Headcoverings in church for women

  • Thread starter Thread starter StCatherine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

StCatherine

Guest
Does anyone wear headcoverings to church? When I was a girl we always did and then suddeny we didn’t. They never really explained what that was all about. Nowadays, there are women in many churches who are rediscovering the concept of wearing a headcovering and struggling to understand how to apply it. Some of them just wear one to church, some wear it all the time , in case they pray or prophesy, some wear a little symbolic one, some wear a big one that covers all their hair.

I’m not sure of it myself as there is only one Bible passage in 1 Corinathians 11 which discusses it and it can be taken two ways, either to cover your head with something or that your hair is your covering.

I finally wore a little scarf to church the other sunday. The Sunday before I observed some young ladies in revealing belly shirts and thought that if they can wear belly shirts to church I can wear a headcovering and not worry about being thought strange. I don’t think anyone noticed of course, I was just being too self conscious. The other headcovering wearer was a male biker type with a headscarf tied gang style.
 
The 1917 Code of Canon Law. canon 1262, stated,
  1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.
  2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bear-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.
When the 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated this canon was not re-issued; indeed, canon 6 abrogated it, along with every other canon of the 1917 Code not intentionally incorporated into the new legislation. Thus, there is no longer any canonical obligation for women to wear a head-covering, much less the more specific veil.

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL, of EWTN.com
 
40.png
StCatherine:
Does anyone wear headcoverings to church? When I was a girl we always did and then suddeny we didn’t. They never really explained what that was all about. Nowadays, there are women in many churches who are rediscovering the concept of wearing a headcovering and struggling to understand how to apply it. Some of them just wear one to church, some wear it all the time , in case they pray or prophesy, some wear a little symbolic one, some wear a big one that covers all their hair.

I’m not sure of it myself as there is only one Bible passage in 1 Corinathians 11 which discusses it and it can be taken two ways, either to cover your head with something or that your hair is your covering.

I finally wore a little scarf to church the other sunday. The Sunday before I observed some young ladies in revealing belly shirts and thought that if they can wear belly shirts to church I can wear a headcovering and not worry about being thought strange. I don’t think anyone noticed of course, I was just being too self conscious. The other headcovering wearer was a male biker type with a headscarf tied gang style.
Click to expand...
I found my mantilla the other day…(its a bit old now) I , like you, wore it to Mass and got some looks but then some of the others seem to aprove. I say wear it if you want to. I will sometimes although won’t all the time.
 
I do, though it’s no longer requred. I didn’t for a long time, out of a very public, liberal feminist agenda. But, as I have come to appreciate the dignity and separate ministries of the genders, I wear one on Sundays and on more formal occasions as a witness to the change that has come about inside of me . . . I don’t usually at the less formal daily Mass. . . it’s a personal thing . . . one way is not better than another . . . I’m not making sense so I’ll stop . . . but I will hit the “send” button. . .
 
Yeah. At first I thought it was just silly to force women to wear veils or headcoverings. Then Christopher West came to Gonzaga and gave a lecture on JPII’s Theology of the Body… wow. Suffice it to say that now that I understand the dignity and role of women a little bit better, I am most definitely in favor of women wearing headcoverings.

Women shouldn’t veil themselves because of some “primordial” sense of femine shame; they are covering our glory so that He may be glorified instead. They cover themselves because they are holy – and because feminine beauty is incredibly powerful. Consider how the image of “woman” is used to sell everything from shampoo to used cars. Women need to understand the power of the feminine and act accordingly by following the rules of modest attire, including the use of the veil.

Holy things have always been veiled throughout history. Moses had to walk around with a veil on because he had seen the face of God and lived. The ark of the covenant was veiled. The Holy of Holies was veiled… the chalice and ciborium are veiled until the offertor… women too are holy vessels of life, just like the chalice and ciborium.

Christopher West put it in very stark terms. “Guys, women are Holy. They are a reflection of the glory of God. When you see a woman you shouldn’t lust after her but GENUFLECT instead.” That hit me like a ton of bricks. It’s so true!
 
I am a convert. I was anxious to find the reason for the veil. The first year that I was in the church I always wore my hair up or in a ponytail. Now I wear a veil. A woman has long, beautiful hair which can be a distraction and so the veil is a visible reminder :tsktsk:
 
40.png
CatholicNerd:
Yeah. At first I thought it was just silly to force women to wear veils or headcoverings. Then Christopher West came to Gonzaga and gave a lecture on JPII’s Theology of the Body… wow. Suffice it to say that now that I understand the dignity and role of women a little bit better, I am most definitely in favor of women wearing headcoverings.

Women shouldn’t veil themselves because of some “primordial” sense of femine shame; they are covering our glory so that He may be glorified instead. They cover themselves because they are holy – and because feminine beauty is incredibly powerful. Consider how the image of “woman” is used to sell everything from shampoo to used cars. Women need to understand the power of the feminine and act accordingly by following the rules of modest attire, including the use of the veil.

Holy things have always been veiled throughout history. Moses had to walk around with a veil on because he had seen the face of God and lived. The ark of the covenant was veiled. The Holy of Holies was veiled… the chalice and ciborium are veiled until the offertor… women too are holy vessels of life, just like the chalice and ciborium.

Christopher West put it in very stark terms. “Guys, women are Holy. They are a reflection of the glory of God. When you see a woman you shouldn’t lust after her but GENUFLECT instead.” That hit me like a ton of bricks. It’s so true!
Click to expand...
Nerd 🤓 ,

I can’t tell if you are a man or woman by your post, but you are cool! :cool: Your points are fantastic. I’ve always wondered about the head covering issue,and your points make it all clear to me now. I’m gonna go buy me little church veil!🙂
 
I always cover my head in church. Nobody told me to - I was the first of the “younger” women to do so. It was definitely a calling. I feel it is modest and respectful to do so. A preist friend of ours loves it when women cover their heads. His analogy : The tablernacle is covered. Therefore it is a beautiful act by women, because they are the ‘tabernacles of life.’

That just kind of affirmed my wearing a veil.
 
40.png
Mummybee:
Nerd 🤓 ,

I can’t tell if you are a man or woman by your post, but you are cool! :cool: Your points are fantastic. I’ve always wondered about the head covering issue,and your points make it all clear to me now. I’m gonna go buy me little church veil!🙂
Click to expand...
LOL the nerd smilie thing is great 🤓 Hehe. I’m male. Dunno if I’d call myself a man just yet. LOL. I’m 19 and converted this past Easter. I’m working on the man thing, but I’ve still got a lot of maturing to do. God’ll give me the grace I need to make it though 😃
 
I bought a mantilla a few years ago when I knew I would be attending a Tridentine mass. I want to wear one but don’t have the courage as I sing in the choir. I notice a lot of people at the EWTN masses wear one. It just seems more respectful to me.
 
Mary

Wear it and don’t worry about it. When we come to understand something- we make up our minds to do or not to do- and never waver. :blessyou:
I was noticing that very young children watch carefully and mimic what they see, like folding hands together in prayer.
God bless you. :tiphat:
 
40.png
Shan:
Dear Mary

Wear it and don’t worry about it. When we come to understand something- we make up our minds to do or not to do- and never waver. :blessyou:
I was noticing that very young children watch carefully and mimic what they see, like folding hands together in prayer.
God bless you. :tiphat:
Click to expand...
P.S. (I love EWTN and especially Father Casey) :gopray2:
 
Detroit Sue: I always cover my head in church. Nobody told me to - I was the first of the “younger” women to do so. It was definitely a calling. I feel it is modest and respectful to do so. A priest friend of ours loves it when women cover their heads. His analogy : The tablernacle is covered. Therefore it is a beautiful act by women, because they are the ‘tabernacles of life.’
I found this to be a beautiful analogy!

The history behind women no longer wearing the veil was due to a misunderstanding by a reporter in Rome during the early years of Vatican II. Once this misunderstanding made it into print, the doors were opened and women believed that it was no longer required. A terrible shame!
 
Latin Mass Only:
The history behind women no longer wearing the veil was due to a misunderstanding by a reporter in Rome during the early years of Vatican II. Once this misunderstanding made it into print, the doors were opened and women believed that it was no longer required. A terrible shame!
Click to expand...
Thank you for this! I could not pull this little chestnut out of my gray matter - this exactly explains what happened!
 
Detroit Sue:
Thank you for this! I could not pull this little chestnut out of my gray matter - this exactly explains what happened!
Click to expand...
Could one news reporter in Rome really be the reason that nearly everyone stopped wearing a veil? : :whacky:
If that’s the reason that they stopped it seems even more important that they understand why they should wear one. What is the matter with gray? :coffee:
 
Just because canon law doesn’t mention something does not mean we don’t have to do it. Fulton Sheen called this mandate that women are to cover their heads a “Divine Command.” This is clearly true if we look throughout history. St. Linus, the second Pope, was the first to write on this subject, and all Popes since then have kept with Tradition and required the wearing of head coverings. However, this new canon law omits mention of the command, not surprisingly. If just before this new canon law came out, hand Communion was permitted, no one would argue that a woman not covering her head would be sacrilegeous, as long as hand Communion was not. However, we all know of these terrible fabrications that have come since Vatican II concerning especially discipline. I do not think a woman in good faith could omit a practice mandated prior to AD 70. God bless.
 
About Bugnini and head coverings… even “Archbishop” Bugnini, a discovered FREEMASON, was the one who commanded that the reporter retract the words that he falsely portrayed as something Bugnini stated. If even a FREEMASON (the one who headed the “construction” of the New Mass, mind you) would even require a woman to cover her head, what does that say of those who would not require the said act?

God bless.
 
40.png
EENS:
However, we all know of these terrible fabrications that have come since Vatican II concerning especially discipline.
Click to expand...
Vatican II took place 25 years before you were even born. Why so much bitterness toward it, then? Indeed, toward the current Canon Law book, and apparently toward any of the current teaching of the Church, which requires your obedience no matter how many times you can work the word “fallible” into your posts?
 
Melman:
Vatican II took place 25 years before you were even born. Why so much bitterness toward it, then? Indeed, toward the current Canon Law book, and apparently toward any of the current teaching of the Church, which requires your obedience no matter how many times you can work the word “fallible” into your posts?
Click to expand...
The Arian heresy took place 1650 years before I was born. I have a much greater bitnerness, nay, an actual hate, of that. Does it matter when something took place? Sunday there were 35,000 + protestant religions all of which probably had some time of “service” that is heretical. I hate that, too. It doesn’t matter when something occurs. I can hate it just the same. If it is a sin, I do hate it. If it is Vat II, I would not say I hate it, certainly. After all, it was not Vat. II but the faulty interpretation and fabrication thereof that produced what we have today, including the New Mass. I love the teaching of the Church. I hate the false presentation thereof, which scandalizes good Catholics into beliefing error. I follow stricter disciplines than the Canon Law 1983. Does that mean I am disobedient? I still fulfill the obligations contained therein. Am I sinning in doing so? If Canon Law says you must fast one hour before Communion, if someone does so for an hour and one second is he disobedient for going beyond requirements? If one fasts from midnight, is he disobedient? Of course he is not. Was it wrong in 1954 to fast from midnight, when the Church REQUIRED it. No, it was not. Was it a mortal sin to receive Communion if you had NOT fasted since midnight then? Yes, it was a mortal sin. There is no possible way you can attack the practices or beliefs of someone who believes as Catholics always have. I believe as Catholics always have. New and “better” “theologians” can think up whatever crazy and heretical interpretation of every Church document. Will that change what I believe? No, it will not. Unless the Pope declare ex Cathedra different from what all Catholics have always believed, I will continue believing. Of course, he could not do such, for if he did, he would be contradicting what has already been lain down by the Church infallibly. Truth cannot contradict Truth. God bless you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top