I'm Orthodox, and I'm baffled.
>"All-male images of God are hierarchical images rooted in the unequal relation between women and men," she writes. "Once women no longer relate to men as patriarchal fathers, lords, and kings in society, these images become religiously inadequate. Instead of evoking the reality of God, they block it."[8]
>She is a Distinguished Professor of Theology at Fordham University, a Jesuit institution in New York City. She is a member of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Brentwood. Johnson has served as president of the Catholic Theological Society of America and is "one of its most well known members."[3]
If you keep letting these subversive elements work so blatantly within your Church, it will go the way of Protestantism
Yeah, she holds no sway over the Vatican. Don't worry.
>I'm Orthodox
Are you a convert from Protestantism who couldn't get over your anti-Catholic bias, or are you the real deal?
>>7794275
I'm a convert from Catholicism.
Pretty soon /r9k/ will be the Catholic board.
>>7794308
Ah, well, at least you've never been a Proddie.
Anyway the Church doesn't really listen to the nuns on these things. It sure as fuck doesn't listen to American nuns. It barely listens to Americans at all on theological matters. Nor should it, Americans are nutters. Too much Protestantism in this fucking country.
>>7794313
It let's her teach other Catholics, who will shape the future of your Church.
>>7794312
that would be amazing, am hoping
>>7794225
>implying God has gender
>>7794333
Of course God has a gender. Unless you're using "gender" as a sociological terms, which is a relatively new practice.
>>7794225
>Instead of evoking the reality of God
Is she implying there is a correct way to make images of God without destroying him?
>>7794344
>Of course God has a gender
How?
>>7794344
>Unless you're using "gender" as a sociological terms, which is a relatively new practice
That's literally the only way to use gender. You're thinking of sex m8
>>7794352
No, gender is a grammatical term, there is masculine case, feminine case,and neuter case. In English it is mostly limited to pronouns, but they still don't have to relate to sex (a ship is a "she" for instance). God's case is masculine--"Theos" is the Greek term, which is masculine case, as opposed to "Thea", which is feminine case. The Greek term for see is "thelassa", the gender of that is female, even though the sea doesn't have a sex.
Now you know what the term "gender" originally meant.
>>7794376
Greek term for sea*
>>7794376
You're confusing case and noun class, grammatical genders are not cases.
>>7794344
of course I am you dolt
>>7794344
>Of course God has a gender
does god have a penis? If so, what is the function of this 'holy' member?
>>7794395
Gender is a grammatical term, not a biological term. God's is referred to in masculine terms (he, Father, Son, etc.), But God does have a famine gender too. Holy Wisdom, for instance, is another term for the Logos, and it is feminine gendered.
>>7794308
>>7794308
There is no such thing as "converting" to Orthodoxy. Sure, you found an American church run by Americanized Russians our Greeks who'll have you because why not, they need to boost their numbers as a minority church. One is born an Orthodox and is baptised shortly after birth, in an Orthodox family, in an Orthodox country with an Orthodox national church. You'll never understand this, just as you'll never understand what it is being a Slav or a Greek. You're such a typical American, thinking you can convert just like switching cell phone brands.
>>7794319
>not believing in God
>not being Catholic
>not being part of the mystical Body of Christ
>>7794413
You either don't believe the Orthodox Church is Christ's only Church, in which case you're an heretical, or you don't believe you can convert to Christ's only Church, in which case you're an heretic.
>>7794413
You do know Phyletism is a heresy, right?
>>7794444
glorious digits for a heavenly post
>>7794425
That sounds kind of gay. No wonder you people are into molesting altar boys
>>7794501
Chill out there, meme lord. your edginess is off the Richter scale.
>>7794225
It'll come to you soon enough with time, especially since you kinda ignore theological reasoning. I mean you already accepted contraception and divorce.
>>7794567
Valid grounds for annulment of marriage in the Catholic Church
>you married for social status but the person did not have the status you expected
>you didn't know marriage was a "permanent relationship"
>you married intending to have the option of divorce open
>you did not know marriage was an "exclusive relationship"
http://www.stmarys-waco.org/documents/Grounds%20for%20Marriage%20Annulment%20in%20the%20Catholic%20Church.pdf
https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/marital_consent.htm
Pic related, valid grounds for divorce in the Orthodox Church: http://saintdemetrios.com/our-faith/divorce
Our rules for dissolution of marriage are in fact way, way stricter than in the Roman Church
>>7794567
As for contraception, we do not allow oral contraceptives, which have always been prohibited by the Church, because they are a kind of abortion. We do allow the use of condoms in marriage, because we consider them just an advanced form of coitus interruptus. Did some Church Fathers dislike coitus interruptus? No, only Saint Augustine opposed it (all of the other quotes by them supposedly opposing it are talking about oral contraceptives, or are by people not considered Church Fathers by the Orthodox Church--to be a Church father, you must be both a saint and not have taught heresy, so Roman Catholic Church Fathers are not necessarily the same as ours), but let's contrast his view with what Saint John Chrysostom says in On Marriage and Family Life: "If for a certain period, you and your wife have abstained by agreement, perhaps for a time of prayer and fasting, come together again for the sake of your marriage. You do not need procreation as an excuse. It is not the chief reason for marriage. Neither is it necessary to allow for the possibility of conceiving, and thus having a large number of children, something you may not want." But how can we affirmatively settle the matter as to whether the Church treated it as a sin? Very simple, we look at the penance manuals for confession for the first thousand years. Only one of them, Poenitentiale Hubertense, lists coitus interruptus as a sin, and we know that is due to a misunderstanding of biology--how do we know? Because it gives the penance time as *ten years*, which is what every manual gives for abortion; compare that to the ten to twenty days typically given for masturbation, or the three years generally prescribed for sodomy. Could married couples just not have sex if having more kids would put their family at risk of poverty? Yes, but it’s important for married couples to maintain a sex life as long as either of them has urges, as per 1 Corinthians 7:5.
