Q On Women Veiling

[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.

[kateri05]

[quote]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.[/quote]

but what if, because it is no longer required by the Church, wearing a veil would be a stumbling block to your neighbors?

i've thought a lot about veils actually. but, i'm in los angeles, and believe me, it would cause ripples. in actuality tho, people in LA can go whatever, i'm actually thinking of my family. it would SERIOUSLY upset them. as in, a lot.

they are practicing catholics, etc, but think that i'm "obsessed" and "legalistic," etc etc. in fact, case in point, i usually go home to visit in winter time, the time of hats due to weather. i have a fun hat thats for cold weather and i wore it to Mass with an outfit. it was part comfort, part fashion. after mass, my grandfather says to me, "do you always cover your head now?"

they already have a tendency to equate orthodoxy with legalism and would only see this as further "proof," which seems to definitely constitute a stumbling block.

Edited August 23, 2007 by kateri05

[Aloysius]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1368642' date='Aug 23 2007, 02:15 AM']but what if, because it is no longer required by the Church, wearing a veil would be a stumbling block to your neighbors?

i've thought a lot about veils actually. but, i'm in los angeles, and believe me, it would cause ripples. in actuality tho, people in LA can go whatever, i'm actually thinking of my family. it would SERIOUSLY upset them. as in, a lot.

they are practicing catholics, etc, but think that i'm "obsessed" and "legalistic," etc etc. in fact, case in point, i usually go home to visit in winter time, the time of hats due to weather. i have a fun hat thats for cold weather and i wore it to Mass with an outfit. it was part comfort, part fashion. after mass, my grandfather says to me, "do you always cover your head now?"

they already have a tendency to equate orthodoxy with legalism and would only see this as further "proof," which seems to definitely constitute a stumbling block.[/quote]
my post intended to put a distinction between the meat discipline, and the veiling discipline with its surrounding doctrines. whereas St. Paul would say not to eat certain meats if it would be a scandal to others, he would not say not to veil if veiling would be a scandal. I understand the reason to not want to because it would cause such an uproar, but I don't see that as a reason not to do it objectively; but I understand how it would hinder someone who did not want to cause a big issue over what they were wearing to mass.

let us also not forget how St. Peter was caught up in a vision where Our Lord declared all foods clean, too. the meat disciplines are clearly nowhere given the same level as St. Paul's discussion of veils in the scriptures. nor is the idea of having priests/bishops be married, St. Paul even discusses why they shouldn't if possible. but veils are proposed in a much different way, they are proscribed for the liturgy in a very lasting way; the way the scriptures establish bread and wine as the only proper species, the way they establish Sunday as being the day required to meet as the day of the Lord's Ressurection; this has always been the interpretation of the Church, however.

[kateri05]

ok, but if veils have the same important and significance as the proper species and necessity of sunday worship, one thinks that canon law would not suddenly have dropped it.

the CHurch's actions seem to disagree with that last statement.

[jiyoung]

From what I've been told, the matter of it being in canon law or not isn't quite as important because it's been custom for time immemorial anyhow. If that's true, then it would seem to me that it was made canon law to reinforce the custom.

Looking at the history of what happened to make veils fall out of fashion and widely believed to be "no longer required" (late 60s NOW influence--fight the Man!, "veil burnings," confusion by media and clergy at the writing of the 1983 CCC, exclusion but not abrogation of the law from the new text), I'd be more inclined to want to veil anyway, but I wouldn't say that it's on par with proper species for the Eucharist and all. Women being unveiled wouldn't invalidate the Mass.

However, I think it was social pressures that made women stop veiling and not anything from the Church, and the Church's custom for time immemorial shouldn't topple for the modern culture's custom.

Kateri, I'm also from the LA Archdiocese, and I do get some funny looks when I'm not at my own parish where there are already a handful of women who veil, but it hasn't stopped me so far. My mom doesn't like the fact that I wear a veil--she's a bit liberal--but I don't veil for her. It's something to keep in mind, that you shouldn't do it for others and only for God, but it's pretty hard when you're persecuted so constantly for it. But I find that I've gotten more encouraging remarks than I have discouraging ones, and that in some cases, men have told me that it sort of bolsters their view of a woman's femininity as well as their own masculinity.

I think that particularly for pastoral reasons, even if it is a sin not to veil we shouldn't really say that--it's not exactly gonna get more women to wear one really. Focusing on what's positive about it--positive mention in Scripture, modesty, reverence, etc--would win more hearts for it. And if it's true that it's still canon law, I don't think it's gonna be tackled by the Vatican any time soon. If we're dealing with things like clown masses and pita bread hosts, veils are probably at the bottom of the list of things to deal with. And practically, it's gonna be very hard for a woman to wear a veil until that point because of those people who argue so vehemently that we don't have to, which I find usually tend to be women since it affects us directly, and while we shouldn't let what others, even our family, say affect our decisions, I think it's understandable if it does, because it is indeed hard. And this way perhaps it's good because instead of women wearing veils because they have to, it becomes a spiritual journey where we can learn about it and fall in love with the practice and truly do it for the purpose it was created, to glorify God, and maybe it'll naturally just return as a liturgical practice--I think the motu proprio and the sort of return to traditional devotions will help speed that along, too.

Anyway, this all doesn't really answer the question first proposed, but oh well. heh

[Aloysius]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1368690' date='Aug 23 2007, 03:34 AM']ok, but if veils have the same important and significance as the proper species and necessity of sunday worship, one thinks that canon law would not suddenly have dropped it.

the CHurch's actions seem to disagree with that last statement.[/quote]
I guess I didn't intend to say they were totally on the same level or anything, but of the same nature as scriptural liturgical requirements

for instance, say the code of canon law ceased to require the Eucharistic species to be bread and wine. it wouldn't all the sudden be acceptable to use beer and cookies. liturgical scriptural requirements that predate the code of canon law don't cease to be required in the liturgy if canon law stops mentioning them. the code of canon law is much younger than the Church. some pope could scrap the whole code on his own initiative as supreme legislator of the Church and bring the institutional church into canonical anarchy, but every Catholic would still be required to go to mass every sunday, every mass would have to confect the Eucharist from bread and wine, et cetera.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1368642' date='Aug 23 2007, 02:15 AM']but what if, because it is no longer required by the Church, wearing a veil would be a stumbling block to your neighbors?[/quote]

This is the kind of reaction I got from the aformentioned priest I encountered in confession. He said, "your brothers and sisters in Christ could interpret what you believe to be a sign of humility as a sign of your pride." Veils aren't really "signs of humility," but that's probably the best interpretation he could come up with. It's true that because I'm the only woman in that community who veils herself, some people could mistake this practice as being legalistic, holier-than-thou and pharasaical. That wouldn't be the case if other women in the community covered their heads. My parish has a different perspective on veiling because people see that 2/3 of women wear veils out of modesty and reverence for Our Lord. There is no way that veiling your head, even if you are the only woman doing it, can cause anyone else to stumble.

[kenrockthefirst]

To me, this smacks of the argument about whether circumcision was required, and speaks to what I regard as an overly legalistic approach to worship. Both Orthodox Jewish women, and of course observant Muslim women "veil" themselves to varying degrees. In my view, as I've stated before, anything that looks like the Taliban is a good reason [i]not to veil[/i].

So, going back to circumcision, if I may paraphrase St. Paul, Gal. 5:6:

[i]For in Christ Jesus neither veiling nor unveiling is of any avail, but faith working through love.[/i]

My two cents. As Era stated, if the Church cares to make a definitive statement about the matter, I'm sure that my wife would comply.

[adt6247]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1368806' date='Aug 23 2007, 10:35 AM']My two cents. As Era stated, if the Church cares to make a definitive statement about the matter, I'm sure that my wife would comply.[/quote]
That, to me, seems legalistic. You're not making issue of whether it's good or not for woman to veil, but you are using the argument that the requirement is not stated in canon law, and ignoring the tradition of the church and sacred scripture, which is far more important than canon law.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='adt6247' post='1368859' date='Aug 23 2007, 10:01 AM']That, to me, seems legalistic. You're not making issue of whether it's good or not for woman to veil, but you are using the argument that the requirement is not stated in canon law, and ignoring the tradition of the church and sacred scripture, which is far more important than canon law.[/quote]
Au contraire, I do make an argument about whether it's good for women to veil, to wit: [i]For in Christ Jesus neither veiling nor unveiling is of any avail, but faith working through love.[/i]

If NOT being veiled doesn't affect my wife's growing in grace and in her relationship with Jesus and His people, who cares whether she's veiled?

[adt6247]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1368876' date='Aug 23 2007, 12:17 PM']Au contraire, I do make an argument about whether it's good for women to veil, to wit: [i]For in Christ Jesus neither veiling nor unveiling is of any avail, but faith working through love.[/i]

If NOT being veiled doesn't affect my wife's growing in grace and in her relationship with Jesus and His people, who cares whether she's veiled?[/quote]
I answer with [i]"But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head"[/i]

So St. Paul, in addition with the tradition of the Church, and of Jewish custom before the church agree. Galatians 5:6 is specifically talking about circumcision, whereas 1 Cor 11:1-17 is specifically talking about veiling. You have to swap words in scripture to make your point.