Women and head coverings

  • Thread starter Thread starter kellie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kellie

Guest
I am only 36, so have only ever known the New Order of Mass.
I am finding this forum very interesting, and have read quite a few links posted.
I found this footnote on the fisheater’s site …

*During the Second Vatican Council, Archbishop Bugnini – the Modernist who fabricated the Novus Ordo Mass – was asked by journalists whether women will still have to wear headcoverings. He told them that the Council wouldn’t be addressing that issue. And how did it come out in the newspapers the next day? The reporters wrote that Catholic women no longer have to wear veils. And so Catholic women stopped doing it – even though it had been the immemorial practice of the Church and a matter of Canon Law. When the new Code of Canon Law was written after so many years of women not veiling (and, of course, after feminism won the day), the discipline simply wasn’t mentioned.

These sorts of obfuscations, simple errors, or out and out lies happen all the time! Of this much I will assure you, Catholic: if you get your Catholic education from newspapers, you are doomed. You must learn to be able to recognize what is and is not an infallible statement, learn to recognize the different levels of the Magisterium, and then seek out official documents and attribute to them proper authoritativeness. If you don’t, you will be forever confused and forever wrong about what the Church teaches.*
fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html

Could somebody tell me please where in Scripture or our teachings it says women are to have their head covered?

I am not being facetious, but rather am very interested in why this was a rule once.
I would have no problem following this rule if it was re-introduced.

Thank you
 
There are also Pentecostal/Apostolic denominations that are really strict about this too, also explained with that same verse.
 
I Corinthians 11

Although it’s important to keep this within context. Due to the “dropping” of wearing a veil after VII, it’s important to read or hear a good interpretation of this text.
 
To the best of my knowledge…it was never decreed that women should stop wearing headcovers…it all started out of a misunderstanding and just exponentially got worse…Women are still supposed to wear headcoverings to Mass…just because over 90% of them don’t, doesn’t make it right…it just makes over 90% of them wrong. Men should wear proper attire as well…I am tired of seeing LSU shirts at Mass…ever heard of a Suit??? ever heard of a Tie? Ever heard of a pair of slacks and sports coat???
 
dumspirospero said:
To the best of my knowledge…it was never decreed that women should stop wearing headcovers…it all started out of a misunderstanding and just exponentially got worse…Women are still supposed to wear headcoverings to Mass…just because over 90% of them don’t, doesn’t make it right…it just makes over 90% of them wrong. Men should wear proper attire as well…I am tired of seeing LSU shirts at Mass…ever heard of a Suit??? ever heard of a Tie? Ever heard of a pair of slacks and sports coat???
Click to expand...
No it is not wrong to not wear headcoverings. The canon law requiring it was (albeit indirectly) superceded in teh 1983 Code of Canon law, which I understand was expressed to override all previous Codes.
 
Like I said…to the best of my knowledge…if I am wrong, I apologize…but think about this…even if it was abolished and women no longer are required to wear them…why stop wearing them??? That would be like if they said men no longer had to wear shirts to Mass…they could just start coming in flip flops and shorts…I still wouldn’t do it. I mean…if it was acceptable and good for women to do it for 1983 years, why all of a sudden in the last 20 years is it no longer acceptable?
LilyM said:
No it is not wrong to not wear headcoverings. The canon law requiring it was (albeit indirectly) superceded in teh 1983 Code of Canon law, which I understand was expressed to override all previous Codes.
Click to expand...
 
I have a problem with that website you got the information from. I looked in depth and there were more allegations of Archbishop Bugnini being a Mason. The link with definitions mentioned that he was deposed to Iran for being a Mason, which is absurd. I wouldn’t trust the Fisheaters website.
 
If that’s a direct quote from the Fisheater’s site, then that cuts if for me. A lot of their info is good and interesting, but a lot is misleading and not expressive of the mind of the Church. NOW she (it’s a lady that runs the site) is engaged in what is at LEAST detraction and is more than likely calumny (modernism is a serious heresy and no competent authority ever charge Buggsy with it or found him guilty of it. We’ve no idea why he was sent to Iran, but it’s a serious sin to say that it was for something that it may well not have been.

I think it’s lovely that women cover their head, but the Church doesn’t require it anymore. If you google it, I once saw the Holy See’s response that it appeared in the New Testament to be a matter of discipline and thus not immutable.
 
lak611 said:
I have a problem with that website you got the information from. I looked in depth and there were more allegations of Archbishop Bugnini being a Mason. The link with definitions mentioned that he was deposed to Iran for being a Mason, which is absurd. I wouldn’t trust the Fisheaters website.
Click to expand...
I believe the woman who runs the site is either an indult Catholic or SSPX. Anyway, I wouldnt dismiss anything about Bugnini being a Mason- it is highly probable and there is strong evidence to support such a claim.
 
Caesar said:
I believe the woman who runs the site is either an indult Catholic or SSPX. Anyway, I wouldnt dismiss anything about Bugnini being a Mason- it is highly probable and there is strong evidence to support such a claim.
Click to expand...
From an OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE source, please provide that evidence.
 
Caesar said:
Any source I post that disagrees with your position you would label as radical traditionalist and discount it.
Click to expand...
Go ahead, post it. Let’s see how OBJECTIVE and CREDIBLE it is.

Do you have a source from, say, the Holy See?
 
Catholig said:
Corinthians 11:5

Catholig
Click to expand...
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved.

So I have to cover my head even when I pray at home?
 
It brings me joy to meet people with such reverance and respect for our Lord…God Bless
kellie said:
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved.

So I have to cover my head even when I pray at home?
Click to expand...
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Go ahead, post it. Let’s see how OBJECTIVE and CREDIBLE it is.

Do you have a source from, say, the Holy See?
Click to expand...
Of course not. If the Holy See ever stated he was a Mason then there would be no question of it. The fact however remains that almost immediately after the rather sudden dismissal of Bugnini from his office and the dissolution of the Congregation for Divine Worship he was accused (most notably by Tito Casini) of Freemasonry- an accusation that the Holy See did not deny. Morever, his liturgical innovations are quite consistant with ideas expressed in Freemasonry (in the 1800s it became known that the Masons believed that one of the best ways to combat the Church was the removal of the Latin language).
 
Caesar said:
Of course not. If the Holy See ever stated he was a Mason then there would be no question of it. The fact however remains that almost immediately after the rather sudden dismissal of Bugnini from his office and the dissolution of the Congregation for Divine Worship he was accused (most notably by Tito Casini) of Freemasonry- an accusation that the Holy See did not deny. Morever, his liturgical innovations are quite consistant with ideas expressed in Freemasonry (in the 1800s it became known that the Masons believed that one of the best ways to combat the Church was the removal of the Latin language).
Click to expand...
Still no credible, objective source, eh? I could accuse you of any number of things, you could accuse me. I don’t know WHY Buggsy was shipped off to Iran, maybe it was this or something worse. The point is this: no proof. Yet it’s stated by the “radical traditinalist” websites as though it were proven, historical fact (which ALONE calls into question their reliablity). They aren’t interested in truth (and now, that includes Fisheaters), they’re interested in the salacious confirmation of what they already wanted to believe: the worst. Silence on the part of the Vatican is simply silence.

All you’re doing is parroting what you’ve heard that you liked, that feeds into your frame of mind.
 
Back on topic before this becomes another Caeser and JKirk match…

Can anyone bring up anything from the Vatican saying that women do not have to wear veils? At least a link?

I have seen Scripture cited and from what I remember Catholics do hold that to be 100% true, now unless I am misunderstanding Scripture I would see that it is still a discipline. Unless the Vatican says otherwise…

I have never heard one way or the other from the pulpit in my Church so I am sure everyone does what everyone else does at my parish regardless if it is right or wrong.

Does I Corinthians 11 need to be understood differently, has the Vatican said yea or nay?

God Bless
Scylla
 
scylla said:
Back on topic before this becomes another Caeser and JKirk match…

Can anyone bring up anything from the Vatican saying that women do not have to wear veils? At least a link?

I have seen Scripture cited and from what I remember Catholics do hold that to be 100% true, now unless I am misunderstanding Scripture I would see that it is still a discipline. Unless the Vatican says otherwise…

I have never heard one way or the other from the pulpit in my Church so I am sure everyone does what everyone else does at my parish regardless if it is right or wrong.

Does I Corinthians 11 need to be understood differently, has the Vatican said yea or nay?

God Bless
Scylla
Click to expand...
Here’s one apologist from EWTN:

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=490356&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=14&Author=&Keyword=women+covering+their+heads&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
 
Also, I noted with interest the citation of the old, abrogated Canon law that said IN THE SAME SECTION that men and women should be seperated from each other in Church. Why don’t the “traditionalists” insist on that?

I cannot find the citation from the Holy See, but I’ve seen it quoted elsewhere that it stated that even the biblical admonition of St. Paul was a disciplinary matter (which the Church could govern and dispense with).

Again, I think veils are fine. But like the apologist cited above, I think it’s wrong to insist that the Church requires it. She doesn’t (any more than she insists that men and women sit or stand seperately).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top