Traditional Dress

[Jacafamala]

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.

Still in all, if it’s what hey really mean then a definitive statement would be better.

 

[Jacafamala]

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.

Well, hopefully we’re talking here about what’s important in the eyes of God and not men, as I’m sure you’d agree.

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.

If the cannon law were to saw, “head covering is no longer required of women at Mass”, that would be enough–for me anyway. So simple I’d think, right? But because they don’t, and because the traditional chapels all strongly encourage that women do cover their heads, I tend to think that to cover one’s head is the better way.

 

[EasterJoy]

Well, hopefully we’re talking here about what’s important in the eyes of God and not men, as I’m sure you’d agree.

If the canon law were to saw, “head covering is no longer required of women at Mass”, that would be enough–for me anyway. So simple I’d think, right? But because they don’t, and because the traditional chapels all strongly encourage that women do cover their heads, I tend to think that to cover one’s head is the better way.

Our Lord said to the men in the Apostolic succession that what they hold loose is held loose, what they hold bound is held bound. Men have been given pastoral care of the Church, and decision over these issues about how we worship together to please God. Make of that what you like. I think the guys with authority over all other aspects of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can handle questions about headgear. It could be that what is most important to God is that we be willing to listen to them.

The whole of the 1917 Canon Law was bluntly abrogated. Where there are subtle changes made, that is one thing, but abrogated is abrogated. Nothing, once abrogated, needs to be double-sure abrogated.

Neither does the new canon law establish any idea of some right to keep the head uncovered. It leaves it open for dress codes to be different in different places. By not bluntly saying that head covering is no longer required, it leaves the possibility that it might be required some places. I see that as a wise decision.

 

[dixieagle]

Well, hopefully we’re talking here about what’s important in the eyes of God and not men, as I’m sure you’d agree.

If the cannon law were to saw, “head covering is no longer required of women at Mass”, that would be enough–for me anyway. So simple I’d think, right? But because they don’t, and because the traditional chapels all strongly encourage that women do cover their heads, I tend to think that to cover one’s head is the better way.

That pretty much sums up what has irked many of us: “I tend to think that to cover one’s head is the better way.” That’s considerably different from “I feel called to cover, but it doesn’t mean I think I’m more reverent than you.”

And, canon law is not the place where a statement such as you desire would be promulgated (unless, at some time in the future the requirement was reinstated as Church law - which is highly unlikely.) It would likely be in an encyclical or other type of papal pronouncement, such as the one I already quoted, even though covering was referenced tangentially to the main subject of the letter.

 

[slyboots]

I once did a cross stitch. It said “Some people find fault as if were buried treasure.”
Please don’t let that be the way we are here.
"That pretty much sums up what has irked many of us: “I tend to think that to cover one’s head is the better way.” That’s considerably different from “I feel called to cover, but it doesn’t mean I think I’m more reverent than you.”

Why be irked? It may be the better way…for that sister in Christ. It does not say “and you all who don’t cover are not as holy as me. So there.”
God has plans for everyone. I do not know His plans for you. But for those of us whose hearts were moved to cover, it is a help to us and our spirituality. We feel it honors Him. Someone else may need other things to help them grow. And God will help them see that. He knows what we need to become the people He made us to be.

 

[Musicadmirer]

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

Nicely put.
I want to wear it because I WANT TO.
And if other women have an inferiority complex when they see me wear it, then they need to pray about it. It’s about myself and God, not myself amongst others. There should not be an issue when I’m at church of all places.

I’m not setting off a firestorm of debate here. And I do hope that in this time period, when modesty has about flown out the window especially among the youngest in society, that it will steadily become reintroduced among them that the way of debauchery isn’t a ‘trend’, it’s what will get you to hell if you’re not repentant.

 

[slyboots]

Please note: No criticism is intended by this post. It is just a gleaning of information I found in several newsletters and such. Each of the paragraphs is from a TLM or FSSP Parish. All in communion with Rome. No sede vacantists or LeFevre parishes are involved. Should you participate in a Mass at these churches and others like them this is the pretty normal dress code…

St Michael’s FSSP Church Scranton Pa: “Men and women dress intelligently and modestly: no shorts, T-shirts, jeans, short skirts, bare midriffs, bare shoulders or plunging necklines and no tight-fitting clothing of any kind. Ladies of all ages are encouraged to wear some sort of head covering”

Why should a woman wear a head covering or veil in church? Not to be praised, not to go along, not for tradition’s sake, not to stand out in the crowd, not because you say or I say or anybody says…But because she loves our Eucharistic Lord Jesus and it is another small sacrifice she may offer for her soul’s sake and for the sake of many souls who have no one to offer for them. Amen. (Sr Patricia Therese, OPB
Mater Misericordiae Mission, which celebrates the Tridentine Mass every Sunday at St. Thomas the Apostle Parish, welcomed a new pastor July 26. ……………….“Women are attired in skirts that fall below their knees. A table stationed near the entrance to the sanctuary holds a basket of spare chapel veils along with a small sign requesting that women “wear a veil while in church out of respect for Our Lord”
Bishop John Yanta of the Catholic diocese of Amarillo, Texas, has published a pastoral letter on modesty in dress, especially at Sunday Mass, a subject that inevitably arouses strong reactions even in conservative circles……………”The FSSP not only adhere to the pre-1960’s liturgical practices including having the Mass in Latin, but require women to follow the traditional practice of covering their heads and forbid men to wear shorts in church.”

Welcome to Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Latin Mass Community.
We ask all visitors and all parishioners to please abide by our dress codes. For women, dresses or skirts must be below the knee. Please no shorts, pants or sleeveless, lowcut, tight, or revealing clothing. Head coverings are highly recommended. For men, no shorts, t-shirts, tank-tops, or jeans.

Here in the Washington D.C. area, the customary dress is not quite so restrictive but similar principles should apply. Let three words guide your clothing selection: neat, clean, and modest. Out of respect for the Eucharist women should not wear plunging necklines, spaghetti straps or strapless tops, nor should they display bare midriffs. Extremely short skirts or shorts, or tight pants are also inappropriate. Any clothing that calls attention to the wearer and away from the Mass is disrespectful. ….Tank tops, frayed shorts, and T-shirts that seem suited for the beach do not honor God.

Since 1983, the Code of Canon Law has not required women to cover their head in church. However, a growing number of women are finding that wearing a chapel veil or mantilla is a helpful form of personal piety. The veil symbolizes the woman’s role as a humble servant of Christ and a woman of the Church. It helps her to approach the Eucharist with humility and reverence. In most parishes in the D.C. area, only a handful of women will wear a head covering at any given Mass, but it is an acceptable practice.

If you attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form, also known as the Traditional Latin Mass, the dress is customarily more formal. Men should wear a tie and many will also be wearing a suit or sports jacket. Women wear skirts or dresses and usually wear some sort of head covering.

 

[Musicadmirer]

There’s nothing wrong with your post, people should have kept dressing in this fashion to Mass the whole time.

 

[dixieagle]

Nicely put.
I want to wear it because I WANT TO.
And if other women have an inferiority complex when they see me wear it, then they need to pray about it. It’s about myself and God, not myself amongst others. There should not be an issue when I’m at church of all places.

I’m not setting off a firestorm of debate here. And I do hope that in this time period, when modesty has about flown out the window especially among the youngest in society, that it will steadily become reintroduced among them that the way of debauchery isn’t a ‘trend’, it’s what will get you to hell if you’re not repentant.

I hardly think that Catholic women who don’t see any reason to cover their heads “have an inferiority complex.” I simply regard someone who covers as piously participating in a formerly required practice.

Your last statement baffles me; are you implying that uncovered heads are in any way related to “debauchery” or that not covering one’s hair is immodest? Just a tad extreme, don’t you think?

 

[dixieagle]

Please note: No criticism is intended by this post. It is just a gleaning of information I found in several newsletters and such. Each of the paragraphs is from a TLM or FSSP Parish. All in communion with Rome. No sede vacantists or LeFevre parishes are involved. Should you participate in a Mass at these churches and others like them this is the pretty normal dress code…

St Michael’s FSSP Church Scranton Pa: “Men and women dress intelligently and modestly: no shorts, T-shirts, jeans, short skirts, bare midriffs, bare shoulders or plunging necklines and no tight-fitting clothing of any kind. Ladies of all ages are encouraged to wear some sort of head covering”

Why should a woman wear a head covering or veil in church? Not to be praised, not to go along, not for tradition’s sake, not to stand out in the crowd, not because you say or I say or anybody says…But because she loves our Eucharistic Lord Jesus and it is another small sacrifice she may offer for her soul’s sake and for the sake of many souls who have no one to offer for them. Amen. (Sr Patricia Therese, OPB
Mater Misericordiae Mission, which celebrates the Tridentine Mass every Sunday at St. Thomas the Apostle Parish, welcomed a new pastor July 26. ……………….“Women are attired in skirts that fall below their knees. A table stationed near the entrance to the sanctuary holds a basket of spare chapel veils along with a small sign requesting that women “wear a veil while in church out of respect for Our Lord”
Bishop John Yanta of the Catholic diocese of Amarillo, Texas, has published a pastoral letter on modesty in dress, especially at Sunday Mass, a subject that inevitably arouses strong reactions even in conservative circles……………”The FSSP not only adhere to the pre-1960’s liturgical practices including having the Mass in Latin, but require women to follow the traditional practice of covering their heads and forbid men to wear shorts in church.”

Welcome to Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Latin Mass Community.
We ask all visitors and all parishioners to please abide by our dress codes. For women, dresses or skirts must be below the knee. Please no shorts, pants or sleeveless, lowcut, tight, or revealing clothing. Head coverings are highly recommended. For men, no shorts, t-shirts, tank-tops, or jeans.

Here in the Washington D.C. area, the customary dress is not quite so restrictive but similar principles should apply. Let three words guide your clothing selection: neat, clean, and modest. Out of respect for the Eucharist women should not wear plunging necklines, spaghetti straps or strapless tops, nor should they display bare midriffs. Extremely short skirts or shorts, or tight pants are also inappropriate. Any clothing that calls attention to the wearer and away from the Mass is disrespectful. ….Tank tops, frayed shorts, and T-shirts that seem suited for the beach do not honor God.

Since 1983, the Code of Canon Law has not required women to cover their head in church. However, a growing number of women are finding that wearing a chapel veil or mantilla is a helpful form of personal piety. The veil symbolizes the woman’s role as a humble servant of Christ and a woman of the Church. It helps her to approach the Eucharist with humility and reverence. In most parishes in the D.C. area, only a handful of women will wear a head covering at any given Mass, but it is an acceptable practice.

If you attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form, also known as the Traditional Latin Mass, the dress is customarily more formal. Men should wear a tie and many will also be wearing a suit or sports jacket. Women wear skirts or dresses and usually wear some sort of head covering.

It would, indeed, be nice to see no shorts, tank tops, spaghetti straps, tube tops, mini-skirts, skin-tight pants, bra straps hanging out, etc., at Mass. And - another pet peeve of mine - strapless wedding gowns in church, but that’s an entire thread. (I wholeheartedly support the wearing of extravagant wedding veils, however!)

 

[Musicadmirer]

I hardly think that Catholic women who don’t see any reason to cover their heads “have an inferiority complex.” I simply regard someone who covers as piously participating in a formerly required practice.

Your last statement baffles me; are you implying that uncovered heads are in any way related to “debauchery” or that not covering one’s hair is immodest? Just a tad extreme, don’t you think?

No, that is absolutely what I was NOT suggesting about debauchery. I was referring to the decaying state of society amongst young people in general.

And when it comes to those with an inferiority complex, I did not imply that all unveiled have it. I was stating IF certain women became self-conscious of not veiling. Some women are actually hostile against the notion of veiling, due to the so-called feministic indoctrination of the 20th century.

 

[dixieagle]

No, that is absolutely what I was NOT suggesting about debauchery. I was referring to the decaying state of society amongst young people in general.

And when it comes to those with an inferiority complex, I did not imply that all unveiled have it. I was stating IF certain women became self-conscious of not veiling. Some women are actually hostile against the notion of veiling, due to the so-called feministic indoctrination of the 20th century.

I’ve never encountered anyone who felt self conscious not veiling; perhaps if someone was attending a TLM where most of the women did, she might.

LIke it or not, the notion of veiling has lately become associated with all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the Catholic Church and its past practice; there’s no getting away from it. That could account for any “hostility” you might encounter.

 

[Renko]

seems stupid quoting myself but here something I posted in another thread.

what does everybody think?

sexist? pure?

David

I agree with you. Our Bishop does not condone this sort of thing.

 

[m134e5]

church dress doesn’t have to be fancy or costly to be totally appropriate. Sunday Mass isn’t a fashion contest. It is nice to have one or two really special dresses in the closet, if one can afford them, but it is important not to go overboard. The body is not the only thing we should take care not to flaunt, lest we tempt others to sin.

I appreciate that you are considerate of others’ need to avoid sin, but really…there comes a point where we need to learn to control ourselves. Cover everything up that should be covered up, but you don’t need to dress like an amish woman either. It is true that Sunday Mass isn’t a fashion contest- so you shouldn’t wear things that are so flashy that you get the attention of everyone in the room. At the same time, you shouldn’t dress down for God. There’s nothing wrong with having nice clothes- you could have a new set of the nicest clothes money can buy for each part of each day and there is nothing necessarily wrong with that. It’s ok to look good. It’s ok for people to appreciate mankind’s ability to make nice clothes and to enjoy the fruits of their labor by buying clothes they like and can afford. There is nothing wrong with wearing those clothes to Mass, as long as they are modest. Did Saint Louis (a king) go to Mass in paupers’ clothes?

Men, If you struggle with lust that much, then you need to get some help- it’s not enough to just expect everybody else to always be conscious about whether or not what they are doing might be tempting you to sin. Keep a good prayer life, stay physically active, keep a healthy social life with both men and women, and receive the sacraments regularly. When lustful thoughts enter into your mind, be sure to call on God’s help immediately. If you need more help, you can get some counseling. If after all that you still have problems with lust that are totally out of control, then roll naked in the snow, or a rosebush, or something like various saints have done who struggled with purity. Meanwhile those of us who have some self-control and aren’t looking around the church ogling all the pretty girls while Mass is going on will be meeting people at church (after Mass) and getting dates with girls that don’t dress like my great-grandmother did in 1900 (and probably ignoring those who do).

 

[Jacafamala]

That pretty much sums up what has irked many of us: “I tend to think that to cover one’s head is the better way.” That’s considerably different from “I feel called to cover, but it doesn’t mean I think I’m more reverent than you.”

And, canon law is not the place where a statement such as you desire would be promulgated (unless, at some time in the future the requirement was reinstated as Church law - which is highly unlikely.) It would likely be in an encyclical or other type of papal pronouncement, such as the one I already quoted, even though covering was referenced tangentially to the main subject of the letter.

I feel the old ways are better.

Not because I’m better, but they’re better. Liberalism in fashion has been the cause for too many casual attitudes, such as strapless wedding gowns, etc, which I also don’t care to see in church.

 

[Jacafamala]

It is better to preserve a Church tradition which is thousands of years old. Its only the last two popes which have remained silent on the issue.

This from John Salza’s website brings up some interesting points regarding the topic. I wish I could post the entire piece, but it’s too long so I’ve linked it.

Thus, head covering is not only a centenary (100) year custom, but an immemorial custom of the Catholic Church. This means that not even a later law can revoke it. Canon law shows the wisdom of the Church by protecting her immemorial customs, even when the culture attempts to plunge those customs into disuse. This means that we have to presume the head-covering requirement, until the Magisterium says otherwise. But to date, neither the pope nor the Magisterium has expressly revoked the head-covering requirement. While some people argue that “Vatican II changed everything,” Canon 1262 of the 1917 code (which required head coverings) was in effect during Vatican II, and the council never changed it. Even Annibale Bugnini, after the close of the Second Vatican council, publicly stated circa 1975 that head-coverings were part of the Church’s discipline and that this discipline has not changed…

…Moreover, in the whole context of veil wearing and the role of women in the church (being silent in church and submissive to their husbands), Paul backs up his teaching by writing “as even the Law says” and “what I am writing you is a command of the Lord” (see I Cor. 14:34-37). Therefore, Scripture itself is clear that Paul’s teaching about the role of women in the Church comes from God Himself. To attempt to bifurcate Paul’s teaching from that of the Lord flies in the face of Scripture.

 

[dixieagle]

I feel the old ways are better.

Not because I’m better, but they’re better. Liberalism in fashion has been the cause for too many casual attitudes, such as strapless wedding gowns, etc, which I also don’t care to see in church.

I think that uncovered heads and immodest dresses/shorts, etc., are two entirely different issues.

 

[slyboots]

I think that uncovered heads and immodest dresses/shorts, etc., are two entirely different issues.

I agree. We are all called to be modeat. Not all are called to cover.

 

[Jacafamala]

Dixieagle:…And, canon law is not the place where a statement such as you desire would be promulgated (unless, at some time in the future the requirement was reinstated as Church law - which is highly unlikely.) It would likely be in an encyclical or other type of papal pronouncement, such as the one I already quoted, even though covering was referenced tangentially to the main subject of the letter.

Well it could be reinstated since the last two popes have left it open ended thus far. We’ll see. Who would’ve thought Communion in the hand while kneeling would once again become the norm at the “OF”? Who would’ve thought the liberalization of the TLM would occur? You just never know.

By the way, dixieagle I asked around over at the fishery (Fish Eaters) as to why the SSPX doesn’t require head covering in Europe. Where did you get your information? It sounds to me like maybe it’s quite the issue you were thinking. The percentages Eurotrad gives are more or less what I se at the ICKSP oratory each Sunday, perhaps ICKSP’s just a little higher.

Quote from: Eurotrad
Without claiming to be “scientifically” exact. From what I see in SSPX chapels, I would say that about 40% of the ladies wear veils, 30% hats and 30% don’t cover. Also I never heard some “official” instruction about headcovering, only some mention in parish-bulletins (during summer) about modest dress in general for both women and men.

And another I thought made good points here:

Quote from: viking
My guess is that there are several reasons to why they don’t require it. First it is not in the current code of cannon law. Even though one think the current code is much lacking and modern it is the new one that is binding on the faithful. I know there are good arguments for the fact that the requirement was never abolished. I have also been told that in Germany it was not a tradition for women to cover their hair, also from before the council, I don’t know this wasn’t a tradition.

I’m guessing that the Priests also picks their battles. If you have more serious questions to tackle and might scare people off by preaching about headcovering I would imagine a lot of Priests would choose not to. Some do wear, and by God’s grace I hope it will become more popular with time.

 

[Jacafamala]

I think that uncovered heads and immodest dresses/shorts, etc., are two entirely different issues.

I would tend to agree, immodest dress is the weightier issue. But since you brought the topic of strapless wedding dresses et al up in the first place, (it was you, correct?) I’m just chiming in.