Head coverings

[TNT]

AGirone:

Two web articles, One on Fr. Robert Fox’s website www.fatimafamily.org on veils and www.christianfamilyoutreach.com under pamphlets discuss veils. According to these sources, the church NEVER officially said wearing veils was no longer required…it was a feminist movement that brought that disobedience.
…

Thank you. All my points with documentation.

Of course you cannot get into a liberal’s mind:
Liberalism :A mental disorder wherein the Illogical becomes completely logical with no lasting effect on the conscience.

---

So don’t be discouraged. Some are here to learn and extend their Faith.

 

[TNT]

rcn:

You seem not to be able to appreciate the difference between matters of doctrine and simple customs and practices.

The doctrines of the Church cannot and do not change.

Head covering is a practice that may - and HAS - changed. Get over it already, willya?

Ok,
St Paul, who preached it as a matter of doctrine, and admonished those who bared their heads in God’s house, and you 260 Popes :
Get over it already, willya?

There, that outa do it.

 

[rcn]

There, that outa do it.

Your intolerant and demeaning attitude is way out of line.

Are you prepared to confront everyone not wearing a veil at your Sunday mass, and inform them that they all have a “mental disorder” (your words) ? If not, they why do you subject us here to such a treatment?

 

[Catherine_S]

peregrinator_it:

No, no, no, no, no.

It’s a matter of distinguishing between externals and essentials. Allowing variety in personal devotions (within resonable limits- which limits God has granted the Church the authority to determine) is not de facto allowing variety in
belief or in anything else.

Legislating everyone into the same personal devotions simply will not solve the very real crisis in faith plaguing the Church. We need catechesis and conversion of heart as the previous poster was trying to say.

Conversion of one’s heart is a given…the** internal** is what counts no question there. I expect that most know this ! The difference between the Traditions and traditions is not being disputed. What is being asked is the offficial church expected and taught that headcoverings were necessary for women to wear in Church until around 1968.** Why did they change this after many many years? Where might one find that official document?** I have had several folks ask this question and also quote Saint Paul and I gave them my explanation. It was not good enough. Now I want to find an official document that explains this decision.
Shalom,

 

[iwonder]

If it was mandatory, I would just do it. I rmember when it was “mandatory” and I wore head coverings. Then when it wasn’t “mandatory” I didn’t. I don’t remember the Church asking my preference on it before, but whatever it decides is fine with me.

 

[Catherine_S]

PS… If headcovering for women were a cultural custom… a small t tradition. Is it now OK for a man to cover his head as it too was a cultural custom…a small t tradition?

*Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, *
*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 (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels. (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor man of woman; for a woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves; is it proper for woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? *
If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.”

---

*Is part of this scripture binding and part of it not? Some of it **changeable *and some of it not changeable? Or is it all just cultural?

 

[A.Pelliccio]

Is there any canon or writings from the Popes on this?

 

[Catherine_S]

AGirone:

Two web articles, One on Fr. Robert Fox’s website www.fatimafamily.org on veils and www.christianfamilyoutreach.com under pamphlets discuss veils. According to these sources, the church NEVER officially said wearing veils was no longer required…it was a feminist movement that brought that disobedience.

Quotes…**When and why did the Church change the teaching that a woman should wear a head covering ****while attending church services? Answer: The Church has never changed its teaching. There is nothing by the Magisterium stating that the wearing of the veil has been abolished.
Church Teachings
The nearest anyone could **come to this claim is that it was not mentioned in the new Code of Canon Law published in 1983. Inthe period from approximately 1969 to 1983, **when women throughout the United States were already abandoning the veil in direct **violation of Canon Law. So it is clear **that Church law cannot be called upon to justify the abandonment of the veil since it had already ****been abandoned by many as **early as 1968, some fifteen years prior to the publication of the new code.
The veil has two thousands years of being a custom to its credit. (The **rosary does not come close to that. Yet who would try to discourage people from saying the rosary? Nor was the rosary ever ****in Canon Law or in the Bible.) **

**Please read carefully the following quotes taken from ****the N.O.W. Handbook. It has some very interesting information that you truly need to know and seriously ponder. We read ****under ****A. Religion Resolutions, " Because the wearing of a head covering by women at religious services is a symbol of subjection ****within many churches, NOW recommends that all chapters undertake an effort to have all women participate in a “national ****unveiling” by sending their head coverings to the task force chairman. At the Spring meeting of the task force of women and religion, **these veils will be publicly burned to protest the second class status of women in all churches. (Dec., 1968)"
**Questions to Ponder ****Why did St. Paul say women should be veiled, if it were not important? Why did the Church have the tradition of wearing ****the veil for nearly two thousand years, if it was not important? Why did the Church mandate it in Canon Law, if it was not ****important? ****Do you truly believe that the Church was wrong for two thousand years and just in the past few years ****became wise? **
If one goes only according to Canon Law and says it no longer applies then **Since there is no longer a law explicitly pointing out that men must be bare-headed, could one argue men should now wear hats before the Most Blessed Sacrament ? **From the point of Canon Law there is no longer the force of law. If we did things only when required by Canon Law, and that was our motive for love and reverence and submission, I would not anticipate great growth in spirituality. Canon Law does not require Catholics to participate in the Sacrifice of the Mass on weekdays. Yet many do and all are encouraged to when possible.

Thank you very much for the web-sites !! They are excellent ! My head will be covered in Church from now on. I am happy that these folks have been pushing me for clarity on this issue. I have answers for them now and also for the questions my own mind was pondering.
God Bless You,
Shalom,
Catherine

 

[Catherine_S]

TNT:

Ok,
St Paul, who preached it as a matter of doctrine, and admonished those who bared their heads in God’s house, and you 260 Popes :
Get over it already, willya?

There, that outa do it.

Thank You TNT…the web-sites are excellent ! I have answers for the questions that were being presented to me on a regular basis. Also to the ones that my own mind was pondering. My head will be covered again when I am in Church.
God Bless You,
Shalom,
Catherine

PS… the sword is made of tempered steel TNT. Do not be too passionate when you try to point out the truth to others.You can not get through to an Adam or an Eve that way :yup: !! Eves still reject their proper role and Adams still avoid their responsibilities.

 

[Kelly]

I know that this is going to sound extremely simplistic, but given the biblical texts if taken from a protestant point of view, such as TNT’s, shouldn’t women also refrain from cutting their hair?

St. Paul when speaking to the Corinthians explicitley says that a woman should be veiled if having her hair shorn would be a dishonor to her. If a woman is required to wear a veil, isn’t she also required to not have her hair cut as some extreme fundamentalist protestants believe? I don’t think any of us would say that a woman in our day and time is dishonored if her hair is cut short. I think that this shows how custom changes constantly from one generation to the next, and certainly from one geographical area to another.

Our Holy Catholic Church does not require women to cover their heads any longer, custom (or tradition with a little “t”) has changed and our Church has the God given authority to change it, whether any one of us likes it or not. As you know TNT, as faithful Catholics we can and should rely on the magesterium of the Catholic Church to guide us in all things, not private interpretation of the Scriptures. I think that this thread is falling into the realm of “more Catholic than the Pope”, which is never a good position to hold.

 

[TNT]

Kelly:

I know that this is going to sound extremely simplistic, but given the biblical texts if taken from a protestant point of view, such as TNT’s, shouldn’t women also refrain from cutting their hair?

St. Paul when speaking to the Corinthians explicitley says that a woman should be veiled if having her hair shorn would be a dishonor to her. If a woman is required to wear a veil, isn’t she also required to not have her hair cut as some extreme fundamentalist protestants believe? I don’t think any of us would say that a woman in our day and time is dishonored if her hair is cut short. I think that this shows how custom changes constantly from one generation to the next, and certainly from one geographical area to another.

Our Holy Catholic Church does not require women to cover their heads any longer, custom (or tradition with a little “t”) has changed and our Church has the God given authority to change it, whether any one of us likes it or not. As you know TNT, as faithful Catholics we can and should rely on the magesterium of the Catholic Church to guide us in all things, not private interpretation of the Scriptures. I think that this thread is falling into the realm of “more Catholic than the Pope”, which is never a good position to hold.

1.REROT ACCUSATION:
Here is “protestant” catholic Priest scholar and writer of one of the better catechisms of the Vat II Church:
Father Hardon

by John A. Hardon, S.J.

**
****Q.****Though the Church no longer requires women to wear a head covering in church, would it not be a commendable act for women to do so as St. Paul advises? (Notice how Paul is reduced to an “advisor”)

-L.B., Tennessee

**A.**In answer to the question, it is highly commendable for women to have their heads covered in church. I asked a devout Catholic woman why she has her head covered in church. Every word of the following statement is quoted verbatim from her answer. She said: “The first reason I cover my head in church is to show reverence for the second person of the Blessed Trinity who became man so that He could humble Himself to accept death, even death on a cross, out of love for me, a sinful person. The second reason I cover my head in His true presence is to make reparation to Him for the many sisters who have made vows to be His bride and now are walking around like proud Eves instead of humble Marys. They no longer wear their sign of humble submission to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The third reason is to remind myself and others that Jesus Christ is truly present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity here in the tabernacle, and that we should act with the greatest reverence toward the God who became man for us to suffer and die in our place, that we may one day enter into eternal happiness with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

© 1997 Inter Mirifica

RE: Women “cutting their hair”:
Think of a Toy poodle fresh out of the Groomer’s…part is sheared (shorn) and other parts are merely cut, trimmed or shaped. BIG difference.

The word shorn

used in I Corinthians 11 has been translated from the Greek word keiro*,* which means “to sheer: a sheep, to get or let be shorn, of shearing or cutting short the hair of the head.”1 Keiro is used in two other places in the New Testament. The word is translated shearer in Acts 8:32 that reads,

“… He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth…”

In this verse, keiro is used in reference to the shearing of sheep, which suggests more than just a simple trimming of the hair. Instead, it suggests a complete or near complete removal of hair from the skin. No one would suggest that a sheep has been shorn if only one lock of hair has been cut from the sheep, yet that is what those that maintain that shorn means “cut at all” are suggesting by saying that if a woman trims her hair (even unnoticeably), she is shorn.

Another place we see this word is in Acts 18:18,

“And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.” Here we see that Paul had taken the Nazarite vow. Those who took the Nazarite vow (both men and women) were required to cut off all of their hair at its completion (Numbers 6:18; cf. 6:2, 6:5), not simply trim it.

Clearly, neither the definition of shorn nor the context in which it is used in the Bible ever refers to merely trimming or shortening one’s hair through cutting but always implies a near complete removal of hair.

Continued…
**

 

[TNT]

From Prev Post:

To further illustrate this point, let’s look at the relevant verses in question more closely. I Corinthians 11:5,6 says,

“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”

Suggesting that shorn means “cut at all” fails to address what Paul means by covered and *uncovered *in these verses.As a result, those that have adopted this definition (cut at all) must then argue that when Paul refers to an uncovered head, he is describing the head of a person from which hair has been cut. In this scenario, *shorn *would refer to hair that has been cut and uncovered would refer to a head that has had hair cut from it. If this were the case, verse 6 would read,

“For if the woman [has cut hair from her head], let her also [cut her hair]…”

Obviously, this interpretation would render the reading of this verse illogical. As a result, anyone that takes the “uncut hair” position must abandon his original definition of shorn.

In order to maintain the argument that this passage teaches strictly uncut hair for women, one must concede that shorn does not mean “to cut at all” but means “to cut shortly” or “nearly shaved,” which is the correct definition. With uncovered defined as a word describing a head from which any hair has been cut and shorn defined as “to cut shortly,” the verse would then read more logically:

“For if the woman [has cut hair from her head], let her also [cut the rest off]…” It could then be argued that Paul is saying that if a woman even trims her hair, she might as well cut off all off it. Looking at verse 6 in isolation, it is conceivable that this is what Paul is saying. This interpretation, however, is dependent upon two things. First, it must be shown that the word uncovered describes a head from which hair has been cut, and secondly, such an interpretation must be logically consistent within the text.

The word uncovered comes from the Greek word akatakaluptos and is used only twice in the New Testament – both times in I Corinthians 11. It means “not covered, unveiled”2 and is a compound word derived from the Greek words kata meaning “down from, through out, according to, toward, along”3 and *kalupto, *which means “to hide, veil.”4 It is apparent that Paul is referring to the practice of veiling. A few have suggested that akatakaluptos is merely describing the way hair covers a woman’s head. This is highly unlikely considering the prevalence of veiling among women in first century Greco-Roman culture, and such suggestions have been rejected by most Bible scholars.

Continued…

 

[TNT]

Continued from Prev Post:

Though the definition of uncovered by itself illustrates that Paul is referring to veils and not hair, the strongest argument against the uncut hair interpretation comes from within the scriptures themselves. Even though defining uncovered to describe a head from which hair has been cut and shorn to mean “nearly shaved” makes verse 6 more readable, such definitions render the remaining verses illogical.

If one defines uncovered as a head from which any hair has been cut, the following conclusions must be drawn: If a women that has long hair trims even an inch, she is uncovered. Similarly, if a man has long hair and trims it an inch, he too would be uncovered. Therefore, since a man is to pray or prophesy uncovered (vs. 4, 7), then it would be perfectly acceptable under these definitions for a man to have hair down to his waist as long as he periodically trimmed it because that would make him uncovered.

This brings us to the next argument made by some who advocate totally uncut hair on women – that the word long hair in verses 14 and 15 or simply the word *hair *the last part of verse 15 refer to completely uncut hair. As before, let’s first examine the meaning of the words and then illustrate how such a definition would also render the reading of these passages illogical.

The word translated long hair in I Corinthians 11:14 and 15 is the Greek word komao. Komao means “to let the hair grow, to have long hair.”5 At first glance, this definition might seem to suggest uncut hair as some assert. However, if this definition is put to the test by reading it into the passage, it logically fails for the same reasons the “uncovered” argument does. If indeed long hair in these verses means “completely uncut,” then if a woman had hair to her knees yet trimmed the dead ends she would no longer have “long hair.” Similarly, if a man had hair to his knees and trimmed the dead ends, he would be scripturally sound because he would not have “long hair.” These assertions are illogical, of course, but are necessitated by anyone defining long hair to mean “totally uncut.”

In summary:
The Church has long ago interpreted St Paul’s Verses. She NEVER implied that it meant “cutting” a woman’s hair. She did explicitly interpret it as women having headcovering and men uncovered.

 

[Catherine_S]

Kelly:

Our Holy Catholic Church does not require women to cover their heads any longer,** custom (or tradition with a little “t”) has changed and our Church has the God given authority to change it, whether any one of us likes it or not**. As you know TNT, as faithful Catholics we can and should rely on the magesterium of the Catholic Church to guide us in all things, not private interpretation of the Scriptures. I think that this thread is falling into the realm of “more Catholic than the Pope”, which is never a good position to hold.

The question may be asked: **"When and why did the Church change the teaching that a woman should wear a head covering while attending Church services? **Answer: The Church has never changed its teaching. There is nothing by the Magisterium stating that the wearing of the veil has been abolished. You may gasp and say to yourself, **"I am sure this cannot be true! **Why no one, except a few dinosaurs who cannot tolerate change, wears veils today. In fact we were even told that to wear the veil could be prideful in that, we would be “calling attention to ourselves.” Using this logic, one would be obliged to become a nudist if nudity became popular. And what about the first women to take the veil off? Did they not defy Church teaching with the express purpose to call attention to themselves? See how such statements sound silly when held up to logic. Who would ever have thought that one could commit the sin of pride by trying to be faithful to what the Church has taught for almost two thousand years.
Complete article at :
fatimafamily.org/articles/veil.html

