SSPX and Headcoverings

[ericcantona71]

Can anyone tell me what is the SSPX viewpoint on headcoverings in Church and Prayer?

Do they believe women must wear headcoverings in Church and when praying?

 

[johnknoesel]

You will probably have a hard validating anything regard SSPX since they are a schismatic group. but you can check sspx.org

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Really classy response, John, especially when you have nothing to offer to someone with a sincere question. I’m sure Christ would be proud.

As to the original question, the SSPX women I know don’t feel as though they must to wear a headcovering because the Church has done away with that particular requirement. However, all of them do wear a veil to mass (but not when praying outside of a church), but they do so as a sign of respect, the same way a man would never wear a hat inside of a church. I guess the best way to conceptualize it is to look at it like tithing. The Church no longer requires a person to give ten percent of their income, but that doesn’t mean a person shouldn’t donate some of their income to the Church and other charitable organizations that do good works. Hope this helped.

 

[Seminarian_Matt]

Can anyone tell me what is the SSPX viewpoint on headcoverings in Church and Prayer?

Do they believe women must wear headcoverings in Church and when praying?

As a supporter - though not a member of SSPX at this moment - I do believe that women should wear head coverings. Some reasons are expressed here:

acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2006/08/on-women-and-veils.html

And, let us leave aside issues of “schism” and “excommunicated” - these are highly unclear/debatable. Information on SSPX:

sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm

 

[ericcantona71]

Really classy response, John, especially when you have nothing to offer to someone with a sincere question. I’m sure Christ would be proud.

As to the original question, the SSPX women I know don’t feel as though they must to wear a headcovering because the Church has done away with that particular requirement. However, all of them do wear a veil to mass (but not when praying outside of a church), but they do so as a sign of respect, the same way a man would never wear a hat inside of a church. I guess the best way to conceptualize it is to look at it like tithing. The Church no longer requires a person to give ten percent of their income, but that doesn’t mean a person shouldn’t donate some of their income to the Church and other charitable organizations that do good works. Hope this helped.

Thanks for that, I know many Catholics feel that women are no longer required to wear the veil, although I for one have an open mind on the subject. I am surprised that the SSPX women dont feel they still have to wear a veil though, I thought they would see it as a kind of post-Vatican II innovation. Is this the official SSPX stance though?

 

[johnknoesel]

Really classy response, John, especially when you have nothing to offer to someone with a sincere question. I’m sure Christ would be proud.

As to the original question, the SSPX women I know don’t feel as though they must to wear a headcovering because the Church has done away with that particular requirement. However, all of them do wear a veil to mass (but not when praying outside of a church), but they do so as a sign of respect, the same way a man would never wear a hat inside of a church. I guess the best way to conceptualize it is to look at it like tithing. The Church no longer requires a person to give ten percent of their income, but that doesn’t mean a person shouldn’t donate some of their income to the Church and other charitable organizations that do good works. Hope this helped.

whoa wait a minute, first off I did provide a link to sspx.org plus the SSPX is group that disobeyed the instructions of John Paul The Great in 1988 by consecrating 4 priest to the position of bishop. Yes I do like some the ideas of Traditional Catholicism however that does not change the fact that they are not in full communion with the Holy See. Too bad you are another of those out there just cannot stand to hear the truth and the only thing that you can is attack the one providing that truth. Hmm sounds to me that you are another of those who do not fully submit to the authority of the Church, let me guess your a probably a cafeteria Catholic.

I tell you and others if you do not want the truth do not ask the question. Also your answer had nothing to do with the question. The question was asked regarding SSPX.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Eric,

I talked to someone last night and this is the official SSPX position on headcoverings. The person I talked to said she’s been traveling on several occassions and not worn a headcovering when she went to mass because she didn’t have one with her or couldn’t find one or borrow one in time.

The reason this isn’t required now, like it was before VII, is because the Pope has what is called disciplinary infallibility. In other words when it comes to disciplines of the Church, e.g. headcoverings, fasting, etc., the Pope gets to set the rules however he wants so long as it doesn’t contradict dogma. This is the same reason a person is only required to fast for one hour before communion now, whereas it used to be from midnight that day until communion. I hoped this helped.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

whoa wait a minute, first off I did provide a link to sspx.org

Good for you! I suppose this means I can make backhanded remarks about the K of C as long as I link to their site and do so in good conscience.

plus the SSPX is group that disobeyed the instructions of John Paul The Great in 1988 by consecrating 4 priest to the position of bishop.

