What is the appropriate dress attire for Mass?

[jlw]

continued…

Liberal secular society has two primary concerns before wisdom – health and equality.

Health: It was a non-issue to most everyone at the graduation that people came in shorts and T-shirts. But imagine the reaction if one person had lit up a cigarette. Panic and screams of hatred would have been unleashed. The poor soul would have been rushed out of the building as if he were a terrorist – which is precisely how the smoker would have been viewed thanks to the mind-numbing propaganda of how fatal a whiff of secondhand smoke is. In every preceding generation, however, when wisdom was valued, a man or woman who wore shorts to a graduation would have been regarded as out of place as a smoker would today.

Equality: A word that is often used to describe formal clothing is “classy,” a word which itself derives from “class.” Because of its derivation, however, the word is rarely used today – it conflicts with one of our era’s dominant values, egalitarianism. Therefore more and more people dress and act . . . classless, such as when they all wear T-shirts. That is also why so many teachers don’t dress up to teach – the egalitarians who run American education don’t want students to regard teachers as being of a higher class than students.

My producer, however, is a classy guy. And for that reason, he was quite out of place at his niece’s high school graduation.

But at least his niece was appropriately honored.

 

[ddimitro]

Yes, that was an excellent article that really hit home, how the modern, secular world is really destroying anything and everything that once had value.

I go as far as saying that the Pastors, in consultation with their Bishop, needs to enforce some sort of dress code at Mass-enforce being pivotal. It’s more of a problem than ringing cell phones-an another abomination.

Two Sundays ago, after the Tridentine Mass I attend, a gentleman was outside after Mass handing out brochures for the upcoming Lenten Pilgrimage walk from the Abbey to the Mission. He only would give a brochure, though, to individuals who were dressed appropriately. It was beautiful!!

 

[Windmill]

I like Dennis Prager for a lot of his wisdom.

I think people in this country are very anti-ritual. That is one reason that Protestants can’t imagine how Cahtolics can actually get something out of Mass when it is 80-90% the same week after week. They think we have to all be spontaneous for our actions to be “real”. It has to have an emotional, palpable charge deep down inside for us to have truly experienced it.

This is one reason why a lot of Protestants get re-baptized. They may have gotten baptized as a child, but it wasn’t real for them. So they repeat it. However, it ends up making a mockery of a sacrament which is NOT merely our response to God, but, rather, God’s work of grace IN us.

Now, to formalities and dress. To have an expectation to be “dressed up” implies that it is not honest. It is not real. It is not ME. I am not deciding what to wear - it’s being shoved onto me by the public. I am not getting a genuine, heartfelt worship service because the Church has set some rigid guidlines on how it is to be celebrated, with all the gestures and prayers.

Notice, it’s all about ME ME ME.

Well, ritual is not something that is empty. It is also not something that is dishonest. What it is is something that is bigger than ourselves. Something that transcends time. It reaches back through the ages where all the saints gathered together for the exact same purpose. It’s something that we are partaking of, not by how worked up we get or how in the moment we are, but just because of our mere desire to be there. And no matter what we are going through at that time, how focused we are, or how emotionally in tune we are; as long as we are in a state of grace we can receive the Living God into our very selves.
When it comes to dress, we honor God with our best - both internally and externally. It isn’t for the congregation to see. It’s an outward sign of an inward reality.

We are corporate beings, and we cannot deny the fact that we have both a soul and a body. What we are doing needs to have our spirituality and our materiality in harmony. We aren’t pure spirits.

okay, i’m rambling…

 

[rcn]

jlw:

the age in which we live, the Age of Stupidity. … the Stupid Revolution of the late 1960s and 1970s

How will writers like him earn a living when everyone who clings to that “if only we could go back to the 50’s… boy oh boy, things really were great then” mindset are dead and gone, or at least no longer buying the newspapers and magazines that would publish him?

I fear that in 20 years, we’ll be reading about how things would be so much better, if only we hadn’t stopped wearing bell-bottoms and platform shoes.

Time marches on. Don’t get left behind.

