Attending EF form with no head covering

  • Thread starter Thread starter Angel_Gabriel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
anp1215 said:
“There is a second reason why modesty of dress is especially applicable to women over men. It is that there is a special form of immodesty that is characteristic of our modern times, and it is the immodesty of women wearing men’s clothes, most notably pants and shorts. This undermines a woman’s psychological perception of herself, and of her difference from a man, which in turn de-feminizes her, erodes natural respect between men and women, removes the defense to over-familiarity, and eventually degrades the relationships between men and women to the level of sensuality. It is this form of immodesty which is ultimately by far the most destructive of human relationships and of the virtue of purity.”

Taken from the SSPX website, Catholic FAQ section
Click to expand...
Meh.

That’s crazy talk.
 
anp1215 said:
“There is a second reason why modesty of dress is especially applicable to women over men. It is that there is a special form of immodesty that is characteristic of our modern times, and it is the immodesty of women wearing men’s clothes, most notably pants and shorts. This undermines a woman’s psychological perception of herself, and of her difference from a man, which in turn de-feminizes her, erodes natural respect between men and women, removes the defense to over-familiarity, and eventually degrades the relationships between men and women to the level of sensuality. It is this form of immodesty which is ultimately by far the most destructive of human relationships and of the virtue of purity.”

Taken from the SSPX website, Catholic FAQ section
Click to expand...
Well, they have a point.
 
TrueLight said:
How does one appear to be properly disposed? Aside of course from kneeling to receive on the tongue. I know no one is going to receive communion standing and in the hand at those chapels or at FSSP chapels either.
Click to expand...
Hate to bring fact into the debate but there is a history of FSSP churches giving communion in the hand and to those standing. During the last knee-jerk Flu reaction the bishop ordered that communion on the tongue will not be allowed until he re-instated it, the foolishness of that has been discussed to death. Those who are indisposed to kneeling by handicap or illness are advised to receive communion while standing, the expectation in those cases would still be on the tongue. I doubt any priest would refuse communion to anyone regardless of whether they conformed to the normal, expected practice although I admit I would not put that to a test.
 
TrueLight said:
How does one appear to be properly disposed? Aside of course from kneeling to receive on the tongue. I know no one is going to receive communion standing and in the hand at those chapels or at FSSP chapels either.
Click to expand...
Well, for example, I wouldn’t be surprised if an SSPX priest refused Holy Communion to someone standing at the rail wearing ripped jeans and a t-shirt while chewing gum and holding out his hand.

I have never heard of an SSPX priest refusing communion to a stranger who comes to Holy Mass dressed modestly and approaches the altar rail in a humble manner prepared to receive Holy Communion in the traditional manner.
 
Bob_Aliano said:
Hate to bring fact into the debate but there is a history of FSSP churches giving communion in the hand and to those standing. During the last knee-jerk Flu reaction the bishop ordered that communion on the tongue will not be allowed until he re-instated it, the foolishness of that has been discussed to death.
Click to expand...
My recollection is that the FSSP chapel in that diocese simply stopped distributing Holy Communion at all until the bishop rescinded the decree.
Bob_Aliano said:
Those who are indisposed to kneeling by handicap or illness are advised to receive communion while standing, the expectation in those cases would still be on the tongue.
Click to expand...
There are legitimate reasons for people not to kneel. I’ve never seen an FSSP priest make someone get out of their wheelchair and down on the rail before giving them Holy Communion.
Bob_Aliano said:
I doubt any priest would refuse communion to anyone regardless of whether they conformed to the normal, expected practice although I admit I would not put that to a test.
Click to expand...
I have personally witnessed FSSP priests refusing to give Holy Communion in the hand. I have never seen a person who expected to receive Holy Communion in the hand from an FSSP priest actually receive it that way. The priest tells them no, they can only receive on the tongue, and that’s that. They open their mouth, or the priest just moves on to the next person.

Back before Universae Ecclesiae, some people argued that FSSP priests who refused to give communion in the hand were somehow acting illicitly. Now we know it would be illicit to give someone communion in the hand at a EF Mass, and traditional parishes often make an announcement before Mass that, if you wish to receive Holy Communion, the only possibility is on the tongue at the altar rail.
 
