Evangelicals Evangelizing What Exactly!?!

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Katholikos' date='May 27 2004, 02:09 PM'] Cmom,

That's odd, I don't remember saying that Pre VII Catholics aren't really Catholics. Did you say that? I don't recall you mentioning Pre Vatican II Catholics either. All I know is, a Catholic is one who believes what the Catholic Church teaches. BTW, I'm a Pre-VII Catholic. And I believe what the Catholic Church teaches. You too, huh?

BTW, Lumberjack, if you're my brother, because we both share in the brotherhood of Jesus, then Mary is your mother. No denying it. If we are brothers, we have the same mother as Jesus. Get it? [/quote]
Do you, then, Katholikos, not accept the Novus Ordo Mass as valid? Do you reject VCII?

[Quietfire]

[quote]women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds as befits women who profess religion" 1 Tm 2:9.[/quote]

Are we supposed to take that literally or what? I mean, I understand the part about being dressed modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel.

Are you(not [i]you[/i], but ya know) telling me that I cant wear my pearls to church?
And although I have very long hair and would probably never wear it in a braid to church, I shouldnt?
I wear my hair in a braid to work, I have no choice, its required.

Is there a reason for those two specific things? pearls and braids.


the costly attire part....no prob.

I B PO.


Peace all.

Edited May 27, 2004 by Quietfire

[Ellenita]

[b]Quietfire[/b], you open a can of worms with your question which was firmly shut when the 'Headcovering' thread was closed.....

It's all about taking specific bible verses out of context to emphasise a personal interpretation isn't it? My question about 'women being silent in church' was never answered in that thread.....

[b]Icthus[/b],
Likos has answered your question in the post you quoted - I'll re quote it here in case you missed it!

[quote][b]All I know is, a Catholic is one who believes what the Catholic Church teaches. BTW, I'm a Pre-VII Catholic. And I believe what the Catholic Church teaches. [/b][/quote]

[Quietfire]

Ellenita,

It wasnt defiance.
But an honest question.
If the Church states that that verse is literal, (pearls and braids) then I wont argue it.
I was only asking if it was to be taken literal, or if it means something else.
And if it does mean something else, then what.

I wasnt aware that I was opening a can of worms.

I wasnt argueing it. (Only that I am required by my job to wear my hair in a braid. Off my face and contained.)


Can of worms(just had a thought -) Nothing to do with this topic. But thanks.


Peace.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 27 2004, 02:17 PM'] please, if you understand what I'm TRYING to ask, just clarify...thats what I need.

I'll get to the rest of the post later...I need clarification as to what "catholic" to believe and who not...

as I tried stating in my last post...and kinda what Cmom was alluding to in her last post.

God bless. [/quote]
Believe the Pope; you can't go wrong.

[Ellenita]

Quietfire, apologies, you misunderstood me! I wasn't suggesting you were being defiant or arguing the point.....honest! It was my sense of humour, given the way the other thread had developed.....it's late here in the UK, I'm tired and I must remember the British humour doesn't always translate!

:wub:

[Quietfire]

Ellenita,
whew.
I feel better. No foul babe!

But...
what does it mean? It must be in reference to something.
My douey rheims states...
"not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls or costly attire."

Was there something evil associated with plaited hair some-2000 years ago?
What about pearls?



Funny, (well not ha-ha funny but...)
I finally got pearls a few years ago.
Could never afford them before, but I gave a strand to my sis and mom also.
Yeah, I splurged but they are so worth it.
But I never wear them out. (that's the funny)
Except for funerals and such.
What a waste really.



Peace.

Oh, so youre in England.
So I have someplace to stay when I visit huh? he he.

Edited May 28, 2004 by Quietfire

[Katholikos]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='May 27 2004, 06:18 PM'] Do you, then, Katholikos, not accept the Novus Ordo Mass as valid? Do you reject VCII? [/quote]
I accept the Novus Ordo as valid. I do not reject VII.

I reject nothing that the Pope and Magisterium offer for my instruction, either now or in the past. I try to conform my heart and my will to the mind of the Church at all times. If I should ever find that I hold one opinion and the Church another, I would immediately conform my view to that held by the Church.