 

[fix]

rcn:

How will writers like him earn a living when everyone who clings to that “if only we could go back to the 50’s… boy oh boy, things really were great then” mindset are dead and gone, or at least no longer buying the newspapers and magazines that would publish him?

I fear that in 20 years, we’ll be reading about how things would be so much better, if only we hadn’t stopped wearing bell-bottoms and platform shoes.

Time marches on. Don’t get left behind.

I do not think it is about one golden age so much as it is about how perverse our age is. Even a quick glance over the past 30 years would make any reasonable person conclude things have changed for the worse in many areas of our culture.

Even at Fatima the BVM said fashions would be introduced that would offend her Son. Turn on a TV, pick up a newspaper and tell me that we are a better generation.

 

[rcn]

fix:

I do not think it is about one golden age so much as it is about how perverse our age is. Even a quick glance over the past 30 years would make any reasonable person conclude things have changed for the worse in many areas of our culture.

Even at Fatima the BVM said fashions would be introduced that would offend her Son. Turn on a TV, pick up a newspaper and tell me that we are a better generation.

Substitute “stone tablet” for TV and I’m sure you’d find the same thing said in the age of Moses. Or “parchment” in the age of Christ himself.

Whining about how terrible things are “now” is nothing new.

 

[fix]

rcn:

Substitute “stone tablet” for TV and I’m sure you’d find the same thing said in the age of Moses. Or “parchment” in the age of Christ himself.

Whining about how terrible things are “now” is nothing new.

I know that argument and it does not hold. Certain ages are different from others. There are better ages and worse ages.

It is not about whining, rather it is pointing out the errors in hopes a critique may awaken dulled consciences and darkened intellects.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Certain ages are different from others. There are better ages and worse ages.

Agreed. And certain things are constants in every age, like complaining about the youth (ever seen the screed from the 1st century A.D., in Latin, complaining about the morals of the younger generation, and sounding as though it could have been written today?)

People also tend to look back at different ages and extract only certain things from it. The people who look back fondly at the just post WWII era tend to forget that crippling polio epidemics existed, children developed dental caries easily due to lack of fluoridated water, black people still sat in the back of the bus, the cheaper energy was polluting air and water at a tremendous rate. . .

There’s good and bad everywhere. If we’re part of the group that had more “good” happen in a given time, we’re going to be more nostalgic for that than somebody who had more “bad” happen to them.

That being said, I feel that the tragedy of today is that we are exposed not so much to air and water pollution but to NOISE and SPIRITUAL pollution. Sure there was TV in the 50s, with at most 4 channels as opposed to 100-500 today, and it wasn’t 24/7. Sure, there were newspapers in the 50s, and magazines. . .but with the exception of the brown-wrapped Playboy and Maxim and Penthouse they were far more wholesome even than the “women’s magazines” of today which tell you how to enhance your boyfriend’s “pleasure” and to “shop around”, featuring barely pubescent models in next to nothing, if not nothing at all.

I surely won’t be calling these the “good old days” when and if I make it to the senior citizen mark, and that’s despite the fact that there are many goods to this time, including health care (even if hideously expensive) and opportunities for broadening one’s mind and intellect like never before.

 

[fix]

Tantum ergo:

Agreed. And certain things are constants in every age, like complaining about the youth (ever seen the screed from the 1st century A.D., in Latin, complaining about the morals of the younger generation, and sounding as though it could have been written today?)

People also tend to look back at different ages and extract only certain things from it. The people who look back fondly at the just post WWII era tend to forget that crippling polio epidemics existed, children developed dental caries easily due to lack of fluoridated water, black people still sat in the back of the bus, the cheaper energy was polluting air and water at a tremendous rate. . .

There’s good and bad everywhere. If we’re part of the group that had more “good” happen in a given time, we’re going to be more nostalgic for that than somebody who had more “bad” happen to them.

That being said, I feel that the tragedy of today is that we are exposed not so much to air and water pollution but to NOISE and SPIRITUAL pollution. Sure there was TV in the 50s, with at most 4 channels as opposed to 100-500 today, and it wasn’t 24/7. Sure, there were newspapers in the 50s, and magazines. . .but with the exception of the brown-wrapped Playboy and Maxim and Penthouse they were far more wholesome even than the “women’s magazines” of today which tell you how to enhance your boyfriend’s “pleasure” and to “shop around”, featuring barely pubescent models in next to nothing, if not nothing at all.

I surely won’t be calling these the “good old days” when and if I make it to the senior citizen mark, and that’s despite the fact that there are many goods to this time, including health care (even if hideously expensive) and opportunities for broadening one’s mind and intellect like never before.

I think the author is trying to draw attention to mores, not implying that a past era did not have problems. He was not addressing scientific advances or creature comforts. He was pointing out an attitude and demeanor that is less than we all should expect.

The argument that some make that each age complains about it’s children or lack of morals really is saying that nothing changes. That is absurd. We each could give many examples that would offend most people of what is acceptable today and what was not acceptable only a short time ago.

20 years ago did we see two men kissing each other on tv? 40 years ago was fornication accepted as widely as today? Was artificial birth control accepted as moral by most Catholics?
How many babies were aborted each year and championed as a right?

Just a few things, but now we have microwave ovens, body piercings and dental sealants.

 

[jlw]

rcn:

How will writers like him earn a living when everyone who clings to that “if only we could go back to the 50’s… boy oh boy, things really were great then” mindset are dead and gone, or at least no longer buying the newspapers and magazines that would publish him?

I fear that in 20 years, we’ll be reading about how things would be so much better, if only we hadn’t stopped wearing bell-bottoms and platform shoes.

Time marches on. Don’t get left behind.

You miss the point, my friend. Conservatives only want to *conserve *certaintimeless values and valuable traditions. The 50’s weren’t perfect, and families weren’t perfect, and racial injustice was commonplace. The 60’s were supposed to “improve” on those imperfections, and turn the tide of injustices. It did that, to some extent, but *it also threw the baby out with the bathwater *in many areas, thus the acusation of stupidity.

In the age of stupidity, standards fell, decorum fell, respect for those that went before us fell, families fell apart, etc etc etc.

We have progressed in many areas, and regressed in many more.

 

[jlw]

I was just thinking about this subject the other day and the importance of “outward signs” of faith.

The Catholic Faith is a sacramental faith. That is, we learn and are pointed to Christ in Heaven by those outward signs–statues, icons, rosaries, prayer cards, insense, bells, music, AND we are pointed to Christ and the abundant graces available in the “outward signs” of faith in our participation in the sacraments of Baptism, Communion, Pennace/Reconciliation, Marriage, etc.

This Faith of ours involves ALL the senses: sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste. It involves our all of our humanity, body and spirit.

The thinking about “outward signs” got me thinking about how we outwardly show our respect, our reverance, our humility, our celebration of our Lord when we walk into a church for prayer and worship at Mass.

Isn’t how we dress an outward sign?? What do jeans say?? What do sneakers say? What do halter tops or shorts say?

Certainly when a man wears a suit and tie to Mass it doesn’t mean he’s automatically a saint. Nor when a woman wears a vail does it make her like Mary.

But it does say that we are doing something EXTRAordinary today, for one hour out of the 168 God gives us every week, we are at the wedding banquet in the upper room!! We are at the foot of the cross at Calvary!! You think we could dress for this kind of EXTRAordinary occation??

Just like the sign of the cross, our bow or kneeling in from of the altar, our silence before Mass, our clasped hands while praying, our dress also is an “outward sign” signifying our Faith in His Presence!

 

[rcn]

fix:

The argument that some make that each age complains about it’s children or lack of morals really is saying that nothing changes. That is absurd. We each could give many examples that would offend most people of what is acceptable today and what was not acceptable only a short time ago.

And you could also say that in 1950. And 1900. Etc. Indeed, nothing changes.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It is true that we have some very immoral and immodest customs today. But we had them at other times as well.

Perhaps the real difference isn’t so much in the media, but in the sheer proliferation of sleaze and the CONCURRENT lack of unity or cohesive identity of people today (the flip side of diversity).

