Church/saint Teaching And Modesty

[jim111]

If I have to give doctrine then so do you, and nothing you have presented is doctrine. 

 

Every thing I have quoted is Catholic Doctrine.

 

How about taking a good look at the Catechism?

If you read the quotes I sent you with the Catechism, they perfectly compliment each other.

 

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.87

Edited May 12, 2013 by jim111

[jim111]

I also find your use of caps, large type, and bold faces with excessive underlining to be unnecessary. FYI, doing such things is generally treated as though you are shouting, and is very bad Internet etiquette.

 

I apologize, I only intended to emphasize.

[EmilyAnn]

Every thing I have quoted is Catholic Doctrine.

Nope. You have not quoted one doctrinal source. 

[jim111]

Nope. You have not quoted one doctrinal source. 

They are not Domgas but they are doctrines. I think you are confusing these two.

[EmilyAnn]

They are not Domgas but they are doctrines. I think you are confusing these two.

 

No, I am not. You have not quoted doctrinal or dogmatic statements. 

And I'm not going to respond to this topic anymore. I know a lost cause when I see one. 

Edited May 12, 2013 by EmilyAnn

[jim111]

No, I am not. You have not quoted doctrinal or dogmatic statements. 

And I'm not going to respond to this topic anymore. I know a lost cause when I see one. 

 

Then lets change topics and determine, whats a doctrine?

Edited May 13, 2013 by jim111

[MarysLittleFlower]

While your underlining is very interesting Fatima is not part of the Church's teaching.

 

Fatima is accepted by the Church... it has much more authority than our own opinions. I read that it's wise and prudent to accept true revelations and take them seriously.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I think the issue is that people are defining modesty very differently. MLF highlighted the statement, 'Modesty protects the intimate centre of the person', and I would absolutely agree with that - but I don't take that sentence to be referring to sleeve and skirt lengths. For me it's about an attitude of the heart. When I read that sentence, I always think of Jesus' teaching that we should not pray to be seen on street corners, but retreat to our rooms and shut the door. This is a beautiful metaphor for the 'intimate centre', and how to protect it and draw strength from it without showing off. Modesty colours all areas of life, and to reduce it just to clothing (and, let's be honest, women's clothing - people who support the fraudulent 'Mary-like standards' may declare that they support modesty for men, but they spend hardly any time talking about it) does it a disservice. It's also inimical to the idea of modesty, which is about the interior. The hyper-focus on clothing makes it all about externals, and can sometimes verge on the immodest because of all the attention people give it - public sighs on how hard it is to find appropriate clothes, etc. I am reminded of Jesus' statement on longer tassels and broader phylacteries, also from that gospel, only here it's about longer skirts and lacier mantillas.

 

The irony is that my usual clothing consists of long skirts (lengths ranging from knee to ankle). I do wear trousers sometimes, and T-shirts (gosh, my salacious elbows...), but nothing that would raise eyebrows. I am not sitting in a miniskirt or a bikini as I write this. But my clothing is not the central thing when it comes to modest living. It's a consequence of other, more important things. As a younger Catholic (aged about twenty, twenty-one) I just couldn't see that. I went through a phase of being obsessed with the 'modesty' externals, and I did look seriously at those 'Mary-like standards' (although thankfully even then I could smell the fish). Anyone who thought I was doing it wrong had to be prayed for, very sweetly and very charitably, because they just didn't understand. I think we all have it at some time or another. You're lucky if you escaped it entirely. :P

 

Beatitude, I see what you are saying, but the way I understand, for me the skirt length etc is significant not just because it's listed on the website, but because it makes sense that a skirt beyond a certain point is no longer modest. It doesn't make sense to think that anything is modest... so then the question is: how long is modest enough. To me, if it covers my knees well enough when I'm sitting, that's modest, so the skirt length I choose is mid calf to floor length, not shorter. I don't think it's reducing it to clothing to think about clothing at all.... we can think about the internal attitude *and* the clothing too :) the reason I don't talk too much about modesty for men, is because I'm trying to figure out how to be modest myself, and I'm a woman so I think mostly about modesty for women.

