Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on March 13, 2019, 07:38:28 AM

Title: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Matthew on March 13, 2019, 07:38:28 AM
SSPX District HQ reacts to CathInfo CCCC thread! They memory holed a picture of their entire female staff in pants. SOMEONE FEELING GUILTY?

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catalog-of-compromise-change-and-contradiction-in-the-sspx/msg645783/#msg645783

They actually created a new photo, which conveniently cuts off before the pants are shown. No matter, the former photo has been saved off and hundreds of people have already seen it. Why would they do this, unless they knew it was wrong? They've been CAUGHT, and now they have to backpedal to appear "still Trad" to their Trad following.

I see we have the attention of the SSPX!

CathInfo 1
SSPX 0

PS. Isn't that "new addition" at the bottom already featured, first on the left, in the original pic above? I think it's the same woman. Isn't it ridiculous to add another person months or years after the fact? But especially when the addition is just a solo shot of a staff member you already had pictured in your existing "group shot of office staff" picture.

Watch, they'll do something else with the photo now.

Hi, SSPX officials! Nice morning today, isn't it?

Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Matthew on March 13, 2019, 07:48:20 AM
I'll leave you with these Cliffs Notes about the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four:

----------------------------------------------------------------
As with the names of the other ministries in Oceania, the name Ministry of Truth means the opposite of what it says. If the Ministry of Love is the place of torture and hate, the Ministry of Truth is where lies are manufactured. Winston (https://www.enotes.com/topics/1984/characters/winston-smith?en_action=hh_answer_body_click&en_label=%2Fhomework-help%2Fbook-1984-what-was-main-role-ministry-truth-720%23answer-737610&en_category=internal_campaign) works here, rewriting old news articles to reflect the Party's latest version of reality and throwing the old articles down a "memory hole" where they are incinerated. The Ministry of Truth reflects the Party's belief that power is the only truth and that those with the power can make the "truth" into whatever they choose.

The power of Minitrue, as it is called, shows in the enormous glittering white pyramid of its building, which towers over and dominates a landscape of sagging houses and rubble. A hint of what nonsense-manufacture goes on inside might be suggested by the three slogans of the Party emblazoned on it:

WAR IS PEACE/ FREEDOM IS SLAVERY /IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Minitrue supposedly has 3,000 rooms above ground level and 3,000 below, a testament to the resources the government puts into manufacturing its own version of reality, from rewriting history to producing propaganda to trying to remove as many words as possible from the English language to reduce people's ability to think. Its main role is to help control the population through misinformation, outright lies and lack of information so that the state can maintain total power over the people.
----------------------------------------------------------------

...and do you know who likes this book and recommends it to his students?
Bishop Williamson.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 13, 2019, 09:47:20 AM
How pathetic of them.  They have no integrity whatsoever.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: St Ignatius on March 13, 2019, 10:26:18 AM
They've been CAUGHT, and now they have to backpedal to appear "still Trad" to their Trad following.

Nah... half of my siblings (3 of 6) are still hardcore SSPXers. I tried just copying and pasting each reply from the CCCC thread without mentioning CI, (being CI is evil and all...) to my brother. Only after a few, I was told not to bother sending him anymore.

Unfortunately, the majority of the sheeple, I mean faithful, of the SSPX are not interested in the truth.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Matthew on March 13, 2019, 10:31:07 AM
Unfortunately, the majority of the sheeple, I mean faithful, of the SSPX are not interested in the truth.

This is the worst part. The SSPX could offer a Novus Ordo Missae and these blind ones would proceed on their path without missing a beat. 

They want their convenient Mass, their popularity, their approval of worldliness, their "Sunday Catholicism", etc.

It's the 1950's/1970's all over again -- only this time, the SSPX is the Novus Ordo.
Human nature always wants to go with the flow -- in this case, the Modern World which is so seductive.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: St Ignatius on March 13, 2019, 10:52:44 AM
This is the worst part. The SSPX could offer a Novus Ordo Missae and these blind ones would proceed on their path without missing a beat.

They want their convenient Mass, their popularity, their approval of worldliness, their "Sunday Catholicism", etc.

It's the 1950's/1970's all over again -- only this time, the SSPX is the Novus Ordo.
Human nature always wants to go with the flow -- in this case, the Modern World which is so seductive.

The sad part for my family is that we have lived and survived a very hard battle through the 70's, NEVER attended the N.O. and began attending SSPX Masses as soon as they were available to us. Ignorance is not an excuse for us... battle fatigue, I guess. 
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Stubborn on March 13, 2019, 11:03:25 AM
They actually created a new photo, which conveniently cuts off before the pants are shown. No matter, the former photo has been saved off and hundreds of people have already seen it. Why would they do this, unless they knew it was wrong? They've been CAUGHT, and now they have to backpedal to appear "still Trad" to their Trad following.

I see we have the attention of the SSPX!

CathInfo 1
SSPX 0

Hi, SSPX officials! Nice morning today, isn't it?
Ha ha!! Awesome catch!
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Kazimierz on March 13, 2019, 11:19:20 AM
I'll leave you with these Cliffs Notes about the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four:

----------------------------------------------------------------
As with the names of the other ministries in Oceania, the name Ministry of Truth means the opposite of what it says. If the Ministry of Love is the place of torture and hate, the Ministry of Truth is where lies are manufactured. Winston (https://www.enotes.com/topics/1984/characters/winston-smith?en_action=hh_answer_body_click&en_label=%2Fhomework-help%2Fbook-1984-what-was-main-role-ministry-truth-720%23answer-737610&en_category=internal_campaign) works here, rewriting old news articles to reflect the Party's latest version of reality and throwing the old articles down a "memory hole" where they are incinerated. The Ministry of Truth reflects the Party's belief that power is the only truth and that those with the power can make the "truth" into whatever they choose.

The power of Minitrue, as it is called, shows in the enormous glittering white pyramid of its building, which towers over and dominates a landscape of sagging houses and rubble. A hint of what nonsense-manufacture goes on inside might be suggested by the three slogans of the Party emblazoned on it:

WAR IS PEACE/ FREEDOM IS SLAVERY /IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Minitrue supposedly has 3,000 rooms above ground level and 3,000 below, a testament to the resources the government puts into manufacturing its own version of reality, from rewriting history to producing propaganda to trying to remove as many words as possible from the English language to reduce people's ability to think. Its main role is to help control the population through misinformation, outright lies and lack of information so that the state can maintain total power over the people.
----------------------------------------------------------------

...and do you know who likes this book and recommends it to his students?
Bishop Williamson.
You might have some Vulcan in you Matthew as you apparently read my mind! (Most likely the Holy Ghost and Guardian angels at work)!

(https://imgur.com/buKoXnY.jpg)
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: ihsv on March 13, 2019, 12:08:31 PM
So they changed their website in order to minimize the damage.  Fair enough.

Are they going to change their office dress-code, which is really the heart of the problem?  </rhetorical_question>

Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: cosmas on March 13, 2019, 12:31:26 PM











Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Meanwhile at the SSPX’s HQ in America... (http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2019/03/meanwhile-at-sspxs-hq-in-america.html)


...the bastion of tradition has women wearing pants!



(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-30I8k7BCd5A/XIeouH5cD9I/AAAAAAAAPkw/y4VgZbIQzwshdfUQvLiq4TTIdsg9nzOggCLcBGAs/s400/usdistrict_2_copy.jpg) (https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-30I8k7BCd5A/XIeouH5cD9I/AAAAAAAAPkw/y4VgZbIQzwshdfUQvLiq4TTIdsg9nzOggCLcBGAs/s1600/usdistrict_2_copy.jpg)

Quote
source: Another Look Inside Operations of the Regina Coeli House - Assistant Priests & Staff (https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/another-look-inside-operations-regina-coeli-house-assistant-priests-staff-45732), SSPX.org, 6 March 2019.
[color][size][font]

Is Modernist Rome making the Society modern or is the Society making Modernist Rome traditional?



Related:
[/font][/size][/color]









Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: hollingsworth on March 13, 2019, 01:08:48 PM


Quote
Are they going to change their office dress-code, which is really the heart of the problem?  </rhetorical_question>

 
No, office dress code is not the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem is SSPX leadership from the top down. The heart of the problem is the abandonment of the original mission of SSPX. The heart of the problem is the almost total capitulation of Fellay & Co. to New Church.. Dress code irregularities are, at best, only a minor symptom.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Matthew on March 13, 2019, 01:10:46 PM

 
No, office dress code is not the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem is SSPX leadership from the top down. The heart of the problem is the abandonment of the original mission of SSPX. The heart of the problem is the almost total capitulation of Fellay & Co. to New Church.. Dress code irregularities are, at best, only a minor symptom.
Indeed.
It's all about appearing "normal" in the eyes of the world. It's about conforming the Church to the Modern World. Sound familiar? It should. It's exactly what happened after Vatican II. And human nature always has a weak spot for wanting to fit in, not wanting to be called names, and being accepted by society, even if that society is Sodom or Gomorrah right before God's punishment.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 13, 2019, 01:19:37 PM
Let's all pray this Lent the 3rd Sorrowful mystery, for "contempt of the world" that we may not likewise fall prey to human respect.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: ihsv on March 13, 2019, 01:20:50 PM

 
No, office dress code is not the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem is SSPX leadership from the top down. The heart of the problem is the abandonment of the original mission of SSPX. The heart of the problem is the almost total capitulation of Fellay & Co. to New Church.. Dress code irregularities are, at best, only a minor symptom.
Agreed
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Ladislaus on March 13, 2019, 01:53:57 PM

 
No, office dress code is not the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem is SSPX leadership from the top down. The heart of the problem is the abandonment of the original mission of SSPX. The heart of the problem is the almost total capitulation of Fellay & Co. to New Church.. Dress code irregularities are, at best, only a minor symptom.

Well, he meant that it's the RELATIVE heart of the problem.  In other words, once it was brought to their attention that this runs counter to Traditional Catholic values, are they simply going to edit the picture for PR reasons or address the issue at the office?  That is an interesting question.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Matthew on March 13, 2019, 02:06:01 PM
But Hollingsworth is right.

Even if the SSPX called a meeting, and had their District Office women wear only skirts/dresses to the office from now on, it would only be a "minor setback" on the steady onward march towards full acceptance by the Modern World.

That onward march is the problem, not this or that small symptom.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: ihsv on March 13, 2019, 02:24:15 PM
Well, he meant that it's the RELATIVE heart of the problem.  In other words, once it was brought to their attention that this runs counter to Traditional Catholic values, are they simply going to edit the picture for PR reasons or address the issue at the office?  That is an interesting question.

Exactly.  

Hollingsworth's point is well taken, though.  The odor that is the office picture is a symptom of diseased flesh.  Rather than working on healing the infected members and eliminate the odor in the proper way, they simply cover it in makeup and spray air-freshener around. 

Like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Luis on March 13, 2019, 02:40:28 PM
Will you spot the subtle discrepancies between these two pages ?

6/27/2015 :

https://web.archive.org/web/20150627074716/http://laportelatine.org/district/ecoles/activitesecoles/lycee_technique_philibert_vrau/benedictions_cloches_la_martinerie_mgr_fellay_150621/benedictions_cloches_la_martinerie_mgr_fellay_150621.php

7/6/2015

https://web.archive.org/web/20150706011226/http://laportelatine.org/district/ecoles/activitesecoles/lycee_technique_philibert_vrau/benedictions_cloches_la_martinerie_mgr_fellay_150621/benedictions_cloches_la_martinerie_mgr_fellay_150621.php

Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: ihsv on March 13, 2019, 02:42:09 PM
Will you spot the subtle discrepancies between these two pages ?

6/27/2015 :

https://web.archive.org/web/20150627074716/http://laportelatine.org/district/ecoles/activitesecoles/lycee_technique_philibert_vrau/benedictions_cloches_la_martinerie_mgr_fellay_150621/benedictions_cloches_la_martinerie_mgr_fellay_150621.php

7/6/2015

https://web.archive.org/web/20150706011226/http://laportelatine.org/district/ecoles/activitesecoles/lycee_technique_philibert_vrau/benedictions_cloches_la_martinerie_mgr_fellay_150621/benedictions_cloches_la_martinerie_mgr_fellay_150621.php


The girl in the blue "skirt" is missing.  

Removing the picture doesn't alter the fact that she was dressed immodestly and actually took part in the ceremony.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Kazimierz on March 13, 2019, 02:58:37 PM

The girl in the blue "skirt" is missing.  

Removing the picture doesn't alter the fact that she was dressed immodestly and actually took part in the ceremony.
But it does provide further evidence of the neoSSPX's Orwellian machinations. Obviously they need to step up the surveillance at neosspxminitrue. ::)
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Matthew on March 13, 2019, 03:21:08 PM
I believe those are two separate pictures. That would be far too difficult to Photoshop.
You don't say!
They simply removed the 2 pictures with the woman in the short skirt in them. Count the images on each page.

The top link has 9 images.
The bottom link has only 7 images.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: hollingsworth on March 13, 2019, 03:47:10 PM


Quote
That onward march is the problem, not this or that small symptom.


 
Yes. It is an onward march, on the part of the Society, back to a “church” which the Archbishop one time described as a church to which he no longer wished to belong. ABL declared that its Episcopal ranks were full of “anti- Christs.” He concluded that it was an “apostate” church, led by men who were themselves apostates, men with names like Kasper, McCarrick, Pell, O’Brien, Law, and Montini.

 
This is the “church” with which Pagliarani, Fellay, Phluger, and Schmidberger, are presently negotiating, seeking feverishly for any way that might lead to practical reunification. What a fool’s errand they are on.
The so-called pope with whom they are dealing is probably an anti-pope. He may not even be a Catholic. But he is certainly a heretic. Of that there can be no doubt.

The SSPX has made its bed, and now they must lie in it. Short skirts and female staff in pants are the least of their problems.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Kazimierz on March 13, 2019, 05:19:01 PM
I believe those are two separate pictures. That would be far too difficult to Photoshop.
but not impossible ;)
Not worth that much time and effort I suspect. I thought they might shoop the female in question and put more modest attire upon her.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Markus on March 13, 2019, 05:25:58 PM
You don't say!
They simply removed the 2 pictures with the woman in the short skirt in them. Count the images on each page.

The top link has 9 images.
The bottom link has only 7 images.
I misunderstood. I thought the OP was claiming the pictures were Photoshopped. This makes much more sense now. :)
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on March 13, 2019, 07:08:18 PM
As a woman, I think the woman in the mini  short blue dress is dressed poorly for any Church function.  It is disrespectful.    ( I am not the best dressed but would never wear anything immodest to Mass or Church event ).  Tank tops and pants at SSPX workplace is a shock.   What next yoga pants?   

What is really disturbing is that SSPX would allow pro sodomite clubs.  



Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Kazimierz on March 13, 2019, 08:32:15 PM


What is really disturbing is that SSPX would allow pro sodomite clubs.  
Are you referring to St Don Bosco school in Calgary?
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on March 13, 2019, 08:46:56 PM
Yes. 
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on March 13, 2019, 08:53:36 PM










Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Meanwhile at the SSPX’s HQ in America... (http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2019/03/meanwhile-at-sspxs-hq-in-america.html)



...the bastion of tradition has women wearing pants!



(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-30I8k7BCd5A/XIeouH5cD9I/AAAAAAAAPkw/y4VgZbIQzwshdfUQvLiq4TTIdsg9nzOggCLcBGAs/s400/usdistrict_2_copy.jpg) (https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-30I8k7BCd5A/XIeouH5cD9I/AAAAAAAAPkw/y4VgZbIQzwshdfUQvLiq4TTIdsg9nzOggCLcBGAs/s1600/usdistrict_2_copy.jpg)
[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]

Is Modernist Rome making the Society modern or is the Society making Modernist Rome traditional?



