The real St. Francis of Assisi
#61
(01-30-2012, 10:04 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: Who stood by Our Lord's side during the passion? Oh yeah--women did, because they were loyal and compassionate instead of being scandalized by what looked (to the apostles) like He had lost the battle.

At the risk of going off on a tangent, I cannot let this ridiculous statement stand, because it is repeated ad nauseum by women. There were a simple reason why most of the men scattered and the women were at the cross. The men were known to be His disciples, taught and trained by Him. As such they would have been considered almost equally dangerous as Jesus Himself as possible leaders of an anti-Roman revolt. That put them at the same risk of crucifixion. The women, being women, were in no such danger. John was probably considered equally safe and non-threatening by virtue of still being a young man (probably in his late teens or very early twenties) at the time.
Reply
#62
[img][/img]
Reply
#63
(01-30-2012, 11:05 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 10:49 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 09:29 PM)JayneK Wrote: A question for everybody:  How do you think of Franciscan spirituality?

I think of it as a very simple form of spirituality but, not in a bad way. One that seeks to follow Christs life and teachings as closely as possible even to the extent of "preaching the gospel to all creatures" thats why we have the stories of St Francis and the animals. Also it seems to me to be very humble but not weak like many want us to believe now days. I just see it as living a good Catholic life while paying attention to all Gods creatures. I think the quote " Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words" sums it all up nicely.

It's clear you have given this some thought.  I think you are right on about humility being very misunderstood.
  Yeah, thank you. Yes I have thought this out a lot. It took me a long time to reconcile real Franciscan spirituality from the modern St Francis as Al Gore spirituality.
Reply
#64
(01-31-2012, 01:09 AM)Ineffable1 Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 10:04 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: Who stood by Our Lord's side during the passion? Oh yeah--women did, because they were loyal and compassionate instead of being scandalized by what looked (to the apostles) like He had lost the battle.

At the risk of going off on a tangent, I cannot let this ridiculous statement stand, because it is repeated ad nauseum by women. There were a simple reason why most of the men scattered and the women were at the cross. The men were known to be His disciples, taught and trained by Him. As such they would have been considered almost equally dangerous as Jesus Himself as possible leaders of an anti-Roman revolt. That put them at the same risk of crucifixion. The women, being women, were in no such danger. John was probably considered equally safe and non-threatening by virtue of still being a young man (probably in his late teens or very early twenties) at the time.

Now now don't let facts get in the way of a favorite sacred cow of the Catholic feminists.
Reply
#65
(01-30-2012, 11:02 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 10:43 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: Yep it was the Book by st Bonaventure that helped me too. Speaking about being a precursor to the protestants I remember seeing one movie about him (I cant remember which) but he was giving some big spiel about how the Mass and stuff should be in "the language of the people".

I don't think there are any movies about St. Francis that get things right.  

Neither do I there was one made in 1962 called Francis of Assisi that isnt bad and one made a few years back called Clare and Francis that actually shows him going to the middle east to convert the muslims. Those two weren't too bad.
Reply
#66
(01-31-2012, 01:37 AM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote:
(01-31-2012, 01:09 AM)Ineffable1 Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 10:04 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: Who stood by Our Lord's side during the passion? Oh yeah--women did, because they were loyal and compassionate instead of being scandalized by what looked (to the apostles) like He had lost the battle.

At the risk of going off on a tangent, I cannot let this ridiculous statement stand, because it is repeated ad nauseum by women. There were a simple reason why most of the men scattered and the women were at the cross. The men were known to be His disciples, taught and trained by Him. As such they would have been considered almost equally dangerous as Jesus Himself as possible leaders of an anti-Roman revolt. That put them at the same risk of crucifixion. The women, being women, were in no such danger. John was probably considered equally safe and non-threatening by virtue of still being a young man (probably in his late teens or very early twenties) at the time.

Now now don't let facts get in the way of a favorite sacred cow of the Catholic feminists.