Can you locate a copy of that article by the magisterium ? I have searched only to find that there is none!!!
Shalom

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

Catherine S.:

It was certainly a part of the western world until around 1968.** In Canada and the United States for certain !** You just did not enter Church without your head covered ! It was not a cultural thing anywhere that I know of…it was common Catholic practice!
Shalom

A.Pelliccio:

I’m preety sure that head coverings (mantilas being predominet) were the norm and comman practice in the Catholic church up unitl Vat II. It is a matter of when/how long ago? It was universal.

“Universal” covers all of the countries in the world, not just the US or mediterranean Europe.

Incidentally, I never once saw a mantilla or a veil in church growing up (and that was pre-Vatican II, when all the women and girls wore a head covering) So yes, there were head coverings, but not mantillas or veils, at least not where I grew up.

With all the scripture I’ve seen quoted in this thread, I still haven’t seen one good reason why women should be the only ones to cover their heads to show reverence to the second person of the Blessed Trinity. Shouldn’t men also show reverence? If women should cover their heads to show reverence, then why shouldn’t men wear a yarmulke, or other male head covering?

Crazy Internet Junkie Society
****Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag

 

[A.Pelliccio]

St. Paul said because we are made in the image of God, that is why we do not cover our heads. But it would be shameful if we did. Women are inturn made in the imageof man. Ive also read that man is the only creature that doesnt have to stand in the presence of God.

 

[maklavan]

St paul wrote his admonition because the prostitutes were in the habit of going about with heads uncovered. He was trying to say that decent christian women IN HIS DAY would not do this. Headgear cannot be mandatory because everyone has the right to go to Mass. It was never referred to by the Magisterium and was not part of Canon law. It was simply the custom.

 

[CatQuilt]

GregoryPalamas:

I’m not a woman and so did not vote in the poll but I’m totally in favor of a return to head coverings. It may not solve the problems of immodesty immediately but while many women know this already and I hope someday all will, your modesty makes men behave more modestly.

As my wife often says: “A woman’s job is to civilize the men in her life. Though I’ve failed miserably I’m still at my post.” She hasn’t failed but I don’t want her to give up.

What a wise and wonderful wife you have. But you already know that, don’t you?

Yes, it would make sense to lead by example.

 

[TNT]

maklavan:

St paul wrote his admonition because the prostitutes were in the habit of going about with heads uncovered. He was trying to say that decent christian women IN HIS DAY would not do this. Headgear cannot be mandatory because everyone has the right to go to Mass. It was never referred to by the Magisterium and was not part of Canon law. It was simply the custom.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. In view of all the other previous posts, this make complete sense to anyone who is not a Catholic.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

contemplative:

After my experience today we need something! I’ll take head coverings and anything else that covers the body.
Today in church I saw a young man wearing a t-shirt with an obscene logo on his back! If I wrote what was said I would be suspended!!! I can say the t-shirt was an advertisement for Jacques Itch’s Pool House! You don’t want to know rest of the logo.

There was a young woman there too who needed to be escorted out!!! Her underwear ( thong ) was not covered.:bigyikes: Unfortunately she was a graduating senior who was upfront for recognition today.

ENOUGH!

I’m beginning to think each parish should provide some sort of covering- and I mean COVER- for those who cannot or will not exercise some modesty. The theory would be kind of like those old-fashioned better restaurants, where gentlemen who did not dress appropriately would be given a sport coat and tie to borrow. The covering would be something similar to a graduation gown, not see-through, and mid-calf to neck, with floppy 3/4 length sleeves. They would also be issued to males as well as females.

Story: I noticed my husband this week was especially prayerful, meditative, kept his eyes closed and his lips moving. Asked him in the car what was up. He asked if I had not seen the woman sitting two pews ahead of us, in a faux reptile-skin skirt that was quite tight. I had. I was hoping he hadn’t. He was praying to avoid impure thoughts. That’s my hubby!