Do You Wear A Veil Or Headcovering In Church?

[Immanuel]

Sorry max. I'm still trying to figure out how to reference other's posts . but I wanted to tell you that I like what you've said about veiling . and that I'll probably end up wearing a head covering all the time eventually. I have a veil for mass and a snood that I put on for outside when I'm having a bad hair day. but I just love having something covering my head. just feels good to me.

[Catholicterp7]

I never understood why the custom of wearing a headcovering in church fell out of use.

I mean it is clear from scripture and tradition that it has been like this since apostolic times, men are not allowed to cover their head in Church, but women should. Ironically, the rule for men still stands: a man who wears a hat in Church gets into trouble.

Until the middle of the 20th century both men and women always wore a headgear in public, and the men had to remove theirs in Church, so the rule seemed to discriminate against men. Today, nobody wears a headgear in public (mainly due to the invention of shampoo and showers with warm water in every flat), so the rule seems to discriminate against women, but in fact nothing changed.

 

I don't judge anyone, based on what he or she wears, I just don't understand it. :idontknow:

I totally agree!! It's so interesting to me that people will use the "Well, it was a different culture back then." argument for this issue but would be shocked if anyone would use that with an all male priesthood etc. 

JMJ+ :heart: 

[Renee the Nunnabe]

I don't currently wear a veil. (Though I want to, and plan to. There's that feeling of nakedness that I get sometimes.)  

 

I actually made one, and I really like it, but I was scared to wear it in church. . . because it ended up looking a bit like a nun's veil and I didn't want to create confusion. (Then I dropped it on concrete and it needs washing but I'm scared to wash it because I don't want it to fall apart. It's fragile.)  

I have seen two mantillas and one other head covering at my parish. It's not normative, to say the least.  

[somethingfishy]

I totally agree!! It's so interesting to me that people will use the "Well, it was a different culture back then." argument for this issue but would be shocked if anyone would use that with an all male priesthood etc. 

JMJ+ :heart:

 

Because clothing is fundamentally a cultural matter, whereas an all-male priesthood is doctrine. The subject of ordaining only baptized men is several orders of magnitude more significant than whether women wear veils to Mass.

[Catholicterp7]

Because clothing is fundamentally a cultural matter, whereas an all-male priesthood is doctrine. The subject of ordaining only baptized men is several orders of magnitude more significant than whether women wear veils to Mass.

I wasn't saying they're of equal importance. I understand that fully. My point was the argument they use for it being okay to not veil is something they don't accept as an argument in other matters. I would never imply that the two matters are equal, simply that they're both scriptural and yet some are in full support of one and not the other. 

JMJ+ :heart: 

[Catholicterp7]

Because clothing is fundamentally a cultural matter, whereas an all-male priesthood is doctrine. The subject of ordaining only baptized men is several orders of magnitude more significant than whether women wear veils to Mass.

I wasn't saying they're of equal importance. I understand that fully. My point was the argument they use for it being okay to not veil is something they don't accept as an argument in other matters. I would never imply that the two matters are equal, simply that they're both scriptural and yet some are in full support of one and not the other. 

JMJ+ :heart: 

[Catholicterp7]

Because clothing is fundamentally a cultural matter, whereas an all-male priesthood is doctrine. The subject of ordaining only baptized men is several orders of magnitude more significant than whether women wear veils to Mass.

I wasn't saying they're of equal importance. I understand that fully. My point was the argument they use for it being okay to not veil is something they don't accept as an argument in other matters. I would never imply that the two matters are equal, simply that they're both scriptural and yet some are in full support of one and not the other. 

JMJ+ :heart: 

[Catholicterp7]

Because clothing is fundamentally a cultural matter, whereas an all-male priesthood is doctrine. The subject of ordaining only baptized men is several orders of magnitude more significant than whether women wear veils to Mass.

I wasn't saying they're of equal importance. I understand that fully. My point was the argument they use for it being okay to not veil is something they don't accept as an argument in other matters. I would never imply that the two matters are equal, simply that they're both scriptural and yet some are in full support of one and not the other. 

JMJ+ :heart: 

[somethingfishy]

I wasn't saying they're of equal importance. I understand that fully. My point was the argument they use for it being okay to not veil is something they don't accept as an argument in other matters. I would never imply that the two matters are equal, simply that they're both scriptural and yet some are in full support of one and not the other. 

JMJ+ :heart:

 

It's just not quite a fair argument, because there's plenty of "scriptural" stuff that we don't do. Keeping kosher for instance. But even in I Corinthians 11:4-6 (which I assume is your authority for women covering their hair) it says "if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil." It was disgraceful at the time of writing for a woman's hair to be cut or shaven -- it's not anymore. Women have all sorts of short hairstyles and it's perfectly normal and acceptable. So from the perspective of "it's biblical" I don't think you have a very strong argument, because the context of the passage places it within the boundaries of acceptable cultural practices.

 

I don't veil regularly at Masses in the Ordinary Form; I do for the Extraordinary Form. I think the argument for veiling is stronger from the standpoint of tradition than from the standpoint of scripture. It's a little-t tradition and there's nothing wrong with it, but as it's not mentioned in the canon law which is currently in force I think it's hard to make an argument that it's compulsory. If it's a devotion you find helpful, that's wonderful. Not everyone will, though, and it doesn't mean they're wrong. It took me a good while to figure out that not every devotion or practice which is helpful to me is equally helpful to everyone else. I drove my friends crazy insisting they read this book or pray that chaplet, when in the end their prayer life was none of my business.

[Nihil Obstat]

I cannot foresee myself wearing a veil to Mass at any time.

Never ever?

 

[PhuturePriest]

Never ever?

 

 

Never ever.

[Pax_et bonum]

It depends if they actually call me back.

Why don't you ever tell me this before I see Br. Bonaventure and Br. Fidelis?? I just saw them at the March and could've casually mentioned something. There's a slight chance I may see them this week but no promises. Who were you talking to about visiting? Br. Bonaventure? I've been waiting for a letter from the sisters... I really hope I get to go see them this week.

[PhuturePriest]

Why don't you ever tell me this before I see Br. Bonaventure and Br. Fidelis?? I just saw them at the March and could've casually mentioned something. There's a slight chance I may see them this week but no promises. Who were you talking to about visiting? Br. Bonaventure? I've been waiting for a letter from the sisters... I really hope I get to go see them this week.

 

The last time I spoke it was with Brother Fidelis. But I will be visiting their main friary, not the one in Ohio. At least I assume. It's what makes the most sense to me, anyway.

[Freudentaumel]

I don't veil regularly at Masses in the Ordinary Form; I do for the Extraordinary Form. I think the argument for veiling is stronger from the standpoint of tradition than from the standpoint of scripture. It's a little-t tradition and there's nothing wrong with it, but as it's not mentioned in the canon law which is currently in force I think it's hard to make an argument that it's compulsory.

But the rule that men are not allowed to wear headgear in church is not in Canon Law either, yet it is widely accepted, and while nobody would ever dare to speak to a Lady who is not veiled in church, many people will correct a man who wears a headgear in Church. Yet both traditions go back to the same passage in Paul's letter, and both were universally practiced in the entire church, both East and West, since times apostolic until the middle of the 20th century.
The Canon Law argument is very legalistic IMO, and IMO it should never have been there in the first place. It was not a written law until 1917, and still everyone accepted it. You don't have rules like "you shouldn't wear a bikini in church" in Canon Law either.

Again, this is not to criticize anyone (almost nobody I know wears a headgear), I just don't understand it, especially why men and women are treated so differently regarding this question.

[petitpèlerin]

I've never thought about wearing a veil. It's not something that's done anywhere I've been to mass. If it were a custom in my locale I would consider the reasoning behind it and whether or not it's something I should have been doing all along but have simply failed to learn about growing up in the church in the late 20th century. Still, I'm a Franciscan and my own spirituality is more come-as-you-are, keep-it-simple, and that outward signs of reverence are not nearly as important as a proper interior disposition in approaching the liturgy. But I can appreciate that some like to have an outward manifestation of the interior disposition, or that it may help them cultivate it.

In general, though, I love to have my head covered. I'm known to have a hat affixed to my head from approximately October to April, and I feel naked without a hood.