Uh, a very traditional priest I've known my whole life has always talked about this incident exactly how I just described it. And even if it's true that the apostles scattered because they were afraid of being killed, they still failed to at least try to defend Our Lord. And I seriously doubt St. John was exempt for the reason you mention because he would have been just as well known as the others and it isn't as though he was a child.

And Dutchman, how dare you call me a feminist?
Reply
#67
(01-31-2012, 01:43 AM)Iolanthe Wrote:
(01-31-2012, 01:37 AM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote:
(01-31-2012, 01:09 AM)Ineffable1 Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 10:04 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: Who stood by Our Lord's side during the passion? Oh yeah--women did, because they were loyal and compassionate instead of being scandalized by what looked (to the apostles) like He had lost the battle.

At the risk of going off on a tangent, I cannot let this ridiculous statement stand, because it is repeated ad nauseum by women. There were a simple reason why most of the men scattered and the women were at the cross. The men were known to be His disciples, taught and trained by Him. As such they would have been considered almost equally dangerous as Jesus Himself as possible leaders of an anti-Roman revolt. That put them at the same risk of crucifixion. The women, being women, were in no such danger. John was probably considered equally safe and non-threatening by virtue of still being a young man (probably in his late teens or very early twenties) at the time.

Now now don't let facts get in the way of a favorite sacred cow of the Catholic feminists.

Uh, a very traditional priest I've known my whole life has always talked about this incident exactly how I just described it. And even if it's true that the apostles scattered because they were afraid of being killed, they still failed to at least try to defend Our Lord. And I seriously doubt St. John was exempt for the reason you mention because he would have been just as well known as the others and it isn't as though he was a child.

And Dutchman, how dare you call me a feminist?

I didn't mean you were a feminist I just meant that feminists DO use it not that you are one though. Heck i dont even know you. But as to defending our Lord Peter tried to and was rebuked. I do agree in that I dont think St John was exempt, which however throws this entire argument of it was "only women" in the trash.
Reply
#68
(01-31-2012, 01:53 AM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: I didn't mean you were a feminist I just meant that feminists DO use it not that you are one though. Heck i dont even know you. But as to defending our Lord Peter tried to and was rebuked. I do agree in that I dont think St John was exempt, which however throws this entire argument of it was "only women" in the trash.

The word feminist gets thrown around a lot by men who dislike something and can't think of a good reason why. I'm not saying you did this. It's obviously NOT a feminist idea but as soon that word gets used everyone's brains turn off and ineffeble1 (nice name  :eyeroll:) doesn't have to defend his point.
Reply
#69
(01-30-2012, 06:00 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(01-30-2012, 05:57 PM)Adam Wayne Wrote: There you go, henpecking on Michael again.

Look at that video again and tell me it's not an insult to the feminine.

And I don't appreciate your henpecking remark.

Greetings,

He's blasting feminism. Not the feminine.

Blessings,

TraditionalistThomas.
Reply
#70
(01-31-2012, 02:05 AM)Iolanthe Wrote:
(01-31-2012, 01:53 AM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: I didn't mean you were a feminist I just meant that feminists DO use it not that you are one though. Heck i dont even know you. But as to defending our Lord Peter tried to and was rebuked. I do agree in that I dont think St John was exempt, which however throws this entire argument of it was "only women" in the trash.

The word feminist gets thrown around a lot by men who dislike something and can't think of a good reason why. I'm not saying you did this. It's obviously NOT a feminist idea but as soon that word gets used everyone's brains turn off and ineffeble1 (nice name  :eyeroll:) doesn't have to defend his point.

Oh I see well I do apologize if you took it to mean that I thought you were a feminist. But I did point out why I think that idea is wrong. Peter trying to help Jesus with the sword but being rebuked and then the fact that St John was also at the cross. I have also heard this argument used to justify women Priests and the notion that Jesus and John were gay.  :puke:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)