Why head covering?

[TMC]

Once again it is not my interpretation. Scripture says women must wear veils, the Church says women don’t have to. Why they did it those hundreds of years was a silly custom. Like women being silent in the Church, that silly old custom, or is it? But since you still won’t answer my question directly, I will gather that if the Church says birth control is now acceptable, you will follow blindly. Good for you. You don’t have to worry about thinking.

It was not a silly custom, but its something we don’t do any more. Catholics are not fundamentalists or sola scriptura. We read Scripture to understand its meaning and don’t stop at the words printed at the page, or slice words out of context. The best guide for reading Scripture, although surely not the only one, is the Church.

Paul’s letters can be difficult because Paul wrote them in the context of instructing specific Churches on specific issues.

In my opinion, 1 Corinthian 11 is about gender norms and proper comportment in prayer, not about any specific practice.

One of Paul’s cental message (often lost today, IMO) is the radical equality of all people in God’s eyes. He taught that Jew ands Greek, slaves and freemen, men and women were all equal before God. This passage clarifies that this does not mean that men and women should abandon their gender based differences, but that each should continue to behave as men and women, and glorify and perfect themselves as God made them. The underlying message is actually very egalitarian, Paul is saying that women should not act like men in order to worship, they should come to God as women. Notice also that Paul never actually says “women must cover their heads (or hair)”. He says “if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.” I Corinthians 11:6. He is saying, I think, that if you wouldn’t walk around in public like that, why would you go to Church like that?

I know that some think it is more pious to follow things like this ‘rule’ on veils precisely and unthinkingly and believe that by doing that they don’t need to think anymore about what Paul meant. This is the great danger of all fundamentalism. By unthinkingly adhering to the ‘rules’ that we think are presented, we miss the real lessons and risk falling into error. The Church has said that the specific admonition from Paul about veils is not applicable to us today, but that the real lesson about properly presenting yourself at Church does apply.

It’s that simple. If a woman is truly humble before God then she will not have a problem covering her head. Pride is the ultimate reason for not wearing one.

I’m sorry, but I have to point out that there is a great irony in claiming to having a better understand of and/or a stronger resolve in the proper application of Scripture to liturgical practice than the Pope, the Bishops, and the Congregation on Faith – and then point to humilty as the reason.

 

[Paten]

Once again it is not my interpretation. Scripture says women must wear veils, the Church says women don’t have to. Why they did it those hundreds of years was a silly custom. Like women being silent in the Church, that silly old custom, or is it? But since you still won’t answer my question directly, I will gather that if the Church says birth control is now acceptable, you will follow blindly. Good for you. You don’t have to worry about thinking.

Sacred Scripture also seems to require men to wear Tefillin:

*“And it shall be for a sign for you upon your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand did the LORD bring you out of Egypt” *— Exodus 13:9

“And it shall be for a sign upon your hand, and as totafot between your eyes; for with a mighty hand did the LORD bring us forth out of Egypt” — Exodus 13:16
*
“And you shall bind them as a sign upon your arm, and they shall be as totafot between your eyes”* — Deuteronomy 6:8
*
“Therefore you shall lay these words of mine in your heart and in your soul; and you shall bind them for a sign upon your arm, and they shall be as totafot between your eyes*” — Deuteronomy 11:18

Do you wear Tefillin? If not, why not as the Bible seems to require it of all men.

http://www.dmt.oslo.no/grafikk/tefillin-200x267.gif

 

[LilyM]

Comment for LilyM.

I wonder why wearing of veil is no longer required of women and yet, the requirement of celibacy has never been relaxed (even a bit) for the latin rite.has the vatican accepted a married man into the priesthood?i know of diaconate ordinations in the US, but here in the Philippines?none even of the diaconate.

sometimes i think that the vatican is really unfathomable.the eastern catholic churches (ecc) has optional celibacy.why the vatican did not impose it to ecc which are in communion w/ rome?why not make discipline applicable for all?

I hope that like the wearing of veil,celibacy will become optional. what do you, think?

I was thinking about why the requirement for celibacy was even imposed in the first place. One obvious answer would be that it’s highly recommended by St Paul. And it does have all the benefits that St Paul mentioned, I think. I read about numerous Orthodox and ECC priests who are more or less forced to take on outside paid work alongside their priestly duties in order to support their families. Far fewer unmarried priests have, to my knowledge, had to do so.

