Are head coverings still required? Why or why not?

[lizaanne]

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.

It’s no different than two people who disagree on any other point when neither will budge. This is not a point on which our eternal salvation rests, but I believe that acting in all charity may. So instead of getting into a wizzing match with people on it, just agree to disagree and move on.

Personally I feel that women should cover their heads - but I’m not out to beat people up over it. I feel it is a personal choice. Now my dear husband disagrees with me and feels it is not open to choice and all women should cover their heads - period. But he too is not about beating people up about it, and pretty much keeps his opinion to himself.

I guess it’s just a pick your battle sort of thing.

~Liza

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It’s no different than two people who disagree on any other point when neither will budge. This is not a point on which our eternal salvation rests, but I believe that acting in all charity may. So instead of getting into a wizzing match with people on it, just agree to disagree and move on.

Personally I feel that women should cover their heads - but I’m not out to beat people up over it. I feel it is a personal choice. Now my dear husband disagrees with me and feels it is not open to choice and all women should cover their heads - period. But he too is not about beating people up about it, and pretty much keeps his opinion to himself.

I guess it’s just a pick your battle sort of thing.

~Liza

I think it is very important matters of the faith to tell the truth. It doesn’t matter what we think or feel, what matters is what is true. To allow people to mislead other people is not true charity, neither for the person being mislead or the person doing the misleading.

And there are some who seem to go at it with the attitude that salvation DOES hang on it, both for women either covering or refusing to and for men believing that it is necessary or not necessary. Remember, we HAVE to believe all that the Church teaches, so isn’t it important that we not be mislead as to what the Church teaches?

 

[bear06]

Well, no you are not exactly correct, unless you live 24/7 in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

Let me get this right. You don’t believe that you are in the presence of the Trinity right now? From what you said below, you don’t believe this.

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.

I never said anything about him being physically present. That said, the Bible verse referenced time and again has nothing to do with this argument.

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.

I don’t have a problem in the world with women covering their heads. What I take issue with is the incorrect argument that it is mandatory according to the Church and or the Bible. The Church has spoken to the issue. It is simply a matter between God and the individual.

If someone wants to say that it’s a good idea because Paul wrote this, fine. It’s in no way doctrine or mandatory.

 

[Philothea53]

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.

No, I don’t know that any more than you do. You have gone far beyond charitably pointing out anything. You have been insulting. If I was telling people that women have a right to the Priesthood or that I was receiving private revelation, I would be misleading. Holding oneself up as the self-designated interpreter of the mind of Rome - now that’s misleading and more than simple dishonesty.

 

[bear06]

bear06 is very certain in the papal encyclicals she so kindly took the time to research for all our benefits.

Hi five! Sorry, I couldn’t resist. People approach these forums with far to much seriousness sometimes.

Actually, I didn’t research it. I ran across it while doing some reading and filed it for just such conversation! It’s not like this discussion doesn’t come up every other day.

 

[bear06]

No, I don’t know that any more than you do. You have gone far beyond charitably pointing out anything. You have been insulting. If I was telling people that women have a right to the Priesthood or that I was receiving private revelation, I would be misleading. Holding oneself up as the self-designated interpreter of the mind of Rome - now that’s misleading.

OK, for the, hopefully, last time. Inter Insigores states:

But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.

and then way down at the bottom it says this:

His Holiness Pope Paul VI, during the audience granted to the undersigned Prefect of the Sacred Congregation on 15 October 1976, approved this Declaration, **confirmed it and ordered its publication. **

papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6interi.htm

There is no need to interpret the mind of Rome. It is written in ink!

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

No, I don’t know that any more than you do.

Humbly, please, please, please tell us, I ask- what will you take as proof to stop saying it is mandatory?

The Canon Code of 1983? No.

The encycical of Pope Paul VI from 1976? No.

A canon lawyer with a doctorate who offers an opinion? No.

Jimmy Akin’s opinon? No.

Articles from This Rock that say it is not mandatory? No.

I don’t understand. Here is a body of evidence that clearly shows it is not mandatory for women to cover their heads in church, esp. the canon in question as it pertains to the 1983 code and Pope Pauls’ encyclical.

Am I right in thinking that no matter what is presented, you are going to continue to say it is mandatory for women to cover their heads in church?

