Reverent Novus Ordo Masses?

  • Thread starter Thread starter njmah16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Debbie_Kono said:
40.png
Walking_Home:
But 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 their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.

Now – that is not difficult to understand – is it.
Click to expand...
What is this from? CCC? What? Sounds like ambiguous double speak.

Normative is sometimes also used, somewhat confusingly, to mean relating to a descriptive standard: doing what is normally done or what most others are expected to do in practice. In this sense a norm is not evaluative, a basis for judging behavior or outcomes; it is simply a fact or observation about behavior or outcomes, without judgment. Many researchers in this field try to restrict the use of the term normative to the evaluative sense and refer to the description of behavior and outcomes as positive, descriptive, predictive, or empirical.[1] [2]

Above is from wikipedia…you can go there and see even more unflattering descriptions of “normative”.
Click to expand...
That quote comes from the Sacred Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith – Declaration Inter Insigniores.
It looks like you “overlooked” it – when I posted it prior.
Code: 
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DECLARATION
INTER INSIGNIORES
ON THE QUESTION OF ADMISSION OF WOMEN
TO THE MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD

"Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But 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 their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_19761015_inter-insigniores_en.html
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The custom of wearing a veil in the U.S.A.began about 1964 when Jackie Kennedy was photographed either at JFK’s funeral or when she met the Pope. Can’t remember which. Up until then, women wore hats, or head scarves. In the time of the Blessed Mother, I suppose women wore full length veils of a heavy material. Probably, in the days of St. Paul too. So actually the “veil” is a very modern custom.
 
I don’t believe you’re entirely correct. I was 8 in 1964 and I had definitely worn ‘chapel veil’ coverings at my Catholic school from the time I started in 1962, and my sister (5 years older than I) had done so as well. And we weren’t even of Spanish, Italian, or French heritage. I’m pretty certain that women of those heritages and others (such as my sister-in-law’s Polish relatives) wore mantillas or veils as well, perhaps not exclusively, but they were not ‘unknown’. The fact that Jacqueline BOUVIER (French) Kennedy wore one kind of ties into what I’m saying, that there was a definite French history of wearing such (I believe there are specific “French style”, Spanish style’ etc mantilla veils that go back centuries, so it is not a new practice).
 
I don’t see where anything you posted shows the Church “tying” or “untying” the discipline with unbelief. If you personally want to believe that stopping a discipline has had zero effect on beliefs that is your prerogative, but you don’t have the right to say the “Church Herself does not tie” something She has not addressed. Again I ask you to show me what the Church says as to why an increasing number of Catholics no longer believe in some dogmatic truths of the faith; the Real Presence, Sunday obligation, contraception, abortion etc. I honestly don’t thing you can…because then She would have to admit something is wrong.
 
Yes, that is why I specified the U.S.A. I do remember the small round “chapel veils” from around 1958. But Jackie Kennedy was first person I had ever seen to wear a mantilla type veil. They were quite the fashion statement,in the U.S.A.
 
You can play any game you want to try and “tie” the two together. Now you bring in Sunday Mas, contraception/etc into the mix and stir the pot.

It is what it is --the Catholic Church has done away with – the wearing of head covering. No ifs–ands–or buts.
 
Last edited:
Furthermore – here is a letter from Cardinal Burke --at the time Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signutura.

Take note: Even in the EF – where it is customary to wear a head covering – women who do not cover --cannot be accused of doing wrong.

Cardinal Burke:
“It is not, however, a sin to participate in the Holy Mass according to the Extraordinary Form without a veil”

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/BurkeOnVeils.jpg
Click to expand...
 
I never claimed it was wrong to not cover the head. I believe the Church has done away with the mandate…not the option. No ifs–ands–or buts. As per my usual, I went to the EF Mass yesterday and because of this thread paid close attention to the number of women with head covering…at my particular parish it was upwards of 90%. Very few didn’t.

Furthermore - you still have not answered my question: where has the Church explicitly said or taught that doing away with any “minor disciplines” has resulted in increased or decreased beliefs in Catholic dogma? I don’t believe She has. I am not disputing the fact the Church has become lenient in minor disciplines such as head coverings…I’m challenging your claim that since the Church has not tied the lack of head covering to the lack of belief in the RP that She therefore teaches there has been no negative or positive effects in belief. She only says the discipline is no longer necessary. Period.
 
If you cannot or will not identify why there has been an increased number of Catholics who no longer believe in some Catholic dogmas, but only poo poo what some traditional Catholics are saying might be why (in part)…then you are not helping in finding a solution.
 
Last edited:
Why? Because society has changed a lot in the past 70 years.

They have not been taught these things, in any real depth. I have more knowledge about the faith than my mother & grandmother who had 12 years of Catholic school with the good sisters and the Baltimore Catechism. They know the “rote” knowledge, but nothing deeper or on any type of adult level, and they were the ones who catechized me. They could not answer my deeper spiritual questions, and no one else wanted to take the time, especially the priests at the time.
What I have learned, I have learned as an adult- because I wanted to.

People have more access to more information than they ever had before, so they are finding “truth” elsewhere.

People see scandals in the Church and elsewhere and the respect for authority is gone.

Society, especially Western society, has become more “me-centered”, so God no longer has a place in many lives, as He is seen as the “big meany in the sky” who doesn’t want me to have any fun.

The attitudes of some Catholics can be very off-putting, so why should I go to church with those hypocrites?

And the list goes on and on and on…
and none of it has to do with covering one’s head or not.
 
Debbie_Kono said:
If you cannot or will not identify why there has been an increased number of Catholics who no longer believe in some Catholic dogmas, but only poo poo what some traditional Catholics are saying might be why (in part)…then you are not helping in finding a solution.
Click to expand...
The idea that minor disciplines play a role is laughable.

I live in New England but have traveled much of the US.

In New England, people tend to dress well at Mass–nice slacks, khaki, polos and button-ups and fancy dress shirts. Yet, many are liberal. A lector/usher had to be told to remove his pro-choice button and the congregation railed against the priest for making him do so. :roll_eyes: They were also part of the “all are welcome” committee that would steal and destroy the pew-cards that indicated Communion was was only for practicing Catholics.

In the Southwest, people dress like they are going to the beach–short shorts, casual tops, etc. But they are FERVENT and passionate and they believed and lived and breathed church teaching. Many did a full-face down flat on the floor bow in front of the Tabernacle. Worse dressed-most reverent.

In Northern Cali and the PWN it was much like New England–except they were more casual and also didn’t really seem to believe much of anything.

Then there’s the Southeast and the Bible belt.

AND Oh.my.gosh. THE HATS. (yes, in Catholic Churches!)

Hats like you’ve never seen before. Hats so fine and decorated so extravagantly they needed their own seat in the pew. Hats with ribbons and doo-dads and flowers and heaven knows what else. The women walked in, each one having a bigger and grander and more ostentatious hat than the next. The first time I saw it, my jaw nearly hit the floor. Yes…they had their heads covered…but clearly they missed the memo. And by the catty talk after Mass it was clear that they associated their piety with how grand their hat was. While they were reverent it seemed to be entirely a song and dance.

Society has changed a lot. And how Catholic beliefs have held on is really a matter of teaching and what goes on in that region as a whole. Just because of those in New England look pious doesn’t mean that they are. Just because those in the Southeast look carelessly casual, doesn’t mean they are. And head covering, in the case of those in the southeast, had little to do with God and more to do with showing off.
 
Debbie_Kono said:
So then you can discern a person’s holiness
Click to expand...
Apparently you can – based on whether they cover the head or not. Otherwise – you wouldn’t be here pushing the envelope that the lack of head covering is connected to the belief in the Real Presence.

There is certain prideful “trait” running through some “traditionalist” segments. The EF superior/leads to holiness – and blame problems in the Church on the OF, on not covering, on receiving Communion in the hand and/or standing etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
Debbie_Kono said:
So then you can discern a person’s holiness when they “reverently bow in front of the Tabernacle” in their bikini …and can also discern a person’s lack of holiness by their head gear? Got it. I have to go to work now or I would expand on this hypocrisy more.
Click to expand...
No. It was based on the fact that those who were wearing shorts (I never said bikini) were respectful and rerevent in Mass. They were very invested in showing deep reverence to the Eucharist and did not speak and gossip in Church. When they went to the Parish hall they continued to be very reverent and speak about topics that were life-giving.

The women in the hats, on the other hand, barely let the sweep of the priest’s alb pass them by as Mass ended before they started to gossip, shame, berate and demean each other and say tasteless things that made me go pink.

You just looked at what I wrote and handpicked what you felt like seeing. NOTE: the part of the hats that was shocking was the grandeur teamed with the cattiness of their conversations and their total lack of respect for God’s sacred space.

Perhaps it’s just a case that one group had learned to guard their tongue, while others had not, but to me what was clear—both in actions in words those who dressed what many would call the most unacceptable conducted themselves with extreme reverence, clear piety and undeniable right conduct likely because of their culture were in a totally different place than a number of those who were dressed to the nines, covered their heads but conducted themselves like uncultured little school girls who haven’t yet been taught decorum again likey because of their culture.

Culture plays a huge role in what people learn, retain and believe. The children who saw their parents wearing whatever but behaving reverently, being respectful and speaking kindly are going to mirror that behavior. They will learn that they don’t speak in the church proper, and when they are outside they ask about topics that are condusive to Sunday worship. So will the children who see their mother/aunt/grandmother wear splendid and “appropriate” clothes but turn around and lambast Mildred because she gasp has the same ribbon on her hat that was on sale for 10 cents at the Piggly Wiggly last week. Right before God. Only moments after receiving Communion. Maybe she was right. Maybe all the people she was talking terribly about were really horrible people. But if so—well—they were all wearing hats, too.

You’re right. I cannot discern their holiness by a small portion their actions. I do not know if the incredibly reverent guy in the tee-shirt goes out and swindles people or the lady in the hat that said nasty things spends all her time and money helping the poor.

What I can say is that the former appear far MORE reverent and respectful and to truly BELIEVE in the true presance whle the latter seems to have no respect or care for Jesus.
 
You seem to argue that because persons have stopped engaging in minor disciplines, belief in the real presence has decreased. I don’t think that’s a logical conclusion. It is just as possible that the lack of belief in the real presence has led to the abandonment of minor disciplines. After all, we are not prohibited from engaging in those disciplines. There are MANY devout Catholics who believe in the real presence and who still do not engage in minor disciplines.

I think the problem with the lack of belief in the real presence is two-fold: most Catholics are not evangelized, and catechesis has been poor. Changing languages or disciplines won’t make up for a lack of evangelization or good (and continual) catechesis.
 
I thought that we weren’t supposed to make judgments by ‘appearances’ because God looks at what’s in the heart. . .

Based on what you have written above, you appear to be making judgments for whatever reason based on your own personal experiences, world view, opinions, etc. that to you a person who looks ‘dressed up’ (especially with gasp a hat) is a snarky gossipy wee-atch because you once saw or thought you saw people who ‘looked like her’ acting badly. Whereas again for whatever reason you once saw people who were all ‘plain and humble’ doing something nice, so now people who dress that way automatically appear to you to be nice people. . .by ‘appearance.’

Why are you intent on assuming the worst about people based on how they appear to you? Why not stop listening in for a word or a look that you can then embroider into a whole "oh look at those biddies in their hats, obviously they’re backbiting that humble matron with no hat and judging her because when I walked past them I heard them say “well my dear what do YOU think” and I saw them roll their eyes in that lady’s direction so naturally those gussied up Pharisees are doing what ‘gussied up women’ usually do.

Some people might consider that a person who comes onto a forum and makes catty remarks about the appearance and supposed (no proof) bad behavior of women based solely on what they are wearing is engaging in just as problematic behavior as your 'appropriately dressed women commenting about ‘poor Mildred’.
 
stpurl said:
I thought that we weren’t supposed to make judgments by ‘appearances’ because God looks at what’s in the heart. . .

Based on what you have written above, you appear to be making judgments for whatever reason based on your own personal experiences, world view, opinions, etc. that to you a person who looks ‘dressed up’ (especially with gasp a hat) is a snarky gossipy wee-atch because you once saw or thought you saw people who ‘looked like her’ acting badly. Whereas again for whatever reason you once saw people who were all ‘plain and humble’ doing something nice, so now people who dress that way automatically appear to you to be nice people. . .by ‘appearance.’

Why are you intent on assuming the worst about people based on how they appear to you? Why not stop listening in for a word or a look that you can then embroider into a whole "oh look at those biddies in their hats, obviously they’re backbiting that humble matron with no hat and judging her because when I walked past them I heard them say “well my dear what do YOU think” and I saw them roll their eyes in that lady’s direction so naturally those gussied up Pharisees are doing what ‘gussied up women’ usually do.

Some people might consider that a person who comes onto a forum and makes catty remarks about the appearance and supposed (no proof) bad behavior of women based solely on what they are wearing is engaging in just as problematic behavior as your 'appropriately dressed women commenting about ‘poor Mildred’.
Click to expand...
AGAIN. Since it appears it’s being missed.

The issue is that those who were dressed impeccably behaved scandalously.

This is not about simply their dress but their conduct. They had absolutely NO shame in their chatter and I heard them clearly from two pews away even as the last peals of the organ played.

Do I have proof of their speech? No. I don’t carry around an audio recorder in my pocket.

But since it seems to be missed. I’m going to state it again.

I made this point to show the contrast. There are extremely reverent people who do not follow ANY of the minor disciplines in dress that the church sets out who FROM APPEARANCES conduct themselves to show a deference and reverence for the Eucharist. Not always, but again, this is trying to prove a non-existant coralary. There are extremely IRREVERENT people who are following ALL the minor clothing disciplines who neither conduct themselves with any sort of moral behavior or even basic decorum in the church proper

I’m not making random guesses. I’m going off of the woman’s own words and behavior. I’m not “making up” what the women were discussing “Millie” and others week after week, I’m stating what I observed them doing.

My point is to answer Deb who’s stating that somehow the loss of externals has added to the loss of belief in the Real Presence.

My point is that from what I’ve seen external minor practices leave little in the way of being a metric for actual belief in the Real Presence. It must be taught and it must be lived…and it’s not found in the adherence…or lack thereof…to minor diciplines.
 
So basically you’re stating that because some gossipy women who were dressed ‘nicely’ acted poorly, this means that an 'external minor practice of either wearing a hat or dressing nicely cannot possibly be a metric for belief in the Real Presence?

You think you cannot be taught belief while you wear a hat, I suppose, since ‘some hat wearing people’ don’t show belief according to your criteria.

You think you can’t ‘live’ (what exactly does that mean, anyway?) the Real Presence while engaging in external minor practices as They obviously have nothing to do with belief because some people who engaged in them were nasty Nellies.

What then about all the people who DO believe and are reverent and yet engage in minor practices? Do they do so completely and totally ‘outside’ those practices? The practices have nothing to do with their reverence? Seriously?

And what about all the people who are NOT reverent and do NOT engage in 'minor practices?" Again, does their lack of the practices have absolutely no bearing on their lack of reverence? Seriously?
 
stpurl said:
What then about all the people who DO believe and are reverent and yet engage in minor practices? Do they do so completely and totally ‘outside’ those practices? The practices have nothing to do with their reverence? Seriously?

And what about all the people who are NOT reverent and do NOT engage in 'minor practices?" Again, does their lack of the practices have absolutely no bearing on their lack of reverence? Seriously?
Click to expand...
:roll_eyes:

This is the point. I already mentioned an area of the US where people both dressed and acted poorly. However, that is not my focus. The point is that there is NO correlation. Some participate in minor disciplines and are reverent…some aren’t. Some don’t participate in minor disciplines and are reverent…some aren’t.

Many minor disciplines are a matter of cultural preference and are a sampling of the behavior of that culture itself. That the changing of the dispositions does not reflect much at all, besides the changes in the preferences of the people. That even when dispositions are adhered to it doesn’t mean that core tenants are.

I believe that one would not engage in vicious gossip in front of the Real Presence if they truly believed. I think that’s along the lines of doing evil with your left hand and doing good with your right.
 
I noticed this comment drew likes from @Xanthippe_Voorhees and @Walking_Home. Why is it valid to make the observation that the LifeTeen style of worship tends to be more reverent but not valid to make the same observation when it is of the TLM? Or that “many receive kneeling or on the tongue” is assessed as being more reverent, but not head coverings?

Or am I missing what the crux of the argument is here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top