At The Free Press there is a piece about the fact of the increase in the number of young women wear chapel veils or mantillas in church.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on the article and on the topic in general. A great deal has been written about chapel veils for women in church. Here are a few of my thoughts. I am especially interested in the business about the angels. If you don’t know about that part, you will in a moment. In what follows, I have cobbled together some notes collected over the years. I lack some references for some of the moves that will come up. It isn’t my intention to step on toes. Sometimes I can’t remember where I got something I heard or read and jotted down in haste.
Declaration: This chapel veil increase trend is a good thing. Whatever promotes a sense of the sacred in church is a good thing.
While it was once a matter of Church law that women should cover their heads in church (CIC 1917), the 1983 Code dropped that prescription. It is not obligatory by canon law for women to wear head coverings in church in the Latin Church.
That said, strong argument for women wearing veils in church is that in 1969 NOW was against it. If feminists hated it, it’s probably good. And for good measure, if you can stand a trip to the fever-swamp that is the Fishwrap (aka National Schismatic Reporter), and do a site search* on “veil” you’ll see how the left masks their terror by condescension and analogies with those muslim things. All the more reason to like chapel veils.
The basis for women wearing chapel veils or hats was the prescription from 1 Cor 11:2-16 by Paul that women should cover their heads when praying and men should not.
2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) 10 That is why a woman ought to have a veil [GREEK: exousía – “power”] on her head, because of the angels. 11 (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.) 13 Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.
Some points:
- Tradition is very much present in this.
- God the Father is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of every man, husbands are the head of their wives
- A man who prays with head covered dishonors his head.
- A woman who prays with head uncovered dishonors her head.
- A woman who doesn’t cover her head should cut off her hair.
- Man should not cover his head (when he prays), because he is the image and glory of God.
- Woman is the glory of man because she was made from man.
- Women should cover their heads because of the angels.
- Now there is interdependence of men and women because of childbirth.
- It is of nature that long hair degrades a man.
- Long hair is a woman’s pride.
- A woman’s hair is for a covering.
Paul is dealing in 1 Corinthians with the moral problems of the community. He warns them about Hell and the gravity of sin. In this context he presents a theology the masculine and feminine. There is a nuptial relationship between Christ and the Church and the Christ and the soul. We receive a garment of glory in heaven and the veil is a sign of that. However, the veil is more.
Some women in Corinth are praying without a veil and men are praying with their heads covered. The problem is liturgical.
Before I go on, some gender-bending woke modernist deconstructors could burble: “But Father…. not… no, I can’t say it again ’cause its racist… no.. sexist and against the rights of persons of all 387 genders to be the f-word if they want, or not, whatever… you must really hate what darkened society used to call women, even though that’s now a term we can’t use because, you know, who really knows what that/they/them/xrnwl are? You are such a hater for bringing this up because clearly Vatican II got rid of 1 Corinthians… er… um… cause that says “ought” not “must”. And… YOU HATE VATICAN II!”
The RSV says “For a man ought not to cover his head… That is why a woman ought to have a veil”. The Greek is present active of opheílo, “to owe that which is due”. It is pretty strong, as in, “a man is bound not to wear a covering… a woman has the obligation to wear a covering”. In Matthew 18 in the parable of the wicked servant, what the fellow servant owed was a matter for being cast into prison till he paid the debt. So if “ought” isn’t strict “must” with no wiggle room, it is forceful.
I think the key to unwrapping this is the spiritual meaning of maleness and femaleness. Masculine and feminine means something else.
Paul is NOT saying that women aren’t the image of God. He would reject Genesis. By nature, in our essence we both image God. However, in our relationship to each other man images God and woman images man. What does that mean? Maleness reveals how God relates to humanity and femaleness reveals how humanity relates to God. This is an ancient understanding of maleness and femaleness that sounds foreign to modern(ist) ears.
Here’s one way to see it. Maleness images transcendence (distance) and femaleness images immanence (closeness). Even in our relationships men in general can separate more easily and women can more easily connect. The Jews always used masculine terms for God. Only the Jews had male only priesthood. This is because of God’s transcendence. Priesthood offers sacrifice as mediator representing God mediating to man. On the other hand, pagan religions had priestesses.
