Wearing of Tefillin (Phylacteries) at Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AltarMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AltarMan

Guest
Quite a few people here seem infatuated with the idea that it is “better” for women to wear some sort of head covering to the Mass based not on what the Church directs (She is now silent on this matter) but on 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. That seems logical enough, after all, it’s the Bible.

If we are to take the Bible literally on this matter, I’m curious as to why the same people never talk about men wearing tefillin to the Mass? After all this too is extremely sciptural:

Deuteronomy 6:8 “And you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.”

Deuteronomy 11:18 “You shall therefore lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul; and you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.”

Exodus 13:9 And it shall be to you as a sign on your hand and as a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand the LORD has brought you out of Egypt.

I have always been curious about this…

http://www.dmt.oslo.no/grafikk/tefillin-200x267.gif
Young man wearing Tefillin, Kippah (skullcap) and Tallit (prayer shawl)
 
40.png
AltarMan:
Quite a few people here seem infatuated with the idea that it is “better” for women to wear some sort of head covering to the Mass based not on what the Church directs (She is now silent on this matter) but on 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. That seems logical enough, after all, it’s the Bible.
Click to expand...
I had taken to wear a chapel cap to honor my head (husband). If one reads Corinthians, that is what I feel it is suggesting. I was doing this in hopes that my hubby would convert. It was pretty easy in my parish where women are known to cover their heads but not so easy in visiting other parishes. He is now in RCIA. Thank you Holy Lord!
I feel (please note, my opinion), that women who are covering heads because of church teachings are mistaken. I’m not sure that the Vatican says that this is correct. But all of us have reasons for following this tradition and whether we want to cover our heads or not, it’s personal.

Actually, the picture that you posted reminded me of what a Bishop wears. Could it be that it was a tradition from our Jewish ancestors that transfered to them?
 
netmil(name removed by moderator):
Actually, the picture that you posted reminded me of what a Bishop wears. Could it be that it was a tradition from our Jewish ancestors that transfered to them?
Click to expand...
the Bishop wears a box on his head…sorry I mean a Tefillin and a prayer shawl?
I know that they wear a skullcap but have never seen them wear these other things.:confused:
 
netmil(name removed by moderator):
…Actually, the picture that you posted reminded me of what a Bishop wears. Could it be that it was a tradition from our Jewish ancestors that transfered to them?
Click to expand...
The zucchetto (AKA calotte or pilleolus) or skullcap commonly worn by bishops was developed for the practical purpose of covering the bald spot created by the tonsure (severe haircut) of clerics in the past. While mandated for bishops, other clerics may also chose to wear the zucchetto under specific circumstances.

P.S. Keep in mind that as Catholic Christians, we don’t rely on private revelation in which to interpret the Bible. We rely on God through God’s Church, the Catholic Church. Given your personal interpretation of Corinthians, you might want to discuss this concept with your parish priest…
 
40.png
AltarMan:
The zucchetto (AKA calotte or pilleolus) or skullcap commonly worn by bishops was developed for the practical purpose of covering the bald spot created by the tonsure (severe haircut) of clerics in the past. While mandated for bishops, other clerics may also chose to wear the zucchetto under specific circumstances.
Click to expand...
+JMJ
Hmmm… interesting. My chaplain from the Fraternal Society of Saint Peter* (*if you recall, was instituted by Pope John Paul II directly, at the ushering of the then Cardinal Ratzinger) explains that the skull cap has tremendous historical significance in reference to both the old church and the Church of today (the Catholic faith).
 
Indigna Ancilla said:
+JMJ
Hmmm… interesting. My chaplain from the Fraternal Society of Saint Peter* (*if you recall, was instituted by Pope John Paul II directly, at the ushering of the then Cardinal Ratzinger) explains that the skull cap has tremendous historical significance in reference to both the old church and the Church of today (the Catholic faith).
Click to expand...

The zucchetto is not related to the kippah (Hebrew) or yarmulke (Yiddish) of Judaism. The zucchetto’s roots are purely utilitarian.
 
Karin said:
the Bishop wears a box on his head…sorry I mean a Tefillin and a prayer shawl?
I know that they wear a skullcap but have never seen them wear these other things.:confused:
Click to expand...

