Proper Dress and Behavior for Catholic Men

  • Thread starter Thread starter Extempore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ppasa316 said:
I guess what your saying is that because of what i wear, i am not living a holy life. Show me in God’s Word where we are supposed to be dressed in a certain way to be saved or lead a holy life. I believe in a Holy God who doesn’t condemn us for what we wear. Get Real 🙂
Click to expand...
  1. The discussion is about what you wear in Mass, not generally.
  2. While I appreciate the Protestant (name removed by moderator)ut in the discussion, I don’t think it is really relevant due to the fact that (correct me if I’m wrong) Protestant denominations do not believe that Christ is really, truly present in tangible form at your services. Thus, while an argument could still be made that one should dress nicely to a Protestant service, there isn’t the same level of moral imperative present.
  3. I believe you entirely missed the point in Ottaviani’s post. The same way people who use the example of a tribesman in Papua New Guinea are missing the point. Christ spent time with sinners, yes, but he never adopted the habits of sinners, the sinners, once repentant, adopted the habits of Christ. We should model this example and conform ourselves to tradition and not try to make tradition conform itself to our tastes and preferences. Traditionally, people dressed modestly and nicely for Church.
  4. No, God doesn’t condemn us for what we wear. We condemn ourselves by making stupid and ultimately irreverent decisions. The choice is ours which opens up the way for our failed human nature and pride to replace our reason.
 
Extempore said:
  1. The discussion is about what you wear in Mass, not generally.
  2. While I appreciate the Protestant (name removed by moderator)ut in the discussion, I don’t think it is really relevant due to the fact that (correct me if I’m wrong) Protestant denominations do not believe that Christ is really, truly present in tangible form at your services. Thus, while an argument could still be made that one should dress nicely to a Protestant service, there isn’t the same level of moral imperative present.
  3. I believe you entirely missed the point in Ottaviani’s post. The same way people who use the example of a tribesman in Papua New Guinea are missing the point. Christ spent time with sinners, yes, but he never adopted the habits of sinners, the sinners, once repentant, adopted the habits of Christ. We should model this example and conform ourselves to tradition and not try to make tradition conform itself to our tastes and preferences. Traditionally, people dressed modestly and nicely for Church.
  4. No, God doesn’t condemn us for what we wear. We condemn ourselves by making stupid and ultimately irreverent decisions. The choice is ours which opens up the way for our failed human nature and pride to replace our reason.
Click to expand...
I didn’t ask what the church says or someone’s opinion. I asked where in God’s Word does it say how a man should dress in church. 🤷
 
ppasa316 said:
I didn’t ask what the church says or someone’s opinion. I asked where in God’s Word does it say how a man should dress in church. 🤷
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure this would be covered in any number of passages that cover the amount of devotion and love we should give to Him. As such, an oil stained Dale Earnheart shirt would be falling way short of the mark.
 
My mass attire: Oxford style shirts and khaki pants in winter, and polo style shirts and khaki pants in summer. Derby shoes, cordovan leather belt, khaki socks.
 
I’m not sure where I heard this, but someone once said, “suits are laymen’s vestments” or something like that. Of course, it’s not official or anything, but it used to be always accepted that this was the case. The only exception I think would be people who couldn’t afford it.
 
Matariel said:
I’m not sure where I heard this, but someone once said, “suits are laymen’s vestments” or something like that. Of course, it’s not official or anything, but it used to be always accepted that this was the case. The only exception I think would be people who couldn’t afford it.
Click to expand...
I got my first suit at goodwill, and it only set me back 12 bucks. Looked GREAT too:)
 
For Mass, at a minimum I wear a nice polo w/ khakis. In most cases its a shirt and tie. Jeans are a big no no.
Bible study is a different story. It is very casual.

The last week of my RCIA class I did wear a Star Wars shirt with a picture of Darth Vader that read " I find your lack of faith disturbing".
 
Eddie_Mac said:
I think we can reach an understanding that dress at Mass is not important when the priest (please, Blessed Mother, do not take this like I mean it) does not clothe himself in his vestments and officiates at Mass in shorts, flip flops, and a beer shirt from spring break.

Eddie Mac
Click to expand...
Surely you’re not suggesting that the laity are under the same obligations as the priest, who stands in persona Christi in order to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice? The two are not comparable.

As for ‘laymans’ vestments’ - if laymen HAVE a liturgical vestment it is the alb - representing our baptismal garment. Not the suit, not the knee-length dress, not the skirt and not the veil or mantilla. ‘Clothing’ and ‘liturgical vestments’ again are not to be confused.

And clothing? Not only did St Francis of Assisi deliberately renounce wealth and dress, day in and day out, in Church and out of it, in whatever rags he could beg, but after the Pope made a wisecrack about his dishevelled appearance, the saint DELIBERATELY went and jumped in a pigsty before meeting with the Holy Father a second time.

And in the meantime the Pope had seen that same dishevelled man literally holding up the collapsing church. Not a Pope or bishop in all his regalia, nor a wealthy man in fancy threads, but a beggar - one who deliberately chose a life of beggary. And the Pope embraced this stinking poorly dressed man as a brother.

Surely if nothing else, this story teaches us that we can agree to disagree about matters of dress, (provided of course that the dress is modest).
 
LilyM said:
As for ‘laymans’ vestments’ - if laymen HAVE a liturgical vestment it is the alb - representing our baptismal garment. Not the suit, not the knee-length dress, not the skirt and not the veil or mantilla. ‘Clothing’ and ‘liturgical vestments’ again are not to be confused.
Click to expand...
You missed the whole point of the suits-vestments thing. It’s not to be taken literally as if they were real vestments. It’s just like the other phrase “the broomstick is the deacon’s crosier”. It’s not to be taken literally. I think you missed the point.
 
LilyM said:
And clothing? Not only did St Francis of Assisi deliberately renounce wealth and dress, day in and day out, in Church and out of it, in whatever rags he could beg, but after the Pope made a wisecrack about his dishevelled appearance, the saint DELIBERATELY went and jumped in a pigsty before meeting with the Holy Father a second time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but utilizing your preceding argument, it would be incorrect to emulate St. Francis’s form of dress because he was a member of the clergy and therefore was held to a different standard than we laypeople.

Helps to be consistent. 👍
 
Extempore said:
Yeah, but utilizing your preceding argument, it would be incorrect to emulate St. Francis’s form of dress because he was a member of the clergy and therefore was held to a different standard than we laypeople.

Helps to be consistent. 👍
Click to expand...
As it happens was NOT a clergyman at all. He was never ordained, considering himself too humble for the honour. Therefore in liturgical terms a layperson just like you and me, and certainly never officiated in persona Christ at a Mass in his life.

Nothing inconsistent about my comment at all. See, it helps not to make assumptions of that kind 👍

Not to mention he advised poverty also for the many Secular (lay) Franciscans who have since followed his rule.
 
Ottaviani said:
I’m pretty sure this would be covered in any number of passages that cover the amount of devotion and love we should give to Him. As such, an oil stained Dale Earnheart shirt would be falling way short of the mark.
Click to expand...
Just what I thought. Thanks anyway:)
 
I must agree with LilyM here.

Personally, I make it a point to always wear a white t-shirt, and sweat pants. I don’t care what people wear to church, EXCEPT anything immodest or unchristian. There are two reasons for why I do this. First, is that I’m a very prideful person and if I go to Mass in anything nicer I can’t help myself from looking around in disdain at those who didn’t dress up. Since, I hated this feeling and I think it’s sinful to judge what others are wearing during mass, I kept to my promise of “avoiding the near occasion of sin” and wear the humblest clothes I can think of, without being distracting to others or immodest. Also, I like the idea of wearing white. The only time I don’t do this is on Easter, Christmas, or daily mass during work when I have nice clothes on anyway and I find that I fit in then anyway.

I do think that there should be some type of dress code established by the Bishop or something so that we can rid ourselves of this unnecessary distraction.
 
davymax3 said:
I must agree with LilyM here.

Personally, I make it a point to always wear a white t-shirt, and sweat pants. I don’t care what people wear to church, EXCEPT anything immodest or unchristian. There are two reasons for why I do this. First, is that I’m a very prideful person and if I go to Mass in anything nicer I can’t help myself from looking around in disdain at those who didn’t dress up. Since, I hated this feeling and I think it’s sinful to judge what others are wearing during mass, I kept to my promise of “avoiding the near occasion of sin” and wear the humblest clothes I can think of, without being distracting to others or immodest. Also, I like the idea of wearing white. The only time I don’t do this is on Easter, Christmas, or daily mass during work when I have nice clothes on anyway and I find that I fit in then anyway.

I do think that there should be some type of dress code established by the Bishop or something so that we can rid ourselves of this unnecessary distraction.
Click to expand...
I had a rather lengthy reply typed up to this, but my computer unfortunately deleted it, so I’ll be brief instead. A couple of quick reactions:
  1. I really admire your desire to try to avoid being an object of distraction to others but sadly the truth of the matter is that no matter what you wear, people will always be distracted, judgmental and prideful. These are all human tendencies that can not be erased, even if we were to all wear the same thing to Mass.
  2. For those who wanted a Biblical justification for dressing up, one example I can think of is the example of the Nativity when the three Kings came from various corners of the world bringing their best Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh to present to the Child Jesus. In the same way, I think we should bring our best to Mass.
  3. Our “best” doesn’t just refer to our outward appearance. Our inside (soul) should be well-groomed too and free from mortal sin. However, I think that once one of these two is in order, it naturally follows that we would want the other to be in order as well. The two are not wholly unrelated.
  4. Finally, while appearing well-groomed and well-kept at Mass is not something that will affect the state of our soul, I do think has an important place as being yet another way in which we can practice the Christian ethic of dying to ourselves in order bringing our own will in line with our reason and the Divine Will. By resisting our human temptations towards slothfulness and disorder even in the smallest areas, we can build up our will so that when the big temptations come, we will be able to better resist them.
 
LilyM said:
As it happens was NOT a clergyman at all. He was never ordained, considering himself too humble for the honour. Therefore in liturgical terms a layperson just like you and me, and certainly never officiated in persona Christ at a Mass in his life.

Nothing inconsistent about my comment at all. See, it helps not to make assumptions of that kind 👍

Not to mention he advised poverty also for the many Secular (lay) Franciscans who have since followed his rule.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to fight you on this because I don’t think the example is particularly broad-reaching in relevance, since most Catholics are not called to lead an ascetic lifestyle. Yes, St. Francis did found a priestly order that is dedicated to material poverty, which I think is laudable. However, I don’t think that there is a logical connection between the example of St. Francis and your apparent suggestion that he would have disapproved of dressing decently for Mass.

I think you use the example because you think that St. Francis’s teachings regarding material poverty are not in line with my suggestions that one ought to dress well for Mass. Do realize, of course, that when I say “dress well” this will mean something different depending on whether you are a Dominican sister, a Franciscan Priest or a Catholic layperson as you will have different resources available at your disposal. Being well-groomed at Mass has absolutely nothing to do with material poverty or economic circumstance. It is something attainable by rich and poor alike, and something which - if I may be so bold as to speculate - I might guess St. Francis would have agreed with.

Think of Jesus’s admonitions regarding fasting. He tells us to groom ourselves, to not have the appearance of slovenliness in order to have it appear that we are fasting. I think that dressing sloppily and poorly to get attention can be just as much of a pride issue as dressing expensively to gain attention.

Neither is the right approach and they both miss the point entirely.
 
John_Augustine said:
I think that behaviour is far more important that dress. Once you’ve seen half-naked tribesmen in Papua New Guinea bow to an altar or genuflect before the Tabernacle then you know it’s what’s on the inside that really counts.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The USA is not Papua, New Guinea.

It’s still a selfish thing to think only of one’s own comfort. Remind me—which of the cardinal virtues is selfishness?
 
EXACTLY!! I tried to make this point in an earlier post. It is just as easy to be prideful in “dressing down”, for any number of reasons. How many times I’ve heard “No MAN can tell me what to wear!!”
Extempore said:
I think that dressing sloppily and poorly to get attention can be just as much of a pride issue as dressing expensively to gain attention.

Neither is the right approach and they both miss the point entirely.
Click to expand...
 
Love_the_Lorax said:
EXACTLY!! I tried to make this point in an earlier post. It is just as easy to be prideful in “dressing down”, for any number of reasons. How many times I’ve heard “No MAN can tell me what to wear!!”
Click to expand...
Yes, the operative word being “can.” I think everyone’s circumstances are different and everyone must look into their hearts and find the answer. As it comes to clothes the primary goal should be to be modest. I don’t see why it should be so wrong for someone to wear something simple and plain. I think we all agree that God does not care if we wear a collar. The point people are making is that it’s an expression of our respect for being in his presence, etc. This only works if it’s a true expression. If wearing a collar to you is an expression of your respect towards God, then good. Go ahead and do it. But if wearing something else is somebody else’s expression of our respect towards God than who are you to challenge that? Certainly it is respectful in a business setting to wear a suit. So you say, oh! well then we should at least wear a suit to church!.

This is contradicted by a simple point. Languages use the informal second person pronoun to speak to God, yet, the formal second person is used in business settings and such. “thee” “thy” “thou” are actually the informal forms in English, “you” being formal. That’s why we say, “Our Father… hallowed be THY name” So is it rude to say that since that’s technically the informal? This is confused further because many think thee is formal :). But read a translation in another language where this distinction is made and you’ll see what I mean.

The point of doing that is that God is above any earthly formalities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top