Do you really believe it is appropriate for a woman to be near a man in a holy place?Of course it is. Is not marriage holy? What is unholy about men and women being in close proximity? What is your cultural background, Avraham?
Hello all,Hello,
What is the consensus among traditionalists about segregated seating in church? Although I find that women generally dress modestly at the Tridentine mass, there is still carnal temptation in looking at the face of a woman or hearing a feminine voice. Both of these seem to be working against the sanctity and holiness of the mass. Segregated seating would reduce distraction caused by the opposite sex. I believe men and women were also separated in the temple.
When a woman is in close proximity to a man, she distracts him from everything. A man seeing the face of a woman causes carnal desire which ruins the sanctity of a church.Avraham, why are you looking at women's faces during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Keep your mind focused on the holiness of the Mass rather than on the appearance of women. You need to learn custody of the eyes. You need also to own your own sin and not project it onto the woman.
Hello,I find those images provocative. I did not expect something like this in a traditional forum. Ideally a woman would wear dark dresses, white draws too much attention to a woman's face and is worn by prideful women. Head covering should be mandatory for all women at all times to protect men from lust. Regarding women singing in a choir, the fact that Pope St. Pius X banned the practice should be reason enough to forbid it.
What do you believe is appropriate and modest dress for women in the church?
What would be appropriate and modest dress for women in public places? Should they also cover their hair?
Do you believe that if women sing in the choir then men can be tempted?
Would these two dresses be considered modest in church as well as outside of church?
(https://cdn3.volusion.com/sjkga.jlpum/v/vspfiles/photos/WID4174-1.jpg)
(https://apostolicclothing.com/1504-home_default/iris.jpg)
Maria Regina, the question is unrelated to women's dress, but rather to their very presence.Where did I say that I look at women's faces during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? I said that it is best to prevent such a problem from happening. I try to look down whenever I see a woman, I am tempted to wear a blindfold when I go out in public but it is not practical.
Avraham, why are you looking at women's faces during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Keep your mind focused on the holiness of the Mass rather than on the appearance of women. You need to learn custody of the eyes. You need also to own your own sin and not project it onto the woman.
Go and talk to a priest about your problem.
Again, what is your cultural/religious background?
Do you really believe it is appropriate for a woman to be near a man in a holy place?Do you believe that a man and a woman should be separated when they are being joined in the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony?
§ 1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.
§ 2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circuмstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.
.... I am tempted to wear a blindfold when I go out in public but it is not practical.You really should talk to your priest. I don't think you will solve your problem on a web forum.
Why do I need to tell you about my background? I do not allow women to hold authority over me.
Question for Avraham:I made this thread to understand and examine the views of traditionalists on segregated seating, not for spiritual advice regarding sin. Again, I am not focused on the appearance of others at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, my attention is directed entirely to our Blessed Lord. I simply made the comment about wearing a blindfold to say that I would rather avoid any occasion of lust. It is not something I struggle with at the moment.
Why are you focused on people's appearances rather than the Holy Sacrifice at Mass? You are there for the praise and worship of Almighty God and the Eucharist, not gazing at other people. If you can't avoid that, and being out in public causes temptation for you, then seek a priest.
Physically drive out and consult with a priest, as we are all laymen here.
Sorry.
I made this thread to understand and examine the views of traditionalists on segregated seating, not for spiritual advice regarding sin. Again, I am not focused on the appearance of others at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, my attention is directed entirely to our Blessed Lord. I simply made the comment about wearing a blindfold to say that I would rather avoid any occasion of lust. It is not something I struggle with at the moment.
But there is wisdom in preventing the issue of carnal desire from arising in the first place by segregated seating.
"What are you doing, O man? Are you being overly attentive concerning the women’s beauty, and you do not shudder at thus outraging the temple of God? Does the church seem to you to be a brothel, and less honorable than the marketplace? … It would be better for such men to be blind, for it is better to be diseased than to use the eyes for such purposes.In today's society, it is far worse than in the times of St. John Chrysostom for the women wear underwear in public while the men bump into telephone poles, end up walking into public fountains, or trip and fall into man holes because they are so distracted.
