I didn’t even think not wear my veil until I read this article! I always wear a white veil as I remember reading that unmarried girls are traditional expected to wear white. Should I wear a black one considering it is Good Friday? I am really torn about what to do. For those of you who are wear veils, what do you do?
It doesn’t matter, hun Wear whatever color you like. I am unmarried and I wear a black veil as do many young unmarried women/girls that I know. And I know of many married ladies who wear white. It’s not something that is meaningful anymore (the color of the veil, that it). I’ve even seen brown, gold, blue, red, and purple lace veils, so it truly can be any color (although I think something rainbow colored might clash with the purpose of the veil :D).
As for Good Friday, again you may wear any color you wish, but black seems very appropriate. Yet white would not be less so.
Hi there. I will most likely wear either a black or red and black veil as I like to coordinate to the liturgical colors. I’m single. The whole “white for unmarried, black for married” I don’t agree with-too stifling for me. Besides, I recently looked up Jackie Kennedy in mantillas and she wore black sometimes and white or cream at other times and she was married.
I just bought two gorgeous veils as I hadn’t bought any in well over a year. One is royal blue and the other is rose. I look forward to wearing them during the Easter Season. I got them on silverhilltreasures.com
Hope this helps. May God richly bless you this Holy Week and Easter Season.
Please refrain from teaching what the Church does not teach nor Church law require. It’s OK to say that one has a certain opinion. Just make sure that the reader knows that the Church disagrees with you or least does not support your opinion. This helps the reader choose.
I am new to TLM and have been wearing a black veil. I am curious to know if any of you will wear a ‘fashion’ hat to Mass on Easter Sunday. I remember my mom always did. I have one I’d like to wear. Thanks.
I always wear hats to mass. Veils feel somewhat conspicuous to me. I don’t know about a fashion hat, although I do have one lovely old hat with pastel flowers painted on…if I can find anything to go with it, I’ll give it a shot xD
Since when has faithful submission of mind and will to the mind of the Church become someone’s “opinion” (as in: you could be right, you could be wrong)?
Nowadays there seems to be “no canonical or moral obligation for women to wear a veil in the church”. So, what are we to say about the past twenty centuries? Were all those women wrong? Was the Church wrong in imposing a canonical obligation on this matter? Did the practice withhold rather than increase grace ex opere operantis?
Moderator note: Please refrain from teaching what the Church does not teach nor Church law require. It’s OK to say that one has a certain opinion. Just make sure that the reader knows that the Church disagrees with you or least does not support your opinion. This helps the reader choose.
When a priest or any theologian recommends to confess often, we don’t react by saying: hey, that’s your opinion. We don’t reply that current Church Law only requires us to confess once a year. We easily acknowledge the wisdom behind the practice of frequent confession. Also when some good book recommends confession even if we are not conscious of mortal sin, we don’t react by saying: that’s your opinion, confession is only for mortal sins. Sure, when I say we should confess often even if not conscious of mortal sin, that is my opinion, but it is found in Church teaching, and the Church does not disagree, but supports that opinion. Which is the only reason I hold it.
So when it comes to veils, what did I teach that was “my opinion”, that the Church does not teach, does not support, or disagrees with? “Ladies should always wear veils in Church…this practice was never abolished”.
I didn’t say they must. I didn’t say it’s an obligation. I speak of a devotional practice, not of a canonical obligation. I don’t like the legalistic approach to things. It was written into the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1262, that women must cover their heads – “especially when they approach the holy table”, which is exactly what I mentioned. Sure, the Code is no longer in force, but the new Code did not say that women should NOT wear a headcover. In fact, this practice is centuries, even millennia older than the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and it has no reason to cease with the 1917 Code of Canon Law just because Church Law no longer “imposes” it (!).
One can take this further (moderator may want to step in if I am messing up here) and read Canons 27-28 of the 1983 (and current) Code of Canon Law:
<<Custom is the best interpreter of laws. nless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs>>
Since the 1983 Code of Canon Law makes no mention of the immemorial custom of women wearing a veil in Church, it did not abolish this practice! All it does is refrain from imposing it! So I reaffirm what I said: women should wear a veil at least during Holy Mass, because this practice (or custom) was never abolished. It is a good, pious practice.
I could quote Scripture, a very controversial and so-not-modern-day Scripture: <<The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man [c.f. Genesis 2-3]. For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels. Doth it become a woman to pray unto God uncovered? But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Church of God, now this I ordain: not praising you, that you come together, not for the better, but for the worse>>. No matter how many times we re-read this Scripture and re-affirm that it does not impose a moral obligation, it is still clear in its symbolism, and our Catholic culture today more than ever needs a refreshing review of our orthodox beliefs on manhood and womanhood, for which the veil only assists.
