Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Radio Replies Second Volume - Women in Church
Celledoor.Com ^ | 1940 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

Posted on 07/12/2011 11:20:22 AM PDT by GonzoII

Women in Church



1053. Why must women have their heads covered when in a Church?

That women should cover their heads when in Church is a Christian custom based upon the words of St. Paul in 1 Cor 11:6. There he definitely gives the instruction that Christian women must cover their heads during divine worship. He gives two reasons for his decree, one theological, the other moral. The theological reason is as follows: Every being's true glory and honor is to keep the place assigned to him or her by God. Now God Himself differentiated between the sexes, and that difference should be manifested during our public religious acknowledgment of Him. Man was created first, and woman dependently upon man. The covering of a woman's head was to be a sign of this dependence. Both men and women are created, of course, for God; and their souls are equally precious to Him. But secondarily, women were created as the helpmates of men, so that secondarily women were created for men, rather than men for women. The moral reason given by St. Paul deals with Christian modesty. Loose women of ill repute went to their temples without any head covering, not veiling their beauty, but bent on a vain display of their attractions. St. Paul would have none of this in a Christian Church. "Therefore, ought the woman to have a power (i.e., a veil) over her head," he writes, "because of the angels." 1 Cor 11:10. He mentions these pure spirits to bring home the fact that spiritual considerations alone should prevail in our worship of God, and not sensual vanity. A woman's hair is the object of her vanity and earthly glory — and she knows it. Let her at least veil it in Church, giving her attention to higher things, and allowing others to do so also. Thus you have the legislation of St. Paul, and the reasons for it.

Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; radiorepliesvoltwo

Preface To Volume One of "Radio Replies"


By RT. REV. MSGR. FULTON J. SHEEN, D.D

 

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics "adore statues"; because they "put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God"; because they say "indulgence is a permission to commit sin"; because the Pope "is a Fascist"; because the "Church is the defender of Capitalism." If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its Voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. But only that which is Divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore the Church is Divine.

If then, the hatred of the Church is founded on erroneous beliefs, it follows that basic need of the day is instruction. Love depends on knowledge for we cannot aspire nor desire the unknown. Our great country is filled with what might be called marginal Christians, i.e., those who live on the fringe of religion and who are descendants of Christian living parents, but who now are Christians only in name. They retain a few of its ideals out of indolence and force of habit; they knew the glorious history of Christianity only through certain emasculated forms of it, which have married the spirit of the age and are now dying with it. Of Catholicism and its sacraments, its pardon, its grace, its certitude and its peace, they know nothing except a few inherited prejudices. And yet they are good people who want to do the right thing, but who have no definite philosophy concerning it. They educate their children without religion, and yet they resent the compromising morals of their children. They would be angry if you told them they were not Christian, and yet they do not believe that Christ is God. They resent being called pagans and yet they never take a practical cognizance of the existence of God. There is only one thing of which they are certain and that is that things are not right as they are. It is just that single certitude which makes them what might be called the great "potentials," for they are ready to be pulled in either of two directions. Within a short time they must take sides; they must either gather with Christ or they must scatter; they must either be with Him or against Him; they must either be on the cross as other Christs, or under it as other executioners. Which way will these marginal Christians tend? The answer depends upon those who have the faith. Like the multitudes who followed Our Lord into the desert, they are as sheep without a shepherd. They are waiting to be shepherded either with the sheep or goats. Only this much is certain. Being human and having hearts they want more than class struggle and economics; they want Life, they want Truth, and they want Love. In a word, they want Christ.

It is to these millions who believe wrong things about the Church and to these marginal Christians, that this little book is sent. It is not to prove that they are "wrong"; it is not to prove that we are "right"; it is merely to present the truth in order that the truth may conquer through the grace of God. When men are starving, one need not go to them and tell them to avoid poison; nor to eat bread because there are vitamins in bread. One need only go to them and tell them that they are starving and here is bread, and the laws of nature will do the rest. This book of "Radio Replies" with 1,588 questions and answers goes out on a similar mission. Its primary task is not to humble the erroneous; not to glorify the Catholic Church as intellectual and self-righteous, but to present the truth in a calm, clear manner in order that with the grace of God souls may come to the blessed embrace of Christ.

