No Hooters shirts in Mass, please
#51
(09-07-2011, 06:27 PM)justawoman Wrote: I'd much rather see a church full of people, regardless of what they are wearing, than a half empty one of people dressed smartly. Get them in, get them learning and loving, and it time their dress will change. Nag them ovet their clothes and chances are they'll think 'Well if thats how Christians behave, I won't bother' and you'll lose them.


I don't recall that Jesus ever told anyone that he or she should dress better the next time they came to hear Him preach.  That should tell us something.

The idea of everyone in church dressing smartly is really that most of the people should try to imitate what the few rich parishioners wear, often maxing out their credit cards trying to do so.

(Oh, and buy a nicer car while you're at it, yours doesn't fit in with all our Lexuses and Beemers.) 


I am in favor of people dressing properly for church. I just have a problem with how we're going to choose the people who will define "proper" and how we'll make sure they don't go overboard with setting standards. 

Someone was complaining about old women wearing ankle-length cotton skirts and flat shoes.  Since I've never seen a picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary wearing high heels or skirts above her ankles, I think this is acceptable, Mary-like attire. Cotton is a good natural fiber, too, as commanded in the Old Testament.  It's not "smart" enough?  You think it would look smarter if you could see an old, or young, woman's leg braces?  At least one Fish Eater who is not old has said before that she wears long skirts to cover the tattoo on her leg.

And finally we come to the problem of who is going to enforce the standards after they're set.  Turn this over to a parish committee and you'll end up with a divided parish, a mini-schism.   

Just let Father put notes in the bulletin, and sometimes make statements from the pulpit reminding people about dressing modestly for Mass and asking them to dress as if they were going to meet Jesus at church, since they are.                                 

Reply
#52
Proper dress in my opinion, easy to follow and no need to max out credit cards:

For both men and women:

- cover up your legs
- cover up your stomach
- no tank tops / bare arm pits

For women:

- no cleavages
Reply
#53
(09-08-2011, 04:32 PM)patricia m. Wrote: - no cleavages

Isn't "cleavage" by necessity plural?  I don't think you need the "es" on the end...
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#54
(09-08-2011, 04:32 PM)patricia m. Wrote: Proper dress in my opinion, easy to follow and no need to max out credit cards:

For both men and women:

- cover up your legs
- cover up your stomach
- no tank tops / bare arm pits

For women:

- no cleavages

Good list!  Welcome to Fish Eaters :hello!:

For church, I think clothes should have sleeves.  But a woman can wear sundresses to church and look proper if she simply wears a bolero jacket over them.  A bolero is a short jacket with short or three-quarter sleeves.  Of course the sundress can't be too low-cut in front, the bolero only covers her back and arms.

Reply
#55
(09-07-2011, 05:48 PM)Petertherock Wrote:
(09-07-2011, 05:44 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(09-07-2011, 05:39 PM)Petertherock Wrote:
(09-07-2011, 04:55 PM)knittycat Wrote:
(09-07-2011, 11:21 AM)Texican Wrote:
(09-06-2011, 08:17 PM)StevusMagnus Wrote: Still, was that woman who was approaching the altar to receive Holy Communion really wearing a Hooters shirt?

Yes, she was.

That's so judgemental and intolerant...

Darn right it is. And it should be. We should be intolerant of people who dress like hookers in the presence of our Lord!

Not to mention these women dressed like this are putting a lot of men in at least a near occasion of sin if not in out and out mortal sin...another reason why going to the NO is sinful.

I sympathize with your position, but the man always maintains control of his eyes.  The woman isn't personally responsible for whatever the man does, but she might be committing scandal- I think?  Wish Rosarium was still here.  That was his word.

That's bullshit. When women dress like hookers and are in the pew in front of you or walk by you you can't maintain control of your eyes. By nature men are the aggressors in relationships. You really need to read the book The Dogma of Hell and How to Avoid Hell by Fr. Schoupp. There is a whole section on this...I believe I posted this here not so long ago. I will see if I can find it.

