www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Confused.

...every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head... (I Cor. 11:5)

For a visitor to an Russian Orthodox Old Rite (Old Believers) parish, one of the most striking "differences" is the sight of all women, even girls, with their heads covered...this also be found in some other Orthodox jurisdictions. The Orthodox/Eastern tradition that women wear head coverings in church is certainly not peculiar to the Old Rite. One wonders, therefore, why this is not the common practice in all Orthodox churches. It used to be.

There was a case not long ago of a woman who visited the Soviet Union. On a feast day she went to church and at the end of the service went forward to kiss the cross. But when her turn came the priest drew back the cross, explaining that he couldn't allow her to venerate it because her head was uncovered. She protested that she was from abroad and didn't know the local customs, and thought that it was only necessary to cover the head when receiving Holy Communion. The priest told her these were insubstantial excuses, that women should always have their heads covered in church and that he could not permit her to kiss the cross.

Who has ever heard of a priest in this country taking such a firm stand on this question! Some priests make occasional pleas from the ambo, but they seem to have little or only temporary effect. The tradition of covering the head is so little respected nowadays that many--especially among the younger generations of women--are quite unaware of it.

In the interest of fashion, many women are not willing to acknowledge the spiritual benefit to be gained by submitting to this very simple---and meaningful--tradition of covering their heads. This is not a recent innovation but rather an ancient tradition which has been with the Church since the beginning. The Most Holy Virgin Mary herself from a very young age covered her head as a sign of her submission to the will of God, a submission which she later manifest so perfectly on the day of Annunciation. In imitating the Mother of God in this small way, women should feel honored, not humiliated or irritated, and should be thankful for the opportunity which the Church gives them to curb their self-will and to promote a modest disposition.

Why, some ask, aren't men required to do the same? Clergy and monastics, in fact, do have rules for covering their heads in church. But even if such were not the case, who are we to question the wisdom of the Church in requiring of us this small sacrifice of our vanity, our pride, that spark of rebellion which says "Why should I?" Let us pay less attention to how we look and more attention to adorning our souls with the virtues of humility and modesty, virtues we can help cultivate by the simple act of covering our heads in church. Not our will, O Lord, but Thine be done."

By one of my priest-friends (I didn't write this one guys...REALLY!)...but it has some merit I believe.

In His great mercy,
+Fr. Gregory

Those stupid head coverings are more of a distraction than anything. When we went to the latinized byzantine parish, all the women wore them so I did too - thought it must be a byzantine tradition. I made my own, NOT out of lace, LOL! No lace panties on MY head! I made it out of dark blue cloth, and I tried to make it look more like the covering Mary wears in the icons. Anyway, the thing would always fall off or slide down. It seemed like I spent more time fussing with it than worshipping. :rolleyes:

Then we went to a Latin Rite parish and I got some lace (when in Rome do as the Romans do, right?) and used a bobby pin to keep it on. The baby would yank on it and just about pull my hair out. That didn't make for a very worshipful experience either. :rolleyes:

Tammy

Father,

Amen to all you have written.

Dan L

Father Gregory,

Who would have ever taken you to be a masochist ?

Many years,

Neil, running and ducking to avoid the flying debris

MORE than you ever wanted to know about head coverings!

Principle and Custom

Paul's discussion of headship in 1 Corinthians 11 focuses on the issue of headcovering. In worship services men should leave their heads uncovered, the apostle says, while women should wear something which covers their heads. The question is sometimes posed as to why Christians who today accept the Biblical principle of headship in 1 Corinthians 11 do not also insist on the practice of headcoverings for women in contemporary worship settings.

This issue is clarified by noting the distinction between a principle and its application in custom and practice. Although it is not possible to determine precisely which customs Paul had in mind (most probably Jewish customs of covering and veiling at worship is the source, though there seems to have been much variation in the synagogue practices of Paul's day), it is clear that the use of headcoverings in worship was a cultural expression which had particular meaning within the original context.

1 Corinthians 11 addresses a situation where women had disregarded their subordinate position by praying and prophesying with uncovered head like the men. Paul opposes this behavior by declaring that a man who prays and prophesies having his head covered dishonors his head and that a woman who prays and prophesies with uncovered head dishonors her head. In other words, the laying aside of the, headcovering is regarded by the apostle as a repudiation of the relationship between man and woman established in creation. The ultimate significance of the headcovering consisted in its potential for expressing a particular differentiation between men and women. Paul's concern therefore is not simply with the maintenance of outward conduct. For order and unity in the family there must be leadership, and the primary responsibility for such leadership is that of the husband and father. The headcovering was a custom (v. 15), subservient to a principle ("the head of the woman is the man," v. 3). The custom of headcovering functioned as woman's acknowledgment of the principle of headship.