In the first creation account, man and woman are described as created together, in equal dignity. In the second creation account, in Genesis 2, Adam is created first and Eve is created from Adam’s side. This difference in origin suggests different roles. In their essence, they are both images of God, but they relate differently: Adam is origin and Eve is goal. In a sense, even though neither origin or goal is superior to the other, and each depend on each other, Eve is the apex, which is quite the opposite of denigration. “This is my Body GIVEN FOR you”, are the most masculine words ever spoken. This is what it means to be a man. They sum up the whole thing. On the other hand, “Let it be DONE UNTO ME according to Thy word,” are the most feminine words ever spoken.
In Mary and Christ, in Adam and Eve, God reveals how we relate to each other and we to Him. God became incarnate as a man, not a woman. Man images God is a distinctive way: transcendence which initiates our salvation. Humanity has to respond to this. Woman, the glory of man, shows that God wanted this relationship inscribed into our flesh. We learn from woman how to respond to God. That’s why the Devil went for Eve. She didn’t receive. She grasped for it. She initiated instead of receiving. Hence, she lost her garment of glory.
More on God – Christ – man – woman. Paul is not saying that God is superior to Christ. So what does “God is head of Christ” mean? Hierarchy doesn’t have anything to do with dignity of people. There is an order of relationships in creation. Woman being submissive does not lessen her dignity. Christ submitted to His earthly parents without losing His dignity. Head covering is symbol of submission. Man prays uncovered because he is not being submissive. Women pray uncovered because they symbolize receptivity to what God is initiating. Women in liturgy symbolize how all humanity ought to receive what God is giving. Men in liturgy symbolize how our transcendent God initiates the gift. Man was origin and woman the goal.
Now… to it!
Women should have veils because of the angels.
?!?
Firstly, the Greek word for veil in the verse about the angels is exousía, meaning “power, authority” along with many other things. This is why the Latin Vulgate reads: ideo debet mulier potestatem habere supra caput propter angelos. It has been interpreted as “veil” as a sign of man’s authority over woman and, hence, a symbol of propriety.
In wearing the veil women (paradoxically) unveil (reveal) the differing roles of men and women in the order of creation, and reveal Christ’s headship over the Church.
Why bring up the angels?
Angels are by their nature unindividuated in matter. Thus, every angel is his own species. No two are alike. The entire angelic order is a vast hierarchy, from greatest to least. There is order in the Trinity. Angels manifest the will of God that there is an order to their creation. In respect (at least) to the angels, we human beings should respect God’s ordering of creation.
Moreover, angels pay attention to what we do. In 1 Tim 5:21 Paul writes:
21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without favor, doing nothing from partiality.
On the face of it, it seems that angels pay attention to whether or not we “keep rules”. Rubrics are rules.
Angels are involved in the heavenly liturgy bearing our prayers, as we see in Rev 8:3-4:
3 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; 4 and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.
Angels know God’s will even as they attend to us, as in Matt 18:10:
10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.
Here is an argument for keeping to the rubrics in sacred worship: the holy angels are there, attending to what we do. The angels long to see what God is doing, and God is the principle Actor in the liturgy. In 1 Peter 1:12 we read:
12 It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things which have now been announced to you by those who preached the good news to you through the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.
What greater things does God do in creation than the sacred worship which reflects and foreshadows that of Heaven? Of course the holy angels will be present at every Mass, and in numbers that we cannot fathom. We should respect their presence in these most important moments. St. John Chrysostom preached in a sermon for Ascension Thursday (HERE):
“The angels are present here. Then angels and the martyrs meet today. If you wish to see the angels and the martyrs, open the eyes of faith and look upon this sight. For if the very air is filled with angels, how much more so the Church! And if the Church is filled with angels, how much more is that true today when their Lord has risen into heaven! The whole air about us is filled with angels. Hear the Apostle teaching this, when he bids the women to cover their heads with a veil because of the presence of the angels.”
It is profoundly disrespectful to God, to the angels and to each other to do anything against decorum in the sacred liturgy.
Decorum is not, here, just good manners. Decorum is from the Latin decus, “right, proper, fitting”. In rhetoric, decorum governs what is appropriate, aptum, in style in a given situation. Decorum is the “fit” between this moment’s situation and the action. It is what this circumstance demands. The Council of Trent forbade anything that was indecorous in religious art (25th Decree). Decorum has been increasingly under attack under the efforts of modernist deconstruction. However, decorum remains important in all occasions. The more lofty the occasion, the greater need for decorum.
Is there any occasion loftier than Holy Mass?
