Question about veiling

[LightBound]

You may be thinking of having to wear a veil ( or maybe just a head covering? not sure) when having a personal audience with the Pope. That is protocol.

And it can’t be white. There are only a few heads of states that can wear white veil/head covering. Other women have to wear black

It simply needs to be a non-white headcovering. It could be a “Princess Diana” or nowadays a “Duchess Catherine” type of hat. Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Obama opted for the simple black mantilla as did the First Lady, who brought the Italian/Spanish tradition into American Fashion- Jacqueline Kennedy.

The reason you have people stating that it’s always been “veils” has to do with the
term “veil”, which means to cover, so it’s used in the broad sense to include any sort of headcovering for women.

The original apparel in the Bible lands and areas of the NT locations were the veils we often associate with images in artwork of the Blessed Virgin. She is pictured in that because it was customary for women of her time and served as a protector against the climate and sand of those areas. It makes sense that a women of her station (as far as socioeconomic and cultural) would wear what she did on a day-to-day basis when covering herself in a place of worship. In the centuries preceding our own, the lower income women just wore a plain cloth type of veil over their head, since a hat or other “fancy” covering wouldn’t have been financially feasible for most. The possession of something other than a square of cloth showed an affluence in one’s position in the community.

 

[Marie5890]

It simply needs to be a non-white headcovering. It could be a “Princess Diana” or nowadays a “Duchess Catherine” type of hat. Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Obama opted for the simple black mantilla as did the First Lady, who brought the Italian/Spanish tradition into American Fashion- Jacqueline Kennedy.

The reason you have people stating that it’s always been “veils” has to do with the
term “veil”, which means to cover, so it’s used in the broad sense to include any sort of headcovering for women.

The original apparel in the Bible lands and areas of the NT locations were the veils we often associate with images in artwork of the Blessed Virgin. She is pictured in that because it was customary for women of her time and served as a protector against the climate and sand of those areas. It makes sense that a women of her station (as far as socioeconomic and cultural) would wear what she did on a day-to-day basis when covering herself in a place of worship. In the centuries preceding our own, the lower income women just wore a plain cloth type of veil over their head, since a hat or other “fancy” covering wouldn’t have been financially feasible for most. The possession of something other than a square of cloth showed an affluence in one’s position in the community.

Thanks LightBound.

Didn’t realize it just had to be non-white.

Appreciate too that you put the whole idea of where the idea of head covering came from in terms of historical customs.
Make sense.

 

[MarkThompson]

By the way, do you have to specifically ‘veil’ to enter St. Peter’s Basilica or is it enough for your head to be covered? I doubt that we have to exchange a Tilley hat for a veil to be granted admission.

As Marie5890 implied, but did not expressly explain, there is no requirement at all for a woman to cover her head in any way in order to enter St. Peter’s. The requirements are to have her shoulders covered, and not to be wearing shorts or an immodestly short skirt. You’ll see people with a sheet of newspaper thrown over their shoulders, that sort of thing.

You may be thinking of having to wear a veil ( or maybe just a head covering? not sure) when having a personal audience with the Pope. That is protocol.

Yes, but it’s a question of diplomatic protocol, not a “requirement” in the sense that violators would be turned away.

 

[LightBound]

Thanks LightBound.

Didn’t realize it just had to be non-white.

Appreciate too that you put the whole idea of where the idea of head covering came from in terms of historical customs.
Make sense.

You are welcome. I think I “borrowed” some of that info from CAF’s resident Franciscan, Brother Joseph (JReducation). He’s usually found over in the Traditional Catholicism area and is just an absolute treasure of information and a fountain of charity in that section.

 

[Marie5890]

You are welcome. I think I “borrowed” some of that info from CAF’s resident Franciscan, Brother Joseph (JReducation). He’s usually found over in the Traditional Catholicism area and is just an absolute treasure of information and a fountain of charity in that section.

Oh yes. Bro. Jay actually is his name.

And yes I too appreciate the knowledge he shares with us.

Sometimes it’s like taking a college course…for FREE! HA!

