Traditional Dress

  • Thread starter Thread starter dava4444
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jacafamala said:
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. 🤷
Click to expand...
I never referenced anything about the SSPX in Europe. I think you must have confused me with another poster.
 
Jacafamala said:
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. 🤷
Click to expand...
I was the one who mentioned headcovering in Europe, as I lived there for many years and am moving back again there soon. I have been to TLM’s in Italy, Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Headcovering is practically nonexistent everywhere except in France, where it is sporadic, both in FSSP, Indult (or what used to be called Indult) and SSPX chapels…

Where does “Eurotrad” live that his/her experience is slightly higher?

My main point was that if headcovering was still required by Canon Law then it wouldn’t be sporadic or nonexistent in any traditional parish, or even in orthodox NO parishes. Priests wouldn’t “pick their battles” - they’d simply enforce what is already required.
 
I wish more Catholic women would dress modesty, especially in church. It can be difficult for a man like me to concentrate on the mass when a few women here and there don’t give a hoot how they dress.

When I see a woman dressed with low tops or short skirts, I have a completely different reaction than I do when I see a woman dressed modestly, with very little if any skin below the neck and a skirt going below the knees. I have a great deal of respect for that kind of woman, because I know that she respects here body, the temple of the Holy Ghost.
 
tcraig said:
I was the one who mentioned headcovering in Europe, as I lived there for many years and am moving back again there soon. I have been to TLM’s in Italy, Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Headcovering is practically nonexistent everywhere except in France, where it is sporadic, both in FSSP, Indult (or what used to be called Indult) and SSPX chapels…

Where does “Eurotrad” live that his/her experience is slightly higher?

My main point was that if headcovering was still required by Canon Law then it wouldn’t be sporadic or nonexistent in any traditional parish, or even in orthodox NO parishes. Priests wouldn’t “pick their battles” - they’d simply enforce what is already required.
Click to expand...
He’s in Brussels. Matthew Talbot (from FE) says he’s been to SSPX masses in France and Spain. He didn’t notice an appreciable difference from The USA, i.e, most women wore head coverings.

Someone else who went to Mass at a FSSP chapel in Stuttgart, said far fewer women covered their heads there. Sooo… I don’t know. I’m sure the priests have to pick their battles wisely, especially where newbies to tradition are concerned.
 
Jacafamala said:
I’m sure the priests have to pick their battles wisely, especially where newbies to tradition are concerned.
Click to expand...
If you’re speaking strictly about tradition, and not Canon Law, then I can agree with you. It would be silly for a priest to insist on a woman new to tradition covering her head when there might be other things to worry about.

However, I got the impression that you (and others who argue this point) were trying to imply that it is still a requirement of Canon Law that women cover their head. That’s where my whole argument hinges …

If it’s still Canon Law, then it wouldn’t matter whether a woman was new to tradition or not. Headcovering would simply be required, no questions asked. You’d even see 100%headcovering in orthodox NO parishes.

However, if it’s not required by Canon Law, then a priest may certainly choose to allow women to not wear a headcovering a mass, while also choosing to give sermons on the topic encouraging it, etc. That’s what I have seen at the many various TLM chapels I have attended, both in the U.S. and Europe. This scenario makes sense to me, and has also been confirmed by the various trad priests I have spoken with it about.
 
tcraig said:
If you’re speaking strictly about tradition, and not Canon Law, then I can agree with you. It would be silly for a priest to insist on a woman new to tradition covering her head when there might be other things to worry about.

However, I got the impression that you (and others who argue this point) were trying to imply that it is still a requirement of Canon Law that women cover their head. That’s where my whole argument hinges …

If it’s still Canon Law, then it wouldn’t matter whether a woman was new to tradition or not. Headcovering would simply be required, no questions asked. You’d even see 100%headcovering in orthodox NO parishes.

However, if it’s not required by Canon Law, then a priest may certainly choose to allow women to not wear a headcovering a mass, while also choosing to give sermons on the topic encouraging it, etc. That’s what I have seen at the many various TLM chapels I have attended, both in the U.S. and Europe. This scenario makes sense to me, and has also been confirmed by the various trad priests I have spoken with it about.
Click to expand...
It was never really abrogated the way it should’ve been, if they really wanted to change the requirements. Why? Why not a simple statement? Because head covering was “abrogated” by the New York Times, not the Vatican. I am told that the NYTs reported misinformation, saying that head covering is no longer required. And then it’s as though they all shrugged there shoulders in Rome and made no definitive statement about it–as far as I know. Too much craziness at the time, I guess.
[The Atlanta Journal in 1969]
Click to expand...
*Women Required To Cover Head, Vatican Insists
Click to expand...
VATICAN CITY (UPI) - A Vatican official says there has been no change, as reported, in the Roman Catholic rule that women cover their head in church.
Click to expand...
The Rev. Annibale Bugnini, secretary of the New Congregation for Divine Worship, said the reports stemmed from a misunderstanding of a statement he made at a news conference in May.
Click to expand...
“The rule has not been changed,” he said. “It is a matter of general discipline. It began as a custom in the time of St. Paul and was later incorporated into canon law.”*
Click to expand...
 
Jacafamala, you’re quoting something from 1969. Can you not do better than that? 😉 I don’t know anyone who denies that headcovering was required under Canon Law until 1983 and the institution of the new Law, though it wasn’t enforced for many years prior.

Why is it easy to imagine that the separation of the sexes could naturally die out, but headcovering couldn’t?

I know it’s popular to blame everything on the “liberals” but really … some things change just because.
 
This thread says it is about traditional dress. That doesn’t specifically mean head covering/mantillas/ scarves/hats, what have you.
In the FSSP churches I have read about in the internet, all of them recommend head covering at their masses. Some have a gentle “we would prefer it,” others have a more firm “There are chapel caps at the back of the church for you ladies who are not yet bringing your own. Please avail yourselves now.”
At NO masses covering is individualistic. Some ladies do, some don’t.
Paul says cover. The Church for almost 2000 years followed that advice. Then women wanted equality and thought that removing the veil/scarf/hat/chapel cap etc was part of becoming more equal. I feel the women were wrong about that but the Church didn’t feel it was important enough to quibble about.
So I wear my scarf or mantilla depending on what season it is and my own feeling at the time. God wants me to wear it. He put it in my heart. All I did was say yes.
If God puts it on your heart…wear it in obedience and love. If not, dress modestly anyway so as not to detract from the mass. And don’t get perturbed at us with our bit of lace or scarf or hat. We aren’t wearing it “at you”, we are wearing it “for Him.”
 
This may seem like a silly question, but has anyone ever ask the Pope about the issue of women wearing a headcovering of some sort??
 
sistermouse said:
This may seem like a silly question, but has anyone ever ask the Pope about the issue of women wearing a headcovering of some sort??
Click to expand...
Yes, I did. I asked the Holy Father. I emailed him this morning and he said for me to tell you all that you are completely wrong. WRONG. And I am right. RIGHT. And he will soon be reinstating the head covering requirement in a papal bull–right after he’s finished with this business regarding getting the US nuns back in line.
 
Jacafamala said:
Yes, I did. I asked the Holy Father. I emailed him this morning and he said for me to tell you all that you are completely wrong. WRONG. And I am right. RIGHT. And he will soon be reinstating the head covering requirement in a papal bull–right after he’s finished with this business regarding getting the US nuns back in line.
Click to expand...
Was that before or after he had luncheon with me in Rome?
 
6412

This lady is in traditional dress for church if you ask me. When you visit royalty you don’t go in looking slouchy. And we go in not just to visit the King but to worship Almighty God.

I do not dress this nicely. But my African American co workers do.
 
Originally Posted by sistermouse
“This may seem like a silly question, but has anyone ever ask the Pope about the issue of women wearing a headcovering of some sort??”

“Yes, I did. I asked the Holy Father. I emailed him this morning and he said for me to tell you all that you are completely wrong. WRONG. And I am right. RIGHT. And he will soon be reinstating the head covering requirement in a papal bull–right after he’s finished with this business regarding getting the US nuns back in line.”
I didn’t mean for you to ask the Pope…I was referring to a bishop or however the Pope gets questions, I’m sure he does answer questions everyday about something or other. Has the issue of headcovering ever been brought before the Pope?? He could settle it once & for all. I didn’t mean to sound smart, I just figured if there was one question & two answers then He would be the one to settle the problem.🙂
 
sistermouse said:
Originally Posted by sistermouse
“This may seem like a silly question, but has anyone ever ask the Pope about the issue of women wearing a headcovering of some sort??”

“Yes, I did. I asked the Holy Father. I emailed him this morning and he said for me to tell you all that you are completely wrong. WRONG. And I am right. RIGHT. And he will soon be reinstating the head covering requirement in a papal bull–right after he’s finished with this business regarding getting the US nuns back in line.”
I didn’t mean for you to ask the Pope…I was referring to a bishop or however the Pope gets questions, I’m sure he does answer questions everyday about something or other. Has the issue of headcovering ever been brought before the Pope?? He could settle it once & for all. I didn’t mean to sound smart, I just figured if there was one question & two answers then He would be the one to settle the problem.🙂
Click to expand...
No, I’m sorry I was just funnin’ you. 🙂 Didn’t mean to sound snarky.

Seriously, why not a definitive statement–from Rome, plain and simple?
 
slyboots said:
6412

This lady is in traditional dress for church if you ask me. When you visit royalty you don’t go in looking slouchy. And we go in not just to visit the King but to worship Almighty God.

I do not dress this nicely. But my African American co workers do.
Click to expand...
God bless her.
 
Just FYI: Paul says as Lord Jesus, “If something causes you to sin cut it off” and Shorn your hair, (shave your head), men and women are different, God set us so. Men see and either admire, covet or lust, this is due to Satan, only grace will save you. Women are looked and are flattered, haughty or vain. maybe this is (the first of each two, admired and flattered) fine whilst outside the church…but not in it.

like I say the veil was much better. 🙂

and for men, baggy but smart clothes.

peace

David
 
I agree with the wear of slacks and tops for day masses but… what if your church doesn’t have air conditioners, What if your church has vistors from the near by parks , should they be condemend for not wearing church clothes to a day mass?. I would say if your a lector and serving as a extraordinary minister during the weekday masses your should be able to wear clothes without going to the extreme for comfort. For Sunday masses I would say you dress your sunday best after all aren’t we going to a wedding feast? Veils are more so for latin masses, Not the New mass. with modest dressings. And i do believe in the doctrine of the church they ruled out veils for covering .

If your mind and heart is in the right place within the holy spirit, then why judge others for what they do why not pray for them instead and leave the rest of it up to Jesus and the Priest.

My (name removed by moderator)ut Halos
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top