Head coverings

[TNT]

Patchunky:

First of all, you REALLY should read the WHOLE thread before you respond to it…:tsktsk:

Secondly, I could NEVER be the First Lady since I’m by no means a LADY so I guess it doesn’t matter…

I read the whole thread.
Now, let’s not get silly in avoiding the question.
The question is not about you being the First Lady. It’s about “would you wear a headcovering at the Papal funeral Mass”? And, if so at that Mass, what about any mass since they all are an act of worship in a consecrated church?

The point was that even women of the highest rank in a democracy of “all are equal” followed the Scriptures in a Catholic Church… newchurch canon law notwithstanding.

 

[Patchunky]

TNT:

I read the whole thread.
Now, let’s not get silly in avoiding the question.
The question is not about you being the First Lady. It’s about “would you wear a headcovering at the Papal funeral Mass”? And, if so at that Mass,what about any mass since they all are an act of worship in a consecrated church ?

The point was that even women of the highest rank in a democracy of “all are equal” followed the Scriptures in a Catholic Church… newchurch canon law notwithstanding.

First of all, I’m not avoiding the question. Just asking to read the thread before you respond to it. I was asking Gregory about wearing a necktie to church. You popped in with a comment about women wearing headcoverings in church. It has NOTHING to do with neckties as far as I can see…:nope:

Second, “would I wear a headcovering at a Papal Funeral Mass”… if I was a Bishop or Patriarch, yes I would…:yup:

Third, “what about any mass since they all are an act of worship in a consecrated church”… NO, since it’s a sin for me to be in a church with my head covered…:tsktsk:

Do you have a clue yet???:banghead:

 

[peregrinator_it]

TNT:

I read the whole thread.
Now, let’s not get silly in avoiding the question.
The question is not about you being the First Lady. It’s about “would you wear a headcovering at the Papal funeral Mass”? And, if so at that Mass, what about any mass since they all are an act of worship in a consecrated church?

The point was that even women of the highest rank in a democracy of “all are equal” followed the Scriptures in a Catholic Church… newchurch canon law notwithstanding.

Were I the First Lady, a public figure, knowing the solemnity of the occasion, I would make whatever gestures in my means to show reverence for God and the Pope, headcovering included, if I thought that it would show reverence.

Were I a pilgrim, no, I wouldn’t wear a headcovering and it wouldn’t matter a bit. I don’t own one and I have other means of showing reverence.

It’s about reverence, not about clothing.

 

[peregrinator_it]

Frankly, demanding that all women practice the same extraordinary pieties (like it or not, veils are no longer a custom in our society; whereas ties for men are still required at formal social gatherings) is like demanding that the Missionaries of Charity abandon their saris and wear the “more respectful” wimples of the Benedictines.

 

[MrS]

peregrinator_it:

Frankly, demanding that all women practice the same extraordinary pieties (like it or not, veils are no longer a custom in our society; whereas ties for men are still required at formal social gatherings) is like demanding that the Missionaries of Charity abandon their saris and wear the “more respectful” wimples of the Benedictines.

if they did, they might be accused of showing more respect for the “Vicar of…” instead of for Christ.

sorry, there goes that old “respect” attitude of mine again:tsktsk:

 

[peregrinator_it]

MrS:

if they did, they might be accused of showing more respect for the “Vicar of…” instead of for Christ.

sorry, there goes that old “respect” attitude of mine again:tsktsk:

???

Sorry, I don’t understand you.

The point is, yes, we ought to show reverence for God in every way, even in our clothing. But demanding that everyone show that reverence in the same way (within the bounds of what is appropriate, of course) is rather like demanding that all relgious orders wear the same habit.

 

[peregrinator_it]

MrS:

if they did, they might be accused of showing more respect for the “Vicar of…” instead of for Christ.

sorry, there goes that old “respect” attitude of mine again:tsktsk:

???

Sorry, I don’t understand you.

The point is, yes, we ought to show reverence for God in every way, even in our clothing. But demanding that everyone show that reverence in the same way (within the bounds of what is appropriate, of course) is rather like demanding that all relgious orders wear the same habit. Because, ultimately clothing is only clothing.

 

[peregrinator_it]

MrS:

if they did, they might be accused of showing more respect for the “Vicar of…” instead of for Christ.

sorry, there goes that old “respect” attitude of mine again:tsktsk:

???

Sorry, I don’t understand you.

The point is, yes, we ought to show reverence for God in every way, even in our clothing. But demanding that everyone show that reverence in the same way (within the bounds of what is appropriate, of course) is rather like demanding that all relgious orders wear the same habit. Ultimately, clothing is only clothing.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

peregrinator_it:

A veil can be a sign of reverence, but it is only a sign, not reverence itself, which comes from the heart.

Very well said!

peregrinator_it:

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.
(rest of post snipped because I don’t like to quote entire posts if they’re lengthy)

Thank you for your explanation – the word-for-word literal interpretations (of St. Paul’s actions) that we usually hear leave me just as confused as before.

peregrinator_it:

Frankly, demanding that all women practice the same extraordinary pieties (like it or not, veils are no longer a custom in our society; whereas ties for men are still required at formal social gatherings) is like demanding that the Missionaries of Charity abandon their saris and wear the “more respectful” wimples of the Benedictines.

How few people point out that veils are no longer our custom! We should not have litugical dancing because it is not our custom to show reverence by dancing, but somehow, we are supposed to adopt a “foreign” custom of veiling – it’s like wanting to have it both ways, and that doesn’t work.

If head covering is again mandated, I will gladly do so, but it will not be a veil or a mantilla!

---

Crazy Internet Junkie Society
****Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Carol,

Things can be this. Things can be that. What I hope for is that people will reclaim the grand and glorious patrimony of the Church through gentle teaching and example. I don’t care so much that there is this and there is that. What I long to see is a mass movement of humble servants of Christ with hearts full of love and passion to serve which flows out into their humble actions.

Anything less won’t win the world for Christ nor make us more like our Lord and Savior. No more excuses.

Dan L

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

GregoryPalamas:

What I long to see is a mass movement of humble servants of Christ with hearts full of love and passion to serve which flows out into their humble actions.

I guess I’m pretty lucky, then, because my parish is already like this.

Crazy Internet Junkie Society
****Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag

 

[Catherine_S]

TNT:

Women took off their veils a decade before the 1983 “silent on the matter” canon law was issued!.
Who was Protestant then?
Now all you have to do is show us WHERE the Church said “headcoverings are no longer required”.

**Thank You TNT :whacky: **this is exactly **what I am trying to find out too! **
**Did the church state officially **that headcoverings were no longer needed ?

I want to see this in writing or to hear the Official Catholic Church Teaching on this matter.

We are not protestants we are catholics and we do have a final authority to appeal to on all and every matter within the Church.

Something seems out of order to me…a long standing teaching ended just like that but there is no official document on the “why” or how the faithful were to understand this?

All I remember is that one day it was in the newspapers… “Women no longer need to wear headcoverings in the Catholic Church.” and it was over. None of the priests in our parishes etc. ever said a word.** At least nothing that I ever heard.**

I really want to know about this and what the Church say’s about it officially…all the other opinions are interesting and I understand them but this is not enough in my mind.

Thank you again !
Shalom,
Catherine

 

[A.Pelliccio]

How is veiling a foreign practice… it was done for thousands of years. The majority of Catholics attending mass weekly come from the time when it was still in popular practice. Dancing is something that foreign and out of line. Dancing is not sinful nor is Christian Rock bands, they just have no place in the solemness that is the Holy Mass.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

A.Pelliccio:

How is veiling a foreign practice… it was done for thousands of years.

It depends more on “where”, not “how long ago”. The mistake is assuming that all Catholics have the same cultural background.

I didn’t say I wouldn’t wear a head covering if it was once again mandated, but it will not be a mantilla.

---

Crazy Internet Junkie Society
****Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag

 

[A.Pelliccio]

I’m preety sure that head coverings (mantilas being predominet) were the norm and comman practice in the Catholic church up unitl Vat II. It is a matter of when/how long ago? It was universal.

 

[Catherine_S]

CarolAnnSFO:

It depends more on “where”, not “how long ago”. The mistake is assuming that all Catholics have the same cultural background.

I didn’t say I wouldn’t wear a head covering if it was once again mandated, but it will not be a mantilla.

Crazy Internet Junkie Society
****Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag

It was certainly a part of the western world until around 1968.** In Canada and the United States for certain !** You just did not enter Church without your head covered ! It was not a cultural thing anywhere that I know of…it was common Catholic practice!
Shalom

 

[Catherine_S]

GregoryPalamas:

Carol,

Things can be this. Things can be that. What I hope for is that people will reclaim the grand and glorious patrimony of the Church through gentle teaching and example. I don’t care so much that there is this and there is that. What I long to see is a mass movement of humble servants of Christ with hearts full of love and passion to serve which flows out into their humble actions.

Anything less won’t win the world for Christ nor make us more like our Lord and Savior. No more excuses.

Dan L

This is certainly the understanding of protestants!** Things can be this… things can be that…la la la !!!** The reason perhaps for over 34,000 different groups all believing different things . It would be OK if Christ had said "just be gentle and loving and la la la !" but He did not and neither did Saint Paul.
Shalom

 

[peregrinator_it]

Catherine S.:

This is certainly the understanding of protestants!** Things can be this… things can be that…la la la !!!** The reason perhaps for over 34,000 different groups all believing different things . It would be OK if Christ had said "just be gentle and loving and la la la !" but He did not and neither did Saint Paul.
Shalom

No, no, no, no, no.

It’s a matter of distinguishing between externals and essentials. Allowing variety in personal devotions (within resonable limits- which limits God has granted the Church the authority to determine) is not de facto allowing variety in
belief or in anything else.

Legislating everyone into the same personal devotions simply will not solve the very real crisis in faith plaguing the Church. We need catechesis and conversion of heart as the previous poster was trying to say.

 

[rcn]

Catherine S.:

This is certainly the understanding of protestants!** Things can be this… things can be that…la la la !!!**

You seem not to be able to appreciate the difference between matters of doctrine and simple customs and practices.

The doctrines of the Church cannot and do not change.

Head covering is a practice that may - and HAS - changed. Get over it already, willya?

 

[AGirone]

Two web articles, One on Fr. Robert Fox’s website www.fatimafamily.org on veils and www.christianfamilyoutreach.com under pamphlets discuss veils. According to these sources, the church NEVER officially said wearing veils was no longer required…it was a feminist movement that brought that disobedience.

Quotes…**When and why did the Church change the teaching that a woman should wear a head covering ****while attending church services? Answer: The Church has never changed its teaching. There is nothing by the **Magisterium stating that the wearing of the veil has been abolished.
Church Teachings
**The nearest anyone could come to this claim is that it was not mentioned in the new Code of Canon Law published in 1983. In **the period from approximately 1969 to 1983, **when women throughout the United States were already abandoning the veil in direct **violation of Canon Law. So it is clear **that Church law cannot be called upon to justify the abandonment of the veil since it had already ****been abandoned by many as **early as 1968, some fifteen years prior to the publication of the new code.
The veil has two thousands years of being a custom to its credit. (The **rosary does not come close to that. Yet who would try to discourage people from saying the rosary? Nor was the rosary ever ****in Canon Law or in the Bible.) **

**Please read carefully the following quotes taken from ****the N.O.W. Handbook. It has some very interesting information that you truly need to know and seriously ponder. We read ****under ****A. Religion Resolutions, " Because the wearing of a head covering by women at religious services is a symbol of subjection ****within many churches, NOW recommends that all chapters undertake an effort to have all women participate in a “national ****unveiling” by sending their head coverings to the task force chairman. At the Spring meeting of the task force of women and religion, **these veils will be publicly burned to protest the second class status of women in all churches. (Dec., 1968)"

Questions to Ponder

**Why did St. Paul say women should be veiled, if it were not important? Why did the Church have the tradition of wearing ****the veil for nearly two thousand years, if it was not important? Why did the Church mandate it in Canon Law, if it was not ****important? ****Do you truly believe that the Church was wrong for two thousand years and just in the past few years ****became wise? **

If one goes only according to Canon Law and says it no longer applies then **Since there is no longer a law explicitly pointing out that men must be bare-headed, could one argue men should now wear hats before the Most Blessed Sacrament ? **From the point of Canon Law there is no longer the force of law. If we did things only when required by Canon Law, and that was our motive for love and reverence and submission, I would not anticipate great growth in spirituality. Canon Law does not require Catholics to participate in the Sacrifice of the Mass on weekdays. Yet many do and all are encouraged to when possible.