S
Schism_hater
Guest
Sorry, you lost me with that extremely dubious claim.
- Status
M
Morwenna
Guest
Heaven forfend! :nope:
C
Cranch
Guest
S
Spudbynight
Guest
Exactly - I mean why do people keep bringing up The Bible at all. It is 2000 years old - the Church needs to get with the times. We should have a new Bible written TODAY that is more inclusive.
Mark121359
Well-known member
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Caution: male bigotry follows. 
I wasn’t going to watch the video but I got too curious.
First, the narrator says that women’s voices are getting “stronger” and “more assertive.”
Translator guide:
“stronger” → loud.
“more assertive” → loud and screechy.
Then we get the expert – a female cantor obviously knows more than the pope. But after watching her speak, and seeing her mannerisms and facial expressions, I have some ideas why she’d want a bride – in the form of a church. She couldn’t get a flesh-and-blood bride of her own so she’s blaming it on Male Oppression. :knight2:
But really I shouldn’t imply her looks were her worst feature; obviously her faulty reasoning is a much larger contributor to her angst. I feel 10 IQ points stupider for having watched her blather. :choocho:
Boy she really nailed it then – she says that when Christ left the Church in the hands of men, that’s when things started to get “screwed up.” A lot of confidence this Christian has in her Lord’s plans. Let’s see – what was the first act ever by any human that was wrong – can she say EVE? Adam had to go along with Eve because she put him in a no-win situation so he had to choose between her and God. So Adam died involuntarily because of what Eve did, and Jesus died voluntarily to fix the damage that Eve did. And giving the Church to Peter was the FIRST time “things” were ever screwed up? :whacky:
The end of the video left me shaking my head, and then the next video queued itself up and started playing a commercial for sufferers of erectile dysfunction. Figures.
Alan
I wasn’t going to watch the video but I got too curious.
First, the narrator says that women’s voices are getting “stronger” and “more assertive.”
Translator guide:
“stronger” → loud.
“more assertive” → loud and screechy.
Then we get the expert – a female cantor obviously knows more than the pope. But after watching her speak, and seeing her mannerisms and facial expressions, I have some ideas why she’d want a bride – in the form of a church. She couldn’t get a flesh-and-blood bride of her own so she’s blaming it on Male Oppression. :knight2:
But really I shouldn’t imply her looks were her worst feature; obviously her faulty reasoning is a much larger contributor to her angst. I feel 10 IQ points stupider for having watched her blather. :choocho:
Boy she really nailed it then – she says that when Christ left the Church in the hands of men, that’s when things started to get “screwed up.” A lot of confidence this Christian has in her Lord’s plans. Let’s see – what was the first act ever by any human that was wrong – can she say EVE? Adam had to go along with Eve because she put him in a no-win situation so he had to choose between her and God. So Adam died involuntarily because of what Eve did, and Jesus died voluntarily to fix the damage that Eve did. And giving the Church to Peter was the FIRST time “things” were ever screwed up? :whacky:
The end of the video left me shaking my head, and then the next video queued itself up and started playing a commercial for sufferers of erectile dysfunction. Figures.
Alan
S
Spudbynight
Guest
If it walks like a protestant and quacks like a protestant…
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
Yes, I was agreeing with her.
Based on your use of the wink symbol, I’m going to guess that you were just kidding, and that you do, in fact, know that is not how I meant it.
That is precisely my question, actually. Because we aren’t talking about that much, are we?
Again, if someone says, “women are lacking in power, influence and importance in the Church,” my instinct is to ask, “well, is that true, or not? If it is not true, why is it not true?”
I like that better as a response than the mere repetition of the fact that women cannot join the Priesthood. To repeat that is merely to restate our own position, which they are quite well aware of. To speak about the power, influence and importance of women within the Church is a far more effective tool to rid ourselves of this pestering.
Unfortunately, many of you seem stuck on this idea of “men get the important positions, women get the scraps.”
P
pete_29
Guest
Women are never going to be Priests. Sorry
E
edwest2
Guest
Let’s break it down:
“Women demand greater say” OK. What does that mean exactly? Yes, I’m looking at the OP. And why is it a demand as opposed to a want followed by a reason?
“in future of Catholic Church” Please don’t take this the wrong way but “what future”? This implies some changes, and I would like the OP to tell us, aside from personal opinion, who these women are.
I mean one person telling us what women (plural) demand is just one person’s opinion unless the OP can show otherwise, and identify at least some of these women.
Otherwise, this is a one-person show that will go nowhere.
Peace,
Ed
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
:banghead:Women are never going to be Priests. Sorry
Tell me you just said that as a joke…
Would it be fair to say that this issue of female priestesses has been raised often (or even “far too often”)? I would say that.
