Yeah, if we take the axioms of secular liberalism for granted then this assumption makes sense. If we assume the Church sincerely believes that the male only priesthood is divine revelation then cries of sexism cease to be meaningful.
Maybe, but I wonder what is more plausible. At least from a rational point of view. Especially because, as far as I know, there is no Scriptural evidence of that.
In other words. If God exists he sees the world as a good western European.
Are there bad western Europeans? We are the light of the world
but not necessarily. God could exist, and the Church just made up what He might have told them long ago, for power or whatever reason, and now they cannot reverse without undermining their very system based on infallibility, and Holy Ghost inspirations. A sort of catch-22. I think that would be vastly more plausible.
i think it will be interesting to see how it ends for such an institution that seems to be still stuck in the 16th century. And I wonder why it still exists. Also considering the debate, running in the Vatican today between conservatives and “progressive”.
i really hope the arch conservatives win.
Whether or not the teachings of the current Magisterium can be completely squared with what has been authoritatively taught in the past is actually the topic of the OP. But in terms of formal ex-cathedra statements there has been no contradiction by the recent popes. Ex-cathedra infallibility has only been invoked a handful of times in the Church's two thousand year history.
As I told you, that is the catch-22. you guys are simply not resilient against disturbances or errors. You cannot possibly correct errors, even if it becomes clear they are errors. In fact, suppose, just hypothetically, that a pope in the middle age lied about the Holy Ghost inspiration of a doctrinal dogma. Any dogma. After all, popes are known to lie, like every other human being.
don’t you run the risk of erecting a structure of lies, possibly cumulating themselves over the centuries, that cannot possibly be reverted, for dogmatic reasons, even when it appears clear they are not tenable anymore? And that the accumulating tensions between this structure and the zeitgeist of the increasingly modern world, with the exception of continents that will become more modern later anyway, will result in a mighty crash?
If the Church is right, it will survive one way or the other because God promised it will.
Matthew 16:17-19
If the Catholicism is a false religion then good riddance to it.
Since Matthew is shared by protestants, too. That could be generalized to the entire Christianity, not only Catholicism. Even hough, it is not infrequent to see Protestants that do not believe you are Christians. Or that you are as Christian as the Mormons. But what do they know with their thousands of different sub sects?
Number 2. could actually happen. The rest could not without the formal defection of the Church. Which (assuming Catholicism is true) God promised would never happen.
What could happen is a catholic schism in central Europe. The subject is mentioned every now and then. Now they are sort of quieter because they are fan of Francis. But for how long, since Francis does not do anything either, probably because of that catch-22 we have seen.
However, this new branch might let women also turning wafers into a 2000 years old Gods. And it could be that this branch lives longer. Or even replace the old one.
How would that defeat Matthew?
ciao
- viole
