Catholic practices

[TheInquisitor]

Why do Catholic Women not cover their heads? 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

Also, why do Catholics eat blood? Acts 15:29

My qualm is that this is in direct contradiction of scripture. What grounds did Vatican II have to allow women to no longer cover their heads? And when where Catholics allowed to eat blood?

I look forward to your answers

 

[bmullins]

It’s obvious that you are not looking for an answer but trying to cause doubt. I will address it though.

First the law of not eating blood was a Mosaic Law. Christians aren’t bound by the Mosaic Law. It also has to do with taking of our Paschal Lamb. It doesn’t fall under cannibalism. Transubstantiation makes Jesus locally present to us, which is very much different than eating an animal or drinking blood from a cup.

Secondly, we do it because Jesus commanded us to.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

As to why women can now have their heads uncovered is that it is a custom. Our current customs do not require it, and our current societies do not feel that it is necessary. The authority with which it was done was the authority given to the church by Jesus when he established the church with the Holy See, the seat of Peter.

That being said, there are still some Catholic women who pray with their heads covered. Many in my church still do it.

 

[TheInquisitor]

It’s obvious that you are not looking for an answer but trying to cause doubt. I will address it though.

First the law of not eating blood was a Mosaic Law. Christians aren’t bound by the Mosaic Law. It also has to do with taking of our Paschal Lamb. It doesn’t fall under cannibalism. Transubstantiation makes Jesus locally present to us, which is very much different than eating an animal or drinking blood from a cup.

Secondly, we do it because Jesus commanded us to.

As to why women can now have their heads uncovered is that it is a custom. Our current customs do not require it, and our current societies do not feel that it is necessary. The authority with which it was done was the authority given to the church by Jesus when he established the church with the Holy See, the seat of Peter.

That being said, there are still some Catholic women who pray with their heads covered. Many in my church still do it.

I’m sorry, I see people corner you guys with questions like these all the time. Rest assured I am not one of them.

So let me get this straight.

The Council of Jerusalem was more of a suggestion for gentile converts to not eat blood? It would make sense with what Paul says later on. However, the verse says to abstain period. When did that change?

Also, Paul telling Women to cover their heads was because of local customs?

 

[bmullins]

I’m sorry, I see people corner you guys with questions like these all the time. Rest assured I am not one of them.

So let me get this straight.

The Council of Jerusalem was more of a suggestion for gentile converts to not eat blood? It would make sense with what Paul says later on. However, the verse says to abstain period. When did that change?

Also, Paul telling Women to cover their heads was because of local customs?

It’s my understanding that yes, the Council of Jerusalem were suggesting that the Gentile coverts avoided certain things in order to separate themselves from the habits of the other Pagan worshipers. This was necessary at the time that they would learn their new faith, and not simply revert to their old faith.

 

[bmullins]

BTW sorry for assuming you were being negative with your post. I think I’m allowing the constant negative barrage I am seeing from my announcement that I am converting to Catholicism to ‘flavor’ my perception of others and I need to avoid that.

I also wanted to say that more often than not, the people who use the old testament prohibition of eating blood to say that we shouldn’t be taking Eucharist, also deny the Eucharist is blood… which makes the point moot. It’s only if they admit that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ that it would make a difference, and at that point we simply point to Jesus commands that we *have *to eat his body and blood.

 

[TheInquisitor]

BTW sorry for assuming you were being negative with your post. I think I’m allowing the constant negative barrage I am seeing from my announcement that I am converting to Catholicism to ‘flavor’ my perception of others and I need to avoid that.

I also wanted to say that more often than not, the people who use the old testament prohibition of eating blood to say that we shouldn’t be taking Eucharist, also deny the Eucharist is blood… which makes the point moot. It’s only if they admit that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ that it would make a difference, and at that point we simply point to Jesus commands that we *have *to eat his body and blood.

It’s cool, I totally understand. I’m basically on the conversion side as well. I’m only tying up loose ends such as these kinds of questions. I can relate to the negativity received from family.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The prohibition against blood was not part of the Covenant of Moses. It actually originated with God’s covenant with Noah:

But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. (Gen 9:4)

Noah long preceded Abraham (the father of the Jews). Noah was the father of many nations, including Gentile ones.

While the Council of Jerusalem was comfortable putting aside Mosaic laws, it was not so comfortable doing so with regard to a covenant that was much older and more universal. Thus, they retained this particular dietary law. We do not know their exact reasons, but we can assume they felt it was the right decision at the time.

But Jesus also subjected ALL laws to the authority of the Church, with full divine enforcement, without any exceptions whatsoever:

Whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven (Matt 16:18 or so).

Binding and loosing were rabbinical terms which means to impose or remove an obligation. Over time, the Church has exercised both the authority to bind and loose with regard to dietary rules - for example, requirements for fasting and abstinence. At the Council of Jerusalem the Apostles felt it wise to loose many Mosaic laws, but continue to bind one of the laws of Noah. This decision is not binding upon all future generations of Catholics - the Church has full authority to change such rules at any time (the Church can always change rules, but never doctrine - nobody ever claimed that the rule against blood was an absolute moral standard).

Likewise, the Church has the authority to determine customs of dress - both for the laity as well as clergy and members of Religious Orders. Such rules can change as often as the Church deems appropriate - although nobody ever accused the Church of changing such outward customs too frequently - usually centuries intervene between changes.

No Council or Pope can ever change doctrine - and none have ever done so. But dietary rules and clothing fashion are not doctrine, and they have changed many times.

 

[Petergee]

Why do Catholic Women not cover their heads? 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

Also, why do Catholics eat blood? Acts 15:29 My qualm is that this is in direct contradiction of scripture.

Do you eat shellfish? Prawns? Do you eat meals that contain both meat and dairy products? All of these are in direct contradiction of scripture.

What grounds did Vatican II have to allow women to no longer cover their heads?

Who told you Vatican II did that? Vatican II said absolutely nothing about whether women should or should not cover their heads. In fact the Catholic Church has never issued any directive, much less any doctrinal statement, about this custom, which is purely a pious custom. Since about the 1970s fashions in Western countries have changed and most western women no longer usually wear hats or scarves on their heads, as they used to do pretty much all the time whenever they left the house before that. Naturally most women stopped wearing headcoverings in church in Western countries at abut the same time. In non-western countries, most women in Catholic and non-Catholic churches still cover their heads.

 

[bmullins]

Who told you Vatican II did that? Vatican II said absolutely nothing about whether women should or should not cover their heads. In fact the Catholic Church has never issued any directive, much less any doctrinal statement, about this custom, which is purely a pious custom. Since about the 1970s fashions in Western countries have changed and most western women no longer usually wear hats or scarves on their heads, as they used to do pretty much all the time whenever they left the house before that. Naturally most women stopped wearing headcoverings in church in Western countries at abut the same time. In non-western countries, most women in Catholic and non-Catholic churches still cover their heads.

Canon 1262 said “women, however, shall have a covered head” when assisting at liturgy." It was abrogated in 1983 when it was not reaffirmed. I am glad it went out, as we would have to separate our seating as well, men and women seated separately etc.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Canon 1262 said “women, however, shall have a covered head” when assisting at liturgy." It was abrogated in 1983 when it was not reaffirmed.

The Canon you cited was from the 1917 Code of Canon Law - the very such Code (there was no such thing as a “Code of Canon Law” prior to 1917, though the Code was based upon many existent rules and procedures), and marked the first time that women were required to wear head coverings in the Latin Rite.

As you noted, the 1983 Code actually abrogated the ENTIRE 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 1983.6.1.1), including the 1917 Canon 1262, which was not renewed. The Church simply blew away the entire 1917 Code and replaced it with the 1983 Code.

This very clearly differentiates the rules of the Church (as reflected in Canon Law, which can change at any time) and the doctrine of the Church (which can never change). The Church can blow away each and every Canon Law and replace it with a whole new set of laws (or nothing at all), but the Church can never blow away an infallible teaching, which is eternal.

 

[TheInquisitor]

The prohibition against blood was not part of the Covenant of Moses. It actually originated with God’s covenant with Noah:

Noah long preceded Abraham (the father of the Jews). Noah was the father of many nations, including Gentile ones.

While the Council of Jerusalem was comfortable putting aside Mosaic laws, it was not so comfortable doing so with regard to a covenant that was much older and more universal. Thus, they retained this particular dietary law. We do not know their exact reasons, but we can assume they felt it was the right decision at the time.

But Jesus also subjected ALL laws to the authority of the Church, with full divine enforcement, without any exceptions whatsoever:

Binding and loosing were rabbinical terms which means to impose or remove an obligation. Over time, the Church has exercised both the authority to bind and loose with regard to dietary rules - for example, requirements for fasting and abstinence. At the Council of Jerusalem the Apostles felt it wise to loose many Mosaic laws, but continue to bind one of the laws of Noah. This decision is not binding upon all future generations of Catholics - the Church has full authority to change such rules at any time (the Church can always change rules, but never doctrine - nobody ever claimed that the rule against blood was an absolute moral standard).

Likewise, the Church has the authority to determine customs of dress - both for the laity as well as clergy and members of Religious Orders. Such rules can change as often as the Church deems appropriate - although nobody ever accused the Church of changing such outward customs too frequently - usually centuries intervene between changes.

No Council or Pope can ever change doctrine - and none have ever done so. But dietary rules and clothing fashion are not doctrine, and they have changed many times.

Ok, so you’re saying the this was an early example of the church giving regulations not dogma?

Cool, Here’s my next question then.

Did the Pharisees have this same ability? In Matt. 23:2-3 it seems Jesus said so. If the Rabbis had the ability to bind and loose like this, Did Jesus break the sabbath when he went against Tradition?

 

[Petergee]

Canon 1262 said “women, however, shall have a covered head” when assisting at liturgy." It was abrogated in 1983 when it was not reaffirmed. I am glad it went out, as we would have to separate our seating as well, men and women seated separately etc.

No, it did not say that “women** shall **have a covered head” .
It said:
Canon 1262, § 2. “Men should attend Mass, either in church or outside church, with bare heads, unless approved local custom or special circumstances suggest otherwise; women, however, **should **have their heads veiled and should be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.”

Any lawyer will tell you there’s a big difference between “shall” and “should”.
“Shall” is a directive. “Should” is a recommendation. So I repeat, the Catholic Church has never issued any directive about this custom.

Additionally, lawyers would probably say that the qualification"unless approved local custom or special circumstances suggest otherwise" also applies to women’s dress as well as to men’s. Especially as the principle in Canon Law is that where there is doubt regarding an obligation, it be interpreted in the more liberal sense.