...you can always wear one of these.....
 |
| Just a single tissue, not the whole box you understand |
...even Mgr Bugnini believed that it was correct for women to cover their heads at Mass
This post was prompted by several comments extolling the virtues of using a tissue as a head covering in an emergency, see the link that started the ball rolling HERE.
There is, of course, a precedent for adopting such headgear....any non Sikh male attending a Gudwara, is required to place a handkerchief on their head, as a mark of respect.
I don't think they feel subjugated though.
But then, changes occurred. The document Inter Insignoires, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the 1970s, stated that mantillas were no longer mandatory since wearing them was not a matter of faith. “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.”
ReplyDeleteEven Cardinal Burke, who is the head of the Holy See’s highest court, the Apostolic Signatura, addressed the question. He wrote a letter regarding veiling which is available on EWTN. In part, he wrote: “The wearing of a chapel veil for women is not required when women assist at the Holy Mass according to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. It is, however, the expectation that women who assist at the Mass according to the Extraordinary Form cover their heads, as was the practice at the time that the 1962 Missale Romanum was in force. It is not, however, a sin to participate in the Holy Mass according to the Extraordinary Form without a veil.”
The 1983 Code of Canon Law which is in effect today doesn’t mention church veils. Its absence from the Canon means it has been abrogated.
Anon.....thank you. I do know that. Please leave a name in future, many thanks.
ReplyDeleteKleenex - all very well but at all costs, avoid draughts ;-)
ReplyDeleteGertrude, I only play chess.
DeleteWearing a head covering is very reverent and helps me to worship God more attentively and be less distracted. A head covering aids one's sense of bowing down to God to do His Will.
ReplyDeleteWearing a Kleenex on your head... how utterly ridiculous and irreverent. If you want to wear a mantilla on your head then do so, but don't try to enforce your scruples upon others.
ReplyDeleteFr Mark. I think you are on the wrong bus. Besides, I don't have any scruples.
Deleteyes, Lynda, but just because in your case you are an admitted ditz who is "distracted" without one, doesn't necessarily help the men behind you fixated on that pret-ty lacy thing on your head. Do you REALLY think Paul had "put lace on your head" in mind? Or more something akin to burlap?
ReplyDeleteAs for Cardinal Burke, overall love the man, but frankly I can tell him what he can do with his "expectation."
Firstly, most people are distracted from where their focus ought to be at some point, particularly as innovations in the liturgy lend themselves to distraction; secondly, I don't wear lace or anything that would cause distraction; and thirdly, I'll take it that you didn't intend to be rude.
DeleteOh, and as for Sikh men...they also have a kirpan by their knee.
ReplyDeleteCovering the head is an obvious and natural way to show reverence and awe in the presence of Our Lord, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. That is why it is an ancient and honourable tradition, and why people stopped only when unholy influences were brought to bear on the sacred liturgy through innovations that were not in keeping with the tradition and theology of the Faith. It is all part of the efforts to degrade the liturgy that brought about the abandonment of the Faith by most (led by priests). Lex orandi, Lex credendi.
ReplyDeleteSpot on Lynda. Well said.
DeleteWe grew up wearing hats and scarves. In fact, the custom continued for many years after the NO was instituted. I think that Lynda is correct in her assessment that having a head covering of some sort focuses one on prayer. The big problem is the general inappropriateness of most clothing worn to Mass, not just the issue of head covering. And, it has nothing to do with money or poverty, as some of the wealthiest come in dressed in gym clothes or whatever.
ReplyDeleteSt Paul never said, a woman must wear on their heads something most people would put a pretty vase on. Where a hat. I think that doing more than is 'necessary' is important in this day and age of doing way way way less, than is 'necessary'. Most people take more care putting on a dinner party than the average Priest and parishioners 'putting on' a Sunday Mass.
ReplyDeleteYes, we should do our best to honour God in the Blessed Sacrament.
DeleteI think the argument lies in a formal / informal attitude at Mass. I know that some people see Mass as a family meal , others a link to Calvary. I suppose one might ask 'What would I wear to either ?'If I am in the presence of Jesus in His offering of Himself to the Father does it matter what I wear ? I think that I have to come down on the side of the argument that it does - not least because of the impression you are giving to your fellow worshippers. I dislike some of the fashions at the moment - spaghetti strap T shirts , jeggings , shorts worn over tights , all of which I see at Mass. I don't know what is in the heart of these ladies , though. Lyn.
ReplyDeletea woman covering her head is Apostolic tradition - this is important - I never thought about it until it was pointed out and in this way. the mantilla (sorry but it does sound like an insect) is one head covering, but not the only one.
Deletep.s. on the formal/informal thing. is it just me or do way too many Mass goers conflate informality with humility? which, it is kind of the opposite. even if a raggy T-shirt and jeans really is our best set of clothes, how we behave in Mass, the respect and formality is as important as our best outfit.
ReplyDeleteThe deliberate casualness in the sanctuary infected the pew. Lord, have mercy.
Deletewell put. which went first? the sanctuary or the pew?
DeleteDefinitely, the sanctuary.
ReplyDeleteIt is the bare-breasted, as opposed to bare-headed, who worry me.
ReplyDeletePatricius...perhaps it begins with being bare headed?
Delete