Its the upbringing and the catechesis, Church became big quick WWII, the 60’s came and like just about everything else from that period… went into the American Storm. Vocations went down, Sisters became scare and couldn’t be as involved in education. And America decided to follow the likes of Jimmy Swaggart., no required knee bending either. We don’t have to do all that, become the “motto”
We need to get back to missionary work here. This country is all but lost. The only thing saving us is the Orthodoxy influx from everywhere else, Blessing. I take em where I can get them. Pope Francis, huh, talk about in the nick of time.
Have a peaceful Holy Week… Everyone.
Dear GaryTaylor,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly well said and my sentiments entirely.
The permissive Sixties had a phenomenal negative impact and some of the misguided and zany thinking of radical feminists infiltrated the Church, sadly changing the way that many Catholics think, especially the youth. This surely admits of no serious doubt, dear friend. There was certainly a rejection of the more rigorous approach to the faith that was normal prior to the Sixties and an embracing of a more free and easy type of religion, less deferential and more dismissing of Tradition. Western Catholicism today is in a very sorry state and there is evidence of a widespread worldly conformity that refuses to face up to the Church’s call to personal sanctity. Yes, I firmly believe that Orthodoxy is a blessed influence for good upon Holy Mother Church, especially given the difficult days in which our lot is cast.
Women covering their heads in divine worship, dear friend, is an immemorial custom which has perpetual validity and therefore continues to be applicable today, contrary to what some contend. Here is what the ‘radio priests’, Fathers Rumble & Carty, have to say upon the matter:
“That women should cover their heads when in church is a Christian custom based on the words of St. Paul in I Corinthians 11: 6. There he definitely gives instruction that Catholic women must cover their heads in divine worship. He gives two reasons for this decree, one theological and one moral. The theological reason is as follows: Every beings true glory and honour is to keep the place assigned to him or her by God. Now God Himself differentiated between the sexes, and that difference should be manifested during our public religious acknowledgement of Him. Man was first created, and women dependently upon the man. The covering upon a woman’s head was to be a sign of this dependence. Both men and women are created, of course, for God; their souls are equally precious to Him. But secondarily, women were created as helpmates for men, so that secondarily women were created for men, rather than men for women”.
"The moral reason given by St. Paul deals with Christian modesty. Loose women of ill-repute went to their temples without any head covering, not veiling their beauty, but bent on a vain display of their attractions. St. Paul would have none of this in a Christian church: “Therefore ought a women to have power (i.e. a veil) over her head, he writes, “because of the angels” (I Cor. 11: 10). He mentions these pure spirits to bring home the fact that spiritual considerations alone should prevail in the worship of God, and not sensual vanity. A woman’s hair is the object of her vanity and earthly glory - and she knows it. Let her at least veil it in church, giving her attention to higher things, and allowing others to do so also. Thus you have the legislation of St. Paul and the reason for it”.
(Radio Replies, Vol. 2, question 1053, Fathers Rumble & Carty, Tan Books, 1979)
As can clearly be seen, dear friend, the teaching of these renowned ‘radio priests’ has perpetual validity and is not culturally bound, as some like to assert. If the angels would be offended then by the sight of a woman’s uncovered head in church, who are we to say that they would not be offended now? To contend that they would not be so offended is to contradict the unequivocal teaching of St. Paul, who said what he wrote was “the commandments of the Lord” (I Cor. 14: 37). To date, no man has been able to show where Holy Mother Church has repudiated or disowned the sound teaching on this topic by those ‘radio priests’, showing that St. Paul’s teaching is culturally conditioned. What is problematic for many contemporary Catholics is that St. Paul’s teaching does not sit comfortably with their misguided egalitarian views of the sexes and so must be written off as either ‘sexist’ or culturally bound and thus no longer relevant.
Fathers Rumble and Carty were simply giving the consistent teaching of the Church on this matter and were not preaching novel ideas. Moreover, would these well-read and learned apologists have really so misunderstood Scripture and their own Church’s teaching, making so fundamental a mistake concerning the obligation of women being covered in divine worship?
God bless and a very Blessed and peaceful Easter to all contributors to this thread.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax:tiphat:
Also, with prostrations in Church, it is much more modest, in my opinion, for women to wear dressy pants which at the most may pull up to expose an ankle or part of the lower calf not covered by the socks, while in a dress or a skirt, some women when prostrating can unwantedly expose so much more! 
