Mantilla/Veil

[Hananiah]

cassman:

According to this website, Sungenis plagiarizes. He is accused of being an anti-semite as well.

I do not know enough to respond to the whole article, but I can make a few points. First, Sungenis has every right to disagree vehemently with Reflections. Second, the Talmud does contain blatantly immoral teachings and again, Sungenis has a right to expose them. Third, the material taken from John Venarri was probably used with permission; they are good friends. Fourth, Sungenis did not realize he was citing Nazi material; the material was on another website which did not provide a citation. Here is what he said when Shawn McElhinney claimed he plagiarized Nazi material:

As a Catholic, was [McElhinney] never taught to forgive when someone admits mistake? Or is forgiveness only for those with whom he agrees? Apparently Mr. McElhinney has forgotten that part of Jesus’ teaching, and instead wishes to incite his audience with the cruelest demagoguery he can muster.

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?

It is because, eccentricities aside, his arguments are solid. Read Not By Faith Alone or the first volume of The Catholic Apologetics Study Bible. Both are excellent. And actually radical traditionalists don’t carem uch for Sungenis, as he holds the documents of Vatican II to be without error, believes the SSPX to be in schism, is not a Feeneyite, believes there are flaws in the Tridentine mass, etc.

You know what would be interesting, to have Akin VS. Sungenis. I would pay a Catholic Answers’ Cruise fare for that!

As would I.

 

[Hananiah]

cassman:

Soooo?

Akin says that applying canons 23-28 to the pracitse of head coverings is confusing catergories, as until 1983 it was a matter of law. I disagree. There’s no reason the pracitse can’t be both a custom and a law. It was a custom before the 1917 code, and it didn’t suddenly cease to be a custom as soon as it was put into law. I also believe Akin’s application of canon 28 to be faulty. He should have cited the whole thing. It does not apply to immemorial customs unless the law makes express mention of them.

 

[Forgiven]

deogratias:

Talk about thread drift. Any reference to veils has now become greatly veiled.

ain’t this the truth? ~or~ the veil has completely unraveled…

As for me, I was much more interested in why women love veils and why we wear them and what they mean to us…

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Akin isn’t denying that headcoverings weren’t a custom, in the colloquial sense of the word; he rightly asserts that it isn’t a custom in the “legal” sense of the word. Once something has been passd into law, it’s no longer a custom. Otherwise, as Jimmy notes, every single law kept for over 100 years would become a “custom.” That’s ludicrous.

And most importantly, the Church does not interpret her own canon law to apply the way Sungenis says it must.

Yes, there area good deal of heretical bishops afoot. The difference, say, between a bishop who allows litugical abuses like belly-dancers in the sanctuary and one who allows women to keep their heads uncovered in church is that the former is acting against very clear legislation, as promogulated by the Vatican.

If we want to know what the Church’s standard is, all we have to look at is how people are required to dress in the churches at Rome, even the Vatican. They go to such great lengths to impose what the Church condiers to be modesty, but never hand out veils/mantillas.

And you and I both know that you will not find a single Catholic bishop who, whatever his personal feelings on the subject, believes the veil to be required. You can say “I don’t know every bishop, etc.” but you’re and Robert’s inability to name a single, solitary one greatly shatters the credibility of this thesis.

 

[deogratias]

Simply put he 1983 Canon Law does not mention headcoverings. The Law, which was Church Law and not Divine Law, no longer exists. It does not matter if the ommission was accidental - The 1983 Canon Law supercedes all previous Canon Laws.

There is an interesting story about this, but I have no documentation other than having seen it repeated over the years. It was at the time of the Vatican II councils and reporters had asked a Cardinal if the matter of wearing head coverings would be addressed and they were told more important issues were being discussed.

As reporters are prone to do, they misquoted the Cardinal and said head coverings would no longer be required. Many women, especially with the encouragement of the feminists of that era, ran with this and by the time the New Canon Law was written in 1983, most women had aleady ceased to wear them in many countries.

