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

  • Thread starter Thread starter ComeHome2Rome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
zaffiroborant said:
Homilies, like the one you quote from, by the way are not binding on the church.
Click to expand...
The Bible teaches us about head coverings. The Old Testament teaches through out that for a women to have her head covering removed is shameful, a bad, dishonorable thing. The New Testament, St. Paul appeals to both natural law & divine as to why women ought to cover their heads.

Plus, all of the writings of the Church Fathers, that mention women head covering, state that it is necessary.

So while you are correct in saying that a single homily by a single Church Father doesn’t necessarily mean he’s correct on a particular issue, I think we’d be wise that when we have the Bible, New & Old Testaments Plus every Church Father who mentions this issue over the span of hundreds of years ALL in agreement that women should cover their heads, and no Church Council rescinding the expected tradition, then we’d be safe in following the anciently established tradition which has been practiced unhindered for approx. 1900s…Unless we had a REALLY compelling reason NOT to. I’m all ears 🙂
 
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...
Hasire said:
Indianapolis isn’t in Latin America .
Click to expand...
Ah I see so you were specifically referring to Latin America only, in which by your words THE VERY MOMENT Vatican II was implemented EVERY girl and women INSTANTLY STOPPED using head coverings.

!] Obviously not true in America. Latin [Rite] American Catholic Church.

2] Obviously not true at all for there was NO VERY INSTANT the V-II Mass was implemented.

3] Last but not least…its your burden of Proof, you made the claim. provide the evidence.
 
ComeHome2Rome said:
I think:
  1. This is totally off topic
  2. Satan took Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures & used them in attempt to tempt Jesus Christ to sin (which didn’t work). Even if someone evil uses the writing of someone holy doesn’t mean the writing itself or the writer is evil; otherwise, we’d have to throw out the Bible based on Satan’s misuse of it.
  3. St John Chrysostom is a Saint in the Catholic Church & his Divine Liturgy used in the Eastern Catholic Masses through out most of the Catholic Church Year, so your failed attempt to tarnish his reputation by claiming his writings to be Hitler’s inspiration to commit atrocities against the Jews, Catholics, Russians & other groups just isn’t kosher
Click to expand...
St. John Chrysostom said what he said in those 8 homilies, Hitler applied those words the way he wanted, just like the OP is applying his words as she pleases. This is not an effort to tarnish his reputation simply to point out that his words are not gospel nor are his homilies binding on the whole church…
 
ComeHome2Rome said:
The Bible teaches us about head coverings. The Old Testament teaches through out that for a women to have her head covering removed is shameful, a bad, dishonorable thing. The New Testament, St. Paul appeals to both natural law & divine as to why women ought to cover their heads.

Plus, all of the writings of the Church Fathers, that mention women head covering, state that it is necessary.

So while you are correct in saying that a single homily by a single Church Father doesn’t necessarily mean he’s correct on a particular issue, I think we’d be wise that when we have the Bible, New & Old Testaments Plus every Church Father who mentions this issue over the span of hundreds of years ALL in agreement that women should cover their heads, and no Church Council rescinding the expected tradition, then we’d be safe in following the anciently established tradition which has been practiced unhindered for approx. 1900s…Unless we had a REALLY compelling reason NOT to. I’m all ears 🙂
Click to expand...
Tradition being the keyword here. I think you would be wise to talk to your priest about your problem with head coverings. After all they have the authority in issues like this.
 
zaffiroborant said:
Tradition being the keyword here. I think you would be wise to talk to your priest about your problem with head coverings. After all they have the authority in issues like this.
Click to expand...
I don’t have a “problem” with head coverings. Do you?

I have spoken with priests re: head coverings. They say the ancient tradition rooted in the Bible has never been overturned by the Church to their knowledge. If you know something different than what the Bible & Church Fathers say re: the necessity of head coverings for women, please tell me- cite the canon, cite the council, etc. that over turns the Holy Bible & ancient tradition of the Church in this matter.
 
zaffiroborant said:
St. John Chrysostom said what he said in those 8 homilies, Hitler applied those words the way he wanted, just like the OP is applying his words as she pleases. This is not an effort to tarnish his reputation simply to point out that his words are not gospel nor are his homilies binding on the whole church…
Click to expand...
I suppose you want us all to believe that the writings of St. John Chrysostom are erroneous because someone evil took them & twisted them into his evil plot…then you also have to throw out the Holy Bible as well because Satan took them & twisted them into his evil plot. Throwing out the Holy Bible & disregarding the Church Fathers, no wonder there’s argument against head covering for women- the Holy Tradition has been thrown out.
 
