# Codology not theology.



## cremeegg (8 Mar 2018)

Poor Mary McAleese, after all her study she has discovered that the church is misogynist. 

Mary the church is based on a belief in the supernatural. The belief that women should not wield power is hardly its most surprising aspect.

After all god is a man


----------



## odyssey06 (8 Mar 2018)

Compared with many of the religions circulating in the Near East, Christianity at least at the time of its birth seems positively enlightened in its treatment of women... Christianity is noticeable by its asbence from the list of religions that engaged in this:


Bring back the vestal virgins of Rome and the pythian priestesses of Delphi!


----------



## odyssey06 (8 Mar 2018)

And then there's this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)

Never mind equality... this is just positively horrific.


----------



## dub_nerd (9 Mar 2018)

cremeegg said:


> Poor Mary McAleese, after all her study she has discovered that the church is misogynist.


"*The*" church? Surely Mary isn't still pretending to be a Catholic?


----------



## Purple (9 Mar 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> And then there's this...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)
> 
> Never mind equality... this is just positively horrific.


This was common in Deli when the British East India company took over. The British banned it and it let to a lot of tension between the Hindi's and the Brits. It is one of the factors which led to the rebellion that the British call the Indian Mutiny in which the Hindu's rebelled against their British masters. The Emperor of Deli was a Muslim (the last Mughal Emperor) and for some reason he and therefore Muslims bore the brunt of the blame. The retaliation by the British East India company was so horrific that it led to their disbandment and the Brits taking over directly. One impact on the modern world is the extremist Islam in Pakistan as the Madrases were closed and suppressed and they moved into the more extreme parts of what is now Pakistan. 

Anyway, back to Mary.


----------



## Purple (9 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> "*The*" church? Surely Mary isn't still pretending to be a Catholic?


That can be said about most Catholics, including most Catholic Clergy.
That's a good thing and a bad thing.


----------



## dub_nerd (9 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> That can be said about most Catholics, including most Catholic Clergy.


True, which makes you wonder why they get so uppity about how something they don't believe in should be run.


----------



## cremeegg (9 Mar 2018)

I read a little more of Mary’s speech. She called on the church to address its misogyny in the name of “equality”. 

Mary the church is a hierarchical organization. It does not operate on the basis of equality. 

Nor has it ever claimed to do. 

What a waste of her talent.


----------



## dub_nerd (9 Mar 2018)

cremeegg said:


> Mary the church is a hierarchical organization. It does not operate on the basis of equality.


That doesn't follow. All societies are hierarchically governed. It doesn't follow that gender equality is impossible in all societies


----------



## Leper (10 Mar 2018)

. . . . . . .  . schhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . . . let Mary attacking the jaws of the Catholic Church or the GAA or IRFU could be next.


----------



## Purple (10 Mar 2018)

It’s ironic that at the front lines the RC church is run by women. There isn’t a parish in Ireland where women don’t do most of the organising, fund raising and real ministering. For all the great work women have done to gain equality in this country many are still willing to be second class when it comes to their faith. 
The “god calls us to different vocations” line reminds me of the “different but equal” policy in the Southern United States in the 1960’s


----------



## dub_nerd (10 Mar 2018)

However, the “god calls us to different vocations” line has been declared as an "infallible teaching" by the church. So either the bauld Mary ceases to be catholic by rejecting it, or the Catholic Church ceases to be catholic because its doctrines are false. Either way, Mary can't be a catholic. It's an interesting Catch 22.


----------



## Leper (11 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> It’s ironic that at the front lines the RC church is run by women. There isn’t a parish in Ireland where women don’t do most of the organising, fund raising and real ministering. For all the great work women have done to gain equality in this country many are still willing to be second class when it comes to their faith.
> The “god calls us to different vocations” line reminds me of the “different but equal” policy in the Southern United States in the 1960’s



You're right Purple. Kind of like some Golf Clubs in the week of their important tournaments I can hear the Captain's Speech " . . . . and now I would like to thank the Ladies Committee without whom this day would not be possible" . . . . and simultaneously thinking "If that crowd of female Gossipers think they can use our greens at weekends, they can forget about it."


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Mar 2018)

In fairness to Mary Mc she's only venting her spleen because she cares, the rest of us just roll the eyes and it doesn't cost us a thought. I think she's dead right to look for change, as she says herself misogny or the general downgrading of the role of women is not core to catholicism, I dont recall This post will be deleted if not edited immediately saying "Blessed are the women, but restrict them to sandwich making and flower arranging". I often wonder what would This post will be deleted if not edited immediately make of it all if he returned, I suspect there'd be an element of throwing the traders out of the Temple as the hierarchy have not served the faith well over the last 2,000 years (Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, paedophiles, protecting their own position at the expense of the common good).

I say all this as a 'cultural catholic' - not really a believer, particularly in institutions, but with a sense that doing good is the way to honour the message of This post will be deleted if not edited immediately - and sure if he didnt exist its certainly a good role model so why not 'believe'.


----------



## dub_nerd (11 Mar 2018)

Betsy Og said:


> ...the hierarchy have not served the faith well over the last 2,000 years (Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, paedophiles, protecting their own position at the expense of the common good).



So what makes us think the latest power play by Mary and her henchwomen will fare any better?


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Mar 2018)

I'm not sure you could call it a power play - that might be more appropriate if she already had some power and was trying to leverage it. As to the potential success, highly unlikely, but sure if you think you're right why not say it. Someone has to be pioneering, change can take generations but it does take the first person to refuse to go to the back of the bus - now I don't know enough about it to know if Mary is stuck in some personality clash, but I have to say I 100% agree with her, have no reason to doubt her sincerity, & I dont particularly get the vibe that she's showboating for attention, seems more like frustration. So pull hard early and often Mary and we'll see what, if anything, comes out of it.


----------



## odyssey06 (11 Mar 2018)

I understand there are some Christian churches that ordain women ministers... people Catholics should start voting with their feet.


----------



## dub_nerd (12 Mar 2018)

Exactly. As I mentioned in my "Catch 22" comment above, if Mary achieves what she wants she will be a Protestant by definition. There are already lots of Protestant churches. Why not just pick one? I think it's probably because she wants the Catholic Church to become Protestant along with her, otherwise she would just leave. That's why I call it a power play.


----------



## Betsy Og (12 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Why not just pick one?



Well, y'know, it is "the one true faith".   Maybe she loves the bones of the church and just wants it to improve on this aspect. Its like someone arguing for widespread video ref in soccer (I know it is being trialled), and you say "sure just go to rugby, there's loads of video reffing there" and she says, but I love the beautiful game, this egg chasing does nothing for me....

You seem to be putting massive stor on this aspect of Canon Law, so that if you cant suck it up you should leave, or if you get your way you have fundamentally changed the thing. By that logic the Catholic Church turned protestant when it went with Vatican II, this is just a bit of further tinkering. Weren't the popes in the Middle Ages gangsta Borgias??, what makes the current regime so sacrosanct that you cant work with it and develop it, reality must encroach on the church at some point? 

I sound like someone who gives a proverbial... how did this happen......


----------



## dub_nerd (12 Mar 2018)

Betsy Og said:


> Well, y'know, it is "the one true faith".



Isn't that the point though -- it _can't_ be if the stuff it (infallibly) said was true, isn't.



Betsy Og said:


> Maybe she loves the bones of the church and just wants it to improve on this aspect.



Can't be done without showing it up for a liar.



Betsy Og said:


> You seem to be putting massive stor on this aspect of Canon Law, so that if you cant suck it up you should leave, or if you get your way you have fundamentally changed the thing.



