P
puzzleannie
Guest
Indigna Ancilla said:
your source for this remarkable fabrication?
- Status
your source for this remarkable fabrication?
P
puzzleannie
Guest
unable to find in the New Testament the citation that states women wore and were required to wear black lace mantillas. head coverings were certainly required, for their social significance in comparison to pagan women for one thing, but I am not able to find the word mantilla in my concordance. Women who feel strongly about this injunction are certainly free to wear any type of head covering, including the ordinary hat or bonnet, a babushka (an ancient tradition in many Catholic countries), a shawl, scarf or any of a number of choices. There is no need to be either catty or self-righteous about wearing a head covering.
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
Indigna Ancilla:
Indigna Ancilla:
Indigna Ancilla:
Indigna Ancilla:
Indigna Ancilla:
Indigna Ancilla:
Well as you say, your assumptions are merely guesses aren’t they? It has been my personal experience that it is best not to try and “group” people by their adherence or non participation in pious practices which are matters of preference. One is usually apt to find that they are incorrect.
Indigna Ancilla:
I am sorry, I ceased being “dared” prior to graduating from high school. As adults perhaps it’s best to simply state an idea and let it speak for itself.
Indigna Ancilla:
She may or she may not – just as the jeans clad,unhatted, unveiled, harassed looking lady with the four squirming kids may be earning her way through her purgatory, or on her way to heaven – these kinds of generalizations frankly have no merit. I assume all Christians I meet in church are working their way towards heaven, hatted, veiled or bareheaded.
Indigna Ancilla:
Those kind of statements are what make people wonder for whose edification the practice of resuming “veiling” is…
Indigna Ancilla:
On that we can agree – there bare hearted we expose ourselves to Him, whilst He is exposed to us. It is indeed efficacious. It also helps to meditate on Scripture – the verse about praying in a closet comes to mind.
Indigna Ancilla:
I had a professor who once told his class; you can lecture but a few, you can however, talk with many.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
I do submit to the Will of God. The Will of God is what Mother Church interprets as such, and She cannot err. Currently, She does not require a head covering out of women. Therefore, if I am in submission to the Church, I am in submission to God. So is any woman who does not desire to cover her head to pray in the church building or in front of the Blessed Sacrament at this point in time.
No less than the apologists here at Catholic Answers have stated that this is so, that there is no requirement for women to cover their heads (Jimmy Akin, Michelle Arnold, Fr. Spera).
If a woman CHOOSES to cover her head, or feels called to cover head, that is another matter entirely. It does not require a “veil” as we saw during the Great Head Covering in October. But it is also not mandatory, or bound on the pain of sin.
H
Honoria20
Guest
Thank you.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
Indigna Ancilla:
Your logic is poor, for one thing.
And for another, as it has been blungeoned to death in previous threads, the Church does not demand it, nor does She require it at this point in time.
Once again, without rancor: IF a woman chooses to cover head for whatever reason in church, then she should feel free to do so, without any harassment or embarassment. If a woman does not choose to do so, she is also free to do so without harassment or embarassment.
No, sorry, you do not.Do I get an “Amen”?
Your logic is poor, for one thing.
And for another, as it has been blungeoned to death in previous threads, the Church does not demand it, nor does She require it at this point in time.
Once again, without rancor: IF a woman chooses to cover head for whatever reason in church, then she should feel free to do so, without any harassment or embarassment. If a woman does not choose to do so, she is also free to do so without harassment or embarassment.
I
Indigna_Ancilla
Guest
Why the harshness in attitude, my sister in Christ?
Are we not looking for common ground here, as we are all part of the same Body?
It seems that we do agree, since I never said that it was mandatory that a woman should wear a head covering. Is this my harassing you? How have I offended you?
My sister, I was even accused of lying on this site, of a “fabrication”. I thought this was a Catholic site! Where is the charity here?
For those of you who feel insulted by what I have written, I beg your forgiveness. Nothing I have written was meant to do harm to anyone, (especially those whose self-worth has given them to great sensitivity). I am nothing, and my opinion is nothing, I only looked to exhort every Catholic, and share my love for a worthwhile tradition of a woman wearing a head-covering whereever there is the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
For those of you who feel you are in the right to insult, God bless you.
Although I do not normally justify ill-remarks with any kind of response, allow me to remind you, that without charity, we are nothing.
It makes no difference to me whether or not a woman wears a head-covering. I only have attested, and continue to attest, that it may be a pious act, even simply as it regards many years of tradition (there have been many more years where it was considered the cultural norm among Catholic woman than it has been otherwise). This, AGAIN, is not to be mistaken that I am saying that woman are WRONG for NOT wearing the veil, as I have no place to say so, and never have said so.
