Traditional Catholics and secular culture

[Jayne]

The same God who tells us to "judge a tree by its fruits" and gives The Commandments to men cannot then turn around and become some wishy-washy liberal, with a mushy mind like you, who judges everyone on some secret "female intuition" basis as though the commandments and fruits no longer matter.

Wait! What?  I thought I was on the rigourist side.  Does somebody have a programme?  I need to look this up.

[nmoerbeek]

-Would you recommend Our Lady to be used as an example and ask her to be a model for the artist in a nude? No If not her how about your mother? No  Would you show your friends afterwards?

End of story really unless you advocate hypocrisy. If something is objectively good shame never comes into play if what is to be done is made for the public forum. Anything made for the public should be decent for all in public.

-St. Augustine thought that the Saints in Heaven walked around in the Naked, so I guess it wouldn't matter.  However, I did go with Our Lord and Our Lady when I went to the various Churchs and Shrines in Europe to prayer at Various Altars and in front of certain relics.  So, yes. In the physical manifestation of her on earth you would have her look at her son naked? You do realize that tradition says she covered Him, so you go with afterwards to undo what she did?

-I suppose it would depend on the painting Because you can't point to one teaching from saint, or father you have to go back to ambiguity

-I think every Doctor or Saint worth his salt always yielded to the judgement of the Church Certainly not in every instance both in practice and belief. Many cardinals, bishops and priests thought Rome's nudes were disgusting. In fact when they came back it was to cover the pudenda. If they just agreed you might have an argument, but history again is in my favor. And when the popes didn't do so does that also mean they also agreed with the Church's judgement or does the judgement of the Church mean one does and does not do something at the same time? Are you also saying the saints always agreed with the Pope's personal decisions? That's a novel belief. I mean AL is now a teaching of the authentic Magisterium and ecumenism is something all Catholics "must" do

I have a few questions of my own

Would you not enter a Church in Rome because of nudity in Sacred Art?  Yes and I've left afterwards many times (I've stayed there for 2 weeks, I know the place)
Would you not allow a Priest in your house who was in charge of such a Church? 100%, but I would talk to him first about why
If you were a priest would you instruct your faithful not to visit certain Church's in Rome because of the Nude Artwork? 100%
Would you hold as a public sinner a person who had posed nude or partially nude for the sake of completing a piece of sacred art? 100%
Would you view someone who held a different opinion to have a hardened heart or having a reprobate sense? Confused because of poor leadership, but certainly down the wrong path and happy to tell them the truth of the saints and fathers which I could present to them. I'd love to see your documentation too.
Would you cease friendship with someone who kept in their house a piece of Sacred Artwork that had nudity in it?  Such as the Last Judgement? I already have.

(this is me and not Noah)
The point of the OP was this and I'll represent it clearly: when is the history of the faith of any importance if we can't present it as our own? You've used the magic of particulars, many of which I can do too but I refuse because it's an obfuscation of the point. When is a truth no longer a truth because time eradicates it? When is a common belief no more than an sheet of paper or an electronic image because people stopped caring or believing? Also when people use deliberate obfuscations based on emotional particulars to make a false narrative?

Without realizing it we make a mockery of our faith by doing this. The church has become nothing more than who's the pope and everything else is worthless. The "io sono tradizione" is now Catholicism. We see it rotting and dying and if our only response is the past shows this or that inconstancy therefore it's kinda worthless makes a mockery of the whole.

Before responding could you answer one more query is the nudity you despise full nudity only or is it just the showing of a substantial portion of the flesh?  If you could perhaps provide an image of what in your view would be acceptable it would be helpful to me. 

[Greg]

The same God who tells us to "judge a tree by its fruits" and gives The Commandments to men cannot then turn around and become some wishy-washy liberal, with a mushy mind like you, who judges everyone on some secret "female intuition" basis as though the commandments and fruits no longer matter.

Wait! What?  I thought I was on the rigourist side.  Does somebody have a programme?  I need to look this up.

You are on the side of nonsense.  Like liberals the world over.

