Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: DeMaistre on June 28, 2009, 03:21:24 PM
-
Does anyone think that there is any way that two traditional Catholics could recognise each other as such if they just met? In other words, could there be any "archetype" traditional Catholic? (Yes, its a stupid question)
-
Does anyone think that there is any way that two traditional Catholics could recognise each other as such if they just met?
I suggest a distinctive handshake.
-
Haha
It was a pretty stupid question.
-
Ideally, they would have a different dress and bearing than the average worldling.
Perhaps they would be seen in a Catholic-friendly locale rather than a movie theater.
Traditional Catholic women should be seen always with modest skirts/dresses and never wear pants in public. Men shouldn't wear anything immodest either -- and modest presumes no vulgar or worldly slogans on your shirt. A temple of the Holy Ghost should not be a walking billboard for a large corporation -- unless you're being paid well for it. :wink:
When I see a large family, especially with all the girls not wearing pants, I always take notice. Of course, I always tell myself "they're probably Mormon" because so few Catholics, even Traditional ones, take their Faith out into the streets.
Not that every traditional Catholic is malicious, but I think many of them simply don't know how to properly resist the world. They have no idea just how far the world's standards are from what is objectively good.
Matthew
-
Ideally, they would have a different dress and bearing than the average worldling.
Perhaps they would be seen in a Catholic-friendly locale rather than a movie theater.
Traditional Catholic women should be seen always with modest skirts/dresses and never wear pants in public. Men shouldn't wear anything immodest either -- and modest presumes no vulgar or worldly slogans on your shirt. A temple of the Holy Ghost should not be a walking billboard for a large corporation -- unless you're being paid well for it. :wink:
When I see a large family, especially with all the girls not wearing pants, I always take notice. Of course, I always tell myself "they're probably Mormon" because so few Catholics, even Traditional ones, take their Faith out into the streets.
Not that every traditional Catholic is malicious, but I think many of them simply don't know how to properly resist the world. They have no idea just how far the world's standards are from what is objectively good.
Matthew
Should I wear dress clothes to school then?
-
About regular clothing --
First of all, I'm not one of those eccentrics that wears suit coats all the time. In fact, I never wear one except on Easter Sunday and Christmas Day (to Mass). On normal Sundays, I wear a short-sleeved dress shirt (button-down) with a tie to Mass.
I also get most of my shirts cheap or free.
At home, I wear some T-shirt or other. I'll wear "logoed" T-shirts (which I got for free) if I'm working outside -- I want those shirts to get ruined first.
In short, I'm a very down-to-earth sort.
But since I stopped being a teenager, I've thought it ridiculous to pay $16 for a T-shirt just because it has a Nike logo on it. Or a large brand name written on it: Abercrombie, Tommy Hilfiger, etc. The big question: WHY? All those brand names emblazoned on the front of your shirt could POSSIBLY do for you is say:
A) I'm a sheep. Baaa! Just lead me and I'll follow.
B) I want to fit in -- badly. Somebody please love me!
C) I'm dashing, groovy, hip, radical, def, cool or whatever. Word!
D) I paid good money for the privilege of being a walking billboard to make this brand name even more popular.
None of those reasons are compelling for me, so I choose to shop at Sears, Kohl's or other stores that sell normal clothing without logos. Generally speaking, such clothing is cheaper.
As for vulgar slogans, that should be common sense. That's what worldly people wear. Aren't Catholics supposed to be "in the world, but not OF it"?
Matthew
-
Or it could say:
5. I'm a sodomite
6. I'm a FOB Asian!
----------
Seriously though, hmm...I would wear coat and cravat (I hate ties) everywhere if I had one. The Cure d'Ars says that our clothes should be nice, but not expensive. I'll probably spend a few hundred dollars on a few pairs of Victorian clothing then never buy anything for the rest of my life.
-
B) I want to fit in -- badly. Somebody please love me!
