|
Post by Randalla on Mar 20, 2013 13:58:41 GMT -8
That's pretty warm and fuzzy, as long as you're male. I can see max bristling through my phone. Ok, go!
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Mar 20, 2013 17:07:51 GMT -8
I'm trying to make sense of what exactly you said there. Because to me, it made no sense.
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Mar 20, 2013 17:52:48 GMT -8
I'm being a little obtuse as usual, but you can make the reach. You're a card carrying member of one of the most patriarchal organizations in the world. All the glowing reviews you can find are fine and dandy, but women still take second place. And you can present mother Mary all over the place, but us mortal women are not Mary. So all that warm fuzzy stuff is great, for the menfolk. The rest of us would be expected to keep quiet and obedient behind the menfolk. I get really incensed when some guy thinks I'm supposed to obey him. Hint--that's why he's my ex, before I figured out I bat for the other team. Lmao If I was to pick a church to belong to, picking the one the world hates makes an ok statement, but I'd rather see all of it's members treated equally, valued equally, as all are equally capable of teaching, leading, guiding--including the women. It's one thing I never got to ask my coworker about before she retired, if that second place position ever bothered her as a devout catholic. Woulda made for a fascinating point of view convo. You'd have loved talking to her, I bet. She makes you look like a cafeteria catholic.
|
|
|
Post by Cerridwyn on Mar 20, 2013 18:14:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Mar 20, 2013 18:20:56 GMT -8
Short, sweet, to the point. lol
Still can't see me being anything but obtuse. Keeps folks on their toes. O.o
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Mar 21, 2013 8:58:28 GMT -8
Ok, Rand, I don't mean to be rude, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta. St. Joan of Arc St. Kateri Tekakwitha St. Anastasia St. Hildegard of Bingen St. Edith Stein www.catholic.org/saints/female.phpWomen play one of the most significant roles in the salvation of man. Not only are they the vessels of life, they are the facilitators of the faith in families. I damn near punched a guy in his dirty mouth for defiling Mary, but couldn't get to him before he stepped on the subway. You're not Mary? Well, none of those women either. The call to sainthood and holiness is simply to imitate Christ as best we can. They did, and they succeeded. Men and women are equal, but are different. You cannot ignore that. Christ selected men to the ministry of the priesthood. Even if the pope wanted to, he can't change that. John Paul made that explicitly clear. It's possible to make the ministry that of marriage like the Byzantine rite; but the Church does not have the authority to ordain women. Women have brought life to the Church countless of times. John Paul, again, sent a delegation to the United Nations representing the Vatican made of women. Rand, you quote Ephesians 5:22, one of the MOST misconstrued passages in the Bible. It's also one that MUST be placed in context. It reads: "Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord." But what people don't pay attention to, and this is the important part, is the whole thing. I will highlight the passages most seem to forget. Eph. 5:21-33 "Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband." Now, get this. Paul has made the distinct correlation between Christ and his bride--the Church--to a man and his wife. The husband is indeed head of the family as Christ is head of the Church. But Paul says that man should love his wife as Christ loved His Church. What does that mean? It means that man should LAY DOWN HIS LIFE for his wife and family. To the point of death, if necessary. He is at the service of of his wife. This is why so often women do have such strong influence in a good Christian family. I know my mother did. See, this is the problem. If people don't like Christianity, they'll take passages from the Bible to validate their arguments, having no sense or training on it. They understand little to nothing. I apologize for being blunt, but I must correct your misunderstanding of Christian theology.
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Mar 21, 2013 14:31:15 GMT -8
I don't mind blunt, and I don't take offense. lol But you know I can't keep my mouth shut. LOL
But the common, non-saint woman can't be ordained?
You can paint a picture of women being put on a pedestal, but the woman's pedestal is never as high as the man's pedestal. Or, you try to make it SEEM like the woman is on the same level as man, just nudged slightly behind the male.
Again, you quote all those warm fuzzy passages, and it still boils down to one thing. The man is supposedly the head of the household. In a patriarchal society, that makes sense. But for as many passages that say man and woman become one flesh, there are more that put women into a subservient position to men, just in the examples you pointed out.
Here's the food chain, feel free to shuffle as you see fit:
God (masculine) Jesus (duh) Mary, assorted saints, right? Pope (male) Bishop (male) Head of the household (man) common every day non-saintly woman
There's still a hierarchy, and women are still on the rung of the ladder behind men, and the church will never allow women priests because Jesus supposedly picked Peter over Mary Magdalene - in a patriarchal society. Go figure.
There's a difference between equal, and obedient/subservient, and you can't just toss up a couple of examples of women saints to show that women AS A WHOLE are regarded equally. That Adam was supposedly created first (according to a patriarchal organization, go figure again) is always going to be used as the excuse to keep woman's place beneath the man. You can marginalize the difference through your interpretation of those passages, but the difference IS there.
Is it as much of a problem when die hard christians use certain passages from the bible to validate their arguments, based on their interpretation of those passages? We're going to have different opinions and interpretations of those passages.
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Mar 21, 2013 17:46:42 GMT -8
I'm telling you that the Christian theology of 2,000 years has been: "Fathers are leaders of the family, but the mothers, ultimately, nourish the faith."
Two DIFFERENT roles. They are NOT unequal. Difference does not make unequal. That is a common misconception. The Church cannot on her own authority ordain women. She just can't. Christ Himself commissioned men for the job. That does not mean he excluded women.
When Christ was crucified he was placed in the burial tomb. Three days later, he rose again. Basic premise of Christianity. Now, who first found his tomb, opened and empty? To whom did the angel say to fear not, the Lord had risen? It was not Peter or John, but the Mary's.
They are critical to the salvation of man. Without them, the Church could not function. The faith is facilitated by women. Without men, we could not have the Sacraments. Two different roles that are are not unequal.
(Also, on the more unrelated note, you make a point. The reason there are 40,000+ and growing churches and not ONE Church is because someone *cough*Martin Luther*cough thought it was ok we interpret however we want. It's also a big problem when many Christians quote Scripture out of both historical, literary, and entirety context. It's poor exegesis.)
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Mar 21, 2013 18:46:38 GMT -8
So if that doesn't mean he excluded women, why does the church then exclude women from those roles? Patriarchal control. And I believe Martin Luther had an issue with the church selling indulgences and such? Selling salvation to folks who could afford it at the time wasn't very Christ-like.
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Mar 21, 2013 21:21:45 GMT -8
So if that doesn't mean he excluded women, why does the church then exclude women from those roles? Patriarchal control. Ok, like seriously. What did I just say? You even took MY comments out of context. Christ Himself established the male priesthood. The Church cannot go against that. Christ did not exclude women from participating in the Church in other roles. Remember; the Catholic Church considers ALL members as "the Church." Not just the hierarchy.And I believe Martin Luther had an issue with the church selling indulgences and such? Selling salvation to folks who could afford it at the time wasn't very Christ-like. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the Church has made mistakes. This we cannot deny. Selling indulgences was one of them. But I'm not even sure if most people know what an indulgence is, much less explain it to someone else.
Remember: Luther had NINETY-FIVE Theses, not one. He was out for more.
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Mar 21, 2013 23:11:57 GMT -8
Christ Himself established the male priesthood. The Church cannot go against that.Come on man, he gave the very first car to Peter, that doesn't necessarily mean THOU SHALT NOT GIVE THE CAR KEYS TO A WOMAN, EVER. Seems to be what the church said it means, and has used it as an excuse to keep hold of their precious patriarchy EVER SINCE, for over 2,000 years. Come ooooooooooooooooon. The 2nd century just called, they want their male dominated traditions back. George Washington set the two term tradition before FDR said, hey, that's just TRADITION, not law. Someone had to do it. I'm glad someone did, so it could be fixed before Obama made it into office, but that's a totally different thread. And the fact that Martin Luther had 95, rather than just 1, meant there was a hell of a lot of things wrong besides selling salvation to whoever could fork over the gold long before even these recent scandals hit. Don't you ever wonder why the church has had SO many problems, over SUCH a long period of time? Instead of trying to apologize for them all and reason them all away? We're all miserable sinners, corrupt, miserable sinners. Other than that, maybe an explanation of the whole selling of indulgence thing would be in order. Admittedly, I pulled that out of a foggy old memory. Though I found this particularly amusing: A plenary indulgence may also be gained on some occasions, which are not everyday occurrences. They include: Receiving, even by radio or television, the blessing given by the Pope Urbi et Orbi (to the city of Rome and to the world) or that which a bishop is authorized to give three times a year to the faithful of his diocese. So there ARE certain allowances in order for the church to function in the 21st century... except for the whole, Man > Woman because Jesus just happened to give the proverbial key to Peter instead of Mary thing, right? You can allow for easier communication as technology progresses, but not for women to hold positions of authority as society progresses? And of course, the whole idea that Jesus DID pass the power along to Peter, specifically, rather than ALL of his disciples, including Mary and/or any other unnamed womenfolk is purely on the assumption that the bible itself holds any greater shred of truth to it than, say, the gnostic gospels, which themselves put women on a much higher pedestal. The various books of the bible were, after all, written by various writers. Male, human, mortal writers, starting about a century after the death of Christ? The year 98 at the earliest, which is still, what, 60some odd years after his death?
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Mar 22, 2013 7:46:25 GMT -8
Christ Himself established the male priesthood. The Church cannot go against that.Come on man, he gave the very first car to Peter, that doesn't necessarily mean THOU SHALT NOT GIVE THE CAR KEYS TO A WOMAN, EVER. Seems to be what the church said it means, and has used it as an excuse to keep hold of their precious patriarchy EVER SINCE, for over 2,000 years. Come ooooooooooooooooon. The 2nd century just called, they want their male dominated traditions back. He didn't give keys to the car, but keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. He chose 12 ordinary men. Ordinary and men. He did not pick women as his direct and closest apostles, but it is known that he loved his mother and other women with his heart. He is God, after all, and loves us all. The Church cannot override not simply tradition, but Tradition, with a big "T." It's something I'll discuss in a bit.George Washington set the two term tradition before FDR said, hey, that's just TRADITION, not law. Someone had to do it. I'm glad someone did, so it could be fixed before Obama made it into office, but that's a totally different thread. Not even close to an accurate comparison. Christ didn't establish traditions. He established a ministry, something with far more importance and gravity.And the fact that Martin Luther had 95, rather than just 1, meant there was a hell of a lot of things wrong besides selling salvation to whoever could fork over the gold long before even these recent scandals hit. There were a lot of problems. But instead of dialogue, Luther took it into his own hands to decide how to run the Church.
This brings up a good point, though. Many historians say that while Luther's Reformation essentially divided the Church into literally thousands upon thousands of denominations, it gave the Church what she needed: new life. The Counter-Reformation brought the Church back into a state of grace, to a point in which the Church recognized it could not function with corruption and sin. For that, we thank God for Luther.Don't you ever wonder why the church has had SO many problems, over SUCH a long period of time? Instead of trying to apologize for them all and reason them all away? We're all miserable sinners, corrupt, miserable sinners. There is no "secret" as to why the Church has had problems. The Church is HUMAN. Indeed, established by Christ Himself, but she is established up human beings. We are guided by the Holy Spirit, but we are all sinful. We do not claim perfection. I'm not sure if we ever had. We claim legitimacy in the name of Christ and His Great Commission, but not perfection.
People ask for us to apologize, they ask for us to give reasons. We do that. Then what? They ask for us to change because we don't conform with modern society. They ask us to betray who we really are. They ask us to just die off. If we had conformed to the morality of society, and not the Truth of Christ, we would have fell a LONG time ago. And yet here we are. We have outlived: the Roman Empire, the Mongols, the British, the Prussians, the French, the Axis, the Soviets, and the United States. We do not change our doctrine because to do so would to change Christ's words. You can say we've got problems. Hell yeah, we do. But we're still here, and we're still going.Other than that, maybe an explanation of the whole selling of indulgence thing would be in order. Admittedly, I pulled that out of a foggy old memory. Though I found this particularly amusing: A plenary indulgence may also be gained on some occasions, which are not everyday occurrences. They include: Receiving, even by radio or television, the blessing given by the Pope Urbi et Orbi (to the city of Rome and to the world) or that which a bishop is authorized to give three times a year to the faithful of his diocese. Indulgences are tricky things to understand. In order to receive one, the person must first be absent of any mortal sin, which requires confession. The person must also intend to receive the indulgence, and must receive in good faith. The concept of indulgence does NOT take away the sins one has committed. Only confession can do that. Rather, it takes away the guilt of sin. You'd have to speak with a canon lawyer on this.So there ARE certain allowances in order for the church to function in the 21st century... except for the whole, Man > Woman because Jesus just happened to give the proverbial key to Peter instead of Mary thing, right? You can allow for easier communication as technology progresses, but not for women to hold positions of authority as society progresses? When it comes to science and technology, the Church does not oppose it, so long as technology can be used for the good of man. John Paul II called for the "New Evangelization." Essentially, it was to bring the Gospel message to the modern world. Not to make the Gospel modern, or to change it. But rather, spread it's message by modern means, to the youth, where society is. Basically, it went from a mentality of "bring the world to the Church" to "bring the Church to the world."
Women all across the United States hold positions, leading positions, in numerous lay offices. FOCUS, pastoral councils, etc. They cannot be ordained because the Church doesn't have that authority.And of course, the whole idea that Jesus DID pass the power along to Peter, specifically, rather than ALL of his disciples, including Mary and/or any other unnamed womenfolk is purely on the assumption that the bible itself holds any greater shred of truth to it than, say, the gnostic gospels, which themselves put women on a much higher pedestal. The various books of the bible were, after all, written by various writers. Male, human, mortal writers, starting about a century after the death of Christ? The year 98 at the earliest, which is still, what, 60some odd years after his death? Alrighty. One of the funnest and trickiest topics of them all. The Catholic Church has two main pillars, all on the foundation of Christ: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Sacred Scripture is the Word of God in written form. Christian theology teaches us that these are God's words through the hands of men. Matthew, I believe, wrote his around 60 AD. It's difficult to understand. God didn't simply inspire the authors. Likewise, he didn't dictate to them to write. God was the principle author, with men acting as co-authors. This is why you have some beautiful poetry within Scripture. The literary devices of the different times can be seen in the corresponding passages. The Word of God is infallible, make no mistake.
However, the Word is actually divided two ways, oral and written. Despite what everyone says, the Bible as we know it today was NOT given by Christ. He didn't say "write this down" or give us a book. Rather, accounts of his life were told from one to the other, and down the generations. The teachings he gave were also remembered. A very important thing, this is. This is where we derive Sacred Tradition. It is the handing down of Christ's Word and teachings by word. Now, this facet of the Church kept the Church alive for many many years. However, many loving people who loved Christ dearly started to write some of their own stories. Let me put it in context: you basically are a normal disciple who followed Christ and are simply infatuated with him. He's basically a rock star. You get a little giddy, and start writing some things not necessarily true. You don't mean ill; you just want to honor Christ. Some of these stories included whenever Christ walked flowers rose from his trodden steps.
Sacred Scripture was made to reveal the Divine Truth. They are to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, not the imagination. Indeed, there are some stories that could possibly reveal to us an account of Christ's personality as a man. But that has no bearing on the Salvation of Man. That's what the Bible is: Salvation. It's not personal anecdotes, not a diary, not a scientific biography.
Problem is, some people began to follow things that the apostles and Peter--the closest disciples (and the first bishops and pope)--had not mentioned. The Council of Hippo (I believe) was convened to finally determine what exactly the Word of God was. It composed the Bible as we know it today. Without the Church, there was no Bible.
Indeed, Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture alone cannot suffice. The Church must have both.
|
|
|
Post by Randalla on Mar 22, 2013 16:06:33 GMT -8
OH my god this is gonna take me a few to read, hang tight. LOL Exhausting and intriguing all at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Cerridwyn on Mar 22, 2013 16:28:46 GMT -8
And Max is going to deny until the day he died that Jesus and Mary had sex?
Oh, and let's not forget all the gospels that the church buried for years and years.
|
|
|
Post by Maximillian Thorton on Mar 22, 2013 20:01:28 GMT -8
Jesus did not, Mary did not. Speak foul against that and consider it worse than blasphemy.
Give me your "historical" sources. Most anti-Catholic "propaganda history" came from, oh, guess what, anti-Catholic authors throughout the 19th and 20th century, bent on not revealing the truth, but fabricating events.
|
|