Yeah, I had the same suggestion. An alternative headcovering is probably the best choice and a good compromise.
If you go in the hairstuff section of most big department stores they have them there, usually near the hairbrushes. Mine mostly came from walmart or target or something.
I have to say that if I normally covered, and was asked not to when in choir, I would feel an almost overwhelming desire to dye my hair purple. Or blue.
I am a lector and an EMHC. A couple years ago, I did have purple highlights put in my hair. Very purple. Was not a problem at all. In fact, my Pastor and my Bishop said I was about the only person they knew who could actually pull off purple hair!
For me, any thing is better than mousey brown & gray.
LOL!!! Oh gosh. Probably bright pink is more appropriate if you’re female.
1960s hippies redivivus! Yay.
But lets get back to the topic.
Should the OP’s wife rebel against her PP who doesn’t want her to balance a lace place-mat on her head in public liturgical ministry roles .
Like Australian togs? (or is it undies).
It’s not rebelling. LOL. It is a voluntary position. She can choose to negotiate and see if there are alternatives or she can choose to leave the position because she is uncomfortable with the dress code.
Good luck with the drink place-mat thing instead of a hajib/shador (which is truly more like the “veil” of St Paul’s time than what the more recent “veilers” are suggesting).
Hey, if she wanted to wear a hijab I would still be on her side. A woman’s right to choose man!
Last I heard it was the PP’s role to decide who is IN and who is OUT re public ministries in his church.
He sounds like a Bulldog so I don’t think a lace doily will placate him anymore than one of Cleopatra’s see through veils.
Actually I like this hajib - and no hair as St Paul would agree!
OH man… Now I have an image of a bulldog in a cassock. Thanks.
I bet he is a softie if the OP’s wife just treats him right - you know, female subservience…like what traditional veiling is really about instead of the don’t look at me as I am not drawing attention to myself coquettish look.
LOL. You gotta be trolling. But the bulldog is cute.
I remember taking my mother into town .
There were some ladies wearing the hajib .
My mum asked me if they were nuns .
What the old nuns (and Muslim women) wear is pretty much what Christian married women used to ordinarily wear in Early Church times in accord with St Paul (and Middle Eastern culture in general) !!! Why is it so few get this
Not lace, drink place-mats as hair fascinators.
Amen! It’s not a moral question at all. God doesn’t care whether we wear one or not. Period.
How do you think those of us who have liturgically received the veil as Brides of Christ feel about women who claim the same status by putting on some kind of lacy thing?
Exactly. The tradition was an opaque cloth that covered the hair and neck and sometimes face. It’s very easy to “spiritualize” (justification by quoting something that sounds pious) wearing lacy frothy things and much harder to find opaque cloth appealing, attractive, or anything else. Most of the women who think they are “called by God” to “veil” would quickly lose their “call” if they went to the traditional opaque cloth. [quote=“somecanadian, post:109, topic:501056, full:true”]
The veils are stunning and make the women look so much more beautiful. I honestly can’t help but stare.
Then I wonder: THIS is a sign of humility? Something that enhances beauty and makes it stand out even more?
[quote=“leocor, post:170, topic:501056”]
While I agree that one should not do things (wear in this case) to make one stand out, as if it were for pride, I do not see any problem in doing so to show or reflect the sanctity of where one stands. Both the Old Testament and New Testament respected the sacredness and holiness that the House of God had, in furniture (the adorned curtains, among others), priestly garbs (with beautiful embroidery, the breast plates having pearls and gems), absolute respect expected (silence when necessary, etc.), the holy vessels which were made of gold and silver, and many other things which were made to make known the beauty and holiness (sacredness) of God in the Sanctuary. Even then, the veil or head covering, is not something of such extravagance. Nor is it a sign meant to stand out for one’s personal pride, but a sign to show respect for God’s natural order of things.
[/quote]. This is a modernist justification for wearing mantillas. It has nothing to do with the traditional Church’s practice. See if you can find ANYWHERE, in ANY Church writing from the 100’s to 1950’s a justification on the lines that somehow a headcovering donates a sacred person (other than Moses covering the glory of God). This is a modernist ploy to make mantillas appealing.