Please give me a good explanation for these V2 changes

[JSmitty2005]

Here is yet another article on veiling. I especially like the quote that begins it:

True followers of Christ; Be prepared to have a world make jokes at your expense. You can hardly expect a world to be more reverent to you than to Our Lord. When it does make fun of your faith, its practices, abstinences, and rituals-then you are moving to a closer identity with Him Who gave us our faith. Under scorn, Our Lord “answered nothing”. The world gets amusement from a Christian who fails to be Christian, but none from his respectful silence.

– Bishop Fulton Sheen

freerepublic.com/~desdemona/

 

[allisonP]

Bear,
Thank you for the advice.
I will look at the library, it is good to know that it has the approval of the Church so that I can know I am getting to the truth of the matter.
Also the info you gave on disciplines and doctrine was helpful.

I have been a member of a Church that I always thought was strict, not in a bad way, but determened to stick to the Bible.

Reading about the Catholic disciplines and doctrines I see we have been pretty lax compaired to you all! I am not saying I find any thing wrong in what I am learning, although more study and prayer will be needed on my part before I could make a desision on wheather or not I believe that the Apostles truly did pass on there apostleship and that it is not gone. If I can be convinced of this then I will fully and freely join the CC. The lord will make sure I find the truth if I keep seeking, of that I have no doubt.
Sorry to ramble!
Have a great day!
Allie

bear06:

Hi Allie
There are truths of the Church(doctrine) and there are disciplines of the Church (which are just that - disciplines). Veiling falls under the latter category. Truth (doctrine) cannot change. Disciplines can change as the Magisterium sees fit (not by random Catholics). We are bound to a discipline until we are released by the Magisterium from such a discipline. Our doctrines have never been changed in the over 2,000 years of our Faith despite reports from outside the Church.

I’m afraid, if you’re trying to find the teachings of the Church, this thread is not necessarily the place to go. I’d try looking at the Catholic Answers library. Their publications have the imprimatur which means they are approved by the Church. I’d hazzard to say that not all of our ramblings on these forums are approved by the Church!

 

[JSmitty2005]

allisonP:

Smitty,
As you might know, at least I think you might, I am from the Church of Christ.
I have never heard an argument FOR headcovering.
Nor have I ever read that particular verse (about no such custom) given that interpetation. It is something to consider.
Yet it is my understanding that the cathloic church has changed her stance on this and now allows uncovered heads?
I am trying to get a grasp on the catholic beliefs and this is so confusing to me.
Feedback always welcome
Thanks ,’
Allie

Allie,
What I think Paul was trying to say when he said, “But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God,” is that if anyone disputes the idea of headcoverings and claim that it is untrue, then all you need to tell them is that there is no custom in the church of God in which women do not cover their heads.

bear06:

There are truths of the Church(doctrine) and there are disciplines of the Church (which are just that - disciplines). Veiling falls under the latter category. Truth (doctrine) cannot change. Disciplines can change as the Magisterium sees fit (not by random Catholics). We are bound to a discipline until we are released by the Magisterium from such a discipline. Our doctrines have never been changed in the over 2,000 years of our Faith despite reports from outside the Church.

I’m afraid, if you’re trying to find the teachings of the Church, this thread is not necessarily the place to go. I’d try looking at the Catholic Answers library. Their publications have the imprimatur which means they are approved by the Church. I’d hazzard to say that not all of our ramblings on these forums are approved by the Church!

Bear06 is right in saying that we must be careful to distinguish doctrine from discipline. On the other hand, just because discipline isn’t necessarily unchangeable doesn’t mean that it should be randomly changed. There should be good reason for it to change. For example: priestly celibacy is not Church doctrine, but it is Church discipline. I can’t ever see this discipline changing because there should be no reason for it (but who knows what could happen in the state the Church has been in lately.) Likewise, that is why I don’t understand why the headcovering practice changed (even though - as you’ve seen - it’s debatable whether or not the change has ever been official.) The covering of women’s heads is part of the Divine Liturgy. The liturgy is something we receive and has slowly developed over time. It is not something that we can do away with and start off with a new slate. Bear06 is also right in that the Church hasn’t ever changed any doctrines that she has received from the time of Christ, so then why would disciplines received from the time of Christ be changed w/o good reason? Bear06 made an offhand comment about how disciplines cannot be changed “by random Catholics.” This is true. Now I ask: Why did the media twist Archbishop Bugnini’s words and claim that headcoverings were no longer required during the Second Vatican Council?! A “random Catholic” can’t change Church discipline, but the media seems to have done so. After years ignoring this issue in order to appease the rampant feminism of the time, the Church eventually made the CDF statement that was quoted earlier. Like I said, I don’t know how much weight a statement like that carries. Bear06 is also correct in their suggestion that this is not the right place to be discussing Catholic teachings. This is basically a debate between the Catholics that actually want to hold onto the traditions that were handed down and those that wish these traditions to be disposable when modern sensiblities aren’t met. And finally, if Bear06 is suggesting any of my posts with their statement: “I’d hazzard to say that not all of our ramblings on these forums are approved by the Church!” Then I’d like to see where I have crossed into heresy or schism.
-Jon

 

[itsjustdave1988]

bear06:

Now you’re just being ignored, Dave! History! It’s a good thing!

