Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on September 22, 2019, 02:09:19 PM
-
Today was “Academy Sunday” for the pupils of the SSPX School (K-8th grade) in Sanford, Florida, a day where the students all dress in their uniforms and perform as the choir. This Academy Sunday there was on display a big change, all of the boys were dressed in shorts, shorts displaying half their thighs. The dress code on the bulletin and the sign at the entrance to the church says no shorts, but the priests in charge had the boys dress in shorts. I hope the children do not wear those shorts to school every day. Or is there something else here at work? The priesthood today is a disgraced profession all over the world because of the sodomite infiltrations, I hope they see the error of their ways and ditch those uniforms.
-
Well, as with makeup, women in trousers, form-fitting skirts and boobie blouses, we mustn’t be puritanical!
-
Are there pictures of this? I've seen pictures of boys wearing shorts pre Vatican II ... but never at Mass.
While it's unlikely to be an occasion of sin to anyone, it's still grossly disrespectful for them to dress that way at Mass. Perhaps at a school "Field Day" or something, but at Mass?
SSPX is declining rapidly; it's difficult to resist the Novus Ordo contagion once you've put yourself in contact with it.
-
I hope you're talking about more than just this, though, OP --
http://www.sspxflorida.com/en/news-events/news/classes-have-resumed-saint-thomas-more-academy-50431 (http://www.sspxflorida.com/en/news-events/news/classes-have-resumed-saint-thomas-more-academy-50431)
-
Are there pictures of this? I've seen pictures of boys wearing shorts pre Vatican II ... but never at Mass.
While it's unlikely to be an occasion of sin to anyone, it's still grossly disrespectful for them to dress that way at Mass. Perhaps at a school "Field Day" or something, but at Mass?
SSPX is declining rapidly; it's difficult to resist the Novus Ordo contagion once you've put yourself in contact with it.
You think the boys can wear shorts at a field day??
-
I hope you're talking about more than just this, though, OP --
http://www.sspxflorida.com/en/news-events/news/classes-have-resumed-saint-thomas-more-academy-50431 (http://www.sspxflorida.com/en/news-events/news/classes-have-resumed-saint-thomas-more-academy-50431)
Wow! How pathetic!
Sspx is toast!
-
I don't know how to post photos on here, but I have a photo from May 1932 of my father's First Holy Communion class, Saint Nicholas R.C. Church, Jamaica, New York. There are about 120 children flanked by priests and nuns. The boys from about age 10 on down are all dressed alike in white shorts, white knee socks, white shoes with white shirt, jacket, ties. The few older looking boys are wearing the same outfits with long pants. The girls are all in identical long white dresses and veils. Apparently, the sisters supplied the clothing which was either purchased or rented. Many rented because it was during the Depression and families could not afford to purchase new clothes. I can assure you everyone looks quite modest and dignified, shorts and all.
-
I don't know how to post photos on here, but I have a photo from May 1932 of my father's First Holy Communion class, Saint Nicholas R.C. Church, Jamaica, New York. There are about 120 children flanked by priests and nuns. The boys from about age 10 on down are all dressed alike in white shorts, white knee socks, white shoes with white shirt, jacket, ties. The few older looking boys are wearing the same outfits with long pants. The girls are all in identical long white dresses and veils. Apparently, the sisters supplied the clothing which was either purchased or rented. Many rented because it was during the Depression and families could not afford to purchase new clothes. I can assure you everyone looks quite modest and dignified, shorts and all.
Agreed: Tge sspx was wrong to have formed us to think men in shorts was immodest.
-
I hope you're talking about more than just this, though, OP --
http://www.sspxflorida.com/en/news-events/news/classes-have-resumed-saint-thomas-more-academy-50431 (http://www.sspxflorida.com/en/news-events/news/classes-have-resumed-saint-thomas-more-academy-50431)
The ones I saw were the older boys in the back of the picture, and they had shorts at mid-thigh above the knees.
Besides, shorts are not permitted at mass, it says it right in the bulletin and the entrance notice.
-
I don't know how to post photos on here, but I have a photo from May 1932 of my father's First Holy Communion class, Saint Nicholas R.C. Church, Jamaica, New York. There are about 120 children flanked by priests and nuns. The boys from about age 10 on down are all dressed alike in white shorts, white knee socks, white shoes with white shirt, jacket, ties. The few older looking boys are wearing the same outfits with long pants. The girls are all in identical long white dresses and veils. Apparently, the sisters supplied the clothing which was either purchased or rented. Many rented because it was during the Depression and families could not afford to purchase new clothes. I can assure you everyone looks quite modest and dignified, shorts and all.
Post a picture of the length of the shorts and the age of the children.
-
I don't know how to post photos on here, but I have a photo from May 1932 of my father's First Holy Communion class, Saint Nicholas R.C. Church, Jamaica, New York. There are about 120 children flanked by priests and nuns. The boys from about age 10 on down are all dressed alike in white shorts, white knee socks, white shoes with white shirt, jacket, ties. The few older looking boys are wearing the same outfits with long pants. The girls are all in identical long white dresses and veils. Apparently, the sisters supplied the clothing which was either purchased or rented. Many rented because it was during the Depression and families could not afford to purchase new clothes. I can assure you everyone looks quite modest and dignified, shorts and all.
The clergy in America has been infected with Americanism since the beginning, so it is certainly no badge of orthodoxy to find a pic of school kids in shorts when the clergy wouldn’t even wear cassocks!
-
Did the SSPX used to say boys shouldn’t wear shorts?
-
I don't know how to post photos on here, but I have a photo from May 1932 of my father's First Holy Communion class, Saint Nicholas R.C. Church, Jamaica, New York. There are about 120 children flanked by priests and nuns. The boys from about age 10 on down are all dressed alike in white shorts, white knee socks, white shoes with white shirt, jacket, ties. The few older looking boys are wearing the same outfits with long pants. The girls are all in identical long white dresses and veils. Apparently, the sisters supplied the clothing which was either purchased or rented. Many rented because it was during the Depression and families could not afford to purchase new clothes. I can assure you everyone looks quite modest and dignified, shorts and all.
From your post above, it would seem that it was acceptable among Catholics in 1932 that young boys age 10 and under could wear shorts, even for First Holy Communion. Which makes sense. It would seem that it might not have been appropriate for boys/men over that age to wear shorts.
Trads tend to get a bit to pharisaical about such things, which makes some sense, in that we have to try to determine standards without having a proper church to guide us.
-
I couldn’t find any sspx articles permitting children to wear shorts at mass. Is this another unheralded change for the sspx?
-
I couldn’t find any sspx articles permitting children to wear shorts at mass. Is this another unheralded change for the sspx?
I couldn’t find any SSPX articles permitting children to wear shorts anywhere.
-
Boys have been wearing short pants for a couple of centuries.
They went from baby dresses at 3-4 years old to short pants to knicker bockers to long pants.
Look up pictures of Queen Victoria's family; boys in short pants.
And boys were wearing short pants for First Communion right up to Vat II.
-
Well, the OP is probably an anti-Resistance sedevacantist, who makes up stories to make the SSPX and (and Resistance) look bad. That's what they do.
-
Well, the OP is probably an anti-Resistance sedevacantist, who makes up stories to make the SSPX and (and Resistance) look bad. That's what they do.
I do not know what planet you've been on for the last 30 years, but no SSPX in the USA ever allowed boys age 10 and over to wear shorts to mass. In fact, I never saw boys any age wearing shorts to mass
-
Boys have been wearing short pants for a couple of centuries.
They went from baby dresses at 3-4 years old to short pants to knicker bockers to long pants.
Look up pictures of Queen Victoria's family; boys in short pants.
And boys were wearing short pants for First Communion right up to Vat II.
First communion is like at 8 years of age, those boys in the shorts at mass are 12 to 14.
-
The ones I saw were the older boys in the back of the picture, and they had shorts at mid-thigh above the knees.
Besides, shorts are not permitted at mass, it says it right in the bulletin and the entrance notice.
Well, that would certainly be inappropriate (vs. the knee-length ones in the picture). But thus far this remains an anonymous allegation.
-
Well, the OP is probably an anti-Resistance sedevacantist, who makes up stories to make the SSPX and (and Resistance) look bad. That's what they do.
No, Meg. If he were anti-Resistance, he would make up a story about the Resistance. For all we know, this is an anti-SSPX Resistance member. Stop spouting nonsense from your contempt for sedevacantism.
In fact, the most likely scenario is that this is a member of that chapel.
#1) he or she claims to have seen this first-hand
#2) that's why he or she posted this anonymously (to avoid any potential backlash at the chapel)
-
I do not know what planet you've been on for the last 30 years, but no SSPX in the USA ever allowed boys age 10 and over to wear shorts to mass. In fact, I never saw boys any age wearing shorts to mass
That's the point. It's probably a sedevacantist who made the false allegation that there's a problem in an SSPX school. Sedevacantists and sedeprivationists hate the SSPX and the Resistance. Or hadn't you noticed?
-
No, Meg. If he were anti-Resistance, he would make up a story about the Resistance. For all we know, this is an anti-SSPX Resistance member. Stop spouting nonsense from your contempt for sedevacantism.
Pathological and erroneous accusations are habitual in you. You are like a paranoid schizophrenic.
-
That's the point. It's probably a sedevacantist who made the false allegation that there's a problem in an SSPX school. Sedevacantists and sedeprivationists hate the SSPX and the Resistance. Or hadn't you noticed?
Stop it already, Meg. We know it's you.
It's most likely a member of that chapel ... as stated above.
-
Pathological and erroneous accusations are habitual in you. You are like a paranoid schizophrenic.
You're not fooling anyone.
-
Pathological and erroneous accusations are habitual in you. You are like a paranoid schizophrenic.
What is pathological is your contempt for sedevacantism and sedeprivationism. There's ZERO actual indication, much less proof, that the OP is either sedevacantist or sedeprivationist. Yet you see wicked sedevacantists everywhere because of YOUR pathological contempt for them.
-
You think the boys can wear shorts at a field day??
I see no issues with knee-length shorts for boys, no. Above the knees, aka "mid-thigh," inappropriate. I was merely saying that it's more inappropriate at Mass.
-
What is pathological is your contempt for sedevacantism and sedeprivationism. There's ZERO actual indication, much less proof, that the OP is either sedevacantist or sedeprivationist. Yet you see wicked sedevacantists everywhere because of YOUR pathological contempt for them.
I think your cheese slid off the cracker
-
What is pathological is your contempt for sedevacantism and sedeprivationism. There's ZERO actual indication, much less proof, that the OP is either sedevacantist or sedeprivationist. Yet you see wicked sedevacantists everywhere because of YOUR pathological contempt for them.
Sedevacantists and sedeprivationists are a combination of Modernist and Jєωιѕн supremacist. They (you) have a need to dominate everyone else.
-
Is there any reason why Boys (children) should not wear shorts as long as they are modest in length and cut ?
-
Is there any reason why Boys (children) should not wear shorts as long as they are modest in length and cut ?
The question is not relevant, as I, the OP, is talking about
1) Teenagers from an SSPX School officially wearing shorts to Sunday mass.
-
Well, that would certainly be inappropriate (vs. the knee-length ones in the picture). But thus far this remains an anonymous allegation.
I'm the OP, I was there, I saw it. No one that was there can deny it.
-
Is there any reason why Boys (children) should not wear shorts as long as they are modest in length and cut ?
Can I wear a speedo if it is a modest one?
Shorts are per se immodest by definition.
-
Can I wear a speedo if it is a modest one?
Shorts are per se immodest by definition.
You are seriously likening knee-length shorts to speedos? What's wrong with you, man?
-
You are seriously likening knee-length shorts to speedos? What's wrong with you, man?
But it’s a modest one.
-
I'm the OP, I was there, I saw it. No one that was there can deny it.
Yeah, but those of us who were not there have nothing to go by except an anonymous post. Heck, for all we know, your personal definition of exposing half the thigh actually amounted to being able to see part of the knee. You may in fact be the same person as the nutcase who thinks that knee-length sorts are no different from speedos.
-
But it’s a modest one.
You've lost your marbles. Seek professional help.
You're like the people who think that if a woman shows up in a sleeveless dress to Mass, that's no different than if she were to show up in a bikini or even walked into the church completely naked. Most categories of sin admit of degrees, ranging from light venial matter to very grave mortal.
This notion that shorts on a boy that cover the knee are "intrinsically" immodest is the biggest bunch of stupidity I've seen in a long time. Women's skirts and dresses are not considered immodest if they go below the knee. So why would mens' pants be immodest suddenly if they go below the knee?
:facepalm:
-
I’m the OP, only those that were there could see the length, I’ll grant you that, you’ll just have to take my word on the length, or not.
I am talking about the boys 11-14, for obviously a little boy of 8 or under wearing shorts to his knees is just a little boy. Nevertheless, shorts have never been allowed at any SSPX chapel I have ever been to, wearing shorts is a totally Novus Ordo, THAT is the point, and in this chapel it is written right on the bulletin and on the entrance to the church. Most importantly, this is not a parent that happened to dress their child, it is done under the instructions of the priests in charge. In other words, the priests in charge see nothing wrong with 11-14 year old boys wearing shorts to mass, contrary to the dress code they posted.
-
Can I wear a speedo if it is a modest one?
Shorts are per se immodest by definition.
This is the OP, I did not write the above.
I took it to be a joke.
-
I’m the OP, only those that were there could see the length, I’ll grant you that, you’ll just have to take my word on the length, or not.
I am talking about the boys 11-14, for obviously a little boy of 8 or under wearing shorts to his knees is just a little boy. Nevertheless, shorts have never been allowed at any SSPX chapel I have ever been to, wearing shorts is a totally Novus Ordo, THAT is the point, and in this chapel it is written right on the bulletin and on the entrance to the church. Most importantly, this is not a parent that happened to dress their child, it is done under the instructions of the priests in charge. In other words, the priests in charge see nothing wrong with 11-14 year old boys wearing shorts to mass, contrary to the dress code they posted.
Exactly. Case closed.
-
I’m the OP, only those that were there could see the length, I’ll grant you that, you’ll just have to take my word on the length, or not.
I am talking about the boys 11-14, for obviously a little boy of 8 or under wearing shorts to his knees is just a little boy. Nevertheless, shorts have never been allowed at any SSPX chapel I have ever been to, wearing shorts is a totally Novus Ordo, THAT is the point, and in this chapel it is written right on the bulletin and on the entrance to the church. Most importantly, this is not a parent that happened to dress their child, it is done under the instructions of the priests in charge. In other words, the priests in charge see nothing wrong with 11-14 year old boys wearing shorts to mass, contrary to the dress code they posted.
Were the current priests the ones who posted the dress code? Or was it left over from a previous regime?
I would just ask them, "Hi, Father, the dress code says no shorts, but you had these boys wearing shorts at Mass. I'm a little confused." At the very least, they're undermining their own dress code. Once you do that, then you give the impression that it's OK to violate other parts of the dress code. This is a relatively easy non-confrontational way to get some clarification and to gently point out the contradiction ... just spin it as you being confused about the dress code.
-
As an aside from this thread about a school ordering the children to wear shorts to mass, totally Novus Ordo:
Here’s a few points of interest from my life experiences:
When I was in my school years K-12, in public schools, we were not allowed to wear shorts to school. I assume the reason was that they didn’t want to deal with the parents subjective lengths issue. When I was in 5th grade wearing dress shorts was considered by us to be unmanly, an embarrassing punishment.
If you dress your little children in shorts to mass, at what age do you stop it? It is like mothers dressing their little daughters in short dresses, then one day they tell their daughters they can’t wear that length to mass. Maybe they even say they can’t wear that length just to mass but no problem any other time? And at what age? It all depends on the parent. Then when the daughters rebel, the parents will wonder why? No, it is best to train the children how to dress for life.
As a teenager working in the hot sun mowing lawns, chainsawing trees, digging ditches and such , I quickly learned that shorts do not work. Your legs get full of dirt, grease, oil, Poison Ivy, Mosquito bites, thorn cuts, cuts, bruises and scrapes…. Needless to say, I only wore shorts at the beach. I never saw much difference in heat between shorts and long pants.
So, why wear shorts at all? I see old men today walking around in shorts, high socks, and sneakers, they look like giant children, ridiculous.
-
This is do not believe. Mens and boys shorts haven't been mid thigh length since the 80s.
-
I’m the OP, only those that were there could see the length, I’ll grant you that, [....]
Certainly true. With which you have led readers straight into your dilemma:
[....] you’ll just have to take my word on the length, or not.
Then "or not" it'll be! You're displaying a serious lack of perspective about this CathInfo (sub)forum:
There is no logical reason for any CathInfo reader to feel any obligation whatsoever to "have to take [the] word" of any writer who posts as "Anonymous". That should be self-evident as the trade-off you made in return for your anonymity. As a matter of crucial contrast, even those of us who post under pseudonyms (i.e., nicknames) have accuмulated an accessible history of postings against which readers can evaluate our latest postings.
-
Well said, Alligator!
as for this
wearing shorts is a totally Novus Ordo
I'm pretty sure these men had never heard of let alone attended a Novus Ordo:
Now we might say "men look funnt in shorts, but to say it's Novus Ordo is an innane comment.
(https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/mens-dress-reform-party-1.jpg)
-
I have no desire to argue with anyone. I asked my father about legwear as it was in his childhood. He was born in 1925 in New York City. Do the math. Acording to Dad, who does NOT suffer from dementia, it was universal custom for little boys up until about age 2, to wear gowns. This allowed for ease and modesty of diaper changes and early potty training. No boy ever admitted to remembering wearing a gown! From age 2 on up to about 7 or 8, long shorts and knee socks were worn in hot weather and knickers with argyle knee socks the rest of the time. By about 10, shorts were worn only for things like hiking or Boy Scout Camp. It was a hallmark of entering manhood to wear long pants full time. My Dad recalls the knickers vanishing between grades 7 and 8. No boy would be caught dead in knickers or shorts in high school unless it was to play team sports. And even then, they were baggy, not form-fitting like today's spandex.
I don't see any older boys or men wearing shorts in the sspx school picture. If anything, the boys have less leg showing than the girls. And remember, it is a school in Florida, not Minnesota! The shorts are not form fitting. Personally, I think many trads. are Puritanical. I'd be much more concerned over the doctrine my child will be taught at the school than over little boys in long, loose shorts!
Could a case not be made over the length of the girls' sleeves? Mary-like standards call for long sleeves, or at least no shorter than half way up the forearm to the elbow. Pope Pius XI conceded half way to the elbow on the upper arm "due to market conditions." How many SSPX chapels and schools enforce the more modest of the two?
And shouldn't every child have his or her top buttoned to the neck?
I teach in a private school K-8, that requires modest uniforms. Boys through grade 2 (age 7-8), are permitted to wear the same type of shorts if the temperature is 70° F or above. Unlike the sspx school, Polo shirts aren't allowed except for P.E. All boys wear a light blue long or short sleeve dress shirt and tie on top. Grades 6-8 must wear or have with them a suit jacket. Younger boys may wear a suit jacket or cardigan. Girls up through grade 2 wear a green, blue, gray plaid jumper with a blue long or short sleeve blouse, a Navy beret, and navy criss-cross neck tie. After grade 2 they exchange the jumper for a pleated skirt with button-up vest. Boys wear a Navy sweatsuit with Polo shirt and black, blue, or white sneakers for p.e. Girls wear navy clothes, white knee socks, Polo shirt, and zip-up navy fleece jacket, + same choice in sneakers. There are two styles of dress shoes for boys, three styles for girls. There is an optional school hooded wind-breaker for all. Teachers don't have a uniform, per se, but we do follow a set dress code. My personal opinion? We're an exceptionally well-dressed school.
-
Auto spell! The girls wear CULOTTES for P.E., not pants.
-
Well said, Alligator!
as for this
I'm pretty sure these men had never heard of let alone attended a Novus Ordo:
Now we might say "men look funnt in shorts, but to say it's Novus Ordo is an innane comment.
(https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/mens-dress-reform-party-1.jpg)
Indeed, they look rather ridiculous. And, ladies, be sure to avert your eyes lest you be tempted ... to be grossed out. :laugh1:
-
I’m the OP, only those that were there could see the length, I’ll grant you that, you’ll just have to take my word on the length, or not.
I am talking about the boys 11-14,
Wait a minute. This school is kindergarten to 8th grade. A 14 year old wouldn't be there.
-
Wait a minute. This school is kindergarten to 8th grade. A 14 year old wouldn't be there.
Do your math again: 8th grade is 13-14 year-olds.
-
I am talking about the boys 11-14, for obviously a little boy of 8 or under wearing shorts to his knees is just a little boy. Nevertheless, shorts have never been allowed at any SSPX chapel I have ever been to, wearing shorts TO MASS is a totally Novus Ordo, THAT is the point, and in this chapel it is written right on the bulletin and on the entrance to the church. Most importantly, this is not a parent that happened to dress their child, it is done under the instructions of the priests in charge. In other words, the priests in charge see nothing wrong with 11-14 year old boys wearing shorts to mass, contrary to the dress code they posted.
This is the OP again, reposting THE POINT, as some people have digressed into people debating whether children and adults can wear shorts in schools or in public. We are talking about
-
Indeed, they look rather ridiculous. And, ladies, be sure to avert your eyes lest you be tempted ... to be grossed out. :laugh1:
Grossed out? In NY, I'd give them a second glance, concluding they were some sort of fruit and nut club, but a third glance, no. I'm grossed out only when people are wearing mainly tattoos and piercings instead of clothes, or when a super morbidly obese person squeezes him or herself into neon or animal print spandex! Or if a person's lack of hygiene is what causes me to take notice. Also, conduct not associated with human beings! These things are truly gross!
Five or six inches of little boys' legs? No.
-
Do your math again: 8th grade is 13-14 year-olds.
This is the OP, thank you for correcting that person, and to add that I was 15 in the 8th grade and I knew boys 18 in the 9th grade, but I left it at 14 which is the common age.
-
I am talking about the boys 11-14, for obviously a little boy of 8 or under wearing shorts to his knees is just a little boy. Nevertheless, shorts have never been allowed at any SSPX chapel I have ever been to, wearing shorts TO MASS is a totally Novus Ordo, THAT is the point, and in this chapel it is written right on the bulletin and on the entrance to the church. Most importantly, this is not a parent that happened to dress their child, it is done under the instructions of the priests in charge. In other words, the priests in charge see nothing wrong with 11-14 year old boys wearing shorts to mass, contrary to the dress code they posted.
This is the OP again, reposting THE POINT, as some people have digressed into people debating whether children and adults can wear shorts in schools or in public. We are talking about boys 11-14 wearing shorts TO MASS, read the whole posting in the quote.
-
Do your math again: 8th grade is 13-14 year-olds.
I was 12 in 8th grade. I could ask my mother but I don't recall skipping a grade. At any rate the kid's Summer uniform isn't scandalous. Those shorts don't go up to the thigh. I just can't see getting hysterical about this.
