Modesty in Dress

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike_O
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I had a physical therapist coworker who dressed very modestly and professionally. Some of the other therapists and nurses were trying to convince her to “wear something hot” and “show off her belly” (although not at work, of course). They went on and on about what a cute figure she has and how these types of clothes would look so good on her. It was so nice to hear her reply “I only dress ‘hot’ for one person, and I’m married to him!” The others were left speechless! 😛

Something I have noticed: Many tattooed people (male and female) who normally dress reasonably modestly usually have no qualms about throwing off clothing and showing who knows what piece of skin to show off a tattoo, be it a full back, a belly, a chest, a hip, or whatever :eek:
 
40.png
Consecrated:
I don’t want to hijack the thread, but Dr. Horvat may be “traditionalist” (not such a bad thing), and she may even be “radical”, but I hope that by also naming her “dissident”, the suggestion is not that she does not regard Pope Benedict XI as the true successor of Peter. If this is indeed the intended implication, it is a spurious accusation and one that should not be lightly made. I say all this b/c I do not want someone to toss away her words about modesty b/c someone else has labelled her dissident.

Besides, it is rather funny that one person could be called “traditionalist” and “dissident” in the same sentence. There were never two more fundamentally opposed terms. :whacky:
Click to expand...
I followed up with my statemtent that modesty was important. I followed that up with the statement that it was important for men as well. She is a dissident and a radical traditinalist, thus a “dissident radical traditionalist.” I won’t apologize for that. The website to which she regularly contributes heaps scorn on the post-consiliar Church and she should be ashamed. I find it ironic that she would be the first to cover her head, but obviously feels no need to respect the authority of the Church. The SSPX also do not question that HH Pope Benedict XVI is the legitimate head of the Church, yet they are disobedient formal schismatics. I never accused her (or them, as an aside) of being sedevacanteists.
 
Even traditionalists think she’s radical!

tcrnews2.com/name.html
tcrnews2.com/name.html

But, she’s a darlin’ of the Daily Catholic, and we know how respectful to the Holy Fathers they are, don’t we?

dailycatholic.org/mhorvbio.htm

Who does Marian hang with?
tcrnews2.com/harrison.html

Karl’s commentary:
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_051115.asp

These are her own words. Yeah, you can tell she’s enthusiastic about HH Pope Benedict XVI.

traditioninaction.org/religious/m007rpRatzingerTrueColors_May05.shtml
 
Even in a “perfect world”, without original sin or actual personal sin or lustful men, I have a hard time believing that Our Lady would ever wear a bikini…
 
That without a doubt was the wackiest pamphlet I’ve read in a l o n g time. Apparently the expectation is that we should all catch the subway, coach our kids’ soccer teams, chase our toddlers at the park, etc. dressed like sheep herders in robes down to our ankles and past our elbows (?!?) lest we be tagged with the responsibility for inciting every social ill afflicting our modern world. Seems as if there was plenty amiss back in the age when everyone was still donning the robes.

Didn’t our own good Lord dismiss the application of this type of highly detailed regulation–typical of orthodox Jewish law–to his followers? I prefer to follow Christian tradition, use some common sense when it comes to dress and not get wrapped around the ax handle by those looking to inflict yet another legalistic code of conduct upon the most mundane daily decisions like–what should I wear today. There is a profound difference between being in the world and being of it. Dressing in reasonable conformance with modern styles, weather conditions and activity requirements is not slavish devotion to fashion nor anything close to a moral failing.
 
40.png
Consecrated:
I
Besides, it is rather funny that one person could be called “traditionalist” and “dissident” in the same sentence. There were never two more fundamentally opposed terms. :whacky:
Click to expand...
How about the SSPX? They claim to be traditionalists but are dissidents. They are in Schism.
 
SSPX is NOT in schism. Even Cardinal Hoyos recently said they are NOT is schism. Also read the book, “Schism or Not”.
 
40.png
pbm:
SSPX is NOT in schism. Even Cardinal Hoyos recently said they are NOT is schism. Also read the book, “Schism or Not”.
Click to expand...
SSPX is a schismatic group. See below what the Pope wrote. I think that takes precedence over what someone wrote in a book.
**
John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei 1988
c)In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.**
 
Let’s keep this thread on topic, please. Feel free to start another one discussing SSPX, but this one is for modesty. Thanks 🙂
 
40.png
CatholicSam:
Let’s keep this thread on topic, please. Feel free to start another one discussing SSPX, but this one is for modesty. Thanks 🙂
Click to expand...
👍
 
Here are the wardrobe changes I have deemed appropriate for myself:
  1. Phase shorts except athletic and bathing/board shorts out of my wardrobe in exchange for skirts, skorts, and capris.
  2. Sunday Mass deserves a skirt or dress.
  3. Learn to sew.
  4. Be more stylish.
I think people need to make a personal decision on modesty rather than having the church implement more rules.

Looking great in modest clothes is the best thing we can do to promote modesty.
 
40.png
vluvski:
Here are the wardrobe changes I have deemed appropriate for myself:
  1. Phase shorts except athletic and bathing/board shorts out of my wardrobe in exchange for skirts, skorts, and capris.
  2. Sunday Mass deserves a skirt or dress.
  3. Learn to sew.
  4. Be more stylish.
I think people need to make a personal decision on modesty rather than having the church implement more rules.

Looking great in modest clothes is the best thing we can do to promote modesty.
Click to expand...
👍 :clapping:
 
I’m about convinced that men will stare regardless.

