Please give me a good explanation for these V2 changes

  • Thread starter Thread starter JSmitty2005
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. **

I think in this discussion we are all missing this particular part of the scriptural quote. A woman should have a sign of authority on her head, BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS.

Apparently, for the church, this custom is rooted in the Divine, not just in cultural norms. Last I heard, the Angels still exist. 🙂

Love,
Jaypeeto3
 
40.png
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
Maybe I need to start a new thread, but I don’t understand this. Is he talking about literally facing east? I understand the Holy Land is to the east for most people, but if we are going to look together at the Lord, we would be looking to the altar, wherever that may be. Are churches suppose to be facing east? Our 150+ year old church is facing west. I’m confused. http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/confused.gif
 
Jaypeeto3 said:
**for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. **

I think in this discussion we are all missing this particular part of the scriptural quote. A woman should have a sign of authority on her head, BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS.

Apparently, for the church, this custom is rooted in the Divine, not just in cultural norms. Last I heard, the Angels still exist. 🙂

Love,
Jaypeeto3

What is the context of this scripture?
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
I believe that Vatican II was a valid council, however, I don’t understand two changes that occurred after the council (although I’m not sure if they were direct results of the council). The two changes that I’m referring to are: (1) the priest facing the altar & (2) headcoverings for women. Both of these practices are apostolic and from what I understand, there was no historical precendent to the contrary. I would appreciate it if someone could give me a good explanation as to why these traditions are no longer being done in the Church. Thanks! 👍

PS - I have actually read that women should still be wearing headcoverings because the 1983 Code of Canon Law didn’t address the subject.
JSmitty, just out of curiosity, what is your take on 1 Cor 11:16?
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Then I guess Jesus was a disgraceful man because he had long hair! I’d suggest reading up on the Early Church as well as the Orthodox and hear what they have to say about it since their priests all have long hair and beards. Try this site for starters:%between%
It looks like you answered your own question there. By your logic, Paul has condemned himself, Jesus and other Apostles as being “disobedient” to some mandatory Tradition.
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Okay, I guess my stance on this comes down to this statement: Who am I to stand against one thousand, nine hundred, and seventy some odd years of saints, popes, martyrs, fathers, and doctors that stood for these traditions?

As far as the CDF pronouncement, I don’t know how authoritative that is and one would have expected Jimmy Akin to have made mention of it, but in any case, even if we hold that headcoverings “no longer have a normative value,” that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t still be done. Simply because there is an option to wear them or not doesn’t mean that the Church doesn’t have a preference. A similar situation is in the reception of Holy Communion. Americans are *permitted *to recieve in the hand, but many Church leaders like Francis Cardinal Arinze have expressed a *strong desire *that we should recieve on the tongue. Just like sinning, we have free will to choose whether or not to do the right thing. No one can force this upon us. I would venture to guess that Church leaders would look highly upon women that continue/rediscover this pious tradition. Wouldn’t it be more noble to conform to religious customs rather than fashion ones?

Humans are different from all other creatures in that we are both body and spirit, while animals are only body and angels are only spirit. Because of this, we should aim to please, glorify, and express devotion to God through both of these characteristics. Many in the postconciliar Church seem to believe that the externals should be done away with, but this surely isn’t true and is a characteristically Protestant stance that the internal is all that matters. This is why so many modern Catholics don’t see the value in the Sacraments anymore, especially Confession. They feel as though they can work it out just between God and themselves without the sacramental means of forgiveness given to us by Christ.

The Second Vatican Council’s goal was to rediscover the essence of the early church (supposedly), so why then were these traditions of the early church abandoned soon thereafter?!
I think that it would be nice to see the Church grant an indulgence for women that do cover their heads in church. I mean, you can get an indulgence for devoutly kissing a scapular, so why not devoutly wearing a headcovering as a way of showing humility and submission to God? (actually on second thought, I don’t think that this would be a good idea since men don’t get one for not covering their heads, but it would still be nice to see the Church encourage the practice somehow)

As I mentioned before, these issues do not go over well with the Orthodox. In my opinion and from what I have learned, it seems as though the Catholic Church has more fully preserved the apostolic doctrines and faith of Christ (we basically agree on everything except for papal authority) while the Orthodox are more steadfast on apostolic *traditions and practices *such as these. We get a lot of criticism from them for this. For the sake of ecumenism, I think that it would be a good idea to return to these traditions in hopes of reunion.

I feel that whether or not wearing headcoverings is something that women have to do, it is still something that they *should *be doing.
You are nobody to stand against such things. However, you seem to be getting off track here. This is not a Big “T” Tradition. This is not a doctrine of the faith or even a teaching on objective morality. It seems pretty clear that this is a cultural practice, not a mandatory tradition. Have you been to other countries and observed their liturgy? If the Church tells me it would be advisable to practice a certain form of devotion or discipline, I will follow it. But, tradition for the sake of tradition, and ritual for the sake of ritual is exactly what confuses our Evangelical brothers. They are left wondering which are the things that are allowed to be modified, and which aren’t. Maybe we need to figure that out before we can respond to them.
 
40.png
maryalene:
Maybe I need to start a new thread, but I don’t understand this. Is he talking about literally facing east? I understand the Holy Land is to the east for most people, but if we are going to look together at the Lord, we would be looking to the altar, wherever that may be. Are churches suppose to be facing east? Our 150+ year old church is facing west. I’m confused. http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/confused.gif
From what I’ve heard, churches did used to face East.
 
40.png
Redbandito:
It looks like you answered your own question there. By your logic, Paul has condemned himself, Jesus and other Apostles as being “disobedient” to some mandatory Tradition.
I’m sorry, you lost me. Please explain. Maybe you didn’t catch my sarcasm (ie. - “Then I guess Jesus was a disgraceful man because he had long hair!”).
40.png
Redbandito:
You are nobody to stand against such things. However, you seem to be getting off track here. This is not a Big “T” Tradition. This is not a doctrine of the faith or even a teaching on objective morality. It seems pretty clear that this is a cultural practice, not a mandatory tradition. Have you been to other countries and observed their liturgy? If the Church tells me it would be advisable to practice a certain form of devotion or discipline, I will follow it. But, tradition for the sake of tradition, and ritual for the sake of ritual is exactly what confuses our Evangelical brothers. They are left wondering which are the things that are allowed to be modified, and which aren’t. Maybe we need to figure that out before we can respond to them.
Refer to post # 133. I never said this was doctrine, morality, or Tradition. Also, it’s not tradition just to be traditional, and it is something that CAN be changed, I’m just waiting for a reason. Like I said, go read my post #133.
 
Wearing headcoverings is a discipline, not a doctrine. Priestly celibacy is also not a doctrine but rather a discipline. I don’t see that changing any time soon (although it could) unless there is a very good reason.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
I’m sorry, you lost me. Please explain. Maybe you didn’t catch my sarcasm (ie. - “Then I guess Jesus was a disgraceful man because he had long hair!”).

HAHA. You caught me there. I hadn’t caught the sarcasm. Sorry about that.

Refer to post # 133. I never said this was doctrine, morality, or Tradition. Also, it’s not tradition just to be traditional, and it is something that CAN be changed, I’m just waiting for a reason. Like I said, go read my post #133.
Because this is a tradition that is not culturally relevant. Priestly celibacy serves an important purpose, and should not be changed. What purpose does head dress serve at this point?
 
40.png
Redbandito:
Because this is a tradition that is not culturally relevant. Priestly celibacy serves an important purpose, and should not be changed. What purpose does head dress serve at this point?
Since when is “cultural relevance” a determining factor of Church practices?
Since when does lacking a “purpose” mean that something should be done away with?
What was the purpose of not eating of the Tree of Knowledge? Who knows! All that matters is that God said not to do it. Period.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Since when is “cultural relevance” a determining factor of Church practices?
Since when does lacking a “purpose” mean that something should be done away with?
What was the purpose of not eating of the Tree of Knowledge? Who knows! All that matters is that God said not to do it. Period.
And now God’s mouthpiece has said that wearing head dress is not mandatory. Period. So, what’s your big beef? This is the kind of legalism and divisiveness over nothing that turns people off of Christianity. I can understand arguing over absolute and objective truths, but this is silly. This is the kind of stuff that causes a sect like the SSPX to split off. Over nothing! It’s ridiculous! People also wear jeans to Mass, are you going to start a thread about that?
 
40.png
Redbandito:
And now God’s mouthpiece has said that wearing head dress is not mandatory. Period. So, what’s your big beef. This is the kind of legalism and divisiveness over nothing that turns people off of Christianity.
But I thought God never changed. Why should something like this change without good reason? It serves the same purpose today as it did 2000 years ago. Also, there are no official documents (to my knowledge) stating that it is not mandatory other than the CDF statement, and I don’t even know how “official” that was. But even if this is considered the norm now, I ask: why not do it? What objections do people have to it? One girl simply told me, “I don’t like it. I think it’s stupid.” Wow, that’s a great reason! Like I’ve said before, there are optional things like in the reception of Holy Communion where one option is preferred over another. Furthermore, wouldn’t you be a little perturbed if a man went to Mass wearing a hat? Most would, but you don’t hear this reciprocal battlecry from the men. This is what was meant earlier when myself and another poster attributed this change to the fruits of feminism’s influence on the Church. :rolleyes:
 
40.png
Redbandito:
This is the kind of stuff that causes a sect like the SSPX to split off. Over nothing! It’s ridiculous! People also wear jeans to Mass, are you going to start a thread about that?
I both love and hate the SSPX at the same time. They make A LOT of good points, but they were dumb for separating themselves from the Church. Doing that makes them no different than Luther. However, they DID NOT split off for reasons such as this. Finally, wear exactly in Sacred Scripture and Church history were jeans prohibited? :confused:
 
All I can really say is look at what Jesus said about following even the “least of the commandments” as well as this quote:

“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the True Church of Jesus Christ.”
-St. Athanasius

I don’t think we’re gonna be changing each other’s minds. 👍
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
But I thought God never changed. Why should something like this change without good reason? It serves the same purpose today as it did 2000 years ago. Also, there are no official documents (to my knowledge) stating that it is not mandatory other than the CDF statement, and I don’t even know how “official” that was. But even if this is considered the norm now, I ask: why not do it? What objections do people have to it? One girl simply told me, “I don’t like it. I think it’s stupid.” Wow, that’s a great reason! Like I’ve said before, there are optional things like in the reception of Holy Communion where one option is preferred over another. Furthermore, wouldn’t you be a little perturbed if a man went to Mass wearing a hat? Most would, but you don’t hear this reciprocal battlecry from the men. This is what was meant earlier when myself and another poster attributed this change to the fruits of feminism’s influence on the Church. :rolleyes:
Smitty, this is a fallacious argument. First of all, God doesn’t change because he is objective and absolute. This would apply to all the Church’s teachings on faith and morals as to why they don’t change. Truth must be steady, because God is. However, this is not a matter of faith and morals. Nor is it an absolute or objective truth. Nor is it either good or bad. What you are trying to do would be synonomous with saying that people have preferred oranges for 2000 years, so since I don’t have a good reason other than my own personal preference, it would be wrong for me to prefer apples. It’s illogical and unreasonable. This is not a matter of faith and morals, thus the Church can change it depending on the cultural relevance. See the different ways of celebrating the liturgy from country to country.

Secondly, your example about a man in a hat proves my point. Our culture still values men not wearing hats indoors. This is a cultural value. Thus, we would balk at such a thing in a church. This is not case with women in head dress. Your analogy is flawed.

Finally, don’t try and make this about “one girl you know”. Just because one girl does not have any better argument for you than “she doesn’t like it”, doesn’t mean that there is not a valid point of view she could take if she knew the issue better. That’s akin to a pro-baby killer saying that a pro-lifer is such solely because God says so. Yes, this point is true, but it is not the exclusive argument out there.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
All I can really say is look at what Jesus said about following even the “least of the commandments” as well as this quote:

“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the True Church of Jesus Christ.”
-St. Athanasius

I don’t think we’re gonna be changing each other’s minds. 👍
The irony of this post is so thick. So, you think Christ is going to judge who has been a faithful Catholic based on which women have covered their heads in mass, and which haven’t? HMMMMM. I’m going to have to think about that one awhile Brother. It seems a bit silly to me, but whatever.

Finally, Christ’s two greatest commandments fulfill all the others. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul, and your mind. Love your neighbor as yourself. I can see how this could fulfill laws against, abortion, contraception, murder, stealing, lying, etc, but I struggle to make women in head dress fit into that category. Maybe I’m missing something. Please fill me in.
 
JSmitty2005 said:
“Truth is not determined by a majority vote.” -Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (better known as Pope Benedict XVI 👍 )

So why do they vote ? Repeating Card. Ratzinger’s bon mot doesn’t answer the question.​

Quoting it collides with quoting Chesterton - why should we care a penny piece what past generations did, if the Cardinal’s statement is an absolute truth ? After all, if votes (and by implication, numbers) are irrelevant, then appealing to the past is entirely pointless. IOW, you’ve blown your own argument to smithereens, by relying on both quotations.

There are several things you might do:
  • one goes and the other stays
  • both go
  • one of them is allowed to qualify the application of the other
What you can’t do, if you want to make a coherent argument, is treat both quotations as though they both expressed absolute truths just as they stand.

Over to you 🙂 ##
 
40.png
Redbandito:
Priestly celibacy serves an important purpose, and should not be changed.
Who is it out there that has said priestly celibacy should be “changed”?

I find the word “changed” to be one that is highly charged emotionally. The only thing I have heard proposed is not that celibacy should be done away with, but that the Roman Rite should allow married men to be ordained also (as they already are in very limited numbers, to converts primarily from Anglican/Episcopal churches, secondarily for Methodist Churches, and one [that I know of] from the Presbyterian church). That is not a “change”, but is an wider allowance of an already accepted practice.
Tthe term “change” seems to go hand in hand with those who protest others are trying to “do away” with celibacy. Again, I have heard of no one proposing such.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
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 😉 )

So are​

  • the colour of David’s complexion
  • and the age of Shem’s great-grandson
  • but they are not exactly matters of doctrine 😉 ##
and was part of Canon Law (isn’t this a form of teaching :confused: )

Actually, no, it isn’t - to quote Michael Caine, “Not a lot of people know that” 🙂

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.

There I agree with you: as to the principle, that is.​

 
Jaypeeto3 said:
**for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. **

I think in this discussion we are all missing this particular part of the scriptural quote. A woman should have a sign of authority on her head, BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS.

Apparently, for the church, this custom is rooted in the Divine, not just in cultural norms. Last I heard, the Angels still exist. 🙂

Love,
Jaypeeto3

But what does it mean ? In Rev. 2 & 3, it seems to refer in some way to bishops (if that is what those angeloi in Rev. are). Of course, the two contexts may be concerned with entirely different things​

And what is meant by “sign of authority” ? ##
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top