Does Anyone Know What Paul is Saying in This Verse

[SwissGuard25]

1 Corinthians 11:4-6:

4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

Now I know Paul is getting rid of the Jewish Tradition that men must wear a headcovering when they pray. (i.e. a Kippah) But now Paul is saying women must pray with their heads covered. This was a tradition practiced by the Catholic Church pre-Vatican II counsel. But that’s my question is Paul saying women must cover their heads all the time, (As the Blessed Virgin Did) or just when they pray? And if it’s just when they pray shouldn’t they be required to wear some sort of head covering while attending Mass?

Thanks and
God Bless.

 

[Phyllo]

Haydock Commenta
Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.

Home / New Testament | Old Testament | About This Commentary | Commentators | Transcriber’s Notes | Downloads & Links | Contact Me
1 CORINTHIANS - Chapter 11

1 Corinthians xi.

Ver. 3. The head of the woman is the man, &c. To have the head covered at public meetings, is, according to St. Paul, a mark of subjection: The man was created to be head over the woman, who was made subject to the man, being made of him, of his rib, and the woman made for him, not he for the woman. The man in a special manner, is the image of God, not only by his immortal soul, in which sense also the woman was made to God’s image, and likeness, but inasmuch as God gave him a power over all creatures, and so he is called, the glory of God. For these reasons, as well as from a received custom, St. Paul tells every woman, that in prayer or prophesying in public meetings, she must have her head veiled, and covered in testimony of her subjection to man, her head, otherwise she dishonours herself, and her head. This is what he tells her, (ver. 10.) that she ought to have a power over her head,[1] that is, to have a veil or covering, as a mark of man’s power over her: and because of the angels, that is, out of a respect to the angels there present. Some understand the priests and ministers of God, called angels, particularly in the Apocalypse. St. Paul adds, that nature[2] having given to women long hair, designed it to be as a natural veil. In fine, he appeals to them, to be judges, whether it be not unbecoming in women to pray without a veil. But he will have men to be uncovered, and not to bear such a mark of subjection, as a veil is, by which a man would dishonour his head, that is, himself, and Christ, who is his head, and who appointed him, when he created him, to be head over the woman. He looks upon it as a dishonour and a disgrace for men to nourish their hair, as women should do. He also calls God the head of Christ, that is, of Christ, as man. Lest he should seem to lessen the condition of women more than necessary, he adds, that the propagation of mankind now depends on the woman, as well as on the man, seeing every man is by the woman. (Witham)

Ver. 4. Praying or prophesying. By prophesying, in this place is meant, reading publicly in the Church, or singing, or explaining some part of the Scripture. To have the head covered, or uncovered, is in itself a thing very indifferent. Amongst the Greeks it was the custom always to sacrifice to their idols with heads uncovered; amongst the Romans, the opposite was the fashion, and among the Jews, as well formerly as at present, they always appear in their synagogues with heads covered. (Calmet)ry

Maybe since the sixties and feminism women decided that they don’t want to be subjected to men so they stopped wearing head coverings at Mass.
Of course this is just my opinion.
Most women do wear head coverings at the EF Mass that I sometimes attend.

 

[Hokomai]

1 Corinthians 11:4-6:

Now I know Paul is getting rid of the Jewish Tradition that men must wear a headcovering when they pray. (i.e. a Kippah) But now Paul is saying women must pray with their heads covered. This was a tradition practiced by the Catholic Church pre-Vatican II counsel. But that’s my question is Paul saying women must cover their heads all the time, (As the Blessed Virgin Did) or just when they pray? And if it’s just when they pray shouldn’t they be required to wear some sort of head covering while attending Mass?

Thanks and
God Bless.

He is saying: I have cultural prejudices about women, their relationship to men, and hair and hats and I am going to express these as if they had some transcendent meaning as a result of which I hope you will do what I think you should do.

 

[prettiepet]

Does anyone know the actual proclaimation that changed this rule at Vatican 2. I grew up needing to wear a head covering then at19 I didn’t have to anymore. I consider myself no ones subject but God’s but , out of respect would wear a head covering if told I should.

 

[prettiepet]

Does anyone know the actual proclaimation that changed this rule at Vatican 2. I grew up needing to wear a head covering then at19 I didn’t have to anymore. I consider myself no ones subject but God’s but , out of respect would wear a head covering if told I should.

 

[Phyllo]

Does anyone know the actual proclaimation that changed this rule at Vatican 2. I grew up needing to wear a head covering then at19 I didn’t have to anymore. I consider myself no ones subject but God’s but , out of respect would wear a head covering if told I should.

As far as I know there were no definite proclamations that changed any thing from V2 except for the Mass being said in English. I think that women just little by little stopped wearing hats. I like the head covering I think it is a sign of respect.

I think this is a thing that the culture changed. Hats don’t seem to be in fashion as they once were and that could go for gloves too.

 

[Mintaka]

First off, let’s be clear. In Greco-Roman society, and in Jewish society, and in pretty much every society in the world until fifty or sixty years after the invention of automobiles and A/C… [catch breath]

… Both men and women usually covered their head when they went outside private home areas, either to protect their heads from the sun, to keep warm in the cold, or to keep their hair nice. (Roman men used folds of the toga as hoods, or had various styles of hat. Greek guys had hats, too.)

Now, if you were a man who was a “public man” and was going to go speak in the Forum or the Acropolis, you wanted people to see all your facial expressions and gestures. So men speaking in public, even outside, usually didn’t wear any kind of head or face covering.

(Unless they were using it as a rhetorical point, to say “I’m a poor sick old man.” And frankly, that was not something most Romans or Greek public men ever wanted to do. Like today’s politicians, they wanted to appear strong and healthy, not needing any warm cloak or head covering.)

The Church was in an interesting position. Most Early Christian Masses were being held either in a private house or in a rented banquet place for clubs, though later there were also the martyrs’ burial places (also house or dormitory-like, in most cases). So in some ways, both men and women were in private. But they were also in mixed company, in public. And they were also in the most sacred place in the world.

So both men and women had a dilemma on how to dress and act, and only the apostles and veteran Christians could possibly teach them “how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15)

Somewhere very early, Christians decided that, unlike Jewish men in the synagogue or Temple honoring God, Christian men should uncover their heads in church to honor Christ. This made bishops, reading from the Scriptures and “the memoirs of the Apostles,” or sitting to teach their long sermons, look like secular public men or philosophers or schoolteachers. Some visitors to early Christian events were therefore unclear about Christianity being a religion as opposed to a philosophical movement.

Jewish women also covered their heads during worship. But for whatever reason (probably because Mary and other Christian women instinctively continued doing it the old way, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit after Pentecost, and thus set the pattern) Christians decided that the reversal principle didn’t apply to Christian women. They were to go on wearing their headgear.

In some churches, this became a problem, apparently mostly with newbies and prophetesses. (Probably because most Christian churches were evangelized by men, who couldn’t demonstrate the pattern of female behavior themselves.) Visitors and household onlookers from among the pagans and Jews (and maybe Christians also) misunderstood uncovered women as being crazy or loose women, which led to rumors about Christians having sex during Mass or the shared church supper afterward. Others thought Christians were trying to be like the “new women” who didn’t cover their heads, slept around, and claimed to be philosophers. Women speaking up in church when they didn’t in the synagogue, and women prophesying and teaching and arguing during Mass and apparently taking off their headcoverings to do it – it just wasn’t orderly, and it gave the wrong impression. And to make matters worse, sometimes “new women,” loose women seeking salvation or guys, and crazy women did come to church, as honest seekers or not. It was all getting out of hand very fast.

Paul has various ways of trying to teach the principle of women continuing to dress for church like they would have dressed for synagogue. The way you’re quoting, is to point women to secular custom. A woman with her head shaved would be embarrassed to come out in public. The other way he tries is to point to mystical honoring of women’s heads as Humanity’s head, with comparison to diadems worn by rulers. Either way, men get to be the sign of covenant newness and reversal, while women get to be the sign of covenant continuity.

Anyway… the major point that reveals the Holy Spirit was okay with this, is that not only did these comments by Paul get into the Bible as inspired writing, but that until the invention of the beehive hairdo, women attending pretty much any Christian churches (Catholic or not) wore hats or other headgear.

So if anybody is obsessed with the demands of contemporary culture, it’s us and not Paul. It seems weird to women today, because we aren’t used to slapping on a hat to go anywhere except to work outdoors in hot sun, or to go outside in winter. We are even ordered to take off hats when going into banks, despite the fact that women in the past always kept their hats on, inside banks or other public buildings.

As soon as one starts wearing a hat to other places, it seems natural to wear a hat to and into church. There’s no forcing it; it’s just like wearing shoes.

Nobody argues that we shouldn’t wear shoes to church, even though church is holy ground. What drives Moses and Muslims doesn’t drive us, and didn’t drive people in synagogues, because the Holy Spirit ordered a different way of doing things.

 

[JM3]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6398221&postcount=7

 

[Mintaka]

Sorry… kinda lost track of the point here. Thanks to the poster above for reminding me of the original question!

Yes, the Church no longer makes women wear headgear in church. The canon law folks decided that it was silly to try to enforce something that wasn’t being enforced, and that it was more in the nature of a discipline of orderly behavior in church than an absolute command to the Church. There are lots of church disciplines that have scriptural support and theological content, but still aren’t applied on everybody or on everybody the same way.

That doesn’t mean that women can’t wear headgear in church, or that it’s a bad idea to wear headgear in church. But it’s not obligatory, it’s not a sign of shocking immorality or unconventionality not to wear hats out in public, and it’s not anybody’s business what a specific woman does in church unless he’s her pastor or husband (and even then, she’s got the legal right from Rome).

It is prudent for women attending the EF to wear headgear, because it’s kinda mean to scandalize people; but women didn’t only wear chapel veils before Vatican II, so you have an equally wide set of choices today. We’re not Muslims. US Catholic women before Vatican II usually wore hats, scarves and kerchiefs, or even hairbows as their “covering.” (Although the latter was usually for schoolgirls.)

Other sui iuris Rites of the Catholic Church have their own canon law, so I don’t know what they do about hats.

 

[SwissGuard25]

He is saying: I have cultural prejudices about women, their relationship to men, and hair and hats and I am going to express these as if they had some transcendent meaning as a result of which I hope you will do what I think you should do.

Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12:

Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

Paul says the man is not greater than woman and woman is not greater than man, But Go dis greater than both.

(You need to read the Bible More)

 

[Hokomai]

Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12:

Paul says the man is not greater than woman and woman is not greater than man, But Go dis greater than both.

(You need to read the Bible More)

I’ll do you a deal. I’ll read the Bible more often if you read my posts more carefully!

 

[SwissGuard25]

I’ll do you a deal. I’ll read the Bible more often if you read my posts more carefully!

I feel stupid

 

[Hokomai]

I feel stupid

I didn’t mean anything about your post itself and certainly not to make you feel anything at all, let alone ‘stupid’ - just that the things you were saying assumed I had a particular view of Paul, which isn’t the one I hold. I was convinced by the arguments put forward by Bart D Erhman that the so-called ‘anti-women’ bits of Paul were in fact the work of another author. But I do think the author of the bits about head covering was saying the things I said he was saying, if you see what I mean, but I am beginning to not quite see what I mean myself now!