Author Topic: Unflesh-colored tights even if the skirt reaches below the knees when women sit  (Read 610 times)

Offline Hugues de Payns

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Religion: Christianity
Dresses and skirts to the ground are praiseworthy for women in contrast to those reaching so that in a sitting position they cover their knees, as if worn maybe so long by force by compulsion, perhaps by shame, not for the Lord God and virtue. In addition, well matched are probably more comfortable, and maybe even healthier, they are prettier, emphasizing femininity. However, one should remember that the legs below must be fully covered with unflesh-colored tights according to the instruction of Pope Pius XI listed below. The greatest example that all women should imitate is the Mother of God. She wore robes to the ground. After all, traditionally Christian women wore robes and dresses to the ground.

https://www.fronda.pl/blogi/miroslaw-salwowski/brawarystyczne-zawsze-wierni,6110.html?page=2&


- so-called Polish

""12 stycznia 1930 roku, papież Pius XI nakazał opublikowanie instrukcji na temat skromności strojów. W instrukcji tej przypomniał zalecenia zawarte w liście Kongregacji ds. Duchowieństwa z 1928 roku: (...)"


- so-called English, this is not English. The best proof of this is The Smaller Catechism of Saint Cardinal Robert Bellarmin Bishop and Doctor of the Church https://isidore.co/calibre#book_id=4363&panel=book_details , England has not existed since December 11, 1688.

"" On January 12, 1930, Pope Pius XI ordered the publication of the instruction on the modesty of the costumes. In this instruction he recalled the recommendations contained in the letter of the Congregation for the Clergy of 1928: (...)"


Do you know the source of this instruction (e.g. link, photo) ?


I believe that this article from the link above contains the truth about the following. It results from a rational approach to the matter. It is about tights. Some if not most women do not wear unflesh-colored tights even if the skirt reaches below the knees when they sit because they may not even know about it. The so-called English versions of the guidelines of this instruction contain nothing about tights.

http://www.olvrc.com/reference/documents/Modesty.Pius.XI.pdf

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxchIU3wZYCIaVN2MXFKbjhKa2c/view (page 17 and 18)

https://www.national-coalition.org/modesty/moddecre.html


However, please read the following.


The bare legs of women have nothing to do with modesty, they are immodest.


Please note that there is no asterisk * before footnote 37 and footnote 37 itself from the link below

https://books.google.pl/books?id=rCvGCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT65&lpg=PT65&dq=instruction+of+Pope+Pius+XI+of+January+12,+1930+on+modesty+of+clothing&source=bl&ots=pY3N9kn70O&sig=ACfU3U10mq_p0eXMDvGTXMX5MGA7suYNqg&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE1vzzlP3jAhUPAhAIHSg_AgAQ6AEwCHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=instruction%20of%20Pope%20Pius%20XI%20of%20January%2012%2C%201930%20on%20modesty%20of%20clothing&f=false

And these are quotations from this link (the newspaper of so-called Polish SSPX) https://www.fronda.pl/blogi/miroslaw-salwowski/brawarystyczne-zawsze-wierni,6110.html?page=2&:


- so-called Polish

""12 stycznia 1930 roku, papież Pius XI nakazał opublikowanie instrukcji na temat skromności strojów. W instrukcji tej przypomniał zalecenia zawarte w liście Kongregacji ds. Duchowieństwa z 1928 roku: <Przypominamy, że strój nie może być nazwany przyzwoitym, jeśli posiada dekolt większy niż na szerokość dwóch palców mierząc od szyi, jeśli nie zakrywa ramion co najmniej do łokci i nie sięga przynajmniej trochę poniżej kolan. Ponadto, niedopuszczalna jest odzież z materiałów przeźroczystych oraz rajstopy w kolorze cielistym, sugerującym, że nogi są nagie> (…)"

"(…) Teologia moralna uczy, że klatka piersiowa, plecy, ramiona i nogi są <mniej przyzwoitymi> częściami ciała, tzn. spojrzenie na te części ciała łatwiej pobudza zmysłowość niż na inne, np. twarz, stopy czy ręce."


- so-called English, this is not English. The best proof of this is The Smaller Catechism of Saint Cardinal Robert Bellarmin Bishop and Doctor of the Church https://isidore.co/calibre#book_id=4363&panel=book_details , England has not existed since December 11, 1688.

"" On January 12, 1930, Pope Pius XI ordered the publication of the instruction on the modesty of the costumes. In this instruction he recalled the recommendations contained in the letter of the Congregation for the Clergy of 1928: <We remind that a costume can not be called decent if it hath a neckline larger than the width of two fingers measuring from the neck, if it does not cover the shoulders at least to the elbows and does not reach at least slightly below the knees. In addition, clothing made of transparent materials and flesh-colored tights suggesting that the legs are bare is unacceptable> (...)"

"(...) Moral theology teaches that the chest, back, shoulders and legs are <less decent> body parts, i.e. the glance at these body parts stimulates sensuality easier than at the others, e.g. the face, feet or hands."


