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

[ComeHome2Rome]

Are you really denying that Bible is a Catholic work and are you really denying that St. Paul and the early Church Fathers were Catholic?

The authors of the document made a general reference about the various cultural customs of the period, keeping in mind that St Paul addressed mainly Greeks and Romans and that the nascent Christianity was still fighting to find her own individuality, by promoting new practices and disciplines capable of strongly diferentiating it from all the other religions. At that time, Roman men and women mostly worshipped with the head covered, Greek men and women mostly worshipped bareheaded, while Jewish men and women worshipped exclusively with the head covered (some say that women covered even their faces, like they were required to do in everyday life, while others say that they use to take off their veils and show their faces). The influence of Pagan cults, where women could “pray and prophesize” bareheaded, was strong. So St Paul had to promote something different, as a new unifying rule for everybody.

But he couldn’t do it without coming up with new reasons, different from the Pagan or Jewish ones. So he develops his theological arguments for the new Christian practices, invoking Genesis and “the angels”. Now the Genesis is a text susceptible to multiple interpretations. Ancient Rabbis justified veiling by saying that women must be ashamed of Eve’s sin and mourn it by covering themselves; or that Eve was created from the rib, which is a hidden place within man’s body, so women must hid themselves and be silent. And that “the man shall rule over you” should be interpreted as “the distress of woman, who desires intercourse only in her heart, while the man can explicitly demand it”.

Taken as a text interpretation, St Paul’s theory was exactly as speculative as the Rabbinical ones. And this kind of speculation was flourishing among the Early Fathers, because they felt the need to use various Biblical texts as arguments against or in favor of a particular cultural custom. A good example is their effort to discourage the Pagan custom of wearing wreaths/crowns of flowers and leaves, part of the same fight of Christianity to find and promote her own individuality.
Here’s Tertullian in “De Corona”; he addresses both men and women, but when he speaks about women, he uses the Book of Revelation to invent an additional reason to forbid them to wear wreaths: “with a crown on [her head] will she offend those (24 elders) who perhaps are then wearing crowns above”. As if only women could offend the 24 elders by wearing wreaths. And then he adds his usual warning about sexual temptation: “For what is a crown on the head of a woman, but beauty made seductive, but mark of utter wantonness—a notable casting away of modesty, a setting temptation on fire?”. As if only women could physically tempt the opposite sex (or perhaps these Fathers didn’t know or care that a woman can be tempted too).
newadvent.org/fathers/0304.htm

Note that this obsession about women who “tempt” is common among ancient people, so yes it has to do with cultural customs. The Talmud stated that is indecent for a married woman to walk bareheaded. The theologian Albrecht Oepke, quoted in this article, says that “etiquette as regards the veil becomes stricter the more one moves east. This rule is brought out clearly by the provisions of an old Assyrian code. Married women and widows must be veiled when in public places. On the other hand, the head of the harlot, here equated with the slave, must remain unveiled under threat of severe penalties. When a man wishes to make one of these his legitimate wife, a special act of veiling is demanded”.

Re other Catholic texts: There is no other magisterial document about the obligation for women to cover their heads or any reasons for affirming or rejecting it. Before the 1917 Code there was only one reference - in 1876, a cleric from Ravenna asked the Sacred Congregation of Rites about such an obligation for “women assisting at sacred functions” and received this short answer: “Affirmative”.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Only secular reasons to overturn the original Christian tradition how awful!

Reasons for unveiling: warmer climate (mostly Italy and Spain) and fashion. Here’s an illustrated history - note the evolution towards purely ornamental headgear or not wearing headgear at all:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1100%E2%80%931200_in_fashion#Hairstyles_and_headdresses
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1200%E2%80%931300_in_fashion#Headdresses_and_hairstyles
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1300%E2%80%931400_in_fashion#Headdresses
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1400%E2%80%931500_in_European_fashion#Hairstyles_and_headdresses
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1500%E2%80%931550_in_fashion#Hats_and_headgear
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1550%E2%80%931600_in_fashion#Hairstyles_and_headgear
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1600%E2%80%931650_in_fashion#Hairstyles_and_Headgear
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1650%E2%80%931700_in_fashion#Hairstyles_and_headgear

 

[vames]

Are you really denying that Bible is a Catholic work and are you really denying that St. Paul and the early Church Fathers were Catholic?

Where did I say this??

 

[barrel224]

As far as my understanding goes, women are supposed to cover their heads because we are in the presence of angels, especially during Mass, and the glory and beauty of a womens hair was deemed as something that could cause an angel to fall or come to distraction. If you read the OT where the angels come down and fall in love with the women they are supposed to be guarding, you can begin to understand why. Then again, this explanation raises a great many other questions and all I will say is this: The more you know, the less you know, so do not seekto understand, seek to Love. There is a good reason behind every church teaching and tradition, so don’t be so quick to discard them as irrelevant or restrictive.

 

[Sarcelle]

Never felt drawn to it…

Same here. I am actually indifferent. If I am at a parish whose women cover their heads, I cover mine. If they don’t, I don’t.

If I were to cover my hair I would use a scarf like I’ve seen women do in the Russian Orthodox churches. I do have Spanish ancestry but I do not like mantillas.

 

[Sarcelle]

Privileged? Well than there was a lot of them not just some

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.

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

The rise in autism? Huh??? You mean mothers working outside the home caused autism?

 

[Sarcelle]

As far as my understanding goes, women are supposed to cover their heads because we are in the presence of angels, especially during Mass, and the glory and beauty of a womens hair was deemed as something that could cause an angel to fall or come to distraction. If you read the OT where the angels come down and fall in love with the women they are supposed to be guarding, you can begin to understand why. Then again, this explanation raises a great many other questions and all I will say is this: The more you know, the less you know, so do not seekto understand, seek to Love. There is a good reason behind every church teaching and tradition, so don’t be so quick to discard them as irrelevant or restrictive.

Than I have nothing to worry about. My hair sucks.

It’s not long and blonde like the ideal but dark and curly. I’m tempted to shave it all off. Spare me the bother.

 

[zaffiroborant]

As a former Catholic, I will add that in Marian Apparitions, Mary has expressed her disdain for how immodest the fashion had become for women…in the early 1917!!!..Our Lady of Fatima…when full-time head coverings on women were still the norm.

Full-time head coverings were not the norm in 1917.

 

[Mickey]

I think it is sad this reverent practice fell off due to cultural changes in the 60s, I have found since noticing women with chapel veils that the practice is a powerful witness indeed. I’m glad there is at least a small revitilzation in the Western Church, I pray it grows.

Amen. Especially considering it is Scriptural and traditional.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Course we can’t ignore Jesus, Mary and St Paul.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Because I’ve Not been able to find a Christian reason, only a secular one, did I make the OP to see if there was Ever a Christian reason or if it was only rebellion which began the domino effect of uncovered women’s hair in society & in Churches. If it is found to be the former, then I, a woman, can breathe a sign of relief, if the latter, then I, in good conscious must being wearing a head covering full-time because I do Not want to rebel against God.

It is apparent there is now a long tradition of women not being covered in their everyday lives. With your accusation of rebellion you are questioning the scores of priests and bishops who have not taught women to cover their heads. What gives you this authority to question these men who have the authority you lack to teach and guide to “bind and loose” the member of the church? And how is this any less rebellious than you when you say they have neglected to properly teach the church?

I am startled by the lack of respect for the bishops who currently guide the church, even as far as saying the the declarations by SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH don’t hold water.

There is a good reason behind every church teaching and tradition, so don’t be so quick to discard them as irrelevant or restrictive.

But it’s perfectly okay to discount the teaching and tradition found in the current canon law and the words of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith because one finds different practice more pleasing?

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Where did I say this??

In the huge post you wrote that I quoted.

 

[severus68]

As far as my understanding goes, women are supposed to cover their heads because we are in the presence of angels, especially during Mass, and the glory and beauty of a womens hair was deemed as something that could cause an angel to fall or come to distraction. If you read the OT where the angels come down and fall in love with the women they are supposed to be guarding, you can begin to understand why. Then again, this explanation raises a great many other questions and all I will say is this: The more you know, the less you know, so do not seekto understand, seek to Love. There is a good reason behind every church teaching and tradition, so don’t be so quick to discard them as irrelevant or restrictive.

This sort of belief is why some people say the Church is all about superstitious rubbishe to angels. Please read through the thread and a few have explained the reference to angels.

Yes, Love is the most important.

 

[severus68]

It is apparent there is now a long tradition of women not being covered in their everyday lives. With your accusation of rebellion you are questioning the scores of priests and bishops who have not taught women to cover their heads. What gives you this authority to question these men who have the authority you lack to teach and guide to “bind and loose” the member of the church? And how is this any less rebellious than you when you say they have neglected to properly teach the church?

I am startled by the lack of respect for the bishops who currently guide the church, even as far as saying the the declarations by SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH don’t hold water.

But it’s perfectly okay to discount the teaching and tradition found in the current canon law and the words of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith because one finds different practice more pleasing?

Great post.

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.

And do they require women to wear head coverings at all times?

 

[vames]

In the huge post you wrote that I quoted.

Your question:
In your research have you seen documented by the Catholic Church any earlier documents that ended the tradition of women head covering or documents that cite other reasons for ending the practice that would hold up to the early tradition written about in the Church Fathers?

My answer:
Re other Catholic texts: There is no other magisterial document about the obligation for women to cover their heads or any reasons for affirming or rejecting it. Before the 1917 Code there was only one reference - in 1876, a cleric from Ravenna asked the Sacred Congregation of Rites about such an obligation for “women assisting at sacred functions” and received this short answer: “Affirmative”.

Since you already quoted St Paul and the Early Fathers, I supposed that your question was about other documents issued by the Vatican, like the one from post #166.

 

[Mickey]

Please read through the thread and a few have explained the reference to angels.

Scripture tells us it is because of the angels. And the holy fathers talk about it. That’s good enough for me. I think all women should take note and cover up in Church.

“The angels are present here. Open the eyes of faith and look upon this sight. For if the very air is filled with angels, how much more so the Church! …Hear the Apostle teaching this, when he bids the women to cover their heads with a veil because of the presence of the angels.”
St John** Chrysostom**

 

[Hasire]

Scripture tells us it is because of the angels. And the holy fathers talk about it. That’s good enough for me. I think all women should take note and cover up in Church.

“The angels are present here. Open the eyes of faith and look upon this sight. For if the very air is filled with angels, how much more so the Church! …Hear the Apostle teaching this, when he bids the women to cover their heads with a veil because of the presence of the angels.”
St John** Chrysostom**

Amen!

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.

It is the Church that interprets scripture and defines Tradition as opposed to tradition and not anyone here. That some church fathers wrote on the subject addressing those under their authority does not make it binding on all the members of the Church in all places at all times. That the Church does not impose the requirement of head covering for women at all times shows that this is a matter of “tradition” which is not required and not “Tradition” which is. Unless of course you don’t believe that any bishop since the ECF has any authority over those under their care and if you are Catholic you don’t believe that the magisterium truly is the teaching authority of the Church.

 

[KathleenGee]

I have to reread the article but it is about Holy Father Francis and Orthodox Bartholomew, bringing east and west together soon. That is a miracle.

If the two lungs are reunited, the Church is now truly one and now the world can begin to believe.

The Eastern church is mystical, and of the Spirit and the Latin more intellectual, always going out to empty itself and always drawing that what is new back into it, and then the merge, but it causes alot of upheaval in the past 40 years because of too many changes that uprooted Latin Catholics.

Isn’t there something about afflictions lasting 40 years…I am speaking of the abuses and missives of Vatican II. And aren’t some practices in the Church begun by lay people? Wasn’t it lay people who really brought about more devotion to Mary?

Couldn’t the laity simply respond for those who want by wearing the veil…informing bishop, and it is never meant to politicize or cause attention to self??

Also I read on some page here…that women are not speak before the assembly…I have heard women give a theological reflection after priest homily…or women readers for Liturgy of the Word.