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

[ComeHome2Rome]

This question is for Christians of all various Christian Traditions & is of interest to me based on my research into 1 Cor. 11 & the Church Fathers re: women & full-time head covering. I’ve been surprised to discover from the Fathers that from the beginning it was practiced world-wide & was unanimously taught that Christian women were expected to wear opaque head coverings from their forehead down to the cover the natural length of the hair when unbound from the time they hit puberty-on and that this was to be done at all times, not just while at Church or during prayer and they describe in great detail that this is the ancient practice because the angels are everywhere and that a woman who dared not cover her head was rebelling against God and His Divine Order of things. With that being said, my question is:

What Christian Tradition do you belong to & at what time in it’s history did it No longer be expected for Christian women of your Tradition to cover their heads full-time & when it’s history did it no longer be expected for women at Church & during prayer And further, what reason was given for it to be acceptable for a Christian woman of your Tradition to be uncovered.

I ask because to-date I’ve only found it changed during/after the secular women’s lib movement which brought us artificial birth control, abortion, wide-spread divorce, double income families to avoid poverty & a bunch of other not so wonderful & not so Christian stuff. In the Orthodox Church head covering is mostly still practiced & expected, but only during Church & prayer with the exception of some full-time head covering women.

Some of the Church Fathers I’ve read on the subject include: John Chrysostom, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Novatian, Commidianus, Cyprian & even the Apostolic Constitutions.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

This question is for Christians of all various Christian Traditions & is of interest to me based on my research into 1 Cor. 11 & the Church Fathers re: women & full-time head covering. I’ve been surprised to discover from the Fathers that from the beginning it was practiced world-wide & was unanimously taught that Christian women were expected to wear opaque head coverings from their forehead down to the cover the natural length of the hair when unbound from the time they hit puberty-on and that this was to be done at all times, not just while at Church or during prayer and they describe in great detail that this is the ancient practice because the angels are everywhere and that a woman who dared not cover her head was rebelling against God and His Divine Order of things. With that being said, my question is:

What Christian Tradition do you belong to & at what time in it’s history did it No longer be expected for Christian women of your Tradition to cover their heads full-time & when it’s history did it no longer be expected for women at Church & during prayer And further, what reason was given for it to be acceptable for a Christian woman of your Tradition to be uncovered.

I ask because to-date I’ve only found it changed during/after the secular women’s lib movement which brought us artificial birth control, abortion, wide-spread divorce, double income families to avoid poverty & a bunch of other not so wonderful & not so Christian stuff. In the Orthodox Church head covering is still practiced & expected, but only during Church & prayer.

 

[Publisher]

Friends at one time placed great empasis on head coverings and clothes…it separated us from the “world” and made us quite distinctive in appearance…I am grateful that such “distinctive” garb is no longer a test of faith or “Quakerliness”…now how one lives and treats his or her neighbor and responds according to the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth is what is important…not whether one has a certain hat or head covering or what color of clothes one wears.

 

[KathleenGee]

Just talking with my sister this pm. I would like to wear a mantilla. I would stand out in parisy and draw attention to myself ongoing.

From what I understand, Vatican II abrogated such ecclesial traditions, but I would love to wear one.

 

[grasscutter]

I’m a bit confused. Are you suggesting that woman covered their heads/hair full time prior to the 21st century as a matter of course and it was only changed in the last century?

 

[Julianna]

This question is for Christians of all various Christian Traditions & is of interest to me based on my research into 1 Cor. 11 & the Church Fathers re: women & full-time head covering. I’ve been surprised to discover from the Fathers that from the beginning it was practiced world-wide & was unanimously taught that Christian women were expected to wear opaque head coverings from their forehead down to the cover the natural length of the hair when unbound from the time they hit puberty-on and that this was to be done at all times, not just while at Church or during prayer and they describe in great detail that this is the ancient practice because the angels are everywhere and that a woman who dared not cover her head was rebelling against God and His Divine Order of things. With that being said, my question is:

What Christian Tradition do you belong to & at what time in it’s history did it No longer be expected for Christian women of your Tradition to cover their heads full-time & when it’s history did it no longer be expected for women at Church & during prayer And further, what reason was given for it to be acceptable for a Christian woman of your Tradition to be uncovered.

I ask because to-date I’ve only found it changed during/after the secular women’s lib movement which brought us artificial birth control, abortion, wide-spread divorce, double income families to avoid poverty & a bunch of other not so wonderful & not so Christian stuff. In the Orthodox Church head covering is still practiced & expected, but only during Church & prayer.

There is no such tradition in the Baptist Church (my mother)…and I stopped wearing a hat to Church when I was about 9 or 10, around 1967-68. Haven’t worn one since. Not sure what the big deal is.

It’s so easy to blame the women’s movement on this…sad really. Strawman…or should I say straw-woman.

 

[Publisher]

Just talking with my sister this pm. I would like to wear a mantilla. I would stand out in parisy and draw attention to myself ongoing.

From what I understand, Vatican II abrogated such ecclesial traditions, but I would love to wear one.

There are still older Friends who wear the head covering…a light lace “Mennonite” looking bonnet for women and a dark grey or black plain hat for men…it is part of their spiritual practice…it carries deep meaning for them…if you feel it would deepen your spiritual life and practice…you should wear a head covering. As long as you do it because it is a spiritual “disipline” and not simply to draw attention to yourself.

In my Meeting, some of us wear hats in the winter…ball caps in the summer and do not take them off unless a Friend is moved to offer vocal prayer. Neither do we remove our hats when others stand to give vocal ministry…but only when we rise to give vocal ministry.

The reasons for wearing one only you can determine.

 

[Lisa1967]

I am attending an Episcopal church at present. Women in the various churches I have attended do not wear hats or head coverings, but I don’t know if they will wear hats at Easter. I don’t know what the tradition was for women when the Church of England was first founded during Henry VIII’s time.

 

[dzheremi]

All OO women cover in church. Depending on the local culture of the place they live, they may cover outside of it, too. Back home in northern California there is large Habesha (Ethiopian/Eritrean) community, and it is common to see them covered in their netela (this) when they are out and about, especially among older women. Sometimes they even get the cross tattooed on their faces, which is a custom from the old country I’ve also seen carried over here. They’re pretty hardcore, I guess. It’s sort of funny because Habesha (and most Ethiopian highland people, like the Tigrayans) are almost all Orthodox, so sometimes I’ll go to the local Ethiopian restaurant, where there’s crosses on the walls and a big framed photo of the Church of St. George in Lalibela (the famous rock-hewn church), and silly people will still whisper to each other “I think these people are Muslim…why are there crosses everywhere?”, all because the women are covered!

Oh, silly non-Ethiopians!

 

[Allegra]

I’d actually like to see a return to head covering for women. I don’t think it is necessary to do it all the time. Actually, if you don’t, I think it seems more special when you do it in Church. My one concern is that it might cause scandel to outsiders. As other posters have pointed out in this thread. Most Americans have only experienced head covering on Muslim women. The reason a Catholic women would do this is very different from the reason a Muslim woman does it and I wouldn’t want people to think that the Church taught the same teachings about womanhood that the Muslims do.

 

[PetiteFoi]

Just talking with my sister this pm. I would like to wear a mantilla. I would stand out in parisy and draw attention to myself ongoing.

From what I understand, Vatican II abrogated such ecclesial traditions, but I would love to wear one.

So wear one luv!
I have always felt convicted to cover, and while I don’t all the time, I do at chruch.
I did when I went to a Reform Presbyterian church (where oddly enough the headcovering became a bit of a fad and for a good couple of years 97% of the women there covered with a scarf) and I still do at the Catholic parish I’m currently attending.
I wear this, a fabric snood; every Sunday (I have red/white/lilac)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Women, as you’ve said, have covered for years - and if a woman in the CC feels convicted to cover than she should without fearing judgment.
I am one of the very few who do cover in church, but it’s a decision I make based on my heart, not what someone else may think.

Peace,
~ PetiteFoi

 

[vames]

At least the Muslim reason for veiling women (protecting women from lustful men) has the excuse of being a honest admission that some men have a lust problem and want to avoid it. The “Christian” reason mentioned by the OP is dishonest in this respect and… not Christian at all, since it uses mythological fantasies about incubi and succubi and even angels of heaven who lust after women, so women have to cover their heads so as not to become guilty of tempting angels. Thank God people eventually realized that Jesus Christ didn’t teach such absurdities.

 

[Mariem2]

In the 1950’s we (Roman Catholics) were expected to cover our heads at Mass. It wasn’t obligatory, but the nuns insisted on it for us children and all women wore hats or headscarves anyway. We didn’t have to cover our heads for casual visits to the church. People wore whatever type of hat/scarf was fashionable at the time. At one stage (possibly 1960’s) mantillas were very popular and some of them were an eyesore. Boys and men always removed their hats/caps inside the Church.

Very few women wear hats now except in very cold weather. It think the practice died out some time in the mid to late 1960’s.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

The “Christian” reason mentioned by the OP is dishonest in this respect and… not Christian at all, since it uses mythological fantasies about incubi and succubi and even angels of heaven who lust after women, so women have to cover their heads so as not to become guilty of tempting angels. Thank God people eventually realized that Jesus Christ didn’t teach such absurdities.

I am the OP & I didn’t offer a “Christian” reason Not to cover because I have yet to find one. The only reason I can find (so far) is a non-Christian one.

The Holy Spirit inspired St. Paul to write in 1 Cor. 11:10 “For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”.

One of the reasons citing For covering being “because of the angels” is also spoken about in the Church Fathers (pre-schism & pre-Islam) like in St. John Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians Homily XXVI “Ver. 10. ‘For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head.’ ‘For this cause:’ what cause, tell me? ‘For all these which have been mentioned,’ saith he; or rather not for these only, but also’because of the angels.’ Saith he, ‘yet reverence the angels.’”

St. John Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians Homily XXVI is truly an interesting read- just to give an idea of the strong language used in this long multi-layered defense: “Thus much in answer to the heretics: but we must also orderly go over the whole passage. For perhaps some one here might have doubt also, questioning with himself, what sort of acrime it is for the woman to be uncovered? What sort of crime it is, learn now from hence…and tell me Not this, that the error is but small. For first, it is great even of itself: being as it is a disobedience. Next, though, it were small, it became great because of the greatness of the things whereof it is a sign. However, that it is a great matter, is evident from its ministering so effectually to good order among mankind, the governor andthe governed being regularly kept in their several places by it. So that she who transgresseth disturbs all things, and betrays the gifts of God…for to her it is the greatest of honors to preserve her own rank; as indeed of disgraces, the behavior of a rebel.”

There is a lot more, but I just list that to give an idea of how strongly head covering of Christian women was understood by the Church Fathers over the course of centuries. (Catholics, they may also be interested to read St. Thomas Aquinas on the matter of full-time covering of Christian women’s heads).

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

I’d actually like to see a return to head covering for women. I don’t think it is necessary to do it all the time.

Because I’m trying to understand, I’ll ask you on what do you base your thought that it’s not necessary to do it all the time?

I ask because I’ve not found any Church Father who indicated it was “optional” for a Christian (not rebellious) women.

The Fathers I’ve read wrote it that it wasn’t a matter of culture- like Tertullian who wrote: “Therefore, no one can impose any condition on it: no space of time, no influence of persons, and no privilege of regions…lest anyone ascribe the custom to Greek or barbarian Gentilehood.”

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

All OO women cover in church. Depending on the local culture of the place they live, they may cover outside of it, too. Back home in northern California there is large Habesha (Ethiopian/Eritrean) community, and it is common to see them covered in their netela (this) when they are out and about, especially among older women. Sometimes they even get the cross tattooed on their faces, which is a custom from the old country I’ve also seen carried over here. They’re pretty hardcore, I guess. It’s sort of funny because Habesha (and most Ethiopian highland people, like the Tigrayans) are almost all Orthodox, so sometimes I’ll go to the local Ethiopian restaurant, where there’s crosses on the walls and a big framed photo of the Church of St. George in Lalibela (the famous rock-hewn church), and silly people will still whisper to each other “I think these people are Muslim…why are there crosses everywhere?”, all because the women are covered!

Oh, silly non-Ethiopians!

thank you for sharing!

Re: Muslims, from what I’ve read in the Fathers on the subject, I can only deduce that Islam adopted the practice of women covering their heads from Christians just as they adopted the practice of not eating pork from Judaism.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

The “Christian” reason mentioned by the OP is dishonest in this respect and… not Christian at all, since it uses mythological fantasies about incubi and succubi and even angels of heaven who lust after women, so women have to cover their heads so as not to become guilty of tempting angels. Thank God people eventually realized that Jesus Christ didn’t teach such absurdities.

I am the OP & I didn’t offer a “Christian” reason Not to cover because I have yet to find one. The only reason I can find (so far) is a non-Christian one.

The Holy Spirit inspired St. Paul to write in 1 Cor. 11:10 “For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”.

One of the reasons citing For covering being “because of the angels” is also spoken about in the Church Fathers (pre-schism & pre-Islam) like in St. John Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians Homily XXVI “Ver. 10. ‘For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head.’ ‘For this cause:’ what cause, tell me? ‘For all these which have been mentioned,’ saith he; or rather not for these only, but also’because of the angels.’ Saith he, ‘yet reverence the angels.’”

St. John Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians Homily XXVI is truly an interesting read- just to give an idea of the strong language used in this long multi-layered defense: “Thus much in answer to the heretics: but we must also orderly go over the whole passage. For perhaps some one here might have doubt also, questioning with himself, what sort of acrime it is for the woman to be uncovered? What sort of crime it is, learn now from hence…and tell me Not this, that the error is but small. For first, it is great even of itself: being as it is a disobedience. Next, though, it were small, it became great because of the greatness of the things whereof it is a sign. However, that it is a great matter, is evident from its ministering so effectually to good order among mankind, the governor andthe governed being regularly kept in their several places by it. So that she who transgresseth disturbs all things, and betrays the gifts of God…for to her it is the greatest of honors to preserve her own rank; as indeed of disgraces, the behavior of a rebel.”

There is a lot more, but I just list that to give an idea of how strongly head covering of Christian women was understood by the Church Fathers over the course of centuries. (Catholics, they may also be interested to read St. Thomas Aquinas on the matter of full-time covering of Christian women’s heads).

 

[vames]

I am the OP & I didn’t offer a “Christian” reason Not to cover because I have yet to find one. The only reason I can find (so far) is a non-Christian one.

The Holy Spirit inspired St. Paul to write in 1 Cor. 11:10 “For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

The Christian reason not to veil is simple - Jesus never said anything about it.
John Chrysostom, Tertullian, Clement, Jerome and other Church Fathers were very preoccupied with protecting men from the temptation of lust, dangerously embodied by women. So they used Paul’s paragraph about veiling and emphasized it. But Paul used a wrong argument: “because of the angels” comes from the Book of Enoch, a pseudepigraph which contains an ancient myth about fallen angels who lusted after women, had intercourse with them and procreated giant children.
Of course, it’s very convenient to attribute lustful feelings not to men, but to some fallen angels/incubi. So Tertullian went further and extended his speculation to all angels, openly blaming women for tempting angels by not covering their faces:

For if (it is) on account of the angels— those, to wit, whom we read of as having fallen from God and heaven on account of concupiscence after females— who can presume that it was bodies already defiled, and relics of human lust, which such angels yearned after, so as not rather to have been inflamed for virgins, whose bloom pleads an excuse for human lust likewise? (…) So perilous a face, then, ought to be shaded, which has cast stumbling-stones even so far as heaven: that, when standing in the presence of God,** at whose bar it stands accused of the driving of the angels from their (native) confines**, it may blush before the other angels as well; and may repress that former evil liberty of its head—(a liberty) now to be exhibited not even before human eyes. But even if they were females already contaminated whom those angels had desired, so much the more “on account of the angels” would it have been the duty of virgins to be veiled, as it would have been the more possible for virgins to have been the cause of the angels’ sinning.

Only afterwards he admits his real reason for ordering women to veil:

But even if it is “on account of the angels” that she is to be veiled, doubtless the age from which the law of the veil will come into operation will be that from which “the daughters of men” were able to invite concupiscence of their persons, and to experience marriage. For a virgin ceases to be a virgin from the time that it becomes possible for her not to be one. … She is wise to have blocked up the pathway against temptations. For who will have the audacity to intrude with his eyes upon a shrouded face? … Arabia’s heathen females will be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face. A female would rather see than be seen.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

The Christian reason not to veil is simple - Jesus never said anything about it.

How do you know Jesus didn’t? It’s says in the Bible: John 21:25 that the whole world couldn’t contain the books if everthing Jesus said & did were written.

vames:

But Paul used a wrong argument: “because of the angels” comes from the Book of Enoch, a pseudepigraph which contains an ancient myth about fallen angels who lusted after women, had intercourse with them and procreated giant children.

St. Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote 1 Cor. 11 appealing to both natural law & divine law for the reason women need to cover And still under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit included an additional reason to be “because of the angels”.

Is the Holy Spirit, Who inspired this to be included in the Bible, any less God than Jesus is? Is the Holy Spirit any less a member of the Holy Trinity than Jesus is?

I don’t believe individual Catholics have been given the freedom to dismiss anything written in the Holy Bible as “wrong” or a “wrong argument” or has that authority been granted? And if so, when and by what method - council or papal decree or papal encyclical?

 

[vames]

How do you know Jesus didn’t? It’s says in the Bible: John 21:25 that the whole world couldn’t contain the books if everthing Jesus said & did were written.

With this logic you can claim absolutely anything and arbitrarily attribute it to Jesus. Perhaps Jesus condoned slavery or euthanasia, but this wasn’t written in the Bible, no?

I don’t believe individual Catholics have been given the freedom to dismiss anything written in the Holy Bible as “wrong” or a “wrong argument” or has that authority been granted? And if so, when and by what method - council or papal decree or papal encyclical?

AFAIK usually the best method is using our God-given brains.