why did Paul want woman to cover their heads?
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 10/11/2009
I just don't know why Paul wanted woman to wear a head covering and men were not to. What does that have to do with Jesus and God and I alway's thought a womans hair was her crown. lacy-1
Freedom!
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
A russian orthodox woman i knew in alaska once told me that the reason they wear head coverings to is remind them "why the hell did i get married?" In their culture, which is actually a sect of the orthodox who call themselves the old believers, married women wear head coverings.. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the tradition in the church too, but i likes her answer.
as for paul it's hard to say. i mean it may be just a part of the ancient culture like in todays culture it's taboo for a woman to not wear a shirt. maybe in another thousand years women will not be wearing shirt and men will have to have a garment covering their chest.. but apart from that i think there is a special meaning that is somehow tied in with the idea of christ and his bride, the church. maybe it was easy to draw certain images from culture that seemed to "picture" an idea presented in the gospel. first would be that a woman with a head covering would be understood to be married, a head covering hides or veils, the hair, or face so that there is mystery or hidden-ness something specific and special.
mike
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
Flannery O'Connor
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
I think it was more of a cultural issue.
Women in the first century were not worth much other than to produce children and participate in temple prostitution.
We have all of these pagan converts in places like Corinth and Ephesus where women were very much second class (if that). Going from this ingrained attitude into one where God sees both sexes as equal (yet with different roles) was probably very difficult for them.
Therefore, I think Paul may have been helping them transition. While women were obviously the winners (status-wise) going from paganism to Christianity, Paul made it clear that the man was still the head of the household and gave the veil as a sign of that headship. That seems like a simple way to offset the requirement that these men should love their wives as Christ loved the Church, which was an incredibly foreign concept.
Paul did other things so as not to be a stumbling block to potential converts. This may have been one of those instances, but I couldn't say so with any certainty. Just one opinion anyway.
It doesn't mean that I think wearing of veils should be eliminated as a discipline. The church has not made a definitive statement rescinding the wearing of veils. They are also a sign of being in submission to Christ.
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 12/05/2006
Location: Australia
In fact the wearing of the veil is canon law which is based on St. Paul's directive. It has not been repealed either...sorry ladies. It is meant first of all to separate or a better term, distinguish men from women within the congregation.
The veil is required by canon law of 1917 and it must be understood as still valid regardless of the veil not being mentioned in the 1983 revision. Oh BTW I believe the veil is a symbol of the subordinate position held by women in the natural order.
I can in confidence say that if a women knew the requirement of the veil and refused on the basis that it is a symbol of her subordination to man, she would in fact be sinning. Ignorance is bliss. Just my two cents. 
tim
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
gosh keeper, i don't know.. the 1983 canon abrogated the 1917.. making it null and void.. thus if it (1983) remains silent on the issue of head covering then it must mean it's just not an issue. it's not a matter of not mentioning it.... it clearly says that the 1917 is abrogated.
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
Flannery O'Connor
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
I think that veils are wonderful and do wish that they would make a return; however, according to the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983, the Code of Canon Law from 1917 was abrogated.
quote:
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.
§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.
However, there is a dress code still in effect for Catholic men and women, that few seem to know about. We are called to dress modestly, at all times, and especially while in Church.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
Lacy-1, I do want to be perfectly clear, that in repealing the legal requirement to cover our heads, the Church is not saying or even suggesting that Paul was wrong.
My understanding is that while modesty must always be a part of our Catholic culture, wearing a head covering in modern times did become a distraction rather than a help - especially when women started getting fancy with their hats.
When Church started becoming a fashion show for the latest trends in head wear among women, whether with flashy hat or ornate veil, it ceased to sign of humility.
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 12/05/2006
Location: Australia
quote:
Originally posted by mikejuli
gosh keeper, i don't know.. the 1983 canon abrogated the 1917.. making it null and void.. thus if it (1983) remains silent on the issue of head covering then it must mean it's just not an issue. it's not a matter of not mentioning it.... it clearly says that the 1917 is abrogated.