Ed, let me put it this way. Let’s say you have been busting your behind at work. However, one day, the boss pulls you into his office and tells you that he thinks you’ve been slacking off lately.
Do you:
- Pull out your one-line job description, and twist the wording of it to explain how you have met the bare minimum requirements for the job? Or,
- Explain all of the ways you have met your job description, and in fact, gone above and beyond it?
Far better: men and women have different, but equally critical roles to play in the Church. While it is true that only men can be Priests, only women can do such and such—their roles are different, but both are valued members of the Church.
I wonder why the above paragraph is so dang controversial. Why do you think that is?
E
edwest2
Guest
Controversial is a word I never use because it doesn’t mean anything. It’s a fake word. I prefer, this side is right and this side is wrong, because in the real world, that’s all it is and should be.
Your question doesn’t matter. There is a list of things that people will post here endlessly. Accept that if you haven’t already. There are people whose mission in life is to post here the entire anti-God, anti-Church agenda. I know for a fact that the goal is to distort, bury and deny the truth.
This thread is just one in a series of many, many more to come. One price of being a Catholic is eternal vigilance. And eternal defense of the truth.
Peace,
Ed
C
Corki
Guest
OK. The answer to this basic question is “NO”. Women are not lacking in any of those attributes in the Church. The Church is not a Fortune 500 corporation. The only way you would say “yes” to that question is if you have bought into a secular, corporate, feminist distortion of what “power, influence and importance” **really **is.
D
dmar198
Guest
Hey, it wasn’t my claim. I was trying to responding to someone who SAID the Church has never recognized women as real people, and so I posted proof from the Church Fathers that the Church has ALWAYS recognized the equality of men and women, with the understanding that they play different roles. Men are called to be fathers (including priests), brothers, and husbands, while women are called to be sisters, wives, and mothers (and NOT to be priests), and to imitate Mary who was the holiest of women. That’s always been the teaching of the Church, and my post was intended to show that by quotations from the Fathers of the Church. I just hope people didn’t get a different impression – when I read my own post now in hindsight, it almost looks like I was trying to prove that the Fathers would have supported women priests, which is obviously not true.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
That’s what I tried to explain to him earlier, Corki. He’s not buying it because he is in fact overlaying a secular, modernist, corporate version of “power” onto a very different kind of structure, with different assumptions. The idea that anything other than a male understanding of power could be equal to or greater than male “power” is a concept he ridicules. Unfortunately, his understanding is opposite of not only what the Catholic Church has said and modeled, but what Jesus said and modeled.
A slavish emulation of male power was something some of us discussed on the Feminine Mystique thread in World News. It was the same paradigm that the radical feminists of the middle 1960’s and early 1970’s insisted would be women’s “liberation.” The irony was that, without moderation, modification, and balance, corporate “power” has proved to enslave women, just as it has enslaved many men, leaving both sexes to question just how deep, significant, and real, the corporate model of power is.
Back to the non-corporate world:
There are many households “ruled” by powerful men with lots of money, but in which the real power in the household belongs to the wife and mother. It is she to whom the others turn for wisdom, solace, direction, and much else.
Power is not about costumes, titles, or position. Jesus Himself said so. In the model of The Kingdom (which is to applied to earth, not only to heaven), legitimate and realistic power is connected to love, service, and truth.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
So let’s go ahead and make this absolutely clear: in the “modern” (?) sense of the word (that is to say, the “real” or “normal” definition of the word), women have little to no power within the Church? Is that your position?
That’s not what I’m saying, but I want to verify that that is what you are saying.
Examples?
One thing we know for sure: the feminists were right that their lack of “corporate” power led to the oppression of women.
It is this lack of power that enabled them to be treated as property, used as sex slaves, raped by their own husbands without legal consequences, disallowed the right to own property, prevented them from electing leaders, from working in certain fields, from earning comparable pay and so on.
But you say that women have had this “non-corporate” power, traditionally. How valuable is that power, when it didn’t prevent the atrocities listed above?
Would you like to return to those days? Would you like to return to the “traditional” ways?
Like this household of a self-styled submissive Catholic wife? One where all of the decision-making is granted to the husband and the husband alone? But don’t worry, she has the “non-corporate” power to make suggestions to her husband–none of which her husband ever seems to bend to.
And that’s one of the healthier versions of wifely submission, if you can believe that.
It does indeed mean that, if you use the definition that everyone else in the entire English-speaking world does.
But I guess we’re straw-manning everyone by using words incorrectly.
Meaning what? Examples?
J
jimperu
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
Exactly right. The terrible fruit of the radical feminists was the destruction of too many families. They do nothing for the women enslaved in porn, strip clubs and topless bars. They even think it’s OK for women to be prostitutes.
Families are the first place for religious education. The mother and father are both pulling the same cart.
Peace,
Ed
J
jimperu
Guest
You are correct. I am a Catholic, 68 yrs old and was brought up and educated as a Catholic. The Law of God , is just that, the law. Those who demand change of sacred law, for their own goals are not fully obedient to the God they propose that thy follow and believe in. The Church can make changes that do not change the doctrine of its beliefs. These subtle changes can be made only to strengthen existing truth, and only after the strictest exploration of its brightest scholars and approval by the hierarchy.
The earliest Christians were independent and there were many variations of prayer and praise. Eventually a hierarchy developed to bring order and unity of those who had the
like beliefs. this strengthened the Christian faith. True followers MUST accept those laws that govern their BELIEFS, or they have not REALLY accepted the very faith that they say they believe in. If any religion changes itself to please the wishes of every generation than it would truly be pagan worship, not sincere love of the true God. Those opposed to religious law should pray, obey, support, educate themselves , and live as directed by that God they choose to follow. Be a true follower and accept.
Living a life of goodness is not easy at all, in our time. We should not worry or get
caught up in ourselves. Feed the hungry, pray for the dying, and on and on; life is short do good and let God lead us not us lead God.
The earliest Christians were independent and there were many variations of prayer and praise. Eventually a hierarchy developed to bring order and unity of those who had the
like beliefs. this strengthened the Christian faith. True followers MUST accept those laws that govern their BELIEFS, or they have not REALLY accepted the very faith that they say they believe in. If any religion changes itself to please the wishes of every generation than it would truly be pagan worship, not sincere love of the true God. Those opposed to religious law should pray, obey, support, educate themselves , and live as directed by that God they choose to follow. Be a true follower and accept.
Living a life of goodness is not easy at all, in our time. We should not worry or get
caught up in ourselves. Feed the hungry, pray for the dying, and on and on; life is short do good and let God lead us not us lead God.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
No, it’s not my “position,” but I don’t like your tone, and it’s Easter. The Lord Is Risen. I don’t care to meet you at your level, which is demeaning.
“Modern” does not equal corporate secular political power in the narrow and raw, limited sense of that understanding. I reject your “definition” of power. It is a limited definition, which many modern secular women have come to understand, through their own expanded experiment in the oh-so-glorified corporate world, is very often an illusion of power and/or can have a shallow (or circumscribed) reach, depending on the position involved.
It seems that you do not get out much, or read much, because many ex-corporate women (CEO’s, Presidents, VP’s of corporations) have written essays, given lectures, and written entire books on their disillusionment in the corporate world. I have also been in the corporate world and I know whereof I speak. Please don’t try to pretend you speak for women. You don’t.
Back to the ecclesial (not “religious,” but ecclesial) model, i.e., the Papacy:
The Pope can declare many things unilaterally in the area of faith and practice, but whether it is realistic that he behave like a dictator is another thing. This Pope, as most other popes, has every intention of shepherding the universal flock and listening to the needs of those members. No modern Pope acts alone as just a routine matter of course. He listens to men and women in the Curia, and to many others. The Cardinals elect the Pope but that episode is hardly a power-grab. It is distinctly different than secular appointments and elections, in that receptivity on the Cardinals’ part is an aspect of it.
Bishops have jurisdictions over dioceses because to do so is an outgrowth of being a priest, and women will never be priests in the Roman Church, a fact for which I, a woman, am extremely glad. (Wait, I have a successful career and have never been “submissive.” How could it be that I am not in favor of women priests?
)As to priests “having power,” boy is that concept overrated. They have the spiritual (not political) power to administer the sacraments. On the parish level, which is where most ordained Catholic men begin and end their careers, much of the administration of the parish is subdivided among ministries and tasks – most of which are carried out by women. As I’ve said several times now, that includes preparation for the sacraments, education in the faith, formation of catechumens, leading retreats (alone), initiating and leading social justice ongoing efforts, Life ministries, and much more. Women are leaders in spiritual direction. There are, I believe, more female spiritual directors than male. If you do not understand that the power to pray and be in union with God is superior to many other kinds of power, then I feel sad that you have missed much of the message of Catholicism. In two local situations I can think of immediately, the (two) religious sisters in charge of spiritual direction in one case, and of Communion Services in the other, were both far more effective and popular than were the priests assigned to that parish.
I’ll expand on my comments about Jesus later. Again, I don’t care to descend to your tone.
- Status