TLM At the National Shrine

[SpiritusSanctus]

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

That isn’t convincing. Several saints and Popes have talked about the importance of women covering their heads. Sorry, but John Paul II isn’t right when he says it isn’t necessary.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

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?

And I must respectfully disagree that a woman’s hair is no longer considered her “glory.” If that were the case I doubt many women would be spending as much as they do at the salon and spending as much time as they do styling their hair before they leave the house! I do not, as I consider spending more than 10 minutes and 20 bucks on my hair to be vain, but I know that many, many Christian women do. A modestly dressed woman with gorgeous hair that obviously took a lot of effort to “nourish” gets my husband’s attention and my jealousy everytime. And at Mass, it distracts from the Glory of God which, I think, is one of the main reasons for the former requirement of headcoverings.

No need to reply for my sake, my view is well formed.

But seriously, how did this thread get turned into another debate on headcoverings! Can’t wait to buy the DVD of that splendid Mass!

Excellent post!

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

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.

So basically you’re telling me that I’m sinning by saying women should have their heads covered? Sounds like an ad hominem post to me.

And what opinion of the Church should we believe on this subject? The opinion of the Traditional Church (before Vatican II) or the modern-day Church (after Vatican II)? Listening to what the Church taught for thousands of years on the matter over what it has only been teaching since the 1983 Code seems like the correct thing to do to me.

 

[Lormar]

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!

In these times of throwing out penance for reconciliation, the crucifix for the ressurectifix, and the Sacrfice for the Supper, yes, I loved the sermon. The Truth is refreshing isn’t it?

With you all the way on every count!

And, yes, the Truth is refreshing. Would that we heard more of it rather than the same old drivel (faith journeys, community, community,community,. social justice etc.etc.).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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?

And I must respectfully disagree that a woman’s hair is no longer considered her “glory.” If that were the case I doubt many women would be spending as much as they do at the salon and spending as much time as they do styling their hair before they leave the house! I do not, as I consider spending more than 10 minutes and 20 bucks on my hair to be vain, but I know that many, many Christian women do. A modestly dressed woman with gorgeous hair that obviously took a lot of effort to “nourish” gets my husband’s attention and my jealousy everytime. And at Mass, it distracts from the Glory of God which, I think, is one of the main reasons for the former requirement of headcoverings.

No need to reply for my sake, my view is well formed.

But seriously, how did this thread get turned into another debate on headcoverings! Can’t wait to buy the DVD of that splendid Mass!

Your view is not well-formed if it contradicts the Church. I know Protestants who’s views, to them, are well-formed.

If the issue is the covering of hair, then are you sure the veil is sufficient?. Should you not make sure that every single hair is covered to fufill if the Apostolic mandate (if it has, as you say, divine implications, which, by the way, the Holy See essentially said it did not when it said it was a matter of discipline). Indeed, the veil MIGHT be said to merely tantalize, might it not, along the lines of a negligee? Concealing, but not concealing? That is, of course, absurd, but I trust you get my point. And if it’s only a matter of something on top of the head (ie, not entirely concealing the hair), then a piece of material the size of a postage stamp would do, would it not? Thus, a girl-child with a hair ribbon or a barrette could be said to be adequately fufilling the Apostolic mandate. Of course, one could argue that Our Lady veiled Her Head, but of course, Her veil probably looked more like that portrayed in The Passion of the Christ, not the mantilla triangles typically worn today, and certainly not the the round, doillie-looking chapel caps? If one is going to invoke Her example, shouldn’t one FOLLOW Her example? That is also, of course, absurd and exactly why it is patently a matter of discipline rather than dogma. If it’s a matter of truth and salvation, wouldn’t it have been laid out for women, how big veil, made of what, etc.? Our Lady dressed as a modest woman of Her time, not as mandate to all Christian women for the ages (if so, shouldn’t you also be wearing a sleeved tunic with its hem at your ankles? Now THAT’S modest!). Would “traditionalists” like our women-folk to be dressed in the all-encompassing bourka? That way, we men wouldn’t have to worry about get worked into a lather of lust by a stray lock of hair or an elbow, though I suppose we might catch sight of a provacative toe or ankle. Obvisously, the answer is closed-toed cowboy boots.

As I’ve said, I’ve no problem with women veiling their heads as a private devotion. I have a problem with attempting to force another’s conscience against the mind of the Church, with one setting one’s private opinion over the Church’s and trying to make others feel bad for not complying.

As for who hijacked this thread by bringing up veiling? Someone calling themselves a “traditionalist.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

That isn’t convincing. Several saints and Popes have talked about the importance of women covering their heads. Sorry, but John Paul II isn’t right when he says it isn’t necessary.

Sorry, he is right, in that he granted a liberty and he has the power to do it. It’s a morally neutral question, not immutable truth. You need to try really hard to understand the difference. There are several really good books out there, I think *Catholicism for Dummies *might be helpful. If I recall, you could once buy it from a link here at Catholic Answers.

At any rate, you need to stop misleading others. That is very serious and very sinful.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Your view is not well-formed if it contradicts the Church. I know Protestants who’s views, to them, are well-formed.

If the issue is the covering of hair, then are you sure the veil is sufficient?. Should you not make sure that every single hair is covered to fufill if the Apostolic mandate (if it has, as you say, divine implications, which, by the way, the Holy See essentially said it did not when it said it was a matter of discipline). Indeed, the veil MIGHT be said to merely tantalize, might it not, along the lines of a negligee? Concealing, but not concealing? That is, of course, absurd, but I trust you get my point. And if it’s only a matter of something on top of the head (ie, not entirely concealing the hair), then a piece of material the size of a postage stamp would do, would it not? Thus, a girl-child with a hair ribbon or a barrette could be said to be adequately fufilling the Apostolic mandate. Of course, one could argue that Our Lady veiled Her Head, but of course, Her veil probably looked more like that portrayed in The Passion of the Christ, not the mantilla triangles typically worn today, and certainly not the the round, doillie-looking chapel caps? If one is going to invoke Her example, shouldn’t one FOLLOW Her example? That is also, of course, absurd and exactly why it is patently a matter of discipline rather than dogma. Our Lady dressed as a modest woman of Her time, not as mandate to all Christian women for the ages (if so, shouldn’t you also be wearing a sleeved tunic with its hem at your ankles? Now THAT’S modest!). Would “traditionalists” like our women-folk to be dressed in the all-encompassing bourka? That way, we men wouldn’t have to worry about get worked into a lather of lust by a stray lock of hair or an elbow, though I suppose we might catch sight of a provacative toe or ankle. Obvisously, the answer is closed-toed cowboy boots.

As I’ve said, I’ve no problem with women veiling their heads as a private devotion. I have a problem with attempting to force another’s conscience against the mind of the Church, with one setting one’s private opinion over the Church’s and trying to make others feel bad for not complying.

As for who hijacked this thread by bringing up veiling? Someone calling themselves a “traditionalist.”

Ok, I know that line “Someone calling themselves a traditionalist” was aimed at me since I’m the one who brought up the veiling. Are you implying that I’m not a Traditionalist?

And I didn’t hijack the thread. I gave my honest opinion that the women at that Mass last Saturday should have had their heads covered and you and JReducation dis-agreed with me and thus here we are.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Sorry, he is right, in that he granted a liberty and he has the power to do it. It’s a morally neutral question, not immutable truth. You need to try really hard to understand the difference. There are several really good books out there, I think *Catholicism for Dummies *might be helpful. If I recall, you could once buy it from a link here at Catholic Answers.

At any rate, you need to stop misleading others. That is very serious and very sinful.

What place do you have to tell me I’m commiting a sin just by saying women should have their heads covered at Mass, exactly?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Ok, I know that line “Someone calling themselves a traditionalist” was aimed at me since I’m the one who brought up the veiling. Are you implying that I’m not a Traditionalist?

And I didn’t hijack the thread. I gave my honest opinion that the women at that Mass last Saturday should have had their heads covered and you and JReducation dis-agreed with me and thus here we are.

Honestly, how old are you? Have you finished high school? How can you accuse me of saying your not a “traditionalist?” Where, for pity’s sake, did I say that?

And the Church disagrees with you. I can’t speak for JReducation, but I’m here to keep you from misleading innocent souls.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

What place do you have to tell me I’m commiting a sin just by saying women should have their heads covered at Mass, exactly?

Anytime you add to the Gospel or misrepresent the Church’s teaching, it is a sin. Liberals do it all the time and so do some “traditionalists.”

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Honestly, how old are you? Have you finished high school? How can you accuse me of saying your not a “traditionalist?” Where, for pity’s sake, did I say that?

And the Church disagrees with you. I can’t speak for JReducation, but I’m here to keep you from misleading innocent souls.

I’m not misleading innocent souls. How about telling me how a Catholic can mislead souls? Last time I checked the Devil was the one that did that.

Let me ask you this again. This time I would like a specific response, please. Should we go by what the Traditional Church taught for thousands of years on this subject, or should we go by what the modern-day Church has only taught since the Code of 1983?

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Anytime you add to the Gospel or misrepresent the Church’s teaching, it is a sin. Liberals do it all the time and so do some “traditionalists.”

I’m not misrepresenting what the Church’s teachings, I’m going by what it has taught for thousands of years. What it teaches today about veiling isn’t Traditional.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m not misleading innocent souls. How about telling me how a Catholic can mislead souls? Last time I checked the Devil was the one that did that.

Let me ask you this again. This time I would like a specific response, please. Should we go by what the Traditional Church taught for thousands of years on this subject, or should we go by what the modern-day Church has only taught since the Code of 1983?

Let me be clear (again, and you’ve gotten specific responses). This. Is. A. Matter. Of. Discipline. Discipline, not immutable truth. Discipline, not faith and morals. Discipline, not doctrine and dogma. Discipline can change. Discipline HAS changed. Once we could receive Communion in the hand, then we couldn’t, then we could. Once, we received both Sacred Species, then only the One, now Both. Once, priests could marry, now they can’t.

Consider the Council of Jerusalem. It rejected the notion that Gentiles coming into the Church had to obey Jewish laws on circumcision and kosher food, etc. The Church exercised Her authority in these matters of DISCIPLINE. She might not have, requiring all males to be circumcised, as Our Lord was, and to observe kashrut, as Our Lord did. But She didn’t require these things, because they were not matters of everlasting Truth. Now, She’s exercised the exact same authority in not requiring women to veil.

Was the “traditional” Church wrong to require veils? No, since it isn’t a matter of immutable truth. The “traditional” Church was to be obeyed in this, since it is patently obvious that She held the Christ-given authority to require it. Is She wrong to discontinue it? No, for the same reason. It’s a matter of discipline and discipline can change, can be modified, can be dispensed from. Do you honestly believe that, ontologically, eating meat on Friday is sinful? “Ontologically” means “of itself,” or “of its nature.” It’s only sinful when it’s done in disobedience to the Church, which has the right to govern Its Own disciplines. It isn’t sinful of itself. Likewise, veiling is neither good nor evil of itself, it’s morally neutral. It only sinful for a woman to not veil her head if she does so when the Church has commanded her to do so. If the Church permits her the liberty of choice and she chooses not to veil her head, then it isn’t a sin.

And there is no “traditional” Church. There is only the Church, which cannot be mislead by Her Chief Shepherd on matters of faith and morals.

 

[ProVobis]

How is this misleading and sinful?

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone is disposed to be contentious— we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)

 

[JReducation]

So basically you’re telling me that I’m sinning by saying women should have their heads covered? Sounds like an ad hominem post to me.

And what opinion of the Church should we believe on this subject? The opinion of the Traditional Church (before Vatican II) or the modern-day Church (after Vatican II)? Listening to what the Church taught for thousands of years on the matter over what it has only been teaching since the 1983 Code seems like the correct thing to do to me.

No. What everyone is telling you is not to tell people that this is a requirement, when in truth, the Church does not require it.

You can certainly share your preference for it and your reasons why. But don’t call something a law that is not a law.

Even though Paul mentions it in his writings, John XXIII, not John Paul, was the one who said that this was a disciplinary point in Paul’s writings, not a doctrinal one. John Paul simply promulgated the canons, which left out the headcovering, because it had been under discussion with John XXIII, Paul VI and later with John Paul II. These canons were not the work of one man. They are the combined work of three popes and hundreds of theologians and canonists from around the world. They took more than 12 years to write them.

John Paul II promulgated them in 1983. They had begun the revision under Paul VI. The reason that Paul VI took great interest in the project was because Paul VI was a Doctor of Canon Law. He was personally interested in seeing certain changes in the law. John Paul made very few changes to the law. Actually, Benedict XVI has made more changes to canon law than John Paul did. It was Benedict XVI who drafted the decree Vita Conscrata, which John Paul II signed and where he (Cardinal Ratzinger) changed the wording of John Paul’s first decree on religious life that said that women religious had to wear veils. Cardinal Ratzinger advised John Paul, that this was not a matter of doctrine or morals; therefore, it could be changed. John Paul included a paragraph that allowed the sisters to do away with the veil if they felt it was necessary to do so.

