Lady Day, March 8th — “Pure Goodness at Work!”

Lady-Day-HANDOVER-logo-300x300 Lady Day, March 8th — "Pure Goodness at Work!"“The level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood.” -Archbishop Fulton Sheen

Social agitators — the same who marched on Washington, DC last month in the much publicized and shockingly vulgar Women’s March — are at it again.

A Day Without Women general strike is planned for March 8, National Women’s Day, asking women to stay home from work to show support for radical egalitarian feminism and harmful social causes like Planned Parenthood, abortion, and same-sex “marriage”.

RTO-mini2 Lady Day, March 8th — "Pure Goodness at Work!"Free Book: Return to Order: From a Frenzied Economy to an Organic Christian Society—Where We’ve Been, How We Got Here, and Where We Need to Go


But how many women can really skip work? What about mothers? What about nurses or any woman who works in society to help others? We can't skip work! And furthermore, we don't want to.

Lady Day is a positive response, a day for us to celebrate God’s plan for women as pure and good. In fact, the motto for this special day is “Pure Goodness at Work!”

Lady Day is dedicated to the most sublime lady ever: Mary Most Holy. In her motherhood, she has nurtured all human beings.
Devotion-to-Our-Lady-199x300 Lady Day, March 8th — "Pure Goodness at Work!"


Our greatest dignity is, like Mary, to be what God designed us to be and our greatest happiness is in fulfilling God’s intention. As St. Francis de Sales says, “Do not wish to be anything but what you are, and try to be that perfectly.” What are women meant to be?

Some are meant to be mothers, with a nurturing presence at home. Others, not given the grace of natural motherhood, are privileged to be mothers in a spiritual sense, to nurture others by unfailing purity, goodness and selflessness.

“Mothers are closer to God the Creator than any other creature; God joins forces with mothers in performing this act of creation…What on God’s good earth is more glorious than this; to be a mother?”

-Cardinal Mindzenty

Tea-Ladies-for-Lady-Day-Article-225x300 Lady Day, March 8th — "Pure Goodness at Work!"What can you do on Lady Day?

1. Go out for tea with lady friends on March 8th. Dress up in a modest, elegant way to celebrate femininity. If someone asks why you’re dressed up, be prepared to explain that Lady Day is a special day to appreciate how God made women, and embrace our God-given role in society. Note: you do not need to take off work. Just be special on the day.

2. Post photos of your Lady Day outing on The Return To Order Facebook page. When posting please use the tag #ladyday.

This special outing to celebrate Lady Day and the photos will counter the divisive “A Day Without Women” strike. It will have a good influence on our children and on society! Will you join me?

Happy Lady Day!

*      *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

Colette Zimmerman is a Catholic mother, wife and writer.  She and her husband Thomas are TFP Supporters.  Mrs. Zimmerman writes regularly on issues related to fashion and Catholic femininity on her Catholic Lady Blog.

  • Cheryl Lee Garley Steen

    This sounds absolutely lovely! I’ll give it my support! I’m a lady chiropractor, mother of 3 – gramma of 4 – I was a collegiate gymnast & athlete but women’s ‘lib’ has gone toooooo far.

    • Franie

      The women’s lib movement of today has sunk to new lows in their mentality. There is nothing Godly about those women, nothing! The shear vulgarity and crassness of this movement is truly sickening. I don’t think any of them have any redeeming qualities as true gloriously modern Christian women, and come Judgment Day, I really don’t want to be in their shoes. They are in great need of true repentance for their salvation.

      • Jackie Daniels

        The radical feminists continue to sabotage themselves. They have become savages in their plight for “equality,” so stupefied by the Marxist-Communist agenda of misguided radicals such as Gloria Steinem, who sold their souls to Liberalism instead of taking responsibility for their humanity and womanhood, that they are conditioned to willingly forfeit the incredible value of their divine femininity.

        Sadly, the maniacal egotism of these people, the savage breed of radical feminists, are too lazy to open their minds to afford themselves even a glimpse of the incredible and magnificent gift our Lord gives us in the Virgin Mary. Love is the Divine gift given freely and we can thank the savagery of radical feminism for perverting love to the extrememe, today, of hypersexuality, in which love is a eumphemism for concupiscence.

        Earlier, I googled “Phyllis Shclafly” to find some of her good writings on radical feminism. A recent article appears at Huffington Post that reveals the astonishing ignorance and frailty of young women today searching for “empowerment” through extremism instead of their authentic Divine femininity. From the Huffington article titled “Kellyanne Conway’s ‘Post-Feminism’ Is A Con” here is an excerpt:

        “For the past five decades, Schlafly promoted a conservative Christian agenda that relied on separating women’s and men’s spheres in society, encouraging women to seek fulfillment and identity in being wives and mothers rather than as independent individuals.”
        To catalogue Phyllis Schlafly’s achievements one can only begin by citing her dedication as a mother, wife, attorney, activist, author, and Christian who went about her life the right way so never needed to rely upon the profanity that freights today’s misguided and self-defeating movement of feminist extremism.
        If only the savage feminists could help themselves to understand that their radicalism is exactly why they will never be respected. They become violent in their vain attempt to demand respect while all the while they have no respect for themselves. What a disgrace they are to our femininity. Sex. Gender. Whatever they want to call it lately. They work at being repulsive and then can’t understand why we will not support their plight?

      • time for REAL inspiring women

        Yes. You and Cheryl have hit the nail on the head!

        The following is a “viewer’s comment” I sent to a recent TV programme (we MUST fight immoral insane nonsense wherever we find it):

        “Re: Q and A session on 6 March 2017.

        “So many have missed the most important point of the discussion.
        * Women have forgotten that it is THEY who ALREADY have the most incredible power to be the measure of the level of civilization reached in their culture.
        * Humanity reaches its highest peak of genuine liberty, fraternity and equality when women are cognizant of their special power in their own existing roles in bringing this about.
        * If women treat themselves with respect, behave with respect, and expect the same fromothers, they in turn will be respected.
        * If women dress and behave in a modest, elegant way to celebrate femininity, they are showing respect for other human beings and themselves. They are teaching by example and inspiring others.
        * If they behave like mindless savages (just look around you – even at the ugly sloppy ‘bogun’ way women have dressed since the “senseless-sixties”) … the entire culture crumbles as it becomes one of uncivilized savages where everyone makes their own rules.
        * When people have no effective parenting (as in the case of several generations since the “decadent sixties” obsessed with greed of all kinds) – then they and their offspring do not know who they are or what they are supposed to be living for in an insane “free-for-all” existence.

        So that:

        “The level of any civilization is equal to the level of its womanhood.” [paraphrased] -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
        AND
        “Mothers are closer to God the Creator than any other creation on earth; God empowers mothers in this act of creation of new human beings and in giving THEM the responsibility of being the first educators – a sacred privilege …What on God’s good
        earth is more glorious than this; to be a Mother?” [paraphrased] -Cardinal Mindzenty

        So that:
        * If women TRULY want respect from men and society, the main burden today is on WOMEN to behave like responsible adults. It ONLY THEN that men will be inspired to be “kinghts in shining armour”. Such is the TRUE power of womanhood.

        * If they continue on the same uncivilized track, they themselves will guarantee that NO RESPECT will be shown to them and thus it will CONTINUE till the whole savage culture crumbles away entirely into eternal tragic oblivion. This HAS happened in other past cultures and there is no reason why history should not be repeated.

    • cat

      Indeed! If I were visiting Earth from Mars, I would think that the purpose of the women’s liberation movement was to turn women into sex objects. Look at fashion, advertising, portrayals of women in the movies, public antics such as the so-called Women’s March in Wash. DC, etc.
      I say this as a lady landscaper & pest control operator, who likewise was a gymnast as well as a competitive swimmer, and quite the tomboy in my youth… probably still am. But… no “gender confusion” here, and I’ll be participating in Lady Day on March 8, this year and in the future!

  • Rob Hulbert

    My mother told me when I was about 8 that women had the power to make the world good.

    • LindainPA

      So do men!

      I believe that is a call we have in common.

      • Rob Hulbert

        Every person on this earth has the power to create heaven on earth. All we have to do is choose that path.

        • Jameson

          Very peculiar new age nonsense.

        • Margaret

          Heaven on earth is not possible without God and the help of His grace. It’s Pelagianism to think otherwise.

          • robert

            Thank you….Pelagianism is a sin.

          • Margaret

            It’s also a heresy. Heresy destroys the theological virtue of Faith in the soul. If a person realizes through the grace of God that they are in error, they must go to confession and specifically state that they committed the sin of heresy and name the heresy. Most of all, they need to make public reparation if the sin was public.

            If a non-Catholic realizes through the grace of God that they are in error, they go through catechesis, and must publicly abjure their errors before being baptized or making the Profession of Faith.

          • robert

            Yes…true…it was exposed and defeated (as an heresy) by St. Augustine, the Doctor of Grace.

          • tanzi

            A NON-catholic? Lol! I am proud to be a NON-catholic. I was raised in a large extended catholic family and my grandfather was the grand pu-bah of the local KofC. Talk about a bunch of heathen pagans! They all got drunk with the priest and took the Lords Name in vain. Catholicism is on the wide road. I am a Christian and I pray for list catholics. Christianity OR catholicism…choose. Can’t be both.

          • Margaret

            I’m talking about non-Catholics who want to become Catholic.

            When I was in my senior year in college, we had 2 Protestant girls who made their Profession of Faith, received Confirmation and also their First Holy Communion. Another girl was non-Catholic and received Baptism, Confirmation and First Holy Communion. Finally, one Catholic girl received Confirmation.

            So we had 1 Baptism, 4 Confirmations, and 3 First Holy Communions. It was a fantastic day. (I knew 2 of the girls personally.). I was not a sponsor, though.

          • tanzi

            I did all that too. I was a good catholic girl. Now I’m a Christian. I left all that religion (bondage=man made rules) behind and was born again. Praise The Lord!

          • Margaret

            I was “born again” when I was baptized.

            Furthermore, Catholics ARE Christians. That doesn’t mean they’re saints (yours truly is still in the process, hopefully).

          • tanzi

            You are humble…unlike robert. I am a work in progress too. He who began a good work in me…will be faithful to complete it.

        • robert

          Take another hit, man….

      • Men without women are simply not equipped to make the world good. It takes a female touch. Bu we can certainly support and listen to our women.

        • David Hartford

          Well said Theodore, men without real women leave a lot to be desired!

          • Jackie Daniels

            The tragedy of our time for contemporary women is they have thrown away the baby with the bath water. There is no greater role model for women than the Virgin Mary; today women lack the discipline and moral nous to comprehend the magnitude of empowerment that God so magnificently creates through the birth of Christ. Marxism has taken humanity to a sub-human level and second wave feminism has done extensive damage.

          • Jameson

            So true.

          • Jameson

            Read “Domestic Tranquility” — the history of the feminazis.

          • robert

            Really? What about our priests, and Bishops? They do have the Blessed Virgin, and that was a “real woman”. Nothing to compare with women today.

          • tanzi

            Mary had a Savior too.

          • robert

            Yes…true she not only had a savior….she needed one…..and she needed to be Sacramentally baptized in order to go to heaven.

          • tanzi

            Sacramentally baptized? Lol. No…it’s Faith…plus NOTHING. Thats the message of the Cross. Jesus did it all…all to this I owe.

          • robert

            I take it, you are not a Catholic?
            Are you not aware of the infallible words of Jesus in John 3:5? “Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.”

            And Peter, teaches in 1 Peter 3:21….”and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also–not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”

            James says, “Faith without works is dead.” Why do you say the contrary? Do you not have the faith to believe the Bible?

            Are you a Catholic?

          • tanzi

            I have the Faith in the FINISHED work at the Cross of Christ. I am a born-again Christian. I was raised in catholicism. I am NOT catholic.

          • robert

            That explains why you are so confused…..you never knew the Catholic Faith, or you would never have left it for a new religion. What type of Protestant are you? What denomination?

          • tanzi

            I’m not confused. If you knew my story of growing up catholic…you would know I’m not confused. It’s you who is confused indeed. I am not a part of a denomination. I am a CHRISTIAN. To a catholic…it probably sounds like an alien. Lol. My citizenship is in Heaven. I’m only a pilgrim here.

          • robert

            Ok…pilgrim…what church do you go to? The question isn’t ambiguous, but your answer certainly is. And yes, it not only sounds like an alien…it is alien…..alien to historic Christianity…..have you studied the Early Church Fathers, …they teach what the Catholic CHurch teaches, not the novelties you are espousing….

            So…what church do you go to?

          • tanzi

            I don’t think you would approve. I am under the Apostle Paul’s Epistles. The Gospels areally under the law…the old Covenant. The Pauline Epistles are written to the Church. I know all the oddities of catholicism. We could have a slumber party here. But we wont. Now…go pray your rosary robert.

        • bbrown

          From Churchill to Reagan, behind great men is a great woman. There are exceptions, such as Lincoln, but most men need the support, belief, encouragement, and correction of a godly, kind, and loving woman to succeed.

          • lucy_coleman

            Mary Todd Lincoln was mentally ill. Please let us not chastise those to him God has given this burden to carry. Praise God that she had a strong husband to stand by her.

          • bbrown

            Yes, I am aware of that. It’s a testament to Lincoln’s character, integrity, and courage that he achieved what he did. My point is that very, very few men can achieve greatness without a good wife, and vice-versa. A prime example is that of our former governor of Virginia, Bob McDonald who is a man of great integrity and virtue, but was brought down and essentially ruined because of an ungodly wife of low character. Of course, it works both ways.

          • Jameson

            I think Lincoln’s wofe was a fine woman who liked to shop. You are repeating rumors sent out by nefarious historians hell bent on destroying Lincoln or his wife and family because he was a Republican.

          • bbrown

            This info is not debated. All historians would concur that his wife was mentally ill.

          • Jameson

            No, it is debated. You’d know that if you read enough books about him.

          • robert

            Do you know what Republicans stood for in 1860? Lincoln gave us the income tax, public education, declared war against the South for trumped up slavery issues….look at the Republicans today. See how they are attempting to destroy the new President of the US. It begs the question….do you know what the Republicans stand for today?

          • Jameson

            Trumped up slavery issues?
            The new President will be fantastic. The RINOS will fall in line or they will just fall.

          • robert

            Yes….trumped up…..The Civil War wasn’t over or about slavery.

            Trump will resign or be impeached within 18 months

          • Jameson

            No, the entire civil war was about slavery– it was the final crushing blow that had to be done to undo and dismantle the economic system and laws built around human property to feed the cotton gin and trade.

            Trump will break the global elitists, as he bashed the Bush and Clinton empire, crushed Political Correctness and he will drain the swamp. The DNC will be defunct, religious liberty will be restored and many of the courts will be realigned and activist judges’ positions eliminated and Trump will serve 8 years and then Pence will serve 8 more.
            And we can all get on our knees now and Thank God for delivering us from the PC–Progressive Communist slavery.

          • robert

            “the entire civil war was about slavery”….nope….read this…
            http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?125433-Real-reasons-for-the-Civil-War

            Trump will be ground into powder by the elitists….they run the US, and if Trump gets in their way, they can simply have him assassinated, as they did JFK. And, I’m not for the left….I’m actually to the right of Trump, as he still endorses and continues the sodomy legislation that Obama infused.

          • Jameson

            Ron Paul is your source? Lincoln bashed the global elitists slave structure.
            JFK? You think he wasn’t part of the global elite?
            Trump will be fine.
            Trump is in favor of human rights; not special rights agendas.

          • Jameson

            You know, I think you are carrying a rumor about Lincoln’s wife– she liked to shop; that does not make her mentally ill.
            Some hisorians are not very reliable. So we all have to make sure we question everything.

          • Kel Nelson

            You are exactly right about Mary Todd Lincoln, the historians disliked her, but she was a decent gal. In fact, her husband created much of what was said about her. And her son, Robert, was not very nice to her after her husband’s untimely death

          • Elizabethbe2

            Actually, I believe it was Lincoln who said that all he is and knows he owes to his mother. That’s certainly a great woman in his life!

          • imakymama

            Lincoln said: “All that I am or ever hope to be, I owe to my angel mother.” As he was only ten years old when his father remarried, following Nancy Hanks Lincoln’s death, one can presume he was talking about his step-mother. He revered her and loved and respected her deeply.

        • robert

          Correct, Ted….. without them, we couldn’t have babies for the next generation, so the world wold be without human beings.

          • Jameson

            You’d have nothing without woman.
            The entirety of creation rests on the masculine and feminine.

          • robert

            Correct……except I would also add….you’d have nothing without man.
            It is about the combination of both man and woman, in their respective roles…one as head over the other. Man was made the head of the woman….surely you’ve read that in the scripture?
            Eph. 5:23 “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.”

          • Jameson

            That’s right. They are the two halves that in their joining become the whole of human nature. They are gifted differently but equal in each half which together in respect and admiration becomes a holy vocation.
            Why do you always skip Ephesians 5: 21?

          • robert

            Think context, Ms. Jameson….Eph. establishes that the husband is the head of the wife and yet they are to submit themselves to each other. There can be no contradictions in the scripture, yet there appears to be, when there’s not. Each half is to render their bodies to each other…that’s the submitting themselves to each other….all the while, though, the husband remains her head. Yes…they are gifted differently….and their is an order to this family….like in the Church. There is a head in the Church…there is a head in the family. There is a body in the Church and there is a body in the family. The body is not equal, in authority with the body. Even in your own physical body you can see this. Your right arm doesn’t decide what the head will do…it’s the opposite….the Head decides what the hand is to do. Same in the family. And Ephesians insists that the head of every woman is her husband….if she is married….if she is not…her head is her father. God made society to be hierarchical in nature….not to be a egalitarian democracy.

          • Jameson

            No, submitting their bodies to each other is a very shallow reading.
            The context is in the word in 5:21–sub–ordinate to one another. Under the ordained order of their complementary natures. To submit and respect and admire and love each other for the completely different attributes that are equal in and of themselves in the two natures, the two complementary halves of human nature that when joined as one flesh, make the whole of the two natures one completing the circuit, if you will, the circle of life, creating the spark of light that brings forth life– human life–God’s crown jewel of all His creation–matter infused with his divine breath, souls made in his image and likeness, with his laws written on every single human heart– and She is the vessel through her nature as a woman given the responsibility and all the gifts and nature to nurture and protect that child in her womb as the Church is the womb holding Christ within it in body and divinity and man is called to protect her, guard her, ensure she is respected, not defiled, not corrupted, not insulted, not afraid, but secure in her role magnified by God in Marriage– Matrimonio– the ceremony honoring and celebrating Motherhood.
            The Church as the Bride of Christ is a She and the Priesthood– as those representatives of Christ, are ordained to protect and guard Her Honor– that is why priests are men and can never be women. It is in their nature to guard and protect and keep Her holy– man’s failure to reign it any corruption he allows to go forth through his lack of respect for Her– the Church, the womb, the ark of his covenant holding not only the law but his flesh and blood and sacrifice, in woman is the immortal soul, immortal, eternal spirit of a human being that man is called to appproach her with unspeakable reverence.
            That is how he is to be the head. That is why she does not leave her father and mother— he does. She remains under the protection of the other Head Man– her father who has, or is supposed to according to his ordained role as the Head protector of his daughter, ensured that she is not mistreated and spends his life watching over her and her family. If he fails, she fails.
            Your arm and head analogy speaks to your own idea that man is the brains and woman a mere appendage created to scratch his head and serve some stupid, careless moron that gets to behave any way he wants by ordering her around like a subserviant dog, happily obeying some fool’ s every command because he is the Man.
            Give me a break.
            Look how Christ treated his Mother. He said No at Cana. He–God. She said do as He says. He made water into wine at Woman’ s request. God sent Gabriel to Ask Mary’s permission— Request, propose, not demand– Will you, she was asked, give your mind, body, spirit, soul in complete and utter trust to the will of God and remain obedient to your word if you so choose this mission of your own free will. Mary was honored to accept the purpose given to her by God to carry the Word made flesh into the realm of matter, so that Christ as a man could throttle other lame men and shake them out of their stupid complacency, infuse them with the Holy Spirit to have the courage to do as Mary did, fearlessly, and go out amongst all men modeling and teaching how mankind is to behave according to the will of God.

            The man, as is explained, in his nature is responsible for his own actions toward her that he may present himself without spot or wrinkle and through his behavior keep her holy. Christ gave his all, his life, the unblemished lamb, for his bride– the Church. Man will be responsible for corrupting her.
            Indeed, Christ is the head of the Church, and man will be accountable for how he treats
            The Church and how he treats woman. What you bind and loose–God will watch and She will not be blameless because to her, in her nature, was given wisdom, and if she is dumb enough to blindly follow a fool of a man and not correct him, not be corrected by her father, not correct her own children, not be in awe of God’s gifts to her, she will be accountable as to her own choices according to her own free will according to the nature given her by God.
            A marriage is the personification of the workings of all the masculine and feminine, opposing but complementary forces that drive all of matter in the universe in a constantly, continuous, action and reaction of creation, in a microcosm.

      • celtic cross

        Unfortunately, because of the reality of biology, a lot of men don’t have the courage to stick around and face whatever consequences come from their actions. The fact than many women now follow that lead by not only not owning up to their parental responsibility but by actually treating their offspring like so much garbage is a death knell for western culture. Women have, until recently, always been the first nurturers and teachers. To our everlasting shame as a culture, today’s women are self-centered, sex-obsessed children.

        • Jameson

          Not among those who are the children of God.

        • Jacqueleen

          I agree. Men love feminism and abortion because they can have sex whenever and with whomever and not be accountable to anyone for the pregnancy that occurs.

          Time for a change women…to gain back the respect of womanhood and motherhood stop the free sex thing immediately and wait for marriage to have a family. Then, develop a reverence for life from conception to natural death. We should be proud to admit that we are married for 25-50 years..and no more divorce or abortion on the horizon.

          Men must make a big adjustment as well learning self control and waiting for marriage to embrace the gift of intimacy with a woman and when the pregnancy occurs, it is accepted with joy and gratitude welcoming the new life into the world.
          Alleluia!

          • Jameson

            Not all men. But you are right the change must come from the woman. A man and a child will never do anything unless she allows it– and that is the story of woman from the beginning of time: respect.

          • Margaret

            I beg your pardon, but men need to step up to the plate as well. As I’ve said elsewhere, women will not be subject to men until men subject themselves to Christ. When men set a good example for women, then women will follow willingly.

            When was the last time you saw a man hold the door for a lady or tip his hat? As Patti Page sang: “Little things…mean a lot.”

          • Jameson

            Men hold the door for me all the time.
            Any woman with any self worth doesn’t ever have such a low opinion of herself to put herself in the position of being beholden to a man unless and until he proves himself worthy of her trust by his every word and action and then she marries him.
            No man will step up to any plate unless and until a woman says so. It is and always has been a matriarchal world.
            So, you’re excused, Margaret.

          • Margaret

            It’s always been a matriarchal world? I doubt it.

          • Jameson

            Always was and always will be. The big feminazi lie is that men hate women and have kept them down since the beginning of time. In order to believe that you have to believe that men hate their mothers and that is simply not true.
            No woman was ever the equal of a man. In order for any woman to become the equal of any man she’ d have to climb backwards down a ladder and fall flat on her face. Only then would she be the equal to a man. Feminists had women not only believe they were less than any man, but made them become the equal of the lowest form of a man— the low life, irresponsible, immoral cad.

          • robert

            Time to blow the dust off the ol Bible, I see….try at Genesis 3:15, To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

            God said it, He means it, so climb down from your plastic throne.
            You might try this one on for size, too…Ephesians 5:22-33 (NIV)

            22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

            Are you a Christian?

          • Jameson

            Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ—Ephesians 5: 21. Then read 5: 25-33. Instructions for husbands.
            The Church is the bride of Christ–holy and without blemish.
            The wife should respect her husband– should he be worthy of that respect based on what was just instructed to him on how to behave.
            To woman did God give the responsibility to bring forth the greatest of his creation– mankind.
            Woman is what his creation was called before the Fall and Eve after the Fall.
            Woman is an address of respect which is how he addressed his Mother at the foot of the cross harkening back to Eden and presenting Mary as the representative of Woman in the new covenant.
            A human woman is the only person assumed body and soul into heaven in that new covenant. A woman sits beside the Throne of the Creator and intercedes on behalf of those children who cry out to her.
            Woman was created because Adam needed guidance. Woman was not made from clay like man. Woman was created from Adam’s side to be his equal, from his bone, from his created flesh–woman is the crowning glory of all God’s creation. Man does nothing and is nothing without woman.
            And a bad woman is as bad as a bad man and may be worse depending on how evil moves her nature. We all know how bad evil men can be.

          • robert

            I think you’ve got the Immaculate Virgin Mary intermixed with all women as if they are all one and the same.

          • Jameson

            Mary is the new Eve of the New Covenant. Woman–as Christ referred to her as an address of respect at the foot of the Cross.

            You HATE WOMAN.

          • robert

            I’m sure glad you are ranting so openly. It shows how much of a wack job you are….I bet your husband, if you even have one, is a real winner. He’s not mousey, is he?

          • Jameson

            Criminal Attorney in the inner city for the poor–his clients were many of my students. Brilliant MAN–not insecure like you.

          • robert

            I’m so sorry to hear that…..According to the latest Pew Research Center survey on professional public esteem, lawyers were rated at the bottom of the barrel. According to the Pew Survey, Lawyers are apparently the dregs of society. Ambulance chasers, bloodsuckers…and these are just a couple of the nicer names attached to the harlot profession. I’m surprised you even admit that. Oh, and my source? I have them, unlike you…..http://abovethelaw.com/2013/07/lawyers-the-most-despised-profession-in-america/

            As for those who entered the teaching profession, it was common knowledge that, when I graduated from college, those who couldn’t get a meaningful or lucrative job, and who were insecure at the prospect of competing in the mental market for jobs, simply became a teacher. “Those who can’t do, teach” goes the old tried and true saying. It was the easy way out, from the state of incompetency, and to those who didn’t know any better, the person had a certain amount of respect, since, he is, after all….a teacher….one who teachers others, thus, the inference that they knew more than others, which is laughable once you have a cogent conversation with them. Here is some source material to buttress up the fact that teachers are simply societal losers with a boosted ego due to a degree that anyone with an I.Q. above 95 can achieve.
            https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2013/10/24/a-key-reason-why-american-students-do-poorly/#6a2bacc2349c

            Very sorry to have to pop your bubble, but better now than later when it really matters.

          • Jameson

            He’s a salaried criminal trial attorney, you dope. And I taught in the inner city after leaving a big, boring big city job and no I wasn’ t an education major.
            We both know you’ d be eaten alive in either professsion.
            Your insecurity as a lowly progressive who needs to boost his own ego by putting women down by using scripture to bolster your misogynistic tendencies compels me to tell you to go speak frankly to a good conservative priest about your tendency toward hatred and denigration of women and your deep seated envy, even hatred of those whose professional lives focus on the service of the poor as a vocation.

          • robert

            Well, even if true, which I doubt, due to your prior delusions of grandeur, you both are a couple of societal losers who are incapable of fulfilling a meaningful, and productive life… who, in this day and age would want to voluntarily be either a lawyer or a teacher who had gotten into a loser job that was boring, and then switched to being a worse loser by becoming an even greater loser (waste of tax-payer money) teacher?
            Oh..I know who…. a couple of losers….now, run along and bask in your delusions of grandeur that you imagine…..Ms. Queen-bee. I feel so sorry for, what must be, your mentally beat down husband.

            bye-

          • B.J.

            Having been HAPPILY married for 55 years, I can testify to the wisdom of God’s Word about our role as women and wives. When we follow Scripture, our husbands are more inclined to obey God’s Scriptures about their role in a marriage. They also recognize they have a wife to treasure and act accordingly. Both men and women respond to the respect, kindness, and love they receive. After 55 years I can say this obedience to the Word has rewarded both of us with a great life … we are truly ONE as God intended. I wouldn’t have changed a thing = God does know best…. he created us.

          • robert

            Today’s women, I mean the one’s not following God’s plan for the role they are to follow, are a blight upon our society, as they affect men adversely in so many ways…..You are right, that a good woman who follows humbly the role of supporting wife, and loving companion, not competing with him for dominance (as so many Amazon wymmen do…even so-called Catholics) but complimenting him and encouraging him to lead the family as the vanguard, the point man in protecting the family from adverse and dangerous paths. It takes a strong man to do that today, as they are rare and are usually intimidated and brow beaten, or threatened in some way….you are so right….the secret to a happy home and long marriage is for both the man and the woman to be there for each other…..the man being the head of the family, with his faithful wife as his second in command…..he, the king, and she the grand queen, at his right hand. Nature, God’s chalk board, even teaches the roles the two sexes are to happily play out in their lives.
            Goodbye, BJ…..by the way, few realize it, but when they say “goodbye”, they are actually repeating our English ‘goodbye’
            with little thought to its original meaning (God be with
            ye).

          • Jeanette Lemcool

            Amen and Amen! How wonderful, Sister! My husband and I have been married 35 years! Hoping to make 55 years also!

          • Jeanette Lemcool

            As Christ is the head of the church….with love and kindness. Christ Loves us. A husband should love his wife and children and not gloat or want to “rule over them” in harsh way. Instead he should want to protect them, help them to become a strong family. It is a huge responsibility to be a Christian husband and father. It takes a truly loving man.

          • robert

            Allow me to break your post down for efficiency….
            1. A. As Christ is the head of the church….B. with love and kindness.
            comment:
            A. True….Christ is the head of the Church.
            B. But not all love and kindness….there are enemies of God/workers of iniquity within His Church. He does love them, but also hates them, as Thomas Aquinas says ….
            2. Christ Loves us.
            comment:
            comment: So, it is an half truth to say that God is love….He is much more….”Our God is a man of war; the Lord is His name.” Exodus 15:3 “Thou hatest all workers of iniquity.” Ps. 5:5
            3. A husband should love his wife and children and not gloat or want to “rule over them” in harsh way.
            comment: correct….no one said otherwise….on the other hand, the wife should be subject to her husband in all things, as the scripture says. To do otherwise, is a sin.Ephesians 5: 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

            4. Instead he should want to protect them, help them to become a strong family.
            comment: true…he does this by making sure that they are living in the will of God….He as the head…she as his helpmeet, and the children obedient….that what makes a true Catholic family, as opposed to what we see today, too often….an Americanist family…an egalitarian democracy.

            5. It is a huge responsibility to be a Christian husband and father. It takes a truly loving man.
            comment: And it is a huge responsibility to be a Catholic wife and mother….almost an extinct being these days, thanks to women’s lib and feminism…even within the Catholic Church where it ought to be exemplary.

          • tanzi

            The NIV omits versus pertaining to The Blood of Jesus. Careful there roberto.

          • Ramón

            Don’t forget the verses that follow, beginning with 25, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…” It goes on, making allusion to presenting her pure and holy.

          • robert

            I don’t think there’s any worry about forgetting that, Ramon. When a discussion on the topic comes up, that’s the first thing that’ll be brought up. I only wish that the little ladies would also read how they are to obedient as well as submissive to their husbands, as in, Ephesians 5: 22 “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”
            This requires women to obey their husbands and submit to them “not only in everything (lawful), but “as the Church submits to Christ.”
            In the OT where God often struck people dead for theor disobedience and rebellion to them, Sarah, Abraham’s wife called him….”Lord”.
            Can you imagine today’s “Christian” women being so obedient to God, as to refer to their husbands as “Lord”?
            Not even a remote chance. It’s not really required….what is, is obedience and submissive. If Christian women were to practice what they claim to believe, the divorce rate would plummet and the marriage licences would skyrocket in numbers….but, as it is….who wants to marry a 21st century woman? Many men do….many men rue the day.

          • Jeanette Lemcool

            Oh my goodness!! How silly! Men and women are not the same! God did not create us the same, Jameson! There is no “better or worse”, “equal”, “superior” or whatever. We are different. With different purposes in life. Different things that we are created to do in life. I would HOPE that I would never have to climb backwards down a ladder and fall flat on my face! I know that my dear husband of 35 years would hope that he would not have to entertain 10 Brownie girlscouts or care for a sick relative. Those are things that come naturally to me. I don’t consider him superior or me superior. We are different. Because God created us to complement each other….to become one…and that is the miracle of marriage.

          • Ramón

            Thank you, Jeanette. I believe that is being “complementary.”

          • robert

            Always been a matriarchal world? What planet did you come from? Sarah, called her husband “Lord”.

          • Jameson

            Always.

          • chemtutor

            But if a woman subjects herself to her husband, then she can lead him to Christ. It’s a two way street, right from the Bible, 1 Peter 3:1.

          • Jeanette Lemcool

            It was explained to me like this…”Christ is the head of the church…and it is in this way that a man is the head of the family. Not in the way to rule with cruelness or to smother with rigidity but to lead and protect with great responsibility, just as Christ leads the church.” We all have God given talents. If a certain way of doing things works well for you and your husband, then that is private and the way you should do things. I have worked as a nurse for 42 years. My husband is a maintainence man. We have raised 7 sons. Now we have 14 grandchildren. Each child is a gift with a story and different gifts that will unfold, as decided by God. I wish people would stop arguing and just enjoy the miracles that God has given us in life.

          • chemtutor

            I wasn’t arguing, just sharing what I have learned. Wives, submit to your husbands, is not a choice it’s a command from Peter. My mother never submitted and she divorced my dad. So It is a very difficult road for me to learn how to submit but not allow yourself to be abused. It only happens by prayer, submmiting to God’s authority, rendering up your relationship with your spouse to God and willing to be corrected. I usually pray like this, Lord we cannot both be right, either I am right and he is wrong or i am wrong and he is right, please reveal the Truth to us. (We’re usually both wrong, btw).

          • Jeanette Lemcool

            I think, as mothers and fathers, we have to teach our children self respect. We also must teach them respect for others. As well as love for the church. As a child I was taught God/Church-First. Others-Second. Self-Last. Not in a bad way, but in a way to not be self absorbed. I think the world could use a dose of that now. I taught all of my children to have respect for others and for themselves. They are all married and successful people. To give to others you have to feel good about yourself….to give love, you have to have been loved.

          • Margaret

            True self-respect comes from knowing that you are a child of God through baptism and cooperating with the graces He gave you at baptism and throughout your life.
            May we all hear one day the words: “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

            Lord, have mercy!

          • Deborah Olsen

            A man held the door for me today, as well as a few times last week. 🙂

          • Margaret

            Ever since I started dressing modestly, I’ve been treated with more respect.

          • Jacqueleen

            Please re-read my comment. I made it clear that both need to change their behavior….Men were always excused for wandering in the many years past when I was a kid. My Grandmother would say, “Boys will be boys!” So, the men got away with having sex outside of marriage…but guess with whom? With somebody else’s daughter!
            As a serious pro-lifer, I can tell you that few men step up to the plate to father the unexpected child.
            All this has to change….by the power of the Holy Spirit coming down on both men and women to learn self control. Women have become free about sex due to feminism..i.e., wanting to enjoy the freedoms that men have enjoyed for many years…So….BOTH MUST STOP THIS NONSENSE AND STOP KILLING THE UNBORN.

          • Jameson

            Woman has to have self respect. I can’ t worry about all women. Many are lost. I’ve spent my life teaching thousands of young men and women.
            Some hear and some do not want to.

          • Jacqueleen

            Thank you for your teaching ministry….However, those who don’t listen, like the life of sin that they are living and see nothing wrong with it because everyone is doing it! That is when PERSEVERANCE comes in….NOBODY SAID THAT EVANGELIZATION WAS EASY! Keep up the good work…persevere and pray for them!

          • Jameson

            I do.

          • Deborah Olsen

            AMEN!!!

          • robert

            Uuuh…God so designed it that the man lead the woman, not vice-versa.

          • Jameson

            Don’t be ridiculous.

          • robert

            I’m not….it’s fact.

          • Jameson

            No. You misundetstand. Nothing in the universe– one song– works unless masculine and feminine forces work in cooperation according to their natures.

          • robert

            Really….hmmm…time to readjust your hat…lol…how many women work together with the Cardinals to elect a pope? How many women are allowed to vote for the Pope?
            Do you see your logical fallacy?

          • Jameson

            The Church is a She– the Bride of Christ.
            If those priests were properly formed in faith by their Mothers, and held accountable by their fathers, then no one would have to worry about egotistical men who think they are superior to the Church– the symbol of Woman’s Womb holding Christ within her that Men are appointed to guard with their blood– the red in the Cardinals outfit.
            The red in the Pope’ s shoes.
            Many of those priests have failed and today we can name those who are in and of the world and are corrupting the Word with their own Pride and total misinterpretation of the obvious big picture given us all in the Words of Christ and in every law and through every prophet.

          • robert

            Uuuh…hello? not so fast, there deaconess Jameson… http://www.catholic.org/news/international/europe/story.php?id=51423

            …and then there’s….”In Christian theology, the term Body of Christ has two main but separate meanings: it may refer to Jesus’ words over the bread at the Last Supper that “This is my body” in Luke 22:19-20, or to the usage of the term by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 and Ephesians 4:1-16 to refer to the Christian Church. It may also refer to Christ’s post-resurrection body in Heaven.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_of_Christ

            …and not to be outdone….”790 Believers who respond to God’s word and become members of Christ’s Body” http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p2.htm

            …and then for the cherry on top…Jesus appeared to Saul of Tarsus and revealed to Saul that He, Jesus, was the one who Saul was persecuting, when Saul is said to be persecuting the Church…Jesus equated Himself with the Church….and in case you missed it….Jesus was a male…and He like all males, have to a greater or lesser degree, the authority over females….that’s just the way He made us, and He did so for a very good reason. That reason, is apparently lost on you, due to your self imposed blindness to the revealed truth as found in the inspired and Sacred Texts of the Old and New Testaments…..now, please….go and apologize to your supposed husband for being such a cad.

            Now, go…………and sin no more…..

          • robert

            You like the scriptures…..go to the Old Testament and give us the overview of the relationship between the man and the woman…the husband and the wife…and please…site the references, not just your opinion. Your opinion is valuable, but biblical references are difficult things to kick against. Agreed?

          • Deborah Olsen

            I absolutely love and respect your values! They are the values that God has tried to teach us, in spite of ourselves, in this morally mixed-up, confused world, which is accepting more anything-goes “values” during every year that passes! I worry how far off the mark from God’s teachings that the world will be when my young ones are young adults!

          • Jacqueleen

            Have faith. Pray for your children and for their future spouses if that be God’s will for them. Then remember God’s word, Proverbs 22:6, “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he grows old he will not depart from it!” Parents are the first teachers and primary teachers of their children…..Be a good example for your children…kiss and hug them often. Then, as St. Padre Pio says, “Pray, hope and don’t worry!” I think he means that they will be in Good Hands (God’s Hands.) God bless you.

        • Jameson

          Having no self respect and no integrity is a lack of character not anything biological–it’s the absence pf God.
          Many women buy the feminist lie. They should look up Shulamith Firestone– one of the raving lunatic women founders of the movement.

          • celtic cross

            It’s not a lack of God; God is always with us. It is a lack of God’s grace.

          • Jameson

            Well, maybe I should clarify. An absence of a relationship with God in a person’ s life and the absence of a proper grounding and understanding of God and the whole creation story and all the connections between the OT prophesies, the symbolisms relating back to Judiasm with all of
            Christ’ s actions in the NT in one’s faith formation.
            I think someone needs to rewrite the way Catholic religion is taught to children because as it it stands, the curriculum is a complete and total failure.

          • celtic cross

            I blame the Jesuits.

          • Jameson

            They have certainly created a mass of confusion by doing their exercises backwards.

        • Margaret

          Re your last sentence: the words “most of” should go before “today’s women”. Not all women are like that, you know.

        • Jameson

          Courage? They are corrupt.

        • chemtutor

          It’s not biology that holds men back, it’s the curse of Adam. Also, we women don’t help either. If we submit to the authority of our husbands and honor them as head of our houses, we encourage them and embolden them. Behind every great man is a great woman!

        • robert

          I understand what you mean by your last sentence…..you say women, but, in context, you mean most women….and that is so true. So many men are immature, and are really kids playing with grownup toys…..and like other toys, they think they can play and then when they choose to go to another toy, then they are not responsible in any way to the first toy….it’s all a game to them, it seems. Reality eventually slaps them awake but usually, too little/too late.

        • Ramón

          We were warned about the “slippery slope.” Prophetic words indeed! Lack of commitment has gained ground among men, women and society in general.
          Many commercials and the average sit-com portray the man as stupid, irresponsible or insignificant.

          I personally treat all women as ladies and may use the title once on a trial basis. Out of respect, I withhold the title “lady” from any who show (or tell me) that they are offended by it.

      • robert

        Pretty hard for men to have much effect in a man bashing matriarchical, effeminized society. It makes men timid cowards who have little to no respect nor authority, unless, that is…the wife gives him the authority.

        • Jameson

          Feminists created a patriarchal world that they live in with their ilk.
          The rest of us livebin the real world.

          • robert

            The Old Testament was Patriarchical through and through, and I don’t recall any feminists listed back then….do you know of any, other than Delilah…and she is known for bringing down Samson.

          • Jameson

            Feminists agree with you that the world is patriarchal.

            It is not. All of Creation is Matriarchal–feminine. The Godhead–the Trinity– is Masculine.

            Creation is referred to as a She.
            The Church is referred to as a She.
            A man LEAVES his FATHER and MOTHER and goes to the woman’s family to marry–that’s matriarchal. We trace Christ’s geneology in Luke (Mary’s story) back through Mary to Seth–Adam and Eve’s son, and they were created as the first human beings male and female by the hand of God as is the entire universe–male and female.–Masculine and Feminine.
            The Godhead is Masculine.
            Creation is feminine–as it is the vessel for regneration.

        • Jameson

          You’re a progressive.

    • Jacqueleen

      Both men and women need to get back to the basics in the Bible….Proverbs and use Mary and Joseph as role models.

      • Rob Hulbert

        I pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet daily to God the Father so He will have mercy on the WHOLE WORLD. Google: Jesus’s Promises for saying the Chaplet of Divine Mercy. I also say the Rosary each day and prayers to the Immaculate Heart as God requires.

        • robert

          Rob, are you aware that the Divine Mercy devotion was condemned by the Church under Pope Pius XII? Pius XII placed this devotion, including the apparitions and the writings of Sr. Faustina on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited Books).

      • Rob Hulbert

        Read about Fr. Fuentes interview with Sr. Lucia in 1957. [It is VITAL that Catholics look . this up]. God said the ONLY sources of prayer to Him regarding the 3rd secret were: The Holy Rosary & devotion to the Immaculate Heart. Mary requested that the Church consecrate Russia to The Immaculate Heart for it’s conversion. She said this in 1929. I looked up whether it had been properly consecrated and the answer was NO! Only partial consecrations!!! Do you know there were 2 Sr. Lucy’s? The 2nd. is believed to be an imposter. They certainly appear entirely different. [Physically & emotionally]. It appears that Satan plagued Lucia for 3 months before should could write the 3rd secret.

        • Jacqueleen

          I’m not sure what to believe relative to two Lucia’s. However, I would not put anything past the Free Mason Bishops/Cardinals at the Vatican.
          St. John Paul II has said the consecration was done, so, I believe him. Then, as a followup, I have asked some of the holy priests that I know and they agreed that the consecration was done. Maybe not to the world’s satisfaction but to the satisfaction of Our Father in Heaven. Russia has opened up its Churches and freedom of religion has its place there and Communism is a thing of the past at least for now. This speaks volumes of the fact that Russia is consecrated…Our Lady did say that Russia will be the most devout nation to her Immaculate Heart in the end times.

          • Margaret

            Sorry, but Rob is right.

            On June 13, 1929, in the Presence of the Most Holy Trinity, Our Lady said to the Servant of God Sister Lucia (+Feb. 13, 2005 – eternal memory!):

            “The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to order and make in union with all the bishops of the world the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.”

            She later said to the Servant of God Sister Lucia (1950s):

            “Make it known to the Holy Father that I am awaiting the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. Without the consecration, Russia will not be able to convert, nor will the world have peace.”

            From Pius XI to now, no Pope has ever done this.

            Pope Pius XI didn’t do it.

            Pope Pius XII consecrated Russia alone – NOT in union with all the bishops of the world as per the instructions of Our Lady.

            Pope John XXIII didn’t do it.

            Pope Paul VI declared Our Lady Mother of the Church at VII. He went to Fatima in 1967. He did not do anything about the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

            Pope John Paul I died after 33 days.

            Pope John Paul II consecrated the world – NOT Russia – in 1981, 1982, 1984, 1990 and 2003. NEVER did he consecrate Russia by name.

            Pope Benedict XVI didn’t do it.

            Pope Francis entrusted the world – NOT Russia – to Our Lady in 2013.

            Furthermore, the Catholic Faith is still under attack in Russia. Priests have to go through bureaucratic red tape before even getting a visa, and then only for six months or less. Renewal? Again, more red tape.

            Russian women have the highest abortion rate in the world. The Russian mobs have a stranglehold on society. Vice is even more rampant.

            Why is this? Because Russia has NOT been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Holy Father in union with all the bishops of the world.

            In contrast, when the bishops of Portugal consecrated their country to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1938, the fruit was good.

            The laws of the state were in harmony with Church teaching. Abortion, divorce became illegal. Family life flourished. Convents, monasteries and seminaries overflowed with vocations to the priesthood and religious life.

            That’s what will happen when the Holy Father and all the bishops consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Russia will not only return to the Catholic Faith, but it will be healed. Think of the conversion of Saul (Acts 9), multiply that by the entire non-Catholic population of Russia, and you will have the catalyst for world peace. Russian missionaries will convert the world to the Catholic Faith. There will be a period of peace in the world as promised by Our Lady of Fatima.

            Check out http://www.fatima.org. They’re the best resource on Fatima.

          • Jameson

            Russian Orthodox Church is free.

          • Margaret

            The Russian Orthodox Church is the state Church. I’m talking about the Catholic Church in Russia. Catholic clergy have a hard time getting into Russia and are peremptorily kicked out for specious reasons or no reason at all. Those who are there have their activities confined to their flock. They’re not allowed to spread the Catholic Faith.

            God wants Russia to be consecrated by the Holy Father and all the bishops of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. That alone should suffice as to why it should be done.

          • Jameson

            The Russian Orthodox Church is Catholic. It just isn’t Roman Catholic.

          • Margaret

            I beg your pardon, but the Russian Orthodox Church is NOT Catholic because they are NOT in full communion with the Holy See.

            On the contrary, those Russians who are Catholic (and as I said before, they’re about 1% of the Russian population) and are in full communion with the Holy See.

            This is the Russian Orthodox Church:

            https://mospat.ru/en/

            This is the Russian Catholic Church:

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Greek_Catholic_Church

            This is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church:

            http://news.ugcc.ua/en/

            Likewise the other Eastern Catholic Churches (I’m Ukrainian Greek Catholic and our bishops are in full communion with the Holy See).

            I guarantee you that if you asked VP if he is Catholic, he’d smile and politely say that he was Russian Orthodox.

          • Jacqueleen

            Where is the proof that there were two Lucia’s? Where is the proof that Pope John Paul II’s consecration of the world was not satisfactory? Father Andrew Apostoli on EWTN, one Sunday evening stated that there was more than the consecration necessary for peace…People had to pray the Rosary, honor the 6 First Saturday Devotion, wear the Brown Scapular and stop the wickedness/sin. Do you really think that in this country alone that enough people pray the Rosary, do the First Sat. devotion, wear the Brown Scapular and have stopped or at least curbed sinning? Father Apostoli said that the failure to do the other things is what makes it appear that there is no peace and that the consecration was not approved. He stated that the consecration was approved but not the only thing that was expected of the world. We failed doing all the other things listed above. You cannot base the status of peace solely on the consecration alone…..

          • robert

            But Russia is not under Rome, therefore is a schismatic church. Mary said, is it not true, that Russia would convert? Convert to what? If Mary said Russia would be the most devout nation, then it would, out of necessity, have to unite with Rome, and come out of schism. It has not done so…yet.

          • Jacqueleen

            The Roman Catholic church is not under Russia at all…as of 2007, the R.C. Church is spreading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Russia

          • Jacqueleen

            Since when is a country under Rome? The Roman Catholic church is under the Pope or if you will, The Vatican. The R.C. Church in Russia is spreading since 2007 and is not in schism.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Russia

          • robert

            A country is “under Rome” when the leaders of the gov’t. make the Catholic Church it’s official religion. It’s a figure of speech. Under, being, under their authority, as in once Catholic Spain, as an example….there were others throughout history.

      • robert

        How true….Joseph led the holy Family, and Mary, in humility and true feminine beauty followed him….Mary didn’t lead the Holy Family…she knew the place that God had given to all women. It is not to denigrate women, but to make her shine through the virtues God bestowed upon her. People … all people are truly beautiful if they are in the will of God. God’s will is revealed in Mary in the family.

        • Jameson

          Mary didn’t lead? I don’t remember her asking Joseph’s permission to accept God’s request.
          God told Joseph get moving and watch over her and the child Now.

        • Jacqueleen

          God’s will is also revealed in Joseph in the family. How many men are content with family life? How many men are consuming drugs, alcohol, pornography, laziness, boredom, sports, computers, failure to lead the family in all ways and failure to sanctify their relationship with a woman…cohabitating, etc.

          • robert

            I assume you know, perhaps you don’t that today’s wymmen are much more aggressive towards men sexually than men to women. The aspect of sex, party, drugs, porn, laziness, etc. is not confined to men only….wymmen are gaining ground in many of these aspects. Go ask several worldly type young men.

          • Jacqueleen

            Yes, indeed. I blame it on Feminism that told a woman that she is entitled to have sex with whomever, whenever just like a man….Feminism taught women more than just equality in income.
            Then, women went berserk. The reason why is not important anymore….In truth, we must pray for both men and women to get back to basics…Mary and Joseph are our role models for marriage and the family.

        • Jameson

          Joseph guarded the holy family– which is the role of men and the failure of Adam.
          Mary didn’t ask Joseph’s permission before she acted.

    • robert

      I wish they’d hurry up and get off the pot. The clock’s a clickin’ and we’re not getting any younger. What’s the hold up?

      • Jameson

        You obviously have a problem with women.

        • robert

          With worldly, non-Catholic women…Americanized women…yes. They have thrown off the calling of God to be mothers and submitted and committed wives making the home a little piece of heaven.
          Any one…male or female, who shirks their duty to God, yes….I have a “problem” with…including males who are only so by genetics, not by living their calling.

          • Jameson

            I am a woman. So wrap your head around that.
            Your view of men being the head and woman his follower, is not what’s in the bible.

          • robert

            Why would it be hard to “wrap my head around” your being a woman, like that’s a big deal? It was fairly obvious from your anti-men jabs, but that’s nothing new. Women, like you, are merely “kicking at the pricks” as it is said in the bible. And as it’s hard for me to believe you actually have studied the bible, you betray your ignorance by stating such ignorant nonsense. It is throughout the bible, that men is the head of the wife. That’s not even debatable. What IS debatable in this new age of feminine revolution, is whether or not the biblical principles are to be applied to men and women today, in 2017. For the true biblical student/scholar, it is not a debatable issue. No where in the bible, and nowhere in Church history has the biblical model depicted in the NT ever been rescinded. The only places it is being attempted is in the post pagan societies where God has been relegated to the absurd.It seems as if that is precisely what you are doing.

          • Jameson

            Why difficult? You couldn’t figure out that perhaps I was reacting to your insults to women because I was a woman– your initial assumption was that I must be gay or trans.
            It says a lot about your mindset.
            I am in no way, shape or form a feminist– a totally fallacious theory based on the faulty assumption of a patriarchal society.
            As explained in prior posts.
            My jabs are not anti- men, but anti your specific attitude toward women as being followers of Man as if by Divine Command he is on a pedestal and she at his feet– that is the fallacious belief that feminists think and reject and here you are telling them they’re right.

          • robert

            I was close when I said I thought you were either gay or tranny…..women like you, gays, and trannys have one thing in common. They all want to be something, they aren’t…..real women. For instance….you are an hybrid, interiorly, as you have a lot of male tendencies and yet the verbiage and thoughts of a frustrated female who has a hard time getting any male to be interested. I feel your pain.

          • Jameson

            No. i’m just a lot smarter than you.

          • robert

            So is Satan, but that will do him, nor you any good. You must be humble, and in obedience to all that God has commanded. He has commanded women to be subject to their male counterpart, either their father or their husband. My goal isn’t to be smart, because that is a gift of God. What I want is to be obedient, which will make be, by God’s grace, holy.

          • Jameson

            God knows all his creation and their purpose and only someone extremely ignorant and arrogant could ever think that God made the last and the crown jewel of all creation to be beneath a man.
            The correct interpretation is while he may be the ” head” of the family–She is the family– and it is his job to Serve the family just as the Church is a she and the priests serve Her– and Christ is the Head of the Church guarding her to ensure that those serving her never lead her astray– that he guarantees.

          • robert

            You know…I am now pretty much convinced that there is no reason to continue having conversations with you….you seem to be very confused and certainly not anything Catholic that I have ever come across…you say that woman is the crown jewel of His creation…
            …that the woman IS the family…
            …an that, since she is the family, then it is the man’s job to serve the family, which would be, to serve the woman….
            …and that Christ is the Master making sure the servants of the woman keep serving her, making Jesus, basically, a slave master…

            lady….you are a wacko nut- job…. please do not respond to any more of my posts, as I will simply ignore you…..you…are….weird.
            Have a nice life…

  • Carla McPherson

    I think that March 8th can truly be both of these concepts. I honor our Virgin Mary AND support the power and grace of women! I attended the D.C. March and was totally embraced with such a loving positive environment that supports the feminine beauty on all levels! Love prevails & I encourage ALL women to unite because we really have the same goals. I pour out love.

    • LindainPA

      The “power and grace of women” should not include defending Planned Parenthood, abortion, and same-sex “marriage”, or immodesty. Please explain how they honor our Virgin Mary. Embracing our intrinsic God-given dignity and talents, doing our best to live according to God’s design for women, and acknowledging the priceless value and contributions of the vocation of motherhood DO honor Our Lady.

      • Carla

        I, myself do not support abortion; however, I feel it is a woman’s right to choose. I don’t feel it is my place to judge whom people marry but to love all like Jesus modeled to us. I believe taking care of your own body (& not other’s) honors Mary as a beautiful woman. I’m not here to argue with you but to share thoughts & to hope we women can have different opinions yet come together in the support of love & nurturing others.
        And I DO honor Mary every time I care for a sick patient, support my aging mother, and raise 2 beautiful strong daughters who have their hearts filled with love. I send you beams of love.

