The Significance of the Chapel Veil

[NeelyAnn]

**Restoring Catholic Identity **

**The Significance of the Chapel Veil **

William Rehnquist
Guest Columnist

Since the reforms of the Second Vatican Council many ancient traditions of the Catholic Church have simply vanished. The Mantilla, or chapel veil, worn by women while visiting a church or assisting at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, has virtually disappeared in the modern age. However, in examining both the history and symbolism behind the chapel veil, it begs reconsideration on the part of all Catholic women who wish to uphold Mary-like modesty and true womanhood.

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Saint Paul demands that women’s heads be covered whenever they pray. He commands that “in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.”[1] He continues to explain the hierarchy on earth: Christ being the head of man, and man being the head of woman, “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.”[2] For this reason “ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.”[3] A power in this case means a sign of subservience to man – a veil.

Later in his first letter to the Corinthians, Saint Paul confirms that subservience to man is good and proper by stating that a head covering “is a glory to [woman].”[4] Man is the head of woman just as God is the head of Christ. There is no oppression involved in this headship, for just as it dishonors a woman to pray with her head uncovered, it also dishonors a man to cover his head. This notion of functional headship has been rejected by many modern women who can not reconcile it with their false feminist views that man and woman are perfectly equal. The Good Lord, himself, contradicts this erroneous belief many times in the Holy Gospel.

Although the veil is a sign of subservience to man, many modern women ignore the feminine dignity that it also signifies. Indeed, no religious institution in the world holds women in such high esteem as the Holy Catholic Church, for it was through a woman, Our Blessed Mother, that the gates of heaven were opened to us wretched sinners. It is for this reason that we honor Mary as Mediatrix of all graces, as well as in special devotions such as the Holy Rosary, and even in the Canon of the Holy Mass.

Let us further examine the use of veils in the Holy Catholic Church, and how the chapel veil relates to these uses. A veil is always used to signify and announce the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the chapel veil is no different.

The Tabernacle on the altar is veiled to show the True Presence of Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament. Though Canon Law mandates that a candle be lit whenever Our Lord abides in the tabernacle, it is actually the tabernacle veil that is the true sign of Our Lord’s presence. This symbol dates back to the tent-like structure used by the Old Testament Jews to shelter the Arc of the Covenant. Even before the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the tabernacle veil was used to shelter the presence of God. Therefore, it is only proper that the practice continues to this day, and a veil shelters Our Lord Jesus Christ’s True Presence in every tabernacle in the world.[5] Furthermore, the reserved Blessed Sacrament is kept in a veiled ciborium in the tabernacle as another symbolic shelter for the True Presence of Our Lord in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.

The chalice and paten are the most important of all sacred vessels used in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass because they hold the Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Consecrated for its sacred functions in Holy Mass, they are veiled before and after their use as “tabernacles” of Our Lord. Touched only by the hands of a priest which are also consecrated for sacred purposes, the chalice veil foreshadows the fact that our Lord Jesus Christ will soon become present in the sacred vessels that lay underneath. Though the chalice veil is a fairly recent introduction, coming into use sometime in the early 16th century, ancient rubrics of the Holy Mass suggest that the chalice and paten were always veiled in a “sacculum” or “lintheum” – the earliest forms of the chalice veil – when brought to the altar by the priest.[6]

The Humeral Veil is another type of veil used in the sacred rites of the Catholic Church, and it also announces the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. The Humeral Veil is worn by the subdeacon during High Mass, as he holds the paten from the conclusion of the Offertory until after the Pater Noster. It is also worn by the priest in giving Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, during processions of the Blessed Sacrament, in bringing the Holy Viaticum to the sick and dying, and in carrying the Blessed Sacrament to and from the altar on Holy Thursday and Good Friday.[7] Thus, the Humeral Veil, as with every veil used in the Catholic Church, shows the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

Perhaps the most beautiful use of the veil in the Catholic Church is the veil that adorns the head of a woman. The 1917 Code of Canon Law mandates its use, in conjunction with modest dress, during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. However, this practice developed a negative connotation during the feminist revolution during the 1960’s. No longer was the chapel veil viewed as a sign of beauty, but as an act of repression against women.

No rule at all about veiling was included in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, so most Catholics assumed that the rule had been abrogated. The Church remained silent on the matter, allowing this custom to fade away, and allowing dress more appropriate to picnics and casual events to become the normative attire for Holy Mass.

However, the 1983 Code of Canon Law itself refutes the belief that veils are no longer required.

Continue here: remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-restoring_catholic_identity.htm

 

[redrosetea]

No one is stopping you from wearing one

 

[Harpazo]

All the women in my Orthodox parish wear them. I think it makes them look beautiful. In other parishes I have visited, they (the ones who veil their heads) have much more of a “holy demeanor” to them than those who don’t. I’ve noticed the same in Catholic churches, too.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[redrosetea]

You are entitled to your opinion…same as anyone else

 

[NeelyAnn]

No one is stopping you from wearing one

We attend the Latin Mass and I do wear one, as does my daughter and most ALL of the other women and their daughters. In fact, whenever non-Catholic family members attend Mass with us, they ask me to lend them a veil so that they can also wear one. In addition, whenever my daughter brings a friend to Mass, or we invite our Catholic friends who do not normally attend the Latin Mass, they also ask me to lend them a veil. We don’t have to push a veil on them, they naturally want to wear one. We rarely attend the N.O. Mass, but whenever we have we still wear our veils. I note that whenever we have worn veils at the N.O. Mass, we have had several people come up afterwards and compliment our veils. The old ladies usually like to tell us how it brings back memories of when they were young, etc.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I confess that I get irritated when the subject of mantillas and chapel veils is brought up, not because women wish to wear them, but because the vast majority of American women did not wear them prior to the 1960’s. We wore hats or scarves or berets or tams, or even pinned on hankies or kleenexes if we forgot a scarf or decided to pop into church during the day. Mantillas were a cultural thing among those ladies of Spanish or Hispanic descent. The ladies from Eastern European countries most often wore scarves, commonly referred to as babushkas. If you go to some of the old ethnic parishes today you will still see the old women in them. We wore all kinds of things on our heads, but the chapel veil was not one of them.

There is no mystery or significance to the chapel veil. It was popularized in America by Jackie Kennedy along with the pillbox hat. It made a fashion statement and it was portable and fit nicely in your purse, and went with everything. And it was better than pinning a wrinkled kleenex on your head. And they were pretty. Ask just about any woman who lived in the 50’s or earlier what they wore on their heads to church, and most will tell you they wore a hat or scarf. The significance was in covering your head, not in what you covered it with. We did not associate the chapel veil with the Blessed Mother wearing a veil, as some are trying to do, or with any particular form of piety. It was just something nice to cover your head with, and easier than a hat. That is all, and that is the truth.

But for some reason people have romanticized the chapel veil. They call it “veiling”, giving it a significance it never had. Fifty years ago “veiling” was something sisters and nuns did, not lay women. When you entered the convent, you got a veil. Now it seems a lot of the sisters have discarded the veil and the lay women are taking it up, but it is not part of a habit. There is no return to tradition in wearing a veil, because in America it was never a tradition outside of the convent. The tradition was in covering your head when you went to church, and Protestant women did it too. So what you have here is something new, not traditional, and many young women who choose to cover their heads think it has to be a veil, and that it carries some significance. Nobody ever told them they can just wear a hat or scarf and achieve the same thing as a veil.

I think covering your head in church is a great thing to do. And chapel veils are lovely. But I don’t think it is so great to give young women the impression that there is something extra pious and traditional about wearing a veil. Some see it almost as a red badge of courage, they are the only ones in the parish wearing one and they are uncomfortable wearing it. Well, they don’t have to be. The Church has never required that. The Church has only ever required that a woman’s head be covered. They should be told that, too, so they can make a choice that is not going to make them uncomfortable at Mass.

I apologize if I’ve offended anyone, that is not my intention. I just think people need to hear the whole story about chapel veils.

 

[Indyann]

I confess that I get irritated when the subject of mantillas and chapel veils is brought up, not because women wish to wear them, but because the vast majority of American women did not wear them prior to the 1960’s. We wore hats or scarves or berets or tams, or even pinned on hankies or kleenexes if we forgot a scarf or decided to pop into church during the day. Mantillas were a cultural thing among those ladies of Spanish or Hispanic descent. The ladies from Eastern European countries most often wore scarves, commonly referred to as babushkas. If you go to some of the old ethnic parishes today you will still see the old women in them. We wore all kinds of things on our heads, but the chapel veil was not one of them.

There is no mystery or significance to the chapel veil. It was popularized in America by Jackie Kennedy along with the pillbox hat. It made a fashion statement and it was portable and fit nicely in your purse, and went with everything. And it was better than pinning a wrinkled kleenex on your head. And they were pretty. Ask just about any woman who lived in the 50’s or earlier what they wore on their heads to church, and most will tell you they wore a hat or scarf. The significance was in covering your head, not in what you covered it with. We did not associate the chapel veil with the Blessed Mother wearing a veil, as some are trying to do, or with any particular form of piety. It was just something nice to cover your head with, and easier than a hat. That is all, and that is the truth.

But for some reason people have romanticized the chapel veil. They call it “veiling”, giving it a significance it never had. Fifty years ago “veiling” was something sisters and nuns did, not lay women. When you entered the convent, you got a veil. Now it seems a lot of the sisters have discarded the veil and the lay women are taking it up, but it is not part of a habit. There is no return to tradition in wearing a veil, because in America it was never a tradition outside of the convent. The tradition was in covering your head when you went to church, and Protestant women did it too. So what you have here is something new, not traditional, and many young women who choose to cover their heads think it has to be a veil, and that it carries some significance. Nobody ever told them they can just wear a hat or scarf and achieve the same thing as a veil.

I think covering your head in church is a great thing to do. And chapel veils are lovely. But I don’t think it is so great to give young women the impression that there is something extra pious and traditional about wearing a veil. Some see it almost as a red badge of courage, they are the only ones in the parish wearing one and they are uncomfortable wearing it. Well, they don’t have to be. The Church has never required that. The Church has only ever required that a woman’s head be covered. They should be told that, too, so they can make a choice that is not going to make them uncomfortable at Mass.

I apologize if I’ve offended anyone, that is not my intention. I just think people need to hear the whole story about chapel veils.

Thank you. I so agree. The only thing “traditional” about a veil is the one the bride wore on her wedding day. So unless you were a bride or a nun, there were no veils worn (except Ethnic ladies).

We wore our “Easter bonnets” from spring till fall and then it was usually a winter hat, or scarf. There was daily Mass for the school children and the nuns always kept a box of Kleenex, in case you forgot your hat or scarf.

Veils are now, like then, a fashion statement.

 

[Joannm]

Thank you. I so agree. The only thing “traditional” about a veil is the one the bride wore on her wedding day. So unless you were a bride or a nun, there were no veils worn (except Ethnic ladies).

We wore our “Easter bonnets” from spring till fall and then it was usually a winter hat, or scarf. There was daily Mass for the school children and the nuns always kept a box of Kleenex, in case you forgot your hat or scarf.

Veils are now, like then, a fashion statement.

I agree with the above two posts. We had a variety of hats that would match our outfits too. In the summer we would wear those large clip on bows (which seem to be coming back in fashion) In winter we wore our winter hats or stocking hats (the longer the tail the more fashionable). Speaking of fashion, that’s what hats were. In the spring, especially for Easter, women out did each other. Millinery shops were popular. I remember in the 60’s shopping for hats with Mom. I never heard of the term “veiling” until I saw it on these boards. We never wore a veil and if you spoke of a veil it had to do with nuns or brides or the black veil that mourners wore over their hats at funerals.

 

[mariyka]

I remember teen-aged girls using chapel caps because they didn’t crush their teased up hairdos. It kind of defeated the purpose of covering the head, didn’t it?

 

[DJgang]

I can’t help but wonder if the words chapel veil and mantilla were replaced with the simple words head covering if everyone would have the same reactions.

Just a thought.

 

[Indyann]

I can’t help but wonder if the words chapel veil and mantilla were replaced with the simple words head covering if everyone would have the same reactions.

Just a thought.

You are probably right. But then the author of the article would have no article.

“Perhaps the most beautiful use of the veil in the Catholic Church is the veil that adorns the head of a woman. The 1917 Code of Canon Law mandates its use, in conjunction with modest dress, during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.”

The article is bunk. Unless I am mistaken, “head covering”, was used in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, not “veil”.

