Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 4   [ 77 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:27 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:47 am
Posts: 15254
Religion: Catholic (SSPX)
JoyToBeCatholic wrote:
It's always been a big issue for me. Do the thing that is more reverent even though it isn't required and risk being tempted? Or avoid the entire matter. It does seem as though I'm allowing my fear of temptation prevent me from doing the things I want to in practicing my faith.


Show me a written document that shows that wearing a head veil has been expressly abrogated, please.

Quote:
I've even brought some of these things up to a priest before and I was told that, to do such things (veils, genuflecting, kneeling w/out the kneeler) when no one else does them might cause scandal.


Pure, unadulterated bullocks. SCANDAL is when you do *something* that might cause someone else to COMMIT SIN.

Now, if one wants to make the argument that you cause someone else to be angry, for example, because YOU decide to wear a veil... well, that's stretching things a bit.

I can make people angry by KNEELING to receive communion. I can make people angry by GENUFLECTING before receiving. I can make people angry by NOT holding hands during the Our Father.

What a load of crap. Causing scandal... yeah RIGHT.

Quote:
I thought, 'scandalous to show reverence when I am moved to do so? That seems bizarre'. But I've heard more bizarre things than that from the confessional :scratch:


Exactly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:28 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:47 am
Posts: 15254
Religion: Catholic (SSPX)
st_ignatius110 wrote:
Here are my thoughts on women wearing veils in church.
First, why do we go to Mass? For Jesus Christ, for God and to worship God alone. We are there for our focus to be on God and Him alone. Our focus is not to be on anyone else but God.
Now, when a woman has her head uncovered I truly beleive that this can be a cause of distraction. Why? Well, men might look at her...and us women are notorious for looking at another womans hair and thinking, " It is so pretty. How did she do that?" And then this might even lead to jealousy because you want your hair like that. So, in essence this can take your mind off of those thoughts which it should be on and will instead cause you to think of something unimportant during the most important time of the week.


THERE YA GO! I'd like to shove that back in that priest's face.

NOT wearing a veil CAUSES SCANDAL!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:30 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:47 am
Posts: 15254
Religion: Catholic (SSPX)
I'm wondering if a nun dressed in full habit falls in this same category...

if ANYTHING would draw attention to oneself, it would be a nun in full habit at a Mass.

Maybe this is why a lot of nuns don't wear full habit anymore...

they don't want to seem "proud". ....

can't believe i'm getting worked up over this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:34 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:08 pm
Posts: 282
Quote:
Show me a written document that shows that wearing a head veil has been expressly abrogated, please.


It hasn't, but it is no longer a requirement either as I cited earlier (as did others). But regardless, I do believe it is the more perfect thing to do b/c of the reverence, the submission, being able to focus, modesty, etc. I will ponder that for now, and see where God leads me.
~Joy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:37 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:08 pm
Posts: 282
tAnGo wrote:
I'm wondering if a nun dressed in full habit falls in this same category...

if ANYTHING would draw attention to oneself, it would be a nun in full habit at a Mass.

Maybe this is why a lot of nuns don't wear full habit anymore...

they don't want to seem "proud". ....

can't believe i'm getting worked up over this.


Fire away! I didn't agree with that priest anyway! And nuns without habits drive me nuts. Just keep giving me more reasons to squelch the pride and go with the covering, ,please! :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:39 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:47 am
Posts: 15254
Religion: Catholic (SSPX)
oh yes, i'm aware that common practice says it's no longer a requirement.

i'm just unaware of anything that expressly abrogates it.

unless it's expressly abrogated, i don't know why other people would be concerned about someone wearing a veil.
also unsure as to why the idea that it's not required equates into one not wanting to wear the veil. ...that is to say, the idea: "I don't want to wear one ONLY because it's not required" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

but...anyway, as you said, you'll think about it.

i'm just saying I don't think you need to have any feelings of guilt (for pride/pretentiousness) if you do decide to wear one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:11 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:08 pm
Posts: 282
Quote:
also unsure as to why the idea that it's not required equates into one not wanting to wear the veil.


Tango, are you reading my posts? I did not say that I didn't want to wear a veil. On the contrary I DO want to wear one, but have a hard time with the pride/pretentiousness/scrupulosity/whatever-it-is issue that will most likely arise as a result of my deciding to be the only woman in my parish, heck, CITY, to wear a veil to church.

Quote:
...that is to say, the idea: "I don't want to wear one ONLY because it's not required" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


Uh uh. I'm not saying that either. the idea is: "I don't (eliminate want to) wear one (eliminate ONLY) because it's not required and therefore I don't want to draw attention to myself when I know full-well that to do so would be an occasion of pride/pretentiousnes..... for me".

Perhaps that doesn't make sense to you b/c you are not haunted with the issue of pride in these circumstances. But I tell you, I was raised to always consider what you look like to other people, and this is VERY, VERY, VERY difficult to overcome. There are times, and have been times, where God has given me the grace to overcome that obstacle and just do what He makes me feel compelled to do. I went a very long period of time, in fact, openly and quite boldly renouncing the styles of the day for the sake of Christian modesty. I would not cut my hair, would not wear makeup, wouldn't wear pants, wore a covering MOST OF THE TIME in fact! But then strength faded and temptation crept in and it's been very different for years since. I've since had to tame my renunciation and keep it only interiorly, b/c doing those things now does nothing but draw more temptation to pride. I can't tell you how greatful I would be if I were rid of the whole pride/scrupolosity issue altogether, but for the past 2 years, with the exception of very brief grace-filled periods, there has been no such relief. Please pray that God will give me the grace to conquer it!
~Joy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:47 pm 
Offline
Deceased
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 3:45 pm
Posts: 6695
Location: Boston (Roslindale), MA
Religion: Catholic
tAnGo wrote:
oh yes, i'm aware that common practice says it's no longer a requirement.

i'm just unaware of anything that expressly abrogates it.

unless it's expressly abrogated, i don't know why other people would be concerned about someone wearing a veil.
also unsure as to why the idea that it's not required equates into one not wanting to wear the veil. ...that is to say, the idea: "I don't want to wear one ONLY because it's not required" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

but...anyway, as you said, you'll think about it.

i'm just saying I don't think you need to have any feelings of guilt (for pride/pretentiousness) if you do decide to wear one.


The more I look at part of the discussion here, the more I am convinced that the problem is due to misunderstanding two relatively rare English verbs.

Abrogate: almost always (always?) has with it the idea of nullifying or suppressing a law or requirement.

Reprobate: has with it the idea of condemning or forbidding a practice.


While headcovering for women has been officially abrogated (in the sense that Canon Law or other church law no longer requires it), it has by no means been reprobated (or forbidden).


Edward Pothier


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:51 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:47 am
Posts: 15254
Religion: Catholic (SSPX)
JoyToBeCatholic wrote:
Quote:
also unsure as to why the idea that it's not required equates into one not wanting to wear the veil.


Tango, are you reading my posts? I did not say that I didn't want to wear a veil. On the contrary I DO want to wear one, but have a hard time with the pride/pretentiousness/scrupulosity/whatever-it-is issue that will most likely arise as a result of my deciding to be the only woman in my parish, heck, CITY, to wear a veil to church.

Quote:
...that is to say, the idea: "I don't want to wear one ONLY because it's not required" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


Uh uh. I'm not saying that either. the idea is: "I don't (eliminate want to) wear one (eliminate ONLY) because it's not required and therefore I don't want to draw attention to myself when I know full-well that to do so would be an occasion of pride/pretentiousnes..... for me".


I understand you perfectly. note what I said and what I highlighted in your post.

...but I see I wasn't as clear in restating your position. ...nevermind.. i know what you're talking about. ..still doesn't make much sense to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:56 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 12:47 am
Posts: 15254
Religion: Catholic (SSPX)
Edward Pothier wrote:
tAnGo wrote:
oh yes, i'm aware that common practice says it's no longer a requirement.

i'm just unaware of anything that expressly abrogates it.

unless it's expressly abrogated, i don't know why other people would be concerned about someone wearing a veil.
also unsure as to why the idea that it's not required equates into one not wanting to wear the veil. ...that is to say, the idea: "I don't want to wear one ONLY because it's not required" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

but...anyway, as you said, you'll think about it.

i'm just saying I don't think you need to have any feelings of guilt (for pride/pretentiousness) if you do decide to wear one.


The more I look at part of the discussion here, the more I am convinced that the problem is due to misunderstanding two relatively rare English verbs.

Abrogate: almost always (always?) has with it the idea of nullifying or suppressing a law or requirement.

Reprobate: has with it the idea of condemning or forbidding a practice.


While headcovering for women has been officially abrogated (in the sense that Canon Law or other church law no longer requires it), it has by no means been reprobated (or forbidden).


Edward Pothier


Uhhh... nobody's misunderstanding any English here.
Please show me the document where it reads that the practice has been ABROGATED. Nobody around here has EVER said it was now "forbidden" practice. I'm looking for something that specifically states that the requirement to wear a head veil is no longer a requirement.

To the best of my knowledge, the only thing going on is that the issue of "head veil is a requirement for women" WAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE NEW EDITION.

So people think "hey, since it wasn't mentioned, I guess we don't have to wear it anymore"...

Where is the rule that says specifically "don't have to wear it anymore"?

That's what I'm looking for.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:01 am 
Offline
Deceased
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 3:45 pm
Posts: 6695
Location: Boston (Roslindale), MA
Religion: Catholic
tAnGo wrote:
Edward Pothier wrote:
tAnGo wrote:
oh yes, i'm aware that common practice says it's no longer a requirement.

i'm just unaware of anything that expressly abrogates it.

….


The more I look at part of the discussion here, the more I am convinced that the problem is due to misunderstanding two relatively rare English verbs.

Abrogate: almost always (always?) has with it the idea of nullifying or suppressing a law or requirement.

Reprobate: has with it the idea of condemning or forbidding a practice.


While headcovering for women has been officially abrogated (in the sense that Canon Law or other church law no longer requires it), it has by no means been reprobated (or forbidden).


Edward Pothier


Uhhh... nobody's misunderstanding any English here.
Please show me the document where it reads that the practice has been ABROGATED. Nobody around here has EVER said it was now "forbidden" practice. I'm looking for something that specifically states that the requirement to wear a head veil is no longer a requirement.

To the best of my knowledge, the only thing going on is that the issue of "head veil is a requirement for women" WAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE NEW EDITION.

So people think "hey, since it wasn't mentioned, I guess we don't have to wear it anymore"...

Where is the rule that says specifically "don't have to wear it anymore"?

That's what I'm looking for.


CDF 1976 Document Inter Insigniores:Even before the 1983 Code [of Canon Law], there was an official "relaxation" of the headcovering requirement from a rather unsuspected source. The CDF document under consideration actually comes from 1976-1977, even before the papacy of Pope John Paul II and the CDF prefecture of Cardinal Ratzinger. Even back then, under Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Seper, the CDF was not generally called liberal. The document, although internally dated October 15, 1976, was actually released on January 27, 1977. It is the CDF "Declaration on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood", sometimes known by its Latin title _Inter Insigniores_.

The Declaration by the CDF against the ordination of women [in its section on the permanent value of the attitude of Jesus and the Apostles against ordination of women] states almost in passing the former requirement:
CDF 1976 Declaration INTER INSIGNIORES wrote:
"Another objection [of supporters of the ordination of women] is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of St. 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. 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value." {emphasis mine}
That sure sounds like abrogation of the obligation!


CODE OF CANON LAW if 1983: Although the 1983 CODE OF CANON LAW is the not the totality of the Church's law (just as the 1917 CODE was not either). However, the 1917 Code, which was officially abrogated, (i.e. de-activated) by Canon 6.1.1 of the 1983 Code, did require headcovering.
1917 CODE OF CANON LAW wrote:
1917 CODE Can. 1262. § 1. Optandum ut, congruenter antiquae disciplinae, mulieres in ecclesia separatae sint a viris.

§ 2. Viri in ecclesia vel extra ecclesiam, dum sacris ritibus assistunt, nudo capite sint, nisi aliud ferant probati populorum mores aut peculiaria rerum adiuncta; mulieres autem, capite cooperto et modeste vestitae, maxime cum ad mensam Dominicam accedunt.


1917 CODE Canon 1262, § 1. "It is desirable that, in harmony with ancient Church order, the women in church be separated from the men."

Canon 1262, § 2. "Men should attend Mass, either in church or outside church, with bare heads, unless approved local custom or special circumstances suggest otherwise; women, however, should have their heads veiled and should be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord."


The 1917 Code's canon 1262 (neither section!) was not retained in any form in the 1983 CODE.


Edward Pothier


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:55 am 
Offline
Defender
Defender

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 11:41 pm
Posts: 14025
Location: Joliet, Illinois
Religion: The True One
Church Affiliations: Catholic Monarchy
One has to wonder if the older codes were still practiced if we wouldn't have a more faithful group of people and fewer divorces.

Whether the codes exist or whether if they exist and are just not enforced the issue as Joy pointed out there are matters that form the "more perfect way". That is what we must all press for.

"The More Perfect Way" it is so beautiful. Wouldn't that be best?

Dan L

_________________
Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

"To say that God turns away from the sinful is like saying that the sun hides from the blind." St. Anthony the Great (of the desert)

"There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions." — G.K. Chesterton


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:01 am 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:08 pm
Posts: 282
Athanasius wrote:
One has to wonder if the older codes were still practiced if we wouldn't have a more faithful group of people and fewer divorces.

Whether the codes exist or whether if they exist and are just not enforced the issue as Joy pointed out there are matters that form the "more perfect way". That is what we must all press for.

"The More Perfect Way" it is so beautiful. Wouldn't that be best?

Dan L


Indeed it is, and would be best. And it's bloody shameful that the Church no longer encourages it's faithful towards perfection in this (and many other) aspect.
~Joy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:23 am 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:08 pm
Posts: 282
Here is another difficulty that this would present:

In considering what is "more perfect", I would venture to say, that my previous practice of abandoning some of today's styles (pants, in particular, and of course, any immodest clothing) was more perfect. However, my husband found it displeasing (he is not practing Catholic. not practicing anything) that I would not just dress like everyone else, and felt that I was dressing "impractically" when, for instance, it was 20 degrees out and I'd be wearing a skirt, or 90 degrees out and I'd have 3/4 length sleeves and a long jumper on. (kinda makes you stick out ;) ). Now, I have a difficult time convincing him to go to mass with us, and I'm quite certain that if I was to start wearing a veil, he'd be embarrased and have yet another reason not to go.

So, I guess it is more than an issue of pride. Sometimes we have to forgo what is more perfect out of obedience, which, ironically, is one of the initial purposes of veiling in the first place. But you can't convince a non-Christian husband that veiling is somehow for his benefit too. He has a hard enough time with some of the things that the Church forbids or requires that affect our relationship. I certainly can't insist he accept something that is outside that realm in order to follow my desire for perfection.
~Joy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:23 am 
Offline
Defender
Defender

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 11:41 pm
Posts: 14025
Location: Joliet, Illinois
Religion: The True One
Church Affiliations: Catholic Monarchy
Joy,

It's is, as you say, "a bloody shame". Let us then encourage each other onto perfection. (I'm a former Methodist pastor. They used to talk like that.)

Are you from Great Britain? Did you convert after your marriage? Or did your husband abandon the Church? Forgive my question if you've told us this already.

Dan L

_________________
Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

"To say that God turns away from the sinful is like saying that the sun hides from the blind." St. Anthony the Great (of the desert)

"There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions." — G.K. Chesterton


Last edited by Athanasius on Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:25 am 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:08 pm
Posts: 282
Athanasius wrote:
Joy,

It's is, as you say, "a bloody shame". Let us then encourage each other onto perfection. (I'm a former Methodist pastor. They used to talk like that.)

Are you from Great Britain?

Dan L


He he, we posted at the same time. Please see my post above yours. No, I'm not from Great Britain, but I grew up with lots of BBC programming (monty python, etc.);) . Just an expression I like to use.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:26 am 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 8:21 pm
Posts: 2300
JoyToBeCatholic wrote:
Athanasius wrote:
Joy,

It's is, as you say, "a bloody shame". Let us then encourage each other onto perfection. (I'm a former Methodist pastor. They used to talk like that.)

Are you from Great Britain?

Dan L


He he, we posted at the same time. Please see my post above yours. No, I'm not from Great Britain, but I grew up with lots of BBC programming (monty python, etc.);) . Just an expression I like to use.


Oh yay! Another anglophile! :D

Steph


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:30 am 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:08 pm
Posts: 282
Oh, and I in no way mean to imply that my husband asks me to dress immodestly. Only in so far as that he prefers that I don't wear skirts and jumpers exclusively. I've talked to with a few good priests about that (wearing pants) and was told that, though skirts and jumpers are the preferred dress for a women, pants, if modest and not tight or low, are not immodest. Therefore, in this circumstance (my husband's preferrence) it is better for me to submit to my husband than it is to insist on wearing skirts/jumpers.
Just didn't want you all to think he was making me dress like a harlot!
~Joy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 10:07 am 
Offline
Master
Master

Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 10:41 am
Posts: 1811
Location: Archdiocese of Singapore
JoyToBeCatholic wrote:
I grew up with lots of BBC programming (monty python, etc.);)


Does that include my favourite of all time, "Blackadder" ?

_________________
Kenny

Novus Ordo [strike]Mundi[/strike].
New [strike]World[/strike] Order.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 10:20 am 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:08 pm
Posts: 282
Hmmm....no, never heard of that one. But I am looking forward to the new Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 4   [ 77 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Jump to: