Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: love alabama on August 15, 2011, 12:08:03 PM
-
I found this posted on FE
====================================================
Is it just me or is it true that there seems to be a group among the SSPX that hold that women should only wear skirts, that little boys should not play with girls, a general trend towards Amishness in behavior such as desiring to go back to the land etc, an insistence on large families etc, shunning the world inordinately ?
-
...Sez the worldly Catholic.
I wouldn't worry about it.
-
He/she sure mixed a bunch of largely unrelated things together in one thought there. :facepalm:
-
FishEaters is not Catholic. Never visit their forums with the impression that Catholics are posting there. That's false.
-
I found this posted on FE
====================================================
Is it just me or is it true that there seems to be a group among the SSPX that hold that women should only wear skirts, that little boys should not play with girls, a general trend towards Amishness in behavior such as desiring to go back to the land etc, an insistence on large families etc, shunning the world inordinately ?
This idea of keeping little girls and boys from playing with eachother is so un-natural and I do see this problem in parts of SSPX.
I once heard that in a particular minor seminary the Priest in charge wanted to keep the young boys from having anything to do with girls coming to the Chapel there for Mass.
That makes me sick to think how warped this thinking is.
I can understand that in high school, boys and girls need to be kept separate as they are a distraction to eachother in their teenage years and will learn better when separated.
Though to keep little boys and girls apart just show to me how far removed from nature some of these people have become.
I know a few men who have left the seminary and the ones I know seem to have real issues relating to the opposite sex.
What do they teach them in there? Do they get taught that its a sin to look at a woman and to talk to her is even worse?
I really cannot stand absolute prudes!
-
I found this posted on FE
====================================================
Is it just me or is it true that there seems to be a group among the SSPX that hold that women should only wear skirts, that little boys should not play with girls, a general trend towards Amishness in behavior such as desiring to go back to the land etc, an insistence on large families etc, shunning the world inordinately ?
This idea of keeping little girls and boys from playing with eachother is so un-natural and I do see this problem in parts of SSPX.
I once heard that in a particular minor seminary the Priest in charge wanted to keep the young boys from having anything to do with girls coming to the Chapel there for Mass.
That makes me sick to think how warped this thinking is.
I can understand that in high school, boys and girls need to be kept separate as they are a distraction to eachother in their teenage years and will learn better when separated.
Though to keep little boys and girls apart just show to me how far removed from nature some of these people have become.
I know a few men who have left the seminary and the ones I know seem to have real issues relating to the opposite sex.
What do they teach them in there? Do they get taught that its a sin to look at a woman and to talk to her is even worse?
I really cannot stand absolute prudes!
Firstly comparing us to Amish is retarded. Women should wear skirts, we should have as many kids as God wants etc. Except for this comment about keeping little boys and girls from playing together...
uh around here I can state for a fact that is not the case. At our School Our Lady of Mount Carmel it is co-ed up until High School when they are seperated. The Girls go to get taught by the Nuns.
I was just over there Sunday, a new Priest said his first mass ever there and they had a giant pig roast. It was yummy. And I remember all the little kids boys and girls running around playing with each other, especially when it rained and they all went out to get soaked in the rain. Apparently kids enjoy running around in the rain lol.
Hope this helps.
-
Sometimes people post some weird things.
-
Firstly comparing us to Amish is retarded. Women should wear skirts, we should have as many kids as God wants etc. Except for this comment about keeping little boys and girls from playing together...
At my parochial grade school the boys and girls play areas were integrated up to grade two, then separated until grades 7 and 8. Of course it was outrageous the sorts of things that went on in the hardly supervised recess area for the 7th and 8th graders.
From what I recall from developmental psychology boys and girls typically don't want to play together. We did chase girls on the playground in second grade - we were finally given a "talk" about how we were too young to be interested in girls . . .
This person is creating a straw man in saying that "amish" types don't want boys and girls to play together. The important thing is to guard innocence and prevent serious misbehavior by proper supervision while allowing for proper interaction of the sexes.
The SSPX priests will tell young women to ignore a man who says hello to them at church - this after having already met. This is more about control though than it is about protecting innocence. There are some very sick control freaks - and the confessional is their way to manipulate and feel powerful.
-
From what I recall from developmental psychology boys and girls typically don't want to play together. We did chase girls on the playground in second grade - we were finally given a "talk" about how we were too young to be interested in girls . . .
Yes at certain ages boys and girls do think of eachother as "yuck".
I think it is rediculous and totally prudish to have to be given a talk about being too young to be interested in girls. This can be totally innocent and doesn't mean that you are interested in them
This "stait jacket" mentality is not healthy or normal.
This person is creating a straw man in saying that "amish" types don't want boys and girls to play together. The important thing is to guard innocence and prevent serious misbehavior by proper supervision while allowing for proper interaction of the sexes.
Of course it is important to guard innocence though children at a young age, if their minds have not already been perverted and corrupted already, do not need to be separated like sheep and goats to prevent them getting up to no good. A little suppervision can do that.
There is no balance in this. On one end of the scale we have public schools handing out bananas and condoms and other the other we have those in Taditional schools shaking in their boots because they think the girls and boys may look at eachother.
As I said this is not healthy or normal. What we need it a balance and moderation for healthy balanced Catholic children.
The SSPX priests will tell young women to ignore a man who says hello to them at church - this after having already met. This is more about control though than it is about protecting innocence. There are some very sick control freaks - and the confessional is their way to manipulate and feel powerful.
Yes you may have had a bad experience Tele though this does not mean all SSPX Priests are like this.
I think its time that you build and bridge and get over your bad experience and realise there is more to life than bearing grudges. There is a whole world out there and more than just that one Priest.
-
does not mean all SSPX Priests are like this.
There were several priests there and the same policy was imposed. And I was told they have a "praxis" that reinforces that behavior. You yourself said you saw the problem was general.
Whether it's a personal grudge or not doesn't change that it's an injustice committed by priests who have a twisted sense of Catholic morality - and it must be rectified.
-
The important thing is to guard innocence and prevent serious misbehavior by proper supervision while allowing for proper interaction of the sexes.
This is exactly it. The only time I've seen segregation in SSPX is at school when the children are there to concentrate on school not flirtation. Otherwise there may be a few parents that go too far the other way until they learn but it's not the norm to segregate the children in regular social settings and the priests I've heard speak on it focus on supervision. If they're preaching against it, it's usually in the context of UNsupervised parties or gatherings.
I really hate these kinds of posts. As if non-trad women are all fashionable compared to trad women (yeah that's how we got People of WalMart :rolleyes:) or non-trad men and women are sooooo smooth and debonair and charming with the other sex (worthy of another :rolleyes: for the endless rules and mind games they have to play to keep up that facade just to fail miserably) and trads have a supposedly unique set of problems that NO one else in history has ever had :rolleyes:. You only need half a brain to realize these are challenges common to all in some way, shape or form, but apparently that's too much to ask of some people.
(I'm a little grouchy at this moment, I'm sure that's coming across, I'm sorry. I probably shouldn't be reading stuff that I know will irritate me further.)
-
I think it is rediculous and totally prudish to have to be given a talk about being too young to be interested in girls. This can be totally innocent and doesn't mean that you are interested in them
This "stait jacket" mentality is not healthy or normal.
I don't think so. Dirty talk among children is not correct, nor is chasing girls correct behavior for young boys. It should be corrected, even if relatively benign.
Coeducation is generally bad, at puberty it's criminal, but men and women have different objectives for their education, their education should not be integrated except in exceptional cases.
-
The important thing is to guard innocence and prevent serious misbehavior by proper supervision while allowing for proper interaction of the sexes.
This is exactly it. The only time I've seen segregation in SSPX is at school when the children are there to concentrate on school not flirtation. Otherwise there may be a few parents that go too far the other way until they learn but it's not the norm to segregate the children in regular social settings and the priests I've heard speak on it focus on supervision. If they're preaching against it, it's usually in the context of UNsupervised parties or gatherings.
I really hate these kinds of posts. As if non-trad women are all fashionable compared to trad women (yeah that's how we got People of WalMart :rolleyes:) or non-trad men and women are sooooo smooth and debonair and charming with the other sex (worthy of another :rolleyes: for the endless rules and mind games they have to play to keep up that facade just to fail miserably) and trads have a supposedly unique set of problems that NO one else in history has ever had :rolleyes:. You only need half a brain to realize these are challenges common to all in some way, shape or form, but apparently that's too much to ask of some people.
