan Woman at the Well who converted her whole town, and Mary Magdalene, who accompanied him throughout the mission, stood at the foot of the cross, and witnessed to the others.

So, to say that Jesus only chose men is ridiculous.

So I suppose that we are ignoring Matthew 10:2? Where in the Bible does it list a woman as an apostle? And don’t give me the, “Well, there’s no use of the word Trinity in the Bible” argument either. Christ specifically chose men to be His apostles.
Q Bee:

Hogwash!

So all of the Dominican sisters (along with those of other religious orders) and the lay women who work in Catholic schools across the country are just there to clean their classrooms?
Q Bee:

What has ‘role-playing’ got to do with anything? Assigning roles is the prerogative of men only because they are physically stronger and can force their wills upon those who are physically weaker.

When did I say role-playing? There was an article in the Washington Post that you should check out.

Yes, that’s right. We are stronger and more powerful and think that women are losers who should stay home. Are you serious?
Q Bee:

Don’t you think Jesus’ mother was just as much a priest as any mortal could be?

No, I don’t. She wasn’t a male.

 

[Q_Bee]

So I suppose that we are ignoring Matthew 10:2? Where in the Bible does it list a woman as an apostle? And don’t give me the, “Well, there’s no use of the word Trinity in the Bible” argument either. Christ specifically chose men to be His apostles.

Try Romans 16:7 in which Paul lists Junia as an apostle. Also, since the word ‘apostle’ simply means ‘one who is sent’, The Woman at the Well [Photini] and Mary Magdalene both are fully qualified apostles.

So all of the Dominican sisters (along with those of other religious orders) and the lay women who work in Catholic schools across the country are just there to clean their classrooms?

I don’t think so, but they still have only six sacraments available to them, and no voice or place in the hierarchy of the church.

When did I say role-playing? There was an article in the Washington Post that you should check out.

Yes, that’s right. We are stronger and more powerful and think that women are losers who should stay home. Are you serious?

When you talk about assigned roles of women and men [which men have assigned] you are talking about role-playing to fit the male’s world-view.

No, I don’t. She wasn’t a male.

Where does it say that the celebrant needs a magic wand to officiate? If we are all created in God’s image - male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27), you have no point to make.

Also, you might want to think in terms of the way the priest is portrayed by the church. The priest represents the people of God (bride) while making an offering in their stead, but represents the Christ (male) while confecting the gifts; so, the priest is female and male depending on the moment under discussion and the RC explanation trips all over itself to make an oblique point that only males ‘image Christ’ for the people. This entirely disregards the fact that the Christ is within and that all baptised persons share in the priesthood of believers.

How is it that woman can be the image of God but not the image of Christ? Are they two separate beings, thus negating the Trinity?

Q<

 

[Matariel]

If you don’t know the history, I suppose what I’ve written may sound like doubletalk, but I assure you that it is not.

All Catholics are already Orthodox, provided they know what they are aligning themselves with. It would be worth your while to consider getting familiar with the history of created dogmas if you are going to present the topic for discussion.

It is a topic of interest to me.

I’m sure you are already familiar with the fact that a pope added the filioque to the Nicene Creed and that it is not a part of the agreed formula from the Council of Nicaea, right?

I know this.

By the way, are you familiar with the historical evidence on Theodora Episcopa, the historic mosaic that attests to women bishops in the early church?

That mosaic is used over and over again, as it is the only piece really even suggesting such. Although it is authentic, you can clearly see that the Church has always ordained male clergy exclusively; however, some heretical sects (like the Montanists) and even groups within the Church (as mentioned by some of the Church Fathers) had to deal with the illegal “ordinations” of females in various places from time to time (just like today with the heretical “womenpriest” group). The Church never condoned ordination of women, as the original bishops (the Apostles) were all male (this in no way means women are inferior to men; they simply have differing roles).

Even admitting that, the mosaic is probably a reference to the wife of a Bishop.

Concerning the “constant practice of the Church,” in antiquity the Church Fathers Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, John Chrysostom, and Augustine all wrote that the ordination of women was impossible. The Synod of Laodicea prohibited ordaining women to the Presbyterate.

But I do not want to derail this thread, so we shouldn’t get into a discussion over this here.

 

[Q_Bee]

It is a topic of interest to me.

I know this.

That mosaic is used over and over again, as it is the only piece really even suggesting such. Although it is authentic, you can clearly see that the Church has always ordained male clergy exclusively; however, some heretical sects (like the Montanists) and even groups within the Church (as mentioned by some of the Church Fathers) had to deal with the illegal “ordinations” of females in various places from time to time (just like today with the heretical “womenpriest” group). The Church never condoned ordination of women, as the original bishops (the Apostles) were all male (this in no way means women are inferior to men; they simply have differing roles).

