Traditional Dress

[Leonius]

They dropped the head covering for the simple fact that women had already stopped doing it of their own accord. People forget that the code of canon law from 1917 was officially in effect up until the new code in 1983 and yet women stopped covering there heads well before the 1983.

In the 60’s a rebellion began and many within the Church followed a policy of appeasement to try and keep the peace and preserve unity.

 

[tcraig]

Anytime I’ve seen this topic come up the “pro no head covering crowd” says it’s been abrogated because it wasn’t specifically mentioned in the new code of cannon law.

I’ve never seen a “pro no head covering crowd” … I have seen people stating on this forum and others that it’s no longer required by Canon Law, and that Catholics shouldn’t insist that it is.

Ok, when the 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated this canon was not re-issued. Fine. But the old code also mentions men with regard to the issue of hats being taken off… *Does this mean it’s now alright for men to go into church with a hat on?! *What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

Actually, men do wear hats in Church occasionally. I’ve often attended masses (both trad and NO) where the Knights of Columbus are sometimes part of the processional. They wear their full regalia, with the cape and hats.

Rather it seems to me that what was abrogated was the issue of men and women being separated. Because everyone knows that men shouldn’t wear a hat in church. It’s just one more innovation that got slipped under the radar by radical liberals wanting to change things. And it went on for too long post VII, (like communion in the hand) and by the time Rome realized what was happening, it was too late to change anything without a major hullabaloo.

Rome has absolutely no problem speaking out on topics that cause a “major hullabaloo”, or have you missed all the controversy in the news the past few years?

Additionally, the modesty dress code at St. Peters is enforced, even with non-Catholic tourists. If head covering was still required, they’d let us know that it was.

 

[Jacafamala]

I’ve never seen a “pro no head covering crowd” … I have seen people stating on this forum and others that it’s no longer required by Canon Law, and that Catholics shouldn’t insist that it is.

NO churches are full of people who think head covering is silly and antiquated.

Actually, men do wear hats in Church occasionally. I’ve often attended masses (both trad and NO) where the Knights of Columbus are sometimes part of the processional. They wear their full regalia, with the cape and hats.

My husband’s a 4th degree knight. His hat’s called a chapeau. The chapeau is worn throughout the Mass.
So do traditional priests as you mention. The “hast” are called birettas. The biretta is worn at different points of the Mass. Both these are part of our tradition. Other Men coming in off the streets to assist at the Mass in hats isn’t now nor has it ever been part of our tradition; it’s considered rude and disrespectful for a man to wear a hat in church.

Rome has absolutely no problem speaking out on topics that cause a “major hullabaloo”, or have you missed all the controversy in the news the past few years?

Specifically what are you referring to?

Additionally, the modesty dress code at St. Peters is enforced, even with non-Catholic tourists. If head covering was still required, they’d let us know that it was.

You’ve misunderstood my post completely. What I said was that head coverings are just one more innovation that the “no head covering” got slipped under the radar by radical liberals wanting to change things. And it went on for too long post VII, (like communion in the hand) and by the time Rome realized what was happening, it was too late to change anything.

 

[Indyann]

NO churches are full of people who think head covering is silly and antiquated.

I agree with this statement. There are no churches, that I know of, full of people who think head covering is silly and antiquated. Maybe, not necessary, but certainly, not silly.

 

[slyboots]

NO churches as in Novos Ordo churches or NO as in not any?

 

[Indyann]

NO churches as in Novos Ordo churches or NO as in not any?

Since, there is no such animal as “Novos Ordo churches”, the poster surely meant “no”, as in “not any”.

 

[tcraig]

You’ve misunderstood my post completely. What I said was that head coverings are just one more innovation that the “no head covering” got slipped under the radar by radical liberals wanting to change things. And it went on for too long post VII, (like communion in the hand) and by the time Rome realized what was happening, it was too late to change anything.

Rome has been speaking out and reiterating the “hard teachings” for quite some time. You may not have any memory of it, but Humanae Vitae, which reiterated the Church’s stance against artificial birth control, ignited a firestorm of controversy at the time it was issued, not just among the laity but among priests and theologians, too.

Liberals have long wanted to change the Church, but they continually fail. The Church has not buckled on abortion, artificial birth control, homosexuality in the priesthood, female priests, etc. Simply because individuals flout Church teaching doesn’t mean that the teaching hasn’t been presented clearly.

If headcovering was still required, then we would know that it is. No ambiguities. People could choose to ignore the ruling, and priests could choose not to enforce it, but the teaching from Rome would be clear. People attending mass at St. Peter’s would be told to cover their head, or not enter. Given that you can buy paper clothing to make up for any sartorial shortcomings, it wouldn’t be a stretch to assume that if headcovering was required you could also buy a paper hat or veil.

Rome hasn’t softened on other matters pertaining to faith and morals, so why would headcovering be the one issue it would duck???

 

[Jacafamala]

Rome has been speaking out and reiterating the “hard teachings” for quite some time. You may not have any memory of it, but Humanae Vitae, which reiterated the Church’s stance against artificial birth control, ignited a firestorm of controversy at the time it was issued, not just among the laity but among priests and theologians, too.

Liberals have long wanted to change the Church, but they continually fail. The Church has not buckled on abortion, artificial birth control, homosexuality in the priesthood, female priests, etc. Simply because individuals flout Church teaching doesn’t mean that the teaching hasn’t been presented clearly.

If headcovering was still required, then we would know that it is. No ambiguities. People could choose to ignore the ruling, and priests could choose not to enforce it, but the teaching from Rome would be clear. People attending mass at St. Peter’s would be told to cover their head, or not enter. Given that you can buy paper clothing to make up for any sartorial shortcomings, it wouldn’t be a stretch to assume that if headcovering was required you could also buy a paper hat or veil.

Rome hasn’t softened on other matters pertaining to faith and morals, so why would headcovering be the one issue it would duck???

You’re still not getting my point tcraig, regarding head coverings. Again, I think it became ok because it was made ok by those wanting to change things-and not by Rome-and then Rome kept silent. That seems pretty clear to me, anyway.

Humanae Vitae? Yes thank goodness that was one time that Holy Father held his ground, though many a time he turned away in horror at what all was going on all around him.

 

[tcraig]

You’re still not getting my point tcraig, regarding head coverings. Again, I think it became ok because it was made ok by those wanting to change things-and not by Rome-and then Rome kept silent. That seems pretty clear to me, anyway.

I get your point, Jacafamala … I just think your point is wrong.

You are trying to argue that liberals wanted to change the headcovering requirement, and that somehow, even though it’s still required, Rome has kept quiet on this issue. What you’re not explaining is *why *Rome has kept silent.

My argument is that Rome is silent on the headcovering issue because it is no longer required under Canon Law. I have never argued that it is forbidden (women are still free to cover their head if they wish), or even undesirable, simply that it is no longer a requirement.

You want to say that yes, it is required but the liberals have somehow pressured Rome into not speaking out. What is your support for this? The liberals have argued over the years for artificial birth control, abortion, divorce without annulment, a married priesthood, a female priesthood, embryonic stem-cell research, etc. - all highly controversial subjects that Rome has answered clearly and unambigiously. Rome has not been afraid to answer the liberals on many highly controversial and unpopular subjects, yet you’re saying that they’re afraid to speak out on the headcovering issue???

Your argument also doesn’t explain why over in Europe, even among SSPX parishes, headcovering is not enforced. I’ve never known the SSPX to be “soft” on anything, yet in Europe headcovering is rarely seen. Are you saying that the SSPX is okay with their irregular status and their many hard stances against the current Church hierarchy, yet they’re also afraid to enforce headcovering amongst their own female parishioners even though it’s still required (according to you) by the Church??

 

[Jacafamala]

I get your point, Jacafamala … I just think your point is wrong.

You are trying to argue that liberals wanted to change the headcovering requirement, and that somehow, even though it’s still required, Rome has kept quiet on this issue. What you’re not explaining is *why *Rome has kept silent.

I’m saying it was never abrogated properly. It was just allowed to happen. In terms of head covering being not required, there was never any sort of definitive statement, simply an omission of a statement which only makes sense if you take it so far as to say that likewise head covering in church is now optional for men–because of the way it’s worded in the earlier code. You eliminate one, you eliminate both. Honestly that’s how I see it. Otherwise, the elimination of the requirement of head covering by women makes no real sense. How can half the statement currently not apply, yet the other half does? It can’t. It could only make sense if they’d mentioned it again in the new code.

My argument is that Rome is silent on the headcovering issue because it is no longer required under Canon Law. I have never argued that it is forbidden (women are still free to cover their head if they wish), or even undesirable, simply that it is no longer a requirement.

Yes, but the point is how did it get that way? Was it because Rome decided or was it the liturgists who decided? Exactly who is making these decisions, anyway? Why was the issue left so unresolved when it could’ve clearly been stated as otherwise?

You want to say that yes, it is required but the liberals have somehow pressured Rome into not speaking out. What is your support for this? The liberals have argued over the years for artificial birth control, abortion, divorce without annulment, a married priesthood, a female priesthood, embryonic stem-cell research, etc. - all highly controversial subjects that Rome has answered clearly and unambigiously. Rome has not been afraid to answer the liberals on many highly controversial and unpopular subjects, yet you’re saying that they’re afraid to speak out on the headcovering issue???

Rome hasn’t given in on these issues, thankfully. God hasn’t allowed it. But things like head coverings, communion in the hand, altar girls, folk Masses, these plus other innovations were begun by Liberals, not by Rome. It was like some crazy out of control force that swept through our Church arbitrarily making changes left and right and Rome didn’t know what hit them. Head covering was one of them. Now, we’re stuck with things the way they are. That’s how it all happened. The avant guard Liturgists came in, gutted our churches, the altars, the altar rails; they were stripped out. The statues were taken away, the devotions suddenly became antiquated. Canon law, VII, the GIRM, none of it called for any of what we got. It was all rampant Modernism; it was all senseless change for the sake of change. It was like a blight that caused a lot of damage.

Your argument also doesn’t explain why over in Europe, even among SSPX parishes, headcovering is not enforced. I’ve never known the SSPX to be “soft” on anything, yet in Europe headcovering is rarely seen. Are you saying that the SSPX is okay with their irregular status and their many hard stances against the current Church hierarchy, yet they’re also afraid to enforce headcovering amongst their own female parishioners even though it’s still required (according to you) by the Church??

In all honesty I don’t know why they do what they do at the SSPX chapels in Europe. They also don’t kneel at the Sanctus, correct? So I won’t venture to presume. It’s different over there is all. We’re talking in context about the United States, correct?

 

[dixieagle]

I’m saying it was never abrogated properly. It was just allowed to happen. In terms of head covering being not required, there was never any sort of definitive statement, simply an omission of a statement which only makes sense if you take it so far as to say that likewise head covering in church is now optional for men–because of the way it’s worded in the earlier code. You eliminate one, you eliminate both. Honestly that’s how I see it. Otherwise, the elimination of the requirement of head covering by women makes no real sense. How can half the statement currently not apply, yet the other half does? It can’t. It could only make sense if they’d mentioned it again in the new code.

Yes, but the point is how did it get that way? Was it because Rome decided or was it the liturgists who decided? Exactly who is making these decisions, anyway? Why was the issue left so unresolved when it could’ve clearly been stated as otherwise?

Rome hasn’t given in on these issues, thankfully. God hasn’t allowed it. But things like head coverings, communion in the hand, altar girls, folk Masses, these plus other innovations were begun by Liberals, not by Rome. It was like some crazy out of control force that swept through our Church arbitrarily making changes left and right and Rome didn’t know what hit them. Head covering was one of them. Now, we’re stuck with things the way they are. That’s how it all happened. The avant guard Liturgists came in, gutted our churches, the altars, the altar rails; they were stripped out. The statues were taken away, the devotions suddenly became antiquated. Canon law, VII, the GIRM, none of it called for any of what we got. It was all rampant Modernism; it was all senseless change for the sake of change. It was like a blight that caused a lot of damage.

In all honesty I don’t know why they do what they do at the SSPX chapels in Europe. They also don’t kneel at the Sanctus, correct? So I won’t venture to presume. It’s different over there is all. We’re talking in context about the United States, correct?

First of all, I agree that all of us should dress modestly and with good sense when in the Lord’s house (all the time, for that matter!) That doesn’t have to mean long skirts or jumpers, however.

On the topic of headcoverings; the pertinent canon law in the 1917 code was not “in context about the United States”, but for the entire Church. Though some continue to debate its meaning, I think that the new Code is clear:

*Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917*

Beyond that, a papal encylical from 1976,* Inter Insigniores*, which addressed why the Church cannot ordain women, discussed in detail the Church’s tradition with regard to women, the attitude Jesus had towards women, and the stance of the Apostles towards women. There is reference to “the prescriptions of St. Paul concerning women”, and this, specifically:

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.

papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6interi.htm

The encyclical is pointed in delineating between these practices of “minor importance”, no longer the norm (standard), and more important traditions. The requirement for headcoverings was a changeable discipline, not immutable doctrine.

It seems to me that the very specific mention of the practice - in an arguably dismissive tone - in a papal encyclical, no less, gives weight to the opinions of those who believe that the practice was reflective of the times and not something by which we should be measuring one’s piety or obedience today.

 

[Musicadmirer]

I had not known of the veil requirement at any time in history until recently. I have resolved to start wearing a veil to Mass.
It is a wonderful thing that I hope more women will start choosing to do, especially from my generation.

 

[dixieagle]

I had not known of the veil requirement at any time in history until recently. I have resolved to start wearing a veil to Mass.
It is a wonderful thing that I hope more women will start choosing to do, especially from my generation.

I am guessing, from your post, that you are quite young? If you are unaware of the previous requirement and the history of such, I am intrigued as to why you are inclined to begin wearing a veil. As the mother of two twenty-something, married daughters who are quite devout Catholics, I am truly intrigued as to why someone their age would choose to adopt the practice.

 

[Musicadmirer]

I am guessing, from your post, that you are quite young? If you are unaware of the previous requirement and the history of such, I am intrigued as to why you are inclined to begin wearing a veil. As the mother of two twenty-something, married daughters who are quite devout Catholics, I am truly intrigued as to why someone their age would choose to adopt the practice.

I choose to do so out of due reverence to God when I enter his home (the church). It is befitting for me to wear the veil also in honor of the mother of God, who, in every depiction of Mary, I have never seen her without a veil on her head.

This is one source about Veiling: fisheaters.com/theveil.html

 

[dixieagle]

I choose to do so out of due reverence to God when I enter his home (the church). It is befitting for me to wear the veil also in honor of the mother of God, who, in every depiction of Mary, I have never seen her without a veil on her head.

This is one source about Veiling: fisheaters.com/theveil.html

I’ve seen that source and others, but disagree with their conclusions, especially in light of the papal encyclical I mentioned in a previous post, the fact that the 1983 Code of Canon Law replaced the 1917 Code which mentioned headcovering (not “veils” ), and the reality that Holy Mother Church has not indicated this is something that should be done today.

Of course, Mary, belonging to a particular culture, veiled all the time; that raises another set of questions.

 

[Jacafamala]

First of all, I agree that all of us should dress modestly and with good sense when in the Lord’s house (all the time, for that matter!) That doesn’t have to mean long skirts or jumpers, however.

On the topic of headcoverings; the pertinent canon law in the 1917 code was not “in context about the United States”, but for the entire Church. Though some continue to debate its meaning, I think that the new Code is clear:

*Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917*

Beyond that, a papal encylical from 1976,* Inter Insigniores*, which addressed why the Church cannot ordain women, discussed in detail the Church’s tradition with regard to women, the attitude Jesus had towards women, and the stance of the Apostles towards women. There is reference to “the prescriptions of St. Paul concerning women”, and this, specifically:

papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6interi.htm

The encyclical is pointed in delineating between these practices of “minor importance”, no longer the norm (standard), and more important traditions. The requirement for headcoverings was a changeable discipline, not immutable doctrine.

It seems to me that the very specific mention of the practice - in an arguably dismissive tone - in a papal encyclical, no less, gives weight to the opinions of those who believe that the practice was reflective of the times and not something by which we should be measuring one’s piety or obedience today.

That’s an interesting contribution to the subject. Thanks for sharing it.

The encyclical is saying that there are Traditions, such as the male priesthood which will never change, and then there are traditions, such as head covering for women in church which are subject to change. Compared to the issue of women priests, head covering is relatively small 'taters; it’s something subject to change. Ok, now this is what gets me: STILL there no definitive statement. Because regardless of the fact that the encyclical states that head covering really doesn’t have the same normative value in terms of our standard of dress today, it falls short of actually saying it’s been abrogated. It would’ve been easy to put that in there, if this was the intention. The Hierarchy seems to prefer to leave this issue a little open ended for some reason.

And in addition, did you check out the link to FE that’s has been provided here in the thread? What do you think of it?

Canon 20 A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

Canon 21 In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.
Canons 27 and 28 add to the argument:

Canon 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Canon 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs. 2

 

[EasterJoy]

That’s an interesting contribution to the subject. Thanks for sharing it.

The encyclical is saying that there are Traditions, such as the male priesthood which will never change, and then there are traditions, such as head covering for women in church which are subject to change. Compared to the issue of women priests, head covering is relatively small 'taters; it’s something subject to change. Ok, now this is what gets me: STILL there no definitive statement. Because regardless of the fact that the encyclical states that head covering really doesn’t have the same normative value in terms of our standard of dress today, it falls short of actually saying it’s been abrogated. It would’ve been easy to put that in there, if this was the intention. The Hierarchy seems to prefer to leave this issue a little open ended for some reason.

And in addition, did you check out the link to FE that’s has been provided here in the thread? What do you think of it?

You do remember that canon law is written by men? It could be that whether or not women cover their heads is far less important to bishops than it is to the women.

If men want to drop a requirement, sometimes they simply drop it. You cannot assume that because a man does not discuss a topic to death that he did not mean to make a change. It only means he does not think the change warrants discussion. Men could easily drop a requirement on women and somehow expect to get a man’s response. To most men, dropping a requirement does not forbid anyone from continuing to observe a behavior. In other words, the bishops might easily have assumed that those who wanted to keep wearing veils would happily keep doing so and those who didn’t want to will happily quit doing it, and everybody could just happily leave them alone about the matter.

Besides, what discussion would have discussed the matter enough? It is not as if Rome’s pronouncements on women in the priesthood has stopped the clamour for “more discussion”. If they are like guys I know, maybe they thought better of starting a discussion that was never going to end.

 

[dixieagle]

That’s an interesting contribution to the subject. Thanks for sharing it.

The encyclical is saying that there are Traditions, such as the male priesthood which will never change, and then there are traditions, such as head covering for women in church which are subject to change. Compared to the issue of women priests, head covering is relatively small 'taters; it’s something subject to change. Ok, now this is what gets me: STILL there no definitive statement. Because regardless of the fact that the encyclical states that head covering really doesn’t have the same normative value in terms of our standard of dress today, it falls short of actually saying it’s been abrogated. It would’ve been easy to put that in there, if this was the intention. The Hierarchy seems to prefer to leave this issue a little open ended for some reason.

And in addition, did you check out the link to FE that’s has been provided here in the thread? What do you think of it?

I think that they’re really “fishing” (pardon the pun) in an effort to shore up their weak argument. Canon 6 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law could not possibly be clearer, it seems to me; the entire 1917 Code was abrogated and the issue apparently was not seen as important enough to include in the new Code.

As the main thrust of the papal encyclical I referenced was the impossibility of ordaining women, the reference to headcovering was brief, though quite pointed. In one short sentence, the Pope referred to the practice of headcovering as relating to the custom of the (Pauline) period, only a minor discipline, and without normative value. Again, pretty darn clear.

It can also, I think, be assumed that if that Pope, or any later Pope, thought it was an issue worth addressing, he would have.

If anyone chooses to cover her head because she believes it is a reverent act, fine with me. It is the insistence that the practice actually is, or should be, the norm, that I reject.

 

[slyboots]

I have been on another thread (Another Head Covering Question) where the issue of veils and covering had been being discussed. A lot of good thoughts came out of it.

It seemed there those of us who cover when at prayer or mass (or all the time) feel that those who don’t are not in the wrong for not feeling the need to cover. They are simply not called to do so. That doesn’t make us special, or more, pious, or holier either. It means God asked us to do it and we said yes. And in all liklihood God asked us to to do so to help us become more of what He knows we can be. Some us us find it helps us focus at mass more effectively. Some find their humility is enhanced. Only God knows why He asked us. We just said yes. And through it have grown spiritually.

Does this mean a woman can’t grow spiritually without a veil? No. Does it mean she is less the being God knows she can be? Nope. Does it mean that she is less humble? No of course not.

Would I love it if my daughter, grand daughter and I were not the only women in veils (covers, scarves) at Mass? Yes, I do not really like being the only one. Would I like it if the air conditioning was just a little better in the back where I sit? You betcha. (Funny thing. God is involved in that a bit. Our new addition of our church where I usually sit apparently needed an updated AC and it is getting it. Thank you Jesus!) Would I like it if my gorwn son didn’t make jokes about “When are you going to start bowing to Mecca, Mom?” when I wear a nice wrap around scarf? O yes I would.

Please don’t feel that those of us who wear the mantillas (scarves, berets, covers etc) think any less of you who don’t. We don’t. Bless you all.
View attachment 6374

 

[EasterJoy]

Would I like it if my grown son didn’t make jokes about “When are you going to start bowing to Mecca, Mom?” when I wear a nice wrap around scarf? O yes I would…

I think that I’d tell my son that I know enough stories about him that he should be glad that wearing a mantilla is the most memorable thing I choose to do while at his side at church…which I could arrange to change, if he’d like me to, as Catholic women are also not required cover for their sons in public.

(…“The scarf is a sign of submission to God, Dear. I’m plenty spunky with regards to you, so mind the 4th Commandment, if you know what’s good for you, Kiddo.”)