Wearing of Veil Inside the Church....

[fredms3]

I simply wish that you had stated the full extent of your inquiry up front. The fact that you did not do this is the definition of a hidden agenda, since clearly you were interested in historical precedent, the example of Mary, etc., and clearly feel that it is problematic that women are not required to be veiled. None of this is present in your OP, making is disingenuous since the questions that you had existed at the time of the OP.

Your opinion on what Mary wears in heaven is irrelevant, but noted. Mary while alive wore a veil and robes, as did most women of that era. The fact that she appears in that garb demonstrates nothing other than the fact that she appears in that garb.

So you admit an agenda in the same post in which you declaim against the accurate charge that you have one.

The Blessed Mother appears in the clothing from her own time. How you construe this to mean she advocates veiling by virtue of having a veil because that is what was worn at the time is beyond me.

1. That’s the way i wanted to present the topic actually, little by little until everything is clarified. No hidden agenda as you are claiming, Careful discussion on the issue should have been appreciated than just standing on allegation. Anyway, you have the right to your own opinion.
2. To your perhaps the wearing of veil by the Blessed Mother in heaven is irrelevant but for others that is of importance in the light of how she honors her Head — God ---- and even in all of her apparitions she always wear veil, that alone clearly demonstrates its importance in the eyes of God,
3. And what is the charge you’re talking about? You see the point i’m trying to point out is the fact that the wearing of veil is of apostolic tradition as as predicated by the Church Father such as St. Thomas A., St. Augustine, St John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose of Milan.

Just like to add this words from St.Ambrose of Milan:

“Is anything so conducive to lust as with unseemly movements thus to expose in nakedness those parts of the body which either nature has hidden or custom has veiled, to sport with the looks, to turn the neck, to loosen the hair? Fitly was the next step an offense against God. For what modesty can there be? ”

St. Ambrose, Concerning Virgins, Book III on newadvent.org/fathers/34073.htm.

Now, the Church abrogated it as provided under Canon 1983, with no reasons provided, thus the arguments.

1. The Blessed Mother is a total package inside and out of what a servant should be to God.

Remember ----- wearing veil is a sign of honoring your head. Mama Mary is showing us how she honors her Head (God). And we ought to do the same.

 

[fredms3]

As you have failed to make any response to my previous post I can only assume that you somehow missed it. I will repost it here in case it is able to help answer your question as to why the practice is no longer required.

Yes, this helps tnx. I will just make some clarification some other time since it’s already getting late at night here in the Phils.

 

[Baelor]

1. That’s the way i wanted to present the topic actually, little by little until everything is clarified. No hidden agenda as you are claiming, Careful discussion on the issue should have been appreciated than just standing on allegation. Anyway, you have the right to your own opinion.

My opinion is fact, as you admit in this very section.

1. To your perhaps the wearing of veil by the Blessed Mother in heaven is irrelevant but for others that is of importance in the light of how she honors her Head — God ---- and even in all of her apparitions she always wear veil, that alone clearly demonstrates its importance in the eyes of God,

So do you dress exactly as Jesus did? Should all women wear flowing robes as Mary did? She appears as she did while alive, as far as I am aware. The fact that she is wearing a veil is incidental.

1. And what is the charge you’re talking about? You see the point i’m trying to point out is the fact that the wearing of veil is of apostolic tradition as as predicated by the Church Father such as St. Thomas A., St. Augustine, St John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose of Milan.

Now, the Church abrogated it as provided under Canon 1983, with no reasons provided, thus the arguments.

So there is an agenda.

The reasons are obvious. It was never a theological necessity to wear veils. It was a matter of practice. When that practice ceased to be necessary toward its purpose (modesty), it ceased to be required. It is now a personal devotion.

Rephrased, it is not necessary for women to wear veils in order to be modest. Therefore they are not necessary. What other reason could you want? Practices can change with time. The fact that the Church fathers from long ago felt strongly about them indicates that the practice was important in that time period, not that it is in the current period.

Remember ----- wearing veil is a sign of honoring your head. Mama Mary is showing us how she honors her Head (God). And we ought to do the same.

No, we ought not to. We may as a personal devotion.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

snipped for space & to address specific point

Now, the Church abrogated it as provided under Canon 1983, with no reasons provided, thus the arguments.

Remember ----- wearing veil is a sign of honoring your head. Mama Mary is showing us how she honors her Head (God). And we ought to do the same.

Could it be that the Church, in her wisdom, decided that if women were so worried about fulfilling the “requirement” that they were putting crumpled kleenex & napkins from their purse on their heads & the heads of their daughters, the whole symbology behind “covering” was becoming lost?

Times have changed. Used to be, especially here in the US, a woman did not leave the house without a hat (notice HAT, not veil). Veils (especially the mantilla) did not become “fashionable” until the 1960’s & Jackie Kennedy.

Again, I really don’t think that the Holy See owes us any explanation. It took away the “requirement”, that is all. Anyone can cover (with hat, veil, heck, a tissue if they want).

Really, what is the point you are trying to make ?!

 

[Baelor]

Really, what is the point you are trying to make ?!

