Should Women Veil in the EF

[Robert_Burns]

We all have witnessed the numerous arguments when this subject is brought up. But my question is meant for those who attend the EF and in regards only to the EF and not the OF.

Should Women Veil when they attend the EF always?

 

[SonCatcher]

When attending EF Mass, I have noticed that veils seem to be always available but there is no “mantilla cop” to enforce wearing one.

I suspect since a woman’s veil is not liturgical, it is not necessary for the Form.

 

[zab]

When I have attended the Traditional Latin Mass in our parish, I came prepared with a scarf, but I noticed that some covered their heads but most did not.

 

[Timothysis]

I think the question should be what should be done if some women don’t veil, especially since Canon law does not require it.

 

[dconklin]

Nothing the laity wears is liturgical.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

In researching dress standards for another thread I came across this blog post on chapel veils. I hope you find it helpful: mantillawithme.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-wear-veil.html

 

[Hadrianus]

Personally, I think hats are better. They also have the advantage of bearing witness to the fact that a woman has attended mass. Even today if a woman is wearing a hat on sunday, it’s likely someone will ask, “have you been to church, or have you been to a wedding?”

 

[h1478971]

yes they should wear it at the TLM. It is customary. The veil represents the veil of the tabernacle because when the woman becomes pregnant she is touched by God when the soul is placed in the baby.

Secondly, it shows modesty . It prevents men from having unclean thoughts and shows respect to Our Lord Just as the BVM wears a veil.

 

[veilofveronica]

Greetings,
I attend a Novus Ordo (but Conservative) parish because I really have no other alternatives where I live. I veil to Mass, because the requirement was actually never removed after the Second Vatican Council, and out of personal choice. It is something that I feel is right for women to do at Mass and in presence of the Blessed Sacrament.

I am one of the only ones that veils, but the only comment I’ve gotten has been positive.

Blessings of Jesus and Mary to you all!

 

[coco2]

What does EF and OF stand for?

 

[Nostradennis]

yes they should wear it at the TLM. It is customary.

True. It even has a scriptural reference. 1Cor.11:10 “Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the Angels.”
It seems that the angels demand it. Knowing their power, I wouldn't want to get on their bad side.

 

[Nostradennis]

What does EF and OF stand for?

EF Extraordinary Form of Mass (read: The 1962 Tridentine Mass)

OF Ordinary Form of Mass (read: Novus Ordo Missae, i.e. The New Mass)

 

[spunjalebi]

There is nothing in current Canon Law that requires the veil in any form.

 

[Shin]

Canon law isn’t the only source for this, far from it.

 

[OurLadyPerpHelp]

I found this helpful: ewtn.com/expert/answers/head_coverings_in_church.htm

Given it was the 1983 issue of Canon Law that dropped the requirement for women veiling, it would be appropriate for those attending the Latin Mass by the 1962 missal to follow the norms in place at that time. That would include the three hour fast, not the one hour that came after 1962. That’s how I understand it at this time. Maybe someone with more knowledge can correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Sirach2]

EWTN article:

Timothysis:

I think the question should be what should be done if some women don’t veil, especially since Canon law does not require it.

Those who wear a covering or veil, and those who don’t, should not judge the motives of the other, but leave each woman free in a matter that is clearly not of obligation.

 

[Robert_Burns]

I found this helpful: ewtn.com/expert/answers/head_coverings_in_church.htm

Given it was the 1983 issue of Canon Law that dropped the requirement for women veiling, it would be appropriate for those attending the Latin Mass by the 1962 missal to follow the norms in place at that time. That would include the three hour fast, not the one hour that came after 1962. That’s how I understand it at this time. Maybe someone with more knowledge can correct me if I’m wrong.

I completely agree with this position since the requirement was a part of Canon Law up until 1983 and one could say that JPII (Who by the way ommited it but did not abrogate it definitively ) did not have the EF in mind since pretty much no one used the EF in 1983 when his Canon Law appeared. Since the EF used is the 1962 form - I believe we should likewise use the Norms present in 1962 - which of course is under the Canon Law of 1917 which required Veiling.

Good post.

 

[daeve]

If a woman feels moved to cover her head for Mass, she should do so.

Growing up, mantillas and chapel veils were looked on as lazy options to wearing a hat. Girls attending the parish school better now wear one to Mass on Sunday (weekdays we had beanies) or they would certainly hear about it on Monday. Mantillas were for ladies, and high school girls could wear a chapel veil. Mantillas could be black or white, but not trimmed in anything fancy. A high school girl in a chapel veil would never wear a black one, only white. Women and girls also used clipped tissues to their hair in a pinch. I saw a little girl with a dried leaf on her head once!

For me, the wearing rules became more important that the reason to cover your head. I don’t remember quite when or how the requirement was lifted, but it was a relief for me because of how silly the whole thing had gotten. Occassionally, I wear a beret, but these days at most OF Masses, you just stick out if you wear a veil, which seems to defeat the modesty purpose.

 

[TMC]

Those who wear a covering or veil, and those who don’t, should not judge the motives of the other, but leave each woman free in a matter that is clearly not of obligation

This is clearly correct. There is no requirement to veil. We should have the charity to assume that those that wear the veil at any Mass (EF or OF) are doing so because they believe that is the right and holy thing to do. We should also have the charity to assume that those that choose not to veil at Mass (EF or OF) are doing so for the same reason. I don’t see why we should treat the two different forms of our liturgy differently in this regard.

 

[Aetheria]

As I understand it, using the 1962 Missal doesn’t mean that you’re bound by the requirements of canon law that existed in 1962. So it would be wrong for anyone to think that women can choose not to cover their heads at an OF Mass, but are obliged to cover up at an EF Mass. The only difference is that those who attend EF Masses are more likely to be traditionally-minded and conservative. At my Catholic college, I often saw girls wearing veils or hats to OF Masses on campus.

That said, I think that if a woman were to go to an EF Mass and feel motivated by the reverence of the liturgy, the piety of the congregation, or whatever, to wear a head-covering, that’s quite commendable. Personally, since I don’t consider covering my head to be a positive obligation, I try to follow whatever seems to be the custom in the community. So when I go to the EF Mass near me where all the women cover up, I bring a hat or veil - and when I go to Mass in other places, I don’t (unless I happen to be wearing a hat already).