What we have here is a progression that begins with St. Paul and comes down to this day. It’s progression of a discipline, not a doctrine. There are no rights and wrongs here. Each edition of canon law issued what was best for its time. There is not need to say that John Paul is wrong and everyone who came before him is right. Because those who came before him did not live during John Paul’s time. In addition, the idea did not begin with John Paul, but with John XXIII. John XXIII first began with women religious. He was very critical of their habits, becauese they were inappropriate for the times and the work that they did. From the habit we progressed to veils and form their to mantillas and finally to headcoverings in churches.

From John XXIII to Benedict XVI, no one has said that the previous laws were wrong or that the previous popes were wrong. The point is that each pope promulgates laws for his time in history. That is the proper way to do it. The older popes of yesteryear would not expect the popes of the 20th century to hold on to the smae canons any more than Benedict XVI does not expect his successors to hold on to the same canons. Canon Law is not dogma. It is meant to protect dogma and morals.

Veils were not included in dogma and morals. They were included in canon law, because they served a purpose. Today they are an option, not an obligatoin. To tell someone to wear it or not wear it is really imposing on that person’s right to choose.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JKirkLVNV]

How is this misleading and sinful?

The Church said it was a matter of discipline, ProVobis. Thus, if She dispenses from it, it isn’t sinful for a woman to choose to not veil her head.

AND…why didn’t the Apostle tell women exactly what constituted an adequate submission to the directive? How big was the veil supposed to be? Should you be able to see through it? Can it be made of lace or should it be wool? Should it cover all the hair, since the hair is a woman’s glory? Isn’t this important, if a woman’s salvation is dependent upon it? Women have to do something different than men to be saved (I mean outwardly, we all have to shoulder our own particular cross)?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

No. What everyone is telling you is not to tell people that this is a requirement, when in truth, the Church does not require it.

You can certainly share your preference for it and your reasons why. But don’t call something a law that is not a law.

Even though Paul mentions it in his writings, John XXIII, not John Paul, was the one who said that this was a disciplinary point in Paul’s writings, not a doctrinal one. John Paul simply promulgated the canons, which left out the headcovering, because it had been under discussion with John XXIII, Paul VI and later with John Paul II. These canons were not the work of one man. They are the combined work of three popes and hundreds of theologians and canonists from around the world. They took more than 12 years to write them.

John Paul II promulgated them in 1983. They had begun the revision under Paul VI. The reason that Paul VI took great interest in the project was because Paul VI was a Doctor of Canon Law. He was personally interested in seeing certain changes in the law. John Paul made very few changes to the law. Actually, Benedict XVI has made more changes to canon law than John Paul did. It was Benedict XVI who drafted the decree Vita Conscrata, which John Paul II signed and where he (Cardinal Ratzinger) changed the wording of John Paul’s first decree on religious life that said that women religious had to wear veils. Cardinal Ratzinger advised John Paul, that this was not a matter of doctrine or morals; therefore, it could be changed. John Paul included a paragraph that allowed the sisters to do away with the veil if they felt it was necessary to do so.

What we have here is a progression that begins with St. Paul and comes down to this day. It’s progression of a discipline, not a doctrine. There are no rights and wrongs here. Each edition of canon law issued what was best for its time. There is not need to say that John Paul is wrong and everyone who came before him is right. Because those who came before him did not live during John Paul’s time. In addition, the idea did not begin with John Paul, but with John XXIII. John XXIII first began with women religious. He was very critical of their habits, becauese they were inappropriate for the times and the work that they did. From the habit we progressed to veils and form their to mantillas and finally to headcoverings in churches.

From John XXIII to Benedict XVI, no one has said that the previous laws were wrong or that the previous popes were wrong. The point is that each pope promulgates laws for his time in history. That is the proper way to do it. The older popes of yesteryear would not expect the popes of the 20th century to hold on to the smae canons any more than Benedict XVI does not expect his successors to hold on to the same canons. Canon Law is not dogma. It is meant to protect dogma and morals.

Veils were not included in dogma and morals. They were included in canon law, because they served a purpose. Today they are an option, not an obligatoin. To tell someone to wear it or not wear it is really imposing on that person’s right to choose.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I wish I was as patient as you are. You make me feel like I ought to go to confession (and I just got back).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

How is this misleading and sinful?