That we should all veil and that abrogating the tradition was wrong – the first is explicit and the second follows directly from the first.

 

[Walking_Home]

I again — agree with Baelor. There was/is an agenda in mind – with the start of this thread.

 

[agnes_therese]

Arguing is not the same as denying…do you agree with that?

It’s not always the same as denying. But the way you phrase your posts, it certainly sounds like you’re saying “I’m right and the Church is wrong.” And that, I do not agree with.

 

[agnes_therese]

Tnx for being honest that you don’t know the reason. I also don’t know the reason, what i read in one of the post here is that it was abrogated without the Church giving the reason why.

No question that the Church can do that, however, the laity always has the right to ask the question ‘why’ until the reasons are given. The Church cannot deny that right?

The write the Vatican. Posting the same thing over and over again here at CAF isn’t going to get you an answer from the Church.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Remember ----- wearing veil is a sign of honoring your head. Mama Mary is showing us how she honors her Head (God). And we ought to do the same.

After some more thought, and a little discussion with a priest who is also a canon lawyer, not only do I believe that you have an “agenda”, I also believe that your “agenda” is based on a false premise.

The “agenda”, I believe, is that you want all women to wear a veil.

Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the requirement was to “cover their head” not to wear a veil. Most woman, throughout history, and in all places, have covered their heads, out of custom or out of necessity. In first century Palestine they covered their heads like Mary.
In 1930’s America, this is what most woman wore on their heads.

Veiling or covering, or whatever what you want to call it is a private issue between a woman and God.
I will pray that you come to accept this and drop this silliness, fredms3.

 

[kozlosap]

After some more thought, and a little discussion with a priest who is also a canon lawyer, not only do I believe that you have an “agenda”, I also believe that your “agenda” is based on a false premise.

The “agenda”, I believe, is that you want all women to wear a veil.

Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the requirement was to “cover their head” not to wear a veil. Most woman, throughout history, and in all places, have covered their heads, out of custom or out of necessity. In first century Palestine they covered their heads like Mary.
In 1930’s America, this is what most woman wore on their heads.

Veiling or covering, or whatever what you want to call it is a private issue between a woman and God.
I will pray that you come to accept this and drop this silliness, fredms3.

:thumbsup:Triple ditto!

 

[fredms3]

It’s not always the same as denying. But the way you phrase your posts, it certainly sounds like you’re saying “I’m right and the Church is wrong.” And that, I do not agree with.

Nowhere in my post that i’m denying Canon 1983, i’m only arguing and I. just like the rest, have the right to argue, just as you are arguing with me. This is a healthy expression of our will and intellect as given to us by God.

Christ did argue with the Pharisees, Scribes and others, who at that time believed Christ is a blasphemer. For the Jews, even at this point in time (except for those who are converted to Christianity) still holds their belief that Jesus is not the Christ, but not with us Christians.

 

[fredms3]

The write the Vatican. Posting the same thing over and over again here at CAF isn’t going to get you an answer from the Church.

It is not unreasonable that we know the reason than not knowing at all. I think, one of the poster already provided some cogent reasons for that.

If one of our relatives would ask why, or other religions would question that, then we are bound to answer that and that is why we have apologetics right?

 

[fredms3]

After some more thought, and a little discussion with a priest who is also a canon lawyer, not only do I believe that you have an “agenda”, I also believe that your “agenda” is based on a false premise.

The “agenda”, I believe, is that you want all women to wear a veil.

Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the requirement was to “cover their head” not to wear a veil. Most woman, throughout history, and in all places, have covered their heads, out of custom or out of necessity. In first century Palestine they covered their heads like Mary.
In 1930’s America, this is what most woman wore on their heads.

Veiling or covering, or whatever what you want to call it is a private issue between a woman and God.
I will pray that you come to accept this and drop this silliness, fredms3.

You see, because of the issue raised, you went out of yourself to ask from a priest. Is that a negative or a postive stance on your side?

Veiling a private issue? Sorry to tell you but it is not, otherwise St. Paul would have not wirtten it the way he did in 1 Cor. 11.

Have you read arleady what the Church Fathers (St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine, St. Thomas A.) have to say regarding this tradition of wearing veil? I posted it earlier, try reading them.

Anyway, i believe i already said everything i want to share. Thanks for the sharing unless you want a little discussion on the matter.

 

[fredms3]

:thumbsup:Triple ditto!

Just for a short discussion with you…If in case one of your relatives would ask you the reason why wearing of veil was required then later on abrogated, what would be your answer?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Just for a short discussion with you…If in case one of your relatives would ask you the reason why wearing of veil was required then later on abrogated, what would be your answer?

You didn’t ask me, and I am going to answer anyway.

I would say that the Church saw fit to do away with the “requirement” that women cover their heads, and that it is a decision that is to be made by the woman after much prayer, and maybe even dicussion with a spritual director.

And FWIW, to answer you comment to me, I did not go “out of my way” to seek the counsel of a priest on this matter, I work for my diocese and am lucky to be able to have all kinds of discussions with the priests I work with and for.

 

[ballin]

Just for a short discussion with you…If in case one of your relatives would ask you the reason why wearing of veil was required then later on abrogated, what would be your answer?

Hi dear sir,

If I may attempt an answer to you, with what I found out after first reading the Corinthian Passage OP cited myself and having done some research sometime back.

The rule to wear a veil is no longer necessary. This can immediately feel like a violation of that Passage in Scripture.

But, if we look closely, there are two elements in that Scripture.

One is an element of doctrine. This is the fact that women are 2nd in the order of creation to man and therefore should lovingly submit to their husbands. The denial of this natural order is IMMORAL and the Angels who are in-charge of maintaining the natural order will find it repulsive and act.

The other element of that passage is St. Paul and the early churches disciplinary advise given to ensure that the above natural order is maintained.

The first element will always be true and not even the Church can change it. However, the second element can be changed if required by the Church and it did do so.

Whether this change was “WISE” is an entirely different question. The Church can make unwise and fallible decisions regarding its disciplinary decisions and it is possible that the break in tradition (not Tradition) could have had negative effects and contributed its own share toward some unhealthy feminist agendas and confusion of the natural order.

But in short, the church had full rights to change its stance on the disciplinary component. It has also given us the permission to wear a veil if we so prefer. In the even that it had banned the veil (which seems unlikely), then we would have had to obey it as well. Not because it is an infallible and wise decision but simply because it comes from the authority given to the Church. We can of course still try to state our position and persuade the Church leaders through suitable means.

 

[Walking_Home]

Hi dear sir,

If I may attempt an answer to you, with what I found out after first reading the Corinthian Passage OP cited myself and having done some research sometime back.

The rule to wear a veil is no longer necessary. This can immediately feel like a violation of that Passage in Scripture.

But, if we look closely, there are two elements in that Scripture.

One is an element of doctrine. This is the fact that women are 2nd in the order of creation to man and therefore should lovingly submit to their husbands. The denial of this natural order is IMMORAL and the Angels who are in-charge of maintaining the natural order will find it repulsive and act.

The other element of that passage is St. Paul and the early churches disciplinary advise given to ensure that the above natural order is maintained.

The first element will always be true and not even the Church can change it. However, the second element can be changed if required by the Church and it did do so.

Whether this change was “WISE” is an entirely different question. The Church can make unwise decisions and it is possible that the break in tradition (not Tradition) could have had negative effects and contributed its own share toward some unhealthy feminist agendas and confusion of the natural order.

But in short, the church had full rights to change its stance on the disciplinary component.

---

Baloney.

 

[fredms3]

I’m a 54 year-old woman and a convert to Catholicism (8 years ago )

Please correct me if I make any mistatements in these paragraphs.

It sounds to me like you are questioning Holy Mother Church. What I heard you saying over and over in this thread is that the Church is contradicting the Holy Scriptures and the Blessed Mother.

Do you agree that we must always interpret Scripture in the light of the teaching of the Church, as Scripture does not “trump” the Church? The body of Church teaching comes from three sources: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. These three do not contradict each other, but rather, they complement each other.

Same for teachings regarding the Blessed Mother Mary. Do you agree that we must interpret the Marian doctrines and devotions in the light of the Church?

There are many excellent bishops in the United States, and of course, our esteemed Holy Father. Do you think that these bishops and our Holy Father are all in error because they allow women under their shepherding care to attend Mass or be in the Presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament with uncovered heads? What I hear you saying in this thread is that you think you are correct and these very apostles of the Lord, as well as the Vicar of Christ, are wrong. Am I hearing you correctly?

I hope you will understand that I and many other Catholic women would never rely on my own imperfect understanding of the Holy Scriptures, but rather, I will trust my wise and experienced bishop, and my Pope who speaks for Christ Himself, in the matter of veiling.

And I agree with all the others on this thread who say the Church does not forbid a woman from covering her head in Mass, so I am having a hard time understanding the purpose of this topic. What I am hearing is that you are casting doubts on the authority of the Church, and that concerns me.

I’m not questioning nor even denying i am only asking or shall i say arguing on the basis of why the sudden abrogation without giving the reason/s why. As for me and all those who are practising such tradition, the rationale behind it is very important. Btw, i’m not wearing veil because it’s a disgrace for doing so.

The teaching comes from the Apostle and predicated by the Church Fathers. I don’t believe that that teaching of St. Paul was not inspired by the Holy Spirit. And so with due respect to our Holy Mother Church, a reason should have been provided in Canon 1983 so as to clarify the issue once and for all.

I believe you know what happened on the issue of Galileo but this case is beside the point but the lesson the Church has taken.

 

[ballin]

---

Baloney.

“Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” – 1 Corinthians 11:8-10

I think you might want to take it up with God who mentioned the above through St. Paul someday, but for my part my good sir, I’d rather have faith in what God has revealed.

 

[agnes_therese]

It is not unreasonable that we know the reason than not knowing at all. I think, one of the poster already provided some cogent reasons for that.

If one of our relatives would ask why, or other religions would question that, then we are bound to answer that and that is why we have apologetics right?

I clearly did not say it’s unreasonable. I said you won’t get an answer from the Church by posting the same thing over and over here on CAF, as you continue to do.