Women, Veils, And Other Things!

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1184579' date='Feb 4 2007, 09:52 AM']
I make no judgement on who is culpable for the grevious destruction of this ancient tradition, but it is clearly not the women who don't do it because they were misled by events within the Church as reported by the media and all subsequent generations who were raised in a Church without this tradition.

To say that not wearing the veil is "being obedient to canon law" is an oveerstatement. The not wearing of the veil does not represent anything about canon law; no one ever said not to wear a veil... especially not canon law.

The 1917 code of canon law did not establish the requirement. Therefore, the abrogation of that code does not abrogate the requirement. The requirement is from Sacred Scripture. That Church law, after requiring it for 66 years, no longer directly requires it is of no importance. That's 66 years against 1900 years when it was required on the basis of scripture alone.

It is as absolutely necessary, important, and irremovable part of the Universal Christian Liturgy as the words "do this in rememberence of me" or the Sanctus or any other part of the mass taken directly from the liturgical proscriptions of scripture. When scripture proscribes something liturgical, that's the ultimate summit of liturgical law.

I'm not trying to make some dead religious tradition imposed on living women; I'm saying that they should understand the beauty of the tradition AND their obligation under scripture to preserve this liturgical necessity.

No one who reads that scripture passage without bias could think St. Paul is merely talking about the Jewish custom that women show their purity by veils. He clearly brings so much more life into that tradition; he clearly discusses deep liturgical symbolism which is at the heart of the congregation's participation in the Holy Mass.

As regards trying to re-establish the tradition: it should be undertaken with the same strategy as combatting any liturgical abuse; on the one hand educate them on why it is so beautiful and so important and so deeply symbolic and why that's the way it should be universally done: on the other hand, educate them as to why it is required and why they should obey that requirement. same direction I'd take with a priest adlibbing a part of the mass, or inviting kids up on the altar at lifeteen, or an extraordinary minister overstepping his rightful place, et cetera. I don't judge whether or not he's sinning; but I do consider it a lay liturgical abuse. One could, accuse me of lifeless traiditonalism for any stand I take against any liturgical abuse... imposing dead religion on the living... and it would be if I just wanted them to do the actions without understanding why. but in all of these cases, I want people to do these actions AND understand why.

although, for the priest it would sometimes be okay if he were to do the actions without knowing why: because what he does more directly impacts the liturgical experience of the entire congregation whereas one individual woman does not have as much of an impact. if he did empty gestures he didn't understand, it would be good for the many laity who might get it.

my girlfriend and I had many discussions about this; and never once did I force her to wear the veil. I finally convinced her when I asked her why should would wear a veil at our future wedding but not for the Wedding between the Church and Christ celebrated at mass.
[/quote]


This is a prime example of an equivocation between tradition and Tradition. You seem to think that the wearing of veils is proscribed in the manner of Holy Tradition, as opposed to being a tradition in the changeable sense. Now your basis of argumentation is that this proscription comes from St. Paul when he is discussing matters of the liturgy. However, if this were the correct rule by which these things should be considered part of Holy Tradition, then we should also be forced to consider what he says in the very same breath as also a part of Holy Tradition:

"Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?"

Now this claim is even [i]stronger[/i] than the one that you are talking about, since here Paul asserts that [i]nature itself[/i] opposes men with long hair. And yet, God commanded Samson and all those who took the Nazarite Vow to grow their hair long, and the Precursor did the same. Would men such as these not be welcome at the prayer of the Church?

****

Here is a better, more historically accurate account of the development:

St. Paul commanded the women of the church at Corinth to wear veils in response to specific issues present in that location and at that time. Moreover, the proscription of this rule made the practice in the Corinthian church conform to the practice already present in the church in Jerusalem and more semitic areas. However, Paul did not merely proscribe this rule, but breathed into it "deep liturgical symbolism," as you say, thus giving a theological underpinning to an already common practice. The practical and theological beauty of the discipline was adopted universally by the whole Church over time, and its meaning and symbolism was deepened by subsequent thought. The fact that it was so widely practiced for such a long period of time does not mean that prior to the 1917 Code of Canon Law it was considered a mandatory and essential part of the liturgy, but rather, is simply a testimony to the fact that the wisdom, beauty, and benefit gained by the discipline was universally acknowledged. The 1917 Code of Canon Law then made this common practice mandatory precisely because it wanted to make sure those qualities were present throughout the whole Latin Rite. Abrogating this previous Code, the 1983 Code of Canon Law removed the mandatory nature of the discipline, and returned to the state that existed prior to the 1917 Code, namely, it left the discipline up to the [i]sensus fidelium[/i]. Because of regrettable changes in culture, many women in America and Western Europe chose to leave the practice behind, resulting in the loss of the aforementioned beauty, wisdom, and benefits that accompany it.

We ought to try to revive this discipline, just like we ought to try to revive the discipline of saying the Mass [i]ad orientem[/i] and returning chant to its rightful place in the liturgy. It would be a mistake, however, to make of this more than it is or was. It is a great personal witness to the faith and it has a powerful theological message and symbolic meaning, however, it is not one of those unchangable aspects of Holy Tradition like the male priesthood or the veneration of the Saints.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Resurrexi]

[quote]"Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?"[/quote]

Your translation is altered. The real Bible says thus:

[quote name='The Douay-Rheims Bible: 1 Corinthians Ch. 11; Vs. 14-15']14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1185615' date='Feb 5 2007, 06:38 PM']
Your translation is altered. The real Bible says thus:
[/quote]
The REAL Bible???
There is more than one translation accepted by the Church.

How many people walk around talking about nourishing their hair, UNLESS they are talking about what kind of conditioner they are currently using?

[philosophette]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1184802' date='Feb 4 2007, 06:05 PM']
Whatever Al, its NOT required, and I won't wear one.
[/quote]

I agree cmom. The arrogance and "holier than thou" attitude which [i]most[/i] of the chapel veil wearing women whom I have met has completely turned me off to the practice. I would not mind wearing a veil if it had not be charged with SO MUCH political infighting.

Having said that, if I was in a country where it was the common practice I would have no problem following it. I just do not see the point of standing out in church and being different when the whole idea behind it is of modesty and humility.

[shortnun]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1185600' date='Feb 5 2007, 05:25 PM']
This is a prime example of an equivocation between tradition and Tradition. You seem to think that the wearing of veils is proscribed in the manner of Holy Tradition, as opposed to being a tradition in the changeable sense. Now your basis of argumentation is that this proscription comes from St. Paul when he is discussing matters of the liturgy. However, if this were the correct rule by which these things should be considered part of Holy Tradition, then we should also be forced to consider what he says in the very same breath as also a part of Holy Tradition:

"Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?"

Now this claim is even [i]stronger[/i] than the one that you are talking about, since here Paul asserts that [i]nature itself[/i] opposes men with long hair. And yet, God commanded Samson and all those who took the Nazarite Vow to grow their hair long, and the Precursor did the same. Would men such as these not be welcome at the prayer of the Church?

****
[/quote]
Well argued Jeff. Thank you.

[Aloysius]

Yes, Jeff actually has an argument. What everyone else here has are shotty justifications/excuses.

Where I take issue with Jeff is his assertion that prior to the code of 1917, it was optional. As a matter of fact: everyone who spoke about veils prior to 1917 said it was required. They had no force of law to back it up; just the unanimous consent of all fathers and doctors of the Church who spoke on the subject. St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostem, St. Thomas Aquinas, et. al... ALL who spoke on the subject said it was required. Aquinas said of those who live in cultures which lead them to not do it that they are not culpable for any sin, but they ought to be instructed of its necessity.

Can you provide any evidence that before 1917 it was optional? All evidence speaks to the contrary. No pope, no bishop, no scholar who spoke on the subject said anything other than "it is a divine commandment of Scripture". Notably of more recent times Servant of God Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen believed it to be a divine commandment of Sacred Scripture.

