Regarding Women Covering their heads and the Exegesis of St Paul

[Malleus_01]

Mal, I’d be interested in your response to john, seeing that you were quite adamant that my posts making the very same point were not persuasive.

Well the answer remains the same. I’ll restate the the title of this thread for you and for John. "Regarding Women Covering their heads and the Exegesis of St Paul "

The Title of this thread remains “Regarding Women covering their head” Ok we are all in AGREEMENT that we are discussing this subject - no argument there BUT the the rest :

AND The EXEGESIS of ST PAUL meaning - how does the CHURCH SPECIFICALLY DEFINE the MEANING of 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 ?

Thus far - I have provided ample proofs. And both you and John have provided nothing. The Subject is Scriptural Exegesis.

 

[Malleus_01]

Oh brother. Mal – I’ve tried to pose the question point blank, and you refuse. Allow me one more attempt:

Does the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy currently require women to cover their heads when assisting at Holy Mass? Yes or no?

From there we can discuss whether it’s required from Scripture, but that is not the reason this debate got started.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS

1 Corinthians Chapter 11

11:1. Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.

11:2. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.

11:3. But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God.

11:4. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraceth his head.

11:5. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.

11:6. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head.

11:7. The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.

11:8. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

11:9. For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man.

11:10. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.

A power… that is, a veil or covering, as a sign that she is under the power of her husband: and this, the apostle adds, because of the angels, who are present in the assemblies of the faithful.

11:11. But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.

11:12. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God.

11:13. You yourselves judge. Doth it become a woman to pray unto God uncovered?

11:14. Doth not even nature itself teach you that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him?

11:15. But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.

11:16. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Church of God.

11:17. Now this I ordain: not praising you, that you come together, not for the better, but for the worse.

11:18. For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you. And in part I believe it.

11:19. For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved may be made manifest among you.

There must be also heresies… By reason of the pride and perversity of man’s heart; not by God’s will or appointment; who nevertheless draws good out of this evil, manifesting, by that occasion, who are the good and firm Christians, and making their faith more remarkable.

Malleus: Isnt it interesting that St Paul goes from requiring Women to Cover their heads into talking about “Schisms and Heresies” Certainly the theological argument can be made for why he requires it in 11 : 2 and makes a big deal out of explaining WHY He has this ordinance - the purpose of it and then immediately starts speaking about Schisms and Heresies ? Are we to infer that those who he considered in schism or heresy didnt follow this ordinance thus neccesitating him to explain it to the Corinthians?

 

[ncjohn]

Malleus: Scripture is the Word of GOD and thus is infallible. Now if you want to argue that the Interpretation of these Early Church fathers is non Infallible - then perhaps you can direct us to the Theologians you think are (GEE WASNT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD TO BEGIN WITH?) And BTW - that statement is likewise incorrect. St Jerome compliled the Latin Vulgate and the Council of Trent defined it infallibly as free from Doctrinal Error. Therefore , as stated earrlier - i have yet to see your proofs for proper Exegesis. You appear to be saying that the Church Fathers including St Jerome and St Augustine were wrong and you are right. Sorry , But we believe St Paul St Jerome and St Augustine. they are closer to infallibility than you are.

Pax

Being free from doctrinal error is not the same as every word in the Bible being literally true. That is the major flaw of the sola scriptura fundamentalist religions. Infallibility and inerrancy have absolutely nothing to do with literalist interpretations of the Bible.

It is very clear that every word of the Bible cannot be literally true. The fact that there are two separate versions of the creation story that are mutually exclusive, as well as two separate stories of the ark. The fact that in the gospels the Sermon on the Mount is a sermon on the plain, with different numbers present in different gospels. The examples are endless.

Paul’s letters were largely addressed to specific issues in specific communities and were very often not at all intended to be any comment on universal practices.

The opinions of all those you mention are non-infallible teachings about a disciplinary matter. There are many theologians who have non-infallibly written against a scriptural requirement. In the end it is the Church who is the only valid interpeter of such things. When a Sacred Congregation promulgates an official statement such as the one I quoted, discussion is over and the ultimate theologian in the discussion has spoken. This particular document did so in regard to the ordination question while simultaneously addressing the headcovering question.

