Catholic Medieval dresses

[Hugues de Payns]

Anyone know any websites or shops with Catholic Medieval dresses ?

[Mono no aware]

Although I am not looking for a store to buy medieval dresses from, I am wondering if the picture below is of a "medieval dress."  Unfortunately, it only shows the material around the neck, shoulders, and chest.  The picture is of an actress playing Isabel of Castile (c. late medieval, early Renaissance) in a series from Spanish television in the late 1970s.  Perhaps the costume is inaccurate; I do not know.  For the purposes of a writing project, I would be interested to know if there is a name or descriptor for this kind of dress.  In most of the painted portraits of Isabel, she wears dresses that have a white and gauzy fabric around the neck, clavicle, and bosom, whereas this one appears more modest, somehow almost Celtic or Scandinavian.

[Hugues de Payns]

It seems to me that Queen Isabella I of Castile it is probably the so-called "renaissance", not the Middle Ages. This is already after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. In Europe in some areas the so-called "renaissance" it is possible that began at the beginning of the 14th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance#Origins

If I see well, here we can see a smaller cutting out of the bare body https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Castile#/media/File:Fernando_e_Isabel.jpg than here in later years  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Castile#/media/File:Reinaisabeldecastilla.jpg . Unless there are some other paintings from her earlier years of life also with a larger cutting out. It does not change the fact that it is all probably the so-called "renaissance" because Queen Isabella I of Castile was born in 1451 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Castile .

[coffeeandcigarette]

Medieval dresses are all very similar. I don't know what you mean by "catholic." Are you hoping to buy from a Catholic person? All you need is a long gown (kirtle) with long sleeves, then a sleeveless overdress, which usually has open sides. Then some sort of veil, cap, or headdress. Honestly, a medieval ensemble is one of the easiest things in the world to sew. All you need to do is grab some wool or linen (Joann's has some very good wool these days) and go for it. There are about 10,000 youtube videos on how to make basic medieval ensemble as well; if you are a visual learner like me.

[Hugues de Payns]

Medieval dresses are all very similar. I don't know what you mean by "catholic." Are you hoping to buy from a Catholic person? All you need is a long gown (kirtle) with long sleeves, then a sleeveless overdress, which usually has open sides. Then some sort of veil, cap, or headdress. Honestly, a medieval ensemble is one of the easiest things in the world to sew. All you need to do is grab some wool or linen (Joann's has some very good wool these days) and go for it. There are about 10,000 youtube videos on how to make basic medieval ensemble as well; if you are a visual learner like me.

In the history of Europe, the Middle Ages (or medieval period) lasted from the 5th to the 15th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages. It is not about pagan dresses, e.g. slavic, vikings, celtic, etc. or with supposedly magic materials.

http://jaromira-dalebora.blogspot.com/search/label/wierzchnia_wczesna

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artysta.pl%2Falbums%2F4%2FSuknia_spodnia__Grunwald2.jpg.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artysta.pl%2Fgaleria%2Fpokaz%2Fstroje%2Csredniowieczne%2Cdamskie%2Fsuknia%2Cspodnia%2Cokres%2Cokologrunwaldzki%2Cpoczatek%2Cxv%2Cwieku-2081&tbnid=_hGeRemZb7LnfM&vet=10CBUQxiAoBGoXChMIiOiFn5K15wIVAAAAAB0AAAAAEBI..i&docid=SyLTmK1xAis24M&w=728&h=1200&itg=1&q=%C5%9Bredniowieczne%20suknie%20na%20codzie%C5%84&ved=0CBUQxiAoBGoXChMIiOiFn5K15wIVAAAAAB0AAAAAEBI#h=1200&imgdii=nyqhVW7HgErR8M:&vet=10CBUQxiAoBGoXChMIiOiFn5K15wIVAAAAAB0AAAAAEBI..i&w=728

https://www.google.com/search?q=%C5%9Bredniowieczne+suknie+na+codzie%C5%84&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CZ8qoVVux4BKImAgOZeFWatkWGZqD0hFTzdK2aRHYFSkofTBluHmW3kRu_1Zv7Zbsm2Rn_1hGeRemZb7KrjZ4-_1wI3rKd4D5UWdUpyvR2Q8ED3MI2BRD2Wza_1o1FBvzjOkgi-Mk9iol5HuBnEqEgkgOZeFWatkWBHBcPZlCrMZsyoSCWZqD0hFTzdKEcRt1pPeXxgpKhIJ2aRHYFSkofQRl5xP0ZZBNX8qEgnBluHmW3kRuxE4s_13DcB9n4ioSCfZv7Zbsm2RnET39bKA8okqiKhIJ_1hGeRemZb7IRSyLTmK1xAisqEgmrjZ4-_1wI3rBFyqV-bhIxo9CoSCad4D5UWdUpyEVNVtABQhnSDKhIJvR2Q8ED3MI0RaY9hEf67tlIqEgmBRD2Wza_1o1BGC8tHfvN-dKioSCVBvzjOkgi-MEbl6prepJP7VKhIJk9iol5HuBnERsdqoj0rYU6thVCs5Y6M_1gos&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjnvYj-kLXnAhWH16YKHdNCD2AQuIIBegQIARA7&biw=1280&bih=625&dpr=1.5

https://www.etsy.com/listing/729437714/medieval-dress-selene?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=medieval+dress&ref=sc_gallery-1-5&plkey=f1215168f5eb6db4add608d7ed45d66fae66db69%3A729437714&col=1

https://www.etsy.com/listing/634901650/viking-dress-and-apron-shielmaiden?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=medieval+dress&ref=sr_gallery-1-21&frs=1

