B
brigid12
Guest
Mother Angelica told a caller asking about the wearing of makeup that some make-up on some people is probably an act of mercy.
- Status
B
BlyssfulDreamer
Guest
*they should bring back a better dress code for women and here’s why:
I was watching songs of praise on BBC 1 on a Sunday a while back, and this 20 something women was singing about Jesus, in a VERY low cut dress. …to her: listen hen, nobody wants to see that, put them away for your husband.
Paul Specifically says it is shameful for women NOT to have there hair covered. this girl had 3 ft long hair. and why do women need make-up to go to mass? the veil was much better.
I am not sexist, if any women can say anything comparable about men I’ll agree.*
These are comments you made Dava in your first post. Are you sexist? I think you might be. Have you not attended a NO Mass recently? Have you not seen boys in ripped jeans and skull and crossbones t-shirts? Have you missed men in shorts above the knee? Haved you missed …ye gad…men in wife beaters?
I have seen all of the above and yes, I have seen women in low cut blouses, skimpy skirts etc…and to me one is as BAD as the other. Appropriate dress should be a given for either sex.
I was watching songs of praise on BBC 1 on a Sunday a while back, and this 20 something women was singing about Jesus, in a VERY low cut dress. …to her: listen hen, nobody wants to see that, put them away for your husband.
Paul Specifically says it is shameful for women NOT to have there hair covered. this girl had 3 ft long hair. and why do women need make-up to go to mass? the veil was much better.
I am not sexist, if any women can say anything comparable about men I’ll agree.*
These are comments you made Dava in your first post. Are you sexist? I think you might be. Have you not attended a NO Mass recently? Have you not seen boys in ripped jeans and skull and crossbones t-shirts? Have you missed men in shorts above the knee? Haved you missed …ye gad…men in wife beaters?
I have seen all of the above and yes, I have seen women in low cut blouses, skimpy skirts etc…and to me one is as BAD as the other. Appropriate dress should be a given for either sex.
L
lizaanne
Guest
Ooo!! Pretty skirt - I love the black!I think the point is for women to cover up.Paul’s so called opinion is actually God’s will.
I’ve decided every woman shouldHAVE
I’ve been coveting this skirt all day.
youtube.com/watch?v=mFJV3juyy74
No mom jeans to Mass. :nope: I think OhMally’d agree with me on this one. hehe!!!
~Liza
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Mother Angelica told a caller asking about the wearing of makeup that some make-up on some people is probably an act of mercy.
C
Corki
Guest
Of course Jesus wouldn’t turn someone away for jeans. He welcomed sinners, even to dinner. (not that jeans are a sin
)But, yes, I believe Jesus does care what we wear. He knows the intentions of our hearts and I believe he would prefer that we prepare ourselves more carefully for Mass. That includes interior disposition **and **how we dress. If someone doesn’t care how they dress for Mass, Jesus knows that. It’s just my opinion but I think it might just sadden Him when people just throw on “any old thing” instead of considering the appropriateness of their attire and the awesome solemnity of what actually happens at Mass.
B
brigid12
Guest
:yup: I don’t think he is worried if the intentions of our hearts are pure and want to give Him glory (without worrying about comfort/ease or positive acknowledgment from peers), but I agree with many theologians that what a person chooses to wear (if they have a choice) reflects what’s in their heart.Of course Jesus wouldn’t turn someone away for jeans. He welcomed sinners, even to dinner. (not that jeans are a sin
But, yes, I believe Jesus does care what we wear. He knows the intentions of our hearts and I believe he would prefer that we prepare ourselves more carefully for Mass. That includes interior disposition **and **how we dress. If someone doesn’t care how they dress for Mass, Jesus knows that. It’s just my opinion but I think it might just sadden Him when people just throw on “any old thing” instead of considering the appropriateness of their attire and the awesome solemnity of what actually happens at Mass.
M
Matrix_Refugee
Guest
Mmm, consider someone with bad acne or a skin condition that causes the skin color to look blotchy and odd. I remember having acne so bad in my teens that if I didn’t put on foundation, people would look at me like I had leprosy.Mother Angelica told a caller asking about the wearing of makeup that some make-up on some people is probably an act of mercy.
M
m134e5
Guest
Long hair and make-up look nice on women, and I can admire them without lusting after them. There is nothing wrong with women wearing a little make-up and their “Sunday best” when they go to church either. Modesty is important- but women shouldn’t feel obligated to dress like amish women either.
O
OhMalley
Guest
Not so. If it was God’s will, His Church would require it and it does not…I think the point is for women to cover up.
J
Jacafamala
Guest
If it’s a choice between what St. Paul said and what the Church seemingly refuses to make a definitive statement on in this age of ambiguity, I’m picking to go with the Divinely inspired word of St. Paul.
B
brigid12
Guest
As will I, as long as I am not in disobedience to the Church.
B
brigid12
Guest
The Church only requires what it knows to be His Will for the ultimate salvation of souls - not what is “only” good for our Holiness beyond that. In other words, the Church only requires the least that we need.
D
dava4444
Guest
I agree…also you said this before asking me, so I’m maybe not sexist…?!?*they should bring back a better dress code for women and here’s why:
I was watching songs of praise on BBC 1 on a Sunday a while back, and this 20 something women was singing about Jesus, in a VERY low cut dress. …to her: listen hen, nobody wants to see that, put them away for your husband.
Paul Specifically says it is shameful for women NOT to have there hair covered. this girl had 3 ft long hair. and why do women need make-up to go to mass? the veil was much better.
I am not sexist, if any women can say anything comparable about men I’ll agree.*
These are comments you made Dava in your first post. Are you sexist? I think you might be. Have you not attended a NO Mass recently? Have you not seen boys in ripped jeans and skull and crossbones t-shirts? Have you missed men in shorts above the knee? Haved you missed …ye gad…men in wife beaters?
anyway I thought i was all cool with a pony tail in my twenties, but my heart nagged me about Paul’s ‘disgraceful for men to have long hair’ so in dec/jan i cut it off and went to a mass for his jubilee year. i feel freer with out it
I remember a while ago seeing a guy with a death metal t-shirt on at mass, …but then this maybe Jesus speaking to him for the first time. God Bless him.
for a guy i would say t-shirt nice (maybe?) leather jacket and dress trousers, for a girl, long long dress and at least a shawl.
it is the law to have your head covered, or ‘shorn’ meaning shaved off. Paul’s says so…
so a shawl or veil is a good compromise
peace
David
E
EasterJoy
Guest
With regards to lipstick on purificators:
If she/he/they have no trouble getting make-up out of linens, please get the cleaning method and post it on Liturgy/Sacrament forum, if you would.
St. Paul said that if it was shameful for a woman to have her head shaved, she ought to cover her head. As it is now, however, a woman can crop her hair without imitating a man or taking on a mark of shame. Likewise, there were obviously statues Our Lord that imagined him with very long hair. The local custom makes a big difference, then.
We have to make accomodations for whether or not a brother or sister will be scandalized in any particular case. Those with freedom need to make accomodation for those with scruples, as St. Paul also said. I would not dream of going to a TLM without covering my hair, even though it is fairly short. It would be a distraction to others, if not a scandal.
It is not likely that the pastor knows. Ask the person who actually cleans the linens. She/he will be able to tell you.
If she/he/they have no trouble getting make-up out of linens, please get the cleaning method and post it on Liturgy/Sacrament forum, if you would.
Remember, though, that St. Paul specifically noted that there wasn’t another usage to be found in other churches at the time. In other words, he recognized the authority of bishops and the differences that could theoretically exist between one diocese and another.
St. Paul said that if it was shameful for a woman to have her head shaved, she ought to cover her head. As it is now, however, a woman can crop her hair without imitating a man or taking on a mark of shame. Likewise, there were obviously statues Our Lord that imagined him with very long hair. The local custom makes a big difference, then.
We have to make accomodations for whether or not a brother or sister will be scandalized in any particular case. Those with freedom need to make accomodation for those with scruples, as St. Paul also said. I would not dream of going to a TLM without covering my hair, even though it is fairly short. It would be a distraction to others, if not a scandal.
A
adstrinity
Guest
Alright, concerning the “long long dress” for a woman…
I was in confession last week and the Sr. priest of the parish was hearing confessions that day. I told him that the other priest said that pants were immodest. There was a pause. I told him I did some research and that’s not what the church teaches. He said, “ignore him.” He made clear a few things:
I was in confession last week and the Sr. priest of the parish was hearing confessions that day. I told him that the other priest said that pants were immodest. There was a pause. I told him I did some research and that’s not what the church teaches. He said, “ignore him.” He made clear a few things:
- In order for him to talk about this to the priest, to please tell him this after he gives me my absolution; the seal of confession is absolute.
- He wanted to talk to the priest about this.
- In gardening or horseback ridding, it is permitted women wear pants.
- There’s such a thing as modest pants.
- Don’t think bad or ill of this priest because of this, ignore this one thing he said, though.
J
Jacafamala
Guest
Easterjoy (love that name), and Brigid, the thing that gets me though is that the Church has been so closed mouth and ambiguous about the whole deal.
Anytime I’ve seen this topic come up the “pro no head covering crowd” says it’s been abrogated because it wasn’t specifically mentioned in the new code of cannon law.
