CathInfo.com

I met a Novus Ordo woman who was looking into coverting over to the SSPX, her old friend was attempting to covert her. She managed to tell me, that the she loved the mass, she loved the people, she agreed with us on dogma but... she just couldn't see herself having to wear dresses.

And I have yet to see her again.

Quote from: Catholic Samurai

Daegus, just to get a better understanding of things from your point of view, what in your opinion constitutes femininity?

The understanding God writes upon the hearts of each and every female as to what her place is in the natural order of the universe in relation to everything else. This understanding is then put into practice (usually) by the female sex to constitute what is known as 'femininity'.

I was hoping you would go into a little bit more detail, but I can work with that. :)


 So the natural order as it was created is as God willed it. Virtue is a conformity to that order, and vice is a deviation from it. If a person (who outside the faith) is living their life as much as possible in accordance with God's natural laws (weather they know it or not), that person has demonstrated that they are receptive to the natural precepts of God, and they very well may move on to practice of the supernatural.  Now let us take someone who is living in grievous violation of those laws, let's say a lesbian for example. Needless to say they are going against nature itself in their practice. How receptive are they going to be to the supernatural laws when they are warring against what is natural even to the animals?

I've taken this several steps further, but do you see where I'm going with this?


BTW, just to set the record straight, no one recommended marrying someone outside the Church in absence of a good Trad Catholic woman.

Therein lies the problem. You think but you do not know that a woman who is feminine will have an easier time converting to the Truth. What does femininity  in and of itself have anything to do with receptivity to the Truth? Nothing. Nothing at all. If it did you could similarly make the reverse case for masculinity because masculinity, in comparison to femininity, is conducive to the natural order of things (which I'm sure is the foundation upon the reason which you say that feminine women have an easier time converting than do non-feminine women). Being more masculine does not make one receptive to the Truth. If it did, then you could say that some of the most outrageous heresiarchs like Martin Luther and John Calvin were receptive to the truth. You could say that many of the American/Canadian men who died in World War I and II, despite being heretics, were receptive to the truth. You could also, conversely, say the notorious heretic Elizabeth I was receptive to the truth because she was feminine. Wrong. There's simply no solid proof you have, on any considerable scale, that being feminine or masculine somehow mysteriously makes one receptive to the truth.

What is the basis for grace, Daegus? And yes, people in the past, even some heretics cared more about the truth and conforming themselves to it than they do today.

The case that I'm making isn't that feminine women have an easier or harder time converting. Just that there is really no difference at all, and you haven't proven there to be one.

Nature is the basis for grace. While it is no guarantee than a more feminine woman will convert, it is more likely and even easier. Look at what Catholic Samurai said and keep this in mind, a woman who behaves in such a manner will not only bring about God’s judgment, but such a thing is God’s judgment thus making it less likely that such a woman will ever convert as well as making it much more difficult.

Again, this is not proof of anything. There are many women outside of the Church who are perfectly feminine that aren't receptive to the truth of God simply because they don't want to be. It has nothing to do with being feminine.

Because they still need grace. And is not a woman who is feminine more in accord with the truth than one who is not?

Being feminine is the way things are naturally supposed to be. Them being feminine doesn't make them more receptive to truth.

While nature is in a sense is the way things are or should be, you seem to be making nature way too autonomous here.

There's simply no substantial evidence of that, but much evidence to say the contrary.

Look at this another way, why is it that the majority of people who convert to Catholicism are former Protestants and Jews, but not atheists?

During the Protestant reformation, did you know that Martin Luther had many strong leaders that he could have listened to? He had many strong leaders like St. Robert Bellarmine who is now a Doctor of the Church that he could have listened to and yet he did not. The man (Luther) was clearly manly enough to be ordained to the priesthood (and being a priest is one of the manliest things one could possibly do), yet he fell into heresy despite having strong leadership to look up to. If it could happen to a priest, why can't it happen to a feminine woman?

Just a side point, but Bellarmine was only three when Luther died.

If so, most of the Mohammedan women (who are, sadly, more feminine than most western women today) would be predisposed to the truth, which they are not.

That’s partially because they mistakenly associate Christianity with Neo-con liberalism and modern western society and its distorted notion of liberation.