• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pope condemns sexual violence against women

Isn't fish a meat? Let me guess, only warm blooded meat right? So I could eat rattlesnake on Fridays during lent and it would be okay?

The fish markets couldn't afford to lose a day of business every week during Lent.

You obviously don't know the New TEstament very well. Then Jesus fed the crowds, what did he feed them with?
 
The First Book of Adam and Eve
The Second Book of Adam and Eve
The Book of the Secrets of Enoch
The Psalms of Solomon
The Odes of Solomon
The Letter of Aristeas
Fourth Book of Maccabees
The Story of Ahikar
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Testament of Reuben
Testament of Simeon
Testament of Levi
The Testament of Judah
The Testament of Issachar
The Testament of Zebulun
The Testament of Dan
The Testament of Naphtali
The Testament Of Gad
The Testament of Asher
The Testament of Joseph
The Testament of Benjamin
Enoch, Michael the Archangel, and Jannes and Jambres
Book of Jubilees
Assumption of Moses
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
The Infancy Gospel of James
The Gospel of Judas
The Gospel of Thomas

What what about these books puts women in a higher place or has a greater proportation of brave, courageous, heroic women than the existing Bible?
 
Mary Magdalene was called Apostola Apostolorum which means apostle to the apostles. There are early writings referring to her as an apostle. There's even an apocryphal Gospel of Mary.

Who called her this? The twelve apostles are identified clearly in the Bible. I am aware of no Biblical reference refering her to as anything more than a diciple, though you are more than welcome to try to prove me wrong on this point.
 
Who called her this? The twelve apostles are identified clearly in the Bible. I am aware of no Biblical reference refering her to as anything more than a diciple, though you are more than welcome to try to prove me wrong on this point.


The term was first coined by Hippolytus but appeared in other writings up until the time Pope Gregory I adopted revisionism and fashioned her into a sinful whore.
 
So, there IS no Biblical reference. Thought as much.

Well yeah, the bible is a collection of writings hand picked by "men." There were other writings of the time. One was the gospel of Mary. Of course it wasn't included. :roll: Despite trying to diminish her she still makes it into the gospels that were included. Despite the church's attempts to remake her into a whore she remains an early leader of the church that will not be denied in the ancient writings.
 
Well yeah, the bible is a collection of writings hand picked by "men." There were other writings of the time. One was the gospel of Mary. Of course it wasn't included. :roll: Despite trying to diminish her she still makes it into the gospels that were included. Despite the church's attempts to remake her into a whore she remains an early leader of the church that will not be denied in the ancient writings.

Modern scholars aren't even in agreement as to which Mary the misnamed "Gospel of Mary" is a reference to. No one is trying to diminish the role of EITHER Mary. You are trying to drum up something that has little or no relevance to reality.
 
Modern scholars aren't even in agreement as to which Mary the misnamed "Gospel of Mary" is a reference to. No one is trying to diminish the role of EITHER Mary. You are trying to drum up something that has little or no relevance to reality.

No relevance? I find it particularly relevant to the topic at hand that one of the most prominent women in and out of the bible was framed up as a tainted whore before the Church got their collective heads out of their ass and admitted sheepishly that , "Yeah, ok she probably wasn't a whore but she wasn't no damn apostle either. "
 
That is a funny name because we are talking about the Gospel of Jesus Christ - the Son of God. Not a recently re-discovered "gospel" about a woman whose identity isn't even clear.

Jesus never wrote a gospel and none were written during his supposed lifetime. Just so you know.
 
No relevance? I find it particularly relevant to the topic at hand that one of the most prominent women in and out of the bible was framed up as a tainted whore before the Church got their collective heads out of their ass and admitted sheepishly that , "Yeah, ok she probably wasn't a whore but she wasn't no damn apostle either. "

Mary Magdelene is a recognized Saint of the Church. She CERTAINLY was not an apostle.
 
Jesus never wrote a gospel and none were written during his supposed lifetime. Just so you know.

I am aware of that, but it is still HIS good news. That is why the preferred names of the gospel accounts are "The Gospel ACCORDING TO Matthew", "The Gospel ACCORDING to Mark", etc.
 
BTW, POpe Gregory did NOT refer to Mary Magdelene as a whore, he referred to her as a sinner. Look up the word "peccatrix" if you would.

Anymore SLANDER against the Church you would like to bring up?
 

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not issued under the extraordinary papal magisterium as an ex cathedra statement, and so is not considered infallible in itself. Its contents are, however, considered infallible under the ordinary magisterium, as this doctrine has been held consistently by the Church.

It's infallible because the Church has always held this position?

That's kinda weak IMO.

A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, 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 the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.

It's infallible, even though there has been no divine revelation? This sounds like "We right, and we may even get divine confirmation of that someday."
 
You obviously don't know the New TEstament very well. Then Jesus fed the crowds, what did he feed them with?

Lent didn't exist when Jesus was feeding crowds. Though, you are right, I am no biblical scholar.
 
It's infallible because the Church has always held this position?

That's kinda weak IMO.



It's infallible, even though there has been no divine revelation? This sounds like "We right, and we may even get divine confirmation of that someday."

I don't care your "opinion" on the matter--the fact is that it is an infallible pronouncement. It is as it is, that's what it is saying. It is affirming that the practice is, has been, and always will be, that the priesthood is for men only due to theological underpinnings in the religion itself. The Pope didn't need to address it, because it is as it is, but he did so that the people of the Church would have no doubt or question as to the Church's view of the matter of "women priests." The Magesterium is a body of teachers. They are the ones who make the teachings of the Church clear.
 
I am aware of that, but it is still HIS good news. That is why the preferred names of the gospel accounts are "The Gospel ACCORDING TO Matthew", "The Gospel ACCORDING to Mark", etc.
It's his good news according to the people who compiled the Bible. That is what irks me a bit about the Bible: all of the gospels that were rejected were considered apocryphal and tossed out. How do we know who is telling the truth? In effect, a lot of information was censored by those who had more power and influence, allowing them to shape the Bible into whatever they deemed suitable.
 
It's his good news according to the people who compiled the Bible. That is what irks me a bit about the Bible: all of the gospels that were rejected were considered apocryphal and tossed out. How do we know who is telling the truth? In effect, a lot of information was censored by those who had more power and influence, allowing them to shape the Bible into whatever they deemed suitable.

People died in defense of the truth about Jesus--including those men who determined the canon. Choosing to believe the veracity of the claims the Church makes in her preserving His Gospel is just that--your choice. That is part of being a person of faith. It is not something that is without rational weighing of the evidence for or against it being worthy of belief, but ultimately, doesn't everything come down to what makes the most sense in our minds as a result of our experiences?
 
Last edited:
People died in defense of the truth about Jesus. Choosing to believe the veracity of the claims the Church makes in her preserving His Gospel is just that--your choice. That is part of being a person of faith. It is not something that is without rational weighing of the evidence for or against it being worthy of belief, but ultimately, doesn't everything come down to what makes the most sense in our minds as a result of our experiences?
Absolutely. It just makes you wonder about the veracity of the nephilim in the Book of Enoch and whether or not Jesus pushed his buddy off of a roof and then resurrected him when he was a child.
 
BTW, POpe Gregory did NOT refer to Mary Magdelene as a whore, he referred to her as a sinner. Look up the word "peccatrix" if you would.

Anymore SLANDER against the Church you would like to bring up?

It's commonly accepted that Pope Gregory was the first to slander Mary Magdalene's reputation. When they trace her awful and unfounded reputation back through time the first person to vilify her was in fact Pope Gregory. After him her reputation spiraled more and more out of control with no literary proof. But he was the first one to go after her, take her down, and ensure that she was not taken more seriously than a groupie following their favorite band around the country.
 
Absolutely. It just makes you wonder about the veracity of the nephilim in the Book of Enoch and whether or not Jesus pushed his buddy off of a roof and then resurrected him when he was a child.


Doesn't sound like the Jesus I know.;)

But that's the point of the Gnostics, isn't it--it's not for everyone like Christianity claims God is.
 
It's commonly accepted that Pope Gregory was the first to slander Mary Magdalene's reputation. When they trace her awful and unfounded reputation back through time the first person to vilify her was in fact Pope Gregory. After him her reputation spiraled more and more out of control with no literary proof. But he was the first one to go after her, take her down, and ensure that she was not taken more seriously than a groupie following their favorite band around the country.

Yeah--it couldn't possibly be that he made a mistake in a sermon because the woman found in adultery is a story right next to a reference to the Magdalen and there is ambiguous pronoun references...

No--It MUST be a mysogynistic plot to keep women in check.:doh

(CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!)
 
Yeah--it couldn't possibly be that he made a mistake in a sermon because the woman found in adultery is a story right next to a reference to the Magdalen and there is ambiguous pronoun references...

No--It MUST be a mysogynistic plot to keep women in check.:doh

(CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!)

Please. Have you read the writings from back in the day. There's no denying the church was full of misogyny.....purposeful misogyny and everyone knows it.

It is true that in the writings of the Fathers one will find the undeniable influence of prejudices unfavourable to women, but nevertheless, it should be noted that these prejudices had hardly any influence on their pastoral activity...

Congregation for Doctrine of Faith

bwahahaha A direct quote from:
INTER INSIGNIORES
Declaration on the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood (15 October 1976)
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

It's basically saying, "Yeah obviously we use to think women were crap but nevertheless this had no influence on pastoral activity!!!" As if. Like that's even possible.

None the less, back to Pope Gregory and his mistake you're excusing him for. Aren't popes supposed to be infallible????
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom