SSPX and women in positions of authority

[GerardP]

what does this have to do with the topic of women in positions of authority? What does the homosexuality problem that exists within the priesthood have to do with women? (I agree with you on some of what you say here, but not sure how it relates to women at all?) Can you help me to understand that?

Related to all of these scenarios being discussed is the principal of gender roles and gender identity. The way a person integrates all of the aspects of their life affects their gender identity either on a small or larger scale.

The fact that there is a gender neutral agenda at work by the enemies of the Church should be a wake up call to Catholics. Either the Church will shape the world or the Church will be shaped by the world according to the world’s standards.

All of this ultimately affects the family and as such affects the society at large.

In his speech to Human Life International back in the early 1990’s Fr. Malachi Martin once said something along the lines of “an attack on the Family is such a crime that it would provoke the wrath of God against the world. It is His family that men are trying to take away from Him. He’s not going to stand for it.”

 

[Margarite]

I don’t think that being Amish or living the SSPX life is silly. Quite the contrary…

I had to edit because I am too long winded:blush:
All the saints throughout time have embraced the era in which they lived. The did not cling to the past as though it was something sacred, they struggled in their day and dressed, spoke and acted accordingly. Now that is not to say that they followed the sins of the time, but they did embrace the new and encouraged the new that was good. If something was good, but was perverted, they tried their hardest to reform it rather than just destroy it good and all.

Yes, there are really horrible masses being said by priests who are basically heretics, but the way to help them and the Church is not to be like Luther and leave the Church, but rather to help from inside, to help by strengthening the good and weakening the bad. If all the “good” and more traditional people leave, then all that are left are the middle of the road people and the liberals. So then the Church will go down hill, but if all the trads stay and help the Church, then the Church could become better than it ever has been since the apostles died.

As far as women studying and going into masculine jobs and working when married please read the story of:
St. Gianna Beretta Molla (1922-1962), was a doctor and mother.
vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_20040516_beretta-molla_en.html

As far as women wearing pants please read the following:
Excerpt from “The Responses of Pope St. Nicholas I to the Questions of the Bulgars” (Letter 99), Chapter LVIIII, A.D. 866:
"We consider what you asked about pants (femoralia) to be irrelevant; for we do not wish the exterior style of your clothing to be changed, but rather the behavior of the inner man within you, nor do we desire to know what you are wearing except Christ — for however many of you have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ [Gal. 3:27] — but rather how you are progressing in faith and good works. But since you ask concerning these matters in your simplicity, namely because you were afraid lest it be held against you as a sin, if you diverge in the slightest way from the custom of other Christians, and lest we seem to take anything away from your desire, we declare that in our books, pants (femoralia) are ordered to be made, not in order that women may use them, but that men may. But act now so that, just as you passed from the old to the new man, [cf. Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10] you pass from your prior custom to ours in all things; but really do what you please. For whether you or your women wear or do not wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue.

“Of course, because we have said that pants are ordered to be made, it should be noted that we put on pants spiritually, when we restrain the lust of the flesh through abstinence; for those places are constrained by pants in which the seats of luxury are known to be. This is why the first humans, when they felt illicit motions in their members after sin, ran into the leaves of a fig tree and wove loin cloths for themselves.[cf. Gen. 3:7] But these are spiritual pants, which you still could not bear, and, if I may speak with the Apostle, you are not yet able; for you are still carnal.* And thus we have said a few things on this matter, although, with God’s gift, we could say many more.” *
As far as priests being named after women please read about:
Fr. Anthony of Saint Anne Galvão (1739 - 1822)
*Franciscan Priest and Founder of the Conceptionist Sisters *
vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_20070511_frei-galvao_en.html

IA man is born naturally able to feel less deeply than women. This is because in the working world feelings are detrimental to decision making. So situations where a woman’s feelings would get in the way of her doing her job, or where a woman is forced to suppress her feelings too much, that job is not for that woman. Some jobs like being a doctor, require decisions regardless of feelings, but women are able to instead of suppressing their feelings, use those feelings to make even better decisions.
I am being long winded.
Yours Through Our Lady,
Margarite

PS: We seem like we are straying from the topic, but, first we have to decide what rights women have before we can decide if they can ref.

 

[system]

The fact that there is a gender neutral agenda at work by the enemies of the Church should be a wake up call to Catholics. **Either the Church will shape the world or the Church will be shaped by the world according to the world’s standards. **

Amen to that!

