Question - Women And Veiling Outside Of Mass (especially Cvs)

[Perigrina]

Then I'm afraid I don't see what all the fuss is about. You say the Bishop has nothing to do with what you wear, but your main objection is to what the USACV is saying (posting on their site). Then your problem is with the USACV, isn't it? Do I understand correctly that membership in this association is not required to be a CV? Then don't join, or if you are already a member, quit. Or try communicating with them about this issue of great concern for you. If you are a laywoman, then you can do whatever you want, can't you? 

 

It's hard to discuss the topic of veils however because you throw in so many other issues that could take up a thread on their own - and probably all which belong in the Debate Table with the whole EF vs OF arguments. The church ALLOWS Communion in the hand and Eucharistic ministers - and yet you paint a picture of all who accept the Church's teaching as being somehow less modest, less holy, less reverent than those who don't. To me, it sounds like the Pharisee who was thanking for God for not making him like other sinners who weren't as good as he was. Honestly??

 

Padre Pio is a saint, but he is not the arbiter of fashion for all Catholics today. Sorry, but that's a fact. We don't have to do everything the saints did or said, and thank the Lord for that! A person can dress modestly without covering themselves from head to toe and looking down at everyone who doesn't. 

 

All I can say is, if you dislike the USACV so much, either let them know your concerns and open a dialogue, or don't be a member. Do your own thing and stop focusing on what others are doing. That way you might find some peace. I can't imagine being in Adoration, spending the whole time fretting over clothing and veils and all the other things that the 'Church (or the USACV) does wrong'.

 

There's more to life than veils.

 

This has a somewhat inflammatory tone if we are trying to avoid debate. You seem to be implying that Oremus is a Pharisee who looks down on others and thinks about clothing during Adoration. These are hurtful things to say.

[Perigrina]

I want to add that Nunsense has, up to this point, impressed me as a very kind person, so I am surprised by this harshness.

[Nunsense]

These really are pretty.

 

I read the USACV statement again and I did notice something that bothered me.  They seemed to have a problem with any woman wearing a headcovering because "the wearing of any mantilla or veil by a Catholic woman is often misinterpreted as a sign that one holds on to past practices and would advocate that all Catholic women should wear a head-covering during Mass."  I missed it the first time. This is not simply a matter of CVs should not be distinctive in their dress (which I think is a reasonable point.) There seems to be opposition to headcovering in general and to "past practices".  That does not have anything to do with consecrated virginity.  That is taking sides in disputed matters in the Church.  I do not think that this is appropriate.

 

 

Peregrina, while I agree with you that it seems an unnecessary comment to post on their website, in some ways what they posted seems relevant to me so I can understand why they added it.

 

Just look at this thread -  when we start to talk about one woman wanting to veil or wear a head covering, it then turns into a discussion about how ALL women should be veiling, with subtle implications that those who don't are somehow attracted to the 'clap-happy' Masses. And to support the 'every woman should veil' opinion, there are then criticisms made about receiving in the hand or using Eucharistic ministers or how women should dress generally - which is judgmental and could be construed as 'hanging onto the past'.

 

Honestly, it just seems to me like the USACV are asking CVs not to be a divisive force in the Church- they are supposed to be 'subtle'. There is already enough conflict between Catholics as to what is acceptable and what is not in the Church. So what they are saying is, if you wear a mantilla or veil, you could be misinterpreted as judging others for not doing so.

 

And don't get me wrong. I have been a member of an EF parish community as well as NO communities and I can see the beauty in both of them. In fact, there would be no problem for Oremus1 at all if she attended an EF parish - we all veiled there so she wouldn't stand out at all if she did. But for those who don't choose to do so, well, the Church allows that too.

 

But in the end, she can do what she wants to - it never bothers me when a woman veils at Mass, whether it's EF of NO. What bothers me is when those who choose to do one thing, judge everyone else who doesn't. As long as the Church allows something, then as far as I am concerned, it's allowed.

[Perigrina]

Honestly, it just seems to me like the USACV are asking CVs not to be a divisive force in the Church- they are supposed to be 'subtle'. There is already enough conflict between Catholics as to what is acceptable and what is not in the Church. So what they are saying is, if you wear a mantilla or veil, you could be misinterpreted as judging others for not doing so.

 

It is ironic.  The people who assume that women who cover their heads are judgmental are the ones who are being judgmental.  And it seems to me that if telling women to cover their heads is divisive, then telling women not to cover their heads is also divisive.

