Please give me a good explanation for these V2 changes


#1

I believe that Vatican II was a valid council, however, I don’t understand two changes that occurred after the council (although I’m not sure if they were direct results of the council). The two changes that I’m referring to are: (1) the priest facing the altar & (2) headcoverings for women. Both of these practices are apostolic and from what I understand, there was no historical precendent to the contrary. I would appreciate it if someone could give me a good explanation as to why these traditions are no longer being done in the Church. Thanks! :thumbsup:

PS - I have actually read that women should still be wearing headcoverings because the 1983 Code of Canon Law didn’t address the subject.


#2

Both of those things you refer to are rules of the Church. One governs how Mass is said, the other what people wear. Since the Church was given the right to make and change the rules, I don’t see how this is a problem.

As for more specifics on head coverings, see this jimmyakin.org/2004/07/head_coverings_.html


#3

[quote=MariaG]As for more specifics on head coverings, see this jimmyakin.org/2004/07/head_coverings_.html
[/quote]

Seen that, it’s been quite skillfully refuted. Read this:

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/covering.htm

There is no reason at all to abandon apostolic traditions (meaning we got them from the apostles themselves!!!) The aposltes received their teachings directly from Jesus who is God. The Church does not have to power to reject divinely revealed truths. For example, the Church does not have the power to ordain women. This is something that John Paul II made quite clear, using the same reasoning.

“But what is also to the point, let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the fathers. On this the church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian” -St. Athanasius (4th century)

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
-2 Thess. 2:15

“Then Jesus approached and said to them, ‘All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.’”
-Matthew 28:18-20

“If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.” -Fourth Anathema of the Second Council of Nicaea (787A.D.)

[quote=MariaG]Since the Church was given the right to make and change the rules, I don’t see how this is a problem.
[/quote]

I don’t think that I’ve ever been taught that the Church makes rules, but rather the Church preserves those of God. Likewise, the Church cannot change these things other than to develop a deeper meaning of them (not reverse them altogether). The requirement of women wearing headcoverings is very clear in Sacred Scripture! 1 Cor. 11:4-6 “Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.” How can anyone deny this? Do you really think that the Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, Mennonites, and Amish have been really misinterpreting this verse for the past 2000 years?! Please give me a good reason why women should not wear headcoverings in light of the Word of God (I have not yet met anyone who can do this). And remember, “Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.” Romans 12:2


#4

[quote=MariaG]Since the Church was given the right to make and change the rules, I don’t see how this is a problem.
[/quote]

I don’t think that I’ve ever been taught that the Church makes rules, but rather the Church preserves those of God. Likewise, the Church cannot change these things other than to develop a deeper meaning of them (not reverse them altogether). The requirement of women wearing headcoverings is very clear in Sacred Scripture! 1 Cor. 11:4-6 “Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.” How can anyone deny this? Do you really think that the Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, Mennonites, and Amish have been really misinterpreting this verse for the past 2000 years?! Please give me a good reason why women should not wear headcoverings in light of the Word of God (I have not yet met anyone who can do this). And remember, “Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.” Romans 12:2


#5

[quote=JSmitty2005]I believe that Vatican II was a valid council, however, I don’t understand two changes that occurred after the council (although I’m not sure if they were direct results of the council). The two changes that I’m referring to are: (1)** the priest facing the altar** & (2) headcoverings for women. Both of these practices are apostolic and from what I understand, there was no historical precendent to the contrary. I would appreciate it if someone could give me a good explanation as to why these traditions are no longer being done in the Church. Thanks! :thumbsup:

[/quote]

Smitty,

You’ve got my interest up.

Where is it written or unwritten in Tradition that Mass must be said with his back to the people, facing the same direction as they are? That would be cool to know! I guess you’re going on the understanding that it was always done exactly that way.

-Rob


#6

[quote=Reformed Rob]Smitty,

You’ve got my interest up.

Where is it written or unwritten in Tradition that Mass must be said with his back to the people, facing the same direction as they are? That would be cool to know! I guess you’re going on the understanding that it was always done exactly that way.

-Rob
[/quote]

If you want something in writing, I’ll have to get back to you on that. However, if you have a copy of Ratzinger’s Spirit of the Liturgy, I believe he addresses the issue in that (he agrees with me.) Peace.


#7

It is a shame the comments were closed on this. I don’t think we really got a solid answer in response to the argument from Scripture and 2000 years of tradition. Jimmy addressed canon law and assumed that was the only relevant source of authority along with some of the liturgical books.

If folks are aware of other resources, discussing this at a scholarly level, please share. I don’t have a clearly developed theology on the issue.

Feminism drives the current abortion and same sex marriage debate.

It seems the only reason to object to the headcovering would be some form of feminism. Where you have such a well established practice such as headcoverings for women why change that practice?


#8

[quote=dts]If folks are aware of other resources, discussing this at a scholarly level, please share.
[/quote]

I posted this link above, I don’t know if you’ve gotten a chance to read it, but it’s Robert Sungenis’s direct refutation of Jimmy Akin’s points in this article. Don’t get me wrong, I love Jimmy Akin. However, I tend to disagree with him on this point and don’t understand why he’s even trying to defend it. Likewise, I don’t have anything against Mr. Sungenis personally, but there seems to be some bickering going on between him and someone else that I am not too fond of. Nonetheless, I have to side with him on this issue rather than Mr. Akin. Anyways, here’s the link:

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/covering.htm

[quote=dts]Where you have such a well established practice such as headcoverings for women why change that practice?
[/quote]

My point exactly! :thumbsup:


#9

[quote=Reformed Rob]Smitty,

You’ve got my interest up.

Where is it written or unwritten in Tradition that Mass must be said with his back to the people, facing the same direction as they are? That would be cool to know! I guess you’re going on the understanding that it was always done exactly that way.

-Rob
[/quote]

The practise started from the fact of Christ present in the Eucharist. As Christ is present in the Eucharist, it’s logical that the priest would face God and not have his back turned to Him during the Mass. :wink:


#10

It’s interesting to note that no document says to turn the priest around to face the people. In fact, the current rubrics say that during the “orate fratres” the priest should “turn” to face the people. This implies that he would not be facing them before then.

Here’s a great article by a priest who offers Mass as the Council intended and totally faithful to the current rubrics.

The Mass of Vatican II


#11

A priest whom I regard as knowlegable, orthodox, and reliable told me that there is no instruction regarding which direction he faces during the Consecration. The altar must be free-standing (not attached to the wall), but the priest is free to stand on either side of it (though this particular priest also chose to face the congregation).


#12

Hi,
I cannot give you reasons for the changes, I can only relate an experience I had.
I was returning to my pew to give adoration to Jesus after having just received Him in Holy Communion when I was given this inner locution:
“It was a subtle change, but when they turned the altar around it made it appear as though the priest was speaking for God to His people. God does not need an intercessory to speak to His people, but, His people need their priests to speak to God.”


#13

[quote=JSmitty2005]However, if you have a copy of Ratzinger’s Spirit of the Liturgy, I believe he addresses the issue in that (he agrees with me.)
[/quote]

How wise of him to do so. If only every cardinal looked to you for such guidance.

– Mark L. Chance.


#14

[quote=mlchance]How wise of him to do so. If only every cardinal looked to you for such guidance.

– Mark L. Chance.
[/quote]

Haha! You know I didn’t mean it that way. I meant that we hold the same opinion. :stuck_out_tongue: It would have been more correct to say that I agree with him because I had not even known that this practice was an apostolic one until a priest friend of mine told me about his book. By the way, I find it odd how everyone seems to be conveniently avoiding the head covering issue. :rolleyes:

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b49/JSmitty2005/Catholic/ac1-400.jpg

When I was in Rome on our Diocese’s pilgrimage to World Youth Day this Summer, we had a Novus Ordo Mass where the priest faced the altar in St. Mary Major’s and I loved it!


#15

[quote=DavidFilmer]The altar must be free-standing (not attached to the wall)
[/quote]

I didn’t know of this requirement. Do you know where I can read up on it?


#16

**By the way, I find it odd how everyone seems to be conveniently avoiding the head covering issue. ** :rolleyes:

**But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. **

Unless you are saying this tongue in cheek, I think you missed a couple of postings, a portion of one is above. However I think it was more an indicator that you would like more discussion so…

In all things we are to look the example of Jesus and His Mother Mary to assist in making our choices. Jesus seems most often without head covering and His Mother who seems to keep her hair, if not all, then mostly covered always.
Poor memory keeps me from remembering where I read this, but I seem to recall it being attributed to the Blessed Mother as having said that as hair is a part of a woman’s sensual attraction, it should be revealed to her husband only.
In our prayer group, a message received from the Blessed Mother, asked that the women cover their heads as a sign of their consecration to her Immaculate Heart. This has been interpreted as only during prayer and that a doily like veil is adequate covering even though it is only afixed to the hair as a lid to a pot rather than as a tea cosy to a teapot. I do not know how this interpretation was reached.


#17

[quote=JSmitty2005]I believe that Vatican II was a valid council, however, I don’t understand two changes that occurred after the council (although I’m not sure if they were direct results of the council). The two changes that I’m referring to are: (1) the priest facing the altar & (2) headcoverings for women. Both of these practices are apostolic and from what I understand, there was no historical precendent to the contrary. I would appreciate it if someone could give me a good explanation as to why these traditions are no longer being done in the Church. Thanks! :thumbsup:

PS - I have actually read that women should still be wearing headcoverings because the 1983 Code of Canon Law didn’t address the subject.
[/quote]

The Church never changed either of those. The Church never said the priest is to face the people, and has never said that women should not have their heads covered.


#18

[quote=John-the-Seeker]**By the way, I find it odd how everyone seems to be conveniently avoiding the head covering issue. ** :rolleyes:

**But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. **

Unless you are saying this tongue in cheek, I think you missed a couple of postings, a portion of one is above. However I think it was more an indicator that you would like more discussion so…

In all things we are to look the example of Jesus and His Mother Mary to assist in making our choices. Jesus seems most often without head covering and His Mother who seems to keep her hair, if not all, then mostly covered always.
Poor memory keeps me from remembering where I read this, but I seem to recall it being attributed to the Blessed Mother as having said that as hair is a part of a woman’s sensual attraction, it should be revealed to her husband only.
In our prayer group, a message received from the Blessed Mother, asked that the women cover their heads as a sign of their consecration to her Immaculate Heart. This has been interpreted as only during prayer and that a doily like veil is adequate covering even though it is only afixed to the hair as a lid to a pot rather than as a tea cosy to a teapot. I do not know how this interpretation was reached.
[/quote]

I was saying that tongue-in-cheek and I was actually the one that posted the Bible verse. I really appreciate your explanation on this issue. I never heard it explained that way. Thank God there’s someone else out there other than me that doesn’t understand why this change was made. God bless!


#19

[quote=USMC]The Church never changed either of those. The Church never said the priest is to face the people, and has never said that women should not have their heads covered.
[/quote]

Good! I have heard that you’re right (technically speaking), but then why do we see these things occurring now?


#20

posted by JSmitty2005

I don’t think that I’ve ever been taught that the Church makes rules,

Bind and loose. Matthew 19.

posted by dts
Feminism drives the current abortion and same sex marriage debate.

It seems the only reason to object to the headcovering would be some form of feminism. Where you have such a well established practice such as headcoverings for women why change that practice?

I guess I am trying to figure out how a woman in good conscience who actually looks into this issue, finds a source like Jimmy Akin, someone even the OP says is usually reliable, can then be linked with feminism, abortion and same sex marriage.

**Your comments are offensive and out of line. **

And think about what you are saying. Headcoverings have not been prevelant since 1970. That means most women, like myself, have not changed anything. And as someone whose parents left the Church and I did not attend church until an adult about 7 years ago, why would I even know to wear a head covering when even the older ladies in my church, of which are the majority, don’t wear one?

Could Jimmy Akin be wrong? You bet.

Does that mean women who don’t wear head coverings must naturally be feminists? No.

I will certainly look into that article posted by the OP in more depth, but at this time, the unjust and spurious accusations of feminism, linking the issue to abortion and same sex marriage by you have left a sour taste in my mouth.

Good day.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.