Chapel Veil and Cantoring

[SerraSemper]

Ok. Did you know that nuns are sacred persons? So, if you did, do you think it is appropriate that laywomen claim that kind of sacred personhood since they don a headcovering? I’ll go further. St. Thomas talks about sacred persons and compares them to consecrated chalices. So you have people who are truly consecrated, who are truly sacred persons being compared to chalices by an eminent theologian. Then you get devotional people who try to compare laywomen to the self same chalices and say that they are like chalices and therefore should be veiled? Then, pray tell, how exactly do you explain sacred things and sacred people if EVERYONE is sacred?

 

[stpurl]

What laywomen claim that?

 

[SerraSemper]

SERIOUSLY? Look at the blog post I was responding to. It was setting a simile wherein if the sacred holy things are veiled then women are sacred and must be veiled. So yes, laywomen and men claim this. And I have seen worse claims elsewhere where some people pretend that veils are solemnly consecrated!

 

[prayinglatin]

You can invent all kinds of reasons why it is “fitting” for someone to do something.

Indeed. St Thomas in his Summa has all sorts of arguments for things being fitting, such as why Christ Ascended into heaven. Surely, an argument that something is fitting given all the teachings around it is solid unless one can demonstrate factual reasons to the contrary.

Just because I just made this argument up on the spot in 2019 doesn’t mean that Traditional Catholic men and women must wear grey or else they are not humble in the eyes of God.

Indeed. The entire argument made was also a non sequitor. But if you want tradition, then why oppose veiling if it was always done traditionally?

I have never read any scholarly work in any age that actually advocates the wearing of a “headcovering” for women on the basis of their “mystery” or “tabernacle-likeness” or the like in any age of the Church.

Ah yes, but just because you have not read it, does not mean it does not exist. I suggest reading more until you find it

I have read devotional works that advocate this practice in books and websites that have dated after the 1950’s. The 1950’s! That is almost two millenia after Christianity was founded! So, no, it is not “traditional” in the slightest.

Again, things are oft not defended until they are called into question. It wasn’t until the feminist movement that women started questioning this Apostolic tradition. And since you have read many things as you pointed out, were you perhaps able to find any time in history prior to the 1960s that women were not veiled in church as I had previously asked?

But as I said before, if you reject the veiling to cover that which is holy argument because you never read Tertullian or others, then what about the many other arguments made in its favor?

 

[stpurl]

I read through the whole article–mark you, it is one article–and it spoke of St. Paul and women covering ‘their glory’. It also spoke later of veils and sacred things, and it also mentioned the fact that women covered their heads traditionally. IOW, the article mentioned a lot of reasons for women to consider covering their heads, and it did not specifically claim that women who did so were sacred in and of themselves, but that the covering symbolized their covering of their feminine glory (cf St. Paul) in submission to the headship of Jesus Christ.

Again, I really do think you are misreading this.

 

[PBWY]

I understand the upset over the “covering the sacred” argument and even the use of the term “veil” as to many it does make light of the sacred veiling of nuns.

But I am a “traditionalist” and I cover my head because of 1 Corinthians 11 and because, personally, I feel that in the Real Presence, I am in the presence of the greatest of all royalty and should do everything I can to humble myself, which includes dressing modestly and covering my head. And frankly, the women I know personally who cover their heads, and many of the women I have come across on here who do so, do it for the same reasons. It isn’t because they think they’re particularly sacred and more special than anyone else - it’s actually quite the converse. That’s not to say that there aren’t women who wear mantillas for the “wrong reasons.” But I guess I’m fortunate to not know them and, if I did, that’s her issue to sort out with God as she learns more about humility.

 

[prayinglatin]

Because one of the main arguments the modernist trads use to wear a headcovering is because they claim the woman is sacred.

There is also a mysterious aspect to the veiling of women. I do think as stpurl pointed out that you are misunderstanding what is being said. It does not mean that all women are sacred and holy and men are not holy and therefore women veil and men don’t. Also all consecrated religious are not necessarily sacred or holy. In fact, there are some that are quite evil as Judas sadly. The reason religious wear their garments is because they are set apart for something special. Thus, we can easily also make the connection that it is appropriate and fitting for women to veil because they are set apart to be holy, pure, and chaste in a unique way.

There are also many examples where at some point in history you find an argument first being presented. You claim 1900s but in fact the idea of veiling a women for purity’s sake is quite ancient. But read St Loius de Monfort on the Blessed Virgin Mary. In it you will find entirely new ideas that are rooted in tradition. Does that mean we reject his true devotion because he presents new ideas? God forbid! This argument can be made and represented for every new idea and connection made by the Saints throughout history. Mary being the “bearer of God” was a “new” idea by its definition of wording that you won’t find in the 2nd century. Does that mean it is to be utterly rejected? Of course not!

 

[SerraSemper]

I have in fact read Tertullian. Here’s a lovely passage:

Chapter 17. An Appeal to the Married Women​

But we admonish you, too, women of the second (degree of) modesty, who have fallen into wedlock, not to outgrow so far the discipline of the veil, not even in a moment of an hour, as, because you cannot refuse it, to take some other means to nullify it, by going neither covered nor bare. For some, with their turbans and woollen bands, do not veil their head, but bind it up; protected, indeed, in front, but, where the head properly lies, bare. Others are to a certain extent covered over the region of the brain with linen coifs of small dimensions — I suppose for fear of pressing the head — and not reaching quite to the ears. If they are so weak in their hearing as not to be able to hear through a covering, I pity them. Let them know that the whole head constitutes the woman. Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they which must be subjected, for the sake of which powerought to be had on the head: the veil is their yoke. Arabia’s heathen females will be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face. A female would rather see than be seen. And for this reason a certain Roman queen said that they were most unhappy, in that they could more easily fall in love than be fallen in love with; whereas they are rather in their immunity from that second (and indeed more frequent) infelicity, that females are more apt to be fallen in love with than to fall in love And the modesty of heathen discipline, indeed, is more simple, and, so to say, more barbaric. To us the Lord has, even by revelations, measured the space for the veil to extend over. For a certain sister of ours was thus addressed by an angel, beating her neck, as if in applause: Elegant neck, and deservedly bare! It is well for you to unveil yourself from the head right down to the loins, lest withal this freedom of your neck profit you not! And, of course, what you have said to one you have said to all

 

[SerraSemper]

I don’t hate veils so much. That is your rash judgement not mine. I in fact was veiled by my bishop as the Spouse of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Were you?

 

[prayinglatin]

I don’t hate veils so much. That is your rash judgement not mine. I in fact was veiled by my bishop

So you’re saying that you don’t like the argument because you feel it somehow detracts from the consecrated life?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

A quick google search:

The veil marks the woman as consecrated, not in the formal sense of a religious vow but in the universal sense that every woman is sacred.
From:
3 Simple Reasons Why Veiling Is Making a Comeback with Some Young Catholic Women |

 

[SerraSemper]

My feelings on the matter are not your concern. You can speculate- in charity- what I think on the matter, but it is not your concern. What is of concern is that given the ontological difference between myself and a laywoman, if you ever feel moved to strike me in malice, that would be a sacrilege in addition to assault whereas for a laywoman it would be simply an assault. You see the difference? So it is important for people to know the difference between sacred persons and people who think they are sacred because they want to put on a headcovering.

 

[prayinglatin]

A quick google search:

The veil marks the woman as consecrated, not in the formal sense of a religious vow but in the universal sense that every woman is sacred.
From:
3 Simple Reasons Why Veiling Is Making a Comeback with Some Young Catholic Women |

It is oft repeated online many times. SS does not like this argument because she said she cannot find it explicitly stated prior to the 1900s and therefore thinks it is somehow “modernist”

 

[SerraSemper]

Well, again, you forget that men are sacred too if women are sacred. So, no, that is not a logical reason to wear a veil for women!

 

[DarkLight]

I am slightly curious what he would make of my combination of a head covering (usually a scarf or hat, sometimes a headband because it was in my purse) and shaved hair.

I suspect the modern lace mantilla would not pass this test either.

 

[SerraSemper]

Correct. Tertullian called for an “opaque” cloth to cover the hair, neck, and shoulders. A lace mantilla doesn’t pass.

I suspect the modern lace mantilla would not pass this test either.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I don’t think she’s proud but stating a fact. Being veiled by one’s bishop is quite different from the affectation of “veiling.”

 

[prayinglatin]

Point is that it has always been a part of church practice since the first apostles. Not the particular type of veil. Women also feel much more humbled by wearing a veil. Exponentially greater should be the humility of a consecrated because they are judged to a standard so much higher than any of us will be.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Um…I was replying to @stpurl who asked @SerraSemper what laywomen claim women are sacred. I’m not arguing against SerraSemper; I agree with her.

 

[SerraSemper]

Sacred virgins are called to keep “the faith intact”. That, in part, means we don’t make up false rationales to dictate what women should or should not do. Truth is rather important. It is simply not traditional reasoning to claim that women “should” put on a headcovering because they are sacred. It IS traditional for women to be told to wear a headcovering for a number of other reasons, but at this point in time, it has no more relevance to us than segregated seating did in the early Church. And the CDF did say that the headcovering was a matter of “mere discipline” of “no normative value” at this point in time.