 

In the end, the way I see it is that people who are much holier than me did talk about specifics in modest clothing. Like skirt length. I'd rather trust their opinion than the world or what the fashions are. Some might disagree with them and say that these are not infallible statements, but even if not infallible dogmas - they were still said by people who lived holy lives, so they must have put thought and prayer into it.

[the171]

Could this be moved to the debate table?

[EmilyAnn]

Fatima is accepted by the Church... it has much more authority than our own opinions. I read that it's wise and prudent to accept true revelations and take them seriously.

Breaking my thing about not replying, but we are not bound to believe in Marian apparitions. The Church may deem an apparition "worthy of belief" but they are still private revelations and as I have said, we are not bound to believe in them. 

[dominicansoul]

I love Our Lady of Fatima.  Her feast day is today!

[MarysLittleFlower]

Breaking my thing about not replying, but we are not bound to believe in Marian apparitions. The Church may deem an apparition "worthy of belief" but they are still private revelations and as I have said, we are not bound to believe in them. 

 

The way I understand it, - the Church only binds us to believe to the essentials. Often they show a truth about God, like the Holy Trinity, - or about Mother Mary, the truth about what happens after death, etc. However - the way I've come to see it is that just because we aren't bound to believe in something else, doesn't mean that we should just ignore it... for example if it comes to my own opinion vs a true private revelation, - the true private revelation is still WAY more authoritative than my own opinion based on the culture, etc. If Mary says that there would be immodest fashions, - if I disagree, it's my word against Mary's. I think Mary knows the truth more than me and has much more authority :) and true private revelations don't clash with the Bible and other truths, but they might be different than our opinions or the world's truths.

 

If we only stick with the dogmas but ignore everything else.... that doesn't seem to be so great because God gives us private revelations to remind us of things to give us advice on how to live out our faith in our age. It's better to listen to this than to other sources like human opinion. If we ignore everything we don't strictly "have" to believe, we would not pray the Rosary, not go to Adoration, no one would do the Sacred Heart devotion though there are such great promises attached to it, bad things would happen to the world cause we would ignore Mary's requests on how to help bring peace, etc, people would ignore miracles happening and even experiences of God's presence in their own lives - but all these things can help us to follow public revelation better.. In the end I think it's more simple to just accept everything that is true.

 

St Louis de Montfort talked about this:

 

"Everyone knows that there are three different kinds of faith by which we believe different kinds of stories:

• To stories of Holy Scripture we own DIVINE FAITH;
• To stories concerning other than religious subjects, which do not militate against common sense and which are written by trustworthy authors, we pay the tribute of HUMAN FAITH; whereas
• To stories about holy subjects which are told by good authors and are not in the slightest degree contrary to reason, faith, or morals (even though they may sometimes deal with happenings which are above the ordinary run of events) we pay the tribute of PIOUS FAITH.

I agree that we must be neither too credulous nor too critical and that we should remember that "virtue takes the middle course" - keeping a happy medium in all things in order to find just where truth and virtue lie. But on the other hand I know equally well that charity easily leads us to believe all that is not contrary to faith or morals: "Charity ....believeth all things;" *1* in the same way pride induces us to doubt even well authenticated stories on the plea that they are not to be found in the Bible."

 

(Secret of the Rosary, St Louis de Montfort)

 

Fatima is not contrary to faith and morals, it's made clear in the apparitions that it's very important for our times, - all these and more are reasons to take it seriously, I think, and it's just simpler to do that, instead of being doubtful :)

Edited May 13, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

If someone is unsure about Fatima, or something else, they could pray about it and ask God to help them see the truth on it... God is giving us the choice, but these revelations can help us in our lives and God can give us understanding on them. After all if Mary came to give a message, it must have been important... she wouldn't come and give a message just so that we can forget about it. That would be sad, even though the Church doesn't bind us to accept private revelation. Dogmas are found in public revelation that have been given to us - and private revelation corresponds with public revelation and shows us ways to live it out or apply it, or gives certain helpful points etc.. the Church binds us to public revelation because if we ignore that, we would be ignoring a dogma that is necessary to be Catholic. However, if we ignore private revelation, even though we'll still have the dogmas, we might not receive that advice we need for our times or benefit from a special grace given to the world. Revelations also give us ways to help convert other souls, like often they give us prayers, and just through reading them, people might be converted.

 

It's like if we could see Jesus now and He would be saying something to us, wouldn't we listen? :) we wouldn't turn away and say "I don't care about this, it's not a dogma of public revelation". of course we wouldn't do that. So it's unwise to do that with others' true revelations either.  We are not bound to them, but it's wise to follow them, because God is offering us  more help for our lives. :) if Mary spoke to us, we would listen, so it's good to listen when she spoke to Lucia, Jacinta, and Francisco, too.

Edited May 13, 2013 by MarysLittleFlower

[EmilyAnn]

The way I understand it, - the Church only binds us to believe to the essentials. Often they show a truth about God, like the Holy Trinity, - or about Mother Mary, the truth about what happens after death, etc. However - the way I've come to see it is that just because we aren't bound to believe in something else, doesn't mean that we should just ignore it... for example if it comes to my own opinion vs a true private revelation, - the true private revelation is still WAY more authoritative than my own opinion based on the culture, etc. If Mary says that there would be immodest fashions, - if I disagree, it's my word against Mary's. I think Mary knows the truth more than me and has much more authority :) and true private revelations don't clash with the Bible and other truths, but they might be different than our opinions or the world's truths.

 

If we only stick with the dogmas but ignore everything else.... that doesn't seem to be so great because God gives us private revelations to remind us of things to give us advice on how to live out our faith in our age. It's better to listen to this than to other sources like human opinion. If we ignore everything we don't strictly "have" to believe, we would not pray the Rosary, not go to Adoration, no one would do the Sacred Heart devotion though there are such great promises attached to it, bad things would happen to the world cause we would ignore Mary's requests on how to help bring peace, etc, people would ignore miracles happening and even experiences of God's presence in their own lives - but all these things can help us to follow public revelation better.. In the end I think it's more simple to just accept everything that is true.

 

St Louis de Montfort talked about this:

 

"Everyone knows that there are three different kinds of faith by which we believe different kinds of stories:

• To stories of Holy Scripture we own DIVINE FAITH;
• To stories concerning other than religious subjects, which do not militate against common sense and which are written by trustworthy authors, we pay the tribute of HUMAN FAITH; whereas
• To stories about holy subjects which are told by good authors and are not in the slightest degree contrary to reason, faith, or morals (even though they may sometimes deal with happenings which are above the ordinary run of events) we pay the tribute of PIOUS FAITH.

I agree that we must be neither too credulous nor too critical and that we should remember that "virtue takes the middle course" - keeping a happy medium in all things in order to find just where truth and virtue lie. But on the other hand I know equally well that charity easily leads us to believe all that is not contrary to faith or morals: "Charity ....believeth all things;" *1* in the same way pride induces us to doubt even well authenticated stories on the plea that they are not to be found in the Bible."

 

(Secret of the Rosary, St Louis de Montfort)

 

Fatima is not contrary to faith and morals, it's made clear in the apparitions that it's very important for our times, - all these and more are reasons to take it seriously, I think, and it's just simpler to do that, instead of being doubtful :)

I am not saying we should ignore them, I am saying we are not bound to them. There is a difference.

 

And I was saying quote dogma/doctrine because another person was trying to hold me to that but not doing it themselves. 

[Papist]

Breaking my thing about not replying, but we are not bound to believe in Marian apparitions. The Church may deem an apparition "worthy of belief" but they are still private revelations and as I have said, we are not bound to believe in them. 

Are you saying you do not believe in the Fatima apparitions?