Practical Head Covering

[DeniseDenise]

How are we defining "universal" here, anyway?

well I have examples from two countries not the US....and if you really want me to keep posting...there is a church picture in Ramallah....where not all women are covered....

so thatss a not 'western' country example...also some pictures from Greece.....

 

[Porter ODoran]

How are we defining "universal" here, anyway?

St. Vincent of Lerins might be curious as well.

 

[Porter ODoran]

How are we defining "universal" here, anyway?

well I have examples from two countries not the US....and if you really want me to keep posting...there is a church picture in Ramallah....where not all women are covered....

so thatss a not 'western' country example...also some pictures from Greece.....

I think it would only be fair to admit that Canada, U.S., and U.K. share a single heritage.

 

[DeniseDenise]

How are we defining "universal" here, anyway?

well I have examples from two countries not the US....and if you really want me to keep posting...there is a church picture in Ramallah....where not all women are covered....

so thatss a not 'western' country example...also some pictures from Greece.....

I think it would only be fair to admit that Canada, U.S., and U.K. share a single heritage.

so basically you want me to flood the thread with every non western example....because you want to play the technical argue it to death thing..

 

[Asteriktos]

How are we defining "universal" here, anyway?

St. Vincent of Lerins might be curious as well.

Indeed, considering St. Vincent didn't seem sure himself how to define it precicsely. Mere moments after giving his famous "everywhere, always, by all" remark, he modified it so that it became something more like "in most places, in most times, by most people." The reason is obvious: few things have been taught or done according to a strict (truly "universal" or unanimously-held) interpretation of his 'canon.'

 

[Mor Ephrem]

How are we defining "universal" here, anyway?

well I have examples from two countries not the US....and if you really want me to keep posting...there is a church picture in Ramallah....where not all women are covered....

so thatss a not 'western' country example...also some pictures from Greece.....

I mean, whether or not you continue to post photos matters little to me, I just question the legitimacy of this standard for universality.  I think I could probably gut Orthodoxy of all sorts of traditional practices using this method. 

 

[Porter ODoran]

How are we defining "universal" here, anyway?

St. Vincent of Lerins might be curious as well.

Indeed, considering St. Vincent didn't seem sure himself how to define it precicsely. Mere moments after giving his famous "everywhere, always, by all" remark, he modified it so that it became something more like "in most places, in most times, by most people." The reason is obvious: few things have been taught or done according to a strict (truly "universal" or unanimously-held) interpretation of his 'canon.'

It's acidly ironic how a science-fan will eat up stochastic statistics and metaheuristics and so on, but as soon as a theologian or continental philosopher uses plain language to discuss the same underlying goals, the eyebrows rise and the finger wags at human presumption.

 

[DeniseDenise]

How are we defining "universal" here, anyway?

well I have examples from two countries not the US....and if you really want me to keep posting...there is a church picture in Ramallah....where not all women are covered....

so thatss a not 'western' country example...also some pictures from Greece.....

I mean, whether or not you continue to post photos matters little to me, I just question the legitimacy of this standard for universality.  I think I could probably gut Orthodoxy of all sorts of traditional practices using this method.

I think you are misunderstanding what i am saying...I am saying..you cannot declare something to be THE practice....and that is where the problem lies...when you make statements like 'the orthodox do ...'  or ' if they don't know....'

It is rather like saying that different service practices are just until 'they know better'...

We chalk why the Greeks do services different then Slavs...etc.....up to 'local practice' but tend to try and write these 'rules about women's dress' as something 'We orthodox'....

 

[Mor Ephrem]

How are we defining "universal" here, anyway?

well I have examples from two countries not the US....and if you really want me to keep posting...there is a church picture in Ramallah....where not all women are covered....

so thatss a not 'western' country example...also some pictures from Greece.....

I mean, whether or not you continue to post photos matters little to me, I just question the legitimacy of this standard for universality.  I think I could probably gut Orthodoxy of all sorts of traditional practices using this method.

I think you are misunderstanding what i am saying...I am saying..you cannot declare something to be THE practice....and that is where the problem lies...when you make statements like 'the orthodox do ...'  or ' if they don't know....'

It is rather like saying that different service practices are just until 'they know better'...

I guess I'm having trouble understanding.  Do the Orthodox do anything as a body if I can produce evidence of some members doing otherwise? 

 

[Luke]

When people debate head coverings, some make the Scriptural statements universal, which others say it is a cultural decision. :-\

 

[Porter ODoran]

When people debate head coverings, some make the Scriptural statements universal, which others say it is a cultural decision. :-\

And again I'll point out that this is a Protestant condition, or of Protestant origin. And Protestant understandings of culture and tradition are very different from our own.

 

[Luke]

^Our position?

 

[Ainnir]

Maneki doesn't need to be subtly and not-so-subtly dissuaded to adopt a perfectly valid practice she's already expressed interest in.
Alexandra is one of the last people on this forum that needs to be wrist-slapped like that.  She is, by everything I've seen, a sincere young wife and mother trying to do God's best in her roles in life.  There is nothing sanctimonious about that.
Yes, we've all run into annoyingly ostentatious and judgmental people--pick something and there are people who will use it to these ends.  Sometimes they judge or mock us because we are (or they perceive us as) unveiled or immodest, sometimes because we are both veiled and modest.  Both are incredibly frustrating and demoralizing to experience.

There is no argument that people will wear what people want to wear--Orthodoxy teaches free will.
The question is, does it matter?  If one is quick to say no, I ask this: does God care what we as Christ's body do with our corporeal selves?  If that also rankles, then why bother a all with the very Orthodox doctrine that the physical and spiritual are intimately and inextricably connected?  Or if someone is going to say, "Well yes this is so, generally, but not with veils or clothing," then tell me who gets to draw the line, and then prove that they drew it short of head coverings and clothing choice.

There is obviously a "look to your own plate" facet to all of this, but again, can we just help those who are asking for help in looking to their own plate?  And if we feel that someone has flouted that important safeguard, then maybe we can gently point that out because maybe they didn't have that intent.  Person A in your parish is not Person B who posts here, or Person C who posts here, or...etc. 9 billion times.

k I'm done.  :-X

 

[Porter ODoran]

When people debate head coverings, some make the Scriptural statements universal, which others say it is a cultural decision. :-\

And again I'll point out that this is a Protestant condition, or of Protestant origin. And Protestant understandings of culture and tradition are very different from our own.

^Our position?

Eh. An Orthodox position might be that there is not a meaningful dichotomy between "Scriptural statements" and "cultural decision." There is to be a harmony and a whole. Our Fathers and our fathers combined and over time produced what we inherited, for our salvation. What this means in terms of head covering today, I won't go so far as to opine.

 

[Porter ODoran]

... If one is quick to say no, I ask this: does God care what we as Christ's body do with our corporeal selves?  If that also rankles, then why bother a all with the very Orthodox doctrine that the physical and spiritual are intimately and inextricably connected?  Or if someone is going to say, "Well yes this is so, generally, but not with veils or clothing," then tell me who gets to draw the line, and then prove that they drew it short of head coverings and clothing choice.

Amen. Altho not all "icons" can be set at the same level or held to the same rigor, or we could have no orderly, harmonious structure of the whole. Where do "icons" of flesh and lifestyle fall in such a whole? This I do not know. Nor could every act and aspect of life be made such an "icon," or who could bear the weight (Mat 23:4)? And don't lose sight of other principles. Specifically, that the letter killeth (II Cor 3), and that discord must not be sown in the Body. If we are not seeing unity on this, then who are we to force it? I wonder whether even a hierarch should force such unity where there is none, and indeed St. Paul wrote at the end of his argument in favor of covering (and uncovering, too, remember): If anyone wants to be combative [on this subject], we the Churches of God will have no such practice. Sad it is if we must return to this crossroads 2000 years later, yet perhaps there are reasons, and if we must return, we have his principle.

 

[Ainnir]

... If one is quick to say no, I ask this: does God care what we as Christ's body do with our corporeal selves?  If that also rankles, then why bother a all with the very Orthodox doctrine that the physical and spiritual are intimately and inextricably connected?  Or if someone is going to say, "Well yes this is so, generally, but not with veils or clothing," then tell me who gets to draw the line, and then prove that they drew it short of head coverings and clothing choice.

Amen. Altho not all "icons" can be set at the same level or held to the same rigor, or we could have no orderly, harmonious structure of the whole. Where do "icons" of flesh and lifestyle fall in such a whole? This I do not know. Nor could every act and aspect of life be made such an "icon," or who could bear the weight (Mat 23:4)? And don't lose sight of other principles. Specifically, that the letter killeth (II Cor 3), and that discord must not be sown in the Body. If we are not seeing unity on this, then who are we to force it? I wonder whether even a hierarch should force such unity where there is none, and indeed St. Paul wrote at the end of his argument in favor of covering (and uncovering, too, remember): If anyone wants to be combative [on this subject], we the Churches of God will have no such practice. Sad it is if we must return to this crossroads 2000 years later, yet perhaps there are reasons, and if we must return, we have his principle.

I think the bolded is translated and can be read different ways, but I won't over-extend myself by trying.   
As for the letter of the law or forcing things, that wasn't my aim or intent, rest assured.  I don't think either of those things are the real question or point.  And I believe it's entirely possible to recognize an ideal or goal without either arm-twisting or sowing discord.

 

[Porter ODoran]

I think the bolded is translated and can be read different ways, but I won't over-extend myself by trying.   

Here's the original: Εἰ δέ τις δοκεῖ φιλόνεικος εἶναι ἡμεῖς τοιαύτην συνήθειαν οὐκ ἔχομεν οὐδὲ αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ θεοῦ. Which literally means: "But if [+acc simple conditional] anyone appears a-Victory-lover [i.e., one who loves to win; belligerent, contentious] to-be, we [supernumerary "we," i.e., we by contrast to them] such-a customary-act|customary-relation not we-carry no-nor the assemblies of-the God." Pardon the presentation; that's just my habit and how I think at the beginning of a translation. Or: "But if anyone seems contentious to be, we for our part no such custom have nor the Assemblies of God." I don't think there's much room for another construction, as the syntax is very plain (indicative tenses, simple clauses).

... And I believe it's entirely possible to recognize an ideal or goal without either arm-twisting or sowing discord.

This seems like a very good point.

 

[ZealousZeal]

I've read through a bunch of threads debating head covering or not in the modern world,

but haven't been able to find a lot of answers to the following;

If I adopt a head covering for church, does this mean I should also be covering at home for prayers?

What about when I visit non-orthodox services (out of necessity for family)? While I probably wouldn't cover for my family's Protestant service (because it is not their custom), I would feel like I should cover if going to a RC Mass (my husband's family) or visiting a historical cathedral.

I am interested in wearing a head covering for church but haven't started yet.

I will take the liberty of quoting myself because I recently answered this elsewhere, so why re-invent the wheel?

I can't speak for what others do, so I will just tell you what I do.

I do cover when I pray at home by myself. To be clear- I am referring to my prayer rule prayers, in front of my icons. If I'm going about my day or I'm in the store and think of something I want/need to pray about, I don't let a lack of scarf stop me from praying it. But at church, prayers at home... I do. How far you want to take it is up to you, I suppose.

As for wearing a covering when going to Catholic or Protestant services with family, I do not cover in such situations for the simple reason that I am not there to pray with them. I am there to respectfully observe whatever event warranted my invitation.