What Happened To The Headcovering?

[adrift]

So it’s no matter at all that for 20 years prior to the New Code of Canon Law, women were in direct disobedience of the mandate to veil, and were BURNING them in protest? Please.

It wasn’t in the 60’s that women stopped wearing hats or scarves. It happened when this was released

INTER INSIGNIORES, 15 Oct 1976
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Quote:
…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.
Women were released from wearing hats and when the new Canons were printed it should have been no surprise that the canon on head coverings were gone.No one can judge but God if women were in direct disobedience. By the way the old canon law forbade women and men sitting together an ancient traditon. Why doesn’t anyone protest that? Or say that is still in effect?

 

[AlwaysAsking]

By the way the old canon law forbade women and men sitting together an ancient traditon. Why doesn’t anyone protest that? Or say that is still in effect?

The answer to that question is another question: why hasn’t the Lord put it on my heart? If He did, I would first feel panic; then research it all I could; and then, if I still felt called, yeah: I would start sitting apart from my husband in church.

It almost seems like you’re saying we have other motives for covering our heads, than simply obeying to the best of our understanding. But I don’t want to impute motives to you!

 

[adrift]

The answer to that question is another question: why hasn’t the Lord put it on my heart? If He did, I would first feel panic; then research it all I could; and then, if I still felt called, yeah: I would start sitting apart from my husband in church.

It almost seems like you’re saying we have other motives for covering our heads, than simply obeying to the best of our understanding. But I don’t want to impute motives to you!

I can’t see into anyones motives all I can do is ask questions to clarify peoples thoughts. It wouldn’t be a matter of sitting away from your husband but sitting away from the opposite sex. Men on one side women on the other a practice that is no longer meaningful but I was trying to make a point that I don’t think you would get since it was about Canon Law in the Catholic Church.

 

[savienu]

It wasn’t in the 60’s that women stopped wearing hats or scarves. It happened when this was released

INTER INSIGNIORES, 15 Oct 1976
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Quote:
…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.
Women were released from wearing hats and when the new Canons were printed it should have been no surprise that the canon on head coverings were gone.No one can judge but God if women were in direct disobedience. By the way the old canon law forbade women and men sitting together an ancient traditon. Why doesn’t anyone protest that? Or say that is still in effect?

Umm…no. My mother was a child of the 50s and 60s. She was married in 1974, when she was 19 years old. She was told, sometime after Vatican II when she was still a little girl (she would have received first communion in 1963), that veiling was no longer a requirement, which is a falsehood, since veiling was required at LEAST until the Code of Canon Law in 1983, regardless of that document in 1976. Regardless, women stopped veiling a good ten years before that document was released.

 

[Remnant_church]

I totally understand peoples desire to ensure they are being obedient to God, but too many times do we rely on man;s knowledge of how to obey God.

What does the BIBLE say in regards to head covering?
1 Cor 11 13 & 16

The issue of head covering is an issue for the church elders to decide but if the issue of head covering will lead to arguments then Paul says there is no such custom.

Is head covering necessary for salvation? that is the key question, if not why do we discuss things which will be of no use to out walk with Christ?

 

[sarahraegraham]

Is head covering necessary for salvation? that is the key question, if not why do we discuss things which will be of no use to out walk with Christ?

Of course veiling is not necessary for salvation. Neither is praying the rosary, frequent confession, daily mass attendance, daily prayer, giving to charity or volunteering.

We discuss such things because they aid us on our road to salvation. Without each of us having our own personal devotions (such as headcovering and, for many of us, I’m sure furthering our faith through discussions here on CAF) we would be making our lives much more difficult.

We need the intellectual stimulation and the spiritual assistance. These discussions are most certainly invaluable!

 

[adrift]

Umm…no. My mother was a child of the 50s and 60s. She was married in 1974, when she was 19 years old. She was told, sometime after Vatican II when she was still a little girl (she would have received first communion in 1963), that veiling was no longer a requirement, which is a falsehood, since veiling was required at LEAST until the Code of Canon Law in 1983, regardless of that document in 1976. Regardless, women stopped veiling a good ten years before that document was released.