It would be best if you had within yourself the wall to part you from the women. But since you do not desire this to be so, our fathers thought it necessary by these boards to wall you off. I hear from the elders that in the early times there was nothing like these partitions, “for in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female” [Galatians 3:28]. And in the Apostle Paul’s time also both men and women were together, because the men were truly men, and the women were truly women. But now it is altogether to the contrary: the women have urged themselves into the manners of courtesans, and the men are in no better state than frenzied horses. (Homily LXXIII on St. Matthew, NPNF 1:10)"
When a woman is in close proximity to a man, she distracts him from everything. A man seeing the face of a woman causes carnal desire which ruins the sanctity of a church.Wait until you see me. My ugly mug will send you running for the nearest monastery!💩
Even a MODESTLY dressed woman presents a challenge for a man practicing custody of the eyes.
For those with temptations against purity, the battle is won only by minute-to-minute combat, 24/7, 365, forever.
So many delicate souls, whose wills are so weakened that the thinnest temptation causes them to fall, who, coming right out of the confession into the pew, would love just 1-2 weeks respite without serious temptation, as a chance to build virtue (good habits). They look for a seat in the 2nd or 3rd row, where custody of the eyes will be easier, and concentration and devotion better, only at the last minute to have a beautiful young woman sit right in front of them, so that they must look past her to see the altar, stand behind her in Communion line, kneel besire her while receiving the Holy of Holies, and then instead of making a devout thanksgiving, scrupulously wonder if they have successfully combated all the devil's suggestions, and breath a sigh of relief when she leaves.
Most of the young men (and now women!) in the confession lines all over the world are in this sad state, to varying degrees.
But how unnecessary, if we would only heed the advice of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church in this regard!
We are being punished because we do not.
And if by the grace of God, you have for some time conquered (or never struggled with) these sins, what about your children?
The SSPX would never have the guts to be so.....traditional. The femi-trads would be outraged, and the sissified men would not withstand their strident women who wear the pants (literally).
But if men and women took it upon themselves to voluntarily segregate, there would be no issue (and those women who refused the custom would be identifying themselves to the entire chapel as feminists and liberals, which would be a deterrent for others to follow suit. Perhaps manly ushers would even direct her to a proper seat).
What is most interesting to me is that men would be WILLING AND DESIROUS to do this, but the women probably would not (even though the men are just as segregated as the women).
Custody of the senses is so very important as we must watch not only our eyes, but also our sense of smell, taste, touch, and hearing.
For example, wearing fine soft clothing can also lead to sins of lust. Putting on perfume or cologne can wound and weaken not only us but also those around us causing lustful thoughts. Eating fine foods and drinking fine wines can lead to lust. Listening to gossip while in the back of the church or even the distracting play of children in the church can lead first to distraction and then to sinful thoughts, words, and deeds. And then there are the thoughts that can trouble us like buzzing flies. We must be aware of sinful thoughts, especially those which condemn others for wearing that dress or wearing that perfume, or daring to gossip in church.
Yes, going to church can be a temptation in itself, but if we do not go to church to receive Christ in the Eucharist, how can we be saved?
Sean Johnson, you are correct to post this warning.
Our priests need to be strong leaders who can speak with boldness urging us to be kind to one another. Be kind by taking care that we watch how we dress and behave, so that we do not tempt those around us.
The Church agrees:Are the Catholic Coptics (Eastern Catholics), the only ones who separate the men from the women?
1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 1262.1):
"Conformable to ancient discipline, it is desirable that the women be separarted from the men in church."
The SSPX would never have the guts to be so.....traditional. The femi-trads would be outraged, and the sissified men would not withstand their strident women who wear the pants (literally).
But if men and women took it upon themselves to voluntarily segregate, there would be no issue (and those women who refused the custom would be identifying themselves to the entire chapel as feminists and liberals, which would be a deterrent for others to follow suit. Perhaps manly ushers would even direct her to a proper seat).
What is most interesting to me is that men would be WILLING AND DESIROUS to do this, but the women probably would not (even though the men are just as segregated as the women).
Those that need blindfolds should be encouraged to put them on,
and then to go and play in the traffic. Such scrupulosity makes you a serious contender for the Darwin Awards.
Wait until you see me. My ugly mug will send you running for the nearest monastery!💩Reminds me of this story from the Sayings of the Desert Fathers (Apophthegmata Patrum) (https://isidore.co/calibre/#book_id=5090&panel=book_details), which contains many stories related to porneia:
N.52 Somebody recounted: “A brother staying in a coenobion was being sent on coenobion business. There was a devout worldling in a village who used to entertain him as an act of faith whenever he came to the village. The worldling had one daughter recently widowed after living with her husband for two years. As the brother came and went, he was embattled [by temptation] towards her but she, being astute, realised this and took care not to come into his presence. One day, however, her father went into the neighbouring city for some necessity, leaving her alone in the house. Coming as usual, the brother found her alone and said to her: ‘Where is your father?’ ‘He has gone into the city’, she said to him and the brother began to be troubled by the battle, wanting to assault her. She astutely said to him: ‘Do not be troubled, my father will not return for some time; we are [the only] two here. But I know that you monks do not perform anything without prayer, so get up and pray to God and, whatever he puts into your heart, that we shall do.’ He did not want to [pray] for he was being troubled by the battle. She said to him: ‘Have you ever really known a woman?’ ‘No,’ he said to her, ‘but that is why I want to learn what [a woman] is.’ ‘That is the reason you are being troubled,’ she said to him; ‘you are unaware of the stench of wretched women.’ Wishing to cool his passion, she said: ‘I am having my menses; nobody can approach me or even bear to smell me because of the stench.’ Coming to his senses and disgusted on hearing this and other such things from her, he wept. When she saw that he had come to his senses, she said to him: ‘Look, if I had been persuaded by you, we would already have committed the sin. Then, what kind of face would you have put on to confront my father, or to return to your monastery and hear the choir of those holy ones singing? So, I beg you, be wary in future and do not be willing to lose such hard labour as you have accomplished for a little shameful pleasure and be deprived of eternal benefits.’ Having heard these words from her, the suffering brother reported them to me who am recounting [them], giving thanks to God who, through her astuteness and discretion, had not allowed him to fall definitively.”
When a woman is in close proximity to a man, she distracts him from everything. A man seeing the face of a woman causes carnal desire which ruins the sanctity of a church.Seeing an immodestly dressed woman certainly, but a modestly dressed woman? If you mind immediately jumps to sex whenever you see a pretty face, then that sounds like you have your own issues with temptation you need to deal with. I can only imagine what you're like walking around the street in such a case.
Seeing an immodestly dressed woman certainly, but a modestly dressed woman? If you mind immediately jumps to sex whenever you see a pretty face, then that sounds like you have your own issues with temptation you need to deal with. I can only imagine what you're like walking around the street in such a case.
St. Charles Borromeo (Apostle of Trent and Secretary of State):There's a difference between being distracted by a beautiful women and thinking of sex. That's all I was getting at there. If you support gender segregation in Churches because you feel men and women sitting among each other is a distraction for one or the other or both parties, then I have no issue with that view. All I was saying was that if glancing at a woman immediately awakens carnal desires as the other poster suggested, that he has extra issues with temptation beyond the ordinary man's inclination to steal glances.
"The saint insisted on respect and veneration for holy places, to which testify his many decrees regulating behavior in churches. He forbade chattering and walking about, made men sit separately from women, required women to veil their heads and men to wear cloaks, among other things."
http://www.traditionalcatholic.co/st-charles-borromeo-light-of-the-holy-church-titan-of-counter-reformation/
Are you suggesting St. Charles Borromeo had issues?
And thee whole universal Church throughout the ages?
St. Augustine, Pope St. Pius X, and all the rest??
PS: As an aside, an excellent article on St. Charles' authority in post-Tridentine church construction:
http://www.sacredarchitecture.org/articles/charles_borromeo_and_catholic_tradition
I find those images provocative. I did not expect something like this in a traditional forum. Ideally a woman would wear dark dresses, white draws too much attention to a woman's face and is worn by prideful women. Head covering should be mandatory for all women at all times to protect men from lust. Regarding women singing in a choir, the fact that Pope St. Pius X banned the practice should be reason enough to forbid it.
Sean, this is a discussion for another era -- like after the Triumph of the I.H.M. perhaps.
Are you going to segregate by sex in your own basement Resistance chapel? Is that even possible in small Resistance chapels?
At our Resistance chapel (capacity around 70-80) there are full sized pews -- but a single pew takes up almost the whole width of the 20 foot wide chapel (except for some aisle space on each side). How would you divide men/women in such a situation?
See my point?
We're in the catacombs, and here we are talking about a complete non-issue. The barbarians are trying to bash in the main gate and sack our town, and here we are discussing what color we should paint our chapel walls.
I'm sure separate bathrooms are ideal as well -- but so many chapels are tiny, and so you have just a single-capacity "family bathroom" (the kind with a lock on the main door) that both men and women must use.
Normal is for normal times. We are not in normal times.
I look forward to the day when all we have to worry about is, "Should men and women sit on different sides of the chapel once again?" I just hope I live through the Chastisement and WW3 so I'll be able to see that day ;)
Seeing an immodestly dressed woman certainly, but a modestly dressed woman? If you mind immediately jumps to sex whenever you see a pretty face, then that sounds like you have your own issues with temptation you need to deal with. I can only imagine what you're like walking around the street in such a case.This.
Seeing an immodestly dressed woman certainly, but a modestly dressed woman? If you mind immediately jumps to sex whenever you see a pretty face, then that sounds like you have your own issues with temptation you need to deal with. I can only imagine what you're like walking around the street in such a case.
When a woman is in close proximity to a man, she distracts him from everything. A man seeing the face of a woman causes carnal desire which ruins the sanctity of a church.
Three full pages of seasoned Cathinfo posters nipping at the low quality bait of a (((Brand New Forum Member))).Good point.
Oy vey, goyim. We're supposed to be as innocent as doves, not as wise as them.
This.
There's a difference between being attracted to a woman's beauty, and lusting after a woman in a carnal manner, like dogs after a piece of meat.
The name gives it all away. Never met a "Catholic" named Avraham Ben Yehuda and wouldn't trust one, either.You forgot an important detail: "with a tagline written in Hebrew."
You forgot an important detail: "with a tagline written in Hebrew."
If you are checking out modestly dressed young ladies with lust , you are in a state of sin and should not go to Communion unless you go to Confession.
1917 canon 1262 (https://books.google.com/books?id=2XbtF6Y21LUC&pg=PA427):Dom Augustine's commentary on this canon (https://archive.org/stream/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary#page/n2593):
§ I. Conformable to ancient discipline, it is desirable that the women should be separated from the men in church. The very division of the ancient basilica singled out the vestibule for the penitents ; the catechumens were usually admitted to the rear of the nave ; the faithful occupied the side aisles, the men on the right side of the en-trance, the women on the left. Those who were held in special honor by the congregation, as widows and virgins,and those who, on account of age or social position, were entitled to peculiar regard, had their place in the forward end of the aisles or in the transept. The different orders of the clergy were in turn distinguished, the bishop had his seat in the middle of the apsidal circle, while the presbyters were seated on either side of him, but at a lower level,the deacons stood near the altar and the inferior clergy had their place with the choir in the nave." In this country it will, we fear, be difficult to carry out this "desire"of the Church, on account of our custom of family pews.
You forgot an important detail: "with a tagline written in Hebrew."So? Hebrew's a sacred language (nailed to the Holy Cross along with Greek and Latin).
Once a Jew believes that Jesus is the Messiah…then he's no longer a Jew.
So? Hebrew's a sacred language.Yes, but not many Catholics put it in their sig line -- as part of their very identity or profile. Just for starters, most will rightly assume that such a person is Jєωιѕн or Israeli rather than Catholic. No one sees Hebrew letters and assumes "Catholic".
He pointed out that the first three letters of the Hebrew Bible (in Genesis) were the first three letters of the Hebrew word for "Father, Son, Spirit", that the Holy Trinity was in the very beginning of the Bible. I found that fascinating. "BRA" Ben (=Son), Ruach (=Spirit), Av (=Father). B'RASHIT = "In the beginning".Wow, I never knew that.
I only knew of the Trinity references in Gen. 1:26 and Gen. 18:2-3 (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/59576/1787).
1 In principio creavit Deus cælum et terram.
2 Terra autem erat inanis et vacua, et tenebræ erant super faciem abyssi : et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas.
It's largely irrelevant as to whether or not an interesting topic is started by a troll.It is if the troll was actually S.J. himself. Wonder if this post will be deleted as well ?
It is if the troll was actually S.J. himself. Wonder if this post will be deleted as well ?Certainly not out of the question, especially when the screen name is Jewier than Jєωιѕн and almost troll-like,
The insidious Judaizers are considered respected members. This is the case on all the trad Cath forums I've belonged.
I also wonder if Catholic forum administrators knowingly or unknowingly allow Judaizers to flourish on their forums. Probably the latter, as they're often Judaized themselves. I no longer call out Judaizers much anymore because I realize that most people simply don't care, and the ones who do are almost always men, and even then they're a minority. It's easy for me to understand why the Church is in eclipse. In times when Catholics were more Catholic they were very anti-Jєωιѕн. Most trads are Judaized.
