 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
catholicdan
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Merced, California USA |
| Posts: | 61 |
| First Name: | Danny | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | From A 2 Z now on to RC. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27th, 2007 11:07 pm |
|
I do not know if this topic is covered in any other area so I chose to bring it to this area.
I am going to use as my basis for questions and comments the Bible and Tradition. I hope I write this out well so my points are clear and my questions are not ambiguous. I also want to point out that what I am writing is only my personal experience in my studies of Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition and in no way do I represent the Roman Catholic Church in this post. I am not yet a Catholic but plan to be after I and my wife complete RCIA.
I will say that this can be a very intense subject depending on who you talk to and I don't want anyone to become offended so do not feel in anyway that I am telling any of you that you must do.
I am going to focus on the following text of scripture:
1 Corinthians 11:1-16
1 ¶ Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.
2 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.
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.
4 Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraceth his head.
5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.
6 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.
7 The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9 For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man.
10 Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.
11 But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God.
13 You yourselves judge. Doth it become a woman to pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Church of God.
The reason I bring this passage up is because of a bible study that I did a few years back on this topic. We ended up on this topic after someone in the bible study related to the group that a friend of theirs was a Mennonite and she wore a coif or covering on her head. I knew about this teaching but never really researched it deeply to see what the bible and the Early Church Fathers taught on this matter.
After an extensive time in research I found that it was not only a custom of Bible times but seemed to be a commandment of Paul to the Corinthian church. I thought that maybe this was just because of the customs of the day but then I dug deeper and started to see a common teaching among the Early Church Fathers.
Now I know that in our society up until about the turn of the century, the woman's covering started to change for many reasons but mainly due the woman's movements starting to challenge these teachings of the churches Protestant and Catholic.
Now I had always wondered why I saw pictures of women in times past always wearing coverings of some type but never really had the question posed to me in a pastoral capacity. Why did Paul write this passage to the Corinthian Church? Was it only to honor custom, or was there something more to it? Was he handing down an Apostolic Ordinance for the catholic Church and all women to follow? What did the Early Church Fathers teach on this passage from Paul and did they look at it as a customary issue or an Apostolic Ordinance to be followed by all the Church?
The other matter that seems to be at the forefront is the one of headship in the Kingdom of God here on Earth.
I am going to open this up to opening comments and then go from there. All I ask is that each comment is one based on a serious study of the passage and the Early Church Fathers teachings on this topic. I know that there are those here who have more knowledge than I do so I would really love your input and why you take the position that you do.
Ok, let the games begin!
Peace,
Dan.
____________________
"To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant." Cardinal Newman
"Crux Sacra Sit Mihi Lux,
Non Draco Sit Mihi Dux"
May the Holy Cross be my Light.
Let not the dragon be my guide.
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1212 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 12:15 am |
|
| Dan, we had a pretty good thread going about this topic a month or so ago. I'm trying to find it and when I do I'll let you know what to look under for it. We have had differing opinions with some of us believing that chapel veils should be reinstated. I don't know of an early church teaching per se. What I did find was a booklet at my catholic bookstore which compared women as to Mary, and Mary being compared to the Ark of the Covenant. The ark, which contained the Word of God, was veiled and covered. Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant, was veiled and covered. Women who are childbearers have literally been touched by the hand of God at the moment of their child's conception (the beginning of a soul's life). Wearing a headcovering is a form of protection for her as well as modesty. I'm weak at quoting specific scripture, it takes me a little time to look it up and decide if it fits, but after having read about this earlier I decided that women have given up something of value when they stopped wearing headcoverings in the church.
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 12:37 am |
|
Here it is:
Wearing a Mantilla
I don't see why the topic can't be revisited. But you might want to read this for your interest.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1212 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 12:56 am |
|
| Thanks Juan, I knew I didn't dream we had that discussion! But when I tried the "search" feature it didn't find anything.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 01:04 am |
|
Credo Catholic wrote: Thanks Juan, I knew I didn't dream we had that discussion! But when I tried the "search" feature it didn't find anything.
Try searching for "mantilla" and you'll find it.
BTW, since this is about head coverings at prayer and at mass, I'm going to move it to The Mass forum.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
catholicdan
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Merced, California USA |
| Posts: | 61 |
| First Name: | Danny | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | From A 2 Z now on to RC. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 04:33 am |
|
Credo Catholic wrote:
What I did find was a booklet at my catholic bookstore which compared women as to Mary, and Mary being compared to the Ark of the Covenant. The ark, which contained the Word of God, was veiled and covered. Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant, was veiled and covered. Women who are childbearers have literally been touched by the hand of God at the moment of their child's conception (the beginning of a soul's life). Wearing a headcovering is a form of protection for her as well as modesty.
