"VATICAN CITY, June 23 (Reuters) - The Vatican on Tuesday reaffirmed a long-standing rule that only an ordained priest or ​deacon can give a sermon at a Catholic mass, ‌rejecting a request from German bishops to broaden the practice and allow sermons by women or other laypeople."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 73 points 4 months ago (56 children)

Mary Magdalene: "Hey, guys, I was just at Jesus' tomb and I've got some good news---"

Peter: "Stop it with your women's talk nonsense. I'll go check it out and report back."

And that's been the story for the 2000 years since!

  • source
  • hideshow 56 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 33 points 4 months ago (54 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago (32 children)

    Ah yeah the woman who was chosen to give birth without her consent. A model of femininity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 4 months ago (31 children)

    Luke 1:38 Then Mary said: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word.” And the Angel departed from her.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago* (29 children)

    Is handmaid a euphemism for concubine/sex slave?

    Or is it more like "well he's my boss so I guess I have to"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 4 months ago (28 children)

    handmaid means servant

    and its like "The Lord has decided this, I agree as its his will"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (23 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (21 children)

    Which Bible? Which translation, which council? Because most of the stuff in "the Bible" changes with every translation. An example would be the relatively recent changes to condemn homosexuality when originally they were condemning the Roman practice of pederasty.

    Anyway, first century Jewish girls were usually betrothed during or immediately after puberty and as she was already promised to Joseph according to one gospel she would have been between 12 and 16. It's possible she was an outlier but much more likely if she did exist she was pregnant around 14.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 4 months ago (20 children)

    read the original greek and hebrew at this point if you hate translations this much

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (19 children)

    You are so close to the point. It's all made up bro. It's fiction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (17 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (16 children)

    You can't prove a negative. You're the one that claims god exists, where's your empirical evidence? Where's your proof? Repeatable, testable proof? As it is there's no evidence whatsoever of any deity of any kind so there's no reason to believe they'd exist. You say they do, that's your claim, now prove it. Maybe learn some rhetoric and logic first so you can actually have a legitimate good faith discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (15 children)

    Genesis 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light.” And light became.

    how did the Apostle John and the author of Genesis know thay light can be created from matter more than a thousand years before it was proven via colliders?

    John 1:4 Life was in Him, and Life was the light of men.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    how did the Apostle John and the author of Genesis know thay light can be created from matter more than a thousand years before it was proven via colliders?

    They didn't? Nothing in that passage implies anything scientific or anything even about the nature of light and the relationship between matter and energy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    the Bible is in parables

    and yes, it does? Light can create, and God is the light of all men, God is the creator of all men, and God also illuminates our lives in a special way

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    The new testament isn't in parables at all. Some of the characters in the new testament use parables, but that's not the same. And if the bible is parables, nothing in it is meant to be taken in any way literally which clearly isn't the case. You're taking contradictory positions. And nothing about the passage implies anything about light or physics whatsoever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    MOST of it is in parables, the parts about Jesus and his life are personal testimonies of the disciples

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Or not: https://factually.co/fact-checks/religion/gospels-where-written-by-whom-88e1e4

    Contemporary historians and biblical scholars tend to treat the canonical Gospels as works produced in specific first‑century Christian contexts rather than straightforward eyewitness memoirs: many scholars judge the Gospels anonymous, composed in Greek for communities across the Roman Empire, with Mark likely written first and serving as a source for Matthew and Luke (the Synoptic Problem), while John’s Gospel is notably different in style and theology.

    Are the gospels even considered part of the catholic canon?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    they are different in styles because they are different people

    Yes, they are

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    they are different in styles because they are different people Yes, they are

    That does not answer these discrepancies:

    Contemporary historians and biblical scholars tend to treat the canonical Gospels as works produced in specific first‑century Christian contexts rather than straightforward eyewitness memoirs: many scholars judge the Gospels anonymous, composed in Greek for communities across the Roman Empire, with Mark likely written first and serving as a source for Matthew and Luke (the Synoptic Problem), while John’s Gospel is notably different in style and theology.

    They were written miles and years apart from each other.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Ok if that's your proof then I can use quotes from the Hobbit to prove dragons are real.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    if tolkien predicted particle physics 2000+ years ago before modern colliders I would say he has a point

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    The Bible didn't predict particle physics and I'm genuinely confused as to how you get that interpretation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    it implies that light can possibly create matter

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    handmaid means servant

    ... And servant is a common euphemism for slave in the bible.

    In modern language a servant is someone that is paid money to do work and can leave the relationship without fear.

    A slave is someone that does work because of obligation and isn't necessarily provided anything to survive (ie may also need to labour to provide themselves food/shelter) and cannot leave the relationship without fear of retribution.

    Which word seems more accurate for what's described in Luke 1:26-38? Was Mary's consent sought, or was she just informed what was expected of her? To me it seems like she doesn't say "Oh Elizabeth, remember how I've always wanted to have God's baby, but now that I'm married to Joseph I can't" instead she is informed of the plan and just says "if you say so".

