Religion: No Hooters shirts in Mass, please

[Elizabeth502]

So you’re saying that Mass today holds more importance than sitting at the feet of the Son of Man then?

Mass is sitting at the feet of the Son of Man. You seem to miss that.

If Christ didn’t seem to care when people were actually crowding around him then I don’t think he’d care now.

Again, it’s not a matter of Jesus “caring.” It’s a matter of our caring. You also seem to miss that point, as well. Same point Rich and Tigg have also been communicating.

We honestly sound like the pharisees right now condemning people for

“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” Dirty disrespectful disciples!

Basically the same concept.

No. It is NOT the “same concept” (basically and not basically) because NO ONE IS BEING “CONDEMNED”.

I don’t believe wearing a suit shows if you have faith or not.

Not a single person has equated clothes with faith here. No one. That’s simply manufactured on your part to “win” an argument that has not been made.

So obviously I’ll have to repeat myself:

To be clear, again: When I see others at Mass, in cutoffs & flip-flops (or pajama bottoms ) I treat them as nicely as I treat everybody who is dressed nicer than that. I don’t internally judge them, either. I’m just making a general observation, as I’m sure Rich is, expressing my overall disappointment with a modern culture that is stubbornly focused on personal convenience and comfort (The Self), as opposed to an awareness of joining together as a purposeful community to make a statement about Sunday Mass being a radically different opportunity than the rest of our week.

Sigh.

 

[Allegra]

There is a point where dressing up can be prideful.

Every time I wear a suit to Mass I find myself paying very particular attention to picking out a stylish shirt or the correct tie and worrying how it all looks while in the pew. For me, it can lead to pride.

For me, wearing respectful slacks with a dress shirt and dress shoes, earthtones preferrably, means that I will not be fluffed up with pride but humble, blending in with the crowd - passing unnoticed as St. Josemaria Escriva says.

-Tim-

I absolutly agree about pride. The word “modest” doesn’t just mean women covering up. Is it a church or a fashion show? Frankly, I think we’d all benefit from a rule that all parishoners must atttend Mass in flip flops and monk’s robes. Then no one will have reason to spend the whole Mass trying to measure up skirt lengths and brand names and trying to discern who is holier than who based on their style of clothing.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I absolutly agree about pride. The word “modest” doesn’t just mean women covering up. Is it a church or a fashion show?

Again with the straw men. No fashion show has been suggested. Here again is what I said. You can invent what you believe other people actually think or feel if you like, but own your own fantasies about what exactly they think and feel, because such nonsense thoughts and feelings have not been expressed on this thread, by these posters. For example (again, repeating myself):

There are poor immigrants from poor (3rd World) countries who dress up here to go to church. (Some are Protestant, some are Catholic) Many stay in their finery all day on Sunday. **When I say “finery” I do not mean designer (expensive) clothing, and I do not mean cocktail apparel (over-fancy for church services); nor do I mean Dressing to Impress. Clever people from all walks of life know how to dress merely respectably on very little money. ** Whereas it would never occur to them to purchase 4 pairs of flip-flops to interchange on any particular day, or designer jeans near $100/pr, they have enough imagination to know how to stretch a dollar, so that non-designer jeans can function on 6 days of the week, 1 pair of flip-flops will suffice, one “Sunday” outfit (non-ultra-casual) can be afforded, as well as a few outfits for work (whether office, manual, whatever).

Contrast that with many middle class people who choose to purchase designer jeans & multiple pairs of flip-flops, and buy frankly overpriced casual clothes (speaking of needing to Be Seen), yet complain about the “expense” of a single outfit that could be worn not only to church, but to any number of “formal” (respectful) occasions: visiting court, going to a job interview (hmmm), attending a sacramental occasion, attending a graduation or wedding, etc. I know for a fact such people are often forced to go and purchase an outfit for these occasions when they occur in their lives; interesting that ‘suddenly’ they are able to “find” the money.

**No one is being “judged” by what they wear. It has nothing to do with social approval.**It has to do with personal thoughtfulness, awareness of the moment, and deliberateness. Just say you can’t be bothered to be deliberate, then, about externally distinguishing this Sunday occasion from going to the grocery store or walking the dog. The little effort expended is quite a statement, but OK then.
…Sunday Mass being a radically different opportunity than the rest of our week.

Frankly, I think we’d all benefit from a rule that all parishoners must atttend Mass in flip flops and monk’s robes. Then no one will have reason to spend the whole Mass trying to measure up skirt lengths and brand names and trying to discern who is holier than who based on their style of clothing.

Clearly that’s not going on. (See my pasted quote above.) However, what does appear to be going on here is a different (reverse) form of pride and judgmentalism that apparently measures other people’s spirituality negatively, based on mere individual, nonjudgmental care they take on their own personal appearance on the most important day of the week.

 

[Allegra]

Clearly that’s not going on. (See my pasted quote above.) However, what does appear to be going on here is a different (reverse) form of pride and judgmentalism that apparently measures other people’s spirituality negatively, based on mere individual, nonjudgmental care they take on their own personal appearance on the most important day of the week.

I’ve read dozens of these threads and I’ve seen probably a hundred posters who are clearly calling into question the spirituality of other people based on the fact that they don’t consider their style of clothing to be reverent enough. If you are trying to suggest that these posts do not exist in this thread and every other thread on the same subject, then you are in complete denial and there’s no use trying to reason with you.

I personally see the benefit of taking one’s time to dress in nicer clothes for Mass. I have several dresses that I set aside for Mass. However, I stand by the fact that when someone truely believes they are in the presence of Christ, they are not EVER looking at other people’s clothes. Yes, sir, there ARE people who walk through the doors of church every Sunday for the main purpose of seeing what everyone else’s family is wearing. I expect that many of these honestly think that they can dress up like an attorney and some how manage to fool God into thinking they love Him more than the guy in the khaki shorts does. Some of them have actually managed to convince themselves of this fallacy as well.

I’m telling you, a mass order of brown, plain choir robes would do us all good. If it’s good enough for the religious, it’s good enough for the rest of us.

 

[Elizabeth502]

---

I’ve read dozens of these threads and I’ve seen probably a hundred posters who are clearly calling into question the spirituality of other people based on the fact that they don’t consider their style of clothing to be reverent enough. If you are trying to suggest that these posts do not exist in this thread

Yes I am.

Demonstrate for me, by post # (or quote those posts) IN THIS THREAD, not

and every other thread on the same subject,

(because this thread is not every other thread)…

…where a single poster is

calling into question the spirituality of other people

then you are in complete denial and there’s no use trying to reason with you.

I am “in denial” about my own thoughts and feelings? Apparently I’ll have to warn you that there is an explicit forum rule on CAF prohibiting making assumptions about how other posters think and feel.

Yes, sir, there ARE people who walk through the doors of church every Sunday for the main purpose of seeing what everyone else’s family is wearing.

How would you know what “their main purpose is” in “walking through the doors of church every Sunday”?

(Speaking of “judging” )

 

[pnewton]

People are at different places in their spiritual journeys. Suggestions are okay but they need to be done in charity which also means privacy… At mass is THE place for spiritual growth, but if you don’t get there…

This was my thought, and my problem with all these dress threads. Dress is something that we decide for ourself based on our own tastes, availability and spiritual understanding of Mass. It is something that no one can judge for another, because no one knows the interaction of the various factors. However, if a person dresses inappropriately because of lack of faith, ignorance or spirituality, we should still embrace such a one with welcome. There is no better place for a sick person to be than at the hospital.

 

[Elizabeth502]

***Formal dress ***would be a barrier to some who are on the edge of not attending due to a weakness with staying in bed on Sunday.

[bolding mine]

Again with the false dichotomies. There are only 2 alternatives? super-casual beachwear or “formal dress”? Who has discussed “formal dress” here? I actually noticed only one person who seemed to assume that “a suit” was being suggested, and offered that he feels self-conscious in a suit. I know that I never suggested that.

In the most traditional parish I attend, one occasionally sees a suit at an ordinary Sunday Mass, but not often. Not always are men even dressed in ties, or jackets. Most often they are simply wearing a buttoned shirt (short or long-sleeved, depending on weather) and pants and non-athletic (usually) shoes. A few wear jackets, fewer wear ties, and very few wear suits. Women wear non-formal skirts (daytime skirts), informal dresses, or pants. While there is the occasional woman wearing heels, most do not. Most wear flats or very ordinary shoes.

And quite frankly – because some people on this thread assume that others are ‘watching’ what other people wear, in specifics – I actually had to think about the specifics myself. That 's because I am not focused on specifics of clothes but do have a general sense that there is nothing being worn that would be worn to the beach in the 21st century. So I had to think about it, because all I knew for sure was that there are no jeans, no shorts, no T-shirts, and no flip-flops at this church, on Sundays. Also no pretension and no designer clothing or "fashion shows." Eliminating all of that, I then was able to reconstruct from my visual memory what people do wear: simple, non-fancy clothing appropriate for an occasion that does not belong to garden work, cleaning the house, or washing the dog. Hmmm.

 

[Allegra]

---

Yes I am.

Demonstrate for me, by post # (or quote those posts) IN THIS THREAD, not

(because this thread is not every other thread)…

…where a single poster is

I am “in denial” about my own thoughts and feelings? Apparently I’ll have to warn you that there is an explicit forum rule on CAF prohibiting making assumptions about how other posters think and feel.

How would you know what “their main purpose is” in “walking through the doors of church every Sunday”?

(Speaking of “judging” )

Check out posts number 10, 11, 43, 49, 69, 75,79,86, 87, 106, There might be more, but I’m tired of rereading them. I didn’t say you were in denial about your “thoughts and feelings”. That doesn’t even make sense. What I said was that if you attempt to claim that no one in this thread takes the attitude that a person who dresses in a certain style is more reverent or moral than those who wear another style, you are in denial. In fact, that does seem to be the case. You are denying the existance of statements that have, in fact, been made. Your feelings have nothing to do with the matter. In answer to your question, I have heard several women confess during my parish retreats, Bible study, and other spiritual activities, that at one point their primary concern with going to church was dressing themselves and their children up so they looked “better than” the other families. These women have had their lives transformed by God, thankfully, but yes this mentality does exist and is more common than one would like to think.

 

[louis91766]

Dress is something that we decide for ourself based on our own tastes, availability and spiritual understanding of Mass. It is something that no one can judge for another, because no one knows the interaction of the various factors. .

Holy Scripture says women are to wear headcovering in Church. It does not give any woman the right to decide for themselves on this.

 

[pnewton]

Holy Scripture says women are to wear headcovering in Church. It does not give any woman the right to decide for themselves on this.

No it doesn’t. St. Paul addressed this particular command to the Church at the time. This is why the Catholic Church understands this as a disciplinary practice, not a matter of faith. Your post is also why the Catholic Church is not based on sola scriptura.

Even if you were right ( your position is not that of the Catholic Church, btw), so what. Which one of us were perfect the day we first walked into Church, or the year? If a girl who wears a Hooter’s shirt never grows in her faith, how will she ever learn that it is inappropriate?

Finally, this thread is** not **about head-covering. That is a different, and off-topic, subject. If you have an agenda to promote that, it needs its own thread.

 

[louis91766]

No it doesn’t. St. Paul addressed this particular command to the Church at the time. This is why the Catholic Church understands this as a disciplinary practice, not a matter of faith. Your post is also why the Catholic Church is not based on sola scriptura.

Even if you were right ( your position is not that of the Catholic Church, btw), so what. Which one of us were perfect the day we first walked into Church, or the year? If a girl who wears a Hooter’s shirt never grows in her faith, how will she ever learn that it is inappropriate?

Finally, this thread is** not **about head-covering. That is a different, and off-topic, subject. If you have an agenda to promote that, it needs its own thread.

If women can do what they please and make up their own rules with reference to headcovering in Church, then why should they not be able to make up their own rules with reference to other clothing as well?