In any event it is no longer the law that they be worn. It is however a custom that is strongly encouraged when attending a Tridentine Mass as this was the custom (and the church law) in 1962.

But again remember, Canon law is not necessarily Divine Law but Church law.

 

[Forgiven]

rfk:

An interesting and pious reason. More traditionally, as I recall, unmarried women wore a white mantilla, whereas married women and widows wore black, or some other color of choice.

According to info on the halo-works.com site it does not matter what color of mantilla one chooses to wear; the most common colors are black and white. Apparently the color does not signify marital status, although it once may have, I don’t know.

 

[Forgiven]

rfk:

An interesting and pious reason. More traditionally, as I recall, unmarried women wore a white mantilla, whereas married women and widows wore black, or some other color of choice.

According to info provided on the halo-works.com site it does not matter what color of mantilla one wears. Although it may have meant something in the past, the color of mantilla one chooses to wear today does not signify marital status.

 

[dimago]

What I missed in this thread is this… If veiling is no longer required…why are women required to wear a head covering when visiting the Pope? Even Laura Bush, a non-Catholic, wore a veil when she visited the Pope this past summer.

My understanding is that if a woman shows up for a Papal audience without a head covering… she is given one.

I would like to follow the lead of the Vatican on this.

 

[deogratias]

Two different rules.

It is not required to wear a head covering when assisting at Mass.

It is required to wear a head covering when having an audience with the Pope.

It is not required that I wear shoes in my home.

It is required I wear shoes in a resturant.

Two different situations and two different sets of rules.

 

[krazykatlady]

It is not required, nor is it forbidden. Some women would like to continue this ancient tradition. So would I. Some women have no desire to cover their heads. It is not a matter of sin or dogma. In the VII Church it is a matter of preference.

 

[Trad_Catholic]

deogratias:

Simply put he 1983 Canon Law does not mention headcoverings. The Law, which was Church Law and not Divine Law, no longer exists. It does not matter if the ommission was accidental - The 1983 Canon Law supercedes all previous Canon Laws.

I’m sorry, but please don’t just jump into the middle of a debate without actually reading what has been discussed. The omission is not a proof–that was already covered… read the canons cited by Hananiah, then make a response.

Moreover,

And actually radical traditionalists don’t carem [m]uch for Sungenis, as he holds the documents of Vatican II to be without error, believes the SSPX to be in schism, is not a Feeneyite, believes there are flaws in the Tridentine mass, etc.

I suppose it depends what he means by the first two, but the last two are inexcuseable… first of all, it’s not called Feenyism, it’s called Catholicism (unless you want to start calling mohammedanism bin ladinism), and how could the TLM be flawed when it was created over the history of the Church with the guidance of the Holy Ghost (far from what happened with the NO).

(My comment about bin ladin, if you didn’t understand, meant that just because most Catholics don’t believe Church teaching and a man name Fr. Feeney taught it rigorously amongst the non-belivers, that doesn’t make Catholicism now “Feenyism,” just as what mohammed taught is known as mohammedanism, which teaches that mohammedists must kill “infidels”–Catholics–in order to go to Heaven, this is not known as “bin ladinism” merely because he, long after mohammed, is teaching to mohammedists what most of them don’t believe but is what mohammed actually taught.)

 

[Catholic_Eagle]

Feeneyites was reconciled with the CHurch during th reign of Pope Paul VI. They were allowed to keep their beliefs.

Trad_Catholic, one is not a heretic if he believes in Baptism of Desire. If this was a heresy as some make it out to be, why didn’t any Popes condemn it before Vatican II? This wasn’t condemned by the Popes or by any of the Ecumenical councils. Believe that the the Church is the Ark Of Salvation is true and this being rejected by many today. But this does not mean that Baptism of Desire is not a valid form of Baptism.

 

[Trad_Catholic]

Catholic Eagle:

Feeneyites was reconciled with the CHurch during th reign of Pope Paul VI. They were allowed to keep their beliefs.

