First time wearing my mantilla

  • Thread starter Thread starter maryelizabeth2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PatienceAndLove
Does that mean that I, as a 23 year old, am not supposed to wear a covering because I was not around (or even a thought) when covering was required?
We have the ability to cultivate a devotion, and the headcovering is such a devotion.
No one can be forced to wear one, and no one can be forced to remove one.
Click to expand...
Of course it does not mean that and that is not what I said.
I said if it was never the custom for you and you are fairly young then be sure your idea for wearing one is your own idea and that you are not being influenced by others.

Yes you may cultivate a “devotion”, but a headcovering is NOT a devotion. It is a custom, habit, or tradition and once was a requirement, but it is not in itself a “devotion.”

This is just a general link but it can give you an idea of what is a Catholic ‘devotion.’

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_devotions
.
 
PatienceAndLove said:
Does that mean that I, as a 23 year old, am not supposed to wear a covering because I was not around (or even a thought) when covering was required?
We have the ability to cultivate a devotion, and the headcovering is such a devotion.
No one can be forced to wear one, and no one can be forced to remove one.
Click to expand...
No, you are welcome to wear one, as a personal devotion to scriptural recommendations by St. Paul. Not required to, but permitted, and by some (including myself), encouraged.

Mind you, I am not a Traditionalist. I’m merely someone who takes seriously St. Paul’s advice… with a grain of salt…
 
maryelizabeth2 said:
For the first time today I proudly wore my mantilla to Eucharstic Adoration. :clapping:
I found it very comforting and it helped me to concentrate more on the Lord. I didn’t feel uncomfortable but instead closer to God. For all you ladies that have been contempleting wearing a veil I say go for it!

maryelizabeth
Click to expand...
Good for you, maryelizabeth! I too love my mantilla and recently wore it for the first time a just a couple of months ago. For me there’s something so totally right about it, no question.

I don’t wear it at the “NO” Mass–yet. But, it’s funny; I miss it when I don’t wear it to Mass. The other “NO” women (in jeans and mini skirts), would undoutably click their tongues at me. I am as yet still a poor chicken and vain sinner, I guess.
Pax Christi,
Ann
 
CONGRATULATIONS, That is a wonderful display of respect, every lady should wear one when attending mass

Tradito.
maryelizabeth2 said:
For the first time today I proudly wore my mantilla to Eucharstic Adoration. :clapping:
I found it very comforting and it helped me to concentrate more on the Lord. I didn’t feel uncomfortable but instead closer to God. For all you ladies that have been contempleting wearing a veil I say go for it!

maryelizabeth
Click to expand...
 
Sure, the Mantilla was “just a veil”… it’s a traditional spanish middle class/lower gentry veil, generally a civil affectation, but one that, in the Spanish culture, was very common.

It’s pretty, it’s inexpensive (now), and it’s been deemed appropriate for almost a century for general Catholic use.

And while head cover isn’t required, I like to see it. Just like I like to see a certain good looking black woman with her vibrant purple pantsuit, including jacket, and matching hair-dye and hat. Simply a stunning piece of art on the human form.

And, unlike certain hats worn as recently as the 1970’s, it’s not likely to have tails hanging off the back to distract me when I site behind it, nor a brim that I’ll bump into in line.

The mantilla is
  1. pretty
  2. effective
  3. allowed
  4. optional, despite the scriptural basis for women to be veiled.
And people are upset by it?
This I will never understand. A woman chooses to go the extra step, to follow the scriptures even where the church has said one need not, and people are griping?

St. Paul, Pray for them.
St. Job, Pray for them.
St. Job, pray for me, ask the Lord to grant me patience.
Lord Jesus, I pray, guide us all.
 
No. You have it wrong.

Anybody who wants to wear one, fine.

It’s that younger people, esp. younger men, seem to think it MUST be a mantilla, that it is the ONLY headcovering, that it was the only thing worn in the US before Vatican II, and that the mantilla interprets into the very same thing St. Paul admonished women in his time to wear.
 
OutinChgoburbs said:
No. You have it wrong.

Anybody who wants to wear one, fine.