>>7794504
>>>/reddit/
>>7794606
if the woman's a whore, the husband should be able to cut it off and stay in the church fucker
>>7794225
Is this really so shocking? She basically just said once one stops looking up to the man as the big daddy who knows what's best for you, you will have a harder time imagining god like a big daddy? Or are you saying god is literally male, penis, big bushy beard, sex drive all included?
>>7794609
>we do not allow oral contraceptives, which have always been prohibited by the Church, because they are a kind of abortion
How are they kind of abortion?
>>7794657
In ancient times they were indistinguishable from abortifacients. The Church might okay modern ones that posed no risk to the fetus, but probably won't just for the sake of keeping things cut and dry and people not getting confused.
>>7794642
Except adultery is not valid grounds in the Catholic Church, it only is in the Orthodox Church.
>>7794606
Annulment isn't divorce son, it means the marriage never happened.
And no, they aren't stricter since divorce doesn't exist in Canon law. Annulment can happen only for things at fault before marriage, not afterwards.
>>7794674
But these are not valid grounds for annulment. Not at all. A valid ground for annulment is being already married, for instance. The things the Catholic Church uses for annulment are basically a back-door that allows to divorce, but it's not divorce *wink wink*, it's "annulment".
Protip: if the sex that you had in the marriage wasn't fornication, and the children are not illegitimate, then it's not annulment, it's divorce.
>>7794225
Subversives deliberately infiltrated the Church during the 19th and 20th centuries. Look up Bella Dodd. This especially affected the Jesuit Order, because the Jesuits are often very academic/intellectual and so attract academic/intellectual subversives.
It's not the first time in history that the Church has been infiltrated. St. Paul even speaks of there ALREADY being wolves among the flock. There was the Conversos epidemic in Spain.
The Catholic Church is somewhat in a crisis due to this subversive infiltration. Those that have done most damage are precisely the intellectual types who have done everything they can to twist the notions of revealed truth and immutable dogma, and do away with traditional Catholic theology (particularly Thomism), and they justify this by saying things like, "needing to be up to date with the modern world".
>The Vision Of Pope Leo XIII; October 13, 1884
>Exactly 33 years to the day prior to the great Miracle of the Sun in Fatima, that is, on October 13, 1884, Pope Leo XIII had a remarkable vision. When the aged Pontiff had finished celebrating Mass in his private Vatican Chapel, attended by a few Cardinals and members of the Vatican staff, he suddenly stopped at the foot of the altar. He stood there for about 10 minutes, as if in a trance, his face ashen white. Then, going immediately from the Chapel to his office, he composed the prayer to St. Michael, with instructions it be said after all Low Masses everywhere. When asked what had happened, he explained that, as he was about to leave the foot of the altar, he suddenly heard voices - two voices, one kind and gentle, the other guttural and harsh. They seemed to come from near the tabernacle. As he listened, he heard the following conversation:
>>7794695
>The guttural voice, the voice of Satan in his pride, boasted to Our Lord: "I can destroy your Church."
>The gentle voice of Our Lord: "You can? Then go ahead and do so."
>Satan: "To do so, I need more time and more power."
>Our Lord: "How much time? How much power?"
>Satan: "75 to 100 years, and a greater power over those who will give themselves over to my service."
>Our Lord: "You have the time, you will have the power. Do with them what you will."
>Let us think about this for a minute. This happened in 1884. The devil said he needed 75 to 100 years. Well, 75 years from 1884 is 1959. Wow, what a coincidence that it was on January 25, 1959, that John XXIII publicly summoned the Second Vatican Council.Remember that after the vision, Pope Leo XIII immediately wrote the Prayer to St. Michael to help us overcome the devil in his quest. He instructed that it be said after every low Mass. One of the first changes to come from Vatican II, was the deletion of the Leonine Prayers which included the prayer to St. Michael. These prayers were eliminated in 1964, the 80th year of the devils 75 - 100 years needed to destroy the Catholic Church. It would seem that this would be the time to especially say that prayer, not to delete it.
>>7794682
You misquoted them. The nature of marriage one for example is used when the person doesn't want to have children in practice and it's stated as consecutive.
Social status is also completely valid, it means the person may have deceived you. A nobewoman being tricked into marrying a fraud is solid reason for annulment.
Calling it de facto divorce is wrong also because it takes a considerable process to get one, needing two judgements of different courts.
>>7794697
But the Church cannot be destroyed. Also non sede sauce please?
>>7794702
None of the reasons I listed are in the "fraud" category of reasons given.
>>7794702
>The nature of marriage one for example is used when the person doesn't want to have children
Also, none of the reasons I listed relate to not wanting to have children, which is a separate justification for annulment.
