Author Topic: SSPXS PINK BRANDING (Read 13163 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #30 on:** May 21, 2014, 06:40:05 PM »

Quote from: Ekim

Like I said, a woman who wares modest woman's slacks is not the same as a man in a bra and panties. Lets stay on track. Key words here are MODEST and WOMAN'S slacks.

So why can't men wear "modest" "men's" panties and bras?

I trust the absurdity of the question demonstrates the absurdity of your position?

Ekim · « **Reply #31 on:** May 21, 2014, 06:47:22 PM »

Like I said Traditional Catholics hate this, but Holy Mother Church and even Sainted Popes and saintly Archbishops, have never condemned woman for wearing pants. Nor do I suspect a line at the gates of heave one for woman who waer pants and those who waer skirts. Sorry. The point that is most important is modesty. And Yes, there are VERY modest lady's slacks.

Ekim · « **Reply #32 on:** May 21, 2014, 06:49:35 PM »

I know, St. Joan of Arc was different right?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #33 on:** May 21, 2014, 06:52:32 PM »

Quote from: Ekim

I know, St. Joan of Arc was different right?

Umm....

An example of this teaching is St. Thomas Aquinas’ doctrine:
“Outward apparel should be consistent with the state of the person according to general custom. Hence it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man’s clothes, or vice-versa; especially since this may be the cause of sensuous pleasure; and it is expressly forbidden in the Law (Deut 22) …. Nevertheless this may be done at times on account of some necessity, either in order to hide oneself from enemies, or through lack of other clothes, or for some other such reason” (Summa Theologiae II, II, question 169, article 2, reply to objection 3).
Similar orientation can be found in any good book on Morals before Vatican II.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #34 on:** May 21, 2014, 06:55:14 PM »

Quote from: Ekim

Like I said Traditional Catholics hate this, but Holy Mother Church and even Sainted Popes and saintly Archbishops, have never condemned woman for wearing pants. Nor do I suspect a line at the gates of heave one for woman who waer pants and those who waer skirts. Sorry. The point that is most important is modesty. And Yes, there are VERY modest lady's slacks.

Interesting attempt at distinction you are making:

I am citing Cardinals, Scripture, and saints to support my position, yet you persist in maintaining that there is no foundation for the ban on women wearing man's attire.

How do you do that?

Graham · « **Reply #35 on:** May 21, 2014, 06:56:17 PM »

Sean -and anyone else who went to the SSPX in the days of the Archbishop - did the same dress code exist back then, the same teaching about modesty and skirts? I was not around, but I'd have to assume that yes, it did. If so, how could it be possible that they had this dress code if, as Ekim claims, Archbishop Lefebvre was indifferent to it? If it was made part of the dress code and teachings on modesty under his watch it would be evident he approved of it, even if one has difficulty finding a published record of him saying women should not wear pants. I mean, how did this become entrenched in the SSPX if he didn't agree?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #36 on:** May 21, 2014, 06:57:05 PM »

Interestingly enough, CI is preventing me from giving Ekim's comment on St. Joan of Arc a "thumbs-down."

In over 3,000+ threads commented upon, this is the first time I have ever had that happen.

Can anyone explain?

Matthew · « **Reply #37 on:** May 21, 2014, 06:59:20 PM »

You'll have to try back later --

The system prevents any one person from being more than 18% of a person's down-thumbs.

So you have to wait for Ekim to reap some more down-thumbs before you'll be able to contribute any more.

Obviously if 5 or more people have this problem...they won't have this problem, if you know what I mean. The more truly unpopular a post/person is, the less this throttling comes into play.

But the 18% rule prevents a few "enemies" (who doesn't have a few hard-core enemies?) from destroying a person's rep score.

