Please give me a good explanation for these V2 changes

[JSmitty2005]

**Your comments are offensive and out of line. **

I don’t want to speak for dts, but I don’t think he was accusing *you * of being a feminist but only stating that this change could be possibly related to the feminist movement within the Church. If that’s what he means, then I agree with him. There’s no need to get defensive.

MariaG:

Bind and loose. Matthew 19.

I don’t think that binding and loosing has ever meant making rules or changing them altogether. I think it has more to do with forgiving sins and whatnot.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea4sb2.asp

 

[JSmitty2005]

MariaG:

Bind and loose. Matthew 19.

I don’t think that binding and loosing has ever meant making rules or changing them altogether. I think it has more to do with forgiving sins and whatnot.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea4sb2.asp

 

[MrS]

dts:

It is a shame the comments were closed on this. I don’t think we really got a solid answer in response to the argument from Scripture and 2000 years of tradition. Jimmy addressed canon law and assumed that was the only relevant source of authority along with some of the liturgical books.

sometimes threads are closed for reasons other than those listed in the “instructions”

 

[JSmitty2005]

MrS:

sometimes threads are closed for reasons other than those listed in the “instructions”

I don’t think he meant a CAF thread but rather the forum on Jimmy Akin’s actual site.

 

[dts]

JSmitty2005:

I don’t want to speak for dts, but I don’t think he was accusing *you * of being a feminist but only stating that this change could be possibly related to the feminist movement within the Church. If that’s what he means, then I agree with him.

Yes. I was not accusing anyone of anything. I was raising a question and making a couple of observations about feminism’s devastating impact on our culture.

If the headcovering practice was not changed due to feminism, then why was it changed? As I indicated, I have not adopted a dogmatic position on this issue, but I am suspicious of the reasons for the change.

 

[JSmitty2005]

MariaG:

And think about what you are saying. Headcoverings have not been prevelant since 1970. That means most women, like myself, have not changed anything. And as someone whose parents left the Church and I did not attend church until an adult about 7 years ago, why would I even know to wear a head covering when even the older ladies in my church, of which are the majority, don’t wear one?

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. 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!

 

[Pug]

JSmitty2005:

I don’t think that binding and loosing has ever meant making rules or changing them altogether. I think it has more to do with forgiving sins and whatnot.

Cut from CCC553: The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church.

Not sure what a “disciplinary” decision is, but it probably involves rules of some sort, perhaps like Catholics are supposed to get married in the church building with witnesses and things like the Easter Duty.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

JSmitty2005:

Seen that, it’s been quite skillfully refuted. Read this:

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/covering.htm

There is no reason at all to abandon apostolic traditions (meaning we got them from the apostles themselves!!!) The aposltes received their teachings directly from Jesus who is God. The Church does not have to power to reject divinely revealed truths. For example, the Church does not have the power to ordain women. This is something that John Paul II made quite clear, using the same reasoning.

“But what is also to the point, let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the fathers. On this the church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian” -St. Athanasius (4th century)

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
-2 Thess. 2:15

“Then Jesus approached and said to them, ‘All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.’”
-Matthew 28:18-20

“If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.” -Fourth Anathema of the Second Council of Nicaea (787A.D.)

I don’t think that I’ve ever been taught that the Church makes rules, but rather the Church preserves those of God. Likewise, the Church cannot change these things other than to develop a deeper meaning of them (not reverse them altogether). The requirement of women wearing headcoverings is very clear in Sacred Scripture! 1 Cor. 11:4-6 “Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.” How can anyone deny this? Do you really think that the Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, Mennonites, and Amish have been really misinterpreting this verse for the past 2000 years?!

It’s not beyond the bounds of possibility. Or if it is - why is it ?​

Not everything the Apostolic Church did is unchangeable - how many priests or bishops are married with families ? Not many. Yet there are letters in the NT which contain advice for married pastors. If the Church can change that - why not other things ?

Many Catholics don’t care a jot for what other Churches do - those Catholics at least can’t use the argument that other Christians agree with the CC on this. Which narrows down the issue to whether the CC can misinterpret a verse for however many years it might be.

By some Catholics’ reasoning, it’s not 2000 years, but 1600 - given that some insist on the lateness of the canonisation of all 27 books of the NT together. I take it that you don’t agree with them.

Suppose your question is asked in 10000 AD; and that for thousands of years before, the CC has been rather relaxed about that passage. In the perspective of the year 10,000, the Church’s interpretation of that passage will look very different from how it looks now - an interpretation held for a mere 2000 years will have been held for only a fifth of the Church’s life; it would not be possible to treat something which was preserved for the first fifth of the Church’s life, as though it had been preserved for all five fifths.
We don’t maintain all details of the way that the Faith was lived in the first fifth of the Church’s life down to our time - yet we don’t agonise over the possibility that the Faith ceased to be held in its fullness after that time; after 400 or so. So we have no reason to think the Faith will be lived in the same way in 10000, as it is lived in 2000.

ISTM that much agonising can be avoided if we put our problems in historical perspective, and realise that, just as previous generations were not the last, we cannot assume that ours will be either. We may even be in the infancy of the Church ##

Please give me a good reason why women should not wear headcoverings in light of the Word of God (I have not yet met anyone who can do this). And remember, “Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.” Romans 12:2

 

[mlchance]

JSmitty2005:

Just because the older ladies in your church don’t do it doesn’t mean that they’re right.

And just because they don’t do it doesn’t mean you’re right.

AFAIK, in my archdiocese, there is neither a requirement nor a prohibition against women wearing veils. I don’t know if Archbishop Fiorenza had issued any specific instructions regarding celebrating Mass ad orientem.

These matters are within the purview of each individual bishop, assuming a lack of specific instruction from Rome. Not too long ago, Rome issued corrective directions pertaining to the liturgy. The issues of head coverings and ad orientem versus ad populum were not mentioned.

Maybe Pope Benedict XVI will follow up on these matters. Until then, it isn’t anyone’s place to condemn. After then, it will be everybody’s place to obey.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Regarding the issue of headcoverings, I read over on EWTN (yeah, the other place ) in the canon law forum that in 1983 the code of canon law was “updated” (for lack of a better term) from the previous code of 1917, and that unless a particular discipline was addressed, that discipline was “abrogated”. Headcoverings were not addressed, therefore head coverings were abrogated; meaning that while a woman COULD wear a head covering she no longer was OBLIGATED TO; much as prior to 1969 in the US Catholics did not eat meat on Fridays, but after 1969 due to the USCCB decision, they were only to abstain from meat on Lenten Fridays and Ash Wednesday, and were ENCOURAGED (but not strictly speaking required) to have a “penitential practice” on other Fridays, which COULD be abstaining from meat but could be something else.

Now, again, this is what is in the documents and what either the bishops or the canon lawyer on the forums say about these things.

I personally would like to see ALL Fridays meatless and women with headcoverings (BTW, I’m a girl). It is entirely possible that there will be an update on canon law under Benedict in which these issues are again addressed.

But then again I am still hoping for unity in the Mass of word, posture, and intent.

I still think that one must start with the so called “little things”, as some might consider head coverings, and progress to the larger. And the sooner, the better–IMO.

 

[JSmitty2005]

mlchance & Tantum ergo, please read the Robert Sungenis article I linked to above. He makes it quite clear that this was never abrogated and is still binding despite the fact that it’s not enforced by the Church’s leadership. Please also read the Bible passages and Church documents that I quote above and then give me a good reason why the Church needed to abrogate such a practice (if it even did!). Regarding meat on Fridays, Tantum ergo, I’m glad that you remembered that we are still required to always have a penitential practice on Fridays in memorium of Our Lord’s Passion. Too many Catholics these days believe that just because abstaining from meat is no longer required that nothing at all is required of us. But we both know that this is not true. As far as the USCCB, well, they just make me want to laugh. I listen to Rome.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[mlchance]

JSmitty2005:

mlchance & Tantum ergo, please read the Robert Sungenis article I linked to above.

About this and many other things, Mr. Sungenis is wrong, as has been amply explained by myself and others with reference to what the Church (who has authority Mr. Sungenis only pretends to) has said about the matter.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[JSmitty2005]

mlchance:

About this and many other things, Mr. Sungenis is wrong, as has been amply explained by myself and others with reference to what the Church (who has authority Mr. Sungenis only pretends to) has said about the matter.

– Mark L. Chance.

Prove that he’s wrong. Sorry, but I’m not just going to trust your assertion. I’m not a big fan of his, but the refutation he gave of Jimmy Akin’s article was quite skillfully done. If you think you can disprove him, you’re welcome to.

 

[MariaG]

dts:

Yes. I was not accusing anyone of anything. I was raising a question and making a couple of observations about feminism’s devastating impact on our culture.

If the headcovering practice was not changed due to feminism, then why was it changed? As I indicated, I have not adopted a dogmatic position on this issue, but I am suspicious of the reasons for the change.

I accept your explanation, but you can see how offended I was to in one breath talk about feminism, abortion and same sex marriage and talk about the only possible objection to be feminism.

As for how it originally happened I have no idea. As to why it is not practiced now, if your assertions are correct, is ignorance.

I actually do not have a problem with head coverings and would gladly wear them if it were required, something I am not yet convinced of but willing to look into.

I do know that my hair, which reaches to my waist, is always discretely pulled back. I frequently wear my hair down, which my husband loves, but have always pulled it up and or back for church. Why? Because I do feel that a womans hair can be seen very sensually and that it would be inappropriate for me to in any way be a distraction to someone in church.

But I need to go through the link you posted more thouroughly. Any other links or comments would greatly be appreciated, whether for or against.

An honestly seeking Catholic woman,
Maria

 

[JSmitty2005]

MariaG:

Any other links or comments would greatly be appreciated, whether for or against.

Yeah, it may not seem like it, but I’m with ya on that^. I’m waiting to hear someone try to defend this change (if it ever really officially occurred). The only thing that seems to be said in favor of it is, “well, it changed and that’s the way it is because the Church has the authority to do whatever she wants.” There have been no *reasons * stated, and that’s what I’m looking for because I’m open to them although I will naturally be skeptical.

An honestly seeking Catholic guy,
-Jon

 

[stanley123]

MariaG:

And as someone whose parents left the Church and I did not attend church until an adult about 7 years ago, why would I even know to wear a head covering when even the older ladies in my church, of which are the majority, don’t wear one?
.

You would know if you read the Bible and the passages cited above.

 

[stanley123]

JSmitty2005:

There is no reason at all to abandon apostolic traditions “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
-2 Thess. 2:15

“If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.” -Fourth Anathema of the Second Council of Nicaea (787A.D.)
The requirement of women wearing headcoverings is very clear in Sacred Scripture! 1 Cor. 11:4-6 “Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.” How can anyone deny this?

I would say that it looks like you are absolutely correct and that there is a grave and serious requirement for women to wear headcovering, as it looks to me like it is obligatory both from Sacred Scripture and from Holy Tradition. I don’t see any honest way of getting around the requirement of headcovering for women.
It is curious that since women have stopped wearing headcoverings, the number of marriage annulments has gone way up, causing an very large number of family breakups. For example, in 1930, when women were wearing headcovering, the number of marriage annulments was 9 per year in the USA, but in 1989, when women had stopped wearing headcoverings in Church, the number of marriage annulments had shot up to more than 61,000 per year in the USA.

 

[MariaG]

stanley123:

You would know if you read the Bible and the passages cited above.

Yeah and I would know that slaves should be submissive to their masters also.

Context. And the context of this has always been what I was told on those passages. Women needed to be dressed in a moderate manner. The pagan women of the time spent hours of time decorating their hair, as a way to differentiate, Christian women needed to not do this. Just as slavery wasn’t endorsed, neither was the headcoverings specifically, just a moderate manner of dress, as was explained to me.

Now, anything that may be actually helpful?

Why is Akin wrong and the other guy right. I read both. Which is right? And why are they right?

Maria

 

[JSmitty2005]

MariaG:

Why is Akin wrong and the other guy right. I read both. Which is right? And why are they right?

Sungenis is right because he refuted every point that Jimmy Akin tried to make! To be honest with you, I’d like to see Jimmy Akin write an article countering Mr. Sungenis’s article (if that’s even possible!).

 

[MariaG]

JSmitty2005:

Sungenis is right because he refuted every point that Jimmy Akin tried to make! To be honest with you, I’d like to see Jimmy Akin write an article countering Mr. Sungenis’s article (if that’s even possible!).

I am not positive of that.

But I too would like to see an article countering it.

God Bless,
Maria