Choose style:

Author Topic: Hasidic Enclave gets it on modesty  (Read 13312 times)

MotherKatharine

  • Member
  • Posts: 47
Re: Hasidic Enclave gets it on modesty
« Reply #60 on: September 07, 2010, 11:27:pm »
Ok.. so the clothes that Adam and Even made for themselves may have been an immodest apron, afterall what does fallen man know about appropriate standards of modesty without an authority to show them?  Perhaps the animal skins the Lord God clothed them with provided better coverage.

I don't have time to look up authoritative statements that might make your claims plausible.  I will rely on the traditional standards of Christian modesty which are plain to see.


Let's suppose the clothes they made themselves were immodest, as unlikely as that is, and lets suppose the garments God sewed up for them were a little more covering and comfortable, that still does not equal a timeless standard since objective truths, as stated above, are truths both before and after the fall.  The fact remains they were in the buff before the fall and were as modest as Mary due to their complete innocence.

So we are left with some form of nudity..LOL to flowing cloth as modesty for people.

Post fall we are told it was a loin cloth, they would have made more to cover more if they had felt the need, having not felt the need they did not.  God seeing they had no sewing machine and that he would not give them Kenneth Cole, decided to give them some leather duds....I've seen chicks in leather.....I'm glad God chose leather.

Well that says it all. 

But seriously, judging from the points you've made, Adam and Eve can't play into the whole modesty debate because you can't compare the standard of modesty before and after the fall, and you don't really know what their clothes looked like, and that doesn't matter because modesty is moot between married people, but we don't know exactly what happened after they had kids. 

I know you spend a lot of time debating this and I just roll my eyes when I see it, but I thought I would ask you here for some authoritative sources to back yourself up because you seem to think that those defending traditionally held standards of modesty do so without solid reason.

Anyway, if you seriously don't see anything wrong with the clothes the "chick" was wearing in the link from the OP, show your priest and ask him what he thinks.  Because if that isn't indecent, then there's no such thing as decent.  I am shocked everytime I see a girl wearing shorts like that.

Credo

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,513
Re: Hasidic Enclave gets it on modesty
« Reply #61 on: September 08, 2010, 09:59:am »
Let's try this out: instead of getting in a tizzy about hairsplitting definitions and expressions of "modesty," how about an effort to become comfortable with our bodies while respecting - to a limit - those folk who aren't quite there? This would seem to clear things up. Dollars to doughnuts most of the folk who are into "modesty," and most of the folk who are not both have a poor body image.
I promise not to put anything here which might help us question our mind-forged manacles, inspire us, or help us in any way at all.

N.B.: I will not be posting on this site again until the Christmas octave. Have a good Advent.

INPEFESS

  • Please remember me in your rosary intentions.
  • Member
  • Posts: 10,862
Re: Hasidic Enclave gets it on modesty
« Reply #62 on: September 08, 2010, 11:07:am »
how about an effort to become comfortable with our bodies

How is that supposed to be interpreted?

The last time I heard someone exhorting another to become comfortable with their body, they told the person to get to know their body through masturbation in order to fall in love with themselves. I am sure this isn't what you mean. But this gets back to my original question: what exactly do you mean?
I have left the forum because I do not believe I can continue to post here without giving scandal to Catholicism, especially traditional Catholicism, which this forum purports to represent. My presence here only lends credence to the immoral activity and ideas that this forum has come to (at the very least) tolerate, activity and ideas that have always and everywhere been condemned by the Church in principle, activity and ideas that, by their toleration on this forum, give the impression of being compatible with traditional Catholicism. I cannot participate in the forum until such a time as the scandal is removed.

Anastasia

  • i > u
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,215
  • Gender: Female
Re: Hasidic Enclave gets it on modesty
« Reply #63 on: September 08, 2010, 12:08:pm »
how about an effort to become comfortable with our bodies

How is that supposed to be interpreted?

The last time I heard someone exhorting another to become comfortable with their body, they told the person to get to know their body through masturbation in order to fall in love with themselves. I am sure this isn't what you mean. But this gets back to my original question: what exactly do you mean?
I don't think it was meant in that sense. Interpreted in a Catholic way, it might only mean that we have a respect for bodies as God's creation, without a Manichean-style contempt for them.

Ah, the eternal modesty threads. Well, just to add something to the Adam and Eve question, the word in the Septuagint is perizoma (apron) which is derived from peri (around) and zoma (upperthighs, hips).

And now I'm going to complain for a bit. It annoys me to no end when people bring up the argument" You're not opposed to pants on women, short sleeves, knee length skirts, so therefore you don't believe Our Lady of Fatima. " Our Lady didn't specifiy WHAT those fashions would be that offended Our Lord. For all anyone knows, she could have been referencing shirts with blashphemous slogans. But does anyone else see the logical gap between the premise 1. There are fashions which offend Our Lord, and the conclusion These specific  things are the fashions Our Lady was talking about?
 OK, there are standards of modesty, but Mrs So and So's not the infallible authority on what those standards are. Neither am I, so I lay down no guidelines for another person's conscience. All right, rant over.
People talk vaguely about the innocence of a little child, but they take mighty good care not to let it out of their sight for twenty minutes.-Saki.
"Meanwhile, Fate was quietly slipping lead into the boxing glove. "
— P.G. Wodehouse
The Modernist's Prayer  by R.A. Knox
O God, forasmuch as without Thee
We are not enabled to doubt Thee,
Help us all by Thy Grace
To convince the whole race
It knows nothing whatever about Thee.

SCG

  • Gold Fish
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12,608
  • Downton Addict
Re: Hasidic Enclave gets it on modesty
« Reply #64 on: September 08, 2010, 12:35:pm »
how about an effort to become comfortable with our bodies

How is that supposed to be interpreted?

The last time I heard someone exhorting another to become comfortable with their body, they told the person to get to know their body through masturbation in order to fall in love with themselves. I am sure this isn't what you mean. But this gets back to my original question: what exactly do you mean?
I don't think it was meant in that sense. Interpreted in a Catholic way, it might only mean that we have a respect for bodies as God's creation, without a Manichean-style contempt for them.

Ah, the eternal modesty threads. Well, just to add something to the Adam and Eve question, the word in the Septuagint is perizoma (apron) which is derived from peri (around) and zoma (upperthighs, hips).

And now I'm going to complain for a bit. It annoys me to no end when people bring up the argument" You're not opposed to pants on women, short sleeves, knee length skirts, so therefore you don't believe Our Lady of Fatima. " Our Lady didn't specifiy WHAT those fashions would be that offended Our Lord. For all anyone knows, she could have been referencing shirts with blashphemous slogans. But does anyone else see the logical gap between the premise 1. There are fashions which offend Our Lord, and the conclusion These specific  things are the fashions Our Lady was talking about?
 OK, there are standards of modesty, but Mrs So and So's not the infallible authority on what those standards are. Neither am I, so I lay down no guidelines for another person's conscience. All right, rant over.

I agree. It’s funny you bring up Fatima and modesty because reportedly Our Lady appeared looking differently than reported in 1917. In 1992, details relating to the apparitions, which had previously been unreleased, were finally revealed. A priest who had interviewed the children at the time of the apparitions reported their description of the Lady wearing a short skirt, earrings and a necklace with a medallion. This did not accord with the norms of modesty expected of the Blessed Virgin and was not included in the official reports at the time.

In the Documentação Crítica de Fátima, Doc. 2, pp. 11–12 Cónego Formigão, who also participated in the inquiries, said:
"Jacinta declares that Our Lady's dress goes down only to her knees. Our Lady can only appear dressed, obviously, in the most decent and modest way. The dress would have to come down to her feet. Any other way constitutes the most serious obstacle to the supernaturalism of the apparition and makes us think that it is a mystification prepared by the Spirit of Darkness. But how can we explain the belief of so many thousands of people, their living faith and burning piety, the modesty and the composure they show in all their acts, the silence and behavior of the crowd, the numerous and astonishing conversions caused by the events, the appearance of extraordinary signs in the sky and on the earth, verified by thousands of witnesses? How can we explain, I repeat, all these facts and conciliate them with divine providence and the laws that rule the supernatural world, above all after the establishment of Christianity, if the Demon is the cause of such events? (Documentação, Doc. 7, pp. 66–67, cited in Armada and Fernandes, p. 190)

The earrings worn by the Virgin were assimilated into a "halo" of light around her head in the descriptions issued in the aftermath of the apparitions with no mention of the actual jewelery observed by the children.

The short dress worn by the Virgin during the apparitions did not form part of any official description released at the time, instead, and in sharp contrast, the Virgin was reported as saying: "Certain fashions will be introduced which will offend my Son (Jesus) very much.

In the 1940s, Pius XII was asked his opinion of what women teaching in Italian schools should wear to preserve their modesty. He replied "Below the knee, halfway down the arm, and two finger widths below the collarbone." which the Virgin is described as having breached during the Fatima apparitions.


