Wearing the Mantilla

[TNT]

The law of worship is the law of belief?

**WHAT!
Less behavior leads to less belief.
Sheesh. Where’d yu learn texican?
If we no longer express outwardly, publicly, what it is that we believe, the less we ourselves will come to believe it.

**

 

[paramedicgirl]

**WHAT!
Less behavior leads to less belief.
Sheesh. Where’d yu learn texican?
If we no longer express outwardly, publicly, what it is that we believe, the less we ourselves will come to believe it.

**

It kinda sounded like a Chinese accent, actually. “Less Behavey Les Belevy.”

 

[slyboots]

I forgot my mantilla Wednesday night when I had a 17 lb bouncing grandson on one hip and a whirlwind 5 year old grand daughter holding my other hand.
The grand daughter said before she went to RE we needed to go into Church and pray. She wanted to go into the Blessed Sacrament chapel(visible to the altar). Grandson was a little too noisy to go in there so I offered to pay for candles to be lit and we could kneel there.
Grand daughter lights three candles for our family. She crosses herself, prays three hail Mary’s after remiinding me I had to pray aloud for Hank as he was too little.
Crossed ourselves and sat down outside of church. Grand daughter is laughing and clapping and dancing to make the baby grand son laugh.
Then she notices. No mantilla on Nana’s head. Her eyes got wide as saucers. Nana had better not forget again. Even the 5 year old knows.
It is a small thing. But to her it means Nana is serious about praying.

 

[Jesus1]

They are all speaking from a societal standpoint where women ALWAYS covered their heads. For them, women did not leave their houses without covering their heads. Such a thing for them would be truly shocking and immodest inside Church or outside. This is not true in our society today. It is simply not a custom anymore. So, their words are not “silly” but need to be taken in context. To claim that their words MUST to be applied to society today is, in my view, silly.

Modesty is a very good thing. When they wrote a woman with an uncovered head was immodest. Today, a woman with an uncovered head is not immodest.

Actually, I’m glad that you brought up the point of a woman with an uncovered head is not immodest. I feel that the Lord has been convicting me some time of this very subject.
**1 Corinthians 11:5 says “But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one is as if she were shaven. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head.” ** This section of Scripture doesn’t say for women to cover their heads only in Mass, it says when we are praying. I pray everywhere. I pray in the car, the store, the house, everywhere. So, I’ve been thinking about getting perhaps some type of hat that I can wear anywhere, out of obedience to Sacred Scripture. Women used to wear hats everywhere, for thousands of years. I think that should say something to us as Catholic women. Plus, people tend to act like they are dressed. If girls are dressed up, they will tend to behave in a manner according to their dress, so perhaps there is something in the action of us covering our heads during prayer as well.
Also, thank you to the person that said that married women are to wear black veils. I will be putting in my order for one very soon.
God bless all of you that are desiring to be obedient children of God and wearing your veils. You are expressing your love for Christ, dying to yourself because you do tend to get stared at and people trying to shame you out of showing your love and obedience to Christ, and you are sowing seeds of love and faithfulness to people who were like me, unsure of their Faith in the Catholic Church and thinking of leaving. One woman’s faithfulness in wearing the veil and kneeling for the Eucharist got me thinking, and finally asking her why she did this old practice. Her answers pulled me back quickly into the Catholic Faith. She introduced me to Scott Hahn where I read his Rome Sweet Home, and got me on fire for my Faith. As a result of that fire, I began to talk to the rest of my family, and they caught the fire too. Now my Dad is writing his own brochures on the Catholic Bible, reads Scott Hahn, and is setting other people on fire for Christ’s Church as well. Do you see how this one act of obedience changed my whole family, and my children and nieces and nephews, and our friends as well? I thank God everyday for this woman, as my parents do as well, because when I think what would have happened if I would have left the Catholic Faith - the Eucharist, the Pope, Confession, etc, well, it isn’t a reassuring thought when it comes to my salvation.
Keep the Faith! Never be ashamed of proclaiming the truth in words and actions! You never Know how many people like me - and their entire families - that you will pull back into the fullness of the Catholic Faith! I thank God for all of you that are obedient. You encourage me to continue to being obedient to those things in the Bible and Church teaching, even when others try to discourage me, try to shame me and keep me from showing my obedience and love to the Lord. Bless you and all of your husbands that encourage you to remain steadfast in these holy and obedient practices as well

 

[2livfree]

Black Veils for married women??? Why are they in morning at being married. Prior to vatican II we see pictures of married women wearing different colored veils. Look at nuns they are married to Jesus and don’t reserve themselves to black veils. Please elaborate as I am new to covering my head and am still working with it.
Joyful in Jesus

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Black Veils for married women??? Why are they in morning at being married. Prior to vatican II we see pictures of married women wearing different colored veils. Look at nuns they are married to Jesus and don’t reserve themselves to black veils. Please elaborate as I am new to covering my head and am still working with it.

