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

[PhuturePriest]

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.

When my sister went to Benedictine, she had to learn about another religion and then go see it up close. She chose Judaism, and she went to Kansas City to a Synagogue. She said during the Jewish rituals, all of the men were on the right side and all of the women were on the left.

[Apotheoun]

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

What I find interesting is that the Latin Vulgate translation of the Greek text of First Corinthians uses the Latin term velato, which eventually enters into the English language as the word veil. Clearly the Vulgate translation totally undermines the notion that the word veil has only one particular - rather late - meaning and application (i.e., that it applies only to a form of religious life).

[Amppax]

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

 

Well, if we're looking at something that is originally written in LATIN then the Latin has tremendous importance.  That's just an ignorant statement.  I mean what's the point of the new translation of the Mass? I mean, we speak English now. 

[EmilyAnn]

Well, if we're looking at something that is originally written in LATIN then the Latin has tremendous importance.  That's just an ignorant statement.  I mean what's the point of the new translation of the Mass? I mean, we speak English now. 

A translation is not the same as applying an English word to a Latin word. They might have the same literal meaning, but they refer to entirely separate things. 

[ToJesusMyHeart]

What I find interesting is that the Latin Vulgate translation of the Greek text of First Corinthians uses the Latin term velato, which eventually enters into the English language as the word veil. Clearly the Vulgate translation totally undermines the notion that the word veil has only one particular - rather late - meaning and application (i.e., that it applies only to a form of religious life).

 

 

Well, if we're looking at something that is originally written in LATIN then the Latin has tremendous importance.  That's just an ignorant statement.  I mean what's the point of the new translation of the Mass? I mean, we speak English now. 

:like:

[KnightofChrist]

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

 

What about the English words that are derived from Latin?
 

[EmilyAnn]

What about the English words that are derived from Latin?
 

Just because it's derived from Latin doesn't give it the exact same meaning. Latin does not evolve, English does. 

[KnightofChrist]

Just because it's derived from Latin doesn't give it the exact same meaning. Latin does not evolve, English does. 

 

Some words derived from Latin to English probably do have the exact same meaning, or very close to the same meaning. But yes, English does change and it does evolve, but that the Latin has absolutely no bearing on the English is probably pretty rare, at least not absolute.

[abrideofChrist]

And veiling still refers in English to the veiling of Virgins.

[EmilyAnn]

Some words derived from Latin to English probably do have the exact same meaning, or very close to the same meaning. But yes, English does change and it does evolve, but that the Latin has absolutely no bearing on the English is probably pretty rare, at least not absolute.

 

It relates to the root of the word, not its meaning and understanding in commonplace English today.

[KnightofChrist]

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.

Consecrated virgins are veiled because precious things are always veiled. The Holy of Holies was veiled because precious things are always veiled. The Blessed Sacrament in the Tabernacle is veiled because precious things are always veiled. Women of the Old Testament were veiled because precious things are always veiled. Women of the New Testament are veiled because precious things are always veiled.
 

It relates to the root of the word, not its meaning and understanding in commonplace English today.

 

All I'm trying to say is that the idea that the meaning of a Latin word has absolutely no bearing on the English, isn't true.

Edited March 5, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[EmilyAnn]

All I'm trying to say is that the idea that the meaning of a Latin word has absolutely no bearing on the English, isn't true.

I worded it poorly. My point is, you can't just look at an equivalent word in Latin and determine that the English word should be the same. Firstly, translation is more complicated than that. Secondly, you can't impose a dead language on an evolving one like abrideofchrist is trying to do, it's not that simple. 

[KnightofChrist]

My point is, you can't just look at an equivalent word in Latin and determine that the English word should be the same. Firstly, translation is more complicated than that. Secondly, you can't impose a dead language on an evolving one like abrideofchrist is trying to do, it's not that simple.

 
I agree.

[Slappo]

And veiling still refers in English to the veiling of Virgins.

 

Except it also refers to the veiling that takes place during passiontide... and many other things.

[Slappo]

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.

You can seriously doubt all you want, but again. What God wills, does not will, or doesn't care about isn't really pertinent to the use of the verb to veil in English. Whether God is calling someone to wear a veil, they feel like wearing a veil, or they are forced to wear a veil by their parents doesn't change the proper use of the English verb to veil.

 

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. 

Again, not pertinent to whether the verb to veil can be properly attributed to the action of a veil being put upon someones head.

 

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.

Again not pertinent to a conversation on the verb to veil. Mea culpa for my mistake in saying that a consecrated virgin takes vows.

 

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

This is what we are discussing. Veiling is a verb. The verb to veil means to cover up. If a devout lay woman places a mantilla over her head, she is "covering up" or "veiling". They are synonymous. There is no intrinsic meaning to the word veiling. You can say over and over again that a devout laywoman putting on a head covering is not veiling, but veiling is exactly what she is doing.

 

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.

Again the word veil has no intrinsic meaning. It also has no intrinsic theological significance. Look up "velatio nuptialis". It is the consecration of a bride to the married state.

 

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

Again you are narrowing the meaning of the word.

 

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.

I agree, but it is still not pertinent to the use of the word veiling.

The act of veiling a consecrated virgin sounds like it has a whole ton of theological significance, but it isn't intrinsic to the the verb used to describe the action taking place. If the verb used was "covering" for the covering of the head that takes place, the action would have the same theological significance.