:laugh1:
-
The Cure d'Ars says that our clothes should be nice, but not expensive.
That's what I go for -- something that doesn't make me look homeless, while getting the clothing for as cheap as possible.
And also something that lets me keep my dignity as a follower of Jesus Christ.
I really don't think Jesus would wear a shirt with "Abercrombie" on it.
I know the Protestants are cheesy with their bracelets and T-shirts that say "WWJD" (What Would Jesus Do) but it's a question we should ask ourselves sometimes. We ARE supposed to imitate Christ in His virtues.
And you know, many non-Catholics are disgusted to the point of nausea with consumerism and materialism. There are agnostics and apostate Catholics who wouldn't be caught dead in a "walking billboard" T-shirt, even though they don't have the Faith. Why should faithful Catholics be less wise in worldly matters than a spiritually blind non-Catholic?
Matthew
-
Matthew,
Great points as usual.
-
Traditional Catholic women should be seen always with modest skirts/dresses and never wear pants in public...
Not that every traditional Catholic is malicious, but I think many of them simply don't know how to properly resist the world.
*Red rag to a bull!*
I have been resisting the world for ages, and the world has been resisting me! I was picked on at school for being unfashionable, and I was picked on by a few children in the neighbourhood for being Catholic.
Yet, I wore trousers throughout my childhood and teens, and it did not stop me being picked on and not fitting in! I'm well used to being a misfit!
And I still wear trousers occasionally (but not often), in public too!
-
Well, to take you as an example --
Maybe the mistake you made was sitting on the fence.
If you had wore long dresses and skirts, perhaps other traditional Catholics (and others who are in tune with the Natural Law) would have seen you as an ally and made friends with you. You at least would be popular with that crowd.
If that wouldn't have worked for you for some reason (e.g., no trad. Catholics or Mormons around you), I assure you that it would work for many people.
Otherwise, you could have two Traditional Catholic women walk past each other at Wal-mart, and both of them could rightfully assume the other is an average worldling. That should illustrate why our dress should conform to what we are.
Another example that comes to mind -- I know a lady who is from a very conservative family, and grew up in a small town in a part of the country with very old-fashioned moral values. She wants to get married, she loves kids, but she is currently studying to become a kind of doctor ("to help people"). Although she is very conservative, you'd hardly know it by her dress. The kind of men she attracts (or will attract) are not very appealing to her. Why? Because she's a walking contradiction. Half of her is for one way of life, and the other half goes for something completely different. She wants one thing, and pursues another. She's currently 28. The song "Home" by the Dixie Chicks comes to mind.
I feel bad for people like that, because they don't see how they're sabotaging their own life -- their own chance at earthly happiness.
P.S. Being a misfit is not necessarily a bad thing, especially in public school. I probably would have ruined my life had I been as popular (with the girls) at 17 or 18 as I wanted to be.
-
Well, to take you as an example --
Maybe the mistake you made was sitting on the fence.
If you had wore long dresses and skirts, perhaps other traditional Catholics (and others who are in tune with the Natural Law) would have seen you as an ally and made friends with you. You at least would be popular with that crowd.
There were no other traditional Catholics. In fact, I wasn't even traditional then. I was Novus Ordo, and unaware of anything else until I was 20. Some 15 years ago now!
Otherwise, you could have two Traditional Catholic women walk past each other at Wal-mart, and both of them could rightfully assume the other is an average worldling. That should illustrate why our dress should conform to what we are.
In any other era, Catholics could dress like most other people, and not run the risk of being called worldlings.
I feel bad for people like that, because they don't see how they're sabotaging their own life -- their own chance at earthly happiness.
It depends entirely on how she's dressed. Trousers alone need not jeopardise anything. But it's not clear from your post whether she dresses undeniably immodestly, or whether she simply dons slacks from time to time.
Thing is, some regard trousers on women as necessarily worldly. Whereas it's no more worldly than skirts on women! Or trousers on men, for that matter.
P.S. Being a misfit is not necessarily a bad thing, especially in public school. I probably would have ruined my life had I been as popular (with the girls) at 17 or 18 as I wanted to be.
Agreed. But I was not a misfit on account of being trad (because I wasn't trad then anyway). I was a misfit because I was unfashionable! But the teasing did make me rather stubborn, because I never wanted to be teased into being fashionable. I didn't think that I'd be able to be fashionable successfully anyway, so I'd still get teased!
-
Yes, it's true that in a sane world being Catholic shouldn't dictate that you dress differently. But if you live in Las Vegas, Sodom or Gomorrha, then you better stand out -- in many ways -- or you're on the same "broad path".
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.
Even when a female DOES have to work, she should stick with professions that do not go against her nature (including, but not limited to, child care, secretarial, accounting, nursing, teaching, etc.) All of those professions can be done in an ankle-length skirt.
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.
Not by the individuals affected by that phenomena in the here-and-now -- who might be "fine people" and all. One or two individual cases doesn't mean a thing.
Matthew
-
I think the problem with pants is that it blurs the lines betweens the sexes - that doesn't necessarily make it sinful. It becomes sinful for a woman to wear pants when they are immodest, just like it's sinful to be wearing a tight or mini-skirt. It's definitely better for a woman to wear skirts, but I don't have a problem with a woman wearing modest pants for convenience sake occasionally(for example, gardening, horse-back riding, hiking, sledding, etc...) Perhaps these are all things that one would argue are "inappropriate for a woman to be doing," or that "could just as easily be done in a skirt." As to that, we can disagree on what are appropriate activities for a woman; some men are more chauvanistic than others and some women are more feminist. And they could be done in a skirt, but it can be a real pain in the a**, like I said, for convenience sake. But, no, I don't think pants on women, in and of themselves are evil.
And it wouldn't take much to stand out in Las Vegas - wearing knee length skirts all the time would set one apart enough - but take that same person and put them in St. Mary's and she would be borderline liberal - it's all a matter of what is perceived as socially acceptable.
I don't think it is right to dress like a slut or a factory worker and, like Fr. Angles, I don't think it is right to dress like Little House on the Prairie either. It draws the kind of attention that says, "Look at me, I'm holy and weird, and extreme! I'm in a weird cult!" And who wants to convert to that? Just like falling in love, there has to be some kind of initial attraction to the Faith; "weird" isn't exactly a turn on.
-
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!
-
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.
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
Then I will get St. Thomas Aquinas tattooed on my face.
I doubt gangstas are fond of the Angelic Doctor.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Oh, please.
That's like saying "men are jerks"
I'd ask, "which ones? You're covering an awful broad group there."
Matthew
-
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.
-
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
-
Actually I kind of like the "Little House on the Prairie" look.
-
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."
-
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.
-
I suggest a distinctive handshake.
Given our propensity to argue intensely, I am envisioning 'the finger' being a part of this handshake... :wink:
-
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.
-
Oh Clare, you've done it again :wink: :laugh1:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3329/3504512379_1367be862b.jpg)
-
I'm not ashamed to say I don't wear pants. It took me a long time to get the wisdom to solely wear only dresses and skirts, but it was something you have to be de-programmed from.
The communists have done an exceptional job of trying to equate men with women in everything. The thing I worry most about is my children. My eldest thinks it fine to wear pants, and everytime I find a pair, I throw them in a bag in the attic to take to the goodwill store, or to toss in the trash can.
I don't get them for her, my 80 year old mother-in-law (traditional catholic) buys them for her. It annoys me to no end. This is the same mother-in-law that shows Disney movies to my children when I specifically ask her not to.
At least my sister-in-law (indult traditional catholic) has enough respect for me to enforce my wishes when my daughter is visiting her, although, my sister-in-law has not broken herself from the pants habit.
It is a constant battle, even with family that are traditional catholic as well.
Wisdom is conforming your mind to the truth, and living by it. We all could use more of it.
-
Sigh.
The trousers issue is one big red herring, and the traditional movement would not suffer at all if we just dropped it. It is a waste of time, and to elevate "women must wear skirts/dresses" to an article of faith is totally disproportionate and wrong.
-
http://www.lffa-ollmpc.com/
Here is a lovely website run by Rita Davis. I have her books on modesty.
I manage to run a house with a 93 year old Grandmother, whom I bath. Six children. I can garden, cook and scrub toilets and floors in my ankle length skirts. I have a few shirts that I wear over "quenstionable tops." I have some shirts that I wear under my shrugs (I think that is the name) and I put them on backward so the front does not scoop down too low.
No one notices when they visit.
Once in a while I have pants that I wear. Cotton pull-on pants. Frumpy maybe, but I am so "weird" in everyone's eyes anyway one more thing won't make that much of a difference.
-
Sigh.
The trousers issue is one big red herring...
Actually, no, it's not. It's part of the communist agenda.
-
Clare, look at the post above you. "Wisdom is conforming your mind to the truth." Sometimes other people are right and you are wrong.
You write strongly in favor of interracial marriages; you suggest that there should be no dress code, or a lenient one. Do you see that you are passionately drawn to novelty? It's not that interracial marriages are always bad, or that women who wear pants are going to hell. But either of these actions are certainly not the safest route to heaven.
Take it from your fellow member on the board who has to fight tooth-and-nail against my own overly open mind, an inheritance from paganism i.e. Original Sin -- you are coming across as someone who is trying to insert a virus into the traditional movement in slow incremental degrees. When you persistently defend questionable actions it makes you seem questionable. You never seem to be so enthusiastic as when you're taking up arms for a liberal principle.
I know what you're trying to say, there are bigger fish to fry, etc. But I'm not sure this fish is a red herring. In a world that is lacking respect and modesty, we could do worse than to show such qualities in our dress and comportment. Modernism began when both laity and clerics decided to relax their standards. That is why Traditionalists do not and should not relax theirs.
Why gamble with your immortal soul over trousers? Wear a long ungainly dress that trips you up, wear it even while gardening -- the way monks wore hair shirts -- call it a mortification if you will... And be happy about it because you are doing what the Lord wants instead of what you want.
-
I agree.
Traditional Catholics need to take a long, deep look inside and see JUST HOW MUCH liberalism has seeped inside you from your environment.
If you confidently assert you have 0% liberal tendencies, there's a good chance you're shallow and have never thought about it deeply.
Most people are affected by their environment -- family, society, the country they live -- to some degree at least.
And the world of 2009 is a VERY liberal one, and a very messed-up one.
Matthew
-
Sigh.
The trousers issue is one big red herring...
Actually, no, it's not. It's part of the communist agenda.
That is my point exactly.
Whether or not you think it's OK, the fact remains that the Communists like the idea -- so I don't like it.
And when you say "Communists", you can easily substitute "Satan".
Whatever my worst enemy wants me to do is PROBABLY NOT very good for me!
Matthew
-
A good question to ask yourself when dressing, ladies.
"Would Our Lady wear something like this?"
If the answer is no, it's safe to say that it's not good to wear it.
-
Sigh.
The trousers issue is one big red herring...
Actually, no, it's not. It's part of the communist agenda.
Isn't women having their hair cut also part of that? How about calf-length skirts? Denim maybe?
As I mentioned, the Communists etc are not infallible when they decide something will undermine the family and society.
-
Clare, look at the post above you. "Wisdom is conforming your mind to the truth." Sometimes other people are right and you are wrong.
You write strongly in favor of interracial marriages; you suggest that there should be no dress code, or a lenient one. Do you see that you are passionately drawn to novelty?
No. I am not passionately drawn to it. I just do not have a knee-jerk reaction to it all.
I try to discern what is bad and what is good and what is neutral.