Yes Copts and all oriental orthodox have the sexes separately on one side or the other. Having experienced liturgy with the sexes separate, I can say no distraction is more glaring then when some mother has to drag her son/daughter over to the men's side for discipline etc. I swear that men from the front row will instinctively know it is happening and turn around.How embarrassing.
The SSPX would never have the guts to be so.....traditional. The femi-trads would be outraged, and the sissified men would not withstand their strident women who wear the pants (literally)..
The Church agrees:
1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 1262.1):
"Conformable to ancient discipline, it is desirable that the women be separarted from the men in church."
I don't know what your problem is, but CathInfo has approximately 0 "Judaizers". I am well educated in Jєωιѕн perfidy myself and I see Judaizers coming (and other errors: feminism, liberalism, modernism, Puritanism, archaeologism, anti-Trad movement, etc.) from a mile away. They don't last long here.
Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is a "Judaizer" in the rum definition of the word? Normally, it meant Christians who adopted Jєωιѕн practices of the Old Law, like Messianic Jews.Colloquially the meaning has been extended to anyone who spreads Jєωιѕн lies/ideologies, like ecuмenism, zionism, etc.
Colloquially the meaning has been extended to anyone who spreads Jєωιѕн lies/ideologies, like ecuмenism, zionism, etc.Ah, thanks.
I have never heard anyone imply that separating the sexes in church is a good idea, though I know separation of sexes is part of some cultures.The Syro-Malabar Rite/Church does segregation, and I imagine other Eastern Rites/Churches still do this as well.
.
For example, when I worked on an aboriginal mission, the women sat on the floor on one side and the men sat on the floor on the other side. That didn't prevent them seeing each other. It had nothing to do with carnal temptation though. Just a continuation of what is part of the culture.
The Syro-Malabar Rite/Church does segregation, and I imagine other Eastern Rites/Churches still do this as well..
His Hebrew tagline translates to: "Blessed be the Lord Jesus Christ."I would translate it more literally, as "Blessed be the Name of Jesus the King." I'm not sure that it makes much difference in this case.
there is still carnal temptation in looking at the face of a woman or hearing a feminine voice. Both of these seem to be working against the sanctity and holiness of the mass.How is that?
How is that?There are some hardcore Orthodox Jews who believe that hearing a woman's voice is tempting and violates Jєωιѕн law (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Listening_to_Women_Sing).
Only creeps or freaks would be carnally tempted in Church by hearing a feminine voice.
Seriously? Get realistic.
Church segregation would be weird.
There are some hardcore Orthodox Jews who believe that hearing a woman's voice is tempting and violates Jєωιѕн law (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Listening_to_Women_Sing).Yes, this is why they put their women behind a wall in the ѕуηαgσgυє, not just separate sides of the seating.
Yes, this is why they put their women behind a wall in the ѕуηαgσgυє, not just separate sides of the seating.Hardcore Orthodox Jews also advise men to check on their sons multiple times a night to wake the boy up in case he has a nocturnal emission. Can you imagine how neurotic those boys mustbe by the time they are adults? Before we imitate another cultures ways we should understand what they are. Have anyone ever noticed how rude ultra Orthodox men are to gentile women? They scowl, speak curtly and toss change rather than place it in a customer's hand. I don't want Catholics imitating that.
There are some hardcore Orthodox Jews who believe that hearing a woman's voice is tempting and violates Jєωιѕн law (http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Listening_to_Women_Sing).The SSPX forbids female soloists in the Catholic liturgy. (I'm not sure if this is something specific to SSPX or if it is/was a liturgical law.)
The SSPX forbids female soloists in the Catholic liturgy. (I'm not sure if this is something specific to SSPX or if it is/was a liturgical law.)What? that's kind of crazy.
What? that's kind of crazy.
Do you know why they do this?
“Women should not be part of a choir; they belong to the ranks of the laity. Separate women's choirs too are totally forbidden, except for serious reasons and with permission of the bishop”
(Sacred Congregation for Liturgy, decree 22 Nov. 1907).
“Any mixed choir of men and women, even if they stand far from the sanctuary, is totally forbidden”
(Sacred Congregation for Liturgy, decree 18 Dec. 1908).
Pius X re-emphasized this prohibition on the ground that women were not permitted to fulfil any liturgical function (Motu proprio ‘De musica sacra’, 1903).