Why do women wear veils for their wedding?

[FaithBuild18]

Hey guys, I’m asking here because I trust the Church knowledge of Traditionalists more than mainstream Catholics for obvious reasons. My girlfriend and I have been discussing marriage. We’re pretty traditional, and although the majority of brides these days opt out of a veil, she wants to wear one. I’m very pleased with this simply for the sake that we know its tradition and what the Church at least used to do. But instead of just being blind sheep, I’m curious as to exactly why the wedding veil came to be, everything it stands for, and if it’s still highly encouraged or required by the Church in Catholic weddings. Regardless of if it isn’t even encouraged, I think she’ll still opt for the veil.

But anyways, I think I’d prefer it if somebody could point me in the direction of either a Church document or Scripture or something to substantiate any claims rather than just speculation. Thanks in advance.

 

[jilly4ski]

Ok, I don’t have any church documents or anything like that, but I would say that veils for a wedding came from the fact that in the Catholic Church a woman always had to be veiled (ie wear a head covering). For a wedding why not wear a nice head covering that matched the dress and was appropriate for the nuptial rite. Wearing a head covering is no longer required for women (per the 1983 code of cannon law repealing the 1917 code) and different people (including priests and bishops) will have different feelings on whether wearing the veil in Church should be encouraged or discouraged. Of course the wearing a veil either during a nuptial Mass or regular Mass is always allowed.

(some of the symbolism of a regular veil, would be humility and obedience before God. The wedding veil recently (in the last 100 years or so) took on extra meanings of purity, virginity, and chastity. The scripture that is often quoted is:

1 Corinthians 11:1-17:
Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. 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. 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. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head: for it is all one 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.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I don’t think it’s just a traditional Catholic thing. Most Protestant and Jewish brides wear veils, too. It seems to be more of a generalized religious custom in our society. Headcoverings in church are not a uniquely Catholic tradition.

 

[Phemie]

Does the ‘veil’ date back further than the ‘traditional’ white dress which only dates back to Queen Victoria? Many brides simply married in their ‘good dress’ and would have worn whatever head covering they wore to church with that. I’ve never seen any pictures of my parents’ wedding so have no idea what mom wore with her blue brocade dress.

 

[jilly4ski]

Does the ‘veil’ date back further than the ‘traditional’ white dress which only dates back to Queen Victoria? Many brides simply married in their ‘good dress’ and would have worn whatever head covering they wore to church with that. I’ve never seen any pictures of my parents’ wedding so have no idea what mom wore with her blue brocade dress.

Indeed, Wiki said about 1840 after Victoria got married in white, did the “white” wedding dress became popular, and even then poor women would still get married in their Sunday best. As Catholics a woman might have purchased a special veil for the wedding, or made a lace veil, or simply wear what they owned that matched their Sunday best, (since they had to wear a head covering anyways).

I have seen a picture of my great-grandparents wedding and the bride was obviously not wearing white but a darker color (black and white photo so don’t know which color) and was wearing a veil pinned halfway back on her head. It was pretty short (shoulder length I believe).

 

[ljubim]

It just comes from women’s headcoverings in general. Here’s a wonderful article (minus a false reference - unrelated to veiling) that might help explain why: unitypublishing.com/apr1_99.html It’s really a huge compliment to women to be veiled! It’s not “submission” at all! If you think about it, besides women, only the priest, deacons and seminarians may ever wear a hat at Mass. The biretta is supposed to represent authority. Plus what else is veiled? That which is sacred: the tabernacle, the chalice… because women share this awesome power of creation with God, they are sacred and (I won’t say should) it would behoove them to veil, as a sacramental like holy water it can help you gain a lot of graces to become a better woman.

I think that veiling is hugely misunderstood just because of all the progressives who like to twist it around as submission. But then they take off the veil and who are they? Not a man and purposefully refusing to act like a woman. How are they any better off?

 

[dixieagle]

You won’t find any Church documents discussing bridal veils, and the 1983 Code of Canon Law omits any mention of headcoverings for women, brides or not.

The bridal veil has a long history, much of it having nothing whatsoever to do with the previous Catholic requirement for headcoverings. Here is a link to a short article about the bridal veil’s origins: ehow.com/about_6610435_history-bridal-veils.html

You will find much the same information at multiple sites on the internet.

 

[Palomas]

I would say that veils for a wedding came from the fact that in the Catholic Church a woman always had to be veiled (ie wear a head covering). For a wedding why not wear a nice head covering that matched the dress and was appropriate for the nuptial rite.

These are my thoughts, too. FaithBuild18, if you haven’t already, you can do a search on the forums about the topic of veils/headcoverings in church in general. Since the topic has been discussed inside, outside, and upside down here, you’ll find a lot of scripture references and church documents to support the use of a headcovering (veil), which can obviously be applied to a wedding.

 

[Love_Divine]

There’s so much history behind wedding veils that it cannot possibly be discussed in one thread. The first origins date back to pagan superstitions. It’s common tradition that only first time brides wear a veil, whereas other brides will wear some other type of head piece, often something like a birdcage.

When you think about it, it’s not just brides who wear veils in church. Often girls will wear veils to their first communion as well.

 

[Augustus_Shane]

Head coverings became an interesting issue for me as well. When my wife and I started attending the Traditional Latin Mass, she started using a veil. I was a new convert to the Church and didn’t understand many of the customs, and I had many questions concerning traditionalism and we wanted to be as obedient and orthodox as possible. I enrolled in a graduate program in catholic theology and philosophy 3 years ago in the search for truth and also to understand God’s gift to us more fully, and am in my last semester.
I diligently researched the issue of women head coverings, and I have talked to many priests about the issue. Unfortunately in the beginning, almost all the priests I spoke with would not answer the question concerning the issue of women head coverings, some said it had not been abrogated, others said that because the Church has been silent on the matter that it was no longer required. But when I asked for a official binding authoritative declaration from the Church that nullifies 1 Cor 11: 4-7 that women are to cover their heads, and the fact that the custom is a “force of law” and a centenary custom that cannot be abrogated as per the Code of Canon Law 1983 can 5, and has been the a custom of the Church for over 1900 years, I still met with no answer.
There are several major flaws that I found with the promulgation that head coverings for women are no longer required; 1st, is that it would nullify the Word of God, and the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit will not allow it.
2nd, is that the 1983 Code of Canon Law abrogated the custom by declaring the 1917 Code of Canon Law (where the custom was reinforced after a modern feminist movement started called the Women’s Suffrage movement) was abrogated in all its entirety in can 6, and failing to read the first five canons declaring what cannot be abrogated within the renewal of the 1917 Code of Canon Law with the 1983 Code.
3th, is the fact that the 1983 code goes out of its way to accommodate the previous laws and customs stating specifically that “a later law abrogates, or derogates, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law” (can 20), and it does neither in regards to universal custom of women covering their heads. In other words, we cannot presume a previous law was revoked, because the 1983 code is silent on the issue, the issue must clearly be expressed, and it is not.
4th, using the non-binding Declaration of the 1976 Inter Insigniores by the CDF to support the abrogation of women covering their heads. The main topic of Inter Insigniores was not head coverings but the role of women in the church, particularly the continued exclusion of women from the ministerial priesthood. The statement is as follows: “But 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 (1Co 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative.” Although the Congregation’s statement appears to demote the status
and requirement of head coverings, such a conclusion is unwarranted for the following reasons:
The CDF Declaration’s main topic, regarding which a binding decision for the Church appears to be made, is the issue of ordaining women to the priesthood, not head coverings. The issue
of head coverings is added only to serve as evidence that St. Paul was not a misogynist or that he did not have “prejudices against women.” As such, the Congregation was not making a specific
decision on whether women should wear head coverings. As I understand it, the rule of interpreting magisterial documents is this: unless the magisterium is addressing the specific topic in
question and intends on giving a definitive decision on that topic, than that topic is not being officially addressed and no formal decision regarding its validity is being decided. In effect, no one
can appeal to Inter Insigniores to support the contention that the Catholic Church has made an official declaration that it no longer requires head coverings for women. An interlocutor may, of course, use the Congregation’s statement to demonstrate the Congregation’s provisional and tentative position may have been in 1976 before the issue of head covering had been studied in depth, but one cannot refer to it as an official teaching of the Church. Certainly, the Congregation would not want to be held to such rigorous and non-contextualized use of its words.
Accordingly, the 1983 Code of Canon Law stated quite clearly that such “customs” attain the “force of law” if they have been practiced for a sufficient amount of time (canons 23-28), and as such, they are impervious to alteration, especially from documents such as Inter Insigniores in which the
magisterium is not setting out to address the issue of head coverings formally and directly at all.
Since in Inter Insigniores the CDF does not cover the issue of head coverings in any depth whatsoever but is only interested in the case against ordaining women, we do a disservice to the magisterium and to the Church at large if we attempt to use these cursory statements on head coverings as an official teaching of the Church.
5th, we must also consider that since Inter Insigniores was written in 1976, it was under the 1917 Code of
Canon Law which specifically required the wearing of head coverings. Hence, it would be a gross breach of ecclesiastical protocol if the CDF were to be interpreted as countermanding what the 1917 Code of Canon Law had already commanded.