Being a "Pre VII Catholic" must be a phrase that has connotations of which I'm not aware. All I meant was that I was a Catholic before VII was convened.

God bless and Mary keep, Likos

[Quietfire]

Likos,
I think alot of folks feel that many Pre VII werent crazy about all the changes.
Many a Catholic left as a result of VaticanII.


Peace.

[Quietfire]

oh, and btw.
if there's no way to explain 1Timothy 2:9 then lets just leave it.

I'll except it as it is.
Dont need to be in muddy water.
(its too squishy !)



Peace.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='May 28 2004, 02:39 AM'] ...it's late here in the UK, I'm tired and I must remember the British humour doesn't always translate!

:wub: [/quote]
I'm wondering why I'm always awake late.. luckily you are here [img]http://cjwinnit.hopto.org/pictures/smile.gif[/img]

(and when are they going to fix the normal smilies??)

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='May 27 2004, 06:33 PM']
Are we supposed to take that literally or what?  I mean, I understand the part about being dressed modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel.

Are you(not [i]you[/i], but ya know) telling me that I cant wear my pearls to church?
And although I have very long hair and would probably never wear it in a braid to church,  I shouldnt?
I wear my hair in a braid to work, I have no choice,  its required. 

Is there a reason for those two specific things?  pearls and braids.


the costly attire part....no prob.

I B PO.


Peace all.[/quote]
Quietfire,

The sects that hold these views are Protestant. They're abberations that result from Sola Scriptura and private interpretation of Scripture. The Catholic Church has no laws about pant suits or braided hair or pearls.

Some of the things written in the Bible reflect cultural views and morays that existed at the time it was written, not Divine Revelation about what we should believe and how we should behave. That's why Jesus left us an infallible teacher --the Church.

"Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words." [i]Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation [/i]

Does God want to teach us that women should not wear pants or braid their hair? Is braiding your hair a sin? The Church says, No. The part about modesty in dress, yes, God wants to teach us that; the part about braids and pearls, no, not literally. Those admonitions applied to the culture of the time; wearing braids and pearls and gold was considered immodest in that age. Those admonitions do not relate to modesty of dress in the 21st century.

Protestants are very selective about what they will take literally and what they accept figuratively. How to they know which is which? They refuse to take the teaching on the Eucharist literally, but they have strict doctrines about wearing pants or pearls. Go figure.

God bless and Mary keep,

Likos

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='May 27 2004, 08:04 PM'] oh, and btw.
if there's no way to explain 1Timothy 2:9 then lets just leave it.

I'll except it as it is.
Dont need to be in muddy water.
(its too squishy !)



Peace. [/quote]
I answered your Q about braids and such. My muddy water comment was about AR's analysis of Catholic doctrine.

I'll be all right when the swelling goes down.

Jay

[BeenaBobba]

Of course, "Evangelicals" try to evangelize non-Christians; [b]some[/b] of them view Catholics as being non-Christian. Usually, though, evangelicals are much more likely to be tolerant of Catholicism, and to view us as Christians, than Fundamentalist Christians would be and do. Evangelicals usually disagree with many tenets of Catholicism. Fundamentalist Christians usually believe that the Pope is the Whore of Babylon and all that jazz. Basically, Loraine Boettner's (so poorly researched and full of falsities that it's almost laughable), [i]Roman Catholicism[/i], is a Fundamentalist handbook. Fundamentalist non-Catholic Christians generally (but not always) have a poor and limited knowledge of biblical exegesis and Church history. Evangelicals, on the other hand, are better at this. There are Evangelicals who know the Greek of the Bible to some extent and have a basic knowledge of Church history. For example, these people won't call you a liar if you tell them that the New Testament was compiled in the 4th century by the Catholic Church. From personal experience, I've found that Reformed Protestants (e.g., Lutherans) have the best knowledge of the Bible and Church history out of all Protestant groups; but, of course, their knowledge is not as good as that of learned Catholics. These Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Reformed groups even overlap at times. You can meet an Evangelical Lutheran, and you can meet a Fundamentalist Lutheran.

Of course, there are uneducated and ignorant Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Reformed Protestants, and Catholics as well. I just want to point that out so I'm not accused of unfair generalizations.

