Veils

[cmotherofpirl]

Mr Sungenis has publically criticised and denounced the Holy Father.
He is not someone I would want to be quoting.

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='Apr 23 2004, 10:50 AM']
Shouldn't the scripture be read in context? In the culture at the time only prostitutes had uncovered hair.....

Incidently I'm not arguing against wearing them, though I don't at the moment, but if the church said women had to as a matter of dogma...... [/quote]
Wrong! Try again. Women having their heads covered was actually outside of the norm in the early church.

Also, the prostitutes in Corinth generally shaved their heads and wore blonde wigs. And yet, I don't see Paul writing that the Corinthian women should dye their blonde hair another color.

[NewReformation]

I Corinthians 11:2-16
Now I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man hath long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul's introduction here is one of praise, "I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you." Paul had spent around a year and a half at Corinth, teaching them the doctrines of Christ and the Word of God. The very first part of this chapter is devoted to the question of whether or not Christian women should be veiled. It would be correct to assume that most of the women in the church at Corinth practiced the wearing of a headcovering from the information given in verse 1 "you...keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you."
The Greek word for 'ordinances' is paradosis meaning 'tradition.' However, it would be incorrect to attach a negative connotation to it merely because it is translated tradition. In today's culture, 'tradition' is something that is not considered very reliable. However, in Greek, it dealt with facts or doctrines. So what Paul is doing here is praising them for keeping the doctrines which he had delivered to them during his stay in Corinth.
There are generally three arguments against veiling or headcovering, which will be discussed here. The first is that it was a local and temporary practice, secondly that it is a trivial matter, and thirdly that the hair is the covering spoken of in I Corinthians 11.
The first reason is the one most frequently given by those who do not practice the veiling. The claim is given that in the city of Corinth, the prostitutes would shave their heads and wear wigs as a symbol of their availability. Thus, with this problem being gone, there is no reason for women to still wear headcoverings. The following counterpoints are given against this argument.
1) Paul says in verse 16 that this was practiced by "the churches of God." This was not merely a local practice, but was practiced throughout all the churches. Church history shows as well that this was widely practiced. Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian both wrote of the veiling. Clement taught on the subject in his book Instruction. This writing was meant to be a handbook on living the Christian life. Tertullian also wrote on it in several writings, including a thesis entitled On the Veiling of Virgins. It is important to note that Tertullian was not writing because there were some challenging the custom, but a question had arisen on whether or not unmarried women were to be veiled as well. The issue arose because of the Greek word Paul used for the term women. Paul had utilized the word 'gynee,' and some wondered if this included the unmarried women, however, the veiling was never in question. Today 'gynee' is understood to mean all adult women.
2) The writings of the early church fathers indicate that the veiling was something outside of the norm in their culture.
3) Whenever the Apostle Paul was advocating that one's actions should be modified because of cultural considerations, he always gave a full explanation for why he pursued this point of view. We find this in Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8 where he writes concerning eating meat that had been offered to idols.
4) Paul made no mention of the Corinthian prostitutes and the veiling in this passage, or elswhere for that matter.
5) The teaching on Communion, found in the same chapter, is accepted by all believers. For what reason is the preceding passage rejected?

The second argument is that this is a trivial matter since it was only mentioned once in scripture, and as such should be left up to the individual believer.
1) Paul's teachings are a part of God's Word. Since all scripture is given by inspiration of God(II Timothy 3:16), it must still be in effect. God should not have to tell His children more than once in order for them to obey.
2) Many scriptural practices are still in use today that are mentioned only once. For what reason is the headcovering passed over?
3) The commands of God are never trivial. They are an evidence of one's faith in God, and when one disobeys, it shows their lack of faith.

The third argument is that since verse 15 states that a woman's hair is her covering, that no extra covering is needed. This is a weak argument, and easily nullified.
1) Paul uses two different Greek words that are translated 'covering' in this passage of the King James Version. It is for this reason that other versions properly make a distinction between the two. The first word is katakalupto and is used in verses 4-7. In verse 15, where the word is connected to hair, the Greek word is peribolaion. This shows us that the Apostle was making a distinction between the hair and the covering.
2) Common sense would dictate that the hair is not the covering mentioned in the first part of the chapter. In verse 6, it says 'if a woman is not covered, let her be shorn.' If her hair is her covering, and she has no covering(ie, hair), then where is the logic in shaving her head twice?
3) In verse 4, the Apostle tells us that a man should not have his head covered during prayer. If the hair was his covering, he would have to take off his hair during praying and prophesying, and put it back on when he was finished!

It was not until the past hundred years when the veil ceased to be practiced in the church. With the advent of the women's rights movement, the veiling all but disappeared. A former radical feminist wrote of the veiling stating that she never received such respect from men as when she put on the veiling. But what was once practiced universally by the church has faded away to a few denominations which are considered to be 'quaint' or 'antiquated.'

[Ellenita]

NewReformation, do you have references please?

[Dave]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Apr 23 2004, 01:38 PM'] Although an excellent apologist, I've heard that Sungenis has some "conservative?" leeanings. [/quote]
Yeah, such as geocentrism.

[cmotherofpirl]

The bottom line is the Church's power of binding and loosing and defining discipline.
It is not in the current Canon Law, and it is not a requirement.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Apr 23 2004, 02:20 PM'] The bottom line is the Church's power of binding and loosing and defining discipline.
It is not in the current Canon Law, and  it is not a requirement. [/quote]
So are you saying no veils, women on E.W.T.N. wear them all the time.

You seem to down the showing of extra reverance in more than one area.

The Catholic Church doesn't teach it is wrong if they want to wear them either, or show more reverance in any way shape or form?

I'm obedient to Christ's Catholic Church and JPII all the way and I know they would not be negative about something like this but rather positive.

I say to anyone who wants to practice more reverance to God, Amen to You, the Catholic Church does not teach us not too, but rather asks us too!

Cmom, I don't get your negitive vibe on stuff like this either?

I don't want a Catholic and Catholic debate but PM me if you want, because I'm getting confused and wondering why some Catholics who want to show more reverance are being shuned when the Pope himself is calling for such action (more reverance)?

God Bless
Jason

[IcePrincessKRS]

Cmom said that its not required, not that no one should wear veils. I personally don't wear one, I would be uncomfortable wearing a veil and feel like instead of being more reverant I would be drawing attention to myself and away from Jesus. I know people who do wear veils and more power to them for doing so. If I am more preoccupied with how I'm uncomfortable I'd hardly think that wearing a veil in my case is being more reverant.

Also, I'm not sensing any negativity....

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Jason' date='Apr 23 2004, 01:31 PM'] Cmom, I don't get your negitive vibe on stuff like this either?

[/quote]
Jason, it IS hard sometimes to tell whether someone is being negative or not. Sometimes it's glaringly obvious, other times it may be what we read into a post.

I don't get a negative vibe from cmom, possibly because I've been here longer than you and I know her better than you do.

God bless, Lil Red.

[cmotherofpirl]

I am not being negative, but a previous poster implied they were required and they are not.

If a woman wants to wear a veil, thats her choice, but not a requirement of the Church.

If a woman feels more reverent in a veil thats fine. However, I remember when they were required and they became a status symbol and contributed to the sin of vanity.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Apr 23 2004, 02:53 PM'] I am not being negative, but a previous poster implied they were required and they are not.

If a woman wants to wear a veil, thats her choice, but not a requirement of the Church.

If a woman feels more reverent in a veil thats fine. However, I remember when they were required and they  became a status symbol and contributed to the sin of vanity. [/quote]
Ok I am sorry, I guess I took the statement you posted wrong, I am 100% for the Catholic Church I know Pope John II is trying to bring back more reverance in the Holy Mass.

[quote]I remember when they were required and they  became a status symbol and contributed to the sin of vanity.[/quote]

God knows the hearts of all, this should have no effect whatsoever on someone wanting to show more reverance if their heart is true!


If someone doesn't want to do certain things as long as there within the guide lines of the Church of course that is fine. But I guess I picked up more than once that people shouldn't show more reverance? They do have that choice (To show more reverance) is all I'm saying and there is nothing wrong with it.

God Bless
Jason

Long Live JPII

[Dave]

At an indult Tridentine parish in my archdiocese, veils are highly encouraged yet optional.

[cmotherofpirl]

Jason we are all called to be reverant, but the choice of how is up to us.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Apr 23 2004, 03:09 PM'] Jason we are all called to be reverant, but the choice of how is up to us. [/quote]
Agreed!

But reverance should not be put on the back burner or ignored, The Holy Father is calling for more reverance.

Yes it is up to us, But it should be recommended to show more reverance instead of the other way around. I will stop here to stay in the guidelines of the phorum and dust's rules!

God Bless You Cmom
Jason

[littleflower+JMJ]

[quote name='Jason' date='Apr 23 2004, 02:13 PM'] But reverance should not be put on the back burner or ignored, The Holy Father is calling for more reverance.

[/quote]
cmom isnt' negative, nor down siding it, she was stating what the Church said about that issue.