AND…

The Gospel tells us “call no man Father.” That’s right straight out of the Mouth of the Holy One, the Second Person of the Most Holy and Blessed Trinity, our Lord and Savior, while He was personally present here on earth. Yet, we Catholics “traditionally” call our priests “Father,” our popes “Holy Father.” You’ve opened the same can of worms the Protestants did when they went Sola Scriptura. Holy Writ means what the Church says It means.

 

[KBernadette]

Your view is not well-formed if it contradicts the Church. I know Protestants who’s views, to them, are well-formed.

If the issue is the covering of hair, then are you sure the veil is sufficient?. Should you not make sure that every single hair is covered to fufill if the Apostolic mandate (if it has, as you say, divine implications, which, by the way, the Holy See essentially said it did not when it said it was a matter of discipline). Indeed, the veil MIGHT be said to merely tantalize, might it not, along the lines of a negligee? Concealing, but not concealing? That is, of course, absurd, but I trust you get my point. And if it’s only a matter of something on top of the head (ie, not entirely concealing the hair), then a piece of material the size of a postage stamp would do, would it not? Thus, a girl-child with a hair ribbon or a barrette could be said to be adequately fufilling the Apostolic mandate. Of course, one could argue that Our Lady veiled Her Head, but of course, Her veil probably looked more like that portrayed in The Passion of the Christ, not the mantilla triangles typically worn today, and certainly not the the round, doillie-looking chapel caps? If one is going to invoke Her example, shouldn’t one FOLLOW Her example? That is also, of course, absurd and exactly why it is patently a matter of discipline rather than dogma. If it’s a matter of truth and salvation, wouldn’t it have been laid out for women, how big veil, made of what, etc.? Our Lady dressed as a modest woman of Her time, not as mandate to all Christian women for the ages (if so, shouldn’t you also be wearing a sleeved tunic with its hem at your ankles? Now THAT’S modest!). Would “traditionalists” like our women-folk to be dressed in the all-encompassing bourka? That way, we men wouldn’t have to worry about get worked into a lather of lust by a stray lock of hair or an elbow, though I suppose we might catch sight of a provacative toe or ankle. Obvisously, the answer is closed-toed cowboy boots.

As I’ve said, I’ve no problem with women veiling their heads as a private devotion. I have a problem with attempting to force another’s conscience against the mind of the Church, with one setting one’s private opinion over the Church’s and trying to make others feel bad for not complying.

As for who hijacked this thread by bringing up veiling? Someone calling themselves a “traditionalist.”

I am sorry to have gotten you so riled up. I was merely stating my view on the matter, which I qualified as such. I consider it well formed as I have done much reading and prayer on the subject. It comes down to choosing to follow the traditions that have been handed down.

For the record, I wear a 3 foot long veil that covers my head entirely. I don’t understand why a woman with a small doiley on her head considers it covered, but who I am I.
I do have a 6 foot mantilla that is a bit embarassing to wear thanks to my brainwashed modern mind. But I keep it to wear as an act of reparation. I pray I may someday follow Our Lady’s example of complete modesty without shame.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I am sorry to have gotten you so riled up. I was merely stating my view on the matter, which I qualified as such. I consider it well formed as I have done much reading and prayer on the subject. It comes down to choosing to follow the traditions that have been handed down.

For the record, I wear a 3 foot long veil that covers my head entirely. I don’t understand why a woman with a small doiley on her head considers it covered, but who I am I.
I do have a 6 foot mantilla that is a bit embarassing to wear thanks to my brainwashed modern mind. But I keep it to wear as an act of reparation. I pray I may someday follow Our Lady’s example of complete modesty without shame.

Can you see through the veil? Could be problematic, couldn’t it?

I’m sorry if you mistook me, so I will again say I’ve no problem with women veiling their heads. I think it looks very pretty (which I assume is beside the point) and if they feel personally that they want to do it, I support them 100%. My problem is with saying that women MUST, when the Church doesn’t. I would defend YOU if Sr. Joan Chichester said you MUSN’T, just like I’d leap to the defense of anyone denied Holy Communion because they knelt or anyone refused Communion on the tongue. I feel like it is the Church I’m defending, HER authority, given Her by Christ. It’s that which I think we should all defend.