Veiling challenge


Hmm…then I challenge anyone to be clothed with the sun :sunglasses:…(just trying to lighten the mood here)…

So many responses over a veil…methinks it’s not really about the veil but what the veil symbolizes and represents…


In light of…confusion…these days in the Church, perhaps some people want a physical connection to tradition. And some people have no such desire.

Both seem to be perfectly valid, personal preferences…


That is absolutely true. I highly doubt that God cares one whit who’s wearing what, but he does care very much how we treat our fellow humans.


Of course it is.


You can say that till you’re blue in the face - and it’s so, so true. But, in all probability, before this thread closes, another one, about “veiling” will open. :roll_eyes:


It’s too long, but that would make an interesting thread title.


Our more traditional members dont wear veils nor do they confuse vain tendancies with “being called by God” :grinning:.


Good point. Not to run too far off the OP, which happened long ago anyway, there is a drive to push away traditional leaning Catholics from the Church in some of the more radical liberal elements in the Church. It starts from the top and works its way down. Kind of a rainbow flag mob mentality. And, yes, judgment and hate are encouraged. You just call it change and mercy, whatever. It doesn’t matter - that would be getting too deep, too legalistic. Trickle down Papa Francis.

I am obviously being sarcastic. But the sad part is my observation is basically accurate, and I think a lot of liberals know it, or are starting to realize it. I am not saying traditionalists/conservatives don’t feel and express unChristian aggression, hate towards progressives, that would be absurd. But they are called out regularly for it, criticized harshly, publicly, constantly. Which could actually be a blessing, a corrective, inducing humility, clearing some of that out.

Anyone who is a serious Christian should be concerned. What does this tell you about what is really up in the new post-veil Pastoral Progressive Church. Judge them by their fruits…lock up your sons and ditch the veils.


Anyways we are off topic.
The issue is should we obey the priest when he makes morally neutral decisions re attire as lectors etc.
Yes we should.
Disobedience is not only divisive but futile.


I missed the part where we determined it was ‘morally neutral.’ Last I heard, we did not know and the wife was going to talk to the pastor. And I don’t think it is off topic to examine the question of anti-tradtionalism. A larger point, but not off topic. And back to your point, I do support dress codes; I think veils should be mandatory. :laughing::yum: (just joking) Have you seen some of these threads about how repressive it is to ask women to wear modest dresses to Church? It is ironic, that is all. This demand for conformity and obedience.


You believe wearing a veil or not in Church is the stuff of objective sin…like minor theft or lying?


Once again, getting back to the original post in the thread…

The OP might have his wife inquire about wearing a chapel cap such as in this picture. They are readily available in black, white, and beige. A beige or black one (depending on her hair color) would still cover the head but might be better received by the pastor.



Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.

9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.

19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.


If the pp says no veils for lectors etc why would anyone think this passes muster.

BTW if one is to veil for Church at least do it properly.All hair is meant to be hidden.
This seems as helpful as a 2 inch square bikini top if you will excuse the comparison…though I suppose you were just looking for an excuse to post the pic.


They were were commonly worn when the old code of law was in force. And we didn’t think of ourselves as “veiling” back then. We just saw ourselves as obediently submitting to an ancient law about covering the head which a chapel cap obviously does.

As to whether or not the pastor would except such a veil, I don’t know. But since they are less conspicuous than longer veils, he just might.


Which explains why the authorities gave up enforcing this ancient Eastern secular custom only being given ineffectual lip service in the West.
I dont recall them being worn in my country.

Your advice re acceptability is wishful thinking I suggest. Only a female could think a male decision maker would be appeased!


This is misinformation. Veils (head covering anyway) have been part of the Christian Church since the beginning. At least get your facts right.


Sorry…what fact have I got wrong? Please quote.



Christian head covering and hair covering was unanimously practiced by the women of the Early Church. This was attested by multiple writers throughout the first centuries of Christianity. The early Christian writer Tertullian (150–220) explains that in his day, the Corinthian church was still practicing head covering. This is only 150 years after the Apostle Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. He said, “So, too, did the Corinthians themselves understand [Paul]. In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve.”[10] Clement of Alexandria (150–215), an early theologian, wrote, “Woman and man are to go to church decently attired…for this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled.”[11] Another theologian, Hippolytus of Rome (170–236) while giving instructions for church gatherings said “…let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth…”[12] “Early church history bears witness that in Rome, Antioch, and Africa the custom [of wearing the head covering] became the norm [for the Church].”[13]

Later, in the 4th century, the church leader John Chrysostom (347–407) stated, “…the business of whether to cover one’s head was legislated by nature (see 1 Cor 11:14–15). When I say “nature,” I mean “God.” For he is the one who created nature. Take note, therefore, what great harm comes from overturning these boundaries! And don’t tell me that this is a small sin.”[14] Jerome (347–420) noted that the hair cap and the pray veil is worn by Christian women in Egypt and Syria: “do not go about with heads uncovered in defiance of the apostle’s command, for they wear a close-fitting cap and a veil.”[15] Augustine of Hippo (354–430) writes about the hair covering, “It is not becoming, even in married women, to uncover their hair, since the apostle commands women to keep their heads covered.”[16] Early Christian art also confirms that women wore headcoverings during this time period.[17]
Middle Ages and Early Modern Era

Until at least the 18th century, the wearing of a hair covering, both in the public and while attending church, was regarded as customary for Christian women in Mediterranean, European, Middle Eastern, and African cultures.[18] Women who did not wear hair coverings were interpreted to be “a prostitute or adultreress”.[18][19] In Europe, law stipulated that married women who uncovered their head in public was evidence of her infidelity.[20]

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit