Veils.

[Wendy-Kay]

When I go to thrift stores or “antique” stores I check to see if they have scarves. Sometimes I find really pretty ones that are large enough to cover my head and tie under my chin or, as my husband likes, at the base of my skull (that looks weird when I write it like that!). Some are large enough to wrap around one’s shoulders if it is cool outside then cover one’s head when they enter the church. These scarves often cost me far less than some of the cheaply made chapel veils.
Instead of bobby pins, has anyone used those tiny clips? They work much better for me.
And regardless of the should/don’t-have-to arguments, for me it doesn’t make sense to throw out thousands of years of tradition on a technicality. It is a practice advocated by some of the Church’s holiest teachers, and I teach my children to follow the saints. My daughter will cover her head before our Lord in the tabernacle because it is her heritage and privilege in addition to the reasons already stated by previous posters. It is an outward sign of respect, testimony, as well as acknowlegment of one’s God-given place within the mystical body. It pains me to see this custom abandoned and to see it more acceptable for little girls in revealing outfits with uncharitable messages, liked “Spoiled”, “I want it, I get it” and such in our parishes. I have never seen a veiled woman/girl dressed in a halter top or shorts in church.

 

[laudamus_te]

And regardless of the should/don’t-have-to arguments, for me it doesn’t make sense to throw out thousands of years of tradition on a technicality. It is a practice advocated by some of the Church’s holiest teachers, and I teach my children to follow the saints. My daughter will cover her head before our Lord in the tabernacle because it is her heritage and privilege in addition to the reasons already stated by previous posters. It is an outward sign of respect, testimony, as well as acknowlegment of one’s God-given place within the mystical body. It pains me to see this custom abandoned and to see it more acceptable for little girls in revealing outfits with uncharitable messages, liked “Spoiled”, “I want it, I get it” and such in our parishes. I have never seen a veiled woman/girl dressed in a halter top or shorts in church.

Nicely said! I’m very much in agreement.

 

[Jacafamala]

Go to the fabric store and see if you can find some yardage of lace on the clearance rack. A friend of mine did this and she found some beautiful lace to make her own, at a significant cost savings to buying one already made. And since you don’t need much, you can find the lace at a good price if it a left over piece that has been previously cut or the end of a bolt. Add some simple lace trim, and you are all set!

~Liza

Great idea. I think I will.
Pax Christi,
Ann

 

[catholicrocks]

My cousins make their own all the time! They just go and choose the lace, and go for it! I’ve been begging my cousin to make me one - I guess she and I will have to go lace shopping when she comes to visit in a couple of weeks.

I also learned from this same cousin to sew in one of those small hair combs - I bought a pack of them for very cheap, and stitched them inside. Then you don’t snag or tear the lace, and they stay put pretty well. I have really fine hair though, so if I don’t pull part of my hair back or put it in a ponytail or clip, it slides a little bit and distracts me. I also don’t sew, so while it’s nothing for her to stitch one of those combs into her veil, it’s an act of congress for me! But it does work pretty well.

 

[labernadette]

Yes, people at “traditionalist” web sites have been trying to make this argument now for a long time. But despite all the attempts and all the complaints, they can’t get anyone in the Vatican to say any such thing. Not a single person in any position of authority in the Church says that headcoverings are still a requirement.

So…in the absence of someone producing a document from someone with such authority, it would be safe to assume that the “doubt” that keeps getting looked to is i*ndividual *and not in the mind of the Church, and therefore that the part dealing with said doubt does not apply. That clause does nothing more than leave the *Church’s options *open to allow something that was abrogated with the entire 1917 code to come back if they felt it should have. And since Pope Paul VI precedes the Code of 1983 on this matter of discipline, no Pope after it is bound by his statements.

I have no doubt that for some it is an admirable practice to which many may personally feel called, but it really is not the least bit honest to try to make into a “requirement” something the Church refuses to state as such. One is certainly welcome to express an opinion that it should be such, but without surety from the Church, to express that as *fact *is to be dishonest.

Peace,

There are other things which the Vatican has failed to forcefully speak of or properly teach. Communion in the hand and the use of glass vessels are two examples. It is not so much a case of what the Vatican has said, as it is a case of what the Vatican will NOT say. The pope has become quite powerless in enforcing anything. The power is in the hands of the bishops not the pope and these obstinate and power hungry bishops will defy anything they do not want to hear. Furthermore, the pope is well aware of this.

Clearly, the fact that the Vatican won’t say anything is very damning evidence. They simply CANNOT deny that the discipline of veiling of women has been the universal custom of the church throughout the centuries and is a custom deeply imbedded in tradition. And so, can you produce the evidence that veils are no longer required? There is none. The evidence which I have provided in my earlier posts, is more than adequate proof that it is not an option for each woman to decide, but rather a traditional custom of the church and a custom which should be maintained and revered and kept by ALL women out of respect for Our Lord.

I see no argument which could possibly lend credence or favor to the disrespectful, prideful, and willful defiance of women refusing to cover their heads, a traditional practice which is very beautiful and pleasing to God.

 

[CarrieH]

Instead of bobby pins, has anyone used those tiny clips? They work much better for me.

My hair is baby-fine and silky, and if I use those alone, they just slip out. I take one of those tiny snap-type clips and clip together a chunk of hair near my part, then take a corsage pin and “weave” the lace and my hair together with that. But most of the time I choose a regular scarf which I can tie around my hair instead of a lace mantilla.

 

[ncjohn]

There are other things which the Vatican has failed to forcefully speak of or properly teach. Communion in the hand and the use of glass vessels are two examples. It is not so much a case of what the Vatican has said, as it is a case of what the Vatican will NOT say. The pope has become quite powerless in enforcing anything. The power is in the hands of the bishops not the pope and these obstinate and power hungry bishops will defy anything they do not want to hear. Furthermore, the pope is well aware of this.

Clearly, the fact that the Vatican won’t say anything is very damning evidence. They simply CANNOT deny that the discipline of veiling of women has been the universal custom of the church throughout the centuries and is a custom deeply imbedded in tradition. And so, can you produce the evidence that veils are no longer required? There is none. The evidence which I have provided in my earlier posts, is more than adequate proof that it is not an option for each woman to decide, but rather a traditional custom of the church and a custom which should be maintained and revered and kept by ALL women out of respect for Our Lord.

I see no argument which could possibly lend credence or favor to the disrespectful, prideful, and willful defiance of women refusing to cover their heads, a traditional practice which is very beautiful and pleasing to God.

With all due respect…

You claim to offer proof, but offer none but an inaccurate assessment of the “doubt” clause, then claim there is no proof the other way when the abrogation is clearly worded. I fear you see no evidence because you don’t want to see any evidence.

The lack of logic and contradiction within your own statements here defeats your own argument. We’ve had two different Popes in over a 25 year period, and they have taken on and enforced many things that are abuses and clarified many others, hardly showing cowardice in doing so though many don’t think they’ve gone far enough. With the number of complaints and questions this has generated, there certainly would have been some clarification to say “oops, we missed that one” if they intended to do so.

But the pure and simple fact is that that they have failed to do so. So given the clear fact that the language of the 1983 code abrogated the 1917 code, and that you can show nothing that shows that the Church did not mean to do so in this case, as the Church has not said any such thing, YOU do not get to make the interpretation that they just are “afraid” to do so.

I will fully agree that it falls under the category of “immemorial custom”, as does kneeling for communion, and thus, like kneeling for communion, cannot be denied to one who prefers to wear one. But like kneeling for communion, there is no requirement to do so. So even if one could read in the “doubt” question, the exception would go to them being allowed, but not required. And since they are allowed anyway, there is no need to issue the clarification.

Even if we accept your argument that the Pope is just a coward and the bishops are in control, show me the statement of even one bishop that says that they are required. Though it wouldn’t be authoritative, it might at least give some hope that someone might really consider changing things at some point.

Again, I do not denigrate the practice as it is a wonderful sign of piety and devotion for those who take it as such. But there is not a requirement for them, however much you might like there to be one.

Peace,

 

[labernadette]

With all due respect…

You claim to offer proof, but offer none but an inaccurate assessment of the “doubt” clause, then claim there is no proof the other way when the abrogation is clearly worded. I fear you see no evidence because you don’t want to see any evidence.

Evidently you are not sincere when you say “with all due respect” for I have offered proof and you have chosen to ignore it and show disrespect for fact. Once again, it is here:

“A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it STATES SO EXPRESSLY, IS DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO IT, or COMPLETELY REORDERS THE ENTIRE MATTER OF THE EARLIER LAW. A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise.”

If the veiling of women is not even mentioned nor is it contained in the new code of canon law, how could it of been abrogated?

You have charged me with having offered an inaccurate assessment of the so called “doubt clause”, so perhaps you wouldn’t mind pointing out to me the “clearly worded abrogation”.

