Regarding Women Covering their heads and the Exegesis of St Paul

  • Thread starter Thread starter Malleus_01
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Malleus_01

Guest
Surriter writes : Mal, you keep saying that I am the one doing the interpreting. In fact, it is the Church that does the interpreting. I have merely repeated what our Church teaches. Since you rabidly disagree with what the Church teaches regarding these disciplines, why are you railing on me?

Malleus: I am not. You are me. You are the one going out of your way to make up things regarding what I have written both about me personally and about what you percieve to be the truth. I support what I write with more than my opinion. I am likewise repeating what the Church not only teaches but practises in TRADITION upon which thread this post appears. I didnt seek you out on another thread regarding the modern church - you came here. Secondly - The exegesis comes from SEVERAL SOURCES - coming to mind Hermas , St Clement of Alexandria - St Jerome ( and I think he knows a little about Scripture) St Augustine and Tertullian - not to mention the fact that CANON LAW of 1917 specifically required it - so DONT assume I am merely quoting on my own. And if you want to have a Theological Debate - let me know. I know what our Church teaches. And if you want to back up your opinions with good apologetics then I suggest you do so if for no other reason than for charities sake for your neighbor which is the sole reason I am here…

Your Turn Suriter

I’ll be back Monday - Debate away…
 
I just wish the OP would use the quote function, like everyone else. Would make posts much easier to read.

But I don’t think I want to read this one anyway. It’s been debated to death! (where’s that dead horse smilie?)
 
Hi Mal –

I will simply state what I stated on that other thread. It is VERY CLEAR that the Catholic Church does not require women to wear head coverings in our current time. To say that is not to denigrate women who chose to do so. For goodness sake, I never said that – I merely challenged your post that it is an absolute requirement. From that, you went berserk on me and claimed that I was somehow preaching that the “TLM is not worthy” and that I was “being so judgemental of Traditional Catholic women.” (And supposedly I was the one getting emotional??) 🤷

Therefore, from the following two choices, please clearly indicate which one you are espousing:
  • You seem to insist that the Church DOES require head coverings for women. If so, please show me the exact Vatican document where it says that.
  • If you merely believe that the Church SHOULD require it, and that the Church is wrong, then please articulate how we are to know when we should deviate from the teaching of the See of Peter. Even though the topic at hand is a disciplinary matter, to ignore what the Church allows and insist on your own rules is, ironically, a Protestant trait.
And finally, if you perchance wish to bring up the 1917 Code of Canon Law, recall that the other thread had a clear explanation of how the 1983 Code abrogated the older Code.
 
Thanks for posting the link. I have seen some of those points made elsewhere in bits and pieces, and it’s good to see the full presentation where they come from.

That said, there are several points to be made about Mr. Sungenis’s paper.

First, the debate can go no further unless we all agree that the Catholic Church has the power to change the rule about head coverings. I suspect that some folks reading this thread see the rule as unchangeable, almost on par with a doctrine regarding faith or morals. If that is the case, please speak up now, because everything that follows is contingent on the idea that the Church at least can change the requirement. This is because the idea of a head covering is what we call a “discipline,” and has no integral rightness or wrongness to it, in and of itself.

Now, several points about the link posted above. First, I am very curious about the response that would have presumably been sent to Mr. Sungenis. While his letter presents some worthwhile points to ponder, the whole presentation hinges on the response from the competent authority in Rome. If someone knows whether a response was received, please indicate so.

Second, the Vatican exhibits no requirement for head coverings in the Masses that take place within its own borders, where it presumably would see that visitors comply with Church law. I think that if the pope, or Cardinal Arinze or his successor at the CDW, saw things as Mr. Sungenis does, they would at least speak up that women should indeed wear head coverings during Holy Mass.

But as to his specific points…It really takes some legal arm-twisting to surmise that the rule given in the 1917 Code is still in effect. Read the 1983 Canon. It specifically says that:​

Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;

3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;

4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.​

Head coverings for women do not fall under item 2 since head coverings are not mentioned in the 1983 Code. Nor do they fall under the penal laws of item 3. And while they do pertain to disciplinary laws, item 4 does not apply because the new Code does not “reorder” anything about head coverings. But head coverings were mentioned in the 1917 Code (#1262) so they fall under item 1. Ergo, the rule of head coverings was abrogated in 1983.

Any other attempt to wrangle a requirement for head coverings from the 1983 Code is being dishonest to the clear statements of Canon #6.

But with Canon Law aside, what about the “moral obligation” to wear a head covering? Well, the disciplines about our behavior regarding dress, etc. are indeed subject to rules that ensure moral compliance, but as pointed out, those rules are allowed to be changed by competent Church authorities.

Everything else presented by Mr. Sungenis is simply an (admitted compelling) argument for why head coverings are a good idea – immemorial custom, etc. But that is irrelevant to the question: Does the Church currently require women to wear head coverings? The answer is simply “no.” The original debate between myself and the OP was simply about the question of whether it is mandatory. That’s all. Whether it is laudable, historically consistent, or in compliance with St. Paul’s requirement for the culture of his time is not the topic here!

Since we’re throwing around outside references, you can read more analysis about current Church teaching on this disciplinary matter at these links from EWTN (by Colin Donovan) and Jimmy Akin (for Jimmy Akin’s explanation, you’ll have to scroll a little more than halfway down.)
 
surritter said:
Everything else presented by Mr. Sungenis is simply an (admitted compelling) argument for why head coverings are a good idea – immemorial custom, etc.
Click to expand...
Where the breakdown almost always occurs in discussion on this topic is on the basis of “immemorial custom” , with such customs having “force of law”, and the misunderstanding of what that means.

The point is made that “immemorial customs” cannot be abrogated and continue to have the “force of law”. That is fully correct as far as it goes. Unfortunately the “force of law” term here does not imply a requirement; it simply means that the right to wear headcovering cannot be revoked.

Perhaps an parallel situation makes that clearer. In the United States the USCCB adopted standing to be the preferred posture for receiving communion. When people wanted to kneel and were denied communion the Holy See stepped in and made clear the since kneeling is an immemorial custom the right to do so cannot be abrogated and people continue to enjoy that right without being considered disobedient to the established norm or the authority of the USCCB (with recognitio) to establish the norm.

Again, the immemorial custom gives people the right to receive kneeling without creating a universal requirement to do so since it is a disciplinary action of the Church. Wearing headcoverings falls under the same category. As an immemorial custom a woman could not be denied the right to wear one, but there is no longer a requirement. It has nothing to do with whether it is a laudable practice but is simply a disciplinary matter that the Church has chosen to leave to the individual’s discretion, just as the choice to kneel for communion is at the individual’s discretion.

Peace,
 
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, John. Goodness, I of course agree that the right to wear a head covering cannot be denied. But as you correctly point out, this is not the same as requiring head coverings for every woman that enters a Latin-rite church anywhere in the world.

I think if the OP could agree to this, then the discussion is satisfactorily concluded. (Sorry to have all this discussion going on while you are gone, Mal). 🙂
 
Very good points.

I was interested in this section from Dr. Sungenis’ letter (from the section titled Liturgical Law):
Second, since the 1917 code made head coverings part of the liturgy due to the fact that: (a) women could not pray with their head uncovered at Mass, and (b) men could not pray with their head covered, it appears that we can use the canonical laws regarding liturgy to address this issue. For example, Canon 2 says: For the most part the [1983] Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code. Here we see that the 1983 code is admitting that it has not “defined” many of the things that take place in “liturgical actions.” Since the wearing of head coverings is included in liturgical
actions, then it follows that, since the 1983 code does not address head coverings, “therefore” the “law” of head covering is “in force until now” and “retains its force “unless…contrary to the canons of the code.” Obviously, head coverings are not contrary to the 1983 code since the 1983 code does not address head coverings.
Click to expand...
I’m new to this debate, so perhaps you could break this all down for me.
 
For someone who’s new to this debate, you sure have a lot of info up your sleeve 😉

But you bring up a good point, and that’s particularly why I ask if Mr. Sungenis has received a reply from Rome. That of course is where the real authority lies.
 
surritter said:
For someone who’s new to this debate, you sure have a lot of info up your sleeve 😉

But you bring up a good point, and that’s particularly why I ask if Mr. Sungenis has received a reply from Rome. That of course is where the real authority lies.
Click to expand...
I’m new to “this” particular debate on CA and to the greater debate in general. I’ve read a few different points of view from Sungenis, Akin, etc. ; but I would hardly call myself an expert. 😃

I haven’t seen an response to the letter yet, but I am also very interested to hear Rome’s point of view. I have a feeling that the Vatican sides with Sungenis and others like him, but they have to play their cards very carefully in the coming years. Politics and such. Plus, they have other pressing issues, like the release of the new translation of the Mass for the English-speaking Church in America. I think viels are one of those things that got swept under the rug, or perhaps blown under the rug or behind a dresser, when the council “opened all the windows”…yes, V2.

We’ll see.

A
 
surritter said:
Hi Mal –

I will simply state what I stated on that other thread. It is VERY CLEAR that the Catholic Church does not require women to wear head coverings in our current time. To say that is not to denigrate women who chose to do so. For goodness sake, I never said that – I merely challenged your post that it is an absolute requirement. From that, you went berserk on me and claimed that I was somehow preaching that the “TLM is not worthy” and that I was “being so judgemental of Traditional Catholic women.” (And supposedly I was the one getting emotional??) 🤷

Therefore, from the following two choices, please clearly indicate which one you are espousing:
  • You seem to insist that the Church DOES require head coverings for women. If so, please show me the exact Vatican document where it says that.
  • If you merely believe that the Church SHOULD require it, and that the Church is wrong, then please articulate how we are to know when we should deviate from the teaching of the See of Peter. Even though the topic at hand is a disciplinary matter, to ignore what the Church allows and insist on your own rules is, ironically, a Protestant trait.
And finally, if you perchance wish to bring up the 1917 Code of Canon Law, recall that the other thread had a clear explanation of how the 1983 Code abrogated the older Code.
Click to expand...
Malleus: Once again - instead of debating - you have chosen to introduce your own strawman argument. Thus far - in the EXEGESIS of SCRIPTURE (Which is the Argument) I have submitted specific writings by Hermas , St Clement of Alexandria - St Jerome ,St Augustine and Tertullian And from you - what do we have? NADA ZIP ZILCH NYET.

Do try to stay on topic. I simply submittted 1 Corinthians 11 to which you then Claimed I was Self Interpreting. After that quote - I then submitted my proofs from Early Church fathers not to mention Canon Law 1917 Canon Law

The 1917 Code of Canon Law. canon 1262, stated,
  1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.
  2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.
I suppose I could likewise submit early christian art all of which shows women wearing headcoverings.

Now Traditional Catholics have never changed this practise which is consistant both with the Early Church and with the EXEGESIS of Sacred Scripture by SEVERAL ANCIENT CHURCH Fathers and continue to observe it to this very day…

Now you wanted to debate - I suggest you begin debating and cease with your private opinions.

Pax
 
Mal, in light of the question at hand, I don’t care about the Early Fathers or 1 Corinthians. The matter of head coverings is NOT AN ABSOLUTE that is impossible to change. It is what we call a discipline.

And the question at hand is whether our Church currently requires women to wear head coverings. Please indicate if you are with me so far, and then we can engage the rest of your post.
 
ausculta said:
Any debate on head covering should be prefaced by the work of Robert Sungenis, who has spent quite a bit of time and effort looking into it:

catholicintl.com/articles/letter_to_Vatican_July_2009.pdf
Click to expand...
Malleus: Like this for example?

1 Corinthians 11:1-16
Should Today’s Women Wear Head Coverings?
A Scriptural, Historical and Canonical Analysis
(revised and expended from the original 2004 article,
including a correction on the author of the 1976 Vatican
document Inter Insigniores)
By Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D.
In 1Co 11:4-7, St. Paul writes:
4Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered
dishonors his head. 5But every woman praying or prophesying
with her head uncovered dishonors her head; for she is one and
the same with a woman who has been shaved. 6For if a woman
is not covered, then she should have her hair cut off; for if it is
shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved,
then she should be covered. 7But a man should not have his head
covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman
is the glory of man.
The question for today’s modern church and culture is: does this
Scriptural mandate apply to us? The answer commonly given today is:
“No, women are not required to wear head coverings. That is an
antiquated practice of the past, and today’s church has officially declared
that women are no longer bound to it.” The truth is, the church has never
abrogated the practice of head coverings; rather, the practice has fallen
into disuse purely from cultural pressures. In a word, these cultural
pressures have had a most damaging effect in deteriorating our whole
society, and one of the more dramatic changes is the role of women.

Well Surriter - didnt you say that the CHURCH has abrogated the practise? Mr Sungenis just destroyed your claim didnt he.

Pax
 
Signing off with “Pax” doesn’t make up for a snarky attitude, Mal. Please avoid that tone or I will report your posts.
 
And I will be glad to respond to your snippet from Mr. Sungenis’s treatise, but would you first agree that the Church at least has the power to change the practice, if She so wishes? Or is it a faith/morals doctrine that is set in stone for all time?
 
ausculta said:
Very good points.

I was interested in this section from Dr. Sungenis’ letter (from the section titled Liturgical Law):

I’m new to this debate, so perhaps you could break this all down for me.
Click to expand...
Malleus: And I just want to add one more thing. According to many people I have spoken to here - the claim they always use in relation to the use of the Mass of Paul the VI is that it returns to an earlier form in use in the Ancient church. But we find that in the case of head coverings for women - the use is universal both east and west in the ancient church. So now in this argument - you are taking the other side of the fence argument and saying that women do not have to cover their heads because of modern cultural reasons? Sorry , but you cannot have your cake and eat it to. In fact , it is one more shred of evidence that the Mass of Paul the VI is likewise not an Ancient form but in fact in line with those who opine that Vatican II itself was all about bending the Church in her liturgy , practise , and mission to culture and to seek the approval of the non catholic world.

Pax
 
I didn’t say that women no longer need to cover their heads for cultural reasons. I follow what the Catholic Church teaches, and She can decide what the reasons are if She wishes to change the rule.
 
surritter said:
Signing off with “Pax” doesn’t make up for a snarky attitude, Mal. Please avoid that tone or I will report your posts.
Click to expand...
It means peace. Would you prefer me to wish evil on you? I have never come across anyone who objected to peace before. You are the first.

Pax
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top