Here we see one of materials: magic https://www.etsy.com/listing/541006332/medieval-linen-dress-kirtle-chemise?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=medieval+dress&ref=srns=medallery-1-30&c 1

https://www.etsy.com/ie/listing/601900650/medieval-dress-celtic-dress-slavic-pagan

https://dawnsmedievaldresses.co.uk/celtic-pagan-cream-green-wedding-dress-p-1168.html

https://apkpure.com/celtic-dresses/com.CelticDresses2018.CelticDresses

https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Irish-Costume-Chemise-Dress/dp/B01ICYW24W?ref_=fsclp_pl_dp_2

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/386254105532132449/

https://www.pinterest.de/pin/527836018802695527/


Or with cuttings out what it is probably a lie

https://favpng.com/png_view/dresses-middle-ages-english-medieval-clothing-dress-peasant-png/mjXGfkda

Here, perhaps, and shorter sleeves are a lie https://www.pngfuel.com/free-png/fhdho

I do not also mean such cuttings out what Queen Isabel I of Castile had in her dresses because these dresses were probably from the so-called "renaissance", not from the Middle Ages.


Interestingly, there are so many impious Medieval dresses to buy, but I can not find Catholic Medieval dresses.

Please give some example from these 10,000 youtube videos.

[coffeeandcigarette]

Medieval dresses are all very similar. I don't know what you mean by "catholic." Are you hoping to buy from a Catholic person? All you need is a long gown (kirtle) with long sleeves, then a sleeveless overdress, which usually has open sides. Then some sort of veil, cap, or headdress. Honestly, a medieval ensemble is one of the easiest things in the world to sew. All you need to do is grab some wool or linen (Joann's has some very good wool these days) and go for it. There are about 10,000 youtube videos on how to make basic medieval ensemble as well; if you are a visual learner like me.

In the history of Europe, the Middle Ages (or medieval period) lasted from the 5th to the 15th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages. It is not about pagan dresses, e.g. slavic, vikings, celtic, etc. or with supposedly magic materials.

http://jaromira-dalebora.blogspot.com/search/label/wierzchnia_wczesna

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artysta.pl%2Falbums%2F4%2FSuknia_spodnia__Grunwald2.jpg.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artysta.pl%2Fgaleria%2Fpokaz%2Fstroje%2Csredniowieczne%2Cdamskie%2Fsuknia%2Cspodnia%2Cokres%2Cokologrunwaldzki%2Cpoczatek%2Cxv%2Cwieku-2081&tbnid=_hGeRemZb7LnfM&vet=10CBUQxiAoBGoXChMIiOiFn5K15wIVAAAAAB0AAAAAEBI..i&docid=SyLTmK1xAis24M&w=728&h=1200&itg=1&q=%C5%9Bredniowieczne%20suknie%20na%20codzie%C5%84&ved=0CBUQxiAoBGoXChMIiOiFn5K15wIVAAAAAB0AAAAAEBI#h=1200&imgdii=nyqhVW7HgErR8M:&vet=10CBUQxiAoBGoXChMIiOiFn5K15wIVAAAAAB0AAAAAEBI..i&w=728

https://www.google.com/search?q=%C5%9Bredniowieczne+suknie+na+codzie%C5%84&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CZ8qoVVux4BKImAgOZeFWatkWGZqD0hFTzdK2aRHYFSkofTBluHmW3kRu_1Zv7Zbsm2Rn_1hGeRemZb7KrjZ4-_1wI3rKd4D5UWdUpyvR2Q8ED3MI2BRD2Wza_1o1FBvzjOkgi-Mk9iol5HuBnEqEgkgOZeFWatkWBHBcPZlCrMZsyoSCWZqD0hFTzdKEcRt1pPeXxgpKhIJ2aRHYFSkofQRl5xP0ZZBNX8qEgnBluHmW3kRuxE4s_13DcB9n4ioSCfZv7Zbsm2RnET39bKA8okqiKhIJ_1hGeRemZb7IRSyLTmK1xAisqEgmrjZ4-_1wI3rBFyqV-bhIxo9CoSCad4D5UWdUpyEVNVtABQhnSDKhIJvR2Q8ED3MI0RaY9hEf67tlIqEgmBRD2Wza_1o1BGC8tHfvN-dKioSCVBvzjOkgi-MEbl6prepJP7VKhIJk9iol5HuBnERsdqoj0rYU6thVCs5Y6M_1gos&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjnvYj-kLXnAhWH16YKHdNCD2AQuIIBegQIARA7&biw=1280&bih=625&dpr=1.5

https://www.etsy.com/listing/729437714/medieval-dress-selene?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=medieval+dress&ref=sc_gallery-1-5&plkey=f1215168f5eb6db4add608d7ed45d66fae66db69%3A729437714&col=1

https://www.etsy.com/listing/634901650/viking-dress-and-apron-shielmaiden?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=medieval+dress&ref=sr_gallery-1-21&frs=1

Here we see one of materials: magic https://www.etsy.com/listing/541006332/medieval-linen-dress-kirtle-chemise?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=medieval+dress&ref=srns=medallery-1-30&c 1

https://www.etsy.com/ie/listing/601900650/medieval-dress-celtic-dress-slavic-pagan

https://dawnsmedievaldresses.co.uk/celtic-pagan-cream-green-wedding-dress-p-1168.html

https://apkpure.com/celtic-dresses/com.CelticDresses2018.CelticDresses

https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Irish-Costume-Chemise-Dress/dp/B01ICYW24W?ref_=fsclp_pl_dp_2

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/386254105532132449/

https://www.pinterest.de/pin/527836018802695527/


Or with cuttings out what it is probably a lie

https://favpng.com/png_view/dresses-middle-ages-english-medieval-clothing-dress-peasant-png/mjXGfkda

Here, perhaps, and shorter sleeves are a lie https://www.pngfuel.com/free-png/fhdho

I do not also mean such cuttings out what Queen Isabel I of Castile had in her dresses because these dresses were probably from the so-called "renaissance", not from the Middle Ages.


