Church attire (all kinds)

[LilyM]

(cont.) of the whole richly dressed Papal court the Pope embraced the stinking filthy Francis as a brother.

Nice story. it also has a point. God surely aimed to teach the Pope and those around him a lesson or two about judging based on appearances by this episode. It is a lesson some in our undoubtedly somewhat superficial age could stand to learn as well.

 

[MissRose73]

I dress mainly in business casual clothes for my job. My clothes are nice enough that they could also be worn to Mass too. On weekends, we can dress down if we work Saturdays and/or Sundays (which I normally do). On Saturdays, I change from my casual clothes to something nicer for Mass, and it does not take me more than 5 minutes to change clothes, fix my hair a bit nicer, etc. It does not take me a lot of effort to put on a nice shirt and a pair of pants/trousers or a skirt to look halfway presentable.

 

[crazzeto]

(cont.) of the whole richly dressed Papal court the Pope embraced the stinking filthy Francis as a brother.

Nice story. it also has a point. God surely aimed to teach the Pope and those around him a lesson or two about judging based on appearances by this episode. It is a lesson some in our undoubtedly somewhat superficial age could stand to learn as well.

LilyM,

And yet the currently seated Pontiff who is well aware of St. Francis will boot you from his Church in Rome for dressing casual. There’s a BIG difference between judging someone based on appearances (in general) and deciding it’s not worth the bother to treat the Mass with reverence. With regards abba/daddy, I hardly think Christ’s lesson was to disregard reverence durring worship, and I’m not sure it’s proper to equate the more intamate term with informal, the two aren’t always connected.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM,

And yet the currently seated Pontiff who is well aware of St. Francis will boot you from his Church in Rome for dressing casual. There’s a BIG difference between judging someone based on appearances (in general) and deciding it’s not worth the bother to treat the Mass with reverence. With regards abba/daddy, I hardly think Christ’s lesson was to disregard reverence durring worship, and I’m not sure it’s proper to equate the more intamate term with informal, the two aren’t always connected.

Of course there’s a difference. The difference is that you who dress well are judging, based on what I must point out is an incredibly vague description of MY appearance, that my motives are either a) I don’t care or b) can’t be bothered or c) I lack sufficient reverence.

I’ve been to the Vatican and am aware of the dress code. Which is no short shorts or miniskirts and nothing sleeveless. No other restrictions listed, although I daresay a plunging neckline or grubby or torn clothing wouldn’t be looked on favorably either.

Certainly not so much as a hint of the ‘business casual’ code that you insist upon for yourself and me. I can’t remember what I was wearing, but very likely jeans, as were most of the group I was with.

if I were wearing jeans or

 

[LilyM]

cont) quite possibly even something as casual as sweats I probably would not have been kicked out.

And I can’t for the life of me understand why you imagine jeans aren’t good enough either for the Vatican or the Pope - I’ve never seen or heard so much as a hint that one would be denied entry or audience with the Pope for wearing them!

 

[crazzeto]

I don’t think there has been an answer yet, what specifically does anyone have against dressing up for Church? Is it that hard? For MissRose it would seem it’s about 5 minutes, for me not much longer. So what’s the real underlying issue? Why do people want to guard this?

LilyM,

No your not being judged, your being asked questions. This is a discussion, were there are differing points of views. I could just as easly (probably more easily at this point) accusse you of judging me. So lets drop the accusations of judgment, and move onto the core issues. That is, what is proper dress for Mass. If we could do that, with an understanding that this is a discussion, with many points of view, that would be terrific. Then we wouldn’t have to worry so much about being judged.

Now, perhaps a good place to start is explicitly with what do we have against formal, I would argue more reverent dress at Mass? Are you really, truely, suggesting that the scriptures encourage us to dress down for worship?

 

[LilyM]

The answer is surely obvious to one as intelligent as yourself. My issue is with the false equation of ‘formal’ with ‘reverent’ and the resulting creation of a false dichotomy between ‘informal’ and ‘reverent’.

To me, all the formalities we indulge in, be they in matters religious or secular, in attitudes to dress for work play or church, all smack quite strongly of one thing above all - pandering to human respect. Which, while necessary (or at least desirable) to a limited extent, can quite easily be taken to unhealthy extremes like anything which is good in moderation. As in the ‘the Vatican wouldn’t let you in dressed informally’ comment earlier - which is an easily falsifiable presumption.

