U.S. group lines up in support of church mass boycott

I'm only asking but how come Jesus never conferred the Priesthood on his Mother who was and is "The solitary boast of our humanity"?

boycotting mass is not the answer and is not appropriate

Carroll09 – I thank you again and heartedly agree with your last post’s sentiments. I’m no longer an avid reader of books as I once was, even of religious books such as by Archbishop Fulton Sheen but one book that I did enjoy immensely was “Christ Is Alive” by Michel Quoist. I recommend it to all interested in or doubting its Subject. I agree too with some of the sentiments expressed by IowaMike but I would not hasten to speak of God's judgement of anybody. Even Ms. Sleeman is a child of God's, as we all are, capable of being misled by the evil one, as we all are too.

It is sad that Jennifer Sleeman knows so little about the Catholic faith after joining 54 years ago. Calling people into mortal sin by deliberately encouraging them to stay home from mass is an evil thing to do and makes her complicit in their sin. She will have much to answer for when she meets the Lord at the Particular Judgment. Those groups from around the world supporting her are either misguided or are Catholic dissidents that miss no opportunity to undermine the Church. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our Faith and the Church. It can only be found in the mass, to miss it deliberately shows a profound lack of understanding. God Bless,

You're welcome, Jacersagain...Sorry for posting essentially the same thing twice - I thought it hadn't worked the first time round! :) And, by the way, you are not ignorant in the least - the great Cicero said that he was not ashamed to confess that he was ignorant of what he did not know... You see, what is infinitely more shameful is being ignorant even though one has been presented with the truth- indeed, as we have seen many a time on I.C. (to quote William Hazlitt) prejudice is surely the child of ignorance. One thing is for sure, we won't be able to plead ignorance before the Lord- which is why I have frequently quoted the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen and urged people to find out what the Catholic Church really is rather than what they (perhaps out of willful ignorance) wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church.

Jacersagain- the title "Apostle of the Apostles" was assigned to St Mary Magdalene by St Thomas Aquinas in his commentary on the Gospels ("Super Ioannem").He gave her this title because she was the first to bring the news to the Disciples that she had seen the risen Lord-an apostle is one who brings the Good News to people: St Mary Magdalene brought the Good News of the Resurrection to those whom Christ would send to bring the Good News to the rest of the world. St Thomas Aquinas commented on this title he had given to St Mary Magdalene by saying: "Just as a woman had announced the words of death to the first man, so also a woman was the first to announce to the Apostles the words of life". If anything, this title shows us that we are all called to be apostles, but we may be called to bring the Good News to others in various ways. St Thomas Aquinas also said that "humility is seeing your place and taking it"- God has called each of us to something special and unique: St Mary Magdalene's special calling was to follow Christ and to bring the news of His Resurrection to the Apostles. So, in answer to your question: no, St Mary Magdalene was not a priest or a bishop- she was a faithful Apostle though, which is no different from that to which we are all called.

Carroll09 - My ignorance knows no bounds! Thank you for more of your enlightenment and, especially, interpretation of apostleship. You must certainly be an apostle of a kind! On a trip to Sth France once, I had the privilege to visit the cave where Mary Magdalene is said to have lived out her life as a hermit in the mountains of Sainte Baume (after spending years converting local people to Christ’s message after she arrived in France) and afterwards I went on to visit the nearby town of Sainte Maxime where her skull is on display in the crypt of the main church there. Of particular jumped-up delight for me was seeing the piece of skin from Mary’s forehead (in a vial below the skull on display), the so-called “Nolle temere” (spelling?), allegedly the part of Mary’s forehead that Jesus reached out to touch when He said to her, just after she discovered him resurrected that morning and wanted to reach out and touch Him to verify what she was seeing - “Don’t touch me” but yet He touched her forehead in some possible rebuke. When Mary’s bones were found by those digging in expectation of finding her remains, the people doing the excavations were not as prepared as today’s archaeologists are careful. As you might know, the story goes that when they lifted Mary’s remains from a stone casket, her skull fell onto the ground and the piece of skin that Jesus touched fell off the forehead. That is how they knew it was Mary’s remains that they had found because of the "Nolle temere" legend. It was still intact and can be seen today if you visit the church of St. Maxime in the town of the same name not far from Sainte Baume. It was mesmerising looking at a piece of living skin touched by Christ, never mind me noticing how big the skull was... Mary Mags musta been some big-headed lady, red haired or not! Peace be with you and all.

