|
1 members (KostaC),
360
guests, and
107
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,522
Posts417,621
Members6,173
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10 |
Dear Ghazar,
Please don't get me wrong, I am ALL for modesty. In defense of my church, the vast majority of GO women NEVER wear pants in church, always dress fairly modestly, and with great respect that they are going somewhere SPECIAL. Dressing for church on Sundays is a given, and it is very nice to see families look like this in today's casual society. NO ONE ever wears jeans, t-shirts, sweat shirts, cut offs, tank tops, sneakers or midriff bearing tops.
As for Greece, one must remember that the climate in Greece averages 98%F during the summer months, and while NO ONE wears anything disrespectful, there has always been a little more 'economy' in dress because of this. Also, I wonder if the custom of head dress not being espoused in Greece came from the need to differentiate oneself from the Muslim Turk occupier and overlord of four hundred years?? Perhaps.
As for the monasteries of Father Ephraim, a sensible woman knows that the need for a head dress is so that she will not bring any temptation whatsoever to the monastic community. Yes, I have heard of situations where women have gone to the monasteries for help in a situation, but have refused the head dress, and left. I think that such behaviour and lack of sensitivity to the monastic sensibilities is despicable.
While one can take what is seductive on a woman to the extreme of the Taliban, I am surprised by what is acceptable in churches of ALL denominations in bridal wear today. Twenty-two years ago when I got married, if your wedding dress didn't cover your whole shoulder, ecclesial etiquette said that you had to wear a cape of some sort while in the sanctuary. Today's bride usually bears all of her shoulder and arms.
Who is to blame? Surely, the priests and ministers who don't prepare the bride.
Anyway, I hope that I haven't offended anyone...these have just been some thoughts. American society's standards of dress on a whole has become disrespectful in many ways (not just seductively, but also in extreme sloppiness and inappropriateness of a situation.)I think the key word to everything is 'appropriateness'. My mother remembers a time when you could get arrested for wearing shorts in New York City!!!
Boy, have things changed! :rolleyes:
I appreciate your comments,
Again, forgive me if my opinions have offended,
Alice
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,103 |
Dear Alice,
None of your insightful comments have been an offence to me in the slightest way. I appreciate the experience you bring to the forum and the interseting information you share with us. I think you and I (and most others on this forum)have a profound agreement about the need for modesty in culture and most especially in the Church.
Thanks for wisdom,
Trusting in Christ's Light,
Ghazar
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Ghazar, What I meant to say is that such rules cannot have the law of absolute force - the fact that the Western church changed the earlier rules and canon in this respect is an indication of this. Local Churches even in the West passed legislation requiring women to wear head coverings and very often custom is what is the strongest argument in its favour. And I'm not saying that women's beautiful flowing hair isn't exciting either!  I personally find a woman in a head covering to be very attractive. It makes me want to see whats underneath it all! In spiritual terms, that is . . . Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 186
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 186 |
Today after Mass I was speaking to a devout woman and she brought up the topic of veils! She attends the Latin Mass on Sundays and I attend the Byzantine Liturgy on Sundays, but those churches are too far for us on weekdays, so we were at the nearby RC parish.
She said her research on the theology of women wearing veils is that they are an aid to contemplation. Not the little circle veils nor the hats that some wore. But the longer full veils that tended to partly shield the woman's face from others and allowed her to focus her thoughts on her prayers. She also mentioned that it is an aid to men -- Alex, take note -- in that it hides the woman's hair and is not a temptation!
Interesting that she was saying what has been discussed here these past few days.
denise
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 779
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 779 |
"But the longer full veils that tended to partly shield the woman's face from others and allowed her to focus her thoughts on her prayers."
I agree with this fully as the monastic veil allows this also.
Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Denise, Oh, all right, I admit . . . I don't have a calling to the monastic state! Just looking at women's veils leads me into temptation . . . What would people like me do if women didn't wear veils? But, seriously, the monastic "lapostki" that covers the face on both sides of monastics comes from St Meletius, I believe. He was struck in the face in defence of icons and was permanently scarred. He wore those face coverings to keep his wounds out of the sight of men and it is in his honour that monastics wear the same kind of veil. The monastic habit does have a wonderful way of enveloping our bodies to keep us inwardly focused on God. That is why I have my Ethiopian prayer shawl Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,252
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,252 |
Originally posted by Ghazar: Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic: [b] Dear Paul, Well, if it's an authoritative answer you really want . . . In the RC Church, there is no law, nor ever was, concerning veils. It was a custom that was, at one time, universally practiced. A lex
I have doubts about the correctness of this statement. My research has led me to the conclusion that since St. Linus of Rome (1st Century) forbade women to enter the Church with their heads uncovered, it has always been the Roman Church's Canon that a woman must have her head covered in Church. This was even part of the 1917 code:
"The Church considered this practice important enough to enshrine it in Canon Law (e.g. "the 1917 Code, canon 1262, 2, required that women have their heads covered when assisting at sacred rites, especially when going to Communion.")."
This Canon was only dropped in the post Vatican II revisements of the Church of Rome's Canon Law.
[/b]Dear Ghazar, Thank you for your insights into church law on the matter of women wearing head coverings in church. The 1917 Code of Canon Law was ammended in several areas which lead to a number of changes that we see in the Latin Church today including the lack of head coverings among women at least in the USA. Pope John Paul II issued the 1983 revised Code. Safe to say thay that he is no liberal! I agree with others that head coverings for women is a minor issue. Abortion, war, economic injustice, sexual abuse of children, and many more issues deserve priority. I just bring it up because it may have ties to other traditions lost in the church in our modern age. I am glad that women on the forum have joined the discussion. I value their opinions. Now, should I start wearing my Harley-Davidson cap to Sunday Mass?  Just kiding! Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,134 |
I think it's great to wear veils, but like all devotional practices it can be carried to extremes. I can remember when I was little, and my mom or my aunt would forget her hat or veil, she would go into the ladies' room and emerge with a Kleenex or even (ewww!) a square of toilet paper tissue (unused, of course!) pinned to her hair!!
Nowadays I think most of us would just say, "Oh well, I'll bring one next time" and go inside bare-headed - right?
(Edited to add: do I even have to tell you that this was pre-Vatican II?)
|
|
|
|
|
