Is The Chapel Veil Coming Back?

[PatienceAndLove]

Nope - no pressure.

If you don’t want to, then don’t.

On a side note, from EWTN:

Personal Piety
While it is absolutely clear to me that there is no canonical or moral obligation for women to wear a head-covering in Church, women are certainly free to do so as a matter of personal devotion. They should, however, see it as a sign of subordination to God, as that better suits the liturgical context. Those who wear a covering or veil, and those who don’t, should not judge the motives of the other, but leave each woman free in a matter that is clearly not of obligation.

I apologize for my tone and pressure. Mea Culpa.

 

[byers]

I just have one question. I remember reading somewhere that the wearing of a headcovering was not actually incorporated into canon law until 1917. Does anyone know if this is true???. I realize that until this century women would hardly go out without some sort of headcovering as that was the custom in society in general and perhaps there was no need to ever put it in canon law. Just wondering if anyone is familiar with the history in this matter.
Thanks.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I just have one question. I remember reading somewhere that the wearing of a headcovering was not actually incorporated into canon law until 1917. Does anyone know if this is true???. I realize that until this century women would hardly go out without some sort of headcovering as that was the custom in society in general and perhaps there was no need to ever put it in canon law. Just wondering if anyone is familiar with the history in this matter.
Thanks.

I have no clue, but others probably do.

EDIT: Found an answer:
Wiki:

The Roman Catholic Church omitted the requirement in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The requirement had originally been introduced as a universal law for the Latin Rite of the Church in 1917 with canon 1262 of its first Code of Canon Law. This canon mandated that, in church, women should cover their heads.

Cause I don’t totally trust wikipedia, from EWTN

The 1917 Code of Canon Law. canon 1262, stated,
1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.
2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

When the 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated this canon was not re-issued; indeed, canon 6, 1, abrogated it, along with every other canon of the 1917 Code not intentionally incorporated into the new legislation.

Canon 6
1. When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated:
     (1) the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
     (2) other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescriptions of this Code, unless particular laws are otherwise expressly provided for;
     (3) any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code;
     (4) other universal disciplinary laws dealing with a matter which is regulated ex integro by this Code.

Thus, there is no longer any canonical obligation for women to wear a head-covering, much less the more specific veil.

 

[surgei]

I am not an Orthodox Christian - I am Roman Catholic.

I am not bound by the Orthodox view of that ‘directive’.

No but you are bound to the scriptures. You are bound to the Church. Just because it is not in the cannon laws does not mean it is not part of your chuch. You are taking a reductionist view of the Church. Only what is written is what is true. This flies in the face of the scriptural teaching to hold fast to the things I have taught you in word and deed.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

No but you are bound to the scriptures. You are bound to the Church. Just because it is not in the cannon laws does not mean it is not part of your chuch. You are taking a reductionist view of the Church. Only what is written is what is true. This flies in the face of the scriptural teaching to hold fast to the things I have taught you in word and deed.

You are not voicing the view taken by the Roman Catholic Church on this topic.

 

[surgei]

I respectfully take issue with your comment that “the biblical mandate still exists”. We are not protestants. We follow the mandates of the Church. The Church is the interpreter of scripture, we do not as protestants do, decide on the meaning of every biblical verse as if we are each our own private popes.

We respect that since the bible belongs to the Church the Church has the right to interpret it according to the wisdom assigned to it by Christ. The church no longer mandates the wearing of a headcovering and that should settle the issue. You may wear a whatever on your head as you will, but do not try to justify it by saying the biblical mandate is still in effect, when the Church has indicated that it is not by no longer requiring us to maintain this custom.

Agreed we are not protestants. However Trent says that the source of revelation is Scripture and tradition. The Church teaches that the scriptures should be read by all the faithful but that only she has the protection of not erring when it comes to application of them. That is what sets us apart as historical Christians in comparison to the protestants.
Your reductionist view of the Church practice is rather frightening. The Church only requires that you attend mass on Sundays and Holy days. Does that make atttending the mass on other days something that is oppressive? The Church only requires that you receive the eucharistic Christ once a year and confess once a year. Do you go more often? Does the lack of mandate to pray the rosary mean that you should not pray the rosary? By all means no. The practice of the saints is otherwise.
Drift: Does anyone know of a woman saint that did not cover her head in the mass.
Back from Drift:
The other problem with your view is that the Church removing the mandate from the cannons only takes away the temporal penalties that came with it. It does not take away the call to cover the head itself. I think their are plenty of posts that show this to be true already in this thread.
Finaly your view turns the Tradition of the Church into the writings of the Church only. This is not the case. The Tradition of the Church encompases art, music, writings of the abbas and ammas, as well as the pious practice of the faithful. Head covering would go in the pious practice as well as the writings of the abbas and ammas. It is found in our art. It is a part of our hymnography.

 

[surgei]

You are not voicing the view taken by the Roman Catholic Church on this topic.

Isn’t the onus of proof on you. Lack of evidence is not evidence.
Show me where the Church differs on this teaching from the Orthodox.
BTW I know several of your bishops on a first name basis. Some of them were friends before they became bishop.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

Does the lack of mandate to pray the rosary mean that you should not pray the rosary? By all means no. The practice of the saints is otherwise.
Drift: Does anyone know of a woman saint that did not cover her head in the mass.

We are to pray without ceasing - rosary is just one option for how to accomplish that - there is no ‘mandate’ for that specific devotion.

A head covering for Roman Catholics is more like the rosary - if it works for you fine - if not fine.

We pray as we can - not as we can’t.

Regarding the woman saint – answer is NOT YET.

 

[surgei]

We are to pray without ceasing - rosary is just one option for how to accomplish that - there is no ‘mandate’ for that specific devotion.

A head covering for Roman Catholics is more like the rosary - if it works for you fine - if not fine.

We pray as we can - not as we can’t.

Regarding the woman saint – answer is NOT YET.

What do you know about the meaning of the head covering?
Why do you reject it?
I think I have shown that I disagree with your take it or leave it views on the head covering. I am sure most of your saints did as well. The Onus of proof is on you to show where the church says it is as you say it is, an option that coud be taken or left.

 

[fodda23]

Before the revision in 1983, Canon Law had stated that women must cover their heads. “… especially when they approach the holy table” (can. 1262.2). mulieres autem, capite cooperto et modeste vestitae. What would be something translated like… women should cover their head and dress modestly.
But in order to reduce such a growing collection of books, the new version of Canon Law was subjected to concise changes. In the process, mention of head coverings was omitted. The Roman Catholic Church no longer mandates the wearing of a chapel veil. By law or by demand. This devotion is popular at our parish, however, it is more of a devotional nature rather than custom. More than anything, a head covering helps to maintain an identity. The “biblical mandate” that some have referred to, is from the 11th Chapter of 1st Corinthians. According the the New American Bible, “Paul is addressing the women of Corinth who have been participation in worship without the head-covering normal to Greek society of the period. Paul’s stated goal is to bring them back into conformity with contemporary practice and propriety. in his desire to convince, he reaches for arguments from a variety of sources thought he has space to develop them only sketchily and is perhaps aware that they differ greatly in persuasiveness.” Note on 11: 3-16
1 Corinthians also says that women shouldn’t speak in Church. Should we ban all female lectors? Roman Catholics are not fundamentalist in nature here folks. The Church is always the interpreter of Scripture, and not the other way around… It was the Church who decided upon the canon and collected together in one work, the Sacred Texts of the Bible in the first place.

Wear if you want. Don’t look down your nose at those who don’t. If you don’t want to wear it, don’t… Don’t look down your nose at those who do.
(Colossians 3:12-21)
Put on, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved,
heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another,
if one has a grievance against another; as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do. And over all these put on love,
that is, the bond of perfection.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

What do you know about the meaning of the head covering?
Why do you reject it?
I think I have shown that I disagree with your take it or leave it views on the head covering. I am sure most of your saints did as well. The Onus of proof is on you to show where the church says it is as you say it is, an option that coud be taken or left.

Most women saints had no choice.

 

[fodda23]

not so fast.
The cannons of the church don’t work like that.
There is no cannon on the genuflection in front of the exposed blessed sacrament. Does that mean that the church no longer wants you to do so?
The lack of a cannon here does not mean that there is no need to do so as the scriptures are clear already.

Canon law does not govern the details of liturgy, the GIRM does. The GIRM is very specific about when a priest or deacon genuflects, bows, kneels, or otherwise, regarding posture. Posture is an entirely different topic in relationship to the devotional practice of wearing a veil.

 

[theweeper]

got a little heated at the end there didnt it boys,

so much drama over headcoverings.

i just dont get what all the fuss is about. are there any GOOD reasons why a woman wouldnt want to wear the veil? really, come on we all know the kind of woman who gets all up in arms about “the church telling me what to do.” get over it ladies!

 

[PatienceAndLove]

got a little heated at the end there didnt it boys,

so much drama over headcoverings.

i just dont get what all the fuss is about. are there any GOOD reasons why a woman wouldnt want to wear the veil? really, come on we all know the kind of woman who gets all up in arms about “the church telling me what to do.” get over it ladies!

Headcovering threads always get heated up.
As do female altar servers, female readers and EMHCs.

 

[daeve]

Ok. So this just gave me the warm fuzzy feeling you get when your parents or grandparents tell you about a way of life that was left out of the history books.

I’m not sure if you mean I bored you, or if you’re telling me I’m old. I already know I’m old, and a grandmother to boot.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

come on we all know the kind of woman who gets all up in arms about “the church telling me what to do.” get over it ladies!

Since the church no longer requires it that red herring is meaningless.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

If you don’t want to, then don’t.

On a side note, from EWTN:

I apologize for my tone and pressure. Mea Culpa.

Thank you for this post.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Thank you for this post.

Welcome.

 

[surgei]

If you don’t want to, then don’t.

On a side note, from EWTN:

Does this priest error in relogating this passage to the traditions of men?
One of the tests of the Church and her practice is found in the creed. In it we say I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. As such we can identify the teachings such as eucharist in the writings of all the early church fathers and find its celebration in all the places that have received the gospel. We find the celebrations of Resurection and Nativity, worship on Sunday instead of Saturday, iconography, crosses on church buildings, the seperation of the alter from the people and an assundry of things that are done by all the people who have received the gospel. One of the things we find as well is the covering of the heads of women. The exception to this is in countries who are now setting it asside. Countries who started in zeal and now have forgotten their first love. Deceived by whom, I ask? Were they deceived when they started out in faith covering their heads and have now come to the truth of the gospel? Were all those others who received the same gospel and kept the head coverings seduced into a lie? I doubt it.
I have been to the Liturgy in all the major traditions including the Coptic who were cut off from the rest of the Christian faithful after Calcedon and especially after the muslim takeover of the mideast. In all the Churches of God the covering of the head of women is done and seen as her dignity.
Who then enlightens you that does not enlighten these lovers of God?

 

[PatienceAndLove]

.
I have been to the Liturgy in all the major traditions including the Coptic who were cut off from the rest of the Christian faithful after Calcedon and especially after the muslim takeover of the mideast. In all **the Churches of God the covering of the head of women is done and seen as her dignity. **
Who then enlightens you that does not enlighten these lovers of God?

However, these countries do not have the same history as the united states. We have the unfortunate history of the sexual revolution that demanded women take their place as equals to men, translating into “i ain’t coverin my head for nobody cause it makes me a servant!” rather then seeing it as her dignity and glory