Related:
[/font][/size]
  • the mystery of the woman in the very short skirt (http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-mystery-of-woman-in-very-short-skirt.html)

  • the process of the regularization of the SSPX continues (http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-process-of-regularization-of-sspx.html)

  • The SSPX’s “Child Protection Policy” endorsed masturbation, sodomy, obscenity, pornography, etc... (http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-sspxs-child-protection-policy.html)

  • ‘Diabolical Disorientation’ in Post Falls, Idaho (http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2017/09/diabolical-disorientation-in-post-falls.html)

  • What’s going on at the FSSPX? (http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2018/03/whats-going-on-at-fsspx.html)

  • Bp. Fellay discusses the FSSPX’s desire to become a ‘personal prelature’ and their future goals (http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2018/06/bp-fellay-discusses-fsspxs-desire-to.html)

  • The (re)branding of the SSPX (http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-rebranding-of-sspx.html)

  • The FSSPX shares the sanctuary with six Novus Ordo presiders (http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-fsspx-shares-sanctuary-with-six.html)

  • Bp. Fellay, “we are Catholics and the modern church recognizes us as Catholics.” (http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2018/09/bp-fellay-we-are-catholics-and-modern.html)

  • The SSPX’s “2018—2019 Policy Handbook” allows for the formation of ‘transgender’ and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ clubs (http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-sspxs-20182019-policy-handbook.html)
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Kazimierz on March 13, 2019, 09:01:58 PM
Yes.
I have not heard anything yet from the neoSSPX mission here in Edmonton but I will keep my Resistance ears open.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Kazimierz on March 13, 2019, 09:04:34 PM
Okay. Fixed the skirt problem. :D ;)

(https://imgur.com/ApcABkA.jpg)
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: JmJ2cents on March 14, 2019, 09:22:56 AM
This is seriously so scandalous.  How could all the female office staff be wearing pants?  If I had not seen the picture I would have been incredulous of believing such a story.  I know they are becoming very modern but not in my wildest dreams would I have believed this.  I know most of the Kansas City parishioners only wear skirts on Sunday but to be so blatant about it is just horrible.  Shame on you SSPX district office.  You are suppose to be an example to the world and here you are as worldly as it gets.  What part of Traditional Catholics do you not get?  I wonder if the priest wear pant suits too now?   :facepalm:
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Matthew on March 14, 2019, 09:35:41 AM
I posted this news item on a couple Facebook groups related to Traditional Catholics, the Tridentine Mass, etc.

Here are some comments from a Facebook group for Traditional Catholics -- most of whom (at least of those participating in this discussion) are SSPX parishioners. I'll give you a hint: It's all over. They have gone completely liberal. They don't have a clue.

Seriously: I've been in the Resistance since day one. But I was still shocked to see how low these liberals have sunk. Men, you have to watch out. EVERY LAST ONE OF THESE WOMEN grace a TLM chapel every Sunday, putting themselves forward as Traditional Catholics. When they were/are single, they were/are putting themselves forward as a potential Trad Catholic spouse. BEWARE!


Rachel Valencia (https://www.facebook.com/rachel.valencia.73?fref=gc&dti=450184775135916) It is MORE IMMORAL to BEND DOWN and have ppl see EVERYTHING there is to see, than to wear pants, MANY women I know wear them in good feminist taste. CULTIST!

Lucia Alperin (https://www.facebook.com/lucia.alperin?fref=gc&dti=450184775135916) No doubt, but women wearing slacks to work, especially in wintertime, is not even close to a serious issue in Catholicism. I’m going to guess you’re also upset that the women were working outside the home?

Lucia Alperin (https://www.facebook.com/lucia.alperin?fref=gc&dti=450184775135916) Thank you for reminding me to be thankful the rank resistance is OUT of the SSPX. Thank you Our Lady for sweeping.

DiesIrae Confutatis Lacrimosa (https://www.facebook.com/diesiraelacrimosa?fref=gc&dti=450184775135916) What's wring with wearing pants?

Melissa Ward (https://www.facebook.com/Melcward72?fref=gc&dti=450184775135916) Pants was a more modest way to dress here in Kansas than the skirts....winds are crazy.(my skirt was long and straight enough to not flip up.) ..
So, I stand with the SSPX and I'm watching the resistance without a hierarchy much of any form dissolve bit by bit.
Wealthy contributors happen. I do not see pants as an issue. ...Not best.. not sinful. (skin tight..blah blah blah... Okay i'd agree venially sinful..intent needs to be there for mortal sin. ... Control of your temptations and your eyes are on you. )


Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Stubborn on March 14, 2019, 09:37:48 AM
Very sad to see! ^^^
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Matthew on March 14, 2019, 09:44:12 AM
I'm surprised how many women use the excuse "I wear pants because it's more modest." and/or "I have varicose veins".

WHAT?

So STEP ONE is establishing that skirts should only go to the knee. STEP TWO is moving those women to pants once they no longer want to show off their legs. What kind of crap is that?

NEWSFLASH: Skirts/dresses come in all lengths, including the famous Trad (well, apparently now it's mostly Mormon and fundie Protestant) ankle-length skirt. When paired with socks you have plenty good coverage (as opposed to bare feet -- here in Texas very few women wear socks -- including to work or to church. They wear glorified sandals and flip-flops showing off their bare feet)

These women need to go back to the beginning and re-learn how to dress. No, skirts should not be short or knee-length. And you can fool yourself (though it's pathetic), but you can't fool God.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Kazimierz on March 14, 2019, 10:07:52 AM
Amidst the righteous furor over the lack of female modesty with the neosspx, I would take a potshot at the men who dress slovenly/inappropriately be it at Mass or in general. If there is anything good that comes with living in a subarctic climate, it is that immodesty/vanity has immediate reprecussions to one's physical self.
In hot weather, covering up is of course better for the body as well as the soul. How the men and women of the Deep South in antebellum days just didnt melt with all finery is quite something. I would rather wear a cassock sans pants in hotter climates so I cannot see why ladies would prefer not to have modest dresses. Better air circulation for cooling.

Alas original sin+path of least resistance=moral evil
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Mr G on March 14, 2019, 10:20:11 AM
I posted this news item on a couple Facebook groups related to Traditional Catholics, the Tridentine Mass, etc.

Here are some comments from a Facebook group for Traditional Catholics -- most of whom (at least of those participating in this discussion) are SSPX parishioners. I'll give you a hint: It's all over. They have gone completely liberal. They don't have a clue.

Seriously: I've been in the Resistance since day one. But I was still shocked to see how low these liberals have sunk. Men, you have to watch out. EVERY LAST ONE OF THESE WOMEN grace a TLM chapel every Sunday, putting themselves forward as Traditional Catholics. When they were/are single, they were/are putting themselves forward as a potential Trad Catholic spouse. BEWARE!


Rachel Valencia (https://www.facebook.com/rachel.valencia.73?fref=gc&dti=450184775135916) It is MORE IMMORAL to BEND DOWN and have ppl see EVERYTHING there is to see, than to wear pants, MANY women I know wear them in good feminist taste. CULTIST!

Lucia Alperin (https://www.facebook.com/lucia.alperin?fref=gc&dti=450184775135916) No doubt, but women wearing slacks to work, especially in wintertime, is not even close to a serious issue in Catholicism. I’m going to guess you’re also upset that the women were working outside the home?

Lucia Alperin (https://www.facebook.com/lucia.alperin?fref=gc&dti=450184775135916) Thank you for reminding me to be thankful the rank resistance is OUT of the SSPX. Thank you Our Lady for sweeping.

DiesIrae Confutatis Lacrimosa (https://www.facebook.com/diesiraelacrimosa?fref=gc&dti=450184775135916) What's wring with wearing pants?

