Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
May 22, 2013, 09:39:AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ... 37
 
Author Topic: Skirts at work  (Read 19049 times)
MagisterMusicae
Resident Contrarian
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 2,221



« Reply #160 on: January 05, 2007, 01:07:PM »

Quote from: CaroleK
Andrew,

Could you please address the post that you skipped?  I'm genuinely interested in clarification on this issue.

Thank you,

Carole

Sure, Carole, I'll address it and the other things this evening or tomorrow when I have some more time. The last post took some time and I need to work on other things.

Cheers,

Andrew
Logged
CaroleK
Guest
« Reply #161 on: January 05, 2007, 01:08:PM »

Quote from: lefebvre_fan
Honestly, to come to a different point of view on this issue requires more than a change of mind--it requires a change of heart also. I would advise you to give this issue some serious thought and prayer. May God bless you and the Virgin Mary keep you.

Jason


Jason,

Would it surprise you to know that I have given this issues years of thought (and thorough reading) as well as prayer and that I've honestly come to the conclusion that neither pants nor skirts are inherently more modest than the other?  The differentiation between modest and immodest is not so simple as "pants = immodest  skirts = modest".  There are pants that I will allow my daughter to wear and there are skirts I would hesitate to let her wear if they were the last article of clothing on the earth.

I believe that modesty is also more than just the clothing that we put on our bodies but also the manner in which we conduct ourselves.

I'm not arguing against the need for modesty.  But rather against the assertion that skirts are the only modest attire for women.  And the assertion that anyone who doesn't agree is:

* Not traditionalist
* Not Catholic
* A heretic
* A modernist
* Not intelligent enough to understand the issue sufficiently so as to come to the same conclusion as others.

If a woman feels that she is called to dress modestly and that for her that means only ever wearing skirts.  Fine.  So be it.  I will never fault someone for that choice.  Not ever.  But neither will I condemn someone for not believing that a skirt is the only modest apparel ever to be worn by a woman.

Nothing that I've read thus far and none of the prayer i have done on this issue has convinced me otherwise.  Yet many will probably say (either to my face or behind my back) that I am being prideful/arrogant/ignorant and that I am a modernist/heretic and that I am not Catholic/traditionalist.  And yet others will say that I just have read enough or prayed enough.  Or that I do not possess sufficient wit or intelligence to properly comprehend the issue and if only I did read/pray enough or have enough intelligence I would have no choice but to see things their way.

I admit that I may be wrong.  I may indeed change my mind at some point in the future.  It's been known to happen.  From Lutheran to atheist to Lutheran to Catholic to waffling on the edge of traditionalism.  Many things in my life have changed.  I am a work in progress.

But those who insist on my being wrong - do not admit that there is any chance that it could be they who are mistaken.  That is a significant difference.
Logged
CaroleK
Guest
« Reply #162 on: January 05, 2007, 01:09:PM »

Quote from: MagisterMusicae
Quote from: CaroleK
Andrew,

Could you please address the post that you skipped?  I'm genuinely interested in clarification on this issue.

Thank you,

Carole

Sure, Carole, I'll address it and the other things this evening or tomorrow when I have some more time. The last post took some time and I need to work on other things.

Cheers,

Andrew

Thank you very much, Andrew!
Logged
MagisterMusicae
Resident Contrarian
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 2,221



« Reply #163 on: January 05, 2007, 01:18:PM »

Quote from: CaroleK
Quote from: MagisterMusicae
Quote from: CaroleK
Andrew,

Could you please address the post that you skipped?  I'm genuinely interested in clarification on this issue.

Thank you,

Carole

Sure, Carole, I'll address it and the other things this evening or tomorrow when I have some more time. The last post took some time and I need to work on other things.

Cheers,

Andrew

Thank you very much, Andrew!

No problem. I do want to show you that I'm willing to have a reasonable discussion even if we agree to disagree.

There are both subjective and objective points to be discussed, hence can be somewhat problematic when the two areas mix.

I agree with your previous post, we should not be labeling people not-Tradition, not-Catholic, or dumb for not agreeing that pants are not a good everyday choice for women.

I do think there are plenty of points that lead one to see that they are not the most modest things, or even if they are cut more modestly, they are not appropriate attire, but before we go down that path, we have to establish some rationale agreement and starting point, and agree to use logical arguments.

Anyway, I do need to go, so I'll address it later.
Logged
DominusTecum
Guest
« Reply #164 on: January 05, 2007, 01:50:PM »

Quote
Realizing that we may be talking at cross purposes in the definition of community ... I'll ask this anyway.

Let us say for a moment that you live in a community where the normative dress for women is jeans and t-shirts is it respectful to dress in jeans and t-shirts?  And thus showing pride to wear full-length skirts with long-sleeved blouses buttoned to the neck?

Is there not a risk of being prideful in our modesty?

 

Such traditional communities are very common, in my experience. It's very difficult to keep the faith when the entire world is so secular and degenerate in almost every aspect. Also, it's difficult to keep the faith in a truly vibrant manner when everyone around you is ideologically opposed to you. Living in a Catholic community can thus act as an important aid to salvation. These communities form naturally, as like-minded individuals desire to have more social intercourse with each other, and less with the world-at-large.

 

I don't know about the Indult, because I don't have experience with it, but I know that of the 3 SSPX chapels I have been very priveleged to attend, all three have been the nucleus of a quite close-knit community. In St. Mary's, this is manifested temporally, because the entire town seems and feels Catholic, due to the majority being trads. (Thus, the logic goes: skirts are the unquestioned rule there, in the largest traditional Catholic community/parish in the world, why shouldn't they be the rule everywhere else too?) Even smaller chapels in the midst of a large city can develop this sort of community life... trads gravitate towards each other, and certain businesses become owned and predominantly staffed by traditional Catholics. One's social life begins to revolve around the parish, and one finds that one doesn't associate with many people who aren't trads. Why associate with a bunch of secularists who couldn't care less about our Holy Religion, when you could associate with good Catholic friends instead?

 

Regarding pride... there is no more pride in holding oneself to a proper standard of dress (we'll leave aside for the moment what that standard is, since we disagree) than there is in practicing the true faith among infidels. The only place pride might come in is if the natives dress in a perfectly modest manner which also happens to befit Catholic decorum, and yet we don't adopt it... not for some good reason like our cultural heritage or something, but only because we despise the natives and take pride in our "not dressing like THEY do" or something. Anybody can have pride in anything that they do, for whatever reason. However, this can't be judged from exernals, but only God can know it, as it is on the internal forum. I might be dressed in sackcloth, but if I'm proud of my "humility"... no good. Similarly, I can be wearing a tuxedo to an evening wedding, but if I'm wearing it because I want to observe proper dress and decorum, then I am certainly committing no sin, and in fact, am acting virtuously, even if due to the deplorable culture of our times, I am overdressed, and everyone else at the wedding is in overalls. (Yes, I might feel very awkward, lol, but I'd be acting in accord with what is accounted proper, even if Farmer Joe next to me is woefully ignorant of this standard.)

Logged


Clare
Dumb Blonde
Member

Gender: Female
Location: UK
Posts: 2,484


Ask dad; he knows.


WWW
« Reply #165 on: January 05, 2007, 01:53:PM »

Quote from: gilbertgea
'Our Lady hasn't been depicted with short hair either!  Or without a veil!  Or a blouse.  Or a pleated skirt.  Or a jacket.  That doesn't make any of these things wrong!  They just weren't what was worn in her time! She wore what was the fashion in her day and place.'

Well, what passes for 'fashion' today for women includes halter tops, miniskirts, stiletto heels, etc.  Why dont you just wear those to Mass next time?  After all, you wouldnt want to not be fashionable, now would you?

That is a non sequitur.

 

What I am saying is that, a thing isn't necessarily immodest just because it wasn't in fashion in Our Lady's time. So to say a woman shouldn't wear something because Our Lady didn't rather limits what women can wear! And it not only rules out immodest dress, but perfectly modest clothes which were not worn by anyone in Our Lady's time! I mustn't wear a jumper, because Our Lady is never depicted wearing one! It's a daft argument!