To translate the so-called Polish contents (if you want) use a translator (translation more or less) https://translate.google.pl/?hl=pl
« Last Edit: November 08, 2019, 08:00:31 AM by Hugues de Payns »
 

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1351
  • Thanked: 928 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Ladies, don't forget your swimming trunks.



And don't think that you should be able to engage in such activities as running, climbing, hiking in a hot climate and sports in general. God certainly made Eve a dress to the ankles out of those animal skins.
 

Online coffeeandcigarette

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • Thanked: 48 times
Ladies, don't forget your swimming trunks.



And don't think that you should be able to engage in such activities as running, climbing, hiking in a hot climate and sports in general. God certainly made Eve a dress to the ankles out of those animal skins.

I am not here to open a can of worms, I really am not. However...please google Victorian women hiking, picnicking, golfing. Please look at the normal uniform of women anytime up until the 19-teens. You will see servant girls, who spent their whole lives engaging in physical activities wearing ankle length skirts, long sleeve blouses, etc. There was no air conditioning, and they spent lots of time outdoors. Countless women spent their lives in Africa and the Southern Hemisphere doing research, missionary work, physical labor, etc....all in ankle length skirts and long sleeve blouses. Lest we forget the athletic modest women from the past I suggest you also take a minute to google Maude Watson, Charlotte Cooper, and Ethel Larcombe. They were all Wimbledon Champions. It is insane to say that women cannot be active and modest. Now, I will allow that there is a great ease of movement when one removes some elements of modest dress, but where does that leave us? Are we supposed to do something because it is easier? Are we supposed to sacrifice modesty because it will get us up the mountain faster, to the end sooner? Maybe we should insult God with immodest clothing so we can score more points and win more trophies...I think at times like these we should really understand the meaning of being in the world but NOT of it. As Catholics, there is a line to draw in every situation, there is a line to draw in modesty too, like everything else. WE forget this simple principle simply because whenever modesty is mentioned all the trad closet feminists coming crawling out of the woodwork with #metoo scrawled on their exposed knees or on the backside of their favorite jeans.
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, Maximilian, Traditionallyruralmom

Offline awkwardcustomer

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2543
  • Thanked: 1017 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Surely men should wear long tunics or robes to the ankle too, shouldn't they.

Or at least wear loose pants, or never take off their jackets if they are wearing tight pants.
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.
 

Offline Hugues de Payns

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Religion: Christianity


And don't think that you should be able to engage in such activities as running, climbing, hiking in a hot climate and sports in general. God certainly made Eve a dress to the ankles out of those animal skins.

And why not ? However, it must be on the Catholic rules. Every Christian should adapt his whole life to God's Law, otherwise he makes himself god and this is a pure devilry.


God certainly made Eve a dress to the ankles out of those animal skins.

This is infantile.

 

Offline awkwardcustomer

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2543
  • Thanked: 1017 times
  • Religion: Catholic
God certainly made Eve a dress to the ankles out of those animal skins.

And Adam too, although not a dress, but modest, to the ankles, robes or a tunic.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2019, 12:15:41 PM by awkwardcustomer »
And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kreuzritter

Offline Hugues de Payns

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Religion: Christianity

Please look at the normal uniform of women anytime up until the 19-teens.

Lest we forget the athletic modest women from the past I suggest you also take a minute to google Maude Watson, Charlotte Cooper, and Ethel Larcombe.



I do not understand, maybe it is about the 19th century in this sentence, and it should be "anytime up until the XX century" - ?

Charlotte Cooper and Ethel Larcombe are not good examples. In the pictures they wear a tie like men, and this is a sin. It is a such poison drop in the whole First Epistle to the Corinthians [5:6].
 

Offline Maximilian

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5200
  • Thanked: 2900 times

It is insane to say that women cannot be active and modest.

Yes, excellent post.


Are we supposed to sacrifice modesty because it will get us up the mountain faster, to the end sooner?

Yes, Pope Pius XI made this very point in similar words when discussing "Christian Education of Youth" in his 1929 encyclical Divini Illius Magistri.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri.html


Maybe we should insult God with immodest clothing so we can score more points and win more trophies.

The most classic example for me are the swim suits worn in Olympic competitions. For many years the girls (and boys) displayed themselves virtually naked before the whole world watching them on television, in order, so they claimed, to get a competitive advantage. They couldn't afford to wear modest swim wear lest they lose the race.

Then it turns out that was totally wrong. The modern swim suits that truly do provide a competitive advantage cover the body from wrists to ankles. New rules had to be implemented which limited the amount of covering over the body in order to level the playing field, since covering one's body completely provided such a huge advantage.
 

Offline Hugues de Payns

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Religion: Christianity
Surely men should wear long tunics or robes to the ankle too, shouldn't they.

Or at least wear loose pants, or never take off their jackets if they are wearing tight pants.


It seems to me that before the age of obfuscation (incorrectly called enlightenment), and maybe one should go back to the era before the outbreak of the protestant revolution, men wore robes to the ground or to the ankles, in any case long robes (not pants).

The Example that every Christian man should imitate is the Lord Jesus, that is God Himself because in His Image we were created and every faithful to Him man lives for Him. He wore robes to the ground and they were not pants.