The Vatican itself, to this very day, has not changed the practice of having women wear head coverings, the eastern churches, both of Catholicism and the Orthodox, still require head coverings for women.

 

[CB_Catholic]

if you watch Masses on TV at the Vatican you will see that not all women cover their heads. And no, not all Eastern and Orthodox churches require headcoverings. I am planning on visiting a Byzantine DL soon in a small church, and I specifically asked the priest about covering my head. He told me that the only woman in his church who covered her head is his wife, headcoverings are not required. I have attended Orthodox weddings, the last one being the wedding of my niece, and the women did not have their heads covered, even the ones who were members of that parish.

I don’t mind someone presenting their arguments, and I have nothing against headcoverings at all, but I think the last sentence is a misstatement and should be corrected.

 

[Flame4]

I’m not sure why exactly. Maybe it comes from the symbolic nature of the husband uncovering the beauty of his wife. And by extension lifting away her virginity- as is the assumption she is a virgin. I’m probably wrong, but anyways, the veils are pretty.

 

[Augustus_Shane]

The purpose of this dialogue is not to be polemic, but to examine all aspects of the facts and arrive at the truth in light of reason and common sense. One issue that I would like to correct if I may, is the understanding that because we see people doing something in the Church, that makes it ok or permissible. Also, believing everything a priest or ordained person tells you without doing your own study and research to verify the validity of what is presented.
Second, much as I love my parish priest and respect his office and authority, they too can lead people astray, and history is full of heresies founded by clergy; Arianism, Macidonism, Nestorianism, Jainism to name a few, and not to mention Martin Luther, the founder and progenitor of the Protestant Reformation was an Augustinian monk. My point is, listen to and love the clergy pointed over us, pray for them, but do not check your brain in at the door when you go to Church, do your own research and educate yourself in all aspects of the faith, and do not look at the faith the way you want to, but the way we are suppose to. Ask the Holy Spirit to give you a spirit of discernment so you may believe because it is true and right, and not because other people are doing it, because one of the hardest obstacles to overcome in our age, is the age itself. Modernism within the faith can destroy if allowed.
I respect your argument when you say the Eastern Orthodox Churches don’t require the custom anymore, however, if you wish to make a statement, please verify it from the sources if you wish to merit an elicited response, not just because what you have seen someone do. And for the record, they are experiencing the same dilemma as the Catholic Church in this matter.
One aspect I would like for you to take a look at, is that Scripture is very explicit on this matter, and the custom has been practiced for over three and a half millennia. The Church cannot and will not overturn the custom officially. She can’t, because it would nullify the Word of God in 1Cor 11, and that would be impossible for the Bride and Body of Christ to do, because the Holy Spirit is the one who is guiding Her when she officially binds all the faithful. Sure you will see women receiving communion from the Pope unveiled, but remember, Popes are only infallible when they teach officially to bind all believers, not through what they do and how they act. The fact is, that the issue has been swept under the rug for over forty years, and the modern culture (“the culture of death” as JP II said), has taken over in many places. Remember, reform doesn’t come quickly; indulgences were abused for over two-hundred years before the Council of Trent in 1563 put an end to it. All the heresies that I mentioned above took decades and centuries in some cases to address and correct.
The CC may address this issue in our lifetime, and they may not. But the fact is, they are not enforcing the universal custom and non abrogatable centenary as stated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law upholding 1Cor 11.

Sincerely in Chirst
Dominus tecum

 

[dixieagle]

The purpose of this dialogue is not to be polemic, but to examine all aspects of the facts and arrive at the truth in light of reason and common sense. One issue that I would like to correct if I may, is the understanding that because we see people doing something in the Church, that makes it ok or permissible. Also, believing everything a priest or ordained person tells you without doing your own study and research to verify the validity of what is presented.
Second, much as I love my parish priest and respect his office and authority, they too can lead people astray, and history is full of heresies founded by clergy; Arianism, Macidonism, Nestorianism, Jainism to name a few, and not to mention Martin Luther, the founder and progenitor of the Protestant Reformation was an Augustinian monk. My point is, listen to and love the clergy pointed over us, pray for them, but do not check your brain in at the door when you go to Church, do your own research and educate yourself in all aspects of the faith, and do not look at the faith the way you want to, but the way we are suppose to. Ask the Holy Spirit to give you a spirit of discernment so you may believe because it is true and right, and not because other people are doing it, because one of the hardest obstacles to overcome in our age, is the age itself. Modernism within the faith can destroy if allowed.
I respect your argument when you say the Eastern Orthodox Churches don’t require the custom anymore, however, if you wish to make a statement, please verify it from the sources if you wish to merit an elicited response, not just because what you have seen someone do. And for the record, they are experiencing the same dilemma as the Catholic Church in this matter.
One aspect I would like for you to take a look at, is that Scripture is very explicit on this matter, and the custom has been practiced for over three and a half millennia. The Church cannot and will not overturn the custom officially. She can’t, because it would nullify the Word of God in 1Cor 11, and that would be impossible for the Bride and Body of Christ to do, because the Holy Spirit is the one who is guiding Her when she officially binds all the faithful. Sure you will see women receiving communion from the Pope unveiled, but remember, Popes are only infallible when they teach officially to bind all believers, not through what they do and how they act. The fact is, that the issue has been swept under the rug for over forty years, and the modern culture (“the culture of death” as JP II said), has taken over in many places. Remember, reform doesn’t come quickly; indulgences were abused for over two-hundred years before the Council of Trent in 1563 put an end to it. All the heresies that I mentioned above took decades and centuries in some cases to address and correct.
The CC may address this issue in our lifetime, and they may not. But the fact is, they are not enforcing the universal custom and non abrogatable centenary as stated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law upholding 1Cor 11.