[Jayne]

Sometimes Scripture gives moral principles illustrated by the practices of the culture in which it is written.  One approach to Scripture (this tends to be the Catholic one) is adopt the underlying principle, while not necessarily imitating the practice of the past. Another approach is adopt practices at the time Scripture was written even though the cultural significance may have changed (which is common among Protestant sects). For example, an injunction to be modest might be illustrated with a prohibition against wearing pearls in a culture in which pearls were worn primarily by prostitutes.  Those taking the first approach to Scripture would follow it by striving after modesty, but would not necessarily have a problem with wearing pearls.  Those following the second approach would forbid pearls.

Were pearls primarily worn by first-century prostitutes, though?  Maybe the high-class hookers of the Roman Empire wore pearls, but pearls have always been seen as pretty costly (and "cast not your pearls before swine" seems to indicate that pearls were considered precious at the time of the New Testament's composition).  I would be surprised if pearls were typically associated with your average trollop.  The examples that St. Paul uses in the bible aren't really things you'd associate with prostitutes necessarily but with flash and dazzle and showoffiness in general.  Essentially he is talking about "finery."

I was speaking hypothetically.  While I do vaguely recall hearing that passage was about practices associated with prostitutes, I would need to do some research to discover if this were actually the case.  The point I am making is that one approach to Scripture is to see the prohibition of pearls not as directed at pearls in themselves but at what pearls represent. 

Let's say that you are right that when the passage was written, it represented "showoffiness in general".  Would it then apply at a ball in Regency England, where a string of pearls was considered a simple and modest ornament suitable to a young unmarried woman. I am saying that some of what we are assessing on a lax/rigourous scale actually comes differences in exegetical principles.

As a point of fact, both the Early Church Fathers and the Mennonites did not take St. Paul on the specifics of the passage we're talking about (1 Timothy 2:9).  He doesn't mention make-up at all there, but the essence of the passage is that one should reject finery and glitz in favor of the plain and the simple.  St. Clement and St. Cyprian and the others were actually following the spirit of the injunction, if not the letter.  What has happened since is that the spirit of this exhortation has been abandoned, and replaced with a Pharisaical parsing of the letter: "St. Paul didn't mention make-up, so I can wear make-up."  "Pearls can't be verboten, I love my pearls; he was probably talking about prostitutes."  I mean, for crying out loud, prostitutes have always worn jewelry of some kind.  It's a profession where it pays to be noticed, and glittery shiny things have drawn the attention of human primates since the dawn of the species.  Saying St. Paul must've been referring to prostitutes is the most shameless blanket cop-out ever devised.  You can do better, Jayne.

This is not so different from what I was trying to get across. Understanding the spirit of an injunction often requires having information about the culture in which it was written.  One then needs to decide what the equivalent is in one's own culture.  Does the prohibition against pearls mean only pearls, all jewelry, or any ornamentation at all, such as colour in one's clothing. Does the prohibition against braided hair mean only braided hair, any elaborate hair style, or mean that women should keep their heads covered in public so nobody can see their hair?  Figuring out what Scripture means in one's own time should not be equated with not following it.  And, since the Fathers did not need to go through this process, at least not to the extent that we do, it is not surprising we come to different conclusions than they.  It is not necessarily a sign we follow Scripture less than they did or are not following them.

The bottom line, though, is that as soon as you make it about "customs" you instantly lose the spirit, which is timeless, and you're doomed to Pharisaism and relativism.

We are talking about how to put that timeless spirit into practice.  That means we must consider customs.  You seem to think that the Scriptural exhortation to modesty should be taken as including make-up.  Another person might not.  Disagreeing about what a passage means does not make one lax or not.  Laxness would be saying that there was not really much of an obligation to follow Scripture.

For what it is worth, I do not normally braid my hair, wear jewelry, or wear make up.  None of these things, however, are based on how I understand Scripture and the Fathers.

[Jayne]

The same God who tells us to "judge a tree by its fruits" and gives The Commandments to men cannot then turn around and become some wishy-washy liberal, with a mushy mind like you, who judges everyone on some secret "female intuition" basis as though the commandments and fruits no longer matter.

Wait! What?  I thought I was on the rigourist side.  Does somebody have a programme?  I need to look this up.

You are on the side of nonsense.  Like liberals the world over.

It has been years since it would have been reasonable to refer to me as a liberal  It sounds like you need a programme too.

[Greg]

Personally, I find the idea of owning two houses repugnant and would never do it.

Given the shortage of housing, zoning laws, and cost of homes (in most western countries) it seems to me a very selfish act to own more than 1 house.

[Jayne]

Personally, I find the idea of owning two houses repugnant and would never do it.

Given the shortage of housing, zoning laws, and cost of homes (in most western countries) it seems to me a very selfish act to own more than 1 house.

One of our homes is part of the eco-village we co-founded.  We rent it out to people who want to live in the community but cannot afford to buy a unit.  We try to break even, but most years we end up taking a loss.

We actually would to prefer to sell our home there and share of the land, but have not been able to find a buyer.   The community has become progressively more pagan over the years so we are no longer comfortable living there.

Not that this has anything to do with the discussion topic.  You really like to make personal attacks when you are losing an argument, don't you?

[Greg]

What personal attack was I making?

[Chestertonian]

ecovillage?  Is the house partially underground like my Kansas dream home

are there geodesic dome dwellers and yurts and a barter economy?

[Greg]

Why on earth would you want to live underground Ches?

In your wheelchair the ideal place would be Teletubbieland or somewhere with no steps.

[Mono no aware]

I was speaking hypothetically.  While I do vaguely recall hearing that passage was about practices associated with prostitutes, I would need to do some research to discover if this were actually the case.  The point I am making is that one approach to Scripture is to see the prohibition of pearls not as directed at pearls in themselves but at what pearls represent.

Let's say that you are right that when the passage was written, it represented "showoffiness in general".  Would it then apply at a ball in Regency England, where a string of pearls was considered a simple and modest ornament suitable to a young unmarried woman. I am saying that some of what we are assessing on a lax/rigourous scale actually comes differences in exegetical principles.

By the time you get to Regency England, the plot has been hopelessly lost.  I should think it was obviously lost by the time you get to the ostentatiousness of the 18th century, with its powdered wigs and frilly garments and gilded everything—the age of Barry Lyndon.  The case was compellingly made by Savonarola that the plot was already lost by the Renaissance, with its languorous nudes and nods to lush paganism.  I'm going to have to beg your pardon here, Jayne, but you seem to be making the Scipio fallacy: that what is modest is relative to the time. 

As for England, I am pretty certain that there were black-clad Noncomformist sects who took the passage about finery and adornments seriously, and who did not acquiesce to the mainstream sentiment that "oh, lighten up, a string of pearls is a simple and modest ornament for a young lady."  The Anglicans, then, would have to answer for why sacred scripture had disdain for women wearing pearls.  If their answer (which appears to be yours, also) is that St. Paul was using an example common to his time, and that what he really meant was "extravagance," then that only raises the painful question of why the Holy Spirit didn't just inspire him to use the word "extravagance" in the first place, and not create all this confusion over whether it was first-century customs being condemned, or all wearing of pearls, or what.  You really have two options here: either pearls are discouraged, or the passage is a clever test as to who can suss out the correct "exegetical principles" (a test the Church Fathers, apparently, failed).

Understanding the spirit of an injunction often requires having information about the culture in which it was written.  One then needs to decide what the equivalent is in one's own culture.  Does the prohibition against pearls mean only pearls, all jewelry, or any ornamentation at all, such as colour in one's clothing. Does the prohibition against braided hair mean only braided hair, any elaborate hair style, or mean that women should keep their heads covered in public so nobody can see their hair?  Figuring out what Scripture means in one's own time should not be equated with not following it.  And, since the Fathers did not need to go through this process, at least not to the extent that we do, it is not surprising we come to different conclusions than they.  It is not necessarily a sign we follow Scripture less than they did or are not following them.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.  Human nature hasn't changed that much over the past two thousand years: women still want to style their hair, adorn themselves with jewelry, and wear make-up.  That is a universal common to nearly every human culture on earth.  Everything the Early Church Fathers wrote on these subjects is just as relevant today as it was back then.  They weren't tilting against make-up and jewelry because they didn't like the looks of the make-up and jewelry of their time; they were tilting against these things because they considered them vain, worldly, ephemeral, and pointless.  It's no difference whatsoever to consider them in the same manner today; it's just more difficult for a modern Catholic because you're not just going against the secular world, but you're going against a Church that has been permitting this stuff for many centuries.  It's like the geocentrists: they have to say that the Church got it right the first time, and then they have to concede that the Church has been making a mistake of attrition for three hundred years.  It's like I said in my first response: there's no going back from this.  Once the Church permitted make-up, it was all over, and now it's an authentically Catholic attitude to say, "do we really want a Church where women don't wear make-up?  Does anyone want to see that?"  As if the Alexandrian Christian women of St. Clement's day were somehow hideous in their simplicity.  Hence my inability to see Early Christianity as anything other than a dead religion.

[Greg]

What do rigorists ignore themselves?

Aside from there being zero one handed masturbaters or blind former pornography addicts in the Trad world what other former Catholic Traditions do the rigorists ignore?

"Let your women keep silence in churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law".  Pretty sure I hear lots of women making responses and even leading the Rosary in Church.  They are certainly not backward in coming forward on Catholic forums either.

As early as the fourth century it was decreed by a synod that women should neither send nor receive letters in their own name (Synod of Elvira, Canon 81 ).

A wife has no power of her own, but is to submit to her husband's dominion in everything.
It is fitting that a woman be subject to her husband's dominion and have no independent authority [cf. Col. 3:18]. She is not to teach him, testify against him, bind him, or judge him [cf. 1 Cor. 14:34-35].
(Decretum gratiani, Case 33, q V, C17)

Do any female rigorists obey that?  The rigorist men all seem to be looking for a wife like this but they never seem to find one if CathInfo is any guide.  They seem to be forever complaining that Trad women are all feminists even the rigorist ones.

Thomas Aquinas taught that women were defective men, imperfect in both body and soul. They were conceived either because of defective sperm or because a damp wind was blowing at the time of conception. Canon law decreed that women could not witness a will. Neither could they testify in disputes over wills, nor in criminal proceedings.  Generally women suffered the same sort of legal disabilities as children and imbeciles.  Have any trad Catholic rigorists taken Thomas Aquinas seriously here, or are you just picking and choosing your own Jansenist preferences?  Cafeteria style rigorism.

But the natural reason is that she is more carnal than a man, as is clear from her many carnal abominations. And it should be noted that there was a defect in the formation of the first woman, since she was formed from a bent rib, that is, rib of the breast, which is bent as it were in a contrary direction to a man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives.


Women were not free to choose their own marriage partners in the Catholic past.

Has any rigorist women in Tradom had a spouse picked for her by her parents?  Why not?  Catholics used to do this.

By what standard do you pick the rules and teachings of some Church Councils and Saints and ignore others?

[Mono no aware]

Aside from there being zero one handed masturbaters or blind former pornography addicts in the Trad world what other former Catholic Traditions do the rigorists ignore?

I don't know why you keep repeating this non sequitur, since the passages talking about cutting off your hand or plucking out your eye were never taken literally.  Only if they had been would you have a point.  Historians have wondered whether it's true or a libel that Origen ever actually castrated himself in order to become "a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven," but even if he had, he would not be representative of how the Early Church Fathers took that passage (and it would be strange if he did, since Origen was the least literalist of all the Fathers).

[Greg]

Hence my inability to see Early Christianity as anything other than a dead religion.

This being the case it has been dead for a very long time.  So what power endorses what replaced it, unless truth is mutable?

[Greg]

Since the passages talking about cutting off your hand or plucking out your eye were never taken literally.

They wouldn't be would they.  The literalists and rigorists are all for scripture, until it involves hacking off a limb.  Then it's conveniently 'symbolic'.

Practically speaking, however, self-abuse would be terribly difficult without hands.  And porn addiction much harder to make habitual when you are blinded.  Were one to take it literally it might very well solve the addiction problem.  But instead we worry about the dangers of middle aged women wearing pants because it's the pants that cause you to sin and not your own body parts.

It has always struck me as very odd that 50% of the clergy are queers, probably 75% of the upper hierarchy and yet Trads are worried about middle aged women wearing pants or their skirt not coming down to their ankles.  What's that about?  As a teenager I never really understood why I would lust after relatively modestly dressed women at Church (whether in pants or skirts) when there was a whole street full of young women dressed like hookers all summer long wandering around London.  Seemed to me like nobody had thought it through properly.  If I am going to lust after someone then surely I'll go for the secular street whore since she is MUCH more likely to fornicate with me.