When to wear veil?

[DrusillaFaith]

ok i am going to be baptised, confermed, and have my first communion this coming Easter. so im still new to some things. but heres my question. ive read all about the chapel veil and wear it to Mass every time i go. but, not only am i the only one in my parish, but when i asked my rcia teacher and the woman in charge of the classes about it they didnt know. im wondering, is the veil just for Mass?? or is it for all the time?? i ask because ive noticed how in all my readings on it they talk about wearing it any time u pray. i wear it because i choose to. but does Christ want us to wear them all the time??
thanks for ur (name removed by moderator)ut and God bless[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Spencerian]

ok i am going to be baptised, confermed, and have my first communion this coming Easter. so im still new to some things. but heres my question. ive read all about the chapel veil and wear it to Mass every time i go. but, not only am i the only one in my parish, but when i asked my rcia teacher and the woman in charge of the classes about it they didnt know. im wondering, is the veil just for Mass?? or is it for all the time?? i ask because ive noticed how in all my readings on it they talk about wearing it any time u pray. i wear it because i choose to. but does Christ want us to wear them all the time??
thanks for ur (name removed by moderator)ut and God bless[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

Drusilla,

Congratulations on your imminent entrance into the faith!

The chapel veil had been a traditional head covering for women at Mass, required under the 1917 Canon Law.

The 1983 and later revisions of Canon Law no longer require veils, but many enjoy the tradition and stick to wearing them.

It is unusual to see veils at Ordinary Form (“Novus Ordo”) Mass, but many who attend Extraordinary Form (“Tridentine”) Mass will be wearing them, despite the removal of the requirement.

You should have the veil on as you enter a parish.

 

[SpaceNeedle]

I was very surprised when visiting a parish (Arch. of Seattle) that several young catechumens were wearing chapel veils. I don’t, mostly because no one else does, but power to those comfortable with it!

Much as Spencerian mentioned, I have witnessed older ladies at my previous parish put them on before they walk in the door.

 

[otjm]

ok i am going to be baptised, confirmed, and have my first communion this coming Easter. so im still new to some things. but heres my question. ive read all about the chapel veil and wear it to Mass every time i go. but, not only am i the only one in my parish, but when i asked my rcia teacher and the woman in charge of the classes about it they didnt know. im wondering, is the veil just for Mass?? or is it for all the time?? i ask because ive noticed how in all my readings on it they talk about wearing it any time u pray. i wear it because i choose to. but does Christ want us to wear them all the time??
thanks for ur (name removed by moderator)ut and God bless[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

The Church, in changing the law in 1983 made it clear that wearing a veil is a matter of choice, not a matter of law or discipline.

There has been a lot of ink spilled over the matter. As far as what Christ wants, Christ makes it very clear in the Gospels what He wants, and chapel veils were not among the issues He stated. The issue was stated by St Paul, has a long tradition (with a small “t”, not a “T”), and is disciplinary in nature. It has a tendnecy to take on the aspects of a tempest in a tea pot.

Because it is a matter of discispline, and because the Church has chosen to not make it a matter of official discipline, it is not a matter of what Christ wants; it is a matter of what you choose. If this is something meaningful to you, then by all means wear it. But do so understanding that the majority of women in the US do not wear them. In some areas they may be more popular than in other areas, just as wearing a suit and tie (for a man) may be more in tune culturally in some areas whereas in other areas, Dockers may be more what men wear. That is, some areas of the country are more formal than others, and while being slipshod is not appropriate, it doesn’t take much of a survey to get a feeling as to how “dressed up” one should be.

Understand also that the veil can be taken as a “political” statement (as if there were such a thing in the Church - and objectively, there is) and that you may find yourself challenged subtley or directly on the matter. You should not have to justify yourself to anyone; it should be a matter of choice and taste and that should not have to be defended. However, given that some will challenge you, it might be best to come up with a fairly innocuous statement that simply turns the challenge away. There are far more important issues facing the Church as a whole and individuals in terms of morals and doctrine and it is best to not get caught up in what is essentially a personal choice issue. If nothing else, tell them you greatly admire the Spanish mantilla and wear it because you like it so much. Beyond that, not much needs to be said.

