Proper wearing of the veil

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philothea53
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It appears you want it to be so, but women do not have to cover their heads, and do not have to wear mantillas (a recent innovation for the Church), certainly not because fisheaters.com says so. It’s nice if you choose to do so, for private reasons, but is indeed a private devotion.

Better sources:

From a canon lawyer:
http://www.canonlaw.info/2006/09/vatican-ii-canon-1262-and-chapel-veils.html
From Jimmy Akin, a Catholic Answers apologist:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/08/mantillas_chape.html
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/09/chapel_veils_re.html

From Michelle Arnold, an apologist on Catholic Answers and EWTN:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=78471&highlight=women+veils+church
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=19141
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=96852&highlight=women+veils+church
From Colin Donovan of EWTN:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/head_coverings_in_church.htm

I will be the first one to staunchly defend your right to wear a headcovering in front of the Blessed Sacarment, or any time you choose. But it is not required.
 
It is interesting that you discount fisheaters because it doesn’t agree with your position, then post links to sites that agree with you 😃 😃 😃

As a poster at Jiimmy Akins’s site said: The custom has apostolic origins. The 1983 Code states that these customs have the force of law, does it not?

Unless and until the **Magisterium **directly addresses the question I don’t think any of us know for sure. Your interpretaion is as good as mine.:twocents: and worth about the same.
 
Sorry about extra-posting, but we are having a nice little storm here.

I noticed your profile, Philothea53. You are new. You list your religious denomination as “N/A”. Are you currently Catholic? Or are you just starting your journey of faith in the Catholic Church?

As for it being the “norm” for papal audiences, that simply isn’t so. None other than Mary Kay Clark had an audience with JP II- bareheaded. I know of at least three women who have had papal audiences- bareheaded. If Laura Bush and Condee Rice chose to cover their heads, that was a political gesture toward a head of state. Neither woman, to my knowledge, is Catholic. Jackie Kennedy brought the mantilla into popularity, but for a long time, some priests thought the mantilla was too risque for Mass, and rated it alongside the kleenex and cocktail napkins as a head covering- barely a head covering, at that.

If you click the word “search” on the toolbar, and type in the words “women covering head church” you will find a wealth of information and debates- including some scholarly history of the type of veil of which St. Paul speaks. Welcome aboard!
 
Philothea53 said:
It is interesting that you discount fisheaters because it doesn’t agree with your position, then post links to sites that agree with you 😃 😃 😃
Click to expand...
Well, why wouldn’t I? That’s moot.
Philothea53 said:
As a poster at Jiimmy Akins’s site said: The custom has apostolic origins. The 1983 Code states that these customs have the force of law, does it not?
Click to expand...
No, it does not.
Philothea53 said:
Unless and until the **Magisterium **directly addresses the question I don’t think any of us know for sure. Your interpretaion is as good as mine.:twocents: and worth about the same.
Click to expand...
I already told you: If you wish to wear one, you are certainly allowed to do so, and I will defend to the last shread of lace your right to take up this private devotion. But, in all charity, it is a private devotion, and you cannot go around plopping doilies on the heads of women who do not desire to wear them.

I further sugested that you find other postings that deal with the history of wearing a headcovering in church. I find, personally, too many people assume that the Church has always had white and black lace mantillas, all the way back to the Apostolic Age, and it simply isn’t true.
 
OutinChgoburbs said:
Sorry about extra-posting, but we are having a nice little storm here.

I noticed your profile, Philothea53. You are new. You list your religious denomination as “N/A”. Are you currently Catholic? Or are you just starting your journey of faith in the Catholic Church?

As for it being the “norm” for papal audiences, that simply isn’t so. None other than Mary Kay Clark had an audience with JP II- bareheaded. I know of at least three women who have had papal audiences- bareheaded. If Laura Bush and Condee Rice chose to cover their heads, that was a political gesture toward a head of state. Neither woman, to my knowledge, is Catholic. Jackie Kennedy brought the mantilla into popularity, but for a long time, some priests thought the mantilla was too risque for Mass, and rated it alongside the kleenex and cocktail napkins as a head covering- barely a head covering, at that.

If you click the word “search” on the toolbar, and type in the words “women covering head church” you will find a wealth of information and debates- including some scholarly history of the type of veil of which St. Paul speaks. Welcome aboard!
Click to expand...
I am very sorry if I upset you, OutinChgoburbs. You didn’t have to go to such large type - I can see very well. I AM new to the forum. And I AM Roman Catholic. Baptized 40 years ago. So you checked my profile. What is the point you are trying to make?

None other than Mary Kay Clark? So what? Does she have a direct line that I’m not aware of? Do you think that Mrs. Bush or Miss Rice took mantillas with them or were they provided? A political gesture or one of respect?

Mantilla too risque for mass? A mantilla is a veil. A circle of lace on the head is not a head covering.

Priests thought? What priests? You did a poll?

In answer to your other post, as I already stated, what is moot is your opinion. Until we hear from the Vatican definitively, all opinions are… just opinions.

Thank you for the welcome. I am going to enjoy it here.
 
As OutinChgoburbs pointed out, I am new to the Forum and just have not gotten around to fleshing out my profile. When I joined I didn’t know if I was going to stay and that part of registration is optional after all.

I am not angry, just giving my opinions and asking for clarification of OutinChgoburbs’s opinions. Are you suggesting I should not have responded? He/she is lucky to have watching you his/her back.

I am very curious though why the issue of whether or not women should be veiled generates so much emotion, particularly on the part of those who think we should not. Why are you so adament in your assertions?
 
Philothea53 said:
As OutinChgoburbs pointed out, I am new to the Forum and just have not gotten around to fleshing out my profile. When I joined I didn’t know if I was going to stay and that part of registration is optional after all.

I am not angry, just giving my opinions and asking for clarification of OutinChgoburbs’s opinions. Are you suggesting I should not have responded? He/she is lucky to have watching you his/her back.

I am very curious though why the issue of whether or not women should be veiled generates so much emotion, particularly on the part of those who think we should not. **Why are you so adament in your assertions?/**QUOTE]

Did I make any assertions regarding the veil?
Click to expand...
 
So the only purpose of your post was to defend OutinChgoburbs? Are you just wanting to argue/fight with me? I don’t understand the reason for either of your posts to me.
 
Philothea53 said:
So the only purpose of your post was to defend OutinChgoburbs? Are you just wanting to argue/fight with me? I don’t understand the reason for either of your posts to me.
Click to expand...
I have as much right to post as you do.

I am curious, other than the cut and paste job from fisheaters can you establish your position that the veil must be worn?
 
mercygate said:
As for mandates: the mention of a head covering was not included in the 1983 code of canon law, and is therefore no longer binding.
Click to expand...
Its my understanding the previous rulling would still be in effect as there was mention that anything not covered remains as it was prior.

Since it wasn’t mentioned doesn’t mean it was abolished.
 
No, but just as OutinChgoburbs did to back up his claim to rightness, I too can provide multiple links that agree with my understanding of the issue. The cut-and-paste job, as you call it, was done for expediency. But once again, until the Magisterium speaks directly to this issue, no one knows who/what is right.
 
KatholikosMercy said:
Its my understanding the previous rulling would still be in effect as there was mention that **anything not covered **remains as it was prior.

Since it wasn’t mentioned doesn’t mean it was abolished.
Click to expand...
I guess we need to worry about the men and women sitting together in the pews as well.

OCB’s posted a link from a canon lawyer who makes mention of this and I was wondering if there are many or any Catholic parishes in the US that follow this as some Eastern Orthodox parishes do where seating is seperate.

Just wondering about that.:o
 
Philothea53 said:
No, but just as OutinChgoburbs did to back up his claim to rightness, I too can provide multiple links that agree with my understanding of the issue. The cut-and-paste job, as you call it, was done for expediency. But once again, until the Magisterium speaks directly to this issue, no one knows who/what is right.
Click to expand...
The Magisterium HAS spoken about it prior to Vat 2. Since it wasn’t addressed at Vat 2 it is assumed to remain in effect and Vat 2 even says that about tradtions not mentioned.

That lact of mention is erroneously interpreted to mean something it doesn’t and then used to abolish the tradition by liberals, modernists and rationalists within the church who desire change and thus inadvertantly seek to conform tradition into their immage.

1Co 11:6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn, or to be shaved, let her be veiled.
 
As mentioned, I always use this type. It is not for you. It is for me. You see, I am a mudgie, a near-sighted mudgie.

So far, you have not made a case as to why the rest of us women have to wear a veil. You have quoted one source, Fisheaters. Fisheaters is OK as far as that goes, but they don’t always have the latest and greatest information. I have yet to see logic used there. It’s just a site of collections of things that might or might not be orthodox.

Jimmy Akin is an apologist of some experience, not just on his blog, but right here on CAF (look up some of his article in This Rock). Michelle Arnold is an apologist of some experience, here at CAF and at EWTN. Edward Peters is a canon lawyer of some repute, with JDC and JD- as is Cameron Lansing, who also post in CAF and other Catholic sites. I have made in-depth research into the so-called “veil”, having crossed-over from VI to VII. These are not anonymous people, but folks with some education and experience in these matters, who are willing to put their names on the line, to back their work and opinions.

That’s what!👍

Historically, there is no reason for everybody to run around with lace on their heads. The veils of St. Paul’s time were more like a burka than a pretty piece of lace. So, if in quoting St. Paul through fisheaters, you want women to go back to wearing a heavy-duty veil about the thickness of good living room draperies, you might have a point. But that is again important to note that priests, in fact some dioceses, rated the mantilla as too sexy and flimsy for church wear, and did not count it as the “head covering” mentioned in the 1917 code. Some did. The mantilla did not reach popularity until Jackie Kennedy was photographed wearing them to Mass, and later in one designed by Oleg Cassini to meet Blessed John XXIII.

Until then, we women wore hats, scarves, winter hats, mufflers, really big bows, fat headbands, flower wreaths, chunks of fabric, and handkerchiefs.

The 1983 code abrogated everything in the 1917 code. However, if you we should all go back to things that weren’t specifically mentioned in the 1983 that were in the 1917, you might think about with whom you sit, as there was also in the 1917 canon a prohibition of women sitting on the same side of church as men. This means all the daddies, husbands and sons move to one side of the church, and all the mommies, wives and daughters move to the other. Further, there was a dress requirement for women in the 1917 code that measured the length of sleeves from the wrist, hems from the floor, and necklines from the collarbone.

History is important on this because it was ***never ***always a “veil”. No other version of the canon code except the 1917 stated women had to “cover their heads”. Only St. Paul mentions “veils” because veils were the head coverings of his time period. “Nice” ladies in St. Paul’s time wore veils when they went out or had company. Prostitutes, on the other hand, didn’t, and wanted to advertise their wares. A “nice lady” might be mistaken for a prostitute if she did not have her heavy-duty, drapery thick veil!

In fact, I was not trying to antagnoize you at all. I simply fail to see the logic of your posts.

One minute you are asking how to wear a mantilla. Super. People gave you tips. I said nothing. But the next minute, you were trying but missing the mark at stating all women have to wear a “veil”. I tried to explain nicely to you that it isn’t necessary- as did loads of other people.

Nobody is trying to stop you from wearing one, if you feel called to do so. But the other ladies in your parish who don’t wear one, and all the other Catholic ladies here who choose not to wear one, are not in sinning because they don’t wear one.
 
OutinChgoburbs said:
The 1983 code abrogated everything in the 1917 code.
Click to expand...
Can you reference anything that shows this abrogation by the church?

1Co 11:6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn, or to be shaved, let her be veiled.
 
KatholikosMercy said:
Can you reference anything that shows this abrogation by the church?

1Co 11:6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn, or to be shaved, let her be veiled.
Click to expand...
Yes I can. I will look it up exactly after supper. (If somebody wants to beat me to it, I’d be much obliged. The granddaughters are hungry, and it’s after 7 PM.)

Can you reference when the Catholic Church became sola scriptura, in that you keep quoting 1st Cornithians?

And again- I have no qualm about other women wearing a headcovering in church. Wear two if it makes you happy! But please quit trying to make those who don’t feel as if they are somehow less.
 
OutinChgoburbs said:
Yes I can. I will look it up exactly after supper. (If somebody wants to beat me to it, I’d be much obliged. The granddaughters are hungry, and it’s after 7 PM.)

Can you reference when the Catholic Church became sola scriptura, in that you keep quoting 1st Cornithians?

And again- I have no qualm about other women wearing a headcovering in church. Wear two if it makes you happy! But please quit trying to make those who don’t feel as if they are somehow less.
Click to expand...
Never mind I found my answer here:

Head Coverings for Women from EWTN - Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 01-02-2007:

Wasn’t trying to make anyone feel any which way. Just looking for the facts.

The scripture is what it is. Take it for what its worth. I ascend to the keys and realize culture changes.

What doesn’t change though is Gods design of men and women.

Thanks just the same though. 😃

Hope the kids ate well.
 
For the record, mantillas were around long before Jackie K. was photographed. I still have the one from my childhood, before her time! 😃
 
I remember as a kid when we HAD to wear a mantilla. I think they are kinda nice. Not sure how’d they look with jeans though.
Kathy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top