The Church has made her decision. The requirement has been abrogated with the adoption of the current CCL. Those who choose to wear headcoverings are still free to do so, however.So basically we’re allowed to do what we want until the Church makes a decision one way or another on this? I mean, its not a matter of sinning or not is it?
Matt,
This statement by the Church in addition to the removal of the requirement from Canon Law indicate that the law no longer applies.
And as John Paul 2 said, they are more of an issue of culture at the time of Paul than a mandate. “…such requirements no longer have a normative value…”
And that statement is neither part of Canon Law nor infallible.
It shows the mind of the authentic legistlator in leaving it out of Canon Law. The Holy Father commissioned the CDF to speak. Also, the Holy Father is the authenitc interpreter of biblical texts.
It doesn’t need to be infallible; it is a matter of discipline.
Are you really in the seminary? You should know that when the CDF speaks with the approval of the Holy Father their statements are authoritative. Plus, we are dealing with a minor discipline here not some doctrinal issue. Face it, the veils are optional and were only around because women ALWAYS wore veils when they left their homes up until the middle of the 20th century. This wasn’t some crucial religious custom, it was the SOCIAL custom when out of the home for 2000+ years…probably longer.
::sigh:: No you wouldn’t be. Mary Kay Clark met JPII without a veil or any headcovering.
You’re going to trust political etiquette that might or might be political hay-making?
“Choose” being the operative word.
Brava! I’d agree with you. (And it was never a “veil” but a headcovering.)
The veils used in such circumstances are different from the a simple religious significance. In the case of First Communion, hop in the Wayback Machine and you’ll find it wasn’t always a veil, but adult headcovering. it might have been a “courting cap” or a headscarf. Little girls didn’t make their First Communions until after 1917, when Pope Pius X permitted it. The usually waited until they were 12 or older and had been confirmed. Bridal veils go back to ancient times, most notably in my mind Rome, where the bride wore a red veil.
Yeh, he is. He is also the same guy who wanted to bring a cassock and biretta to his first year of seminary, before he knew what the seminary required or what the other guys were wearing.
The head coverings and veils of First communion have a much greater significance for Catholics than just culture alone. For Catholics this is about the roles of male and female. The little girls are in a way Brides of Christ (Church) and the little boys, Grooms (represent Christ). After our First Communion, these roles don’t change. Women represent the Church, the Bride of Christ, and husbands, represent Christ, the Head. This is the relationship between husbands and wives, and Christ and His Church. The woman covering the head is explained in this way by St. Paul. Not politically correct nowadays, but profound and significant. The Church’s requirement to make women wear a hat or veil is not necessary. The significance and meaning of the head covering however remain.
While those might be lovely sentiments, they aren’t based in Tradition (with a capital T) and they aren’t doctrinally sound and to me your train of thought is illogical (No, I am not part Vulcan). And I did quite a bit of research on the subject, as did puzzleannie.
My references are Theology of the Body Human Love in the Divine Plan from Pope John Paul II and St. Paul’s explanation in Holy Scripture of head coverings for women, and the roles of men and women, and how these roles of men and women relate to the relationship of Christ to His Church.
The requirement for head coverings is no longer needed, not the meaning behind the voluntary use of them. The roles of men and women are an important part of God's plan.That might have been true about 30 years ago.
I* have* had a private audience with the Pope (JPII, several years before his death) and, though we were advised to dress modestly, shoulders covered, skirt of modest length, etc.) NO mention of a head covering was made. Several other families from around the world were there, waiting with us for their audiences, as well; one woman from Spain wore a mantilla - otherwise, none of the women did.
I*
We both agree that the head covering is not the norm, nor required. Even the Holy Father forces no one to wear a veil or hat.
The requirement is gone, but not the significance of the theological reasons for wearing it. Holy Scripture also says to wear it “because of the angels”. 1Cor11-10 This is good enough for me. I don’t expect that the Blessed Mother will be tossing her veil just because there’s no requirement in Canon Law anymore.*
The Blessed Mother is in heaven - no need for veils or clothing of any kind even (remember Adam and Eve in the Garden before the Fall?)We both agree that the head covering is not the norm, nor required. Even the Holy Father forces no one to wear a veil or hat.
The requirement is gone, but not the significance of the theological reasons for wearing it. Holy Scripture also says to wear it because of the angels. This is good enough for me. I don’t expect that the Blessed Mother will be tossing her veil just because there’s no requirement in Canon Law anymore.
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.
