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.
Traditional Ang:
Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given (her) for a covering?
Click to expand...
This has been an interesting discussion. This passage definately makes it sound as though men should not have long hair which is odd if Paul had long hair.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
If you want something in writing, I’ll have to get back to you on that. However, if you have a copy of Ratzinger’s Spirit of the Liturgy, I believe he addresses the issue in that (he agrees with me.) Peace.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm…and yet he faces the congregation when I’ve seen him (on TV) celebrating the Mass.
 
As for head coverings…

When the CDF asserted in 1976 that head coverings were no longer normative (i.e., binding) then it ceased to be either binding law or binding custom, but merely an optional practice. If a doubtful law is no longer binding, the certainly a doubtful custom is no longer binding either.
 
The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith has stated with regard to head coverings:

**INTER INSIGNIORES, 15 Oct 1976
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
…it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on the head (1 Cor 11:2-6); such requirements no longer have a normative value.
Click to expand...
While it is not proscribed by the Church, it is no longer prescribed either, that is, it is no longer obligatory (ie. a norm of the Church).

According to the *New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, *Study Edition, John P. Beal, et. al, Ed., Paulist Press, NY, 2000, pg. 91-92:
The observance of a custom is interrupted (i.e., not continuous), if: (1) the majority of the community ceases to observe it for a time, (2) the custom is continously observed but for a time the community does not consider it normative (c. 25), or (3) the custom is expressly disapproved by legitimate ecclesiastical authority.
Click to expand...
It seems the custom, “for a time” was not considered normative" (cf. CDF, INTER INSIGNIORES,1976). So (2) above seems to apply. Moreover, (1) seems to apply, as the majority of the community have ceased to observe the custom for a time. Thus, the custom cannot be said to be “continous” with respect to canon 26 of the Code of Canon Law. Thus, the custom is no longer a legal custom but is now merely an optional practice.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Article continued again again 😃 :

ST. PAUL: YOU DERIDE HIM
“You must read the Bible and act upon it. Cast not aside the teachings of the founders of My Son’s Church. Saint Paul, you revile and deride him. You cast him aside, and why? So that you can write and rewrite the words of your God to suit your own basic carnal human nature.” . . .
Click to expand...
Regarding the Bayside apparitions: ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/MUGABAY.TXT

The take-home point:

I, the undersigned Diocesan Bishop of Brooklyn, in my role as the
legitimate shepherd of this particular Church, wish to confirm the
constant position of the Diocese of Brooklyn that a thorough investigation revealed that the alleged “visions of Bayside” completely lacked authenticity.
 
40.png
mercygate:
Regarding the Bayside apparitions: ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/MUGABAY.TXT

The take-home point:

I, the undersigned Diocesan Bishop of Brooklyn, in my role as the
legitimate shepherd of this particular Church, wish to confirm the
constant position of the Diocese of Brooklyn that a thorough investigation revealed that the alleged “visions of Bayside” completely lacked authenticity.
Click to expand...
Thanks Mercygate,

That was my next question. Are these visions authentic and approved by the Church.

In this case, they are not only not “official” but they appear to have been ruled completely bogus.

Maria
 
40.png
mercygate:
Regarding the Bayside apparitions: ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/MUGABAY.TXT

The take-home point:

I, the undersigned Diocesan Bishop of Brooklyn, in my role as the
legitimate shepherd of this particular Church, wish to confirm the
constant position of the Diocese of Brooklyn that a thorough investigation revealed that the alleged “visions of Bayside” completely lacked authenticity.
Click to expand...
Of course they contend different.

**Question - Is Bayside an approved apparition site? I heard that the Catholic Church didn’t approve Bayside.

** ** Answer - ** This is probably the most frequently asked question regarding Our Lady of the Roses Shrine at Bayside and requires some explanation. In 1986, (after a period of sixteen years), a one- page statement was issued by the late Bishop Mugavero of the Brooklyn diocese, which conveyed a negative judgment on the apparitions of Our Lady and Our Lord to Veronica Lueken at Bayside.
Code: 
   The diocesan pronouncement does not correspond to the truth and is therefore null and void, for the following reasons:
more…
 
40.png
buffalo:
Of course they contend different.

Question - Is Bayside an approved apparition site? I heard that the Catholic Church didn’t approve Bayside.

******Answer - **This is probably the most frequently asked question regarding Our Lady of the Roses Shrine at Bayside and requires some explanation. In 1986, (after a period of sixteen years), a one- page statement was issued by the late Bishop Mugavero of the Brooklyn diocese, which conveyed a negative judgment on the apparitions of Our Lady and Our Lord to Veronica Lueken at Bayside.

The diocesan pronouncement does not correspond to the truth and is therefore null and void, for the following reasons:

more…
Click to expand...
DECLARATION CONCERNING THE “BAYSIDE MOVEMENT” (mercygate’s link)
ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/MUGABAY.TXT
2. The “messages” and other related propaganda contain statements which,
among other things, are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church,
undermine the legitimate authority of bishops and councils and instill
doubts in the minds of the faithful, for example, **by claiming that, for
years, an “imposter (sic) Pope” governed the Catholic Church in place of
Paul VI.
**
Click to expand...
Looks like this “vision” was rightfully declared false if claims such as this were being made.
 
40.png
maryalene:
This has been an interesting discussion. This passage definately makes it sound as though men should not have long hair which is odd if Paul had long hair.
Click to expand...
It is not the nature of a man’s hair to be short. If it was, then men’s hair would stop growing at a certain point like our eyebrows, eyelashes, etc. do.
 
40.png
MariaG:
Thanks Mercygate,

That was my next question. Are these visions authentic and approved by the Church.

In this case, they are not only not “official” but they appear to have been ruled completely bogus.

Maria
Click to expand...
Yeah, thanks Mercygate, I was wondering the same thing. Despite this though, even if you ignore the messages of the apparitions, the article makes it clear that women should still cover their heads by using biblical and other citations.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
It is not the nature of a man’s hair to be short. If it was, then men’s hair would stop growing at a certain point like our eyebrows, eyelashes, etc. do.
Click to expand...
But, as I read the passage, Paul says it is a disgrace to a man to wear his hair long.
 
40.png
maryalene:
But, as I read the passage, Paul says it is a disgrace to a man to wear his hair long.
Click to expand...
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:

orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/clergy_hair.aspx
 
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:

orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/clergy_hair.aspx
Click to expand...
Well, that was what I was thinking. Paul says it is a disgrace for a man to have long hair and yet, he, Jesus and many early Fathers had long hair. Paul also says that it is a disgrace for a woman to pray without a head covering. So is a woman nowadays praying without a headcovering much different than early Fathers with long hair? Paul says that they are both disgraces.
 
Would anyone like to tackle the questions I posted in my previous post.

Nelson
 
I Cor 11:4-16 NAB
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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. A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
Click to expand...
For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; nor was man created for woman, but woman for man; for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God.
Click to expand...
Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled?
**
Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him,**
Click to expand...
whereas if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given (her) for a covering?

But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.This is one that I think I’m gonna have to take up with St. Paul when I see him in heaven because it just doesn’t make sense.

Two points come to mind.

Paul appeals to nature teaching us…yet it is the male lion that has a mane, so to me there is some conflict in Paul’s logic here.

Also, he says that they have no other custom, which sounds very much like a discipline to me, which would make it like the disciplines that we have today.

Paul came from Judaism and they wore their hair and beards long and in fact the Nazarenes & Essenes made a big deal about it. Look at the Hassidic Jews of today…
I gotta talk this one over with Paul…I guess.
Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith has stated with regard to head coverings:

***INTER INSIGNIORES, ***15 Oct 1976
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

While it is not proscribed by the Church, it is no longer prescribed either, that is, it is no longer obligatory (ie. a norm of the Church).

According to the *New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, *Study Edition, John P. Beal, et. al, Ed., Paulist Press, NY, 2000, pg. 91-92:

It seems the custom, “for a time” was not considered normative" (cf. CDF, INTER INSIGNIORES,1976). So (2) above seems to apply. Moreover, (1) seems to apply, as the majority of the community have ceased to observe the custom for a time. Thus, the custom cannot be said to be “continous” with respect to canon 26 of the Code of Canon Law. Thus, the custom is no longer a legal custom but is now merely an optional practice.
Click to expand...
What’s a Woman To Do?
The Issue of Wearing Head Coverings

n this series of articles, I will be investigating the issues surrounding a woman’s role in the church, family and society. In the last series of my articles CFN published on biblical interpretation, we touched upon one aspect of the role of women as we discovered that the liberals of Catholic biblical scholarship have tried to convince the world that St. Paul’s mandates regarding women are his own culturally biased opinions and thus not applicable to today’s modern world. Now we are going to press deeper into the matter. In the first few articles of this present series, we will be investigating the matter of head coverings, and later we will deal with the matter of submission.

more…
 
Buffalo,

I’ve read Mr. Sugenis’ article. However, I am to submit to my superiors (cf. Heb 13:17) and Mr. Sungenis, although I really like much of his work, is not in my “chain of command.” 😉

The CDF speaks with more authority on the matter. If they state that head coverings are among those requirements that “***no longer have a normative value,” ***then I owe my religious submission of intellect and will to the decision. Especially since Pope Paul VI reviewed and approved the declaration, and ordered it published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Now, my bishop may establish norms that are more restrictive than the universal Church, so long as they are not contrary to universal norms. So, if my diocesan bishop asserts that in his diocese, women will have head coverings at Mass, then it will be binding. Until then, it appears from a canon law perspective, to be no longer binding for the universal Church, Mr. Sungenis’ opinion notwithstanding.
 
40.png
MariaG:
Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears from your pictures as if head coverings are worn in public all the time and just not to Church. This would seem to support the “normative value” and custom.
God Bless,
Maria
Click to expand...
From the caption above the picture inside the church, it appears that this is inside an “Old Believer” Russian Orthodox Church in the USA. I don’t know the answer to your question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top