www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Head Coverings

Sharon,

I hear you about the vanity issue. I almost mentioned it myself. Nothing like vanity to distract oneself from God. And nothing like a fashion statement head covering to distract the Faithful from the liturgy.

I once tried my hand at making a head covering. It didn't work well (the material was too slippery, and my handiwork too shabby), and I was also using that no-sew bonding stuff. Now, I have a sewing machine and might give it another try with a better "sticking" material.

Kelly

Kelly,

I've had the best luck with voile, which is quite lightweight. It's sheer, but it's cottony rather than slick. Some fabric stores stock the black and/or white year round - usually with the utility or bridal fabrics. JoAnn tends to get pastel-ish colors in with the spring stuff.

What I do is to cut a square, and just hem the edges. If your machine has a foot that will roll hems (ala handkerchief edges) you're pretty well there - though I advise buying about double what you think you need, so if you cut too small (you'll lose about an inch or so all around) you don't have to run out & get more, and if you do OK, you've got enough for two. A lightweight needle is nice - a 70 or an 80 rather than the one you use to sew your jeans, LOL. Usually I do not wash the fabric until I'm done, because the finish coating makes it a bit stiffer & easier to handle. But I do wash it once I'm done. I've also dyed & tie dyed some - because of the polyester content the dye comes out in very soft shades.

I expect tht if you want to do a triangle rather than a folded square, you could go with a slightly heavier fabric, but I hate sewing that bias seam, and I won't use anything I have to iron.

Best,

Sharon

The reference to "on account of the angels" has been attributed by some scholars to the Genesis 6 account of the angels "sons of God" who saw that the "daughters of men" were fair and took them as wives.

Interpreting this, there are practical implications to this Genesis 6 passage for the early Church. If the humans of the earth in Genesis were relatively innocent but being steadily corrupted by their interaction and mating with the "sons of God" bad angels (think of Adam & Eve and the serpent/Satan) then a parallel can be seen with the innocent flock of Christ becoming prey to the wolves of the pagan world, some of whom were trickling into the Church looking for virgins (a rather rare thing in the cities of the pagan world). The early Church was filled with chaste, and thus beautiful in the completest sense of beauty, married women and girls.

More study needs to be done on this, but there may be evidence (at least I think that I've seen a pattern while reading so many lives of early saints) that wealthy pagan officials may have intentionally taken Christian brides because they were a "trophy" of chastity in a debauched world. I'm not saying that these officials were faithful to their trophy wives, but that at least they knew that their wives would be faithful to them.

Thus a head covering to avoid the leering eyes and preying schemes of the angels/sons of men/pagan wolves would have been, and probably still is, good advice.

In Christ.

And now for a reality check:

In Eastern Europe, our ancestors wore headcoverings. And of course, monastics (monks and nuns) wear head coverings.

In our parish (west of the Mississippi), the women with white lace mantillas are Byzantine Catholics and the women with black lace mantillas are SSPXer's. That's 99% accurate. Occasionally Roman Catholic visitors wear hats -- real hats!

I see it as a reverent custom for a woman to wear something on her head. And, course, monastics are set apart.

Perhaps an American custom is slowly developing here.

Andrew,

How does the Church interpret "sons of God"? Certainly these weren't angels, as angels are incorporeal celestial beings and cannot reproduce with humans...plus about a million other reasons these can't logically be angels.

So what/who are they?

ChristTeen287

Most of the women who have posted here aren't suggesting all women should cover their heads only the men have spoken to that.They are also not lamenting that all men are not wearing suit jackets and ties to Church.In their wisdom they know that there are sooooooooooooo many other issues in our Churches and our communities at large that need addressing. If it was only that easy......... put on a head covering and it will fix you spiritually,if that were the case,why I'd wear the "Cat in Hat" hat to Church. I guess I can't figure out a man's perspective on this but why should they be commenting at all?BTW I have never mentioned to anyone at my worship service who wears a head covering that the Church doesn't require women to cover there heads anymore.In fact, I usually compliment their choice in scarf or hat.

Nicky's Baba

Nikki's baba and all you beautiful posters, I must tell you that I am passionate about this topic. I kind of get the impression ms. baba that you are trivializing the whole head coverings thing. I feel that an external act can lead to an internal transformation. Such is the case with the Jesus prayer. A head covering is an external act that leads one to compunction and spiritual introspection. Second, isn't it a travesty that we make such a distinction between monks, nuns and the "rest of us". Monastics are laity TOO! They endeavor to embody the IDEAL in both the external AND internal manifestations of holiness. It is they who fully realize that there is a reciprocal relationship between the external and internal. How sad that we have found the means to differentiate ourselves from these who follow in the footstep of the Fathers and Mothers of the Church. No wonder we have the "other" problems you refer to. Isn't it Christ who told his diciples that if we cannot be entrusted with a small thing, how will we be able to be trusted in great things. Perhaps, just perhaps, we could begin with the head coverings...

In peace,
Athanasius

Dear Atanasios (Armenian for Athanasius),

IMIO (in my insignificant opinion) head coverings could indeed have great meaning in today's Church of East and West. If interested IMIO, I wrote a short, simple study of this custom.

See:
"The Tradition of Women Head-Covering"

at:
http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/apologetics.html

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian Wolfe

p.s. If you don't maximize this web-site immediately, the advertisement pop's up in the wrong place. Just maximize and hit "refresh" if this happens.

