First time wearing my mantilla

  • Thread starter Thread starter maryelizabeth2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WillieManillie said:
  1. Saul was not the Pope.
Click to expand...
Paul’s writings are or are not inspired by the Holy Spirit…God-Breathed? Tell me, YES or NO. If yes, is the Holy Spirit in Paul’s text now irrelevant. Yes or No.

Your so-called spiritual director is or is not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yes or no.
  1. Because you cite Vatican I it is presumable you disregard Vatican II as not valid.
Click to expand...
Where does VAT II overthrow headcoverings… nowhere…
Your remark is pointless.

A quote I received by my spiritual director in my youth stated the following:*Man is to be changed by religion, not religion to be changed by man…
*/quote]
So your “spiritual director” has what Apostolic Infallibility? 0.000
Sloganeering is cute, but has nothing to do with Scripture or Apostolic tradition. It’s admittedly the ideas of man.

VAT I DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION “PASTOR AETERNUS”

is EX CATHEDRA.
 
TNT said:
Your so-called spiritual director is or is not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yes or no.

Where does VAT II overthrow headcoverings… nowhere…
Your remark is pointless.

A quote I received by my spiritual director in my youth stated the following:*Man is to be changed by religion, not religion to be changed by man…
*So your “spiritual director” has what Apostolic Infallibility?
Click to expand...
Sure my spiritual director is inspired by God. Yes, my spiritual director, as a priest, is part of the apostolic infallibility. Per the biblical writings of holy text inspired by the Holy Spirit…*and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

*My spiritual director is an alumni member of EWTN, personal priest of Mother Angelica’s order, director of a Vatican approved international apostolate devoted to Our Lady, and author of 50 books. Yes he is my “so called” spiritual director which is well qualified on this issue as others within the catholic faith.

Your question holds no credence as nothing was stated by myself using the word “overthrowing” of the mantilla. However, your question about Vatican II is answered easily. Wearing of the mantilla is encouraged, not mandatory. That is in Vatican II.

Let Jimmy Akin, a well respected and renowned expert of the catholic church, answer your questions on this issue. After which, if you so deem necessary, you can write Jimmy directly with any further questions.

As Jimmy states…The Church does not judge it necessary for you to wear a head covering in the presence of the Eucharist, however. This was required under the 1917 Code of Canon Law, but when the 1983 Code was released, the requirement was abolished.

Should you or anyone wish to read an outstanding source on this issue, I encourage you to go to jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/08/mantillas_chape.html.

Jimmy Akin is a member of Catholic Answers and is well known for his expertise on the catholic faith. Maybe he’s wrong too.
 
WillieManillie said:
Sure my spiritual director is inspired by God. Yes, my spiritual director, as a priest, is part of the apostolic infallibility. …
Click to expand...
***OH, brother! ****Star Trek theology.
*
My spiritual director is an alumni member of EWTN, personal priest of Mother Angelica’s order, director of a Vatican approved international apostolate devoted to Our Lady, and author of 50 books.
Click to expand...
**Well, that guarantees infallibility. Just think, if he wrote 51 books…He could qualify for the Trinity!

**
…However, your question about Vatican II is answered easily. Wearing of the mantilla is encouraged, not mandatory. **That is in Vatican II.
**
Click to expand...
**Where?? Give the Document & paragraph, please.
**
 
TNT said:
Paul’s writings are or are not inspired by the Holy Spirit…God-Breathed? Tell me, YES or NO. If yes, is the Holy Spirit in Paul’s text now irrelevant. Yes or No.

Your so-called spiritual director is or is not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yes or no.

Where does VAT II overthrow headcoverings… nowhere…
Your remark is pointless.

A quote I received by my spiritual director in my youth stated the following:*Man is to be changed by religion, not religion to be changed by man…
*/quote]
So your “spiritual director” has what Apostolic Infallibility? 0.000
Sloganeering is cute, but has nothing to do with Scripture or Apostolic tradition. It’s admittedly the ideas of man.

VAT I DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION “PASTOR AETERNUS”

is EX CATHEDRA.
Click to expand...
The Apostle’s writings are God-breathed, and extremely relevant.
 
TNT said:
**Where?? Give the Document & paragraph, please.
**
Click to expand...
His credentials far outweigh your immaturity.

As stated previously, talk to Jimmy Akin. I like the way you tap danced ever so lightly around this issue with no mention of it. After you read the article it was rather hard for you to pull your foot out.

Either way, mantilla or not it is evident you need to perform some RCIA for beginners and stop cutting and pasting your answers and attempt to derive thoughts of your own.

I will offer my next mass up for your maturity and attainment of wisdom.

Tell Jimmy I said hello. Good luck debating him. He’ll stuff you in a corner.
 
WillieManillie said:
His credentials far outweigh your immaturity.

As stated previously, talk to Jimmy Akin. I like the way you tap danced ever so lightly around this issue with no mention of it. After you read the article it was rather hard for you to pull your foot out.

Either way, mantilla or not it is evident you need to perform some RCIA for beginners and stop cutting and pasting your answers and attempt to derive thoughts of your own.

I will offer my next mass up for your maturity and attainment of wisdom.

Tell Jimmy I said hello. Good luck debating him. He’ll stuff you in a corner.
Click to expand...
No. If some is allegedly “in Vatican II,” there’s nothing immature about asking for a citation-- and I frankly don’t recall anything in Vatican II about mantillas.

Further, with all due respect to Jimmy Akin, he’s not stuffing me anywhere. Besides, a man of Akin’s erudition will be the first to admit that if something isn’t in Vatican II, it isn’t in Vatican II.
 
WillieManillie said:
You sound like Bill Clinton or protestant*“It depends on what is is”

*I understand JJ. It is difficult to swallow when your pride is hurt. Hope you enjoyed the article.

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defenso…las_chape.html.
Click to expand...
Hello, WillieM.

Whether my ‘pride is hurt’ is something that the members of the forum can judge for themselves, if they like.

My own opinion is that these fora should exist to discuss and enlighten, not to engage in ad hominem attacks on fellow Catholics or on non-Catholics.

Jimmy’s citations were from the document Inter insigniores, promulgated by the SCDF eleven years after Vatican II, and from the new code, promulgated eighteen years after Vatican II.

I will not debate Jimmy’s position here-- in fact, his position does not necessarily contradict my position, which is that many of the liturgical abuses whose paternity is attributed to Vatican II have no mandate in that Council’s documents at all.

Respectfully,

jj
 
TNT said:
Question was:
So, how is removing the headcovering:
“consonant with the Sacred Scriptures and apostolic traditions” ??

No matter whether it is dogma or not… the POINT is : It is NOT "consonant with the Sacred Scriptures and apostolic traditions.
Either the Holy Spirit inspired it for our Church or He didn’t. Of course He did. It wasn’t put into the Sacred Scriptures so it could be treated as preference.

Period

As the VAT I says:
It is not the pope’s place to come up with new novelties that overthrow the Apostolic traditions.
Click to expand...
The Holy See has said that it was a discipline issue and thus not immutable. Your argument goes directly to the difference between dogma/doctrine and discipline, between Tradition (immutable) and “tradition”, which isn’t. “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.” That’s a part of the Decalogue, for pity’s sake, one of the things that we AREN’T dispensed from, clearly stated in the Scriptures, which, of course, are inspired by the SAME Holy Spirit. The Sabbath is, and always has been, Saturday, the day God rested from His work of creation. Yet the Church, acting on her legitimate authority, made a disciplinary change that only 7th Day Adventists question and now we hallow the first day of the week, the Lord’s day, Sunday The Church can make a change that alters the Third Commandment, but she’s powerless to dispense women from covering their heads? As for “consonant,” we do lots of things differently than the Apostles do or that Scripture dictates, which is constantly brought up if one suggests that communion in the hand is Apostolic (“well, so was public confession and long penances in sackcloth and ashes! Aren’t you glad we don’t do EXACTLY as the Apostles and the Fathers did?”).

The Church determines what is “consonant.” PERIOD.
 
[SIGN]Can we please be civil, not derail the thread?
Allow people to discuss, with the OP and others, the pleasures of veiling. NOT whether or not veiling is in canon law.[/SIGN]
 
PatienceAndLove said:
[sign]Can we please be civil, not derail the thread?
Allow people to discuss, with the OP and others, the pleasures of veiling. NOT whether or not veiling is in canon law.[/sign]
Click to expand...
Thank you PatienceAndLove, it gets tiresome people arguing about head coverings. Every single time someone wants to talk about their experience in wearing a headcovering in the form of a veil, mantilla, hat or whatever, someone feels the need to tell us something we already know. I mean even if you talk about where to buy them or even how to make them, someone invaribly wants to tell us we don’t HAVE to wear a headcovering. I think by now we know that we do not HAVE to wear one. I happen to WANT to wear a scarf, hat, or whatever. When I run out of the house and forget to grab a scarf or hat, I DO NOT think I’ve sinned nor do I judge women who do not wear a head covering.

I’ve read both sides of the issue Pro and Con from various websites, from EWTN, Fisheaters, and Jimmy Aiken. Please go open a thread to discuss and debate your issues. We women, (you know the ones of us that WANT to wear headcoverings) then can discuss them, share pictures, links, and patterns etc… in peace. Then our thread won’t get shut down until it dies a natural death. (ok, rant over…) 😃
 
PatienceAndLove said:
[sign]Can we please be civil, not derail the thread?
Allow people to discuss, with the OP and others, the pleasures of veiling. NOT whether or not veiling is in canon law.[/sign]
Click to expand...
Yes, we can…as soon as people stop saying, explicitly or otherwise, that the Church still requires it or that women SHOULD or MUST veil themselves.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Yes, we can…as soon as people stop saying, explicitly or otherwise, that the Church still requires it or that women SHOULD or MUST veil themselves.
Click to expand...
No- not when…
NOW

I am beyond distressed out how insane people have gotten over this topic.

So- you don’t veil. 🤷 and 👍
So- you do veil. 🤷 and 👍

What occurred after V2 is now a moot point. Canon Law does not discuss it, and it is now a personal devotion.
I have noticed it is the gentleman who thrive on arguing over the regulations on headcoverings, and they overrun threads regarding headcoverings arguing with one another. Leave us ladies (yes, I said us ladies) alone to celebrate/debate amongst ourselves (being women) on a devotion that is singularly ours.
 
PatienceAndLove said:
No- not when…
NOW

I am beyond distressed out how insane people have gotten over this topic.

So- you don’t veil. 🤷 and 👍
So- you do veil. 🤷 and 👍

What occurred after V2 is now a moot point. Canon Law does not discuss it, and it is now a personal devotion.
I have noticed it is the gentleman who thrive on arguing over the regulations on headcoverings, and they overrun threads regarding headcoverings arguing with one another. Leave us ladies (yes, I said us ladies) alone to celebrate/debate amongst ourselves (being women) on a devotion that is singularly ours.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I suppose.
 
Philothea53 said:
So I continue to wonder why out one side of your mouth you are all about wear one, don’t one, no skin off your nose, then the other side you are lecturing as to what is proper or defined in your eyes. You seem to want to set the bar. I can imagine you will come back with your admonishment that it is not required but again no one is trying to force anyone to wear a veil, mantilla, or kleenex.
Click to expand...
Because it is inaccurate. I can’t stand innaccuracy.

I am not two-faced, and do not talk out of one side of my mouth. That was rather nasty of you, to my mind.

Where you even alive prior to Vatican II? I was. So, I can quote with some accuracy that no, Catholic women did not go to church in lace veils, soley and only lace veils of a certain dimension and shape. It seems to be men, particularly younger men, who think this (PatienceandLove has a posting on this one…here it is)
PatienceAndLove said:
I have noticed it is the gentleman
Click to expand...
who thrive on arguing over the regulations on headcoverings, and they overrun threads regarding headcoverings arguing with one another. Leave us ladies (yes, I said us ladies) alone to celebrate/debate amongst ourselves (being women) on a devotion that is singularly ours.

Further, these men seem to bent on making it only lacey veils, and blaming St. Paul for it. And that is what is bothering me.

And before somebody questions my gender, let me check…Yep, I’m still female, and was born that way to boot.
 
SherryLynn9 said:
Every single time someone wants to talk about their experience in wearing a headcovering in the form of a veil, mantilla, hat or whatever, someone feels the need to tell us something we already know. I mean even if you talk about where to buy them or even how to make them, someone invaribly wants to tell us we don’t HAVE to wear a headcovering. I think by now we know that we do not HAVE to wear one.
Click to expand...
But everybody doesn’t know. There will be those ecclesiastic relatives who have stepped out from under the Holy Father and declare his throne vacant (particularly the brothers) who stay it’s still in effect, and we who choose not to “veil” are in grave mortal sin. They list themselves as “Catholic” on their profiles which they are, but they are also sedes.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I think you’re reading Chicago incorrectly. If I’m not mistaken, she’s attempting to say is A) it’s the “should” that is wrong (Traditio said a woman “should” wear a mantilla, in response to a woman who said she did). “Should” is different from “may” or “can.” “Should” implies “must,” if you’re going to do the “right thing.” This is contrary to the mind of the Church (which you and I do not agree on, but knowledgeable apologists here and on EWTN have stated that the requirement is abrogated and the Church HAS spoken…the old argument). Chicago is also saying that a MANTILLA, per se, is NOT specifically required. A mantilla is a very specific garment that falls under the general heading of HEAD COVERINGS or WHAT YOU CAN WEAR ON YOUR HEAD. A mantilla was never required. What was required (and is no longer) is a head covering, a scarf, a shawl, a bonnet, a hat, a veil, OR a mantilla.
Click to expand...
Yes! That is what she said! Yes!👍
 
1.

So, outinchgoburbs, your argument is against the use of the particular word “mantilla”. Okay. I don’t understand why because that seems to just be used as a catch-all. I think most all of us see the argument/discussion about covering our heads whether it be with a hat, bonnet, veil, mantilla, or whatever. Mantilla is so much easier to write than the laundry list of possible coverings.

Also, I beg pardon for the tone I took when I answered you a while back. It was wrong and that is why I left for a while.

2.
JKirkLVNV said:
Yeah, it has. Look in section 6 of the current code (abrogating the old code in its entirety) and see the Holy See explaination of the practice as a dicipline.
Click to expand...
Would you point me to a source where the Holy See, not someone giving their interpretation or opinion, explains headcovering as a discipline.
JKirkLVNV said:
The Holy See has said that it was a discipline issue and thus not immutable.
Click to expand...
Would you also show me where the Holy See has directly spoken about this issue and declared it immutable (again, someone not giving their interpretation or opinion.)

3.

The question I have, and have been told I have no right to ask, is for understanding as to why the Holy See hasn’t spoken directly to this issue when it is so apparently important to so very many people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top