H
HagiaSophia
Guest
as it it difficult to use a gun if you are holding your hat in one hand. Fortunately we don’t see much of this.
as it it difficult to use a gun if you are holding your hat in one hand. Fortunately we don’t see much of this.
I am short and because of health reasons I must sit in back of church. It is hard enough to see the altar without trying to see over hats. You are right different customs do exist and I would follow the custom of where I may be. Otherwise I would be rude. So you might think being curteous is ridiculous, I don’t.Am I the only one that thinks the whole concept is ridiculous? It’s just a hat. Different societies have different customs, and you are trying to apply this to the church on a world scale.
Etiquette asside, why does it matter?
When I lived in Texas, a gentleman always took off his Stetson in church!! In fact, it gave him something to do with his hands. What are y’all doing down there? I hope you whupped him good.not in my CCD and Confirmation programs, I’ll whup your hat off so fast it’ll knock you silly. this is Texas so this is really an issue. had to remind the relative of a first communion candidate this morning to remove his stetson.
Could they be CIA? FBI? Secret Service?Men wearing hats in Church is a no, no. It is like walking into my house and not taking of your shoes. On top of that I can’t take it when people wear sunglasses. If it is persription okay but designer, come on. :banghead:
We do! But then, we are probably not that far from you.How many of your Churches still have hat holding clips on the backs of the pews? I love those things. And kids like playing with them.
My guess is this is time to call in Jimmy Akin and Colin Donovan. I’d have to say, there is no rule AGAINST it, but it is tacky to see ballcaps worn backwards at Mass, just like shorts, tank tops, etc.I am not an expert in Canon Law, but I do not think the above is correct. This writer cites Canon 20 of the 1983 Code:…Now please note that Canon 6 of the 1983 Code abrogates the entire 1917 Code of Canon Law, including Canon 1262 of that Code:
…As I have said, though, I am not an expert in Canon Law, and I will readily stand corrected if someone more knowledgeable will clarify this.
Women were required to cover their heads. They were never required to wear veils, in the sense of mantillas. In fact, in some dioceses in the U.S. in the early part of the 20th century, there was debate as to whether a mantilla or chapel caps was sufficient, as it was lace and allowed the top of the head to poke through, even though it was only little bits of hair. Some bishops thought lace veils a bit racy!No, no, no…women have never been required to wear hats at Mass…they have worn Mantillas or veils…not hats though…why would you say such a thing? I personally like it when the women are wearing mantillas…but to answer your question, absolutely not…Men should not ever, ever wear a hat into the Lords House.