Wimps to the Left of Me, Crazies to the Right

[JKirkLVNV]

Sorry ChurchTorch, but I must disagree with you.

I am 80 years old and have worn a head covering since I was first taken to church. I do not now wear a head covering as a show of pride. I wear a head covering to show respect to the House of God.

I wear a chapel cap in the Jewish style because my hair is now too thin to still wear a mantilla and a baseball cap is not my style.

How very ungracious of you (unChristian?) to suggest that women wearing head coverings are prideful.:knight2:

And I don’t believe that we must go to the extreme that St. Paul advised. Even in the old days women did not go that far, although many women in my part of the country did wear a babuska (?) which did cover the head almost completely. :byzsoc:

A) I think it can be argued, from past threads in these fora, that a suspicion of pride might understandable on the part of some. One cannot, of course, see into anyone’s heart.

B) Most “traditionalists” want the letter of the law followed. As per Saint Paul, you don’t?

 

[Lormar]

Then that is a sorry view of people trying to be as reverent to God as possible. Why don’t you just admit you dislike Traditional Catholics and call it a day? What’s your agenda here?

 

[ChurchTorch]

Sorry ChurchTorch, but I must disagree with you.

I am 80 years old and have worn a head covering since I was first taken to church. I do not now wear a head covering as a show of pride. I wear a head covering to show respect to the House of God.

I wear a chapel cap in the Jewish style because my hair is now too thin to still wear a mantilla and a baseball cap is not my style.

**How very ungracious of you (unChristian?) to suggest that women wearing head coverings are prideful. **

And I don’t believe that we must go to the extreme that St. Paul advised. Even in the old days women did not go that far, although many women in my part of the country did wear a babuska (?) which did cover the head almost completely. :byzsoc:

I call them as I see them. Both from what I see in person and even here the conversation about women covering their heads is always focused on mantillas and veils.

We rarely hear about hats (either dressy or casual), babushkas (like my nana wore), bananas, etc. because it’s not simply about covering their heads for many women. It’s about projecting an image, about making a statement for some.

I’m not sure that God takes any notice at all as covering one’s head is no longer a requirement in His Church but if he does I am certain he does not differentiate between an unadorned ball cap and the most lacy of all antique veils every hand-knitted by cloistered nuns in Flanders.

 

[ChurchTorch]

A) I think it can be argued, from past threads in these fora, that a suspicion of pride might understandable on the part of some. One cannot, of course, see into anyone’s heart.

B) Most “traditionalists” want the letter of the law followed. As per Saint Paul, you don’t?

I certainly agree on “A.”

I sorta disagree about “B.” I think Paul’s epistles only come into the conversation when people demonstrate that covered heads are no longer required by the Church per the change to the Code of Canons.

 

[ChurchTorch]

Here’s what I want to know: per Saint Paul’s instruction, at Mass should you be able to see a woman’s hair at all? Are the mantillas, veils, hats, etc. sufficient? Shouldn’t every bit of hair be covered?

As Catholic Christians we rely on God through His Church for our understanding of Sacred Scripture. In the case of head coverings the Church has clearly said they are not required despite what we read in Scripture.

 

[ChurchTorch]

Given the disdain and anamosity you display towards Catholics I would say you are much like certain Protestant groups.

And terribly misplaced ad hominem attacks like yours above not only reflects horribly on you personally, they tend to tarnish “Traditional Catholicism” as well. Please keep that in mind the next time you find yourself unable to add to the discourse. Try refraining from throwing-out a ludicrous and surly ad hominem at the end merely as a measure to make yourself feel better for they take a discernible toll…

 

[Ockham]

Just calling it like I see it. Interesting how you run away from debates when cornered.

 

[cecilia97]

We rarely hear about hats (either dressy or casual), babushkas (like my nana wore), bananas, etc.

Agreed. When I mentioned the headcovering “rules” I picked up on CAF to my 70-yr-old mother, she told me she’d never heard of most of them in her life. It’s my personal theory that many of these “rules” are cultural practices that vary from region to region and country to country.

I’m just not a lace type of gal. I tend to cover my head with what I can find left in the back seat of my car: scarves, cloche hats, berets, and the occasional solid-colored bandana. I own a lace chapel veil but I’ve only worn it once. In my family, the Jackie O style pillbox hat would be the tradition, and you just can’t buy those anymore.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I certainly agree on “A.”

I sorta disagree about “B.” I think Paul’s epistles only come into the conversation when people demonstrate that covered heads are no longer required by the Church per the change to the Code of Canons.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear…I don’t have a personal issue with covering vs. not, esp. since I’m a man. I simply hate to see some people beat other people over the head on the issue (which is part of what I take you to mean when you speak of pride). It is plainly a matter of discipline (and even was in Saint Paul’s time), which means it is not immutable truth. My point was this: if some are going to “one up” others, it would make sense to ask the question, “How much head has to be covered?” Are mantillas REALLY sufficient? Certainly Our Lady covered Her Head, according to the social custom of Her time, but wouldn’t it have looked far more like She is depicted in “The Passion of the Christ,” where She’s shown wearing what is practically a burka. Wouldn’t the truly devout woman want to be as accurate as possible? Or, conversely, if it is simply a matter of having something on TOP of one’s head, would a square of cloth the size of the Brown Scapular suffice? What would happen, I wonder, if women took to wearing sombreros to Mass? They fit the bill, don’t they?

All of which is why I think the conversation is silly, apart from a personal devotion.

 

[Opelske]

When I first started wearing head covering, I mentioned the “black for married, white for unmarried” advice I’d received on CAF to my mother, who came into the Church in the late 50s. She’d never heard of such a thing, and the only women she’d ever seen in a mantilla during those times were Hispanic or Italian. Of course, in the 50s, many ladies wore hats as a fashion statement, but Mom says most women at Mass just wore hats.

Mantillas and veils are beautiful but, thanks be to God, the Church doesn’t dictate fashion if one chooses to cover her head.

Entering a Catholic Church in the 1950’s (Latin Mass), we were required to cover our heads, whether with a hat, a scarf, or a veil (or a piece of tissue if we had no other covering). I believe the head covering requirement changed with Vatican II, and head covering was no longer a requirement when entering a Church. I don’t think it has anything to do with dictating ‘fashion.’ Many Catholic traditions were altered or eliminated by Vatican II, which affected the solidarity and continuity of the beliefs of the Catholic Church. There are some things that should never change.

 

[mullenpm]

Opelske, actually, V2 did not change the requirement that women would no longer need to cover their heads when entering a church - no where is that mentioned.

*“Many Catholic traditions were altered or eliminated by Vatican II, which affected the solidarity and continuity of the beliefs of the Catholic Church. There are some things that should never change.” *

Many changes were made to Catholic traditions that should not have been made; but, not by V2 - the changes (ripping out altar rails for one) were made by people who got carried away with their own agendas (feminisim, etc.). But, V2 is not the topic of this thread so I won’t pursue the thought.:knight2::knight1:

 

[ChurchTorch]

Just calling it like I see it. Interesting how you run away from debates when cornered.

Again with the ad hominem attack?

What “debates?” “Cornered?” Where?

You realize that every time you fling an ad hominem attack on these threads it makes it appear as if you have nothing else in your arsenal – such as facts?

 

[puzzleannie]

the uncharity of 90% of this thread, so typical of any discussion that erupts with an honest question like OP’s coupled with the headcovering hysteria, is the reason more people don’t seek out the TLM or EF, so hope you all enjoy shouting at each other in the parking lot after you exclusive club meeting about non-essentials like the color of your veil or the edition of your missal. the sad thing is that love for liturgy which should be the basis of that choice seems, at least by evidence presented here on this thread, to be utterly lacking.

 

[Tartini]

What a thread!..and I was starting to feel eccentric because I am the only gentleman who wears a western style bolo ties sometimes (with a nice vintage suit that I got from Goodwill) to Mass. Oh well, I am eccentric and wear $5 shoes, but never forget why I am there, even if my suit is out to the cleaners. I am just thankful that I am able to attend an EF at all.

 

[ChurchTorch]

the uncharity of 90% of this thread, so typical of any discussion that erupts with an honest question like OP’s coupled with the headcovering hysteria, is the reason more people don’t seek out the TLM or EF, so hope you all enjoy shouting at each other in the parking lot after you exclusive club meeting about non-essentials like the color of your veil or the edition of your missal. the sad thing is that love for liturgy which should be the basis of that choice seems, at least by evidence presented here on this thread, to be utterly lacking.

I think you’re right.

That’s why I debate here. Because some of the comments DOES drag-down actual conservationism/traditionalism in the Church.

 

[Ockham]

Again with the ad hominem attack?

What “debates?” “Cornered?” Where?

You realize that every time you fling an ad hominem attack on these threads it makes it appear as if you have nothing else in your arsenal – such as facts?

I haven’t made an ad hominem attack. Just because you know of this term doesn’t mean it’s true just becasue you state it.

You get cornered all over this forum and don’t respond. Here’s one: is there any anti-Church teaching at the LA RE Congress?

You are wearing down my patience. Your nickname is appropriate as it seems your motivation here is starting flame wars.

 

[John_Pascendi]

FIrst you sound like a sat.nite live stand up comedian…you dont really expect any of us here to believe what you just said! This is the age of victimization…no matter what harm you do to others,if exposed ,well then,cry foul and the usual name calling…‘right wing crazies’ etc. Strange,in all of my years of attending Mass I never came across such going ons as you claim you suffered poor thing!.Most folks I know dont care how one is dressed attending mass or how many siblings one as,just as long as you dont insult and take over the hour by noise and sobbing,they are there to pay tribute to God not you. Its always open season on the RCC and when we defend ourselves we are called names…go figure!..thanks for the mild snicker anyway…Pas

 

[ProVobis]

Many changes were made to Catholic traditions that should not have been made;

Bingo!

Except there will always be those who claim “obedience” to the new trend trumps customs and traditions. This is the same mindset that claims if there is no current law that states you must wear ties to work, then why do it?

 

[Young_Thinker]

Bingo!

Except there will always be those who claim “obedience” to the new trend trumps customs and traditions. This is the same mindset that claims if there is no current law that states you must wear ties to work, then why do it?

I could not agree more.

 

[Ockham]

Bingo!

Except there will always be those who claim “obedience” to the new trend trumps customs and traditions. This is the same mindset that claims if there is no current law that states you must wear ties to work, then why do it?

The bizarre part is how these people demand obedience to something that was originally an abuse. CITH and altar girls were ruled against yet disobedient people did it anyway to the degree that they were allowed. And now they have the hypocrisy to cry “obedience”.