Here is also a little history for you:
During the Second Vatican Council, a mob of reporters waited for news after a council meeting. One of them asked Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, then secretary of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship, if women still had to wear a headcovering in church. He responded that the bishops were considering other issues, and women’s veils were not on the agenda.
The next day, the international press announced throughout the world that women did not have to keep their heads covered in church anymore. A few days later, Msgr. Bugnini told the press he was misquoted and women must still wear the veil. But the press did not retract the error, and many women stopped wearing the veil as out of confusion and because of pressure from feminist groups.
From an article from The Atlanta Journal (June 21, 1969) entitled, “Women Required to Cover Head, Vatican Insists”, it appears that Pope Paul VI instructed one of his officials to clarify the Church’s unchanged discipline regarding head coverings for women: “A Vatican official says there has been no change, as reported, in the Roman Catholic rule that women cover their head in church. 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. ‘The rule has not been changed,’ he said. ‘It is a matter of general discipline.’”
Code:
Before the revision in 1983, Canon Law had stated that women must cover their heads. "... especially when they approach the holy table" (can. 1262.2). But in order to reduce such a growing collection of books, the new version of Canon Law was subjected to concise changes. In the process, mention of head coverings was omitted.
In 1970, Pope Paul VI promulgated the new Roman Missal, ignoring mention of women's veils. But at the time the missal was published, it didn't seem necessary to keep mandatory such an obvious and universal practice.
And mention in Canon Law or the Roman Missal is not necessary to the continuation of the tradition, for it is rooted in Scripture and has been practiced ever since the early Church. Indeed, Pope John Paul II affirmed that the real sources of canon law are the Sacred Tradition, especially as reflected in the ecumenical councils, and Sacred Scripture (O.S.V. Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 169).
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
There have been many threads on this topic, too many at times it seemed to me. I once posted quite a detailed history of women covering their heads in church (small ‘c”), with links and footnotes.
It seemed to me that those who merely wanted to have women cover their heads with black mantillas, period, did not give a rap for my research. I was also under the impression that the Catholic Answers apologists (Jimmy Akin, Michelle Arnold and Father Serpa) were not given any credence by the members of the group calling for, and in my opinion demanding, that women wear what they term the “veil”.
For those women who choose to cover their heads, that is a fine and noble thing. However, it is not a current requirement of the Church (large “c”). Further, it was never a requirement that the head covering in question be black or white lace. If one wants to go back to the head coverings of St. Paul, I suggest a MANTLE, which is what is generally featured on the statues of Our Lady. The most common of St. Paul’s era were woven of linen or wool. Otherwise, a woman is left with a variety of head coverings, from a cute straw boater to a silk or chiffon scarf to a jaunty felt female fedora. Such a woman should never be made to feel embarrassment or harassment because of her choice.
Because it is not a requirement, her sister in Christ who chooses not to cover her head should also not be harassed or embarrassed because of her lack of head covering.
It is just my opinion, but there seems to be an element (no names in particular, certainly nobody here in this thread) that wants to bring in a form of Catholic Puritanism. Rather than adapt what is available in modern dress to a modest standard, it seems to me there are some who would rather berate women into a mode that does not exists, and find sin where there is none.
Such remind me of those priests who, in the past, pronounced judgments on those who came to their door to attempt to right a marriage attempted in the wrong way to Church (big “c”) canon, or scream that something was a sin when it was not. Not everybody reads canon law, and not everybody knows how or has the capacity to check statements made to an opinion, not actual law or policy. People were hurt needlessly and even kept out of the Church for years on the pronouncement of one priest who was either not informed or just plain wrong. Some time down the road, those people checked with another priest, who cleared up any irregularity and welcomed them back, usually with an apology for pain caused in the past.
In this country, indeed even in the Vatican, there is no requirement for women to cover their heads (tour guides selling mantillas notwithstanding). To create the impression that the Church (capital “c”) is wrong in interpreting St. Paul’s admonition to the Corinthian women would seem to me to be calling the Church a liar. She cannot lie. She does not do so now. Further, it would seem to me that by saying this, not only is division created among Catholics, but the same needless hurt is caused. I would hope that women, bareheaded or not, would be able to resolve this issue for themselves, and remain true sisters, as it seems to me that the Church (capital “c”) seems to think them capable to do, without intereference from other parties.