To me - well WHY would I dress for God as I would for the President? It’s somewhat belittling God, to my way of thinking, to imagine that He could as easily be swayed in his impression of me by fancy clothing as my fellow fallible human the President would be. And the argument that my dress might inspire me to greater reverence - well balderdash.

And my fellow humans? Well, all I know is that I’ve never been inspired to much of anything by the clothing choices of a fellow human being, although I often have been by things that they say or do otherwise.

So if you find that extra five minutes achieves something for you, more power and keep up the good work. For me, I’d far rather (as I do) get to church that five minutes earlier and spend the time in extra prayer, which I find benefits me and mine more than the stress of dressing up.

As I said earlier, Jesus used a very INformal term to describe God the Father, but His informality does not mean He was a jot less reverent than those around Him, some of whom doubtless had strong opinions about His daring to use the word ‘Daddy’ to describe the Deity.

I don’t think there has been an answer yet, what specifically does anyone have against dressing up for Church? Is it that hard? For MissRose it would seem it’s about 5 minutes, for me not much longer. So what’s the real underlying issue? Why do people want to guard this?

LilyM,

No your not being judged, your being asked questions. This is a discussion, were there are differing points of views. I could just as easly (probably more easily at this point) accusse you of judging me. So lets drop the accusations of judgment, and move onto the core issues. That is, what is proper dress for Mass. If we could do that, with an understanding that this is a discussion, with many points of view, that would be terrific. Then we wouldn’t have to worry so much about being judged.

Now, perhaps a good place to start is explicitly with what do we have against formal, I would argue more reverent dress at Mass? Are you really, truely, suggesting that the scriptures encourage us to dress down for worship?

 

[crazzeto]

And yet St. Paul discusses dress extensivly in his epistles, and never once does he say “dress down, come as you are, God doesn’t care”. That just isn’t the language St. Paul used. The only times Christ ever discussed dress, he emphisised the importance of dressing appropriatly for the occation, specfically a wedding feast, but of course we over spiritualize and pretend that, no there couldn’t be a literal meaning as well (despite what the CCC has to say).

I take issue with the evanglization of informal dress not because I think God is going to judge us upon how we look. Not because I think your unsaved for going to Mass with jeans even once. But because the idea that there is a clear and distinct seperation between how we think and how we act is false. We act as we think, we think as we act. It’s all connected. Just like the Spiritual is connected to us in a very real, and ever present way (as the scriptures say, more real than the computer I’m typing on).

As both St. Paul and the Lord stated, I beleive it is important to be as best prepared as we can for the occasion. The occation we’re talking about is the wedding feast of the Lamb, celebrated each day in the Mass with full participation of the Communion of Saints.

 

[frenchbeatle]

I go to Mass during the week during my lunch hour, so I’m wearing what I’ve been wearing for work. During the summer, my workplace is denim casual every day, so I end up attending Mass more often in jeans than I do when I dress nicely on the weekends. I find that my reverence and appreciation for the Mass is the same regardless of how I am dressed. While I’m not suggesting that anything goes, I find the dressed up nice=more reverent is not always true.

 

[LilyM]

On the contrary Paul lengthily scolds people - women in particular - who are too particular in matters of dress and who insist on braided hair, gold and costly apparel and other sartorial finery. (1 Tim 2.9) He follows this up by pointing out that the very best dress a woman (or man, surely) can don is good deeds, which are just as easily done in jeans and sweats as a suit

1 Peter 3.3 goes even further and says that one’s beauty should not come from outward adornment, which surely includes clothing that is designedly worn to supposedly make a statement about one’s character such as that one is being reverent.

Ultimately there is Christ’s own injunction that we in fact are not to worry about what we wear, along with other mundane worries.

I know Paul speaks of matters of dress, such as veiling, but could you point me to any quote where he says or implies that one must dress up when attending liturgy?

And yet St. Paul discusses dress extensivly in his epistles, and never once does he say “dress down, come as you are, God doesn’t care”. That just isn’t the language St. Paul used. The only times Christ ever discussed dress, he emphisised the importance of dressing appropriatly for the occation, specfically a wedding feast, but of course we over spiritualize and pretend that, no there couldn’t be a literal meaning as well (despite what the CCC has to say).

I take issue with the evanglization of informal dress not because I think God is going to judge us upon how we look. Not because I think your unsaved for going to Mass with jeans even once. But because the idea that there is a clear and distinct seperation between how we think and how we act is false. We act as we think, we think as we act. It’s all connected. Just like the Spiritual is connected to us in a very real, and ever present way (as the scriptures say, more real than the computer I’m typing on).

As both St. Paul and the Lord stated, I beleive it is important to be as best prepared as we can for the occasion. The occation we’re talking about is the wedding feast of the Lamb, celebrated each day in the Mass with full participation of the Communion of Saints.

 

[crazzeto]

On the contrary Paul lengthily scolds people - women in particular - who are too particular in matters of dress and who insist on braided hair, gold and costly apparel and other sartorial finery. (1 Tim 2.9) He follows this up by pointing out that the very best dress a woman (or man, surely) can don is good deeds, which are just as easily done in jeans and sweats as a suit

1 Peter 3.3 goes even further and says that one’s beauty should not come from outward adornment, which surely includes clothing that is designedly worn to supposedly make a statement about one’s character such as that one is being reverent.

Ultimately there is Christ’s own injunction that we in fact are not to worry about what we wear, along with other mundane worries.

I know Paul speaks of matters of dress, such as veiling, but could you point me to any quote where he says or implies that one must dress up when attending liturgy?

1 Tim 2:9

1Ti 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

or

9also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire 10but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion.

(2009-08-12). The Ignatius Bible . Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

So and exhortation to modest dress, which will lead to greater personal humility and good deeds. Rather than refuting my points, St. Paul is making them for me. Dress modestly because how we act and how we think is connected. Your point is that there is a total and complete disconnect between behaviour and action, now think about your position very carefully. Do you really beleive that?

3 * Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see your reverent and chaste behavior. 3Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of robes, 4but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.

(2009-08-12). The Ignatius Bible . Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

Being addressed here, is not a point that one should come as you are, your just fine don’t worry about it. Rather it’s a point of not putting your treasure anywhere but heaven. Again, like St. Paul, St. Peter is exhorting women to modesty (in dress again, because again dress matters

) because, again, how you act and how you think are connected, not disconnected. Haydocks excellent notes below on the passage

1Pe 3:1 Let wives, &c. In the first six verses he gives instructions to married women. 1. By their modest and submissive dispositions to endeavour to gain and convert their husbands, shewing them such a respect as Sara did, (whose daughters they ought to esteem themselves) who called Abraham her lord, or master; (Genesis xviii. 12.) 2. To **be modest in their dress, without vanity; **

1. That women take the greatest care of the hidden man, i.e. of the interior disposition of their heart, which he calls the incorruptibility of a quiet and a meek spirit; 4. Not fearing any trouble, when God’s service or the duty to their husbands require it. (Witham)

Veiling goes along with everything being discussed here, modesty, humility and reverence. It’s all connected, and what is on the inside affects what is on the outside. And again, what is on the outside, affects what is on the inside. This is the point the Apostles are making, it is butressed by the very scriptures you select, and clarified by the Fathers. “Traditional dress” didn’t come from no where.

 

[LilyM]

Paul speaks of modesty yes. Formality never - the concept doesn’t get a look in from him. The two terms are not the same nor even particularly related, and yet you seem to equate the two and imply that more formal clothing is (eg business casual as opposed to jeans) the more it would be approved by Paul.

A long dressy evening gown is the epitome of formality and yet said gown can easily be strapless, show lots of cleavage and be totally immodest. A paid of jeans, as long as it is not tight fitting, would be far more modest and surely infinitely more approved by Paul than the more formal gown I’ve described.

Worse still you mistakenly confuse formality - with a third concept - reverence. Which is also mentioned by Paul but again is not at all the same thing.

Going back to Jesus (and Paul’s after him) constant referral to God the Father as ‘Daddy’. Perfectly reverent, as I’m sure both of them were in all things, but the very opposite of formal. More properly the equivalent of wearing jeans to Mass - completely dressed-down language but nonetheless both appropriate and reverent.

‘A disconnect between behavior and action’? That’s not my point at all - for starters behavior IS action, so they’re the same thing and it defies logic to suggest that there could be disconnect between them. Like saying that I believe in a disconnect between dogs and canines

Secondly, I totally 100 per cent agree with you that dress reflects character and attitude. I submit that jeans and casual clothing generally reflect an attitude of informality. I 100 per cent disagree with your opinion that jeans invariably or usually reflect an attitude of either immodesty or irreverence by virtue of that informality. Again, look at the word ‘Daddy’. Informal in the extreme, but neither an immodest nor irreverent way to relate to our God.