Interestingly, there are so many impious Medieval dresses to buy, but I can not find Catholic Medieval dresses.

Please give some example from these 10,000 youtube videos.

Ok, I see now. The term "catholic" was confusing. What you essentially want is a middle European/English medieval dress. You are also looking for something authentic. That is a given, it has nothing to do with being Catholic. Also, a huge majority of Celtic dress at this time would also have been "catholic" as the faith had been established in Ireland by now. Even authentic pagan medieval Celtic clothing was very modest (hello Irish weather). Assigning a faith to a garment is confusing. Authentic is really what you are going for, since they were all modest. You could add modest just as an aside, but it is really unnecessary.

Another point, short sleeves are not "a lie," but you must understand that they were either short sleeve kirtles that would have been worn with long sleeves laced on, or short sleeve overdresses worn over a long sleeve kirtle. Anything from a costume store is bound to be total rubbish in quality, and authenticity. Also, because the point of most adults dressing up these days appears to be a chance to look like a hooker and get away with it, you are going to see a lot of liberties taken with modesty. Have you seen the "nun" costumes on these sites...I mean really. They are not going for authentic.

Now, as for shopping, the women who make authentic medieval costumes will be using good material and workmanship, this means you will probably pay a lot for the outfit. To make it oneself is much more affordable. If you have a couple hundred bucks to blow on a fabulous costume, great, if not, youtube is the place.

Now, as you said, the "medieval" is a very long period in history. This will be a little early and some late.

Shopping:(early medieval)
https://www.etsy.com/listing/270102092/medieval-dress-side-laced-cotehardie?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=medieval+kirtle&ref=sr_gallery-1-1&organic_search_click=1


youtube:






Have fun!

[Hugues de Payns]

Ok, I see now. The term "catholic" was confusing. What you essentially want is a middle European/English medieval dress. You are also looking for something authentic. That is a given, it has nothing to do with being Catholic. Also, a huge majority of Celtic dress at this time would also have been "catholic" as the faith had been established in Ireland by now. Even authentic pagan medieval Celtic clothing was very modest (hello Irish weather). Assigning a faith to a garment is confusing. Authentic is really what you are going for, since they were all modest. You could add modest just as an aside, but it is really unnecessary.

I do not agree. pagan colors and finish, pagan embroidery, pagan stylization, magic as the material of the dress, pagan greeting on the website, pagan necklace for the dress, transparent material. These dresses are combined with paganism. A Catholic can not pass by it indifferently.

If something is Christianized, like the celtic cross, Christianized celtic cross looks different, It changed its shape and is no longer celtic. If somebody gives purely celtic names then it is pagan.

Attributing faith to clothing is absolutely not misleading, it is clarifying.

The weather justifying the bareness is unserious and ridiculous.

Another point, short sleeves are not "a lie," but you must understand that they were either short sleeve kirtles that would have been worn with long sleeves laced on, or short sleeve overdresses worn over a long sleeve kirtle.

But there are no sleeves to the wrists. https://www.pngfuel.com/free-png/fhdho

Now, as you said, the "medieval" is a very long period in history. This will be a little early and some late.

Shopping:(early medieval)
https://www.etsy.com/listing/270102092/medieval-dress-side-laced-cotehardie?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=medieval+kirtle&ref=sr_gallery-1-1&organic_search_click=1

The description says it is 14th century, not early medieval as you wrote.

youtube:






Have fun!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yED06QFK2Q4&feature=emb_logo It seems to me that she made a larger cutting out time 8:23 than her pattern 4:38 https://www.pinterest.com/pin/20969954488959001/ "Italian women; 1380" see above when the so-called "renaissance" began in those lands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK4wwQlML8I&feature=emb_logo Time 21:09, 23:11, It seems to me that this is absolutely neither Catholic nor Medieval.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXv5I1A3WQQ&feature=emb_logo Time 29:41 It seems to me that this is not a Medieval dress.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=327azBjatjg&feature=emb_logo Time 1:29 https://www.pinterest.ch/pin/441915782168820687/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=327azBjatjg&feature=emb_logo Time 7: 47 https://images.nga.gov/?service=asset&action=show_zoom_window_popup&language=en&asset=148628&location=grid&asset_list=148628&b

It seems to me that dresses with larger cuttings out were already "renaissance". The Middle Ages is the Catholic epoch, so modest, not with more bareness.

I do not know if these all were not Catholic dresses because I do not know if the breadth (two fingers from the neck about which Pope Pius XI wrote in the instruction) could have been greater.

[coffeeandcigarette]

Wow. Ok, you are still conflating what an actual medieval dress is though.

To address some of your points:

1. Magic material? Again, if you simply find an authentic dress these are not concerns. You are looking at modern pagan witch-craft oriented websites. These are not authentic, they are not meant to be. Transparent material didn't even really exist in the medieval times. The closest you got was thin cotton which was really never worn on the continent. I can see how you would not want pagan embroidery on the dress, but again, you just need a non-pagan festival dress (do you know how rare pagan embroidery on a dress would have been in the medieval period?). It can be completely normal in every other way.

2.I was not justifying bareness. Are you even reading my posts? I was saying that Irish clothing throughout history has been very modest because it is cold and wet all year. What are you on about?

3. There are no sleeves to the wrist? What, on a costume website? Again, this is not a sign of the dress being "non-catholic," it is simply wildly unauthentic.

4. It doesn't matter what the description says. A basic solid-colored kirtle is a medieval basic. It was worn throughout the period and can be dated to a number of different years.

5. "it seems to me" You apparently have very little knowledge of sewing, medieval clothing, historical clothing in general, etc. I would not put a lot of faith into what something "seems" like to you.

6. A shift is absolutely medieval and was worn by all women, catholic and otherwise. It is underwear, what do you expect it to look like? This would have been worn under a kirtle.

7. Again, I don't care what it seems like to you, it is medieval. Heraldic dresses were very common and we have a vast record of their use throughout the period.

8. In terms of the modesty of the various necklines, nothing has changed today. Different women could have made them higher or lower. Again, they would have worn a shift under this which showed in some cases because of a high neckline. You must also understand that it was usual for a women to wear a veil and wimple with her kirtle. That essentially means that in many cases you would never see the neckline or anything near it. After all, the traditional nun habit we all know and recognize originated in the medieval and was simply a sombre version of what all ladies wore all the time.

9. It doesn't matter how many cut-outs you have, if there is fabric underneath it. Then you are still completely covered.

I don't know if you are trying to be difficult, but I am really trying to help you with this. I have spend years researching historical clothing, sewing, designing patterns, etc. I can assure you I know what I am talking about. Make yourself a shift, make a kirtle, get together a wimple and veil and enjoy. I don't know if you are trying to get your hands on this for an event or for everyday life; but goodluck.

[Lynne]

Wow. Ok, you are still conflating what an actual medieval dress is though.

To address some of your points:

1. Magic material? Again, if you simply find an authentic dress these are not concerns. You are looking at modern pagan witch-craft oriented websites. These are not authentic, they are not meant to be. Transparent material didn't even really exist in the medieval times. The closest you got was thin cotton which was really never worn on the continent. I can see how you would not want pagan embroidery on the dress, but again, you just need a non-pagan festival dress (do you know how rare pagan embroidery on a dress would have been in the medieval period?). It can be completely normal in every other way.

2.I was not justifying bareness. Are you even reading my posts? I was saying that Irish clothing throughout history has been very modest because it is cold and wet all year. What are you on about?

3. There are no sleeves to the wrist? What, on a costume website? Again, this is not a sign of the dress being "non-catholic," it is simply wildly unauthentic.

4. It doesn't matter what the description says. A basic solid-colored kirtle is a medieval basic. It was worn throughout the period and can be dated to a number of different years.

5. "it seems to me" You apparently have very little knowledge of sewing, medieval clothing, historical clothing in general, etc. I would not put a lot of faith into what something "seems" like to you.

6. A shift is absolutely medieval and was worn by all women, catholic and otherwise. It is underwear, what do you expect it to look like? This would have been worn under a kirtle.

7. Again, I don't care what it seems like to you, it is medieval. Heraldic dresses were very common and we have a vast record of their use throughout the period.

8. In terms of the modesty of the various necklines, nothing has changed today. Different women could have made them higher or lower. Again, they would have worn a shift under this which showed in some cases because of a high neckline. You must also understand that it was usual for a women to wear a veil and wimple with her kirtle. That essentially means that in many cases you would never see the neckline or anything near it. After all, the traditional nun habit we all know and recognize originated in the medieval and was simply a sombre version of what all ladies wore all the time.

9. It doesn't matter how many cut-outs you have, if there is fabric underneath it. Then you are still completely covered.

I don't know if you are trying to be difficult, but I am really trying to help you with this. I have spend years researching historical clothing, sewing, designing patterns, etc. I can assure you I know what I am talking about. Make yourself a shift, make a kirtle, get together a wimple and veil and enjoy. I don't know if you are trying to get your hands on this for an event or for everyday life; but goodluck.

Some people here are just strange (perhaps even trolls) and given that that there are no moderators here, we just have to ignore them as best we can.  Thank you for your information.

[Hugues de Payns]

The weather justifying the bareness is unserious and ridiculous.

I misunderstood you. I apologise.

5. "it seems to me" You apparently have very little knowledge of sewing, medieval clothing, historical clothing in general, etc.

That is right, that is why I am looking for this knowledge. I am looking for the Truth.

6. A shift is absolutely medieval and was worn by all women, catholic and otherwise. It is underwear, what do you expect it to look like? This would have been worn under a kirtle.

I did not really notice that this is underwear. If it really was like that then I apologise. In the margin in so-called "Polish" there is no translation what kirtle is and shift as underwear, but I know what underwear means.

7. Again, I don't care what it seems like to you, it is medieval. Heraldic dresses were very common and we have a vast record of their use throughout the period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXv5I1A3WQQ&feature=emb_logo Time 29:41 It seems to me that this is not a Medieval dress.

I have nothing against heraldic dresses if they did not actually violate God's and Church Law. I meant about it is possible that too deep cutting out that is why I wrote at the end

It seems to me that dresses with larger cuttings out were already "renaissance". The Middle Ages is the Catholic epoch, so modest, not with more bareness.

I do not know if these all were not Catholic dresses because I do not know if the breadth (two fingers from the neck about which Pope Pius XI wrote in the instruction) could have been greater.

8. In terms of the modesty of the various necklines, nothing has changed today. Different women could have made them higher or lower. Again, they would have worn a shift under this which showed in some cases because of a high neckline. You must also understand that it was usual for a women to wear a veil and wimple with her kirtle. That essentially means that in many cases you would never see the neckline or anything near it.

But what was the Church Law then regarding the size of the cutting out below the neck ? - look my commentary above.

I do not know if I remember correctly, but probably in the paintings from 14-15th century there are women without a veil, wimple and with a larger cutting out.

9. It doesn't matter how many cut-outs you have, if there is fabric underneath it. Then you are still completely covered.

I do not know if I remember correctly, but probably in the paintings from 14-15th century there are women without a veil, wimple and with a larger cutting out.