I recently spoke to a nun who was trying to make the last words of Christ on the cross, “Gender inclusive.”

So does “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” get changed to mother?

I went to a “MASS” celebrating a nun’s anniversary…it was a debacle and I spent half the time explaining to my kids that this was not a normal mass. They had their own creed (is THAT ok to change?)

They had 5 to 7 women surrounding the priest at the altar, whom was called only by his first name, never called “father” by any of them, the entire “mass.” They walked around with bowls of supposedly holy water and these sprigs of some sort of greenery to bless all of us there, while the priest sat around like he had no place being there. I’ve heard about exorcisms where the demon(s) call the priest a eunuch. I’m sure they would have loved to see this!

Then they all gave out a communion that was a cross between corn bread and pumpkin bread…I’ve heard that Catholic communion host is supposed to be basic wheat and water. They the procession out was led with a cross with a very vague looking figure on the cross, not exactly male or female.

I later asked someone close to this community, “how many of these women are actually couples in a relationship?” The answer: “between MOST and ALL.”

So I guess SOME priests being sissies is only one side of the problem.

FYI I spent many years in Catholic schools, both as student and teacher. I’m a practicing Catholic and I’ve seen alot of bad. I’m not out to trash the church, but I would like the church to stand up and drop a bunch of the bad apples out of the cart.

 

[GerardP]

We seem like we are straying from the topic, but, first we have to decide what rights women have before we can decide if they can ref.

I only have sporadic moments today and I want to give serious thoughts to your posts. But I wanted to bring this point to the fore.

It’s interesting that you view this as a “women’s rights” issue and not a “school’s rights” issue or a natural law issue.

I think we have to agree on what a man’s nature is and a woman’s nature before we determine whether or not it’s wise that someone **should **do something even if they **can **do something.

 

[Margarite]

I only have sporadic moments today and I want to give serious thoughts to your posts. But I wanted to bring this point to the fore.

It’s interesting that you view this as a “women’s rights” issue and not a “school’s rights” issue or a natural law issue.

I think we have to agree on what a man’s nature is and a woman’s nature before we determine whether or not it’s wise that someone **should **do something even if they **can **do something.

Well, I think 98% of the people on this thread know that the school has the right to refuse this woman, I thought that most of us were discussing whether she should.

If my wording was weird, I had to trim it down so that it would fit on one post, so it may have not said exactly what I meant. But this does.

Yours Through Our Lady,
Margarite

 

[bobzills]

As far as women wearing pants please read the following

Father Kunkel takes a more traditional approach to modesty in women’s clothing and dress.
lffa-ollmpc.com/standards.htm
As Father points out, modesty in dress excludes women from wearing “pants, slacks, culottes, jeans, shorts and such, as they have been proven to be men’s attire, and harmfull for women and society at large, and against God’s command in Deut. 22:5.”

 

[bobzills]

For whether you or your women wear or do not wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue

I don’t think that this is really true today. and in today’s world because when a woman cross dresses like a man, it can exacerbate some of the problems facing our society today. For example, according to a non-Catholic site:
"Go to your local mall and watch the teenaged girls dressing and carrying themselves like gangster boys! Baggy jeans, t-shirts, short messy hair, pierced body parts! When we smudge the clear lines of the differences in the sexes, this is where we end up! Open a magazine that has women’s business-wear in it. You’ll see slightly feminized men’s business suits. Even the shoes look like men’s! If it’s a business suit with a skirt, then the skirt is short and sexy and the rest looks manly! We have a wonderful medley of masculinity AND immodesty all packaged nicely for today´s modern career woman! “
Although objections were raised on the grounds that this was from a non-Catholic site, I think that there is a lot of truth to what is being said here:
momof9splace.com/talkmodesty.html
jesus-is-savior.com/Womens%20Page/womens_page.htm
Have you take a look at the marriage annulment figures recently and compared them to what it was in 1930? In the USA in 1930, there were about 9 annulments for that year, whereas in the USA in 1989, there were about 61,416 marriage annulments granted. This seems like an enormous increase. And Have you taken a look at the news concerning women who are claiming to be ordained as Catholic priests by Catholic bishops? This was not the case in 1930, when women dressed more modestly and wore headcovering in Church.

 

[lak611]

Even the shoes look like men’s!

