Should females not wear pants?

[BloodStaindRose]

I recommend reading “Dressing with Dignity.” It will help answer many of your questions! A year ago I met a young man who introduced me to many different issues, one being the wearing skirts.
Women should embrace their femininity with open arms! Do you see men wearing skirts? Wouldn’t you be offended to see a man wearing a dress instead of pants? Now, understand some societies allow such attire.
Putting on a flowy skirt with a silky blouse and beautiful high- heels just makes a woman feel like she is on top of the world; it also begs to be more respected than a woman in pants! Leave the pants to men!!
Embrace your femininity! It is the one thing that sets you apart from a man–show it!!

God Bless!

I also provided a link to an article that may help you.
Here

 

[Deacon_Ed]

I recommend reading “Dressing with Dignity.” It will help answer many of your questions! A year ago I met a young man who introduced me to many different issues, one being the wearing skirts.
Women should embrace their femininity with open arms! Do you see men wearing skirts? Wouldn’t you be offended to see a man wearing a dress instead of pants? Now, understand some societies allow such attire.
Putting on a flowy skirt with a silky blouse and beautiful high- heels just makes a woman feel like she is on top of the world; it also begs to be more respected than a woman in pants! Leave the pants to men!!
Embrace your femininity! It is the one thing that sets you apart from a man–show it!!

Hmmm…your post leaves me wondering a few things. Since part of my ancestry is Scottish – men there wear kilts, especially to the kirk (church). Men in the United States will sometimes wear kilts as well.

When you say “show it” I assume you are referring to your legs – why? My wife hates the look of her legs and does not wish to show them off. She is just as feminine in a pants suit as she is in skirt and blouse or in a dress. I fail to understand why you think a woman should wear a skirt!

Perhaps you could explain it to me since, after all, I’m just a man.

Deacon Ed

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

similar to what Mary the mother of GOD+ adorned.

Mary was also Jewish, not Catholic and no one wore pants during her time because they were a much harder thing to make then simple robes. The women wore robes and the men wore robes. So to be fair, we’d ALL have to go back to robes.

Embrace your femininity! It is the one thing that sets you apart from a man–show it!!

Skirts aren’t the only way to do that. There’s make-up, hair-doos, jewlery, etc, not to mention the way we stand, the way we sit, and the way we act.

And while I do feel really sexy when I get all dressed up, it’s because I don’t dress like that all the time.

:dancing: Here’s to feeling beautiful no matter what we women wear! :clapping:

 

[BloodStaindRose]

Hmmm…your post leaves me wondering a few things. Since part of my ancestry is Scottish – men there wear kilts, especially to the kirk (church). Men in the United States will sometimes wear kilts as well.

When you say “show it” I assume you are referring to your legs – why? My wife hates the look of her legs and does not wish to show them off. She is just as feminine in a pants suit as she is in skirt and blouse or in a dress. I fail to understand why you think a woman should wear a skirt!

Perhaps you could explain it to me since, after all, I’m just a man.

Deacon Ed

As I said in my post–some societies or ethnic backgrounds accept such attire!
I did not mean show your legs!! The whole point of wearing a skirt/dress is to gain femininity and respect–not too show too much! Skirts should come below the knee!
It is a personal choice; I used to love wearing shorts and jeans , but then my eyes were opened to something different. I feel better wearing a dress. I would really recommend reading “Dressing with Dignity,” it may not change your opinion but may lend you some insight.

 

[BloodStaindRose]

Mary was also Jewish, not Catholic and no one wore pants during her time because they were a much harder thing to make then simple robes. The women wore robes and the men wore robes. So to be fair, we’d ALL have to go back to robes.

Skirts aren’t the only way to do that. There’s make-up, hair-doos, jewlery, etc, not to mention the way we stand, the way we sit, and the way we act.

And while I do feel really sexy when I get all dressed up, it’s because I don’t dress like that all the time.