If a man lusts after a women because she is dressed immodestly, that doesn’t mean its any less of a sin for the man. The man needs to practice self control just as much as the woman needs to dress modestly. I understand what men have said about this, but I feel like sometimes it is used as a cop-out, and I don’t like it. We all have to take responsibility for our own actions and not blame our weaknesses on others. "Whore over there, hookers over here” its uncharitable.
Reply
#56
Empress Elisabeth of Austria:

[Image: 333px-Erzsebet_kiralyne_photo_1867.jpg]
Reply
#57
(09-08-2011, 11:35 PM)kayla_veronica Wrote:
(09-07-2011, 05:48 PM)Petertherock Wrote:
(09-07-2011, 05:44 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(09-07-2011, 05:39 PM)Petertherock Wrote:
(09-07-2011, 04:55 PM)knittycat Wrote:
(09-07-2011, 11:21 AM)Texican Wrote:
(09-06-2011, 08:17 PM)StevusMagnus Wrote: Still, was that woman who was approaching the altar to receive Holy Communion really wearing a Hooters shirt?

Yes, she was.

That's so judgemental and intolerant...

Darn right it is. And it should be. We should be intolerant of people who dress like hookers in the presence of our Lord!

Not to mention these women dressed like this are putting a lot of men in at least a near occasion of sin if not in out and out mortal sin...another reason why going to the NO is sinful.

I sympathize with your position, but the man always maintains control of his eyes.  The woman isn't personally responsible for whatever the man does, but she might be committing scandal- I think?  Wish Rosarium was still here.  That was his word.

That's bullshit. When women dress like hookers and are in the pew in front of you or walk by you you can't maintain control of your eyes. By nature men are the aggressors in relationships. You really need to read the book The Dogma of Hell and How to Avoid Hell by Fr. Schoupp. There is a whole section on this...I believe I posted this here not so long ago. I will see if I can find it.

If a man lusts after a women because she is dressed immodestly, that doesn’t mean its any less of a sin for the man. The man needs to practice self control just as much as the woman needs to dress modestly. I understand what men have said about this, but I feel like sometimes it is used as a cop-out, and I don’t like it. We all have to take responsibility for our own actions and not blame our weaknesses on others. "Whore over there, hookers over here” its uncharitable.

It's not bullpoop, Petertherock.  Both have some culpability in the sin, but ultimately we're responsible for ourselves.  Men should practice custody of the eyes.  You can't always blame other people for all your troubles in life.

Do you think that the great monks and friars of Catholic history who practiced self discipline and self denial would blame other people for their sins?  Heck no.  You take care of your own soul.  Dressing like a tramp in Mass is bad for a number of reasons-- one of which is that it provides an unnecessary temptation for people.  But when it comes right down to it, you can only control yourself.  So worship at Mass with your eyes closed or standing in the back facing the wall or bury your head in the missal or switch pews to the one behind the old bitties.

I'd say that your response is the one that's full of poo.
Reply
#58
(09-08-2011, 11:41 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: Empress Elisabeth of Austria:

[Image: 333px-Erzsebet_kiralyne_photo_1867.jpg]

Royalty got away with a lot in the Church. That doesn't mean they got away with it in God's eyes. 

Posting examples of royalty who got away with fashions that they shouldn't have necessarily gotten away with doesn't change God's precepts; nor does it appropriately lower the standard for the House of God.
Reply
#59
So is anyone being tempted by HK's empress?  :laughing:

The problem with expecting women to help you stay out of sin is that outside of your traditional church, they are not going to do so. If you can't control yourself, you won't be able to do normal things like buy groceries or go to the library.
Reply
#60
(09-09-2011, 08:05 AM)ErinIsNice Wrote: So is anyone being tempted by HK's empress?  :laughing:

The problem with expecting women to help you stay out of sin is that outside of your traditional church, they are not going to do so. If you can't control yourself, you won't be able to do normal things like buy groceries or go to the library.

I don't think anyone's expecting women to actively keep them out of sin. They are simply expecting that conscientious Catholic women--especially in God's House, of all places--will not knowingly or carelessly occasion their sin.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)