Take it from your fellow member on the board who has to fight tooth-and-nail against my own overly open mind, an inheritance from paganism i.e. Original Sin -- you are coming across as someone who is trying to insert a virus into the traditional movement in slow incremental degrees.
No. Quite the reverse. I think you'll find that, to trads of long-standing, that the anti-women's trousers "doctrine" is a complete novelty. It just was not an issue 25 years ago! I know of trads of decades standing who have confirmed that women's trousers was never an issue in the early days.
If there is a virus in the trad movement, it is the tendency to over-react to things.
When you persistently defend questionable actions it makes you seem questionable. You never seem to be so enthusiastic as when you're taking up arms for a liberal principle.
Only on this forum! I post on Novus Ordo forums, and they think I'm a complete rigorist, Jansenist, pharisee!
When I see a balance needs redressing, I try to redress it. That is all.
In a world that is lacking respect and modesty, we could do worse than to show such qualities in our dress and comportment.
I agree.
Why gamble with your immortal soul over trousers? Wear a long ungainly dress that trips you up,
Believe me, I do!
wear it even while gardening -- the way monks wore hair shirts -- call it a mortification if you will...
How about the menfolk start mortifying themselves by dressing as monks as well?
And be happy about it because you are doing what the Lord wants instead of what you want.
False dichotomy. The Lord does not want me to dress immodestly. I am not going to worry each morning about whether he wants me to wear a green top or a purple top that day. And I could do without the scruples of worrying about everything I wear on top of all the other things I worry about.
I dress modestly. And I usually wear long skirts.
-
Whether or not you think it's OK, the fact remains that the Communists like the idea -- so I don't like it.
And when you say "Communists", you can easily substitute "Satan".
Whatever my worst enemy wants me to do is PROBABLY NOT very good for me!
I think the enemy wants trads to waste their time over this non-issue. Don't let the enemy set the agenda. Call his bluff from time to time!
-
Sigh.
The trousers issue is one big red herring...
Actually, no, it's not. It's part of the communist agenda.
Isn't women having their hair cut also part of that? How about calf-length skirts? Denim maybe?
As I mentioned, the Communists etc are not infallible when they decide something will undermine the family and society.
You don't give the Communists enough respect as an enemy -- that can be very dangerous.
As a matter of fact, the Communists ARE a group I would give respect to (as an enemy), since their agenda has been achieved EVEN IN THE WESTERN WORLD without an open, bloody "communist revolution". Somebody has some brains and know-how!
The Jews who started Communism certainly knew what they were doing, and in general Jews know human nature inside-and-out. That is why they are so good at leading the herd of cows (gentiles) this way and that. They are good entertainers, because they know what makes men tick, and they can play most people like a fiddle.
Underestimating an enemy has been many a person's (church's, or country's) undoing.
If a man runs at you, screaming, with a drawn sword, you are welcome to "call his bluff" if you wish. I would rather not risk my (eternal) life on it.
Matthew
-
I think it's unbelievable how well some people have been programmed to think this is not a problem. Womens' legs, throughout HISTORY have been covered up properly, and it's only in the last 100 years that people have started to reveal them. If trou for women had been around a thousand years ago, I might agree with you that this is a "red herring." In fact, it's not. Women act more like men when they're wearing trousers than when they're wearing a skirt. It's a fact. You sit differently, most especially, you walk differently, and probably more.
Sure, there are some hypocrites out there that pontificate about this, but then there are people that are bringing it up as a warning to the rest that people's actions when they're wearing trousers are fitting right into the devil's lie.
Now, the argument against the above is, "Oh, when we wear pants our legs are covered up." Well... I say that no, they're really not. They're worn hugging your legs, even if they are baggy. Men are very visual, and when you wear things that fit around your body, it accentuates your figure, and they naturally look at your buttock. Now if a man wants to argue this point with me, feel free. I have the admissions from several male family members and friends that this is true.
Even with low cut shirts, it's the same. Just because your breasts aren't revealed completely, wearing a shirt that extends down to your clevage can be a source of danger to onlookers.
You aren't just wearing clothing to fit yourself, you are supposed to keep people out of the occasion of sin when they look at you.
How many times have I run into naive teenage girls that will say when wearing a mini-skirt, when they're told that a man could look lustfully and even dangerously to contemplate doing something unlawful against a woman, "Well they don't have to look at me, then. It's their fault." No, it's not their fault. You have an OBLIGATION to wear clothing that does not lead people to sin.
I hope I'm not being referred to as a hypocrite here. I enforce these rules in my own house, and live by them myself. Purity is a virtue that needs to be propagated everywhere, and setting a good example by wearing clothing that covers areas they're supposed to cover is an attempt to accomplish this.
Our Lady said that many fashions would offend Our Lord very much. Well, isn't that evident everywhere? Once you hit size 10 or so, it becomes very difficult to outfit a young girl that is reaching adolescence. If you don't know how to sew, it's likely you'll have to hit up the goodwill stores, and try to find something appropriate. Good luck buying anything new these days.
Mothers should set the example, and compromising trying to say this is a "bluff" is really naive.
-
Well-said.
Widespread adoption of pants by women is one of the enemy's greatest achievements in the last 100 years. Of course, the enemy has won MANY battles (abortion, TV, the Federal Reserve, etc.)
The enemy wants us to be a slave to our passions, so they can better control us. They have come up with some fashions that "offend Our Lord very much". I don't think Our Lady would mention this issue if only 1 or 2% of the population -- those who are really debauched -- were affected.
I think she mentioned it because MANY people, even otherwise good people, would fall for the new fashions (women in pants, as well as skin-tight clothing, low necklines that seem to point "somewhere", etc.)
Matthew
-
The enemy wants us to be a slave to our passions, so they can better control us. They have come up with some fashions that "offend Our Lord very much". I don't think Our Lady would mention this issue if only 1 or 2% of the population -- those who are really debauched -- were affected.
I think she mentioned it because MANY people, even otherwise good people, would fall for the new fashions (women in pants, as well as skin-tight clothing, low necklines that seem to point "somewhere", etc.)
Short hair. Calf length skirts. Men wearing trousers without covering their hip areas....
-
It seems you're trying to equate men with women when you said "their hip area." The fact of the matter is, women's hips are a very sensual part of a woman's body. For men, that's not the case. The average woman won't look lustfully at a man because of his shirt is tucked in.
I'm not exempting men from covering their chest either. Men should wear a shirt when they're at a beach or pool area, IMO. Men have to adhere to a degree of modesty as well, but women have to be more cautious.
Short hair goes into a whole different debate. We can discuss that as well if you want, but I'm not going to drop the debate about skirts to get pulled onto a tangent.
As for length, you can tell when something is too revealing, It doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern that. Usually, the rule of thumb in even the novus ordo schools (although they don't even enforce those rules, believe me, I remember even 15 years ago they didn't) was two and a half inches below the knee, which even I think is a bit short. But if you're seated, and you know how to sit properly, then there shouldn't be a problem with wearing a calf length skirt, provided you sit properly, and your skirt doesn't reveal too much of your legs when you're seated.
I thought this an appropriate time to share a story with you.
Years ago, when my younger brother (15 months apart) went to the "catholic" high school, he got a "demerit" for wearing his shirt un-tucked. So he went into the dean of discipline (or whatever his position was) and complained that the girls were wearing their skirts up to where you could see their boxer shorts underneath (because many would wear them that way, and also, some would even wear a THONG underneath :cussing: ). You wanna know what the "dean" said?
"Well, everyone likes to see a little leg sometimes."
How would you like it if someone in charge at your child's "lolcatholic" school was looking at your daughter that way?!
He "resigned" years later "amid charges of sɛҳuąƖ misconduct."