Q On Women Veiling

[Lil Red]

if al, as you say that the church has no right to change something that is required by scripture as veils or bread and wine for the eucharist or water for baptism, and that it matters not the church's silence on this issue because it is in scripture.

but has not the church definitively come out and stated in the GIRM (starting at #319) what the elements for the eucharist should be, even though it is scripture? if it is important enough for the church to definitively state what the eucharist should be (bread & wine), why wouldn't it be just as important on the issue of veils to come out with a definitive statement? don't you think the church would provide such a definitive statement for the care of her daughter's souls, if indeed it is a sin?

[Aloysius]

I'd like to reiterate: because of the Church's silence I assume inculpability for any woman who does not do so, I'm defining it as an objective sin in the sense that it should not be so, not calling anyone in particular a sinner.

The Church does say that bread and wine are necessary, as well she should. But the Pope has the power to remove that statement from the GIRM if he so wished... the Pope could go ahead and abrogate all of canon law as the supreme legislator of the Church, if he wished, and create canonical anarchy within the Church. And there is no guarantee of infallibility that would stop him from doing so, either, these are disciplinary matters, he is simply unable to teach error. but if he did this, if he abrogated the GIRM tomarrow, it would be no less obligatory for masses to be conducted with bread and wine only. why? because the GIRM was just the disciplinary end of something which was doctrinal, a doctrine with its source in scripture. It is the same with this, or with the Sunday obligation (a more apt analogy, IMO, because it doesn't go up into this big serious validity of sacraments stuff and is, as such, more closely on par with the level veils are on).... Canon Law requires us to attend mass on every sunday. If canon law ceased to obligate us to attend mass on every sunday, scripture would continue to require us to attend mass on the Lord's Day.

Veiling is one of these things: scriptural doctrine about the nature of man and woman and their proper liturgical places established veiling (which could include hats, more aptly I would term it "covering" because there are any number of things other than veils which fulfill it). For a breif period in the history of the Church (namely, 1917-1983), this doctrine was extended into canon law. I do not know the history of canon law requiring Sunday attendence at mass, but I do know that prior to any established canons, it was considered an observance of one of the ten commandments, and if the canons were abolished tomarrow, it would continue to be an observance of one of the ten commandments. prior to the institution of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, head covering was considered a matter of obedience to scripture; and after its abrogation, it continues to be a matter of obedience to scripture.

I see the argument from the Church's silence as very weak in this regard, then. The Church has the power to fall silent on any number of disciplinary branches of doctrines, and the truths that had been previously taught on them would not cease to be true because of the Church's silence in that time period. But this fact does indeed diminish any possible culpability down to zero, basically, since it is the Church's silence which has inspired the disobedience to scripture and not any actual malicious intent. Though since I don't know everyone's circumstances, I could not preclude the possibility that someone out there does do it culpably somehow.

[Lil Red]

but i reiterate, if it was important enough to the Church, wouldn't She definitively state it somewhere somehow?

[Apotheoun]

There is no guarantee that the Church's hierarchy will always act prudently.

[cmotherofpirl]

Yep. She would.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1370750' date='Aug 25 2007, 11:02 PM']There is no guarantee that the Church's hierarchy will always act prudently.[/quote]
precisely my point. the Church's current hierarchy is currently silent on the issue. The Church herself, in her scriptures and the fathers and doctors and bishops and theologians of the past, have made it clear enough that it is important to the Church herself, however.

Is it not entirely possible for a Pope to remove the canon law that requires Sunday mass attendance? Yes it is. Has it happened yet? no it has not yet. If it happened, would one still be required to attend mass on Sundays because of scripture? yes.

Is it not entirely possible for the Hierarchy to promulgate a code of canon law that does not require head covering? Yes it is. Has it happened yet? Yes, it has happened. Since it has happened, are women still required to cover their heads because of scripture? yes.

The hierarchy have not attempted to propose any doctrine counter to this doctrine of the scriptures; instead, they have simply ceased to teach it. Huge difference.

[Lil Red]

and i'm saying that if it is big enough deal to say that objectively it is a sin, (which according to you, countless saints have said) wouldn't the Church say something on the issue, as to not lead Her daughters astray?

[Aloysius]

no, I don't think so. there are many instances in the history of the Church where the Church's hierarchy has been silent on an issue that they should not have been silent on, and as a result much objective evil was done. you confuse the immaculate bride of Christ with her human components.

back to my analogy: do you think it impossible that a pope might abrogate the canons which require us to attend mass every sunday, and then that the hierarchy simply go silent on the issue of whether we should attend mass on sunday? if you do not think that possible, I ask you why not? there is no guarantee of infallibility which makes it impossible for the pope and hierarchy to do that. and the Pope is the supreme legislator of the Church, with full power to simply abrogate all canon laws at whim if he really chose to do so. but if that were to happen (and it is certainly possible, there is no infallibility which prevents it) then would we or would we not be obligated to attend mass every sunday? I answer that we would, the Church's silence on the issue would simply not be any argument against it. It is this precise situation we encounter with this liturgical mandate of scripture as well; the Church has gone silent, the scriptures stand.

she's not leading her daughter's astray, her hierarchy has simply gone silent and deprived her daughters of an essential liturgical symbol that is mandated by scripture.

you speak as if there is a guarantee that the Church will always perfectly enforce all discipline or always teach the entire and whole interpretation of all scripture. there is no such guarentee, the Church may fall into omission on anything from something with as seemingly small significance as the veiling of women to something as extreme as whether contraception is evil without violating the doctrine of infallibility. The Church theoretically could fall silent on the issue of contraception (for all intensive purposes, the Church in most countries has already done so)... infallibility simply means she will not bind the Church in error, not that her hierarchy may never falter in providing the full truth.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1370750' date='Aug 25 2007, 09:02 PM']There is no guarantee that the Church's hierarchy will always act prudently.[/quote]

That is very true.

[aprilvasquez]

Fascinating points you all have made- and at times i think a bit over complicated. I my self struggled (for months) with what I felt was a call to veil. Prayer, investigation and discernment brought me to discover the points made here in all of the above postings. I especially had trouble with wether it would be interpreted as humility or rather pride. And then I boiled it down to the basics- it IS scriptural, and and the old 'WWJD?' cliche- or in my case I paraphrased 'WWMD?' (what would Mary do?). Who could deny that if Our Lady were attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass- in L.A. or any other place in the world- she would definitely veil! It really is not legalistic- it is about what is in our hearts. I myself feel priveledged and honored to veil precisely because we are NOT required to do so- I veil because I WANT to. I want to show my love and reverence and awe for my Lord at His Mass. It is another way in which I can fully actively and conciously participate in the Mass, just as modestly and bodily demeanor constitute participation. Just as I am not required to recieve on the tongue, I do so to remind myself of who He is and who I am- the same with veiling, it conveys to others as well as myself that we are part of something holy and sacred in church. A sign much needed in our all too secular world. I am not convinced it is for every woman, but I know for fact I personally was called to veil. I see a renewal in our church happening, a prompting of the Holy Spirit to return to orthodxy and traditions and reverence. and an increased curiosity for veiling among the YOUNG. If you are a woman and are investigating, discerning, praying about (ect.) doing it you are probably being called to it. And as every one who has a mother knows sometimes you shouldn't ask why you should do something- you do it because your Mother (Mary) asks you to!!!! VEIL ON!!!

working it out in fear and trembling-
pray 4 me and i'll pray 4 u

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='aprilvasquez' post='1370902' date='Aug 26 2007, 04:40 AM']Fascinating points you all have made- and at times i think a bit over complicated. I my self struggled (for months) with what I felt was a call to veil. Prayer, investigation and discernment brought me to discover the points made here in all of the above postings. I especially had trouble with wether it would be interpreted as humility or rather pride. And then I boiled it down to the basics- it IS scriptural, and and the old 'WWJD?' cliche- or in my case I paraphrased 'WWMD?' (what would Mary do?). Who could deny that if Our Lady were attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass- in L.A. or any other place in the world- she would definitely veil! It really is not legalistic- it is about what is in our hearts. I myself feel priveledged and honored to veil precisely because we are NOT required to do so- I veil because I WANT to. I want to show my love and reverence and awe for my Lord at His Mass. It is another way in which I can fully actively and conciously participate in the Mass, just as modestly and bodily demeanor constitute participation. Just as I am not required to recieve on the tongue, I do so to remind myself of who He is and who I am- the same with veiling, it conveys to others as well as myself that we are part of something holy and sacred in church. A sign much needed in our all too secular world. I am not convinced it is for every woman, but I know for fact I personally was called to veil. I see a renewal in our church happening, a prompting of the Holy Spirit to return to orthodxy and traditions and reverence. and an increased curiosity for veiling among the YOUNG. If you are a woman and are investigating, discerning, praying about (ect.) doing it you are probably being called to it. And as every one who has a mother knows sometimes you shouldn't ask why you should do something- you do it because your Mother (Mary) asks you to!!!! VEIL ON!!!

working it out in fear and trembling-
pray 4 me and i'll pray 4 u[/quote]
Sorry but I seriously cannot see Mary in the 21th century wearing a veil at Mass, and I certainly never heard of Mary asking women to be veiled in any of her appearances on earth.

[Aloysius]

seriously... you could see Mary coming to Mass unveiled? when all sacred images of her are always veiled (except, I believe, in Mahoney-land); and all visions she has come down in she has been veiled in. You think she'd take the oppurtunity of the Mass to remove her veil because it's the 21st century? I don't understand, I really don't... maybe you're saying that she wouldn't want to call attention to herself? ehh... I guess... but Mary always had a way on earth of doing everything the Lord asked of her without drawing attention to herself... and if it came down to whether it would call attention to herself to do what was right, she'd do it. Mary is so beautiful and so holy... I'm not sure I could even survive looking at her unveiled, perhaps in heaven, though I am sure the symbol will remain in some way there as well... but women are so beautiful as creations of God, I'd really like to see them have the proper symbolic veil over them as well.

Mary has not seen it as a priority to get women to veil... she's been too busy warning us about World Wars, Communism, and sin. But an argument from Mary's silence is even weaker than an argument from the Church's silence. I could pick a lot of things and say Mary has been silent on them in her apparitions

[aprilvasquez]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl']....and I certainly never heard of Mary asking women to be veiled in any of her appearances on earth.[/quote]


[quote name='Aloysius' post='1370936' date='Aug 26 2007, 10:06 AM']....all visions she has come down in she has been veiled in. ....
....Mary has not seen it as a priority to get women to veil... she's been too busy warning us about World Wars, Communism, and sin....[/quote]

Exactly- too busy concerning herself about the desparate state we are in. But if Mary were to have appeared WITHOUT a veil in any of her more recent apparitions, it would be an obvious communication that veiling is not necessary. So the fact that she is always veiled speaks volumes with out words, one might argue that she is indeed trying to send that message to us women. And when in doubt, has it ever hurt to err on the side of Sacred Scripture or the Immitation of Mary?

[Apotheoun]

The fact that it is the 21st century is irrelevant.

[Apotheoun]

Here is a 21st century moderist image of Mary (Our Lady of the Angels) without a veil at the LA Cathedral, or as I prefer to call it, "Mary of the Vulcans."

[img]http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/vulcan_mary.jpg[/img]

This type of image of the Holy Theotokos would never be acceptable in an Eastern Christian Church.