Why Women Wear Mantillas In Church

Young women wearing mantillas

Young women wearing mantillas

Chapel veils, or mantillas (which comes from the word manta, meaning cape) are typically circular or triangular shaped pieces of black or white lace that are draped over a woman’s head when attending Mass, or in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. Traditionally, the black veils were worn by married or widowed women, while the white veils were worn by young girls, or unmarried women, but there are no hard and fast rules about this.

“Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.” (1 Corinthians 11:10)

St. Paul reminds us that as Christ did the will, and sought the honour of God the Father, so the Christian should avow his subjection to Christ, doing His will and seeking His glory. We should seek a fitting demeanour in our dress and habit, avoiding everything that may be dishonourable before the Throne of God. By covering her head with a veil (or mantilla) the woman is agreeing to her beautiful and unique feminine status. She is showing respect and reverence for the holy angels too, always invisibly present before the Blessed Sacrament, who will come to her side in love and protection. This veiling of the woman before the Lord Our God, may also be a humble imitation of the angels’ behaviour, who when they sang the praises of God, and adored and glorified his perfections, covered their faces and their feet with their wings. (Isaiah 6:2)

From the very earliest days of Christianity, wearing chapel veils as head coverings when entering a Church to pray and adore God, was a common practice among faithful women. Since the Second Vatican Council this practice has no longer been requisite for women attending the Novus Ordo Mass, yet contrary to what many believe, it is still very much supported and encouraged by the Church. Many Catholic women of all ages are now rediscovering this beautiful, age-old tradition. At Latin Masses, and in particular at the celebration of the Tridentine Mass, generally all the women in the congregation can be seen with their heads veiled as a sign of reverence, modesty and piety in their recognition that they are praying in the Sacramental Presence of God.

This act of partially concealing a woman’s physical beauty (especially her lovely hair) is so that the beauty of God may be glorified instead. A veil is both a symbol and a mystical sacrifice that invites the woman wearing it to ascend the ladder of sanctity. It is also a way of emulating the Blessed Virgin Mary, in her humility, purity and submissiveness.

Moreover, the mantilla, or chapel veil, signifies the role of women as a life-bearing vessel. The chalice holding the blood of Christ is veiled until the Preparation of the Gifts, and the tabernacle veiled between Masses. Both of these vessels hold the Eucharist – the very life of Christ. In a similar fashion, woman was endowed with the gift of bearing human life.

“This is why the female body should be veiled, because everything which is sacred calls for veiling. When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, he veiled his face. Why did he veil his face? Because he had spoken to God, and at that very moment there was a sacredness that called for veiling. Now… feminists after Vatican II suddenly discovered that when women go to Church veiled, it is a sign of their inferiority. The man takes off his hat and woman puts on a veil. My goodness, how they have lost the sense of the supernatural! Veiling indicates sacredness and it is a special privilege of the woman that she enters church veiled.” Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand

 “Reclaiming the Sacred” has three articles giving some deeply insightful thoughts about women who wear mantillas, using the captivating comparison and metaphor of the crown jewels in the Tower of London! http://reclaimingthesacred.com/2013/12/26/unwrapping-a-veil-of-mystery-the-mantilla/

Here, with a H/T to “ragazzagallese”, are some of the many websites where beautiful mantillas and veils may be purchased: Zelie’s Roses and Loving Mantillas. And this one:   http://rosamysticamantilla.com/

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

151 Responses to Why Women Wear Mantillas In Church

  1. mkenny114 says:

    This is a beautiful and enlightening post, thank you. Taught me a lot about the mantilla that I hadn’t even thought about thinking about before!

  2. Love it, Kathleen! Thank you. There is also an excellent article on Fish Eaters about veiling which is what helped to convince me. http://Www.fisheaters.com/theveil.html

    I find it quite amazing that St Paul said it is better for a woman to shave her head than to enter church with it uncovered and yet this is dismissed as being only relevant to his time. Not only that, but as you say, it’s a great and beautiful tradition of the Church and the Church does not just stop practising a tradition which it has held sacred. So, we have tradition and fairly strong words from St Paul but no, nope it’s not legitimate? I see…

    No matter, if someone as pigheaded as me can be convinced, anyone can!

  3. kathleen says:

    Thank you Mike Kenny and ragazzagallese for your lovely comments. And the link ragazza…

    Yes Mike, I’m learning new things about our glorious Faith every day too.

  4. I have visited the sited you noted! Thank you for introducing me to other veil makers! +++

  5. Kalondu says:

    Reblogged this on Modesty Rediscovered.

  6. Toadspittle says:

    “I find it quite amazing that St Paul said it is better for a woman to shave her head than to enter church with it uncovered…”
    Amazingly good, or amazingly bad, Ragazza?
    No reason why a woman shouldn’t do both, really. Or neither, of course.

  7. johnhenrycn says:

    I’ve a photo taken of our parish church c.1963-65 from the choir loft above the narthex. Only one uncovered womanly head to be seen. Another photo from that era is of the 40+ altar boy contingent. We still have a large number of altar servers, if you catch my drift.

  8. kathleen says:

    Yes JH, we catch it! 😉
    But little by little we are turning the tide back again to all the Church’s beautiful and holy traditions.

    Thank you very much fillpraycloset and Kalondu for the mentions on your own wonderful blogs that I have been visiting this afternoon.

  9. Thank you for the thoughts, and the re-blog! I will have to check out the others that you listed too. Hopefully more people will come to understand the significance behind the chapel veil.

  10. Thank you, Kathleen. I would like to add my voice to those who have called this post enlightening and beautiful.

  11. Barb Bathon says:

    I too started veiling again, after I made my St. Louis deMontfort consecration, and it seemed only logical! Love that this tradition is coming back, and I see more women each week veiling in my church in Greenville, SC. Great blog!

  12. kathleen says:

    Thank you Robert John – that’s very kind of you. I was doing no more than drawing on all the wonderful minds of faithful Catholics (like the exceptional Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand) who guide our steps towards all that is good, traditional and Holy.

    Yes Barb, I agree with you. It is when one discovers the Sacred, that it is then the logical thing to do. Veiling in the Presence of the Blessed Sacrament is beautiful, and something we do with real joy.
    Thank you for commenting.

  13. kathleen says:

    A delightful post from Richard Collins over on his blog, Linen on the Hedgerow, (one of the best Catholic blogs IMHO, as I’ve said before) on why men do not wear “mantillas” – eek!
    http://linenonthehedgerow.blogspot.com.es/2014/01/why-men-dont-wear-mantillas-in-church.html
    He links back to our post too.

  14. JULIANA C LEE says:

    So to veil or not to veil?

  15. Reblogged this on The Ladder to the Paradise of God and commented:
    Here is a great article on the Catholic and Ancient Christian practice of women covering their heads in church.

  16. Karabo says:

    Can a Catholic man wear a Chapel Veil/ Mantilla in church because I see man in Palastine are doing it during Christmas time?

  17. Episteme says:

    It’s interesting to see the wearing of mantillas among younger women at my parish* of late (mostly younger married women or parish-hopping younger women, as it’s sadly a parish with less of a young singles population at the moment, this thirty-something single man sighs) — given how we’ve always had a few women wearing them over the decades — with the return of their use in Catholic culture (spreading out beyond the ‘traditional’ scene now to the more mainstream churches, much as, for example, the returned popularity of Adoration in recent years as a parish focus).

    I’m reminded actually of the social push among men in many churches to dress up again for masses (personally I’ve been the sort who’s been in a jacket whenever I’m before the Real Presence since college) — this summer has been one of polos & khakis in the pews instead of tees & shorts, so I look forward to seeing how folks are dressed when it turns cooler. As Catholicism is recognized by its practitioners as currently going through a cycle of “subculture” (as a Catholic single, I can attest to our subcultural distinction when I wander out into the main culture and realize why I can’t date there, for example), such externals return to their liturgical force to help us better celebrate our faith and our culture alike while giving those that much more meaning.

    (*while we don’t have any EF masses, I’d place my parish in that “center-right” part of the Novus Ordo range, where we’re working hard on the “beauty of the liturgy” end while building up an emphasis on scripture and formation in a parish heavy in “faith-hungry” college-educated suburban families of Catholic professionals — we actually rebuilt our entire nave about a decade ago to now look like an actual *church* instead of that 1960s gymnasium-monstrosity that they built Catholic churches to look like back then!)

  18. I feel your pain on the dating front! Even with Catholics it’s very tricky. My feeling is that we should just keep
    plodding on, keep up appearances (literally! Still trying to get past the stage where I don’t run out the door with wet hair…) keep praying and hoping. If God wants it, and we’re faithful, it will happen.

  19. geoffkiernan says:

    At what age should Girls start wearing a mantilla in Church?……. Anyone?

  20. johnhenrycn says:

    There is no longer a definite canonical answer to your question, Geoff, as is explained in the link provided above by the ever reliable but unpronounceably named commenter – ragazzagallese (who I think of – mnemonically speaking – simply as “Cupcake”), but here’s another exchange on this issue:
    http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/28004/at-what-age-should-my-daughters-start-wearing-a-head-covering-when-they-pray

    [GC: All done as requested, JH. They went into the spam folder for some reason. Think ragazza gallese – “Welsh girl” (in Italian, of course)]

  21. toadspittle says:

    “At what age should Girls start wearing a mantilla in Church?……. Anyone?”

    …Four and three-quarters.

  22. Brother Burrito says:

    Q. At what blood alcohol level should Toad consider commenting on CP&S?

    A. Zero.

  23. toadspittle says:

    You mean I’m supposed to do this sober, Burron?
    Cripes.

  24. cheryllee84 says:

    I recently received my headcovering that I ordered online. I will wear on the days that I visit the Blessed Sacrament but I would really like to wear it during Mass as well. However, I attend a Novus Ordo Mass so will that make a difference? Can my parish priest stop me from wearing it? I’ve been praying about it for some time now and all I want to do is show a little more respect to my Lord. I go to Mass to see and meet Christ. Any help would be fab thanks. God bless!

  25. cheryllee84 says:

    I recently purchased a head covering from Liturgical Time, I had been praying about it for a few months beforehand. I would like to wear to Mass but I attend the Novus Ordo Mass. Will this make a difference and can my parish priest stop me from wearing it also?

    I want to wear it when I make my weekly visits to the Blessed Sacrament in the monstrance also? Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thanks and God bless.

    PS: I recently was baptised and confirmed Catholic at this year’s Easter Vigil and have been interested and praying about this since I was doing RCIA.

  26. geoffkiernan says:

    Cherylee:
    “….. Can my parish priest stop me from wearing it?…”
    Short of Hog Tying you to that fire hydrant outside, No he cannot. A lot will depend on your resolve I am sorry to say. but nothing should stop you from showing your regard for the Real and Corporeal presence of your creator in the Blessed Sacrament, least of all an ill informed Priest.
    The same would apply If you chose to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion on the tongue whilst kneeling. Be prepared for some strange ‘looks’ from equally ill informed Catholics. Saint Catherine of Sienna Pray for you.
    God Bless you

  27. Tom Fisher says:

    I recently was baptised and confirmed Catholic at this year’s Easter Vigil

    That’s wonderful news!

    I would like to wear to Mass but I attend the Novus Ordo Mass. Will this make a difference and can my parish priest stop me from wearing it also?

    Well, exactly what Geoff said. The mantilla is sometimes, but not often, seen at my parish. I’ve never seen anyone have a problem with it thankfully.

    Given your question, and what it says about your disposition — I doubt there is anything that you feel is appropriate during Mass that your parish priest can legitimately complain about.

  28. geoffkiernan says:

    Tom:
    With respect, your last,
    ” I doubt there is anything you feel appropriate during Mass that your Parish Priest can legitimately complain about…”
    is a little confusing and, or can be, the author of many things (abuses) that now occur in some NO Masses. It is necessary to abide by established and the lawful rubrics of the Mass.
    Recently I heard a Priest who found it necessary to tell his parishioners in a NO Parish they should only say ‘amen’ when receiving Holy Communion. Some had started saying ,’thankyou Father’. I am sure the people concerned were without any malice or intent, but the point being, we cannot simply adopt or use actions or words of our own invention.
    I recently saw a Young Man, an extraordinary minister, elaborately make the sign of the Cross, as if to Bless the Priest or the Chalice of Hosts for distribution. Well intentioned but inappropriate… Both examples may seem like minor infractions but it can be seen how and demonstrates how less minor infractions can be introduced into Sacred Liturgy…

  29. Tom Fisher says:

    Geoff,

    I see what you mean. I meant that last sentence as a statement of confidence in the Catholic and pious judgement of Cherylle — based on her comments thus far. She strikes me as someone of goodwill who needn’t worry too much that she will “do the wrong thing”. — I take your point, but I meant what I said as encouragement to Cherylle — not to mean “anything goes”

  30. toadspittle says:

    What nobody’s mentioning here – oddly – is why Cherylee’s priest should have any problem whatsoever with her wearing a mantilla at Mass.
    Unless he’s off his head, he won’t. We seem to be assuming he’s a lunatic. He might be, but we need evidence.

  31. Tom Fisher says:

    What nobody’s mentioning here – oddly – is why Cherylee’s priest should have any problem whatsoever with her wearing a mantilla at Mass.

    I agree Toad, and no sane priest would have a problem with a mantilla. But — (as I’m sure you agree) not all priests are sane. And, it is possible that Cherylee is overestimating the danger of liberal priests. — Like ’em or not, they’re all very old these days.

    😉

  32. toadspittle says:

    The liberal priests I know – six or seven, straight off the top of my head, Tom, are none of them old. All under sixty – some well under. Gaspar, currently our parish priest, can’t be more than 45.
    All hair-raisingly liberal by CP&S standards, I fear.
    And each of them would be charmed by the sight of a mantilla. I’m totally confident of that.

  33. Tom Fisher says:

    The liberal priests I know – six or seven, straight off the top of my head, Tom, are none of them old.

    Well send a few of the lads to NZ then!

  34. JabbaPapa says:

    At Latin Masses, and in particular at the celebration of the Tridentine Mass, generally all the women in the congregation can be seen with their heads veiled

    Not my experience, and I have never been in any Congregation where even a single woman except for nuns has been veiled.

    feminists after Vatican II suddenly discovered

    Bad old Vatican II, eh ?

    Howsabout reminding people that the doctrinal pronouncements of an Ecumenical Council of the Holy Catholic Church are non-negotiable, a,d particularly not by any “-ists” ?

  35. JabbaPapa says:

    Can a Catholic man wear a Chapel Veil/ Mantilla in church because I see man in Palastine are doing it during Christmas time?

    Not normally, no — but there are exceptions.

    A Lay Catholic, for instance, who has completed the foot pilgrimage from his parish to Compostela has the right to wear the symbols of his pilgrimage during the Mass, which include his hat.

  36. JabbaPapa says:

    Can my parish priest stop me from wearing it?

    Nope.

  37. GC says:

    Of course in some parts of the world veiling at Mass never really stopped, such as in Korea:

    Japan:

    Parts of Burma:

    The Subcontinent:

    and various other places.

  38. geoffkiernan says:

    Jabba, the last part of your comments at 0839…,
    Opens a can a worms that is another topic in its self. Can you direct me to where Mantillas are specifically addressed in the Documents of Vatican II? also how is the question of the wearing of a head covering suddenly warrant being a ‘doctrine’ of the Church? I would have thought a pious and commendable tradition at best. And is it enough that we simply dismiss it because it is PIOUS and traditional(IST) ?
    If the documents of VII are read and understood as perhaps the ‘Fathers’ intended the NO in its present form would probably not exist.
    The ambiguities that flowed from the documents are a major part of the problems that confront the Church today. Consider this extraordinary comment from our illustrious Cardinal Kasper in the Vatican Newspaper L’Osservatore Romano Newspaper dated the 12th April 2013…..

    “In many instances, the Council Fathers had to find compromise formulas in which the position of the major are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to limit them. Thus the Conciliar text them selves have a huge potential for conflict and open the door to a selective reception in either direction”
    Before you dismiss or go in another direction, please explain to me and others what the Cardinal was trying to say.?
    Either way, before a Council, Pastoral, Ecumenical or otherwise has the authority to speak, with the approval of the Holy Spirit, and therein with clarity and ‘TRUTH’ fulness, it must be free of any deception (or even a smell of it). Ask yourself would the Holy Spirit have any part of such a deceptive manoeuvre?
    Five (5) questions Jabba. I look forward to you response.

  39. geoffkiernan says:

    ADDENDUM: The wearing of a mantilla/head cover is grounded also in scripture, It is not only a pious and commendable tradition.

  40. toadspittle says:

    All this is in danger of making a monstrous mountain out of a modest molehill of mantillas.
    It’s a tradition, and, in this case – not only a pleasant and attractive one – but a totally harmless one.
    To which nobody but a raving nut-case could object.
    GC’s pics are very nice indeed. Church-going in Pic 1 seems overwhelmingly a female occupation, even in the East. Oh, well. (Nothing new under the sun, is there?)
    But then, Toad has always thought that ladies in nice hats are sexy. (Specially if they wear glasses. (the ladies, that is – not the hats.)

    Go figure, Jack – as GKC famously told CSL.


    THE END

  41. JabbaPapa says:

    Can you direct me to where Mantillas are specifically addressed in the Documents of Vatican II?

    Hey, it’s the author of the article that made the dubious link between Vatican II and mantillas — not me.

  42. toadspittle says:

    If Vat ll had made a pronouncement about the necessity of men (oh, all right – and some women) wearing paper bags covering their heads during Mass – now that would have been constructive. Ugly lot of beggars we are. Made in God’s image too.
    Unlike these unfortunate creatures
    :http://animalphotos.info/a/topics/animals/mammals/cheetahs/
    who are not. (….It says here.)

  43. cheryllee84 says:

    I would like to thank everyone for their replies, they have all been most helpful. I suppose that I am little bit worried as I have only just become Catholic. My parish priest is a wonderful man, he has been a massive help during RCIA and beyond! I will continue to pray about it, the Lord will lead me as He wills on this matter. I love to see the veiling, such a beautiful tradition and would love to see it more. Thanks again and God bless you all!!

  44. toadspittle says:

    I’d have thought the replies you got on here, Cherylee, would have been absolutely no help whatsoever.
    Reassuring and comforting to be told I’m wrong again.
    …And priests in general are wonderful men. They need to be.

  45. cheryllee84 says:

    most replies were very helpful, others were confusing as I have little understanding of Vatican II but would like to read Documents Of Vatican II sometime soon. God bless

  46. toadspittle says:

    This comment has been deleted by a Moderator

  47. geoffkiernan says:

    Jabba: The last paragraph of yours at 0839……”Howsabout reminding people that the doctrinal pronouncements …………are non negotiable” …..seems to indicate you have owned the inference about VII and mantillas. Then at 1324 you try to pass blame to the author.
    Still 5 valid questions outstanding??

  48. JabbaPapa says:

    Jabba: The last paragraph of yours at 0839……”Howsabout reminding people that the doctrinal pronouncements …………are non negotiable” …..seems to indicate you have owned the inference about VII and mantillas.

    No matter your inference, it’s the original article that links links women no longer wearing mantillas with Vatican II.

    Your other questions appear to be either based on some notions regarding mantillas that you seem to implicitly ascribe to me, but that I refuse ownership of ; else concerned with trying to push precisely the anti-Vatican II agenda that I have already denounced.

  49. geoffkiernan says:

    Sorry Jabba… I don’t wish to harp, but your last Paragraph at 0839…?
    ” Howsabout reminding people that the doctrinal ,pronouncement of an ecumenical council of the Holy Catholic Church are non negotiable, and particularly not by any IST’s”

    I take from that, you are suggesting that any pronouncement from an ecumenical Council (VII) must be accepted without any consideration or deliberation (especially by any ‘-ists’ ) By -ists, I gather you mean or include Traditional(ists)
    Having respect and regard for your comments in the past could you please explain what you meant by that statement before I respond further??

  50. JabbaPapa says:

    I don’t wish to harp

    exactly what you’re doing, though — and “-ists” on its own refers to the politically motivated in general.

  51. johnhenrycn says:

    Inspirational photos presented by GC at 10:16 on 07 May. Women who wear head coverings at Mass gain immediate respect from men.

  52. geoffkiernan says:

    Jabba: didn’t mean to offend your sensitivities old girl,/ old chap,/ little girl, but you do come over as a bit of a fraud. You make provocative statements and then when challenged, start sulking.
    My suggestion….Firstly, Man Up ( if that is what you are. You do however sound like a petulant/pompous little school girl) and then either Put up or Shut up.

  53. Tom Fisher says:

    Geoff has taken on the Jabberwocky ….

  54. toadspittle says:

    Brillig, Tom.

    (Why can’t we all just get along?)

  55. JabbaPapa says:

    You do however sound like a petulant/pompous little school girl

    Thank you for your kindness, though funnily enough I’m not the source of the whining in this thread from not being satisfied.

  56. JabbaPapa says:

    Brillig, Tom

    Slithy, IMO.

  57. geoffkiernan says:

    Jabba: And what about the ‘fraud’ bit????. Can I deduce that you agree with that part of my assessment?…..” Insert here a little smiling face”
    Hey toad, I like your input….. will you be willing to act as an intermediary? You know, a sort of peace maker. After all, your talent for getting along with everyone is known world wide…IHAnotherLSF

  58. geoffkiernan says:

    Brillig, Slithy ???? Tom: Do you know what language they are speaking ?

  59. Tom Fisher says:

    Was just a joke Jabba

  60. JabbaPapa says:

    And what about the ‘fraud’ bit????. Can I deduce that you agree with that part of my assessment?…..

    Would you like me to shower you with insults ?

    There’s one word for what you’re doing here : trolling.

  61. JabbaPapa says:

    Was just a joke Jabba

    Ditto

  62. toadspittle says:

    “Brillig, Slithy ???? Tom: Do you know what language they are speaking ?”
    Rhyming slang, Geoff.
    They’ll be calling you a merchant banker next.
    …Just you see.

  63. Tom Fisher says:

    Geoff, ignore the sly Toad.

    Brillig and slithy are two words from the nonsense poem Jabberwocky in Alice through the looking-glass (about the slying of the Jabberwock, seen in picture I posted)

    ‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
    All mimsy were the borogroves,
    And the mome raths outgrabe.

    Alice asks Humpty-Dumpty for an explanation and is told:

    “Brillig” means four o’clock in the afternoon – the time when you begin broiling things for dinner

    “Slithy” means “lithe and slimy.” “Lithe” is the same as “active.” You see it’s like a portmanteau — there are two meanings packed into one word

  64. toadspittle says:

    Too right, Geoff – give Toad the old Spanish Archer – El Bow.
    ‘E don’t know what ‘e’s rabbiting about. Probably gorn round the mile.

  65. geoffkiernan says:

    Jabba, I will accept Toad as a mediator if you will. As for trolling. The only reason I continue is because I keep getting bites.
    Toad I have been called a lot worse than a merchant banker ….not deserved of course but I am sure Jabba would not agree with that.

  66. GC says:

    JH, May 10, 2015 at 21:23: Women who wear head coverings at Mass gain immediate respect from men.

    I think there is something even very naturally reverent about it. Most women, of course, will beautify or adorn their hair and Mass is hardly the place to show everyone they have. It can be very distracting at times.

    Still a few of the girlfriends covering here, with items rather more substantial than mantillas such as shawls. Indian women only need pull the top part of their saris up over their heads, which many do especially when approaching for communion. See here: (!liturgical prancing alert! – it was the harvest festival of the Borneo indigenous, a big day for them every end of May/beginning of June).

  67. johnhenrycn says:

    It must be a bit hard for women, especially younger ones, to be the first in their parish to attempt a renewal of the mantilla tradition. No one wants to come across as holier-than-thou. If the priest were to preach a homily encouraging it, that might help break the ice. And if the Catholic Women’s League in the parish made a collective decision to wear them, that would spare individuals from being singled out.

  68. GC says:

    Sure, JH, I think with a sympathetic priest and four or five like-minded women to lead the way, can be done.

    It needn’t be a mantilla. A scarf or shawl will do nicely as in the Eastern churches still, as they did in the past in Catholic churches too.

  69. kathleen says:

    @ Jabba

    Your evasiveness in answering Geoff’s above questions surprises me. Why not just come out and state clearly what you appear to find misleading in the text?

    I am not sure if your evident disagreement with “the author of the article” is in fact directed to the great St. Paul who states that women should “cover their heads”, or the eminent Alice von Hildebrand, who points to the scorn of the feminists as being the reason for the sudden halt of the custom of women veiling in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament… or perhaps to yours truly, who wrote the rest of the article!
    But you see Jabba, I did not invent anything here, but took the whole piece from varied Catholic sources dealing with this pious, ancient tradition in the Church. Catholic women who are now returning to this practice are happy to cover their ‘crowning glory’ (as women’s hair is often referred to) and thus give greater honour to God. It is feminine; it demonstrates reverence and humility; its symbolic significance allows one to enter into prayer more readily.

    Alice von Hildebrand correctly assesses that it was the militant feminists in the immediate aftermath of the Council, who, animated by the surge of worldwide militant feminism at this time (thanks mainly to the birth of ‘the pill’ and all its implications with the new-found sexual ‘freedom’), instigated the cessation of anything they saw as a ‘put down’ to women. Even the obnoxious militant feminists themselves would agree the ‘swinging sixties’ and the ‘sexual revolution’ of this period were the real start of what they call ‘women’s lib’. (‘Twould be better called ‘women’s slavery’ – to Satan’s seductions – but that is a topic for another time!)

    If your objection is to Alice’s use of the phrase “after Vatican II”, then perhaps we might ask, if the changes and new ‘ideas’ it brought were indeed so innocent why did the hurricane of destruction sweep away so much of the Church’s magnificence and beauty in its wake, and ugliness and banality come to replace it, don’t you think?

    (I have been away for over a week on family matters which is why I have been unable to respond earlier.)

  70. JabbaPapa says:

    kathleen :

    your evident disagreement with “the author of the article”

    Did I ever say that I disagreed with the gist of the article ?

    I have only disagreed with some secondary – albeit important – points made within.

    our evasiveness in answering Geoff’s above questions surprises me. Why not just come out and state clearly what you appear to find misleading in the text?

    But I have : a) that Vatican II is completely silent on the question of mantillas, and therefore the author’s linking of the two is flawed at best b) therefore that his implicit proposal that the wearing of mantillas is somehow counter to Vatican II is nonsense c) and I’d add, since everyone is insisting so annoyingly, that Summorum Pontificum expressly condemns the misuse of the Traditions of the Faith for the purpose of expressing teachings that seek to sow discord among the Faithful. d) My comments regarding the doctrinal teachings of Vatican II were a deeper criticism of the author’s destructive attitude towards those Dogmata, and had exactly nothing to do with mantillas.

    Mantillas meanwhile remain as a perfectly fine Tradition of our Faith in and of themselves.

    the scorn of the feminists as being the reason for the sudden halt of the custom of women veiling in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament

    Don’t think it’s feminism, really, but Modernism. But that’s a matter of personal interpretation rather than substance.

    This still does not mean I’d disagree with the gist of the article ; but I DO disagree with being expected to respond to whichever weird notions are attributed to me of the 2+2=5 variety …

  71. Tom Fisher says:

    This is what Geoff initially took umbrage at:

    [Jabba] Bad old Vatican II, eh ? Hows-about reminding people that the doctrinal pronouncements of an Ecumenical Council of the Holy Catholic Church are non-negotiable, a,d particularly not by any “-ists” ?

    Then Geoff said: Jabba, the last part of your comments at 0839…,
    Opens a can a worms that is another topic in its self. Can you direct me to where Mantillas are specifically addressed in the Documents of Vatican II? also how is the question of the wearing of a head covering suddenly warrant being a ‘doctrine’ of the Church?

    Then Jabba said: Hey, it’s the author of the article that made the dubious link between Vatican II and mantillas — not me.

    Jabba is right here, and Geoff has misunderstood him. — Jabba’s (long forgotten) initial comment was simply a reminder that the issue of Mantilla wearing can’t be reduced to ‘Vatican II’ and its application

  72. kathleen says:

    @ Jabba

    “Did I ever say that I disagreed with the gist of the article ?”

    You said nothing about “gists”, but you complained that the author of the article (me, I presume) was “whining”!
    But I don’t believe I was… and the wonderful Alice von Hildebrand, in the paragraph I quoted from her, was only bringing up the symbolic importance of a lovely tradition that was abandoned for no apparent reason other than that it did not fit in to the new ideas of the militant feminists (or yes, modernists) who had lost the sense of the “supernatural”.

    “a) [that] Vatican II is completely silent on the question of mantillas, and therefore the author’s linking of the two is flawed at best b) therefore that his implicit proposal that the wearing of mantillas is somehow counter to Vatican II is nonsense”

    Well, I don’t know who the “his” is supposed to refer to! I am a “her” (and so I believe is Alice!) 😉
    The linking of the two is not “nonsense” though; it is indisputable that this tradition and many others went out of the window straight after VII… even though I do agree that the Council itself appears to have said nothing on the matter.

    Your point c) is not relevant in this discussion.

    “d) My comments regarding the doctrinal teachings of Vatican II were a deeper criticism of the author’s destructive attitude towards those Dogmata, and had exactly nothing to do with mantillas.”

    This is what worries me most of all. Do you really think I have had a “destructive attitude” towards any “Dogmata” Jabba? I really do not know what you mean by this accusation.

  73. kathleen says:

    “Jabba’s (long forgotten) initial comment was simply a reminder that the issue of Mantilla wearing can’t be reduced to ‘Vatican II’ and its application”

    That is true Tom… and Geoff had already pointed out mantillas were not specifically addressed in the Documents of Vatican II before asking his questions.

    However, nobody can deny that the old practice of women wearing a mantilla, veil, or any other head covering went out together with a wide spectrum of beautiful Catholic pieties in the years following the closing of the Council. Why? This abandonment of so many Catholic devotions at this time is a real puzzle, and in hindsight the true devastation to the Faith of millions of believers has been painfully evident for all to see. It is something that has been much discussed and speculated upon by faithful clergy and laity alike. There is nothing in the Vatican II documents calling for this relinquishing of so many spiritual devotions and aids that had nourished the faith of centuries of Catholics… so where on earth did it all come from? Some say it was an over-enthusiastic desire towards successful Ecumenism; e.g. “we must not offend our Protestant brothers with all that Catholic stuff”! The result? Very few converts to the One True Faith anymore… and an exodus of Catholics to a Church they now saw as either Protestant or irrelevant!

    Fortunately, over the last 20 years or so, and certainly under the Papacy of Benedict XVI, the tide has been turning back again to a gradual reawakening of all those buried Catholic practices and devotions (most important of all the return, in places, of the magnificent Tridentine Mass) but we still have a long way to go to recover anything like the Church’s former Catholic splendour in the West.

  74. JabbaPapa says:

    As you can see kathleen, mantillas were hardly as ubiquitous as you seem to think before Vatican II, even at a Mass given by HH Pope Pius XII :

    1950 : http://www.ina.fr/video/I14014693/messe-du-pape-pie-xii-video.html

    My impression from this archive and others is that they were an accoutrement of the wealthier or more pious, whereas most women used a hat or a simple scarf, or simply went bare-headed.

    (it would also seem clear to me that they were more common North than South ; in Winter than Summer)

    kathleen, I think that you’re erroneously laying at the feet of Vatican II the simple fact that hats went right out of fashion during the 20th century, and among men just as much as among women.

    http://www.quora.com/Why-when-did-most-men-in-the-United-States-stop-wearing-hats-every-day

    And according to this : http://www.fashion-era.com/hats-hair/hats_hair_1_wearing_hats_fashion_history.htm ; the wearing of hats started declining after WW1 and especially WW2 ; NOT “after Vatican II” — and most certainly NOT for the reason of “feminists … suddenly discover[ing] that when women go to Church veiled, it is a sign of their inferiority

    I really can’t retract the substance of my comments, although I do apologise for calling you “he”, and for not realising this was an original piece.

    it is indisputable that this tradition … went out of the window straight after VII

    As you can see, even a very quick and superficial research into the history can call that claim into dispute.

    Geoff had already pointed out mantillas were not specifically addressed in the Documents of Vatican II before asking his questions

    … except that his questions were completely skewed by a priori and sought to present me as having offered opinions quite contrary to what I’d written.

    nobody can deny that the old practice of women wearing a mantilla, veil, or any other head covering went out together with a wide spectrum of beautiful Catholic pieties in the years following the closing of the Council

    I deny it — as it is clear that the abandonment of hats and head coverings in daily usage, including Sundays, took place roughly between the 1920s and 1970s, and that it was completely independent of that Ecumenical Council.

    I do get really, really tired of those who seek to claim that all that is bad in the Church today is because of “Vatican II”. Such claims, no matter how well-meaning, can only sow discord and strife.

    I repeat my opinion that mantillas are a perfectly fine Tradition of our Faith in and of themselves.

    kathleen, I’m a hat-wearer, so I do keep my eye out for these things — I have NEVER seen any women wearing a mantilla or scarf etc at a TLM ; though some women do wear their hats down here for the Novus Ordo.