Faithful to the Lord God Jews (People of God) during His earthly stay on earth and in the Old Order wore robes to the earth.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2019, 12:48:46 AM by Hugues de Payns »
 

Online coffeeandcigarette

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • Thanked: 48 times

Please look at the normal uniform of women anytime up until the 19-teens.

Lest we forget the athletic modest women from the past I suggest you also take a minute to google Maude Watson, Charlotte Cooper, and Ethel Larcombe.





I do not understand, maybe it is about the 19th century in this sentence, and it should be "anytime up until the XX century" - ?

Charlotte Cooper and Ethel Larcombe are not good examples. In the pictures they wear a tie like men, and this is a sin. It is a such poison drop in the whole First Epistle to the Corinthians [5:6].

I said that because after that era immodesty began to take hold and there were fewer examples of women dressing modestly for activities.
Secondly, you are incorrect. A brief perusal of some fashion history books will tell you that the style of tie in those pictures was actually created for women. In only became fashionable for men later on.
 

Online coffeeandcigarette

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • Thanked: 48 times
Surely men should wear long tunics or robes to the ankle too, shouldn't they.

Or at least wear loose pants, or never take off their jackets if they are wearing tight pants.

You know awkward, this is something I have thought about a lot. Our Lord wore robes, most men in the world wore robes for centuries. Pagans went naked in many places, and as soon as the Gospel was preached, nakedness was done away with. Mini skirts, leggings, and cod pieces became all the rage for men during the renaissance which we know was a horrible decadent time. Now we have pants. The minds of women work differently than men and you could say that changing fashions for men is neutral because they do not awaken lust in women (in general). I honestly don't know. I do know that a man walking around in a robe now would probably be immodest for a) drawing excessive attention toward himself and b) for scandalizing others by making people think he was muslim or something. This is a great question, I would love to see it fleshed out in a logical thoughtful way...go to it!
 

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1351
  • Thanked: 928 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
And why not ? However, it must be on the Catholic rules. Every Christian should adapt his whole life to God's Law, otherwise he makes himself god and this is a pure devilry.

God hasn't provided a list of this legalistic moral crankery anywhere. This is literal Pharisaism, spun from a theology that, under the Scholastics and their adoption of Stoic natural law theory, became obsessed with deriving the "correct" moral behaviour for every conceivable situation and generating long lists of rules, the mind and law replacing the heart and Holy Spirit.


God certainly made Eve a dress to the ankles out of those animal skins.

This is infantile.

It's not infantile. That God himself will have covered Eve in a way that couldn't have met your alleged "God's Law" is a fact that flies in the face of your position. What's infantile is the title of this thread and the cultic puritanism behind it.
 

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1351
  • Thanked: 928 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Surely men should wear long tunics or robes to the ankle too, shouldn't they.

Or at least wear loose pants, or never take off their jackets if they are wearing tight pants.


It seems to me that before the age of obfuscation (incorrectly called enlightenment), and maybe one should go back to the era before the outbreak of the protestant revolution, men wore robes to the ground or to the ankles, in any case long robes (not pants).

Medieval art says you're wrong.
 

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1351
  • Thanked: 928 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Seriously, all the Satanic madness unleashed in the world ... and exposed legs without "unflesh-coloured" tights?  :o The time wasted on this thread is probably more sinful than an exposed calf.
 

Offline awkwardcustomer

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2543
  • Thanked: 1017 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Surely men should wear long tunics or robes to the ankle too, shouldn't they.

Or at least wear loose pants, or never take off their jackets if they are wearing tight pants.

You know awkward, this is something I have thought about a lot. Our Lord wore robes, most men in the world wore robes for centuries. Pagans went naked in many places, and as soon as the Gospel was preached, nakedness was done away with. Mini skirts, leggings, and cod pieces became all the rage for men during the renaissance which we know was a horrible decadent time. Now we have pants. The minds of women work differently than men and you could say that changing fashions for men is neutral because they do not awaken lust in women (in general). I honestly don't know. I do know that a man walking around in a robe now would probably be immodest for a) drawing excessive attention toward himself and b) for scandalizing others by making people think he was muslim or something. This is a great question, I would love to see it fleshed out in a logical thoughtful way...go to it!

The problem is that discussions on this topic have been going on and on for years and a lot of people, including myself, tend to groan inwardly whenever they start up again and post accordingly, quite often about Scotsmen in kilts and Moslem men in long robes.   

The fact is that pants have never been the only option for men.  What's more they are extremely uncomfortable in summer.  I can't imagine having to wear pants, socks, shoes, a shirt, a tie, and a jacket in summer in somewhere like Texas.  Without aircon, the heat would be unbearable.

I feel sorry for men who have to dress like this, in a way that is only possible in many parts of the world for those with access to aircon at home, in the car, in the mall, at work, at Mass.

But your question is very interesting nevertheless, especially as there is no record anywhere of Our Lord or the Apostles wearing pants.  They dressed in the most appropriate way for the climate they lived in.  Surely all questions of modesty must have common sense as their foundation.

And formerly the heretics were manifest; but now the Church is filled with heretics in disguise.  
St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 15, para 9.

And what rough beast, it's hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
WB Yeats, 'The Second Coming'.