And Paul's assertion about male and female hair is not necessarily stronger than the one about veils; IN FACT, I see it as much more peripheral to his logic here. That he ties it into nature is of no importance; his purpose in tying it into nature is to provide a natural reason for why veils ought to be worn. His entire purpose is to prove that women ought to wear veils. In doing so, he brings an example from nature. It is easy to understand that one may bring an argument in general from nature which may have acceptable exceptions and apply it to the necessity for a practice of culture which ought to be universal in the Christian Church. This is St. Paul's purpose with this argument: do you think he was ignorant of the scriptures regarding Sampson? Do you think he did not know who John the Baptist was? He knew; and he accepted that men can have some sort of long hair; but he argues from the norm of feminine long hair; using this as an EXAMPLE; that our natural cultural practice of feminine long hair and masculine shorter hair is itself a testimony to all of this deep symbolism.

He no more cares about what length a man's hair actually is than he cares if an unveiled woman shaves her hair. He doesn't want the unveiled woman to actually shave her hair; but he likens it to that because that is what it is like for a woman not to be veiled in Church: they are not exemplifying the liturgical symbolism he is describing and, the natural typology of that selfsame liturgical symbolism is a proper analogy to what is being done.

As regards Cmom's memories of pride: I've seen women totally immersed in this newfangled casual-look at mass who wear neatly designed hankercheifs which match their t-shirts... it actually looks pretty cool if I do say so myself. Either way: headcoverings can (and certainly have in the history of the church) exist without having the purpose of calling attention to who has more money than whom.

St. Paul clearly makes this a mandate not only of scripture but of the Church herself... "the Church of God knows no other practice"

I hold that it is unchangeably a mandatory practice, and that it has never been changed. But let us first focus on whether or not it has ever been changed: for if it has never been changed I am at no fault for believing it unchangeable. If it has been changed... and 1917 was the first time it ever became mandatory and now it is back to an optional status (as if it was ever optional) then I will be unable to maintain the position that it is unchangeable.

So then, I do believe the crux of the argument rests on whether it was considered mandatory prior to 1917; because you yourself have admitted my point that the lack of mention in the 1983 code means the status reverts to what it was prior to the 1917 code. I stand behind St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and St. John Chrysostem (just to name a few) who did not say "this is a good idea" but rather said "this is a requirement". What evidence do you have that "it was not considered mandatory" as you say?

[Guest JeffCR07]

Al, I am glad that we can at least have a civil, meaningful debate on this issue, and your most recent post has really hit at the heart of the matter. The question is this: prior to the 1917 Code of Canon Law (which, if nothing else, made it explicitly necessary for women to wear veils) was the practice of wearing veils simply a universal practice commonly conscented to by the Doctors of the Church, the Saints, and the laity alike, or was it something more, was it a part of the unchanging deposit of Faith that constitutes Holy Tradition?

You maintain the latter, I maintain the former. The reason I maintain the former is because I see strong reason to suppose that the wearing of veils is not the kind of thing that [i]in principle[/i] can be a part of the deposit of Faith or Holy Tradition. The infallible magisterium of the Church can be expressed, at one extreme, on the level of extraordinary papal definitions, or, on the other extreme, by the universality of the [i]sensus fidelium[/i] - we both agree. What we disagree about is, apparently, what [i]kinds[/i] of things can considered infallible and unchangeable on either level.

To guide us, we should look to extraordinary papal definitions and conciliar anathema's. Now in order for either of these to teach something as infallible and unchangeable, that thing must be [i]a matter of faith and morals[/i]. Where we seem to disagree is that I do not think that the wearing of a veil by women is itself a matter of faith and morals, while you seem to maintain that it is. I think that, like the celibacy of the priesthood in the Latin Rite, it is a [i]discipline[/i] that has powerful and compelling reasons for its continuation and support. Both can be supported by theological arguments or by appeal to the richness of their symbolic meaning, however, neither are the kind of thing that [i]could ever[/i] be considered an infallible and unchangeable aspect of our religion. They are practices that powerfully convey aspects of our faith and true morality, but they are not matters of faith and morals themselves.

Given this, the only feasible interpretation that I can find is to assert, as I did above, that the universal conscent of the Doctors of the Church, the Saints, and the laity across the ages constitutes a strong testimony to the wisdom, beauty, and benefit of the practice. However, the practice of women covering their heads with veils just isn't the kind of thing that could be something more, namely, it could never be considered an infallible or unchanging part of the deposit of Faith or Holy Tradition.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Aloysius]

Actually, what I intended to do at the end of my last post was to lay aside the question of whether or not it was changeable, and ask whether or not it had changed. If it has not changed, then there is nothing wrong with holding it to be unchangeable.

I do not hold it to be part of the Deposit of Faith; for all those reasons which you rightfully list. But neither do I consider that the Sanctus ought to be in the liturgy as part of the deposit of faith; yet I would still call it unchangeable. Why is it unchangeable? Not because it is part of the deposit of faith, but because there is no authority in the Church with the power to remove the discipline. Paul VI felt it within his power to remove accretions in the liturgy that may have arisen from the fifth century until the twentieth; but he would never dream he had the authority to remove the Sanctus. In the same way: no one in the Church, not even the pope, has the authority to remove the liturgical act of veils. And as it stands, no one has attempted to do so.

But whether or not it was unchangeable: was it mandatory before 1917? These doctors and saints stated that it was mandatory; Aquinas saying that women who do not do it because of some contrary cultural custom were not culpable of sin but nevertheless must, by divine mandate, conform their culture to the liturgical expression of the universal Church. It was not seen as optional in the slightest; any woman who did not cover her head in Church was committing a liturgical abuse and if she did it maliciously, a sin.

As you have admitted, the status of the practice is reverted to its status prior to 1917. Absolutely anyone who spoke on the issue prior to 1917 said it was required; and by this we ought to infer that it is and was required. You must provide a case for it being optional in the pre-1917 Church. You can destroy my argument if you only provide one quote, which was not censured by the Ecclesiastic Authority, that said it was optional. I posit that this is an impossible task, because the universal consensus was that it was not that it was a good idea, but that it was a requirement.

Unless you establish that it was optional prior to 1917, I cannot admit to you that it is optional now (unless a pope explicitly declares it optional now; and I would be amazed at the audacity of a pope who would dare to say that just as I would be amazed at the audacity of any future pope who would try to remove the Sanctus from the liturgy)

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]the status of the practice is reverted to its status prior to 1917. Absolutely anyone who spoke on the issue prior to 1917 said it was required; and by this we ought to infer that it is and was required. You must provide a case for it being optional in the pre-1917 Church. [/quote]

This argument is a fallacy, and one that I thought I addressed in my previous post. Aquinas and others may have said it was required, but we don't know whether they all said so for the same reason. Did they think it was required by propriety? By the importance of literally obeying St. Paul by the letter? By differal to tradition? Or because they genuinely thought it to be something that simply could not be changed? Just because something is universally accepted does not make it unchangeable. You seem to take as a premise that something can be infallible and unchangeable without being a part of the deposit of Faith (and therefore without being a matter of faith and morals.)

Not only do I reject such an assumption, but I consider it to be dangerous. Let's cut to the chase, because you and I have both been skirting aside the most powerful counter-examples of the other. I have so far not addressed your argument by analogy via the Sanctus, and you have so far not addressed my argument by analogy via the celibacy of the priesthood.

So, I'll grab the bull by the horns:

If I read about a previously unknown non-Latin Rite that did not have the Sanctus in their liturgy, I would not think that this was some kind of "illegitimate" or "unapostolic" liturgy. In fact, I am more shocked at the thought of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari than I am at the thought of a Divine Liturgy without the Sanctus, and yet that has been officially recognized as legit. So would I reject a Sanctus-less liturgy? No, I wouldn't.

Now its time to answer my challenge:

If you read about someone making claims that the celibacy of the priesthood in the Latin Rite is something that cannot in principle be changed, and backing these claims up by appeal to Doctors of the Church, well-reputed Saints, and longstanding tradition, would you be prepared to say that this too is an unchangeable discipline? The principles guiding your argument make this an easy step.

I'm perfectly comfortable where I am. There is no slippery slope, and I am able to appreciate the beauty of all the aspects of the liturgy and disciplines of the faithful as God gives them to us [i]through the Church[/i]. Some things are certainly essential in the liturgy department, but as the status of the anaphora of addai and mari shows, they aren't as clear cut as you apparently think. But the vast majority of these things, including the wearing of veils, simply aren't the kinds of things that can be unchangeable. Does this square with my "Traditional" streak? Yep. Does it offend my relativist-hating sensibilities? Nope. But most importantly, does it provide a framework from which I can appreciate the organic growth and development of both devotional and liturgical practices within the Church? Yes, it does.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Aloysius]

[b]As this discussion is getting increasingly long, and not going very far, I have bolded for your convenience the portion of my argument dealing only with the question: Were veils required prior to 1917? And I suggest that we attempt to first answer this question before proceeding to the other issues.[/b]

I am on no slippery slope. Granting the possibility of a discipline which cannot be changed by any authority does not in any way diminish the fact of a doctrine being infallible.

I really would like to take the discussion beyond whether or not it CAN be changed, for it is of no consequence in the life of the Church if you or I as simple laymen believe wrongly that something potentially can or cannot be changed; we have no power over whether it gets changed or not anyway. The main issue, again, is IF it has changed. If it has not changed, then I can continue to hold that it cannot be changed with no consequence. If it were to change in the future, I would have to question that belief. My idea of its unchangeability is not so much about the Protection of Infallibility promised by Christ through the Holy Ghost; but merely that I do not see any authority in the structure of the Church capable of superseding such a command of Sacred Scripture. Of course, its unchangeability as a discipline flows from inerrant dogmas from sacred scripture about the nature of man and woman; it is not these disciplines which are part of the deposit of faith. In the same way: there is an infallible doctrine about the nature of man and woman which says that woman is not proper form for the sacrament of Holy Orders. Flowing forth from that is an unchangeable discipline of only ordaining men. No Church authority has the power to alter that discipline... but it is not the discipline itself which is infallible but the doctrine that only men are proper matter for the sacrament.

[b]
Aquinas et. al. say that veils are a requirement imposed by Scripture. Ambrose says that when St. Paul says "if any one wishes to be contentious, we have no such custom nor does the Church of God" he is establishing it as a required by the Church; and all say it is required by Scriptures. It was believed universally that it was required by the Church and the Scriptures; with no force of canon law necessary. Aquinas says that women who do not practice it may not be culpable for the sin, but he calls it a sin. These men call it an absolute divine requirement for all Catholic women in all Catholic Churches. Its mandatory status was clearly established, therefore, in the pre-1917 Church.

None of this is true of any of the fathers or doctors or theologians of the Church when they speak of celibacy. They do not say it is a requirement of scripture. Some medievals may say it is required in the same way they say veils are required (of course, no fathers of the Church say that) (and they give as the source of the requirement Church law, not scripture) but I do not know of any example that remotely approaches the way in which veils are said to be required. [/b]

Moreover, if the same situation exsted and there was no issue of the source or unchangeability of either requirement, but we merely saw that celibacy was required in the Church prior to 1917, and in this hypothetical timeline it was first mentioned as a requirement by Canon Law in 1917, and that the 1983 code did not mention it: I would still argue that it was required.

The ordination of males only is a matter of doctrine. The Sanctus is a discipline. Let us be real with our examples: are there examples of liturgies which do not include the Sanctus? I am not aware of any. If there is no such example, your point is moot... no one has the authority to remove the sanctus from the liturgy. Even the Anaphora of Addai and Mari has a Sanctus, I believe. Of course, the decision that it may be considered valid is based on the idea that the form is present implicitly. I believe the direction that must be taken from this statement is to consider these consecrations through history valid, but before full unity can occur I think the Church, following the infallible declarations of Trent, ought ot demand a form of consecration be said explicitly. But that's another subject for another thread... perhaps I shall make one. In the end the Church considers it essential for a consecration to be valid that the form of the words of institution be present in some fashion; this declaration finds that they are present in an implicit fashion. On lower levels of importance are things like having the Sanctus in the Liturgy, which I see no authority having the power to remove. No authority would have the power to remove the form of the Institution either, and this is of immensely greater importance to the liturgy, but they also don't have the power; NOR do they feel they have the power, to take out the sanctus.

There are two prongs of my position:

1) And I wish to brush this one aside for the sake of argument; that there is no authority in the Church capable of changing this discipline

and

2) That it was not changed; the crux of this being whether it was required prior to 1917... you still having shown no evidence of whether or not it was required back then.

If all these doctors of the Church were merely speaking to it as a requirement of the Church which the Church could change if she wished, my premise #1 would be down to tubes... but my premise #2 would survive in full force: because the Church would first have to CHANGE it for it to be changed... she has done no such thing. She reverted it back to the pre-codified version of the custom; and I assert merely that the pre-codified version of the custom was to consider it required. Regardless of the source or changeability of that requirement (unless the source be merely cultural, which the statements of the
[b]
To direct the argument, therefore, and cease this long posts which seem to grow excessively longer and merely keep restating our positions; I would propose first attempting to focus on establishing solely whether or not it was required in the pre-1917 Church (I have bolded my arguments pertaining only to this above). Let us speak of no other argument (I suppose you can respond to all my points after this post if you feel it will not continue what I have assessed as a futile circle, but after your response to them let us put these arguments on hold until..) until we find resolution to the question: Were veils required prior to 1917 ? You have taken the position that they were optional prior to 1917, I have taken the position that they were mandatory prior to 1917. I have cited that, to my knowledge, every statement on the subject prior to 1917 calls them mandatory. What evidence have you that they were optional? Or, if you like, would you admit that they were mandatory on some level and attempt to assert somehow that they are not mandatory in the post-code state. I suppose, one could attempt to argue, that pre-1917 they were deemed mandatory by the Sensus Fidelium and that the modern Sensus Fidelium can therefore deem them not mandatory. (I see in your first post a seedling of this argument; but unless you can say that the Sensus Fidelium made it mandatory back then it does not argue away the language of requirement)

Seeing the weight of the argument that they were mandatory on some level, I would definitely suggest with going with the latteer position. My argument would then focus on the sources of the requirement given by all of these doctors of the Church: namely, they give as the source of the requirement 1) the Church and 2) Sacred Scripture... nowhere do they give the sense of the faithful as the source of the requirement

I await your response, good sir.[/b]

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1186924' date='Feb 6 2007, 07:34 PM'][b]As this discussion is getting increasingly long, and not going very far[/b][/quote]i don't think it's that long and not going very far. actually, i'm learning a lot here, and i appreciate the way both you and jeff have put forth your arguments.

[Romans1513]

Aloysius,
Your first post was beautiful. Thank you! It gives me another reason why I wear a veil.

[quote]The arrogance and "holier than thou" attitude which most of the chapel veil wearing women whom I have met has completely turned me off to the practice. I would not mind wearing a veil if it had not be charged with SO MUCH political infighting.

Having said that, if I was in a country where it was the common practice I would have no problem following it. I just do not see the point of standing out in church and being different when the whole idea behind it is of modesty and humility.[/quote]

If you believe that wearing a veil is the proper thing to do, what people will think of you or standing out in church is a silly reason not to wear it (although I completely understand the sentiment... I only recently started wearing a veil, and I'm still nervous about next time I go home from school...) If I went with that logic, I probably should stop going to daily Mass because some people probably think its weird I'm there with a bunch of older people. But they get used to it. Same with the "political infighting." Thats like saying that abortion is wrong, but because there's so much debate and its currently legal, it doesn't matter. (ok, well maybe that example is too extreme, but you get the idea). Yes, you're standing out in church perhaps. But doesn't Jesus call us to be different from those around us? Ok, yeah, we're different by being Christian and by going to church in general, and we should be united with each other; but if you believe something you can't be afraid to stand out.

And for the holier-than-thou attitude. Fortunately, the women I know who wear veils definitely do not have that attitude, and hopefully people don't think I do either. Maybe it just appears that way? I know for me, its been very helpful in reminding me of humility.


So, my thoughts...
I don't claim to be an expert on veils, I only started wearing one 2 months ago (and then I failed when I went home for Christmas... so technically its been one month) I definitely am not qualified to get into this legal stuff. But I want to share my experience and the reasons I wear one personally.

First, St. Paul says to. Thats the simplest and easiest answer. And second, I don't believe the church ever said to stop.

For the angels- yeah this one is confusing. And my friend Katy explains it much better than I ever could. So I'll just leave it at that, and if anyone wants further elaboration on my thoughts on the issue, let me know.

Modesty. I've talked to guys my age who say that a girl's hair is the biggest distraction for them. So I think its good to cover it in Mass. And I really like what Aloysius said in his first post here on why its modest in Mass but not necessary everywhere else. I hadn't heard a good explanation for that before.

Humility. I think that if a woman wears a veil to appear holier, then she is wrong for wearing it. I was afraid of that myself and that is why I avoided wearing one for quite a while. But now that I have started, it is an amazing reminder of humility and submission and all that. I don't claim to be better than anyone, and I don't look down on any woman who leaves her head uncovered--it takes a mini-discernment process of its own I think and I wouldn't want someone to do something for the wrong reasons. I mean, I went to church without a veil for the first 19 years of my life.

Practical. It keeps me focused. I like the veil to hang down beside my face because then when someone walks into the chapel or if I want to see if someone I know is at church, I see that and it reminds me to stay focused on the Blessed Sacrament (in Adoration) or on Mass.

The beauty/symbolism of the veil. From [mod]don't link to trad sites please[/mod]:
"The Ark of the Old Covenant was kept in the veiled Holy of Holies. And at Mass, what is kept veiled until the Offertory? The Chalice -- the vessel that holds the Precious Blood! And, between Masses, what is veiled? The Ciborium in the Tabernacle, the vessel which holds the very Body of Christ. These vessels of life are veiled because they are holy!

And who is veiled? Who is the All Holy, the Ark of the New Covenant, the Vessel of the True Life? Our Lady -- and by wearing the veil, we imitate her and affirm ourselves as women, as vessels of life. "


Ok I think thats it for now.
~Katie

Edited February 7, 2007 by Lil Red

[Guest JeffCR07]

Romans, that is a beautiful reflection on a beautiful tradition, and its always wonderful to hear it from someone who actually wears a veil, so thank you!


Al, there are two possibilities for the status of the veil pre-1917. Either it was officially required or it was not. You argue that it [i]was[/i] officially required and appeal to the commonality of the practice and the teachings of many Doctors of the Church. These are what charitable logicians might call "strong inductive arguments" but they are far from valid arguments. In fact, I would characterize it as a great example of the fallacy of universal consent. Just because Aquinas thought it was required doesn't make it required. Because no official magisterial pronouncement on the subject exists prior to 1917, there simply is no way for us to determine whether it was "officially" required. In fact, the question doesn't even make sense: "Was it officially required before it was officially required?" Universal consent doesn't make something binding, and the teachings of the Doctors of the Church don't make something binding. Does this mean that we should pay no heed to the common practice of the ages or the Doctors of the Church? No. It means we shouldn't try to make them do something that they cannot.

The Sensus Fidelium cannot make a discipline officially mandatory. That simply isn't what it does. It expresses and encapsulates faith, but as I have said before, this isnt a matter of faith and morals.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Aloysius]

you'll notice my question did not contain the word "officially". was it required? it can be required without being officially required... and anyone who spoke on the subject said it was required.

[Paddington]

[quote name='Romans1513' post='1187021' date='Feb 7 2007, 02:10 AM']


For the angels- yeah this one is confusing. And my friend Katy explains it much better than I ever could. So I'll just leave it at that, and if anyone wants further elaboration on my thoughts on the issue, let me know.
[/quote]

I loved your post btw.

Please talk more about "for the angels." Please with sugar on top.