Church Veil Reactions

[Marc_Anthony]

Wait, wait, wait-Women ARE equal to men, correct? Just because they’re not the head of the family doesn’t mean they’re not equal…they’re inferior in some respects and superior in others, right?

The way it seems to me is that veils are optional for those women who want to further glorify God, which is a good thing…but it’s been misinterpeted as emerely an unnecessary old custom of the Mass.

Right?

 

[moon1234]

Wait, wait, wait-Women ARE equal to men, correct? Just because they’re not the head of the family doesn’t mean they’re not equal…they’re inferior in some respects and superior in others, right?

The way it seems to me is that veils are optional for those women who want to further glorify God, which is a good thing…but it’s been misinterpeted as emerely an unnecessary old custom of the Mass.

Right?

God made man and woman with equal dignity. This does not mean equality in all roles. Just as God made Eve from Adam, so each man and woman are of the same flesh. This does not however mean that they have equal roles. Just because the man is head of his family does not mean the woman is his servant. Modern feminism would have you believe that woman is equal in all ways to man. This only denies the unique roles and dignity that God gave to woman.

Just as death entered into the world through the actions of a woman (Eve), so to the world was redeemed through the actions of a Woman (Mary). The unique role of mother is something a man can never fulfill, but that again is a role God predestined for a woman.

In a family both spouses are to work together to see that each other and their children get to heaven. The role that each plays in the family is unique, this does not however mean they are equal.

As to veils, I would have to say that it is a unique honor given to woman that is distinct and has no equal. A woman who chooses to wear a veil is performing an action that is unique. It would not be equal to say that a woman who does not wear a viel is giving the same honor. While it would not be a REQUIREMENT to wear a veil, the action of doing it is unique and so the honor and grace that flows from that action would be unique as well.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Right, that’s kind of what I was trying to say…they’re inferior in some respects and superior in others. But not equal.

Okay, I got it.

 

[moon1234]

Right, that’s kind of what I was trying to say…they’re inferior in some respects and superior in others. But not equal.

Okay, I got it.

I would not use the term superior, as that implies that something is lacking in the other. Rather the roles are different and unique. Can a man have a baby (lousy example, but…) no he can not. However, his role in the creation and caring for the baby is no less important than a womans. It is just different.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Ahhhh…okay, good explanation. I get it now.

So I was about on track with the whole veil thing too…it further glorifies God in a unique way and should be encouraged, but it is not required. Okay.

 

[ljubim]

The argument is about the code of Canon Law being silent about the wearing of Head Coverings. Many previous laws in the 1917 code were simply codified customs that had been practiced in the church; some for over 1000 years (such as head coverings).

When changes were made to the law and some of the previous codified customs were no longer on the books, the people who made this change wanted the people to personally make the choice to follow the immemorial custom instead of it being a law. In this way the people would be doing it for the greater glory of God and of themselves and not just because it was a codified law. Many, including myself, think that this was a poor decision. Especially in this modern legalistic society.

What happened though was many modern people in western society looked at this change and said “Ohh, it is no longer on the books therefore I don’t have to do it anymore”. This was the opposite intent of what the people making the changes intended.

Even Annabelle Bugnini, the imafmnous prelate who suggested/made many of the VII liturgical changes, came out after the council when many feminists in the western world were throwing off their veils and declared that this custom was still in force.

Many modern people do not want to see/respect the hierachical system that Christ setup for the Christ and that St. Paul teaches. The husband is the head of the family and so to veil his head would be to disrepect his position as head of the family. (Just as Christ is the head of the Church.) Women are to veil their heads out of respect of the head of the family/church.

Mary’s veiling is not simply a “custom of the time”, but a respect of the system that Christ/God created for his people on earth.

Look at what has happened with the requirement to not eat meat on Friday. This requirement is STILL in force during the WHOLE year. The only difference now is that the church allows some other type of pennenace to be substituted in place of not eating meat on Friday’s outside of Lent. What actually happened though is many Catholic abandoned ANY type of pennance at all. The other unintended consequence is that the secular world no longer sees all Catholics eating fish on Fridays. They no longer see a witness to their faith. The same could be said for the use of the chapel veil by women.

The fact that many women see themselves equal to men today is part of the problem. We all have the same dignity as human persons, but we are called to perform different roles in this world. Western secular society seeks to destroy the unique position each sex is called to.

Traditional customs are not just nice, antiquated things we look back on and then dismiss as no longer needed. Customs exist for a reason. Their practice unites us with all \previous and present Catholics. They should not be just dissmissed as no longer necessary or proper.

Great post.

WOW, if even Bugnini himself says veils should be worn… I can’t get over that! That’s wild!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Great post.

WOW, if even Bugnini himself says veils should be worn… I can’t get over that! That’s wild!

Ha, I can beat that…the infamous Roe from Roe v. Wade? Now a pro-life activist!

But that’s a bit off topic.

 

[gospel_life]

When changes were made to the law and some of the previous codified customs were no longer on the books, the people who made this change wanted the people to personally make the choice to follow the immemorial custom instead of it being a law. In this way the people would be doing it for the greater glory of God and of themselves and not just because it was a codified law. Many, including myself, think that this was a poor decision. Especially in this modern legalistic society.

What happened though was many modern people in western society looked at this change and said “Ohh, it is no longer on the books therefore I don’t have to do it anymore”. This was the opposite intent of what the people making the changes intended.

There are a lot of assertions made here with no documentation. Could you please provide some Church document that confirms any of this? I somehow doubt that it exists since the Church is specifically on record saying that the practice was of little normative value even before the 1983 Code abrogated the 1917 Code and with it the requirement.

Even Annabelle Bugnini, the imafmnous prelate who suggested/made many of the VII liturgical changes, came out after the council when many feminists in the western world were throwing off their veils and declared that this custom was still in force.

At the time right after the council, the requirement would have still been in force since obviously the 1983 Code hadn’t been written yet so Bugnini would have been correct in his statement at that time. That does not however necessarily translate to Bugnini being “in favor of it”, or imply that he would be making any such statement after the 1983 Code came into effect, even if his opinion had any force of law.

The law on eating meat actually gives even more strength to the fact that headcoverings are no longer required. When it was written that not eating meat was no longer a requirement, it was explicitly put into the law that some other penance needed to be substituted. Some may not have been aware of it, as there are always those that all the details don’t filter down to, but the requirement was there and explicit. If the Church had the intent that they wanted headcovering to continue or have some other practice in its place, that there would be no document saying anything about it, while documents exist abrogating the requirement, make the “intention” assertion a pretty weak argument, especially in the deafening silence on the subject over a 30 year period.

I’m all for the practice of headcovering for those who feel called to it. Some have other pious practices however which they perform for the greater glory of God. The requirement does not exist and making judgments about which practices others observe for the glory of God, based on the ones WE think are important, gets way over the line.

 

[moon1234]

The usual argument, as i pointed out above, by those that don’t want to honor a tradition is to say " it’s not law so it must be unimportant."

Take a look at the picture at the top of this site. That should speak for itself.

 

[gospel_life]

The usual argument, as i pointed out above, by those that don’t want to honor a tradition is to say " it’s not law so it must be unimportant."

Take a look at the picture at the top of this site. That should speak for itself.

I grew up with the tradition and have great respect for it so please don’t go looking for negative motivations from me. The only problem I have in the “honoring” of the tradition is those who go getting all judgmental about those who choose other pious traditions as if they are then “lesser” Catholics.

You made some unsubstantiated claims again implying that there actually is a requirement or that the Church intended for there to be one. It is you taking a legalist approach here and if you want to try to cite legalities and “intentions” you’ll need to substantiate them.

If you want to simply argue the value of the tradition that’s fine and I’ll stand right beside you on that. Arguing legal requirements where the Church has said none exist doesn’t work though.

 

[MarkThompson]

The usual argument, as i pointed out above, by those that don’t want to honor a tradition is to say " it’s not law so it must be unimportant."

Take a look at the picture at the top of this site. That should speak for itself.

The flip side falls to those who say, “It’s important so it Must. Be. Law.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Even Annabelle Bugnini, the imafmnous prelate who suggested/made many of the VII liturgical changes, came out after the council when many feminists in the western world were throwing off their veils and declared that this custom was still in force.
But it was after the time of Archbishop Bugnini that the Holy See said it was a matter of discipline and canon law.

Mary’s veiling is not simply a “custom of the time”, but a respect of the system that Christ/God created for his people on earth. **Demonstrate, please, with reliable historical documents that the Blessed Mother’s veiling was other than the custom of Her people. **

Look at what has happened with the requirement to not eat meat on Friday. This requirement is STILL in force during the WHOLE year. The only difference now is that the church allows some other type of pennenace to be substituted in place of not eating meat on Friday’s outside of Lent. What actually happened though is many Catholic abandoned ANY type of pennance at all. The other unintended consequence is that the secular world no longer sees all Catholics eating fish on Fridays. They no longer see a witness to their faith. The same could be said for the use of the chapel veil by women. I agee with this IF Catholics are not doing some other form of penance on Friday. I have no idea whether they are or not (I try to keep to the older discipline simply because I can remember it). For all I know, they may be following our Lord’s admonitions against public displays of piety, ie, they may be “washing their faces and annointing their heads.” I don’t object to women wearing veils (really, head coverings), I object to others requiring it when the Church has allowed a liberty.

The fact that many women see themselves equal to men today is part of the problem. We all have the same dignity as human persons, but we are called to perform different roles in this world. Western secular society seeks to destroy the unique position each sex is called to. Agreed.

Traditional customs are not just nice, antiquated things we look back on and then dismiss as no longer needed. Customs exist for a reason. Their practice unites us with all \previous and present Catholics. They should not be just dissmissed as no longer necessary or proper.

Please address this: since the Church does not require it, thus voiding the sin of disobedience, is it your understanding that women veiling is a matter of salvation?

Also, I’ve never gotten an answer to this: “Traditionalists” hew to the passage from Saint Paul in the face of the Church’s understanding that this is a matter of discipline, not faith or morals. They use this scripture passage as their major support. In the Gospel, Our Lord tells us quite clearly, “Call no man ‘father.’” It seems a very clear command, yet we call our priests “father,” we call the Pope “Holy Father.” Why do “traditionalists” give heed to one and not the other?

 

[MarkThompson]

Please address this: since the Church does not require it, thus voiding the sin of disobedience, is it your understanding that women veiling is a matter of salvation?

Also, I’ve never gotten an answer to this: “Traditionalists” hew to the passage from Saint Paul in the face of the Church’s understanding that this is a matter of discipline, not faith or morals. They use this scripture passage as their major support. In the Gospel, Our Lord tells us quite clearly, “Call no man ‘father.’” It seems a very clear command, yet we call our priests “father,” we call the Pope “Holy Father.” Why do “traditionalists” give heed to one and not the other?

I agree with you on veils, Kirk, but your scriptural paradox isn’t that good. Jesus was known for speaking in parables; Paul was not. And Jesus probably didn’t mean it literally, since we don’t believe he was forbidding us to call even our biological father “father”; Paul probably did mean it literally, since he was sending a collection of teachings and instructions to the church in Corinth.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I agree with you on veils, Kirk, but your scriptural paradox isn’t that good. Jesus was known for speaking in parables; Paul was not. And Jesus probably didn’t mean it literally, since we don’t believe he was forbidding us to call even our biological father “father”; Paul probably did mean it literally, since he was sending a collection of teachings and instructions to the church in Corinth.

Yeah, I know, but my point is A) their argument is an awful lot like the Protestant concept of Sola Scriptura and B) IT TOOK THE CHURCH TO PARSE THE DIFFERENCE OUT! So it is on the Church’s authority that we know what we know…the same Church that decided not to obligate women to wear veils.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I agree with you on veils, Kirk, but your scriptural paradox isn’t that good. Jesus was known for speaking in parables; Paul was not. And Jesus probably didn’t mean it literally, since we don’t believe he was forbidding us to call even our biological father “father”; Paul probably did mean it literally, since he was sending a collection of teachings and instructions to the church in Corinth.

And Mark: St. Paul’s admonition ALSO speaks to men NOT wearing head coverings in Church. If we’re going to apply it rigidly to women, should the Holy Father and the bishops be wearing their miters and zuchettos in Mass?

 

[Aramis]

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!

My eldest sometimes opts for her matilla, often not. At the local parishes, no one says anything either way. The local Roman parish (OF only) has a significant minority in veils of various kinds, usually a babushkoi sharf or two, and a handful of old-school hats.

My local Ruthenian parish has a couple veils, a couple hats, a couple scarves… see more headcovering than ties…

 

[Aramis]

Now that you mention it, prior to Vatican II and even in the 60’s and 70’s Catholics considered themselves to be God-fearing, a term you seldom hear today.

Did they? That’s a term I associate almost exclusively with Protestantism, like “Bible-thumping.”

As in the turn of phrase “Soap-box-jumping bible-thumping Jesus freaks”… The version I’ve heard including god fearing refers to the KKK’s (extremely unchristian) “virtues”…

 

[celephais72]

Being a broke college student, I bought some wide lace and lace fabric in black, white, and ivory. I made 2 mantillas in each color - very easy to do, even hand-sewing them like I did. i wore a black one with a black and white plaid dress to Mass last Sunday and everyone gave me a great response! All the older people were coming up to me and telling me how nice I looked and the kids were telling me what a “pretty lady like Mary” I was! One little girl came up and talked to me and then I heard her tell her mom that she wanted a pretty lace scarf, too! For being a NO parish, I got nothing but an overwhelmingly positive response!
I would like to start covering my head all the time, but right now, I’m just getting used to covering it at Mass. Well, if I DO end up becoming a nun, I won’t have to worry about it!
Amanda

 

[Joannm]

Personally I don’t care whether women have their heads covered or not. They can wear curlers and it wouldn’t bother me because I’ve seen worse. But it pains me to see the trouble the Church went through to vernacularize and expand the readings in the Mass and then have everyone ignore them to their heart’s content. I once went with a woman who was squirming in her seat when the reading about women being submissive to men came around. Why have the readings at all? Even the Pope falls asleep during them.

Speaking of curlers. I have pictures of my parent’s wedding in 1952 and there were many women in the congregation with curlers in their hair, under a short kerchief. Mom said that was common for weddings since they were curling their hair for the reception later that night.

 

[Famule]

See the link.

Mr. Aken refers to Canon 1262 of the old code as liturgical law. What about Canon 2 of the new code?