Jacersagain- the title "Apostle of the Apostles" was assigned to St Mary Magdalene by St Thomas Aquinas in his commentary on the Gospels ("Super Ioannem"). He gave her this title because she was the first to bring the news to the Disciples that she had seen the risen Lord- an apostle is one who brings the Good News to people: St Mary Magdalene brought the Good News of the Resurrection to those whom Christ would send to bring the Good News to the rest of the world. St Thomas Aquinas commented on this title he had given to St Mary Magdalene by saying: "Just as a woman had announced the words of death to the first man, so also a woman was the first to announce to the Apostles the words of life". If anything, this title shows us that we are all called to be apostles, but we may be called to bring the Good News to others in various ways. St Thomas Aquinas also said that humility is seeing your place and taking it - God has called each of us to something special and unique: St Mary Magdalene's special calling was to follow Christ and to bring the news of His Resurrection to the Apostles. So, in answer to your question: no, St Mary Magdalene was not a priest or a bishop - she was a faithful Apostle though, which is no different from that to which we are all called (and we are not all priests and bishops!).

Since this debate has swung from Cathy’s topic above of boycotting Mass to women priests and an allegation of our dear Irish sacred St. Brigid being a priestess or bishop, I throw in my bit and ask a question of any Christian - Catholic and not – (with any Theologians’ comments welcome too): if St. Mary Magdalene was described by Jesus as the Apostle of the Apostles, would that not make her another Apostle of Christ (i.e. a priest, even if female) or possibly a bishop to the Apostles?

I'm curious if people who went to mass still "boycotted" by not putting anything into the collection plate!

ScottMcGowan- I agree with you of course that the bottom-line should be the Holy Mass and the Eucharist. However, I wonder how you can claim that on the one hand the Irish Church was resistant to Rome for centuries and yet faithful to its teachings and to the Pope. It seems like a contradiction to me. St Brigid was not ordained a priest- since holy orders cannot be validly conferred on women. The Church has always held that this was the teaching of the Apostles, even though (no different to today) some women claimed to have been ordained. As to her being "consecrated" a bishop- again, it wouldn't have been a valid ordination; but there is a story that St Mel read the ceremony for ordination of a bishop instead of that for the installation of an abbess (which is what St Brigid was) as he was in an inebriated state! Indeed St Brigid is said to have wielded similar authority to a bishop, but she could never have validly or licitly functioned as one since the "ordination" was itself invalid and illicit in the first place.

I agree with this woman's stance in terms of the Church and women. However, I would not boycott mass and the sacraments - that is like bycotting Christ! I think wearing the green at mass is a great idea. I do believe that we would benefit by returning to the ancient Church in terms of having a married clergy. I also believe that we should emulate St. Bridget and the early Irish Church in which St. Bridget was consecrated not just a priest but a bishop! Of course, the Irish Church was resistant to Rome for centuries, while still remaining faithful to its teachings and to the Pope. Would that we could return to and emulate the early Irish Catholic Church when we had married clergy and monasteries that had married nuns and priests and other religious living together. The bottem line for me, however, is the mass and the Euchurist. Scott McGowan

Yes, Marsman- you love quoting that piece & I have answered it on at least 2 other occasions. Firstly, you claimed before that the Church keeps Matthew 6:6 quiet- and I have asked you, if that is true then why is it 1) that that passage is read out at Mass several times each year and 2)the Church didn't leave that part out of the Bible when it was finally setting down the canon of Sacred Scripture in the late 4th century? The reason is that there is no conflict if you actually read it in context: Christ was making the point that we shouldn't pray (or appear to be praying) in public just to be noticed by others, because that is what hypocrites do. Praying in public was not the issue- Christ Himself prayed publicly in the Synagogue. Also, were the Apostles disobeying Christ when they gathered on "the Lord's Day" (Sunday) to celebrate the Eucharist? You might think that the Lord's other command of "Do this in memory of Me" was insignificant, but the Apostles didn't 2,000 years ago, nor does the Church today- the Mass was so central to the faith that it was always celebrated with the community on a Sunday. There is time for private prayer and a time for public worship - that is what the Church has always taught. It is clear from the writings of the Early Church Fathers that those who do not worship publicly on Sunday in a common Eucharist are most certainly NOT "totally okay with the Lord"- so I'm sure you'll forgive me and other Catholics who actually prize the 2,000 year-old constant Apostolic teaching higher than your fanciful and frail interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

Interestingly what Jesus, the Lord, said is not mentioned: “And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room, shut the door and pray to your Father, who is in secret; and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not use empty repetitions as the Gentiles do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. Matth. 6:5 As far as Jesus is concerned anyone staying at home can do so in good conscience, rest peacefully there on Sunday morning. Something a majority of the people are doing anyhow, and they are totally okay with the Lord. (The Lord is bad, maybe even Satan?)

Dont think too many listened to the auld doll.Any way we live in a time where people are allowed to make up their own minds. Its called democracy. It certainly did not exist when our Irish fore family,s were put to the sword for practising their beliefs. THEIR BELIEFS.