P
ProVobis
Guest
You have a point there. It’s called the Magisterium of the centuries.
- Status
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
The inafallibility of that magisterium only extends to discipline insofar as the discipline imposed by that magisterium cannot lead the faithful to impiety. It does not mean the discipline imposed is an immutable truth. Disciplines change, truth doesn’t.
200+ popes ought to have been obeyed for as long as their writ ran when they said that women should wear the veil. That doesn’t make them “right” in the sense that head-veiling is an immutable truth, it only make them right in that they should have been obeyed while they wielded their legitimate authority.
And THAT, SpiritusSanctus, IS how it works. It’s basic Catholicism, both pre-and post-Vatican II, and it’s pretty elementary. You are, quite simply, misleading people.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yes, that’s where the organizational principle of *stare decisis *(to stand by that which was decided) may come into play. According to my book “Latin Phrases” it also means “judicial doctrine.” I didn’t make it up, honest.
J
JReducation
Guest
To settle this whole issue on veils. There are some points here.
Even it it were a sin, Jeus had a solution for that too. “Whose sins you shall forgive, shall be forgiven and whose sins you shall withhold, shall be withheld.” So even if it is a sin not to wear a veil (which it’s not) if the Church says that it absolves us from the obligation, then we are absolved.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- It was never a doctrine or a moral law. You did not comimit a sin if you did not wear a veil in Church. It was considered to be inappropriate and even rude, but never a sin. Neither faith nor morals apply here.
- The discipline was in place for a very good reason. Women covered their heads as a matter of rule and they wore very elaborate head pieces for court. At the time, there was the carry over from the outside to the church building.
- No one said that 200+ popes were wrong. Just because a pope says that you no longer have to do this, he’s not saying that his predecessors were wrong. He’s saying that it is no longer necessary today. His not making a judgment in reverse and condemning everyone before him. That never happened. Therefore all the popes can be right on this point. These were disciplines and customs, not doctrines.
- It was never universally practiced. It was practiced by some of the Catholic Churches, not by all of the Catholic Church. God can’t be on the side of some Catholic Churches and leave others to damn themselves. There are 22 Catholic Churches that make up the one universal Catholic Church. There are many customs, disciplines and rules that govern them. Most of the Eastern Catholic Churches demand that clerics wear hats in and out of church. If they are celibate, they must wear a veil over the hat. This has been done for over 1800 years by them. I was never done by the Roman Church. Does that mean that we’re right and they’re wrong or the other way around? No. They are disciplines that the legitimate authorities can choose to impose or change. Some Patriarchs never required women to cover their heads. They went with the local custom and still do. The popes never intervened in this matter. If it had been that important to the popes, they would have ordered this rule for all 22 Catholic Churches. But it does not appear in all 22 Churches. In some it’s a tradition and in others it’s a law. We have never said that the tradition could not be maintained. We simply said that it is no longer in the law.
Even it it were a sin, Jeus had a solution for that too. “Whose sins you shall forgive, shall be forgiven and whose sins you shall withhold, shall be withheld.” So even if it is a sin not to wear a veil (which it’s not) if the Church says that it absolves us from the obligation, then we are absolved.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
I don’t know how I’m misleading people. And those Popes who said women should wear a veil carried it on because it was part of Tradition. Why do you think all those Popes before Vatican II were for it?
M
Marie5890
Guest
I take it you disagree with the points that JReducation has made and that you feel you know more than he does?
Can you explain why you feel you are a better authority? Or are you, like the rest of us, trying to sift thru it all.
JReducation seems to be able to outline very clearly the whys and wherefore of what he is saying pretty clearly.
Is the whole idea of women covering their heads a disciple or a dogma? Do you have a clear cut answer? His response to this is pretty clear cut.
Im open to you detailing your argument of an opposing position. His is very convincing considering his background
P
preV2tradcath
Guest
On the subject of the EF Mass in question, check out the link below if you are interested in a DVD/photos of this particular Mass:
pontificalmass.org/dvd-photographs-pontifical-solemn-high-traditional-a3000
pontificalmass.org/dvd-photographs-pontifical-solemn-high-traditional-a3000
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
Allow me to post a link to prove my point. No need for me to explain further.I take it you disagree with the points that JReducation has made and that you feel you know more than he does?
Can you explain why you feel you are a better authority? Or are you, like the rest of us, trying to sift thru it all.
JReducation seems to be able to outline very clearly the whys and wherefore of what he is saying pretty clearly.
Is the whole idea of women covering their heads a disciple or a dogma? Do you have a clear cut answer? His response to this is pretty clear cut.
Im open to you detailing your argument of an opposing position. His is very convincing considering his background
catholicplanet.com/women/headcovering.htm
I’d like to see JReducation post a link to back up his opinion. I’m still not convinced that it’s un-necessary.
J
JReducation
Guest
I wanted to see the pictures, but I can’t figure out how to do that. I went to the site and it opens up, but how do I see the pics?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
Marie5890
Guest
Thank you so much for the link. I am reminded of what our deacon said to me not too very long ago. The Church and her practices today are different from 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 years ago. I found his comment to be a quiet reality check of a pause when it comes to forming a judgment too quickly. Certainly that Last Supper didnt resemble the reverent Mass held at the National Shrine. And neither was the less for the lack of be exactly the same.
