Modesty And Proper Clothing For Catholic Men

[N/A Gone]

c'mon I did some funny pseudo exegesis on Deut. laugh away!!!

[adt6247]

[quote name='Budge' post='1380477' date='Sep 7 2007, 04:32 PM']So the stuff on body weight well be careful with that stuff.
Wow I thoughyt it was just some legalistic Bible bangers who requested the no pants thing. I think its legalistic, pants can be modest, ie worn with tunic, not tight, woman doing work where dress would be confining, or riding horse back.[/quote]
Nope -- there are plenty of wacky Catholic communities that disallow pants for women, women from having short hair, listening to music post 1900, etc. They tend to be, in my experience, either really crazy traditionalists, or really crazy charismatics, and in both cases having questionable relationship to the church at large. I know of one community that tried to live more or less as the Amish do, and then gave up a few years later when property taxes caught up with them.

[kafka]

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1380488' date='Sep 7 2007, 03:39 PM']Terra, you're too intelligent to be paying attention to these never-ending, legalistic, let's-be-our-own-Magesterium threads. Let's go post elsewhere. See ya around!
Great clothing options... [/quote]

thanks for the compliment. Awfully charitable of you.

Edited September 7, 2007 by kafka

[N/A Gone]

kafka,

all joking aside. What do you think of my claim that you are taking Deut out of context? It is the first response on this thread. I think that is a major issue here.

[kafka]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1380497' date='Sep 7 2007, 03:48 PM']kafka,

all joking aside. What do you think of my claim that you are taking Deut out of context? It is the first response on this thread. I think that is a major issue here.[/quote]

sorry I do have an interesting answer for that just dont have time now.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='kafka' post='1380473' date='Sep 7 2007, 02:25 PM']No, if Christ's words are true in the Gospel, then we may conclude he didnt wear jewerly and wore simple clothing. We know he owned no property and had few possessions:

{8:19} And one scribe, approaching, said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you will go.”
{8:20} And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have dens, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man has nowhere to rest his head.”

We can learn much about Christ in the Gospels. This is not to be underrated. Some of His words were a direct reference to Himself such as the beautitudes.[/quote]
You're extrapolating way more out of that than I am comfortable with. I don't think you can make definitive statements about Jesus clothing and hairstyle based on this passage, or really any passage that I am aware of.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='kafka' post='1380503' date='Sep 7 2007, 03:52 PM']sorry I do have an interesting answer for that just dont have time now.[/quote]

If you already have the answer, than whats the time issue? I am curious because I think that is a problem with this issue.

[kafka]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1380505' date='Sep 7 2007, 03:54 PM']You're extrapolating way more out of that than I am comfortable with. I don't think you can make definitive statements about Jesus clothing and hairstyle based on this passage, or really any passage that I am aware of.[/quote]

You misread me. I was extrapolating from that passage that Christ owned no property and had few personal possessions.

Concerning His hair and clothing. One can reasonably speculate and come to the conclusion that Christ the Son of God would have worn His hair according to the way men wore their hair in his time. Also based on the message and spirit of the Gospel one can conclude that Christ would have worn simple clothing. I dont have handy any particular scripture quotes but in time I am sure I would run into some.

Also in imitation of Christ religious orders have long wore simple habits etc. in the spirit of poverty which was the spirit of Christ.

[kafka]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1380382' date='Sep 7 2007, 01:37 PM']Haydock Bible commentary
One issue to be careful of is How many things in Deut 22 we break now because they made sense for that culture but not ours. Among those things are: roof designs(8) planting different seeds in a field (9) wearing cloths of mixed fabric (10) and what do you think of 13-22? Ever do the virginity test on a wedding night or did you just pay the fine of shekels of silver and be whipped?

Deut 23:2 makes anyone without a father to the 10th generation damned. (3) would be consided racist. I think I broke 23:13 on active duty. 23:19 kills the stock market, savings and our whole economic system. I wish I knew about 24:5 when I got married.

My point is, much of this is civil law that applied to the jews at this time. Not a religious law that grew and was fulfilled in Christ.[/quote]

Sorry I had to think about it and type it up

Christ himself taught that Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).

This means not only that Scripture cannot be false, but also that it cannot be null and void, nor useless, nor no longer valid, nor irrelevant to modern society, nor of merely historical relevance, nor a mere reflection of past social and cultural beliefs.

If any interpretation of any verse in the Bible
has the effect of making that verse null and void,
then that interpretation is null and void,
not Scripture.

Even though Christians are not required to adhere to many of the external prescriptions of the OT (circumcision, dietary laws, etc.), we are all still bound by the spiritual level of meaning of those passages.