Makes me wonder if he sells veils.

 

[tcraig]

No rule at all about veiling was included in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, so most Catholics assumed that the rule had been abrogated. The Church remained silent on the matter, allowing this custom to fade away, and allowing dress more appropriate to picnics and casual events to become the normative attire for Holy Mass.

It is comments like the above that make me essentially discount the entire article, whatever good may be in it.

The 1983 Code no longer requires a woman to cover her head, but it does not forbid it. In many countries (the Phillipines and South Korea come immediately to mind) it is quite common to see the vast majority of women wearing a headcovering at NO masses. So, while the custom may have “fade[d] away” in the U.S. and Europe, it most definitely hasn’t in other parts of the world.

The same goes for modest and appropriate dress. Simply because some countries have gotten ridiculous in what is considered appropriate, that doesn’t mean that all have. When we lived overseas, we traveled and attended masses in several European countries. I rarely saw mass attendees wearing what I would (in the U.S.) consider “church clothing” (i.e. suit and tie for men, nicer dress or skirt for women), but everyone was always appropriately and modestly attired. In the Philippines, where my sister-in-law is from, clothing in general is casual (flip-flops being standard shoe wear) but mass attendees are almost aways modestly dressed.

Some would like to take what they see as the “norm” in the U.S., apply it worldwide, and blame “the Church”.

As for headcoverings and modest dress, I currently attend a NO mass that would win no awards in the “reverent and beautiful” category, LOL. But there are more men in suits and ties than I ever saw at my TLM parish, and the dress overall is appropriately modest. We also have several women who cover their head.

 

[redrosetea]

It is comments like the above that make me essentially discount the entire article, whatever good may be in it.

The 1983 Code no longer requires a woman to cover her head, but it does not forbid it. In many countries (the Phillipines and South Korea come immediately to mind) it is quite common to see the vast majority of women wearing a headcovering at NO masses. So, while the custom may have “fade[d] away” in the U.S. and Europe, it most definitely hasn’t in other parts of the world.

The same goes for modest and appropriate dress. Simply because some countries have gotten ridiculous in what is considered appropriate, that doesn’t mean that all have. When we lived overseas, we traveled and attended masses in several European countries. I rarely saw mass attendees wearing what I would (in the U.S.) consider “church clothing” (i.e. suit and tie for men, nicer dress or skirt for women), but everyone was always appropriately and modestly attired. In the Philippines, where my sister-in-law is from, clothing in general is casual (flip-flops being standard shoe wear) but mass attendees are almost aways modestly dressed.

Some would like to take what they see as the “norm” in the U.S., apply it worldwide, and blame “the Church”.

As for headcoverings and modest dress, I currently attend a NO mass that would win no awards in the “reverent and beautiful” category, LOL. But there are more men in suits and ties than I ever saw at my TLM parish, and the dress overall is appropriately modest. We also have several women who cover their head.

Thank you…I think more are interested in shoving this on others than the state of their soul…You could wear a head covering and be the worst person in the world but people will think you are great because you put something on your head

 

[Catholic1954]

I can’t help but wonder if the words chapel veil and mantilla were replaced with the simple words head covering if everyone would have the same reactions.

Just a thought.

When I lived in Northern California, back in the sixties, we never heard of a chapel veil or mantilla. My Catholic grade school uniform included a matching “beanie” for the girls and my mother and other female relatives wore hats or scarves. When we moved to Southern California, in the late sixties, most of the ladies there wore a combination of hats and/or mantilla or chapel veil, and I had the option of wearing one in addition to the beanie at school. My Mom was told that the mantilla was a cultural, Spanish infulence thing, and since we lived close to Mexico, they were inexpensive and easy to obtain (and kinda pretty! :tiphat:.

 

[Harpazo]

Thank you…I think more are interested in shoving this on others than the state of their soul…You could wear a head covering and be the worst person in the world but people will think you are great because you put something on your head

I don’t know of anyone saying that or even implying that, but recognizing the reasoning for covering one’s head is a great start for growing in holiness.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[truevaticanii]

Don’t be hatin’ on the chapel veils… goodness, those things that were covering the heads are beautifully symbolic if you read the Epistles, then you know why. And, they are very traditional… it was a practice that was done for quite some time and was later brought into Canon Law… then was later not enforced by Canon Law. It was the tradition to wear a veil BEFORE it was in Code of Canon Law (while not all women actually used veils), but later on, when it was in Canon Law, some people wore hats and things instead, which still go with the symbolism but not as well… and it wasn’t until really the 1900s that hats and things began to replace the veil… that’s probably one reason why it was taken out of the Code of Canon Law is because women stopped following the tradition for the symbolism and beauty but because they “had” to do it and so they would cover their heads with whatever they thought looked good rather than what was beautiful and symbolic. Likewise, I have seen many males come to Mass, especially around Christmas and Easter time… and they wear hats and whatnot—I cannot stand to see their heads covered. It was once considered reverent for a man to uncover his head and for a woman to cover hers, but ever since women stopped covering their heads, some men seem to think that there is no problem with them covering their own.

 

[CB_Catholic]

You are probably right. But then the author of the article would have no article.

“Perhaps the most beautiful use of the veil in the Catholic Church is the veil that adorns the head of a woman. The 1917 Code of Canon Law mandates its use, in conjunction with modest dress, during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.”

The article is bunk. Unless I am mistaken, “head covering”, was used in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, not “veil”.

Makes me wonder if he sells veils.

My thoughts exactly, which is why I responded as I did. The author is trying to create a meaning for something that did not exist. Wearing a veil was never a requirement, wearing a headcovering was. The comparison to humeral veils and such is bunk. That meaning was never attached to chapel veils or mantillas, and the author is putting his own spin on things. He is not telling the truth of the matter–the Church never required a veil. It required a head covering. Personally, I don’t like those kinds of tactics when trying to put forth an argument. Tell the truth at least.

 

[dixieagle]

Don’t be hatin’ on the chapel veils… goodness, those things that were covering the heads are beautifully symbolic if you read the Epistles, then you know why. And, they are very traditional… it was a practice that was done for quite some time and was later brought into Canon Law… then was later not enforced by Canon Law. It was the tradition to wear a veil BEFORE it was in Code of Canon Law (while not all women actually used veils), but later on, when it was in Canon Law, some people wore hats and things instead, which still go with the symbolism but not as well… and it wasn’t until really the 1900s that hats and things began to replace the veil… that’s probably one reason why it was taken out of the Code of Canon Law is because women stopped following the tradition for the symbolism and beauty but because they “had” to do it and so they would cover their heads with whatever they thought looked good rather than what was beautiful and symbolic. Likewise, I have seen many males come to Mass, especially around Christmas and Easter time… and they wear hats and whatnot—I cannot stand to see their heads covered. It was once considered reverent for a man to uncover his head and for a woman to cover hers, but ever since women stopped covering their heads, some men seem to think that there is no problem with them covering their own.

Again, there was NO mention of “veils” in the 1917 Code:

Canon 1262:

1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.

2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have **a covered head **and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

 

[yoopersenior]

I rather like the idea of hats, scarves, veils, etc. When I was growing up, women wore hats, even out of church (40s, 50s and early 60s). Men wore hats with suits (not indoors, of course).

In general, people were more respectfully dressed at any public event.

These days, I see people coming to funerals in cut-off sweatshirts. Or to church in blue jeans. I suppose it’s just a sign of the relaxation of everything in our culture.

I guess I’m just getting old, but I feel like I should be dressed respectfully when I go to church, weddings, funerals, etc. When I’m wearing clean, ironed clothes that are not too casual or too dressy, I feel I’m showing respect, even if it is just inwardly.

 

[dixieagle]

I rather like the idea of hats, scarves, veils, etc. When I was growing up, women wore hats, even out of church (40s, 50s and early 60s). Men wore hats with suits (not indoors, of course).

In general, people were more respectfully dressed at any public event.

These days, I see people coming to funerals in cut-off sweatshirts. Or to church in blue jeans. I suppose it’s just a sign of the relaxation of everything in our culture.

I guess I’m just getting old, but I feel like I should be dressed respectfully when I go to church, weddings, funerals, etc. When I’m wearing clean, ironed clothes that are not too casual or too dressy, I feel I’m showing respect, even if it is just inwardly.

So very true…remember when people would get all dressed up when they would fly anywhere? Now, sweat pants and flip flops!