Oh I agree. But it is judgmental to say that those who wear head-coverings are just trying to look pious. I’m not trying to argue that head-coverings should or should not be worn. I’m just saying that those who want to have a good reason to wear it.
No. In this case it is more like liberal Protestants where Scripture can be rendered meaningless because it is claimed to be written for a different time and people. Veiling however could be supported without Holy Scripture by the sensus fidei given its practice throughout Christendom since the very beginning.We don’t interpret scripture like the fundamentalist protestants.
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.
I am in no way, shape or form saying a woman who doesn’t cover her head is less pious, holy or believing in the RP. My mentor and sponsor through RCIA is the wife of a deacon and she doesn’t veil…and I am certain of her beliefs and reverence. But let’s look at the high number of Catholics who do not believe in the RP today. Forgive me, I do not recall right now what the percentage is, but when I heard it I was shocked and saddened by the high number. I just thought it unnecessary to poke fun of a tradition (napkins/kleenix) from years ago when perhaps it added to more people actually believing. Perhaps if more women did it today, those who do not believe would ask about it and start a much needed conversation.Lets just take the statement above. What is coming through is – a person covers ( using a kleenix if they have to) if they believe in the Real Presence. So this leads to --women who do not cover – are somehow deficient in their belief in the Real Presence.
Head covering was a disciplinary practice of minor importance – which the Church saw fit to not carry forward.
Thank you. It is exactly my point. I did not see this until after I posted my last.the fact remains that belief in the Real Presence was much higher even in the 1960s than it is today.
I am in no way, shape or form saying a woman who doesn’t cover her head is less pious, holy or believing in the RP. My mentor and sponsor through RCIA is the wife of a deacon and she doesn’t veil…and I am certain of her beliefs and reverence. But let’s look at the high number of Catholics who do not believe in the RP today. Forgive me, I do not recall right now what the percentage is, but when I heard it I was shocked and saddened by the high number. I just thought it unnecessary to poke fun of a tradition (napkins/kleenix) from years ago when perhaps it added to more people actually believing. Perhaps if more women did it today, those who do not believe would ask about it and start a much needed conversation.
You can say stopping a minor discipline has nothing to do with the decline in the belief, but I don’t believe in coincidences. It’s not to say that stopping this discipline is the sole reason for the decline, but I can certainly see how it could add to it. Do you have any insights as to why the decline in the belief?Head covering was just what it was – a minor discipline with no normative value – which the Catholic Church did not carry over.
And I can honestly say it’s been the exact opposite for me.I can honestly say I have never been to an irreverent Ordinary Form Mass and the Ordinariate Use Mass I attend each Sunday is more reverent than some, please note ‘some’, of the Extraordinary Form Masses I have attended which have sometimes been so rushed that it was almost like a race to get through it as quickly as possible.
Does the Church explicitly say why there has been a decline in the belief in the Real Presence? I would really like to see this. Do you have a link?Church teaching on the matter of “head covering” – over-rides anyone else’s “belief” – of tying “head-covering” with the Real Presence.
Ok…so you can’t show me where the Church says WHY theres is a decline in belief in the Real Presence among Catholics. Has the Church said or taught that this “tying” doesn’t exist or is it just because She hasn’t said anything that you are assuming the Church believes this?Again-- you continue with the agenda of “tying” – what the Church Herself does not tie.
Now – that is not difficult to understand – is it.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.
What is this from? CCC? What? Sounds like ambiguous double speak.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.