  Joyful in Jesus

The research I did seemed to denote the darker colors to married women, and the lighter colors to unmarried women. At this point, however, veiling isn’t commonplace so wear the color you like!
I am wearing my black one for Lent and I have an Ivory one for Easter and Christmas. I have yet to figure out Ordinary time, though. But I do want a blue one for Mary days.

 

[LilyM]

However, the angels veil themselves in His presence, regardless of His physical state.
But when He was “wandering around Isreal preaching and teaching” people didn’t know who He was, and He left it to those around Him to reveal and profess His nature.
So thus, in veiling ourselves, we are revealing and professing the nature of Jesus as Christ and God the Son.
But that’s just how I think of it.

Yeah but Peter didn’t fall on his face after declaring Jesus to be the Son of God, did he?

Human women didn’t behave differently in his presence - not before nor after the Resurrection (remember Mary Magdalene grabbing him?).

And funnily enough, we ain’t angels, we’re human beings - unless you’ve sprouted a pair of wings lately. We’re above the angels, being made in God’s image and likeness unlike them.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Yeah but Peter didn’t fall on his face after declaring Jesus to be the Son of God, did he?

Human women didn’t behave differently in his presence - not before nor after the Resurrection (remember Mary Magdalene grabbing him?).

And funnily enough, we ain’t angels, we’re human beings - unless you’ve sprouted a pair of wings lately. We’re above the angels, being made in God’s image and likeness unlike them.

I never said we were angels. I stated that we are veiling ourselves FOR the angels, beings I fully agree are below as being that we are made in the image of God.
However, being that we are higher beings than angels, we (women) veil ourselves for them, to keep from distracting them.
As I have described it to my daughter “Sometimes a woman does her hair so prettily that an angel would rather look at it, then adore Jesus” Thus, we veil ourselves for their sake.

I see from a previous post that you have attempted to veil before, but found it wasn’t for you. I’m sorry that it is a practice that doesn’t appeal to you. But I am not going to tell you that you should veil, and I am saddended by the fact that you seem to believe that we shouldn’t. To veil is a personal decision, it is no longer mandated. Thus, if you don’t see the point or don’t feel comfortable doing it, don’t veil. But don’t question a lady as to why she does.

 

[St_Isidore]

These are good points. Since a good bit of this has to do with societal standards, I think the best action is to look to the Church for direction. While the Church does not condemn the practice of headcovering, neither does she mandate it. As such, I defer to the Church and I think we ought to refrain from giving the appearance that it is MORE holy or MORE devout to cover one’s head when that is simply not the case.

We can all see throughout this thread you are opposed the veiling/covering of the head (for women). With respect to your overuse of societal standards, which society are you referencing?, I ask since there are countries in which the population exceeds1 billion, where the catholic women have their hair veiled (but not limited only to Catholic women and has nothing to do with societal standards but of religious observance).
Also, since I am curious to your viewpoint, could you explain why the following are/were veiled:
Ark of the Covenant, The Chalice at Mass which holds the Precious Blood, The Ciborium in the Tabernacle (that which holds the Body of Christ), and of course Our Lady Mary Mother of God.
I would greatly appreciate your comments.
Thank you and God bless.

 

[St_Isidore]

Black Veils for married women??? Why are they in morning at being married. Prior to vatican II we see pictures of married women wearing different colored veils. Look at nuns they are married to Jesus and don’t reserve themselves to black veils. Please elaborate as I am new to covering my head and am still working with it.

  Joyful in Jesus

If married you may wear a Black veil, but it is NOT the rule. Please see www.fisheaters.com and look for the topic veiling.

Hope this was helpful.
God Bless.

 

[Ham1]

We can all see throughout this thread you are opposed the veiling/covering of the head by women. With respect to your overuse of societal standards, which society are you referencing?, I ask since there are countries in which the population exceeds1 billion, where the catholic women have their hair veiled (but not limited only to Catholic women and has nothing to do with societal standards but of religious conformity).
Also, since I am curious to your viewpoint, could you explain why the following are/were veiled:
Ark of the Covenant, The Chalice at Mass which holds the Precious Blood, The Ciborium in the Tabernacle (that which holds the Body of Christ), and of course Our Lady Mary Mother of God.
I would greatly appreciate your comments.
Thank you and God bless.

Thanks…Have a Holy Good Friday.

Perhaps in other societies where women (expecially married women) veil themselves in public, it would be good for women to follow this custom. In this country it is not common for women to wear veils in public. If women wish to do so in Church, that is fine and wonderful. It is not mandated by the Church. It is like men wearing ties to Church. If men wish to do so out of respect, that is fine. But there is nothing wrong with men who choose not to wear ties.