:dancing: Here’s to feeling beautiful no matter what we women wear! :clapping:

I also believe femininity comes from a woman’s ettiquette! If wearing a dress is not your thing then that’s alright, but please do some more looking into the history and reasoning behind a woman’s choice in clothing–it is a personal realization you have to come to–no one can make you change.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

So, you are saying that “Tradional Cahtolics” go to the synagogue on Saturday for the readings and the seven blessings and then meet in someone’s house on the first day of the week to “break bread.” Is that what you are saying? That is, after all, how the Christians worshipped until they were kicked out of the temple and synagogues. They continued to meet in private homes until the 4th century when the Edict of Milan granted them equal status with other religions. Since Greek was the lingua franca of the known world, most Christians worshipped in Greek. The earliest known “Liturgy” is that of St. James which formed the basis for all Eastern Liturgies (except possibly the orignal Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara liturgies which are lost).

So, what is it that “Traditional Catholics” use?

Oh, yeah, what, exactly, is your doctorate in? We can presume it is neither history nor theology (and, for the record, mine’s in theology with an emphasis on the Eastern Churches).

Deacon Ed

Deacon Ed,
Greetings. I think I touched a nerve! Obviously your knowledge is great in language, history and religion, but lacking in something as trivial as honorifics. Remember we were only exchanging ‘honorifics’. FYI I am just a mere physician. Your assumption was not a good one. Time permitting, I read history, theology, Latin, etc., as a hobby. I find it stimulating and so am empathetic to your choice of study. In addition, if you really are a deacon of the church I would imagine one would have more compassion and loving demeanor to your fellow people. I think you have lost sight that this is a friendly chat and we should put away with absurdities, it is definitely not the caliber of a Deacon. And may I say sir I still await a response to #100.

Nevertheless, from the tone of your statements could I presume you are of the Novus Ordo? I think I understand the history you rendered, but may I ask how was the mass celebrated before the Novus Ordo Mass? Why was the mass changed and who changed the mass? Did 6 protestant bishops partake in forming this Novus Ordo? Why are the masses different? In particular, could you elaborate on the Second Vatican Council with respect to?

1. Decree on the Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio,
2. Decree on the Church: Lumen Gentium,
3. Decree on Non-Christian Religions: Nostra Aetate,
4. Declaration on Religious Liberty: Dignitatis Humanae,
5. Decree on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium et Spes.

Deacon I would greatly appreciate your insight and assistance with these pertinent questions.

Respectfully and GOD+ Bless,
Dr. Dipak, B.Sc (Honors) MS MD

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Hmmm…your post leaves me wondering a few things. Since part of my ancestry is Scottish – men there wear kilts, especially to the kirk (church). Men in the United States will sometimes wear kilts as well.

When you say “show it” I assume you are referring to your legs – why? My wife hates the look of her legs and does not wish to show them off. She is just as feminine in a pants suit as she is in skirt and blouse or in a dress. I fail to understand why you think a woman should wear a skirt!

Perhaps you could explain it to me since, after all, I’m just a man.

Deacon Ed

DeaconEd,
Could we continue this on another thread as I think we have gone tangentially when compared to the initial question posed here? Please advise. Thank you for your kindness and GOD+ Bless.

Dr. Dipak

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Deacon Ed,
Greetings. I think I touched a nerve! Obviously your knowledge is great in language, history and religion, but lacking in something as trivial as honorifics. Remember we were only exchanging ‘honorifics’. FYI I am just a mere physician. Your assumption was not a good one.

Actually it appears to be a good – you are a physician, not a theologian or a historian by your own admission.

Time permitting, I read history, theology, Latin, etc., as a hobby. I find it stimulating and so am empathetic to your choice of study. In addition, if you really are a deacon of the church I would imagine one would have more compassion and loving demeanor to your fellow people. I think you have lost sight that this is a friendly chat and we should put away with absurdities, it is definitely not the caliber of a Deacon. And may I say sir I still await a response to #100.

