O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
So…Will you be wearing phylacteries and tallis to the next Liturgy, just as St. Paul would have- or for that matter, as Jesus would have?
- Status
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
::Long, drawn-out sigh:: So, this is up again. Will it ever end?
Both Colin Donovan and Jimmy Akin have made long, drawn-out explanations on WHY women don’t have to wear a head covering in church. Some people, no matter how well it is explained to them, don’t want to hear it.
As an aside, for you who never exerienced it, yes indeed, females were expected to cover their heads in church, couldn’t get past the vestibule without something on their heads, be it a Kleenex or hanky, chapel veil (sort of a doily-like thing that perched up on top, like a lacy yarmulke), a mantilla, a beanie, a babuska, scarf, or hat. The only time a female appeared without her hat was when she was baptized, and then only briefly. Women did NOT wear only those pretty mantillas made of lace that some men cling to in some romantic fashion as the only head covering women ever wore. In fact, I am sure they would be surprised to learn, if they dig through their diocese’s or archdiocese’s archives, that the mantilla and chapel veil were at one time debated as substantional head covering in the United States.
School girls wore beanies, or later, the hat clip. The hat clip was a piece of fabric between two plastic headbands, with two rivets on either side. It folded into itself and could be stuffed into a coat pocket or into a desk easier than a beanie. The two rivets on either side caused pressure to the space just abve the ears, and gave reason for suffering to be offered during every Mass. Those things hurt!!!
Women stopped wearing head coverings around the late 60s, early 1970s. I remember getting away with a big bow on a clip, then smaller and smaller, until my mother gave up when I left the house to go to Confession or Mass. By 1983, nobody was wearing anything on their heads, which just happened to coincide with the changes in Canon Law.
As to what was done or worn in the 1st century, well, clothing styles have changed. As I stated earlier, some people need some charitable assistance, such as the offering of a robe to cover tight or obscene clothes. It wouldn’t surprise me to see somebody at Mass in their p.j.s, the ones with feet in them. But if we’re going to go all the way back to what Our Lady wore, well, that’s only for the females? Guys will be able to wear nice trousers and a polo shirt, but women will have to wear a heavy-duty woolen robe, and an equally heavy to-the-floor veil? I don’t think so. Nope, if we wear what Our Lady wore (and while I love Our Lady, I don’t think her Son is asking that of us), you fellas start wearing what Jesus wore to synagogue! Or do I seem to remember a passage in Acts involving St. Peter and animals condemned as unclean?
As for ladies who currently make a practice of wearing a veil- that is their decision. It shouldn’t make any difference in whether or not they are holier than those ladies who choose not to cover.
As for the original question posed: I would wear a hat if mandated. I would look for something that either made me look sharp but casual. I’m thinking women’s tweed, or even a nice boater. I would not wear a mantilla or chapel cap. I might be tempted to wear a Cubs ballcap, but would probably not do it.
Both Colin Donovan and Jimmy Akin have made long, drawn-out explanations on WHY women don’t have to wear a head covering in church. Some people, no matter how well it is explained to them, don’t want to hear it.
As an aside, for you who never exerienced it, yes indeed, females were expected to cover their heads in church, couldn’t get past the vestibule without something on their heads, be it a Kleenex or hanky, chapel veil (sort of a doily-like thing that perched up on top, like a lacy yarmulke), a mantilla, a beanie, a babuska, scarf, or hat. The only time a female appeared without her hat was when she was baptized, and then only briefly. Women did NOT wear only those pretty mantillas made of lace that some men cling to in some romantic fashion as the only head covering women ever wore. In fact, I am sure they would be surprised to learn, if they dig through their diocese’s or archdiocese’s archives, that the mantilla and chapel veil were at one time debated as substantional head covering in the United States.
School girls wore beanies, or later, the hat clip. The hat clip was a piece of fabric between two plastic headbands, with two rivets on either side. It folded into itself and could be stuffed into a coat pocket or into a desk easier than a beanie. The two rivets on either side caused pressure to the space just abve the ears, and gave reason for suffering to be offered during every Mass. Those things hurt!!!
Women stopped wearing head coverings around the late 60s, early 1970s. I remember getting away with a big bow on a clip, then smaller and smaller, until my mother gave up when I left the house to go to Confession or Mass. By 1983, nobody was wearing anything on their heads, which just happened to coincide with the changes in Canon Law.
As to what was done or worn in the 1st century, well, clothing styles have changed. As I stated earlier, some people need some charitable assistance, such as the offering of a robe to cover tight or obscene clothes. It wouldn’t surprise me to see somebody at Mass in their p.j.s, the ones with feet in them. But if we’re going to go all the way back to what Our Lady wore, well, that’s only for the females? Guys will be able to wear nice trousers and a polo shirt, but women will have to wear a heavy-duty woolen robe, and an equally heavy to-the-floor veil? I don’t think so. Nope, if we wear what Our Lady wore (and while I love Our Lady, I don’t think her Son is asking that of us), you fellas start wearing what Jesus wore to synagogue! Or do I seem to remember a passage in Acts involving St. Peter and animals condemned as unclean?
As for ladies who currently make a practice of wearing a veil- that is their decision. It shouldn’t make any difference in whether or not they are holier than those ladies who choose not to cover.
As for the original question posed: I would wear a hat if mandated. I would look for something that either made me look sharp but casual. I’m thinking women’s tweed, or even a nice boater. I would not wear a mantilla or chapel cap. I might be tempted to wear a Cubs ballcap, but would probably not do it.
L
Lorrie
Guest
I would love for it to come back, it seems so reverened to me. Most of us women are very prideful when it comes to our hair, to cover it would be a sign of humility (among many other things).
C
CarolAnnSFO
Guest
I still don’t understand this. When I was growing up, the nuns taught us that all people are made in God’s image. Is this “woman are made in the image of man” stuff simply a matter of mis-interpreting scripture? Or were the nuns misinformed?
I would be so tempted to wear a Yankees ball cap, but that would get me lynched, where I live.
I’d wear a hat. Our custom in the past was hats or babushkas, but I’d rather wear a hat then a babushka.Crazy Internet Junkie Society
****Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag
H
holyspirit1985
Guest
and i would do the lynching!!I would be so tempted to wear a Yankees ball cap, but that would get me lynched, where I live.
just kidding…i just thought i’d throw some humor out there.seriously, though, i really don’t care about the head coverings. if i were told to wear one, i would. no questions asked. i know the carmelite sisters in LA have their postulants wear head coverings.
also, on the dress code, i know at school we have a dress code in the chapel that so many people don’t follow. we are to have knee-length skirts/pants and cover our shoulders. that’s for women. i don’t remember what it said for men b/c i’m not a man so i didn’t pay attention.
U
USMC
Guest
TNT is right. The Church never said head coverings are not required. Head coverings for women are a Tradition (with a captial T), that is addressed explicitly in the bible (1 Corinthians 11), and has been a practice ever since.
It is true that the 1983 code of Canon law did not mention head coverings, but that does not mean they are no longer required. All Church laws are binding unless they are specifically revoked by a later law. The 1983 code of Canon law itself explictly stares this:
Canon 20: "A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise".
And it further states the following:
Canon 21: "In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.
The apostolic Tradition of head coverings, has never been abrogated. Therefore the law is still binding.
Those women who seek to please God should follow the laws of the Church. And they can be sure that God will bless them for it.
C
CarolAnnSFO
Guest
Some people believe this ^^^^,
and some don’t:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4222
ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp
(click “Liturgy and Sacrements”, then “Head Covering in Church”)
So, who is correct?
Crazy Internet Junkie Society
****Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag
B
byzmelkite
Guest
How can I convince my wife that it is more appropriate for women to wear head coverings in Church? I really wish the Church had explicitly retained that Tradition since it is Biblical and there are good theological reasons for it.
A
AuntMartha
Guest
The only thing I can suggest (if you haven’t done so already) is to visit a church that has a Latin Tridentine Mass or a Missa Normative. I went last Sunday, and there were lots of ladies with head coverings.
I myself started headcovering when I first returned to the RCC this past March. I began with hats, but felt like I wanted to get a chapel veil. I ordered one from halo-works.com/. At first, I only wore the veil to Confession and while praying the Rosary. Then, when I started attending daily Mass a couple of times a week, I wore the veil there. This past Sunday, at the Missa Normative, I wore the veil to Sunday Mass for the first time. I confess I have been a bit shy to wear it to Sunday Mass at my regular church! I hope to do that soon.
Your wife may be feeling the same way as me - shy. My reasons for wanting to wear a hat or veil are because I think it shows submission to God and it was what we wore when I was growing up (at least in the early part of my childhood). Even after it was “okay” to no longer wear a headcovering, I never felt right about it. It always seemed like something was missing. But I never want people to think I am being “holier-than-thou”. Although I’d love to see lots of other ladies wearing hats and veils, I don’t think badly of other ladies if they don’t. But I worry they think I might, which is another reason for my shyness, I think.
Anyway, visit a Latin Mass like I said above (and your wife may want to plan on wearing at least a hat, since she may feel out of place without one there! although there were ladies without hats or veils at the one I went to). That will be a start that may inspire her.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
See, I knew I liked you Carol! It was hats, hats, hats before the headcoverings came off. I have tried to explain this to people until I am blue in the face…it was NEVER always veils!!! Hispanic women wore a type of scarf that was not necessarily a lacey mantilla, but very ulitarian, to keep out the cold as well as cover the head. Other immigrants wore their shawls over their heads. But in this country, it has been the HAT, or the babuska, or the triangle with the strings that tie under the chin, or the bandana, or those shades of the 50s/ 60s chiffon headscarves my mother so loved. Little girls had nasty, itchy elastic cords that fit under the chin of their hats. Grown-up ladies used hat pins or had combs sewed into the back of the hats to keep them from falling off. But they were HATS.I would be so tempted to wear a Yankees ball cap, but that would get me lynched, where I live.
Crazy Internet Junkie Society
****Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag
So hats are not my favorite thing, and I can never find one that looks good on me. If I could find a hat that looked good on me, I’d be tempted to wear it. I procured an Easter bonnet one year as an adult, a boater with a band around the crown, wore it to Mass. From the photos, I’d say I looked as if I were trying out for the British Royal Family, frump division.
Jimmy Akin and one other guy whose name escapes me at the moment (Colin Devlin?), both excellent, professional apologists, have explained that this was a tradition that is NO LONGER BINDING. The Pope has nothing thus far, and the Curia has not spoken. I am sorry that some people think in these days of major public sinning and murder of innocents, angels are going to wreak major havoc because women do not cover their heads in the church building in front of the Presence.
Know what I think? Get mad, Other People, this is my opinion, as I am not the Pope or a member of a curial committee. I think a lot of Catholic guys are romanticizing something that never really happened, mostly because many of them didn’t have “the headcovering rule” when they were growing up. They’ve misinterpreted a scripture passage that was meant for a set time and really involved propriety and modesty, not an actual, factual veil. The rest don’t remember very well, mostly because they were not the ones who had to wear said headcovering. And I think some (not all to be sure) of these men think it is alluring that women place lace over their heads, with or without the conviction to do so, or the legal requirement. Even the term “veiling” seems romantic and a call to days-gone-by, because they are not thinking Talliban veiling, or at least Saudi chador-type veiling, which is probably close to biblical veiling- but lacey, feminine, filmy veiling.
BTW- It is also biblical to for women of a certain age to go to a public, relgious bathouse once a month and take an immersion after their monthlies.
As to the ladies who desire to return to this practice on their own- fabulous! You go right ahead and cover your heads. Most of you do this as a pious practice, and that’s fine with those of us who don’t.
C
CarolAnnSFO
Guest
I’m glad I’m not the only one! I was beginning to wonder if perhaps I had grown up on another planet.
Pre-Vatican II, I never once saw a mantilla in church – just hats and scarves (and their variations). Sometimes we’d see a chapel cap, but that was generally reserved for emergencies, when you found yourself unexpectedly attending Mass, and you didn’t have a hat.**Crazy Internet Junkies Society
**Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag
T
TNT
Guest
There is nothing in the NT about your comparision in your “BTW-” This is Mosaic Law abolished in the New Covenant…
Let us use valid comparatives. For instance “A bishop must be married to only one wife…” in Timothy, but we now replace it with celibacy…ie no wife.
In any case one can be “by the Book” and still present a real nutty liturgy. Witness:
http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20050727/capt.mu10207271924.mexico_clowns_mu102.jpg
*Maylen, 18, receives communion at the Basilica of Guadalupe in Mexico City, Wednesday, July 27, 2005. Hundreds of clowns of all ages ended their annual pilgrimage to the Basilica to pay their respects to the Virgin of Guadalupe. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte)
***Well, there you have it. Covered head, communion on the tongue…but ?!
C
CatQuilt
Guest
I grew up in Holyoke, Massachusetts in the 50’s and saw lots of mantillas. Being a child, I didn’t wear a long one myself, though I wanted to. I did wear the shorter version and the chapel cap…I’m glad I’m not the only one! I was beginning to wonder if perhaps I had grown up on another planet.
Crazy Internet Junkies Society
Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag
Maybe I’ll get the long black one and start a new trend at my current church!
(psst, I love the Yankees too!)
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
*COVERED, not veiled. That’s a HAT. *
**
I’ll give you the apples and oranges on the mikvah.
**
**
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
It was that or the Kleenex or clean hankie.I’m glad I’m not the only one! I was beginning to wonder if perhaps I had grown up on another planet.
In the early 60s, one of my aunts was quite upset on Easter after having done the pastor a great favor earlier in Holy Week. She’d gotten all gussied up for Easter, new suit, and a spanking great hat. It was not to show off (if you knew her, you’d know that wasn’t true), but because she could FINALLY afford a new outfit- complete with great hat. No fault to the rest of the congregation, but it was a changing neighborhood, and the women wore not a mantilla, but a sort of scarf with more to it. Even my aunt said, that’s probably all they had, so it wasn’t their fault.
I guess in Father’s homily, he made a reference on how wonderful it was to see MOST of the congregation “simply covered”, while he looked right at her.
She did not find it funny.
T
TNT
Guest
OutinChgoburbs said:
I never complained about a hat. I like most of them. Notice also that there is no plunging neckline. So, she follows all the dress codes and still, well, not quite right.
Maybe it’s the nose guard. Nah. Ok, too much eye makeup.
C
challenger
Guest
I haven’t read through this all… but here’s a link: catholicintl.com/catholicissues/women-covering001.htm
A
A.Pelliccio
Guest
1 Corinthians 11:1-17:
1(A)Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
2Now (B)I praise you because you (C)remember me in everything and (D)hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
3But I want you to understand that Christ is the (E)head of every man, and (F)the man is the head of a woman, and God is the (G)head of Christ.
4Every man who has something on his head while praying or (H)prophesying disgraces his head.
5But every (I)woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is (J)shaved.
6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the (K)image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
8For (L)man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but (M)woman for the man’s sake.
10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
12For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and (N)all things originate (O)from God.
13(P)Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
16But if one is inclined to be contentious, (Q)we have no other practice, nor have (R)the churches of God.
17But in giving this instruction, (S)I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.
It is not a misinterpretation of the bible. It is there in black and white for all to see written by the Holy Apostel St Paul. He is not being poetic or speaking in fabels (as our Lord sometimes did ) so their is no need for interpretation.
The story of creation in Genesis also shows how women comes from man.
1(A)Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
2Now (B)I praise you because you (C)remember me in everything and (D)hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
3But I want you to understand that Christ is the (E)head of every man, and (F)the man is the head of a woman, and God is the (G)head of Christ.
4Every man who has something on his head while praying or (H)prophesying disgraces his head.
5But every (I)woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is (J)shaved.
6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the (K)image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
8For (L)man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but (M)woman for the man’s sake.
10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
12For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and (N)all things originate (O)from God.
13(P)Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
16But if one is inclined to be contentious, (Q)we have no other practice, nor have (R)the churches of God.
17But in giving this instruction, (S)I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.
It is not a misinterpretation of the bible. It is there in black and white for all to see written by the Holy Apostel St Paul. He is not being poetic or speaking in fabels (as our Lord sometimes did ) so their is no need for interpretation.
The story of creation in Genesis also shows how women comes from man.
B
bear06
Guest
Come on now. Are we actually saying that mantillas are part of the Deposit of Faith? It’s a discipline - not doctrine. The Magisterium has the power to bind or loose these disciplines and as it is not found in the current Code, She has seen fit to loose it.
The Church states this:
That’s it. The whole enchilada is abrogated and we only have to appeal to the current code. If it ain’t in there, we are not bound to it. She did say that we didn’t need mantillas by abrogating the whole 1917 Code and not reinserting this discipline into the new one.
If we needed to refer back and forth to old codes and new, why would be ever bother to restate previous canons in the new Code? Wouldn’t we simply need to add a little addendums or abrogations to the old Code? Wouldn’t the Church simply have called it “The Addendum to the 1917 Code of Canon Law”?
Now we can go on and on quoting Corinthians but if you read it again, you will notice in black and white that it says a woman’s head should be covered whenever praying, not just in Church. If you notice, it’s probably been a really long while since the Church made women wear veils just to pray. And guess what? The Church is the one who gets to interpret and decide what the disciplines are and when we are bound by them. Disciples change. Doesn’t anyone remember the apostles changing disciplines?
So much time spent talking about lace when the Church does not.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
I must be pressing the wrong buttons, because I am losing posts, and I am not being rude or disobeying the rules of CA (at least I hope not).
Anyway, I know yesterday I said I conceded to your point about the mikvah vice the bishop. I also pointed out that the young clown was wearing a HAT (and a rather cute one on her), and not a veil. I hope this makes it to the boards!
I **remember reading someplace **in the celebration of Our Lady of Guadelupe’s Day, people come from all over Mexico and perform for Our Lady. I’ve heard it last all day and into the night. The young woman’s performance (and gift to Our Lady) was probably some form of circus entertainment.
- Status