(I'm a little grouchy at this moment, I'm sure that's coming across, I'm sorry. I probably shouldn't be reading stuff that I know will irritate me further.)
These women complaining about "Amish" dress no doubt feel guilty for wearing immodest jeans, shorts, etc.
The girls at my chapel were usually dressed in a very charming manner - perhaps a bit eccentric sometimes, but I'd much prefer eccentricity to the trash fashions.
-
I don't think so. Dirty talk among children is not correct, nor is chasing girls correct behavior for young boys. It should be corrected, even if relatively benign.
What dirty talk and what do you mean when you say dirty?
Tell me what dirty things you have heard Catholic children saying.
If you think that chasing girls is wrong then I think you have a problem with prudishness. Could you tell me what about it is wrong? By the way I'm talking about in the playground and not in the class room.
I've seen girls and boys chase eachother plenty of times at Church and its perfectly innocent childish behaviour.
-
Tele it seems that when if comes to chasing girls yourself, that you are not so fond of going through the right channels, i.e. the father, though when it comes to understanding the behaviour of children, you are a prude.
Can you see what I am saying? On one hand you don't take seriously enough the proper rules of Catholic dating and coutship and on the other you are over proper and prudish with the behaviour of children.
I may be wrong though to me there is a little inconsistency here.
-
What dirty talk and what do you mean when you say dirty?
The kind of talk after a 4th grade sex education class? I'm not going to spell it out for you.
Tell me what dirty things you have heard Catholic children saying.
Oh give me a break - this was a novus ordo school. The talk was filthy from about 5th grade on - rap music by Ton Loc being played on a parents radio during school outings - and I noticed younger and younger children talking that way - I noticed that the corruption was getting worse at younger ages even as a student.
If you think that chasing girls is wrong then I think you have a problem with prudishness. Could you tell me what about it is wrong? By the way I'm talking about in the playground and not in the class room.
Not a game of tag. Chasing with the idea of a male chasing down a girl.
I've seen girls and boys chase eachother plenty of times at Church and its perfectly innocent childish behaviour.
I'm sure it can be, but not always.
Children can do some pretty bad things - limits need to be set. That's not prudery. Catholic teachings are never prudery. It's possible for precocious children to commit such sins - and steps should be taken to ensure it doesn't happen. It's not just "playing doctor"
-
that you are not so fond of going through the right channels, i.e. the father
I'm not fond of being told the father makes the decision. Because he doesn't. I'm perfectly willing to talk to a father, and I did. But I'm not going to be told a lunatic father has the right to dictate to me whether or not I can speak to his daughter, because he doesn't. Someday he will realize that, but it will be too late for him.
though when it comes to understanding the behaviour of children, you are a prude.
Because I think chasing girls could be bad, it's not always innocent? Are you in Europe? Europeans love to get on their high horse about American prudery, but their culture is debauched.
Can you see what I am saying? On one hand you don't take seriously enough the proper rules of Catholic dating and coutship and on the other you are over proper and prudish with the behaviour of children.
Oh give me a break.
I may be wrong though to me there is a little inconsistency here.
There's no inconsistency.
-
Speaking of 4th grade sex education.. I was in 4th grade almost 8 years ago and by then I was already being scandalized in my "Catholic" school. They were showing us videos of cartoon people having sex in the name of "sex education". Absolutely ridiculous.
Instead of teaching children the Catholic faith they're teaching children what it looks like for a *censored*. Ridiculous.
Moderator: Daegus -- we get the idea.
-
Speaking of 4th grade sex education.. I was in 4th grade almost 8 years ago and by then I was already being scandalized in my "Catholic" school. They were showing us videos of cartoon people having sex in the name of "sex education". Absolutely ridiculous.
Instead of teaching children the Catholic faith they're teaching children what it looks like for a #### to enter a ####. Ridiculous.
Ours wasn't nearly so bad but it was nevertheless conducive of evils.
-
I remember sex education, and they don't just teach about regular sex or "how babies are made," but about all the other kinds of sex forbidden by the Catholic Church. I didn't hear anything about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in my day, though.
I know first-hand that sex education teachers from secular schools would be called to give talks at "Catholic" schools, and that they would be lavishly praised there. I would gather, considering the devil has centered his attack there, that the "Catholic" schools are worse than the pagan schools. Even the Catholic schoolgirl outfits are so perverted these days, skirt way above the knees, high socks, pure Lolita-ism. And the heart of darkness is Novus Ordo female volleyball. I still cannot believe the way these girls dress and that this is all sponsored by the "church."
-
A thought just hit me -- real Catholic schoolgirl outfits of today are indistinguishable from the costume Catholic schoolgirl outfits sold to perverts at sex shops. Obviously a costume shop wouldn't sell perverts long dresses and baggy blouses.
Something tells me this wasn't a coincidence. But I guess parents don't care as long as their daughters look "cute," they'd rather have their daughters drooled over than have them be considered homely. What ignominy it would be to have a daughter who isn't attractive!
-
I am not an expert, but I don't think actual Amish prevent boys and girls from playing together as young children.
-
What was this thread about again? Sorry, I'll try to bring it back on track. Yeah, the SSPX may go too far in their Amishness, but of course the culture is depraved and the Nous Ordo schools are part of that depraved culture. Here is a picture of the girls from my local Novus Ordo church. Look at the skirts. Each one is carefully trimmed to be above the knees. It's obvious that it is deliberate.
(http://www.tbrnews.com/content/articles/2011/07/14/manhattan_beach_news/news07.jpg)
I'm sorry, but wearing pants is better than that. These girls look like they're ready for a night on the town, not for a day in school. This is so sick, it enrages me. Like the people who made the dress code this way don't know what happens? If these girls are playing sports, or doing any activities, if there is a mild wind, they will be giving everyone an eyeful. Every time they sit down, the skirts will ride up. This is just unbelievable to me that an entire community can do this to their children and no one says anything. These are girls that are hitting puberty too, not just little children.
-
What ignominy it would be to have a daughter who isn't attractive!
What's sad is the viciousness with which chapel gossips treat the homely families.
-
The kind of talk after a 4th grade sex education class? I'm not going to spell it out for you.
Tele why are you talking about novus ordo and/or state schools? I'm well aware of the state of the "education" programming that goes on there. Thats why I was homeschooled. As far as I can see this thread was about Trad schools keeping boys and girls apart and hence I don't see that this sort of perverted sɛҳuąƖisation should be a problem hopefully.
Oh give me a break - this was a novus ordo school. The talk was filthy from about 5th grade on - rap music by Ton Loc being played on a parents radio during school outings - and I noticed younger and younger children talking that way - I noticed that the corruption was getting worse at younger ages even as a student.
As I said above, why are you talking about novus ordo schools when the thread is on SSPX?
If you get novus ordo and state schools out of your mind a re-read what I have written in this thread in relation to SSPX/Trad schools then it may make some sense to you.
Not a game of tag. Chasing with the idea of a male chasing down a girl.
Tell me in which SSPX/Trad school have you seen a "male chasing down a girl"?
Children can do some pretty bad things - limits need to be set. That's not prudery. Catholic teachings are never prudery. It's possible for precocious children to commit such sins - and steps should be taken to ensure it doesn't happen. It's not just "playing doctor"
Tell me where that Catholic Churches that little boys and girls can't play together? Where does it say, "He who says little boys and girls can play tag together, let him be anathema."?
If children are raised well and put in a Trad school then I would hope they don't have to deal with the things you are talking about.
-
The kind of talk after a 4th grade sex education class? I'm not going to spell it out for you.
Tele why are you talking about novus ordo and/or state schools? I'm well aware of the state of the "education" programming that goes on there. Thats why I was homeschooled. As far as I can see this thread was about Trad schools keeping boys and girls apart and hence I don't see that this sort of perverted sɛҳuąƖisation should be a problem hopefully.
Oh give me a break - this was a novus ordo school. The talk was filthy from about 5th grade on - rap music by Ton Loc being played on a parents radio during school outings - and I noticed younger and younger children talking that way - I noticed that the corruption was getting worse at younger ages even as a student.
As I said above, why are you talking about novus ordo schools when the thread is on SSPX?
If you get novus ordo and state schools out of your mind a re-read what I have written in this thread in relation to SSPX/Trad schools then it may make some sense to you.
Not a game of tag. Chasing with the idea of a male chasing down a girl.
Tell me in which SSPX/Trad school have you seen a "male chasing down a girl"?