I don't know if you are trying to be difficult, but I am really trying to help you with this. I have spend years researching historical clothing, sewing, designing patterns, etc. I can assure you I know what I am talking about. Make yourself a shift, make a kirtle, get together a wimple and veil and enjoy. I don't know if you are trying to get your hands on this for an event or for everyday life; but goodluck.

I understand and thank you. It seems to me that women should return to this probably simplicity in clothing and to the spirit of the Middle Ages or early Christianity, both peasent women and not peasent women especially in days in which we are live. In the so-called "Renaissance" it probably already started to happen badly in this respect. What do you think about it ?

[coffeeandcigarette]

The weather justifying the bareness is unserious and ridiculous.

I misunderstood you. I apologise.

5. "it seems to me" You apparently have very little knowledge of sewing, medieval clothing, historical clothing in general, etc.

That is right, that is why I am looking for this knowledge. I am looking for the Truth.

6. A shift is absolutely medieval and was worn by all women, catholic and otherwise. It is underwear, what do you expect it to look like? This would have been worn under a kirtle.

I did not really notice that this is underwear. If it really was like that then I apologise. In the margin in so-called "Polish" there is no translation what kirtle is and shift as underwear, but I know what underwear means.

7. Again, I don't care what it seems like to you, it is medieval. Heraldic dresses were very common and we have a vast record of their use throughout the period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXv5I1A3WQQ&feature=emb_logo Time 29:41 It seems to me that this is not a Medieval dress.

I have nothing against heraldic dresses if they did not actually violate God's and Church Law. I meant about it is possible that too deep cutting out that is why I wrote at the end

It seems to me that dresses with larger cuttings out were already "renaissance". The Middle Ages is the Catholic epoch, so modest, not with more bareness.

I do not know if these all were not Catholic dresses because I do not know if the breadth (two fingers from the neck about which Pope Pius XI wrote in the instruction) could have been greater.

8. In terms of the modesty of the various necklines, nothing has changed today. Different women could have made them higher or lower. Again, they would have worn a shift under this which showed in some cases because of a high neckline. You must also understand that it was usual for a women to wear a veil and wimple with her kirtle. That essentially means that in many cases you would never see the neckline or anything near it.

But what was the Church Law then regarding the size of the cutting out below the neck ? - look my commentary above.

I do not know if I remember correctly, but probably in the paintings from 14-15th century there are women without a veil, wimple and with a larger cutting out.

9. It doesn't matter how many cut-outs you have, if there is fabric underneath it. Then you are still completely covered.

I do not know if I remember correctly, but probably in the paintings from 14-15th century there are women without a veil, wimple and with a larger cutting out.

I don't know if you are trying to be difficult, but I am really trying to help you with this. I have spend years researching historical clothing, sewing, designing patterns, etc. I can assure you I know what I am talking about. Make yourself a shift, make a kirtle, get together a wimple and veil and enjoy. I don't know if you are trying to get your hands on this for an event or for everyday life; but goodluck.

I understand and thank you. It seems to me that women should return to this probably simplicity in clothing and to the spirit of the Middle Ages or early Christianity, both peasent women and not peasent women especially in days in which we are live. In the so-called "Renaissance" it probably already started to happen badly in this respect. What do you think about it ?

I have often wondered about that myself. For now, I am happy to be modest (I follow the "Marylike standards issued by the Holy Father, with Padre Pio's skirt suggestion). I have wondered though at times if modesty is enough, if we are not called to be much more simple. However, I know that it has been specifically stated by the church that to draw undue attention to oneself is a form of immodesty. To walk around wearing medieval garments would certainly qualify. I think simplicity is important though, that should always be important. I think the question of simplicity these days is also tricky. What is a "simple" outfit? In the old days in meant wool or linen instead of silk. It meant not having outrageous amounts of decoration, embellishment, etc. Most trad ladies I know wear a long skirt and a blouse on a regular basis and a pretty skirt/dress on Sunday. I think simple is happening. Society has changed so much that I think simple now has more to do with cost then appearance. Many people will spend 1000 on one outfit and not think much of it, others will spend 4000 on one skirt. I think "simple" for us is moderation in cost, and embellishment.

[Hugues de Payns]

I have often wondered about that myself. For now, I am happy to be modest (I follow the "Marylike standards issued by the Holy Father, with Padre Pio's skirt suggestion). I have wondered though at times if modesty is enough, if we are not called to be much more simple. However, I know that it has been specifically stated by the church that to draw undue attention to oneself is a form of immodesty. To walk around wearing medieval garments would certainly qualify. I think simplicity is important though, that should always be important. I think the question of simplicity these days is also tricky. What is a "simple" outfit? In the old days in meant wool or linen instead of silk. It meant not having outrageous amounts of decoration, embellishment, etc. Most trad ladies I know wear a long skirt and a blouse on a regular basis and a pretty skirt/dress on Sunday. I think simple is happening. Society has changed so much that I think simple now has more to do with cost then appearance. Many people will spend 1000 on one outfit and not think much of it, others will spend 4000 on one skirt. I think "simple" for us is moderation in cost, and embellishment.

I think that society hath changed so much because it is from this world, it is saturated with it, it does not know life outside the world. But a Christian as a pilgrim should follow an imitation his Example respectively of The Lord Jesus and the Mother of God such simplicity and modesty of dress. So, as far as he can, a Christian should show the world that he is not from it and this now huge contrast the Gospel according to St. Matthew [5:13-16]. The cost is not visible for the world so the world does not see it. A cost define if something is cheap or expensive, and not simple.

the evolution of the definition (in this case simplicity) would be modernism.

