Join us--wear a head covering to Mass Oct 2

[bear06]

Can we reject other scriptural admonitions too?

You cannot reject them but the Magisterium has the jurisdiction to say whether a discipline is binding or not. I’ve asked this before on other threads but never seem to get an answer. Does anyone here actually believe that headcoverings are dogma/doctrine?

 

[angelmessenger]

Hi Bear,

—“You cannot reject them but the Magisterium has the jurisdiction to say whether a discipline is binding or not. I’ve asked this before on other threads but never seem to get an answer. Does anyone here actually believe that headcoverings are dogma/doctrine?”

A discipline can be changed I know this but I’m wondering what constitutes the Magisterium–is it the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith–or the Pope in union with the Bishops?–or both-------Just curious.

God bless

Jan

 

[Forest-Pine]

I am quite belated in making a YES list. You see, I had to delete my SmileyCentral download after it messed up my email, and I just don’t know what to do with myself since then. :crying: If everyone would respond with YESes, I will figure out something cute to make a celebratory list.

 

[Coder]

bear06:

Does anyone here actually believe that headcoverings are dogma/doctrine?"

I wondered about this myself. However, I think it may not be a strict mandate of Holy Scripture:

1 Corinthians 11:16 But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.

I think it’s wonderful that so many participated with the wearing of head coverings. Such graciousness bring life to the Church!

 

[Cathy]

Just checking in as requested by Forest-Pine:

Thank you for the reminder, Forest-Pine.
I did remember…but too late. I’ll explain. I went on a women’s retreat last weekend. Before I left, I inteneded to bring along a hat, but alas, I forgot! I’m planning to wear a hat this coming Sunday to make up for it. I was thinking about you sisters at Mass on Sunday, and feeling a bit naked at the same time.
God bless you!
Cathy

 

[BlestOne]

As I was in church on Sunday…Yes I did participate in wearing a head covering…the only person that even noticed was my pastor…It was sooooo cool. As I went up for communion my pastor looked at me and then looked at my head and smiled as if to say, “I know why you are wearing that and I approve” I was totally thrilled that I didn’t receive any of those stupid stares or looks I anticipated, just proving to me that my fear was irrational indeed. I am free to dress in the manner I deem appropriate for mass…I AM FREE>>>>>>Thank you CA Women! You have helped to free me…Woooooo Hoooooooo

 

[soonersvi]

Forest-Pine:

I am quite belated in making a YES list. You see, I had to delete my SmileyCentral download after it messed up my email, and I just don’t know what to do with myself since then. :crying: If everyone would respond with YESes, I will figure out something cute to make a celebratory list.

soonersvi–YES

 

[bear06]

A discipline can be changed I know this but I’m wondering what constitutes the Magisterium–is it the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith–or the Pope in union with the Bishops?–or both-------Just curious.

God bless

Jan

It’s both. In this address, you can see that Pope John Paul II shows this in this paragraph:

4

. Today we must note a widespread misunderstanding of the meaning and role of the Church’s Magisterium. This is at the root of the criticisms and protests regarding its pronouncements, as you have particularly pointed out with respect to the reactions in not a few theological and ecclesiastical circles to the most recent documents of the papal Magisterium: the Encyclicals Veritatis splendor, on the principles of moral doctrine and life, and Evangelium vitae, on the value and inviolability of human life; the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis, on the impossibility of conferring priestly ordination on women; and the Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the reception of Eucharistic Communion by divorced and remarried faithful.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP951124.HTM

I’m sure there are others documents but this is the first one I ran across.

 

[KayMS]

bear06:

No offense to the good Fr. Haydock but that would be his interpretation. It might even be a fine interpretation but that isn’t verbatim what St. Paul said which is actually the point.

Since when do Catholics “interpret” Scripture verbatim?

 

[Freeway4321]

KayMS:

bear06:

Since when do Catholics “interpret” Scripture verbatim?

You didn’t know? We’re going Protestant.

 

[KayMS]

HAHA! Seriously, just because veils are “no longer normative” or “canonically binding” only means there is no force of law behind it - not that it is forbidden. Veiling and kneeling belong to immemorial custom, tradition, and neither can be abrogated, only bound or loosened as required discipline. The Church already spoke as to how kneeling cannot be a forbidden posture; we can apply that precedent to veiling.

To Bear06’s comment: “What Mr. Akin is trying to show is that while we like to say it [veiling] is a ‘custom’ it was actually a law. Canonically it was not a custom, it was a law.”

Mr. Akin’s “interpretation” is debunked by the very CHURCH document Bear06 used to say that veiling is no longer normative, INTER INSIGNIORES: “But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on the head (1 Cor 11:2-6).”

I say we should chuck Mr. Akin’s “interpretation” (which has the approbation of himself on a blog) out the window since his “conclusion” that veiling is not a custom contradicts both a Church document and Father Haydock’s commentary (which btw received the approbation of not 1 but 39 bishops).

 

[bear06]

Mr. Akin’s “interpretation” is debunked by the very CHURCH document Bear06 used to say that veiling is no longer normative, INTER INSIGNIORES: “But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on the head (1 Cor 11:2-6).”

How do you figure? It said it was an ordinance inspired by the custom of the day. It also went on to say that it was a disciplinary practice. Make sure you quote correctly when quoting Church documents. Veiling carried the force of law as seen in the 1917 Code but abrogated in the 1983.

It would be interesting to know what Fr. Haydock would say to the Inter Insignores. I’m betting he would concur. BTW, I wasn’t the one who said that “such requirements no longer have normative value.” That would be the Magisterium.

I say we should chuck Mr. Akin’s “interpretation”

So does that mean you’d like to chuck Inter Insignores too?

You are quite right that veils are not forbidden. I don’t think you’ll find that I said that anywhere. This isn’t what the tail end of this thread was about. I support anyone who feels that God has called them to wear a head covering.

 

[bear06]

KayMS:

bear06:

Since when do Catholics “interpret” Scripture verbatim?

Uh, “this is My Body” is taken pretty literally. Like I said before, the only interpretation that counts is the Magisterium’s.

 

[KayMS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear06

No offense to the good Fr. Haydock but that would be his interpretation. It might even be a fine interpretation but that isn’t verbatim what St. Paul said which is actually the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KayMS

Since when do Catholics “interpret” Scripture verbatim?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear06
Uh, “this is My Body” is taken pretty literally. Like I said before, the only interpretation that counts is the Magisterium’s.

Yes, it is pretty literal. My point was that the Church interprets Scripture, not individuals, and not without the benefit of oral tradition. Father Haydock did not provide a personal interpretation in his commentary; he provided the Church’s interpretation compiled from both the written and oral traditions of the Church.

 

[KayMS]

bear06:

Veiling carried the force of law as seen in the 1917 Code but abrogated in the 1983.

The only thing that was abrogated was the force of the law, not the custom since the details of this canon are not specifically forbidden in the new code; otherwise, one creates a very sticky situation with the issue of modesty.Canon 1262 [1917 Code]

§1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.

§2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

I am not among the crowd that is trying to claim that custom has re-established force of law to the previous canon. I will stand with the Church’s interpretation that force of law is removed but prudence dictates that adherance to the old law is more in keeping with tradition.

Just so everyone knows, the force of law did not guarantee that women came to Mass veiled and dressed modestly (for those that think re-establishing the law will “fix” the errors of our day). The Church battled constantly with the issue, as women asserted their clothing “freedoms” without hesitation to the law. Error exists with or without the law.

 

[KayMS]

bear06:

So does that mean you’d like to chuck Inter Insignores too?

Why would I do that when I used the document in my own argument?

 

[Forest-Pine]

It seems to me that both sides are saying precisely the same thing: time honored tradition, no longer binding as law, fine for anyone who wants to do it, not required for those who do not. This was precisely the premise which lead me to start this thread as there were women who wanted to wear them, felt called to follow this custom, and were fearful of doing so. I will say again that Bear was a wonderful supporter of these women and this thread.

 

[angelmessenger]

Hi,

What I’m gathering then is that–apart from dogma and doctrines–which cannot be changed, the Church can obviously bind and loose on certain disciplines. If this is the case then I have to abide by the Church on Her decisions, however seeing as how this is not something we are told not to do but only told it is not binding an all persons then the veil, as is kneeling, receiving on the tongue etc is a matter of a persons preference due to their wanting to give God more reverance— unless our doing so causes problems–ie kneeling for Holy Communion when the priest cannot bend down etc.

If Jesus gave the Church the power to bind and loose, and He did, then I wonder if heaven agrees with all their decisions?–Just a thought.

God bless

Jan

 

[GregoryPalamas]

It is not considered chauvanistic if a man says “Thank You” to all you women who wore the head coverings, is it? Whether or not it is considered such, I am grateful for your devotion.

Dan L

 

[netmilsmom]

GregoryPalamas:

It is not considered chauvanistic if a man says “Thank You” to all you women who wore the head coverings, is it? Whether or not it is considered such, I am grateful for your devotion.

Dan L

Oh no!
I don’t think it’s chauvanistic at all! In the world where women are expected to compete with men, it is refreshing to have a man be bold enough to give Kudos to women showing ourselves to be exclusively female.

My hubby likes it too!
And I have to add that God has blessed me with a Great Husband and a Wonderful Daddy to my children.
Thank You, Dear Lord!