Honest Question about Dress codes( warning could be triggering)

[Traditionallyruralmom]

mantillas
.....pretty sure you're not supposed to blow your nose in those although i am sure my son has tried

[Miriam_M]

I was a teenager in the late 60's and when I went to confession on Saturdays (I've know I've said this here before but it *really* irks me  ), I would see women, frequently, with kleenex bobby-pinned on their heads.

Really? You couldn't possibly fit a mantilla in your purse, really?

When I used to post to CAF, I would regularly see stories like this offered as evidence that veiling was a bad thing.  I could never follow the thinking behind this. 

I guess I don't see why it is so bad in the first place and I especially don't see how it shows that veiling is a bad practice.

There is a woman where I attend the TLM who always wears a kleenex, but I am pretty sure that she is has something wrong with her.  I know that she has been offered mantillas.

It does not show that veiling is a bad practice, because a piece of tissue is not a veil.      It shows that tissues are not veils.  They don't "cover" anything except maybe if the woman is effectively bald (having little or no "glorious hair" to veil).

A tissue substitute belongs in the category, Why bother?   

[Older Salt]

I wish I could wear my hat at Mass.

[james03]

WARNING!! TRIGGER WORDS PRESENT!!!  FIND A SAFE SPACE NEARBY TO USE IF NEEDED !!!

Let's consult Dr. Bo.

[3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. [4] Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. [5] But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.

[6] For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. [7] The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. [8] For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. [9] For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. [10] Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.

[10] A power: that is, a veil or covering, as a sign that she is under the power of her husband: and this, the apostle adds, because of the angels, who are present in the assemblies of the faithful.

[11] But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. [12] For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God. [13] You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered? [14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? [15] But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.

So a married women shows the authority of her husband over her, and a single women shows the authority of her father.  In all cases she is under God.  But even with this hierarchy, man and women are united in the Lord.

[Penelope]

James, while your point is a good and necessary one to make with regard to one of the many reasons why women cover their heads in church, your tone at the beginning of your post was unnecessary. We ought not downplay truth simply because it may offend modern sensibilities, but we also don't need to go out of our way to be jerks about it, particularly when other posters explain that they are in the process of overcoming a related traumatic experience.

So, this is a warning to mind your tone.

[AndiA]

James I am so sorry I asked.  You could have just told me to shut up and go away, mocking me was not necessary, but you've told me all I need to  know about this community. Bowing out now

[GloriaPatri]

And, please know that most trads do not have James' attitude. I for one recognize that rape can have a long-lasting traumatic effect on the victim, and thus certain words, images, or situations can trigger flashbacks or extreme discomfort. Please don't take James' post as typical of posters on this forum.

[Penelope]

FYI: AndiA has been permanently banned from this forum per her request because she no longer wishes to be a part of a community whose entire ethos is apparently embodied by one user's harsh post.

[GloriaPatri]

That's very unfortunate 

[Penelope]

I agree, GP, but considering that all previous posters in this thread (excluding one post that was almost immediately moderated) were models of charity and understanding about AndiA's past and present difficulties, I'm not sure what else we could have done to encourage her in her journey to better understanding the Faith. If she wants to let one post with a nasty tone override every other response to her OP, then I'm not sure there was anything else that the rest of us could have done differently.

So, anyway, if we want to keep talking about women's headcoverings, carry on, but let's consider the topic of AndiA's involvement at this forum to be closed.

[james03]

An uncharitable reply, and I apologize.  I'll be taking this to the confessional.

[Older Salt]

if the '83 Code abrogated discipline's of the 1917 Code and woman's head coverings are no longer required in Mass, and the 1917 Code called for men to uncover their heads whilst in Mass, then now men may wear hats in Church.

[GloriaPatri]

if the '83 Code abrogated discipline's of the 1917 Code and woman's head coverings are no longer required in Mass, and the 1917 Code called for men to uncover their heads whilst in Mass, then now men may wear hats in Church.

Unless the 1983 Code carried over the 1917 Code's prohibition on men wearing hat's in Church. Also, there may be additional legislation issues that deals with this specific issue.

[Older Salt]

if the '83 Code abrogated discipline's of the 1917 Code and woman's head coverings are no longer required in Mass, and the 1917 Code called for men to uncover their heads whilst in Mass, then now men may wear hats in Church.

Unless the 1983 Code carried over the 1917 Code's prohibition on men wearing hat's in Church. Also, there may be additional legislation issues that deals with this specific issue.

83 did not, since it never mentioned women wearing head coverings at Mass nor MEN UNCOVERING THEIR HEADS.
I just looked it up.

[Deirdre]

if the '83 Code abrogated discipline's of the 1917 Code and woman's head coverings are no longer required in Mass, and the 1917 Code called for men to uncover their heads whilst in Mass, then now men may wear hats in Church.

Unless the 1983 Code carried over the 1917 Code's prohibition on men wearing hat's in Church. Also, there may be additional legislation issues that deals with this specific issue.

Canon law or no, a man wearing a hat in church will probably still be considered bad manners.