And that a Christian clothed in simple and modest clothing, even such robes which respectively The Lord Jesus and Mother of God wore will be strange for a significant part of the world because the Gospel according to St. Luke [18:8].

You see the amish with their lifestyle they arouse interest because they are different, not only in terms of dress and you can see a high contrast. With a compromise, this contrast can not be seen and it is probably treated as a mere matter of fancy.

The Gospel according to St. Matthew [5:48].

[coffeeandcigarette]

I have often wondered about that myself. For now, I am happy to be modest (I follow the "Marylike standards issued by the Holy Father, with Padre Pio's skirt suggestion). I have wondered though at times if modesty is enough, if we are not called to be much more simple. However, I know that it has been specifically stated by the church that to draw undue attention to oneself is a form of immodesty. To walk around wearing medieval garments would certainly qualify. I think simplicity is important though, that should always be important. I think the question of simplicity these days is also tricky. What is a "simple" outfit? In the old days in meant wool or linen instead of silk. It meant not having outrageous amounts of decoration, embellishment, etc. Most trad ladies I know wear a long skirt and a blouse on a regular basis and a pretty skirt/dress on Sunday. I think simple is happening. Society has changed so much that I think simple now has more to do with cost then appearance. Many people will spend 1000 on one outfit and not think much of it, others will spend 4000 on one skirt. I think "simple" for us is moderation in cost, and embellishment.

I think that society hath changed so much because it is from this world, it is saturated with it, it does not know life outside the world. But a Christian as a pilgrim should follow an imitation his Example respectively of The Lord Jesus and the Mother of God such simplicity and modesty of dress. So, as far as he can, a Christian should show the world that he is not from it and this now huge contrast the Gospel according to St. Matthew [5:13-16]. The cost is not visible for the world so the world does not see it. A cost define if something is cheap or expensive, and not simple.

the evolution of the definition (in this case simplicity) would be modernism.

And that a Christian clothed in simple and modest clothing, even such robes which respectively The Lord Jesus and Mother of God wore will be strange for a significant part of the world because the Gospel according to St. Luke [18:8].

You see the amish with their lifestyle they arouse interest because they are different, not only in terms of dress and you can see a high contrast. With a compromise, this contrast can not be seen and it is probably treated as a mere matter of fancy.

The Gospel according to St. Matthew [5:48].

When you put Bible verses are you trying to quote or paraphrase something?

I think Our Lord and Our Lady dressed in the humble garments of their day. I do not think they said "ah yes, the clothing of 1st century jews is the most modest in the history of the world and should therefore be the costume for all Catholics for the rest of time." I think it is our duty to dress very modestly (as I have said); but in the clothes of our day. I did mention the church saying that to dress in clothing outside of one's time and custom is immodest because it draws undue attention to oneself. Now, you could say that long robes are "part of our time," because of muslims, but they are not part of our culture. Also, to walk through this world looking like a muslim is a scandal and not a witness to Christ. Considering that most saints, many mystics, etc, all dressed in the clothing of their day, but modestly, I think that is the answer.

All societal change is not a sign of modernism or being "of the world." Sometimes things just change. Medieval music was far more advanced and complex then 1st century music, not because everyone wanted to be "worldly," but because new musical instruments had been invented/discovered/upgraded. Clothing changes, new fabrics are discovered, new techniques are developed. Again, not worldly, just new. Are cancer research and antibiotics worldly? No, they are simply advanced. I assume you have driven a car in your life and been driven around in one. Worldly? No, advanced. God put the genius for discovery, advancement, and invention into every man. It is a mark of His perfect intellect. We are free to use it for His glory and our use if we simply follow His laws throughout. We are meant to be modest and simple, to place no great emphasis on the things of this world. You won't see me walking around in a gucci dress with a designer handbag anytime soon. By following the guidelines of the church and Padre Pio, along with not drawing undue attention, I am following the example of Our Lady, in the time in which God, in His infinite wisdom, placed me.

Just a note on "contrast." I don't need a prayer kapp and a buggy. I think that the...

giant van
huge parcel of children
homeschooling
modest dress
long-standing marriage
no TV
low-tech
regular mass attendance
"yes, I will have as many as God sends me"
leading my children through courtship and marriage

...are all plenty of contrast. I am really not worried about any women of "the world" mistaking me for one of them. In fact, the regular comments, stares, sighs, compliments, and pity I receive when out in public tell me so.

[Hugues de Payns]

I think Our Lord and Our Lady dressed in the humble garments of their day. I do not think they said "ah yes, the clothing of 1st century jews is the most modest in the history of the world and should therefore be the costume for all Catholics for the rest of time." I think it is our duty to dress very modestly (as I have said); but in the clothes of our day. I did mention the church saying that to dress in clothing outside of one's time and custom is immodest because it draws undue attention to oneself. Now, you could say that long robes are "part of our time," because of muslims, but they are not part of our culture. Also, to walk through this world looking like a muslim is a scandal and not a witness to Christ. Considering that most saints, many mystics, etc, all dressed in the clothing of their day, but modestly, I think that is the answer.

Who now decides whether robes are the part of the Culture of a Christian or not ? Maybe these people who consider themselves as women and look like prostitutes or men and do not make for the world a scandal, and this probably applies to most women currently living in the current western anti-civilization: uncovered hair, face and hair painting, obscene clothes, and even man's clothes. Or maybe shaved effeminate men ? Or maybe the world ?

Or maybe the devil by jews ?

After all, in subsequent epochs of time someone started the so-called "new fashion". At present, one should return to The Very Beginning, to The Source, this is to The Lord God, one should return to The Ideals, Patterns Which are God The Father, Son of God and Mother of God, the Apocalypse of St. John [1:13], the Book of Daniel [7:9], the Book of Isaiah [50:6].

