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.
so…I’m working crazy, crazy hours at work–taking work home…working till midnight. Today I decided I HAD to take a lunch so I went to Mass just a few blocks away. I wore what I wore to work on this casual Friday. Clean jeans, black tennis shoes, a long sleeve shirt and a sports type jacket. So…modest…no low rise jeans…no low cut top…no peek a boo going on.

Do you think God’s more concerned about what I was wearing then the fact that I made a point to be there?

Do you think he cares more about a heart that is focused on Him (worshiping Him…thanking Him) instead of a heart that is judging what my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are wearing?
 
I’ve been reading this thread and it’s very interesting to find several things that really need to be addressed and everyone seems to be dancing around them.

First, we have Catholics quoting scripture as if they were Protestants. It is very typical of the Protestant mind-set to quote scripture in order to quiet the opposition. The problem with this is that scripture has to be interpreted using reason. One has to understand what the writer was talking about, the target audience, the situation, and the Church’s use of the passage. We don’t apply biblical morality in a vacuum. That’s what the Church is for. She applies the moral teachings of the Scriptures, not individuals. St. Paul and the Fathers of the Church were very clear that Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation, even when it speaks about men and women dressing this way or that way.

Second, the rule of thumb in the Catholic Church is very simple. It’s called common sense. Common sense tells us what is appropriate for the office, for Church, for play and for the ball. Someone quoted a citation about something that Padre Pio allegedly said about clothing. Padre Pio was reacting to people’s lack of common sense, not to a specific fashion statement. The citation failed to say that Padre Pio never wore pants. I know this for a fact, because we belong to the same religious order. Pants are forbidden. The habit is to be worn with a pair of trousers. Trousers are Francis’ of Assisi’s term for boxer shorts. In the 13th century, boxers reached to the knees, like the shorts that many teens wear today. It took a General Chapter in 1898 to pass a ruling that allowed the friars to wear pants only when wearing the black suit and Roman Collar. Again . . . common sense .

Third, the Church understands different cultures and customs and respects them. In fact, she has been a protector of culture. In many cultures, people do not wear European fashions. When the Franciscans first went to China, we traded the European habit for the dress of a Chinese houseboy. The Jesuits wore saffron cassocks. Jesus’ revelations to Mother Teresa insisted that her sisters and brothers not look like European religious, but like Indian men and women. Therefore, the sisters wear a sari and the brothers wear a white linen shirt and khaki pants with sandals. The Sisters of St. Ann, an Indian congregation, wears a saffron Hindu dress, with long hair tied at the back of their heads and no veil.

Fourth, the Semitic fashion at the time when Scripture was written was for men and women to wear tunics, similar to those worn by the Arab people. There was no difference in the tunic. People wore a mantle to keep warm at night and during the day, they threw it over their shoulders. That’s how we get the European images of Jesus wearing white with a red cloak over his shoulder. See pictures of the Sacred Heart. The images that we have of Jesus and Mary and their clothing are confections by artists, not the actual dress of the first-century. So what were they talking about when they said, “Men should not wear women’s clothing and women not wear men’s clothing”? The pagans at the time had a custom of using same-sex partners to satisfy their lust. They often disguised their partners in clothing of the opposite gender.

Fifth, until the birth of the religious congregations in the post Renaissance Church, the only forms of religious life that existed were monastic and mendicant orders. Neither of them wore pants. Men and women wore the same habit. Look at the Dominicans, Franciscans, Benedictines, Carmelites, Trappists, and Cistercians. The difference was the head covering. From the neck down, the habits are identical, even to this day. We certainly would not accuse St. Francis and St Clare or St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross of cross-dressing (no pun intended). OK, Francis and Clare are not a good example, because they did not have a fixed habit, but the style was similar: a tunic and a chord. But the Dominican nuns and the Dominican friars wear the exact same garments and put them on the same way, as do the Carmelites.

We have to pay attention to the Church’s common sense and stop making rules of our own. If we follow the rules of propriety, modesty, and good taste, we’re OK.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I have received complaints about posts on this thread that suggest discrimination and bigotry toward customs and people of non-Christian cultures. Please avoid such comments. They are inconsistent with Catholicism and with the rules of this forum.