Yes, I really am a deacon and apparently I missed #100. I shall endeavor to correct that oversight.

Nevertheless, from the tone of your statements could I presume you are of the Novus Ordo?

The term “Novus Ordo” refers to the draft of the Mass of Paul VI. One cannot be “Novus Ordo” and remain human. I am a deacon of the Catholic Church – to be precise, I am a bi-ritual deacon serving both the Latin Church and the Melkite Church (Byzantine Rite).

I think I understand the history you rendered, but may I ask how was the mass celebrated before the Novus Ordo Mass?

The Mass of Pius V (as ammended by several popes) was the normative Mass used for 400-500 years prior to the promulgation of the Mass of Paul VI. The reason for the variation is that it took France about 100 years to use that Mass following its promulgation.

Why was the mass changed and who changed the mass?

The Mass was changed because the Church Fathers at the Second Vatican Council decided that there was a need for a change. That need had been evident for nearly 100 years – a need reflected in the so-called “Liturgical Movement” begun in the early 19th century, a movement that was actively supported by most popes.

Did 6 protestant bishops partake in forming this Novus Ordo?

No, there were six protestant clergymen who were invited to listen to the discussions and, if asked directly, to offer suggestions or ideas. They had no direct (name removed by moderator)ut other than in response to questions. Outside the consilium meetings they did meet with the periti to discuss what had transpired, but none of their (name removed by moderator)ut (with two exceptions) affected the outcome. Those exceptions dealt with preaching and with congregational singing.

Why are the masses different?

This question seems to lack precision. Are you referring to the differences between the Mass of Paul VI and the Mass of Pius V or to the legitimate variations and options present in the Mass of Paul VI?

In particular, could you elaborate on the Second Vatican Council with respect to?

1. Decree on the Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio,
2. Decree on the Church: Lumen Gentium,
3. Decree on Non-Christian Religions: Nostra Aetate,
4. Declaration on Religious Liberty: Dignitatis Humanae,
5. Decree on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium et Spes.

This would require a couse lasting several semesters. What, precisely, do you wish to know regarding these documents?

Deacon I would greatly appreciate your insight and assistance with these pertinent questions.

Respectfully and GOD+ Bless,
Dr. Dipak, B.Sc (Honors) MS MD

And I’m glad to provide whatever I can.

Deacon Ed Faulk, BS, MS, MA, S.T.D.

 

[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?

I presume the question here refers to the issue of “authoritative original.” There is no answer to this. First, there are not “original” manuscripts – all we have are copies of the originals. Among the majority of these copies there is divergence of less the 3% of the text so, in reality, there is little or not need to be concerned about the text. As I said, in graduate school I used the Nestle text first published by Eberhard Nestle. Note that this text is generally not used by translators today since there are older mss. available.

Most modern translations derive from a collection of ancient works (including the Sainaticus and Vaticanus mss.). In fact, the New King James Version of the Bible used what is called the “Majority Text” – it’s a manufactured text which uses the most commonly found parts of about 100 different manuscripts. The result is one ms. that seems pretty accurate.

I trust that answers your question. If not, please feel free to elaborate on what it was you were seeking.

BTW, you never did address the fact that the Jerome translation was modifed by Pope Clement and was undergoing revision by Pope Pius X. BTW, the Vulgate that is currently used in Rome is a more current version that built upon the work of the scholars working under Pius X. The Clementine version was the normative version until recently, not the version Jerome himself worked on.

Deacon Ed

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I presume the question here refers to the issue of “authoritative original.” There is no answer to this. First, there are not “original” manuscripts – all we have are copies of the originals. Among the majority of these copies there is divergence of less the 3% of the text so, in reality, there is little or not need to be concerned about the text. As I said, in graduate school I used the Nestle text first published by Eberhard Nestle. Note that this text is generally not used by translators today since there are older mss. available.

Most modern translations derive from a collection of ancient works (including the Sainaticus and Vaticanus mss.). In fact, the New King James Version of the Bible used what is called the “Majority Text” – it’s a manufactured text which uses the most commonly found parts of about 100 different manuscripts. The result is one ms. that seems pretty accurate.

I trust that answers your question. If not, please feel free to elaborate on what it was you were seeking.

BTW, you never did address the fact that the Jerome translation was modifed by Pope Clement and was undergoing revision by Pope Pius X. BTW, the Vulgate that is currently used in Rome is a more current version that built upon the work of the scholars working under Pius X. The Clementine version was the normative version until recently, not the version Jerome himself worked on.

Deacon Ed

Thank you for your reply. I am in agreement with you that originals are no loner extant. It still does not address St. Jerome, his status, and resources available to him, as I elucidated to you earlier, that so many years later, some are able to decipher the text better than he. Please clarify. To address Pope Clement and his revisions, please correct me if I am wrong but is not this the summary history leading to his revisions?

The Clementine Vulgate (Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti Quinti Pontificis Maximi iussu recognita atque edita) is the edition most familiar to Catholics who have lived prior to the liturgical reforms following Vatican II (as a consequence of which reforms, the use of Latin in the liturgy became rare).

After the Reformation, when the Catholic Church strove to counter the attacks and refute the doctrines of Protestantism, the Vulgate was reaffirmed in the Council of Trent as the sole, authorized Latin text of the Bible. [Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Fourth Session, April 8, 1546]. To reinforce this declaration, the council commissioned the pope to make a standard text of the Vulgate out of the countless editions produced during the renaissance and manuscripts produced during the Middle Ages. The actual first manifestation of this authorized text did not appear until 1590. It was sponsored by Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) and known as the Sistine Vulgate. It was based on the edition of Robertus Stephanus corrected to agree with the Greek, but it was hurried into print and suffered from many printing errors. It was soon replaced by a new edition with the advent of the next pope, Clement VIII (1592-1605) who immediately ordered corrections and revisions to be made. This new revised version was based more on the Hentenian edition. It is called today the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, or simply the Clementine, although it is Sixtus’ name which appears on the title page. Clement published three printings of this edition in 1592, 1593, and 1598.

The Clementine differed from the manuscripts on which it was ultimately based in that it grouped the various prefaces of St. Jerome together at the beginning, and it removed 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses to an appendix.

The psalter of the Clementine Vulgate, like that of almost all earlier editions, is the Gallicanum.

The Clementine Vulgate of 1592 became the standard Bible text of the Roman Rite of the Roman Catholic Church until 1979, when the Nova Vulgata was promulgated.​

Please excuse me if the history is not accurate as you would have presented it (remember this is just a fascinating hobby for me).​

Is this correct, that Clement made corrections due to printing errors? How does it differ from the St. Jerome translation? If you can, note what were some correction/revisions that St. Jerome failed to accomplish? There are centuries between ST Jerome and Clement, and as a ‘historian’ could you tell me, should the most accurate account be one closest to the event in question?​

Thank you and GOD+ Bless.

Respectfully,
Dr. Dipak, BSc MS MD

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

(continues from post #130)
The Biblia Sacra Vulgata or Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem seeks to reconstruct an early Vulgate text closer to that which Jerome himself produced 1,600 years ago. It is based on earlier critical editions of Vulgate, namely the Benedictine edition and the Latin New Testament produced by Wordsworth and White, which provided variant readings from the diverse manuscripts and printed editions of the Vulgate and comparison of different wordings in their footnotes. The Stuttgart Vulgate attempts, through critical comparison of important, historical manuscripts of the Vulgate, to recreate an early text, ‘cleansed of the scribal errors of a millennium’. One of the most important critical sources for the Stuttgart Vulgate is Codex Amiatinus, the highly-esteemed 8th century, one-volume manuscript of the whole Latin Bible produced in England, regarded as the best medieval witness to Jerome’s original text.

An important feature in the Stuttgart edition for those studying the Vulgate is the inclusion of all of Jerome’s prologues to the Bible, the Testaments, and the major books and sections (Pentateuch, Gospels, Minor Prophets, etc.) of the Bible. This adheres to the style of medieval editions of the Vulgate, which were never without Jerome’s prologues. In its spelling, the Stuttgart also retains a more medieval Latin orthography than the Clementine, sometimes using oe rather than ae, and having more proper nouns beginning with H (i.e., Helimelech instead of Elimelech). The Stuttgart Vulgate also follows the medieval manuscripts in using line breaks, rather than the modern system of punctuation marks, to indicate the structure of each verse. Because of these features, it initially presents an unfamiliar appearance to readers accustomed to the Clementine text.

It contains two psalters, both the traditional Gallicanum and the juxta Hebraicum, which are printed on facing pages to allow easy comparison and contrast between the two versions. In has an expanded Apocrypha, containing Psalm 151 and the Epistle to the Laodiceans in addition to 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses.

In addition, its modern prefaces are a source of valuable information about the history of the Vulgate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the professional in this field, can you elaborate on the above summation?

Thank you once again for your intuitive answers.

Respectfully and GOD+ Bless,

Dr. Dipak, BSc MS MD

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

Do you see men wearing skirts? Wouldn’t you be offended to see a man wearing a dress instead of pants?

I might be offended to see a man wear a lady’s dress, but I would not be the least bit offended to see him wear a man’s kilt, or a man’s sarong, or a man’s robe, or any similar man’s garment. Just as I am not offended to see a woman wearing lady’s trousers.

Putting on a flowy skirt with a silky blouse and beautiful high- heels just makes a woman feel like she is on top of the world; it also begs to be more respected than a woman in pants!

I guarantee you, that outfit would not make me feel like I am on top of the world – first of all, I would be losing my balance and falling on my butt constantly from the high heels. I would also feel extremeley self-conscious, because I just don’t have the ultra-dainty feminine appearance to carry off an outfit like that – I would just feel like a drag queen. The few times I have dressed like that (minus the high heels), I’ve found that men don’t treat me any differently at all. For some of us, “femininity” has to come from within, and to be defined in terms other than those of physical appearance.

Incidentally, I have also had my eyes opened on this issue, and the “dresses only” thing is definitely not for me.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Is this correct, that Clement made corrections due to printing errors? How does it differ from the St. Jerome translation? If you can, note what were some correction/revisions that St. Jerome failed to accomplish? There are centuries between ST Jerome and Clement, and as a ‘historian’ could you tell me, should the most accurate account be one closest to the event in question?

While what you cite is reasonably accurate, it misses the mark on a couple of points. First, we no longer have any of St. Jerome’s original work – it was all lost within a couple hundred years of its creation. What we have, then, is the work of copyists and redactors. The Clementine edition did, indeed, fix “printing errors” but retained other errors that were probably attributable to copyists, but may reflect Jerome’s work since we do not know what his work actually produced. Second, there was a shift in the status of the books we calle deuterocanonical since Jerome did not want to even include them but did so under protest. Third, It is not at all likely that Jerome included the famous “Joannine Comma” – but that is present in later versions of the Vulgate, probably introduced by a copyist but not found in any Greek mss.

This is why I suggested that Jerome’s work was no more protected from error than was the work of the translators of the KJV (and there are people, include some from your homeland) that make the claim that the KJV is the only inspired bible – and is superior even to the Greek or Hebrew.

We must always use the oldest Greek or Hebrew mss. as the “gold standard” against which all translations, including the Vulgate, are measured.

Deacon Ed

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

We must always use the oldest Greek or Hebrew mss. as the “gold standard” against which all translations, including the Vulgate, are measured.

Deacon Ed

You and ThereCanBeOnly1 really do have a different thread going here, you know.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is now closed. Thank you to all who participated.