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

  • Thread starter Thread starter ericcantona71
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is an interesting thread to follow. I have a couple of questions, if they are off topic, please tell me so and feel free not to answer.
  1. It is my understanding that the tradition of women covering their heads in church is tied directly to the tradition of men not doing so. In the days of yore, a man’s hat was a symbol of his power and a source of pride. To humble himself in the presence of the Lord, upon entering a church he removed it. Likewise, a woman’s hair was a source of pride (not sure about the power part though) and as a sign of humbleness, it too was covered in the presence of the Lord. Does anyone know if this is true?
  2. If the above is true, and the regulation was removed for women, why can’t all men (not just clergy) wear hats in church?
  3. If wearing a veil, mantilla, etc. is a symbol (or result?) of male dominance over and/or chauvinism towards women, why is it most little girls’ dream to wear one on her wedding day?
 
He_Man said:
But why would our opinion of it matter, if Rome spoke?

There are probably people who think it is wrong for women NOT to be onligated to wear a mantia. But their opinion isn’t relevant either right now.
Click to expand...
Fact is…Rome never really spoke, but by their silence they spoke volumes as to their true modernist intent to destroy an age old tradition of the church.

tldm.org/news6/veils.htm
 
jkarp said:
This is an interesting thread to follow. I have a couple of questions, if they are off topic, please tell me so and feel free not to answer.
  1. It is my understanding that the tradition of women covering their heads in church is tied directly to the tradition of men not doing so. In the days of yore, a man’s hat was a symbol of his power and a source of pride. To humble himself in the presence of the Lord, upon entering a church he removed it. Likewise, a woman’s hair was a source of pride (not sure about the power part though) and as a sign of humbleness, it too was covered in the presence of the Lord. Does anyone know if this is true?
Click to expand...
This is how I heard it too. That’s why I can’t decide whether to get a mantilla or not. If it’s a sign of humility, why make it so fancy? They are beautiful, but since they call attention to the wearer they seem to defeat their purpose.🤷 Maybe a little hat or a simple scarf would be better. But if it’s not required, and I haven’t heard anyone say it is or soon will be, why worry about what other people wear?
 
Piouswoman, do you really want to link to a site on the unapproved (actually disapproved) Bayside "apparitions’?

John
 
strngrnrth said:
This is how I heard it too. That’s why I can’t decide whether to get a mantilla or not. If it’s a sign of humility, why make it so fancy? They are beautiful, but since they call attention to the wearer they seem to defeat their purpose.🤷 Maybe a little hat or a simple scarf would be better. But if it’s not required, and I haven’t heard anyone say it is or soon will be, why worry about what other people wear?
Click to expand...
In summary, the reasons St. Paul advises women to cover their heads in church are:
  1. Our Lord commanded it;
  2. it is a visible sign of an invisible order established by God;
  3. The angels at Mass are offended if women don’t use it;
  4. it is a ceremonial vestment;
  5. it is our heritage.

    Christian women around the world have other reasons to wear a hat, mantilla, rebozo, gele, scarf, shawl, or veil. Some wear it out of respect to God; others, to obey the Pope’s request, or continue family traditions. But the most important reason of all is because Our Lord said: “If you love me keep my commandments.” (John 14:15).
    We should always be ready with our bridal veils, waiting for him and the promised wedding (Apoc. 22:17), following the example of our Blessed Mother Mary, who never appeared before the eyes of men but properly veiled.
    To those who still think that the veil is an obsolete custom, remember that: “Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday and today, yes, and forever.” (Heb. 13:8).
It is an honor to wear a beautiful veil, and one should pick their finest to wear before Our Lord.
 
John_Higgins said:
Piouswoman, do you really want to link to a site on the unapproved (actually disapproved) Bayside "apparitions’?

John
Click to expand...
I don’t mind, I think that the explanation and information on veiling is excellent. I don’t know much about Bayside myself and don’t put stock in it, still the veiling link is perfectly correct.
 
piouswoman said:
I don’t mind, I think that the explanation and information on veiling is excellent. I don’t know much about Bayside myself and don’t put stock in it, still the veiling link is perfectly correct.
Click to expand...
Supposedly, the apparitions were actually of Satan. 🤷

I haven’t really looked into it though…
 
I am 24 years old and recently converted to Catholicism. I consider myself a feminist and was anti Catholic for the longest time b/c I thought women were considered “lower” like several protestant denominations. I am now proud to say that I wear my mantilla without shame or thinking i’m doing it b/c I’m a lowly female. I love wearing it b/c it shows my love and respect and reverence for Christ. I am in the presence of Christ who is God. naturally i would want my head covered and men should want to as well…lol but they aren’t lucky enough 😛 just kidding guys. Only two or three other women wear it so I really stand out. I’m hoping the trend comes back and women can wear them without getting up in arms about it. There is another post regarding this issue that is really helpful

Another note is that is covers the side of my face so I’m not as tempted to look around at other people and I’m able to focus on the important things going on.
 
piouswoman said:
In summary, the reasons St. Paul advises women to cover their heads in church are:
  1. Our Lord commanded it;
  2. it is a visible sign of an invisible order established by God;
  3. The angels at Mass are offended if women don’t use it;
  4. it is a ceremonial vestment;
  5. it is our heritage.

    Christian women around the world have other reasons to wear a hat, mantilla, rebozo, gele, scarf, shawl, or veil. Some wear it out of respect to God; others, to obey the Pope’s request, or continue family traditions. But the most important reason of all is because Our Lord said: “If you love me keep my commandments.” (John 14:15).
    We should always be ready with our bridal veils, waiting for him and the promised wedding (Apoc. 22:17), following the example of our Blessed Mother Mary, who never appeared before the eyes of men but properly veiled.
    To those who still think that the veil is an obsolete custom, remember that: “Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday and today, yes, and forever.” (Heb. 13:8).
It is an honor to wear a beautiful veil, and one should pick their finest to wear before Our Lord.
Click to expand...
:highprayer: Peace.
 
goofyjim said:
So if Rome told you to jump off a bridge would you do that? Some things are meant to be questioned and not blindly followed.
Click to expand...
In 2000 years no pope ever directed the faithful to jump off any bridges, yet this absurd scenario pops up every few weeks here. I admire those who follow the biblical principle of submission from Hebrews 13:17.
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Click to expand...
I think most of us can understand the difference when an instruction is within the scope of authority or not.

As to the change in Canon Law, I heard a canon lawyer who was a bishop state that the new code replaces the old one totally. Therefore headcoverings were not required.

Has anyone seen any link or article as to anything the Vatican may do in regards to headcoverings or was that just a hook to get this thread started?
 
LilyM said:
Mind you, said Mary would’ve worn a veil at all times herself, but I don’t think she much minds either way.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute!

Let’s not make a moral issue out of that which is not.

Mary covered her head for the same reason that most women in the Middle East do.
  1. To keep the head clean.
  2. To keep cool.
  3. Adult women cover their entire bodies in a shroud (see Muslim women) to protect them from cat call from men.
  4. Jews, men and women, cover their heads to remind them that God should always be on their minds. That’s where our religious got the kippah from.
The reason that bishops wear a kippah is that in the past, most of them came from religioius orders. The kippah was a carry-over from Judaism that the first religious in the desert wore and the women religous wore veils, like all Jewish women.

But it had nothing to do with rubrics, even in Judaism. Jewish women today no longer cover their heads, only men.

JR 🙂
 
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.
 
wraithx said:
Erm… well - you don’t know me so you don’t know how I feel about that “venerable custom” you refer to. First of all - priestly celibacy was recommended from day 1 in the Church - though it was not obligatory. Secondly, the Eastern Rite priests still marry, and there are even some Western Rite priests who are married.

I am not suggesting that older is better - I am suggesting that novelty is bad - removing the veils after 1,900 years for no reason at all is novelty - it is not the result of a natural growth.
Click to expand...
I can understand why priestly celibacy was recommended. I can’t remember the year when it became tradition but I do remember reading about it. The sudden change from married priests who had families to support to celibate priests must have caused much sorrow and chaos with both the families and the church. Did the church help support the families of the priests who could no longer support them? I would imagine not. I’m not saying celibacy was wrong, just could and should have been handled better and a bit more lovingly.

As for women having to wear veils to Mass, we were/are women of Western society and not Eastern. Lovely tradition, but not necessary.
 
elt1956: there was no sudden change - you are confused over this because of the Second Lateran Council. The rule as it has always been in the Church (and currently still is) is that a man who is married may become a priest (but never a Bishop). BUT, a priest may never get married.

Lateran II came after a schism in order to fix the abuses of the anti-Pope Anacletus II’s followers - the abuse was that their clergy were taking wives. The only thing Lateran II did was make it clear that a priest can not marry once he is a priest. Here are the two pertinent canons from the council:
  1. We also decree that those in the orders of subdeacon and above who have taken wives or concubines are to be deprived of their position and ecclesiastical benefice. For since they ought to be in fact and in name temples of God, vessels of the Lord and sanctuaries of the holy Spirit, it is unbecoming that they give themselves up to marriage and impurity.
  2. Adhering to the path trod by our predecessors, the Roman pontiffs Gregory VII, Urban and Paschal, we prescribe that nobody is to hear the masses of those whom he knows to have wives or concubines. Indeed, that the law of continence and the purity pleasing to God might be propagated among ecclesiastical persons and those in holy orders, we decree that where bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks and professed lay brothers have presumed to take wives and so transgress this holy precept, they are to be separated from their partners. For we do not deem there to be a marriage which, it is agreed, has been contracted against ecclesiastical law. Furthermore, when they have separated from each other, let them do a penance commensurate with such outrageous behaviour.
Full text of the council is here: legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM10.HTM

As for veils - they were the custom of Western women from before the time of Christ up until during the Second Vatican Council when Bugnini’s comment was misquoted by the press and liberated women began ditching them en masse (despite the long history and tradition - and in fact, the force of law at the time).

It is not obligatory now - I agree, because the new code of Canon Law omitted any mention of it - but the fact remains, it IS the tradition of the West - not just the East.
 
pnewton said:
In 2000 years no pope ever directed the faithful to jump off any bridges, yet this absurd scenario pops up every few weeks here. I admire those who follow the biblical principle of submission from Hebrews 13:17. I think most of us can understand the difference when an instruction is within the scope of authority or not.

As to the change in Canon Law, I heard a canon lawyer who was a bishop state that the new code replaces the old one totally. Therefore headcoverings were not required.

Has anyone seen any link or article as to anything the Vatican may do in regards to headcoverings or was that just a hook to get this thread started?
Click to expand...
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.
 
goofyjim:

“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

“If any seem to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him know the things that I write to you, that they are the commandments of the Lord” 1 Corinthians 14:7

It is ordained by God Himself. Following that, it was a perpetual custom until mid-Vatican II when a misrepresentation of a statement by Bugnini lead to women disregarding the veil.

Additionally, as far as I can see in Canon Law, the 1917 rule has not been replaced and it is therefore still active (see new Code canons 5, 20, 21, 27, 28).
 
wraithx said:
goofyjim:

“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

“If any seem to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him know the things that I write to you, that they are the commandments of the Lord” 1 Corinthians 14:7

It is ordained by God Himself. Following that, it was a perpetual custom until mid-Vatican II when a misrepresentation of a statement by Bugnini lead to women disregarding the veil.

Additionally, as far as I can see in Canon Law, the 1917 rule has not been replaced and it is therefore still active (see new Code canons 5, 20, 21, 27, 28).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top