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

[JReducation]

The fact that she is receiving the Eucharist in no way makes her Catholic. Does the Pope have some Catholic vision to tell who isn’t? Most people know how to receive Communion. We can only hope that she isn’t Protestant (or Orthodox) because it would be a mortal sin for her to do that.

Holden, that’s not what the canons say. They do not say that it’s a sin. They say that non Catholics cannot receive communion, because the communion is not fully established. There is no mention of sin.

In fact, before Tony Blair became a Catholic he attended a private mass with his Catholic family (wife and kids) and other people. Pope Benedict gave him permission to receive communion on the grounds that it would be a violation of charity not to do so.

A year later or so, when Blair was received into full communion with the Church the Vatican stated that it would not ask Blair to recant his positions on abortion and homosexual marriages which he had espoused as Prime Minister. The Vatican’s only answer to the queston why not was to say that Blair still had some developing to do in the faith.

It was more of an MYOB answer.

This was in the papers, including the Observatore Romano. You can look it up.

The Holy Father was glad that Blair had become a Catholic and saw it as a great thing for Blair and his family, because his wife and children are Catholic. He also saw it as a great thing for the Anglican-Catholic dialogue, because it is a sign that prominent Anglicans are listening to the invitation of the Catholic Church to come home.

It was an occassion of great celebration. But it seems to have begun with the reception of the Eucharist, I don’t know this for a fact. But the timing coincided with Blair entering the RCIA under the local Catholic Bishop in London.

The facts are not clear as to whether he entered the RCIA first or received communion from the Pope first.

In any case, it is what it is. The Pope has the power to dispense with these canons and he did so. There is no sin inolved here. The canons do no mention sin. They mention full communion. They do make exceptions. You can check it out on the Vatican website under canon law and reception of the Eucharist by non Catholics.

JR

 

[LilyM]

Surely you understand that what you say is simply because the pope is in the picture. There is nothing in her appearance to define her as a Catholic…she could as well be a protestant, in any church, in any city, in any country. Sorry, but that is the underlining truth. It is what the church has been striving for these past forty years after all, to ecumenically blend in with all other faiths rather than to rightfully reign as the ONE TRUE FAITH, outside of which there is no salvation.

Bulldust - the men receiving from the Pope have nothing in their appearance to define them as Catholic. Are these men then not ‘real’ Catholics somehow? Are they being too ecumenical? Would you rather Catholics all just got crucifixes tatooed onto our foreheads at birth? To what purpose? So that you could stone or shoot those who didn’t or something?

What did Our Lady wear that defined her as different from any Jewish woman of her day? What did the Apostles wear to differentiate them from Jewish men? You have the wrong end of the stick if you think that there is anything about the appearance that makes the true follower of Christ.

 

[Indyann]

Holden, that’s not what the canons say. They do not say that it’s a sin. They say that non Catholics cannot receive communion, because the communion is not fully established. There is no mention of sin.

In fact, before Tony Blair became a Catholic he attended a private mass with his Catholic family (wife and kids) and other people. Pope Benedict gave him permission to receive communion on the grounds that it would be a violation of charity not to do so.

A year later or so, when Blair was received into full communion with the Church the Vatican stated that it would not ask Blair to recant his positions on abortion and homosexual marriages which he had espoused as Prime Minister. The Vatican’s only answer to the queston why not was to say that Blair still had some developing to do in the faith.

It was more of an MYOB answer.

This was in the papers, including the Observatore Romano. You can look it up.

The Holy Father was glad that Blair had become a Catholic and saw it as a great thing for Blair and his family, because his wife and children are Catholic. He also saw it as a great thing for the Anglican-Catholic dialogue, because it is a sign that prominent Anglicans are listening to the invitation of the Catholic Church to come home.

It was an occassion of great celebration. But it seems to have begun with the reception of the Eucharist, I don’t know this for a fact. But the timing coincided with Blair entering the RCIA under the local Catholic Bishop in London.

The facts are not clear as to whether he entered the RCIA first or received communion from the Pope first.

In any case, it is what it is. The Pope has the power to dispense with these canons and he did so. There is no sin inolved here. The canons do no mention sin. They mention full communion. They do make exceptions. You can check it out on the Vatican website under canon law and reception of the Eucharist by non Catholics.

JR

Thanks JR, I am sure this won’t silence some, but it is good to know the “whys”.

I had been wondering why this was allowed, but had never explored the reasons.

 

[pnewton]

Get used to it. I am classified as Ultra-Conservative by everyone I know. I am used to the bigotry that results from by beliefs by the liberal "humanists".

I here you. I too have been called many names here, including the two I bolded above. I see little value you in it myself.

 

[pnewton]

When our Holy Father St. Francis appeared before Pope Innocent III to request the confirmation of the rule for his new order he was thrown out of St. John Lateran, where the Pope lived, because he looked like a homeless man.
…Holiness is achieved through faith and charity. When I see this woman, I see a person of faith approaching the altar of charity to consume the food of hope for redemption.

