Amaru2005-04-19 18:38:00
QUOTE(Thule @ Apr 19 2005, 07:33 PM)
It makes perfect sense, it isn't Catholicism if it changes.
102548
Exactly. Throughout the millennia, the Church has resisted change, letting others do their own thing and go off in their own direction. If it lost sight of this and began changing its policies (which are as important to it as the Bible's own laws), there would be 1.1 billion very lost, confused and divided individuals wondering where they lost their faith and unity.
Rhysus2005-04-19 18:38:32
There is -plenty- of room in what Catholicism considers Canon for a myriad of changes to the current -interpretation- being proffered by Orthodox Catholics. Agree or disagree, it's still just an interpretation, and plenty of things have changed in Catholicism without the faith of Catholicism being lost or the followers deciding they needed a new name.
Thule2005-04-19 18:38:42
well in the context of adaptation, I believed that drastically was understood. Face it, the ordination of women would be drastic.
Rhysus2005-04-19 18:40:29
QUOTE(Amaru @ Apr 19 2005, 01:38 PM)
Exactly. Throughout the millennia, the Church has resisted change, letting others do their own thing and go off in their own direction. If it lost sight of this and began changing its policies (which are as important to it as the Bible's own laws), there would be 1.1 billion very lost, confused and divided individuals wondering where they lost their faith and unity.
102553
That's laughably untrue. The Church has undergone a lot of changes in the past millenium, and even more in the millenium preceding it. To say otherwise is to apply some sort of reverse Golden Age Syndrome (of which I am sure there is a name but it currently escapes me) wherein you assume that things are now the way they always have been. That is simply false.
Manjanaia2005-04-19 18:41:04
The not allowing ordination of women is a result of sexist attitudes and exaggerated comparisons with Jesus from about 1700 years ago.
EDIT: I should add, in my opinion. I don't want to stamp on other people's believes completely.
EDIT: I should add, in my opinion. I don't want to stamp on other people's believes completely.
Singollo2005-04-19 18:42:51
QUOTE(daganev @ Apr 19 2005, 02:34 PM)
The presidant is not presidant for very long. the pope will most likely be pope for atleast 2 presidancies, if not 3.
102550
Err. The pope is 78. Most people don't live beyond 75. Most popes don't live longer than John Paul II did. John Paul died at 85. I'd wager he doesn't make it past 2010, given his current condition.
Daganev, don't you have a honeypot to get stuck in?
Amaru2005-04-19 18:43:27
QUOTE(Rhysus @ Apr 19 2005, 07:40 PM)
That's laughably untrue. The Church has undergone a lot of changes in the past millenium, and even more in the millenium preceding it. To say otherwise is to apply some sort of reverse Golden Age Syndrome (of which I am sure there is a name but it currently escapes me) wherein you assume that things are now the way they always have been. That is simply false.
102560
In terms of the big things you were talking about, the things which seperate it from other Churches.
Daganev2005-04-19 18:44:59
If by sexist you mean that men and woman are not physically built 100% the same then yes your right.
It is not wise to assume that just because people use things as excuses that that is the reason for its existance.
It is not wise to assume that just because people use things as excuses that that is the reason for its existance.
Rhysus2005-04-19 18:50:40
QUOTE(Amaru @ Apr 19 2005, 01:43 PM)
In terms of the big things you were talking about, the things which seperate it from other Churches.
102568
I never said anything about denouncing transubstantiation.
Manjanaia2005-04-19 18:51:46
I say sexist because it was common occurence for women to be pushed aside in those days. I think this was endorsed by the fledgling Church to maintain credibility. This and many similar beliefs were enforced, altered or invented by a Roman Emperor when it adopted it as it's religion.
EDIT:
I don't understand that point.
EDIT:
QUOTE
If by sexist you mean that men and woman are not physically built 100% the same then yes your right.
I don't understand that point.
Daganev2005-04-19 18:55:40
The greeks and romans pushed woman aside in thier society long before any christans were walking the earth.
If no pope has lived past the age of Jhon pual II who was just the last pope, I would assume thats because of medicine. The current pope is 78 and looks like he's 60. But then again, the pope before Jhon Pual II was only pope for less than 24 hours. You never know these things.