God bless,

Jennifer

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 26 2004, 02:41 PM'] though yes, they choose methods that I would rather not, it would not stop them from entering heaven if they never played cards, never drank, the women never wore pants, or drank.

legalistic?  maybe... but I can see where they're coming from.

[/quote]
Hi the lumberjack,

See, I don't see why they're against drinking because Jesus drank. Obviously, Jesus wasn't a sinner. I also don't see why they're against modest dancing. Dancing is a mode of self-expression; it is a form of art, just as painting is a form of art. There can be immodest paintings, but that doesn't mean that painting is immoral. I'd say the same is true of modest dancing. It's excesses in drinking and gambling that are sinful.

God bless,

Jennifer

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='May 27 2004, 02:07 AM'] Thank you, finally someone sees it the Old way of the Church. If Protestants, Fundamentalists are Christians, that opens up the gate to Ana-Baptists, Arians, Arius', Schismatics etc. [/quote]
Hi Paul,

That's not the "Old Way" of the Church. The Catholic Church never taught that non-Catholics who believed in the Trinity were non-Christian. Perhaps some Catholics thought that, just as some Catholics were anti-Semitic, but that does not mean that the Catholic Church was ever anti-Semitic.

The Church recognizes the Trinitarian water baptism of non-Catholic Christians as being valid, and St. Augustine denounced Donatism -- i.e., the [b]heresy[/b] of rebaptizing converts to the Catholic Church. If these baptized people weren't Christian, they'd need to be baptized. But for Donatism to be a heresy, which it is, those formerly baptized must be Christians; if they weren't, they'd need to be baptized. And St. Augustine wrote against doing so again.

Take care,

Jennifer

[BeenaBobba]

For the record, I think that 1 Tim. 2:9 denounces immodesty. Obviously, it wouldn't be right if a woman was more concerned about her appearance during Mass than she'd be about the Mass itself. I also think it denounces excess in dress. St. Paul was rightly concerned about the souls of Christian men who could easily be lead astray by immodestly dressed women. But to say that this passage bans all jewelry is a bit much -- and is false to boot.

God bless,

Jennifer

[Mickey's_Girl]

BeenaBobba, you are BRILLIANT! I agree with all of your posts here.

I've always thought the no-pants interpretation of that verse was absurd. After all, to modern eyes, the clothes that men in Bible times wore look like DRESSES to me! I'd have a hard time differentiating between male and female attire back then.

This whole topic (no pants, no pearls), by the way, is a good argument for the importance of Tradition. It helps us interpret the Bible properly, instead of all literally or picking-and-choosing.

MG

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='May 27 2004, 06:50 PM'] Likos,
I think alot of folks feel that many Pre VII werent crazy about all the changes.
Many a Catholic left as a result of VaticanII.


Peace. [/quote]
this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. the CATHOLICS that don't accept VII...like Mel Gibson, being an ultraconservative catholic that don't accept VII...

thats what I'm talking about...

[quote]Hi the lumberjack,

See, I don't see why they're against drinking because Jesus drank. Obviously, Jesus wasn't a sinner. I also don't see why they're against modest dancing. Dancing is a mode of self-expression; it is a form of art, just as painting is a form of art. There can be immodest paintings, but that doesn't mean that painting is immoral. I'd say the same is true of modest dancing. It's excesses in drinking and gambling that are sinful.

God bless,

Jennifer[/quote]

Jennifer, I feel what you're saying, really...but I also kinda understand why they wouldn't let it happen...to let no chance of sin to enter. I know that it may be a poor way of doing it...in essence, its like a parent sheltering their children...and yes, I'm fully aware of the possible outcome of that too...

but if they think its the best way to keep themselves from the world and its traps....so be it...but I probly won't fellowship with them, cuz they'd say I'm of the devil...oh well.

God bless.

Carlos

[littleflower+JMJ]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 28 2004, 01:05 AM'] this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. the CATHOLICS that don't accept VII...like Mel Gibson, being an ultraconservative catholic that don't accept VII...

thats what I'm talking about...
[/quote]
mel gibson is catholic. he has said so himself. he just perfers mass the way it was before it was changed in VII. (in latin, etc)

their different orders (so to speak), but both are valid and both are following the Church.

now if you refuse to except what the Catholic Church has called as valid in VII, that is where you run into trouble.

i hope i explained that right.