I always keep that in mind and pray for God’s mercy as we all go thru our personal journeys.
M
Marie5890
Guest
I dont think it proves your point. Esp for those of us who are unmarried and have no husband. Sorry.
P
preV2tradcath
Guest
Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is just the announcement that they will be making the DVD and photographs available. That should be the link to future updates on their progress in making that happen.I wanted to see the pictures, but I can’t figure out how to do that. I went to the site and it opens up, but how do I see the pics?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
Then I guess nothing I post will change your opinion on the matter. Some understand, others don’t I suppose.I dont think it proves your point. Esp for those of us who are unmarried and have no husband. Sorry.
J
JReducation
Guest
Catholic Planet is not an official Church organism. It is what canon law calls “a private association of the faithful.”
I can give you a link.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
There you go, the entire code of canon law. Now that’s official, unlike Catholic Planet who does not have the authority to speak for the pope or the universal Church.
Now find in canon law that women must cover their heads in church.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
Marie5890
Guest
As always Br. JR., I thank you for your faithfulness.Catholic Planet is not an official Church organism. It is what canon law calls “a private association of the faithful.”
I can give you a link.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
There you go, the entire code of canon law. Now that’s official, unlike Catholic Planet who does not have the authority to speak for the pope or the universal Church.
Now find in canon law that women must cover their heads in church.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
Marie5890
Guest
Considering your link it not authoritative, you are right. You probably cant authoritatively give me something to sincerely consider. Sorry.Then I guess nothing I post will change your opinion on the matter. Some understand, others don’t I suppose.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
You said:
Let me translate: The Church in her Magisterium, which Christ has given all authority in heaven to when He commissioned them to preach to all nations, the Magisterium (the Pope and all the Bishops in full communion with him) to which Christ said ‘what you bind on earth is bound in Heaven and what you loose on earth is loose in Heaven’, that same Church has exercised her God given authority and said one thing, but I SpiritusSanctus say on my own authority that God’s Church is wrong and I am right.
Once again: you lose to the Pope.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Your opinion is the exact opposite of the Church’s and it is the Church’s that matters. It’s nice if women want to cover their heads, it’s great if that’s a personal devotion, etc., but it isn’t required. To say that it is required is misleading. And if you mislead others deliberately, it’s a sin.Then I guess nothing I post will change your opinion on the matter. Some understand, others don’t I suppose.
K
KBernadette
Guest
JReducation;:
But that’s just my thought on the matter. Sad how derailed this thread got. What a beautiful Mass that was!
If a woman must veil for Peter, then why not for Christ Himself? In my opinion, for a Catholic woman’s conscience, common sense and tradition may have more authority than a recent omission in canon law.So there is no requirement for women cover their head in a church. There is only one instance that I know of when women must cover their heads, unless their culture or their faith does not allow it. Women must wear a veil when they meet the Holy Father in a private audience out of respect for his office. Exceptions are maid for reasons of faith and culture.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
But that’s just my thought on the matter. Sad how derailed this thread got. What a beautiful Mass that was!
J
JReducation
Guest
Your question is a very good one an deserves an honest theological answer. The truth of the matter is that the covering of the head did not begin as a religious practice among Christians. It was a carry-over from Judaism. The Gentiles never did it. As the Roman Empire collapsed and the world evolved into the Middle Ages, it became very common for women to cover their hair.
It had two purposes. One was the people in those days (Middle Ages) did not shampoo their hair everyday. To keep it clean they covered it. The second thing that happened was that the headcoverings became more elaborate with social strata. The aristocracy wore very fancy head covering, except for the queen and the princesses.
When women attended mass, the aristocracy sat up front. They wore very regal clothing, with head dresses. The poor stood in the back and they usually wore very simple clothing such as cloaks and hoods or simple veils very similar to what nuns used to wear.
As you can see, it was never about Christ. This was introduced long after veils came into use. As veils fell out of disuse the Church tried to teach women against the sins of vanity and used a very common method, the head covering. I say common, not to mean vulgar, but common to many cultures. A woman’s hair was her glory. So in many cultures women covered their hair. That’s why our own sisters and nuns covered their hair, Muslims too, Hindus, and Jews. That’s how the veil took on a religious meaning.
In the 20th centiury very few people thought of a woman’s hair as her glory. Maybe because you could see more. Women wore short skits, short sleeves, lower cut tops, pants, shorts, etc. Women also washed their hair. Therefore the two original reasons for covering their hair were no longer needed. Keeping it clean is much easier today than it was. Modesty is not about covering the hair. Women need to cover their bodies more than their hair.
The reason that women cover their hair to meet privately with the pope is because popes command it. As Catholics we bow to their wishes. But what is interesting is that Catholics are not the only ones who bow to their wishes, all Christins do, including Protestants. There are three groups of women that the papacy allows to enter into private meetings without a head covering: Hindus, Jews, and queens. It would be disrespectful to them. Though Catholic queens often do wear a black veil.
And yes, it was a beautiful mass and I want to see the videos, because I tuned out early. I had to go somewhere. I only saw up the consecration. I’m sure that there were closing remarks.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status