Hildebrand/headcovering

[TotusTuusMaria]

[center]J.M.J.[/center]

I do not know if this goes here in "Transmundane Lane" but most of the headcovering threads usually get sent here or start here. So, I thought I would just put it here.

After reading something by Alice Von Hildebrand I am curious to know your opinions on if the whole argument of whether or not wearing a headcovering is mandatory or not is of any consequence when seen through “the lenses of the supernatural” where “it is a special privilege of the woman that she enters church veiled.”

“And this is why the female body should be veiled because everything which is sacred calls for veiling. When Moses came down form Mount Sinai, he veiled his face. Why did he veil his face? Because he had spoken to God and at that very moment there was a sacredness that called for veiling. Now the stupid feminists after Vatican II suddenly "discovered" that when women go to Church veiled, it is a sign of their inferiority. The man takes off his hat and the woman puts on a veil. My goodness, how they have lost the sense of the supernatural. Veiling indicates sacredness and it is a special privilege of the woman that she enters church veiled.” - Alice Von Hildebrand

Is the argument on whether it is mandatory or not still important or not? Why?

In your opinion, is Hildebrand’s ideas on the veil of secondary importance or primary importance? In other words, is the reason for veiling/covering because of the sacredness of the woman or rather is that a secondary reason?

For the entire piece by Hildebrand: [url="http://www.casorosendi.com/articles/1010.asp"]http://www.casorosendi.com/articles/1010.asp[/url]

I know there are many threads on head covering. I know some people are sick of seeing them... I am sorry. I have read a number of those threads and nothing touched upon this. I would not have made one had there already been something said about it that I knew of. And if there is something said about this particular thing that you know of that has already been discussed, could you point me in that direction?

Edited October 18, 2007 by TotusTuusMaria

[scardella]

I think it's because of the angels myself. Whatever that means.

[Aloysius]

I think both are of importance. the requirement is the thing which calls for recognition of the supernatural through the veil.

Alice is not saying "only do it if you have an understanding of the supernatural sacredness of your femininity" she is saying "you should have a sense of the supernatural sacredness of your femininity and thus you should do it"

I think they're just two sides of the same coin.

[CatholicCid]

I agree with Aloysius somewhat... It seems kind of a neutral statement to me on whether it should be 'mandatory'. However, it seems the idea is that you should be willing to do it because of their sacredness.

Edited October 18, 2007 by CatholicCid

[photosynthesis]

I love Alice Von Hildebrand. She is so cool

I don't think she's necessarily arguing that it's mandatory in that paragraph you just quoted. But from what I've read of her, she does believe that Vatican II did not abrogate the necessity for women to veil, and she is very pro-veiling. And of course, she lists a lot of wonderful reasons why women ought to veil.

[Dismas]

Every time we enter into the Eucharist, aren't we at the great wedding feast of heaven? When we receive Him, is not our soul wedded to God in ineffable intimacy? If a woman gladly desires to wear a veil when she is wedded in Matrimony, why is she repulsed by wearing one when she is wedded in Communion?

I fear that so much attention has been driven into the legalistic aspect of Church practice that the mysticism has been forgotten. Yet, without the mystic nature of our worship, the legal becomes meaningless and hollow. How can we expect someone to obey hollow laws?

Thank you for that passage. I am strengthened and emboldened with those words.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Dismas