Are head coverings still required? Why or why not?

[Philothea53]

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

And then, a bit further in the same post I directed you to above, you say, “And those who post papal quotes should remember all the times they’ve disagreed with the same Pontiff. If he can be wrong about ecumenism, can’t he be wrong about this?”

Om my goodness! It seems you are talking out both sides of your mouth at once. Case of relativism going on here?

 

[bear06]

And then, a bit further in the same post I directed you to above, you say, “And those who post papal quotes should remember all the times they’ve disagreed with the same Pontiff. If he can be wrong about ecumenism, can’t he be wrong about this?”

Om my goodness! It seems you are talking out both sides of your mouth at once. Case of relativism going on here?

Show me where I’ve disagreed with one official teaching of the Church?! Paul VI? Any other popes? This would be an accusation I think you’d have a tough time proving.

This is getting a little off topic.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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

You need to be honest, Philotea. Give the context in which I used the word abrogate, as in "The only time I’ve heard the word is from “traditionalists,” same thing I posted here. And I’m being neither mean or demeaning.

Listen, you know, there’s one way you can put this to rest: File a dubia (a “doubt”) with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Anyone can do it. If you need help, ask your local diocese or call the Apostolic Nuncio’s office in D.C. It’s simply a matter of asking them the question: “Are women still obligated to cover their heads? Is this a matter of immutable Tradition or mutable discipline?”

 

[Philothea53]

Show me where I’ve disagreed with one official teaching of the Church?! Paul VI? Any other popes? This would be an accusation I think you’d have a tough time proving.

This is getting a little off topic.

Pardon me, but that post was not directed to you.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Show me where I’ve disagreed with one official teaching of the Church?! Paul VI? Any other popes? This would be an accusation I think you’d have a tough time proving.

This is getting a little off topic.

No, Bear, I said that.

 

[Philothea53]

You need to be honest, Philotea. Give the context in which I used the word abrogate, as in "The only time I’ve heard the word is from “traditionalists,” same thing I posted here. And I’m being neither mean or demeaning.

Well, I don’t think you are a good judge of that since I am the one who feels that you were both. Of course you would give yourself a pass.

Listen, you know, there’s one way you can put this to rest: File a dubia (a “doubt”) with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Anyone can do it. If you need help, ask your local diocese or call the Apostolic Nuncio’s office in D.C. It’s simply a matter of asking them the question: “Are women still obligated to cover their heads? Is this a matter of immutable Tradition or mutable discipline?”

I already have and am waiting for a response as we speak although I am told it could take a while. See, the Church recognizes that the lay faithful might be confused on certain issues and gives us recourse. Why can’t you?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And then, a bit further in the same post I directed you to above, you say, “And those who post papal quotes should remember all the times they’ve disagreed with the same Pontiff. If he can be wrong about ecumenism, can’t he be wrong about this?”

Om my goodness! It seems you are talking out both sides of your mouth at once. Case of relativism going on here?

No, not at all, it was a bit of a rhetorical question. The issues of ecumenism touch on matters of faith and dogma. The issue we were discussing HERE was whether the Pope had the authority to abrogate a form of the Mass (in this case, the Tridentine), which is clearly an issue of discipline. The poster quoted Cardinal Ratzinger in support of NOT being able to abrogate a form of the Mass (and I disagree, not because I think he should, but because I think he lawfully COULD), yet the same poster has quoted the same Cardinal Ratzinger in a poor light as regards ecumenism. My question was this: if he’s wrong on a matter of faith and morals (dogma and doctrine), then we can be sure he MAY be equally wrong on a matter of discipline (ie, that the pope cannot abrogate a rite)…as pope, at least, which he wasn’t on either count, the potential abrogation of any Mass or the issue of ecumenism. I wasn’t talking out of any side of my mouth. Be that as it may, clearly the issue of covering is a matter of discipline and matters of discipline are only infallible in the negative sense, ie, they cannot lead the faithful into impiety. That means that if the Church permits women to NOT wear headcoverings, that NOT wearing of a headconvering cannot be considered a sin (or an impiety) on the part of the women not wearing it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

**Well, I don’t think you are a good judge of that since I am the one who feels that you were both. Of course you would give yourself a pass. **Well, you’re hardly infallible yourself, so I guess we’re at an impasse.

