> again, it's not that you're incorrect, it's that you're dishonest. dishonesty would imply that i am stating something that i know to be untrue. if you agree i am correct then i am not being dishonest. > chiming in to "correct the record" on the historicity of catholic vestments the question was asked and i answered it. > making some accusation that the church became secularized by the roman state is not just simple fact-checking when did i state that the church was secularized? i stated that many of the vestments that are worn today were originally worn with no specific christian meaning because they were simply the secular attire of the time. if you wear a suit and tie to mass then you are not secularizing the church. similarly if a bishop in 5th century rome wore roman civic attire. maybe in 500 years a suit and tie will "develop" a new meaning as well.
United States