And yet St. Paul discusses dress extensivly in his epistles, and never once does he say “dress down, come as you are, God doesn’t care”. That just isn’t the language St. Paul used. The only times Christ ever discussed dress, he emphisised the importance of dressing appropriatly for the occation, specfically a wedding feast, but of course we over spiritualize and pretend that, no there couldn’t be a literal meaning as well (despite what the CCC has to say).

I take issue with the evanglization of informal dress not because I think God is going to judge us upon how we look. Not because I think your unsaved for going to Mass with jeans even once. But because the idea that there is a clear and distinct seperation between how we think and how we act is false. We act as we think, we think as we act. It’s all connected. Just like the Spiritual is connected to us in a very real, and ever present way (as the scriptures say, more real than the computer I’m typing on).

As both St. Paul and the Lord stated, I beleive it is important to be as best prepared as we can for the occasion. The occation we’re talking about is the wedding feast of the Lamb, celebrated each day in the Mass with full participation of the Communion of Saints.

1 Tim 2:9

or

So and exhortation to modest dress, which will lead to greater personal humility and good deeds. Rather than refuting my points, St. Paul is making them for me. Dress modestly because how we act and how we think is connected. Your point is that there is a total and complete disconnect between behaviour and action, now think about your position very carefully. Do you really beleive that?

3 * Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see your reverent and chaste behavior. 3Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of robes, 4but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.

) because, again, how you act and how you think are connected, not disconnected. Haydocks excellent notes below on the passage

Veiling goes along with everything being discussed here, modesty, humility and reverence. It’s all connected, and what is on the inside affects what is on the outside. And again, what is on the outside, affects what is on the inside. This is the point the Apostles are making, it is butressed by the very scriptures you select, and clarified by the Fathers. “Traditional dress” didn’t come from no where.

[/QUOTE]

 

[crazzeto]

A part of humility, is being able to dress appropriatly for the situation in which we are about to enter. When we go to Mass, we are effectivly going to a wedding, again the wedding feast of the Lamb. This means preparing our selves throughly IMO, and when I get ready for a great feast, or wedding I dress accordingly.

I see no reason why we shouldn’t consider the same with the Mass.

 

[LilyM]

A part of humility, is being able to dress appropriatly for the situation in which we are about to enter. When we go to Mass, we are effectivly going to a wedding, again the wedding feast of the Lamb. This means preparing our selves throughly IMO, and when I get ready for a great feast, or wedding I dress accordingly.

I see no reason why we shouldn’t consider the same with the Mass.

You compare it to a human wedding or other feast? I can tell you, from a female point of view at least, there is little to nothing of humility about dressing for such occasions, it is almost all about who can draw the most attention to themselves by their dress.

Pippa Middleton’s dress at her sister’s wedding being the perfect case in point. Dressy and special-occasiony yes, but smacking little of any of the virtues of humility, modesty or even particular reverence. If anything she looked like she was competing with the bride rather than taking the sartorial backseat that true humility and modesty would suggest and wearing something less flashy.

Of course many people thought she looked just stunning. Which goes to show how errant human judgement can be on the topic of appropriate clothing. But remember it’s very much a road with a ditch on both sides - one can come to grief just as easily by being too fussy and scrupulous in matters of dress as too permissive.

 

[crazzeto]

Well worth reading:

stpaulparish.ca/how-we-dress-for-mass.php

Wittingly or unwillingly, one’s attire reflects a certain mood or attitude. We many not be dining at 24 Sussex Dr. or attending a royal wedding, but if the occasion is one of celebration or solemnity, it behooves us to dress accordingly. Some judges, to underscore the gravity of jury duty, let it be known that they expect coat and tie of male jurors and a comparable outfit for women. Even off-track betting parlours have been known to require jackets of their patrons. Why, then do so many of our parishioners come to Sunday Mass informally clad? One would think they had it from God himself that he is pleased to accept them “as they are”.

Something interesting to consider:

Dressing down is even regarded by some as a mark of American-style democracy. Actually, the roots of the custom are distinctly foreign. It was the practice of French revolutionaries, and later on of Communist commissars to wear their radicalism on the sleeve; Lenin caps, Mao jackets, and Castro fatigues are items of clothing often worn by admirers. Although claiming to be on the side of the common man, what distinguishes Napoleonic France, Soviet Russia, mainland China, and Communist Cuba is their hostility to organized religion.