Even in earliest times this practice was not universally followed by Christian congregations, and in modern Western society headcovering or veiling is generally devoid of the significance attached to it in Paul's time. [44] In fact, it. has commonly been understood from the very beginning that these passages of Scripture which pertain to custom are not binding and that the principle involved can be manifested in various ways. We have the affirmation, for example, of the Savior that we should wash one another's feet (John 13:14, a practice highly significant in its original setting. But Christians have not generally regarded this exhortation as instituting a perpetual ordinance. The Christian principles signified by it-humility and love, for others-can and should be manifested by other practices. The principle of humble love remains, but the custom has passed away. Leon Morris comments:


The application of this principle (Paul's words on headship) to the situation at Corinth yields the direction? That women must have their heads covered when they worship. The principle is of permanent validity, but we may well feel that the application of it to the contemporary scene need not yield the same result. In other words, in. The light of totally different social customs, we may well hold that the fullest acceptance of the principle underlying this chapter does not require that in Westerns lands in the twentieth century women must always wear hats while they pray. [45]

The concept of headship is not only misunderstood, but it is also frequently abused. It is a mistake, for example, to identify the Biblical model of headship with a chain of command. The Scriptures teach that headship exists, for the sake of serving others, of building up others. Christ taught that His followers are to be servants. Self-willed assertion over another, for one's own personal advantage violates and perverts the headship principle of which the apostle speaks.

2. Subordination. The same present-day connotations of superiority and oppression that attach to the Biblical concept of headship also adhere to the concept of subordination. It is true that Scriptures use the word for subordination (hypotasso) in a dominative sense in some contexts (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:27, "For God has put all things in subjection under his feet"; 1 Peter 3:22, "angels, authorities, and powers in submission to him"). There is, in point of fact, a type of coercive subordination which results from force or domination. A slave or a prisoner experiences subordination in this sense.

But there is a subordination which is freely recognized and accepted by the subordinate. The New Testament refers to this type of subordination whenever it speaks of the woman in home and church contexts. It is an attitude of looking to another, of putting first the desires of another, of seeking another's benefit. This is not a subordination imposed by the man on the woman from a position of superior authority or power. Rather, it is rooted in the order (taxis) instituted by God to which both are subject.

There are also differences in the way subordination and governance are conducted. Governance in a subordinate relationship can be oppressive- a relationship that works for the benefit of the ruler and to the detriment of the subordinate. This relationship is characterized by obedience to command, a "lording-it-over-the-other" attitude. But a person can be subordinate without ever having to obey a command. Nowhere in Scripture is it ever said that power or authority (exousia) or rule (arche) is given to the man over the woman. All of the passages which speak of the subordination of the woman to the man, or of wives to their husbands, are addressed to the woman. The verbs enjoining subordination in these texts are in the middle voice in the Greek (reflexive). The woman is reminded, always in the context of an appeal to the grace of God revealed in Jesus Christ, that she has been subordinated to man by the Creator and that it is for this reason that she should willingly accept this divine arrangement. The Scriptures never tell the man that he is to "keep his wife in subjection" (unlike the exhortation concerning children in 1 Tim. 3:4) by the issuance of commands. People can be subordinate by serving others, by cooperating with another's purposes, or by following another's teaching. The more love and commitment to the interest of others (Phil. 2:4) are present in the relationship of the man to the woman, the more this subordinate relationship conforms to the Scriptural ideal. [46]

Significantly, subordination is not applied by the apostolic writers to secular society. In this sphere-in the absence of Scriptural guidance- one must resist attempts to identify certain stances as the Christian or Biblical ones. The fact that a woman may be "over" a man (such as a woman foreman on a construction crew or a woman judge in a legal proceeding) is not to be construed as a violation of the Scriptural concept of subordination.

The Biblical material focuses on the areas of marriage and the church. However, whenever the subordination of women to men in marriage and in the church becomes a matter of domination and whenever anyone, man or woman, behaves in an autocratic, domineering way, such conduct stems not from the creation but from the fall. Men honor the rule of God by submitting themselves to His will concerning their attitude and conduct toward women. Attitudes and actions which suggest that women are insignificant or inferior, or that they have no valid existence apart from men, originate in the fall. Moreover, such a posture toward women is inconsistent with the example of Jesus' governance of those who live in a subordinate relationship to Him (Eph. 5:25). At the same time, the fact that Scripture speaks of woman being subordinate to man does not rob women of their purpose in life or make them only appendages of men. Both male and female are members of the Body of Christ. They both share in ruling God's creation and in the proclamation of the gospel. A third principle emerges, then, to guide us in determining the service of women in the church today: Subordination, when applied to the relationship of women and men in the church, expresses a divinely established relationship in which one looks to the other, but not in a domineering sense. Subordination is for the sake of orderliness and unity.

In Him Who humbled Himself unto death---death on a Cross,
+Fr. Gregory

Jonn,

I remember that - it worked as long as the nuns didn't notice

Many years,

Neil, handing a hardhat to Father Gregory

sorry Tammy, I messed up here and deleted part of your post. mea culpa.
Much Love,
Jonn

IIRC, Paul also indicated men and women should not sit together. So did that imply the presence of pews? I always wondered about that. But I think that was like the head coverings for women, it varied in application from place to place. Today, another problem seems to be baseball caps on boys - and yes, men too, at times - while in church.

OK - on the whole I agree BUT [ hehe - there was bound to be a BUT ] when in Rome etc.

Just over a year ago I was in London for a weekend - and went to Vigil in a Rocor Parish - and yes - men and women were on opposite sides and all women - including me - had head coverings on - and we all had skirts of a respectable length [ OK guys - I did mean the women present.

Also I have worked with observant Muslims and their women also wear head coverings - so our School Doc, if any Dads were accompanying their Kiddies for the medical , had to be warned so she could cover up in time.

Back to lace mantillas - here some are triangles , and some are long oblongs - more like scarves. I have never seen the wee lacey doillies though - they do seem daft - obeying the letter of the law but not the thought behind it.

I still think a degree of tolerance for each other's customs is needed though - and we should respect their traditions - however as long as these sometimes disaffected folk don't walk into our Church Communities and try and make us do as they want to do - we should just let sleeping dogs lie. The more fuss we create - the more they will doggedly hang onto their customs and try and get us to see they are right [ and they aren't always ]

Anhelyna

There was one lady in that latinized Byzantine parish that wore what I think really WAS a lace doily. It was round, about 4-6 inches (10-15cm) in diameter. She used a hatpin or something to pin it on top of her perfectly coifed hairdo. It was frilly and kind of cute, but I really didn't see the point - it didn't cover MUCH of her head! What would be the difference between that and putting on a large fancy barrette?

Tammy

The lace doilies are called "chapel caps" and were quite common in the U.S. in pre-Vatican II days. Although some women did wear them - I suspect because they would fold easily into a purse - they were often worn by children. I have great respect for the Tridentines who are motivated by love of their liturgy and Latin Rite tradition. I know some of them and did quite a bit of work helping them petition the Latin Rite bishop for that Mass they love so much. Unfortunately, some people who are just disaffected with the Vatican II Church, as well as, some right-wing nuts have been attracted to Tridentine liturgies. In fact, one independent chapel in SE Tennessee that I know of could be propertly called the "Tridentine Flat Earth Society." The largest group represented at any Mass there would most likely be the John Birch Society. These are the folks who occasionaly show up at Byzantine Churches and cause problems. They have no real interest in our liturgy, they just want to escape the Novus Ordo RC Church. Not all Tridentines are bad by any means, but some of them do cause trouble.

Dear Tammy,

What, exactly, drives you to write "latinized byzantine parish"?

Charles

Point taken re the Tridentines who really love their liturgy - we do have them [ there is a SSPX Parish in Glasgow] and we now have a Parish with an Indult - for 10am Mass on Sundays celebrated according to the 1962 Missal [ still not sure how that actually came about ]

Somehow Scotland has not been affected quite so badly by the disaffected - probably 'cos we have nothing else really to offer them - can you see GOs welcoming these folk who want to bring their traditions with them ?

It cannot be easy coping with folk who are not satisifed in the West and think the East is the answer to all their problems - it isn't. They are the ones running from - not to - and they will undoubtedly have problems wherever they are - for them the grass is greener on the other side of the fence

Anhelyna

Well, this parish in particular was a strange blend of Latin Rite and Byzantine Rite. As I mentioned, the only true Byzantines in the parish were the original 5 founding families. The other parishioners were all RC's who were fleeing the Novus Ordo to go to the Byzantine Rite because it was the closest thing to what they wanted in their own rite. Because they comprised the majority of the parish, they managed to oust a lot of Byzantine traditions in favor of their own. They had gotten rid of the Orthros or Matins service and replaced it with the Rosary before Divine Liturgy. Many of the readers simply refused to chant the scripture with Byzantine Tones and chanted it like the Latin Rite instead (and you could tell the difference!). Solemn Confession for the children looked like First Communion in the RC - complete with the little white wedding dresses and all the other trappings. At the time we were there they were pressuring the priest to take down the icons and replace them with Stations of the Cross. But they were quite excited about the prospect of adding a dome to their church building, because once they got it they would be a 'real' Byzantine parish.

I assume the priest was getting permission from the local RC bishop to pastor these people, because he baptized/chrismated their young children and married their older ones.

This strange hybrid that isn't quite EC and isn't quite RC is not good. You end up with, as someone else put it, "right-wing nuts" that don't adhere to the teachings of the Pope or the authority of the Church, and think they can hide in the Byzantine Rite, infecting others and giving outsiders a wrong impression of what it means to be Eastern Catholic.

I am a moderator on another Eastern Catholic forum, and whenever I hear from people who are trying to escape the Novus Ordo by fleeing to a Byzantine rite, I try to discourage this. I tell them that not liking the Novus Ordo is not the right reason to become Byzantine.

Sorry to be so wordy and I know I sound opinionated, but now you know why.

Tammy