The purpose of a Christian should be an aspiration for perfection, which I wrote in an earlier commentary about, so The Lord Jesus and the Mother of God do not need to say anything. The further away from the Times in which The Lord Jesus lived, the worse was happening in the Christian world. This is the secret of iniquity. The conclusion can also be that from this that the further away from The Lord God the worse.

For probably over 5 000 years until ca. 1200, not much hath changed with regard to the clothes of people faithful to The Lord God.

Comparing God The Father, Son of God and His Mother to muslims works on imagination and is scandalous !

In the case of Saints and Mystics, the costumes were modest or almost modest in all the times in which they lived, this revolution supposedly began in the 1920s.

Nowadays, it is important for the Christian to pay attention and set an example, as I already wrote in an earlier commentary.

It looks like banning "bathing suits" of muslim women on the beaches of old lands of France in 2016 among the ubiquitous bareness of both sexes. On the other hand, however, the law protects muslim women from the depravation and sin of lust on these beaches.

All societal change is not a sign of modernism or being "of the world." Sometimes things just change. Medieval music was far more advanced and complex then 1st century music, not because everyone wanted to be "worldly," but because new musical instruments had been invented/discovered/upgraded. Clothing changes, new fabrics are discovered, new techniques are developed. Again, not worldly, just new. Are cancer research and antibiotics worldly? No, they are simply advanced. I assume you have driven a car in your life and been driven around in one. Worldly? No, advanced. God put the genius for discovery, advancement, and invention into every man. It is a mark of His perfect intellect. We are free to use it for His glory and our use if we simply follow His laws throughout. We are meant to be modest and simple, to place no great emphasis on the things of this world. You won't see me walking around in a gucci dress with a designer handbag anytime soon. By following the guidelines of the church and Padre Pio, along with not drawing undue attention, I am following the example of Our Lady, in the time in which God, in His infinite wisdom, placed me.

But in an earlier commentary I wrote about the evolution of the definition, and not societal change. You put something in my mouth that I have never written.

Everything you wrote is a world. The Gospel according to St. John [12:25] In the Commentary to the Holy Bible is among other things "(...) - He hates his soul. He hates himself in this world, this is, in this what refers to the things of this world, which he not only does not put as the purpose of his life, he is not only ready to leave them and he renounces them, but he even despises them and eagerly accepts death, if the glory of God requires it (...)", The First Epistle of St. John the Apostle [5:4] "(...) - Wins the world. World desires and terrors that oppose love and obstruct the way of God's Commandments. (...)", the Gospel according to St. John [1:10] "(...) - The world. People, the most illustrious part of the world.(...)".

Just because something is cheap does not mean it belongs to simplicity.

modest dress

As for the modest dress. Does modesty include simplicity ?






Are the above dresses modest ?

regular mass attendance

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=22978.0

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23188.0


You have "cigarette" in the profile name. smoking cigarettes is a sin, it is non-Christian. Is smoking cigarettes modest ? Does smoking cigarettes belong to simplicity ?

[coffeeandcigarette]

I think Our Lord and Our Lady dressed in the humble garments of their day. I do not think they said "ah yes, the clothing of 1st century jews is the most modest in the history of the world and should therefore be the costume for all Catholics for the rest of time." I think it is our duty to dress very modestly (as I have said); but in the clothes of our day. I did mention the church saying that to dress in clothing outside of one's time and custom is immodest because it draws undue attention to oneself. Now, you could say that long robes are "part of our time," because of muslims, but they are not part of our culture. Also, to walk through this world looking like a muslim is a scandal and not a witness to Christ. Considering that most saints, many mystics, etc, all dressed in the clothing of their day, but modestly, I think that is the answer.

Who now decides whether robes are the part of the Culture of a Christian or not ? Maybe these people who consider themselves as women and look like prostitutes or men and do not make for the world a scandal, and this probably applies to most women currently living in the current western anti-civilization: uncovered hair, face and hair painting, obscene clothes, and even man's clothes. Or maybe shaved effeminate men ? Or maybe the world ?

Or maybe the devil by jews ?

After all, in subsequent epochs of time someone started the so-called "new fashion". At present, one should return to The Very Beginning, to The Source, this is to The Lord God, one should return to The Ideals, Patterns Which are God The Father, Son of God and Mother of God, the Apocalypse of St. John [1:13], the Book of Daniel [7:9], the Book of Isaiah [50:6].

The purpose of a Christian should be an aspiration for perfection, which I wrote in an earlier commentary about, so The Lord Jesus and the Mother of God do not need to say anything. The further away from the Times in which The Lord Jesus lived, the worse was happening in the Christian world. This is the secret of iniquity. The conclusion can also be that from this that the further away from The Lord God the worse.

For probably over 5 000 years until ca. 1200, not much hath changed with regard to the clothes of people faithful to The Lord God.

Comparing God The Father, Son of God and His Mother to muslims works on imagination and is scandalous !

In the case of Saints and Mystics, the costumes were modest or almost modest in all the times in which they lived, this revolution supposedly began in the 1920s.

Nowadays, it is important for the Christian to pay attention and set an example, as I already wrote in an earlier commentary.

It looks like banning "bathing suits" of muslim women on the beaches of old lands of France in 2016 among the ubiquitous bareness of both sexes. On the other hand, however, the law protects muslim women from the depravation and sin of lust on these beaches.