What more can we ask and how much more Catholic can this get?

JR

I am reminded of what was revealed to our first pope.

From Acts 10

The next day, while they were on their way and nearing the city, Peter went up to the roof terrace to pray at about noontime. 7
10 He was hungry and wished to eat, and while they were making preparations he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered to the ground by its four corners. 12 In it were all the earth’s four-legged animals and reptiles and the birds of the sky. 13 A voice said to him, “Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean.” 15 The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.”

 

[allhers]

Very good JR, you are right. I had explored it all before and what you spoke was the truth. Sometimes I think we get way too wrapped up on certain things. I love our Holy Father and I thank God for him, he is the man I wanted after our dear John Paul the Great and I will always remember the happiness of that day that he was elected our Pope. As for head coverings, if you go to the Traditional Latin Mass it is required so probably it ought to be anyway, otherwise, why would they require it there? I am still exploring that one, but I have a feeling that we women all ought to be wearing veils at Mass, I understand that they aren’t required if it isn’t a TLM though and so my search continues. I love the way those in favor of the veil’s put it too, it makes so much sense.

 

[JReducation]

The Pope is worthy of respect. I think that Piouswoman was just showing her dislike of many things in the Church right now. However be glad that he have a good Pope like Benedict. We should be happy that we have him, he is a lot better than some other popes.

Holden, I don’t disagree with you that the Holy Father, whomever he is, is worthy of respect.

I am confused because on the one hand Piouswoman seems upset over the form of dress of the woman in the picture who is receiving communion from the Holy Father.

But on another post, she is upset with him because he gives communion to Protestants and is going to visit a Jewish temple in New York.

Basically, this is no win situation for both the Pope and the communicant.

On another subject, I did find that ruling on giving communion to non Catholics in the CCC

The judgement is left up to the Ordinary. An Ordinary is one of two persons, either a bishop in the case of secular clergy or the Provincial Superior in the case of a religious community. Keep in mind that in a religious community the Pronvincial Superior is an Ordinary, but he is never a bishop. Religious bishops are not allowed to be superiors in religious communities.

To make it clear. The Ordinary makes the judgement call and he may be a bishop or a Pronvicial Superior of a Religious congregation or order. In the case of a Provincial Superior his jurisdiction is limited to the priests in his community and to chapels and oratories that are attached to their religious houses, not to parishes. Parishes come under the bishop.

Here is the rule.

1401 When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.

Observe that the law does not define grave necessity. It’s up to the bishop to decide what is or is not a necessity. When then Cardinal Ratzinger gave communion to Brother Roger and later as Pope Benedict, he is a bishop and he has the authority to decide that there is a necessity.

As the Vatican said about the Blair case, the Holy Father felt that it was an act of charity. He decided that charity necessitated allowing Blair to receive communion. However, the rule also says that the communicant must believe what the Catholic Church believes regarding the sacraments. It does not require that the person be Catholic. There is not mention of sin.

Here is the other ruling of why it’s not ordinarilly done.

1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."

The wording is that it’s not possible, not that it’s sinful.

That’s why an Ordinary can make a judgement call, because there is no sin involved.

I hope this helps.

JR

 

[goofyjim]

As is your apparent lack of faith in your own Church.

But again, pick and choose as you see fit.

Well as someone pointed out crossdressing is a sin. So if the Pope directed us to sin that would be a ruling that our conscience would have to tell us to disobey. That is why blind obedience is scary. Failing to follow every little statement of the Pope would not be a lack of faith.

 

[JReducation]

Well as someone pointed out crossdressing is a sin. So if the Pope directed us to sin that would be a ruling that our conscience would have to tell us to disobey. That is why blind obedience is scary. Failing to follow every little statement of the Pope would not be a lack of faith.

I’m being silly here and I hope you are too.

According the rules of moral theology a sin requires three elements.

1. The matter must be grave (evil)
2. The individual must have full awareness (really understand, not just have memorized some rules that he doesn’t really understand)
3. The person must have the ability to choose (being under fire by others or psychological conditions can diminish culpability or eliminate it altogether, depending on how much one’s freedom is impaired)

Given this set of conditions for something to be a sin. Why is cross dressing a sin?

I’m not into it myself, but I don’t see it as evil and have never heard the Church say it was evil either. Who said this?

JR

 

[goofyjim]

I’m being silly here and I hope you are too.

According the rules of moral theology a sin requires three elements.

1. The matter must be grave (evil)
2. The individual must have full awareness (really understand, not just have memorized some rules that he doesn’t really understand)
3. The person must have the ability to choose (being under fire by others or psychological conditions can diminish culpability or eliminate it altogether, depending on how much one’s freedom is impaired)

Given this set of conditions for something to be a sin. Why is cross dressing a sin?

I’m not into it myself, but I don’t see it as evil and have never heard the Church say it was evil either. Who said this?

JR

Those are conditions for mortal sin. The Bible forbids crossdressing so why any Pope would ever command us to go against the Bible, I haven’t the foggiest notion. And if he did I would disobey. My faith would be intact.

 

[allhers]

yes mortal sin is grave matter, full knowledge and complete consent.

 

[Spiller]

Surely you understand that what you say is simply because the pope is in the picture. There is nothing in her appearance to define her as a Catholic…she could as well be a protestant, in any church, in any city, in any country. Sorry, but that is the underlining truth. It is what the church has been striving for these past forty years after all, to ecumenically blend in with all other faiths rather than to rightfully reign as the ONE TRUE FAITH, outside of which there is no salvation.

You are simply making a foolish statement if you are even hinting that she is not dressed in a manner perfectly suited to receive communion and/or that a veil/hat/skirt would make her any more of a Catholic.

 

[wraithx]

Given this set of conditions for something to be a sin. Why is cross dressing a sin?

I’m not into it myself, but I don’t see it as evil and have never heard the Church say it was evil either. Who said this?

JR

goofyjim is correct:

“A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.” Deuteronomy 22:5

 

[JReducation]

goofyjim is correct:

“A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God.” Deuteronomy 22:5

That citation has deeper meaning than cross dressing. It had to do with pagan practices that involved sexuality.

For example, it would not apply to women wearing pants in western culture or men wearing robes in eastern cultures, or kilts.

If you took it very literally, one could say that women wearing pants are cross dressing.

Actually, in ancient Judaism, there was not much difference between women’s clothes and men’s clothes among the poor classes. Poor women didn’t have the money for the jewelry and trinkets that the wealthy wormen wore. The clothing was pretty similar, a tunic with some kind of head covering.

You see how this was deeper than the actual clothing?

Again, I’m not advocating cross dressing. I was just wondering if the Church ever taught such a thing, because I have never seen it in moral theology books or other Church writings.

Even in the Church among certain religious orders, the habits were almost identical between men and women in the older orders. If you look at a Dominican habit, the nuns and the friars wear the same bottom part. The difference is that the friars have a capuche and the nuns a veil. From the neck down it’s the exact same habit, as with the Carmelites and the Poor Clars and the Capuchins. There is a reson why the nuns wore the veils and not a capuche. In the past, the nuns shaved their hair off to avoid vanity. The veil was a symbol of virginity. The friars only shaved the center of the head, called a tonsure. They covered it with a kippah.

That’s why bishops and popes wear kippahs. Most of them used to be religious once upon a time. Today most of them are secular priests. In fact the Pope’s robes are a modification of the Dominican habit. It came from a Dominican pope.

So I was wondering about this cross dress rule, because I know that the Church has had many forms of dress among clergy, relgious and the laity from different cultures. The only rule I ever heard of was modesty in dress and simplicity, which applied to clerics, religious and lay people of any culture.

JR

 

[wraithx]

For example, it would not apply to women wearing pants in western culture or men wearing robes in eastern cultures, or kilts.

If you took it very literally, one could say that women wearing pants are cross dressing.

I didn’t say that Literally it says men wearing women’s clothing and vice versa - in the West, women’s clothing includes dresses and skirts and men’s does not - therefore it does still apply to men in frocks. As for women in trousers - let us not go there

As for the Church view on it - it was a very serious issue at St Joan’s trial (even though the Bishop was evil and the trial ultimately a farce) - the Church did teach that it was sinful for a women to wear men’s clothing.

 

[Spiller]

No wonder some people have zero credibility within the Church…

 

[elt1956]

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.

Some souls suffer from another kind of spiritual anger. They watch over others with a kind of restless fervour, perpetually annoyed by the transgressions they perceive." St John of the Cross

 

[LilyM]

Well as someone pointed out crossdressing is a sin. So if the Pope directed us to sin that would be a ruling that our conscience would have to tell us to disobey. That is why blind obedience is scary. Failing to follow every little statement of the Pope would not be a lack of faith.

She’s not crossdressing at all - she isn’t wearing attire that is designed for men. The design of suits and slacks for men as opposed to women is very different and she is very clearly wearing a jacket and trousers designed for a woman’s figure, not a man’s.

 

[Cat]

Wearing dresses/skirts and veiling does not make a woman look “Catholic.”

I know of several Protestant denominations where women are required to wear dresses, and required to cover their heads.

To me, dresses and headcoverings don’t look “Catholic,” they look “fundamentalist Protestant” because that’s the tradition I am familiar with.

 

[Phemie]

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.

From what I’ve seen a Southern Baptist woman would probably fit your ideal of what the Catholic woman at Mass should look like.