Ask the member of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church AKA Interrogate the Catholic ;) — Page 16

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

3. My point was more that men are obviously better equipped to be leaders in general, since it is the male sex that very predominantly holds positions of leadership.

I fail to understand this. 

If women were better equipped to become leaders, or equally equipped, don't you think we'd have more of them, especially in this time, when they have a nearly (emphasis on nearly) equal chance as men of reaching such a position?

Note also that not all men can become priests. Very few men can. Should all other men be given equal opportunity?

But the ones that can't, are because they fail to meet all of the qualifications you listed (including wanting to be a Priest for the right reasons).    A woman could meet all those qualifications (including wanting to be a Priest for the right reasons and would still be denied because of what she is lacking between her legs.

Perhaps she could. Perhaps I might meet all the qualifications necessary to being a wife and mother except for my lack of female sexual organs. Should I be allowed to be a mother anyway? You still seem stuck thinking that this is a job.

If they can manage the affairs of their parish with great expertise, for instance, and are excellent preachers, should they be permitted Holy Orders despite a lack of prayer life and personal holiness?

out of the Billions and Billions of the women that have been Catholic throughout the over 2000 year history of the church, there has never been one Catholic female that had the proper prayer life and personal holiness?

That isn't the point. Because priests represent Christ in a very unique way, they are exclusively men, since Christ was a man, and they serve a role better suited to a man than to a woman.

The idea that the Church can just give out the priesthood to anyone who suits the expectations of the "job" is absurd (when the jobs of a priest are taken to be the administration of a parish, preaching, and performing other exterior functions which are associated with the priesthood). It is spiritual character that is most important, and part of our spiritual character is based on our sex (as in male or female--not our sex life :P).

please explain how one's spiritual character is based on one's sex..

It's tough for me to explain, without spending hours and hours on it. But it is readily apparent that God made men and women differently, and not just physically. It isn't just our bodies that are different, but our souls as well.

 Note that there have been many men who wanted to be priests but weren't called to that life. Why is their refusal any different than the refusal of women?

 because they weren't disqualified because of what is between their legs.

Do you honestly think that's the only difference between men and women?

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

To help me answer your question properly, could you give me your reasons for thinking women should be allowed to become priests?

One may as well ask

"could you give me your reasons for thinking men should be allowed to become priests?"

"could you give me your reasons for thinking Black people  should be allowed to become priests?"

"could you give me your reasons for thinking Asians should be allowed to become priests?"

"could you give me your reasons for thinking Hispanics should be allowed to become priests?"

"could you give me your reasons for thinking Native Americans should be allowed to become priests?"

 It's absolutely ridiculous to equate gender/sex with race. Men did not evolve into women or vice versa. Black people did evolve into white people, Asians, Hispanics, and native Americans. There is not always a clear distinction between them. The only time this is the case between men and women is when there is a physical deformity. There's a big difference between that and a black person who is born albino, and thus with white skin (which is where white people come from).

Shall I continue your line of reasoning?

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking people with moustaches should be allowed to become priests?"

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking people with black hair should be allowed to become priests?"

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking blonds should be allowed to become priests?"

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking people with scars should be allowed to become priests?"

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking albinos should be allowed to become priests?"

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking people with chronic illnesses should be allowed to become priests?"

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking Spaniards or Germans should be allowed to become priests?"

this is my point,  you don't ask why any of the of the above that you and I listed should be allowed to become Priests, yet you ask this about women.  Why?  Why does sush a question need to be answered about women but not of any those that you or I listed?

Why do you think men and women should have the same roles? Black people and white people can do the exact same things as each other, so it's pretty obvious there. That doesn't affect ability. Women can give birth, however, men can't. That's an undeniable difference between them. They are different, whereas black people and white people aren't really different.

There are clear and obvious differences between men and women in terms of both biology and psychology. The only differences between black people and white people are physical, historical, and cultural.

 I fail to see how the biologic and psychologic differences make it impossible for all women to be Priests.   I fail to see why these differences should mean an automatic disqualification for women.   Do the differences truly mean that all the Catholic female that have ever been in the 2000 year history of the church  would not make good Priests?  All of them?  There has never been one instance where a woman could qualify despite the differences?  

 It isn't about what they can do so much as it is about what they are, what they represent. A woman cannot act in the person of Christ, but a man can. A woman can take the role of Mary in some capacity, and men can't. God gave us different genders. If he wanted us to do the same things as each other, he would have made us so that we could reproduce without anyone else, or with anyone else. Men and women have complimentary roles, which do overlap in some areas, but not all. It doesn't mean one is greater than the other. They need each other, otherwise mankind would go extinct. Trying to merge the two sexes so that they are identical is therefore a violation of human nature.

This thread seemed the most appropiate thread for this.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/13/392817912/pope-francis-says-his-tenure-at-the-vatican-will-be-short?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=storiesfromnpr

You have any thoughts about this, RicOlie_2?

