It appears a DVD will be made available here: pontificalmass.org/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
I’m hoping that it’s not expensive so that I can buy it for the brothers in our house. We all want to see it. We had to stop it for community functions.
I actually don’t recall any closing comments. I popped out during the long distribution of Communion and then I recall the recession. I remember seeing seeing the Knights (and me and my father wondering if that was the “black” plumed Knight – I’ve heard there is only one in the whole order). I saw Bishop Slattery quickly make his way to shake Cardinal Baum’s hand before he left the Sanctuary. But I don’t recall closing comments – well, by the Bishop anyway (the commentator is another story).I’m hoping that it’s not expensive so that I can buy it for the brothers in our house. We all want to see it. We had to stop it for community functions.
Who made the closing comments?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I can’t believe that Cardinal Baum is still around. I was assigned to the Archdiocese of Washington the year that Cardinal Baum retired, 1980. I arrived with Cardinal Hickey. I worked for Bishop Lori, who is now in CT. He was Cardinal Hickey’s Vicar General. Since then, Cardinal Hickey reached the age of retirement and he died. Cardinal Garrick retired and Cardinal Baum is still around. I’m living on borrowed time and Cardinal Baum may celebrate my funeral.
Check that, Br. I understood that the diplomatic protocol was that Protestant female heads of state or the Protestant wives of heads of state wore black veils while Catholic female heads of state or the Catholic wives of heads of state wore white veils (and I understood the whole requirement had been dispensed with, but I don’t know). HM the Queen of Spain, for example, wore a long white mantilla on those high Spanish combs for papal audiences and for the Servant of God Pope John Paul II’s funeral and HH Pope Benedict’s installation. Laura Bush wore a black veil to her audience with either JPII or BXVI (I can’t remember which). HM the Queen of England wore a black veil with a tiara to her audience with JPII the first time, but a hat the second.
Pushing laws on people, when they don’t exist is unfair. As to the veils that women wear when they visit privately with the pope, I’ve never paid much attention to the colors. I know that it is expected. I know that the Queen of Spain wore a white one to the funeral of the Ven. John Paulo II. But that would make sense, it’s a funeral mass, a veil makes sense.
That is kindergarten theology and you know it. Not to mention bad sportsmanship as long as you believe it’s all about winning or losing.
Look, if it’s too much of a bother to put some headcovering on, don’t do it. If your primary reason in showing up to Church is to pick someone up, then you’re right in defending your position to the limit.I dont think it proves your point. Esp for those of us who are unmarried and have no husband. Sorry.
Considering that Im a 45 year old woman who has been a paraplegic since the age of 7 (you know us, those of us who are marginalized by our own society. We get prayed for often in Mass
) I’ll forgive that simplistic and one dimensional comment. 
Very interesting history lesson Bro. JR. Thanks.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
Sorry, my comment wasn’t directly pointed at you. I have a niece who’s almost in the same situation. However, I did use the word “if” in my comment and I gave you the benefit of the doubt, whether I explicitly said so or not. You have a perfect right to your position and you have a right to attack me on CA because I have a lifetime of heavy baggage and that’s all I’m going to say on the matter. God bless.Considering that Im a 45 year old woman who has been a paraplegic since the age of 7 (you know us, those of us who are marginalized by our own society. We get prayed for often in Mass
No worries,ProVobis.
We all are broken in one form or another, aren’t we? All with some form of a heavy cross to carry in one way or another. Thankfully, we have a Lord who understands us more than we understand ourselves or each other for that matter. That in and of itself is a reason to be joyous.No, what you said was taunting your opponent; it wasn’t charity at all. You don’t need to get into specifics to justify your taunts. Many of us have been drilled from youth with discipline and rules and Magisterium and there really is no need to further this point. However, some of us will disagree as to what exactly constitutes that Magisterium. Of course, those in power will claim they can do anything they want; that’s no surprise there. But what happened to the foundation which Christ left for His millennia of followers who have cultured and developed that same foundation for the future of His Church and all of us here? That and the Deposit of Faith must be preserved. Magisterium of the centuries is not something that can be easily tossed; you wouldn’t want the great work of BXVI go to waste some day, would you?
No, it is pointing out in all charity that the Magisterium is given the authority in determining discipline and canons, not the laity (no matter what the majority or vocal minority vote/opinion may be).
No, it’s not about winning or loosing. It’s about truth and lies.
You’re using all the correct terminology, but to detract from the truth, not add to it. JMJ Coder may have been blunt, but what he said was honest and truthful, truthful in a Catholic way.
With all due respect Brother, your explanation was more historical than theological. I understand the secular history of headcovering well, I am interested in the Judeo-Christian tradition of the use of head coverings (no matter what the type of covering may be) in the worship of God. If St. Paul wrote that a woman disgraces her head if she prays or prophecys with her head uncovered and that she must cover for the sake of the angels, certainly this mandate must have Divine implications. And why does the Pope command that a woman cover her head upon meeting him? From whence does this come? Could it be that she was once commanded to cover her head before God, and therefore must cover it before His Vicar?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
Just trying to share the Good News! And yes, I do believe that veiling at Holy Mass is a part of it. God, Almighty God, the Creator of all things, is with US! May we be mindful of that in every possible way!KBERNADETTE
I’m listening to you even if the rest aren’t.
Did you enjoy the Sermon his Excellency gave?