If we can questions the Church on its motive requiring the covering of ones head, we can do so also in the topics of homosexual ‘marriage’ and abortion. After all, if they were wrong about that, why can’t they be wrong about these other things?sounds about right… that time period in the Church is know to have been very focused on minute details and imposing rubrics
Because the covering of one’s head at Mass was/is a matter of devotion and discipline- not a breaking of any of the 10 Commandments.If we can questions the Church on its motive requiring the covering of ones head, we can do so also in the topics of homosexual ‘marriage’ and abortion. After all, if they were wrong about that, why can’t they be wrong about these other things?
If we can questions the Church on its motive requiring the covering of ones head, we can do so also in the topics of homosexual ‘marriage’ and abortion. After all, if they were wrong about that, why can’t they be wrong about these other things?
I sincerely hope you are joking. If not, comparing the change in the code of canon law regarding the wearing of a headcovering at Mass to abortion or gay marriage is taking absurdity to a whole new level.If we can questions the Church on its motive requiring the covering of ones head, we can do so also in the topics of homosexual ‘marriage’ and abortion. After all, if they were wrong about that, why can’t they be wrong about these other things?
It is no longer required and it was a disciplinary matter, not a doctrinal one, however it was in place for most of Church history. St. Paul himself, in Sacred Scripture, commands women to cover their heads - this is the basis of the long standing tradition.
Covering the head – was just a disciplinary practice-- and as the Catholic Church says – one of minor importance-- that no longer has normative value.
It is no longer required and it was a disciplinary matter, not a doctrinal one, however it was in place for most of Church history. St. Paul himself, in Sacred Scripture, commands women to cover their heads - this is the basis of the long standing tradition.
No derailing, please.If we can questions the Church on its motive requiring the covering of ones head, we can do so also in the topics of homosexual ‘marriage’ and abortion. After all, if they were wrong about that, why can’t they be wrong about these other things?
covering your head = disciplineIf we can questions the Church on its motive requiring the covering of ones head, we can do so also in the topics of homosexual ‘marriage’ and abortion. After all, if they were wrong about that, why can’t they be wrong about these other things?
The requirement to cover one’s head, which is now abrogated, was never called “veiling.” References to veils were usually used along the lines of “taking the veil,” which was a term for becoming a nun or religious sister.Veiling is not Catholic? LOL
I guess Holy Mother Church was wrong in making veiling a requirement for women with Canon 1262 in 1917.
No one should be looking at anyone funny to begin with. I don’t hold that veiling is necessary, but I wouldn’t support someone being singled out or viewed differently for doing so.It’s a good time of year to start. Nobody looks at you funny for having a cold head in the wintertime.
Thank you. I knew that there was a more historical definition to the term, but I couldn’t remember it.The requirement to cover one’s head, which is now abrogated, was never called “veiling.” References to veils were usually used along the lines of “taking the veil,” which was a term for becoming a nun or religious sister.
Most women in the United States wore hats to church on Sunday; Jackie Kennedy made the mantilla more fashionable, so you began to see more of those. I think that’s what’s responsible for the term “veiling” that we seem to hear so often on these boards.