Attn. Christians of Various Traditions: Women & Head Covering ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ComeHome2Rome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I know Vatican II was the reason for this. (I’m not talking about Orthodoxy, but Catholicism)

My mom (who is Catholic) told me that before Vatican II and the change of the mass, every girl and their grandmasin the Latin American Catholic Church used head-covering, not matillas, but head-covering nonetheless. She told me the very moment Vatican II and the new mass were implemented, every girl and their grandmas stopped using them. Instantly.

I invite you guys and gals to Latin America, come to mass, and see for yourselves. Then, see photos of masses served 50 years ago, and you’ll see the difference.
 
Hasire said:
I know Vatican II was the reason for this. (I’m not talking about Orthodoxy, but Catholicism)

My mom (who is Catholic) told me that before Vatican II and the change of the mass, every girl and their grandmasin the Latin American Catholic Church used head-covering, not matillas, but head-covering nonetheless. She told me the very moment Vatican II and the new mass were implemented, every girl and their grandmas stopped using them. Instantly.

I invite you guys and gals to Latin America, come to mass, and see for yourselves. Then, see photos of masses served 50 years ago, and you’ll see the difference.
Click to expand...
Aside from 3 who left or changed my and my husbands entire family is Catholic and that is not the way they describe things happening. Older siblings remember my mother still wearing a hat to church (she liked them) but she did quit pinning a kleenex on my sisters head if she for got her little round head thing.

Again Vatican 2 does not address head coverings, there is nothing in the documents about it at all.
 
zaffiroborant said:
Aside from 3 who left or changed my and my husbands entire family is Catholic and that is not the way they describe things happening. Older siblings remember my mother still wearing a hat to church (she liked them) but she did quit pinning a kleenex on my sisters head if she for got her little round head thing.
Click to expand...
I was there, that was just before the polyester fad, 😛
 
zaffiroborant said:
From your source

These children were not working for their pocket money, they were working because men were not being paid enough to support families.

I’d also point out that often these women suffragettes, that people love to revile as the source of all of today’s evils, were also the ones who pushed to have children educated instead of being put to work in factories with dangerous and wretched conditions.
Click to expand...
This is also from the 1800’s. After WWW II men were able to support their families on one income. Then women began entering the work force not because they had to but because they wanted more luxuries. Now don’t start pointing out all the exceptions. There were women who needed to work to support the family but this was not the majority of women who worked. This in turn developed into families no longer being able to live on one income. The idea that women contributed to the family by caring for the home is being supplanted that women should work to support the family.

The next step will be to return to child labor. As you pointed out, it began with the industrial revolution because families became poor moving off the farm thinking they could do better with industry. All the family had to work in order to survive. I think it won’t be long until this is true again. Incidentally, the wage paid to the children was either non-existent or very minimal. They worked because if they didn’t the employer took it out on their parents.
 
adrift said:
After WWW II men were able to support their families on one income.
Click to expand...
Or, more accurately, “After WWII some privileged men, and especially white men, though not all of them, were able to support their families on one income.”
adrift said:
Then women began entering the work force not because they had to but because they wanted more luxuries.
Click to expand...
Or “Then more women began entering the workforce for a variety of reasons, some of which were somewhat novel consequences of the industrial revolution and the rise of suburbia.”
adrift said:
The idea that women contributed to the family by caring for the home
Click to expand...
Was itself something of a novelty in the larger scope of history. Prior to the industrial revolution, most people, both male and female, worked at or very close to home.
 
aspirant said:
Or, more accurately, “After WWII some privileged men, and especially white men, though not all of them, were able to support their families on one income.”
Click to expand...
Privileged? Well than there was a lot of them not just some
Or “Then more women began entering the workforce for a variety of reasons, some of which were somewhat novel consequences of the industrial revolution and the rise of suburbia.”
Click to expand...
:confused: It wasn’t the consequence of either but more of a result of the war. There was a variety of reasons but the result was the same. They flooded the work force forcing women who did not wish to work outside the home who wished to rear their children. The children than became raised instead of reared.
Was itself something of a novelty in the larger scope of history. Prior to the industrial revolution, most people, both male and female, worked at or very close to home.
Click to expand...
Yeah! So? The majority worked on the farm. They had their division of work. The woman cared for the children and the house even then. Now no longer are the children being cared for by parents but by substitute parents. Not people who care for them because they are related (although the lucky ones have grandparents who are caring for them.) but by caretakers who are paid who are caring for a group. I wonder if this is the cause of the rise in autism?

This is so off topic:o
 
adrift said:
:confused: It wasn’t the consequence of either but more of a result of the war.
Click to expand...
The circumstances in which people were living after WWII were not shaped by the war alone, but also by what happened before and what followed.
adrift said:
There was a variety of reasons but the result was the same.
Click to expand...
There have been many results and, not surprisingly, they’re a pretty mixed bag.
adrift said:
They flooded the work force forcing women who did not wish to work outside the home who wished to rear their children.
Click to expand...
The majority of women throughout history have engaged in a variety of forms of labor other than child rearing (cf. that woman, so popular in some circles, depicted in Proverbs 31). That, in the mid-20th century, in order to engage in other labor, some had to do so “outside the home” (something which many women already did, in truth) was, in part, due to circumstances arising from the industrial revolution and the rise of suburbs, as I mentioned.
adrift said:
The majority worked on the farm.
Click to expand...
Among other occupations, yes.
adrift said:
They had their division of work {on farms}. The woman cared for the children and the house even then.
Click to expand...
Pretty much all cultures have engaged in some sexual division of labor, which can vary quite a bit from one culture to another, but the labor itself was not so discretely divided between “what’s for business” and “what’s for family.” That’s a largely recent development.
adrift said:
I wonder if this is the cause of the rise in autism?
Click to expand...
:confused:
adrift said:
This is so off topic:o
Click to expand...
:o
 
andrewstx said:
I used to be a member of a ROCOR church until it closed, that is the only church I’ve ever been in where women cover their heads routinely.
Click to expand...
Yes. Most ROCOR women cover their heads.
andrewstx said:
I have never seen a woman covered in Greek, Antiochian, or OCA churches.
Click to expand...
I have seen many women in those jurisdictions with their heads covered…including my wife and daughter. 😉
 
Mickey said:
Yes. Most ROCOR women cover their heads.
I have seen many women in those jurisdictions with their heads covered…including my wife and daughter. 😉
Click to expand...
🙂

Me too, minus Antiochian as I’ve never been to one to see.
 
it’s just using the person. And that is wrong. “use you then throw you out when i’m bored or interested in someone else” is disgustingly wicked. And th majority of the world isn’t right. The majority make up the average and the average is rotten. Yuck ew and yuck some more. It’s disrespectufl, degraded, and carnal. and we aren’t meant to be only for the world. And when i dabbled in Buddism, we also were taught to transcend the world. Think you’re fine with not having enough self-respect to be above treating others without highest value, love and worth and sacrifice? such yuck practices, but easy, and the weak, again, make up the majority.

Contraception is a sin because it tries to take away/control God and His Power and His Will. Further more even in marriage it is a sin because of that; but also because even though CONSCIOUSLY you think you’re fine and dandy, on a soul level, you know that you have used and been used for CARNALITY. Because if it isn’t for children, and you don’t want children that year, you shouldn’t be having sex. And that’s entirely possible because you don’t want to be a slave to anything. Anything that you have to alleviate by indulging in is sickly pathetic.

By the way, can always pick a fornicator out. They are such slaves to their sin, it may as well be tattooed on them all over. It poisons the soul and then infects all other parts of your life and existance.

Fornication is a sickening corruption that is commonplace. Even in the new age religion it is said when you “do it” with another you are sharing all that is good and bad about yourself and visa versa. It means the filth in their soul enters your soul. An interesting theory on behalf of new age, it at least says that one should pick wisely ones mates.

But for the most part
we are not animals we are human. We have been given much.
I think that you are here arguing only to try and win over your conscience by saying eveyone else is wrong. Because you know and are confronted by the Catholic teaching and forbiddance on this disgusting and common practice that will COST YOUR SOUL. So you’re a fornicator who wants to rid yourself of the guilt that you’d rather hide from.

God is there telling you that you are worth more and should honour others more than to use them. If you want the milk, Marry.
The Bible also says that. If you can’t help yourself, Marry, because that assists the sinful part. Of lust, carnality and slavery to ones sensuality.

Mind you the Bible said fornicators WILL NOT INHERIT HEAVEN.

It’s not things of this world that you should be concerned with, they lead to hell. If you attach too much to things that will ROT IN THE GRAVE you run the risk of staying here; as in, you won’t get to heaven with things that aren’t of heaven.

And i pray that God corrects the weak willed and yuck within His Church, throwing out teachings taht are too tough with them.
It is a religion, not a club and you’re deciding between soft drink or beer.
It’s a religion and you must respect and adhere. Too many Catholics are ‘label Catholics’ they seem to think it’s a status icon saying ‘i’m moral’ or ‘i’m cool’ ‘big huge family’
It’s not a fashion accessory.

ALso the Bible says to be crucified to the world.

And that you won’t want to continue to sin.
Sin is rancid and all sin leads to death.

Trying to con your conscious and buying that won’t be an excuse you can offer on your judgement.

You know it’s a mortal sin. And that isn’t ignorance. That is pathetic weakness in you.

BTW that’s not judgement/condemnation of you as a human. i don’t know you from a grease trap. But i can and do judge DEEDS and ACTIONS and ATTITUDES as right or HELL SERIOUS WRONG>

Fornication is a sin, it’s carnality, it’s corruption of the beauty and love contained within the sacred act done By love with love for love within the confines and duty of marriage.
“Submit yourselves to your wives/husbands.”

Read the Bible. Stop playing games with what your conscience knows to be true.
You’re a slave of the sin that has conquered you. And you’ll never con God. Never ever. Even if you succeed at buying your own self-denial lies.
 
adrift said:
This is also from the 1800’s. After WWW II men were able to support their families on one income. Then women began entering the work force not because they had to but because they wanted more luxuries. Now don’t start pointing out all the exceptions. There were women who needed to work to support the family but this was not the majority of women who worked. This in turn developed into families no longer being able to live on one income. The idea that women contributed to the family by caring for the home is being supplanted that women should work to support the family.

The next step will be to return to child labor. As you pointed out, it began with the industrial revolution because families became poor moving off the farm thinking they could do better with industry. All the family had to work in order to survive. I think it won’t be long until this is true again. Incidentally, the wage paid to the children was either non-existent or very minimal. They worked because if they didn’t the employer took it out on their parents.
Click to expand...
Maybe instead of castigating women who want to be able to decide for themselves whether or not to work you should take a look at business and industry then.
 
Hasire said:
How do you know it is a Latin American Church?
Click to expand...
:newidea: Because I looked. :rotfl:

Saint Rita Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis. And yes that’s America though it wouldn’t matter as V-II was worldwide.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top