You may wish to dissent by claiming that non-infallible teachings somehow trump official Vatican statements about its disciplines but that doesn’t hold up in the Church. Since the disciplinary practice at the time of the Fathers you note was to require headcoverings they were required and it would certainly make sense that they would write in support of them. Disciplines are not doctrinal though, though they will have doctrinal support, and they are not universal and for all time. The Church no longer requires this as a discipline, while not in any way detracting from its laudability.

It may well be that you concur with that part of the Church who believes that we don’t have a current Pope or that nothing since Vatican II is valid. Or it may be that you simply disagree with the Church’s prudential judgment on the matter. The scriptural exegesis as a basis of “requirement” doesn’t hold up according to the one body entrusted with interpreting its scriptures and disciplines though.

Having grown up with women covering their heads I find much to recommend it. There are aspects to the identity issue alone that are worthwhile. I also recognize though that while one might comply with the sign that it is the intent of the heart that turns that sign from one of devotion to one of simple compliance with custom and can quickly turn to simply using it to call “Lord, Lord” without any internalization of why one is doing it. As such I firmly support the current stance in which those who wear headcoverings do so because they feel called to do so rather than out of compliance with culture.

Peace be with you!

 

[adstrinity]

Oh for the love of all things Holy & Nixon…

St. Paul also says don’t eat blood. We do that, despite what he said.

I read, when I received my mantilla, that what happened was, during Vatican II, the press asked some…Cardinal…if women still had to wear head coverings to Mass. He responded, ‘We have more important things to decide than what women wear on their heads.’ The Italian press reported, front page of some paper, ‘WOMEN NO LONGER HAVE TO COVER HEAD AT MASS’. The Cardinal went to them and said they got it wrong. They printed a retraction…days later…burried in the middle of the newspaper.

Ergo, women still have to wear head coverings (I was under this impression). It has since, though, become so wide spread, that, even though the practice/belief wasn’t changed, it hasn’t been corrected.

However, I read this thread but only half paid attention. This was then changed in 1983?

I don’t know what to side on this, I mean, the Church doesn’t care if women wear pants, at Mass or otherwise, but, I have heard it still hasn’t said “headcoverings are neutral”. What am I missing?

And, though I am on the side of headcoverings, I think, I, too, also read Mal’s posts with all the pride he can muster. It’s like him saying, “Sod you sideways with a rusty tetnus needle. Pax.” I bet he even enjoys that I used him as an example and brought more attention to him.

SO, Yes or No, does the Catholic Church REQUIRE women to cover their heads, in all Masses, throughout the world, all 23 Rites, right now, 2010 AD?

 

[Malleus_01]

<<<

Being free from doctrinal error is not the same as every word in the Bible being literally true. That is the major flaw of the sola scriptura fundamentalist religions. Infallibility and inerrancy have absolutely nothing to do with literalist interpretations of the Bible >>>>

Malleus: No , the major flaw of Sola Scriptura is twofold - the denial of Tradition and the lack of Lawful Authority to interpret. (Not to mention the fact that it isnt Scriptural

<<< It is very clear that every word of the Bible cannot be literally true. The fact that there are two separate versions of the creation story that are mutually exclusive, as well as two separate stories of the ark. The fact that in the gospels the Sermon on the Mount is a sermon on the plain, with different numbers present in different gospels. The examples are endless. >>>>

Malleus: Funny - I subscribe to the Creation of Adam and Eve by Almighty GOD - their Fall (Original Sin) and the resulting need for Redemption (The Lord Jesus Christ) But if you know of another - then by all means elaborate. I know of One Story of the Ark and Noah. Likewise JESUS Taught in several places for three years - its an assumption on your part that his teachings couldnt have been two seperate occasions where he was teaching the same message. And attacking Scripture will get you no where.

Paul’s letters were largely addressed to specific issues in specific communities and were very often not at all intended to be any comment on universal practices.

Malleus: Actually that isnt true. St Pauls letter in question specifically talks about an Ordinance.

The opinions of all those you mention are non-infallible teachings about a disciplinary matter.

Malleus: As opposed to whom? St Jerome produced the Latin Vulgate. Are you claiming you know better than he?

There are many theologians who have non-infallibly written against a scriptural requirement.

Malleus: Such as? Names? Isnt that the point of this thread? For you to name these Theologians? If there are “many” why then can you not name even one? And how many times do I have to ask you to?

In the end it is the Church who is the only valid interpeter of such things. When a Sacred Congregation promulgates an official statement such as the one I quoted, discussion is over

Malleus: Then you all better return to the Tridentine Latin Mass by virtue of “Quo Primum” by Pope St Pius the V if that is true. That doesnt hold water .

" and the ultimate theologian in the discussion has spoken. "

Malleus: Sorry - But 260 Ultimate theologians all of whom LIVE in the Church Triumphant have likewise spoken including St Peter himself.

This particular document did so in regard to the ordination question while simultaneously addressing the headcovering question.

Malleus: Sorry , but the Last Infallible Definition from the Chair of St Peter was in 1950 when Pope Pius the XII Defined the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. That document means nothing.

You may wish to dissent by claiming that non-infallible teachings somehow trump official Vatican statements about its disciplines but that doesn’t hold up in the Church.

Malleus: Once again - you have not proven Infallibility. Perhaps a review of Vatican I is in order :

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren

Since when is Holy Scripture not part of the Deposit of Faith?

 

[Malleus_01]

Since the disciplinary practice at the time of the Fathers you note was to require headcoverings they were required and it would certainly make sense that they would write in support of them.

Malleus: And they are required now as well and thus are required at all Tridentine Latin Masses.

Disciplines are not doctrinal though, though they will have doctrinal support,

Malleus: They are if they are Scriptural and in the Deposit of Faith.

and they are not universal and for all time.

Malleus: St Pauls 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 has not been removed from the New Testament. So I beg to differ.

The Church no longer requires this as a discipline, while not in any way detracting from its laudability.

Malleus: Thats not true - and although you may not follow what the CHURCH teaches and instead follow what you percieve to be the truth - then do not assume you are in the right to do so.

It may well be that you concur with that part of the Church who believes that we don’t have a current Pope or that nothing since Vatican II is valid.

Malleus: It may well be that you concur with that part of the Church who believes in Women Ordination (Hense the consternation with women covering their head) , Clown Masses and Homosexual Outreach and I could post some choice excerpts from Cardinal in Good Standing Mahony in Los Angeles if it pleases you as well , but what purpose would that serve?

Or it may be that you simply disagree with the Church’s prudential judgment on the matter.

Malleus: Or it could be that I agree with St Paul , St Augustine , St Jerome , Tertullian , Hermas , St Clement , and 1900 Years of Catholic Art and the Full support of 260 TRUE POPES and you do not. And if they were lying about that - what else were they lying about. So we’ll get rid of the Latin Vulgate - The City of GOD and the Condemnation of Pelagius , most of the New Testament ETC ETC. Would that satisfy you? I am saying this tongue in cheek of course but the point is made. We dont throw out pieces of Scripture or Tradition we dont like or we are no bettter than the average Liberal Cafeteria Catholic. As St Athansius Said - We have to keep the Faith whole and undefiled and that is exactly what we do in Tradition. Thus women cover their heads . Its both Scriptural and in Tradition.

The scriptural exegesis as a basis of “requirement” doesn’t hold up according to the one body entrusted with interpreting its scriptures and disciplines though.

Malleus: According to whom? Those not in compliance? Obviously not. If you respected the requirement you would be in compliance with it.

Having grown up with women covering their heads I find much to recommend it. There are aspects to the identity issue alone that are worthwhile. I also recognize though that while one might comply with the sign that it is the intent of the heart that turns that sign from one of devotion to one of simple compliance with custom and can quickly turn to simply using it to call “Lord, Lord” without any internalization of why one is doing it.

Malleus: Which of course , is why we have Theologians and Great Saints like the ones who exegesis I cited from whom Holy Priests can draw material for Holy Homilies regarding that subject and others. Does it happen today? If not why not? And you can carry that to so many other areas cant you. When Jesus Told the Apostles to "Go Forth and Teach all Nations " he meant it. Therefore , if the Faithful today do not know their faith because they havent been taught - whose fault is it? If it is because they dont pay attention its their fault - But I have heard a Homily that included this subject at my Church,

As such I firmly support the current stance in which those who wear headcoverings do so because they feel called to do so rather than out of compliance with culture.

Malleus: And I firmly support St Paul’s Ordinance in 1 Corinthians Chapter 11.

Peace be with you!

Pax Vobiscum

 

[Malleus_01]

In summary, the reasons St. Paul requires women to cover their heads in church are:

1. Our Lord commanded it;
2. It is a visible sign of an invisible order established by God;
3. The angels at Mass are offended if women don’t use it;
4. It is a ceremonial vestment;
5. It is our heritage.
   
   Christian women around the world have other reasons to wear a hat, mantilla, rebozo, gele, scarf, shawl, or veil. Some wear it out of respect to God; others, to obey the Pope’s request, or continue family traditions. But the most important reason of all is because Our Lord said: “If you love me keep my commandments.” (John 14:15).
   We should always be ready with our bridal veils, waiting for him and the promised wedding (Apoc. 22:17), following the example of our Blessed Mother Mary, who never appeared before the eyes of men but properly veiled.
   To those who still think that the veil is an obsolete custom, remember that: “Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday and today, yes, and forever.” (Heb. 13:8).

 

[ncjohn]

Malleus: Funny - I subscribe to the Creation of Adam and Eve by Almighty GOD - their Fall (Original Sin) and the resulting need for Redemption (The Lord Jesus Christ) But if you know of another - then by all means elaborate. I know of One Story of the Ark and Noah. Likewise JESUS Taught in several places for three years - its an assumption on your part that his teachings couldnt have been two seperate occasions where he was teaching the same message. And attacking Scripture will get you no where.

Let’s just set aside all the other examples since the first one makes the point just fine. WHICH creation story do you literally believe? The one where God just commands things into being or the one where God goes down into the Garden and makes Adam out of the dirt? They are separate stories in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of Genesis and both can’t literally be true. There are likewise two different accounts of the Ark in Genesis.

John: The opinions of all those you mention are non-infallible teachings about a disciplinary matter.

Malleus: As opposed to whom? St Jerome produced the Latin Vulgate. Are you claiming you know better than he?

I have no need to claim to know better than Jerome or any other writer on the subject. The whole point that you either don’t understand, choose to ignore, or that you reject, is that this is a disciplinary matter and not a doctrinal one. The Church has declared that it is disciplinary and none of the people you cite claimed to make any infallible proclamation of it being a doctrinal matter that I am aware of.

John: In the end it is the Church who is the only valid interpeter of such things. When a Sacred Congregation promulgates an official statement such as the one I quoted, discussion is over

Malleus: Then you all better return to the Tridentine Latin Mass by virtue of “Quo Primum” by Pope St Pius the V if that is true. That doesnt hold water .

No, it totally holds water and again points to your either not understanding, or rejecting the nature of the Church’s disciplines. The form of the liturgy is a discipline which can be altered by any Pope. If it wasn’t then Pius V couldn’t have altered it either. No Pope can bind any future Pope in matters of discipline. That is a longstanding truth of the Church.

John:" and the ultimate theologian in the discussion has spoken. "

Malleus: Sorry , but the Last Infallible Definition from the Chair of St Peter was in 1950 when Pope Pius the XII Defined the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. That document means nothing.

John: You may wish to dissent by claiming that non-infallible teachings somehow trump official Vatican statements about its disciplines but that doesn’t hold up in the Church.

Malleus: Once again - you have not proven Infallibility.

Again, wrong. There are no infallible statements regarding disciplines. Disciplines are what the Church proclaims them to be at any given time and are to be followed when they are in effect. There is no infallibility connected to disciplines!

Since when is Holy Scripture not part of the Deposit of Faith?

Come on, where has anyone claimed that Scripture is not part of the deposit of faith? That does not mean that every word in Scripture is literal and carries the same weight. Scripture is the support for both doctrine and discipline but it does not make discipline or traditions into Tradition.

I’ll bow out at this point. I’ll clearly not change your mind and my only purpose in posting at all was for those who may be lurking and had questions so that both sides could be presented.

Peace to you (and I mean that sincerely),

 

[Malleus_01]

<<< Let’s just set aside all the other examples since the first one makes the point just fine. WHICH creation story do you literally believe? The one where God just commands things into being or the one where God goes down into the Garden and makes Adam out of the dirt? They are separate stories in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of Genesis and both can’t literally be true. There are likewise two different accounts of the Ark in Genesis. >>>>

Malleus: Well if you want to have a Scriptural Discussion of Genesis - Which version are you quoting from. I use the Douay Rheims Challoner. Cite the passages , I Obviously disagree with all of this.

**I have no need to claim to know better than Jerome or any other writer on the subject. The whole point that you either don’t understand, choose to ignore, or that you reject, is that this is a disciplinary matter and not a doctrinal one. The Church has declared that it is disciplinary and none of the people you cite claimed to make any infallible proclamation of it being a doctrinal matter that I am aware of.
**

Malleus: Actually , I think you have a flawed view of what Infalliblity is. The fact that St Paul most certainly created and spoke of an “Ordinance.” He certainly had the power to insist on one. And the Church fathers have had ample time to delete 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 in the last 1630 Years of the Latin Vulgate. Why havent they? The Deposit of Faith is made up of Scripture and of TRADITION. Women covering their heads does not only appear in one but in BOTH. It would appear that you either do not understand that , choose to ignore it , or that you reject that fact.

No, it totally holds water and again points to your either not understanding, or rejecting the nature of the Church’s disciplines. The form of the liturgy is a discipline which can be altered by any Pope. If it wasn’t then Pius V couldn’t have altered it either. No Pope can bind any future Pope in matters of discipline. That is a longstanding truth of the Church.

Malleus : Well first of all - St Pope Pius the V didnt alter anything - the Protestant reformers did. What Pope St Pius the V did (And the Council of Trent) was Codify and Define what was VALID MASS and would perpetually be VALID for all time so as to refute the False Services of the Protestants who were passing off their comemoration meal as Mass… The Tridentine Latin Mass in its form was in use for quite a few years prior to the Council of Trent. (The canon dates to Apostolic Times) It takes the name of Trent not because of its form at the time prior to Trent- but the fact that it was defined as Valid by Trent and codified by Pope St Pius the V. As Pope he most certainly had that Power. It doesnt have anything to do with other Valid rites. The Mass of Paul the VI isnt an altered form of The Tridentine Latin Rite. Thats incorrect. You are the one making the claim that what One Pope says holds for all others. Pope Pius the V Codified all the norms for the Tridentine Latin Rite including all the disciplines up to and including Women Covering their head. Therefore - what JPIII or Benedict promulgates for the Pauline Mass doesnt apply to the disciplines already codified and protected in Tradition. That is precisely where your argument fails. Your point may have validity for the OF but it certainly doesnt have any bearing on the Tridentine Latin Rite codified by Pope St Pius the V. Do your homework , my friend

<< Again, wrong. There are no infallible statements regarding disciplines. Disciplines are what the Church proclaims them to be at any given time and are to be followed when they are in effect. There is no infallibility connected to disciplines! >>>

Malleus: papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm Sorry , But Pope St Pius the V disagrees. As does Vatican Council I

 

[Malleus_01]

Come on, where has anyone claimed that Scripture is not part of the deposit of faith? That does not mean that every word in Scripture is literal and carries the same weight. Scripture is the support for both doctrine and discipline but it does not make discipline or traditions into Tradition.

I’ll bow out at this point. I’ll clearly not change your mind and my only purpose in posting at all was for those who may be lurking and had questions so that both sides could be presented.

Peace to you (and I mean that sincerely),

Vatican I : 5. Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal Church, as declared by the sacred Council of Trent, is contained in written books and unwritten traditions, which were received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or came to the apostles by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us Council of Trent, session 4, first decree ].

1. The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said Council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.

(Notice how it says clearly ALL THEIR PARTS)

1. These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church.

(GOD as their Author)

1. Now since the decree on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, profitably made by the Council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture.
2. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.

On revelation : 4. If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of Sacred Scripture with all their parts, as the holy Council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired : let him be anathema.

Pax Vobiscum - and I do mean this sincerely as well. ( Although Surriter gets offended by it for reasons known only to him)

 

[LoyalViews]

Oh…no…



npatrol:

Oh…yes

 

[adstrinity]

…Still don’t have my question answered. Really, would like to know.

 

[Indyann]

…Still don’t have my question answered. Really, would like to know.

The answer is “no”. It is not required to cover your head. You may, if you wish, but, it is not mandated.

 

[Malleus_01]

Oh for the love of all things Holy & Nixon…

St. Paul also says don’t eat blood. We do that, despite what he said.

Malleus: Ah but the difference being the fact that I quoted what St Augustine , St Jerome , St Clement , Tertullian , Hermas and I could likewise add St Thomas Aquinas who agreed with St Augustine in the summa to my argument. Not to mention the Practise in the Tridentine Latin Mass to this very day. Can you do the same with your quote?Feel free. I’ll await what they had to say about your exegesis.

I read, when I received my mantilla, that what happened was, during Vatican II, the press asked some…Cardinal…if women still had to wear head coverings to Mass. He responded, ‘We have more important things to decide than what women wear on their heads.’

Malleus: His name was Bugnini and he was later found out to be a Freemason and punished by Paul the VI being sent away from the Vatican to India.

The Italian press reported, front page of some paper, ‘WOMEN NO LONGER HAVE TO COVER HEAD AT MASS’. The Cardinal went to them and said they got it wrong. They printed a retraction…days later…burried in the middle of the newspaper.

Ergo, women still have to wear head coverings (I was under this impression). It has since, though, become so wide spread, that, even though the practice/belief wasn’t changed, it hasn’t been corrected.

Malleus: Well - I think the people who thus far have come to this thread have come to argue whether or not its OK to not wear a headcovering. The others who were disputing whether or not the practise has been abrogated have conceded the point that it has not ever been officially abrogated by the Church. So we are all in agreement on that point. The purpose for my thread is to entertain apologetic arguments that favor the position of those who feel women should not. I have yet , thus far , not seen a single Theologian or Scriptural Apologist posted who takes the position that I Corinthians Chapter 11 is other than what it appears to be - the Word of GOD from St Paul and the Practise upheld by the Theologians cited… I was looking for a Theologian who disagrees with St Paul and the Cited Theologians and who could say why , on what grounds. I wasnt looking for private opinion. And likewise - i dont understand why I have to keep repeating this. Please - read the title of the thread. I am looking for Scriptural exegesis by Church theologians who differ with the Early Church fathers I initially cited.

However, I read this thread but only half paid attention. This was then changed in 1983?

Malleus: Canon Law of 1917 was abrogated by Canon Law of 1983. BUT - Canon Law 1917 specifically forbade women to worship uncovered. Canon Law 1983 ommited that. My position is that ommission itself doesnt constitute abrogation. Abrogation must be specified. I cited the Automatic Excommunication of Free masons which likewise was ommited but remains in effect none the less and was clarified by Rome since. No one argued the point.

I don’t know what to side on this, I mean, the Church doesn’t care if women wear pants, at Mass or otherwise, but, I have heard it still hasn’t said “headcoverings are neutral”. What am I missing?

Malleus: Well , I side with St Paul , those theologians i cited - Binding Canon Law in use up until 1982 and 1977 years of Tradition to this day in the Tridentine Latin Rites. But I am open to an apologetic argument to the contrary for study. Which is why I composed the thread in hopes of seeing that argument from a theologic perspective.

And, though I am on the side of headcoverings, I think, I, too, also read Mal’s posts with all the pride he can muster. It’s like him saying, “Sod you sideways with a rusty tetnus needle. Pax.” I bet he even enjoys that I used him as an example and brought more attention to him.

Mal: And as for this little snippet - thats why the Lord gave us two cheeks. I see you are done with the former. ( and you thought I was going to respond in kind with an equally inflamatory little retort didnt you) So sorry to disappoint.

SO, Yes or No, does the Catholic Church REQUIRE women to cover their heads, in all Masses, throughout the world, all 23 Rites, right now, 2010 AD?

Malleus: Does GOD.

 

[Malleus_01]

The answer is “no”. It is not required to cover your head. You may, if you wish, but, it is not mandated.

Malleus: Well then - either GOD has spoken or Indyann is the second coming with the ability to self interpret scripture.

And you thought I had pride issues….

And I would offer Pax - But apparently this is causing havoc with the proponents of all things modern.

So maybe it will be PAX with the disclaimer - ( offered take it or leave it so as to not offend those who prefer evil to good)

Is that better?