Q On Women Veiling

[Apotheoun]

I have in no way taken the scriptural teaching on a woman wearing a veil out of its proper context. So I stand by what I have said, in the liturgical assembly women -- as both scripture and tradition testify -- should wear a veil.

[photosynthesis]

I think that God is more merciful to those who have never been introduced to practices like veiling than he is with those who know this truth but do not proclaim it because it is not fashionable in our times. Priests and bishops have a great responsibility here, but so do mothers, who are responsible for teaching their daughters what it means to be a woman.

I have a lot of sisters in Christ who don't dress modestly. However, most of them haven't even heard of the Vatican's guidelines for clothing and it is very difficult to buy decent clothing in the shops. It's sad that many of these women don't even hear about modesty until they are in their 20's or 30's.

[Apotheoun]

[quote]. . . just because something was commanded by the Apostles doesn't mean it is a requirement of Divine Revelation for all time.[/quote]
Your post is non-sensical, because it is God Himself who introduced the practice by inspiring St. Paul to write about it in the first place. Moreover, there is nothing in scripture that would indicate that this is simply a cultural practice. Women are to be veiled for theological reasons.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Apotheoun

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1368543' date='Aug 23 2007, 12:19 AM']Your post is non-sensical, because it is God Himself who introduced the practice, since it is attested to in divine revelation.[/quote]
are you talking about my post or Era's post?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='1368546' date='Aug 22 2007, 09:20 PM']are you talking about my post or Era's post?[/quote]
I apologize for the lack of clarity. I was referring to Era's post.

I have altered the original post to make it clearer.



God bless,
Todd

Edited August 23, 2007 by Apotheoun

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1368543' date='Aug 22 2007, 11:19 PM']Your post is non-sensical, because it is God Himself who introduced the practice, since it is attested to in divine revelation.[/quote]
Just because something is in Scripture doesn't mean it is instituted for all time. God also gave the gifts of tongues and prophecy, which were incorporated into the public worship of the early Church, but these aspects eventually disappeared from the Liturgy.

"What then, brethren? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification." --1Cor 14:26

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1368551' date='Aug 22 2007, 09:23 PM']Just because something is in Scripture doesn't mean it is instituted for all time. God also gave the gifts of tongues and prophecy, which were incorporated into the public worship of the early Church, but these aspects eventually disappeared from the Liturgy.

"What then, brethren? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification." --1Cor 14:26[/quote]
Clearly, we are not going to agree, because I consider your position to be a modern innovation contrary to Apostolic Tradition.

May God bless you,
Todd

[photosynthesis]

The practice of women covering their heads out of modesty and love of God dates back to pre-Christian times. The Church has confirmed that this is the way Christian women should act in public. It is true that the code of Canon Law no longer states that women are required to cover their heads. This doesn't mean that the Church abrogates this practice. When in doubt, I think the most reasonable thing to do is to uphold what the Church has always taught about modesty even it if is at odds with the culture.

[Aloysius]

I stand corrected that it has happened before in particular locations that it was optional in the early church, though I still see no evidence of any doctor of the Church or theologian on record as arguing in favor of that.

Turtullian speaks of a time when it was optional for virgins (not married women), and he goes on to argue against that, he goes on to say that it was corrected. When it was optional, he says custom was put before truth. It was corrected and truth was placed before custom, and formed custom rightly.

He speaks only to virgins who had developed the mistaken impression that they were not to veil themselves.

I am also interested in what he means by "veiling" because it seems clear that he does not mean it in the general sense, for he makes a distinction between those who "veil" themselves and those who merely "bind up their head"

As to that Aquinas reference I made earlier, I'll have to look up the quote again.

The rest of the quote from Turtullian describes how the error was corrected:
[quote]But not even between customs have those most chaste teachers chosen to examine. Still, until very recently, among us, either custom was, with comparative indifference, admitted to communion. The matter had been left to choice, for each virgin to veil herself or expose herself, as she might have chosen, just as (she had equal liberty) as to marrying, which itself withal is neither enforced nor prohibited. [b]Truth had been content to make an agreement with custom[/b], in order that under the name of custom it might enjoy itself even partially. But when the power of discerning began to advance, so that the licence granted to either fashion was becoming the mean whereby the indication of the better part emerged; immediately the great adversary of good things—and much more of good institutions—set to his own work.[/quote]

Read that whole thing, Turtullian clearly discusses how an error of a particular location was corrected by a gradual development of custom.

[Apotheoun]

When Tertullian wrote "On the Veiling of Virgins" he was already under the influence of the Montanists, and they had heretical views on women prophesying in the Church, and on the nature of prophecy itself.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1368568' date='Aug 22 2007, 11:37 PM']Turtullian speaks of a time when it was optional for virgins (not married women), and he goes on to argue against that[/quote]
Yes, the treatise is a defense of veils. But that mention of the custom of his day is an interesting historical note.

As we've discussed before on this issue, I go with whatever the Church says. If the Church says she wants women to wear veils, then women should wear veils. If the Church says veils are not required, then they are not required.

The passage in Corinthians about veils is similar to St. Paul's instruction that a Bishop should be "the husband of one wife." It could seem to be saying that a Bishop must be married, but we know this is not necessary, which is why the passage must be understood in context, as also the passage on veils.

Not all Apostolic traditions are perpetually binding. The Apostles ordained married men to the Priesthood, but the Latin Church has long excluded them (and even in the East a married man cannot become a Bishop as he could in the early Church). This is not a "contradiction" of Apostolic tradition, but a legitimate change in the practice of the Church. She is the arbiter of tradition, and determines what should be preserved and what may change according to custom. I believe she has tacitly recognized the legitimacy of the custom today whereby veils are not commonly used, although she has not spoken formally on the matter. I will obey whatever the Church decides.

[Aloysius]

The very very last thing the Church said about the veiling of women, that I am aware of, was in the 1917 code of canon law. She has not said one word about the subject since. She has not said it is not required, she removed a 66 year long requirement being on the official books. But the last thing she said was that women should veil in Church, and she has never said anything to the contrary of that in all her 2000 years of history.

St. Paul's words there might just as accurately be written as "the husband of no more than one wife" in English idiom, this is why there is no contradiction there. Restricting the priesthood to only celibate men is not contradictory of any scripture, at all. There was once a practice of ordaining married men, but it was never required. This is not true of veils; St. Paul very explicitly requires it.

I sensed that was why you were using turtullian, but felt a clarification was necessary for those who would not go read the whole document as I did. Anyway, it is a perfectly fine example of a small insignificant period in the Church in Africa: Turtullian makes it clear that the practice was always required of virgins in Greece and Rome; discusses a breif situation in which it was optional for virgins (not other women, only virgins), and then discusses why that error in custom in Africa was corrected by truth.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

So is it wrong for us to eat blood? How does this differ from Veiling?

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='1368619' date='Aug 23 2007, 01:45 AM']So is it wrong for us to eat blood? How does this differ from Veiling?[/quote]
Because this was a specific apostolic command to a specific group of gentiles to address a specific problem.

you may hear this also said of veils; but that is untrue. it has been the constant tradition of the Church that this was an address to the whole Church throughout all time, whereas it has been the constant tradition of the Church that the eating of blood by gentiles in that specific church was a specific discipline to deal with a specific problem in that particular Church.

veils, on the other hand, were used and required by all rites of the Church for the whole history of the Church (except breif periods when truth gave way to custom, but that was always eventually corrected)

The Apostle Paul makes clear that he is not simply addressing a specific community for a specific problem when he makes it an absolute and ends it by saying that if anyone wants to disagree, he knows of no contrary custom, nor does the entire Church of God

Paul also deals with the eating of meats by saying that you just shouldn't cause your neighbor to stumble if he'd be scandalized by your eating of meats.

[tojo]

The first (Protestant) church I ever attended believed in "long (uncut) hair as a covering," all female members were expected to have such a covering.

My second (Protestant) church strongly urged all female members to wear some sort of cloth covering, or perhaps a hat, in prayer and worship. The better part of the women did. My pastor's wife tended to wear it nearly all day, every day. One was to pray always, and if one was a woman, she thought, then one's head should be covered as much as possible.

Now I'm Catholic and very few women wear head coverings in church. I don't know how often those who do wear them outside of church., and under which circumstances.

If I was a woman, I would wear a veil to Mass. I have to admit though, that I'm glad I don't have to go through the grief that so many women who wear veils receive in so many parishes. I will do my part by admiring women who veil.