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

[Slappo]

I see.  Ordain has no meaning.  After all we can use the word " to ordain" to mean "to order".  We can say God ordained that xxxx.  But wouldn't you agree that ordain has a specific theological meaning in both English and Latin?

 

You mean like Bl. John Paul II used the word "ordains" in one of his encyclicals?

 

Otherwise, there would be a violation of that law of justice which ordains that every person should receive his due.

From Centesimus Annus section 10. I guess John Paul II was using the verb to ordain incorrectly. Silly me... he was just a Pope, what does he know?

 

 

God has ordained many things. Christ also instituted the sacrament of Holy Orders which one receives upon being ordained by a bishop. Again, the use of the verb ordain and the adjective ordained is not limited to the sacrament of Holy Orders, although it is most certainly used to describe the action that takes place and the state of someone after having received the sacrament.

 

 

Or if you'd like a different example:

Romans 13:1 Latin vulgate and english translation.

 

omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit non est enim potestas nisi a Deo quae autem sunt a Deo ordinatae sunt

 

Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God.

Certainly St. Paul wasn't referring to only God and clergy having power...

[freudianslippers]

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.

So hang on, if we're gonna use the bible, let's remember first of all that even the devil (!) quotes the bible where considered applicable. I'm just sayin', just because it's in "the Bible", doesn't mean it necessarily applies in this or any occasion. What does the Church say? And thank you.

Matthew 4:1 (New International Version)

4 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted^[a] by the devil. ² After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. ³ The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

 

 

 

[freudianslippers]

 

[freudianslippers]

What about the English words that are derived from Latin?
 

Is this even relevant?

[ToJesusMyHeart]

Is this thread relevant?

[freudianslippers]

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)

From Jimmy Akin's combox, a nice rephrasing of the obvious . . . Concerning St. Paul’s statement to the Corinthians, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated that this was a discipline based on customs of the time, not a permanent moral obligation: “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 (1 Cor 11: 2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.” CDF, decl. Inter Insigniores (15 oct. 1976) n. 4.

 

SO, if we're to revisit the times of St. Paul, can we also make it fair that the men wear tunics instead of current society dictates? Can we have the Mass in newly dug Catacombs since fundamentalist reading of the Bible dictates it? Can we PLEASE go back to the basics using the SACRED HEBREW TEXTS so as to make absolutely sure that not only are we being faithful, but true to the Word of God? And where should we stop? Should we get rid of the rings used for married people since that was a Pagan ritual and NOT found in Sacred Scripture?

 

I have heard many Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses quote the Bible to justify their own religions. How are we to know when God is speaking? How are we to know that it is God that has spoken and not just some person's interpretation of God's word?

[Slappo]

From Jimmy Akin's combox, a nice rephrasing of the obvious . . . Concerning St. Paul’s statement to the Corinthians, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated that this was a discipline based on customs of the time, not a permanent moral obligation: “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 (1 Cor 11: 2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.” CDF, decl. Inter Insigniores (15 oct. 1976) n. 4.

SO, if we're to revisit the times of St. Paul, can we also make it fair that the men wear tunics instead of current society dictates? Can we have the Mass in newly dug Catacombs since fundamentalist reading of the Bible dictates it? Can we PLEASE go back to the basics using the SACRED HEBREW TEXTS so as to make absolutely sure that not only are we being faithful, but true to the Word of God? And where should we stop? Should we get rid of the rings used for married people since that was a Pagan ritual and NOT found in Sacred Scripture?

I have heard many Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses quote the Bible to justify their own religions. How are we to know when God is speaking? How are we to know that it is God that has spoken and not just some person's interpretation of God's word?

Umm did you read the thread before posting? All my above post was doing was showing that the approved latin translation of scripture uses the verb velo velare to describe a woman covering her head with a veil.

I said nothing about any mandatory requirements for a woman to cover her head. That is an entirely different topic for an entirely different thread.

[freudianslippers]

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. 

I love this thread! So many interesting interpretations!

 

Read this and thought, "wow! All my 'traditional latin Mass' friends call them "mantillas!" Mostly because they don't consider themselves as "Consecrated to God" like Nuns would be. Or as, in this case, Consecrated Virgins...

 

How do you propose to translate "velatio" to English and retain its significance if you begin using the word "veiling" against the Church's lex orandi tradition? Isn't it awkward for a Consecrated virgin to be asked what does velatio mean and she says," Well, it means veiling  of virgins and religious, but these days some modernists use the word veiling to denote the abrogated practice of laywomen wearing habadashery in church."

So we don't use veiling. we use the more elite term velatio because some modernists wanted to change our theological vocabulary.

 

On a side note, as a teenager many years ago, I went to a Mass celebrated at a wealthy Traditional Catholic family home where the daughters of the family handed out disposable Kleenexes for the heads of girls who did not have the lace doilies. I was insulted at the mere suggestion of it;  I was the ONLY woman who refused to wear a "disposable snot rag" at Our Lord's death (the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!) What a shame that Our Lord, knowing all things, did NOT correct Mary Magdalen for her failure to wear the proper headdress, which I know was a prostitute's way of selling herself, ie: to bare her head! What a shame that He did not take this as seriously as some others seem to be doing!

 

Would you wear a Kleenex when meeting the President? Wouldn't that be a horrible insult? Would you make the King of Saudi Arabia wear a Kleenex or would you think that what a Kleenex stands for is horribly degrading for a human being?

[Nihil Obstat]

What is this I don't even.

[freudianslippers]

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.

 "It is consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.  Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine to her wise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.  OLD canon 1262.  Now, read this:  Concerning St. Paul’s statement to the Corinthians, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated that this was a discipline based on customs of the time, not a permanent moral obligation: “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 (1 Cor 11: 2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.” CDF, decl. Inter Insigniores (15 oct. 1976) n. 4.

We need to reinstitute segregating because OBVIOUSLY it is more HOLY.

We need to reinstitute habadashery for women because obviously it is more holy

Wait!  You mean that the CDF says that this is of minor discipline and abolished?  You mean that it doesn't consider it holy or important?

And yet, it is the Vatican that reemphasized the importance of the Rite of Consecration of Virgins

and the veiling associated with it?

 

Hmmmm'

 

Should I just look to Scripture or Should I listen to the magesterium which clearly distinguishes between discipline and doctrine.

 

I listen to the magisterium that tells me that what we pray we believe.  Now if the word veiling has over the centuries referred to the LITURGY of conferring the veil upon consecrated women and NOT the practice of women wearing something they brought to the Liturgy then maybe I need to listen to the Church's translation of the word velatio.

[Evangetholic]

What is this I don't even.

 

Reyb and I do.

[freudianslippers]

"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.

 

Why not?  A "call from God" often denotes a vocation, like, say, a Church vocation as in States of LIFE.  I think "ABrideofChrist " points out that a modernist sloppy use of the phrase "called by God" not only diminishes a true call from God but makes it appear that those who do not embrace this practice are somehow not responding to God's will. Isn't it interesting that you mention that in certain cultures men and women are separated.  Why don't you campaign for all of them to be separated in light of the old canon 1262 above cited because it is so obviously virtuous?

.

 

you want an easy way for women to refer to the practice of wearing habdashery items upon their heads in fulfillment of the old custom which is no longer obligatory as "veiling".  Why should you invent a new meaning to that term "veiling"?  Why not just call it what the OLD code called it?  Covering?

 

 Because you know, if we want to be traditional, we should take our cue from the Church and make it clear that "covering" is an imitation of veiling and not veiling itself.

 

On a personal note, I have noticed that an argument has been laid for covering (erroneously labeled as veiling) because women think that it reminds them of being the bride of Christ.  Funny how we don't go in cassocks or men don't wander in cassocks because it reminds them of being priests prophets and kings. a-call-to-veil-the-mysteriousunfoldshttp://www.catholicsistas.com/2011/12/15/a-call-to-veil-the-mysterious-unfolds/

 

As a married woman with children, I feel it is important to teach my children that veiling is for those who are called to that officially by the Church and that covering is for those who feel like making that decision as a fashion statement! You know, it strikes me as odd that people vehemently arguing for covering do so because they claim that all holy things are veiled.  Why is it that holy things are veiled?  has any one noticed that the veiling is done by someone else and not by the person themselves? Maybe veiling does say that there is something holy. Something sacred.  And the Rite of Consecration gives us a clue.  The virgin is made a "sacred person".

 

Maybe if we are called to holiness as lay persons, maybe we shouldn't call it what it isn't.

 

Perhaps we should make it clear what holiness really consists in. The CDF has already told us that customs like covering heads is no longer in force.  Therefore it doesn't make us more holy to wear coverings.

 

 

[freudianslippers]

"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.

 

Why not?  A "call from God" often denotes a vocation, like, say, a Church vocation as in States of LIFE.  I think "ABrideofChrist " points out that a modernist sloppy use of the phrase "called by God" not only diminishes a true call from God but makes it appear that those who do not embrace this practice are somehow not responding to God's will. Isn't it interesting that you mention that in certain cultures men and women are separated.  Why don't you campaign for all of them to be separated in light of the old canon 1262 above cited because it is so obviously virtuous?

.

 

you want an easy way for women to refer to the practice of wearing habdashery items upon their heads in fulfillment of the old custom which is no longer obligatory as "veiling".  Why should you invent a new meaning to that term "veiling"?  Why not just call it what the OLD code called it?  Covering?

 

 Because you know, if we want to be traditional, we should take our cue from the Church and make it clear that "covering" is an imitation of veiling and not veiling itself.

 

On a personal note, I have noticed that an argument has been laid for covering (erroneously labeled as veiling) because women think that it reminds them of being the bride of Christ.  Funny how we don't go in cassocks or men don't wander in cassocks because it reminds them of being priests prophets and kings. a-call-to-veil-the-mysteriousunfoldshttp://www.catholicsistas.com/2011/12/15/a-call-to-veil-the-mysterious-unfolds/

 

As a married woman with children, I feel it is important to teach my children that veiling is for those who are called to that officially by the Church and that covering is for those who feel like making that decision as a fashion statement! You know, it strikes me as odd that people vehemently arguing for covering do so because they claim that all holy things are veiled.  Why is it that holy things are veiled?  has any one noticed that the veiling is done by someone else and not by the person themselves? Maybe veiling does say that there is something holy. Something sacred.  And the Rite of Consecration gives us a clue.  The virgin is made a "sacred person".

 

Maybe if we are called to holiness as lay persons, maybe we shouldn't call it what it isn't.

 

Perhaps we should make it clear what holiness really consists in. The CDF has already told us that customs like covering heads is no longer in force.  Therefore it doesn't make us more holy to wear coverings.

 

 

[freudianslippers]

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.

 

Are we Jewish? Didn't Christ - through the discipline of the Church - change this and free us from it? Is there any pertinent document from any Pope indicating a desire to return to this practice? I am a Roman Catholic and I listen to Rome.

 

Remember that in 1917, the Church's discipline was thus:  "It is consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.  Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord."  OLD canon 1262.  

Now, in our recent times we have this from the Church:  Concerning St. Paul’s statement to the Corinthians, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated that this was a discipline based on customs of the time, not a permanent moral obligation: “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 (1 Cor 11: 2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.” CDF, decl. Inter Insigniores (15 oct. 1976) n. 4.

[ToJesusMyHeart]

As a married woman with children, I feel it is important to teach my children that veiling is for those who are called to that officially by the Church and that covering is for those who feel like making that decision as a fashion statement! 

False. I do not wear my chapel veil/mantilla/veil for a fasion statement. That was never a reason for me and it never will be. What you are insinuating is very insulting.

 

Maybe if we are called to holiness as lay persons, maybe we shouldn't call it what it isn't.

 

Perhaps we should make it clear what holiness really consists in. The CDF has already told us that customs like covering heads is no longer in force.  Therefore it doesn't make us more holy to wear coverings.

 

 

Nobody said that anybody is more holy for wearing chapel veils. I don't think I'm holier than anyone else. My spiritual director does not wear a veil and I know she is holier than me. I have every right to wear my chapel veil in the presence of the Eucharistic God and frankly I'm peeved that you're being so negative about my devotion. Nobody here is saying that wearing a veil is mandatory or that it makes someone holier than others.