I had a grad school interview this morning, which IMO required a suit. My one suit is a tailored jacket/skirt combo, which is not anywhere near tight-fitting, and is actually a bit large, as I was a little heavier when I bought it. The skirt is below the knee, and I wore said suit with a high-necked shell, nylons, and low-heeled shoes. Fine, right? Sounds fine to me.

As soon as I got out of the car and started walking up to the building, I had men checking out my legs (and yes, they were being rather obvious about it). Mind you, I am very short, and the skirt was at least an inch below the knee, so there wasn’t a huge expanse of visible leg. However, they were still looking. So I have now come to the conclusion that in church, I should never wear a skirt above the ankle lest I cause scandal. In fact, I should probably never wear a shorter skirt at all. Which is a big problem, as I have several very cute knee-length skirts for which I paid good money and have enjoyed wearing. 😦

Now I remember why I lived in giant T-shirts and baggy jeans when I was a young teen. At least then you know there’s nothing for people to stare at.
 
40.png
pbm:
SSPX is NOT in schism. Even Cardinal Hoyos recently said they are NOT is schism. Also read the book, “Schism or Not”.
Click to expand...
Not true. Numerous threads have been devoted to this. A) If you look at the text of what the Cardinal said, the tense of the verb he used, he never said that they were not is schism, and B) even if Cardinal Hoyos thinks differently, it’s what the Pope said that matters (to be Catholic is to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, he determines who is and who is not in communion with him, and in Ecclesia Dei, he clearly calls them schismatic). The entire college of cardinals, let alone one, cannot trump a pope. The SSPX are in schism and they are, in their inidivual members (priests, etc.) possibly heretics. Spend your energy praying that they will come to their senses and return to humble obedience to the Vicar of Christ instead of arguing that they aren’t in schism.

Sorry for the thread hijack, CatholicSam, can’t let it pass, in case an innocent seeker stumbles across untruth. Back to your regularly scheduled thread.
 
Men with no shirts on?,.,I never give them a second glance.

I am a mature adult woman, seen one chest ya seen them all kinda mentality. :sleep:

To a teen age girl?,.,she most likely will just see an “old” man with hair and a “spare tire”. :bigyikes:
 
I could not find a forum or a forum catagory for this topic of
SSPX in Schism. I could not find a way to create a new forum
topic. So I am force to reply here. If the moderator wants to
create a new forum topic called, Tradition, and a subtopic called
SSPX, I will post there. Actually, I think it should be added.

Here is my response:

SSPX is NOT in Schism. Here is the proof. One does not
need to ask the pope’s opinion. One can actually judge by
the actions of the SSPX group and the definition of schism.

What is schism?

Schism is NOT recognizing the pope as the Vicar of Christ and head of the Catholic Church.

An act of disobedience alone does NOT constitute schism.
  1. SSPX does recognize the pope.
  2. Pope John Paul II was NOT speaking infallibly on this matter.
In the formal definition of schism, disobedience does not equal a schismatic act. The two are often confused.

Thererfore, Pope John Paul II’s statement is NOT correct.
The pope was NOT speaking infallibly. We do not have to believe the pope on this matter. If the pope says the world is flat, we do not have to believe him.

One needs to understand the issue of when the pope is speaking infallibly and when he is not. One also needs to understand the meaning of schism.

Michael Davies wrote a book about this subject and gives a great
defense of SSPX. Also the book, “Schism or Not” is a good one.

The pope is not a dictator, sorry. When he makes an error and
it can be proved to be an error, we do not have to believe him.

How can the pope be more accepting of the Jews and Muslims than SSPX? The Jews do not recognize the pope and neither
do the Muslims.

It makes the pope look kind of unbelieveable.

Many modern Catholics do not understand the concept,
Faith is Greater than Obedience, which seems to apply here.
 
40.png
pbm:
I could not find a forum or a forum catagory for this topic of
SSPX in Schism. I could not find a way to create a new forum
topic. So I am force to reply here. If the moderator wants to
create a new forum topic called, Tradition, and a subtopic called
SSPX, I will post there. Actually, I think it should be added.

Here is my response:

SSPX is NOT in Schism. Here is the proof. One does not
need to ask the pope’s opinion. One can actually judge by
the actions of the SSPX group and the definition of schism.

What is schism?

Schism is NOT recognizing the pope as the Vicar of Christ and head of the Catholic Church.

An act of disobedience alone does NOT constitute schism.
  1. SSPX does recognize the pope.
  2. Pope John Paul II was NOT speaking infallibly on this matter.
In the formal definition of schism, disobedience does not equal a schismatic act. The two are often confused.

Thererfore, Pope John Paul II’s statement is NOT correct.
The pope was NOT speaking infallibly. We do not have to believe the pope on this matter. If the pope says the world is flat, we do not have to believe him.

One needs to understand the issue of when the pope is speaking infallibly and when he is not. One also needs to understand the meaning of schism.

Michael Davies wrote a book about this subject and gives a great
defense of SSPX. Also the book, “Schism or Not” is a good one.

The pope is not a dictator, sorry. When he makes an error and
it can be proved to be an error, we do not have to believe him.

How can the pope be more accepting of the Jews and Muslims than SSPX? The Jews do not recognize the pope and neither
do the Muslims.

It makes the pope look kind of unbelieveable.

Many modern Catholics do not understand the concept,
Faith is Greater than Obedience, which seems to apply here.
Click to expand...
I’ll start another thread with your post first. Then we can discuss it after I get back from making lesson plans, though I doubt I’ll be the first to respond.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top