Headcoverings in church for women

[Shan]

EENS:

Just because canon law doesn’t mention something does not mean we don’t have to do it. Fulton Sheen called this mandate that women are to cover their heads a “Divine Command.” This is clearly true if we look throughout history. St. Linus, the second Pope, was the first to write on this subject, and all Popes since then have kept with Tradition and required the wearing of head coverings. However, this new canon law omits mention of the command, not surprisingly. If just before this new canon law came out, hand Communion was permitted, no one would argue that a woman not covering her head would be sacrilegeous, as long as hand Communion was not. However, we all know of these terrible fabrications that have come since Vatican II concerning especially discipline. I do not think a woman in good faith could omit a practice mandated prior to AD 70. God bless.

Hi Eens,

I’m still trying to get the hang of this system. Please excuse my ignorance.
I thought that communion in the hand was never really approved in the United States, but in Holland and two other places I can’t recall. Have you read ‘Privilage of the Ordained’?
Have a great day!
God Bless

 

[EENS]

Shan:

Hi Eens,

I’m still trying to get the hang of this system. Please excuse my ignorance.
I thought that communion in the hand was never really approved in the United States, but in Holland and two other places I can’t recall. Have you read ‘Privilage of the Ordained’?
Have a great day!
God Bless

I am as certain as I can be without being certain ( ) that hand Communion is approved in the US. However, the only reason it is appoved ANYWHERE is that people were doing it in disobedience. If we changed every rule because someone breaks it, we wouldn’t have any rules. That is the same ideology behind moving Holy Days of Obligation to Sunday: “If we don’t, then people won’t go and will be commiting sin.” That makes no sense. However, this, too, was the reason for not requiring head coverings in the new Code of Canon law. We needed a stronger hierarchy that will stand up for what is right instead of making excuses for sin. God bless.

 

[Detroit_Sue]

Shan:

Could one news reporter in Rome really be the reason that nearly everyone stopped wearing a veil? : :whacky:
If that’s the reason that they stopped it seems even more important that they understand why they should wear one. What is the matter with gray?

Hi Shan!

After the comment was made to the press, the issue was never addressed, which is why the general public believes it’s been done away with.

And, nothing’s wrong with gray…got me a few of those color hairs!

 

[Deacon2006]

My wife doesn’t wear a head covering, she converted well after VII but I think she would if more women did. Maybe we just have to wait for women fashion to move back to more modest fair.

Quite frankly I think it would look strange to see all these women in church hats and skin tight spaghetti strap belly button shirts.

God Bless

 

[Detroit_Sue]

Deacon2006:

Quite frankly I think it would look strange to see all these women in church hats and skin tight spaghetti strap belly button shirts.

God Bless

Don’t forget the belly button rings!

 

[dream_wanderer]

This past week I went to go to Saturday Night Mass and couldn’t find my hat! I looked everywhere and the only other hats were bright flowered things my mom wears. The ones I wear are small and dark so they won’t be distracting. I went without and didn’t like it…I’ve gotten so used to wearing one. I’ve decided I’m going to keep on in the car from now on just for sitatuions like this.

dream wanderer

 

[Shan]

EENS:

I am as certain as I can be without being certain ( ) that hand Communion is approved in the US. However, the only reason it is appoved ANYWHERE is that people were doing it in disobedience. If we changed every rule because someone breaks it, we wouldn’t have any rules. That is the same ideology behind moving Holy Days of Obligation to Sunday: “If we don’t, then people won’t go and will be commiting sin.” That makes no sense. However, this, too, was the reason for not requiring head coverings in the new Code of Canon law. We needed a stronger hierarchy that will stand up for what is right instead of making excuses for sin. God bless.

 

[Shan]

Howdy Eens!

I totally agree with you. Have you read, “A Privilege of the Ordained”, by Michael Davies?
The practice of Communion in the hand was revived by the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers to signify their rejection of both priesthood and the Real Presence. It was adopted by rebellious priests in Holland after VaticanII in defiance of the liturgical law of the Church. The abuse spread rapidily. Pope Paul VI polled the bishops of the world who voted overwhelmingly to retain the traditional practice, but the rebellion spread and the Holy See capitulated and agreed to tolerate the abuse. But permission to legalize the practice was clearly intended to aply only to countries where it had been established by 1969.

Davies explains that when the revised edition of the Anglican Prayer Book was published in 1552, not only had the “Black Rubric” been added, but the practice of Communion in the hand was introduced. Thus is signifies rejection of the Catholic belief that there is a difference in essence between Eucharistic Bread and ordinary bread or a difference between a priest and a layman.
The reception of the Blessed Sacrament on the TONGUE by laymen testifies to their belief in the priesthood and the Real Presence; the reception of their sacrament in the hand by Protestant reformers testifies to their rejection of these beliefs.
The Holy Father made no secret of his own preference by stressing the custom of the “rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary! To touch the sacred species, and to DISTRIBUTE THEM WITH THEIR OWN HANDS, is a privilege of the ordained…”
God Bless you and have a great day! :twocents:

 

[toutestgrace]

Mantilla/veil OK.
Doilie/kleenex not OK.

Sorry, I just couldn’t help recalling the image of grammar school girls with kleenex bobby-pinned to the tops of their heads

 

[system]

Shan:

The reception of the Blessed Sacrament on the TONGUE by laymen testifies to their belief in the priesthood and the Real Presence; the reception of their sacrament in the hand by Protestant reformers testifies to their rejection of these beliefs.

Davies is hardly unbiased; do some more reading.

 

[lyoncoeur]

I atend the Traditional Latin Mass that my parish offers, and there are many women with veils, in fact I would say more veiled than not, including the little girls.

I have come to find it a very respectful, modest and holy practice, this last Sunday I appriciated it even more. You see, as a Man, I have many of mans weaknesses… one of those weaknesses is the sight of a Redhead! Well a beautiful Redheaded woman came to Mass this sunday and I had a terrable time not being distracted! Well…just before Mass started, she put on a veil:clapping: , and instantly… my senses came back to me, and I was able to focus on what I was supposed to. Just one mans appriciation of an old custom, with a clear purpose.

 

[dream_wanderer]

lyoncoeur:

I atend the Traditional Latin Mass that my parish offers, and there are many women with veils, in fact I would say more veiled than not, including the little girls.

I have come to find it a very respectful, modest and holy practice, this last Sunday I appriciated it even more. You see, as a Man, I have many of mans weaknesses… one of those weaknesses is the sight of a Redhead! Well a beautiful Redheaded woman came to Mass this sunday and I had a terrable time not being distracted! Well…just before Mass started, she put on a veil:clapping: , and instantly… my senses came back to me, and I was able to focus on what I was supposed to. Just one mans appriciation of an old custom, with a clear purpose.

Thanks for posting that. Nice to hear something concrete from the other side…usually its vague renderings about modesty that I had a hard time understanding…or why covering her hair brought honor to God. It didn’t make sense.

Now if only I could do something about that Brad Pitt look-a-like in my church…

dream wanderer

 

[Shan]

lyoncoeur:

I atend the Traditional Latin Mass that my parish offers, and there are many women with veils, in fact I would say more veiled than not, including the little girls.

I have come to find it a very respectful, modest and holy practice, this last Sunday I appriciated it even more. You see, as a Man, I have many of mans weaknesses… one of those weaknesses is the sight of a Redhead! Well a beautiful Redheaded woman came to Mass this sunday and I had a terrable time not being distracted! Well…just before Mass started, she put on a veil:clapping: , and instantly… my senses came back to me, and I was able to focus on what I was supposed to. Just one mans appriciation of an old custom, with a clear purpose.

Hello lyoncoeur
Thank you for the beautiful and warm explaination. That’s what I was trying to say in my very first response,’ A woman has long, beautiful hair which can be a distraction and so the veil is a visible reminder :tsktsk: ’
It’s very nice to( hear) especially from a man and you really explained it well.

Thank you :
Shan

 

[EENS]

Melman:

Davies is hardly unbiased; do some more reading.

What like Raymond Brown?!

Seriously, though… if you read a liberal you will get a liberal slant. If you read a neo-con you will get a neo-con slant. If you read a Traditionalist you will get God’s slant…urg, I mean, you will get a Traditionalist slant. No matter who you read you will have a slant. God bless.​

By the way, I haven’t read that yet by Davies, but I think I will pick it up soon. It seems very sound from what you have explained. God bless.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Crusader, I had seen Colin’s answer before and noted that he apparently overly relied on his spell checker–hence, the egregious, “. . .men shall be BEAR headed”.

Gosh, I know you guys can growl a bit, but BEAR headed?

I personally love a mantilla and wearing a simple long dress to Mass. Yes, maybe it’s externals, but externals tend to inform internals, just as internals tend to inform externals.

 

[Shan]

Tantum ergo:

Crusader, I had seen Colin’s answer before and noted that he apparently overly relied on his spell checker–hence, the egregious, “. . .men shall be BEAR headed”.

Gosh, I know you guys can growl a bit, but BEAR headed?

I personally love a mantilla and wearing a simple long dress to Mass. Yes, maybe it’s externals, but externals tend to inform internals, just as internals tend to inform externals.

Howdy Tantum ergo,
Best answer yet.
God Bless,
Shan

 

[Therese_Martin]

This thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.