  75. Let me say that there is no substitute for actually being there, as apposed to relying on old film clips and biased or false historical accounts, often themselves dependant on historical or second hand accounts of what the true state of things were at a particular time.
    Jabba’ first attempt gives far too much credit to an obscure and brief clip of film depicting (not a Mass) but an encounter with Pius 12 in what could be described as a tourist photo opportunity in a tourist precinct. I am sure Non Catholics made up a sizeable portion of those in attendance thereby having little credible relevance to what he was trying to illustrate.
    Jabba relies similarly, when he/she asserts that as the wearing of hats was a dying social/secular fashion it was therefore the real reason and cause for a decline in the practise of wearing a head covering in Churches. The dying secular Fashion and the Church custom were ( and should still be) two distinctly separate events. The first took place over a number of years as he/she indicates. The latter took place dramatically and suddenly even before the conclusion of VII. As did the eating of meat on Fridays and the reception of Holy Communion whilst standing and in the Hand. I was there and I saw it happen.
    The dropping of these time honoured customs had nothing to do with Vatican II and everything to do with the SPIRIT OF VATICAN II…. VII may or may not have been inspired by the Holy Spirit but the SPIRIT OF VII has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit
    Some to this day don’t believe (or cant believe it possible) that 6 protestant Ministers assisted Archbishop Bugnini with the formulation of the ‘New Mass’. They did and it was well known and reported in the secular press at the time.
    I might add that as a starry eyed 22/23 year old I embraced everyone of these innovations as did the overwhelming number of People, Priest/Bishops at the time. They were exciting times to be alive in the Church. Great things were going to happen. With a New Mass the Church was going places…… It went places alright…. Down and still continues downward in every measureable statistic….
    It took me over 40 odd years of resisting His grace (even ceasing to practice for a time), before I eventually came Home. I loved the Church then and Still love her today.
    So to Jabba and his/her ilk, don’t sit in your armchair and pontificate what it was like, take it from some one who was there and witnessed it. There are fewer and fewer of us left

  76. kathleen says:

    Thank you Geoff for this passionate and insightful analysis on the real catalyst that caused the steady undermining and destruction of the Catholic Faith in the West – the devious stratagem known as the SPIRIT OF VATICAN II. It is truly helpful and enlightening to have someone who actually lived this period give their personal testimony of where the root causes of the destruction of so many Catholic traditions and devotions lay. Rather than being called the spirit of Vatican II, it would be better named the spirit of Satan-the-destroyer!

    Yes, it was this ‘excuse’ (rather than anything written in the documents of VII) that gave free rein to each and every crazy idea both the true enemies infiltrated into the Church called upon (Masons ?) as well as the gullible (yet probably well-meaning) idiots* who were swept along in its wake.

    * I do not mean to offend anyone with the use of this word; we can all be “idiots” sometimes when we go along with the crowd (often simply for the sake of peace). If we stick our neck out and oppose the current ideas and trends we know in our conscience are wrong, we can make a lot of trouble for ourselves! But hey, “Catholics are born for combat”, no?

    P.S. Jabba is a “he”! (The “Papa” in his name is the giveaway.) 😉

  77. kathleen says:

    Dear Jabba, I really do think you are barking up the wrong tree, trying to lay the blame of the relinquished tradition of women and girls veiling before the Blessed Sacrament on the current fashions and trends of the times! (Never heard that one before! 🙄 ) Once again, as the perspicacious Alice von Hildebrand stated: it was a direct result of the loss of the sense of the supernatural in the aftermath of the Council (and no, I am not blaming the Council itself) that put an end to this and so many of the above-mentioned Catholic traditions and practices.

    “I have NEVER seen any women wearing a mantilla or scarf etc at a TLM ; though some women do wear their hats down here for the Novus Ordo.

    All I can say to this, is that you and I live in different worlds! 🙂

  78. Thanks Kathleen. Good to hear from you again..,.,. Michael Matt, the editor of the Remnant Newspaper ( founded in 1967 as a direct reaction to the SPIRIT OF VAT II) said this on the 28th February 2013….
    “We have never claimed that outright heresy was to be found in the 16 documents of Vat II but rather a plethora of easily manipulated novelties, imprecisions, ambiguities and ‘time bombs’ which when detonated by liberals, modernists and yes the Media, left the Faith of Millions in shambles in the years that followed. The most effective vehicle for injecting endless novelties into the life blood of the Church, was the SPIRIT OF VATICAN II. ”

  79. GC says:

    I can clearly remember that all women and girls (except for the very young) covered their heads during Mass and other liturgical services (Benediction, Stations of the Cross etc.). It wasn’t necessarily mantillas we used but also scarves or hats. Ladies doing the flowers on the altar etc. probably wouldn’t cover as it was outside of Mass. Similarly all men and boys would bare their heads on just entering a church, except for the clergy at certain points during services. This was a very strict rule. In fact this was all part of Canon Law until the new code in 1983.

    1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 1262

    2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

    Couldn’t get it much clearer than that, could you.

  80. JabbaPapa says:

    I am sure Non Catholics made up a sizeable portion of those in attendance

    Are you ? How, exactly ?

  81. JabbaPapa says:

    the current fashions and trends of the times! (Never heard that one before!)

    But focus on these trends to the detriment of the Tradition is quite clearly a part of the Spirit of Modernism which itself informed the “Spirit of Vatican II” !!!

    Never heard it before ???

  82. toadspittle says:

    Toad’s recollections of Pre-Catastrophic Masses – are the much same as GC’s. Women – hats on…men hats off.
    Of course, for the Quivering Brethren and The Incas – it is, or was – contrariwise. Not sure what we can learn from that.

    However, now we are all on the same hymn-sheet: Head-covering at Mass (or not, depending) is a sign of respect (or disrespect, depending) – all depending on naughty old sex – as usual?
    Well, that depends.
    There….”simples” – innit?

  83. Jabbapapa:
    If it is a photo opp in a tourist precinct, as it seems reasonably likely to be, then it is a reasonable assumption to make that maybe some were not Catholics and had no particular reason to don head ware. Furthermore if not in a Church or in the presences of the Blessed Sacrament why would anyone don head ware? except in the presence perhaps of the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on Earth …. In all that I had to say, is that the only thing you could find to contend with ?

  84. toadspittle says:

    “Furthermore if not in a Church or in the presences of the Blessed Sacrament why would anyone don head ware?”

    Sunstroke, Geoff.

    You prolly need a titfer with corks hanging off the brim, cobber.
    …Or maybe – “if not in a church” – a crash helmet?

  85. JabbaPapa says:

    If it is a photo opp in a tourist precinct, as it seems reasonably likely to be

    aaaaaah — good old “if”

    in reality, the “photo opp” did not exist as such 65 years ago, as you presumably well know given your pretensions to eye-witnessery ; also in reality, the film in question was made ad hoc by an amateur in the Congregation.

    So again — where is your evidence that “many” in that 1950 Congregation were non-Catholic ?

  86. JabbaPapa says:

    is that the only thing you could find to contend with ?

    Nope — your actively unhelpful attitude and repeated insults for starters.

  87. JabbaPapa says:

    kathleen : Dear Jabba, I really do think you are barking up the wrong tree

    How the table turns !!

    So — after geoff engages in copious insults towards me, after my having informed him that he had significantly misunderstood my – frankly – conservative critique of the piece, it’s now me “barking” up trees (“wrong” ones) ? Cripes !! Not even the Toad’s gentle canine companions are culpable nor capable of such misdirection !!

    geoff seems to have got it into his head to engage upon some sort of ill-conceived course of ad hominem seeking to portray me in whichever ill light of his own fantasy.

    (not that I’m holding my breath for any sort of retraction nor apology for those calumnies ; and never mind the whole “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbour” thingy)

    All I can say to this, is that you and I live in different worlds!

    😉

    I wasn’t baptised yesterday, dear kathleen, nor am I unaware of multiple accounts of sometimes quite radical and sometimes quite detrimental changes in the liturgy pursuant to the publication of the Novus Ordo — but the gross disaster of the English liturgy of the New Mass (in its frankly Protestant affinities) was still a local disaster, albeit extremely widespread, rather than being universal. And yes, I’m well aware that this disaster was restricted neither to the English translations nor to the English-speaking world.

    The Novus Ordo Mass, as it is intended, and as it is given in a properly Latinate, reverent, and Holy manner, is the Mass, is the Mass, is the Mass.

    But you really do underestimate the ability of Fashion to dictate how people will dress.

