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

[Joannm]

There used to be a sign at the entrance to St. Peter’s on dress code, a head covering was part of it.

This sign has been changed after Benedict XVI became Pope. The head covering is no longer on the list, nor are skirts for women or veils for sisters.

I’m sue that the Holy Father had nothing to do with this, as the Vatican State is run by the Secretary of State and there is a special office that takes care of the affairs of the Basilica itself.

JR

My first visit to the Basilica of St. Peter’s was in 1972. At that time we did not wear a head covering. We did have to wear a plastic raincoat type thing because our skirts were too short. I was agin in Rome in 1998 and we did not have to wear head coverings nor skirts. Again in 2004 the only restriction was short skirts or shorts (we wore slacks) and sleeveless tops. So this thing about the sign changing when Benedict became pope is hogwash.

 

[elt1956]

You’ve obviously never seen my calves…

Be still my heart! Peace.

 

[elt1956]

You’ve obviously never seen my calves…

My first visit to the Basilica of St. Peter’s was in 1972. At that time we did not wear a head covering. We did have to wear a plastic raincoat type thing because our skirts were too short. I was agin in Rome in 1998 and we did not have to wear head coverings nor skirts. Again in 2004 the only restriction was short skirts or shorts (we wore slacks) and sleeveless tops. So this thing about the sign changing when Benedict became pope is hogwash.

I am “pretty sure” a “lady” still has to wear a head covering for an audience with the Pope. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

Northern Illinois

I think it might be a gangsta thing, but the men and boys in question are not African American.

Kippah? Is that what those cute little skull caps are called? Is there another name for them? Seems I have heard of one.

Yeah Cat, the gangsta thing is a predominant attitude. When I was a bit of a girl, it was the girl and boy scounts. Peace.

 

[LilyM]

Kippah? Is that what those cute little skull caps are called? Is there another name for them? Seems I have heard of one.

Yeah Cat, the gangsta thing is a predominant attitude. When I was a bit of a girl, it was the girl and boy scounts. Peace.

The other name’d be yarmulke.

 

[elt1956]

The other name’d be yarmulke.

Thanks Lily. I knew it was something like that, but the only thing I could think of was mamulke and I don’t even know if that is a word. Peace.

 

[holdencaulfield]

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.

To say that women would not have to wear a head covering would contradict both the Infallible (Constant Magisterium) Tradition and Scripture of the Church. Thus anyone who says that a women should not wear a head covering is speaking fallibly and falsely.

 

[elt1956]

To say that women would not have to wear a head covering would contradict both the Infallible (Constant Magisterium) Tradition and Scripture of the Church. Thus anyone who says that a women should not wear a head covering is speaking fallibly and falsely.

In the “spirit of cooperation” I would not if it were “demanded” of me by anyone. As I have said before, if I were to attend TLM I would probably wear one as giving reverence to a great form of the Mass. Peace.

 

[holdencaulfield]

In the “spirit of cooperation” I would not if it were “demanded” of me by anyone. As I have said before, if I were to attend TLM I would probably wear one as giving reverence to a great form of the Mass. Peace.

Regardless they have not been abolished in the NO either, however were I a women I would not wear one to a NO, because I would not want to stick out. However they have never been abolished.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think that is as much of an issue as the notion (since I agree, unless the regulation is still in effect) that if the Church asks us to do something we don’t like, we’ll simply not do it (as was mentioned here).

That is a much larger issue; that of picking and choosing which rules to follow. That is unacceptable, don’t you agree?

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

 

[elt1956]

Regardless they have not been abolished in the NO either, however were I a women I would not wear one to a NO, because I would not want to stick out. However they have never been abolished.

Yes, the rule has been ignored by the curia and women who choose not to wear one.

 

[elt1956]

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

Wonderful J. R. exactly how I feel. Peace.

 

[JReducation]

My first visit to the Basilica of St. Peter’s was in 1972. At that time we did not wear a head covering. We did have to wear a plastic raincoat type thing because our skirts were too short. I was agin in Rome in 1998 and we did not have to wear head coverings nor skirts. Again in 2004 the only restriction was short skirts or shorts (we wore slacks) and sleeveless tops. So this thing about the sign changing when Benedict became pope is hogwash.

Joannm,

I didn’t really appreciate the part of hogwash. But I do accept the fact that you noticed the same thing that I did. I was there in the 70s and saw the raincoat thing and the sgn.

Then I was there last year and didn’t see either the sign or the raincoat thingys.

I stand corrected as to when it changed. But I’m glad that we agree that it changed.

JR

 

[Mister_De]

WHY is this such a big deal? A lot of minor issues are blown out of proportion in this forum.

It’s because there’s so many minor issues these days, and when other minor issues are added to the already existing list of minor issues, it becomes a big problem.

Think of it this way…

If you’re sitting in a classroom of 30 people, and one person starts calling you an idiot, it’s not a big deal. It’s a bit of an annoyance, but not a big deal. Then a second person joins in and starts calling you an idiot as well. Now you’re getting agitated, but can still deal with it. Then, all 30 people, as well as the teacher, start calling you an idiot. Now it’s just ridiculous, you’re furious and wish they would stop.

Do you see what I’m saying here?

When one tradition is thrown away, it’s not too big of a deal. It’s almost bearable. But when so many traditions are being thrown away like yesterdays garbage, even minor ones, it causes a much bigger concern.

I’m not known for good analogies, but that’s the best I can do.

 

[holdencaulfield]

It’s because there’s so many minor issues these days, and when other minor issues are added to the already existing list of minor issues, it becomes a big problem.

Think of it this way…

If you’re sitting in a classroom of 30 people, and one person starts calling you an idiot, it’s not a big deal. It’s a bit of an annoyance, but not a big deal. Then a second person joins in and starts calling you an idiot as well. Now you’re getting agitated, but can still deal with it. Then, all 30 people, as well as the teacher, start calling you an idiot. Now it’s just ridiculous, you’re furious and wish they would stop.

Do you see what I’m saying here?

When one tradition is thrown away, it’s not too big of a deal. It’s almost bearable. But when so many traditions are being thrown away like yesterdays garbage, even minor ones, it causes a much bigger concern.

I’m not known for good analogies, but that’s the best I can do.

I think you did fine.

 

[piouswoman]

If it was sinful for a woman to not wear headcovering, wouldn’t our Holy Father have thrown this woman out of church rather than give her Holy Communion?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/paulson/blog/18Rings-for-Cardinals.jpg

When I look at this picture, I can’t help but think how much nicer it would look if this woman were wearing a veil and a skirt or dress. What is there to define the dignity of this woman in pants and with a careless bare head in the presence of the Holy Father? Nothing I am afraid to say. What is there to define that she is Catholic? Again, nothing I am afraid to say.

 

[JReducation]

When I look at this picture, I can’t help but think how much nicer it would look if this woman were wearing a veil and a skirt or dress. What is there to define the dignity of this woman in pants and with a careless bare head in the presence of the Holy Father? Nothing I am afraid to say. What is there to define that she is Catholic? Again, nothing I am afraid to say.

As the saints would say, what defines her soul?

The fact that she has received the Body and Blood of her Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. That defines her as a Catholic.

JR

 

[LilyM]

When I look at this picture, I can’t help but think how much nicer it would look if this woman were wearing a veil and a skirt or dress. What is there to define the dignity of this woman in pants and with a careless bare head in the presence of the Holy Father? Nothing I am afraid to say. What is there to define that she is Catholic? Again, nothing I am afraid to say.

If the woman were wearing skirt or dress and HAT in pre-Vatican 2 times,(veils were never required per se and hats were waaaaaaaaay more common) then there would have been nothing THEN to distinguish her from non-Catholic Christian women who would also have worn, by and large, skirts, dresses and hats to church. And indeed most everywhere else.

Apart from the same thing which distinguishes the woman in this picture now - as the previous poster has said, she is receiving Our Lord from the hand of the Holy Father himself. Cant possibly get more Catholic than that, veiling or skirt or not. And what about all the men at Mass - nothing they wear has ever distinguished them as Catholic, apart from possibly the odd optional crucifix, miraculous medal or scapular.

 

[Jeanette_L]

When I look at this picture, I can’t help but think how much nicer it would look if this woman were wearing a veil and a skirt or dress. What is there to define the dignity of this woman in pants and with a careless bare head in the presence of the Holy Father? Nothing I am afraid to say. What is there to define that she is Catholic? Again, nothing I am afraid to say.

wow.

This sounds so much like personal preference to me, it’s alarming you are trying to pass it off as spiritually superior.

What do you think the poor and sickly multitudes looked like who followed Jesus around the country side day and night while he was tirelessly ministering to them? You think he even noticed their garb? I mean, for real, do you really think this is what matters to him? He who was stripped naked while hanging on that Cross for us?

What he sees is the heart of every man, woman and child that comes before him. You should try to see this as well, see with the eyes of Christ instead of the eyes of early 20th century culture that you can’t seem to let go of.

JR has a point, what makes this woman Catholic has nothing to do with appearance, but everything to do with Christ and her receiving Him, from the Pope nonetheless!

Recall the parable about the splinter and the beam…

 

[piouswoman]

As the saints would say, what defines her soul?

The fact that she has received the Body and Blood of her Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. That defines her as a Catholic.

JR

That may be, yet still I feel the same regardless of this post and those that quoted me and followed. You know, I have had it up to the ears with the politically correct jargon that is so evident today, and I feel that because I have stated an unpopular (by today’s standard) opinion, that I am targeted. Well, I will not back down from holding a true and clearly correct opinion that many wish to confuse with being a superior attitude. I can fairly say that I am being labeled judgmental, uncharitable, and narrow minded by others. The door swings both ways, people.