M
maryelizabeth2
Guest
Also today at daily mass a nice family came in taking up the whole pew with there 6 children (I love that). The mother was dressed very modestly and wore a mantilla. I found it very encouraging and beautiful.
- Status
B
byers
Guest
That is your opinion and private interpretation of scripture,but it is not the teaching of the Church!
B
BigFeet
Guest
Originally Posted by Seminarian Matt:
I wrote that quotation. And I definitely have used Catholic teaching including Scripture and Canon Law. Head coverings were always mandatory and therefore, should still be mandatory.
Here’s an article that gives a good overview on wearing the veil with regards to both Canon Law and Sacred Scripture.
fisheaters.com/theveil.html
I wrote that quotation. And I definitely have used Catholic teaching including Scripture and Canon Law. Head coverings were always mandatory and therefore, should still be mandatory.
It actually is not just Seminarian Matt’s opinion and private interpretation of scripture, and it truly is the teaching of the Church.
Here’s an article that gives a good overview on wearing the veil with regards to both Canon Law and Sacred Scripture.
fisheaters.com/theveil.html
A
Aramis
Guest
May God Bless you!
Two weeks ago, my daughter opted not to wear hers. Sunday, she was appoplectic about making certain she did. She’s 8. I don’t require her to wear one, but I have encouraged it.
As I would encourage you… If you feel able, do so! Be the reflection of the light that leads others to orthopraxis.
And remember, if anyone gives you flak over it, remind them it’s in scripture! And then pray for them.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The article is incorrect and so is Matt. Neither is reflective of the mind of the Church on the matter of wether a woman SHOULD or MUST cover her head and in the final analysis, it is the Church who must guide us.
From EWTN (ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=495982&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2007&Author=&Keyword=Headcovering&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
“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.”
That Fisheaters fails to mention this is hardly surprising, the lady’s entry on cremation is also entirely non-expressive of the mind of the Church. She frequently substitutes her own personal views for Church teaching. She’s not a bad source for some things, but must be taken with a grain of salt.
Puzzleannie’s advice is best. I find, as a man, that I experience a feeling of humility when I see a woman veiled in the Presence.
P
Philothea53
Guest
If you have read Inter Insigniores Declaration on the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith October 15, 1976 you can see that this is part and parcel of what it says about wearing the veil:
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 their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.
(This was offered as part of a discussion on women in the priesthood, not as a directive on headcoverings.)
As to agreement with puzzleannie’s comments: Thinking back, can you agree that the underwear grunge look is the latest innovation since the slippery slope began with many nuns/sisters no longer wearing their habits, most Priests very rarely wearing their collars and women no longer wearing headcoverings?
B
BigFeet
Guest
Then I guess St. Paul was just substituting his own personal views when he wrote 1 Corinthians 11:1-17 concerning women wearing head coverings. Why should we listen to him at all?
And then again, I guess the Code of Canon Law is also incorrect. Who needs it?
T
theweeper
Guest
what exactly is a mantilla?
B
BigFeet
Guest
It’s a head covering worn by women.
Click on this link:
fisheaters.com/theveil.html
At the bottom of the page are links to sites for all different types of mantillas w/ pictures.
A
Aramis
Guest
A Spanish “traditional” lace or silk veil. (it’s been in use for 4+ centuries in variations, throughout the Spanish Empire.)
The commonly seen mantilla in the US is the triangular lace mantilla.
I find them quite nice to look at, even outside of church, and have known a few women who wear them outside of church.
In spanish civil wear, it was usually worn peaked over a comb on the top of the head.
In US Catholic wear, it’s commonly worn without the comb, and in simpler styles.
J
jj2011
Guest
Before sounding off, I think people should refresh their memories about whar St. Paul actually said.Then I guess St. Paul was just substituting his own personal views when he wrote 1 Corinthians 11:1-17 concerning women wearing head coverings. Why should we listen to him at all?
And then again, I guess the Code of Canon Law is also incorrect. Who needs it?
I Cor. 11, Douay Rheims:
Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. 5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. 7 The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. 9 For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. 10 Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.
11 But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God. 13 You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
10 “A power”… that is, a veil or covering, as a sign that she is under the power of her husband: and this, the apostle adds, because of the angels, who are present in the assemblies of the faithful.
P
Philothea53
Guest
I think St. Paul’s words are beautiful. As a society we might all be better off if we heeded these words - not just about the veil but the meaning behind these words. I do not believe that society was supposed to change as much as we have.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Amen
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
First, in MY experience, the priests I’ve known and know are almost always dressed in their clericals. Second, one question has no bearing on the other. The question before us is whether Seminarian Matt is correct and women MUST wear veils, per the understanding of the Church. He isn’t and the Church doesn’t. Does asserting the truth about THAT imply that I think “underwear grunge” is appropriate? I don’t see how you make the connection.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
As for your first paragraph, what confuses you? The Church said it was a matter of discipline and thus not immutable. Has the Church mislead us? She’s the guardian of the Truth, is she not?Then I guess St. Paul was just substituting his own personal views when he wrote 1 Corinthians 11:1-17 concerning women wearing head coverings. Why should we listen to him at all?
And then again, I guess the Code of Canon Law is also incorrect. Who needs it?
The 1917 Code of Canon Law was abrogated by the 1983, which does not bind women to cover their hair. So I don’t see how canon law is “incorrect.” Canon law IS what canon law IS.
J
jj2011
Guest
How about the principles that the sacred author lays down in 1 Cor. 11-- were these a mere matter of positive law that could be abrogated at the stroke of a pen?
B
BloodStaindRose
Guest
Beautiful!!
Spread the word of such a great sign of respect!
God Bless!
Spread the word of such a great sign of respect!
God Bless!
M
marchoi
Guest
I’m with JKirk on this… Seminarian Matt wrote,
Going with the meaning behind the words, wouldn’t it make sense the way that puzzleannie put it regarding the “spirit of humility?” I mean, in our society nowadays head covering doesn’t necessarily equal humility or respect (think military and removing headgear indoors?)… Sure, you can say that it’s an outward sign of inward attitude, but I’m afraid the connection’s lost. Unless you suggest every woman wear a veil every time she wishes to show respect…
This isn’t the teaching of the church. Period. Furthermore, with regards to St. Paul… quoting Susan,
So when St. Paul says the part about men praying with heads covered, what about the biretta during the Tridentine rite and bishops wearing the zuchetto during parts of the Novus Ordo?
Going with the meaning behind the words, wouldn’t it make sense the way that puzzleannie put it regarding the “spirit of humility?” I mean, in our society nowadays head covering doesn’t necessarily equal humility or respect (think military and removing headgear indoors?)… Sure, you can say that it’s an outward sign of inward attitude, but I’m afraid the connection’s lost. Unless you suggest every woman wear a veil every time she wishes to show respect…
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
This was a matter of discipline which the Church could rule on…and has. According to Trent, the Church cannot, by the imposition of her disciplines, lead the faithful into impiety.
J
jj2011
Guest
Hold on, JKirk. I would agree with you entirely if the Church were in fact imposing a new discipline here. Has she?
Further, in St. Paul’s text, there are quite a few things that to me are not easily dismissed as mere disciplines.
*
…the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.
For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.
…doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering…
*
Even if I were to agree with you that a precept has been abrogated, I think the Apostle’s words contain principles that go well beyond a positive precept. He gives the principles on which the precept was based, and those, last time I checked, were never abrogated.
- Status