Mantilla

[ithinkjesusiscool]

Do you awesome girls/women like the mantilla? How does it feel to wear one?

Personally I (i.e a man) think you  look really good with the mantilla...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK3A23yVGAg

[EmilyAnn]

Looking good isn't really the point. 

[franciscanheart]

The way she says "mantilla" is like nails on the chalkboard.

[Evangetholic]

It says in the Bible that women should worship with their heads covered. Historically Catholic women used hats (upper class Europeans mainly) or mantillas. The Church has dispensed from this rule?

[Apotheoun]

It says in the Bible that women should worship with their heads covered. Historically Catholic women used hats (upper class Europeans mainly) or mantillas. The Church has dispensed from this rule?

This is one of the many never-ending debates at Phatmass.

site:www.phatmass.com "women and veiling"

[Evangetholic]

42 pages, so that means my sense that the Church has not dispensed from this portion of the divine law is correct?

[Lil Red]

here's two great blog posts, detailing the veil/mantilla:

http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/2013/02/did-chapel-veil-kill-head-covering.html

My main point is this: since the Church no longer requires women to cover their heads at Mass, women are not required to cover their heads at Mass.  Women are still free to wear hats indoors, including into churches and at Mass.  They are also free to drape themselves in lace veils through which you can see their hair quite plainly.  They can do so as personally pious practices, or to look nice, or because they're having bad hair days, or, in fact, for any reason at all.  The only thing they are not free to do is to insinuate that women wearing a head covering is required or even strongly preferred by the Church at this time, because, quite simply, it isn't.

Many people have wondered why the Church stopped requiring women to cover their heads at Mass.  Was it feminism?  Was it a misunderstanding during Vatican II that led to women abandoning the head covering before the rules were clear?  Was it a recognition in Canon Law that the practice had already fallen into disuse?  Was it an understanding that in a relatively short time period women went from customarily wearing hats in public all the time to almost never wearing them, and was that because of feminism, of shortages after World War II, or for some other cause?

there's more at that link. 

 

and here:

http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-bee-in-my-bonnet.html

Imagine for a moment that instead of choosing to wear chapel veils, women who wished, for whatever reason, to cover their heads instead had chosen bonnets.

There's a good reason for that choice--I'm not just being silly.  Look at the pictures of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, after all--the first native-born American saint.  Her widow's bonnet was the original inspiration for her first order's habit (though eventually a more traditional cloth veil was adopted).  Catholic women throughout America's pioneer days would probably have worn some style of bonnet to Mass on Sundays.  The bonnet was the sort of hat many women would have worn and used all the way up to the late 19th and early 20th century, when more daring hats replaced the simple, humble cloth or straw bonnet.

But can you imagine the effect of Catholic women in America writing today about the call to bonnet (as in, wear a bonnet to Mass)?  Can you imagine earnest discussions of "bonnetting" (I'm assuming the "t" would double before adding "-ing," but I admit that there could be grammatical dissension on that point) and whether or not the Church had ever truly abrogated the "bonnetting" requirement?  Can you imagine every single bonnet-proponent politely but firmly ignoring all the people who reminded them that the Church had never required "bonnetting" at all and had never used "bonnet" as a verb in regard to women's head coverings?  Can you imagine them ignoring the truth that lots of other head coverings were worn, most of them ordinary, everyday, garden-variety hats, and not only were they worn but they were worn out in public most or all of the time so that a woman didn't have to stand at the church-steps, eyes demurely downcast, while she gracefully pulled at the bonnet-strings so that that thing that had looked a bit like an elaborate collar on the back of her neck suddenly popped on over her head, beautifully framing her now-blushing face?  Can you imagine them comparing the shape of the average tabernacle (okay, not in Los Angeles, but in most sane places) to a bonnet and solemnly opining that we bonnet what is holy?

No, neither can I.

more at that link as well. 

 

I like what Erin has to say on this subject. Quite sensible. 

[Basilisa Marie]

42 pages, so that means my sense that the Church has not dispensed from this portion of the divine law is correct?

 

No.  42 pages means it's very, very debatable.  And hotly contested.  

 

I am not required to veil.  If I feel called to engage in such a devotion, that's a laudable thing.  

 

I don't veil normally, but I do when I go to a Tridentine Liturgy and others are doing so.  

And it's not "divine law" - it's a discipline, free to change as the Church sees fit. 

[Apotheoun]

42 pages, so that means my sense that the Church has not dispensed from this portion of the divine law is correct?

That is my opinion, but a lot of Phatmassers do not like what God inspired St. Paul to write in First Corinthians 11.

[PhuturePriest]

Women need to cover up their heads in Mass so they stop distracting men with their beauty.

 

Aaand.... go!

[Basilisa Marie]

That is my opinion, but a lot of Phatmassers do not like what God inspired St. Paul to write in First Corinthians 11.

 

Just as a lot of Phatmassers seem to ignore the Church's teaching on the subject.   :hehe2:

[Evangetholic]

No.  42 pages means it's very, very debatable.  And hotly contested.  

 

I am not required to veil.  If I feel called to engage in such a devotion, that's a laudable thing.  

 

I don't veil normally, but I do when I go to a Tridentine Liturgy and others are doing so.  

And it's not "divine law" - it's a discipline, free to change as the Church sees fit. 

 

But it's in the Bible (hence divine law commanded by St Paul inspired by the Holy Ghost), I've honestly never heard of any other positive command of the New Testament that isn't obeyed by the Church. I've looked high and low and I can't find an authoritative source that says women don't have to veil. If it exists, I'll agree with Holy Church and shut up. If it doesn't, then...???

Edited March 4, 2013 by Evangetholic

[Apotheoun]

Just as a lot of Phatmassers seem to ignore the Church's teaching on the subject.   :hehe2:

I believe that the scriptural teaching is the Church's teaching, and the lack of veiling by large numbers of women in Western countries is not a valid argument for ignoring the teaching of God found in inspired scripture.   :hehe2:

[PhuturePriest]

Just as a lot of Phatmassers seem to ignore the Church's teaching on the subject.   :hehe2:

 

It appears that according to that same chapter it is a "disgrace" for men to nourish their hair. I wonder how Saint Paul feels about how I shampoo my hair twice every time I shower. :P

[Apotheoun]

Women are to wear head-coverings because of the glory of the Lord and the presence of the holy angels during the synaxis, and I believe that the modern Roman Rite's liturgy continues to manifest both of those things.