Veiling in Church - Page 5

MissRose73 · #61 Mar 12, '12, 6:14 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcprincess

Now that must be a real lesson in humility!!!

And a lesson I hope I never have to have either, but I am sure those in my mother's generation may have had....

MariaGoretti88 · #62 Mar 12, '12, 7:11 pm

Lots of great responses on here about headcoverings!

I see it as a personal devotion since it is no longer required. The reasons for covering are many and varied, but most seem to be very good reasons and seem to bring individuals closer to our Lord and that's the important thing.

Some people strike their breast at the Domine non sum dignus, some cross themselves when passing a church or cemetery, some cover their heads.

If we'd look at Corinthians literally, then men would be sinning by having long hair or by covering their heads in church, but those things aren't considered sinful (granted, not many men cover or wish to), but it's not a sin for someone to cover or not cover in church especially if the Church doesn't require it.

As for those who fear distracting others, don't let anyone stop you from being reverent towards God. I'm sure I distract others by bowing at the part in the Creed where we profess the Incarnation, or when I genuflect before receiving Holy Communion at the Ordinary Form, but if God is glorified...

We may be edifying others without knowing it =/ who knows?

nickybr38 · #63 Mar 13, '12, 12:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by MariaGoretti88

Lots of great responses on here about headcoverings!

I see it as a personal devotion since it is no longer required. The reasons for covering are many and varied, but most seem to be very good reasons and seem to bring individuals closer to our Lord and that's the important thing.

Some people strike their breast at the Domine non sum dignus, some cross themselves when passing a church or cemetery, some cover their heads.

If we'd look at Corinthians literally, then men would be sinning by having long hair or by covering their heads in church, but those things aren't considered sinful (granted, not many men cover or wish to), but it's not a sin for someone to cover or not cover in church especially if the Church doesn't require it.

As for those who fear distracting others, don't let anyone stop you from being reverent towards God. I'm sure I distract others by bowing at the part in the Creed where we profess the Incarnation, or when I genuflect before receiving Holy Communion at the Ordinary Form, but if God is glorified...

We may be edifying others without knowing it =/ who knows?

Just FYI, the commandment was not to PRAY with head covered (men) or uncovered (women). Not that being in Church without or with covering was forbidden but that PRAYING was forbidden.

You might be curious to notice that Bishop's still remove their head coverings when they pray.

Agape11 · #64 Mar 13, '12, 1:14 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickybr38

Just FYI, the commandment was not to PRAY with head covered (men) or uncovered (women). Not that being in Church without or with covering was forbidden but that PRAYING was forbidden.

You might be curious to notice that Bishop's still remove their head coverings when they pray.

I don't know about you, but I pray while I'm in church.

I pray at home too! Some women cover their heads all day long because they feel the need to, because they're in prayer often.

bcprincess · #65 Mar 13, '12, 1:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agape11

I don't know about you, but I pray while I'm in church.

I pray at home too! Some women cover their heads all day long because they feel the need to, because they're in prayer often.

I myself covered all day every day for about 18 months. I had covered "part-time" at church for a long time before that, but stopped because my husband did not like it.

My reason for stopping, was biblically based as these verses refer to dishonouring. That is if a man does cover his head he dishonours his head (that being Christ) and if a woman does not cover her head she dishonours her head (that being her husband). So I was not honouring my own husband by covering all the time, as he did not like it.

So I now choose to cover only for Jesus (in the blessed sacrament) as his bride (part of the church).

nickybr38 · #66 Mar 13, '12, 1:45 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agape11

I don't know about you, but I pray while I'm in church.

I pray at home too! Some women cover their heads all day long because they feel the need to, because they're in prayer often.

OH yeah, my point was wearing a hat until you pray and then removing it for prayer would, theoretically, be correct for males. And not covering until prayer would be appropriate for women. Not that you MUST cover at all times, but just when you pray... if we're reading that passage correctly I think that's what it says. But I may be missing something.

Jegudiel · #67 Mar 13, '12, 1:48 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paxvobis

Before the late 1960s when most Catholic women stopped veiling in church, was it considered a sin not to do so? Or, was it just something people should do? If it was a sin, was it a venial or a grave sin?

Thanks.

Actually most women wore some sort of hat hack in those days. "Veiling" was always an option but it did not carry the crown status it does today amongst some people.

Annabelle Marie · #68 Mar 13, '12, 7:57 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueLight

Enough to make a suit out of a bathroom tissue roll?

:rotf l: I want to see that!

TrueLight · #69 Mar 13, '12, 8:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Annabelle Marie

:rotf l: I want to see that!

I know right?!

Annabelle, have you made it to an EF yet?

Annabelle Marie · #70 Mar 13, '12, 8:15 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueLight

I know right?!

Annabelle, have you made it to an EF yet?

Nope...to far to travel for that. Although my daily parish looks like it might be gearing up for that although they had one of their priest that was helping them with Masses just die of a heart attack so that might be awhile.

I'm going to try and make it to this year's Chrism Mass though...I've been to the rest of Holy Week but never that.

Kathryn Ann · #71 Mar 13, '12, 8:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tantum ergo

It's ambiguous. It wasn't commented on which could mean that it was abrogated as it was not specifically 'carried over', yet the fact that it was not commented on could also mean that it was presumptively still in place as it had not specifically been REMOVED. (Don't you love legalistic thinking?

) Right now there really has not been a statement to make it completely clear as some apologists hold to one position and some to the other.

It's the same with non-Friday abstinence outside of Lent. In the U.S. the Indult is just ambiguous enough with its use of the terms of 'encourage' (because since it was offering people literally millions of individual 'choices' it couldn't very well list out every single one!) that even though the NORM for Catholics remains Friday abstinence, you have literally millions of Catholics who believe and teach that since 'encourage' doesn't mean' Must' that even though Catholics without that indult MUST abstain on Fridays, we special U.S. Catholics can choose never to do a single penitential action on a nonLenten Friday our lives long. Imagine -- Catholic A, not in the U.S., abstains on Friday year round but Catholic B in the U.S. only 'has' to abstain in Lent. . .and one can BET that Catholic B probably stands in as much need of personal penance as Catholic A and then some. . .

But you see that's another kind of example, because supposedly we got the Indult because so many vegetarians were complaining that abstinence wasn't a penance for them because they never ate meat anyway. The bishops wanted to give them a chance to do more. . .and what did they create? 40 plus years of Catholics who for the most part did steadily less and less and less. . .surely not at all what the bishops intended!

As for what we learn with veiling it is about the nature of women (and we DO differ from men), the sense of the sacredness of women who do have a special gift in the potential for motherhood (though any woman who is NOT a mother is NOT second-class!); and finally, something which really sticks in the craw of most 'modern' women. . .the idea of HUMILITY.

Instead of "I am woman hear me roar", a veil says, "I am the servant of the Lord; be it done to me according to THY will." Submission before GOD (not man). . .humility instead of pride. . .'covering' instead of flaunting one's beauty. . .

Yeah, imagine a world where women didn't let themselves be 'objectified' and be concerned only with their bodies and self-gratification and pride. . .where men were expected to respect and love women who knew their worth as women and were supportive and encouraging men to step up and show THEIR true worthiness instead of acting like selfish brats who never grow up and take responsibility. . .

Would a veil bring all this about? Not the veil per se but the proper attitude behind it. . .just might.

I love your posts, Tantum ergo. I think you would love a book called "A Return to Modesty." Perhaps you have read it. The author there is very brave to suggest that modesty and true humility have become lost arts to which we should all aspire. You are very right: the proper attitude is everything! Blessings on your day.
Kathryn Ann

MariaGoretti88 · #72 Mar 13, '12, 9:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickybr38

Just FYI, the commandment was not to PRAY with head covered (men) or uncovered (women). Not that being in Church without or with covering was forbidden but that PRAYING was forbidden.

You might be curious to notice that Bishop's still remove their head coverings when they pray.

I don't find it that curious, it kinda makes sense (although I wouldn't be offended if they prayed with their heads covered just as I'm not if a woman prays with her head uncovered lol).

I've read so many explanations on the First Episle to the Corinthians about behavior in church and headcoverings, and it's beautiful, but I don't know what else to say about it if the Church doesn't require women to cover or men to uncover *raises eyebrows and shruggs shoulders* lolll

Diana Catherine · #73 Mar 14, '12, 7:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by MariaGoretti88

We may be edifying others without knowing it =/ who knows?

Good thought.

I love this quote from St. Louis de Montfort in True Devotion to Mary. He starts out by saying interior devotion is essential and then says this:

"If properly performed, exterior acts help to foster interior ones. Man is always guided by his senses and such practices remind him of what he has done or should do. Let no worldling or critic intervene to assert that true devotion is essentially in the heart and therefore externals should be avoided as inspiring vanity, or that real devotion should be hidden and private. I answer in the words of our Lord, "Let men see your good works that they may glorify your Father who is in heaven." As St. Gregory says, this does not mean that they should perform external actions to please men or seek praise; that certainly would be vanity. It simply means that we do these things before men only to please and glorify God without worrying about either the contempt or the approval of men."

Isn't that an awesome and encouraging quote and he lived from 1673 - 1716. I guess our debates aren't so new.