C
childofmary1143
Guest
The Bible. Please note again that I also said that the “6 days” were not literal days as how we associate them.
- Status
G
GerardP
Guest
Actually your claim that Ferrara is engaging in slander is calumny on your part (and in legal terms it would liable–slander is spoken).
Ferrara backs up his claims, the transcripts are there, the episode numbers and titles are all there.
And I personally saw the episodes he was talking about. I may still have them on tape. I was so scandalized, I taped the reruns of some of them.
Also, they have no right to reject so-called “Feeneyism” because it’s a perfectly orthodox view.
The more liberal view (which is held by Ferrara I believe) was accurately presented on EWTN by Fr. Shannon Collins on “Does the Church still teach that?” And I would suspect Fr. Corapi is probably in line with that viewpoint.
But no, they flat out denied the dogma. It was obstinate heresy.
L
latinmasslover
Guest
I am aware of what the Scriptures say about creation. I was wanting a Church document revealing that the 6 days were not in fact, six days.
L
latinmasslover
Guest
Actually, I did hear Fr. Groeschel, on more than one occasion, deny that doctrine, and Feenyism wasn’t brought up at all. Mom and I got into a huge debate over this (we were listening at the same time). I stopped listening to EWTN shortly thereafter.
N
Nechasin
Guest
L
latinmasslover
Guest
But does any document say that it is not (absolutely) to be taken literally? That it did *not *happen in 6 days?
BTW, congrats! (the baby)
N
Nechasin
Guest
There is not one that absolutely says that it is not to be taken literally.
and thanks on the congrats. we are very excited.
G
GerardP
Guest
B
bear06
Guest
Well, I’ve heard him talk on the subject too and it was Feeneyism of which he was speaking. He probably didn’t use the term “Feeneyism” (many don’t like to use it since he was reconciled in the end) but his description is.
BTW, both Levis and Groeschel have said nothing different then Lefebvre, Fellay and Schmidberber on the subject. That said, I think I remember Gerard saying that he felt Lefebvre had too liberal a view on EENS.
Is anyone going to call these statements heretical?
N
Nechasin
Guest
GerardP,I’m curious are you a sedevacantist?
G
GerardP
Guest
Not at all. Why do you ask?
G
GerardP
Guest
Most of the time from what I’ve seen and heard the EWTN celebrities misrepresent Fr. Feeney and set up a straw man argument.
Fr. Pacwa likes to do that with Fr. Malachi Martin. He once pointed out an error in Martin’s book “The Jesuits” and made Fr. Martin sound like he was a clod. I picked up the book off my shelf and saw that Pacwa was wrong and Fr. Martin was correct.
It involved the Cardenal Brothers.
Levis didn’t say what Groeschel said, Levis can be excused for being confused. Groeschel positively stated against the dogma of the Church, “I never bought into that.”
Yes, again, I think that’s an early modernist position that snuck its way into the Church undetected.
One small mistake early on leads to a big mistake down the road.
Like a female referee leads to God knows what. Two women beating each other senseless like savages? Gender bending in society at large?
I don’t detect any obstinate denial of defined teaching in the case of Levis, Trigilio, LeFebvre, Fellay or Schmidberger. They honestly think/thought it means something that it doesn’t.
Pacwa and Groeschel flatly denied the dogma.
M
Margarite
Guest
Margarite:
They haven’t “re-interpreted” it. Fr. Groeschel said, “I never bought into that.” Fr. Pacwa said, “I don’t hold it, but I’m not here to teach what I think, I’m here to teach what the Church teaches.” (Fr. Levis somehow thinks that the Church loosened up the gates of Heaven after Vatican II.)
Could you please quote this for me? Could you quote this in context for me?
If by “cool Catholicism” you mean Life on the Rock, I totally disagree with you. On this show, they are always respectful, they say things that are in union with Rome’s teachings, they have wonderful guests who are in union with Rome, etc. They are “cool” because that is a great way to get teens and young adults interested, then once they are interested, they can learn from the Truth that is being preached. I don’t know a single teen who would keep a show on if they hear Immaculate Mary, beautiful as that song is, they would not stick around for the show, but if they heard the Life on the Rock theme song, they just might stick around. Now in that song they say nothing that is contrary to the Church, nor anything that is rude or disrespectful. I don’t see the problem.
No such thing. People who lived prior to the 50’s dressed and acted according to the time that they lived in. They did not act as if it was the 1700’s when it was the 1900’s. One time I was visiting my SSPX aunts and one of them had just gone shopping she held up a skirt that came down to her ankles. But for about 6" at the bottom, the skirt was see-through. She was asking all my other aunts if they thought it was too revealing. This is the kind of ridiculousness that rules the SSPX. I mean I think it is wrong for girls to wear super short skirts: skirts they cannot bend over in without being immodest, and I think it wrong (and just plain ugly) when skirts are skintight. But a skirt that comes right around the knees is very modest. I always make sure that if I sit, my knees are covered a little. I just don’t understand this idea. It is not the fault of the clothing, but rather the person wearing it, and to reject extreme feminism, you don’t have to run the other way. The SSPX is basically Amish. I have a friend in the SSPX and she went to visit some
Amish relatives, well she said they dressed basically the same as she does. Living the SSPX life is just as silly as being Amish.
M
Margarite
Guest
Maybe it’s the best you can get, but let’s not fool ourselves into believing it is the standard of orthodoxy.
I doubt the Holy Father would accept the Novus Ordo as offered that 90% or more of Catholics attend. And I bet most priests would suddenly behave differently if they knew the Holy Father was in the room watching. Why different behavior for the Holy Father and not for Jesus?
Are you saying that the SSPX is the “standard of orthodoxy”? What do you mean by this phrase? I judge a mass, by the reverence of the priest, the choir, the congregation, and the church building. I have been to TLM masses that were more irreverent than some NO masses. Now I do agree that many, many NO masses are not following VatII directives, but SSPX people hiding in the TLM will not help any. Most priests and almost all Catholics know next to nothing about their faith.
Let me tell you about my church.
My church, looks like a huge circus tent. There are lights that change according to the liturgical calendar, so right now the lights are purple, but most of the year they are green making the church look like something from the Wizard of OZ. The tabernacle is to the right of the altar (from the people’s perspective) and the choir to the left. The priest’s chair is situated sort of in front of the tabernacle. Now, until Christmas, we had a “Rocket Jesus” or Risen Christ with a cross in the background, but now we have a 50’ crucifix (imported from Italy and beautiful). There are at least 10,000 families registered and seven masses each Sunday (including the vigil and the 10am is said in the church and in the perpetual adoration chapel) Still, people are standing for every mass. The music is mostly horrible, but the woman’s voice is beautiful, there are never any instruments except piano, organ, and violins.
There is a school attached to this church, and it is the most conservative in Vegas. The church is one of the 3 or 4 most conservative churches in Vegas. Now there are only two priests for this church, one is also the vicar general, and he is so busy, he should not have parish duty, but there are no priests to replace him. The other priest is new, but he is also kept busy by the 10,000 families, helping to run the school etc.
Now I have told you all the sad/bad/unfortunate things about my parish, now let me tell you the good things.
It is in union with the Church Christ started. The masses are always reverent. The parish accepts about 50 new Catholics each year (at least). The parish replaced the Risen Christ with a crucifix. The extraordinary ministers are used sparingly. There are two deacons. The sermons are wonderful and in line with the Church. The priests are good priests trying to do their best to help the Church. These priests have given up their lives to be slaves. There is no time for anything but their priestly duties and there is no hope of relief because the number of seminarians to retiring priests is horrible, something like 20 retiring and 5 being ordained (in the next 10 years). Vegas is a horrible place full of sin, corruption, and it is just plain ugly with nothing to do. We talked to one priest and he said that because of the scandals, being a priest is sooooooooooooooooo much more difficult. Another said that he became a priest partly to help destroy the idea that just because a couple priests are bad, does not mean that all or most are.
We need the SSPX to come back home. We need the SSPX to stop running away. We need the SSPX to realize that Christ is Truth, not Lefebvre, or Luther, or any other upstart, no matter how much they think that Christ’s Church is wrong.
“Upon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Now you say that EWTN teaches against the Church, look at your own church. Don’t they say that it is the SSPX or the highway to hell? Well doesn’t that contradict Christ?
M
Margarite
Guest
I ask. I pray. I work. I act. I try. I will continue doing all this as long as I live. I know that Christ will not abandon his Church, and I know that if we act according to his will, the Church will be healed. But that does not mean that I will leave the Church until times are better.
I pray that God will provide us with good and holy priests, that God will provide us with a good mass every Sunday, and that the Church will become strong again. It is like the Church has caught a cold and I want her to get better, so I stay with her and try to help, but the SSPX people gave up and ran away so that they would not catch a cold. But what you don’t realize is that the cold will actually strengthen the Church in the long run (hopefully) or it may weaken it forever, that is up to the people helping the Church.
Sure, you would like me to get a SSPX priest to come here, well, there is already an independent priest who says a TLM that my SSPX relatives go to whenever they visit, but I would never leave the Church. I will never leave Christ, and I will never leave his Church. Yes, I do try to help people see the beauty of the TLM. Even now I often go to a parish that has a mass that is partially in Latin, and every month, the priest introduces some new part of the mass in Latin. Such as at Easter we are going to start singing the Credo. Most of the people at this mass have never been to a TLM, but they are learning quickly, and more and more people are coming. But we are the few who have stuck it out and we are the few who are helping the Church. And I am not being proud when I say this, I am asking for back up.
