Veiling Because of the Angels?
#1
I've read much about veiling, but I've never quite understood the "because of the angels" argument.

Can you please help explain?

Thanks! :)
Reply
#2
Subscribed so I can learn more, too! :)
Reply
#3

I don't know the argument, but whatever it could possibly be, I can't imagine buying it. Men attend Mass, too, where the angels are, so saying we "veil because of the angels" doesn't really answer anything unless it's just that angels are at Mass, and one way in which women respond to being in the presence (or Presence) of the sacred is to "cover their glory."
Reply
#4
Saying "because of the angels" makes St. Paul's instruction seem more eternal than the cultural context liberals use to explain veiling away.
Reply
#5
The custom of veiling comes more from St. Paul's commentary in 1 Cor 11.5-9:

Quote:a woman brings shame upon her head if she uncovers it to pray or prophesy; she is no better than the woman who has her head shaved. If a woman would go without a veil, why does she not cut her hair short too? If she admits that a woman is disgraced when her hair is cut short or shaved, then let her go veiled. A man has no need to veil his head; he is God’s image, the pride of his creation, whereas the wife is the pride of her husband. (The woman takes her origin from the man, not the man from the woman; and indeed, it was not man that was created for woman’s sake, but woman for man’s.)

Msgr. Knox gives a much better translation of 1 Cor 11.10, which is the subject of our query here:

Quote:And for that reason the woman ought to have authority over her head, for the angels’ sake.

His commentary on this verse:

Quote:This verse, which is here literally rendered, remains very obscure, in spite of the commentators. The word translated ‘authority’ may mean authority, or power to do things, or (most commonly in this epistle) liberty of choice. If we understand that the wife ought to wear on her head a symbol of her husband’s authority over her, we satisfy the sense, but give a very strained interpretation of the Greek. If we understand that the wife has power over her own head, liberty to dispose of it as she likes, the Greek is satisfied, but the whole sense of the context is ignored. Some think that St Paul is here giving a literal translation of a Hebrew word meaning ‘veil’, derived from a verb which means ‘to control’; but it is hard to see why he should have done so. Most commentators understand ‘for the angels’ sake’ as meaning that the angels join with us in worship, and therefore we must be careful to shew all possible reverence in church; some think that St Paul is citing the example of those angels who veil their faces before the presence of God (Is. 6.2).

The Greek word which is translated "veil" by the Vulgate and Douay-Rheims is ἐξουσίαν, which in Greek means "authority" or "power", not really "veil", except perhaps as a symbol of that power.

Following Msgr Knox's thoughts, I think the best way to reconcile this is to consider that "angels" may not mean the spiritual beings, but rather a secondary meaning.

"Angels" here may rather mean the ministers of God, who are called by Scripture more than once called "angels".  "Angel" means messenger, so could refer to those who have authority in the Church, and who speak for Christ. Thus, a woman, who has no such authority, should have power (or at least a symbol  of power) over her, on account of respect for those who have the authority, so even when she exercises the charismatic gifts, she appear to do so under the authority of the ministers of God, and submitted to their judgement and authority.

That, in my mind, reconciles the difficult sense here.
Reply
#6
From the Prophet Isiah;

1In the year King Uzziah died,* I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne,a with the train of his garment filling the temple. 2Seraphim* were stationed above; each of them had six wings: with two they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they hovered.b 3One cried out to the other:

“Holy, holy, holy* is the LORD of hosts!

All the earth is filled with his glory!”

Isaiah, chapter 6:1-3

The angels in Heaven veiled their faces in the presence of God.







 
Reply
#7
(07-10-2016, 11:48 PM)Poche Wrote: From the Prophet Isiah;

1In the year King Uzziah died,* I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne,a with the train of his garment filling the temple. 2Seraphim* were stationed above; each of them had six wings: with two they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they hovered.b 3One cried out to the other:

“Holy, holy, holy* is the LORD of hosts!

All the earth is filled with his glory!”

Isaiah, chapter 6:1-3

The angels in Heaven veiled their faces in the presence of God. 

So the celestial ranking goes Men > Angels > Women? Or something like that? Angels veil their faces in the Presence of God, and women do, as well, but men don't have to because --- ?

IOW, your response doesn't answer the question as to why women veil at the Mass and men don't.

Magister's response makes sense.
Reply
#8
(07-11-2016, 01:31 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(07-10-2016, 11:48 PM)Poche Wrote: From the Prophet Isiah;

1In the year King Uzziah died,* I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne,a with the train of his garment filling the temple. 2Seraphim* were stationed above; each of them had six wings: with two they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they hovered.b 3One cried out to the other:

“Holy, holy, holy* is the LORD of hosts!

All the earth is filled with his glory!”

Isaiah, chapter 6:1-3

The angels in Heaven veiled their faces in the presence of God. 

So the celestial ranking goes Men > Angels > Women? Or something like that? Angels veil their faces in the Presence of God, and women do, as well, but men don't have to because --- ?

IOW, your response doesn't answer the question as to why women veil at the Mass and men don't.

Magister's response makes sense.

It is not men>angels>women. Nor is it men>women. Rather the relation between men and women is complementary. Rather the relation between men and women is complementary with a dignity that is equal.   
Reply
#9
(07-11-2016, 11:49 PM)Poche Wrote:
(07-11-2016, 01:31 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(07-10-2016, 11:48 PM)Poche Wrote: From the Prophet Isiah;

1In the year King Uzziah died,* I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne,a with the train of his garment filling the temple. 2Seraphim* were stationed above; each of them had six wings: with two they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they hovered.b 3One cried out to the other:

“Holy, holy, holy* is the LORD of hosts!

All the earth is filled with his glory!”

Isaiah, chapter 6:1-3

The angels in Heaven veiled their faces in the presence of God. 

So the celestial ranking goes Men > Angels > Women? Or something like that? Angels veil their faces in the Presence of God, and women do, as well, but men don't have to because --- ?

IOW, your response doesn't answer the question as to why women veil at the Mass and men don't.

Magister's response makes sense.

It is not men>angels>women. Nor is it men>women. Rather the relation between men and women is complementary. Rather the relation between men and women is complementary with a dignity that is equal. 

I know that, you know that, and the Church teaches that. My point is that your saying that women (but not men) cover their heads in the Presence of God because the angels do implies that men don't have to show that sort of reverence. Now obviously men DO have to show that sort of reverence, but in a different way. But the point remains that saying women cover their heads "because the angels do in God's Presence", and that men don't have to do that, is leaving something out of the explanation and implies the opposite of what you just posted.
Reply
#10
I veil and wish it were still customary.

It's hard to explain to others though.

I guess my favorite explanation is that all precious vessels are veiled.  :loveeyes:

I love chivalry!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Sacred Heart lover's post:
  • St.Eliza
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)