These are Victorian ladies’ shoes. http://www.ushist.com/wardrobe/inc/images/ff-stella_shoes_ladies_lace-up_black.jpg

These are Victorian men’s shoes. http://www.1860-1960.com/xb622t.jpg

Do you notice much of a difference?

 

[cecilia97]

Have you take a look at the marriage annulment figures recently and compared them to what it was in 1930? In the USA in 1930, there were about 9 annulments for that year, whereas in the USA in 1989, there were about 61,416 marriage annulments granted. This seems like an enormous increase. And Have you taken a look at the news concerning women who are claiming to be ordained as Catholic priests by Catholic bishops? This was not the case in 1930, when women dressed more modestly and wore headcovering in Church.

What do annulments have to do with this discussion?

Besides, those numbers tell us nothing. You must first be legally divorced in the US before you can petition for nullity. How common was civil divorce in the 1930s? How many Catholics recieved civil divorces in 1930? How many Catholics recieved civil divorces in 1989? What percentage of them petitioned for nullity? What percentage of those petitions were approved?

For all we know from what you’ve shown, we could assume 100% of 1930 divorcees were found to be from invalid marriages and only 10% of 1989 divorcees were found to be from invalid marriages. Those numbers are meaningless without context.

 

[whatevergirl]

Related to all of these scenarios being discussed is the principal of gender roles and gender identity. The way a person integrates all of the aspects of their life affects their gender identity either on a small or larger scale.

The fact that there is a gender neutral agenda at work by the enemies of the Church should be a wake up call to Catholics. Either the Church will shape the world or the Church will be shaped by the world according to the world’s standards.

All of this ultimately affects the family and as such affects the society at large.

In his speech to Human Life International back in the early 1990’s Fr. Malachi Martin once said something along the lines of “an attack on the Family is such a crime that it would provoke the wrath of God against the world. It is His family that men are trying to take away from Him. He’s not going to stand for it.”

I’m assuming you don’t believe that homosexuals ‘are born’ that way. I am not sure what I believe in that regard–but I agree with you much of what you say above, although, the evolving roles of women and men in this world, I don’t believe, caused men to be homosexuals. Homosexuality was discussed during Biblical times–it is a societal issue that he been around for quite some time. The denegration of the ‘nuclear family,’ caused boys to lack consistent father figures, absolutely will agree with that–and therefore, a strong male role model to look up to for his masculinity. But, I might sway on the side of ‘arguing’ that when fathers are not around for their kids, many problems can arise–perhaps one of those problems being homosexuality. (amongst other issues that can arise from children being brought up in homes where two parents are not around together) But, back to the topic…eh hem…remember the topic, Gerard? I don’t think that we can ‘blame’ women for priests being homosexuals. I think that is a massive stretch…

 

[GerardP]

I’m assuming you don’t believe that homosexuals ‘are born’ that way. I am not sure what I believe in that regard–but I agree with you much of what you say above, although, the evolving roles of women and men in this world, I don’t believe, caused men to be homosexuals.

A while back on EWTN there was a psychologist who came to the conclusion that homosexuality in modern times is related to the relationship of the children with the Father. I can’t remember his name but I found his position completely convincing.

Now, you state that the roles of men and women are “evolving” what do you mean? I see the roles of men and women as “devolving” into a gender neutral soup.

Homosexuality was discussed during Biblical times–it is a societal issue that he been around for quite some time.

Agreed. And St. Paul says that in the first chapter of Romans that it’s after breaking the first commandment that God lets them slip further into their sins. This can be tied in with my premise that the attack on the genders is an attack on the family and ultimately, the Trinity.

The denegration of the ‘nuclear family,’ caused boys to lack consistent father figures, absolutely will agree with that–and therefore, a strong male role model to look up to for his masculinity.

Can’t agree with you more on this.

But, I might sway on the side of ‘arguing’ that when fathers are not around for their kids, many problems can arise–perhaps one of those problems being homosexuality. (amongst other issues that can arise from children being brought up in homes where two parents are not around together) But, back to the topic…eh hem…remember the topic, Gerard?

Aren’t referees role models? Keepers of order? Authority figures?

I don’t think that we can ‘blame’ women for priests being homosexuals. I think that is a massive stretch…

I don’t blame women at all for any of this. (Where did you get the impression that I did? ) The women are the victims as much as any man in this societal degradation.

I want women to keep and maintain their feminine identity. I want men to keep and maintain their masculine identity. I want children to develop their identity without confusion on this matter.

Unfortunately too many adults have already imbibed in this mentality and don’t even recognize it until they see it in more extreme examples. They don’t see it when it is a relatively small problem.

 

[GerardP]

Do you notice much of a difference?

Yes. It’s in the heel for one thing.

Women’s shoes. Do you think men were wearing these?

 

[lak611]

Yes. It’s in the heel for one thing.

Women’s shoes. Do you think men were wearing these?

The high-heeled shoes were not worn for everyday dress, though. This is a more practical, everyday shoe.

 

[bobzills]

What do annulments have to do with this discussion?.

I would say that they have a lot to do with it. For example, in 1930, when women dressed as women and did not wear that which appurtaineth to a man and when women covered their heads in Church, the annulment rate in the USA was about 9 per year. Since then, women are cross dressing in increasing numbers, wearing pants to Church, and in increasing numbers are in defiant disobedience to the Biblical command as given in 1 Cor 11: 4-16 which mandates that women must wear headcovering in Church. Who is the real author of the Bible, is it the word of God or not? God, not Paul, is the author of 1 Corinthians. Paul was only the secretary, not the author of 1 Corinthians. Paul did not write on his own authority. “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 14:37).

The drastic increase in the rate of annulments is directly correlated cause and effect to the refusal of women to heed the word of God as given to us in 1 Cor 11: 4-16 and the refusal of women to wear headcovering in Church.

 

[lak611]

The high-heeled shoes were not worn for everyday dress, though. This is a more practical, everyday shoe.

http://www.centuryinshoes.com/decades/1910/images/1910_shoes.gif

Here is a more typical everyday shoe worn by women in Civil War times.

http://www.ushist.com/wardrobe/inc/images/ff-stella_shoes_ladies_lace-up_black.jpg

 

[Tietjen]

No. I’ll call you ignorant. You really seem to think that after reading a little article that, (Did you even read the article?) you’ve got all the information to pass judgement on an issue that the SSPX have devoted serious amounts of deep consideration towards.

You’re the “expert” suddenly.

If you’d even lift a finger and do some research you’d know that your example of grammar school and kids putting their feet up is so way off the mark it’s ridiculous.

I swear the Mickey Mouse level of thinking on this thread by the enablers of societal decay is scandalous.

I’m just guessing here… GerardP, are you a member of the SSPX organization? I’m asking respectfully.

 

[Tietjen]

Then you are changing your mind and you do think that boys should be allowed to tackle the hell out of a girl on the football field right?

First you argue that refereeing is different because it’s not so violent. Now, you are arguing that women should be in the thick of violent fights.

Get back to me when you decide to be consistent in your thinking.

And your anecdote proves the point. Nuns should not be patrolling the halls and breaking up fights. They only became battle axes when the sissies were let into the seminaries and the “butch” were let into the convents.

Do you practice at being ignorant or does it come naturally? Forgive my lack of charity but I tend to take offense when someone starts referring to our priests and sisters as “sissies” and “butch”.

 

[GerardP]

I’m just guessing here… GerardP, are you a member of the SSPX organization? I’m asking respectfully.

I’m not a “member” of the SSPX. I’m not a priest nor a third order member.

I do go to SSPX masses most of the time. I also have attended what used to be the “Indult” and I’ve been waiting for a local priest to get the go ahead to start saying the TLM unfortunately he’s being stonewalled by the bishop despite the Pope’s directives.

 

[GerardP]

Do you practice at being ignorant or does it come naturally?

I won’t bother to file a complaint about your tone like some cowards on this thread have done. And I won’t lie about the content of your posts.

Forgive my lack of charity but I tend to take offense when someone starts referring to our priests and sisters as “sissies” and “butch”.

While you’re busy taking offense you seem to be dropping the ball when it comes to reading.

This has been clarified multiple times. I didn’t refer to “all priests” or “all nuns.”

If you don’t think there certain groups of priests and nuns who are homosexual, then you can’t be convinced the sky is blue.

 

[lak611]

If you don’t think there certain groups of priests and nuns who are homosexual, then you can’t be convinced the sky is blue.

I agree with you here. Fortunately, it appears that Pope Benedict XVI did take steps to ensure that homosexuals cannot be ordained in the future.