Obowiązek ciągłego nakrywania głowy y wszytkich włosów Chrześcijańskich niewiast

Poniższą treść proszę  sobie przetłómaczyć (tłómaczenie mniey więcey, zaznaczać y kopiować całe części textu) tu https://translate.google.pl/?hl=pl#view=home&op=translate&sl=en&tl=pl

Proszę o wyrozumiałość, iż poniższy text iest w ięzyku w którym iest.



This series of articles https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/d005rpVeil_1_Goodman.htm could be clearer regarding the beginning, from the beginning to the heading "The continual headcovering of women" of the following message.
 

As to "Part 2"
 

- there are no words "unanimous" and "unanimity" which are in the Encyclical of Pope Leon XIII PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS

http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html
 

- Tertullian is not Father of the Church as indicated in the text of the series of articles
 
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

"7. (...) From them came forth numbers of Fathers and writers whose laborious studies and admirable writings have justly merited for the three following centuries the appellation of the golden age of biblical exegesis."
 

"Catholic Dogmatics, general part", Fr. Jacek Tylka, Tarnów 1900

"Article II. About Fathers, Doctors and Writers of the Church. 3)
3) cfr. Alzog, Patrologie, Freiburg im Breisgau 1888."
 

page 233
 
"1. (...) In a more strict sense, therefore, we call these men the Church Fathers who were characterized by great science, holiness of life, lived in the first centuries after Christ and received this title of Father from the Church 1)."
 
1) cfr. Cardinalis Mazzella, op. cit. p. 277. et sqq.
 

"2. (...) Only saint writers who remained in communion with the Church until their death, could receive the title of Father of the Church."
 

 page 234

"5. And the writer of the Church, we call such the scholar who wrote about the affairs of the Church. He can be characterized by great science, his life can fall on the old centuries of the Church, yet he did not shine with holiness, or even did not persevere in communion with the Church and fell into errors, as e.g. Tertullian, Origen etc."
 
 

As to "Part 4"
 

There is the following forgery regarding unsinning about which among other things there is in my message.
 
“In this case [of the veil], however, they may be excused [for not wearing it] from sin, if they do not do it from a certain vanity, but because of some contrary custom. Such a custom, however, is not praiseworthy.”
 
The Gospel according to St. Matthew [10:32-33].

More about it here  http://krzyz.nazwa.pl/forum/index.php/topic,10654.msg244674.html#msg244674



As to "Conclusion"
 

mantillas are false headcoverings and not only what is obvious after reading my message. The following texts from the heading "Conclusion" of this series of articles are a lie.
 

"Ideally speaking, for women it would not seem to be necessary to follow the custom of the veil in its patristic rigor. While some Fathers who spoke on the topic seem to advise always keeping the hair covered when in public, their justification for this can be differentiated from the justifications of both the Apostle and the medieval thinkers. While the fact of a woman having something over her hair is always justified by the divine analogy of Christ to the Church and God to man, the fact of a woman having her hair tightly bound was justified as a prevention of lustful behavior. These rationales are clearly different, and therefore require a different approach."
 
"So the requirement of women having something on their heads, at least in the ideal world of a rebuilt and united Christendom, should not be abrogated."
 
"The justification of prevention of lust may not, however, be so stringent. These proscriptions of the Fathers may well have been due to the constraints of time and place rather than the universal truths of God and man, as the Apostle’s law is. Perhaps this looseness of the hair had been adopted as a sign of the pagan resistance to the Christian moral law; perhaps there was simply a great cultural sensitivity to women’s hair in the patristic age. Whether or not this strict rule must be applied, then, depends upon the examination of the conditions of our own time, taking always the wisdom of the Church as our guide."
 
"What part of this ideal may be put into practice in our days?"
 
"In fact, we live in a (...) and dead, (...), Christendom, (...)"
 
"To begin with, there can be no real reason for a failure to implement this custom at least within the confines of a church."

The obligation of the continual covering of head and all hair
of Christian women

The Deposit of Faith which must be observed includes Tradition the First Epistle to the Corinthians [11:2], the Catechism of Saint Pope Pius X page 108 and 107 on the bar https://ia601202.us.archive.org/22/items/CatechismOfSaintPopePiuxXTheSt.PiusX/Catechism%20of%20Saint%20Pope%20Piux%20X%2C%20The%20-%20St.%20Pius%20X.pdf


"On Tradition.

34 Q. What is meant by Tradition?

A. Tradition is the non-written word of God, which has been transmitted by word of mouth by Jesus Christ and by the apostles, and which has come down to us through the centuries by the means of the Church, without being altered.

35 Q. Where are the teachings of Tradition kept?

A. The teachings of Tradition are kept chiefly in the Councils' decrees, the writings of the Holy Fathers, the Acts of the Holy See and the words and practices of the sacred Liturgy.

36 Q. What importance must we attach to Tradition?

A. We must attach to Tradition the same importance as the revealed word of God which Holy Scripture contains."


"the Holy Fathers" means Fathers of the Church because "the Holy See" means the Pope and "the Councils" means Holy Council Fathers.


Encyclical of Pope Leon XIII PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

"14. (...) His teaching, and that of other Holy Fathers, is taken up by the Council of the Vatican, which, in renewing the decree of Trent declares its "mind" to be this - that "in things of faith and morals, belonging to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers."(34)

34. Sess. iii., cap. ii., de revel.; cf. Conc. Trid, sess. iv. decret de edit. et usu sacr. libror."

the unanimous agreement of the Fathers = the infallibility


"14. (...) The Holy Fathers "to whom, after the Apostles, the Church owes its growth - who have planted, watered, built, governed, and cherished it,"(39) the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith."

This above excerpt applies both to the continual headcovering of women and the range of the continual headcovering of women (the all hair).


"19. The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,"(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas."


"Catholic Dogmatics, general part", Fr. Jacek Tylka, Tarnów 1900
"Article III. About the testimony of the Church Fathers."

page 238

"Thesis LV. The testimony of the several Fathers, uttered under certain circumstances, is also the evidence of the Divine Tradition, if others do not object."

"2. If the several Fathers enjoying the great authority in the Church announce definitely some truth of faith or customs as belonging to the faith and in public in this way that their teaching must be known to everyone else, and nobody in the whole Church denies them, we have no reason to doubt about this that they preach the truth."

"3. If the writings of the one Father were approved by others, as containing the sound teaching, one should attribute to them also the sentence of this Father.
(...) Since, so many a time the one Father's sentence hath such the authority in the eyes of others, although none of them is infallible, because this neither the Holy Bible nor the Church preach, and history shows that more than one of them essentially erred, the testimony of several illustrious Fathers, uttered towards the whole Church and applying to the truths of faith and customs, is undoubtedly the evidence of the Divine Tradition."


page 239 - 240

"Remark. From the nature of things results that not all Fathers enjoy the equal authority. It is the greater, the closer he was one man or another of the Apostolic times, the greater he was characterized by holiness and science, the higher the rank he held in the church hierarchy, the greater fame won him his writings.
At last, it depends on this whether their writings were cited and approved by the Church in defence of faith, in the fight against heresy, or in the Councils giving its rulings. (...)"


Encyclical of Pope Leon XIII PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

"7. (...)In the Eastern Church, (...) Others who have widened the field of this science may also be named, as especially eminent; thus, (...)Antioch, of St. John Chrysostom, in whom the science of Scripture was rivalled by the splendour of his eloquence. In the Western Church there were many names as great: (...) St. Ambrose, (...) most famous of all, St. Augustine and St. Jerome, of whom the former was so marvellously acute in penetrating the sense of God's Word and so fertile in the use that he made of it for the promotion of the Catholic truth, (...)"


Saint John Chrysostom (before 350 - 407) is the Saint, the Father of the Church, the Doctor of the Church and the Bishop, is called "Golden-mouthed" and he is known from the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, Homilies, Treatises and letters. 

Saint Ambrose of Milan (ca. 339 - 397) is the Saint, the Father of the Church, the Doctor of the Church and the Bishop. He wrote many Theological Treatises and contributed to the reform of the Liturgy. From his hands Saint Augustine of Hippo Regius was baptized. He had notable influence on St. Augustine. He fought judaism. He was a fierce enemy of pagan beliefs. St. Ambrose staunchly opposed arianism.
Tradition credits St. Ambrose with promoting "antiphonal chant", a style of chanting in which one side of the choir responds alternately to the other, as well as with composing Veni redemptor gentium, an Advent hymn.
However, Ambrosian chant was named in his honor due to his contributions to the music of the Church; he is credited with introducing hymnody from the Eastern Church into the West.
Ambrose composed several original hymns as well, four of which still survive, along with music which may not have changed too much from the original melodies.
Saint Ambrose was also traditionally credited with co-composing the Hymn "Te Deum laudamus", which he is said to have composed when he baptised Saint Augustine of Hippo Regius, his celebrated convert.

Saint Augustine of Hippo Regius (354 - 430) is the Saint, the Father of the Church, the Doctor of the Church and the Bishop. He was a Roman African, early Christian Theologian whose writings influenced the development of the Western Church and Western philosophy, and indirectly all of Western Christianity. He was the Bishop of Hippo Regius in North Africa and is viewed as one of the most important Church Fathers of the Latin Church for his writings in the Patristic Period. Among his most important works are The City of God, De Doctrina Christiana, and Confessions.

According to his contemporary, St. Jerome, St. Augustine "established anew the ancient Faith". After his Baptism and Conversion to Christianity in 386, St. Augustine developed his own approach to philosophy and Theology, accommodating a variety of methods and perspectives. Believing that the Grace of Christ was indispensable to human freedom, he helped formulate the Doctrine of original sin and made seminal contributions to the development of Just War Theory. When the Western Roman Empire began to disintegrate, St. Augustine imagined the Church as a spiritual City of God, distinct from the material earthly city. His thoughts profoundly influenced the medieval worldview. The segment of the Church that adhered to the concept of the Trinity as defined by the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Constantinople closely identified with St. Augustine's "On the Trinity".

Saint Augustine was also traditionally credited with co-composing the Hymn "Te Deum laudamus".



"Catholic Dogmatics, general part", Fr. Jacek Tylka, Tarnów 1900
"Article I. Introductory messages."

page 223

The name and division of Tradition.

"1. Tradition (from the word Latin "trado", to give) this is "the giving", taken in the broadest sense, means any science, from ancestors received verbally or by means of writing, or also contained in the practice introduced by them."


"Catholic Dogmatics, general part", Fr. Jacek Tylka, Tarnów 1900
"Article VI. About the uncontaminated preservation of Tradition."

"Thesis LVIII. Divine Tradition hath come to us uncontaminated."

page 253

"2. This, what for all times from the beginning the Catholic world hath preserved and confessed, comes at least from the Apostles, if not from Christ the Lord Himself."



