Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: US District Office: Women Wear the Pants  (Read 3743 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 41908
  • Reputation: +23946/-4345
  • Gender: Male
Re: US District Office: Women Wear the Pants
« Reply #15 on: March 07, 2019, 10:34:16 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • I don't know.  Those women look decidedly unattractive in those pants  :laugh1: ... I think that few men would experience temptations against purity there.  Of course, it would still be wrong in principle.
    Logged

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: US District Office: Women Wear the Pants
    « Reply #16 on: March 07, 2019, 10:36:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on March 07, 2019, 10:34:16 AM
    I don't know.  Those women look decidedly unattractive in those pants  :laugh1: ... I think that few men would experience temptations against purity there.  Of course, it would still be wrong in principle.

    It's not about objective temptations against purity. It's about tempting men to have temptations. It's about taking them by the hand and leading them to thoughts of your butt and crotch. It's the thought that counts.
    Logged

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: US District Office: Women Wear the Pants
    « Reply #17 on: March 07, 2019, 10:45:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Anonymous on March 07, 2019, 10:36:51 AM
    It's not about objective temptations against purity. It's about tempting men to have temptations. It's about taking them by the hand and leading them to thoughts of your butt and crotch. It's the thought that counts.
    XSPX as recently as 2015:
    An even further consideration for men and women is to dress properly according to their nature, or respectively, according to their masculinity or femininity. For men, this means they should not wear tight-fitting clothes or in general, go shirtless in public (especially for fathers, even around the home in front of their children).

    For the ladies, to dress like a man (such as wearing pants) is improper and contradicts a woman’s God-given femininity. That this is not merely an “old fuddy duddy’s” quibble, should be evident when we realize that the proponents of unisex clothing have also been the same “gender theory” people behind the promotion of sins against nature.

    It is interesting to note that the “Lion of Campos”, Bishop de Castro Mayer, once famously remarked in a pastoral letter that he would prefer a woman to wear a mini-skirt rather than pants. For while the mini-skirt was immodest, it was at least feminine, while pants contradicted a woman’s nature (thus the former attacked the senses, while the latter warped the intellect).

    Therefore, so-called “woman’s pants” (usually worn out of pleasure or commodity) are not the proper garb of a Catholic (or Marian-like) girl or lady, either in the parish, domestic or social life."
    https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/how-catholics-ought-dress-2203
    [NB: It appears access to the link above is denied.  However, the entire article is also available here: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-
    Logged

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: US District Office: Women Wear the Pants
    « Reply #18 on: March 07, 2019, 12:45:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Anonymous on March 07, 2019, 12:35:08 PM
    You are wrong.
    When God asks you why you had this or that bad thought, do you think He will accept "but she dressed provocatively "?  No.
    Free will demands that we control ourselves in all things.

    It most certainly makes a difference! 
    We're talking about casual glances here, not leering. If the breasts aren't exposed for example, men don't have to be confronted with the choice "consent or do not consent", "enjoy or do not enjoy". Once the breasts are exposed for all to see, then each and every man within visual range must test his virtue.

    Women are not guiltless when they cause men to have to test their virtue. You can pass the buck all you want "that's his problem". 

    God will judge. Try to quiet your conscience all you want.
    Logged

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3327/-1937
    • Gender: Male
    Re: US District Office: Women Wear the Pants
    « Reply #19 on: March 07, 2019, 05:15:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Anonymous on March 07, 2019, 04:38:57 PM
    When women dress provocatively they sin by their own free will.  But in no way are they culpable for a sin a man commits as a result unless their goal was to entice a man to commit sin. 
    Women are culpable for a man's sin if they dress provocatively, not to the degree of the man, but not too far behind. It is the same as  a man flashing his $100 bills in a bad neighborhood bar.
    Logged
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41908
    • Reputation: +23946/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: US District Office: Women Wear the Pants
    « Reply #20 on: March 07, 2019, 05:17:51 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Anonymous on March 07, 2019, 04:38:57 PM
    When women dress provocatively they sin by their own free will.  But in no way are they culpable for a sin a man commits as a result unless their goal was to entice a man to commit sin.

    This is simply not true.  Even if a woman did not intend to entice a man to sin, she could be partly culpable if she knew that it could happen.  Even more remotely, she could be culpable for that sin even if she simply neglected to properly form her conscience regarding the matter.  There are degrees of culpability in another's sin.  Now ... if she neither suspected that something like that could happen nor was negligent in forming her conscience, then she does not have culpability in his sin, not formally anyway even if she were materially responsible.  You're being a bit too much of a subjectivist here.
    Logged

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3327/-1937
    • Gender: Male
    Re: US District Office: Women Wear the Pants
    « Reply #21 on: March 07, 2019, 05:22:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Logged
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: US District Office: Women Wear the Pants
    « Reply #22 on: March 07, 2019, 05:25:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • What is interesting to me is that someone posted what the SSPX was teaching only a few years ago about women wearing pants.

    Was the SSPX so overrun by the uncatholic feminist horde that it "had" to waive the white flag?

    The only thing worse than an uppity, strident woman is a faggy man trying to ingratiate himself to them by taking up their cause.

    I picture such men as effeminate little church mice, doing their wife's bidding at all times.

    I see them in my chapel more than ever before: They are the ones taking the crying babies out of the chapel, or changing their diapers, etc.

    Ultimately, this is all the fault of the men: If they weren't such wussies, and demanded to either wear the pants, or send the women packing, we wouldn't be in this shape.

    Do any of these soft "men" know how to fight, drink beer, gut a deer, or change the oil??

    By the way they soft-shoe around their wives at the chapel, one must be allowed to doubt it.

    What is more disgusting than a gentle, subservient milk-toast "man?" 
    Logged

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: US District Office: Women Wear the Pants
    « Reply #23 on: March 07, 2019, 05:26:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Now I fully understand why they never say anything about how the young girls dress every day (short shorts, belly exposed, tight jeans, tube miniskirts tank tops...…..). They do not give a hoot.
    Logged

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: US District Office: Women Wear the Pants
    « Reply #24 on: March 07, 2019, 05:58:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • The former pastor at my sspx church only a year ago said that women should not ever wear pants in a sermon.  There was also just a womens retreat with Colleen Hammond the author as a speaker.
    I would imagine the US district office like Menzingen is totally cut off from the real trad world.  
    Logged

    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11675
    • Reputation: +6999/-498
    • Gender: Female
    Re: US District Office: Women Wear the Pants
    « Reply #25 on: March 07, 2019, 06:52:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Last Tradhican on March 07, 2019, 05:22:25 PM
    A picture is worth 1000 words. I am speechless.
    I just had a revelation!
    Did anybody else observe how four of the women, the ones fully visible to the camera, hold their hands. It appears they are somehow, either consciously or unconciously, aware of what the OP explained. It's almost like they are shamed. NOtice that the woman at the rear has her hands behind her.
    Logged
    Help of Christians, guard our land from assault or inward stain,
    Let it be what God has planned, His new Eden where You reign.

    Offline LongHaired CountryBoy

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 55
    • Reputation: +39/-26
    • Gender: Male
    Re: US District Office: Women Wear the Pants
    « Reply #26 on: March 07, 2019, 07:35:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Anonymous on March 06, 2019, 10:17:39 PM




    Modest professional office work attire. So what.
    Maybe they save their dresses for Mass.

    But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.
    ~ Apocalypse of St. John 3:16
    Logged
    the Jєωs, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men.
    ~ 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15

    I knew in my faith that the Jєωs were accursed and condemned without end, except those who were converted. ~ Bl. Juliana of Norwich

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: US District Office: Women Wear the Pants
    « Reply #27 on: March 07, 2019, 08:08:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Anonymous on March 07, 2019, 05:58:39 PM
    The former pastor at my sspx church only a year ago said that women should not ever wear pants in a sermon.  There was also just a womens retreat with Colleen Hammond the author as a speaker.
    I would imagine the US district office like Menzingen is totally cut off from the real trad world.  

    As I have said many times, there is some residual Trad (dare I say, residual GOOD) to be found in the SSPX. That includes priests and faithful. However, just like the Novus Ordo, that percentage will become smaller with every year. The problem is that the organization as a whole, from the top down, has chosen a path that necessarily leads to destruction: adopting a peace with the Modern World. That can only end badly.

    If you have a good priest who preaches unchanging (Trad) Catholic doctrine, GREAT! But who will replace him? How soon until he has to make a big choice? What choice will he make? He is the exception to the rule. The organization is still fallen, and still sinking. Even if you happen to have found a nice dry spot on the Titanic which will sink last...

    Matthew
    Logged

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: US District Office: Women Wear the Pants
    « Reply #28 on: March 07, 2019, 08:38:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Anonymous on March 07, 2019, 05:25:28 PM
    What is interesting to me is that someone posted what the SSPX was teaching only a few years ago about women wearing pants.

    Was the SSPX so overrun by the uncatholic feminist horde that it "had" to waive the white flag?

    The only thing worse than an uppity, strident woman is a faggy man trying to ingratiate himself to them by taking up their cause.

    I picture such men as effeminate little church mice, doing their wife's bidding at all times.

    I see them in my chapel more than ever before: They are the ones taking the crying babies out of the chapel, or changing their diapers, etc.

    Ultimately, this is all the fault of the men: If they weren't such wussies, and demanded to either wear the pants, or send the women packing, we wouldn't be in this shape.

    Do any of these soft "men" know how to fight, drink beer, gut a deer, or change the oil??

    By the way they soft-shoe around their wives at the chapel, one must be allowed to doubt it.

    What is more disgusting than a gentle, subservient milk-toast "man?"
    Changing a diaper and soothing a crying baby is being more of a man than fighting. One shows that you're there for the family and taking responsibility and the other is useless and potentially lethal machismo that doesn't serve any purpose.
    Logged

    Änσnymσus

    • Guest
    Re: US District Office: Women Wear the Pants
    « Reply #29 on: March 08, 2019, 02:41:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Anonymous on March 07, 2019, 08:08:39 PM
    As I have said many times, there is some residual Trad (dare I say, residual GOOD) to be found in the SSPX. That includes priests and faithful. However, just like the Novus Ordo, that percentage will become smaller with every year. The problem is that the organization as a whole, from the top down, has chosen a path that necessarily leads to destruction: adopting a peace with the Modern World. That can only end badly.

    If you have a good priest who preaches unchanging (Trad) Catholic doctrine, GREAT! But who will replace him? How soon until he has to make a big choice? What choice will he make? He is the exception to the rule. The organization is still fallen, and still sinking. Even if you happen to have found a nice dry spot on the Titanic which will sink last...

    Matthew
    As I keep saying, it is 1965 all over again. I'll update that now after seeing this picture of the female office workers in pants:

    In a few years, it will be 1969 and the SSPX will be doing the Novus Ordo "right this time", in Latin and with "reverence" and the good SSPX priests will be independents.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
    « previous next »