Extremely Conservative Dress

[fabricdragon]

I know that it would create confusion, but I have always wanted to cover my head. I wish there was a “non-Islamic” type of head covering, I dont want to offend Islam or mislead people by wearing their type of head covering, but it would be interesting to have a ‘Christian’ style.

I dont know if I would want to wear it every day forever, but I just would like to see what its like.

i know others have answered this, but
www.tznius.com has a section of “how to” wrap scarves.
i have worn tznius.com/cgi-bin/dutch.pl style the “dutch crown” for ages… in church and just about…
no one has EVER mistaken me for Muslim, (its not modest enough for a Muslim Hijab) and i only had one person ask if i was Jewish, and thats because i was in a Jewish neighborhood…
since i buy pretty scarves that match the colors of my clothes, its just “fashion”

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

Muslim conservative dressing (complete covering) predates Islam, it was part of Arab culture, even Tertullian around AD 200 writes on it:

Arabia’s heathen **females will be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face **also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face. A female would rather see than be seen.–Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins, Ch 17

 

[iglueasp]

There’s a statue of Mary in front of a local church. She’s wearing her veil and looking up to heaven praying. Every time I walk by the statue I think, “Now there’s a woman dressed in a godly way.”

I don’t think we should start any cults over how we dress or anything, but in general, women would look a lot more dignified and edifying if they dressed more like Mary and less like Richard Simmons.

 

[fabricdragon]

Muslim conservative dressing (complete covering) predates Islam, it was part of Arab culture, even Tertullian around AD 200 writes on it:

anyone who lives in a desert, or very dusty environment, tends to be very covered… it just makes plain sense! my friends who are posted in Afghanistan area have said the dust there is like “moon dust” it acts like gritty smoke and destroys electronics and etc… they have been using scarves to cover their faces to protect form the dust…

not saying anything about the culture or Islam. just pointing out that climate has a lot to do with it too!

 

[SHW]

I’m not necessarily down with the burqa thing, but I’d like to see much more modest in dress all around. Maybe we could start in church. Even at Holy Mass, there are a lot of women displaying the goods way too prominently.

Sometimes I feel like I accidentally walked into a Britney Spears video.

I would love to see more decent clothing. Many people don’t know the difference between dressing nicely for Church and dressing up for a party.

Clothing worn to church should not attract attention to oneself.

Dressing up for a party should be modest also. If a woman dresses for a party and then looks at herself in the mirror and then thinks, “I look sexy (or hot, etc.),” then she needs to change her clothes and put on something modest.

 

[SHW]

Muslim conservative dressing (complete covering) predates Islam, it was part of Arab culture, even Tertullian around AD 200 writes on it:

Hyperbole. Jesus also said, “If your eye causes you to sin, then pluck it out,” etc.

 

[mullenpm]

"I asked a priest about this and he said that hats are no longer required by Canon Law. He said that women’s head coverings became elaborate status symbols in the West instead of remaining as modest garments to show submission to God."

I believe this comment by your Priest is entirely unfair and untrue. :knight2: Nowhere does Canon Law say that women should not cover their heads when entering a church.

I wear a head covering when I enter a church - whether for Mass or for Adoration and I do not wear that covering to make any kind of fashion statement. I cover my head out of respect for the House of God. And, I might say I am not the only woman in my church to cover her head for Mass.

:byzsoc:

 

[SHW]

"I asked a priest about this and he said that hats are no longer required by Canon Law. He said that women’s head coverings became elaborate status symbols in the West instead of remaining as modest garments to show submission to God."

I believe this comment by your Priest is entirely unfair and untrue. :knight2: Nowhere does Canon Law say that women should not cover their heads when entering a church.

I wear a head covering when I enter a church - whether for Mass or for Adoration and I do not wear that covering to make any kind of fashion statement. I cover my head out of respect for the House of God. And, I might say I am not the only woman in my church to cover her head for Mass.

:byzsoc:

The priest is correct.

Women used to cover their heads in church because it used to be required by the Church’s Code of Canon Law. When they revised the Code of Canon Law in 1983, it was decided that head coverings for women were no longer required due to the fact that women were drawing attention to themselves in church by their elaborate/fancy hats and so this is why the old Canon Law pertaining to women’s head coverings is not now part of the new revised Code of Canon Law which is in force presently.

Women do not have to cover their heads any more. It is not required by the Code of Canon Law.

It is fine to personally choose to modestly cover your head in church as a sign of submission and respect to God, but it has not been required by the revised Code of Canon Law since 1983 and so women who do not cover their heads are not displeasing God.

Some women that I have met (I’m not speaking of you) actually look down on other women who do not cover their heads in church and they believe that because they cover their own heads, then they are more righteous than those who do not cover their heads. This reminds me of the story of the Pharisee in Luke 18:10-14.

In ancient times, women wore elaborate hairstyles, braided and dressed with jewels, ribbons, etc., as status symbols in their culture. Paul told them to cover their heads in church in order to be modest so that they would not draw attention to themselves. In America, women’s head coverings became the status symbols, and not the hairstyles. So, the purpose for the head coverings as a sign of submission and modesty was no longer valid due to the head coverings themselves becoming the distractions and so head coverings for women are no longer required by Canon Law. Long hair for women was important in their culture. It is not important in ours.

St. Paul states “because of the angels.” Paul is comparing the necessity of women to be modest in Church to the modesty displayed by the Seraphim angels who are present in all the churches wherever the Blessed Sacrament is.

1 Corinthians 11:10
For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

The Seraphim adore Jesus Christ who is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity on the altar under the appearances of bread and wine and they use 2 wings of their 6 wings to cover their faces so that they do not attract attention to themselves (from other angels) while they are adoring Jesus on the altar.

 

[consecrated_one]

Hello,
I just wanted to cast my vote for the Islamic dressing style or the Indian/Hindu.
It seems comfortable, modest and functional. I get stuck with skirts that ride up, turtlenecks that constrict and sweaters that look lumpy! I’m 50, bring on full body covering!
Seriously, I do wonder how we got from Our Blessed Mother to mostly naked rock stars.
It seems to have gone hill very rapidly, according to my Sophmore daughter, her fashion class was a real revelation. Coco Channel sylized pants in 1914? Doesn’t seem right but that’s what my fashion student told me.
God Bless us all as we try to fight the pop-culture!

 

[SHW]

Hello,
I just wanted to cast my vote for the Islamic dressing style or the Indian/Hindu.
It seems comfortable, modest and functional. I get stuck with skirts that ride up, turtlenecks that constrict and sweaters that look lumpy! I’m 50, bring on full body covering!
Seriously, I do wonder how we got from Our Blessed Mother to mostly naked rock stars.
It seems to have gone hill very rapidly, according to my Sophmore daughter, her fashion class was a real revelation. Coco Channel sylized pants in 1914? Doesn’t seem right but that’s what my fashion student told me.
God Bless us all as we try to fight the pop-culture!

The Chinese, both men and women, wore modest trousers/pants before Coco Channel, and they considered them fashionable. .

 

[fabricdragon]

Hello,
I just wanted to cast my vote for the Islamic dressing style or the Indian/Hindu.
It seems comfortable, modest and functional. I get stuck with skirts that ride up, turtlenecks that constrict and sweaters that look lumpy! I’m 50, bring on full body covering!
Seriously, I do wonder how we got from Our Blessed Mother to mostly naked rock stars.
It seems to have gone hill very rapidly, according to my Sophmore daughter, her fashion class was a real revelation. Coco Channel sylized pants in 1914? Doesn’t seem right but that’s what my fashion student told me.
God Bless us all as we try to fight the pop-culture!

CoCo was responsible for making pants “stylish” in the upper classes of Europe at that time… true
but pants have gone in and out of fashion all over the world, for BOTH men and women, throughout history.