 

[pnewton]

If women can do what they please and make up their own rules with reference to headcovering in Church, then why should they not be able to make up their own rules with reference to other clothing as well?

For one thing, this is not something the Church has said. As Catholics, it is the Church we listen to.

 

[louis91766]

For one thing, this is not something the Church has said. As Catholics, it is the Church we listen to.

How is that? The Catholic Church has already said that women are required to wear headcovering, but I haven’t seen any pronouncement on Hooters shirts?
In A.D. 743, Pope St. Zachary I (A.D. 741-752) held a synod in Rome, whose Canon 3 reprises the teaching of St. Paul: “[A] woman praying in church without her head covered brings shame upon her head, according to the word of the Apostle …].”
And in about 1876,
the Sacred Congregation of Rites received from the Rev. Caesar Uberti, Master of Ceremonies of the Archbishop of Ravenna, the following dubium: “Whether women assisting at sacred functions …] are obliged to cover the head?”

On July 7, 1876, the Congregation replied: “Affirmative.” Cf. Ravannaten., July 7,1876, n. 3402, in Decreta Authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Rituum ex actis eiusdem collecta ejusque auctoritate promulgate, Romae (1898-1926), Typographia Polyglotta S. C. de Prop. Fide, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis.

 

[pnewton]

How is that? The Catholic Church has already said that women are required to wear headcovering,…

Dropped in 1983.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/head_coverings_in_church.htm

No specific dress is mentioned. None exists.

Here is a link to the current Code of Canon Law, the only one in effect for Catholics. Anyone can look for themselves, assuming they do not believe their own eyes every time they walk into Mass.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

 

[pnewton]

There is no need to “tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders” (Matt. 23:4) that the Catholic Church does not do. That is the way of the Pharisee and runs contrary to everything St. Paul taught on religious freedom, and everything the Catechism teaches on conscience. The Catholic must learn to take with a grain of salt those who go past the Church’s teachings and into their own interpretations of what is right. Some may suffer from scrupulosity. Others may just enjoy bossing others around. In any case, we should listen to the Church, then follow our own informed conscience.

 

[louis91766]

Dropped in 1983.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/head_coverings_in_church.htm

No specific dress is mentioned. None exists.

Here is a link to the current Code of Canon Law, the only one in effect for Catholics. Anyone can look for themselves, assuming they do not believe their own eyes every time they walk into Mass.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

I don;t see where it has said that you are free to disregard the solemn teaching of Pope
St. Zachary. And still, nothing about Hooters shirts in canon law for two thousand years.

 

[MissRose73]

Holy Scripture says women are to wear headcovering in Church. It does not give any woman the right to decide for themselves on this.

For anyone who tries to dissuade me from veiling, I let them I do so because of my own free will, out of respect, and also because of the words of St Paul:

**1 Corinthians 11:1-17:
Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man [c.f. Genesis 2-3]. For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels. But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God. You yourselves judge. Doth it become a woman to pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Church of God *. Now this I ordain: not praising you, that you come together, not for the better, but for the worse.

---

 

[pnewton]

For anyone who tries to dissuade me from veiling,**…
**

I admire your obedience to your conscience and no one has the position of trying to dissuade you. However the post you quoted was someone mandating veiling as some sort of infallible discipline. It is the very thing that you do not like being done to you.

 

[louis91766]

For anyone who tries to dissuade me from veiling, I let them I do so because of my own free will, out of respect, and also because of the words of St Paul:

**1 Corinthians 11:1-17:
Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man [c.f. Genesis 2-3]. For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels. But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God. You yourselves judge. Doth it become a woman to pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Church of God *. Now this I ordain: not praising you, that you come together, not for the better, but for the worse.

***As far as I can see this was the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church for 1900 years, up until Vatican II. Then all of a sudden they decided to change their teaching on this and let women ignore what Scripture says on this and to attend Church without veils.

 

[pnewton]

As far as I can see this was the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church for 1900 years, up until Vatican II. Then all of a sudden they decided to change their teaching on this and let women ignore what Scripture says on this and to attend Church without veils.

It’s discipline on this, not its teaching. Dress code is a discipline.