Why head covering?

[Greg72]

This is a great point, but again this item of men and women separate is not specific in scripture as the veil is. Maybe we should sit separate.

Sure - but not all separate. I think that it would be wrong to separate married couples (one of the reasons that Christians don’t sit separately may be because of the new understanding of Marriage the Our Lord gave to us).

I would have no problem if they ordered all of the single men to sit on one side and all the single women on another - but at what age would you start doing it? Would they sit with their families until their 10th birthday and then off to the singles sections?

It could get complicated.

Or we could just separate married couples as well so that Jews and Muslims would feel more comfortable in our Churches…

 

[CradleCath]

This is my understanding. A woman’s hair is a sign of beauty, and as such covering it in some manner is a form of modesty. However, in modern times the sense of hair covering being modest is lost and so the law lacks purpose. I might be wrong, but that’s how I have always understood it.

My problem with the veil is that it sometimes calls attention to oneself, instead of to God. I have been attending a “traditional Novus Ordo” Mass (altar rail, kneeling for Communion, some Latin) for years. There are a few who wear veils & it is perceived by some to be a “holier than thou” kind of action.
This Sunday, I’ll be attending a TLM., which will be offered EVERY Sunday, close to my home. What do most women do. I would like to wear a head covering, but I don’t want to call attention to myself. It’s God’s house, not mine.

 

[Sure]

This is a great point, but again this item of men and women separate is not specific in scripture as the veil is. Maybe we should sit separate.

The point with the men and women separation is that it is a good indication that some canon laws are not significant apparently. I don’t think anyone would accuse Mr and Mrs Smith in 1950 of disobedience for sitting with their 8 children every Sunday. But technically, they were breaking canon law. Obviously, the Church and her priests did not view this canon as morally obligating for quite some time. So it is with the headcovering law.

It is non-sensical to call St. Paul’s comment binding when the Church has told us clearly and authoritatively that it isn’t and the Church has often changed what is binding and what is not in the past.

 

[LilyM]

You did not answer the question I posed in your response. It’s a slippery slope when the Vatican can change what scripture teaches. But, what you are saying is, if the Vatican comes out with teaching that contradilcts scripture because customs have changed, or whatever reason, you will follow. You may correct me if I’m wrong.

Of course - the Magisterium (the Pope and Bishops in union with him, which includes His agents in the Vatican) is the final arbiter of Biblical interpretation, not the individual reader or groups of individual readers.

When the Church says the passage ‘the gates of Hell shall not prevail’ means Papal Infallibility as defined by it, then it does, no question. If you or 1 billion people like you interpret the passage otherwise, you and they are wrong. Similarly when they say the verse re headcovering wasn’t a command for all times, if you or 1 billion like you say otherwise, you’re wrong.

Remember that the Bible is a product of the Church and the Magisterium, they determined its Canon, they interpret its content.

To say your interpretation or any other interpretation of the Bible, no matter how many people agree with it, trumps all is essentially to subscribe to Protestantism - or religion by democratic vote.

 

[latinmass]

Sure - but not all separate. I think that it would be wrong to separate married couples (one of the reasons that Christians don’t sit separately may be because of the new understanding of Marriage the Our Lord gave to us).

I would have no problem if they ordered all of the single men to sit on one side and all the single women on another - but at what age would you start doing it? Would they sit with their families until their 10th birthday and then off to the singles sections?

It could get complicated.

Or we could just separate married couples as well so that Jews and Muslims would feel more comfortable in our Churches…

Now that is the spirit of Vatican 2. I’m surprised the Church has not done this, it’s very ecumenical.

 

[latinmass]

Of course - the Magisterium (the Pope and Bishops in union with him, which includes His agents in the Vatican) is the final arbiter of Biblical interpretation, not the individual reader or groups of individual readers.

When the Church says the passage ‘the gates of Hell shall not prevail’ means Papal Infallibility as defined by it, then it does, no question. If you or 1 billion people like you interpret the passage otherwise, you and they are wrong. Similarly when they say the verse re headcovering wasn’t a command for all times, if you or 1 billion like you say otherwise, you’re wrong.

Remember that the Bible is a product of the Church and the Magisterium, they determined its Canon, they interpret its content.

To say your interpretation or any other interpretation of the Bible, no matter how many people agree with it, trumps all is essentially to subscribe to Protestantism - or religion by democratic vote.

Once again it is not my interpretation. Scripture says women must wear veils, the Church says women don’t have to. Why they did it those hundreds of years was a silly custom. Like women being silent in the Church, that silly old custom, or is it? But since you still won’t answer my question directly, I will gather that if the Church says birth control is now acceptable, you will follow blindly. Good for you. You don’t have to worry about thinking.

 

[LilyM]

Once again it is not my interpretation. Scripture says women must wear veils, the Church says women don’t have to. Why they did it those hundreds of years was a silly custom. Like women being silent in the Church, that silly old custom, or is it? But since you still won’t answer my question directly, I will gather that if the Church says birth control is now acceptable, you will follow blindly. Good for you. You don’t have to worry about thinking.

No, it’s like priestly marriage - that silly old custom which got turned around 180 degrees into priestly celibacy in the 1100s or so. BOTH have scriptural support, mind you, but the Latin Rite Church in its wisdom went from one to the other.

Neither marriage nor celibacy for priests are in the slightest silly old customs, but they are disciplines which are changeable - suitable for some times and places, unsuitable for others.

And believe you me, there was certainly every bit as much bellyaching by priests about the imposition of that celibacy requirement as there has been about the removal of the requirement for veils -why was the first change OK as opposed to the later?

As for thinking - of course I think. I put on, as St Paul bids us to do, the mind of Christ, the mind of His body on earth, the Church, which is inseparable from Himself, and His vicar on earth, the Pope. Between those three I’ll do much better thinking than you will do if you ignore any one of 'em.

 

[dixieagle]

Once again it is not my interpretation. Scripture says women must wear veils, the Church says women don’t have to. Why they did it those hundreds of years was a silly custom. Like women being silent in the Church, that silly old custom, or is it? But since you still won’t answer my question directly, I will gather that if the Church says birth control is now acceptable, you will follow blindly. Good for you. You don’t have to worry about thinking.

This sounds very much like sola scriptura to me. That’s fine if you’re a fundamentalist Protestant; however, we as Catholics trust in Holy Mother Church, who, when she sees fit, can change those rules and disciplines which are not essential to the faith. Headcoverings for women is one of those changeable rules.

The Church cannot change natural law, from which the ban on artificial birth control derives. That is a very different issue.

LilyM’s posts are well-written and well thought out; I believe she’s done plenty of very clear thinking.

 

[Paten]

Are you a Catholic Christian, “latinmass” (I am) or do you belong to another group – such as the sspx? The reason I ask is that you are so quick to attack the Church which is most uncommon of Catholics. I would appreciate understanding if your religion is indeed Catholic.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Are you a Catholic Christian, “latinmass” (I am) or do you belong to another group – such as the sspx? The reason I ask is that you are so quick to attack the Church which is most uncommon of Catholics. I would appreciate understanding if your religion is indeed Catholic.

:tsktsk: Pope Benedict XVI probably wouldn’t like you calling the SSPX non-Catholic…

 

[latinmass]

Are you a Catholic Christian, “latinmass” (I am) or do you belong to another group – such as the sspx? The reason I ask is that you are so quick to attack the Church which is most uncommon of Catholics. I would appreciate understanding if your religion is indeed Catholic.

Thank you paten for asking. I am a Latin Rite Roman Catholic. I am not attacking the Church, but I am questioning some of the decisions make per V2. I consider myself no saint, but many of the Saints of the Church questioned why we do what we do, and even decisions made by the Church. St. Athanasias to name a great one. Paten I am so upset with the state of the Church today, and what has happened to it since V2. I’m looking for answers, and will fight for the Church, I’m not sure just doing something because the Church said so is helping the Church right now. There may have been some errors in some decisions made. The pope has realized this, and is now correcting them in part I believe because those whose concious was bothering them spoke out. Who knows? I do believe if one worships in a pre V2 way they can’t go wrong. Since no new doctrine was declared, right?

 

[Paten]

Thank you paten for asking. I am a Latin Rite Roman Catholic. I am not attacking the Church, but **I am questioning some of the decisions make per V2. ** I consider myself no saint, but many of the Saints of the Church questioned why we do what we do, and even decisions made by the Church. St. Athanasias to name a great one. Paten I am so upset with the state of the Church today, and what has happened to it since V2. I’m looking for answers, and will fight for the Church, I’m not sure just doing something because the Church said so is helping the Church right now. There may have been some errors in some decisions made. The pope has realized this, and is now correcting them in part I believe because those whose concious was bothering them spoke out. Who knows? I do believe if one worships in a pre V2 way they can’t go wrong. Since no new doctrine was declared, right?

I think most people here are upset to some degree or else they wouldn’t be on CA forums but there are a few things to keep in mind:

• Think twice about what you are “questioning.” If you are actually questioning a Church teaching or instruction then woe is you – you had better take at look at the forming of your own conscience. On the other hand if you are questioning the actions of an individual with no authority (some rogue cleric or layperson) then you aren’t even questioning the Church
• History. If you think today is bad, then you need to realize just what the Church has already survived and what it will survive in the future, thanks be to God. You had also better understand how long some of these “bad periods” lasted, lest you get burned-out wondering why the Church cannot turn on a dime.
• The current Pope is doing a great deal of good largely on the foundation laid by Pope JPII. The two men had different agendas given the different eras. Had Cardinal Ratzinger become Pope when Pope JPII did, you could be his agenda would have looked a great deal more like Pope JPII’s did.

*If one worships as the Church directs, they can never go wrong. If you don’t believe that then everything pretty much falls apart – including the notion that one would be safe if they worshiped in a manner common prior to VC2.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I see the point, just be obedient, even if it goes against canon law. Have faith in the Vicar. But, it seems to get sticky, since this was in scripture as well.

That thinking would have all Catholics keep Kosher homes.

 

[natsclem]

While i have nothing strongly against the wearing of veil, i have this opinion that St. Paul requires not on the basis of a certain article of Faith or tenet of Christian morality but on the basis of culture of propriety at that time.

The interior should be given more importance than external appearance in the act of worship. externals without the corresponding interior content leads to holier-than-thou spirituality.

it is opportune here to mention the Moto Propio for the TLM. Without education (and proper training) on the nature and value of TLM, it will have no good for us Filipinos.its language is being used by quasi-catholic animist sects for their magical rites and witchcraft.personally,moto propio is irrelevant to me;neverthless,i hope i could attend a TLM.by the way,i had attended several times the novus ordo being celebrated in Latin with Gregorian music by conventual franciscans.unlike the viel, Gregorian music seems to me need not be understood bcause it naturally leads the soul to the sense of the sacred.

 

[natsclem]

Comment for LilyM.

I wonder why wearing of veil is no longer required of women and yet, the requirement of celibacy has never been relaxed (even a bit) for the latin rite.has the vatican accepted a married man into the priesthood?i know of diaconate ordinations in the US, but here in the Philippines?none even of the diaconate.

sometimes i think that the vatican is really unfathomable.the eastern catholic churches (ecc) has optional celibacy.why the vatican did not impose it to ecc which are in communion w/ rome?why not make discipline applicable for all?

I hope that like the wearing of veil,celibacy will become optional. what do you, think?

 

[latinmass]

I think most people here are upset to some degree or else they wouldn’t be on CA forums but there are a few things to keep in mind:

• Think twice about what you are “questioning.” If you are actually questioning a Church teaching or instruction then woe is you – you had better take at look at the forming of your own conscience. On the other hand if you are questioning the actions of an individual with no authority (some rogue cleric or layperson) then you aren’t even questioning the Church
• History. If you think today is bad, then you need to realize just what the Church has already survived and what it will survive in the future, thanks be to God. You had also better understand how long some of these “bad periods” lasted, lest you get burned-out wondering why the Church cannot turn on a dime.
• The current Pope is doing a great deal of good largely on the foundation laid by Pope JPII. The two men had different agendas given the different eras. Had Cardinal Ratzinger become Pope when Pope JPII did, you could be his agenda would have looked a great deal more like Pope JPII’s did.

*If one worships as the Church directs, they can never go wrong. If you don’t believe that then everything pretty much falls apart – including the notion that one would be safe if they worshiped in a manner common prior to VC2.

You miss the point entirely. Your crystal ball of if Cardinal Ratzinger was pope when JP2 was is amusing though. Turn on a dime? That is what the Church has done since V2. Please answer this. You said if one worships as the Church directs. How would worshiping in all ways in a pre V2 manner be wrong. Keep in mind my friend, there was no doctrinal change in V2. Just give me one way I or any one else would be wrong, by going to Latin Mass, women wearing veils, meatless Fridays, keeping all Holy Days, confession regularly etc. If you can think of anything please let me know.

 

[blessed_wife]

Is wearing a hat just as appropriate for a woman or must it be a veil to show the proper reverence?

 

[lizaanne]

Is wearing a hat just as appropriate for a woman or must it be a veil to show the proper reverence?

I think the purpose is to cover one’s head - it really doesn’t matter what is used to do that as long as it is appropriate for the setting. For example, I don’t think a baseball cap would be appropriate, but a dressy hat would be fine, or even a close knit cap. Personally (and this is MY personal choice) I prefer a longer veil because I have very long hair. I like to have most of my hair covered if I can, without looking like I’m in some bizzare wedding with a black veil. I just feel silly with a short veil and then hair down to the middle of my back.

So no - a hat would be fine, it was for many many years.

~Liza

 

[natsclem]

I think the purpose is to cover one’s head - it really doesn’t matter what is used to do that as long as it is appropriate for the setting. For example, I don’t think a baseball cap would be appropriate, but a dressy hat would be fine, or even a close knit cap. Personally (and this is MY personal choice) I prefer a longer veil because I have very long hair. I like to have most of my hair covered if I can, without looking like I’m in some bizzare wedding with a black veil. I just feel silly with a short veil and then hair down to the middle of my back.

So no - a hat would be fine, it was for many many years.

~Liza

A hat in the church or Mass? regardless of design, I have never seen like that here in the Philippines.the moment a person enters the church he/she automatically takes it off to show reverence for God in the house of worship. veil is perfectly suited. unfortunately, only old women and nuns (or those aspiring to be) wears veil. I am not sure of hat is ok in ur place.

 

[blessed_wife]

In the States, women used to always wear hats to Church and it was the men who would remove their hats out of respect. In fact, men in this country and many Western European countries always removed their hats in public buildings or when a lady passed…you know, the Quakers, so obsessed with equality, became one of the first in our culture to stop lifting their hat for a lady to signify that they were all equals.