S
Spiller
Guest
No way!
In any event, you wouldn’t be the judge of what was more or less orthodox.
Your personal preferences are in no way “more orthodox.”
No wonderful so many “traditionalists” are not taken seriously.
Is the Vatican close to clearing up the issue on the requirements for headcoverings?
- Status
In any event, you wouldn’t be the judge of what was more or less orthodox.
Your personal preferences are in no way “more orthodox.”
No wonderful so many “traditionalists” are not taken seriously.
N
nannygirl
Guest
I know these comments and questions are directed to someone else, but I think the lady meant that she wouldn’t want to assist at the NO Mass, I suppose as an EM.
As to trying the Pauline Mass, I came into the church in that Rite and I found it to be glorious, too.
I like to go back and visit from time to time, but my heart is in the EF. I can’t explain why- it just feels like home to me. I love all the smells and bells and the chant (I am an alto in the choir). It’s probably also a cultural thing- my family was very European and we had these things in the Episcopalian church in which I grew up. I have dear friends in both OF and EF and none of us are divisive about our preference. We are all Catholics who love and care for one another. I hate to quote Rodney King 
, but “Can’t we all just get along?”
S
Spiller
Guest
All that is available in the normative Pauline Mass.I know these comments and questions are directed to someone else, but I think the lady meant that she wouldn’t want to assist at the NO Mass, I suppose as an EM.
As to trying the Pauline Mass, I came into the church in that Rite and I found it to be glorious, too.
S
Spiller
Guest
I’ll bet this person is also upset by bishops and priests who feel they can pick and choose what to follow as she does.
She sets herself up to be the Church – as the arbiter of what to follow and not to follow.
Remarkable.
At least she finally tipped her cards and showed her true colors.
N
nannygirl
Guest
Where?
S
Spiller
Guest
Shop around. We regularly have Masses with bells, incense and chanting.
Want even more of all those? Head to a Eastern Divine Liturgy.
P
piouswoman
Guest
When the Church teaches error…it is your duty as a Catholic to ignore the error. And all I can say to you is “WOW!” So you ignore the doctrines of the Church that were **authoritatively taught **for nearly two-thousand years, the same teachings and the same Church of 262 previous popes, the same faith of our forefathers, popes, bishops, martyrs, saints, and doctors of the church for nearly two millennium, to follow erroneous teaching that is contrary to what Jesus Christ Our Lord taught us…all to follow along with the novelties of the last forty years. Perhaps it is YOU who has chosen a new religion, one where you may tailor your faith in a pick and choose method.
P
piouswoman
Guest
You know that old novus ordo chestnut (highlighted above) that you and your ilk bandy about to insult those whose only wish is to remain faithful to the traditional teachings of the Church is getting rather stale.
It must be quite easy and un-challenging to you to just throw out remarks such as this when you can’t think of any other way to fight the truth.
P
pnewton
Guest
According to your first sentence we can choose that which we think is error and that which we think is authoritatitve. You really do not see this contradiction do you.
Actually, the what I said “Wow” to was not doctrine but the code of canon law. That is not doctrinal. It is disciplinary. It can be changed, and has been changed. The Church’s disciplinary procedures always change from time to time and place to place. Do you think the CCL of 1913 has been in place for 2000 years???
C
Carolinagirl411
Guest
Spiller
I am afraid you are incorrect when you said there were no churches or chapels that require head covering. I am from Eastern NC and when a church has the traditional Latin Mass (the Tridentine Mass) Women are REQUIRED to cover their heads and if they did not bring anything to do so, cloths are provided for the Mass. My mother goes all the time. I only wish my parish would offer the Tridentine Mass as well.I would love to see what the mass used to be like before all the changes
I am afraid you are incorrect when you said there were no churches or chapels that require head covering. I am from Eastern NC and when a church has the traditional Latin Mass (the Tridentine Mass) Women are REQUIRED to cover their heads and if they did not bring anything to do so, cloths are provided for the Mass. My mother goes all the time. I only wish my parish would offer the Tridentine Mass as well.I would love to see what the mass used to be like before all the changes
P
piouswoman
Guest
All the smells and bells in the world mean nothing if the True Doctrines aren’t there. We are **Roman Rite Catholics **and there is where we belong, not in Eastern Rite Liturgies, unless there is no other option.
L
LilyM
Guest
So you’re saying the Church teaches error (as opposed to misguided and non-infallible individuals within it) and moreover in its essential bedrock Code of Canon Law no less? Then the gates of hell have truly prevailed against it, by your logic. Why you even bother to call yourself Catholic is beyond me, if you have so little respect for those to whom, in modern times, Christ Himself has entrusted His teachings and His church.
You sound like those married clerics who openly defied the Church when it, around the 1000s or so, began to insist on celibacy for every clergyman. - Worse, you’re not even honouring Christ’s choice of current Pope and Magisterium, who have just as much authority and as full a measure of the Holy Spirit as any of their predecessors, however many, with your lips even, let alone with your heart.
D
dixieagle
Guest
What “true doctrines” have changed in the last forty years? Its seems you don’t grasp the difference between immutable doctrines and changeable disciplines.
P
piouswoman
Guest
Yes, the church teaches error. Particularly the errors of ecumenism and collegiality. Where have you been? Or do you just pull accusations out of thin air and cast them about when someone says something that you don’ want to hear?
Your biting and uncharitable words to me are proof that the Church has failed in so many ways…most today who call themselves “Catholic” are really quite far from it. One thing that you cannot claim, is that I have at any time made personal attacks such as the ones you have made against me.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I don’t even cover my head for Mass, and this reply still puzzles me.I believe that as long as the dignity of human life is in danger of being suppressed and redefined, as long as man destroys his brothers and sisters through war for the sake of money, power, and territory, as long as we have children who are led astray by a world that promotes promiscuity, drugs, indifferentism to human suffering, and failure to accept responsibility for one’s share of evil in the world, little questions such as this are the least of our worries.
In fact, as long as these other situations exist, how can we even speak of being reverent in front of the Blessed Sacrament because we wear or not wear something on our heads, pray in TLM or NO, sing Kumbaya or Gregorian Chant, etc. It is an affront to Christ to appear before him with all of the proper externals, if we have not attended to any of these sins and done anything to remedy them.
The greatest act of reverence that we can do for God is to love him in our brothers and sisters.
Then we shall stand before him and be worthy. Why can’t people get the example of someone like Mother Teresa or Alberto Hurtado.
We have Christ in the poor and in children who are afraid of the world they live in. Everytime a child hears about another war, another child rape, another killing in his neighborhood, another child who has been abandoned by his or her parents, another child dying of hunger or disease, Christ relieves the agony in the garden through that child who is afraid of the world.
These are real sins. This is why we are sent at the end of mass. To find the children who spend their lives in the Garden in agony with Christ.
JR
Are you implying that there is any connection whatsoever between wearing a mantilla and refraining from feeding the poor? It’s a lace doily, it’s not like it cleans out the funds for charitable giving. Certainly a mantilla has nothing to do with “children who are led astray by a world that promotes promiscuity, drugs, indifferentism to human suffering, and failure to accept responsibility for one’s share of evil in the world”. Certainly you won’t find a positive correlation between those who wear mantillas and promotion of promiscuity!! Please!!
“We have bigger fish to fry”, while it may be true, does not imply “this is not a fish.”
OTOH, “This is a fish” does not imply “this is the biggest fish there is”…and even proving that it needs frying may not imply that the cook in question has any standing to fry it:
While I appreciate your unwavering desire to be faithful to Tradition, I think you are mistaken as to what was taught authoritatively as Tradition and what was imposed as a discipline. What needs to be discerned is this: which is unchangeable, the authority of the bishops to impose a discipline, or the requirement that a woman wear a headcovering in church?
Paul taught “Indeed, if a woman will not wear a veil, she ought to cut off her hair. If it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or have her head shaved, it is clear that she ought to wear a veil.” (1 Cor. 11: 6) But of course now it is not shameful for a woman to cut her hair off, nor even to have her head shaved. As for a man wearing his hair long, many depictions of the Lord show him that way, so obviously that is no longer considered a disgrace. He closes by saying that “if anyone wants to argue about this, remember that neither we nor the churches of God recognize any other usage” (1 Cor. 16)…implying that it is the authority of the churches to dictate the usage. Therefore, if your diocese requires headcoverings, you ought to submit. If they do not forbid headcoverings, you do not need to refrain from wearing them. But I would argue that Paul is teaching that the form of the discipline comes from the authority of the bishop. This is also what the Church teaches.
Let us remember, too, that the headcovering is itself a sign of submission to the authority God gave to the men. If we will not submit to that authority, then, let’s just skip any argument about covering our heads. It is moot. For in the same letter in which Paul made comment about head coverings, he wrote this: "According to the rule observed in all assemblies of believers, women should keep silent in such gatherings. They may not speak. Rather, as the law states, submission is indicated for them. (1 Cor. 14:34)The italics are mine, of course, but I am arguing that getting out of Mass itself doesn’t remove that prohibition.
If a woman wants to take on her bishop over the requirement of the head coverings meant to show submission to his authority, then, she is in a real Catch-22!!
P
piouswoman
Guest
For the umpteenth time, how about the Dogma “Outside of the Church there is NO Salvation”
How about ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality???
E
EasterJoy
Guest
You may not have meant it that way, but “most today who call themselves “Catholic” are really quite far from it” would be taken as a personal attack by most of us. If “present company excluded of course!” was implied, I missed that.
“Catholic” and “saint” aren’t the same thing. “Bad Catholic” is not, for better or worse, an oxymoron. So yes, since we’re baptized, and though we’re sinners and fall short of our calls, we *are *, rather than being “far from it”, still entirely and immutably Catholic. Perhaps you meant it as a figure of speech, but it isn’t, strictly speaking, doctrinally correct.
Also, if we who post to this forum are biting or uncharitable, let us know that we have harmed you, so we can repent, but do not blame the Church. She never guaranteed that she would fix all of us sinners by the mere act of having baptized us.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
If you insist on denying that the Church has the authority to teach what “outside the Church there is no salvation” means, you’re back in another Catch-22, madam, for according to your definitions, insisting there is no collegiality yet insisting you have standing to define doctrine would put you outside the Church, where there is no salvation…well, according to the way you interpret it, not according to the way they do, but you do see the position you’re in. I don’t think it possible make your stance logically tenable.
P
pnewton
Guest
FYI - Leonard Feeney was dismissed in 1949 for his beliefs, so this is outside the time frame of the forty years since VII. Strict interpretation of this dogma was never part of Church doctrine and properly understood, it is still a doctrine of the Church.
S
Spiller
Guest
I am very sorry but you are mistaken. No one can force a woman to cover her head in order to attend the EF of the Mass – they simply do not have the authority to pull that sorta garbage. Just ignore their “demands.”
If a a local parish or chapel feels they can force women to cover their heads (and assuming they are indeed Catholic) then they are in grave error. If I was a woman who did not care to cover my head I wouldn’t. And if they tried to keep me from the Mass or remove me from the Mass, I would ignore them. Further I would elevate what they are doing until they were stopped from making-up local rules that are not part of the Church.
You sure it wasn’t an sspx group or some other non-Catholic grouping?
- Status