Melissa Ward (https://www.facebook.com/Melcward72?fref=gc&dti=450184775135916) Pants was a more modest way to dress here in Kansas than the skirts....winds are crazy.(my skirt was long and straight enough to not flip up.) ..
So, I stand with the SSPX and I'm watching the resistance without a hierarchy much of any form dissolve bit by bit.
Wealthy contributors happen. I do not see pants as an issue. ...Not best.. not sinful. (skin tight..blah blah blah... Okay i'd agree venially sinful..intent needs to be there for mortal sin. ... Control of your temptations and your eyes are on you. )

Those are some crazy quotes. But they are helpful, as it clearly shows that the SSPX of today is a completely different organization that I remember.
I wonder how long have they been attending SSPX Masses? Are they the influx of Novus Ordo sent to corrupt morals, or are they long time formerly silent SSPX liberals that are now free to speak out, or were they Traditional back in the day and have since become 'slack'?
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Matthew on March 14, 2019, 10:24:30 AM
Claiming that Our Lady is their ally (in their fight for pants, against dresses/skirts) is really rich. I think the reality is quite the opposite.

And the one suggesting skirts are always short needs to read my post above. She is just an idiot; sorry there are no other words for it.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Stubborn on March 14, 2019, 10:34:24 AM
Claiming that Our Lady is their ally (in their fight for pants, against dresses/skirts) is really rich. I think the reality is quite the opposite.

And the one suggesting skirts are always short needs to read my post above. She is just an idiot; sorry there are no other words for it.
They sound like typical Liberals.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: cosmas on March 14, 2019, 10:52:29 AM
SSPX Leadership has been feminized. They are worried about political correctness. They don't want to be men ,they want to just get along . lets not make waves. Human Respect is what they are after. They are no longer striving to please Our Lord. They like being modern its easier than being Catholic. The path of least resistance.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 14, 2019, 10:55:53 AM
Oh, the feminists are everywhere, even in the new-sspx.  I had to laugh (sadly) at the modernism in this comment: 

Quote
winds are crazy.(my skirt was long and straight enough to not flip up.)

Skirts are SUPPOSED to be that long/straight ALL THE TIME.  If you're wearing a skirt that isn't modest when you bend over or can't handle some wind, then IT'S NOT A MODEST SKIRT.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Maria Regina on March 14, 2019, 11:05:07 AM
Oh, the feminists are everywhere, even in the new-sspx.  I had to laugh (sadly) at the modernism in this comment:

Skirts are SUPPOSED to be that long/straight ALL THE TIME.  If you're wearing a skirt that isn't modest when you bend over or can't handle some wind, then IT'S NOT A MODEST SKIRT.
Sadly,  the local stores do not sell slips anymore.  I have to make my own underskirts, and I make them of cotton or even flannel when the weather is frigid outside. When the wind blows, without wearing an underskirt, it can reveal too much. Yes, I wear long skirts all the time.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Matthew on March 14, 2019, 11:47:55 AM
Oh, the feminists are everywhere, even in the new-sspx.  I had to laugh (sadly) at the modernism in this comment:

Skirts are SUPPOSED to be that long/straight ALL THE TIME.  If you're wearing a skirt that isn't modest when you bend over or can't handle some wind, then IT'S NOT A MODEST SKIRT.

I agree, but I should clarify: there are many ankle-length skirts that are light material or flowing -- very concealing, very feminine, very pretty -- but in strong wind could be a problem without a slip or some kind of garment worn underneath.

But these are far preferable to pants, which hug the woman's figure "full time" and show off if she has a small butt, a medium butt, or a big butt.

Skirts are always more flattering for a woman.

I can't believe how pants have become the de-facto standard, and not just any pants, but usually you have to squeeze into them, so it's like they're sprayed on. Ridiculous.

And like I said in another thread, when men wear jeans or pants the pants don't show every curve on their big butt. Men don't have butts (to put it simply). The pants just kind of hang there. A guy's butt is about as wide as his waist. It doesn't stick out the sides at all; he has no hips. At least no real hips, or birthin' hips.

Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Pax Vobis on March 14, 2019, 12:30:51 PM
If you change your fashion/moral standards based on the weather, it gives a whole new meaning to the phrase: "to see which way the wind blows".
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: clarkaim on March 14, 2019, 01:40:09 PM

one question I have is "Who the heck are these folks?  2 of my sons are out at RC house every two weeks and I recognize NONE of these people.  I've known tons of folks that worked out there, including my old roommate, their old Attorney, James Wright.  Never seen these people ever out there OR at St. Vincent's, the closest sspx parish.  Call it what it is, it's not neo-sspx, it's corporate sspx.  It is a damn money making enterprise straight up. 
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Mr G on March 14, 2019, 02:16:09 PM
one question I have is "Who the heck are these folks?  2 of my sons are out at RC house every two weeks and I recognize NONE of these people.  I've known tons of folks that worked out there, including my old roommate, their old Attorney, James Wright.  Never seen these people ever out there OR at St. Vincent's, the closest sspx parish.  Call it what it is, it's not neo-sspx, it's corporate sspx.  It is a damn money making enterprise straight up.
That is  a good question, who are they? It could be that they are not even parishioners but outsiders hired to do the job. (I suspect they are the accounting staff, as none of those names are familiar). Notice only Mrs. Rydholm and Mrs. Shepard are the only ones that mention their previous years with the SSPX (and to the best of my memory, they are not in the picture).
"Corporate SSPX" is truly what this organization has become.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: jvk on March 14, 2019, 02:23:30 PM
Wow.  I can't believe those comments are coming from Traditional Catholic women!  Really?!

Wasn't it Padre Pio who refused to hear the confessions of any woman not wearing a skirt at least 8 inches below the knee?

And what about the standards of Marian dress?  Do they seriously think the Blessed Virgin would wear pants because it's more modest in the cold wind?

I heard a sermon once (by an SSPX priest--many years ago, of course!) in which it was said, "If a woman says she has to wear pants to do a job, SHE SHOULDN'T BE DOING IT!"

Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Caraffa on March 14, 2019, 02:57:08 PM

Lucia Alperin (https://www.facebook.com/lucia.alperin?fref=gc&dti=450184775135916) No doubt, but women wearing slacks to work, especially in wintertime, is not even close to a serious issue in Catholicism. I’m going to guess you’re also upset that the women were working outside the home?

Lucia Alperin (https://www.facebook.com/lucia.alperin?fref=gc&dti=450184775135916) Thank you for reminding me to be thankful the rank resistance is OUT of the SSPX. Thank you Our Lady for sweeping.

(http://i67.tinypic.com/21mez5x.jpg)
(https://memestatic1.fjcdn.com/comments/Blank+_db73d6150cef94b310b5813b7c1cfb86.jpg) (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiC9qv3soLhAhWE11kKHUdfCWgQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffunnyjunk.com%2FMelted%2Bdeafening%2Bfoamy%2Bchamois%2FawqGMnj%2F&psig=AOvVaw1O-Tl2G9cxJpej1ldTf5ZT&ust=1552679187037140)
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: JezusDeKoning on March 14, 2019, 03:31:50 PM
That is  a good question, who are they? It could be that they are not even parishioners but outsiders hired to do the job. (I suspect they are the accounting staff, as none of those names are familiar). Notice only Mrs. Rydholm and Mrs. Shepard are the only ones that mention their previous years with the SSPX (and to the best of my memory, they are not in the picture).
"Corporate SSPX" is truly what this organization has become.
That's been my assumption too, that they were outsiders. In the facebook pages, too. In my own personal experience, people who are raised in the SSPX know what Catholic modesty is.

