Head Covering

[Matthew_Holford]

Christianity evolved from Judaism. In Judaism it is the practise of men to cover their heads, wearing a kippah, especially in religious circumstances. Women do not cover their heads. In Christianity, the reverse is true. We consider it wrong for men to cover their heads in a church and until the very recent past it was considered correct for women to cover their heads. We see an exception where clergy may wear a head covering such as a zuccheto, biretta, or mitre. However, these are not worn at the most sacred of moments, e.g. during the Eucharistic Prayer, in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. Jewish men would however have their heads covered at sacred moments. Considering that we have evolved from he Jewish faith, and have maintained some traditions from Judaism, how have we developed a different perspective on head covering?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

We haven’t. There are still conflicting viewpoints, both equally well-annunciated, to wear or not to wear them. Many point to the 1983 canon code as abrogating the necessity of wearing head coverings, while others will point out that the section dealing with head coverings was merely re-affirming that tradition, was not specifically dealing with them, and so was not abrogating the mandate to wear them. They then will go on to say that right there in the same 1983 canon code, it states that the canon code itself does not have the authority to abrogate a Catholic custom that has been around for more than 100 years (head coverings having gone back 2,000). Because of this strong logic, (as well as the fact that Paul in Corinthians does not make a cultural argument for their use, but refers back to creation itself) my family has taken this second position, and my wife wears a head covering during mass.

That being said, many priests in the Church will say they are not necessary, so of course obey their authority. I believe they are mistaken, but apparently until the Church makes an official pronouncement on it, we will be left to our own devices, which unfortunately seems to be at the whims of liberalism and culture. Again, these are my thoughts on the issue.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

We haven’t. There are still conflicting viewpoints, both equally well-annunciated, to wear or not to wear them. Many point to the 1983 canon code as abrogating the necessity of wearing head coverings, while others will point out that the section dealing with head coverings was merely re-affirming that tradition, was not specifically dealing with them, and so was not abrogating the mandate to wear them. They then will go on to say that right there in the same 1983 canon code, it states that the canon code itself does not have the authority to abrogate a Catholic custom that has been around for more than 100 years (head coverings having gone back 2,000). Because of this strong logic, (as well as the fact that Paul in Corinthians does not make a cultural argument for their use, but refers back to creation itself) my family has taken this second position, and my wife wears a head covering during mass.

That being said, many priests in the Church will say they are not necessary, so of course obey their authority. I believe they are mistaken, but apparently until the Church makes an official pronouncement on it, we will be left to our own devices, which unfortunately seems to be at the whims of liberalism and culture. Again, these are my thoughts on the issue.

Thanks for that.

I may not have phrased my OP as well as I might. What I am trying to discover is not what the current position is with regards to whether females should cover their heads in church. I would like to know why we have the reverse in Catholicism to Judaism. Jewish men cover their heads in the synagogue, when praying, etc. but Catholic men have their heads uncovered. As Christianity has evolved out of Judaism and retained some ‘Jewish’ customs, e.g. use of incense in worship, why have we developed a reverse practise regarding head coverings.

 

[DexUK]

Did you know that, despite men being obliged to remove their hats or other head coverings, they are still permitted to continue to wear their toupees?

Essentially it comes down to social practise. At some point our social rules of respect diverged from Judaism. It’s not that there’s intrinsic sin in doing or not doing something regarding head coverings, it’s that it’s to do with visible signs of respect that are understandable by society at large.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Did you know that, despite men being obliged to remove their hats or other head coverings, they are still permitted to continue to wear their toupees?

I was not aware of any ruling regarding toupées. It does not surprise me that they are permitted. They do not serve the same function as a hat. They replace lost hair. We are not expected to have shaven heads so I can see why toupées would be permitted.

Essentially it comes down to social practise. At some point our social rules of respect diverged from Judaism. It’s not that there’s intrinsic sin in doing or not doing something regarding head coverings, it’s that it’s to do with visible signs of respect that are understandable by society at large.

I have not said or even implied that there is anything sinful about head coverings. I also understand that a lot is related to current social conventions. In general in western culture men do not just bare their heads in church but it is a convention to remove a hat, etc. when going indoors anywhere.

Again, I will try to express my original question. While I am, of course, fully aware of modern social conventions in western culture I am interested in discovering why this developed.

If I am not mistaken another Abrahamic faith finds it respectful for men to cover their heads in places of worship, e.g. mosques, viz.: Muslims.

I find it interesting that both Jews and Muslims see it as a matter of respect that a man’s head should be covered whereas Christians believe that a man’s head should be uncovered.

I once taught a short course in a Jewish high school and they preferred men to have their heads covered before entering the school.

 

[GenericUserName]

I Corinthians 11:2-8

2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. 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 if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not be covered, then let her be shorn! But since it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For indeed a man ought not to cover his head, being the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I Corinthians 11:2-8

2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. 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 if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not be covered, then let her be shorn! But since it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For indeed a man ought not to cover his head, being the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.

Thank you for the biblical quote. I’m not sure of its relevance. It certainly doesn’t answer the question.

 

[GenericUserName]

It does answer the question of where we get the current ideas on it. Or some people’s current ideas on it. The Old Testament mentions the Jewish laws of head coverings, which are almost opposite of what’s mentioned in the New Testament. It doesn’t answer the question of why there was a shift in views, but it is better than, “well I heard this or I heard that and maybe it’s becasue…” As it gives a biblical backing to how it was and how it is now (to those who use head coverings at all). I hope that makes my reason for that quote make more sense, lol.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I understand your question now, you are basically answering why we reversed the gender of the head coverings, which was the opposite of the Jewish custom. I’ll look into it; I don’t have the answer right now.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

It does answer the question of where we get the current ideas on it. Or some people’s current ideas on it. The Old Testament mentions the Jewish laws of head coverings, which are almost opposite of what’s mentioned in the New Testament. It doesn’t answer the question of why there was a shift in views, but it is better than, “well I heard this or I heard that and maybe it’s becasue…” As it gives a biblical backing to how it was and how it is now (to those who use head coverings at all). I hope that makes my reason for that quote make more sense, lol.

It doesn’t answer the question. It describes what was the practice in 1st century AD. My question is why did this change come about. Describing what happened at the time of St Paul doesn’t answer the question and therefore it is no better than “well I heard this or I heard that and maybe it’s because …”