Head Covering During Mass

[adrift]

The hair issue is merely a bait and switch tactic and I have ignored it on purpose…stick with the topic at hand please.

Hardly, since it is the scripture that you are using to say that it was commanded by God you can’t just pick part of the scripture you have to have all of it.

It is just plain lame to say it is bait and switch… switch to what? That Paul was talking about a cultural thing that no longer holds true?

Do you have no better reasoning than just to dismiss it as a bait an switch?
Since Paul’s statements convince me that this is not a commandment from God do you think you have persuaded me or anyone who is reading this who has not made up their mind, it is by this lame dismissal?
I hope the OP note this discussion and sees what not to use on his wife. If she points this out to you, how would you answer?

 

[Convert_in_99]

"adrift"

I am just the mediator here…I saw you keep asking about the verse and no one posted…just thought I’d post.

I am of the opinion that it’s a custom/a tradition, but not a church mandate. If the woman wants to wear it fine…I don’t mind…I support her…if she dosen’t…fine…I support her too.

Just the in betweenie here! I wasn’t siding with anyone.

 

[adrift]

"adrift"

I am just the mediator here…I saw you keep asking about the verse and no one posted…just thought I’d post.

I am of the opinion that it’s a custom/a tradition, but not a church mandate. If the woman wants to wear it fine…I don’t mind…I support her…if she dosen’t…fine…I support her too.

Just the in betweenie here! I wasn’t siding with anyone.

I share your opinion. I think it is admirable for a women to wear a head covering. My question is really sincere. I side with all the women who want to wear a head covering and I side with those who do not. I don’t believe it is a mandate from God. I don’t see what Paul wrote as such. Is it really one of those things like divorce that cannot be changed by the Church? I don’t see the evidence for it. Thanks for the mediation

 

[migurl]

:bible1: I think the important thing to remember is your at church for a reason. To be in the presence of God and to worship. Does it really matter what your wearing?

It does matter. I am appalled when I see women come into Church wearing mini skirts and tank-tops that they are falling out of! I understand that sometimes, a person comes to mass at the last minute and they arent’ “dressed up”, but being dressed is a good idea. Besides, a veil can me carried in a purse on in the car. I pretty much always have mine in my purse on in the glove box, if people can remember to bring their wallets and cell phones everywhere, I’m sure a veil would be no problem!

 

[PKinsale]

One goes to church to worship. One’s worship is done in many ways, such as through the words one speaks or prays silently, one’s gestures, and, yes, one’s choice of clothes.

 

[calchiquita]

I share your opinion. I think it is admirable for a women to wear a head covering. My question is really sincere. I side with all the women who want to wear a head covering and I side with those who do not. I don’t believe it is a mandate from God. I don’t see what Paul wrote as such. Is it really one of those things like divorce that cannot be changed by the Church? I don’t see the evidence for it. Thanks for the mediation

I am a convert and didn’t actually think one way or another about the veil until it came up in these forums. (Well, until I noticed it).
I have googled a lot of stuff that I have seen come up to try to figure out on my own whether I should be wearing a head covering. I agree with those who say that the silence of 1983 Canon Law does not mean the 1917 law on this matter is abrogated, but I searched for the text of 1917 canon law and it says.
Canon 1262, § 2. “Men should attend Mass, either in church or outside church, with bare heads, unless approved local custom or special circumstances suggest otherwise; women, however, should have their heads veiled and should be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.”
For myself, since it says should, not must, and since the 1976 Inter Insigniores suggest it is a cultural thing rather than natural law, I am going to assume I am not required to wear a headcovering.

That being said, I think it makes a beautiful statement when you do have a headcovering and just may take up the practice as a devotion.

 

[Convert_in_99]

I am a convert and didn’t actually think one way or another about the veil until it came up in these forums. (Well, until I noticed it).
I have googled a lot of stuff that I have seen come up to try to figure out on my own whether I should be wearing a head covering. I agree with those who say that the silence of 1983 Canon Law does not mean the 1917 law on this matter is abrogated, but I searched for the text of 1917 canon law and it says.
Canon 1262, § 2. “Men should attend Mass, either in church or outside church, with bare heads, unless approved local custom or special circumstances suggest otherwise; women, however, should have their heads veiled and should be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.”
For myself, since it says should, not must, and since the 1976 Inter Insigniores suggest it is a cultural thing rather than natural law, I am going to assume I am not required to wear a headcovering.

That being said, I think it makes a beautiful statement when you do have a headcovering and just may take up the practice as a devotion.

:clapping: Thank you! Double thumbs up!

This is where I am at too. AND, since that cannon is even PRE-Vatican II, heck, it must be okay to make your own choice on the matter!

 

[Convert_in_99]

One goes to church to worship. One’s worship is done in many ways, such as through the words one speaks or prays silently, one’s gestures, and, yes, one’s choice of clothes.

Yes, modesty is always the best policy!

As a personal opinion, I believe that modest casual clothes are far better than skimpy “dressy” clothes. I would much rather see someone in jeans and a sweatshirt thank a skimpy mini skirt and flashy top!

 

[Tom317]

The Bible is the infallible word of God. Where we differ is in interpretation. You have never commented on my post which points out that Paul said that if a women is ashamed to cut her hair than she should be ashamed to pray without a veil. I doubt if there is anyone who is ashamed that they cut their hair even to the point of being bald. Again I point out that the veil he was talking about would not be the modern veil.
I am not sure that this was a command from God. :nope:

I still say this is bait and switch, but here goes anyway:

*But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head–it is the same as if her head were shaven.

For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God;** but woman is the glory of man**.*

Paul first tells us the proper relationship of God, men and women. Christ is to man as man is to woman.

Paul then describes head coverings, first that man is NOT to wear any and second that woman is to wear head coverings, because if a woman does not wear a covering then she brings dishonor to her head, and in this case Paul is not talking about her physical head, he is talking about her man, for the man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the man. This means when a woman dishonors the man, she is also dishonoring Christ, who is the head of the man. Now, this dishonor wrought upon her head, the man, is the same disgrace as if she were bald, cleaned shaven.

Now notice how Paul says “For if a woman will not veil herself,” which is a negative construct, he is accusing the woman here of being unwilling to do what she is called to do, which means since she is prideful, she should then shave her head so all can see her disgrace, yet if the shaved head is too much for her, she should wear a veil. This is important: In every case Paul says the woman should be wearing a veil.

Now, you are quite right that the NT has not been with us for 1970years, but the practice of wearing veils has been, which was my main point.

You also said that wearing veils is not a mandate from God, well the Holy Spirit is God, and Paul wrote under the direction or inspiration of the Holy Spirit and Paul makes it very clear that woman are to wear a veil. So, if you say wearing veils is not a mandate, then you are saying the Holy Spirit (God) made a mistake when He inspired Paul. Then, you will also have to say the Church made a mistake for 1970 years of practicing the custom of women wearing veils in Church, for it has been an unbroken Tradition of the Church since the Church began, which is exactly why it was included in Canon Law in 1917…it was clear to the Church that head coverings reached the strength of Law, so they formally included it in the Law. The 1983 Law does not include the Canon, yuet as I have talked about many times on this thread, there are several 1983 Canons that prove head coverings are still mandated.

 

[child_of_God85]

I still say this is bait and switch, but here goes anyway:

*But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head*–it is the same as if her head were shaven.

For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God;** but woman is the glory of man**.

Paul first tells us the proper relationship of God, men and women. Christ is to man as man is to woman.

Paul then describes head coverings, first that man is NOT to wear any and second that woman is to wear head coverings, because if a woman does not wear a covering then she brings dishonor to her head, and in this case Paul is not talking about her physical head, he is talking about her man, for the man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the man. This means when a woman dishonors the man, she is also dishonoring Christ, who is the head of the man. Now, this dishonor wrought upon her head, the man, is the same disgrace as if she were bald, cleaned shaven.

Now notice how Paul says “For if a woman will not veil herself,” which is a negative construct, he is accusing the woman here of being unwilling to do what she is called to do, which means since she is prideful, she should then shave her head so all can see her disgrace, yet if the shaved head is too much for her, she should wear a veil. This is important: In every case Paul says the woman should be wearing a veil.

Now, you are quite right that the NT has not been with us for 1970years, but the practice of wearing veils has been, which was my main point.

You also said that wearing veils is not a mandate from God, well the Holy Spirit is God, and Paul wrote under the direction or inspiration of the Holy Spirit and Paul makes it very clear that woman are to wear a veil. So, if you say wearing veils is not a mandate, then you are saying the Holy Spirit (God) made a mistake when He inspired Paul. Then, you will also have to say the Church made a mistake for 1970 years of practicing the custom of women wearing veils in Church, for it has been an unbroken Tradition of the Church since the Church began, which is exactly why it was included in Canon Law in 1917…it was clear to the Church that head coverings reached the strength of Law, so they formally included it in the Law. The 1983 Law does not include the Canon, yuet as I have talked about many times on this thread, there are several 1983 Canons that prove head coverings are still mandated.

The Bishop here in my city said that men and woman are created totally equal, for one simple fact: Woman came from adam’s rib. Not from the bottom of his foot where she would be lower that man, not from his head, where she would be higher, but from his side where she is equal.
I don’t believe this ‘woman must answer to her man’. I believe God created both genders equal. Thats what my Priests tell me, thats what my heart tells me.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I’m starting to desire the wearing of a veil at mass and I have a few questions:

1. Is there a specific color that should be worn? I’ve heard white for un-married and black for married.
2. At what age should a girl start wearing a veil? I have a baby girl and want her to grow up with this practice.
3. Ummmm, 3… I thought I had more questions than that!

Anyhoo, my reasons for wanting to wear a veil are due to the fact that it is in the Bible, that it is a sign of humility and it is modest. In my parish there are young girls that I know are in high school and are wearing mini skirts and hot pants and tube tops and flip flops and all sorts of immodest clothing, so I am choosing to try to set an example by always wearing a dress or skirt of appropiate length and covering my head in the presence of our Lord and God. I have also decided that I should start receiving the Eucharist on the tounge (sp?) because it is the proper thing to do. I have been abstaining from meat on Fridays simply because I can’t think of something to do to replace that rememberance of Christ’s Passion, as is mandated by the American councel of Catholic bishops.

God Bless!

Before the change of canon law in 1983, little girls wore bonnets or hats, usually with elastic or ribbons under the chin, to keep the head covering on their heads. Better baby and children’s stores actually still carry these in the spring. Stock up.

Contrary to what people claim, from at least the 1700s through 1983, when women covered their heads in church, they wore:

• hats.
• bonnets, hats with tie strings.
• headscarves (chiffon, nylon, cloth triangles with strings, babushkas).
• chapel caps (doilies).
• big bows.
• knit caps and hats in winter.
• floral wreaths and wide headbands.
• kleenex or hankies and a hairpin.
• shawls.

I am sorry to distort all of you young people’s romantic notions of lace mantillas, but they
just
weren’t
worn
by
everybody
except
teenage
girls
and
those
of
hispanic
descent
until
Jackie Kennedy
made
them
popular.

And there is no code to the color.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

Contrary to what people claim, from at least the 1700s through 1983, when women covered their heads in church, they wore:

• hats.
• bonnets, hats with tie strings.
• headscarves (chiffon, nylon, cloth triangles with strings, babushkas).
• chapel caps (doilies).
• big bows.
• knit caps and hats in winter.
• floral wreaths and wide headbands.
• kleenex or hankies and a hairpin.
• shawls.

That’s what I remember from the 1950’s. It was always either a hat (appropriate to the season), a chiffon scarf, or a babushka. If we were away from home, didn’t have a hat or scarf, and needed a head covering for Mass, it was either a chapel cap (if we were lucky enough to have one on hand) or a Kleenex. I had never even seen a mantilla until a year or two ago.

Mudgie-in-training and freelance sparkle/coffee grinds sprinkler

 

[Patchunky]

Contrary to what people claim, from at least the 1700s through 1983, when women covered their heads in church, they wore:

• hats.
• bonnets, hats with tie strings.
• headscarves (chiffon, nylon, cloth triangles with strings, babushkas).
• chapel caps (doilies).
• big bows.
• knit caps and hats in winter.
• floral wreaths and wide headbands.
• kleenex or hankies and a hairpin.
• shawls

Actually, it was much earlier than the 1700’s and in many regions, especially those “occupied” by the Ottoman Empire, it was forbidden for a woman to leave the house without her hair being covered.

In many of the European countries, a woman’s position in village and town “society” could be told by the type of hair covering that she wore. You could tell who was un-married… usually young girls who wore simple wreaths of flowers and rosemary in the spring and summer and simple pieces of homespun during the colder months.

