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.
40.png
stanley123:
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.
Click to expand...
The reason I said it appears as if head coverings are always worn by women is if you look at the family picture taken outside, it is a colorful head covering. Inside the Church there are only white ones.

Appearances can be deceiving but…
 
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.
 
**(Note ** - Continued from previous page):

And finally, back to the CDF thing, here is a quote from the Rob Sungenis article I referred to earlier (I edited it slightly):
Canon 26 of the 1983 Law:

“Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.”

In other words, if a custom has been practiced for 100 years, then even a canon of the 1983 code which specifically mandates that head coverings are not to be worn, cannot usurp the previous custom! (Of course, there is no such law in the 1983 code, which makes the argument against headcoverings all that much weaker).

Since the 1983 code is showing us its own limitations in regard to 100 year old customs, we now know why the 1983 Code makes no mention of head coverings! That is, it wouldn’t make any difference whether it did or did not, since it could not abrogate a custom older than 100 years.

Now reason it out for yourself: how long were head coverings practiced in the Church, even before the 1917 code? The answer is, for 1700 years until 1917, and 1970 years before the liberals of the post-conciliar Church decided to stop the practice.

Third, if we want to consider this a matter of law, that is, the 1983 code versus the 1917 code, then we need to deal with Canon 21 of the 1983 code, which says:

“In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them.”

Now, this tells us that the law of head covering promulgated in the 1917 code, is “not presumed” to have been revoked (especially since the 1983 code says absolutely nothing about head coverings being revoked). In other words, just because the 1983 code abrogates the 1917 code as a legal document, this does not mean that “pre-existing laws” in the 1917 code have no affect upon us.

Why would the 1983 code make this stipulation? Obviously because the 1983 code does not want to appear at odds with its own tradition. The Catholic Church (at least the one most of us know from the past) does not wish to yank beliefs and practices from the people which have stood the test of time, especially those beliefs and practices stemming from the first century and which are specifically mandated in holy writ, as head coverings are.

In fact, Canon 21 says that the 1983 code “must be related to the earlier ones [the 1917 code] and insofar as possible [the 1983 code] must be harmonized with them [the laws of the 1917 code].”
 
okay, so we are back to the original article from someone who differs in opinion from someone else.

Kind of full circle.

Frankly, I find your opinions more compelling than the article from Sungenis.

God Bless,
Maria
 
Traditional Ang:
MariaG:

You’re correct that The Apostle St. Paul wanted women to differentiate themselves from the pegans and the polytheism and other abominations of that society. He also wanted the Church to be transformed by the Holy Spirit and not to be conformed to the world and its customs. You’re also overlooking that he also wanted a similar sign (no head covering) from men.

Wouldn’t you agree that we should be striving for the same transformation and nonconformity today? Wouldn’t you agree that it’s just as necessary for the Church to differentiate itself from a world that revels in sexual immorality and excess, that uses abortion to get rid of inconvenient babies, that warehouses the elderly in “convalescent hospitals” (so their children never have to see them), that locks and hides criminals in dungeons for the same reason and that celebrates the conspicuous consumption that has led to WW IV?

The verse meant exactly what it said - That’s the way Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants all the way down to our parents took it to mean when they went to Mass in the centuries before the 1960’s. And, that’s the way most Orthodox still understand it.

I can’t do anything about the fashion of the day which prescribed a hat and goves when there was no reason for them except for showing off one’s ability to buy the most expensive set available. And the Apostle St. Paul would probably have been horrified at the use of such fashion a statement to show off one’s wealth.

And, this verse also has nothing to do with Women’s Suffrage. It simply states that we as Christians need to demonstatrate submission to the authority of Jesus and of His Church.

The Scripture isn’t talking about modest dress - It’s talking about demonstrating submission to our Lord and His Church and differientiating ourselves from the society we live in but are not of.

There are plenty of other reasons to dress modestly and to “Wear you Sunday best”, but that verse isn’t one of them.

I’m sorry that you were never properly taught that.

In Christ, Michael
Click to expand...
I must of missed this post back on #64.

You had a pretty good post going then you had to go and get personal by your last line. Pretty petty. Also loses major impact because it makes your whole post seem to want to make that one point.

The problem here is others, many others say this is about modest dress, but you say it isn’t. I guess all of us women who were never taught properly can either take your word and a few others word for it or can wait for the leadership of the Church to teach about this issue.

:hmmm: I think I’ll stick with my pastor, my bishop and those in direct authority over me.

👋
 
JSmitty2005,
if a custom has been practiced for 100 years, then even a canon of the 1983 code which specifically mandates that head coverings are not to be worn, cannot usurp the previous custom!
Click to expand...
Thank you. As I said, I’m familiar with Mr. Sungenis’ opinion. However, such a view isn’t consistent with historical precedence of custom and Catholic canon law.

For example, according to St. Pius X, the custom of giving Holy Communion to infants in the Latin Church was more than 1200 years old. Yet, the 1200-year-old custom later died out, then Latin canon law prohibited this long standing custom, right? Is this law binding? Is St. Pius X in error? Should we be prepared to oppose the Lateran Council and St. Pius X because of their supposed erroneous view of custom and canon law, and insist upon long-standing custom to be of greater canonical authority than canon law?

From Quam Singulari (1910), approved and promulgated by St. Pius X …
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10quam.htm
The Catholic Church, bearing this in mind, took care even from the beginning to bring the little ones to Christ through Eucharistic Communion, which was administered even to nursing infants. … done at Baptism until the thirteenth century …
Click to expand...
This practice later died out in the Latin Church, and children were not permitted to approach the Holy Table until they had come to the use of reason and had some knowledge of this august Sacrament. This new practice, already accepted by certain local councils, was solemnly confirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran, in 1215 …
Hmmmmmm… Pretty bold step to prohibit something that had been Catholic custom for over twelve centuries, no? Perhaps the fine Bishops of the 13th century understood that they indeed had the power to “bind and loose” despite long-standing custom, Mr. Sungenis’ opinion notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
Now, nothing in canon law prohibits the custom of wearing a veil. However, if canon law did, as Mr. Sungenis’ hypothetical situation suggests, then it would indeed be binding.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
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?.
Click to expand...
I am not sure, but I guess it was a serious mistake. It looks like there were other mistakes introduced after Vatican II also, such as for example, the effective abandonment of the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage by the method of liberalising the teaching on what constitute the grounds for an annulment. For example, in 1930, in the USA, there were 9 annulments for that year, whereas in 1989 there were 61, 416. Also, according to the website:
divorcehelp.net/annulment.html

“**A spouse’s extramarital affair(s), …, etc. serve to demonstrate that the spouse exhibits an antisocial personality which would prevent him/her from fully understanding or carrying out the obligations of a lifelong relationship and therefore evidence that the spouse lacked the due competence required to form a sacramental marriage” **
"Many people believe that virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of incapacity and immaturity."
Theoretically, the doctrine on indissolubility of marriage stil stands, but operationally, and considering what is put into practice, it does not stand in actual practice because "virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of incapacity and immaturity."
 
40.png
elvisman:
JSmitty -
I don’t know where you got you information regarding the priest with his back to the people being an ancient practice but I would refer you to the book, “Church History” by Fr. John Laux (TAN Books).
In it, he covers all these matters and says that the mass was celebrated with the priest and/or Bishop facing the congregation from the earliest of times. It was later changed.
Hyper-traditionalists such as SSPX would have you believe otherwise because of the Papal Bull of St. Pius V - who insisted that the mass be celebrated one way because of the many liturgical abuses that were being practiced in his day. He sought to rid the Church of the abuses that were undermining the mass.
Many of these hyper-traditionalists today believe that his was an edict that could not be changed - such as the rule on female ordination. This is simply not true.

"Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." - St. Jerome
Click to expand...
There is a reason they believe that it “was an edict that could not be changed.”
This is the link to the english translation of the edict “Quo Primum”:
unavoce.org/quoprim.htm
In it Pope St. Pius V uses the words:
…This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women - even of military orders -…
Click to expand...
I’m not saying this edict has the same force as an ex cathedra statement, for example, but the words “now and forever” are pretty strong.

This is a tad off-topic-- sorry. 🙂
 
I didn’t read all the above posts, forgive me.
I know it would have been proper to do so before responding, so if someone has already brought this up then just ignore this.
The thing is, about the versus in 1 corinthians about head coverings, if you keep reading, in verse 16 Paul says :
" But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice nor have the churches of God."
Isn’t Paul saying, this isn’t worth arguing over?
WE have no such pratice in God’s Church?

My two cents. 😉
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
It’s sad isn’t it? Where has our Catholic identity gone? 😦
Click to expand...

It’s not gone anywhere 🙂 - it consists in resemblance to Jesus Christ, which is acquired by living in faith, hope and charity, not from any ability in us, but because He is living in us. Vatican II has not changed that in the least.​

We’re supposed to live in detachment from earthly things; maybe we need to be detached, not only from our own hearts and wills and desires, but also from the past; not only from the present and future. It can be a prison rather than a means of grace otherwise. Fishes live in water; they aren’t weighed down by it - so with us in the past and present and future. ##
 
Gottle of Geer:
maybe we need to be detached, not only from our own hearts and wills and desires, but also from the past
Click to expand...
Hmmmm…I smell unorthodoxy on the verge of heresy. :eek: Have you ever heard of tradition?
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
JSmitty2005,

Thank you. As I said, I’m familiar with Mr. Sungenis’ opinion. However, such a view isn’t consistent with historical precedence of custom and Catholic canon law.

For example, according to St. Pius X, the custom of giving Holy Communion to infants in the Latin Church was more than 1200 years old. Yet, the 1200-year-old custom later died out, then Latin canon law prohibited this long standing custom, right? Is this law binding? Is St. Pius X in error? Should we be prepared to oppose the Lateran Council and St. Pius X because of their supposed erroneous view of custom and canon law, and insist upon long-standing custom to be of greater canonical authority than canon law?

From Quam Singulari (1910), approved and promulgated by St. Pius X …
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10quam.htm
Hmmmmmm… Pretty bold step to prohibit something that had been Catholic custom for over twelve centuries, no? Perhaps the fine Bishops of the 13th century understood that they indeed had the power to “bind and loose” despite long-standing custom, Mr. Sungenis’ opinion notwithstanding.

Now, nothing in canon law prohibits the custom of wearing a veil. However, if canon law did, as Mr. Sungenis’ hypothetical situation suggests, then it would indeed be binding.
Click to expand...
Now you’re just being ignored, Dave! History! It’s a good thing! 😉
 
40.png
allisonP:
Isn’t Paul saying, this isn’t worth arguing over?
Click to expand...
If Paul meant that, then he would be saying that what he *just said * was pointless. :confused: That is total hipocrisy and just doesn’t make sense. This is similar to fundies that try to say that the Eucharist is merely symbolic because Christ said “the flesh is of no avail,” but right before he said that, he was talking about the Eucharist! Obviously, they are misinterpreting what Christ was trying to say and in the process make him look like a hipocrite.
40.png
allisonP:
WE have no such pratice in God’s Church?
Click to expand...
Read this article:

matthew.ovc.edu/terry/articles/headcovr.htm
 
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
40.png
JSmitty2005:
If Paul meant that, then he would be saying that what he *just said * was pointless. :confused: That is total hipocrisy and just doesn’t make sense. This is similar to fundies that try to say that the Eucharist is merely symbolic because Christ said “the flesh is of no avail,” but right before he said that, he was talking about the Eucharist! Obviously, they are misinterpreting what Christ was trying to say and in the process make him look like a hipocrite.

Read this article:

matthew.ovc.edu/terry/articles/headcovr.htm
Click to expand...
 
40.png
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
Click to expand...
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! 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top