Deeds Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 EENS, you are a cafeteria Catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birgitta Noel Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='Deeds' date='Apr 17 2006, 02:24 PM']EENS, you are a cafeteria Catholic. [right][snapback]951043[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 17 2006, 03:19 PM']that funny. John XXII a pope held heretical views as pope. but never defined these views ex cathedra. [right][snapback]951036[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yet, I have never seen this proven. I prefer to not judge his Soul, especially since he has already been declared a blessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 17 2006, 01:19 PM']that funny. John XXII a pope held heretical views as pope. but never defined these views ex cathedra. don't be ridiculous. Don't be ridiculous. [right][snapback]951036[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That's funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted April 17, 2006 Author Share Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='Deeds' date='Apr 17 2006, 02:24 PM']EENS, you are a cafeteria Catholic. [right][snapback]951043[/snapback][/right] [/quote] you wish you could prove that statment. [quote name='fidei defensor' date='Apr 17 2006, 02:25 PM']Yet, I have never seen this proven. I prefer to not judge his Soul, especially since he has already been declared a blessed. [right][snapback]951045[/snapback][/right] [/quote] are you referring to John XXIII? John XXII was not a heretic at his death, but i have never heard of him bieng declared blessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 You folks do realize that Sam being young or Sam being a trad or Sam being allegedly "schismatic" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not women should wear pants, right? Make the distinction between ad argumentum and ad hominem and stay focused on the subject. One needn't be schismatic to believe women should wear dresses and not pants. Notice MC JUST posted one of the first posts here in favor of the argument this cardinal makes. This cardinal saw his culture falling apart-- and the icon of the breakup of his culture was pants on males and females. There is a lot more to this than just pants. Not only are the women not wearing elegant and dignifying feminine dress, but the pants that they are wearing are mass produced and basically garbage. There is no need to say women should wear dresses all the time. But femininely cut pants are not culturally rich, not symbolic, not dignifying to the true beauty of the feminine. There needs to be a special place for dignifying dresses in today's society. I'm not going to throw a fit everytime a woman wears pants to be comfortable... but the end of the dignified icon of femininity and culture that dresses once were is not something we should be proud of as a society. The argument about "gender neutral" robes in the ancient world means very little as well-- robes are still worn in that culture and the iconic difference between male and female has been preserved (maybe a little too rigidly but who are we to judge) and the traditional culture preserved. Our culture has been shattered-- jeans off the factory line are not a cultural statement even if they are cut differently for the shape of women, they do not create an image of feminity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I would say I prefer women wore skirts or something other than pants. I think it much more modest. I think guys have work to do in the area of modesty as well what with the tank tops and shorts and whatnot. I don't think there is anything demeaning in saying a certain style is immodest on a certain gender. But that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenchild17 Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Apr 17 2006, 01:36 PM']You folks do realize that Sam being young or Sam being a trad or Sam being allegedly "schismatic" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not women should wear pants, right? Make the distinction between ad argumentum and ad hominem and stay focused on the subject. One needn't be schismatic to believe women should wear dresses and not pants. Notice MC JUST posted one of the first posts here in favor of the argument this cardinal makes. This cardinal saw his culture falling apart-- and the icon of the breakup of his culture was pants on males and females. There is a lot more to this than just pants. Not only are the women not wearing elegant and dignifying feminine dress, but the pants that they are wearing are mass produced and basically garbage. There is no need to say women should wear dresses all the time. But femininely cut pants are not culturally rich, not symbolic, not dignifying to the true beauty of the feminine. There needs to be a special place for dignifying dresses in today's society. I'm not going to throw a fit everytime a woman wears pants to be comfortable... but the end of the dignified icon of femininity and culture that dre Wesses once were is not something we should be proud of as a society. The argument about "gender neutral" robes in the ancient world means very little as well-- robes are still worn in that culture and the iconic difference between male and female has been preserved (maybe a little too rigidly but who are we to judge) and the traditional culture preserved. Our culture has been shattered-- jeans off the factory line are not a cultural statement even if they are cut differently for the shape of women, they do not create an image of feminity. [right][snapback]951053[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 17 2006, 03:33 PM'] you wish you could prove that statment. are you referring to John XXIII? John XXII was not a heretic at his death, but i have never heard of him bieng declared blessed. [right][snapback]951050[/snapback][/right] [/quote] He was Beatified 3 September 2000 by Pope John Paul II at Saint Peter's Square, Rome. [url="http://www.ewtn.com/piusix_johnxxiii/index.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/piusix_johnxxiii/index.htm[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Walker Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 I agree with the reverend, and wise, cardinal. I'm pleasently surprised that a prelate has FINALLY stated this position, which is thoroughly compatible with Church tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Apr 17 2006, 03:46 PM'] am wasting my time getting a PhD. [right][snapback]950985[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I hate to say it, but you are. Not cause you're a woman, mind you, but because everyone is getting a stupid doctorate nowadays... "So let's see. Women wearing pants is immodest? Yes, sometimes. But sometimes not. Depends on the pants. The clothing is neutral, and pants can be cut in a feminine way without being trashy. I'd prefer a woman wore long pants than a mini-skirt, but I'd prefer she wore a modest dress than pants. that's personal preference, now. I think that people are too quick to jump on the Trad-bashing wagon. Chill out folks. Anyway, I agree that when the Cardinal wrote his letter the advent of ladypants was troubling in that it signified a change in culture. The real concern was modesty and the distinctness of the female and male persons, not the garment. Pants can be trashy on men as well..." The preceding statement is what I would say if I were being serious. Now, I am going to reveal my true thoughts. "Get back in the kitchen, and make me a pie. Then you can wear whatever you want." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted April 17, 2006 Author Share Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='Apr 17 2006, 02:45 PM']He was Beatified 3 September 2000 by Pope John Paul II at Saint Peter's Square, Rome. [url="http://www.ewtn.com/piusix_johnxxiii/index.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/piusix_johnxxiii/index.htm[/url] [right][snapback]951059[/snapback][/right] [/quote] im talking about John [b]XXII[/b] not John [b]XXIII[/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 17 2006, 04:03 PM']im talking about John [b]XXII[/b] not John [b]XXIII[/b] [right][snapback]951073[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Goodness, those I's are hard to see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birgitta Noel Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Apr 17 2006, 02:57 PM']I hate to say it, but you are. Not cause you're a woman, mind you, but because everyone is getting a stupid doctorate nowadays... [right][snapback]951068[/snapback][/right] [/quote] LOL, for many that may be true, but in my case that's not the case. If I don't have a PhD (or an MD) I can't work in my field, and (heaven forbid) if anything were to happen to my husband and I had to support a family singlehandedly I couldn't do it without my PhD. No worries, I'm almost done with my coursework and by the end of the summer will have my comps done as well. Then it's just the dissertation which I hope to finish by late '07 early '08. So, thanks for your concern about my time, but it's all good. I'm also not waisting my time because my vocation is to work in the field in which I'm training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Apr 17 2006, 05:11 PM']LOL, for many that may be true, but in my case that's not the case. If I don't have a PhD (or an MD) I can't work in my field, and (heaven forbid) if anything were to happen to my husband and I had to support a family singlehandedly I couldn't do it without my PhD. No worries, I'm almost done with my coursework and by the end of the summer will have my comps done as well. Then it's just the dissertation which I hope to finish by late '07 early '08. So, thanks for your concern about my time, but it's all good. I'm also not waisting my time because my vocation is to work in the field in which I'm training. [right][snapback]951088[/snapback][/right] [/quote] good luck to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts