Unnecessary. The only one employing dishonest debating tactics is you. You bolded the phrase "founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium" as if it was something I intentionally left out. Far from it! That is exactly as I paraphrased "Although it was rested on the infallibility of the Church (not papal infallibility)," and is entirely in line with everything I have heretofore been saying, namely that the prohibition against the ordination of women is derived from liturgical tradition.
Whether "they left the wording open so that they could pretend that God allowed them to have that authority later if they absolutely had to" is really irrelevant. You can characterize it that way if you wish, but it does not detract from the fact that the wording is there. The entirety of the commentary only goes to bolster my point that you are incorrect when you allege "that it is attributed to God." The prohibition is "founded on the written Word of God," (scripture), "constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church," (liturgical tradition) "it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium" (the infallibility of the Church).
Next time, try to read the quote in order to understand that it destroys your own argument before you indulge in dishonest debate tactics yourself.
Wait. If either decision is "infallible" then it obviously doesn't matter does it?
Arbitrary decisions are infallible.
Originally Posted by Jerry
The reason your choice to exclude the portion is dishonest is because your paraphrasing left out the very point I was making:
"But man, by way of the Catholic Church and Pope John Paul II, attributed it to their God by making it an "Infallible" decree that they've not been granted the authority to do so."
Do I have to explain what AND means? Both the Church AND JPII made it an infallible decree. And they did attribute it to God.
Your dishonest tactics are easy to expose.
I suggest creating yet another strawman so that you can pretend they haven't been exposed.
Last edited by Tucker Case; 07-16-10 at 06:33 PM.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Biblically, God is no respecter of persons (that is, their status, etc... presumably gender also.)
It is, I think, safe to say that God recognizes that men and woman are different. There are things men generally do better; there are things that women generally do better.
There are some passages that some take as an exclusion of women from ordination. Some disagree with this interpretation of those passages. I am not entirely decided in my own mind which camp I side with in this dispute, yet.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
In the interest of having a more fruitful discussion, perhaps your could amend and clarify your fallacious argument. Is this your argument:
Last edited by Guy Incognito; 07-16-10 at 07:10 PM.
Guy - The Vatican's decision on this matter is consistent with how many years of Christianity?
Last edited by Guy Incognito; 07-16-10 at 08:04 PM.
Last edited by Thorgasm; 07-16-10 at 08:09 PM.
Originally Posted by Jerry