As to your comment that I am opposed? Where do I say that? I have stated over and over that I have no issue with women who choose to veil themselves. My issue is with people who say women MUST or OUGHT to veil because that is not what the Church teaches.

As for objects being veiled, that is a fine tradition. The items you mentioned are veiled to show their sacred nature. Usually when women veil themselves it is (I hope) to show respect for the presence of the Lord and not to show their own sacred nature. If they are veiling to show their own sacred nature then why would should they not veil all the time in and out of Church?

God bless.

 

[St_Isidore]

As to your comment that I am opposed? Where do I say that? I have stated over and over that I have no issue with women who choose to veil themselves. My issue is with people who say women MUST or OUGHT to veil because that is not what the Church teaches.

But you must remember where did this issue of not covering head originate? It originated from none other than Annibale Bugninicatholicintl.com/catholicissues/women-covering003.htm)

…it is widely reported that during Vatican II a group of journalists had asked Annibale Bugnini [edited by Moderator] whether women would still be required to wear head coverings. Bugnini is said to have replied that the matter was not a topic of debate at the Council, but apparently, he gave some subtle indication that the matter could be open for discussion at a future date. The journalists, whether because they already had a liberal agenda to fulfill or were accidentally inferring a conclusion from what Bugnini implied, nevertheless, interpreted his remarks to mean that women would not have to wear head coverings any longer in the Catholic Church. Correct or not, their interpretation was reported in newspapers all over the world and soon hatless women became the prevalent, yet unofficial, practice. That, coupled with the fact that the 1960s was a decade of social revolution which entertained many heretofore unheard of ideas and practices, liberal bishops and priests began softening the requirement of head coverings, yet without one official word from the Vatican to do so.

As more and more Catholic woman were coming to Church functions without the traditional head covering, it wasn’t long before the Vatican was approached concerning the official teaching of the Church on this burning issue. Surprisingly, the same man who may have fomented the disuse by his off-hand comments in 1963, Annibale Bugnini, held an interview, which was subsequently reported in The Atlanta Journal of June 21, 1969, in an article titled “Women Required to Cover Head, Vatican Insists.” The article stated:

A Vatican official says there has been no change, as reported, in the Roman Catholic rule that women cover their head in church. **The Rev. Annibale Bugnini, secretary of the New Congregation for Divine Worship, said the reports stemmed from a misunderstanding of a statement he made at a news conference in May. Bugnini stated: “The rule has not been changed. It is a matter of general discipline.”
**

[Edited by Moderator]

A Good Friday and Happy Easter to you and to All, God Bless.

 

[LilyM]

But you must remember where did this issue of not covering head originate? It originated from none other than Annibale Bugninicatholicintl.com/catholicissues/women-covering003.htm)

…it is widely reported that during Vatican II a group of journalists had asked Annibale Bugnini * [edited by Moderator]* whether women would still be required to wear head coverings. Bugnini is said to have replied that the matter was not a topic of debate at the Council, but apparently, he gave some subtle indication that the matter could be open for discussion at a future date.

The journalists, whether because they already had a liberal agenda to fulfill or were accidentally inferring a conclusion from what Bugnini implied, nevertheless, interpreted his remarks to mean that women would not have to wear head coverings any longer in the Catholic Church. Correct or not, their interpretation was reported in newspapers all over the world and soon hatless women became the prevalent, yet unofficial, practice. That, coupled with the fact that the 1960s was a decade of social revolution which entertained many heretofore unheard of ideas and practices, liberal bishops and priests began softening the requirement of head coverings, yet without one official word from the Vatican to do so.

As more and more Catholic woman were coming to Church functions without the traditional head covering, it wasn’t long before the Vatican was approached concerning the official teaching of the Church on this burning issue. Surprisingly, the same man who may have fomented the disuse by his off-hand comments in 1963, Annibale Bugnini, held an interview, which was subsequently reported in The Atlanta Journal of June 21, 1969, in an article titled “Women Required to Cover Head, Vatican Insists.” The article stated:

A Vatican official says there has been no change, as reported, in the Roman Catholic rule that women cover their head in church. **The Rev. Annibale Bugnini, secretary of the New Congregation for Divine Worship, said the reports stemmed from a misunderstanding of a statement he made at a news conference in May. Bugnini stated: “The rule has not been changed. It is a matter of general discipline.”
**

[Edited by Moderator]

A Good Friday and Happy Easter to you and to All, God Bless.

What on earth does any of this have to do with the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which explicitly abrogates the entirety of the 1917 Code including the Canon regarding headcovering?