Very interesting indeed.
Saint Pauls teaching on this matter was never a controversy until roughly around the late nineteenth and 20th century. If you just look at the pictures of women before these times you will see them wearing a veil of some sort. what interested me in your statement was the part of you post, "Wearing a headcovering is a form of protection for her as well as modesty".
The Early Church Fathers believed that the veil was a form of protection from the fallen angels and from Satan him self. I will give those quotes once I get my software up and running.
Thanks for your input BTW.
Dan.
____________________
"To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant." Cardinal Newman
"Crux Sacra Sit Mihi Lux,
Non Draco Sit Mihi Dux"
May the Holy Cross be my Light.
Let not the dragon be my guide.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 10:28 am |
|
This is a little off the subject since it does not refer directly to scripture, but I think it's important in considering restrictions on dress and public behavior that in a culture where the kidnapping, rape and murder of women is legally sanctioned, there is a strong protective element to hiding behind a veil. Such is the case today in some Arab countries like the Taliban-controlled area of Afghanistan.
More moderate Arab countries no longer require the full chador but instead find a veil similar to a mantilla acceptable. This was the cultural requirement in Jesus' day. Women were considered possessions, but abuse against them was not tolerated.
More modern societies where women are at least nominally equal to men under the law have universally dropped the legal requirement for head coverings for women.
I believe (and our Church teaches) that a full understanding of scripture requires us to place the writings in their cultural and historical context, so points such as these are important to remember when we try to interpret the meaning of certain passages.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 11:29 am |
|
I find several things thought provoking in these verses:
4 Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraceth his head.
Men were permitted to walk with head uncovered whether indoors or out, whether praying or not.
But why this disgrace upon the head?
5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.
If this custom is the same as the recent Mexican custom which I remember, women wore head coverings at all times except at home. At least as practiced by the older women in my family. They covered their heads immediately upon leaving the house and only harlots didn't wear head coverings.
But St. Paul seems to require women only to cover their head during prayer?
6 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.
Does the covering then, represent her hair?
7 The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.
Scott Hahn interprets this verse as meaning that woman is the greater glory of man. In other words, there are two components that make up man, man and woman. Man is the glory of God, but woman is the greater glory because she is the glory of man.
Yet, I don't get that significance here in this context of the Mantilla. The verse seems to tell me that man is the glory of God because man is made in God's image.....
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
.....yet insinuates that woman is not made in God's image but in man's image. Yet, I suppose that would contradict Genesis 1:
27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
wouldn't it?
9 For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man.
But man and woman together makeup man or else woman is just a creature like the animals which were created also for man.
10 Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.
Does this refer back to Genesis 6:2?
2 The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose.
11 But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.
It seems as though here, St. Paul begins to correct himself, or at least tempers his previous words. The man and the woman are one in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God.
For, although the first woman came from the man's rib, all other men now come from the woman's rib.
13 You yourselves judge. Doth it become a woman to pray unto God uncovered?
All the women in my family cover their head because we believe it is a Church law which has never been rescinded. But, we've discussed this in house and we don't see any intrinsic value in a woman covering her head. It would seem if one must cover so must the other, so, we simply go on faith with this one.
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him?
What does that mean? Is it a shame for a man to "comb"? Jesus wore long hair, by all accounts, so St. Paul couldn't be referring the length of the hair, could he?
15 But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
From an early age, male children abhor their hair being cut just as females. It is only as men are aculturated to shorter hair that they come to accept it. So, apparently, this is not a feeling that is isolated to women.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Church of God.
Does St. Paul here drop the whole matter? In other words, if any man shall not agree, don't worry about it.
Remember, St. Paul also said,
Romans 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord. And he that eateth, eateth to the Lord: for he giveth thanks to God. And he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth thanks to God. 7 For none of us liveth to himself; and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord. Therefore, whether we live, or whether we die, we are the Lord's.
Following that line of thought, if you pray uncovered, pray uncovered unto the Lord, but if you pray covered, do it unto the Lord.
For if even circumcision, which is a covenant unto the Lord, availeth nothing, what does a covering of the head?
Galatians 5
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity.
Colossians 2:
11 In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead. 13 And you, when you were dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh; he hath quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences: 14 Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he hath taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross: 15 And despoiling the principalities and powers, he hath exposed them confidently in open shew, triumphing over them in himself.
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths, 17 Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. 18 Let no man seduce you, willing in humility, and religion of angels, walking in the things which he hath not seen, in vain puffed up by the sense of his flesh, 19 And not holding the head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God. 20 If then you be dead with Christ from the elements of this world, why do you yet decree as though living in the world?
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1212 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 12:03 pm |
|
| I haven't come to terms fully with the notion of wearing a headcovering as submission to authority or the idea that wearing lace on my head makes me more modest! Although I'm not opposed to it necessarily, it's not what draws me to the veil. What does appeal to me is the idea of the holiness of the woman's body as created by God, and the covering of the head being the outward sign of that. It's not about being made to wear something signifying I'm inferior in the church, but it's about the beauty of wearing something that denotes the grace God has given me as a woman. So, if that is in line with what I Corinthians says then good. Having said that, I have to confess that I still haven't worn my veil to mass, or even into the church because I see no one else wearing them. Maybe one woman out of 500 does. I think there are many women who would like to wear them but don't for the same reason! And why did they all of a sudden stop wearing them within a couple of weeks time, during the late sixties? They must have been resenting wearing them at that point. They weren't feeling reverent? Or modest? or humble? No, they must have been feeling put upon to do something that they didn't understand why they were doing it. Another instance of the church failing to instruct and connect.
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 01:19 pm |
|
Another instance of the church failing to instruct and connect.
I don't agree. Apparently everyone got the message that the requirement was no longer in Canon Law.
And apparently, it is still the predominant custom amongst Catholic women in other countries. At least that is what I've been told by Asian and Indian women in our parishes. It iseems only American and perhaps European women who misunderstood that the old Canon Law was not rescinded. Perhaps others can comment on this since I've not been outside the US except to Northern Mexico and that long ago when the mantilla was still prevalent there).
Nor did women quit wearing the mantilla within a few weeks. Many elderly Catholic American women still wear the mantilla. As I remember, it was only younger women, teenagers really, who rebelled against the custom immediately. More mature women dropped the custom gradually. I still remember women such as my aunts and cousins commenting that they weren't used to attending Church without a head covering.
Perhaps the problem is that news travels faster in developed countries, but they don't get the whole story. We sacrifice the whole story for sound bites.
NEWS FLASH Church Law no longer says mantilla required.
Oh, I guess we don't have to cover our heads.
But wait, there's more. Too late, no one is paying attention anymore.
Sincerely,
Juan
Last edited on Sat Jul 28th, 2007 01:24 pm by Juan
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1212 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 02:53 pm |
|
| Now I'm confused. :? I thought it was announced that the headcovering was no longer necessary. That one announcement was all it took for women everywhere to put aside their hats and veils. We had a link here at one time that brought up the Canon Law that dealt with this but apparently it was in yet another thread! Are you saying that all over America and perhaps Europe women have misunderstood what to do and it has been ignored, or allowed to go on by the church? Also, getting back to CatholicDan's interest in what the early church fathers said concerning this, wouldn't the custom of women covering their heads have already been in place in Jewish practice eons before Jesus was born? Doesn't I Corinthians reinforce and uphold a custom already in place, only making it a practice approved by God for the Christians to follow? Last edited on Sat Jul 28th, 2007 03:08 pm by Credo Catholic
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 03:51 pm |
|
Now I'm confused. :?
Maybe not. Perhaps I have it wrong.
I thought it was announced that the headcovering was no longer necessary.
As I understand, that was never announced. The Canon Law simply was removed from the current listing.
That one announcement was all it took for women everywhere to put aside their hats and veils.
I lived through the era, and I don't remember it being quite that sudden. Except for the younger women.
We had a link here at one time that brought up the Canon Law that dealt with this but apparently it was in yet another thread! Are you saying that all over America and perhaps Europe women have misunderstood what to do and it has been ignored, or allowed to go on by the church?
Ignored? Allowed to go on?
I don't think the Church is ignorant of our behavior. But the Church takes things in stride. If you read the article by Pope Benedict the XVI which CajunRick posted, the Church acts quietly and humbly.
Lay people hop up and down and get very upset about little things. But the Church bides her time and explains things quietly letting it seep into our consciousness. Perhaps one day, women in the US will again begin to wear the mantilla. But the Church won't waste Her time getting upset over such a small thing when there are real dangers against the human soul which we must face.
Also, getting back to CatholicDan's interest in what the early church fathers said concerning this, wouldn't the custom of women covering their heads have already been in place in Jewish practice eons before Jesus was born? Doesn't I Corinthians reinforce and uphold a custom already in place, only making it a practice approved by God for the Christians to follow?
Its an interesting topic. I hope Catholic Dan provides the promised sources so that we can see how long this custom was in place before the New Testament era. I'm also interested in what St. Paul means in the last sentence regarding this topic.
Here's an interesting article.
Here's another
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1212 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 03:56 pm |
|
| I found the other thread. Under The Mass and Liturgy, then under Mass, then Headcoverings for Women.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 04:05 pm |
|
Juan wrote: NEWS FLASH Church Law no longer says mantilla required.
Oh, I guess we don't have to cover our heads.
But wait, there's more. Too late, no one is paying attention anymore.
Juan, I think you got it exactly right. News coverage at the time indicated that a requirement was removed rather than that it was changed.
We can liken it to the restriction on eating meat on Fridays. As we have discussed, the obligation was dispensed most of the year but that did not change the recommendation, and the obligation to do penance. But I'll bet if someone would poll active Catholics, more than 85% are not aware that there are any special expectations on Fridays outside of Lent that do not apply equally on other days.
Their source? The secular news media. When reporting the activities of the Catholic Church, I have never heard a report on the secular media that is (a) correct and (b) complete. Pope Benedict has learned this lesson so well that his recent instruction on the extraordinary form of the liturgy was accompanied by a letter explaining what he knew the news media would report incorrectly, and he was right.
Never underestimate the popular media's ability to report something incompletely. The majority of reporters absolutely have the best intentions, but they are truly not fully aware of their subject matter. I know, I've been there.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1212 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 04:14 pm |
|
Juan wrote: But the Church won't waste Her time getting upset over such a small thing when there are real dangers against the human soul which we must face.
That's just it. The real dangers against the human soul which we must face. Abortion and out-of-control morality, refusal to accept the authority of the church and it's traditions, aren't these the outward signs of inner loss of spiritual understanding?
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 06:15 pm |
|
That's just it. The real dangers against the human soul which we must face. Abortion and out-of-control morality, refusal to accept the authority of the church and it's traditions, aren't these the outward signs of inner loss of spiritual understanding?
You seem to be saying that the decision not to wear a mantilla is an "outward sign of the inner loss of spiritual understanding?"
I don't believe it is that significant, but you may be correct. Perhaps others can comment.
I know people who feel similarly about a scapular, for instance. Yet many women who wear a scapular don't wear a mantilla. Go figger.
As for me, I don't think an article of clothing defines your sense of piety. But you should follow your conscience. At the same time, my wife and I wear scapulars and she and our girls wear mantillas, (which we call veils).
Oh, it just occurred to me. We had a Polish priest to visit our Parish recently and he made a point of stopping our family as we exited the Mass. He mentioned that seeing the girls and my wife in the mantilla reminded him of home.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
catholicdan
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Merced, California USA |
| Posts: | 61 |
| First Name: | Danny | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | From A 2 Z now on to RC. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 07:05 pm |
|
Credo Catholic wrote: Juan wrote: But the Church won't waste Her time getting upset over such a small thing when there are real dangers against the human soul which we must face.
That's just it. The real dangers against the human soul which we must face. Abortion and out-of-control morality, refusal to accept the authority of the church and it's traditions, aren't these the outward signs of inner loss of spiritual understanding?
I cannot agree more with you on this matter. To call this a small thing is where the danger lies. Look at the turmoil of the times when Bishop Paul wrote this passage to the Corinthians. Brothers and sisters, Bishops and Popes were being martyred and yet Bishop Paul took the time to make sure that we carried on the Sacred Tradition passed on by Bishop Paul. A small matter?
I am going to comment more on this tonight so be patient with me on this and I think that what I will bring in here will be a challenge and hopefully a blessing to all our sisters in the faith out there. I will say, up until 1983 it was Canon Law for woman to at the very least wear a veil when approcing the sacred table. More on this and the other later.
Dan.
PS. Just a visual  Isn't interesting that all pictures of Our Blessed Mother have her wearing a veil?
Last edited on Sat Jul 28th, 2007 07:17 pm by catholicdan
____________________
"To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant." Cardinal Newman
"Crux Sacra Sit Mihi Lux,
Non Draco Sit Mihi Dux"
May the Holy Cross be my Light.
Let not the dragon be my guide.
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1212 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 07:11 pm |
|
Juan wrote: You seem to be saying that the decision not to wear a mantilla is an "outward sign of the inner loss of spiritual understanding?"
Not exactly but sort of! I may be having trouble putting my feelings about this into words, but if women stopped wearing the mantillas because they didn't think they were required to wear them anymore, and they didn't understand fully why they were wearing them in the first place, then they were only wearing them to fulfill a "rule" and not because it meant anything to them spiritually. But the women who have spoken lately about how they do wear them and support wearing them seem to have a spiritual reason for doing so. They feel more reverent, modest, humble before God, and feel blessed as women to be wearing them. Yes, I do think that women as a whole have lost something beautiful and precious, not just in wearing head- coverings but in dignity in their positions as women. My statement about the church not instructing or connecting with them was made because there seems to be a big question regarding all of this, looming in the air. Was there a misconception concerning the Canon Law revision? Was it an oversight? (I can't believe it would be). Was it due to the times and the liberation movement? Does anybody care? To me it's not a small thing, but it's perceived as a small thing. I've heard a couple of homilies on modesty and the too-casual life style we live. I've heard catholic speakers on theology of the body and the rampant sexual misconduct going on, and how devastating it is to our society. But none of them has mentioned the value of wearing the chapel veil. To me there is a connection there. Why does Paul in I Corinthians go to the trouble of saying all that if it's only applicable to a small group of people?
Edit: It has been said in conjunction with this topic that the wearing of the veil or headcovering ceased during the same movement that brought about the practice of altar girls during mass. Being a former girl (!) and having a daughter and a granddaughter, I have nothing against girls, I love girls. But I don't believe they have a place at the altar during mass. And this is not off topic, because the mindset is the same IMHO. I have a husband, son and grandsons, and I want them to have the specialness of place and position that I desire for my own gender. Males need their own kind of respect and I just believe that boys should get that early on, to prepare them for future vocations in the church or as laity. Altar girls confuse the issue. Chapel veils clarify a little. I hope I don't get hate messages!
Last edited on Sat Jul 28th, 2007 07:36 pm by Credo Catholic
|
|
|
catholicdan
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Merced, California USA |
| Posts: | 61 |
| First Name: | Danny | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | From A 2 Z now on to RC. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 07:26 pm |
|
I wanted to add this because this author makes a very important observation:
"The fruit of this doctrine of submission and covering is that simply by appearing with a covering on her head, the woman is giving testimony to many of Catholicism’s greatest truths. She proclaims simply by her head being covered that God is greater than man; that man is the leader within mankind; that woman is subjected to man. She is also proclaiming her personal submission to Jesus Christ, to her husband if she is married, and to her superiors if she is not. A mere garment declares all these things to a doubting world; woman is quite privileged to be able to wear it.
This analogy of Christ and mankind to man and woman also extends to the relationship of God to the Church. That is, man is to woman as Christ is to the Church. St. Paul himself makes this extension, telling us that “the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church.” So a woman who appears with a covered head is also proclaiming the submission of the Church to Christ, the covering on her head symbolizing the Church’s universal submission. Furthermore, by proclaiming one end of the analogy, she is also proclaiming the other. The covered woman is giving witness to the fact that “Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it.” She declares that her husband must love her just as Christ loves His Church, and that God lovingly watches over mankind just as — and much better than — her husband lovingly watches over her. This simple garment, when understood in this way, is a powerful witness to the Catholic faith; happy the sex that with so simple a gesture can proclaim such noble truths!" Because of the Angels: A Study of the Veil in the Christian Tradition Part 1: The Veil in the Apostolic Age by Donald P. Goodman III
I think that the power behind the woman and the veil is so fantastic that I am almost envious that women have the powerful and awesome privalege to proclaim who they stand for and what they represent.
More later,
Dan
Last edited on Sat Jul 28th, 2007 07:29 pm by catholicdan
____________________
"To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant." Cardinal Newman
"Crux Sacra Sit Mihi Lux,
Non Draco Sit Mihi Dux"
May the Holy Cross be my Light.
Let not the dragon be my guide.
|
|
|
catholicdan
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Merced, California USA |
| Posts: | 61 |
| First Name: | Danny | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | From A 2 Z now on to RC. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 28th, 2007 09:32 pm |
|
As Catholics we go by Scripture, Tradition, Magistarium. For alost 2000 years the Church taught that it was a mandate that women wear the veil at the minimum in Church and when praying.
I would ask the reader to ponder these questions: 1.) Was St. Paul inspired when he wrote that a woman should be veiled [in Church]? 2.) Do you believe that the Church was wrong for two thousand years, concerning the veil, and the feminist corrected the error by getting women to abandon it? 3.) If you are a woman, who has chosen not to wear the veil, could you give a reason that would illustrate that your choice comes from a deep and profound love of God?
Peace,
Dan.
____________________
"To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant." Cardinal Newman
"Crux Sacra Sit Mihi Lux,
Non Draco Sit Mihi Dux"
May the Holy Cross be my Light.
Let not the dragon be my guide.
|
|
|
| |
