Author Topic: What do traditional Catholics look like? (Read 5825 times)

clare · « **Reply #15 on:** June 29, 2009, 02:39:51 PM »

Quote from: trent13

I think the problem with pants is that it blurs the lines betweens the sexes - that doesn't necessarily make it sinful.

And the lines were already blurred before men started wearing trousers!

clare · « **Reply #16 on:** June 29, 2009, 02:53:00 PM »

Quote from: ChantCd

And no, trousers on men is not equal to trousers on women.

Men have to wear them to do work -- women shouldn't have to go out into the man's working world. Men are supposed to be the breadwinners -- not women. That's how God's plan goes.

St Joseph didn't have to wear trousers to win bread!

And it tends to be work around the home that women would find easier in trousers, just like men find it easier too.

Quote

Women only started wearing pants at the instigation of evil men, who wanted to blur the line between the sexes unto the destruction of the family. That is a fact. That is how I judge a phenomena -- by the intent of the author.

In this culture, maybe. But, as I said before, it wasn't until men started wearing trousers that the line between the sexes became more distinct. Our Lady and St Joseph's garments look much the same in silhouette! Far more alike than you'd see on ladies' and gents' signs today!

And, evil men are not infallible in their decisions about what will subvert the family. So they think trousers on women will. It needn't, any more than short hair on women will...

Raoul76 · « **Reply #17 on:** June 29, 2009, 03:12:16 PM »

I always wear the miraculous medal of Mary around my neck, with the CMRI blue thread. Sometimes I forget to put it on but probably soon I will devote myself to it just as I do to the Brown Scapular ( which is under the shirt ).

Protestants and even pagans wear crucifixes so unfortunately that symbol has been diluted somewhat. Only Catholics would wear Mary.

You can get them at the St. Michael's Store -- http://www.stmichaelstore.com/mirmedlar.html

DeMaistre · « **Reply #18 on:** June 29, 2009, 03:14:28 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

I always wear the miraculous medal of Mary around my neck, with the CMRI blue thread. Sometimes I forget to put it on but probably soon I will devote myself to it just as I do to the Brown Scapular ( which is under the shirt ).

Protestants and even pagans wear crucifixes so unfortunately that symbol has been diluted somewhat. Only Catholics would wear Mary.

You can get them at the St. Michael's Store -- http://www.stmichaelstore.com/mirmedlar.html

Hispanic gangsters and white wannabes defile her image though, especially Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #19 on:** June 29, 2009, 03:24:04 PM »

Then I will get St. Thomas Aquinas tattooed on my face.

I doubt gangstas are fond of the Angelic Doctor.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #20 on:** June 29, 2009, 03:33:16 PM »

Clare, it's true that men's and women's clothing may have been similar at one time ( robes and sandals ) but they are not now.

We should try to be as unaffected as possible. St. Paul -- I believe it was St. Paul -- said that long hair on men and short hair on women was a shame. It's not a bad idea to let Jesus be the only one with the right to wear long hair. It keeps Him distinct in His image.

I used to have a "glam mullet" to look like Michael the Archangel, or the usual image of Michael the Archangel -- since none of us have seen him. It was kind of David Bowie-like. But this felt affected so I cut it off.

If I saw a woman in Church wearing pants or with short hair I wouldn't think she was going to hell. But I wouldn't choose her to marry. I would see that as a possible sign of a secret rebellious streak. And perhaps an unhealthy fascination with Joan of Arc above the other saints.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #21 on:** June 29, 2009, 03:44:03 PM »

It should also be said that the "Little House on the Prairie" types as trent13 calls them kinda creep me out in the other direction... Catholics are not Mormons. I see some of them in the traditional Catholic movement, exaggerated in their silence and meekness, pallid, staring at their feet.

This is going to turn people off if they think that women have to be zombies to be Catholic. They should just be polite and gracious and try like all of us to espouse the Catholic virtues. Women are allowed to be Catholic and to speak. Sheesh.

This is all an overreaction to the worldliness around us. Some trads have gone back to this Never-Never Land, almost Amish or Mennonite in conception, where it's all about having lots of kids and wearing bundles of clothing and keeping quiet. There is more to Catholicism than that. I believe Catholic nuns had a more forthright, direct kind of energy, they helped the sick, they were industrious, they did manual labor, they read and studied.

SSPX has that Mennonite vibe, by the way.

Matthew · « **Reply #22 on:** June 29, 2009, 03:53:07 PM »

Oh, please.

That's like saying "men are jerks"

I'd ask, "which ones? You're covering an awful broad group there."

Matthew

Raoul76 · « **Reply #23 on:** June 29, 2009, 04:16:41 PM »

You mean the SSPX comment? I just meant in general.

The sede movement has all varieties as well. The Little Housers and more worldly types. But I have heard from people that came out of SSPX that the atmosphere of "modesty" was particularly stifling there.

Matthew · « **Reply #24 on:** June 29, 2009, 04:52:26 PM »

Hey, modesty isn't one of those things you want to do "in moderation" - you know, show off a little bit of flesh...

