Should females not wear pants?

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Um, the Vulgate is a translation from Greek (cross checked with Hebrew, but based upon the Septuagint). Should we not skip the translation and go straight to the Greek or Hebrew?

Deacon Ed

Um,
YES I AGREE with you Deacon, we should if possible, go straight to the Greek or Hebrew. Do you know of a Saint by the name of ST. Jerome? He was the greatest linguist of his era. He was Bilingual in Greek and Latin. He also learned Chaldaic to translate the Book of Daniel. In addition, he learned Hebrew and Aramaic to near perfection.He had access to ancient Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts of the 2nd and 3rd centuries which have since perished and no longer available to scholars today. So I ask you, who’s translation should we use his translated into the Latin Vulgate or your translation, of a translation, of a translation…etc. Also, why do I hear so many Catholics/ Christians complain about languages? In Europe, South America,and Asia, most are fluent in 2-4 languages if not more. eg. Switzerland, Germany, India, Guyana, Suriname, Brazil, Cuba, to name a few. Why even on my visits to Montreal, Quebec (CANADA) most of my colleagues are fluent in 3 languages. Your statement,w.r.t language, is a common excuse to North America only (especially to Modern Catholics of VATICAN II). May I ask if you are a Catholic Deacon, since this is common knowledge, concerning St. Jerome’s work, for clergy and assistants to clergy.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Okay…so where do I pick up a burqua?

How far are we going to take this issue.

Deacon Ed,

Just how much of the Old Testament are we obliged to follow?

What have we, as Christians, been released from?

Is what we must follow of the Old contained in the New?

Man, some of the 'ole law is pretty tedious!

( Just when I was beginning to enjoy pork!)

Since you do not favor the OT here is the New Testament: [Edited by moderator]

1 Peter 3:2-4 – Peter commands women to reverent and chaste behavior, which includes modest dress. Peter warns against the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of robes, but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. This same Peter practiced modesty before the Lord, for he “put on his clothes” before he jumped into the dirty sea to meet Jesus (see John 21:7).

Rom. 12:1-2 – Paul commands us to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God which is our spiritual worship. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost which we offer to God through prayer, fasting and other self-mortifications, which include dressing modestly and living chastely.

1 John 2:16 – “Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil, but live as servants of God.” Woman cannot use their beautiful bodies as a pretext for evil (that is, to sexually tempt men) without committing serious sin. Such women are not “servants of God,” but “servants of Satan.”

Edited by moderator

 

[jrabs]

I’m not sure why people find it necessary to want to impose their lifestyles on everyone around them - in the name of sinfulness - where no sin is committed.

If skirts work well for you in all situations, heck go for it.

If they don’t and you prefer slacks, good for you also.

I like the combo. It works well for my lifestyle. Why would I want to rake leaves, trim my shrubbery, clean my gutters or hop on my riding mower with a skirt? Beats me - but if that is your thing - have at it.

And ugh - to jumpers. Shoot me first.

But to those who think women should be just one way - it just comes across as very self-righteous.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Um,
YES I AGREE with you Deacon, we should if possible, go straight to the Greek or Hebrew. Do you know of a Saint by the name of ST. Jerome? He was the greatest linguist of his era. He was Bilingual in Greek and Latin. He also learned Chaldaic to translate the Book of Daniel. In addition, he learned Hebrew and Aramaic to near perfection.He had access to ancient Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts of the 2nd and 3rd centuries which have since perished and no longer available to scholars today. So I ask you, who’s translation should we use his translated into the Latin Vulgate or your translation, of a translation, of a translation…etc. Also, why do I hear so many Catholics/ Christians complain about languages? In Europe, South America,and Asia, most are fluent in 2-4 languages if not more. eg. Switzerland, Germany, India, Guyana, Suriname, Brazil, Cuba, to name a few. Why even on my visits to Montreal, Quebec (CANADA) most of my colleagues are fluent in 3 languages. Your statement,w.r.t language, is a common excuse to North America only (especially to Modern Catholics of VATICAN II). May I ask if you are a Catholic Deacon, since this is common knowledge, concerning St. Jerome’s work, for clergy and assistants to clergy.

Yes, I’m a Catholic deacon and I’m very familiar with the work of St. Jerome. As I said, I read Latin and Greek and I’m fluent in English, German and American Sign Language. I have a passing knowledge of French, Spanish, Italian and Japanese. I’ve studied Hebrew but do not consider myself able to read it adequately.

As for Jerome’s work – it is good, but we have access to so many more concurrent works that translators today bring a wider knowledge of the language (especially Greek) than did Jerome. Computers have made this so much easier since we can, at a glance, find a given word and see how it was used by the great classical writers of the era and this allows us to make sure that the translation is the most accurate possible. However, this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread – and as long as women are modest there is no reason they cannot wear pants.

Deacon Ed

 

[a_priori]

Females must not wear pants it is in contradiction to the HOLY BIBLE. Here evidence: THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS, BUT THE WORD OF GOD+

Deut. 22:5 – “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” While we are no longer under the legal canons of the Old Covenant, the New Covenant incorporates their holy principles. To that end, women should think twice about wearing pants, trousers and other articles of clothing that “pertains to a man.” Such clothing obscures her feminine identity and plays to a wicked society that wants women to usurp the authority of men.

Lev. 18:17 – “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter to uncover her nakedness.” When women dress immodestly (showing their legs, stomachs, and even more), they are uncovering their nakedness to a fallen world and leading people into serious sin. To the extent women intend to sexually excite others by their immodest dress, they are guilty of mortal sin.

REMEMBER THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS, BUT THE WORD OF GOD+.

PLEASE USE THE HOLY BIBLE TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN VULGATE AND GREEK.

If you go down this road you have to swallow the whole enchilada. (To mix metaphors) Try to live by the WHOLE Law as it is found in the Old Testament. Impossible. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[a_priori]

I’ll just leave the question open as is.

Only if she wants to.

 

[jrabs]

If you go down this road you have to swallow the whole enchilada. (To mix metaphors)

YIKES I don’t like enchiladas.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Yes, I’m a Catholic deacon and I’m very familiar with the work of St. Jerome. As I said, I read Latin and Greek and I’m fluent in English, German and American Sign Language. I have a passing knowledge of French, Spanish, Italian and Japanese. I’ve studied Hebrew but do not consider myself able to read it adequately.

As for Jerome’s work – it is good, but we have access to so many more concurrent works that translators today bring a wider knowledge of the language (especially Greek) than did Jerome. Computers have made this so much easier since we can, at a glance, find a given word and see how it was used by the great classical writers of the era and this allows us to make sure that the translation is the most accurate possible. However, this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread – and as long as women are modest there is no reason they cannot wear pants.

Deacon Ed

Greetings Sir,
ST. Jerome was a Saint and thus he was inspired by GOD+. Please reference the concurrent works that translators today bring and how they have a better knowledge of the Greek which is no longer spoken today, so that I may read them also. How is their knowledge of ancient Greek better than that of ST. Jerome, who spoke it from birth? We, you and I, believe that ST. Jerome was inspired by the HOLY GHOST+ that is GOD+, henceforth you should not compare GOD+ to a computer. It is not inspired, at least not in the way St. Jerome was.

The Sacred Council of Trent Decreed:
“Moreover, the same Holy Council …ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundreds of years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, dispositions, sermons, and expositions held as AUTHENTIC, AND THAT NO ONE [MAY] DARE OR PRESUME UNDER ANY PRETEXT WHATSOEVER TO REJECT IT.” (Fourth Session, April 8, 1546).

Pope Pius XII has stated in his 1943 encyclical letter on the promulgation of Biblical Studies, this means the Latin Vulgate, is “FREE FROM ANY ERRORS WHATSOEVER IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of any error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching…”(Par. 21). No other Bible - not even the NEW VULGATE, promulgated in 1979, and not yet available in English - has been endorsed by the Church in this manner!

GOD+ Bless.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

If you go down this road you have to swallow the whole enchilada. (To mix metaphors) Try to live by the WHOLE Law as it is found in the Old Testament. Impossible. You can’t have it both ways.

Since you do not favor the OT here is the New Testament:

1 Peter 3:2-4 – Peter commands, “Considering your chaste conversation with fear. Whose adorning let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of GOD” (New Testament).
This same Peter practiced modesty before the Lord, for he “put on his clothes” before he jumped into the dirty sea to meet Jesus (see John 21:7).

Rom. 12:1-2 – Paul commands” I beseech you therefore, by the mercy of GOD+, that you present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing unto GOD+…" (New Testament)
That which is our spiritual worship. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost which we offer to God through prayer, fasting and other self-mortifications, which include dressing modestly and living chastely.(Book of Catholic Catechism).

1 John 2:16 – “Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil, but live as servants of God.” (New Testament)
Woman cannot use their beautiful bodies as a pretext for evil (that is, to sexually tempt men) without committing serious sin. Such women are not “servants of God,” but “servants of Satan.” (Book of Catholic Catechism)

A priest once said at mass , “One should present themselves daily, including modesty of dress, in such manner as if you were in the presence of GOD+ or at a sermon being given by Jesus+ the Christ+”.

Respectfully and GOD+ Bless.

 

[jrabs]

Since you do not favor the OT here is the New Testament:

And which one of them says women shouldn’t be wearing slacks? I missed it.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

And which one of them says women should be wearing slacks? I missed it.

I agree with you – I read the passages, too, and I’m not jumping into the sea naked, or dressing immodestly, and I’m certainly not tempting any men.

 

[a_priori]

Since you do not favor the OT here is the New Testament:.

I wouldn’t say I “don’t favor the OT”. It surely contains truth but should be kept in context.

1 Peter 3:2-4 – Peter commands, “Considering your chaste conversation with fear. Whose adorning let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of GOD” (New Testament).
This same Peter practiced modesty before the Lord, for he “put on his clothes” before he jumped into the dirty sea to meet Jesus (see John 21:7).

Rom. 12:1-2 – Paul commands” I beseech you therefore, by the mercy of GOD+, that you present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing unto GOD+…" (New Testament)
That which is our spiritual worship. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost which we offer to God through prayer, fasting and other self-mortifications, which include dressing modestly and living chastely.(Book of Catholic Catechism).

1 John 2:16 – “Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil, but live as servants of God.” (New Testament)
[Woman cannot use their beautiful bodies as a pretext for evil (that is, to sexually tempt men) without committing serious sin. Such women are not “servants of God,” but “servants of Satan.” (Book of Catholic Catechism)

A priest once said at mass , “One should present themselves daily, including modesty of dress, in such manner as if you were in the presence of GOD+ or at a sermon being given by Jesus+ the Christ+”.

Respectfully and GOD+ Bless.

But I don’t see the “pants” thing here. (Although I do see that gold is out.)
Scripture is sacred and I’m glad you posted these but context is everything. Exposed ankles were once scandalous. I don’t see how the wearing pants in and of itself is prohibited. There is nothing, expressed or implied, in these verses that suggests pants are out.

It is a short trip from here to a Pharisaical approach.
[/QUOTE]

 

[jrabs]

I agree with you – I read the passages, too, and I’m not jumping into the sea naked, or dressing immodestly, and I’m certainly not tempting any men.

Nor me! My pants don’t cling or ride low at all.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

And which one of them says women should be wearing slacks? I missed it.

---

Please review the following and remember the words/object trousers/pants did not exist at the time and some time after that of Jesus+ the Christ+ or in the OT.

Psalm 44:10; Prov. 31:21, Jer 2:32, Dan 5:29, Ezek. 16:6, Rev. 18:12; 19:14 – here are some more Scriptures that teach that clothing can be positive and holy.

However, Jesus teaches us not to overemphasize the importance of clothing (Matt. 6:25 Therefore I say to you, be NOT SOLICITOUS for your own life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life more than the meat: and the body more than the raiment?). (Book of Catholic Catechism).

Thus, Paul says to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” (Rom. 13:14). As Christians, we must go beyond the material goods of this world, and seek the higher, spiritual goods of God, so that we can be with Jesus forever. (Book of Catholic Catechism).

Deut. 22:5 – “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” (The Holy Bible).

While we are no longer under the legal canons of the Old Covenant, the New Covenant incorporates their holy principles. To that end, women should think twice about wearing pants, trousers and other articles of clothing that “pertains to a man.” Such clothing obscures her feminine identity and plays to a wicked society that wants women to usurp the authority of men. (Book of Catholic Catechism).

Let us approach from a different angle, when did women start wearing pants? Pants were available but they did not wear them. Or Mary the Mother of Jesus+, she wore long garments and hair covered, so may I ask, why? Would it have been appropriate for Mary to wear jeans/slacks, shorts, etc., if available at that time? In addition, in these Religions; Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Catholicism, etc. All require women to wear long garments with head covering, why is that? Why do nuns have there hair covered? Should nuns wear jeans, slacks, bikinis, show there abdomen, etc.? I graciously await the answers.

Respectfully and GOD+ Bless.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Greetings Sir,

The correct title, if you wish to use an honorific, is “Deacon” – not “Sir.”

ST. Jerome was a Saint and thus he was inspired by GOD+. Please reference the concurrent works that translators today bring and how they have a better knowledge of the Greek which is no longer spoken today, so that I may read them also. How is their knowledge of ancient Greek better than that of ST. Jerome, who spoke it from birth? We, you and I, believe that ST. Jerome was inspired by the HOLY GHOST+ that is GOD+, henceforth you should not compare GOD+ to a computer. It is not inspired, at least not in the way St. Jerome was.

There is no Church teaching that says that Jerome was “inspired by God” (no matter how you capitalize it). Jerome labored under the best knowldge that he had, as do scholars today.

