Celebrant Requests that Women Cover their Heads

  • Thread starter Thread starter BHawkes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BHawkes

Guest
We just had our first Tridentine Mass in this area since 1969 or so and it was very nice. After the Mass the celebrant mentioned a few items.

Many women had their heads covered, and he did say that while it was not mandated, it was “…the way to go” and requested that all women cover their heads at future Tridentine Masses in his wonderful Scottish burr. His comments gave me a little inward grin.

Watch the slide show and his comments, they are neat:

sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/149961.html
 
The priest may be saying Mass from the Missal of 1962, but this doesn’t trump the 1983 Canon Law, which removed any requirement for women to cover their heads in Mass.

He is overstepping the mark to require or request any such thing.
 
LilyM said:
The priest may be saying Mass from the Missal of 1962, but this doesn’t trump the 1983 Canon Law, which removed any requirement for women to cover their heads in Mass.

He is overstepping the mark to require or request any such thing.
Click to expand...
I agree. He could be doing the EU Mass more harm than good, esp. if his bishop gets wind of it.
 
Not to bother, but the 1983 Code of Canon Law, didn’t mention the headcovering issue, it merely omitted mention of it. And the Magesterium has yet, to give a definitive answer to it being either required or not. …At least from what I’ve read and been told. And even if it’s merely optional, the priest can suggest his preference that it be used, as a sign of reverence to God, for he is holy.
 
Since the Code of 1983 did not mention headcoverings, then one must refer back to the previous Code of Canon Law from 1917 I believe. Headcovering is an immemorial custom and is Biblical.
 
LilyM said:
The priest may be saying Mass from the Missal of 1962, but this doesn’t trump the 1983 Canon Law, which removed any requirement for women to cover their heads in Mass.

He is overstepping the mark to require or request any such thing.
Click to expand...
What mark? Whose mark?
What exactly does the code say about dress requirements, or not say? Would a priest be overstepping your mark if he made any comment or request to people of either gender on dress? Would he be out of line if he asked men to remove their hats in church, or not come to church wearing short pants and tee shirts with beer ads? My guess is that the majority of women who are attached to the old rite, prefer to cover themselves. The women who are tourists, checking it out probably don’t know about the custom. What would Mary do?
 
Ace86 said:
Since the Code of 1983 did not mention headcoverings, then one must refer back to the previous Code of Canon Law from 1917 I believe. Headcovering is an immemorial custom and is Biblical.
Click to expand...
They are completely optional.

See here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=32453

You might note that the same canon that called for headcoverings in 1917 also called for men and women to sit separately in church. That wasn’t mentioned in 1983 either so by your logic men and women sitting together would be vioalting church law. Fortunately, neither law is in force any longer.
 
ravenonthecross said:
Not to bother, but the 1983 Code of Canon Law, didn’t mention the headcovering issue, it merely omitted mention of it. And the Magesterium has yet, to give a definitive answer to it being either required or not. …At least from what I’ve read and been told. And even if it’s merely optional, the priest can suggest his preference that it be used, as a sign of reverence to God, for he is holy.
Click to expand...
Answer by Matthew Bunson on 9/14/2007:
In 1976, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the document Inter insigniores in which it specifically stated that as it was a historical matter of discipline, the wearing of veils or headcoverings is no longer binding on women today (Inter insigniores, 4). There is also no requirement in the current Code of Canon Law concerning such attire.
Click to expand...
Inter insigniores
Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. 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 the head (1 Cor 11:2-6); such requirements no longer have a normative value.
Click to expand...
 
LilyM said:
The priest may be saying Mass from the Missal of 1962, but this doesn’t trump the 1983 Canon Law, which removed any requirement for women to cover their heads in Mass.

He is overstepping the mark to require or request any such thing.
Click to expand...
I think the title is a misnomer. From the OP " he did say that while it was not mandated"
 
i agree with Rev. Michael Bell. at least he’s encourage the women to cover their head during Mass. not the priest will say this.
don’t always mention about 1983 canon law. women do this for our Lord not for our 83 canon law…
i think all the priest including our nice pope ben16 must encourage women to cover their head during mass…

bravo rev. michael bell… god bless…
 
BHawkes said:
We just had our first Tridentine Mass in this area since 1969 or so and it was very nice. After the Mass the celebrant mentioned a few items.

Oh yeah, I forgot what year we’re in.Women Lib thing, I guess!😦
Many women had their heads covered, and he did say that while it was not mandated, it was “…the way to go” and requested that all women cover their heads at future Tridentine Masses in his wonderful Scottish burr. His comments gave me a little inward grin.

