Author Topic: Selling Out? (Read 20012 times)

bernadette · « **Reply #105 on:** April 01, 2012, 11:00:32 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Tis fine, Bernadette. Have a blessed Sunday.

Thank you...have a blessed Sunday too...

Jitpring · « **Reply #106 on:** April 01, 2012, 12:19:19 PM »

Quote from: bernadette

I didn't like being tormented and attacked

Fr. Cajetan Mary da Bergamo, Humility of Heart, section 34:

Quote

The more the heart is filled with self-love, so much the greater will be its anxiety and agitation. This maxim is indeed true; for whenever I feel myself inwardly irritated, disturbed and angered by some adversity which has befallen me, I need not look elsewhere for the cause of such feelings than within myself, and I should always do well to say: If I were truly humble I should not be disquieted. My great agitation is an evident proof which ought to convince me that my self-love is great and dominant and powerful within me, and is the tyrant which torments and gives me no peace.

If I feel aggrieved by some sharp word that has been said to me, or by some discourtesy shown me, from whence does this feeling of pain proceed? From my pride alone. Oh, if I were truly humble, what calm, what peace and happiness would my soul not enjoy! And this promise of Jesus Christ is infallible: "Learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart, and you shall find rest to your souls." [Matt. xi, 29]

John Grace · « **Reply #107 on:** April 01, 2012, 01:41:30 PM »

I know of recent case of a man I know mentioned "Karol Wojtyla Beatified?- Never!" to a few dozen people who attend a Traditional Mass organised by Institute Christ the King. They stopped attending the Mass as the criticism of JPII was too much for them. They were 15 or so 'newbies'. The guy I know who has turned 15 people away from the Indult scene is himself one whose 'jury is out' if we have a Pope or not.

I'm more of the view we have a Pope but is he really Catholic? His heart is Catholic. He has Catholicity from childhood but really he is modernist. His philosophy and theology says alot.

I came to Tradition via the 'Indult'. I certainly wouldn't go back to that world again. I will stick with the SSPX.

I have become a hardline 'Pixie' over the years. 'Pixie' is the term the Irish Latin Mass Society call Society supporters.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #108 on:** April 02, 2012, 02:18:04 PM »

Quite the change of pace to read a thread about women in which I agree with what Tele has to say. : )

I'd like to see some photos of a Trad parish that universally looks "cult-like" in appearance. Sure, I've seen a few women wear out-of-date fashions, but it's usually an indication of budget priorities within their household rather than some sort of strict adherence to a particular attire.

SouthernBelle · « **Reply #109 on:** April 02, 2012, 06:40:21 PM »

There were plenty of "frumpy" women at my former trad parish. To be honest, though, they didn't look particularly good or stylish because they were overweight (sometimes significantly so). The clothes they wore were generally secondary to the overall look. There's plenty of frumpy looking women at my current very conservative NO parish, too. The upside to my trad parish was that I rarely saw women in pants; I don't think pants flatter many women's figures, especially so if they're overweight.

I've only ever seen one woman dressed in the Amish-style dress pictured earlier at the TLM. She was a young married woman, very sweet and shy. I didn't like her dresses, but somehow the overall look wasn't off-putting at all. It just seemed to suit her personality, if that makes sense.

Several of the older teenagers and early 20-somethings at that same parish often wore the Jane Austen Regency-style dresses that they had sewed themselves. Those were, admittedly, a bit "costumey" but the girls were so fresh and pretty in their dresses that they somehow carried the look off.

At my current NO parish, there are some older Korean woman who wear traditional long Korean dresses to mass occasionally. These dresses are a bit ornate, with long full skirts, often worn with gauzy little jackets. Not fashionable at all, but the site of those faithful ladies in their long dresses and veils is very charming.

Truthfully, though, I don't really know what one would consider fashionable for women these days. In the past there was a general overall look or silhouette, but now it seems like anything goes style-wise. I do know when I see someone who I consider beautifully dressed, it's usually of a very simple and classic style.

I think it would be nice if Catholic women could lead the way with beautiful and modest clothing, but right now I'm just happy with the modest part. A trip to my local Wal-Mart is all I need to make me thankful all over again.

Pepsuber · « **Reply #110 on:** May 11, 2012, 11:03:22 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

St. Paul says the woman's body belongs to her husband. I would take it, she should dress in accord with his wishes.

He also says that a man's body belongs to his wife. Does the wife then dictate what he wears?

When St. Paul says that the husband has power over his wife's body, he's referring to the marriage debt, not what she wears.

Pepsuber · « **Reply #111 on:** May 12, 2012, 09:18:21 AM »

"Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency." (1 Cor 7:1-5 - my emphasis)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #112 on:** May 12, 2012, 09:32:46 AM »

Quote from: Pepsuber

He also says that a man's body belongs to his wife. Does the wife then dictate what he wears?

I would say that is probably the typical arrangement. Within reason of course.

Quote

When St. Paul says that the husband has power over his wife's body, he's referring to the marriage debt, not what she wears.

I think it's evident that if a wife belongs to her husband, she should dress in a manner to please him.

Pepsuber · « **Reply #113 on:** May 12, 2012, 09:50:07 AM »

Wife "belongs" to her husband? That's a curious way of looking at it.