I don’t like the whole idea of people beating each other up for fun or gain. It disgusts me.
SO WHAT! I am a pretty girl and I dress attractively so I am targeted by men. SO WHAT if she was targeted. Who cares. I mean it would not bother me. I would just tell them I did not follow that kind of lifestyle, I believe in the Catholic Church’s teachings, and I did not have those inclinations. You don’t need to freak out and you don’t need to become angry, just tell them your reasons and move on. Now if they continue then become angry and tell them to knock it off. We don’t need to bow to other’s evil. Just because some people get drunk is no reason for everyone to stop drinking (unless you agree with the Mormons).
Some resist the wearing away of their femininity, some don’t. It still shows that the sports work against women embracing their femininity.
May I ask you how you expect women to stay healthy and in shape if they don’t exorcise? And may I ask in what type of clothing they should exorcise if not shorts and a t-shirt? I Irish Dance twice a week and my instructor is a man. I always wear shorts and a t-shirt and I feel just fine. I don’t wear really short shorts, but I don’t wear long ones either.
GerardP:
Some of those things you state are laudable. Don’t knock a good High tea. Etiquette is not about snobbery, it’s about knowing how to not offend and to defend yourself against others’ bad manners.
I don’t knock etiquette, but I don’t think that the useless, showy “etiquette” is worth anything except to make a person look silly. I don’t think that women who get together only to show off how perfect they are is a good thing. How much better to be real and do what you love and talk as you like. Be polite, be kind, be friendly, but don’t show off, don’t be a snob, and don’t be cruel. Manners and etiquette are different than snobbery (like sticking your little finger out (that is just silly))
M
Margarite
Guest
Sorry if some of my last posts don’t make sense, I wrote it yesterday and I did not have time to send it, so forgive my laziness (I did not feel like fixing it all.) 
M
MariaG
Guest
What I do find interesting about all of this, is while I actually disagree with the stance not to play at all, while I disagree that having a woman referee should change the deference boys should give to ANY referee, I think that, in general, it is a good idea to have men coach and referee boys and women to referee and coach girls because the formation of boys and girls is best done by the same sex.
I just disagree that having a female referee for an occassional game, (or even every game), would in anyway hinder the development or stunt the “aggressive play” of boys. It may make them be more polite and not yell at the ref., but since I think that has gotten out of hand at ALL levels, I think it could be a GOOD thing to stunt that form of aggressiveness in sports.
M
Margarite
Guest
C
cecilia97
Guest
Well said and supported by the Church!
Helpmate, from Websters:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/helpmate
: one who is a companion and helper; especially : wife
Very different connotation in helpmate than just someone who helps with tasks. You don’t call your maid or your gardener a companion.
The Catechism makes it very clear that man and woman are perfectly equal, while different, and help each other.
CCC 369:
Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or “being woman” is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity “in the image of God.” In their “being-man” and “being-woman,” they reflect the Creator’s wisdom and goodness.
CCC 371:
God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him."242 None of the animals can be man’s partner.243 The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."244 Man discovers woman as another “I,” sharing the same humanity.
CCC 372:
**Man and woman were made “for each other”—**not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be “helpmate” to the other, for they are equal as persons (“bone of my bones . . .”) and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming "one flesh,"245 they can transmit human life: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth."246 By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator’s work.
G
GerardP
Guest
I wanted to get back to this point. Reading Clement’s letter there is a positive and negative side to it. First, he’s on board with the concept of men and women retaining their gender identity.I recently read the writings of Clement of Alexandria (one of the church fathers); his standards are even harsher than yours, because of the conventions of his time. If standards of fashion/clothing/appearance can’t legitimately change, then you and I are in trouble if we’ve ever shaved our faces, because Clement says that hair is a sign of masculinity, and that to desecrate it by removing it is wrong.
Does that mean that it is wrong for a man to shave? Surely you won’t say that, but what about the fact that - as Clement attests - it used to be a sign of masculinity? Is that cultural change wrong? Is the current practice of shaving an attack on masculinity?
Second, it seems that he’s opposed to what today would be referred to as a “metrosexual” in each of his statements there is a qualifier about the intent of the men plucking the hairs from their chin.
Third, where I disagree with Clement is his actual argument. He claims that wild hair and grey hair are part of the nature that God has given us. That doesn’t really hold since they are qualities of our Fallen nature, not our created nature.
As such, fallen man has dominion over his hair as he does have dominion (in a fallen way) over the fallen earth. What he does not have is the right to abandon his masculinity.
- Status