No, there is nothing wrong with imitating the saints. They didn't look around them in a dissipated manner -- they were recollected.
Are you aware of the difference between recollection and dissipation? If not, you should go look into it. Being recollected is how you feel after a retreat, or after spending 1 hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament. Dissipated is how you feel at the mall, at a party, etc. -- distracted, completely in the here & now, immersed in the world.

The saints also dressed modestly -- no matter how much that made them stand out from those in the world.

You can call it "Little House on the Prairie" or whatever you want -- but modesty is modesty. There has to be an objective standard.

We never have to "be a little immodest" ever, nor are we ever required to be dissipated.

Matthew

TheD · « **Reply #25 on:** June 29, 2009, 05:03:12 PM »

Actually I kind of like the "Little House on the Prairie" look.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #26 on:** June 29, 2009, 07:20:17 PM »

I put "modesty" in quotes because I think in some cases people exaggerate it for effect. I am not saying that I am against modesty and for dissipation. Just there's a way to be modest without drawing attention to yourself and saying "I'M MODEST."

Christ reprimanded the Jews who, when they were fasting, wept and moaned and showed how much they were suffering. He said "They have already had their reward." Their reward was to impress OTHERS on this Earth into thinking they were holy; to feel good about themselves. While the one who really understands prays and does penance in secret.

It is the same principle when it comes to modesty. Be modest, but please, don't show off, don't be affected about it. Because then you have had your reward.

If it is between the girl who keeps her eyes on the floor and acts like a deaf-mute, so holy and filled with the love of Christ that she cannot even speak, and the one who is pious and humble but can look you into the eye and discuss things with you, I'd choose the latter. Because I would assume that the second girl does her praying and her spiritual development in secret, while the first type is doing it in public.

Just by going to Church, I already know a girl is religious. I don't need the rest of the dog-and-pony show. It feels like this bizarre brand of Catholic flirtation. "Let's out-holy each other to land a husband."

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #27 on:** June 29, 2009, 10:20:14 PM »

I can't tell you how utterly refreshing it is to post on a board where the site-owner actually "gets it" and has common sense on this issue of dress and appearance. Refreshingly so do most of the posters here.

On the infamous ichthian Neo-Trad board, the posters were simply clueless, not having the common sense to realize that women wear dresses and men wear pants. They then waxed on posting every possible irrelevant counter-example they could. As if men wearing kilts in Scotland or robes in ancient times means everything is up for grabs. These types of Neo-Trads are particularly intellectually dishonest and pernicious.

The absolute minimum one should expect on a Trad board is that posters can tell the difference between the feminine and the masculine, but apparently in Neo-Trad land this is a lost art.

Thank goodness for this board and AQ to carry the banner of rational Catholic thought in a world gone mad. I have been told by Neo-Trads in the past that St. Paul was actually not referring to hair length in his quotation on hair length! Of course this self-contradictory position was posited by a few men sporting or having sported hair down to their rears. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that "Trad" men who look like the members of a Glam Band should fail to recognize this basic distinction. Then another tried to call his boots "high heels", another wore long light colored wigs and posted pics of himself in what appeared to be drag. Ugh.

CathInfo has indeed restored hope that there are actual sane Traditional Catholics out there who know the most fundamental aspects of the faith regarding masculine and feminine. It is truly scary the imbecilic worldly errors running amuk in the land of the Neo-Cath/ Trad complex.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #28 on:** June 30, 2009, 02:31:13 AM »

Quote from: clare

I suggest a distinctive handshake.

Given our propensity to argue intensely, I am envisioning 'the finger' being a part of this handshake... :wink:

Lybus · « **Reply #29 on:** June 30, 2009, 05:57:16 AM »

At first glance, I would probably look the typical teenager; baggy jeans, and long sleeved shirt (though I do live in the tropics, so that is probably odd). If you look closer though, you may notice the miraculous medal, and the crucifix, and brown scapular (I have them all on one chain around my neck). And perhaps you may notice that I may half-way pull out a rosary out of my pocket every now and then.

Not saying this to brag, I"m just saying to look for the signs. Perhaps you will notice that this said traditionalist will bow his head before eating in the cafeteria and mutter under his breath. Perhaps he will have a twist in his mouth when he sees an immodest girl or woman, or look away quickly. If you are in high school, they will probably hang out with the nerds, or the more reserved people (especially if it is public, since they are the only ones that will be anywhere near modest). Just think of what a catholic should be like, and how they would react in a very wordly world. There is always the chance that they are part of a different religion, but it doesn't hurt to ask if they act Catholic. Though, Even if they were Catholic, but wearing skimpy shorts, I probably wouldn't rely on them for religious support, if that is what you are looking for.
I guess there's the obvious too. There are Trad Catholic slogans out there. My favorite one I believe is this guy dressed up as a priest from the 20's with a pipe in his mouth. There could also be the medals, or the other devotions to the saints around that person's neck, that could mark him Trad Catholic.