Wearing of Veil Inside the Church....

  • Thread starter Thread starter fredms3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Heres a fun curve ball for the topic…

Our Jewish elders have the tradition of covering their heads before they pray but we as Catholics do not. Its not a major sticking point or anything but 'd be iterested to know what brought that change?
 
ballin said:
“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.
Click to expand...
Again baloney.
 
fredms3 said:
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?
Click to expand...
I would answer that the church changes over time. So, St. Paul also wrote that women should not teach men or be in authority over them and that women should not be allowed in the sanctuary, you want to live like that? I was around when we wore HATS to mass, and yes I remember using Kleenex on my head in an emergency - it was the rule, so we did it. We did not wear veils, at least not in my section of the USA. Remember, the world isn’t flat either!
 
Oneofthewomen said:
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. 😃
Click to expand...
Thanks for your initiative of answering the question. Good that you’re serving in your diocese, at least, you have his counselling on the matter.

In our group, we are having apologetics on every teaching of the Catholic Church. We study the pros and cons and how to respond to other religions as well as how to defend the Catholic faith.

Having said that, i’m not denying or going against what the Church is teaching but giving all the sides of what is happening, as in this case, the wearing of veil.
 
kozlosap said:
I would answer that the church changes over time. So, St. Paul also wrote that women should not teach men or be in authority over them and that women should not be allowed in the sanctuary, you want to live like that? I was around when we wore HATS to mass, and yes I remember using Kleenex on my head in an emergency - it was the rule, so we did it. We did not wear veils, at least not in my section of the USA. Remember, the world isn’t flat either!
Click to expand...
Would you mind extending this discussion? We will just go back to wearing veils…
 
fredms3 said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is. It is a private practice, not a public one. There is no ambiguity on this point in Church teaching.
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.
Click to expand...
And it is a discipline, meaning that it is subject to change based on circumstances. Pope Benedict has praised priestly celibacy, but it is possible in the future that priests will be allowed to be married. That does not change the fact that H.H.'s statements were true and illuminating at the time of their enunciation.
 
ballin said:
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.
Click to expand...
What absolute rubbish! You can have your own views but you have no right to pass them off as doctrine.
 
Kithrus said:
Heres a fun curve ball for the topic…

Our Jewish elders have the tradition of covering their heads before they pray but we as Catholics do not. Its not a major sticking point or anything but 'd be iterested to know what brought that change?
Click to expand...
As St. Paul said in 1 Cor. 11, it is a disgrace for a man a wear veil, but a woman, it’s otherwise.

Canon 1983 did not provide the reason for abrogating the wearing of veil by women and that is where the arguments rest considering the point made by St. Paul as predicated by the Church Fathers.
 
Baelor said:
It is. It is a private practice, not a public one. There is no ambiguity on this point in Church teaching.

And it is a discipline, meaning that it is subject to change based on circumstances. Pope Benedict has praised priestly celibacy, but it is possible in the future that priests will be allowed to be married. That does not change the fact that H.H.'s statements were true and illuminating at the time of their enunciation.
Click to expand...
  1. You mean to say, St. Paul, wrote it for private consumption only? Would you provide proofs on this. And the Church Fathers were wrong in their position on the wearing of veils?
2.Can you provide me the circumstances on the abrogation of wearing veils in the light of Canon 1983.

So, you think priests probably would be allowed to marry someday?

How about nuns marrying someday also?
 
fredms3 said:
  1. You mean to say, St. Paul, wrote it for private consumption only? Would you provide proofs on this. And the Church Fathers were wrong in their position on the wearing of veils?
2.Can you provide me the circumstances on the abrogation of wearing veils in the light of Canon 1983.

So, you think priests probably would be allowed to marry someday?

How about nuns marrying someday also?
Click to expand...
There are those who have been trying to explain about veiling to you with charity. As above you go off tangent and appear not to even want to think about what anyone who disagrees with your view, has to say.

The only proof anyone has to show you is what the Church says today - which is that veiling/covering the head in church, is not required for a woman while there is no prohibition against it.

If you want to change this, as someone suggested, you can write to the Vatican. Further, while you can question why veiling is not required (which you have done over and over), you now seem to say that the the Church, the Pope are wrong. Most Catholics would go by what the Church says.
 
severus68 said:
There are those who have been trying to explain about veiling to you with charity. As above you go off tangent and appear not to even want to think about what anyone who disagrees with your view, has to say.

The only proof anyone has to show you is what the Church says today - which is that veiling/covering the head in church, is not required for a woman while there is no prohibition against it.

If you want to change this, as someone suggested, you can write to the Vatican. Further, while you can question why veiling is not required (which you have done over and over), you now seem to say that the the Church, the Pope are wrong. Most Catholics would go by what the Church says.
Click to expand...
Tnx for the comment.

I am actually thinking what others would have to say. We are dealing here with apologetics on the issue.

I have already explained that i am not questioning nor denying Canon 1983, what i’m arguing is that why the sudden abrogation without even giving the benefit of doubt.

A number of posters have already gave their personal opinion on the matter. You see each has his reason other than this:

“The Church has the authority to change that customs since it is not a dogma.”

First, i am not contradicting that and nowhere did i say that NO, the Church cannot do that.

Now, I believe you would also give your personal opinion on the if asked on the sudden abrogation.

I can also give my personal opinion on the matter. Each of us Catholics can do that. But what the Church has in mind in abrogating should have been clarifying statement.
 
Again, what part do you not understand?🤷:mad:

The “veil” is not what was required, it was covering the head.
That means, a linen veil (like Mary) or one of burlap (like a European peasant of the 14th century) or a calico bonnet in 19th century America, or a felt fedora in the 1940’s or a small chapel cap, or even in extreme cases (no girl or woman would dare to “break the rule” & enter a Chruch “uncovered”), a crumpled napkin or kleenex.
Is that really what you want to go back to?
Forcing someone to do something that they have no calling to and that does not fit in with the cultural norms of the day, just because that’s what you want? 🤷
fredms3 said:
Would you mind extending this discussion? We will just go back to wearing veils…
Click to expand...
 
fredms3 said:
Would you mind extending this discussion? We will just go back to wearing veils…
Click to expand...
Agreed - if the Church today makes the announcement that from this day forward we are to “cover”, then we will cover. The hat business in the USA will take off again and instead of indulging in Starbucks, I will save my pennies for new hats. I attended mass at an FSSP parish, the custom was for women to cover, so I covered.🤷
 
ballin said:
Which part did I make up? I quoted what Scripture says. Are you saying Scripture is rubbish? :confused:
Click to expand...
Among other things you said this:

“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.”

Where does the Church say this? The Church shows us what is doctrine.

This is part of what JPII said in his MULIERIS DIGNITATEM :

“Therefore when we read in the biblical description the words addressed to the woman: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16), we discover a break and a constant threat precisely in regard to this “unity of the two” which corresponds to the dignity of the image and likeness of God in both of them.”
 
severus68 said:
40.png
ballin:
Which part did I make up? I quoted what Scripture says. Are you saying Scripture is rubbish?
Click to expand...
Among other things you said this:

“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.”

Where does the Church say this? The Church shows us what is doctrine.

This is part of what JPII said in his MULIERIS DIGNITATEM :

“Therefore when we read in the biblical description the words addressed to the woman: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16), we discover a break and a constant threat precisely in regard to this “unity of the two” which corresponds to the dignity of the image and likeness of God in both of them.”
40.png
severus68:
You should also read what JPII has to say about mutual submission in marriage.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top