Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Jitpring on March 30, 2012, 06:36:23 PM
-
See:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/03/relevant-thoughts-trad-environments.html
Also read the comments. Only one commenter vigorously dissents.
-
Sorry, to break it to people who don't feel like they should belong to a ghetto, but that's exactly what Vatican II was about destroying, the "bastions" of a "ghetto" Catholicism.
Of course, pseudo-trads aren't content to to leave a single stone unturned.
The chief problem with traditional communities is the lack of traditional behavior. A few relatively cosmetic issues are used to paper over the more serious failure to authentically preserve tradition.
-
Wow, note the title:
The dilemmas of our bastions of faith
How on earth is this a dilemma?
A characteristic of this attitude are the words of Hans Urs van Balthasar, a former Jesuit Father, from Switzerland, who died last year. He said in the beginning of the 1950’s, that “The ‘razing of the bastions…’ was in fact an urgent duty”. What are these bastions? They are: the social bodies in the Catholic culture, a whole Catholic civilization. They comprise the family, marriage, especially the system of Catholic education and the Catholic state."These bastions", he says, "must be dismantled". That means they must be destroyed. Cardinal Ratzinger in his book, ‘Theological Principles’ edited in 1982, in Rome, refers to this word of Urs van Balthasar saying that “The ‘razing of the bastions…’ was in fact an urgent duty”.
Why has the SSPX changed its rhetoric so dramatically?
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/Catholic-Church-and-Second-Vatican-Council.htm
-
Anyone who thinks wearing a business suit to Mass is a sign of a man's holiness doesn't even begin to understand Jesus Christ. The standards that some trads apply to women are even more ridiculous and the eccentric way women dress in some trad communities ensures that many young women that visit for Mass don't return. Modesty is not dressing provocatively. Modesty has nothing to do with adopting an Amish or Southern Protestant dress code. Bravo to Father Gaud!
This sort of statement is absolutely ridiculous.
As though dressing appropriately is dressing like the Amish.
Yes, actually believing in the religion, and dressing like you believe it, is "southern baptist"
These people liberalizers, pure and simple. Liberalizers and enemies.
-
There are plenty of problems in the traditional movement.
But expecting women to wear long skirts and veils to mass is NOT one of them.
The real problems is the infiltration of feminist attitudes in a society that is absolutely opposed to the Catholic conception of the role of women, and the pandering to those attitudes by venal clergy.
Frauds and sellouts in the trad clergy need to be held to account.
-
Anyone who thinks wearing a business suit to Mass is a sign of a man's holiness doesn't even begin to understand Jesus Christ. The standards that some trads apply to women are even more ridiculous and the eccentric way women dress in some trad communities ensures that many young women that visit for Mass don't return. Modesty is not dressing provocatively. Modesty has nothing to do with adopting an Amish or Southern Protestant dress code. Bravo to Father Gaud!
This sort of statement is absolutely ridiculous.
As though dressing appropriately is dressing like the Amish.
Yes, actually believing in the religion, and dressing like you believe it, is "southern baptist"
These people liberalizers, pure and simple. Liberalizers and enemies.
Yeah, he's been reading too much Schleiermacher.
The Neo-Trads use almost the exact same tactics and same sayings that the Neo-Modernists and other Liberal Catholics used to bring down the church. See the Quiet Revolution in Quebec, specifically the change in religious mentalities that lead to it.
-
Understanding what has happened to the Catholic Church means accepting conspiracy theories. Showing even the bare minimum level of respect for the Holy Mass and the Blessed Sacrament means dressing appropriately. People who are really Catholic really act like Catholics, that means, they don't complain about simple requirements that might offend the vanity of feminists or liberals who don't like hearing the truth about the new orientation of society, its fundamental opposition to Catholicism, and the duty of Catholics to oppose that orientation. If such people cannot even accept the smallest requirements I really think they are not interested in tradition but in liberalization.
I posted the above but I don't think they will put it up.
-
I find it strange that they would accuse Trads who wear suits or dignified clothing to mass as southern Baptists, when many southern Baptists have a revivalist "come as you are" and "just as I am" mentality. It show that they don't know what they are talking about.
-
I find it strange that they would accuse Trads who wear suits or dignified clothing to mass as southern Baptists, when many southern Baptists have a revivalist "come as you are" and "just as I am" mentality. It show that they don't know what they are talking about.
When all else fails, they talk about puritanism (to defend drunkenness), protestantism, jansenism, Americanism (which typically refers to something liberal Europeans are intolerant of), jansenism, etc. They never have to define their terms.
Most of this seems to come from a sort of liberal-leaning snobbery. The class divisions in traditional Catholicism are also pretty serious.
But the most dangerous thing, really, is that there will always be rewards waiting for those who want to impose gradual liberalization.
-
If they sign a deal, you can come to expect more of this hatred of tradition from a group "reconciled" to those who hate tradition.
-
If they sign a deal, you can come to expect more of this hatred of tradition from a group "reconciled" to those who hate tradition.
I think some of them intend to stoke hatred and contempt for any traditional attitudes that they perceive to adversely affect the bottom line.
-
Anyone who thinks wearing a business suit to Mass is a sign of a man's holiness doesn't even begin to understand Jesus Christ. The standards that some trads apply to women are even more ridiculous and the eccentric way women dress in some trad communities ensures that many young women that visit for Mass don't return. Modesty is not dressing provocatively. Modesty has nothing to do with adopting an Amish or Southern Protestant dress code. Bravo to Father Gaud!
This sort of statement is absolutely ridiculous.
As though dressing appropriately is dressing like the Amish.
Yes, actually believing in the religion, and dressing like you believe it, is "southern baptist"
These people liberalizers, pure and simple. Liberalizers and enemies.
Exactly.
What kind of so-called "traditionalist" wants to dissuade Catholic women from dressing modestly at Mass?
This character uses words like "eccentric" and "ridiculous" to describe noble Catholic women.
He then lousily compares how they dress to Amish and Southern protestants.
When I see Catholic women dressed properly with skirts covering their ankles at Mass - or anywhere else - I feel
real respect for them.
Let us salute these virtuous Catholic women.
-
...this is why I don't usually bother reading sites like Rorate Caeli.
They are often filled with Liberalism, which just leaves any real Catholic feeling frustrated and annoyed.
There is more good sense spoken on CathInfo than on a dozen of these faux-traditionalist sites put together.
Although we have not all yet come to the same conclusion about the status of Benny Boy, most people on CathInfo have an
understanding of the Faith.
-
Rorate Caeli and AQ and FE and that kind of site seem to be full of people who are very dissatisfied with traditional
Catholicism.
Also, on sites like FE you have to search around to find a thread that is interesting enough to even bother reading.
Let alone bothering to post on.
Most of these other forums are often boring.
On CathInfo, many of the threads are deeply absorbing.
This is actually somewhere I want to post.
-
Also, we can speak the truth on CathInfo without getting banned.
That is a remarkable and a precious thing.
That is possibly the most valuable thing about CathInfo.
That it is a medium for the truth.
-
I think all the talk about how to dress at mass is missing the point. Of course we should dress appropriately for mass, but what the good priest is speaking to is accepting people where they are spiritually when they first encounter us.
Remember 99.9% of the Catholic world doesn't even know that a Traditional movement exists. If we hide from them, then how are we supposed to convert them? That's what he is talking about, not about breaking up whatever is left of Catholic culture.
I remember when I lived in Idaho, I used to talk to a Protestant about the usual differences between Catholics & Protestants,he was fascinated by our perspective because he never heard it before. He asked me what Church I attended , I told him Immaculate Conception, and he told me, " Wow, my neighbor goes there, and they are the meanest SOBs on the planet. Their kids are mean to the other kids, once they told them that my wife is evil because she wears pants, and blah, blah, blah"
You get the point, by not showing the love of Christ by being patient, humble, kind to the neighbors around them, they locked themselves off, thinking they are Holier, and more pure then everybody else, they are repelling people away from the Church. That is the "bastion" this particular priest is talking about.
We have the Truth, we have the liturgy, now we need to have the Charity and Humility to not only reach out, but also to " look past" deficiencies people have when they first come home to one of our chaples. With God's grace they will fall into line.
-
Rorate Caeli and AQ and FE and that kind of site seem to be full of people who are very dissatisfied with traditional
Catholicism.
:applause:
-
I think all the talk about how to dress at mass is missing the point. Of course we should dress appropriately for mass, but what the good priest is speaking to is accepting people where they are spiritually when they first encounter us.
Remember 99.9% of the Catholic world doesn't even know that a Traditional movement exists. If we hide from them, then how are we supposed to convert them? That's what he is talking about, not about breaking up whatever is left of Catholic culture.
I remember when I lived in Idaho, I used to talk to a Protestant about the usual differences between Catholics & Protestants,he was fascinated by our perspective because he never heard it before. He asked me what Church I attended , I told him Immaculate Conception, and he told me, " Wow, my neighbor goes there, and they are the meanest SOBs on the planet. Their kids are mean to the other kids, once they told them that my wife is evil because she wears pants, and blah, blah, blah"
You get the point, by not showing the love of Christ by being patient, humble, kind to the neighbors around them, they locked themselves off, thinking they are Holier, and more pure then everybody else, they are repelling people away from the Church. That is the "bastion" this particular priest is talking about.
We have the Truth, we have the liturgy, now we need to have the Charity and Humility to not only reach out, but also to " look past" deficiencies people have when they first come home to one of our chaples. With God's grace they will fall into line.
I totally agree....I've been around those that are critical of NO Catholics...they become smug and self-satisfied, say uncharitable things...this is about having an understanding of the unusual time we live and the necessity to somewhat overlook deficiencies while trying to welcome and convert...it is easier to attract people by appearing normal by today's standards, than appearing like a weird cult...I've always said a woman can look modest yet elegant, if not stylish.
-
Remember 99.9% of the Catholic world doesn't even know that a Traditional movement exists. If we hide from them, then how are we supposed to convert them? That's what he is talking about, not about breaking up whatever is left of Catholic culture.
I think this is incredibly important. I had never heard about Traditional Catholicism until about a month ago. I hadn't even heard of a Tridentine Mass. And I've always been a practicing (granted, NO) Catholic! It was only on a blog that I heard about the Mass, and when I eventually decided I was interested to try it out I found information on FE, which is what brought me to Traditional Catholicism.
I have noticed that a lot of people have the holier-than-thou mindset, and this often leads them to form said "bastions." Traditional Catholicism will never just become Catholicism again if we don't allow liberal Catholics to know that there are those who disagree with some, most, or all of Vatican II.
-
Well I think there's a balance. No one is saying to be uncharitable to newcomers, though yes, it exists. But you can find uncharitable people anywhere. Is it not uncharitable for a NO priest to scold someone who is kneeling during mass(it happened to my friend)? No. But its also not charitable to kick a woman out of mass, I think, if she's wearing pants for the first time to a TLM, and doesn't know better. If she's wearing a hoochie mamma skirt, and tube-top shirt that shows everything, that's different.
But this priest is really wrong for scolding women in the Trad movement who dress with modesty. Apparently all of us here who were not born into a trad Chapel weren't repulsed by it, right? The people who say they are are using that as a smoke screen. They just don't like Catholocism. There's a saying in my industry, which is sales: "If someone is ready to buy, there's nothing you can do to convince them not to. If someone isn't ready to buy, there's nothing you can say to convince them to."
And in regards to people seeing this 'holier than thou mindset'; could this be a revealing of someone's pride? Perhaps a form of envy, or jealousy? I think it could, perhaps. St. Thomas recognized that there wasn't just a bilateral level of Catholicism. There is an infinite scale which the soul could climb on its way to interior perfection. It wasn't just, 'on' or 'off'. If one see's the development of a soul who is indeed 'holier', they should try to prevent themselves from scorning that, or from projecting their own negative vision on that person who is, by his very nature, advanced in the spiritual life.
-
Also, to the comment of trad women looking modest yet still being able to be stylish- I would ask then: Is this then a case of style? Apparently so. And if it is, why is this priest, if he is speaking to the same thing, so concerned with style? If people haven't figured it out, there is something about being a traditional Catholic which is innately 'counter-would'. If some of that bleeds out into the 'style' of clothing one wears, what's wrong with that?
The people at the FishEaters forum, have yet to figure this out, in my humble opinion. They seem to continue on with placing importance on trendiness, being into sports, and being able to sound really a la mode. Its pretty immature actually. Though I find nothing wrong with joking or having a good time, its also okay to be reserved. I find a good mixture of that here. In my limited experience, I've seen little reservation there. There are my 2 cents, which are worth nothing.
-
Also, to the comment of trad women looking modest yet still being able to be stylish- I would ask then: Is this then a case of style? Apparently so. And if it is, why is this priest, if he is speaking to the same thing, so concerned with style? If people haven't figured it out, there is something about being a traditional Catholic which is innately 'counter-would'. If some of that bleeds out into the 'style' of clothing one wears, what's wrong with that?
Never before in the history of the Church have Catholic women not dressed in the mode of the day...the "style" of the day if you will...now, suddenly, Catholic women have to dress like they belong on the set of "Little house on the Prairie"? No, that is ridiculous...no wonder people think that the SSPX'ers are cult members...believe you me, I've heard it said by outsiders.....that isn't the type of criticism a traditional Catholic needs. Since when has being a Catholic meant that we have to dive off the deep end into prudish, stern, sour-faced early American Protestantism?
Great Catholic women have always dressed beautifully...I will give Queen Isabella of Spain as an example:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LEZVADmDZ1U/Tlr4vNI_pfI/AAAAAAAAB3g/c2PEoteBkPU/s1600/Isabella+II+of+Spain+1865.jpg
Beautiful, elegant and stylish for the day...here is a modern photo:
http://static.photaki.com/spanish-mantilla-clad-women-and-scapular_427860.jpg
How beautiful...it sure beats this:
http://nowscape.com/mormon/images/polyg_women_TX.jpg
Catholic's have always set the style for society...and the moral standards along with it.
-
Also, to the comment of trad women looking modest yet still being able to be stylish- I would ask then: Is this then a case of style? Apparently so. And if it is, why is this priest, if he is speaking to the same thing, so concerned with style? If people haven't figured it out, there is something about being a traditional Catholic which is innately 'counter-would'. If some of that bleeds out into the 'style' of clothing one wears, what's wrong with that?
Never before in the history of the Church have Catholic women not dressed in the mode of the day...the "style" of the day if you will...now, suddenly, Catholic women have to dress like they belong on the set of "Little house on the Prairie"?
Never before in the history of the Church have Catholic women AND men been forced to see perversion in the dress of secularized and sɛҳuąƖized women.
No one is asked to dress any way, but modestly.
And your examples are not very good ones. There are guidelines given to us for how to dress, its up to us, with the guidance of our priests, to focus on modesty.
Why did you use a picture of polygamist mormon's as your example of how trad women dress? Do they dress that way at your Chapel?
-
Catholic's have always set the style for society...and the moral standards along with it.
Perhaps this is a 'reset' of style for society.
-
Also, to the comment of trad women looking modest yet still being able to be stylish- I would ask then: Is this then a case of style? Apparently so. And if it is, why is this priest, if he is speaking to the same thing, so concerned with style? If people haven't figured it out, there is something about being a traditional Catholic which is innately 'counter-would'. If some of that bleeds out into the 'style' of clothing one wears, what's wrong with that?
Never before in the history of the Church have Catholic women not dressed in the mode of the day...the "style" of the day if you will...now, suddenly, Catholic women have to dress like they belong on the set of "Little house on the Prairie"?
Never before in the history of the Church have Catholic women AND men been forced to see perversion in the dress of secularized and sɛҳuąƖized women.
No one is asked to dress any way, but modestly.
And your examples are not very good ones. There are guidelines given to us for how to dress, its up to us, with the guidance of our priests, to focus on modesty.
Why did you use a picture of polygamist mormon's as your example of how trad women dress? Do they dress that way at your Chapel?
Some do...not as extreme...but the general idea. Sure, it was an extreme photo, but let's not be influenced by such perverted a look.
-
Catholic's have always set the style for society...and the moral standards along with it.
Perhaps this is a 'reset' of style for society.
Perhaps what is a 'reset'? There has never been a time in history, when society has reverted back to another age in their mode of dress.
-
There is an intelligent middle ground that can be reached. Modesty and style are two different things.
-
Also, to the comment of trad women looking modest yet still being able to be stylish- I would ask then: Is this then a case of style? Apparently so. And if it is, why is this priest, if he is speaking to the same thing, so concerned with style? If people haven't figured it out, there is something about being a traditional Catholic which is innately 'counter-would'. If some of that bleeds out into the 'style' of clothing one wears, what's wrong with that?
Never before in the history of the Church have Catholic women not dressed in the mode of the day...the "style" of the day if you will...now, suddenly, Catholic women have to dress like they belong on the set of "Little house on the Prairie"? No, that is ridiculous...no wonder people think that the SSPX'ers are cult members...believe you me, I've heard it said by outsiders.....that isn't the type of criticism a traditional Catholic needs. Since when has being a Catholic meant that we have to dive off the deep end into prudish, stern, sour-faced early American Protestantism?
Great Catholic women have always dressed beautifully...I will give Queen Isabella of Spain as an example:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LEZVADmDZ1U/Tlr4vNI_pfI/AAAAAAAAB3g/c2PEoteBkPU/s1600/Isabella+II+of+Spain+1865.jpg
Beautiful, elegant and stylish for the day...here is a modern photo:
http://static.photaki.com/spanish-mantilla-clad-women-and-scapular_427860.jpg
How beautiful...it sure beats this:
http://nowscape.com/mormon/images/polyg_women_TX.jpg
Catholic's have always set the style for society...and the moral standards along with it.
This has to be one of the dumber posts ever to appear on this forum.
-
Also, to the comment of trad women looking modest yet still being able to be stylish- I would ask then: Is this then a case of style? Apparently so. And if it is, why is this priest, if he is speaking to the same thing, so concerned with style? If people haven't figured it out, there is something about being a traditional Catholic which is innately 'counter-would'. If some of that bleeds out into the 'style' of clothing one wears, what's wrong with that?
Never before in the history of the Church have Catholic women not dressed in the mode of the day...the "style" of the day if you will...now, suddenly, Catholic women have to dress like they belong on the set of "Little house on the Prairie"? No, that is ridiculous...no wonder people think that the SSPX'ers are cult members...believe you me, I've heard it said by outsiders.....that isn't the type of criticism a traditional Catholic needs. Since when has being a Catholic meant that we have to dive off the deep end into prudish, stern, sour-faced early American Protestantism?
Great Catholic women have always dressed beautifully...I will give Queen Isabella of Spain as an example:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LEZVADmDZ1U/Tlr4vNI_pfI/AAAAAAAAB3g/c2PEoteBkPU/s1600/Isabella+II+of+Spain+1865.jpg
Beautiful, elegant and stylish for the day...here is a modern photo:
http://static.photaki.com/spanish-mantilla-clad-women-and-scapular_427860.jpg
How beautiful...it sure beats this:
http://nowscape.com/mormon/images/polyg_women_TX.jpg
Catholic's have always set the style for society...and the moral standards along with it.
This has to be one of the dumber posts ever to appear on this forum.
Point out what is dumb so I can think about it...will you?
-
Also, to the comment of trad women looking modest yet still being able to be stylish- I would ask then: Is this then a case of style? Apparently so. And if it is, why is this priest, if he is speaking to the same thing, so concerned with style? If people haven't figured it out, there is something about being a traditional Catholic which is innately 'counter-would'. If some of that bleeds out into the 'style' of clothing one wears, what's wrong with that?
Never before in the history of the Church have Catholic women not dressed in the mode of the day...the "style" of the day if you will...now, suddenly, Catholic women have to dress like they belong on the set of "Little house on the Prairie"? No, that is ridiculous...no wonder people think that the SSPX'ers are cult members...believe you me, I've heard it said by outsiders.....that isn't the type of criticism a traditional Catholic needs. Since when has being a Catholic meant that we have to dive off the deep end into prudish, stern, sour-faced early American Protestantism?
Great Catholic women have always dressed beautifully...I will give Queen Isabella of Spain as an example:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LEZVADmDZ1U/Tlr4vNI_pfI/AAAAAAAAB3g/c2PEoteBkPU/s1600/Isabella+II+of+Spain+1865.jpg
Beautiful, elegant and stylish for the day...here is a modern photo:
http://static.photaki.com/spanish-mantilla-clad-women-and-scapular_427860.jpg
How beautiful...it sure beats this:
http://nowscape.com/mormon/images/polyg_women_TX.jpg
Catholic's have always set the style for society...and the moral standards along with it.
This has to be one of the dumber posts ever to appear on this forum.
Point out what is dumb so I can think about it...will you?
That a Catholic would have any concern whatever for modern fashions.
If you are perturbed that Catholic women can't show their boobs and thighs, too bad for you.
Our Lady warned us that these immoral fashions would come.
Yet it never occurs to you that the reason trads are "stuck in the 1950's" with their attire is because that is as close to the modern times as you can get without violating Catholic norms of modesty and femininity.
-
Also, to the comment of trad women looking modest yet still being able to be stylish- I would ask then: Is this then a case of style? Apparently so. And if it is, why is this priest, if he is speaking to the same thing, so concerned with style? If people haven't figured it out, there is something about being a traditional Catholic which is innately 'counter-would'. If some of that bleeds out into the 'style' of clothing one wears, what's wrong with that?
Never before in the history of the Church have Catholic women not dressed in the mode of the day... the "style" of the day if you will
You're probably wrong. I would be very surprised if early Christian women in Rome were not required to dress more simply and modestly than the pagan women around them, who probably thought them quite frumpy and prudish, at least till they converted. The fact that some of the earliest Church fathers, along with St. Paul himself, spent time and even wrote books exhorting their flocks to avoid vain fashions is powerful evidence for this; for why would they have gone to such effort unless to make Catholics dress differently from the mode of the day? They wouldn't have.
What I can say for certain is that never before have tight jeans, spandex yoga pants, short shorts, and so on been the mode for women under 30. I do not say that you want Catholic women to dress this way, but the logic of your argument ("dress in the mode of the day") takes us there inevitably. So we either go the whole hog and admit that immodesty can be modest, a la FE, or we admit that there are other principles involved, and which can require that we dress differently from the world.
How do you Christianize tight jeans and short shorts? You can't. You don't even try.
...now, suddenly, Catholic women have to dress like they belong on the set of "Little house on the Prairie"? No, that is ridiculous...no wonder people think that the SSPX'ers are cult members...believe you me, I've heard it said by outsiders.....that isn't the type of criticism a traditional Catholic needs. Since when has being a Catholic meant that we have to dive off the deep end into prudish, stern, sour-faced early American Protestantism?
This doesn't connect with anything I've ever experienced in the SSPX, and it reads like a tantrum.
Interestingly, I saw that third photo or yours posted on FE about a month ago, in yet another post mocking at some bogeyman of prudish, sour-faced protestantism within the SSPX. Like that is how SSPX men want you to look. :rolleyes:
The fact that clothing and fashion are such personal issues for women is why men need to set rules about them. It is a perennial battle to keep women dressed modestly; the ancients at least recognized that vanity is a feminine vice. But I think you will find that we don't want you to look frumpy, either.
-
Also, to the comment of trad women looking modest yet still being able to be stylish- I would ask then: Is this then a case of style? Apparently so. And if it is, why is this priest, if he is speaking to the same thing, so concerned with style? If people haven't figured it out, there is something about being a traditional Catholic which is innately 'counter-would'. If some of that bleeds out into the 'style' of clothing one wears, what's wrong with that?
Never before in the history of the Church have Catholic women not dressed in the mode of the day...the "style" of the day if you will...now, suddenly, Catholic women have to dress like they belong on the set of "Little house on the Prairie"? No, that is ridiculous...no wonder people think that the SSPX'ers are cult members...believe you me, I've heard it said by outsiders.....that isn't the type of criticism a traditional Catholic needs. Since when has being a Catholic meant that we have to dive off the deep end into prudish, stern, sour-faced early American Protestantism?
Great Catholic women have always dressed beautifully...I will give Queen Isabella of Spain as an example:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LEZVADmDZ1U/Tlr4vNI_pfI/AAAAAAAAB3g/c2PEoteBkPU/s1600/Isabella+II+of+Spain+1865.jpg
Beautiful, elegant and stylish for the day...here is a modern photo:
http://static.photaki.com/spanish-mantilla-clad-women-and-scapular_427860.jpg
How beautiful...it sure beats this:
http://nowscape.com/mormon/images/polyg_women_TX.jpg
Catholic's have always set the style for society...and the moral standards along with it.
This has to be one of the dumber posts ever to appear on this forum.
Point out what is dumb so I can think about it...will you?
That a Catholic would have any concern whatever for modern fashions.
If you are perturbed that Catholic women can't show their boobs and thighs, too bad for you.
Our Lady warned us that these immoral fashions would come.
Yet it never occurs to you that the reason trads are "stuck in the 1950's" with their attire is because that is as close to the modern times as you can get without violating Catholic norms of modesty and femininity.
Oh please...give me a break. You know when I first came to tradition, I was as asinine as you in my thinking. I've since gain my senses and my logic, escaped from the tendency towards cultish behavior and consipracy theories, realized that fashion/style is not the same as modesty. Women can look stylish and fashionable, wear make-up and nail polish..and still be modest, so your narrow mindedness falls flat on its face.
Trads shouldn't be "stuck" in any era, the fifties included...move on already...this is 2012 the year of Our Lord...let's deal with regaining the traditions of the Church not the fashion traditions of the biblical era.
I'm sorry...but there are few women who go to church dressed immorally...tacky, yes, immoral, no...
Here is one of the replies from the article on RC...it sums things up real well:
"If you make yourselves like a bunch of outcasts, reasonable people will cast you out. Make sure that when you are persecuted, it is for some critical point of faith or morals and not for looking like you just walked out of a time machine."
-
Also, to the comment of trad women looking modest yet still being able to be stylish- I would ask then: Is this then a case of style? Apparently so. And if it is, why is this priest, if he is speaking to the same thing, so concerned with style? If people haven't figured it out, there is something about being a traditional Catholic which is innately 'counter-would'. If some of that bleeds out into the 'style' of clothing one wears, what's wrong with that?
Never before in the history of the Church have Catholic women not dressed in the mode of the day... the "style" of the day if you will
You're probably wrong. I would be very surprised if early Christian women in Rome were not required to dress more simply and modestly than the pagan women around them, who probably thought them quite frumpy and prudish, at least till they converted. The fact that some of the earliest Church fathers, along with St. Paul himself, spent time and even wrote books exhorting their flocks to avoid vain fashions is powerful evidence for this; for why would they have gone to such effort unless to make Catholics dress differently from the mode of the day? They wouldn't have.
What I can say for certain is that never before have tight jeans, spandex yoga pants, short shorts, and so on been the mode for women under 30. I do not say that you want Catholic women to dress this way, but the logic of your argument ("dress in the mode of the day") takes us there inevitably. So we either go the whole hog and admit that immodesty can be modest, a la FE, or we admit that there are other principles involved, and which can require that we dress differently from the world.
How do you Christianize tight jeans and short shorts? You can't. You don't even try.
...now, suddenly, Catholic women have to dress like they belong on the set of "Little house on the Prairie"? No, that is ridiculous...no wonder people think that the SSPX'ers are cult members...believe you me, I've heard it said by outsiders.....that isn't the type of criticism a traditional Catholic needs. Since when has being a Catholic meant that we have to dive off the deep end into prudish, stern, sour-faced early American Protestantism?
This doesn't connect with anything I've ever experienced in the SSPX, and it reads like a tantrum.
Interestingly, I saw that third photo or yours posted on FE about a month ago, in yet another post mocking at some bogeyman of prudish, sour-faced protestantism within the SSPX. Like that is how SSPX men want you to look. :rolleyes:
The fact that clothing and fashion are such personal issues for women is why men need to set rules about them. It is a perennial battle to keep women dressed modestly; the ancients at least recognized that vanity is a feminine vice. But I think you will find that we don't want you to look frumpy, either.
I was talking...not having a tantrum. You have one thing very wrong...men don't and shouldn't set the rules of what women wear...women set the rules, and they know how to guide their husbands on dressing well and properly...men need to stay out of the fashion industry as well as out of the closets of their wives...it is the wifes realm...no wonder the world has sunk so low in the fashion sense...most of the designers are gαy men.
With your saying this:
"The fact that clothing and fashion are such personal issues for women is why men need to set rules about them. It is a perennial battle to keep women dressed modestly; the ancients at least recognized that vanity is a feminine vice."
alarm bells go off...sounds very much like something a cult leader would say.
-
You have one thing very wrong...men don't and shouldn't set the rules of what women wear...women set the rules, and they know how to guide their husbands on dressing well and properly...men need to stay out of the fashion industry as well as out of the closets of their wives
Whoa Bernadette. "Men need to stay . . . out of the closets of their wives."
What does that sound like?
St. Paul says the woman's body belongs to her husband. I would take it, she should dress in accord with his wishes.
That doesn't mean he can force her to dress in some eccentric costume, or dictate every decision of fashion. It does mean she is to dress according to his wishes, especially with regards to decency, in obedience. As should his daughters.
Such a petty thing for a woman to be concerned about. What does she lose from following her husband's wishes? A husband and father has ample reason to be concerned if his wife and daughters do not dress in accord with his will, because the way the women in his family dress affect his good name.
-
Why did you use a picture of polygamist mormon's as your example of how trad women dress? Do they dress that way at your Chapel?
No. They don't. :rolleyes: That's a last ditch effort that is based in dishonesty.
-
You have one thing very wrong...men don't and shouldn't set the rules of what women wear...women set the rules, and they know how to guide their husbands on dressing well and properly...men need to stay out of the fashion industry as well as out of the closets of their wives
Whoa Bernadette. "Men need to stay . . . out of the closets of their wives."
What does that sound like?
St. Paul says the woman's body belongs to her husband. I would take it, she should dress in accord with his wishes.
That doesn't mean he can force her to dress in some eccentric costume, or dictate every decision of fashion. It does mean she is to dress according to his wishes, especially with regards to decency, in obedience. As should his daughters.
Such a petty thing for a woman to be concerned about. What does she lose from following her husband's wishes? A husband and father has ample reason to be concerned if his wife and daughters do not dress in accord with his will, because the way the women in his family dress affect his good name.
What do men know about fashion? What do men know about how a woman should dress? They don't. The fashion industry today is predominately male. Look at fashion today! Everyone here has been talking about how bad it is! gαy men interfering in an area that is a woman's realm, no wonder!
If a man doesn't want his wife dressing like a tramp...then he shouldn't marry a tramp....but I do agree with how you worded your opinion above...a wife and daughters should dress in accord with the husband/fathers will as far as modesty is concerned, if there is a difference....but really, there shouldn't be that difference to begin with. T
-
I was talking...not having a tantrum. You have one thing very wrong...men don't and shouldn't set the rules of what women wear...women set the rules, and they know how to guide their husbands on dressing well and properly...men need to stay out of the fashion industry as well as out of the closets of their wives...it is the wifes realm...no wonder the world has sunk so low in the fashion sense...most of the designers are gαy men.
When people say this it always makes me think of those Catholics who would tell the Church to "stay out of the bedroom". It has that same defiant, almost immature ring to it.
Also...so the world HAS sunk so low in fashion sense then? Interesting switch.
-
You have one thing very wrong...men don't and shouldn't set the rules of what women wear...women set the rules, and they know how to guide their husbands on dressing well and properly...
Tell that to the Church fathers, bernadette.
men need to stay out of the fashion industry as well as out of the closets of their wives...it is the wifes realm...no wonder the world has sunk so low in the fashion sense...most of the designers are gαy men.
These male designers are disordered, and the primary consumers of their vanity products are women.
Somehow, in your mind, it's the fault of gαy men that today's women dress immodestly, and not the fault of those women who, in their vanity, scorn good men's rules about modest clothing.
If my wife shows taste and good moral judgement, I will be more than happy to leave clothing decisions up to her. In fact I would rather not think about such things. If she shows poor judgement, don't doubt I will change that.
-
Why did you use a picture of polygamist mormon's as your example of how trad women dress? Do they dress that way at your Chapel?
No. They don't. :rolleyes: That's a last ditch effort that is based in dishonesty.
Are you sure you aren't the one being dishonest, wallflower? I followed up with this statement:
question:
Why did you use a picture of polygamist mormon's as your example of how trad women dress? Do they dress that way at your Chapel?
My answer:
Some do...not as extreme...but the general idea. Sure, it was an extreme photo, but let's not be influenced by such perverted a look.
-
You have one thing very wrong...men don't and shouldn't set the rules of what women wear...women set the rules, and they know how to guide their husbands on dressing well and properly...
Tell that to the Church fathers, bernadette.
Okay, I will!
men need to stay out of the fashion industry as well as out of the closets of their wives...it is the wifes realm...no wonder the world has sunk so low in the fashion sense...most of the designers are gαy men.
These male designers are disordered, and the primary consumers of their vanity products are women.
Somehow, in your mind, it's the fault of gαy men that today's women dress immodestly, and not the fault of those women who, in their vanity, scorn good men's rules about modest clothing.
If my wife shows taste and good moral judgement, I will be more than happy to leave clothing decisions up to her. In fact I would rather not think about such things. If she shows poor judgement, don't doubt I will change that.
Why wouldn't your wife show good taste and good moral judgement? You wouldn't of married an immoral woman thinking you could change her, would you? That is about the same logic as a woman who marries an abusive husband thinking she can change HIM.
-
Why did you use a picture of polygamist mormon's as your example of how trad women dress? Do they dress that way at your Chapel?
No. They don't. :rolleyes: That's a last ditch effort that is based in dishonesty.
Are you sure you aren't the one being dishonest, wallflower? I followed up with this statement:
question:
Why did you use a picture of polygamist mormon's as your example of how trad women dress? Do they dress that way at your Chapel?
My answer:
Some do...not as extreme...but the general idea. Sure, it was an extreme photo, but let's not be influenced by such perverted a look.
Then why put it up in the first place? You are wavering in dishonesty, not fully committed to it and clarifying it when confronted, but that doesn't make the act of putting up that picture any less dishonest. If you know it isn't right, don't put it up. I'm sure you would not have volunteered an explanation unless you had been asked so your intent was still dishonest.
-
Why did you use a picture of polygamist mormon's as your example of how trad women dress? Do they dress that way at your Chapel?
No. They don't. :rolleyes: That's a last ditch effort that is based in dishonesty.
Are you sure you aren't the one being dishonest, wallflower? I followed up with this statement:
question:
Why did you use a picture of polygamist mormon's as your example of how trad women dress? Do they dress that way at your Chapel?
My answer:
Some do...not as extreme...but the general idea. Sure, it was an extreme photo, but let's not be influenced by such perverted a look.
Then why put it up in the first place? You are wavering in dishonesty, not fully committed to it and clarifying it when confronted, but that doesn't make the act of putting up that picture any less dishonest. If you know it isn't right, don't put it up. I'm sure you would not have volunteered an explanation unless you had been asked so your intent was still dishonest.
What are you a saint or something? That you think you know my interior disposition and reasons for doing things? There ARE women who aren't wallflowers you know.
This is what I detest the most about pseudo "trad" Catholics.
-
Why wouldn't your wife show good taste and good moral judgement?
I would hope she would, but she should be attempting to please me with her dress, not please others. Dressing like a Catholic can require deviating from social customs. That's just the reality.
You wouldn't of married an immoral woman thinking you could change her, would you?
I won't ever do that. Believe me. But women's attitudes can change over time. It's important they understand from the get go that their dress is subject to my approval. I will submit my dress to their approval, within reason.
That is about the same logic as a woman who marries an abusive husband thinking she can change HIM.
No, I don't think it's related. I have no interest in women who think it's a big deal that I want say over how she dresses.
-
Point out what is dumb so I can think about it...will you?
That a Catholic would have any concern whatever for modern fashions.
The best way to judge the appropriateness of clothing is by custom; follow it without fail. Because the human spirit is prone to change and the things that pleased us yesterday no longer do so today, there have been invented, and are still being invented every day, all sorts of different ways of dressing to satisfy this changing spirit. Those who would want to dress as people did 30 years ago would make themselves look ridiculous and eccentric. It is, however, characteristic of the conduct of people of good judgment, never to attract attention to themselves in any way.
- St John Baptist de La Salle, page 49, The Rules of Christian Decorum and Civility (http://www.lasallian.info/doc/Christian%20Decorum-reprint%202007.pdf)
Within reason, of course!
-
Why did you use a picture of polygamist mormon's as your example of how trad women dress? Do they dress that way at your Chapel?
No. They don't. :rolleyes: That's a last ditch effort that is based in dishonesty.
Are you sure you aren't the one being dishonest, wallflower? I followed up with this statement:
question:
Why did you use a picture of polygamist mormon's as your example of how trad women dress? Do they dress that way at your Chapel?
My answer:
Some do...not as extreme...but the general idea. Sure, it was an extreme photo, but let's not be influenced by such perverted a look.
Then why put it up in the first place? You are wavering in dishonesty, not fully committed to it and clarifying it when confronted, but that doesn't make the act of putting up that picture any less dishonest. If you know it isn't right, don't put it up. I'm sure you would not have volunteered an explanation unless you had been asked so your intent was still dishonest.
What are you a saint or something? That you think you know my interior disposition and reasons for doing things? There ARE women who aren't wallflowers you know.
This is what I detest the most about pseudo "trad" Catholics.
Then why don't you answer the question as to why you would put it up if you knew it wasn't accurate? Please, do tell us your interior disposition and reason for doing things.
-
It is, however, characteristic of the conduct of people of good judgment, never to attract attention to themselves in anyway.
The problem with that line of thinking is that the costume of all those time periods (at least among women) were for the most part in keeping with Catholic principles of modesty. The only way women really pushed the envelope from time to time was in the matter of decolletage.
What's happened today is that we no longer live in a Christian society. So our dress, by necessity, may have to deviate from the rest of the population.
-
Why wouldn't your wife show good taste and good moral judgement? You wouldn't of married an immoral woman thinking you could change her, would you? That is about the same logic as a woman who marries an abusive husband thinking she can change HIM.
Why does he have to marry an immoral woman for her to need guidance?
There seems no room in your mind for anything but extremes.
Are regular women not tempted by vanity and immodest fashions too?
Am I the only trad woman in the world to lose the baby weight, feel great and be tempted to show it off a bit more than I should? Perhaps I am the only trad woman to need the reality check of DH saying "Uh, honey, I know you feel great and believe me you look great but you've been buying pretty tight clothes lately. Any way we could reel that in a bit?"
Either I am a freak exception or he could easily marry a lovely modest-minded trad woman and at some point in 50 years of marriage need to speak up about her tastes or temptations in that realm. What he said is not far-fetched at all.
-
Point out what is dumb so I can think about it...will you?
That a Catholic would have any concern whatever for modern fashions.
The best way to judge the appropriateness of clothing is by custom; follow it without fail. Because the human spirit is prone to change and the things that pleased us yesterday no longer do so today, there have been invented, and are still being invented every day, all sorts of different ways of dressing to satisfy this changing spirit. Those who would want to dress as people did 30 years ago would make themselves look ridiculous and eccentric. It is, however, characteristic of the conduct of people of good judgment, never to attract attention to themselves in any way.
- St John Baptist de La Salle, page 49, The Rules of Christian Decorum and Civility (http://www.lasallian.info/doc/Christian%20Decorum-reprint%202007.pdf)
Within reason, of course!
The Saint did not mean what he said in an absolute sense, however. The problem with today's fashions is that it seems that almost all of them are corrupt. So, one must indeed make an effort not to be eccentric, drawing attention to oneself, but this insofar that adjusting to the custom does not become a sin.
Since the present apostate world considers loving God and living holy lives 'eccentric', the referring of the Saint to real eccentricity does, in most cases, not apply to the present state of things.
Now, since I do not live in America, I have no precise knowledge of what the general practice is among traditional Catholics there. So, I do not know whether there are many Catholics there who truly dress in an eccentric way. But I have not noticed much eccentricity (in the sense of looking truly weird) among traditional Catholics in my own country. If anything, it is my opinion that some here (in my country) seem to be, to a certain extent, too influenced by the world when it comes to dress.
Ironically, to me the modern fashions fit the definition of eccentricity quite well, in contrast with the customs of saner, more Catholic times. The world has become a circus, and absurdity has become exalted as the 'norm'.
When I hear someone say that long skirts are 'eccentric', I cannot help but think of the revolutionaries of the sixties who temerariously attempted to compel nuns to abandon their habits for secular clothing which was more revealing. Terrible.
-
Anyone who thinks wearing a business suit to Mass is a sign of a man's holiness doesn't even begin to understand Jesus Christ. The standards that some trads apply to women are even more ridiculous and the eccentric way women dress in some trad communities ensures that many young women that visit for Mass don't return. Modesty is not dressing provocatively. Modesty has nothing to do with adopting an Amish or Southern Protestant dress code. Bravo to Father Gaud!
This sort of statement is absolutely ridiculous.
As though dressing appropriately is dressing like the Amish.
Yes, actually believing in the religion, and dressing like you believe it, is "southern baptist"
These people liberalizers, pure and simple. Liberalizers and enemies.
Yeah, he's been reading too much Schleiermacher.
The Neo-Trads use almost the exact same tactics and same sayings that the Neo-Modernists and other Liberal Catholics used to bring down the church. See the Quiet Revolution in Quebec, specifically the change in religious mentalities that lead to it.
You woulnd't perhaps have any references, would you?
-
Also, to the comment of trad women looking modest yet still being able to be stylish- I would ask then: Is this then a case of style? Apparently so. And if it is, why is this priest, if he is speaking to the same thing, so concerned with style? If people haven't figured it out, there is something about being a traditional Catholic which is innately 'counter-would'. If some of that bleeds out into the 'style' of clothing one wears, what's wrong with that?
Never before in the history of the Church have Catholic women not dressed in the mode of the day...the "style" of the day if you will...now, suddenly, Catholic women have to dress like they belong on the set of "Little house on the Prairie"? No, that is ridiculous...no wonder people think that the SSPX'ers are cult members...believe you me, I've heard it said by outsiders.....that isn't the type of criticism a traditional Catholic needs. Since when has being a Catholic meant that we have to dive off the deep end into prudish, stern, sour-faced early American Protestantism?
Great Catholic women have always dressed beautifully...I will give Queen Isabella of Spain as an example:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LEZVADmDZ1U/Tlr4vNI_pfI/AAAAAAAAB3g/c2PEoteBkPU/s1600/Isabella+II+of+Spain+1865.jpg
Beautiful, elegant and stylish for the day...here is a modern photo:
http://static.photaki.com/spanish-mantilla-clad-women-and-scapular_427860.jpg
How beautiful...it sure beats this:
http://nowscape.com/mormon/images/polyg_women_TX.jpg
Catholic's have always set the style for society...and the moral standards along with it.
This has to be one of the dumber posts ever to appear on this forum.
Point out what is dumb so I can think about it...will you?
That a Catholic would have any concern whatever for modern fashions.
If you are perturbed that Catholic women can't show their boobs and thighs, too bad for you.
Our Lady warned us that these immoral fashions would come.
Yet it never occurs to you that the reason trads are "stuck in the 1950's" with their attire is because that is as close to the modern times as you can get without violating Catholic norms of modesty and femininity.
Oh please...give me a break. You know when I first came to tradition, I was as asinine as you in my thinking. I've since gain my senses and my logic, escaped from the tendency towards cultish behavior and consipracy theories, realized that fashion/style is not the same as modesty. Women can look stylish and fashionable, wear make-up and nail polish..and still be modest, so your narrow mindedness falls flat on its face.
Trads shouldn't be "stuck" in any era, the fifties included...move on already...this is 2012 the year of Our Lord...let's deal with regaining the traditions of the Church not the fashion traditions of the biblical era.
I'm sorry...but there are few women who go to church dressed immorally...tacky, yes, immoral, no...
Here is one of the replies from the article on RC...it sums things up real well:
"If you make yourselves like a bunch of outcasts, reasonable people will cast you out. Make sure that when you are persecuted, it is for some critical point of faith or morals and not for looking like you just walked out of a time machine."
Show me a period where the Church wasn't challenging the way people were dressing and questioning the modesty or lack thereof of certain people for their adherence to the fashions of the day rather than the modest composure of a Christian.
Pants, for example, were worn by feminist members of the women's movement, like the homewrecker hussy, Katherine Hepburn.
Also, most women's fashions are designed by misogynistic sodomites.
-
Show me a period where they did..outside of the 20th century.
-
Also, most women's fashions are designed by misogynistic sodomites.
It is true, and what many fail to recognise is that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, having progressed in degeneration roughly to the point of incorporation as "lifestyle", also embodies perversion of the intellect. The intellectual perversion can well exceed attendant carnal misbehaviour, and one of its manifestations is the enjoyment of people debasing themselves, in any manner whatsoever. This is why the old "as long as he's celibate" saw regarding clergy is so diabolical.
-
Feminists lack logic when they try to use reason.
Feminists seem incapable of perceiving obvious truths.
Feminists frequently seem incapable of actually using logic coherently when they try to argue their futile case.
It should be obvious to ANY Catholic man or woman, that women should dress entirely modestly.
Conforming to the "fashion" of an anti-Catholic culture should not be the basis of how women decide to dress.
It is clearly sinful to set aside - or even to compromise - dressing modestly.
These points are so clear to a mind not clouded by emotion.
Women should dress modestly because that is obviously the Will of God.
-
"as long as he's celibate" saw regarding clergy is so diabolical.
Right, I meant to say: ""as long as he's celibate" saw regarding poufey clergy". There's a real problem with such serving in the role of Alter Christus.
-
Show me a period where they did..outside of the 20th century.
Bernadette- is there a reason you're in such an argumentative mood? Did you not figure out this wasn't AngelQueen or FE yet?
You speak of regaining the traditions of the Church; but modesty is a tradition too. Why else would people cover themselves, and act appropriately? Otherwise we're just like animals.
By the way, you are very modernist sounding; sort of stuck up arrogant. Have a look:
Oh please...give me a break. You know when I first came to tradition, I was as asinine as you in my thinking. I've since gain my senses and my logic, escaped from the tendency towards cultish behavior and consipracy theories, realized that fashion/style is not the same as modesty. Women can look stylish and fashionable, wear make-up and nail polish..and still be modest, so your narrow mindedness falls flat on its face.
Trads shouldn't be "stuck" in any era, the fifties included...move on already...this is 2012 the year of Our Lord...let's deal with regaining the traditions of the Church not the fashion traditions of the biblical era.
I'm sorry...but there are few women who go to church dressed immorally...tacky, yes, immoral, no...
I think you might do well to take your own advice: "move on already"...
Cheers!
-
What practicing Catholic takes any stock in Rorate?
It is run by a Judaizing convert who has zero sensus catholicus—a popolator (or anti-popolator if you prefer).
Rubbish.
-
Show me a period where they did..outside of the 20th century.
Bernadette- is there a reason you're in such an argumentative mood? Did you not figure out this wasn't AngelQueen or FE yet?
You speak of regaining the traditions of the Church; but modesty is a tradition too. Why else would people cover themselves, and act appropriately? Otherwise we're just like animals.
By the way, you are very modernist sounding; sort of stuck up arrogant. Have a look:
Oh please...give me a break. You know when I first came to tradition, I was as asinine as you in my thinking. I've since gain my senses and my logic, escaped from the tendency towards cultish behavior and consipracy theories, realized that fashion/style is not the same as modesty. Women can look stylish and fashionable, wear make-up and nail polish..and still be modest, so your narrow mindedness falls flat on its face.
Trads shouldn't be "stuck" in any era, the fifties included...move on already...this is 2012 the year of Our Lord...let's deal with regaining the traditions of the Church not the fashion traditions of the biblical era.
I'm sorry...but there are few women who go to church dressed immorally...tacky, yes, immoral, no...
I think you might do well to take your own advice: "move on already"...
Cheers!
The two photos I posted were not immodest...they were beautiful...Queen Isabella of Spain and another of modern Spanish women in Mantilla and wearing scapular. Both photos give the example that Catholic women have always set the proper style for the rest of society to follow.
There is a danger in becoming too obsessed with this modesty= no style confusion in most trads minds, resulting in beauty being at risk of being lost if not frowned upon. If you are going to argue that beauty and style are not important and seem to mean one is automatically worldly by dressing stylishly or beautifully though modestly, then you will be shooting yourself in the foot...the rich ornate vestments and use of the finest laces and precious metals are encouraged in traditional vestments and in liturgical use...yet to have the pews filled with women dressed as though they belong on the prairie or in a cult is not important? I'm sorry, I disagree....I think it is important to strive to better oneself, to dress in the finest clothes that one can afford, to look attractive and cheerful...why not encourage elevating oneself rather than the complete opposite?
Cheers!
-
Great Catholic women have always dressed beautifully...I will give Queen Isabella of Spain as an example:
You posted a picture of Queen Isabella II. I do not think she was a great Catholic lady.
-
(http://st-listas.20minutos.es/images/2011-01/272061/2847115_640px.jpg?1296253619)
The fat under her chin reminds me of that girl.
-
ps to s2srea....I believe it is important for Catholics to be able to fit in and cope in the modern world that God has created and chosen for us to live in. One can still be a Catholic today and function normally while holding fast to the faith...actually, the sooner most trads realize this, the better off they will be...I've been accused of being stuck up and arrogant before, I am sure...do I care? No.
-
another of modern Spanish women in Mantilla and wearing scapular.
With skirts above their knees.
-
(http://st-listas.20minutos.es/images/2011-01/272061/2847115_640px.jpg?1296253619)
The fat under her chin reminds me of that girl.
I think she is beautiful...now do stop thinking of that girl....
-
I've been accused of being stuck up and arrogant before, I am sure...do I care? No.
You might eventually give it some thought.
-
I believe it is important for Catholics to be able to fit in and cope in the modern world that God has created and chosen for us to live in.
Honestly, what does that have to do with women dressing more traditionally, modestly, with long skirts, etc.
Not much, IMO.
Catholics aren't going to get along so easily in a society that's hostile to them. Coping with it doesn't mean going along with it.
-
another of modern Spanish women in Mantilla and wearing scapular.
With skirts above their knees.
Oh Lord...you're not going to tell me that those older and dignified women with skirts a little over the knee, is an occasion of sin are you? This is what happens when trad men think they are the final word in everything. Thinking a little too much about matters outside of your expertise, and not concentrating on more important issues...like the faith.
-
Thinking a little too much about matters outside of your expertise
Wrong. Men are experts in the effects of immodesty. The rampant immodesty at Novus Ordos, for example, is sufficient to drive away all men who strive not to commit the mortal sin of lust.
Modesty is in no small part a matter of charity. Sadly, many women fail to understand this and thus dress most uncharitably. Or they have no big problem with uncharitable dressing.
I recommend that you go to audiosancto.org, type the word modesty in the search box, and then listen carefully and repeatedly.
-
another of modern Spanish women in Mantilla and wearing scapular.
With skirts above their knees.
Oh Lord...you're not going to tell me that those older and dignified women with skirts a little over the knee, is an occasion of sin are you? This is what happens when trad men think they are the final word in everything.
Actually, they do have the final say in these matters. Pope Pius XII spoke of it, and the whole history of the Catholic religion speaks to it.
Honestly Bernadette there's nothing in what you're saying that doesn't permit relativism, mini-skirts, etc. It's incredibly shallow to think it's a great hardship to wear a skirt below the knees.
Thinking a little too much about matters outside of your expertise, and not concentrating on more important issues...like the faith.
Honestly, the only reason we're forced to think about it is because of the constant complaints about it by women. And the constant flaunting of flesh by women in this "modern world" that you want to "cope" with by authorizing women to wear short skirts.
I don't think it's scandalous necessarily for a girl to wear a skirt above her knee, it's certainly not good. It takes a bit of humility to care about the welfare of Catholic men. It's just so common to see these women flaunting their legs. For example at the symphony, a beautiful young woman turned and faced me looking me in the eyes, she was wearing a skirt a bit high above her knees. Certainly not modest behavior.
Catholic men deserve better in their women than to complain about the most trivial requirements because of a desire to conform to the world.
-
I believe it is important for Catholics to be able to fit in and cope in the modern world that God has created and chosen for us to live in.
Honestly, what does that have to do with women dressing more traditionally, modestly, with long skirts, etc.
Not much, IMO.
Catholics aren't going to get along so easily in a society that's hostile to them. Coping with it doesn't mean going along with it.
My advice....Go out and join the world while remaining traditional Catholic, and hope to impress and convert some souls along the way by your devotion, or enjoy being an outcast...but when the three days of darkness and the great chastisement don't happen in your lifetime, then consider the time that was wasted ruminating on all of the things that are wrong in the world...we must accept the time of history we are born into...I guarantee if you were transported back to the middle ages you'd have a different opinion...
-
I believe it is important for Catholics to be able to fit in and cope in the modern world that God has created and chosen for us to live in.
Honestly, what does that have to do with women dressing more traditionally, modestly, with long skirts, etc.
Not much, IMO.
Catholics aren't going to get along so easily in a society that's hostile to them. Coping with it doesn't mean going along with it.
My advice....Go out and join the world while remaining traditional Catholic, and hope to impress and convert some souls along the way by your devotion, or enjoy being an outcast...but when the three days of darkness and the great chastisement don't happen in your lifetime, then consider the time that was wasted ruminating on all of the things that are wrong in the world...we must accept the time of history we are born into...I guarantee if you were transported back to the middle ages you'd have a different opinion...
I don't think I've talked about the three days of darkness, nor did I ever say I thought life was better in the middle ages. I can certainly speak about the history of Catholic customs and morality though.
-
Thinking a little too much about matters outside of your expertise
Wrong. Men are experts in the effects of immodesty. The rampant immodesty at Novus Ordos, for example, is sufficient to drive away all men who strive not to commit the mortal sin of lust.
Modesty is in no small part a matter of charity. Sadly, many women fail to understand this and thus dress most uncharitably. Or they have no big problem with uncharitable dressing.
I recommend that you go to audiosancto.org, type the word modesty in the search box, and then listen carefully and repeatedly.
I never condoned immodesty...what makes you think I have? I don't like the way style/beauty is equated with immodesty...the way dressing for the modern world necessarily is thought to mean that the woman is dressing immodestly...it isn't.
I grew up in the NO...I've been most recently...I don't see any immodestly dressed women...what did I see? Women dressed poorly...by poorly, I mean tacky. It is a matter of dressing well and the best that one can. Trying to elevate oneself...not to dress lazily...as if one rolled out of bed and threw on whatever was handy. It isn't so much a matter of immodesty as it is a matter of good taste...and how to acquire it...so Catholic women need to set the example.
-
I never condoned immodesty...what makes you think I have? I don't like the way style/beauty is equated with immodesty...the way dressing for the modern world necessarily is thought to mean that the woman is dressing immodestly...it isn't.
I grew up in the NO...I've been most recently...I don't see any immodestly dressed women...what did I see? Women dressed poorly...by poorly, I mean tacky. It is a matter of dressing well and the best that one can. Trying to elevate oneself...not to dress lazily...as if one rolled out of bed and threw on whatever was handy. It isn't so much a matter of immodesty as it is a matter of good taste...and how to acquire it...so Catholic women need to set the example.
I go to an indult mass and I see defects in modesty. Maybe not scandalous, but certainly far beneath the standards that should be acceptable.
You know, modern women keep changing these fashions to be less and less modest. A line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. These fashions today would certainly have been considered immodest in the past. And women know why they wear them, and whatever excuses they give, it's not just to be fashionable. Even if they only wear immodest clothes for vanity, as is done in the all women's parties in Islamic countries, it's still wrong.
-
I never condoned immodesty...what makes you think I have? I don't like the way style/beauty is equated with immodesty...the way dressing for the modern world necessarily is thought to mean that the woman is dressing immodestly...it isn't.
I grew up in the NO...I've been most recently...I don't see any immodestly dressed women...what did I see? Women dressed poorly...by poorly, I mean tacky. It is a matter of dressing well and the best that one can. Trying to elevate oneself...not to dress lazily...as if one rolled out of bed and threw on whatever was handy. It isn't so much a matter of immodesty as it is a matter of good taste...and how to acquire it...so Catholic women need to set the example.
I go to an indult mass and I see defects in modesty. Maybe not scandalous, but certainly far beneath the standards that should be acceptable.
You know, modern women keep changing these fashions to be less and less modest. A line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. These fashions today would certainly have been considered immodest in the past. And women know why they wear them, and whatever excuses they give, it's not just to be fashionable. Even if they only wear immodest clothes for vanity, as is done in the all women's parties in Islamic countries, it's still wrong.
There will always be women who dress immodestly...no matter what...
-
I've been accused of being stuck up and arrogant before, I am sure...do I care? No.
You might eventually give it some thought.
Why? It isn't my problem...it is the problem of the one who is judging....isn't it?
-
There will always be women who dress immodestly...no matter what...
"Everyone else is doing it"
Listen Bernadette, do you have a problem with Catholic priests, husbands and fathers setting rules for modesty in their homes and churches, because you think it's too stifling?
Well, that problem is yours, and yours alone.
-
There will always be women who dress immodestly...no matter what...
"Everyone else is doing it"
Listen Bernadette, do you have a problem with Catholic priests, husbands and fathers setting rules for modesty in their homes and churches, because you think it's too stifling?
Well, that problem is yours, and yours alone.
I've never had a problem with dress codes...we need more of them in society.
-
Oh...and I have never been an "everyone else is doing it" type...quite the contrary...I set the style, I don't follow it.
-
it is the problem of the one who is judging....isn't it?
Only if their judgment is incorrect. Read this great book and find out:
http://www.basilica.org/pages/ebooks/Fr.%20Cajetan%20Mary%20da%20Bergamo-Humility%20of%20Heart.html
Buy it here:
http://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/47/
Any resistance to this suggestion is yet another sign that you need to read it.
-
it is the problem of the one who is judging....isn't it?
Only if their judgment is incorrect. Read this great book and find out:
http://www.basilica.org/pages/ebooks/Fr.%20Cajetan%20Mary%20da%20Bergamo-Humility%20of%20Heart.html
Buy it here:
http://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/47/
Any resistance to this suggestion is yet another sign that you need to read it.
Thank you Jitpring...I own that very book and I have read it...I have also given a copy to my sister...
I won't suggest any reading for you...that would be making an assumption...something I won't do.
-
ps to s2srea....I believe it is important for Catholics to be able to fit in and cope in the modern world that God has created and chosen for us to live in. One can still be a Catholic today and function normally while holding fast to the faith...actually, the sooner most trads realize this, the better off they will be...I've been accused of being stuck up and arrogant before, I am sure...do I care? No.
I disagree with this. Catholics should not try to "fit in" with the modern world, that can easily lead to a Catholic losing their faith.
As for modesty, I think it is very important. Padre Pio thought so, too.
-
ps to s2srea....I believe it is important for Catholics to be able to fit in and cope in the modern world that God has created and chosen for us to live in. One can still be a Catholic today and function normally while holding fast to the faith...actually, the sooner most trads realize this, the better off they will be...I've been accused of being stuck up and arrogant before, I am sure...do I care? No.
I disagree with this. Catholics should not try to "fit in" with the modern world, that can easily lead to a Catholic losing their faith.
As for modesty, I think it is very important. Padre Pio thought so, too.
Catholics sort of have to...fit in that is.
Sorry you disagree.
-
I should also add that any woman who entered Padre Pio's confessional who's skirt was NOT below the knees was dismissed. Enough said.
-
Also, to the comment of trad women looking modest yet still being able to be stylish- I would ask then: Is this then a case of style? Apparently so. And if it is, why is this priest, if he is speaking to the same thing, so concerned with style? If people haven't figured it out, there is something about being a traditional Catholic which is innately 'counter-would'. If some of that bleeds out into the 'style' of clothing one wears, what's wrong with that?
Never before in the history of the Church have Catholic women not dressed in the mode of the day...the "style" of the day if you will...now, suddenly, Catholic women have to dress like they belong on the set of "Little house on the Prairie"? No, that is ridiculous...no wonder people think that the SSPX'ers are cult members...believe you me, I've heard it said by outsiders.....that isn't the type of criticism a traditional Catholic needs. Since when has being a Catholic meant that we have to dive off the deep end into prudish, stern, sour-faced early American Protestantism?
Great Catholic women have always dressed beautifully...I will give Queen Isabella of Spain as an example:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LEZVADmDZ1U/Tlr4vNI_pfI/AAAAAAAAB3g/c2PEoteBkPU/s1600/Isabella+II+of+Spain+1865.jpg
Beautiful, elegant and stylish for the day...here is a modern photo:
http://static.photaki.com/spanish-mantilla-clad-women-and-scapular_427860.jpg
How beautiful...it sure beats this:
http://nowscape.com/mormon/images/polyg_women_TX.jpg
Catholic's have always set the style for society...and the moral standards along with it.
This has to be one of the dumber posts ever to appear on this forum.
Point out what is dumb so I can think about it...will you?
That a Catholic would have any concern whatever for modern fashions.
If you are perturbed that Catholic women can't show their boobs and thighs, too bad for you.
Our Lady warned us that these immoral fashions would come.
Yet it never occurs to you that the reason trads are "stuck in the 1950's" with their attire is because that is as close to the modern times as you can get without violating Catholic norms of modesty and femininity.
Oh please...give me a break. You know when I first came to tradition, I was as asinine as you in my thinking. I've since gain my senses and my logic, escaped from the tendency towards cultish behavior and consipracy theories, realized that fashion/style is not the same as modesty. Women can look stylish and fashionable, wear make-up and nail polish..and still be modest, so your narrow mindedness falls flat on its face.
Trads shouldn't be "stuck" in any era, the fifties included...move on already...this is 2012 the year of Our Lord...let's deal with regaining the traditions of the Church not the fashion traditions of the biblical era.
I'm sorry...but there are few women who go to church dressed immorally...tacky, yes, immoral, no...
Here is one of the replies from the article on RC...it sums things up real well:
"If you make yourselves like a bunch of outcasts, reasonable people will cast you out. Make sure that when you are persecuted, it is for some critical point of faith or morals and not for looking like you just walked out of a time machine."
Regarding your last quoted sentence:
Ah yes.
I seem to remember another who shared this philosophy of fitting in to mainstream American society.
A cardinal from Baltimore in the 1830's, I believe.
I believe the heresy of Americanism he began was responded to and condemned in Testem Benevolentiae by Pope Leo XIII.
Those silly Catholic priests wearing cassocks!
Why, they need to blend in like good Americans and get a clerical suit!
Or in your case, some "modest" jeans.
Perhaps the men in my parish should go out and start wearing "modest" bras.
-
Also, to the comment of trad women looking modest yet still being able to be stylish- I would ask then: Is this then a case of style? Apparently so. And if it is, why is this priest, if he is speaking to the same thing, so concerned with style? If people haven't figured it out, there is something about being a traditional Catholic which is innately 'counter-would'. If some of that bleeds out into the 'style' of clothing one wears, what's wrong with that?
Never before in the history of the Church have Catholic women not dressed in the mode of the day... the "style" of the day if you will
You're probably wrong. I would be very surprised if early Christian women in Rome were not required to dress more simply and modestly than the pagan women around them, who probably thought them quite frumpy and prudish, at least till they converted. The fact that some of the earliest Church fathers, along with St. Paul himself, spent time and even wrote books exhorting their flocks to avoid vain fashions is powerful evidence for this; for why would they have gone to such effort unless to make Catholics dress differently from the mode of the day? They wouldn't have.
What I can say for certain is that never before have tight jeans, spandex yoga pants, short shorts, and so on been the mode for women under 30. I do not say that you want Catholic women to dress this way, but the logic of your argument ("dress in the mode of the day") takes us there inevitably. So we either go the whole hog and admit that immodesty can be modest, a la FE, or we admit that there are other principles involved, and which can require that we dress differently from the world.
How do you Christianize tight jeans and short shorts? You can't. You don't even try.
...now, suddenly, Catholic women have to dress like they belong on the set of "Little house on the Prairie"? No, that is ridiculous...no wonder people think that the SSPX'ers are cult members...believe you me, I've heard it said by outsiders.....that isn't the type of criticism a traditional Catholic needs. Since when has being a Catholic meant that we have to dive off the deep end into prudish, stern, sour-faced early American Protestantism?
This doesn't connect with anything I've ever experienced in the SSPX, and it reads like a tantrum.
Interestingly, I saw that third photo or yours posted on FE about a month ago, in yet another post mocking at some bogeyman of prudish, sour-faced protestantism within the SSPX. Like that is how SSPX men want you to look. :rolleyes:
The fact that clothing and fashion are such personal issues for women is why men need to set rules about them. It is a perennial battle to keep women dressed modestly; the ancients at least recognized that vanity is a feminine vice. But I think you will find that we don't want you to look frumpy, either.
I was talking...not having a tantrum. You have one thing very wrong...men don't and shouldn't set the rules of what women wear...women set the rules, and they know how to guide their husbands on dressing well and properly...men need to stay out of the fashion industry as well as out of the closets of their wives...it is the wifes realm...no wonder the world has sunk so low in the fashion sense...most of the designers are gαy men.
With your saying this:
"The fact that clothing and fashion are such personal issues for women is why men need to set rules about them. It is a perennial battle to keep women dressed modestly; the ancients at least recognized that vanity is a feminine vice."
alarm bells go off...sounds very much like something a cult leader would say.
Your desire to set rules and be manly puts you one step away from lesbianism.
-
Point out what is dumb so I can think about it...will you?
That a Catholic would have any concern whatever for modern fashions.
The best way to judge the appropriateness of clothing is by custom; follow it without fail. Because the human spirit is prone to change and the things that pleased us yesterday no longer do so today, there have been invented, and are still being invented every day, all sorts of different ways of dressing to satisfy this changing spirit. Those who would want to dress as people did 30 years ago would make themselves look ridiculous and eccentric. It is, however, characteristic of the conduct of people of good judgment, never to attract attention to themselves in any way.
- St John Baptist de La Salle, page 49, The Rules of Christian Decorum and Civility (http://www.lasallian.info/doc/Christian%20Decorum-reprint%202007.pdf)
Within reason, of course!
A veiled attempt at justification.
Please cite from the same work where this sainted man advocated women donning manly attire.
Or again, please demonstrate how he overrules the warning about immoral fashions by Our Lady of Fatima.