Once a young woman was considered to be 'eligible" for marriage, AFTER making her 1st Holy Communion and Comfirmation, her parents would give her permission to wear a special head covering that told eveyone she was “'eligible”. This headcovering was often covered with beads, coins, mirrors and other things. They often showed the amount of dowery the young girl would bring with her when she married. They were also meant to chase away the “Evil Eye” from the young girl. She would wear this headcovering until it was removed as part of the wedding celebration. By doing so she showed that she was giving up the things of childhood and becoming a functioning and responsible member of the village community… an adult.

As she had children and grew older, the style and color of her headcovering changed. She no longer wore the bright colors and mirrors on her headcovering but more muted colors. She NEVER left her house without having her hair wound into a bun and covered.

Once a woman became a grandmother, the headcovering changed again, usually to something of homespun, similar to a headscarf. Colors were once again very muted but with very little decoration.

Once a woman became a widow, she would still wear her marriage cap but now wore only black, even a black scarf on her head.

As was stated, mantillas were made popular by Jackie Kennedy. In Spain, the color white was usually worn by un-married girls and black by married women and widows. What was different was how the mantilla was worn. Un-married girls and women wore their mantilla with combs
while widows did not.

Hope this helps…

 

[PKinsale]

The Bishop here in my city said that men and woman are created totally equal, for one simple fact: Woman came from adam’s rib. Not from the bottom of his foot where she would be lower that man, not from his head, where she would be higher, but from his side where she is equal.
I don’t believe this ‘woman must answer to her man’. I believe God created both genders equal. Thats what my Priests tell me, thats what my heart tells me.

That’s an old saying. My feminist mom used to have it framed in the house. One might as well says that this sort of equality means women can be priests.

Truth is, men and women are different. Whether that means they are equal in all respects is another subject entirely. The issue of headcovers when praying does not derive from equality or its lack, but from the difference between the sexes and their roles.

 

[Biblioassistant]

I’m old enough to remember that I used to wear hats and mostly chapel veils to church when I was young. For those who don’t know, a chapel veil is a circular piece of lace that looked a bit like a doily or a yarmuke. We’d pin it on with a hair pin. If a woman forgot her chapel veil, she’d sometimes put a piece of kleenex tissue on (which looked silly). The mantilla got popular when Jackie Kennedy wore it, and I kind of liked them - they made me feel elegant.

However, I am happy that I don’t have to wear a headcovering any more. There were times when I was on vacation with my family and I passed up the opportunity to go to a church for a visit because I didn’t have a headcovering.

I sometimes go to Mass at the chapel of the Fathers of Mercy who are very orthodox. Some women wear head coverings, some don’t, but all the Massgoers are neat and modest (nice skirts and pants). I don’t see shorts or skimpy tops at all.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

That’s what I remember from the 1950’s. It was always either a hat (appropriate to the season), a chiffon scarf, or a babushka. If we were away from home, didn’t have a hat or scarf, and needed a head covering for Mass, it was either a chapel cap (if we were lucky enough to have one on hand) or a Kleenex. I had never even seen a mantilla until a year or two ago.

In any event, those pretty baby bonnets have been getting easier to find over the last few years, and that is what little girls wore in my day to church. Double-tied under the chin, for parents who want their littlest girls to cover, they are great. We were able to find them for my younger granddaughter (we do not cover, but they were so pretty, and she, like the rest of our family, has a really big head). View attachment 915

 

[Tom317]

The Bishop here in my city said that men and woman are created totally equal, for one simple fact: Woman came from adam’s rib. Not from the bottom of his foot where she would be lower that man, not from his head, where she would be higher, but from his side where she is equal.
I don’t believe this ‘woman must answer to her man’. I believe God created both genders equal. Thats what my Priests tell me, thats what my heart tells me.

Your Priests is correct, it is about relationships and the structure God defined. Men and women are equal, but they do not share the same roles.

 

[Tom317]

Your Priests is correct, it is about relationships and the structure God defined. Men and women are equal, but they do not share the same roles.

I meant: Your Bishop is correct.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Actually, it was much earlier than the 1700’s and in many regions…Hope this helps…

Yes, it was. Thank you.

 

[gam197]

However, I am happy that I don’t have to wear a headcovering any more

I guess I wore the mantilla after it became fashionable and the doily with a bobby pin or a kerchief before but somehow having my head covered during mass made me feel more like a female. I was so in the habit of wearing something to church that I missed it.