Women wearing a headcovering in church

[Patchunky]

I currently live in Germany, and have attended TLM’s in several European countries. Headcovering is rare to nonexistent over here, though you do occasionally see hats in winter (unheated churches).

Headcovering has a long tradition in both Scripture and custom. For this reason alone, women shouldn’t feel as if they are doing something “strange” by covering.

Since you are currently living in Germany, why not find someone who makes TRACHTEN ask them to show pics of traditional headcoverings for women in Germany and see what you think.

It would be nice if the women started wearing those again

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Since you are currently living in Germany, why not find someone who makes TRACHTEN ask them to show pics of traditional headcoverings for women in Germany and see what you think.

It would be nice if the women started wearing those again

you mean like these lovelies
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Patchunky]

you mean like these lovelies
http://www.trachten-stg.de/bilder/tracht_schaeppel.jpg

http://www.trachten-stg.de/bilder/tracht_kindergruppe.jpg

EXACTLY!!!

Traditional headcoverings for the women of Germany! BRING 'EM BACK AND THE LOVELY LADIES WEAR THEM AGAIN!

 

[MYButler]

1 Corithians 11:5 states “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” The rules of the Church may be “tweaked” but the word of God does not change.

 

[Shin]

1 Corithians 11:5 states “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” The rules of the Church may be “tweaked” but the word of God does not change.

Point. Something doesn’t have to be mentioned in Canon Law to be part of the Faith.

The revised Canon Law cannot possibly cover everything, nor does it.

 

[graceandglory]

you mean like these lovelies
http://www.trachten-stg.de/bilder/tracht_schaeppel.jpg

http://www.trachten-stg.de/bilder/tracht_kindergruppe.jpg

Riiight!

 

[LilyM]

Point. Something doesn’t have to be mentioned in Canon Law to be part of the Faith.

The revised Canon Law cannot possibly cover everything, nor does it.

But headcovering is such an often-mentioned and often-questioned issue that it would be a very serious failing indeed if our Magisterium WANTED headcovering to remain a binding article of the faith practiced by all Catholic women, and yet not only failed to mention it at all in Canon Law, but published at least one major document describing it as quite the contrary - a mere custom of no normative value - and no documents stating the contrary view.

We see on many other issues - things from Communion in the Hand to the use of EMsHc, to kneeling for Communion, that either different Church documents warn against the dangers involved in such practices, or that they are clearly expressed to be used ONLY in extraordinary circumstances, or that our Pope personally imposes a requirement that those who would receive Communion from him do so kneeling and on the tongue.

NOTHING of the kind exists re veiling - not in St Peters, not even to meet the Pope - I’m sure I’ve seen women visit with him without veiling in recent years.

 

[Shin]

But headcovering is such an often-mentioned and often-questioned issue that it would be a very serious failing indeed if our Magisterium WANTED headcovering to remain a binding article of the faith practiced by all Catholic women, and yet not only failed to mention it at all in Canon Law, but published at least one major document describing it as quite the contrary - a mere custom of no normative value - and no documents stating the contrary view.

We see on many other issues - things from Communion in the Hand to the use of EMsHc, to kneeling for Communion, that either different Church documents warn against the dangers involved in such practices, or that they are clearly expressed to be used ONLY in extraordinary circumstances, or that our Pope personally imposes a requirement that those who would receive Communion from him do so kneeling and on the tongue.

NOTHING of the kind exists re veiling - not in St Peters, not even to meet the Pope - I’m sure I’ve seen women visit with him without veiling in recent years.

There are some good points here – but let me note again, that there are plenty of things that go on liturgically and in the everyday life of church goers that have problems that are not directly addressed by Canon or Liturgical Law.

There are many things in fact in our lives that are sins but not covered in minutiae in the books we are likely to read – but only generally, in the sense of the spirit of the Lord and the law written in the heart. I see veiling as obeying that law – and the people who obey that law, that is a sign in them that the have made that spiritual progress.

After all we have a tradition here of two thousand years, rooted in scripture (doubly so I might add, as men are forbidden head covering) and then suddenly it becomes merely a custom?

It has no more weight than something that can be changed because it is purely external? This I can clearly say is to slight the true meaning of it.

Anything of such antiquity and permanence – who would change it? What customs of previous times were there, and how many, and yet it was not changed.

What are the customs of our time though. . the custom of these times include: irreverence, minimilism, lack of male and female distinction, destruction of tradition and apostasy.

Those are the customs of these times that affect all others – a doing away with all customs and traditions possible and impossible, with the possible excuses for the latter of ‘legitimate error’ or ‘mistakes’ at best and at worst. . . distortions of the spiritual life.

Now, we have seen Nancy Pelosi go to visit the Pope – who would expect her to wear a veil? And who would expect the Pope to decree it, when of recent times, his last decree repealing an excommunication received such universal condemnation – and then his apology? The Pope is human too and certainly considers his credibility in the public square among other factors.

In a time when people everywhere are disobeying and teaching error, shall we trust we have a Pope who is going to correct everything at once, or in fact not be influenced by the company he keeps too and sometimes fail to explicitly enforce what is unpopular? Have not Bishops Conferences opposed him, and Cardinals? Have not people made excuses possible schism for lack of enforcement of discipline? Has the Pope not in fact failed a great deal to protect the laity through Canon Law and Liturgical law and failed to enforce it, though being in charge of it as a Cardinal as well now as Pope?

So while we can look to the Pope we must look clearly to the Pope and all that can lie be behind the reasons for what he does and does not do.

Generally as I have said… I regard veiling as something that is clearly witnessed in scripture and in the law written on the heart… a woman who understands that law… veils… those who do not… do not…

It is a beautiful sign and way of locating people who have a deeper touch of the spirit of God, like looking for people carrying rosaries, like modest dress, like proper reverence. . Signs… of possible holiness.

If God writes in the law of your heart that you are to do something, and you oppose this grace – though you know it not… there is sin. And if you accept it… there is hidden grace… made real in the heart.

 

[tvdxer]

I thought this provided an excellent summary of the issue:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/head_coverings_in_church.htm

While it is absolutely clear to me that there is no canonical or moral obligation for women to wear a head-covering in Church, women are certainly free to do so as a matter of personal devotion. They should, however, see it as a sign of subordination to God, as that better suits the liturgical context. Those who wear a covering or veil, and those who don’t, should not judge the motives of the other, but leave each woman free in a matter that is clearly not of obligation.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Like many things in life when people tend to fight it the hardest it is something that is tweaking their conscious. If women really felt it was un necessary they would just ignore those of that that cover as being weird.

 

[LilyM]

There are some good points here – but let me note again, that there are plenty of things that go on liturgically and in the everyday life of church goers that have problems that are not directly addressed by Canon or Liturgical Law.

There are many things in fact in our lives that are sins but not covered in minutiae in the books we are likely to read – but only generally, in the sense of the spirit of the Lord and the law written in the heart. I see veiling as obeying that law – and the people who obey that law, that is a sign in them that the have made that spiritual progress.

After all we have a tradition here of two thousand years, rooted in scripture (doubly so I might add, as men are forbidden head covering) and then suddenly it becomes merely a custom?

It has no more weight than something that can be changed because it is purely external? This I can clearly say is to slight the true meaning of it.

Anything of such antiquity and permanence – who would change it? What customs of previous times were there, and how many, and yet it was not changed.

What are the customs of our time though. . the custom of these times include: irreverence, minimilism, lack of male and female distinction, destruction of tradition and apostasy.

Those are the customs of these times that affect all others – a doing away with all customs and traditions possible and impossible, with the possible excuses for the latter of ‘legitimate error’ or ‘mistakes’ at best and at worst. . . distortions of the spiritual life.

Now, we have seen Nancy Pelosi go to visit the Pope – who would expect her to wear a veil? And who would expect the Pope to decree it, when of recent times, his last decree repealing an excommunication received such universal condemnation – and then his apology? The Pope is human too and certainly considers his credibility in the public square among other factors.

In a time when people everywhere are disobeying and teaching error, shall we trust we have a Pope who is going to correct everything at once, or in fact not be influenced by the company he keeps too and sometimes fail to explicitly enforce what is unpopular? Have not Bishops Conferences opposed him, and Cardinals? Have not people made excuses possible schism for lack of enforcement of discipline? Has the Pope not in fact failed a great deal to protect the laity through Canon Law and Liturgical law and failed to enforce it, though being in charge of it as a Cardinal as well now as Pope?

So while we can look to the Pope we must look clearly to the Pope and all that can lie be behind the reasons for what he does and does not do.

Generally as I have said… I regard veiling as something that is clearly witnessed in scripture and in the law written on the heart… a woman who understands that law… veils… those who do not… do not…

It is a beautiful sign and way of locating people who have a deeper touch of the spirit of God, like looking for people carrying rosaries, like modest dress, like proper reverence. . Signs… of possible holiness.

If God writes in the law of your heart that you are to do something, and you oppose this grace – though you know it not… there is sin. And if you accept it… there is hidden grace… made real in the heart.

Well, the ‘traditions’ of women not being able to own their own property, women and blacks (and poor people) not being able to vote, slavery - they WERE all every bit as entrenched and ‘permanent’ social and cultural ‘traditions’ prior to the 1800s. Yet they changed - and an excellent thing they did too!

And a lot of the civil rights and women’s rights gains are indeed a product of exactly the same ‘modern’ society that you see so fit to condemn in a blanket fashion.

As for ‘signs of holiness’ - well, you know what Jesus said to those who pestered Him for signs!

I think you need to reconsider your expectations. In former times everything in society was predicated on the Church having a large role and the majority of people being Church going. At such a time there was no special merit in attending Mass and so on - social expectation was such that one would have been at a disadvantage for not doing these things. And plenty of people went to church as they went to theatre - to show off new clothes, see and be seen, and so on. Certainly they still sinned at a great rate, no?

These days, where EVERY societal pressure is in fact AGAINST those who attend Mass weekly, let alone more often, who confess to a priest - ever - in fact against EVERY outward show of piety, it is correspondingly more notable (and more difficult in a sense) for people even to do the basics, let alone more. And correspondingly they probably gain much more merit for doing so - as the early Christians did when practicing their faith led to persecution - than someone in previous more Catholic-friendly days.

 

[JACQUE_D]

1 Corithians 11:5 states “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” The rules of the Church may be “tweaked” but the word of God does not change.

I agree. I veil when ever I enter God’s house. So does my 10yr old daghter. No one else in my parish does, but I don’t think they have read St Paul’s letter. If they realised, I think they may make an effort. Then again, a lot of people like to find the easy way out, and may not want to ruin their hair style or cover their newly coloured hair. I respect the laws of our Church, but God’s word over rides all. Until He says otherwise, I’ll keep all my bases covered thanks. By the way, I also abstain from eating pork for the same reasons. Jacque D.
:getholy:

 

[DavidPalm]

I agree. I veil when ever I enter God’s house. So does my 10yr old daghter. . . . I respect the laws of our Church, but God’s word over rides all. Until He says otherwise, I’ll keep all my bases covered thanks. By the way, I also abstain from eating pork for the same reasons.

I think you’re right to cover your head in Church, but as for the pork He already has “said otherwise”:

Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:18-19).

 

[LilyM]

I agree. I veil when ever I enter God’s house. So does my 10yr old daghter. No one else in my parish does, but I don’t think they have read St Paul’s letter. If they realised, I think they may make an effort. Then again, a lot of people like to find the easy way out, and may not want to ruin their hair style or cover their newly coloured hair. I respect the laws of our Church, but God’s word over rides all. Until He says otherwise, I’ll keep all my bases covered thanks. By the way, I also abstain from eating pork for the same reasons. Jacque D.
:getholy:

How dare you presume that a woman wouldn’t cover for such shallow reasons as ‘not wanting to ruin the hairstyle’ or what have you.

I don’t cover because I gave it a serious go for a while and it was extremely distracting, and the distraction didn’t ease with time. I need ALL my attention to pray properly, thanks, so I am NOT putting such a stumbling block in my own path.

The Church (which speaks with His authority, remember, and has the power to bind and loose heaven) has loosed us on this particular discipline, so He HAS said that we are not obliged to veil, nor even that veiling is preferred. He has said so through Church teaching, just as surely as He said to veil through the Church when it was the Church’s canon law.

The Magisterium of the Church just as surely teaches God’s truth as scripture, we’re not Bible onlyists, remember?

 

[Shin]

How dare you presume that a woman wouldn’t cover for such shallow reasons as ‘not wanting to ruin the hairstyle’ or what have you.

I don’t cover because I gave it a serious go for a while and it was extremely distracting, and the distraction didn’t ease with time. I need ALL my attention to pray properly, thanks, so I am NOT putting such a stumbling block in my own path.

So in other words the devils got to you through your weaknesses and sinful affections. They are the the source for distractions in prayer of anyone trying to be more holy, and take advantage of one’s weaknesses, exciting the passions and emotions. Now they despise you, and trouble you less because you pray uncovered, this is the source of your peace. I hope you would look directly at this and the weakness that was a part of it, and re-evaluate from the foundation.

Consider the beauty of modesty and following the words of scripture freely and fully for the sake of the angels. I pray your angel and St. Mary helps you in this.

Yet the path of holiness is overcoming these through the help of God, and bearing the cross with all one’s will, all one’s heart. Many people are too selfishly self aware, rather than aware of God’s will and self sacrificial of self as a duty. It does not matter what it is, hair dye or self consciousness, they are both fetters that tie a soul to earth.

I pray you begin anew.

‘We give our youth to the devil, and the remains of our life to the Good God, who is so good that He deigns to be content with even that. . . but, happily, everyone does not do so. A great lady has been here, of one of the first families in France; she went away this morning. She is scarcely three-and-twenty, and she is rich-very rich indeed. . . . She has offered herself in sacrifice to the good God for the expiation of sins, and for the conversion of sinners. She wears a girdle all armed with iron points; she mortifies herself in a thousand ways; and her parents know nothing of it. She is white as a sheet of paper. Hers is a beautiful soul, very pleasing to the good God, such as are still to be found now and then in the world, and they prevent the world from coming to an end.’

St. Jean Marie Baptiste Vianney, the Cure of Ars

‘Picture to yourself a young princess beloved of her husband, to whom some evil wretch should send a messenger to tempt her to infidelity. First, the messenger would bring forth his propositions. Secondly, the princess would either accept or reject the overtures. Thirdly, she would consent to them or refuse them. Even so, when Satan, the world, and the flesh look upon a soul espoused to the Son of God, they set temptations and suggestions before that soul, whereby – 1. Sin is proposed to it. 2. Which proposals are either pleasing or displeasing to the soul. 3. The soul either consents, or rejects them. In other words, the three downward steps of temptation, delectation, and consent. And although the three steps may not always be so clearly defined as in this illustration, they are to be plainly traced in all great and serious sins. If we should undergo the temptation to every sin whatsoever during our whole life, that would not damage us in the Sight of God’s Majesty, provided we took no pleasure in it, and did not consent to it; and that because in temptation we do not act, we only suffer, and inasmuch as we take no delight in it, we can be liable to no blame.’

St. Francis de Sales

'The Holy Spirit is light and strength. He teaches us to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and between good and evil. Like glasses that magnify objects, the Holy Spirit shows us good and evil on a large scale. With the Holy Spirit we see everything in its true proportions; we see the greatness of the least actions done for God, and the greatness of the least faults. As a watchmaker with his glasses distinguishes the most minute wheels of a watch, so we, with the light of the Holy Spirit, distinguish all the details of our poor life. Then the smallest imperfections appear very great, the least sins inspire us with horror. That is the reason why the most Holy Virgin never sinned. The Holy Spirit made her understand the hideousness of sin; she shuddered with terror at the least fault.