In Christian Societies the continual covering of head and all hair of Christian women hath been practicing. When the certain Christian Societies became objectively heretical or pagan gave up this Christian Tradition. Maybe on a large scale it happened in the 1960s and later, though false headcoverings such as mantilla, hats, etc. have already appeared before.


It is interesting that St. Paul the Apostle writes about Tradition in his Epistle before the head covering by women the First Epistle to the Corinthians [11:2].



The continual headcovering of women


Saint John Chrysostom, Father of the Church and Doctor of the Church, Bishop "Homilies on First Corinthians".

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220126.htm


In the heading "1 Corinthians 11:4-5"

"But if to be shaven is always dishonorable, it is plain too that being uncovered is always a reproach. And not even with this only was he content, but added again, saying, "The woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels." He signifies that not at the time of prayer only but also continually, she ought to be covered."


In the heading "1 Corinthians 11:6"

"Having taken then what was confessedly shameful, and having said, "but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven," he states in what follows his own conclusion, saying, "let her be covered." And he said not, "let her have long hair," but, "let her be covered," ordaining both these to be one, and establishing them both ways, from what was customary and from their contraries: in that he both affirms the covering and the hair to be one, and also that she again who is shaven is the same with her whose head is bare. "For it is one and the same thing," says he, "as if she were shaven." But if any say, "And how is it one, if this woman have the covering of nature, but the other who is shaven have not even this?" we answer, that as far as her will goes, she threw that off likewise by having the head bare. And if it be not bare of tresses, that is nature's doing, not her own. So that as she who is shaven has her head bare, so this woman in like manner. For this cause He left it to nature to provide her with a covering, that even of it she might learn this lesson and veil herself."


In the heading "1 Corinthians 11:10"

""For this cause:" what cause, tell me? "For all these which have been mentioned," says he; or rather not for these only, but also "because of the angels." "For although thou despise your husband," says he, "yet reverence the angels."
It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience."


In the heading "1 Corinthians 11:15"

""And if it be given her for a covering," say you, "wherefore need she add another covering?" That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that you ought to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, your own part also, that you may not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness , to buffet not only with us, but with nature also. This is why God accusing the Jews said, Ezekiel 16:21-22 "You have slain your sons and your daughters: this is beyond all your abominations."
And again, Paul rebuking the unclean among the Romans thus aggravates the accusation, saying, that their usage was not only against the law of God, but even against nature. "For they changed the natural use into that which is against nature." Romans 1:26 For this cause then here also he employs this argument signifying this very thing, both that he is not enacting any strange law and that among Gentiles their inventions would all be reckoned as a kind of novelty against nature. So also Christ, implying the same, said, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye also so them;" showing that He is not introducing anything new."



Saint Ambrose of Milan, Father of the Church and Doctor of the Church, Bishop "Concerning Virginity (Book III)".

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34073.htm


In Chapter 6.

"Is anything so conducive to lust as with unseemly movements thus to expose in nakedness those parts of the body which either nature has hidden or custom has veiled, to sport with the looks, to turn the neck, to loosen the hair? Fitly was the next step an offense against God."

St. Ambrose who calls unveiled hair nakedness [unveiled hair = nakedness] which conducives to lust, and such nakedness always conducives to lust also beyond prayer and prophesying, so all hair have to be veiled continually.



Saint Augustine of Hippo Regius, Father of the Church and Doctor of the Church, Bishop "Of Holy Virginity".

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102245.htm

"But those who belong to the world have also to consider how they may in these things please their wives if they be husbands, their husbands if they be wives; 1 Corinthians 7:32-34 with this limitation, that it is not becoming even in married women to uncover their hair, since the apostle commands women to keep their heads covered."

The above pronouncement is quoted by St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologiae, IIa-IIae, Q. 169, Art. 2. And so St. Thomas confirms the continual headcovering of women. Summa Theologiae is approved by the Catholic Church and so this is the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which is infallible  http://krzyz.nazwa.pl/forum/index.php/topic,10654.msg244674.html#msg244674

This alleged sentence of St. Thomas in the alleged Summa Theologiae after the above pronouncement http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3169.htm "Yet in this case some might be excused from sin, when they do this not through vanity but on account of some contrary custom: although such a custom is not to be commended." is the forgery (about it at the end of this message).
 
The Gospel according to St. Matthew [10:32-33].




Saint Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church "Super I Epistolam B. Pauli ad Corinthios lectura".

https://www.corpusthomisticum.org/c1r.html#87587

"Caput 11, Versiculus 5

(...) naturaliter autem mulier comam nutrit, ergo naturaliter debet cooperire caput."


"Chapter 11, Verse 5

(...) woman naturally nourishes her hair, therefore she naturally ought to cover her head."

Natural nourishing of hair is also after prayer or prophesying and so naturally covering of head ought to be after prayer or prophesying as well.


"Caput 11, Versiculus 14

Ratio sua talis est: illud quod naturaliter est laudabile et gloriosum alicui, debet ab eo fieri; sed mulieri est laudabile et gloria nutrire comam: haec autem significat velamen capitis; ergo mulier naturaliter debet velare caput."


"Chapter 11, Verse 14

His [of St. Paul] reasoning is this: that which is naturally praiseworthy and glorious to her, she ought to take on. But it is praiseworthy and glorious for a woman to nourish her hair; and this [hair] means a veil on the head; therefore, a woman naturally ought to cover her head.”

Natural nourishing of hair is also after prayer or prophesying and so naturally covering of head ought to be after prayer or prophesying as well.


St. Thomas confirms the continual headcovering of women. These above pronouncements are in the work "Super I Epistolam B. Pauli ad Corinthios lectura" of Saint Thomas Aquinas which was approved by the Catholic Church and so this is the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which is infallible  http://krzyz.nazwa.pl/forum/index.php/topic,10654.msg244674.html#msg244674

The range of the continual headcovering of women (the all hair)


In the Holy Bible the First Epistle to Corinthians [11:5-6, 13] St. Paul the Apostle writes about covering the head by women, and not about partial covering (transparency). In verse [11:10] this Epistle the Apostle writes, that a woman is to have supremacy on head for Angels. In the Commentary to this verse there is "Supremacy. A cover which is a sign of the husband's power over his wife. - For the angels. By respect for angels, because women have witnesses of their shame or shamelessness angels; as well as their obedience or disobedience." Thus it is known that St. Paul writes about cover, and not about partial cover (transparency). Visible hair (especially loose) through a transparent partial headcovering indicate deception, lie, shamelessness, and not shame, disobedience, and not obedience because there is no something like half-Truth (= lie), neither half-deception (= deception), half-shame (= shamelessness), half-obedience (= disobedience). Thus such partial cover is the symbol of rebellion, revolution, lie and hubris. It seems to me that the transparency of women's headcovering means the vestibule and the way of women to pantheism, hedonism, feminism, sexual liberation, egalitarianism.



Pope Pius XI forbade the use of transparent material

books.google.pl/books?id=rCvGCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT65&lpg=PT65&dq=instruction of Pope Pius XI of January 12, 1930 on modesty of clothing&source=bl&ots=pY3N9kn70O&sig=ACfU3U10mq_p0eXMDvGTXMX5MGA7suYNqg&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE1vzzlP3jAhUPAhAIHSg_AgAQ6AEwCHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=instruction of Pope Pius XI of January 12, 1930 on modesty of clothing&f=false

A headcovering is a dress, a clothing
1. because it is used to covering (according to dictionaries of the words meanings a clothing is used to covering)
2. according to the wikipedia (internet).



Saint John Chrysostom, Father of the Church and Doctor of the Church, Bishop "Homilies on First Corinthians".

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220126.htm


In the heading "1 Corinthians 11:6"

""For he said not merely covered, but "covered over ," meaning that she be carefully wrapped up on every side. And by reducing it to an absurdity, he appeals to their shame, saying by way of severe reprimand, "but if she be not covered, let her also be shorn." As if he had said, "If you cast away the covering appointed by the law of God, cast away likewise that appointed by nature.""

From the above words of St. John it also results that the hair have to be completely hidden on all sides, and so hats do not fulfil this requirement among other things.



Saint Ambrose of Milan, Father of the Church and Doctor of the Church, Bishop "Concerning Virginity (Book III)".

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34073.htm


In Chapter 6.

"Is anything so conducive to lust as with unseemly movements thus to expose in nakedness those parts of the body which either nature has hidden or custom has veiled, to sport with the looks, to turn the neck, to loosen the hair? Fitly was the next step an offense against God."

St. Ambrose who calls unveiled hair nakedness [unveiled hair = nakedness] which conducives to lust, and such nakedness always conducives to lust also beyond prayer and prophesying, so all hair have to be veiled continually.



Saint Augustine of Hippo Regius, Father of the Church and Doctor of the Church, Bishop "Of Holy Virginity".

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1310.htm

"34. (..)Nor am I treating of these, in whom there is a certain aim of pleasing, either by more elegant dress than the necessity of so great profession demands, or by remarkable manner of binding the head, whether by bosses of hair swelling forth, or by coverings so yielding, that the fine network below appears: unto these we must give precepts, not as yet concerning humility, but concerning chastity itself, or virgin modesty."




St. Hippolytus of Rome if the following words are his.


The following quotation can be True and can belong to St. Hippolytus of Rome although he is not the Father of the Church

"And let all the women have their heads covered with 5 an opaque cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true covering." [3

3. Hippolytus, and Easton, B. (1934). The Apostolic tradition of Hippolytus. New York: Macmillan, p.43.

http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/bibilotheque_rore_sanctifica/12-pretendue_tradition_apostolique_d_hippolyte/1934-burton_scott_easton-tradition_apostolique_d_hippolyte/Burton_Scott_Easton_-_The_Apostolic_Tradition_of_Hippolytus_(1934).pdf



The observance


Saint John Chrysostom, Father of the Church and Doctor of the Church, Bishop  "Homilies on First Corinthians".

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220126.htm


In the heading "1 Corinthians 11:16"

"It is then contentiousness to oppose these things, and not any exercise of reason. Notwithstanding, even thus it is a measured sort of rebuke which he adopts, to fill them the more with self-reproach; which in truth rendered his saying the more severe. "For we," says he, "have no such custom," so as to contend and to strive and to oppose ourselves. And he stopped not even here, but also added, "neither the Churches of God;" signifying that they resist and oppose themselves to the whole world by not yielding."


In the heading "1 Corinthians 11:6"

"But if any say, "Nay, how can this be a shame to the woman, if she mount up to the glory of the man?" we might make this answer; "She does not mount up, but rather falls from her own proper honor." Since not to abide within our own limits and the laws ordained of God, but to go beyond, is not an addition but a diminuation. For as he that desires other men's goods and seizes what is not his own, has not gained anything more, but is diminished, having lost even that which he had, (which kind of thing also happened in paradise) so likewise the woman acquires not the man's dignity, but loses even the woman's decency which she had. And not from hence only is her shame and reproach, but also on account of her covetousness."


