Must a woman wear a veil during Latin Mass?

[glendab]

Hello Light.

Glenda please! You are not a victim here.** You are the one who chose to state that women who did not veil are lacking in modesty, piety, and reverence**…

I never said that. That is the twist some put on my words. And those who took that erroneous ball and ran with it stretched into me being the bad guy. They said what I said and only repeated a lie about what I actually said. I give up. I admitted to wearing a veil and I’ve been defending myself since in one way or another. Why is that?

Glenda

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Hello Bruised.

Please don’t put words in my mouth that aren’t there. I never said it was “the Church’s Tradition.” Those are your words. I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t add to what I say to imply things that aren’t true.

Glenda

I didn’t say or imply you said that. You inferred that one all on your own.

 

[ProVobis]

All of this appears to me to be a classic case of “you can dish it out, but you can’t take it”.

Well, seeing how she’s outnumbered here, I doubt very much if she can’t take it.

Just saying.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Glenda please! You are not a victim here. You are the one who chose to state that women who did not veil are lacking in modesty, piety, and reverence. You were doing the bullying, not those who questioned or called you on it. You had plenty of opportunities to apologize or clarify what you said, if you really didn’t mean it, but you chose to argue back and then claim that you were being called names, then leave the thread without so much as a “sorry, I didn’t mean that”, so what are we to think? Probably that you meant every word you said.

There is a difference between name- calling and pointing out someone’s perceived behavior. All of this appears to me to be a classic case of “you can dish it out, but you can’t take it”. I really hope the moderator closes this thread and the other one which you did make disparaging remarks on about women without headcoverings. Perhaps you should stay away from controversial threads if you are going to post an inflammatory comment and then get upset when someone calls you on it.

Amen.

 

[LightBound]

Hello Light.

I never said that. That is the twist some put on my words. And those who took that erroneous ball and ran with it stretched into me being the bad guy. They said what I said and only repeated a lie about what I actually said. I give up. I admitted to wearing a veil and I’ve been defending myself since in one way or another. Why is that?

Glenda

If you really did not mean to imply that women who chose not to cover are not lacking in modesty, piety, and reverence, the time and place to explain that was on the other thread after members replied that they were offended by what you had said, instead of letting it go for days and bringing the incident up here. No, you should never have to defend your choice to wear a headcovering at Mass, but you should be able to explain your reason for wearing one without having it sound like anyone who doesn’t has not attained some level of sanctity as one who does. Just saying.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Hello Light.

I never said that. That is the twist some put on my words. And those who took that erroneous ball and ran with it stretched into me being the bad guy. They said what I said and only repeated a lie about what I actually said. I give up. I admitted to wearing a veil and I’ve been defending myself since in one way or another. Why is that?

Glenda

No one has a problem with you, or other Catholic women, wearing a veil. What people have a problem with is you saying that:
*

8. It would be wrong of the OP to think she is responsible for hurting anyone by wearing her veil even if she left it on all the way to class that day. A veil doesn’t hurt the faith of anyone. It challenges their lack of piety, modesty and reverence.

(Not directing this solely at you, Glenda.) :nerd:And I have a problem calling it being referred to as veiling when head covering is more accurate. I wish everyone could get on board with this. The way people talk about veiling, it’s like head covering is something new, instead of something old and traditional.

 

[Corki]

The idea that a woman with a Kleenex bobby-pinned to her head is somehow more pleasing to God than one without a Kleenex simply boggles the mind.

That kind of misses the point of covering. It’s not that anyone believes that it is “more pleasing to God” to cover but that it is “more pleasing to God” to be respectful and to recognize the Real Presence. The Kleenex is a bit of public shaming (and not in a bad way) so that* next time* you are less likely to forget to bring a veil. The whole idea of bringing a veil only came about when it became culturally acceptable for women to go out anywhere without head covering.

 

[Walking_Home]

Glenda please! You are not a victim here. You are the one who chose to state that women who did not veil are lacking in modesty, piety, and reverence. You were doing the bullying, not those who questioned or called you on it. You had plenty of opportunities to apologize or clarify what you said, if you really didn’t mean it, but you chose to argue back and then claim that you were being called names, then leave the thread without so much as a “sorry, I didn’t mean that”, so what are we to think? Probably that you meant every word you said.