Islam, for instance has women wear pants… as did the Muslim/persian/Indian fusion of the Moghul empire… China had pants at various times for both genders… India has the wrap skirt/pants “Dhoti” that has variations worn by men and women…etc etc

and oh yes, fashion class is a revelation all right! i do medieval re creation and fashion used to change… well it changed a LOT but it did so fairly slowly… you saw a prevailing theme modify slowly over a century… as we got closer to the present the fashions changed FAST.

whats truly odd to a fashion historian, is that throughout history MEN showed their legs. think about henry the 8th… stockings! MEN wore high heels, (louis the 14th) and MEN showed legs… women had clothes to the floor. (although they might show a lot fo cleavage, or not)

suddenly, in the 20th century. you had women wearing short skirts and men wearing complete leg coverings… and it has stayed that way all century. women showing leg, men dont

 

[mullenpm]

SHD, I must say that I predate VII so I am well aware of how we (women) dressed when attending Mass.

The poster said that her Priest implied that Canon Law said that women were not to cover their heads when entering church and anyone who did was trying to call attention to themselves.

Canon Law does not say that women MUST NOT COVER THEIR HEADS. I have worn a head covering when entering a church since I was old enough to walk and I have continued that practice.:byzsoc:

I would challenge any woman to have an audience with Our Holy Father with no covering on her head. Wouldn’t happen. And, if the Holy Father rates a head covering how much more does entering the House of Our Lord God.

 

[SHW]

SHD, I must say that I predate VII so I am well aware of how we (women) dressed when attending Mass.

The poster said that her Priest implied that Canon Law said that women were not to cover their heads when entering church and anyone who did was trying to call attention to themselves.

Canon Law does not say that women MUST NOT COVER THEIR HEADS. I have worn a head covering when entering a church since I was old enough to walk and I have continued that practice.:byzsoc:

I would challenge any woman to have an audience with Our Holy Father with no covering on her head. Wouldn’t happen. And, if the Holy Father rates a head covering how much more does entering the House of Our Lord God.

I also predate VII. I also know the current Code of Canon Law regarding head coverings for women.

A head covering for women is not required when they visit the pope. A head covering is not required to attend Mass. Also, the pope does not go against his own teachings.

In 1983, Pope John Paul II abrogated the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Head coverings are no longer required for women in the new 1983 Code of Canon Law.

If I ever get the chance to visit with the pope, I will not be wearing a head covering. People may wear them if they want to out of personal choice, but they are not required to wear them. Any priest who demands that women cover their heads while in church is flouting Canon Law. In other words, he is disobedient to Church Law if he does this.

 

[beafedor]

I’m glad somebody started this thread. Not that I’m a fan of burka robes (I still want to be identify as a Christian) but I’m also trying to find new ways to be modest in my clothing.

3 years ago, all I wanted was to catch people’s attention, to show off my body in skin tight shirts and very short skirts/low rise skinny pants.

Since my conversion, my shirts are a great deal bigger and loose fitting, my pants legs are larger, higher on the waist and my skirts down to the ground. I’ve also stopped wearing make-up and most of my jewelry. Never shop at the mall, don’t care about fashion trends.

I have a hard time going to the beach or the pool because I just hate to show my body. So I wear a big, light shirt on top of my bathing suit and put a towel on my lap when sitting on a chair.

Not that I’m ashamed of my figure, but my body belongs to my husband and he is the only person in the world who should see it (not to mention it’s the temple of the Holy Spirit).

It’s funny how the more you advance on your faith journey, the more covered you want your body to be (in my case it goes with the detestation of some of my past sins). I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks that way. We should start a club or a CAF group, what do you think?

 

[SHW]

I’m glad somebody started this thread. Not that I’m a fan of burka robes (I still want to be identify as a Christian) but I’m also trying to find new ways to be modest in my clothing.

3 years ago, all I wanted was to catch people’s attention, to show off my body in skin tight shirts and very short skirts/low rise skinny pants.

Since my conversion, my shirts are a great deal bigger and loose fitting, my pants legs are larger, higher on the waist and my skirts down to the ground. I’ve also stopped wearing make-up and most of my jewelry. Never shop at the mall, don’t care about fashion trends.

I have a hard time going to the beach or the pool because I just hate to show my body. So I wear a big, light shirt on top of my bathing suit and put a towel on my lap when sitting on a chair.

Not that I’m ashamed of my figure, but my body belongs to my husband and he is the only person in the world who should see it (not to mention it’s the temple of the Holy Spirit).

It’s funny how the more you advance on your faith journey, the more covered you want your body to be (in my case it goes with the detestation of some of my past sins). I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks that way. We should start a club or a CAF group, what do you think?

I agree that the more a person advances on his/her faith journey, the more modestly he/she desires to cover his/her body. It is the temple of the Holy Spirit and He is a jealous God.

Exodus 34:14
(for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),

Many people “worship” their own bodies and pamper them excessively as a result. They also want other people to notice them and admire them.

Modest clothing does not mean that women have to wear long skirts and veils whether in church or out. A woman can wear pants and be modestly dressed. She can also wear a skin tight skirt and not be modestly dressed. It depends on how tight and/or revealing the clothing is.

I stopped swimming a couple of years ago. I did not want to be seen in public in a bathing suit because of modesty concerns. Perhaps I would use a hot tub or jacuzzi if I had one at my own home, but since I do not want to take care of one, I doubt that I will ever buy one.

As I continue my faith journey, I am purging the extra, unnecessary things in my life in order to better serve God. This is not an easy thing for me to do (I’m one of those persons who thinks that “whatever it is that I am considering getting rid of” might come in handy some day so I should keep it just in case). I know, however, that I will be happier with less “stuff” so I am gathering another load together to take to charity soon. I do not want to be materialistic so I think of Mother Teresa’s nuns who are only allowed two saris and a bucket to wash them in. Their example helps to motivate me to sort out my own things and give them away.

Matthew 7:13-14
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 

[consecrated_one]

Hello,
I have also noticed that as I grow in my faith I expect more out of myself, a higher level of behavior. I am having a very difficult time with my teenage daughter. She is more modest than most but there’s the “jeans” issue! It is very difficult to find attractive but modest clothing for younger (teen) ladies. I am very comfortable wearing only dresses or skirts, and in my home, by myself, I wear a headcovering. It feels very special and right for me.
I would be happy to contribute in any way to a group of some sort.

 

[Inwe86]

I’ve never gone extreme with my clothing. A woman can dress fashionably without becoming immodest. I’ve actually had many young men tell me that I dress very modestly.

 

[SHW]

I’ve never gone extreme with my clothing. A woman can dress fashionably without becoming immodest. I’ve actually had many young men tell me that I dress very modestly.

I agree. I dress modestly, but not in a manner that draws attention to me by my clothing choices. In other words, the pants that I wear are not tight-fitting nor revealing.

 

[consecrated_one]

Hello,
Pants are by their very design revealing. It just varies on how much, how tight, is the eye drawn to the crotch, zipper and pocket placement, the curve of the bottom, etc. But all pants are more revealing than a skirt or dress.

 

[SHW]

Hello,
Pants are by their very design revealing. It just varies on how much, how tight, is the eye drawn to the crotch, zipper and pocket placement, the curve of the bottom, etc. But all pants are more revealing than a skirt or dress.

Re: “Pants are by their very design revealing.”

If that is true, then men should not wear pants either.

Their crotches are in the same place as women’s and so this clothing design (pants) should automatically draw everyone’s attention to this area of their anatomy (if what you say is true). Personally, I think that too-tight clothes reveal what should be kept hidden no matter what the style. And, no; not all pants are more revealing than a skirt or dress.

Perhaps some persons believe that we should all be required to wear tunics like they wore in Jesus’ time.

Bless you, too.