Women, Veils, And Other Things!

[Romans1513]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1187111' date='Feb 7 2007, 01:32 AM']
I loved your post btw.

Please talk more about "for the angels." Please with sugar on top.
[/quote]

Well, I can try, but like I said my friend can do a much better job with it. But I'll try to remember what she said and not butcher it.

First, let me say that I don't think that there is a universally accepted understanding of this verse, so this is probably just one of many views.

So the angels are present at every Mass. They want to worship God along with us. However, they're always a little bit jealous (not sure if thats the best way to put it) of us, because we can do something they will never ever be able to do: we can receive communion. We can come in full union with God [i]physically[/i]. Which is pretty awesome.

So where do veils tie in? hmmmm... I think it has to do again with the hair being the glory of women. Again, angels don't get to have that. So I guess maybe if I veil, its not only to help out my brothers in Christ but it helps the angels too.

I know I did a really poor job with that... I guess I had forgotten how it all tied together. But I remember sitting in Mass in the couple weeks before I started wearing the veil, and thinking about how the light was probably shining off my hair (I've been blessed with beautiful red/auburn/strawberry-blonde hair) and feeling bad because it was probably saddening to the angels.

I don't know... maybe I should talk to Katy about this again and then I can explain it a little better...

~Katie

[sebaker1]

[quote name='Romans1513' post='1187021' date='Feb 6 2007, 11:40 PM']
Aloysius,
Your first post was beautiful. Thank you! It gives me another reason why I wear a veil.
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
[/quote]

Hi- I've been a lurker here for a few months... but I just made an account like 5 minutes ago because I wanted to second Katie's explanation of the veil. I too started wearing one a few months ago. I could not have explained the "call to the veil" any better. At my current parish it's much easier because a handful of girls wear one (I specifically said girls because I dont' think any of us are over 30). Also I do see it as a "mini-discernment." Some of my college friends (I just graduated in December) asked me why I started wearing one, and other than the obvious reasons, I could only think to say "I felt a desire deep within my heart that I could no longer ignore and it saddens me to go into a chapel unveiled."

Note: In no way do I intend that to sound holier than thou.

I also wanted to add that the hardest thing for me was to go back to my college's Newman Center mass because I didn't want to stand out or have people shake their heads thinking oh "there she goes again..."

Anyway God Bless! and maybe I'll post more now :

~Peace and Prayers

Edited February 7, 2007 by Lil Red

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1187093' date='Feb 7 2007, 01:09 AM']
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.
[/quote]

I disagree, in fact, I don't even know what it [i]means[/i] for something to be "required without being officially required." Custom does not carry the weight of Canon Law, neither do the opinions of even someone so highly esteemed as a Doctor of the Church. Perhaps custom might be able to "require" some action within a particular cultural context, but it could never extend its grasp throughout time. The best reading I can give your statement is that you are using the term "required" in an equivocal manner - first meaning [i]universally[/i] required by the magisterium of the Church, and then secondly meaning required in a manner qualified and limited by context.

So no, something cannot "be required without being officially required" if you are trying to use the term in a sense that is universally binding.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Romans1513' post='1187021' date='Feb 6 2007, 08:40 PM']Modesty. I've talked to guys my age who say that a girl's hair is the biggest distraction for them.[/quote]
really? with all the inappropriate attire worn by teenagers through middle aged women, it's hair that distracts them?

[Romans1513]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1187670' date='Feb 7 2007, 05:10 PM']
really? with all the inappropriate attire worn by teenagers through middle aged women, it's hair that distracts them?
[/quote]

Well, it is at least very very distracting. And this also is from guys who hang out with girls who are very modest anyway; I don't think they could be at all attracted to a girl who is letting half her boody show lol. I dont know. Ask them. I suppose it might be a little strange, but thats what they said, and I have no reason not to trust them on something like that.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Romans1513' post='1187681' date='Feb 7 2007, 02:26 PM']
Well, it is at least very very distracting. And this also is from guys who hang out with girls who are very modest anyway; I don't think they could be at all attracted to a girl who is letting half her boody show lol. I dont know. Ask them. I suppose it might be a little strange, but thats what they said, and I have no reason not to trust them on something like that.
[/quote]
well, it's your experience i'm just saying that the majority of teenage boys i know would not be distracted by a girl's hair, but let's say the cleavage she's showing or the legs she's showing off.

[Aloysius]

In the end, I am as free to hold that it is now [b]required[/b] by Sacred Scripture as all of these doctors of the Church. They spoke of it as required, it was considered required; not by force of any current magisterium but by force of St. Paul's inspired words. I am in good company in saying that it is required; and there is no document of the Church which denies or contradicts it as a requirement. The sole testimony of the entire history of the Church is a consensus of: required by sacred scripture (and through Sacred Scripture, the Church, as St. Paul invokes Church authority).

"officially required" means it is explicitly referred to in canon law or a magisterial document. but if it otherwise simply required by the scriptures, it needn't be declared in canon law.

I still think that unless you can show it as being optional prior to 1917, then it was not optional then and is not optional now (for we have reverted to the status of the custom prior to 1917). Your entire position depends on it being optional prior to 1917, which is built upon a modern ecclesial model which you impose into the history of the Church as if Canon Law establishes all requirements.

[Era Might]

Priests and Bishops traditionally [i]cover[/i] their heads during part of the Mass (with a mitre, with a zuchetto, with a biretta). St. Paul doesn't mention any exceptions for Priests. If his injunction has no historical context, then Priests bring "shame" whenever they offer Mass with head covered. This has been the practice for many centuries. If an uncovered male head is "irremovable" from the Sacred Liturgy, then mitres and birettas and zuchettos would need to be banned during Mass.

[Aloysius]

they remove their head coverings to say prayers... except the zuquetto, which is not a head covering as St. Paul would have understood it. St. Paul is saying that it would be shameful for a man to veil his head when praying. A zucetto is not a veil, it leaves the majority of the head completely uncovered especially the front part where the face is.

It is as if you think that 19 centuries of Christians who did all these practices were completely ignorant to your present enlightened line of thought. "Aha! Those priests and their birettas, those bishops and their mitres and zuchettos who all enforced the veil as a requirement; they never thought of this!" No, they had all this well in mind, and they used their hats in mass as a way to HIGHLIGHT the fact that a man's head should be uncovered when praying; they took it off at the name of Jesus, at the names of the Saints, and when God or the saints were being addressed.

[Era Might]

So a woman only has to wear a veil when she's praying? St. Paul's command is equally forceful to men as to women. If you are going to make the case that the command only applies while men are [i]praying[/i] at the Liturgy, then women would only be required to wear a veil while they actually prayed.

[Aloysius]

it is generally the custom that the laity follow this during the entire liturgy: men having their heads uncovered and women having their heads covered. priests being the examples to which to look for when prayers are being addressed towards God et cetera, it is a good symbol to see them REMOVE their hats out of respect.

theoretically, I suppose it would be in keeping to a degree of St. Paul's commandment, a woman could cover her head before going up for communion, or in order to say a prayer. but that would represent a strong discontinuity with the tradition tantamount to me wearing my hat in Church and removing it at specific times. the priest does it, yes, for the purpose of exemplifying the respect shown by the removal of the hat; but there is no reason for me to not have my hat removed for the entire duration of the liturgy and there is no reason for a woman not to have her head covered for the entire duration of the liturgy.

[Era Might]

Well, I say we petition the Holy See and get a formal answer. Whatever we have to say is nothing more than opinion and speculation.

[Aloysius]

You would think someone would have asked this question by now. As far as I assess the Holy See's position: they want to choose their battles and not cause many modern women to leave the Church over this issue; as such they have chosen to be silent on the issue.

That does not exclude private laymen from holding the position that it is a requirement of sacred scripture and advising others of the requirement; in the same way all the previous Doctors and Fathers of the Church have done.

Anyway, it would be interesting to see a dubium sent to the Holy See. Does the Holy See always answer such things?

[Romans1513]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1187808' date='Feb 7 2007, 08:04 PM']
Well, I say we petition the Holy See and get a formal answer. Whatever we have to say is nothing more than opinion and speculation.
[/quote]

To add more opinion and speculation, because in all honesty I have no idea, but perhaps the answer has something to do with the role of the priest- he falls under a category other than man or woman? This is not to say that the priest is not a man, but that in the Mass he is not just one of the men in the pews, he is representing Christ... so maybe that falls under a different category?

I don't know, just an idea.

Interesting question, though, Era. I hadn't thought of that.

~Katie

[Guest JeffCR07]

Katie, that's an interesting thought, and I think it is a good one, because it is always important not to think of the priest as if he were just like the laypeople.

However, I also know that it is often the practice of monks and mendicants to cover their heads with the hood on the cowl of the habit while praying. Also, the epanokamelavkion always covers the heads of Eastern monks and nuns, so it seems like it isn't merely about the priest as seperate.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff