Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Origin of Marylike Standards of Modesty  (Read 913 times)

1 Member and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Origin of Marylike Standards of Modesty
« Reply #35 on: Today at 07:48:51 PM »
Pope Pius XI's standards are not 1800s standards. Even in the 1910s, it was fashionable to have the entire body covered to the ankles and wrists.

St. Philip Neri tolerated venial sin in his penitents on the condition that this toleration would be conducive to their salvation. He never tolerated mortal sin. Running around like wild Indians in the nude is not a venial sin.

Are you implying it takes a saint to obey the Pope in these matters of modesty? Your standards are truly not the standards of the Church:

From Pope Pius XI's Instruction Concerning the Immodest Dress of Women, 1930:

9. Girls and women who wear immodest dress shall be denied Holy Communion, and shall not be admitted as sponsors at Baptism and Confirmation, and, if needs be, shall be stopped from entering any church.
How did you arrive at these conclusions from my post?
Are you seeking an argument?
I think you're reading bad will into my reply.

Re: Origin of Marylike Standards of Modesty
« Reply #36 on: Today at 08:19:17 PM »
Can somebody find what a Pope said about the necklines of women's dress in France during the 18th century?  Look at portraits of Queen Marie Antoinette.

Women, especially, have a hard time going against the trends of the age.  Maybe it takes a special grace these days to dress with the standards mentioned above.
The extremely low necklines of the nobility and upper classes of European society in the 17th century were dubbed, “the windows to Hell” by both Catholic and some Protestants of the time. Look it up. The gowns may have reached the floor or nearly so, but half the floor below could be readily seen from the attic.  By the standards of most traditional Catholics in 2026, they’d probably be required to cover up in your average chapel. Even the neo-SSPX would not approve. I can’t imagine any SSPX priest in the US giving them Communion!  
There was also also a time when men would be turned down for wearing breeches that were basically tights, along with a short-waited up-away jacket, so his manhood was announce to all viewers. They would also wear the pointed shoes whose tips were a foot away from the actual toes. Some were so extreme they had a braided cord from the tip to fasten around the calf in order to walk without falling over one’s shoes! They were immodest not because of being too revealing, but by being ostentatious!


Online Gray2023

  • Supporter
Re: Origin of Marylike Standards of Modesty
« Reply #37 on: Today at 09:05:13 PM »
The extremely low necklines of the nobility and upper classes of European society in the 17th century were dubbed, “the windows to Hell” by both Catholic and some Protestants of the time. Look it up. The gowns may have reached the floor or nearly so, but half the floor below could be readily seen from the attic.  By the standards of most traditional Catholics in 2026, they’d probably be required to cover up in your average chapel. Even the neo-SSPX would not approve. I can’t imagine any SSPX priest in the US giving them Communion! 
There was also also a time when men would be turned down for wearing breeches that were basically tights, along with a short-waited up-away jacket, so his manhood was announce to all viewers. They would also wear the pointed shoes whose tips were a foot away from the actual toes. Some were so extreme they had a braided cord from the tip to fasten around the calf in order to walk without falling over one’s shoes! They were immodest not because of being too revealing, but by being ostentatious!
The things people do for fashion can be so strange.

The immodesty issue probably was one of many reasons why the French Revolution happened. 

Re: Origin of Marylike Standards of Modesty
« Reply #38 on: Today at 09:18:54 PM »
At a traditional chapel I was visiting in the past, the priest asked me and other women to let him know if there were women not properly dressed, and to tell women, on his behalf (should he not be around for some reason), not to enter the chapel if they were very immodest, such as dressed in leggings for example.
I wear leggings in cold weather with boots or socks of the same color as the leggings. Over them is my dress or skirt. It’s extra warm and nobody ever sees my knees even when seated!
I don’t do pantyhose or tights because, 1) I get one use out of pantyhose before they rip, snag, and run.  Plus they make me perspire and give me an itchy, swollen rash in unmentionable regions. 2) Tights, the waist band inevitably fails. First, the tights start to work their way down until there are wrinkles around my ankles and lower calves. Second, if not pulled up again, they begin to slip into my shoes around my feet as I walk, sit, stand, or kneel. Unless I can utilize a restroom or fully private place, they continue downward until extreme embarrassment is a certainty. No, it does not help to wear cotton panties. The tights end up bringing them down for the ride.  Double the humiliation!  We are supposed to seek humiliations, but not of this sort!  “Wardrobe malfunctions,” if they’ve once occurred, will not be repeated if a Catholic has any common sense!
The kind of undergarments worn by grandma or great grandma are not sold in any but specialized shops, ie. bridal or for proms, or, God forbid, “X-rated” shops or adult stores!
I’ve run into trads who think leggings of any sort or usage is a mortal sin, but woe to any person who I find scrutinizing me from mid-calf on down!
In warm weather, I wear these lovely things called knee-highs that do stay up, and dresses or skirts long enough that one cannot tell whether they be knee highs or pantyhose, unless he (or she) is a pervert. As for other undergarments, that’s private. I make sure it’s private.
If it had been “fashionable” in 1928, I’m very sure the Pope and Padre Pio would have barred from the church property anyone whose underwear was showing on purpose! It’s not only immodest, but rude! 
Wooly Dr. Denton’s cover from bottom of ankle to above the nape of the neck, so why not wear them (and shoes) to go out and the men, for Mass?!! Scuba diving and fencing garb both cover-up well🧐! 🏄‍♂️🤺

Re: Origin of Marylike Standards of Modesty
« Reply #39 on: Today at 09:37:39 PM »
The extremely low necklines of the nobility and upper classes of European society in the 17th century were dubbed, “the windows to Hell” by both Catholic and some Protestants of the time. Look it up. The gowns may have reached the floor or nearly so, but half the floor below could be readily seen from the attic.  By the standards of most traditional Catholics in 2026, they’d probably be required to cover up in your average chapel. Even the neo-SSPX would not approve. I can’t imagine any SSPX priest in the US giving them Communion! 

There are still conservative Protestant congregations as well, that would have an issue with such a blatant display of decolletage.  Some of them have standards that are more or less the same as what we call "Marylike".