Why no veil?

[MaryTeresa2]

P.S. I have no feeling what-so-ever about being holier than others. I am a sinner. I don’t tend to look at who wears a covering or not, nor do I know if they look at me other than some ladies will say something positive such as ‘I love that you wear that’ was the last comment I got. I’ve got one focus at Mass, Jesus! I’m friendly with everyone, no matter how differently we are dressed. A number of ladies cover their heads where I attend, some more have joined in recently, yet no one has ever spoken of it. I do not wear cosmetics. I do wear a dress. I remove my head covering just outside the door and go to coffee hour looking like I always look. At home I wear what I want. I did stop wearing 3 earrings in each ear… but I can’t cover the tattoos! I just do what I can to show Jesus how happy I am to be back to the Church after having fallen away. I’ve toned down and become as humble as possible. I consecrated my life and became a Secular Servite Sister. I tell no one what they have to do, not here or elsewhere. I shared what it is for me. It may stand to strengthen your position or give you reason to see another side. That’s why we share, give and take. I’ve been on both sides so I know why I do what I do. Peace.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Right. Just because something gets practiced at one time, then ‘not practiced’ for another, doesn’t mean it won’t get practiced again. . .nor does it mean that it ‘changed in its essence.’

Because there are sometimes ‘good’ reasons for change and sometimes ‘not so good.’

Suppose that you lived 300 years ago and set out for the New World. Not many places where one could go to Mass . .therefore, one would then seldom attend Mass, or be able to go to confession or communion regularly. Now, certainly it is a GOOD thing to have regular Mass, confession and communion. . .but if it is not possible for the good reason that a land is just becoming ‘open’ to colonization and thus does not have these things in place yet, then it is not wrong’ if one is going far less often than before.

Fast forward 20 years from the above. You’ve landed in a place, the place has grown, you now have a church in place and a priest.

If you still go to Church as ‘seldom’ as you did when there was no Church available, you would be doing wrong. Doesn’t matter if this is the very ‘year’ after you had the church and priest available, and you argue, "but last year I only went once and it was just fine, the bishop said so. Why can’t I only go once this year as well?"

Here in the U.S. even though the so-called Latin Mass **was never abrogated and was never intended to be abrogated, for nearly 40 years to all intents and purposes it ‘vanished’ from MOST people’s dioceses. **

Now. . .it’s 'back.'

You may say, "But I don’t have to attend a Latin Mass if I choose.

True. But it was never the point that ‘choice’ was the criterion here!

The point was that some argued that because something (The Latin Mass) was in their minds being ‘replaced’ with the OF, it meant that the Latin Mass should not be in existence at all. This, of course, is wrong.

And the point is that some are arguing that because they believe that covering the head has been replaced with ‘non covering’ (which is actually debatable but we’ll let it stand for the sake of the discussion), it means that women covering their heads should not be doing so. And THIS is wrong.

**It is not and never has been about a ‘personal choice’. **

IF the practice is called for and has never been ‘rejected’ with "a woman should NOT cover her head’ --that is, the exact opposite teaching of "a woman should cover her head’–then the practice still exists, is not rejected, and is not wrong.

THAT is what I at least am trying to make clear.

Because too many seem to me not to be arguing about whether to cover (as far as they’re concerned covering is a despicable, anti-woman thing to do), but rather seem to be engaged in the argument that covering is ONLY ABOUT PERSONAL CHOICE.

**It isn’t. Neither is the Latin Mass (or the OF for that matter) solely about personal choice. **

I’ll say it again. . .Catholic teachings are not some kind of 'choose one from column A, one from column B grab bag of ‘personal choices’ that we pick and choose from according to our whims and desires and 'wants.'

**Covering the head is not about whether one ‘feels’ as though she ‘wants’ to (or not). **

Mass isn’t about whether one feels like going or not, or feels like ‘communion’ or not, or feels like singing or not, or ‘orans posture’ or not.

What is WITH society with its fixation on ‘personal choice’ above all? Look at the rancor and the judgmentalism ‘personal choice’ used as the ‘main’ if not ‘sole’ criterion for behavior causes. . .