Scipio_a

  • No, you're not a trad...you're a BITTER zealot.
  • Member
  • Posts: 9,500
  • Gender: Male
Re: Hasidic Enclave gets it on modesty
« Reply #65 on: September 08, 2010, 01:04:pm »
Ok.. so the clothes that Adam and Even made for themselves may have been an immodest apron, afterall what does fallen man know about appropriate standards of modesty without an authority to show them?  Perhaps the animal skins the Lord God clothed them with provided better coverage.

I don't have time to look up authoritative statements that might make your claims plausible.  I will rely on the traditional standards of Christian modesty which are plain to see.


Let's suppose the clothes they made themselves were immodest, as unlikely as that is, and lets suppose the garments God sewed up for them were a little more covering and comfortable, that still does not equal a timeless standard since objective truths, as stated above, are truths both before and after the fall.  The fact remains they were in the buff before the fall and were as modest as Mary due to their complete innocence.

So we are left with some form of nudity..LOL to flowing cloth as modesty for people.

Post fall we are told it was a loin cloth, they would have made more to cover more if they had felt the need, having not felt the need they did not.  God seeing they had no sewing machine and that he would not give them Kenneth Cole, decided to give them some leather duds....I've seen chicks in leather.....I'm glad God chose leather.

Well that says it all. 

But seriously, judging from the points you've made, Adam and Eve can't play into the whole modesty debate because you can't compare the standard of modesty before and after the fall, and you don't really know what their clothes looked like, and that doesn't matter because modesty is moot between married people, but we don't know exactly what happened after they had kids. 

I know you spend a lot of time debating this and I just roll my eyes when I see it, but I thought I would ask you here for some authoritative sources to back yourself up because you seem to think that those defending traditionally held standards of modesty do so without solid reason.

Anyway, if you seriously don't see anything wrong with the clothes the "chick" was wearing in the link from the OP, show your priest and ask him what he thinks.  Because if that isn't indecent, then there's no such thing as decent.  I am shocked everytime I see a girl wearing shorts like that.


And I gave you THE source.  As a trad you should be aware that priests currently are not a group of people that you can typically run to for advice about anything.

Additionally when you ask for sources from me and I give you THE source you don't get it, but let the sewing circle pull some quotes...if they really are, from some place you can't go to verify, and can't get in context....and you're satified...why?   Because you have already made your mind up that oyu know what modesty is, what constitutes it, and what it LOOKS like.   YOu have no argument against me except the sewing circle of modesty threads and so words from Fatima.....words which are not clear at all about what they speak....never is length of anything discussed...and as I complained, the word fashiln in English can mean all sorts of things besides cloths....,and if it is about clothes....it certainly does not have to be about what it is that you have made your mind up that it is about....
GEN 3:7 is pretty clear....


And yes...once again,  if a truth is an objective truth, it is always has been and always will be a truth....such that nudity is not against modesty when we are in a certain state....so the range of clothes that denotes modest wear...is wide.

Finally my arguments on modesty are not for folks that have made up their minds.  As with the madesty brigade that usually roams the halls, there will never be convincing be reason and demonstration....it will take an epiphany.


No, my arguments about modesty are for the folks that look at trads and think..."oh sh**, hwy would I want to go were those weirdos go?"  I primarily serve as a reminder to all the fence sitters that you do not have to be a freak show to go to a TLM.



I find it fascinating that you were willing to take MY "3 Mass challenge" as you put it, but are unwilling to give this one a think.  At any rate, glad you did the TLM thing per your first post on the forum.  As for the advice you ask about getting everyone to go, I have posted that many times as well...it also is a 3 times thing but involves finess and no arguing about what is better or preferences or asnything.


You see the beauty of the TLM speaks for itself, and your family will see it if you let them.....

It comes down to this, don't engage about the TLM, just at some point make a deal with them to go 3 times...just as you did, the deal can be anything...such as a really good breakfast or whatever....

There are plenty of folks here who have done it and their families have been won over.......not by reason, not by goading, not by example, but by the simple beauty of the thing itself.,


Sorry I missed your post back in April or I would have posted it then.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 01:28:pm by Scipio_a »
"Scipio Bull Biscuits, a flawlessly indoctrinated feminist male." - paraphrased from voxpop in one of his shining moments!!

"You've become a full adept to your kabbalistic philosemetism ...why not get it over with and fully convert to Judaism. At lest that would be respectable." - Popscile



"[Scipio's] high on mouth and low on brains"  - a brainiac

"...all I can guess is that maybe you're gay and haven't figured it out yet."   ???....LOL

"a malicious twerp" - A candylander

"I ain't no freakin' monument to justice!" -Moonstruck

"Check out the big brain on Brad" - Jules

INPEFESS

  • Please remember me in your rosary intentions.
  • Member
  • Posts: 10,862
Re: Hasidic Enclave gets it on modesty
« Reply #66 on: September 08, 2010, 04:23:pm »
how about an effort to become comfortable with our bodies

How is that supposed to be interpreted?

The last time I heard someone exhorting another to become comfortable with their body, they told the person to get to know their body through masturbation in order to fall in love with themselves. I am sure this isn't what you mean. But this gets back to my original question: what exactly do you mean?
I don't think it was meant in that sense. Interpreted in a Catholic way, it might only mean that we have a respect for bodies as God's creation, without a Manichean-style contempt for them.

I understand. The point of my statement was simply to show the ambiguity of the unqualified suggestion. Even in the Catholic sense I am not sure what it means.

To state a fact, Credo has (seemingly) advocated nudism several times on this forum. With this knowledge, it is difficult to be certain what his statement could possibly have meant.

Could getting comfortable with your body mean walking around nude on nude beaches, or does it mean scourging one's self and causing one's body pain behind closed doors?

I don't mean to accuse him of the worst interpretation, but in light of what it could mean, I do think it needs to be clarified.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 04:26:pm by INPEFESS »
I have left the forum because I do not believe I can continue to post here without giving scandal to Catholicism, especially traditional Catholicism, which this forum purports to represent. My presence here only lends credence to the immoral activity and ideas that this forum has come to (at the very least) tolerate, activity and ideas that have always and everywhere been condemned by the Church in principle, activity and ideas that, by their toleration on this forum, give the impression of being compatible with traditional Catholicism. I cannot participate in the forum until such a time as the scandal is removed.

MotherKatharine

  • Member
  • Posts: 47
Re: Hasidic Enclave gets it on modesty
« Reply #67 on: September 08, 2010, 05:32:pm »
Ok.. so the clothes that Adam and Even made for themselves may have been an immodest apron, afterall what does fallen man know about appropriate standards of modesty without an authority to show them?  Perhaps the animal skins the Lord God clothed them with provided better coverage.

I don't have time to look up authoritative statements that might make your claims plausible.  I will rely on the traditional standards of Christian modesty which are plain to see.


Let's suppose the clothes they made themselves were immodest, as unlikely as that is, and lets suppose the garments God sewed up for them were a little more covering and comfortable, that still does not equal a timeless standard since objective truths, as stated above, are truths both before and after the fall.  The fact remains they were in the buff before the fall and were as modest as Mary due to their complete innocence.

So we are left with some form of nudity..LOL to flowing cloth as modesty for people.

Post fall we are told it was a loin cloth, they would have made more to cover more if they had felt the need, having not felt the need they did not.  God seeing they had no sewing machine and that he would not give them Kenneth Cole, decided to give them some leather duds....I've seen chicks in leather.....I'm glad God chose leather.

Well that says it all. 

But seriously, judging from the points you've made, Adam and Eve can't play into the whole modesty debate because you can't compare the standard of modesty before and after the fall, and you don't really know what their clothes looked like, and that doesn't matter because modesty is moot between married people, but we don't know exactly what happened after they had kids. 

I know you spend a lot of time debating this and I just roll my eyes when I see it, but I thought I would ask you here for some authoritative sources to back yourself up because you seem to think that those defending traditionally held standards of modesty do so without solid reason.

Anyway, if you seriously don't see anything wrong with the clothes the "chick" was wearing in the link from the OP, show your priest and ask him what he thinks.  Because if that isn't indecent, then there's no such thing as decent.  I am shocked everytime I see a girl wearing shorts like that.


And I gave you THE source.  As a trad you should be aware that priests currently are not a group of people that you can typically run to for advice about anything.

Additionally when you ask for sources from me and I give you THE source you don't get it, but let the sewing circle pull some quotes...if they really are, from some place you can't go to verify, and can't get in context....and you're satified...why?   Because you have already made your mind up that oyu know what modesty is, what constitutes it, and what it LOOKS like.   YOu have no argument against me except the sewing circle of modesty threads and so words from Fatima.....words which are not clear at all about what they speak....never is length of anything discussed...and as I complained, the word fashiln in English can mean all sorts of things besides cloths....,and if it is about clothes....it certainly does not have to be about what it is that you have made your mind up that it is about....
GEN 3:7 is pretty clear....


And yes...once again,  if a truth is an objective truth, it is always has been and always will be a truth....such that nudity is not against modesty when we are in a certain state....so the range of clothes that denotes modest wear...is wide.

Finally my arguments on modesty are not for folks that have made up their minds.  As with the madesty brigade that usually roams the halls, there will never be convincing be reason and demonstration....it will take an epiphany.


No, my arguments about modesty are for the folks that look at trads and think..."oh sh**, hwy would I want to go were those weirdos go?"  I primarily serve as a reminder to all the fence sitters that you do not have to be a freak show to go to a TLM.



I find it fascinating that you were willing to take MY "3 Mass challenge" as you put it, but are unwilling to give this one a think.  At any rate, glad you did the TLM thing per your first post on the forum.  As for the advice you ask about getting everyone to go, I have posted that many times as well...it also is a 3 times thing but involves finess and no arguing about what is better or preferences or asnything.


You see the beauty of the TLM speaks for itself, and your family will see it if you let them.....

It comes down to this, don't engage about the TLM, just at some point make a deal with them to go 3 times...just as you did, the deal can be anything...such as a really good breakfast or whatever....

There are plenty of folks here who have done it and their families have been won over.......not by reason, not by goading, not by example, but by the simple beauty of the thing itself.,


Sorry I missed your post back in April or I would have posted it then.

You provided THE source?  What?  A questionable personal intrepretation of scripture?  I said to ask your priest because I think you know what he'd say, you are SSPX right?  From my experience attending an SSPX chapel I'd say they are most likely to chase people away by their enforced "freakiness" so that's probably why you've gone to the other extreme.  I prefer it the SSPX way because it keeps people in line rather than having to deal with women in scanty clothing with their heads uncovered week after week just cause they can get by with it, but I guess that's why I see the SSPX as being for more "advanced" Catholics, or pharisees, I don't know.

I never go "candyland" (and I maintain that thinking pasties and tbacks are modest actually places you in a fantasy world) on people who don't get the modesty issue, I know my place so I try to demonstrate by example and let my priest admonish the clueless and stubborn.  Anyone seeking to truly serve God will eventually recieve the fruit of modesty.  I follow the elbows to calves rule and try to do so without looking like a jumper "freak".  But if some women take it to the extreme and go the Catholic amish route, more power to them.  The world's fashion standards are disgusting and depraved, the more one is distanced from them the greater respect they have from me.

I take issue with your apparent desire to throw the baby out with the bathwater to get those ignorant or disdainful of modesty into a latin Mass.  You are probably the reason I see girls wearing horribly immodest dresses at Mass on a frequent basis.  I don't entirely agree with those who demand compliance with the typical trad standards of modesty for newcomers, but knowing the standard, one could at least suggest that knees and upper arms be covered.  Anyone sincerely approaching the TLM will have no problem with that.

I have never come across anything authoritative that support your views.  I simply wanted authoritative statements, even just one that will support your interpretation of THE source, to back up your logic.  And only because you went off on this thread about the "sewing circle" of modesty defenders not having any authority to theirs, despite having millennia worth of Christian fashion history that is too obvious to deny.  Here is an article from a moderate source that presents a good basis for modesty that reflects my own conclusions.   http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=647

justlurking

  • Member
  • Posts: 189
Re: Hasidic Enclave gets it on modesty
« Reply #68 on: September 08, 2010, 11:26:pm »
Is this immodest?



« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 11:46:pm by justlurking »

justlurking

  • Member
  • Posts: 189
Re: Hasidic Enclave gets it on modesty
« Reply #69 on: September 08, 2010, 11:44:pm »
On the issue of what is and what is not cultural in the Bible


I remember reading that when Paul said that men should not wear long hair, what he meant is that men should not wear female clothes or female hairstiles, that they should not deliberatedly try to look feminine with their style choices.
So, in reality, It is a command against cross-dressing, not a command against long hair.

Vikings did not sin at all by sporting long hair because in their society it was not seen as feminine, Paul wouldn't have considered a long haired viking with two axes, a beard and the helmet to be cross dressing at all. The same you could say about Scots and their skirts.

For me modest clothes in women, are clothes that don't sex up women, cothes that are not deliberatedly sexy, but I agree on the modesty standards being largely cultural.