Watch the slide show and his comments, they are neat:

sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/149961.html
Click to expand...
Thanks BHawkes for the link!
Why in the world would anyone be offended by this priest requesting lady’s to wear a head covering???🤷

Oh yeah, I forgot what year we’re in.Women Lib thing, I guess!😦
 
As long as it is an request, and the priest doesn’t try to impose it, no woman will be bothered, I hope.

I think some answers that tend to the rather heated side are due to the fact that some answers in this thread bring up the old issue: “It is MANDATORY for women to wear head coverings” - which would bother many women, including me indeed.

But I wouldn’t be bothered at least with a request or an encouragement from our priest to wear head coverings - neither in the NO at my parish nor in the TLM that’s held once a week in a different parish a single covered head can be seen.
 
Ace86 said:
Since the Code of 1983 did not mention headcoverings, then one must refer back to the previous Code of Canon Law from 1917 I believe. Headcovering is an immemorial custom and is Biblical.
Click to expand...
The code expressly abrogated ALL provisions of the 1917 code, headcovering included. Everyone worth mentioning who was asked their opinion on the 1983provisions said explicitly or showed implicitly by their behaviour that there was no longer a requirement to cover the head - so the mind of the Church is that the headcovering Canon has been abrogated.

Custom, immemorial and biblical or not, doesn’t trump current Canon Law as interpreted by those who wrote it. And by our previous and current Holy Fathers themselves - who absolutely would mention that the headcovering requirement was still in force if in fact it was.
 
i think it was would be nice to wear a head covering. very sweet.
 
Cran said:
As long as it is an request, and the priest doesn’t try to impose it, no woman will be bothered, I hope.

I think some answers that tend to the rather heated side are due to the fact that some answers in this thread bring up the old issue: “It is MANDATORY for women to wear head coverings” - which would bother many women, including me indeed.

But I wouldn’t be bothered at least with a request or an encouragement from our priest to wear head coverings - neither in the NO at my parish nor in the TLM that’s held once a week in a different parish a single covered head can be seen.
Click to expand...
Exactly. 👍 Our priest frequently mentions the need to dress modestly at Mass - no tennis shorts, bare midrifts etc. Our DRE tells the girls not to come to Church with spaghetti straps 🙂 . This is no different. Covvering your head isn’t a “law”, but it is a custom, especially at the Older Form Masses.

As a side note, when I attended the EF Mass on Sept. 14, only about 1/3 of the women wore head coverings. I think that this was an indication that the others were not your die hard traditionalists but those that were drawn to the Mass itself. 👍
 
It shouldn’t bother women…the cultural revolution that let to the “liberation” movement and womens lib has created a faux ideology and mindset.

Now with that in mind would men be upset if it were them that had to wear headcoverings…I doubt it…

In fact Lets look at this situation if it were reveresed…Lets say men would be required to wear head coverings and women were told to remove their hats indoors…I bet the bank that the Womens libbers would be screamning bloody murder that it is unfair that men could wear their hats in church but women were treated as second class citizens because they had to remove their hats before entering a church.
 
I cover.
Yet, as much as I dislike saying it: There will be many that will scream about the fact that it was requested. And most of them will be 40yo and up. For some reason covering and feminism just don’t tend to mix as far as the PC people are concerned.
 
THurifer2 said:
It shouldn’t bother women…the cultural revolution that let to the “liberation” movement and womens lib has created a faux ideology and mindset.

Now with that in mind would men be upset if it were them that had to wear headcoverings…I doubt it…

In fact Lets look at this situation if it were reveresed…Lets say men would be required to wear head coverings and women were told to remove their hats indoors…I bet the bank that the Womens libbers would be screamning bloody murder that it is unfair that men could wear their hats in church but women were treated as second class citizens because they had to remove their hats before entering a church.
Click to expand...
Wearing a hat or headcovering can be an absolute nuisance at times. For one thing my head is unusually large - I can never find a hat in my size. And I look awful in most any type of headcovering.

I imagine if men were compelled to cover they’d find the same, for the most part. Either way this would be one requirement that I certainly am more than happy to leave it to the fellas if they want it!
 
LilyM said:
The priest may be saying Mass from the Missal of 1962, but this doesn’t trump the 1983 Canon Law, which removed any requirement for women to cover their heads in Mass.

He is overstepping the mark to require or request any such thing.
Click to expand...
Give me a break…
He made a request. That was all.
I don’t see a problem.

Women covering thier heads would, in my view, heighten the experience for all since this is the traditional way if the tridentine rite.

James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top