Do you feel offended by people who come to the CC dressed as if they were at a barbeque in their backyard?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wisdomseeker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wisdomseeker said:
when visiting the Pope or the Vatican, women are not permitted to wear pants. And they must wear a headcovering.
Why do you think that is?
Click to expand...
Wow, I had not ever heard of this either, but I do recall seeing a photo some time back of Laura Bush meeting with the pope, and was surprised to see that see was wearing a lace veil. So maybe there’s something to it, but I’d also like to see some documentation. But maybe it has just to do with respecting the pope, too.

That being said, I’m not offended by anything that people wear at Mass. I attend a TLM at an FSSP parish. A small number of women do wear pants, and even more do not wear a head-covering, but it’s not a big deal. I’ve never heard anyone comment at all about this. I always wear a modest dress or skirt, but if others don’t, it’s no big deal. i’m also not bothered by those who dress like Amish.

My attitude for myself in dressing for Mass is this: what would I wear if I were to meet with, say, the president of the U.S., or any other country, or perhaps with the queen of England? Then I ask myself this: how much more important is Our Lord than even heads of state? I understand that not everyone sees it quite this way, though.
 
*The U.S. Embassy to the Holy See has a Vatican protocol primer that walks people through what is considered the proper dress code.

For men: black or dark suit, aka business attire, with a dark tie.

For women: black skirt or dress that reaches at least the knees, black top with mid- to long-sleeves, no pants, simple jewelry, dark closed-toe shoes, and a black hat or veil is optional.

Some blogs and news stories assumed U.S. first lady Michelle Obama wore a long black veil to her July 10 audience with the pope because she was required to do so.

But the Vatican does not mandate that women cover their heads. In fact, the pontifical household said there is no formal or specific dress protocol at all.*

Source: Vatican dress code: Do’s and don’ts for presidential, pilgrim attire, Catholic News Service
 
wisdomseeker said:
and just who do you think has the authority to discount God’s Word at any time?
Click to expand...
You have to understand that there is not just a single body of “The Law.” The Mosaic Covenant has 3 distinct phases, and changes were in the Law based on the shortcomings of Israel and made necessary by changes in the priesthood. The Law that is eternal is that section of the Law that was given from Exodus 19-24, that is the original Covenant before the first change necessitated by the Golden Calf.
 
StTommyMore said:
I wouldn’t wish a Jesuit “education” on anyone. Jesuit schools need reformed from top to bottom until they can figure out how to teach authentic Catholic doctrine and not some made-up lunacy
Click to expand...
*WisdomSeeker, you are truly a Renaissance Man, not only are you The Vatican Prefect for the Appropriate Dress of Women in Western Civilization, but you are also the Chairman of the Board of University Accredidation. It’s no wonder that all of those poor pitiful graduates of Boston College, Fordam, and Loyola have done so poorly in their lives. I can only pray that with all the stress you must deal with everyday that your blood pressure isn’t through the roof. *From reading your posts on this thread and others, I pray (in all sincerety) that you find a reputable Catholic therapist and get some help. You have yet to answer the question of where your information concerning the appropriatness or lack thereof of women dressing in pants in AD 2010 comes from. If it is your personal opinion, then when you post it should me noted as such, ie, IMHO. You also have not answered my inquiry about your age and region of the world you live in. I’m upfront - I’m 57 and a high school teacher for 30 years and live in Northern California. I’m just interested where a person would develop such ideas unless they were brought up among the Amish or some other extremely non-traditional sect. I hope you answer some of our questions so we are enlightened about where you are “coming from”.:rolleyes:
 
kozlosap said:
*WisdomSeeker, you are truly a Renaissance Man, not only are you The Vatican Prefect for the Appropriate Dress of Women in Western Civilization, but you are also the Chairman of the Board of University Accredidation. It’s no wonder that all of those poor pitiful graduates of Boston College, Fordam, and Loyola have done so poorly in their lives. I can only pray that with all the stress you must deal with everyday that your blood pressure isn’t through the roof. *From reading your posts on this thread and others, I pray (in all sincerety) that you find a reputable Catholic therapist and get some help. You have yet to answer the question of where your information concerning the appropriatness or lack thereof of women dressing in pants in AD 2010 comes from. If it is your personal opinion, then when you post it should me noted as such, ie, IMHO. You also have not answered my inquiry about your age and region of the world you live in. I’m upfront - I’m 57 and a high school teacher for 30 years and live in Northern California. I’m just interested where a person would develop such ideas unless they were brought up among the Amish or some other extremely non-traditional sect. I hope you answer some of our questions so we are enlightened about where you are “coming from”.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Am i not in line with Catholic teachings and God’s Teachings?
 
StTommyMore said:
You have to understand that there is not just a single body of “The Law.” The Mosaic Covenant has 3 distinct phases, and changes were in the Law based on the shortcomings of Israel and made necessary by changes in the priesthood. The Law that is eternal is that section of the Law that was given from Exodus 19-24, that is the original Covenant before the first change necessitated by the Golden Calf.
Click to expand...
and just when did God change when He said that women must not dress like man and vice versa has changed?
 
wisdomseeker said:
and just when did God change when He said that women must not dress like man and vice versa has changed?
Click to expand...
He has not changed that. But, as has been brought up before, that womens pants are different than men’s pants.
 
StTommyMore said:
He has not changed that. But, as has been brought up before, that womens pants are different than men’s pants.
Click to expand...
This is also true of men’s shirts and women’s blouses. I really am surprise to see the argument that women’s casual clothing constitutes cross-dressing. Maybe it is a good thing that differences between different Catholic cultures has come down to such minutiae
 
sidbrown said:
Father Kunkel says that women should not wear pants "as they have been proven to be men’s attire, and harmfull for women and society at large, and against God’s command in Deut. 22:5. "
lffa-ollmpc.com/standards.htm
Click to expand...
Interesting read. I wonder if the greatest amount of modest is what is sought, then have any of the women considered a burqua? If not, why not? What argument against never wearing slacks can be made that doesn’t apply more so to a burqua.

Maybe that will be the next thing in ultra-traditionalist fashion.
 
Havard said:
*The U.S. Embassy to the Holy See has a Vatican protocol primer that walks people through what is considered the proper dress code.

For men: black or dark suit, aka business attire, with a dark tie.

For women: black skirt or dress that reaches at least the knees, black top with mid- to long-sleeves, no pants*, simple jewelry, dark closed-toe shoes, and a black hat or veil is optional.

Some blogs and news stories assumed U.S. first lady Michelle Obama wore a long black veil to her July 10 audience with the pope because she was required to do so.

But the Vatican does not mandate that women cover their heads. In fact, the pontifical household said there is no formal or specific dress protocol at all.

Source: Vatican dress code: Do’s and don’ts for presidential, pilgrim attire, Catholic News Service
Click to expand...
I was in Rome the summer of 2009. There is no rule about women wearing long pants. Both men and women may not enter in shorts.
 
pnewton said:
Interesting read. I wonder if the greatest amount of modest is what is sought, then have any of the women considered a burqua? If not, why not? What argument against never wearing slacks can be made that doesn’t apply more so to a burqua.

Maybe that will be the next thing in ultra-traditionalist fashion.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I was thinking the exact same thing!
 
kozlosap said:
They would be very lucky if they had a Jesuit education! They would learn how to think for themselves and not follow blindly any troll than happens down the primrose path.😃
Click to expand...
So those who have never had a Jesuit education are blind followers? Wasn’t it Christ who said blessed are those who believe, but have not seen? 🤷

By the way I am currently attending a Jesuit University, if I did not have a grounded faith my soul would have been filled with poison with all the stuff they teach us here. Never have I seen so much anti-catholic agendas.

We now return to the original topic.
 
wisdomseeker said:
third world countries i find to be a derrogatory term. it is a way to call others as if they were less human and inferior to us.
i come from a so called third world country and i can tell you that i never saw none of those back then wearing shorts or pants to go to Mass. while those so called better than the third world countries and more rich are the ones whose dresses are causing shame to the Church.
Click to expand...
Third world country is not a derogatory term. It arose initially as a term for the alliances. First world are those aligned to the US. Second world are those that are aligned to the Soviet Union. And third world are those unaligned. It just happens to be those unaligned turned out the poorest of poor nations in the world. Or perhaps they were poor they decided not to take sides in that issue.
 
aicirt said:
Why does the Vatican have a dress code if it doesn’t find some manners of dress offensive?
Click to expand...
The dress code for St. Peter’s is actually very lenient. It’s simple: both women and men need to have their shoulders and knees fully covered. As others have repeatedly pointed out, no rule bars women from wearing pants in the Vatican.

To be honest, the kind of attire required by the Vatican isn’t nearly so formal that I wouldn’t wear it to a backyard barbecue any day.
wisdomseeker said:
and just when did God change when He said that women must not dress like man and vice versa has changed?
Click to expand...
Women’s wearing pants does not constitute cross-dressing, as pants are manufactured for both men and women today, and men’s pants and women’s pants do differ, as others have pointed out.
 
sidbrown said:
Father Kunkel says that women should not wear pants "as they have been proven to be men’s attire, and harmfull for women and society at large, and against God’s command in Deut. 22:5. "
lffa-ollmpc.com/standards.htm
Click to expand...
FYI, I noted that this code is for a specific apostolate (1944-1969) and I think we all agree that one should adhere to the dress code of ones superiors in any apostolate. Especially in the sixties, I can see a reason for such a code. This code goes beyond modesty and respect to fashion, though, as evidnced by this strange rule:
Most unbecoming is also sloppy-looking clothing such as jogging pants and oversized t-shirts and such, for both women and men.
Click to expand...
But it was a different time.

I just hope they let females put the ruler to the women and didn’t expect the priest to do it. That too would have been an occassion of sin.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Third world country is not a derogatory term. It arose initially as a term for the alliances. First world are those aligned to the US. Second world are those that are aligned to the Soviet Union. And third world are those unaligned. It just happens to be those unaligned turned out the poorest of poor nations in the world. Or perhaps they were poor they decided not to take sides in that issue.
Click to expand...
poverty is a lack of spirituality and not of money or material things.
 
wisdomseeker said:
perhaps this helps you.

catholicplanet.com/women/dress.htm
Click to expand...
Wisdomseeker, with all charity I must point out that the catholicplanet site is NOT an authoritative text. It’s a private site run by a private individual or group of individuals. Their opinion, while well stated, has not received the approval of any bishop. Please be careful of creating a stumbling block for your brothers and sisters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top