It is not only the point of "Radio Replies" to prove that the Church is the only completely soul-satisfying Church in existence at the present day; it is also to suggest that the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many minds miss its obviousness. When therefore you, the readers of "Radio Replies" in the twentieth century, wish to know about Christ and about His early Church, and about His mysteries, we ask you to go not only to the written records but to the living Church which began with Christ Himself. That Church or that Mystical Person which has been living all these centuries is the basis of our faith and to us Catholics it speaks this way: "I live with Christ. I saw His Mother and I know her to be a Virgin and the loveliest and purest of all women in heaven or on earth; I saw Christ at Caesarea-Philippi, when, after changing Simon's name to Rock, He told him he was the rock upon which the Church would be built and that it would endure unto the consummation of the world. I saw Christ hanging on a cross and I saw Him rise from His tomb; I saw Magdalene rush to His feet; I saw the angels clad in white beside the great stone; I was in the Cenacle room when doubting Thomas put fingers into His hands; I was on Olivet when He ascended into heaven and promised to send His Spirit to the apostles to make them the foundation of His new Mystical Body on earth. I was at the stoning of Stephen, saw Saul hold the garments of those who slew him, and later I heard Saul, as Paul, preach Christ and Him crucified; I witnessed the beheading of Peter and Paul in Rome, and with my very eyes saw tens of thousands of martyrs crimson the sands with their blood, rather than deny the faith Peter and Paul had preached unto them; I was living when Boniface was sent to Germany, when Augustine when to England, Cyril and Methodius to the Poles, and Patrick to Ireland; at the beginning of the ninth century I recall seeing Charlemagne crowned as king in matters temporal as Peter's vicar was recognized as supreme in matters spiritual; in the thirteenth century I saw the great stones cry out in tribute to me, and burst into Gothic Cathedrals; in the shadows of those same walls I saw great Cathedrals of thought arise in the prose of Aquinas and Bonaventure, and in the poetry of Dante; in the sixteenth century I saw my children softened by the spirit of the world leave the Father's house and reform the faith instead of reforming discipline which would have brought them back again into my embrace; in the last century and at the beginning of this I heard the world say it could not accept me because I was behind the times. I am not behind the times, I am only behind the scenes. I have adapted myself to every form of government the world has ever known; I have lived with Caesars and kings, tyrants and dictators, parliaments and presidents, monarchies and republics. I have welcomed every advance of science, and were it not for me the great records of the pagan world would not have been preserved. It is true I have not changed my doctrine, but that is because the ‘doctrine is not mine but His who sent Me.’ I change my garments which belong to time, but not my Spirit which belongs to eternity. In the course of my long life I have seen so many modern ideas become unmodern, that I know I shall live to chant a requiem over the modern ideas of this day, as I chanted it over the modern ideas of the last century. I celebrated the nineteen-hundredth anniversary of the death of my Redeemer and yet I am no older now than then, for my Spirit is Eternal, and the Eternal never ages. I am the abiding Personage of the centuries. I am the contemporary of all civilizations. I am never out of date, because the dateless; never out of time, because the timeless. I have four great marks: I am One, because I have the same Soul I had in the beginning; I am Holy, because that Soul is the Spirit of Holiness; I am Catholic, because that Spirit pervades every living cell of my Body; I am Apostolic, because my origin is identical with Nazareth, Galilee and Jerusalem. I shall grow weak when my members become rich and cease to pray, but I shall never die. I shall be persecuted as I am persecuted now in Mexico and Russia; I shall be crucified as I was on Calvary, but I shall rise again, and finally when time shall be no more, and I shall have grown to my full stature, then shall I be taken into heaven as the bride of my Head, Christ, where the celestial nuptials shall be celebrated, and God shall be all in all, because His Spirit is Love and Love is Heaven."

 

 

Introduction To The American Edition Of "Radio Replies" Vol One

 

"Radio Replies" by Rev. Dr. Rumble, M.S.C., is the result of five years of answering questions during a one-hour Question Box Program over Radio Station 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. The revision of "Radio Replies" for American readers was prompted by the widespread interest the Australian edition created among Protestants and Catholics during the summer of 1937, when I was carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on Catholicism "Radio Replies" proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. The clergy and laymen engaged in Street Preaching agree that it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners but what you GET INTO THEIR HANDS TO READ.

My many converts of the highways and parks throughout the Archdiocese of St. Paul have embraced the faith as a result of studying this book. Whole families have come into the Church through reading the book by this renowned convert from Anglicanism. The delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe led me to petition the author to have published a CHEAP AMERICAN EDITION in order to get this Encyclopaedia of Catholic Doctrine into the hands of fellow citizens. Because of the author's genius for brevity, preciseness, fearlessness and keen logic that avoids the usually long Scriptural and Traditional arguments of the average question and answer book, which is beyond the capacity of the man in the street, this manual of 1,588 questions and replies has already attracted readers throughout Australia, New Zealand, Africa, India, England, Ireland, Canada and now the United States.

The questions he answers are the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign. The piquant and provocative subject matter of this book makes it a fascinating assembly of 300 or more worth-while pamphlet tracts, a dictionary of doctrine for the desk of the FAMILY, the STUDENT, the SHOP HAND, the OFFICE WORKER, the ATTORNEY, the DOCTOR, the TEACHER, and the PREACHER. It is a handy standard reference book of excellence for popular questions which are more than ever being asked by restless and bewildered multitudes. It is a textbook for the Confraternities of Christian Doctrine Classes and Study Clubs.

A non-Catholic Professor after reading the book stated that, "If the Catholic Church could defend herself so logically as 'Radio Replies' demonstrates, then I do not see why you don't get more converts." Members of the Knights of Columbus, the Holy Name Societies and numerous women's societies have written in that they no longer have to apologetically say, "I can't answer that one." Catholic students in non-sectarian colleges and universities write in that they now walk the campus with this book under their arms, ready for all challenges and that this manual of ready reference has cured their INFERIORITY COMPLEX ON EXPOSITION OF CATHOLIC CLAIMS. Lapsed Catholics have come into my trailer-office to confess that the reading of "Radio Replies" has brought them back to the Church.

I am grateful to His Excellency Archbishop John G. Murray, D.D. for his approval of this compendium of dogmatic and moral theology for readers of the American Commonwealth and I am deeply appreciative to Rt. Rev. Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen, D.D. for writing the Preface to this American edition.

From my experience on the Catholic Radio Hour, on the lecture platform, and in the pulpit, I do not hesitate to say that HERE AT LAST is the book that has something for everybody, the book for the UNINFORMED CATHOLIC, THE UNEDUCATED AND EDUCATED LAPSED CATHOLIC, and the PROSPECTIVE CONVERT.

Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty

Source

 

 

Historical Context of "Radio Replies"


By markomalley

If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.

It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.

While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.

And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.

A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.

Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.

The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.


1 posted on 07/12/2011 11:20:26 AM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fidelis; MI; Sir_Humphrey; dsc; annalex; Citizen Soldier; bdeaner; CatQuilt; Graing; bboop; ...

Radio Replies Ping

"Women in Church"

FReep-mail me to get on or off

“The Radio Replies Ping-List”

ON / OFF


2 posted on 07/12/2011 11:21:23 AM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The Radio Replies Series: Volume One

The Radio Replies Series: Volume Two

Chapter One: God

Radio Replies Volume Two: Proof of God's Existence
Radio Replies Volume Two: God's Nature
Radio Replies Volume Two: Supreme Control Over All Things and the Problem of Suffering and Evil

Chapter Two: Man

Radio Replies Volume Two: Destiny of Man/Death
Radio Replies Volume Two: Immortality of Man's Soul & Pre-existence Denied
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Human Free Will
Radio Replies Volume Two: Determinism Absurd

Chapter Three: Religion

Radio Replies Volume Two: Necessity of Religion
Radio Replies Volume Two: Salvation of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume Two: Voice of Science
Radio Replies Volume Two: Religious Racketeers
Radio Replies Volume Two: Divine Revelation

Radio Replies Volume Two: Revealed Mysteries
Radio Replies Volume Two: Existence of Miracles

Chapter Four: The Religion of the Bible

Radio Replies Volume Two: Gospels Historical
Radio Replies Volume Two: Missing Books of the Bible
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Bible Inspired
Radio Replies Volume Two: Biblical Account of Creation
Radio Replies Volume Two: New Testament Problems

Radio Replies Volume Two: Supposed Contradictions in Sacred Scripture

Chapter Five: The Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume Two: Source of Christian Teaching
Radio Replies Volume Two: Jewish Rejecton of Christ
Radio Replies Volume Two: Christianity a New Religion
Radio Replies Volume Two: Rational Foundation for Belief
Radio Replies Volume Two: Causes of Unbelief

Chapter Six: A Definite Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume Two: Divisions Amongst Christians
Radio Replies Volume Two: Schisms Unjustified
Radio Replies Volume Two: Facing the Problem
Radio Replies Volume Two: Wrong Approach
Radio Replies Volume Two: Is One Religion as Good as Another?

Radio Replies Volume Two: Obligation of Inquiry
Radio Replies Volume Two: Charity and Tolerance

Chapter Seven: The Protestant Reformation

Radio Replies Volume Two: Meaning of "Protestant"
Radio Replies Volume Two: Causes of the Reformation
Radio Replies Volume Two: Catholic Reaction
Radio Replies Volume Two: Reformers Mistaken
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Idealization of Protestantism
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Catholic Estimate

Chapter Eight: The Truth of Catholicism

Radio Replies Volume Two: Meaning of the Word "Church"
Radio Replies Volume Two: Origin of the Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Catholic Claim
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Roman Hierarchy
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Pope

Radio Replies Volume Two: The Petrine Text
Radio Replies Volume Two: St. Peter's Supremacy
Radio Replies Volume Two: St. Peter in Rome
Radio Replies Volume Two: Temporal Power
Radio Replies Volume Two: Infallibility

Radio Replies Volume Two: Unity of the Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: Holiness of the Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: Catholicity of the Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: Apostolicity of the Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: Indefectibility of the Church
Radio Replies Volume Two: Obligation to be a Catholic

Chapter Nine: The Church and the Bible

Radio Replies Volume Two: Catholic Attitude Towards the Bible
Radio Replies Volume Two: Is Bible Reading Forbidden to Catholics?
Radio Replies Volume Two: Protestant Bibles
Radio Replies Volume Two: Catholic Douay Version
Radio Replies Volume Two: Principle of Private Interpretation

Radio Replies Volume Two: Need of Tradition
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church

Chapter Ten: The Dogmas of the Church

Radio Replies Volume Two: Revolt Against Dogma
Radio Replies Volume Two: Value of a Creed
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Divine Gift of Faith
Radio Replies Volume Two: Faith and Reason
Radio Replies Volume Two: The "Dark Ages"

Radio Replies Volume Two: The Claims of Science
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Holy Trinity
Radio Replies Volume Two: Creation and Evolution
Radio Replies Volume Two: Angels
Radio Replies Volume Two: Devils

Radio Replies Volume Two: Man
Radio Replies Volume Two: Reincarnation
Radio Replies Volume Two: Sin
Radio Replies Volume Two: Christ
Radio Replies Volume Two: Mary

Radio Replies Volume Two: Grace and Salvation
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Sacraments [Baptism]
Radio Replies Volume Two: Confession
Radio Replies Volume Two: Holy Eucharist
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Sacrifice of the Mass

Radio Replies Volume Two: Holy Communion
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Catholic Priesthood
Radio Replies Volume Two: Marriage and Divorce
Radio Replies Volume Two: Extreme Unction
Radio Replies Volume Two: Judgment

Radio Replies Volume Two: Hell
Radio Replies Volume Two: Purgatory
Radio Replies Volume Two: Indulgences
Radio Replies Volume Two: Heaven
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Resurrection of the Body

Radio Replies Volume Two: The End of the World

Chapter Eleven: The Church and Her Moral Teachings

Radio Replies Volume Two: Conscience
Radio Replies Volume Two: Truth
Radio Replies Volume Two: Scandal
Radio Replies Volume Two: Tolerance
Radio Replies Volume Two: Censorship

Radio Replies Volume Two: The Inquisition
Radio Replies Volume Two: Astrology
Radio Replies Volume Two: Other Superstitions
Radio Replies Volume Two: Attendance at Mass
Radio Replies Volume Two: Sex Education

Radio Replies Volume Two: Attitude to "Free Love"
Radio Replies Volume Two: Abortion
Radio Replies Volume Two: Suicide

Chapter Twelve: The Church in Her Worship

Radio Replies Volume Two: Magnificent Edifices
Radio Replies Volume Two: Lavish Ritual
Radio Replies Volume Two: Women in Church

3 posted on 07/12/2011 11:22:27 AM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
A woman's covering is her hair. There is historical context here. There were women who shaved their hair - pagans and prostitutes.
4 posted on 07/12/2011 11:24:46 AM PDT by svcw (democrats are liars, it's a given)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

“because the “Church is the defender of Capitalism.””

I wish that were true! While I fight together with Catholics on moral issues (like marriage, homosexuality, abortion), I am afraid my experience is that they are usually great proponents of social spending (welfare etc.). Basically it seems that are of a socialistic bent.

I am sure there are individual RCs who aren’t; I speak generally of the church as a whole.


5 posted on 07/12/2011 11:56:58 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

As to the subject of head coverings, I confess myself confused. As a believer in the Bible as God’s Word, I want to submit to it. But I find 1st Cor. 11 confusing. It seems to say long hair is a covering; it seems also to say that a man should not appear uncovered (which I can’t believe means without long hair!), and ends with:

“But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”

1st Cor 11.16

Which reads as though it negates the previous.

If a covering means a hat or veil, then, why does it say her long hair is for a covering?

If a covering means her long hair, why does it say then she should be shaven or shorn?

I have read arguments on both sides of this issue and can’t really discern what is right or what is not.

I do confess that God’s word is clear and assume that the confusion is sinful obtuseness on my part.


6 posted on 07/12/2011 12:01:07 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
If a church is going to insist on a headcovering for women, they must also insist that women keep their hair long. 1 Corinthians 11:6 says "For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head."
7 posted on 07/12/2011 12:07:54 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Bookmark.


8 posted on 07/12/2011 12:24:24 PM PDT by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

The word “long” is where?


9 posted on 07/12/2011 12:57:32 PM PDT by svcw (democrats are liars, it's a given)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

The word “long” is where?


10 posted on 07/12/2011 12:58:24 PM PDT by svcw (democrats are liars, it's a given)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: svcw
The word “long” is where?

One assumes if a woman doesn't cut her hair, it will be pretty long. (And the verse I quoted indicates it is disgraceful for a woman to cut her hair.)

Truly, I'm being facetious here. I believe the intent of the passage is to teach women to avoid doing anything with apparel or hair that would appear to be disrespectful toward the Lord or immodest in any way.

After all, what does "covered" or "uncovered" mean anyway? I doubt the women in biblical times wore a little doily on their heads. Doing so would probably have been viewed as disrespectful and immodest. Such "decorations" would probably be viewed as something to be used by prostitutes.

11 posted on 07/12/2011 1:28:32 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: svcw

- The word ‘long’ is where? -

1st Cor 11:14-15 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her[a] for a covering.


12 posted on 07/12/2011 1:45:40 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
I guess the next question is what is “long”?
There is a reason a reference is made to shaved heads. Pagans and prostitutes shaved their heads.
The idea was that the new Christian women would be different just by sight by not having a shaved head. You could say that hair not be shaved, be considered long hair. Unfortunately, I have met many women that are so concerned about the length of their hair they are losing themselves to their hair and not the reason for the covering.
13 posted on 07/12/2011 2:17:54 PM PDT by svcw (democrats are liars, it's a given)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

St. Paul obviously never went to an All-Nations Powwow. Nature tells me that some men with long hair are pretty darn masculine. (Others look like dopes, of course.) Arguments from "natural" feelings rather fall apart when somebody else naturally feels differently.

I'm sure he never had a baby throw up in his hair, either.

14 posted on 07/12/2011 2:20:49 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("This is a revolution, damn it! We're going to have to offend somebody!" ~ John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

“Nature tells me that some men with long hair are pretty darn masculine. “

Well, I don’t know, the Bible is the Bible. So apparently there is something about nature that teaches us that it’s a dishonor to him. Even if we don’t get it.

“Long” is not defined as a measurement so perhaps it is judged against cultural norms.


15 posted on 07/12/2011 3:41:57 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: svcw

“I guess the next question is what is “long”?”

Exactly, I don’t pretend to know, and I assume this is a cultural reference. What’s long in one country in one day and age is not in another.

Like skirts. Here in America if a man wears a skirt I’d say unequivocally that he is (sinfully) cross-dressing. However, if he wore a kilt in Scotland, well and good.

As to your point about the reason for the covering, isn’t it always the case, we’ll keep the letter of a law and not its spirit.


16 posted on 07/12/2011 3:45:15 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
So apparently there is something about nature that teaches us that it’s a dishonor to him.

Well, it lets your enemy get a good grip to decapitate you and tie your head to his saddle ...

But anyway, it's a question, "Does not nature itself teach you ...?" and my answer is, "No, actually, it doesn't, in any comprehensive way. Depends on the guy." My husband would look silly with long hair, but Wes Studi doesn't.

17 posted on 07/12/2011 3:47:17 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("This is a revolution, damn it! We're going to have to offend somebody!" ~ John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Persevero; svcw

When the topic of long hair comes up on Christian women’s discussion lists/boards, the competitiveness and vanity is enough to put a person off whatever version of Christianity those folks profess. One poor dear actually worried that God didn’t love her black adopted daughters, because their hair simply didn’t grow long.


18 posted on 07/12/2011 3:50:03 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("This is a revolution, damn it! We're going to have to offend somebody!" ~ John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Several years ago, I visited a United Pentecostal Church with a coworker. The church had many rules about women’s appearance, such as no pants, no makeup, no jewelry, no hair braiding, hats during worship, and long hair (usually in a tight bun).

Since then, I’ve wondered happens if a husband wants his United Pentecostal wife to liven up her appearence a bit, and if she puts her church teachings above his wishes.


19 posted on 07/12/2011 7:57:17 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

1 cor ch 11
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.


Its not talking about veils and other coverings, its talking about hair.

Glory means among other things,( Beauty ) the Corinthian people had taken up some of the Customs of the Goddess Dianna worshipers and some were evidently purposely trying to bring them into the christian Church, Men wearing long hair and the women hacking their hair off.

So basically what Paul was saying was that if a woman wanted to hack her hair off like a man, she just as well shave it and then put a sack over her head so no one could see it.

Paul told them that we do not have that custom.


20 posted on 07/12/2011 9:35:15 PM PDT by ravenwolf (Just a bit of the long list of proofs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

“But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”


Paul is saying that we have no such custom as you are trying to bring into the church.

Its not talking about veils and other coverings, its talking about hair.

Glory means among other things,( Beauty ) the Corinthian people had taken up some of the Customs of the Goddess Dianna worshipers and some were evidently purposely trying to bring them into the christian Church, Men wearing long hair and the women hacking their hair off.

So basically what Paul was saying was that if a woman wanted to hack her hair off like a man, she just as well shave it and then put a sack over her head so no one could see it.


21 posted on 07/12/2011 9:47:15 PM PDT by ravenwolf (Just a bit of the long list of proofs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Megoody: they must also insist that women keep their hair long

Me agree :) Long hair looks much better on a lady.

22 posted on 07/13/2011 2:22:39 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

Persevero, the Catholics here on FR and the nearly 50% in the real world are not. That number is too small, I agree and we are working on improving it. Strangely enough the tactics of O and the Dims may be the best thing to push catholics once and for all from the Dims — just as what happened in Canada.


23 posted on 07/13/2011 2:22:39 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Persevero; Tax-chick

being contrary here “ Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? “ —> doesn’t that ignore Samson? And I’m pretty sure most of the OT kings, judges, prophets etc. had long hair. Maybe even Jesus.


24 posted on 07/13/2011 2:24:21 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TheDingoAteMyBaby
no pants,

how did they check that? :-P

25 posted on 07/13/2011 2:25:24 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

““ Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? “ —> doesn’t that ignore Samson?”

Samson had taken a specific vow, a biblical vow, called I believe a Nazirite vow. It included such things as not letting a razor touch your head, and not having any fruit of the grape at all, and I don’t know what else.

In other words it was self deprivation and self humiliation. So it wasn’t somehow glorying to Samson to have long hair.

As for the OT kings, judges, prophets etc. I am not sure why you think they or Jesus had long hair. I don’t recall the Bible ever describing their hair length, although beards are mentioned.

Artists tend to paint the above, and Jesus in particular, with long hair, but, I don’t think there is a biblical basis for it.

Imagine should we arrive in heaven, please God, and find Jesus in short hair of some type and a beard! I suppose we may all be surprised at His appearance.

Isaiah says he was not comely in appearance, that men should be attracted to him (I paraphrase). No other mention of His appearance, except Revelation 1:

“And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. “

Again, nothing about long hair.


26 posted on 07/13/2011 10:36:36 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

good points. Thank you


27 posted on 07/14/2011 1:22:57 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson