Well, quite frankly, that statement strikes me as racist. My parish priest is from India; hence the picture of the Indian lady’s suit that I posted earlier in this thread. I’m pretty sure my priest’s sisters dress like that back home, as did his mother. All were/are devout Catholics.interesting how you cited the pagans as an example how people are dressing today.
No “wisdomseeker”…you were specifically asked several times to post the sources from the Church and you have failed to do so! Why? Because they don’t exist.i will let you figure out.
You mean PilateWasn’t the cloak in particular given to him by pilot?
The majority of the world’s Catholics live in third world countries and hundreds of millions of them in poverty. Often they are lucky to even have shorts, t-shirts and flip flops. Are you saying they should not be allowed to attend Mass?I think this is for the ladies. Man should stop wearing shorts and flip flop and tshirts in the House of God.
Yeah, Pilate I totally got 3/7ths of the name anyway.You mean Pilate
And again, that is besides the point. They wear robes back that because thats what they wear back then. Expensive of cheap is besides the point. People today are more likely to wear jeans or pants, because its what we wear today. They are not immodest, they reflect the culture of today.
I do agree about shorts, mini-skirts, etc. We have to draw the line somewhere. Pants are not a big deal.
I think so. Its not off the top of my head and I’m a little lazy to look it up right now.Yeah, Pilate I totally got 3/7ths of the name anyway.
And I was legitimately asking, not trying to make a point. The robe was given to him by PILATE right?
Darn it, those were my feelings on the matter too. I hope the first 10 results on google know.I think so. Its not off the top of my head and I’m a little lazy to look it up right now.
Well, I have one or two ballgowns, they are ‘the best I can’ wear to Church. By your logic they are what I should wear.I feel we should dress the best we can. To some it may be a dress to others dress slacks. I know someone who converted from a Protestant church, who once told me, when she was growing up her mother had a hard time affording nice clothes. She felt people looked down apon them at church. This was one of the reasons why she liked the Catholic church, she doesn’t feel so judged on what she’s wearing.
The answer is that Herod gave Jesus an elegant robe and sent him back to Pilate. Jesus was beaten and dressed in a purple robe as a sort satiric humor by the Roman soldiers which may or may not have been the robe that came from Herod. Either way it wasn’t his robe.Darn it, those were my feelings on the matter too. I hope the first 10 results on google know.
Yes. You are absolutely right on this.My reason is very simple. wear what is appropriate in the eyes of God. man wear pants and women wear a dress or skirt. very simple.
For an apologist site, they sure throw up one heck of a strawman. If you read, all the Church documentation is referenced to modesty, not pants. Pants are mentioned here…I’m going to try to help you out wisdomseeker. (though, I’m not picking sides.) But here is some arguments for not wearing pants (on woman) …
An interesting read at least …
catholicapologetics.info/morality/modesty/dress.htm
…but this is not Church teaching, but the author’s statement. Interestingly enough, with all the documentation for modesty, he does not document this leap of logic. If one does a Church, pants are mentioned four times, not once by the Church.IN GENERAL, clothes should hide the shape of the body rather than accentuate it. Only this kind of clothing can truly be called “decent”. This rule
automatically excludes slacks (which are masculine apparel) for women.
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.The majority of the world’s Catholics live in third world countries and hundreds of millions of them in poverty. Often they are lucky to even have shorts, t-shirts and flip flops. Are you saying they should not be allowed to attend Mass?
For an apologist site, they sure throw up one heck of a strawman. If you read, all the Church documentation is referenced to modesty, not pants.I’m going to try to help you out wisdomseeker. (though, I’m not picking sides.) But here is some arguments for not wearing pants (on woman) …
An interesting read at least …
catholicapologetics.info/morality/modesty/dress.htm
I noted that too.Well, quite frankly, that statement strikes me as racist.
Thank you Gabriel for this.I’m going to try to help you out wisdomseeker. (though, I’m not picking sides.) But here is some arguments for not wearing pants (on woman) …
An interesting read at least …
catholicapologetics.info/morality/modesty/dress.htm
I agree. And some of the stuff concerning sports is hard to swallow. My kids are all swimmers.For an apologist site, they sure throw up one heck of a strawman. If you read, all the Church documentation is referenced to modesty, not pants.
I do think the principles of modesty are laid out very well, though. However, especially when it comes to fashion, one can not use standards from generations past. Also, a Brazilian bishop’s discipline for his Church back in the sixties and seventies never extended beyond his own diocese, or past his death.
One thing I appreciate about Catholic Answers is that it at least tries to stick to what the Church says and does go beyond to promote any agenda. The only thing I learned was to be leary of this site. Of course, I am suspicious of any site that does not explain who they are and what their goals are.
You base this on their dress? How cand one become the judge of another’s heart (excuse me, discerner) based on the casualness of attire? How does one not fall under the condemnation that by whatever judgement he metes out it will be meted out to him? Fear of God would compel me away from such judgement.Answer what?
those who refuse to respect the House of God have already made their choice.
I can not make anyone see.
No, but this one does.No “wisdomseeker”…you were specifically asked several times to post the sources from the Church and you have failed to do so! Why? Because they don’t exist.
I fear that this thread does little but enforce unfair stereotypes of traditionalists. Please, I would exhort all to witness by dress what one believes in one’s heart, but for the sake of God’s mercy do not take offense for God’s sake when there may be no offense. Even when there is sin, as in the case of deliberately immodest dress, unless we ourselves are free of sin, there is a better way of handling such one with love, rather than being the instrument of Satan that drives them from God.2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
So, by advocating for modesty in the Church is an evil thing?For an apologist site, they sure throw up one heck of a strawman. If you read, all the Church documentation is referenced to modesty, not pants.
I do think the principles of modesty are laid out very well, though. However, especially when it comes to fashion, one can not use standards from generations past. Also, a Brazilian bishop’s discipline for his Church back in the sixties and seventies never extended beyond his own diocese, or past his death.
One thing I appreciate about Catholic Answers is that it at least tries to stick to what the Church says and does go beyond to promote any agenda. The only thing I learned was to be leary of this site. Of course, I am suspicious of any site that does not explain who they are and what their goals are.