Warbler said:

This thread seemed the most appropiate thread for this.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/13/392817912/pope-francis-says-his-tenure-at-the-vatican-will-be-short?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=storiesfromnpr

You have any thoughts about this, RicOlie_2?

 No.

...

Just kidding. I'm not really surprised. I mean, the guy only has one lung, not to mention that he hasn't been afraid to speak out against popular or powerful people, like the Mafia. However, I do hope he lasts a lot longer than he expects to, and doesn't kill himself trying to reform the curia. He's up against a fair bit of opposition there, if I understand the situation correctly, and the Church needs more popes like him: unafraid to reform and saintly. I only hope that either he or his successor is rewarded in their efforts to fix problems with the Church's leadership and his/their work is not undone.

I also hope he lasts a lot longer than he expects.   I think he is what the Catholic church needs right now.

ATMachine said:

Post Praetorian said:

Possessed said:

Post Praetorian said:

Possessed said:

What do you think of this article, more specifically the subject matter of it than the article itself?  Not trying to be challenging or mocking, I'm just really curious as to how you would explain it?  This isn't very detailed, but it was the best article I could find quickly enough.  It didn't mention that Horus was also resurrected and ascended to the heavens after three days of being dead, but I have seen other places that indicated this.  Not saying the story of Jesus was plagiarized from an egyptian tale that predates it by thousands of years, because I don't have to.

On a similar note, the story of Noah and the ark (even down to the detail of a dove signifying dry land) also appears thousands of years before Judaism, and the story of Moses, with the same basic idea of the same story with different names (although the story of moses the earlier versions had somewhat similar names)

If a being of supernatural, yet eternal, intentions might exist, is it not possible that his message may be consistent in its elements, yet stressed somewhat differently to disparate peoples?

To clarify, is it not possible that God might merely enjoy recounting the same tales?

 Actually, that's exactly what I believe.  I personally don't believe that the story of Jesus is untrue, I just believe it's a retelling of a different story with changed names, and with details altered to fit the desired culture or audience.  I was not saying that this makes the story of Jesus untrue, I think it's true, it just may not have been "Jesus of Nazareth".

However, I find Ric's points about finding similarities between two things very weak.

Sure you can find similarities in anything, but let's look at these similarities:

*Both born of a virgin

*Both had stars signifying their birth
*Both teachers at age 12.  SPECIFICALLY age 12.

*Both "baptized" at age 30, specifically.
*Both tempted by the evil force, on a mountain.

* Both crucified, then ascended to heaven.

Certainly, there is more to investigate for sure...

Those are pretty damn specific, and I don't think you can find those similarities between two random people.

Like I said, I still think the story is true, I just believe the story of Jesus and the story of Horus are merely retellings of the same story.

 Fair enough...

 This discussion reminds me of one of my favorite Scriptural quotations:

"This is magnificent--and it is true! It never happened, yet it is still true. What magic art is this?"

And another:

"Only the magic of pure thought, my lord."

The third quote is left as an exercise for the readers.

          First, I'd wonder how many of these legends were concocted Post-30ad.

          Then, I'd remember that there were a great many presages of the Christ story throughout the OT and ancient Hebrew histories and legends going back to the time of Adam.

          The Egyptions and Babylonians were very adept at recognizing powereful Spiritual concepts and incorporating them into their own mystical systems. 

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

This thread seemed the most appropiate thread for this.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/13/392817912/pope-francis-says-his-tenure-at-the-vatican-will-be-short?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=storiesfromnpr

You have any thoughts about this, RicOlie_2?

 No.

...

Just kidding. I'm not really surprised. I mean, the guy only has one lung, not to mention that he hasn't been afraid to speak out against popular or powerful people, like the Mafia. However, I do hope he lasts a lot longer than he expects to, and doesn't kill himself trying to reform the curia. He's up against a fair bit of opposition there, if I understand the situation correctly, and the Church needs more popes like him: unafraid to reform and saintly. I only hope that either he or his successor is rewarded in their efforts to fix problems with the Church's leadership and his/their work is not undone.

       *sigh*

      I can see the CRUEL and HORRIFYING methods and modes of operation of that organization. I can see and understand HOW.

      I have TREMENDOUS difficulty processing WHY.

      The characters who run all this are in their sixties, seventies, and eighties.

     "George" is pushing eighty and in poor health.

      Why would anyone in a position like that think of anything other than bringing MAXIMUM destruction upon it?

      They are OBSESSED with the power to destroy people. They get their SICK and PSYCHOPATHIC jollies out of proving their control.

      Why shoot fish in a barrel? Why hunt the ducks on the pond, just trying to feed?

      There's NO SPORT in SADISTIC HARM to all the half-decent, disparate, desparate people just trying to get by.

      If they love destructive power and control, and they CERTAINLY do, there can be nothing greater than demolishing their own operation and all of the MONSTERS within.