        • Phil Alcoceli

          Carla, how would you like to walk around with two heads, one praising God and one cussing God? Well, that’s what you are exactly doing, on one side saying you respect Mary and on the other supporting the Gospel of Satan, hiding his hideous monstrosity behind FALSE COMPASSION. Your “sending beams of love” sounds awfully like New Age, something I left many years ago because it leads to BLISSFUL INSANITY. A true servant of Mary NEVER compromises with the Devil. “You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God”.(James 4: 4).

          • Donna

            Please don’t capitalize “satan” or “devil.” That really offends me.

          • Jameson

            It’s not about you.

          • Phil Alcoceli

            Donna, is is grammatically and THEOLOGICALLY correct and appropiate to capitalize Satan’s name and all his other names like Baal, Belzebub, Mephistopheles, Baphometh, etc. It implies NO RESPECT whatsoever to the Evil One to use his names. The Devil IS a real being, a fallen angel and his two best strategies are: 1) being obsessed with him, 2) denying that he exists. Not capitalizing his name falls darn close to strategy #2, pretending he is only a “force” or an “artificial personification” of evil and that evil is only imaginary. Your claim of offense, even if you’re not part of it, sounds awfully like New Age, Buddhism, etc. that deny the existence of evil and that through this DENIAL help the Devil SO VERY MUCH (see strategy #2 again).

          • robert

            Quit being so thinned skinned….Theologians, Doctors of the Church, Popes, ALL Catholics capitalize his names, as we do not wish to appear illiterate. So, please…..quit looking in the mirror at yourself….you are not all that important…none of us are.

          • Jameson

            You should’ve capitalized robert so we wouldn’t think you were illiterate.

          • robert

            Jameson…you’re starting to concern me….you seem to be stalking me on this site, posting responses that most of which, were not even addressed to you……you aren’t gay, are you? You seem to have a fetish for my responses. Just sayin. If this keeps up, it will pretty much confirm that you are a bit light in the loafers….

          • Jameson

            I’m a woman, potatohead.

          • robert

            That explains a lot. Is it a trait of yours to have the need to denigrate people by name calling? Do you think that accomplishes anything? Or are you just trying to get in a fight? If so…not interested. Sticks and stones..etc.

        • Woman’s right to choose murder?

        • Stop feeling and start thinking. Our opinions are of no consequence before obedience to the Laws of the Most Holy Triune God.

        • Joan Liut

          Carla, you are demonstrating serious confusion here. To understand the model Jesus gave us, we need to look to Scripture. The New Testament, including both the Gospels and the Epistles (and Acts, Revelations, etc.) gives us a picture of God who is *both* loving and merciful, *and* demanding of holiness. We need to imitate God in both ways. We do not do this by rejecting the sanctity of life (“woman’s right to choose” [murder]), or by questioning His clear creation of two unique sexes.

          In thinking about same-sex “marriage”, consider the Marriage between Jesus and the Church. This is where we see the example of Christ. Not only is same-sex “marriage” not a loving idea, it is actually a serious blasphemy.

          I think you really are a good and loving person, and I hope and pray you will come to think very differently about the errors of the Left, and what their motivation is. Basically, leftism is all about Marxism applied to different issues and groups. It is bearing evil fruit everywhere, especially in the Church.

        • LindainPA

          I see you as sitting on a precarious fence. A child is a child, whether he/she is yours or someone else’s. It doesn’t matter WHO gets an abortion. A child of God – a child of Mary by adoption – has been willfully killed. This is grave sin.

          As far as marriage goes, scripture – both Old and New Testament – is very clear that marriage, as God established it, is between one man and one woman. It is also very clear that engaging in relations with someone of the same sex is grave sin.

          The greatest love we can show others is to want them, and ourselves, to spend eternity with God. We are indeed called to follow the example set by Jesus and love one another. We cannot judge the soul of the person. That is God’s domain alone. However, He gave us His word and the living Word to help us judge actions as holy or sinful. We are called to avoid the near occasions of sin, as we pray in the ‘Act of Contrition’, and to repent – turn from sinful ways when we do sin. Jesus loved the sinner, not to condone, not to enable, but to call them – us – to repentance. Cafeteria Catholicism is hazardous to the soul – to both the one who practices it, and to those who witness it as it gives scandal.

          It has been said that the only Bible some will ‘read’ is our actions. We need to be very careful to be consistent and faithful witnesses to God’s will and word.

          I cannot believe that, in her fidelity, Mary would smile to see women choosing to abort their children, and choosing to engage in immoral relationships. She loves them, of course, but, I must believe she would wish for better, more holy, choices.

          I commend your care and love for others. I would encourage you to pray about the rest, and the mixed message you may be sending your daughters and other women.

          • robert

            “A child of God – a child of Mary by adoption – has been willfully killed.”

            Not to get too deep in Catholic theology….but a child is a “son of Adam” when born….only through the Sacrament of Baptism can one possibly become a child of God, and adopted by Mary.
            John 3:10 “This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.”
            Those who are Catholics are Christian, and thus do what is right (in theory, and with the cooperation with grace). Children are born with the sin of Adam, Original Sin, which separates the child from God, until they are sacramentally baptized.

          • Jameson

            What’s your point? Abortion is a mortal sin.

          • robert

            You must have missed it…an unbaptized infant cannot be a child of Mary and a child of Adam at the same time….it is the Sacrament of Baptism that makes one a child of Mary, as the baptized one then becomes a brother of Jesus.

          • Jameson

            Abortion is a mortal sin.
            So is all murder whether of the baptized or not.

          • robert

            Who is questioning whether it’s murder or not?

            The point is missed on you, apparently….that point being, that no one is a child of God until they are Sacramentally Baptized.

          • Jameson

            Well, when the child resides within the womb of a baptized woman who is a child of God, who is the fruit of her womb and from the seed of a man who is a baptized man, and when that mother receives communion or is given absolution in confession, and prays daily in grateful thanksgiving to God and his Blessed Mother for her gift of her pregnacy with that child, that the child in the womb of a baptized woman who is a child of God is not a child of God until the child is baptized? Baptism makes the child formally a member of the Church and arms him against Satan and original sin.
            That child was conceived as a child of God.

          • robert

            Where do you get that? Can you site the source of this teaching as being Catholic? I assume, you are Catholic.

          • Jameson

            Roman Catholic.
            Site what? Common sense? Catholicism is intellectual as well as pure common sense from the Word of God.
            Man is immortal, conceived with a soul. Whether a member of the Catholic Church or not, every human being has the laws of God inscribed on their hearts–we are all conceived as Children of God created individually, he knew us in the womb, before we were created even, with immortal souls and free will.
            God does not put anyone in Hell– we choose it through our own free will as did Lucifer with his decision knowing immediately the consequences.

          • robert

            Believe me when I tell you this….you are anything but intellectual. Your posts are so full of doctrinal error, that it is difficult to determine where to start in the refutation of them…..and are you aware of your incessant run on sentences that end up saying little to nothing?

            Here’s a classic.
            Well, when the child resides within the womb of a baptized woman who is a child of God, who is the fruit of her womb and from the seed of a man who is a baptized man, and when that mother receives communion or is given absolution in confession, and prays daily in grateful thanksgiving to God and his Blessed Mother for her gift of her pregnacy with that child, that the child in the womb of a baptized woman who is a child of God is not a child of God until the child is baptized?

            Total babel….this is the reason, or one of them, why women are to remain silent in the Churches, as per apostolic instruction. They certainly are in no way qualified to lead in the Church, as Jesus, Himself chose only MEN…no women….there is a very good reason for that.

          • Jameson

            That’s a perfectly constructed complex senrence, you dimwit.

          • robert

            senrence? who’s the illiterate?

            I Cor. 14: ….33For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women are to be SILENT in the churches. They are NOT PERMITTED TO SPEAKnot , but MUST BE IN SUBMISSION, as the Law says. 35If they wish to inquire about something, THEY ARE TO ASK THEIR OWN HUSBANDS AT HOME; for it is DISHONORABLE for a woman to speak in the church.…

          • Jameson

            Yes, because the Church Christ created is the Bride of Christ– A She.

          • LindainPA

            From the Catechism: 366 “The Church teaches that EVERY (emphasis mine) spiritual soul is created immediately by God – it is not “produced” by the parents – and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.”

            Nowhere in this section of the Catechism on ‘Man’ does it claim that
            only the baptized are children of God. ALL are children of God.

            Psalm 139 and Jeremiah 1:5 (“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you.”) both predate the Sacrament of Baptism.

            Our dignity as persons is inherent from our CONCEPTION, not our BAPTISM. CCC357 “Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone.”

            From the cross, Jesus gave Mary to John and to each one of us to be our mother. He did not give her only to the Baptized. We are ALL her children by adoption. I am just as much a mother to my children when they misbehave as when the behave well. Probably even moreso!

            We need to understand John 3:10 in the context and light of ALL of scripture. The devil does not have the power to create life, so that is not the meaning of this verse. We are indeed of the line of Adam, but, the God who is the Father of Adam is also the Father of us all, from our physical conception, and even earlier in the omniscience of God as Jeremiah tells us. Sacramentally, we enter into a new and deeper relationship with Him at Baptism. It seems to me that the danger of your comment is that it would lead people to believe that, since the child in the womb is unbaptized, he/she is not a child of God and, therefore, has no intrinsic dignity, creating an argument in defense of abortion. This is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

            357 of the CCC continues …”He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to
            offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give
            in his stead.”

            Baptism is that covenant. CCC1253 “Baptism is the sacrament of faith.
            But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith
            of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required
            for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is
            called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: “What do
            you ask of God’s Church?” The response is: “Faith!”

            CCC368 “The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.” In Baptism, we are RE-born, but we are His, even in the womb.

            Even the unbaptized can spend eternity in Heaven. 1Timothy 2:3-4 – “…God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.” CCC1281 “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized.” (Please read CCC 1257-1261.)

            “Those who are Catholics are Christian, and thus do what is right (in theory, and with the cooperation with grace).” I have a feeling there are baptized ‘Catholics’ who did/may not get into Heaven! Presumption? Sins against the Holy Spirit?

          • robert

            Sorry for the long and protracted answer, but it is much easier to speak an error than to correct it….bear with me, and please read the following.

            Linda, the CCC is simply a catechism…it is not a dogmatic in it’s theological weight. Nor is it infallible….it is open to errors. The Vatican II Council, for which the CCC is an interpretation, was not a dogmatic, nor infallible Council, but openly expressed that it was only a “Pastoral” council.
            The Catholic Church does, however, teach infallibly, that aborted children and infants who die without baptism descend immediately into Hell, but that they do not suffer the fires of Hell. They go to a place in Hell called the limbo of the children. The most specific definition of the Church proving that there is no possible way for an infant to be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism is the following one from Pope Eugene IV.

            Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…” (Denz. 712)

            Pope Eugene IV here defined from the Chair of Peter that there is no other remedy for infants to be snatched away from the dominion of the devil (i.e., original sin) other than the Sacrament of Baptism. This means that anyone who obstinately teaches that infants can be saved without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism is teaching an heresy, for he is teaching that there is another remedy for original sin in children other than the Sacrament of Baptism.

            Here is a quote which you need to ponder….Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 – Condemning the articles of John Wyclif – Proposition 6: “Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this.” – This is Condemned- by Pope Martin as far back as 1415.

            And here is what the Council of Constance had to say about John Wyclif’s anathematized propositions, such as the one quoted above.

            Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415: “The books and pamphlets of John Wyclif, of cursed memory, were carefully examined by the doctors and masters of Oxford University… This holy synod, therefore, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, repudiates and condemns, by this perpetual decree, the aforesaid articles and each of them in particular; and it forbids each and every Catholic henceforth, under pain of anathema, to preach, teach, or hold the said articles or any one of them.”

            So those who criticize Catholics for affirming the dogma that no infant can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism are actually proposing the anathematized heresy of John Wyclif.

            Here are some other dogmatic definitions on the topic.

            Pope St. Zosimus, The Council of Carthage, Canon on Sin and Grace, 417 A.D.- “It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 102, authentic addition to canon 2.)

            Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)

            This means that anyone who asserts that infants don’t need the “laver of rebirth” (water baptism) to attain eternal life is teaching heresy.

            Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 464)

            Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)

            Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools. (Denz. 1526)

            Here Pope Pius VI condemns the idea of some theologians that infants who die in original sin suffer the fires of Hell. At the same time, he confirms that these infants do go to a part of the lower regions (i.e., Hell) called the limbo of the children. They do not go to Heaven, but to a place in Hell where there is no fire. This is perfectly in accord with all of the other solemn definitions of the Church, which teach that infants who die without water baptism descend into Hell, but suffer a punishment different from those who die in mortal sin. Their punishment is eternal separation from God.

            Pope Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge (# 25), March 14, 1937: “‘Original sin’ is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants, who have sinned in him (Rom. v. 12). It is the loss of grace, and therefore eternal life, together with a propensity to evil, which everybody must, with the assistance of grace, penance, resistance and moral effort, repress and conquer.”
            In considering these quotes, one should zoom in on a few things. First, consider carefully the texts from the Councils of Florence and Trent. These constitute dogmatic definitions of the highest teaching authority that unbaptized children in original sin are under the domination of the Devil, and that they cannot be saved without the waters of baptism.
            In addition to all of these dogmatic definitions, anyone who has spent some time reading the fathers of the Church knows that the truth that infants cannot be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism – since they are in a state of original sin – was one of the most emphasized truths in the early Church. Here’s how the early Church father Pope St. Innocent emphatically expressed the mind of tradition on this point, against heretics such as the Pelagians:

            Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic… But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

            Here are another salient quote from very authoritative Fathers…
            St. Augustine, Doctor of Grace, A.D. 415: “Anyone who would say that infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament [of Baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

          • LindainPA

            David Gregson, EWTN (1/12/2006) – “This idea of a limbo of children is currently undergoing review by theologians at the request of the Holy Father. Since it was never a dogma, it’s not etched in stone”.

            As you can read below, Pope Benedict believed that “limbo
            was never part of Church doctrine, even though it was taught to
            Catholics well into the 20th century.”, and “In writings before his election as Pope in 2005, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made it clear he believed the concept of limbo should be abandoned because it was “only a theological hypothesis” and “never a defined truth of faith.”

            ‘Catholic Church buries limbo after centuries’
            Saturday April 21, 2007
            “VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – The Roman Catholic Church
            has effectively buried the concept of limbo, the place where centuries
            of tradition and teaching held that babies who die without baptism went.

            In a long-awaited document, the Church’s International Theological Commission said limbo reflected an “unduly restrictive view of salvation.”

            The 41-page document was published on Friday by Origins, the
            documentary service of the U.S.-based Catholic News Service, which is
            part of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

            Pope Benedict, himself a top theologian who before his election in
            2005 expressed doubts about limbo, authorized the publication of the
            document, called “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without
            Being Baptised.”

            The verdict that limbo could now rest in peace had been expected for
            years. The document was seen as most likely the final word since limbo
            was never part of Church doctrine, even though it was taught to
            Catholics well into the 20th century.

            “The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and
            liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be
            saved and brought into eternal happiness even if there is not an
            explicit teaching on this question found in revelation,” it said.

            “There are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible (to baptize them).”

            The Church teaches that baptism removes original sin which stains all souls since the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden.

            “NO NEGATION OF BAPTISM”

            The document stressed that its conclusions should not be interpreted
            as questioning original sin or “used to negate the necessity of baptism
            or delay the conferral of the sacrament.”

            Limbo, which comes from the Latin word meaning “border” or “edge,”
            was considered by medieval theologians to be a state or place reserved
            for the unbaptized dead, including good people who lived before the
            coming of Christ.

            “People find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and
            merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from
            eternal happiness, whether they are Christian or non-Christian,” the
            document said.

            It said the study was made all the more pressing because “the number
            of nonbaptised infants has grown considerably, and therefore the
            reflection on the possibility of salvation for these infants has become
            urgent.”

            The commission’s conclusions had been widely expected.

            In writings before his election as Pope in 2005, the then Cardinal
            Joseph Ratzinger made it clear he believed the concept of limbo should
            be abandoned because it was “only a theological hypothesis” and “never a
            defined truth of faith.” ”

            Paragraph 34 of ‘THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS

            WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED’ states, “In the Church’s tradition, the affirmation that children who died unbaptised are deprived of the beatific vision has for a long time been “common doctrine”. This common doctrine followed upon a certain way of reconciling the received principles of revelation, but it did not possess the certitude of a statement of faith, or the same certitude as other affirmations whose rejection would entail the denial of a divinely revealed dogma or of a teaching proclaimed by a definitive act of the magisterium. The study of the history of the Church’s reflection on this subject shows that it is necessary to make distinctions.”

          • robert

            The more vigorously the primacy was displayed, the more the question came up about the extent and and limits of [papal] authority, which of course, as such, had never been considered. After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith. … The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.

            Joseph Ratzinger
            in The Spirit of the Liturgy
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            As you see from the above quote, the authority of the pope is not unlimited.

            I do not believe in limbo, either. Neither does, apparently, Pope Benedict. However, the document you sited from the document, the Church’s International Theological Commission….carries no weight of infallibility. Therefore, it does not negate prior or previous defined statements of prior popes.
            Two of these defined dogmas, which are enshrined in infallibility are these:
            Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 464)

            Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denz. 693)
            They have been inserted into Denzinger, as you can see.

            What Pope Benedict approved (but never defined, therefore he did not authoritatively contradict prior defined dogma, thus protecting him from papal infallibility) is, as you can see from Pope Innocent (below) is what the Pelagians teach…..in other words, Pope Benedict taught, perhaps unawares, Pelagianism…a condemned doctrine.

            Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic… But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

            You see….in the hierarchy of dogma…of teaching…their are levels of authority. What you sited is less in authority than that which I presented from the previous dogmatic definitions, which are at the very highest level of authority. In other words, no matter what opinion this pope, or that Cardinal or whatever group of bishops come to agree on….if they contradict a previously defined dogma of the faith, then they are speaking in a lesser authority, and the defined dogma trumps their opinions.

            This is the case at hand. The Church has as you can see from the quotes I have presented, has defined, not purgatory, (which I do not hold to) but they did define that unbaptized babies cannot enter heaven, but go to a part of hell where there is no sense of pain, only the pain of loss.