Ok, when the 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated this canon was not re-issued. Fine. But the old code also mentions men with regard to the issue of hats being taken off… *Does this mean it’s now alright for men to go into church with a hat on?! * What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Rather it seems to me that what was abrogated was the issue of men and women being separated. Because everyone knows that men shouldn’t wear a hat in church. It’s just one more innovation that got slipped under the radar by radical liberals wanting to change things. And it went on for too long post VII, (like communion in the hand) and by the time Rome realized what was happening, it was too late to change anything without a major hullabaloo.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
The saying that, “In the Catholic Church, that which is not forbidden is compulsory” is a joke, you know.
There are many good things which are not legally proscribed by the Church. This is itself a good thing. That something is not required does not make it into something one should drop like a hot potato. It just makes it into something to, perhaps, mind our own business about. It makes it into something we should consider, before ignoring it outright, too. That is OK.
Likewise, that a tradition grows up without being specifically started by the Holy See has not, historically, made it a bad thing. Our history is full of things like that, both good and bad.
I think we are in a difficult time in the universal Church because in the past, local innovations (which did happen) stayed local for a VERY long time before either dying or spreading. Now, we think something up that seems good, and it spreads around the globe before it has any chance to be tested as an isolated change in a single small place. Also, cultural change is no longer something arrived at by the minority having to bring the majority around. The minorities have too much encouragement from each other to put a bridle on the rate of change.
Innovations are coming and going at an incredible rate, far beyond what any ritual should have to withstand. Innovators, too, can compare notes as never before.
In contrast, a ritual needs time and repetition to have even the anthropological effect needed…and I, for one, am a person that thinks that our anthropology reflects the needs that God put into the human soul in terms of religion. That reflects our physical thirst for God. I think these times put stress on the mere physical/neurological needs that we have for religion, even apart from the strictly theological realities behind our liturgies.
But, perhaps these times of upheaval come and go, too. It just seems that the electronic age has catapulted us beyond the stresses of other times. But then, too, I suppose each age demands that we find a way to be faithful that fits the unique life and times we were blessed with.
J
Jacafamala
Guest
My point is that headcovers for women had really meant to have been abrogated, they’d have mentioned it. Otherwise it leaves one to assume that men it’s likewise “ok” now for men to wear hats in church.
There are many good things which are not legally proscribed by the Church. This is itself a good thing. That something is not required does not make it into something one should drop like a hot potato. It just makes it into something to, perhaps, mind our own business about. It makes it into something we should consider, before ignoring it outright, too. That is OK.
Likewise, that a tradition grows up without being specifically started by the Holy See has not, historically, made it a bad thing. Our history is full of things like that, both good and bad.
Yes, a lot of good points here, in addition the GIRM (post VII), is often treated like a suggestion book.
L
Leonius
Guest
Actually the Church does its just not enforced in many places and until VERY recently was taken for granted that Catholic women would dress like Christians because until very recently they had always done so which is why there is not much written about it historically. It is unique to our times men and women running about in what used to be considered under clothes or nightwear.
You wouldn’t even be allowed in the Sistine Chapel for a look about let alone for Mass dressed immodestly.
Read this:
orbiscatholicus.blogspot.com/2009/07/immodest-dress-and-vatican-enforcers.html
And it is the same in Catholic Malta and anywhere else Catholics have not been so corrupted by secularism and are ignorant of what a near occasion of sin is and the ways in which we participate in the sins of another.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I don’t believe for a moment that there was a jot or tittle in canon law that was changed by mistake, regardless of whether the change was made with any fanfare. Now, why the matters of headcovering were dropped is something else. It may have been assumed that this was something each bishop or bishop’s conference would pick up and give specific directions on. Of all the things causing running around, shouting, and waving of hands in the air, it may be no surprise that headcoverings instead took burner way in the back of the stove. That’s my guess.My point is that headcovers for women had really meant to have been abrogated, they’d have mentioned it. Otherwise it leaves one to assume that men it’s likewise “ok” now for men to wear hats in church. …
Yes, a lot of good points here, in addition the GIRM (post VII), is often treated like a suggestion book.
As for the GIRM, I’d say that when the 10 Commandments started getting treated like suggestions, it almost went without saying that the authority of the GIRM wasn’t going to be treated any better.
IMO, we are in times when the burden of bringing about obedience is placed very heavily on the skills of the leadership, not the humility and docility of those being lead. If the leadership is not heard, people act like that is all the leadership’s fault. People think they need to be given reasons to be obedient, that they have a right to withhold compliance until they are convinced of the reasoning behind the directions. Obedience for its own sake is WAY out of fashion.
Not to give anyone a free pass, but I think that interest in being lead is at one of the Church’s all-time lows, while the chances that this will escape notice are at an all-time low, as well. In other times, those wanting to ignore Rome simply had to keep out of communication range…not a possibility any more. This makes a lack of obedience take on an appearance of open defiance that it probably wouldn’t have, in the past.
- Status