Those who have the Holy Spirit cannot endure themselves, so well do they know their poor misery. The proud are those who have not the Holy Spirit.’

St. Jean Marie Baptiste Vianney, the Cure of Ars

 

[JACQUE_D]

How dare you presume that a woman wouldn’t cover for such shallow reasons as ‘not wanting to ruin the hairstyle’ or what have you.

I don’t cover because I gave it a serious go for a while and it was extremely distracting, and the distraction didn’t ease with time. I need ALL my attention to pray properly, thanks, so I am NOT putting such a stumbling block in my own path.

Don’t ‘how dare you’ me. I am fully aware of the filthy looks I get from women in my parish, who like to come to church with backless dresses or shorts and holter tops. Their high hair and big jewels are more distracting to me or my husband and teen age sons that a simple little chapel veil to show my submissiveness to my husband. Did I say that YOU don’t cover for the reason of vanity. Do you think I know you? Well don’t think you know me. I gave an example of what I have witnessed. How dare you jump in and assume I was talking about you. Check the attitude. Don’t feel ashamed that you cannot do the veil.
:tsktsk::ehh::dts:

 

[LilyM]

So in other words the devils got to you through your weaknesses and sinful affections. They are the the source for distractions in prayer of anyone trying to be more holy, and take advantage of one’s weaknesses, exciting the passions and emotions. Now they despise you, and trouble you less because you pray uncovered, this is the source of your peace. I hope you would look directly at this and the weakness that was a part of it, and re-evaluate from the foundation.

Consider the beauty of modesty and following the words of scripture freely and fully for the sake of the angels. I pray your angel and St. Mary helps you in this.

Yet the path of holiness is overcoming these through the help of God, and bearing the cross with all one’s will, all one’s heart. Many people are too selfishly self aware, rather than aware of God’s will and self sacrificial of self as a duty. It does not matter what it is, hair dye or self consciousness, they are both fetters that tie a soul to earth.

Yes, the devil sends all sorts of distractions and temptations upon us, unbidden. Those - the woman who talks loudly in Church during Mass next to us, the child who cries all night next door, and so on - are there for us to conquer. None of which means we should voluntarily seek out additional distractions and temptations - quite the contrary, St Paul tells us to flee temptation, and where possible would certainly advise that we avoid distractions as well. Certainly God gives each of us enough, and more than enough, of both, without us arrogantly flirting with spiritual suicide by deliberately seeking them out!

Bear in mind I’m specifically saying DISTRACTIONS - as distinguished from PENANCES, which although difficult, enhance our prayer life rather than weakening it, whereas temptations and distractions do the opposite.

As an example, for some, such as St Francis of Assisi, being poor was a great joy and a great means of sanctification. For others, great poverty such as he lived in would not lead to sanctification at all, but rather would only lead to thievery, drug dealing, prostitution or other sins - clearly such people would not benefit from voluntarily seeking poverty.

St Paul says a few useful things in this regard - ‘why should my freedom be determined by someone else’s conscience?’ (1 Cor 10:29) - not to mention ‘let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival, or a new moon or sabbath’. (Col 3:36)

I will end by adding ‘or in regard to a veil or a bare head’ and heed his excellent advice.

I am bound in obedience only to Holy Mother Church, and may pick and choose my penances and outward expressions of faith from within the bounds of what she requires, permits and recommends. I am thoroughly satisfied, after proper consideration, that I am not called to veil. And that if anyone would be pleased, or anyone’s purpose served, by my continuing to try, it was extremely unlikely to be God or the angels. Simple as that.

 

[savienu]

Yes, the devil sends all sorts of distractions and temptations upon us, unbidden. Those - the woman who talks loudly in Church during Mass next to us, the child who cries all night next door, and so on - are there for us to conquer. None of which means we should voluntarily seek out additional distractions and temptations - quite the contrary, St Paul tells us to flee temptation, and where possible would certainly advise that we avoid distractions as well. Certainly God gives each of us enough, and more than enough, of both, without us arrogantly flirting with spiritual suicide by deliberately seeking them out!

Bear in mind I’m specifically saying DISTRACTIONS - as distinguished from PENANCES, which although difficult, enhance our prayer life rather than weakening it, whereas temptations and distractions do the opposite.

As an example, for some, such as St Francis of Assisi, being poor was a great joy and a great means of sanctification. For others, great poverty such as he lived in would not lead to sanctification at all, but rather would only lead to thievery, drug dealing, prostitution or other sins - clearly such people would not benefit from voluntarily seeking poverty.

St Paul says a few useful things in this regard - ‘why should my freedom be determined by someone else’s conscience?’ (1 Cor 10:29) - not to mention ‘let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival, or a new moon or sabbath’. (Col 3:36)

I will end by adding ‘or in regard to a veil or a bare head’ and heed his excellent advice.

I am bound in obedience only to Holy Mother Church, and may pick and choose my penances and outward expressions of faith from within the bounds of what she requires, permits and recommends. I am thoroughly satisfied, after proper consideration, that I am not called to veil. And that if anyone would be pleased, or anyone’s purpose served, by my continuing to try, it was extremely unlikely to be God or the angels. Simple as that.

So, if the Church required you to veil tomorrow, would you? Would it still be distracting, or would it not be because now the Church required it? Veiling was required for 1960 years. Do you think it was distracting for any of these women to be veiled? Why is it so distracting for you? Surely, if it is distracting for some external reason, that wouldn’t change just because the Church happened to then require it. So, what would you do then? Consider it a penance? It’s not supposed to be a penance, it’s supposed to be done out of respect for God, and as a sign of submission that is so DESPERATELY needed in our society of today. The whole “it was a cultural thing” argument falls rather flat for me. Did the culture not change between 33 AD and 1960 AD? More over, Catholic Churches sprung up everywhere, within a multitude of different cultures. Yet all women veilled, until the 1960s.
And is the culture of the 1970s feminist movement (who had VEIL BURNINGS, btw, along with bra burnings), really what we want to be emulating? No woman is sinning by not veiling, but what a woman IS saying is “I’m no different than a man,” which is JUST what the culture says. Watch the Pope at his masses, or a Bishop’s mass. They REMOVE their headcovering when consecrating. Why is that? We have lost so much by women not veiling, it just makes me weep. Men and women are different, and have different dignities. Veiling is a simple, beautiful way of acknowledging that fact, and acknowledging our role. Saint Paul says to veil for the sake of the angels. Yet we think his words don’t matter. It was Protestants who initially stopped veiling, and I hear all kinds of crazy interpretations from them of this text, but the text is clear. Women had stopped veiling, and St. Paul says they DEFILE THEIR HEAD if they don’t veil. I don’t see how it could be any more clear.

 

[daughteroftruth]

Jeepers, maybe we should chit-chat with friends during Mass too, so as not to stand out as one of those “holier than thou” types. Are some actually saying that when God’s law and the respect we owe Him becomes an inconvenience to the mentality of the world, the Church is free to toss it out the window? That we shouldn’t do what *He *requires of us because others don’t like it and will focus on us?

People, people, people…:nope:

 

[lizaanne]

Jeepers, maybe we should chit-chat with friends during Mass too, so as not to stand out as one of those “holier than thou” types. Are some actually saying that when God’s law and the respect we owe Him becomes an inconvenience to the mentality of the world, the Church is free to toss it out the window? That we shouldn’t do what *He *requires of us because others don’t like it and will focus on us?

People, people, people…:nope:

Yep! Welcome to one of the HOTTEST topics here on CAF.

I’ve had these debates with folks here before, you just can’t get some of them to “get it” no matter what you say. There is always an excuse.

~Liza