P
PaulinVA
Guest
No. That is not personally identifiable information.
- Status
L
Lux_Ad_Orientum
Guest
Don’t be rediculous, of course any Catholic – Man or female who is in a proper state of grace and has properly fasted should be given communion. This is a thread about who should be in the Sanctuary serving God. Let’s recap, shall we as laid out by Saint Paul and Traditional Catholic teaching that was handed down for 1962 years:
- Every proper Catholic goes to Mass and gets Holy Communion if he is able
- Men are called serve God by conducting and assisting his Worship in the Sanctuaries of our churches.
- Females are called to serve God and Men by pregnancy and child rearing.
J
Julianna
Guest
Serve God, yes…serve “men”…you are way off the mark. What? am I supposed to salute you or something if we meet?Don’t be rediculous, of course any Catholic – Man or female who is in a proper state of grace and has properly fasted should be given communion. This is a thread about who should be in the Sanctuary serving God. Let’s recap, shall we as laid out by Saint Paul and Traditional Catholic teaching that was handed down for 1962 years:
Got it now?
- Every proper Catholic goes to Mass and gets Holy Communion if he is able
- Men are called serve God by conducting and assisting his Worship in the Sanctuaries of our churches.
- Females are called to serve God and Men by pregnancy and child rearing.
Should I walk 5 steps behind my husband? Should my son be able to boss my daughter and myself around, just because he is male?
Paul was a man…a human being…a mere mortal…and was speaking in reference to women of his “time”…
This is not like any other Catholic I have ever heard of in all my 52 yrs on this earth.
K
kozlosap
Guest
As Jackie Gleason used to say “to the moon Alice, to the moon!” I really don’t think you can be a true Catholic and follower of Jesus with your core resentment of women. It just doesn’t compute. Have you been tilting and the windmill of the Catholic Church for 48 years now?Don’t be rediculous, of course any Catholic – Man or female who is in a proper state of grace and has properly fasted should be given communion. This is a thread about who should be in the Sanctuary serving God. Let’s recap, shall we as laid out by Saint Paul and Traditional Catholic teaching that was handed down for 1962 years:
Got it now?
- Every proper Catholic goes to Mass and gets Holy Communion if he is able
- Men are called serve God by conducting and assisting his Worship in the Sanctuaries of our churches.
- Females are called to serve God and Men by pregnancy and child rearing.
S
Samantha79
Guest
Are we allowed to get an education? SAINT Gianna Beretta Molla was a wife, mother, and medical doctor. She specialized in the care of women and children. That way, a women could be attended by another women in pregnancy and “female” issues and would not have to be immodest to a strange male. Is that allowed as far as you are concerned? Or was she in error getting an education? She DID give her life for her own daughter, who is now a physician!Don’t be rediculous, of course any Catholic – Man or female who is in a proper state of grace and has properly fasted should be given communion. This is a thread about who should be in the Sanctuary serving God. Let’s recap, shall we as laid out by Saint Paul and Traditional Catholic teaching that was handed down for 1962 years:
Got it now?
- Every proper Catholic goes to Mass and gets Holy Communion if he is able
- Men are called serve God by conducting and assisting his Worship in the Sanctuaries of our churches.
- Females are called to serve God and Men by pregnancy and child rearing.
M
Milesius
Guest
Gods revelations made known through St. Paul the Apostle are valid for all times for all peoples.
M
Milesius
Guest
I did not notice any resentment in the post you quoted.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
No, I meant the kind of group that supports the views he is espousing, which are simply not the views of the Catholic Church. He is far out in left field even for a traditional Catholic, and I’m a bit surprised that the other traditional Catholics haven’t called him on the things he has said.
Actually, maybe he is a wacko Protestant trying to drive people away from Catholicism?
K
kozlosap
Guest
I pray then, that your slaves are treated with respect. I also pray that you do not use modern medicine or technology (oops, you must think technology is OK). I suggest you read what John Paul the Great had to say about women.
J
Julianna
Guest
all the same…still a “human” being…speaking for “his time”
if you believe this should be applied now…I suspect you would be wearing a robe and sandals…
sorry but your car has got to go…and electricity…bye bye…
M
Milesius
Guest
JPII is not superior to an Apostle and is not above the Deposit if Faith contained in God’s Revelations made through them. If he said anything contrary to the teachings of the Apostles then it is he that is wrong not the Divine Revelation made through the Apostles.
If the Apostles are wrong then our faith, which is meant to be the faith of the Apostles is false.
So did JPII contradict an Apostle in your opinion?
M
Milesius
Guest
If you can show me where St. Paul the Apostle of God said we should all wear robes and sandals and not use electricity of drive cars you would be right, but he didn’t.
When God spoke through Paul ,it was God who spoke and what He said was for all time.
V
vera_dicere
Guest
I was an altar girl and I loved it, but not once did I think “I want to be a priest, its unfair that boys can be priests but girls can’t be”.
