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

[pnewton]

You don’t seem to have any respect for tradition. Cultural tradition is very important and it has ALWAYS been the tradition of the Church throughout the ages, .

The is type of statement is known as a bait and switch. You argued the rules as in "where is is written.’ When Spillars pointed out correctly that it is not written that they are mandated, you switched arguments entirely on him, now pleading tradition.

On this topic, I can easily respond that cultural tradition is in fact, based on culture. The Catholic Church has always respected the culture in which it ministers. The reality is that the culture in the U.S. is not the same as medival Europe, or even as it was fifty years ago. Culture is a poor argument in this day, as hats and hearcoverings are not considered a sign of respect for women any more.

 

[srdeborah]

Hi this is not to start another thread on headcoverings, on whether they are required or not.

But rather I heard awhile on this forum that were some rumblings in the Vatican, in regards to clearing up this issue. As anyone got any thoughts on how Rome is looking at this? Or maybe they still see it as a minor issue?

 

[Marsha_Adams]

OK OK, I will fess up my error. I thought this was a non-issue, that is until I saw this post. Most clearly, this action of physically removing the veil was wrong. In my wildest dreams, I would not have believed that people felt this strongly about this issue. In this instance, perhaps something needs to be said to the pastor. This almost sounds like childlike tattling, but I truly would not know how else to respond to this. Either that or talk to the person who did this. Maybe that would help. I certainly would not do it confrontationally, but rather in an inquiring manner as to why?
Prayers & blessings, especially to both of yous. If you approach it this way, I certainly would like to know the outcome.
Deacon Ed B

I have not ever witnessed it myself, but I have repeatedly heard of women who wore veils/mantillas being refused communion by the priest. So, I would say that yes, it is a real issue.

 

[piouswoman]

The is type of statement is known as a bait and switch. You argued the rules as in "where is is written.’ When Spillars pointed out correctly that it is not written that they are mandated, you switched arguments entirely on him, now pleading tradition.

On this topic, I can easily respond that cultural tradition is in fact, based on culture. The Catholic Church has always respected the culture in which it ministers. The reality is that the culture in the U.S. is not the same as medival Europe, or even as it was fifty years ago. Culture is a poor argument in this day, as hats and hearcoverings are not considered a sign of respect for women any more.

Actually it is not a bait and switch statement…that is a new one on me. You say that spiller has pointed out correctly that it is not written, and yet you ignore that I have pointed out correctly that it was never written that women could** stop **using the veil.

 

[piouswoman]

I have not ever witnessed it myself, but I have repeatedly heard of women who wore veils/mantillas being refused communion by the priest. So, I would say that yes, it is a real issue.

Sort of like the modernist priests that refuse to give communion to those who kneel, sort of like the modernist priests who discourage or refuse to administer communion on the tongue.

 

[beckers]

OK OK, I will fess up my error. I thought this was a non-issue, that is until I saw this post. Most clearly, this action of physically removing the veil was wrong. In my wildest dreams, I would not have believed that people felt this strongly about this issue. In this instance, perhaps something needs to be said to the pastor. This almost sounds like childlike tattling, but I truly would not know how else to respond to this. Either that or talk to the person who did this. Maybe that would help. I certainly would not do it confrontationally, but rather in an inquiring manner as to why?
Prayers & blessings, especially to both of yous. If you approach it this way, I certainly would like to know the outcome.
Deacon Ed B

I have asked her and i have to admit that I misunderstood her the first time so please take my apologize as the women did not physically remove her veil like I believed and incorrectly posted. My original point was that some women may feel like they are going into battle because they have had bad confrontation but I used second hand knowledge of a story to clarify that point. Please accept my apologize and here is what she said happened.

“I was in austin over the weekend w/ M & J, and we were the only girls at the ucc w/ veils on, as usual. there was this chick, though, who was doing a piece for her journalism class on modesty in religion, so she was interviewing J and taking pics of her and whatnot, and this middle age woman came up to J and Me after Mass and asked why we were wearing veils. So J gives her the rundown of the answers we’re all accustomed to providing people, since this is a common occurrence, and then this woman goes off on us! Your usual, “i was FORCED to wear a veil, and when vatican II DID AWAY WITH THEM, it was a good thing. Even the nuns thought so! They totally make women INFERIOR to what’s going on on the altar. So when i see young women now actually choosing to wear one, IT MAKES ME SICK INSIDE. I’m not trying to put you down or anything, but i thought i should let you know how i feel. and if you’re doing it FOR ATTENTION, that’s the worst of all. That’s HORRIBLE. Unfortunately, i couldn’t bring myself to say anything to her because i was immediately ridiculously upset w/ her, so i just looked over her shoulder and prayed the Hail Mary until the conversation was over. J, however, did a great job of standing up for us and explaining that this was a devotion we had, and perhaps not all devotions are for everyone, and it was unfortunate that the woman felt that way.”

 

[LilyM]

I have to say, I really didn’t think anyone would go so far as to take out their frustrations in the form of abuse of veil-wearers or denying them communion

Certainly awful that this should be the case - having said that, it’s no reason for women who do veil to blast those who don’t, as piouswoman has been doing.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Thank you Beckers and thank you Lord. We still have some sanity in the world. If this was a UT journalist student, the liberality must have been thick.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Spiller]

Sort of like the modernist priests that refuse to give communion to those who kneel, sort of like the modernist priests who discourage or refuse to administer communion on the tongue.

There you go again. You have been shown that the Church neither condemns nor requires a woman to cover their heads.

NOW you spin to “modernist priests” and communion on the tongue. This has nothing to do with covering one’s head. It’s inflammatory. All you are trying to do is misdirect and obfuscate – and it’s not fooling anyone.

That tactic is sooo common on this forum.

 

[Spiller]

Actually it is not a bait and switch statement…that is a new one on me. You say that spiller has pointed out correctly that it is not written, and yet you ignore that I have pointed out correctly that it was never written that women could** stop **using the veil.

This is a bait and switch. Anyways:

When the 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated, it did not include Canon #1262 from the older 1917 version which formerly required women to cover their heads at Mass. Canon #6 of the new 1983 Code abrogated #1262 along with every other Canon of the 1917 Code that was not intentionally incorporated into the 1983 update.

***ab·ro·gate **

1. to abolish by formal or official means; annul by an authoritative act; repeal: to abrogate a law.
2. to put aside; put an end to.*

Done deal. Your claim is baseless.

 

[piouswoman]

This is a bait and switch. Anyways:

When the 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated, it did not include Canon #1262 from the older 1917 version which formerly required women to cover their heads at Mass. Canon #6 of the new 1983 Code abrogated #1262 along with every other Canon of the 1917 Code that was not intentionally incorporated into the 1983 update.

***ab·ro·gate ***

1. to abolish by formal or official means; annul by an authoritative act; repeal: to abrogate a law.
2. to put aside; put an end to.

Done deal. Your claim is baseless.

Sorry, but as a traditional Catholic I choose to not assist at the NEW MASS, to continue to use the pre-Vatican II catechism, to follow the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Amen.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Sorry, but as a traditional Catholic I choose to not assist at the NEW MASS, to continue to use the pre-Vatican II catechism, **to follow the 1917 Code of Canon Law. **Amen.

And your reason is???
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[piouswoman]

And your reason is???
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B

Because it is more orthodox, and is in line with traditional Catholicism in the nearly two thousand year history of the Church as opposed to the last forty some years of novelty.
Following the older rules of the Church such as fasting rules, requires more discipline and helps me to be a better Catholic. As well, my focus in life is more spiritual, more God centered rather than caught up in worldly matters. I’d rather practice my faith to the fullest rather than skate by doing the least I can do.

 

[LilyM]

Because it is more orthodox, and is in line with traditional Catholicism in the nearly two thousand year history of the Church as opposed to the last forty some years of novelty.
Following the older rules of the Church such as fasting rules, requires more discipline and helps me to be a better Catholic. As well, my focus in life is more spiritual, more God centered rather than caught up in worldly matters. I’d rather practice my faith to the fullest rather than skate by doing the least I can do.

Following an old code of Canon Law as if it still applied today, is like following a 90-year-old code of road rules - in short, dangerous. Canon Law has been updated, and for very good reason, and moreover the new Code is binding on you and every other Catholic just as much as the current road rules are, rather than those of 1917.

You and I (and I certainly make every effort not to ‘skate by’ in any aspect of my faith life) can go above and beyond all we like, but we can’t pretend that currently binding Canon Law doesn’t exist or matter.

How about rather than pine for how things used to be, ask WHY the Holy Spirit prompted the powers that be to write a new Code of Canon Law? Such a major thing certainly doesn’t happen without His involvement.

 

[Corki]

Sorry, but as a traditional Catholic I choose to not assist at the NEW MASS, to continue to use the pre-Vatican II catechism, to follow the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Amen.

That’s fine as far as it goes. But there are items in the new Code of Canon Law that are binding on all Catholics, traditional and other. You can’t use the 1917 alone. Most items in Canon Law don’t refer to personal actions anyway. You have to use the newest version, for example, to determine your options to appeal a Church sanction.

You can chose to bind yourself to things that the Church required in the old code but that doesn’t make them Canon Law for you.

 

[jmj603]

I’m confused. Where in the current Canon Law or rubrics does it say that head coverings are required?

1. It is customary in a number of places.
2. It is arguably required at Masses celebrated according to the 1962 Missal. The St. Joseph Foundation, among others, hold that some of the canons in force in 1962 were intended to be applied to the Traditional Latin Mass celebrated under the indults of 1984 and 1988 and under Summorum Pontificum. A clarification from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will be necessary to clear up this question.

In the meantime, there are some chapels and churches where it is required for men to uncover their heads, and for women to cover theirs.

 

[nannygirl]

JC-Servant

My comment was referring to the hostility on this thread in particular. People accusing me of things that I am not guilty of. I’m new to the church, I read the history, found the tradition of the mantilla or just covering in general and i felt a connection. Being new I didn’t realize the controversy apparently connected to it given the types of comments on this thread of people lashing out. I would not consider myself prideful, at least I hope not since that would defeat the purpose. I love history and I love tradition. One of the reasons I converted was the inspiration I got from visiting the Vatican. Catholicism is such a beautiful, reverent, loving religion. I wanted to take part in the devotion to Christ. People are taking this way out of hand. I would not want someone to do something without the meaning behind it. So if people don’t want to partake in covering of their heads b/c they don’t understand then I think it would be worse to force them! It would have no meaning behind it for them. Everyone has gifts, everyone has a diff personality and ability to worship Christ.

PS: Hats are just fine! Again people have a choice

Thank you! I converted 2 years ago and feel the same as you about history and tradition. I love all the gestures and the rosary and everything Catholic- all little reminders that keep me focused on my faith. I think the head coverings are beautiful and it reminds me of Mary. (I would wear mine all the time if I could. :yup: ) Half of the women at my church cover their heads and half don’t. It’s not an issue at all, just personal preference. We are there to worship God and love one another.

 

[pnewton]

Sorry, but as a traditional Catholic I choose to not assist at the NEW MASS, to continue to use the pre-Vatican II catechism, to follow the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Amen.

All I can say to this is, “Wow!” So you ignor the authofity of the Church to abrogate that code of canon law. that is like ignoring an encyclical or conclave. Or that is like ignoring any other authoritative action of the Catholic Church and the Church’s authority to for everything. One might as well pick their own religion and go off on their own. At least groups like Church of Christ when they ignore an authority go back to the first century Church. I see no logic in being selective in that which should be ignored.

 

[Spiller]

Sorry, but as a traditional Catholic I choose to not assist at the NEW MASS, to continue to use the pre-Vatican II catechism, to follow the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Amen.

As a woman you are not allowed to assist at the EF.

All Catholics must adhere to the current Code of Canons – no Catholic has the option to substitute the 1917 Code.

You should try the normative Mass of the Latin Rite – the Pauline Mass – It’s glorious.

Do you even claim to be in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI – current Vicar of Christ on Earth?

 

[Spiller]

1. It is customary in a number of places.
2. It is arguably required at Masses celebrated according to the 1962 Missal. The St. Joseph Foundation, among others, hold that some of the canons in force in 1962 were intended to be applied to the Traditional Latin Mass celebrated under the indults of 1984 and 1988 and under Summorum Pontificum. A clarification from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei will be necessary to clear up this question.

In the meantime, there are some chapels and churches where it is required for men to uncover their heads, and for women to cover theirs.

No way.

I know of absolutely no Catholic “chapels and churches where it is required …for women to cover theirs”