Head Covering During Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter ICXCNIKA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Convert_in_99 said:
…I just don’t want any women out there to think its a rule. It’s optional piety, just as is the scapular, a devotion to a certain saint, or anything of that nature. It’s neither good nor bad, and it can be both. BUT, it is OPTIONAL! 👍
Click to expand...
Would you say the same thing if it turns out that it is still an active requirement by Canon Law?
 
Tom317 said:
Would you say the same thing if it turns out that it is still an active requirement by Canon Law?
Click to expand...
Post 129
NTER INSIGNIORES, 15 Oct 1976
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Quote:
…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.
Click to expand...
 
Tom317 said:
That is not at the level of Canon Law…no matter how much people may want it to be.
Click to expand...
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
According to Article 48 of the Apostolic Constitution on the Roman Curia, Pastor Bonus, promulgated by Pope John Paul II on June 28, 1988: “the duty proper to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence.” The punishments are not described, but are taken for granted from the phrase “safeguard the doctrine”. Due to special canonical legislation, it also has competency for cases of clerical sexual abuse of minors.
Click to expand...
Within the CDF are the International Theological Commission and the Pontifical Biblical Commission. The Prefect of the CDF is ex officio president of both commissions.
Click to expand...
Their rulings are not to be taken lightly. I accept their authority as they are the ones who are our safeguard against personnel interpretation.
 
Tom317 said:
I agree, they are not to be taken lightly, but it does not trump Canon Law. Post 100 more items and it still will not trump Canon Law, unless an infallible statement is made.
Click to expand...
No matter how many times that it is claimed that this is Canon Law it is not and those who are in the position to guide us in this matter says the same thing It is NOT Canon Law.
 
Tom317, on the one hand you are saying that canon law currently requires women to wear headcoverings, and that a statement by the Vatican cited above does not have the same force as canon law. Would not the response you seek from the Vatican be of the same level as this statement from the CDF? It seems the question has already been answered?
 
PKinsale said:
Tom317, on the one hand you are saying that canon law currently requires women to wear headcoverings, and that a statement by the Vatican cited above does not have the same force as canon law. Would not the response you seek from the Vatican be of the same level as this statement from the CDF? It seems the question has already been answered?
Click to expand...
NO. What I want is a response to a Canon Law question. Either the Canon Law is still active, or it is not.
 
adrift said:
No matter how many times that it is claimed that this is Canon Law it is not and those who are in the position to guide us in this matter says the same thing It is NOT Canon Law.
Click to expand...
Time will tell.
 
Tom: In the old Canon Law, there is a clause related to men not wearing hats in church: “unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise.” In your interpretation, does this clause also apply to the rule about women and headcovering? If so, or if not so, can you explain why?

Further, you too easily dismiss the notion that women and men should sit apart, which was a custom of more than 100 years and therefore, according to your understanding, is therefore required by Canon Law?
 
Folks,
this is the very thing that gets a thread locked. No possible resolution and people saying the same things over and over.

Christ wanted us to follow the laws, yes. But more importantly He wanted us to be in the spirit of the laws.

If a woman covers, it changes nothing unless her heart is in it. I know, some will say that it changes those around her as a stone thrown into a pond causes ripples much further than where it is thrown.

Maybe the law is still in force. Maybe it isn’t. The impotance here is that when a woman covers at the encouragment of the Spirit then it would be well for her soul to obey. And that we should all pray to be obedient to God in whatever He call us to do.🙂
 
PKinsale said:
Tom: In the old Canon Law, there is a clause related to men not wearing hats in church: “unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise.” In your interpretation, does this clause also apply to the rule about women and headcovering? If so, or if not so, can you explain why?

Further, you too easily dismiss the notion that women and men should sit apart, which was a custom of more than 100 years and therefore, according to your understanding, is therefore required by Canon Law?
Click to expand...
I do not dismiss it easily. If you have read all of my posts you will see that one of the major problems with dropping head coverings is that it was a mandate from God. Men and women sitting apart, while certainly does reach the level of Canon Law, does not have Divine Law authority and simply does not hold the same weight.

God told women they are to cover their heads, men did not invent that–therein lies the difference and it is a huge difference.
 
slyboots said:
Folks,
this is the very thing that gets a thread locked. No possible resolution and people saying the same things over and over.

Christ wanted us to follow the laws, yes. But more importantly He wanted us to be in the spirit of the laws.

If a woman covers, it changes nothing unless her heart is in it. I know, some will say that it changes those around her as a stone thrown into a pond causes ripples much further than where it is thrown.

Maybe the law is still in force. Maybe it isn’t. The impotance here is that when a woman covers at the encouragment of the Spirit then it would be well for her soul to obey. And that we should all pray to be obedient to God in whatever He call us to do.🙂
Click to expand...
There have been many differing views on this topic and the posts are still respectable.
 
I don’t think one can easily just go out and say headcovers for women are required because “God” ordered it so. It was in an epistle of St. Paul’s, not part of the Decalogue. And in your posts above (please, stop accusing we who disagree of not reading your posts), your argument centers on the fact that it is a centenary custom of the church and therefore Canon Law requires it.

I believe many of us, myself included, believe it is a better expression of reverence. Sometimes, that is all we can agree on.
 
Furthermore. I’d be a lot more interested in that link to Catholic Apologetics International if they weren’t so … questionable. Here’s what the organization’s president said about Catholic Answers:

“Catholic Answers has proven over and over again that they are not in Catholic apologetics solely for the sake of truth, but mainly for the sake of keeping up the status quo and to keep the money rolling in.”

catholicintl.com/qa/2005/qa-jul-05.htm#Question%2048
 
PKinsale said:
I don’t think one can easily just go out and say headcovers for women are required because “God” ordered it so. It was in an epistle of St. Paul’s, not part of the Decalogue. And in your posts above (please, stop accusing we who disagree of not reading your posts), your argument centers on the fact that it is a centenary custom of the church and therefore Canon Law requires it.

I believe many of us, myself included, believe it is a better expression of reverence. Sometimes, that is all we can agree on.
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit is God, the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Bible is considered the infallibe Word of God.
 
PKinsale said:
Furthermore. I’d be a lot more interested in that link to Catholic Apologetics International if they weren’t so … questionable. Here’s what the organization’s president said about Catholic Answers:

“Catholic Answers has proven over and over again that they are not in Catholic apologetics solely for the sake of truth, but mainly for the sake of keeping up the status quo and to keep the money rolling in.”

catholicintl.com/qa/2005/qa-jul-05.htm#Question%2048
Click to expand...
So? That is their view, how does that make their analysis wrong?
 
Well, it tells me something about the perspective of the person doing the “analysis.” Here is another article about head coverings there.

Oddly, Sungenis states that the law requiring head covering was never abrogated specifically. I assert he is incorrect, because Canon 6 specifically abrogates, in its entirely, the Code of 1917.

One can also, further, wonder whether wearing head coverings was customary prior to 1983. I submit that, by that point in time, it was the exception rather than the rule. Perhaps in some circles, say at SSPX Masses (or even the small college I attended at that time), it was the custom. But in the average American parish? No.
 
Tom317 said:
Would you say the same thing if it turns out that it is still an active requirement by Canon Law?
Click to expand...
No, I am a law abiding church member. But, really, head covering is in cannon law? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top