 

[tcraig]

But you must remember where did this issue of not covering head originate? It originated from none other than Annibale Bugninicatholicintl.com/catholicissues/women-covering003.htm)

While I don’t usually cite Wikipedia as a source, it has an interesting picture under the topic of Headcovering. It shows a traditional High Mass in the 1940’s, where a large portion of the women are not covering their head:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Headcovering

To try to claim that Bugnini was “responsible” for women no longer covering their heads in the church is incorrect. And let’s not forget that *all *Christian women - not just Catholics - used to cover their heads in church. It died out pretty much everywhere at the same time, pointing more towards societal/fashion changes than VII specifically.

 

[ncjohn]

But you must remember where did this issue of not covering head originate? It originated from none other than Annibale Bugnini

The veracity of an article still gratuitously claiming Bugnini to be a Freemason (not alleging him to be a Freemason), when the Vatican has specifically denied that to be the case, has to be suspect in motive at the very least.

Of course that is irrelevant given that the canon requiring it was abrogated.

Head covering is a wonderful thing for those who feel called to it, but it yet another issue where having people making judgments about other’s piety based on some non-required external is again making “traditionalists” into their own worst enemies in pushing away people who otherwise would be more than happy to support them in being able to get more of what they would like to have.

Paraphrasing Caesar from another thread though, it continues to appear that most traditonalists are not looking only to be allowed to believe as they want without being hassled, but won’t be happy until they have their foot on the neck of those who don’t share their preferences. (See post #40 here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=143909 for the actual post)

And to be seeing things like that, on the day when Jesus died for all of us, is truly, truly sad.

 

[St_Isidore]

What on earth does any of this have to do with the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which explicitly abrogates the entirety of the 1917 Code including the Canon regarding headcovering?

It has a lot to do with head covering and how the idea of ignoring head covering originated. [Edited by Moderator]

 

[St_Isidore]

The veracity of an article still gratuitously claiming Bugnini to be a Freemason (not alleging him to be a Freemason), when the Vatican has specifically denied that to be the case, has to be suspect in motive at the very least.

Again, I apologize as I was only referencing a book and a website. As you can see the moderator has edited it out. I was also shocked at this and other articles. But it is within many sources and that is what led me to further research this discovery.

Head covering is a wonderful thing for those who feel called to it, but it yet another issue where having people making judgments about other’s piety based on some non-required external is again making “traditionalists” into their own worst enemies in pushing away people who otherwise would be more than happy to support them in being able to get more of what they would like to have.

Paraphrasing Caesar from another thread though, it continues to appear that most traditonalists are not looking only to be allowed to believe as they want without being hassled, but won’t be happy until they have their foot on the neck of those who don’t share their preferences. (See post #40 here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=143909 for the actual post)

And to be seeing things like that, on the day when Jesus died for all of us, is truly, truly sad.

I am not a traditionalist, I am a catholic. If you would like the references (including one from Pope John himself) with regards to Bugnini, the history of his misquote on head veils, and why he was sent to Iran, I can send it to all who want to read what the moderator has edited. I could care either way if a woman wears a veil or not, it is up to them/us to make the call. The logic, scripture, history, the Canon, etc., is all available to them. I am sure they/we can realize what is of Christ and what is not.

 

[St_Isidore]

To try to claim that Bugnini was “responsible” for women no longer covering their heads in the church is incorrect. And let’s not forget that *all *Christian women - not just Catholics - used to cover their heads in church. It died out pretty much everywhere at the same time, pointing more towards societal/fashion changes than VII specifically.

I apologize but the moderator has edited out the verified reference. Please see previous post. Concerning your claim of veils, I agree that maybe in the US it has become a rarity, but in another country, with a population in excess of 1 Billion, the Catholic women still cover their heads. Actually, I think the population of Christians in this country exceeds the number in the US. So yes, I agree that this is mainly in the US. But the greatest number of Catholic growth is not in the US but in, and not limited to, Africa and Asia, it is here where women wear veils. Since I frequent these regions on a regular basis, I just wanted to point out that your claim is not a worldwide phenomena as you have mentioned as dying out. (Just an aside, Islam the fastest growing religion, has by no mean abandoned the head covering but has reinforced it. Neither has Hinduism (1 Billion worldwide and growing)).

 

[Ham1]

It has a lot to do with head covering and how the idea of ignoring head covering originated. [Edited by Moderator]

[Edited by Moderator]

You say that disobedience was encouraged post Vatican II in regard to headcovering. When did the modernists do away with separating men and women in Church which was also required in canon law until 1983???

 

[PatienceAndLove]

I don’t understand why this is still an argument.
Some women veil because they feel called by the Holy Spirit to do so, other women are not. Just as some men are called to the priesthood and others to marriage, yet you don’t see us sitting here deciding whose calling is better, do?