Another Head Covering Question

[L2P2]

I also think it’s odd when someone says they are called to go against something that is rather specifically laid out in the Bible. While it is no longer required I do find it odd that anyone would be called to go against those words, as if God changes his mind (which we all know he doesn’t because he’s outside of time). I accept that the Church says it’s not required, but I would be skeptical if I personally received a “call” that went against the word of God.

But this logic would require us to keep all the commandments of Leviticus (613 rather than the 10), and we do not because Christians believe Christ is the Messiah and ushered in a new law. We eat pork, for example, and we worship on Sunday rather than on Saturday.

For Roman Catholics, tradition as kept by the Church is an arbiter as important as a strict reading of the Bible. Indeed, in medieval Catholic interpretation, there were 4 levels of interpretations with the literal the least important. More recently, Hans Kung was required to step down as a teacher of Catholic theology in part because his work placed too much emphasis on a literal reading of the Bible over against the magisterium.

Please note that I’m not in any way disrespecting strict observance or covering one’s head. For an audience with the Pope, women who refuse to cover (Hillary Clinton comes to mind), show deep disrespect for Catholic tradition.

What I am objecting to more is the idea that a literal reading of the Bible can be used to judge some else’s practice, or lack of it.

 

[RedSoxWife]

But this logic would require us to keep all the commandments of Leviticus (613 rather than the 10), and we do not because Christians believe Christ is the Messiah and ushered in a new law. We eat pork, for example, and we worship on Sunday rather than on Saturday.

The difference is that Leviticus is an old testament book and Corinthians is a New Testament book. Paul instructed women to cover their heads after Jesus died for our sins. Jesus death created a new covenant that w are bound by (the whole “whoever lives by the law will be judged by the law” thing that is so often twisted and warped from Paul’s original intention when he was writing his letter to the Romans).

For Roman Catholics, tradition as kept by the Church is an arbiter as important as a strict reading of the Bible. Indeed, in medieval Catholic interpretation, there were 4 levels of interpretations with the literal the least important. More recently, Hans Kung was required to step down as a teacher of Catholic theology in part because his work placed too much emphasis on a literal reading of the Bible over against the magisterium.

But this wouldn’t be going against any of the teachings of the magesterium. I would absolutely never do that.

Please note that I’m not in any way disrespecting strict observance or covering one’s head. For an audience with the Pope, women who refuse to cover (Hillary Clinton comes to mind), show deep disrespect for Catholic tradition.

What I am objecting to more is the idea that a literal reading of the Bible can be used to judge some else’s practice, or lack of it.

Women aren’t required to cover their heads any longer. I’m not questioning that. I am questioning the statement, which felt rather mocking to me the first time I read it several weeks ago, when in response to my comment (which was that I felt called to cover my head but that I couldn’t judge someone who did not cover) someone said that they felt “called not to cover.” I didn’t say that that was impossible. I said that if I felt called by God to go against a teaching in the Bible, I would worry over where that impulse was coming from. I’d probably speak with my confessor.

What is required is the bare minimum of what we must do. It does not mean that it’s all we should do.

 

[L2P2]

I am questioning the statement, which felt rather mocking to me the first time I read it several weeks ago, when in response to my comment (which was that I felt called to cover my head but that I couldn’t judge someone who did not cover) someone said that they felt “called not to cover.”

Agreed on this.

Re the Bible and practice: The literal level is the least important for the NT too, not just the OT.

 

[AnneElliot]

Mantillas are not customary in the northern part of the world that I live in. People would think I had just come from vacation in Spain. It would be the same as wearing one of those huge African head scarves that tower a foot into the air. And I would not be caught dead anywhere wearing skimpy shorts and spaghetti straps tops. Neither would my kids, whose Catholic school code forbids such wear at school, so we certainly would never allow it at church.

Who cares what people think?

My comment regarding immodest dress at Mass was not directed at you or your daughters specifically.

 

[RedSoxWife]

Agreed on this.

Re the Bible and practice: The literal level is the least important for the NT too, not just the OT.

I think we agree on this too (the literal part)! But I don’t think it’s a literal interpretation to try to follow what is put forth in the NT. That’s where of our beliefs come from. I wouldn’t put my personal interpretation of scripture over the Church’s teachings. But I don’t see how following the teachings of St Paul would be seen as being to “literal.” Particularly since it’s in agreement with the teachings of the Church. It is the foundation for much of what came after.

