Sundry bad feels about being a Catholic woman

[Lady Grey, Hot]

52 minutes ago, savvy said:

Marriage is a call too, consecrated life is a call too.

But neither of these is actually necessary. Marriage is certainly expedient, but the Church would persist without it.

[savvy]

1 hour ago, Lady Grey, Hot said:

But neither of these is actually necessary. Marriage is certainly expedient, but the Church would persist without it.

In Catholicism the sacraments are necessary for Salvation. We are not saved through faith alone, like Protestants are.

Sacramental marriage for shadows the eternal marriage of Christ and the church. Consecrated life is the very participation in it.

The church needs both.

Mary, the mother of God, has been chosen to lead the world into an era of peace ( Fatima). In the book of Revelation it’s Mary who leads the church in the final battle with the gates of hill. Hardly a passive role.

We are called to join her in her Fiat. To be open to the will of God. The next generation of saints is waiting to be forged. God is waiting for our Fiat. 
 

[Lady Grey, Hot]

19 minutes ago, savvy said:

In Catholicism the sacraments are necessary for Salvation.

And sacraments are administered by priests. No priests = no sacraments = the end of the Church.

 

19 minutes ago, savvy said:

The church needs both.

For what, exactly? I'm not saying that they aren't nice things to have (like I've said elsewhere in the thread, it's certainly efficient to keep your incubators in-house), but if people stopped marrying within the Church, the Church could still survive through the acquisition of converts so long as there were still priests administering sacraments.

[savvy]

11 hours ago, Lady Grey, Hot said:

And sacraments are administered by priests. No priests = no sacraments = the end of the Church.

 

For what, exactly? I'm not saying that they aren't nice things to have (like I've said elsewhere in the thread, it's certainly efficient to keep your incubators in-house), but if people stopped marrying within the Church, the Church could still survive through the acquisition of converts so long as there were still priests administering sacraments.

Lol! Baptism and Marriage don’t need a priest. Neither does consecrated life. Japanese Catholics survived for 500 years without priests.

God works through the sacraments, but is not bound by them. 

A sacrament also needs the proper form and matter. When we start running out of water, natural oil and grapes. It might be the end of the world. I am not going to keep speculating about things beyond my control.

And if you want to know how sacraments work, study actual sacramental theology.

https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/sacraments

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by savvy

[Lady Grey, Hot]

53 minutes ago, savvy said:

Neither does consecrated life.

Which isn't a sacrament at all...

[savvy]

35 minutes ago, Lady Grey, Hot said:

Which isn't a sacrament at all...

Yes. It’s actually higher than one, if you understand the theology. 

 

 

[freedomreigns]

If you are hanging with a crowd that is overemphasizing a view of masculine and feminine that is discouraging you, (ala "Wild at Heart") why not just stop hanging with that crowd?  It's not official church teaching or the gospel truth that you have to view men and women through that lens, it is a bit stilted in my view as well, and I would also feel discouraged if I tried to view myself in that way too.  Don't let some fluffy pseudo-theology define you. Or even "what people say." Who cares what so-and-so says? Is so-and-so the expert on all things? A lot of people here have told you women have tremendous dignity. Take that to counter balance so-and-so's view that women are delicate passive creatures with nothing to contribute. 

It would be nice if you would give women a stinking chance to be our excellent selves. You can't think of a woman worth emulating or one who works hard and rises to challenges in life gracefully? You being a woman shouldn't give you a pass to so harshly deny all of the rest of womanhood of our dignity and accomplishments. 

The crowd you are in doesn't want to emphasize Joan of Arc's courage? But it doesn't mean she wasn't courageous. Your crowd wants women to be all retiring and passive? That's not what the Biblical heroes like Mary the Mother of God, Esther, Lydia, the women at the cross, the woman with great faith, etc. were like. What about the courageous women saints? Can you not think of any?  Can you not think of a single woman you know who is a good leader? Who is direct, confident, etc.?

You and I might struggle with a lack of confidence, a hard time being direct, being a bit more passive, shy, people-pleasing, self-pitying and such. These are traps that women are a bit more prone to, but also can be signs of some psychological struggles or traumas that need some healing.

I really do suggest you read Edith Stein's "Woman." Also a good biography of her. She was a feminist in her time, and canonized. A strong, courageous, capable woman in fact. You are clearly intelligent, as was she. Your intelligence is beyond John Eldredge's writing level. Get beyond the pop theology and get yourself into something with more substance. Please do take what is helpful and leave the rest in her writings.     

[savvy]

47 minutes ago, freedomreigns said:

If you are hanging with a crowd that is overemphasizing a view of masculine and feminine that is discouraging you, (ala "Wild at Heart") why not just stop hanging with that crowd?  It's not official church teaching or the gospel truth that you have to view men and women through that lens, it is a bit stilted in my view as well, and I would also feel discouraged if I tried to view myself in that way too.  Don't let some fluffy pseudo-theology define you. Or even "what people say." Who cares what so-and-so says? Is so-and-so the expert on all things? A lot of people here have told you women have tremendous dignity. Take that to counter balance so-and-so's view that women are delicate passive creatures with nothing to contribute. 

It would be nice if you would give women a stinking chance to be our excellent selves. You can't think of a woman worth emulating or one who works hard and rises to challenges in life gracefully? You being a woman shouldn't give you a pass to so harshly deny all of the rest of womanhood of our dignity and accomplishments. 

The crowd you are in doesn't want to emphasize Joan of Arc's courage? But it doesn't mean she wasn't courageous. Your crowd wants women to be all retiring and passive? That's not what the Biblical heroes like Mary the Mother of God, Esther, Lydia, the women at the cross, the woman with great faith, etc. were like. What about the courageous women saints? Can you not think of any?  Can you not think of a single woman you know who is a good leader? Who is direct, confident, etc.?

You and I might struggle with a lack of confidence, a hard time being direct, being a bit more passive, shy, people-pleasing, self-pitying and such. These are traps that women are a bit more prone to, but also can be signs of some psychological struggles or traumas that need some healing.

I really do suggest you read Edith Stein's "Woman." Also a good biography of her. She was a feminist in her time, and canonized. A strong, courageous, capable woman in fact. You are clearly intelligent, as was she. Your intelligence is beyond John Eldredge's writing level. Get beyond the pop theology and get yourself into something with more substance. Please do take what is helpful and leave the rest in her writings.     

Thank you! I have been trying to say that this more open ended than both sides want to admit. There is a diversity of charisms. Viewing this through a political legal lens, misses out on so much.

 

[freedomreigns]

One more thing...I read a bit about "Wild at Heart" because I really feel for how you have struggled with these negative feelings about womanhood and I wondered what you had been exposed to...

The whole God told Adam to "stand on your own two feet as a man because I made you that way" business...that is complete nonsense... what a bunch of drivel.  It isn't Biblical. It isn't Catholic. It isn't a good Christian theology.  God did not make man to be independent of Him and "figure it out and rely on himself." 

"I will send a Savior..."(right there when they get kicked out of Eden actually,)

 "Apart from Me You can do nothing..." "Lean not on your own understanding..."  "The Lord is my refuge..." etc...

The rely on God, trust in God theme is all through the Bible.  

[gloriana35]

I hope I do not sound crass, but we are all one Church. We love as one, grieve as one - we individually may best serve God and neighbour in a particular form of life, but it is not a contest. (I had a late start, but just celebrated my 40th anniversary of vows. I do believe that consecrated life is an important eschatological witness, but I'm too weary at the moment to get into whether this is 'higher than a sacrament.')

It seems to me that you are getting too 'wound up' and distressed. Perhaps, for the moment, you might need to just say the Offices, aware that this is the prayer of the entire Church. (I cannot define salvation - it is beyond our complete understanding - but this is not a case where Catholics are saved through sacraments -  unlike others. ) I cherish the Eucharist, and the priesthood is an extension of Christ's own ministry. 

