The Catholic Church prohibits women's ordination, saying it has no authority to ordain women because Jesus chose only men as his apostles??? The church's Canon Law 1024 says only baptized men may receive holy orders. This is an example of the outdated and bigoted view of the RCC and their disrespect for women just because they were born female (incubators to pass the male seed). Earlier this year, Pope Benedict XVI denounced the Rev. Bill Brennan (92 years old) for supporting women's ordination, saying their desire to change the church was a "desperate push" driven by their "own preferences and ideas." Instead, the pope urged for the "radicalism of obedience." Not the spreading of the word of Jesus or the sermon on the mount mind you … obedience to the CHURCH is their priority and it would solve all their problems if it weren’t for the people involved who are becoming better educated.
I pretty much have as well - however I do still engage. I do not give up the civility, I challenge others to find it. Once in a while, they do. About 5% of the time.
No Doc, even though there are some dissenters who like to defy and challenge the Magisterium and continue pressing for women's ordination, the matter of women ever being ordained as priestesses in the CC is closed. Permanently closed since 1994 when Blessed JPII issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which said that the Church "has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination of women and that this judgment is to be definitely held by all the Church's faithful." In 1995, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarified saying, "this teaching requires definitive assent...". That means all Catholics whether they like it or not, must adhere to the Church's authority.
So therefore, it is right and proper for the Church to dismiss priests like Rev. Bill Brennan who are disobedient and defiant of Church teachings. He went too far. Only men priests became an infallible dogma of the Church when the Pope issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
Yes, Catholics can debate, question, persuade on any issue, etc. , but the point is they can not debate, defy, question etc. any infallible (free from error, ex cathedra) pronouncements.
Exactly, the Bible is clear on this issue and so is Sacred Tradition. Actually, the male only priesthood has been a constant teaching of the Church from Apostolic times. The Book of Acts is a record of the actual history of the early Church and the "laying on of hands" began the succession of the ministerial (sacerdotal) priesthood.
The Church's source of truth is the Holy Trinity--Father, Son and Holy Ghost and since Christ promised that He would be with her until the end of the world and that the gates of Hell will never prevail against her, she will never fall apart as you say. The Catholic Church gives to men (I'm not politically correct), through Scripture and Tradition the whole of God's teaching, its meaning, and a guarantee of its authenticity. So, on the matter of the men only priesthood, it's not the Church that has gotten far from its source of truth, but rather it's plain to see that some of her members have.
It is modern Rabbinic Judaism and most of the various sects within Protestantism that have women as rabbis and ministers who are falling apart.
I hope you understand now that the Church's prohibition of the ordination of women is a doctrinal matter and not an administrative one.
I haven't a clue what you mean by this as in Ephesians 4:4-6, St. Paul infallibly teaches there is but "one body", "one Spirit", "one hope", "One Lord", "one faith", "one baptism", "One God and Father"..
As you say, there are a multitude of religions, especially "Christian" out there, but Christ taught one very definite religion and "one Faith" and so therefore, it does matter whether we profess and practice the "one faith" or not.
That means Christianity "a la carte" will not do.
It is not an infallible dictum, so the rule can be changed. I expect it will. Infallible dicta are things that cannot change, as the belief is they come from God himself. All others are rules interpreted by the fallible vessel - man - that can change as knowledge does.
60 years ago, Vatican II was also impossible.
You need to study more the Doctrine of Infallibility.
The charism of Infallibility simply put is freedom from error in teaching or defining restricted to matters of faith and morals. The CC teaches infallibly when it defines, through the Pope alone, as the teacher of all Christians, or through the Pope and the Bishops, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by all the faithful.
Faithfully adhering to the Apostolic tradition received from the beginning of the Christian Faith, the Church teaches infallibly through the Pope alone, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office as pastor and teacher of all Christians, (for the entire universal Church), by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority.
The Pope is infallible only under the following conditions:
1. When he speaks ex cathedra, i.e., when he speaks officially as pastor and teacher; as the Vicar of Christ for the whole universal Church.
2. When he defines a question regarding faith and morals, on their interpretation, on the Bible and Apostolic Tradition and the interpretation of any part of these; with the meaning to settle it definitely, finally, irrevocably.
3. When he intends to bind the whole Church.
Here's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:
http://www.cin.org/jp2ency/priesmen.html
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis contains these conditions and that's why the matter is settled. Done! Fini!...no women priests in the CC ever. Bl. Pope JPII officially
We know frm the Bible, Tradition and Church history, the CC has had an only male priesthood from the very beginning and that had been universally held until recent times when radical feminists made objections against it and tried to change what can't be changed. In order to make clear the stand of the Church, to make an infallible definition, BL. John Paul II officially reaffirmed the only male priesthood and that teaching "is to be held definitively by all the faithful."
What do you mean?
Vatican II was a pastoral council and the 16 texts of Vatican II are not binding. They are teachings, but not infallibly so as were, say, the First Council of Jerusalem, Nicea or Trent.
You are always going to win me over with references to Star Trek! But you do actually bring up a good point. Perhaps those that convert to civility, were civil all along, and just playing nasty because others were.
Re: Dogma.
Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 87Well dogma is dogma no matter what anyone else calls it and it does not allow for reason by its very definition.
A Catholic dogma is a truth revealed by God and directly proposed by the Magisterium of the Church for our belief. Catholic dogma thereby gives Catholics complete, absolute certitude about what the Church infallibly declares in faith and morals.
The Catholic Church dogmatically declares and with authority, Jesus is the Messias, Papal Infallibility, Scripture is the inspired word of God, Pope Benedict XVI is the legitimate successor of St. Peter in the primacy and the Holy Trinity. These specific truths allow for and are all compatible with sound reason.
Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 87Dogmatism cannot even be compared to the sciences because they are not falsifiable in the minds of the faithful … regardless of the fact that the rest of the world thinks it is bologna … just ask a Jew, a Muslim, a Polytheist, an atheist, a Buddhist, a native or an aborigine etc.
Yes, dogmatism can be compared to the sciences.
Doesn't the mathematics teacher dogmatically declare that two plus two are four thereby giving students certitude in exactness in reckoning? Doesn't the chemist dogmatically declare that the composition of water is 2 atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen thereby giving us certitude from errors which could endanger our lives? These specific truths allow for and are compatible with sound reason.
Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 87 If someone commits themselves to Christianity (Judaism, Islam) so be it, but that commitment and the dogma they wish to believe in has nothing to do with me as a ‘civilian’.
Then why are you so intent in bashing them?
Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 87I am not beholding to their views any more than they are to mine … but well we know how that always turns out.
You're an adherent to today's new fundamentalism of Secular or Atheistic Humanism..the new State religion and moral relativism is its creed. In it, absolute truth is taken away or ignored, and every man is his own magisterium and might makes right!
Lula do you have any idea of the difference between having a debate and teaching a Sunday school lesson? In a lesson you teach things as if they were true (regardless of facts) and no quarter is allowed for disagreements. A debate on the other hand needs be operated differently IMO. When opposing views collide all should expect opposition and this is where dogma becomes the impediment … when two people attempt to communicate. You have shown no tendency towards communication or debate … you are always in Sunday school mode all the while hiding behind your church. Nobody besides yourself thinks you don’t have your reasons to support your dogma be they real or imaginary but you still delight in telling us scripturally, dogmatically.
There is no dogmatism in mathematics silly or do you doubt that in math in general there is but one right answer to a given problem (on the order you stated) i.e. … not open to debate period. Dogmatists do not deal in facts else they would at least be able to reason and they cannot. Math and chemistry deals exclusively with facts which none should be able to deny their accuracy today and still claim to be sentient. Believe whatever you want but it all boils down to the fact that you have reasonable sight and are literate, you have a brain that is fully functional whether you use it or not. The material explanations for our reality are available to all at the touch of a few buttons so there is no excuse for such apparent ignorance in such matters.
Lula all I have done is tell you why I believe the scientific method is the only source of usable knowledge for humanity. And I have attempted to show you why I believe them based on documented evidence. The fact that my views are incompatible with your world view (your dogma) doesn’t make it an attack on you or your beliefs because I don’t care what you decide to believe in or not. I learned a long time ago that rocks (dogmatic people) are best left alone to wallow in their self-imposed ignorance. When “God did it” becomes the argument for everything, well in this modern age you had better find some other excuses, just a wasted thought.
The Web's Best Videos on Evolution, Creationism, Atheism and More http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX45gTu5UpQ
Here is the link: http://introducedrat.com/evolution.htm
Yes, I realize I don't discuss according to your rubrics, (figuratively speaking), but you'll have to get used to it.
I think with the Church and evidently you think with video links which is something I'll have to get used to.
Atheistic Humanism has its own dogmas, principles and tenets.
The Atheist dogmatically asserts there is no God and that Christianity is man-made. But the scientific method which you claim is the only source of useable knowledge for humanity doesn't help you with proof of your dogmatic assertion.
Catholic infallible dogmas are concerning specific truth for Christ said, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.