Ekim · « **Reply #38 on:** May 21, 2014, 06:59:34 PM »

Hummm...general custom throughout the world for over a hundred years now, is that woman waer woman's slacks. That's a fact, not fiction folks. Even Mrs Cleaver had slacks on once in awhile. Fashions change. They just do. Thank goodness or I'd have to run my military physical fitness test in a skirt and sandles.

Graham · « **Reply #39 on:** May 21, 2014, 07:00:07 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Interestingly enough, CI is preventing me from giving Ekim's comment on St. Joan of Arc a "thumbs-down."

In over 3,000+ threads commented upon, this is the first time I have ever had that happen.

Can anyone explain?

To prevent one person from systematically destroying another's reputation Matthew has put a limit on the proportion of a poster's down rates which can come from any one other poster. I am getting the same message, btw.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #40 on:** May 21, 2014, 07:02:54 PM »

Quote from: Ekim

Hummm...general custom throughout the world for over a hundred years now, is that woman waer woman's slacks. That's a fact, not fiction folks. Even Mrs Cleaver had slacks on once in awhile. Fashions change. They just do. Thank goodness or I'd have to run my military physical fitness test in a skirt and sandles.

Funny conception of "facts.:

1) A custom in violation of moral norms remains illicit, and in nowise can attain to the status of acceptable morality;

2) More like 50 years;

3) Why would you object to doing your military physical in skirts and sandals, so long as (by your logic) they were "modest" "men's" skirts?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #41 on:** May 21, 2014, 07:07:57 PM »

The current tally:

I have adduced arguments from Scripture (i.e., God), Cardinal Siri, and St. Thomas Aquinas explicitly prohibiting women from wearing pants.

A pretty good bunch of authorities, that!

Yet Ekim pertinaciously maintains his stubborn opinion in favor of perversion.

What do you do with a guy like that?

If anyone wants to take the baton and run with it, I am passing it off.

This is a bigger time waster than any other subject.

If you want to know how the SSPX softened, women ruling the homestead, and beating their husbands into submission on topics like this, is a good start in diagnosing the roots of the crisis within the SSPX.

Their priests have preached to no avail.

PS: Anyone want to bet that a disproportionately high percentage of those defending pants-wearing "women" also have TV's in their home?

The common denominator:

A fear of being traditional (aka "weird")

They want to be accepted by all, and this deep seated psychological need is what fuels the accordista.

Ekim · « **Reply #42 on:** May 21, 2014, 07:14:22 PM »

Sorry folks, I understand your point, I really do. However, the clothes do not make the woman, the woman makes the clothes. An repented prostitute in a ling flowing dress is still an unrepented prostitute. Just as a virtuous virgin in slacks is still a virtuous virgin.

Once again, the Church has NEVER officially condemned a woman from wearing slacks.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #43 on:** May 21, 2014, 07:18:16 PM »

Quote from: Ekim

Sorry folks, I understand your point, I really do. However, the clothes do not make the woman, the woman makes the clothes. An repented prostitute in a ling flowing dress is still an unrepented prostitute. Just as a virtuous virgin in slacks is still a virtuous virgin.

Once again, the Church has NEVER officially condemned a woman from wearing slacks.

Sorry...couldn't resist this one:

The Church has also never officially condemned smoking crack, murdering 74 yr old 25% Lebanese women on the 3rd day of the month, or mooning police officers.

Yet, the Church most certainly DOES condemn these practices by her moral principles.

Such too is the case with the Church's moral precepts regarding proper gender attire, femininity, and modesty (as proven by the passages provided from Cardinal Siri, God, and St. Thomas).

Ekim · « **Reply #44 on:** May 21, 2014, 07:28:20 PM »

Being Traditional is not weird. What is weird is that those who call themselves Traditional Catholics have somehow taken upon themselves this self appointed dress code that has NEVER been demanded by the Church and then somehow become the self appointed experts on the topic. Condemning those who disagree.

Truth is truth. Like it or not, the Church has NEVER told woman not to waer pants it just hasn't. There is a time and place for everything, in good Christian modesty.