Children can do some pretty bad things - limits need to be set. That's not prudery. Catholic teachings are never prudery. It's possible for precocious children to commit such sins - and steps should be taken to ensure it doesn't happen. It's not just "playing doctor"
Tell me where that Catholic Churches that little boys and girls can't play together? Where does it say, "He who says little boys and girls can play tag together, let him be anathema."?
If children are raised well and put in a Trad school then I would hope they don't have to deal with the things you are talking about.
Just fixing your post so it didn't pain me to read.
-
ok now that I read it, I agree with Zenith.
-
Because I think chasing girls could be bad, it's not always innocent? Are you in Europe? Europeans love to get on their high horse about American prudery, but their culture is debauched.
No I'm not in Europe. So that counts me out of the debauchery I suppose.
There's no inconsistency.
Yes there is inconsistency because you are talking about novus/state schools when no one else is. At least stick to the topic.
-
Well, there was a women's court in the ancient Temple of Jerusalem and under the New Dispensation, men and women sat on opposite sides of the Church for a very long time, i.e. it was an ancient custom. Women were never allowed to sing in liturgical choirs either unless there were grave reasons to allow the practice. An ignorant, temerarious man would scoff at these facts.
-
Well, there was a women's court in the ancient Temple of Jerusalem and under the New Dispensation, men and women sat on opposite sides of the Church for a very long time, i.e. it was an ancient custom. Women were never allowed to sing in liturgical choirs either unless there were grave reasons to allow the practice. An ignorant, temerarious man would scoff at these facts.
So in that case do you think men and women should sit separately in Church?
I can see how a nice looking woman sitting in front of me in Church could be a slight distraction though I'm a fully grown man with all manly functions operating correctly (I think), though little children playing tag in the playground have not developed the same sort of attractions that would make me look at an attractive woman.
Also the Church and the playground are not the same and hence the same rule don't necessarily apply.
-
Well, there was a women's court in the ancient Temple of Jerusalem and under the New Dispensation, men and women sat on opposite sides of the Church for a very long time, i.e. it was an ancient custom. Women were never allowed to sing in liturgical choirs either unless there were grave reasons to allow the practice. An ignorant, temerarious man would scoff at these facts.
So in that case do you think men and women should sit separately in Church?
I can see how a nice looking woman sitting in front of me in Church could be a slight distraction though I'm a fully grown man with all manly functions operating correctly (I think), though little children playing tag in the playground have not developed the same sort of attractions that would make me look at an attractive woman.
Also the Church and the playground are not the same and hence the same rule don't necessarily apply.
Yes, I wish they would separate the men and women in the Church. There is nothing more irritating than sitting behind a woman in Church; especially those who wear a little mantilla on their heads as if they're satisfying a technicality. Why not just put a little napkin or stamp-sized paper on your hair, that ought to suffice. I would be glad to sit with my sons while my wife sits with our daughters. Children on the playground is obviously an entirely separate (non) issue.
-
Because I think chasing girls could be bad, it's not always innocent? Are you in Europe? Europeans love to get on their high horse about American prudery, but their culture is debauched.
No I'm not in Europe. So that counts me out of the debauchery I suppose.
New Zealand is worse than Europe I've heard.
There's no inconsistency.
Yes there is inconsistency because you are talking about novus/state schools when no one else is. At least stick to the topic.
I was talking about my experiences growing up and how they affect my views of what is correct behavior.
-
Pius XII relaxed that discipline of the choirs, one of many relaxations under his watch. But he spoke for the Church, so it can't be harmful. Let's face it, yes, it was a custom to separate men and women, but if they want to get up to monkey business, they don't need a choir to do it.
Catholics are besieged with temptations daily. At a certain point you have to take responsibility for yourself. A well-dressed and obedient woman in Church should not distract anyone from the Mass. If they do, then it is not their fault; it's only their fault if they are inflaming men through immodest dress. A pretty face is enough to set a man's mind roaming where it shouldn't, but unless we want to cover women up like Muslims, there's not much to be done about that except pray to the Holy Ghost, the Virgin Mary, and the saints of your choice for protection, and they will provide.
-
ok now that I read it, I agree with Zenith.
LordPhan, you're obviously unable to follow a discussion, since you're in "defend sspx mode" which means your critical thinking skills shut down.
-
ok now that I read it, I agree with Zenith.
LordPhan, you're obviously unable to follow a discussion, since you're in "defend sspx mode" which means your critical thinking skills shut down.
The same could be said of you in a converse manner.
-
Father Dominic at CMRI said something in a sermon about modesty that a modest woman would never inordinately flame the desires of men. I can't remember the exact words, but the gist of it was, though a very pretty woman who is modestly dressed is still a temptation, it will be a temptation that is relatively easy to resist, compared to a woman who is using all her tools in order to entice you.
-
. A well-dressed and obedient woman in Church should not distract anyone from the Mass.
It's not a woman's fault is she's dressed well (there are exceptions) that doesn't mean it wasn't helpful to be separated.
It is not always bad to tolerate an evil.
For example, concubinage and prostitution were tolerated by the Catholic state at times. Polygamy was tolerated among the patriarchs. Divorce was tolerated in the Mosaic law.
-
Pius XII relaxed that discipline of the choirs, one of many relaxations under his watch. But he spoke for the Church, so it can't be harmful. Let's face it, yes, it was a custom to separate men and women, but if they want to get up to monkey business, they don't need a choir to do it.
Catholics are besieged with temptations daily. At a certain point you have to take responsibility for yourself. A well-dressed and obedient woman in Church should not distract anyone from the Mass. If they do, then it is not their fault; it's only their fault if they are inflaming men through immodest dress. A pretty face is enough to set a man's mind roaming where it shouldn't, but unless we want to cover women up like Muslims, there's not much to be done about that except pray to the Holy Ghost, the Virgin Mary, and the saints of your choice for protection, and they will provide.
But if there is any place on earth where temptations should not exist it is within the Church. Even women who think they are dressing modestly do not really dress modestly.
I'm not so sure about Piux XII relaxing the discipline per se. It's never been an absolute prohibition, therefore a just cause has always been the rule. I seriously doubt he allowed it in principle.
-
Father Dominic at CMRI said something in a sermon about modesty that a modest woman would never inordinately flame the desires of men. I can't remember the exact words, but the gist of it was, though a very pretty woman who is modestly dressed is still a temptation, it will be a temptation that is relatively easy to resist, compared to a woman who is using all her tools in order to entice you.
Such a woman would not be at fault. But being modestly dressed is not the same as having a modest comportment. A woman, just by where she chooses to sit, can behave in a tempting manner.
-
Anything that even distracts the mind slightly from the Holy Sacrifice ought to be severely forbidden. This is no trifling matter.
-
On the topic, I find that prayers to the angelic St. Stanislaus, as seen in my avatar there, are extraordinarily effective against temptation. Asking for his intercession has helped me raise the bar, to really go further in purifying my mind and not make excuses ( I think I used to let lustful thoughts pass through there while pretending I was against it and resisting it ). Here is someone who was totally indifferent to the female sex. Think about it -- totally indifferent. Such was his focus on the Virgin Mary that it literally killed him with joy. That is what I call raising the bar.
-
What I'm trying to say is, if you are under severe attack, a woman can be dressed in a garbage bag and smeared with fish guts and you will still be enticed.
We live in this world among fantastic-looking, fantastic-smelling, lovely creatures called women. There is no law the Church can make that can protect us against that temptation. You could be separated in Church, then walk out of church and hire a prostitute. At a certain point, the responsibility is ours, the responsibility to pray faithfully and fervently for protection.
-
What I'm trying to say is, if you are under severe attack, a woman can be dressed in a garbage bag and smeared with fish guts and you will still be enticed.
We live in this world among fantastic-looking, fantastic-smelling, lovely creatures called women. There is no law the Church can make that can protect us against that temptation. You could be separated in Church, then walk out of church and hire a prostitute. At a certain point, the responsibility is ours, the responsibility to pray faithfully and fervently for protection.
Well said Raoul!
It is true that women will always be attactive to men because guess what, God made it that way!
At some point you need to take responsiblity for your own actions and stop blaming temptations.
There is nothing wrong with a beautiful women. Do you wish them to wear potato sacks to Church and not shower for a month so you won't be tempted by them?
We have to be realistic.
Its a bit like say that you want to stay healthy and so you decide to live in a surgery theatre and rub yourself down with antiseptic every 3 minutes in case a bug has made it onto your skin somewhere. Just as we have to deal with bacteria, good or bad, we have to deal with controlling our own actions and desires.
If you live in a sterile environment then when you eventually leave it, your body will die from septic shock as your immune system has been so greatly weakened.
Your immune system is like your strength to fight temptations.
Tele if these are your experiences then I would advise you not to swing to the other extreme but to find a balanced medium as either extreme is not healthy.
-
New Zealand is worse than Europe I've heard.
Is it? I wouldn't know.
-
ok now that I read it, I agree with Zenith.
LordPhan, you're obviously unable to follow a discussion, since you're in "defend sspx mode" which means your critical thinking skills shut down.
:roll-laugh1:
-
New Zealand is worse than Europe I've heard.
Is it? I wouldn't know.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=new+zealand+promiscuity
-
Father Dominic at CMRI said something in a sermon about modesty that a modest woman would never inordinately flame the desires of men. I can't remember the exact words, but the gist of it was, though a very pretty woman who is modestly dressed is still a temptation, it will be a temptation that is relatively easy to resist, compared to a woman who is using all her tools in order to entice you.
And that is why immodesty is so wrong. Because even without showing men their flesh they can still be very attractive.
Immodesty only arouses an impure disordered attraction.
When I see a beautiful well dressed woman my attraction to her is far more healthy and respectful of her. It is not necessarily a bad thing.
Lets not be puritanical.
-
New Zealand is worse than Europe I've heard.
Is it? I wouldn't know.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=new+zealand+promiscuity
I'm not sure what your point is with this Tele.
If you are trying to find out where I'm from to dig up dirt on my country then you can always ask. :dancing:
-
New Zealand is worse than Europe I've heard.
Is it? I wouldn't know.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=new+zealand+promiscuity
I'm not sure what your point is with this Tele.
If you are trying to find out where I'm from to dig up dirt on my country then you can always ask. :dancing:
I'm trying to make this point: the societies that tend to mock Americans for their "prudery" and "puritanism" tend to be those that are farthest gone morally. That's true regardless of where you're from.
-
Since the subject was brought up, I know that the Koreans have always separated the men and the women in their liturgy, even in the novus ordo. In a picture from the 80's of John Paul II's canonization ceremony for the Korean Martyrs, you can clearly see that all the men are seated on one side and all the women on the other. How can you tell? Well all the women are still wearing white veils (in those days anyway).
I don't know if it's a general Asian custom or if it's solely Korean, or it's practiced at all today for that matter.
But I agree with Raoul. The implementation of this particular custom would not be an improvement of the liturgy or the condition of anyone's soul for that matter.
-
The implementation of this particular custom would not be an improvement of the liturgy or the condition of anyone's soul for that matter.
It could prevent many occasions of sin, but it would be rejected by western parishioners, and cause more trouble than it's worth.
Women love attention (and often delude themselves about the motivations behind their "innocent" behavior) they often seat themselves in order to get the attention of certain men in the congregation.
-
It could prevent many occasions of sin, but it would be rejected by western parishioners, and cause more trouble than it's worth.
Tele do you think it would be an occasion of sin for you if a modestly dressed though reasonably attractive woman sits next to you in Church?
Women love attention (and often delude themselves about the motivations behind their "innocent" behavior) they often seat themselves in order to get the attention of certain men in the congregation.
Don't you think thats a bit of a broad statement? Do you know this for sure or are you just guessing?
I think you need to cut down on the generlisations. So far SSPX is bad because you had a bad experience and women love attention and often delude themselves.
You're not winning anyone over with this sort of argument.
-
New Zealand is worse than Europe I've heard.
Is it? I wouldn't know.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=new+zealand+promiscuity
I'm not sure what your point is with this Tele.
If you are trying to find out where I'm from to dig up dirt on my country then you can always ask. :dancing:
I'm trying to make this point: the societies that tend to mock Americans for their "prudery" and "puritanism" tend to be those that are farthest gone morally. That's true regardless of where you're from.
Yes this may be true though I was not generalising about Americans at all. I was discussing with you personally.
If America has earnt this stigma, it is because it was never a Catholic country but was based on protestantism which is why puritanism can be a problem there I believe.
I'm not saying my country is any better at all.
-
Tele do you think it would be an occasion of sin for you if a modestly dressed though reasonably attractive woman sits next to you in Church?
It's an occasion of sin if one is tempted by it. Does one always have a choice when one is tempted? If a woman chose to sit near you on purpose to get your attention, wouldn't that be sinful on her part?
Don't you think thats a bit of a broad statement? Do you know this for sure or are you just guessing?
Am I guessing women seek attention? Am I guessing that they seek it in church? I suppose we must pretend that women are all angels?
I think you need to cut down on the generlisations. So far SSPX is bad because you had a bad experience and women love attention and often delude themselves.
Pointing out how women generally behave doesn't have to do with my criticisms of the sspx. My criticisms of the sspx pertains mainly to the conduct of the priests.
You yourself initiated your criticism of the sspx by mentioning seminarians that you know!
You and LordPhan are both confused and unable to follow what I'm saying. It's what I expect from some of the slightly dimwitted of the anglosphere, marinated as they are in a culture that is even more toxic and suffocated in its thinking than the USA.
You're not winning anyone over with this sort of argument.
You certainly seem to have no interest in what I have to say - since you decided to brand me a "prude" for thinking that it's not always innocent when young boys chase girls around.
-
Yes this may be true though I was not generalising about Americans at all. I was discussing with you personally.
First you criticized former sspx seminarians you know. Then the behavior of my second grade teacher, who I believe had good intentions. Then when I defended her, you lashed out at me as having a problem.
If America has earnt this stigma, it is because it was never a Catholic country but was based on protestantism which is why puritanism can be a problem there I believe.
I'm not saying my country is any better at all.
America is usually called prudish by people from extremely decadent countries.
I don't hear Iranians calling Americans prudish.
-
It's an occasion of sin if one is tempted by it. Does one always have a choice when one is tempted? If a woman chose to sit near you on purpose to get your attention, wouldn't that be sinful on her part?
No you don't get a say generally when you are tempted if you keep yourself away from occasions of sin.
Speaking of which, when this lady (occasion of sin) sits next to you, do you get up and move away from her?
Have you asked her if she is doing it on purpose or are you just judging her intentions yourself? Perhaps you could ask her. Hey look at it as a conversation starter! You may find a wife out of it if she doesn't slap you down instead! :roll-laugh1:
Am I guessing women seek attention? Am I guessing that they seek it in church? I suppose we must pretend that women are all angels?
Well say no more. This here is the perfect example of how you know no balance or moderation. There is only extremes for you. To you they are either demons of angels.
You and LordPhan are both confused and unable to follow what I'm saying. It's what I expect from some of the slightly dimwitted of the anglosphere, marinated as they are in a culture that is even more toxic and suffocated in its thinking than the USA.
:roll-laugh1:
-
First you criticized former sspx seminarians you know. Then the behavior of my second grade teacher, who I believe had good intentions. Then when I defended her, you lashed out at me as having a problem.
By the way I didn't critisize the seminarians but the way they have been formed.
And I critisized each individual person which is not gerneralising. If I was generalising I would have said all Americans have problems as you did with the Euopeans and New Zealanders.
America is usually called prudish by people from extremely decadent countries.
Could you show me a country without decadence?
-
Speaking of which, when this lady (occasion of sin) sits next to you, do you get up and move away from her?
Have you asked her if she is doing it on purpose or are you just judging her intentions yourself?
You seem to want to draw out details out of the incident I am obliquely describing. You seem to be making the assumptions here, not me. I didn't assume anything, and I'm not asserting anything. I was intending to discuss things as a hypothetical situation - though my description is admittedly partly based on experience. At any rate, at the time I didn't assume anything. At the time I was in a rather delusional state about the holiness of my fellow parishioners - I assumed they were very good people that would never act in such a manner on purpose. In retrospect, it is possible there was a pattern - I was unaware of it at the time. I was just aware of this woman being extremely attractive and being near me, and it was a temptation.
Perhaps you could ask her. Hey look at it as a conversation starter! You may find a wife out of it if she doesn't slap you down instead! :roll-laugh1:
That depends on whether the woman is married or unmarried.
Well say no more. This here is the perfect example of how you know no balance or moderation. There is only extremes for you. To you they are either demons of angels.
Wrong again. I don't despise those women for their behavior. But I'm not going to pretend it's all in my head when it isn't. This pretending that men are always at fault and women are blameless is one of the fundamental supports of feminism. It's the way in which conservatives serve as enforcers for feminist social control.
You and LordPhan are both confused and unable to follow what I'm saying. It's what I expect from some of the slightly dimwitted of the anglosphere, marinated as they are in a culture that is even more toxic and suffocated in its thinking than the USA.
:roll-laugh1:
It's easy to "laugh" on the internet.
-
Could you show me a country without decadence?
There are no degrees of decadence?
-
It's easy to "laugh" on the internet.
No I honestly found your comments amusing and if you said it to my face I would have laughed too! :laugh1:
-
Could you show me a country without decadence?
There are no degrees of decadence?
Yes of course there are degrees. I'm sure if you drew up a list of decadent countries, you'd stick mine on the top! :wink:
-
I follow the saints in this matter. Padre Pio, for example, would hardly look at a woman in the face. It's not even a matter of temptation, rather it is for many a distraction, even if the eyes only momentarily fall upon the woman, the impression remains and the mind is disturbed momentarily, drawn away from prayer. Mixed congregations are an evil custom that is tolerated, it is not the norm and creates many different problems during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. To avoid all such distractions, I simply cast my eyes downward, or simply close them. I don't even look at the priest when he preaches but look down or gaze upon the tabernacle.
-
What was this thread about again? Sorry, I'll try to bring it back on track. Yeah, the SSPX may go too far in their Amishness, but of course the culture is depraved and the Nous Ordo schools are part of that depraved culture. Here is a picture of the girls from my local Novus Ordo church. Look at the skirts. Each one is carefully trimmed to be above the knees. It's obvious that it is deliberate.
(http://www.tbrnews.com/content/articles/2011/07/14/manhattan_beach_news/news07.jpg)
I'm sorry, but wearing pants is better than that. These girls look like they're ready for a night on the town, not for a day in school. This is so sick, it enrages me. Like the people who made the dress code this way don't know what happens? If these girls are playing sports, or doing any activities, if there is a mild wind, they will be giving everyone an eyeful. Every time they sit down, the skirts will ride up. This is just unbelievable to me that an entire community can do this to their children and no one says anything. These are girls that are hitting puberty too, not just little children.
You know that there is a strong subculture in the SSPX in America that advocates amish like dress and behavior. Also a bunker mentality.
Could it be an extreme reaction against the depraved culture of the NO, the world etc?
-
I am not an expert, but I don't think actual Amish prevent boys and girls from playing together as young children.
I have heard of that in the radio show Backyardradtrads by a guy in Post falls,ID.
-
You know that there is a strong subculture in the SSPX in America that advocates amish like dress and behavior.
Do you have any idea of how rigid the requirements for living like the Amish are? To say that someone is "Amish" because they advocate modest dress and a degree of isolation from the wider society (for example, abandoning the schools and not watching tv) is a gross distortion of the facts.
Also a bunker mentality.
What do you think monasticism is? Catholics are required to shield themselves from the world to some degree. Some of these trads think they can hang out like Lot in Sodom and nothing's going to happen to them - they think they can get along fine indefinitely, in many of their fundamental assumptions about how to interact with society they still think as though we were in the 1950s.
Could it be an extreme reaction against the depraved culture of the NO, the world etc?
There can be extremism and rigorism, there's no doubt about that, but these sweeping overly broad criticisms of being like the "amish" and a "bunker mentality" could have come out of an anti-Catholic's talking points.
-
You know that there is a strong subculture in the SSPX in America that advocates amish like dress and behavior.
Do you have any idea of how rigid the requirements for living like the Amish are? To say that someone is "Amish" because they advocate modest dress and a degree of isolation from the wider society (for example, abandoning the schools and not watching tv) is a gross distortion of the facts.
Also a bunker mentality.
What do you think monasticism is? Catholics are required to shield themselves from the world to some degree. Some of these trads think they can hang out like Lot in Sodom and nothing's going to happen to them - they think they can get along fine indefinitely, in many of their fundamental assumptions about how to interact with society they still think as though we were in the 1950s.
Could it be an extreme reaction against the depraved culture of the NO, the world etc?
There can be extremism and rigorism, there's no doubt about that, but these sweeping overly broad criticisms of being like the "amish" and a "bunker mentality" could have come out of an anti-Catholic's talking points.
I agree
-
Indeed.
You know that there is a strong subculture in the SSPX in America that advocates amish like dress and behavior.
Judging from your post I can tell that you are not acquainted with, or have ever seen up close any Amish before, and if you have, you failed to make the most basic observations when you had the opportunity.
If I came into Church in my more better looking farm-work clothes out of necessity, (which are really just plain country style clothes), you would probably point to me as an example.
Actually, I may go so far as to make the assumption you live in the city.
-
Indeed.
You know that there is a strong subculture in the SSPX in America that advocates amish like dress and behavior.
Judging from your post I can tell that you are not acquainted with, or have ever seen up close any Amish before, and if you have, you failed to make the most basic observations when you had the opportunity.
If I came into Church in my more better looking farm-work clothes out of necessity, (which are really just plain country style clothes), you would probably point to me as an example.
Actually, I may go so far as to make the assumption you live in the city.
I do live in the city. I have known a person who said something about amishness.
-
I follow the saints in this matter. Padre Pio, for example, would hardly look at a woman in the face. It's not even a matter of temptation, rather it is for many a distraction, even if the eyes only momentarily fall upon the woman, the impression remains and the mind is disturbed momentarily, drawn away from prayer. Mixed congregations are an evil custom that is tolerated, it is not the norm and creates many different problems during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. To avoid all such distractions, I simply cast my eyes downward, or simply close them. I don't even look at the priest when he preaches but look down or gaze upon the tabernacle.
For a start Padre Pio was a Priest and this is probably why he didn't look women in the face. He probably wasn't interested in socialising though this does not mean we all have to be like this or that socialising is bad.
I may be wrong but I get the idea that you think women are simply walking occasions of sin that should have flashing hazard warning lights attached to them to warn people away.
Do you think beauty in a woman is always an occasion of sin?
Are you talking about looking at women in Church or looking at women in general?
If you think mixed congregations is an evil custom, wouldn't it be an occasion of sin for you to attend there then? And in this case wouldn't it then be a sin for you to go to a place where "evil customs" are tolerated?
As you still go to the Church, then I would conclude that either you are placing yourself in an occasion of sin every time or you are exagerating just a little.
I think that the latter is more likely to be the case.
-
St. Peter of Alcantara never looked a woman in the face for years. He kept his eyes riveted to the floor and he had to be guided around his monastery by other monks, because he never knew what the place looked like. He performed amazing austerities and by the end of his life St. Teresa said his skin looked more like tree bark than human skin.
That was a grace he was given. It is hardly expected, nor is it possible, for most Catholics to exist in that way.
I think we're all on the same page here, for the most part. Clearly modesty in dress is required, and it affects comportment and behavior. A woman in daisy dukes is going to be trying to get attention, otherwise why wear them? But the American SSPX does have the reputation of Amishness and Little House on the Prarie-ness. My theory, expressed recently on Facebook, is that SSPX uses methods like these to exert a certain control on the flock.
Most heresies and errors are exaggerations of truth -- and it is very possible to exaggerate the virtue of modesty. It is a good thing to approach the sacrament of Communion with reverence, is it not? The Jansenists sure thought it was; so much so that some of them never approached it and sometimes went their whole lives beset by the scruple that they weren't good enough to take communion. That is how the devil exaggerates the truth and deforms it.
I cannot say what's going on in SSPX since I don't go there. But I've heard too much about the Amish-ness to doubt that it's true. Another rumor you hear is that women compete with each other to see who can have more babies -- another virtue deformed, if this really happens.
On the subject of the dress code, people need to know, it's not just "The more covered up, the better." Catholics are not Muslims and shouldn't be giving the impression that we are. Pius XII even said in an encyclical that we shouldn't dress in a way that will make us stick out among people of our time. That doesn't mean to go around wearing bikinis, but those who really want to find a way to have a modern style while being modest can do it very easily. Nice long dresses never go out of fashion. To dress like some kind of Amish person is basically pride and showing off, it's like moaning and groaning to show how much you're suffering when you fast. It's also a huge turnoff to potential converts. It basically turns the Church into a kind of retro time-machine, and makes it look as if it's a relic instead of still living. But a kind of scruple overtakes people and they think they have to make it known, just by their style of dress, that they totally reject the modern world and are not like anyone else. They end up looking like antiques or museum-pieces and I would bet that people don't take them seriously.
-
If you were aquainted with the writings of the spiritual masters, I suspect you would not be trying to poke holes in may statements. It is not merely a question of "occassions of sin," which is a subjective state of mind and will. Ironically, the holier the person, the more distance and prudent precaution is taken. There is also the question of mental distraction as well as I explained above. But since the brethren are of varying degrees in holiness and purity, there should be no such safeguard or custom that is looked upon with disdain. The cause assigned to Padre Pio's custom is not merely because he was a priest either. Do you even know why women are veiled in Church? It seems to me that your suppressed premise is that mixed company is perfectly fine and there is no need for any of these things unless one can objectively confirm a grevious temptation is at hand. A standard which is utterly impossible to apply in practice. The question also cannot be relegated to the merely moral realm, there are profound theological reasons for such separation, distinctions and customs.
-
On the subject of the Pius XII "encyclical," it was really an address. But here is the relevant passage, I'm sure everyone here knows about it.
"God does not ask us to live outside our times, to ignore the dictates of fashion to the point of becoming ridiculous, dressing contrary to the tastes and habits common to our contemporaries, without ever worrying about their likes and dislikes."
Boy, that must be anathema to the SSPX. Luckily they just have to sift what the Pope says, they do it all the time :nunchaku:
Sometimes I don't agree with Pius XII... He hits the nail on the head here. Whenever these interminable fashion threads come up, people should just post this and be done with it.
Before people start squealing, "Oh, then why don't we all wear bikinis!" as they always do, read carefully. "To ignore the dictates of fashion to the point of becoming ridiculous." Of course you don't have to go along with every depraved trend, but you also don't have to find your clothes in great-grandma's attic, and go around looking like something out of Flannery O'Connor. It's not hard to figure out; find the happy medium. A man can wear dress shirts and slacks, a woman nice long sundresses.
-
Another rumor you hear is that women compete with each other to see who can have more babies -- another virtue deformed, if this really happens.
Most sspx families are not that large. There are typically a few very large families - most are middling in size.
The real truth is that the SSPX Catholics don't shut out the thinking of the world enough - they may in a few ways seem to have a few "outlandish" qualities - but that's looking at things through a worldly prism. Most of the problems in the SSPX come from a lack of an accurate integrally Catholic world view.
I'm pretty sure the Catholic towns of 100 years ago where my mothers grandparents were settled were far more authentically Catholic (more vocations, bigger families, more prayer, less immorality) than St. Mary's Kansas.
-
That's nice, Caminus, but you are trying to be more Catholic than the Church. The Church doesn't teach what you do anymore. Not just Vatican II but the real Popes before Vatican II. Times and customs change; disciplinary laws change.
There were some saints like St. Peter Alcantara who never looked a woman in the face. Others had friends who were women. St. Teresa of Avila mentions this fact about St. Peter, but she didn't go so far as to avoid the sight of all men, did she? There is a flexibility to the Catholic religion that those of Pharisaical bent don't see, not that I'm saying you are, but you might get that way. We each have our own path, and our responsibility is to neither go to the right or left, nor above or below, the graces that we are given, whatever they are.
This is just a speculation, but it sounds to me as if you are under temptation of some kind. Giving yourself more laws is not the way to stop it. The laws you have are sufficient, they were given to you by God already. Prayer is the way to stop it.
For someone who vaunts their knowledge of the spiritual life, you should know that often there is a kind of pride in asceticism, it can show you're relying on your own "toughness" instead of on God. Though in many other cases, it is beneficial, and this is what you'd have to discuss with your priest. My priest took one of my penances away, and left another one. Far from hurting me, it helped me.
-
Tele said:
The real truth is that the SSPX Catholics don't shut out the thinking of the world enough - they may in a few ways seem to have a few "outlandish" qualities - but that's looking at things through a worldly prism. Most of the problems in the SSPX come from a lack of an accurate integrally Catholic world view.
I would say that there is a focus on externals that is used as control, that distracts from people asking questions about their bogus theology. This focus on externals is, of course, Pharisaical and empty, its emptiness is felt by certain people there, and breeds a reaction -- a worldly spirit. When the laws become Pharisaical, religion crumbles, people rebel. That is why Christ emphasizes the spirit of the law so often. The difference between the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, is like the difference between a dried-out weedy field and a brilliant, flowering orchard.
-
Tele said:
The real truth is that the SSPX Catholics don't shut out the thinking of the world enough - they may in a few ways seem to have a few "outlandish" qualities - but that's looking at things through a worldly prism. Most of the problems in the SSPX come from a lack of an accurate integrally Catholic world view.
I would say that there is a focus on externals that is used as control, that distracts from people asking questions about their bogus theology. This focus on externals is, of course, Pharisaical and empty, its emptiness is felt by certain people there, and breeds a reaction -- a worldly spirit. When the laws become Pharisaical, religion crumbles, people rebel. That is why Christ emphasizes the spirit of the law so often. The difference between the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, is like the difference between a dried-out weedy field and a brilliant, flowering orchard.
That's funny, because I've heard that many sedevacantist families are very worldly too. Maybe its not an "SV" or a "SSPX" thing but a "human" thing?
-
That's nice, Caminus, but you are trying to be more Catholic than the Church. The Church doesn't teach what you do anymore. Not just Vatican II but the real Popes before Vatican II. Times and customs change; disciplinary laws change.
There were some saints like St. Peter Alcantara who never looked a woman in the face. Others had friends who were women. St. Teresa of Avila mentions this fact about St. Peter, but she didn't go so far as to avoid the sight of all men, did she? There is a flexibility to the Catholic religion that those of Pharisaical bent don't see, not that I'm saying you are, but you might get that way. We each have our own path, and our responsibility is to neither go to the right or left, nor above or below, the graces that we are given, whatever they are.
This is just a speculation, but it sounds to me as if you are under temptation of some kind. Giving yourself more laws is not the way to stop it. The laws you have are sufficient, they were given to you by God already. Prayer is the way to stop it.
For someone who vaunts their knowledge of the spiritual life, you should know that often there is a kind of pride in asceticism, it can show you're relying on your own "toughness" instead of on God. Though in many other cases, it is beneficial, and this is what you'd have to discuss with your priest. My priest took one of my penances away, and left another one. Far from hurting me, it helped me.
I challenge you (not in a hostile manner) to read St. John of the Cross and then return to this notion of distraction and imperfection. The Church requires one to receive Holy Communion once a year; if we receive it more than once are we trying to be "more Catholic than the Church"? It's easy to take subjective things out of context and misapply principles to concrete circuмstances. Take for instance the holy friendships you mentioned. You infer from this fact that we worldings who are already prone to sins of the flesh, especially because of the environment we are forced to live in, that familiar socializing is on par with such holy friendships and therefore to take precaution becomes "pharisaical." You are not sufficiently taking into account the varying degrees of perfection and only a laxist would impugn "rigorous" mortifications in principle. The things to which I referred were long held Church customs and simple mortifications of great saints. If they took such precautions, ought we not at least take note and examine our own conduct? Of course there can be hidden pride in the practice of asceticism, mentioning this fact as a veiled accusation is certainly unfair. I do not practice heavy penances, I'm too weak. And it is precisely because I am weak that I avoid such things. I have not yet thrown myself into a thorn bush to avoid temptation, but that saint who did such a thing was probably acting out of pride, pseudo-toughness or plain ignorance. Loosen up man!
As far as neglecting prayer, it is precisely because of the grace of prayer and the desire to remain recollected, that I try to avoid all distractions, especially at Mass. I set no law for myself other than what I think is necessary to secure my salvation. In other words, the "laws" that I follow are directed for the benefit of my soul and the soul's of others, the efficient cause being the Indwelling of the Holy Ghost and His grace, and that is precisely the opposite of what the Pharisees did. Beyond that, you are free to do as you choose. But isn't it curious that the most holy of Saints practiced these sorts of odd mortifications when in reality, they were much more removed from any danger of sin than you or I? Can you explain that fact in light of your above statements?
-
Caminus, that is a well thought out question. It gives me food for thought.
-
But isn't it curious that the most holy of Saints practiced these sorts of odd mortifications when in reality, they were much more removed from any danger of sin than you or I?
I know this question is not addressed to me, but I would like to make a comment:
The reason why the Saints and perfect souls have practiced forms of exterior mortification that astound and amaze the pusillanimous souls of the present day is because they had already attained to a diligent proficiency and devout fidelity in the practice of interior mortification, without which the most harshest and astonishing penances are vain and perhaps a proximate occasion of spiritual pride.
When self-abnegation is practiced with selfless abandonment to grace and docility to the Holy Ghost, to the point where one orients his entire consciousness, actions, routine, etc., to serving and loving God with increasing betterment, then external mortification becomes connatural. Just as good works is the natural consequence of faith, so exterior mortification is a natural consequence of the mortification of self-will.
Interior mortification is far more difficult than exterior mortification, at least this has been my personal experience and those of others of whom I have read or with whom I have spoken.
Sometimes one is enthralled when beholding the discipline, about to be inebriated with one's blood, or the cilice, ready to feed upon dermatological delicacy, or to behold the empty kitchen table, shorn of the deliciousness that would content us and only offering the pangs of hunger as satisfaction.
But to restrain the tongue in a moment of frustration, to refrain from idle correspondence, or to smile at those who deride you, these things seem (at least to me) far harsher than the discipline or the cilice. I can theoretically fast on bread and water anytime, or take on the discipline until my shirt is purple on the back, but I often fail to correspond to those little, subtle inspirations of grace that inspire me to do that which is more perfect in a given particular situation, and therefore fail to heed the teaching of Our Lord, "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect" (St. Matt. ch. v., 48). This is precisely what I will have to expiate in Purgatory, for failing to have the magnanimity and generosity that the interior life demands, as holy charity has no limitations or bounds, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself" (St. Luke ch. x., 27).
I really recommend reading Rev. Father Garrigou-Lagrange, the great Dominic theologian of the last century who wrote upon matters pertaining to ascetic and mystical theology with the scientific precision and acuteness, together with the devout unction and poetic grace, that St. Thomas Aquinas had mastered in his many works, in his liturgical hymns and beautiful prayers.
-
The reason why the Saints and perfect souls have practiced forms of exterior mortification that astound and amaze the pusillanimous souls of the present day is because they had already attained to a diligent proficiency and devout fidelity in the practice of interior mortification, without which the most harshest and astonishing penances are vain and perhaps a proximate occasion of spiritual pride.
When I said "odd mortifications" I was referring to the things under discussion, such as casting the eyes downward, etc., not in reference to severe external mortifications. The question was directed at Mike's portrait of a "normal" Catholic. The questions stands: Why were the most holy of men so careful regarding this matter of custody of the eyes, tongue, ears, etc? Because they were not only concerned with temptation, but also the mere appearance of sin, of the stain of imperfections and hurtful distractions that affect our relations with God; an all-embracing chasteness that extends to all acts and thoughts and demeanor. The closest to God become all the more careful. Those holy friendships between monks and nuns certainly did not bear any resemblance to what we think would consist in such a friendship. Thus, St. Theresa abhorred singular friendships amongst the nuns. No, we worldlings have a long path to travel before we can really appreciate what the heights of sanctity carry along with it.
-
On the subject of the Pius XII "encyclical," it was really an address. But here is the relevant passage, I'm sure everyone here knows about it.
"God does not ask us to live outside our times, to ignore the dictates of fashion to the point of becoming ridiculous, dressing contrary to the tastes and habits common to our contemporaries, without ever worrying about their likes and dislikes."
Boy, that must be anathema to the SSPX. Luckily they just have to sift what the Pope says, they do it all the time :nunchaku:
Sometimes I don't agree with Pius XII... He hits the nail on the head here. Whenever these interminable fashion threads come up, people should just post this and be done with it.
Before people start squealing, "Oh, then why don't we all wear bikinis!" as they always do, read carefully. "To ignore the dictates of fashion to the point of becoming ridiculous." Of course you don't have to go along with every depraved trend, but you also don't have to find your clothes in great-grandma's attic, and go around looking like something out of Flannery O'Connor. It's not hard to figure out; find the happy medium. A man can wear dress shirts and slacks, a woman nice long sundresses.
Which address is this?
-
St. Peter of Alcantara never looked a woman in the face for years. He kept his eyes riveted to the floor and he had to be guided around his monastery by other monks, because he never knew what the place looked like. He performed amazing austerities and by the end of his life St. Teresa said his skin looked more like tree bark than human skin.
That was a grace he was given. It is hardly expected, nor is it possible, for most Catholics to exist in that way.
I think we're all on the same page here, for the most part. Clearly modesty in dress is required, and it affects comportment and behavior. A woman in daisy dukes is going to be trying to get attention, otherwise why wear them? But the American SSPX does have the reputation of Amishness and Little House on the Prarie-ness. My theory, expressed recently on Facebook, is that SSPX uses methods like these to exert a certain control on the flock.
Most heresies and errors are exaggerations of truth -- and it is very possible to exaggerate the virtue of modesty. It is a good thing to approach the sacrament of Communion with reverence, is it not? The Jansenists sure thought it was; so much so that some of them never approached it and sometimes went their whole lives beset by the scruple that they weren't good enough to take communion. That is how the devil exaggerates the truth and deforms it.
I cannot say what's going on in SSPX since I don't go there. But I've heard too much about the Amish-ness to doubt that it's true. Another rumor you hear is that women compete with each other to see who can have more babies -- another virtue deformed, if this really happens.
On the subject of the dress code, people need to know, it's not just "The more covered up, the better." Catholics are not Muslims and shouldn't be giving the impression that we are. Pius XII even said in an encyclical that we shouldn't dress in a way that will make us stick out among people of our time. That doesn't mean to go around wearing bikinis, but those who really want to find a way to have a modern style while being modest can do it very easily. Nice long dresses never go out of fashion. To dress like some kind of Amish person is basically pride and showing off, it's like moaning and groaning to show how much you're suffering when you fast. It's also a huge turnoff to potential converts. It basically turns the Church into a kind of retro time-machine, and makes it look as if it's a relic instead of still living. But a kind of scruple overtakes people and they think they have to make it known, just by their style of dress, that they totally reject the modern world and are not like anyone else. They end up looking like antiques or museum-pieces and I would bet that people don't take them seriously.
Why specifically in the USA?
What about the control factor that you say?
-
The questions stands: Why were the most holy of men so careful regarding this matter of custody of the eyes, tongue, ears, etc? Because they were not only concerned with temptation, but also the mere appearance of sin, of the stain of imperfections and hurtful distractions that affect our relations with God; an all-embracing chasteness that extends to all acts and thoughts and demeanor. The closest to God become all the more careful.
Yes. They had an intimate and vivid knowledge of the evil and hatefulness of sin, and therefore had a tremendous dread of anything leading thereto or resembling it, out of servile fear at first but, as they became proficient in the interior life, the filial fear that stems from the an ever-growing love of God and seeks to eschew anything that may displease Him, is what dominated their modesty of comportment, which presupposes interior mortification. They also had an intimate and vivid knowledge of the preciousness and excellence of grace, which they zealously preserved from not only venial sin or defects that are not necessarily sinful, but also remiss acts (those particular acts that are good only relatively, but fall short of the perfection inspired by actual grace, as illustrated in my previous post).
Those holy friendships between monks and nuns certainly did not bear any resemblance to what we think would consist in such a friendship. Thus, St. Theresa abhorred singular friendships amongst the nuns. No, we worldlings have a long path to travel before we can really appreciate what the heights of sanctity carry along with it.
This is very true. The friendships of the Saints had fraternal charity subordinated to divine charity as their cause, and these friendships were gauged by how they availed these souls unto the progress of the interior life and the attainment of the mystical apices of contemplation and apostolic zeal. The Saints edified each other and urged one another to be more perfect and well-pleasing before God and more edifying and humble before others.
We will never be able to understand how wondrous these friendships were, since we are too coinquinated with the defilement of the age and too engrossed in self to understand this pure and precious friendship that is a presage of the society of the elect in Heaven.
-
I would remind Raoul that in Church Law "Custom" refers to the custom of devout Catholics, not to the custom of the pagans in the same lands.
-
What are Slacks and Sundresses?
Does slacks mean pants? Any type? Or Dress Pants?
A Dress Shirt and Dress pants is acceptable.
What is a sundress? You stated Long which seems like it might be good. Does it expose alot of skin elsewear?
You might be barking up a tree with no cause if your argument is about wearing Dress Shirt and Dress pants(Which is fine)
and Long Dresses(which is more then fine)
-
By the way, Amish wear Black and Black only as a matter of their false religion. This is why the dress the way they do. There is a reason for it, but I couldn't care less what it was so I forgot.
-
"God does not ask us to live outside our times, to ignore the dictates of fashion to the point of becoming ridiculous, dressing contrary to the tastes and habits common to our contemporaries, without ever worrying about their likes and dislikes."
Boy, that must be anathema to the SSPX.
How is that statement "anathema" to the SSPX?
Before people start squealing, "Oh, then why don't we all wear bikinis!" as they always do, read carefully. "To ignore the dictates of fashion to the point of becoming ridiculous." Of course you don't have to go along with every depraved trend,
Eh, you must never go along with any depraved trend. Whatever Pius XII said can't possibly excuse anything that is objectively immodest. Pius XII gave some of those objective standards. Hardly the stuff of infallibility, but a good line of demarcation. The fact of the matter is that the revolution in clothing is a revolution against the dress of what was a Christian civilization. That should never be discounted in any argument that tries to excuse bad fashions with the excuse that it's "keeping with the times." That you would suggest an ordinary "one piece" suit is okay seems to suggest an error in your thinking that is probably a result of your contrarian impulses.
but you also don't have to find your clothes in great-grandma's attic, and go around looking like something out of Flannery O'Connor.
Is anyone arguing that people must dress in antiquarian styles? I've never seen that argument made.
-
Is anyone arguing that people must dress in antiquarian styles? I've never seen that argument made.
because we don't make that argument, because we don't believe that you need antiquarian styles just modest dress.
It's all in Raoul's deluded mind. Much like the Neo-Cath who's attack started this thread.
-
That's nice, Caminus, but you are trying to be more Catholic than the Church. The Church doesn't teach what you do anymore. Not just Vatican II but the real Popes before Vatican II. Times and customs change; disciplinary laws change.
There were some saints like St. Peter Alcantara who never looked a woman in the face. Others had friends who were women. St. Teresa of Avila mentions this fact about St. Peter, but she didn't go so far as to avoid the sight of all men, did she? There is a flexibility to the Catholic religion that those of Pharisaical bent don't see, not that I'm saying you are, but you might get that way. We each have our own path, and our responsibility is to neither go to the right or left, nor above or below, the graces that we are given, whatever they are.
This is just a speculation, but it sounds to me as if you are under temptation of some kind. Giving yourself more laws is not the way to stop it. The laws you have are sufficient, they were given to you by God already. Prayer is the way to stop it.
For someone who vaunts their knowledge of the spiritual life, you should know that often there is a kind of pride in asceticism, it can show you're relying on your own "toughness" instead of on God. Though in many other cases, it is beneficial, and this is what you'd have to discuss with your priest. My priest took one of my penances away, and left another one. Far from hurting me, it helped me.
Raoul, again you have put my exact thoughts into words.
Caminus, you can live as much of an ascetic life as you like as long as you do it with the right intentions and under the guidance of a spiritual director.
I'm just curious though, if you do suffer from strong temptations and you have to conquer them with this sort of asceticism, why did you get married and live in the world when you could have become a Trapist of Redemptorist monk where the level of temptation would be greatly reduced?
Also does your wife share these views with you and does she dress accordingly so that any man who saw her would never be tempted by her? Personally I think the only way to do this would be to dress like and extreme muslim and even then I'm not sure it would remove all "temptation".
Also why did God create woman beautiful if he wanted us to walk around and never look at them? You do realise that beauty is not a bad thing don't you?
When you married, did you not see any beauty in your wife and was that beauty a bad thing?
-
Another rumor you hear is that women compete with each other to see who can have more babies -- another virtue deformed, if this really happens.
Most sspx families are not that large. There are typically a few very large families - most are middling in size.
I would agree with Tele here.
Also I wouldn't say the amish/puritan look is just a problem amoung those in SSPX as I have seen a broad range myself from immodesty to modesty to the frumpy puritan look.
I think it is human nature when we see something bad to run to the other extreme and over protect ourselves which can sometimes be just as bad.
-
I think we're all on the same page here, for the most part. Clearly modesty in dress is required, and it affects comportment and behavior. A woman in daisy dukes is going to be trying to get attention, otherwise why wear them? But the American SSPX does have the reputation of Amishness and Little House on the Prarie-ness. My theory, expressed recently on Facebook, is that SSPX uses methods like these to exert a certain control on the flock.
...
I cannot say what's going on in SSPX since I don't go there. But I've heard too much about the Amish-ness to doubt that it's true. Another rumor you hear is that women compete with each other to see who can have more babies -- another virtue deformed, if this really happens.
On the subject of the dress code, people need to know, it's not just "The more covered up, the better." Catholics are not Muslims and shouldn't be giving the impression that we are. Pius XII even said in an encyclical that we shouldn't dress in a way that will make us stick out among people of our time. That doesn't mean to go around wearing bikinis, but those who really want to find a way to have a modern style while being modest can do it very easily. Nice long dresses never go out of fashion. To dress like some kind of Amish person is basically pride and showing off, it's like moaning and groaning to show how much you're suffering when you fast. It's also a huge turnoff to potential converts. It basically turns the Church into a kind of retro time-machine, and makes it look as if it's a relic instead of still living. But a kind of scruple overtakes people and they think they have to make it known, just by their style of dress, that they totally reject the modern world and are not like anyone else. They end up looking like antiques or museum-pieces and I would bet that people don't take them seriously.
Raoul, you've never stepped foot in an SSPX chapel, and you want to make the conclusion that we dress and act like Amish!?
I think I should extend the comment I directed at lovealabama to you as well, because you probably never encountered any actual Amish either, and being in LA it's no wonder.
I swear, you Californians are from another country!
-
Anything that even distracts the mind slightly from the Holy Sacrifice ought to be severely forbidden. This is no trifling matter.
Children!
-
I have not read all these posts because I just don't have time today. But I would like to share something on this topic.
One would be naive to believe that little boys chasing girls is innocent childhood behavior all the time. Perhaps it is at certain developmental ages--maybe 3 or 4.
My daughter is 7. She has never really been to school other than preK for half a day when she was 4. She has 2 older brothers still at home ages 11 and 16. When their friends are over, our daughter goes crazy.
She races outside to wait for them. She wants to sit really close to them on the sofa. She wants to constantly touch them. She giggles flirtatiously with them.
As her mother, I am perfectly aware of this. I CONSTANTLY have to watch her and instruct her about her behavior.
You may think this is "innocent" but I don't believe it is. She is a very feminine little girl. She will probably grow up to be a really wonderful wife and mother. That is constantly on her mind.
Left alone, I believe our daughter might well develop into some of these over-sɛҳuąƖized little girls. For that reason, we won't enroll her in dance classes.
My daughter would benefit from segregated classes. Honestly, I am glad that we home-school.
My point is that everything is not always "innocent." This belief leads down a very dark and dangerous path sometimes.
-
I think we're all on the same page here, for the most part. Clearly modesty in dress is required, and it affects comportment and behavior. A woman in daisy dukes is going to be trying to get attention, otherwise why wear them? But the American SSPX does have the reputation of Amishness and Little House on the Prarie-ness. My theory, expressed recently on Facebook, is that SSPX uses methods like these to exert a certain control on the flock.
...
I cannot say what's going on in SSPX since I don't go there. But I've heard too much about the Amish-ness to doubt that it's true. Another rumor you hear is that women compete with each other to see who can have more babies -- another virtue deformed, if this really happens.
On the subject of the dress code, people need to know, it's not just "The more covered up, the better." Catholics are not Muslims and shouldn't be giving the impression that we are. Pius XII even said in an encyclical that we shouldn't dress in a way that will make us stick out among people of our time. That doesn't mean to go around wearing bikinis, but those who really want to find a way to have a modern style while being modest can do it very easily. Nice long dresses never go out of fashion. To dress like some kind of Amish person is basically pride and showing off, it's like moaning and groaning to show how much you're suffering when you fast. It's also a huge turnoff to potential converts. It basically turns the Church into a kind of retro time-machine, and makes it look as if it's a relic instead of still living. But a kind of scruple overtakes people and they think they have to make it known, just by their style of dress, that they totally reject the modern world and are not like anyone else. They end up looking like antiques or museum-pieces and I would bet that people don't take them seriously.
Raoul, you've never stepped foot in an SSPX chapel, and you want to make the conclusion that we dress and act like Amish!?
I think I should extend the comment I directed at lovealabama to you as well, because you probably never encountered any actual Amish either, and being in LA it's no wonder.
I swear, you Californians are from another country!
Yeah, CS is right. SSPXers aren't like the Amish. There are some notable differences between us and the Amish.
Maybe I should be glad I'm not a Californian. :farmer:
-
Anything that even distracts the mind slightly from the Holy Sacrifice ought to be severely forbidden. This is no trifling matter.
Children!
Bad preaching and bad music.