Women Veiling in Church

[Sure]

I would agree that your central argument would be cogent, if you could put forth evidence for the separation of genders in equal measure to what the author put forth for veiling–Scripture, continuous and universal practice for 1900+ years, the Fathers, the Canonists, Canon Law, etc. I do not think you can do so and therefore I would submit that you are comparing apples and oranges.

But from your last statement, I fear that you haven’t really grasped the author’s position, since you continue to repeat the argument from the 1976 document without interacting with his counterpoint and hence the possibility that your interpretation of that document is not correct.

God bless,

I understand the argument. I have yet to see a canonist of any repute make the argument that custom can co-exist with law governing the same activity.

The headcovering as a longstanding tradition is muddled because, women always covered their heads in public up until 100 years or so ago. Hard to say it was a religious tradition when it was practiced by cultures Catholic and non-catholic alike.

The fact is the CDF has authority and we do not. What do they need to say beyond “no longer has normative value.” Were they just kidding? This is exactly why those who proclaim an obligation to veil labeled as gnostics. We have a clear statement from the Body of Christ. Do we need more than that?

My real question is in relation to the idea that some canons no longer bind even though they are in force. Do you remember any churches in 1982 where men and women sat separately? I don’t. Yet that law was still binding, long with the law to veil…or were they? It would appear that sometimes canon laws no longer bind??? I don’t know.

Interestingly, I have not seen or heard of an SSPX chapel where women and men sit separately, even though they operate entirely under the 1917 code. So apparently, they view that particular canon as optional?

Couldn’t one now argue that not covering one’s head is an immemorial custom? After all, it seems that from 1970 on, the custom (indeed at the time, law) has been widely abandoned. The norm has become not-covering. Since it can be shown to have continued now for a period of 40 years, it too qualifies as an immemorial custom.

 

[ConvertaKat]

I feel moved to veil so I do.

I am aware that there are those at the local church who not only feel not moved to do so but, for what ever reasons, look at the veiled ones as if we have two heads.

That’s fine. I just prefer to go veil.

 

[savienu]

Couldn’t one now argue that not covering one’s head is an immemorial custom? After all, it seems that from 1970 on, the custom (indeed at the time, law) has been widely abandoned. The norm has become not-covering. Since it can be shown to have continued now for a period of 40 years, it too qualifies as an immemorial custom.

40 years doesn’t make something an immemorial custom.

Definition of immemorial: extending back beyond memory, record, or knowledge: from time immemorial.

The very fact that we know when NOT VEILING started precludes it from EVER being an immemorial custom.

 

[Just_Lurking]

If a bunch of non-canon-lawyers are going to argue about custom, then I think it is important to precisely define the custom being considered.

If the custom is “women wearing head coverings”, then this fits in with the definition of custom, but the application of canon law just means that women cannot be prevented from wearing head coverings to mass.

If the custom is “women without head coverings being denied admittance to mass”, then this custom is contrary to current canon law (Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them), and thus cannot be enforced.

 

[Jesus_123]

I would agree that your central argument would be cogent, if you could put forth evidence for the separation of genders in equal measure to what the author put forth for veiling–:bible1: Scripture, continuous and universal practice for 1900+ years, the Fathers, the Canonists, Canon Law, etc. I do not think you can do so and therefore I would submit that you are comparing apples and oranges.

But from your last statement, I fear that you haven’t really grasped the author’s position, since you continue to repeat the argument from the 1976 document without interacting with his counterpoint and hence the possibility that your interpretation of that document is not correct.

God bless,

In answer to all the references to the separating of men from women in churches . . . this has no reference or teaching base whatsoever in the **New :bible1: Testament **. . . this is a carry over from Old :bible1: Testament times and practice when in Israel Jewish men and women were indeed separated in the Jewish Temple . . .

. . . :coffeeread: . . . A stone parapet, about a cubit high, encircled the inner edge of the temple to which thirteen openings gave access; on the parapets tablets warned, under penalty of death, the non-Jews against trespassing. … The walls of the inner court encompassed two distinct spaces: the eastern part, called “THE WOMEN’S COURT”, which, among other things, contained the boxes for the various collections; thence a gate, preceded by a flight of fifteen steps, led to the western part, or “MEN’S COURT”. There a balustrade separated the “PRIEST’S COURT”, containing the temple proper and the altar of holocausts and all their appurtenances, from the place assigned to the lay people. **

​

* - Catholic Encyclopedia
Discussion of “Court”​

:compcoff: Link: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Court_%28in_Scripture%29***

However God in His omniscient holy wisdom did not choose to carry over and give the additional weight of being a part of New Testament Scripture infallibility to this separation of men and women during worship . . . evidently our **Lord ** did not translate these distinctly Jewish traditions as necessary to continue forever on into and through the New Testament Church age . . . with the same weight of importance as the veiling of women . . . though they were expressly allowed for a time . . . but the veiling of women . . . is clearly carried over and taught as Scriptural doctrine for the Church which has and will endure for all the centuries of time during this our Lord’s Redeeming Age of Grace . . . The Catechism of the Catholic Church . . . teaches . . . God the Holy Spirit Alone . . . is the author of **Sacred Scripture **. . . which writing is considered by the Apostolic Church as infallible truth . . . and as such it can never just be . . . “discarded” . . . as if it were the ideas of sinful man . . .

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PART ONE: THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

Article 2 - THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION
81

Sacred Scripture is **the speech of God **as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.

Article 3 - SACRED SCRIPTURE

104
In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it ** not** as human word, "but as what it really is, the Word of God."

In the sacred books,
the Father who is in heaven
comes lovingly to meet his children,
and talks with them.

Sure . . . in all charity and peace . . . *I’m sorry *. . . but your writing in Post #4 that “This notes that despite the ordinances of scripture it is no longer required.” is not only a wrong interpretation of the 1976 document’s statement . . . but reveals a very real lack of respect for the incredible holy gracious gift of the Thoughts **of God/****God’s Holy Word **. . . taking such an ambiguous undefined term such as “normative” . . . which can be interpreted in a variety of ways . . . which is tucked into a very unstable sentence that disqualifies itself as having any authority whatsoever by its own use of the indecisive ambivalent word . . . “probably” . . . to denigrate centuries old Scriptural doctrine . . . is equivalent to building one’s house on a foundation of . . . “sand” . . .

Link: ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfinsig.htm

*Peace . . . *

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . to God be the Glory+
​

 

[Robert_Burns]

Thanks to all who responded. I find the responses facinating.

 

[Sure]

In answer to all the references to the separating of men from women in churches . . . this has no reference or teaching base whatsoever in the **New :bible1: Testament **. . . this is a carry over from Old :bible1: Testament times and practice when in Israel Jewish men and women were indeed separated in the Jewish Temple . . .

​

However God in His omniscient holy wisdom did not choose to carry over and give the additional weight of being a part of New Testament Scripture infallibility to this separation of men and women during worship . . . evidently our **Lord ** did not translate these distinctly Jewish traditions as necessary to continue forever on into and through the New Testament Church age . . . with the same weight of importance as the veiling of women . . . though they were expressly allowed for a time . . . but the veiling of women . . . is clearly carried over and taught as Scriptural doctrine for the Church which has and will endure for all the centuries of time during this our Lord’s Redeeming Age of Grace . . . The Catechism of the Catholic Church . . . teaches . . . God the Holy Spirit Alone . . . is the author of **Sacred Scripture **. . . which writing is considered by the Apostolic Church as infallible truth . . . and as such it can never just be . . . “discarded” . . . as if it were the ideas of sinful man . . .

Sure . . . in all charity and peace . . . *I’m sorry *. . . but your writing in Post #4 that "This notes that despite the ordinances of scripture it is no longer required." is not only a wrong interpretation of the 1976 document’s statement . . . but reveals a very real lack of respect for the incredible holy gracious gift of the Thoughts **of God/**God’s Holy Word . . . taking such an ambiguous undefined term such as “normative” . . . which can be interpreted in a variety of ways . . . which is tucked into a very unstable sentence that disqualifies itself as having any authority whatsoever by its own use of the indecisive ambivalent word . . . “probably” . . . to denigrate centuries old Scriptural doctrine . . . is equivalent to building one’s house on a foundation of . . . “sand” . . .

Link: ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfinsig.htm

*Peace . . . *

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . to God be the Glory+
​

No offense, but the Vatican Document from 1976 is not ambiguous in any way.

It states:

“Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But 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.”

No longer have a normative value means it is no longer obligatory.

No one has yet responded to my question on the other portion of canon 1262 from 1917. Men and women were sitting together before 1983 in direct disobedience. We have two explanations:

1. All Catholics were disobeying a valid canon law that they were bound to obey.

OR

1. Sometimes canon laws cease to bind, even though they remain “on the books.”

I choose #2, which seems to also be supported by the quotation from the Inter Insigniores issued in 1976.

What do you think? Can canon laws sometimes lose their “force”? Or did we witness from 1917 to 1982 the greatest large scale disobedience in Church history?​

 

[savienu]

No offense, but the Vatican Document from 1976 is not ambiguous in any way.

It states:

“Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But 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.”

No longer have a normative value means it is no longer obligatory.

No one has yet responded to my question on the other portion of canon 1262 from 1917. Men and women were sitting together before 1983 in direct disobedience. We have two explanations:

1. All Catholics were disobeying a valid canon law that they were bound to obey.

OR

1. Sometimes canon laws cease to bind, even though they remain “on the books.”

I choose #2, which seems to also be supported by the quotation from the Inter Insigniores issued in 1976.

What do you think? Can canon laws sometimes lose their “force”? Or did we witness from 1917 to 1982 the greatest large scale disobedience in Church history?

If you actually read the whole canon in full, it says “women MUST cover their heads” and “where possible, it is DESIRABLE that men and women sit separately.” Not the same thing. One is a command, one is a suggestion. Also, as explained before, it doesn’t have the backing of both Scripture and tradition.

 

[DavidPalm]

If you actually read the whole canon in full, it says “women MUST cover their heads” and “where possible, it is DESIRABLE that men and women sit separately.” Not the same thing. One is a command, one is a suggestion. Also, as explained before, it doesn’t have the backing of both Scripture and tradition.

That is a valuable observation, which supports my contention that “Sure” is comparing apples and oranges with respect to veiling versus seating by gender.

Now, here is the answer given by the individual who posted the canonical study to which I linked above, specifically treating the matter of Inter Insigniores:

"Good, I was hoping someone would bring up “Inter Insigniores”, from which your first point comes. There are several reasons why that little clause does not apply:

1. The direct and immediate object (or the “holding of the case”, from a legal perspective) of that document was to affirm that only men could be admitted to the priesthood. The statement by Cardinal Seper on head coverings is obiter dicta, not essential to the holding and not binding as a pronouncement of law in any way. If this first point sounds overly legal to you, you shouldn’t belong to a Church with a two millenia old tradition of canon law. Laws mean things, and rules matter.
2. The Cardinal was referring, not to women covering their head in church, but merely to the custom of women covering their hair everywhere, as had formerly in some parts of the world been the case. Read his exact words. There is nothing that compels the conclusion that he was referring to liturgical veiling. To say otherwise would be to say that the Cardinal intentionally made a somewhat seditious statement-- as this document came out before the 1983 Code and there was no doubt in anyone’s mind that the Canon 1262 was binding.
3. This document was issued by the CDF, which does not have competence over liturgical law. If this document was designed to amend the Code of Canon Law of 1917, it would have to had come from the Pope himself. If it was designed to change liturgical law, it would have come from the congregation with the comptetence to do so.

(NOTE: there are two types of approval a congregation’s documents can receive from a Pope: in colloquial english general and specific. Specific approval [forma specifica] is necessary for the document to be binding with papal authority. Inter Insignores was of the first kind-- general. Summorum Pontificum was of the second kind-- forma specifica)

(in the comments to “Patrick Madrid Weighs in on the Veiling Debate”)

I think those are cogent reasons demonstrating that that passage of Inter Insigniores was not intended to, nor could it, overthrow a canon in the 1917 code–even if it was addressing the liturgical practice, which is in doubt, it lacked both the competence and the authority to do so. And the argument of the author of the canonical study demonstrates, I think, that even after the promulgation of the 1983 Code the practice of veiling stands both as a liturgical law and as an immemorial custom.

God bless,

 

[savienu]

That is a valuable observation, which supports my contention that “Sure” is comparing apples and oranges with respect to veiling versus seating by gender.

Now, here is the answer given by the individual who posted the canonical study to which I linked above, specifically treating the matter of Inter Insigniores:

"Good, I was hoping someone would bring up “Inter Insigniores”, from which your first point comes. There are several reasons why that little clause does not apply:

1. The direct and immediate object (or the “holding of the case”, from a legal perspective) of that document was to affirm that only men could be admitted to the priesthood. The statement by Cardinal Seper on head coverings is obiter dicta, not essential to the holding and not binding as a pronouncement of law in any way. If this first point sounds overly legal to you, you shouldn’t belong to a Church with a two millenia old tradition of canon law. Laws mean things, and rules matter.
2. The Cardinal was referring, not to women covering their head in church, but merely to the custom of women covering their hair everywhere, as had formerly in some parts of the world been the case. Read his exact words. There is nothing that compels the conclusion that he was referring to liturgical veiling. To say otherwise would be to say that the Cardinal intentionally made a somewhat seditious statement-- as this document came out before the 1983 Code and there was no doubt in anyone’s mind that the Canon 1262 was binding.
3. This document was issued by the CDF, which does not have competence over liturgical law. If this document was designed to amend the Code of Canon Law of 1917, it would have to had come from the Pope himself. If it was designed to change liturgical law, it would have come from the congregation with the comptetence to do so.

(NOTE: there are two types of approval a congregation’s documents can receive from a Pope: in colloquial english general and specific. Specific approval [forma specifica] is necessary for the document to be binding with papal authority. Inter Insignores was of the first kind-- general. Summorum Pontificum was of the second kind-- forma specifica)

(in the comments to “Patrick Madrid Weighs in on the Veiling Debate”)

I think those are cogent reasons demonstrating that that passage of Inter Insigniores was not intended to, nor could it, overthrow a canon in the 1917 code–even if it was addressing the liturgical practice, which is in doubt, it lacked both the competence and the authority to do so. And the argument of the author of the canonical study demonstrates, I think, that even after the promulgation of the 1983 Code the practice of veiling stands both as a liturgical law and as an immemorial custom.

God bless,

 

[Jesus_123]

+Below is Catholic Apologist Dr. Robert A. Sungenis, statement on the CDF’s 1976*** Declaration Inter Insigniores***:

. . . :coffeeread: . . .

1. The CDF Declaration’s main topic, regarding which a binding decision for the Church appears to be made, is the issue of ordaining women to the priesthood, NOT HEAD COVERINGS. …

**THE RULE OF INTERPRETING MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS … **

* unless the magisterium is addressing the **specific topic in question and

• intends on giving a definitive decision on that topic**,
• than that topic is NOT being officially addressed
• and NO formal decision regarding its validity is being decided.

In effect, no one can appeal to Inter Insigniores to support the contention that the Catholic Church has made an official declaration that it no longer requires head coverings for women …

1. Regarding the intent of the CDF, it is obvious that the Congregation did not want to have its words regarding head coverings interpreted as official Church teaching, since it is careful to say that such ordinances were **“probably inspired by the customs of the period.” **By using the word “probably,” the Congregation was clearly making a nonbinding observation, NOT handing down a judgment, on the origin and nature of head coverings. (The observation, in fact, is quite questionable, since there is little evidence to support the view and much evidence against it in Catholic tradition). The fact that the wearing of head coverings was practiced for almost two millennia prior to this Declaration and was actually part of canon law when at the time, means that the preponderant teaching and practice of the Church did not see it as merely a “custom of Page 9 of 17 the period” to be discontinued in any of the remaining nineteen centuries. Accordingly, as I noted earlier, **the 1983 Code of Canon Law stated quite clearly that such “customs” attain the “force of law” if they have been practiced for a sufficient amount of time **(canons 23-28)****, and as such, they are impervious to alteration, especially from documents such as Inter Insigniores in which the Magisterium is not setting out to address the issue of head coverings formally and directly at all.

Moreover, the 1917 code did not consider head coverings a “custom of the period” (the “period” being the first century Christian Church) since it issued a strict law that the practice was to be continued in the twentieth century. If head coverings were (as the CDF in 1976 considered “probable”) nothing more than mutable “customs of the period,” then the 1917 Code and the whole of Catholic tradition which insisted on women’s head coverings for nineteen hundred years would be wrong.

1. This leads us to investigate precisely what the CDF meant when it said “such Requirements no longer have a normative value.” Since, as I noted above, the Congregation was basing its conclusion about the cessation of “normative value” on the premise that head coverings were **“probably inspired by the customs of the period,” then, by virtue of the indecisiveness **of the word “probably,” the conclusion about “normative value” was also based on an unproven premise. Therefore this unqualified and absolute conclusion (i.e., “such requirements no longer have a normative value”) is logically invalid. The rules of logic demand that one cannot base a certain conclusion on a premise that is uncertain.

Furthermore, that ALL the popes previous to the pontificate of Paul VI understood the practice of Head coverings to have “normative value” is demonstrated by the mere fact that the Church, long after the first century – indeed for almost two millennia – continued insisting that women wear head coverings in Church. …

1. Since in*** “Inter Insigniores” ***the CDF does not cover the issue of head coverings in any depth whatsoever but is only interested in the case against ordaining women, we do a disservice to the Magisterium and to the Church at large if we attempt to use these cursory statements on head coverings as an official teaching of the Church.

1. Last but certainly not least, we must also consider that since Inter Insigniores

was written in 1976, it was under the 1917 Code of Canon Law which specifically required the wearing of head coverings. Hence, it would be a gross breach of ecclesiastical protocol if Page 10 of 17 the CDF were to be interpreted as countermanding what the 1917 Code of Canon Law had already commanded. … 7) **The Vatican itself, **to this very day, has NOT changed the practice of having women wear head coverings … In the recent meeting … between President Barrack Obama and Pope Benedict XVI, the women in the presidential entourage, including Mrs. Obama, were donned with black veils when walking through the Vatican and in the presence of the Pope.

:compcoff: Link: catholicintl.com/articles/letter_to_Vatican_July_2009.pdf​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God++​

 

[DavidPalm]

There has been some additional good information shared here.

I just wanted to say to those who don’t consider this a very big deal, that I understand that position. But I’d like to explain why I consider this a sort of “paradigm issue”.

We know that there are Traditions with a big “T” that are binding on all Catholics, that must be held in order to be a Catholic in good standing. And then there are traditions with a little “t”, the various practices and customs which express, foster, and uphold our faith in myriad ways.

During the revolution of the past decades, two major things happened. First, many Catholics became convinced that, because they are at least in principle mutable, the traditions (small “t”) could be changed willy-nilly. This turned out to be naive, I think, but I’m sure there were many individuals who went down this path in good faith. A second more sinister occurrence is that certain individuals and groups knew perfectly well that changing certain practices, small-t traditions, would actually change the faith of the people.

A good example of this is Communion in the hand. Yes, it was practiced in the early Church, so it’s not intrinsically wrong. But in every Catholic Rite, from East to West, it had been discarded centuries ago as a practice fraught with practical and doctrinal difficulties. It was resurrected by the Protestant revolutionaries precisely in order to undermine faith in the Real Presence—they knew that some little-t traditions are pretty tightly coupled to the big-T Traditions they support and express. And then during the post-V2 liturgical revolution it was resurrected once again, not by the faithful, but by modernist prelates and groups like Call to Action. Do we have to wonder as to their motives?

It seems that in the aftermath of the liturgical revolution and now well into the counter-revolutionary phase, we have come better to understand the crucial role small-t traditions play in passing on the big-T Traditions in their integrity.

The veiling of women during the sacred liturgy has a much more venerable traditional pedigree even than Communion on the tongue, having been explicitly commanded by the Apostle and practiced universally from East to West until into the twentieth century. And what were the societal factors that were pushing for women to remove their head coverings? Were faithful groups like Catholics United for the Faith agitating for this, or was it not rather groups like the National Organization for Women with a very different agenda?

There are many Catholic truths expressed by this beautiful tradition, but one of them surely is the importance of gender distinction in God’s created order—certainly that would seem to be expressed in St. Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 11. Gender confusion is one of the greatest ideological challenges of our time. At the very moment when the prevailing culture was clamoring to flatten all gender distinctions, in the Catholic Church we saw the (illicit) abandonment of a major liturgical expression of that very truth. And with nothing put in its place to fill the void.

At least when Latin Rite Catholics in various countries were told to not to kneel anymore to receive Holy Communion, the injunction (albeit not very frequently obeyed) to approach the Sacrament with a profound bow was put in place to try and counter-balance the lost sign of reverence. But when women doffed the veil, what practice was put in its place to continue to express the Church’s teaching?

For these and other reasons, I find myself seeing this as a perhaps small issue which nevertheless represents something much, much larger.

In the end, though, I agree with those who have stated here that this beautiful and venerable tradition will return by the voluntary practice of Catholic women, not on the basis of legislation. It is happening and that is a very beautiful thing.

God bless,

 

[Jesus_123]

+Remembrance of our Holy Mother Church’s Holy Doctrine of Papal Infallibility came to mind as I’ve been reflecting on this thread’s subject . . . in particular that even our Holy Father when speaking Ex-Cathedra . . . is under the profound holy discipline of obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church that such proclamations cannot contradict either **Sacred :bible1: Scripture or ** Sacred Tradition . . .

**. . . :coffeeread: . . . **
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error [1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics. This dogma, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies.

This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1870. According to Catholic theology, there are several concepts important to the understanding of infallible, divine revelation: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Sacred Magisterium. The infallible teachings of the Pope are part of the Sacred Magisterium, which also consists of ecumenical councils and the “ordinary and universal magisterium”. In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the Church.

The infallible teachings of the Pope
must be
based on

,
or at least
not contradict,
Sacred Tradition or Sacred :bible1: Scripture. Papal infallibility does not signify that the Pope is impeccable, i.e…, that he is specially exempt from liability to sin.

In practice, popes seldom use their power of infallibility, but rely on the notion that the Church allows the office of the pope to be the ruling agent in deciding what will be accepted as formal beliefs in the Church. [2] Since the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, this power has been used only once ex cathedra: in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics. Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, Pope Pius IX, with the support of the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholic bishops, had proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of Mary an ex cathedra dogma in December 1854.

:compcoff: Link: wapedia.mobi/en/Papal_infallibility#2.

​

The 1976 Declaration Inter Insigniores we have been discussing utterlys demonstrably fails on both counts as to obedience to this holy discipline . . . it contradicts, misrepresents and discards both Sacred :bible1: Scripture and **Sacred Tradition **. . .

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+​

 

[Jesus_123]

+Got rushed this morning preparing for work and didn’t get a chance to proofread the last statement in the above post carefully enough . . . it should read . . .

The 1976 Declaration Inter Insigniores** . . . “probably”/“normative” statement re headcovering** . . . we have been discussing utterly demonstrably fails on both counts as to obedience to this holy discipline . . . it contradicts, misrepresents and discards both** Sacred Scripture **and **Sacred Tradition . . . ​

My soul remains ever in complete subjection in our Lord *and His Holy Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and our Holy Father, the Pope, in Rome, and the Magesterium of our Wonderful Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church . . . **God **forbid that should ever change . . . *

*In dedication to the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart . . . *

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+​