Interestingly enough, the Church hasn’t addressed this specifically (at a high level at least). And there’s quite a bit of disagreement on it. I prefer to give women who don’t cover the benefit of the doubt and assume that those who say it’s not required are correct.

I’m afraid the “too literal” argument could then be used against many things that it wouldn’t make sense to apply them to (ie “Jesus told us to love our neighbor as ourselves…well you can’t take that too literally”). I don’t take every word of the Bible literally, but I don’t think you can apply the statement “you can’t take it literally” without invalidating the entire thing and the basis for our religion. Do you take it literally when Jesus says “you are Caipha and upon this rock I build my Church?”

Take the letter to the Corinthians for what it is. A letter by St Paul to tell people how to live. Nothing had nullified it. Until the Church says “no, that’s not what it meant take that off your head” (not going to happen) I’ll keep my veil or hat firmly on my head.

 

[slyboots]

Ok. Just so as to clarify here. If we read Paul in Corinthians he says "But since it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Now, that being said, if you do not feel that pertains to you and whether you cover or not, that is between you and God.
But please let us agree that is what Paul says whether you feel you must cover or not.
So if,and this is hypothetical, Paul was talking to Ailina who apparwently has shorn hair, he would say “let her be covered”.
Paul is obviously not around so Ailina ( and anyone else who is shorn and does not cover) need not worry about that of course.
But should, on the great off chance God speak to you in your heart and ask you to cover while at prayer and mass (or all the time), I hope that those who heard those words would do so out of love and obedience.
Please no offence is meant by this, no sarcasm is being used. I am just stating what I believe. And we who cover are not more pious, more filled with grace or holy than those who don’t.

One more thing I just thought of…to think that those who cover are pharisiacal is probably a mistake. For we do not cover because of the law…indeed we cover because of the spirit of the law.

 

[slyboots]

The 1917, (old) Code of Canon Law. canon 1262, stated,

1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.
2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

Someone on another thread said since this was abrogated then could men wear hats while assistaing at sacred rites?:whacky:

And of course when was the last mass you went to where men and women sat apart?

 

[L2P2]

And of course when was the last mass you went to where men and women sat apart?

I have never seen this, even at a Latin mass, and my mother says she never did either (she’s in her 70s). Has anyone seen this at an RC church?

 

[RedSoxWife]

Nope. I’ve only heard of them doing it in the Eastern Catholic Churches that are in communion with Rome (like Maronite).

 

[Love_is_Patient]

For an audience with the Pope, women who refuse to cover (Hillary Clinton comes to mind), show deep disrespect for Catholic tradition.

Ummm, Mrs. Clinton DID cover in the presence of the Pope:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Now back to the regularly scheduled debate…

Love is Patient

 

[L2P2]

One time HRC did, another time not (although I would really rather not take this into politics . . . it’s off topic and unimportant).

 

[Ailina]

One time HRC did, another time not (although I would really rather not take this into politics . . . it’s off topic and unimportant).

That second picture looks like it was taken elsewhere than in the Pope’s private audience place in Rome, but rather some public place. Nobody in the pic is wearing a head covering.

 

[L2P2]

Again, I really don’t think this is important, but there is at least one woman in the photo covering her hair.

It may not have been diplomatic protocol for her to cover in a larger audience; I don’t know. But when I was in Rome 20 years ago, just after getting married, the priest who interviewed us before we were given permission to attend a papal audience said that many women did cover (the audience was held in a sizeable auditorium).

 

[simple_soul]

This may be short because I am on my phone but here goes.

I don’t see how you can call an excert from Corinthians something that was put together by the Church. It was written by St Paul as is much of the Bible. I would be worried if I felt a “call” that went against specific New Testament instructions. I would be worried that it wasn’t genuine. But I cannot judge whether or not someone is being called to do something I can only give my opinion on what I would do if I felt called to go against something that is in the Bible. Women are not required to veil because the Church has made that exception, but I do find it odd that God would call someone to go against the teachings in his divinely inspired word.

The sexy comment is in response to the quote I gave aboutwomen not needing to veil because few have long distracting sexy hair. I thought it was a bit silly because I don’t see hair as “sexy”.

You might want to brush up a little bit on how the Bible was put together. There were many Gospels that were written by more people than just the ones in the Bible we know today. It was a Pope (I am not sure which pope it was but I know it was in the Early Church), with a council that put the Bible together. They used the Gospels that they thought would convey the message of Jesus the best at that time. So if in the future the Church decides certain messages do not pertain anymore and other messages do then they have the right to say that. So weather you wear a head covering or not you still, in the Church’s Eye, have reverence, piety, etc, ect, ect…

I think I heard the term used on a different thread that describes this the best. The Church has the athority of loosening and binding. If you can not accept that Church has deemed that a women can be reverent, pious, ect…ect…ect… weather she covers her head or not, then I would have to say you are putting yourself above what the Church has deemed good. I believe that the Church is God’s Living Divinley inspired Word. The Pope and the Bishops, are our current athority of God’s Divine Will like St.Peter, St. Paul, St. Mark, St.Luke, St.Matthew, and St.John were the athority of God’s Divine Will when they were still on earth.
This is the best I can do at explaining this. I hope it makes sence and if it does not maybe there is some one out there who could explain it better.

I do still love the picture of you daughter

 

[slyboots]

You might want to brush up a little bit on how the Bible was put together. There were many Gospels that were written by more people than just the ones in the Bible we know today. It was a Pope (I am not sure which pope it was but I know it was in the Early Church), with a council that put the Bible together. They used the Gospels that they thought would convey the message of Jesus the best at that time. So if in the future the Church decides certain messages do not pertain anymore and other messages do then they have the right to say that. So weather you wear a head covering or not you still, in the Church’s Eye, have reverence, piety, etc, ect, ect…

I think I heard the term used on a different thread that describes this the best. The Church has the athority of loosening and binding. If you can not accept that Church has deemed that a women can be reverent, pious, ect…ect…ect… weather she covers her head or not, then I would have to say you are putting yourself above what the Church has deemed good. I believe that the Church is God’s Living Divinley inspired Word. The Pope and the Bishops, are our current athority of God’s Divine Will like St.Peter, St. Paul, St. Mark, St.Luke, St.Matthew, and St.John were the athority of God’s Divine Will when they were still on earth.
This is the best I can do at explaining this. I hope it makes sence and if it does not maybe there is some one out there who could explain it better.

I do still love the picture of you daughter

I don’t really think anyone here is saying that the Church and Magisterium require us to cover now.
We cover because God asked us to do so. Yes, the Church can abrogate a 2000 year old tradition, no question about it. Christ gave it that power through Peter. We are NOT putting ourselves above the Church or the teachings of the Church. We are responding to God’s request.
I would not want the Church to feel it is necessary to require women to cover. But if God asks, what else should we do?

 

[RedSoxWife]

You might want to brush up a little bit on how the Bible was put together. There were many Gospels that were written by more people than just the ones in the Bible we know today. It was a Pope (I am not sure which pope it was but I know it was in the Early Church), with a council that put the Bible together. They used the Gospels that they thought would convey the message of Jesus the best at that time. So if in the future the Church decides certain messages do not pertain anymore and other messages do then they have the right to say that. So weather you wear a head covering or not you still, in the Church’s Eye, have reverence, piety, etc, ect, ect…

I think I heard the term used on a different thread that describes this the best. The Church has the athority of loosening and binding. If you can not accept that Church has deemed that a women can be reverent, pious, ect…ect…ect… weather she covers her head or not, then I would have to say you are putting yourself above what the Church has deemed good. I believe that the Church is God’s Living Divinley inspired Word. The Pope and the Bishops, are our current athority of God’s Divine Will like St.Peter, St. Paul, St. Mark, St.Luke, St.Matthew, and St.John were the athority of God’s Divine Will when they were still on earth.
This is the best I can do at explaining this. I hope it makes sence and if it does not maybe there is some one out there who could explain it better.

I do still love the picture of you daughter

I’m glad you like the picture.

It was at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo that it was put together.

When I said “I don’t see how you can call an excert from Corinthians something that was put together by the Church” I meant the actual letter as a whole (not the Bible). It was a letter, which was written to the Corinthians (I was probably unclear because I was typing on my little phone). The letter was written by Paul, and not pieced together by the Church.

My husband is in grad school, working towards becoming a Canon Lawyer and since I’m the proofreader of all his papers and his sounding board for ideas I get quite a bit of history, theology, Christology, ect. but thanks for the review,

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here and I haven’t in any post. It doesn’t oppose anything I’ve said.

I 'm not judging other women’s decisions not to veil (I feel like a broken record). And I’ve said several dozen times that it doesn’t appear to be required, although there is still much debate (I’ve even read different sides by Canon Lawyers). There has never been a definitive teaching by the magesterium, one way or the other, The Church did not come out and say, stop veiling after Vatican 2, although some reporters covered it that way.

I absolutely accept that the Church has the power to loose and to bind (one of the parts of the Bible that led me to Catholicism). I’m still waiting for the Church to announce this change and actually say that women don’t have to cover. I still would because I would still feel compelled to, but it would end the debate.

My question was not whether you could be reverent while unveiled (I absolutely agree that you can), but whether God would “call you” not to veil. I can understand deciding that you don’t want to veil, and that is absolutely your right. I just questioned whether saying you were “called” not to veil, by God, was accurate. It’s really just a matter of semantics. I’m not sure how, by any stretch of the imagination, anyone can say that goes against Church teachings.

The second the Pope or magesterium says veiling is not required, I’ll stop debating on veiling threads. I’m not sure I would take the teachings of Bishop as unquestionably, because there are quite a few liberal bishops (like the one speaking at my husbands school a few months ago advocating birth control). The thing is, the Pope and magesterium haven’t said it yet. They haven’t “loosed” it, if you will, as far as I can tell. If you can find a place where they have I’d love to see it.

 

[simple_soul]

I’m glad you like the picture.

It was at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo that it was put together.

When I said “I don’t see how you can call an excert from Corinthians something that was put together by the Church” I meant the actual letter as a whole (not the Bible). It was a letter, which was written to the Corinthians (I was probably unclear because I was typing on my little phone). The letter was written by Paul, and not pieced together by the Church.

My husband is in grad school, working towards becoming a Canon Lawyer and since I’m the proofreader of all his papers and his sounding board for ideas I get quite a bit of history, theology, Christology, ect. but thanks for the review,

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here and I haven’t in any post. It doesn’t oppose anything I’ve said.

I 'm not judging other women’s decisions not to veil (I feel like a broken record). And I’ve said several dozen times that it doesn’t appear to be required, although there is still much debate (I’ve even read different sides by Canon Lawyers). There has never been a definitive teaching by the magesterium, one way or the other, The Church did not come out and say, stop veiling after Vatican 2, although some reporters covered it that way.

I absolutely accept that the Church has the power to loose and to bind (one of the parts of the Bible that led me to Catholicism). I’m still waiting for the Church to announce this change and actually say that women don’t have to cover. I still would because I would still feel compelled to, but it would end the debate.

My question was not whether you could be reverent while unveiled (I absolutely agree that you can), but whether God would “call you” not to veil. I can understand deciding that you don’t want to veil, and that is absolutely your right. I just questioned whether saying you were “called” not to veil, by God, was accurate. It’s really just a matter of semantics. I’m not sure how, by any stretch of the imagination, anyone can say that goes against Church teachings.

The second the Pope or magesterium says veiling is not required, I’ll stop debating on veiling threads. I’m not sure I would take the teachings of Bishop as unquestionably, because there are quite a few liberal bishops (like the one speaking at my husbands school a few months ago advocating birth control). The thing is, the Pope and magesterium haven’t said it yet. They haven’t “loosed” it, if you will, as far as I can tell. If you can find a place where they have I’d love to see it.

Judge: to form an opinion about through carful weighing of evidence and testing of premises.
Let me but it a little plainer. If you question some ones calling you are judging them. I do not think there is any amount of scriptuer you could quote and I do not think you could sugar coat it enough. When you question someone’s calling you and use scripture and old traditions or new traditions to back it up. You are judgeing them. I think it makes it a worse type of judging when you question the Popes and Magesterium.

I think that if the Pope and Magesterium by not saying anything about having to veil then that would meen they are in agreement with the previouse Popes and Mangesteriums decisions. So if they have not binded something that the earlier Popes and Magesterium have loosed, then it is still “loosed”.

 

[simple_soul]

I don’t really think anyone here is saying that the Church and Magisterium require us to cover now.
We cover because God asked us to do so. Yes, the Church can abrogate a 2000 year old tradition, no question about it. Christ gave it that power through Peter. We are NOT putting ourselves above the Church or the teachings of the Church. We are responding to God’s request.
I would not want the Church to feel it is necessary to require women to cover. But if God asks, what else should we do?

The Pope united with the Bishops through the Holy Spirit Is the word of God and His Church! If you question the past, current or future teachins of the Church you question God’s Word!

 

[slyboots]

Simplesoul said. “The Pope united with the Bishops through the Holy Spirit Is the word of God and His Church! If you question the past, current or future teachins of the Church you question God’s Word!”

What I keep trying to express to you is that I do believe the Magisterium has loosed the REQUIREMENT to wear a cover as a law or rule of the Church. I have no problem with that. They say it is not necessary for women in general to cover.
The wearing of a covering is not worn as opposition to that rule. It is worn because for we believe that for some of us God asks us to veil. But not because we are special, pious , holy or reverent. Perhaps because it is needed to help us become so. For others there may be another reason.

Our journeys of faith are different depending on our personalities. God knows me better than I know myself. When I felt called to cover at prayer I was surprised. I was also afraid of what people would think. I worried if the veil would make me too hot.
But, I said yes anyway. And my prayer life and spirituality have become stronger for it. My trust in God has become greater. Because I obeyed a calling from Him. It is not the veil that does is it but God’s movement in my life through the wearing of it.

Some ladies cover all the time. I have not done that yet. But I recognize that may come. And if He asks I will say yes.

And I will be in complete obedience to the Pope and magisterium when I do. because the Chruch has never said “A woman cannot wear a headcovering”. Nor will they I am sure.

I hope you do not mean by your post that because we wear veils while at prayer we are disputing the authority of the Church.

 

[RedSoxWife]

Judge: to form an opinion about through carful weighing of evidence and testing of premises.
Let me but it a little plainer. If you question some ones calling you are judging them. I do not think there is any amount of scriptuer you could quote and I do not think you could sugar coat it enough. When you question someone’s calling you and use scripture and old traditions or new traditions to back it up. You are judgeing them. I think it makes it a worse type of judging when you question the Popes and Magesterium.

I think that if the Pope and Magesterium by not saying anything about having to veil then that would meen they are in agreement with the previouse Popes and Mangesteriums decisions. So if they have not binded something that the earlier Popes and Magesterium have loosed, then it is still “loosed”.

You can judge actions without judging a person (we leave that to God). How else could one commit a Spiritual Work of Mercy such as reproving the sinner?

Show me any piece of any statement by the Pope or the teachings of the Church (the Magesterium) that has loosed it. That is what I asked. I agree completely that if you can produce that, then the argument has ended. The problem is that no Pope has said it is lifted. Do your homework.

I do not believe that women are wrong in not veiling. That would be judging. I do not believe that anyone is sinning by not veiling. I’m not even judging their actions as incorrect!

I’m pretty sure that every one of you on here are pretty amazing people. You come on and debate theological topics. That’s unusual! It’s great. Obviously religion is a major part of your life. However I think it’s important to debate these topics. That’s why we’re here. Maybe you can’t debate without judging someone. I can because I know that I don’t know a thing about you! But if a topic comes up that I care about I am going to give my opinion. Dialogue is important. We can learn from each other! What is it they say “Iron sharpens iron.”

The only thing I disagreed with was your use of the word to call. And I absolutely said I could be wrong. That’s between you and God. I’ve never said any differently. I said I would be worried if I felt a call that went against the Bible (particularly since the Magesterium and Pope have ignored the question, in our time and in every other time!). That’s how I would feel if I felt this particular “calling.” That’s just me. **But it’s between you and God. ** You shouldn’t care what I think about your use of the word! I actually thought you were mocking those of us who feel called to veil the the first time you used it because your tone came across as very aggressive. If you were genuine (and I take you at your word that you were), then I will absolutely believe you were called by God to keep your head uncovered! It’s great that you’re listening to your conscience.

That said, you seem to be putting words in the mouth of a Pope and Magesterium that I have never heard. If there really have been such statements I absolutely would love to read them. I would be bound by them. I absolutely submit to the teachings of our Church, even as I have submitted to every other teaching.

So far all I have been convinced of is that the Vatican was very merciful in not forcing the issue after some stupid female reporter purposefully misunderstood what one of the Cardinal’s was saying when he left the 2nd Vatican Council one day. I have yet to find it said anywhere that the Pope or Magesterium said “women no longer have to cover their heads.” ** If you can point out where this happened and when I would really appreciate it**.