-
I was 12 in 8th grade. I could ask my mother but I don't recall skipping a grade. At any rate the kid's Summer uniform isn't scandalous. Those shorts don't go up to the thigh. I just can't see getting hysterical about this.
The whole country is 12 in 6th grade.
And you are deliberately missing the point: They attend Mass in shorts!!
-
Babies attend Mass in diapers. Oh horror. Should you not be thankful to be at Mass and concern yourself with your own sins rather than obsess over what small children are wearing?
-
Babies attend Mass in diapers. Oh horror. Should you not be thankful to be at Mass and concern yourself with your own sins rather than obsess over what small children are wearing?
I have yet to see a baby in church clad in only a diaper, and if 14 year-olds qualify as “small children,” then you should have no problem dressing one for school and bathing on, eh?
Let me guess: You wear pants, makeup, watch tv, have a career, would attend an indult Mass, etc?
-
Fr. Urrutigoity’s favorite slogan:
“We mustn’t be Puritanical!”
-
SSPX Sanford Florida St. Thomas More Chapel bulletin reads (every large letter or bolding is exactly as the bulletin is written:
“I URGE YOU THEREFORE, BROTHERS, BY THER MERCIES OF GOD, TO OFFER YOUR BODIES AS LIVING SACRIFICE, HOLY AND PLEASING TO GOD, YOUR SPIRITUAL WORSHIP.” Rm 12:1
Out of respect for Our Lord Jesus Christ and for the edification of our neighbor, we beg all to appear in Church decent in deportment and modest in dress.
However, no one has the right to question others, especially visitors. It belongs to the parish priest alone to instruct the laity when they repeatedly dress or deport below expectation.
For Gentlemen and lads: Neither shorts, T-shirts, nor sneakers meet the norms of modesty.
For ladies and girls: Neither shorts, slacks, sleeveless, short nor low cut dresses meet the norms of modesty.
Furthermore, according to apostolic custom or Church law, gentlemen are bareheaded in church; and ladies are requested to cover their heads.
Thank you for your charity.
The priests continue to bring the school children into mass in shorts. Yesterday there was a funeral mass and all the children were in shorts. The bulletin says no shorts even for lads, but it also says "It belongs to the parish priest alone to instruct the laity when they repeatedly dress or deport below expectation", so what happens when it is the priests who are instructing/ordering the people to "repeatedly dress or deport below expectation"?
-
Maybe Fr. vernoy had another "mens night" and was too drunk to notice?
-
Fr. Urrutigoity’s favorite slogan:
“We mustn’t be Puritanical!”
Yes, but he used this as a justification for sensuality and hedonism.
-
SSPX Sanford Florida St. Thomas More Chapel bulletin reads (every large letter or bolding is exactly as the bulletin is written:
The priests continue to bring the school children into mass in shorts. Yesterday there was a funeral mass and all the children were in shorts. The bulletin says no shorts even for lads, but it also says "It belongs to the parish priest alone to instruct the laity when they repeatedly dress or deport below expectation", so what happens when it is the priests who are instructing/ordering the people to "repeatedly dress or deport below expectation"?
The priest purposely changes the rules so the K-8 school boys wear shorts to school and tells them they should wear short to mass on Sunday. The boys school is air conditioned, the Church is air conditioned.
That does not sound good. The Novus Ordo priests did the same things, and they were found to be perverts. This does not sound good.
-
You think the boys can wear shorts at a field day??
What on earth is wrong with that? Shorts have always been a common attire for young boys, especially when doing outside activities. Wearing shorts to Mass is an issue, but wearing shorts in general is not. Now, for older boys it can be a bit infantile(well, going by early to mid 20th century fashions at least, there's nothing intrinsically immature about them) unless they're playing sports, but for kids absolutely not. That's traditional attire for them.
-
Can I wear a speedo if it is a modest one?
Shorts are per se immodest by definition.
What is a modest speedo? A speedo loose enough and long enough to be modest would not be a speedo by definition. By your deranged and twisted logic, trousers are just "modest shorts" and therefore also immodest and wrong.