I was a child of those years also receiving first in 1955. Perhaps where your mother lived that was true not where I lived (Colorado WY KS) Women wore and I wore something on my head until that document. Women who Followed that document women were being obedient. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is responsible for safeguarding the faith and they are an official spokesman for the Church. If you are going to hold that women were being disobedient than you must hold that everyone was being disobedient unless males sat on one side and females sat on the other side since that was not removed until 1986 either.

 

[Remnant_church]

I beg to differ, THE BIBLE says daily prayer is necessary. Read Luke 18:1 - Christ says ‘men ought always to pray’. 1 Thessalonians 5:17 ‘Pray without ceasing’.
Confessing your sins to Christ is necessary for salvation. Read 1 John 1:9

i understand the need to discuss and strengthen one another but there are so many more important topics that people are reluctant to talk about such as Revelation and the mark of the beast.

if people really believed in the BIBLE they would be studying end time truth and preparing for Christs return.

 

[adrift]

since veiling was required

The canon NEVER required veiling. That is rather a modern term

Canon 1262 - P. 1 It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.

P. 2 Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise, women, however, shall **have a covered head **and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.
A veil might be used but the only requirement was that her head was covered and most used hats. The only veil that was used was the chapel veils. I went through Catholic school until the late sixties and we all wore hats not veils. That was true on Sundays as well. Once I saw that veils were debated about being used because the woman’s hair could be seen. I have been unable to find any evidence of this as being true one way or the other.

 

[savienu]

I was a child of those years also receiving first in 1955. Perhaps where your mother lived that was true not where I lived (Colorado WY KS) Women wore and I wore something on my head until that document. Women who Followed that document women were being obedient. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is responsible for safeguarding the faith and they are an official spokesman for the Church. If you are going to hold that women were being disobedient than you must hold that everyone was being disobedient unless males sat on one side and females sat on the other side since that was not removed until 1986 either.

That document does not override Canon Law. The fact remains that headcovering was MANDATED by the Church until 1983, at the earliest. So the members of your congregation were STILL being disobedient. The document you quote does not say “Women no longer need to veil” and even if it did, it STILL would not trump Canon Law, which held that women MUST veil, every time they entered a Church, until 1983.

Further, are you aware of the context of that letter? The Congregation was dealing with the issue of admitting women into the Ministerial Priesthood, which they started doing, with a lot of fervor, past Vatican II. One of the “defenses” they used was that women were no longer veiling and were “taking more part in the public life of the Church.” (As though all the great female saints prior to this age were relegated to some second class status, but, that’s besides the point…) The Congregation was saying that there is NO COMPARISON to women veiling or not veiling and women being ordained priests, which is impossible. It wasn’t a document addressing the veiling of women, and did not have the authority to trump Canon Law. ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfinsig.htm

 

[savienu]

The canon NEVER required veiling. That is rather a modern term

Canon 1262 - P. 1 It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.

P. 2 Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise, women, however, shall **have a covered head **and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.
A veil might be used but the only requirement was that her head was covered and most used hats. The only veil that was used was the chapel veils. I went through Catholic school until the late sixties and we all wore hats not veils. That was true on Sundays as well. Once I saw that veils were debated about being used because the woman’s hair could be seen. I have been unable to find any evidence of this as being true one way or the other.

Headcovering was required. Fine. I don’t understand the need to argue terms when I’m sure we all understand the point, but, whatever.

Oh, but thank you for posting the full canon, as it allows me to address the issue of women sitting apart from men in Church. The canon, if you’ll notice doesn’t say “it is required that men and women sit apart.” It says “It is DESIRABLE that men and women sit apart.” It, however, DOES say that women MUST veil. So, that would be your answer as to why we “traditionalists” don’t push the issue of men and women sitting apart. The greater disobedience came when women stopped veiling.

 

[adrift]

That document does not override Canon Law. The fact remains that headcovering was MANDATED by the Church until 1983, at the earliest. So the members of your congregation were STILL being disobedient. The document you quote does not say “Women no longer need to veil” and even if it did, it STILL would not trump Canon Law, which held that women MUST veil, every time they entered a Church, until 1983.