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Woah, yeah…I think you’re way over-reaching here. I don’t wear a veil because I don’t think it is required of me. It’s really as simple as that, I promise. Having a few ladies who wear the veil on an online forum claiming that it’s a requirement of the priest, bishop, pope or Church or Jesus doesn’t make it so.Let’s be careful here. We claimed nothing of the sort --we offered a hypothesis "IF this were required. PLEASE be careful that in addressing what we say that you don’t make the ‘appearance’ that we actually said or ‘claimed’ something we did not. It just means that a few women who wear veils in Church value the tradition of wearing veils more than I do. It’s as simple as that, and unnecesssary to make it more than that. Your opinion here.

I think it’s unappropriate to set up crazy senarios Ah, at least here you acknowledge it was not a CLAIM but a ‘scenario, though really, Rence, you HAD to add ‘crazy’.’ Was that necessary? Was it kind? to prove another person’s fidelity to the Church. While you might agree to do whatever the Church mandates, up to and including jumping off a bridge, I’m inclined to believe that you would not, but I would be willing to bet some posters would say online that they would.misdirection and strawman but not surprising. All in the order of, “You don’t THINK FOR YOURSELF” vein, but at least you use ‘might’ so it looks as though you’re giving us a very backhanded ‘benefit of the doubt.’ Not saying that to be mean or disrespectful, truly I’m not Well, you almost certainly don’t really MEAN to be disrespectful; you’re so convinced that you are right and I am wrong that you are slightly ‘pitying’ but I think you are trying to be fair. What I’m trying to say is: In other words, it’s out of line for someone to create a senario to judge another person’s faith in the Church, especially when that senario is over the top. So now we are 'out of line, ‘over the top’, and ‘judgmental’ simply for making a hypothesis regarding a practice that actually existed within living memory? Come ON, Rence. When you have to use that many ‘emphases’ just who is the one really out trying to make an over the top judgment of another’s Faith?

Why else would someone ask me if I would obey the Church if it asked me to do something it’s not asking me to do? Why not stick to the real expectations of the Church, aren’t there enough? This WAS the expectation of the Church not that long ago. If you didn’t care for the question, you need not have answered. I sense a lot of disturbance over such a ‘non’ issue.

I answered Liz’ post as honestly as I could because I believe it is a non-issue. The point is, the Church is not going to all of a sudden require us to wear veils to Church. No, the point is that you were asked a hypothetical regarding a practice that existed once (just like not eating meat on all Fridays, or having a May crowning, or attendance at Mass on a Holy Day even if it was on a Saturday or Monday. Hypothetical. So if one is going to impose the hypothetical to me, I’ll give an appropriate hypothetical answer as my conscience dictates. The fact is, I’ll deal with it when (and if) the time comes. IF IF if the Church were to mandate that veils are required to Mass, I’ll probably just go attend a Mass where I am welcome without one. And you know as well as I do that I’ll find one. Because the mandate would not be reasonable, which is why it’s not a mandate. Opinion. IF the Church makes a decision regarding Faith and morals, such as that contraception is a grave moral wrong, it doesn’t matter if 'lots of Catholics don’t think it’s reasonable. If the Church demanded you shave your head under your veil, will you do so? because no, I wouldn’t, sorry. But it’s a crazy question, isn’t it? The Church isn’t about to require we shave our heads under the veil. But like your hypothetical veil mandate, it’s a crazy question to me. Both senarios are equally crazy to me.

Ok, I get that you think it’s crazy. If you use the word often enough, you’ll convince yourself that it’s crazy, I’m crazy, and you need not ever think about the subject again. . .not that you ever had to in the first place but you chose to and then didn’t ‘care for’ discussion on it. I understand you perfectly.

 

[Julianna]