The Sacred Council of Trent Decreed:
“Moreover, the same Holy Council …ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundreds of years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, dispositions, sermons, and expositions held as AUTHENTIC, AND THAT NO ONE [MAY] DARE OR PRESUME UNDER ANY PRETEXT WHATSOEVER TO REJECT IT.” (Fourth Session, April 8, 1546).

You seem to be reading into my post more than is there. I didn’t say I rejected it. In fact, since I do read Latin, I do read the Vulgate directly – and I do compare it with Greek ms. as needed – especially when I’m teaching a class on Scripture.

Pope Pius XII has stated in his 1943 encyclical letter on the promulgation of Biblical Studies, this means the Latin Vulgate, is “FREE FROM ANY ERRORS WHATSOEVER IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of any error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching…”(Par. 21). No other Bible - not even the NEW VULGATE, promulgated in 1979, and not yet available in English - has been endorsed by the Church in this manner!

You are again guilty of eisigetical reasoning – that is, you are reading into Divino Afflante Spiritu (that’s the name of the encyclical) more than is there. He said Scripture is without error, not the Vulgate (if it were without error, why did Pope Clement VIII have to revise it? Why did Pope St. Pius X decide to revise it (although that never took place)? Apparently either you know more than the Church or you are in error. Which do you think I believe?

Deacon Ed

 

[jrabs]

---

Let us approach from a different angle, when did women start wearing pants? Pants were available but they did not wear them. Or Mary the Mother of Jesus+, she wore long garments and hair covered, so may I ask, why? Would it have been appropriate for Mary to wear jeans/slacks, shorts, etc., if available at that time? In addition, in these Religions; Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Catholicism, etc. All require women to wear long garments with head covering, why is that? Why do nuns have there hair covered? Should nuns wear jeans, slacks, bikinis, show there abdomen, etc.? I graciously await the answers.

Respectfully and GOD+ Bless.

I believe Jesus also wore similar long flowing garments and not pants. What gives there? Was He confused and going against tradition or law? Never -we know that to be true.

So what would then be construed as the male or female garb in Jesus’ time - since that is the time you would like to reference?

I do not believe this thread has addressed head coverings - a whole other topic for a new thread.

As for midriffs showing - I do no think that is being discussed here either.

And we all recognize that lay people are different than the religious. Why would you compare the dress code of nuns to secular women?

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

And we all recognize that lay people are different than the religious. Why would you compare the dress code of nuns to secular women?

Maybe for the same reason he thinks today’s women should dress as they did 2,000 years ago, while men retain their modern attire?

 

[Mary_Henley]

Deut. 22:5 – “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” (The Holy Bible).

(Ex. 28:42; Lev. 16:4). The dress of women was essentially the same as that of men, but there must nevertheless have been some difference, because the sexes were forbidden to wear each other’s garments (Deut. 22:5). Probably the difference was that women’s garments were ordinarily more elaborate or at least cut fuller and longer so as more effectively to cover the whole body

Correct me if I’m wrong ( I’m speaking to those in authority now…)

Doesn’t this mean effeminate - something like cross dressing…

If men and women dressed pretty much the same…then this could be the only commonsense approach.

**And no…I don’t share my clothes with my hubby…they wouldn’t fit any way **

 

[jrabs]

Maybe for the same reason he thinks today’s women should dress as they did 2,000 years ago, while men retain their modern attire?

True. Men of that era did not wear slacks either but they have evolved. They even wear cargo shorts these days - lest we even discus speedos.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

The correct title, if you wish to use an honorific, is “Deacon” – not “Sir.”

There is no Church teaching that says that Jerome was “inspired by God” (no matter how you capitalize it). Jerome labored under the best knowldge that he had, as do scholars today.

You seem to be reading into my post more than is there. I didn’t say I rejected it. In fact, since I do read Latin, I do read the Vulgate directly – and I do compare it with Greek ms. as needed – especially when I’m teaching a class on Scripture.

You are again guilty of eisigetical reasoning – that is, you are reading into Divino Afflante Spiritu (that’s the name of the encyclical) more than is there. He said Scripture is without error, not the Vulgate (if it were without error, why did Pope Clement VIII have to revise it? Why did Pope St. Pius X decide to revise it (although that never took place)? Apparently either you know more than the Church or you are in error. Which do you think I believe?

Deacon Ed

Dear Deacon,
I apologize, I will use the honorific, as you may use mine, Dr. Dipak. I do not think I exhibit eisegesis (that is: n. incorrect explanation of text, especially of Bible, by distorting the meaning to fit preconceived ideas). Thanks Deacon for the Latin name of the encyclical, I greatly appreciate it. Admittedly, I am not as well versed as you. So now you can enlighten me. Which Authoritative Original should we use?

Respectfully and GOD+ Bless,

Dr. Dipak