Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: HOOLIGAN4HIRE on August 04, 2019, 12:38:53 AM
-
Why are the women's skirts getting so short at Mass at St. Mary's nowadays. Visiting there is actually starting to get unpleasant and I never thought I'd say that. I truly can't believe it. Why has it become such a problem? Maybe it's time to make announcements?
-
I’ve been to St. Mary’s once, in 2011. A person who moved from there in 2003 jokingly informed me that the women and girls all wore prairie dresses and frumpy denim jumpers, so I’d better make sure my skirts and dresses met Padre Pio standards. To my surprise and sometimes dismay, I stood out because with the exception of maybe a few old ladies and one large family, my hemline was noticeably longer than that of nearly every female. During the week, I noticed teenaged girls I’d seen at Mass in town wearing shorts and t-shirts. It was not at all what I expected from the U.S. “headquarters” of the SSPX. In addition to short skirts, many wore their clothes too tight with nearly sleeveless cap-sleeve tops and scooped out necklines. The men, too, dressed much more casually than I was used to, although I cannot accuse them of being immodest.
When I met with a particular priest, I was somewhat embarrassed (for the women of St. Mary’s) when he commented positively upon my clothing.
That was eight years ago. I imagine it hasn’t improved.
Yes, it probably is time for a sermon on proper attire, but any priest who speaks out should have travel and housing arrangements in place and his bags packed, ready to go!
-
Why are the women's skirts getting so short at Mass at St. Mary's nowadays. Visiting there is actually starting to get unpleasant and I never thought I'd say that. I truly can't believe it. Why has it become such a problem? Maybe it's time to make announcements?
Because the SSPX priests could care less about the modesty of the young girls. There can be no other excuse, as I have seen that all the girls that go off to St. Mary's and Syracuse ALL come back in the summer and all dress to mass to attract men (tight skirts above the knees, tight tops, high heels...) and in the street they wear the short shorts, tight jeand, spandex leggings, belly exposed and bikinis.
I see it in our chapel, and the pastor has never said ONE WORD to the parents or from the pulpit. He is oblivious to it all and could care less. Unmarried girls are getting pregnant all over the place and many more to come. Not a word from the pulpit. The pastor could care less and the parents are obviously, idiots.
-
Because the SSPX priests could care less about the modesty of the young girls. There can be no other excuse, as I have seen that all the girls that go off to St. Mary's and Syracuse ALL come back in the summer and all dress to mass to attract men (tight skirts above the knees, tight tops, high heels...) and in the street they wear the short shorts, tight jeand, spandex leggings, belly exposed and bikinis.
I see it in our chapel, and the pastor has never said ONE WORD to the parents or from the pulpit. He is oblivious to it all and could care less. Unmarried girls are getting pregnant all over the place and many more to come. Not a word from the pulpit. The pastor could care less and the parents are obviously, idiots.
Because the SSPX priests could NOT care less about the modesty of the young girls
Could care less means the priests actually care which is not what I think you meant
-
I used to live there and while I think the modesty there is better than most places I've been, I have to say I was a bit shocked by some of the younger girls when they would show up to anything outside of St. Mary's. I was friends with some of them on Facebook and couldn't believe they were posting pictures of themselves in basically bikinis on total public display. I had to unfriend them because as a male, the last thing I need in some young girl I know dressed in a bikini showing up in my feed.
I'm not sure why priests aren't saying more about this. I have noticed it in the FSSP parish I attend. Literally half the women don't even veil now, it's really strange. The skirts are getting shorter, and the heels higher. This is from MARRIED women too. Married women... with like 6 kids. It's really the husbands fault though, he should not allow his wife to dress like that at mass knowing full well it is sɛҳuąƖly appealing to other men. Just today I watched a new family where the wife is wearing 6 inch heels and a short skirts and I knew this was going to happen, but I saw married men staring at her and following her across the Church, literally moving their heads staring at her. She is very pretty, I don't deny it, but she has 6 kids and is married, she has no business dressing that way and men should do a better job of keeping custody of the eyes.
Now, there are plenty of well dressed modest women there too, but just writing one little thing in the bulletin is not good enough. Priests need to really preach this hard from the pulpit. It is not easy for us men, and our priests aren't helping the situation.
-
As I read through the posts, these topics passed through my mind:
1) Worldliness
2) Strident women
3) Makeup, pants, and skirts threads (women resisting traditional norms, and men defending them in this)
4) They hated +BW for this
5) “SSPX Hotties” thread from a couple years ago
6) SSPX fixated on numbers doesn’t risk unpopular sermons
7) Too many men of weak will not assuming leadership at home
8) Coincides with ralliement
9) CCCC posts on encroaching worldliness and pics
10) Pic from a couple years ago of woman next to +BF in very short skirt for consecration of bells eliciting no protest
11) Mercedes Benz seminarians
12) SSPX news babes
13) District office women all in pants
-
As I read through the posts, these topics passed through my mind:
1) Worldliness
2) Strident women
3) Makeup, pants, and skirts threads (women resisting traditional norms, and men defending them in this)
4) They hated +BW for this
5) “SSPX Hotties” thread from a couple years ago
6) SSPX fixated on numbers doesn’t risk unpopular sermons
7) Too many men of weak will not assuming leadership at home
8) Coincides with ralliement
9) CCCC posts on encroaching worldliness and pics
10) Pic from a couple years ago of woman next to +BF in very short skirt for consecration of bells eliciting no protest
11) Mercedes Benz seminarians
12) SSPX news babes
13) District office women all in pants
I live in St. Marys and this list sums it up.
-
Too many think that by moving to St. Mary's their efforts to stay Catholic, to save their soul, etc. are "One and Done". Americans love one-time, external, one-and-done solutions to problems. Too bad it's not always that easy...
Americans want to get prepped? They have a bunker installed, or buy a years worth of freeze dried food and some seeds. DONE!
Americans want to keep the Faith? They move to St. Marys. DONE!
Americans want to get in shape? They buy an exercise bike and/or sign up for a Gym membership. DONE!
Americans want to be successful? They jump through the hoops of getting a college degree. DONE!
Sorry, but many things in life require constant effort and much work to achieve. You can't achieve many things just by throwing money at it, or a quick, emotion-fueled burst of physical activity.
-
Most of the priests are not bothered. They are slowly but surely slipping into the Conciliar Church. Their own personal comforts are taking a priority. Looks like even Menzingen wants to soften any resistance to its present direction by a policy of ease and comfort for its members.
-
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were people paid to move there with their families to infiltrate and corrupt the area. Wasn’t there an incident where a Catholic from there hosted a political fundraiser to support pro abortion candidate?
-
Most of the priests are not bothered.
This is the bottom line. Even those of us who know and care and try have to be reminded over and over again. On these topics the priests have to repeat themselves probably twice a year in every parish and not walk on eggshells. They have to be prepared and willing to be hated for it. I say this as a woman, we will push every line we can, wherever we can, whenever we can, if it will give us that feeling of being "pretty" for the innocents girls, or "wanted" for the not-so innocent girls. That is a feeling many women get addicted to whether they realize it or not. It causes highs and lows and dependency just like a drug. Combine that with the fact that no one around us is dressed anymore and we get desensitized. The problem isn't going to resolve itself without strong leadership from the men.
-
Sspx wedding last year:
-
The priest is dressed in Novus Ordo vestments, the altar boy wears an alb, and there are no altar cards, missal or chalice. Looks completely N.O. to me. What makes you think it has to do with the SSPX?
-
Yeah that's definitely not an SSPX wedding.
-
This is the bottom line. Even those of us who know and care and try have to be reminded over and over again. On these topics the priests have to repeat themselves probably twice a year in every parish and not walk on eggshells. They have to be prepared and willing to be hated for it. I say this as a woman, we will push every line we can, wherever we can, whenever we can, if it will give us that feeling of being "pretty" for the innocents girls, or "wanted" for the not-so innocent girls. That is a feeling many women get addicted to whether they realize it or not. It causes highs and lows and dependency just like a drug. Combine that with the fact that no one around us is dressed anymore and we get desensitized. The problem isn't going to resolve itself without strong leadership from the men.
An addiction, excellent observation. I have written many times on the same subject.
Fathers need to take an active role in the teaching of their children specially the girls, instead of relying on a school to teach them. …. They need to teach the girls how to dress modestly and how to avoid the trap (the lie), the flaw, that practically all women of today have, that their self esteem comes from and their beauty is judged by how good they are at attracting men. Men are attracted to any women that is easy, it has nothing to do with beauty, at least not in the short term (but long enough to get them pregnant!). Moreover, mother's have been teaching their daughters for generations that the way to get a man is to lure them with flirting (and allowing touches, hugs, kisses, fondling and …….). That is a sure beginning of a life of misery for women, being passed from one man to the other for the rest of their lives. It is like Russian roulette.
-
How many trad parents in the USA allow their daughters to go with boys by themselves? From my observation, there is scarcely one that does not. If you allow your daughters to go out with boys by themselves, be prepared for the consequences. We have had a lot of unmarried pregnant girls at our chapel and even more to come down the pipe because the parents and the SSPX preists are living in a dream world.
-
This is the bottom line. Even those of us who know and care and try have to be reminded over and over again. On these topics the priests have to repeat themselves probably twice a year in every parish and not walk on eggshells.
Maybe. I think that some of them have just resigned themselves to it being a losing battle. My elderly independent priest reminds women of the dress code several times a year. Each time there's some improvement for about a week or two, but then back to the same old same old. So more than this (a bi-annual reminder) is needed. Short of pounding the pulpit on an almost-weekly basis and refusing the Sacraments to the offenders, the reminders by themselves won't be effective. What's funny with the women is that all it takes for ONE woman to get away with a short skirt, and the very next week you see a dozen more ... as the trailblazer had gotten away with it, probably secretly being considered a hero by the others.
Refusing the Sacraments can be problematic. Sure, there are the obvious egregious cases. But what about infractions that are either borderline or less grave? Do you have old ladies policing the entrances with measuring tapes? That can lead to a very bizarre cult-like environment for Mass. So it's almost like a no-win. If the priest cannot persuade the ladies to WANT to be modest and to embrace it, it's an impossible battle, and some priests have just given up. Not that they don't care necessarily, but they've given up and feel that there's nothing more than they can do.
-
The priest is dressed in Novus Ordo vestments, the altar boy wears an alb, and there are no altar cards, missal or chalice. Looks completely N.O. to me. What makes you think it has to do with the SSPX?
My mistake.
Sspx to come.
This is FSSP van der putten priest and bride.
-
Maybe. I think that some of them have just resigned themselves to it being a losing battle. My elderly independent priest reminds women of the dress code several times a year. Each time there's some improvement for about a week or two, but then back to the same old same old. So more than this (a bi-annual reminder) is needed. Short of pounding the pulpit on an almost-weekly basis and refusing the Sacraments to the offenders, the reminders by themselves won't be effective. What's funny with the women is that all it takes for ONE woman to get away with a short skirt, and the very next week you see a dozen more ... as the trailblazer had gotten away with it, probably secretly being considered a hero by the others.
Refusing the Sacraments can be problematic. Sure, there are the obvious egregious cases. But what about infractions that are either borderline or less grave? Do you have old ladies policing the entrances with measuring tapes? That can lead to a very bizarre cult-like environment for Mass. So it's almost like a no-win. If the priest cannot persuade the ladies to WANT to be modest and to embrace it, it's an impossible battle, and some priests have just given up. Not that they don't care necessarily, but they've given up and feel that there's nothing more than they can do.
At the end of the day only fathers and husbands can deal with it, and even they'll have a very hard time unless she cares about modesty herself.
-
If the priest cannot persuade the ladies to WANT to be modest and to embrace it, it's an impossible battle, and some priests have just given up. Not that they don't care necessarily, but they've given up and feel that there's nothing more than they can do.
It's called the easy life. They should be sent to dig ditches or clean septic tanks for a month and maybe they'll learn what real hardship is.
-
It's called the easy life. They should be sent to dig ditches or clean septic tanks for a month and maybe they'll learn what real hardship is.
It's not about what's hard, but about what's effective.
-
Women who don't abide by the modest dress code should be denied communion and the Mass. Simply eject the whores from the premises. This is another reason each chapel should have security forces present.
-
Maybe. I think that some of them have just resigned themselves to it being a losing battle.
You are right. I'm sorry, I was in a hurry and didn't pay proper attention to what I was quoting. Some priests aren't bothered. I have heard the "how else is she going to catch a man" excuse for allowing immodesty. Those priests who don't think it's a big deal are out there. But you are right that some have given up because it seems useless. I honestly don't know which is worse.
-
Those priests are guilty of dereliction of duty and enabling occasions of sin.
-
My mistake.
Sspx to come.
This is FSSP van der putten priest and bride.
Doesn't look like Fr. Angelo to me. So what FSSP Van der Putten priest is that?
-
Women who don't abide by the modest dress code should be denied communion and the Mass. Simply eject the whores from the premises. This is another reason each chapel should have security forces present.
Communion perhaps, if its obvious/blatant enough, but I'm really not for turning people away from Mass. LIke why would you turn someone away who could see the truth and be drawn by it?
-
Women who don't abide by the modest dress code should be denied communion and the Mass. Simply eject the whores from the premises. This is another reason each chapel should have security forces present.
So if a woman is in half millimeter violation of the published standard, she is to be ejected as a "whore"?
-
Communion perhaps, if its obvious/blatant enough, but I'm really not for turning people away from Mass. LIke why would you turn someone away who could see the truth and be drawn by it?
And you'd quickly turn yourself into a bizarre cult that people would never want to come within 10 miles of. This attitude reminds me just a bit too much of Pharisaism. Our Lord deliberately reached out to the literal whores, despite objections, because He came to heal the sick.
-
So if a woman is in half millimeter violation of the published standard, she is to be ejected as a "whore"?
Perfect example of the men enabling the immodesty, stridency, and feminism of their women, which I spoke of earlier.
Apparently, you would fit right in at St. Mary's!
-
And you'd quickly turn yourself into a bizarre cult that people would never want to come within 10 miles of. This attitude reminds me just a bit too much of Pharisaism. Our Lord deliberately reached out to the literal whores, despite objections, because He came to heal the sick.
I note that you are the one to equate immodestly dressed women with whores.
Nobody else mentioned the word.