Prior to the 60s mess, the average person, black or white, male or female, rural or urban, had pretty much the same experiences to draw on. School subjects were the same for all students, by and large, and were a continuation and augmentation of what had been studied pretty much the same way for generations. . .you know, McGuffey readers, “Dick and Jane”, the 3 Rs. Kids listened to the same radio programs, played the same types of games (marbles, hopscotch, tag) no matter whether they lived in Mobile, AL or Decatur, IL.

But in the 60s and afterwards, kids were subjected to a bewildering array of “education” experiences (and excresences). No more phonics, bring on “whole language”. . .and a generation of illiterates who don’t recognize words as words and confuse “word” and “world” for example. New Math, Mathletes. Bring on science, and make it “interactive”. Don’t say history and geography–say “Social Studies”.

And TV got more and more channels. Music split into literally dozens of venues. It’s “do your own thing” with a vengeance.

So, you have today children who were raised on granola and public TV only who think that their experience is the ONLY experience, and look down on their neighbors who grew up with Nickelodeon, who look down on their neighbors who grew up with Saturday a.m. cartoons, who look down on their neighbors who grew up with HBO. . .and vice versa.

You’ve got at least a generation (if not two) of people who automatically assume that they are “better” than other people, based on picayune little details like this (in the case of children, things not even they, but their PARENTS, chose).

Sense of entitlement is replacing the dreaded (and false) “self-esteem” that raised a bunch of kids whose parents catered to them by making sure they had everything from organic babyfood to soccer memberships. . .as well as those who countered with allowing their kids to “express themselves” by eating nothing but Cheetoes and setting their own bedtimes, whether it was 3 a.m. or later. . .

We didn’t see that “back on the farm” in 1900. . .OTOH, the average life expectancy in 1900 was 47 for men, childhood mortality was 5 x what it is today, and women wore themselves out in hard home labor while their husbands did the same outside the home.

Are we suffering more because we actually live BETTER, materially speaking?

 

[fix]

rcn:

And you could also say that in 1950. And 1900. Etc. Indeed, nothing changes.

Really? Go back to 1900 and tell them that some day many would think two men marrying was natural and to deny them that was immoral. Then mention that children are not as polite, they would agree, then tell them that birth control and fornication are taught in school as virtuous. You may mention that two women routinely have babies by using the sperm of some man they do not know. Also, tell them women dress in their underwear and are thought of as enlightened.

Nothing changes? On average the public and private morality was better even a few decades ago, not perfect, but better. Please see the rise in illegitimacy, venereal diseaes, divorce and remarriage and sodomy that has happended in a short 40 or so years.

Yep, just like in the 1950s. Ask anyone who was raised in the 1930s if they would rather be raised today or back then. I am not saying there was a perfect world, but to claim things have not changed for the worse in terms of morality is to close your eyes to the truth.

 

[fix]

jlw:

You miss the point, my friend. Conservatives only want to *conserve *certaintimeless values and valuable traditions. The 50’s weren’t perfect, and families weren’t perfect, and racial injustice was commonplace. The 60’s were supposed to “improve” on those imperfections, and turn the tide of injustices. It did that, to some extent, but *it also threw the baby out with the bathwater *in many areas, thus the acusation of stupidity.

In the age of stupidity, standards fell, decorum fell, respect for those that went before us fell, families fell apart, etc etc etc.

We have progressed in many areas, and regressed in many more.

If nothing has changed why are the culture wars so fierce today?

 

[Donna_P]

J Mo:

As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter. I don’t understand how what someone is wearing has anything to do with how they accept God. Isn’t Mass about your relationship with God? The clothes one wears shouldn’t dictate whether or not they can communicate with God.

It is important to be mindful of others. For example, a 15 year old girl who dresses so she looks 18 with a cropped top and short or hip huggers is doing a diservice to men. Men by nature are visual and some if not many could get thoughts into their heads that are sinful.

How would you dress for a normal wedding? Or to meet the President? Or for a private visit with our Pope.

Church is God’s house. We should give Him the respect He deserves and be considerate of those around us as well.