One reason why NOT the ECC, at least some of them at the time (if my history is accurate) had actually split from Rome at the time along with the Orthodox churches and only reconciled with Rome in later centuries. At which point, having a longer history of priestly marriage, it would’ve been much more difficult for Rome to turn around and impose a celibacy requirement on them.

And recently there have been not a few former Anglican and other Protestant priests or ministers who have converted, along with their families, to Catholicism. These have, with appropriate permission, been able to stay married and yet become Latin Rite Catholic priests.

 

[latinmass]

You miss the point entirely. Your crystal ball of if Cardinal Ratzinger was pope when JP2 was is amusing though. Turn on a dime? That is what the Church has done since V2. Please answer this. You said if one worships as the Church directs. How would worshiping in all ways in a pre V2 manner be wrong. Keep in mind my friend, there was no doctrinal change in V2. Just give me one way I or any one else would be wrong, by going to Latin Mass, women wearing veils, meatless Fridays, keeping all Holy Days, confession regularly etc. If you can think of anything please let me know.

I noticed you posted something without answering the question I posed to you. I think you are deflecting. But in response to your post, the New Covenant with Jesus and the New Testament changed the Old Law. It is no longer an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth either. And the New Covenant of scripture ends with the Book of Revelation stating that anyone who adds to, or takes away even one letter of this is accursed. Still let me know if figure anything out on the question above.

Where did you get that picture of me?

 

[daeve]

The Church in her *“weakness” *has stopped requiring it.

Whoa! The church is weak? Them’s fighting words.

My thoughts are this, and I admit it might be naive. But if the Pope thought this was important, he would send out some kind of official thing saying cover your head, girls. When that happens, I’ll run down to Catholic Supplies and get a little black chapel veil. Same thing goes for girls serving at Mass. I’d have been thrilled to have that honor.

 

[daeve]

The Church in her wisdom has stopped requiring it. Wear one if you want, but otherwise…case closed until such time as a new rule is promulgated.

Amen.

 

[daeve]

Your answer says it all.

A woman who doesn’t where a head covering isn’t necessarily not humble…ignorant of Church practice.

I’m certainly not ignorant of church practice. I wore something on my head until they told me I didn’t have to do it anymore. I’m searching for a nice insult to return, but maybe I’m ignorant of the English language too.

I’m always amazed when people here believe they know better than Rome.

 

[Sure]

I noticed you posted something without answering the question I posed to you. I think you are deflecting. But in response to your post, the New Covenant with Jesus and the New Testament changed the Old Law. It is no longer an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth either. And the New Covenant of scripture ends with the Book of Revelation stating that anyone who adds to, or takes away even one letter of this is accursed. Still let me know if figure anything out on the question above.

Where did you get that picture of me?

There’s nothing wrong with doing the things you noted in your post…“going to Latin Mass, women wearing veils, meatless Fridays, keeping all Holy Days, confession regularly etc.” But please note these things are not exclusively pre-Vatican II. I know hundreds of people who follow these things except the veil.

 

[daeve]

The Holy Father can make allowances for all sorts of reasons - right up to communion in the hand, etc…

That doesn’t mean that one way is as good as another.

Why do women feel the need to reveal their hair in Church? When did it start?

Before my conversion, I went to the United Church of Canada - an extremely liberal Christian community - and the older women there covered their heads in Church while the younger ones did not.

To me, it looks like a cultural shift of some sort occured and the Vatican simply reacted to it. So, yes, technically it is perfectly legal for women to bare their heads in a Roman Catholic Church - but please don’t give the impression that the idea of it came from the Vicar of Christ on earth.

If the Vatican is so weakkneed as to fold to women not wanting to cover their heads, why are we still listening? If the Pope (any of them since 1962) thought it mattered, he’s say so.

 

[Paten]

You miss the point entirely. Your crystal ball of if Cardinal Ratzinger was pope when JP2 was is amusing though. Turn on a dime? That is what the Church has done since V2. Please answer this. You said if one worships as the Church directs. **How would worshiping in all ways in a pre V2 manner be wrong. ** Keep in mind my friend, there was no doctrinal change in V2. Just give me one way I or any one else would be wrong, by going to Latin Mass, women wearing veils, meatless Fridays, keeping all Holy Days, confession regularly etc. If you can think of anything please let me know.

First, let’s take care of your straw men. No one said any of these practices are wrong – only you are in an attempt to make your point. Trying to use straw men fools no one, and makes the user look extremely ignorant. Use them again with me and I’ll ignore them altogether.

Now to your question. No one is saying that “worshiping in all ways in a pre V2 manner” is wrong. Again, only you are. You error though when you do two things:

Insisting that YOUR preferred way is inherently “better” than what the Church actually directs. If you attend a Mass/Liturgy whose official Church rubrics says to stand – then stand. Don’t assign yourself as the arbiter of what is “better.” Just follow the Church.

Also if there are legitimate options allowed by the Church such as receiving in one’s hand or tongue, don’t place yourself ahead of the Church by pronouncing one to be superior to the other. Make your choice and stop judging others or the Church. Simply put, you are not qualified to suggest one is better than the other when the Church allows both.

 

[daeve]

Is wearing a hat just as appropriate for a woman or must it be a veil to show the proper reverence?

A hat is just fine. I’m pretty far behind in this thread, so if this is redundant, I apologize.

 

[Paten]

I’m certainly not ignorant of church practice. I wore something on my head until they told me I didn’t have to do it anymore. I’m searching for a nice insult to return, but maybe I’m ignorant of the English language too.
**
I’m always amazed when people here believe they know better than Rome.**

That blows me away too. Sadly, when a real problem does erupt, most such people are powerless to do anything as they have zero credibility because of their prior comments.

 

[daeve]

That blows me away too. Sadly, when a real problem does erupt, most such people are powerless to do anything as they have zero credibility because of their prior comments.

I’ve read threads here telling me I shouldn’t be a cantor or a lector either. I wore beanies, veils, mantillas and on occasion when I left my beanie home, Sister taped a leaf to my hair. The day they told us it was ok NOT to wear one, I stopped. Maybe the leaf is what made feel like this just wasn’t a big deal.

I read all this at once, and I’ve lost my sense of humor over it. I’m going to resign from this thread before I say something REALLY stupid.

Finally, I apologize to Latinmass for saying I was looking for an insult to return. That was way to immature for an old woman like me.

 

[Cathryn]

A hat is just fine. I’m pretty far behind in this thread, so if this is redundant, I apologize.

There are woman in my parish who wear hats rather than chapel veils. They are all simple type berets or caps. No ostrich feathers that I have seen, or big fruit arrangements that would block anyones view. I have also seen women wear just cut out lace fabric that was left out for free in the back of a church in Los Angeles.

 

[Leeta]

Irish Am,

I 'm right with you. I have read about this and I can’t understand it either. In Dressing with Dignity by Colleen Hammond she touches on this. Her explanation is that women are so holy and like the vessels at Mass are to be covered.(chalice veil). I just haven’t been convicted about my own specialness or holiness.
Also, I can’t see how covering my hair makes me modest when I am wearing slacks or immodest dresses. Many a time I’ve seen young Muslim women do that. They will wear their veil and also tight jeans or whatever is fashionable. Somehow for many the hair is more important to cover than the rest of the body. It doesn’t make much sense to me.

 

[dixieagle]

You miss the point entirely. Your crystal ball of if Cardinal Ratzinger was pope when JP2 was is amusing though. Turn on a dime? That is what the Church has done since V2. Please answer this. You said if one worships as the Church directs. How would worshiping in all ways in a pre V2 manner be wrong. Keep in mind my friend, there was no doctrinal change in V2. Just give me one way I or any one else would be wrong, by going to Latin Mass, women wearing veils, meatless Fridays, keeping all Holy Days, confession regularly etc. If you can think of anything please let me know.

There is nothing wrong at all with attending a Latin mass, wearing a veil, abstaining from meat on Friday…where things get problematic is insistence that one MUST do all those things, and that the Church was wrong in changing the rules.