    I think it would be more likely that a good god would obtain consent, but that Luke didn't find evidence of it, and so he wrote his own account of what happened based on his cultural expectations of what that interaction would have been like. What do you think? Would the Gospel of Luke be better of it presented the importance of consent, like maybe that would help men to treat women with respect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    the Bible is full of metaphors and parables

    The Lord serves us every moment we are alive, so we should serve him too

    Mary was informed, and thus agreed to it

    God, as he is onmipotent, knew of Mary's obedience before she was even formed in the womb and thus chose her

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 20 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    How is this not sexist?

    because of the Bible and Church Traditions

    "It's not sexist because it's a sexist tradition."

    Religion is silly.


    💭 To consider antireligion, not atheism; https://www.arscyni.cc/file/antireligion.html

    "The harm of religion is historically evident whereas the presence or absence of gods is not. Ultimately, the continued existence of religion is predicated on the indoctrination of children and suppression of rational thought. Therefore, I am against religion but not necessarily against the idea of gods. For all we know gods are computer scientists and we are in their video game."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago (12 children)

    Just because it is a tradition does not mean it is not sexist.

    Your comments only do one thing: Showing that catholic traditions are sexist. And you argue that because it is tradition, it is okay. No. It's not. If your tradition is sexist, then fuck your tradition, it has to fucking go.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    It took me over 60 years, but I have finally understood that the mistranslations, misunderstandings, and outright fabrications of a small group of people thousands of years ago maybe influential, but that doesn't make them true.

    The number of logical, philosophical, and moral backflips that you have to do in order to make any sense of it can only work if you have already decided that they are true. Without all that hand-waving, it's ludicrous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Do you want a list of the contradictions in the Bible? Or discrepancies in all the manuscripts that we have found, let alone all the translations?

    There is an enormous amount of justification and adoption of bizarre interpretations, just to try and fit our theology (both current and past) into what the Bible says, and what supports people's preconceived ideas.

    After a while, I just got tired of difficult passages in the Bible being explained with, "oh, you have to interpret it like this for it to make sense". Or, "it's a mystery". A few times yes, but over and over again? No, it seems obvious that we are making the Bible do things it was never created to do.

    And, if you can, try to approach it without the implicit or explicit understanding that it is a divinely inspired text. If it can't stand up on its own, it's definitely suspect.

    Dan McClellan has a good YouTube channel on biblical scholarship issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    it is mostly in parables

    just because you dont understand it doesnt make it illogical

    and thats why we need the Church, to interpret it for us.

    and contradictions

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    That sounds like a very Catholic interpretation (I grew up Catholic). Funny how we need to be told what to think, by people who have a vested interest in maintaining the existing power structures of the church, when the original teachings of Jesus were to illiterate farmers and fishermen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    they spend their entire lives studying the scriptures and God, so they can advise you on your life

    and his teachings were so powerful that they turned those farmers and fishermen into scholars who could write testimonies and letters

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    What are you talking about? None of the Gospels were written by apostles. It's very unlikely that any of them could read or write, before or after Jesus.

    If Christians are people of the Book, why do they eat pork and shellfish, wear mixed fabrics, and why don't they stone to death adulterers and children who disrespect their parents?

    What's that? The New Covenant, you say? Okay, then why, given the example of the Lamb and the Suffering Servant, do Christians fight in armies as opposed to turning the other cheek and loving their enemies? Why don't they sell everything the own and give the money to the poor?

    There's always a justification for doing the opposite of what was explicitly commanded in the Bible. Before Constantine made Christianity the state religion, you could not be a Christian and serve in the Roman army. After Constantine, to serve in the Roman army you had to be a Christian. Hmmmm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (1 child)
    1. sources?

    2. Who prepares for a Groom when he has already come instead of addressing and serving him? The Old Testament laws (most of them) were in preparation for Christ

    3. They should do that, but some of them dont. War can never be supported by the Church.

    4. that says more about roman law than the Bible

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago

    So by the logic that only men can preach because Jesus was a man, do you also enforce the rule that only middle Eastern Jewish carpenters can preach?

    If not, then it is clearly possible for people to "stand in" for Jesus when preaching, even without matching his characteristics perfectly. The decision to specifically exclude women based on that one particular characteristic is therefore obviously sexist.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago

    You're arguing over the intentions of men in a world that has been massively patriarchal for longer than your religion exists. Please.

    With this fun mental gymnastic logic you could argue that priests can't be white because Jesus wasn't white :)

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    Slavery was American tradition for like 100 years. Does that mean it's ok?

    If you're tradition is being sexist, even tho it's a tradition that doesn't automatically make it ok.

    "I know it looks bad but we've been lynching people since my great grandad so it's family tradition and therefore fine :D"

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)