Women cover your heads!

[rachael]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Dec 4 2004, 05:06 PM'] [/quote]

[popestpiusx]

Don't make me nuke this place.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 4 2004, 06:07 PM'] Don't make me nuke this place. [/quote]
Too late.

[img]http://www.newswatchmagazine.org/jan99/nuke.jpg[/img]

[rachael]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Dec 4 2004, 05:09 PM'] Too late.

[img]http://www.newswatchmagazine.org/jan99/nuke.jpg[/img] [/quote]
OUCH!!!

Why did you do that????


That hurt!!!

[homeschoolmom]

HEY! PSPX-- I'm still waiting....

[Brother Adam]

Totally PSPX, which is why when you do the research you'll discover what I did. It was cultural. It still is cultural. That's the whole point to discipline not being an infallible part of the Church. It changes depending on the culture.

Personally that is one of the appeals of the Catholic Church. You aren't required to look like money. That doesn't mean you go to church nasty, but if you don't have a suit and tie who cares? You are not there to please other men. You are there to worship God. So long as you are decent and conservative, there is nothing wrong with wearing slacks and a button up shirt. Or whatever it is you have that you can wear.

If I wore a suit to Church on Sunday I'd be more concerned about looking good and much less concerned about worshipping God. When I can wake up, put nice clothes on and go to church my mind can be focused on worshipping God. Which is the whole point.

There is nothing wrong with wearing a suit. There is, however, something wrong with looking down on those who dress differently than you do. Or claiming that someone is displeasing for not wearing a head covering. We call that sin.

[Brother Adam]

Another thing is it can be very burdensome to sit in church and have a small group of people who dress "too up". Pinstrip suits, solid gold and diamond medals, the whole works. It makes others feel like they aren't good enough to be where they are at. This is why I always refused to go to the "rich churches" when I was a protestant. I hated seeing all that money spent on those types of things. It was a huge distraction in Church.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 4 2004, 05:38 PM'] First,
Are you trying to imply that yours is the most orthodox parish in the country?  Just an irrelevant question, cause I don't think anyone can make that claim. 

Second,
What everyone else does at Mass is irrelevent.  If you can do  better, do it. Always give your best to Christ.  That includes what we wear, which can also effect our mental disposition and those around us. [/quote]
1. No. That would actually be an invalid argument. However, it is an orthodox parish.

2. I do give my best to Christ, or at least I try. Regardless, I think the more important part is that we dress in a way which expresses proper reverence toward the Mass. Who is going to determine what displays proper reverence? Does the clothing need to be expensive? Apparently not, because you have given your approval to cheap suits. Is it the material? I don't think so, because I can't imagine that God would care what material it was made from, as long as it was some type of cloth which a given culture holds in esteem. Is it how much is covered up? To some extent, certainly, but as long as we are not scandalizing anyone else, I don't see the point in covering up more than necessary. God made our bodies; He doesn't find them base. The idea toward dress is that it should elevate our minds and the minds of those around us to God by reflecting that this event, the Mass, is important enough to take some time and some money to wear clothing that society considers respectable. That makes it relevant. If I consider jeans and a polo shirt (what I am wearing right now) to be respectable clothing, and I know that those around me do, then I am fine. It does depend on culture, as Adam said. If I went to a Mass where everyone was dressed in suits, then I should as well, because otherwise I appear to be of the mindset that I not revere the Mass as much as those around me or in the same way, and I may be a cause of scandal.

Jesus did not come to give His approval to legalism. In fact, He spoke against it whenever it contradicted the light-hearted nature of love.

[rachael]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Dec 4 2004, 05:30 PM'] Another thing is it can be very burdensome to sit in church and have a small group of people who dress "too up". Pinstrip suits, solid gold and diamond medals, the whole works. It makes others feel like they aren't good enough to be where they are at. This is why I always refused to go to the "rich churches" when I was a protestant. I hated seeing all that money spent on those types of things. It was a huge distraction in Church. [/quote]
Amen.


Only on certain masses do I dress up, otherwise I wear jeans and a nice shirt. And it is even distracting for us girls when other girls get all dressed up.

[reelguy227]

The girls of my generation reveal themselves so much that it is very desensitizing when speaking of sexual desire ,its like they show off so much that my body has become immune to it Modesty is the way to go to get the most satisfaction with your wife, I would say.The more the revealing ,the more dsensitizing that happens . Does anyone get what Im saying exactly ?

God Bless,
Ricky

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Dec 4 2004, 07:30 PM'] Another thing is it can be very burdensome to sit in church and have a small group of people who dress "too up". Pinstrip suits, solid gold and diamond medals, the whole works. It makes others feel like they aren't good enough to be where they are at. This is why I always refused to go to the "rich churches" when I was a protestant. I hated seeing all that money spent on those types of things. It was a huge distraction in Church. [/quote]
I remember those days well. Who had the most expensive dress, the most lavish veil.... I am glad most people do not get really dressed up for Church.

We are all equal in the sight of God.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='reelguy227' date='Dec 4 2004, 09:47 PM'] The girls of my generation reveal themselves so much that it is very desensitizing when speaking of sexual desire ,its like they show off so much that my body has become immune to it Modesty is the way to go to get the most satisfaction with your wife, I would say.The more the revealing ,the more dsensitizing that happens . Does anyone get what Im saying exactly ?

God Bless,
Ricky [/quote]
Make perfect sense to me.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='reelguy227' date='Dec 4 2004, 08:47 PM'] The girls of my generation reveal themselves so much that it is very desensitizing when speaking of sexual desire ,its like they show off so much that my body has become immune to it Modesty is the way to go to get the most satisfaction with your wife, I would say.The more the revealing ,the more dsensitizing that happens . Does anyone get what Im saying exactly ?

God Bless,
Ricky [/quote]

Your general meaning is absolutely correct, but I want to clarify what you meant when you mentioned a wife and showing of the body. I think you meant what I am going to say, but I just wanted to be sure.

There is nothing wrong with our bodies. Modesty is more of an attitude than anything.

Modesty is an attitude of humbly accepting ourselves for who we are and not trying to seem like something greater than we really are. Modesty manifests itself outside of marriage by covering the physically attractive areas of skin and such, to present oneself as one really is (note: this does not mean covering all signs of attraction, but only those which, in our society, tend to cause lust) and as others have the right to see them. Within marriage, husband and wife give each other the right to see them in their nudity, and so that same modesty, in that context, does not cover up the body, but still keeps the body from becoming an object of lust and still presents the person as he or she truly is. In other words, the modesty is still there, but it no longer manifests itself in covering the body (at least not all the time). Instead, it manifests itself in behavior which encourages love and not lust.

I would say that a lack of modesty causes desensatization, but lack of clothing does not necessarily. A man might be desensatized if he is looking at a nude woman or he might not. It depends on his attitude toward her. Does he look at her with lust or love? If he looks at her with lust, he will probably become desensatized and just keep getting more and more lust. If he looks at her with love, he will grow more and more in appreciation of her worth (whereas lust makes apparent worth decrease).

Given that, it is a two-sided coin. One person should be modest and act on that modesty in attire and behavior according to the context of the situation (outside of or within marriage, in which situations the manifestation of modesty will change to meet the situation) and the other must be sure to have a loving attitude toward everyone, and never a lustful attitude (let's face it, it doesn't matter how modestly dressed a woman is, if a man sees her and wants to be lustful, he can find a way to imagine her in lustful ways).

[Guest Aluigi]

i just think that we used to have a Catholic culture, distinct from the secular culture, that included head coverings and all that cool stuff.

you realize it's now the poorest people that are the best dressed for mass? it's not a matter of materialism, it's a matter of priorities strait. anyone that owns a suit i believe would be doing wrong by not wearing it to mass so long as there is any other place he would wear it. yeah, that could even be considered a sin against the first commandment, in my humble opinion. if you wear a suit to work but not to Church, you are placing work above Church. if you wear a suit to a dance or on a date or out to dinner but not to mass, you have put those things above mass.

dress up for mass, it's a good thing.

as for women's head coverings, I would love it if the Vatican re-instated the discipline. how many of the people that hide behind the Vatican's allowance of not wearing head coverings now would then criticize the Vatican's reinstatement of the discipline i wonder. Now, I know someone like cmom would be obedient, i'm just considering that most would probably be outraged.

it makes me sad that we've lost a Catholic culture, that we've been assimilated into the world instead of us assimilating them. there's a Muslim girl at my school i talk to all the time, and it makes me sad to admit that i can respect her modesty and obedience and humility better than any Christian girl i know.

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 4 2004, 04:26 PM']BirgittaNoel:


Done away with long ago huh?  Interesting. The reason you can't remember the reference is because it doesn't exist.  By the way, what do you consider "long ago"? It was the constant and universal practice of the Church for just under 2000 years and you want to dismiss it because "it tends to hack you off"?  Get over it.  Personal preference is irrelevant.  It hacks me off to see women with heads uncovered.  Does this prove that they should be used?  Of course not. 
If your're against it, fine.  But you better come up with something better than that.[/quote]
Ok, a few points of clarification. 1) I am not dismissing it because it hacks me off. I never said that. 2) there is a reference... [url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/head_coverings_in_church.htm"]Click Here[/url] 3) Yes, personal preference is irrelevant, but I am not talking about preference...keep reading... 4) I am not going to enter into an argument over traditionalism. my reference to "long ago" should have read, "repealed with Vatican II" though I see that that would have been in error as the correct reference is 1983, which is not all that long ago after all. My apologies. However, I would point out that part of the reason it was originally practiced was cultural, part of the Jewish culture.

Now if you read all of the piece I've linked to, Mr. Donovan does say that [quote]Those who wear a covering or veil, and those who don't, should not judge the motives of the other, but leave each woman free in a matter that is clearly not of obligation.[/quote]

This is true. I am not to judge, but seeing it does tend to lead me to the sin of judgementalism (is that even a word?), and even anger. Now, that doesn't make it right, but one might argue that if those who wear headcoverings realize that they are leading people to the near occassion of sin then perhaps they should refrain from this personal piety out of humility and respect for the person whom they are harming. Christ knows their hearts, he doesn't have to check their heads to know they are holy. I do know that I am not the only one who is somewhat disturbed by this practice.

On a side note if it hacks you off to see heads uncovered then you have a similar problem. And perahps this is where cultural tradition comes in and my argument for why they shouldn't cover heads wins. Or not. Its likely that we will never reach agreement. Perhaps people should cover 1/2 their heads to save us both (I'm kidding).

Similarly, when I go to the Brothers' Novitiate I may not wear a particular outfit that all other things being equal may be considered completely modest, but for the Brothers' Novitiate might be considered inappropriate because of their state in life. I wouldn't want to lead them to the near occassion of sin, even though I may have every "right" to wear what I am wearing (provided it is not immodest in general). For example I tend to wear floor length skirts at the brothers and would generally never go sleeveless there. Note, I'm not saying that I would wear something the culture would not consider immodest!

The wearing of religious head coverings at Mass, such as mantillas, is not generally considered to be a part of the accepted culture in the US. Why does it hack me off you may ask? I'm being honest here so bear with me. I see, rightly or not, the wearing of a head covering as an overly pious act, an act that if I may use the words of a friend of mine signifies that as a Church we are "rushing headlong into the 14th century" back to the Pre-Vatican days.

Now, here's where I admit that I have been seen in Church covering my head, though no one probably thought anything of it. On Good Friday I generally wear my hair pulled back in a kerchif thingy I bought at Wal-Mart. It's not for show. It keeps my hair back during the prostrations toward the cross. Is it somewhat a religious act? Sure. Is it outwardly so, not really. I wear that hair thingy at other times so no one is any wiser. (well unless they read this phorum)

And when at home in Florida I often wear a big British hat to Mass because it is fashionable. Because it is part of acceptable culture to do so. (And because it was *&%^ expensive and I'm gonna wear it when I can!)

But I digress. It takes a great deal of humility to accept that although we may want to do something that we should not. Even if it is allowed/accepted, if by doing so we are leading a member of the Body of Christ to sin.

There are numerous things to which this could pertain.

One final example. I may find it perfectly acceptable, and indeed preferable to pray with my face on the floor when worshipping with the Brothers. But I would never pray this way at my parish Mass. It would lead others to distraction and perhaps to an occassion of sin. Similarly, I may prefer to prostrate myself in prayer when alone in the Brothers' Chapel in the middle of the night, but if anyone comes in I will be back on my knees as normal. Why? Because that is something between Christ and I and not done for anyone else's benefit.

I know that you will want to argue that this is the same thing and I am struggling to show how it is not. If anyone can help me out I'd appreciate it. For those of you who do wear head coverings I am not trying to judge you, this is my sin that I make a generalism and get hacked off at it. I apologize to any I have offended.

Finally,

[quote] If your're against it, fine.  But you better come up with something better than that.[/quote]

Back off a little and show some charity would you? I said I was having a hard time expressing it, sheesh. I'm not in the most stable place right now and am not very articulate at times.

[cmotherofpirl]

Yep. That about covers it.

And Al, I would have a very hard time wearing a hat to church. It would be a distraction and an annoyance and make it very hard to concentrate on God.
In my mind, stuff like hats and dressy clothes are very pharisetical.

I remember all the trouble we got into in grade school if we forgot to cover our heads and how sister would pin wrinkled kleenex or paper towels to our heads. That was far more important than how we behaved.

Edited December 5, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 4 2004, 08:57 PM'] sister would pin wrinkled kleenex or paper towels to our heads [/quote]
And that was definitely respectful

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 4 2004, 09:57 PM'] I remember all the trouble we got into in grade school if we forgot to cover our heads and how sister would pin wrinkled kleenex or paper towels to our heads. That was far more important than how we behaved. [/quote]
Hmmm...yep, that settles it. If a nun pins a disposable cloth to your head, that makes it essential to the faith. Girls must wear head coverings. :angry:



















What a goofy nun...

[Birgitta Noel]

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Thanks Micah, I needed that!

[cmotherofpirl]

No it wasn't one goofy nun, that was the general attitude of everyone back then.
God was gonna strike you dead if your head wasn't covered in Church.

You can't understand how thrilled we were to get rid of the whole deal. And the pleasure of being allowed to wear pants to Church was indescribable. No more freezing.

Edited December 5, 2004 by cmotherofpirl