Let’s be careful here. **We **claimed nothing of the sort --**we **offered a hypothesis "IF this were required. PLEASE be careful that in addressing what **we **say that you don’t make the ‘appearance’ that we actually said or ‘claimed’ something we did not. Your opinion here. Ah, at least here you acknowledge it was not a CLAIM but a ‘scenario, though really, Rence, you HAD to add ‘crazy’.’ Was that necessary? Was it kind? misdirection and strawman but not surprising. All in the order of, “You don’t THINK FOR YOURSELF” vein, but at least you use ‘might’ so it looks as though you’re giving us a very backhanded 'benefit of the doubt. Well, you almost certainly don’t really MEAN to be disrespectful; you’re so convinced that you are right and I am wrong that you are slightly ‘pitying’ but I think you are trying to be fair. So now we ****are 'out of line, ‘over the top’, and ‘judgmental’ simply for making a hypothesis regarding a practice that actually existed within living memory? Come ON, Rence. When you have to use that many ‘emphases’ just who is the one really out trying to make an over the top judgment of another’s Faith? **This WAS the expectation of the Church not that long ago. If you didn’t care for the question, you need not have answered. I sense a lot of disturbance over such a ‘non’ issue. ****No, the point is that you were asked a hypothetical regarding a practice that existed once (just like not eating meat on all Fridays, or having a May crowning, or attendance at Mass on a Holy Day even if it was on a Saturday or Monday. Hypothetical.**Opinion. **IF the Church makes a decision regarding Faith and morals, such as that contraception is a grave moral wrong, it doesn’t matter if 'lots of Catholics don’t think it’s reasonable.**Ok, I get that you think it’s crazy. If you use the word often enough, you’ll convince yourself that it’s crazy, I’m crazy, and you need not ever think about the subject again. . .not that you ever had to in the first place but you chose to and then didn’t ‘care for’ discussion on it. I understand you perfectly.

She said the “scenerio” was crazy, not you. And who exactly is “we” and “us”? Gang mentality? You posed the scenerio to Rence, period…or was a “group” effort? Was it necessary? Was it kind?**Actually, you would be surprised…not a strawman.****patronizing much, eh?****You or the “we” are doing your best to rattle her cage, that is obvious. And to make her second guess her faith. It’s not working.****The key word is “was”. The last time I wore a hat I was about 10 yrs old, circa 1968. The “disturbance in the force” is that try as you might, she does not agree with you and there are many others who do not as well. Just take a look around at Mass.****Makes one wonder why it isn’t so today. My dad never ate meat on Friday’s up until he died in 2006. His choice. It didn’t mean that my siblings and I were “less” reverant, it wasn’t a requirement.**Looking at the number of 1 to 3 child families walking out of the Church after Mass, does make one wonder, doesn’t it?

 

[Rence]

P.S. I have no feeling what-so-ever about being holier than others. I am a sinner. I don’t tend to look at who wears a covering or not, nor do I know if they look at me other than some ladies will say something positive such as ‘I love that you wear that’ was the last comment I got. I’ve got one focus at Mass, Jesus! I’m friendly with everyone, no matter how differently we are dressed. A number of ladies cover their heads where I attend, some more have joined in recently, yet no one has ever spoken of it. I do not wear cosmetics. I do wear a dress. I remove my head covering just outside the door and go to coffee hour looking like I always look. At home I wear what I want. I did stop wearing 3 earrings in each ear… but I can’t cover the tattoos! I just do what I can to show Jesus how happy I am to be back to the Church after having fallen away. I’ve toned down and become as humble as possible. I consecrated my life and became a Secular Servite Sister. I tell no one what they have to do, not here or elsewhere. I shared what it is for me. It may stand to strengthen your position or give you reason to see another side. That’s why we share, give and take. I’ve been on both sides so I know why I do what I do. Peace.

Hey Mary Teresa (that’s my mom’s name too btw ), everything you said is as it should be! Thanks for that!

 

[Rence]

And the point is that some are arguing that because they believe that covering the head has been replaced with ‘non covering’ (which is actually debatable but we’ll let it stand for the sake of the discussion), it means that women covering their heads should not be doing so. And THIS is wrong.

It is? The point is that some are aruguing that because they believe that covering the head has been replaced with ‘non covering’, it means that women covering their heads should not be doing so? This is the point? I’m sorry, but I missed that point. And you are right about that: that would be wrong. However, I saw nowhere on this thread claiming that women should not be covering their heads. What I saw was some people cover their heads and some people do not.

**It is not and never has been about a ‘personal choice’. **

Well, with all respect, this is where I disagree with you: it is a personal choice. Some choose to cover their head because they have had a calling to do so. Some choose not to because they haven’t had that call, and see no reason to do so.

IF the practice is called for and has never been ‘rejected’ with "a woman should NOT cover her head’ --that is, the exact opposite teaching of "a woman should cover her head’–then the practice still exists, is not rejected, and is not wrong.

THAT is what I at least am trying to make clear.

Of course the practice still exists, no one said it didn’t. However, we can’t deny that not everyone practices covering her head. Some practice this and some don’t. And we should be free to practice this if we want to, and we should not be forced to practice it if we don’t want to.

Because too many seem to me not to be arguing about whether to cover (as far as they’re concerned covering is a despicable, anti-woman thing to do), but rather seem to be engaged in the argument that covering is ONLY ABOUT PERSONAL CHOICE.

**It isn’t. Neither is the Latin Mass (or the OF for that matter) solely about personal choice. **

Whether or not to cover my head, and whether or not to attend a Latin Mass or a Mass celebrated in English is about my personal choice and I don’t have to have a reason for my choice other than it is my preference. If someone else feels compelled to cover their head, for whatever reason, I’m okay with that, and I’ve said that many times.

I’ll say it again. . .Catholic teachings are not some kind of 'choose one from column A, one from column B grab bag of ‘personal choices’ that we pick and choose from according to our whims and desires and 'wants.'

Actually, Catholics have a lot of choices. We can either get married or stay single. We can go to different Masses (I don’t really understand why you say we can’t choose between a Latin Mass and a Mass celebrated in English, because that is yet another choice, we can abstain from meat on friday or do something else instead, and when giving up something for Lent we have many choices. And yes, when it comes to wearing a veil, we have a choice. We can do so if we have that calling, and we don’t have to if we don’t. I guess I’m as perplexed as you are. As much as you say we don’t have a choice, I say we do

What is WITH society with its fixation on ‘personal choice’ above all? Look at the rancor and the judgmentalism ‘personal choice’ used as the ‘main’ if not ‘sole’ criterion for behavior causes. . .

Freedom of choice is a good thing. Look at what you do with your own choices: isn’t that good? Do you not appreciate having your own choices? Just like you have choices, others do as well. And they enjoy their freedom to make choices just like you enjoy yours.

 

[ElizabethPH]

Why has the practice of being veiled at Mass almost stopped?

1. It has been a tradition (maybe “T”) in the church up until the 60s/70s.
2. The reason I would suggest “T” is that it is clearly taught in Sacred Scripture for the practice.
3. Our Magesterium still obey this teaching.

So if all three (witnesses) agree, Tradition, Scripture and Magesterium.
Ladies, why not?

Curious…

I cover. I don’t know why most women don’t.
Just because they don’t have to I guess.
Somewhere along the line VII happened and somehow women got the idea that they didn’t have to cover their heads and so they stopped doing it.
Now if a woman wants to cover they rather feel uncomfortable about it because no one does it anymore. I have been covering for years, I have yet to see a resurgence (is that the word) in women covering. There is still only a couple at the Mass I go to that do it that I can tell, and one of those ladies is me.

 

[Sherry_G]

Can anyone point to an historical pronouncement or event or date when head covering in the USA stopped? That is what the original question brought to my mind and I could come up with nothing specific. However, I fell away from the Church in the 60’s regrettably so was not in the pews to know exactly what occurred. Does anyone have a clear recollection about this?

 

[JadeStarr]

I cover. I don’t know why most women don’t.
Just because they don’t have to I guess.
Somewhere along the line VII happened and somehow women got the idea that they didn’t have to cover their heads and so they stopped doing it.
Now if a woman wants to cover they rather feel uncomfortable about it because no one does it anymore. I have been covering for years, I have yet to see a resurgence (is that the word) in women covering. There is still only a couple at the Mass I go to that do it that I can tell, and one of those ladies is me.

In the Black Churches women still wear hats.

 

[MaryTeresa2]

Can anyone point to an historical pronouncement or event or date when head covering in the USA stopped? That is what the original question brought to my mind and I could come up with nothing specific. However, I fell away from the Church in the 60’s regrettably so was not in the pews to know exactly what occurred. Does anyone have a clear recollection about this?

Hi SherryG, This is a quote from one of my earlier posts, just how I remember it happening: When it became a ‘freedom for women’ sort of issue, greatly because of the wording in 1 Cor 11 regarding women and men… and other scriptures about wives/husbands… and the women’s lib thing was raging… 1960’s…suddenly the headcovering came into play! Because it was something that could be gotten around and was allowed to be gotten around, whoosh, there it went in the name of ‘liberation’. I’m old enough to remember the day!
As I remember it just was part of the ‘new liberated’ way that was sweeping into every facet of American life/Western life in general. No decree or anything ever stopped it and when it was not addressed amongst the many things in V2… those who saw it as an omission also saw it as permission…and so it goes to this day. This did not happen in other areas of the world or in other cultures. I’ve traveled enough to have seen that first hand. Of course the longer it goes the more it spreads, it’s easier to not bother with many things in regards to our practices. For those who see it as only doing what is required, if it’s not a law I don’t need to… that’s fine, I’m not the judge. For others who see things like covering and many other practices, i.e. Adoration, Fasting, Modesty, Witness to Poverty, Attending Mass on other days besides Sunday, Rosary daily, the list goes on … these are not mandated and many don’t bother. Some do as much as possible in devotion to Our Lord. It’s a choice. It’s Jesus who sees what you do and with what intention you do it! Hope that helps a little. Peace be with You.

Shout out to Rence: Cool that’s your Mom’s name! It’s the name I took as an adult at baptism, confirmation and again when I became a Servite sister. First time for Mary Magdalene, St. Teresa of Avila and later again for Our Blessed Mother and Mother Teresa… all have been my guides…just concidence with the repeated names, maybe, maybe not? Blessings to you.
Mary Teresa, OSSM

 

[Sherry_G]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut Mary Theresa. Sadly enough, that womens “lib” stuff was really very toxic to women in general. Thanks to that movement, women have lost so much ground in our own self-respect and our own identity as truly feminine went by the wayside. I never imagined that the end to the practice of covering our heads when entering a church could have come about that easily.

Last Sunday, we had many visitors from other states at our Mass as we do often in the summer tourist season. After dismissal, Father always asks us to sit for announcements and he talks to our visitors and welcomes them to our parish. He asks for names and from where they have traveled. He commented on one woman’s hat and told her how much he admired here for wearing a hat in the house of the Lord! What a jolt for me! and just when I have been following this thread, too! I am praying about this and feeling drawn to cover my head also. All the biblical references and recalling the reverence with which we used to approach the church, entering in silence with our heads covered really has me pondering what has actually transpired. Like many losses of reverence and respect in our culture, the changes are insidious and result in more roadblocks to our quest for holiness. How we got to where we are now happened one tiny little change at a time. Look at what you see on TV today in prime time as and example of how the line of decency and morality has shifted. Removing the requirement for head covering represents a shift that shows less respect for God’s house and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[lizaanne]

Removing the requirement for head covering …

But the thing is - NO ONE can show me where this requirement was explicitly and directly removed. Because it hasn’t. It has just drifted away - that is not the same as the Church specifically saying it is no longer a requirement.

~Liza

 

[Sherry_G]

But the thing is - NO ONE can show me where this requirement was explicitly and directly removed. Because it hasn’t. It has just drifted away - that is not the same as the Church specifically saying it is no longer a requirement.

~Liza

Agreed, Liza! My point was that the loss of decorum or appearance of reverence reduced for the younger generation the idea that our Catholic Church is a holy house of worship that we should enter in a quiet and respectful manner. I have traveled extensively and can see quite a difference in the level of respect shown by dress and behaviour in churches in America vs most foreign countries. That is all I was trying to say.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

A veil is a good start, but why not the full burqa? At least at Church, where girls often arrive looking like their about head out to the night clubs.

 

[lizaanne]

A veil is a good start, but why not the full burqa? At least at Church, where girls often arrive looking like their about head out to the night clubs.

How is this in any way productive to the conversation?

~Liza

 

[Tantum_ergo]

A veil is a good start, but why not the full burqa? At least at Church, where girls often arrive looking like their about head out to the night clubs.

Perhaps because Catholic tradition of modesty never involved the burqa?

The tradition of veiling is specifically as a sign of respect for the innate holiness of the woman, not as an attempt to ‘cover up’ shamefulness.

Naturally it would be silly for a woman to wear a hat as a sign of ‘holiness’ but to wear a halter top and short-shorts to Church at the same time!

Perhaps this post indirectly explains why some women feel resentment about the idea of a veil–that they think it is an attempt to coverup their ‘shameful sexuality’. I’m sure that since various groups (not limited to Christians!) have historically attempted control --and not just of women, try looking up ‘sumptuary laws’ for example!- of people’s dress for various reasons, a bit of legerdemain and slipshod research may have led people to espouse the idea. But it isn’t really supported in authentic Catholic teaching which really teaches the holiness aspect.

 

[MaryTeresa2]

Comforting to know that many of us ‘get it’ and without extremes. And maybe the burqa comment was meant in a good way as well, maybe jokingly. Given the poster made the observation of how lots of those girls do look like they are headed to a night club. I noticed a couple of newly veiled ladies in our parish this Sunday! There are many paths to holiness, but they are the more narrow ones. To do more than is required, to give one’s all as one feels called is surely a good thing. The society of human beings is obviously teetering on some sort of edge as we have before in history. Let us do what we are called to do to draw back, repent and serve God and one another as we have been instructed by Jesus in the Gospel. Peace be with you all.
In the service of Our Blessed Mother,
Mary Teresa, OSSM

 

[JM3]

A post by Peggy Frye (Catholic Apologist) in 2004

Re: The Vatican and women’s head coverings

---

The Holy See has never published a document forbidding women from wearing veils to church. Women are free to wear a head covering to church if they so desire. It’s just not required.

The document Inter Insigniores by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (October 15, 1976) stated that the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 1262.2) requiring women to wear a veil on their head was a custom of the period, and that such ordinances, “probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance”, thus the “obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16) no longer has a normative value." However, as a sign of respect, women are still required to wear a veil when meeting the pope.

The full text of Inter Insigniores is at
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFINSIG.HTM

---

Last edited by Peggy Frye; Jul 3, '04 at 11:05 pm.

 

[ElizabethPH]

A post by Peggy Frye (Catholic Apologist) in 2004

Re: The Vatican and women’s head coverings

---

The Holy See has never published a document forbidding women from wearing veils to church. Women are free to wear a head covering to church if they so desire. It’s just not required.

The document Inter Insigniores by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (October 15, 1976) stated that the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 1262.2) requiring women to wear a veil on their head was a custom of the period, and that such ordinances, “probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance”, thus the “obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16) no longer has a normative value." However, as a sign of respect, women are still required to wear a veil when meeting the pope.

The full text of Inter Insigniores is at
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFINSIG.HTM

---

Last edited by Peggy Frye; Jul 3, '04 at 11:05 pm.

So this is saying that it was a requirement of the period and that it hardly brought about any disciplinary practices of any importance; so the standard of covering lost value; thus the obligation to cover was lost.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So this is saying that it was a requirement of the period and that it hardly brought about any disciplinary practices of any importance; so the standard of covering lost value; thus the obligation to cover was lost.

It is Ms. Frye’s opinion (and others) that it was only a requirement of the period.

This is a complex question and the ambiguity of phrases employed as well as the dearth of truly ‘official’ documentation cloud the issue.

One sees that it is equally likely that, when the first cleric made the announcement on being asked, “do women need to wear hats” that “this was not even under consideration” led to a widespread ‘assumption’ that ‘it was not under consideration because it was a fait accompli, that it was no longer necessary’.

And then one sees that many clergy particularly in the U.S. where there was a barrage of feministic hoopla (some of which they sympathized with!), it was felt that one could do ‘damage control’ with ambiguity and such.

Think about the Friday abstinence rule. How many of you are aware that it remains the UNIVERSAL NORM in the WHOLE CHURCH for ALL Fridays (not just Lent) to require meat abstinence? But that in the U.S. the “Indult” was couched in such ambiguous language that to this day, respected people on BOTH sides can quite clearly argue from BOTH sides that “it is still a requirement”. “It is not a requirement.”

And while this differs slightly from the case of the Latin Mass which was NEVER ABROGATED but was treated as though it was, and even pronounced by MANY CLERGY, even some very high-ranking ones, to be “GONE”. . .it never truly was.

I think there are going to be quite a few traditions (big and little) brought back in order to assist our Catholic identity in many ways. That some people find some of the ways petty or irritating or downright distasteful (lots of people still hate Latin and think that the EF should be ‘put into the vernacular’) doesn’t mean it cannot or should not be done.

And when it is, I intend to abide by it. . .and NOT to state that it is a crazy scenario, or that if it did happen I would NOT abide by it. That’s just me though.