OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 07:21:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Head coverings and you.  (Read 22521 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #45 on: November 08, 2008, 12:41:44 PM »

It depends upon the head covering. Deliberately dowdy stuff is too faux-bednyak for me, and a mantilla calls attention to itself. A hat is less proud of its wearer's piety (if not millinery).

One of the weirder head covering traditions in Anglicanism was that it was common to find the women in the choir sporting Canterbury caps; but women singing tenor generally did not wear them. Big and architectural hair pretty much did the custom in anyway.
Logged
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #46 on: November 08, 2008, 01:36:43 PM »

I've heard varying opinions. One woman was outraged that it was the women who had to stand out, another told me she will only wear a hat because of the fact she considers herself not slim enough to pull off the scarf without appearing matronly, yet another woman told me she loves to dream up new ideas for headcoverings and considers it a real fashion accessory (these women are all young-20-30ish).

I've already voiced my views on the subject, including how it makes me feel. I believe it's an honour to cover my head in order to bring glory to God. Aside from the spiritual reasons, I love pretty things and beautiful, feminine clothing (like most women). Wearing a pretty scarf or hat only adds to one's beauty and feminity, imo. These days there are a plethora of websites filled with gorgeous options, ideas and encouragement from all quarters-muslim,jewish,christian.
Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
Rowan
Lurker, Writer, Science-lover, yada yada yada...
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Episcopalian
Posts: 159

-- Defying Gravity --


« Reply #47 on: November 08, 2008, 01:42:12 PM »

I've been to very few Orthodox parishes (2 Antiochian, 1 Greek, 1 Romanian) and in all these parishes, headcovering was optional. I do not cover my head, but nonetheless I think it is a venerable tradition, along with separating the worshipers by sex, because the goal is modesty and self-control.

None of these parishes separated males from females either (and in my mission parish, with our small space, I don't think that would be possible).

And if I can be a little cheeky for a bit: As someone who would get distracted by a man a mile away, I don't think that putting them on the other side of the room would help me!  laugh

But seriously though, modesty in church is important, not only for the sake of our fellow parishioners, but the priest and the deacons and altar boys that help Father administer the Gifts. I do not think that those who do not wear headcoverings nor those who do not sit separately from the opposite sex believe otherwise.

I don't think it's as dramatic as these practices are being "abandoned"--that implies some callousness towards them on our part. To answer you, Alveus, there is nothing degrading about these practices...I just don't practice them.
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #48 on: November 08, 2008, 01:48:15 PM »

Something I've often wondered about regarding Orthodoxy: it is often stated how important modesty is in church (and I do absolutely agree). But isn't modesty important everywhere? I mean, we are no more merely Christians inside the church building than God exists only in a building. We are called to be light and salt to the world and image-bearers of Christ. Shouldn't we as Christian women be careful to dress just as modestly every day of the week as we do in the church building?
Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
Rowan
Lurker, Writer, Science-lover, yada yada yada...
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Episcopalian
Posts: 159

-- Defying Gravity --


« Reply #49 on: November 08, 2008, 04:23:20 PM »

Roseship -

I assume that goes without saying. Upon converting, some of my clothes went bye-bye.
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. ~Philippians 4:8; St Paul
Myrrh23
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,639



« Reply #50 on: November 08, 2008, 06:34:31 PM »

Something I've often wondered about regarding Orthodoxy: it is often stated how important modesty is in church (and I do absolutely agree). But isn't modesty important everywhere? I mean, we are no more merely Christians inside the church building than God exists only in a building. We are called to be light and salt to the world and image-bearers of Christ. Shouldn't we as Christian women be careful to dress just as modestly every day of the week as we do in the church building?

One of the quotes I have added to my profile is this: "Do not be a devoted servant of God in your public behavior while you are an enemy to Him in your private affairs" -Muslim teaching
This can also be taken to be seen as, "Do not be a devoted servant of God in Church while you are an enemy to Him outside of Church"
 Smiley
Logged

*I am no longer posting on OC.net*

We all have a Black Dog and a White Dog inside of us. The One you feed the most eventually eats the Other.

All are tempted, but it is the courageous person who clings to God during the storm. For the Ego is a prison, but Christ is the Liberator
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,683


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #51 on: November 08, 2008, 07:08:29 PM »

Can some of our beautiful Christian sisters please explain to me how the head-coverings make you feel?  I am just trying to understand why the practice is being abandoned.  Is it degrading to some of you?  Or even if you are fine with it, would you mind explaining to me some opposing views you've heard from other women?  Thank you and peace be with you!
The subject of head coverings is one of those topics that comes up for discussion quite frequently on this forum, so I'm sure you can glean a lot of information on the various perspectives represented here by doing even a cursory reading of many of these past threads.  As such, I see that someone has added to the bottom of this thread a tag labeled "head coverings".  Click this tag, and you'll find a good sized list of many of the threads that address your question. Smiley
Logged
Eugenio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I love them all
Posts: 460



« Reply #52 on: November 12, 2008, 12:59:52 AM »

Alveus wrote:

"It just seems like the converts try to come in and dictate what's "kosher" and what's "got to go."

Woah! I don't think so! You're overgeneralizing here, Alveus. My experience has been just the opposite: The converts joining the Orthodox Church are often the ones who painstakingly try to get things "right" and observe all the fasts, etc. In fact, I've been in one Orthodox church that was almost entirely made up of converts where most of the women wore head coverings.
Logged
Eugenio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I love them all
Posts: 460



« Reply #53 on: November 12, 2008, 01:01:45 AM »

On the men and women standing on different sides of the church:

I think it is entirely appropriate for families to worship together, as a family. And as the father of a small child, I can definitely attest that sometimes it takes a team of two to get the entire family through the Liturgy!  Smiley
Logged
kmm
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 105


« Reply #54 on: November 12, 2008, 02:42:34 AM »

Cheeky benefit of headcoverings: they're awesome on a bad hair day...

I wear a headcovering to church, but admit I often feel really weird about it. I guess because it's just so not a part of my cultural tradition. I've never even wore a hat, other than a toque, before I became Orthodox.

As to wearing a headcovering outside of church - I do it on the drive to church, but don't think I'd get away with it otherwise. I'd certainly not be allowed to do it at work, as I'm supposed to keep my religious beliefs hidden or at least very subtle from my students - although I do really wonder what would happen if we had a devout muslim teacher on staff...but Christians at my school are easy targets (although students wouldn't be openly, just adults - I'd just hear negative commentary about such students in the staff room, as I've heard about previously homeschooled students - albeit rather odd socially inept homeschooled students, and and orthodox jewish kid we had who wouldn't drink out of the water fountains - I actually respected her for her determined convictions). And my family would have an absolute hissy fit if I was wearing one outside of church (they're already weirded out by the fact I wear one inside of church). Basically, I'm a wuss.

I really did like that link to Arch?deacon Amde's statement. That was moving, and a heckuva justification.
Logged
kmm
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 105


« Reply #55 on: November 12, 2008, 02:49:10 AM »

oh goodness yes, there must be some flexibility in a segregated church to allow papas to help mamas with the wrangy brood. The assumption that other women in the church will jump to help a struggling mom is just that; a big assumption    assume= ASS (as in the donkey kind) out of U and ME. For one thing, a lot of childless women don't know the first thing about kids and are uncomfortable around them (people where I live don't tend to have many kids if any). Older women don't have the strength to deal with my rather large and strong 3 1/2 year old if he decides to be naughty. And women with kids are too busy dealing with their own...
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,731


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #56 on: November 12, 2008, 03:01:17 AM »

At a local Coptic Church I sometimes visit, I often see children over on the male side, being cared for by their fathers. 
Logged

Nyssa The Hobbit
Used to be OrthodoxFairyQueen
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian as of 1/10/09
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 396



WWW
« Reply #57 on: November 13, 2008, 11:41:49 AM »

If you want to wear a headcovering, that's okay.  I have a problem when women who don't wear headcoverings are treated like they're not pious enough, too influenced by feminism, etc.  And I don't see this in real life; I only see it on Orthodox forums.  My entire life, spent in various conservative (not liberal) churches, I've only ever seen one woman wearing a headcovering like this thread is discussing, and that was in an Orthodox church I visited a few weeks ago.  I have seen fashionable hats, but that's back when women still wore hats.  In my churches, women just followed whatever the modest women of their age were doing in the culture at large.  You dress in your Sunday best, try to look nice, because it's a special occasion and all week long you've been dressing in your frumpy everyday wear.  Even St. John Chrysostom said it's perfectly fine to dress in your best clothes to honor God in church, just as long as you don't snub the homeless guy you encounter on the way there.  I've never seen such things derided in real life, just on forums.

It's good to follow a traditional custom if you want to, but don't rip on what other people are doing.
Logged

Author of "Tojet" (fantasy) and "The Lighthouse" (Gothic), info available at my website URL.
calligraphqueen
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GOA
Posts: 341


« Reply #58 on: November 24, 2008, 12:51:46 PM »

I think this issue rests between the woman and the Holy Spirit, possibly with her husband as well. Its wrong to put such pressure on woman based on our own personal takes on the issue.  Its also wrong to put such incredible pressure on the gender of women that men have absolutely none to bear.  None of the women in my Greek parish cover, some women of other jurisdictions that visit do cover. The Greek reasons were about assimilation into American culture after immigrating here. I left it at that. Its not a salvific issue. And no, women that do not happen to cover are not automatically feminist minded. I have 7 children, homeschool, garden, cook from scratch...though I don't do jumpers and german sandles with socks...(ick)

Frankly, just trying to work out my faith is an overwhelming job. I wear what I can find/afford to even attend Divine Liturgy on Sundays. Which is the only services we have with a part time priest. We have mostly elderly and a few married women with spouses. If some guy were so easily distracted as to get thrilled watching me fight with a special needs child who is in painful screaming mode, then he's got bigger problems. Isn't self control one of the things so painfully taught within Orthodoxy? Why is this little scrap of fabric on a graying woman's head such a big deal, when men's responsibility to just pay attention is less so? The power within Orthodox Liturgy is too great to be paying attention to a woman's ankle's or calves!  Many of us converts, like someone else mentioned, are amazed every week that Orthodoxy even exists. The purity, when we come from such varied backgrounds of nonsensical faith, is astounding. I don't understand why each and every icon shows a woman covered, and I get excuses from living women today. Yet just working on my faith takes all I have.  If and when God convicts me of this matter, it will be between me and Him. He will also have to remove my daughter's Rett and her flailing (at age 6, we aren't talking about a baby) so I can keep anything on!
Still I contend that men are responsible for their own behavior, whether someone is wearing a piece of cotton on her head or not. Remember you are in the presence of God when in Church, a woman should be the furthest thing from your mind generally speaking.
Logged
Lily
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 75


« Reply #59 on: December 02, 2008, 11:56:40 AM »

I do wear a headcovering.  They are rare at our home church but required at the church we attend while visit family.  I actually prefer the lace mantilla style both visually and for practical reasons (they are both cooler and the texture keeps them on my head much better). 

Logged
Hening
Fr Deacon Michael Heningham
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 104



WWW
« Reply #60 on: December 03, 2008, 09:38:08 PM »

I will add that my wife used to cover her hair more, but gets asked if she is a Muslim, gets nasty looks, or asks if she is receiving chemo.  All of this makes her uncomfortable.  I have read that after WWII women generally stopped covering their hair in Europe since it showed that their heads had not been shaved as collaborators.  Today, there is a real connection between Islam and covering your hair in public.  Women can't seem to cut a break with this, but isn't it strange that it is such a divisive ornament?
Logged

Associate Pastor, Emmanuel Orthodox Church
Warren, MA, USA
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #61 on: December 03, 2008, 10:11:54 PM »

I'm sorry your wife's had so many bad experiences, Hening! Fortunately, I've never experienced anything like that since becoming Orthodox. But then I only wear the headcovering on the way to and sometimes from, church. I don't think I've received any nasty stares as far as I know. Often I compliment Muslim women on their pretty scarves and it brings a smile to their face and is a real conversation opener! I tell them I wear a scarf to church too and then they usually say that's wonderful and ask me which church I go to. Suddenly we become simply women sharing about our lives etc. It's a beautiful thing!
Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
VirSpeluncaeOrthodoxae
Da Orthodox Caveman! aka "Cavey"
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch...for now
Posts: 102



« Reply #62 on: December 03, 2008, 11:28:10 PM »

My wife always wears one because she gets to. I have to get ordained to wear something on my head in Church. I personally prefer that women do since it's their privilege (and i also prefer women on the left and men on the right like at my out of town Church, except for when there's few people there.)  but I don't think ill of them if they don't. St. Paul said they ought to.
Logged

Medieval, backwards, rigid, narrow-minded Traditionalist, Western Rite lover and proud of it! Make my day.
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #63 on: December 04, 2008, 12:48:52 PM »

I will add that my wife used to cover her hair more, but gets asked if she is a Muslim, gets nasty looks, or asks if she is receiving chemo.  All of this makes her uncomfortable.  I have read that after WWII women generally stopped covering their hair in Europe since it showed that their heads had not been shaved as collaborators.  Today, there is a real connection between Islam and covering your hair in public.  Women can't seem to cut a break with this, but isn't it strange that it is such a divisive ornament?
I think this mostly has to do with misunderstandings in our culture. There's a real epidemic of Islamophobia in the West, a misconception that says that traditional garments=repression. The head covering is associated with the burqah, which is seen as a human rights violation, and therefore the head covering is guilty by association.

Personally, I don't really care whether women wear a head covering or not; the issue doesn't apply to me, so I don't give it much thought. But xenophobia is my concern, as it is the concern of all, and the best way to fight it is to make the xenoi familiar. There are very few things in this world that can't be solved with education.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #64 on: December 04, 2008, 04:20:57 PM »

Quote
But xenophobia is my concern, as it is the concern of all, and the best way to fight it is to make the xenoi familiar. There are very few things in this world that can't be solved with education.

Mr.Y., this is so true. Fortunately, I grew up in a subculture myself, so am used to standing out, to looking "peculiar", so I actually have a real affinity for the Muslim women. I have never been able to understand this so-called "islamophobia" because I see them as people just like everyone else. I am forced to rub shoulders with all kinds of people on a daily basis and usually there is no time to even begin to think xenophobic thoughts. Lately, I was observing some of the medical staff at the hospital and one was a cute, spunky young muslim girl in a hijab. She was sparkly and full of life and judging by her accent, had grown up in this culture. The obvious hit me suddenly, "She is one of us!". I agree with you about the importance of educating oneself about different cultures, and think that so many problems throughout history have been a result of ignorance and a refusal to enter the world of the "other".
Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
Hening
Fr Deacon Michael Heningham
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 104



WWW
« Reply #65 on: December 05, 2008, 10:04:54 AM »

Often I compliment Muslim women on their pretty scarves and it brings a smile to their face and is a real conversation opener! I tell them I wear a scarf to church too and then they usually say that's wonderful and ask me which church I go to. Suddenly we become simply women sharing about our lives etc. It's a beautiful thing!

Rosehip,

That is a beautiful thing, and a perfect example of how important women are in ministry.  You have an opportunity to reach out to women that would be completely off limits to men.  Being both salt and light to Muslim women is a fine ministry.

Shalom......
Logged

Associate Pastor, Emmanuel Orthodox Church
Warren, MA, USA
Lily
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 75


« Reply #66 on: January 07, 2009, 11:31:57 AM »

Had a question about a headcovering I saw last night, and I didn't want to start a whole new thread about it.

Last night we attended the Christmas Eve Vigil hosted by local ROCOR church (we're Antiochians, so some of the customs were different than what we're used to.)  Most of the women wore the typical headcoverings, but a few wore a heavier white fabric covering more like a western nun's headcovering (though there was no other indication that they were nuns in their dress, and the women did not seem to be nuns- ie, they had children).  Some of these headcoverings were embroidered with a cross in front.  Any ideas what this particular headcovering signifies (if anything?)
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #67 on: January 07, 2009, 11:36:02 AM »

They may have been members of some laity Orthodox sisterhood, which helps to the parish - some of them have kinds of uniforms/vestments. Or maybe such babushkas are simply in fashion now
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Xenia1918
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Praying for Divine guidance
Posts: 569



« Reply #68 on: June 28, 2011, 01:23:31 PM »

In Orthodox Judaism, men and women are seated separately (the women sit in the balcony, or behind a mechitzah, which is a barrier with a curtain). This stems from the fact that in the ancient Temple, men and women were seated separately too (as were Gentile "God fearers", who worshipped the Jewish God without becoming Jews.)

I was in a Ukrainian Catholic cathedral years ago where men and women sat separately. I liked it; it helped me see just one more thing Christianity got from Judaism.
Logged

"O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us..." (from the Prayer of St Basil the Great)

REAL RC: http://www.traditionalmass.org
REAL OC: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,275


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #69 on: June 28, 2011, 11:55:52 PM »

At our home my wife & daughters wear head coverings all the time.   This is the way early Christian women did it.  Even the icons of the Theotokos and female saints all had head coverings.

I believe this is absolutely one place where Eastern Orthodoxy has it wrong by some of the churches being more "open" to no head coverings.   This is one of my problems with the church that I go through.  Of course this is NOT all Orthodox churches, but many are very open to it.   That's just wrong, wrong and again WRONG.   Sorry I don't mean to offend, but it was directly commanded to us in 1 Corinthians 11. 

Now there are some EO churches that expect it in church which is good.
I think there are many lessons here I learned from the Anabaptists that puts heavy emphasis on the head covering.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,683


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #70 on: February 12, 2013, 04:33:57 AM »

When this question was raised in Greece I heard again and again women saying it cost x to have my hair done and I am not covering it for anyone. Others appeared to think it was old fashioned and unnecessary.

That many also appeared to think low tops and short skirts were appropriate saddened me.

Is it what the Church teaches or do we all do or own thing and then call it Orthodoxy? Surely following Christ is not a case of following the mores and fashions of the times?

Exactly.

And to claim that inquirers and catechumens are being legalistic and proud when they dare to wear head coverings is absolutely insane.

Those who issue these judgments are failing to heed Christ's command not to judge lest we ourselves be judged.

Actually those who claim that catechumens are being legalistic are the strident feminists and wimps who are Orthodox in name only. Sorry for judging the feminists and wimps, but I am saddened by this turn of events. It should not be happening in the Orthodox Church.

Lord have mercy and save us for we perish.
Don't you think that kind of comment extremely hypocritical? You remind us of Christ's command that we not judge, specifically as this governs how we relate to inquirers and catechumens who decide to wear head coverings, yet in the same post you judge as "Orthodox in name only" those who claim that these catechumens are being legalistic. If you're going to cite Christ's command that we not judge, Maria, then you had better practice what you preach.

PtA, I admit that I am a sinner in that post. I could have edited that part out, but then I would have been truly hypocritical.
If the post was still open for you to strike through some of the text, it was open for you to remove the text entirely. If you had removed the text rather than striking through it, no one would have even known you had once posted it. What you did in striking through the text but still leaving it visible was the truly hypocritical thing to do, for it's not that hard to read what you posted.

BTW, you did not admit that you are a sinner in that post.

Hopefully, those who are so quick to condemn catechumens for wearing headcoverings will see their own hypocritical spirit.
Hopefully, those who, like you, are so quick to condemn Orthodox for not wearing head coverings and then make only a half-hearted attempt to cover their tracks will see their own hypocritical spirit.

We are all hypocrites in need of Christ's mercy.
Nice dodge, Maria. I'm not buying your false humility.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2013, 04:42:37 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #71 on: February 12, 2013, 06:32:26 AM »

I can’t speak for everyone, but I have met women from different walks of life who wear head coverings.  Young, old and everywhere in-between.  For me, it immediately conjures up an extra dosage of respect and civility, as long as it is a humble covering.  I think it is an honorable, decent thing to do and wish more women did.  I find it less sexual than some think it could be, especially seeing what some women do with their hair to be attractive.  Overall, I like it, as long as the person keeps in simple and feminine and doesn’t carried away (big hats and crazy stuff hanging off).
« Last Edit: February 12, 2013, 06:52:37 AM by Kerdy » Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,275


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #72 on: February 12, 2013, 02:32:57 PM »

Head coverings are historical all through EO history (except recent).
Head coverings are traditional.
Head coverings are scriptural.
Head coverings are depicted by the Theotokos in icons.
Head coverings are depicted on women in 99.9% of icons (by personal observation).  (I've seen 4 examples (probably schlock) in tens of thousands of icons I've seen where head coverings on women were not used)

The hair of a woman is her glory, and through modesty standards many women feels it reserves it for her husband.  This is another reason many women cover.

Women were commanded in 1 Corinthians 11 to cover their heads while praying (and this was a practice of all the Jews & Christians) and in Thessolonians it was commanded to "pray without ceasing".

In my opinion, to argue these commands, history, traditions (of almost every Christian group that extends 200+ years), and the scriptures - are just people simply not wanting to do what they should.   Responses are often hostile by those who want to distort the scriptures, history, and traditions of Christianity.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #73 on: February 12, 2013, 02:39:04 PM »

A Russian anecdote (apparently real-life situation) comes to my mind every time I hear about traditions and its understanding by larpers:

Newly-ordained priest is sent to a parish in Siberia. He conducts his first burial there. At the beginning of the wake he is given food first: one piroh. He notices something extraordinary is happening because everyone is staring at him. Not knowing what is the reason, he eats the piroh.

Everyone sighs from relief.

He asks one man what was going on and he is explained that there is a tradition in this village that if the priest eats a piroh that was lying for 3 days on the dead's cheek, it means the dead will go to heaven...
« Last Edit: February 12, 2013, 02:47:28 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Deep Roots
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Catholic
Posts: 370


« Reply #74 on: February 12, 2013, 03:02:35 PM »

Oh man, I get so turned on by the sight of a woman's hair.  Let me get a glimpse of that flowing brown hair, mmm mm.  If a woman's hair falls a little out of her headcovering during Liturgy it makes it difficult to focus... but if one of those harlots comes in with no headcovering, oh man, watch out.  I'll be doing nothing but lusting during the whole liturgy. mmm hair....

give me a break.  look, if you live in a country that has held onto the cultural tradition of a woman's hair being a very sacred thing, then keep going with it, but look--the bottom line is that if you are an American (and no, this has nothing to do with liberalism) or a western Orthodox Christian (probably a convert)...you live in a culture that absolutely does NOT see a woman's hair as inherently sacred or whathaveyou.  So here's the deal:  if you talk about a woman's hair being her honor, or that it's too sexual for hair to be out for anyone but her husband... you are playing dress up with your religion. 
« Last Edit: February 12, 2013, 03:06:28 PM by Deep Roots » Logged

Peace.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,683


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #75 on: February 12, 2013, 03:11:06 PM »

Head coverings are historical all through EO history (except recent).
Head coverings are traditional.
Head coverings are scriptural.
Head coverings are depicted by the Theotokos in icons.
Head coverings are depicted on women in 99.9% of icons (by personal observation).  (I've seen 4 examples (probably schlock) in tens of thousands of icons I've seen where head coverings on women were not used)

The hair of a woman is her glory, and through modesty standards many women feels it reserves it for her husband.  This is another reason many women cover.

Women were commanded in 1 Corinthians 11 to cover their heads while praying (and this was a practice of all the Jews & Christians) and in Thessolonians it was commanded to "pray without ceasing".

In my opinion, to argue these commands, history, traditions (of almost every Christian group that extends 200+ years), and the scriptures - are just people simply not wanting to do what they should.   Responses are often hostile by those who want to distort the scriptures, history, and traditions of Christianity.

Says the person who admits to picking and choosing what parts of the Faith he wishes to embrace and what parts he feels free to discard or dispute. Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: February 12, 2013, 03:11:48 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #76 on: February 12, 2013, 04:05:37 PM »

A Russian anecdote (apparently real-life situation) comes to my mind every time I hear about traditions and its understanding by larpers:

Newly-ordained priest is sent to a parish in Siberia. He conducts his first burial there. At the beginning of the wake he is given food first: one piroh. He notices something extraordinary is happening because everyone is staring at him. Not knowing what is the reason, he eats the piroh.

Everyone sighs from relief.

He asks one man what was going on and he is explained that there is a tradition in this village that if the priest eats a piroh that was lying for 3 days on the dead's cheek, it means the dead will go to heaven...

QFT ! Not the going to heaven part.....
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,481


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #77 on: February 12, 2013, 04:55:39 PM »

Head coverings are historical all through EO history (except recent).
Head coverings are traditional.
Head coverings are scriptural.
Head coverings are depicted by the Theotokos in icons.
Head coverings are depicted on women in 99.9% of icons (by personal observation).  (I've seen 4 examples (probably schlock) in tens of thousands of icons I've seen where head coverings on women were not used)

The hair of a woman is her glory, and through modesty standards many women feels it reserves it for her husband.  This is another reason many women cover.

Women were commanded in 1 Corinthians 11 to cover their heads while praying (and this was a practice of all the Jews & Christians) and in Thessolonians it was commanded to "pray without ceasing".

In my opinion, to argue these commands, history, traditions (of almost every Christian group that extends 200+ years), and the scriptures - are just people simply not wanting to do what they should.   Responses are often hostile by those who want to distort the scriptures, history, and traditions of Christianity.


Says the guy who jettisons what he doesn't like about a living tradition while he chases the dragon of "authenticity."

Where I'm from, that's called hypocrisy.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,275


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #78 on: February 13, 2013, 12:00:29 AM »

Head coverings are historical all through EO history (except recent).
Head coverings are traditional.
Head coverings are scriptural.
Head coverings are depicted by the Theotokos in icons.
Head coverings are depicted on women in 99.9% of icons (by personal observation).  (I've seen 4 examples (probably schlock) in tens of thousands of icons I've seen where head coverings on women were not used)

The hair of a woman is her glory, and through modesty standards many women feels it reserves it for her husband.  This is another reason many women cover.

Women were commanded in 1 Corinthians 11 to cover their heads while praying (and this was a practice of all the Jews & Christians) and in Thessolonians it was commanded to "pray without ceasing".

In my opinion, to argue these commands, history, traditions (of almost every Christian group that extends 200+ years), and the scriptures - are just people simply not wanting to do what they should.   Responses are often hostile by those who want to distort the scriptures, history, and traditions of Christianity.


Says the guy who jettisons what he doesn't like about a living tradition while he chases the dragon of "authenticity."

Where I'm from, that's called hypocrisy.


All I can do is shrug and move on.

Personal attacks instead of engaging my points.   

I can dislike non-biblically backed parts of the "living tradition", while embracing biblically backed parts of the living tradition... But this is not the issue.  The issue is for nearly 1940-1960 years, almost all EO women wore coverings.   This is EO vs. EO on the tradition, I'm just making the points in favor of the.... well... EO.


« Last Edit: February 13, 2013, 12:08:09 AM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,683


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #79 on: February 13, 2013, 02:48:19 AM »

Head coverings are historical all through EO history (except recent).
Head coverings are traditional.
Head coverings are scriptural.
Head coverings are depicted by the Theotokos in icons.
Head coverings are depicted on women in 99.9% of icons (by personal observation).  (I've seen 4 examples (probably schlock) in tens of thousands of icons I've seen where head coverings on women were not used)

The hair of a woman is her glory, and through modesty standards many women feels it reserves it for her husband.  This is another reason many women cover.

Women were commanded in 1 Corinthians 11 to cover their heads while praying (and this was a practice of all the Jews & Christians) and in Thessolonians it was commanded to "pray without ceasing".

In my opinion, to argue these commands, history, traditions (of almost every Christian group that extends 200+ years), and the scriptures - are just people simply not wanting to do what they should.   Responses are often hostile by those who want to distort the scriptures, history, and traditions of Christianity.


Says the guy who jettisons what he doesn't like about a living tradition while he chases the dragon of "authenticity."

Where I'm from, that's called hypocrisy.


All I can do is shrug and move on.

Personal attacks instead of engaging my points.
What Schultz and I posted are not personal attacks, and they do engage your points. Your hypocrisy invalidates your message. 

I can dislike non-biblically backed parts of the "living tradition", while embracing biblically backed parts of the living tradition... But this is not the issue.  The issue is for nearly 1940-1960 years, almost all EO women wore coverings.   This is EO vs. EO on the tradition, I'm just making the points in favor of the.... well... EO.
If you wish to defend the Orthodox faith, then embrace the whole faith and become Orthodox. If you wish to mix and match elements of the Orthodox faith with elements of an Amish faith and elements of whatever other faiths suit your fancy, then please don't put yourself forward as an authority on things Orthodox. You are not an Orthodox Christian. We don't need your defense.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2013, 02:48:57 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,275


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #80 on: February 13, 2013, 03:42:49 PM »

Head coverings are historical all through EO history (except recent).
Head coverings are traditional.
Head coverings are scriptural.
Head coverings are depicted by the Theotokos in icons.
Head coverings are depicted on women in 99.9% of icons (by personal observation).  (I've seen 4 examples (probably schlock) in tens of thousands of icons I've seen where head coverings on women were not used)

The hair of a woman is her glory, and through modesty standards many women feels it reserves it for her husband.  This is another reason many women cover.

Women were commanded in 1 Corinthians 11 to cover their heads while praying (and this was a practice of all the Jews & Christians) and in Thessolonians it was commanded to "pray without ceasing".

In my opinion, to argue these commands, history, traditions (of almost every Christian group that extends 200+ years), and the scriptures - are just people simply not wanting to do what they should.   Responses are often hostile by those who want to distort the scriptures, history, and traditions of Christianity.


Says the guy who jettisons what he doesn't like about a living tradition while he chases the dragon of "authenticity."

Where I'm from, that's called hypocrisy.


All I can do is shrug and move on.

Personal attacks instead of engaging my points.
What Schultz and I posted are not personal attacks, and they do engage your points. Your hypocrisy invalidates your message. 

I can dislike non-biblically backed parts of the "living tradition", while embracing biblically backed parts of the living tradition... But this is not the issue.  The issue is for nearly 1940-1960 years, almost all EO women wore coverings.   This is EO vs. EO on the tradition, I'm just making the points in favor of the.... well... EO.
If you wish to defend the Orthodox faith, then embrace the whole faith and become Orthodox. If you wish to mix and match elements of the Orthodox faith with elements of an Amish faith and elements of whatever other faiths suit your fancy, then please don't put yourself forward as an authority on things Orthodox. You are not an Orthodox Christian. We don't need your defense.

I disagree, "Says the guy" makes it personal.   But anyway...

Here's where I think many misunderstand...

I wish to defend the Christian faith the way it was given to us.    This is not mixing elements of the Orthodox or Amish/Anabaptist faith - this is about grasping on to the strings that remain of original Christianity.  This is about grasping originality.   I cling to originality.  Women covering their heads were in original Christianity, written in the scripture, and part of the history of most of Christianity.

I do not forward myself as an authority on Orthodoxy, but I've been an Eastern Orthodox Christian longer than many on this forum have been alive.

I do not defend the Eastern Orthodox Church.  I defend the original Christian elements within Eastern Orthodoxy.

I do not offend the Eastern Orthodox Church.  I offend the parts of the Eastern Orthodox church that has betrayed original Christianity & God's commands.

As the scriptures command in Matthew "6:24" No one can serve two masters...   Though it seems I "combine faiths", it is not the faiths themselves I combine.  I embrace the original elements of the Master's church, Christianity.   Though on my faith it shows that way, it's the only way I can simply explain it.

I love and respect the Original Christian elements of the Orthodox faith.  Women wearing head coverings, the belief the presence of Christ in the Eucharist....  I love and respect the Original Christian Elements of the Amish faith, only spending tithes on widows & orphans, head coverings, no costly array.


Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #81 on: February 13, 2013, 04:08:05 PM »

Head coverings are historical all through EO history (except recent).
Head coverings are traditional.
Head coverings are scriptural.
Head coverings are depicted by the Theotokos in icons.
Head coverings are depicted on women in 99.9% of icons (by personal observation).  (I've seen 4 examples (probably schlock) in tens of thousands of icons I've seen where head coverings on women were not used)

The hair of a woman is her glory, and through modesty standards many women feels it reserves it for her husband.  This is another reason many women cover.

Women were commanded in 1 Corinthians 11 to cover their heads while praying (and this was a practice of all the Jews & Christians) and in Thessolonians it was commanded to "pray without ceasing".

In my opinion, to argue these commands, history, traditions (of almost every Christian group that extends 200+ years), and the scriptures - are just people simply not wanting to do what they should.   Responses are often hostile by those who want to distort the scriptures, history, and traditions of Christianity.


Says the guy who jettisons what he doesn't like about a living tradition while he chases the dragon of "authenticity."

Where I'm from, that's called hypocrisy.


All I can do is shrug and move on.

Personal attacks instead of engaging my points.
What Schultz and I posted are not personal attacks, and they do engage your points. Your hypocrisy invalidates your message.

Thing is hypocrisy gets used too much. I am not sure YiM is a hypocrite.

This doesn't mean he is wrong, as he certainly is. I just don't think he is a hypocrite.

In fact, if we agree that he genuinely pursues what Schulz called authenticity then he is almost by definition not a hypocrite.

Typically, I wouldn't get all word dicey over hypocrite around here, but it is used in a Biblical context as a terrible insult used by Christ and used in its proper meaning (IIRC).

For example, I think the only hypocrite I've run across in a while is Gebre, but as I have said, I am thinking about that one still.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2013, 04:08:20 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,683


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #82 on: February 13, 2013, 04:28:58 PM »

Head coverings are historical all through EO history (except recent).
Head coverings are traditional.
Head coverings are scriptural.
Head coverings are depicted by the Theotokos in icons.
Head coverings are depicted on women in 99.9% of icons (by personal observation).  (I've seen 4 examples (probably schlock) in tens of thousands of icons I've seen where head coverings on women were not used)

The hair of a woman is her glory, and through modesty standards many women feels it reserves it for her husband.  This is another reason many women cover.

Women were commanded in 1 Corinthians 11 to cover their heads while praying (and this was a practice of all the Jews & Christians) and in Thessolonians it was commanded to "pray without ceasing".

In my opinion, to argue these commands, history, traditions (of almost every Christian group that extends 200+ years), and the scriptures - are just people simply not wanting to do what they should.   Responses are often hostile by those who want to distort the scriptures, history, and traditions of Christianity.


Says the guy who jettisons what he doesn't like about a living tradition while he chases the dragon of "authenticity."

Where I'm from, that's called hypocrisy.


All I can do is shrug and move on.

Personal attacks instead of engaging my points.
What Schultz and I posted are not personal attacks, and they do engage your points. Your hypocrisy invalidates your message. 

I can dislike non-biblically backed parts of the "living tradition", while embracing biblically backed parts of the living tradition... But this is not the issue.  The issue is for nearly 1940-1960 years, almost all EO women wore coverings.   This is EO vs. EO on the tradition, I'm just making the points in favor of the.... well... EO.
If you wish to defend the Orthodox faith, then embrace the whole faith and become Orthodox. If you wish to mix and match elements of the Orthodox faith with elements of an Amish faith and elements of whatever other faiths suit your fancy, then please don't put yourself forward as an authority on things Orthodox. You are not an Orthodox Christian. We don't need your defense.

I disagree, "Says the guy" makes it personal.   But anyway...

Here's where I think many misunderstand...

I wish to defend the Christian faith the way it was given to us.
No, you wish to defend your particular perversion of the Christian faith.

This is not mixing elements of the Orthodox or Amish/Anabaptist faith - this is about grasping on to the strings that remain of original Christianity.  This is about grasping originality.   I cling to originality.  Women covering their heads were in original Christianity, written in the scripture, and part of the history of most of Christianity.
On what authority do you make your unique understanding of "original" Christianity definitive? The only thing original about your mix-and-match version of Christianity is that you created it.

I do not forward myself as an authority on Orthodoxy, but I've been an Eastern Orthodox Christian longer than many on this forum have been alive.
But you are not Orthodox now, nor is what you now preach Orthodox. The length of time you have been Orthodox in the past means nothing now if you have since fallen into heresy.

I do not defend the Eastern Orthodox Church.  I defend the original Christian elements within Eastern Orthodoxy.
On what authority do you define what is original and what is not? Your own? Don't tell me it's biblical, since you are essentially then positing your own interpretation of the Scriptures against that of the Church.

I do not offend the Eastern Orthodox Church.  I offend the parts of the Eastern Orthodox church that has betrayed original Christianity & God's commands.
Who are you to define for us what "original" Christianity is and what God's commands are? God, through St. Paul, preached submission to the Church, but you don't do that.

As the scriptures command in Matthew "6:24" No one can serve two masters...   Though it seems I "combine faiths", it is not the faiths themselves I combine.  I embrace the original elements of the Master's church, Christianity.   Though on my faith it shows that way, it's the only way I can simply explain it.
Unfortunately, you are the only one who believes that this is what you're doing. You have set yourself up as the authority on what is original and what is not, and you will allow no one, not even the Church, to dissuade you from your opinions. That, my friend, is the definition of heresy.

I love and respect the Original Christian elements of the Orthodox faith.
So you declare yourself the authority to mix and match whatever you deem true and discard the rest. It matters not what your acceptance criteria are. You have made yourself your own bishop, which is the ultimate show of hubris.

Women wearing head coverings, the belief the presence of Christ in the Eucharist....  I love and respect the Original Christian Elements of the Amish faith, only spending tithes on widows & orphans, head coverings, no costly array.
And yet you will submit to no authority outside yourself.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,683


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #83 on: February 13, 2013, 04:32:33 PM »

Head coverings are historical all through EO history (except recent).
Head coverings are traditional.
Head coverings are scriptural.
Head coverings are depicted by the Theotokos in icons.
Head coverings are depicted on women in 99.9% of icons (by personal observation).  (I've seen 4 examples (probably schlock) in tens of thousands of icons I've seen where head coverings on women were not used)

The hair of a woman is her glory, and through modesty standards many women feels it reserves it for her husband.  This is another reason many women cover.

Women were commanded in 1 Corinthians 11 to cover their heads while praying (and this was a practice of all the Jews & Christians) and in Thessolonians it was commanded to "pray without ceasing".

In my opinion, to argue these commands, history, traditions (of almost every Christian group that extends 200+ years), and the scriptures - are just people simply not wanting to do what they should.   Responses are often hostile by those who want to distort the scriptures, history, and traditions of Christianity.


Says the guy who jettisons what he doesn't like about a living tradition while he chases the dragon of "authenticity."

Where I'm from, that's called hypocrisy.


All I can do is shrug and move on.

Personal attacks instead of engaging my points.
What Schultz and I posted are not personal attacks, and they do engage your points. Your hypocrisy invalidates your message.

Thing is hypocrisy gets used too much. I am not sure YiM is a hypocrite.

This doesn't mean he is wrong, as he certainly is. I just don't think he is a hypocrite.
When he puts himself forward as an authority on things Orthodox, yet refuses to submit to the Faith of the Orthodox Church, then yes, what he's doing can be considered hypocritical.
Logged
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,275


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #84 on: February 13, 2013, 08:19:42 PM »

Head coverings are historical all through EO history (except recent).
Head coverings are traditional.
Head coverings are scriptural.
Head coverings are depicted by the Theotokos in icons.
Head coverings are depicted on women in 99.9% of icons (by personal observation).  (I've seen 4 examples (probably schlock) in tens of thousands of icons I've seen where head coverings on women were not used)

The hair of a woman is her glory, and through modesty standards many women feels it reserves it for her husband.  This is another reason many women cover.

Women were commanded in 1 Corinthians 11 to cover their heads while praying (and this was a practice of all the Jews & Christians) and in Thessolonians it was commanded to "pray without ceasing".

In my opinion, to argue these commands, history, traditions (of almost every Christian group that extends 200+ years), and the scriptures - are just people simply not wanting to do what they should.   Responses are often hostile by those who want to distort the scriptures, history, and traditions of Christianity.


Says the guy who jettisons what he doesn't like about a living tradition while he chases the dragon of "authenticity."

Where I'm from, that's called hypocrisy.


All I can do is shrug and move on.

Personal attacks instead of engaging my points.
What Schultz and I posted are not personal attacks, and they do engage your points. Your hypocrisy invalidates your message. 

I can dislike non-biblically backed parts of the "living tradition", while embracing biblically backed parts of the living tradition... But this is not the issue.  The issue is for nearly 1940-1960 years, almost all EO women wore coverings.   This is EO vs. EO on the tradition, I'm just making the points in favor of the.... well... EO.
If you wish to defend the Orthodox faith, then embrace the whole faith and become Orthodox. If you wish to mix and match elements of the Orthodox faith with elements of an Amish faith and elements of whatever other faiths suit your fancy, then please don't put yourself forward as an authority on things Orthodox. You are not an Orthodox Christian. We don't need your defense.

I disagree, "Says the guy" makes it personal.   But anyway...

Here's where I think many misunderstand...

I wish to defend the Christian faith the way it was given to us.
No, you wish to defend your particular perversion of the Christian faith.
Perversion of what, the scriptures?   I'm sorry if the church doesn't entirely follow them or what God commands of the people.  So if you would like the parts of the "living church" to dictate against what God commanded of you, that's your business.

This is not mixing elements of the Orthodox or Amish/Anabaptist faith - this is about grasping on to the strings that remain of original Christianity.  This is about grasping originality.   I cling to originality.  Women covering their heads were in original Christianity, written in the scripture, and part of the history of most of Christianity.
On what authority do you make your unique understanding of "original" Christianity definitive? The only thing original about your mix-and-match version of Christianity is that you created it.
You don't need authority to read and understand history.  Show me an iconostasis in from 40 A.D. to 100 A.D. As far as I can tell, they didn't exist.  Yet so many fervently bow towards them.

I do not forward myself as an authority on Orthodoxy, but I've been an Eastern Orthodox Christian longer than many on this forum have been alive.
But you are not Orthodox now, nor is what you now preach Orthodox. The length of time you have been Orthodox in the past means nothing now if you have since fallen into heresy.
One man's heresy is another man's salvation.  You should look to the Orthodox bishops for that.  How many schisms now? Ecumenism, beards, calendars anyone?    The length of time I have been Orthodox means that I have had experience in the church.  It means that I'm not talking blindly about something I know nothing about.

I do not defend the Eastern Orthodox Church.  I defend the original Christian elements within Eastern Orthodoxy.
On what authority do you define what is original and what is not? Your own? Don't tell me it's biblical, since you are essentially then positing your own interpretation of the Scriptures against that of the Church.
Original is what the original Christians practiced.  By the example I gave, they gave their tithes to widows and orphans.   More of an example, they did not venerate icons.  Tertullian only mentioned art in somewhere in 160-200c, which was art of a "shepherd" on Christian cups.  Clement of Alexandria mention sealing rings with Christian fish in from 150-212.

Oh but St. Luke supposedly had and icon.... With no proof.  Of course.  Well that's what the legend in the church says anyway.

So when you tell me not to use the scriptures as I see them but as the church sees them... How about the writings of the "saints" the church claims is theirs (which of course, they didn't practice many things the church did but it sure looks good on paper)? <-talking of early saints.     Veneration of iconography is neither biblical or written of by the early Christians. 

I do not offend the Eastern Orthodox Church.  I offend the parts of the Eastern Orthodox church that has betrayed original Christianity & God's commands.
Who are you to define for us what "original" Christianity is and what God's commands are? God, through St. Paul, preached submission to the Church, but you don't do that.

St. Paul's church was not your church.  Your church claimed that St. Paul's church is their church because they believe that one ordained successor granted them authority to claim him.  However what happened in his church is way different.   I wonder... Did the church of St. Paul, really have a discos?   

So if you are wondering "who I am to define".... I'll humor you with it.

I'm a guy that studies the writings of early Christians and looks at historical evidence very heavily.  I mean I don't know how to answer a "who are you to question".   Who are you but a guy given mod access on a simple machines forum?  Who is John Doe, because he must be something special to actually think right?

We are all just people.  Some of us accept what we read and are told.  Some of us find our own ways.  Some see a glass half full, some half empty.  You believe the EO church has the authority to circumvent the very words of God, I believe the church does not.  I believe that when God told us not to call any man master that you do not do it.   You believe the church has the authority to let you call your bishops master, so you say "bless master" to your bishop.  I believe this is wrong because God said not too.  You believe it is right because the church does it.   Please don't be irritated as you read this, it's true.   Do you call your bishop master?  What do you think about God telling you NOT to call any man master?    The way I see it, it's not the church I stand before on judgment day.

As the scriptures command in Matthew "6:24" No one can serve two masters...   Though it seems I "combine faiths", it is not the faiths themselves I combine.  I embrace the original elements of the Master's church, Christianity.   Though on my faith it shows that way, it's the only way I can simply explain it.
Unfortunately, you are the only one who believes that this is what you're doing. You have set yourself up as the authority on what is original and what is not, and you will allow no one, not even the Church, to dissuade you from your opinions. That, my friend, is the definition of heresy.
Brother, the church does not have authority because it is not the original Christian church.   The documents & succession makes it look original (as it was claimed by the church) but it is not. 

Consider as Christ had a simple Jewish styled last supper...  Table & Christians..  God's example. "Do THIS in the remembrance of me".

What is involved in it today?
Table of Oblation
Prosfora (properly made, with stamp)
sacred discos
sacred spear
sacred asterisk
sacred chalice
antimins or altar
better go to confession before you get it
better only be baptized by us and a member of our church or be turned away

Somehow I just don't know how I could allow the church to dissuade this "opinion", other than buying into "explanations" written by men calling other men master and venerating icons.

I love and respect the Original Christian elements of the Orthodox faith.
So you declare yourself the authority to mix and match whatever you deem true and discard the rest. It matters not what your acceptance criteria are. You have made yourself your own bishop, which is the ultimate show of hubris.
Why not discard something there is no historical record of the earliest Christians using?  Authority has nothing to do with this.  This is historical and backed with evidence (or lack thereof).

Women wearing head coverings, the belief the presence of Christ in the Eucharist....  I love and respect the Original Christian Elements of the Amish faith, only spending tithes on widows & orphans, head coverings, no costly array.
And yet you will submit to no authority outside yourself.
I submit to the authority and will of God and his words as recorded by those who witnessed him on Earth.
I submit to the traditions of the very Early Christians as best I can, in our modern society.

But you are right.  I do not have a church.  I can't find the church written about in the scriptures, or by the earliest Christians. It is very tough.

God bless brother.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,275


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #85 on: February 13, 2013, 08:30:25 PM »

Head coverings are historical all through EO history (except recent).
Head coverings are traditional.
Head coverings are scriptural.
Head coverings are depicted by the Theotokos in icons.
Head coverings are depicted on women in 99.9% of icons (by personal observation).  (I've seen 4 examples (probably schlock) in tens of thousands of icons I've seen where head coverings on women were not used)

The hair of a woman is her glory, and through modesty standards many women feels it reserves it for her husband.  This is another reason many women cover.

Women were commanded in 1 Corinthians 11 to cover their heads while praying (and this was a practice of all the Jews & Christians) and in Thessolonians it was commanded to "pray without ceasing".

In my opinion, to argue these commands, history, traditions (of almost every Christian group that extends 200+ years), and the scriptures - are just people simply not wanting to do what they should.   Responses are often hostile by those who want to distort the scriptures, history, and traditions of Christianity.


Says the guy who jettisons what he doesn't like about a living tradition while he chases the dragon of "authenticity."

Where I'm from, that's called hypocrisy.


All I can do is shrug and move on.

Personal attacks instead of engaging my points.
What Schultz and I posted are not personal attacks, and they do engage your points. Your hypocrisy invalidates your message.

Thing is hypocrisy gets used too much. I am not sure YiM is a hypocrite.

This doesn't mean he is wrong, as he certainly is. I just don't think he is a hypocrite.
When he puts himself forward as an authority on things Orthodox, yet refuses to submit to the Faith of the Orthodox Church, then yes, what he's doing can be considered hypocritical.

Well I am guilty of hypocrisy.... plenty.  in this matter however, my pursuit is of authenticity.   In this matter I do not believe head coverings to be a product of Orthodoxy, but a product of early Christianity.  Orthodoxy (for the most part) embraces the head covering, so I support it.   When some of the EO waver against the practice, I simply use the church history, its own beliefs, and even elements of that church I disagree with (icons) to point out that coverings ARE a part of Christianity and the EO church.

I do not have to be Orthodox to understand Orthodox.

Even in my disagreements on the long message above, I still heavily respect MUCH of the Orthodox faith.  As it contains many roots and theology of the early Christians.  I know it's an "all or none" package, which is a crux.   This is Orthodoxy, where a disagreement on a calendar can cause a schism.... All or none.  If I don't venerate icons, I can't be Orthodox.  If I don't call my bishop "master", I can't be Orthodox.  It's just the way it is.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2013, 08:31:45 PM by yeshuaisiam » Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,683


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #86 on: February 13, 2013, 09:53:33 PM »

Head coverings are historical all through EO history (except recent).
Head coverings are traditional.
Head coverings are scriptural.
Head coverings are depicted by the Theotokos in icons.
Head coverings are depicted on women in 99.9% of icons (by personal observation).  (I've seen 4 examples (probably schlock) in tens of thousands of icons I've seen where head coverings on women were not used)

The hair of a woman is her glory, and through modesty standards many women feels it reserves it for her husband.  This is another reason many women cover.

Women were commanded in 1 Corinthians 11 to cover their heads while praying (and this was a practice of all the Jews & Christians) and in Thessolonians it was commanded to "pray without ceasing".

In my opinion, to argue these commands, history, traditions (of almost every Christian group that extends 200+ years), and the scriptures - are just people simply not wanting to do what they should.   Responses are often hostile by those who want to distort the scriptures, history, and traditions of Christianity.


Says the guy who jettisons what he doesn't like about a living tradition while he chases the dragon of "authenticity."

Where I'm from, that's called hypocrisy.


All I can do is shrug and move on.

Personal attacks instead of engaging my points.
What Schultz and I posted are not personal attacks, and they do engage your points. Your hypocrisy invalidates your message.

Thing is hypocrisy gets used too much. I am not sure YiM is a hypocrite.

This doesn't mean he is wrong, as he certainly is. I just don't think he is a hypocrite.
When he puts himself forward as an authority on things Orthodox, yet refuses to submit to the Faith of the Orthodox Church, then yes, what he's doing can be considered hypocritical.

Well I am guilty of hypocrisy.... plenty.  in this matter however, my pursuit is of authenticity.   In this matter I do not believe head coverings to be a product of Orthodoxy, but a product of early Christianity.  Orthodoxy (for the most part) embraces the head covering, so I support it.   When some of the EO waver against the practice, I simply use the church history, its own beliefs, and even elements of that church I disagree with (icons) to point out that coverings ARE a part of Christianity and the EO church.

I do not have to be Orthodox to understand Orthodox.

Even in my disagreements on the long message above, I still heavily respect MUCH of the Orthodox faith.  As it contains many roots and theology of the early Christians.  I know it's an "all or none" package, which is a crux.   This is Orthodoxy, where a disagreement on a calendar can cause a schism.... All or none.  If I don't venerate icons, I can't be Orthodox.  If I don't call my bishop "master", I can't be Orthodox.  It's just the way it is.
I would venture to say, though, that you don't really represent "early Christianity", either. You represent what you have read in the dead letter of history books and synthesized into your own personal image of the "early Christian" faith. As for me, I don't want a synthetic faith. I want that faith that has been guarded and passed down from father to son, from bishop to successor bishop, all the way from the Apostles themselves. This faith cannot be synthesized in a laboratory.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #87 on: February 13, 2013, 10:12:02 PM »

Every time I see the title of this thread I think that it sounds like the name of a textbook on head coverings. In high school you'd have those books with titles like "Chemistry and You" or "The American Political Process and You". This just seems like the Orthodox version or something.

Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,275


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #88 on: February 14, 2013, 05:02:27 PM »

Head coverings are historical all through EO history (except recent).
Head coverings are traditional.
Head coverings are scriptural.
Head coverings are depicted by the Theotokos in icons.
Head coverings are depicted on women in 99.9% of icons (by personal observation).  (I've seen 4 examples (probably schlock) in tens of thousands of icons I've seen where head coverings on women were not used)

The hair of a woman is her glory, and through modesty standards many women feels it reserves it for her husband.  This is another reason many women cover.

Women were commanded in 1 Corinthians 11 to cover their heads while praying (and this was a practice of all the Jews & Christians) and in Thessolonians it was commanded to "pray without ceasing".

In my opinion, to argue these commands, history, traditions (of almost every Christian group that extends 200+ years), and the scriptures - are just people simply not wanting to do what they should.   Responses are often hostile by those who want to distort the scriptures, history, and traditions of Christianity.


Says the guy who jettisons what he doesn't like about a living tradition while he chases the dragon of "authenticity."

Where I'm from, that's called hypocrisy.


All I can do is shrug and move on.

Personal attacks instead of engaging my points.
What Schultz and I posted are not personal attacks, and they do engage your points. Your hypocrisy invalidates your message.

Thing is hypocrisy gets used too much. I am not sure YiM is a hypocrite.

This doesn't mean he is wrong, as he certainly is. I just don't think he is a hypocrite.
When he puts himself forward as an authority on things Orthodox, yet refuses to submit to the Faith of the Orthodox Church, then yes, what he's doing can be considered hypocritical.

Well I am guilty of hypocrisy.... plenty.  in this matter however, my pursuit is of authenticity.   In this matter I do not believe head coverings to be a product of Orthodoxy, but a product of early Christianity.  Orthodoxy (for the most part) embraces the head covering, so I support it.   When some of the EO waver against the practice, I simply use the church history, its own beliefs, and even elements of that church I disagree with (icons) to point out that coverings ARE a part of Christianity and the EO church.

I do not have to be Orthodox to understand Orthodox.

Even in my disagreements on the long message above, I still heavily respect MUCH of the Orthodox faith.  As it contains many roots and theology of the early Christians.  I know it's an "all or none" package, which is a crux.   This is Orthodoxy, where a disagreement on a calendar can cause a schism.... All or none.  If I don't venerate icons, I can't be Orthodox.  If I don't call my bishop "master", I can't be Orthodox.  It's just the way it is.
I would venture to say, though, that you don't really represent "early Christianity", either. You represent what you have read in the dead letter of history books and synthesized into your own personal image of the "early Christian" faith. As for me, I don't want a synthetic faith. I want that faith that has been guarded and passed down from father to son, from bishop to successor bishop, all the way from the Apostles themselves. This faith cannot be synthesized in a laboratory.

You are right, I don't represent the "early Christian" faith.   I don't exactly know what it is.  I'm still trying to find it.

The EO church was not guarded and never has been.  There have been many many schisms.  There has been many many additives.  There has been many canons added and ignored.  I can show you charts from the RC's where they are the big bold line, the EO broke off.   It's all about CLAIM. The EO faith as the RC faith, as the Gnostics, as the Montanists, as the Judaizers etc. etc.  They can all make claim to original.   Even protestants through their RC succession.

OO's are original too & EO schismed and RC's and EO's are justs schisms off the OO church, they can be the big bold line on the chart.

Yet none practice the Original faith.  All have implementations of things the early writers knew nothing about.

Synthesized is a perfect word.

There is originality and there is synthesized.    "Passed down" is just the victors and who it was passed through and who claims was "their" originator of the passed-down-ness.

I am constantly trying to learn what the early church did.   I am 100% certain based in writings of early Christians that women wore head coverings.

This is my argument to EO Christians, "Yes, women you should wear head coverings".   
 
The EO faith has many wonderful preservations of the original Christian church too.   Many faithful do wear their coverings and that is wonderful. 

God Bless you brother.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Byzantine2008
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 280



« Reply #89 on: February 14, 2013, 06:10:16 PM »

Head coverings are historical all through EO history (except recent).
Head coverings are traditional.
Head coverings are scriptural.
Head coverings are depicted by the Theotokos in icons.
Head coverings are depicted on women in 99.9% of icons (by personal observation).  (I've seen 4 examples (probably schlock) in tens of thousands of icons I've seen where head coverings on women were not used)

The hair of a woman is her glory, and through modesty standards many women feels it reserves it for her husband.  This is another reason many women cover.

Women were commanded in 1 Corinthians 11 to cover their heads while praying (and this was a practice of all the Jews & Christians) and in Thessolonians it was commanded to "pray without ceasing".

In my opinion, to argue these commands, history, traditions (of almost every Christian group that extends 200+ years), and the scriptures - are just people simply not wanting to do what they should.   Responses are often hostile by those who want to distort the scriptures, history, and traditions of Christianity.


Says the guy who jettisons what he doesn't like about a living tradition while he chases the dragon of "authenticity."

Where I'm from, that's called hypocrisy.


All I can do is shrug and move on.

Personal attacks instead of engaging my points.
What Schultz and I posted are not personal attacks, and they do engage your points. Your hypocrisy invalidates your message. 

I can dislike non-biblically backed parts of the "living tradition", while embracing biblically backed parts of the living tradition... But this is not the issue.  The issue is for nearly 1940-1960 years, almost all EO women wore coverings.   This is EO vs. EO on the tradition, I'm just making the points in favor of the.... well... EO.
If you wish to defend the Orthodox faith, then embrace the whole faith and become Orthodox. If you wish to mix and match elements of the Orthodox faith with elements of an Amish faith and elements of whatever other faiths suit your fancy, then please don't put yourself forward as an authority on things Orthodox. You are not an Orthodox Christian. We don't need your defense.

I disagree, "Says the guy" makes it personal.   But anyway...

Here's where I think many misunderstand...

I wish to defend the Christian faith the way it was given to us.
No, you wish to defend your particular perversion of the Christian faith.
Perversion of what, the scriptures?   I'm sorry if the church doesn't entirely follow them or what God commands of the people.  So if you would like the parts of the "living church" to dictate against what God commanded of you, that's your business.

This is not mixing elements of the Orthodox or Amish/Anabaptist faith - this is about grasping on to the strings that remain of original Christianity.  This is about grasping originality.   I cling to originality.  Women covering their heads were in original Christianity, written in the scripture, and part of the history of most of Christianity.
On what authority do you make your unique understanding of "original" Christianity definitive? The only thing original about your mix-and-match version of Christianity is that you created it.
You don't need authority to read and understand history.  Show me an iconostasis in from 40 A.D. to 100 A.D. As far as I can tell, they didn't exist.  Yet so many fervently bow towards them.

I do not forward myself as an authority on Orthodoxy, but I've been an Eastern Orthodox Christian longer than many on this forum have been alive.
But you are not Orthodox now, nor is what you now preach Orthodox. The length of time you have been Orthodox in the past means nothing now if you have since fallen into heresy.
One man's heresy is another man's salvation.  You should look to the Orthodox bishops for that.  How many schisms now? Ecumenism, beards, calendars anyone?    The length of time I have been Orthodox means that I have had experience in the church.  It means that I'm not talking blindly about something I know nothing about.

I do not defend the Eastern Orthodox Church.  I defend the original Christian elements within Eastern Orthodoxy.
On what authority do you define what is original and what is not? Your own? Don't tell me it's biblical, since you are essentially then positing your own interpretation of the Scriptures against that of the Church.
Original is what the original Christians practiced.  By the example I gave, they gave their tithes to widows and orphans.   More of an example, they did not venerate icons.  Tertullian only mentioned art in somewhere in 160-200c, which was art of a "shepherd" on Christian cups.  Clement of Alexandria mention sealing rings with Christian fish in from 150-212.

Oh but St. Luke supposedly had and icon.... With no proof.  Of course.  Well that's what the legend in the church says anyway.

So when you tell me not to use the scriptures as I see them but as the church sees them... How about the writings of the "saints" the church claims is theirs (which of course, they didn't practice many things the church did but it sure looks good on paper)? <-talking of early saints.     Veneration of iconography is neither biblical or written of by the early Christians. 

I do not offend the Eastern Orthodox Church.  I offend the parts of the Eastern Orthodox church that has betrayed original Christianity & God's commands.
Who are you to define for us what "original" Christianity is and what God's commands are? God, through St. Paul, preached submission to the Church, but you don't do that.

St. Paul's church was not your church.  Your church claimed that St. Paul's church is their church because they believe that one ordained successor granted them authority to claim him.  However what happened in his church is way different.   I wonder... Did the church of St. Paul, really have a discos?   

So if you are wondering "who I am to define".... I'll humor you with it.

I'm a guy that studies the writings of early Christians and looks at historical evidence very heavily.  I mean I don't know how to answer a "who are you to question".   Who are you but a guy given mod access on a simple machines forum?  Who is John Doe, because he must be something special to actually think right?

We are all just people.  Some of us accept what we read and are told.  Some of us find our own ways.  Some see a glass half full, some half empty.  You believe the EO church has the authority to circumvent the very words of God, I believe the church does not.  I believe that when God told us not to call any man master that you do not do it.   You believe the church has the authority to let you call your bishops master, so you say "bless master" to your bishop.  I believe this is wrong because God said not too.  You believe it is right because the church does it.   Please don't be irritated as you read this, it's true.   Do you call your bishop master?  What do you think about God telling you NOT to call any man master?    The way I see it, it's not the church I stand before on judgment day.

As the scriptures command in Matthew "6:24" No one can serve two masters...   Though it seems I "combine faiths", it is not the faiths themselves I combine.  I embrace the original elements of the Master's church, Christianity.   Though on my faith it shows that way, it's the only way I can simply explain it.
Unfortunately, you are the only one who believes that this is what you're doing. You have set yourself up as the authority on what is original and what is not, and you will allow no one, not even the Church, to dissuade you from your opinions. That, my friend, is the definition of heresy.
Brother, the church does not have authority because it is not the original Christian church.   The documents & succession makes it look original (as it was claimed by the church) but it is not. 

Consider as Christ had a simple Jewish styled last supper...  Table & Christians..  God's example. "Do THIS in the remembrance of me".

What is involved in it today?
Table of Oblation
Prosfora (properly made, with stamp)
sacred discos
sacred spear
sacred asterisk
sacred chalice
antimins or altar
better go to confession before you get it
better only be baptized by us and a member of our church or be turned away

Somehow I just don't know how I could allow the church to dissuade this "opinion", other than buying into "explanations" written by men calling other men master and venerating icons.

I love and respect the Original Christian elements of the Orthodox faith.
So you declare yourself the authority to mix and match whatever you deem true and discard the rest. It matters not what your acceptance criteria are. You have made yourself your own bishop, which is the ultimate show of hubris.
Why not discard something there is no historical record of the earliest Christians using?  Authority has nothing to do with this.  This is historical and backed with evidence (or lack thereof).

Women wearing head coverings, the belief the presence of Christ in the Eucharist....  I love and respect the Original Christian Elements of the Amish faith, only spending tithes on widows & orphans, head coverings, no costly array.
And yet you will submit to no authority outside yourself.
I submit to the authority and will of God and his words as recorded by those who witnessed him on Earth.
I submit to the traditions of the very Early Christians as best I can, in our modern society.

But you are right.  I do not have a church.  I can't find the church written about in the scriptures, or by the earliest Christians. It is very tough.

God bless brother.


Hi


Do you believe in sola scriptura?
Logged

Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!
Tags: yia yia proper behavior head coverings 
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.214 seconds with 73 queries.