F
FatherOfTwelve
Guest
The Bishops teach it by example. They Obey, thus the Church teaches.
- Status
F
FatherOfTwelve
Guest
Good Night All,
God Bless you each and every one!
God Bless you each and every one!
B
Baelor
Guest
The Church explicitly requires bishops to follow particular behaviors. It does not require those behaviors among the laity. If you believe it does, show me where the Church explicitly requires women to veil. You are not able to. We are not required, at a specific level, to do what the bishops do simply because they are bishops. If there is something that the Magisterium considers a moral necessity, that will make its way into the Catechism or the Canon in the case of legal/disciplinary issues.
Your reasoning has absolutely no basis in Catholic theology.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
No, they have an intermediate superior between Christ and themselves, superiors who can impose duties or not , or restrict behavior or not, based on “man made” law, prudence or any number of things, that are not specified as divine law.
Just because things are in the GRIM or scripture does not make it divine law or moral law. (Doesn’t that same passage in scripture say that women can’t speak in church? and the GRIM says a whole bunch of things, posture to use, or prayers to say, or where the hymn goes, which are not moral law). There is a difference between ecclesiastic law and moral/divine law. Ecclesiastic must follow moral/divine law (which means any and all moral obligations, like going to Mass/confession/Eucharist must be there, and also negative duties, like we can’t murder, fornicate etc.), but it can also include things that are not moral/divine law, like fasting, veiling, specific movements and actions, etc.
I think the real problem is that you say the Church is teaching us through the scriptures. This is incorrect. The Church takes Scriptures and Tradition, and then promulgates its teachings in accordance with that revelation (In Canon law, GRIM, encyclicals, Councils, etc.). It is not for us to pick apart the Bible or Tradition and say that something is a Teaching of the Magisterium, it is for the Magisterium alone to decide what its teachings are. In this case the Church has not said that we must veil, they have left it out of their primary tool of placing obligations upon the faithful, namely canon law. Thus It cannot be a moral obligation, either by competent authority nor by divine/moral law.
D
Debora123
Guest
Then perhaps there is some sort of lack of understanding. All I know is that head coverings are not required in mass.
Thank you, and yes, all is well. My husband had his interview for a pilot slot today and did really really well on the interview. However, he won’t know if he got in or not until September, and if he DOES get it he still won’t be leaving for OTS (officer training school) until January at the earliest. So now all we have to do is wait.
C
catholicanne
Guest
Wow, this really IS a hot topic!
I veil myself because I want to honor our Blessed Mother. Plain and simple. Not because the Bible tells me to but because I want to. When people are forced into doing something they don’t want to, it loses its meaning. Women should only veil themselves when they feel called to it otherwise it is an empty gesture that will cause resentment.
Carry on, this is an interesting discussion.
S
SilverLight
Guest
See and you do it because you want to.
We can’t force people to do something.
Do to other as you would want them to do to you.
Don’t be forcefull be encourageing.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear FatherofTwelve,Ahh, he did “THE BIBLE”
Hate jumping in the middle, but here’s two cents.
The church (truth) stands on three witnesses.
And yes below is my daughter the Sister, they veil because the Bible tells them so
- Sacred Scripture - Like Prego, it’s in there. The HOLY SPIRIT speaking through St. Paul put the requirement in scripture. It will NEVER be “Abrogated” from the scripture.
- Sacred Tradition - Catholic women have been veiled at Mass for two thousand years. Nuns, Sisters and Lay. Think about that for a second. The Nuns/Sisters “Honor” their Head; they are married to Jesus Christ. The lay, they honor their husbands.
- Magisterium - Now here’s the tricky one. Can they teach by example? Yes they can, I guarantee every bishop on this planet removes his little red beanie at the prayer of consecration. WHY???
He is OBEYING 1st Cor chapter 11.
The Bishop/MAN removes his head covering because he is now truly in Persona Christi. He WILL NOT dishonor his head, the Father. The men attending Mass never wear head coverings because “7* For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God”
In Mass the woman is veiled because she is “; but woman is the glory of man.” Man’s “Glory” shall be covered.
