Everyday headcovering?

[coffeeandcigarette]

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. Question - how many this kind paintings are recognized by the Catholic Church (of course 1958 sect is not the Catholic Church) ?

First of all, this is not really a painting. Secondly, it is much older than your 1958 sect...) Our Lady of Guadalupe is completely approved by the church at every ecclesiastical level.

And have I ever denied that it is recognized by the Catholic Church or that it is much older than the 1958 sect ? What did you write about ?

the 1958 sect this is the sect which hath been occupying the old Vatican since 26 October 1958.

And what if not a painting ? Please give the credible source and quotation. And if not you hath not answered the question which you wrote under.

Man, what is with you and the "credible source" line. Do you just copy and paste that into every discussion? It is not a painting, there was no paint. It was miraculously imposed on the tilma by Our Lady herself. She didn't use paint. It was a miracle. Do you ever look up anything on your own or do you just come here so everyone else can do your homework for you?

If it is like that then answer the question - How many this kind Images or paintings are recognized by the Catholic Church (of course 1958 sect is not the Catholic Church) ?

Well there aren't that many. That would be like asking how many miracles of the sun the church has approved...um, one? Also "this kind" is tricky, there really aren't any others just like this; although, I would say: the shroud of Turin, the painting of Our lady Cz?stochowa, and a few others.

It is about your question from 19 February 2020:

Our Lady of Guadalupe had a little hair showing in front. Thoughts?

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) ?

Well that is a whole different animal. You are looking to validate an image the Mother of God herself imposed on a tilma, by asking what other paintings the church has "approved" of. The church doesn't "approve" painting Hugu. For instance, Julian II had Michelangelo paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling, the next pope had all the nudity covered over by another artist, Pope John Paul II had the coverings all removed to "restore" the original art. I have traveled extensively and I can tell you that there are pictures of Our Lady with hair showing, in some instances no veil at all, in churches across Europe. Are these "approved," there is no such thing. They were just hung there. Most of the paintings in churches across Europe were simply ordered by wealthy influential families and donated to the church. They were not commissioned, and the church never had to approve anything except by way of saying "yes, you can hang that here." As you know, what would have been allowed/welcome would vary from priest to priest, bishop to bishop, etc. Are there literally hundreds of paintings of Our Lady breastfeeding, hanging in churches around the world? Yes! Does this mean that you are going to find one in your local SSPX chapel? No. Again, there is no "approval" process to satisfy you. I think in this instance you can either look at the massive collection of art showing Our Lady with exposed hair and say "well, ok;" or you can just except the image Our Lady herself manifested/imposed/gifted to us.

[Hugues de Payns]

Well that is a whole different animal. You are looking to validate an image the Mother of God herself imposed on a tilma, by asking what other paintings the church has "approved" of. The church doesn't "approve" painting Hugu. For instance, Julian II had Michelangelo paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling, the next pope had all the nudity covered over by another artist, Pope John Paul II had the coverings all removed to "restore" the original art. I have traveled extensively and I can tell you that there are pictures of Our Lady with hair showing, in some instances no veil at all, in churches across Europe. Are these "approved," there is no such thing. They were just hung there. Most of the paintings in churches across Europe were simply ordered by wealthy influential families and donated to the church. They were not commissioned, and the church never had to approve anything except by way of saying "yes, you can hang that here." As you know, what would have been allowed/welcome would vary from priest to priest, bishop to bishop, etc. Are there literally hundreds of paintings of Our Lady breastfeeding, hanging in churches around the world? Yes! Does this mean that you are going to find one in your local SSPX chapel? No. Again, there is no "approval" process to satisfy you. I think in this instance you can either look at the massive collection of art showing Our Lady with exposed hair and say "well, ok;" or you can just except the image Our Lady herself manifested/imposed/gifted to us.

As for the removal of all the coverings to "restore" the (original ?) art, made by antipope John Paul II, it is interesting. Thank you. Of course, this is not surprising. Supposedly the Council of Trent stated that the images of the more prominent figures depicted on the frescoes should not be bare.

As for the false "SSPX" chapels then I do not know why you wrote "your". Nothing connects me with this heretical sect.

Devilry controls in the Consecrated churches taken over by 1958 sect so I am not surprised at the false paintings of Mother of God. I meant those Images and paintings which with the permission of the Catholic Church could hang in churches, chapels, etc. before 26 October 1958.

In my profile there is "Hugues" and not "Hugu".

[coffeeandcigarette]

Well that is a whole different animal. You are looking to validate an image the Mother of God herself imposed on a tilma, by asking what other paintings the church has "approved" of. The church doesn't "approve" painting Hugu. For instance, Julian II had Michelangelo paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling, the next pope had all the nudity covered over by another artist, Pope John Paul II had the coverings all removed to "restore" the original art. I have traveled extensively and I can tell you that there are pictures of Our Lady with hair showing, in some instances no veil at all, in churches across Europe. Are these "approved," there is no such thing. They were just hung there. Most of the paintings in churches across Europe were simply ordered by wealthy influential families and donated to the church. They were not commissioned, and the church never had to approve anything except by way of saying "yes, you can hang that here." As you know, what would have been allowed/welcome would vary from priest to priest, bishop to bishop, etc. Are there literally hundreds of paintings of Our Lady breastfeeding, hanging in churches around the world? Yes! Does this mean that you are going to find one in your local SSPX chapel? No. Again, there is no "approval" process to satisfy you. I think in this instance you can either look at the massive collection of art showing Our Lady with exposed hair and say "well, ok;" or you can just except the image Our Lady herself manifested/imposed/gifted to us.

As for the removal of all the coverings to "restore" the (original ?) art, made by antipope John Paul II, it is interesting. Thank you. Of course, this is not surprising. Supposedly the Council of Trent stated that the images of the more prominent figures depicted on the frescoes should not be bare.

As for the false "SSPX" chapels then I do not know why you wrote "your". Nothing connects me with this heretical sect.

Devilry controls in the Consecrated churches taken over by 1958 sect so I am not surprised at the false paintings of Mother of God. I meant those Images and paintings which with the permission of the Catholic Church could hang in churches, chapels, etc. before 26 October 1958.

In my profile there is "Hugues" and not "Hugu".

I know I know, but it takes a long time to type all that, so I just go with Hugu...lol.

The paintings in the churches I am talking about are all well before 1958. We are talking 1200-1300-1400-1500-1600. nothing modern at all.

[Hugues de Payns]

The paintings in the churches I am talking about are all well before 1958. We are talking 1200-1300-1400-1500-1600. nothing modern at all.

I do not believe ! You do not provide any credible evidence. Different people say different things. In this way you can lie how much you want.  Besides, such paintings, if they were, could never be consistent with the requirements of the Catholic Church and not be in churches. Another question is whether Mother of God in Heaven hath hair covered.

In my profile there is "Hugues" and not "Hugu".

I know I know, but it takes a long time to type all that, so I just go with Hugu...lol.

Suffice it to add "es" to "Hugu" = "Hugues". Is it a lot ? "Hugu" is offensive.

[Traditionallyruralmom]

As long as the woman isn't doing it to live out some nostalgic fantasy, I don't there's anything wrong with it.

And what makes this wrong?  Women today dress in all sorts of "culturally appropriate" ways that live out strange fantasy's......wanting to be men or older women dressing like they are 23.......ect ect
I myself think Tasha Tudor had the right idea, and I am happy to revel in my nostalgia.  If people don't like it, they can look away and take in the leggings and other modern fashion atrocities to their hearts content 

[Daniel]

.

[coffeeandcigarette]

As long as the woman isn't doing it to live out some nostalgic fantasy, I don't there's anything wrong with it.

And what makes this wrong?  Women today dress in all sorts of "culturally appropriate" ways that live out strange fantasy's......wanting to be men or older women dressing like they are 23.......ect ect
I myself think Tasha Tudor had the right idea, and I am happy to revel in my nostalgia.  If people don't like it, they can look away and take in the leggings and other modern fashion atrocities to their hearts content 

Yes and yes! There is nothing wrong with enjoying some things from the past as long as we don't make a circus of ourselves. Also, Tasha Tudor is a hero of mine!

[Traditionallyruralmom]

Yes and yes! There is nothing wrong with enjoying some things from the past as long as we don't make a circus of ourselves. Also, Tasha Tudor is a hero of mine!

me too, in her lifestyle and her ability to live as she pleased.  There are things about her as a Catholic that I cannot support, but thats the way it goes with most public figures 

[Lynne]

Yes and yes! There is nothing wrong with enjoying some things from the past as long as we don't make a circus of ourselves. Also, Tasha Tudor is a hero of mine!

me too, in her lifestyle and her ability to live as she pleased.  There are things about her as a Catholic that I cannot support, but thats the way it goes with most public figures 

and she loved corgis!