It seemed to me that those who merely wanted to have women cover their heads with black mantillas, period, did not give a rap for my research. I was also under the impression that the Catholic Answers apologists (Jimmy Akin, Michelle Arnold and Father Serpa) were not given any credence by the members of the group calling for, and in my opinion demanding, that women wear what they term the “veil”.
For those women who choose to cover their heads, that is a fine and noble thing. However, it is not a current requirement of the Church (large “c”). Further, it was never a requirement that the head covering in question be black or white lace. If one wants to go back to the head coverings of St. Paul, I suggest a MANTLE, which is what is generally featured on the statues of Our Lady. The most common of St. Paul’s era were woven of linen or wool. Otherwise, a woman is left with a variety of head coverings, from a cute straw boater to a silk or chiffon scarf to a jaunty felt female fedora. Such a woman should never be made to feel embarrassment or harassment because of her choice.
Because it is not a requirement, her sister in Christ who chooses not to cover her head should also not be harassed or embarrassed because of her lack of head covering.
It is just my opinion, but there seems to be an element (no names in particular, certainly nobody here in this thread) that wants to bring in a form of Catholic Puritanism. Rather than adapt what is available in modern dress to a modest standard, it seems to me there are some who would rather berate women into a mode that does not exists, and find sin where there is none.
Such remind me of those priests who, in the past, pronounced judgments on those who came to their door to attempt to right a marriage attempted in the wrong way to Church (big “c”) canon, or scream that something was a sin when it was not. Not everybody reads canon law, and not everybody knows how or has the capacity to check statements made to an opinion, not actual law or policy. People were hurt needlessly and even kept out of the Church for years on the pronouncement of one priest who was either not informed or just plain wrong. Some time down the road, those people checked with another priest, who cleared up any irregularity and welcomed them back, usually with an apology for pain caused in the past.
In this country, indeed even in the Vatican, there is no requirement for women to cover their heads (tour guides selling mantillas notwithstanding). To create the impression that the Church (capital “c”) is wrong in interpreting St. Paul’s admonition to the Corinthian women would seem to me to be calling the Church a liar. She cannot lie. She does not do so now. Further, it would seem to me that by saying this, not only is division created among Catholics, but the same needless hurt is caused. I would hope that women, bareheaded or not, would be able to resolve this issue for themselves, and remain true sisters, as it seems to me that the Church (capital “c”) seems to think them capable to do, without intereference from other parties.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
Indigna Ancilla:
You keep calling me your sister. I cannot tell if you are my brother or sister. I would think the “a” ending in Latin would indicate female.
However, sibling or not, I choose to disagree with you. It isn’t a matter of harshness. It’s a matter of opinion. Perhaps after you’ve been in the CA Forums a while longer, you will understand. This is not new ground for a lot of us. It is the same old thing we have already said,and already read, again and again.
I am sorry you feel I am harsh, but I am not. I am stating my opinion. You seem unable to accept that I can have one. I don’t agree with you. I think your logic is flawed. That is not harshness. That is my opinion.
You keep calling me your sister. I cannot tell if you are my brother or sister. I would think the “a” ending in Latin would indicate female.
However, sibling or not, I choose to disagree with you. It isn’t a matter of harshness. It’s a matter of opinion. Perhaps after you’ve been in the CA Forums a while longer, you will understand. This is not new ground for a lot of us. It is the same old thing we have already said,and already read, again and again.
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
It’s you who have earned the
in this thread.
I
Indigna_Ancilla
Guest
JESUS, MARY AND JOSEPH…
I only meant “dare” as in a playful context. Sister, why are you insulting me? Is this a part of your faith? Must I tell you my education is beyond high school to merit your respect? Aren’t we children of Christ even regardless? I stated an idea, and I expressed in a way that was intended to be playful, not demeaning in any way.
Why the attacks???
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
Indigna Ancilla said:+
JESUS, MARY AND JOSEPH…
I only meant “dare” as in a playful context. Sister, why are you insulting me? Is this a part of your faith? Must I tell you my education is beyond high school to merit your respect? Aren’t we children of Christ even regardless? I stated an idea, and I expressed in a way that was intended to be playful, not demeaning in any way.
Why the attacks???
As the OP pointed out disagreeing with your viewpoints and your statements is not attacking you. It is simply responding to what you post. Please try to depersonalize somewhat and not to see others as “attacking” because they respond to your posts.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
Indigna Ancilla said:+
JESUS, MARY AND JOSEPH…
I only meant “dare” as in a playful context. Sister, why are you insulting me? Is this a part of your faith? Must I tell you my education is beyond high school to merit your respect? Aren’t we children of Christ even regardless? I stated an idea, and I expressed in a way that was intended to be playful, not demeaning in any way.
Why the attacks???
According to your profile, you’ve been here since Saturday. Nobody is “attacking” you. Things are black and white here, in the sense that we communicate through black letters on a white background for the most part- although there is a choice of colors and fonts (I like #3, which seems to be about 14-16 point type, because I am getting older and so are my eyes).
A suggestion: Instead of jumping in and making assumptions, why don’t you sit back a bit, see the other postings, and perhaps get a feel for the place first? We are all for the most part pretty reasonable if you give us a chance and don’t jump on us simply because we do not agree with you.
I
Indigna_Ancilla
Guest
I never wrote that it is a Church (large “c”) requirement!
Tell me where I even implied that it is a requirement today. wow. I myself do not even where a mantilla in a Novos Ordo Missae, only during the Tridentine Mass and when approaching our Lord privately (Adoration Chapels).
Did something I write cause “embarassment” to you or someone else? If so, please tell me what precisely it was I wrote that caused such a lack of charity. It seems that I am being attacked, but for what cause? Division? Hmmm, interesting, since I am innocent of what you have accused me of, stating that it is a “requirement” to where a mantilla.
I think I’m done with this site. I have a lot of respect for Karl, but not of this communication as I have witnessed first hand. (I admit, I’m new to this thing, but having my words twisted and then being attacked it no fun for me). This is how the Pharasees and High Priests greeted Jesus, so, at least I am in good company there.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
Indigna Ancilla:
Well, sorry to see you go, without giving things a chance. I’m sorry we could all not agree with you. Eight posts hardly means giving things a change, in my opinion. Perhaps you’ll feel better tomorrow.
I never said what you said I said, and in fact bent over backwards to explain my opinion. That’s all it was, “opinion”.
Well, sorry to see you go, without giving things a chance. I’m sorry we could all not agree with you. Eight posts hardly means giving things a change, in my opinion. Perhaps you’ll feel better tomorrow.
I
Indigna_Ancilla
Guest
Jumping to conclusions about the lack of charity in these postings? Let me see:
1.) I’ve been accused of being an “element” of “Catholic Puritanism”…
2.) I’ve been accused of creating “fabrication”
3.) I’ve been accused of calling not wearing a mantilla a “sin”
4.) and it was implied that I was “berating” women who do not wear mantillas
5.) It was accused in response to my postings that I was one of those who looks to “create division”.
So, I have been here since Saturday. Does that mean I do not deserve respect in this forum any less than someone who has been here for as long as the site has existed?
Sorry to see me go? Pretty scary for you to say that, in light of your greeting.
And no, I don’t think everyone is accusing me, just a few bullies here that have an obvious disdain for the latin rite, or simply just enjoy bullying on message boards. For me, I think I have better things to do, like praying for you.
Let me see, me doing accusing by defending what I wrote, and dispelling the false accusations of what I did not write?
All over mantillas.
1.) I’ve been accused of being an “element” of “Catholic Puritanism”…
2.) I’ve been accused of creating “fabrication”
3.) I’ve been accused of calling not wearing a mantilla a “sin”
4.) and it was implied that I was “berating” women who do not wear mantillas
5.) It was accused in response to my postings that I was one of those who looks to “create division”.
So, I have been here since Saturday. Does that mean I do not deserve respect in this forum any less than someone who has been here for as long as the site has existed?
Sorry to see me go? Pretty scary for you to say that, in light of your greeting.
And no, I don’t think everyone is accusing me, just a few bullies here that have an obvious disdain for the latin rite, or simply just enjoy bullying on message boards. For me, I think I have better things to do, like praying for you.
Let me see, me doing accusing by defending what I wrote, and dispelling the false accusations of what I did not write?
All over mantillas.
H
Honoria20
Guest
Indigna Ancilla:
I’m sorry I have only been here 2 more days than you have and you are the only one that I have encountered with such a negative and accusatory attitude . I for one am very comfortable here at CAF and I don’t see how you think everyone is accusing just you…
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
Ya know, I have no charity left at this point. I tried my very best NOT to accuse, to clarify my opinion over fact, and it just wasn’t good enough.
Dearest Mother Mary, through your intercession, help us all to see where we have gone wrong in this, to ask pardon where necessary, and to have patience where needed.
Will somebody please call for the Moderator to close this thread?
Dearest Mother Mary, through your intercession, help us all to see where we have gone wrong in this, to ask pardon where necessary, and to have patience where needed.
Will somebody please call for the Moderator to close this thread?
M
Marian_Carroll
Guest
All sides having been heard from and the moderator summoned, she has answered. Thread closed.
- Status