Being Modest and Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter MrsATurner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Agape11 said:
Does it say for us not to or does it give us an option? I’m pretty sure its leaving it for your BETTER judgement.
Click to expand...
You prior made head covering — a matter of “should” — going over/above the Church.
 
Agape11 said:
The Vatican is not anti-Bible… sorry!!! Its just gotten way too liberal.
Click to expand...
Maybe – some have gone – so far to the “right” to supposedly “correct” the Vatican – that they are falling off.
 
You’re right, I think they SHOULD do what the Bible says!!! Rome makes it an option but doesn’t say “DON’T” veil! Don’t they require women to veil when they are entering the Basilica of St. Peter?
 
Agape11 said:
You’re right, I think they SHOULD do what the Bible says!!! Rome makes it an option but doesn’t say “DON’T” veil! Don’t they require women to veil when they are entering the Basilica of St. Peter?
Click to expand...
Kinda reminds me of — the bible only protestants. But anyway – the Church does not have a requirement to head cover. If a woman does it on her own – it is a different matter – than “should”.
 
Besides, what I think should happen ISN’T against the chuch’s teachings!!!
 
Agape11 said:
Because someone is a Traditionalist, their Protestant?
Click to expand...
Just saying – it kinda sounded protestant – that they (Vatican) SHOULD do what the Bible says.
40.png
Agape11:
You’re right, I think they SHOULD do what the Bible says!
Click to expand...
 
Agape11 said:
You’re right, I think they SHOULD do what the Bible says!!! Rome makes it an option but doesn’t say “DON’T” veil! Don’t they require women to veil when they are entering the Basilica of St. Peter?
Click to expand...
Was there a few months ago. No, they don’t.
 
Agape11 said:
1 Corinthians 11:4-7

It says women should cover their head while praying.
Click to expand...
If you wish to cover, based on that verse or because of Church tradition, or any other reason, that’s fine. But we must remember to keep books of the Bible in the context in which they were written. St Paul was speaking to the women of Corinth. Women who were previously pagan and had adopted the pagan cultural trend of shaving their head and being bald. For those who had not grown their hair back after their conversion and for those who might be tempted to shave their head (because it was fashionable), he made those admonitions so the women would not be mistaken as those who were not Christian in Corinth!

So many problems occur when we take Bible verses and people out of their place and context in history…
 
Agape11 said:
You’re right, I think they SHOULD do what the Bible says!!! Rome makes it an option but doesn’t say “DON’T” veil! Don’t they require women to veil when they are entering the Basilica of St. Peter?
Click to expand...
No, but if you are not a “Head of State” (and are female), you are to wear a headcovering (doesn’t have to be a long lacy mantilla or a doily) if you are blessed to have a private audience with the Pope. While Michelle Obama and Laura Bush are photographed in black mantillas, they were following the fashion trend of our first Catholic First Lady, Jackie Kennedy, who opted for the mantilla over her traditional pillbox hat when she met the Pope.
Nowadays, most women would opt for the Princess Diana or “Duchess Catherine” (Kate Middleton) type of hat to match their suit when meeting our Pontiff. This has to do with “protocol” as our Pope is the head of state (for the Vatican). Similar rules of etiquette exist when meeting other heads of state, such as not wearing all white or all black, etc.
 
Colleen_Hammond said:
NO PROBLEM!!! If it’s good enough for the Pope and the Vatican, it’s good enough for me. 👍
Click to expand...
JoArtist said:
It sounds like you aren’t, if you go by what was set forth in 1929 then the garb on the bottom would still be considered immodest. In the stick figures the sleeves do not go to the elbow, but cover the shoulders and go to about mid-bicep. I do think that if it is good enough for the Pope and Vatican city then it certainly should be considered modest enough for Mass.
Click to expand...
I was going to say that the description didn’t match the picture. 👍

Do you have to wear a skirt? Or are pants or capris okay?
 
maryjk said:
I was going to say that the description didn’t match the picture. 👍

Do you have to wear a skirt? Or are pants or capris okay?
Click to expand...
No, you do not have to wear a skirt or dress. Modest women’s trousers and capris are fine (hence the picture), but I think the general idea is that this is the minimum appropriate for entering a Vatican church and we should be striving to step it up a few notches (at home, too). Meaning that if you can wear the dress slacks and modest blouse instead of the nice jeans and casual shirt, do so. If you cannot, then wear the nice modest jeans. If you can wear a nice modest dress, it’s a nice idea to do so, if you have one. If not, then wear the modest jeans or capris. Kind of like with men and suits or dress shirts. Now, there are a few really nice and charitable (and kinda famous in the Catholic media world…like the former fashion model that posted that picture of the Vatican sign on here) people here on CAF that believe it’s better for a woman to wear a nice skirt suit or dress instead of women’s trousers when going to Church or just in general. There have also been folks on older threads (and ones since removed) that have basically said a women wearing a bifurcated piece of fabric on her lower half is headed to hell in a handbasket for her “rebellious” spirit. (yep, that has really been stated that in old threads!) Never mind that in Native American and Asian countries, both genders have been wearing trousers made for their respective gender since the time of Genesis. Anyway, sure, the Western culture perceives it dressier and more feminine to wear a skirt or dress, but it’s not a sin to wear women’s pants or trousers.

A note to CAF members…I tend to use good material and info from other CAF members and other threads when making references in my replies…lots of good info out there! I don’t intend to use your info without giving you credit, so if I have borrowed info from any of your posts, let me know and I’ll give you credit for it.
 
Agape11 said:
Whats wrong with the conversation that is being said? I see nothing wrong with it, honestly. Each person has his or her own opinion and is allowed to express it. You don’t have to agree with anything thats said, nor do you have to read or respond to it.
Click to expand...
Welcome to CAF! First of all, threads on modesty get more people suspended or banned than any other topic. Therefore, I was making a comment along the lines of “here we go again”. You are new here (I’m new for registering and posting, but am a very long-time lurker) and have seen this occur over and over again. There is nothing new said on this thread that hasn’t been said (promoting one view or another) on other modesty threads. Sort of like “there’s nothing new under the sun”. Of course I don’t have to read it or respond to it…neither do you. But, we both choose to do so…expressing our own opinions (just as you choose to respond to my post, I choose to respond to yours…)
 
JoArtist said:
It sounds like you aren’t, if you go by what was set forth in 1929 then the garb on the bottom would still be considered immodest. In the stick figures the sleeves do not go to the elbow, but cover the shoulders and go to about mid-bicep. I do think that if it is good enough for the Pope and Vatican city then it certainly should be considered modest enough for Mass.
Click to expand...
Wow, mid-bicep, eh? I guess I don’t have an artist’s eye as it looks “elbow” to me.

But it really doesn’t matter, because Rome has declared that, “shorter sleeves {are} also permitted as a temporary concession, with ecclesiastical approval, because of 'impossible market conditions.” (DWD, pg 118)

So yes…if it’s good enough for the Pope and the Vatican, it’s good enough for me.
 
Colleen_Hammond said:
Here’s the rest:***
Click to expand...
Thank you. However that is not a Vatican Code of Modesty which does not exist. I would follow our Catechism although I have no issues with anyone else’s personal preference to follow what you posted.
 
some members on these forums thinking they can form what sounds like dogmatic rules.
 
Walking_Home said:
You do know – we have a new catechism of the Catholic Church – don’t you.
Click to expand...
I do hope you are not suggesting the the new catechism teaches that morality and modesty are passe.

cat·e·chism (kt-kzm)
n.
  1. A book giving a brief summary of the basic principles of Christianity in question-and-answer form.
  2. A manual giving basic instruction in a subject, usually by rote or repetition.
  3. A body of fundamental principles or beliefs, especially when accepted uncritically
The operative word here is “brief”. One is mistaken if he expects the entire body of teaching, doctrine, and tradition to appear in the catechism. Take a look at a Catholic Encyclopedia sometime, and volumes on Catholic morality, etc., and you will have a better understanding of the richness of Catholic teaching.

Modesty in dress and behavior are directly related to the virtue of purity and to sins against the 6th and 9th commandments, which sins, by the way, are always mortal sins. Lack of modesty also relates to the sin of scandal. If one’s dress leads another to sin, both are responsible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top