The veil, of course, comes from the Old Covenant practice of veiling the Sancta Sanctorum, the Holy of Holies, and was carried into the Liturgy by the practice of veiling the Sacred Vessels and Tabernacle, and was carried into popular piety by veiling…women! Women who are in a sense in the image of She who became the living Holy of Holies by bearing Christ in her womb.
But since today there seems to be “no moral or legal obligation” for women to wear a veil in Church, the readers may chose. I am merely stating my opinion here.
Can you point out exactly where in my two posts do I argue that my personal view carries more weight than that of Holy Mother Church?
See? Now that is called “stating one’s opinion”. What to make of this remark? A reflection of an all-too-common legalistic approach to Catholicism? Regardless, do you really think that it took 1917 years for the Church to “believe that it is necessary for women to cover their head”? Because that’s when the Code of Canon Law reflected this for the first time! And previously, there was no Canon Law, but tens of thousands of norms all over the place. The Church knew that she had to go to the essentials and leave many unnecessary details aside. The same (or a similar) reasoning was behind the revision of the 1917 code in 1983.
No. Canon Law is not there to tell us what is necessary and what isn’t. Canon Law is a very, very, very basic framework. For instance: any sort of disciplinary measure is hinted at, without entering into detail. An example? The seal of confession. The 1215 Fourth Council of the Lateran decreed that a priest who broke the seal of confession was to be <<not only deposed from the priestly office but [also] sent into the confinement of a monastery to do perpetual penance>>. Now that was rough. The new Code of Canon Law didn’t make the breaking of the seal into a small matter, but it did make matters more reasonable by declaring: <<A confessor who…violates the sacramental seal [but] does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.>> That’s as far as Canon Law will go!
My point is that Canon Law is not a repository of all that is right and just. Canon Law is there to avoid that. We went from tens of thousands of canons to 2414 canons to 1752 canons. Furthermore, that the statement you present is not fully correct is also shown by the following :
<<Custom is the best interpreter of laws. [A custom] is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs.>>
Just because Canon Law does not mention the usage of the veil, it does not mean women are forbidden or discouraged from wearing them. They are just not mandated by a certain law. Then again, there is no law mandating frequent confession, or frequent communion. There is no law mandating Mass attendance beyond Sunday and Holy Days. There is no law for lots of stuff. We’ve never been a Church that goes only by the book.
<<A custom which is contrary to or apart from canon law, cannot acquire the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law is not reasonable.>>
Wearing a headcover is not expressly reprobated in the 1983 code, nor was it ever reprobated by the Church. It is also known to be reasonable, since at some point it acquired force of law (though it no longer has it).
This shows much respect for centennial or immemorial customs such as this one. It was Pope Linus (Ist Century) who specifically legislated for the first time that women should wear a headcover (that is without mentioning the Acts, since there was no Bible as we know it by that time).
Cultures and perceptions do change, but the Church and its teachings on manhood and womanhood never change. Surely in [some parts of] the West, rampaging feminism has brought forth some changes. However, the same reasons brought forth by St. Paul and by the Church Fathers and by the saints are still valid today. The Church Fathers speak very highly on the practice. St. John Chrysostom, in particular, had this to say:
Being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. It induces the woman to be humble and preserve her virtue, for the virtue and honor of the governed is to dwell in obedience. A woman does not acquire a man’s dignity by having her head uncovered…reproach derives from her desire to be like a man.
To her is becoming to be covered…It is - he says - on account of the angels that the woman’s head is to be covered…he says concerning the veiling of women: ‘Does not nature teach you this?’ Again, in saying in his letter to the Romans that the Gentiles do by nature what the law prescribes, he hints at the existence of natural law
In an age when secularized women tend to drop more than the head veil, the testimony of Catholic women who freely chose to embrace the headcover when at the presence of Christ the Bridegroom is a powerful testimony. And one will never be able to deny the spiritual benefits that come from wearing the headcover, though there is no obligation whatsoever.
Also the veil, like everything, must be worn with proper understanding and respect rather than just as a mere imposition (much like it’s pointless to run through the Ave Maria’s on the Rosary without proper meditation, etc.). A friend once told me that it was rather pointless to wear the veil on the head if she was not also wearing it on her heart…
Feel free to wear whatever you like, in whatever color, on your head. Women who do so are in no way holier, and the Church clearly does not believe that covering one’s head is integral to its view of “womanhood”. If the Church believed that the practice was crucial, it would still be mandated by Canon Law. It is not. It is a private devotion and that’s really the bottom line.
BTW, Canon Law most assuredly is there to tell us “what’s essential and what isn’t.”