Yes, I’m used to being ignored…I have teenagers.

 

[allisonP]

I can appreciate each of your responses and I thank you both for replying. I think you both are saying the same thing.
Maybe your not and I am not getting it. Be that as it may this is not a salvation issue, right? So I am not going to be too concerned about it, I might however cover my head the next time I pray in public!

 

[oat_soda]

The Second Vatican Council’s goal was to rediscover the essence of the early church

no it was not. you need to read the texts to understand why VII was conviened. it may have had that effect, but wasn’t an objective of the council. here’s a quote from sacrosactum concilium

This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church.

basically, it was to improve the church and for ecumenism. so that is why they saw it fitting to reform the liturgy. many people seperate what sacrosanctum concillium said vs. what was promulgated as the normative mass.

while one is the result of a ecumenical council and therefore is binding, the actual product was fabricated by a committee and so may not be what the council fathers had in mind. but then agian, maybe it was.

 

[mosher]

I don’t really understand the strong emotions surrounding the issue of head covrings. Today the use of the mantilla (chapel veil or head covering) is optional and is no longer mandated. The reasoning for this is wide and differs with the source that you read however even in the read of the Early Church Fathers in particular St. John Chrysostom you can hear that they did not consider the directive of head covering to be of divine mandate but of a matter of didactic discipline.

As far as the priest facing versus populum it is not something that is mandated as many have said above.

 

[stanley123]

JSmitty2005:

holysmoke.org/fem/fem0356.htm

Thanks for the excellent article.

 

[JSmitty2005]

stanley123:

Thanks for the excellent article.

You’re quite welcome!

 

[bear06]

On the other hand, just because discipline isn’t necessarily unchangeable doesn’t mean that it should be randomly changed. There should be good reason for it to change. For example: priestly celibacy is not Church doctrine, but it is Church discipline. I can’t ever see this discipline changing because there should be no reason for it (but who knows what could happen in the state the Church has been in lately.)

The beauty of our Church is that we simply have to follow the Pope in matters of disciplines. If he is wrong (and I’m not saying he is) the burden is his. We don’t have to understand, grasp, approve, etc. even though it is a good thing if we do. The only time we shouldn’t follow is if we know the discipline is sinful and I don’t think anyone here is saying that.

As St. Joseph of Cupertino said:
Obedience is a little dog that leads the blind.

I highly recommend, again, reading Pastor Aeternus:
ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6

Bear06 is also right in that the Church hasn’t ever changed any doctrines that she has received from the time of Christ, so then why would disciplines received from the time of Christ be changed w/o good reason?

Once again, I refer you to Mediator Dei. Once again, “good reason” is not determined by us but by the Magisterium of our Church.

Bear06 made an offhand comment about how disciplines cannot be changed “by random Catholics.” This is true. Now I ask: Why did the media twist Archbishop Bugnini’s words and claim that headcoverings were no longer required during the Second Vatican Council?! A “random Catholic” can’t change Church discipline, but the media seems to have done so.

The media did not change this discipline. This is a canonical issue. The Church has chosen to loose this discipline. I’d investigate how much weight that the CDF statement carries before you make a judgment on it.

Bear06 is also correct in their suggestion that this is not the right place to be discussing Catholic teachings. This is basically a debate between the Catholics that actually want to hold onto the traditions that were handed down and those that wish these traditions to be disposable when modern sensiblities aren’t met.

To this I’d disagree because I want to hold onto the traditions that were handed down and they are all seen in one of the most important Traditions which is that the Pope is the arbiter of Traditions and traditions. Everything has to be seen in this light.

And finally, if Bear06 is suggesting any of my posts with their statement: “I’d hazzard to say that not all of our ramblings on these forums are approved by the Church!” Then I’d like to see where I have crossed into heresy or schism.

I include my ramblings in that statement, Jon. Besides, if one was wrong about the discipline of veils being mandatory, I hardly think that it would fall into the realm of hersery or schism (I could be wrong) unless you were somehow going against Pastor Aeternus.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Just thought this was an applicable quote:

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.”
–G. K. Chesterton

 

[JSmitty2005]

Another good quote:

“A common turning to the east during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord.” -Pope Benedict XVI

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

JSmitty2005:

I think we all understand that most women today haven’t been exposed to this because it hasn’t been prevelant since 1970. However, before 1970, it was prevelant the whole way back to St. Paul! Just because the older ladies in your church don’t do it doesn’t mean that they’re right. Truth isn’t determined by a majority vote.

That depends - how do bishops decide at councils whether or not to approve a document for promulgation ? They vote on it. And have done so for centuries. Or are we to review the decisions of Nicea I ? That is where absolute opposition to all voting in the Church would lead - fortunately, the anti-voters (so to call them) allow their respect for dogmas to outweigh their opposition to the voting which led to those dogmas’ being defined .

Why is the “democracy of the dead” ignored in favour of change ? Because “the Church is not a democracy” - if mere numbers were final, head-coverings would still be worn, in continuity with the previous sixty generations of the Church. But numbers are not final, as you say - so it matters not a jot what the past practice has been: the Church is free to change it.

There is no doctrinal issue involved: so the question of truth does not arise. The issue is one of “godly order” for the worship of the Church - but not of teaching. It’s as unconnected with teaching as the colour of one’s shirt is.

It’s easy to *say *the use of a head-covering was “prevalent all the way back to St. Paul” - but another to prove this. How do you know it was done in seventh-century England, say ? Or fourth-century Arabia ? It may have been a purely Western practice. It may be a relatively recent revival, taken up again after centuries of disuse - like the practice of praying the entire Mass in the vernacular. ##

I’m not blaming you for not doing it or holding anything against you, I’m only questioning why this tradition has been abandoned by the faithful. Now that you know that this is God’s wish, then what objections do you have to it? Why not start to participate in this beautiful tradition of the Church that spans back the whole way to Christ? Who knows, maybe the other women in your parish will question you and if you explain, they might begin to do it as well. Just a thought.
God bless!

 

[JSmitty2005]

##

That depends - how do bishops decide at councils whether or not to approve a document for promulgation ? They vote on it. And

“Truth is not determined by a majority vote.” -Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (better known as Pope Benedict XVI )

 

[JSmitty2005]

Gottle of Geer:

There is no doctrinal issue involved: so the question of truth does not arise. The issue is one of “godly order” for the worship of the Church - but not of teaching. It’s as unconnected with teaching as the colour of one’s shirt is.

You’re right, it’s not a doctrinal issue so we don’t have to worry about the Church condoning heresy. However, it is an apostolic tradition. It is not a tradition only in the West but in the East the Orthodox continue it to this day as well as some Prots (Anabaptists). Also, I wouldn’t go so far as saying that “it’s as unconnected with teaching as the colour of one’s shirt” considering that it is found in Sacred Scripture (by the way, that’s God’s Word ) and was part of Canon Law (isn’t this a form of teaching ) for quite some time…and may still be today (still not sure on this).

My problem is not with the Church not having the authority to change such things. The Church most certainly does. However, there wasn’t really a reason to change it and that disturbs me. Nothing at all should ever be changed for no reason whatsoever.

 

[JSmitty2005]

I guess we must ask ourselves if this teaching was given to Paul by Christ.

#1 - I think we can assume that it was given to Paul by Christ because there is evidence that this was practiced not only in Rome, but in all of the apostolic churches.

#2 - Paul continues in 1 Cor. 11:16 and says that if anyone is argumentative (questions what he had just said) then tell them that “we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.”

#3 - Later on in 1 Cor. 11, Paul says that “I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you.” This was in verse 23. Now, he had just gotten done speaking about the Mass, but it can be reasonably assumed that he meant any and all teachings that he’s handed down (especially considering that there were no verse numbers to divide his letter at the time he wrote it).

And finally, headcoverings may seem insignificant, but remember what Jesus said about even the least of the commandments:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks **one of the least of these commandments ** and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”
(Matthew 5:17-19)

 

[otm]

Semper Fi:

The practise started from the fact of Christ present in the Eucharist. As Christ is present in the Eucharist, it’s logical that the priest would face God and not have his back turned to Him during the Mass.

Christ is present in the Eucharist, we all agree.

However, the tabernacle didn’t come into usage until the 9th century, and it was well over a century after that in which the tabernacle was put generally on the main altar.

Nice try, but historically inaccurate.

 

[JSmitty2005]

otm:

Christ is present in the Eucharist, we all agree.

However, the tabernacle didn’t come into usage until the 9th century, and it was well over a century after that in which the tabernacle was put generally on the main altar.

Nice try, but historically inaccurate.

I don’t think he was talking about the tabernacle. Well, at least I wasn’t anyways. I think that the priest should face the East.

 

[JSmitty2005]

This is worth reposting. I found it here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=85283 (post #14)

THE SPIRIT OF THE LITURGY, by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

As time has its sacred symbolism, so does space - the place of worship and its appropriate ordering and disposition. Ratzinger again draws attention to the way in which Catholic churches manifest the succession between Old and New Covenants: the central altar as the place of sacrifice, inherits and replaces the role of the Temple, while the lectern, pulpit or ambo for the proclamation of God’s Word to the assembled people follows naturally from the disposition of the synagogue, with its ‘Shrine of the Torah’ honouring the inspired Scriptures. In this context the author gives us a fascinating excursion into the origin of worshipping ad orientem - towards the East. While synagogue worship was oriented toward Jerusalem, the place of the Temple, Christians now look toward Christ, whose future coming in glory is aptly symbolized by the brilliance of the rising sun. As is well known, Cardinal Ratzinger has been among those favoring a return to the traditional position of the priest at Mass, in which both he and the people are turned together towards Christ. Here (p. 68) he tells us that:

In the early Church, prayer towards the east was regarded as an apostolic tradition. We cannot date exactly when this turn to the east, the diverting of the gaze from the Temple, took place, but it is certain that it goes back to the earliest times and was always regarded as an essential characteristic of Christian liturgy (and indeed of private prayer).

These are strong words. Can something believed to be an “apostolic tradition”, and indeed, an “essential characteristic” of Christian liturgy, be so readily discarded as it has been since the 1960s? The position versus populum, now almost universal in celebrations according to the post-conciliar Roman Missal, was in fact unheard-of for fifteen centuries after Christ, and had its origin in the heretical Eucharistic theology of the Protestant Reformers. Ratzinger dedicates an entire chapter (“The Altar and the Direction of Liturgical Prayer”) to this question, pointing out that Vatican Council II never even suggested this novel change of position, and exposing the principal arguments in favor of it as being historically unfounded. “The turning of the priest toward the people has turned the community into a self-enclosed circle. In its outward form, it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above, but is closed in on itself” (p. 80)

This ‘self-centredness’ of the community is in turn linked to the new emphasis on the Mass as a ‘meal’. The liturgical innovators have assured us that the altar “had to be positioned in such a way that priest and people looked at each other and formed together the circle of the celebrating community. This alone - so it was said - was compatible with the meaning of the Christian liturgy, with the requirement of active participation” (p. 77). But even this concept of how a ‘meal’ would have been celebrated in biblical and patristic times - ‘gathered round the table of the Lord’, as a popular post-conciliar ditty puts it - is woefully anachronistic! Ratzinger quotes (p. 78) the noted French scholar Fr. Louis Bouyer, whose research has shown that:

In no meal of the early Christian era, did the president of the banqueting assembly ever face the other participants. They were all sitting, or reclining, on the convex side of a C-shaped table, or of a table having approximately the shape of a horseshoe. The other side was always left empty for the service. Nowhere in Christian antiquity, could have arisen the idea of having to ‘face the people’ to preside at a meal. The communal character of a meal was emphasised just by the opposite disposition: the fact that all the participants were on the same side of the table.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Also, check out this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=569 (post #25)

totustuusmaria:

cheddarsox:

This got me thinking…I wonder what Jesus did during the Last supper, If He faced the Apostles or if he faced away and offered Himself up to God. Is the Eucharist more in the style of the Last supper or the Crucifixion? I really don’t know.

cheddar

From Spirit and the Liturgy:

This is, of course, a misunderstanding of the significance of the Roman basilica and of the positioning of its altar, and the representation of the Last Supper is also, to say the least, inaccurate. Consider, for example, what Louis Bouyer has to say on the subject:

The idea that celebration versus populum was the original form, indeed the way the Last Supper itself was celebrated, rests purely and simply on a mistaken idea of what a banquet, Christian or even non-Christian, was like in antiquity. In the earliest days of Christianity the head of table never took his place facing the other participants. Everyone sat or lay on the convex side of an S-shaped or horseshoe-shaped table. Nowhere in Christian antiquity could anyone have come up with the idea that the man presiding at the meal had to take his place versus populum. The communal character of a meal was emphasized by precisely the opposite arrangement, namely, by the fact that everyone at the meal found himself on the same side of the table (54f).

In any case, there is a further point that we must add to this discussion of the ‘shape’ of meals: the Eucharist that Christians celebrate really cannot adequately be described by the term ‘meal’. True, Our Lord established the new reality of Christian worship within the framework of a Jewish (Passover) meal, but it was precisely this new reality, not the meal as such, which He commanded us to repeat. Very soon the new reality was separated from its ancient context and found its proper and suitable form, a form already predetermined by the fact that the Eucharist refers back to the Cross and thus to the transformation of Temple sacrifice into the reasonable worship of God.