headcoverings for women at mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter joclucsylv
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joclucsylv

Guest
Why don’t we as Catholics wear headcoverings. Prior to Vatican II was it a requirement??
 
As far as I know, it was never obligatory in Eastern Churches. Don’t know about Latin Rite.
 
When I was a boy and young man-1940’s and 1950’s, It was unthinkable for a woman to enter a Catholic Church without a hat or mantilla on…whether or not a service was going on. It was not only a requirement, it was considered a mark of respect for God, who is always physically present in a Catholic Church. Likewise, All laymen would never have their heads covered when in a Catholic Church.
As for other churches, in those days practising Catholics never entered them.
 
Some women still do wear head coverings and would never go to Mass without one.Im not familiar with the reason Vatican2 okayed the practice of not wearing head coverings.I supposed it felt that it wasn’t that necessary and that most people would prefer not to have to.Or perhaps V.2 thought that many new converts would be averted from converting if they were required to wear a covering.Maybe they would see it as old fashioned and the Church wasn’t moving witn the times.Those are jusst my thoughts i don;t have any evidence of this.
 
joclucsylv said:
Why don’t we as Catholics wear headcoverings. Prior to Vatican II was it a requirement??
Click to expand...
Yep, and it used to be required to fast from midnight before receiving Communion. These are all disciplinary rules which change over time. No biggie. 😉
 
valentino said:
Some women still do wear head coverings and would never go to Mass without one.Im not familiar with the reason Vatican2 okayed the practice of not wearing head coverings.I supposed it felt that it wasn’t that necessary and that most people would prefer not to have to.Or perhaps V.2 thought that many new converts would be averted from converting if they were required to wear a covering.Maybe they would see it as old fashioned and the Church wasn’t moving witn the times.Those are jusst my thoughts i don;t have any evidence of this.
Click to expand...
Can you point out the passage of Vatican II that changed or addressed head coverings?

Many such practices in the Church today are not from Vat II, but the spirit of Vat II.
What I mean, many of the changes that the laity wonder where it came from are told the catch all Vatican II. when actually Vatican II never addressed those practices the laity and clergy wonder about. Vat II has been a cover to change things and add things that probably should not have been added or changes. Head coverings, the facing of the Priest during Mass, makeup of altar servers, Eucharistic ministers. To cite a few.

Now:popcorn:

Mark
 
MarkBrown said:
Can you point out the passage of Vatican II that changed or addressed head coverings?

Many such practices in the Church today are not from Vat II, but the spirit of Vat II.
What I mean, many of the changes that the laity wonder where it came from are told the catch all Vatican II. when actually Vatican II never addressed those practices the laity and clergy wonder about. Vat II has been a cover to change things and add things that probably should not have been added or changes. Head coverings, the facing of the Priest during Mass, makeup of altar servers, Eucharistic ministers. To cite a few.

Now:popcorn:

Mark
Click to expand...
The headcovering change actually had nothing to do with Vatican II. It was a change that occurred when the new code of canon law was promulgated.
 
Corki said:
The headcovering change actually had nothing to do with Vatican II. It was a change that occurred when the new code of canon law was promulgated.
Click to expand...
Exactly, the actually change happened in 1983

Prior to that, it was a required discipline for women.
 
MarkBrown said:
Can you point out the passage of Vatican II that changed or addressed head coverings?

Many such practices in the Church today are not from Vat II, but the spirit of Vat II.
What I mean, many of the changes that the laity wonder where it came from are told the catch all Vatican II. when actually Vatican II never addressed those practices the laity and clergy wonder about. Vat II has been a cover to change things and add things that probably should not have been added or changes. Head coverings, the facing of the Priest during Mass, makeup of altar servers, Eucharistic ministers. To cite a few.

Now:popcorn:

Mark
Click to expand...
Well, it wasn’t Vatican II. It was actually the Code of Canon Law revision of 1983. Prior to that, headcovering was required. The Code of Canon Law of 1983 did not specifically ‘address’ the issue. Therefore one could argue (and many do) that whatever was not specifically ‘retained’ in the revision is abrogated. Of course, it is also the case that unless something is specifically DENIED it is considered to still be in force. So it’s a conundrum.

It’s also a conundrum because it was nearly a dozen years BEFORE the revision that women suddenly ‘dropped the hats’ and that has been traced to the remark of some official (not the Pope) in Italy who was asked about women wearing headcoverings (remember this was during the time of the most HEATED bra-burning womens’ libbing, male chauvanist pig naming era you probably wouldn’t have believed if you hadn’t lived through it). . .and this official stated that it wasn’t even being addressed which somehow in the pre-Internet world turned into the kind of giant, ‘beamed over the world’ message of 'women no longer have to wear a headcovering, yay sister!" craziness that has coalesced into the 12th commandment of “thou shalt not make ME wear a hat you male patriarch fool”. . .

Hey, I have high hopes though. Look at the EF and the Moto Proprio. Look at the bishops of the UK --the UK!-- reinstituting year round abstinence.

Within the next 10 years or so I predict a quiet little resurgence of women wearing hats in church. Not necessarily all mantillas though probably those will be a start. . . and nobody will be forcing the gray-haired women to wear a hat on those glorious feminist locks. . .but sooner or later there will be women with headcoverings and a revision of Canon Law 20something which quietly mentions that women will wear a headcovering in church. . .
 
It did used to be obligatory, as others have mentioned. I go to the OF mass (basically, the one in English - there isn’t a latin one near me) and I “veil”. Usually with a white lace headband that I wore to my baptism.

I would like to find out about what was specified about this in V2.
 
PerfectTiming said:
As far as I know, it was never obligatory in Eastern Churches. Don’t know about Latin Rite.
Click to expand...
In the Eastern Church and in many countries where the Latin Rite predominated, women wore headcoverings that denoted their station and position within the village community.

You could tell who was un-married, eligible for marriage, married, married with children, grandmother and widow simple by looking at the headcovering the woman wore.👍

Only women in countries with a Spanish influence wore mantillas.:eek:

Hope this helps…
 
LemonAndLime said:
It did used to be obligatory, as others have mentioned. I go to the OF mass (basically, the one in English - there isn’t a latin one near me) and I “veil”. Usually with a white lace headband that I wore to my baptism.

I would like to find out about what was specified about this in V2.
Click to expand...
As far as I know…nothing; the requirement was left out of the new code of canon law in 1983, as mentioned by other posters. There was also a reference in the letter Mulieris Dignitatem (“On the Dignity of Women”) as to head covering and other practices having been customs of the times, but no longer having “normative value”.
 
I read that it was left out if the cannon because of the Church not wanting to deal with the feminists. It is in scripture that women should wear head coverings. I for one would wear one. I think it’s beautiful!
 
joclucsylv said:
I read that it was left out if the cannon because of the Church not wanting to deal with the feminists. It is in scripture that women should wear head coverings. I for one would wear one. I think it’s beautiful!
Click to expand...
Yeah, because the Church has such a problem with upsetting people. Homosexual activists, pro-abortionists, ABC supporters, I could go on.
 
I went to Mass today, and I wore a head scarf. I saw only 1 or 2 other women wearing something on their heads. Keep in mind it was not an ExtraOrdinary Form / Latin Mass where they are common place. The priest never had an issue with it as I shook his hand on the way out still wearing it. Maybe he was surprised that a young person chose to do so as the 1 or 2 others were old enough to be my mother or grandmother that I saw.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top