You illogically reject the Christ, the Divine, infallible unchanging authority in the Catholic religion, but accept the fallible human ever varying anti-Christian dogmatism in these video links. Is not this unreasonable?
You may not care what I believe in or not, but most of your articles in the philosophical and religion forums bash and attack the Church, her doctrines and the Catholic faith (Christianity).
Really? Best left alone?
By the presence of your articles attacking religion and specifically Christianity, is evidence enough that you are not content with "the live and let live", "leave them alone" attitude toward those "rocks" (as you call us who believe in God, His Church or the Bible).
You ought to read the "Modern Atheism, the Godless delusion" by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley. Your library should have it.
For example page 179, "by claiming that only material things exist, atheism renders itself a self-refuting proposition. Ironically, because the atheist denies the existence of anything that is not reducible to material substances, he cannot use ideas, reason, or appeals to logic and remain consistent with his claim."
Lula I told you before I am not going to battle the RCC, an organization that has been corrupt before its own inception IMO. An example: Because of the barbarity of the medieval CHURCH, medicine in say the 12th century: you might remember that fresh shit was the preferred method of packing serious wounds and infections. That is if the leaching and blood draining were insufficient to kill the victim first. I suspect it is difficult to find a germ without a microscope hummm, room for thought here? So illiterate peasant women armed with folk lore and primitive herbology opposed church dogma with the meager materials at hand; by blending herbs and plants that did actually help … but they were labeled witches and mercilessly persecuted for their affront to the churches dogma and its insistences for a shit compact. So you just keep up your nonsense about inoculations and their ‘harm’ to humanity as you see fit. But your children will never attend school where my grandchildren may go because they will all be inoculated. Be careful what you wish for because you may yet get it.
What in the world would prompt me to read “The Godless Delusion: A Catholic Challenge to Modern Atheism”??? I am more than willing to take your word for whatever you decide to copy and paste from this catholic hit piece. I can only envision more nonsense until you enlighten me at which point I will delight in answering in detail.
PS – Just for your info, there are many more dogmatic groups that fit in here (like all of them) … but it is all about you isn’t it?
PS - Are you though telling me what has to be ... because I am tired of you attempting to explain my life to me in no uncertain terms? And all this knowledge was just poofed to you when you heard I was an atheist, imagine that. Your god does indeed work in strange ways or your imagination is just not up to the task because you have no valid numbers to offer and no proof, not even of one godly intervention and you have no idea what you are talking about pertaining to science. Ignorance can be bliss ... but most people eventually grow up and learn better, but not all.
OK, that's a valid point.
However, where are the equal number of your articles bashing and attacking Judaism or Islam as you have written bashing Christianity?
You really must give this line a rest. It's just not true. Even though they are all too often based on ignorance, confusion, or revisionist history by anti-Catholics, your articles and comments are nothing but "battling the Church", even going back to the medieval ages. Labeling women as witches was a common punishment in those days and the secular rulers burned witches much more than the Church. I can't do anything about witch-burning anymore than you can do anything about the cruelest aspects of pagan society.
You do if you want me to continue discussing for I'm not changing my style.
AH don't believe that God exists or acts in human affairs. Does that sound like you?
As far as moralty, AH believe there are no enduring absolute standards of right and wrong. Does that sound like you?
That the universe is self-existing and not created. Does that sound like you?
That the nature of the universe by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantee of human values. Does that sound like you?
AHumanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life. How about that one does it sound like you?
No, I'm not buying that. That may be true of you the self proclaimed Atheist, but in general, that's not the reason why Atheists don't believe in God. I've read that it often has something to do with a poor relationship with the father.
I discuss with you as an Atheist because on more than one occasion you described yourself as such.
I don't know your life other than what you share on JU pages. When I speak of the Atheist practicing Atheistic (religious) Humanism, it's meant in generalities.
As far as moralty, AH believe there are no enduring absolute standards of right and wrong. Does that sound like you? Same answer as above, until we learn differently.
That the universe is self-existing and not created. Does that sound like you? No it doesn’t, not well enough to let pass. Everything in existence was created somehow … but nothing was poofed into existence … that we can discover.
That the nature of the universe by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantee of human values. Does that sound like you? No it doesn’t. Science has no methodology for detecting BS magic therefore it doesn’t waste valuable time postulating pointlessly. So they study what we do have and all the conclusions say you are wrong.
AH considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life. How about that one does it sound like you?If this is supposed to mean that we are born, live our lives to whatever ends and then die never to be heard from again (just like the gods) then the answer is yes.
Was there a point in here somewhere???
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