If no pope has lived past the age of Jhon pual II who was just the last pope, I would assume thats because of medicine. The current pope is 78 and looks like he's 60. But then again, the pope before Jhon Pual II was only pope for less than 24 hours. You never know these things.
Manjanaia2005-04-19 18:57:31
QUOTE
The greeks and romans pushed woman aside in thier society long before any christans were walking the earth.
... My point exactly. The male dominated world of that era meant that this was adopted in the foundation of the Catholic Church. It doesn't apply today.
Thule2005-04-19 19:01:07
The Church isn't a democracy, if they don't want women priests, they don't. It isn't your choice to foist on them. If you don't like it, don't be Catholic.
Amaru2005-04-19 19:01:29
QUOTE(Rhysus @ Apr 19 2005, 07:50 PM)
I never said anything about denouncing transubstantiation.
102578
I know you love big words, but that isn't the only issue seperating the denominations. I would become distanced from the Church if it changed its stance even slightly on the rights of the unborn child, homosexuality, marriage and such. Some things in life need to be eternal, if only psychologically.
Singollo2005-04-19 19:05:03
QUOTE(daganev @ Apr 19 2005, 02:55 PM)
The greeks and romans pushed woman aside in thier society long before any christans were walking the earth.
If no pope has lived past the age of Jhon pual II who was just the last pope, I would assume thats because of medicine. The current pope is 78 and looks like he's 60. But then again, the pope before Jhon Pual II was only pope for less than 24 hours. You never know these things.
If no pope has lived past the age of Jhon pual II who was just the last pope, I would assume thats because of medicine. The current pope is 78 and looks like he's 60. But then again, the pope before Jhon Pual II was only pope for less than 24 hours. You never know these things.
102586
Are you kidding or just a really bad judge of age?
No wait. You're either IGNORANT or BLOWING SMOKE.
John Paul I was pope for 33 days.
Don't tell me this man looks 60:
Rhysus2005-04-19 19:14:58
QUOTE(Thule @ Apr 19 2005, 02:01 PM)
The Church isn't a democracy, if they don't want women priests, they don't. It isn't your choice to foist on them. If you don't like it, don't be Catholic.
102591
No one said it was. I didn't say "Those bastards! How dare they try to push their sexist, outdated worldview on me! They're a bunch of jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes!" I just said I was disappointed. It's my personal opinion, and I apologize that you can't do more than fall back on an appeal to authority as a refutation.
Daganev2005-04-19 19:15:31
I think its insulting to talk about when someone is going to die just as they have been appointed to an office.
Thule2005-04-19 19:17:36
QUOTE(Rhysus @ Apr 19 2005, 03:14 PM)
No one said it was. I didn't say "Those bastards! How dare they try to push their sexist, outdated worldview on me! They're a bunch of jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes!" I just said I was disappointed. It's my personal opinion, and I apologize that you can't do more than fall back on an appeal to authority as a refutation.
102615
Actually Rhysus my comment wasn't directed at you. You plainly stated that it was your opinion from the start, sorry for any confusion.
BTW, that wasn't an appeal to authority, I left the RCC long ago over disagreements with them, in other words, I am not telling anyone to do what I wasn't willing to do.
Rhysus2005-04-19 19:18:16
QUOTE(daganev @ Apr 19 2005, 02:15 PM)
I think its insulting to talk about when someone is going to die just as they have been appointed to an office.
102617
Comes with the territory. Public figures will always have such things debated about them. Insulting or not, it's a valid topic.
Rhysus2005-04-19 19:18:41
QUOTE(Thule @ Apr 19 2005, 02:17 PM)
Actually Rhysus my comment wasn't directed at you. You plainly stated that it was your opinion from the start, sorry for any confusion.
BTW, that wasn't an appeal to authority, I left the RCC long ago over disagreements with them, in other words, I am not telling anyone to do what I wasn't willing to do.
BTW, that wasn't an appeal to authority, I left the RCC long ago over disagreements with them, in other words, I am not telling anyone to do what I wasn't willing to do.
102626
Ah! Sorry for the confusion. Didn't realize you were lambasting Manjanaia.
