First time wearing my mantilla

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

Nonetheless, the canon requiring women to cover their head WAS abrogated. The Scripture was explained by the Holy See (the Magisterium) to be touching on a disciplinary issue that was not immutable. To suggest that a woman MUST or SHOULD have her head covered is to contradict the Church. If it is not immutable, then has not the Church erred and in her disciplines (and there is NO difference in “imposed” and “permitted,” both are disciplines established or allowed by the Church) lead the faithful into impiety? She can’t do so.

And Scripture means what the Church says It means.

 

[Unitas]

Nonetheless, the canon requiring women to cover their head WAS abrogated.

Which canon specifically abrogated it? If it wasn’t specifically abrogated, it is still in force.

The Scripture was explained by the Holy See (the Magisterium) to be touching on a disciplinary issue that was not immutable. To suggest that a woman MUST or SHOULD have her head covered is to contradict the Church. If it is not immutable, then has not the Church erred and in her disciplines (and there is NO difference in “imposed” and “permitted,” both are disciplines established or allowed by the Church) lead the faithful into impiety? She can’t do so.

And Scripture means what the Church says It means.

The canon was never specifically abrogated. According to current canon law, since it was not specifically abrogated, and it is a centennial tradition, it is still in force.

Oh yeah, and not to mention that bit in inerrant scripture that prescribes the practice.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Which canon specifically abrogated it? If it wasn’t specifically abrogated, it is still in force.

The canon was never specifically abrogated. According to current canon law, since it was not specifically abrogated, and it is a centennial tradition, it is still in force.

Oh yeah, and not to mention that bit in inerrant scripture that prescribes the practice.

The whole of the 1917 Code of Canon Law was specifically abrogated, in all it’s parts.

And you’ve nicely set YOUR interpretation of scripture against the Church’s. SHE said it’s a discipline matter and thus changeable.

Facts are facts. Look into it.

 

[jj2011]

Which canon specifically abrogated it? If it wasn’t specifically abrogated, it is still in force.

The canon was never specifically abrogated. According to current canon law, since it was not specifically abrogated, and it is a centennial tradition, it is still in force.

Oh yeah, and not to mention that bit in inerrant scripture that prescribes the practice.

Hold on there, gentlemen. I gave a citation for what I asserted; JKirk has not. I’d like to see what document specifically he would cite on behalf of his position.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Hold on there, gentlemen. I gave a citation for what I asserted; JKirk has not. I’d like to see what document specifically he would cite on behalf of his position.

I refer you to post #24, where I provided both a citation and a link.

 

[byers]

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.

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

I’m sorry BigFeet but you are incorrect. Requiring the wearing of a headcovering was a discipline that was abrogated (dropped) with the new code of canon law in 1983. It is absolutely no longer required. And there are very good reasons why - which is a whole separate topic.

“Fisheaters” is one of the main sites that has been promoting this return to wearing a veil…that is fine if they want to encourage this…what is wrong is their misleading articles that are not fully truthful. They certainly try to appear “more catholic than the pope” yet they have many articles that like I said are misleading and untruthful AND (big red flag) they will not even be open and upfront enough to tell who they really are…any honest website gives this information.

Catholics should not trust any site that is so deceptive. They have an agenda and are leading people astray while trying to sound ever so Catholic. Yet ironically they are acting very protestant with their own private interpretation of scripture…instead of following the leading of the Church.

Please remember that “fisheaters” is not the magisterium of the Church…and who are they??? Do you know???

And BigFeet…we are to listen to the Church who has the right to interpret scripture. As a Catholic you should know this. This site is using scripture to justify their deceptive statements.

Wear a veil or not as your please, but don’t be deceived by this site which is not fully in line with the magisterium of the Church.

 

[blessedtoo]

For the first time today I proudly wore my mantilla

In today’s society a veil, would certainly be a sign of humility, if the wearer adopts it in that spirit.

This struck me as contradictory. How can one be proud and humble at the same time?

 

[Unitas]

They certainly try to appear “more catholic than the pope”

Care to prove that accusation?

 

[Unitas]

The whole of the 1917 Code of Canon Law was specifically abrogated, in all it’s parts.

And you’ve nicely set YOUR interpretation of scripture against the Church’s. SHE said it’s a discipline matter and thus changeable.

Facts are facts. Look into it.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the issue about veiling was never in either codes.

Would it not still have the force of law since it is an immemorial custom? Did veiling not have the force of law as being an immemorial custom prior to the code of 1917?

How can the code of 1983 suppress an immemorial custom by remaining silent on it?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the issue about veiling was never in either codes.

Would it not still have the force of law since it is an immemorial custom? Did veiling not have the force of law as being an immemorial custom prior to the code of 1917?

How can the code of 1983 suppress an immemorial custom by remaining silent on it?

You’d have to bring that up with the Holy See. The promulgation of the Code of 1983 abrogated the Code of 1917 in toto. That’s not all there is, however, to the argument. The Holy See, in the document I already cited, specifically stated that it was a mutable disciplinary matter and women did not HAVE to veil themselves or cover their head in anyway. The Church has the same authority to rule on that as she does to say that some men may have their heads covered when they pray (bishops), though the Apostle seemed to have an issue with that as well.

As for immemorial custom, that would be an argument as to why the Church might not BAN the wearing of veils or hats by women.
And no one has said a woman may not or should not wear a covering. All that’s being said is what the Church says: they don’t have to as a matter of Divine or Church law.

 

[lizaanne]

You know - I feel really sorry for the OP. Or anyone on this forum who tries to live their Faith in some personal devotional way. She came here to say that she did this thing which gave her great joy and took her to a new level of spirituality with Christ that she had not experienced before. We tried to say we are happy for her, and so glad that she has been called to express her Faith in such a way.

Then come the wet blankets…

She is questioned about her motives, and her plain and innocent statement has been turned into some place to crab about something or point fingers. As usual.

Why is it that it’s just not possible here for someone to just be happy without someone else coming along and raining on the parade?

My gosh people - if you want to debate this, go somewhere else and start a different thread. If you want to give her support and camaraderie, and discuss your own positive experience, then jump on in, the rest of us who are happy for her are happy to have you.

I just get so tired that women who wish to cover their heads and not be bashed about it don’t have one single thread they can go to on this entire forum. Every single time it turns into a crab fest and gets locked down. It just gets very very old.

~Liza

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I just get so tired that women who wish to cover their heads and not be bashed about it don’t have one single thread they can go to on this entire forum. Every single time it turns into a crab fest and gets locked down. It just gets very very old.

~Liza

Reality check: Where has she been bashed for covering her head?

 

[Sure]

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the issue about veiling was never in either codes.

Would it not still have the force of law since it is an immemorial custom? Did veiling not have the force of law as being an immemorial custom prior to the code of 1917?

How can the code of 1983 suppress an immemorial custom by remaining silent on it?

If such a thing were in force because it was an immemorial custom, then men and women sitting seperately in Church would also be in force.

Oddly, I don’t hear any traditionalists demanding that separate seating is the law, even though it too was a long standing custom and was contained in the Code of Canon Law (1917). So, I suppose all of those families that wore their veils and went to Mass and sat together in the 1940’s and 1950’s were in violation of Canon Law. Or as an alternative, we can suppose that those families were NOT disobedient, but that customs change and no longer REQUIRED but only OPTIONAL.

 

[KathleenElsie]

If such a thing were in force because it was an immemorial custom, then men and women sitting separately in Church would also be in force.

Oddly, I don’t hear any traditionalists demanding that separate seating is the law, even though it too was a long standing custom and was contained in the Code of Canon Law (1917). So, I suppose all of those families that wore their veils and went to Mass and sat together in the 1950’s and 1950’s were in violation of Canon Law. Or as an alternative, we can suppose that those families were NOT disobedient, but that customs change and no longer REQUIRED but only OPTIONAL.

One thing I have personally observed in Protestant communities is that the men and women tend to sit touching each other and or holding hands. This is something that you do not normally see in the Catholic Churches I have attended. Just a personal observation. Since we do not interact with each other in Mass then if we sat on opposite sides it would make little difference except finding each other after Mass .

 

[Philothea53]

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.

Well, you have been very lucky then. Unless the Priests at the Cathedral where I attend Mass are actually offering Mass, well sometimes not even then, they are most often found in their civies.

Yes, the one question does have bearing on the other. And no, the question is not if Seminarian Matt is correct and women must wear veils. The question is why must you all get your undies in a bunch every single time someone speaks of wearing a veil. Go back to post #1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and 8.The conversation was going along very nicely following the OP’s lead. It suddenly got hijacked for you all to tell us how much you know and how we are all so very wrong for believing as we do.

You now there hasn’t been clarification from Rome on this issue. I was just in a private message discussion with someone about the Masons. They were left out of the new Canon too. Left a lot of people thinking membership is okay. The USCCB is still trying to clean that one up. There have been a few personal interpretations as to why the wearing of veils was omitted but nothing from Rome. Do you have a direct line???

It’s all a slippery slope. Underwear grunge at Mass is the next logical step after Priests not in collar, sisters/nuns not in habit, women not wearing veils, calling Priests by their first name…

 

[PatienceAndLove]

One thing I have personally observed in Protestant communities is that the men and women tend to sit touching each other and or holding hands. This is something that you do not normally see in the Catholic Churches I have attended. Just a personal observation. Since we do not interact with each other in Mass then if we sat on opposite sides it would make little difference except finding each other after Mass .

I’d have to say I have observed just the opposite! I rarely saw DH’s family sit together when I attended service with him. The family being together included DH and I and his grandparents. Siblings sat with the teens, mom with the women’s group and dad with the men’s group.
DH and I hold hands in Mass. My parents do as well. Most couples I know hold hands, or the gentleman has his arm around his woman (women, in the case of daughters )

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Well, you have been very lucky then. Unless the Priests at the Cathedral where I attend Mass are actually offering Mass, well sometimes not even then, they are most often found in their civies.

Yes, the one question does have bearing on the other. And no, the question is not if Seminarian Matt is correct and women must wear veils. The question is why must you all get your undies in a bunch every single time someone speaks of wearing a veil. Go back to post #1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and 8.The conversation was going along very nicely following the OP’s lead. It suddenly got hijacked for you all to tell us how much you know and how we are all so very wrong for believing as we do.

You now there hasn’t been clarification from Rome on this issue. I was just in a private message discussion with someone about the Masons. They were left out of the new Canon too. Left a lot of people thinking membership is okay. The USCCB is still trying to clean that one up. There have been a few personal interpretations as to why the wearing of veils was omitted but nothing from Rome. Do you have a direct line???

It’s all a slippery slope. Underwear grunge at Mass is the next logical step after Priests not in collar, sisters/nuns not in habit, women not wearing veils, calling Priests by their first name…

I’m sorry, you’re misinformed. The Church HAS given clarification, in the document Inter Insigniores, WAAAAAAAAY back in 1976 (why, that was even BEFORE the Canon Law of 1917 was abrogated), just as Cardinal Ratzinger clarified the question on the Masons. If that upsets you, I’m sorry, you need to take that up with the Holy See, since the Holy See is the one who ruled on the question, not me. And NO ONE has gotten their “undies in bunch.” There has simply been a correction of misinformation. We have a duty to do that as Catholics when someone misrepresents what the Church says. No, I don’t have a direct line. Do I need one to know that the MP *Summorum Pontificum *was issued by the Holy Father? Do I need a direct line to know that the clarification on “subsists” was issued?

No one has criticized ANYONE for covering their head (I said myself, that as a man, I found it humbling). No one has said YOU or the op were wrong for believing that you should cover your head. The only objection that has been raised is in the matter of what the CHURCH says. One is free to wear the veil, one is free to wear a hat, one is free to wear a burkha or shave their head, for all I care. You’re simply NOT free to misrepresent Church teaching and policy.

 

[Philothea53]

I’m sorry, you’re misinformed. The Church HAS given clarification, in the document Inter Insigniores, WAAAAAAAAY back in 1976 (why, that was even BEFORE the Canon Law of 1917 was abrogated), just as Cardinal Ratzinger clarified the question on the Masons. If that upsets you, I’m sorry, you need to take that up with the Holy See, since the Holy See is the one who ruled on the question, not me. And NO ONE has gotten their “undies in bunch.” There has simply been a correction of misinformation. We have a duty to do that as Catholics when someone misrepresents what the Church says. No, I don’t have a direct line. Do I need one to know that the MP *Summorum Pontificum *was issued by the Holy Father? Do I need a direct line to know that the clarification on “subsists” was issued?

No one has criticized ANYONE for covering their head (I said myself, that as a man, I found it humbling). No one has said YOU or the op were wrong for believing that you should cover your head. The only objection that has been raised is in the matter of what the CHURCH says. One is free to wear the veil, one is free to wear a hat, one is free to wear a burkha or shave their head, for all I care. You’re simply NOT free to misrepresent Church teaching and policy.

Nope, Inter Insigniores was not about women and veils but about women not being ordained to the priesthood. The singular quote about women wearing veils was a personal interpretation offered as part of the discussion on traditioin, etc.

And you are right about one thing. Except for that opinion in 1976, nothing else has come forth.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Nope, Inter Insigniores was not about women and veils but about women not being ordained to the priesthood. The singular quote about women wearing veils was a personal interpretation offered as part of the discussion on traditioin, etc.

And you are right about one thing. Except for that opinion in 1976, nothing else has come forth.

Not so, my dear, the issued was addressed by the proper congregation/dicastery and has not been contradicted by that congregation/dicastery since. It was not simply and off-hand comment. They act with the authority of the pope on such matters. Women are NOT required by the Roman Catholic Church to cover their heads during Mass. You can, but you’re not required to do so. It’s a lovely tradition, but it’s not a Sacred Tradition that is immutable, according to the Holy See.

 

[Philothea53]

Not so, my dear, the issued was addressed by the proper congregation/dicastery and has not been contradicted by that congregation/dicastery since. It was not simply and off-hand comment. They act with the authority of the pope on such matters. Women are NOT required by the Roman Catholic Church to cover their heads during Mass. You can, but you’re not required to do so. It’s a lovely tradition, but it’s not a Sacred Tradition that is immutable, according to the Holy See.

Can you show me where the issue was addressed?