Son wants to wear chapel veil

  • Thread starter Thread starter HumblePilgrim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Walking_Home said:
So women who don’t cover are less pious/devout as compared to those who do?
Click to expand...
Please, tell me where I said this.

Women who want to veil, regardless of the Mass, should be allowed to do so and not hassled or judged for doing so. The end.
 
Well maybe it appeared so when you responded to my post to someone else point by point. 🤔
 
misstherese said:
It became officially acceptable by Church law to not veil in 1983. But that doesn’t mean it’s better, as St. Thomas Aquinas has said.

@janesansible Let him wear something he really likes, like a new outfit. Maybe that will divert his attention.
Click to expand...
Semantics, maybe, but it became officially acceptable to “not cover your head” in 1983.

Actually, it occurred before I finished high school in 1971. I remember wanting to buy a mantilla in the mid-60s when it became a fashion accessory in my area, but by the time I could there was no longer any obligation to cover one’s head.
 
Last edited:
misstherese said:
I’m pretty sure that’s just terminology. It doesn’t mean necessarily that one has to wear a veil.
Click to expand...
Then why talk about “veiling” like it’s a thing? Head covering is inclusive; it includes veils. “Veiling” is exclusive and only refers to one type of head covering.

Canon 1262 stated,
(…)

… women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.
Click to expand...
 
Several things that were law in the 1917 Code had ceased to be law long before 1983, changed by various documents over the years.
 
Again, not until 1983 was it abrogated. The 1917 code of canon on headcovering was in force until 1983, when the new code of canon was issued. No document before that can change the fact that the 1917 code canon stated that women must cover their heads.
 
Yes, it was allowable for those where it was not a reasonable national custom or for special circumstances that would justify a departure from the rule.
 
No, but I do think that it somehow makes them FEEL like they are more worthy to be there. Everyone is welcome in Mass, no matter what. The church never defined this. It was simply a cultural tradition that is not part of our culture int he first place.

We had good Sisters of Charity. If it had been a deal breaker for prayer and piety they certainly would have told us. They didn’t fail me in any other respect. They were wonderful.

I DO think people are wooed by “uber traditionalism”.

The notion that people everywhere are not praying correctly is just plain wrong.
 
Last edited:
pianistclare said:
The notion that people everywhere are not praying correctly is just plain wrong
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is saying that, not on this thread anyway.

But I cannot see an issue with seeing the veil as an expression of piety and courage.
 
Last edited:
Brendan_64 said:
40.png
pianistclare:
The notion that people everywhere are not praying correctly is just plain wrong
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is saying that, not on this thread anyway.

But I cannot see an issue with seeing the veil as an expression of piety and courage.
Click to expand...
Courage is misused her unless you’re trying to inspire a martyr complex. Courage is wearing ashes when you know that your co-worker with perfect reviews was magically fired for “divisive behavior” after she came in with ashes. (And did NOT say anything) Wearing a veil to a place where it could potentially be found (albeit rarely) is no more “courageous” than attending Mass itself.
 
Maximilian75 said:
Women who want to veil, regardless of the Mass, should be allowed to do so and not hassled or judged for doing so. The end.
Click to expand...
I agree. However, discussing what “to veil” means and what it doesn’t mean is not hassling or judging. People have some erroneous ideas about it. I know this because I had them and I see the same misconceptions. It appears to me that some discuss “veiling” like it’s this special, pious practice, more pious than head covering as discussed in Canon 1262 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Is me wearing my mom’s black lace mantilla a more pious practice than if I wore a hat like a cloche, beret or an Easter bonnet? I get that it had the appearance of something set apart but that is because veils are typically worn by brides and religious.
 
Fr Ruggero has often said that “veiling” properly belongs to consecrated religious.

And with that, I’m out.
 
The Church has stated it is of _minor importance_therefore that is how we should all see it as something some choose to do and some do not. Not a big deal.
As for a boy wanting to do it just tell him no. He is the child. The parent is the one in charge.
 
Last edited:
About as tired as I am of children being disrespectful to Fr. Ruggero.
 
come on, You’re better than this. Completely out of context quotation.
 
And also Fr. Ruggero’s complete posts were removed. What is left really makes other people look ridiculous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top