[Nunsense]

This has a somewhat inflammatory tone if we are trying to avoid debate. You seem to be implying that Oremus is a Pharisee who looks down on others and thinks about clothing during Adoration. These are hurtful things to say.

 
Well, of course, I certainly don't want to be hurtful and I apologise to Oremus1 if I have caused her pain. But I do believe that her negative comments about receiving in the hand and EMHCs while also positioning these things next to a sarcastic description of 'clap happy' Masses was deserving of a response about judging others (like the Pharisees). 
 
As for the comment about thinking about clothing and veils during Adoration - this was simply to put into focus how terribly insignificant this whole veiling issue is compared with the Majesty of God. I have no idea what anyone thinks about during Adoration, of course, but where our treasure is, there will our heart be also. So if something in this world is demanding our attention, then it is likely that we will be thinking about this when we should be focusing on greater things.
 
Was my post a little snarky? Yes, I guess it was. Slap myself on the wrist and take a break from posting maybe. I do take offence when someone tries to be judge and arbiter of what is right and wrong to do, when the Church makes it perfectly clear what is allowed and what is not, so perhaps I am also guilty of the Pharisee attitude "Thank you Lord I am not like [insert name here]." Mea culpa.
 
 

I want to add that Nunsense has, up to this point, impressed me as a very kind person, so I am surprised by this harshness.

 
Surprise! :)  Nunsense is as human as anyone else! 
 
 

It is ironic.  The people who assume that women who cover their heads are judgmental are the ones who are being judgmental.  And it seems to me that if telling women to cover their heads is divisive, then telling women not to cover their heads is also divisive.

And with that incredibly complex perambulation, I leave the field of battle, bloodied but not beaten. any comment I could make from now on will be seen as hostile and a debate. Adieu. :)

[oremus1]

Then I'm afraid I don't see what all the fuss is about. You say the Bishop has nothing to do with what you wear, but your main objection is to what the USACV is saying (posting on their site). Then your problem is with the USACV, isn't it? Do I understand correctly that membership in this association is not required to be a CV? Then don't join, or if you are already a member, quit. Or try communicating with them about this issue of great concern for you. If you are a laywoman, then you can do whatever you want, can't you? 

 

It's hard to discuss the topic of veils however because you throw in so many other issues that could take up a thread on their own - and probably all which belong in the Debate Table with the whole EF vs OF arguments. The church ALLOWS Communion in the hand and Eucharistic ministers - and yet you paint a picture of all who accept the Church's teaching as being somehow less modest, less holy, less reverent than those who don't. To me, it sounds like the Pharisee who was thanking for God for not making him like other sinners who weren't as good as he was. Honestly??

 

Padre Pio is a saint, but he is not the arbiter of fashion for all Catholics today. Sorry, but that's a fact. We don't have to do everything the saints did or said, and thank the Lord for that! A person can dress modestly without covering themselves from head to toe and looking down at everyone who doesn't. 

 

All I can say is, if you dislike the USACV so much, either let them know your concerns and open a dialogue, or don't be a member. Do your own thing and stop focusing on what others are doing. That way you might find some peace. I can't imagine being in Adoration, spending the whole time fretting over clothing and veils and all the other things that the 'Church (or the USACV) does wrong'.

 

There's more to life than veils.

Actually, Communion in the hand IS less reverent. There is plenty on the internet which can explain why, as well as the life work of Bishop Schneider which aims to stop this abhorrent practice. After he published his book, the Vatican stopped communionin the hand, Deo gratias. The Lord's body should be handled with grave care and attention, kneeling and on the tongue with gold patens to preserve even tiny fragments, white gloved altar servers and from the ordained hands of the priest only. EXTRAORDINARY Ministers, as per Redemptionis Sacramentum, are supposed to be extraordinary. Yet they are ordinary! Who is accepting the teaching of Redemptionis Sacramentum??? It would be extraordinary to find a parish that does not have them! I accept these things happen. but they do not have to be embraced or exhorted. Sacrosanctum Concilium recommended that Gregorian Chant and Latin be retained.But I dont see many 'accepting church teaching' in that area either! Instead there are charismatic samba type masses! Kyrie eleison!

I was not looking down on CVs who do not dress modestly - rather, they are looking down and berating those that DO.

I dont see why we cannot have a discussion about veiling here?

Indeed there is more to life than veils, and many more important things too. but that is what this thread is about. if that does not interest you, then why are you posting??W

 

Why can women not be veilied and we cannot even DISCUSS veiling? how has 'veil' become such a bad word when the CV vocation used to be known as the velatio - the veiling of virgins? woe o woe how far we have departed from the traditions of our ancestors, woe o woe.


 

Edited June 22, 2014 by oremus1

[Nunsense]

:...:

 

Why is it that so many threads that involve CV issues seem to end up causing division or being moved to Debate Table?

  :think2:     :think2:

   

Things that make you go hmmmmmm..... :think:    

[oremus1]

@Nunsense - stop tryiong to cause debate. I thought you said you had bigger, much more important things to do than talk about veiling on this thread?? You were much holier than us, and were focussing on "greater things" than such a minor issue>? So why are you still posting?

Going back on topic, has anyone tried veiling all the time for the penitential seasons such as Lent or Advent? What was your experience?

Edited June 22, 2014 by oremus1

[Sister Marie]

Actually, Communion in the hand IS less reverent. There is plenty on the internet which can explain why, as well as the life work of Bishop Schneider which aims to stop this abhorrent practice. After he published his book, the Vatican stopped communionin the hand, Deo gratias. The Lord's body should be handled with grave care and attention, kneeling and on the tongue with gold patens to preserve even tiny fragments, white gloved altar servers and from the ordained hands of the priest only. EXTRAORDINARY Ministers, as per Redemptionis Sacramentum, are supposed to be extraordinary. Yet they are ordinary! Who is accepting the teaching of Redemptionis Sacramentum??? It would be extraordinary to find a parish that does not have them! I accept these things happen. but they do not have to be embraced or exhorted. Sacrosanctum Concilium recommended that Gregorian Chant and Latin be retained.But I dont see many 'accepting church teaching' in that area either! Instead there are charismatic samba type masses! Kyrie eleison!

I was not looking down on CVs who do not dress modestly - rather, they are looking down and berating those that DO.

I dont see why we cannot have a discussion about veiling here?

Indeed there is more to life than veils, and many more important things too. but that is what this thread is about. if that does not interest you, then why are you posting??W

 

Why can women not be veilied and we cannot even DISCUSS veiling? how has 'veil' become such a bad word when the CV vocation used to be known as the velatio - the veiling of virgins? woe o woe how far we have departed from the traditions of our ancestors, woe o woe.


 

 

Actually, communion in the hand is the norm in many dioceses. I receive communion in the hand as per the directives of my diocese and I teach the children in my class in a Catholic school to reverently receive Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament by forming the throne for the King of Kings with their hands to receive Him in their hearts.  You may certainly have a preference but your preference never trumps the right of the diocese to make a norm and the right of the faithful to follow that norm not only with clear consciences, but knowing that they are lovingly caring for their Lord.  I take offense at your attitude towards what my bishop has directed the diocese to do.  I believe God will certainly bless the obedience of those who follow their rightful shepherd, their bishops, rather than the opinions of people with no professional training in these matters.  "Obedience is mission: 'I have come into this world to do the will of my Father, who has sent me.' Where there is no obedience, there is no virtue; where there is no virtue there is no good; where good is wanting, there is no love, there is no God; where God is not, there is no Heaven."--St. Padre Pio I'm not here to fight you on communion but you do need to look at how you are communicating your view because it is offensive to those of us who are interested only in following the direction of our ordinary, as we should.

 

On the topic of veiling, as a religious sister who wears a veil, I can say that it makes me uncomfortable to think of women in the Catholic tradition veiling in a religious way outside of the presence of the Blessed Sacrament when they are not religious sisters.  This is my opinion only so I present it as such.  I am completely aware that I could be incorrect in my feeling about this.  I believe veils are meant for religious as far as everyday wear is concerned and I am grateful for the unique witness of the consecrated virgin I know who faithfully and quietly communicates her consecration through her life instead of through the signs of public profession which belong to religious.  There is a uniquely special character to her consecration that I do believe is further emphasized because she wears modest, plain, becoming clothing that is not overtly associated with the clothing of a religious sister.  

 

Nunsense has an incredible amount of experience and perspective to share and I'm glad she shared her thoughts here.  You wanted to have a discussion about veiling... she has a different perspective.  Just because someone is trying to communicate something different doesn't mean a debate is necessary or that the person is doing something wrong.  Thank you for your perspective, Nunsense!  

[chrysostom]

On the topic of veiling, as a religious sister who wears a veil, I can say that it makes me uncomfortable to think of women in the Catholic tradition veiling in a religious way outside of the presence of the Blessed Sacrament when they are not religious sisters.

 

I'm going to gingerly tiptoe into this thread and point out that Oremus1 did make that distinction already.  :)

 

The religious veil is generally a fairly thick stiff looking fabric and a distinctive square or triangle shape in black, white, brown or grey or navy. But there are ways of covering ones head without wearing the nuns religious veil!!

 

And then I'm going to gingerly tiptoe back out again. :whistle:

[oremus1]

Actually, communion in the hand is the norm in many dioceses. I receive communion in the hand as per the directives of my diocese and I teach the children in my class in a Catholic school to reverently receive Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament by forming the throne for the King of Kings with their hands to receive Him in their hearts.  You may certainly have a preference but your preference never trumps the right of the diocese to make a norm and the right of the faithful to follow that norm not only with clear consciences, but knowing that they are lovingly caring for their Lord.  I take offense at your attitude towards what my bishop has directed the diocese to do.  I believe God will certainly bless the obedience of those who follow their rightful shepherd, their bishops, rather than the opinions of people with no professional training in these matters.  "Obedience is mission: 'I have come into this world to do the will of my Father, who has sent me.' Where there is no obedience, there is no virtue; where there is no virtue there is no good; where good is wanting, there is no love, there is no God; where God is not, there is no Heaven."--St. Padre Pio I'm not here to fight you on communion but you do need to look at how you are communicating your view because it is offensive to those of us who are interested only in following the direction of our ordinary, as we should.

 

On the topic of veiling, as a religious sister who wears a veil, I can say that it makes me uncomfortable to think of women in the Catholic tradition veiling in a religious way outside of the presence of the Blessed Sacrament when they are not religious sisters.  This is my opinion only so I present it as such.  I am completely aware that I could be incorrect in my feeling about this.  I believe veils are meant for religious as far as everyday wear is concerned and I am grateful for the unique witness of the consecrated virgin I know who faithfully and quietly communicates her consecration through her life instead of through the signs of public profession which belong to religious.  There is a uniquely special character to her consecration that I do believe is further emphasized because she wears modest, plain, becoming clothing that is not overtly associated with the clothing of a religious sister.  

 

Nunsense has an incredible amount of experience and perspective to share and I'm glad she shared her thoughts here.  You wanted to have a discussion about veiling... she has a different perspective.  Just because someone is trying to communicate something different doesn't mean a debate is necessary or that the person is doing something wrong.  Thank you for your perspective, Nunsense!  

I gave examples of the veils this thread is referring to which are clearly and obviously NOT religious veils http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/134445-question-women-and-veiling-outside-of-mass-especially-cvs/?p=2680298

I agree the CV should not wear the religious veil

While this thread is not about communion in the hand, this is very important. you are absolutely mistaken when you say you are under obedience to your bishop to recieve communion in the hand.THis is very important, that you realise you always have the right to recieve kneeling and on the tongue. Your students too. If you are denied that, it is a pastoral abuse. The GIRM at 160 - 161 makes it clear. you have that right. A letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship on 2/26/03: Prot. N. 47/03/L said that "“the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Communion.”. Furthermore, the Notitiae 38 (2002), 582–584:
"Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

Given the importance of this matter, the Congregation would request that Your Excellency inquire specifically whether this priest in fact has a regular practice of refusing Holy Communion to any member of the faithful in the circumstances described above and — if the complaint is verified — that you also firmly instruct him and any other priests who may have such a practice to refrain from acting thus in the future. Priests should understand that the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse."

Also here is the document from 2008 when the Pope decided to ONLY give communion on the tongue. Deo gratias: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_comunione_en.html

[Nunsense]

Actually, communion in the hand is the norm in many dioceses. I receive communion in the hand as per the directives of my diocese and I teach the children in my class in a Catholic school to reverently receive Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament by forming the throne for the King of Kings with their hands to receive Him in their hearts.  You may certainly have a preference but your preference never trumps the right of the diocese to make a norm and the right of the faithful to follow that norm not only with clear consciences, but knowing that they are lovingly caring for their Lord.  I take offense at your attitude towards what my bishop has directed the diocese to do.  I believe God will certainly bless the obedience of those who follow their rightful shepherd, their bishops, rather than the opinions of people with no professional training in these matters.  "Obedience is mission: 'I have come into this world to do the will of my Father, who has sent me.' Where there is no obedience, there is no virtue; where there is no virtue there is no good; where good is wanting, there is no love, there is no God; where God is not, there is no Heaven."--St. Padre Pio I'm not here to fight you on communion but you do need to look at how you are communicating your view because it is offensive to those of us who are interested only in following the direction of our ordinary, as we should.

 

On the topic of veiling, as a religious sister who wears a veil, I can say that it makes me uncomfortable to think of women in the Catholic tradition veiling in a religious way outside of the presence of the Blessed Sacrament when they are not religious sisters.  This is my opinion only so I present it as such.  I am completely aware that I could be incorrect in my feeling about this.  I believe veils are meant for religious as far as everyday wear is concerned and I am grateful for the unique witness of the consecrated virgin I know who faithfully and quietly communicates her consecration through her life instead of through the signs of public profession which belong to religious.  There is a uniquely special character to her consecration that I do believe is further emphasized because she wears modest, plain, becoming clothing that is not overtly associated with the clothing of a religious sister.  

 

Nunsense has an incredible amount of experience and perspective to share and I'm glad she shared her thoughts here.  You wanted to have a discussion about veiling... she has a different perspective.  Just because someone is trying to communicate something different doesn't mean a debate is necessary or that the person is doing something wrong.  Thank you for your perspective, Nunsense!  

 

 

Sr Marie - I wasn't going to post in this thread again because it is quite obvious to me that my differing opinions from those of the OP are being seen not only as debate, but also as hostile, when that was not my intention. Since the OP has also made it very clear by her last post directed at me that she would prefer I not post here anymore, I promise this will be my last one. I didn't send this as a PM because I wanted to make it clear that I propped your last post - not because you said nice things about me (propping a compliment could be construed as a little self-serving, couldn't it? :) )  but because I admire the way that you address contentious issues and respect the fact that you are actually living the life of a vowed religious sister. The fact that you agree with me on some issues has no relevance whatsoever of course. :child: 

 

I remember some really tough threads that you had to deal with in the past, and yet you always inspire me with your common sense and tolerance. So I thank you for your perspective as well. Now that our mutual admiration society has been duly acknowledged :P I leave this thread in your tender care, dear Sister. Perhaps we will meet up in another one or can PM each other sometime. 

 

Smiles and laughter and much love..... :blowkiss:

[Sister Marie]

What I said was that it was the norm.  It's acceptable for others to receive on the tongue but I follow the norm my bishop has set up in the diocese, which is to receive on the hand, while respecting what others choose to do.  Again, I find it offensive that you would say that I receive the Eucharist, the Jesus I love and have given my life to, irreverently because I follow the norm of the diocese in which I live and serve.  It's just plain ridiculous to speak about others, to accuse them of being irreverent, because you choose to do something else.  You are not the bishop, Holy Father, or Jesus.  It is a form of obedience to follow the norm... that doesn't mean its disobedience not to.  Who are you to judge what is reverent and what isn't?  The answer is no one... as I am no one to judge either.  That is why I didn't write it was irreverent or disobedient to receive on the tongue but that Padre Pio, whom was already quoted, lauded the effort to be obedient as the way to holiness.  You were wrong when you wrote it was irreverent to receive communion on the hand - I am not irreverent when I receive my Jesus.  He knows my love for Him and I know his love for me.  Thank God it doesn't depend on the judgement of others!  I hope you can accept this as a fraternal correction of the judgment you publicly made about all who receive in the hand (that their action is irreverent)... I reverence, love, and adore Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and your opinion does not change that fact. 

I will be praying for your peaceful and free following of Jesus.

I gave examples of the veils this thread is referring to which are clearly and obviously NOT religious veils http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/134445-question-women-and-veiling-outside-of-mass-especially-cvs/?p=2680298

I agree the CV should not wear the religious veil

While this thread is not about communion in the hand, this is very important. you are absolutely mistaken when you say you are under obedience to your bishop to recieve communion in the hand.THis is very important, that you realise you always have the right to recieve kneeling and on the tongue. Your students too. If you are denied that, it is a pastoral abuse. The GIRM at 160 - 161 makes it clear. you have that right. A letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship on 2/26/03: Prot. N. 47/03/L said that "“the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Communion.”. Furthermore, the Notitiae 38 (2002), 582–584:
"Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

Given the importance of this matter, the Congregation would request that Your Excellency inquire specifically whether this priest in fact has a regular practice of refusing Holy Communion to any member of the faithful in the circumstances described above and — if the complaint is verified — that you also firmly instruct him and any other priests who may have such a practice to refrain from acting thus in the future. Priests should understand that the Congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness, and if they are verified, it intends to seek disciplinary action consonant with the gravity of the pastoral abuse."

Also here is the document from 2008 when the Pope decided to ONLY give communion on the tongue. Deo gratias: http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_comunione_en.html

 

Edited June 22, 2014 by Sister Marie

[Lilllabettt]

oremus I'm afraid you've got the wrong tone for vocation station. this is a gentle part of phatmass.

 

I am not unsympathetic, either. With regards to the USCCV and veiling there seems to be a lack of prudence and generosity in how they address the issue. But then you seem to be mirroring it back at them a little, no? With regards to how to receive -- it seems most important that Jesus comes to us, however he comes, whether on the hand or on the tongue.  I must say to hear of a diocese making reception on the hand an explicit "norm" strikes me as a little strange. First of all, that issuing such a thing explicitly would be required. Perhaps its just a reflection of that weird American attitude of wanting a rule for how to do everything.  And then second strangeness being that if it is required it should be something other than the universal custom. 

 

Awhile ago in my home diocese the bishop requested everyone stand after receiving. There was some hullabaloo from folks who wanted to continue kneeling as was local tradition and of course they were "allowed." But the fact is that standing after communion is the universal custom, and his excellency wanted us brought in line with that. Simply strikes me as odd to hear of it going the other way; not sure what they could possibly be getting at.  Sister Marie I hope you tell your children they can receive on the tongue if they wish. Although giving them too many options at that age can result in a mess can't it. But its their right and what a shame if they grow up unacquainted with the universal custom.  

 

 

But  ...I guess bishops are responsible for this sort of thing, so why don't we leave the burden of their office to them.

 

 

[freedomreigns]

I would like to someday actually meet a consecrated virgin in person.  I have a feeling that my internet experience may not paint a full picture of the vocation and how women actually respond to it lovingly in day to day life.  Perhaps even those who ruffle my feathers online are holy and beautiful...

 

 It does seem that usually on VS threads involving CV end up being contentious and divisive and that there is often a tone of criticism and rigidity and a lack of a sense that "Men judge by appearances but God sees the heart."  In this thread I am especially referencing the Communion on the Hand topic, the women must follow Padre Pio's standards for dress in all circumstances topic, and the insinuation that it is irreverent for me as a lay woman to worship God without a head covering.  First of all these are side topics and tangents that will lead to nowhere good and second of all the Church Herself does not say any of these things.  

 

This is certainly not the first troubled CV thread.  I wish that I could say that the fact that I have yet ever to see a CV thread here that did not devolve has not shaped my opinion of the value of the vocation, but alas, to say so would not be true.  If a CV wants to wear a veil, fine by me and likewise if not, fine by me.  If a CV wants to be critical of the rest of us average Catholics going to mass in a manner in accordance with the norms set by our bishops, not so fine.   

 

I realize that my "Don't judge!" stance is in itself a judgment.  Heaven help me!

[oremus1]

 

What I said was that it was the norm.  It's acceptable for others to receive on the tongue but I follow the norm my bishop has set up in the diocese, which is to receive on the hand, while respecting what others choose to do.  Again, I find it offensive that you would say that I receive the Eucharist, the Jesus I love and have given my life to, irreverently because I follow the norm of the diocese in which I live and serve.  It's just plain ridiculous to speak about others, to accuse them of being irreverent, because you choose to do something else.  You are not the bishop, Holy Father, or Jesus.  It is a form of obedience to follow the norm... that doesn't mean its disobedience not to.  Who are you to judge what is reverent and what isn't?  The answer is no one... as I am no one to judge either.  That is why I didn't write it was irreverent or disobedient to receive on the tongue but that Padre Pio, whom was already quoted, lauded the effort to be obedient as the way to holiness.  You were wrong when you wrote it was irreverent to receive communion on the hand - I am not irreverent when I receive my Jesus.  He knows my love for Him and I know his love for me.  Thank God it doesn't depend on the judgement of others!  I hope you can accept this as a fraternal correction of the judgment you publicly made about all who receive in the hand (that their action is irreverent)... I reverence, love, and adore Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and your opinion does not change that fact. 

I will be praying for your peaceful and free following of Jesus.

 

Nowhere did I say THE PEOPLE who do these practices are irreverent, I said the PRACTICE itself is irreverent. of course we do not know what is in a persons heart. i have deliberately gone off topic and cited sources to support this, in order that we may be vigilant to preserve the Lords Body from profanity. . do not put words into my mouth in order to attack me.
 

oremus I'm afraid you've got the wrong tone for vocation station. this is a gentle part of phatmass.

 

I am not unsympathetic, either. With regards to the USCCV and veiling there seems to be a lack of prudence and generosity in how they address the issue. But then you seem to be mirroring it back at them a little, no? With regards to how to receive -- it seems most important that Jesus comes to us, however he comes, whether on the hand or on the tongue.  I must say to hear of a diocese making reception on the hand an explicit "norm" strikes me as a little strange. First of all, that issuing such a thing explicitly would be required. Perhaps its just a reflection of that weird American attitude of wanting a rule for how to do everything.  And then second strangeness being that if it is required it should be something other than the universal custom. 

 

Awhile ago in my home diocese the bishop requested everyone stand after receiving. There was some hullabaloo from folks who wanted to continue kneeling as was local tradition and of course they were "allowed." But the fact is that standing after communion is the universal custom, and his excellency wanted us brought in line with that. Simply strikes me as odd to hear of it going the other way; not sure what they could possibly be getting at.  Sister Marie I hope you tell your children they can receive on the tongue if they wish. Although giving them too many options at that age can result in a mess can't it. But its their right and what a shame if they grow up unacquainted with the universal custom.  

 

 

But  ...I guess bishops are responsible for this sort of thing, so why don't we leave the burden of their office to them.

Many people, particularly nunsense, sought to attack me in this thread and hijacked it in order to talk about other things. but i bore it bravely, in order to exhort communion on the tongue. if it goes off topic again, please can you just delete those posts? this thread is about veiling, for all women, not just CVs. Those who have said it is a shallow topic and there are bigger issues, why are they continuing to post on this thread??

Also, in response to your point about the bishops requesting everyone to stand - this was addressed in Notitiae by the Cong. Divine Worship in 2003:

In many places the faithful are accustomed to remain kneeling in private prayer or to sit after they return to their seats once they have individually received the holy Eucharist at Mass. Whether the provisions of the Third typical edition of the Roman Missal prohibit this practice?

â„Ÿ. In the negative and with a rationale.

The rationale is that by the prescripts of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, n. 43 is intended to give, on the one hand, within broad limits some uniformity of posture in the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of the holy Mass, and at the same time, on the other hand, not to regulate posture so rigidly that those who wish to remain kneeling or to sit would no longer be free to do so.

Notitiae 39 (2003), 533

I am very sorry to hear that in some diocese communion on the tongue is banned by the Bishops, and I suggest it is taken further - you have seen from my sources how seriously Rome takes this. Also, the General Instruction on the Roman Missal at 160-161 says it is up to each communicant how they recieve. i would hope they consider this carefully.

I would like to someday actually meet a consecrated virgin in person.  I have a feeling that my internet experience may not paint a full picture of the vocation and how women actually respond to it lovingly in day to day life.  Perhaps even those who ruffle my feathers online are holy and beautiful...

 

 It does seem that usually on VS threads involving CV end up being contentious and divisive and that there is often a tone of criticism and rigidity and a lack of a sense that "Men judge by appearances but God sees the heart."  In this thread I am especially referencing the Communion on the Hand topic, the women must follow Padre Pio's standards for dress in all circumstances topic, and the insinuation that it is irreverent for me as a lay woman to worship God without a head covering.  First of all these are side topics and tangents that will lead to nowhere good and second of all the Church Herself does not say any of these things.  

 

This is certainly not the first troubled CV thread.  I wish that I could say that the fact that I have yet ever to see a CV thread here that did not devolve has not shaped my opinion of the value of the vocation, but alas, to say so would not be true.  If a CV wants to wear a veil, fine by me and likewise if not, fine by me.  If a CV wants to be critical of the rest of us average Catholics going to mass in a manner in accordance with the norms set by our bishops, not so fine.   

 

I realize that my "Don't judge!" stance is in itself a judgment.  Heaven help me!

In transubstantiation, we remember that even in the tiniest crumb, miscroscopic fragment or particle, the Lord is contained in its entirety. He is not more present in a bigger particle than a small one. For this reason, the CV, who is espoused to Him, should be particularly aggrieved by abuses of the Holy Eucharist, and vigilant against the risk of profanation.

Re St Padre Pio - this is an example which I felt it is good to follow - and I do question WHY a woman would want to show her legs or chest. But as soon as I cite this saint, everyone says I am being judgemental. 

You say " If a CV wants to wear a veil, fine by me and likewise if not, fine by me. " - I agree, and I wish everyone including the USACV would have the same view. Everyone should have the right to veil or not veil outside of mass as they wish.

[Sponsa-Christi]

 ...CVs (according to the vocation info) are meant to live in the world as subtle witnesses.
 

.... I mean, isn't that the whole point- to blend in with everyone else? 

 

 

Actually, this is sort of a disputed point. This tends to be the USACV and Cardinal Burke's interpretation of this vocation (but even so, in other places they do talk about the importance of being a witness, so this might be an over-simplification).

 

However, other good arguments could be made in favor of the idea that consecrated virgins should bear a more public, visible evangelical witness, even in a way similar to that of religious Sisters.

 

In any case, I think one reason why veils tend to be such a hot topic among CVs is because it does allude to this deeper issue of exactly what sort of witness we should be bearing within the Church and within society generally. And in turn, the question of the nature of our witness has other implications for our way of life.

 

I personally do tend to disagree with the USACV on a lot of things, including their thoughts on veils. But over the past several years, I've come to a much greater appreciation of the fact that they are for the most part (i.e., because of course none of us are perfect) good women doing the best they can in good faith---just like in my own efforts to live my vocation, I am doing the best that I can in good faith.

 

Pioneering the lived reality of a "new" vocation is very challenging, and I would hope that people getting to know me would listen to my ideas with an open heart; speak to and about me respectfully even if they disagreed with me; and be charitable towards me in situations where I may have made an honest mistake in interpreting something. So in turn, I feel it's only right that we consecrated virgins---no matter where we stand "ideologically"---relate to the USACV in the way that we ourselves would want to be treated.

[Catherine Therese]

---brief invitation to hit "pause" and join me in prayer---

 

Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Your faithful - our hearts - and kindle them in the fire of Your love.  

 

As we express our views on this topic in which so many of us differ, help us to rejoice that on the day You came as tongues of fire over the heads of the Apostles, people of different languages, cultures and world views all UNDERSTOOD those who spoke in the name of Jesus, He who had prayed to the Father that all would be one.

 

Help us to seek not to be understood, but to understand, and help us to accommodate those differences in others that we don't understand with generous hospitality. 

 

On this Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ, awestruck by the supreme mercy and love by which the Eucharist is possible, we ask that our conduct always be merciful and that only words spoken in love ever pass our lips, after the example of Our Saviour. 

 

Amen. 

 

--- I normally lurk during these discussions and listen and learn, but felt that maybe a little prayer across oceans and timezones might be life-giving here. I hope some of you joined me. Please forgive my interruption! Pressing "play"... ---

 

 

[GraceUk]

I think if women want to wear a veil then fine.  But I do think that there is a bit of this looking down on people who don't starting to creep in.  My own experience is this. Many many many years ago when I was in In my late teens I got myself a quite large black lace mantilla and felt very holy indeed.  (Looking back certainly the sin of pride was there.)  Not saying that applies to everyone of course.

[Perigrina]

 
Well, of course, I certainly don't want to be hurtful and I apologise to Oremus1 if I have caused her pain. But I do believe that her negative comments about receiving in the hand and EMHCs while also positioning these things next to a sarcastic description of 'clap happy' Masses was deserving of a response about judging others (like the Pharisees). 
 

 

I think I misunderstood her at first because I was interpreting her comments in light of my personal experience of delaying veiling.  Rereading, I think that Oremus is making a case that the USACV is "taking sides" on the issues that tend to cause division along trad/non-trad lines.  An organization with their mandate ought to remain neutral.

 

I have the impression that, if I were qualified and considering becoming a CV, this organization would discourage me because I cover my head at Mass, dress in a way compatible with Padre Pio standards, and receive Communion from priests and deacons only, on the tongue, while kneeling. If the USACV is being insensitive to the choices of more traditionally inclined women, that is a legitimate concern, and it is not being judgmental to discuss it. 

 

 

 

 

 

And with that incredibly complex perambulation, I leave the field of battle, bloodied but not beaten. any comment I could make from now on will be seen as hostile and a debate. Adieu.  :)

 

I am not happy to see you withdraw from a thread.  I see your posts as generally insightful, kind and helpful.  I am always pleased to see a post from you appear on the screen.