Is The Chapel Veil Coming Back?

[KathleenElsie]

Friends and neighbors, the GOOD NEWS is that women are not required to wear anything on their heads. The reason that this is good is because it allows us to do something NOT required to show reverence and humility.

If it was required, we would be doing no more than being obedient. Since it is not required we can offer our covering as a gift.

LOL but the same could be said for shoes, socks, shirts and other pieces of clothing. Now I cover and dress modestly as does my whole family. But there are no specific rules on clothing at all. Just look around you in the summer.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

I started wearing a chapel veil when I was about 19 or 20 years old; I’m turning 23 soon.

At the encouragement of my seminarian of a cousin, I decided to try it. It was a very small way to imitate the Blessed Mother for me. At first, I was terrified of wearing one because I was afraid of attracting too much attention and such. I really wanted to take the thing off, but I kept the thing on as kind of a mortification. It’s a very strange reason to begin wearing a veil; I know.

After that, the veil just grew on me. On the days I don’t have a head covering with me at Mass, I ask our Blessed Mother to cover me with her mantilla.

Anyway, I didn’t think it was such a big deal to have a veil. But when my friends thought it was a great way to imitate our Blessed Mother. They pointed out that the lace that they see in their peripheral vision during Mass is a constant reminder to be as prayerful as Mary herself. And I think that attitude is a great reason to wear one.

I am sorry - detail person in me kicking to get out

Mary did not wear lace nor mantillas.

 

[Sarabande]

Sabarade you are indeed the exception. I might mention that I, too, often wear a veil to the TLM. However unless you saw others doing the same it is unlikely you would have decided out of the blue to wear a veil to Mass.

Of course, that make sense. It would be the same if I didn’t see people I admired and loved attending mass weekly, showing reverence for Christ at mass, saying their prayers, praying the rosary, etc. If I didn’t see that growing up or while I was in college, it would have been unlikely that I would have done the same out of the blue.

We are all influenced in a good and bad way, by what we grew up with or what has surrounded us. Hardly anything we do is decided out of the blue without any kind of influence - small or large. Perhaps I could have been spiritually inspired when I saw those young and old ladies wearing their chapel veils during a very reverent and spiritual TLM, but it wasn’t any other kind of influence. It is the same when I see very reverent and holy people in prayer or practice their faith in everyday life. What I see in them as holy people inspires me.

I’m sure that there may be ladies out there who are wrongly influenced to wear a veil and I can understand the concern you brought up. By the looks of the other ladies on these forums, though, it appears that they also have had similar experiences as myself. And I’m glad to see that I’m not the exception.

 

[brigid12]

Well, Byers, another “exception”. I not only wasn’t influenced by any websites to veil. I didn’t know about them until someone, similar to your post, brought them up on this forum. I also hadn’t seen anyone wearing one - for years - I’m a post-VII convert. My decision to veil was solely made through prayer and (Catholic) Scripture reading. Sorry.
Unfortunately, those who have a devotion which includes wearing the veil are very often given rude looks/comments by fellow parishioners, et al. I suppose I would also see those rude looks whenever I cry after receiving the Eucharist, if I was looking, that is. I suppose any outward sign of devotion to Our Lord is bound to be a threat to _____ who will try to prompt whoever is closest to deny the validity of this devotion.

 

[catholic79]

If ones interest in the veil (and the churches teaching on it) is started by conversations on a website like this one, is that somehow less meaningful then someone whose interest started well watching EWTN, or someone who saw a veiled women in a church they attended. Does it really matter what prompts the desire of understanding for this or any other part of our Catholic faith?

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

If ones interest in the veil (and the churches teaching on it) is started by conversations on a website like this one, is that somehow less meaningful then someone whose interest started well watching EWTN, or someone who saw a veiled women in a church they attended. Does it really matter what prompts the desire of understanding for this or any other part of our Catholic faith?

A lot depends on what kind of ‘understanding’ takes place.

 

[catholic79]

A lot depends on what kind of ‘understanding’ takes place.

Is the likelihood of ‘understanding’ completely dependent on the starting point? And/Or if a ‘True Understanding’ is reached is it less meaningful because of its starting point?