 

[Marie5890]

Yes, but it’s a question of diplomatic protocol, not a “requirement” in the sense that violators would be turned away.

Thanks Mark. That would make sense, too.

 

[Blossoming]

Not in my neck of the woods. I never saw women wearing mantillas/chapel veils in Northern New Brunswick until well into the 60s. I was in grade 4 or 5 when they made their appearance and as someone has already said, started around the time that Jackie Kennedy was photographed wearing one. You’d be hard pressed to see a picture in the 50s that showed Canadian women wearing ‘veils’. Kerchiefs and hats, sure, but not veils.

We have one woman in my Church who wears a veil. One. And she sticks out.

It’s an ancient Orthodox Jewish custom still done by Orthodox Jews, best of my knowledge, that may have been a carry over for the early Church, and my history knowledge of the early Church isn’t thorough enough to tell whether it’s that custom that got passed to the Church incidentally or not. I defer to more educated opinions.

Here:

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0008_0_08618.html

*"…In the early modern period the practice of a woman’s shaving off all her hair upon marriage and covering her head with a kerchief (tichal) became widespread in Hungarian, Galician, and Ukrainian Jewish communities. Justifications for this stringency were to ensure that a married woman’s hair would never be exposed and to eliminate the possibility of a woman’s hair rising to the surface during her ritual immersion in the mikveh, rendering it invalid. Opponents argued that shaving the head would make a woman unattractive to her husband. Toward the end of the 18th century some circles of women began to wear a wig (shaytl). This “innovation” was opposed by certain Orthodox authorities such as Moses Sofer (see A.J. Schlesinger, Lev ha-Ivri, 2 (19283), 109, 189) but continued to be widely practiced. In the early 21st century, a diverse range of customs connected with hair covering are followed by Orthodox Jewish women. Among some modern Orthodox women, there has been renewed interest in various modes of covering the hair after marriage. Many women who are not Orthodox continue the custom of covering their hair in synagogue."

 

[Blossoming]

I’ve read it. It keeps using the word ‘veil’, a word I never even heard in relation to covering your head in church until I came to this board.

I’m convinced that if you talked to women of my generation and older (I’m 58) about veiling they’d think you’re talking about Muslim women and the niquab, like the poster who precipitated this conversation. In fact, the only woman I know who refers to a chapel veil is a Portugese woman of about 70 who wears one when she attends an EF Mass whenever she goes to Toronto & Ottawa but who doesn’t wear a head covering here.

My experiences are similar. Until this board and apart from the one woman in my Church who does this, I’ve never seen it and I trend to associating veiling with Muslims and niqabs automatically.

 

[centurionguard]

Yes, well, maybe, unless you’re a mind-reader. Even if you’re right, liberal busybodies deserve about as much notice as conservative ones or busybodies of any other stripe who want to read a message where no message was intended.

If they’re at least good enough to keep their mouths shut, that’s a step in the right direction!! That makes it easier to put charitable interpretations on their unfortunate choice to stare.

I didn’t have to mind-read because later I got wind of it while in a discussion in the Sacristy.

Well how about when these same five women wearing Veils get reported to the parish priest because it has irked some parishioners (“whom they claim”) these women are putting on a display of being “Holier Than Thou” just because they’re praying harmlessly in their pews and attending Mass wearing Chapel Veils.

I mean really now. Oh! shall I say whom these pesky bothered people whom made there complaints to the priests? Well naturally of course it was some bothersome ole gossiping bitties.

 

[WhiteLeather]

Ah, I see. Exceedingly poor architecture seems to pervade our newer churches. I never understood having a choir in the front. Just one more intentional distraction. Well, I guess you’re in a pickle.

The original, traditional location of the choir was between the sanctuary and the congregation. However, when the decision was made to allow women to join the choir (in lieu of castrati), they didn’t want women that close to the sanctuary, so they moved the choir to the ORGAN loft. It’s not a case of poor architecture at all. In fact, church documents clearly state that the choir is part of the assembly and their location should reflect that.

If only the priest can see them, the rest of the congregation obviously can’t, so how are they part of the assembly? Also, in the GIRM, we’re instructed that the choir must also receive Communion “with ease” (GIRM 86). The physical separation of a loft usually makes that a bit more difficult, and in some cases, choir can not receive from the cup due to concerns about possible spillage on the steps.

If the choir is there to lead the singing, one is traditionally led from the front. In the same way, we are pushed from the rear, not led from the rear. Choirs, as music ministers, are liturgical ministers. Yet they are routinely the only liturgical ministry physically separated from those they serve and lead. Why is that acceptable?

 

[TheMc]

If only the priest can see them, the rest of the congregation obviously can’t, so how are they part of the assembly? Also, in the GIRM, we’re instructed that the choir must also receive Communion “with ease” (GIRM 86). The physical separation of a loft usually makes that a bit more difficult, and in some cases, choir can not receive from the cup due to concerns about possible spillage on the steps.

Receiving from the chalice is not a requirement.

If the choir is there to lead the singing, one is traditionally led from the front. In the same way, we are pushed from the rear, not led from the rear. Choirs, as music ministers, are liturgical ministers. Yet they are routinely the only liturgical ministry physically separated from those they serve and lead. Why is that acceptable?

There would be no problem with the choir being in the front, but there would be no women allowed. An “in-sanctuary” choir is reserved to males only.

 

[Jenji]

I veil with two veils and have sung in two choirs.
Two veils make for less transparency and affords an intimacy for prayer even among throngs of parishioners intent on anything but prayer.
In one choir I was not alone.
In the other I was alone.

I returned to veiling after I had joined the first choir.
I must admit that it was for me incredibly difficult to be on display.
Even so, I had my priorities straight and certainly did not have the pastor you have described.

The second choir was an entirely different matter.
I was not only the only woman veiled in the choir, I was the only woman veiled in the congregation.

Reading your post gave me cause to consider responding. Gave it a day and this evening I traveled to a parish almost two hours away. What I experienced there helped me to know that I had to respond to you.

First and foremost look at veiling from the standpoint of tradition.
Veiling is not a fashion statement. If you are looking to please others then have you not got the whole matter backwards?

You cannot serve two masters, or in this case, two purposes.
The veil is a choice made in regard to reverence.
It is a matter of conscience between you and God.
That matter is sacrosanct.
No one, absolutely no one has the right nor the authority to direct you to cease veiling.

Women received in private audience with His Holiness are required to wear a black mantilla. Does that not tell you something about the point of veiling.
If tradition in Holy Mother Church is the veil for meeting His Holiness then does it not follow through that veiling is first and foremost a matter Reverence for God?

The Chapel Veil by Elizabeth Black and Emily Sparks is a booklet published by Roman Catholic Books. That might help you if you are not firm in your convictions.

So, all this first part to say that first and foremost you need ask yourself why it is you veil.
That answer will help you to consider veiling in choir.

Don’t know what type of parish you participate in choir, however, the sole function of choir is to participate in the Liturgy of the Holy Mass. The choir needs to be praying in song and not performing as a chorus. If you don’t have that in the choir in which you participate then perhaps that is the problem. In a chorus there is often some standard of outward appearance. Again, choir is not chorus, its function is to serve the Liturgical Prayer that is sung in the Holy Mass.

All priests are to be given reverence.
Accepting bullying is not a form of reverence.

Veiling for fashion, which involves all manner of the forms of which I read in responses to your query, is nothing to do with reverence.

If you seek to veil out of reverence for God present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in The Most Blessed Sacrament then let nothing and no one thwart you.

If you seek to veil for the above reason and because it is Roman Catholic Tradition then you are in for all manner of insult and persecution, but then you are in great company as Holy Mother Church on Earth is The Church Militant. Welcome!

Perhaps you might also consider that in addition to reverence for God and for the Tradition of Holy Mother Church you present the image of The Holy Bride Which is The Church.

I no longer sing in choir.

The answer to your query will truly come in prayer.
Perhaps you would ask Our Lady, Mediatrix of all Graces to help you.

What you are doing is not small it is very great if you look at it as an act of worship.
Perhaps you might entrust your pastor and his chorus standard views to The Immaculate Heart of Mary.

in Caritas,

 

[LightBound]

I veil with two veils and have sung in two choirs.
Two veils make for less transparency and affords an intimacy for prayer even among throngs of parishioners intent on anything but prayer.
In one choir I was not alone.
In the other I was alone.

I returned to veiling after I had joined the first choir.
I must admit that it was for me incredibly difficult to be on display.
Even so, I had my priorities straight and certainly did not have the pastor you have described.

The second choir was an entirely different matter.
I was not only the only woman veiled in the choir, I was the only woman veiled in the congregation.

Reading your post gave me cause to consider responding. Gave it a day and this evening I traveled to a parish almost two hours away. What I experienced there helped me to know that I had to respond to you.

First and foremost look at veiling from the standpoint of tradition.
Veiling is not a fashion statement. If you are looking to please others then have you not got the whole matter backwards?

You cannot serve two masters, or in this case, two purposes.
The veil is a choice made in regard to reverence.
It is a matter of conscience between you and God.
That matter is sacrosanct.
No one, absolutely no one has the right nor the authority to direct you to cease veiling.

Women received in private audience with His Holiness are required to wear a black mantilla. Does that not tell you something about the point of veiling.
If tradition in Holy Mother Church is the veil for meeting His Holiness then does it not follow through that veiling is first and foremost a matter Reverence for God?

The Chapel Veil by Elizabeth Black and Emily Sparks is a booklet published by Roman Catholic Books. That might help you if you are not firm in your convictions.

So, all this first part to say that first and foremost you need ask yourself why it is you veil.
That answer will help you to consider veiling in choir.

Don’t know what type of parish you participate in choir, however, the sole function of choir is to participate in the Liturgy of the Holy Mass. The choir needs to be praying in song and not performing as a chorus. If you don’t have that in the choir in which you participate then perhaps that is the problem. In a chorus there is often some standard of outward appearance. Again, choir is not chorus, its function is to serve the Liturgical Prayer that is sung in the Holy Mass.

All priests are to be given reverence.
Accepting bullying is not a form of reverence.

Veiling for fashion, which involves all manner of the forms of which I read in responses to your query, is nothing to do with reverence.

If you seek to veil out of reverence for God present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in The Most Blessed Sacrament then let nothing and no one thwart you.

If you seek to veil for the above reason and because it is Roman Catholic Tradition then you are in for all manner of insult and persecution, but then you are in great company as Holy Mother Church on Earth is The Church Militant. Welcome!

Perhaps you might also consider that in addition to reverence for God and for the Tradition of Holy Mother Church you present the image of The Holy Bride Which is The Church.

I no longer sing in choir.

The answer to your query will truly come in prayer.
Perhaps you would ask Our Lady, Mediatrix of all Graces to help you.

What you are doing is not small it is very great if you look at it as an act of worship.
Perhaps you might entrust your pastor and his chorus standard views to The Immaculate Heart of Mary.

in Caritas,

Just a quick correction here: Women receiving a private audience with the Pope are required, per protocol, to wear a headcovering**, but it does not have to be black nor does it have to be a mantilla. Both Mrs Obama and Mrs Bush opted to wear the black mantilla, following the choice of the original First Lady that wore one; Jacqueline Kennedy. Being a strong fashion influence of class and grace, she rather established it as a traditional custom to wear black if one is the spouse of an American. A women most certainly can wear an appropriate hat, a style that Princess Diana or Duchess Catherine would wear. But given that our last few First Ladies aren’t given to wearing hats, a mantilla was a simple choice that could be removed once they were out of the room were our Holy Father was.

 

[LightBound]

Just a quick correction here: Women receiving a private audience with the Pope are required, per protocol, to wear a headcovering**, but it does not have to be black nor does it have to be a mantilla. Both Mrs Obama and Mrs Bush opted to wear the black mantilla, following the choice of the original First Lady that wore one; Jacqueline Kennedy. Being a strong fashion influence of class and grace, she rather established it as a traditional custom to wear black if one is the spouse of an American. A women most certainly can wear an appropriate hat, a style that Princess Diana or Duchess Catherine would wear. But given that our last few First Ladies aren’t given to wearing hats, a mantilla was a simple choice that could be removed once they were out of the room were our Holy Father was.

Meant to say " spouse of an American Head of State"

 

[Jenji]

Just a quick correction here: Women receiving a private audience with the Pope are required, per protocol, to wear a headcovering**, but it does not have to be black nor does it have to be a mantilla. Both Mrs Obama and Mrs Bush opted to wear the black mantilla, following the choice of the original First Lady that wore one; Jacqueline Kennedy. Being a strong fashion influence of class and grace, she rather established it as a traditional custom to wear black if one is the spouse of an American. A women most certainly can wear an appropriate hat, a style that Princess Diana or Duchess Catherine would wear. But given that our last few First Ladies aren’t given to wearing hats, a mantilla was a simple choice that could be removed once they were out of the room were our Holy Father was.

Sorry for the error. The assumption I made was that I was speaking about a Catholic woman.
It would be most appreciated to have the knit pick attached to something about the content. Dot and tittle critiques are the reason I do not participate in these sorts of threads per usual.
In future I shall most certainly refrain.

 

[LightBound]

Sorry for the error. The assumption I made was that I was speaking about a Catholic woman.
It would be most appreciated to have the knit pick attached to something about the content. Dot and tittle critiques are the reason I do not participate in these sorts of threads per usual.
In future I shall most certainly refrain.

The actual content of your post and your sharing of your reasons for covering were lovely and most certainly added to this thread and I’m sorry that you feel** that correcting an error such as that was nitpicking. Given that people on CAF tend to take what they read and run with it, it’s a good idea when posting something other than personal opinions or personal practices, that we have as much of the facts as possible. Otherwise, we have people commenting on other threads that when a women meets the Pope, she must**** wear a black mantilla and thus perpetuating that now all women must wear a black mantilla at Mass. You may not see that as a problem, but when you’ve reviewed as many threads on similar subjects as I have, you see a pattern of misinformation that leads to confusion about practices of the Church and in some cases (obviously not this one) the dissimulation of matters of official Church teachings and such.

 

[asia53]

You may be thinking of having to wear a veil ( or maybe just a head covering? not sure) when having a personal audience with the Pope. That is protocol.

And it can’t be white. There are only a few heads of states that can wear white veil/head covering. Other women have to wear black

Actually, it’s not protocol.

“But the Vatican does not mandate that women cover their heads. In fact, the pontifical household said there is no formal or specific dress protocol at all.”

Not heads of state— “To wear white to a papal audience, however, “is not in good taste,” Msgr. De Nicolo said. The only people allowed to do so, he said, are Catholic kings, queens and other reigning Catholic royalty.”

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0903275.htm

 

[LightBound]

Sorry for the error. The assumption I made was that I was speaking about a Catholic woman.
It would be most appreciated to have the knit pick attached to something about the content. Dot and tittle critiques are the reason I do not participate in these sorts of threads per usual.
In future I shall most certainly refrain.

And I was just corrected on another thread about veiling and protocol with a Papal audience:
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0903275.htm

I didn’t get my feelings hurt nor did I feel it was nitpicking; rather I was glad to have the appropriate answer on it.

 

[LightBound]

Actually, it’s not protocol.

“But the Vatican does not mandate that women cover their heads. In fact, the pontifical household said there is no formal or specific dress protocol at all.”

Not heads of state— “To wear white to a papal audience, however, “is not in good taste,” Msgr. De Nicolo said. The only people allowed to do so, he said, are Catholic kings, queens and other reigning Catholic royalty.”

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0903275.htm

Thank you for the link! I was just commenting on another thread on veiling that since CAF posts can take on a life of their own (especially when it’s less than accurate or not"Vatican-approved info"), it’s always good to have an official or “reliable beyond a shadow of a doubt” source (if possible).

Good work asia53!!

 

[LightBound]

Oh yes. Bro. Jay actually is his name.

And yes I too appreciate the knowledge he shares with us.

Sometimes it’s like taking a college course…for FREE! HA!

Brother Jay, that’s right! He is wonderful!!