Church Veil Reactions

  • Thread starter Thread starter onegreenclover
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JKirkLVNV said:
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.
Click to expand...
If advocacy of headcovering is misrepresenting the mind of the Church, then it would be also disingenuous to encourage frequent communion and confession. The Church only requires either once per year.

I’m having a hard time trying to find a parallel with the “call no man Father” issue. Church theologians have explained clearly and at length that calling priests Father does not contradict Scripture. Not so with veiling. It just sort of disappeared without explanation.

If the Church decided tomorrow that we can call priests “Pops,” those of us who find that insulting will continue to refer to our priests (respectfully) as Father. I think that is the case with headcovering - they choose to display that respect whether required to or not.

You may not criticize veiling but many sure seem to take issue with those who encourage it. I think this ironic considering that St. Paul insisted upon it as a sign of submission.
 
onegreenclover said:
So I just wore a mantilla to mass this morning. It was pretty scary at first and I’m not sure what to think about my experience.

What are some other people’s experiences either wearing one or seeing someone wear it? (not that it matters what other people think but just curious)

Thanks!
Click to expand...
I must apologize for my fellow forum members - they seem to forget that this all started from a very simple and innocent question.

Sadly, it appears you will not find the answers or support you were hoping for here in this thread. 😦

~Liza
 
Anna2552 said:
If advocacy of headcovering is misrepresenting the mind of the Church, then it would be also disingenuous to encourage frequent communion and confession. The Church only requires either once per year. **“Encourage” and “require” are two totally distinct things. I never said that advocacy of head covering was misrepresenting the mind of the Church. I said that to say that the Church required it, or that it was necessary, was incorrect. **

I’m having a hard time trying to find a parallel with the “call no man Father” issue. Church theologians have explained clearly and at length that calling priests Father does not contradict Scripture. Not so with veiling. It just sort of disappeared without explanation. One poster said that the angels demand women cover their heads. I countered with the question about “father.” Should we ignore what at least appears to be a command of Our Lord, in the same canon of Scripture. It seems pretty plain on the surface. That’s just it, though. The Church has a) the authority to interpret the meaning of Holy Writ and B) the authority to alter discipline. Plainly, both are disciplinary matters, are they not, the calling of priests “father” and women being required to veil their heads? If they are, however, matters of eternal salvation, as some suggest, then surely we should accord Scripture the same consistency regarding “father” as we do veiling. And veiling did not simply dissappear. When questioned about it, the Holy See clearly said that it was a disciplinary matter.

If the Church decided tomorrow that we can call priests “Pops,” those of us who find that insulting will continue to refer to our priests (respectfully) as Father. I think that is the case with headcovering - they choose to display that respect whether required to or not. I have no problem with women veiling, nonewhatsoever.

You may not criticize veiling but many sure seem to take issue with those who encourage it. I think this ironic considering that St. Paul insisted upon it as a sign of submission.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between “encourage” and “command” or “demand.” One cannot encourage veiling by saying that the Church requires it, when She plainly doesn’t. One one side is “encouragement,” on the other is coercion through the misrepresentation of what the Church says or the misrepresentation of what She has the authority to say.
 
I didn’t see any coercion. Just citation of reasons why you “should” cover your head, much as we see admonitions about why we “should” confess/receive communion/attend mass frequently.

It bears repeating that it is ironic that this topic that makes some so hostile is an outward sign of submission.
 
Anna2552 said:
I didn’t see any coercion. Just citation of reasons why you “should” cover your head, much as we see admonitions about why we “should” confess/receive communion/attend mass frequently.

It bears repeating that it is ironic that this topic that makes some so hostile is an outward sign of submission.
Click to expand...
Please go back and read carefully. No one is hostile, except some who appear to be saying that the Church requires it. That is coercive, to say that the Church requires it, or it is necessary, either for salvation or good standing with and in the Church, etc.
 
I can only speak to what I see in my parish. Several women wear them. There is no reaction one way or the other from others.

Its really a non-issue.
 
SpiritusSanctus said:
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?
Click to expand...
Whoa!!! You seem to be placing the personal opinions of “traditional Catholics” above the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which saw fit to abrogate the previous code and replace it with the 1983 code? That doesn’t sound very “traditional” or orthodox to me.
 
gospel_life said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, I didn’t say veiling was Tradition. You mis-understood.
 
dixieagle said:
Whoa!!! You seem to be placing the personal opinions of “traditional Catholics” above the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which saw fit to abrogate the previous code and replace it with the 1983 code? That doesn’t sound very “traditional” or orthodox to me.
Click to expand...
It would actually be Traditional with a capital T. And it is Traditional, because I’m going by what was taught for thousands of years over what has only been taught since the 1983 Code. It’s no less Traditional than the people then ignoring the teachings before Vatican II and making up their own rules.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
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.
Click to expand...
I looked on another thread where I thought you did criticize veiling but it turns out you apparently did not. So, I apologize.
 
Famule said:
Veils are still required during Mass. The new Code of Canon Law did not undo this. stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2008/12/truth-unvieled-head-covering-still.html
Click to expand...
This just reitterates the same mistaken notion about “force of law” that nearly all of those conclusions make.

The fact is that headcovering is an immemorial custom. That is a fact and a correct conclusion. Immemorial customs cannot be abrogated and retain “force of law”. That again is a fact.

What is not a fact is the interpretation of “force of law”. Immemorial customs having force of law means that the right to continue headcovering cannot be abrogated.

The easiest parallel to understand this in is the issue of being allowed to kneel for communion even though the norm in the U.S. is to stand. When challenged, the Vatican reitterated that kneeling for communion is an immemorial custom and that nobody can be denied communion for invoking their right to kneel, nor can the be considered disobedient for doing so even though there is a specific norm. The immemorial custom does not require kneeling for communion but simply retains the right to do so.

Similarly, the immemorial custom of covering one’s head does not create a requirement to do so. If it did, there would have been no need for the 1917 canon requiring it. But the right to veil cannot be abrogated even though the requirement that was present in the 1917 code was abrogated, along with the entire 1917 code, by the very specific provision of the 1983 Code.

It is indeed a tradition of value and hopefully we can reach a point where women will do so when they feel called to it without fear of feeling out of place. It is a calling though like any other pious practice and not one that is necessarily universal. Wearing a headcovering does not make one any holier, nor does not covering make one less holy.

Peace,
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Hmm, you or the Church? Guess I’ll go with (drum roll)…the Church.
Click to expand...
And the Church says…With respect to the new Code of Canon Law of 1983, canons 2 and 5 reprise substantially those of the Codex of 1917: “liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the norms of the Code.”
 
Famule said:
And the Church says…With respect to the new Code of Canon Law of 1983, canons 2 and 5 reprise substantially those of the Codex of 1917: “liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the norms of the Code.”
Click to expand...
I remember reading that about twenty years ago in a commentary on the 1917 Code. Is it in the 1983 Code as well?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top