Even admitting that, the mosaic is probably a reference to the wife of a Bishop.

Concerning the “constant practice of the Church,” in antiquity the Church Fathers Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, John Chrysostom, and Augustine all wrote that the ordination of women was impossible. The Synod of Laodicea prohibited ordaining women to the Presbyterate.

But I do not want to derail this thread, so we shouldn’t get into a discussion over this here.

Are you also familiar with Priscilla’s Mass effigy?

Q<

 

[Q_Bee]

Concerning the “constant practice of the Church,” in antiquity the Church Fathers Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, John Chrysostom, and Augustine all wrote that the ordination of women was impossible.

All of your sources are mid-2nd century or later. That does not prove that Jesus intended to forbid women from holy orders. Besides, so what if some backward people a couple of thousand years ago thought that women should be excluded? Talk about evil, these men had plenty to do with subjugating half of humanity. Waht can you tell me that is not linked to cases of “testosterone poisoning”?

Q<

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
There are a few of reasons:

To sharpen my Catholic blade on an atheistic whetstone. To show atheists for what they are. To show that people can engage atheists and show them for what they are. To waste time in goofy verbal battle with fools. To practice my typing skills. To annoy folks like yourself. To annoy folks like myself. To use the nifty “thumbsup” emoticon. Opportunities for bad punnage. There are several others, but you get the idea…

OK, so unless I’m extrapolating something that is not being said, you feel some sense of a need to expose atheists for what you assume they are, waste time, practice typing, be an irritant, use emoticons, and find opportunities for puns. . . . ‘Whatever blows your skirt up’, as they say.

<chortle, chuckle, snort, gasp, chuckle…>

Uh, yeah. You’ve pretty much hit it on the head!

Except, I simply provide atheists with an opportunity to expose themselves, by being a counter-irritant for them to “sneeze out”, as it were.

They make statements. I comment on what their statements mean to me, admittedly in light of my past experience with other atheists. They comment on what I said. I comment further on what they said. Lather, rinse, repeat, until hair is of desired “sheen”.

 

[Schnitz]

Q Bee:

Try Romans 16:7 in which Paul lists Junia as an apostle. Also, since the word ‘apostle’ simply means ‘one who is sent’, The Woman at the Well [Photini] and Mary Magdalene both are fully qualified apostles.

Paul doesn’t list Junia as an apostle. It doesn’t read “they are prominent apostles.” It is simply sating that they are known by the apostles, presumably because they were noteworthy Christians. And again, when Jesus chooses His apostles, I fail to see the names of Photini or Mary Magdalene make Christ’s top twelve list.
Q Bee:

I don’t think so, but they still have only six sacraments available to them, and no voice or place in the hierarchy of the church.

So then what are they doing in said classrooms?

“Catholic women have played a central role in the life of the Church, from Lydia in the Acts of the Apostles, through Margaret of Scotland and Jadwiga of Poland and other great queens and women of influence, to the Englishwomen at the Reformation who arranged secret places for Mass, down to Edith Stein, whose quest for intellectual and spiritual truth led her to convent life and did not spare her Auschwitz. In no sense is there any authentic tradition of “If you’re not a priest you simply don’t matter,” despite fashionable attempts to present this as a standard part of Catholicism.”
Q Bee:

When you talk about assigned roles of women and men [which men have assigned] you are talking about role-playing to fit the male’s world-view.

Sorry to break it to you, but there is only one man who has set this up. His name is Jesus.
Q Bee:

Where does it say that the celebrant needs a magic wand to officiate? If we are all created in God’s image - male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27), you have no point to make.

Tit 1:5-6
Appoint presbyters (presbyterois) in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.

Acts 6:6
They presented these men (seven diaconoi) to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them.

Didache, Ch 5, Syria, 70-110
Elect therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, humble men and not covetous, and faithful and well tested; for they also serve you in the ministry of the prophets and teachers. Do not therefore despise them, for they are the honored men among you along with the prophets and teachers.

Acts 13:2-3
While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off.

So the Apostles go about ordaining how many women in the Bible? They speak of females who are bishops where in the Bible? So yeah, I suppose we can draw from this that one does need a penis.
Q Bee:

This entirely disregards the fact that the Christ is within and that all baptised persons share in the priesthood of believers.

Following this logic, Christ is both a male and a female. The priesthood of believers isn’t the same as the sacramental priesthood. Also, this in no way disregards the existence of Christ within everyone.
Q Bee:

How is it that woman can be the image of God but not the image of Christ? Are they two separate beings, thus negating the Trinity?

Since when did the “image of God” refer to gender? And tell me, how should a female “act in the place of Christ,” if Christ was a male? I am NOT saying that a female cannot be like Christ, but asking how she is to “stand in the place of Christ.”