Church Veil Reactions

[recondelta]

If you were to ask me whether or not any of the females sitting around me last Sunday had their heads covered, I honestly could not tell you. At Mass, I believe people should be more concerned about what’s in their head, not what’s on it. As for you onegreenclover if it feels good, do it.

 

[onegreenclover]

Can the mantilla be any length? Mine is pretty long… down to my elbows.

Do you just have to cover it with something no matter what it is?

 

[Onegin]

Typically I’ll wear a hat or not worry about it if I’m at a Novus Ordo parish because no one else wears a veil and I don’t want to make a big stink out of it. Basically I do this for the same reason that I avoid going to Communion at this church rather than making a big fuss over trying to receive on the tongue kneeling etc.

At my regular chapel all the women wear scarves/hats/veils so no big deal.

 

[Sarah25]

Can the mantilla be any length? Mine is pretty long… down to my elbows.

Do you just have to cover it with something no matter what it is?

I don’t believe length matters, I’ve seen veils that look like doilies which wouldn’t go past anybody’s ears (these were the extras provided by the chapel, nobody was making use of these ). Of course, being new to the whole thing, I could be mistaken. Before I got a specific mantilla, I wore a shawl I’d gotten for my prom dress, so it was quite long and even had fringe on it, and nobody commented.

 

[onegreenclover]

Typically I’ll wear a hat or not worry about it if I’m at a Novus Ordo parish because no one else wears a veil and I don’t want to make a big stink out of it. Basically I do this for the same reason that I avoid going to Communion at this church rather than making a big fuss over trying to receive on the tongue kneeling etc.

At my regular chapel all the women wear scarves/hats/veils so no big deal.

You mean you don’t take communion at a Novus Ordo parish because you have to kneel? I’m confused. I heard that the correct way was to make a cradle with your hands and not the tongue.

 

[Nowhere_Man]

You mean you don’t take communion at a Novus Ordo parish because you have to kneel? I’m confused. I heard that the correct way was to make a cradle with your hands and not the tongue.

The normal way is on the tongue. Receiving Communion in the hand is an indult only allowed in a few areas.

From Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”…Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice…

Remptionis Sacramentum

An Apostolic Letter

 

[HarmonyServant]

I’ve haven’t had any negative reactions. Maybe it’s because I don’t really “veil”; I wear kerchiefs. Another lady in the parish wears hats. We both receive compliments for our choice of headcoverings. It’s not really a big deal, and that’s fine by me. :yup:

 

[dixieagle]

You mean you don’t take communion at a Novus Ordo parish because you have to kneel? I’m confused. I heard that the correct way was to make a cradle with your hands and not the tongue.

Communion in the hand (reverently, and cradled, as you mention) is approved by the Holy See for the United States and many other countries (not just “a few areas”) as another poster stated. ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

 

[JKirkLVNV]

As a guy, I have to say this: I generally salute the woman who dares to wear a veil over her head. Thus says St. Paul: “For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.” 1 Corinthians 11:10

In other words, the Angels of God literally DEMAND proper deportment when it come to attire in Church. Don’t listen to these ‘Catholic’ Liberals that it is OK to not wear a veil because it’s not.

God bless you.

There is nothing liberal about it. The Church dispensed with the requirement. It is a matter of discipline, not immutable truth, and She has the authority to either require it or to dispense with it.

Scripture is quoted here. Our Lord said in the Gospels, “Call no man father,” yet we Catholics have always called our priests “father,” our Pope “Holy Father.” How do we reconcile that? By your reasoning, if we ought to obey the DEMAND of an angel, ought we not to obey a command of Our Lord?

Scripture means what the Church, Its guardian and custodian, says it means. The Church has dispensed with the requirement, just as she has decided that the proper address for priests is “Father.”

Now if you want to “veil” or “cover” as a private devotion, that’s great. If you want to advocate it and talk about how great it’s been for you, that’s fine. If you want to win over converts to the idea of it, more power to you. If, however, you want to coerce the consciences of faithful women who avail themselves of a liberty given them by the Church, then that’s wrong. You would be misrepresenting the mind of the Church.

 

[onegreenclover]

Communion in the hand (reverently, and cradled, as you mention) is approved by the Holy See for the United States and many other countries (not just “a few areas”) as another poster stated. ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

Deep south? Try non-metro Georgia

 

[Onegin]

You mean you don’t take communion at a Novus Ordo parish because you have to kneel? I’m confused. I heard that the correct way was to make a cradle with your hands and not the tongue.

I don’t want to derail this topic, so I’ll answer quickly. At the parish near me, the Priest fusses if people want to do anything from what he considers the “norm” (standing, in the hand).

Because I believe that receiving the Eucharist whilst standing in the hand is not reverent and invites serious abuses, I refrain from going to Communion in parishes where other options are not available. Hope this clarifies.

 

[lizaanne]

There is nothing liberal about it. The Church dispensed with the requirement. It is a matter of discipline, not immutable truth, and She has the authority to either require it or to dispense with it.

Scripture is quoted here. Our Lord said in the Gospels, “Call no man father,” yet we Catholics have always called our priests “father,” our Pope “Holy Father.” How do we reconcile that? By your reasoning, if we ought to obey the DEMAND of an angel, ought we not to obey a command of Our Lord?

Scripture means what the Church, Its guardian and custodian, says it means. The Church has dispensed with the requirement, just as she has decided that the proper address for priests is “Father.”

Now if you want to “veil” or “cover” as a private devotion, that’s great. If you want to advocate it and talk about how great it’s been for you, that’s fine. If you want to win over converts to the idea of it, more power to you. If, however, you want to coerce the consciences of faithful women who avail themselves of a liberty given them by the Church, then that’s wrong. You would be misrepresenting the mind of the Church.

It always happens in the general forum - someone has to come along and get their panties in a bunch on this topic. The gentleman you quoted was not doing anything of the sort - he was voicing his opinion. That happens on public discussion forums. I do not see any coercion in his post whatsoever.

To the OP - please do consider joining a group here on CAF dedicated specifically to women who wish to cover, and discuss this devotion without criticism or judgement: Veiled in Grace

~Liza

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It always happens in the general forum - someone has to come along and get their panties in a bunch on this topic. The gentleman you quoted was not doing anything of the sort - he was voicing his opinion. That happens on public discussion forums. I do not see any coercion in his post whatsoever.

To the OP - please do consider joining a group here on CAF dedicated specifically to women who wish to cover, and discuss this devotion without criticism or judgement: Veiled in Grace

~Liza

I don’t have my panties in a bunch. The opinion you cite calls into question the judgement of the Church. It’s the job of faithful Catholics to defend the Church. An acceptable personal opinion is “I think veiling is great because…” or “veiling is helpful to my spiritual life because…” , NOT that the Church is wrong.

Further, where have you seen me criticize veiling or covering? Kindly point it out.

This is what the poster said:

“In other words, the Angels of God literally DEMAND proper deportment when it come to attire in Church. Don’t listen to these ‘Catholic’ Liberals that it is OK to not wear a veil because it’s not.”

I said there was nothing “liberal” about it and I refuted the notion that it is not OK to NOT wear a veil, because the Church doesn’t require it.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

There is nothing liberal about it. The Church dispensed with the requirement. It is a matter of discipline, not immutable truth, and She has the authority to either require it or to dispense with it.

Scripture is quoted here. Our Lord said in the Gospels, “Call no man father,” yet we Catholics have always called our priests “father,” our Pope “Holy Father.” How do we reconcile that? By your reasoning, if we ought to obey the DEMAND of an angel, ought we not to obey a command of Our Lord?

Scripture means what the Church, Its guardian and custodian, says it means. The Church has dispensed with the requirement, just as she has decided that the proper address for priests is “Father.”

Now if you want to “veil” or “cover” as a private devotion, that’s great. If you want to advocate it and talk about how great it’s been for you, that’s fine. If you want to win over converts to the idea of it, more power to you. If, however, you want to coerce the consciences of faithful women who avail themselves of a liberty given them by the Church, then that’s wrong. You would be misrepresenting the mind of the Church.

This is exactly what he was talking about in his post. Don’t listen to anyone who says it’s not necessary. The 1983 Code may not have thought it was necessary but Traditional Catholics don’t buy into that. And what Church did away with it? The Traditional or modern-day Church?

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

I don’t have my panties in a bunch. The opinion you cite calls into question the judgement of the Church. It’s the job of faithful Catholics to defend the Church. An acceptable personal opinion is “I think veiling is great because…” or “veiling is helpful to my spiritual life because…” , NOT that the Church is wrong.

Further, where have you seen me criticize veiling or covering? Kindly point it out.

This is what the poster said:

“In other words, the Angels of God literally DEMAND proper deportment when it come to attire in Church. Don’t listen to these ‘Catholic’ Liberals that it is OK to not wear a veil because it’s not.”

I said there was nothing “liberal” about it and I refuted the notion that it is not OK to NOT wear a veil, because the Church doesn’t require it.

I’ve seen you criticize it. I think most people have by now.

You say it’s the job of faithful Catholics to defend the Church. You don’t think that the Traditional Catholics who dis-agree with you on this matter aren’t defending the Church? They are.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’ve seen you criticize it. I think most people have by now.

You say it’s the job of faithful Catholics to defend the Church. You don’t think that the Traditional Catholics who dis-agree with you on this matter aren’t defending the Church? They are.

No, you aren’t, in fact. This is a disciplinary matter. The Church has ruled on this and other disciplinary matters throughout the centuries. This has been pointed out to you more than once, Spiritus Sanctus, how we could recieve in the hand, then we couldn’t, how we could receive in both the Sacred Species, then only one, then both again, how priests of the Latin rite could marry, then they couldn’t. You cannot claim to be defending the Church by DENYING that the Church has what is patently Her legitimate authority. You’re actually denigrating her. It’s fine for women to veil or cover, it’s fine for them to talk about it positively. It isn’t fine for them (or you) to say that women must, because the Church has said that they don’t have to do so. It isn’t me you’re disagreeing with, it’s the Church. And you can disagree with her to the extent that you are free to veil or to talk others into veiling. You simply cannot say that NOT veiling is wrong.

And no one has answered this yet, among “traditionalists.” You quote Saint Paul in an epistle here. Our Lord Jesus, in the Gospel, gave us a command: “Call no man father.” That’s right out of the mouth of the Son of God, the Second Person of the Most Holy and Blessed Trinity. Again, as was said, if angels demand that women cover and this is justified by Holy Writ, what are we to make of our Lord’s command? Yet we Catholics call our priests “Father.” We call the pope “Holy Father.” If you insist on veiling, should you not refrain from using the term “Father” as our Lord prohibited?

It seems clear that the Church has exercised her authority on these disciplinary issues (and others).

You continue to distinguish between the “traditional” Church and the “modern” Church, as though there were two. There is, but one Church, the Body of Christ and His Bride.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’ve seen you criticize it. I think most people have by now.

That is a lie. I have nowhere criticized veiling in and of itself. I have nowhere criticized the practice of veiling or covering. I challenge you to find where I did. You are at liberty to look through all my postings. If you cannot find where I HAVE criticized veiling, then you need to apologize.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

No, you aren’t, in fact. This is a disciplinary matter. The Church has ruled on this and other disciplinary matters throughout the centuries. This has been pointed out to you more than once, Spiritus Sanctus, how we could recieve in the hand, then we couldn’t, how we could receive in both the Sacred Species, then only one, then both again, how priests of the Latin rite could marry, then they couldn’t. You cannot claim to be defending the Church by DENYING that the Church has what is patently Her legitimate authority. You’re actually denigrating her. It’s fine for women to veil or cover, it’s fine for them to talk about it positively. It isn’t fine for them (or you) to say that women must, because the Church has said that they don’t have to do so. It isn’t me you’re disagreeing with, it’s the Church. And you can disagree with her to the extent that you are free to veil or to talk others into veiling. You simply cannot say that NOT veiling is wrong.

And no one has answered this yet, among “traditionalists.” You quote Saint Paul in an epistle here. Our Lord Jesus, in the Gospel, gave us a command: “Call no man father.” That’s right out of the mouth of the Son of God, the Second Person of the Most Holy and Blessed Trinity. Again, as was said, if angels demand that women cover and this is justified by Holy Writ, what are we to make of our Lord’s command? Yet we Catholics call our priests “Father.” We call the pope “Holy Father.” If you insist on veiling, should you not refrain from using the term “Father” as our Lord prohibited?

It seems clear that the Church has exercised her authority on these disciplinary issues (and others).

You continue to distinguish between the “traditional” Church and the “modern” Church, as though there were two. There is, but one Church, the Body of Christ and His Bride.

But didn’t the Church say veiling WAS necessary for thousands of years? Not to mention CITH did not become valid until Vatican II. Even when it was practiced in the earlier days they put a cloth on their hands but stopped when they realized it was offensive. So don’t tell me I’m not defending the Church when I’m going by Tradition. To deny Tradition is to deny Church doctrine itself.

 

[gospel_life]

But didn’t the Church say veiling WAS necessary for thousands of years? Not to mention CITH did not become valid until Vatican II. Even when it was practiced in the earlier days they put a cloth on their hands but stopped when they realized it was offensive. So don’t tell me I’m not defending the Church when I’m going by Tradition. To deny Tradition is to deny Church doctrine itself.

I really thought we had cleared up the whole difference between discipline and doctrine in previous threads and that you understood the difference now. You are confusing “t” traditions, which are disciplinary and changeable at any time, with “T” Tradition and doctrine.

As I suggested previously, it would be a good idea to get some sound Catholic education before making yourself look any more foolish by continuing to insist on what you don’t seem to understand.

Doctrine and Traditon have not changed and there is only one Catholic Church. The fact that the emphasis or lack thereof on some disciplinary items has changed does not change that fact.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

But didn’t the Church say veiling WAS necessary for thousands of years? .

You have accused me of criticizing veiling. Again, WHERE? WHERE?

Brother JREducation pointed out the inconsistent history of veiling to you. Go back and look at the thread. While you’re at it, try and grasp the difference between doctrine and discipline.