As it seen the above issues apply to women after their finished prayer or prophesying as well. After prayer, she can not be, for example, a feminist or a sexually liberated shameless woman.
The above issues of Obedience, Shame and Modesty of a woman also apply to life beyond prayer, prophesying, church, etc. that is why they poses the Tradition of the Old and New Order, which observance is the obligation of every Christian.

The purpose of a Christian should be an aspiration for perfection the Gospel according to St. Matthew [5:48].




Modesty continued


the First Epistle of St. Peter the Apostle [3:3], the First Epistle to Timothy [2:9], St. Cyprian Father of the Church, Bishop  point 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050702.htm#note053158


But someone can say that Jews (People of God) in the times of The Lord Jesus and Mother of God coloured robes, and so clothing enhancement in simple way is allowed.

Only that People of God stopped at the colouring of clothes on the colours on which they coloured them and they did not embellish them further with laces or colourful signs, ornaments, paint patterns, for curiosity, if one can trust photos from the following links

https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/349521621063713599/?lp=true
https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/752171575246249843/   
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/various-egyptian-costume-left-to-right-mary-evans-picture-library.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/beni-hasan2.jpg
https://www.osiristours.com/women-changed-history-ancient-egypt/
https://www.ancient-egypt-online.com/ancient-egypt-fashion.html
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/ideal-woman-body-gift-gods-0010190
https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/371054456783358417/
https://pl.pinterest.com/pin/19210735880856912/

It was their Simplicity, Humility, Moderation, Shyness, Innocence, Ordinariness, Quietness, Poverty and Scarcity.

By reasoning in this way, gradually improving the clothing from time to time one can come to the very or extremely unsimple clothing because compared to the improved clothing a simple improvement  is used.

Similarly there is with a quantitative fast e.g. in Lent. If you do not comply with the requirement of not eating 1/3 from it what is usually ate before a fast one can contrary to the Church Law and a common sense to limit 1/3 of consumed food in regard to the preceding day. How many will a faster eat on the last day of a quantitative fast in Lent ?

A simple improvement must refer to the starting point, and so to the Natural Simplicity.

This is a real diabolic deception and cunning.

A none Christian would say that Mother of God was not dressed nicely and femininely.

Determining of the Simplicity of clothing by the criterion of cost nowadays does not make sense because people do not see the price. Clothing can be expensive as well although on the market one can purchase clothing in a similar style at a low price. A cost is an indicator for a purchaser of clothing.

The woman's long hair are to her to the glory, while cut or shaved to the ignominy the First Epistle to the Corinthians [11:15, 5-6]. In the Commentary to the verse [11:5] there is "A woman... dishonours her head. Because she acts against the inborn shame given to her by God.". Then, one of the signs of Modesty and Shame of a woman is hiding the glory of her hair and their natural beauty.

The purpose of a Christian should be an aspiration for perfection the Gospel according to St. Matthew [5:48].



As to the following links, one should take the correction for the false headcovering which I wrote about above and for the 1958 sect.

https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/d016rpVeil_8_Goodman.htm


As to the continual headcovering in the Middle Ages

https://www.bustle.com/p/7-absurd-medieval-fashion-rules-that-you-wont-believe-women-actually-had-to-follow-53750


A heading "3. Cover Your Hair When Leaving The House"

"While it might seem outdated to wear a hat just to cover your hair nowadays, it's interesting to point out this shift happened only very recently."


A heading "4. Take The "Sex" Out Of Your Tresses"

" Loose, tumbling hair was so synonymous with sexuality that women couldn't appear outside without it neatly tucked away. Proof in point: Only prostitutes could walk around with their locks out.

"In fact, it was often illegal for sex workers to cover their hair outdoors in the Middle Ages," Seale says. "In the 14th century in Bristol and London, prostitutes could only cover their hair with striped hoods in public. There might not have been a formal legal reprimand, but the power of social disapproval was extremely strong."

So imagine what would happen if you decided a headdress wasn't in your aesthetic that day — you'd walk through town with your hair uncovered and everyone in your village would be suspicious of your career change. In fact, Seale points out that if a woman from the French town Arles saw a prostitute with her hair covered, she had the legal right to rip it off. That's how regulated veiling was."

Maybe that is why that prostitutes are disobedient and shameless regarding their sin of dissipation and this is the negation of the headcovering of Christian women, thus their headcovering is as if a deception and a lie, and these are sins.

Maybe besides the First Epistle to the Corinthians [5:9, 11-12].