Quote
'Show me ONE document from the Church that says that it is a dogmatic teaching that it is a sin (venial or mortal) for a woman to wear modest trousers.  One.  Not a letter from Bishop Williamson or from any other Cardinal or Pope unless it is an encyclical specifically stating that this is a matter of dogma and thus must be adhered to by all Catholics.'

 

My guess is that, since wearing a skirt for Modern women is so objectionable -- even if such a dogmatic teaching existed, many so-called 'traditional Catholic' women wouldnt obey it for one reason or another.  There is an underlying hostility towards wearing a skirt held by many women that is apparently insurmountable.

The hostility isn't towards wearing skirts. Most women who wear trousers wear skirts too!

Quote
Let's turn the question around: Why NOT wear a skirt?  What do you lose by looking more feminine, more traditional, more Catholic?

As above. We're not saying we are opposed to wearing skirts! We're opposed to the opposition to wearing trousers sometimes too!

Quote
'But there is such a thing as modest pants, and it's time some of you started realizing that.'

No, there is not.

Substantiate!

 

Quote
That's like proponents of birth control stating that it is time that we should start realising that young people are going to fornicate so we might as well just give them contraceptives.

Complete non sequitur!

 

Clare.

Logged

CaroleK
Guest
« Reply #166 on: January 05, 2007, 02:01:PM »

I'm bowing out of this thread now.

There is, as far as I can see, no way on this side of heaven that this debate will ever be resolved.  It will continue until the end of time with neither side really ever gaining ground.  It will continue to be used as a reason to judge others and to be uncharitable in the name of "fraternal correction".

In the end all it does is give me a headache and make me sad.

TTFN

Logged
Clare
Dumb Blonde
Member

Gender: Female
Location: UK
Posts: 2,484


Ask dad; he knows.


WWW
« Reply #167 on: January 05, 2007, 02:04:PM »

Quote from: MagisterMusicae
femoralia are here translated "pants". That is quite incorrect. A more proper translation is "breeches". These "breeches" originate from the garments of the Jewish High Priest:

Quote from: Exodus 28.42-3
Fácies et feminália línea, ut opériant carnem turpitúdinis suæ, a rénibus usque ad fémora : et uténtur eis Áaron et fílii ejus quando ingrediéntur tabernáculum testimónii, vel quando appropínquant ad altáre ut minístrent in sanctuário, ne iniquitátis rei moriántur. Legítimum sempitérnum erit Áaron, et sémini ejus post eum.

Thou shalt make also linen breeches, to cover the flesh of their nakedness from the reins to the thighs: And Aaron and his sons shall use them when they shall go in to the tabernacle of the testimony, or when they approach the altar to minister in the sanctuary, lest being guilty of iniquity they die.


Feminalia or femoralia comes from femora (Lat. thigh) from which we get the name of the thigh bone femur.

And these "breeches" are not over garments. That's what the tunic is. The femoralia are garments used under the priestly robes, the stole and other vestments.

....

If the women choose to wear these undergarments to gird themselves, all the better, but it does not make men holier, nor does it make them less holy. To sanctify their souls men must practice chastity whether the women wear these symbols of chastity or no. Nor does the Pope command that the common exterior dress be changed, even more indicating that these femoralia are undergarments, worn again, as a way to prevent unchaste thoughts and behavior.

....

So I propose that we re-read the passage removing the incorrect "pants", and remembering what femoralia are -- undergarment breeches used as a visible reminder of chastity

 

So. Am I understanding right? Trousers started out as underwear?

 

So when did men wearing underwear as outerwear become modest?

 

Clare.

Logged

lefebvre_fan
Member

Posts: 416


« Reply #168 on: January 05, 2007, 02:11:PM »

beer
Logged
Clare
Dumb Blonde
Member

Gender: Female
Location: UK
Posts: 2,484


Ask dad; he knows.


WWW
« Reply #169 on: January 05, 2007, 02:15:PM »

Just a reminder of St Gianna Beretta Molla:

 

 

Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ... 37
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC