Geez, I hope women are wearing panties…
I asked you to quote me.
I have no idea what you think I am mistaken on???
This is inaccurate. Early Christianity was influenced by Jewish tradition and developed these same customs within the Church as evidenced by the New Testament and the early Church Fathers. The custom of head covering was unanimous throughout Christianity into modern times, including the West up to about 1965, and that includes Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox.
PANTS! I meant pants !
I am happy if they are just peaceful, panties and pants optional.
You do realise I was talking of 1983 not year dot dont you…
Too late…I thought you were taking the hair covering rule down under…boggles the imagination
I mean, I knew you Europeans were liberated but that seems excessive…
Yeah—ads for chapel veils aren’t exactly authoritative history.
Women wore veils when veils were what all women wore publicly. But it was about head covering—not “veiling.” That concept applies to women religious.
Women should feel free to cover their heads…or not. With a mantilla…or not. But the term ‘veiling’ gives the actual object on her head a spiritual significance it never had. One covered one’s head, often with a Kleenex. The type of covering was irrelevant.
Agree with this.
Plus women should not be made to feel contempt or disrespect because they don’t cover and also women should not be made to feel contempt or disprespect if they choose to cover their heads, whether they are wearing a hat, a scarf, a headband, mantilla or a lace veil. Only God can read the individuals heart and reasoning.
Wow. I can’t believe I just read 295 replies on the veiling issue (again).
Every pastor is going to have his pet peeves. Some parishioner behaviors are going to annoy him and he will eventually try to shift the congregation away from those practices. We like the pastor doing this when we agree but not when we are the object of his displeasure. One of your pastor’s peeves seems to be mantilla wearing.
How your wife responds is entirely her choice. As long as she is humble, charitable and kind in her decision making all is good. She shouldn’t feel any particular needs to obey the priest in this matter as he does not appear to be worried about her spiritual growth here, only having everyone conform to his own preferences.
She isn’t going to change him so she can only decide what is most important for her.
Yes!!! I completely agree v
I believe the issue is not her personal attendance at mass.
It is in her new public role - which she may well lose if she does not submit.
She wants it all which does not seem possible.
Its ironic to me that the issue is over a head covering whose spiritual significance is female willingness to submit to “male” authority (be it God, father or husband) … this submission to her priest is exactly what the OP’s wife seems to be having problems with.
In other word’s the traditional “look/feeling” is wanted but not the traditional reality it symbolises.
I do find it difficult to take the words “she feels called by God to do so” seriously…maybe I have missed something.
From reading through this thread, I do not come away with the impression that younger women who wish to wear one see the veil as signifying submission to male authority. No doubt some do. But I’m not sure they see submission as the primary symbolism.
I have NO desire to cover my hair and never will, and I do not consider males to have more authority than I. Equals, yes. God has authority over me, but God is not a male except in the person of Jesus Christ.
(And I am not a feminist, nor do I support female priests.)
I did just catch this in the original post, which I did not notice before, so now I see the situation as more than just wanting the choir all to be uniform.
After reading the rest of this thread, I suppose I need clarification. Is it improper to refer to a mantilla as a veil or simply improper to refer to the practice as veiling? I don’t say veiling, but I do call it a veil. I don’t want to be giving it some greater significance than it is due.
- I’d be more self conscious in a hat.
- To the people who think the women in mantillas are vain or drawing attention to themselves… if you saw a raggedy lookin mom with kids yanking it off her head, is that still your assessment or do you tend to judge attractive or fashionable people more?
- Regarding when the subject briefly became panties, that’s what I’m often afraid people will think they are when there’s just some lacey stuff bunched up in my car or hanging out of the diaper bag. Maybe I should switch to scarves.
Was that even in the original post or did it get edited to add it?
It was in the original post. To me, it indicates he’s not singling her out—he’s looking for uniformity with all liturgical or visible ministry roles.
Yes, a Mantilla is a kind of a veil. But not all veils ought to be called mantillas. A “mantilla” calls to mind a triangular veil that is mostly lace. The mantilla has long been popular with Hispanic and Italian women, but really only became common in other cultures in the 1960s.
At least in the English language it has been not been the custom in the last few hundred years to refer to practice of a woman wearing a veil as “veiling” unless she is entering a religious order or is covering her face (such as a bride might do) as well as her head.
Veils have been worn by women in other cultures, particularly in eastern European cultures, but they were more scarf like. In the United States (other than in heavily Italian or Hispanic areas), Canada, and many northern European areas, hats have been the head covering of choice, at least on Sundays.