Converts wearing headcoverings= legalists?

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

Hopefully, those who are so quick to condemn catechumens for wearing headcoverings will see their own hypocritical spirit.

We are all hypocrites in need of Christ's mercy.

I posted my reply HERE, since what I had to say is not appropriate for the Convert Issues board.

[SolEX01]

It is not out of legalism, but out of disobedience.

Do any of us (including Priests and Hierarchs) examine his/her own disobedience?

The Priest will not kick them out of Church for not having a head covering.  He will, however, refuse to hear their confession or commune them.  So, they obey just long enough to get what they want.  I wonder if they think that sacraments taken this way are really of any benefit to them.

The last thing a convert (or most people) needs to hear is akriveia (exactness).  The liberal options are so tempting....

Have you confused 'needs' with 'wants'? Or have I misunderstood you? If we are to put off the old man or woman then the easiest or most comfortable route seems an unlikely Path to Salvation.

When is the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee?

O Lord, I wore my headcovering and get to partake from your Body and Blood while that other woman didn't wear her headcovering and was turned away by our Priest....

EDIT: made corrections

How often does this happen, if at all?

Frankly, this scenario is all hypothetical. For which truly Orthodox Christian lady would haughtily approach the Chalice with her head uncovered if the church has posted that she should cover herself?

That is legalism.  Wasn't that the lesson on the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee?

And which catechumen would dare to approach the Chalice before being baptized or chrismated into Holy Orthodoxy? None that I know. So, why was this side topic brought up?

I was responding to how Punch's Priest handles uncovered women.  Still pertains to covered vs. uncovered cathecumens (I wear a headcovering; I'm better than that woman who doesn't wear a headcovering).

See, now you are revealing your thoughts ...

I was applying the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee to a convert or cathechumen who wears a headcovering and receives preferential treatment for doing so.

(I wear a headcovering; I'm better than that woman who doesn't wear a headcovering).

This was not a kind statement, but a rudely judgmental statement.

How was that statement judgmental?

I do not consider myself better than those women who do not cover themselves. Only Christ can read our hearts and know our thoughts. I try my best not to judge them, but it is very difficult when they have gossiped loudly about me during the Priest's sermon so that I could hear the gossip rather than Father. They were taunting me. And yes, I do pray that they will be saved. Lord have mercy.

Are the OCA Churches in CA that bad or was your former church an isolated example?

And because of this, I have left the OCA as being in their company was not unto my salvation.

Without visiting any other Orthodox Church (at least the ones in Communion with each other).

Now hear the following which was told to me by catechumens who wear headcovering. These catechmens are not legalistic by any means:

Many women who wear headcoverings do so much like horses wear blinders. It helps them to focus and to control their eyes. They wear it with humility and obedience, and most importantly, it helps them to pray.

So, now we are back on topic as these simple catechumens and converts do not wear the headcovering because they are legalistic, but because they love Christ God and the Orthodox Church and want to obey what was written in the Epistles and has always been taught in the Orthodox Church from the beginning -- that unchanging Faith that was given to us by Christ through the Apostles for all peoples and all times.

Sometimes, it is hot, and then the headcovering is very uncomfortable. I sweat and my hair gets wrecked, but I reflect on Christ and his sufferings. My sufferings are so little compared with what He went through for all of us. The ridicule I have received is so mild with what Christ had to suffer.

Those who follow Christ accept His Cross, and that includes ridicule from those who do not want to adhere to the teachings and traditions of the Holy Orthodox Church.

The Pharisee followed the Law of Moses.  That didn't get him very far.  Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

[Deep Roots]

Hopefully, those who are so quick to condemn catechumens for wearing headcoverings or not wearing them will see their own hypocritical spirit.

fixed.  and now is an accurate statement.

By the way, I find it fascinating that it seems that only in Orthodoxy can statements seem so humble on the surface while betraying a profound sense of pride.  It's like a game of limbo -- whoever gets lower wins the game.

Look -- we already covered this re: the op:  The answer is "no," not necessarily.  Be concerned with your own salvation and let others be moved to wear the headcoverings or not wear them, and judge none of them.  But you are not allowed to play the martyr for wearing the headcovering while simultaneously doing the martyring of those who don't.  Just chill out.

[Punch]

The last thing a convert (or most people) needs to hear is akriveia (exactness).  The liberal options are so tempting....

Yes, the last thing that MOST people want to hear is the truth.  That is why the liberal churches are so full.  The road to hell is wide.  You don't have to be that exact with your steering when the road is a mile wide.

If a woman approaches confession or communion with here head uncovered, she is given a scarf.  So, I guess you would say that if she refuses it, we should commune her anyway?  As to your above statement, you must not deal with many converts.  In the Churches that I have attended, the converts are the most likely to follow the rules.

[yeshuaisiam]

It is not out of legalism, but out of disobedience.

Do any of us (including Priests and Hierarchs) examine his/her own disobedience?

The Priest will not kick them out of Church for not having a head covering.  He will, however, refuse to hear their confession or commune them.  So, they obey just long enough to get what they want.  I wonder if they think that sacraments taken this way are really of any benefit to them.

The last thing a convert (or most people) needs to hear is akriveia (exactness).  The liberal options are so tempting....

Have you confused 'needs' with 'wants'? Or have I misunderstood you? If we are to put off the old man or woman then the easiest or most comfortable route seems an unlikely Path to Salvation.

When is the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee?

O Lord, I wore my headcovering and get to partake from your Body and Blood while that other woman didn't wear her headcovering and was turned away by our Priest....

EDIT: made corrections

How often does this happen, if at all?

Frankly, this scenario is all hypothetical. For which truly Orthodox Christian lady would haughtily approach the Chalice with her head uncovered if the church has posted that she should cover herself?

And which catechumen would dare to approach the Chalice before being baptized or chrismated into Holy Orthodoxy? None that I know. So, why was this side topic brought up?

I don't think I can be critical of the faith on this section of the forum, but all I can say is that I agree with what Maria has said, and many Eastern Orthodox Christians think as she does on this topic.  

Consider the implication of the icon in Maria's Avatar - the Theotokos, the MOTHER of God,  has her head covered in the presence of God as a babe or small child.

[Michał Kalina]

Consider the implication of the icon in Maria's Avatar - the Theotokos, the MOTHER of God,  has her head covered in the presence of God as a babe or small child.

I thought you despise icons and view them "unbiblical".

[Punch]

I don't think I can be critical of the faith on this section of the forum, but all I can say is that I agree with what Maria has said, and many Eastern Orthodox Christians think as she does on this topic.  

Consider the implication of the icon in Maria's Avatar - the Theotokos, the MOTHER of God,  has her head covered in the presence of God as a babe or small child.

Amen.  I, too, think that Maria has been right on with her posts, and pretty much in keeping with what I have been taught in the Russian and Serbian Churches.

[Santagranddad]

Why is the supposition that young people and others need to feed the easy path so readily pushed. Among those I see taking up following a faith not a few chose anything but the easy path. When reading the Faith section online of London's The Times yesterday a lengthy article focused on the surprising number of women converting to Islam.

True we should avoid judging others, sometimes easier said than done, but challenging or pointing something out is not judging (and that when men need to adjust their dress). And assuming a fanciful and sinful pride in presuming we are better than others has no basis in the Faith handed down to us.

An example in my experience: A very accomplished Archimandrite who often corrects the reader or choir was stopped by a woman over some small error in the service. She was immediately lauded and he asked why she, and she alone had done such a thing before going on to say that all believers had a duty to correct any error he might make in serving immediately the error was made.

Why if a senior priest is open to anyone challenging him should he make a mistake in serving, cannot those who are not appropriately dressed when standing before their maker in church be challenged and accept it humbly?

[Asteriktos]

A monk must be extremely cautious of carnal and animal zeal, which outwardly appears pious but in reality is foolish and harmful to the soul. Worldly people and many living the monastic life, though ignorance and inexperience, often praise such zeal without understanding that it springs from conceit and pride. They extol this zeal as zeal for the faith, for piety, for the Church, for God. It consists in a more or less harsh condemnation and criticism of one's neighbors in their moral faults, and in faults against good order in church and in the performance of the church services. Deceived by a wrong conception of zeal, these imprudent zealots think that by yielding themselves to it they are imitating the holy fathers and holy martyrs, forgetting that they--the zealots--are not saints, but sinners.

If the saints accused or convicted those who were living in sin or irreligion, they did so at the command of God, as their duty, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not at the instigation of their passions and demons. Whoever decides  of his own self-will to convict his brother or make some reprimand, clearly betrays and proves that he considers himself more prudent and virtuous than the person he blames, and that he is acting at the instigation of passion and deception and diabolic thoughts. We need to remember the Savior's injunction: 'Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is a log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.' (Matt. 7:3-5)

What is a log in this connection? It is the earthly wisdom or carnal outlook, hard as a log, which deprives the heart and mind of all capacity for true vision, so that one is quite unable to judge either one's own inner state or the state of one's neighbor. such a person judges himself and others as he imagines himself to be, and as his neighbors appear to him outwardly, by his carnal mind (Rom. 8:6), mistakenly. And so the Word of God is extremely just in calling him a hypocrite.

A Christian, after being healed by the Word of God and the Spirit of God, gains a true view of his spiritual state and of that of his neighbors. the carnal mind, by striking his neighbor with a log, always upsets and confuses him, often ruins him, never does any good and cannot bring any benefit, and has not the least effect on sin. On the other hand, the spiritual mind acts exclusively on the soul-sickiness of one's neighbor, compassionates, heals and saves him...

If you want to be a true, zealous son of the Orthodox Church, you can do so by the fulfilment of the commandments of the Gospel in regard to your neighbor. Do not dare to convict him. Do not dare to teach him. do not dare to condemn or reproach him. To correct your neighbor in this way is not an act of faith, but of foolish zeal, self-opinion and pride. Poemen the Great was asked, 'What is faith?' The great man replied that faith consists in remaining in humility and showing mercy; that is to say, in humbling onseself before one's neighbors and forgiven them all discourtesies and offenses, all their sins. As foolish zealots make out that faith is the prime cause of their zeal, let them know that truth faith, and consequently also true zeal, must express themselves in humility regarding our neighbors and in mercy towards them. Let us leave the work of judging and convicting people to those persons on whose shoulders it is laid the duty of judging and ruling brethren.

- St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, The Arena: An Offering to Contemporary Monasticism, (Printshop of St. Job of Pochaev, 1997), pp. 140-142

[SolEX01]

The last thing a convert (or most people) needs to hear is akriveia (exactness).  The liberal options are so tempting....

Yes, the last thing that MOST people want to hear is the truth.  That is why the liberal churches are so full.  The road to hell is wide.  You don't have to be that exact with your steering when the road is a mile wide.

Everybody falls off the road when the road is one inch wide.

If a woman approaches confession or communion with here head uncovered, she is given a scarf.  So, I guess you would say that if she refuses it, we should commune her anyway?

Yes, if she is an Orthodox Christian not subject to any penances, etc.

As to your above statement, you must not deal with many converts.  In the Churches that I have attended, the converts are the most likely to follow the rules.

We deal with converts.  In 2011, I attended a 8 week Introduction to Orthodoxy seminar taught by a convert to Orthodoxy from the Episcopalian faith.  She taught the basic tenets of Orthodoxy.  She didn't discuss headcoverings.

[yeshuaisiam]

Consider the implication of the icon in Maria's Avatar - the Theotokos, the MOTHER of God,  has her head covered in the presence of God as a babe or small child.

I thought you despise icons and view them "unbiblical".

Michal,  

In Maria's statement, she was talking of an EO woman going to partake of the Eucharist uncovered being wrong.  These EO women would venerate an icon (similar) to the one in her avatar showing the Theotokos who covers herself before God.  I have yet to see the any Eastern Orthodox icon that depicts the Theotokos uncovered.
  
However, yes, you are correct about my personal differences with that practice of the church.

[Maria]

The last thing a convert (or most people) needs to hear is akriveia (exactness).  The liberal options are so tempting....

Yes, the last thing that MOST people want to hear is the truth.  That is why the liberal churches are so full.  The road to hell is wide.  You don't have to be that exact with your steering when the road is a mile wide.

If a woman approaches confession or communion with here head uncovered, she is given a scarf.  So, I guess you would say that if she refuses it, we should commune her anyway?  As to your above statement, you must not deal with many converts.  In the Churches that I have attended, the converts are the most likely to follow the rules.

Good point.

If a church has a basket in the narthex with scarves in it AND a posting at the door with guidelines that women should wear modest clothing including skirts and headcoverings, then she should obey. If she chooses NOT to wear a headcovering, then she is displaying not only her disobedience but also her pride.
Remember it was Eve who showed her pride and disobedience to God by obeying the Devil.

[Deep Roots]

Remember it was Eve who showed her pride and disobedience to God by obeying the Devil.

bad eve, bad eve.

[yeshuaisiam]

Why is the supposition that young people and others need to feed the easy path so readily pushed. Among those I see taking up following a faith not a few chose anything but the easy path. When reading the Faith section online of London's The Times yesterday a lengthy article focused on the surprising number of women converting to Islam.

True we should avoid judging others, sometimes easier said than done, but challenging or pointing something out is not judging (and that when men need to adjust their dress). And assuming a fanciful and sinful pride in presuming we are better than others has no basis in the Faith handed down to us.

An example in my experience: A very accomplished Archimandrite who often corrects the reader or choir was stopped by a woman over some small error in the service. She was immediately lauded and he asked why she, and she alone had done such a thing before going on to say that all believers had a duty to correct any error he might make in serving immediately the error was made.

Why if a senior priest is open to anyone challenging him should he make a mistake in serving, cannot those who are not appropriately dressed when standing before their maker in church be challenged and accept it humbly?

I have experienced in the EO faith that there is a time and place for everything.  If a woman is dressed somewhat immodestly, a priest (or better yet his wife) may be able to give her a paper on dress code.   There is no reason to "challenge her" by calling her out and embarrassing her.  If she's OBVIOUSLY dressed very immodest (like major cleavage) she can be quietly be given another woman's sweater, jacket, etc.  

Now if she comes dressed like Lady Gaga in a meat suit during lent, I think that's a little bit different.  Call her out.

If a parishoner sees a small/slight error during a service, or issue, nudge it later on.  No reason to call it out.

I've seen priests even correct themselves after divine liturgy on an error they made during the service and corrected themselves.  It was during a litnay and it was a visiting priest who commemorated his GOA bishop instead of the jurisdictional bishop in an OCA church.  After the cross veneration at the end of the service, he made an announcement and said "I have a correction to make, out of habit I commemorated my bishop, and I want to commemorate your bishop XYZ right now".   Most of the church sang "Lord have Mercy".  Then a couple people said "we commemorate yours too".

When we people are brothers and sisters in Christ, we should be able to nudge each other rather than beat people down and get them to humbly accept corrections... Unless of course they wear a meat suit.... Especially thinly sliced lamb cutlets already seasoned with rosemary.

[yeshuaisiam]

The last thing a convert (or most people) needs to hear is akriveia (exactness).  The liberal options are so tempting....

Yes, the last thing that MOST people want to hear is the truth.  That is why the liberal churches are so full.  The road to hell is wide.  You don't have to be that exact with your steering when the road is a mile wide.

If a woman approaches confession or communion with here head uncovered, she is given a scarf.  So, I guess you would say that if she refuses it, we should commune her anyway?  As to your above statement, you must not deal with many converts.  In the Churches that I have attended, the converts are the most likely to follow the rules.

Good point.

If a church has a basket in the narthex with scarves in it AND a posting at the door with guidelines that women should wear modest clothing including skirts and headcoverings, then she should obey. If she chooses NOT to wear a headcovering, then she is displaying not only her disobedience but also her pride.
Remember it was Eve who showed her pride and disobedience to God by obeying the Devil.

Your example is very interesting... Because what did Adam and Eve do once their sin was before them?  They covered themselves up...
Okay, not theological...  Just fun.

[Maria]

I was applying the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee to a convert or cathechumen who wears a headcovering and receives preferential treatment for doing so.

This statement of yours is way off topic, and you know it. I will not respond to the rest of your off topic feminist rant.

Back on Topic:

In my experience, converts wearing headcoverings would be rashly judged to be proud and legalistic. This goes against Christ's command not to judge.

If a convert were to wear a headcovering in many of the jurisdictions of World Orthodoxy (especially outside the ROCOR), they would most likely suffer taunts, gossip, and ridicule from other women who hold a feminist agenda. These converts WOULD NOT receive any preferential treatment, but would be shunned by the feminists.

[SolEX01]

I was applying the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee to a convert or cathechumen who wears a headcovering and receives preferential treatment for doing so.

This statement of yours is way off topic, and you know it. I will not respond to the rest of your off topic feminist rant.

What off topic feminist rant?   

Back on Topic:

In my experience, converts wearing headcoverings would be rashly judged to be proud and legalistic. This goes against Christ's command not to judge.

If a convert were to wear a headcovering in many of the jurisdictions of World Orthodoxy (especially outside the ROCOR), they would most likely suffer taunts, gossip, and ridicule from other women who hold a feminist agenda. These converts WOULD NOT receive any preferential treatment, but would be shunned by the feminists.

That's your experience; you don't speak for all female converts to Orthodoxy.

[Maria]

The last thing a convert (or most people) needs to hear is akriveia (exactness).  The liberal options are so tempting....

Yes, the last thing that MOST people want to hear is the truth.  That is why the liberal churches are so full.  The road to hell is wide.  You don't have to be that exact with your steering when the road is a mile wide.

If a woman approaches confession or communion with here head uncovered, she is given a scarf.  So, I guess you would say that if she refuses it, we should commune her anyway?  As to your above statement, you must not deal with many converts.  In the Churches that I have attended, the converts are the most likely to follow the rules.

Good point.

If a church has a basket in the narthex with scarves in it AND a posting at the door with guidelines that women should wear modest clothing including skirts and headcoverings, then she should obey. If she chooses NOT to wear a headcovering, then she is displaying not only her disobedience but also her pride.
Remember it was Eve who showed her pride and disobedience to God by obeying the Devil.

Your example is very interesting... Because what did Adam and Eve do once their sin was before them?  They covered themselves up...
Okay, not theological...  Just fun.

Yes, they covered up with leaves, and cotton and linen are also from plants.
If Adam and Eve had not committed that first sin, then perhaps, PtA would be glad to be a nudist.
However, we are so tempted in this fallen world that it is best for us to cover.

Since Eve fell first, it is fitting that women cover their heads.

Okay, back on topic.

Converts who wear headcoverings are learning obedience and are trying to undo Eve's disobedience. Since they are imitating the New Eve, the Most Holy Theotokos, who wore the veil even though she was without sin, how can these converts be judged to be legalistic?

Frankly, I think that this is only a slur (a slur that I hear a lot from feminists) to discourage women from wearing headcoverings. These feminists would destroy our church. They are the unscrupulous ones.

[Maria]

I was applying the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee to a convert or cathechumen who wears a headcovering and receives preferential treatment for doing so.

This statement of yours is way off topic, and you know it. I will not respond to the rest of your off topic feminist rant.

What off topic feminist rant?   

Back on Topic:

In my experience, converts wearing headcoverings would be rashly judged to be proud and legalistic. This goes against Christ's command not to judge.

If a convert were to wear a headcovering in many of the jurisdictions of World Orthodoxy (especially outside the ROCOR), they would most likely suffer taunts, gossip, and ridicule from other women who hold a feminist agenda. These converts WOULD NOT receive any preferential treatment, but would be shunned by the feminists.

That's your experience; you don't speak for all female converts to Orthodoxy.

Are you a convert who wears a headcovering? If not, please be honest and excuse yourself from this thread.

I am a convert and I do wear a headcovering out of obedience.

When I first converted, my priest granted me grace and told me to wear the headcovering only at Communion time. Now I wear it during the entire Divine Liturgy with his blessing and that of my husband. During summer, I would rather not wear it as it is too hot (120 degrees sometimes), but I wear it in obedience disregarding my own discomfort to set a good example, per my priest.

[SolEX01]

Converts who wear headcoverings are learning obedience

Obedience to what?

and trying to undo Eve's disobedience.

That's already been undone.

Since they are imitating the New Eve, the Most Holy Theotokos, who wore the veil even though she was without sin, how can these converts be judged to be legalistic?

So a convert has to become the Most Holy Theotokos - like the boast of the Pharisee.

Frankly, I think that this is only a slur (a slur that I hear a lot from feminists) to discourage women from wearing headcoverings. These feminists would destroy our church. They are the unscrupulous ones.

In your jurisdiction, feminism doesn't exist?

[Deep Roots]

Maria, stop using the phrase "judged" to refer to yourself and women who wear headcoverings unless you are prepared to apply the same standard to those who judge non-wearers.

Every time you use the word in that way, you parody yourself.  Do not judge -- the wearer (you) or the nonwearer (someone else).  What don't you get about this?

[SolEX01]

I was applying the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee to a convert or cathechumen who wears a headcovering and receives preferential treatment for doing so.

This statement of yours is way off topic, and you know it. I will not respond to the rest of your off topic feminist rant.

What off topic feminist rant?  

Back on Topic:

In my experience, converts wearing headcoverings would be rashly judged to be proud and legalistic. This goes against Christ's command not to judge.

If a convert were to wear a headcovering in many of the jurisdictions of World Orthodoxy (especially outside the ROCOR), they would most likely suffer taunts, gossip, and ridicule from other women who hold a feminist agenda. These converts WOULD NOT receive any preferential treatment, but would be shunned by the feminists.

That's your experience; you don't speak for all female converts to Orthodoxy.

Are you a convert who wears a headcovering? If not, please be honest and excuse yourself from this thread.

No to both questions.  I'm here to dispel hypocrisy and to differentiate between freely wearing a headcovering and being forced to wear a headcovering.

I am a convert and I do wear a headcovering out of obedience.

You freely wear a headcovering.

When I first converted, my priest granted me grace and told me to wear the headcovering only at Communion time.

In the OCA, at that time?  He didn't force you to wear a headcovering; you chose to wear one.

Now I wear it during the entire Divine Liturgy with his blessing and that of my husband.

You're no longer in the OCA; your Old Calendarist priest allows you to wear your headcovering.

During summer, I would rather not wear it as it is too hot (120 degrees sometimes), but I wear it in obedience disregarding my own discomfort to set a good example, per my priest.

I have no opinion towards headcoverings; that is for each woman to decide freely; however, there should not be adverse consequences for failing to wear one nor should a woman receive preferential treatment for wearing a headcovering whether at a monastery or any Orthodox church.

[Maria]

Converts who wear headcoverings are learning obedience

Obedience to what?

and trying to undo Eve's disobedience.

That's already been undone.

Since they are imitating the New Eve, the Most Holy Theotokos, who wore the veil even though she was without sin, how can these converts be judged to be legalistic?

So a convert has to become the Most Holy Theotokos - like the boast of the Pharisee.

Frankly, I think that this is only a slur (a slur that I hear a lot from feminists) to discourage women from wearing headcoverings. These feminists would destroy our church. They are the unscrupulous ones.

In your jurisdiction, feminism doesn't exist?

Off topic. I will not respond.

Converts who wear headcoverings are imitating the Most Holy Theotokos,
and She happens to be my patron saint.

[Maria]

I was applying the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee to a convert or cathechumen who wears a headcovering and receives preferential treatment for doing so.

This statement of yours is way off topic, and you know it. I will not respond to the rest of your off topic feminist rant.

What off topic feminist rant?   

Back on Topic:

In my experience, converts wearing headcoverings would be rashly judged to be proud and legalistic. This goes against Christ's command not to judge.

If a convert were to wear a headcovering in many of the jurisdictions of World Orthodoxy (especially outside the ROCOR), they would most likely suffer taunts, gossip, and ridicule from other women who hold a feminist agenda. These converts WOULD NOT receive any preferential treatment, but would be shunned by the feminists.

That's your experience; you don't speak for all female converts to Orthodoxy.

Are you a convert who wears a headcovering? If not, please be honest and excuse yourself from this thread.

No to both questions.  I'm here to dispel hypocrisy and to differentiate between freely wearing a headcovering and being forced to wear a headcovering.

I am a convert and I do wear a headcovering out of obedience.

You freely wear a headcovering.

When I first converted, my priest granted me grace and told me to wear the headcovering only at Communion time.

In the OCA, at that time?  He didn't force you to wear a headcovering; you chose to wear one.

Now I wear it during the entire Divine Liturgy with his blessing and that of my husband.

You're no longer in the OCA; your Old Calendarist priest allows you to wear your headcovering.

During summer, I would rather not wear it as it is too hot (120 degrees sometimes), but I wear it in obedience disregarding my own discomfort to set a good example, per my priest.

I have no opinion towards headcoverings; that is for each woman to decide freely; however, there should not be adverse consequences for failing to wear one whether at a monastery or any Orthodox church.

Off topic. I refuse to respond to any of this feministic ranting.

[Maria]

Maria, stop using the phrase "judged" to refer to yourself and women who wear headcoverings unless you are prepared to apply the same standard to those who judge non-wearers.

Every time you use the word in that way, you parody yourself.  Do not judge -- the wearer (you) or the nonwearer (someone else).  What don't you get about this?

non sequitur and very off topic

[Deep Roots]

Maria, stop using the phrase "judged" to refer to yourself and women who wear headcoverings unless you are prepared to apply the same standard to those who judge non-wearers.

Every time you use the word in that way, you parody yourself.  Do not judge -- the wearer (you) or the nonwearer (someone else).  What don't you get about this?

non sequitur and very off topic

It's off topic?  It's entirely on topic.  You're blinded by your own self-righteousness and false humility.  And a real piece of work.

[Michał Kalina]

Converts who wear headcoverings are imitating the Most Holy Theotokos,
and She happens to be my patron saint.

That's not traditional. Theotokos is not to be one's patron-Saint.

Liberals everywhere.

[PeterTheAleut]

Seeing that tempers have flared up again and that the polemics are flying around again, I have locked this thread until Thomas has had a chance to review this and decide what to do with it. If you wish to take parts of this discussion to one of the other active head covering threads, I won't consider that an attempt to circumvent the lock on this thread, since this lock is necessitated only by this thread's location on Convert Issues.

[Thomas]

I have reviewed the latest statements and now close and lock this topic in agreement with Peter the Aleut. It has failed to stay on topic and the debate has become more than permitted in the Convert Issues Forum.

Thomas
Convert Issues Forum Moderator

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Convert Issues (Moderator: Thomas) > Topic: Converts wearing headcoverings= legalists?