Ladies Should Ware Veils In Church

[Mr.Cat]

This topic devolved from to ...

The Church seems to have abandoned the recommendation of head coverings for women. Has the Church ever directly repudiated the recommendation, not that I have read, but the matter ought to be left to the individual liberty of women.

[Selah]

I have a mantilla

[CatherineM]

I have two of them. One gold and white and the other black and silver.

[Sarah147]

I think it is more respectful, modest, and pleasing to God for women to wear something over their head, even a poor woman's scarf like in St. Pio's photos. I ever prefer that because it is simpler and less fancy.

Unfortunatly I suspect a lot of people DON'T wear it for the wrong reasons, and DO wear it for the wrong reasons. I suspect some think it will make them Holy or make them standout, and others may think they are too good for it and find it too humbling. Who knows for sure, but I wish it would spread. I see so few in my area wear it.

Edited December 12, 2010 by JoyfulLife

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1292102213' post='2192179']

[/quote]

Poor horse.

[Sarah147]

lol horse

I hope that statement made sense "DON'T wear it for the wrong reasons,"

I meant that for the wrong reasons, they opt out of wearing it.

[Selah]

[quote]I hope that statement made sense "DON'T wear it for the wrong reasons,"[/quote]

It did As in, "don't wear it to show people how humble you are" kinda cancels that out and causes pride.

[ardillacid]

DO NOT WANT

[img]http://chzgifs.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/nowantp1.gif[/img]

[dominicansoul]

I agree, Ladies should wear veils in church...

but I don't have a problem when they don't...and I don't think God has a problem with that either...

[MithLuin]

I know Tertullian had some unkind words for women who veiled in Church, but then just took it off afterward. Or who just used some thin lacy veil that you could see through rather than one that actually covered the head. So...I think this argument has [i]always[/i] been in the Church!

[Sarah147]

They wore hats for Latin Mass. It seems people decided to do their own thing, p a n t s, hatless, etc. after the Council change.

Edited December 13, 2010 by JoyfulLife

[Sarah147]

[quote name='notardillacid' timestamp='1292119742' post='2192255']
DO NOT WANT

[img]http://chzgifs.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/nowantp1.gif[/img]
[/quote]


::

What is that cat on? Catnip, extra strength? + a pack of Coca-Cola + ADHD stimulant medicine + the stuff they put under your nose to wake you + every odd ball chemical out there.

Edited December 13, 2010 by JoyfulLife

[Selah]

[quote]I know Tertullian had some unkind words for women who veiled in Church, but then just took it off afterward. Or who just used some thin lacy veil that you could see through rather than one that actually covered the head. So...I think this argument has always been in the Church! [/quote]

He had unkind words for women in general. Don't really care what he says so much, as he died a heretic and all that jazz...

[JenDeMaria]

You know, the section in 1 Corinthians 11 where St. Paul advises women to veil during the liturgy ends with this statement: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the church of God." -- and so, right there, even before St Paul has finished speaking on the subject, he provides a dispensation for the practice of veiling.

In the era following the 60's veiling did become contentious for some women and so the Church made use of the dispensation given by St. Paul in the scriptures. The Church has given and continues to give many dispensations -- including the practice of reception of just one species of communion which arose during the medieval period (and is still used by those who observe the Extraordinary Form); the practice of abstinence for male priests in the Eastern orders, who are given a dispensation regarding marriage, etc.

I myself wear a chapel veil -- primarily to imitate the Blessed Virgin Mary (can anyone name an apparition in which Our Lady showed up without a veil?). But, the more I have meditated on the humility that St Paul implies in the 11th chapter of 1 Corinthians, in which he says that the veil is a sign of being under an authority, the more I have thought of that section of Phillipians in which St Paul states

[i][url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=57&ch=2&l=5#x"][5][/url] For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:[url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=57&ch=2&l=6#x"][6][/url] Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=57&ch=2&l=7#x"][7][/url] But [u]emptied himself[/u], taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. [url="http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=57&ch=2&l=8#x"][8][/url] He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. [/i]

And this mystery of the humility of God ([i]and how unfathomable is that)[/i] lies in the very heart of the celebration of the Eucharist, in which Christ's passion, death and resurrection are made present once more. How can I be offended to be considered "secondary" in the practice of a faith which insists that "he who would be first must be the servant of all"? There is a grace to be found in acknowledging that I have an authority, that I am not my own Pope in a religion in which I worship myself!

Aside from that, veils are incredibly practical things. They keep women with hair longer than a few inches from playing with their hairstyles during Mass (which is probably why St Paul said that women who did not veil should wear short hair!). A veil makes the question "Does my hair look all right?" a non-issue. A veil also has the ability to seperate the mundane from the holy, so that it emphasizes the transition between the frenetic world-out-there from the reverent space of worship within the church.

But for all that, it is still a greater act of humility to acknowledge the laws of the Church that one does not like than to dress up in costumes of humility when they are not required....

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1292034579' post='2192063']
Well two things. First just because it is not included in the 1983 code does not mean the commandment is not still in effect. Think of it this way: the requirement to veil was in effect prior to the 1917 code the code merely confirmed it. There was a big thread on this before. Now, personally, I feel like taking it out of the code was more than just an "oversight", and perhaps represents dropping the requirement - though I'm not fully convinced.

Second, it is arguable the veil is a matter of discipline - one that may be changed by the Church as She sees fit.
[/quote]
Yes, I'd heard that about the 1983 code before. I think I remember it saying something about how it didn't abrogate things that were 100-year-old customs/traditions, and veiling would have fit that, I'd think. But I could be misremembering.