Should women wear

[BLAZEr]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 9 2004, 12:53 AM'] Blazer I don'tthink your reasoning is sound here, the Church could certianly require that women once agian where head coverings, the history of the Church is not one of further and further liberialism and relaxation of disiple, on the Contrary it is one of addition. Doctrine cannot be altered disiple certianly can be in either direction. [/quote]
I don't t think I would suggest the the history of the Chuch is of further liberalism or one of addition. Well, maybe addition, depends what you mean by that.

However, although you are right to say that a Church can "technically" change a discipline, in the explanation of the infallibility of the Tradition of the Church, the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger suggest that a change cannot be reversed, at least not as arbitrarily or as simply as what seems to be suggested.

[kateri05]

[quote name='Balthazor' date='Dec 8 2004, 11:59 PM'] CanI ask a question?

Exactly what purpose do head coverings serve?

I don;t know much about the topic, I just wan to know if there is any purpose to the head coverings.
I know their are a few Bible passages that tackle this, but I think that I may have missed something.

What purpose does it serve? [/quote]
as far as i understand, its a gesture of humility and of purity. St. Paul addressed his command for women to cover their head while in church to the church in Corinth where popular, polite, fashion at the time dictated that heads be covered. could have been related to the pagan religion there, whatever. however, the temple prostitutes did NOT have covered heads at church and rumors were started about the Christian women in Corinth being connected to impure and immodest practices for not covering heads. So, St. Paul deemed that it was proper to do so so as to be beyond reproach.
also, it is an ancient tradition to cover your head in the presence of a king. in judaism, this developed into the yammuka, because the Lord is always present and above you. however, from my knowledge, this applied only to men (who knows, judaism has 2 rules for everything! ). so i'm not sure if this is linked to women's headcoverings or not.

now, some of the smarter, wiser, Church Faithful and Church Militant peoples in here, fix my answer

[BLAZEr]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 9 2004, 12:48 AM'] celibate priesthood isn't a matter of doctrine. it is a matter of discipline. there is doctrine surrounding it that developed and now secures the Church's current practice of celibate priesthood.


The Church hasn't reversed itself on any issue. there have always been some married priests and some celibate priests (first being Christ and second that I know of being Paul). the Roman Rite requires only celibate priests, though other rites don't. it's about practices, the way doctrines are PRESENTED, not what the doctrines are. [/quote]
Celibate priesthood is not "just" a discipline. The theology of the priesthood is a docrtine and it has a practical reality that is formed by disciplines. It is not the case, however that a discipline doesn't have a docrtinal significance.

For example, kneeling during the consecration is a discipline. However there is a doctrinal basis for the discipline rooted in the real presence.

The same is true with the discipline of celibacy. It has a theological (i.e. doctrinal) rationale behind it.

All disciplines have doctrinal concepts behind them. That being said, disciplines can, to a certain extent be changed. But it has not been the practice of the Church to change and then change back. This is because of the development of Doctrine.

Changes in discipline occur because of the development of Doctrine. The changes in Discipline that accord to the mass came about because the doctrine developed. The Novus Ordo Missae is, contrary to the traddy position, not an impoverishment, but a development. That includes the many disciplines that were once a part of the Tridentine Mass.

[spathariossa]

[quote name='BLAZEr' date='Dec 9 2004, 01:23 AM'] Celibate priesthood is not "just" a discipline. The theology of the priesthood is a docrtine and it has a practical reality that is formed by disciplines. It is not the case, however that a discipline doesn't have a docrtinal significance.

For example, kneeling during the consecration is a discipline. However there is a doctrinal basis for the discipline rooted in the real presence.

The same is true with the discipline of celibacy. It has a theological (i.e. doctrinal) rationale behind it.

All disciplines have doctrinal concepts behind them. That being said, disciplines can, to a certain extent be changed. But it has not been the practice of the Church to change and then change back. This is because of the development of Doctrine.

Changes in discipline occur because of the development of Doctrine. The changes in Discipline that accord to the mass came about because the doctrine developed. The Novus Ordo Missae is, contrary to the traddy position, not an impoverishment, but a development. That includes the many disciplines that were once a part of the Tridentine Mass. [/quote]
What's the theological basis for all of the sudden requiring celibacy in the priesthood in the middle ages?

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='spathariossa' date='Dec 9 2004, 04:01 AM'] What's the theological basis for all of the sudden requiring celibacy in the priesthood in the middle ages? [/quote]
What was the reason for all of a sudden declaring the divinity of Christ all of a sudden in the 4th century?
Edit: This was just aimed at your "all of a sudden" comment.

Re: head coverings
Many of my best female friends got chapel veils for Christmas.

[spathariossa]

[quote name='BurkeFan' date='Dec 9 2004, 04:28 AM'] What was the reason for all of a sudden declaring the divinity of Christ all of a sudden in the 4th century?

Re: head coverings
Many of my best female friends got chapel veils for Christmas. [/quote]
I don't follow. Are you referring to the question of Christ's two co-equal but unconfused natures?

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='spathariossa' date='Dec 9 2004, 04:33 AM'] I don't follow. Are you referring to the question of Christ's two co-equal but unconfused natures? [/quote]
Yeah. My point was that it wasn't declared to be a doctrine out of the blue, but because it was true and the Church held it to be true. Celibacy was already practiced, it was not as if the rule was some draconic measure against the priests.

[aloha918]

some people need more of an open mind........

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 8 2004, 07:05 AM'] No it is not required for a Latin Mass, it is simply custom.
The same canon law applies to both. [/quote]
This is not entirely true. At the LAtin Mass, one follows the liturgical laws of the Church as they were applied in 1962.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Dec 9 2004, 12:29 AM'] So... what do you all think of head coverings...? [/quote]
If not required, highly recommended. I'll stick with St. Paul and the practice of the Church for her entire history, until now.

[LiL Kat Said]

I think i like the idea of wearing a head covering. But where would i get one?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='spathariossa' date='Dec 9 2004, 12:38 AM'] This has nothing to do with a movie. I've been Catholic for 20 years. I think I know the differences between the churches. [/quote]
Since you were born in 1983, I somehow doubt you have been studying the differences with a critical eye for 20 years.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 9 2004, 01:59 PM'] This is not entirely true. At the LAtin Mass, one follows the liturgical laws of the Church as they were applied in 1962. [/quote]
Nope.
There is only one canon law in the Church, and head coverings are not mentioned in it.

It is custom in the Latin Mass, not a requirement. You cannot throw a woman out if she does not choose to cover her head.

[Balthazor]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 9 2004, 01:56 PM'] Since you were born in 1983, I somehow doubt you have been studying the differences with a critical eye for 20 years. [/quote]
Give her a break.

Besides she did not say that she was studing the Church for twenty years, she said she was Catholic for twenty years.

Lets not bring age into this. Young does not equal dumb. I know fourteen year olds that know a heck of a lot more about the Catholic Church, it's history, dogma, doctrines and teaching than some fiftey five year olds that have been in the Church their entire life.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 9 2004, 03:02 PM'] Nope.
There is only one canon law in the Church, and head coverings are not mentioned in it.

It is custom in the Latin Mass, not a requirement. You cannot throw a woman out if she does not choose to cover her head. [/quote]
The Indult (by its very definition) is a derivation from the norm. It is a canonical function that, in this case, allows the Latin Mass communities to apply the litugical laws as they stood in 1962. Will you get thrown out for not wearing a veil? Not likely. Will you be privately asked to wear one? In some places. It's subject to local implementation/enforcement. It is certainly more than a mere custom (of course depending on how you define that term). Does it carry the force of law? That's a good question.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Balthazor' date='Dec 9 2004, 04:11 PM'] Give her a break.

Besides she did not say that she was studing the Church for twenty years, she said she was Catholic for twenty years.

Lets not bring age into this. Young does not equal dumb. I know fourteen year olds that know a heck of a lot more about the Catholic Church, it's history, dogma, doctrines and teaching than some fiftey five year olds that have been in the Church their entire life. [/quote]
The implication was clear.

[Balthazor]

[I Choose to Be Holy]

just remember everyone, not to too caught up in the "law" and forget the faith part. Whether its kneeling or veils, you shouldn't be doing it because it is required but rather interiorize it and do it out of love and faith. Jesus came to save us from the law so lets not revert back to it.

In Alberta, we don't kneel. I have had many discussions with priests, religious, and bishops about it and i guess even though Vatican says yes, if your bishops or priests say no, you go with what your community is doing, because Mass is a community thing. Plus, even if you don't phyiscally kneel, you can still kneel with your heart and you always should, regardless of where your body is.

[cmotherofpirl]

Your priest or bishop does not have the authority to contradict Church law. THe Community does not set the standard, the Church does.

[hyperdulia again]

informative