I already have and am waiting for a response as we speak although I am told it could take a while. See, the Church recognizes that the lay faithful might be confused on certain issues and gives us recourse. Why can’t you?

I never said you didn’t have recourse if you were confused. I said you’d no right to mislead others into thinking that the Church still required it. And you don’t. It may be clear to everyone, BUT you, that’s fine, you’re a right to cling to your lack of clarity, but that doesn’t give you the right to make it LESS clear for others or to attempt to coerce their consciences where the Church has been clear (to most people, anyway, even women who cover and post on these fora).

 

[Philothea53]

I never said you didn’t have recourse if you were confused. I said you’d no right to mislead others into thinking that the Church still required it. And you don’t. It may be clear to everyone, BUT you, that’s fine, you’re a right to cling to your lack of clarity, but that doesn’t give you the right to make it LESS clear for others or to attempt to coerce their consciences where the Church has been clear (to most people, anyway, even women who cover and post on these fora).

So you are telling me that on a discussion forum such as this I have no right to express my opinion and to state the reasons why I believe these opinions to be valid and worthy of discussion? Then what is the purpose of this forum? I can only assume then that it is for people like you to demean and in essence make fun of those who ask the same questions that have been asked by hundreds before and all because you think you have it all on the ball and the rest of us are either idiots or purposely trying to deceive? No, you don’t get to diminish the numbers of people, men and women alike, who are just as confused as I am. I also will not accept you trying to make me out to be some sort of demon coercing the conscience of anyone. I am a good and faithful servant of our Lord. I will pray for the Grace to forgive you your mischaracterization.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So you are telling me that on a discussion forum such as this I have no right to express my opinion and to state the reasons why I believe these opinions to be valid and worthy of discussion? Then what is the purpose of this forum? I can only assume then that it is for people like you to demean and in essence make fun of those who ask the same questions that have been asked by hundreds before and all because you think you have it all on the ball and the rest of us are either idiots or purposely trying to deceive? No, you don’t get to diminish the numbers of people, men and women alike, who are just as confused as I am. I also will not accept you trying to make me out to be some sort of demon coercing the conscience of anyone. I am a good and faithful servant of our Lord. I will pray for the Grace to forgive you your mischaracterization.

A) I don’t think that there are as many confused as you seem to think there are.

B) I never said you were a demon, but you get points for being over-dramatic.

C) I’m not a good and faithful of Our Lord, I am, as He said, “an unprofitable servant who has only done his duty.” (though I hope that someday He thinks as highly of me as apparently some think of themselves). I haven’t mischaracterized you at all, in fact, YOU first addressed me in this thread. You’ve been presented with the same information repeatedly, over and over, ad nauseum, from reliable sources, including the Holy See itself.

 

[Philothea53]

A) I don’t think that there are as many confused as you seem to think there are.

B) I never said you were a demon, but you get points for being over-dramatic.

C) I’m not a good and faithful of Our Lord, I am, as He said, “an unprofitable servant who has only done his duty.” (though I hope that someday He thinks as highly of me as apparently some think of themselves). I haven’t mischaracterized you at all, in fact, YOU first addressed me in this thread. You’ve been presented with the same information repeatedly, over and over, ad nauseum, from reliable sources, including the Holy See itself.

So now you are putting me down in the very same sentence you say that He has said you are one “who has only done his duty.”? More arrogance!

No, I did not approach you. In post #45 YOU responded to something I had said to bear06. Keeping it honest, post #45 is another time you used the word abrogate, BTW.

