Head Covering During Mass

[OutinChgoburbs]

OutinChgoburbs,

Responses to Colin Donovan

catholicintl.com/epologet…-covering1.htm

catholicintl.com/epologet…l/covering.htm

Responses to Jimmy Akin

catholicintl.com/epologet…ovan-veils.htm

Well, with both sides in- it would appear that it is left up to the indivudal woman. People who see it as dogma and mortal sin will not want to listen to Jimmy Akin and Colin Donovan. People who see it as abrogated do not see what point the people who are claiming it as mandated are trying to make.

Look- See how long I’ve been on the CAF Forums? That’s how long this discussion, in various threads, has been in existence. Unless a bishop wants women to wear a HEAD COVERING in his diocese (It is not a veil- and the fancy little veils out of lace are not the veils of St. Paul’s time), or unless the Congregation of Divine Worship says it is required, then it is only going to result in long passes of, “We say it’s this way” and “We say it’s that way”.

Ladies, if you choose to wear a hat/ veil/ ballcap on your head as a sign of reverence and respect for Our Lord in church (small 'c" intentional), you are still my beloved sisters, and I, for one, do not see anything wrong with what you are doing in this ancient practice.

Guys telling your wives they MUST do something such as wear a veil because you are the head of the house, and what you say goes, even though you are not old enough to remember the what-for and the when: I think you’re wrong in this regard. I don’t think your stance is Catholic. I think you have some sort of romantic attachment to something that was not even common in this country until Jackie Kennedy made it popular (and she wore a WHITE mantilla despite marriage when she went to Sunday Mass- it stood out well on her beautiful dark hair).

 

[Tom317]

Of course - I would also take communion on the tongue and kneeling too. I’d feel a right fool covering my head, and awkward taking communion on the tongue, at least at first, but I’d do them.

The point is it won’t just ‘turn out’ that they should still be worn - the Magisterium doesn’t make those sort of neglectful mistakes. What would happen is that a magisterial pronouncement of some kind will TELL us that we should commence wearing them again. Because it’s discipline and not Apostolic tradition. Like married clergy and leavened bread weren’t Apostolic tradition binding for all time merely because the Apostles were probably all married and probably used leavened bread at least sometimes.

The highest authority we have at the moment is the Canon definitively abrogating the previous Canon requiring headcovering. The Pope accepts it as the last word, most Bishops accept it, so should you.

I am glad you would obey.

I am looking forward to a serious queery I have forwarded on this subject. I believe that the mere absence of the law in the 1983 Code does NOT mean the requirement has been removed. Time will tell.

BTW, I receive on the tongue, it is not problem at all. Give it a try.

 

[Tom317]

Well, with both sides in- it would appear that it is left up to the indivudal woman. People who see it as dogma and mortal sin will not want to listen to Jimmy Akin and Colin Donovan. People who see it as abrogated do not see what point the people who are claiming it as mandated are trying to make.

Look- See how long I’ve been on the CAF Forums? That’s how long this discussion, in various threads, has been in existence. Unless a bishop wants women to wear a HEAD COVERING in his diocese (It is not a veil- and the fancy little veils out of lace are not the veils of St. Paul’s time), or unless the Congregation of Divine Worship says it is required, then it is only going to result in long passes of, “We say it’s this way” and “We say it’s that way”.

Ladies, if you choose to wear a hat/ veil/ ballcap on your head as a sign of reverence and respect for Our Lord in church (small 'c" intentional), you are still my beloved sisters, and I, for one, do not see anything wrong with what you are doing in this ancient practice.

Guys telling your wives they MUST do something such as wear a veil because you are the head of the house, and what you say goes, even though you are not old enough to remember the what-for and the when: I think you’re wrong in this regard. I don’t think your stance is Catholic. I think you have some sort of romantic attachment to something that was not even common in this country until Jackie Kennedy made it popular (and she wore a WHITE mantilla despite marriage when she went to Sunday Mass- it stood out well on her beautiful dark hair).

Catholic women in this country DID wear head coverings before 1983 (not every woman, but most). It is not about what is “popular,” it is about doing what the Lord and the Church mandates.

I do think the Church should make a definitive statement on this, along with many other subjects, yet getting it to do so is not going to be easy. IMO, there is no reason to leave these matters in doubt, the Church should just make a strong statement and let the matter resolve either way. The same goes for a hundred other “issues.” By ignoring such issues, the lay Catholics just have more things to argue about…a silly waste of time.

 

[LilyM]

I am glad you would obey.

I am looking forward to a serious queery I have forwarded on this subject. I believe that the mere absence of the law in the 1983 Code does NOT mean the requirement has been removed. Time will tell.

BTW, I receive on the tongue, it is not problem at all. Give it a try.

It’s not ‘mere absence’. It’s the absence combined with the fact that the 1983 Code expressly abrogates the entirety of the previous Code.

 

[Tom317]

I spent 24 years of my life as a practising Catholic in Europe. Various countries. NEVER saw a woman with a mantilla in church. Old ladies wore either hats or kerchiefs, granny-style - but not all of them.
I won’t take sides in this issue, just thought I’d share this bit of info.

The requirement is for a head covering, it is not so specific that a woman must wear a veil or mantilla.

I think in a modern world in which many (most imo) people think they are somehow better then people from centuries past, it will be a very, very tough thing to enforce head coverings, they are seen as an archaic relic of the past (even though the practice was thought to be brogated just 24 years ago, hardly ancient times).

It frankly never ceases to amaze me that so many Catholics never stop to think about how the faith looked for 1900+ years, and is now so very, very different, and yet that is a good thing somehow. There is been a near complete transformation of the faith in the span of several decades, yet few Catholics stop to think about that.

 

[Tom317]

It’s not ‘mere absence’. It’s the absence combined with the fact that the 1983 Code expressly abrogates the entirety of the previous Code.

Yes, but the 1983 code does NOT contain one canon, there are many other canons that place qualifiers on Canon 6, which means we MUST take those canons into consideration.

 

[LittleMother]

I did not have time to read all of the previous posts, so I’m sorry if this is a repeat, but to the original poster:

The real clincher for me was a book of etiquette! . . . actually a sermon telling how one Mass is another country the king & queen were going to be there, so everyone was sure to wear their best & women would have their heads covered, etc . . . so, if women would go out of their way to have their heads covered for a king & queen of this world . . . . and whether it is a sign of their dignity or our submission or a way of honoring them, you get the picture.

Anyhoo, after that sermon I got myself a book of etiquette from the library & anything that they consider proper for kings/queens I consider proper (& more so) for God. Hope that helps

~Gina

 

[LilyM]

I did not have time to read all of the previous posts, so I’m sorry if this is a repeat, but to the original poster:

The real clincher for me was a book of etiquette! . . . actually a sermon telling how one Mass is another country the king & queen were going to be there, so everyone was sure to wear their best & women would have their heads covered, etc . . . so, if women would go out of their way to have their heads covered for a king & queen of this world . . . . and whether it is a sign of their dignity or our submission or a way of honoring them, you get the picture.

Anyhoo, after that sermon I got myself a book of etiquette from the library & anything that they consider proper for kings/queens I consider proper (& more so) for God. Hope that helps

~Gina

And how many women have you seen in the last half-century with covered heads in front of Elizabeth II?? Answer - NONE.

As for the Canons - it’s simple. ROME WOULD TELL US if we were still supposed to be covering! Not a peep out of them. And such a rule is no less enforceable now than it was in 1982, surely.

 

[Tom317]

And how many women have you seen in the last half-century with covered heads in front of Elizabeth II?? Answer - NONE.

As for the Canons - it’s simple. ROME WOULD TELL US if we were still supposed to be covering! Not a peep out of them. And such a rule is no less enforceable now than it was in 1982, surely.

It is far less enforceable today, then it was in previous years. Catholics today do exactly what they want and care very little about what the Vatican or Canon Law has to say (this applies to the vast majority of Catholics, not all). All we have to do to prove that point is consider: abortion, codoms, birth control, fornication, etc., and it is very easy to see that a frighteningly high percentage of Catholics just flat out ignore what the Church says.

Therefore, this issue is not about enforcement, nor is it about “bringing back” head coverings, because so-called Catholic women will simply ignore the rule even if it were upheld (at least 90% of women would just flat ignore it). This issue comes down to a point of query about whether or not head covers have actually been abrogated, there are many, many sound arguments from the 1983 Canon Law that says that head coverings are still required, and there are also arguments on the side of no requirement (Canon 6 of the 1983 Code). It is a point of great interest fro people who want to follow the one true faith and it should be answered definitiebly by the Holy See’.

 

[kaysette]

Yes, but the 1983 code does NOT contain one canon, there are many other canons that place qualifiers on Canon 6, which means we MUST take those canons into consideration.

No matter how I try, I cannot get the passage “power on her head” and “because of the angels” out of my mind.

What woman does not need “power on her head?” or the assistance of the ministering spirits? I just wish we could KNOW exactly what that means. Do you know of any early church fathers who addressed this issue? Not the custom, but the spiritual aspect of this?

 

[Tom317]

No matter how I try, I cannot get the passage “power on her head” and “because of the angels” out of my mind.

What woman does not need “power on her head?” or the assistance of the ministering spirits? I just wish we could KNOW exactly what that means. Do you know of any early church fathers who addressed this issue? Not the custom, but the spiritual aspect of this?

No, sorry, but you bring-up a very interesting point of study.

 

[Tom317]

No matter how I try, I cannot get the passage “power on her head” and “because of the angels” out of my mind.

What woman does not need “power on her head?” or the assistance of the ministering spirits? I just wish we could KNOW exactly what that means. Do you know of any early church fathers who addressed this issue? Not the custom, but the spiritual aspect of this?

Here is a comment from the Bishops site on that verse:

6 [10] A sign of authority: “authority” (exousia) may possibly be due to mistranslation of an Aramaic word for “veil”; in any case, the connection with 1 Cor 11:9 indicates that the covering is a sign of woman’s subordination. Because of the angels: a surprising additional reason, which the context does not clarify. Presumably the reference is to cosmic powers who might inflict harm on women or whose function is to watch over women or the cult.

 

[beckers]

It is far less enforceable today, then it was in previous years. Catholics today do exactly what they want and care very little about what the Vatican or Canon Law has to say (this applies to the vast majority of Catholics, not all). All we have to do to prove that point is consider: abortion, codoms, birth control, fornication, etc., and it is very easy to see that a frighteningly high percentage of Catholics just flat out ignore what the Church says.

Therefore, this issue is not about enforcement, nor is it about “bringing back” head coverings, because so-called Catholic women will simply ignore the rule even if it were upheld (at least 90% of women would just flat ignore it). This issue comes down to a point of query about whether or not head covers have actually been abrogated, there are many, many sound arguments from the 1983 Canon Law that says that head coverings are still required, and there are also arguments on the side of no requirement (Canon 6 of the 1983 Code). It is a point of great interest fro people who want to follow the one true faith and it should be answered definitiebly by the Holy See’.

I’ve been following this thread for some time but haven’t posted in a week or so. Here is the problem. You are equating head coverings with Moral issues. You have even labeled head coverings as a “Rule”. Abortion, condoms, birth control, fornication, etc. are all morally wrong according to the teaching of the god (i.e. scriptures) and the church and can not be considered “Rules” but more of defining commandments. They are wrong in every sense. And any catholic who ignores those issues (male or female) is committing grave sin and needs to have a conversion of heart and get ye to the confessional! Head coverings on the other hand are not a moral issue. The lack of head coverings is an outward sign of the loss of reverence for God in our church and society just like the lack of appropriate dress, the rudeness of cell phones during mass etc. You may be upset about women not wearing head coverings and thinking that you have a right to wear a hat in church but this is not the biggest battle there is to fight in the church. And the lack of anything from Rome seems to be deafen after all I don’t think the Church would just not be talking about something that could potential led all the women into sin.

I am also starting to get very upset that you like to degrade women by saying that “we simple ignore the rules”. You are basing your figures off of talking to a bunch of teenage girls. I know many catholic women who all they want to do is live up to God’s standards and follow church teachings. A lot of them are like me. We were never taught about head coverings and we haven’t heard Rome speak about it. I thought the mantilla was only for older women in the Spanish culture until I was in my twenties and asked someone. What you perceive as ignore the rules may just be a lack of education. If a priest or Rome doesn’t speak out about it then how are people to know? Where are the shepherds? Right now the Holy Spirit is working on women. He is calling and molding us to be the examples in the church. Gives us a little time. It’s not easy to throw away the constraints of society and wear a head covering.

 

[LilyM]

It is far less enforceable today, then it was in previous years. Catholics today do exactly what they want and care very little about what the Vatican or Canon Law has to say (this applies to the vast majority of Catholics, not all). All we have to do to prove that point is consider: abortion, codoms, birth control, fornication, etc., and it is very easy to see that a frighteningly high percentage of Catholics just flat out ignore what the Church says.

Therefore, this issue is not about enforcement, nor is it about “bringing back” head coverings, because so-called Catholic women will simply ignore the rule even if it were upheld (at least 90% of women would just flat ignore it). This issue comes down to a point of query about whether or not head covers have actually been abrogated, there are many, many sound arguments from the 1983 Canon Law that says that head coverings are still required, and there are also arguments on the side of no requirement (Canon 6 of the 1983 Code). It is a point of great interest fro people who want to follow the one true faith and it should be answered definitiebly by the Holy See’.

It HAS been answered definitively - in the negative, by an incredibly deafening silence on the issue!

If the Holy See thought at all that we should be wearing them they would have said so - just like they’ve said there should be no liturgical dancing, like they’ve said there should be more TLMs, and just as they’ve expressed a distinct leaning towards Latin, chant and communion on the tongue et al.

So I repeat - why have they not said one WORD about covering our heads? Clearly because they think there’s not the remotest legal or other obligation to do so. There’s no other possible explanation!

None of the other issues the Holy See has spoken out about are any more enforceable, but they nonetheless felt the need to stick up for tradition that, in their opinion, should be retained. Clearly headcovering is not a tradition they give two hoots about.

 

[Tom317]

It HAS been answered definitively - in the negative, by an incredibly deafening silence on the issue!

If the Holy See thought at all that we should be wearing them they would have said so - just like they’ve said there should be no liturgical dancing, like they’ve said there should be more TLMs, and just as they’ve expressed a distinct leaning towards Latin, chant and communion on the tongue et al.

So I repeat - why have they not said one WORD about covering our heads? Clearly because they think there’s not the remotest legal or other obligation to do so. There’s no other possible explanation!

None of the other issues the Holy See has spoken out about are any more enforceable, but they nonetheless felt the need to stick up for tradition that, in their opinion, should be retained. Clearly headcovering is not a tradition they give two hoots about.

Arguing from silence is never a valid approach. For well over 1900years head coverings were required, then in 1983 it was simply not included in the Code. The reason could be could be as simple as the Church realized that an immemorial custom/law cannot be revoked, so why bother repeating it in the new law. Or, on your point, the Church might very well have intended to remove the requirement, yet if it did, then it is contradicting its own 1983 Canons. Either way, there are enough people who care about this, that the Church should give a definitive yes or no to head coverings.

As for your thought that the Church has said nothing, I feel you are wrong. The Code contains many Canons that cover this situation, yet for some reason you want to ignore those other Canons.

One point I think we will agree on is that the Vatican likely feels it has bigger problems then head coverings, which is true, but also not so true, imo.

 

[Tom317]

I’ve been following this thread for some time but haven’t posted in a week or so. Here is the problem. You are equating head coverings with Moral issues. You have even labeled head coverings as a “Rule”. Abortion, condoms, birth control, fornication, etc. are all morally wrong according to the teaching of the god (i.e. scriptures) and the church and can not be considered “Rules” but more of defining commandments. They are wrong in every sense. And any catholic who ignores those issues (male or female) is committing grave sin and needs to have a conversion of heart and get ye to the confessional! Head coverings on the other hand are not a moral issue. The lack of head coverings is an outward sign of the loss of reverence for God in our church and society just like the lack of appropriate dress, the rudeness of cell phones during mass etc. You may be upset about women not wearing head coverings and thinking that you have a right to wear a hat in church but this is not the biggest battle there is to fight in the church. And the lack of anything from Rome seems to be deafen after all I don’t think the Church would just not be talking about something that could potential led all the women into sin.

I am also starting to get very upset that you like to degrade women by saying that “we simple ignore the rules”. You are basing your figures off of talking to a bunch of teenage girls. I know many catholic women who all they want to do is live up to God’s standards and follow church teachings. A lot of them are like me. We were never taught about head coverings and we haven’t heard Rome speak about it. I thought the mantilla was only for older women in the Spanish culture until I was in my twenties and asked someone. What you perceive as ignore the rules may just be a lack of education. If a priest or Rome doesn’t speak out about it then how are people to know? Where are the shepherds? Right now the Holy Spirit is working on women. He is calling and molding us to be the examples in the church. Gives us a little time. It’s not easy to throw away the constraints of society and wear a head covering.

Wrong, I was making an aalogy to other things that Catholics ignore, I never said they carried the same moral weight and nor do I think they do. Abortion cannot be compared to head coverings in any way other then to point out that many Catholics ignore the fact that abortion is strongly condemned and it a mortal sin. Now think about that, if Catholics are willing to commit mortal sins freely (abortion, birth control, condoms, fornication, etc.), then they sure won’t give a thought to wearing head coverings (which is not a grave matter). That was my point of using those comparisons, I was NOT equating those issues.

My comments about Catholics ignoring rules and teachings is NOT directed only to women, but to all Catholics, men and women alike. Catholics today (probably 80%) reject either some or a great many teachings of the faith, that includes men and women.

I have no desire either way for head coverings, other then I would like to know whether they are required or not. I think the Church owes us a definitive statement on that and on many other issues.

 

[PKinsale]

Catholic women in this country DID wear head coverings before 1983 (not every woman, but most). It is not about what is “popular,” it is about doing what the Lord and the Church mandates.

I do think the Church should make a definitive statement on this, along with many other subjects, yet getting it to do so is not going to be easy. IMO, there is no reason to leave these matters in doubt, the Church should just make a strong statement and let the matter resolve either way. The same goes for a hundred other “issues.” By ignoring such issues, the lay Catholics just have more things to argue about…a silly waste of time.

I dunno. I’ve been a mass-goer since the mid-1970s, and I rarely saw women at the parishes I went to with headcoverings.

On the second point, I could not agree more! Bishops sometimes prefer letting confusion reign than taking a bold or unpopular stand. I think the laity, spurred on by pastors, assumed many things were supposed to change with the new Mass that really were not supposed to change.

 

[Tom317]

I dunno. I’ve been a mass-goer since the mid-1970s, and I rarely saw women at the parishes I went to with headcoverings.

On the second point, I could not agree more! Bishops sometimes prefer letting confusion reign than taking a bold or unpopular stand. I think the laity, spurred on by pastors, assumed many things were supposed to change with the new Mass that really were not supposed to change.

I saw many (most actually) women wearing head coverings, mainly veils, hankerchiefs, etc…

I agree. Many inventions have happened over the last 30-40 years and in the United States few Catholics seem to ever ask how they can think those inventions are somehow a good thing.

 

[maryjk]

Arguing from silence is never a valid approach. For well over 1900years head coverings were required, then in 1983 it was simply not included in the Code.

I do not remember EVER wearing a head covering. Okay, one time. For my First Communion. That’s it.

After checking with my Mom, she wore one to my sister’s Baptism in 1964, but does not remember wearing one to mine in 1966. I can’t put my hands on a picture right now. But I know that she did not wear one for my First Communion, in 1973ish.

I don’t know what happened in 1983, but the head covering seems to have changed before that.

 

[Tom317]

I do not remember EVER wearing a head covering. Okay, one time. For my First Communion. That’s it.

After checking with my Mom, she wore one to my sister’s Baptism in 1964, but does not remember wearing one to mine in 1966. I can’t put my hands on a picture right now. But I know that she did not wear one for my First Communion, in 1973ish.

I don’t know what happened in 1983, but the head covering seems to have changed before that.

Yes, some women stopped wearing them before 1983, which is no surprise because the post Vatican II Church was a dissenters dream come true. The 60s was the worst decade in histroy for many reasons, not least of which was the horrible perversion of Vatican II and the aftermath that we are still feeling as a result, none of which was intended by the Church. I have no doubt you are correct that some women had ceased wearing head coverings before 1983, it was quite popular after Vatican II for Catholics to make their own choices.