FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Why head coverings for women is observed at TLM Masses but not segregation of se
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
I am just curious why is it that at most SSPX and other traditionalist TLM's the majority of women wearing headcoverings [a law in the 1917 Code of Canon Law] but the code of seperation [1917] of sexes is not observed?:

"Canon 1262, § 1. “It is desirable that, in harmony with ancient Church order, the women in church be separated from the men.”

It seems to me like a pick and choose thing.
I am all for women wearing headcoverings at Mass, but why not observe the seperation of sexes, as the Code calls for, to be consistant?
I know the 1917 Code has been abrogated by the 1983 Code, but I am curious.
(12-09-2011, 01:26 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]I am just curious why is it that at most SSPX and other traditionalist TLM's the majority of women wearing headcoverings [a law in the 1917 Code of Canon Law] but the code of seperation [1917] of sexes is not observed?:

"Canon 1262, § 1. “It is desirable that, in harmony with ancient Church order, the women in church be separated from the men.”

It seems to me like a pick and choose thing.
I am all for women wearing headcoverings at Mass, but why not observe the seperation of sexes, as the Code calls for, to be consistant?
I know the 1917 Code has been abrogated by the 1983 Code, but I am curious.


No problem with head covering however I have an issue with the seperation of the sexes.....I like having my wife next to me during Mass,  for God sake we are not orthodox jews
(12-09-2011, 02:08 PM)Canisius12 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-09-2011, 01:26 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]I am just curious why is it that at most SSPX and other traditionalist TLM's the majority of women wearing headcoverings [a law in the 1917 Code of Canon Law] but the code of seperation [1917] of sexes is not observed?:

"Canon 1262, § 1. “It is desirable that, in harmony with ancient Church order, the women in church be separated from the men.”

It seems to me like a pick and choose thing.
I am all for women wearing headcoverings at Mass, but why not observe the seperation of sexes, as the Code calls for, to be consistant?
I know the 1917 Code has been abrogated by the 1983 Code, but I am curious.
I personally agree, I like being with my wife, but why chose one traditional discipline of the Church that was law before 1983 [headcoverings for women] and ignore another law of the Church before 1983 [seperation of sexes]?
I understand the point is moot now, but in some traditionalist chapels many people icluding priests post signs that women must wear headcoverings in Mass, but nothing about seperation of sexes, after all they were both laws in the 1917 code and of Apostolic origin?


No problem with head covering however I have an issue with the seperation of the sexes.....I like having my wife next to me during Mass,  for God sake we are not orthodox jews
(12-09-2011, 02:08 PM)Canisius12 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-09-2011, 01:26 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]I am just curious why is it that at most SSPX and other traditionalist TLM's the majority of women wearing headcoverings [a law in the 1917 Code of Canon Law] but the code of seperation [1917] of sexes is not observed?:

"Canon 1262, § 1. “It is desirable that, in harmony with ancient Church order, the women in church be separated from the men.”

It seems to me like a pick and choose thing.
I am all for women wearing headcoverings at Mass, but why not observe the seperation of sexes, as the Code calls for, to be consistant?
I know the 1917 Code has been abrogated by the 1983 Code, but I am curious.

No problem with head covering however I have an issue with the seperation of the sexes.....I like having my wife next to me during Mass,  for God sake we are not orthodox jews
I personally agree, I like being with my wife, but why chose one traditional discipline of the Church that was law before 1983 [headcoverings for women] and ignore another law of the Church before 1983 [seperation of sexes]?
I understand the point is moot now, but in some traditionalist chapels many people icluding priests post signs that women must wear headcoverings in Mass, but nothing about seperation of sexes, after all they were both laws in the 1917 code and of Apostolic origin?
Head covering is in the bible, segregation is not.
That might be one of the reasons.
(12-09-2011, 02:50 PM)Freudentaumel Wrote: [ -> ]Head covering is in the bible, segregation is not.
That might be one of the reasons.
That makes sense.
Thank you sir.

As an aside, I never remember seeing couples sitting seperately at Mass in the '70s even though the 1917 code was still in place requiring seperation of sexes.
I wonder if this disobedience of canon law was a sin?
About half the women at Mass [NO] wore veils in the 1970's.
Really, I wouldn't be bothered too much about it.

Things get complicated when you have families...how do you separate them, especially when you need Dad and older sister or older brother to take care of the little ones? The young boys might go with the men if they are segregated, but what if they start whining for Mum? If you set aside family pews for them, there won't be too many others who will have to follow the arrangement of segregation, because most faithful tend to come to Church with their families.

And what if there are more parishioners of one gender, to the point where there are not enough seats on one side?
"It is desireable that..." seems to have less force than an outright rule. More like it would be better if this is done, but it is not necessarily bad if it isn't.
(12-09-2011, 09:39 PM)karyn_anne Wrote: [ -> ]Really, I wouldn't be bothered too much about it.

Things get complicated when you have families...how do you separate them, especially when you need Dad and older sister or older brother to take care of the little ones? The young boys might go with the men if they are segregated, but what if they start whining for Mum? If you set aside family pews for them, there won't be too many others who will have to follow the arrangement of segregation, because most faithful tend to come to Church with their families.

And what if there are more parishioners of one gender, to the point where there are not enough seats on one side?


And yet somehow the Church managed to survive century after century segregating the sexes. And on top of that they had no pews, no air conditioning and no day care. The reality is we're just a bunch of wusses.  Shrug
Does anyone have any evidence of segregation of the sexes in common, public Sunday Masses to have been prominent/followed in the 20th Century?  Or even 19th? 

It seems like a ....  weird... rule.
Pages: 1 2 3