The Significance of the Chapel Veil

[Miserys_Fence]

I cover my head for Mass (actually, I cover all the time), but this is a personal issue–I feel led to do it. I would never insist that this should be the norm for every woman. We all have to search our own hearts, and pray about it. Note–the non-Catholic church I currently attend does not require head covering.

I don’t “dress up” for church, but I do wear nice jeans and a modest shirt/sweater. I get up early to drive to the farm where my horse is boarded to take care of him before Mass; a dress and heels would be impractical, as would be driving back home to change before the service.

My Savior was born in a barn, and He understands.

Miz

 

[redrosetea]

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

That is purely a matter of opinion…

 

[yoopersenior]

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

Goodness, yes! I first flew in a propeller plane at the age of 14. I wore a suit and a hat, AND GLOVES!

Remember when ladies wore cotton gloves, even in summer (maybe not in the very deep South). Like Queen Elizabeth and her “ensembles.”

 

[marci]

While everyone in this thread is bogged down in semantics, is seems the point of the article is being overlooked. The practice of “head covering”, whether by hats, scarves, napkins, veils, etc., has significance in the church and in the bible. How this gives way to any argument is beyond me.

Of course that’s just MY opinion.

 

[Indyann]

While everyone in this thread is bogged down in semantics, is seems the point of the article is being overlooked. The practice of “head covering”, whether by hats, scarves, napkins, veils, etc., has significance in the church and in the bible. How this gives way to any argument is beyond me.

Of course that’s just MY opinion.

You must not have read the article. The author lied.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

While everyone in this thread is bogged down in semantics, is seems the point of the article is being overlooked. The practice of “head covering”, whether by hats, scarves, napkins, veils, etc., has significance in the church and in the bible. How this gives way to any argument is beyond me.

Of course that’s just MY opinion.

That the same thing I was thinking. Also, when reading all of the posts about veils vs. hats, I began to wonder when it became popular to wear hats? I bet the wearing of hats, rather than a veil, started in the 19th or 20th century. My guess is that prior to then, almost all wore veils of some sort. I wonder where we can find pictures (paintings) of ladies in Church during the past centuries? If anyone knows of any such paintings, post a link.

 

[BlyssfulDreamer]

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.

The “old ladies”? LOL…maybe I am nitpicking…so be it…but wouldn’t elderly ladies…or *senior *ladies be a little tad more respectful? JMHO…

 

[dixieagle]

That the same thing I was thinking. Also, when reading all of the posts about veils vs. hats, I began to wonder when it became popular to wear hats? I bet the wearing of hats, rather than a veil, started in the 19th or 20th century. My guess is that prior to then, almost all wore veils of some sort. I wonder where we can find pictures (paintings) of ladies in Church during the past centuries? If anyone knows of any such paintings, post a link.

In my mind, the significant thing is that veils were worn in past centuries. It was simply the fashion of the day. Hats of some type were worn way before the 19th century. If you read through this link, you will find some surprising information (e.g., women’s ears were regarded as highly seductive…) answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/467325.html

I think this excerpt from the encyclical Inter Insigniores by Pope Paul VI in 1976 puts the head covering issue in context:

“But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.” papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6interi.htm

In other words, it just isn’t of great importance anymore.

 

[Jacafamala]

Sometimes maybe people think too much about beautiful old reverent traditions these days. Chapel veils? Just do it.

 

[Harpazo]

That is purely a matter of opinion…

Care to enlarge?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[lizaanne]

No one is stopping you from wearing one

You are entitled to your opinion…same as anyone else

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

That is purely a matter of opinion…

You CLEARLY have some sort of major hang up over women covering their heads. So why don’t you just accept that some of us like to do this - just as some of us like to pray the rosary, have a devotion to a particular saint, or pray certain prayers - and just move along on your merry way? If it is not for you - fine!!! No one is saying it has to be. But you don’t have to get your panties all in a bunch over it. Just forget the thread is even here and never existed, and don’t come back to it.

Sheesh.

~Liza

 

[sarahraegraham]

Something I think everyone who is opposed to the article and/or that is saying that hats were the norm not veils, etc. is forgetting is the biblical incidences of using the word “veil”.

Sure, maybe in our own memories women wore hats, not veils. But that does not mean that veils weren’t worn before that or that they were “just some cultural/fashion thing”.

The purpose of covering the head is because of its biblical/traditional significance. Did the ark of the covenant wear a hat? Obviously not… This is just one example, but I’m sure you get my point.

We should all stop debating the semantics and the practices of the last 50 or so years and remember that our faith is much older and much deeper than that.

The veil is a tradition within the church that has continued over the years without interruption, although not by everyone. It symbolizes something wonderful within our faith, and we should be looking with gratitude and approval to those who wear them that they have such a high regard for the church and her beliefs and traditions. It’s not a matter of doctrine or being holier than someone else. It’s about visibly demonstrating truths of the faith and being a reminder to those of us who wear them and those around us of our faith. In this day and age, the more visible reminders we have the better.

 

[truevaticanii]

Whether you had a veil or you could only afford a dish rag… the symbolism still worked and the symbolism itself remained beautiful… and im sorry, you are correct about the Code of Canon Law, but I suppoe I was thinking of veil as in a different way than you were thinking… because I was using veil in a general sense… like the veils Orthodox priests wear (i.e., not every veil had to be of lace–anything covering the head is a veil really, though clothes are more what the Church was hoping woman would use more rather than hats and such because woman wore hats anywhere, clothes for veils was something aside from the ordinary–for our Lord). After the head covering (veiling) had remained in Code of Canon Law for some time, people allowed the head covering to lose its meaning, and so people just wore hats and stuff rather than what the Church had hoped for (cloth veils), so it was later removed from Canon Law.

 

[Elizabeth_D]

First of all, am I the only one who finds the phrasing about woman’s “subservience to man” in the original quoted article, to be a distortion of the Church’s real teaching of the fundamental equality of the sexes and relationship of mutual service between man and woman? You know, I’m not entirely uncomfortable with the idea of the headship of men and women having a complementary role. But I don’t think this “subservience” phrasing captures the truth.

Second, about Saint Paul saying that women’s heads should be covered: did anyone ever reflect that this had a great deal to do with cultural norms of his time? According to a book I read by a leading Catholic St. Paul scholar (whose name is escaping me, it’s Irish and hyphenated and he is a scholar at the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem), in Tarsus, where Paul is thought to have been born and raised, women wore a full body veil that covered the face, essentially a burqa (a custom which long predated Islam). In other words, he grew up in a place where women being covered up was the norm, to a degree that we might even find troubling. In Paul’s cultural context, ordinary modest women wore a head covering in public. By the ordinary cultural norms of that day, women with uncovered heads at Mass would be seen not only by the community of the faithful but even by outsiders as irreverent. It seems that head covering for women was an important matter of propriety in that time and place, and was only secondarily a symbol for Paul (or whoever wrote the pastoral epistles, whose attitude toward women contrasts with Paul’s in his other letters).

Is head covering in pulic a norm in our culture, expected publically of modest women? No, in our culture women do not routinely wear a head covering in public, and lack of head covering is not regarded as immodest. Do the women who wear their mantillas in church wear them on the street too? No, they do not. It may have some symbolic value or other kinds of value. It may also have an aspect of pious affectation or nostalgia or even scruples. It’s not an indispensible thing.

Dressing modestly, this is indispensible. And what’s modest? Are long skirts compulsory? Is it bad for women to wear pants? Are less than knee length skirts unacceptable, although that’s the fashion? What about knee length, still too short? Should anybody come to Mass in shorts? What about culottes? What’s the standard for weekday vs Sunday Mass? I could tell you my own opinions about these questions but I will just leave them as questions because I have observed that many different sincere people have sincerely different ideas of what is modest. In my own parish (on a university campus) I have been the loudest complainer in favor of modestly dressed extraordinary ministers, without making much progress even though everyone verbally agrees.

Forget veils, for me the battleground is that the Body and Blood of Jesus may be distributed by people who aren’t wearing mid thigh length skirts and heels.

 

[leitis]

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

Hm. My understanding of why people don’t get all dressed up to go through security at an airport is that everything seems to set those detectors off, you have to take off your shoes for them, etc. It’s just not practical, IMO.

 

[leitis]

First of all, am I the only one who finds the phrasing about woman’s “subservience to man” in the original quoted article, to be a distortion of the Church’s real teaching of the fundamental equality of the sexes and relationship of mutual service between man and woman? You know, I’m not entirely uncomfortable with the idea of the headship of men and women having a complementary role. But I don’t think this “subservience” phrasing captures the truth.

Second, about Saint Paul saying that women’s heads should be covered: did anyone ever reflect that this had a great deal to do with cultural norms of his time? According to a book I read by a leading Catholic St. Paul scholar (whose name is escaping me, it’s Irish and hyphenated and he is a scholar at the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem), in Tarsus, where Paul is thought to have been born and raised, women wore a full body veil that covered the face, essentially a burqa (a custom which long predated Islam). In other words, he grew up in a place where women being covered up was the norm, to a degree that we might even find troubling. In Paul’s cultural context, ordinary modest women wore a head covering in public. By the ordinary cultural norms of that day, women with uncovered heads at Mass would be seen not only by the community of the faithful but even by outsiders as irreverent. It seems that head covering for women was an important matter of propriety in that time and place, and was only secondarily a symbol for Paul (or whoever wrote the pastoral epistles, whose attitude toward women contrasts with Paul’s in his other letters).

Is head covering in pulic a norm in our culture, expected publically of modest women? No, in our culture women do not routinely wear a head covering in public, and lack of head covering is not regarded as immodest. Do the women who wear their mantillas in church wear them on the street too? No, they do not. It may have some symbolic value or other kinds of value. It may also have an aspect of pious affectation or nostalgia or even scruples. It’s not an indispensible thing.

Dressing modestly, this is indispensible. And what’s modest? Are long skirts compulsory? Is it bad for women to wear pants? Are less than knee length skirts unacceptable, although that’s the fashion? What about knee length, still too short? Should anybody come to Mass in shorts? What about culottes? What’s the standard for weekday vs Sunday Mass? I could tell you my own opinions about these questions but I will just leave them as questions because I have observed that many different sincere people have sincerely different ideas of what is modest. In my own parish (on a university campus) I have been the loudest complainer in favor of modestly dressed extraordinary ministers, without making much progress even though everyone verbally agrees.

Forget veils, for me the battleground is that the Body and Blood of Jesus may be distributed by people who aren’t wearing mid thigh length skirts and heels.

 

[leitis]

sigh Silly laptop. Ignore my post with only the quote in it.

First of all, am I the only one who finds the phrasing about woman’s “subservience to man” in the original quoted article, to be a distortion of the Church’s real teaching of the fundamental equality of the sexes and relationship of mutual service between man and woman? You know, I’m not entirely uncomfortable with the idea of the headship of men and women having a complementary role. But I don’t think this “subservience” phrasing captures the truth.

Second, about Saint Paul saying that women’s heads should be covered: did anyone ever reflect that this had a great deal to do with cultural norms of his time? QUOTE]

That’s the main thing that bothered me about the article. His word choice seems so…negative. My understanding was that men and women were made to be more complementary, or different but equal in dignity, whereas the article’s wording and connotations seems to point to a very lopsided balance, which I think is very dangerous.

I think a lot of people forget that you can’t just completely remove any writing from its context. Here, that means remembering the culture, current events of the time, etc. Without the anchor of context, words lose their meaning.

**Restoring Catholic Identity **

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.

Another example of how the wording was very peculiar. I believe I understand the point he was trying to make, but the wording makes it sound like some corporation’s propoganda. Reminds me of a joke I heard, saying that some (certainly not all, please don’t get angry) Americans seem to feel they can make more borderline racist jokes and say “nah, it’s not racist. I’ve got a black president!”. This paragraph struck me as, “nah, it’s not sexist. I honour the Virgin Mary!”.

Not that those who promote and use veils/headcoverings necessarily agree with the tone of the quoted article, but when that tone does get associated with things like the wearing of headcoverings, or associated with anything at all for that matter, it’s understandable for people to want to back away from it. People don’t like feeling (note, I said feeling) like they’re being told they were born a girl so they’re worth less than a boy, or that if you don’t do what those girls are doing you aren’t as good and pure and holy. People don’t like feeling judged like that. Delivery of a message like this has to be more careful, or it will only drive people away, which, I had thought, was the** opposite** of what was desired…

 

[dixieagle]

Hm. My understanding of why people don’t get all dressed up to go through security at an airport is that everything seems to set those detectors off, you have to take off your shoes for them, etc. It’s just not practical, IMO.

That is indeed, true. But, I think the change to very casual dress began long before 9/11. Air travel used to feel “special”; now it’s much like a flying Greyhound bus.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Based on the comments, it seems that most have not really read the entire article, or that they formed a negative opinion before had which kept them from truely comprehending what was said in the article.

The remainder of the article is here:

However, the 1983 Code of Canon Law itself refutes the belief that veils are no longer required. The Code of Canon Law states that “In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed,”[8] and that a custom is only revoked by a contrary custom or law.[9] “Unless the law makes express mention of [a contrary custom or law], it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs.”[10] The 1983 Code of Canon Law gives no contrary custom or law concerning the use of the chapel veil, and therefore can not revoke it.

Though the chapel veil does not directly veil the True Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ, it is certainly connected to other uses of veils in the Catholic Church since the womb of Mary was the first tabernacle of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It was through Our Blessed Mother, a woman, that Our Lord came into the world to die for our sins. Therefore, by veiling herself, the Catholic woman takes on a symbol of power and motherhood that is only offered to them. The chapel veil links the Catholic woman to our Blessed Mother in a very special way, especially during Holy Communion when, like our Blessed Mother, the Catholic woman becomes a true tabernacle of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Indeed, traditional Catholics are reminded of this reality at the conclusion of every Mass. In the Last Gospel, we hear the words of Saint John: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”[11] (Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis). Interestingly, the translation of this same passage from the Greek New Testament reads: “And the Word was made flesh, and tabernacled among us” (kai o Logos sarx egeneto kai eskinosen en imin), linking the incarnation of Jesus Christ with the dwelling of Our Lord within us whenever we receive Holy Communion.

The chapel veil is not an oppression of women. It is a privilege, an honor, and a sign of true feminine dignity and motherhood. By wearing the chapel veil, a woman proclaims the truth of the Incarnation – that through Our Blessed Mother, Our Lord Jesus Christ took flesh and came into the world to die for our sins. Veils are used in the Catholic Church to signify an object that contains or has contained Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the chapel veil is no different.

To abandon such a practice is to further abandon true womanhood which is virtually nonexistent in the modern world. Therefore, let us heed the advice of Saint Paul, and “you yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered?”[12]

---

[1] First Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians 11:2.

[2] First Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians 11:8.

[3] First Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians 11:10.

[4] First Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians 11:15.

[5] “Tabernacle.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. 1912. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14424b.htm.

[6] “Chalice.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. 1912. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03561a.htm.

[7] “Humeral Veil.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. 1912. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07542b.htm.

[8] 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 21

[9] 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 28.

[10]1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 28.

[11] The Gospel According to Saint John 1:14.

[12] First Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians 11:13.

As for hats, scarves, etc. - those are headcoverings, just as a veil is. The point is that some form of headcovering was always used until recently. Recently being sometime in the past 40 years. So throughout history, Catholic women everywhere covered their heads, including all those that became Saints. Funny how we all of a sudden know better and think that the last 40 years makes us an expert.

It is not only on this issue, but so many others. Maybe it was that in the past people really cared about becoming Saints and making it to Heaven. They worked to overcome vice and to grow in virtue. They did not try to change the Church to accept their own human wills and to make their vices OK. People really believe in Our Lord and they took his words and teachings seriously. That is all outdated and out of fashion now. People did not believe the Church should reflect the world, and now they do. If the world OK’s it, then many think the Church should also OK it. Oh well, the Church and the Saints must have been wrong for all those years - we of the past 40 years know so much better.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Douay Rheims Bible - Proverbs 16

1 It is the part of man to prepare the soul: and of the Lord to govern the tongue.

2 All the ways of a man are open to his eyes: the Lord is the weigher of spirits.

3 Lay open thy works to the Lord: and thy thoughts shall be directed.

4 The Lord hath made all things for himself: the wicked also for the evil day.

5 Every proud man is an abomination to the Lord: though hand should be joined to hand, he is not innocent. The beginning of a good way is to do justice; and this is more acceptable with God, than to offer sacrifices.

6 By mercy and truth iniquity is redeemed: and by the fear of the Lord men depart from evil.

7 When the ways of man shall please the Lord, he will convert even his enemies to peace.

8 Better is a little with justice, than great revenues with iniquity.

9 The heart of man disposeth his way: but the Lord must direct his steps.

10 Divination is in the lips of the king, his mouth shall not err in judgment.

11 Weight and balance are judgments of the Lord: and his work all the weights of the bag.

12 They that act wickedly are abominable to the king: for the throne is established by justice.

13 Just lips are the delight of kings: he that speaketh right things shall be loved.

14 The wrath of a king is as messengers of death : and the wise man will pacify it.

15 In the cheerfulness of the king’s countenance is life: and his clemency is like the latter rain.

16 Get wisdom, because it is better than gold: and purchase prudence, for it is more precious than silver.

**17 The path of the just departeth from evils: he that keepeth his soul keepeth his way.

18 Pride goeth before destruction: and the spirit is lifted up before a fall.

19 It is better to be humbled with the meek, than to divide spoils with the proud. **

20 The learned in word shall find good things: and he that trusteth in the Lord is blessed.

21 The wise in heart shall be called prudent: and he that is sweet in words shall attain to greater things.

22 Knowledge is a fountain of life to him that possesseth it: the instruction of fools is foolishness.

23 The heart of the wise shall instruct his mouth: and shall add grace to his lips.

24 Well ordered words are as a honeycomb: sweet to the soul, and health to the bones.

**25 There is a way that seemeth to a man right: and the ends thereof lead to death.

26 The soul of him that laboureth, laboureth for himself, because his mouth hath obliged him to it.**

27 The wicked man diggeth evil, and in his lips is a burning fire.

28 A perverse man stirreth up quarrels: and one full of words separateth princes.

29 An unjust man allureth his friend: and leadeth him into a way that is not good

30 He that with fixed eyes deviseth?? wicked things, biting his lips, bringeth: evil to pass.

31 Old age is a crown of dignity, when it is found in the ways of justice.

32 The patient man is better than the valiant: and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh cities.

33 Lots are cast into the lap, but they are disposed of by the Lord.

Douay Rheims - Proverbs 29

**1 The man that with a stiff neck despiseth him that reproveth him, shall suddenly be destroyed: and health shall not follow him. **

2 When just men increase, the people shall rejoice: when the wicked shall bear rule, the people shall mourn.

**3 A man that loveth wisdom, rejoiceth his father: but he that maintaineth bar lots, shall squander away his substance.

4 A just king setteth up the land: a covetous man shall destroy it.**

5 A man that speaketh to his friend with flattering and dissembling words, spreadeth a net for his feet.

6 A snare shall entangle the wicked man when he sinneth: and the just shall praise and rejoice.

7 The just taketh notice of the cause of the poor: the wicked is void of knowledge.

8 Corrupt men bring a city to ruin: but wise men turn away wrath.

9 If a wise man contend with a fool, whether he be angry or laugh, he shall find no rest.

10 Bloodthirsty men hate the upright: but just men seek his soul.

11 A fool uttereth all his mind: a wise man deferreth, and keepeth it till afterwards.

12 A prince that gladly heareth lying words, hath all his servants wicked.

13 The poor man and the creditor have met one another: the Lord is the enlightener of them both.

14 The king that judgeth the poor in truth, his throne shall be established for ever.

15 The rod and reproof give wisdom: but the child that is left to his own will bringeth his mother to shame.

16 When the wicked are multiplied, crimes shall be multiplied: but the just shall see their downfall.

17 Instruct thy son, and he shall refresh thee, and shall give delight to thy soul.

**18 When prophecy shall fail, the people shall be scattered abroad: but he that keepeth the law is blessed. **

19 A slave will not be corrected by words: because he understandeth what thou sayest, and will not answer.

20 Hast thou seen a man hasty to speak? folly is rather to be looked for, than his amendment.

21 He that nourisheth his servant delicately from his childhood, afterwards shall find him stubborn.

22 A passionate man provoketh quarrels: and he that is easily stirred up to wrath, shall be more prone to sin.

**23 Humiliation followeth the proud: and glory shall uphold the humble of spirit. **

24 He that is partaker with a thief, hateth his own soul: he heareth one putting him to his oath, and discovereth not.

25 He that feareth man, shall quickly fall: he that trusteth in the Lord, shall be set on high.

26 Many seek the face of the prince: but the judgment of every one cometh forth from the Lord.

27 The just abhor the wicked man: and the wicked loathe them that are in the right way. The son that keepeth the word, shall be free from destruction.