First time wearing my mantilla

[JKirkLVNV]

Can you show me where the issue was addressed?

Check out Jimmy Akin’s blog:

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/08/mantillas_chape.html

In the question of this discipline, the Church has used her authority to declare on the question. Are you suggesting that the Church has lead the faithful into error on this, that the Church is wrong and that women MUST wear a head covering?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Further, Philotea, I refer you again to the link in Post #24, to EWTN. EWTN is hardly a liberal outfit.

 

[Philothea53]

Check out Jimmy Akin’s blog:

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/08/mantillas_chape.html

In the question of this discipline, the Church has used her authority to declare on the question. Are you suggesting that the Church has lead the faithful into error on this, that the Church is wrong and that women MUST wear a head covering?

You have given me a link to Jimmy Akin. Are you insinuating that HE has a direct link to the Vatican?

I am not in any way suggesting the Church has lead the faithful into error. How dare you accuse me of such a thing. The Church has not declared on the question. The only thing that can be offered in explanation of why the directive was left out of the Code of Canon Law is one very small personal opinion that was given in a discussion about a different topic.It was hardly a declaration from the Church.

I offered the prohibition for membership in the Masons as evidence of my reasoning. Mention of the Masons was left out of the Code and some rather ambigous wording was used in a different section of the Code to forbid membership in ‘secret societies.’ It was not until 1996 that it was better defined aalthough not very well communicated and as a result there is still confusion and still being debated among the faithful.

When our Holy Father issued the recent Motu Proprio, he also delivered a letter to the bishops explaining his actions. One can clearly read that he wrote this letter because he felt explanations were necessary. He says that because there were not clear directives out of Vatican II personal interpretations had taken us far from where VII intended. This even to the use of an indult for the use of the Latin Mass when the use of the Latin was never abrogated so an indult was really never required.

I see that while I have been typing you refer me to your post #24 whcih refers me to the same answer this time at EWTN which again offers the Inter Insigniores on women in the priesthood as proof for your tpoint of view. Do you see that there really is nothing out there to back up your position. Don’t accuse me of suggesting the Church has lead us into error. *The Church *has not spoken on the issue.

 

[Mitzzi]

Before purchasing a veil, you might check with your parish to see if they have any. Our Altar and Rosary Society just had a luncheon and someone found an old box of veils, and since no one uses them in our small parish, they were used as doilies for table decorations.

 

[byers]

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

lizaanne…this is not true. No one here is bashing women wearing a headcovering.

I’m sorry you consider someone who points out an untruthful stateful as a “wet blanket.”

As Catholics we must be very careful to remain truthful no matter what is being discussed…otherwise we could be guilty of leading others astray. Don’t you agree?

 

[byers]

Care to prove that accusation?

Unitas
This is just an old expression that goes back many years. It just means that a group or a person is trying to give the appearance of being “ultra catholic” with all the correct bells and whistles - requiring things of catholics which even the Holy Father and the magisterium have not required of the faithful or deemed necessary for their salvation or sanctification. It is a variant form of hypocrisy.
Have you not heard this expression before?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You have given me a link to Jimmy Akin. Are you insinuating that HE has a direct link to the Vatican? No, simply that he, at least, is aware of the obvious: The Church doesn’t require women to cover their head, that it is not immutable, etc.

I am not in any way suggesting the Church has lead the faithful into error. How dare you accuse me of such a thing. The Church has not declared on the question. The only thing that can be offered in explanation of why the directive was left out of the Code of Canon Law is one very small personal opinion that was given in a discussion about a different topic.It was hardly a declaration from the Church. **Not so, not so at all. It’s been demonstrated that the Church HAS declared on the question (AGAIN, that it is a matter of discipline and not immutable, check the context). How dare I accuse you of such a thing? All I did was ask you a question. You’re the one bouncing “bunched undies” around, so I wouldn’t take too offended an attitude if I were you. The Church, by allowing women to NOT cover, has made a disciplinary decision. The Church’s disciplines enjoy a negative infallibility, per the Council of Trent. That is to say, the Church’s disciplines, any of them, cannot lead the faithful into impiety. Now, if covering is a practice or discipline capable of change, we’re fine. But if it isn’t, if it is an essential, then the Holy See has lead the Church into error, both in it’s clarification (which you claim it did not give) and in it’s abrogation of the canon that required it (1983 replaced all of 1917). Further, the Church has lead the faithful into impiety by allowing bishops to pray in Church with the miter and zuchetto on their heads, because the same scriptural admonition states that men may not pray with heads covered. **

I offered the prohibition for membership in the Masons as evidence of my reasoning. Mention of the Masons was left out of the Code and some rather ambigous wording was used in a different section of the Code to forbid membership in ‘secret societies.’ It was not until 1996 that it was better defined aalthough not very well communicated and as a result there is still confusion and still being debated among the faithful.** Very few people are confused about this, though you may be. Most women who cover seem to understand that this is their decision, not a requirement of the Church. AND, as you point out, a clarification was issued…IN BOTH CASES. So what the law is, in both cases, has been clarified. **

When our Holy Father issued the recent Motu Proprio, he also delivered a letter to the bishops explaining his actions. One can clearly read that he wrote this letter because he felt explanations were necessary. He says that because there were not clear directives out of Vatican II personal interpretations had taken us far from where VII intended. This even to the use of an indult for the use of the Latin Mass when the use of the Latin was never abrogated so an indult was really never required.

I see that while I have been typing you refer me to your post #24 whcih refers me to the same answer this time at EWTN which again offers the Inter Insigniores on women in the priesthood as proof for your tpoint of view. Do you see that there really is nothing out there to back up your position. Don’t accuse me of suggesting the Church has lead us into error. *The Church *has not spoken on the issue.

Pointing to a pig and claiming adamantly that it is a cow will not make it a cow, no matter how passionately YOU think it’s a cow. Whether you like it or not, the Church HAS spoken. AND beyond THAT, if she was wrong and we didn’t KNOW she was wrong, then several generations of women have committed a sin BY THE CHURCH’S IMPLICIT PERMISSION. Women have attended PAPAL MASSES, yet the Holy See has issued NO corrections. You’ve had links pointed out to you that take you to RELIABLE and CONSERVATIVE apologists, yet you just cannot accept that the pig is a pig. That’s your option. I personally don’t care, beyond not permitting you to mislead others.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And again, I think women covering their heads is a lovely, reverent custom. Philotea, you’re making this a persoal thing, without necessity. I’m sorry you’ve taken it that way and I’m sorry if I’ve offended you, but I think it’s wrong to say that the Church has dispensed with an essential. Women who do not veil should not be made to feel they’re wrong, because the Church doesn’t require it. Women who do veil should not be made to feel as though they are wrong to do so,either.

 

[Unitas]

Unitas
This is just an old expression that goes back many years. It just means that a group or a person is trying to give the appearance of being “ultra catholic” with all the correct bells and whistles - requiring things of catholics which even the Holy Father and the magisterium have not required of the faithful or deemed necessary for their salvation or sanctification. It is a variant form of hypocrisy.
Have you not heard this expression before?

Oh I’ve heard it slung many times before, just never accompanied with any sort of proof to back it up. It’s just one of those insults that is meant to be taken on the person’s say-so alone.

So when you made the accusation, I called you out on it. And seeing as you’ve provided no support for your accusation it still stands as a baseless insult to be taken on your say-so.

 

[TNT]

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)…

Nice try, but let’s keep it relevant. Head covering is Scriptural. Separate seating is nowhere found in Scripture, except perhaps under the OT Law, which Christ abrogated… It requires a REINTERPRETATION of the NT Scriptures to remove the head covering.
Because this “separate seating” provision is not mandated by any Scripture, nor by 2000 years of tradition…an exception might be in a few Eastern antiquities… Again, the argument presented may seem clever, but in fact, it is irrelevant because the wearing of the veil is on a completely different Inspired-by-the-Holy Spirit level than separating men and women during Mass.​

But overall, the same theme is behind it all; no more kneeling, no more communion on the tongue, no more tabernacles at front n center, willy nilly eucharistic “prayer” preferences, no reverential head covering, pro multis morphs to pro omnibus, …conformity to modern man…who of course is always morphing, so, by definition, there is no stability at all (aka tradition), and why there is no actual practice of a standard NO Mass either. They can be as different as night n day from one diocese to another.​

Once again the Sig tells all:
To destroy a Religion, you must first sever its traditions.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Nice try, but let’s keep it relevant. Head covering is Scriptural. Separate seating is nowhere found in Scripture, except perhaps under the OT Law, which Christ abrogated… It requires a REINTERPRETATION of the NT Scriptures to remove the head covering.
Because this “separate seating” provision is not mandated by any Scripture, nor by 2000 years of tradition…an exception might be in a few Eastern antiquities… Again, the argument presented may seem clever, but in fact, it is irrelevant because the wearing of the veil is on a completely different Inspired-by-the-Holy Spirit level than separating men and women during Mass.​

But overall, the same theme is behind it all; no more kneeling, no more communion on the tongue, no more tabernacles at front n center, willy nilly eucharistic “prayer” preferences, no reverential head covering, pro multis morphs to pro omnibus, …conformity to modern man…who of course is always morphing, so, by definition, there is no stability at all (aka tradition), and why there is no actual practice of a standard NO Mass either. They can be as different as night n day from one diocese to another.​

Once again the Sig tells all:
To destroy a Religion, you must first sever its traditions.

The Church is competent to interpret the Scripture. If she says that it is a disciplinary practice that can be dispensed with, then that’s what it is. And please, the slippery slope again! If we let women go without hair coverings, that’s going to naturally lead to tabnacles being set off to the side?

AND I’m wondering this: is a lacy mantilla enough? What were the head coverings of the time of St. Paul? Weren’t women’s whole heads covered? Are women who show ANY hair following the biblical mandate? If they are, and all women have to have SOME kind of hair covering, would inch square of gauze clipped at the crown of their heads suffice? Why not, if the lacy gauze suffices? You can still see their hair. Should we not dress our women in burkas, just to be on the safe side?

 

[TNT]

… If we let women go without hair coverings, that’s going to naturally lead to tabnacles being set off to the side?

Where did HAIR come from???
Let’s try this again:
1Cor 11:5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraces her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.

…Are women who show ANY hair following the biblical mandate? If they are, and all women have to have SOME kind of hair covering, would inch square of gauze clipped at the crown of their heads suffice? Why not, if the lacy gauze suffices? You can still see their hair. Should we not dress our women in burkas, just to be on the safe side?

What’s with the HAIR business???
It was HEAD covering…that’s why even a HAT is satisfactory, though it may cover little of the hair length.

BTW:
I thought the “church” admitted that For All was an incompetent translation of Pro Multis all these many years it had “mis-translated” it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Where did HAIR come from???
Let’s try this again:
1Cor 11:5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraces her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.

What’s with the HAIR business???
It was HEAD covering…

Great, then the idea of a square inch of gauze qualifying shouldn’t be a problem . There’s something on top of the head.

 

[TNT]

Great, then the idea of a square inch of gauze qualifying shouldn’t be a problem . There’s something ontop of the head.

Quit while ya can…yur embarrassing yurself…
It says HEAD COVERED, A head is more or less 6.5-7.8 inches across. The whole world knew what a head cover meant, even if you are having a problem with what it is.
A sq in would be a head covering of a mouse.
There is nothing about the “TOP” of the head anywhere.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Quit while ya can…yur embarrassing yurself…
It says HEAD COVERED, A head is more or less 6.5-7.8 inches across. The whole world knew what a head cover meant, even if you are having a problem with what it is.
A sq in would be a head covering of a mouse.
There is nothing about the “TOP” of the head anywhere.

That’s why those little chapel caps seem kinda silly. It’s like a doily on top of your head. Doesn’t seem appropriate as a head covering to me, though I know some women like them.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Quit while ya can…yur embarrassing yurself…
It says HEAD COVERED, A head is more or less 6.5-7.8 inches across. The whole world knew what a head cover meant, even if you are having a problem with what it is.
A sq in would be a head covering of a mouse.
There is nothing about the “TOP” of the head anywhere.

Who’s to say the whole world knew? MOST Catholics know that the Church no longer requires it, but it seems to be an open question to some here, so adequacy seems to be equally open to question.

If we’d left it at that (“The Church doesn’t require it, it’s a disciplinary matter, but you’re welcome to cover your head,” ie, stick to the FACTS), then here wouldn’t be a problem. But of course, “traditionalists” cannot do that and if “traditionalists” can insist on covering as an immutable matter, then the rest can ask what adequate coverage IS. I’m doubting the Blessed Mother or women of Her culture covered with doillies or any piece of cloth that was 6.5 inches across. So the question seems legitimate (if the question of whether it’s still required is open, that is).

 

[TNT]

May I suggest you put me on yur Ignore list.

Ps,
Isn’t your Sig from a Protestant?
And does the Omnibus part mean many or all?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

May I suggest you put me on yur Ignore list.

You can suggest anything, TNT, anything at all. I’ve no intention of following the suggestion, but you can certainly make it.

But seriously…if “traditionalists” can question the immutability of head covering (which the Church has dealt with), why can’t an ordinary Catholic raise a question about adequacy? Seems fair to me, doesn’t it to you?

 

[paramedicgirl]

Who’s to say the whole world knew? MOST Catholics know that the Church no longer requires it, but it seems to be an open question to some here, so adequacy seems to be equally open to question.

If we’d left it at that (“The Church doesn’t require it, it’s a disciplinary matter, but you’re welcome to cover your head,” ie, stick to the FACTS), then here wouldn’t be a problem. ** But of course, “traditionalists” cannot do that and if “traditionalists” can insist on covering as an immutable matter, then the rest can ask what adequate coverage IS. ** I’m doubting the Blessed Mother or women of Her culture covered with doillies or any piece of cloth that was 6.5 inches across. So the question seems legitimate (if the question of whether it’s still required is open, that is).

Now, JKirk, this is what I mean when I say that traditionalists are painted with a broad brush. Just because you and TNT are disagreeing, doesn’t mean that all traditionalists should be labelled with the same opinions. Really, I am surprised at you.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

May I suggest you put me on yur Ignore list.

Ps,
Isn’t your Sig from a Protestant?
And does the Omnibus part mean many or all?

Last I heard, Blessed John XXIII had used it, so I’m guessing it’s okay for ordinary Catholics to use it as well. You commit an error common to many “traditionalists,” the error of genesis. Something is not immoral or wrong strictly because of it’s source. It’s wrong or immoral because it’s wrong or immoral.