 

[SemiTrad]

Irish Am,

I 'm right with you. I have read about this and I can’t understand it either. In Dressing with Dignity by Colleen Hammond she touches on this. Her explanation is that women are so holy and like the vessels at Mass are to be covered.(chalice veil). I just haven’t been convicted about my own specialness or holiness.
Also, I can’t see how covering my hair makes me modest when I am wearing slacks or immodest dresses. Many a time I’ve seen young Muslim women do that. They will wear their veil and also tight jeans or whatever is fashionable. Somehow for many the hair is more important to cover than the rest of the body. It doesn’t make much sense to me.

Leeta,

I just browsed through this thread for the first time, and found it mind boggling. Veiling is no longer mandatory, yet it seems to stir up a lot of discord.

In my opinion, wearing a veil is an act which presupposes a recognition of a woman’s innate feminine beauty. Regardless of her exterior appearance, a woman is created to be beautiful, and therefore, it is a sign of humility to cover that beauty – if only symbolically, when in the presence of the glory of God. A woman doesn’t cover up her hair because she thinks it’s the most beautiful part of her and therefore might distract others. A woman symbolically covers her innate beauty because she doesn’t wish to distract from the glory of God. If I were a woman I’d wear a veil, just as a man would take off his hat when entering a church, if he were the hat-wearing sort.

It’s not a matter of how much hair should be covered, or the kind of hairdo. I have seen a bald cancer patient wearing a chapel veil – not because she had glorious hair, but because it’s a symbolic gesture to show her – a woman’s - submission to God’s glorious presence in the tabernacle.

The world’s attitude about femininity and the role of women in society have undergone much change over the last few decades. I have never met a self-proclaimed feminist willing to cover her head at mass, and I have never met a female extraordinary eucharistic minister or an altar girl wearing a chapel veil while serving mass. Not sure what the connection is, but it would be mighty strange if these women and girls would start wearing chapel veils while fulfilling their duties at mass. And as you pointed out, it would be equally incongruous for a woman to be veiled while wearing an immodest dress to church.

Since veiling is no longer required, my advice is wear one if you feel like it, regardless of what anyone says, so long as you don’t wear it with a low neckline and tight jeans at the same time

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Irish Am,

I 'm right with you. I have read about this and I can’t understand it either. In Dressing with Dignity by Colleen Hammond she touches on this. Her explanation is that women are so holy and like the vessels at Mass are to be covered.(chalice veil). I just haven’t been convicted about my own specialness or holiness.
Also, I can’t see how covering my hair makes me modest when I am wearing slacks or immodest dresses. Many a time I’ve seen young Muslim women do that. They will wear their veil and also tight jeans or whatever is fashionable. Somehow for many the hair is more important to cover than the rest of the body. It doesn’t make much sense to me.

Borrowing an explanation from another religion/culture I had been exposed the idea of reserving seeing a woman’s hair for her husband was tied to hair on other parts of the body and that is what made going uncovered so shameful.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Leeta,

In my opinion, wearing a veil is an act which presupposes a recognition of a woman’s innate feminine beauty. Regardless of her exterior appearance, a woman is created to be beautiful, and therefore, it is a sign of humility to cover that beauty – if only symbolically, when in the presence of the glory of God. A woman doesn’t cover up her hair because she thinks it’s the most beautiful part of her and therefore might distract others. A woman symbolically covers her innate beauty because she doesn’t wish to distract from the glory of God. If I were a woman I’d wear a veil, just as a man would take off his hat when entering a church, if he were the hat-wearing sort.

This has never ever made sense to me.

Are we ever outside the presence of God in any way?

Are we ever able in our wildest dreams able to distract from the glory of God?

Does any other part of creation cover its beauty?

 

[SemiTrad]

This has never ever made sense to me.

Are we ever outside the presence of God in any way?

Are we ever able in our wildest dreams able to distract from the glory of God?

Does any other part of creation cover its beauty?

We are never outside the presence of God, for He is omnipresent, but He is present in a REAL way in the tabernacle. Wouldn’t you agree?

No, we are nothing and can’t possibly compete with God’s glory in any way, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t act as if we recognize this fact.

If a majestic oak tree could lower its eyes, cover its beauty (which came from the Creator) and bow down before God in submission, it would. The difference is that we human beings are able to do so.