Words Matter. Velatio Should Not Be Hijacked By Mantilla-ters Or Hat-t

[abrideofChrist]

Velatio.  Veiling.  Veiling in Latin has a theological and canonical significance which is almost as old or perhaps is as old as the Church.  It most emphatically does not denote random women wearing headcoverings in Church.  Veiling or velatio refers specifically to the veiling of consecrated virgins. 

 

In the ceremony of the consecration and veiling of virgins, the red bridal veil was conferred upon the virgin by the Pope (later by the bishop when bishops began to be allowed to consecrate virgins).

 

This phorum is respectful of tradition.  I respectfully request that the tradition of referring to headcoverings be named anything but velatio/veiling, as our Church's tradition is to speak of the practice of veiling (velatio) only in reference to the Solemn Consecration of a Virgin as the Bride of Jesus Christ.  Later development allowed for the veiling of widows and nuns who were not virgins by a priest (because the solemn veiling can only be given by a bishop for true virgins), but the word velatio still refers the consecration of virginity and not to wearing something on the head.

 

Thank you for your consideration. 

[abrideofChrist]

P.S.  I am quite aware of the velatio nuptias of brides.  This was a practice that soon disappeared in Church practice (the couple are no longer under a veil) and velatio became a term referring exclusively to virgins receiving the consecration and bridal veil.  It should be noted that the velatio nuptias was closely connected with a veil held over the couple/bride and that while the velatio of virgins had roots with the Roman practice of wearing the flame colored veil, the velatio differed in that it was conferred upon the virgin during the consecration and not worn before Mass. Hence the practice of a bride wearing a veil from the beginning of the Mass cannot be called velatio as it is not given, held over, or conferred upon her by the priest along with the blessing.

[Evangetholic]

Have you met Reyb yet?

[abrideofChrist]

Your point?

[Evangetholic]

I'm confused. Best to be quiet when confused I suppose.

[Apotheoun]

What word does the Latin Vulgate bible use when speaking about the veiling of women in the liturgical synaxis in First Corinthians 11?  The original Greek terms used in the New Testament can be translated into English as "veil" or "covering," and so even though I am a stickler for using correct terminology myself (see for example my recent post about the procession of the Holy Spirit in a thread entitled: Theological Junk, Yo), I would like to know what term is used in the Latin Vulgate translation of the original Greek text of First Corinthians.

[Basilisa Marie]

Velatio.  Veiling.  Veiling in Latin has a theological and canonical significance which is almost as old or perhaps is as old as the Church.  It most emphatically does not denote random women wearing headcoverings in Church.  Veiling or velatio refers specifically to the veiling of consecrated virgins. 

 

In the ceremony of the consecration and veiling of virgins, the red bridal veil was conferred upon the virgin by the Pope (later by the bishop when bishops began to be allowed to consecrate virgins).

 

This phorum is respectful of tradition.  I respectfully request that the tradition of referring to headcoverings be named anything but velatio/veiling, as our Church's tradition is to speak of the practice of veiling (velatio) only in reference to the Solemn Consecration of a Virgin as the Bride of Jesus Christ.  Later development allowed for the veiling of widows and nuns who were not virgins by a priest (because the solemn veiling can only be given by a bishop for true virgins), but the word velatio still refers the consecration of virginity and not to wearing something on the head.

 

Thank you for your consideration. 

 

Well, what about referring to the veiling of consecrated virgins as Velatio?  I think it'd be hard to get people to not use the word "veil" for non-consecrated virgin things, and using the term "velatio" for your purposes would still retain a special designation for consecrated virgins. 

[Slappo]

1 Corinthians 11:5-7: omnis autem mulier orans aut prophetans non velato capite deturpat caput suum unum est enim atque si decalvetur nam si non velatur mulier et tondeatur si vero turpe est mulieri tonderi aut decalvari velet caput suum vir quidem non debet velare caput quoniam imago et gloria est Dei mulier autem gloria viri est

 

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. 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.

 

 

Match the bolded. The latin verb used in the vulgate is velo, velare (to veil, to cover, to cover up)

[ToJesusMyHeart]

:covereyes: 

 

 

:ohno:

[abrideofChrist]

Why keep it in Latin?  The venacular is veilng, and women who wear headcoverings in church are using the English translation of velatio. 

 

Well, what about referring to the veiling of consecrated virgins as Velatio?  I think it'd be hard to get people to not use the word "veil" for non-consecrated virgin things, and using the term "velatio" for your purposes would still retain a special designation for consecrated virgins. 

 

[abrideofChrist]

The problem is when certain women decide to wear headcoverings in Church, they often claim that they feel called by God to veiling.  In different places on the internet, women will say that they feel God is calling them to veil.  A call by God to veiling really intrinsically means not donning a simple headcovering but accepting a vocation to perpetual consecrated virginity (or if not a virgin, to chastity).  This phrasing is inconsiderate of those who are called to the solemn ritual of veiling as Brides of Christ.  Further, it canonizes one's own inclinations as "God's will" which is not necessarily the case.  I mean, I could run a crusade saying I feel called by God to promoting segregation of the sexes in the Churches- have the men in the congregational area and the women in the rafters, but you could seriously question my "in" with God on that.  I am puzzled as to why women feel so called by God to "veiling" (head covering) when they don't feel like segregating the sexes.  Why not?  It is the other part of the canon in the 1917 code that required headcoverings on women.  Surely God's call would be consistent  in that if the Church's discipline required women and men to be separated in Church and for women to wear headcoverings, that if one felt truly inspired by God to fulfill this obsolete law that one should go all the way and separate herself from men altogether, including her husband and any male children at Church.

Edited March 5, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[Slappo]

The problem is when certain women decide to wear headcoverings in Church, they often claim that they feel called by God to veiling.  In different places on the internet, women will say that they feel God is calling them to veil.  A call by God to veiling really intrinsically means not donning a simple headcovering but accepting a vocation to perpetual consecrated virginity (or if not a virgin, to chastity).  This phrasing is inconsiderate of those who are called to the solemn ritual of veiling as Brides of Christ.  Further, it canonizes one's own inclinations as "God's will" which is not necessarily the case.  I mean, I could run a crusade saying I feel called by God to promoting segregation of the sexes in the Churches- have the men in the congregational area and the women in the rafters, but you could seriously question my "in" with God on that.  I am puzzled as to why women feel so called by God to "veiling" (head covering) when they don't feel like segregating the sexes.  Why not?  It is the other part of the canon in the 1917 code that required headcoverings on women.  Surely God's call would be consistent  in that if the Church's discipline required women and men to be separated in Church and for women to wear headcoverings, that if one felt truly inspired by God to fulfill this obsolete law that one should go all the way and separate herself from men altogether, including her husband and any male children at Church.

 

"Called by God to veiling" is just incorrect grammar. It would be "called by God to veil". Using "veil" as a verb in English simply means to cover up. There may be a solemn ritual of veiling in the Church when a consecrated virgin takes vows, but that doesn't mean the verb to veil cannot be appropriately used in other circumstances.

 

I do admit that for someone to say "I feel the need to veil" just sounds awkward today as we don't typically use veil as a verb in English anymore. It would sound less awkward to say "I feel the need to wear a veil" in which case veil is a noun and would be synonymous with headcovering. The particular veil someone feels like wearing may or may not be a mantilla, hat, scarf, or other headgarment, so to say one must use the noun specific to the type of veil they use would actually be against the idea that words matter. A mantilla means a very specific type of headgarment. A veil is a very broad term for a garment that would, in this particular case, cover the head.

 

 

Your problem or concern with someone using the words "call from God" does not pertain specifically to veiling, so I don't see how it is pertinent to the topic actually. Also, in certain cultures (China for instance), the women do still separate themselves from the men. Women sit on the left side of the church and men on the right. I would imagine this applies to other cultures as well.

[ToJesusMyHeart]

"Called by God to veiling" is just incorrect grammar. It would be "called by God to veil". Using "veil" as a verb in English simply means to cover up. There may be a solemn ritual of veiling in the Church when a consecrated virgin takes vows, but that doesn't mean the verb to veil cannot be appropriately used in other circumstances.

 

I do admit that for someone to say "I feel the need to veil" just sounds awkward today as we don't typically use veil as a verb in English anymore. It would sound less awkward to say "I feel the need to wear a veil" in which case veil is a noun and would be synonymous with headcovering. The particular veil someone feels like wearing may or may not be a mantilla, hat, scarf, or other headgarment, so to say one must use the noun specific to the type of veil they use would actually be against the idea that words matter. A mantilla means a very specific type of headgarment. A veil is a very broad term for a garment that would, in this particular case, cover the head.

 

 

Your problem or concern with someone using the words "call from God" does not pertain specifically to veiling, so I don't see how it is pertinent to the topic actually. Also, in certain cultures (China for instance), the women do still separate themselves from the men. Women sit on the left side of the church and men on the right. I would imagine this applies to other cultures as well.

This.  :like2: 

[abrideofChrist]

"Called by God to veiling" is just incorrect grammar. It would be "called by God to veil". Using "veil" as a verb in English simply means to cover up.

No.  I am not talking about grammar.  I deny that God is calling anyone to wear headcoverings in Church following the line of thought of St. Paul.  I see all kinds of subjective reasons for a person to wear a headcovering in Church, but they are the same subjective reasons that lead people to vegetarianism or perhaps Jewish practices that are not used today by Christian women.  The segregation of the sexes is a case in point.  It may be in God's permissive will but I seriously doubt we can claim it is His positive will that we be segregated, or women wear headcoverings.

There may be a solemn ritual of veiling in the Church

 

Yes there is.  And if we're going to get into grammar, there is a reason why it's called veiling rather than wearing a veil.  It is indicative of the active placing of the veil upon the consecrated woman by the religious superior or upon the consecrated virgin by the bishop and the Passive receiving of the veil by the said woman.  Note passive reception. 

when a consecrated virgin takes vows

No.  A consecrated virgin doesn't take vows.  You're using active language here.  The ceremony is all passive as far as she is concerned, with the activity devolving upon the Bishop and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.  She receives the solemn change of her being via the Consecratory prayer of the bishop as she is transformed into a "sacred person", a "Bride of Christ" and then she receives the bridal veil and the nuptial ring.  The word "vow"/"promise" is nowhere in the Rite.  Veiling refers to the passive reception of the bridal veil from the bishop denoting her sacred status.  It does not refer to the practice of a devout laywoman putting a headcovering upon her own head when entering church.

, but that doesn't mean the verb to veil cannot be appropriately used in other circumstances.

That's right.  If you want to confuse people.  why not use "covering"?  It can include a veil but it is broader and does not have the theological significance of veiling.

 

I do admit that for someone to say "I feel the need to veil" just sounds awkward today as we don't typically use veil as a verb in English anymore. It would sound less awkward to say "I feel the need to wear a veil" in which case veil is a noun and would be synonymous with headcovering. The particular veil someone feels like wearing may or may not be a mantilla, hat, scarf, or other headgarment, so to say one must use the noun specific to the type of veil they use would actually be against the idea that words matter. A mantilla means a very specific type of headgarment. A veil is a very broad term for a garment that would, in this particular case, cover the head.

Well, use the word covering.  Veiling refers to a specific garment covering the head of one specially annointed.

Your problem or concern with someone using the words "call from God" does not pertain specifically to veiling, so I don't see how it is pertinent to the topic actually. Also, in certain cultures (China for instance), the women do still separate themselves from the men. Women sit on the left side of the church and men on the right. I would imagine this applies to other cultures as well.

I was pointing out that for someone to use the words "call from God", that this is a sloppy practice when we in fact do not know God's will in such specific detail when it is not a legislated law for us.

Edited March 5, 2013 by abrideofChrist

[EmilyAnn]

Isn't is curious that we speak English, not Latin? Arguing the meaning of a Latin word has absolutely no bearing on the English.