C
Cluny
Guest
Please give me the canon that says that women HAVE to cover their heads.
Quote it here exactly, please. Cutting and pasting should suffice.
- Status
Quote it here exactly, please. Cutting and pasting should suffice.
F
FAB
Guest
Top understand why head coverings are no longer required, we have to look at the original intent. THe question was were did they go.
A
AlwaysAsking
Guest
There are some conservative Christian websites which kind of deconstruct the logic of claiming that Paul secretly meant “hair” when he said “veil/ covering.” Worth skimming around if you’re interested in the subject. I’d cut’n’paste but I don’t want to endorse any specific website/ author.
God asked me to cover my head, and I always feel so relieved and comforted when I actually obey. So I don’t have to fuss over technicalities as much. But I have come to agree that Paul means what he says, we ladies are to cover what God gave us as a feminine glory-- our unshaven hair-- when we pray to God. Out of submission.
I don’t subscribe to the argument that he was only speaking to the people of the time: are we talking about the inspired word of God, or Paul’s off-the-cuff remarks?
It did occur to me the other day, and I apologize if this sounds snotty, but by the time the modern woman is finished chopping off/ bleaching/ dyeing/ perming/ styling her hair, there’s not much left of the original ‘glory’ given to her by God. So, she’s cool… she’s like the shaven woman Paul mentioned and therefore, she probably doesn’t need to wear a veil.
…please don’t take it to mean that I am trying to teach a new doctrine. These are just personal explorations.
God asked me to cover my head, and I always feel so relieved and comforted when I actually obey. So I don’t have to fuss over technicalities as much. But I have come to agree that Paul means what he says, we ladies are to cover what God gave us as a feminine glory-- our unshaven hair-- when we pray to God. Out of submission.
I don’t subscribe to the argument that he was only speaking to the people of the time: are we talking about the inspired word of God, or Paul’s off-the-cuff remarks?
It did occur to me the other day, and I apologize if this sounds snotty, but by the time the modern woman is finished chopping off/ bleaching/ dyeing/ perming/ styling her hair, there’s not much left of the original ‘glory’ given to her by God. So, she’s cool… she’s like the shaven woman Paul mentioned and therefore, she probably doesn’t need to wear a veil.
…please don’t take it to mean that I am trying to teach a new doctrine. These are just personal explorations.
W
weepixie71
Guest
cluny this is the third website ive sent confirming this. it cant get spelled out more plainly than this website. it starts out with how everyone got confused about having the head covered or not and then it explains and proves that women by canon law are still required to wear their head covering.
canonlaw.info/2006/09/vatican-ii-canon-1262-and-chapel-veils.html
W
weepixie71
Guest
what we do have is Jewish and Catholic history. and for throusands of years women did not question if one should have their head covered or not. some great examples come from our saints.
St. John Chrysostom (cf. Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily XXVI), St. Ambrose (cf. Concerning Virgins, Book III), St. Augustine (cf.* On Holy Virginity*, n. 34; Epistola ad Possidium, n. CCXLV), and St. Thomas Aquinas (cf. II-IIae, q.169, a. 2, corp.; Super I Cor., cap.11, vers. 3), are all noteworthy for their elaborate treatments of the custom.
In A.D. 743, Pope St. Zachary I (A.D. 741-752) held a synod in Rome, whose Canon 3 reprises the teaching of St. Paul: “[A] woman praying in church without her head covered brings shame upon her head, according to the word of the Apostle …].” Cf. Mansi XII, 382.
Gratian, the Camaldolese monk-canonist, and often called the “father” of Canon Law, references the above texts in his unofficial collection (cf. C. 3, C.XXI, q.4; c. 19, C. XXXIII, q.5).
B
Brendan
Guest
Huh? I know Dr. Peter’s quite well, he’s quite brilliant. But I don’t think it says what you think it says. His article clearly states that the Canonical requirement was removed with the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.
Read the very last paragraph.
All of which I agree with wholeheartily. My wife commonly veils. But it is simply false to say that it is required by the Church.
L
LilyM
Guest
Was Leviticus inspired scripture or Moses’ off-the-cuff remarks? How much of that do we obey still? Not so much. Some of it was specifically abrogated by the actions of Christ and the Apostles in the NT, but not all of the stuff we no longer obey (garments of mixed fibres and fields having mixed plant types in them, anyone? Shaving the beard and temples, gentlemen?)
J
JorjaMay
Guest
Very interesting topic!
A
AlwaysAsking
Guest
Actually, I don’t really understand the system used to disregard the OT. And I mean, in all of Christianity. I always found it strange, for instance, that tithing (at lest, for Protestants) was kept, but that most mosaic laws were just dumped.