Problem is that in the spirit of the universal Church, we work as communion, and not center church practice on one person.

I know that the work was never completed by Vatican II on the Mass. Pope Benedict was working on giving direction on the Liturgy, and his basic point to the priests prior to his resignation is that authority in the Church comes from its consecrated administration, not the congregation.

The Catholic faithful has evolved in some places to Cafeteria Catholics where they believe they have the authority to pick and choose what they want to believe. It is the easy way.

I was in one parish and heard of a near by one, modern parishes may be then about 20 to 30 years old and they were out to make a new church. One priest went through hell dealing with them. He told me they were ‘Congregationalists’ in spirit and practice. The archbishop came out personally to observe one of them and a woman came up to him and asked him what he was doing there. They all left eventually.

The other problem in past experimentation was the watering down of Catholicism by priests, things that were once sins, were no more or just trust Jesus will forgive you, no push for regular confessions.

People lost the sense of sin. There is a passage in Scripture about God appearing to Moses in a burning bush and telling him to come closer but to remove his sandals.

There is this problem of encountering God too commonly.
 
zaffiroborant said:
St. John Chrysostom said what he said in those 8 homilies,
Click to expand...
They must be read in context. It is against the Judaizers who were forcibly converting Christians. And…you are off topic.
zaffiroborant said:
Hitler applied those words the way he wanted,
Click to expand...
Hitler was a monster and it makes sense that he would attempt to twist the meaning of a great saint.
zaffiroborant said:
This is not an effort to tarnish his reputation simply to point out that his words are not gospel nor are his homilies binding on the whole church…
Click to expand...
We have here the witness of Sacred Scripture in conjunction with the writings of multiple Church Fathers. The OP has a valid point.
 
ComeHome2Rome said:
I suppose you want us all to believe that the writings of St. John Chrysostom are erroneous because someone evil took them & twisted them into his evil plot…then you also have to throw out the Holy Bible as well because Satan took them & twisted them into his evil plot. Throwing out the Holy Bible & disregarding the Church Fathers, no wonder there’s argument against head covering for women- the Holy Tradition has been thrown out.
Click to expand...
You seem to believe that all the Early Fathers are in agreement about what does it mean to cover a woman’s head. But they have different ideas about what the word “head” means. In my posts (#18 and #59) I quoted their opinions about the necessity of covering not only women’s HAIR, but their FACE as well. So are you prepared to cover your FACE 24/7, thinking that this is what God asks of women?? The burden of proof is not on anyone else to demonstrate that the Church doesn’t require it; the burden of proof is on you to prove that this kind of women’s invisibility is a requirement of God.

You seem to believe that all the Early Fathers are in agreement about the reason for asking women to become invisible. But they are proposing very different reasons. One says that women SHOULD NOT TEMPT ANGELS, another says that women SHOULD SHOW REVERENCE TOWARDS ANGELS, another says that a woman who doesn’t cover her hair and face is A SNARE TO MEN, another says that a woman with no covering over her face PROSTITUTES HER FACE, implying that the hair and face of a woman are something shameful, indecent, conducive to sexual sin. Who do you believe and who do you reject?

And if you accept only the idea that your hair is shameful and indecent, why don’t you believe that your face is shameful and indecent too? Do you honestly feel that you don’t show enough reverence towards God and/or angels or that you are “a snare to men” (or guilty of tempting angels) if you go for a walk or to buy bread at the store without covering your head and face? If you watch TV or cook a dinner without covering your head and face, you feel guilty, repent and confess your “sin”? Did any priest ask you such things?

Besides, you seem to believe that because John Chrysostom is a saint recognized even by Catholics, he can’t be wrong and we should blindly follow everything they say. But Catholics don’t subscribe to that diatribe against Jews quoted by Zafiroborant; this rejection has to do with the fact that the homily is anti-Semitic, regardless whether Hitler used it or not. Neither do Catholics subscribe to John Chrysostom’s theory that the Virgin Mary was guilty of the sin of vanity at the Wedding at Cana.
 
vames said:
The whole point of this thread is the necessity of covering women’s heads ALL THE TIME, 24/7, not only in church.
Click to expand...
Well, I think the argument is very good for covering in Church. And if a woman feels called to cover all the time…this too can be defended through Scripture and tradition.
 
Thank God for the presence of Mary in the universal Church.

I think of Jewish men who wear the skullcap all the time because they want to live constantly in God’s presence. And as I said on this thread, I know a convert from Protestantism who is now wearing a hat outdoors and to be more a gentleman.

A few of us want to be covered, not because we are a snare to men, etc., but it is more akin to entering into the sacred presence of God’s dwelling place, as well as a desire to live a more contemplative lifestyle in this profane world.
 
KathleenGee said:
ThA few of us want to be covered, not because we are a snare to men, etc., but it is more akin to entering into the sacred presence of God’s dwelling place, as well as a desire to live a more contemplative lifestyle in this profane world.
Click to expand...
Amen.
 
KathleenGee said:
Thank God for the presence of Mary in the universal Church.

I think of Jewish men who wear the skullcap all the time because they want to live constantly in God’s presence. And as I said on this thread, I know a convert from Protestantism who is now wearing a hat outdoors and to be more a gentleman.

A few of us want to be covered, not because we are a snare to men, etc., but it is more akin to entering into the sacred presence of God’s dwelling place, as well as a desire to live a more contemplative lifestyle in this profane world.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this beautiful post. Your motive and devotion are inspiring. Also your (to me) clear intention that you don’t expect this of anyone but yourself is laudatory. You’ve been a uniting force in a very divisive issue. :grouphug:
 
vames said:
Two Catholic saints, unaware that their bare heads were a temptation for angels and a snare to men:

St Gemma Galgani (1878 – 1903)
stgemmagalgani.com
bing.com/images/search?q=gemma+galgani&go=&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=gemma+galgani&sc=8-13&sp=-1&sk=

St Gianna Molla (1922 – 1962)
saintgianna.org
bing.com/images/search?q=gianna+molla&go=&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=gianna+molla&sc=8-10&sp=-1&sk=#x0y3100
Click to expand...
Both of these Catholic Saints came over 800 years after the Catholic Church left Orthodoxy and a few hundred years after Catholic Saint St. Thomas Aquinas wrote FOR full-time head covering of women.

So back to the original post? When did women of your denomination Stop head covering full time? At some point between St. Thomas Aquinas’ time & St, Gemma Galgani’s time. Do you know exactly when? And what reason(s) were given for the new unveiled practice?
 
vames said:
opinions about the necessity of covering not only women’s HAIR, but their FACE as well. So are you prepared to cover your FACE 24/7, thinking that this is what God asks of women??
Click to expand...
God Bless you 🙂

You ask a valid question. I have read one Father who says “but also the face, especially the eyes”. It’s sound like a burka, right? 😃

Looking at this from a Biblical stand point, there is a basis for this in at least one place in the Old Testament of a woman covering her face that I can think of- the story of Tamar. BUT this isn’t a part of tradition and we know that because:
  1. Covering of a woman’s face isn’t mentioned in the New Testament, but covering the head is mentioned in both the Old & New Testaments
  2. The writing of a single Father on an issue doesn’t constitute a tradition, but covering the head is found in many of the Church Fathers and all that mention it, mention it as an established tradition and many state from Apostolic times.
  3. The vast majority of the Church Fathers who wrote of covering head are Saints
  4. Covering of a woman’s face isn’t found in any Icons, but covering the head is found universally in the Icons of Christian women even back to the catacombs!
In determining what is & isn’t a part of tradition we have to look at what is Consistent:
  1. In the Bible
  2. In the writings of the Church Fathers
  3. In the practice of the Saints
  4. In the witness of the Holy Icons
Each of these areas show a consistent practice of a Christian woman covering her head.

I’m gathering from your post that this idea is repulsive to you and that you take it as something negative and something that is intended to make women “invisible” is the term you used. I’m really sorry that you feel that way. The Fathers that went into great detail over 1 Cor. 11 did make it clear in their writings that women are equal to men. Equal to men, yet different. Ours (women) is a place to be loved & protected, to obey our husbands, to have & raise children & to cover our heads. Men can Not give birth to a child - it’s physically impossible & men can Not cover their heads before the glory of God in Church - it’s not permissible! While, yes we are equal, but we can’t ignore the fact that we are different physically & emotionally and we can’t ignore that God designed us for different roles. Rather than fight against God’s Will & design for us women, we ought to rejoice 👍

Also, I don’t see any contradiction within the Church Fathers when they emphasis various reasons as to Why a Christian woman ought to cover as there are many reasons- St. Paul specifically cites 3 reasons, but that doesn’t mean it’s limited to that.

I wore a full head covering today at work & got sneers from the old man at the office and a request of an explanation from my boss- both Protestant Christians. And then, for the rest of the day, these men looked me in my eyes as they spoke to me & were careful about the taste of jokes they said in my presence and two young men came in & gave me great respect & blessed me with their wishes of Peace before they left. I felt more visible & more respected than usual. From my experience today, a head covering on a woman makes men more respectful than normal.

Please pray from my eldest daughter’s co-worker who made a failed attempt at suicide yesterday. May God Bless and heal her heart.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top