Ooooo, sorry, I did miss the little box!
 
netmil(name removed by moderator):
Ooooo, sorry, I did miss the little box!
Click to expand...
Plus the leather wrapping on his left arm and the shawl…
 
40.png
AltarMan:
The zucchetto (AKA calotte or pilleolus) or skullcap commonly worn by bishops was developed for the practical purpose of covering the bald spot created by the tonsure (severe haircut) of clerics in the past. While mandated for bishops, other clerics may also chose to wear the zucchetto under specific circumstances.

P.S. Keep in mind that as Catholic Christians, we don’t rely on private revelation in which to interpret the Bible. We rely on God through God’s Church, the Catholic Church. Given your personal interpretation of Corinthians, you might want to discuss this concept with your parish priest…
Click to expand...
1 Corinthians 11:3
“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.”

Why I don’t think that there is any private revelation going on here. It seems pretty literal to me.
(sorry about the font)
 
netmil(name removed by moderator) said:
1 Corinthians 11:3
“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.”

Why I don’t think that there is any private revelation going on here. It seems pretty literal to me.

A great many Protestants would agree.

In any event please know that you cannot read the Bible without applying your interpretation to it. That’s where the Church and good catechesis is so important. Simply put there is no such thing as a purely “literal” reading of the Bible no matter what many sects of Protestantism suggest. (Sects who by the way disagree on their “literal” interpretation of the Bible…)
Click to expand...
 
40.png
AltarMan:
A great many Protestants would agree.

In any event please know that you cannot read the Bible without applying your interpretation to it. That’s where the Church and good catechesis is so important. Simply put there is no such thing as a purely “literal” reading of the Bible no matter what many sects of Protestantism suggest. (Sects who by the way disagree on their “literal” interpretation of the Bible…)
Click to expand...
Well, since I really don’t care at all about what Protestants think, I’ll go with what my confessor said, “Can’t hurt!”
 
netmil(name removed by moderator):
Well, since I really don’t care at all about what Protestants think, I’ll go with what my confessor said, “Can’t hurt!”
Click to expand...
Given your penchant for interpreting the Bible on your own and/or believing one can read and understand the Bible “literally”, you don’t seem to “care at all about what” the Catholic Church teaches either. Your belief in personal interpretation of the Bible parallels Protestant teachings, not Catholic teachings.

I feel badly. This thread was hi-jacked and I doubt that anyone will now make the effort to explain why men are not required to wear tefillin at Mass, or why it wouldn’t even be considered “better” to wear tefillin at the Mass even with no mandate.

Based on the looks of things around here, many threads do seem to get hi-jacked, so I suppose I shouldn’t feel too badly.
 
40.png
AltarMan:
Quite a few people here seem infatuated with the idea that it is “better” for women to wear some sort of head covering to the Mass based not on what the Church directs (She is now silent on this matter) but on 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. That seems logical enough, after all, it’s the Bible.

If we are to take the Bible literally on this matter, I’m curious as to why the same people never talk about men wearing tefillin to the Mass? After all this too is extremely sciptural:

Deuteronomy 6:8 “And you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.”

Deuteronomy 11:18 “You shall therefore lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul; and you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.”

Exodus 13:9 And it shall be to you as a sign on your hand and as a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand the LORD has brought you out of Egypt.

I have always been curious about this…
Click to expand...
First let me say that I am a woman who wears a head covering infrequently but will wear one.

Now, if we look at the Biblical quotes you give us for the wearing of a Philactery you will note that everyone of them is Old Testament - Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law so the old law (the ones that you refer to in your quotes) are no longer to be followed.

Then we look at the quote for women covering their heads in prayer - this is New Testament. Jesus gave to his Apostles (and their descendants) the right to bind and loose laws. It appears that Paul has bound the women to this law, sometime after Vat. 2 this law seems to have been dropped - never officially, just no longer mentioned. I believe this is where many come into confusion about it, since there was no official pronouncement on this law are we still bound by it? Not bound by it because it isn’t mentioned at all?

Now some of the better Bible Scholars here can probably give a better explanation than I did but there it is - Philacteries and their use were OT law, head coverings for women were NT law (also note that we could probably interchange the word law here with discipline which we know is changeable).

Brenda V.
 
Brenda V.:
First let me say that I am a woman who wears a head covering infrequently but will wear one.

Now, if we look at the Biblical quotes you give us for the wearing of a Philactery you will note that everyone of them is Old Testament - Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law so the old law (the ones that you refer to in your quotes) are no longer to be followed.

Then we look at the quote for women covering their heads in prayer - this is New Testament. Jesus gave to his Apostles (and their descendants) the right to bind and loose laws. It appears that Paul has bound the women to this law, sometime after Vat. 2 this law seems to have been dropped - never officially, just no longer mentioned. I believe this is where many come into confusion about it, since there was no official pronouncement on this law are we still bound by it? Not bound by it because it isn’t mentioned at all?

Now some of the better Bible Scholars here can probably give a better explanation than I did but there it is - Philacteries and their use were OT law, head coverings for women were NT law (also note that we could probably interchange the word law here with discipline which we know is changeable).

Brenda V.
Click to expand...
Wow, I certainly appreciate your reply! You kept to the subject, thanks!

I don’t buy the OT/NT argument as we don’t simply trash the OT with the coming of the New Covenant, but I do see your logic.

Thanks again.
 
40.png
AltarMan:
Given your penchant for interpreting the Bible on your own and/or believing one can read and understand the Bible “literally”, you don’t seem to “care at all about what” the Catholic Church teaches either. Your belief in personal interpretation of the Bible parallels Protestant teachings, not Catholic teachings.

.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should read a bit more that I post before you state that I have a “penchant” for anything.

Did ya read the bit about my confessor, my friend?
 
Please make a concerted effort to edit for personalized remarks prior to posting; stay on the thread subject and not fellow posters. As always your help is appreciated.
 
40.png
AltarMan:
Quite a few people here seem infatuated with the idea that it is “better” for women to wear some sort of head covering to the Mass based not on what the Church directs (She is now silent on this matter) but on 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. That seems logical enough, after all, it’s the Bible.

If we are to take the Bible literally on this matter, I’m curious as to why the same people never talk about men wearing tefillin to the Mass? After all this too is extremely sciptural:

Deuteronomy 6:8 “And you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.”

Deuteronomy 11:18 “You shall therefore lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul; and you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.”

Exodus 13:9 And it shall be to you as a sign on your hand and as a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand the LORD has brought you out of Egypt.

I have always been curious about this…

http://www.dmt.oslo.no/grafikk/tefillin-200x267.gif
Young man wearing Tefillin, Kippah (skullcap) and Tallit (prayer shawl)
Click to expand...
Men wearing Tefillin, Kippah, and Tallit is a part of the old Mosaic Law.

Christians do not have to do those things that were specifically a part of the old law.

So we don’t have to keep kosher.
 
40.png
GoLatin:
Men wearing Tefillin, Kippah, and Tallit is a part of the old Mosaic Law.

Christians do not have to do those things that were specifically a part of the old law.

So we don’t have to keep kosher.
Click to expand...
Again, as Christians we don’t simply scrap the Old Covenant with the coming of the New Covenant. There are Old Covenant laws (which parallel natural law) that we most certainly follow as Catholic Christians.

I suppose the real question is why the Church at one time directed the covering of women’s heads via the Code of Canon law and why She never called for Tefillin to be worn by men? Again, I don’t think it’s simply a matter of Old vs. New Covenants. The question could be extended to ask why the requirement was dropped with the Code of Canon law was updated?

I’ll also add that the practical credibility of the Church becomes tarnished when She fails to explain such changes.

Anyways, I really do appreciate your comments and those of Brenda V.
 
+JMJ

Interesting.

Didn’t the moderators have to close the thread on women wearing veils three times here on this site? Why stir the pot a fourth time? What is your point?

Is it not enough that it is and has been a tradition for a very long time, and that it is totally acceptable for woman to wear a head covering if they so chose to so. More over, if they were to have a private visit with the Pope, it is encouraged. Also, at any latin mass it is also encouraged (notice, I did not say it was the rule), by the chaplains of the Tridentine Mass congregations.

Why argue the point? What is there to argue about, really? If you don’t like it, don’t wear it. Can’t we agree on that?

Bringing up the matter of the Tefillin is really non-sensical, and has nothing to do with a woman wearing a modest veil to cover her hair out of respect for our loving Lord, Jesus Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top