Bob_Aliano said:
Hate to bring fact into the debate but there is a history of FSSP churches giving communion in the hand and to those standing. During the last knee-jerk Flu reaction the bishop ordered that communion on the tongue will not be allowed until he re-instated it, the foolishness of that has been discussed to death. Those who are indisposed to kneeling by handicap or illness are advised to receive communion while standing, the expectation in those cases would still be on the tongue. I doubt any priest would refuse communion to anyone regardless of whether they conformed to the normal, expected practice although I admit I would not put that to a test.
Click to expand...
Come on. Do I really, really have to include the disclaimer that those who are physically unable to kneel don’t have to?
 
w_s_s said:
Back before Universae Ecclesiae, some people argued that FSSP priests who refused to give communion in the hand were somehow acting illicitly. Now we know it would be illicit to give someone communion in the hand at a EF Mass, and traditional parishes often make an announcement before Mass that, if you wish to receive Holy Communion, the only possibility is on the tongue at the altar rail.
Click to expand...
👍
 
anp1215 said:
“There is a second reason why modesty of dress is especially applicable to women over men. It is that there is a special form of immodesty that is characteristic of our modern times, and it is the immodesty of women wearing men’s clothes, most notably pants and shorts. This undermines a woman’s psychological perception of herself, and of her difference from a man, which in turn de-feminizes her, erodes natural respect between men and women, removes the defense to over-familiarity, and eventually degrades the relationships between men and women to the level of sensuality. It is this form of immodesty which is ultimately by far the most destructive of human relationships and of the virtue of purity.”

Taken from the SSPX website, Catholic FAQ section
Click to expand...
This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. I kid you not.

I am really beginning to believe that some of the clergy in the SSPX are misogynists.
 
CB_Catholic said:
This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. I kid you not.

I am really beginning to believe that some of the clergy in the SSPX are misogynists.
Click to expand...
PANTS???

Oh no, not again!!!

Those bifurcated pieces of fabric that have been worn by people of either gender in many cultures since time began?? This has been explained on CAF more time than I care to count. As we all know, in Biblical times, in Biblical lands, NOBODY wore pants…men wore robes and tunics and women wore robes (you’d think whoever wrote that little tidbit you quoted would’ve known that, but apparently not).
 
CB_Catholic said:
This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. I kid you not.

I am really beginning to believe that some of the clergy in the SSPX are misogynists.
Click to expand...
Don’t even do a web search about that group and women driving vehicles or getting an education…your will find your suspicions confirmed!
 
Oh oh. I see where this thread is going.

I disagree with some of the SSPX viewpoints, but in a lot of other ways, they are right!

And I’m going to leave it at that.
 
TrueLight said:
Oh oh. I see where this thread is going.

I disagree with some of the SSPX viewpoints, but in a lot of other ways, they are right!

And I’m going to leave it at that.
Click to expand...
At least you agree that the no pants thing is dumb. I honestly don’t see how anyone couldn’t see how ridiculous that is.
 
I attend the Novus Ordo, and cover my hair. I normally just wear a normal hat or beret, because wearing a mantilla caused there to be too much attention drawn to me. No other women wear them. Not that I am ashamed, it’s just that part of the reasoning of veiling is to be humble and to not flaunt appearance, and having everyone look at me was kind of deflecting from the point. When I wore my (black, but very sensible) mantilla to Adoration, a man kindly asked me if I’d “lost someone”. I now try to blend in. Sadly, veiling is not a custom here anymore. You will find in most Novus Ordo parishes it is not.
 
TrueLight said:
How does one appear to be properly disposed? Aside of course from kneeling to receive on the tongue. I know no one is going to receive communion standing and in the hand at those chapels or at FSSP chapels either.
Click to expand...
I am not going to an SSPX mass but for the EF masses at other parishes, what if someone cannot kneel for physical reasons? This is someone I know off, not old, not obviously very diabled, uses a walking stick.
 
severus68 said:
I am not going to an SSPX mass but for the EF masses at other parishes, what if someone cannot kneel for physical reasons? This is someone I know off, not old, not obviously very diabled, uses a walking stick.
Click to expand...
Those that cannot kneel, don’t have to. No priest is going to deny the Eucharist to someone who can’t kneel. As for your friend, even though they aren’t obviously disabled, the fact that they have a walking stick I would think definitely signals to the priest that they need to receive standing. They would just stand at the altar rail to receive. I’ve seen people do it.

I’m sure before the 1960s, when altar rails were the norm, there weren’t waves of people being denied the Eucharist standing because they couldn’t kneel. I’ve never heard of such a thing.
 
TrueLight said:
Come on. Do I really, really have to include the disclaimer that those who are physically unable to kneel don’t have to?
Click to expand...
Some people with walking sticks still kneel because they are still able. I was asking this sincerely. They are even people who can walk without aids but still cannot kneel as they have knee replacements. Who wants to give lengthy explainations while trying to receive Christ?
 
severus68 said:
Some people with walking sticks still kneel because they are still able. I was asking this sincerely. They are even people who can walk without aids but still cannot kneel as they have knee replacements. Who wants to give lengthy explainations while trying to receive Christ?
Click to expand...
As someone mentioned, they would handle it the same way they handled back in the day when most received kneeling.

But since you are sincere, I will ask an FSSP priest. 🙂
 
TrueLight said:
As someone mentioned, they would handle it the same way they handled back in the day when most received kneeling.

But since you are sincere, I will ask an FSSP priest. 🙂
Click to expand...
I had to say I was being sincere or you may have thought I was just being difficult.😃 And I do know a person with both knee replacements and Catholic to boot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top