www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The veiling of women

How should we take this "Apostolic Injunction" seriously as Eastern Catholics?

Here's an excellent article on the subject.

http://www.halo-works.com/catechism/On_Feminism_and_Womens_veils.html

�Every woman who prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: �(Cor. 11:5).

�There is neither male or female, for ye are one in Christ� (Gal. 3:2

There is considerable resistance, even among so-called traditional Catholics, to women covering their heads in Church, or to use the more common phrase, to women wearing veils. Now, the veiling of woman is an Apostolic command (I Cor, XI:4-16), and hence the attitude of a faithful Catholic is one which accepts Apostolic injunctions without question.

Dan L

Dear Dan,

St Basil the Great decreed that any country that goes to war should have all its Christians excommunicated for a period of three years.

The reason being is that if they were really Christians, the war would not have happened.

Should this injunction also be obeyed?

Are you, as an American, excommunicated according to this canon?

If so, should we be speaking to you here?

Alex

I think that Dan's question hinges upon the fact that the command is an Apostolic one and not simply the opinion of a Basil, Andrew or Alex.

Were one of our opinions significant, it would be canonized as the mind of the Church, as was Basil's opinion that the soldiers who had killed men in battle should abstain for three years. His opinion that the whole nation abstain was simply that, his opinion.

In the absence of an episcopal order to do so, I'm not willing to fight for veils/coverings, although I believe them most appropriate for worship. What I do insist upon is overall modesty in dress and comportment.

The modern boundaries have slid so low (pardon the pun) that we have more important things to worry about than uncovered heads.

In Christ,
Andrew

PS: My 21 month old son knows immodesty when he sees it since his mother provides him with a model of the opposite. So, he found an 18 year old in Church with an exposed mid section. He quietly watched her for a while before going up to her and poking her several times in the exposed parts! The laos tou Theou thought it most appropriate and the young lady has since improved her wardrobe. Let all glory be to God!

Dear Andrew,

Saints' canons can have a very similar weight to "Apostolic" canons.

The question also is whether St Paul was issuing a canonical order or was he reflecting a cultural proscription appropriate for his time?

For example, St Paul also decries men wearing their hair long, but for women, this is their "glory."

But what is short hair for men in Paul's time, might be "hippie style" in our time.

However, in the hey-day of the hippies when many friends of mine justified their wearing their hair long because "Christ had long hair," I found that quotation in St Paul and once publicly said that "Christ had short hair, in fact, St Paul has said so."

Our priest-teacher didn't know what to say and demanded the scriptural quote immediately (which I had written down on a piece of paper in front of me, suspecting such a reaction).

He then took out a Bible and looked it up - and then couldn't believe his eyes when he read the actual quote!

He smiled a lot whenever he saw me, afterwards . . .

And then when our Principal paid us a visit one day and even said something to the effect that he didn't mind long hair on boys since Christ wore long hair, I again put up two fingers and quoted the scripture to him.

The principal looked at my teacher (who was, at this point, rather bemused) and said, "Father, what the . . . who is this fellow and what is he on about?"

My teacher, having learned HIS lesson before, smiled and simply said, "Oh, Alex can speak for himself - as can St Paul."

Aren't you proud of me, Reader Andrew?

Alex

Dan,

We have another Apostolic Injunction, how should we take it seriously?

"Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. ...A man, on the other hand, should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man (1 Cor 11:4,7).

Yet our bishops and monastics (and some priests and deacons) pray with covered heads. Perhaps when they stop covering their heads we can insist on women covering theirs? Dan things change, certain things had a context that no longer applies. The attitude of a faithful Catholic is one who accepts what the Church teaches and last time I checked there is no longer a law that requires veils for women. As well it should be for it is quite hypocritical to claim women have to veil their heads becasue St. Paul said so and then turn around and ignore his injunction for men.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Andrew, I agree with you. I have been "mooned" at mass because of those low-rider pants. Quite unintenionally, of course, but I have seen more of some folks than I ever cared to see.

I note that head coverings are removed when the sermon is given. I really don't quite know why, but there it is.

I'm not trying to be a smart aleck. I would like to know why women don't wear head coverings and would like to assert that we are the ones from whom the Muslims took our custom. I would also like to make note that such reverence by women makes me wish to be a better man.

Beyond that I care not to argue.

Dan Lauffer

BTW Why does "Times have changed" have any bearing on the issue at all? My students tell me this in order to justify all sorts of unwholesome behavior to which I respond, "So what?" So I'm saying "so what?" to this argument as well.

Dan L

Dear Professor Dan,

The status of Paul's saying today can only be decided by the Church herself, is this not the case?

It is the Church that decides whether this is a culturally determined matter, that can therefore be changed, or not.

Has this ever been categorically decided one and for all?

Alex

Roman Bishops, if they are attentive to the liturgical norms, remove their covering before praying.
Stephanos I

Dan,

I did not say "times have changed" I said things change. Canon Law once required women to wear the veil, it no longer does and this is within the competency of the bishops, whose judgement I will accept rather than a private opinion on why this tradition should continue.

If you don't care to argue why post a statement like:
"Now, the veiling of woman is an Apostolic command (I Cor, XI:4-16), and hence the attitude of a faithful Catholic is one which accepts Apostolic injunctions without question."

Which of course is a veiled way of saying that those who don't wear or support the wearing of veils is not a faithful Catholic which is absurd.

And again I ask if it is so important for women to cover their heads why is not equally important for our clergy and monastics to pray with head uncovered at all times. It was once the pride of the Byzantine Church that their bishops celebrated with uncovered heads and held the Latin use of miters in contempt as a lack of humility.

Now I do not advocate women wearing veils but do not object if they so desire. I also don't advocate abolishing liturgical headgear, although I do not wear a kamilavka myself. That side I get quite upset when people raise custom to dogma and accuse their brethren of lack of faithfulness.

O Lord grant me the grace to be aware of my sins and not to judge my brothers and sisters for you are blessed now and ever and forver. Amen.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Latin bishops remove their miter but the zuchetto remains for all but the Eucharistic Prayer.

Dear Alex,

I'm sure that had I had acquaintance with you as a boy that I would have been proud of you.

Alas, but I didn't and now you are a grown man....

Andrew (who was rather flippant to his teachers in school)

They have commented, as far as I know, but have neither encouraged or discouraged this practice. Therefore, my question remains, is this not a worthwhile devotion to be encouraged even if it isn't mandated?

Dan L

Deacon,

I included a quote from the linked post. Still, the issue is the same. I doubt that it should be mandated. The bishops have not disallowed it. I'm not asking a legalistic question. I'm asking a question of devotion.

One of the reason I did not go the RC way was its emphasis upon legalism. I'm not interested in legalism. I'm interested in a question of spiritual guidance.

If no one is willing to offer such then I will bow out of the conversation.

Dan L