I disagree its interior manifesting itself exteriorly. Spiritually you change from the inside out. People notice the change as in covering your head in church but that is not the only wayto submit to God. I feel your trivializing it. You made the statement about being distracted by uncovered female heads. That has nothing to do with a woman's spirituality.Do the women in your Parish know that you are distracted in this way ,if they do, your presence at Liturgy may make them feel uncomfortable. BTW I am Mrs. not ms. and I am a grandmother. Oh and I forgot you speak of following in our ancestors footsteps ....Catholics today have more disposable income then our ancestors ever did. They came with one steamer trunk and nothing else and built Churches. Today over all we do not have the financial commitment our forefathers did. They truly sacrificed for there Churches. My late mother-in-law had only Sunday shoes for Church in summertime as a child. Her and her friends ran around barefoot all summer but they had a Church. Those Church builders would not understand why we would have autos or houses with more then one bathroom, computers and many other luxuries but our Churches have trouble making ends meet. Ask your Pastor which would he feels is more important to revert back to head coverings or that financial dedication to our faith.

Nicky's Baba

Mrs. Niki's Baba, I do not disagree with what you are saying. But I AM saying that the Eastern tradition is external transforming to internal. That is why so much pomp and briliance is afforded to our churches and our vestments, etc. etc. Simply reading The Way of a Pilgrim shows how in obedience, the external act of praying let to the spiritual metanoia so often spoken of by the father's of our church. Yes, I also agree that financial comittment is paramount. However, perhaps that would follow with the many other graces and virtues that come from simple obedience to tradition and the understanding that faithful adherance to an external act of piety can lead to inner transformation even without the intellect of the soul having initial awareness of this.

Why do you no longer address your distractions to an uncovered female head in Church and empathy for the male disposition?

Nicky's Baba

Obviously because you are not sympathetic to that rational. I was offering via personal experience a practical reason why head coverings might be considered of value in today's modern world. My feeling on this could start a whole new thread. I will only say that I think it is a mistake that we have made the argument that men shouldn't be men. Biology should not be considered in how we think and behave. We have decided that it was simply patricarchial oppression of women that led to such primitive conventions of society as head coverings and the like. Perhaps there was some wisdom in these conventions? Perhaps it was understanding of how men are that led to a functional means to keep men socially docile and for that matter, monogamous (for the most part). So the feminist backlash I feel is detrimental. It denies the acceptance of who we are, how God created us, and places demands on us that essentially create androgenous persons. I never gleemed an inference in the Gospel's that androgeny was part of the divine plan. So, that is that. Sorry it took so long to explain.

I wish I had my books here - I keep remembering a snippet from the Desert Fathers & Mothers - seems a couple of the monks were out one day, and they saw a couple of the Sisters - and decided to "put them in their places." I don't remember what they said, but it amounted to "you women think you're so great." One of the Sisters replied that his acusation was likely true, but "had you been true monks, you would not have looked closely enough to see that we were women."

There are churches (and Synagogues!!) where the men and women are separated. I've always felt sorry for folks who are so sexually obsessed that they can't pray if they find themselves next to a member of the opposite sex. What is "distracting" is very culturally bound. Body modesty in THIS culture is generally held to mean covering the central body, and a goodly portion of the arms & legs - and doing it loosely enough that you can't count every rib. This forum is the first place I've heard it suggested (outside of orthodox Judaism or Islam)that an uncovered head is "distracting." Perhaps it is.

It's funny though that nobody ever takes into account that women may be "distracted" by certain modes of male dress or activity - but ladies are always reminded how easily aroused men are. (Yes, I know that men and women are different.)

Fundmentally, once & for all, head covering is a sign of obedience. (Y'all can debate amongst yourselves who exactly I should be obedient to - I don't feel the need to go into it.) There's a nasty word for forced obedience ("All women SHOULD...") and it really doesn't benefit anybody spiritually. The decision to cover or not cover must be made in freedom - or it's just another outmoded fashion accessory.

Cheers,

Sharon

Amen! Amen! Amen!

Nicky's Baba

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sharon Mech:

"Body modesty in THIS culture is generally held to mean...."

"THIS" culture? Well, I'm not sure if it should matter to us as Christians what the standards of this modern, secular culture is..."Love not the world", and all that.....

"It's funny though that nobody ever takes into account that women may be "distracted" by certain modes of male dress or activity"

If a man attended church in short pants and tank top, I'm sure there would be reactions to that too....

"There's a nasty word for forced obedience ("All women SHOULD...") and it really doesn't benefit anybody spiritually."

I'm sorry, but this tastes like protestantism to me, this attitude saying "outword signs don't matter in themselves, what matters is solely the relationship I have to God in my hart..."

"The decision to cover or not cover must be made in freedom"

Why? Should the decision to dress modestly in general in church also be made in complete individual freedom? Should people be allowed to dress however they feel like? What about the priest, what if he one thay thinks to himself "hm, today I just don't feel like wearing the epitrachilion when I celebrate the liturgy"??

In the Orthodox Church we are taught to supress our own will, our own feelings, and submit to the traditions of the church.

If we can't even be obedient in following such a small tradition like covering our heads during prayer, if that is a sacrifice too big for us, what will we answer the day we are asked to lay down our whole life, sacrifice all for the sake of Christ?

Sisters, if you don't FEEL like putting on a headscarf, if you don't WANT to do it, maybe that's exactely the reason why you SHOULD do it, to train yourself in submitting your will to church tradition?

Christian