Sincerely in Chirst
Dominus tecum

This is drifting far from the original “wedding veil” question, and there are countless threads discussing this already.

 

[moon1234]

Wedding veils were most likely just an extension of the requirement for women to wear veils in Canon Law. One thing to keep in mind is that when a new code of Canon Law is released and it specifies that is replaces the previous code then the previous law is abrogated.

What does this mean? This means that the previous law is no longer REQUIRED to be followed, BUT that any law or custom reaching the status of immemorial custom can not be legislatively prohibited. This is the status of the current law as it concerns veiling for women. A woman who chooses to veil has a 100% right to do so since veiling has reached the 100 year mark for being an immemorial custom. However, women can not be commanded to wear a veil as it is no longer part of current law. Hope that clears up that part.

Also keep in mind that when Paul stated the following:

• Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. [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. [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. [4] Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. [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.

[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. [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. [8] For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. [9] For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. [10] Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.

[10] “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. *

As much as modern society would like to hide it, there IS a pecking order in the church and the Family. A woman is under her husband or father if she is not married. This does not mean that the man gets to boss her around, rather that she has a unique role in the family just as a man does. Wearing a veil shows respect and honor to this order setup BY GOD.

God made ADAM first. God did not make woman at the same time as man. When Adam was lonely because he did not have a companion that was equal in intelligence to him God created WOMAN FROM MAN. It is this structure that God created that Paul is alluding to. A woman who chooses to wear a veil honors this custom and order.

What Paul is essentially alluding to here is that a woman praying without her head covered is wrong. (Essentially acting as high priest in the temple i.e. a modern Catholic Priest). I don’t think that the act of not wearing a physical veil is what Paul was trying to convey, rather the Act of a woman assuming a role designed for a man and instituted by Christ is wrong.

Wearing of a Physical veil is an outward affirmation of this belief. The fact that this was a custom for millenea before it was ever codified in Canon law is proof of this belief. It is only in modern times when feminist radicals have so perverted the beauty and unique calling of a woman that the wearing of a veil has been seen as “anti-woman”.

In summary, the reasons that St. Paul advises women to cover their heads in the church are:

Our Lord commanded it;
It is a visible sign of an invisible order established by God;
The Angels at mass are offended if women don’t use it;
It is a ceremonial vestment;
It is our heritage.

Here is a little more info for those interested: web2.airmail.net/~carlsch/MaterDei/Library/the_veil.htm

 

[Sarabande]

From an historical point of view, for many centuries a head covering was something expected that a woman would wear no matter where you were - especially if you were a married woman. At certain points in history, an unmarried woman could have her head uncovered in public, but once she was married, she would have to cover her locks. Although, at the same time during other periods, a covered head was considered a sign of modesty and those who did not cover their heads with a veil or something similar was usually a sign that the woman was a prostitute or a woman who wasn’t considered a modest or moral person. So, in these instances, they might be reasons as to why women still wear veils today - it’s a leftover from the past, although it has now become more of just a tradition in almost all faiths and even by those who have no faith or religion, than anything else.

In terms of actual wedding ceremonies, there was also a custom and old belief that the bride and her maids would be dressed in similar attire and would all wear veils over their heads to “confuse” and stop any evil spirits or demons from trying to attack the bride. For Catholic weddings, of course, there was the tradition of keeping your head covered in a church, so that would make sense to wear a veil

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

I’m surprised that the Latin Church never adopted the practice of nuptial crowns for the newly weds. Could this have been due to the relatively low concentration of Jewish Christians in Rome (as compaired to in the East)?