This was sensed by Paul about the Church of Corinth’s liturgical worship of God. Our sacred liturgical worship is something – far far from something we can screw around with any old way, or dumb down, or impose whims upon – is something we must get right! It is at the core of our fulfillment of the all important virtue of Religion, whereby we are bound to render unto God what is due to God, which is first and foremost obedient worship, as individuals, communities, even nations. Screw up Religion, and all that flows from it will be disordered. Paul, therefore, tells the Corinthians about their goofing around with worship. It is precisely in 1 Cor 11 that he talks about eating and drinking of the Eucharist unworthily. It is here that he says that some people are weak, ill or have died!
Paul is pretty early, you will concede. However, the Apostolic Tradition of the 2nd century mentions that women should cover their heads, and with cloth, not something thin. Paul was taken seriously about veils from the get go.
Again , the important the moment, the greater need for decorum.
Is there, therefore, any moment in which the holy angels would be more involved and, therefore, more offended by lack of decorum?
St. Cyril of Alexandria, commenting on First Corinthians says:
“The angels find it extremely hard to bear if this law that women cover their heads is disregarded.” (PG 74: c. 883 – Latin: “ideo veletur, inquit, propter angelos: sine dubio autem intelligt angelos cuique Ecclesiae constitutos a Deo, qui aegre ferunt magnopere, si decori lex a quopiam violetur.”
NB: “decori lex”
It could be that Cyril understands that every church, the Church of a city or region like “the Church of Corinth… the Church of Alexandria”, like the Churches of Revelation with their angels, indicate also that church buildings, consecrated for worship, also have their assigned angels. Think about it: we are given names, we are anointed, given light, baptized, given angels… so are churches, given names, anointed, lit, “baptized”, … given angels? Probably. It makes sense.
In short, women covering their hair while in church is a way of manifesting properly, in the right place and right way, the ordering of creation itself, in the sight of God who ordered it, the angels who serve it, and neighbor who needs reminders.
To be complete, there has also been offered as a reason for the inclusion of the angels something that one of the first Latin Church writers, Tertullian, proposed, namely, that the fallen angels are also present, watching. Commenting on the apocryphal Book of Enoch, Tertullian suggests that some angels fell from Heaven because of lust for women, searching for some meaning about “sons of God” and “nephilim” in Genesis 6. This is a stretch.
However, angels, according to St. Augustine, beings pure spirits are attracted not to physical things as physical things, but rather to physical things as signs. This is why demons are present and involved in pagan sacrifices and idolatry, why naming them gets their attention and perhaps greater attachment. Moreover, angels can manipulate matter in such as way as to have intercourse with human beings in the form of what are called incubi and sucubi. St. Thomas Aquinas deals with this in the Summa HERE.
Just to make this a little more complicated, St. Thomas also suggests that while “angels” here in 1 Cor 11 means just that, the separated substances who are persons unindividuated in matter, perhaps “angels” might mean the Church’s priests (definitely individuated, some holy, some not so holy). In other words, women should be appropriately modest in church so as not to rile up the priests.
It is not for nothing that, in the Vetus Ordo, the priest is directed always to have his eyes cast downward.
Finally, even the loftiest of the angels in the hierarchy do some covering up in the presence of God. In Isaiah 6:2, the chapter where we get our liturgical Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, the prophet has a vision of Heaven:
2 Above [the Lord] stood the seraphim; each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
It’s really late, or rather early (2 AM) I’ll close this down here. There is a LOT more to say and others have said it. But this is a glimpse into a fascinating topic that involves the holy angels!
*Search for a specific site: Enter site: in front of a site or domain. For example, [ site:youtube.com cat videos] . Exclude words from your search: Enter – in front of a word that you want to leave out. Really handy.
Loading ...
May I suggest; The Angels and the Liturgy, Eric Peterson
Interesting fact is that, before the changes, I remember my mother wearing a hat to church; that was the norm in my experience. This was across the U.S.; hats for both men and women were normal until the sixties. (The sixties saw a lot of wholesale changes in U.S. society, very few of which were good.)
I did not see chapel veils until I started attending the TLM after all the changes.
During COVID when my mother could no longer attend Mass in person (the churches were closed) she would watch it through the tv. She felt called by the Lord to start wearing a veil and ordered one online. She would wear it in her house while praying through the Mass on TV.
Now she is able to pray Mass in person back at the parish. She wears her veil every time though, at times, it makes her self conscious. Despite this occasional discomfort she still wears it out of love for the Lord.
For those who wear the veil in humility, out of love for the Lord and not out of a desire to be seen as “holy,” I think it gives great witness to proper love and devotion towards the Lord. When I celebrate Mass and look out into the congregation, I am edified by both the young women and old women who continue this age old devotion.
It’s better for people to want to seem holy than to want to seem skanky.
That said, I still think that, since Jewish women in the Second Temple period didn’t cover their heads particularly, it’s interesting that women are being told to cover their heads in church, which is something that only the priests, Levites, etc. were doing in the Temple.
My take is that exousia really means authority, and it’s a word associated in the LXX with court officials (men). Court officials in Alexander’s court and the Parthian/Sassanian court were wearing fillets, ribbons, tiaras, etc.
All Christians are going to judge angels. Men represent Christ as king, going bareheaded into the presence of God; the priest/bishop represents Christ as priest, wearing his priest outfit and sometimes a head covering; and the women represent Christ as a court official in the Father’s court, His heir, by covering their heads.
If women don’t wear their court garb, it’s like they’re not doing their job. Which would be discouraging for an angel, or at least not motivating them well.
Anyway, Byzantine court ladies, like the men, wore a fillet on their heads (that’s what the dangly things are dangling from) as well as various cloths, caps, and such. Somewhere, St. John Chrysostom has a passage where he scolds ladies for taking off their ladyservants’ hats when they are angry at them, because the servants have Christian dignity and a right to their headgear, whether at church or at home.
In icons, the archangels also wear fillets, by the way (it was a style used by horsemen to tie back their hair, which was why Alexander wore one all the time, and Constantine copied Alexander the Great for his court).
The angels’ fillets have long ends floating in the air from where they are tied; and therefore there is folklore that the floaty ends represent the angels using telepathy to “hear” messages from God, while they “see” video messages on the round mirrors that they carry.
Excellent commentary, Father, but what is the proper response to the inevitable snide retort, regarding “[i]t is of nature that long hair degrades a man”, that Jesus had long hair?
What is interesting is that our Catholic culture has been so degraded that though men are still told to not wear a head covering to church, women are told this as well. My wife, who always wears a veil or hat to church was told in a few churches in the United States and Mexico to take off her hat because it is disrespectful (some churches said all head coverings are wrong, others said a stylish hat is wrong, but not a veil). So now men and women are treated in Church in the same way as they are in the secular world:they are told to act like men in everything. This sounds to me like women must be inferior if they have to act like men in society, as though men acted in a better way then women do. The Church always defended women for their distinctive values and qualities. Now women are brought down to the level of men in both Church and state which is rather a degradation than an elevation of their status and dignity.
I am very traditional and only attend the TLM, veiled of course. I would REALLY like to cut my hair in a very short style but I wonder if this is acceptable as a Traditional Catholic. Whilst I am a very feminine woman, I dislike the time it takes to look presentable with my unruly hair and long to be able to wash it and go. Do you think it is unacceptable for God loving women to have very short hairstyles? Would the angels find this to be lacking in decorum?
Fr Wolfe FSSP has a superb homily on this topic.
About 16 mins long.
He makes the connection between the mass unveiling before God of our times with the Greek word for ‘unveiling’….
http://www.radioimmaculata.org/images/TraditionalPriest/20150313 The-Theological-Significance-of-Veils-and-Consequences-of-Unveiling.mp3
My Wife has always worn hats and head scarfs to Mass.
As an Usher at Mass, we have a supply of Chapel Veils that we respectfully hand to women without them..
As far as me being the Head of Household… I have to ask my Wife????
Last week, I saw a girl altar boy wearing a white veil with her alb.
Thomas says: Jesus had long hair?
Did he? How Christ is depicted in the Shroud and most iconography doesn’t strike me as being “hirsute”, in the sense of being “long-haired”. This would especially be the case in a culture that didn’t have modern barbers. One would tend to have longer hair and beards as a result.
How long is long for hair?
This was excellent.
I have been wearing a veil for about 7 years. At first it was for Lent but it became for all year. My parish is a very reverent Novus Ordo parish and many ladies wear veils, especially at daily Mass and this includes young ladies and girls as well. When I go to a ‘regular’ Novus Ordo parish, I might be one of a handful or even the only one. When I attend the TLM, it is almost every lady wearing a lovely veil. And when wearing a veil, most are dressed modestly to go with it.
I have wondered how much of the veiling trend is the fact that young women in veils look beautiful, and the young women know it. I also wonder how much of it is purely cultural – Brian Holdsworth said in a recent video that his TLM community looks like a historical reenactment because of the clothes they wear. God can use lots of things for His good… but we should perhaps be careful attributing a whole lot of meaning to what could largely be a pleasant fashion trend.
