TLM At the National Shrine

[KBernadette]

Can you see through the veil? Could be problematic, couldn’t it?

I’m sorry if you mistook me, so I will again say I’ve no problem with women veiling their heads. I think it looks very pretty (which I assume is beside the point) and if they feel personally that they want to do it, I support them 100%. My problem is with saying that women MUST, when the Church doesn’t. I would defend YOU if Sr. Joan Chichester said you MUSN’T, just like I’d leap to the defense of anyone denied Holy Communion because they knelt or anyone refused Communion on the tongue. I feel like it is the Church I’m defending, HER authority, given Her by Christ. It’s that which I think we should all defend.

Er whoops! Of course my face is uncovered, lol.

I like your response. I don’t say a woman must, though I would have prior to 1983, but I do say she should given the past teachings on the matter. I will leave my thoughts there for her to form her will that of God’s.

 

[JReducation]

. Of course, one could argue that Our Lady veiled Her Head, but of course, Her veil probably looked more like that portrayed in The Passion of the Christ,

I took the liberty of clipping your post. I’d like to link two things, the mass and what you have said above. I was one of those who said that I loved the mass and was glad to see it at CUA, because most of the students there have never seen it. It’s good for them, if they are attending the Pontificall University in the USA to see the history of the Church in both forms of the liturgy, EF and OF. They certainly have beautiful celebrations of the EF every day at the Shrine. But the EF has not been celebrated there since the 1960s. As a former student at CUA, I would have liked to see both too in our national shrine, which happens to be on the campus of our Pontifical University, one of the two Vatican operated universities in the country. I would also love to see more Eastern Catholic masses there too. They do have a special chapel for that, but they don’t use it often.

As far as the veil and the EF is concerned, the whole idea of pulling Mary into the equation as a support for this does not work, historically. I was born Jewish and converted, as a matter-of-fact I converted at Catholic University and was baptized, confirmed and received Holy Communion at the Shrine at the Easter Vigil in 1970. I can tell you guys that the veil thing is not as black and white as it sounds. We come from 12 tribes that subdivided into houses, such as the House of David. Each tribe and each house had certain cutoms on their way of dress that identified them, just as indigenous peoples do in many cultures.

Mary was a Nazarene, a member of the House of David and the tribe of Judah. The tribe of Judah had a custom of covering their head for two reasons, one was practical and the other was religious. Because Judea is in a very dry and hot area, the mantle, as it is properly called in Judaism, was worn by men and women when on the street to stay clean. It covered you from head to toe. When you entered a house you took it off and you put on another garment to keep the dirt outside. That’s why our people kept big stone jars of water next to the doors. It was not just Mary who wore a mantle, so did Jesus, Joseph and everyone in Judea. Hollywood has portrayed this wrongly. Just look at Arabs. Men and women both cover their heads.

What began as a practical custom took on a religious meaning, like many customs do. When a Jew put on his head covering, whatever that was for his tribe, he would say a little prayer: “May the Word of Adonai be alwasy in my heart, on my lips and in my mind.” That’s where we get the tripple crossing at the Gospel. So that the headcovering became a reminder that God’s Word is always above us. It was a call to think upward toward God. But this meaning was added long after the time of Jesus and Mary.

As time passed, the mantles were dropped for other forms of head covering such as a kippah worn by men and women. The Hassidim, still cover their heads, men and women. Women ear either a scarf or a wig. Men wear a kippa and a hat over it. That’s where the bishops get the kippah under the mitre.

Hassidim share an anscestry with the Tribe of Judah, mabye not the House of David. But they are true Jews. Jews came from Judea. The rest were not called Jews until the first century. By examining their customs we can extrapolate what were probably the customs of Jesus and Mary. They covered their heads to keep it clean. They prayed with their head covered so as not to bring dirt into the temple. They probably changed their mantle at the temple door for a clean one, like a coat check. So that the custom was a compliance with the Jewish laws regarding cleanliness, not a requirement for prayer. The actual requirement for prayer was a prayer shaul worn by males. Which is the precursor of the stole worn by deacons, priests and bishops.

In all likelihood, Mary followed the same customs as the people of her tribe for the same reasons. These were also the same laws that Paul mentions as being abolished by Christ, because they are no longer necessary. They were part of Israel’s preparation for the coming of the Messiah. Once the Messiah had come, they were no longer needed.