I’m not triyng to be nasty. I’m not trying to be spiteful. Please. I want to know.

 

[otjm]

She appears at times here on earth and wears clothing and a head covering. She seems to have an assortment. Many of these apparitions are approved by the Church. She had clothes on at Fatima. The Church teaches we should imitate her. She is showing us her head covering.

What she wears in an apparition has more to do with whom she is appearing to thqan it does to a message for the world or necessarily a significant part of it. She appeared pregnant and with symbols on her robe and in the picture, on the tilma of Juan Diego; and the symbols were understood (immediately) by the Indians; and to the Spnaish they were more likely incomprehensible unless they knew what Indian symbols meant.

Going from an apparition to a style we wear is a bit of a stretch; whether she wears a veil or whether it is part of the overall cloth she has draped around her is debatable and not a significant issue; she usually appears draped (for lack of a better term) in clothing that would be appropriate either for a woman around the time of Christ, or for an artist’s rendeition of what a woman would possible look like then. And as head covering was culturally conditioned then, she followed the cultural norms.

And as JP 2 said, it is no longer normative.

The whole issue runs awfully close to a parallel: should a woman wear a head covering in church runs about the same line, opposite direction, to should a woman not wear a jean jacket because some lesbians wear that.

 

[otjm]

From the website quoted above:

Edward N. Peters, JD, JCD

There are guesses, and then there are informed opinions. According to you, unless Rome comes out with a definitive requirement, we must all go around presuming that it is a definitive requirement because it once was even though the specific law was removed from the books.

We don’t have to guess at the truth; a law is what it says; if there is not a specific law about the matter, then there is no law about the matter.

When Rome ha a law on the books, and later rewrites the law books and excludes a specific law, you are entitled to presume that the lawgiver is smart enough to know what they just did - remove the law.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

No, I don’t know that any more than you do. You have gone far beyond charitably pointing out anything. You have been insulting. If I was telling people that women have a right to the Priesthood or that I was receiving private revelation, I would be misleading. Holding oneself up as the self-designated interpreter of the mind of Rome - now that’s misleading and more than simple dishonesty.

See what Bear wrote you in her last post!!! What do you want, the Pope to swim up on a porpoise and inform you personally???

You’ve had EWTN quoted to you, you’ve had canon lawyers quoted to you, you’ve had apologists quoted to you, and you been shown what the Holy See says. Honestly.

 

[Philothea53]

And as JP 2 said, it is no longer normative.

Our Holy Father said no such thing.

The whole issue runs awfully close to a parallel: should a woman wear a head covering in church runs about the same line, opposite direction, to should a woman not wear a jean jacket because some lesbians wear that.

That is an absolutely ridiculous comparison. How can you even think to compare the two in the same discussion where you spoke of our Blessed Mother wearing a veil?

 

[Philothea53]

There are guesses, and then there are informed opinions. According to you, unless Rome comes out with a definitive requirement, we must all go around presuming that it is a definitive requirement because it once was even though the specific law was removed from the books.

We don’t have to guess at the truth; a law is what it says; if there is not a specific law about the matter, then there is no law about the matter.

When Rome ha a law on the books, and later rewrites the law books and excludes a specific law, you are entitled to presume that the lawgiver is smart enough to know what they just did - remove the law.

Reading the recent Motu Proprio, the explanation letter to the Bishops from our Holy Father and the new letter being written further explaining and defining the use of the Latin Mass tells me that you are wrong.

 

[dixieagle]

Humbly, please, please, please tell us, I ask- what will you take as proof to stop saying it is mandatory?

The Canon Code of 1983? No.

The encycical of Pope Paul VI from 1976? No.

A canon lawyer with a doctorate who offers an opinion? No.

Jimmy Akin’s opinon? No.

Articles from This Rock that say it is not mandatory? No.

I don’t understand. Here is a body of evidence that clearly shows it is not mandatory for women to cover their heads in church, esp. the canon in question as it pertains to the 1983 code and Pope Pauls’ encyclical.

Am I right in thinking that no matter what is presented, you are going to continue to say it is mandatory for women to cover their heads in church?

I’m not triyng to be nasty. I’m not trying to be spiteful. Please. I want to know.