All societal change is not a sign of modernism or being "of the world." Sometimes things just change. Medieval music was far more advanced and complex then 1st century music, not because everyone wanted to be "worldly," but because new musical instruments had been invented/discovered/upgraded. Clothing changes, new fabrics are discovered, new techniques are developed. Again, not worldly, just new. Are cancer research and antibiotics worldly? No, they are simply advanced. I assume you have driven a car in your life and been driven around in one. Worldly? No, advanced. God put the genius for discovery, advancement, and invention into every man. It is a mark of His perfect intellect. We are free to use it for His glory and our use if we simply follow His laws throughout. We are meant to be modest and simple, to place no great emphasis on the things of this world. You won't see me walking around in a gucci dress with a designer handbag anytime soon. By following the guidelines of the church and Padre Pio, along with not drawing undue attention, I am following the example of Our Lady, in the time in which God, in His infinite wisdom, placed me.

But in an earlier commentary I wrote about the evolution of the definition, and not societal change. You put something in my mouth that I have never written.

Everything you wrote is a world. The Gospel according to St. John [12:25] In the Commentary to the Holy Bible is among other things "(...) - He hates his soul. He hates himself in this world, this is, in this what refers to the things of this world, which he not only does not put as the purpose of his life, he is not only ready to leave them and he renounces them, but he even despises them and eagerly accepts death, if the glory of God requires it (...)", The First Epistle of St. John the Apostle [5:4] "(...) - Wins the world. World desires and terrors that oppose love and obstruct the way of God's Commandments. (...)", the Gospel according to St. John [1:10] "(...) - The world. People, the most illustrious part of the world.(...)".

Just because something is cheap does not mean it belongs to simplicity.

modest dress

As for the modest dress. Does modesty include simplicity ?






Are the above dresses modest ?

regular mass attendance

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=22978.0

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23188.0


You have "cigarette" in the profile name. smoking cigarettes is a sin, it is non-Christian. Is smoking cigarettes modest ? Does smoking cigarettes belong to simplicity ?

Oh dear oh dear, where to begin. I'm tired already and I just started typing. In the past you have demonstrated some small ability to reason and think swirling around in the inner most part of your person; let us scrounge around for it together.

Nobody decides whether robes are part of our culture or not. They aren't. The Catholic Church (why do I keep repeating this, why won't you acknowledge this???) has said that is is immodest to dress in a manner so outside of one's time as to draw undue attention to oneself. That is it. Plain and simple. Robes, tunics, turbans, headscarves, ankle length veils, these things are all outside of our time. There is no arguing about it. You are conveniently dropping your hypothetical trad down in the Holy Land circa 50 b; even 100 ad. It doesn't matter.

No one has mentioned "new fashion" at all. You know little to nothing about fashion so let me attempt to educate you a tiny bit. "Fashion" today is not what "fashion" has ever been. Beginning in the late Victorian and moving through right up until the 80s-90s "fashion" meant one very specific thing. Hemlines in the 20s-60s were so specifically in "fashion" or not, that reporters would wait with bated breath for the new hemline length for the "season" to be issued from Paris; they would publish these in the papers. "Fashionable" housewives would all rush home to hem up or down the existing skirts and dresses in their closets. It was madness. A few inches here and there meant you were all the rage, or left behind by the more glamorous women. The idea of "fashion" being very pigeon-holed, and people being expected to wear a very specific item is all gone now. There are little trends here and there every year, but wanting a puffy coat or a tasseled bag is a completely different thing than literally being told "sleeves are not in style this season." You could go to twenty fashion shows and see twenty completely different collections of skirts, pants, dresses, lengths, fabrics, sleeves, etc. A woman can wear anything at all these day and it does not mean she is following fashion, she is simply dressing. To buy designer clothing which is very expensive is immodest because of how much it costs. It could be completely modest in terms of fit, length, neckline, sleeves, etc. It would still be immodest. You can but a simple dress which is 20 dollars and it could be immodest because of the fit and length, etc. The key is to buy reasonable priced clothing which is modest. It really isn't complicated. My overall point is that almost no-one these days could be following the "new-fashion," you can buy new and fashionable  clothing, but there is no big homogeneous "fashion" to indulge in or avoid.

Now, saints and mystics lived in times in which clothing was generally more modest than now, that is true. They did not however, all live in times in which men and women were all wearing robes, tunics, turbans, headscarves, ankle-length veils, etc. This is precisely my point. We, like they, may dress in the clothing of our time as long as we make the modest choices. Was St. Thomas More a great saint? Yes! Did he live in a time in which many men wore tiny little puffy mini shorts over skin tight leggings with oversized cod-pieces? Oh that's right, he did. Did he wear those things? Apparently not. He is just one example of many. Any non-religious saint or mystic has had to choose the better part of his day to utilize. There have always been immodest options, even in our lady's time there were immodest women and men. We rise above, that is precisely our role as Christians.

Christians these days are paying attention and setting an example. Why is a robe or tunic in your opinion the only suitable good-example?

I never said cheap meant simple, and I have always said modesty includes simplicity. Why do you make me repeat myself over and over?

I would not say that any of the dresses you posted are modest. It simply backs up my points though. Those were painted, representing the clothing of the day, in a time in which many saints and mystics lived. Did they dress like this? No, they would have worn the same garments, made up modestly. Remember, at this time women almost all made their own clothing, there was not clothing for sale at the local market. If you were very rich you could have had a tailor make up your clothing for you. Women all chose how to cut their clothing themselves. Also, do not think that artists didn't take liberties in portraying women. You should work on the assumption that most artists painted these ladies as they wanted them to be, not necessarily as they were. Low necklines, tight bodices, etc...no different than your modern artist randomly drawing topless women. Trust me, as bad as immodesty has gotten, you still don't see topless women walking around on a regular basis. Let's not even think about the random feminist "protests," shudder....

I am so confused by this link? Are you saying you don't go to Mass? Are you a "read-my-missal-at-home" basement dweller? 

I do not smoke, although I don't know that it is actually a sin, some saints say not. I however, do not. It is an inside joke/message.