There is a difference between name- calling and pointing out someone’s perceived behavior. All of this appears to me to be a classic case of “you can dish it out, but you can’t take it”. I really hope the moderator closes this thread and the other one which you did make disparaging remarks on about women without headcoverings. Perhaps you should stay away from controversial threads if you are going to post an inflammatory comment and then get upset when someone calls you on it.

---

Agree.

 

[dixieagle]

I will offer one thought. Women not veiling at the Mass is a very new thing relative to the history of the Church and the Canon Law was only adjusted to not mention it in 1983. There just might be something to the discipline.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

In the US, at least, “veiling” is a very new practice; when women were required to cover our heads, we wore hats, scarves, and only rarely “chapel veils”, as they were easy to stuff in a pocket for quick visits to Church. Mantillas were worn by elderly Italian ladies and pretty much no one else.

 

[dixieagle]

Hello E-7.

I wear a veil to Church and other places even if no religious events will be taking place. I also veil for Confession. I have my own reasons and they are important to me. Since I recently got attacked and called names here at CAF over this very topic, I hesitate to risk more insults and angst from persons who share my faith over something they themselves say doesn’t matter to them. But since I also know a little more about the subject than usual, I will comment.

Veiling or covering the head isn’t required in either the OF or EF of the Mass, although most women who participate in the EF do veil for various reasons. As Cardinal Burke’s letter states at EWTN, it is anticipated that those women who participate in the EF ill maintain the tradition of veiling for Mass and Communion. The requirement under the Pio-Benedictine Code meant is was a sin not to veil. Under the 1983 Code, this sinfulness has ended. So, to sum up. It used to be required in all Masses especially if the gal was going up for Communion, and if omitted was a sin either venial or mortal depending upon intent of omitter and circumstances. But it is no longer required under pain of since but for the EF, it is expected. (Burke’s word, not mine, so don’t go freaky on me Cat.)

No Priest can nor should refuse Communion to any woman who isn’t veiled and I suspect if a gal showed up to visit a place where she could see and participate in the EF, and she was refused Communion because she wasn’t veiled, I’d suspect there was more to those in that place than simply a fondness for ancient traditional ways. (SSPXer’s, etc.)

Glenda

Again… “veiling” was never required. Covering one’s head, at one time, was. It is no longer, as there is no longer “normative value” to the practice and Canon Law recognizes that by no longer including the requirement.

 

[ProVobis]

If you really did not mean to imply that women who chose not to cover are not lacking in modesty, piety, and reverence, the time and place to explain that was on the other thread after members replied that they were offended by what you had said, instead of letting it go for days and bringing the incident up here. No, you should never have to defend your choice to wear a headcovering at Mass, but you should be able to explain your reason for wearing one without having it sound like anyone who doesn’t has not attained some level of sanctity as one who does. Just saying.

To be fair, it was I who introduced the notion that white head coverings signify a different level of identification than black head coverings and perhaps added to the tension unnecesarily here, so I apologize for that.

 

[LightBound]

To be fair, it was I who introduced the notion that white head coverings signify a different level of identification than black head coverings and perhaps added to the tension unnecesarily here, so I apologize for that.

PV, there is no need for apologies, as the problem started last week on the thread where a young lady was asked by her supervisor not to wear a chapel cap while making announcements after Mass in a multi–denominational campus chapel and comments were made implying that those who did not cover were lacking in virtues. The color of the veil had nothing to do with it. Cultural considerations have come into play as to the color of lace veils and caps, but here in America, it appears the various colors are more for matching the color of the liturgical season or the wearer’s clothes than to signify a state in life.

 

[ProVobis]

PV, there is no need for apologies, as the problem started last week on the thread where a young lady was asked by her supervisor not to wear a chapel cap while making announcements after Mass in a multi–denominational campus chapel and comments were made implying that those who did not cover were lacking in virtues. The color of the veil had nothing to do with it. Cultural considerations have come into play as to the color of lace veils and caps, but here in America, it appears the various colors are more for matching the color of the liturgical season or the wearer’s clothes than to signify a state in life.

Right. They are separate issues. As are the OP’s in each thread. My first read on the OP here was that is was another attack on the Latin Mass, with the provocative word “must.” Instead it ended up as a continuation of that other thread, which, by the way, is still open as of 2041 CDT.

 

[dixieagle]

I’m wondering how some who think women aught not veil at all for Church feel about Sisters who routinely cover their heads and wear all sorts of veils. I mean, if they are so much against the rest of us wearing veils in Church, do they think that all Sisters too aught rid themselves of their veils as well? Or do they feel that the Orders that remain who still veil are some how out of step with the current norms in the Church? So, what’s up with that and how does this thread’s question relate to them?

Just curious how this effects women who would prefer no woman wears a veil to Church.

Glenda

First of all, I don’t think any of us has said that we “are against the rest of us wearing veils in Church.” While I believe that “veiling” for lay women is a recent romanticization of more typical head coverings worn when it was required, I don’t care one way or another if a woman covers her head, as long as she doesn’t try to tell me that I am less pious or reverent for choosing not to, which really gets my Irish up.

I have no problem at all with Sisters who wear veils. Many habits worn by religious women were or are largely unchanged from the Middle Ages, when women routinely covered their heads or wore veils, as was the custom. Many of the orders or communities of nuns and sisters never stopped. Some say it symbolizes the fact that they are “brides of Christ”, or that hair is cut and/or covered as a form of self-effacement. I think it is perfectly appropriate for religious women to wear veils if they or their order or community so choose.

 

[dixieagle]

Hello Light.

I never said that. That is the twist some put on my words. And those who took that erroneous ball and ran with it stretched into me being the bad guy. They said what I said and only repeated a lie about what I actually said. I give up. I admitted to wearing a veil and I’ve been defending myself since in one way or another. Why is that?

Glenda

Glenda, this is exactly what you said in another thread - direct quote: “A veil doesn’t hurt the faith of anyone. It challenges their lack of piety, modesty and reverence.”

No one cares if you wear a mantilla. You wouldn’t have to defend yourself if you didn’t imply that those of us who don’t wear head coverings aren’t pious, modest or reverent.

 

[Megan7]

Found a recent thread on this.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=421292

Thanks for the link Pro Vobis. I have not read the thread yet. But, I want to join before
it is too late … God bless.

 

[pianistclare]

Thanks for the link Pro Vobis. I have not read the thread yet. But, I want to join before
it is too late … God bless.

That thread is from 2010, and I’m amazed at how many of the posters are now banned.
Doesn’t bode well for these veiling threads…

They always end up with angry remarks…

 

[Walking_Home]

Right. They are separate issues. As are the OP’s in each thread. My first read on the OP here was that is was another attack on the Latin Mass, with the provocative word “must.” Instead it ended up as a continuation of that other thread, which, by the way, is still open as of 2041 CDT.

---

Well I can see why she used the word “must”. Not as an attack on the EF --but when that FE site – threatens women with not “veiling” – can result in refusal of communion – to not end up in such a situation – a woman must veil.

 

[ProVobis]

---

Well I can see why she used the word “must”. Not as an attack on the EF --but when that FE site – threatens women with not “veiling” – can result in refusal of communion – to not end up in such a situation – a woman must veil.

Perhaps you’re seeing more than I am. The OP says she “read” such-and-such and then she admits she attended a Latin Mass without a veil. So obviously it is not a “must” situation. The Eucharist part is a non-sequitor. In any case, this is different than being “asked” to remove a veil under different circumstances.

 

[Walking_Home]

Perhaps you’re seeing more than I am. The OP says she “read” such-and-such and then she admits she attended a Latin Mass without a veil.** So obviously it is not a “must” situation. This is a different situation than being asked to remove a veil under different circumstances**.

---

The “must” came after she read that FE site. Even though – she has attended a Latin Mass – where not all women “veiled” – that place goes all out with the twisting – to make it look like “veiling” is still in force – and threatens that communion can be refused.