At the same time, it should've dawned on them to know the standards of modesty and for the workplace to tell them.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Seraphina on March 14, 2019, 03:33:51 PM

I heard a sermon once (by an SSPX priest--many years ago, of course!) in which it was said, "If a woman says she has to wear pants to do a job, SHE SHOULDN'T BE DOING IT!"
If you're referring to a woman having to wear the style skirts, dresses, shoes, pantyhose that are modest, then I disagree.  Think of the pioneer women, the many missionary sisters working in remote places in the times before Fatima.  The types of work they did are largely not possible to perform in modern attire without gross immodesty.  The women who lived before 1900 wore dresses and skirts and performed all sorts of work without immodesty or difficulty.  The hemlines were long, skirts wide, bodices long sleeved and up to the neck line.  There was no fear of leaning over to reveal one's cleavage.  Stockings, bloomers and slips or under-dresses were worn beneath skirts.  Over the clothing, many working women wore full or skirt covering aprons. Shoes were sensible; no spike or platform soles, no squished toes, no flip flops.  IOW, women could do just about anything without giving scandal.  
When I lived as an exchange student on a farm, I wore nothing but Amish-appearing clothes.  I've done chores from house painting to stacking hay bales.  There was no need for pants.  
Certainly in an office, there is NO reason at all to offend Our Lord and scandalize others by donning male apparel!
I go tenting, hiking, and have climbed Mt. Washington and Mt. Katahdin while wearing a skirt.  I had no problem.
There is really no excuse for those young women to dress as men in an office.  What do they do?  Lie on the floor to repair the copy machine?  Stand on their desks to do.......?  Women, even Trad women need to be educated 
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: SusanneT on March 14, 2019, 07:17:10 PM
Wow.  I can't believe those comments are coming from Traditional Catholic women!  Really?!

Wasn't it Padre Pio who refused to hear the confessions of any woman not wearing a skirt at least 8 inches below the knee?

And what about the standards of Marian dress?  Do they seriously think the Blessed Virgin would wear pants because it's more modest in the cold wind?

I heard a sermon once (by an SSPX priest--many years ago, of course!) in which it was said, "If a woman says she has to wear pants to do a job, SHE SHOULDN'T BE DOING IT!"
Well said ! Agreed on all counts. 
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Meg on March 15, 2019, 08:35:59 AM
Sadly,  the local stores do not sell slips anymore.  I have to make my own underskirts, and I make them of cotton or even flannel when the weather is frigid outside. When the wind blows, without wearing an underskirt, it can reveal too much. Yes, I wear long skirts all the time.

It's good that you make your own underskirts. I buy mine from the Vermont Country Store online catalogue. They are one of the few who still sell them. And wool tights, too, which are also difficult to find elsewhere.

I'm so surprised that all of the women in the SSPX office wear pants. They should not have changed that photo; it's not really honest to do so. The women there wear pants, and they shouldn't try to hide the fact. I feel sorry for any of the women there who would rather wear a skirt or dress, but they might feel out of place in doing so. Women tend to want to fit in with other women.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: St Paul on March 15, 2019, 10:53:43 AM
SSPX Leadership has been feminized. They are worried about political correctness. They don't want to be men ,they want to just get along . lets not make waves. Human Respect is what they are after. They are no longer striving to please Our Lord. They like being modern its easier than being Catholic. The path of least resistance.
Pay attention who the men of the sspx chapels oogle.  It's not, typically, the modest females.  Ergo, the females dress to "get a man," based on what the men seem to chase.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: hollingsworth on March 15, 2019, 11:07:48 AM

The topic of tradiional women wearing pants in the district office began to bore me some 1900 views ago. But, because it was Meg, I did happen to glance at her last post, viz.


Quote
It's good that you make your own underskirts. I buy mine from the Vermont Country Store online catalogue. They are one of the few who still sell them. And wool tights, too, which are also difficult to find elsewhere.

Maybe Meg will start making her own under garments when she finds out that Vermont Country Store has been advertising and selling adult toys and other sex paraphernalia since at least 2009. Oh yes, this wholesome, homespun business enterprise has apparently succuмbed to the demands of the present age.

Check the following link: https://www.mynbc5.com/article/vermont-country-store-offering-adult-toys/3289164 (https://www.mynbc5.com/article/vermont-country-store-offering-adult-toys/3289164)
The article begins: “The Vermont Country Store's usually squeaky-clean image took a hit recently when the longtime local chain decided to cater to its older customers by selling vibrators, sex creams and "instructional" sex videos not far from shelves containing children's toys….”

Meg, I think, maybe, the Chosen may have inserted themselves into yet another lucrative business opportunity. When and if SSPX district employees are found to be purchasing items other than warm winter wear from Vermont Country Store, it should trigger a topic that will be guaranteed to get 10,000 views. That would be a conservative estimate.


Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: ihsv on March 15, 2019, 11:14:20 AM
One of the ladies from the District HQ is triggered by this conversation and appears to be down thumbing most of the posts in this thread.   :laugh1:

I wonder if she'll go running for her safe-space if everyone up-voted all the posts in this thread.  
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Meg on March 15, 2019, 11:17:11 AM
The topic of tradiional women wearing pants in the district office began to bore me some 1900 views ago. But, because it was Meg, I did happen to glance at her last post, viz.


Maybe Meg will start making her own under garments when she finds out that Vermont Country Store has been advertising and selling adult toys and other sex paraphernalia since at least 2009. Oh yes, this wholesome, homespun business enterprise has apparently succuмbed to the demands of the present age.

Check the following link: https://www.mynbc5.com/article/vermont-country-store-offering-adult-toys/3289164 (https://www.mynbc5.com/article/vermont-country-store-offering-adult-toys/3289164)
The article begins: “The Vermont Country Store's usually squeaky-clean image took a hit recently when the longtime local chain decided to cater to its older customers by selling vibrators, sex creams and "instructional" sex videos not far from shelves containing children's toys….”

Meg, I think, maybe, the Chosen may have inserted themselves into yet another lucrative business opportunity. When and if SSPX district employees are found to be purchasing items other than warm winter wear from Vermont Country Store, it should trigger a topic that will be guaranteed to get 10,000 views. That would be a conservative estimate.

I do recall seeing that they sold that horrid type of thing in the past, I but I haven't seen it in their catalogue for awhile. Mind you, I don't go looking for it either, so maybe they still sell that type of stuff.

You're right. It's not good to buy from a store that promotes that type of sin. I should start making my own garments. Maybe it's time to dust off my sewing machine and make use of it, instead of being lazy and buying those garments.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Kazimierz on March 15, 2019, 03:59:54 PM
There can be had very modest and beautiful attire for ladies for grand occasions. (I purchased my Knights Templar attire from this company.)

Something about the medieval times.......Christendom, knights, fair maidens, Aquinas.......

(https://armstreet.com/catalogue/full/german-kirtle-renaissance-style-medieval-dress-costume.jpg)
(https://armstreet.com/catalogue/full/dress-underdress-and-chemise-traditional-central-europe-costume.jpg)
(https://armstreet.com/catalogue/full/medieval-woolen-dress-green-sleeves-1.jpg)
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Vintagewife3 on March 15, 2019, 05:12:16 PM
Amazon has good slips too! 
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Seraphina on March 16, 2019, 01:49:51 PM
Please, ladies, let's move this discussion of slips and undergarments to Women Only.  I doubt the gentlemen wish to read about it, plus we've gotten way off-topic from the thread title.  I'm adding my 2c, but look for it on Women Only.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on March 16, 2019, 06:00:05 PM
 :jumping2:Tomorrow is the wearing of the green!
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: wallflower on March 17, 2019, 03:52:19 PM

I find the monitoring of CI incredibly creepy.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Kazimierz on March 17, 2019, 04:24:34 PM
I find the monitoring of CI incredibly creepy.
We are at war :boxer:with the principalities and their human minions. We monitor them; they monitor us. :)
Tread carefully, pray heartily and constantly for one another. :incense:
Praise the Lord, pray the Rosary and pass the ammunition, and we'll all be free! :cowboy:
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Smedley Butler on March 18, 2019, 08:56:03 AM
I posted this news item on a couple Facebook groups related to Traditional Catholics, the Tridentine Mass, etc.