If not, I should be able to dress like a slob, and it would not be unfit, because it is the prevailing custom in this country.
You have perverted the writings and intention os a saint.
Be careful with that.
-
another of modern Spanish women in Mantilla and wearing scapular.
With skirts above their knees.
Oh Lord...you're not going to tell me that those older and dignified women with skirts a little over the knee, is an occasion of sin are you? This is what happens when trad men think they are the final word in everything. Thinking a little too much about matters outside of your expertise, and not concentrating on more important issues...like the faith.
Bern-
Can I ask in good faith if you are a lesbian?
-
Thank you Jitpring...I own that very book and I have read it...I have also given a copy to my sister...
Read it again.
-
another of modern Spanish women in Mantilla and wearing scapular.
With skirts above their knees.
Oh Lord...you're not going to tell me that those older and dignified women with skirts a little over the knee, is an occasion of sin are you? This is what happens when trad men think they are the final word in everything. Thinking a little too much about matters outside of your expertise, and not concentrating on more important issues...like the faith.
Bern-
Can I ask in good faith if you are a lesbian?
You can ask anything you like, as long as you truly ask it in good faith. The answer is no. And somehow...I don't really believe that you ask in good faith, but rather to plant seeds of evil thinking.
Now, why don't you ask if St. Catherine of Siena was a lesbian, or perhaps St. Joan of Arc...even sweet, humble, childlike, St. Bernadette...perhaps you may like to question her too.
-
Thank you Jitpring...I own that very book and I have read it...I have also given a copy to my sister...
Read it again.
No, I will not read it again...perhaps you will....and then go to confession while you are at it.
-
Catholics sort of have to...fit in that is.
You seem to be unaware of, or have forgotten about, the chasm separating the elect from those of the world. Consider:
"For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?"
-Mk. 8:36
"Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God."
-James 4:4
"Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him."
-1 Jn. 2:15
Such passages could be greatly multiplied. Is the world applauding you? Shudder.
And meditate on this from St. Louis de Montfort's Letter to the Friends of the Cross:
7. My dear brothers and sisters, there are two companies that appear before you each day: the followers of Christ and the followers of the world.
Our dear Saviour's company is on the right, climbing up a narrow road, made all the narrower by the world's immorality. Our Master leads the way, barefooted, crowned with thorns, covered with blood, and laden with a heavy cross. Those who follow him, though most valiant, are only a handful, either because his quiet voice is not heard amid the tumult of the world, or because people lack the courage to follow him in his poverty, sufferings, humiliations and other crosses which his servants must carry all the days of their life.
8. On the left hand is the company of the world or of the devil. This is far more numerous, more imposing and more illustrious, at least in appearance. Most of the fashionable people run to join it, all crowded together, although the road is wide and is continually being made wider than ever by the crowds that pour along it like a torrent. It is strewn with flowers, bordered with all kinds of amusements and attractions, and paved with gold and silver.
9. On the right, the little groups which follow Jesus speak about sorrow and penance, prayer and indifference to worldly things. They continually encourage one another saying, "Now is the time to suffer and to mourn, to pray and do penance, to live in retirement and poverty, to humble and mortify ourselves; for those who do not possess the spirit of Christ, which is the spirit of the cross, do not belong to him. Those who belong to Christ have crucified all self-indulgent passions and desires. We must be true images of Christ or be eternally lost."
"Have confidence," they say to each other. If God is on our side, within us and before us, who can be against us? He who is within us is stronger than the one who is in the world. The servant is not greater than his master. This slight and temporary distress we suffer will bring us a tremendous and everlasting glory. The number of those who will be saved is not as great as some people imagine. It is only the brave and the daring who take heaven by storm, where only those are crowned who strive to live according to the law of the Gospel and not according to the maxims of the world. Let us fight with all our strength, let us run with all speed, that we may attain our goal and win the crown.
Such are some of the heavenly counsels with which the Friends of the Cross inspire each other.
10. Those who follow the world, on the contrary, urge each other to continue in their evil ways without scruple, calling to one another day after day, "Let us eat and drink, sing and dance, and enjoy ourselves. God id good; he has not made us to damn us. He does not forbid us to amuse ourselves. We shall not be damned for so little. We are not to be scrupulous. 'No, you will not die'."
11. Dear brothers and sisters, remember that our loving Saviour has his eyes on you at this moment, and he says to each one of you individually, "See how almost everyone deserts me on the royal road of the Cross. Pagans in their blindness ridicule my Cross as foolishness; obstinate Jєωs are repelled by it as by an object of horror; heretics pull it down and break it to pieces as something contemptible.
"Even my own people - and I say this with tears in my eyes and grief in my heart - my own children whom I have brought up and instructed in my ways, my members whom I have quickened with my own Spirit, have turned their backs on me and forsaken me by becoming enemies of my Cross. 'Will you also go away?' Will you also desert me by running away from my Cross like the worldlings, who thus become so many antichrists? Will you also follow the world; despise the poverty of my Cross in order to seek after wealth; shun the sufferings of my Cross to look for enjoyment; avoid the humiliations of my Cross in order to chase after the honours of the world? 'There are many who pretend they are friends of mine and protest that they love me, but in their hearts they hate me. I have many friends of my table, but very few of my Cross.' (Imit. II, 11, 1)."
12. At this loving appeal of Jesus, let us rise above our human nature; let us not be seduced by our senses, as Eve was; but keep our eyes fixed on Jesus crucified, who leads us in our faith and brings it to perfection (Heb 12.2). Let us keep ourselves apart from the evil practices of the world; let us show our love for Jesus in the best way, that is, through all kinds of crosses. Reflect well on these remarkable words of our Saviour, "If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself, and take up his cross and follow me" (Mt 16.24; Lk 9.23).
II. THE PRACTICES OF CHRISTIAN PERFECTION
13. Christian holiness consists in this:
1. Resolving to become a saint: "If anyone wants to be a follower of mine;"2. Self-denial: "Let him renounce himself;"3. Suffering: "Let him take up his cross;"4. Acting: "Let him follow me."
A. If anyone wants to follow me
14. If anyone," says our Lord, to point out the small number of chosen ones willing to conform themselves to Christ crucified by carrying their cross. Their number is so small that we would be dumbfounded if we knew it.
It is so small that there is scarcely one in ten thousand, as has been revealed to several saints, including St. Simon Stylites (as is related by Abbot Nilus), St. Basil, St. Ephrem and others. It is so small that, should it please God to gather them together, he would have to call them one by one as he did of old through his prophet, "You will be gathered one by one;" one from this country, one from that province.
-
No, I will not read it again...
A great shame.
-
Also, to the comment of trad women looking modest yet still being able to be stylish- I would ask then: Is this then a case of style? Apparently so. And if it is, why is this priest, if he is speaking to the same thing, so concerned with style? If people haven't figured it out, there is something about being a traditional Catholic which is innately 'counter-would'. If some of that bleeds out into the 'style' of clothing one wears, what's wrong with that?
Never before in the history of the Church have Catholic women not dressed in the mode of the day...the "style" of the day if you will...now, suddenly, Catholic women have to dress like they belong on the set of "Little house on the Prairie"? No, that is ridiculous...no wonder people think that the SSPX'ers are cult members...believe you me, I've heard it said by outsiders.....that isn't the type of criticism a traditional Catholic needs. Since when has being a Catholic meant that we have to dive off the deep end into prudish, stern, sour-faced early American Protestantism?
Great Catholic women have always dressed beautifully...I will give Queen Isabella of Spain as an example:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LEZVADmDZ1U/Tlr4vNI_pfI/AAAAAAAAB3g/c2PEoteBkPU/s1600/Isabella+II+of+Spain+1865.jpg
Beautiful, elegant and stylish for the day...here is a modern photo:
http://static.photaki.com/spanish-mantilla-clad-women-and-scapular_427860.jpg
How beautiful...it sure beats this:
http://nowscape.com/mormon/images/polyg_women_TX.jpg
Catholic's have always set the style for society...and the moral standards along with it.
This has to be one of the dumber posts ever to appear on this forum.
Point out what is dumb so I can think about it...will you?
That a Catholic would have any concern whatever for modern fashions.
If you are perturbed that Catholic women can't show their boobs and thighs, too bad for you.
Our Lady warned us that these immoral fashions would come.
Yet it never occurs to you that the reason trads are "stuck in the 1950's" with their attire is because that is as close to the modern times as you can get without violating Catholic norms of modesty and femininity.
Oh please...give me a break. You know when I first came to tradition, I was as asinine as you in my thinking. I've since gain my senses and my logic, escaped from the tendency towards cultish behavior and consipracy theories, realized that fashion/style is not the same as modesty. Women can look stylish and fashionable, wear make-up and nail polish..and still be modest, so your narrow mindedness falls flat on its face.
Trads shouldn't be "stuck" in any era, the fifties included...move on already...this is 2012 the year of Our Lord...let's deal with regaining the traditions of the Church not the fashion traditions of the biblical era.
I'm sorry...but there are few women who go to church dressed immorally...tacky, yes, immoral, no...
Here is one of the replies from the article on RC...it sums things up real well:
"If you make yourselves like a bunch of outcasts, reasonable people will cast you out. Make sure that when you are persecuted, it is for some critical point of faith or morals and not for looking like you just walked out of a time machine."
Regarding your last quoted sentence:
Ah yes.
I seem to remember another who shared this philosophy of fitting in to mainstream American society.
A cardinal from Baltimore in the 1830's, I believe.
I believe the heresy of Americanism he began was responded to and condemned in Testem Benevolentiae by Pope Leo XIII.
Those silly Catholic priests wearing cassocks!
Why, they need to blend in like good Americans and get a clerical suit!
Or in your case, some "modest" jeans.
Perhaps the men in my parish should go out and start wearing "modest" bras.
"To make the picture even more chaotic, in several of these acceptations, Americanism is wrongly confused with the heresy of Americanism condemned by Pope Leo XIII, which actually has a completely different meaning."
http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/F_001_RCR_ASG.html
Are you just shooting off at the mouth about something that you only half understand?
I am saying that many posting here seem incapable of differentiating between modesty and beauty/style in dress of women. What is so hard to understand about that?
And by the way...I am the number one proponent of cassocks...I don't like the clerical suit at all...but you have judged me and tormented me this evening along with several others...and all during the holiest time of the year...no wonder so many people are disillusioned with traditional Catholics....even I am becoming disgusted.
-
I should also add that any woman who entered Padre Pio's confessional who's skirt was NOT below the knees was dismissed. Enough said.
I know that....I also know that there are plenty of women in the sspx that enter the confessional who's skirts are NOT well below the knees, and the priests hear their confessions...enough said.
-
Point out what is dumb so I can think about it...will you?
That a Catholic would have any concern whatever for modern fashions.
The best way to judge the appropriateness of clothing is by custom; follow it without fail. Because the human spirit is prone to change and the things that pleased us yesterday no longer do so today, there have been invented, and are still being invented every day, all sorts of different ways of dressing to satisfy this changing spirit. Those who would want to dress as people did 30 years ago would make themselves look ridiculous and eccentric. It is, however, characteristic of the conduct of people of good judgment, never to attract attention to themselves in any way.
- St John Baptist de La Salle, page 49, The Rules of Christian Decorum and Civility (http://www.lasallian.info/doc/Christian%20Decorum-reprint%202007.pdf)
Within reason, of course!
A veiled attempt at justification.
Please cite from the same work where this sainted man advocated women donning manly attire.
Or again, please demonstrate how he overrules the warning about immoral fashions by Our Lady of Fatima.
If not, I should be able to dress like a slob, and it would not be unfit, because it is the prevailing custom in this country.
You have perverted the writings and intention os a saint.
Be careful with that.
A long time ago...when I first started posting on IA...I used to battle with Clare on this topic...I have since come to agree with her. It is not a veiled attempt at justification...and I agree with her statement "within reason of course!".
-
Catholics sort of have to...fit in that is.
You seem to be unaware of, or have forgotten about, the chasm separating the elect from those of the world.
Okay Jitpring...so you are among the elect. I see, very well then. That is one area that I could never feel certain about...in fact, most likely, I am not one of the elect, though I certainly strive to be...
-
all i know, is I don't want my nieces or kids dressing like the way I did in the past, you can dress modest and look like you are from 2012, as women we shouldn't cause men to lust over us unless they're our husbands, plus we don't want to influence or support other women dressing provocatively through our attire, if you wouldn't wear it to church because it is too revealing then maybe we shouldn't wear it at all, buttttt in the suimmertime i don't see nothing wrong with arms out...we are the temptresses so we must beware of our clothes because as God's daughters we don't want to create unnecessary lust...don't get me wrong I used to want men to lust over me and dressed accordingly to achieve such attention..but now the only man I want to please is Jesus and one day my man
-
all i know, is I don't want my nieces or kids dressing like the way I did in the past, you can dress modest and look like you are from 2012, as women we shouldn't cause men to lust over us unless they're our husbands, plus we don't want to influence or support other women dressing provocatively through our attire, if you wouldn't wear it to church because it is too revealing then maybe we shouldn't wear it at all, buttttt in the suimmertime i don't see nothing wrong with arms out...we are the temptresses so we must beware of our clothes because as God's daughters we don't want to create unnecessary lust...don't get me wrong I used to want men to lust over me and dressed accordingly to achieve such attention..but now the only man I want to please is Jesus and one day my man
I hope one day you are as lucky as I have been and find that good and noble husband..a good man, not like one of these nincompoops on the forum.
-
all i know, is I don't want my nieces or kids dressing like the way I did in the past, you can dress modest and look like you are from 2012, as women we shouldn't cause men to lust over us unless they're our husbands, plus we don't want to influence or support other women dressing provocatively through our attire, if you wouldn't wear it to church because it is too revealing then maybe we shouldn't wear it at all, buttttt in the suimmertime i don't see nothing wrong with arms out...we are the temptresses so we must beware of our clothes because as God's daughters we don't want to create unnecessary lust...don't get me wrong I used to want men to lust over me and dressed accordingly to achieve such attention..but now the only man I want to please is Jesus and one day my man
Angela, I found this comment you made fascinating:
wow, Myrna I think you're the answer I've been searching for, I was Baptized , communed, and confirmed in nouvos ordo and as I grew I realized I was one foot with the devil and one foot with God and wondered why muslim girls around me were so disciplined while I was wild, was my faith not strong enough? I see wthat I wasn't taught right, I was mislead, I recently began dating a sede who introduced me to trad mass and further more to the idea that the seat is vacant, I can see truths in this and I admire your boldness and wisdom for you have witnessed the changes from the get whereas my father has been brushed under the rug like the others, how can I open his eyes and continue opening mine?
Spouse of Jesus often makes the same comment. Why is it that there is such a problem among Christians and Catholics, even in some of the most conservative and traditional groups? There's something very wrong, I don't believe differences in beliefs cause this, I think we can find the answer in that the Muslims have retained true patriarchy much longer.
-
Yeah, he's been reading too much Schleiermacher.
The Neo-Trads use almost the exact same tactics and same sayings that the Neo-Modernists and other Liberal Catholics used to bring down the church. See the Quiet Revolution in Quebec, specifically the change in religious mentalities that lead to it.
You woulnd't perhaps have any references, would you?
I assume that you mean the Quiet revolution in Quebec and not Schleiermarcher.
A book on this which covers that the changes that were happening in Quebecois Catholic settings before the 1960's is The Catholic Origins of Quebec's Quiet Revolution, 1931-1970 by Michael Gauvreau, MQUP, 2005. Gauvreau focuses on Catholic Action groups and how, while some of them may have started with noble goals from a Traditional Catholic point of view, they fell under the influence of existentialist personalism, even radical versions of personalism.
I haven't read the whole thing, but of what I have, a few things stuck out at similar to those used by Neo-Trads and their sympathizers. Here are some excerpts:
pg. 31:
(http://i41.tinypic.com/2a99v81.jpg)
The Hertel spoken about here is François Hertel who's real name was Fr. Rudolph Dube, SJ. He was eventually expelled from the Society of Jesus, left the priesthood, and ended up in agnosticism I believe. He was also close friends with the liberal of French-Canadian liberals, Pierre Trudeau. Hertel's error as when can see from above is similar to that of the Americanists.
Also pg. 31:
(http://i42.tinypic.com/4rbwqe.jpg)
pg. 322:
(http://i43.tinypic.com/dh4hs2.jpg)
A few other notes:
1. The personalist-revolutionaries pushed a vague notion of "love."
2. Promoted a TOB-like view of sex.
3. Accused those who disagreed with them (the hardliners aka and traditionalist-conservatives) of being too puritanical, medieval, or jansenist, etc.
4. Wanted to de-emphasize Catholic teachings on sin and its seriousness.
-
Point out what is dumb so I can think about it...will you?
That a Catholic would have any concern whatever for modern fashions.
The best way to judge the appropriateness of clothing is by custom; follow it without fail. Because the human spirit is prone to change and the things that pleased us yesterday no longer do so today, there have been invented, and are still being invented every day, all sorts of different ways of dressing to satisfy this changing spirit. Those who would want to dress as people did 30 years ago would make themselves look ridiculous and eccentric. It is, however, characteristic of the conduct of people of good judgment, never to attract attention to themselves in any way.
- St John Baptist de La Salle, page 49, The Rules of Christian Decorum and Civility (http://www.lasallian.info/doc/Christian%20Decorum-reprint%202007.pdf)
Within reason, of course!
A veiled attempt at justification.
Not at all. I was answering the idea that a Catholic would have no concern whatever for modern fashions.
You have perverted the writings and intention os a saint.
No I have done no such thing. I quoted him, against the suggestion that modern fashion is of no interest to Catholics.
I was not justifying immodesty. Not all modern fashions are immodest. If a Catholic can dress fashionably while remaining modest, (or modestly while remaining fashionable) that is good. But when Catholics think that the only alternative to immodesty is dressing like people did decades ago, they are mistaken.
I write as someone who dresses modestly, but not especially fashionably! I've never had much style. :dancing:
-
I was not justifying immodesty. Not all modern fashions are immodest. If a Catholic can dress fashionably while remaining modest, (or modestly while remaining fashionable) that is good. But when Catholics think that the only alternative to immodesty is dressing like people did decades ago, they are mistaken.
Is anyone really disputing that though?
bernadette keeps going on about people saying trad Catholic women can't be beautiful in dress but I haven't seen any posts advocating ugliness. Perhaps if she readjusted her mentality and focused less on exaggerating how "bad" it is in trad chapels she would be able to see that more clearly. That along with the realization that beauty has some level of subjectivity, so not everyone will agree with what she thinks is beautiful or tasteful, would help this move along a little better.
So not everyone has the best fashion sense or ability to put clothes together well, that's an art. It really is. And lack of that talent or ability is a problem common to all, trads or not, Catholic or not. To act as though ugliness is the goal, when in fact it's a disagreement on what constitutes beauty and modesty is not exactly honest debating.
-
You are a vain woman.
-
I should also add that any woman who entered Padre Pio's confessional who's skirt was NOT below the knees was dismissed. Enough said.
I know that....I also know that there are plenty of women in the sspx that enter the confessional who's skirts are NOT well below the knees, and the priests hear their confessions...enough said.
What's gotten into you, bernadette? You didn't act like this when you first came back. Now you're acting like a smart-aleck even to those who were previously kind to you.
-
You are a vain woman.
Have a very holy Passion Sunday...
-
I should also add that any woman who entered Padre Pio's confessional who's skirt was NOT below the knees was dismissed. Enough said.
I know that....I also know that there are plenty of women in the sspx that enter the confessional who's skirts are NOT well below the knees, and the priests hear their confessions...enough said.
What's gotten into you, bernadette? You didn't act like this when you first came back. Now you're acting like a smart-aleck even to those who were previously kind to you.
I'm sorry...I didn't like being tormented and attacked all because I have an opinion that isn't dreary. I like you SS.
-
Tis fine, Bernadette. Have a blessed Sunday.
-
Tis fine, Bernadette. Have a blessed Sunday.
Thank you...have a blessed Sunday too...
-
I didn't like being tormented and attacked
Fr. Cajetan Mary da Bergamo, Humility of Heart, section 34:
The more the heart is filled with self-love, so much the greater will be its anxiety and agitation. This maxim is indeed true; for whenever I feel myself inwardly irritated, disturbed and angered by some adversity which has befallen me, I need not look elsewhere for the cause of such feelings than within myself, and I should always do well to say: If I were truly humble I should not be disquieted. My great agitation is an evident proof which ought to convince me that my self-love is great and dominant and powerful within me, and is the tyrant which torments and gives me no peace.
If I feel aggrieved by some sharp word that has been said to me, or by some discourtesy shown me, from whence does this feeling of pain proceed? From my pride alone. Oh, if I were truly humble, what calm, what peace and happiness would my soul not enjoy! And this promise of Jesus Christ is infallible: "Learn of Me, because I am meek and humble of heart, and you shall find rest to your souls." [Matt. xi, 29]
-
I know of recent case of a man I know mentioned "Karol Wojtyla Beatified?- Never!" to a few dozen people who attend a Traditional Mass organised by Institute Christ the King. They stopped attending the Mass as the criticism of JPII was too much for them. They were 15 or so 'newbies'. The guy I know who has turned 15 people away from the Indult scene is himself one whose 'jury is out' if we have a Pope or not.
I'm more of the view we have a Pope but is he really Catholic? His heart is Catholic. He has Catholicity from childhood but really he is modernist. His philosophy and theology says alot.
I came to Tradition via the 'Indult'. I certainly wouldn't go back to that world again. I will stick with the SSPX.
I have become a hardline 'Pixie' over the years. 'Pixie' is the term the Irish Latin Mass Society call Society supporters.
-
Quite the change of pace to read a thread about women in which I agree with what Tele has to say. : )
I'd like to see some photos of a Trad parish that universally looks "cult-like" in appearance. Sure, I've seen a few women wear out-of-date fashions, but it's usually an indication of budget priorities within their household rather than some sort of strict adherence to a particular attire.
-
There were plenty of "frumpy" women at my former trad parish. To be honest, though, they didn't look particularly good or stylish because they were overweight (sometimes significantly so). The clothes they wore were generally secondary to the overall look. There's plenty of frumpy looking women at my current very conservative NO parish, too. The upside to my trad parish was that I rarely saw women in pants; I don't think pants flatter many women's figures, especially so if they're overweight.
I've only ever seen one woman dressed in the Amish-style dress pictured earlier at the TLM. She was a young married woman, very sweet and shy. I didn't like her dresses, but somehow the overall look wasn't off-putting at all. It just seemed to suit her personality, if that makes sense.
Several of the older teenagers and early 20-somethings at that same parish often wore the Jane Austen Regency-style dresses that they had sewed themselves. Those were, admittedly, a bit "costumey" but the girls were so fresh and pretty in their dresses that they somehow carried the look off.
At my current NO parish, there are some older Korean woman who wear traditional long Korean dresses to mass occasionally. These dresses are a bit ornate, with long full skirts, often worn with gauzy little jackets. Not fashionable at all, but the site of those faithful ladies in their long dresses and veils is very charming.
Truthfully, though, I don't really know what one would consider fashionable for women these days. In the past there was a general overall look or silhouette, but now it seems like anything goes style-wise. I do know when I see someone who I consider beautifully dressed, it's usually of a very simple and classic style.
I think it would be nice if Catholic women could lead the way with beautiful and modest clothing, but right now I'm just happy with the modest part. A trip to my local Wal-Mart is all I need to make me thankful all over again. :laugh1:
-
St. Paul says the woman's body belongs to her husband. I would take it, she should dress in accord with his wishes.
He also says that a man's body belongs to his wife. Does the wife then dictate what he wears?
When St. Paul says that the husband has power over his wife's body, he's referring to the marriage debt, not what she wears.
-
"Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency." (1 Cor 7:1-5 - my emphasis)
-
He also says that a man's body belongs to his wife. Does the wife then dictate what he wears?
I would say that is probably the typical arrangement. Within reason of course.
When St. Paul says that the husband has power over his wife's body, he's referring to the marriage debt, not what she wears.
I think it's evident that if a wife belongs to her husband, she should dress in a manner to please him.
-
Wife "belongs" to her husband? That's a curious way of looking at it.
I agree that a woman should dress in a manner which pleases her husband (but not because he has power over her body, but because she should be obedient to him), as long as what pleases him is not immodest. But please note that immodesty does not consist only in lack of cover; calling attention to yourself by wearing fashions that are very out-of-date or those which are associated with false religions (such as Islam, Mormon fundamentalism, Hassidic Judaism, Mennonite/Amish) is also immodest. A modest person does not call attention to him- or herself. An immodest person does, whether it is because of a lack of decent attire or because his or her attire is out-of-date or associated with a false religion.
-
Wife "belongs" to her husband? That's a curious way of looking at it.
Her body belongs to the husband.
I agree that a woman should dress in a manner which pleases her husband (but not because he has power over her body, but because she should be obedient to him),
Well, the two are certainly interrelated. The way a wife covers her body is important in more than one respect. On the one hand there is the question of how a good, decent, and practical family should deport itself. On the other hand there is the fact that as the man's wife she should be very careful to dress first for him, and not the sake of vanity.
as long as what pleases him is not immodest. But please note that immodesty does not consist only in lack of cover;
No, immodesty in the context of what is sinful has to do with sinful exposure of the body.
calling attention to yourself by wearing fashions that are very out-of-date or those which are associated with false religions (such as Islam, Mormon fundamentalism, Hassidic Judaism, Mennonite/Amish) is also immodest.
It's not just to compare the long clothes of a traditional Catholic wife with those of false religions, just because they're not in style. Sorry! That's an unjust statement. I agree that a husband should be reasonable in his expectations. That being said, "reasonable" is not defined by what a woman wants when she wants it.
A modest person does not call attention to him- or herself.
So priests and religious who wear religious garb are immodest?
Or just traditional Catholic women who dress in a manner that the world despises?
An immodest person does, whether it is because of a lack of decent attire or because his or her attire is out-of-date or associated with a false religion.
Sorry, but your unjust comparison of modestly dressed Catholic women to Muslims, Amish and Mormons is just that, unjust.
The question of sinful exposure of the body is completely separate from that of dressing "outlandishly" (or what some people claim is outlandish, though i don't think it is in most cases)
-
No, immodesty in the context of what is sinful has to do with sinful exposure of the body.
St. Thomas disagrees with you:
www.newadvent.org/summa/3169.htm
So priests and religious who wear religious garb are immodest?
Of course not -- but they are set apart on account of their ordination or religious profession.
It's not just to compare the long clothes of a traditional Catholic wife with those of false religions
I'm not. I don't know (personally) any traditional Catholic wives who dress that way. But dressing in such a way (for example, veiling at all times) is certainly calling attention to oneself and is not modest.
-
It is, in fact, the man's place to correct his wife and daughter(s) if they are dressing immodestly. The only time they may go against his authority is if he were to ask them to dress immodestly, a command that would obviously be sinful if they obeyed.
-
St. Thomas disagrees with you:
Immodesty which inspires a sin of lust is of a different character than immodesty that draws attention to oneself. That is self-evident. You can't tell me a woman wearing something that seems silly and eccentric is committing the same sin as a woman showing off her body in a skimpy outfit. That's ridiculous.
Of course not -- but they are set apart on account of their ordination or religious profession.
But fashions among priests and religious sisters and nuns have changed. Why do traditionalists call attention to themselves by dressing in an outmoded way? See how it works when you start using the argument that traditionalists must conform to modern customs in such matters? Catholic wives and mothers should not worry about calling attention to themselves by dressing traditionally, just because modern customs of modern society are not in harmony with Catholic Tradition.
I'm not. I don't know (personally) any traditional Catholic wives who dress that way. But dressing in such a way (for example, veiling at all times)
It may be considered out of bounds in modern society for women to cover their heads. That is a defect in modern society. Traditionally women wore hats and bonnets outside. There are still countries where women often cover their heads out of doors.
is certainly calling attention to oneself and is not modest.
You are very judgmental. I think, frankly the problem with modesty among Traditional Catholics in most places almost entirely with respect to laxity. If there are a few eccentrics here or there, they are singled out - as though they're the problem. Generally speaking, they're not the problem. But they're a convenient excuse for people who wish to dress in modern styles.
-
But they're a convenient excuse for people who wish to dress in modern styles.
That is to say, they wish to dress in modern fashions even when such fashions typically pass well beyond traditional bounds of propriety.
-
Immodesty which inspires a sin of lust is of a different character than immodesty that draws attention to oneself. That is self-evident. You can't tell me a woman wearing something that seems silly and eccentric is committing the same sin as a woman showing off her body in a skimpy outfit. That's ridiculous.
I'm not talking about only about lust. Lust is not the only sin that can be inspired by immodesty.
But fashions among priests and religious sisters and nuns have changed. Why do traditionalists call attention to themselves by dressing in an outmoded way? See how it works when you start using the argument that traditionalists must conform to modern customs in such matters?
Not sure what you mean. Priests and religious are set apart and should be readily identifiable as such. Does anyone mistake a priest wearing a cassock for an imam or a Mormon missionary? Of course not. And cassocks and religious habits are not outdated. But someone might mistake a "traditional Catholic wife" wearing outdated attire for a Mormon or Mennonite.
-
Not sure what you mean. Priests and religious are set apart and should be readily identifiable as such. Does anyone mistake a priest wearing a cassock for an imam or a Mormon missionary?
Unless those women are intentionally dressing like Muslims, Mormons, Amish, etc, to try to look like members of those sects, then it's incredibly unjust to say "they look like Muslims."
Of course not. And cassocks and religious habits are not outdated.
Except an Novus Ordite could say they are.
Whenever Trads use arguments to criticize Trad that Novus Ordites could easily use to criticize Trads in general, odds are it's a bad argument.
But someone might mistake a "traditional Catholic wife" wearing outdated attire for a Mormon or Mennonite.
Not because she's wearing something distinctively mormon or mennonite.
Wearing something old-fashioned that you don't like cannot justify saying that they are trying to ape mormons and mennonites.
-
Not sure what you mean. Priests and religious are set apart and should be readily identifiable as such. Does anyone mistake a priest wearing a cassock for an imam or a Mormon missionary?
Unless those women are intentionally dressing like Muslims, Mormons, Amish, etc, to try to look like members of those sects, then it's incredibly unjust to say "they look like Muslims."
They could certainly unintentionally dress in such a way.
Whenever Trads use arguments to criticize Trad that Novus Ordites could easily use to criticize Trads in general, odds are it's a bad argument.
The difference lies in the fact that even if cassocks and traditional religious habits are out of date, they serve an actual purpose, which is to make those who have been set apart easily recognizable to the faithful. I think the wearing of the cassock is even more important today than it was 50 years ago as many Protestant clergymen have adopted the black "business suit" clericals that we once de rigeur for priests in the U.S. when they were away from their parishes (at least according to the guidelines of the Plenary Council of Baltimore).
Wearing something old-fashioned that you don't like cannot justify saying that they are trying to ape mormons and mennonites.
I didn't say anything about them trying to look like Mormons or Mennonites.
-
You could just as easily say someone wearing more stylish dress is trying to dress like an atheist. Unless the dress has distinct religious connotations, they're not dressing like members of a certain religion. It's wrong of you to say that.
There's nothing wrong with women bucking modern fashions by wearing long "old-fashioned" (seems that long skirts get the brunt of resentment) clothes. There is something wrong with unduly criticizing them, comparing them to Muslims, Amish, etc, because they decisively reject offensive modern fashions.
I think the resentment expressed towards people who dress that way is really a matter that they make other Catholics feel self-conscious about their own choices.
-
[/quote]
Not sure what you mean. Priests and religious are set apart and should be readily identifiable as such. Does anyone mistake a priest wearing a cassock for an imam or a Mormon missionary? Of course not..[/quote]
One might mistake him for an Anglican though.... :smile:
-
Bernadette said:
Beautiful, elegant and stylish for the day...here is a modern photo:
http://static.photaki.com/spanish-mantilla-clad-women-and-scapular_427860.jpg
How beautiful...
When these beautiful ladies are standing, one is able to see their knees. What happens when they sit? Their straight skirts start to climb higher up the leg. No doubt if they have a modicuм of modesty about them, they will be constantly tugging them back down towards their knees, instead of paying attention to the prayers/sermon of the priest. Let them keep their thighs for their husbands, not display them in the church.
Never before in history!!! I have a little knowledge of history. Never before in history would a Catholic woman expose her breasts in public. Nowadays it is par for the course. I don't think we can follow the fashions of today and still call ourselves Catholic.
-
The two photos I posted were not immodest...they were beautiful...Queen Isabella of Spain and another of modern Spanish women in Mantilla and wearing scapular. Both photos give the example that Catholic women have always set the proper style for the rest of society to follow.
You're kidding right?
Sorry, but a shoulderless top is immodest. It's like a tease. Almost like the woman suggesting that she is in the process of undressing.
Even the pagan world admits that shoulderless tops are sexy. Check out the dress code for schools (and we all know how liberal today's schools are and how they corrupt children, yet even they forbid such attire):
Dress appropriately. Inappropriate clothing includes:
• clothing advertising substances illegal for juveniles
• clothing containing obscene or profane language or pictures
• clothing containing gang symbols or clothing worn in a manner to identify gang membership
• sɛҳuąƖly provocative or immodest clothing (sagging pants, bare midriffs, muscle shirts, low cut tops, tops with low or open backs, tube tops, one shoulder or shoulderless tops, halter tops, short skirts/shorts); undergarments should not be visible
• hats, hair tiebacks using scarves or handkerchiefs, other headwear and jackets (windbreakers allowed with matching pants)
As for the second picture, any skirt above the knee is immodest. And wait until these women sit down. You'll be getting a wonderful view of their thighs. Yeah, real modest.
-
There's nothing wrong with women bucking modern fashions by wearing long "old-fashioned" (seems that long skirts get the brunt of resentment) clothes. There is something wrong with unduly criticizing them, comparing them to Muslims, Amish, etc, because they decisively reject offensive modern fashions.
There's a difference between rejecting offensive modern fashions and wearing very outdated clothing. It's very possible to dress modestly without drawing attention to oneself by wearing something that is either out of date or is the product of a wholly different culture. I often see women wearing Muslim veils. It would be wrong for a Christian woman to dress like that and call attention to herself (at least here in the U.S., it might be quite another thing in Iraq where her life could be in danger for not dressing according to Muslim standards of "modesty"). There is no issue with long skirts in and of themselves. A long-sleeve, ankle-length dress in the height of summer could be another matter entirely.
-
There's nothing wrong with women bucking modern fashions by wearing long "old-fashioned" (seems that long skirts get the brunt of resentment) clothes. There is something wrong with unduly criticizing them, comparing them to Muslims, Amish, etc, because they decisively reject offensive modern fashions.
There's a difference between rejecting offensive modern fashions and wearing very outdated clothing. It's very possible to dress modestly without drawing attention to oneself by wearing something that is either out of date or is the product of a wholly different culture. I often see women wearing Muslim veils. It would be wrong for a Christian woman to dress like that and call attention to herself (at least here in the U.S., it might be quite another thing in Iraq where her life could be in danger for not dressing according to Muslim standards of "modesty"). There is no issue with long skirts in and of themselves. A long-sleeve, ankle-length dress in the height of summer could be another matter entirely.
No, I think women are better off wearing "out of date" clothing than dressing immodestly.
-
There's a difference between rejecting offensive modern fashions and wearing very outdated clothing. It's very possible to dress modestly without drawing attention to oneself by wearing something that is either out of date or is the product of a wholly different culture. I often see women wearing Muslim veils. It would be wrong for a Christian woman to dress like that and call attention to herself (at least here in the U.S., it might be quite another thing in Iraq where her life could be in danger for not dressing according to Muslim standards of "modesty"). There is no issue with long skirts in and of themselves. A long-sleeve, ankle-length dress in the height of summer could be another matter entirely.
Muslim veils differ substantially from Christian veils. Once again, it's an injustice to call it a "Muslim veil" - an insult to all Christian women who have worn veils in history, unless it really is a type of veil designed for Muslim women to wear.
-
No, I think women are better off wearing "out of date" clothing than dressing immodestly.
Muslim women actually do tend to practice modesty. In that respect their natural virtue puts most Christians to shame. That so many have refused to go along with liberal secular dress merits great praise.
It is similar to what St. Robert Bellarmine said about the pagans pointing to us with scorn because of the extent of drunkenness among Christians.
In the same way, modest Muslim women, Muslim women to retain their chastity before marriage, must surely point to "Christians" with scorn for the outrageous way in which they try to conform to secular liberal dress that is often immodest, often "unisex" etc.
-
There is no issue with long skirts in and of themselves. A long-sleeve, ankle-length dress in the height of summer could be another matter entirely.
Sorry, but that is arrant nonsense.
There is no requirement for young women to show their ankles and go bare sleaved in a dress to satisfy your desire that they conform to the modern world.
That you try to call it "immodest" takes the cake.
It really is the same thing as liberal priests and nuns mocking traditionalists for wearing traditional habits they consider outmoded.
-
Veils are Muslim?
(http://0.tqn.com/d/goeasteurope/1/0/i/N/-/-/Female-Folk-Dancers-Croatia.jpg)
-
Traditional Catholics have their own cultural norms, this is because the general culture is in stark opposition to Catholic ways.
-
No, I think women are better off wearing "out of date" clothing than dressing immodestly.
Muslim women actually do tend to practice modesty. In that respect their natural virtue puts most Christians to shame. That so many have refused to go along with liberal secular dress merits great praise.
And they usually wear trousers.
-
And they usually wear trousers.
The people who say that Christian women wearing veils look like Muslims wouldn't say that about Christian women wearing pants, would they?
Of course Muslim women have traditionally worn trousers, but they wear a covering over them.
Christian women can distinguish themselves from Muslims by refusing to wear pants, since it's not traditional in western societies for women to wear them.
-
Traditional Catholics have their own cultural norms, this is because the general culture is in stark opposition to Catholic ways.
Yes, I think that is exactly right. Tele, I like that picture you posted. I think it does a good job of showing a traditional Christian (as opposed to Protestant) form of dress -- it is modest without being frumpy; the women are sufficiently covered while also maintaining a tasteful appearance.
Here is another one, depicting the national costumes of the Balearic Islands. I defy anybody to accuse the women of this Mediterranean culture of having dressed "frumpily"; then again, people seem to use that word in a wide variety of ways. I have a very clear image in my mind of what "frumpy" is (think of the picture of those fundamentalist Mormon women or the "Plain Catholic" website), but I do not find burqas to be frumpy either, only excessive, whereas others have told me that they do find burqas frumpy. Thus, I conclude that we should agree on a definition on this thread before proceeding further. Anyway, here is the photo :
(http://www.croatianhistory.net/gif/krek18.jpg)
I believe that is the Catholic way.
No, I think women are better off wearing "out of date" clothing than dressing immodestly.
Muslim women actually do tend to practice modesty. In that respect their natural virtue puts most Christians to shame. That so many have refused to go along with liberal secular dress merits great praise.
And they usually wear trousers.
I have lived around Mohammedans before and have been to Mohammedan countries; it seems like, unless they are wearing a burqa, the most popular and common thing to see on Mohammedan women is tight blue jeans and copious facial make-up, particularly around the eyes. And they dress in such form-fitting clothing despite covering their heads, which I find so silly -- a clear example of the letter killing the spirit of the law. I have an old friend who once saw a Turkish woman in hijab and jeans passionately kissing some man in a public park in Constantinople. Apparently, whatever the original point of the hijab was in Mohammedan countries, a large portion have forgotten it.
That being said, I lived around Mohammedans who immigrated to the US and Turkey is a saecularised country, so maybe these are not good samples, though Clare is in the UK and apparently has witnessed the same thing. Many of the women of the older generations (and some from the younger) dress in flowing robes, however, or full burqas. These are certainly modest and, amongst the Arabs I saw at Constantinople, sometimes quite elegant and beautiful in their own way.
-
And they usually wear trousers.
The people who say that Christian women wearing veils look like Muslims wouldn't say that about Christian women wearing pants, would they?
Of course Muslim women have traditionally worn trousers, but they wear a covering over them.
Christian women can distinguish themselves from Muslims by refusing to wear pants, since it's not traditional in western societies for women to wear them.
Good points all around.
It should be pointed out, too, that the trousers worn by Central Asian, Indian, and East Asian women are very loose and not form-fitting.
-
That being said, I lived around Mohammedans who immigrated to the US and Turkey is a saecularised country
Yes, in my conversations with Turkish women, and they seem a lot more like western women in their manners.
-
No, I think women are better off wearing "out of date" clothing than dressing immodestly.
You are creating a false dichotomy. And wearing clothing that is out of date is immodest because it draws attention to oneself.
There's nothing traditional about drawing attention to oneself.
-
There is no issue with long skirts in and of themselves. A long-sleeve, ankle-length dress in the height of summer could be another matter entirely.
Sorry, but that is arrant nonsense.
Your calling it nonsense doesn't make it so.
There is no requirement for young women to show their ankles and go bare sleaved in a dress to satisfy your desire that they conform to the modern world.
Bare-sleeved? Who said anything about bare arms?
That you try to call it "immodest" takes the cake.
It is immodest for a layperson to call attention to him- or herself by the way he or she dresses. St. Thomas identifies dressing in such a way as a vice. But perhaps you know better than he.
It really is the same thing as liberal priests and nuns mocking traditionalists for wearing traditional habits they consider outmoded.
No, it isn't. First, priests and religious should be easily identifiable by what they wear. Laypeople should not. Second, there is a difference between considering something outmoded and something's actually being outmoded. A cassock isn't outmoded, but dressing like Catharine of Aragon is.
-
Veils are Muslim?
(http://0.tqn.com/d/goeasteurope/1/0/i/N/-/-/Female-Folk-Dancers-Croatia.jpg)
If a young lady dressed like that in ordinary circuмstances here in the U.S., people would think she is a Muslim.
-
Veils are Muslim?
(http://0.tqn.com/d/goeasteurope/1/0/i/N/-/-/Female-Folk-Dancers-Croatia.jpg)
If a young lady dressed like that in ordinary circuмstances here in the U.S., people would think she is a Muslim.
That's because Americans, as a whole, have almost no sense of culture. When they do, they realize it is inopportune to recognize it in public settings.
-
Your calling it nonsense doesn't make it so.
Catholic women have a right to wear skirts to their ankles and sleeves to their wrists, anytime, anywhere, and no modern sensibilities can take away that right. It is absolutely insufferable nonsense for you to say they are obliged to expose their arms or show the outline of part of their legs lest they "stand out"
It is immodest for a layperson to call attention to him- or herself by the way he or she dresses.
If people think that a Catholic girl wearing a long skirt and long sleaves is "drawing attention to herself" the problem is with them. The problem is with you. They make you uncomfortable.
St. Thomas identifies dressing in such a way as a vice. But perhaps you know better than he.
St. Thomas would never have said a Catholic woman must expose part of her arms and legs or otherwise she is immodest.
No, it isn't. First, priests and religious should be easily identifiable by what they wear. Laypeople should not.
Catholics should be indistinguishable from the way others dress? Even if everyone else dresses immodestly? Really, your insistence that wearing a long skirt and long sleaves is "immodest" has the same trajectory. What was once immodest for being exposure, is now, according to you, "immodest" because it covers too much. That is relativism.
Second, there is a difference between considering something outmoded and something's actually being outmoded.
And if I say it's not outmoded for Catholic women to wear skirts to the ankles and long sleeves, who are you to say otherwise? Those who say traditionalist priests and nuns wear outmoded fashions are using the same reasoning you are in calling modestly dressed Catholic women immodest.
A cassock isn't outmoded, but dressing like Catharine of Aragon is.
So first it's dressing like Muslims, now like the Queen of England. Your comparisons are patently ridiculous.
Anyone who would disparage a Catholic woman for wearing a skirt that covers all of her legs and a top that covers all of her arms, saying it's "drawing attention to herself" - has big problem. A problem of accepting liberal changes in customs as though Catholics are bound to conform to them.
-
If a young lady dressed like that in ordinary circuмstances here in the U.S., people would think she is a Muslim.
But wearing veils is not specifically Muslim, and no one has the right to claim that it is specially Muslim.
You are traducing Catholic traditional dress in favor of liberal secular dress.
You have no right to say a woman is acting like a Muslim wearing a veil, anymore than to say she's acting like a Muslim by being chaste.
-
I'm not encouraging young women to wear veils, it would be nice if it wasn't considered eccentric. Of course so long as Catholics enforce liberal norms on each other while always harshly criticizing those who try to be more traditional, and rebelling against those who say we should have higher standards, then behavior and attitudes will continue to worsen among Catholics.
There are various head coverings women can wear. Wearing a veil, though perhaps injudicious, does not make anyone a Muslim. In Eastern Europe women still wear such things. And they are not Muslims.
-
No, I think women are better off wearing "out of date" clothing than dressing immodestly.
You are creating a false dichotomy. And wearing clothing that is out of date is immodest because it draws attention to oneself.
There's nothing traditional about drawing attention to oneself.
So what is appropriate then?
-
So what is appropriate then?
There's a difference between drawing attention to oneself and not being afraid to stand out by dressing traditionally. In this society the traditionally dressed person (especially a woman) will stand out. It's unavoidable.
i wear a long sleeves, a button down shirt, jeans and a hat with a brim to keep the sun off my face. People sometimes yell out at me from cars, etc.
Am I required to wear lighter clothes, expose skin to sunlight, not wear a hat, because of people who like to point and jeer? I think someone who says yes is a jerk.
-
I agree, Tele. I am just asking "Pepsuber" what he thinks is appropriate. He seems to think dressing with the times is best. The stench of feminism rears its ugly head yet again...
-
I agree, Tele. I am just asking "Pepsuber" what he thinks is appropriate. He seems to think dressing with the times is best. The stench of feminism rears its ugly head yet again...
I wouldn't all it feminism per se.
Most "conservatives" object more to trying to return to past customs more than they object to modern customs. That seems to be the overwhelming pattern. There is a very deep hostility to traditionalism when it has a social cost.
It would be one thing if pepsuber was just talking about people who are too eccentric, too costume oriented. But his way of thinking, (and his derogatory comments: comparing Catholics to Muslims and mormons, comparing them to 15th Century queens,) that the problem that dressing the way Catholics would have dressed in the recent past is now socially unacceptable because of liberalism, makes Catholic dress hostage to liberalism.
So long as such "conservatives" hold sway, there will only be a continuing slide towards the gradual dissolution of all traditional ways among Catholics.
-
The stench of feminism rears its ugly head yet again...
I agree with you that in most cases the intense hostility to traditional dress in women is motivated primarily by feminism. But I don't see evidence here that that is the case. Except for the comparison to Muslims.
-
Yeah, I guess feminism isn't displayed in this particular case.
Still a wrong line of thinking on Pepsuber's part nonetheless.
-
ps to s2srea....I believe it is important for Catholics to be able to fit in and cope in the modern world that God has created and chosen for us to live in. One can still be a Catholic today and function normally while holding fast to the faith...actually, the sooner most trads realize this, the better off they will be...I've been accused of being stuck up and arrogant before, I am sure...do I care? No.
The way you treat others is an important virtue and should be cultivated.
Bernadette, state your case without the invectives, please. There is an "immodesty" in your tone that you should try to avoid displaying. Perhaps even speak to your priest about it in the confessional. I'm not saying that your behavior in this thread is sinful, it's more like an imperfection.
Post more photos of what you think is appropriate attire.
-
If a young lady dressed like that in ordinary circuмstances here in the U.S., people would think she is a Muslim.
But wearing veils is not specifically Muslim, and no one has the right to claim that it is specially Muslim.
I didn't say it was specifically Muslim, I said that someone who wears a veil regularly in the U.S. or in any other Western country will cause people to think she is a Muslim. And that is wrong. It is wrong to dress so that one stands out, when one can dress otherwise and still not sin. And it is wrong for a man to ask his wife to dress in such a way contrary to her natural modesty and humility.
It is not in the outward things themselves which man uses, that there is vice, but on the part of man who uses them immoderately. This lack of moderation occurs in two ways. First, in comparison with the customs of those among whom one lives; wherefore Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8): "Those offenses which are contrary to the customs of men, are to be avoided according to the customs generally prevailing, so that a thing agreed upon and confirmed by custom or law of any city or nation may not be violated at the lawless pleasure of any, whether citizen or foreigner. For any part, which harmonizeth not with its whole, is offensive."
So as long as a woman (or man) can dress according to the customs of the society in which she lives and not sin by dressing too revealingly or provocatively, she should. If she draws attention to herself by dressing in a way that is very much out of date or wearing clothing that belongs to another culture, then she is immodest.
-
I didn't say it was specifically Muslim, I said that someone who wears a veil regularly in the U.S. or in any other Western country will cause people to think she is a Muslim.
It is wrong for people to make that assumption.
And that is wrong.
They are wrong to think the woman is a Muslim.
It is wrong to dress so that one stands out, when one can dress otherwise and still not sin.
It may seem eccentric to some, but unless it's outlandish, but it isn't at all clear a woman wearing some sort of veil, scarf, bonnet, etc, is doing something wrong because secular people (or Catholics very mindful of fitting in with secular society) object, or have mistaken ideas about the religious affiliation of the person.
I'm certain there are certain kinds of dress I would find too eccentric. But you've gone way beyond that. You've come out against long skirts and long sleaves. You're against traditional modesty, you're calling traditional standards of modesty immodest, not because they go against the Catholic religion, but because they are counter-cultural. (that is, counter to a godless culture)
And it is wrong for a man to ask his wife to dress in such a way contrary to her natural modesty and humility.
It is of course wrong to dress contrary to modesty and humility. Certainly that is not the intention of those who dress traditionally. Nor is it generally the effect. What the real issue is here, I think, is that many people think it hurts the reputation of traditional Catholics when they buck social conventions. I for one don't think so. I think if people don't like it, it's generally because they're convicted.
So as long as a woman (or man) can dress according to the customs of the society in which she lives and not sin by dressing too revealingly or provocatively, she should.
She should dress according to Christian traditions. We are not obliged to conform to the fashions of a godless society. It is highly offensive for you to say St. Thomas would require a higher hem and higher sleaves in order to fit in with modern fashions which are contrary to fashions which existed during the whole history of Christendom.
If she draws attention to herself by dressing in a way that is very much out of date
The intention of wearing a long skirt and long sleaves and some sort of head-covering is not to draw attention to oneself. Serving as a model for the way Christian women should dress is eminently modest: and a low hem and long sleaves, are never immodest because pagans laugh at them.
Once again, you've never explained how old-fashioned religious habits are not out of date. The Church has moved beyond them, Traditional religious are just trying to draw attention to themselves by using out-dated styles. The exact same argument you use against women who dress according to the traditions of Christendom can be used against old fashioned religious habits.
or wearing clothing that belongs to another culture, then she is immodest.
They aren't wearing clothes that belong to another culture. Sorry!
I've seen the way the daughters of lax families dress. Those hems seem to creep up above the knees, inevitably. If any cretin dared called a man's female relation "immodest" for wearing long sleaves and a long hem, and some sort of head-covering others found quaint, I would say that person a thrashing. If she was compared to a Muslim or some other Protestant sect, I would say the same thing. Very very insulting.
I've never approved of eccentric dress, but you're insisting on conformity to this pagan society's norms for dress, against the traditional norms of Christian society. And trying to use St. Thomas to justify it.
As though St. Thomas would consider modern dress, the kind you're insisting those girls wear, lest they be "immodest" - even remotely acceptable.
It's unbelievable.
-
Some of these proud middle class people want to argue that traditional Catholic girls who wear clothes that make them uncomfortable are being immodest. To be frank, it makes me very uncomfortable when people obsessed with their social acceptance criticize other Catholics for putting traditional standards first.
It would be one thing to criticize a particular, an extreme case. That's not what's being objected to. Then there is the accusation of imitating members of other religions, as though the long dress isn't simply traditional Christian dress, that was the norm in all Christian countries before the downfall of monarchism and the virtual imposition of international secularism that has been progressing since WWI.
Catholics are not obliged to conform to that. Absolutely not. The changes have been anti-Christian in inspiration, and to say it is immodest (or Muslim!) not to accept those changes is the height of arrogance.
-
So as long as a woman (or man) can dress according to the customs of the society in which she lives and not sin by dressing too revealingly or provocatively, she should. If she draws attention to herself by dressing in a way that is very much out of date or wearing clothing that belongs to another culture, then she is immodest.
I don't want you to think I'm attacking you. I don't think it's your fault that
this connotation has crept into our societal norms. I'd like to say "culture" but
in America we don't really have any culture, unfortunately.
It seems to me that you're not using the word "immodest" correctly here. It doesn't have anything inherently to do with "drawing attention to herself" UNLESS her desire for the attention is aimed at exciting prurient interest from men, in the standard interpretation. It would become an entirely subjective issue then, for what woman would expect to excite men by covering her body more?
However, now that lesbianism is becoming a popular fad, exciting prurient interest from other women would seem to be on par with the erstwhile standard.
Add feminism to the mix, and the confusion in the minds of Americans has produced a situation where it is commonly believed (I have encountered this myself in my own family life) that a girl who dresses with a long skirt, such as down past her knees by 3 or 4 inches, is "trying to draw attention to herself." Several high schools I have known actually proclaim this as a matter of administrative policy.
But they have not, as far as I have seen, called this "immodesty."
immodesty — adj
1. indecent, esp with regard to sɛҳuąƖ propriety; improper
2. bold, impudent, or shameless
modest -- adjective
1.
having or showing a moderate or humble estimate of one's merits, importance, etc.; free from vanity, egotism, boastfulness, or great pretensions.
3.
having or showing regard for the decencies of behavior, speech, dress, etc.; decent: a modest neckline on a dress.
Traditionally, wearing high necklines, longer sleeves and long skirts have been a
sign of decency, and respect for the sensibilities of men who would be tempted to
think impure thoughts when they see women dressed more revealingly. But these
days, when women have been walking around in bikinis for two generations,
suddenly we find ourselves hearing that traditionally modest clothing is
"immodest because it shows the wearer is trying to draw attention to herself."
This would have made my mother pull her hair out, but the Good Lord saw
fit to take her away from us several years ago, in His infinite mercy.
Therefore, in order to make the stretch that a longer skirt, longer sleeves, or higher neckline is inherently immodest, we would have to say that those things excite impure thoughts in the minds of others who see women dressed that way.
But since the excitement of impure thoughts is something that comedians and entertainers get paid to accomplish these days, the common sense of it being a sinful thing is lost on that way of thinking. E.g., they get paid a lot for doing it, so they must be doing something right!
In the end, it comes down to diabolical disorientation. That which once was modest is now immodest, and that which was once sinful is now desirable, and therefore no longer sinful.
-
This would have made my mother pull her hair out, but the Good Lord saw
fit to take her away from us several years ago, in His infinite mercy.
Yes, it's a pharisaic inversion of Catholic norms, and the quote from St. Thomas does not apply.
St. Thomas was a Christian lliving in a Christian society. He would never have argued women must bear flesh, and expose their hair, to fit in.
I made the comparison to the dress of traditional religious and how it doesn't conform to Vatican II- because it's the same mentality.
It's the belief that Catholics can be required to accept trends in society that move against Catholic Tradition as being normative. They are accused of violating the religion by not going along with those who are violating the religion. That is the diabolical nature of the Vatican II sect and its pharisaism.
And it certainly applies to social pressure against young women who buck modern fashion trends in their dress. Social pressure by people whose main priority is fitting in.
-
Dress that tempts people to sɛҳuąƖ sin is not to be put on a moral equivalence with dress that looks ridiculous. And what snobbish people consider "ridiculous" is nothing for Christians to worry about.
That pepsuber suggests such a thing is possible, and tries to recruit St. Thomas for that, shows misplaced priorities. There should never be any sort of equivalence drawn between tempting men to sins of the flesh and looking silly.
-
I'm certain there are certain kinds of dress I would find too eccentric. But you've gone way beyond that. You've come out against long skirts and long sleaves.
No I haven't.
You're against traditional modesty
No, I'm not.
you're calling traditional standards of modesty immodest, not because they go against the Catholic religion, but because they are counter-cultural. (that is, counter to a godless culture)
I notice that you haven't quoted a single saint or other authority.
The intention of wearing a long skirt and long sleaves and some sort of head-covering is not to draw attention to oneself.
The intention isn't the point.
Once again, you've never explained how old-fashioned religious habits are not out of date.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
-
Dress that tempts people to sɛҳuąƖ sin is not to be put on a moral equivalence with dress that looks ridiculous. And what snobbish people consider "ridiculous" is nothing for Christians to worry about.
Who's making a moral equivalence? Noting that something is a vice doesn't at all mean that it's as bad as something else that is also a vice.
There should never be any sort of equivalence drawn between tempting men to sins of the flesh and looking silly.
Good thing I haven't done that.
-
St. Thomas was a Christian lliving in a Christian society.
Yep, quoting St. Augustine who lived in a not-quite-as-Christian society.
-
If some modern worldly woman dresses like this, it's "fashionable"
(http://www.kisforkinky.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Audrey-Scarf-21.jpg)
But if some Catholic girl covers her head and you don't like it, you call it "muslim."
"Fashionable" women wear all sorts of things that you would say would "stick out" if done by Catholic women for Catholic reasons.
-
Yep, quoting St. Augustine who lived in a not-quite-as-Christian society.
It was rapidly being converted to Christianity, but that really doesn't matter, because even the pagans customarily dressed in longer clothes than modern women.
-
Pepsuber, the arguments you are using aren't logical.
First of all, who cares what other people think about a woman who dresses modestly? If a woman who wears a long sleeved shirt, a long skirt, and a veil over her head is suddenly assumed to be a Muslim, is that her problem? Veils on women are only mandatory in Church, sure. But to say she can ONLY wear them to Church or else she is otherwise in sin is quite ridiculous.
The argument could be made that pretty women are going to receive attention no matter what they're wearing, really.
You seem to be saying, Pepsuber, that a woman should attempt to "fit in" with her society by dressing as they do, so long as it isn't "overly immodest". So in America, a woman should wear a t-shirt with tight blue jeans and sneakers. That argument doesn't make sense to me.
-
You seem to be saying, Pepsuber, that a woman should attempt to "fit in" with her society by dressing as they do, so long as it isn't "overly immodest". So in America, a woman should wear a t-shirt with tight blue jeans and sneakers. That argument doesn't make sense to me.
He's not saying that, but in practice, it certainly leads to that. Catholics need to consciously think about how to resist bad modern fashions, not find ways to conform to them.
-
You seem to be saying, Pepsuber, that a woman should attempt to "fit in" with her society by dressing as they do, so long as it isn't "overly immodest". So in America, a woman should wear a t-shirt with tight blue jeans and sneakers. That argument doesn't make sense to me.
He's not saying that, but in practice, it certainly leads to that. Catholics need to consciously think about how to resist bad modern fashions, not find ways to conform to them.
Technically, he did:
So as long as a woman (or man) can dress according to the customs of the society in which she lives and not sin by dressing too revealingly or provocatively, she should.
-
Tele,
I think Pepsuber is pulling our collective legs... or he is totally illogical, one or the other.
In another thread Pepsuber said that :
... many Amish eat the exact same stuff that others eat. They shop at Wal-Mart, etc. (for example, if you go to the Wal-Mart in Gap, PA, right on the border between Chester and Lancaster Counties, you will see the Amish buggies parked outside). How's that for logic?
I say: Three cheers for the eccentric dressers! Ready!
Hip hip hooray! Hip hip hooray! Hip hip horay! :rahrah:
Ps We've come a long way from Selling Out? Rorate Caeli & SSPX Priest
-
There always have been and there still are objective standards for modesty in
dress. This also applies to men and boys, but moreso for women and girls.
At St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, you find posted on the entrance doors rules
for women to follow, lest they be escorted out of the building by the guards.
There are certain things that are forbidden, without any possibility of exceptions,
like tank tops, shorts, sandals, spaghetti straps (and this is Italy, home of pasta
dishes!), plunging necklines, bare backs, or shawls used to cover such things.
Not too terribly long ago, women were required to wear veils in St. Peter's.
I'm not sure when that was dropped.
I might have a few specifics wrong, but I'm going by memory. The point is,
that even in the modern climate of subjectivism, as +Williamson so aptly
explains lately, the Vatican has retained some semblance of decorum in St.
Peter's. But as far as I know, such rules do not exist elsewhere in diocesan
churches.
SSPX parishes, however, do have rules for dress. They even require men to
wear collar and tie, preferably a suit coat as well (even in the summer heat!),
and no denim anything -- pants, shirt, jacket or vest. In my experience,
SSPX parishes are much more stringent on making their rules known than
other TLM sites, like independent chapels or CMRI, for example.
There are plenty of problems in the traditional movement.
But expecting women to wear long skirts and veils to mass is NOT one of them.
The real problems [are] the infiltration of feminist attitudes in a society that is absolutely opposed to the Catholic conception of the role of women, and the pandering to those attitudes by venal clergy.
Frauds and sellouts in the trad clergy need to be held to account.
On the contrary, the expectation that women wear long skirts and veils to Mass
is most decidedly a concern for most women that I know who go to TLMs.
There are women who believe and comply, and expect the same of others.
There are women who refuse to believe, refuse to comply and don't want to be
told what they should do, and they keep coming back anyway.
There are women everywhere in between, including those who can't make
up their minds, and wear strap tops and skirts above the knee one Sunday,
then long sleeves and mid-calf skirts the next Sunday, as if it's only a matter of
how they "feel" that particular day whether or not they deign to respect the rules.
There is a lot more variation at independent chapels than at SSPX chapels.
But go to your local Novus Ordo parish and don't be surprised to see
women coming to church literally dressed for the bedroom, in negligées.
I saw one particularly offensive example and I mentioned it to the pastor, but
he refused to do anything about it, making a joke and chuckling. But why
should I be surprised, since his pet female dog (I can't use the technically correct
term here lest I be accused of profanity) was named "J-Lo." He made no
secret of joking about his b****, either. Parishoners universally thought it
was cute. I was a lone stand-out, being scandalized. But then, that wasn't my
parish, so why should I care? There is more to the story, but I can't get into
that here. Suffice it to say that I went away convinced that this must be
simply another example of God's wrath on our local churches, another
example of diabolical disorientation, and the loss of faith of entire continents
that was foretold at Fatima in context of unprecedented public, prophetic
revelation confirmed by a publicly foretold miracle for all to see, the first
and only such miracle in the history of the world.
Let those who have ears to hear, hear.
-
There always have been and there still are objective standards for modesty in dress. This also applies to men and boys, but moreso for women and girls.
I'm not saying there aren't. I'm pointing out that one can meet those standards without looking like a Muslim or a fundamentalist Mormon.
SSPX parishes, however, do have rules for dress. They even require men to wear collar and tie, preferably a suit coat as well (even in the summer heat!), and no denim anything -- pants, shirt, jacket or vest. In my experience, SSPX parishes are much more stringent on making their rules known than other TLM sites, like independent chapels or CMRI, for example.
However in the ordinary course of day one needn't always dress like one is going to church. Does the SSPX say that one must wear a suit coat outside of Mass?
But go to your local Novus Ordo parish and don't be surprised to see women coming to church literally dressed for the bedroom, in negligées.
I agree that many people going to the N.O. aren't even dressed well enough to go out of the house, let alone to church. But that's not what I'm talking about.
-
Tele,
I think Pepsuber is pulling our collective legs... or he is totally illogical, one or the other.
In another thread Pepsuber said that :
... many Amish eat the exact same stuff that others eat. They shop at Wal-Mart, etc. (for example, if you go to the Wal-Mart in Gap, PA, right on the border between Chester and Lancaster Counties, you will see the Amish buggies parked outside). How's that for logic?
I say: Three cheers for the eccentric dressers! Ready!
I'm trying to spot the illogic and failing. What does the Amish shopping at Wal-Mart have to do with the way Catholics ought to dress? I don't think Catholics should dress in a way that causes people to mistake them for Amish.
-
You seem to be saying, Pepsuber, that a woman should attempt to "fit in" with her society by dressing as they do, so long as it isn't "overly immodest". So in America, a woman should wear a t-shirt with tight blue jeans and sneakers. That argument doesn't make sense to me.
You don't find a t-shirt and tight jeans to be immodest? Maybe that's why the argument doesn't make sense to you. :smile:
-
You seem to be saying, Pepsuber, that a woman should attempt to "fit in" with her society by dressing as they do, so long as it isn't "overly immodest". So in America, a woman should wear a t-shirt with tight blue jeans and sneakers. That argument doesn't make sense to me.
You don't find a t-shirt and tight jeans to be immodest? Maybe that's why the argument doesn't make sense to you. :smile:
No, I DO find them to be immodest. I'm pointing out that by saying they should attempt to dress along with their society as long as it isn't "overly immodest", you're implying that t-shirts and tight jeans are ok.
-
you're implying that t-shirts and tight jeans are ok.
He isn't implying that, but in practice, when his ideas are put in "practice" by the typical woman, they will excuse that sort of dress with that rationalization.
-
Tele,
I think Pepsuber is pulling our collective legs... or he is totally illogical, one or the other.
In another thread Pepsuber said that :
... many Amish eat the exact same stuff that others eat. They shop at Wal-Mart, etc. (for example, if you go to the Wal-Mart in Gap, PA, right on the border between Chester and Lancaster Counties, you will see the Amish buggies parked outside). How's that for logic?
I say: Three cheers for the eccentric dressers! Ready!
I'm trying to spot the illogic and failing. What does the Amish shopping at Wal-Mart have to do with the way Catholics ought to dress? I don't think Catholics should dress in a way that causes people to mistake them for Amish.
[/quote]
I was quoting you from another Topic, which probably not wise.
I was really beginning to wonder if you are serious about this or if you were just pulling our collective legs. It was obviously not the case.
My rather tongue-in-cheek comment was just to make the point of your illogicality.
What does the Amish shopping at Wal-Mart have to do with the way Catholics ought to dress?
Nothing really. Does Amish parking their buggies outside Walmart mean that many Amish eat the exact same stuff that others eat? I doubt it very much. You'd have to look in their shopping trolleys, I guess. Even then you wouldn't jump to conclusions. They could be doing a kindly act for a neighbour.
Now you say I don't think Catholics should dress in a way that causes people to mistake them for Amish.
Yet when Catholics dress like Catholics they are overly modest, if such were possible, of course.
The title of this thread is Selling Out? Rorate Caeli & SSPX Priest. I don't get it?