Protestants and the Veil

[Pier]

So then who does pick what parts of the Bible apply when & where…

the individual pastors? the councils elders? the congregation’s vote?

The Bible also says we should be like-minded… how is that explained away?

 

[RyanL]

You have made your misunderstanding of sola scriptura a major part of this thread.

I’m sorry, was Sola Scriptura dogmatically defined by some Protestant council, binding on all other Protestants? What makes any particular definition “more official” than another? You would likely shudder to hear some of the definitions I’ve heard Protestants use.

I’m not going to jump all over you about this, because I believe we should use the definition used by most mainline Protestant sects rather than that used strictly by the fringe…but since there’s no “official” definition I’d say it’s a bit unfair of you to lay all the blame about what you consider a “bad definition” at HailMary’s feet.

post something from Luther or the credal statements on sola scriptura to back up your (baseless) claims.

Would this site do, or do you need something which makes Luther look better than he was?

Martin Luther is not some kind of protestant pope where everyone has to be in lock step w/ his every opinion.

Thank heavens for that! That guy had issues!.

In any case, I think you’re starting to derail the thread. It’s about why Protestants don’t use mantillas / head coverings – not about Luther’s (many, many) problems.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Calvinator]

I’m sorry, was Sola Scriptura dogmatically defined by some Protestant council, binding on all other Protestants? What makes any particular definition “more official” than another? You would likely shudder to hear some of the definitions I’ve heard Protestants use.

I’m not going to jump all over you about this, because I believe we should use the definition used by most mainline Protestant sects rather than that used strictly by the fringe…but since there’s no “official” definition I’d say it’s a bit unfair of you to lay all the blame about what you consider a “bad definition” at HailMary’s feet.

Would this site do, or do you need something which makes Luther look better than he was?

Thank heavens for that! That guy had issues!.

In any case, I think you’re starting to derail the thread. It’s about why Protestants don’t use mantillas / head coverings – not about Luther’s (many, many) problems.

God Bless,
RyanL

Ryan,

You apparently haven’t read my posts so I won’t jump all over you on this.

If you had bothered to read either Hailmary’s posts or mine you would have noticed that what was discussed as far as sola scriptura goes was very well defined.

On my side I asked for evidence which backed hailmary’s claims that Luther had such a stringent view of sola scriptura. I even opened it up to include all the reformers and the evidence I asked for could come from either Luther or any of the reformers, based on either Luther’s writings or one of the credal statements on sola scriptura. That is pretty explicit, is it not? There was no mention about pulling someones definition of sola scriptura off of some random website. It was and will be limited to Luther’s definition (Hailmary’s claim) and the more broad definition of the credal statements.

Hailmary has of yet to back up his/her claims about Luther having a very, very stingent view of sola scriptura.

Now, Luther did have his problems but haven’t more than a few popes had a few problems as well. Which pope was it that ordered the Jewish ghettoes rebuilt after Napolean had freed the Jews? BTW, Luther wasn’t the first to place the “alone” in Romans, Cardinal Bellarmine catologued no less than 6-8 instances from the early church.

I quickly reviewed the website you linked to and am not sure how this supports Hailmary’s sola scriptura claims. If you would actually like to post something in support of Hailmary’s claims, feel free to do so.

So, I think the phrase is “put up or shut up”. If I am wrong I will admit it. If hailmary is wrong I would expect a retraction.

Since hailmary has made his/her definition of sola scriptura such a central part of this thread I don’t think this derails the thread at all.

 

[Zooey]

Because they recognize that Paul was speaking to that there Corinthian culture, rather than making a statement for all times and all places.

First, let me point out, that many women do wear a headcovering in church, if not anywhere else. A veil or a bonnet, they are quite common in many churches.
When we do not, it is generally because, as Scottm points outaul’s statement is taken as a culture requirement, which speaks to the broader issue of modesty & also avoiding scandal. Thos women who wear a headcoveing may be required to do so, by their church’s authority. Or, they may simply be heeding the message of Scripture by interpreting it in a more literalistic manner than others.

 

[pyropam]

I am a new convert (Easter 2007), but was raised in the COG and AOG. Their teaching on this scripture is as follows:

A womans hair is her glory, and should be used as her “head covering”. Short hair for a woman is a shame and a sin. Women should therefore keep their hair long.

Over the last decade, this has changed in many of their churches. It of course is all up to the people who attend that specific church.

 

[HailMary]

Since hailmary has made his/her definition of sola scriptura such a central part of this thread I don’t think this derails the thread at all.

You can read my first post which is actually the topic at hand, not what the former Catholic priest Luther thoughts on the bible were. If you care not to answer, peace be to you.

 

[thommie]

There has been a lot of discussion in this thread, but HailMary, I’m just going to address your original question as much as possible.

From what I have observed, and IMHO, most protestant groups (and I AM protestant, although I was Catholic earlier in life) have not enforced the wearing of head coverings by the women, and they may just be re-interpreting the passage to conform with their current practice (or lack thereof).

The reasons Paul gives, in his argument for women wearing head coverings, are theological and historical, not cultural.

Also, when going through the passage, try substituting “hair” or “long hair” for “cover” or “covered” or “covering,” and see how silly it sounds.

The denomination with which I am now aligned (Plymouth Brethren - although they hate being referred to as a denomination), traditionally taught that women should wear head coverings during meetings of the church, or when praying with a group, and some local churches still follow the practice. However, even they are getting more lax in the practice and are becoming more and more like the other protestant churches in relation to this practice.

In short, I agree with you that women should still wear head coverings in church.

I may get flamed by my fellow protestants BIG TIME for this one

 

[Hellisreal]

Interesting.

I dont think you will get flamed, as your protestant friends would rather like to appear more unifyed than they are.

As to Zooey, when you say some would take it more literal than others…

What do you in fact mean by this?

If its not literal

Is it figurative? If so, of what?

Or something else?

Could you be more specific.

Thank you

There has been a lot of discussion in this thread, but HailMary, I’m just going to address your original question as much as possible.

From what I have observed, and IMHO, most protestant groups (and I AM protestant, although I was Catholic earlier in life) have not enforced the wearing of head coverings by the women, and they may just be re-interpreting the passage to conform with their current practice (or lack thereof).

The reasons Paul gives, in his argument for women wearing head coverings, are theological and historical, not cultural.

Also, when going through the passage, try substituting “hair” or “long hair” for “cover” or “covered” or “covering,” and see how silly it sounds.

The denomination with which I am now aligned (Plymouth Brethren - although they hate being referred to as a denomination), traditionally taught that women should wear head coverings during meetings of the church, or when praying with a group, and some local churches still follow the practice. However, even they are getting more lax in the practice and are becoming more and more like the other protestant churches in relation to this practice.

In short, I agree with you that women should still wear head coverings in church.

I may get flamed by my fellow protestants BIG TIME for this one

 

[Zooey]

As to Zooey, when you say some would take it more literal than others…

What do you in fact mean by this?

If its not literal

Is it figurative? If so, of what?

Or something else?

Could you be more specific.

Thank you

Well, I have some family members who always wear a hat to church. That is their understanding of what the Bible teaches, that there is a requirement for a literal headcovering for women.
Then there are groups like the Mennonites, for example, where there is a particular style of headcovering, even, prescribed for women to wear–and all the time, not just to church.

But I think that most people would say, that the actual sense of the Scripture, is that we should be modestly & fittingly dressed for the worship of God…which leaves more room for a personal interpretation. Whether a literal headcovering is required, then, would depend on your understanding of what Paul is teaching.

Now, as a Methodist…We are renowned for what we call “convictions”, which is to say, that we believe that there are some things that are a matter of the individual’s personal leading from the Lord…Susanna Wesley wrote, in a letter to her son John, something like, that anything that makes you less aware of or less faithful to God, is sin, however innocent it may be of itself… I personally think that thinking that way, while it sounds good, could be a fast train to a very bad case of what you all would call “scruples”, & what the medicos call obsessive compulsive disorder…And then I hit one of my own convictions, and I get like everybody else: stubborn.

I guess what I am saying is this: If a woman feels led of the Lord to wear a headcovering, I am all for her doing so. But I don’;t have that leading myself. It’s not something that is part of my thinking about the Bible. I do get upset when I see someone in church, however, wearing something that calls attention to the wearer…which would include some hats! (Glitter & peacock feathers & the like don’t seem to me to be in the spirit of Scriptural admonition).
And then, there are literalists who will insist that since the Bible says “let her be veiled”, that wearing a hat or a bonnet isn’t fulfilling the Bible either…These are the people I was talking about with the literalistic view of Scripture… I once knew a minister who would not perform wedding ceremonies with a **gold **ring; it had to be silver, because Paul also talked about women not wearing “gold & pearls & costly array”. That is the fundamentalist mindset, & woe be to anyone who argues it. Brass, which was all a lot of folks could afford way back when, was worse than silver, you see, he taught, because it was gold-colored…(until it turned green, I guess…).

 

[SyCarl]

If protestants are so into reading the bible and trying to do what it says, how do they explain why the vast majority of protestant women do not wear veils?

1 Cor 11:1-6
Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.
Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head.
But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.
For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head.

You do not go far enough in the passage.

Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. **But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. **
(1 Corinthians 11:1-16 NKJV)

Paul goes on to say that it is a custom and the churches of God don’t have such a custom. He is saying that if someone disagrees with the Corinthian custom of women having head coverings, it doesn’t really matter since the churches of God do not have such a custom.

 

[Cat]

I spent over 40 years as an active evangelical Protestant. I was raised in the Conference Baptist denomination, spent my college years in the Christian church, and spent most of my young married years in the Christian and Missionary Alliance. I also spent two years in the Reformed Church, and the last seven years I was Protestant, I was part of the Evangelical Free Church in America.

My daughter is a graduate of Calvin College (Christian Reformed).

My husband was born and raised in the Assemblies of God. We started dating when we were in high school, so I spent quite a bit of time in his church.

In every one of these churches, I have seen women who were convicted by the Holy Spirit to wear a headcovering in church.

I saw a lot of it in the Assemblies of God, along with the modest dresses to the ankles, no makeup, and tight buns.

Covering the female head is not something that just “isolated sects” do.

There are entire evangelical denominations where the women wear headcoverings. In the Christian and Missionary Alliance, the American churches are small, but the overseas churches are megachurches, and in several of these overseas churches, the women wear headcoverings because their pastors are convinced that the Bible teaches headcovering for women. The C and MA is OK with that, even though most of the C and MA women in the U.S. don’t wear headcoverings. But some do.

Remember that evangelical Protestants are encouraged to interpret the Bible for themselves. If a woman is convicted to wear a head covering, that’s considered OK.

Also remember that in evangelical churches, the general rule is “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things love.”

Headcoverings for women are considered a non-essential by evangelicals because of the reasons that others on this thread have mentioned; it is seen as a cultural issue that no longer applies to our society.

Also, I think that over the years, many evangelical churches have simply followed the “tradition” that the Reformation churches started–they eliminated any hint of Catholic practices. But many evangelical churches realize that there is nothing wrong with headcoverings and that it is not a “Catholic” practice, and even if it is, there’s nothing wrong with it!

Another general rule is that if it’s not specifically forbidden or called sin in the Bible, it’s allowed. (This is why evangelical Protestants are OK with masturbation, artificial birth control, etc.–because these practices are not specifically forbidden in the BIBLE.)

Evangelicals do not consider headcoverings for women sinful or forbidden by the Bible.

OTOH, over the years, evangelicals have been very suspicious of anything that sounds like a “work of man.” They generally do not accept “tangible” sacramentals, although they usually appreciate the symbolism of tangibles. Head coverings fall into this area, and an evangelical woman would have to determine whether she is covering her head as a “work” to get into heaven (therefore showing a lack of faith in the finished work of Jesus on the cross), or whether she is covering her head out of obedience to the Holy Spirit. The latter reason is acceptable, but the former reason–to add to the work of Christ–is incorrect. According to the evangelicals, our works are worthless towards our salvation. We only do works because Christ in us compels us to work. We are grateful for our salvation, therefore we allow Christ to work through us. It’s not really US working, it’s Christ.

Do you understand this?

In recent years, we’ve seen a LOT of tangibles in the evangelical worlds, e.g., cross jewelry and other forms of jewelry (WWJD, nails, the Holy Spirit dove), the “cross in my pocket,” paintings and other works of art, the Gospel bracelets, t-shirts and other articles of clothing, etc.

Evangelicals are beginning to realize that a tangible object can help them to practice their faith, and so are becoming more accepting of tangibles.

In fact, my husband first got interested in the Rosary after seeing it on a Protestant website; the pastor had written an “ecumenical Rosary,” and my husband started praying it.

Also, more and more evangelicals are starting “alternative” churches, called “emergent churches,” where candles and other tangibles are used, and contemplative prayer and silence are the main form of worship.

So I predict (not that I’m a prophet or anything!) that we will see more women in evangelical circles wearing headcoverings in church as they seek deeper spirituality.

 

[HailMary]

Paul goes on to say that it is a custom and the churches of God don’t have such a custom. He is saying that if someone disagrees with the Corinthian custom of women having head coverings, it doesn’t really matter since the churches of God do not have such a custom.

I’m not disagreeing that its a matter of disciple or custom, but I am disagreeing with you that the last verse you supports what you are suggesting, namely, St. Pauls support of this. Paul speaks at length supporting the veil just to defeat it in one sentence? I think the verse you bolded, only suggests his support of it.

I found some protestant commentaries and here is how he interpreted the last verse:

e. If anyone seem to be contentious, we have no such custom: In this appeal to apostolic authority, Paul is telling the Corinthian Christians to not be contentious – especially because the other churches of God have adopted their custom according to God’s truth.
enduringword.com/commentaries/4611.htm

Here is what St. John Chrysostom says:
Ver. 16. “But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God.”

