Why don't men wear hats anymore?
#51
Is Catholic777 arguing for constant head covering for women (like Muslims)?!  He should get together with Catholicmilkman.  Ugh.
Reply
#52
He should get together with Ernest Hemingway, who might be able to straighten him out for complicating the hat issue.

Quote:Then there is the other secret. There isn't any symbolysm [sic]. The sea is the sea. The old man is an old man. The boy is a boy and the fish is a fish. The shark are all sharks no better and no worse. All the symbolism that people say is shit. What goes beyond is what you see beyond when you know.
Reply
#53
[Image: frank_sinatra_narrowweb__200x270.jpg]

Game over.


Reply
#54
BXBorn Wrote:[Image: frank_sinatra_narrowweb__200x270.jpg]

Game over.


Speaking of "games"......
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing".[Image: wink.gif]


[Image: vince_lombardi.jpg]
Reply
#55
BXBorn Wrote:[Image: frank_sinatra_narrowweb__200x270.jpg]

Game over.


[Image: truce.gif][Image: salute.gif][Image: ani_clapping.gif][Image: waytogo.gif][Image: amen2.gif]
Reply
#56
Lombardi. A great coach and a good Catholic man. He died when I was only four years old but as a longtime fan of the NFL I admire and respect him, especially after reading a decent biography on him several years ago.
Reply
#57
Western man has been wearing hats since, at least, the Renaissance area.  Heck, there was a time when men wore powdered wigs as a part of their decor.  Hats have been worn by men for a longer period then the mid nineteenth century. 

Bob
Reply
#58
BXBorn Wrote:[Image: frank_sinatra_narrowweb__200x270.jpg]

Game over.



Nuff said. And no I don't think Sinatra had some fruity Freud phallic problem.
Reply
#59
SickBoy Wrote:
BXBorn Wrote:[Image: frank_sinatra_narrowweb__200x270.jpg]

Game over.



That hat is PERFECT. You could wear it with cuffed jeans and a t-shirt or a suit and you'd  look tough either way.

Well it is Sinatra. He could make a propeller beanie look cool.
Reply
#60
Catholic777 Wrote:Limiting things to "in church" is reductionist and minimalist. The man is the head and woman is the body, symbolically. Therefore, a woman should cover her own head, to defer to man, but he need not cover his own. It's a symbol of Christ and His Church. If we limit it to only when we're "in Church"...we lose a holistic understanding and iconography of the human person, and risk compartmentalizing religion out of our lives.

In other words women should be in Burqas 24/7 ... lest we lose the "holistic understanding" of the familial structure. What nonsense.

Catholic777 Wrote:Hats as worn in the 1800's and 1950's for which people seem to have a nostalgia are just the opposite. They are a dandy-fication worn bombastically and, as Freud pointed out, phallically...representing a deep crisis of masculine confidence within a culture.

I couldn't give a flying-fig as to what Freud would care to say on any given subject.

Catholic777 Wrote:And even ecclesiastically...the tendency towards taller and gaudier mitres (as opposed to a humble, tasteful mitre ala St. Thomas Becket) betray the same attitudes creeping below the surface in the Church, as did other developments such as the wide, flat galero that developed which so deviates from the more practically wearable standard that St. Jerome is always pictured in.

Your obsession with your perception of "medievalism" gives you the audacity to criticize the development of liturgical wears. Symbolism and imagery that gives rise to the transcendental is far more significant than practicality.

Quote:Furthermore, while we're on the subject of minimalism...I'd encourage all traditional women to go out and get a real veil (at least for Mass, though I've already said why I dont like that sort of compartmentalization) instead of just the reductionist "chapel veils" and "mantillas" you so often see...which are, again, a product of a decadent Renaissance attempt to see how much people could "get away with" while remaining technically within the rules (think of Mona Lisa's sheer gauze "veil"...it makes a trivialized mockery of the concept "veil")...I went to a Syro-Malankara Church and was very impressed at how all the woman wore thick full veil's with their saris...not just some little "technical" square of the thinnest lace.

I agree.

Catholic777 Wrote:As for suits...if something is not the everyday clothes of a people, if the practical purpose has been forgotten and it is being maintained out of some socially constructed notion of "formal vs informal"...then these clothes should pass out of use.

Mass is not part of the humdrum of secular life, rather, it is an opportunity to enter into something other-worldly and our appearance (i.e. attire, hygiene, etc.) should be the absolute best we are able to render and reflect that reality. If you base you're entire appearance on practicality, then this is minimalism in its most pure form. One gradually detracts any form of beauty, pomp, elegance or embellishment, demonizes it as "decadence", and assimilates all exterior appearances into what is usual, comfortable, inexpensive and glorifies it with the term "humble".

This is the root of the cancer that has swept into the Church, as this philosophy you speak of did not remain within the context of the individual. Churches were wrecked and pillaged of its "decadent" embellishments as they were deemed not to be of sufficient "humility" or even as an "affront" to the poor. Practicality is what drove these desecrators. Why must we celebrate Mass in such a decadent setting when this will do just fine?

... a very dangerous and destructive road is taken when formality and dignity is forgone for some perceived notion of practicality or "humility".

God bless,
JRS
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)