Here are some comments from a Facebook group for Traditional Catholics -- most of whom (at least of those participating in this discussion) are SSPX parishioners. I'll give you a hint: It's all over. They have gone completely liberal. They don't have a clue.

Seriously: I've been in the Resistance since day one. But I was still shocked to see how low these liberals have sunk. Men, you have to watch out. EVERY LAST ONE OF THESE WOMEN grace a TLM chapel every Sunday, putting themselves forward as Traditional Catholics. When they were/are single, they were/are putting themselves forward as a potential Trad Catholic spouse. BEWARE!


Rachel Valencia (https://www.facebook.com/rachel.valencia.73?fref=gc&dti=450184775135916) It is MORE IMMORAL to BEND DOWN and have ppl see EVERYTHING there is to see, than to wear pants, MANY women I know wear them in good feminist taste. CULTIST!

Lucia Alperin (https://www.facebook.com/lucia.alperin?fref=gc&dti=450184775135916) No doubt, but women wearing slacks to work, especially in wintertime, is not even close to a serious issue in Catholicism. I’m going to guess you’re also upset that the women were working outside the home?

Lucia Alperin (https://www.facebook.com/lucia.alperin?fref=gc&dti=450184775135916) Thank you for reminding me to be thankful the rank resistance is OUT of the SSPX. Thank you Our Lady for sweeping.

DiesIrae Confutatis Lacrimosa (https://www.facebook.com/diesiraelacrimosa?fref=gc&dti=450184775135916) What's wring with wearing pants?

Melissa Ward (https://www.facebook.com/Melcward72?fref=gc&dti=450184775135916) Pants was a more modest way to dress here in Kansas than the skirts....winds are crazy.(my skirt was long and straight enough to not flip up.) ..
So, I stand with the SSPX and I'm watching the resistance without a hierarchy much of any form dissolve bit by bit.
Wealthy contributors happen. I do not see pants as an issue. ...Not best.. not sinful. (skin tight..blah blah blah... Okay i'd agree venially sinful..intent needs to be there for mortal sin. ... Control of your temptations and your eyes are on you. )

Those responses are indeed pathetic.
No Trad Catholic woman should identify herself as feminist or suggest working outside the home is virtuous.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Smedley Butler on March 18, 2019, 09:00:54 AM
The SSPX is now openly promoting heliocentrism and apparently approves of women in man's dress. 

That's not the SSPK I was raised in.

The SSPX has fallen.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Smedley Butler on March 18, 2019, 09:02:37 AM
The SSPX needs the reminder of WHY women ought not to wear pants from Cardinal Siri:

https://www.olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml

Notification Concerning
Men's Dress Worn By Women 
By Giuseppe Cardinal Siri
Genoa,
June 12, 1960
To the Reverend Clergy,
To all Teaching sisters,
To the beloved sons of Catholic Action,
To Educators intending truly to follow Christian Doctrine.1 (https://www.olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml#1)

I
The first signs of our late arriving spring indicate that there is this year a certain increase in the use of men's dress by girls and women, even family mothers.  Up until 1959, in Genoa, such dress usually meant the person was a tourist, but now it seems to be a significant number of girls and women from Genoa itself who are choosing at least on pleasure trips to wear men's dress (men's trousers).
The extension of this behavior obliges us to take serious thought, and we ask those to whom this Notification is addressed to kindly lend to the problem all the attention it deserves from anyone aware of being in any way responsible before God.
We seek above all to give a balanced moral judgment upon the wearing of men's dress by women. In fact Our thoughts can only bear upon the moral question.2 (https://www.olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml#2)
Firstly, when it comes to covering of the female body, the wearing of men's trousers by women cannot be said to constitute AS SUCH A GRAVE OFFENSE AGAINST MODESTY, because trousers certainly cover more of woman's body than do modern women's skirts.
Secondly, however, clothes to be modest need not only to cover the body but also not to cling too closely to the body.3 (https://www.olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml#3)  Now it is true that much feminine clothing today clings closer than do some trousers, but trousers can be made to cling closer, in fact generally they do, so the tight fit of such clothing gives us not less grounds for concern than does exposure of the body.  So the immodesty of men's trousers on women is an aspect of the problem which is not to be left out of an over-all judgment upon them, even if it is not to be artificially exaggerated either.

II
However, it is a different aspect of women's wearing of men's trousers which seems to us the gravest.4 (https://www.olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml#4)
The wearing of men's dress by women affects firstly the woman herself, by changing the feminine psychology proper to women; secondly it affects the woman as wife of her husband, by tending to vitiate relationships between the sexes; thirdly it affects the woman as mother of her children by harming her dignity in her children's eyes.  Each of these points is to be carefully considered in turn:--

A.  MALE DRESS CHANGES THE PSYCHOLOGY OF WOMAN.
In truth, the motive impelling women to wear men's dress is always that of imitating, nay, of competing with, the man who is considered stronger, less tied down, more independent.  This motivation shows clearly that male dress is the visible aid to bringing about a mental attitude of being "like a man."5 (https://www.olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml#5)  Secondly, ever since men have been men, the clothing a person wears, demands, imposes and modifies that person's gestures, attitudes and behavior, such that from merely being worn outside, clothing comes to impose a particular frame of mind inside.
Then let us add that woman wearing man's dress always more or less indicates her reacting to her femininity as though it is inferiority when in fact it is only diversity. The perversion of her psychology is clear to be seen.6 (https://www.olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml#6)
These reasons, summing up many more, are enough to warn us how wrongly women are made to think by the wearing of men's dress.

B.  MALE DRESS TENDS TO VITIATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN.
In truth when relationships between the two sexes unfold with the coming of age, an instinct of mutual attraction is predominant.  The essential basis of this attraction is a diversity between the two sexes which is made possible only by their complementing or completing one another.  If then this "diversity" becomes less obvious because one of its major external signs is eliminated and because the normal psychological structure is weakened, what results is the alteration of a fundamental factor in the relationship.
The problem goes further still.  Mutual attraction between the sexes is preceded both naturally, and in order of time, by that sense of shame which holds the rising instincts in check, imposes respect upon them, and tends to lift to a higher level of mutual esteem and healthy fear everything that those instincts would push onwards to uncontrolled acts.  To change that clothing which by its diversity reveals and upholds nature's limits and defense-works, is to flatten out the distinctions and to help pull down the vital defense-works of the sense of shame.
It is at least to hinder that sense.  And when the sense of shame is hindered from putting on the brakes, then relationships between man and women sink degradingly down to pure sensuality, devoid of all mutual respect or esteem.
Experience is there to tell us that when woman is de-feminised, then defenses are undermined and weakness increases.7 (https://www.olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml#7)

C. MALE DRESS HARMS THE DIGNITY OF THE MOTHER IN HER CHILDREN'S EYES.
All children have an instinct for the sense of dignity and decorum of their mother.  Analysis of the first inner crisis of children when they awaken to life around them even before they enter upon adolescence, shows how much the sense of their mother counts.  Children are as sensitive as can be on this point.  Adults have usually left all that behind them and think no more on it.  But we would do well to recall to mind the severe demands that children instinctively make of their own mother, and the deep and even terrible reactions roused in them by observation of their mother's misbehavior.  Many lines of later life are here traced out -- and not for good -- in these early inner dramas of infancy and childhood.
The child may not know the definition of exposure, frivolity or infidelity, but he possesses an instinctive sixth sense to recognize them when they occur, to suffer from them, and be bitterly wounded by them in his soul.

