H
Hananiah
Guest
The great DominvsVobiscvm, Who judges hearts and minds.
In any case, if Mr. Akin uses sound logic and true premises I will accept his argument.
- Status
In any case, if Mr. Akin uses sound logic and true premises I will accept his argument.
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
My apologies for recklessly using the word “schismatic.” Really, when I wrote that I was thinking of Lefebvrists and others of their stripe. I really did not have Sungenis and/or Hananiah in mind. I might put Sungenis on the fringe side, but he is in communion with the Church, however barely (in my opinion).
That being said, here’s Jimmy’s take on the issue:
On an entirely unrelated note, I found this part of the 1917 Code interesting. I never noticed it before!
That being said, here’s Jimmy’s take on the issue:
Go Jimmy!
On an entirely unrelated note, I found this part of the 1917 Code interesting. I never noticed it before!
Was it common for women to be separated from men in Church, as late as 1917? I knew this was the case in the Middle Ages, but the 20th century? Interesting . . .
M
Mike_C
Guest
Yes, Canon law dictates that men and women be seperate. But I don’t think this was common in the US.
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
My parents are from Sicily. I’ve never heard of that being practiced there, either.
A
Anne_Carmel
Guest
For more information, visit: jimmyakin.org/2004/07/head_coverings_.html
J
JFlats
Guest
I just noticed this thread on veils. I too was upset with the hostile back-and-forth on canon law … but not surprised. That’s what happens when “siblings” take opposite positions on family matters! 
I am middle-aged Hispanic and have “inherited” my mother’s mantillas; I wear them seasonally (white in summer; black in winter). Back in May, a friend asked me why; my reply follows. It’s long but I think it illusrates the now very personal attitude towards wearing a head covering.
As a pre-Vatican II Catholic I wore a head covering throughout my life. Senior-itis being what it is, I can’t even remember when I stopped wearing the veil, though I do have a photo of holding my daughter at her baptism (34 years ago!) and I was wearing the white veil I wear now. I can’t even remember how long it’s been since I resumed wearing a veil. But I vividly remember the reason.
In the past 25 years I have been on a personal pilgrimage that began with a conversion experience, the result of a scary physical ailment that had emotional aspects to it. I read somewhere that sometimes God lets you get knocked to your knees to remind you where you should have been in the first place. The journey since then has been filled with a great deal of prayer & introspection. I never left the Church or turned away from God, but I had become very lax and complacent. In the intervening years, I have returned to the Catholic faith of my youth as a refuge and fortress. God has been extremely good to me; I believe all that I have learned in those years has been a literal life-saver.
So why the veil? Patience … I’m getting there.
I am middle-aged Hispanic and have “inherited” my mother’s mantillas; I wear them seasonally (white in summer; black in winter). Back in May, a friend asked me why; my reply follows. It’s long but I think it illusrates the now very personal attitude towards wearing a head covering.
As a pre-Vatican II Catholic I wore a head covering throughout my life. Senior-itis being what it is, I can’t even remember when I stopped wearing the veil, though I do have a photo of holding my daughter at her baptism (34 years ago!) and I was wearing the white veil I wear now. I can’t even remember how long it’s been since I resumed wearing a veil. But I vividly remember the reason.
In the past 25 years I have been on a personal pilgrimage that began with a conversion experience, the result of a scary physical ailment that had emotional aspects to it. I read somewhere that sometimes God lets you get knocked to your knees to remind you where you should have been in the first place. The journey since then has been filled with a great deal of prayer & introspection. I never left the Church or turned away from God, but I had become very lax and complacent. In the intervening years, I have returned to the Catholic faith of my youth as a refuge and fortress. God has been extremely good to me; I believe all that I have learned in those years has been a literal life-saver.
So why the veil? Patience … I’m getting there.
J
JFlats
Guest
One of my discomforts as a more devout Catholic is that the faith as practiced in US, especially the Mass, has become casual and overly friendly, the difference between a community happy meal with liturgical overtones and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (see? you even have to CAPITALIZE when it’s serious).
I had already gone the lax route and was concerned about backsliding. I also noticed that my attitude was getting a mite uncharitable. (Did you know you can get permanently cross-eyed when looking down your nose at those who are not as “Catholic” as you are?)
At the same time I was being more drawn to what I remembered of my youth - the pre-Vatican II liturgy seemed to my memory to be far more reverential and grown-up. Of course, the entire culture of that time can seem far more reverential and grown-up. I remembered a lesson I had learned in high school, courtesy of the Dominican nuns who taught me in the late 1960s.
I attended an all-girls commercial high school whose primary focus was to teach us mostly working class girls how to be secretaries. Ten percent of the graduates went on to college. The first time I walked on a college campus, I was dressed the way the nuns insisted a lady should be dressed … in a dress with nylons (pre-panty hose days), and heels. I did forego the hat & gloves, but you get the picture. In the registrar’s office, I spoke to a clerk who answered all my questions courteously. I noticed that she was a little more brusque with other students, but I didn’t think anything of it.
At my first day of college classes, I again wore a dress, etc. This time I was mistaken for the teacher by other freshmen, and the teacher took me for an older student returning to college. Little by little, I realized it was my clothing that caused the positive reactions from faculty, staff and students. Moreover, I realized that my own behavior was affected by what I wore. The handful of times I wore slacks/jeans to school, I noticed that I actually slouched with splayed legs when I sat - not the most lady-like posture. You cannot slouch wearing a skirt, believe me.
I had already gone the lax route and was concerned about backsliding. I also noticed that my attitude was getting a mite uncharitable. (Did you know you can get permanently cross-eyed when looking down your nose at those who are not as “Catholic” as you are?)
At the same time I was being more drawn to what I remembered of my youth - the pre-Vatican II liturgy seemed to my memory to be far more reverential and grown-up. Of course, the entire culture of that time can seem far more reverential and grown-up. I remembered a lesson I had learned in high school, courtesy of the Dominican nuns who taught me in the late 1960s.
I attended an all-girls commercial high school whose primary focus was to teach us mostly working class girls how to be secretaries. Ten percent of the graduates went on to college. The first time I walked on a college campus, I was dressed the way the nuns insisted a lady should be dressed … in a dress with nylons (pre-panty hose days), and heels. I did forego the hat & gloves, but you get the picture. In the registrar’s office, I spoke to a clerk who answered all my questions courteously. I noticed that she was a little more brusque with other students, but I didn’t think anything of it.
At my first day of college classes, I again wore a dress, etc. This time I was mistaken for the teacher by other freshmen, and the teacher took me for an older student returning to college. Little by little, I realized it was my clothing that caused the positive reactions from faculty, staff and students. Moreover, I realized that my own behavior was affected by what I wore. The handful of times I wore slacks/jeans to school, I noticed that I actually slouched with splayed legs when I sat - not the most lady-like posture. You cannot slouch wearing a skirt, believe me.
J
JFlats
Guest
Transfer that thought to the environment of Church and maybe you can see where I’m going with this train: is Mass a side-trip picnic emceed by a very clever extrovert on the way to “real” Sunday activity? Or is it the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? In theology we are told “lex orandi, lex credendi” (literally, the law of prayer is the law of belief) which means how/what you pray is how/what you believe. For me, that became “how you dress is how you pray/believe.”
Yes, because I am human it took a long time and a lot of second guessing before I actually resumed wearing the veil. At first I agonized about should I or shouldn’t I? How will people react? How will the priest react? Will people smirk when they see that I’m dressing up for Mass? Will they resent my “dressier than thou” outfit?
But I found I was asking the wrong questions. What I should have asked: Is the Mass just a gathering of the faithful around a communal table, or is it a physical-metaphysical-spiritual encounter with the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the ever-living Risen Lord of the Universe, the Master of All, the Creator of Everything, my Beloved Savior? If the former, any outfit will do; if the latter, … well, you get the picture.
By the way … a scarf works just as well as a veil, and if someone wants to start inconspicuously, she might look for a scarf that blends with her clothing or a veil that blends in with her hair color (dark for brunette, light for blonde, etc.). But the only one she should focus on is her Beloved - He’ll think she’s a knockout no matter what!
Yes, because I am human it took a long time and a lot of second guessing before I actually resumed wearing the veil. At first I agonized about should I or shouldn’t I? How will people react? How will the priest react? Will people smirk when they see that I’m dressing up for Mass? Will they resent my “dressier than thou” outfit?
But I found I was asking the wrong questions. What I should have asked: Is the Mass just a gathering of the faithful around a communal table, or is it a physical-metaphysical-spiritual encounter with the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the ever-living Risen Lord of the Universe, the Master of All, the Creator of Everything, my Beloved Savior? If the former, any outfit will do; if the latter, … well, you get the picture.
By the way … a scarf works just as well as a veil, and if someone wants to start inconspicuously, she might look for a scarf that blends with her clothing or a veil that blends in with her hair color (dark for brunette, light for blonde, etc.). But the only one she should focus on is her Beloved - He’ll think she’s a knockout no matter what!
M
MaryChelan
Guest
Thank you so much for your posts, J Flats! I loved reading about how you came back to the mantilla–very powerful story. It is so beautiful. I have only worn a veil once in the last few years and it was a black one during Lent. I love it and perhaps I shall be moved to wear it again. A white one would be nice for spring and summer, I think. I love it when I see other women wearing them to Mass. There is a large Latin population in my parish and so I see many of the older women wearing mantillas, and they look so lovely to me. Right on to you for wearing them! God bless!
H
Hananiah
Guest
Sungenis responds to Akin: catholicintl.com/epologetics/covering.htm
S
system
Guest
Why does Sungenis insist on making imaginary “debates” on his web site? I suppose it’s an easy way of insuring that he always gets the last word, and he can make derogatory comments that he wouldn’t dare make in a real debate.
He could have written a comment directly to Akin on Akin’s site, but he did not. As far as I can tell, Sungenis has no credibility with other apologists. I’ve never seen anyone give his writings the slightest consideration.
He could have written a comment directly to Akin on Akin’s site, but he did not. As far as I can tell, Sungenis has no credibility with other apologists. I’ve never seen anyone give his writings the slightest consideration.
H
Hananiah
Guest
Akin wrote his piece in response to Sungenis’ thesis. Sungenis did not “create a debate” by responding to him. And Mr. Akin is free to respond to that, if he wishes.
Your statement that Sungenis makes derogatory comments behind peoples’ backs that he wouldn’t dare say to someone’s face is a calumny. He admonishes Akin for defending progressivist forces, but that is nothing he wouldn’t say to Akin’s face.
You are correct in saying that many apologists ignore Sungenis’ writings. But this is not for their lack of quality, but because of the sectarian mentality which pervades much of the Catholic apologetics world. Many so-called “conservative” Catholics treat traditionalists like the plague. For example, Shawn McElhinney has an entire blog devoted to spewing anti-traditionalist vitriol and calumny. James Akin has said on Catholic Answers that The Remnant and Catholic Family News are not Catholic publications. Karl Keating takes food out of the mouths of Gerry Matatic’s children by making it hard for him to get speaking engagements. The list goes on.
That’s not to say that all conservative Catholics are like this, or that traditionalists can’t be just as bad sometimes. But the point is the reason you won’t find many of the Catholic Answers crowd citing Sungenis is because of ideological affiliations and not because his arguments are bad. I can name several apologists who do take Sungenis quite seriously, for example Gerry Matatics, David Palm, Jacob Michael, Scott Windsor, etc. Fr. Brian Harrison is not a traditionalist but he takes Sungenis very seriously, even to the point of contributing to one of his forthcoming books.
Your statement that Sungenis makes derogatory comments behind peoples’ backs that he wouldn’t dare say to someone’s face is a calumny. He admonishes Akin for defending progressivist forces, but that is nothing he wouldn’t say to Akin’s face.
You are correct in saying that many apologists ignore Sungenis’ writings. But this is not for their lack of quality, but because of the sectarian mentality which pervades much of the Catholic apologetics world. Many so-called “conservative” Catholics treat traditionalists like the plague. For example, Shawn McElhinney has an entire blog devoted to spewing anti-traditionalist vitriol and calumny. James Akin has said on Catholic Answers that The Remnant and Catholic Family News are not Catholic publications. Karl Keating takes food out of the mouths of Gerry Matatic’s children by making it hard for him to get speaking engagements. The list goes on.
That’s not to say that all conservative Catholics are like this, or that traditionalists can’t be just as bad sometimes. But the point is the reason you won’t find many of the Catholic Answers crowd citing Sungenis is because of ideological affiliations and not because his arguments are bad. I can name several apologists who do take Sungenis quite seriously, for example Gerry Matatics, David Palm, Jacob Michael, Scott Windsor, etc. Fr. Brian Harrison is not a traditionalist but he takes Sungenis very seriously, even to the point of contributing to one of his forthcoming books.
S
system
Guest
I see no evidence of that. In any event, Akin did not mention anyone by name in his article.
He pulled apart Akin’s article sentence-by-sentence, and made it look like an interactive discussion (like we are having here). That is disingenuous at best. His website has several imaginary “debates” like that.
I don’t know what that is and I don’t really care, but snide comments like “Mr. Akin has his bearings all wrong” and “It appears Mr. Akin is making up his own rules” make me uninterested in Sungenis’ opinions. (As if his “the earth is the center of the universe, the Bible tells me so” hadn’t already done it.)
Oh, I think it is. Just my opinion. I am not a terribly learned Catholic, but I can tell when something just doesn’t make sense.
When anyone anywhere responds to something he’s said, it quickly “appears” on his site, turned into a phony debate. So no wonder most just ignore him.
I don’t know who the “Catholic Answers crowd” is, and haven’t heard of any of the people you mentioned. I am not interested in “who’s on what side”. Again, it’s just that I can tell what looks sensible and what doesn’t. I would never cite him as a reference if I were trying to make a point.
Sorry for dragging the thread off topic. I don’t even see where Sungenis even got introduced, except for your post announcing his “response” which nobody even asked for…
H
Hananiah
Guest
tcj:
The reason Mr. Akin wrote his piece was because Dominus Vobiscum asked him to. The reason Dominus Vobiscum did so was because he saw Sungenis’ work on this thread. Dominus was asking Akin to respond to Sungenis’ work.
It’s called engaging an argument on the merits. The world would be a better place if people did that instead of talking past each other all the time.
Calimny is a basic term of moral theology. It is when one says nasty things about another which aren’t true. It is a step up from detraction, which is the sin of saying nasty things about someone which are true, but without any compelling reason to justify doing so.
Actually I suppose the EWTN crowd would be a better term to describe it. This would include most of the better known Catholic apologists i.e. Keating, Akin, Hahn, Pacwa, etc. The reason you haven’t heard of the traditionalist apologists whom I mentioned is because as far as the EWTN crowd is concerned they are persona non grata and as such they don’t get much attention.
H
Hananiah
Guest
Actually I remember awhile ago James White was laughing on his blog about how Karl Keating wrote a summary of the history of Catholic Answers and didn’t even mention Matatics, even though Matatics was for a few years one of its most important apologists.
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
Sungenis’s private interpretation of Canon Law is ludicrous. He actually says that no Church law can dispense with a Church-approved custom, if said custom has been around for more than 100 years!
Need we say more?
Need we say more?
C
cassman
Guest
This is getting redundant.
I had not replied on this thread in a while. Then when I saw “Sungenis” pulled into it, I had to reply. This guy is so funny. I laugh everytime I read his “work”. What we can give him credit for is his effort- Wait…can we?
wquercus.com/sungenis/
According to this website, Sungenis plagiarizes. He is accused of being an anti-semite as well.
Question: why do “radical” traditionalist (notice I said “radical”, not including other traditionalists) always go back to Robert Sungenis? I understand he is almost done with his Doctorate. Could that be the reason?
If I were a radical traditionalist (or at least someone who enjoyed digging for mistakes and errors in the Church leadership) I would cease to quote/cite/reference Sungenis anymore. There are plenty of others out there. Plenty.
You know what would be interesting, to have Akin VS. Sungenis. I would pay a Catholic Answers’ Cruise fare for that!
I had not replied on this thread in a while. Then when I saw “Sungenis” pulled into it, I had to reply. This guy is so funny. I laugh everytime I read his “work”. What we can give him credit for is his effort- Wait…can we?
wquercus.com/sungenis/
According to this website, Sungenis plagiarizes. He is accused of being an anti-semite as well.
Question: why do “radical” traditionalist (notice I said “radical”, not including other traditionalists) always go back to Robert Sungenis? I understand he is almost done with his Doctorate. Could that be the reason?
If I were a radical traditionalist (or at least someone who enjoyed digging for mistakes and errors in the Church leadership) I would cease to quote/cite/reference Sungenis anymore. There are plenty of others out there. Plenty.
You know what would be interesting, to have Akin VS. Sungenis. I would pay a Catholic Answers’ Cruise fare for that!
D
deogratias
Guest
Talk about thread drift. Any reference to veils has now become greatly veiled.
C
cassman
Guest
Soooo?
H
Hananiah
Guest
You are missing one qualification: unless a law makes express mention of the practise. That is precisely what canon 28 says. Sungenis parsed canon 28 thusly: “Unless it [the 1983 code] makes express mention of them [the issue of head covering]…a law [of the 1983 code] does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs [head coverings], nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.”
At the bottom when he repeated this argument it seems that he forgot to make the qualification again, but that is a minor mistake, most probably due to writing quickly, and it does not affect the argument in any way whatsoever, as nothing in the 1983 makes express mention of the practise of head coverings.
- Status