 

[ncjohn]

Evidently you are not sincere when you say “with all due respect” for I have offered proof and you have chosen to ignore it and show disrespect for fact. Once again, it is here:

“A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it STATES SO EXPRESSLY, IS DIRECTLY CONTRARY TO IT, or COMPLETELY REORDERS THE ENTIRE MATTER OF THE EARLIER LAW. A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise.”

If the veiling of women is not even mentioned nor is it contained in the new code of canon law, how could it of been abrogated?

You have charged me with having offered an inaccurate assessment of the so called “doubt clause”, so perhaps you wouldn’t mind pointing out to me the “clearly worded abrogation”.

As you yourself have quoted both here and elsewhere, it abrogates if is says so expressly. And it says expressly that it abrogates the 1917 code. When the Code expressly abrogates the 1917 Code, it is abrogating the *entire *code and not required to detail each and every item within it. Thus it is “expressly providing otherwise.” The attempt is made to use the “doubt” clause to say that since it was an existing law that doesn’t count, but that isn’t the way it works–since the entire code was abrogated–and is a faulty reading.

You offer not one shred of evidence that ANYONE in the Church agrees with the opinion that you offer, yet then claim it to be “fact”.You then try to take a fallback position that it just isn’t clarified because the Pope is afraid to do so and the bishops don’t want it to be so–essentially a position that the entire hierarchy is a bunch of cowards and teaching error.

I’m not going to convince you, and don’t really care about that. Maybe you’ll convince some people even while losing credibility totally with others over trying to stick to that. Hopefully others who have been, or might be misled by the statements are at least notified enough to look into it themselves.

I’ll leave you to it at this point since talking about it further will just be wasting my breath and aggravating you further.

And by the way, I truly do respect you, despite disagreeing with you on this. I respect both your devotion and your perseverance in trying to pursue what you feel is right. And I apologize for the laughing smiley, which might have led you to believe otherwise, as I did not mean it that way. I’ve just heard these myths repeated a few times too many and it just caught me funny at the moment.

Peace,

 

[Jacafamala]

I wonder if there are links to patterns for a mantilla. Maybe ebay.

Pax Christi,
Ann

 

[labernadette]

And by the way, I truly do respect you, despite disagreeing with you on this. I respect both your devotion and your perseverance in trying to pursue what you feel is right. And I apologize for the laughing smiley, which might have led you to believe otherwise, as I did not mean it that way. I’ve just heard these myths repeated a few times too many and it just caught me funny at the moment.

Peace,

Thank you. I appreciate these words and accept your apology for the smiley.

I believe we cannot agree and I also do not expect that we will. However I must remind you of this important point, and here it follows:

This is the second piece of the puzzle: an old law is not revoked unless the new law “states so expressly,” or is “directly contrary to it,” or “completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law.” The New Code of Canon Law does not even mention the veil, and thus it does not expressly revoke the law; the New Code does not legislate that women must not wear a veil, and so it is not “directly contrary” to the old Code; finally, since the New Code does not even raise the issue, it can hardly be argued that it revokes the old law by “completely [reordering] the entire matter.”

sincerely,
LaBernadette

 

[gospel_life]

This is the second piece of the puzzle: an old law is not revoked unless the new law “states so expressly,”
…
The New Code of Canon Law does not even mention the veil, and thus it does not expressly revoke the law;

I’m kind of confused here about two things labernadette.

First I just saw a comment you made in another thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2325797#post2325797 that you are not part of the “concilliar” Church, which I take to mean you are sedevacantist, or at the least not in full communion. Is that a correct reading? If so, I’m a little confused why you would be here trying to convince people who are in full communion of a position based on arguments by sources you would give no credence to.

Second, you say “an old law is not revoked unless the new law states so expressly”. Since the old law was part of the 1917 code and the 1983 Code expressly abrogates the 1917 Code, of which that law was a part, I don’t see how one could claim that that part of the total that was abrogated is not itself abrogated.

I have never heard even the most traditional bishop claim this to be a requirement, though many greatly favor a much more traditional Church, so it seems unlikely that the Church thinks it to be a requirement.

Is this something that some outside full communion consider to be a requirement because they just don’t recognize the Code of 1983 as legitimate? I could understand that position, even if I wouldn’t agree.

Thanks

 

[labernadette]

I’m kind of confused here about two things labernadette.

First I just saw a comment you made in another thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2325797#post2325797 that you are not part of the “concilliar” Church, which I take to mean you are sedevacantist, or at the least not in full communion. Is that a correct reading? If so, I’m a little confused why you would be here trying to convince people who are in full communion of a position based on arguments by sources you would give no credence to.

Second, you say “an old law is not revoked unless the new law states so expressly”. Since the old law was part of the 1917 code and the 1983 Code expressly abrogates the 1917 Code, of which that law was a part, I don’t see how one could claim that that part of the total that was abrogated is not itself abrogated.

I have never heard even the most traditional bishop claim this to be a requirement, though many greatly favor a much more traditional Church, so it seems unlikely that the Church thinks it to be a requirement.

Is this something that some outside full communion consider to be a requirement because they just don’t recognize the Code of 1983 as legitimate? I could understand that position, even if I wouldn’t agree.

Thanks

No problem. I am not a sedevacantist. I attend only the TLM, and use the missal of 1962. I assist at the masses of the SSPX. And pray for the pope at every mass. I am a cradle Catholic, raised in the novus ordo or as I referred to above, the conciliar church. I come from a very liberal diocese and can no longer accept the errors and blasphemies occuring at my old parish.

If you read the last post I made it explains it quite clearly…the veiling of women was not mentioned in the new code of canon law, hence, if it was not addressed, it could not of been abrogated. The earlier post I made which I gave a source to is well worth reading.

I can only add that the veiling of women has been the custom of the church from time immemorial, it is a tradition that should be taken seriously. Many today are simply ignorant through no fault of their own, because the church has fallen into such dissarray, is in such crisis.

 

[lizaanne]

I wonder if there are links to patterns for a mantilla. Maybe ebay.

Pax Christi,
Ann

It is just a simple triangle, no pattern needed, you can make your own. Take a measuring tape, or even a piece of string if you don’t have one, and drape it from shoulder to shoulder over your head at the longest point. This is the long side of the triangle. Then decide how long you want it in the back (you may need some help with this) by measuring from the front of your head to the longest point you desire down your back, to cover your hair perhaps. This is the measurement in the triangle which would be like a “tent stake” with the long side you previously measured along the bottom. Now draw this out on a piece of paper - use an opened up paper grocery bag to make your pattern. Draw the triangle by connecting up from the ends of the long line at the bottom ,to the measurement at the top of the “tent stake”, and there is your pattern!

Cut it out - pin it to the lace, and cut out the lace! Perfect! Should take you about 10 minutes total.

~Liza

 

[Jacafamala]

It is just a simple triangle, no pattern needed, you can make your own. Take a measuring tape, or even a piece of string if you don’t have one, and drape it from shoulder to shoulder over your head at the longest point. This is the long side of the triangle. Then decide how long you want it in the back (you may need some help with this) by measuring from the front of your head to the longest point you desire down your back, to cover your hair perhaps. This is the measurement in the triangle which would be like a “tent stake” with the long side you previously measured along the bottom. Now draw this out on a piece of paper - use an opened up paper grocery bag to make your pattern. Draw the triangle by connecting up from the ends of the long line at the bottom ,to the measurement at the top of the “tent stake”, and there is your pattern!

Cut it out - pin it to the lace, and cut out the lace! Perfect! Should take you about 10 minutes total.

~Liza

Wow, that’s very clever, and so simple. Even I could do that. Thanks so much, Liza.

One more question: What color should the veils be? Does it matter? I’m sure that my girls should wear white, but what about me? I’m so clueless.
Pax Christi,
Ann
Pax Christi,
Ann

 

[tcraig]

If you read the last post I made it explains it quite clearly…the veiling of women was not mentioned in the new code of canon law, hence, if it was not addressed, it could not of been abrogated. The earlier post I made which I gave a source to is well worth reading.

Well, then, going by your argument, please make sure that in your chapel the men sit on one side and the women sit on the other. Because the 1917 Code of Canon Law also specified that the sexes would be separated, right above the headcovering for women requirement:

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.

Separating the women from the men is not mentioned in the 1983 Code, so I guess that since it wasn’t mentioned it wasn’t abrogated and it’s still required, correct? Is this enforced in your chapel?

I don’t have a problem with women wearing a headcovering in church, I wear a hat myself. However, the argument you are using is inconsistent and without merit, and headcovering is no longer a requirement under canon law.

 

[fellowChristian]

Some where veils some don’t. But don’t you think if it was important the Pope would address it?
I only found some wearing veils in the pictures. I think I even saw a woman wearing jeans.
vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/calendar/ns_lit_doc_20070101_calendar_en.html#JUNE_2007

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

This thread was highjacked from its true purpose: Getting Jacafamala head gear. There are plenty of other threads to debate this, more’s the pity.

Veils are not required, even at a TLM. But they can make women feel more comfortable in a sea of them.

The traditional rule was a HEAD COVERING, not a veil. The lacey doily thing was not big until Jackie Kennedy made it popular. There was debate in some circles as to whether a mantilla or chiffon scarf was sufficient to meet the requirements back in the day, BTW. The mantilla as currently represented, and the ones in countries of hispanic origin, are two different things entirely.

**If you, Jacafamala, **feel more comfortable at a TLM in a hat, scarf, babuska, etc., you are free to find any of those, and not go out and purchase a mantilla for a one-time shot.

For the others: Cameron Lansing is a canon lawyer of some consequence, not just some poster, not just an apologist. You might think you’re right, but let me tell you- he KNOWS his business. He IS right 99.99% of the time.

QUESTION: Aren’t chapels a term used by the SSPX, in the sense of group, instead of parish?

 

[ElizabethPH]

This thread was highjacked from its true purpose: Getting Jacafamala head gear. There are plenty of other threads to debate this, more’s the pity.

Veils are not required, even at a TLM. But they can make women feel more comfortable in a sea of them.

The traditional rule was a HEAD COVERING, not a veil. The lacey doily thing was not big until Jackie Kennedy made it popular. There was debate in some circles as to whether a mantilla or chiffon scarf was sufficient to meet the requirements back in the day, BTW. The mantilla as currently represented, and the ones in countries of hispanic origin, are two different things entirely.

thanks I noticed it was hijacked from the very start. You know I didn’t think the ‘veil’ was correct and remembered the lacey cover coming into fashion in the early 60’s. From reading a lot of the threads on mantillas you would think that is the traditional head covering. And the term veil was never used as I remember…but cover. We used everything from straw hats to hankies. As long as your head was covered.
**If you, Jacafamala, **feel more comfortable at a TLM in a hat, scarf, babuska, etc., you are free to find any of those, and not go out and purchase a mantilla for a one-time shot.

For the others: Cameron Lansing is a canon lawyer of some consequence, not just some poster, not just an apologist. You might think you’re right, but let me tell you- he KNOWS his business. He IS right 99.99% of the time.

QUESTION: Aren’t chapels a term used by the SSPX, in the sense of group, instead of parish?

 

[labernadette]

Well, then, going by your argument, please make sure that in your chapel the men sit on one side and the women sit on the other. Because the 1917 Code of Canon Law also specified that the sexes would be separated, right above the headcovering for women requirement:

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.

Separating the women from the men is not mentioned in the 1983 Code, so I guess that since it wasn’t mentioned it wasn’t abrogated and it’s still required, correct? Is this enforced in your chapel?

I don’t have a problem with women wearing a headcovering in church, I wear a hat myself. However, the argument you are using is inconsistent and without merit, and headcovering is no longer a requirement under canon law.

You know, I am tired of that old Novus Ordo chestnut. I have heard it before and I will hear it again. You might be interested to read this:

R. Sungenis: As we will see, “revised liturgical documents” do not have to contain the matter of head coverings in order for it to be upheld or practiced. Unless there is a specific provision doing away with the practice, arguments cannot be drawn from silence. If that were not the case, then every time an official statement came from the Vatican, if it did not cover every single article of the faith and of practice, we would not be required to abide by them.

As for the issue of “sitting apart,” St. Paul did not address that issue in 1 Corinthians 11, and thus, sitting apart is a practice issued by the Church that has no Scriptural mandate, and therefore could easily be put into disuse when appropriate. Not so with head coverings, since St. Paul is very clear that it is a divine directive, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and for the purpose of giving the woman a symbol that she is under the authority of the man, as many other passages, by divine directive, also teach (1 Cor 14:34-38; 1 Timothy 2:11-15; Col 3:18; Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Peter 3:1-6, et al).

Source: catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/covering.htm

It really amazes me how defensive some get when it comes to upholding an immemorial custom of the Roman Catholic Church. One could almost wonder why the opposition? What are these forces at play that have the intent of tearing down tradition, and perpetuating modern error? The Catholic Faith is the ONE, TRUE, FAITH…there is no other, and our customs and traditions are to be preserved and honored as they have been all through the ages. I would fight for my faith, my traditions. Not look for loopholes or excuses.