[Matthew]
{5:18} Amen I say to you, certainly, until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota, not one dot shall pass away from the law, until all is done.
{5:19} Therefore, whoever will have loosened one of the least of these commandments, and have taught men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever will have done and taught these, such a one shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[N/A Gone]

I disagree, I think that there are parts of the old test that are only referenced as a cultural situation. We can gather useful things for them, but I dont think they have the same implications for us as they did for the target audience

-Otherwise you need to treat the other chapters of Deut in the same respect. Things like what I pointed out with mixed fabrics, and other civil policies that have practical intentions, but not usage in our society.

This is not discrediting scripture, rather I think it is doing proper exegesis. The intention behind this passage followed at a spiritual level does not equal the same implication you are promoting here.

last question. When Christ is speaking about "the law" do you believe he is speaking of the jewish civil policies? What do you understand as "the law" Keeping in mind the Pauline writings have the term for many of its arguments.

[Aloysius]

there is a general meaning of that passage that men and women should have distinctive roles, and distinctive dress to illustrate those distinctive roles. what those are is up to the culture, however.

men shouldn't wear their hair the way women wear their hair. that doesn't mean some degree of longness isn't pefectly acceptable; the idea being that they do not attempt to look the way females traditionally look in their culture. it is a general cross-cultural natural inclination for women to wear their hair longer, in a veil-like fashion, coming from the very cross-cultural idea that women have a degree of sacredness due to their nature as life-bearers in procreation, and veils are pretty universally used to cover up that which is sacred and/or precious.

these are general ideas that conform perfectly to inculturation everywhere throughout the world; the Catholic Church has been very successful over the centuries in applying them as general ideas. This is not confined to 1950's ideas of fashion; though much of what some trads say might've been absolutely true in the 1950's (ie to do something like the things it describes in the 1950's would have been cross-dressing, because they were emulating the distinctive image of the opposite sex by doing it)\

Rev is correct about things in the Old Testament not directly affecting us. But the overall ideas surrounding these very particularized laws are still valid. One may see these particular laws as the way God commanded a specific culture to teach them certain things and ask "what particular way can our culture be taught these same things?"

[Paladin D]

If these details were an issue of grave concern, then Rome would've addressed it specifically. Common sense would say not to wear clothing that would lead another to sin, but to nitpick on things such as how many rings you should wear, is absolutely crazy.

Fashion is fashion, it changes. As long as it isn't sexually provocative, then I see no issue of concern. Every culture has different standards, a one-size-fits-all attituide does not cut it, and goes against the nature of cultural diversity within the Catholic Church. Don't twist what I just said into supporting conduct that clearly goes against moral teaching, the subject is about fashion, not issues such as Abortion.

[Aloysius]

not sure who you're addressing that to, I assume it's not to me since I'm basically elaborating upon a position quite closely related to yours, ie that these things should not be cookie-cuttered out of the 1950's as absolute principals of Catholic dress, unless you misunderstood me of course. In any event, I would respond against the attempted argument "if this or that were of grave concern, Rome would have addressed it", that is generally an attempt to silence legitimate discussion and debate that should be had amongst the laity. Rome's silence on an issue is never a command from Rome for the laity to be apathetic towards that issue.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1380611' date='Sep 7 2007, 06:58 PM']not sure who you're addressing that to, I assume it's not to me since I'm basically elaborating upon a position quite closely related to yours, ie that these things should not be cookie-cuttered out of the 1950's as absolute principals of Catholic dress, unless you misunderstood me of course.[/quote]

It wasn't addressed to you.

It was addressed to [b]Kafka[/b], and anyone else who agrees with her claims.


[quote]In any event, I would respond against the attempted argument "if this or that were of grave concern, Rome would have addressed it", that is generally an attempt to silence legitimate discussion and debate that should be had amongst the laity. Rome's silence on an issue is never a command from Rome for the laity to be apathetic towards that issue.[/quote]

True. I don't see the harm in debating this issue; however, if these harmless fashion practices were on the same level as with immodest fashion/practices (to lead another into sin through lust), then it would've been addressed one way or another by someone of authority in the Church.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Paladin D

[kafka]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1380631' date='Sep 7 2007, 06:38 PM']It wasn't addressed to you.

It was addressed to [b]Kafka[/b], and anyone else who agrees with her claims.[/quote]

by the way I'm a he. And for men I think its vain to be too interested in ones appearance. And by the way I am getting tired of people not reading my posts carefully enough and then misinterprating them notice Paladin I said:

Men should not [b]overly [/b] adore themselves with gold or jewelry.

Men should not wear [b]excessive[/b] jewelry, such as gold chains or other jewelry

His watch should not be [b]overly[/b] expensive, nor [b]overly[/b] adorned.

A man may wear a religious symbol around his neck, such as a cross, or a scapular, or other. Such religious symbols should not be expensive, nor showy.


And this I write in the spirit of imitating Christ and the Saints.