            You must make distinctions when it comes to Church teachings, otherwise, you have the Church contradicting itself, which is an impossibility, due to her impeccability.

            God bless….

          • robert

            Linda wrote:

            That’s right…the CCC does say that, and it also says, that they don’t know of any other way for an infant to be saved, but through the sacrament of baptism….so…they leave open a hope….a strand of hope….that God will provide a way for them to be saved. This is what makes the Vatican Council II as well as the CCC a pastoral document….they are not speaking from a dogma, or a dogmatic position…they are seeking to console through the pastoral methodology.

            So…they admit children need baptism to be saved. They admit that some babies die without Baptism. They admit they know of no known way of infant salvation except through the sacrament of baptism. And yet…pastorally, they do allow us to have hope, despite what we are infallibly taught, that infants who die without the sacrament of Baptism, cannot enter heaven.

            The Council, as well as the CCC are PASTORAL….please make this distinction.

            Also….make the distinction between infallibly defined dogmas and simple opinions and papers or conferences or theological commissions…..defined dogmas have been etched in granite….just like the dogma that the divorced and remarried are barred from communion until they are reconciled through confession and absolution.

            It doesn’t matter, for instance, what Pope Francis says about the divorced and remarried…..what he says is his opinion. His opinion does not trump the prior dogmatic defined teaching of the Church that they are in mortal/grave sin. God bless

          • robert

            So, Linda, let me get this straight, from what you say you believe….
            Since all unbaptized infants have not committed any sins, they, therefore go directly to heaven. If this is so, then not only do they enter with original sin, still staining their souls, but they really didn’t need a Savior, as they were not sinners, and Jesus came to save sinners.
            Also, if all infants dying in that state, go to heaven, then we should immediately stop our efforts in ending abortions, since everyone we save, would then be in jeopardy of losing their souls, whereas, before we saved them from abortion, they would automatically go to heaven without any chance of going to hell. Therefore, if Satan is the power behind abortions, then he is to go down in history as the greatest of any at putting people in heaven. He knows that infants dying w/o baptism go to hell, because he sees them fall into his pit.

            Does that sound like it is logical to you to hold, even though the alternative is not comfortable?

            Are you also comfortable believing that Pope Benedict has fallen under the condemnation of prior Popes in condemning the heresies of Wycliffe?

            Are you comfortable with the obvious contradictions in the faith you hold, in that….on the one hand you believe that baptism is necessary, and on the other hand that it is not needed?

            Here is a more cogent article on the subject that might help you to get a more clear view on such a sticky subject, as we all admit it to be.

            snippet: “The Council of Trent infallibly defined the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, and decreed: “If anyone says Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema” (De Baptismo , Canon V). Further, the Ecumenical Council of Vienne defined that: “All the faithful must confess only one Baptism which regenerates all the baptized, just as there is one God and one faith. We believe that this Sacrament, celebrated in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is necessary for children and grown-up people alike for salvation” (Denzinger 482). Thus, it is tantamount to heresy even to doubt that aborted children are lost for all eternity, because it means falling into the “private judgment”‘ of Protestantism or, what is worse, the subjective speculation of a perverse and humanistic “theology.””
            http://catholicism.org/unbaptized-infants-malone.html

            God bless

          • LindainPA

            Pope Francis has done more harm than good with too many of his
            comments, which are often ambiguous and open to diverse interpretation, some contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church. He certainly has made things challenging for orthodox priests and catechists! But, this is a discussion for another day.

            This Easter Vigil will mark 10 years since I became
            Catholic. If I were told ten years ago that I had to believe – that it
            was Church dogma – that God would allow unborn children to go to Hell in
            order to become Catholic, I never would have done so.

            “So, Linda, let me get this straight, from what you say you believe….
            Since all unbaptized infants have not committed any sins, they,
            therefore go directly to heaven. If this is so, then not only do they
            enter with original sin, still staining their souls, but they really
            didn’t need a Savior, as they were not sinners, and Jesus came to save
            sinners.”

            Of course they need a Savior! I said that babies may
            have no personal sin, but, if unbaptized, still have original sin. I do believe the Church’s teaching on Purgatory. I can accept that an individual who was not baptized would have to pass through Purgatory for purification, probably not long for babies, before going to Heaven. Revelation 21:27 states that “nothing unclean will enter it, nor any[one] who does abominable things or tells lies.”

            I believe it is tantamount to heresy to believe there is no sin, including
            original sin, that God cannot or will not forgive. If God can for give mortal sins, He can certainly forgive original sin. He is God, and with God, all things are possible.

            We believe Mary was free of original sin, yet, she needed a Savior Who saved her from original sin before her birth. “Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way —by anticipation.” Mary said, in Luke 1:47, “my spirit has begun to rejoice in God my Savior”.

            You continued…”Also, if all infants dying in that state, go to heaven, then we should immediately stop our efforts in ending abortions, since everyone we
            save, would then be in jeopardy of losing their souls, whereas, before
            we saved them from abortion, they would automatically go to heaven
            without any chance of going to hell. Therefore, if Satan is the power
            behind abortions, then he is to go down in history as the greatest of
            any at putting people in heaven. He knows that infants dying w/o
            baptism go to hell, because he sees them fall into his pit.”

            Satan is the power behind abortions because of the possibility of putting MANY souls in jeopardy of eternal damnation. Those potentially in danger of going to Hell are those who cooperate in abortion without remorse or repentance, which, in the abortion of ONE baby, could include the parent(s) seeking the abortion; counselors, relatives, and friends advocating for the abortion; medical personnel performing the abortion; and legislators and lobbyists supporting pro-abortion policies. These individuals are able to choose to repent of the grave sin they have committed, but, the babies are victims of the sins of OTHERS. Purgatory would be the ‘place’ for them to have original sin removed, in lieu of baptism, before entering Heaven. Many unbaptized babies die as a result of miscarriages, where no sin has been committed. I cannot believe that a God Who is both loving and just would condemn these any of these little ones to Hell for all eternity. Do you really believe the only way to see them again would be to try to go to Hell ourselves? If indeed the Church believed this, since She believes in the sanctity of life from CONCEPTION, one would think there would be provisions to baptize in utero rather than send these little ones to Hell.

            Bear in mind that Jesus descended into Hell to free the just who had gone before him, most of whom were not baptized. WE are limited and bound by the sacraments. God is not.

          • robert

            Kinda hard to know exactly where to start in any attempt to charitably correct your errors.

            I will start with your first paragraph, regarding the present pope…

            ***Pope Francis has done more harm than good with too many of his
            comments, which are often ambiguous and open to diverse interpretation, some contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church. He certainly has made things challenging for orthodox priests and catechists! But, this is a discussion for another day.****

            True….his statements are, indeed, ” ambiguous and open to diverse interpretation, some contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church.” However, this type of didactic did not begin with Bergolio, but, rather, is to found throughout the Vatican II documents, themselves. I would be only too glad to produce some of them, at your request. Pope Francis is only the logical outcome, the fruit, if you will, of Vatican II. You are a child of Vatican II, and thus, you are confused as to what is required and what is not required to be believed. I was baptized into the Church prior to Vatican II and received my catechsis from pre-Vatican II documents. The Church teachings changed after VII through the Modernists theologians and Prelates who confused the masses of Catholics, yourself, being one of them.

            *****This Easter Vigil will mark 10 years since I became
            Catholic. If I were told ten years ago that I had to believe – that it
            was Church dogma – that God would allow unborn children to go to Hell in
            order to become Catholic, I never would have done so.*****

            I guess the first correction would be, that, apparently, you weren’t, originally, seeking for a conversion to the true God, but, rather, for a religion in which you would feel comfortable with it’s teachings….you’ve never been converted to the God of the Scriptures, nor the Church, who began speaking 2000 years ago. You refuse to hear.
            Rather, you have a smorgasbord religion where you embrace what you like and tip over that which you disagree with. You simply do not understand Catholic teaching, nor do you understand the hierarchy in those teachings. What you hold to are opinions of prelates, not the infallibly defined dogmas of the Church, which She has held from the beginning. I have sited many of these, and yet, you reject the required teachings, and embraced mere opinions, because, put simply, you are not comfortable with the truth….Linda….at this point in time….you can’t handle the truth. You need further conversion TO the truth. You are as one who St. Paul spoke, when he said, “I can’t give you the meat of the word, only the milk, as you are yet babes.”

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~
            “So, Linda, let me get this straight, from what you say you believe….
            Since all unbaptized infants have not committed any sins, they,
            therefore go directly to heaven. If this is so, then not only do they
            enter with original sin, still staining their souls, but they really
            didn’t need a Savior, as they were not sinners, and Jesus came to save
            sinners.”

            ****Of course they need a Savior! I said that babies may
            have no personal sin, but, if unbaptized, still have original sin. I do believe the Church’s teaching on Purgatory.*****

            Linda, the Church doesn’t teach a purgatory of unbaptized infants. Purgatory is only for those who have been sacramentally baptized and who passed this world into the next with unconfessed venial sin. If they die with even ONE mortal sin, they descent into eternal hellfire for an eternity. Remember, also, that a mortal sin is worse than the Original SIn. Mortal sin can be removed by a perfect act of confession (rare cases, indeed), but Original Sin can ONLY be removed by the Sacrament of water Baptism.

            *****I can accept that an individual who was not baptized would have to pass through Purgatory for purification, probably not long for babies, before going to Heaven. Revelation 21:27 states that “nothing unclean will enter it, nor any[one] who does abominable things or tells lies.”****

            You are in grave error, and in actual fact, you have espoused an heresy, unknowns to you, for you did not do it knowingly, but you are culpable, none the less. People who are not Baptized cannot enter purgatory. Purgatory is for those who are on their way to heaven, but must stop for a period of purgation for their unconfessed venial sins. Those who are unbaptized cannot enter heaven, and they cannot enter purgatory….the CCC even states that there is no known remedy for the unbaptized, that the Sacrament of Baptism. “The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude . . . ” (CCC 1257).
            The Church knows of no other means to attain salvation. The theologians can, and do speculate, but that is all it is…speculation. That which is NOT speculation is the defined and dogmatic binding Magisterial teachings such as these following, and there are many, many more, which I will include a few others.

            The Council of Trent is different than the Second Vatican Council, in that, the Council of Trent is a dogmatic and thus, infallible Council. The VII Council was not infallible, nor dogmatic, but merely a pastoral council. Trent…trumps….VII Council when they disagree. Therefore, we must hold to the Dogmatic when it runs contra to the pastoral.
            “The Council of Trent infallibly defined the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, and decreed: “If anyone says Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema” (De Baptismo , Canon V). Further, the Ecumenical Council of Vienne defined that: “All the faithful must confess only one Baptism which regenerates all the baptized, just as there is one God and one faith. We believe that this Sacrament, celebrated in water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is necessary for children and grown-up people alike for salvation” (Denzinger 482).

            “Since by the transgression of the first man the whole progeny of the human race is vitiated, no one can be freed from the condition of the old man except by the Sacrament of the Baptism of Christ” (Pope St. Leo the Great, Epistle XV:10)

            It is vitally important to you for the salvation of your soul that you believe ALL that the Church teaches infallibly, opinions disregarded.
            Here is the Athensian Creed…read it….
            “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity … it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ …This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
            To deny Divinely Revealed truths is to reject the entire Faith. You MUST study the Faith on your own, and avoid anything new, anything novel, for you are fighting for your very soul. You will not be saved by proxy…..your catechist isn’t going to be punished in hell for your holding to errors which you hold. You will. He will be punished for leading you astray as the “blind lead the blind, and they both fall into the ditch.”
            Here is another infallible statement…made by Jesus Christ. Is He telling the truth, Linda? Or will you also deny Him? “Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5).

            Council of Trent….Session V., Decree Concerning Original Sin.
            “If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam…is taken away…by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For …As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.”

            ****I believe it is tantamount to heresy to believe there is no sin, including
            original sin, that God cannot or will not forgive.****
            Do you believe that there is the unpardonable sin? You must, or that denial is tantamount to heresy….in fact….denying the scripture teaching is heresy.
            Matthew 12:31, “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.” Would you say that Jesus spoke something that was tantamount to heresy? Really?

            ***** If God can for give mortal sins, He can certainly forgive original sin. He is God, and with God, all things are possible.****

            Yes, it is true…God can/does forgive mortal sin, but it is not proper to say that God can, or will forgive mortal sin, as mortal sin must be washed away by the waters of Baptism. •“Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin . . . ” (CCC 405).
            Mortal sin and Original Sin, and venial sin are ALL washed away in the Sacrament of water baptism. However, after baptism, one can no longer get original sin back, because water Baptism eradicates/destroys it. We can, and do continue to commit mortal and venial sins, which are taken away through the Sacrament of confession, or, in rare cases, perfect contrition.

            *****We believe Mary was free of original sin, yet, she needed a Savior Who saved her from original sin before her birth. “Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way —by anticipation.” Mary said, in Luke 1:47, “my spirit has begun to rejoice in God my Savior”.***

            Perfect, Linda…..perfectly correct….you’ve got that perfectly correct.
            But, in addition, Mary did need to be Sacramentally baptized before she could enter heaven. Not to remove ANY sin, for she had none, but, rather to receive the indelible mark which allows her to be within the body of Christ. It also did many more things for her, which we can discuss in another post.

            *****You continued…”Also, if all infants dying in that state, go to heaven, then we should immediately stop our efforts in ending abortions, since everyone we
            save, would then be in jeopardy of losing their souls, whereas, before
            we saved them from abortion, they would automatically go to heaven
            without any chance of going to hell. Therefore, if Satan is the power
            behind abortions, then he is to go down in history as the greatest of
            any at putting people in heaven. He knows that infants dying w/o
            baptism go to hell, because he sees them fall into his pit.”

            Satan is the power behind abortions because of the possibility of putting MANY souls in jeopardy of eternal damnation. Those potentially in danger of going to Hell are those who cooperate in abortion without remorse or repentance, which, in the abortion of ONE baby, could include the parent(s) seeking the abortion; counselors, relatives, and friends advocating for the abortion; medical personnel performing the abortion; and legislators and lobbyists supporting pro-abortion policies. These individuals are able to choose to repent of the grave sin they have committed, but, the babies are victims of the sins of OTHERS. Purgatory would be the ‘place’ for them to have original sin removed, in lieu of baptism, before entering Heaven.****

            Linda….Purgatory is the place for baptized persons (original sin removed) who die with any venial sin left unconfessed and not had the penance done for. Unbaptized infants do not go to purgatory. Please site me Catholic dogma that teaches they do, please. I won’t hold my breath, because there are none.
            Also, please address my statement….”Also, if all infants dying in that state, go to heaven, then we should immediately stop our efforts in ending abortions, since everyone we
            save, would then be in jeopardy of losing their souls, whereas, before
            we saved them from abortion, they would automatically go to heaven
            without any chance of going to hell. Therefore, if Satan is the power
            behind abortions, then he is to go down in history as the greatest of
            any at putting people in heaven. He knows that infants dying w/o
            baptism go to hell, because he sees them fall into his pit.”
            According to your speculation, aborted babies go to heaven…..thus, why would we want to stop them from going to heaven? We wouldn’t…would you want to stop someone on their way to a sure fire ticket to heaven? It would be like winning the infinity universe powerball lottery jackpot. To keep someone from entering heae is the opposite of charity. So….why would we want to stop abortion?

            ****Many unbaptized babies die as a result of miscarriages, where no sin has been committed. I cannot believe that a God Who is both loving and just would condemn these any of these little ones to Hell for all eternity.*****

            Linda, instead of me trying to explain, I can see no better place to direct you than to this….this IS Catholic teaching. Please take the time to read it. And also pay close attention to the teachings of Pelagius whose teachings were condemned by the Church.

            http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

            “1.3. The Latin Fathers
            15. The fate of unbaptised infants first became the subject of sustained theological reflection in the West during the anti-Pelagian controversies of the early 5th century. St. Augustine addressed the question because Pelagius was teaching that infants could be saved without Baptism. Pelagius questioned whether St. Paul’s letter to the Romans really taught that all human beings sinned “in Adam” (Rom 5:12) and that concupiscence, suffering, and death were a consequence of the Fall.[22] Since he denied that Adam’s sin was transmitted to his descendants, he regarded newborn infants as innocent. Pelagius promised infants who died unbaptised entry into “eternal life” (not, however, into the “Kingdom of God” [Jn 3:5]), reasoning that God would not condemn to hell those who were not personally guilty of sin.[23]

            16. In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell.[24] He appealed to the Lord’s precept, John 3:5, and to the Church’s liturgical practice. Why are little children brought to the baptismal font, especially infants in danger of death, if not to assure them entrance into the Kingdom of God? Why are they subjected to exorcisms and exsufflations if they do not have to be delivered from the devil?[25] Why are they born again if they do not need to be made new? Liturgical practice confirms the Church’s belief that all inherit Adam’s sin and must be transferred from the power of darkness into the kingdom of light (Col 1:13).[26]There is only one Baptism, the same for infants and adults, and it is for the forgiveness of sins.[27] If little children are baptized, then, it is because they are sinners. Although they clearly are not guilty of personal sin, according to Romans 5:12 (in the Latin translation available to Augustine), they have sinned “in Adam”.[28] “Why did Christ die for them if they are not guilty?”[29] All need Christ as their Saviour.”

            **** Do you really believe the only way to see them again would be to try to go to Hell ourselves?****

            Linda, when we see Christ face to face, there will be no mourning, no sorrow, no sadness aout ANY of our relatives and friends who “did not make it”. Our ONLY preoccupation will be to be eternally enamored with being IN Christ…IN God….Sharing in being inserted into the Body of Christ. Nothing else, including anything…including our missing friends, families, or even infants. God’s ways are not our ways….His ways are so much higher than ours. We cannot comprehend them, nor understand them….He is infinite…we are finite.

            ****If indeed the Church believed this, since She believes in the sanctity of life from CONCEPTION, one would think there would be provisions to baptize in utero rather than send these little ones to Hell.****

            Linda, please read this….and ask yourself….if all aborted or infants dying at birth go to heaven, then what the fuss? This article will answer that question…. also note Pope Benedicts input into this article.

            “The Roman Ritual declares that a child is not to be baptized while still enclosed (clausus) in its mother’s womb, it supposes that the baptismal water cannot reach the body of the child. When, however, this seems possible, even with the aid of an instrument, Benedict XIV[2] declares that midwives should be instructed to confer conditional baptism. The Ritual further says that when the water can flow upon the head of the infant the sacrament is to be administered absolutely; but if it can be poured only on some other part of the body, baptism is indeed to be conferred, but it must be conditionally repeated in case the child survives its birth, It is to be noted that in these last two cases, the rubric of the Ritual supposes that the infant has partly emerged from the womb. For if the fetus was entirely enclosed, baptism is to be repeated conditionally in all cases.[3]

            “In case of the death of the mother, the fetus is to be immediately extracted and baptized, should there be any life in it. Infants have been taken alive from the womb well after the mother’s death. After the Cæsarean incision has been performed, the fetus may be conditionally baptized before extraction if possible; if the sacrament is administered after its removal from the womb the baptism is to be absolute, provided it is certain that life remains. If after extraction it is doubtful whether it be still alive, it is to be baptized under the condition: “If thou art alive”. According to Catholic teaching, the fetus is animated by a human soul from the very beginning of its conception. In cases of delivery where the issue is a mass that is not certainly animated by human life, it is to be baptized conditionally: “If thou art a man.”[1]”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_baptism#Infants.2C_babies_and_fetuses

            ****Bear in mind that Jesus descended into Hell to free the just who had gone before him, most of whom were not baptized. WE are limited and bound by the sacraments. God is not.****

            Linda….none of them were Sacramentally Baptized. He led them out of Abraham’s Bosom. You do not know if they were baptized or not after they came up out of their graves, and walked around in Jerusalem, as the Scriptures teach. They had forty days to be baptized by the Apostles, before Jesus ascended up on Ascension Thursday….we are not told if they were, explicitly, nor were we told that they were ….so you cannot say they were not…..they might have been, and if they were, then we know that Jesus was not exaggerating when He said in John 3:5, “Except a man be born of water and the spirit, he CANNOT enter the kingdom of heaven.” Was Jesus lying? Exaggerating? stretching the truth? Was He speaking symbolically, metaphorically? Or was He speaking, as the Church teaches…literally?
            “Let your yeas, be yea, and your nays, be nay…..anything other than that, is from the evil one.”
            Jesus spoke yays and nays….He IS the truth.

            God bless, Linda….

          • LindainPA

            You wrote, “none of them were Sacramentally Baptized. He led them out of Abraham’s Bosom. You do not know if they were baptized or not after they came up out of their graves, and walked around in Jerusalem, as the Scriptures teach. They had forty days to be baptized by the Apostles, before Jesus ascended up on Ascension Thursday….we are not told if they were,
            explicitly, nor were we told that they were ….so you cannot say they
            were not…..they might have been”

            If Jesus took the just from Abraham’s Bosom to Heaven, and they “CANNOT enter the kingdom of heaven” without Baptism, which could only be done, according to your premise, BEFORE they died, how was that accomplished?

            When was Mary baptized, since she was conceived without sin? How? By whom?

            There are so many questions we will never have answers to in this life.

            1 Corinthians 13:12 – “At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but
            then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully,
            as I am fully known.”

            My priest, who is very orthodox, had this to say…

            “My position would be that Baptism is necessary for salvation—-if an
            infant who dies without Baptism makes it into heaven—they were
            obviously baptized in some way known to God but unrevealed to us. I
            believe this can happen because the God revealed in Scripture and
            Tradition is a God of love and salvation–He is great. His love and
            mercy endures forever.

            Why do we baptize if it is possible for an infant to go to heaven who dies
            without a formal baptism? Because while we believe and hope that the
            infant can go to heaven and that they can be baptized in a way known to
            God but unrevealed to us–at the same time, we want to avoid the sin of
            presumption.”

            I believe in a truly omnipotent God Who has more answers than we have questions! He cannot be put in a box. He cannot be contained or constricted by documents, even though plenty of documents have been written that try to define Him. He has given us the Sacraments, yet, He is not bound by them. He is so much bigger than we can comprehend. His love is broader than our human capacity to understand. Without hesitation, I am able to give a reason for my hope.

            May you have a Blessed Lent.

          • robert

            Linda…..They were raised from he dead when Jesus rose….at the time they were raised, they were….alive. At THAT time….when they were raised and thus, alive (as was Lazarus, whom Jesus raised from the dead), they were thus, able to be Sacramentally Baptized. This baptizing of those raised from Abraham’s Bosom, could easily have taken place during the 40 days prior to Jesus, and ALL the OT saints, ascending into heaven. NO ONE can enter heaven, without being Sacramentally Baptized….not even Mary.

            Linda….this is nothing new to Catholicism…it is just ignored…buried…because there is an attack on the Sacrament of Baptism. Baptism must be lowered in importance, so that there can be a denial of the teaching that only Catholics can be saved. Since VII, there has been a push to squelch the sacrament of Baptism. Here are some quotes on Mary’s Baptism….

            1. Bernardine de Bustis (d. ca. 1515)
            MARY RECEIVED BAPTISM
            The sacraments are a kind of avowal or profession of faith. But faith was present in the Virgin more than in any other person. Therefore, she has and received the sacraments.
            Therefore, the Virgin herself observed the requirements of the Law, such as the requirement of purification, and so on, and so she observed the requirements of the Gospel law as well. The Lord himself said to John, “Thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Mt 3:15), namely, in perfect humility, and he was speaking of receiving the sacrament of baptism. And so, for the same reason, the Blessed Virgin had to be baptized and receive the other sacraments….
            Whoever possesses every grace also possesses everything that confers grace. Therefore, she had baptism, which confers grace.
            Again, the precept of baptism, once it is promulgated, binds everyone to receive baptism. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin was also bound to receive baptism.
            Again, the Lord was baptized, even though he did not need it. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin had to be baptized, too.
            Again, in the Gospel of John the Savior says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5). But the Blessed Virgin entered the kingdom of God. Therefore, she was baptized.
            Further, if she had not been baptized, it would have scandalized those who did not know that she had been sanctified. But Mary never scandalized anyone. Therefore, she received baptism. (Pg. 325)
            ….the Blessed Virgin received from this sacrament a remembrance of the Lord’s Passion, an exercise of practical devotion that made up for the desolation of her Son’s physical absence. (Pg. 327)
            – Bernardine de Bustis, Mariale, fol. 120v

            2. With the support of eight Popes, Ven. Mary of Agreda tells us that:

            “The third day mentioned by the Evangelist as the wed-ding day of Cana is the third day of the week … That the Evangelist does not mention the visit of the Lord to Nazareth nor the Baptism of Our Lady [on that day] was not because it did not really happen, but because he and the other writers confine themselves to that which pertains to their purpose. Saint John himself says that they omit the mention of many miracles performed by the Lord (John 20:30), since it was not necessary to describe all of them. From this explanation, it will be seen that this history is confirmed by the Gospels themselves and by the very passage in question.”

            And: “The most blessed Lady asked Our Lord for the Sacrament of Baptism, which He had promised her previously … Attended by an innumerable host of angelic spirits, Christ Himself baptized His purest Mother. She received the characteristic Token impressed by this Sacrament, namely, that of the children of Christ in His holy Church…That the Evangelist does not mention the baptism of the Blessed Lady was not because it did not happen, but because he and the other writers confine themselves to that which pertains to their purpose. (MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD: The Transfixion, Ven. Sister Mary of Jesus, Washington, NJ: Ave Maria Institute, 1949, cf. pp.299, 305)

            3. Fr. William Humphrey, SJ:

            Mary therefore was baptized. The Mother of God was thus born again that she might be engrafted into the True Vine, as its fairest and most fruitful branch; that she might be incorporated into the Mystical Body as neck, to borrow the language of St. Bernard, the connecting link between the various members and their Head. He and they together form the one living whole: the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. (THE ONE MEDIATOR, London: Art and Book Co., 1894. p.104)

            Mary ministered of her substance to her Maker, and gave to the Son of God His Sacred Body with its Precious Blood. This gift of hers He would return. He would return to her her flesh and blood, and return it not as she gave it, but as He received it, made it His own, and deified it. (THE ONE MEDIATOR, London: Art and Book Co., 1894, p.104)

            4. Mary’s communions of the future were the chief constraining motive in the mind of Jesus for His institution of the Holy Eucharist, even as He came more to save and sanctify Mary than to save and sanctify mankind. But if Mary was to receive her Divine Son in a Sacrament, she must approach that Sacrament through the Gate of the Sacraments – that Sacrament of Baptism which in the divine economy is the gate of God’s Kingdom upon earth. (THE ONE MEDIATOR, London: Art and Book Co., 1894, p.104)

            5. Fr. Canice, OFM Cap: It is obvious that Mary could not receive some of the Sacraments. She did not receive Orders or Penance or Marriage. But she received Baptism. This Sacrament was conferred on her, not indeed to cleanse Original Sin, which did not exist in her, but to make her a member of the Church, to give her the right to receive the other Sacraments, and in order that she might fulfill the Law of her Son, Who had made it obligatory for all. (MARY: A STUDY OF THE MOTHER OF GOD, Dublin: Gill & Son, 1936, p.175)

            6. An abbot Euthymius in the 4th (that’s the 300’s !!) wrote, “the belief of the most ancient Fathers was that Christ Himself baptized the Blessed Virgin and St. Peter.” [The Great Commentary of Cornelius Lapide, 1890, Vol. 5, p.118]

            7. Father William Humphrey, S.J. [The One Mediator, p.103] “Mary was baptized by the Holy Ghost…with the most perfect of all baptisms of the Spirit. … Mary was a martyr….She was baptized with Christ’s baptism of blood…. It is nevertheless certain that Mary, already Queen of Saints & martyrs, was baptized again with the Baptism of water and the Holy Ghost, which alone is sacramental.

            “In Baptism, the purest Lady received such grace and numerous effects of grace in her soul that no human can describe them; for she was exalted to[i] new heights of grace, and her holy soul was made resplendent with the new and exquisitite beauty of heaven.” [Mystical City of God]

            “Mary received Baptism , which produced many effects in her. When Baptism is conferred on a person already justified, it gives an increase in grace, and thus Mary increased in grace, although already full of grace. Moreover, it is proper to Baptism, through the imprint of the Character, to incorporate a person in Christ and in His visible Church. and to make him capable of receiving the other Sacraments. Since Mary received Baptism, she was marked with the Baptismal Character as the first-born of the faithful and the most noble member of the Church, and through the Character she was rendered apt for receiving the other Sacraments. Finally, by receiving Baptism, Mary followed in the footsteps of Christ, Who was baptized by John. Thus, she gives the faithful an example of perfect observance of the [new] law, just as, at another time, she submitted to the rite of Purification [of the old law]. [The Blessed Virgin Mary, p.172]

            8. Francisco Suarez, S.J., states “that the unbaptized will be denied the Beatific Vision” and explicitly held Our Lady to have been baptized by Jesus, Himself. [Dogmatic Theology, Pohle]

            9. Our Blessed Mother needed to be Baptized because it was the will of God.

            Our Blessed Mother needed to be baptized because it is a divine precept and the Law of the Church

            Our Blessed Mother needed to be baptized because she is the model of perfect obedience.

            Our Mother needed to be baptized an order to be incorporated into the Mystical Body.

            Our Blessed Mother needed to be baptized in order to receive the Seal of Salvation.

            Our Blessed Mother needed to be baptized in order to participate in the sacramental life of the Church.

            Our Blessed Mother needed to be baptized in order to assume her future role as Mediatrix of all grace.

            So now do you suggest that our Mother “may well have been Baptised” as if this was an option for her or that she didn’t “need” to participate in the Mass and receive the Eucharist. I would wager she was a daily Communicant – but you would say she had no “need”?

            You quote your priest, who says, basically, that no one can enter heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism….he says,
            My priest, who is very orthodox, had this to say…

            “My position would be that Baptism is necessary for salvation—-if an
            infant who dies without Baptism makes it into heaven—they were
            obviously baptized in some way known to God but unrevealed to us. I
            believe this can happen because the God revealed in Scripture and
            Tradition is a God of love and salvation–He is great. His love and
            mercy endures forever.

            Why do we baptize if it is possible for an infant to go to heaven who dies
            without a formal baptism? Because while we believe and hope that the
            infant can go to heaven and that they can be baptized in a way known to
            God but unrevealed to us–at the same time, we want to avoid the sin of
            presumption.”
            end of quote:::::
            so you, at the beginning say that all babies who die without baptism go to heaven, and now, you make full circle and say that which I have said from the beginning, that…all babies have to be baptized or they cannot go to heaven…..

            The Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for anyone, including babies, to go to heaven….now….you, your priest, and I, and the Catholic Faith are in agreement….why did you make it so hard?

            Don’t worry about who gets to heaven, and who doesn’t…infants or otherwise….you need to be, as we all do, to be concerned about ourselves, for we are all in trouble…we all have to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.” Here….hear this sermon from an holy priest in South Texas…..
            have a fruitfilled Lenton season….This sermon is on “the Fewness of the Saved”. A topic few priests are brave enough to preach….but we all need to hear.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykkFVxxGJaE

          • LindainPA

            Early on in this discussion, you said, “that aborted children and infants who die without baptism descend immediately into Hell”. You did not, in the beginning, entertain the idea that God could do what the parents were unable to do – baptize, or provide a path for these little ones to be received into Heaven.

            The point both I and Father are trying to make is that just because parents do not have the opportunity to baptize their child, we do not presume that child is condemned to eternity in Hell. God, Who is love, and Who is all powerful, is able to do things that are “unrevealed to us”.

            The CCC teaches Baptism by desire and Baptism by blood as a way to help us realize and understand that God can do what man cannot. We walk by faith.

            I would question documents that place limits on God. No one can say with absolute certainty how, when, by whom, or if Mary and those raised by Jesus from the dead were baptized. We simply do not have all the answers. To believe so is pride.

            My hope is that if you encounter parents who have lost a child before that child has been baptized, you can offer hope that they may see each other again in Heaven because with God, all things are possible, and because we have a God who is a God of love and a God Who can do all things. I also hope that in any discussion on this topic, you realize there are many people who have either had abortions they regret, or lost a child through a miscarriage or at an early age who may not have been baptized. Rather than make the claim that since they are unbaptized these children are going to Hell, you remind them that yes, when we are able, we need to baptize and not presume on God’s mercy, but, what we are not able to do, God can do. The important thing is to acknowledge God’s love and His omnipotence, and that we simply do not have all the answers. Jesus is the reason for our hope. One of the best prayers I have ever heard is, “Lord, I can’t, but, You can. Please do.”

          • robert

            So…..Linda….let me see if I understand you right…..

            If some women have abortions, miscarriages, or had a child die without being baptized, if these women will have their feelings hurt because of Church teachings, then we should just hide these truths (impossible to do) or just deny they exist. The fact of the matter is…you, this milque-toast priest and all these women who failed to provide Baptism for their children, or had them murdered, or weren’t able to have them Baptized simply put…..can’t handle the truth, so you deny it…..it’s called “cognitive dissonance”……you and all the others are not yet converted to the Catholic Faith as you can’t handle the truth…and that’s sad…because it is precisely the Truth that sets men free….not some sentimental theology that makes us all feel good in the “feel good Church”…

            It’s no wonder that Christ said “few are saved”…few embrace Him and His teachings and instead, mold a god of their own making so that tis god can make them feeeeel good. Thats’ NOT Catholicism…..Catholic conversion is when we die to ourselves, and live the life of Christ, and it was He, Himself, Who said, infallibly….”except a man be born of water and the spirit, he CANNOT enter the Kingdom of Heaven”…cannot be saved…..

            Your problem is not with me…you have a problem with the real God.

        • Jameson

          You’ve invented some kind of mary cult modeled after what you want–what you describe in no way honors the Blessed Mother nor the fruit of her Womb.

        • robert

          “…yet come together in the support of love & nurturing others.”

          Do you love the babies that you are an accomplice in murdering through your approval of the murders? Your hands are red with the blood of murdered babies, as you give your approval of it.

  • Barbara

    What a wonderful idea. Our Blessed Mother is the best role model for any lady at any age. I ask for her intercession and guidance when ever I am troubled and She has never failed to help me. May God Bless us all in all our endeavors.

    • Jameson

      Amen.

  • Phil Alcoceli

    This is a magnificent and POWERFUL idea!! Our Lady Holy Mary communicates both the love and POWER of God. Both my late dad and I fully agreed with late Bishop Fulton Sheen that the quality of a society or Nation depends on the quality of their women. Being a man myself, I laugh at the idea that men are “stronger” (physically maybe and only sometimes). With all due respect to the male heroes I admire, ONLY women have the true power to bring humanity to its very best. That’s why Satan and his children have been trying to corrupt women since the dawn of Creation. That’s why Satan invented hiomosexuality and all “alternative” genders and surgically Frankestein-ed transexuals. Satan’s main target is always women because they are the key to God’s renewal, redemption and true FREEDOM in submission to Him, like Mary!!

    • Donna

      Please don’t honor the evil one by capitalizing his name!

      • Jameson

        That’ s not giving honor.

    • robert

      Factcheck…. “Being a man myself, I laugh at the idea that men are “stronger” (physically maybe and only sometimes).”
      I Peter 3:7….Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
      You need to have the same mind as God, in all things.

      • Phil Alcoceli

        Weaker? Really? You really think GOD sees women as weaker? Wow! GOD says: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3: 28). BOTH men and women are empowered by the Salvation of God and whatever weakness appears would come from the sin of either one NOT God’s will. The greatest of men acknowledge there is a great, strong woman behind them to which they OWE their greatness.

        THINK: If God calls a man and woman to marry and become “one flesh” (Matthew 19: 5) does that mean God is sabotaging the man by binding him to “weakness”. Ludicrous!! When Paul call’s women “the weaker partner” he refers to the situation of hard subjugation of the women of his historical time. A man that sees a woman, just for being a woman, as weaker or less than him in any way, is a BASTARD hiding behind the Bible, a most despicable and abominable thing!! A bastard like this also gives ammunition to the Devil and Christianity’s’s enemies. Now THAT is weakness!!

        • robert

          E-a-s-y, boy…take a deep breath…in and out…in and out….

          there, now….

          It seems your argument is with God, Who inspired the text. Women, from the very first couple, have proven themselves the “weaker vessel”, and Satan knew that in the garden. That’s why he didn’t attack Adam, but the emotionally weaker Eve. She was seduced….she was fooled….she was beguiled. Women cry at weddings…etc. In contrast, men don’t.

          Adam made a cognitive choice between Eve and God. Eve simply got snookered by Satan. And I may add one thing, here, Phil…I really doubt that you’d be referring to me as a “BASTARD” if you were face to face with me. You’d leave in an ambulance.

          Now….if you’d care to discuss intellectually on the subject of women, then be my guest, but your display of emotion belies the possibility that you are much too emotionally based to carry on a rational discussion.

          Care to talk…or just spew?

          • Phil Alcoceli

            Ambulance? Ha, ha, ha! I worked long years with inmates so I know how to deal with you even if you are an ex-con yourself. No, I’m neither intimidated by you nor emotional. My only fear would come IF you were God Himself as I only fear GOD. But maybe YOU think yourself God. For your entertainment: If you want to hear worms laugh, tell maggots you are God. As far as discussing women with you, you already made your position clear that you see women as weaker and inferior, because coming to a forum like this with YOUR emphasis on their “weakness” reveals a lowliness of character cowardly hiding behind the Bible that deserves any description. Your threats not only reveal that I’m right about you but also that you probably are very willing to also use your threats and “superior strength” to harm women and anyone who may oppose that. Despicable!!

          • robert

            Well, Phil….glad you’re feeling better and have a better grip on your emotions…it’s not becoming a man, as I assume you are….. I do admit, without equivocation, that I believe women to be the weaker sex, as the Sacred Text (God) teaches us, but, I nowhere claimed, as you say I did, that women are “inferior”. Why did you say that, Phil? You’re either making that up to gain some credibilty, but then, as you lie, you lose it again, or you thought I said that. Which is it, Phil? I believe God, not you…not any other man, but what God taught us, through His written revelation, and His Church. I cannot help it if you reject biblical as well as Catholic teaching, that women were created, were in the past, are at the present, and will always be “the weaker vessel”. It has nothing to do with “inferior”. Man has been given by God, the authority, as well as the responsibility, to rule the family…to be the head of the family, while the woman is to be his “helpmeet”, and his second in command. It is God’s hierarchical order that He ceated here on earth for the proper governance of society made up of families. As far as my thinking I am God….it is perhaps you who think you are God I accept the teaching of the Scripture and Church….that makes me subject to God. You are the one not subjecting yourself to the teaching of God, so….who thinks themselves God, Phil?

            I hope you understand this now, and do not try, again, to smear me with something that I did not say. You do understand…right, Phil?

          • Phil Alcoceli

            It is you who obviously does not understand real reasoning OR the Bible and twist it to your liking and your bias. Now you use Catholic teaching to hide behind, AGAIN. The hierarchical order God ordained for the family in no way makes the women “weaker” AT ALL. The sacred covenant of marriage is a covenant between equals before God. The Catolic priest acts as a WITNESS to their consecration. You calling the woman men’s second in command shows a bias that has nothing to do with Bible interpretation. Your threats and condescending tone tell the whole story: the emotional one is YOU and it’s YOUR own words that condemn YOU. Your mask is off. No more trick-or-treat for you.

            You are not subject to God but only to yourself. You call the truth “smearing” so YOU obviously have a problem with Truth. In all your acting as the Bible superhero and Catholic teaching crusader, you may only just be a troll. It is well known, that God’s enemies emphasize the “weakness” of women, implying their inferiority, irrelevance and replaceability by other “genders”. A true believer in the Bible and a true believer in Catholic teaching would never emphasize weakness based on a single Bible verse. INDEED, that same verse EMPHASIZES RESPECT toward women not their weakness, as God gave the woman the HIGHEST gift to bear children for His glory. YOU made some very emotional statements and are now trying to cover them to appear mature. Too late.

          • robert

            “…emphasize the “weakness” of women, implying their inferiority, irrelevance and replaceability by other “genders”.”

            I won’t spend a lot of time on this one…just need you to show where I ever used the words inferior, irrelevance, or replacability….

            Thanks…

          • Phil Alcoceli

            Your WHOLE attitude is crystal clear from the very beginning and obviously others have noticed, too.

          • robert

            So…..show me where I used the words you attributed to me….or are you just going to live , and die, with that lie?

          • Phil Alcoceli

            You are a troll and the rainbow flag in YOUR UNENDING LIES is that women are weak. YOU are making an obvious, ludicrous statement of “superiority” and YOU are obviously willing to live and die with that lie. NO ONE is SO obssesed and stubborn with showing women’s weakness unless there’s a deep, dark attitude AGAINST women as women.

          • Jameson

            I get the same vibe.

          • Jameson

            It’s your attitude. Did you write wymmins bible?

          • robert

            Um..excuse me again, but…I was addressing Phil, not you….at least not now. How is my attitude shown to be negative when I ask for clarification? What I do is to give references to what I believe, in hopes of coming to an understanding based on facts, and not just merely opinions….you have alot of opinion, but few facts to back them up. You. as we;; as Phil, need to produce references to that which you believe. For there we can have a sensible and logical discussion….opinions are like….belly buttons. Everyone’s got one, but not all have the references….lets try to deal with references, and drop the opinions. Deal?

          • Jameson

            You have no idea what scriptures mean even though they are so clear.
            Why is that? Could it be you’re blind?

          • robert

            So…that’s your response? Is that it? You have nothing else to buttress up your point?

          • Phil Alcoceli

            So that’s all you are about, winning an argument and damn the Truth? From the very beginning you showed to be a highly trained troll, like many I’ve seen in other forums, using and twisting Catholic or Christian ideas and theology and then throwing them around to push your agenda. Yeah, very smart maybe but the Church has survived “trolls” from inside and out for 2,000 years and we’re good for another 2,000. So, good luck for siding with the Eternal Loser.

          • Jameson

            Woman is a vessel as the Chuch is a vessel.
            It is because of weak men that any woman ever becomes corrupt.
            If men weren’t such cowards, they would’ve spoken out against the lunatic feminists in the 60s, but those big strong men were afraid of the girls.

          • Guest

            Phil, thank you for standing up to this guy who insists on continually using what he feels is right to beat down women. Especially on a thread for a day to honor women in a Godly manner. It is obvious he doesn’t see with the eyes of Christ or the heart of God. I believe there are way more scriptures about edifying each other, respecting each other, and something about a gentle vs harsh response 😉 …. I pray our Lord grabs ahold of his heart and shows him how He sees women, and reminds him it is through the woman’s heel that satan will be destroyed. Those who oppose women are only playing on satan’s team whether they realize it or not. I also pray for the women in his life that their hearts are protected from him and see God’s true love. For unlike his comment before that God is love is only a half truth, that is in error vs scripture, the good book clearly states God is love.

          • Phil Alcoceli

            Guest, thanks to you for your comment. You brought a VERY IMPORTANT point: why does this FRAUD of a man and FRAUD of a Catholic come to this forum celebrating an initiative to celebrate HIGH QUALITY women with his BASTARD rant and using the Bible and Catholic Doctrine to do just that? BASTARD because only a son of Satan not a son of God would do that. He only uses Scripture and Holy Tradition just in the way a Satanist would, but tries to build FALSE CREDIBILITY by coming to forums like this and building a FALSE IMAGE. A new kind of false-christian-troll is emerging.

            I believe in men’s SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP (Ephesians 5: 25) In that quote God DIRECTLY equates His beloved Church for which Jesus TOTALLY gave Himself with WOMEN!!! Divine Clarity! In other words, a man’s manlines is in DIRECT PROPORTION to how greatly he respects and honors WOMEN. Women are God’s treasure on Earth and we men are the guardians of that treasure. Guardians not envious, insecure, cowardly thieves and plunderers.

          • Jameson

            Well, actually that is not why Satan attacked woman.

            Do you think Man is less likely to be snookered by Satan? Of course not, because only an idiot would believe that. Right, Robert.

          • robert

            Argument ad hominums only reveal the inherent weakness in one’s defenses. We/I were speaking of Adam and Eve…the first couple….stay on topic. Eve was seduced, not Adam. Here…read I Tim 2:14 ff
            13For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression. 15Women, however, will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.…

          • Phil Alcoceli

            “Argument ad hominus” you say. Yeah, I like Latin, too, but this sounds more like out of an argumentative liberal playbook. You started with the Bible but now you are only a troll insisting on your error. By the way, all this nonsense about Eve’s sin exposes you quite clearly. NO REAL MAN, believer or militant atheist, that I’ve ever talked to has made such a big, lengthy rant about women’s sin or weakness unless he was a woman beater or homosexual or tranny. By the way, the Bible calls the original sin THE SIN OF ADAM because he was given the original responsibility over Creation and he just followed Eve into sin. He could have refused but he failed. That’s why it’s called the SIN OF ADAM. Your cherry picking of Bible verses reveals you as a troll.

          • robert

            Your tossing around the word “troll” is alot like people do with the name “racist” or “anti-semite” or “mysoginist”….all meant to silence the one called the name….well, call all the names you want….when I hear name calling it is a sure sign of a weak argument, so all that’s left is name calling. If you want to enter into an intelligent discussion that’s one thing, but to name call is really lame.
            By the way….the reason it’s called the sin of Adam was because he was the head of that family, and he was responsible for Eve….he, Adam, should have been there by her so that the devil/serpent couldn’t have seduced her so easily….his role, as is the role of all husbands, is to defend and protect their wives….Adam failed to do that….he was the head…..he was to balme…erg…the sin of Adam. She was seduced….fooled. Adam, willingly made a cognizant choice to rebel. Eve didn’t rebel….Adam did…thus…the sin of Adam.

          • Phil Alcoceli

            Trolls are trolls and they come in many different kinds and I will call them as I see them as I don’t have you or those like you as a standard of Truth. At least at the end you got something as you are rephrasing what I said before.

          • Jameson

            No. You’re wrong. It’s called the Sin of Adam because it was all his fault– he didn’t properly relay the message, he
            Indulged, then lied, then blamed the woman.

          • robert

            Ms. Jameson, although my post was addressed to Phil, you chose to barge in (rude), I’ll none the less engage you….
            So…you’re saying that it was Adam who ate the forbidden fruit and framed Eve, who was innocent?

          • Jameson

            Adam didn’t frame Woman.
            Adam betrayed God.
            Adam disobeyed the word. Adam was tempted by Lucifer to be like God.
            God’s question is why are you hiding? And Adam again answers and betrays that he thinks He is God’ s equal.
            Who is innocent– the Truth– the Word which was made flesh in thevform of the new Adam– Christ and the New Eve–Mary.

          • robert

            You are correct, in that the OS is called the sin of Adam….because Adam was not tricked/seduced. Eve was. Adam went into it open eyed, knowing the consequences…Eve did not…she was fooled. So, therefore it is called the sin of Adam. My point in all of this is to show that the devil chose to seduce Eve because they are easily seduced…it’s their nature, as being, as the Scripture states…the “weaker vessel”. Just because someone is weak doesn’t mean they’re bad….it’s just the way God made the two….man the less apt to be tricked (strong)…woman easier to be seduced (weak). Now, through grace, the woman can become what Eve was not….a woman can become strong, through grace…..but without grace, both men and women are not their potential.

          • Jameson

            Adam went into it open eyed?
            Eve was tricked/seduced but Adam knew? Adam is not gifted withvforeknowledgebof consequences like the angels.
            Adam’s failure was first. Adam’s pride came first and caused the Fall. Adam did not deliver to Woman the whole message because of Pride. Pride goeth before the Fall.
            Go read it. Read what God said. Then read the lame way Adam tells Woman. She becomes Eve after the Fall.
            Adam was was tempted by Lucifer first and failed. That is why Woman does not have the answer when approached by the deceit –the snake–Adam invited into the garden.
            That’s why he lies to God and then blames, points the finger at woman, throws her under the bus– he denies the Truth that it was his doing.

          • robert

            Your spin could make a good fiction novel…..you just make it up as you go….

          • Jameson

            Adam was standing right beside Woman as Satan spoke.

          • robert

            source?

          • Jameson

            Genesis.

          • robert

            Brilliant….now try being specific…..chapter/verse The Genesis episode doesn’t say they were together when Eve was tempted. There you go again, making things up as you see fit to fit your agenda.

          • Jameson

            That wasn’t an ad hominem attack. I addressed the weakness in your argument.
            Satan attacked God’s vessel. The crowning glory of His creation because he was envious—that’s why he was thrown out of Heaven in the first place. Satan hates mankind. Woman represents all mankind through regeneration given her– that’s why she was attacked.
            It was Adam that made things worse. He lied to God and then blamed woman because he was at fault for not giving verbatim and explaining God’s exact words given to him to her— and man is doing it again .

        • Jameson

          You’re right. Robert is disordered.

      • Jameson

        Obviously, women are men’s superiors. Women are repelled by you and for good reason.

        • robert

          now you’re just being silly….are you, by chance a homosexual or a tranny? That would explain a lot of your weird responses.

          • Phil Alcoceli

            The startling fact that you, out of the blue and for no obvious reason, accuse someone whom you disagree with of being “homosexual or a tranny” reveals a HECK OF A LOT about YOU. So much shows for your “mature” superiority and your manly man theology.

          • robert

            Well… it wasn’t just out of the blue…he’s been stalking me on this site, and answering my posts with glib little dittys, and the only obvious thing that I overlooked in this mix is that he may be a homosexual….so I asked….and, by the way….it’s not by manly man theology….it is God’s…He wrote the Book….Catholics are just required to live by it, and believe it. Have you read many of the Church Fathers on the subject?
            They all reflect that which I believe, because I align myself with historic and real Catholicism.

          • Jameson

            No you don’t.
            What you overlooked is the most obvious guess.

          • Phil Alcoceli

            By simply ASKING the commenter if he, a man, is a “homosexual or a tranny” you cowardly make an attack on him and then slither out with false innocence. If you are SO offended by “glib little dittys” you are either a snowflake, mentally disturbed or a homosexual yourself. No, you don’t align “with historic and real Catholicism”. You are a FAKE like the Mormons that use the Old Testament to justify poligamy. You just DROP NAMES while at the same time totally disrespecting them, as the Church Fathers were not, as YOU ARE, obssesed with women’s alleged weakness.

  • Ann Drennan Forsyth

    I agree with Franie below. On National Lady Day, my friends and I will join together to dress up and share some tea along with a nice luncheon. thanks for notifying me, as I will do the same for others. abf

    • robert

      Why not “dress up” all the time….is it a costume?

  • Teri Nealand

    I would love to but most here are so leftist it is hard to find anyone to be with, including family.

    • Phil Alcoceli

      Teri, my heart is out to you for being such a brave woiman surrounded by leftists, even family, and STILL you stand your ground. My greatest respect for you!!! Maybe, and this is only a suggestion, you can use social media (Facebook, etc.) to find and connect with ladies of a more conservative, Christian or self-respect lifestyle and beliefs. You may also contact churches directly or through the phone. Yes, it can still be difficult but remember, God says YOU were born for such a challenging time like this. Ask God for His help and His grace. He’ll make you even stronger even if you feel shy, discouraged or intimidated sometimes (we all do). True Womanhood, like the Virgin Mary could tell you, demands sacrifice. That’s why there’s many on the other side…

      • Margaret

        Your post is going into my favorite posts file. I’m in a similar situation.

  • Donna Lampkin

    I can’t understand what the young women of today are even thinking. They don’t want to be mothers, they want to compete with men. Why? They want to dress like hookers yet complain about the attention they get. Murdering their babies (they are babies not fetuses), so they can go out and get pregnant again. I actually knew a girl, many years ago, who had 4 abortions. I am disgusted, embarrassed, and ashamed of these so called women. No wonder men have lost all respect for them!

    • robert

      Yes..and men treat them as the women appear to be…whores.

      • Jameson

        And women treat men who stalk them and pick on them and berate them as the cads they are.

  • fernando orozco

    I think a different day should be chosen. The idea should be to include other people to view things as you do. Doing this on the same day will cause many to think its just to antagonize

    • Phil Alcoceli

      Hey, Fernando, I strongly support this initiative but you have a good point there. I hope the organizers are reading this.

  • Veronica Buckland

    I work all day that day, but I’ll definitely dress modestly (I try to do that anyway). Frankly, the whole idea of the other strike thing is completely wretched and what kind of role models will these ‘women’ be to their daughters by being part of it? I shudder to think. God have mercy on us even though we seriously don’t deserve it.

  • I’m sad the discussions have not pleased Our Lord. In fraternal correction, we must have charity too. Now it is true that women cannot support the modern feminist agenda (especially abortion -for any reason at all.) If you believe in abortion, free sex, immoral sex, immodesty, unholy thoughts, actions & goals of any sort, you are not following God- although you may not be aware of this & think you are. We have all erred at times. If you are honest with yourself, you will take the time to find out what God wants of you rather than what you “think” is right. Good intentions can be very very far from holy. Imitate the Saints. I will dress modestly and not support any agenda which seeks to undermine & destroy the true nature of women. We are perfect (as we were made to be) and perfectly valuable in our various nurturing roles and do not need to break out of any ‘Victorian’ mould. I was probably a wanna be feminist as a teen. I’m far more liberated now in my 40’s. Because true freedom is found in Christ and God’s plan. We actually need to be moulded by (and upon) Mary who was the purest and most holy woman- pleasing to God. Together we can fast, pray and offer up acts of self-denial and suffering for all those women misled. We can love them- not forgetting that we do not march beside evil and not call it so. For that is not love at all. True love tells the truth so a soul might avoid hell, disregarding any personal cost and knowing they are likely to be persecuted for the Truth. Faith is a grace. We don’t deserve it either and we have a responsibility towards others- to assist them through our prayers & sacrifices so that they too may share in Faith. Mother thrice admirable, pray for us! Blessed Virgin gain for us charity, modesty, humility, chastity, patience and Wisdom, from your Son Jesus. ✝

    • robert

      Correct….It’s obvious you try to live the life of a Catholic, as opposed to the majority, who are merely cafeteria Katholics. They’ve lost they faith, if they ever had it.

  • Brenda Pistani

    I like the idea – I would add, do a good work or a random act of kindness to make the world a better place…

    • Jameson

      Kindness should never be random.

  • Frances McEnhill

    Here in England, ‘Lady Day’ (which dates from the 16th century) is on March 25th, the feast day of The Annunciation . Ladies of America, I shall pray for you. Our Lady of Good Success pray for us.

  • PatriciaFraide

    What a perfectly wonderful way to counteract another so called Women’s March! I am a grandmother, living with my daughter and her wonderful family. I will definitely share this idea and be ready to participate.

