If anyone was hoping for women priests, give up on that. The Roman Catholic church would first have to retract both papal infallibility and ecumenical infallibility.
They have made too many definitive statements that women can’t be priests, and they have made definitive statements that their definitive statements are infallible, and must be agreed to by anyone who calls themself Catholic. It’s not even up for debate (unless all of the infallibility stuff is also up for debate).
For example:
I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
They really painted themselves into a corner. While the rest of society moves forward with equal rights for historically marginalized groups, the Catholic church will be stuck with the effects of their early bad decisions (and some recent bad decisions) because they banned themselves from admitting when they are wrong.
Eh they could do whatever they want. They could declare that “the point in time has been reached that god wanted women to be able to be priests from. His plan has always been that women were not allowed to be priests until a certain date had passed, and now that date has arrived.”
I mean, a lot of people already hate the dude. There are catholics out there who already refuse to call him the pope.
Now imaginenig he just came out one day and said, yeah everything the previous pope’s said may have been wrong. But I know what ir right so now listen to me.
When protestants started the logical stance that the bread and wine is a metaphor being used in the Eucharist, Catholics stayed with saying it is a ritual that transformed the bread and wine to having christs blood and body imbued into them, like an act of magic performed with superhuman abilities, not people just worshipping him. If they would choose to say cannibalism is terrible, except when we do it, I cant see the stubbornness lapsing when it came to say women can suddenly perform magic after a certain date. But who knows, crazier things have happened in life.
When protestants started the logical stance that the bread and wine is a metaphor being used in the Eucharist,
That’s never been the Lutheran position, at least for all I know. The Lutheran position is “whatever happens, happens, regardless of what you think it is that happens”: If someone is saying “This is my flesh, this is my blood” while handing out suitable food and drink and the giver and the recipients are in the mood to receive the sacrament, then it is the sacrament, no matter what metaphysics anyone involved believes in.
I cant see the stubbornness lapsing when it came to say women can suddenly perform magic
Oh but there’s the priesthood of all believers, even the Catholics accept that as doctrine. It’s not about whether or not women, or laypeople, can or cannot perform the magic, it’s whether they should be doing it in the church, for a congregation. I’m pretty sure there’s women cloisters where women are doing the magic. The Lutheran church, too, restricts the incantation of the magic words to the reverend, but that’s a church rule. Like, “If it was on the schedule and the reverend is sick in bed the cantor isn’t going to jump in we’ll do it at another date”.
Yeah, the Lutherans were the first split from Catholicism and sort of what I would say would be the start of protestantism. Not that Martin Luther initially wanted that, but he wanted a return to basics and a simpler less controlling version of what the church had slowly become. (95? Thesis and what not… maybe it was 99 can’t recall)
Now we have thousands of denominations of Christians, and they all do their own versions of how they believe things should be. Haven’t studied the historys of religion in a long time, it’s crazy to think about how much I’m sure things have changed and I’ve distorted in my brain throughout time when I reflect on the fact that it has been more than 15 years since the last real class I would have taken. Getting older is strange.
Some day it’d be nice to start studying history more again.
If anyone was hoping for women priests, give up on that. The Roman Catholic church would first have to retract both papal infallibility and ecumenical infallibility.
They have made too many definitive statements that women can’t be priests, and they have made definitive statements that their definitive statements are infallible, and must be agreed to by anyone who calls themself Catholic. It’s not even up for debate (unless all of the infallibility stuff is also up for debate).
For example:
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html
They really painted themselves into a corner. While the rest of society moves forward with equal rights for historically marginalized groups, the Catholic church will be stuck with the effects of their early bad decisions (and some recent bad decisions) because they banned themselves from admitting when they are wrong.
Eh they could do whatever they want. They could declare that “the point in time has been reached that god wanted women to be able to be priests from. His plan has always been that women were not allowed to be priests until a certain date had passed, and now that date has arrived.”
I mean, a lot of people already hate the dude. There are catholics out there who already refuse to call him the pope.
Now imaginenig he just came out one day and said, yeah everything the previous pope’s said may have been wrong. But I know what ir right so now listen to me.
Won’t go down well
When protestants started the logical stance that the bread and wine is a metaphor being used in the Eucharist, Catholics stayed with saying it is a ritual that transformed the bread and wine to having christs blood and body imbued into them, like an act of magic performed with superhuman abilities, not people just worshipping him. If they would choose to say cannibalism is terrible, except when we do it, I cant see the stubbornness lapsing when it came to say women can suddenly perform magic after a certain date. But who knows, crazier things have happened in life.
That’s never been the Lutheran position, at least for all I know. The Lutheran position is “whatever happens, happens, regardless of what you think it is that happens”: If someone is saying “This is my flesh, this is my blood” while handing out suitable food and drink and the giver and the recipients are in the mood to receive the sacrament, then it is the sacrament, no matter what metaphysics anyone involved believes in.
Oh but there’s the priesthood of all believers, even the Catholics accept that as doctrine. It’s not about whether or not women, or laypeople, can or cannot perform the magic, it’s whether they should be doing it in the church, for a congregation. I’m pretty sure there’s women cloisters where women are doing the magic. The Lutheran church, too, restricts the incantation of the magic words to the reverend, but that’s a church rule. Like, “If it was on the schedule and the reverend is sick in bed the cantor isn’t going to jump in we’ll do it at another date”.
Yeah, the Lutherans were the first split from Catholicism and sort of what I would say would be the start of protestantism. Not that Martin Luther initially wanted that, but he wanted a return to basics and a simpler less controlling version of what the church had slowly become. (95? Thesis and what not… maybe it was 99 can’t recall)
Now we have thousands of denominations of Christians, and they all do their own versions of how they believe things should be. Haven’t studied the historys of religion in a long time, it’s crazy to think about how much I’m sure things have changed and I’ve distorted in my brain throughout time when I reflect on the fact that it has been more than 15 years since the last real class I would have taken. Getting older is strange.
Some day it’d be nice to start studying history more again.