Trad_Catholic, one is not a heretic if he believes in Baptism of Desire. If this was a heresy as some make it out to be, why didn’t any Popes condemn it before Vatican II? This wasn’t condemned by the Popes or by any of the Ecumenical councils. Believe that the the Church is the Ark Of Salvation is true and this being rejected by many today. But this does not mean that Baptism of Desire is not a valid form of Baptism.

On the contrary, the Council of Florence stamped out any Baptism that is not of water: Canons on Baptism

First of all, it defines Baptism to be necessary for salvation:
“Canon V. If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.”

This is not a generic “concept” of Baptism (such as “desire”/“blood”) but the Sacrament of Baptism, as we see in Canon II: “If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests [twists], to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.” (my comment)

What more is “baptism” of desire than a metaphor that wrests Our Lord’s words into some diabolical metaphor?

 

[deogratias]

catholicculture.org/highlights/highlights.cfm?id=24

 

[deogratias]

Trad Cath -

Moreover,

Quote:
And actually radical traditionalists don’t carem [m]uch for Sungenis, as he holds the documents of Vatican II to be without error, believes the SSPX to be in schism, is not a Feeneyite, believes there are flaws in the Tridentine mass, etc.
I suppose it depends what he means by the first two, but the last two are inexcuseable… first of all, it’s not called Feenyism, it’s called Catholicism (unless you want to start calling mohammedanism bin ladinism), and how could the TLM be flawed when it was created over the history of the Church with the guidance of the Holy Ghost (far from what happened with the NO).

I didn’t say that Haniniah did - but you did not address it to him - my name was the only one you mentioned in your post - and I did read what had been said previously and that was not my first post on the subject - my point was that it was not DIVINE LAW-

 

[Trad_Catholic]

deogratias:

Trad Cath -

Moreover,

I didn’t say that Haniniah did - but you did not address it to him - my name was the only one you mentioned in your post - and I did read what had been said previously and that was not my first post on the subject - my point was that it was not DIVINE LAW-

I know Hananiah wrote the second, but I didn’t include his name… I can’t remember why I didn’t now, but when I wrote that I knew that there were two different authors to the two quotes… in any event, I assume, then, that you concur that Baptism is necessary for salvation? Moreover, in light of the canons presented by Hananiah, how is it not Divine Law?

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

On the contrary, the Council of Florence stamped out any Baptism that is not of water: Canons on Baptism

You interpreting this canon in a manner that the Church never has. It’s called private interpretation, and it’s not Traditional.

It’s just like a Jehovah’s Witnesses who produces millions of proof texts which, by themselves, can demonstrate that Jesus is not God. Our response, of course, is that, while in and by themselves the texts could imply Arianism, it is contrary to the way in which the Church has historically understood them.

Ditto with Feenyism. It’s a heretical innovation, completely contrary to the teachings of the Fathers, saints, and doctors of the Church, and the Church’s understanding of Scripture.

Any thelogian reading the canons of Florence would have understood them to be indicating a normative necessity, not an absolute one.

 

[deogratias]

I know Hananiah wrote the second, but I didn’t include his name… I can’t remember why I didn’t now, but when I wrote that I knew that there were two different authors to the two quotes… in any event, I assume, then, that you concur that Baptism is necessary for salvation?

Moreover, in light of the canons presented by Hananiah, how is it not Divine Law?

Well first I am talking about veils and not Baptism. This Baptism issue is serious thread drift and I think it should be a separate thread. This one has gone on far too long already.

Secondly to answer your question about how the subject of veils is not Divine law, I thought perhaps I had missed something in Hananiahs posts so I rearead them all. I see nothing in them or the canons that he posts to interpret that wearing of veils is decreed by divine law. Divine Law is that which is enacted by God and made known to man through revelation. I remain unconvinced that God revealed that women wear veils at Mass - however I do.

So how do you say it is Divine Law?

 

[Therese_Martin]

**Notice:

This thread is now closed. Thank you to all who participated in the discussion.**