The Magisterium Obey the Scripture/Tradition and sound doctrine, they just don’t have the :ballspin: to preach it. Same as contraception, abortion, purgatory, etc. etc.
Okay, I’ll stop the rant….
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Splendid post, jolly well expressed if I may say, old chap.
The passage in I Corinthians 11: 2-16 has never been officially set aside as being no longer relevant or applicable and our antagonists cannot adduce any evidence which categorically states that the veiling of women is no longer a *moral *obligation.
God bless and thankyou for all of your (name removed by moderator)ut on this thread.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
R
Rkdajr
Guest
Hi Portrait and FatherOfTwelve, To save Baelor the trouble of posting because this keeps getting ignored, I’ll just quote it for you:
C
catholicanne
Guest
Portrait, I understand what you are saying. I know the passages of the bible you quoted and I understand the church’s traditional teaching on wearing a veil.
How would you then respond to women who would feel resentful and maybe even back away from the church because a veil is required? Wouldn’t you much rather see women veil themselves because that is what they are called to do and not because they are forced to?
How would you then respond to women who would feel resentful and maybe even back away from the church because a veil is required? Wouldn’t you much rather see women veil themselves because that is what they are called to do and not because they are forced to?
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear jilly4ski,The point Portrait, is that because of the Church’s failure to teach veiling as a moral imperative, it therefore cannot be a moral imperative, if we believe the Church is infallible in moral teachings.
Lets use an example:
Mass is required on Sundays, it is both a legal and moral imperative and a positive obligation, listed in scripture and canon law. We also veil for similar reasons that we attend Mass, it is personally edifying, but really for the honor entitled to God that we veil/attend Mass.
Indeed the Church could not leave out of canon law the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday’s even if it wanted to, because ecclesiastic law follows moral law and cannot contradict moral law. Leaving a positive duty out of the law is contradicting. If the Church failed to teach that we were to attend Mass on Sundays (despite the clear references in scripture) we would indeed question the infallibility of the Church on matters of faith and morals. But in this case the Church has removed the requirement to veil, by an absence of teaching, and since the Church cannot contradict moral imperatives veiling cannot be a moral imperative.
Legality must follow morality. And it cannot contradict morality.
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. Thankyou for your response.
You may recollect that some men once argued that the traditional Roman Rite, the ‘Extraordinary Form’, had never been legally abolished with the advent of the Novus Ordo. There were multitudes who did argue thus, for example the authors Kenneth Whitehead and James Likoudis even laid out multiple pages in their book, The Pope, the Council and the Mass, as to how precisely the traditional Rite had been legally abolished - indeed, they deemed it to be a certainty. Now there was a certain plausiblity to their arguments, for that did appear to be the case. However, there were nuances and principles involved that kept some chaps from being carried along with the arguments and who, notwithstanding certain appearances, continued to insist that the traditional Rite had not been legally abolished. Now it turns out that they were right after all and the others, with their plausible arguments, were wrong.
Now I am sure, dear sister, that you can see the parallel here with the topic currently under review.
As you quite rightly state, the Church cannot contradict moral obligations and the whole piont is, it has not done so in the case of the veiling of women at Holy Mass.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Portrait:
Quoting yourself – is not going to change – that both you and “FatherofTwelve” — are Wrong.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
You just made my point. The requirement to say the Mass in the EF was removed as in, they could now say Mass in the Ordinary form and didn’t have to say it in the EF form. But that doesn’t mean that priests were not allowed to say Mass in the EF, except where competent authority restricted it. Just as with veiling, the requirement was removed, but women can wear a veil if they want to. This case is even less extreme because competent authority has not restricted the use of the veil like they did for the EF.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Rkdajr,Hi Portrait and FatherOfTwelve, To save Baelor the trouble of posting because this keeps getting ignored, I’ll just quote it for you:
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
Sacred Scripture as we have said previously, dear friend, is a current Church document that teaches that the veiling of women has continued validity. Thus far none of the contributors to this thread have been able to adduce any official declarations which state the contrary and that is because none exist. True, the* legal* obligation for veiling has been repealed by the 1983 Code (yet even that is silent as regards veiling), but this is not synonymous with a the moral obligation to veil, based upon the timeless directives of St. Paul in Sacred Scripture. In any case the Church would not and could not override these, my dear friend, as they involve principles and issues that have continuing relevance beyond St. Paul’s own times.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Repeating:
Baelor:
J
jilly4ski
Guest
NO! sacred scripture is not a teaching document and you cannot claim it to be so. Because the Church/Magisterium alone has the authority to interpret scripture. Thus they alone can determine what is a teaching or moral requirement from scripture. Or we would all be Seventh Day Adventists and following Jewish dietary laws and worshiping on Saturdays. In the case of veiling, the Church/Magisterium has decided that it would remove the requirement to veil in Church, thus interpreting that passage of scripture to not be a binding moral requirement.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear catholicanne,
Hello again and thankyou for your response.
They would only feel resentful, dear sister, if it was not explained to them as to why they were under a moral obligation to veil at Holy Mass. If they believed that Sacred Scripture was the inspired word of God and that veiling was an immemorial apostloic custom, then surely they would be obedient and humbly submit to the requirement to veil.
People feel resentful against the Catholic Church for all manner of reasons, dear sister, for example its stance on abortion and homosexual aberrant acts, and so will always be repelled by something or other. However, the Church has standards and obligations to which men and women must meekly submit, it cannot trim its sails to the fancies of fallen man.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
W
Walking_Home
Guest
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear jilly4ski,
Hello again and thankyou for your response.
Sacred Scripture, dear sister, is a teaching document of the Church - “The inspired books teach the truth” (see CCC 107). No, Catholicism is not a religion of the book, but “the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body” (CCC 103). Of course the bible is to be interpreted in the light of the teachings of the Church, but it surely follows that any man who knows and believes the teachings of Holy Mother Church will necessarily elucidate the sacred text as the Church does.
Now the way in which I am interpreting the passage from I Corinthians 11: 2-16, is the indeed the way that the Church has always interpreted it. in other words, dear sister, my views are not novel and erroneous, as the following citation will verify:
"1053. Why must women have their heads covered when in a Church?
That women should cover their heads in when in Church is a Christian custom based upon the words of St. Paul in I Cor. XI. 6. There he definitely gives the instruction that women must cover their heads during divine worship. He gives two reasons for his decree, one theological, the other moral. The theological reason is as follows: Every being’s true glory and honour is to keep the place assigned to him or her by God. Now God Himself differentiated between the sexes, and that difference should be manifested during our public religious acknowledgement of Him. Man was created first, and woman dependendantly upon the man. The covering of a woman’s head was to be a sign of this dependence. Both men and women are created, of course, for God; and their souls are equally precious to Him. But secondarily, women were created as the helpmates fo men, so that secondarily women were created for men, rather than men for women. The moral reason given by St. Paul deals with Christian modesty. Loose women of ill-repute went their temple without any head covering, not veiling their beauty, but bent on a vain display of their attractions. St. Paul would have none of this in a Christian Church. “Therefore, ought the woman to have a power (i.e. a veil) over her head,” he writes, “because of the angels.” I Cor. XI., 10. He mentions these pure spirits to bring home the fact that spiritual considerations alone should prevail in our worship of God, and not sensual vanity. A woman’s hair is the object of her vanity and earthly glory - and she knows it. Let her at least veil it in the Church, giving her attention to higher things, and allowing others to do so also. Thus you have the legislation of St. Paul, and the reasons for it"
(Radio Replies, Vol. 2, Fathers Rumble and Carty, Tan Books 1979, p. 258, emphasis mine).
Methinks, dear sister, that these renowned ‘Radio Priests’ would be branded ‘Protestant’ and ‘sexist’ today by many modern Catholics, even among those who identify as conservative. However, what you have here is faithful Catholic teaching that has always been endorsed by the Church because it treats of timeless truths that have eternal validity. That citation evinces most plainly why a Catholic woman continues to have a moral obligation to veil at Holy Mass. Our Church, my dear sister, has never officially set aside this biblically based moral obligation in any document and never would do so, because these truths have perpetual validity and our not cultural conditioned.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
- Status