 

[byers]

If ones interest in the veil (and the churches teaching on it) is started by conversations on a website like this one, is that somehow less meaningful then someone whose interest started well watching EWTN, or someone who saw a veiled women in a church they attended. ** Does it really matter what prompts the desire of understanding for this or any other part of our Catholic faith?**

To answer your question. Yes, it does matter for the very reasons I posted above.
My concern is with some of the sites promoting and pushing this term “veiling”, referring to it as a “devotion” and implying that it is still “required” and trying to justify this ‘requirement’ with bible verses, are a danger to the faith, because their ‘reasons’ for promoting this are not in line with Church teaching nor are they honest about who they are and their true agenda.
The type of thinking they encourage can indeed turn one away from the true church and I have seen it happen enough for it to concern me.
There is certainly nothing wrong with encouraging the return to the wearing of a headcovering, but it is wrong when you are using this issue as a way of subtly undermining the magisterium of the Church and pulling people into your way of thinking.
Websites that are truly Catholic like this one are very upfront about everything and who they are.

I have veils and I wear them occasionally myself at Tridentine Masses. I have nothing against wearing or not wearing them. I am just posting a warning because I have indeed seen this problem and people should be aware of it. I see that many posters here have said they have not been influenced by these sites or those who frequent them and I am glad to hear that.

Although many would like to see this old custom revived I don’t see anyone pushing the tradition also from canon law in 1917 requiring men and women to be seated separately. It does seem somewhat selective.

I also believe their is a certain romanticizing of the whole idea especially among those who did not live through the era when headcoverings were expected. Excuse the pun, but there appears to be an awful lot of attention being placed on appearances.

More than a return to headwear I would myself prefer to see a campaign promoting true modesty in dress especially in church…modesty being the original reason for the requiring of a headcovering to begin since a headcovering was a societal norm for modesty in dress…

However one red flag that keeps hitting me is the incredible defensiveness of those who choose to wear a headcovering. And I can’t help but wonder why.

 

[Indyann]

To answer your question. Yes, it does matter for the very reasons I posted above.
My concern is with some of the sites promoting and pushing this term “veiling”, referring to it as a “devotion” and implying that it is still “required” and trying to justify this ‘requirement’ with bible verses, are a danger to the faith, because their ‘reasons’ for promoting this are not in line with Church teaching nor are they honest about who they are and their true agenda.
The type of thinking they encourage can indeed turn one away from the true church and I have seen it happen enough for it to concern me.
There is certainly nothing wrong with encouraging the return to the wearing of a headcovering, but it is wrong when you are using this issue as a way of subtly undermining the magisterium of the Church and pulling people into your way of thinking.
Websites that are truly Catholic like this one are very upfront about everything and who they are.

I have veils and I wear them occasionally myself at Tridentine Masses. I have nothing against wearing or not wearing them. I am just posting a warning because I have indeed seen this problem and people should be aware of it. I see that many posters here have said they have not been influenced by these sites or those who frequent them and I am glad to hear that.

Although many would like to see this old custom revived I don’t see anyone pushing the tradition also from canon law in 1917 requiring men and women to be seated separately. It does seem somewhat selective.

I also believe their is a certain romanticizing of the whole idea especially among those who did not live through the era when headcoverings were expected. Excuse the pun, but there appears to be an awful lot of attention being placed on appearances.

More than a return to headwear I would myself prefer to see a campaign promoting true modesty in dress especially in church…modesty being the original reason for the requiring of a headcovering to begin since a headcovering was a societal norm for modesty in dress…

However one red flag that keeps hitting me is the incredible defensiveness of those who choose to wear a headcovering. And I can’t help but wonder why.

Very well said. I would much rather see shoulders ,legs and ladies chests covered than worry about whether heads are covered or not!

 

[catholic79]

To answer your question. Yes, it does matter for the very reasons I posted above.
My concern is with some of the sites promoting and pushing this term “veiling”, referring to it as a “devotion” and implying that it is still “required” and trying to justify this ‘requirement’ with bible verses, are a danger to the faith, because their ‘reasons’ for promoting this are not in line with Church teaching nor are they honest about who they are and their true agenda.
The type of thinking they encourage can indeed turn one away from the true church and I have seen it happen enough for it to concern me.

I agree but this type of misinformation can come from the web as well as TV as well as people we communicate with. I don’t claim that everything I see on the web, or hear on TV, or out in the world is 100% accurate.

There is certainly nothing wrong with encouraging the return to the wearing of a headcovering, but it is wrong when you are using this issue as a way of subtly undermining the magisterium of the Church and pulling people into your way of thinking.

I am certainly not trying to undermine the Church or pull people into my way of thinking with this or any post.

Websites that are truly Catholic like this one are very upfront about everything and who they are.

I have veils and I wear them occasionally myself at Tridentine Masses. I have nothing against wearing or not wearing them. I am just posting a warning because I have indeed seen this problem and people should be aware of it. I see that many posters here have said they have not been influenced by these sites or those who frequent them and I am glad to hear that.

I do not wear a veil as I still discerning this for myself as I try to find the Churches true view on the matter.

Although many would like to see this old custom revived I don’t see anyone pushing the tradition also from canon law in 1917 requiring men and women to be seated separately. It does seem somewhat selective.

I also believe their is a certain romanticizing of the whole idea especially among those who did not live through the era when headcoverings were expected. Excuse the pun, but there appears to be an awful lot of attention being placed on appearances.

I agree

More than a return to headwear I would myself prefer to see a campaign promoting true modesty in dress especially in church…modesty being the original reason for the requiring of a headcovering to begin since a headcovering was a societal norm for modesty in dress…

Me Too!

However one red flag that keeps hitting me is the incredible defensiveness of those who choose to wear a headcovering. And I can’t help but wonder why.

I don’t wear a veil (well I did once at my wedding I guess ) but I have been trying to learn more about the Churches teachings on it. I think it is unfortunate that somehow those who use the web to try and learn the why’s behind the veil are somehow then not sincere if/when they choose to wear one, as those who don’t.

 

[byers]

I

I am slightly offended by your post and others that put such negatvity on coverings

Beckers, I am sorry if you were slightly offended by my post. It was not meant to offend but to educate others about certain sites.

To tell you the truth the site ( drbo.org/ )you list at the end of your posts offends me because though I personally love the DR bible, I note there are several links on this page which are certainly NOT in union with the magisterium of the Church.

For example I see St Mary’s Academy which is a SSPX school and I believe the SSPX is still considered in schism. There is also a direct link to the main page of the SSPX. I also noted the Valtora publishers which publish the works of maria valtora whose ‘poem of the man-god’ was essentially condemned by the Church. I also noted links on the Mary Pages to unapproved marian apparitions…Now I could go on and on about this link you post, but that is enough to give the idea.

So before you find me too offensive…imagine how offended I feel finding that you are a supporter and promoter of a site which has many links against the teachings of our holy church.

by Beckers

I have meet these so called ultra-traditionalist and have heard their view points I can normal smell them out immediately.

I believe you may need to take another look at the sites whose viewpoints you obviously espouse as some of them are the very reason I am posting on this topic.
.

 

[catholicknight]

Please everyone, let’s be calm about this. There are two sides to every coin. There is a way of looking at the chapel veil with a very strong Biblical mandate, yet at the same time fully understand (and agree with) why the Church removed it from the Code of Canon Law.

I happen to be one who feels very strongly about the veil, and I do believe we have a Biblical mandate for it. But on the flip side I totally agree with Holy Mother Church that it should not be a part of Canon Law. It has no business there.

I would love to go into this further, but that would make this post very long. So those of you who are interested in my reasoning can read my full explanation on the matter HERE.

 

[lak611]

Although many would like to see this old custom revived I don’t see anyone pushing the tradition also from canon law in 1917 requiring men and women to be seated separately. It does seem somewhat selective.

My older relatives and friends all said that they never saw men and women seated separately in church back in the 1940’s. Apparently this part of the old Canon Law was never enforced.

 

[byers]

Please everyone, let’s be calm about this. There are two sides to every coin. There is a way of looking at the chapel veil with a very strong Biblical mandate, yet at the same time fully understand (and agree with) why the Church removed it from the Code of Canon Law.

I happen to be one who feels very strongly about the veil, and I do believe we have a Biblical mandate for it. But on the flip side I totally agree with Holy Mother Church that it should not be a part of Canon Law. It has no business there.

I would love to go into this further, but that would make this post very long. So those of you who are interested in my reasoning can read my full explanation on the matter HERE.

CatholicKnight …not sure to whom your comment was about “being calm” as I only see discussion here not fighting… I did indeed read through your entire “explanation” that you once again linked to.

Your are entitled to your opinion, however there were several errors in your article. And I am not going to go into it in great detail again as it has already been thoroughly discussed. You are using the same type arguments I was referring to on other sites.

Here are a few quotes from your ‘explanation’ in which you are in error.

combined with feminist influences on Catholic women in western nations led to the popular misconception that “veiling” is now optional, and women are no longer required to do it

According to the Church, women’s headcovering, which you refer to as “veiling” IS NO LONGER REQUIRED.

The idea is that women are to read what the Scriptures have to say, and let the Holy Spirit convict their hearts personally.

Catholic women are to be obedient to Christ’s church, not to read the scriptures and decide for themselves what the correct teaching is. You may of course certainly read scriptures and meditate on them, but the Church’s interpretation supercedes your own opinion. And you may certainly decide to “veil” if you choose.

The chapel veil is a sign of holiness and of purity.

The chapel veil by itself is NOT a sign of holiness or purity.
Plenty of hookers and trollops have worn them to Mass for years.

Angels are offended when we ignore or refuse to follow any liturgical custom, whether it be failing to kneel or veil in the presence of our Eucharistic Lord.

This is not part of Catholic teaching as to how the angels ‘feel’ about all of this.

Furthermore, the chapel veil is a Eucharistic sign, stemming directly from the Blessed Sacrament.

The “chapel veil” is not a “Eucharistic sign”.

I have run out of comments and don’t have all night…but sometime later perhaps I can come back and write a little more…because there is a great deal of error in your entire article and it is late and I am too tired to fool with this anymore.

Enjoy your “veiling”.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

However one red flag that keeps hitting me is the incredible defensiveness of those who choose to wear a headcovering. And I can’t help but wonder why.

I think some of the defensiveness comes from trying to explain why we cover and having consistently negative responses, rather than responses of love and charity.

I know that I have no been patient nor loving in some of my response and posts, and I apologize for that.

 

[Guitar]

My older relatives and friends all said that they never saw men and women seated separately in church back in the 1940’s. Apparently this part of the old Canon Law was never enforced.

Perhaps someone, somewhere, thought through the ramifications of herding half the faithful Catholics who were generously open to life together on one side of the church and leaving them to manage all God’s little gifts on their own?

 

[monicatholic]

More than a return to headwear I would myself prefer to see a campaign promoting true modesty in dress especially in church…modesty being the original reason for the requiring of a headcovering to begin since a headcovering was a societal norm for modesty in dress…

This is an important point to me. While covered bodies would be a welcome change, I’m thinking of a modesty beyond exposed shoulders and legs. When my husband and I enter a pew for Sunday mass, we usually have seven of our ten children with us. Even though our parish has several large families, it’s impossible not to notice us. How do I know? Because lovely, generous people stop to talk to us after every Mass. “The girls look lovely today!” “What a good boy you were in Mass today!” “Look how big the Baby is getting!”

Whether or not wearing a veil (I too have a problem with the connotations of ‘veiling’) is an authentic devotion (I think it is), it’s not a **private **one. I’m uncomfortable with any more public statements of personal devotion and my mortifications come fluently and naturally without a veil (my four year old provides many of them just because she loves me!)

As for the interpretation that Scripture mandates it, then the Church has failed to teach proper moral behavior. I know the Church has NOT failed, leaving me to determine that particular interpretation of Scriptural mandate is too stringent. Now if the Church re-instated the necessity of the practice, I’d be on board in a minute because obedience to the Church is my happy obligation.

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

Whether or not wearing a veil (I too have a problem with the connotations of ‘veiling’) is an authentic devotion (I think it is), it’s not a **private **one.

.

What do you mean it is not a private devotion?

 

[KathleenElsie]

What do you mean it is not a private devotion?

I believe that as the headcovering is visible then it is not private in that sense. But then I did not write the post you referred to.

Many of us believe it is private in the sense that the REASON to veil is between God and us. It is not between “others opinions” and us.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Very well said. I would much rather see shoulders ,legs and ladies chests covered than worry about whether heads are covered or not!

Women who cover their heads as a sign of reverence and humility seldom dress immodestly. Perhaps if more women covered their heads, other women who see them will become painfully aware of their own bare shoulders, chests and thighs and feel a need to cover themselves.