At any rate, what abrogates the NT?
S
savienu
Guest
Except Christ himself abolished the cleanliness laws, and the dietary laws in the New Testament. And the Church didn’t have a 2000 year history of requiring us to follow them and then all of a sudden, after women started BURNING THEIR VEILS IN PROTEST, now we don’t have to. The comparison COMPLETELY breaks down, and strikes of modern attempts to justify homosexuality Biblically on the same grounds.
B
Brendan
Guest
Yep, that was my question, when exactly, did parts of the NT get abrogated
Lily,
What we follow from Leviticus is the Moral Law, that which deals with morality. Those laws have existed for since Adam and Eve, and will continue to exist until the Second Coming.
Modesty DOES fall under the Moral Law. We are called to act and dress modestly in public and especially at prayer.
The Church, in her wisdom, has determined that the wearing of veils by women no longer is a required modesty ( which is, again, a matter of Morals that the Church may rule on)
B
Brendan
Guest
To go a bit further in depth with your question. The Mosaic Law covered 2 things, Law of Ritual and the Moral Law.
The Law of Ritual is subejctive to time and place, Noah was under no compulsion to avoid shellfish, but Moses was placed under it.
It’s purpose to was help define the culture of the Israelites and to physically denote them as being set apart. This requiredment ended with the command to preach to all nations.
The MORAL Law, the requirement to worship God as God and no other, to not steal, commit adultery etc… Those commands existed before Moses and will exist for all time. The Moral Law does not change.
Relating back to the topic at hand, head covering are a form of modesty, like almost all attire. While modesty itself is a requirement under the moral law, it applicabiltiy is subjective to time and place. Clothes that are appropriate for sub Saharan Africa are not appropriate for Mass in Stockholm, for example.
In the case of the veil, it was meant to reduce instances of pride in women. In more recent times, in American culture, this particular sin has become less of a concern, so there is very little need to regulate it.
I did note, that in Korea when I went to Mass there on business, every single woman was veiled. There were teen age girls in sweats and jeans, but wearing a veil. I never enquired, but it might be paritcular (diocesan) law there.
(side note, in was from the Cathedral gift shop in Korea that I got my wife her first veil, she had expressed interest before, so I brought one home)
But I digress …
It (as has been show from Dr. Peter’s website) a canonical requirement does not exist for the Universal Church, but it still remains a item of modest attire that a woman may freely choose to wear.
A
AlwaysAsking
Guest
First, thank you for your thoughtful and extensive answer.
I hadn’t really heard of the distinctions between types of law before. (Some old laws are beautiful to me i.e., don’t cook a calf in it’s mother’s milk, forgive debts once every seven years-- though I admit I don’t observe them.)
I hadn’t really heard of the distinctions between types of law before. (Some old laws are beautiful to me i.e., don’t cook a calf in it’s mother’s milk, forgive debts once every seven years-- though I admit I don’t observe them.)
- Not sure about climate-relative modesty. I wonder why this is one thing orthodox Jews and Muslims readily share consensus on? As well as some otherwise completely different Christian sects? Just food for thought.
- Your wife must love you very, very much. No! American women don’t have pride issues any more. Nuh-uh. Nope!
W
weepixie71
Guest
see i would agree with you. i thought the exact same thing until i started researching the head covering. but then i learned canon 28 says that a law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs. further, canon 26 says that a centenary or immemorial custom can even prevail against a canonical law which contains a law prohibiting future customs. headcovering is an immemorial custom of the church. we know this from scripture (St. Paul devotes a lot of ink to this issue in his first letter to the corinthian church because evidently women were not covering their heads) and tradition (there are many fathers who wrote about the necessity for women to wear veils, beginning with Pope Linus, the direct successor to Peter). 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.
again i could be wrong. is there something out there that you know of that nulls and voids these canons also?
W
weepixie71
Guest
brendan
one more thing. i believe that when headcovering, or veiling was not mentioned in 1983 it was because they KNEW it did not apply due to the long standing discipline with the Catholic Church. i believe that priests, bishops, etc hopped on the idea because it would be much much much easier than dealing with women who were not covering their heads due to the feminist movement for at least 20yrs prior.
i find it very strange that veiling or head-covering was strongly advocated throughout church history for almost 2000yrs and it would end without a mention and treated like it never happened.
one more thing. i believe that when headcovering, or veiling was not mentioned in 1983 it was because they KNEW it did not apply due to the long standing discipline with the Catholic Church. i believe that priests, bishops, etc hopped on the idea because it would be much much much easier than dealing with women who were not covering their heads due to the feminist movement for at least 20yrs prior.
i find it very strange that veiling or head-covering was strongly advocated throughout church history for almost 2000yrs and it would end without a mention and treated like it never happened.
A
AlwaysAsking
Guest
Isn’t it funny what happens when you start asking questions? I’m glad to learn the Catholic perspective on this. In the evangelical world, I find the average woman skims over Paul’s writings on headcovering and flashy, expensive dressing and thinks:
… … …
When asked to consider Paul’s writings, the possibility that the writings should apply to Christians today, she thinks:
LA LA LA LA LA LA LA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU!! LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!
I like your approach, wee pixie. Just trying to get people to think a teensy bit!
W
weepixie71
Guest
baby steps and patience always asking… it has to be chewed and gnawed on a bit. funny though how it seems them men fight this issue more so than the women.
L
LilyM
Guest
Firstly there are all sorts of customs out there that have been done away with in the past century. Why is no-one insisting that we are still bound to fast from midnight prior to receiving communion, as everyone did up to the 1950s? Surely THAT is arguably an immemorial and perhaps a centenary custom, just as much as veiling?
Secondly, we have* Inter Insignores*, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which is certainly much closer to a Magisterial pronouncement than 99% of opinion on the issue, which flat out says that the custom of veiling no longer has normative value. In other words no value as a binding rule.
IF the custom of veiling were viewed by the CDF as either an ‘immemorial custom’ or a ‘centenary custom’, or any other kind of custom such that it would survive as a binding rule apart from the Canon Law requirement, the CDF would say the opposite, for then it would absolutely HAVE normative value.
And the document further sugggests why it does not in paragraph 4:
“Another objection is based upon the **transitory character **that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on the head (1 Cor 11:2-6); such requirements no longer have a normative value.”
And there we have the reasoning - the requirement to veil was, in the view of the august members of the CDF, a directive of a ‘transitory character’, ‘probably inspired by the customs of the period’ (and of succeeding ones, truly, but not of ours), and furthermore the subject was ‘scarcely more than a disciplinary practice of minor importance’. Even in Paul’s time, one presumes, the issue was not of major importance. That is, absent Canon Law provisions which made it binding, although hardly unchangeable (disciplines are freely changed and freely able to be changed).
L
Lisa44
Guest
Hi
I had a protestant woman tell me something similar, and I almost bought it. The reason I don’t is because of Catholic tradition and also the representations of Mary. Mary always has her head covered, not in braids. I think Catholic tradition is pretty clear on this one.
L
Lisa44
Guest
To the OP -
Regarding your question what happened to the headcovering?
If, as people here argue, the custom is abrogated and no longer required, what does this say about Mary? And our reverence and respect to her?
We all know that Mary always appears with her head covered.
Did she appear at anytime with her head uncovered? At Fatima or at Guadalupe??? Or anywhere else? Lourdes?
Is there an icon depicting Mary with her head uncovered?
I think it is insanity to argue against this custom. I think furthermore, that it denigrates our Blessed Mother and her example.
Mary covers her head because apostolic tradition tells us that it is a sign of respect to God and to the angels. We need to follow her example. We need to respect the Mother of God.
If the Catholic Church truly did abandon this custom then WOE to us. Then it further supports the position of some Catholics that the Church has been corrupted.
Are you arguing for corruption of the Church and its teachings or against them?
Are you fighting for Mary, or are you against her?
Are you fighting for Church traditions, or against them?
Are you a protestant, who picks and chooses what parts of the bible you feel are relevant?
Regarding your question what happened to the headcovering?
If, as people here argue, the custom is abrogated and no longer required, what does this say about Mary? And our reverence and respect to her?
We all know that Mary always appears with her head covered.
Did she appear at anytime with her head uncovered? At Fatima or at Guadalupe??? Or anywhere else? Lourdes?
Is there an icon depicting Mary with her head uncovered?
I think it is insanity to argue against this custom. I think furthermore, that it denigrates our Blessed Mother and her example.
Mary covers her head because apostolic tradition tells us that it is a sign of respect to God and to the angels. We need to follow her example. We need to respect the Mother of God.
If the Catholic Church truly did abandon this custom then WOE to us. Then it further supports the position of some Catholics that the Church has been corrupted.
Are you arguing for corruption of the Church and its teachings or against them?
Are you fighting for Mary, or are you against her?
Are you fighting for Church traditions, or against them?
Are you a protestant, who picks and chooses what parts of the bible you feel are relevant?
- Status