homeschoolmom Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 So... what do you all think of head coverings...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spathariossa Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 [quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Dec 8 2004, 11:29 PM'] So... what do you all think of head coverings...? [/quote] Required. I need to get on my priests to enforce it the way the Russians do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLAZEr Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 [quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 8 2004, 09:57 PM'] the earliest priests could be married in all the churches, roman and otherwise, but developement of doctrine showed how good it is for a priest to imitate Christ in a celibate life and devote all their energy to the church. that's an elaboration, not negating the possibility of married priests. based on that developement, the discipline was changed to require celibate priesthood. i don't know how the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger explained it, but based on what I've seen from Newman and such developement of doctrine can only be elaboration, it cannot negate previous doctrines. [/quote] The Pope and Ratzinger make the case that is because of the particular history of the development of the Docrtine on the priesthood that the church cannot "go back" to a time of married priests. It's because, even though all of the theology of the priesthood is present right there at the beginning, our understanding of it develops over time and we come to see the original things much more clearly. So, in light of the particular history of the church's practice in this regard and her deeping theology of the priesthood, we cannot revert to a time when this discipline was allowed. I was trying to suggest that there is a similar understanding regarding the disciplines associated with the Holy Mass. As the theological understanding of the Holy Mass develops, some practices that [i]seemed[/i] necessary are no longer deemed necessary. Particulary because of the specific history of certain practices, certain disciplines are dropped, not as concessions to a liberal dissident group, but rather because they are understand as not being necessary to the Mass. In this regard it is also important to see that a requirement in scripture, in the New Testament letters for instance, is rightly interpreted by the Church. If the Church deems that something which seems like a requirement to wear a veil is not actually a requirement, then we have to respect that interpretation. We cannot go back to a time when things were different. In fact the best bet in this case is to see what the Holy Father requires in his diocese in Rome. Headcovering for women is not among the requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 Not required... but that point was covered already... I was just surprised how off topic this thread got!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spathariossa Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 [quote name='BLAZEr' date='Dec 8 2004, 11:32 PM'] The Pope and Ratzinger make the case that is because of the particular history of the development of the Docrtine on the priesthood that the church cannot "go back" to a time of married priests. It's because, even though all of the theology of the priesthood is present right there at the beginning, our understanding of it develops over time and we come to see the original things much more clearly. So, in light of the particular history of the church's practice in this regard and her deeping theology of the priesthood, we cannot revert to a time when this discipline was allowed. I was trying to suggest that there is a similar understanding regarding the disciplines associated with the Holy Mass. As the theological understanding of the Holy Mass develops, some practices that [i]seemed[/i] necessary are no longer deemed necessary. Particulary because of the specific history of certain practices, certain disciplines are dropped, not as concessions to a liberal dissident group, but rather because they are understand as not being necessary to the Mass. In this regard it is also important to see that a requirement in scripture, in the New Testament letters for instance, is rightly interpreted by the Church. If the Church deems that something which seems like a requirement to wear a veil is not actually a requirement, then we have to respect that interpretation. We cannot go back to a time when things were different. In fact the best bet in this case is to see what the Holy Father requires in his diocese in Rome. Headcovering for women is not among the requirements. [/quote] No offense to this doctrine but that sounds like a really convoluted way of describing the fact that the Catholic church has reversed itself on numerous issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 (edited) i think that's kinda what i was saying. and no i haven't read all of newman i'm just telling you the understanding i have based on what i've seen of him. read my posts, i specifically said a while back that the Church has the authority. that doesn't mean I can't say it should reinstate the discipline. i didn't say women now are required, just that i think they should. the Church can, and I believe should, reinstate that because there is no real reason for it not to exist and there is a tradition that connects us with the past and allows us to see in practice something that was described in scripture. you know, tomarrow the Church COULD come out and say that there will be no more washing of the feet on holy thursday. would I be allowed to say they should bring washing of the feet back for the very reasons i discussed regarding women's head coverings? 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. spathariossa, 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. Edited December 9, 2004 by Aluigi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balthazor Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 [quote name='BLAZEr' date='Dec 8 2004, 12:17 AM'] Someday I'm going to teach a theology class on this website and help people understand the principle of development of doctrine. [/quote] that would be nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shelly_freak Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 Forget head scaves, I just need a pair of two of nice pants to wear for mass and when I visit the blessed sacrament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLAZEr Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kateri05 Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 [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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLAZEr Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spathariossa Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 [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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurkeFan Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now