It’s that younger people, esp. younger men, seem to think it MUST be a mantilla, that it is the ONLY headcovering, that it was the only thing worn in the US before Vatican II, and that the mantilla interprets into the very same thing St. Paul admonished women in his time to wear.
Click to expand...
So I continue to wonder why out one side of your mouth you are all about wear one, don’t one, no skin off your nose, then the other side you are lecturing as to what is proper or defined in your eyes. You seem to want to set the bar. I can imagine you will come back with your admonishment that it is not required but again no one is trying to force anyone to wear a veil, mantilla, or kleenex.
 
Philothea53 said:
So I continue to wonder why out one side of your mouth you are all about wear one, don’t one, no skin off your nose, then the other side you are lecturing as to what is proper or defined in your eyes. You seem to want to set the bar. I can imagine you will come back with your admonishment that it is not required but again no one is trying to force anyone to wear a veil, mantilla, or kleenex.
Click to expand...
I think you’re reading Chicago incorrectly. If I’m not mistaken, she’s attempting to say is A) it’s the “should” that is wrong (Traditio said a woman “should” wear a mantilla, in response to a woman who said she did). “Should” is different from “may” or “can.” “Should” implies “must,” if you’re going to do the “right thing.” This is contrary to the mind of the Church (which you and I do not agree on, but knowledgeable apologists here and on EWTN have stated that the requirement is abrogated and the Church HAS spoken…the old argument). Chicago is also saying that a MANTILLA, per se, is NOT specifically required. A mantilla is a very specific garment that falls under the general heading of HEAD COVERINGS or WHAT YOU CAN WEAR ON YOUR HEAD. A mantilla was never required. What was required (and is no longer) is a head covering, a scarf, a shawl, a bonnet, a hat, a veil, OR a mantilla.
 
Seminarian_Matt said:
I wrote that quotation. And I definitely have used Catholic teaching including Scripture and Canon Law. Head coverings were always mandatory and therefore, should still be mandatory.
Click to expand...
This is an example where the clergy take matters into their own hands. Despite current rules they are interpreted into their own like. Unfortunately, to each person this is taught is not receiving “official” rules of the church.

It’s ironic how you would teach such stuff as a seminarian. This illustrates the liberal movements within the catholic church. On the surface it appears traditional and orthodox, but in reality you are defying church law.

Just because Saul wrote this doesn’t imply he’s the Pope.
 
WillieManillie said:
This is an example where the clergy take matters into their own hands. Despite current rules they are interpreted into their own like. Unfortunately, to each person this is taught is not receiving “official” rules of the church.

It’s ironic how you would teach such stuff as a seminarian. This illustrates the liberal movements within the catholic church. On the surface it appears traditional and orthodox, but in reality you are defying church law.

Just because Saul wrote this doesn’t imply he’s the Pope.
Click to expand...
defying church law? sound not so sweet. sometime church itself also defying his church law.
women use to be cover their head in church but now no more, so you tell me who defying church law in the first place. Just because of stupid reporter and the pressure of modern women org.
do you know islam stand so firm in their mosque law. no women allow to attend friday prayer. just imagine…

God bless you, especially veiling women in church…

tq
 
maryelizabeth2 said:
For the first time today** I proudly wore my mantilla** to Eucharstic Adoration. :clapping:
I found it very comforting and it helped me to concentrate more on the Lord. I didn’t feel uncomfortable but instead closer to God. For all you ladies that have been contempleting wearing a veil I say go for it!

maryelizabeth
Click to expand...
How nice, you were proud of your devotion to God :rolleyes: How inspirational 👍
 
jedi said:
defying church law?..sometime church itself also defying his church law…do you know islam stand so firm in their mosque law…
Click to expand...
Yes defying church law. The official definition of defy is:to challenge the power of; resist boldly or openly: to defy parental authority.
Nothing more is necessary regarding resisting what is recognized as official law. The wearing of the mantilla is strictly “optional.”

Saul wasn’t the Pope. To place him above the apostolic chain of Popes is denying Christ himself. “Peter, upon this rock…” If you place Saul high above, then I presume you place our Lord on a lower-level.

To each her own, but a seminarian who teaches otherwise is resisting church law as prescribed loosely in Vatican II. In the 80’s it was reinterpreted to identify the mantilla wearing as optional. Thus as quoted from Star Trek…*“resistance is futile.”

*To resist apostolic authority is disobeying the church. It is an option. It is not required and this should be stressed in the seminary. Otherwise, the seminarian is wrong and should be disciplined or corrected at minimum.
 
WillieManillie said:
…

Just because Saul wrote this doesn’t imply he’s the Pope.
Click to expand...
VATICAN COUNCIL I
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION

“PASTOR AETERNUS”
CHAPTER IV

Moreover, the Roman Pontiffs, … defined those things which must be held and which they knew, by the help of God, to be consonant with the Sacred Scriptures and apostolic traditions. For the Holy Spirit promised to the successors of Peter, not that they would unfold new doctrine which He revealed to them, but that, with His assistance, they would piously guard and faithfully expound the revelation through the Apostles or deposit of faith handed on .​

So, how is removing the headcovering:
“consonant with the Sacred Scriptures and apostolic traditions” ??
 
TNT said:
VATICAN COUNCIL I

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION

“PASTOR AETERNUS”

CHAPTER IV

Moreover, the Roman Pontiffs, … defined those things which must be held and which they knew, by the help of God, to be consonant with the Sacred Scriptures and apostolic traditions. For the Holy Spirit promised to the successors of Peter, not that they would unfold new doctrine which He revealed to them, but that, with His assistance, they would piously guard and faithfully expound the revelation through the Apostles or deposit of faith handed on .​

So, how is removing the headcovering:
“consonant with the Sacred Scriptures and apostolic traditions” ??
Click to expand...
Because it’s a discipline and not a doctrine or dogma and therefore not immutable.
 
jrnami said:
How nice, you were proud of your devotion to God :rolleyes: How inspirational 👍
Click to expand...
Wow, I’m not OP, but I really don’t know how to take this comment…

Think you could give an ounce of Grace here?

If I had started a thread, titled, I proudly learned all the mysteries of the Rosary by heart and no longer have to read them…what would you think?

Would you think I was being too proud of my devotion to God?

Maybe, just maybe, it has taken the OP a lot of prayer, courage and devotion (yes) to wear her Mantilla to church, during a time that (just seems to me) no one encourages it…

I"m proud of her…

and if I have misinterpreted your post, accept my apology.
 
TNT said:
VATICAN COUNCIL I
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION

“PASTOR AETERNUS”
CHAPTER IV…

Moreover, the Roman Pontiffs, … defined those things which must be held and which they knew, by the help of God, to be consonant with the Sacred Scriptures and apostolic traditions. …
Click to expand...
Man, are you caught in a time-warp. Leave the dark ages and welcome to the 21’st century.
  1. You just cited Vatican Council I. The last I heard Vatican Council II occurred. By the very delegation by Christ to the Pontificate, Vatican II and intrepretations thereafter are acceptable and law.
  2. Saul was not the Pope.
  3. When a Papal Mass is taking place in the Vatican probably 99% of the woman in attendance are in disorder per these mantilla assessments. Yet the Pope pushes on with mass. I guess the Pope is null-and-void then as he is not following Vatican I.
  4. Because you cite Vatican I it is presumable you disregard Vatican II as not valid.
A quote I received by my spiritual director in my youth stated the following:*Man is to be changed by religion, not religion to be changed by man…
*What I find interesting is the inquisition is what created schisms in the church thus creating the protestant faiths. In this situation a micro-schism is created to obied by a Vatican Council that was overturned and/or amended not but a mere 45 years ago.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Because it’s a discipline and not a doctrine or dogma and therefore not immutable.
Click to expand...
Question was:
So, how is removing the headcovering:
“consonant with the Sacred Scriptures and apostolic traditions” ??

No matter whether it is dogma or not… the POINT is : It is NOT "consonant with the Sacred Scriptures and apostolic traditions.
Either the Holy Spirit inspired it for our Church or He didn’t. Of course He did. It wasn’t put into the Sacred Scriptures so it could be treated as preference.

Period

As the VAT I says:
It is not the pope’s place to come up with new novelties that overthrow the Apostolic traditions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top