That logic seems unavoidable, though. It has stuck to the same line over and over, and twice in the modern era declared it to be infallible. That seems pretty definitive.



Betsy Og said:


> By that logic the Catholic Church turned protestant when it went with Vatican II, this is just a bit of further tinkering.



It's a long time since I looked at anything to do with Vatican II but if I remember right, all of its documents are extensively footnoted with how it is part of the unbroken Tradition. Could be horse manure, but that's what it claims.



Betsy Og said:


> Weren't the popes in the Middle Ages gangsta Borgias??



They sure were. But that doesn't affect doctrinal statements (allegedly).



Betsy Og said:


> what makes the current regime so sacrosanct that you cant work with it and develop it, reality must encroach on the church at some point?



Why would anyone want anything to do with something so removed from reality? Surely Mary should be running a mile from something that's been making infallible claims for twenty millenia that are all drivel.



Betsy Og said:


> I sound like someone who gives a proverbial... how did this happen......



Don't worry about it. We're Irish -- being opinionated about the RCC is our birthright even if we haven't darkened the door of a church for decades.


----------



## Purple (12 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> So what makes us think the latest power play by Mary and her henchwomen will fare any better?


 That’s a strange way to describe her. Who are her henchwomen?




dub_nerd said:


> That logic seems unavoidable, though. It has stuck to the same line over and over, and twice in the modern era declared it to be infallible. That seems pretty definitive.






dub_nerd said:


> It's a long time since I looked at anything to do with Vatican II but if I remember right, all of its documents are extensively footnoted with how it is part of the unbroken Tradition. Could be horse manure, but that's what it claims.




That’s fine, except it is based on the culture of the time as interpreted by a bunch of men a few hundred years after the fact. By the way, This post will be deleted if not edited immediately had no problem with slavery; he often talked about treating your slaves well though it iss not mistranslated into servants. The RC Church doesn’t still think it’s okay to own slaves.




dub_nerd said:


> Why would anyone want anything to do with something so removed from reality? Surely Mary should be running a mile from something that's been making infallible claims for twenty millenia that are all drivel.


 Mary is a Catholic and has a strong faith.




dub_nerd said:


> Don't worry about it. We're Irish -- being opinionated about the RCC is our birthright even if we haven't darkened the door of a church for decades.


Even if we haven’t darkened their door in years they still cast a long shadow over much of our country.


----------



## dub_nerd (12 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> That’s a strange way to describe her. Who are her henchwomen?



The OP didn't give the context, but she wasn't on a solo run. This was apparently part of a conference of like-minded ladies.



Purple said:


> That’s fine, except it is based on the culture of the time as interpreted by a bunch of men a few hundred years after the fact. By the way, This post will be deleted if not edited immediately had no problem with slavery; he often talked about treating your slaves well though it iss not mistranslated into servants. The RC Church doesn’t still think it’s okay to own slaves.



The RC church didn't think so back then either, if you read Paul, Augustine, or Chrysostom. It would be a diversion to get into refuting "This post will be deleted if not edited immediately had no problem with slavery", except to note that if it's true then the founder of the church was a monster.  Who'd want to be part of _that_, let alone a leader of it?



Purple said:


> Mary is a Catholic and has a strong faith.



... except for the bits she doesn't like. Martin Luther was a strong Catholic too.



Purple said:


> Even if we haven’t darkened their door in years they still cast a long shadow over much of our country.



Sounds straight out of Mary's school of "they're evil monsters but we wanna run things anyway".


----------



## cremeegg (12 Mar 2018)

Poor Mary, (irony intentional), not only is the church misogynist, and unwelcoming to her gay son, it seems that it also sadistically abused her brother. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/soc...e-suffered-sadistic-abuse-at-school-1.3423923

Mary, are you familiar with the concept of empowering your abuser.

Do you not think that your own position is in fact not too far removed from Bishop MacAreavey's. He showed public solidarity, concelebrated mass with, officiated at the funeral of, a man accused of abuse. You are studying the theology of, attending conferences about, a church accused of facilitating that abuse.

Let those who wish try to "reform" the church.

Those of us without a vested interest in its success should try to exclude it from education and other aspects of public life until that "reform" can at the very least be shown to have been successful.


----------



## Purple (12 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> The OP didn't give the context, but she wasn't on a solo run. This was apparently part of a conference of like-minded ladies.


 Like-minded ladies is a long way from henchwomen.



dub_nerd said:


> The RC church didn't think so back then either, if you read Paul, Augustine, or Chrysostom. It would be a diversion to get into refuting "This post will be deleted if not edited immediately had no problem with slavery", except to note that if it's true then the founder of the church was a monster. Who'd want to be part of _that_, let alone a leader of it?


 Why? Many of the Founding Fathers of the USA were slave owners. They weren't monsters. Slavery was just part of life in the time This post will be deleted if not edited immediately was reputed to live, just as treating women as second class was. They have rightly changed their position on slavery. Why not on women?



dub_nerd said:


> ... except for the bits she doesn't like. Martin Luther was a strong Catholic too.


 He was indeed, one of only a very few in a position of authority at the time.



dub_nerd said:


> Sounds straight out of Mary's school of "they're evil monsters but we wanna run things anyway".


 I don't understand that bit. Do you think that the RC Church, which controls the vast majority of our schools and employs so many of our teachers (even though they are paid by the State) don't have a big influence on the country?


----------



## Purple (12 Mar 2018)

cremeegg said:


> Those of us without a vested interest in its success should try to exclude it from education and other aspects of public life until that "reform" can at the very least be shown to have been successful.


Agreed.


----------



## dub_nerd (12 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> Like-minded ladies is a long way from henchwomen.



Not when Mary's acting like a thug.



Purple said:


> Why? Many of the Founding Fathers of the USA were slave owners. They weren't monsters.



They didn't claim to be god either. You'd expect god to have a slightly more consistent view.



Purple said:


> Slavery was just part of life in the time This post will be deleted if not edited immediately was reputed to live, just as treating women as second class was.



According to the claims of the church, This post will be deleted if not edited immediately didn't treat women as second class. That's why his appointment of men as church functionaries was significant... and unchangeable. They also claim that when they pronounce something infallibly, it's as good as if This post will be deleted if not edited immediately said it. This brings us back to Mary's Catch-22. (You don't need me to tell you this, obviously. You can Google "ordinatio sacerdotalis" and "ratzinger dubium" just as easily as I can).



Purple said:


> He [Luther] was indeed, one of only a very few in a position of authority at the time.



I suppose he stopped being a good catholic when he started inventing his own doctrine... like Mary.



Purple said:


> Do you think that the RC Church, which controls the vast majority of our schools and employs so many of our teachers (even though they are paid by the State) don't have a big influence on the country?



Big influence doesn't have the same connotations as "long shadow". If it's any consolation, I think the Catholic Church should butt out of education. Most people have the good sense to know when they're not wanted. Not the Irish bishops, apparently. In fairness to them, they are taken in by the schizophrenic attitude of Irish "catholics" who still demand their rituals but reject everything else. Mary's just a more high-brow, and even more demanding, version of the same phenomenon.


----------



## Purple (13 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Not when Mary's acting like a thug.



A thug? How so?




dub_nerd said:


> They didn't claim to be god either. You'd expect god to have a slightly more consistent view.


 The Christian/Jewish God really mellowed as he got older; he used to destroy cities, send floods and turn people into pillars of salt. The RC Church just continued on that path and changed their views on slavery. They should probably do the same thing now on women. 




dub_nerd said:


> According to the claims of the church, This post will be deleted if not edited immediately didn't treat women as second class. That's why his appointment of men as church functionaries was significant... and unchangeable. They also claim that when they pronounce something infallibly, it's as good as if This post will be deleted if not edited immediately said it. This brings us back to Mary's Catch-22. (You don't need me to tell you this, obviously. You can Google "ordinatio sacerdotalis" and "ratzinger dubium" just as easily as I can).


Yep, but they have changed their position on things in the past, sure they don’t even burn people any more.




dub_nerd said:


> I suppose he stopped being a good catholic when he started inventing his own doctrine... like Mary.


 Maybe, but maybe he started being a good Christian.




dub_nerd said:


> Big influence doesn't have the same connotations as "long shadow".


 Indeed, just as hench-women and thug aren’t apt descriptions for people peacefully questioning the stance of an organisation to which they belong.




dub_nerd said:


> If it's any consolation, I think the Catholic Church should butt out of education. Most people have the good sense to know when they're not wanted. Not the Irish bishops, apparently. In fairness to them, they are taken in by the schizophrenic attitude of Irish "catholics" who still demand their rituals but reject everything else. Mary's just a more high-brow, and even more demanding, version of the same phenomenon.



True, I wouldn’t have anything to do with a misogynistic, homophobic repressive organisation which simultaneously claims to be a moral authority while covering up and therefore facilitates massive and systematic child abuse.


----------



## dub_nerd (13 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> A thug? How so?



Just another bolshie talking head who likes to dish out orders. Did you see her list of demands?



Purple said:


> The Christian/Jewish God really mellowed as he got older; he used to destroy cities, send floods and turn people into pillars of salt. The RC Church just continued on that path and changed their views on slavery. They should probably do the same thing now on women.



And have Mary running things? Uh, the pillar of salt idea sounds more attractive.



Purple said:


> Maybe, but maybe he [Luther] started being a good Christian.



If I remember right, he applied himself to remaking the church in his own image, starting with expunging the bits of scripture he didn't like. Pretty much like Mary wants to do. Well, there's nothing stopping her taking the same approach.



Purple said:


> Indeed, just as hench-women and thug aren’t apt descriptions for people peacefully questioning the stance of an organisation to which they belong.



Fair enough. Let's just say I wouldn't stand near her if she was waving ninety-five theses and a nail gun.



Purple said:


> True, I wouldn’t have anything to do with a misogynistic, homophobic repressive organisation which simultaneously claims to be a moral authority while covering up and therefore facilitates massive and systematic child abuse.



Sounds eminently sensible. Let's both hope that Mary takes a leaf from your book.


----------



## Purple (13 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Just another bolshie talking head who likes to dish out orders. Did you see her list of demands?


 No, I wasn’t aware she had a list of demands but she's flagged her stance on RC Church reform for years.




dub_nerd said:


> And have Mary running things? Uh, the pillar of salt idea sounds more attractive.


 I get the impression that your dislike for her pre-dates this issue.




dub_nerd said:


> If I remember right, he applied himself to remaking the church in his own image, starting with expunging the bits of scripture he didn't like. Pretty much like Mary wants to do. Well, there's nothing stopping her taking the same approach.


 She sees herself as a Catholic who loved her Church and doesn’t want a punch of celibate old men to continue to kill it.




dub_nerd said:


> Fair enough. Let's just say I wouldn't stand near her if she was waving ninety-five theses and a nail gun.


 Why? Did she do something to you?




dub_nerd said:


> Sounds eminently sensible. Let's both hope that Mary takes a leaf from your book.


 I hope she doesn’t. The RC Church has a chance to be a power for good in the world. It certainly isn’t that now. With women breaking up the misogynistic old men’s club that might change.


----------



## dub_nerd (13 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> I get the impression that your dislike for her pre-dates this issue... Did she do something to you?



Nope, just dealing with this issue on its merits.



Purple said:


> She sees herself as a Catholic who loved her Church and doesn’t want a punch of celibate old men to continue to kill it.



Yeah, as I said, Martin Luther was similar. So let's see -- she hates the institution and the people that run it, and rejects a broad swathe of its doctrines. Her take on the Vatican reminds me of Ian Paisley Snr's hilarious "sewer pipes of hell" diatribe. Why wouldn't she just start again? Churches are ten-a-penny and you can get ordained on the internet. It's not like she gives any credence to the notion of apostolic succession, so there isn't the slightest thing hindering her. Unless it's a power grab...



Purple said:


> The RC Church has a chance to be a power for good in the world. It certainly isn’t that now. With women breaking up the misogynistic old men’s club that might change.



Or it could just turn into a misandrist old women's club like most of the female religious orders did. I have a very healthy distrust for people who engage in power politics, men _and_ women.


----------



## Purple (13 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Nope, just dealing with this issue on its merits.


 That's not how it sounds.



dub_nerd said:


> Yeah, as I said, Martin Luther was similar. So let's see -- she hates the institution and the people that run it, and rejects a broad swathe of its doctrines. Her take on the Vatican reminds me of Ian Paisley Snr's hilarious "sewer pipes of hell" diatribe. Why wouldn't she just start again? Churches are ten-a-penny and you can get ordained on the internet. It's not like she gives any credence to the notion of apostolic succession, so there isn't the slightest thing hindering her. Unless it's a power grab...


 Where did she say she hates the institution and the people who run it? Did women hate democracy when they looked for the vote? Were they misandrist when they looked for equality? If her take on the vatican reminds you of Ian Paisley Snr's it says much more about you than it does about her.
The notion of Apostolic Succession predates the splintering the Christian Church into the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East and Roman Catholic churches in the fifth century. The Pope was just one of many Patriarchs until the Muslims Took Antioch and Constantinople (the latter thanks to it being sacked by Latin/RC Crusaders). Are they all valid or just the RC one?



dub_nerd said:


> Or it could just turn into a misandrist old women's club like most of the female religious orders did. I have a very healthy distrust for people who engage in power politics, men _and_ women.


 Since when is looking for some level of equality power politics?
Are they really that frightened of women? 
What have they got to hide?


----------



## dub_nerd (13 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> That's not how it sounds.



Can't help you there I'm afraid. Except to say that we are all predisposed to suspecting an ulterior motive in people we disagree with.



Purple said:


> Where did she say she hates the institution and the people who run it? ... If her take on the vatican reminds you of Ian Paisley Snr's it says much more about you than it does about her.



Again, let's stick to Mary rather than me if you don't mind. She called it an "empire of misogyny". Does that sound to you like she's well-disposed toward it? She implied that its 2000 year history is one of unbroken gynophobia. To be honest, she sounds unhinged. That's why she sounds like Ian Paisley.



Purple said:


> The notion of Apostolic Succession predates the splintering the Christian Church into the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East and Roman Catholic churches in the fifth century. The Pope was just one of many Patriarchs until the Muslims Took Antioch and Constantinople (the latter thanks to it being sacked by Latin/RC Crusaders). Are they all valid or just the RC one?



You sound quite well informed (or good at Googling). So presumably you know the RC's position on this and _why_ they hold it -- they agree that those church's have valid apostolic succession.



Purple said:


> Since when is looking for some level of equality power politics?
> Are they really that frightened of women?
> What have they got to hide?



That's kind of beating around the bush, though, isn't it? Mary isn't looking for equality. She's looking for a swathe of doctrines to be  changed. She needs to get into power so that she can change them. She believes that all of the things she wants changed are down to one annoying obstacle -- _men_. The puzzling thing is why she doesn't just go and do her own thing. Why is she so interested in the church whose founder was presumably the Emperor of Misogyny? Do you have a view on that? Mine is that she's a misandrist thug. Happy to change my mind if I see evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Purple (13 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Can't help you there I'm afraid. Except to say that we are all predisposed to suspecting an ulterior motive in people we disagree with.


 I don’t suspect your motives. I’m just trying to understand why you hold the views you do. To me they seem disproportionately hostile and aggressive towards someone who is seeking to change her Church, the one to which she belongs, from within.




dub_nerd said:


> Again, let's stick to Mary rather than me if you don't mind. She called it an "empire of misogyny". Does that sound to you like she's well-disposed toward it?



It sounds like she wants it to reflect the teachings of This post will be deleted if not edited immediately as she understand them.




dub_nerd said:


> You sound quite well informed (or good at Googling). So presumably you know the RC's position on this and _why_ they hold it -- they agree that those church's have valid apostolic succession.


 Didn’t Google it and didn’t know that the RC Church agrees that the other Churches have valid apostolic succession. The reason they have the views they do is because it suits them.




dub_nerd said:


> That's kind of beating around the bush, though, isn't it? Mary isn't looking for equality. She's looking for a swathe of doctrines to be changed. She needs to get into power so that she can change them. She believes that all of the things she wants changed are down to one annoying obstacle -- _men_. The puzzling thing is why she doesn't just go and do her own thing. Why is she so interested in the church whose founder was presumably the Emperor of Misogyny?


 I don’t accept that she is looking to get into power or that she sees the issue as just men. Nothing she has said supports that view. Equality is exactly what she is looking for.

The founder of the RC Church was the Emperor Constantine and I don’t know if he was a misogynist or not.




dub_nerd said:


> Do you have a view on that? Mine is that she's a misandrist thug. Happy to change my mind if I see evidence to the contrary.


 You keep using the word thug. That implies violence. Why is looking for change within the structures of her Church thuggish?


----------



## dub_nerd (13 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> I don’t suspect your motives. I’m just trying to understand why you hold the views you do. To me they seem disproportionately hostile and aggressive towards someone who is seeking to change her Church, the one to which she belongs, from within.



I don't think I've used language any more immoderate than Mary has used.



Purple said:


> It sounds like she wants it to reflect the teachings of This post will be deleted if not edited immediately as she understand them.



Then she will make an excellent Protestant.



Purple said:


> Didn’t Google it and didn’t know that the RC Church agrees that the other Churches have valid apostolic succession. The reason they have the views they do is because it suits them.



It seems unlikely that you are intimate with their motives on something that you didn't even know about until ten minutes ago. So I'm going to guess you don't know why they recognise apostolic succession in the Orthodox churches and not the Protestant churches.



Purple said:


> I don’t accept that she is looking to get into power or that she sees the issue as just men. Nothing she has said supports that view. Equality is exactly what she is looking for.



Well, she wants to change catholic doctrine. Even the pope can't do that. Sounds like a power grab.



Purple said:


> The founder of the RC Church was the Emperor Constantine and I don’t know if he was a misogynist or not.



Clever guy. He must have had a time machine to go back a couple of centuries to 100 AD when the Catholic Church was already calling itself Catholic. (The term _Roman_ Catholic Church is a Protestant invention).



Purple said:


> You keep using the word thug. That implies violence. Why is looking for change within the structures of her Church thuggish?



She hasn't the slightest authority -- legal or moral -- to do so.


----------



## Betsy Og (13 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd, I'm not sure is the phrase "enigmatic", or "mercurial" or what, but you've no time for the church yet seem to have an intimate knowledge of it and its history. Despite not liking the church you're fighting tooth and nail for its right to remain what it is, all wrapped up in hostility to Mary Mc for her temerity to challenge the church you're not really a fan of.

Hmmm..... just puzzled like. I haven't followed your past contributions so I dont know your 'form', but tis a quare wan (no pun intended) all the same.


----------



## dub_nerd (13 Mar 2018)

Hi Betsy Og, I don't think I said I have no time for the church. I don't think I said anything either way. But I'm not trying to hide anything. It's been asserted here that Mary Mc is a devoutly practising Catholic. I'm not  one of those. But I do know something about it (I mean for a layperson ... I'm not claiming any special expertise, and I don't have any qualifications like Mary).

I suppose the thing that gets my goat is the general Irish schizophrenic relationship with the Catholic church. I am constantly amazed how people claim the church has some death grip stranglehold on the country. For god's sake, are we not able to think for ourselves? I don't recall the RCC _ever_ having a stranglehold over me, and certainly no undue influence since I turned 12 and decided to be an atheist (I am now in my fifties). I have had various voluntary flirtations with it since.

Anyway, this isn't about me. Back to your point about Mary's "temerity". This story about Mary only seeking equality for poor downtrodden women may gain some sympathy from those who know no better. But it's complete bunkum. Mary's a hardcore activist. And she comes from a long line of hardcore activists whose tactic has been to push their own doctrinal agenda until there is a reaction, then throw their hands up in pretend shock when they were only "following their conscience". Indeed she wrote the forward to the book, _A Question of Conscience_, written by another well-known dissident who also rejects some fundamental tenets of the religion. She has form -- lots of it.

I truly don't mean this in any sort of pejorative way. Mary's entitled to her opinions. I have some pretty wacky ones of my own. She's just not entitled to get her own way. I reckon it's also pretty shoddy to refer to the church as a dangerous virus, and then claim it's _her_ that is being slapped down. Though I suppose it's always easy to get a sympathy vote when you go up against those evil misogynists in the Vatican, especially when you're as good with the flowery language as Mary. The thing I _really_ don't get is why she, and people like her, torture themselves over something totally obvious. Love it, hate it, or couldn't care less about it, the RC church simply _can't_ accede to what she wants. Anyone who has studied Catholicism 101 (i.e. _not_ 99% of Catholics, especially not the ones pastored by the useless Irish bishops) could tell you that. But surely you'd expect the people with theology degrees to know it. Nor can they claim they are "following their conscience". Newman's essay on conscience in his _Letter to the Duke of Norfolk_ after Vatican I (easily findable online) would confirm why that's no excuse.

That reminds me of another irony (since Newman was making the opposite journey to Mary, from Protestant to Catholic). What about the thousands of people in the personal ordinariates? For those who don't know, those are the canonical structures within the Catholic Church for thousands of former Anglicans and other Protestant men and women who jumped ship over the exact same issues in Anglicanism that Mary is trying to foist on Catholics. It must feel like stepping off the Titanic onto the Lusitania. Is she claiming to speak for those?

Nope, no hard feelings to Mary, but she needs to take her pick of the 30,000 or so Christian churches formed by and for dissenters like her. Or if none are suitable there's always the DIY option.


----------



## Betsy Og (14 Mar 2018)

Fair play, far more cogent an analysis.


----------



## Purple (14 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Back to your point about Mary's "temerity". This story about Mary only seeking equality for poor downtrodden women may gain some sympathy from those who know no better. But it's complete bunkum. Mary's a hardcore activist. And she comes from a long line of hardcore activists whose tactic has been to push their own doctrinal agenda until there is a reaction, then throw their hands up in pretend shock when they were only "following their conscience". Indeed she wrote the forward to the book, _A Question of Conscience_, written by another well-known dissident who also rejects some fundamental tenets of the religion. She has form -- lots of it.


So she is seeking to change an organisation to which you don't belong or support and you call her a thug for doing so. 
Do you accept that the structures of the RC Church are misogynistic? If not why and if so do you think that's okay?
By the way, she called the misogyny in the Church a dangerous virus, not the Church itself. 

The structures of the RC Church are human and can be changed by humans. It has happened before and will happen again. 

I agree about Irish people's relationship with the RC Church, and religion in general. We are generally a la carte about it. To me they are all just different brands of crazy but each to their own. In general I support people who seek to change any organisations or structures to make them less sexist, less homophobic, less xenophobic and less bigoted.


----------



## dub_nerd (14 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> Do you accept that the structures of the RC Church are misogynistic? If not why and if so do you think that's okay?



On Mary's terms? No. She's saying the mere existence of a male hierarchy is misogynistic. They're saying it's divinely instituted. You could claim (like Mary) that their claims are hogwash. But then you wouldn't be "a devout catholic" and the thing you were trying to recreate wouldn't be the catholic church. It's simple logic.



Purple said:


> By the way, she called the misogyny in the Church a dangerous virus, not the Church itself.



That's the crux of the matter though. The thing she wants to change is considered by the church to be intrinsic to itself.



Purple said:


> The structures of the RC Church are human and can be changed by humans. It has happened before and will happen again



Not according to the church.



Purple said:


> In general I support people who seek to change any organisations or structures to make them less sexist, less homophobic, less xenophobic and less bigoted.



In general I'm nervous of a new authoritarianism that seems to want to define how people must think, especially when it wants to stamp out ideas that seemed unremarkable just a few years ago. In that respect I think Mary has more in common with the Empire of Misogyny than she realises.


----------



## Leo (14 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> especially when it wants to stamp out ideas that seemed unremarkable just a few years ago.



It's not that long ago here that the idea of women being barred from working after marriage was unremarkable, just a few years ago here the idea that rape within marriage could not exist in law was unremarkable. Just because something was unremarkable a few years ago doesn't make it right. At a point of time in the church, the genocide carried out under the crusades was unremarkable, they seem to have changed their views on that now.


----------



## Purple (14 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> On Mary's terms? No.


 That's not what I asked you. Do you think that the structures of the RC Church are inherently misogynistic?



dub_nerd said:


> She's saying the mere existence of a male hierarchy is misogynistic. They're saying it's divinely instituted. You could claim (like Mary) that their claims are hogwash. But then you wouldn't be "a devout catholic" and the thing you were trying to recreate wouldn't be the catholic church. It's simple logic.


Even if the existence of a male hierarchy is divinely instituted that doesn't mean it isn't misogynistic. 
She is seeking to change the structures of the RC Church, not re-create it. The Structures have changed many times and will do so again.



dub_nerd said:


> That's the crux of the matter though. The thing she wants to change is considered by the church to be intrinsic to itself.


 It is until it isn't. 



dub_nerd said:


> Not according to the church.


 Sure, until they change it.



dub_nerd said:


> In general I'm nervous of a new authoritarianism that seems to want to define how people must think, especially when it wants to stamp out ideas that seemed unremarkable just a few years ago. In that respect I think Mary has more in common with the Empire of Misogyny than she realises.


 Wow. Very one-eye'd view.


----------



## michaelm (14 Mar 2018)

While I'm indifferent to what Mary Mc has to say in general, I wish she'd refrain from public commentary.  Ideally former Presidents should keep their opinions to themselves.  She was too young to be elected President when FF took a punt on her (having changed their selection rules at the last minute).  She was then shamefully selected as President for a second term when the political classes conspired to deny the public a vote.  This is why I think one should have to be at least 60 to become President and that it should be limited to a single 5 or maybe 7 year term.


----------



## dub_nerd (14 Mar 2018)

Leo said:


> Just because something was unremarkable a few years ago doesn't make it right.



It goes without saying that it doesn't make it wrong either.


----------



## dub_nerd (14 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> That's not what I asked you. Do you think that the structures of the RC Church are inherently misogynistic?



No. Going by a dictionary definition, that would imply the structures exist because everyone involved hates women. I think that's a frankly stupid idea.



Purple said:


> Even if the existence of a male hierarchy is divinely instituted that doesn't mean it isn't misogynistic.



Presumably only if god is a misogynist. It seems unlikely even Mary is trying to claim that.



Purple said:


> The Structures have changed many times and will do so again.



Not according to the church.



Purple said:


> Wow. Very one-eye'd view.



You don't say why, so I presume it's just because you don't agree with it.


----------



## Leo (14 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> It goes without saying that it doesn't make it wrong either.



Well of course. The point was what the past considered unremarkable often varies with current understanding, so we shouldn't dismiss change outright based on the understanding of the past. If we were to follow that reasoning we'd all be flat-earthers.


----------



## cremeegg (14 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> The Pope was just one of many Patriarchs until the Muslims Took Antioch and Constantinople



I have often thought your interpretations of history were unsupported by generally recognised facts.

Here however your understanding as to the facts is incorrect.

The Pope (pontifex maximus) was the supreme leader of the Christian church, recognised as more important than the other Patriarchs by all Christians until the schism of 1054. 400 years before the Muslims captured Constantinople.


----------



## Purple (14 Mar 2018)

cremeegg said:


> I have often thought your interpretations of history were unsupported by generally recognised facts.
> 
> Here however your understanding as to the facts is incorrect.
> 
> The Pope (pontifex maximus) was the supreme leader of the Christian church, recognised as more important than the other Patriarchs by all Christians until the schism of 1054. 400 years before the Muslims captured Constantinople.


I have a different understanding of the history of the Christian Church. This link gives some details.
Even if you are correct for 400 years before the fall of Constantinople he was one of a number of Patriarchs.


----------



## Purple (14 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> No. Going by a dictionary definition, that would imply the structures exist because everyone involved hates women. I think that's a frankly stupid idea.


 I think that's a rather stupid interpretation of the accusation. It is nonsense to say that because the structures of an organisation are misogynistic that therefore all the members of that organisation are misogynistic, including the women and men seeking change.



dub_nerd said:


> Presumably only if god is a misogynist. It seems unlikely even Mary is trying to claim that.


 You may presume so. 



dub_nerd said:


> Not according to the church.



JP the second said that some stuff about the Eucharist that differed from previous Papal teachings. I had to Google the details but;
_Early in the encyclical, Pope John Paul II reinforces the importance of the Eucharist. In a section entitled "The Revelation of God's Wisdom," the Pope discusses the mysterious revelation of God's truth to man. He writes to the bishops:

In a sense, then, we return to the sacramental character of Revelation and especially to the sign of the Eucharist, in which the indissoluble unity between the signifier and signified makes it possible to grasp the depths of the mystery. In the Eucharist, Christ is truly present and alive, working through his Spirit; yet, as Saint Thomas said so well, "What you neither see nor grasp, faith confirms for you, leaving nature far behind; a sign it is that now appears, hiding in mystery realities sublime."
This statement stands in complete agreement with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism expressly states:

1374. ...In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist: "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord This post will be deleted if not edited immediately Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained" (Council of Trent, 1551: DS 1651). "This presence is called 'real'-by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present" (Paul VI, MF 39)._

It was the teaching of the RC Church that only this baptised and still in the fold could get into heaven. That was the way it was until Pius the 9th said that "In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way toi eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation." 

The RC Church never changes it's doctrinal views? Will ye go away outta that!



dub_nerd said:


> You don't say why, so I presume it's just because you don't agree with it.


 I say it because you ascribe baseless motives to Mary's comments with a hostility to her and those you consider to be like her which are utterly disproportionate to the issues in question.


----------



## dub_nerd (14 Mar 2018)

Leo said:


> Well of course. The point was what the past considered unremarkable often varies with current understanding, so we shouldn't dismiss change outright based on the understanding of the past. If we were to follow that reasoning we'd all be flat-earthers.


I still agree with you. And I still say it doesn't prove anything either. For instance, you picked thousand year old examples (the Crusades) which even at the time were extremely controversial and argued against in various quarters. They are hardly a reasonable comparison to anything in the modern day. But nevertheless, I reiterate that I agree with you and that none of this proves anything either way.


