Codology not theology.

[Purple]

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?

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.

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.

Not according to the church.

Sure, until they change it.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

Not according to the church.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

You may presume so.

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!

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]

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]

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]

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.

"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?

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.

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.

...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]

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]

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]

"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.

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".

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.

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]

"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]

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]

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]

"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]

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

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:

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).

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]

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.