And now are their heads properly covered ?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/fashion/2017/04/05/rexfeatures_915577y_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqfmWw8ZtkYoKgUQYLfpqhYgru3YJ7ofjoT4IOPfiqeog.jpg?imwidth=1240

https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/pope-first-lady-veil-gettyimages-obama-88968441.jpg

photos below of the main photo

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.time.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F05%2Fpope-first-lady-veil-gettyimages-obama-88968441.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Ftime.com%2F4792398%2Fmelania-ivanka-trump-veils-vatican-saudi-arabia%2F&tbnid=SMW7wUzzntcgIM&vet=12ahUKEwjg7YqbzeznAhVT4aYKHbziBlAQMygAegUIARDPAQ..i&docid=uTnLSSdcrOP4zM&w=2560&h=1774&q=Benedict%20XVI%20and%20women%20with%20%22mantila%22&ved=2ahUKEwjg7YqbzeznAhVT4aYKHbziBlAQMygAegUIARDPAQ


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/05/b4/c5/05b4c599c312a437a119cb99ac710d8b.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/36/9d/0c/369d0c2ed55ecba81eb9476d45674fb1--catholic-veil-color-meanings.jpg

One hath to assume that all the women in the above photos are unaware or deceived. One can not exclude too that some women can be aware of everything and intentionally do it because, for example, they are jewmasons or their daughters etc. (it is possible that there is such a thing as "artificial the faithful" for deception and authentication).


http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQM_uhzqQ1KNh8Zeq2DI0nCC1QjlI_yFXcXSEoY0eH2ZnGcrmN9PnvjoIQB4lFAf96VsjQ3YnV8&usqp=CAc

This false headcovering (non-Christian kerchief) is not simple (there are many fringes and colourful ornaments) and so it is immodest because Simplicity is a feature of Modesty and it attracts attention.

And if someone associates the kerchief with grandmothers, it is outright desirable and very good that Tradition be associated just like that, with grandmothers. Each woman should be glad because of this. Please do not let the devil persuade you that there is otherwise.


But someone can say "But the Image of Mother of God of Guadalupe hath hair showing in front.".

How many this kind Images or paintings of Mother of God with a little hair showing in front are recognized by the Catholic Church (of course 1958 sect is not the Catholic Church) or how many this kind paintings which with the permission of the Catholic Church could hang in churches, chapels, etc. before 26 October 1958 taking into consideration that such paintings, if they were, could never be consistent with the requirements of the Catholic Church and not be in churches ?

1. Maybe that is why that the bowed head of Mother of God slid out from under the veil emphasizing
    the origin of the Mother of God.

2. Another question is whether Mother of God in Heaven hath head and hair covered (similarly
    regarding the decorated veil and robe of Mother of God of this Image).

Such a saying "But the Image of Mother of God of Guadalupe hath hair showing in front." is not prudent and can be misleading for women. Mother of God when She lived on earth had head and hair completely covered all the time when it was necessary. In the Catholic Church, according to the Christian Tradition, there is in force a total and continual covering of the head and hair of women, also apart from prayer and prophesying.

Mother of God never could not, can not and will not be able to be against the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and Christian Tradition.



Pope Benedict XV in the Confession of Catholic Faith according to the Code of Canon Law (1917), i.e. in the ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible, in an unambiguous way and clearly teaches that every woman is obliged to the continual (not only when she prays or prophesies) covering of head and all hair on it.

https://www.ultramontes.pl/wyznanie_wiary.htm

"I willingly and with reverence accept what the Apostles and the Church give for belief, as well as all the customs and laws of the same Church. I also accept the Holy Scriptures in the understanding which was and is held by the Holy Church, our mother, to which it is appropriate to pass judgment on the true meaning and interpretation of the Holy Scripture, and I will always understand and interpret it only according to the unanimous understanding of the Fathers."

The Catholic Faith is confessed by thought, speech and action.

The Gospel according to St. Matthew [10:32-33].

mantilla is erotic.


It covers a little, but a little not.


"Sixthly, that she will give up the shameless woman's habit of wearing lace robes, exposing breasts, putting ointment on herself with oils and many other vanities which disgust at God" from "St. Bridget the Great Revelations and other works", Kraków 2004, p. 316.


St. Ambrose who calls unveiled hair nakedness [unveiled hair = nakedness] which conducives to lust, and such nakedness always conducives to lust also beyond prayer and prophesying, so all hair have to be veiled continually



Saint Ambrose of Milan, Father of the Church and Doctor of the Church, Bishop "Concerning Virginity (Book III)".

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34073.htm


In Chapter 6.

"Is anything so conducive to lust as with unseemly movements thus to expose in nakedness those parts of the body which either nature has hidden or custom has veiled, to sport with the looks, to turn the neck, to loosen the hair? Fitly was the next step an offense against God."


Let's analyse "Praying woman, dressed in a completely Christian style (MaryAmbrose on Pinterest)" from this website https://www.modestiecatholique.com/6-ou-trouver-des-vetements-modestes/

This false headcovering is not simple (there are many laces). Simplicity is a feature of Modesty. Sleeves to the elbows may be acceptable but it is not completely Christian style which would be if they were to the wrists.

This false headcovering is indecent. Pope Pius XI forbade the use of transparent material

https://books.google.pl/books?id=rCvGCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT65&lpg=PT65&dq=instruction%20of%20Pope%20Pius%20XI%20of%20January%2012,%201930%20on%20modesty%20of%20clothing&source=bl&ots=pY3N9kn70O&sig=ACfU3U10mq_p0eXMDvGTXMX5MGA7suYNqg&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE1vzzlP3jAhUPAhAIHSg_AgAQ6AEwCHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=instruction%20of%20Pope%20Pius%20XI%20of%20January%2012%2C%201930%20on%20modesty%20of%20clothing&f=false

In the Holy Bible the First Epistle to Corinthians [11:5-6, 13] St. Paul the Apostle writes about covering the head by women, and not about partial covering (transparency). In verse [11:10] this Epistle the Apostle writes, that a woman is to have supremacy on head for Angels. In the Commentary to this verse there is "Supremacy. A cover which is a sign of the husband's power over his wife. - For the angels. By respect for angels, because women have witnesses of their shame or shamelessness angels; as well as their obedience or disobedience." Thus it is known that St. Paul writes about cover, and not about partial cover (transparency). Visible hair (especially loose) through a transparent partial headcovering indicate deception, lie, shamelessness, and not shame, disobedience, and not obedience because there is no something like half-Truth (= lie), neither half-deception (= deception), half-shame (= shamelessness), half-obedience (= disobedience). Thus such partial cover is the symbol of rebellion, revolution, lie and hubris. It seems to me that the transparency of women's headcovering means the vestibule and the way of women to pantheism, hedonism, feminism, sexual liberation, egalitarianism.

Such a false headcovering is perhaps also simply a manifestation of snobbery.



Saint John Chrysostom, Father of the Church and Doctor of the Church, Bishop "Homilies on First Corinthians".

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220126.htm


In the heading "1 Corinthians 11:6"

""For he said not merely covered, but "covered over ," meaning that she be carefully wrapped up on every side. And by reducing it to an absurdity, he appeals to their shame, saying by way of severe reprimand, "but if she be not covered, let her also be shorn." As if he had said, "If you cast away the covering appointed by the law of God, cast away likewise that appointed by nature.""

From the above words of St. John it also results that the hair have to be completely hidden on all sides, and so hats do not fulfil this requirement among other things.



Saint Augustine of Hippo Regius, Father of the Church and Doctor of the Church, Bishop "Of Holy Virginity".

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1310.htm

"34. (..)Nor am I treating of these, in whom there is a certain aim of pleasing, either by more elegant dress than the necessity of so great profession demands, or by remarkable manner of binding the head, whether by bosses of hair swelling forth, or by coverings so yielding, that the fine network below appears: unto these we must give precepts, not as yet concerning humility, but concerning chastity itself, or virgin modesty."




St. Hippolytus of Rome if the following words are his.


The following quotation can be True and can belong to St. Hippolytus of Rome although he is not the Father of the Church

"And let all the women have their heads covered with 5 an opaque cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true covering." [3

3. Hippolytus, and Easton, B. (1934). The Apostolic tradition of Hippolytus. New York: Macmillan, p.43.

http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/bibilotheque_rore_sanctifica/12-pretendue_tradition_apostolique_d_hippolyte/1934-burton_scott_easton-tradition_apostolique_d_hippolyte/Burton_Scott_Easton_-_The_Apostolic_Tradition_of_Hippolytus_(1934).pdf



Other examples of eroticism (mantilla) below


https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/d016rpVeil_8_Goodman.htm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/fashion/2017/04/05/rexfeatures_915577y_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqfmWw8ZtkYoKgUQYLfpqhYgru3YJ7ofjoT4IOPfiqeog.jpg?imwidth=1240


almost all photos below of the main photo

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.time.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F05%2Fpope-first-lady-veil-gettyimages-obama-88968441.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Ftime.com%2F4792398%2Fmelania-ivanka-trump-veils-vatican-saudi-arabia%2F&tbnid=SMW7wUzzntcgIM&vet=12ahUKEwiZmfzr8sfpAhXJuCoKHRbZDHwQMygAegQIARAX..i&docid=uTnLSSdcrOP4zM&w=2560&h=1774&q=Pope-first-lady-veil-getty%20images-obama-88968441%20photo&client=firefox-b-d&ved=2ahUKEwiZmfzr8sfpAhXJuCoKHRbZDHwQMygAegQIARAX


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/05/b4/c5/05b4c599c312a437a119cb99ac710d8b.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/36/9d/0c/369d0c2ed55ecba81eb9476d45674fb1--catholic-veil-color-meanings.jpg

One hath to assume that all the women in the above photos are unaware or deceived. One can not exclude too that some women can be aware of everything and intentionally do it because, for example, they are jewmasons or their daughters etc. (it is possible that there is such a thing as "artificial the faithful" for deception and authentication).


And are deep cutting-outs probably after 1200 among other things of Queen Marie of Medici (and other Catholic Queens) and her visible breasts traditional Catholic practice as well ?

Do you consider that the world tradition = Christian Tradition ?

As we see mantilla = the world tradition.



As it can see the continual covering of head and all hair of Christian women is the obligation and not following it is a sin.

The following forgeries are contrary to the Holy Bible and the teaching of St. Cyprian the Father of the Church, the Bishop.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050702.htm#note053158
 
 

Forgeries in the alleged Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas

I already wrote about proven forgeries in this topic

http://krzyz.nazwa.pl/forum/index.php/topic,10206.0.html


Since jews forged the Holy Bible, at least one the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Code of Canon Law then why not the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas ? Why not ?



Covering of hair by women
 
Covering of hair by women is the Commandment of God and the Gospel according to St. John [15:18-19], the Gospel according to St. Matthew [5:13-16] [10:32-38] [5:48].
 
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3169.htm
 

Article 2.
The last sentence over "Reply to Objection 1."
 
"Yet in this case some might be excused from sin, when they do this not through vanity but on account of some contrary custom: although such a custom is not to be commended."
 
By the contrary custom, in this way one can justify other sins because why not ? For example, a large cutting out to the breasts in order to one could see them a bit, wearing of trousers by women or a miniskirt.

The Gospel according to St. Matthew [10:32-33].



Painting and adornments
 
Article 2.
"Reply to Objection 2."
 
"However, such painting does not always involve a mortal sin, but only when it is done for the sake of sensuous pleasure or in contempt of God, and it is to like cases that Cyprian refers."
 
The above sentence it seems to me internally contradictory because such painting is always done for the own sensual pleasure or other people (e.g. husband) who watch it except to hide a disfigurement appropriate from some cause such as sickness or the like which is the return to normality, and not to something above normality what is done for the sensual pleasure. St. Cyprian point 15 and 17.
 

"Wherefore Augustine says (Ep. ccxlv ad Possid.): "To dye oneself with paints in order to have a rosier or a paler complexion is a lying counterfeit. I doubt whether even their husbands are willing to be deceived by it, by whom alone" (i.e. the husbands) "are they to be permitted, but not ordered, to adorn themselves.""
 
1. At the beginning of this sentence there is "To dye oneself with paints", and at the end "to adorn themselves". As if it was about two different things, modest adorning is allowed the First Epistle to Timothy [2:9].
 
2. The construction of this excerpt "(...), by whom alone" (i.e. the husbands) "are they to be permitted, (...)" is strange.
 
3. This applies only wives.
 
St. Cyprian
"17. (...) Let married women see to it, in what respect they are flattering themselves concerning the solace of their husbands with the desire of pleasing them, and while they put them forward indeed as their excuse, they make them partners in the association of guilty, consent. (...)"
 

and elsewhere of the alleged Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas
 

"But those women who have no husband nor wish to have one, or who are in a state of life inconsistent with marriage, cannot without sin desire to give lustful pleasure to those men who see them, because this is to incite them to sin. And if indeed they adorn themselves with this intention of provoking others to lust, they sin mortally; whereas if they do so from frivolity, or from vanity for the sake of ostentation, it is not always mortal, but sometimes venial. And the same applies to men in this respect."
 
But this is not only about their perspective but that they are the reason of depravation, the Gospel according to St. Matthew [18:6-7]. What about women coming to the male and female bath and washing themselves maybe even without a brassiere ? Can they say - this is the problem of men, I have come here only to wash ? St. Cyprian point 9 and 19.
 

"Hence Augustine says (Ep. ccxlv ad Possid.): "I do not wish you to be hasty in forbidding the wearing of gold or costly attire except in the case of those who being neither married nor wishful to marry, should think how they may please God: whereas the others think on the things of the world, either husbands how they may please their wives, or wives how they may please their husbands, (...)"
 
This is contrary to the First Epistle of St. Peter the Apostle [3:1-3], the First Epistle to Timothy [2:9] and the teaching of St. Cyprian point 12 and 21.
 
 

Do all these forgeries not look analogously to the talmud ?

Do all these forgeries not look analogously to the talmud ?

Ciężko powiedzieć. A co na ten temat mowi Talmud?

Do all these forgeries not look analogously to the talmud ?

Ciężko powiedzieć. A co na ten temat mowi Talmud?

talmud iest dyabelskim komentarzem do Tory. Te fałszerstwa są dyabelskim komentarzem do Pisma Świętego.

Ktoś może się spotkać z twierdzeniem, że Tertulian iest Oycem Kościoła w znaczeniu szerszym. W takim wypadku odsyłam do ewolucyi definicyi, o której mowa w tym temacie http://krzyz.nazwa.pl/forum/index.php/topic,10206.0.html

"Because protestants are not pagans therefore the Catholic Church hath called them heretics because they were validly baptized, and a heretic can not be a Christian because the Holy Baptism is inextricably linked to professing the True Faith, so protestants can not call themselves Christians because of the reception of the valid Holy Baptism. Why did the Catholic Church not leave the name "Christians" for them when the name "Catholics" appeared and just remained with the name "heretic" ? Why would the Catholic Church start to call heretics Christians and confirm them in error, thereby acting to their detriment for the Salvation of their souls ? It does not make sense.


The definition of the words "Christianity", "Christians", "a Christian" can not evolve because it is modernism."

Naybardziej godnym y skromnym nakryciem głowy dla niewiast iest welon Matki Bożej, kiedy żyła na ziemi y każda niewiasta winna do niego dążyć.


Poniższe nakrycia głowy są mniey godne niźli welon Matki Bożej, kiedy żyła na ziemi.


Wszytkie poniższe obrazy pochodzą z XIX wieku (proszę zwrócić uwagę, iż dzieweczka y młoda dziewka takoż maią nakrycia głowy). https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Millet

Niewiasty zbieraiące kłosy


Anioł Pański


Niewiasta przy piecu


Wykopki


Sadzący ziemniaki


Praczki


Niewiasty zbieraiące kłosy


Zimowe zbieraczki chrustu


Chłop szczepiący drzewo (proszę zwrócić uwagę, iż dzieweczka takoż ma nakrycie głowy)


Proszę pominąć krótszą spódnicę (krótsze spódnice u młodych dziewek poczęła wprowadzać żydomasoneria we wtórey połowie XIX wieku)

A to nakrycie głowy?

A to nakrycie głowy?

Toć nie iest nakrycie głowy niewiast. Proszę przeczytać całą wprowadzaiącą wiadomość do tego tematu.

Te są 100% koszer:


Włosy należycie zakryte, spódnice dobrej długości, no i jeszcze covid-compliant jako bonus.

Ktos mi powie, jakim alfabetem sie ten uzyszkodnik posluguje? Bo to ani staropolski, ani lacinski.

Ja bardzo przepraszam, ale... ale poyeb.

Szur ala pan Salwowski vel Brawario