III
Let us think seriously on the import of everything said so far, even if woman's appearing in man's dress does not immediately give rise to all the upset caused by grave immodesty.
The changing of feminine psychology does fundamental and, in the long run, irreparable damage to the family, to conjugal fidelity, to human affections and to human society.8 (https://www.olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml#8)  True, the effects of wearing unsuitable dress are not all to be seen within a short time.  But one must think of what is being slowly and insidiously worn down, torn apart, perverted.
Is any satisfying reciprocity between husband and wife imaginable, if feminine psychology be changed?  Or is any true education of children imaginable, which is so delicate in its procedure, so woven of imponderable factors in which the mother's intuition and instinct play the decisive part in those tender years?  What will these women be able to give their children when they will so long have worn trousers that their self-esteem goes more by their competing with the men than by their functioning as women?
Why, we ask, ever since men have been men, or rather since they became civilized -- why have men in all times and places been irresistibly borne to make a differentiated division between the functions of the two sexes?  Do we not have here strict testimony to the recognition by all mankind of a truth and a law above man?
To sum up, wherever women wear men's dress, it is to be considered a factor in the long run tearing apart human order.

IV
The logical consequence of everything presented so far is that anyone in a position of responsibility should be possessed by a SENSE of ALARM in the true and proper meaning of the word, a severe and decisive ALARM.9 (https://www.olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml#9)
We address a grave warning to parish priests, to all priests in general and to confessors in particular, to members of every kind of association, to all religious, to all nuns, especially to teaching Sisters.
We invite them to become clearly conscious of the problem so that action will follow.  This consciousness is what matters.  It will suggest the appropriate action in due time.  But let it not counsel us to give way in the face of inevitable change, as though we are confronted by a natural evolution of mankind, and so on!
Men may come and men may go, because God has left plenty of room for the to and fro of their free-will; but the substantial lines of nature and the not less substantial lines of Eternal Law have never changed, are not changing and never will change.  There are bounds beyond which one may stray as far as one sees fit, but to do so ends in death10 (https://www.olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml#10); there are limits which empty philosophical fantasizing may have one mock or not take seriously, but they put together an alliance of hard facts and nature to chastise anybody who steps over them.  And history has sufficiently taught, with frightening proof from the life and death of nations, that the reply to all violators of the outline of "humanity" is always, sooner or later, catastrophe.
From the dialectic of Hegel onwards, we have had dinned in our ears what are nothing but fables, and by dint of hearing them so often, many people end up by getting used to them, if only passively.  But the truth of the matter is that Nature and Truth, and the Law bound up in both, go their imperturbable way, and they cut to pieces the simpletons who upon no grounds whatsoever believe in radical and far-reaching changes in the very structure of man.11 (https://www.olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml#11)
The consequences of such violations are not a new outline of man, but disorders, hurtful instability of all kinds, the frightening dryness of human souls, the shattering increase in the number of human castaways, driven long since out of people's sight and mind to live out their decline in boredom, sadness and rejection.  Aligned on the wrecking of the eternal norms are to be found the broken families, lives cut short before their time, hearths and homes gone cold, old people cast to one side, youngsters willfully degenerate and -- at the end of the line -- souls in despair and taking their own lives.  All of which human wreckage gives witness to the fact that the "line of God" does not give way, nor does it admit of any adaption to the delirious dreams of the so-called philosophers! 12 (https://www.olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml#12)

V
We have said that those to whom the present Notification is addressed are invited to take serious alarm at the problem in hand.  Accordingly they know what they have to say, starting with little girls on their mother's knee.
They know that without exaggerating or turning into fanatics, they will need to strictly limit how far they tolerate women dressing like men, as a general rule.
They know they must never be so weak as to let anyone believe that they turn a blind eye to a custom which is slipping downhill and undermining the moral standing of all institutions.
They, the priests, know that the line they have to take in the confessional, while not holding women dressing like men to be automatically a grave fault, must be sharp and decisive.13 (https://www.olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml#13)
Everybody will kindly give thought to the need for a united line of action, reinforced on every side by the cooperation of all men of good will and all enlightened minds, so as to create a true dam to hold back the flood.
Those of you responsible for souls in whatever capacity understand how useful it is to have for allies in this defensive campaign men of the arts, the media and the crafts.  The position taken by fashion design houses, their brilliant designers and the clothing industry, is of crucial importance in this whole question.  Artistic sense, refinement and good taste meeting together can find suitable but dignified solution as to the dress for women to wear when they must use a motorcycle or engage in this or that exercise or work.  What matters is to preserve modesty together with the eternal sense of femininity, that femininity which more than anything else all children will continue to associate with the face of their mother.14 (https://www.olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml#14)
We do not deny that modern life sets problems and makes requirements unknown to our grandparents.  But we state that there are values more needing to be protected than fleeting experiences, and that for anybody of intelligence there are always good sense and good taste enough to find acceptable and dignified solutions to problems as they come up.13 (https://www.olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml#13)
Out of charity we are fighting against the flattening out of mankind, against the attack upon those differences on which rests the complementarity of man and woman.
When we see a woman in trousers, we should think not so much of her as of all mankind, of what it will be when women will have masculinized themselves for good.  Nobody stands to gain by helping to bring about a future age of vagueness, ambiguity, imperfection and, in a word, monstrosities.15 (https://www.olrl.org/virtues/pants.shtml#15)
This letter of Ours is not addressed to the public, but to those responsible for souls, for education, for Catholic associations.  Let them do their duty, and let them not be sentries caught asleep at their post while evil crept in.

Giuseppe Cardinal Siri
Archbishop of Genoa

Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: St Paul on March 18, 2019, 11:27:42 AM
There can be had very modest and beautiful attire for ladies for grand occasions. (I purchased my Knights Templar attire from this company.)

Something about the medieval times.......Christendom, knights, fair maidens, Aquinas.......

(https://armstreet.com/catalogue/full/german-kirtle-renaissance-style-medieval-dress-costume.jpg)
(https://armstreet.com/catalogue/full/dress-underdress-and-chemise-traditional-central-europe-costume.jpg)
(https://armstreet.com/catalogue/full/medieval-woolen-dress-green-sleeves-1.jpg)
I can't see ladies agreeing to wear such things in public now.  The authorities will think her crazy and put her in a nut house.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: St Paul on March 18, 2019, 11:38:08 AM
I do recall seeing that they sold that horrid type of thing in the past, I but I haven't seen it in their catalogue for awhile. Mind you, I don't go looking for it either, so maybe they still sell that type of stuff.

You're right. It's not good to buy from a store that promotes that type of sin. I should start making my own garments. Maybe it's time to dust off my sewing machine and make use of it, instead of being lazy and buying those garments.
Will you spin your own cloth?
grow your own food?
generate your own electricity and natural gas?
Dig for and process your own gasoline?
Cut the trees and build your own furniture?
You see where i am going...
Every one of these companies supports bad things.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Matthew on March 18, 2019, 11:42:43 AM
Will you spin your own cloth?
grow your own food?
generate your own electricity and natural gas?
Dig for and process your own gasoline?
Cut the trees and build your own furniture?
You see where i am going...
Every one of these companies supports bad things.


I've spoken about this too. Wherever you choose to buy your gas from, or your furniture, or your food, no doubt supports feminism, abortion, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, some false religion, and all manner of errors.

It's good to be self-sufficient, but almost impossible for most people to even become 10% self-sufficient. We're just too interdependent these days.

We can only "do our best".

However, how about this for some advice: when you DO encounter a Traditional Catholic tradesman or business, how about you promise yourself to jump at the chance to support them? If more people did this, there would be less broke and unemployed Traditional Catholics.

If only Trads looked out for each other in this way, just like the Jєωs, Muslims, Baptists, Mormons, etc. do for their own.  You know darn well if a Jєω had two choices for electrician (Jєω, gentile) he would go with A. Ditto for many other false religions. Why do Trads have to be so "fair" and "ecuмenical" with who they support? We should be looking out for Trads (Catholics) first.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Town Crier on April 07, 2019, 05:28:10 PM
A case of pride I guess

for years I believed Our Lady of Sorrows in Phoenix was the only church in the SSPX family that had the problems we had .
The betrayal of loyalty to both tradition and the SSPX itself, The misuse of funds and lack of financial accountability (in our case of course it was outright theft), The liberalization of both dress and deportment and the dismissal of anyone who questions these actions
how could I be so blind to think only our church stunk from deceit and betrayal.
After reading both this thread and the letter from Sister Mary-Elizabeth I realize the entire society stinks from the head down ..
just like an old dead fish  
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Ladislaus on April 07, 2019, 08:14:03 PM
Everyone should heed the wisdom of Pope Gregory XVII (aka Giuseppe Siri).

I fantasize about what things might have been like in the Church had Roncalli not stolen the papacy.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Markus on April 09, 2019, 02:40:44 PM
The topic of tradiional women wearing pants in the district office began to bore me some 1900 views ago. But, because it was Meg, I did happen to glance at her last post, viz.


Maybe Meg will start making her own under garments when she finds out that Vermont Country Store has been advertising and selling adult toys and other sex paraphernalia since at least 2009. Oh yes, this wholesome, homespun business enterprise has apparently succuмbed to the demands of the present age. That would be a conservative estimate.

This is such a "gocha"-style post. You're implying she would knowingly buy from a business that sells such things. That is mean.
If you really wanted to make a charitable correction you could have informed her of this with a private message.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Markus on April 09, 2019, 02:52:07 PM
Everyone should heed the wisdom of Pope Gregory XVII (aka Giuseppe Siri).

I fantasize about what things might have been like in the Church had Roncalli not stolen the papacy.
Is this ironic or do you actually think Siri was a true Pope?  :furtive:
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Town Crier on April 09, 2019, 03:14:10 PM
Is this ironic or do you actually think Siri was a true Pope?  :furtive:
What makes it ironic ? that sounds bit out of context
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Pilar on April 12, 2019, 04:08:36 AM
SSPX District HQ reacts to CathInfo CCCC thread! They memory holed a picture of their entire female staff in pants. SOMEONE FEELING GUILTY?

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/catalog-of-compromise-change-and-contradiction-in-the-sspx/msg645783/#msg645783

They actually created a new photo, which conveniently cuts off before the pants are shown. No matter, the former photo has been saved off and hundreds of people have already seen it. Why would they do this, unless they knew it was wrong? They've been CAUGHT, and now they have to backpedal to appear "still Trad" to their Trad following.

I see we have the attention of the SSPX!

CathInfo 1
SSPX 0

PS. Isn't that "new addition" at the bottom already featured, first on the left, in the original pic above? I think it's the same woman. Isn't it ridiculous to add another person months or years after the fact? But especially when the addition is just a solo shot of a staff member you already had pictured in your existing "group shot of office staff" picture.

Watch, they'll do something else with the photo now.

Hi, SSPX officials! Nice morning today, isn't it?

None of these people are Society faithful nor do they work in any of the buildings that belong to the Society. They are hired to take care of accounting only. The SSPX would be opening itself up for legal difficulties should they try to dictate to outsiders what they should or should not wear when they are not on any SSPX properties. You will keep trying to stir the pot.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: X on April 12, 2019, 08:40:18 AM
None of these people are Society faithful nor do they work in any of the buildings that belong to the Society. They are hired to take care of accounting only. The SSPX would be opening itself up for legal difficulties should they try to dictate to outsiders what they should or should not wear when they are not on any SSPX properties. You will keep trying to stir the pot.

Hello Pilar-

Thank you for this clarification.

At least for my own part, my motivation in including this episode within the CCCC thread is not to stir the pot, but (as with the entire thread) an attempt to make the SSPX clergy and faithful conscious of the compromises, contradictions, and changes in the SSPX which have taken place in pursuit of an accord with modernist Rome, primarily for the good of the SSPX, in the hopes of sparking a correction of these deviations.

Failing that, the secondary motivation is at least to place the facts of these changes before the faithful, in order to give them the necessary information to orient themselves.

For these reasons, I have no compunction regarding correcting or modifying anything included in the CCCC thread, and when the final product is complete, I will make note of your comment.

I will say that the ordinary reader would certainly have been justified in presuming that the women pictured within an article titled “Another Look Inside Operations of the Regina Coeli House - Assistant Priest’s and Staff” were indeed working on site at Regina Coeli house,” and I would not fault them for having made such a natural conclusion.

It would be helpful if you could pm me something from the District saying otherwise.

Also, it could be argued that the District’s willingness to publish such a picture, oblivious of the scandal which was bound to ensue in light of the absence of the necessary clarification, reflects something of a new spirit in itself, consistent with the general reorientation of the Society.

In any case, I appreciate and thank you for your intervention, since facts are what is desired.

Pax tecuм,

-X
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Matthew on April 12, 2019, 09:12:39 AM
X,

You are giving Pilar too much credit. You're being WAY too nice.

If you look at his past posts, you will see that he is an SSPX shill, who has blinded himself to the situation in the SSPX today. He's one of those typical Baby Boomers (in one post, he states that he's in his 60's) who helped build up the SSPX back in the day, and now he's too old/tired to start over. He's invested so much in the SSPX, he's not about to give it up, even if they were literally on the road to hell!

He gets emotional and upset on a regular basis; I had to moderate several of his recent posts, in which he unloaded on the forum at large. He is obviously emotionally attached to the SSPX, which he has invested much time and money in over the years (decades)? Humanly speaking, it's understandable. But he's still a shill for the SSPX.

Pilar cites NO sources or evidence for his assertion. His source is "groundless faith in the SSPX, because it just CAN'T be true! They just CAN'T be compromising!"

I posted that particular item in several Facebook groups, and I don't mean Resistance-friendly ones. Several pro-SSPX and SSPX-attending members actually recognized several of the individuals pictured and called them by name!

He's claiming this isn't even Regina Caeli House, even though that's precisely what the page on the SSPX site was about? The picture was taken from an article entitled, "Another Look Inside Operations of the Regina Coeli House - Assistant Priests & Staff". Is he insane? Is he actually claiming MOST of the people pictured were actually from some kind of outsourced, third-party accounting firm? Get real!

https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/another-look-inside-operations-regina-coeli-house-assistant-priests-staff-45732 (https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/another-look-inside-operations-regina-coeli-house-assistant-priests-staff-45732)

Who even does that? Who carries an article about their organization, and includes group pictures of third party agencies they outsource various work to?  That would be crazy. Such articles are about OUR COMPANY, about US, WHO WE ARE -- you'd never include non-employees in such an article.

Matthew

Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Matthew on April 12, 2019, 09:27:15 AM
Once again, it shows the bias of those who are DETERMINED to stick with the SSPX, come hell or high water.

Is it true that the SSPX would be hard-pressed to force non-parishioners to wear skirts and dresses only? It's actually quite easy: it's called a DRESS CODE which many businesses have. Businesses easily get away with telling employees how to dress at work! And the photo in question was *clearly* taken at work.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: X on April 12, 2019, 10:14:06 AM
Matthew-

It appears you may be correct:

P.6 of the Regina Coeli report in which the picture appeared mentions that these accounting women are stationed at a building nearby called the “Infant Jesus House.”

Therefore, they are definitely employees of the SSPX, and working on the premises of SSPX property.

This article provides some information about the Infant Jesus House:

https://sspx.org/en/locations/district-house (https://sspx.org/en/locations/district-house)

In that case, it would definitely be within the authority of the SSPX to insist upon a dress code

As to whether or not these women are SSPX parishioners or not, there are some comments in the Regina Coeli report which featured the picture which suggest such to be the case, but which are nevertheless inconclusive.

In any case, I hope my readiness to modify the thread if need be evinces the good spirit and disposition which motivated it.
Title: Re: SSPX memory holes pic of District Office women in pants
Post by: Matthew on February 28, 2021, 12:08:02 AM
Bump