I thought this was about headcoverings, but I guess with all your knowledge your post was topical and mine was not. If you want to argue this, fine, start a new thread. But don’t hijack another one because you see SSPX and think “Golly gee willickers, I better make an uncharitible remark before someone beats me to it!”

Yes I do like some the ideas of Traditional Catholicism however that does not change the fact that they are not in full communion with the Holy See.
Too bad you are another of those out there just cannot stand to hear the truth and the only thing that you can is attack the one providing that truth. Hmm sounds to me that you are another of those who do not fully submit to the authority of the Church, let me guess your a probably a cafeteria Catholic.

And now the name calling begins. I’m a cafeteria Catholic and you would know because you read one short post I wrote. I believe you attacked first, but I guess it doesn’t count because we all know you have the truth! Let me just suggest, though, that because you do have truth in your back pocket there, you act more charitably and kindly when posting.

I tell you and others if you do not want the truth do not ask the question. Also your answer had nothing to do with the question. The question was asked regarding SSPX.

Now you’re just making stuff up to make yourself feel better aobut your original post. . . I didn’t ask any questions. Reread my post. I was trying to share a personal experience with someone with a legitimate question. How you can legitimately say I wasn’t responding to SSPX and headcoverings is beyond me. But I’m sure you’ll find some way to rationalize it. . .

I just can’t wait for your response so I can see the error of my ways.

 

[EddieArent]

Women are requested to veil their head because of Apostolic tradition/custom in respect for our Lord. The vast majority of women in the USA do. However, in Europe, from what I have seen it is quite the opposite.

No priest that I know of will refuse the administration of the Sacrament because of not wearing the veil, but of course, it is highly encouraged in “normal” circumstances (e.g. we’re not talking about veiling infants or really small children who might not yet be ready to wear some time of headcovering).

As to the SSPX being in “schism” or “excommunicated.” I find it quite laughable. On one hand you have Vatican documents and Cardinals (e.g. lets name names, Cardinal Dulles, etc.) stating that one can be saved if one is sincere in their faith, this that & the other bunch of hippy ideas, but when it comes to the SSPX, “Oh no! We can’t have that.” Almost like a new pseudo doctrine — outside the SSPX & sincere in whatever you believe, then you are saved.

 

[Seminarian_Matt]

whoa wait a minute, first off I did provide a link to sspx.org plus the SSPX is group that disobeyed the instructions of John Paul The Great in 1988 by consecrating 4 priest to the position of bishop.

Please learn the doctrine relating to excommunication and schism. So the Pope tells me to jump off a bridge…do I have to do it? They disobeyed because of a grave necessity, a condition which canon law expressively allows.

And it is John Paul II, not John Paul the Great. He has only passed away 3 years ago. It is far too early for him to be called “the Great”. The same thing occurred in the years following Paul VI’s death; he was called “Paul the Great”. Let us allow history to decide.

But, please do try and get the facts straight - saying that they are in schism/excommunicated is extremely complex and in doubt.

 

[slewi]

I have attended one SSPX Mass. All of the woman there were dressed very plainly, and all of them wore veils.

I go to a FSSP Mass whenever I can, and most of the women wear veils. One in particular is striking, because she looks like a hippie from the 70’s, wearing jeans, with a bandanna on her head!

 

[Auntie_M]

When did this custom begin? and why did it begin?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Please learn the doctrine relating to excommunication and schism. So the Pope tells me to jump off a bridge…do I have to do it? They disobeyed because of a grave necessity, a condition which canon law expressively allows.

And it is John Paul II, not John Paul the Great. He has only passed away 3 years ago. It is far too early for him to be called “the Great”. The same thing occurred in the years following Paul VI’s death; he was called “Paul the Great”. Let us allow history to decide.

But, please do try and get the facts straight - saying that they are in schism/excommunicated is extremely complex and in doubt.

A) If you’re in seminary, perhaps you could talk to a canon law prof. The Supreme Pontiff is stated in canon law to be the Supreme Legislator. He can promulgate canon law, suspend it, abrogate it, and, in this instance, interpret it (it means what HE says it means). HH Pope John Paul II clearly states in Ecclesia Dei that no necessity existed. Objectively, that’s all Catholics have to go on. The “grave necessity” exists for situations where a Catholic bishop in, let’s say, a Communist gulag knows he’s dying and consecrates a priest secretly, without reference to the Holy See, to provide for an episcopal presence. It does not apply when the Supreme Legislator, interpreting the canons that he himself promulgated and which derive their authority from him, states that no necessity exists. It didn’t even exist subjectively because the Archbishop had a deal, the terms of which he did not particularly like, that would permit him to consecrate bishops, simply not as many as he wished. He deliberately disobeyed a directive from the Holy Father and did something clearly excommunicable under canon law. He excommunicated HIMSELF (latae sententiae). The sentence was merely confirmed by the Holy Father.

B) Regarding the title “the Great,” you are certainly correct, history will decide that, but people can call him that if they wish. Those wanting to withold the appellation seem to be in the minority. Also, it is what he has been frequently called by his own successor, who also blessed the altar stone for the “John Paul the Great” Catholic School in the Diocese of Arlington when he was here a few weeks ago.

C) The bishops ARE excommunicated, the priests ARE suspended ad divinis, and the laity ARE warned against imbibing a spirit of schism. Those are facts.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Can anyone tell me what is the SSPX viewpoint on headcoverings in Church and Prayer?

Do they believe women must wear headcoverings in Church and when praying?

The only SSPX Church I have ever been to does require women to wear head coverings. They keep a box of extras in the foyer of the church and women are expected to cover their head as soon as they enter the Church.
Here is a plaque with dress requirements from the SSPX church in Calgary, Alberta:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[paramedicgirl]

whoa wait a minute, first off I did provide a link to sspx.org plus the SSPX is group that disobeyed the instructions of John Paul The Great in 1988 by consecrating 4 priest to the position of bishop. Yes I do like some the ideas of Traditional Catholicism however that does not change the fact that they are not in full communion with the Holy See. Too bad you are another of those out there just cannot stand to hear the truth and the only thing that you can is attack the one providing that truth. Hmm sounds to me that you are another of those who do not fully submit to the authority of the Church, let me guess your a probably a cafeteria Catholic.

I tell you and others if you do not want the truth do not ask the question. Also your answer had nothing to do with the question. The question was asked regarding SSPX.

You are off the beaten track. The OP isn’t asking anything other than if SSPX women have to wear headcoverings in church and at prayer. I don’t mean to be harsh, but maybe you could take your issues into another thread?

 

[johnknoesel]

A) If you’re in seminary, perhaps you could talk to a canon law prof. The Supreme Pontiff is stated in canon law to be the Supreme Legislator. He can promulgate canon law, suspend it, abrogate it, and, in this instance, interpret it (it means what HE says it means). HH Pope John Paul II clearly states in Ecclesia Dei that no necessity existed. Objectively, that’s all Catholics have to go on. The “grave necessity” exists for situations where a Catholic bishop in, let’s say, a Communist gulag knows he’s dying and consecrates a priest secretly, without reference to the Holy See, to provide for an episcopal presence. It does not apply when the Supreme Legislator, interpreting the canons that he himself promulgated and which derive their authority from him, states that no necessity exists. It didn’t even exist subjectively because the Archbishop had a deal, the terms of which he did not particularly like, that would permit him to consecrate bishops, simply not as many as he wished. He deliberately disobeyed a directive from the Holy Father and did something clearly excommunicable under canon law. He excommunicated HIMSELF (latae sententiae). The sentence was merely confirmed by the Holy Father.

B) Regarding the title “the Great,” you are certainly correct, history will decide that, but people can call him that if they wish. Those wanting to withold the appellation seem to be in the minority. Also, it is what he has been frequently called by his own successor, who also blessed the altar stone for the “John Paul the Great” Catholic School in the Diocese of Arlington when he was here a few weeks ago.

C) The bishops ARE excommunicated, the priests ARE suspended ad divinis, and the laity ARE warned against imbibing a spirit of schism. Those are facts.

Thank you very much, however I think we have gotten away from the original question posted here.

Eric, if my response was uncharitable in your opinion I do apologize to you for that. I provided the link for you to look at so you could possibly find an answer to your question.

As in response to certain other individuals in this thread I read my original response and if you feel that it was uncharitable it was not your place to say so only the originator who did not.

I have had some indirect contact with the SSPX in the past only because I was look for a traditional latin mass in my area that was easier to attend, but after investigating the SSPX I could not do so because everything I found regarding them showed that they are a group that is not in communion with Rome and that for me would be wrong.

In regards to calling John Paul II “John Paul The Great” no it is not an official title but there is a very large majority including Pope Benedict XVI who do refer to whom with that title.

I sincerely apologize to those whom I have offended that was not my intention.

 

[Auntie_M]

I really can’t remember where I read something about this…maybe some of you read the same article…

About the origin of the “headcoverings”…this story was about alot of gossipping going on in the churches DURING mass. Women would be whispering to each other, looking at each other, and really not focussing on the service. The “custom” arose then to have all women wearing these “coverings” where they came down on each side of their faces to prevent eye contact with another and so as to look straight ahead.

Anyway, if this is true, I really don’t know. But what I do know, is what the Bible says about that. In 1 Corinthians 11:4-16. Of which the SSPX quotes Chapt. 11:4-6. Note especially, verse 15 and 16…
whereas a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given her for a covering? 16 But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we DO NOT HAVE SUCH A CUSTOM, NOR DO THE CHURCHES OF GOD.

I am inclined to think that this was not a “modesty” issue just by reading this verse.

 

[Seminarian_Matt]

A) If you’re in seminary, perhaps you could talk to a canon law prof. The Supreme Pontiff is stated in canon law to be the Supreme Legislator. He can promulgate canon law, suspend it, abrogate it, and, in this instance, interpret it (it means what HE says it means). HH Pope John Paul II clearly states in Ecclesia Dei that no necessity existed. Objectively, that’s all Catholics have to go on. The “grave necessity” exists for situations where a Catholic bishop in, let’s say, a Communist gulag knows he’s dying and consecrates a priest secretly, without reference to the Holy See, to provide for an episcopal presence. It does not apply when the Supreme Legislator, interpreting the canons that he himself promulgated and which derive their authority from him, states that no necessity exists. It didn’t even exist subjectively because the Archbishop had a deal, the terms of which he did not particularly like, that would permit him to consecrate bishops, simply not as many as he wished. He deliberately disobeyed a directive from the Holy Father and did something clearly excommunicable under canon law. He excommunicated HIMSELF (latae sententiae). The sentence was merely confirmed by the Holy Father.

B) Regarding the title “the Great,” you are certainly correct, history will decide that, but people can call him that if they wish. Those wanting to withold the appellation seem to be in the minority. Also, it is what he has been frequently called by his own successor, who also blessed the altar stone for the “John Paul the Great” Catholic School in the Diocese of Arlington when he was here a few weeks ago.

C) The bishops ARE excommunicated, the priests ARE suspended ad divinis, and the laity ARE warned against imbibing a spirit of schism. Those are facts.

Now, the excommunication warned of on June 17, for abuse of episcopal powers (canon 1382), was not incurred because:

1. A person who violates a law out of necessity* is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity:
   • if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70),
     *and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

I am currently reading “Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre” by Michael Davies. It is fantastic. His Excellency was a man of God and was certainly not excommunicated. He has upheld the ancient traditions while the heretics and modernists continue a great apostacy in our society. Read the book and stop slandering SSPX when you are not using Canon Law properly.

 

[maurin]

A) C) The bishops ARE excommunicated, the priests ARE suspended ad divinis, and the laity ARE warned against imbibing a spirit of schism. Those are facts.

I am currently reading “Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre” by Michael Davies. It is fantastic. His Excellency was a man of God and was certainly not excommunicated. He has upheld the ancient traditions while the heretics and modernists continue a great apostacy in our society. Read the book and stop slandering SSPX when you are not using Canon Law properly.

The easiest way to resolve this is to quote official sources. Can either of you provide substantiation for your allegations?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Now, the excommunication warned of on June 17, for abuse of episcopal powers (canon 1382), was not incurred because:

1. A person who violates a law out of necessity* is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity:

• if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70),
  *and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

I am currently reading “Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre” by Michael Davies. It is fantastic. His Excellency was a man of God and was certainly not excommunicated. He has upheld the ancient traditions while the heretics and modernists continue a great apostacy in our society. Read the book and stop slandering SSPX when you are not using Canon Law properly.

You are simply incorrect. Mr. Davies’ opinion weighed against that of the Vicar of Christ on Earth (again, the Supreme Legislator IN canon law)? I’ll go with the Pope, since, OBJECTIVELY, that’s all there is to go on:

From the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei:

“1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.”

Further:

“3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. **Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(**3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)” They were warned.

"a) a Commission is instituted whose task it will be to collaborate with the bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Mons. Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor Peter in the Catholic Church, while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions, **in the light of the Protocol signed on 5 May last by Cardinal Ratzinger and Mons. Lefebvre;" **The Archbishop already had a deal. It wasn’t precisely what he wanted, but it isn’t for us to dictate terms to the Holy See. No necessity existed and he knew it. Why? Because he signed the protocol.

I’m not slandering ANYONE, I’m stating the what the Pope and the Holy See have stated. If you need more, here’s a link to a letter from Msgr. Perl (secretary of the EDC commission) written in 1998:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM

He clearly states that the Archbishop and the four bishops are suspended, the priests suspended ad divinis, and the laity are warned against imbibing a spirit of schism.

Again, I’m not slandering anyone. I’m stating objective fact.