 

[Monica37]

I live in Europe now and they rarely wear chapel veils. I attend a rather traditional N.O. and most of the ladies wear hats. I don’t have many but since it was winter, I would just leave my winter hat on. I’m on the look out for some nice Spring hats!!
Once when I visited Notre Dame, they made the announcement that men would be required to remove their hats, so I took my son’s hat off his head and put it on mine. A non Catholic friend that was with me, gave me a “talking to” that I had just heard the man say to take your hat off and I went and put one on. It was a great opportunity to explain our Catholic faith to her! Unfortunately, it meant I walked around Notre Dame with a little boy’s hat!

 

[Malleus_01]

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS

1 Corinthians Chapter 11

11:1. Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.

11:2. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.

11:3. But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God.

11:4. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraceth his head.

11:5. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.

11:6. 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.

11:7. The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.

11:8. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

11:9. For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man.

11:10. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.

A power… that is, a veil or covering, as a sign that she is under the power of her husband: and this, the apostle adds, because of the angels, who are present in the assemblies of the faithful.

11:11. But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.

11:12. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God.

11:13. You yourselves judge. Doth it become a woman to pray unto God uncovered?

11:14. Doth not even nature itself teach you that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him?

11:15. But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.

11:16. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Church of God.

11:17. Now this I ordain: not praising you, that you come together, not for the better, but for the worse.

11:18. For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you. And in part I believe it.

11:19. For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved may be made manifest among you.

There must be also heresies… By reason of the pride and perversity of man’s heart; not by God’s will or appointment; who nevertheless draws good out of this evil, manifesting, by that occasion, who are the good and firm Christians, and making their faith more remarkable.

 

[otjm]

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS

1 Corinthians Chapter 11

11:1. Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.

11:2. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.

11:3. But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God.

11:4. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraceth his head.

11:5. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.

11:6. 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.

11:7. The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.

11:8. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

11:9. For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man.

11:10. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.

A power… that is, a veil or covering, as a sign that she is under the power of her husband: and this, the apostle adds, because of the angels, who are present in the assemblies of the faithful.

11:11. But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.

11:12. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God.

11:13. You yourselves judge. Doth it become a woman to pray unto God uncovered?

11:14. Doth not even nature itself teach you that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him?

11:15. But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.

11:16. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Church of God.

11:17. Now this I ordain: not praising you, that you come together, not for the better, but for the worse.

11:18. For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you. And in part I believe it.

11:19. For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved may be made manifest among you.

There must be also heresies… By reason of the pride and perversity of man’s heart; not by God’s will or appointment; who nevertheless draws good out of this evil, manifesting, by that occasion, who are the good and firm Christians, and making their faith more remarkable.

All of which the Church teaches is disciplinary in nature and therefore subject to either being required (as it was in the 1917 Code) or not required (it is no longer part of the Code, revised in 1983). It is therefore discretionary to the individual. Women are free to wear them, or free to not wear them and if they choose to not do so, they should feel no reason to be challenged on the point. And those who choose to wear them likewise should not be challenged on the point.

There are, however, busy bodies on both ends of the spectrum who will on occasion make it their business to “critique” those who do not match their expectations.

 

[Malleus_01]

All of which the Church teaches is disciplinary in nature and therefore subject to either being required (as it was in the 1917 Code) or not required (it is no longer part of the Code, revised in 1983). It is therefore discretionary to the individual. Women are free to wear them, or free to not wear them and if they choose to not do so, they should feel no reason to be challenged on the point. And those who choose to wear them likewise should not be challenged on the point.

There are, however, busy bodies on both ends of the spectrum who will on occasion make it their business to “critique” those who do not match their expectations.

Mallleus: I merely posted from the Douay Rheims including the commentary present therein. Personally I believe that Scripture is the Word of GOD and part of the Deposit of Faith. That the words were not that of St Paul but that of GOD who inspired him to write it. Secondly - Code of Canon law didnt abrogate the requirement not did it delete or define I Cor Ch 11. So the critique appears to be coming from you.

I Cor Ch 11

11:1. Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.

11:2. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.

11:3. But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God.

Pax

 

[otjm]

Mallleus: I merely posted from the Douay Rheims including the commentary present therein. Personally I believe that Scripture is the Word of GOD and part of the Deposit of Faith. That the words were not that of St Paul but that of GOD who inspired him to write it. Secondly - Code of Canon law didnt abrogate the requirement not did it delete or define I Cor Ch 11. So the critique appears to be coming from you.

I Cor Ch 11

11:1. Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.

11:2. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.

11:3. But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God.

Pax

The Church has determined the issue is disciplinary, not doctrinal, and not of moral content. That is, it is not a moral law similar to the 10 Commandments. It is in part culturally conditioned. That does not mean that it has no meaning whatsoever; but rather that it is not an explicit rule binding women. The relationship between men and women is set by our nature, and our nature is from our Creator. However, how that relationship is legitimately and fully lived out is not set as absolutes; that is, wearing a veil for some may speak to themselves, their spouse, and indirectly to others but is onloy one way and not an absolute way of living out that natural relationship.

The Church also believes that Scripture is the Word of God and part of the deposit of Faith, but it does not hold that every comment therein is absolute. And if you read the new Code, the new Code is explicit that it abrogates the old 1913 Code as to parts that are not carried forward, and the requirement to wear a veil is not carried forward. So it is not my commentary; it is the Church’s.

 

[Malleus_01]

The Church has determined the issue is disciplinary, not doctrinal, and not of moral content. That is, it is not a moral law similar to the 10 Commandments. It is in part culturally conditioned. That does not mean that it has no meaning whatsoever; but rather that it is not an explicit rule binding women. The relationship between men and women is set by our nature, and our nature is from our Creator. However, how that relationship is legitimately and fully lived out is not set as absolutes; that is, wearing a veil for some may speak to themselves, their spouse, and indirectly to others but is onloy one way and not an absolute way of living out that natural relationship.

The Church also believes that Scripture is the Word of God and part of the deposit of Faith, but it does not hold that every comment therein is absolute. And if you read the new Code, the new Code is explicit that it abrogates the old 1913 Code as to parts that are not carried forward, and the requirement to wear a veil is not carried forward. So it is not my commentary; it is the Church’s.

Malleus: I disagree. The Church has not said one way or another and many parishes simply dont enforce it. And as to the rest of your post it is assumption not based on actual Definitive Church teaching. I am not debating if this parctise is or is not being used or taken seriously. I am debating as to if it had ever been officially abrogated.

Now as to your comment regarding Scripture - " but it does not hold that every comment therein is absolute " So then who gets to sift the Word of GOD to determine if 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 is. Not all of Scripture - that passage. And who specifically is it who has in the last 40 years. Because prior to that - it was binding as evidenced by its inclusion in Canon Law of 1917 which stated as such . And why does their commentary (Which no one has posted) take precedence over St Augustine , St Jerome , Hermas , Tertullian and St Thomas Aquinas who hold that it is binding. And I am not trying to be contentious. I merely want to know the answers to these questtions.

Pax

 

[Malleus_01]

The Church has determined the issue is disciplinary, not doctrinal, and not of moral content. That is, it is not a moral law similar to the 10 Commandments. It is in part culturally conditioned. That does not mean that it has no meaning whatsoever; but rather that it is not an explicit rule binding women. The relationship between men and women is set by our nature, and our nature is from our Creator. However, how that relationship is legitimately and fully lived out is not set as absolutes; that is, wearing a veil for some may speak to themselves, their spouse, and indirectly to others but is onloy one way and not an absolute way of living out that natural relationship.

The Church also believes that Scripture is the Word of God and part of the deposit of Faith, but it does not hold that every comment therein is absolute. And if you read the new Code, the new Code is explicit that it abrogates the old 1913 Code as to parts that are not carried forward, and the requirement to wear a veil is not carried forward. So it is not my commentary; it is the Church’s.

 

[Malleus_01]

And if you read the new Code, the new Code is explicit that it abrogates the old 1913 Code as to parts that are not carried forward, and the requirement to wear a veil is not carried forward. So it is not my commentary; it is the Church’s.

Malleus: Then why did the Vatican say that the Automatic Excommunication of Freemasons likewise omitted in Canon Law 1983 from Canon Law 1917 has never been abrogated if this is the case?

 

[otjm]

And if you read the new Code, the new Code is explicit that it abrogates the old 1913 Code as to parts that are not carried forward, and the requirement to wear a veil is not carried forward. So it is not my commentary; it is the Church’s.

Malleus: Then why did the Vatican say that the Automatic Excommunication of Freemasons likewise omitted in Canon Law 1983 from Canon Law 1917 has never been abrogated if this is the case?
I am sure in their statement that they explained the issue; perhaps you would like to provide a link to the comment. Not having read the issue, I would suspect that they said that the relevant provision in the new Code covers the issue. However, since you frought it up, perhaps you could provide the background?

 

[otjm]

Malleus: I disagree. The Church has not said one way or another and many parishes simply dont enforce it. And as to the rest of your post it is assumption not based on actual Definitive Church teaching. I am not debating if this parctise is or is not being used or taken seriously. I am debating as to if it had ever been officially abrogated.

Now as to your comment regarding Scripture - " but it does not hold that every comment therein is absolute " So then who gets to sift the Word of GOD to determine if 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 is. Not all of Scripture - that passage. And who specifically is it who has in the last 40 years. Because prior to that - it was binding as evidenced by its inclusion in Canon Law of 1917 which stated as such . And why does their commentary (Which no one has posted) take precedence over St Augustine , St Jerome , Hermas , Tertullian and St Thomas Aquinas who hold that it is binding. And I am not trying to be contentious. I merely want to know the answers to these questtions.

Pax

You are welcome to disagree, however, Canon lawyers have been consistent in answering this issue and have answered it repeatedly elsewhere. a little bit of researhc should confirm this.

As to who gets to sift- the Magisterium, which includes the bishops of the world as well as the various dicasteries in Rome (most of whom have absolutely nothing to do with this issue).

As to your binding evidence - it was not binding as a moral issue in and of itself; it was binding as a moral issue of obedience, just as fasting for a certain length of time, or fasting at all on certain days, was a binding issue of morality in terms of obedience.

As to the commentaries of various individuals, agian, they do not bind morally. They are worthy of consideration but they do not have the power to bind and loose as much as someone who agrees with their thought might try to make their statements do so.

The same issue comes up again and again in prior statements of Popes, particularly where they use language repleat with anathemas, and make it sound as if the law can never be changed. The laws which are so stated do not bind other popes later when the issue is one of discipline, and it is up to the Magisterium to so define. And that definition is given when they do change such laws.

There is an element within the Church which has a tendency to read something, take it out of context, and attempt to raise it to a level that the Church does not raise it to. It helps to pay attention to what the Magisterium says and does, as when it is ignored, the one ignoring it is attempting to substitue their own interpretation over the offical interpretation - often spoken of as being “more Catholic than the Pope”.

Keep in mind that each one of the individuals you have mentioned have been wrong about some items they passed jugement upon. I don’t consider your questions contentious.

They can cause a lot of confusion, particularly where we have been taught something and given the impression that it is an issue that is morally binding in and of itself, when in fact, is it morally binding in terms of obedience.

 

[Malleus_01]

Malleus: Then why did the Vatican say that the Automatic Excommunication of Freemasons likewise omitted in Canon Law 1983 from Canon Law 1917 has never been abrogated if this is the case?

I am sure in their statement that they explained the issue; perhaps you would like to provide a link to the comment. Not having read the issue, I would suspect that they said that the relevant provision in the new Code covers the issue. However, since you frought it up, perhaps you could provide the background?

Malleus : Why certainly : The first papal condemnation of Freemasonry came in 1738 from Pope Clement XII in his papal bull Eminenti Apostolatus Specula, repeated by several later popes, notably Pope Leo XIII the encyclical Humanum Genus. The 1917 Code of Canon Law explicity declares that joining Freemasonry entailed automatic excommunication

However:

The revised Code issued in 1983 does not explicitly name Masonic orders among the secret societies condemned in canon 1374.

However

In a letter to the United States Bishops from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith the interpretation was made clear - the prohibition against Catholics joining Masonic orders remains.

QUAESITUM EST

Declaration on Masonic Associations
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith​

It has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church’s decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not mention them expressly, unlike the previous code.

This sacred congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance is due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.

Therefore, the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic associations remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and, therefore, membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful, who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.

It is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above, and this in line with the declaration of this sacred congregation issued Feb. 17,1981.

In an audience granted to the undersigned cardinal prefect, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II approved and ordered the publication of this declaration which had been decided in an ordinary meeting of this sacred congregation.

Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Nov. 26, 1983

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger Prefect

Malleus: Notice how it clearly states "This sacred congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance is due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories. "

Therefore - you cannot assume abrogation due to omission as previously stated.

Pax

 

[lizaanne]

ok i am going to be baptised, confermed, and have my first communion this coming Easter. so im still new to some things. but heres my question. ive read all about the chapel veil and wear it to Mass every time i go. but, not only am i the only one in my parish, but when i asked my rcia teacher and the woman in charge of the classes about it they didnt know. im wondering, is the veil just for Mass?? or is it for all the time?? i ask because ive noticed how in all my readings on it they talk about wearing it any time u pray. i wear it because i choose to. but does Christ want us to wear them all the time??
thanks for ur (name removed by moderator)ut and God bless[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

I must apologize for my fellow members. Your very simple and innocent question has become the time worn and typical debate we hear every single time a woman wishes to cover he head in presence of Christ. It is indeed very sad when the opening post gets brushed aside for such debate.

Come visit and join our group with those who will not beat you up for this lovely devotion, or argue Cannon Law to tell you that you don’t have to cover.

forums.catholic-questions.org/group.php?groupid=496

We will be happy to support your decision and answer any questions you might have.

~Liza

 

[otjm]

I am sure in their statement that they explained the issue; perhaps you would like to provide a link to the comment. Not having read the issue, I would suspect that they said that the relevant provision in the new Code covers the issue. However, since you frought it up, perhaps you could provide the background?

Malleus : Why certainly : The first papal condemnation of Freemasonry came in 1738 from Pope Clement XII in his papal bull Eminenti Apostolatus Specula, repeated by several later popes, notably Pope Leo XIII the encyclical Humanum Genus. The 1917 Code of Canon Law explicity declares that joining Freemasonry entailed automatic excommunication

However:

The revised Code issued in 1983 does not explicitly name Masonic orders among the secret societies condemned in canon 1374.

However

In a letter to the United States Bishops from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith the interpretation was made clear - the prohibition against Catholics joining Masonic orders remains.

QUAESITUM EST

Declaration on Masonic Associations
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith​

It has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church’s decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not mention them expressly, unlike the previous code.

This sacred congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance is due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.

Therefore, the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic associations remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and, therefore, membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful, who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.

It is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above, and this in line with the declaration of this sacred congregation issued Feb. 17,1981.

In an audience granted to the undersigned cardinal prefect, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II approved and ordered the publication of this declaration which had been decided in an ordinary meeting of this sacred congregation.

Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Nov. 26, 1983

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger Prefect

Malleus: Notice how it clearly states "This sacred congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance is due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories. "

Therefore - you cannot assume abrogation due to omission as previously stated.

Pax
On the contrary, wearing a veil was a specific issue and is not one contained in another issue as binding. It has been repeatedly held as abrogated, as noted, by various Canon lawyers. One needs to rely on Canon lawyers, particularly when they are in agreement on an issue. And the Magisterium should be well aware if there are any quetions (the Code has been around for about 27 years now, so this is not exactly a new issue) and Rome has never seen fit to say that the issue is still binding. It simply isn’t, and it is time to move to something else.

The short of it is that if this is an issue of importance to you, it is not an issue of importance to almost everyone else. If you attempt to tell people that it is binding, you are going to be on the wrong side of the discussion. It may well be worthy of following; but that is far different from being something that is binding.

 

[Malleus_01]

You are welcome to disagree, however, Canon lawyers have been consistent in answering this issue and have answered it repeatedly elsewhere. a little bit of researhc should confirm this.

Malleus: And since you have made that Claim - perhaps you might want to substantiate it from all the Canon Lawyers who supposedly have cited this abrogation. I have done research , hense the consternation in finding nothing.

As to who gets to sift- the Magisterium, which includes the bishops of the world as well as the various dicasteries in Rome (most of whom have absolutely nothing to do with this issue).

As to your binding evidence - it was not binding as a moral issue in and of itself; it was binding as a moral issue of obedience, just as fasting for a certain length of time, or fasting at all on certain days, was a binding issue of morality in terms of obedience.

Malleus: Actually it is Scriptural. And it exists in Tradition as well. Therefore as to your point that “The Magisterium” or “All the Bishops of the World” are in accord is not factual. Women have always covered their heads in many different rites unabatedly in the history of the Church including in the TLM in the Western Church. As to the Morality of it - the “Sin” as stated is against the “Angels” themselves according to Aquinas and Augustines Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11:10. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.

. As to the commentaries of various individuals, agian, they do not bind morally. They are worthy of consideration but they do not have the power to bind and loose as much as someone who agrees with their thought might try to make their statements do so.

Malleus: Actually - the Deposit of Faith is binding.

The same issue comes up again and again in prior statements of Popes, particularly where they use language repleat with anathemas, and make it sound as if the law can never be changed. The laws which are so stated do not bind other popes later when the issue is one of discipline, and it is up to the Magisterium to so define. And that definition is given when they do change such laws.

Malleus: Well - that depends on what “LAW” you are talking about. A De Fide Ex Cathedra Teaching is indeed binding in that it is defined from the Chair of St Peter as revealed by GOD. So the argument comes full circle. Your contention is that 1 Cor 11 is not in the Deposit of Faith and - my argument is that it is. Specifically both Scriptural and in unbroken Tradition to this day as practised to this day.

There is an element within the Church which has a tendency to read something, take it out of context, and attempt to raise it to a level that the Church does not raise it to.

Malleus: Is your contention then that Augustine , St Jerome , Tertullian and Aquinas have all made that mistake in regards to 1 Cor 11 ?

It helps to pay attention to what the Magisterium says and does,

Malleus: Of course it does. I cite Matthew 7:15

as when it is ignored, the one ignoring it is attempting to substitue their own interpretation over the offical interpretation - often spoken of as being “more Catholic than the Pope”.

Malleus: Well then - if you can cite where the POPE has used his power to give us a definitive De Fide Exegesis of 1 Cor 11 - then may I suggest you provide it? Otherwise it remains conjecture on your part.

Keep in mind that each one of the individuals you have mentioned have been wrong about some items they passed jugement upon. I don’t consider your questions contentious.

Malleus: But to take that a step further are you also willing to say that every single one of them was likewise incorrect simultaneously on the SAME POINT of Exegesis? Or just in this particular case? And or - can you cite another example of them making the same mistake on another single passage in Scriptural exegesis. I find that argument extremely unlikely. And as for being contentious , I am glad because I honestly am not questioning your faith or beliefs or adherance to a view that opposes my view. And I would hope that you understand that i respect your opinions even if they differ with mine.

They can cause a lot of confusion, particularly where we have been taught something and given the impression that it is an issue that is morally binding in and of itself, when in fact, is it morally binding in terms of obedience.

Malleus: Likewise under obedience - I find that true obedience lies not in departing what has been in Tradition for Centuries but in adhereing to Tradition because it is likewise obedience to the Church Triumphant who hold to similar tenets. The Church remains the Church triumphant the Church Suffering and the Church Militant as one - not solely the Church Militant.

Pax

 

[Malleus_01]

I must apologize for my fellow members. Your very simple and innocent question has become the time worn and typical debate we hear every single time a woman wishes to cover he head in presence of Christ. It is indeed very sad when the opening post gets brushed aside for such debate.

Come visit and join our group with those who will not beat you up for this lovely devotion, or argue Cannon Law to tell you that you don’t have to cover.

forums.catholic-questions.org/group.php?groupid=496

We will be happy to support your decision and answer any questions you might have.

~Liza

Malleus: Agreed. to make a long story short the Veil should be worn out of respect for the Angels who , although unseen , are present at every Mass .

Pax

 

[otjm]

Malleus: Likewise under obedience - I find that true obedience lies not in departing what has been in Tradition for Centuries but in adhereing to Tradition because it is likewise obedience to the Church Triumphant who hold to similar tenets. The Church remains the Church triumphant the Church Suffering and the Church Militant as one - not solely the Church Militant.

Pax

As I have said repeatedly through this thread, wearing a veil has validity, there is ample history in the Church to support doing so, and anyone is welcome to do so.

That does not mean that anyone who supports doing so - male or female - has the right to criticize those who do not. It is a little bit like the Rosary; althought the Rosary has not been around the Church since the beginning, ( if you follow the popular story that it was given to St Dominic, less than half the Church’s existence; if you follow other theories, somewhat longer) it is a very time-supported devotion and is the most well known, popular, most widely spread and repeatedly recommended devotion. However, it is simply a private devotion and no one is required to say it. Thoroughly encouraged, yes. Required, no.

So it is for the veil; at this time there is no disciplinary rule requiring women to wear one neither is it forbidden. The Church has made it clear that it is devotional, and that the rule was disciplinary and no longer exists.

Note: I am in no way opposed to women wearing a veil. They can be simple, or very beautiful. The choice is personal, and should produce no comment either way.

Note also: it has been in tradition, not Tradition. Tradition with a capital “T” refers to doctrinal issues and this is not one. You mean tradition with a small “t”, which stands for pious practicies and disciplinary ones. The Church itself uses such distinguishing.