TNT:
First:
No where is the reason given for head covering as being "because that was what women in her day wore!!".
As I recall, Lucia’s description of the “Lady from heaven” included a veil, and that was 1917…less than 70 years before the 1983 canon law was published. A law which simply ignored 2000 years of unbroken practice in obedience to Her own Scriptural witness.
Paul’s discourse on the reason for head covering is Theological as the prev post points out. Not a thing to do with “her day”. If it was common practice in “her day” why is Paul having to require it, unless there was a number of women NOT wearing head covering, and men wearing head covering (like jewish skull caps) in church? This would point to just the opposite of what you proclaim in : “what women in her day wore!!”
Second:
There is no Scripture of the NT or OT that gives a theological requirement for “community ovens”, “common wells” or “togas”.
Therefore, bringing these up as comparative to the covered head in the Presence of God in Church is avoiding the the real issue. Making “straw man” arguments is not an argument at all.
The real issue is head covering as commanded by an Apostle himself. If this was only a custom of the time, why is it considered as revelation? Why did the Church practice it and also command it all the way to 1983?
The REAL reason for lifting the command (if it ever was) is explained in my signature yet again:
To destroy a Religion (and replace it), you must first sever its traditions.
Newchurch, by ignoring in slience the historical Scriptural rule of moral respect due to God, then sending out their “progressive goon squads” to belittle head covering, is that they can say “we didn’t officially say anything against Scripture”. This is typical “slithering theology”.
Of course the sheeple won’t see it that way, and that is what they rely on.
TNT: Clothing is clothing is clothing. God does not care about clothes as such.
A veil can be a sign of reverence, but it is only a
sign, not reverence itself, which comes from the heart.
A cursory reading of First Corinthians should reveal that St. Paul is concerned with unifying the Church in Corinth; with ending rivalries, correcting errors, regularizing practices, and bringing it into line with the Jewish heritage of the Church. I doubt if St. Paul would assert that it was the specific clothing that mattered rather than a common attitude of reverence and submission to God.
Were the Church to make head-covering mandatory, all good Catholic women should submit to the authority of the Church.
However, re-instating the symbols of reverence will never produce the conversion of heart the Church needs today.
As I see it, lack of head-covering is not the main problem in the Church today; lack of Latin is not the main problem in the Church in the Church today; even lack of reverence is not the biggest problem in the Church today. The real problems in the Church today (from which the lack of reverence stem) are a) a general lack of catechesis and b) a lack of devotion and practice of the faith stemming from that lack of catechesis and a lack of zeal.
The tradition of the Church is
not composed of human customs of clothing and speech; the tradition of the Church is Tradition; and I know that the Church will always cling to it because Christ has already won the victory.
I hope and pray that the Church in Her wisdom calls Her members first to a whole-hearted living out of their faith before She concerns Herself with clothing.
If that makes me a member of the “sheeple”, count me in.
Here are some of the old teachings and now I am on a search …maybe others have inflo on these texts as well !! Why the Church changed etc. The bottom article hints at modesty of dress etc. ***