Well, I think you have asked the question about as plainly as possible!

 

[Cathryn]

And as JP 2 said, it is no longer normative.

It’s the requirement to wear the veil that no longer has normative value.

"such requirements no longer have a normative value. "

It’s not required by Canon Law. It still has theological meaning for those who choose to wear it according to Holy Scripture. It is the “requirement” that is gone.

 

[bear06]

otjm, it was Paul that ordered the “no longer normative value” Inter Insignores.

I’m not sure why she’s having so much time grasping the “mind of the Church” thing. I can only post Paul VI’s order so many times.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It’s the requirement to wear the veil that no longer has normative value.

"such requirements no longer have a normative value. "

It’s not required by Canon Law. It still has theological meaning for those who choose to wear it according to Holy Scripture. It is the “requirement” that is gone.

RIGHT!!! Spot ON! And no one questions that, at all, except maybe Sr. Joanie Chichester, OSB, and she doesn’t post in these fora.

 

[Philothea53]

otjm, it was Paul that ordered the “no longer normative value” Inter Insignores.

I’m not sure why she’s having so much time grasping the “mind of the Church” thing. I can only post Paul VI’s order so many times.

I only have trouble grasping the ‘mind of the Church’ THING when the lay faithful decide that they are in fact the mind of the Church.

I am watching and reading with interest how the whole Latin Mass renaissance is unfolding. At one time, we all thought it had been abrogated by Vatican II. In fact, in our Holy Father’s letter to the Bishops explaining his Motu Proprio, he had to show how it had never been abrogated and that an indult was actually never required. I find it all fascinating. In fact, I think there are stunning parallels.

To make one point clear - Although I have been accused of saying that the wearing of headcovering, or not, casts doubt on one’s salvation - that is not true. I have only expressed my own desire to continue to wear a veil, my belief that as a woman I should wear a veil and my own confusion over why Rome never DIRECTLY addressed the issue. Over the years there has been only private interpretation and conjecture about what it all meant - from the first words uttered by Cardinal Bugnini when asked about the issue by the press. It has never been defined or explained.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I only have trouble grasping the ‘mind of the Church’ THING when the lay faithful decide that they are in fact the mind of the Church.

I am watching and reading with interest how the whole Latin Mass renaissance is unfolding. At one time, we all thought it had been abrogated by Vatican II. In fact, in our Holy Father’s letter to the Bishops explaining his Motu Proprio, he had to show how it had never been abrogated and that an indult was actually never required. I find it all fascinating. In fact, I think there are stunning parallels.

To make one point clear - Although I have been accused of saying that the wearing of headcovering, or not, casts doubt on one’s salvation - that is not true. I have only expressed my own desire to continue to wear a veil, my belief that as a woman I should wear a veil and my own confusion over why Rome never DIRECTLY addressed the issue. Over the years there has been only private interpretation and conjecture about what it all meant - from the first words uttered by Cardinal Bugnini when asked about the issue by the press. It has never been defined or explained.

The ONLY people I’ve ever heard use the term “abbrogate” was “traditionalists.” No one else, not one. THEY were always going on about how it hadn’t been abrogated.

And Bear has demonstrated TO you how Rome HAS directly addressed the issue (several times, in point of fact).

 

[bear06]

I only have trouble grasping the ‘mind of the Church’ THING when the lay faithful decide that they are in fact the mind of the Church.

In this conversation, who is doing this? I’ve quoted nothing but Church documents.

I am watching and reading with interest how the whole Latin Mass renaissance is unfolding. At one time, we all thought it had been abrogated by Vatican II. In fact, in our Holy Father’s letter to the Bishops explaining his Motu Proprio, he had to show how it had never been abrogated and that an indult was actually never required. I find it all fascinating. In fact, I think there are stunning parallels

 

[Philothea53]

The ONLY people I’ve ever heard use the term “abbrogate” was “traditionalists.” No one else, not one. THEY were always going on about how it hadn’t been abrogated.

Well, that is very interesting because a search of this forum which took just 0.20 seconds brought up 841 posts using the word which is correctly spelled abrogate, by the way, including one by you just yesterday. Seems to me that you were just finding another opportunity to insult and demean. Imagine that!

forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=881499
See post #30