Somewhat joking, somewhat true. When trying to determine if a person needs confession or possible….more. A priest should just have a woman put on a veil in front of them. I’ve seen so many people lose composure and become so angry. People who when hearing of a spouse cheating and calmly say, “well marriage is difficult”. Or they are simply calm about abortion, or premarital sex. But….a woman puts on a veil and it’s almost like that person killed their cat. I have had several really weird run-ins when either wearing a veil or casually mentioning that I do veil. One specifically was a woman was asking me why I veil. Another woman, not part of the conversation walked over and actually stepped between us. She was upset and began stelling the woman she shouldn’t begin veiling, it was just for attention and multiple other things. After the shock wore off the only explanation for what I witnessed was “that woman needs confession”
A good read. A good reminder that God has His reasons.
I have noticed more women who attend the NO Mass are veiling. Incidentally, I recall as a boy of 8 seeing a woman wear trousers to Sunday Mass for the first time. I was scandalized and shocked she was not run out.
Women who attend the TLM in my area do dress down too much in my opinion, as mentioned in a post above. There’s nothing wrong with wearing a normal dress, provided it is modest. Sackcloth and ashes are not required.
Back in High School a lot of us had long hair. The school would crack down. Students would say Jesus had long hair. Dean of boys would say, Your not Jesus.
Pingback: The trauma of Ephesians 5 | Fr. Z's Blog
When I started veiling, (2005 or 2006? Ish?) I had attended one Divine Liturgy in my life and didn’t know it was actually morally allowed to attend the TLM, scant little I knew of it. To my mind, St. Paul is unambiguous in the relevant passage and that trumps anything that is or is not in Canon Law. If anything, I figured the inclusion in the 1917 Code must have represented, “Oh, women have already strayed far enough that this has to be said now as opposed to earlier.” (And given that we’re talking in the cradle of first wave feminism, I still don’t think I was wrong that women had already strayed. The flapper era was mere years away, after all.)
I know Catholics don’t do “sola scriptura,” but when Scripture is quite clear on a matter, to my mind, that leaves exactly zero room for argument and I would no sooner to go to Mass, (EF or OF,) or a Divine Liturgy or an adoration chapel unveiled any more than I would with a plunging neckline or a skirt that left my knees visible.
To aut-2b-home: I am pretty sure any hair length is Okay with God. However, do consider the aesthetics of the veil. It usually goes down to your shoulders because it is assumed your hair does too. And I have noticed that in our local Novus Ordo parish, too many of the women (usually elder) have very short mannish haircuts. That is hardly feminine. They look like robots in their casual tops and polyester pants. So find a good haircut/stylist who can work with your hair type and find a compromise.
Our new young bishop, during a meeting recently, said he doesn’t like women wearing veils because they’re saying they’re holier than others. I was the only one in that meeting who veils. The meeting and discussion had nothing to do with veils, so I don’t know why he said that. As he didn’t prohibit the wearing of veils, I continue to veil. I don’t veil for biblical, theological, moral or other deep reasons. I veil because women are allowed to – so far. In winter I wear a hat or hood.
but we should perhaps be careful attributing a whole lot of meaning to what could largely be a pleasant fashion trend.
Could be. But probably isn’t. I remember the period in the 1980s when all the fashion was for women to wear hair quite short. (Cf. Gymnast Mary Lou Retton, 1984). The fashion was pushed by women. “Gee, darling, I really would love to see you in a short ‘do”…said no man ever. Once the fashionistas lost the power to absolutely dictate the trend, and women got some freedom to pick between styles and lengths freely (or at least much more freely), most women opted for medium to longer hair, though some pick short. But at least 90% of men, as far as I have found, prefer that women wear it long rather than short.
Even in the 70’s when men were wearing their hair longer: very few were wearing it anywhere near as long as to the middle of the back, like women were doing. Those who did (and who do now) rarely pull it off as looking wholesome and healthy – it’s usually a thin, scraggly tail, and they clearly don’t realize how it degrades their own appearance.
I strongly suspect the male preference for women to wear their hair long is deep-seated for other than merely superficial cultural reasons – i.e. for reasons more linked to the nature of the sexes. If so, that speaks to there being a natural reason why women would cover their hair for some purposes as well.
what is the proper response to the inevitable snide retort, regarding “[i]t is of nature that long hair degrades a man”, that Jesus had long hair?
That it depends what the meaning of “long” is. So, we say “this man has long hair” and “this woman has long hair”, but in the first case we mean “long for a man”, and in the second “long for a woman”. Now our Lord according to credible depictions had hair long for a man, and men in the Middle Ages had long hair, and cosplayers who are going to act as men in the Middle Ages grow their hair long; but none of them has hair long enough to be judged long even on a woman’s head, or implying a pretense to be a woman (which is precisely what the degradation stems from, the pretense to be a woman).
Note St. Paul doesn’t say “the shorter the better”; nor does he imply a first-half-20th-century standards of tidyness, nor does he know about the need to fit one’s head under a gas-mask in case of war. The latter of course may well be due concerns in their proper place, but certainly they in no wise imply that specific “degradation” the Apostle speaks of.
Or, to simplify but probably true enough: Shoulder-length or slightly longer hair does not degrade a man, according to St. Paul, but having a ponytail that reaches the buttocks does.
Pope Saint Peter required women to veil and Pope Saint Linus codified what Peter commanded on the matter.
It’s always been that way in the Church. Well, unless the woman was a prostitute. Then, as Mary Magdalene is portrayed in art, they are to be unveiled.
You either veil or have short hair or don’t veil….each quietly communicates something…
The Church won’t presume to dictate your status; you tell us what kind of woman you are.
I believe every church has an angel. Make sense.
A woman’s hair is her glory…when we worship we give all glory to God. Our unveiled glory is a distraction….a detraction?
Will an angel eventually give his full attention to God? Yes, of course….but help an angel out, ladies. Veil up.
Aut_2b_home: Religious women cut their hair. You’d have to talk to one of them to get the skinny on that. I don’t know why they do it. But it is obviously a laudable practice if the holy ladies are doing it, right?
As is posted at the bottom of the comment form, for special characters please use UNICODE. This is a flaw in the blog that I haven’t been able to fix.
Dear Father Z,
Given that St Paul said “Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head” what is the liturgical reasoning behind praying parts of the Liturgy, Divine Office, etc while wearing a biretta? Thank you.
Darby: Good question. I think it is a separate tradition based on the evolution of the biretta from the doctoral cap. Also, there are definitely times when the biretta must be removed.
However, I looked at the Greek again and it leaves me puzzled. The language is “kata kephales echon” which means “having down from the head”, but having what down from the head isn’t specified. The phrase is elsewhere in Greek literature, but not in the Bible. Plutarch uses the phrase about the cloak, himaton, so it seems to be about a head covering. Ancient Romans and Greeks pulled their toga or cloak up over their head when offering sacrifice. You see statues of Augustus as Pontifex Maximus in that way.
There is also in 1 Cor 11 “kata kephales” which does appear in the LXX about Mordecai having his head covered.
Anyway, I don’t know what exactly is going on. Most everyone has understood this to mean “with head covered”… but with what? Long hair like a woman’s?
Thank you Father for the response.
Why did God allow St Paul to be sooooo confusing at times????
St. Paul had to give the church at Corinth correction to keep the faith pure in the face of pagan idol worship. St. Paul’s comments about women covering their heads and the eating of meat offered to idols was in response to the pagan worship practices of the time. The general sequence for pagan worship was for there to be a sacrifice to a pagan god. The meat from the pagan sacrifice was served in attached dining halls or sold in nearby meat markets. The people in the dining halls got drunk and engaged in sexual orgies. In the pagan temples women who wore their hair down meant that they were sexually available. Proper women wore their hair up.
*
There were those in the church at Corinth who thought that because they knew the idols were false that they could eat the meat offered to idols, even though the Council of Jerusalem said otherwise. Sounds like the “spirit of Jerusalem.” St. Paul’s correction centered on showing that knowledge puffs up, but love builds up, and how by their actions that the people who ate the meat offered to idols could mislead those whose faith was weak and lead to their spiritual destruction, sinning against Christ.
jhogan,
My two teenage boys were just discussing hats and how historically you can identify what period a person is from history by their hat. You put a cowboy hat on a pirate and you have a cowboy, and vice versa, etc. They find it very interesting that no one wears hats anymore.
But as I’m writing this I wonder if that’s true?
We wear hats today, both men and women. We wear baseball caps. It’s fairly prevalent in American culture and certainly distinct to modern attire.
Perhaps it isn’t as obvious to us because we are living it?
Pingback: THVRSDAY MORNING EDITION | BIG PULPIT