Mantilla

[Evangetholic]

Whence did it come, if not by canon law? From what I've read, 1917 was the first it was required.


And I'm sorry if this seems completely immature and disrespectful (God knows the disposition of my heart, TYVM), but I think if women are covering their heads, men should, too. Kippahs, anyone?

 

It's not a coanonical requirement. It was an Apostolic requirement. Christian women did it for the 1884 years before 1917.  Men are expressly forbidden to cover their heads in prayer. My Jewish grandfather doesn't wear a kipa to the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, why should I?

 

If you need some external sign of humility from me, I can give you the wearing of a tie. (Which would be a major moment of mortification and renunciation for me. In fact, I will start doing so.)

[Nihil Obstat]

It's not a coanonical requirement. It was an Apostolic requirement. Christian women did it for the 1884 years before 1917.  Men are expressly forbidden to cover their heads in prayer. My Jewish grandfather doesn't wear a kipa to the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, why should I?

 

If you need some external sign of humility from me, I can give you the wearing of a tie. (Which would be a major moment of mortification and renunciation for me. In fact, I will start doing so.)

Ties are masculine and awesome. :like3:

Edited March 5, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[Evangetholic]

Ties are masculine and awesome. :like3:

 

Lies. They are the nooses used to hang freeborn men.

 

But now I think a tie will help me a sign of contradiction when I'm among the sweat pants and blue jeans that proliferate at my parish.

 

But then again when assisting at the TLM it'll become a noose, but rather than the old dying of self to the chains of capitalism, it'll be a dying of self to self.

 

I'm a fanciful lad.

[Nihil Obstat]

Lies. They are the nooses used to hang freeborn men.

 

But now I think a tie will help me a sign of contradiction when I'm among the sweat pants and blue jeans that proliferate at my parish.

 

But then again when assisting at the TLM it'll become a noose, but rather than the old dying of self to the chains of capitalism, it'll be a dying of self to self.

 

I'm a fanciful lad.

Ties are the noose of the knight of faith, who hangs until dead the impurity of Adam which lives inside him. When Adam's sin has been scorned and annihilated, the knight of faith rises from his grave, drawn upwards by the noose which killed evil and now saves the righteous. He died a slave to sin, chained to his lust and pride, but he rises free, pulled upwards by God Himself. The noose which bound and killed now frees and saves all those justified by grace.

[Evangetholic]

Ties are the noose of the knight of faith, who hangs until dead the impurity of Adam which lives inside him. When Adam's sin has been scorned and annihilated, the knight of faith rises from his grave, drawn upwards by the noose which killed evil and now saves the righteous. He died a slave to sin, chained to his lust and pride, but he rises free, pulled upwards by God Himself. The noose which bound and killed now frees and saves all those justified by grace.

 

Yes, yes. I rather like this.
 

[Anastasia13]

Covering the head was not only a modesty consideration but in the middle east where the sun is hot and the sand can be blown it was a saftey thing.  I feel head covering should go the way of not eating lobster and pork

BTW, sSome Christian cultures took until around the 1800s to eat more than a rare bit of pork and only started cooking with it when necessity struck.

[Apotheoun]

From the Typikon, which regulates the practice of clerics and monastics during the Holy Liturgy:
 

"Our practice is not to keep our heads covered during prayers in general — Prayers of Light, Prayers at the bowing of heads, during the Hexapsalmos, Molieben Prayers, and during the time of other such sacred utterances as the reading of Akathists and Gospels. And this usage applies not only to Priests that are serving, but also to those only present at a given Service.  Some Priests have asked if Kamilavkas and Skufiyas can be placed on the Holy Table. This has not been received practice from very early times, and is is best to avoid it. As for Miters, since they have holy icons on them, they may be, and usually are, placed on the Holy Table."

 

As far as laymen are concerned, the wearing of headgear during the divine liturgy at all would be an abuse, i.e., something that is not a part of the received tradition from the Fathers. Such a practice is not mentioned at all within the Typikon, nor is it even foreseen by the authors of the Typikon, but of course that is because the headgear that is mentioned is always related to clerical or monastic office, and a layman would obviously be forbidden to wear things associated with the clergy or with those who have received the sacrament of holy tonsure.

 

[mortify]

As far as laymen are concerned, the wearing of headgear during the divine liturgy at all would be an abuse, i.e., something that is not a part of the received tradition from the Fathers. Such a practice is not mentioned at all within the Typikon, nor is it even foreseen by the authors of the Typikon, but of course that is because the headgear that is mentioned is always related to clerical or monastic office, and a layman would obviously be forbidden to wear things associated with the clergy or with those who have received the sacrament of holy tonsure.

