Church Laws And Sin

[Moneybags]

Women should only veil themselves when in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament like at Mass - not all the time.

[kenrockthefirst]

Let me throw this into the "veil" discussion. My reading of 1 Cor. 11 is as that a woman should have her head covered as a sign of submission to her husband, who in turn is subordinated to Christ.

"But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ." (1 Cor. 11:3).

What if a woman is single, i.e. never married? What then? BTW, the footnote from the USCCB site on this chapter reads:

[i][3-16] Women have been participating in worship at Corinth without the head-covering normal in Greek society of the period. Paul's stated goal is to bring them back into conformity with contemporary practice and propriety. In his desire to convince, he reaches for arguments from a variety of sources, though he has space to develop them only sketchily and is perhaps aware that they differ greatly in persuasiveness.[/i]

Certainly, that could be inferred to indicate that this was a prescription for a particular place at a particular time, and not universally applicable, as has been discussed in other threads.

[Aloysius]

except it was always universally applied (and still is by most sui juris churches and rites, and actually as far as I'm concerned, is still applied in the Roman Church and Latin Rite, and there is no documentation to the contrary), and Paul himself even applies it to the whole "Church of God" when He says "if anyone wishes to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor does the Church of God" (it is clear from the context of that quote, as well as the commentaries of the Early Church Fathers, that he refers to the whole Church of God not having the practice of being contentious against the practice of women wearing veils). Anyone who thinks St. Paul did not apply this to every church he went to, and every church he evangelized to, is blinding themselves with their agenda. He says the practice is not disputed in the whole Church of God. Every single church that stemmed from his evangelization in the whole gentile world held to the practice as if it was a divinely inspired command (it was). It'd be like trying to argue that St. Paul was only telling the Corinthians to be careful not to eat and drink judgement onto themselves through the Eucharist, but he was fine if the whole rest of the Church did it. His language is just as far reaching on that subject as they are on this one. There is absolutely no basis to think (and you'd be historically wrong if you did) that this was a localized Corinthian, or even localized Greek practice. It was universal from the very beginning; everything we have that says anything about these times attests to that.

Also, whilest one of his arguments is the symbolism of the husband being the head of his wife, this is not his only argument and he does not exempt single women. That is just one argument among many that he makes...



[quote]Women should only veil themselves when in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament like at Mass - not all the time.[/quote]

unless they want to. A woman veiling is like a man not wearing a hat. A man doesn't have to wear a hat when he's not in a Church, but in Church is the only time he cannot wear a hat. Similarly, a woman doesn't have to go unveiled all the time, but in Church is the only time she must wear a veil.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1281318' date='May 25 2007, 02:09 PM']except it was always universally applied (and still is by most sui juris churches and rites, and actually as far as I'm concerned, is still applied in the Roman Church and Latin Rite, and there is no documentation to the contrary), and Paul himself even applies it to the whole "Church of God" when He says "if anyone wishes to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor does the Church of God" (it is clear from the context of that quote, as well as the commentaries of the Early Church Fathers, that he refers to the whole Church of God not having the practice of being contentious against the practice of women wearing veils). Anyone who thinks St. Paul did not apply this to every church he went to, and every church he evangelized to, is blinding themselves with their agenda. He says the practice is not disputed in the whole Church of God. Every single church that stemmed from his evangelization in the whole gentile world held to the practice as if it was a divinely inspired command (it was). It'd be like trying to argue that St. Paul was only telling the Corinthians to be careful not to eat and drink judgement onto themselves through the Eucharist, but he was fine if the whole rest of the Church did it. His language is just as far reaching on that subject as they are on this one. There is absolutely no basis to think (and you'd be historically wrong if you did) that this was a localized Corinthian, or even localized Greek practice. It was universal from the very beginning; everything we have that says anything about these times attests to that.

Also, whilest one of his arguments is the symbolism of the husband being the head of his wife, this is not his only argument and he does not exempt single women. That is just one argument among many that he makes...
unless they want to. A woman veiling is like a man not wearing a hat. A man doesn't have to wear a hat when he's not in a Church, but in Church is the only time he cannot wear a hat. Similarly, a woman doesn't have to go unveiled all the time, but in Church is the only time she must wear a veil.[/quote]

On the scale of 1-10 of important things, with 1 being the least important and 10 being the most, I have to believe that wearing a veil is a 1 or 2. Much more important, IMHO, is eating and drinking worthily. For example, at a recent Mass for teenagers preparing for Confirmation, one of the girls was texting someone during the Mass. Certainly, she wasn't in any way taking the Mass seriously, and consequently ate and drank judgement on herself, if she partook in an unworthy manner. In my view, that is a much more grave and serious matter than whether she was veiled.

[Aloysius]

that is true, except I'd put the number a little higher... eating and drinking worthily being about a 10, and veiling being about a 5. that does not lessen the fact that it is required by scripture; that does not take away from the valid analogy. if St. Paul's words about eating and drinking unworthily can be taken universally, there is nothing in the text which indicates any different for the words about veiling.

I have heard arguments from people that St. Paul's words there were only meant to be addressed to a specific thing that was going on in Corinth, and it should not be applied universally to mean that anyone with mortal sin should not receive communion. That's just as valid an argument as saying veiling was specific to Corinth and should not be applied universally to mean all women should wear veils.

The fact is that the Catholic reading of the texts understands both things as having been universal; and the veils St. Paul even specifically applied to the whole universal "Church of God"

[ofpheritup]

[quote name='ofpheritup' post='1278434' date='May 21 2007, 08:38 AM']Well, I took IT out. "It" and I went shopping and ran some errands and I don't know what result I was expecting but nothing happened. I think that's a good thing. My city (thankfully) is still intact.

I would not be doing this if I didn't have my husband's support or permission.[/quote]

Today is May 29. I have been "covering" for 8 days now. The world has not blown up, my city (thankfully) is still intact and the "Veil Police' have yet to break down my door and rip it off my head.

My point: The world is a little more aware of Jesus.
Seeing me dressed this way, is hopefully inspiring them to think of Him.
Before I chose this I would see ladies covered (mostly Mennonites) and I would stop for maybe just that second and think of Jesus.

I pray now that I am a witness to the world as they were to me.
Don't you think the way it is going that it needs that witness?

I believe it was St. Francis of Assisi who said, "I have done my part, may God teach you yours."

I've have been on both sides of the fence and I have never understood the need for arguing.
The choice is personal.

Edited May 29, 2007 by ofpheritup

[Quietfire]

You go girl!!

[Quietfire]

Since this thread covers issues other than just veils

Friday penance.
Is it always to be meatless? Like mandatory? And always?

I was taught that there should be a Friday penance, but it isnt necessary to be meatless.
For instance,
I gave up meat on Friday and started eating fish..
but I truly enjoy eating fish and dont, in any way at any time, see it as a penance. I saw it as an excuse because my husband doesnt like fish of any kind, so I then had a reason to eat fish regularly. So I now offer another penance on Fridays.

On a particular Friday during Lent, a customer got angry because our meat department was sampling ham and she said that meat should NOT be eaten on Fridays during Lent and therefore not offered as samples. Even though my husband tried to explain to her that not everyone is Catholic, she was indignant and later he found a whole tray of samples in the garbage. (she had taken them and thrown them out when he left the department)

So..what the deal?

Thanks.

[Moneybags]

During Lent the Friday penance MUST be meatless. Absolutely. During the rest of the year it is highly encouraged to abstain from meat, but another form of penance (and it should be substantial penance) will suffice.

[quote]Can. 1249 All Christ's faithful are obliged by divine law, each in his or her own way, to do penance. However, so that all may be joined together in a certain common practice of penance, days of penance are prescribed. On these days the faithful are in a special manner to devote themselves to prayer, to engage in works of piety and charity, and to deny themselves, by fulfilling their obligations more faithfully and especially by observing the fast and abstinence which the following canons prescribe.

Can. 1250 The days and times of penance for the universal Church are each Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.

Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Can. 1252 The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.

Can. 1253 The Episcopal Conference can determine more particular ways in which fasting and abstinence are to be observed. In place of abstinence or fasting it can substitute, in whole or in part, other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety.[/quote]

[ofpheritup]

[quote name='Quietfire' post='1289563' date='Jun 6 2007, 03:10 PM']You go girl!![/quote]


: OKAY.

[IgnatiusAntioch]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1275793' date='May 17 2007, 02:52 PM']So I'm looking for opinions re: [mod]Link edited. --Era Might[/mod], of which I will only quote a small portion below:

Is there any solid way to refute this? If not, does that mean that any woman who does not veil herself for mass may commit mortal sin if the act is done knowingly and deliberately?

I would ask a similar question re: friday penance [url="http://stpeters-troy.tripod.com/id29.html"]throughout the year[/url]:[/quote]

Yes. Canon 6 of the 1983 CLEARLY STATES that the ENTIRETY of the Pio-Benedictine canon law has been abrogated. Those who say otherwise speak out of ignorance.