It is then contentiousness to oppose these things, and not any exercise of reason. Notwithstanding, even thus it is a measured sort of rebuke which he adopts, to fill them the more with self-reproach; which in truth rendered his saying the more severe. “For we,” says he, “have no such custom,” so as to contend and to strive and to oppose ourselves. And he stopped not even here, but also added, “neither the Churches of God;” signifying that they resist and oppose themselves to the whole world by not yielding. However, even if the Corinthians were then contentious, yet now the whole world has both received and kept this law. So great is the power of the Crucified.

Maybe a question to ask is, not whether or not a veil is required (we know its not required because the Church says so), but should veils be worn for the sake of modesty?

Also, I find it very striking that every single painting of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whether it be in the East or West, always shows her covered. She is the model of modesty and her example should be followed since Christ himself gave her to us.

 

[deb1]

You do not go far enough in the passage.

Paul goes on to say that it is a custom and the churches of God don’t have such a custom. He is saying that if someone disagrees with the Corinthian custom of women having head coverings, it doesn’t really matter since the churches of God do not have such a custom.

Ironically, my former pastor used verse 14 to say that Christian men should not have long hair. Yet, our church used the passage you quoted to indicated that women shouldn’t have to wear veils. If the passage negates women wearing veils then it makes the length of a man’s hair cultural also. I have to admit that this confused me very much.

 

[Hellisreal]

I am with you one hundred percent that flashy hats, peacock feathers, and all that jazz is not a proper understanding of this at all.

And, as for the rings thing. All I can say is, hold on a minute!
He shouldnt allow for any rings as they are of PAGAN origin.

Oh boy oh boy.

I suppose this does clear up some of my confusion on this, and even adds to it!

Well, I have some family members who always wear a hat to church. That is their understanding of what the Bible teaches, that there is a requirement for a literal headcovering for women.
Then there are groups like the Mennonites, for example, where there is a particular style of headcovering, even, prescribed for women to wear–and all the time, not just to church.

But I think that most people would say, that the actual sense of the Scripture, is that we should be modestly & fittingly dressed for the worship of God…which leaves more room for a personal interpretation. Whether a literal headcovering is required, then, would depend on your understanding of what Paul is teaching.

Now, as a Methodist…We are renowned for what we call “convictions”, which is to say, that we believe that there are some things that are a matter of the individual’s personal leading from the Lord…Susanna Wesley wrote, in a letter to her son John, something like, that anything that makes you less aware of or less faithful to God, is sin, however innocent it may be of itself… I personally think that thinking that way, while it sounds good, could be a fast train to a very bad case of what you all would call “scruples”, & what the medicos call obsessive compulsive disorder…And then I hit one of my own convictions, and I get like everybody else: stubborn.

I guess what I am saying is this: If a woman feels led of the Lord to wear a headcovering, I am all for her doing so. But I don’;t have that leading myself. It’s not something that is part of my thinking about the Bible. I do get upset when I see someone in church, however, wearing something that calls attention to the wearer…which would include some hats! (Glitter & peacock feathers & the like don’t seem to me to be in the spirit of Scriptural admonition).
And then, there are literalists who will insist that since the Bible says “let her be veiled”, that wearing a hat or a bonnet isn’t fulfilling the Bible either…These are the people I was talking about with the literalistic view of Scripture… I once knew a minister who would not perform wedding ceremonies with a **gold **ring; it had to be silver, because Paul also talked about women not wearing “gold & pearls & costly array”. That is the fundamentalist mindset, & woe be to anyone who argues it. Brass, which was all a lot of folks could afford way back when, was worse than silver, you see, he taught, because it was gold-colored…(until it turned green, I guess…).

 

[HailMary]

That being said, are Catholics supposed to wear the veil in church? I used to think the answer was yes, but just a couple weeks ago I was in St. Patrick’s, and while there were hundreds of women, I don’t think I saw a single one with her hair covered.

It is not required but its very biblical and promotes modesty.

By the way, to HailMary, I see Qorbono in your sig. Are you a Maronite? If so, do Maronite women supposed to cover their hair in Church? I’ve been to Syrian Orthodox services, and can testify that almost every woman covers her hair there (even in American churches, like St. Mark’s in Teaneck, NJ!).

I am not Maronite Catholic, but Chaldean Catholic. But good observation, the Maronites say qorbono but we say qurbana. Also, the owner of that website, www.qorbono.com IS Maronite Catholic, and probably the most inspiring bible study professor I’ve heard, and I’ve listened to Bishop Sheen, Fr. Corapi, etc.

Finally, HailyMary, I have another question: is there a version of the Hail Mary in Syriac? If so, could you point me towards where I could see it? Thanks!

You can listen to the Hail Mary in modern Aramaic here. The text can be found here.

God Bless you.