covered head

[2livfree]

Hello Everyone, I am looking for a complete answer on covered heads. I know that prior to vatican II women always covered their head in church. After vatican II there is no visable permission that I can find for not covering yet, it is no longer even mentioned.**** Where are women permissed to have an uncovered head in the Roman Catholic faith?**** Yes I am quite aware of Corinthians. My next question is *** If men are not to cover their head then Why do Bishops and such still wear skull caps as Jews do in worship?
Joyful in Jesus, Claudine
P.S. please read the Apostolate of Holy Motherhood

 

[Vanessa]

My Bishop said they where them to keep their heads warm. Those old churches were quite cold.

 

[LilyM]

Hello Everyone, I am looking for a complete answer on covered heads. I know that prior to vatican II women always covered their head in church. After vatican II there is no visable permission that I can find for not covering yet, it is no longer even mentioned.**** Where are women permissed to have an uncovered head in the Roman Catholic faith?**** Yes I am quite aware of Corinthians. My next question is *** If men are not to cover their head then Why do Bishops and such still wear skull caps as Jews do in worship?
Joyful in Jesus, Claudine
P.S. please read the Apostolate of Holy Motherhood

Firstly headcovering is a discipline, like unmarried priests, so it’s quite fine to change such from time to time.

Headcovering WAS made a requirement in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. When the Canon Law was revised (I think in the 1980s) it expressly replaced and nullified big chunks of the earlier Canon Law. Some of this was because the new code specifed new laws, some of this simply because it did not reinstate the older ones. The regulation on headcovering was the latter - it wasn’t expressly kept in and therefore no longer applies.

 

[PapaSquash]

Firstly headcovering is a discipline, like unmarried priests, so it’s quite fine to change such from time to time.

Headcovering WAS made a requirement in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. When the Canon Law was revised (I think in the 1980s) it expressly replaced and nullified big chunks of the earlier Canon Law. Some of this was because the new code specifed new laws, some of this simply because it did not reinstate the older ones. The regulation on headcovering was the latter - it wasn’t expressly kept in and therefore no longer applies.

OK. I thought it was the other way, that something had to be expressly removed from canon law or it still applied.

 

[LilyM]

OK. I thought it was the other way, that something had to be expressly removed from canon law or it still applied.

"Canon 6

§1 When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated:

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917; "

in other words the later code overrode ALL the provisions of the earlier one - including the mandate for headcovering.

 

[baltobetsy]

Welcome, Claudine! You may wish to search for this subject over on the Traditional Catholicism board. They discuss it frequently and in depth.

Betsy

 

[PapaSquash]

Got it. Thanks. I had heard the traditionalist argument, and wondered how if it was technically not OK to dispense with headcoverings, it was at the same time accepted that it was OK to dispense with headcoverings. That didn’t seem like it would fly.

 

[2livfree]

Thank you Everyone,
I know that traditional Catholics do cover and at Fatima it was said that Portugal would keep the Church pure. They still cover even today. But my concern is that I’m following the teachings of the Pope ( what you loose… what you bind…). so if not mentioning it in the new cannon law in fact makes it loose then that is fine. I was understanding that it had to be permissed not just ignored to be a changed law.
PAX

 

[puzzleannie]

I find it amazing and puzzling that there is at this moment a concurrent thread on this forum protesting that a Muslim sheik shunned Christian women invited to a Muslim wedding, because those women were “uncovered” meaning wearing no veil.

 

[gam197]

Prior to Vatican II, I wore a triangle shape lace scarf (usually black, although I had white ones) that just covered the hair to church every week. Others wore hats. I never saw a female uncovered.

It had nothing to do with keeping you warm. It was lace. My mother said that a woman’s hair was one of her prettiest features so to cover it was a sign of humility.

After Vatican II all a sudden no head coverings were worn. Since childhood I am wearing a scarf and all of a sudden the hair is uncovered. It seem that quick to me.

 

[2livfree]

I find it amazing and puzzling that there is at this moment a concurrent thread on this forum protesting that a Muslim sheik shunned Christian women invited to a Muslim wedding, because those women were “uncovered” meaning wearing no veil.

Well that is not the quite the topic here but I aplaud him. As prior to Vatican II you did not enter church uncovered. If invited to a Jewish wedding a christian man or any man for that matter must cover his head prior to entering temple. Secondly if Catholic you should not be attending other religious services!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… After vatican II there is no visable permission that I can find for not covering yet, it is no longer even mentioned.****

**INTER INSIGNIORES, 15 Oct 1976
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

…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.