-
Communion perhaps, if its obvious/blatant enough, but I'm really not for turning people away from Mass. LIke why would you turn someone away who could see the truth and be drawn by it?
To save the souls of 50 other men who will damn themselves because of here?
Or out of respect for the Blessed Scrament?
Or for God's house?
-
I say this as a woman, we will push every line we can, wherever we can, whenever we can, if it will give us that feeling of being "pretty" for the innocents girls, or "wanted" for the not-so innocent girls. That is a feeling many women get addicted to whether they realize it or not. It causes highs and lows and dependency just like a drug. Combine that with the fact that no one around us is dressed anymore and we get desensitized. The problem isn't going to resolve itself without strong leadership from the men.
Thank you for your honesty; that's a great perspective to hear. Women are more easily helped by a catholic society but also hurt by a lack of one. Men, on the other hand, have the ability to turn evil in the midst of saints, or become a saint in the midst of sinners. It's fascinating how different the sexes are, spiritually.
-
Oh-oh:
Makeup, skirts, or pants came up!
There are now 17 members online like a flash!
13 of them will be feminist zealots, or their weak-willed male enablers!
The thread is now destined for 10,000 clicks.
:popcorn:
-
Perfect example of the men enabling the immodesty, stridency, and feminism of their women, which I spoke of earlier.
Apparently, you would fit right in at St. Mary's!
No, I'm testing principles ... against the claim that all woman who are immodest need to be "ejected as whores". So you would have old ladies standing at the entrances using tape measures and calipers so that if there's even a one millimeter violation of the published standard, the woman is to be ejected as a whore?
-
I note that you are the one to equate immodestly dressed women with whores.
Nobody else mentioned the word.
Wrong (as usual). See Reply #21 above.
-
Women who don't abide by the modest dress code should be denied communion and the Mass. Simply eject the whores from the premises. This is another reason each chapel should have security forces present.
for SeanJohnson ^^^^
-
The women aren't to be ejected for being whores (that's merely an adjective to describe their immodest attire near a Holy Sanctuary), rather they're to be ejected (as repeat offenders after being counseled for their previous immodesty) for dressing immodest before Our Lord. Immodesty before the Lord is sacrilege and an occasion of sin to all assisting the Divine Sacrifice.
If you want to excuse women dressed like whores at the Mass, then keep your mouth zipped about all that's wrong with the Novus Ordo - the quintessence of sacrilege.
-
Pope Pius XI says in extreme cases priests can bar immodest persons from church premises.
9. " Women and girls who wear immodest clothes are to be prohibited from Holy Communion and from the office of sponsor in the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, and in certain cases, they are to be prohibited even from entry into the church. "
-
A PAPAL DECREE CONCERNING MODESTY
HIS HOLINESS POPE PIUS XI 12 January 1930
By virtue of his supreme apostolate, whereby the universal Church is founded, by divine institution, Our Most Holy Lordship, Pope Pius XI never tires of reiterating the words of St. Paul, to wit: “…women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, … but as it becometh women professing godliness, with good works…” (I Tim II: 9-10) Frequently, when the occasion has presented itself, the selfsame Holy Pontiff has reproved and bitterly condemned immodesty of dress pervasively introduced into use these days amongst Catholic women and girls, a thing which not only gravely offends feminine beauty and ornament, but leads most lamentably to the temporal and worse still the eternal ruin of these same women and unto the ruin of others still. It is no wonder then, that the bishops and other ordinaries, as befits the ministers of Christ, and each in his respective diocese, have opposed, by all means and with unanimous voice, such misguided license and brazen impudence, and tolerating the while with calm fortitude, on account of this, frequent derision and abuse, brought against them by souls of ill will. So let this sacred consilium of the clergy and of the people, pursue the same sort of vigilance and action regarding the propagation of discipline as the holy bishops, with deserved approbation and praise and let it earnestly exhort these same men that they implement the counsels and the undertakings begun in due season, and urge them on generously and to the best of their ability, until this pestiferous sickness be completely rooted out from amongst the honest affairs of men. That this aim might be brought the more easily and securely to effect, this sacred congregation, by the mandate of Our Most Holy Lord, decrees what follows to be enacted: 1. May parish priests especially, and preachers when the occasion presents itself, and according to the words of St. Paul “…demand, reprove, beseech and rebuke…” women to wear clothes that redolent of modesty and such other things as are the ornament and vanguard of virtue, and may they warn parents not to permit their children to wear unseemly dress. 2. Parents, being ever mindful of the most awesome obligation which binds them of caring firstly and foremostly for the moral and religious education of their children, are to apply particular diligence, that their daughters be firmly grounded in Christian doctrine and that those same daughters also zealously foster in their souls, by words and example, the love of virtues of modesty and chastity; may parents also, in imitation of the Holy Family, busy themselves about so ordering and governing their family, that each and every individual within the family home has a cause and incentive to love and guard modesty. 3. Let those same parents prohibit their children from public athletic events and gymnastics competitions, or at least, if their daughters must be involved in them, that they take care to exhibit clothing which is fully in
keeping with modesty and that their parents never permit them to wear immodest clothing. 4. May the governesses of colleges and instructresses of schools strive so to imbue the souls of young women with the love of modesty that these same young women are led efficaciously to modesty of dress. 5. May those same governesses and instructresses, with no exception even to their own mothers, forbid admission to colleges and schools, to such women as wear unseemly clothing, and once admitted, if they fail to come to their senses, that they dismiss them. 6. Let not religious, according to the letters given by the Sacred Congregation concerning Religious on August 13, 1928, admit young women into their colleges, schools, oratories, or gymnasia, who do not observe a Christian manner of dress, or if they have already been admitted, that they not tolerate those who do not observe a Christian manner of dress. May they moreover take special pains in the education of their female students, so that the love of Christian modesty and holy reserve take deep root in their hearts. 7. May pious associations of women be established and fostered, organizations which, by their counsel, example and deed, set before themselves the goal of checking the abuse of dress, which is not consistent with the dictates of Christian modesty, as well as the goal of promoting purity of morals and modesty of dress. 8. Into the pious associations of women, let not those women be admitted who put on immodest clothing; and once admitted, if afterwards they commit a sin in this regard, and come not to their senses when admonished, may be expelled as well. 9. Women and girls who wear immodest clothes are to be prohibited from Holy Communion and from the office of sponsor in the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, and in certain cases, they are to be prohibited even from entry into the church. 10. When feasts occur throughout the year, which supply a particular opportunity to inculcate Christian modesty, and especially feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary, may parish priests and priests of pious associations and heads of Catholic societies not fail, by means of a sermon for that occasion, to recall and encourage women, to a Christian manner of dress. Every year year, on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, let special prayers in all the cathedrals and parish churches be made, and, where possible, may timely exhortation be given to the people in the church. 11. May diocesan counsels, discussed in a declaration of the Holy Office of March 22, 1918, in a spirit of vigilance, and at least once a year, openly deal with finding ever more suitable means and methods of effectively giving counsel on feminine modesty. 12. To which point may salutary action, effectively and safely lead. May bishops and other local ordinaries keep this sacred congregation informed, every third year, together with a report on religious institution given of our own accord in letters in the Catholic World on June 29, 1923, even concerning the condition of things and the state surrounding feminine manner of dress, and concerning works carried out in accordance with the rule of this instruction.
THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS FOR MODESTY IN DRESS
“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.” (The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI). 1. Marylike is modest without compromise, “like Mary,” Christ’s mother. 2. Marylike dresses have sleeves extending at least to the elbows; and skirts reaching below the knees. [N.B. Because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to Mary as the model of modesty in dress.] 3. Marylike dress requires full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders and back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding two inches below the neckline in front and in back and a corresponding two inches on the shoulders. 4. Marylike dresses do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics — laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. — unless sufficient backing is added. However, their moderate use as trimmings is acceptable. 5. Marylike dresses do not admit the use improper of flesh-colored fabrics. 6. Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do not unduly emphasize the parts of the body. 7. Marylike dresses provide full coverage — even after the jacket, the cape or the stole are removed. 8. Slacks or ‘jeans’ are not to be worn to church. Marylike fashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible rather than reveal it. This would automatically eliminate such fashions as tight fitting slacks or ‘jeans’, sweaters, shorts; shorts which do not reach down at least to the knees; sheer blouses and sleeveless dresses, etc. These Marylike standards are a guide to instill a sense of modesty. Women and girls who follow these standards and who look to Mary as their ideal and model will have no problem of modesty in dress. She who follows these standards will not be the occasion of sin nor a source of embarrassment or shame to others.
-
There is nothing difficult about SSPX priests teaching the young girls how to dress at mass and in life in the world, they just do not even take the first step. Ten years ago, we had a 32 year old priest that would fly in on Fridays and leave after Sunday mass, I told him some young girls were dressing provocatively, wearing tight knit tops, tight skirts and high heals, he had one look at them and gave an excellent sermon 1/2 hour later. The girls stopped wearing those clothes to mass. He's long gone now and it looks like he was an exception, for not one word has been heard on the subject for 9 years from any priest.
There is nothing difficult about it, you give a sermon, write articles in the bulletin or hand out sheets and then you watch to see if there is a change in those that are guilty. You visit the homes of the guilty parties, you talk to them directly. I doubt any young girl would challenge the priest if he is adamant about it.
The problem is that they do not even take the first step. I think it is a policy of Menzingen and the new seminary training in the USA since Bp. Willamson was replaced in Winona.
On the other hand, have a man start talking about Bergolio being a counterfeit pope and not even a priest, and they will throw him out of the chapel in no time flat!
-
There is nothing difficult about SSPX priests teaching the young girls how to dress at mass and in life in the world, they just do not even take the first step. Ten years ago, we had a 32 year old priest that would fly in on Fridays and leave after Sunday mass, I told him some young girls were dressing provocatively, wearing tight knit tops, tight skirts and high heals, he had one look at them and gave an excellent sermon 1/2 hour later. The girls stopped wearing those clothes to mass. He's long gone now and it looks like he was an exception, for not one word has been heard on the subject for 9 years from any priest.
There is nothing difficult about it, you give a sermon, write articles in the bulletin or hand out sheets and then you watch to see if there is a change in those that are guilty. You visit the homes of the guilty parties, you talk to them directly. I doubt any young girl would challenge the priest if he is adamant about it.
The problem is that they do not even take the first step. I think it is a policy of Menzingen and the new seminary training in the USA since Bp. Willamson was replaced in Winona.
On the other hand, have a man start talking about Bergolio being a counterfeit pope and not even a priest, and they will throw him out of the chapel in no time flat!
Money speaks loudly.
Since women control the purse in many homes, if a priest were to say something humiliating about the wife and/or her children, the donation would be significantly down the following week.
Since women tend to gossip, the entire parish tithes might be significantly less the following weeks.
Menzingen knows this and wants to buy more castles for the kiddies.
Silence is golden and brings in the gold.
I say this from experience. My son told me that he did not like the way the girls and women dressed so immodestly, so I spoke with the priest. He told me to be silent and that if I said anything it would spark a parish revolt and that half the parish would cease contributing and attending. Basically, I was told to go elsewhere.
All we can do is pray and try to be a good example, but then when I wear a long skirt, long sleeved blouse, and scarf, they accuse me of being a hypocrite and "holier than Thou." I guess I am disturbing their conscience just like the wife of Herold was disturbed by the sayings of St. John the Baptist.
-
Women who don't abide by the modest dress code should be denied communion and the Mass. Simply eject the whores from the premises. This is another reason each chapel should have security forces present.
You must have missed this, Sean.
Oh! and I missed reply 35.
-
You must have missed this, Sean.
Yikes!
Yes, I definitely missed that one.
-
Where we go to Mass, it is posted in Church bulletin about dressing modestly for both men and women. Also, there is a sign about dress code at entrance of church.
The Priest should do a sermon on modesty for both men and women. And one doesn’t have to dress frumpy either. If someone is in violation, mail them a letter to their home with resources on how to dress modestly for Mass.
-
When Fr. Beck was the rector in Saint Marys, he gave a sermon about modesty.
He said, "It's not my job to enforce modesty." There you go women, no enforcement
in the chapel, wear what you want.
.
Fr Beck later said, "It's an internal thing that the women will have to adopt, then
automatically it will show up in the way they dress." And I guess if they don't get it
internally, then too bad.
.
That pretty much sums up the attitude in Saint Marys. Fr Rutledge is no better.
Modesty will never be enforced in Saint Marys (IMHO). And I've been watching
it get worse for 20 years.
.
-
Where we go to Mass, it is posted in Church bulletin about dressing modestly for both men and women. Also, there is a sign about dress code at entrance of church.
All chapels have the same sign. It apparently means nothing, just like they all have a picture of Bergolio.
-
There has to be a much more methodical and deliberate way of handling this, top-down. It's possible to do this when there's an actual established community (parish) for a trad order and not just a travel-to Mass, but I think St. Mary's is a community and not just a location.
Bulletins and/or other published material in the vestibule have to state that regular attendees are assumed to be part of the community and thus will be approached by others when standards are not met. Those standards have to be detailed (which I'm sure they are at St. Mary's), but it has to be announced both in writing and from the pulpit that the standards will be enforced. The enforcement will be that if compliance does not result from one warning, the person or persons will be asked to stay away until such time as they can meet the standards.
One of the first things that has to be done is registering contact information with the trad order celebrating the Mass. This is especially important for families, because parents also need to be held accountable for behavior and dress of teens. When I recently registered for an SSPX women's retreat (I ended up being too squeezed in my schedule to be able to go), it was done in a very orderly way. First I had to call them and give current parish and other relevant information to the administrator of the retreat. This made me feel very good, actually, because the retreat hosts have every right to that information, and I was comforted that they were so thorough.
Next, I received in the mail two pages of details about expected behavior and dress on the retreat -- exactly what is required of women and what would not be accepted. (There might have even been something in there about being asked to leave during the retreat if those standards were violated; I don't have the letter handy.) If I were a person inclined to ignore or rebel against regulations, the mailer in itself would deter me from going, because it was clear that I would have stood out and drawn negative and disciplinary attention to myself. The message was: We mean business, and you've been warned.
Second, group pressure -- in a parish situation -- can be a powerful thing. Again, community can make a difference if the community as a whole supports female modesty. Thus, when my sweater accidentally slips a little bit off my shoulder (and I am wearing cap sleeves underneath), one of the women at the reception, or even during Mass if I'm sitting in a pew, will gently fix my sweater. If instead it's my seminarian friend, he will respectfully say, "Careful of your shirt." I think this is all really sweet. It shows a lot of true charity and respect. The point is, that it shows that the majority of the community supports the same modesty goals as the priests do.
More on group pressure: Someone at our church recently, with permission, set out flyers in the vestibule about the necessity of women modeling themselves after Our Lady's modesty. There were specifics in there about how pants are men's dress. Some pant-wearing women objected. (Surprise, surprise) Perhaps it's just a coincidence that two days ago, rather than the usual about 8 women wearing pants, not a single woman attending wore pants to Mass. And some of the chronic pant-attired women did not show up at the usual Masses they attend. And I don't care, because Tradition is not just about the Mass.
-
There has to be a much more methodical and deliberate way of handling this, top-down. It's possible to do this when there's an actual established community (parish) for a trad order and not just a travel-to Mass, but I think St. Mary's is a community and not just a location.
Yeah, this is a big issue. I don't know about the US, but in many countries like my own, parishes were very important and definitely communities. They formed a strong part of a person's identity, and the people you saw at mass were the same people you know from your school, club, neighbourhood, etc. So you knew most people there very well and you'd be careful not to do anything that could embarrass you or have bad word spread around about you, so there was a big social pressure for modesty and looking respectable at mass. But now for many Trads you'll often go to mass an hour from where you live or work and you might have absolutely nothing to do with the other families besides some church activities, and since most Trads live in places that are majority non-Catholic or at least non-Trad you won't be seeing your neighbours or co-workers at mass. So there's much less social pressure to conform.
-
Sounds like the sermons at St. Mary's needs to come out and tell it like it is. A short snip from one of Fr. Wathen's sermons (https://www.dropbox.com/s/xifvbgj4v4k0qoy/Proper-Dress-And-Conduct-In-The-Chapel-508%206%202%2088.mp3?dl=0) on the subject for both men and women.
-
Sounds like the sermons at St. Mary's needs to come out and tell it like it is. A short snip from one of Fr. Wathen's sermons (https://www.dropbox.com/s/xifvbgj4v4k0qoy/Proper-Dress-And-Conduct-In-The-Chapel-508%206%202%2088.mp3?dl=0) on the subject for both men and women.
I've heard priest give sermons like this ... to little effect. It's as if there needs to be some "enforcement".
-
All chapels have the same sign. It apparently means nothing, just like they all have a picture of Bergolio.
:laugh1: (for the Bergoglio part).
-
I've heard priest give sermons like this ... to little effect. It's as if there needs to be some "enforcement".
A few years ago Fr. Boyle (SSPX) gave some good sermons on modesty regularly for a while, not so blunt as the one I posted, but it worked, at least at my chapel. Still is working for the most part. It's very easy to tell when a NOer comes in for the first time, they stand out like a lady in a short skirt at a trad chapel lol, but they've been pretty good about figuring it out by the second or third time.
-
It does make a difference.
My apology above was sincere at first because I felt bad for lumping in the priests who have given up with the priests who don't care. But then as I wrote more about those who have given up (I ended up deleting it before posting because I didn't want to ramble) I realized that maybe I actually resent them a little bit. The truth is there are still women and girls who want to hear it, who need to hear it and who would co-operate with grace if given the chance. Why are they being given up on too? It doesn't matter if the possible initial reaction is anger. Sometimes things just need a little time to sink in. Let those who won't listen go their way. But speak to those who will! There are still parents who are fighting and feeling helpless as the skirts get shorter and the heels higher with every generation. They need but are not getting the support of the priests from the pulpit.
In several parishes I have visited you see a marked difference between the generations who got these sermons and those who haven't. The priests may feel like the sermons are useless but if that were true the differences would not be so visible. They just need to worry less about those who won't listen and care more for those who will. Even if it's a seed that is planted in the soul that won't grow until later in life, and maybe that priest never sees it in this life, it still makes all the difference.
-
I've watched things nosedive in every traditional chapel I've frequented the last 30 years. The old timers who have died or who are dying out knew/know why they were there. The younger generation is all about compromise - one foot in one world and one in the other. With phone in hand and slit up back of skirt and makeup caked on their faces, they look like no different than they're novus ordo counterparts.
I've heard every silly excuse in the book for wearing pants too.
I can't remember the last time I heard a good sermon in a traditional chapel on modesty.
-
Sacrilege shouldn't be allowed in the Mass. Immodest dress before the holy sanctuary is sacrilege and an occasion of sin to everyone there.
Those who allow immodesty and too cowardly to enforce the dress code are lukewarm. WE know what Jesus Christ will do to the lukewarm.
-
I hate to say what some of the young girls (in their 20's and 30's) look like. They must be an occasion of sin to the young men there.
Doesn't any priest ever preach about being a near occasion of sin to others anymore?
I remember in the early 90's getting a sermon from an SSPX stressing that being a traditional Catholic wasn't just about the Mass. It was more. Much more.
Traditionals, from what I can see in my area, are far from being the salt of the earth.
-
As I read through the posts, these topics passed through my mind:
1) Worldliness
2) Strident women
3) Makeup, pants, and skirts threads (women resisting traditional norms, and men defending them in this)
4) They hated +BW for this
5) “SSPX Hotties” thread from a couple years ago
6) SSPX fixated on numbers doesn’t risk unpopular sermons
7) Too many men of weak will not assuming leadership at home
8) Coincides with ralliement
9) CCCC posts on encroaching worldliness and pics
10) Pic from a couple years ago of woman next to +BF in very short skirt for consecration of bells eliciting no protest
11) Mercedes Benz seminarians
12) SSPX news babes
13) District office women all in pants
What are "Mercedes Benz seminarians"?
-
Sspx wedding last year:
Oh, my! :facepalm:
-
Oh-oh:
Makeup, skirts, or pants came up!
There are now 17 members online like a flash!
13 of them will be feminist zealots, or their weak-willed male enablers!
The thread is now destined for 10,000 clicks.
:popcorn:
I usually stay out of these just because of the feminist zealots who suddenly pop in with their usual talking points.
-
Money speaks loudly.
Since women control the purse in many homes, if a priest were to say something humiliating about the wife and/or her children, the donation would be significantly down the following week.
Since women tend to gossip, the entire parish tithes might be significantly less the following weeks.
Menzingen knows this and wants to buy more castles for the kiddies.
Silence is golden and brings in the gold.
I say this from experience. My son told me that he did not like the way the girls and women dressed so immodestly, so I spoke with the priest. He told me to be silent and that if I said anything it would spark a parish revolt and that half the parish would cease contributing and attending. Basically, I was told to go elsewhere.
All we can do is pray and try to be a good example, but then when I wear a long skirt, long sleeved blouse, and scarf, they accuse me of being a hypocrite and "holier than Thou." I guess I am disturbing their conscience just like the wife of Herold was disturbed by the sayings of St. John the Baptist.
You just keep doing what you're doing. Never mind what they accuse you of being or say about you.
-
When Fr. Beck was the rector in Saint Marys, he gave a sermon about modesty.
He said, "It's not my job to enforce modesty." There you go women, no enforcement
in the chapel, wear what you want.
.
Fr Beck later said, "It's an internal thing that the women will have to adopt, then
automatically it will show up in the way they dress." And I guess if they don't get it
internally, then too bad.
.
That pretty much sums up the attitude in Saint Marys. Fr Rutledge is no better.
Modesty will never be enforced in Saint Marys (IMHO). And I've been watching
it get worse for 20 years.
.
That's a cowardly excuse. He's a priest. Isn't his job about souls?
-
All I can say is it's pretty bad when someone from Our Lady of Sorrows in Phoenix is pointing out the flaws of the SSPX epicenter of the USA, St. Mary's. I mean, we are normally the ones with the bad image, right? I feel a wee bit jealous of all the attention me post is getting!!!
-
Yeah, this is a big issue. I don't know about the US, but in many countries like my own, parishes were very important and definitely communities. They formed a strong part of a person's identity, and the people you saw at mass were the same people you know from your school, club, neighbourhood, etc. So you knew most people there very well and you'd be careful not to do anything that could embarrass you or have bad word spread around about you, so there was a big social pressure for modesty and looking respectable at mass. But now for many Trads you'll often go to mass an hour from where you live or work and you might have absolutely nothing to do with the other families besides some church activities, and since most Trads live in places that are majority non-Catholic or at least non-Trad you won't be seeing your neighbours or co-workers at mass. So there's much less social pressure to conform.
You have a good point. When Mass is said sporadically by different priests at different locations, and people drive long distances because they lack a Catholic community and a stationary structure, enforcing dress standards is nearly impossible and is low on the priest’s list of priorities. A suggestion in case someone comes dressed in an extremely immodest manner, is for the host family to bring some veils, neutral colored shawls, and a couple of suit jackets. Choose a man and a woman with excellent people skills to approach the immodest dresser. It has to be done with grace and discretion or not at all. If the offer is refused, then it’s up to the priest to either allow the person to stay or to lay down the law. I think the latter should only be done in very extreme cases where ill-will is obvious or children will be corrupted. If handled improperly, it may result in the loss of a weak soul.
One time I was at a Mass in a hotel meeting room and an employee of the hotel desired to attend Mass. Thankfully, he first approached the priest who is a person who has the gift of being able to talk to anyone, to see through outward trappings. Fr. ushered the man inside, seated him up front near the door, and introduced him by name to a few couples seated nearby. He arranged for a man to help him out with a Missal, then went to vest for Mass. The young man had a mullet hairstyle, a dangling earring, and tattoos creeping up the sides of his neck and onto the backs of his hands. I could see an elderly couple in the back whispering and giving him daggers with their eyes. After Mass, Fr. spent considerable time with the man off to the side. Did he convert? I don’t know, but there would have been scant chance of it had the old couple vented their outrage upon him.
-
Doesn't look like Fr. Angelo to me. So what FSSP Van der Putten priest is that?
Still waiting for your answer, Mmmm.
-
You have a good point. When Mass is said sporadically by different priests at different locations, and people drive long distances because they lack a Catholic community and a stationary structure, enforcing dress standards is nearly impossible and is low on the priest’s list of priorities. A suggestion in case someone comes dressed in an extremely immodest manner, is for the host family to bring some veils, neutral colored shawls, and a couple of suit jackets. Choose a man and a woman with excellent people skills to approach the immodest dresser. It has to be done with grace and discretion or not at all. If the offer is refused, then it’s up to the priest to either allow the person to stay or to lay down the law. I think the latter should only be done in very extreme cases where ill-will is obvious or children will be corrupted. If handled improperly, it may result in the loss of a weak soul.
Your suggestions are fantastic for a new-comer to a Trad chapel, but we're talking about "Catholics" who attend on a weekly basis but don't dress like Catholics.
-
This discussion -- and the struggle we are having with this very issue in my parish -- is one of many reasons why I wish Rome would formally "recognize" and distinguish two different Catholic rites, such as she recognizes now other different Catholic rites. Simply calling it the Ordinary (and how) Form and the Extraordinary Form is not distinct enough. A really visionary Pope would write some kind of papal docuмent to be published in parish bulletins, explaining that both communities or movements are in communion with Rome. First, that would actually pave the way for more oversight of the N.O. abuses, by standardizing all of it within the GIRM. (Most N.O. parishes are cavalier about following the basic requirements of the GIRM.) As the See is now the Seat of the N.O. cult, the See could standardize the N.O. within universal norms, including formulaic prayers, rubrics, etc. Of course, that will not happen under the current titular head, since Francis is quite a fan of the casual and the multicultural, pandering to both. So, doubtful it would happen while he's in charge, but it would be a clever way of a subsequent leader to work toward universal (eventually traditional) compliance and universality. Since the traditional Mass is the universal form, permanently, going "through" the N.O. first would be a way to prepare the Church populace for that. Nothing will ever happen while the hierarchy is afraid of its own authority and operates out of Human Respect. We're going to continue to live with disobedience and pride in the ranks until a true, brave General takes over.
Following within this argument, the trads being in the minority and in effective charge of their own "troops" when it comes to liturgical form (not needing standardization from Rome), the same papal docuмent would announce the need to respect the two different rites in total, meaning that overall standards of behavior and other expectations (such as rubrics) are proper to the two distinct rites: a Catholic visiting the other rite should expect to conform to the minimum standards of that rite and would be subject to them. While seeming to validate the N.O. as a legitimate rite, such a clever pope would actually be preparing the Church to reestablish the Traditional Mass as the only recognized valid and licit rite. I think this is actually possible within our lifetimes.
It's not off-topic because such a move would have the sanction of Rome to permit trad groups to enforce standards of dress and behavior for all attending their rites and related events.
Now let's move to the laments in this thread over trad priests not asserting their own authority enough in their own locations and occasions. I do agree; it bothers me, too. Overall, their orientation is to bring souls to, not keep new souls away; thus, their concern is that if they preach persistently about sloppy and immodest dress (men and women), and sloppy behavior (visitors from the N.O. swinging their arms to and from HC, or putting hands in pockets, coming to the HC rail "for a blessing," on and on), such pronouncements will discourage newcomers.
I don't think trad priests are considering the effect of merely one remark from the pulpit at the beginning of every low or high Mass -- a general remark, intended for all to hear. Sentence One: conformity to dress standards are published in the back of the church. Sentence Two: expect that others, with my advance approval, may approach you if you are observed to be inappropriately dressed. This could be the initial, formulaic reminder, just before or just after the announcements are read (for us, those announcements are very brief; they are not everything printed, just what the priest may want to emphasize orally and they take 30-60 seconds to say). Then the priest can go into his homily/sermon.
Where I think our trad priests are very wrong is the degree and permanence of the effect of such speech. It's not going to keep sincere seekers away; it will only keep the disobedient, prideful, obstinate visitors from returning -- people attached to their own will and people not interested in conforming to the demands of those in authority.
Back to my first paragraph: Yes, yes, a pope truly in command would not necessarily consider "paving the way" for the exclusive acceptance of the TLM, but announce himself unapologetically. However, just consider the chaos that an unprepared pronouncement would invite: politically, it would be more problematic, probably, than an interim step would be. I'm not talking, of course, about laypeople, or even about priests, but about the horde of modernist bishops and cardinals. There are certainly other ways of going about the return to universal dominance of the TLM, but something shocking and sudden will be far more difficult to manage, politically and administratively. Clergy on all levels remain irrationally "afraid" of the TLM. That's why you see all these fake hybrids of the N.O. and the TLM in so many parishes:
The N.O. ad orientem
The N.O. with various Latin substitutes peppered within it
The N.O. with communion rails
A weird hybrid of both: Latin Gregorian Propers, chanted, + vernacular Ordinary sung + English recessional hymn
The only reason for these tiptoes is fear. So a pragmatic pope will probably consider the fear factor if he wants to move the Church definitively back to Tradition even liturgically, let alone fully -- doctrinally and in spirituality.
-
A really visionary Pope would write some kind of papal docuмent to be published in parish bulletins, explaining that both communities or movements are in communion with Rome. First, that would actually pave the way for more oversight of the N.O. abuses, by standardizing all of it within the GIRM.
How can a rite which has over 5 different canons, and multiple rubric options be standardized? It's impossible. The novus ordo was designed to be without standards, without norms, without structure so that the unity of catholic worship worldwide would be destroyed. It was designed to be in constant flux, with constant revisions and updates, (wait until there are new rubrics for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ prayers and transgender rituals), until the modernists/communists get what they want - a total destruction of the catholic mass, even down to the tiniest remembrance of it. Until you realize this, and until you realize that the novus ordo must be abolished completely for the True Faith to return, you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
-
I realize it. You're preaching to the choir, not the uninitiated, so you didn't understand my reply at all. I'm talking about political pragmatics, not about the reality of the how the N.O. does not conform to the Traditional (largely abandoned) foundation of the Roman Church.
A Pope has the legitimate, technical authority to announce the restoration of Tradition, comprehensively. However, many men in such a position, in the current political environment, will hesitate to exercise that full authority as immediately as we all wish they would.
-
I'm talking about political pragmatics,
I get your point, but there's no such thing as being pragmatic in matters of salvation. If you go to confession and confess you're an alcoholic, the priest does not tell you to try to only get drunk 3 times a week, and then try for 2. The priest should tell you to join AA and pray for spiritual strength as only God can truly help you get better, through humility.
.
In the same way, the novus ordo shouldn't be gradually phased out, but stopped cold turkey because the end (getting rid of the novus ordo) does not justify the means (only having the novus ordo sometimes). The novus ordo is an abomination and a moral crisis of Faith for those that attend. You can't offend God in the attempt to please/teach people.
-
That's your opinion as to the means and methods that could be used or should be used. I, too, have a similar ideal, but working within the Vatican may alter one's perspective, given how brutally lovers of tradition have been treated in the modern era.
I have a better idea: The addiction to modernism and heterodoxy being closely related to the sins of the flesh being practiced within the Vatican, how about a new pope concentrating on definitively and immediately purging the sodomites from the See, so that those not spiritually and intellectually blinded by their own grave sin, those more inclined to follow an orthodox pope, will be in a position to help lead a restoration.
No restoration is going to happen while sodomy maintains a stranglehold on Rome, regardless of how suddenly the N.O. is subjugated and eliminated. The two are very much symbiotic.
-
That's your opinion as to the means and methods that could be used or should be used.
It's not an opinion, it's an application of moral principles. The novus ordo is a sacrilege, which is an offense against God of the highest degree. The offense against God must be stopped immediately; the concern over how to educate the faithful is of way lower priority.
.
As an example. If you had the chance to stop abortion immediately, would you do it? Or would you gradually "phase it out" as long as it took people to realize it was wrong? Of course, you'd stop it immediately because it's a heinous act and the fact that people don't realize this is secondary to saving the lives of millions of infants.
.
The novus ordo is INFINITELY worse than abortion because the novus ordo is a mockery of the most pure and holy prayer on earth - the Mass. Abortion is a desecration of God's creatures. The novus ordo is a desecration of God Himself.
-
Your recommendation as to the methods of enforcing the unwavering moral principles does not carry any weight as a layperson. It sounds logical to you, and would also be preferred by me and probably all other trads, true, but whether what you want accomplished can be attained as rapidly as you assume (and without actually lengthening the process by producing chaos in the interim) is not something you or I are in a position to decide.
Again, I think a lot more cowardice is being shown in the Vatican about tolerance for One of the Four Sins than about anything else. Since the person in charge tolerates sodomy in his home, so to speak, surely the N.O. is going to continue to be tolerated with even less alarm.
And without addressing the rest of Conciliarism (in addition to the Mass itself), merely extinguishing the N.O. still leaves mountains of doctrinal needs within the Church.
Reinstate the Index
Put the Council on the Index
As part of that decision, forbid the N.O. and restore the TLM to exclusive use, including in mission territories.
And those ^ would only be the beginning. Next would be:
Restoring traditional catechesis, which would mean....
Putting modernist catechisms on the Index, as well as modernist pedagogy
Etc. Etc.
-
but whether what you want accomplished can be attained as rapidly as you assume (and without actually lengthening the process by producing chaos in the interim) is not something you or I are in a position to decide.
I think that our goals are totally different. My goal is to stop the great sacrilege of the new mass from ever being said again, because it is one of the greatest sins to have ever been committed. I would not measure success by the number of people who agreed with me, but only by the swiftness and completeness of getting rid of the new liturgy. If I were the pope and I ordered that each and every person who said or attended the new mass was excommunicated immediately, even if this meant that 99% of catholics disagreed with me, and even if the outcome was that 99% of catholics left the Church and stayed with their new mass (which would mean they became schismatics), I would consider my papacy a complete success. The consideration of who or how many followed my lead is very much secondary to the primary goal of honoring God and halting that which offends Him. Only 3 people on all the earth were with Christ when He fulfilled His Father's will on the cross. The Church's success does not depend on quantity of people but on quality of sanctity.
-
I think that our goals are totally different. My goal is to stop the great sacrilege of the new mass from ever being said again, because it is one of the greatest sins to have ever been committed. I would not measure success by the number of people who agreed with me, but only by the swiftness and completeness of getting rid of the new liturgy. If I were the pope and I ordered that each and every person who said or attended the new mass was excommunicated immediately, even if this meant that 99% of catholics disagreed with me, and even if the outcome was that 99% of catholics left the Church and stayed with their new mass (which would mean they became schismatics), I would consider my papacy a complete success. The consideration of who or how many followed my lead is very much secondary to the primary goal of honoring God and halting that which offends Him. Only 3 people on all the earth were with Christ when He fulfilled His Father's will on the cross. The Church's success does not depend on quantity of people but on quality of sanctity.
I agree with Pax Vobis. We live in turbulent times. My opinion is that the approach with NO people should be quiet similar to that of the Saints during the Reformation in order to bring the flock back to the true Pastor.
-
The Church's success does not depend on quantity of people but on quality of sanctity.
Absolutely nothing in my posts on this thread or any other thread have anything to do with "quantity of people." I simply know what the Church knows, which is that Tradition is three things, not one:
The Liturgy
The Faith (doctrine)
Traditional Spirituality
This is important to the very topic on the thread. Why do visitors from the N.O. not comply with standards of dress (men and women) when attending trad Masses? Because they've been brainwashed by the World, which is to mean the World as represented and promoted in the N.O. -- not just the N.O. Mass, but the N.O. mentality about everything. It's about being formed by the World, catechetically (or the absence thereof), a disregard for authority, the belief in "equality," the contempt for standards and for form, and a spirit of rebellion and disobedience. They're attached to their own will because Conciliarism affirms and promotes that self-will.
The submission of the laity needs to be specifically taught, and not just by attending the TLM now and then and enjoying the Smells and Bells superficially. We have the proof in our own parish, as I mentioned earlier. There's a qualitative and radical difference between those who have truly integrated Tradition within their lives; those are the people who would not question a dress code and who do willingly comply with it.
Tradition is not just a fad or event (not that you think so; I'm saying that visitors often assume that the only thing different about Tradition is the Mass itself; that is false). Tradition is an entirely different orientation to Catholicism, requiring conversion to the three essentials of Tradition, and until all attendees at a TLM understand that, we will all continue to have problems with people's appearance at Mass. It shows you how deeply society's pathetic expectations of modern behavior have infiltrated into every institution -- religious, educational, governmental, media, etc.
-
I simply know what the Church knows, which is that Tradition is three things, not one
Agree. And the True Mass has all 3 elements contained in it. (1) It is a liturgical style of Divine origin (the liturgy is a completion of the Jєωιѕн liturgy), (2) it directly and indirectly communicates the catholic theology (the Mass is the re-enactment of Calvary), (3) It is a form of prayer that is consistent with Tradition of thousands of years.
Absolutely nothing in my posts on this thread or any other thread have anything to do with "quantity of people."
I interpreted your comments about "pragmatic politics" and "producing chaos in the interim" to refer to the confusion that people would have by being forced back into Tradition. I interpreted your approach as trying to maximize the # of people to accept Tradition. If that's wrong, i'm sorry.
Again, I think a lot more cowardice is being shown in the Vatican about tolerance for One of the Four Sins than about anything else.
No restoration is going to happen while sodomy maintains a stranglehold on Rome, regardless of how suddenly the N.O. is subjugated and eliminated. The two are very much symbiotic.
The addiction to modernism and heterodoxy being closely related to the sins of the flesh being practiced within the Vatican,
Interesting perspective on the relationship between these two errors. Except that Modernism came long before the rampant ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity crisis (at least in a public knowledge sense). However, I agree with you that the connection between heresy and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a good one, being that almost all the progressive Cardinals/bishops of the Church are freemasons/communists, who have no moral code, and who practice Satanism in secret, therefore their moral boundaries are almost non-existent, since they never entered the Church to serve Christ but to destroy Catholicism. In other words, Modernists existed since before Pope St Pius X in the early 1900s, as he warned us all then. Ergo, so did such moral deviancy, because most freemasons/modernists practice such activity, being it is a natural progression of their loss of morality, the closer they come to satan and away from God. The stranglehold that these deviants have on new-rome is just a function of time, as during the 1960s, the # of good Cardinals outnumbered the bad, except that the evil faction was more organized and able to control the V2 council and its outcome. Since the 60s, gradually and gradually, more deviants have been appointed by new-rome's popes.
-
Agree. And the True Mass has all 3 elements contained in it. (1) It is a liturgical style of Divine origin (the liturgy is a completion of the Jєωιѕн liturgy), (2) it directly and indirectly communicates the catholic theology (the Mass is the re-enactment of Calvary), (3) It is a form of prayer that is consistent with Tradition of thousands of years.
Fine, but those three elements within the Mass proper are not sufficient to teach and convert the untaught and unconverted who are actually attached to modernism and the N.O., not to Tradition. Deliberate formation is necessary. It's especially hard when a person was born into the N.O. (Often more difficult than if the same person were to have converted from "nothing.")
I interpreted your comments about "pragmatic politics" and "producing chaos in the interim" to refer to the confusion that people would have by being forced back into Tradition. I interpreted your approach as trying to maximize the # of people to accept Tradition. If that's wrong, i'm sorry.
Wrong interpretation.
Interesting perspective on the relationship between these two errors. Except that Modernism came long before the rampant ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity crisis (at least in a public knowledge sense). However, I agree with you that the connection between heresy and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a good one, being that almost all the progressive Cardinals/bishops of the Church are freemasons/communists, who have no moral code, and who practice Satanism in secret, therefore their moral boundaries are almost non-existent, since they never entered the Church to serve Christ but to destroy Catholicism. In other words, Modernists existed since before Pope St Pius X in the early 1900s, as he warned us all then. Ergo, so did such moral deviancy, because most freemasons/modernists practice such activity, being it is a natural progression of their loss of morality, the closer they come to satan and away from God. The stranglehold that these deviants have on new-rome is just a function of time, as during the 1960s, the # of good Cardinals outnumbered the bad, except that the evil faction was more organized and able to control the V2 council and its outcome. Since the 60s, gradually and gradually, more deviants have been appointed by new-rome's popes.
Thank you, but I wasn't talking about modernism; rather, a specific sin clouding the intellect and creating all kinds of disorder within the soul -- including disordered attachments to self, to secrecy, to a willingness to prefer addictive behavior (sodomy) to the truth and to risk one's eternal salvation because of that attachment. I've grown pretty heartless about such people in the clerical ranks.
Anyway, I hope you and others on this thread can agree at least to the effective symbiotic relationship that exists between Conciliarism and the standards of the World: Love of ego, preference of self over objective authority, vanity, immodesty, "feminism," etc. Again, good riddance to the 8 pant-dressed women who didn't show up last Sunday due to ah honest message on a harmless flyer. Maybe we'll get lucky again this Sunday.
-
Fine, but those three elements within the Mass proper are not sufficient to teach and convert the untaught and unconverted who are actually attached to modernism and the N.O., not to Tradition. Deliberate formation is necessary. It's especially hard when a person was born into the N.O. (Often more difficult than if the same person were to have converted from "nothing.")
Wrong interpretation.
Thank you, but I wasn't talking about modernism; rather, a specific sin clouding the intellect and creating all kinds of disorder within the soul -- including disordered attachments to self, to secrecy, to a willingness to prefer addictive behavior (sodomy) to the truth and to risk one's eternal salvation because of that attachment. I've grown pretty heartless about such people in the clerical ranks.
Anyway, I hope you and others on this thread can agree at least to the effective symbiotic relationship that exists between Conciliarism and the standards of the World: Love of ego, preference of self over objective authority, vanity, immodesty, "feminism," etc. Again, good riddance to the 8 pant-dressed women who didn't show up last Sunday due to ah honest message on a harmless flyer. Maybe we'll get lucky again this Sunday.
Nice job! A flyer would be a great idea for many of the Chapels - somehow anonymously ending up in circulation! Deo gratias!
-
I remember when my cousin literally dressed like a prostitute at our grandmother's funeral. She wore a mini dress that you would see women wearing at night clubs. Of course, her modernist, worldly, yuppy father had no qualms about it. Her mother ("divorced" from her father) certainly had no problems with it. She's one of those weirdo New Agers, and like so many modern women, they allow and approve of their daughters objectifying themselves through their clothing.