And yes, you called me a demon because only a demon would purposely coerce the conscience of another as you put it. You may not have used the word but you accused me nonetheless. Every post you have made has been insulting and lacking in humility.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

So now you are putting me down in the very same sentence you say that He has said you are one “who has only done his duty.”? More arrogance! Not in the least, poor dear, I was merely quoting the Scripture in which our Lord said what we SHOULD say (ie, we’re not supposed to say “I’m a good and faithful servant of the Lord”). I did not mean that HE has said I’ve only done my duty. Look it up, it’s in one of the Gospels.

No, I did not approach you. In post #45 YOU responded to something I had said to bear06. Keeping it honest, post #45 is another time you used the word abrogate, BTW. I haven’t used abrogate in connection with the Mass, my dear, do try and keep the context straight. And fair enough, I addressed you first, but I did so respectfully, as anyone can see. Yet you accuse us all of arrogance in Post #52.

And yes, you called me a demon because only a demon would purposely coerce the conscience of another as you put it. You may not have used the word but you accused me nonetheless. Every post you have made has been insulting and lacking in humility.

** I’m terribly sorry you feel that way and I certainly did not intend to do so. But I have to plead innocent to the charge of calling you a demon. And there’s lots of people on these fora who attempt to coerce the consciences of others or at least make them uneasy (it’s fine to go to SSPX masses, the NO is a Protestant worship service, “for all” invalidates the consecration, Russia wasn’t consecrated properly, the Pope teaches heresy, you still have to cover your head, etc). We have to stand up for the truth, however, even at the risk of offending some who may be offended by the truth. **

 

[bear06]

So you are telling me that on a discussion forum such as this I have no right to express my opinion and to state the reasons why I believe these opinions to be valid and worthy of discussion?

I can’t even remember at this point if you were suggesting that head coverings were mandatory. If so, we have every right to quote the Church teaching on that matter. You can say that the sky is neon green. It’s your right. Does that make it the correct thing to do?

No, you don’t get to diminish the numbers of people, men and women alike, who are just as confused as I am.

 

[Philothea53]

I can’t even remember at this point if you were suggesting that head coverings were mandatory.

 

[bear06]

So you are admitting to arguing for the sake of arguing. I’m not at all surprised.

Uh, I believe that I’ve been addressing the topic of the thread. Don’t you think?

So, for clarification, do you think that head coverings for women are still required?

BTW, how do you feel about the last sentence of you post? That wasn’t demeaning in the least.

 

[Philothea53]

Not in the least, poor dear, I was merely quoting the Scripture in which our Lord said what we SHOULD say (ie, we’re not supposed to say “I’m a good and faithful servant of the Lord”). I did not mean that HE has said I’ve only done my duty. Look it up, it’s in one of the Gospels.

No, that is not true! You said, "…,I am, as He said, “an unprofitable servant who has only done his duty.” Do you even reread your posts to check for correctness and honesty?

I haven’t used abrogate in connection with the Mass, my dear, do try and keep the context straight

.

Don’t you be condescending to me, my dear! Maybe the problem is in your style of writing because you answered as you did in response to what I said about today’s discussion of a new letter about the Latin Mass and then I showed you where you had used it on the other thread and again here at post #86:

No, not at all, it was a bit of a rhetorical question. The issues of ecumenism touch on matters of faith and dogma. The issue we were discussing HERE was whether the Pope had the authority to abrogate a form of the Mass (in this case, the Tridentine), which is clearly an issue of discipline. The poster quoted Cardinal Ratzinger in support of NOT being able to abrogate a form of the Mass (and I disagree, not because I think he should, but because I think he lawfully COULD), yet the same poster has quoted the same Cardinal Ratzinger in a poor light as regards ecumenism. My question was this: if he’s wrong on a matter of faith and morals (dogma and doctrine), then we can be sure he MAY be equally wrong on a matter of discipline (ie, that the pope cannot abrogate a rite)…as pope, at least, which he wasn’t on either count, the potential abrogation of any Mass or the issue of ecumenism. I wasn’t talking out of any side of my mouth. Be that as it may, clearly the issue of covering is a matter of discipline and matters of discipline are only infallible in the negative sense, ie, they cannot lead the faithful into impiety. That means that if the Church permits women to NOT wear headcoverings, that NOT wearing of a headconvering cannot be considered a sin (or an impiety) on the part of the women not wearing it.

And fair enough, I addressed you first, but I did so respectfully, as anyone can see. Yet you accuse us all of arrogance in Post #52.

Ah, yeah! After SeminarianMatt was ridiculed and insulted! After you and Out had your public pride party! Oh, yeah!

I’m terribly sorry you feel that way and I certainly did not intend to do so. But I have to plead innocent to the charge of calling you a demon.

I was starting to think I was getting an apology for the way you have spoken to me. Alas, I was wrong.

We have to stand up for the truth, however, even at the risk of offending some who may be offended by the truth.

In all humility, you need to humble thyself.

 

[bear06]

Maybe rather than going on and on about what meanies we are, you could just use the little report a post button and let the moderators decide. It would now seem that we’ve dropped off posts of substance in regards to the actually topic of the thread and wandered off into “you’re a meanie oblivion”.

 

[Philothea53]

Uh, I believe that I’ve been addressing the topic of the thread. Don’t you think?

So, for clarification, do you think that head coverings for women are still required?

BTW, how do you feel about the last sentence of you post? That wasn’t demeaning in the least.

You and your ‘friends’ have put me through the ringer and then admit you don’t even know where I stand on the issue. You weren’t just addressing the topic of the thread. You were arguing every point I made without attempting to understand where I was coming from. You’re right. That wasn’t a very nice thing for me to say but I was lashing out after an evening of this kind of comment:

“I can’t even remember at this point if you were suggesting that head coverings were mandatory. If so, we have every right to quote the Church teaching on that matter. You can say that the sky is neon green. It’s your right. Does that make it the correct thing to do?”

If you don’t recognize it, you had written in the post previous to my ‘demeaning’ comment.

 

[Philothea53]

So, for clarification, do you think that head coverings for women are still required?

So, no, I don’t believe they are still ‘required’ and don’t believe it is an issue of one’s salvation but I am not sure we were meant to stop wearing them either. I believe the issue goes much deeper than the Church just dropping the requirement and then not saying anything else definitively. I don’t understand why She would do this, but I find it hard to think we would be left without explanation or clarification. It’s an important discipline to me and because I know our Church moves slowly, I will continue to wait for Her to clear up the issue for the many who are still wondering.

As far as calling a moderator, you can do that if you believe one is needed. I don’t.

 

[bear06]

You and your ‘friends’ have put me through the ringer and then admit you don’t even know where I stand on the issue. You weren’t just addressing the topic of the thread. You were arguing every point I made without attempting to understand where I was coming from. You’re right. That wasn’t a very nice thing for me to say but I was lashing out after an evening of this kind of comment:

“I can’t even remember at this point if you were suggesting that head coverings were mandatory. If so, we have every right to quote the Church teaching on that matter. You can say that the
sky is neon green. It’s your right. Does that make it the correct thing to do?”

If you don’t recognize it, you had written in the post previous to my ‘demeaning’ comment.

Yes, yes, we’re mean and demeaning. Got it.

Actually, I think that I know where you stand on the issue after going through all of your posts. You have repeatedly said that the Vatican didn’t “directly” deal with this issue. I have repeatedly said that they did. You seem to think an entire encyclical needs to be written specifically on the subject to consider it addressed. I fail to see why you believe this. Can you not admit that the Vatican did deal with this topic in Inter Insignores? Can you not agree that this statement was confirmed by Pope Paul VI?

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.