    If “the new mass” were adopted by hoi polloi as a fashion including some sartorial and behavioural rebellions against the Tradition, as it seems to have been – extremely sadly – then any link at all with “Vatican II” as the “source” of these rebellions and protestantisms can only be viewed as dubious.

  88. JabbaPapa says:

    if not in a Church or in the presences of the Blessed Sacrament why would anyone don head ware?

    Do you imagine the Basilica of St Peter in Rome during the Holy Mass not to be a church and not in the Presence of the Blessed Sacrament ?

  89. JabbaPapa says:

    if not in a Church or in the presences of the Blessed Sacrament why would anyone don head ware?

    Other answer — to keep off the rain, the sun, the dust, the flies, and the wind.

  90. JabbaPapa says:

    if not in a Church or in the presences of the Blessed Sacrament why would anyone don head ware?

    Other answer — because hats are cool.

  91. johnhenrycn says:

    My goodness, over 70 comments since March 31st, and not just a few vituperative ones. You’d think Mr Ad Hom himself (not mentioning any names) had control of this thread, which should be renamed Arsenic and Old Lace. Arsenic. Old Lace. Geddit? Ha, ha 😉

    But all I have to say is: Geoff, please stop referring to JP as ‘he/she’. You might be genuinely uncertain about his identity, but the rest of us who’ve known him for 5+ years are not. Almost as bad as that loathsome toad repeatedly calling my deceased uncle a lesbian.

  92. Gee, did the world really only start revolving the moment Jabba was born? That would explain a lot. It was your reluctance to respond to what I thought were genuine questions. I do apologise for perceived insults and wish you well…
    JH I am glad you concede that I was genuinely unaware of his gender.

  93. johnhenrycn says:

    Geoff says (23:34) “…I was genuinely unaware of his gender.”

    Funny, Geoff, that you of all people use the word ‘gender’ instead of ‘sex’. Feminists prefer the word gender because sex has to do with biological/physiological differences between men and women, which feminists largely reject, whereas gender is their politicized word for the roles that people play whatever their sex. Feminists prefer the term gender because, in their political construct, it celebrates women who assume roles that traditionally belong to men, and vice versa. Hence, the word transgender. Now, it was not always thus. Before Vatican II 😉 gender used to be a word purely for the grammatical classification of the one of the 3 classes of objects roughly corresponding to the two sexes and to sexlessness – masculine, feminine and neuter. But now, the term gender is used to describe role playing, and the gender list is up to about – oh I can’t keep count – but here’s a fairly current list of gender roles. Please forgive me, Tom Fisher, if yours is missing.

  94. Tom Fisher says:

    Please forgive me, Tom Fisher, if yours is missing.

    🙂 It is missing! I couldn’t find “Heterosexual married man” anywhere on that

  95. johnhenrycn says:

    Glad we can still banter, Tom Fisher, even though you didn’t approve of one of my earlier pathetic, paranoid, puerile posts.

  96. Tom Fisher says:

    Just one particular post. I felt I had to strongly protest it, that being done, it’s done with. My only regret is saying a moderator should have deleted it — I’m annoyed with myself for saying that. I don’t actually think that you should have been censored, offensive or not; free speech etc.

  97. Tom Fisher says:

    Gee, did the world really only start revolving the moment Jabba was born? That would explain a lot.

    Heh. You could paraphrase Newtown’ epitaph:

    Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid in night: God said, “Let Jabba be!” and all was light.

  98. johnhenrycn says:

    Tom Fisher says (01:51) – I don’t actually think that [JH] should have been censored, offensive or not; free speech etc.”

    So glad for your belated defence of free speech, Tom, (which is why I’ve given you a ‘thumbs up’) but which politically progressive liberals like you actually seem hell bent on destroying. To paraphrase James Madison’s Federalist Paper No. 10 (too tired to accurately cite it right now):

    “Only out of free discussion, the unbridled clash of opinion and assertion – including false, disagreeable, and unpopular opinions, can truth ultimately emerge.”

    One reason why you have no truck with my opinions about a certain segment of our population is because opinions like mine are no longer expressed in print – except in non-commercial venues like this one – which means that people are no longer exposed to and allowed to think about them. I had to look back more than 30 years to find the scholarly article I linked on that earlier Comments Closed thread (which article I doubt you even looked at) talking about the awfulness of homosexual life. Such an article would never be published today except in very brave publications.

  99. Tom Fisher says:

    You’d be amazed John Henry how far to the right on these issues some progressives have told me I am! I’m comfortable being unpopular on both sides!

    There’s a couple of distinctions to draw here re free speech. (And as I say my comment about moderation was made in irritation, and I thoroughly regret it) — The fact that something impugns a segment of the population is not in itself reason to censor it. — That’s one side of the coin. The corollary of that is that people have a right and responsibility to protest when their sense of decency is offended. I read all the content you linked to. Just as I have read plenty of content relating to different races, religions, etc. In each case my (considered) opinion is that such material should available, — but it should also be responded to in terms that make it clear how uncivilised it is. — Obviously we can disagree about what’s civilised. There’s not much to be done about that

    As a p.s. the reason I have no truck with your opinions is not that I’ve been denied the opportunity to see a wide range opinions in print. I’ve spent a fair chunk of my life reading, and I don’t simply get my worldview handed to me by the broadsheets.

  100. johnhenrycn says:

    “I don’t simply get my worldview handed to me by the broadsheets.

    What about the tabloids?

  101. johnhenrycn says:

    …just joking, as Gertrude would say.

    Speaking of whom, I wonder if Gertrude was thinking of Hamlet’s mother when she picked her blog name? I rather doubt it.

  102. Tom Fisher says:

    What about the tabloids?

    Just page 3! (I kid) not sure if that still exists.

    Hamlet’s mother

    I hope not! 🙂

    in reality, the “photo opp” did not exist as such 65 years ago

    True enough. We’re making up for that now though. Cheers!

  103. johnhenrycn says:

    Ha! I say “Ha!” because last week I asked a police photographer friend of mine to photoshop a picture of my son with his lovely wife taken on their first wedding anniversary, in which he (son) is holding a large can of beer. A lager, like Ratzinger is holding. The can was removed from the photo, not the wife.

  104. johnhenrycn says:

    I too hope you’re right, TF, about Gertrude’s choice of a blog name, but as her favourite pontiff once said: “Who am I too judge?

  105. Tom Fisher says:

    The can was removed from the photo, not the wife.

    It’s a disconcerting moment in any young lady’s life when her Father-In Law arrives at the house with a framed photo in which she’s been replaced with over-sized pot plant. We’re very fond of you Abigail, but your inner beauty (which is, ahem, your best feature) doesn’t quite come over in photographs.

    😉

  106. johnhenrycn says:

    Speaking of photoshopped pictures… looking at the photo introducing this thread – specifically at the face and then at the hands of the young woman in the foreground, why do her hands look like an old woman’s hands? And why the heavy bracelet on her right wrist? Is that to hide photoshopping?

    And why is she wearing a ring on her right index finger? is that a Catholic custom somewhere?

  107. JabbaPapa says:

    Gee, did the world really only start revolving the moment Jabba was born?

    cripes, does every single one of your posts need to be snide ?

  108. JabbaPapa says:

    A lager, like Ratzinger is holding

    It’s a Weißbier, actually …

  109. Tom Fisher says:

    Gee, did the world really only start revolving the moment Jabba was born?
    …..
    cripes, does every single one of your posts need to be snide ?

    I’ve lost track of what Jabba and Geoff’s disagreement is. You both seem like good people

  110. Tom Fisher says:

    You both seem like good people

    I pressed send to early … was going to say …. so I reckon you should both make peace 🙂

  111. Tom: You are right. I am sure Jabba is a good bloke and I apologise for my snideness rightly pointed out to me by him. I have a lot of regard for what he had said in the Past so he does not deserve some of the things I said. Insulting…? perhaps but I used them more as a tactic, as gentle barb, to elicit an explanation. As I said I wish him well….

  112. JabbaPapa says:

    Tom Fisher cradled his demitasse of gently caldescent and brightly leguminous Geisha, as his wandering eye perused, increasingly frownfullly, the latest woefully opaque offerings from that uncivilisedly illiberal serial dastard Jabba,

    Curses!” he suddenly expostulated, as the resolve came upon him to type some illustrated admonishments against these repeated, ignominious, irrelativist crimes of continuous lèse-Fisher, noticing as he had that a drop had fallen, urged into movement by the uncontrollable slight shake of his left wrist motivated and enacted by the embarrassingly simple emotional reaction of annoyance against those baroque absurdities as should only be natural in any such a gentleman of decency and upbringing as he, Tom Fisher, were himself, for that drop had irksomely spotted the fabric of his prizèd vintage silk brocade lounging jacket, noticing all the whilst through the corner of his pursèd eye that Melmoth the Siamese, startled by the sudden and inhabitual expression of any such manifestly negative emotional state, quite contrary to the usual calm stiff-upper-lipped placidity of the gentleman in question, after pouncing down to the finely motif’d Isfahan rug, had began lightly padding away across the orchidaceous patterns of the weave, tail and head held high in the sheer, precise manner of manifest discomfit and bruisèd pride that had been the very reaction that Fisher himself had experienced over the course of this latest session of internet examination & response.

    A fitting myse en abysme of the perplexities that this vexatious man can cause !!“, he smugly and relievèdly concluded, as he regained the proper level of mental composure that he expected of one and all, et most especially of himself.

    Gratefully taking a salutory and aromatically masculine sip of that finest roasten brew from his prizeful emerald-glazed cup of Perugian manufacture, he proceeded to carefully set it aside, as he began the even more delicious exercise of putting that foul uncouth man back into his place.

  113. Tom Fisher says:

    Jabba,

    Melmoth the Siamese, startled by the sudden and inhabitual expression of any such manifestly negative emotional state

    “Melmoth” isn’t named Melmoth. His name is Sam, because someone younger and wiser than I decided it should be. He’s not Siamese, he’s a ginger and white moggy with a slight weight problem. — He’s in the room right now, and is slightly startled to be told that he’s been mentioned on the internet. — Though we have other cats in the house, I’ve assured him that it’s he that is being referred to. 🙂

    I’m glad you remember our ‘purple prose’ feud, and I admire your latest effort. — But I suppose the subtext was that you don’t appreciate me getting involved in the Jabba v Geoff thing. Fair enough. I should have just shut up. — But rest assured I did enjoy and appreciate your loquacious comment.

  114. Tom Fisher says:

    Jabba, I just noticed that you (probably, and if so, rightly!) down-voted the silly epitaph comment I made at May 17 02:03. It was just meant to be light-hearted, sorry if it annoyed you; my bad.

  115. Tom Fisher says:

    Here we see ‘Melmoth’, startled to discover that he is supposed to be Siamese, and therefore far too dignified to climb into an empty shoe-box which has been inexplicably left next to a box of Stella-Artois.

  116. johnhenrycn says:

    Yes, Stella-Artois. Wifey’s favourite pilsner.

  117. Jabba: Yours at 1233….You are but a pompous git after all…Just a little full of yourself sad to say…

  118. Tom Fisher says:

    Geoff,

    re Jabba @ 12:33. Several weeks ago I gave Jabba some grief for posting too much “purple prose” — since then it’s become an occasional running gag to attack each other with totally over-written comments. — I might be wrong, but I think that Jabba was just playing around, not being a pompous git (maybe…)

  119. toadspittle says:

    (Sebastian) Melmoth The Wanderer.
    “Melmoth” – Good cat name – unlike “Mr. Tiggley-Wiggley, ” or whatever.
    Dr. Johnson’s cat was called Hodge.

    JH’s stark and tragic Stella Artois ad reminded me, in Proustian fashion, of aspects of my utterly wasted life:
    “We’ve got nothing suitable for a page five pic – only the skateboarding nuns, and we’ve had that so long they’re probably all dead of broken necks by now.”

    Yes, but what’s that got to do with mantillas? – Ed.

  120. JabbaPapa says:

    You are but a pompous git after all

    Thank you for your comment.

  121. toadspittle says:

    Nobody’s perfect.

    This name-calling and insulting is not productive.
    ….Or imaginative, so far.
    We should aspire to this, from Mencken:
    “The American people, taken one with another, constitute the most timorous, snivelling, poltroonish, ignominous mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages.”

    Now, that’s insulting. (“pompous git,” – forsooth.)

  122. JabbaPapa says:

    We should aspire to this, from Mencken

    I think it would be best for everyone if I didn’t follow your kind suggestion, Paddy …

  123. kathleen says:

    @ Jabba
    I never would have thought I’d need to spell out to you (of all people) my meaning in every single response I have made to you on the subject of women veiling in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.

    You say that this beautiful tradition, that is now returning (Deo gratias I say) did not disappear in the aftermath of V2, but was linked to the fashion and trends building up to the 60s.
    I disagree, and so I believe does everyone else – correct me please if there is anyone reading this who holds to Jabba’s view. In fact, even the radical feminists in the Church themselves cheer the liberalism that this period heralded in, when women were, er, liberated from the demeaning custom of covering their heads (in their skewed idea of ‘women’s rights’ of course!)

    You accuse me of “whining” and having “a destructive attitude” against the “Dogmata*” (whatever that* is supposed to mean) of V2 in this article. Where? It is quite clear that the only time I mention V2 in the article is to highlight how after the Council, this, and many other lovely Catholic traditions, were completely abandoned. It all coincided with the aftermath of that crazy period called the “Spirit of Vatican II”, like it or not.

    In old films and photographs of Catholics pre-V2, plus the first-hand witness of those who lived this period, you do see practically all the women veiled in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament (Geoff is right) and I really do not know what you are trying to prove in insisting on the contrary.

    You took my words: “All I can say to this, is that you and I live in different worlds!” out of context (once more), trying to make out that I was saying this about everything you have said, but you know very well that this is not the case.
    I directed that above-quoted (^) sentence solely to this extraordinary statement of yours: “I have NEVER seen any women wearing a mantilla or scarf etc at a TLM ; though some women do wear their hats down here for the Novus Ordo.” !!!
    Its discrepancy with my own experience, and I believe, reality, is what prompted me to say that we clearly must live “in different worlds”.

    Jabba, I really do not want to argue with you; there was a time when I think we were very much on the same wave-length, and I have not forgotten how you gallantly came to my rescue long ago when I was being lambasted by a most obnoxious troll. I used to highly value your scholarly opinions and insights in the past, as I think you know. Perhaps this time we shall just have to agree to disagree.

    [And apologies to everyone else who are now, understandably, thoroughly fed up with the above discussion, since approximately May 13.]

  124. JabbaPapa says:

    You took my words: “All I can say to this, is that you and I live in different worlds!” out of context

    I really don’t think so — there’s no reason why I shouldn’t make a related point of my own in response to a point of yours ; I’m under no obligation to only make statements in direct agreement or disagreement with what’s written before.

    You say that this beautiful tradition, that is now returning (Deo gratias I say) did not disappear in the aftermath of V2, but was linked to the fashion and trends building up to the 60s.

    Sorry, that’s not quite what I said — I pointed out in that post that I was and am aware from numerous reports that the change in question can be linked to that timeframe. My point was that the fashions are the underlying cause, including the mores and secular intellectual fashions, which certainly can be linked to the “spirit of V2”, rather than Vatican II itself. My point is that what you’ve said could unfortunately be construed as a critique of the Council itself, rather than a critique of the spirit of the times.

    “the spirit of the times” is BTW a near synonym of the word “fashion” ; and to put “the spirit of the times” above the dogmatic teachings is Modernism precisely.

    You accuse me of “whining”

    False — my use of that word had exactly nothing to do with either you or the Dogmata of the Faith, but was directed against the source of some personal attacks that were made against me by another member.

    against the “Dogmata”

    My language actually in that regard was perhaps a little too black & white, but I meant to say that linking whichever ills with “Vatican II” can only lead to encouraging certain people to reject that Ecumenical Council, no matter what your own personal intentions might be.

    In old films and photographs of Catholics pre-V2, plus the first-hand witness of those who lived this period, you do see practically all the women veiled in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament (Geoff is right) and I really do not know what you are trying to prove in insisting on the contrary.

    Because the documents I consulted do not support that claim. Many women certainly, in the documents I’ve consulted (I mean those showing the whole congregation in standard Masses, not just a few individuals shown at a Mass for a special occasion), but from what I’ve been able to see not “practically all”. What I can see from the evidence is that “practically all” is certainly applicable to the English-speaking world locally, but certainly not to the Church in Southern Europe. It is notable BTW that the greatest differences between the TLM and the practice of the Novus Ordo also occurred in the English-speaking world. (the lands governed by Nazi Germany during WW2 had a knee-jerk reaction against conservatism for very different reasons) My point here is that it is counterproductive to assume universal truth in local circumstances.

    there was a time when I think we were very much on the same wave-length

    Can’t seem to remember turning my dial, kathleen … 🙂

  125. toadspittle says:

    “In fact, even the radical feminists in the Church themselves cheer the liberalism that this period heralded in, when women were, er, liberated from the demeaning custom of covering their heads (in their skewed idea of ‘women’s rights’ of course!)”
    Well, I cringe from the very notion of disagreeing with Kathleen – but I suspect this is utter, bleeding, nonsense.
    Women wear what they like, regardless of what sexist nonsense the “women’s rights,” gang stipulate – in vain. Including wearing very short skirts, and high heels to Mass.
    Both of which happens, and which Toad heartily approves of, and suspects God does as well.
    But who knows?
    …If women don’t bother covering their heads, it’s only because they don’t want to – they think they look better uncovered.
    B*gg*r all to do with “liberalism.” That’s it. “Simples.”

    Goodness, this mantilla-wearing gibberish is even less significant that Irish Gay Marriage. (If that’s humanly possible.)

  126. JabbaPapa says:

    Well, I cringe from the very notion of disagreeing with Kathleen – but I suspect this is utter, bleeding, nonsense.
    Women wear what they like, regardless of what sexist nonsense the “women’s rights,” gang stipulate

    Toad writes, with less detail and less politely, something similar to my own point (though I’d disagree with several details in his post)

  127. kathleen says:

    Jabba @ 19:17 yesterday

    My point about your experience in not seeing women wear mantillas at the TLM, but wearing hats and suchlike at the N.O. rite, is just so completely opposite to my own experience, that it prompted me to say we must “live in different worlds”… and not for any other meaning you then went on to attribute to my comment.

    But when you reply to my “there was a time when I think we were very much on the same wave-length” with your:
    Can’t seem to remember turning my dial, kathleen … I am very happy to hear it dear fellow pilgrim, and shall toute suite turn my ‘dial’ back again to match yours! 🙂

    At this moment I am packing up in preparation for the coming Paris to Chartres pilgrimage next weekend. I shall not forget to pack my mantilla (with all the other necessary paraphernalia for this arduous 70 mile trek). After the first TLM in Notre Dame de Paris at the outset, two of the beautiful Tridentine Masses we shall be blessed with along the way are celebrated on lovely erected altars set in fields and woods. You look around at the thousands of tired female pilgrims in attendance (among the even more numerous male pilgrims), and those women or girls not wearing mantillas, or some type of head covering, could be counted on the fingers of one hand. 😉

    Hey, you are an experienced walking pilgrim, if your knees allow it, why not join us on this amazing Catholic pilgrimage one year?

  128. JabbaPapa says:

    My point about your experience in not seeing women wear mantillas at the TLM, but wearing hats and suchlike at the N.O. rite, is just so completely opposite to my own experience, that it prompted me to say we must “live in different worlds”… and not for any other meaning you then went on to attribute to my comment.

    That was obvious — which is why I did not respond to that point, but made a different one of my own.

  129. Pingback: Samcheonpo Catholic Church | selabrationjane

  130. GC says:

    To veil or not to veil?

    It’s like you’re in your little tent with God . . . you know you have to focus . . . I feel it frees me to give all my attention to Him and women should not be afraid of the veil . . .

    I’m not sure whether this August 2014 youtube has been posted before on CP&S? My apologies if it has been.

    Thanks to Fr Ken Clark and the website of the Ordinariate in Gippsland (the bit of the State of Victoria, Australia, east of Melbourne not including the Victorian Alps).

    https://gippslandordinariate.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/the-most-beautiful-video-on-chapel-veils/

    https://www.facebook.com/Gippsland.Ordinariate

  131. Pingback: The twitch upon the thread? | Ranmer Welsh Cobs

  132. Pingback: Veiling Indicates Sacredness | Solutio Problematis Omnes (aka "The Catholic Linker")

  133. Caroline says:

    I’m a Catholic woman and I think veiling is a charming and beautiful but antiquated tradition. I think that if a girl or woman wishes to wear a veil in church then they should have that right. However, I do not think that it should be expected by anyone else in their community. I believe we’re all equally beautiful in the sight of God – especially when we come to do Him honour at the Mass. It is faintly ridiculous to presume that a woman’s ‘lovely hair’ is going to draw devotion away from God.
    I’ve lived in Saudi Arabia for the last 4 years and for obvious reasons I greatly respect the girls and women here because the wearing of veils is culturally and politically enforced.
    I have come to realise that I will never, under any circumstances, wear a head covering because it is not how I choose to indicate my submissiveness and loving devotion to God.

  134. Caroline says:

    …except perhaps if I am on a building site or about to parachute or something. . .

  135. johnhenrycn says:

    Caroline, this is an in extremis website actually, sad to say. I’ve tried mouth-to-mouth without any response except an occasional cough. But let me ask you this: should I remove my P&C Habig Wien Lieferanten Des Kaiser-u.Königlichen Allerhöchsten Hofes(Hutmacher 1862)

    fedora before I enter the narthex, or can I continue wearing it until I take Communion?
    ___
    …there was a delightful and witty woman convert (c. 2010) named ‘Caroline’, whose father was a retired USMC officer, who (Caroline, that is) used to comment on an antecedent of this blog and who I miss hearing from, even though we got off on the wrong foot. She had a more original avatar than yours (and mine) though.

  136. johnhenrycn says:

    “It is faintly ridiculous to presume that a woman’s ‘lovely hair’ is going to draw devotion away from God.”

    I beg to differ, Caroline. There is one woman in particular that I can think of in our congregation whose beautiful hair enchants me. Thankfully, however, I’m always able to refocus on the liturgy when she turns around and faces me during The Peace.

  137. Caroline says:

    I think you must wear it until you take Communion, for it is a dashing hat. If you can’t doff it for Christ, etc. Perhaps you run the risk of distracting the ladies however – one might think she were sitting behind Indiana Jones. I can’t say I’ve rushed to check the dictionary as often as I have just now after reading a post. I appreciate new vocabulary – I stopped reading Reader’s Digest in the 1990s. I’m sorry if I sound sarcastic – I’m not, I’m actually serious. I did try to read as many posts on here as I could before I responded – I didn’t want to throw cold water over anyone.
    Nice.

  138. Caroline says:

    I like to comment on random websites, it bothers me not if they’re on their last legs. I like to hear the sound of my own ‘voice’. I just broke with a personal rule and dropped a real show-stopper on youtube – and I don’t even have the grace to be embarrassed about it.

  139. johnhenrycn says:

    “I’m sorry if I sound sarcastic…”

    Caroline, Caroline: I’m so sad you’d even think that. Your first three sentences are witty and satirical, not sarcastic. Best pull out your Reader’s Digest Dictionary again:
    http://www.amazon.com/Readers-Digest-Great-Encyclopedia-Dictionary/dp/B000NUMJVK
    Customer Review: “One star. Book is dirty. lot of spilled ink on it. Looks like book was stored in garage as pages are weathered.”

  140. Caroline says:

    Hahaha!
    Well, I didn’t want my line about rushing to the dictionary to offend you. Where I come from, using big words often results in social death. It’s also hard to infer tone from a bit of text sometimes so please don’t feel too sad.

  141. johnhenrycn says:

    Caroline says: “I just broke with a personal rule and dropped a real show-stopper on youtube”

    Well, so long as it’s not as risqué as Britt Ekland’s finale in The Night They Raided Minsky’s (1968), why not give us a link?

  142. Caroline says:

    I wish I could but it gives too much of me – I wrote it in a great passion

  143. Pani Pirhadi says:

    My roommate wears a Mantilla to church and to pray in. I think they are wonderful and hope more women adopt the practice.

  144. victoria214 says:

    I began head covering this year for both attending church and prayer. Doesn’t it seem odd that I felt self-concsious the first time I covered for church?

  145. Pingback: Sunday | Weeding The Garden

  146. The year of the Blessed Virgin Mary to Fatima is coming, and I would like to send out notices to all the women who go to Church to wear the Chapel Veil covering their heads as they enter the Church. It is to please our Blessed Virgin Mary and( to save us from the devil) as the 100 anniversary approaches…May God Bless us all…Christine B….I hope this will go viral we need not offend Our Lord any more…please pass this on

  147. Pingback: Done | brucelarochelle

  148. Ifeanyichukwu Muo says:

    Let us go back to Tradition ..

  149. Pingback: Joyfully, Immediately and Fully | Veil of Veronica

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s