----------



## dub_nerd (14 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> Even if you are correct for 400 years before the fall of Constantinople he was one of a number of Patriarchs.


The Pope is _still_ one of a number of Patriarchs, even within the Catholic Church. Fourteen of them at present if I'm not mistaken. I don't think it proves what you think it does.


----------



## dub_nerd (14 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> No. Going by a dictionary definition, that would imply the structures exist because everyone involved hates women. I think that's a frankly stupid idea.





Purple said:


> I think that's a rather stupid interpretation of the accusation. It is nonsense to say that because *the structures of an organisation are misogynistic* that therefore all the members of that organisation are misogynistic, including the women and men seeking change.


"Structures" can't be misogynistic. Only people can be misogynistic. Mary Mc called for the church's "walls of misogyny" to be torn down. Do you think she meant the walls of the Vatican are misogynists, or the people inside them? I can't really believe you are arguing for the former? And I nowhere mentioned  "all the members of the organisation". I am talking about whatever people Mary is talking about. Who do _you_ think she is referring to?



Purple said:


> JP the second said that some stuff about the Eucharist that differed from previous Papal teachings.



If the Pope wasn't allowed to say new stuff then he could only read verbatim from scripture. On the other hand, if you're claiming that your quote represents a departure from traditional teaching, well it's your word against every serious scholar out there.



Purple said:


> The RC Church never changes it's doctrinal views? Will ye go away outta that!



There's never been a reversal of doctrine that I know about, although I know loads of things that are cited by people as alleged examples, usually to prop up a claim about something else that should change. "Go way outta that" is a rhetorical flourish, not a serious argument.



Purple said:


> ...you ascribe baseless motives to Mary's comments with a hostility to her and those you consider to be like her which are utterly disproportionate to the issues in question.



You can hardly claim it's disproportionate before we have agreed what the issues _are_. That said, I don't have a hostility toward Mary. I am responding robustly to her own robust comments (which go far beyond the issue of female equality that they have been painted as).


----------



## Sophrosyne (15 Mar 2018)

Dub-nerd, I’m not sure what you are getting at.

Perhaps you would explain precisely what intrinsic apostolic or church doctrine(s) or cannon(s) you think Mary is trying to change.


----------



## Purple (15 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> I still agree with you. And I still say it doesn't prove anything either. For instance, you picked thousand year old examples (the Crusades) which even at the time were extremely controversial and argued against in various quarters. They are hardly a reasonable comparison to anything in the modern day. But nevertheless, I reiterate that I agree with you and that none of this proves anything either way.


The Pope was the one who preached and agitated for the First Crusade, saying that those who went on that holy war would have their sins forgiven and be guaranteed a place in heaven. That position has changed. That proves that the RC Church changes its position on fundamental issues.


----------



## Purple (15 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> "Structures" can't be misogynistic. Only people can be misogynistic. Mary Mc called for the church's "walls of misogyny" to be torn down. Do you think she meant the walls of the Vatican are misogynists, or the people inside them? I can't really believe you are arguing for the former? And I nowhere mentioned "all the members of the organisation". I am talking about whatever people Mary is talking about. Who do _you_ think she is referring to?


The people who control the structures can be misogynistic while those who do not control them but do not control them may not be misogynistic. That's a simple distinction. I'm surprised that you need it explained to you. 



dub_nerd said:


> If the Pope wasn't allowed to say new stuff then he could only read verbatim from scripture. On the other hand, if you're claiming that your quote represents a departure from traditional teaching, well it's your word against every serious scholar out there.


A fundamental change to the nature of Trans-substantiation, a core pillar of the Catholic faith, is hardly just "saying new stuff". 



dub_nerd said:


> There's never been a reversal of doctrine that I know about, although I know loads of things that are cited by people as alleged examples, usually to prop up a claim about something else that should change. "Go way outta that" is a rhetorical flourish, not a serious argument.


 "Saying new stuff" is also a rhetorical flourish, not a serious argument. Changing the Church's position on the nature of Trans-substantiation is about as serious a change as you get.



dub_nerd said:


> You can hardly claim it's disproportionate before we have agreed what the issues _are_. That said, I don't have a hostility toward Mary. I am responding robustly to her own robust comments (which go far beyond the issue of female equality that they have been painted as).


 I'd hate to hear what you say about people you do have a hostility towards!

Do you think that women are currently treated as equal within the hierarchy of the RC Church?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Mar 2018)

"Misogyny" is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "hatred of women".  That seems a tad OTT in the context of the RCC.  Our protestant brethren pour scorn an the devotion accorded by the RCC to the BVM. In fact Her powers of intervention on this planet seem to greatly exceed those of Her Son as witnessed by those who flock to Lourdes, Fatima, Knock, Medjugorje etc.  Maybe its the V bit that warrants the reverence, after all great store is placed on the celibacy of its priests, but that would seem to be nitpicking.

Mary Mc infamously likened her unionist neighbours where she was brought up to the Nazis.  So she is not given to temperate language.


----------



## odyssey06 (15 Mar 2018)

Clearly, an ominipotent and omniscent supernatural entity should have foreseen the need for a more positive statement in terms of female equality when they were here, ensuring it was preserved for posterity in some sort of 'scripture'. Ditto for slavery. Probably an entire disowning of Leviticus may have been warranted.


----------



## dub_nerd (15 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> The Pope was the one who preached and agitated for the First Crusade, saying that those who went on that holy war would have their sins forgiven and be guaranteed a place in heaven. That position has changed. That proves that the RC Church changes its position on fundamental issues.


I don't really know what you're getting at here. Christianity today still has a concept of just war, so which fundamental issue are you talking about? The Crusades in general featured some regrettable excesses but the original motivation for the first crusade -- combatting violent Islamic expansionism -- is probably still sound.


----------



## dub_nerd (15 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> "Saying new stuff" is also a rhetorical flourish, not a serious argument. Changing the Church's position on the nature of Trans-substantiation is about as serious a change as you get.



I thought I'd split the answer to this one out here as it's a total diversion. With respect, you really are clutching at straws here. You didn't bother providing a link to support your quotes but it's easily findable. Your extract is from [broken link removed], an American fundamentalist pastor of the evangelical Baptist tradition. It's reproduced on several fundamentalist, mainly Baptist websites. I'm going to guess you don't know a whole lot about evangelical fundamentalism. It has more and less moderate strains, but this is very much the less moderate variety -- the same one from which Ian Paisley Snr took most of his inspiration. Whereas Catholics and some Evangelicals have arrived at joint declarations about the nature of salvation "by grace through faith", the truly diehard evangelicals still cling rigidly to the "solae" of the Reformation.

One can imagine the very title of the encyclical _Fides et Ratio_ (Faith and Reason) being a bit of a red rag to a bull for a _sola fide_ fundamentalist ("salvation through faith alone"). But the specific complaint in your article is that in that encyclical the Pope cites Tradition in talking about the Eucharist, instead of "_sola scriptura"_ ... only scripture. Never mind that the encyclical is extensively footnoted, like all encyclicals, to demonstrate continuity of doctrine with previous sources. Costella's complaint is that the RCC *hasn't* changed its theology which is why evangelicals should stay away from it, exactly the opposite of what you claim. This is hardly even worth debating (although we can if you insist) -- but you should find some sources other than the crazed regressive fundamentalist Catholic-hating ones still occupying the battlefields of the Reformation. Or at least be a _little_ bit more discerning when you google "has the church changed its doctrines".


----------



## dub_nerd (15 Mar 2018)

... which brings us back to "something about Mary":



Purple said:


> The people who control the structures can be misogynistic while those who do not control them but do not control them may not be misogynistic. That's a simple distinction. I'm surprised that you need it explained to you.



No, but now you've circled back to the point _I_ made. Mary's "empire of misogyny" quip is aimed at certain _people_ within the church, not "structures". Let's bring in your other question:



Purple said:


> Do you think that women are currently treated as equal within the hierarchy of the RC Church?



I think you're coming from the same place as Mary on this (but correct me if I'm wrong). As far as I can see, her position is that the very existence of the exclusively male catholic clergy is in diametric opposition to any notion of equality. In other words, for equality to prevail, the exclusively male orders must cease to exist. No, I don't share that view. And I reiterate my point that Mary's immoderate "empire of misogyny" barb is intended to convey that anyone who disagrees with her does so out of a hatred of women. I still say that's a stupid line to take (though Mary is hardly a stupid person, so perhaps it's more malicious than that).



Purple said:


> I'd hate to hear what you say about people you do have a hostility towards!



I don't think I've said anything less moderate than Mary did, but I'll admit to enjoying a good argument.


----------



## dub_nerd (15 Mar 2018)

Sophrosyne said:


> Dub-nerd, I’m not sure what you are getting at.
> 
> Perhaps you would explain precisely what intrinsic apostolic or church doctrine(s) or cannon(s) you think Mary is trying to change.



Sorry, nearly missed this one. I think there are multiple but I don't want to accuse her of things she has only hinted at but hasn't actually said. So perhaps the most straightforward answer is: canon 1024 of the Code of Canon Law, which restricts ordination to baptised males.


----------



## Purple (15 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> I don't really know what you're getting at here. Christianity today still has a concept of just war, so which fundamental issue are you talking about? The Crusades in general featured some regrettable excesses but the original motivation for the first crusade -- combatting violent Islamic expansionism -- is probably still sound.


The First Crusade had little to do with Muslim Expansionism as it wasn't expanding at the time, indeed it was in the middle of a multi faceted civil war. The argument that the Christians should reclaim Jerusalem was over 300 years late. It was about reasserting the influence of Rome over the Church in Europe. Pope Urban the Second did an excellent job on that front. 
The issue that changes was that the Pope said that all who fought in that Holy War would gain a place in heaven and all their previous sins would be forgiven. Is that still the position of the RC Church?


----------



## Purple (15 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> I thought I'd split the answer to this one out here as it's a total diversion. With respect, you really are clutching at straws here. You didn't bother providing a link to support your quotes but it's easily findable. Your extract is from [broken link removed], an American fundamentalist pastor of the evangelical Baptist tradition. It's reproduced on several fundamentalist, mainly Baptist websites. I'm going to guess you don't know a whole lot about evangelical fundamentalism. It has more and less moderate strains, but this is very much the less moderate variety -- the same one from which Ian Paisley Snr took most of his inspiration. Whereas Catholics and some Evangelicals have arrived at joint declarations about the nature of salvation "by grace through faith", the truly diehard evangelicals still cling rigidly to the "solae" of the Reformation.
> 
> One can imagine the very title of the encyclical _Fides et Ratio_ (Faith and Reason) being a bit of a red rag to a bull for a _sola fide_ fundamentalist ("salvation through faith alone"). But the specific complaint in your article is that in that encyclical the Pope cites Tradition in talking about the Eucharist, instead of "_sola scriptura"_ ... only scripture. Never mind that the encyclical is extensively footnoted, like all encyclicals, to demonstrate continuity of doctrine with previous sources. Costella's complaint is that the RCC *hasn't* changed its theology which is why evangelicals should stay away from it, exactly the opposite of what you claim. This is hardly even worth debating (although we can if you insist) -- but you should find some sources other than the crazed regressive fundamentalist Catholic-hating ones still occupying the battlefields of the Reformation. Or at least be a _little_ bit more discerning when you google "has the church changed its doctrines".


Okay, so you haven't addressed the issue of the significant change on the substance of trans-substantiation. Rather you have attacked a source who quoted the two popes in question. I'm in full agreement on Evangelical Christians, along with most religion.


----------



## dub_nerd (15 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> The issue that changes was that the Pope said that all who fought in that Holy War would gain a place in heaven and all their previous sins would be forgiven. Is that still the position of the RC Church?



Yes. The pope is allowed to grant indulgences. Nothing changed there.



Purple said:


> Okay, so you haven't addressed the issue of the significant change on the substance of trans-substantiation. Rather you have attacked a source who quoted the two popes in question.



Now you have me confused. I addressed _your_ sources. At least I think I did, because you didn't provide any reference so I had to Google it. You also provided a long quote without saying which bit you think represents a "significant change on the substance of trans-substantiation". I'd be happy to address it but you'll have to be clear on who you're quoting and what you're alleging. There's certainly nothing in what you provided that suggests anything like a doctrinal change.


----------



## Purple (16 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> No, but now you've circled back to the point _I_ made. Mary's "empire of misogyny" quip is aimed at certain _people_ within the church, not "structures".


 When did you make that point? How is it hard to see the link between people and structures?



dub_nerd said:


> I think you're coming from the same place as Mary on this (but correct me if I'm wrong). As far as I can see, her position is that the very existence of the exclusively male catholic clergy is in diametric opposition to any notion of equality. In other words, for equality to prevail, the exclusively male orders must cease to exist. No, I don't share that view. And I reiterate my point that Mary's immoderate "empire of misogyny" barb is intended to convey that anyone who disagrees with her does so out of a hatred of women. I still say that's a stupid line to take (though Mary is hardly a stupid person, so perhaps it's more malicious than that).


I think you are letting your own bias colour your interpretation of her position.



dub_nerd said:


> I don't think I've said anything less moderate than Mary did, but I'll admit to enjoying a good argument.


 So do I.


----------



## Purple (16 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Yes. The pope is allowed to grant indulgences. Nothing changed there.


  For those engaging in wars? 



dub_nerd said:


> Now you have me confused. I addressed _your_ sources. At least I think I did, because you didn't provide any reference so I had to Google it. You also provided a long quote without saying which bit you think represents a "significant change on the substance of trans-substantiation". I'd be happy to address it but you'll have to be clear on who you're quoting and what you're alleging. There's certainly nothing in what you provided that suggests anything like a doctrinal change.


 A change in the stance on the nature of trans-substantiation isn't a change in doctrine?


----------



## dub_nerd (16 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> When did you make that point? How is it hard to see the link between people and structures?



We're going around in circles here. Let me recap for you. Mary said the church was an empire of misogyny. I said she was thereby accusing the members of the hierarchy of being woman haters. You said (although I've no idea what your point was supposed to be) that the *structures* could be misogynistic. I said that structures couldn't be misogynistic, only people. Now you're saying there's a link between the structures and the people. At this stage I've no idea what your point is. My point is that Mary is accusing all of the members of the hierarchy of misogyny, which seems a rather unlikely generalisation.



Purple said:


> I think you are letting your own bias colour your interpretation of her position.



That's fine. Why don't you tell me what you think her position is. (I'm assuming you've listened to the full 30 minutes of her speech like I have, and are also familiar with her historical statements of her position).



Purple said:


> (Papal indulgences) for those engaging in wars?



Yeah, why not? If it is for a good cause I don't see a problem with it. On the other hand, even if the pope got it wrong -- as popes certainly have with the exchange of indulgences for alms-giving, which was later condemned -- the doctrine concerning indulgences has not changed.



Purple said:


> A change in the stance on the nature of trans-substantiation isn't a change in doctrine?



Again, we're going around in circles. You quoted some text and said it was about a change in doctrine. I didn't see anything about a change in doctrine in what you posted. If you want to pursue it, you'll have to be clearer about what you think the change was. Seeing as I've never heard anyone else suggesting a relatively recent change in doctrine on the Eucharist, which would certainly make waves in the RCC, I think you're probably mistaken.


----------



## Purple (18 Mar 2018)

This is like discussing evolution with a creationist. 
I’ll leave it there. I’m surprised and disappointed that anyone in a modern society can hold the views you hold.


----------



## dub_nerd (18 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> This is like discussing evolution with a creationist.
> I’ll leave it there. I’m surprised and disappointed that anyone in a modern society can hold the views you hold.



That's a bizarre statement. You didn't even say what view you disagree with, let alone debate it. We didn't discuss any science, so I don't know what your reference to evolution is about. (Plus I'm not a creationist and I hold several science degrees, including a master's degree, so I feel my scientific credentials are reasonably robust). Also, your argument seemed to consist of: "the RCC has changed in the past, therefore it can change again". But you singularly failed to establish how it had changed in the past on substantial issues of doctrine.

The one and only point I've made is that RCC doctrine prevents it from giving Mary women's ordination, as it says it has no authority to. Her other points about women having no role in discussing or developing doctrine are just part of her agenda to rope in the sympathy vote from people like you. In fact, there are plenty of women theologians involved in that, and there is no barrier to having more, nor is anyone disagreeing with it. Your position seems to be: "Mary's a woman so she couldn't possibly be mistaken or lying to further her agenda", which sounds pretty sexist to me.


----------



## cremeegg (18 Mar 2018)

Dubnerd and Purple, you guys have definitely taken this thread in the codology direction.


----------



## dub_nerd (18 Mar 2018)

Yeah, let's jump back on the rhetorical bandwagon before anyone is forced into a reasonable debate.


----------



## Sophrosyne (19 Mar 2018)

In a way I agree with you Dub_nerd that members or potential members of a religion must accept that for that religion to remain true to itself, certain doctrines are non-negotiable.

For the Roman Catholic Church, the restriction of ordination to baptized males appears to be one of those doctrines, as explained in the Declaration *Inter Insigniores *On the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood by Pope Paul VI.

That said however, due to the paucity of documentation on early councils or synods, it is not absolutely clear how the early Christian Church developed its doctrines before the 4th century and whether it indeed remained true to apostolic tradition based in Jerusalem.

Certainly, concessions were made to Gentiles and over time This post will be deleted if not edited immediately became less and less Jewish.

The role of women in early Christianity is not that clear cut.

Canon Law can and does change over time for better or for worse.

For instance, at one time child sexual abuse was considered so heinous that Canon Law prescribed that priests who sexually abused children were to be punished by the Church itself, often by torture or death, or were to be “degraded” and handed over to the civil authorities.

Later, it was considered as a moral failing and how the church dealt with it became shrouded in secrecy.

This paper, entitled _Canon Law On Child Sexual Abuse Through The Ages, _byKieran Tapsell discusses the changes.


----------



## cremeegg (19 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> Yeah, let's jump back on the rhetorical bandwagon before anyone is forced into a reasonable debate.



A reasonable debate on transubstantiation is a contradiction in terms.


----------



## dub_nerd (19 Mar 2018)

A reasonable debate requires only reason and respectful engagement.


----------



## cremeegg (20 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> A reasonable debate requires only reason and respectful engagement.



Nothing that can be said regarding transubstantiation is accessible to reason. 

I have no respect for "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" either.


----------



## dub_nerd (20 Mar 2018)

You're wrong of course. There are entire debating societies devoted to the works of Tolkien where reasonable people debate issues to do with the Council of Elrond. Any topic -- from fiction to dream interpretation to infinite dimensional space -- can be debated reasonably by reasonable people. The subject doesn't have to be "real", "true" or mutually accepted. Anyone with an ounce of sense and integrity understands this, unless they're just out to pour scorn on their pet dislikes while pretending to have the intellectual high ground.


----------



## Betsy Og (20 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> You're wrong of course. There are entire debating societies devoted to the works of Tolkien where reasonable people debate issues to do with the Council of Elrond. Any topic -- from fiction to dream interpretation to infinite dimensional space -- can be debated reasonably by reasonable people. The subject doesn't have to be "real", "true" or mutually accepted. Anyone with an ounce of sense and integrity understands this, unless they're just out to pour scorn on their pet dislikes while pretending to have the intellectual high ground.


I guess though if everyone accepts before you start that this is not reality, then you have to agree on the 'deck of cards' you're going to play with in this jousting encounter, or someone will just keep pulling imaginary aces which cant be ruled in our out, and isn't life too short...

Or maybe the person you're playing with isn't playing with a full deck.....  

Anyway, in LOTR, why did they walk for what seemed like an eternity when they could've called the birds and just jetted in. Read the books as an adult years ago (been an adult a long time now...) and while it was grand to pass the time it didn't 'alf go on with descriptions of nature, elvish tongues and other utter balderdash, I think he was charging by weight or something......


----------



## dub_nerd (20 Mar 2018)

Betsy Og said:


> I guess though if everyone accepts before you start that this is not reality, then you have to agree on the 'deck of cards' you're going to play with in this jousting encounter, or someone will just keep pulling imaginary aces which cant be ruled in our out, and isn't life too short...
> 
> Or maybe the person you're playing with isn't playing with a full deck.....



 Good point, well put. Once you know the rules, though, you get to choose to participate or not ... not to arbitrarily whine that Frodo would be quicker if only he was an Ent.


----------



## Purple (21 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> You're wrong of course. There are entire debating societies devoted to the works of Tolkien where reasonable people debate issues to do with the Council of Elrond. Any topic -- from fiction to dream interpretation to infinite dimensional space -- can be debated reasonably by reasonable people. The subject doesn't have to be "real", "true" or mutually accepted. Anyone with an ounce of sense and integrity understands this, unless they're just out to pour scorn on their pet dislikes while pretending to have the intellectual high ground.


This isn't a college debating society, the preserve of the verbose where playing to the crowd is the objective rather than understanding the perspective of the other party. We are not children in a college debating society; this is a discussion forum. Willfully ignoring the points made by other contributors is not condusive to a constructive discussion.


----------



## dub_nerd (21 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> Willfully ignoring the points made by other contributors is not condusive to a constructive discussion.



... which is why I asked you for clarifications on your points that I didn't understand. Would still be interested to hear them.


----------



## Purple (21 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> ... which is why I asked you for clarifications on your points that I didn't understand. Would still be interested to hear them.


And I can't believe that you don't understand the points I'm making and so conclude that you are being deliberately obtuse or are so biased against Mary and/or the feminist/equality agenda that you are unable to see the point she is making. Therefore the comparison to discussing evolution with a creationist, your academic qualifications notwithstanding.


----------



## cremeegg (21 Mar 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> You're wrong of course. There are entire debating societies devoted to the works of Tolkien where reasonable people debate issues to do with the Council of Elrond.



They *know* that they are discussing fiction.


----------



## dub_nerd (22 Mar 2018)

Purple said:


> And I can't believe that you don't understand the points I'm making and so conclude that you are being deliberately obtuse...



That's a pity because, as I explained, I really didn't understand your points. I genuinely couldn't find any evidence of changed doctrines in the two examples you provided. In particular, the one which was excerpted from an essay by a fundamentalist evangelical is suspect because they wouldn't have had a catholic understanding of the doctrine in question anyway.



Purple said:


> ... or are so biased against Mary and/or the feminist/equality agenda that you are unable to see the point she is making.



Mary wants to change a number of catholic teachings. My disagreement with her is nothing to do with feminism or equality. To be honest, I think she's using that as a smokescreen to garner sympathy for her position.


----------

