You have claimed that veiling is not optional, based on an argument from Scripture. A couple of priests, even renowned apologists, do not have more authority on this question than Cardinal Burke. He says that covering the head is optional.
I actually have come across an official Church document that mentions that head-covering is a culturally bound, but I cannot find it right now and do not have time to look for it. But even without this, Cardinal Burke’s letter is clear enough that women are not obliged to veil in Church.
Frankly, your comment " not even the Church can trump Sacred Scripture and its timeless teaching" suggests a Protestant view of revelation and is not Catholics understand the matter. The Church interprets Scripture. It is not for individuals to decide what it means.
Dear floresco,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for the above, dear sister, and please pardon the delay in my response, but I have been heavily engaged on another thread
First, with respect to Cardinal Burke’s letter, dear sister, it is “not a formal judgement of the Signatura”, but simply “reflects (his) opinion”. Thus whilst he may be the highest canonical official after the Pope, that does not mean that it is impossible for him to be mistaken upon some particular issue and for some ordinary priests to be correct. Moreover, we need to be careful that we do not fall into the modern tendency of ascribing a creeping infallibility to every statement, declaration or opinion given by a Bishop or Cardinal, or even by the Holy Father himself. This is an all too common habit as these boards bear ample witness.
The biblical case for women donning a veil in public worship is extremely cogent and is not culturally bound, as some insist in wrongly maintaining. St. Paul plainly states, dear sister, that “any women who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonours her head - it is the same as if her head was shaven” (I Cor. 11: 5). The woman who is bare-headed in public worship dishonours “her head” ( a reference to the man) by assuming equality with him by keeping her head uncovered. The woman who chooses to discard the veil should take her defiance of modesty to its logical conclusion. If she prefers a bare head, then she ought to remove her hair; womanly feeling forbids the latter, then it should forbid the former, for the like shame attaches to both (see I Cor. 11: 6). That the biblical requirement to veil is not culturally bound, is abundantly clear from verse 10: “That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, *beca**use of the angels…” *(emphasis mine). St. Paul realized the presence of angels everywhere, but especially in the assemblies of the faithful. Well, if angels are present in our public worship, as indeed they are, should women demean themselves in the presence of such pure spirits? Since woman’s subjection to man is a divine appointement, she is to cover her head in recognition of the palce assigned to her in the created order, and veiling is the symbol of her authority to approach God in divine worship. This is done “because of the angels”, in other words great care must be taken not to offend them by any impropriety on our part (cf. Heb. 1: 14). Such an offence would occur if women discarded the veil and thereby displayed their disregard for the station given to them by their creation. This, dear sister, has nothing to do with the prevailing custom of those days, but is a timeless truth that has continuing validity, for the angels have never ceased being present in divine worship and thus could still be offended by any impropriety. Later St. Paul says that “If anyone is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the chuches of God” (v. 16). St. Paul is saying that there is no such practice of permitting women to remain unveiled in the Christian assemblies of the faithul. The practice that women should be clad as those in subjection is universal and the the contrary is unknown.
To conclude, I would say with St. Paul: “Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” If a woman attends divine worship uncovered she goes contrary to the principles of subordination which the Creator had in view in giving her long hair. For a time she effects equality with the man and so does what is uncomely and unbecoming. Thus women should don a veil not merely as a mere act of humility but because it is an acknowledgement of her subjection to man and to ensure that the ever present angels are not offended by any impropriety.
Please re-read my citation from Fathers Rumble and Carty in a previous post to you and I do not think that you will be able to fault their argument, even if you disagree with it.
This will be my final post on this topic as there is nothing further that I can say. Women either accept the biblical requirement to don a veil or they reject it and try to explain it away as being ‘culturally bound’ and irrelevant.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
BTW, if we enjoy discussing our personal reasons why we started to and continue to veil, please allow us to do so.
These were my exact words: “I have noticed some personal innuendos suggesting that one must [as in *obligated by a mandate] use a head covering.”
