S
savienu
Guest
THANK YOU! I was going to make that point, but I wasn’t sure I could phrase it well enough. If she is prophesying, clearly she’s not silent.
- Status
D
daughteroftruth
Guest
If the Magisterium wishes to reveal that what society says is proper for God, fine. I’m not my father’s keeper. However, I’m not going to justify disobedience to Him Who says “Women, cover your heads,” with “Well, the Church says I don’t have to at present,” and I wouldn’t encourage others to follow the dictates of modern feminism either, especially in matters of worship.
This issue, among others, reminds me of the Jews before Christ, how they adapted to their society, even if it meant disobedience to God. As I recall, He was a little, uh, not pleased, to say the least.
K
kyria
Guest
I never said I wasn’t willing to see that, but are you willing to listen to anything I have had to say? Are you willing to see my view on things and my opinon on this matter, or is it all about what you think? And please don’t go down the path of saying you are deeply hurt. I’ve spent too many years hearing the ‘you hurt my feelings’ guilt trips by others. I do aknowledge how deeply you feel about wearing a veil. And I respect that. What I am trying to get you to see that wearing a veil is a choice given to us by the Magisterium, and it is a personal choice of some Catholics, but it isn’t the path to holiness. It might compliment those who have also prepared to work on their inner purity, but it isn’t the key to proper worship and it isn’t the key to proper reverence and I don’t believe it is the key to Heaven.
I am sorry you have taken offence, and I am sorry you feel hurt. But on behalf of all the Catholic women out there who don’t wear veils, I am sad, not hurt, but sad that some within our Church feel that it is ok to imply those who don’t wear veils are less reverent, don’t know how to worship Christ properly, and I was once told by someone I should be wearing a veil and ensuring my daughter did so too so I could teach my daughter how to worship God properly.
You are taking my posts as all about you. It isn’t all about you. It is also about what others have said. If you feel deeply hurt by what you think I’ve implied, then you don’t come across as someone who is able to be mature enough to discuss a topic if it doesn’t go along with your views. And the fact I am trying to get some points across doesn’t mean I am trying to insult you or hurt your feelings. I have said I don’t have a problem with woman wearing veils. You’ve stated you know not wearing a veil doesn’t mean one can’t be holy. So is that your way of saying you don’t have a problem if I choose to go along with the choice given to me by the Magisterium?
Could I say I am hurt because I don’t think you’ve heard anything I say? Yes I could. Have I, of course not.
L
LilyM
Guest
This isn’t just an implication nor just my own opinion - the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said it in exactly those words, and I’m sorry if they upset you but they’re not mine alone:
" … 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 their head ***(1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value." (Inter Insignores, 1976, par. 4)
And yes, it is fine to encourage such practices, and I don’t doubt for a second that they are an immense source of spiritual riches - for SOME. It is NOT fine to try to badger people heatedly and at great length into doing them - not that I’m necessarily saying you in particular have crossed that line.
I’ve seen many threads on here encouraging people to pray the Rosary and pointing out its benefits. None of its advocates have been nearly as outspoken, even downright rude - to the point of suggesting that I am sinning by not veiling - as some in this thread.
If that is ‘encouraging’, then I guess my window guy must be ‘encouraging’ my window glass to come out when he uses a sledgehammer on it.
L
LilyM
Guest
As I recall He also had a few words to say about Pharisees who lay unnecessary burdens on peoples’ backs.
And last I heard ‘who hears you hears me’ - meaning He speaks through the Magisterium as surely as through scripture, no? And what they loose is loosed in heaven?
So why are you asserting that something that has been loosed by the earthly Magisterium, successors of the Apostles, is yet bound in heaven? It just doesn’t work that way
By the way - read my quote from II. All you’ve done is substitute the cultural standards of Paul’s day (which of course was no better than ours) for today’s.
And while feminism has a heck of a lot to answer for, I for one am glad that if need be I can work in a profession of my choosing rather than only in select few, poorly-paid, that are deemed ‘women’s work’.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
Actually, that passage refers to the custom, in certain cultures, of women being veiled all the time, not to Catholic women veiling themselves specifically at the Mass. Here is a good analysis of that question:
[See the study by a canon lawyer,
http://stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2008/12/truth-unvieled-head-covering-still.html”]The Truth Unveiled: Head Covering Still Obligatory for Women Attending Mass
and
Patrick Madrid Weighs in on the Veiling Debate
The quote below is from the latter piece.]
"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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 [sic] to do so.
L
LilyM
Guest
With all respect to your canon lawyer, the 1917 Code is no longer relevant - it has been abrogated by the 1983 Code. So II is certainly relevant in terms of interpreting the 1983 Code which follows it.
No, it is not binding in itself, (neither is *Humanae Vitae *by the way) but like many CDF documents gives us a framework through which to look at Canon Law. It shows us official thinking on the issue at the time - which was that, although bound in Canon Law, veiling was not part of the extralegal ‘tradition’ or ‘Tradition’ which would bind APART from that law.
Secondly - the quote SPECIFIALLY cites the passage from Corinthians. For him to say that it is NOT referring to one of the rules given by Paul in that passage - the one about veiling in church - is ludicrous. If it was just about generally veiling, then it would just refer to verses in Corinthians that discuss GENERAL veiling and would exclude the one about veiling in Church.
Thirdly - ‘the obligation imposed to cover at all times?’ I know of no Christian society where such has been an obligation, although it has been accepted (and even very strongly endorsed) custom, often only applicable to MARRIED women.
J
jean8
Guest
Kathleen,Like many things in life when people tend to fight it the hardest it is something that is tweaking their conscious. If women really felt it was un necessary they would just ignore those of that that cover as being weird.
the Bible reads:
" But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman [is] man, and the head of Christ [is] God."
"1Cr 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonors his head. "
1Cr 11:5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with [her] head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
1Cr 11:6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
1Cr 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
1Cr 11:8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
1Cr 11:9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
1Cr 11:10 For this reason the woman ought to have [a symbol of] authority on [her] head, because of the angels.
1Cr 11:11 Nevertheless, neither [is] man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.
1Cr 11:12 For as woman [came] from man, even so man also [comes] through woman; but all things are from God.
1Cr 11:13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
1Cr 11:14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
1Cr 11:15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for [her] hair is given to her [fn] for a covering.
1Cr 11:16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor [do] the churches of God. "
Paul Is giving instructions to the Corinthian Church about head coverings. To the men and women
This is a cultural issue. Today, in our culture we are to dress with modest apparel, and act as Spirit filled christains.
I would leave nose rings at home on Sunday. :
God bless,
jean
I
Indyann
Guest
and
Patrick Madrid Weighs in on the Veiling Debate
The quote below is from the latter piece.]
"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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 [sic] to do so.
This is such a NON-ISSUE. I cannot understand why people spend so much time debating a settled matter. It is ridiculous.
And why do people keep starting threads about head coverings. A quick search will reveal a zillion threads and every argument on both sides of the fence are already posted.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
As one would imagine, a licensed canon lawyer is quite well aware of what the 1983 Code said vis-a-vis the 1917 code. He covers that in great detail. Specifically, he shows that in addition to being an immemorial custom, the covering of women in Mass was also established specifically as a liturgical law (he cites the authorities for that.) And the 1983 law explicitly states that, “For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore,** liturgical laws in force until now retain their force** unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code” (Canon 2). This is but one reason given in the article I cite as to why this liturgical law was not abrogated.
Obviously, it would be best if women reestablished the practice out of reverence for Tradition, in continuity with all of their Catholic forebears prior to the revolution of the 1960s, rather than from a stark obedience to a command. But if the legal case is something that holds one back, then I commend the whole essay it to your reading.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
I consider this particular issue to be what I call a “paradigm issue”. The reason I consider it important is that here we have a tradition, laid out by an Apostle which he underpins with theological (not just cultural) reasons. It was of continuous observance in every rite of the Catholic Church, Eastern and Western, right up until the social and liturgical revolution of the twentieth century. Even at that time and right up until this present day there has never been any direction given by the Church for women to remove their head coverings. Certainly, although in the main probably ignorant, the women who doffed their head coverings prior to 1983 were in direct violation of the Church’s written law, not to mention her immemorial custom. After that, at the very least, the immemorial custom was still in place.
It would seem to be rather significant that this very beautiful sign of gender distinction should be cast off right in the midst of a cultural revolution that has at its heart gender confusion. Should we not eye it with due suspicion?
Given that the last forty years have also been a time of obviously lax ecclesiastical discipline, it is difficult for us to see how the mere allowance of this particular change of practice, albeit widespread, makes it correct and for the good. Add to that the canonical arguments laid out in the pieces I cite above (which some here aren’t going to bother to read, apparently) and I think you have a significant issue.
L
LilyM
Guest
So your canon lawyer knows better than the entire CDF what constitutes a ‘liturgical law’ - in fact what constitutes any type of regulation THAT HAS NORMATIVE VALUE (ie is lastingly binding)? Don’t make me laugh.
S
sarahraegraham
Guest
:clapping:
A
adelore
Guest
Wow, this topic is getting some interesting postings…
I am going to try as best I can… I’m no where near perfect, so please bear with me.
Someone asked the question, Will wearing the Veil (or a head covering) make us more Holy or get us to be close to becoming a Saint? (I most likely have not written it word for word, so forgive me if I didn’t.)
No it won’t, but neither will going to Mass alone. (for example: there are several people, not all mind you, who go to Mass weekly, because that is how they were brought up, it’s a routine. There are there physcially, but mentally they are somewhere else, daydreaming, ect.)
Wearing a Veil or Headcovering doesn’t put anyone on the road to “Saint Hood” or “Being more Holy than anyone else.”
It does however show a Reverance to Our Lord.
Yes it’s true that Saint Paul did write about a Womens Head Covering in the Bible.
Yes it’s true that the Church has the keys to the kingdom and can Bind and Loose…But where word for word does the Catholic Church say,** “A Women no longer needs to cover her head?”**
Now I’ve read some of the Cannon Laws…but I have yet to date had someone show me where the Cannon Law of 1983 says, **“A Woman no longer needs to Veil, or wear a headcovering.” ** If anyone can please show me this in the Cannon Law word for word, I’d love to read it.
Second, Women started to **Remove **the Veil or Headcovering Before the Cannon Law of 83…so would you like to explain that to me? I’d love to read/listen to that.
Third, Satan loves…I repeat…Loves to cause Conflict and Turmoil even within the Catholic Church. He attacks the people in the Church. It’s peoples nature to Rebel…(due to Satan wispering in our ears…)
Fourth, A woman Can’t and I reapeat…can’t even visit the Pope without having her head covered… Please explain that to me. Where is it in Cannon Law that a woman must have her head covered in the Presence of the Pope?
Fifth, People, yes even in the Catholic Church, just like the Prodesents, tend to go with Solo Cannon Laws… in other words they love to Twist it just enough to say what they want it to say… It’s called Protesting…Again I ask where does it say word for word in Cannon Law that a Woman **Doesn’t **have to cover her head in Mass anymore?
Maybe to end this dispute we need to all write to Rome and ask the Pope what He thinks aobut this topic.
By the way the Pope also thinks all Catholics should be saying the Rosery Everyday…But it’s not spelled out in Cannon Law…so hey we don’t have to, but the Pope says we should…so what’s your reply to that? Just wondering. (my guess at some’s reply is this…well if it’s not spelled out in Cannon Law we don’t have to…)
Some of the Catholic things we do may surprise you, it’s not All in Cannon Law… Some of them are just traditions… Notice I typed that with a small “t”. And yet we still do them…Just something to ponder for those of you who are so “hooked” on Cannon Law “only”…sounds like a lot of Prodesent, “Scripture Only” doesn’t it.
I am going to try as best I can… I’m no where near perfect, so please bear with me.
Someone asked the question, Will wearing the Veil (or a head covering) make us more Holy or get us to be close to becoming a Saint? (I most likely have not written it word for word, so forgive me if I didn’t.)
No it won’t, but neither will going to Mass alone. (for example: there are several people, not all mind you, who go to Mass weekly, because that is how they were brought up, it’s a routine. There are there physcially, but mentally they are somewhere else, daydreaming, ect.)
Wearing a Veil or Headcovering doesn’t put anyone on the road to “Saint Hood” or “Being more Holy than anyone else.”
It does however show a Reverance to Our Lord.
Yes it’s true that Saint Paul did write about a Womens Head Covering in the Bible.
Yes it’s true that the Church has the keys to the kingdom and can Bind and Loose…But where word for word does the Catholic Church say,** “A Women no longer needs to cover her head?”**
Now I’ve read some of the Cannon Laws…but I have yet to date had someone show me where the Cannon Law of 1983 says, **“A Woman no longer needs to Veil, or wear a headcovering.” ** If anyone can please show me this in the Cannon Law word for word, I’d love to read it.
Second, Women started to **Remove **the Veil or Headcovering Before the Cannon Law of 83…so would you like to explain that to me? I’d love to read/listen to that.
Third, Satan loves…I repeat…Loves to cause Conflict and Turmoil even within the Catholic Church. He attacks the people in the Church. It’s peoples nature to Rebel…(due to Satan wispering in our ears…)
Fourth, A woman Can’t and I reapeat…can’t even visit the Pope without having her head covered… Please explain that to me. Where is it in Cannon Law that a woman must have her head covered in the Presence of the Pope?
Fifth, People, yes even in the Catholic Church, just like the Prodesents, tend to go with Solo Cannon Laws… in other words they love to Twist it just enough to say what they want it to say… It’s called Protesting…Again I ask where does it say word for word in Cannon Law that a Woman **Doesn’t **have to cover her head in Mass anymore?
Maybe to end this dispute we need to all write to Rome and ask the Pope what He thinks aobut this topic.
By the way the Pope also thinks all Catholics should be saying the Rosery Everyday…But it’s not spelled out in Cannon Law…so hey we don’t have to, but the Pope says we should…so what’s your reply to that? Just wondering. (my guess at some’s reply is this…well if it’s not spelled out in Cannon Law we don’t have to…)
Some of the Catholic things we do may surprise you, it’s not All in Cannon Law… Some of them are just traditions… Notice I typed that with a small “t”. And yet we still do them…Just something to ponder for those of you who are so “hooked” on Cannon Law “only”…sounds like a lot of Prodesent, “Scripture Only” doesn’t it.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
You didn’t read the article, did you? In fact, it appears you didn’t even read what I wrote. What the author I cited argues is that the passage you cited doesn’t apply to the specific issue we’re discussing, women veiling at Mass, but to a broader issue. And of course, as he demonstrates, even if the CDF document was out to overthrow the Church’s perennial custom on that specific point (which it wasn’t), it would lack the authority to do so, which is simply a fact on several counts. Not sure what’s funny about that, but I’m glad I can provide a good chuckle
.
L
LilyM
Guest
Put it this way … you go right ahead and assume that the CDF are wrong until they are proven right.You didn’t read the article, did you? In fact, it appears you didn’t even read what I wrote. What the author I cited argues is that the passage you cited doesn’t apply to the specific issue we’re discussing, women veiling at Mass, but to a broader issue. And of course, as he demonstrates, even if the CDF document was out to overthrow the Church’s perennial custom on that specific point (which it wasn’t), it would lack the authority to do so, which is simply a fact on several counts. Not sure what’s funny about that, but I’m glad I can provide a good chuckle
My view is, they are much more part of the Magisterium than Mr Madrid or your canon lawyer. We are bound in obedience to assent - even sometimes to things that Bishops or church officials, who will surely be corrected by the Pope or Council or what have you if they are wrong on a binding issue - may say that they don’t state in an unequivocally binding way.
II Is the last even half-definite word on the issue of veiling in church. Obedience binds us to presume that the CDF, who have more authority than your Canon Lawyer, know their powers, know what they’re doing and are correct in their statement - unless and until there is fresh Magisterial clarification on the issue, which seems not to be forthcoming.
S
savienu
Guest
Ok, so OTHER people have attacked you, so you take it out on me and I’m not supposed to take it personally? And I DID hear what you have to say. Again, as I said, you are not in sin for not veiling. You are not “less holy” for not veiling. But there IS more to veiling, for those who do it, than just “loyalty to tradition” or “culture.” That’s all I was asking you to acknowledge. And telling me I’m not MATURE enough to discuss these topics because you offended me? Please. It’s not a guilt trip. It’s the truth. I’ve not seen anyone who supports veiling saying or implying that those who don’t veil aren’t holy or can’t get to heaven, but both you and LilyM leaped to that conclusion, and turned around and attacked ME for it. You say it’s not “all about me” but when you are responding to ME and attacking things I said, what am I supposed to think?
L
LilyM
Guest
I was flat-out told by Shin in a post a while back that the reason I’d given up veiling was because of ‘sinful affections’ (for what? For undistracted prayer, as I said, since I found veiling to be distracting? Since when is a desire for THAT sinful?)
And I’ve in so many words said that I don’t include you among the more strident advocates of veiling. I’m sorry if you missed where I said that. This is a group discussion, so not everything that we have to say is directed at you, even if it is in response to your posts sometimes. I’m sorry if it seems like we’re attacking you - I for one have no desire to be unduly harsh with anyone.
S
savienu
Guest
And I’m not Shin, so it is not right for you and kyria to take it out on me. And no, I did see you said that. Which is why I don’t understand you and kyria coming on so strongly WITH ME. I do have to wonder what about veiling was distracting to you, and if you tried different head coverings (maybe ones that didn’t cover part of your face, or a hat, etc) before giving it up? I’m asking without ulterior motives, just so you know.
D
daughteroftruth
Guest
A purified and holy soul obeys God and doesn’t take advantage of the easy way outs offered by Church officials for the sake of pleasing society.
- Status