B
bear06
Guest
…and nothing but her hands and feet uncovered.
Sorry but I’m looking at my elbows right now.
And wait! I’m just guessing that 99% of us aren’t wearing veils as we type.
- Status
Sorry but I’m looking at my elbows right now.And wait! I’m just guessing that 99% of us aren’t wearing veils as we type.
P
Philothea53
Guest
From the website quoted above:
Code:
CanonLaw.Info Homepage
Sacred Heart Seminary & Bio PageAlthough the website has a very neat, legal sounding domain name, it is just the opinion page of someone who happens to have received his degree in canon law. Having studied canon law does not necessarily mean that one’s opinions are in line with those of the Magesterium. As Mr. Peters himself points out, he is not speaking for the Catholic Church. The opinions posted are just that - his opinions. Unless and until ROME speaks directly on the issue we can ALL only guess at the truth. There are more than a few who lean vehemently one way or the other, but their GUESS is as good as mine, or yours, or Edward N. Peters quoted above.
C
Cathryn
Guest
St. Paul explained the head covering are to be worn by women in Church and the theological reasons why, including “because of the angels.” If I was in the presence of Jesus Christ all the time, yes I would wear a head covering all the time.…and nothing but her hands and feet uncovered.
And wait! I’m just guessing that 99% of us aren’t wearing veils as we type.
P
Philothea53
Guest
Nope. Church didn’t say it. Again, just one man’s opinion.
B
bear06
Guest
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!!! You are in the presence of Christ all of the time. Nowhere, nowhere in that passage does it say present before the Blessed Sacrament. It says “pray”.
This is a good example of why the Church doesn’t go for private revelation.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
If this is an essential to salvation and not simply a discipline issue, if a woman MUST cover her head, then the Church has allowed countless women to live in disobedience and possibly endanger their souls eternally. The Church does not seem to insist on this. And the code that required it HAS been abrogated.
B
bear06
Guest
Again…whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?! Yes, the Church did speak on the matter. I think you need to go back and look at Sure and JKirk’s posts. And, you might want to take a look at the note at the bottom of this papal encyclical:
papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6interi.htm
The Church did say it.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
Jkirk and bear06, don’t waste your heads. I am beating mine against a brick wall as we speak.
:banghead:
No matter what you say, there is going to be a group who insists that it was never abrogated, and even a canon lawyer with a JDL or whatever it is canon lawyers received for their doctorate. Good old Deacon Cameron could waltz into this thread and tell them. I believe at this point the Papal Nuncio could tell them. This Rock, the magazine published by Catholic Answers, has articles that indicate it’s been aborgated. “Ask An Apologist” has stated it’s been abrogated.
The Vatican doesn’t list it in the Canon of 1983, at least not as a headcover issue. It does say in the Canon that the Canon of 1917 was abrogated. Doesn’t matter to the group in question, just as it doesn’t matter to another group that private revelation doesn’t bind on the conscience. They are convinced, to my mind, that they are right, and nothing is going to sway them. They seem to prefer to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as it has the appearance of being traditional.
D
dixieagle
Guest
This whole subject strikes me as about as truly significant as the “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” question. We don’t live two thousand years ago, or even in the middle ages; the Church no longer requires it and it strikes me as utterly inconsequential in the scheme of things and to our salvation. Cover your head if it helps you in prayer…but let’s get past the insistence that it is anything more than a voluntary continuance of a *former *Church discipline.
B
bear06
Guest
But OutinChgoburbs, the Vatican did speak on the matter and I just showed it was with the mind of the Supreme Legislator! The certainly didn’t speak at length though. I guess we need a whole dissertation on the issue.Jkirk, don’t waste your head. I am beating mine against a brick wall as we speak.
:banghead:
No matter what you say, there is going to be a group who insists that it was never abrogated, and even a canon lawyer with a JDL or whatever it is canon lawyers received for their doctorate. Good old Deacon Cameron could waltz into this thread and tell them. I believe at this point the Papal Nuncio could tell them. This Rock, the magazine published by Catholic Answers, has articles that indicate it’s been aborgated. The Vatican doesn’t list it in the Canon of 1983. It does say in the Canon that the Caon of 1917 was abrogated. Doesn’t matter to the group in question, just as it doesn’t matter to another group that private revelation doesn’t bind on the conscience. They are convinced, to my mind, that they are right, and nothing is going to sway them. They seem to prefer to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as it has the appearance of being traditional.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Oh, you are quite right, Out, quite right. But as was pointed out to me by a dear friend when I wanted to walk away from these fora, you may not win them, but you can keep some poor innocent from being lied to BY them. That’s important. Keep fighting!Jkirk and bear06, don’t waste your heads. I am beating mine against a brick wall as we speak.
:banghead:
No matter what you say, there is going to be a group who insists that it was never abrogated, and even a canon lawyer with a JDL or whatever it is canon lawyers received for their doctorate. Good old Deacon Cameron could waltz into this thread and tell them. I believe at this point the Papal Nuncio could tell them. This Rock, the magazine published by Catholic Answers, has articles that indicate it’s been aborgated. “Ask An Apologist” has stated it’s been abrogated.
The Vatican doesn’t list it in the Canon of 1983, at least not as a headcover issue. It does say in the Canon that the Canon of 1917 was abrogated. Doesn’t matter to the group in question, just as it doesn’t matter to another group that private revelation doesn’t bind on the conscience. They are convinced, to my mind, that they are right, and nothing is going to sway them. They seem to prefer to believe whatever they want to believe, as long as it has the appearance of being traditional.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
I know. I read it myself, earlier.But OutinChgoburbs, the Vatican did speak on the matter and I just showed it was with the mind of the Supreme Legislator! The certainly didn’t speak at length though. I guess we need a whole dissertation on the issue.
That’s what I mean. It doesn’t matter to them that the Pope has spoken. They don’t care. They don’t seem to want that type of obedience.
It’s a form over substance issue. Rather than following the Canon of 1983, and the previous issue of Paul XI prior to 1983, it seems they would rather firmly staple a mantilla on every woman’s head- because they “like it”. Some even want to go so far as having Catholic women wearing “veils” all day long, as work is a form of prayer. They don’t seem to realize that it’s the same attitude that their oppositinal counterparts with liturgical dancers bearing incense bowls and other activities have, simply because they consider it “traditional”.
Dixie’s right, too, about the “angels dancing on the head of a pin”. Doesn’t matter. They don’t care.
P
Philothea53
Guest
The arrogance of the last few posts is remarkable. I only wish I could feel as sure of my self as some of you do. Oh, wait, arrogance is not a virtue to strive for, is it?
BTW, your treatment of SeminarianMatt was absolutely deplorable. You really owe him an apology. You were downright insulting.
On that note, I think it is time for ME to walk away from this forum. I came here to learn and what I found is that those here who know it all, or think they do, lost their charity and humility along the way. I am glad to know that this is not representative of the Church at large.
BTW, your treatment of SeminarianMatt was absolutely deplorable. You really owe him an apology. You were downright insulting.
On that note, I think it is time for ME to walk away from this forum. I came here to learn and what I found is that those here who know it all, or think they do, lost their charity and humility along the way. I am glad to know that this is not representative of the Church at large.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
I will do my best, Captain Kirk!
I fear my Vulcan logic, always strong, has been injured by my human passion for Truth.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Since some consistently misrepresent the Church on this point, I hardly think they have room to comment on what is and is not representative OF the Church at large. In other words, I shouldn’t call anyone else arrogant until I had looked to the beam in my own eye.
No one here is certain of themselves. Just certain of the Church.
P
Philothea53
Guest
While you and Out are giving each other high fives, your certainty comes through as a certainty in yourself. That is arrogance. The lack of charity and humility exhibited here is not representative of the Church whether you agree to my right to know it and comment on it or not.
You attend to your beam. I’ll attend to mine.
L
lizaanne
Guest
Well, no you are not exactly correct, unless you live 24/7 in front of the Blessed Sacrament.
When Christ is present in the Eucharist, He is there just as fully and wholly as He was on the cross to His own Mother. He is not present to us in the same way when we are just walking down the street or sitting in front of our computers. Big difference.
Why does this always have to be a fight?
I’ll never understand that. If you feel it is right and good to cover your head, then do so. If you don’t think so, then don’t. But don’t go around berating others for having a counter opinion.Sheesh.
~Liza
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
You know full well that the Church no longer requires head coverings for women, yet you keep casting doubt on that. This is simple dishonesty. It isn’t a lack of charity to point out that you are misleading people.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
It doesn’t have to be a fight. I personally like to see a woman cover her head. Where it becomes problematic is when people insist that the Church requires it of women. She doesn’t and people should not be mislead. Tell you what: you get the one’s who insist that women still HAVE to cover their heads to stop saying that women still HAVE to cover their heads and I’ll shut up.Why does this always have to be a fight?
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
We weren’t “high fiving” each other. He was being supportive. It is very disheartening to me, particularly as a woman, to watch other women latch onto a pretty & pious devotion as a way to make ALL women do what they do, make a requirement of it, when in fact it has been proven that this is not the case. It has the same effect on me as does those who would say it is imperative to “free wheel” with all the EMHC on the altar during the consecration.We are not certain in ourselves. We are certain in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. bear06 is very certain in the papal encyclicals she so kindly took the time to research for all our benefits.
- Status