Further, are you aware of the context of that letter? The Congregation was dealing with the issue of admitting women into the Ministerial Priesthood, which they started doing, with a lot of fervor, past Vatican II. One of the “defenses” they used was that women were no longer veiling and were “taking more part in the public life of the Church.” (As though all the great female saints prior to this age were relegated to some second class status, but, that’s besides the point…) The Congregation was saying that there is NO COMPARISON to women veiling or not veiling and women being ordained priests, which is impossible. It wasn’t a document addressing the veiling of women, and did not have the authority to trump Canon Law. ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfinsig.htm

Perhaps you are right but then everyone was being disobedient as men and women were sitting together. It was NOT veiling but heads being covered and it was not until the 70’s that it was not being done. I remember people wearing hats and scarves then.

 

[savienu]

Perhaps you are right but then everyone was being disobedient as men and women were sitting together. It was NOT veiling but heads being covered and it was not until the 70’s that it was not being done. I remember people wearing hats and scarves then.

Again, nitpicking on words. Veiling, head covered, place a hat on their head, whatever, I think we all get the point. And, again, no, because Canon 1262 does not say one MUST sit apart, but only “it is desirable.” There is a HUGE difference. Oh, and again, in many places veiling, or, sorry, HEADCOVERING, stopped in the 1960s, almost immediately after Vatican II.

 

[weepixie71]

I beg to differ, THE BIBLE says daily prayer is necessary. Read Luke 18:1 - Christ says ‘men ought always to pray’. 1 Thessalonians 5:17 ‘Pray without ceasing’.
Confessing your sins to Christ is necessary for salvation. Read 1 John 1:9

i understand the need to discuss and strengthen one another but there are so many more important topics that people are reluctant to talk about such as Revelation and the mark of the beast.

if people really believed in the BIBLE they would be studying end time truth and preparing for Christs return.

if people really read the Bible women would cover their heads and dress like women.

 

[weepixie71]

It wasn’t in the 60’s that women stopped wearing hats or scarves. It happened when this was released

INTER INSIGNIORES, 15 Oct 1976
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Quote:
…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.
Women were released from wearing hats and when the new Canons were printed it should have been no surprise that the canon on head coverings were gone.No one can judge but God if women were in direct disobedience. By the way the old canon law forbade women and men sitting together an ancient traditon. Why doesn’t anyone protest that? Or say that is still in effect?

like i said… i have actual photographs on my parents wedding day that say differently also i was born in 71’ i would have remembered having my head-covered or my mom and sisters head covered. it wasnt. maybe you are were the lucky few that wore theirs later. i am willing to bet that more women removed their veils before it was supposedly permitted to do so.

 

[adrift]

like i said… i have actual photographs on my parents wedding day that say differently also i was born in 71’ i would have remembered having my head-covered or my mom and sisters head covered. it wasnt. maybe you are were the lucky few that wore theirs later. i am willing to bet that more women removed their veils before it was supposedly permitted to do so.

It really doesn’t matter. You want to claim that women were disobedient it doesn’t effect that TODAY there is no requirement. I gave an explanation as to why. Basically it was because the culture no longer wore hats. Again I will say that women generally in this country wore hats and scarfs not veils.

if people really read the Bible women would cover their heads and dress like women.

Basically men and women wore the same thing. There was very little difference (although there was some) in dress. Remember the Muslims now use dress to repress women.

Again, nitpicking on words. Veiling, head covered, place a hat on their head, whatever, I think we all get the point. And, again, no, because Canon 1262 does not say one MUST sit apart, but only “it is desirable.” There is a HUGE difference. Oh, and again, in many places veiling, or, sorry, HEADCOVERING, stopped in the 1960s, almost immediately after Vatican II.

You are wrong it did not stop in the 60’s. I have pictures of the late 60’s with women in hats. I guess you just want to prove your mother disobedient. You are nit picking words. Desirable does not mean optional. It just wasn’t what society did and so it fell into disuse doesn’t mean that the canon was optional. It had the same reasoning as did the covering of the head.

What the bottom line is: If a woman wants to cover her head, so what she isn’t anymore holy or devoted to God than those who don’t.
And no one has addressed this:

I know a woman who wanted her head covered. She used a scarf. It was hardly noticable. If she had used a veil it would have cried out “look at me”. More power for those who wish to cover their head but I wonder why a veil? Why not scarves and hats?

Another thing that bothers me about veiling, is that veiling is the way women are controlled in the Muslim countries. When the bible is pointed to about veiling, it is not the type of veils that are commonly seen at Church.

 

[savienu]

It really doesn’t matter. You want to claim that women were disobedient it doesn’t effect that TODAY there is no requirement. I gave an explanation as to why. Basically it was because the culture no longer wore hats. Again I will say that women generally in this country wore hats and scarfs not veils.

Basically men and women wore the same thing. There was very little difference (although there was some) in dress. Remember the Muslims now use dress to repress women.

You are wrong it did not stop in the 60’s. I have pictures of the late 60’s with women in hats. I guess you just want to prove your mother disobedient. You are nit picking words. Desirable does not mean optional. It just wasn’t what society did and so it fell into disuse doesn’t mean that the canon was optional. It had the same reasoning as did the covering of the head.

What the bottom line is: If a woman wants to cover her head, so what she isn’t anymore holy or devoted to God than those who don’t.
And no one has addressed this:

My mother was a child, and went along with what she was told, by disobedient priests and laypeople. Weepixie also attested that women stopped covering their heads long before 1976. And again, if it WAS that late in some places, that is STILL earlier than 1983, when the Canon changed. It seems to me you are refusing to accept that ANYONE was disobedient about this issue, ever. Oh, and I am not nitpicking words. That would be YOU, about my using the word “veil” instead “headcovering.” “Desirable” is not “it is required.” If I said to you, “It is desirable that you wear a dress to Church” would you think I was saying you are required to? If you would, that’s your own issue, not mine. Same thing with this. Canon Law never mandated women and men sit apart- whereas it DID require women to cover their heads. It doesn’t say “it is desirable for women to cover their heads.” It said they must, ESPECIALLY when approaching the Lord’s Table.

The definition of the word desirable: worth having or seeking or achieving

The definition of the word must: a necessary or essential thing

These words are not synonyms. Try again.

Oh, and I’ve seen a few women at the TLM who wear hats or scarves. But women who veil wouldn’t stand out if other women did the same. Just sayin’.

I will never understand why other women get so insulted by a woman who covers her head. No woman here who advocates covering her head at Church has said she is more holy or devoted than one who doesn’t. But it does make me suspicious when someone is not only defending the practice of not covering her head NOW, but not doing it when it was INDISPUTABLY in direct disobedience to Canon 1262 of the 1917 Code.
And I also get REALLY sick of people saying that women covering their heads was just because of the fashions of the time. That is NOT why St. Paul told the women to cover their heads when praying. It was about submission. And frankly, it still is, which is why it is such a controversial topic. The responses of some here show that.

 

[zab]

I will never understand why other women get so insulted by a woman who covers her head. No woman here who advocates covering her head at Church has said she is more holy or devoted than one who doesn’t.

I don’t know to whom you were referring, but I am not insulted when other women cover their heads. I don’t know why you think that.

 

[savienu]

I don’t know to whom you were referring, but I am not insulted when other women cover their heads. I don’t know why you think that.

It seems that every time these discussions come up, even if it’s just one woman asking another woman what type of headcovering she wears in the Traditional Catholicism forum, someone jumps in with, “I don’t veil, because it isn’t required anymore you know, and you’re not any better than me if you DO veil.” Some people appear very bent out of shape at the idea of a woman covering her head, and yes, it absolutely makes me wonder why.

 

[sarahraegraham]

I beg to differ, THE BIBLE says daily prayer is necessary. Read Luke 18:1 - Christ says ‘men ought always to pray’. 1 Thessalonians 5:17 ‘Pray without ceasing’.
Confessing your sins to Christ is necessary for salvation. Read 1 John 1:9

i understand the need to discuss and strengthen one another but there are so many more important topics that people are reluctant to talk about such as Revelation and the mark of the beast.

if people really believed in the BIBLE they would be studying end time truth and preparing for Christs return.

if people really read the Bible women would cover their heads and dress like women.

Precisely what weepixie said. You are picking and choosing which verses are more important than others.

If you want to start a thread about end-time truth or the mark of the beast or the return of Christ you are more than welcome to do so. Don’t try to derail this discussion. If you don’t want to have *this *discussion, you are free to leave.