Join us--wear a head covering to Mass Oct 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Forest-Pine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
netmil(name removed by moderator):
to give Kudos to women showing ourselves to be exclusively female.
Click to expand...
Veiling (covering of the head) in church is not an exclusively female discipline. The canon law of 1917 showed that for men to have heads covered or uncovered was a matter of local custom; whereas, for females, covering was universal. Traditional priests wear birettas during the homily/sermon.
 
40.png
KayMS:
Veiling (covering of the head) in church is not an exclusively female discipline. The canon law of 1917 showed that for men to have heads covered or uncovered was a matter of local custom; whereas, for females, covering was universal. Traditional priests wear birettas during the homily/sermon.
Click to expand...
Well, understanding that in the local cultures of those who are here, men uncovered and women covered, I would have to say that it is female.
Men wear kllts Scotland. But in America that look is female.
 
netmil(name removed by moderator):
Well, understanding that in the local cultures of those who are here, men uncovered and women covered, I would have to say that it is female.
Click to expand...
Head covering is predominantly female in the US. The US is composed of people of many cultures.

Skirts and kilts have their origin in the same garment - the male loin cloth.
 
40.png
KayMS:
Head covering is predominantly female in the US. The US is composed of people of many cultures.

Skirts and kilts have their origin in the same garment - the male loin cloth.
Click to expand...
I’m glad we’re in agreement! It’s wonderful to be in a Melting Pot!
I’m not sure the male loin cloth ever had an exceptable place in American culture, however.🙂
 
netmil(name removed by moderator):
I’m not sure the male loin cloth ever had an exceptable place in American culture, however.🙂
Click to expand...
Native American’s fancied them before the Europeans “civilized” them! 😉

Elphaba=KayMS

I made a moniker persona correction - thespians will get it!
 
It is a “smart” hat! Not everything is as it appears in Oz! 😃 (Do you like my green smiley?)

BTW, where did you get that photo?
 
40.png
bear06:
I’ve asked the OP if I may respond now that the 10/2 is over and she allowed me to do so. Also, before anyone jumps on me for being against wearing head coverings, I’m not in any way. The only thing I am against is people insisting that the Church binds us to do so. Jimmy Akin has written a great piece on explaning this issue (acutally I think he’s written a few). Please read this:

jimmyakin.org/2004/07/head_coverings_.html

And for those who might not be inclined to click on the above link, here’s a little quote rebutting the above posters theories on this issue.
.

As for St. Paul, he did not just speak of wearing head coverings in Church , he spoke of wearing them any time we pray. I doubt I can find one person who follows this exactly as St. Paul states. Besides that, the Church has the final interpretation of bibilical texts and the last 3 popes haven’t suddenly forgot to teach us on this issue.

Glad to hear that most of your 10/2 experiences seem to have gone well!
Click to expand...
Well, you just met someone who tries to cover her head whenever she prays. I try to cover my head all day long, and when I pray before I go to bed at night, I don’t remove the covering until after I pray.

I need to work on not praying for my food until my head is covered for the day.

So I shouldn’t say yet that I always pray with me head covered, but I’m working on it!🙂
 
40.png
Elphaba:
Native American’s fancied them before the Europeans “civilized” them! 😉
Click to expand...
But, “Native Americans” were not actually “Americans” in the European label.
In Canada, they call them “First Nations”. They were nations of their own. Many of them still consider that today.
 
40.png
Elphaba:
It is a “smart” hat! Not everything is as it appears in Oz! 😃 (Do you like my green smiley?)

BTW, where did you get that photo?
Click to expand...
From here. It thinks I am Elphaba, too. You better go straighten the thing out, huh?
 
Hi,

I’m doing as St Paul told us, and after he admonished us he wrote these words:

1 corinthians 11,16- But if anyone wants to argue about it, all I have to say is that neither we nor the churches of God have any other custom in worship–(Veiling)

God bless

Jan
 
40.png
Forest-Pine:
You better go straighten the thing out, huh?
Click to expand...
Other Fabala,

If I did that, it would be too perfect and I would no longer be Elphaba, but G(a)linda!
 
If Jesus gave the Church the power to bind and loose, and He did, then I wonder if heaven agrees with all their decisions?–Just a thought.
Click to expand...
Thankfully, it’s not something we need to lose sleep over as many saints have told us. If it is an error, it’s the pope’s not ours. 👍

It sounds as if we are in agreement on most.
Father Haydock did not provide a personal interpretation in his commentary; he provided the Church’s interpretation compiled from both the written and oral traditions of the Church.
Click to expand...
I’d love to see the Church’s interpretation. So far, I haven’t seen it. The quote you gave didn’t indicate that they were from the Magisterium. Are there footnotes in the commentary that might point to something? Thanks!
 
I’m so very sorry I missed this post. WOW! I love the idea. I’ve just started to wear a hat to Church this summer and now I’m stuck because I have nothing at this time for the fall… but I’ll go shopping to pick one up.

I like the fact it shadows my face and I can really concentrate on the Mass.

Blessings,
Joanie
 
40.png
bear06:
Are there footnotes in the commentary that might point to something? Thanks!
Click to expand...
I apologize to anyone who read my previous now deleted post (the Elphaba side of me snuck out).

As I said, the commentary that Father Haydock included is not his personal interpretation. To be absolutely specific, the commentary Father Haydock included for 1 Cor. 11:1-16 comes from Rob. Witham (d.1738), Aug. Calmet (d.1757), and, I think, De la Chetardie (d. 1714).

In the historical section of the Haydock, it explains that 1 Cor. 11 contains lessons “on dress and functions of women in the church-services…” This section was written by Rev. Bernard O’Reilly, L.D. (Laval), copyright 1880.

It is obvious that more than one person of church authority interprets S. Paul’s letter in reference to public prayer during church services.
 
LOL! Now I’m just getting plain confused as to who said what and who interpreted what except that I think that Elphaba is Kay. It’s all starting to seem a little silly because I think that we agree it is not required and that we are to defer to the Church’s interpretation of when, where or if we are bound to headcoverings. :whacky:
 
Footnotes
1 [11:2-14:40] This section of the letter is devoted to regulation of conduct at the liturgy. The problems Paul handles have to do with the dress of women **in the assembly ** (1 Cor 11:3-16)
Bear, that is the footnote from the NAB [not my favorite translation but I am making a point, not picking favorites]. This commentary also states that St. Paul was addressing the dress of women in public prayer, not all prayer. I do not think it was you who asserted that women must be always veiled, but you called me on my Haydock quote so I was compelled to support Haydock with further material to show the consistency of the Church’s interpretation on the context of veiling in St. Paul’s letter.

I concur that we agree about veiling (even if I seemed a bit pig-headed in my tactics - I am Elphaba, afterall).
 
I do not think it was you who asserted that women must be always veiled, but you called me on my Haydock quote so I was compelled to support Haydock with further material to show the consistency of the Church’s interpretation on the context of veiling in St. Paul’s letter
Click to expand...
.

Alas, I think my original point has been lost. :crying: It was that we can read this scripture literally, like some here apparently do, or we can rely on the Church’s interpretation of how this applies to us. This is basically what you’ve showed. Heck, if we go by what you’re saying, then the Church has actually interpreted the meaning of this verse as well as how it applies to us. I was only hoping that the footnotes in “the Commentary” would lead to some other document. Sorry for the confusion. Like I said, Haydock’s interpretation may be a fine one. My only concern is that people who refer to this as the reason we must where a head covering do not believe in this Magisterium’s interpretation of how this applies to us in our day and age. Off to bed!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top