 

Apo,

 

I commend you for your posts but as you can see some simply share a different worldview than you. It's really not important that a practice has its origins in the Bible, or that its been universally practiced for two thousand years or even that is has sound theological reasons behind it. What's important is what we think today, and the modern person sees themself as more evolved creature, so much so that they can stand atop a hill and look down at their ancestors with judgement. So St Paul was inspired to teach the discipline of female veiling? Sorry brother, but this is the modern world and that was then, and women aren't bound to the primitive worldview set in the Bible. The church, or more acurately modern theologians speaking as the church, have told us this is the new way of doing things. What you ought to tell us is why we should listen to the past and not to the present. In otherwords, why be "traditional"? Otherwise we'll be dancing around the periphery of a much more serious problem.

[beatitude]

Apo,

 

I commend you for your posts but as you can see some simply share a different worldview than you. It's really not important that a practice has its origins in the Bible, or that its been universally practiced for two thousand years or even that is has sound theological reasons behind it. What's important is what we think today, and the modern person sees themself as more evolved creature, so much so that they can stand atop a hill and look down at their ancestors with judgement. So St Paul was inspired to teach the discipline of female veiling? Sorry brother, but this is the modern world and that was then, and women aren't bound to the primitive worldview set in the Bible. The church, or more acurately modern theologians speaking as the church, have told us this is the new way of doing things. What you ought to tell us is why we should listen to the past and not to the present. In otherwords, why be "traditional"? Otherwise we'll be dancing around the periphery of a much more serious problem.

 

I used to wear a mantilla all the time. I have a very beautiful traditional one in ivory Spanish lace. But I found that I was the only person in my parish to wear one, and it seemed to alienate people - they formed an immediate judgement of me as unapproachable and someone likely to be holier-than-thou. I also realised that it was drawing attention to me during the Mass, and even becoming a possible source of pride/vanity. I'm in formation with a secular institute and it is important for me to be available to people in the parish (part of the vocation). It's also important to be humble. After giving the matter some thought and prayer, I stopped wearing that mantilla. Now I substitute the mantilla for a bandanna, if I cover my hair at all. I am far more interested in the meaning of the tradition than in the literal manifestation of the tradition. It's nothing to do with disparaging the way things were done in the past, but recognising that I do not live there, and I have the needs of the present to respond to.

[Apotheoun]

I used to wear a mantilla all the time. I have a very beautiful traditional one in ivory Spanish lace. But I found that I was the only person in my parish to wear one, and it seemed to alienate people - they formed an immediate judgement of me as unapproachable and someone likely to be holier-than-thou. I also realised that it was drawing attention to me during the Mass, and even becoming a possible source of pride/vanity. I'm in formation with a secular institute and it is important for me to be available to people in the parish (part of the vocation). It's also important to be humble. After giving the matter some thought and prayer, I stopped wearing that mantilla. Now I substitute the mantilla for a bandanna, if I cover my hair at all. I am far more interested in the meaning of the tradition than in the literal manifestation of the tradition. It's nothing to do with disparaging the way things were done in the past, but recognising that I do not live there, and I have the needs of the present to respond to.

If I bought into the idea that people seeing me doing something during the liturgy could be problematic I suppose it would be easier to just not go anymore. Then the problem would be solved.  But of course I really do not worry about what other people see or think, because when I am venerating the holy icons at Church, or receiving communion, or doing any number of other things, I am focused upon the worship of almighty God, and really do not worry about what other people may or may not think about me. To be blunt, pride comes in only when you start to worry about what other human beings think of you.

[Apotheoun]

Apo,

 

. . . The church, or more accurately modern theologians speaking as the church, have told us this is the new way of doing things. What you ought to tell us is why we should listen to the past and not to the present. In other words, why be "traditional"? Otherwise we'll be dancing around the periphery of a much more serious problem.

The Dominical Tradition (paradosis) is what Christ gave the Church, and so if you dump that you have nothing left, for as St. Vincent of Lerins explained, the orthodox faith - if it is to be truly catholic - is ". . . that which has been believed always, everywhere, and by all." Now, of course, the modernists hate that that is the case, because they prefer to see the faith as something synchronic, which is constantly evolving and being created by each new generation from scratch, but the Catholic response to that innovative approach must always be to say that the faith is - and actually must be - diachronic if it is to be true to Christ. That said, if something is revealed in sacred scripture, or if it has been done throughout the centuries by the faithful everywhere (e.g., the veiling of women during the liturgical synaxis), it follows that it is unchanging and unchangeable. It may not be a popular position to advocate as far as some people here at Phatmass are concerned, but I see no reason to abandon the Tradition of the Lord simply because it is unpopular at a small internet forum at a particular moment in time.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Apotheoun

[ToJesusMyHeart]

If I bought into the idea that people seeing me doing something during the liturgy could be problematic I suppose it would be easier to just not go anymore. Then the problem would be solved.  But of course I really do not worry about what other people see or think, because when I am venerating the holy icons at Church, or receiving communion, or doing any number of other things, I am focused upon the worship of almighty God, and really do not worry about what other people may or may not think about me. To be blunt, pride comes in only when you start to worry about what other human beings think of you.

:cheers2:

[mortify]

I used to wear a mantilla all the time. I have a very beautiful traditional one in ivory Spanish lace. But I found that I was the only person in my parish to wear one, and it seemed to alienate people - they formed an immediate judgement of me as unapproachable and someone likely to be holier-than-thou. I also realised that it was drawing attention to me during the Mass, and even becoming a possible source of pride/vanity. I'm in formation with a secular institute and it is important for me to be available to people in the parish (part of the vocation). It's also important to be humble. After giving the matter some thought and prayer, I stopped wearing that mantilla. Now I substitute the mantilla for a bandanna, if I cover my hair at all. I am far more interested in the meaning of the tradition than in the literal manifestation of the tradition. It's nothing to do with disparaging the way things were done in the past, but recognising that I do not live there, and I have the needs of the present to respond to.

 

Ah yes, the "holier than thou" accusation! When you think about it it's really the best tool to stifle any grassroot regeneration of the Church. We live in a Democratic society (well, at least in appearances) and equality is a big thing on our minds. For the most part equality is good but sometimes it can work in a negative fashion. To equalize a community you generally look for the common denominator among the masses, some will be more equal than others, and there will be those who excell in certain charachteristics. The talented will generally be ostracized because they introduce inequality into the community. So you being a sincere Catholic lady wanting to wear a mantilla is seen as an abberation, you're departing from the local masses which quite frankly don't give a hoot about the externals. You striving to be more serious about your faith is seen as pride but in reality it's revealing the insecurities of your onlookers. They are content in their lukewarm ways and the Church continues to be paralized top to bottom. The top is impotent in enforcing the proper standards and the bottom is apathetic towards them. We're caught in a mortal stagnation that promotes an ongoing decay of the Church and eventual demise of what we know to be Roman Catholicism. Now I know the "Gates of Hell won't prevail" but we can't rest our hope on some miracle or that our Hierachs will wake up some day and do something about it. We need Catholics who don't want to be average, who are non conformists to our contemporary culture, and who have the fortitute to challenge it. Challenge the lamer in the pew who has no respect for the Mass, make him feel uncomfortable! Make the immodest women feel insecure! The fight has to start somewhere, and it's obviously not going to come from the top so it's up to us lay people to do something. If such Catholics were to simply practice and network among eachother that common denominator might be raised to include proper reverance and faithfulness!

[Selah]

https://www.facebook.com/churchmodesty?ref=stream

 

Has some pretty pictures of women in veils

 

 

[ToJesusMyHeart]

Ah yes, the "holier than thou" accusation! When you think about it it's really the best tool to stifle any grassroot regeneration of the Church. We live in a Democratic society (well, at least in appearances) and equality is a big thing on our minds. For the most part equality is good but sometimes it can work in a negative fashion. To equalize a community you generally look for the common denominator among the masses, some will be more equal than others, and there will be those who excell in certain charachteristics. The talented will generally be ostracized because they introduce inequality into the community. So you being a sincere Catholic lady wanting to wear a mantilla is seen as an abberation, you're departing from the local masses which quite frankly don't give a hoot about the externals. You striving to be more serious about your faith is seen as pride but in reality it's revealing the insecurities of your onlookers. They are content in their lukewarm ways and the Church continues to be paralized top to bottom. The top is impotent in enforcing the proper standards and the bottom is apathetic towards them. We're caught in a mortal stagnation that promotes an ongoing decay of the Church and eventual demise of what we know to be Roman Catholicism. Now I know the "Gates of Hell won't prevail" but we can't rest our hope on some miracle or that our Hierachs will wake up some day and do something about it. We need Catholics who don't want to be average, who are non conformists to our contemporary culture, and who have the fortitute to challenge it. Challenge the lamer in the pew who has no respect for the Mass, make him feel uncomfortable! Make the immodest women feel insecure! The fight has to start somewhere, and it's obviously not going to come from the top so it's up to us lay people to do something. If such Catholics were to simply practice and network among eachother that common denominator might be raised to include proper reverance and faithfulness!

Out of props, but this takes the cake.