Men's Dress Worn By Women
Yeah so pure that's why a certain bishop in Boston silenced a priest for preaching No Salvation Outside the Church(and no it wasn't BOD so don't even start. We've proven that BOD wasn't the issue at the time at all) because his rich Protestant and liberal Catholic friends were offended.
Reply
didishroom Wrote:Yeah so pure that's why a certain bishop in Boston silenced a priest for preaching No Salvation Outside the Church(and no it wasn't BOD so don't even start. We've proven that BOD wasn't the issue at the time at all) because his rich Protestant and liberal Catholic friends were offended.


Your example proves my point. The 50's Church was keenly aware of the Feeneyite heresy and sough to combat it by disciplining Fr. Feeney.
Reply
Okay, I'm kind of just coming in here really late so if this has all been discussed already, sorry.

A woman wearing a dress that comes above the ankles is not a grave evil. Sometimes it is the only thing that's practical. Sometimes we wear pants. If it's not too tight and doesn't have phrases or words emblazed across the butt, I don't see it as immodest.

There is, however, a line that should be drawn when it comes to Church. I hate it when girls come in in old looking pants and some random t-shirt. Come on ladies, dress up! Wear a dress or a skirt!

Outside of church, I don't see shorter skirts as being wrong. I don't mean miniskirts here... I mean going to your knee as the shortest it gets. I myself have several sundresses/skirts that go up to my knees.

If I wear a dress that comes to just below my knees and the top is modest, I don't think I'm doing anything wrong. Maybe... just maybe... a guy should also do a part. Maybe guys should look away once in awhile if we have dressed modestly and he still wants to look us over. 

Bravo to you guys out there who do!
Reply
StevusMagnus Wrote:
didishroom Wrote:There were alot of factors, but if you think Catholicism in America was pure or something that we should return to, then you're dreaming.


Catholicism was pure doctrinally from above in the 50's. Dissenters were underground and sanctioned. Today doctrinal confusion reigns and heretics are not silenced and instead teach in Catholic Universities.

It still is. The True Church is always pure in doctrine! There have been always heretical teachers at times. Don't pretend this is new.

Sometimes I think the greater ease of communication in our modern day is a bad thing, as it leads to greater awareness of what is going on in many areas.
Reply
LaRoza Wrote:
StevusMagnus Wrote:
didishroom Wrote:There were alot of factors, but if you think Catholicism in America was pure or something that we should return to, then you're dreaming.


Catholicism was pure doctrinally from above in the 50's. Dissenters were underground and sanctioned. Today doctrinal confusion reigns and heretics are not silenced and instead teach in Catholic Universities.

It still is. The True Church is always pure in doctrine! There have been always heretical teachers at times. Don't pretend this is new.

Sometimes I think the greater ease of communication in our modern day is a bad thing, as it leads to greater awareness of what is going on in many areas.

I meant that the Church spoke clearly and with one voice and dissenters were disciplined.

Now confusion reigns, is not corrected, dissenters spread error freely, etc.

What good does a theoretically "pure" invisible doctrine do you, disguised beneath mountains of ecu-speak jibber jabber.
Reply
StevusMagnus Wrote:I meant that the Church spoke clearly and with one voice and dissenters were disciplined.

Now confusion reigns, is not corrected, dissenters spread error freely, etc.

What good does a theoretically "pure" invisible doctrine do you, disguised beneath mountains of ecu-speak jibber jabber.

Like I said, this is not new. The Church still speaks with one voice. The people in the Church, even in the higher ranks, did not always speak clearly with one voice like you seem to imagine.
Reply
LaRoza Wrote:Like I said, this is not new. The Church still speaks with one voice. The people in the Church, even in the higher ranks, did not always speak clearly with one voice like you seem to imagine.

You are trying to absolutize the argument and then argue against the absolutized strawman. The official Church hierarchy under Pius XII indeed spoke with one voice and dissenters were disciplined. Whether you can find one or two counter examples to show this is not an "absolute" statement is irrelevant. The point is that "this" (confusion, ambiguity, letting dissenters spread errors, etc.) is indeed "new" as regards developments from 1950 till today.

If you are going to try to argue that doctrinal clarity, leadership, discipline, and purity of teaching are just the same now as in 1950, please stop now before you lose all credibility.

Reply
didishroom,

You have now sucessfully hijacked this thread which was started in order to let you talk about the subject you hijacked another thread with.

Your hijacking truly know no bounds. You should work for Al Queda!

Try starting a new thread for once!
Reply
StevusMagnus Wrote:
LaRoza Wrote:Like I said, this is not new. The Church still speaks with one voice. The people in the Church, even in the higher ranks, did not always speak clearly with one voice like you seem to imagine.

You are trying to absolutize the argument and then argue against the absolutized strawman. The official Church hierarchy under Pius XII indeed spoke with one voice and dissenters were disciplined. Whether you can find one or two counter examples to show this is not an "absolute" statement is irrelevant. The point is that "this" (confusion, ambiguity, letting dissenters spread errors, etc.) is indeed "new" as regards developments from 1950 till today.

If you are going to try to argue that doctrinal clarity, leadership, discipline, and purity of teaching are just the same now as in 1950, please stop now before you lose all credibility.

I'm going to side with LaRoza on this one.  Errors have spread before.  We've had clergy in power, we've had bad Popes spreading misinformation and scandal.  I think the difference is simply in scale.  Satan uses technology to spread error at a phenomenal rate.  In the past, a bad Pope may not have spread his errors to every priest so easily.  But then again, in the past you might have pockets of error which flourished in the distance, geographically speaking.  There's just something about the way mass media spreads infection.  But I don't think the Church is particularly worse than it was.  Our culture definitely is.  However, there is nothing new under the sun.  There's no telling how bad things got before the flood, and today's world may pale in comparison to the evil that was rampant at that time.
Reply
Nobody claimed that errors never spread before in the history of the Church.
The only times relevant to this discussion are the 1950's and today. During that time we did not have a bad Pope spreading misinformation, error, or scandal. The issue is not one of media technology, but of 1.) the doctrine coming from the Pope Bishops and priests and 2.) The disciplining of dissident theologians. In those two areas nobody can seriously argue the Church is better off now than under Pius XII.

To say the Church is not particularly worse than it was, after going through the worst crisis of its 2,000 year history, is frankly incredible. I suppose taking a look at every leading indicator after VCII tanking won't change your mind. New Springtime indeed! It seems you both have inhaled it and your views are colored by it. Enjoy your fantasy world, where 2009 is a rennaissance for the Church, and is in a vastly better state than under Pius XII. I'll stick to reality.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)