God Bless,
Donna

 

[Donna_P]

StratusRose:

to scorn anyone’s clothes. Other than that, I wear jeans, t-shirts, and fleece jackets to Mass. In fact, that’s what I wore yesterday and I was a Eucharistic Minister.

I can appreciate those who don’t have much in the way of clothing. But I would ask you to ponder this question…

If Christ called and said he wanted to come over for dinner, would you clean your house? Would you think about dressing up?

God Bless,
Donna

 

[jlw]

J Mo:

As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter. I don’t understand how what someone is wearing has anything to do with how they accept God. Isn’t Mass about your relationship with God? The clothes one wears shouldn’t dictate whether or not they can communicate with God.

Mass IS about your relationship with God, and in any relationship how you present yourself outwardly speaks volumes. No??

I was just thinking about this subject the other day and the importance of “outward signs” of faith.

The Catholic Faith is a sacramental faith. That is, we learn and are pointed to Christ in Heaven by those outward signs–statues, icons, rosaries, prayer cards, insense, bells, music, AND we are pointed to Christ and the abundant graces available in the “outward signs” of faith in our participation in the sacraments of Baptism, Communion, Pennace/Reconciliation, Marriage, etc.

This Faith of ours involves ALL the senses: sight, sound, smell, touch, and taste. It involves our all of our humanity, body and spirit.

The thinking about “outward signs” got me thinking about how we outwardly show our respect, our reverance, our humility, our celebration of our Lord when we walk into a church for prayer and worship at Mass.

Isn’t how we dress an outward sign?? What do jeans say?? What do sneakers say? What do halter tops or shorts say?

Certainly when a man wears a suit and tie to Mass it doesn’t mean he’s automatically a saint. Nor when a woman wears a vail does it make her like Mary.

But it does say that we are doing something EXTRAordinary today, for one hour out of the 168 God gives us every week, we are at the wedding banquet in the upper room!! We are at the foot of the cross at Calvary!! You think we could dress for this kind of EXTRAordinary occation??

Just like the sign of the cross, our bow or kneeling in from of the altar, our silence before Mass, our clasped hands while praying, our dress also is an “outward sign” signifying our Faith in His Presence!

 

[KittyKat]

It could be worse!
I am one of the people who wears jeans or pants to Mass right now, and may even wear shorts this summer. Normally I would dress nicely, but has anyone seen what is out there for maternity clothes? I still can’t find dress clothes that look tasteful and are within my price range.
I feel very shy about wearing casual clothes, but would rather go than hide my head in shame or expose things that no one wants to see.

Remember that every generation has worn something that older people didn’t like. From women starting to wear pants and mini skirts to the women who started wearing dresses short enough to show ankle. Saying that everybody today dresses badly is forgetting what people did in past generations.

Wearing mini skirts and halter tops in that situation is wrong, but people need to remember that almost every generation looks back at how good things were without remembering or realizing that some of those things were scandle causers then.

 

[fix]

KittyKat:

It could be worse!
I am one of the people who wears jeans or pants to Mass right now, and may even wear shorts this summer. Normally I would dress nicely, but has anyone seen what is out there for maternity clothes? I still can’t find dress clothes that look tasteful and are within my price range.
I feel very shy about wearing casual clothes, but would rather go than hide my head in shame or expose things that no one wants to see.

Remember that every generation has worn something that older people didn’t like. From women starting to wear pants and mini skirts to the women who started wearing dresses short enough to show ankle. Saying that everybody today dresses badly is forgetting what people did in past generations.

Wearing mini skirts and halter tops in that situation is wrong, but people need to remember that almost every generation looks back at how good things were without remembering or realizing that some of those things were scandle causers then.

Maternity clothes are difficlut for woman, but I disagree with the rest of your argument. That styles change is not at issue. There are limits. The BVM said at Fatima that fashions would be introduced that would offend her Son.

There is a big difference between showing one’s ankle and tube tops, bikini’s, hip huggers and mini skirts. Unfortunately, so many of us have such poorly formed consciences that we do not even realize how immodesty affects our souls and other’s souls.