/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Any modest head covering will do.

>>626987

I suppose we should not pray or fast either because the Muslims stole that from us as well.

>>626985

I second this. It should be done in church primarily and I would say that wearing it outside of church might be acceptable as well. Nothing hijab like, but definitely what is in OP's pic. Of course it should be the woman's choice whether or not to wear it outside church.

My gf wears one. I like them. It serves as great modesty and covering of all the hubbub that women put into their appearance. Granted, I do think she looks better in a veil than anything else, which is a bit ironic, but perhaps I'm simply attracted to modesty.

1 Cor 11:14 - 15: "Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. "

Long hair is a valid head covering for women. This is reinforced in OPs citation where 'a woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonours her head - it is the same as if her head were shaven'

shaven head = no hair = no head covering

Veils aren't necessary if the woman in question has long hair

Paster Anderson has a sermon on this

Not to speak badly about head coverings, I think they're neat and quite useful from a modesty point of view. All I'm saying is that it isn't necessary for a woman with unshaven hair. modest is hottest after all xDD

As an aside, I visit this board sporadically and was just wondering what happened to the denomination flags? They appear to be missing since the last time I was here

>>626993

I'd wager just about every man on here would agree with you, myself included.

>>626976

>is this an outdated tradition?

<Tradition of apostles

<outdated

<ever

"No"

>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.

S. Paul here lays the foundation for his precepts about the veiling of women. We must bear in mind that the Corinthian women were greatly given, not only to lust, but also to the worship of Venus, so much so that a thousand maidens were every day exposed as prostitutes at her temple and in her honour.

Moreover, they thought this to be to their own honour and an act of piety, and they hoped to conciliate the goddess in this way to bestow upon them and their daughters, or to continue to them, a happy marriage. They were consequently wanton, and forward to attract lovers by exposing their features and displaying their form; and this was regarded at Corinth as a custom honourable, becoming and elegant, and Christian women thought that they ought to retain the custom of their fathers.

Some of the Corinthians whose minds were of a higher cast advised S. Paul of this fact, and put to him the question whether it was lawful or becoming, for Christian women to go about with uncovered head, and especially in the Church. Paul replies that it is neither becoming nor lawful, and he begins here to give his reasons. The first is that the woman is subject to the man as her head, therefore she ought to be veiled; again, man is subject to God as His image, and therefore he is not to be veiled. In vers. 7 and 10 he proves both conclusions.

>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.

For here is not causal, but an emphatic continuative. It is as disgraceful for a woman to have her head uncovered as to have her hair cut short or cut off.

>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.

This is a hendiadys, for man is the image of the glory of God, or the glorious image of God, in whom the majesty and power of God shine forth most clearly. He is placed on the topmost step in nature, and is as it were God’s vicegerent, ruling everything This is the major of a syllogism of which the minor is: but the glory of God must be manifested, the glory of man hidden. Therefore, since woman is the glory of the man, the man of God, it follows that woman should be veiled, that the man should not.

S. Paul wishes to abolish the heathen custom, first instituted, say Plutarch and Servius, by Æneas, of sacrificing and making supplication to their gods with veiled head. Tertullian (in Apol.) remarked this distinction between Christians and heathen, and Varro (de Ling. Lat. lib. iv.) records that the Roman women, when sacrificing, had their heads veiled in the same way.

But the woman is the glory of the man. Woman was made of man to his glory, as his workmanship and image; therefore she is subject to him, and should be veiled, in token of her subordination.

The woman, that is the wife, is the glory of the man, his glorious image, because God formed Eve out of the man, in his likeness, so that the image might represent the man, as a copy the model. This image is seen in the mind and reason, inasmuch as the woman, like the man, is endowed with a rational soul, with intellect, will, memory, liberty, and is, equally with the man, capable of every degree of wisdom, grace, and glory.

The woman, therefore, is the image of the man, but only improperly; for the woman, as regards the rational soul, is man’s equal, and both man and woman have been made in the image of God; but the woman was made from the man, after him, and is inferior to him, and created like him merely. Hence the Apostle does not say that “the woman is the image of the man,” but only “the woman is the glory of the man.” The reason is no doubt the one that Salmeron has pointed out, that woman is a notable ornament of man, as given to him for a means to propagate children and govern his family, and as the material over which he may exercise his jurisdiction and dominion. For man’s dominion not only extends to inanimate things and brute animals, but also to rational beings, viz., to women and wives.

>>627082

>10 Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.

There is no good authority for reading “veil” instead of “power,” as some do. We should observe: (1.) Power denotes here the authority, right, or rule of the man over the woman, not of the woman herself. The reference is to Gen. iii. 16.

(2.) Power, by metonymy, signifies here the symbol of the man’s power, the veil which the woman wears on her head to signify her subjection to her husband’s power, and to denote that the man, as it were, is enthroned upon and holds dominion over her head. Power here, then, is used with an active meaning with regard to the man, with a passive in regard to the woman; for a veil is worn by one who reverences the power of another. As a bare and unconstrained head is a sign of power and dominion, so when veiled it is a sign that this power of his is as it were veiled, fettered, and subdued to another. Hence Tertullian (de Cor. Mil, c. xiv.) calls this covering worn by women, “The burden of their humility,” and (de Vel. Virg. c. xvii.) “their yoke.” S. Chrysostom calls it “The sign of subjection;” the Council of Gangra (sess. xvii.), “The memorial of subjection.”

(3.) From this covering it was that, by the Latins, women are said nubere, that is, caput obnubere, when they pass into the power of a husband. On the other hand, in the case of a man, a cap was the badge of the freedman, as Livy says at the end of lib. 45. Hence slaves who were to be enrolled as liable to military service, were said to be called “to the cap,” that is, to liberty.

>14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him?

The Latin Version reads, “Neither doth nature itself teach you,” i.e., Nature doth not teach that women should be veiled, but it does teach that if a man grow long hair, it is a disgrace to him; if a woman, it is her glory.

>15 But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.

Ver. 15.—But if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her. To let the hair grow long is contrary to what becomes man, is the mark of a weak and effeminate mind, unless it is done because of ill-health or intense cold. Hence S. Augustine reproves some monks who wore their hair down to their shoulders, to gain the appearance and reputation of holiness (de 0p. Monach.). Again, it seems fitting for a man to pray with uncovered head, for a woman with covered, as the Apostle has proved here. The woman ought, therefore, to let her hair grow long, but not the man, for her hair was given her for her covering.

Take note, however, that it is not absolutely enjoined, either by natural, Divine, or ecclesiastical law, that a woman should let her hair grow long and man should not. On the other hand, the men of some tribes, like the Gauls, used to let their hair grow long for an ornament. Hence we get the name of Gallia Comata. Homer, too, frequently speaks of the “long-haired Achæans.” The Romans, also, in ancient times, grew their hair long, and did not apply the scissors till the time of Scipio Africanus. Pliny says (lib. vii. c. 59) that the first barbers came into Italy from Sicily, A.U.C. 454. Lycurgus also enacted that the Lacedæmonians should retain their hair. S. Paul, therefore, is not laying down any rule, but merely points to the teaching of nature, that it is fitting for a woman, when she goes out in public, to go with bonnet and veil, but not for a man. Still, he here adopts the decency taught by nature, and wishes the Corinthians to observe it as if it were a precept, hence he adds—

Ver. 16.—But if any man seem to be contentious. To be contentious is to contend for renown and victory, not for truth; and here it is to contend that Christian women should not be veiled when they pray in Church, but should be bareheaded, according to the ancient custom of the heathen.

>>627038

Is it okay for a woman to shave her head as long as she wears a head covering?

My grandmother (mother's mother) used to go to church with it, but allowed my mother to go without…same with my sisters.

>tradspergs in my parish getting salty that women recieve communion unveiled because they think entering a church without one is a sin

Head coverings are a nice cultural tradition but it's not some authoritative teaching. The Bible says that long hair brings just as much glory to the woman. Really it is up to the individual woman to choose.

>>627093

Exactly. It used to be required, and to disobey the Church is a sin, so it was once a sin, but now it's no longer required. A beautiful tradition and great conveyance of modesty, however.

>>626976

So, ok …

The head of the woman is her husband.

Any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled …

So, should women be putting veils on their husband?

>outdated

>tradition

>>627038

Flags are off since beginning of Lent.

>>627084

based upon the Scripture quoted in my previous post, I would say yes

>>627235

thanks anon, God Bless

>>626976

obeying scripture is not outdated tradition

>>627440

…or helps you blend in if you're ugly

>>627082

Top post tbh

I don't think it should be enforced but *they make women look cute

>>627428

nice try larp. any church that requires head covering for women doesn’t care how, as long as it’s covered