Catholic Mass 'sexist and elitist', say priests.

[Seth]

The most annoying thing about Seth's posts is that he seems unable or unwilling to distinguish btw the laity, ie the paying customers, and the employees, ie the priesthood.

In what way do you think they need to be distinguished? Priests are not the "employees" of parishoners, they are employees of the church, which is to say God. Trying to draw comparisons between business and religion is non-productive for that reason.

[Gallstones]

Buncha bleeding arse morons. The use of the masculine for indeterminate gender has been rooted in IE languages for millenia, possibly since before writing even arose in Egypt and Sumer, and they would impose bulky and graceless phrasing because all of a sudden the time honored custom offends their boy tiddling sensitivities? Let them leave the priesthood if they don't like tradition.

Is that true?

When I was doing pol sci and studied the enlightment etc at first I thought the He/him/man schtick was just literary custom. But no, to my horror I found they really really did mean ONLY MEN.

I believe it has something to do with the commandments of God (well, their god). As such, it's not subject to democratic debate, it's a tenet of the religion. Catholicism is not a democracy, a fact which seems to escape the notice of pretty much everyone outside of Catholicism. For "the church" to go against the commandments of God is apostasy and heresy and threatens those who do so with excommunication and damnation.

Not really. All one need do is go to Reconciliation (Confession) and all is forgiven.
Excommunication is extraordinarily rare.

Matthew 16:19
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

Isa. 1:18.
"Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow."

There is also the prominent phenomenon of Cafeteria Catholicism, that may be criticized by some who consider themselves devout but is tolerated in general. The Church itself having become more liberal in expectations and application of the rules since the 1970's.

A divorced person can petition for annulment of the previous marriage and marry again and take Eucharist (Communion). Holy days of obligation can be observed on regular Sunday Mass adjacent to the Holy day. Reconciliation need only be done twice a year, not every week. No more meatless Fridays and no more head coverings for women that attend Mass. One is encouraged, but not required, to give up something for Lent. Godparents need not be Catholic. Women can serve as Eucharistic Minister's and Lectors. Girls can be alter servers. One of our churches doesn't have kneelers.

Say what you will about the believability of the commandments of God, for believers it's not a subject open to debate. It's their religion, so your opinions, and the opinions of those who wrongly thing that Catholicism is a democracy, are of little interest to the church. And that's as it should be.

Don't like the rules? Join another club.

Ecumenical councils are active in bridging people of different faiths.

[klr]

...

All true, but you see: I really just don't care ...

What an ....erudite...rebuttal.

It was an appropriate one as far as I'm concerned. I can take hours carefully composing replies on a matter that I am fully engaged in. But this just isn't one of them. Don't you get it yet?

...
And if you were "forced" to attend services, then sue your parents, because they are the one's who did the "forcing," not the church.

My father is long since dead, so I guess I won't be suing him.

There's a legal term for this: estopple. It means "if you sit on your rights for too long, you lose them."

Again, you seem to be not very good in picking up the cues that says "I don't care".

...

BTW, the Catholic church still controls the vast majority of the primary education system in this country, and exercises real power over who gets to go to its schools, and teaches in them. That's where a lot of the pressure for parents to raise their children "in the faith" comes from, so this is one thing that does exercise me. But I suppose you'll be telling me next that it's the fault of the populace for not demanding that this state of affairs be changed. And actually I'd agree with you - up to a point. So save your efforts and please don't bother ...

Yup, sounds like a political/social issue to me. Presumably Ireland still uses democratic processes to determine public policy, right? It's not a church-run theocracy and you have the right to vote, right? That being the case, your educational system, and all the rest, is an exercise in democracy. Presumably you are free to emigrate, right?

At the rate things or going, I may be the last person left here ...

If you remained in the Catholic church for very long, you were "confirmed," which means that you were given the option to become a full practicing Catholic BY CHOICE.
...

Hmmm ... I was 11. Hey, maybe we should allow 11 year-olds to vote, drink, join the armed forces, etc. Confirmation was just a ritual, the next step in the tiresome list of Catholic sacraments. we all pretty much took it like that.

Choosing to be a full member of a religion that you are free to walk away from any time you like (and evidently you did) is entirely different from voting, drinking or serving in the military, which makes your statement a strawman fallacy.

Bollocks. You are the one proposing - completely unbidden I might add - that this confirmation jive is somehow an important decision with important consequences. It's neither, unlike the other things I mentioned, which are properly the preserve of adults. You seem to have great difficulty in empathising with any perspective that considers most things religious to be tiresome and boring inconveniences at worst.

Nobody held a gun to your head and required you to profess faith. And I'm betting that unlike Islam, nobody put a gun to your head when you decided not to be a Catholic any longer.

Of course, but we are not talking about Islam here - or to be more exact, certain sections of it.

Man-up and take responsibility for your decisions, quit trying to blame Catholicism for your change of heart or what your parents may have done to you as a child.
...

Oh, give over and stop getting up on your high horse about it.

You first.

You were first the one up on the nag as I recall. I was just having a guffaw on the sideline. I have no intention of joining you. Continue to posture as you will.

Stop trying to manufacture some sort of angst or unresolved issue on my part that simply doesn't exist.

I can only comment upon what is written here, and I see quite a lot of angst and hostility in evidence.

You only see what you want to see by the looks of it. You are obviously completely and woefully out of touch with large swathes of people (from believers to atheists) who simply don't see this issue in your terms.

Church was just boring and annoying and a waste of time, especially since I usually had to dress up in my best clothes and fast for Sunday morning mass. But beyond that, I personally couldn't give a rat's ass, since I never really believed in any of the voodoo anyway - far too rational, even as a kid.

If you say so...

I do. Do you have a problem with that?

It looks to me that you're the one with the issues, if any superficial discussion or light-hearted commentary on this or any other matter causes you to get up on a high horse. Or flog a dead one ...

I take debate quite seriously, and I note that this thread is in the "serious stuff" section of the forum.

Depending on the particulars, ridicule and sarcasm are perfectly valid responses to a "serious" issue. I'm not the only one who thinks that applies here.

If unreason, illogic or other fallacies are presented, I have no compunctions about commenting upon them.

You should learn to read the context of a discussion first, and maybe understand that there are people in this world who look at things with a fundamentally different perspective to you. Stop trying to foist your positions and opinions as others as if they are established and accepted facts that you can use to control the nature and direction of a debate. If you continue as you are, then I won't have the slightest compunction in simply ignoring you from now on.

[cowiz]

Association of Catholic Priests is a bit of a mouthful; can't we shorten it to Ass. of Catholic Priests?

Or "Ass Cats"

Catchy!

[Gallstones]

My recall of history and Martin Luther may be faulty, but I did do a bit of reading about him some years ago. What I recall is that he was a devout Catholic who was disgusted with some of the practices and policies of the Church (ex. selling indulgences) and dared to troll try to bring them to the attention of the powers that were so to discuss them and get changes made. It was never his intention to cause a schism or create his own church. He wanted to right the Catholic church, not take it down.

I also believe that Protestantism didn't really begin with him and was already underway and he just ended up with groupies and then Lutheranism happened.

Anyone who is better versed in the history, please correct me if I am wrong.
I can't be bothered to do any research right now.

[Gallstones]

Hasn't the Catholic church started confirming infants at the time of Baptism now?

When I was still in the church I remember having a discussion about the new practice and most in attendance at that time thought it was a shit idea.

[.Morticia.]

The most annoying thing about Seth's posts is that he seems unable or unwilling to distinguish btw the laity, ie the paying customers, and the employees, ie the priesthood.

In what way do you think they need to be distinguished? Priests are not the "employees" of parishoners, they are employees of the church, which is to say God. Trying to draw comparisons between business and religion is non-productive for that reason.

You are wrong,

The church is definietly a business.

They sell hope and some kind of commmunity feeling.

They are registered as businesses, albeit under the charity section.

The priesthood are employees of the church and are regarded as such, they have work and responsibilities and targets. ( I never said different and I think you "misunderstood" and have misrepresented me on purpose.)

The laity are customers.

The last thing any church wants any body to do is look at the money.

[Seth]

The most annoying thing about Seth's posts is that he seems unable or unwilling to distinguish btw the laity, ie the paying customers, and the employees, ie the priesthood.

In what way do you think they need to be distinguished? Priests are not the "employees" of parishoners, they are employees of the church, which is to say God. Trying to draw comparisons between business and religion is non-productive for that reason.

You are wrong,

The church is definietly a business.

They sell hope and some kind of commmunity feeling.

They are registered as businesses, albeit under the charity section.

The priesthood are employees of the church and are regarded as such, they have work and responsibilities and targets. ( I never said different and I think you "misunderstood" and have misrepresented me on purpose.)

The laity are customers.

The last thing any church wants any body to do is look at the money.

What's your point? That priests are paid is hardly relevant to whether they owe it to the congregation to violate the express dictates of God by allowing women to serve as priests.

[Feck]

The express dictates of God ,or Paul ? or the men who wrote the earlier scriptures ? that would be the god who demanded pain and suffering in child birth for Eves's sin ?

I think any argument that tries to say the Mass in particular is not sexist is just plain wrong , or did we miss the apology to women the last Pope made .

[Seth]

Hasn't the Catholic church started confirming infants at the time of Baptism now?

When I was still in the church I remember having a discussion about the new practice and most in attendance at that time thought it was a shit idea.

According to my expert, the early history of the church did include baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist (the Sacrament) all at one time. Today, the practice can vary by the diocese, as determined by the local Bishop, in accord with the doctrines of the church.

According to doctrine, baptism is the point at which one is born into the Holy Spirit. Confirmation is when the gifts of the Holy Spirit are fully empowered within the person, and the Sacrament is the taking of the Eucharist that puts one in full communion with the church and God.

In past ages, children were brought to the local Bishop and were baptized, confirmed and given the Eucharist all at the same time, the effect of this is that the child has experienced all three initiations into the church and is in full communion with the church and God.

Nowadays, many dioceses believe that after baptism, the child should learn about the church and the Sacrament and have an understanding before being given the choice to be confirmed and participating in the Eucharist. But, as I said, this apparently varied from diocese to diocese depending on the judgment of the Bishop.

[.Morticia.]

you write about God as if he is a real person with a role in church business

he isn't a signatory on any of the documents of business registration, or title deeds or contracts, he doesn't sit on boards of directors and he doesn't sign any of the cheques,

he is a fiction

[Seth]

you write about God as if he is a real person with a role in church business

I'm simply passing along requested information.

he isn't a signatory on any of the documents of business registration, or title deeds or contracts, he doesn't sit on boards of directors and he doesn't sign any of the cheques,

Red herring

he is a fiction

Please present your critically robust scientific evidence supporting this conclusion.

[.Morticia.]

after you prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist

Until then the working conclusion is there is no such being.

Further, bringing the 'supernatural' into dialogue about the day to day workings of an organisation is completely irrelevant.

[Seth]

after you prove invisible pink unicorns don't exist

Until then the working conclusion is there is no such being.

Well, that's certainly a conclusion you're entitled to make. Doesn't mean it's a rational one, much less one supported by any critically robust scientific evidence indicating that "God" could not, or does not exist. As such, your conclusion falls into the category of "unsubstantiated belief." Careful, next thing you know you'll be practicing religion.

Further, bringing the 'supernatural' into dialogue about the day to day workings of an organisation is completely irrelevant.

Not when we're talking about the Catholic church it's not, given that the church is founded on the assertion that God does exist and has dictated the rules for the operation of the organization.

[.Morticia.]

I'm not going to argue doctrine, which is set by fiat and political and financial expediency.

This is about the PRACTICES of the organisation. Mass is a practice.

I really don't give a flying fuck about beliefs. You and everyone else and every organisation can believe whatever they bloody well want. It's called freedom of belief.

Practices , there is no freedom of practice, practice comes under the aegis of law and is subject to question.

Get used to it, it's called the Enlightenment and it's been around for a while.