Wearing a Veil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stayathomemommy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Portrait said:
Dear Walking_Home,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

As regards Inter Signiores, dear friend, please consider the following:
  1. The direct and immediate object of that document was to affirm that only men could be admitted to the priesthood. The statement by Cardinal Seper on head coverings is obiter dicta, not essential to the holding and not binding as a pronouncement of law in any way.
  2. The Cardinal was refering, not to women covering their head in Church, but merely to the custom of women covering their hair everywhere, as had been the case in some parts of the world formerly. If you read his exact words, dear brother, there is nothing that compels the conclusion that he was referencing liturgical veiling. To say otherwise would be to argue that the Cardinal made a somewhat seditious statement, since this document came out prior to the 1983 Code of Canon Law and and no man doubted that Canon 1262 of the 1917 Code was binding.
  3. Moreover, dear friend, this document was issued by the CDF, which does not have any competence over liturgical law. If this document was designed to amend the 1917 Code, it would have had to have come from the Pope himself. If it was designed to change liturgical law, then clearly it would have come from the congregation with the competence to do so.
These are, I think, cogent reasons demonstrating that that passage in Inter Insigniores was not intended to, nor indeed could it, overthrow a canon in the 1917 Code. Moreover, even if it was addressing the liturgical practice, which is highly doubtful, it lacked both the competence and the authority to do so. Even subsequent to the promulgation of the 1983 Code the devout and biblical practice of veiling stands as both liturgical law and as an immemorial custom.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
Click to expand...
 
Portrait said:
40.png
Portrait:
Dear Walking_Home,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

As regards Inter Signiores, dear friend, please consider the following:
  1. The direct and immediate object of that document was to affirm that only men could be admitted to the priesthood. The statement by Cardinal Seper on head coverings is obiter dicta, not essential to the holding and not binding as a pronouncement of law in any way.
  2. The Cardinal was refering, not to women covering their head in Church, but merely to the custom of women covering their hair everywhere, as had been the case in some parts of the world formerly. If you read his exact words, dear brother, there is nothing that compels the conclusion that he was referencing liturgical veiling. To say otherwise would be to argue that the Cardinal made a somewhat seditious statement, since this document came out prior to the 1983 Code of Canon Law and and no man doubted that Canon 1262 of the 1917 Code was binding.
  3. Moreover, dear friend, this document was issued by the CDF, which does not have any competence over liturgical law. If this document was designed to amend the 1917 Code, it would have had to have come from the Pope himself. If it was designed to change liturgical law, then clearly it would have come from the congregation with the competence to do so.
These are, I think, cogent reasons demonstrating that that passage in Inter Insigniores was not intended to, nor indeed could it, overthrow a canon in the 1917 Code. Moreover, even if it was addressing the liturgical practice, which is highly doubtful, it lacked both the competence and the authority to do so. Even subsequent to the promulgation of the 1983 Code the devout and biblical practice of veiling stands as both liturgical law and as an immemorial custom.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
No matter how you try – to weasel and quote yourself — you are still wrong.
 
Portrait said:
The passage in I Corinthians 11: 2-16 has never been officially set aside as being no longer relevant or applicable and our antagonists cannot adduce any evidence which categorically states that the veiling of women is no longer a *moral *obligation.
Click to expand...
Please show us the standing Church teaching which establishes the passage as a moral obligation. The fact that it “has never been set aside” does not mean that it ever was a moral obligation, so demonstrate the correctness of your point. If you feel that Biblical “imperatives” are exactly that, please show us the standing Church teaching establishing that Biblical “imperatives” not also explicitly taught by the Church constitute moral obligation.
Portrait said:
Sacred Scripture as we have said previously, dear friend, is a current Church document that teaches that the veiling of women has continued validity.
Click to expand...
The Church does not believe this.
True, the* legal* obligation for veiling has been repealed by the 1983 Code (yet even that is silent as regards veiling),
Click to expand...
Silence is equivalent to abrogation given that the entirety of the Code was abrogated except for those statutes revised in the new Code.
Sacred Scripture, dear sister, is a teaching document of the Church - “The inspired books teach the truth” (see CCC 107). No, Catholicism is not a religion of the book, but “the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body” (CCC 103). Of course the bible is to be interpreted in the light of the teachings of the Church, but it surely follows that any man who knows and believes the teachings of Holy Mother Church will necessarily elucidate the sacred text as the Church does.
Click to expand...
Please show us the standing Church teaching establishing that Biblical “imperatives” not also explicitly taught by the Church constitute moral obligation.

Your argument is flawed all the way back to its premises.
 
Portrait said:
Sacred Scripture, dear sister, is a teaching document of the Church - “The inspired books teach the truth” (see CCC 107). No, Catholicism is not a religion of the book, but “the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body” (CCC 103). Of course the bible is to be interpreted in the light of the teachings of the Church, but it surely follows that any man who knows and believes the teachings of Holy Mother Church will necessarily elucidate the sacred text as the Church does.

Now the way in which I am interpreting the passage from I Corinthians 11: 2-16, is the indeed the way that the Church has always interpreted it. in other words, dear sister, my views are not novel and erroneous, as the following citation will verify:

"1053. Why must women have their heads covered when in a Church?

That women should cover their heads in when in Church is a Christian custom based upon the words of St. Paul in I Cor. XI. 6. There he definitely gives the instruction that women must cover their heads during divine worship. He gives two reasons for his decree, one theological, the other moral. The theological reason is as follows: Every being’s true glory and honour is to keep the place assigned to him or her by God. Now God Himself differentiated between the sexes, and that difference should be manifested during our public religious acknowledgement of Him. Man was created first, and woman dependendantly upon the man. The covering of a woman’s head was to be a sign of this dependence. Both men and women are created, of course, for God; and their souls are equally precious to Him. But secondarily, women were created as the helpmates fo men, so that secondarily women were created for men, rather than men for women. The moral reason given by St. Paul deals with Christian modesty. Loose women of ill-repute went their temple without any head covering, not veiling their beauty, but bent on a vain display of their attractions. St. Paul would have none of this in a Christian Church. “Therefore, ought the woman to have a power (i.e. a veil) over her head,” he writes, “because of the angels.” I Cor. XI., 10. He mentions these pure spirits to bring home the fact that spiritual considerations alone should prevail in our worship of God, and not sensual vanity. A woman’s hair is the object of her vanity and earthly glory - and she knows it. Let her at least veil it in the Church, giving her attention to higher things, and allowing others to do so also. Thus you have the legislation of St. Paul, and the reasons for it"

(Radio Replies, Vol. 2, Fathers Rumble and Carty, Tan Books 1979, p. 258, emphasis mine).

Methinks, dear sister, that these renowned ‘Radio Priests’ would be branded ‘Protestant’ and ‘sexist’ today by many modern Catholics, even among those who identify as conservative. However, what you have here is faithful Catholic teaching that has always been endorsed by the Church because it treats of timeless truths that have eternal validity. That citation evinces most plainly why a Catholic woman continues to have a moral obligation to veil at Holy Mass. Our Church, my dear sister, has never officially set aside this biblically based moral obligation in any document and never would do so, because these truths have perpetual validity and our not cultural conditioned.
Click to expand...
And we cannot interpret scripture without the Church.

Here I will put my own spin on that passage you quoted. What of the woman whose hair is not the source of her vanity? Or cultures where woman completely shave their heads? How can they follow Saint Paul’s moral teaching? The moral statement is a subjective statement and does not apply to all women and all cultures, in all times. Besides all the women who veiled prior to the removal of the requirement were doing it wrong anyways. The passage says to cover ones hair. Well, even women who cover now, and the pictures I have seen of people covering then, show a lot of hair under their coverings. Sheer mantillas don’t cover the hair, nor do other coverings where the ends show or hair around the face shows. 🤷

And what is sad is the Churches interpretation is closer to mine that it is to yours.

You see, the Bible is not a teaching document, it does not independently impose obligations on us outside of the Churches interpretation.
Example: The Ten commandments are spelled out in the bible and the third commandment specifically says.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work.
Click to expand...
If the Bible stood on its own without the teaching authority of the Church we should be worshiping on Saturday. This is a divine law from God a moral obligation. Is it not? But the Church in her teaching authority and wisdom has said that we do not have to “keep Holy the Sabbath” but rather the Lord’s Day to celebrate the passion and resurrection. Thus the Church requires and obligates us to attend Mass on Sundays as a Moral obligation and a legal one. This is both in the CCC and in canon law. The requirement for veiling in church is indeed listed in scripture, however, without corresponding requirement from the Church in any teaching document it cannot be a moral obligation. Because the Church cannot fail to require us to follow a moral obligation (like attending Mass on Sundays) without falling into error and thus throwing into question her infallibility on faith and morals.

Again, since the Church has not said that we must cover, it cannot be a moral obligation to cover.

Not everything in scripture is a moral issue. And St. Paul’s explanation about why it is required certainly doesn’t speak to an objective moral issue.
 
Portrait said:
Dear catholicanne,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

They would only feel resentful, dear sister, if it was not explained to them as to why they were under a moral obligation to veil at Holy Mass. If they believed that Sacred Scripture was the inspired word of God and that veiling was an immemorial apostloic custom, then surely they would be obedient and humbly submit to the requirement to veil.

People feel resentful against the Catholic Church for all manner of reasons, dear sister, for example its stance on abortion and homosexual aberrant acts, and so will always be repelled by something or other. However, the Church has standards and obligations to which men and women must meekly submit, it cannot trim its sails to the fancies of fallen man.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
Click to expand...
I have to admit that you’re right that some people do feel resentful of the Church for some of its standings, although honestly, other than Bible quotes, where does it say we need to veil ourselves? The Bible says a whole lot of things that we don’t do today. To pick one or two verses out to justify your belief about something smacks of Protestantism.

What exactly are you getting out of this debate, other than a good chuckle for infuriating a bunch of people? I suggest you pray for the humility to “agree to disagree” as no one is being inspired by your preaching.
 
catholicanne said:
I have to admit that you’re right that some people do feel resentful of the Church for some of its standings, although honestly, other than Bible quotes, where does it say we need to veil ourselves? The Bible says a whole lot of things that we don’t do today. To pick one or two verses out to justify your belief about something smacks of Protestantism.

What exactly are you getting out of this debate, other than a good chuckle for infuriating a bunch of people? I suggest you pray for the humility to “agree to disagree” as no one is being inspired by your preaching.
Click to expand...
AMEN SISTA!!! 👍

And just to clarify, I have 100% respect for you and any woman out there who feels called to veil herself for mass.

I DO however, have a hard time respecting the views of those who actually say the Church teaches something she does not, and holding the rest of us accountable.
 
Dearly Beloved friends,

Cordial greetings to you all.

We have, I feel, come to an impasse in the current debate and we are beginning to go around in circles. Moreover, I do not wish there to be any violation of Christian charity between us as regards this issue and so, my dear brethren, we must disagree amicably and I must move on to pastures new.

Before I bow out and take my leave, can I thank you all for your time and a jolly lively debate.

Blessings be upon you and may the peace of God be yours, now and always.

God bless you, dear friends.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:
 
Debora123 said:
AMEN SISTA!!! 👍

And just to clarify, I have 100% respect for you and any woman out there who feels called to veil herself for mass.

I DO however, have a hard time respecting the views of those who actually say the Church teaches something she does not, and holding the rest of us accountable.
Click to expand...
It is, indeed frustrating to try to reason with people who believe that by insisting long enough and hard enough their position will suddenly become correct.

I think it is clear that the statement in Inter Insigniores from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sends a strong signal that, even by the late 70s, the Church had realized that the covering of women’s hair/heads had simply lost significance in Western culture. The document actually seems very cavalier in its categorization of the head covering as among “disciplinary practices of minor importance” no longer having “normative value.” When, not many years later, the new Code of Canon Law left out the requirement completely, I think that reasonable people could infer that women covering their heads was clearly no longer the law. I don’t know how much clearer you can get than Canon Law, no matter how you try to spin it.

That said, if one wishes to wear a veil, scarf, hat, beret, etc., in church or during prayer, then have at it. It is a personal devotion which, I’m sure, brings with it its own special graces.
 
Portrait said:
We have, I feel, come to an impasse in the current debate and we are beginning to go around in circles. Moreover, I do not wish there to be any violation of Christian charity between us as regards this issue and so, my dear brethren, we must disagree amicably and I must move on to pastures new.
Click to expand...
Translation into honest English: “I realize that there is no theological basis for my argument whatsoever.”

Note that not a single person has actually pulled up any standing Church teaching that requires veiling, or any Church teaching stating that we must take the Scriptural passage as an immutable norm. :rolleyes:
 
1 Corinthians is the only place in scripture where the issue of veiling, or wearing something on the head, is addressed. It is mentioned in a letter from the apostle to a particular community. The only other place in scripture in which clothing is addressed is the invitation to the king’s wedding. This parable told by Christ is understood and taught by the Magisterium as referring to the proper “clothing of the heart,” our inner disposition.
On the other hand, circumcision and dietary laws are mentioned many times in the OT. Even the OT speaks to the reality that circumcision of the flesh means nothing unless it is accompanied by a circumcision of the heart. The issue of circumcision and the following of other prescriptions of Jewish Law are addressed during the Council of Jerusalem, the first Council of the Church (Acts:15). The conclusion of the Council was that new converts to Christ were to refrain from the carnal sins and from those things which were polluted by idols. It is this refraining from carnal sins that I see when the Church speaks of moral imperatives.
Wearing a veil, or not wearing a veil, is part of a dress code, or discipline. It can, as others have stated, be viewed as a form of devotion that honors the femininity of a woman. It speaks to a woman’s modesty. It is not a demand made by the Decalogue, nor by the magisterium.
We are not saved by our clothing or by following a particular set of customs and traditions. We are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ (Act15:11) who died on the cross for our sins. It is not merely that Christ died for our sins. He conquered death and sends His Holy Spirit to dwell within us, to guide us and lead us to the truth.
Scripture, the written Word of God, does not stand in isolation. It is part of the tripod which includes sacred tradition (the teachings of Christ as given directly to the Apostles), and the teaching authority of the Church, the magisterium. [Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation].
 
Portrait said:
Dearly Beloved friends,

Cordial greetings to you all.

We have, I feel, come to an impasse in the current debate and we are beginning to go around in circles. Moreover, I do not wish there to be any violation of Christian charity between us as regards this issue and so, my dear brethren, we must disagree amicably and I must move on to pastures new.

Before I bow out and take my leave, can I thank you all for your time and a jolly lively debate.

Blessings be upon you and may the peace of God be yours, now and always.

God bless you, dear friends.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:
Click to expand...
Thank you. May God bless you and bring you peace tonight.

:hug1:
 
I thought this was an interesting article on the subject by Jimmy Akin who is as he says partial to the practice.

ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/womens-head-coverings-at-mass-wont-say-i-told-you-so-but-.-.-

One part that I thought was interesting is where he quotes Cardinal Burkes statements regarding women covering their heads at the extraordinary form of the Mass.

**He makes two points: First, it is “the expectation” that women attending this form of Mass will wear a head covering, but “it is not … a sin” to refrain from doing so.

Note that Cardinal Burke does not say that the use of a chapel veil is required under the 1962 Missal. This is because it wasn’t the 1962 Missal that contained the requirement. It was the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and that requirement has been abolished. Thus there is no clear legal obligation to do so. The degree to which an obligation that existed in 1962 but that is not mentioned in the Missal would be applicable to the celebration of the Mass according to this Missal today would be, at the least, debatable. According to the 1983 Code, **
 
Hello everyone,

My question is when does one wear a veil? I want to wear one and since today happens to be Lent, can I wear throughout this Lenten season? I don’t have a mantilla, but I am trying a soft scarf to substitute. 🙂
 
FranceNazareth said:
Hello everyone,

My question is when does one wear a veil? I want to wear one and since today happens to be Lent, can I wear throughout this Lenten season? I don’t have a mantilla, but I am trying a soft scarf to substitute. 🙂
Click to expand...
You don’t need a mantilla. Growing up, i actually saw the mantilla as a substitute for a scarf.
A mantilla, or chapel cap easily fits into a purse making it more readily available than a hat or scarf.
An advantage of a scarf over a hat for services such as Ash Wednesday, is that it does not block the priest from giving blessings or ashes. A headcovering can be worn for most services, Mass, and Eucharistic Adoration. Some women will wear a headcovering for the Sacrament of Reconciliation as well. Basically, I put on my headcovering as I enter the church…
 
I have always wanted to wear a mantilla but nobody in my church does so Im scared Id stick out like a sore thumb :o
 
Friday_child said:
I have always wanted to wear a mantilla but nobody in my church does so Im scared Id stick out like a sore thumb :o
Click to expand...
I started out with hats and scarfs, because I was so nervous about it, and then, once I felt more comfortable, started wearing veils. Now that I have grabby little ones I mostly wear snoods since they tie in the back.
 
RedSoxWife said:
I started out with hats and scarfs, because I was so nervous about it, and then, once I felt more comfortable, started wearing veils. Now that I have grabby little ones I mostly wear snoods since they tie in the back.
Click to expand...
I just asked my mum about them. She said she used to wear a veil (and loved it) but then the priests here began to say that they were not necessary and have now become frowned upon 😦 I’m in the UK, and I’m a little bit devastated now 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top