  • giant33

    The only women that should not go to work are the ones that work in the abortion mills but of course they will get a pass so they can help kill the innocent babies.

  • Barb

    This sounds like fun.. I am a barber and wouldn’t take off work anyway… I work at a Air base and cut young men and retired gentlemen all day so being a woman of character is important…

  • salesgirl

    Their co-workers will probably enjoy a day of peace and quiet!!!! Real women can’t afford to take a day off, nor do they want to. They’re too indispensable and too mature to do so. Just another ridiculous leftist tantrum

  • Jose Luis Javier Pelayo

    When does people will stop making stupid things!!?? Wasting time been stupid, please people go back to work, pay your bills because later you will blame on your economy, gov, and all that crap, some thing its call be creative, and the other is be stupid.

    • robert

      Jose…so….how long you’ve been in the US?

  • Jane

    Wonderful!!! I will be taking my best friend to her Chemo appointment on March 8, but we will go for tea afterwards, if she feels well enough. LOVE this idea! The Left has gone way too far with their extreme hatred and violent behavior supporting the killing of human babies.

  • Heidi Knuth

    This is a very nice response article, but it makes me disappointed that it acknowledges “What about nurses or any woman who works in society to help others? We can’t skip work! And furthermore, we don’t want to.”…but then the author’s list of suggestions for how to observe Lady Day is limited to “dress up, go out to tea and post pictures”.

    If we can’t skip work (my workplace, like that of many Catholic women I know, is primarily female, and the other two working women in my family are nannies who can’t leave their children) then how are we supposed to indulge in a fancy dress-up tea outing? There are many more ways to edify others by example as women and to lift up our sisters whose struggles quite often are more difficult than our own.

    Therefore, I’d like to propose an extended list:
    1) make an extra effort to speak well of other women and to refrain from unnecessary criticism of those who are most trying on your patience (definitely one I will be working on!)
    2) bring a special treat for the ladies in your life and include a note about how how it is Lady Day .
    3) make a donation of time, goods, or even money to a Catholic organization that works to help women improve their situation.
    4) Perform acts of kindness that go above and beyond in the sphere in which you are called.
    5) Offer to babysit for someone who could use a little time on her own, or to run an errand for her.
    6) Use Facebook for positivity–words of encouragement to other women, words of gratitude…

  • cocojo2456

    I think it’s an excellent idea, be nice if some from the other march would see the beauty of being ladylike and serene and join in, leaving the others behind or to possibly also join in.

  • Fatima

    Now do you people know the ERRORS of RUSSIA that OUR LADY was talking about? The communism, atheism, abortionism, atheism, homosexualism, pedophilia and radical egalitarian feminism have spread all over the world and have reached USA to destroy it to the core. NOW STUPID PROTESTANTS AND PAGANS WHO ACCUSED AND RIDICULED CATHOLICISM OPEN THEIR EYES YET?!!!!!!!! THE PROPHECY OF FATIMA MESSAGE MUST FULFILLED AND IF THE POPE AND THE BISHOPS STILL DISOBEY AND KEEP ON DISOBEY THE FATIMA WARNINGS, THIS WORLD IS GONE UNDER, Period.

    God will not be mocked by stupid disgrace blasphemers.

    • Margaret

      Don’t forget to tell everyone about http://www.fatima.org. It’s the only apostolate that promotes the full message of Fatima.

  • Peter Elliott

    It seems that “women’s libbers” want to make women more respected by making them more like men. How does this honour women? Women should be honoured and respected for the attributes God gave them and not encouraged to imitate men in order to gain the respect they already deserve. I value my wife for who she is and what she does. Women are made to complement men – not be them and men are made to complement women. Society is not complete without both.

    • robert

      “It seems that “women’s libbers” want to make women more respected by making them more like men.”
      Psychologically, it’s got a name….”penis envy”…http://psychologydictionary.org/penis-envy/

      • Jameson

        You’re as far out there as they are.

        • robert

          I gave the site that substantiates the wording “penis envy”…..it’s a substantiated fact that this mental illness exits in some women.

          Besides…do you have any intellectually based arguments that you’d wish to present or only meaningless, one sentence zingers with no substance?

          What is your education level? You don’t need to be ashamed.

          • Jameson

            Anyone who quotes Freud, must be a feminist, a secular humanist or a modernist– certainly no practicing Catholic believes Freud’s lunatic theories unless they are propaganda suckers.

          • robert

            Yes, Freud is a wacko, in many respects…but this might help you, Ms. Jameson. And, by the way…what would you know what a practicing Catholic would do? You, yourself, need to return to a good catechumen class, as you really do not know the Catholic Faith well, at all. I would wager, that you are not married.

          • Jameson

            Married with three practicing Catholic young adult children who all go to mass TG and a practicing Catholic husband, that is a great father, a great husband, and a student of history.

          • Jameson

            You have no clue what Catholicism teaches because you view it through a corrupt feminist lense.

          • robert

            hmmmm, that’s odd…..I graduated from Seminary….hmmm and yet, I have no clue about Catholicism…..hmmm. What are your Catholic education credentials? I suppose you, also went to seminary to become a woman priestess…..you certainly do sound like you’d fit in with them.

            But, please….if you won’t cease responding to my posts, I’ll simply have to stop responding to yours….someone has to be the grownup. So, I volunteer….bye-

  • Linda O’Sullivan

    So excited to celebrate our femininity, goodness, Grace, and the power that the Holy Spirit instills in us to share health, happiness, education, charity, love and peace to all who we meet.
    I too am a lady chiropractor, mother of 6, grandma of 3. Oh! How Blessed I am! Praise God!
    Looking forward to celebrating Lady Day!

  • Prolifedem6M

    Today’s women’s libbers have turned “feminism” into the virtual antithesis of what our founding mothers meant by the term. Originally, it was not a rejection of motherhood. They were staunchly opposed to abortion. It certainly was not about sleeping around irresponsibly. They were opposed to women being used solely for sexual gratification. They would have been horrified by the potty mouth language and “fi-bombs” that were so abundant at the so-called Women’s March and with its identification of women with our private parts. That was what they were fighting against.
    Originally, “feminism” was about women becoming whole persons using our talents both inside and outside the home and making our contributions to making this a better world.
    It’s time we took feminism back from those who distort its meaning to make it in-your-face rudeness.

    • Gentillylace

      Brava! I consider myself a Christian pro-life feminist and agree with you. But how can people like us take back feminism from those who have turned it into advocacy of abortion rights and crudeness?

  • MJ Ferrari

    I like it, especially because it seems to stress that the Queen of Heaven is our role model.
    PS (Note: Mike the Knife) God made them male and female. Even psychiatrists are recognizing that anything else is born of a sick mind, not nature.

    • robert

      Very few women dress like Mary did (three fingers below the knee?)….except, maybe Muslims.

      • Jameson

        No wonder you’re single.

        • robert

          Single? Are you feeling ok? What does that answer, single or married, have anything to do with what I said?

          • Jameson

            You are single, right?

  • Rose Marie Doyle

    Yay, Lady Day!
    May it elevate this Clay, I Pray.

  • marilyn mccormick

    I like this idea of celebrating womanhood and motherhood in a feminine, wonderful way on one special day. We can show off– why being a woman is so wonderful. Real men love us, our children adore us, other women befriend us, and employers depend on us. It’s something to celebrate. Screaming about abortions, planned “non”-parenthood, and promoting lesbianism is not anything womanly in comparison to the REAL BEAUTY of women who act like the REAL WOMEN of God’s creation. Cheers for women.

    • robert

      I like this idea of celebrating womanhood and motherhood in a feminine, wonderful way on one special day.

      Why not every day?

      • Jameson

        Ladies are ladies every day. It’s very obvious to men who are gentlemen.

  • Jane Gullett

    We need to pray for the ones that are under the devils spell. I pray for not just women for everyone one. To have a conversion, to do pence and communion. We need love ❤️ like Jesus told us.

  • Jackie Daniels

    When he no longer serves the purpose of the Oligarchy the media will turn on him. Right now he offers his token as the useful community organizer for Organizing For Action hiding out in a bunker not far from the White House. Obama bin Laden.

    • Jameson

      He knows who he serves and so do we. It is over.

      • robert

        I wish it were only true…..but, no…as the Carpenter song goes…”It’s only just begun.” Put on your seat belt…it’s going to be a bumpy ride…then we crash. Dt. 28 says it all….read it and weep.

        • Jameson

          Maybe for you.

    • robert

      The media will never turn on Obama, or the likes of Obama…they are cut out of the same cloth….they got the same daddy.

      • Jackie Daniels

        We shall see!

  • Jeanette Lemcool

    I think this is important. I am proud to be a Christian woman. I am proud to be a mother, a grandmother, a nurse and a natural nurturer. I love my family. I love to take care of people. I am proud of who I am. My husband is a good Christian man. We are good people. We do not need to be vulgar or parade around and name call or shout out derogatory things to others to prove a point. We will hold our heads high, continue to work and on “ladies day”I will dress esp. nice in my traditionally modest apparel and go to work. Proud to be who I am, a Christian woman.

    • Margaret

      I dress modestly as well, but need to find good sources of modest clothing (preferably made in the USA). Any good ideas?

      • Mary Serafino

        Margaret, Like you, I also am always looking for good sources of modest clothing. Truth is, I find something here and something there… in other words, I don’t have a “one strop shop.” Resale shops are usually the first and best source for modest clothing. Other places I’ve had luck in finding modest options include: Dress Barn, Burlington, Cato, Modli, and an occasional find at Old Navy. It takes a bit of searching, but it’s SO worth it! Good luck!

        • Margaret

          Thank you! This gives me a head start. ☺

    • robert

      Jeanette….you should dress up in traditional dress every day. I see that most women I know (Catholic) dress like Mary on Sunday, and then like Madonna through the week.

      I fear that for them, Mary-like dress is a costume, and Church is a costume party.

  • Jameson

    ” Mothers are closer to God the Creator than any other creature…”

    How beautiful.

    • robert

      Source?

      • Jameson

        Look up.

        • robert

          That’s your answer? Or do you have one? It’s an honest question. I simply would like to know the source of your statement. I did look up, nut, all I saw was a ceiling fan?

          • Jameson

            Look up on the page you are reading. I quoted it from the article.Duh.
            That is pretty funny that you looked up at your ceiling fan though.

          • Edward Koestner

            The quote is from Cardinal Mindzenty, the leader of Catholic resistance to the Communists in Hungary in 1956, and great counter-revolutionary figure in the Church.

          • Jameson

            Wow.

  • Fernanda

    I love this idea. I will give it some thought to see what cool feminine thing I might do on that day. It does fall on a day I’m normally scheduled to work, and I will definitely show up!

    I teach theology at my parish and here is how I summarize feminism: “Men are jerks! I want to be just like them!”

    Um, no thanks.

  • Carole Forte

    Thank you what a beautiful plan.

  • robert

    Why would they do that? They are on his revolutionary, Marxist team. Many who work for the media are simply high priced media whores who will parrot anything their pimps put in front of them to say on TV. The owners of the media are the problem, as they help the revolution through their propaganda and brainwashing of dumbed down America.

    • Jameson

      Yep. That would account for all the PC folk.

  • Mariah Webinger

    What a wonderful idea! I have 15 women already signed up for tea – it is a treat really! We are also informing the local paper. We’ll be sure to send pictures. God bless!

    • Edward Koestner

      Can we use your quote in a press release for this event?

      • Mariah Webinger

        If you feel that it would help spread the word, go ahead.

        • Edward Koestner

          Thank you. I’m writing the press release and will publish it tomorrow. I can email it to you for your approval first. Please advise. I ‘d like to be able to say: Mariah Weninger from xxcityxxx said…..etc.”

          • Mariah Webinger

            Edward,

            Not sure how to contact you outside of the comment forum. I’m from Chardon, OH and feel free to send me anything you feel is necessary.

            Your sister in Christ,
            Mariah

          • Edward Koestner

            Thanks, Mariah. I work for John Horvat. My email address is edwardkoestner@live.org

            I’l email a copy of the press release to you, if you want to receive it before we publish it.

          • Mariah Webinger

            Edward, tried the email but the domain “live.org” couldn’t be found. Let me know if you want me to email you.

          • Edward Koestner

            I emailed it to you. Thanks for your permission to use your name. In Christ, Edward

          • Edward Koestner

            I made a mistake: My email address is edwardkoestner@live.com

  • Robert McNally

    A
    few years ago I read a review of A Return
    to Modesty by Wendy Shalit, a first-rate book I had already read. The
    appraisal was by John Attarian, Review Editor for the magazine Culture Wars. His assessment was also
    first-rate which made me scribble down some of his comments. Although I may not
    be quoting Mr. Attarian perfectly, I guarantee that it is safely in the ball
    park. “A properly ordered male soul would honor woman’s claim, as a custodian
    of the divine mysteries of life, love and beauty, and a vessel of grace, not to
    be harmed or presumed upon. And women would cherish their womanhood, and cease
    trying to be ersatz men. Predatory males would receive the odium they deserve.”
    This divine mystery within the girls I loved put me under their spell. I’m 84, so I’m reasonably safe, but I feel bad for youth who have to live in this disordered life. Let’s hope we go back to the good old days. Remember “America’s Sweethearts,” Nelson Eddy and Jeanette Mac Donald? Please take me back there. I want to live again.

  • Jackie Daniels

    A fair warning here to posters to save a copy of your messages. Your time, thoughtfulness, and candor will be determined as SPAM and your comment deleted.

    The following post that I contributed two days ago has been determined as SPAM so most likely it will be difficult to post it here again. Why would this comment be SPAM? We are now being censored and SPAM is a euphemism for censorship. This is becoming an Internet epidemic. Cyber-warfare.

    instead of their authentic Divine femininity. From the Huffington article titled “Kellyanne Conway’s ‘Post-Feminism’ Is A Con” here is an excerpt:

    “For the past five decades, Schlafly promoted a conservative Christian agenda that relied on separating women’s and men’s spheres in society, encouraging women to seek fulfillment and identity in being wives and mothers rather than as independent individuals.”

    To catalogue Phyllis Schlafly’s achievements one can only begin by citing her dedication as a mother, wife, attorney, activist, author, and Christian who went about her life the right way so never needed to rely upon the profanity that freights today’s misguided and self-defeating movement of feminist extremism.

    If only the savage feminists could help themselves to understand that their radicalism is exactly why they will never be respected. They become violent in their vain attempt to demand respect while all the while they have no respect for themselves. What a disgrace they are to our femininity. Sex. Gender. Whatever they want to call it lately. They work at being repulsive and then can’t understand why we will not support their plight? They earn PhDs in “critical thinking” which is another euphemism, for brainwashing.

    • Jameson

      Excellent.

      • Jackie Daniels

        Yes, and guess what! Detected as spam again! SPAM = censorship. This is coming from Leftist-Fascist editors at Disqus.

  • Robert McNally

    I often receive-mails from John Horvat. I read this article and when I saw my name and with the opportunity to post, I did. Let me know why it doesn’t appear.

  • abuelajuana

    I will join Lady Day. Very good idea.

  • Alice

    I will be working in France on Lady Day, but I will be with you in spirit ladies.

  • PatriciaFraide

    I will certainly try to go out with my daughter. I’m a mother of 3 and a grandmother of 6 and fully support Lady’s Day as a response to another women’s demonstration of the unholy PP and the LGBT abomination.

  • Forest Brooks

    Thank you. Will participate in Lady Day gladly. My husband and I will pray the Rosary together for Blessed Mother to protect our country and that we may do God s will in our own lives. Then will go to tea.
    May Our Lady watch over America and protect us, so America can do God s will. Catherine

  • Lori Gonzalez

    Yes I sure will join. I always dress up, and still believe in wearing dresses and modest skirts to Holy Mass every Sunday. I sing in the choir, I love when the little girls in our church compliment my dresses. We the women in the church must lead by example, some or most girls only example is social media or what they see around them. I was mortified when I saw what the women protesters where saying and wearing on their heads! This world is out of control. Sadly, many have left our Lord and Blessed Mother out if their lives.

  • Marino

    I just got out of the hospital but if I am feeling up to it I plan to take several friends to lunch on “Lady’s Day.” Excellent re-name for the day.

    • Phil Alcoceli

      Marino, God bless you, I’m glad you are out of the hospital and I celebrate your big heart, generosity, sacrifice and courage. That’s just what we need to bring everyone, women and men, out of Satan’s Swamp and into the fullness of the maturity of Christ! (Ephesians 4: 13) Bon apetit!

  • Mary Giles

    Wonderful!

  • Joseph Badame

    Brava Colette, how refreshing your article is. Ladies still exist!!! My late wife, Phyliss was one such special lady and teacher. My teacher. Read about her remarkable life in this free eBook. She will inspire you and all the future ladies out there. So many of her students wrote decades later to say they patterned their lives and their careers from what she taught them about life as a role model.
    “My Teacher, My Bride”
    https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/483616

  • DiaperBrigade

    No, mothers can’t skip work. And frankly, the idea that we have time to get together and go out for tea is a bit laughable.

  • florida1

    Women are now barring their breasts for all to see; putting a little ‘cloth strip’ on the nipple; SICKENING. They are Possessed by demons, pure and simple. The LIES of the left; ‘free sex’ no there is NOT free sex. WHY? God sd 92 times; yes ninety two times; that any kind of sex before marriage is wrong and a grave evil. He said all who do it; all who ok it will NOT hv a place found for them in Heaven. I have posted this exact sentence COUNTLESS number of times. I have been called; crazy, lunatic, fanatic, nuts, a bigot, you name it. God also said 52 times same sex affairs are wrong, evil, a greave offense against God and nature. God is HOLY. Jesus is HOLY. WE are to be HOLY too; yes GOD knows we are human but we must at least TRY. Abortion? FIrst degree murder of Gods innocents. He said 22 times that He gave babies at the Moment of Conception human attributes and named us then called us for HIS OWN. God said the Weapons of the Devil are LIES and Deceit. He told us to NOT be Deceived; how? BY LISTENING AND THEN BELIEVENG THE LIES FROM THE DEVIL; LUCIFER. The above? We are now told by ‘society’ that they are ALL OK TO DO…NO they are NOT. Read your Holy Bible as we are in the Beginnig of the End of Days…

  • Alexzandra R. Heilmeier

    I’ll happily join!

  • DelawareMom

    Wore a dress to work today. Will say a rosary also.