Besides, Jesus said let the little children come to Him. He didn’t say "let the little boys come to Him. Children. Girls are children.
Being an altar server certainly lead me to a greater love of God, and if I wanted to continue on, I knew I could become a sister, NOT a priest.
Also, I’d say it’d probably harm a girl’s faith even more if she’s refused as a server, as a child rejection hurts, and a girl could see the Church as against her, and without an adult understanding will not understand fully. However, as a woman she will understand (if properly educated) why she can’t be a priest, its then just a simple understanding of theology and teaching as opposed to and out and out rejection.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Ouch, there is such a lot of contention.
It is unfortunate that obedience is such a thorny issue. Not that it was ever easy, but in today’s society even the idea that men would have a ‘headship’ over women in marriage is viewed as ‘anti-woman’.
Now grant you, I know some men (including my ex-husband) who would abuse that role and try to argue that men were innately superior ‘beings’ to women and that their roles–every single one of them --were somehow superior as well. But that is not what St. Paul taught, not in the understanding that has been ‘colored’ today.
In St. Paul’s time, women were viewed by many as even less than slaves. Slaves had worth as property, slaves performed valuable labor. Women, OTOH, had one function primarily (giving ‘sons’), and as far as anything else goes, all depended on her husband (or father before that). Many husbands and fathers truly loved their wives and daughters, gave them ‘the best’ available, treated them with kindness. These men were foreshadowing Christian ideas.
When St. Paul spoke of loving a wife as one’s own flesh, he was giving women equal status with men. No longer a property, a slave, or a function, a woman was to be loved JUST AS A MAN LOVED HIMSELF. . .as a worthwhile human being with dignity and honor in his own right, no matter what his ‘station in life’ would be. Christian understanding of women was radical in its notion of equality!
Yet St. Paul knew that God had created male and female not as two equal, ‘interchangeable’ beings who could each do ‘anything’ the other could do. God created men and women to **complement each other --to COMPLETE each other. **
And if each partner’s ‘contribution’ to the completeness were exactly 50/50, they could never ‘do’ anything if one wished to do one thing, and the other did not. How does one ‘choose?’ Even the idea of strict ‘you do this decision and I do the next, 50/50’ does not work, as there can never be a guarantee that any individual decision will be worth as much in terms of its effect on the marriage (the couple and their children as well) as the previous one. . .
So. . .there has to be someone to have the ‘final say’ in the event of a tie. Well, God chose the male for this, not because the woman couldn’t do just as well, but for His glory and for the salutary effect upon both men and women.
What does Jesus teach, over and over and over again? Whom does He say is one to whom the Kingdom of Heaven belongs? Is it not the **meek, the humble, the lowly, the poor, the ones with ‘less’ power? **
God is not a slave of time. Is it not possible that God ‘saw’ this current epoch where women have become in a sense monsters who abort their own children and call it good??
Is it not possible that God’s choice of having women be the ones without the ‘deciding vote’ in marriage was multifocal in nature? If humanity sought the ‘good path’, women would themselves choose this humble role as being right and just. Men likewise would, under their wise example, use their power ‘wisely.’
But if humanity starts to wander away. . .if women were still to remain in their more humble state, they would be less prone to the terrible effects of **pride. **The less though that a woman sought to be humble, the more prideful she would become, and the more likely to sin as boldly as the men for whom she had long been a muted and powerful witness of Christian truth. Now that she often disregards this, both she and the male become worse and worse as each tries to outdo the other in prideful claims and prideful acts and a near worship of disobedience for disobedience’s sake – to be humble and submissive is a term of derision now instead of a virtue. It is certainly not ONLY the woman’s fault if she has been coaxed and bullied into disobedience --but she is the one who will suffer the most. My generation and the next, bloodied by the scourge of abortion, will pay a terrible price for the ‘pride’ of saying, 'it’s MY body, it’s MY choice, and I choose the wages of sin which are death. . .
It is unfortunate that obedience is such a thorny issue. Not that it was ever easy, but in today’s society even the idea that men would have a ‘headship’ over women in marriage is viewed as ‘anti-woman’.
Now grant you, I know some men (including my ex-husband) who would abuse that role and try to argue that men were innately superior ‘beings’ to women and that their roles–every single one of them --were somehow superior as well. But that is not what St. Paul taught, not in the understanding that has been ‘colored’ today.
In St. Paul’s time, women were viewed by many as even less than slaves. Slaves had worth as property, slaves performed valuable labor. Women, OTOH, had one function primarily (giving ‘sons’), and as far as anything else goes, all depended on her husband (or father before that). Many husbands and fathers truly loved their wives and daughters, gave them ‘the best’ available, treated them with kindness. These men were foreshadowing Christian ideas.
When St. Paul spoke of loving a wife as one’s own flesh, he was giving women equal status with men. No longer a property, a slave, or a function, a woman was to be loved JUST AS A MAN LOVED HIMSELF. . .as a worthwhile human being with dignity and honor in his own right, no matter what his ‘station in life’ would be. Christian understanding of women was radical in its notion of equality!
Yet St. Paul knew that God had created male and female not as two equal, ‘interchangeable’ beings who could each do ‘anything’ the other could do. God created men and women to **complement each other --to COMPLETE each other. **
And if each partner’s ‘contribution’ to the completeness were exactly 50/50, they could never ‘do’ anything if one wished to do one thing, and the other did not. How does one ‘choose?’ Even the idea of strict ‘you do this decision and I do the next, 50/50’ does not work, as there can never be a guarantee that any individual decision will be worth as much in terms of its effect on the marriage (the couple and their children as well) as the previous one. . .
So. . .there has to be someone to have the ‘final say’ in the event of a tie. Well, God chose the male for this, not because the woman couldn’t do just as well, but for His glory and for the salutary effect upon both men and women.
What does Jesus teach, over and over and over again? Whom does He say is one to whom the Kingdom of Heaven belongs? Is it not the **meek, the humble, the lowly, the poor, the ones with ‘less’ power? **
God is not a slave of time. Is it not possible that God ‘saw’ this current epoch where women have become in a sense monsters who abort their own children and call it good??
Is it not possible that God’s choice of having women be the ones without the ‘deciding vote’ in marriage was multifocal in nature? If humanity sought the ‘good path’, women would themselves choose this humble role as being right and just. Men likewise would, under their wise example, use their power ‘wisely.’
But if humanity starts to wander away. . .if women were still to remain in their more humble state, they would be less prone to the terrible effects of **pride. **The less though that a woman sought to be humble, the more prideful she would become, and the more likely to sin as boldly as the men for whom she had long been a muted and powerful witness of Christian truth. Now that she often disregards this, both she and the male become worse and worse as each tries to outdo the other in prideful claims and prideful acts and a near worship of disobedience for disobedience’s sake – to be humble and submissive is a term of derision now instead of a virtue. It is certainly not ONLY the woman’s fault if she has been coaxed and bullied into disobedience --but she is the one who will suffer the most. My generation and the next, bloodied by the scourge of abortion, will pay a terrible price for the ‘pride’ of saying, 'it’s MY body, it’s MY choice, and I choose the wages of sin which are death. . .
J
Julianna
Guest
Do you expect “human” behavior to stay the same throughout history? The things I mentioned were not happening in Paul’s time…neither were women regarded as anything but property.
Did you expect the Church to stay exactly the same? I see nothing wrong with altar girls…you and others apparently find it inappropriate…the Church says differently.
So aren’t you being a bit “cafeteria” on this subject.
Do I think altar girls lead to women priests? No, not in my lifetime. I believe back in the 70’s I thought we would see an african american president before we would see a woman president. On that same note…I believe we will see married priests well before there will ever be a woman priest.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I recall a thread several months ago on this but couldn’t find it.
But in any case, apples and oranges. Communion of the people is technically not a part of the Mass. We’re talking about serving actual Mass inside the sanctuary.
Traditionally, however, the only times women were allowed in the sanctuary during Mass was during a wedding and First Communion.
D
Dum_Spiro_Spero
Guest
Calling someone a Cafeteria Catholic??? and you are the one alluding to there is a possibility of a woman becoming a priest. Typical LOL And we are the unfaithful Catholics!!!
P
ProVobis
Guest
There are already married priests. Not as many as you would like, perhaps, but there are married priests.
D
dixieagle
Guest
i beg to differ; Mary bore the Word Incarnate. And, in case you have forgotten, it was at the request of Mary that Jesus performed His first miracle.
What in the name of heaven do you mean by this? Priests are “in persona Christi” (which means “in the person of Christ”); does this mean that women should not come face to face with priests? Why? Is it permitted in some instances and not others? Or do you believe the priest is only “in persona Christi” while he is celebrating Mass?Women should NOT come face to face with the persona Christi! You said it Pro Vobis!!!
With all due respect…you present some truly novel theology. :bigyikes:
J
Julianna
Guest
no illusion
Who would have said it was ok for a Catholic and Protestant to marry? Not in Catholic Church…it can never happen…not allowed
Yet in 1956, my mother (a Baptist) and my father (a Catholic) were married in the Catholic Church.
Who would have said it was ok for one of the Godparents of a child a non-Catholic…and yet that is ok.
Who would have said it was ok for a woman not to wear a head covering in Church…well it is ok
Who would have said it was ok to allow altar servers…well…it is allowed.
So why wouldn’t I allude that in the far far future women would be allowed to be priests…
If you like tradition…there is nothing to say that you can’t have it…attend the mass where you have all the bells and smells and the male altar servers…
- Status