When to Wear a Chapel Veil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter keani
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are making quite a leap—while it was codified in canon law for the first time in 1917, it is not a mortal sin to have violated the canon. Are you seriously suggesting that women who forgot their chapel cap or school beanie were in a state of mortal sin? If you are, please provide a reference—one that actually uses the terms ‘mortal’ or ‘grave’ sin.
 
JulianN said:
You are making quite a leap—while it was codified in canon law for the first time in 1917, it is not a mortal sin to have violated the canon.
Click to expand...
It was not the first time it was codified.
JulianN said:
Are you seriously suggesting that women who forgot their chapel cap or school beanie were in a state of mortal sin?
Click to expand...
Not at all. We have to understand what mortal sin is. For a sin to be mortal, it must have deliberate intent. The violation of a commandment of the church is grave matter. You can look for example at missing Mass on Sundays and holy days. It is a positive commandment of the Church. Yet if one is a new Catholic and innocently did not realize a day was a holy day of obligation, it might be a sin of neglect for not checking, but it would not be mortal. If someone knows the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday and holy days, and on a holy day intentionally does not attend, then in that case it would be a mortal sin for intentionally violating the commandment of the Church. Does that make sense?
 
Again if the holy Apostle St Paul under divine inspiration commands women to veil in Church and said that if she does not then she disgraces her head and should be shaved if she does not do so – for someone to intentionally and deliberately snub their nose at this direct commandment inspired by God through St Paul - that is no matter anyone should take lightly. It may not be a part of canon law now, but it always was a positive command of the Church for 2000 years previously following this inspired commandment.
 
I’m assuming you also remove your shoes to pray—as God himself commanded Moses.
 
Well, that’s certainly an interesting interpretation of an ancient religious custom …
 
JulianN said:
This actually has the definition of sin attached to it —the wearing of headgear does not.
Click to expand...
To commit a sin from the Catholic Encyclopedia: “A sin of commission is a positive act contrary to some prohibitory precept; a sin of omission is a failure to do what is commanded.”
 
JulianN said:
Well, that’s certainly an interesting interpretation of an ancient religious custom …
Click to expand...
A custom which Christians have never kept nor have been obliged to. Nor Jews for that matter…
 
Last edited:
Jewish law ended with Jesus. That’s why we don’t keep the kosher commands either. It’s ok. We are all here to learn right?
 
As long as no one tries to get people to conform to something within a document that has been abrogated. For example the 1917 code of canon law.
 
prayinglatin said:
We are all here to learn right?
Click to expand...
We are. And perhaps “we” should start by understanding mortal sin. If you believe the Church has ever taught that failing to wear a head covering in church was or is a mortal sin, please provide something besides your own interpretation to state it is so.

Also, a citation to where this practice was actually codified prior to 1917.
 
Last edited:
JulianN said:
If you believe the Church has ever taught that failing to wear a head covering in church was or is a mortal sin,
Click to expand...
So, IMHO, when it was clearly canon law and a woman refused to wear a headcovering at Mass on a continual basis, I would say that refusing to do what the Church required certainly borders on mortal sin especially if the intent is rebellion against the Church rather than forgetting.
JulianN said:
Also, a citation to where this practice was actually codified prior to 1917.
Click to expand...
1917 Code of Canon law was the first code of canon law. Covering is Scriptural so that is important and there is an immemorial tradition that Saint Pope Linus, appointed by Peter, made a decree reiterating what St. Paul said in Scripture regarding covering.
 
Last edited:
JulianN said:
We are. And perhaps “we” should start by understanding mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Good point. Let’s set some groundwork so we can make sure to understand sin correctly.
  1. Do you believe that if someone misses Mass on Sunday or a holy day of obligation that it is a mortal sin?
  2. Do you believe if someone does not confess their sins at least once a year that it is a mortal sin?
  3. Do you believe that if someone does not fast on an appointed fast day of the Church that it is a mortal sin?
 
JulianN said:
Also, a citation to where this practice was actually codified prior to 1917.
Click to expand...
It was codified first in Scripture under divine inspiration and commandment given to both men to not cover and women to cover in the Church. Secondly by Pope Linus the first successor of St Peter as binding on the universal church. Reiterated continually without cessation by the Church fathers and the Catholic Church throughout all her history. There was no such thing as canon law back then as we understand it now. You obeyed the commandments of the Apostles and their successors as Church law under pain of cutting yourself off from the Church, aka mortal sin, and especially when the pope made such a commandment binding on all the faithful, as Linus and all his successors continued and never lifted.
Are you familiar with where the 1917 code of canon law came from? It was a summary of the law of the Church that was in place prior, which were part of the ancient canons of the Church.
 
I think I’ll leave it with this statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1973:

“It must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor. 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.”

This custom of minor importance hardly rises to the level of mortal sin, and I’m genuinely surprised anyone sees this as an issue of any importance at all. If you want to wear a head covering, do so. If not, don’t.

With that, I am muting. Have a lovely evening.
 
Last edited:
JulianN said:
I think I’ll leave it with this statement from the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith in 1973:
Click to expand...
No such thing as Congregation for Defense of the Faith. Sorry.
JulianN said:
these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance
Click to expand...
Does this sound like a “minor importance”? You decide.
“But every woman praying…with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven” 1 Cor 11:5
“That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.”
( This reference speaks of the angels in the invisible hierarchy that are present in Church and who take offense at any signs of irreverence in the presence of Almighty God (Acts 12:23). The angels here have also been interpreted, St Thomas Aquinas explains, to represent holy bishops and priests, since they act as angels as the ministers of the divine to the people, and women then veil before these representatives of Christ in Church as a sign of reverence as well as for the sake of avoiding any potential stirring of concupiscence.)

St Clement of Alexandria in the 3rd century states, “This is the wish of the Logos [Jesus Christ] since it is becoming of the women to be veiled” (Instructions 3:11).

This practice continued unchanged from the time of the Apostles and was a part of Canon Law 1917. It was continued in all places everywhere across the universal Church in all customs and times and places from the commandment of the Apostles. The degree of importance is obvious on its face.
JulianN said:
hardly rises to the level of mortal sin
Click to expand...
You didn’t answer my questions on mortal sin earlier. Do you believe those other precepts are mortal sins? Also to clarify you are saying that it was never a mortal sin or sin to not veil despite the obvious commandment of the Church even codified and always strictly enforced in all Churches throughout the entire world since the Church’s inception.
 
Last edited:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
prayinglatin said:
40.png
JulianN:
We are. And perhaps “we” should start by understanding mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Good point. Let’s set some groundwork so we can make sure to understand sin correctly.
  1. Do you believe that if someone misses Mass on Sunday or a holy day of obligation that it is a mortal sin?
  2. Do you believe if someone does not confess their sins at least once a year that it is a mortal sin?
  3. Do you believe that if someone does not fast on an appointed fast day of the Church that it is a mortal sin?
Click to expand...
Re point 2. You are mistaken. See Canon law 989…

We are only obliged to confess MORTAL sin once a year minimum. It is not a blanket requirement for all sins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top