Yet more:
courageouspriest.com/mass-attendance-dress-code-msgr-charles-pope

A final thought:Clothes say something about what we think,what we value. They also influence how we behave and feel. That our culture has become so casual about everything says something about us. I cannot exactly articulate it but it seems to say*,“nothing is really all that important.” *But that is not true. Going to God’s house IS important. Being ministered to by the King of Kings and Lord of Lords is astounding. Casual attire in these circumstances is simply inappropriate if we really think about what we are doing,where we are going and who it is we will meet. It does not necessarily follow that we must wear tuxedos and formal gowns. But decent semi-formal attire seems wholly appropriate. Sunday is special,God’s House is special. Somethings really ARE important and our clothing and demeanor ought to reflect this truth.

 

[crazzeto]

You compare it to a human wedding or other feast? I can tell you, from a female point of view at least, there is little to nothing of humility about dressing for such occasions, it is almost all about who can draw the most attention to themselves by their dress.

Christ him self compares what he has done for us to a Wedding, this is where we get “wedding feast of the Lamb”. This is why Christ makes so many references to royal weddings for instance, and once you read Revelation you’re knee deep in it.

Pippa Middleton’s dress at her sister’s wedding being the perfect case in point. Dressy and special-occasiony yes, but smacking little of any of the virtues of humility, modesty or even particular reverence. If anything she looked like she was competing with the bride rather than taking the sartorial backseat that true humility and modesty would suggest and wearing something less flashy.

Previously I posted two links, one to a church website in Canada, one to the opinion written by Msgr. Charles Pope. I invite you to read it over and consider what they say. Both in relation to a human wedding and to the Mass (frequently human weddings involve a Mass so there is a good connection).

Of course many people thought she looked just stunning. Which goes to show how errant human judgement can be on the topic of appropriate clothing. But remember it’s very much a road with a ditch on both sides - one can come to grief just as easily by being too fussy and scrupulous in matters of dress as too permissive.

Peace be with you.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The answer is surely obvious to one as intelligent as yourself. My issue is with the false equation of ‘formal’ with ‘reverent’ and the resulting creation of a false dichotomy between ‘informal’ and ‘reverent’.

To me, all the formalities we indulge in, be they in matters religious or secular, in attitudes to dress for work play or church, all smack quite strongly of one thing above all - pandering to human respect. Which, while necessary (or at least desirable) to a limited extent, can quite easily be taken to unhealthy extremes like anything which is good in moderation. As in the ‘the Vatican wouldn’t let you in dressed informally’ comment earlier - which is an easily falsifiable presumption.

To me - well WHY would I dress for God as I would for the President? It’s somewhat belittling God, to my way of thinking, to imagine that He could as easily be swayed in his impression of me by fancy clothing as my fellow fallible human the President would be. And the argument that my dress might inspire me to greater reverence - well balderdash.

And my fellow humans? Well, all I know is that I’ve never been inspired to much of anything by the clothing choices of a fellow human being, although I often have been by things that they say or do otherwise.

So if you find that extra five minutes achieves something for you, more power and keep up the good work. For me, I’d far rather (as I do) get to church that five minutes earlier and spend the time in extra prayer, which I find benefits me and mine more than the stress of dressing up.

As I said earlier, Jesus used a very INformal term to describe God the Father, but His informality does not mean He was a jot less reverent than those around Him, some of whom doubtless had strong opinions about His daring to use the word ‘Daddy’ to describe the Deity.

Why is it that in AD 2011 some people call dressing in a mindful way (that is, dressing in something other than casual or leisure clothing) ““PANDERING TO HUMAN RESPECT”” as though there is, was, and always shall be absolutely NOTHING MORE TO DRESS than this?

It puzzles me. It does help me to understand, seeing a few posters who have obviously spent a great deal of time to consider the matter and who are obviously completely sincere and sure that they’re right!

But it puzzles me because. . .and this is just my opinion. . .the ones who are ‘pandering to human respect’ appear to be the casual crowd. Seriously. Because either they will wear ‘dressy clothes’ for work, say, but not for God, which is DEFINITELY pandering to human respect. . . OR in a kind of reverse psychology, they will insist that because they feel clothing is so shallow or vain or whatever, they have NO respect for anyone but themselves and so will only wear what they want to --but last I knew, WE are all human too. Self-respect is still ‘human’ respect.

But why is it that from the time of the prehistoric people on, through countless generations, humanity was so ‘stupid’ as not to recognize that clothes are ONLY about pandering to silly humans, until BANG! along came the late 20th century with its incredible record on all sorts of moral issues and decided this?

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

A part of humility, is being able to dress appropriatly for the situation in which we are about to enter. When we go to Mass, we are effectivly going to a wedding, again the wedding feast of the Lamb. This means preparing our selves throughly IMO, and when I get ready for a great feast, or wedding I dress accordingly.

I see no reason why we shouldn’t consider the same with the Mass.

Do you go to a great feast or a wedding every day? If so, do you have a closet full of nothing but the best clothes? You still have not addressed the situation for those of us that go to Mass every day…from work. I wear what I wear to work as I don’t have the time to change back and forth between clothes…heck I barely have time to get there and back.

The point being…you…or someone else is always going to judge what I’m wearing…I can’t worry about that…I worry about making it to Mass.

I don’t think anyone is advocating low cut dirty clothing. But when you talk about people’s best…that is different for everyone and will always be so. So, I don’t think you can judge peoples appearance as such. My best may not be your best…oh well. Surely you are not advocating that I go out and buy a bunch of clothes to fit your standard and wear every day?

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Why is it that in AD 2011 some people call dressing in a mindful way (that is, dressing in something other than casual or leisure clothing) ““PANDERING TO HUMAN RESPECT”” as though there is, was, and always shall be absolutely NOTHING MORE TO DRESS than this?

It puzzles me. It does help me to understand, seeing a few posters who have obviously spent a great deal of time to consider the matter and who are obviously completely sincere and sure that they’re right!

But it puzzles me because. . .and this is just my opinion. . .the ones who are ‘pandering to human respect’ appear to be the casual crowd. Seriously. Because either they will wear ‘dressy clothes’ for work, say, but not for God, which is DEFINITELY pandering to human respect. . . OR in a kind of reverse psychology, they will insist that because they feel clothing is so shallow or vain or whatever, they have NO respect for anyone but themselves and so will only wear what they want to --but last I knew, WE are all human too. Self-respect is still ‘human’ respect.

But why is it that from the time of the prehistoric people on, through countless generations, humanity was so ‘stupid’ as not to recognize that clothes are ONLY about pandering to silly humans, until BANG! along came the late 20th century with its incredible record on all sorts of moral issues and decided this?

Clothing in general is different then it was back then…no? Pictures of my grandparents show them if suits/dresses a majority of the time…so…for them to go to church…that is what they wore. I doubt it was the best they had at the time.

Now a days…pajamas pass as clothing that you wear outside… (I hate that fad…Hey…you…the rest of us got dressed…why can’t you?)

 

[LilyM]

Of course there’s more. That’s why I don’t, for example, condone the wearing of pajamas or swimsuits to Church. And why I don’t insist on everyone wearing jeans either.

I never suggested otherwise. I’m not talking about clothing in general, rather the idea of ‘dressing up’.

And do you you really think that it isn’t possible that clothing has changed in importance or significance over time, or specifically more recently? People now have more money than ever to invest in their clothing along with their cars and houses.

And more exposure to media and advertising has created more of a shallow superficial and competive mindset about such things. And yes there is a tendency to attach far more significance to putting on a better ‘show’ with one’s possessions, including clothing, than in times past when most people were lucky to have any house, any car and clothes that were new, and were less spoiled for choice.

And I and a lot of others see it and react against it now as St Francis did against the materialism of his own day, even though there was a lot less real material splendour to be shown off then than there is now.

Why is it that in AD 2011 some people call dressing in a mindful way (that is, dressing in something other than casual or leisure clothing) ““PANDERING TO HUMAN RESPECT”” as though there is, was, and always shall be absolutely NOTHING MORE TO DRESS than this?

It puzzles me. It does help me to understand, seeing a few posters who have obviously spent a great deal of time to consider the matter and who are obviously completely sincere and sure that they’re right!

But it puzzles me because. . .and this is just my opinion. . .the ones who are ‘pandering to human respect’ appear to be the casual crowd. Seriously. Because either they will wear ‘dressy clothes’ for work, say, but not for God, which is DEFINITELY pandering to human respect. . . OR in a kind of reverse psychology, they will insist that because they feel clothing is so shallow or vain or whatever, they have NO respect for anyone but themselves and so will only wear what they want to --but last I knew, WE are all human too. Self-respect is still ‘human’ respect.

But why is it that from the time of the prehistoric people on, through countless generations, humanity was so ‘stupid’ as not to recognize that clothes are ONLY about pandering to silly humans, until BANG! along came the late 20th century with its incredible record on all sorts of moral issues and decided this?