RicOlie_2, as you may or may not know, the Pope is visiting Philadelphia on the weekend of Sept 26.    The area has gone Pope crazy.    One thing that is happening is that some pizzerias in the area are selling pizzas in commemorative pizza boxes.   However some believe this is poor taste, to use the image of the Pope commercially.  He is after all, to Catholics, the the successor to Peter and perhaps his image shouldn't be used trivially like this.    At least one pizzeria owned by a Catholic has refused to use the boxes.  Here is a pic of the box:

What do you think?

For starters, I think it's a bad likeness of him. It doesn't really bother me, but I do think it's a bit misplaced to use his image for a commercial end. Christians aren't supposed to be materialistic and are encouraged to be detached from and generous with what they have.

As for the Pope's image being used trivially, I don't think it is really that important. The Pope deserves respect, but he is only a human being. He has an important role, but in the end he is a servant of God and the Church, not some sort of demigod we need to be in awe of.

So, old Ben was a Catholic Jedi ...

Except Obi-Wan couldn't fly or bilocate, like Padre Pio purportedly could. ;)

RicOlie_2 said:

For starters, I think it's a bad likeness of him. It doesn't really bother me, but I do think it's a bit misplaced to use his image for a commercial end. Christians aren't supposed to be materialistic and are encouraged to be detached from and generous with what they have.

So should I boycott the box in respect to Catholics?

As for the Pope's image being used trivially, I don't think it is really that important. The Pope deserves respect, but he is only a human being. He has an important role, but in the end he is a servant of God and the Church, not some sort of demigod we need to be in awe of.

 Good point. 

Whether you boycott it or not is up to you. I personally don't think it's serious enough that it matters. It isn't something to be encouraged, but not something that really needs to be fought against, either.

There seems to be a lot of general confusion about what "infallible" actually means in this case, partly because it was only really defined 150 years ago. The only time a statement by a pope is infallible is when it is an explicitly universal teaching made on a matter of faith and/or morals.

Only two such statements have been made in the last two hundred years, namely those on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. The canonization of a saint is also generally considered an infallible declaration. Ecumenical councils can also define infallible teachings, provided, again, that they meet the criteria I mentioned above.

The pope certainly has teaching authority when not meeting those criteria; he just isn't considered infallible.

EDIT: Here's the Wikipedia article on it. It seems pretty balanced:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

To be perfectly accurate, only one papal proclamation has been made ex cathedra since it was clearly defined, but that isn't the only infallible declaration that has been made. There are a fair number of dogmas (infallible teachings), though most Catholic teachings don't fall under that category, as far as I am aware. Other, doctrinal teachings, are considered universally (throughout the Church, that is) binding, though not infallible, if I understand correctly.

RicOlie_2,  I'm curious what your take on this is.

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20150908_Pope_should_rescind__Doctrine_of_Discovery_.html

Give me a day or two (or three). I'll find time to properly answer on a day I don't have much homework. I'll have to read up on the exact nature of that doctrine before I can respond.

absolutely.   take your time. 

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2,  I'm curious what your take on this is.

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20150908_Pope_should_rescind__Doctrine_of_Discovery_.html

 Firstly, papal bulls are not infallible per se. They can contain infallible teaching if they meet the criteria I mentioned a few posts up the page, which Inter Caetera (the bull supporting the Doctrine of Discovery) does not.

The document must be read in context. In that time period, people were thought to get to heaven only be being good, baptized Catholics. Thus, it was thought that these people could not get to heaven without converting to Catholicism, and it was of the utmost importance to the Church of that time to have them do so. They were human beings with a soul, and many felt that it was the duty of good Christians to bring them into Christianity.

The methods to do this varied. Certain missionaries made great efforts to learn the language and adapt their religion to the culture of the natives. Others (wrongly) thought that it was worth it to forcibly convert them, not considering that interior conversion didn't necessarily come with exterior conversion, and that both were necessary.

These zealous desire to convert the natives was in a sense compassionate. It was done with the intent of preserving these people's souls for eternity; the body not being as important.

That isn't to say there was political motivation involved, and that Alexander VI was entirely in the right when he wrote the bull. It led to much damage, but I believe it was done with largely good intentions.

Going back to the present day: should it be officially revoked? Well, it isn't completely necessary, being that the papal bull no longer has an relevance and therefore no authority, though I do think it would be good for an official statement about that to be made. An official apology for the damage that resulted from it would be good as well.

I don't, however, think that it should be criticized as if it were something evil. It is outdated and misguided, but it was not written so that harm would be done. It was written so that souls could be saved (I'm speaking here of the intentions of the author, not of what resulted from it), which isn't a bad thing. In the context it was written in, it seemed appropriate and good, and just because hindsight has shown us that that was not the case doesn't mean that we should condemn it entirely.

RicOlie_2,   Yesterday, I watched on tv the Catholic Mass performed by the Pope on the Ben Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia.  I have a very questions.   What is the very ornate looking book they were using?  It is a Bible?  It was Gold gilded and decorated on the covers with gold.    What is that metal thing they were carrying around that had smoke coming out of it.  They were shaking it around.  What is the significance of it?