Thomas Casey
Moderator
 
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.
I don’t know which country you come from but come to the Philippines where I live and you will see what I mean. People do not wear t-shirts, shorts and flip flops out of disrespect. Its all many of them can afford.

By the way your whole attitude in this entire thread is most uncharitable and un-Christian like.
The Church only has a dress code regarding modesty, nothing else. Anything else is simply in your snobbish mind!
 
Do you think he cares more about a heart that is focused on Him (worshiping Him…thanking Him) instead of a heart that is judging what my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are wearing?
These are not the only two choices. A heart could be focused on God and therefore want to express gratitude and respect through something external like clothing. A person could believe that it is good to use clothing to express worship and want other people to do so. Being in favour of wearing nice clothes to church does not necessarily make a person judgmental.

Admittedly, the phrasing of the subject line does sound judgmental. I am not offended by people dressing like slobs at church, but it does distress me that so many people do not understand that they could honour God in their clothing. God is so worthy of all honour and praise that it is a shame that people are unaware of this mode of expression.
 
Fourth, the Semitic fashion at the time when Scripture was written was for men and women to wear tunics, similar to those worn by the Arab people. There was no difference in the tunic. People wore a mantle to keep warm at night and during the day, they threw it over their shoulders. That’s how we get the European images of Jesus wearing white with a red cloak over his shoulder. See pictures of the Sacred Heart. The images that we have of Jesus and Mary and their clothing are confections by artists, not the actual dress of the first-century. So what were they talking about when they said, “Men should not wear women’s clothing and women not wear men’s clothing”? The pagans at the time had a custom of using same-sex partners to satisfy their lust. They often disguised their partners in clothing of the opposite gender.
The verse you reference shows that there was a difference between men’s clothing and women’s clothing and the interpretation you are putting on it is yours not that of the tradition of the Church. It has virtually always been considered intrinsically immoral to wear clothing of the opposite sex whether or not it had anything to do with homosexual practices. Here is an excerpt of an article (at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carlaude/Biblical_clothing on clothing of the period:
The dress of women corresponded in the main to that of the men. They also wore the ketonet and simlah. According to Deut. xxii. 5, however, there must have been some difference. The garments of the women were probably longer (compare Nahum iii. 5; Jer. xiii. 22, 26; Isa. xlvii. 2), provided with sleeves (II Sam. xiii. 19), and wider than those of the men, and therefore better adapted to conceal the figure (compare “Zeit. Deutsch. Paläst. Ver.” iv. 60). The dress of noblewomen was distinguished for its luxury and ornaments (compare Isa. iii. 16 et seq.; Ezek. xvi. 10 et seq.), and was even scented with perfumes (Ps. xlv. 8; Cant. iv. 11; compare especially the catalogue in Isa. iii. 16et seq.). The luxury in dress displayed by women in the East at the present day suggests the probability of similarly luxurious habits on the part of their sisters of former times. Niebuhr saw women appear in eight or ten different dresses during one evening. Sandals (“na’alayim”) of leather, fastened with a strap (“serok”; Gen. xiv. 23), were generally worn to protect the feet in summer against the burning sand, and in winter against the damp ground; but they were worn neither in the house nor in the sanctuary (Ex. iii. 5; Josh. v. 15). Otherwise, however, to walk about without sandals was a sign of great poverty (Deut. xxv. 19) or of deep mourning (II Sam. xv. 30; Ezek. xxiv. 17, 23).[8]
 
These are not the only two choices. A heart could be focused on God and therefore want to express gratitude and respect through something external like clothing. A person could believe that it is good to use clothing to express worship and want other people to do so. Being in favour of wearing nice clothes to church does not necessarily make a person judgmental.

Admittedly, the phrasing of the subject line does sound judgmental. I am not offended by people dressing like slobs at church, but it does distress me that so many people do not understand that they could honour God in their clothing. God is so worthy of all honour and praise that it is a shame that people are unaware of this mode of expression.
I dont mean to be judgemental and i dont know what i have said to make anyone think this way. i am not demanding anyone to do anything they dont want to. i am only asking a question. It is what i understand from what the holy father says, he doesnt have to say word for word but i make an effort to read in between the lines about the things he says. he doesnt to have to come out and say how we must dress in the Church. we must adhere to him in helping to bring the Church to be a light to the world. but many are to busy in getting angry instead of taking the time to think about what i am trying to say.

i know many refer to cultures, but the holy father has already warn us about culturalism within the Church. the Church is to change the culture, but today, the culture is being used to change the Church. this is the danger that we face and many seem to simply ignore it. how can we be any different from the world if we just adopt to what is in the world?

I am not the only advocating for what is holy within the Church, there are many other women out there doing the same. many things that have been forgotten about the Church, many are trying to bring it back. if people just listen and seek what is pure, what is holy.

those who goes to TLM Mass dont need to be told what to wear, they know it. I challenge anyone here to tell me if i said anything that is agaisnt the Church. It doesnt take much to realize that the minds of Catholics arent being the same anymore. Jesus will protect His Church no matter what. i have not seen anyone fighting against God win in the end. I know that what i have been saying here is not against what God wants from every one in His Church.
 
I dont mean to be judgemental and i dont know what i have said to make anyone think this way. i am not demanding anyone to do anything they dont want to. i am only asking a question.
Check what you said in your first post: I am asking everyone to dress up, at least a complete dress when going to the House of God. as it too much to ask?
show some respect for the House of the Almighty.

Dressing up for church, done for the right reasons, is a good thing. Deciding that people who have not dressed up do not respect God and being offended by them is not good.
 
The verse you reference shows that there was a difference between men’s clothing and women’s clothing and the interpretation you are putting on it is yours not that of the tradition of the Church. It has virtually always been considered intrinsically immoral to wear clothing of the opposite sex whether or not it had anything to do with homosexual practices. Here is an excerpt of an article (at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carlaude/Biblical_clothing on clothing of the period:
The dress of women corresponded in the main to that of the men. They also wore the ketonet and simlah. According to Deut. xxii. 5, however, there must have been some difference. The garments of the women were probably longer (compare Nahum iii. 5; Jer. xiii. 22, 26; Isa. xlvii. 2), provided with sleeves (II Sam. xiii. 19), and wider than those of the men, and therefore better adapted to conceal the figure (compare “Zeit. Deutsch. Paläst. Ver.” iv. 60). The dress of noblewomen was distinguished for its luxury and ornaments (compare Isa. iii. 16 et seq.; Ezek. xvi. 10 et seq.), and was even scented with perfumes (Ps. xlv. 8; Cant. iv. 11; compare especially the catalogue in Isa. iii. 16et seq.). The luxury in dress displayed by women in the East at the present day suggests the probability of similarly luxurious habits on the part of their sisters of former times. Niebuhr saw women appear in eight or ten different dresses during one evening. Sandals (“na’alayim”) of leather, fastened with a strap (“serok”; Gen. xiv. 23), were generally worn to protect the feet in summer against the burning sand, and in winter against the damp ground; but they were worn neither in the house nor in the sanctuary (Ex. iii. 5; Josh. v. 15). Otherwise, however, to walk about without sandals was a sign of great poverty (Deut. xxv. 19) or of deep mourning (II Sam. xv. 30; Ezek. xxiv. 17, 23).[8]
This is lacking in that it onlt takes into account what Deuteronomy does say, but does not take into account what it does not say. Yes, transvestism is condemned, but there is no definition provided as to what the distinction is between mens and women’s clothes. This is therefore no proof against women wearing pants, as there is a distinction between mens and women’s pants.
 
Check what you said in your first post: I am asking everyone to dress up, at least a complete dress when going to the House of God. as it too much to ask?
show some respect for the House of the Almighty.

Dressing up for church, done for the right reasons, is a good thing. Deciding that people who have not dressed up do not respect God and being offended by them is not good.
yes. all i did was asking. I dont see where the demand term is.
I think the confusion is what consist dress up. i didnt mean dress up as in expensive clothing. i am simply talking about wearing respectfull clothing in the House of God. i think many here understood what i am talking about.
 
I guess I’m just offended by people who care what other people wear. Honestly, its between each person and God. With abortion, genocide, mass rape in the Congo, the priest abuse scandal and how it is causing some parishes to declare bankrupcy, the closure of Catholic schools, hunger, foreclosures, suicides from bullying or from husbands who lose their jobs and can’t provide for their families, and cancer, and euthenasia… how on earth can I have any any offense left for a man wearing flip-flops to church?

And yes, the use of cheap $2 flip-flops for much of the year in order to extend the life of my 2 pairs of leather shoes is a frugal measure. Our Priest wears flip-flops under his vestments. Jesus wore sandals with bare toes exposed but now its a sin to show our toes in the house of the Lord? Please!

I was born lower middle class, and we had many years of a typical corporate semi-affluence, and now after having a child with a disability, we are squarely in the poverty zone, full center. But never, ever did I give a rip what anyone else was wearing at Mass. I have enough motes in my eye, thank you very much.
 
The fact that one attends Mass speaks much more of the state of mind than what they wear. Thats for sure.

Obviously what you or I consider inappropriate would be two different things. It all comes down to when you were born and your generation.

The fact that Jesus and Apostles wore sandles and robes has little bearing on todays society. And the idea that you would attend Mass in the same attire as Christ would be just inappropriate today as Hip-Hop or Strip-Club attire.

Its simply a sign of the times. I place no judgemant on others, who am I as a sinner to pass judgement on another? God Bless them that found the path to the church. God only knows what that individual had to withstand to reach that point. And it very well may be “all” they own in this world thats on their back.

Maybe you should spend a moment and try to understand where these inappropriate individuals are at. Talk to them maybe? You may be very surprized at what you hear. You may even find another who inspires you on Gods path. You may find a heathen struggling to find and make sense of God. And maybe the thought of their dress weighs little on their mind? One thing is for sure you won’t know till you ask and you certainly can’t judge a book by its cover.

I don’t rush to judge or criticize anyone. I can’t pretend to know the Cross they bear nor have I walked in their shoes.

I know that theres many lessons in life not taught in school, and in a New-York minute you could be on an entirely different path with another plan. Then these things you think you know, then you would truly understand.

Go easy on them, there beating the odds and finding God. How they arrive and the condition they are in I would assume matters little to God. The fact they made it speaks volumes for the Soul of that individual.

Just my opinion, take it for what its worth. If you believe I’m full of it, then throw it out the window and you have my permission to say “Gary doesn’t know what he’s talking about”.

But I could tell you this, I worked for years with the poor and homeless, addicted and sick. Often they have way to much pride and are embarrassed to even ask for something they so desperatly “need” not want, like basic needs. If you ask them if they need something they refure. I’ve literally had to place things in peoples hands in order for them to accept it. You have no idea how many times it crossed my mind that in one month, one month under the right circumstances…I could be that guy.

Maybe thers a particular “type” of dressed individual you have in mind? But speaking in “general”, God Bless those who make it to Mass. And I’m not speaking to anyone in particular, just sayin:shrug:
 
This is lacking in that it onlt takes into account what Deuteronomy does say, but does not take into account what it does not say. Yes, transvestism is condemned, but there is no definition provided as to what the distinction is between mens and women’s clothes. This is therefore no proof against women wearing pants, as there is a distinction between mens and women’s pants.
Some posts were questioning whether the OT prohibition on wearing clothing of the opposite sex still stands. That has been the traditional understanding of the Church. Given that we agree on this principle, we must still answer how it applies to women wearing pants. Personally, I see room for legitimate disagreement on the question. My own answer comes from considering this picture:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I think the confusion is what consist dress up. i didnt mean dress up as in expensive clothing. i am simply talking about wearing respectfull clothing in the House of God. i think many here understood what i am talking about.
Personally, I have no problems with what you consider appropriate clothing for church. My standards are similar. My problem is that you take offence at people who wear inappropriate clothing. I suspect this point is drawing much negative attention to your position.
 
Personally, I have no problems with what you consider appropriate clothing for church. My standards are similar. My problem is that you take offence at people who wear inappropriate clothing. I suspect this point is drawing much negative attention to your position.
I personally could careless what people wear. i take offense for God. it is His House and each is responsible for what goes on in His House.

that is why we have so many laity now and days fighting against many ungodly things going on in His Church.

It is not our Church, it is His Church. we must have zeal for the House of God.
this is not about me, it is all about God and His Church.
 
Some posts were questioning whether the OT prohibition on wearing clothing of the opposite sex still stands. That has been the traditional understanding of the Church. Given that we agree on this principle, we must still answer how it applies to women wearing pants. Personally, I see room for legitimate disagreement on the question. My own answer comes from considering this picture:
http://www.clker.com/cliparts/2/b/7...matic_NPS_map_pictographs_part_68.svg.med.png
The problem is that simply because an idea like that symbol is still well understood (and it could simply be argued that it represents that a man shouldn’t be wearing a dress) it doesn’t mean it establishes any sort of rule. There will always be signs of previous cultural norms, but if we attach ourselves to them then our culture can never change. Among College aged Catholics pants on Women isn’t even really a question, we grew up with it being something we witnessed everyday. Change happens and it isn’t always good or bad, it is just change.
 
I personally could careless what people wear. i take offense for God. it is His House and each is responsible for what goes on in His House.

that is why we have so many laity now and days fighting against many ungodly things going on in His Church.

It is not our Church, it is His Church. we must have zeal for the House of God.
this is not about me, it is all about God and His Church.
That’s where the problem in your position lies. You say you take offense for God…so you have decided that dresses for women only is what God wants. That’s taking a might big assumption.

Its going to depend on how people feel in their heart…something we can not judge. The same two people could be wearing the exact same thing. One could have come from washing the car…and not care about changing. The other person…that could be their best and that is what they have changed into for God. How can you possible know which it is? 🤷

Personally…from your post…I think the one poster was right…you are giving traditionalist a bad name. It makes me NOT want to visit a TLM…I sure don’t want to have people looking down their nose at me because I’m wearing pants and don’t have my headcovered. Nor do I want to be responsible for people worried about that instead of focusing on the Mass.
 
yes. all i did was asking. I dont see where the demand term is.
I think the confusion is what consist dress up. i didnt mean dress up as in expensive clothing. i am simply talking about wearing respectfull clothing in the House of God. i think many here understood what i am talking about.
I think I understand where you’re coming from here. Wearing respectful clothing in the House of God is the appropriate thing to do. But in our society, which has become increasingly secularized since the 60’s, many will define ‘respectful’ as meaning that the clothing at least be well-mended, clean, and maybe not wrinkled. I get that this is where many Catholics are today, and that’s fine. But before the '60’s, even poor people differentiated between clothing worn on weekdays and clothing worn to church on Sunday. Sometimes, a woman would have only one nice dress to wear on Sunday.

This is just my take on it: for me (and I don’t expect others to agree at all) going to Mass on Sunday requires more from us than going to Starbucks on a weekday morning. Nothing that we do during the week can compare with meeting Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist at Mass. We are in the presense of God himself. It’s not so much that God cares what we wear, but that our outward appearance should reflect our great love and respect for being in the presence of Him who created us, sustains us, and redeemed us through his extreme suffering and death on the Cross.
 
It is not our Church, it is His Church. we must have zeal for the House of God. this is not about me, it is all about God and His Church.
Consider this passage from the spiritual classic Abandonment to Divine Providence by Fr. De Caussade:
On intemperate and indiscreet zeal.

I see, my dear Sister, that a mistaken zeal exposes you to dangers all the more serious because they are hidden under the most insidious appearances. Desire for the perfection of our neighbour is, doubtless, very good; the pain that is felt interiorly at the sight of his defects is good also, provided it proceeds from a pure desire for his perfection, But with all this there must needs be mingled much secret self-complacency, confidence in one’s own superior light, and severity towards one’s neighbour. Zeal such as this cannot, you must well understand, come from God; it is an illusion of the devil, hurtful to yourself and to others.

St. Teresa of Avila makes a similar point in the Interior Castle: Indiscreet zeal about others must not be indulged in; it may do us much harm; let each one look to herself. How ever, as I have spoken fully on this subject elsewhere, I will not enlarge on it here, and will only beg you to remember the necessity of this mutual affection. Our souls may lose their peace and even disturb other people’s if we are always criticizing trivial actions which often are not real defects at all, but we construe them wrongly through ignorance of their motives. See how much it costs to attain perfection!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top