Where does Paul’s decree fit in? Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles and lived among the Gentiles. The Gentiles were much more sophisticated and technology savy than the Jews. They had running water. They did not have the rules about cleanliness. But they had another problem. They were very promiscuous. The Jewish Christians who migrated to Europe began to be contaminated by life in the big city. Paul is attacking their lack of modesty and he tries to impose on them the old Jewish rules about cleanliness, but applying it to the cleanliness of the soul. The idea was to cover themselves, not because there is anything wrong with their head. But because there is something wrong with their mores. By imposing a dress code on them, Paul hopes to help them learn about purity of body and spirit and he hopes to protect the Jewish Christians from contamination.

We’re trying to tie in three ends that do not go together: Paul’s teaching, Mary’s dress and the mass. They were three sets of circumstances for three different reasons. All of them were disciplinary circumstances, not doctrinal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I took the liberty of clipping your post. I’d like to link two things, the mass and what you have said above. I was one of those who said that I loved the mass and was glad to see it at CUA, because most of the students there have never seen it. It’s good for them, if they are attending the Pontificall University in the USA to see the history of the Church in both forms of the liturgy, EF and OF. They certainly have beautiful celebrations of the EF every day at the Shrine. But the EF has not been celebrated there since the 1960s. As a former student at CUA, I would have liked to see both too in our national shrine, which happens to be on the campus of our Pontifical University, one of the two Vatican operated universities in the country. I would also love to see more Eastern Catholic masses there too. They do have a special chapel for that, but they don’t use it often.

As far as the veil and the EF is concerned, the whole idea of pulling Mary into the equation as a support for this does not work, historically. I was born Jewish and converted, as a matter-of-fact I converted at Catholic University and was baptized, confirmed and received Holy Communion at the Shrine at the Easter Vigil in 1970. I can tell you guys that the veil thing is not as black and white as it sounds. We come from 12 tribes that subdivided into houses, such as the House of David. Each tribe and each house had certain cutoms on their way of dress that identified them, just as indigenous peoples do in many cultures.

Mary was a Nazarene, a member of the House of David and the tribe of Judah. The tribe of Judah had a custom of covering their head for two reasons, one was practical and the other was religious. Because Judea is in a very dry and hot area, the mantle, as it is properly called in Judaism, was worn by men and women when on the street to stay clean. It covered you from head to toe. When you entered a house you took it off and you put on another garment to keep the dirt outside. That’s why our people kept big stone jars of water next to the doors. It was not just Mary who wore a mantle, so did Jesus, Joseph and everyone in Judea. Hollywood has portrayed this wrongly. Just look at Arabs. Men and women both cover their heads.

What began as a practical custom took on a religious meaning, like many customs do. When a Jew put on his head covering, whatever that was for his tribe, he would say a little prayer: “May the Word of Adonai be alwasy in my heart, on my lips and in my mind.” That’s where we get the tripple crossing at the Gospel. So that the headcovering became a reminder that God’s Word is always above us. It was a call to think upward toward God. But this meaning was added long after the time of Jesus and Mary.

As time passed, the mantles were dropped for other forms of head covering such as a kippah worn by men and women. The Hassidim, still cover their heads, men and women. Women ear either a scarf or a wig. Men wear a kippa and a hat over it. That’s where the bishops get the kippah under the mitre.

Hassidim share an anscestry with the Tribe of Judah, mabye not the House of David. But they are true Jews. Jews came from Judea. The rest were not called Jews until the first century. By examining their customs we can extrapolate what were probably the customs of Jesus and Mary. They covered their heads to keep it clean. They prayed with their head covered so as not to bring dirt into the temple. They probably changed their mantle at the temple door for a clean one, like a coat check. So that the custom was a compliance with the Jewish laws regarding cleanliness, not a requirement for prayer. The actual requirement for prayer was a prayer shaul worn by males. Which is the precursor of the stole worn by deacons, priests and bishops.

In all likelihood, Mary followed the same customs as the people of her tribe for the same reasons. These were also the same laws that Paul mentions as being abolished by Christ, because they are no longer necessary. They were part of Israel’s preparation for the coming of the Messiah. Once the Messiah had come, they were no longer needed.

Where does Paul’s decree fit in? Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles and lived among the Gentiles. The Gentiles were much more sophisticated and technology savy than the Jews. They had running water. They did not have the rules about cleanliness. But they had another problem. They were very promiscuous. The Jewish Christians who migrated to Europe began to be contaminated by life in the big city. Paul is attacking their lack of modesty and he tries to impose on them the old Jewish rules about cleanliness, but applying it to the cleanliness of the soul. The idea was to cover themselves, not because there is anything wrong with their head. But because there is something wrong with their mores. By imposing a dress code on them, Paul hopes to help them learn about purity of body and spirit and he hopes to protect the Jewish Christians from contamination.

We’re trying to tie in three ends that do not go together: Paul’s teaching, Mary’s dress and the mass. They were three sets of circumstances for three different reasons. All of them were disciplinary circumstances, not doctrinal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Wow, Br., that’s very illuminating!

I mentioned Our Lady because She’s been mentioned as a reason for veiling by many who self-identify as traditionalists. I thought it was a weak connection, given HOW She veiled (and, now that you’ve laid it out, WHY).

 

[JMJ_coder]

Many of us have been drilled from youth with discipline and rules and Magisterium and there really is no need to further this point. However, some of us will disagree as to what exactly constitutes that Magisterium. Of course, those in power will claim they can do anything they want; that’s no surprise there. But what happened to the foundation which Christ left for His millennia of followers who have cultured and developed that same foundation for the future of His Church and all of us here? That and the Deposit of Faith must be preserved. Magisterium of the centuries is not something that can be easily tossed; you wouldn’t want the great work of BXVI go to waste some day, would you?

So can we agree with this definition: The Magisterium is the Bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome (cf. CCC 85)?

So what do you see as the Magisterium? What is it’s nature and scope? And what role do you see the laity as possessing in relation to the Magisterium?

 

[KBernadette]

As far as the veil and the EF is concerned, the whole idea of pulling Mary into the equation as a support for this does not work, historically. I was born Jewish and converted, as a matter-of-fact I converted at Catholic University and was baptized, confirmed and received Holy Communion at the Shrine at the Easter Vigil in 1970. I can tell you guys that the veil thing is not as black and white as it sounds. We come from 12 tribes that subdivided into houses, such as the House of David. Each tribe and each house had certain cutoms on their way of dress that identified them, just as indigenous peoples do in many cultures.

Mary was a Nazarene, a member of the House of David and the tribe of Judah. The tribe of Judah had a custom of covering their head for two reasons, one was practical and the other was religious. Because Judea is in a very dry and hot area, the mantle, as it is properly called in Judaism, was worn by men and women when on the street to stay clean. It covered you from head to toe. When you entered a house you took it off and you put on another garment to keep the dirt outside. That’s why our people kept big stone jars of water next to the doors. It was not just Mary who wore a mantle, so did Jesus, Joseph and everyone in Judea. Hollywood has portrayed this wrongly. Just look at Arabs. Men and women both cover their heads.

What began as a practical custom took on a religious meaning, like many customs do. When a Jew put on his head covering, whatever that was for his tribe, he would say a little prayer: “May the Word of Adonai be alwasy in my heart, on my lips and in my mind.” That’s where we get the tripple crossing at the Gospel. So that the headcovering became a reminder that God’s Word is always above us. It was a call to think upward toward God. But this meaning was added long after the time of Jesus and Mary.

As time passed, the mantles were dropped for other forms of head covering such as a kippah worn by men and women. The Hassidim, still cover their heads, men and women. Women ear either a scarf or a wig. Men wear a kippa and a hat over it. That’s where the bishops get the kippah under the mitre.

Hassidim share an anscestry with the Tribe of Judah, mabye not the House of David. But they are true Jews. Jews came from Judea. The rest were not called Jews until the first century. By examining their customs we can extrapolate what were probably the customs of Jesus and Mary. They covered their heads to keep it clean. They prayed with their head covered so as not to bring dirt into the temple. They probably changed their mantle at the temple door for a clean one, like a coat check. So that the custom was a compliance with the Jewish laws regarding cleanliness, not a requirement for prayer. The actual requirement for prayer was a prayer shaul worn by males. Which is the precursor of the stole worn by deacons, priests and bishops.

In all likelihood, Mary followed the same customs as the people of her tribe for the same reasons. These were also the same laws that Paul mentions as being abolished by Christ, because they are no longer necessary. They were part of Israel’s preparation for the coming of the Messiah. Once the Messiah had come, they were no longer needed.

Where does Paul’s decree fit in? Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles and lived among the Gentiles. The Gentiles were much more sophisticated and technology savy than the Jews. They had running water. They did not have the rules about cleanliness. But they had another problem. They were very promiscuous. The Jewish Christians who migrated to Europe began to be contaminated by life in the big city. Paul is attacking their lack of modesty and he tries to impose on them the old Jewish rules about cleanliness, but applying it to the cleanliness of the soul. The idea was to cover themselves, not because there is anything wrong with their head. But because there is something wrong with their mores. By imposing a dress code on them, Paul hopes to help them learn about purity of body and spirit and he hopes to protect the Jewish Christians from contamination.

We’re trying to tie in three ends that do not go together: Paul’s teaching, Mary’s dress and the mass. They were three sets of circumstances for three different reasons. All of them were disciplinary circumstances, not doctrinal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Really wish I could let this go, but I can’t. My main purpose for participating on this forum is to work to restore traditions of the Church that I feel have been stolen and supressed. As a woman, veiling, at least at Mass, is high on my list of priorities.

Your post above gives many reasons for a modern woman not to veil by appealing to natural reason. This would make a good show on Catholic traditions for the History channel, if you catch my meaning.

If you would Brother, or anyone, spend a little time on supernatural reasons for a woman’s veil and why it has been long standing tradition to balance these thoughts? Or is there another thread in this forum with a good post to link to? I wish I could go in depth on it but I have a bunch of little ones to care for. I am currently typing with one hand!

 

[JReducation]

Really wish I could let this go, but I can’t. My main purpose for participating on this forum is to work to restore traditions of the Church that I feel have been stolen and supressed. As a woman, veiling, at least at Mass, is high on my list of priorities.

Your post above gives many reasons for a modern woman not to veil by appealing to natural reason. This would make a good show on Catholic traditions for the History channel, if you catch my meaning.

If you would Brother, or anyone, spend a little time on supernatural reasons for a woman’s veil and why it has been long standing tradition to balance these thoughts? Or is there another thread in this forum with a good post to link to? I wish I could go in depth on it but I have a bunch of little ones to care for. I am currently typing with one hand!

First of all, take care of the little ones and give them my blessing. As to veiling, there is no official spiritual teaching from any of the branches of theology on this subject. This does not deny that the tradition was there. Nor does it mean that someone cannot do it for spiritual reasons. That would be untrue to say such a thing. The most that we can say is that there is no formal theological statement on this subject. It would fall under one of three areas of theology: Mystical Theology, Liturgy, or Systematic Theology.

It is not found in Mystical Theology. The mystics never write about it authoritatively. They mention it in passing as related to nuns, not to everyone. Even in speaking about nuns, St. Teresa of Avila, who is the one who mentions veils, she mentions it as a discipline in modesty, not as a doctrine.

We don’t find it in liturgical theology. The theology of the liturgy focuses on those aspects of the liturgy necessary for validity of the sacraments and it also defines what happens in the celebration of the sacraments, both at the visible and supernatual levels. Again, there is no formal mention of head covering in theology of liturgy, because it’s not essential for the efficacy of the sacraments.

There is certainly no mention of it in systematic theology, which deals with dogma and revelation. There is no dogmatic teaching on the matter.

The only place that it comes up is in previous editions of canon law, but those editions were abrogated by the one that followed. The logic was that the discipline is no longere necessary. However, saying that we don’t include something in law, because it is not needed for sanctity or for compliance with the Church, it does not mean that it is a bad thing.

It can be a very good thing for a person and if it helps that person get closer to God, then that person has a duty to make use of every tool available to him or her to get closer to God.

One more thing, why isn’t it at the top of the Church’s list of priorities? For one thing, it’s not a dogma, it is not high on the Church’s priority list. There are some very crucial issues that have to be addressed. At the top of the list is the Gospel of Life. Second is the Sacrament of Holy Orders which has suffered terribly by all that has happened. Ecumenism is up there for our Holy Father. We’ve got to re-unify the Christian Church. Christ does not want his Church do be divided. Marriage and family are up there. Christ’s presence at Cana is a sign of the efficacy of marriage, but modern society is attacking it. The list gets longer and longer. I would add that the life of prayer of people needs to significantly improved.

There are so many priorities that are doctrinal, moral, sacramental and ecclesial, that veiling is not at the top for the Holy Father and the Holy See. So, his expectation is that we work with him on these issues either directly or through prayer.

But do not stop wearing your veil if it helps you pray. For God’s sake, we want you to pray and pray for us too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Spirithound]

That isn’t convincing. Several saints and Popes have talked about the importance of women covering their heads. Sorry, but John Paul II isn’t right when he says it isn’t necessary.

Wouldn’t that be a violation of Papal infallibility?

 

[JReducation]

That isn’t convincing. Several saints and Popes have talked about the importance of women covering their heads. Sorry, but John Paul II isn’t right when he says it isn’t necessary.

Let’s look at it this way. John Paul II has been studied and judged by the Church and found to have lived a holy and heoric Christian life. You cannot be elevated to the status of Venerable if you are the pope and you taught error.

Either John Paul is right or Benedict XVI is wrong for elevating John Paul to Veneralble and to proceed toward his beatification.

One of the two popes is wrong or are both wrong?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[justme]

That isn’t convincing. Several saints and Popes have talked about the importance of women covering their heads. Sorry, but John Paul II isn’t right when he says it isn’t necessary.

Let’s look at it this way. John Paul II has been studied and judged by the Church and found to have lived a holy and heoric Christian life. You cannot be elevated to the status of Venerable if you are the pope and you taught error.

Either John Paul is right or Benedict XVI is wrong for elevating John Paul to Veneralble and to proceed toward his beatification.

One of the two popes is wrong or are both wrong?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Some people just think they know better than the Church, be they (self-proclaimed) traditionalists, liberals, or protestants.

 

[JReducation]

Some people just think they know better than the Church, be they (self-proclaimed) traditionalists, liberals, or protestants.

We can’t be too hard on people either. Human beings tend to hold on to what makes us feel safer. That’s understandable and acceptable as long as we keep in mind that what makes me feel safe may not have the same effect on others.

That being said, we also have to keep in mind that no one is saying that a tradition has to be thrown out the window, because it’s not dogma. There are traditions that have contributed to people’s lives. It would be extreme to say that any tradition that is not a doctrine has to be canned.

The fact that this goes back to John XXIII, not John Paul II, does not mean that any of these popes wanted the tradition to be thrown out. They just wanted to set the record straight by saying that this is not a doctrine and it does not add anything to the efficacy of the mass. They never told people to get rid of their veils. They simply said that they were not necessary. That means just what is says. It is not meant to mean anything more. It was never meant to mean “get rid of the veils”. It was not meant to say “keep the veils.” I was meant to say excactly what it said, “veils are not necessary”. The Church wants people to approach the altar with a worthy heart and a clean conscience, regardless of what’s on their head.

We can’t add or delete from what the Church has said. As I posted before, John XXIII began this when he told the women religious to change their habits and simplify their veils. He believed they were not practical and they were unnecessarily cumbersome.

Paul VI, being an excellent canon lawyer, wanted to rewrite the code of 1917 and began the project in the 1960s or so. He died before it was completeted. John Paul II was the pope who approved the completed work. The veils were taken out of canon law. However, they were left in canon law for women religious.

Later, under the advice of Cardinal Ratzinger, John Paul II wrote a pastoral letter to men and women religious in which he back peddles and says that the habits are to be preferred, but women religious can take off the veil. This was done, because the women religious asked Rome. The question went from the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes, as it was then known, to the Sacred Congregation for the Faith. The Congregation for Religious did not want to grant permission for the sisters to take off the veils without checking it out, since it was in canon law to wear the modified veil. When Cardinal Ratzinger looks at the canon and looks at the question he does not see this as a doctrinal problem or a problem of faith. He advices John Paul II, that there is no doctrine to foce veils. However, he did not say that they had to go. He simply told the truth. They are not part of the faith. John Paul II write a new document in which he rewrites the rules on veils for women religious. They are made optional, even though canon law said they were mandatory only for women religious. That’s how they became optional for everyone. It was a long process of discernment. It was not a Joker that someone pulled out of their sleeve.

The regulations do not say, don’t wear the veils. They simply took the word veil out of every Catholic rulle book, even those for women religious. As we know, many women religious have put them on again and the Church has not told them to take them off. No one is going to tell a lay woman to take it off either.

Just as it is a community choice for the sisters, it is a choice between spouses for married women and a personal choice for single women.

I’ll give one more example. I’m a Franciscan. Teh Vatican said that we do not have to wear a habit, but that it is preferred. They have left it as preferred, not mandatory. However, the Rule of St. Francis says that it is mandatory. Therefore, we wear a habit. Do we wear it because it’s a doctrine? No. We wear it because it’s a tradition of our order to obey the founder. The founder wanted the habit. My point is that there are many reasons for doing something. It does not always have to be because the Church said so. Some things the Church leaves up to individuals or institutions. Because the Church does not consider them a priority in which she wants to get involved. Just as he does not want to get involved in religious habits, she does not want to get involved in veils for lay women.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KBernadette]

It can be a very good thing for a person and if it helps that person get closer to God, then that person has a duty to make use of every tool available to him or her to get closer to God.

One more thing, why isn’t it at the top of the Church’s list of priorities? For one thing, it’s not a dogma, it is not high on the Church’s priority list. There are some very crucial issues that have to be addressed. At the top of the list is the Gospel of Life. Second is the Sacrament of Holy Orders which has suffered terribly by all that has happened. Ecumenism is up there for our Holy Father. We’ve got to re-unify the Christian Church. Christ does not want his Church do be divided. Marriage and family are up there. Christ’s presence at Cana is a sign of the efficacy of marriage, but modern society is attacking it. The list gets longer and longer. I would add that the life of prayer of people needs to significantly improved.

There are so many priorities that are doctrinal, moral, sacramental and ecclesial, that veiling is not at the top for the Holy Father and the Holy See. So, his expectation is that we work with him on these issues either directly or through prayer.

But do not stop wearing your veil if it helps you pray. For God’s sake, we want you to pray and pray for us too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you, I understand and agree with why it’s not a priority for the Church at the highest levels in Her quest for Christian unity and perfection. I suppose that is why it is a high priority for me as a lay woman. Veiling does indeed strengthen my relationship with God and increase my desire for holiness, so it is something I wish all women could experience. I also believe that restoring simple traditions such as this will help to restore and strengthen the Church.
I will continue on my quest to defend and promote its usage. Forgive me for any contention against you, I simply wish to see this holy discipline promoted and not discouraged in any way.

I am always praying for God’s holy workers, thank you. That reminds me, Happy St. Joseph the Worker!

Katharine Bernadette

 

[JReducation]

Thank you, I understand and agree with why it’s not a priority for the Church at the highest levels in Her quest for Christian unity and perfection. I suppose that is why it is a high priority for me as a lay woman. Veiling does indeed strengthen my relationship with God and increase my desire for holiness, so it is something I wish all women could experience. I also believe that restoring simple traditions such as this will help to restore and strengthen the Church.
I will continue on my quest to defend and promote its usage. Forgive me for any contention against you, I simply wish to see this holy discipline promoted and not discouraged in any way.

I am always praying for God’s holy workers, thank you. That reminds me, Happy St. Joseph the Worker!

Katharine Bernadette

As a Mystical Theologian I can tell you this. In the spiritual life there are many tools that God provides to help us on our journey. These can be veils, habits, the holy rosary, Chaplet of Divine Mercy, Lectio Divina, scapulars, special devotions and more.

They don’t have to be doctrines or laws to be helpful. They are tools that God gives us to help us draw closer to him. What is important it to remember that was works for one person may not work for the other. That’s why we have so much diversity in the Church.

I’ll give you an example that has nothing to do with the veil. Let’s look at the different Catholic Churches. Did you know that there are 22 Catholic Churches? Why is that? Because the Apostles founded different Churches and each is autonomous, though all 22 are in communion with the Holy Father. Each one has very different traditions such as different ways of praying, different ways of celebrating the mass, different languages, different forms of sacred art and sacred music. Some even have their own words of consecration, which are different from our own, but are valid. They also have diversity in clothing. If you look at the way that the clegy and religious dress in the different Churches you would never know that they are all Catholic, but they are.

Now let’s look at religious orders. Each is very unique. We have different charisms, different spirituallities, different ways of dress, different ministries, different lifestyles, we even have different ways of celebrating mass, ways that you don’t see in a parish, because they are meant for the internal use of the community.

Not all of these things are addressed in law, some are, but many are not. They are simply left to the individuals or the different Chuches or the different religious orders to choose, because regardless of whether they choose to wear a habit or a suit, whether they choose to celebrate the mass standing or kneeling, they are choosing something good, something that will lead them closer to God.

In the spiritual life we have to look for the tools that help us get closer to God and are not in conflict with the laws of the Church. If they are in conflict with the laws of the Church, they certainly won’t help us get closer to God. We have to find what is necessary for our salvation and hold on to that. There are things that are necessary for everyone’s salvation. There are some things that are not necessary for everyone, but are necessary for som. For example, religious life is necessary for me. Without it, I will lose my soul. Being a mother is necessary for your salvation. I would be damned if I were a mother. I could not be a good one. You may not be a good religious. God places before us the means to our salvation. Some of those means come to us as part of the Church’s teaching, faith and sacraments. These must be accepted by all. Other means are not part of the official teaching or practices of the Church, but they are helpful and necessary for some people, such as veils or praying the rosary. The Church does not say that we have to pray the Rosary, but it is available to us.

If the veil helps you pray, then by all means use it. The most important thing is to pray. Everything else is built on prayer. Don’t forget, pray for me. By the way, I don’t feel that you’re being difficult. I would only advise you not to try to present it as a requirement. I would share it as an experience that has been helpful to you and may be helpful to others. Then leave it to others to choose.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

First of all, take care of the little ones and give them my blessing. As to veiling, there is no official spiritual teaching from any of the branches of theology on this subject. This does not deny that the tradition was there. Nor does it mean that someone cannot do it for spiritual reasons. That would be untrue to say such a thing. The most that we can say is that there is no formal theological statement on this subject. It would fall under one of three areas of theology: Mystical Theology, Liturgy, or Systematic Theology.

It is not found in Mystical Theology. The mystics never write about it authoritatively. They mention it in passing as related to nuns, not to everyone. Even in speaking about nuns, St. Teresa of Avila, who is the one who mentions veils, she mentions it as a discipline in modesty, not as a doctrine.

We don’t find it in liturgical theology. The theology of the liturgy focuses on those aspects of the liturgy necessary for validity of the sacraments and it also defines what happens in the celebration of the sacraments, both at the visible and supernatual levels. Again, there is no formal mention of head covering in theology of liturgy, because it’s not essential for the efficacy of the sacraments.

There is certainly no mention of it in systematic theology, which deals with dogma and revelation. There is no dogmatic teaching on the matter.

The only place that it comes up is in previous editions of canon law, but those editions were abrogated by the one that followed. The logic was that the discipline is no longere necessary. However, saying that we don’t include something in law, because it is not needed for sanctity or for compliance with the Church, it does not mean that it is a bad thing.

It can be a very good thing for a person and if it helps that person get closer to God, then that person has a duty to make use of every tool available to him or her to get closer to God.

One more thing, why isn’t it at the top of the Church’s list of priorities? For one thing, it’s not a dogma, it is not high on the Church’s priority list. There are some very crucial issues that have to be addressed. At the top of the list is the Gospel of Life. Second is the Sacrament of Holy Orders which has suffered terribly by all that has happened. Ecumenism is up there for our Holy Father. We’ve got to re-unify the Christian Church. Christ does not want his Church do be divided. Marriage and family are up there. Christ’s presence at Cana is a sign of the efficacy of marriage, but modern society is attacking it. The list gets longer and longer. I would add that the life of prayer of people needs to significantly improved.

There are so many priorities that are doctrinal, moral, sacramental and ecclesial, that veiling is not at the top for the Holy Father and the Holy See. So, his expectation is that we work with him on these issues either directly or through prayer.

But do not stop wearing your veil if it helps you pray. For God’s sake, we want you to pray and pray for us too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Here’s the problem though: it WAS pretty high on the Church’s priority list before Vatican II. Something that was considered highly necessary and important for thousands of years can’t suddenly be un-necessary. Exactly why you’ll never see any Traditional Catholic agreeing with that. It always was necessary before Vatican II and still is necessary regardless of what is being taught today.

 

[ProVobis]

Here’s the problem though: it WAS pretty high on the Church’s priority list before Vatican II. Something that was considered highly necessary and important for thousands of years can’t suddenly be un-necessary. Exactly why you’ll never see any Traditional Catholic agreeing with that. It always was necessary before Vatican II and still is necessary regardless of what is being taught today.

Apparently too many progressives whined about how much bother it was wearing veils and probably threatened not to go to Church until they removed the necessity of wearing them. The Church found the perfect loophole in its own rules and simply dismissed it (and other requirements) as “practices” which were no longer required, never mind St. Paul.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Apparently too many progressives whined about how much bother it was wearing veils and probably threatened not to go to Church until they removed the necessity of wearing them. The Church found the perfect loophole in its own rules and simply dismissed it (and other requirements) as “practices” which were no longer required, never mind St. Paul.

Yes, basically what it came down to was modernists not thinking it was necessary and at Vatican II demanding it be changed. Good post overall.

 

[JReducation]

Here’s the problem though: it WAS pretty high on the Church’s priority list before Vatican II. Something that was considered highly necessary and important for thousands of years can’t suddenly be un-necessary. Exactly why you’ll never see any Traditional Catholic agreeing with that. It always was necessary before Vatican II and still is necessary regardless of what is being taught today.

Not necessarily. First of all, it was never a doctrine, sacrament, moral law or a universal practice. Second, a pope or a council of bishops has the authority to say that a certain need no longer exists or is no longer a priority, then can change the rule. This is what John XXIII referred to when he told the sisters to change. He said that they must look at the signs of the times. The Church must look at what are the priority of our times today, not the priority of our times from the first century to the 20th.

It was not even a priority for that long. Veinling was not included into Canon Law until 1917. Prior to that it was determined by bishops. Even when it was introduced in 1917, there was always the allowance for indigenous peoples not to veil. It only applied to Romans who were of European extraction. It never applied to Native Americans, the indigenous Catholics of Africa, South America, Austraila or Asia. That was left up to the local bishops.

The spiritiual reasoning was very logical. Basically it was that if (in our European context) we paid this kind of homage to temporal monarchs, then it should carry over to the Lord. In those countries where this was not a custom, this was not required. In other words, if it’s good enough for the king, it’s good enough for God. Which makes perfect spiritual sense.

So what you saw in Africa, Asia, Australia, and South America was that people were taught to dress for a great celebration and they wore the best that they could afford. In Asia the Vietnamese were very influenced by the French Jesuits and because of the long Jesuit presence in the country, they gradually adopted the veil. In their case, the law applied, because they embraced Western Catholicisism. The same happened in the Philippines. They have a long history of Franciscan presence. Gradually, they adopted the Franciscan customs. In other countries, Western Catholicism is still not embraced and so the law would not apply.

When the Church looks at the priorities, this is no where near the top. Our greatest challenge is the Gospel of Life, which is being violated around the globe, the family and all of the other things that we talked about befofre.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Layman]

The trend seems to be:

If it can be dropped, drop it.
If it was done in another rite and/or hundreds of years ago, add it back in.
If it’s mundane but could maybe appeal to The Young People, add it in.
If it’s hierarchial, exclusive or emphasises the superiority of the priest, drop it.
If it plays down the personalities of those involves, drop it.

Revive any old practice. Except the TLM (shudder). That might result in awkward public displays of piety and fervour*. People might realise that It’s Not All About Them.

If you don’t really believe that Jesus is present in the Host and the priest is an alter-Christus and that divine powers are present in the sanctuary, then the changes to our rite make perfect sense.

Mass as Meal: O.F. Mass as Sacrifice: E.F.

Education, sanitation and inoculation have made for a very proud people who think they’re pretty much guaranteed a spot in Heaven. They don’t get the knocks their forefather’s did to remind them of their utter helplessness. Hence the displays in your local Church of a Sunday. They certainly don’t hear about Sin, Hell, Death and Damnation. That would interfere with the ‘Celebration’. Every bleedin’ Sunday.

Wearing a veil? In this day and age? How demeaning! You’re drawing attention to yourself! Social mores have changed. Just wear skinny jeans and tight top instead. Remember, what you feel internally is what’s most important (in a public rite)*.

*[note: sarcasm].

 

[JReducation]

The trend seems to be:

If it can be dropped, drop it.
If it was done in another rite and/or hundreds of years ago, add it back in.
If it’s mundane but could maybe appeal to The Young People, add it in.
If it’s hierarchial, exclusive or emphasises the superiority of the priest, drop it.
If it plays down the personalities of those involves, drop it.

Revive any old practice. Except the TLM (shudder). That might result in awkward public displays of piety and fervour*. People might realise that It’s Not All About Them.

If you don’t really believe that Jesus is present in the Host and the priest is an alter-Christus and that divine powers are present in the sanctuary, then the changes to our rite make perfect sense.

Mass as Meal: O.F. Mass as Sacrifice: E.F.

Education, sanitation and inoculation have made for a very proud people who think they’re pretty much guaranteed a spot in Heaven. They don’t get the knocks their forefather’s did to remind them of their utter helplessness. Hence the displays in your local Church of a Sunday. They certainly don’t hear about Sin, Hell, Death and Damnation. That would interfere with the ‘Celebration’. Every bleedin’ Sunday.

Wearing a veil? In this day and age? How demeaning! You’re drawing attention to yourself! Social mores have changed. Just wear skinny jeans and tight top instead. Remember, what you feel internally is what’s most important (in a public rite)*.

*[note: sarcasm].

You and I do not belong to the same Catholic Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Layman]

Could be so. It’s a simple change in emphasis, but drastic in effect.

Mass as a Sacrifice or as a Meal;

Thus:

Priest as alter-Christus or as a ‘Presider’;
Real Presence or ‘holy bread’;
COTT or CITH;
Sinners or Priesthood of the Laity;
High altar or altar table etc.

Symbols are important in a mystical rite. They are the mystical rite, in a way.

We’ve come a long way since the 40’s. More of this trend and I wonder what a Catholic Mass would look like.

 

[Joannm]

You and I do not belong to the same Catholic Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I wonder that too. I grew up with the Latin Mass and we never wore veils and perhaps a very small minority did and if they did it was a round lace cap. We wore hats, berets, beanies, large bows and Kleenex. I never heard a sermon about wearing veils, no one ever taught us we had to “veil”, in fact if you were talking about veiling you were talking about nuns not everyday women. It was custom to wear a head covering, which had no real regulation as to what that had to be. Most of the women wore fancy hats and shopping for hats was fun, especially at Easter when the fancier the better (if you saw the Derby Saturday you got a sense of what was worn to mass by most women), so much for humility. I never even heard of the term “veiling” until I started reading this forum.

With so many more important things going on in the Church today, I wonder why this insignificant thing gets so much attention on these boards.