I agree that a woman should dress in a manner which pleases her husband (but not because he has power over her body, but because she should be obedient to him), as long as what pleases him is not immodest. But please note that immodesty does not consist only in lack of cover; calling attention to yourself by wearing fashions that are very out-of-date or those which are associated with false religions (such as Islam, Mormon fundamentalism, Hassidic Judaism, Mennonite/Amish) is also immodest. A modest person does not call attention to him- or herself. An immodest person does, whether it is because of a lack of decent attire or because his or her attire is out-of-date or associated with a false religion.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #114 on:** May 12, 2012, 10:06:13 AM »

Quote from: Pepsuber

Wife "belongs" to her husband? That's a curious way of looking at it.

Her body belongs to the husband.

Quote

I agree that a woman should dress in a manner which pleases her husband (but not because he has power over her body, but because she should be obedient to him),

Well, the two are certainly interrelated. The way a wife covers her body is important in more than one respect. On the one hand there is the question of how a good, decent, and practical family should deport itself. On the other hand there is the fact that as the man's wife she should be very careful to dress first for him, and not the sake of vanity.

Quote

as long as what pleases him is not immodest. But please note that immodesty does not consist only in lack of cover;

No, immodesty in the context of what is sinful has to do with sinful exposure of the body.

Quote

calling attention to yourself by wearing fashions that are very out-of-date or those which are associated with false religions (such as Islam, Mormon fundamentalism, Hassidic Judaism, Mennonite/Amish) is also immodest.

It's not just to compare the long clothes of a traditional Catholic wife with those of false religions, just because they're not in style. Sorry! That's an unjust statement. I agree that a husband should be reasonable in his expectations. That being said, "reasonable" is not defined by what a woman wants when she wants it.

Quote

A modest person does not call attention to him- or herself.

So priests and religious who wear religious garb are immodest?

Or just traditional Catholic women who dress in a manner that the world despises?

Quote

An immodest person does, whether it is because of a lack of decent attire or because his or her attire is out-of-date or associated with a false religion.

Sorry, but your unjust comparison of modestly dressed Catholic women to Muslims, Amish and Mormons is just that, unjust.

The question of sinful exposure of the body is completely separate from that of dressing "outlandishly" (or what some people claim is outlandish, though i don't think it is in most cases)

Pepsuber · « **Reply #115 on:** May 12, 2012, 10:22:12 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

No, immodesty in the context of what is sinful has to do with sinful exposure of the body.

St. Thomas disagrees with you:
www.newadvent.org/summa/3169.htm

Quote

So priests and religious who wear religious garb are immodest?

Of course not -- but they are set apart on account of their ordination or religious profession.

Quote

It's not just to compare the long clothes of a traditional Catholic wife with those of false religions

I'm not. I don't know (personally) any traditional Catholic wives who dress that way. But dressing in such a way (for example, veiling at all times) is certainly calling attention to oneself and is not modest.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #116 on:** May 12, 2012, 10:32:31 AM »

It is, in fact, the man's place to correct his wife and daughter(s) if they are dressing immodestly. The only time they may go against his authority is if he were to ask them to dress immodestly, a command that would obviously be sinful if they obeyed.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #117 on:** May 12, 2012, 10:39:39 AM »

Quote from: Pepsuber

St. Thomas disagrees with you:

Immodesty which inspires a sin of lust is of a different character than immodesty that draws attention to oneself. That is self-evident. You can't tell me a woman wearing something that seems silly and eccentric is committing the same sin as a woman showing off her body in a skimpy outfit. That's ridiculous.

Quote

Of course not -- but they are set apart on account of their ordination or religious profession.

But fashions among priests and religious sisters and nuns have changed. Why do traditionalists call attention to themselves by dressing in an outmoded way? See how it works when you start using the argument that traditionalists must conform to modern customs in such matters? Catholic wives and mothers should not worry about calling attention to themselves by dressing traditionally, just because modern customs of modern society are not in harmony with Catholic Tradition.

Quote

I'm not. I don't know (personally) any traditional Catholic wives who dress that way. But dressing in such a way (for example, veiling at all times)

It may be considered out of bounds in modern society for women to cover their heads. That is a defect in modern society. Traditionally women wore hats and bonnets outside. There are still countries where women often cover their heads out of doors.

Quote

is certainly calling attention to oneself and is not modest.

You are very judgmental. I think, frankly the problem with modesty among Traditional Catholics in most places almost entirely with respect to laxity. If there are a few eccentrics here or there, they are singled out - as though they're the problem. Generally speaking, they're not the problem. But they're a convenient excuse for people who wish to dress in modern styles.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #118 on:** May 12, 2012, 10:49:05 AM »

But they're a convenient excuse for people who wish to dress in modern styles.

That is to say, they wish to dress in modern fashions even when such fashions typically pass well beyond traditional bounds of propriety.

Pepsuber · « **Reply #119 on:** May 12, 2012, 01:57:42 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Immodesty which inspires a sin of lust is of a different character than immodesty that draws attention to oneself. That is self-evident. You can't tell me a woman wearing something that seems silly and eccentric is committing the same sin as a woman showing off her body in a skimpy outfit. That's ridiculous.

I'm not talking about only about lust. Lust is not the only sin that can be inspired by immodesty.

Quote

But fashions among priests and religious sisters and nuns have changed. Why do traditionalists call attention to themselves by dressing in an outmoded way? See how it works when you start using the argument that traditionalists must conform to modern customs in such matters?

Not sure what you mean. Priests and religious are set apart and should be readily identifiable as such. Does anyone mistake a priest wearing a cassock for an imam or a Mormon missionary? Of course not. And cassocks and religious habits are not outdated. But someone might mistake a "traditional Catholic wife" wearing outdated attire for a Mormon or Mennonite.