Is the Vatican close to clearing up the issue on the requirements for headcoverings?

[wraithx]

goofyjim: sorry - I didn’t realise you were not a Catholic - if I had have realised that I wouldn’t have bothered replying because none of the evidence I gave you would interest or convince a non-Catholic. So, sorry about that.

 

[goofyjim]

goofyjim: sorry - I didn’t realise you were not a Catholic - if I had have realised that I wouldn’t have bothered replying because none of the evidence I gave you would interest or convince a non-Catholic. So, sorry about that.

I am Catholic. So a nice snide remark like that is unnecessary. I just don’t consider the need for females to wear a head covering as falling under the realm of morality. And I haven’t heard the voice of God come down and send any one to hell for not doing so. I go back to that ridiculous statement that if the pope said men have to come to church inskirts he would do it. I wouldn’t.

 

[wraithx]

But Catholics believe in sacred Tradition and that that, and Scripture are the full deposit of the faith - you are denying that - my comment was not intended to be snide - you are stating that you do not believe fundamental tenets of the Catholic Faith so I automatically presumed you were not Catholic.

“And I haven’t heard the voice of God come down and send any one to hell for not doing so.”

When has this ever happened? It hasn’t - so your argument is utterly void and, frankly, you can use it to pick and choose any part of the Holy Church’s teachings that you like…

Furthermore, I gave you Biblical proof that the wearing of veils is mandated by God Himself - you are questioning God. The letter to the Corinthians is in the Bible - we don’t follow the gospels and ignore the rest. I quoted the word of God to you and you won’t accept it. I can do no more. I am now leaving this discussion.

 

[goofyjim]

But Catholics believe in sacred Tradition and that that, and Scripture are the full deposit of the faith - you are denying that - my comment was not intended to be snide - you are stating that you do not believe fundamental tenets of the Catholic Faith so I automatically presumed you were not Catholic.

“And I haven’t heard the voice of God come down and send any one to hell for not doing so.”

When has this ever happened? It hasn’t - so your argument is utterly void and, frankly, you can use it to pick and choose any part of the Holy Church’s teachings that you like…

Furthermore, I gave you Biblical proof that the wearing of veils is mandated by God Himself - you are questioning God. The letter to the Corinthians is in the Bible - we don’t follow the gospels and ignore the rest. I quoted the word of God to you and you won’t accept it. I can do no more. I am now leaving this discussion.

Well if the pope told me I had to wear a skirt to mass I wouldn’t because I could prove through scripture that a man wearing women’s clothing is worng. Does everyone miss the part that with God there is no male or female, etc. etc. etc.? Why then do we hold to traditions which treat women as inferior to men? This is why I question the practice of head coverings. If you were to take Paul’s suggestions to the extreme we would never get married and the human race would die out.

 

[wraithx]

“Let wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord; because a husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church” (Eph. 5:22-23).

“But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces here head, for it is the same as if she were shaven.” (1 Cor. 11:5)

“For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

“Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (I Timothy 2:11-14)

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

 

[Mister_De]

I simplu use hyperbole to stress a point. Wearing a head covering for the females is a legalistic manmade ritual that should be questioned. In the same way as if the Vatican told us we had to go to war and kill someone. I would question that as well. Not everything Rome tells us has to be followed to the t just to establish obedience. That would be blind obedience which is ridiculous.

I had no idea wearing a hat was to be as seriously questioned as murder.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Interesting thread. I felt the desire to start wearing a mantilla to church a couple of months ago. I kept telling myself I was just being silly or longing for an unimportant custom/tradition. I started shopping for a mantilla - online and in Catholic stores. All the time questioning myself & my motives. I finally bought one. Then wondered if I had the nerve to wear it. I was afraid that I might get a “holier than thou” reaction. Wore for the first time to mass on Holy Thursday. I haven’t had any reactions… to my face anyway. But I felt that people must have thought that I was quite a sinner to be humbling myself so much. It does make me feel more respectful & reverent.( not like the kleenex & bobby pin of my youth). So I like it for me. It’s like putting on something special for the Lord.

Bless you. It encourages me whenever anyone is willing to take a step toward reverence. Nothing else matters.

CDL

 

[goofyjim]

“Let wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord; because a husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church” (Eph. 5:22-23).

“But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces here head, for it is the same as if she were shaven.” (1 Cor. 11:5)

“For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

“Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (I Timothy 2:11-14)

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

So for the sake of all those passages you ignore the one about there being no male or female, no slave or freeman, no Gentile or Jew for all are one in Christ Jesus. Okay throw the scripture verses back and forth. The devil tried this aginst our Lord in the desert. It didn’t work. If we are all one in Christ there must then be new order of equality. If we are equal partners in humanity then why follow the rest of the stuff?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I simplu use hyperbole to stress a point. Wearing a head covering for the females is a legalistic manmade ritual that should be questioned. In the same way as if the Vatican told us we had to go to war and kill someone. I would question that as well. Not everything Rome tells us has to be followed to the t just to establish obedience. That would be blind obedience which is ridiculous.

Why do you think that arguing and disobedience is so important to your identity?

CDL

 

[goofyjim]

I had no idea wearing a hat was to be as seriously questioned as murder.

And I never had any idea, and still don’t, that this is sacred tradition rather than human tradition.

 

[wraithx]

I believe it is best summed up in this phrase: “equal in dignity, different in function”.

Women are equal to men, but functionally we have different roles in life. If you don’t believe that, the quotes I included above are contradicting what you say - because the Bible can’t contradict itself, all must be considered together. Therefore, if God says we are all equal, but then also tells us that a wife must be submissive to her husband, God is telling us that we have equality but different functions (as summed up in the phrase I quoted at the top).

Remember, God made the statements I posted, as he also made the one you refer to - protestants would take the bit that suits and ignore the rest - we don’t do that - we understand the whole truth. For that reason, the Church has ALWAYS requested that women cover their heads in prayer. Your idea of not doing so is definitely not based in scripture or tradition.

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

 

[goofyjim]

Why do you think that arguing and disobedience is so important to your identity?

CDL

I refer back to that insane comment that if the pope told the one poster he had to come to mass in a skirt he would do because of obedience. That kind of blind obedience is frightening.

 

[goofyjim]

Goodbye.

 

[wraithx]

I refer back to that insane comment that if the pope told the one poster he had to come to mass in a skirt he would do because of obedience. That kind of blind obedience is frightening.

You are right on this for sure - it is not in Tradition than men wear women’s clothing (in fact it is contrary to it) - therefore, the man is actually obliged to disobey the Pope.

The wearing of the veil, however, is rooted in both Scripture and Tradition - I think you could even say that a Pope who demanded that a woman not do it, ought to be disobeyed as well. At present, no Pope has demanded it - they have simply omitted to mention it in the most recent code of Canon Law (you can see my comments above regarding the status of that with regards to the previous code).

 

[Cat]

So what some of you are saying is that

1. Christian women who don’t wear headcoverings in the presence of the Lord are in sin because they are disobeying the Lord’s commandment.

and

1. The Holy Mother Church is promoting sin because she has lifted the requirement to veil.

Is this what you are saying?

 

[Cat]

On a practical note, if some of you women wish to start a devotional practice like this, but feel a little intimidated, why not discuss it among some of the women you know at your parish. It might be easier if you all start at the same time and not feel like you stick out so much. You might even consider selling coverings outside Mass for some cause and promoting the practice. Just a couple of suggestions.

Unless you are “selling” online as a private business, in our diocese, you would probably have to get permission to do this anywhere near your church. I think that permission might be denied because it would cause confusion. After all, the Church has lifted the requirement for women to wear veils, so why encourage women to cover their heads?

 

[Cat]

When I was in church yesterday, I saw something that touched me and would possibly end some of these debates.

A saintly woman (I chatted with her in the bathroom–very sweet and friendly) with at least ten grown children (all were attending Mass with her) was wearing a “babushka” or “kerchief.”

It was pretty ugly by U.S. standards. But it covered her head. And it didn’t call attention to her, since many older women still wear babushkas in cool weather.

I couldn’t help but think of this thread when I saw her.

I realize that there are some who wear a beautiful veil to symbolize that they are the “bride of Christ,” but we aren’t individual brides of Christ unless we are religious sisters. The Scripture nowhere says that the headcovering should be “beautiful.” I’ve never seen a religious sister wearing a “beautiful” veil. Is there such a thing?

So if you want to humble yourself, consider the babushka. It will not call attention to you, and it will accomplish the goal of headcovering.

 

[wraithx]

Cat:

1. I simply cannot answer that as I am not God - I believe that at present, due to so many abuses in the Church, that a woman would need to consider this and make the decision on her own.
2. Holy Mother Church has not lifted the requirement (and in fact, can’t - it is too deeply rooted in tradition). The code of Canon law does not mention it (though the previous one did), and the earlier canons I quoted suggest that the old code laws are still in force (these quotes are taken from the NEW code):

Canon 20 A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

Canon 21 In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.

Canon 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Canon 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

For reference, here is Canon 5
Can. 5 §1. Universal or particular customs presently in force which are contrary to the prescripts of these canons and are reprobated by the canons of this Code are absolutely suppressed and are not permitted to revive in the future. Other contrary customs are also considered suppressed unless the Code expressly provides otherwise or unless they are centenary or immemorial customs which can be tolerated if, in the judgment of the ordinary, they cannot be removed due to the circumstances of places and persons.

§2. Universal or particular customs beyond the law (praeter ius) which are in force until now are preserved.

As someone else said earlier, Bugnini was misquoted in the press which lead to many women throwing off their veils - the Church released a statement to say that the law had NOT been changed and was still in force. Then with the new code, no mention was made of it - therefore one can presume it remains in force today.

 

[wraithx]

cat: I think the babushka is a great idea - this is what I saw most frequently as a child (even though I was schooled and raised in the new Mass, it was soon enough after that a lot of the older women were still very traditionally minded). I think that the veil is of course not necessary - but I do believe head covering of some kind is - but we should obviously use what is most natural in our place. My own mother wears a beret when she goes to Mass because she wears a hat when she goes out during the day. It is her natural outdoor clothing so she has it handy when attending Mass.

The mantilla is probably handy for many women who don’t normally wear hats now - as it can be conveniently left in the handbag for when it is needed.

 

[elt1956]

So now you have established that it was set up by the early Church. It is in the Ten Commandments? Did Jesus ever require it in the Gospels? I feel it needs to be questioned. If you could find any biblical evidence for a guy wearing a skirt to mass and the pope told us we had to do it I would act in blatant defiance and not wear a skirt to mass.

“But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.” 1 Corinthians 11:5

St. Paul had a reeeeeeeeeel atitude about some things. Peace.