Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted April 17, 2006 Author Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Apr 17 2006, 02:05 PM']YOU! [right][snapback]951017[/snapback][/right] [/quote] you are referring to me, becuase i agree with Cardinal Siri, and St. Thomas?
jgirl Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 17 2006, 12:57 PM']Men wore Tunics and togas. Women only wore Togas. im not here to judge your feminity. [right][snapback]951002[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Actually, you are by posting a topic such as this.
Guest The Price of Independence Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 I think women should burn their pants. And why not? I would think that dresses and skirts would be preferable anyways. Enough with the blurring of gender lines.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted April 17, 2006 Author Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='Apr 17 2006, 02:06 PM']I am a most grevious sinner. I deserve to rot in the pits of hell for the sins I have committed against the Lord and against his Holy Church. But Sam, you have no place to say anything at all. AT ALL. [b]IF YOU THINK YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THE HOLY FATHER, THE HOLDER OF THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, THEN POST. IF NOT, THEN SHUT UP.[/b] Take your own medicine. You ALWAYS act in a manner which appears to us that you think yourself to know better than the Holy Father, yet you accuse us of thinking to know better than a Cardinal? Pardon me whilst I laugh [b]at[/b] you Sam, I want to be patient with you. I like you. I think you are a cool guy. But your hypocracy makes my heart pain so much for you. [right][snapback]951018[/snapback][/right] [/quote] you are bieng quite ridiculous. I do not know better than the Holy Father. but when the Holy Father Teaches things that are quite contrary to the Faith Taught for the other 2,000 years of christian History, well that is when we have a problem.
Fidei Defensor Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 17 2006, 03:08 PM']you are bieng quite ridiculous. I do not know better than the Holy Father. but when the Holy Father Teaches things that are quite contrary to the Faith Taught for the other 2,000 years of christian History, well that is when we have a problem. [right][snapback]951024[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Who are you to decide that something is contrary to Tradition? Please, pray tell, what qualifies you more than the Holy Father to decide this?
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted April 17, 2006 Author Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='Apr 17 2006, 02:09 PM']Who are you to decide that something is contrary to Tradition? Please, pray tell, what qualifies you more than the Holy Father to decide this? [right][snapback]951026[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Not I. Bishops of the church. Archbishop Lefebvre.
Fidei Defensor Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 17 2006, 03:11 PM']Not I. Bishops of the church. Archbishop Lefebvre. [right][snapback]951027[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Then, although you cannot speak for His Excellency, what qualifies him more than the Holy Father? Sam, you seem to be missing the point. It is the office of the Pope to teach. He will not and cannot teach contrary to the Faith. It doesnt matter how you feel about it. You are forced to either contend that Jesus has this master plan to deceive most of the Church with "novelties" or that the Church has truly fallen away, and I am sure that you would not contend either of these things.
jasJis Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 The Cardinal is a putz. He makes assumptions about what wearing pants means to a woman and to those around her and her phsychology and society in general. Way too far reaching of a conclusion with little evidence. It's the Cardinal's opinion, nothing else. If I was Catholic, I for one would ignore it as a Catholic. As a non-Catholic, I laugh at the absurdity. He should have been doing something more fruitful like making sure the priests that just came out of the Seminary in the 60's were'nt pedophiles or homosexuals. Maybe it was the woman's pants that caused all that.
Birgitta Noel Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 17 2006, 02:06 PM']you are referring to me, becuase i agree with Cardinal Siri, and St. Thomas? [right][snapback]951019[/snapback][/right] [/quote] No, because you are acting like a child, a disobedient, obstinate child who cannot see beyond the glass, or cannot discern exactly what is in the mirror. If you could you'd be surprized. Sam, you are clearly an intelligent young man, however you do yourself a disservice by some of your topics and posts. There is a reason I am a Catholic feminist (and before you go accusing me of being anti-life, etc. you'd do well to find out what that means!); to combat ideas such as the ones you espouse so that women will be treated with equal dignity and respect, regardless of the cut of their trousers!
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted April 17, 2006 Author Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='Apr 17 2006, 02:13 PM']Then, although you cannot speak for His Excellency, what qualifies him more than the Holy Father? Sam, you seem to be missing the point. It is the office of the Pope to teach. He will not and cannot teach contrary to the Faith. It doesnt matter how you feel about it. You are forced to either contend that Jesus has this master plan to deceive most of the Church with "novelties" or that the Church has truly fallen away, and I am sure that you would not contend either of these things. [right][snapback]951030[/snapback][/right] [/quote] that funny. John XXII a pope held heretical views as pope. but never defined these views ex cathedra. [quote name='jasJis' date='Apr 17 2006, 02:13 PM']The Cardinal is a putz. He makes assumptions about what wearing pants means to a woman and to those around her and her phsychology and society in general. Way too far reaching of a conclusion with little evidence. It's the Cardinal's opinion, nothing else. If I was Catholic, I for one would ignore it as a Catholic. As a non-Catholic, I laugh at the absurdity. He should have been doing something more fruitful like making sure the priests that just came out of the Seminary in the 60's were'nt pedophiles or homosexuals. Maybe it was the woman's pants that caused all that. [right][snapback]951031[/snapback][/right] [/quote] don't be ridiculous. Don't be ridiculous.
Birgitta Noel Posted April 17, 2006 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]
Fidei Defensor Posted April 17, 2006 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.
jasJis Posted April 17, 2006 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.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted April 17, 2006 Author 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.
Aloysius Posted April 17, 2006 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.
goldenchild17 Posted April 17, 2006 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.
goldenchild17 Posted April 17, 2006 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.
Fidei Defensor Posted April 17, 2006 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]
Desert Walker Posted April 17, 2006 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.
Recommended Posts