if male priests all fail, should we try women priests?
#21
(05-20-2018, 12:56 AM)greatdame Wrote: Oh my!  Here we go!  The battle of the sexes! Get out the popcorn and enjoy the entertaining battle!  Deep breath.  I really like Dr. Marian Horvat's CD on women in the Middle Ages and a book she co-authored called Courtesy Calls Again.  Women took a strong role as Abbesses, nurses, writers, in the Middle Ages because the celibate life was seen by Jesus Christ and The true Roman Catholic Church as superior to the married vocation.  Of course all the vocations are important, however, ancient Roman Empire women were less than slaves. The Church truly freed women,and they had another option from that of wife-they could be nuns, or even single celibate laypeople.The nuns were the "career girls" of their day.  One of the most amazing books ever written and read from every evening by St. Pope Pius X was written by an amazing woman.  It is called The Mystical City of God by Venerable Mary de Agreda, an Abbess.  She was ordered by her superior to write it, or her modesty would never have permitted her to write it.  Women's brains work differently than mens-  we integrate many subjects at once while men tend to compartmentalize.  This is a good thing, as men as warrior protectors need to be single minded to grab the wife out of the burning building before she grabs too much stuff to which she is attached. Women need to be aware of where all the children are and grab the kettle and purse if the castle needs to be abandoned immediately!  Anyways. each have their special talents.   Our society is so warped that it really helps to go back to an earlier age to see healthy ways than men and women interact with each other. Respect is all important.

well, someone needs to do something! I mean when you basically say that women are born witches!

I was something like 15 yrs old b4 I even knew what a witch is or does (the real ones, not the fairy tale ones. I always thought witches were nothing but a fairy tale)
Reply
#22
(05-20-2018, 03:39 AM)Dominicus Wrote:
(05-19-2018, 02:19 PM)gracemary5 Wrote: It looks like men have failed the Church miserably

I don't think we should have female priests. There is actually no such thing. But I sometimes wonder if women will be the ones, nonetheless, who save the Church..

long story why I say that..

I went to a communion service once, disappointed that the priest would not be there, but a woman did the readings and... I actually got somewhere, spiritually, from that service... I mean, it was like I was ... (can't think of the best words here.. or any words...) but I'll just say that it was like I was stuck in the mud or something and there was something about that communion service that got me out of the mud---

total mystery so I don't know what the heck happened.. but interesting just the same

and here is another thing that's good about women: they are rejected by the Catholic-Church-hating secret societies.. so we already know they don't belong to such Satanic organization

There is not, never has been, and never will be a female deacon, priest, bishop, or pope. It's impossible.

What exactly is a "communion service"? sounds like some sort of sacrilege to me.

if done right, there is nothing sacreligious about it. It is what is done when there can't be a Mass bc the priest is gone or whatever. Scripture is read and already-consecrated Hosts are distributed. I am suprirsed you don't know that, but then.. there is much I myself do not yet know about the Church. It has been around over 2000 yrs so I guess ignorance is to be expected.

btw: one should never allow their children or anyone else to be ignorant of this fact: that Christ founded ONE Church and that is the Catholic Church (Roman Catholic) and we should all be telling people about the Real Presence, which is the only thing that kept me a true Christian all those yrs when i was... ignorant ... etc... etc...
Reply
#23
(05-22-2018, 02:41 PM)gracemary5 Wrote: well, someone needs to do something! I mean when you basically say that women are born witches!

I was something like 15 yrs old b4 I even knew what a witch is or does (the real ones, not the fairy tale ones. I always thought witches were nothing but a fairy tale)


A witch is simply a woman who seeks preternatural favors with no concern about striving to be a in a state of grace.

The actual quote from my post is, "Women born in original sin have the taint of suspicion about them of witchcraft and superstition."

Reading comprehension being what it is, there is no possible way logically to interpret the meaning "women are born witches" from what I wrote.

The only reason that I'm writing this to you is so that you can be aware that to judge someone rashly or harshly in a grave matter is a grave sin.  Done with full knowledge and consent of the will it is a mortal sin.
Reply
#24
(05-20-2018, 11:17 AM)Paul Wrote:
(05-20-2018, 03:39 AM)Dominicus Wrote: What exactly is a "communion service"? sounds like some sort of sacrilege to me.

It's the readings of the day followed by distribution of Communion. Basically Mass without the Offertory and Canon.

While Pius X is a saint, encouraging daily Communion is one of the things I think he got wrong. Maybe it seemed good then, when people knew the faith, but now, people feel they have to receive every time they go to Mass, or even every day, so we have these Communion services, and people worried they might not be able to receive this Sunday because they can't make it to Confession. It's good that they're worried about their souls, but, to me, the safer course seems to be assuming that might be grave matter is, refraining from receiving, and confessing at the next opportunity, instead of following most Catholics' advice that it's no big deal, to make an act of perfect contrition (which you can't know if you've done), and receive anyway. Not what the Pope intended, but that's the result.

Well, the other alternative is to have people hardly ever receive Holy Communion, come to Mass only to leave directly after the Elevation, and feel scrupulous and unworthy to receive Holy Communion (aka medieval times). The problem is the lack of proper catechesis in our highly secularized, Modernist world. It's causation vs correlation. 

Plus, a lot of the things trads talk about aren't as widespread as they seem. In the dioceses I've lived in (Spokane, Baker) if there are no priests available then there's just no Mass that day; there is no Communion service as a replacement. Communion services existed before Vatican II as well, at least there are rubrics for it in the Roman Ritual.

Anyways, the point is that Pope St. Pius X in encouraging receiving the Sacraments frequently is not the cause of indifference to the Eucharist.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06278a.htm
Corpus Christi, salva me.

Check out my new blog: A Young Popish American
Reply
#25
(05-22-2018, 05:29 PM)LaudeturIesus Wrote: Plus, a lot of the things trads talk about aren't as widespread as they seem. In the dioceses I've lived in (Spokane, Baker) if there are no priests available then there's just no Mass that day; there is no Communion service as a replacement. Communion services existed before Vatican II as well, at least there are rubrics for it in the Roman Ritual.

Nor in Lincoln. In fact, I don't think I've ever actually seen a 'communion service' listed in a Church bulletin. Of course, I've also never lived in a mission area where the Priest only comes to celebrate Mass every few months.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#26
(05-22-2018, 05:29 PM)LaudeturIesus Wrote: Well, the other alternative is to have people hardly ever receive Holy Communion, come to Mass only to leave directly after the Elevation, and feel scrupulous and unworthy to receive Holy Communion (aka medieval times). The problem is the lack of proper catechesis in our highly secularized, Modernist world. It's causation vs correlation.

'Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur anima mea.' We're supposed to feel a bit unworthy. And 1900 is mediaeval? I'd say it's much better to feel unworthy and not receive, than to have people think it's okay to receive no matter what. Maybe Catholics just don't commit mortal sin anymore, but when Confession lasts an hour a week, if that, and hardly anyone shows up, but everyone goes up for Communion...

I'm not saying St Pius X is responsible for the mess we're in, but plenty of actions have unintended consequences, ones that are only apparent much later. Just look at how many Catholics insist they have to receive both species, as though they aren't fully receiving our Lord unless they do so. And there's a direct line from his abolition of the traditional Psalter to the endless tinkering with the liturgy that's gone on since.

Better catechesis would help. But maybe the older practice also helped people realise just how important Communion is. And even in the 1962 Missal, the people receiving Communion is barely in the Missal: "Et, sinistra supponens patenam calici, reverentersumit totum Sanguinem cum particula. Quosumpto, si qui sunt communicandi, eos communicet, antequam se purificet. Postea dicit: Quod ore súmpsimus..."

Ideally, daily Communion is a good thing, but time and time again, our sinfulness and laziness comes through. The hope with lifting Friday abstinence was that Catholics would voluntarily do penance - instead, most do nothing.
[-] The following 2 users Like Paul's post:
  • gracemary5, jovan66102
Reply
#27
(05-22-2018, 05:29 PM)LaudeturIesus Wrote: Anyways, the point is that Pope St. Pius X in encouraging receiving the Sacraments frequently is not the cause of indifference to the Eucharist.

I think one could argue it is an "occasional" cause. An "occasional" cause is in the line of efficient causality, but it's not actually the direct cause. It is an occasion which allows the efficient cause to act in this particular way.

My friend having walked out of his house is the occasion for me hitting him in the face with a snowball, and without his exit at that moment, his face would be warmer, but no one can say he caused himself to be hit in the face by the snowball.


In this way, St. Pius X promoting frequent communion provides the occasion for those who abuse communion to do so more frequently, and those who make "routine" their communions (thus lacking in devotion) to fall into an indifferent attitude.
Reply
#28
(05-22-2018, 03:30 PM)yablabo Wrote:
(05-22-2018, 02:41 PM)gracemary5 Wrote: well, someone needs to do something! I mean when you basically say that women are born witches!

I was something like 15 yrs old b4 I even knew what a witch is or does (the real ones, not the fairy tale ones. I always thought witches were nothing but a fairy tale)


A witch is simply a woman who seeks preternatural favors with no concern about striving to be a in a state of grace.

The actual quote from my post is, "Women born in original sin have the taint of suspicion about them of witchcraft and superstition."

Reading comprehension being what it is, there is no possible way logically to interpret the meaning "women are born witches" from what I wrote.

The only reason that I'm writing this to you is so that you can be aware that to judge someone rashly or harshly in a grave matter is a grave sin.  Done with full knowledge and consent of the will it is a mortal sin.

oh brother. That last couple sentences is rich indeed.

women born in original sin?

that would be ALL women save our Lady.. so yeh, you did essentially say that all women are born witches or potential witches. Maybe you ought to be a little more careful with word choice
Reply
#29
(05-23-2018, 01:19 AM)Paul Wrote:
(05-22-2018, 05:29 PM)LaudeturIesus Wrote: Well, the other alternative is to have people hardly ever receive Holy Communion, come to Mass only to leave directly after the Elevation, and feel scrupulous and unworthy to receive Holy Communion (aka medieval times). The problem is the lack of proper catechesis in our highly secularized, Modernist world. It's causation vs correlation.

'Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur anima mea.' We're supposed to feel a bit unworthy. And 1900 is mediaeval? I'd say it's much better to feel unworthy and not receive, than to have people think it's okay to receive no matter what. Maybe Catholics just don't commit mortal sin anymore, but when Confession lasts an hour a week, if that, and hardly anyone shows up, but everyone goes up for Communion...

I'm not saying St Pius X is responsible for the mess we're in, but plenty of actions have unintended consequences, ones that are only apparent much later. Just look at how many Catholics insist they have to receive both species, as though they aren't fully receiving our Lord unless they do so. And there's a direct line from his abolition of the traditional Psalter to the endless tinkering with the liturgy that's gone on since.

Better catechesis would help. But maybe the older practice also helped people realise just how important Communion is. And even in the 1962 Missal, the people receiving Communion is barely in the Missal: "Et, sinistra supponens patenam calici, reverentersumit totum Sanguinem cum particula. Quosumpto, si qui sunt communicandi, eos communicet, antequam se purificet. Postea dicit: Quod ore súmpsimus..."

Ideally, daily Communion is a good thing, but time and time again, our sinfulness and laziness comes through. The hope with lifting Friday abstinence was that Catholics would voluntarily do penance - instead, most do nothing.

I totally agree. and that is one thing I tend to dislike RE Pius X, that he advocated more frequent Communion.. People take Communion for granted and worse, as you say, they all go for Communion but very few to confession
Reply
#30
The problem isn't recommending frequent communion. The Eucharist should be received as often as possible unless a spiritual director says otherwise. Obviously excluding multiple receptions on the same day, non-Catholics, and persons in mortal sin.

The problem is that nobody bothers to mention things like sin.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dominicus's post:
  • LaudeturIesus
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)