Catholic wearing yarmulke at Jewish wedding

  • Thread starter Thread starter kdsavino
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jozsa said:
The Catholic groom having gotten married in a Jewish ceremony was not really married in the eyes of the Catholic church. Didn’t his father’s presence indicate approval? In my opinion that is the real problem here, not wearing a Jewish head covering. Attending a Jewish friend’s wedding is an entirely different situation.
Click to expand...
Are you a judge of the Tribunal?
 
Jozsa said:
My Catholic niece married a Jewish guy and she got a dispensation, but they were married in a Catholic ceremony and the groom agreed that all their children will be raised in the Catholic faith. She is validly married in the eyes of the Church (the so-called Pauline privilege), however, her marriage was not a sacrament. A sacramental marriage can only occur between two baptized Christians.
Click to expand...
That is not “Pauline privilege.”
 
Last edited:
I don’t think it would be proper to wear a yarmulke in the eyes of traditional Catholic teaching. First, it was frowned upon to attend any non-Catholic religious ceremony, but you must do it with great caution! Secondly, one should not bend to the whim of another’s religious ideals for the sake of respect! A Catholic woman should never wear a hijab for the sake of the Muslim when entering a Muslim place of worship! To do so is to respect that law where the custom comes from. Therefore, wearing a yarmulke respects the law from which it came. But do not fall into the trap of believing this law came from Old Testament! First, it came from the Talmud(yes, the very same Talmud which stated Jesus was conceived while Mary was menstruating). Second, the custom was put into place so that Jews could be identified as different or set apart from those of the Greco-Roman pagans and Christians! Please don’t wear the yarmulke!
 
When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When at a Reform Jewish wedding, you should show respect and wear a yarmulke if that is what is expected. This is neither an affront to Catholicism, nor is it an affront to Judaism.

We are all brothers. When Peter and Paul mingled with the Gentiles, they didn’t refrain from eating their food or showing respect for other cultures while still maintaining their Christian moral code of conduct and righteousness.

Our Savior was a Jew. His earliest followers were Jews. Mary and Joseph were Jews. All adhered to the Torah as sacred and holy. There is nothing wrong or immoral about being a Jew.
But do not fall into the trap of believing this law came from Old Testament! First, it came from the Talmud(yes, the very same Talmud which stated Jesus was conceived while Mary was menstruating). Second, the custom was put into place so that Jews could be identified as different or set apart from those of the Greco-Roman pagans and Christians! Please don’t wear the yarmulke!
Click to expand...
Good grief. The Torah - which is the “Law” - was given by the Creator as a gift to the Jewish people. The Law contains all that is holy and good, including the Ten Commandments, and numerous moral admonitions which we as Christians take to heart even today.

The Talmud is simply rabbinic commentary and debate on the Torah, and is an entirely different subject altogether. It has nothing whatsoever to do with showing respect towards our Jewish brethren at a wedding by simply honoring their religious traditions.

A yarmulke is worn as a sign and reminder that the Creator is above us all and watching over us, and that we should show respect to the Creator. The world would be a better place if everyone adopted such a philosophy.
 
The yarmulka itself is not required of anyone. Jewish males (and those who visit their buildings/sites) are expected to have their heads covered. The style of the hat is irrelevant.

At Judaism’s holies site, the Wailing Wall of the 2nd Temple foundation men are required to have their heads covered. The site provides loaner yarmulkas for men who have no covering…they also provide mesh baseball caps as an alternative.

The type of hat is irrelevant. It is the fact of wearing SOME kind of head covering that matters.
 
That’s wrong and also a horrible analogy.

This question is much closer to : should a Catholic remove his shoes when entering a Mosque?

The answer is of course yes.

It has everything to do with respecting others cultural and religious traditions, and nothing at all to do with renouncing or disrespecting ones own cultural or religious customs.
 
No, sorry.

We’re supposed to respect the people, not their beliefs. This has been the teaching of the Fathers for 2000 years. To take off ones shoes in a mosque suggests that the place is holy, when in fact, it is not.
 
Also, forget not, I was manifesting the teachings _pre-_VII, not the teachings from Vatican II
 
This article states that Pope Francis did just that

www.theguardian.com

Pope Francis visits besieged mosque in Central African Republic

Pontiff meets imam in PK5, where 15,000 Muslims are surrounded by Christian militia, to deliver message of reconciliation
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Is there some specific teaching or cannon law that you are citing that says not to remove shoes in a mosque or to wear head covering in a synagogue?
 
Well, Francis does many questionable things, including celebrating the Protestant Reformation. it yet, this isn’t our discussion.

I’m citing the Church’s tradition towards other faiths from the early Christians to the 1950s. If you want me to cite something, here’s this:
“Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you’ (II John 10).” -Pope Pius XI
I can find more citations if you want!
 
Quoting one pope while ignoring another is not a solid foundation for an argument.

Is there cannon law that says not to do these things?
 
Good grief. I’m not sure you read my paragraph properly. First, I in no way tried to delegitimize the Torah. The Torah is the Old Testament, a part of Sacred Scripture. Also, this ‘debate’ isn’t about culture. It’s about religion, which is therefore a matter of truth. I didn’t say the Talmud has anything to do with respect. What I said was, the Yarmulke most likely originates from the Talmud. That’s also not true, what you said, about why the devotion of the yarmulke began, or why it continues to exist. I can find you some citations if you’d like.
 
Thank you for clarifying that you were representing your own personal belief and not what the Church actually currently teaches.

Honestly, it doesn’t really matter what the Church taught decades or centuries ago if it’s been superseded in modern times.

It doesn’t matter the Church used to bind faithful women to cover their heads at Mass - the Church has now loosed women from this discipline.

It doesn’t matter the Church used to bind the faithful in America to abstain from fish on Fridays - the Church has now loosed the faithful from this discipline.

It doesn’t matter the Church used to bind the faithful from entering non-Catholic places of worship - the Church has loosed this discipline.

That whole authority to bind and loose thing y’know. Kinda important to a Catholic worldview.
 
Is there a similar clause in the 1983 Code of Canon Law?
 
That’s a terrible thing to say. The Church, by virtue of the Holy Ghost, remains immutable, meaning her teachings cannot change. I’m sorry to hear that you think the Church is changing for modern times. That’s the heresy of modernism. I will pray for you!
 
I’m not familiar with it, but Ill be sure to look it up:)
 
If it is a terrible thing to believe in what Holy Mother Church infallibly teaches, then you can just call me “El Terrible”.

Thanks, I could always use some prayer.

However, I would like you to repudiate your claim that the Church is heretical. She is not.
 
I don’t believe the Church is heretical. Did you even read what I wrote? I think you are in close proximity to being heretical by suggesting that the Church changes to modern times. That is the synthesis of all heresy. Perhaps I am the one reading what you wrote wrong. Could you please clarify?
 
I said nothing besides coming to defend the Church from someone misrepresenting her.

You presented a certain teaching as if it was current teaching, yet you admitted it was pre-Vatican II teaching.

Are you aware of the differences betwixt dogma, doctrine, and discipline?

Are you aware the Church possesses the authority to bind and loose certain disciplines as she sees fit?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top