The Church has survived persecutions, Plagues, penal laws - the sacraments are a great treasure, but the Church endured even when people were worshipping in secret and baptising their own children. 

[savvy]

1 hour ago, gloriana35 said:

I hope I do not sound crass, but we are all one Church. We love as one, grieve as one - we individually may best serve God and neighbour in a particular form of life, but it is not a contest. (I had a late start, but just celebrated my 40th anniversary of vows. I do believe that consecrated life is an important eschatological witness, but I'm too weary at the moment to get into whether this is 'higher than a sacrament.')

It seems to me that you are getting too 'wound up' and distressed. Perhaps, for the moment, you might need to just say the Offices, aware that this is the prayer of the entire Church. (I cannot define salvation - it is beyond our complete understanding - but this is not a case where Catholics are saved through sacraments -  unlike others. ) I cherish the Eucharist, and the priesthood is an extension of Christ's own ministry. 

The Church has survived persecutions, Plagues, penal laws - the sacraments are a great treasure, but the Church endured even when people were worshipping in secret and baptising their own children. 

First of all congratualtions. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that consecrated life is higher than the presence of Christ in the sacraments. Offcourse not. I am just saying, that as a way of life, it involves a total oblation or giving everything you have and are to God. Even if the Pope said, that consecrated life had to not follow the evangelical councils, it would not happen. It's like not like celibacy as a discipline for priests. It's also different from the vow of obedience that priests make to Bishops. 

 

 

[Lady Grey, Hot]

3 hours ago, gloriana35 said:

Perhaps, for the moment, you might need to just say the Offices, aware that this is the prayer of the entire Church.

I think I'd have to join a religious order to even learn how to do this - all the ribbons confuse me. 😉

[Feankie]

There are several good apps for praying the Liturgy of the Hours.  No ribbons needed :)). 

[tinytherese]

I've read Wild at Heart and Captivating. The authors are Protestant, so they can't speak for how Catholicism views men and women. (Though people might find some parts of it helpful, not all of it conforms to Church teaching.)

I'm an amateur or novice really in regards to Theology of the Body. The feminine genius is talked about and I haven't found anything which says that women are supposed to be silent, delicate, and submissive to all men.

Have you read the short document Letter of Pope John Paul II to Women? https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1995/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women.html

Women in Church history have a variety of personalities. There have certainly been bold ladies. St. Catherine of Sienna convinced the pope to return to living in Rome again. St. Teresa of Avila lived in a time when The Carmelite Order needed reforming. She traveled around Spain to set up such communities for nuns and encouraged the same for male communities. She faced lots of opposition. I attended a talk by a priest who used to do retreats for Mother St. Teresa of Calcutta and her community. He didn't want to do it, but let's just say that she did not quietly take no as an answer from people.

St. Gianna was a wife, mother, and doctor who specialized in treating children and the elderly. St. Zelie, the mother of St. Therese, owned a lace-making business. Her husband St. Louis quit his job as a watch-maker to help her run the place.

None of these women were any less feminine. A large spectrum exists for how women behave. I get the impression that you're using traditional stereotypes of how the sexes should act. This may be internalized sexism or internalized clericalism.

Take it away, St. Paul.

"One Body with Many Members

12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single organ, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body which seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and those parts of the body which we think less honorable we invest with the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so adjusted the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part, 25 that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?"

1 Cor 12: 12-30

[Lady Grey, Hot]

21 minutes ago, tinytherese said:

None of these women were any less feminine.

Ah, this is the rub. I would actually prefer to be "less feminine." Here is the best formulation of my underlying thought process that I can offer: in my perception, any given thing is only good to the extent to which it is masculine. As a woman, I am feminine (and so essentially not masculine, and so essentially not good). While I may be able to elevate myself a little by engaging in masculine endeavors, I can't fix the essential problem with myself - I am still always disposed, by having a feminine nature, to not be good. By contrast, men, by virtue of being men, will always be fully masculine no matter what they do. So they will always be fully good, even if they engage in "feminine" things (like surrender to God).