Gee Mike, good point,the fact that canon 6 of the 1983 CCL abrogates 1917 CCL makes arguing for the veil only on the basis of canon law untenable. However, 1983CCL also states in canon 5 that:"Universal or particular customs beyond the law which are in force until now are preserved." In other words since the 1983 CCL does not mention veils directly (in opposition to them) and since the wearing of veils is a custom spanning 2000 years then the custom is in fact binding. It could be argued from the 1983 CCL that this particular custom has the force of law. when reading canons 20 through 28 of the CCL 1983.
It must be understood that canon 6 in and of itself does not relinquish women from the necessity of wearing a veil at Mass.
Another point one could make is the context of veil wearing according to previous canon law.
From the 1917 code:
quote:
1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church. 2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bear-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.
I would argue that veil wearing is a liturgical norm and if we go forward to the 1983 CCL we see the following:
quote:
"For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code."
It would be very difficult to prove that veil wearing was somehow not associated with the Liturgy or that somehow it was banned in the current code (which it is not).
Here in Australia veil wearing has had a resurgence, mostly because the Catholics actually practicing their faith have taken the time to educate themselves concerning the traditions of the Catholic Faith instead of listening to liberal news agencies. 
tim
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
i didn't say the current code banned head coverings... only that it abrogated the old and therefore it is not a requirement.
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
Flannery O'Connor
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 12/05/2006
Location: Australia
Actually Mike 1983 CCL limits its abrogation of past canon law as noted within the document for example Canon 20 states: "A later law abrogates, or derogates, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law.A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise."
If CCL 1983 completely abrogated the 1917 CCL why would they bother including these canons limiting that abrogation? canon 21 reemphasizes this: "In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them."
In my honest opinion the supposed revocation of the requirement of a veil is nothing more than a misinterpretation and misinformation of current canon law.
tim
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
o.k. and the 1983 specifically abrogates the 1917. so what is the problem? anyway the same canon also says men and woman should be separated at church. if we are going to push for the veil we also need to push for separate seating as well.
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
Flannery O'Connor
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 12/05/2006
Location: Australia
Why mix apples and oranges? Whether or not men and women sit separately is beside the point just as long as they don't sit on each others lap seems to maintain a "separateness" in my opinion. I am saying Mike that just because current canon law does not call for it doesnt disqualify that particular custom. And as a matter of fact because of the tradition and Scriptural emphasis on the veil it could very well be that the wearing of the veil is outside canon law. Check it out there are provisions to this effect contained in current canon law.
When I was a child, a woman would never enter the Church without a veil. It just did not happen. This all changed well before the 1983 code came out. All I am saying is that the veil was an established custom to the universal Church centuries before it was ever required by canon law and should be revived for that very reason.
In this diocese whenever a Latin Mass is said the practice of wearing a veil is back in full swing. There are veils near the entrance if for some reason it is forgotten or visitors unaware of the custom attend...they wear the veil. Some things do not need to be written in a book as laws to be understood as the right thing to do.
The ceasing of wearing a veil at Mass did not come as a result of canon law. It was a result of a feminist mentality incompatible with Church teaching.
tim
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 06/26/2002
it's not apples and oranges... just another apple from the same branch. not to mention, the actual canon seems to imply head coverings for women that are assisting in the liturgy. i was looking for the full text of the 1917 but could only find it in latin so had to use a quote from a website. but that is where i saw the issue of separate seating as well. the way i see it is that they are both part of the same canon so either defend both or reject both but don't say they are apples and oranges. that's just silly.
mike
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
Flannery O'Connor
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 12/05/2006
Location: Australia
Its not silly, the difference is twofold. the first and most obvious is that the wearing of a veil is a custom endorsed by St. Paul....himself.
Even though canon law makes it a regulation 1850 years later the tradition of wearing a veil while at the Lords Supper does not need canon law to be binding upon the entire Church because it was already practiced en mass for that period of time. If you look in current canon law as supplied you will find that in fact this custom is not nor can it be abrogated unless specifically addressed by current canon law.
Separate seating for men and women does not have the Scriptural support that the veil has. Also the canon addresses separate seating and the head cover of men in the light of culture where the Liturgy is being performed. The use of a head cover for women,however, does not enjoy this exception. And BTW Mike it is apples and oranges because canon law of 1917 say its desirable that men and women be separated whereas the use of a head cover for women is demanded.
Secondly, the removal of the veil did not arrive as a result of Canon law. Women stopped wearing the veil as early as 1968, 15 years prior to the 1983 code. Why was this done? Because the veil was a symbol of the true nature of God's plan concerning the relationship of man and woman. This subjugation was frowned upon by a feminist movement which had gathered strength after world war two. Most women believed that Vat II was the culprit which only goes to show how misinformation can be used to stifle a 2000 year old tradition.
The wearing of the veil does not need canon law in order to be practiced universally by the Church because before 1917 this was already the case. I suppose that there were abuses prior to 1917 which caused it to be incorporated (just opinion here) which would make sense and if so only bolsters the custom aspect which according to canon law would abrogate the abrogation! ( I could not resist..sorry)
tim
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 11/17/2007
Location: Canada
But while Paul does say that a woman must wear a veil while praying or prophesying (whether or not she is in church), and that a man must keep his head uncovered (non-Catholics use this statement against our Pope and Bishops for their head coverings); the situation with "custom" is that for it to apply to the universal Church, it must be a universal custom - the veil isn't.
quote:
Recently I myself came across a particularly confusing website, presenting yet another erroneous argument why women are allegedly still required to veil their heads. According to the author, the wearing of chapel veils is a custom which has acquired the force of law, and cannot be abrogated by new canons to the contrary.
On a superficial level, this appears to be a clever and convincing argument. Canon 26 notes that if a custom does not contradict current canon law, and has been observed for 30 consecutive years, it acquires the force of law. Additionally, universal law does not revoke a custom unless it expressly says so (c. 28; cf. also c. 5.2). The web author asserts that women wore chapel veils for well over 30 years, so this was a custom that has in effect become a Church law. Furthermore, he claims, since the 1983 code does not specifically mention the subject of chapel veils, this custom has not been revoked, and must still be followed.
But the author of the website fails to make an important distinction. Women were required for over 30 years to cover their heads by the previous canon 1262, and not because of universal custom. The fact that Catholic women followed canon law for so long did not somehow transform the then-existing law into a custom. By that logic, any canon of the 1917 code which was faithfully observed by Catholics worldwide has become a custom which could not be revoked by promulgation of the 1983 code!
Another distinction which is being lost in this argument is that between permitting women to wear chapel veils, and requiring them to do so. The silence of the 1983 code on the topic of women's head coverings does not imply that they are forbidden to wear them; it simply indicates that they are not obliged to wear them. There's a big difference!
(By the way, what is the real purpose of the laws on custom, if they do not apply in this instance? Well, a correct example of custom acquiring the force of law might be seen in the practice of Polish Catholics who bring Easter baskets to church to be blessed on Holy Saturday. Blessing baskets is certainly not contrary to canon law, and it has been done for generations, so it can be argued that the practice has acquired the force of law. So if, for example, a bishop suddenly decided to forbid the blessing of Easter baskets on Holy Saturday, the canons on custom would apply. He could not forbid the blessing; but at the same time, the custom does not mandate that Catholics must bring Easter baskets to be blessed on Holy Saturday.)
In the wake of Pope Benedict's recent motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, permitting wider use of the 1962 Missal, some are already suggesting that women will be obliged to cover their heads if attending a Tridentine Mass. Once again, this argument has no merit. The text of Summorum Pontificum does not in any way suggest that canons that were abrogated by the 1983 Code of Canon Law are now back in force. The current canon law still applies. The motu proprio simply permits the faithful to use the 1962 Missal, and none of the Mass rubrics it contains have anything specifically to do with the wearing of chapel veils by members of the congregation. It is understandable that many people associate the two in their minds, since the 1917 code, requiring women to cover their heads, was in force back when they attended the old Mass. But the permission to say the old Mass does not in any way include a return to the obligations of the former canon 1262.
Are Women Obliged to Cover Their Heads?
Pax et Bonum,
Faith_at_Large
Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name [shall be] great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense [shall be] offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name [shall be] great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
-
-
New Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 10/11/2009
Well since i asked the question it is highly unlikly i will be able to answer it, but i would like to know if the Priests still wash each others feet before communion? lacy-1
Freedom!
|
|
Subscribe by Email
RSS