Chapel Veil and Cantoring

  • Thread starter Thread starter mackcost
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tertullian attests to the Apostolic tradition of veiling women as so insisted upon by St Paul, commanded by St Linus, etc:
"As, then, in the masculine sex, under the name of” man” even the” youth” is forbidden to be veiled; so, too, in the feminine, under the name of “woman,” even the “virgin” is bidden to be veiled."
 
prayinglatin said:
Tertullian attests to the Apostolic tradition of veiling women as so insisted upon by St Paul, commanded by St Linus, etc:
"As, then, in the masculine sex, under the name of” man” even the” youth” is forbidden to be veiled ; so, too, in the feminine , under the name of “woman,” even the “virgin” is bidden to be veiled."
Click to expand...
Sure and so what? I have already mentioned before that the Church Fathers TALKED about headcoverings. What I also said, and which you dance around, is that NONE that I know of, ever talked about woman having to wear a headcovering because “she is sacred and we cover sacred things”. I have mentioned repeatedly that it is a modernist thing to claim that the reason we should wear headcoverings (and they are thinking mantillas) is because women are sacred. Where exactly have you seen the Church Fathers urging laywomen to veil BECAUSE “women are sacred”?!
 
Last edited:
SerraSemper said:
That, in part, means we don’t make up false rationales to dictate what women should or should not do.
Click to expand...
How is the rationale false? Your only argument so far has been that you haven’t read it prior to the 1900s and therefore it is “modernist.” Can you demonstrate that it would be inappropriate for a women to veil? Or that veiling has no association whatsoever with covering things that are holy or mysterious?

The argument for covering something sacred or set apart for something unique is to fittingness.
The argument for tradition is that it was always done since the time of the Apostles.
 
prayinglatin said:
The argument for covering something sacred or set apart for something unique is to fittingness.
The argument for tradition is that it was always done since the time of the Apostles
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I’m talking about. By this you are acknowledging that people are claiming that laywomen are “something sacred” or “set apart” and therefore ought to wear the veil. And my response is: LAYWOMEN are not “something sacred” or “set apart” and therefore this is NOT a fitting argument.
 
SerraSemper said:
What I also said, and which you dance around, is that NONE that I know of, ever talked about woman having to wear a headcovering because “she is sacred and we cover sacred things”.
Click to expand...
This proves nothing. You are arguing from silence as if it proves a point you are failing to make. Also no one has said women “have to wear a headcovering because…”. It was stated fitting and appropriate. Where did you read that someone made that argument? I think as was pointed out earlier that you are misunderstanding what is being stated and are arguing against an idea totally foreign to the one being made.
 
See my point above. It is neither fitting nor appropriate to bring in something that is actually sacred and set apart and tell women to wear a headcovering to pretend that they are sacred and set apart.
 
So you do not believe that laywomen are set apart uniquely as vessels that contain and bear new life in them?

Are lay women not worthy of a veil? This points to the difference again because for lay women it is a sign of humility.
 
I still think you’re misunderstanding. I mean, right in the sentence you quoted, it said, "Not in the sense of a sacred vow’.

Do you have to make this an either-or like, “Either a woman is a consecrated person and so sacred, or she is 'just a laywoman and not sacred at all”? Why can’t it be, A consecrated person is sacred and special in that consecrated state, but a lay woman is sacred in her femininity and, by wearing a veil which is in no sense like the sacred vow of a consecrated person, is showing her humility?

IOW, why can’t it be a both-and?

I really, really, think you are misunderstanding because somehow you feel that an article (of all things) is elevating some ‘lay women’ over you.
 
Let’s be honest here. Historically women wore veils for the exact same reason St. Paul suggested it. They wore them in humility to show that they were under authority.

All this women are sacred stuff is romanticism.
 
Historically women also wore veils because in a lot of places that was what decent women wore in public. Certainly no first century jewish woman would have walked about with her head uncovered.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
All this women are sacred stuff is romanticism.
Click to expand...
I would not say “women are sacred” in se (in themselves) as a woman. I don’t see that argument actually being made by anyone as that would be the exact opposite of fostering humility. But they are called to a unique and profound holiness and have a different relation to Christ than the man. I do agree that to say “a women is so holy therefore she must veil” is an argument to be rejected. I just don’t see it being made here. If anyone makes it, yes it would be inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
Again, I don’t know any women traipsing around in their translucent lacy mantillas, their beanie caps, or their headbands at Mass, eyes aloft, showy, “pretending” to be sacred in the same vein (OR AT ALL) as those of the consecrated life. You seem to take issue with a group of people that isn’t even here to defend itself. Maybe you should take it up with Veils by Lily with her little info card that says “We Veil the Sacred” or whatever. But here…I’m just not finding a laywoman veiling and pretending to be as sacred as a nun for you to make any of these points to.
 
Yet again, none of the examples you raise say woman wears a headcovering BECAUSE she is sacred. So, until you show me some authoritative text to that effect, I will no longer respond to your repeated efforts to bring in irrelevant text.
 
DarkLight said:
Historically women also wore veils because in a lot of places that was what decent women wore in public. Certainly no first century jewish woman would have walked about with her head uncovered.
Click to expand...
Quite right.

It is worth noting that the veil was still a sign of her being under authority. For Muslims, it is also the same.
 
Last edited:
Actually, it really isn’t. Maybe at various points in history it wasn’t articulated the way we heard St. Paul (definitely points in Western History where not the Church itself but people in it saw women in a more negative light), but if you look for example at the medieval tradition of chivalry (the unattainable because of her purity highborn woman and her parfait gentil knights) you see the idea of woman who is sacred in her femininity.

We have to be careful that we don’t let one ‘version’ cancel out others. As with all aspects of Catholicism, things are many-faceted with many meanings.
 
stpurl said:
but if you look for example at the medieval tradition of chivalry (the unattainable because of her purity highborn woman and her parfait gentil knights) you see the idea of woman who is sacred in her femininity.
Click to expand...
But even that was romanticism
 
SerraSemper said:
Yet again, none of the examples you raise say woman wears a headcovering BECAUSE she is sacred.
Click to expand...
You’re right. That is BECAUSE no one is saying that. You are arguing with the wind and straw men. We are in agreement that if anyone were to say that all women are holy is false.

Women do have a unique and sacred role. They are called to be holy. Bringing new life into the world. Etc. But they are not in se holy because they are women.
 
In part. Islam seems to have a much stronger emphasis on veiling as an act of modesty, while that doesn’t seem to have been as prominent in Catholic tradition.

For me, I enjoy the link to the many women in the past who wore the same. (And maybe I get a little amused at the confusion of people trying to put together a thoroughly modern woman and about as feminist as an orthodox catholic can get, and head coverings.) As far as submission - to God, yes. In my experience the men trying to get submissive behavior usually need to take a hike.
 
KThis thread hurts the brain.

The moral of the story- please veil if you feel like you want to. It is nobody’s place to judge you for it and if they do it’s on them.

I ain’t going to wear flip flops to mass. There are men that do and if they want to, that’s fine. I ain’t.

There are women who veil and women who don’t. And that’s fine.
 
Last edited:
It is called romanticism, but it was also the reality. Catholicism is a romantic faith. Jesus Christ is the Bridegroom, we are the Bride. . .the truly greatest romance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top