Brides without veils
#1
This is the new trend in NO parishes..Or they pin it under thier hair if in a bun. In church in front of Our Lord.

What do you think of this?
[-] The following 1 user Likes AnaCarolina1's post:
  • AlNg777
Reply
#2
AnaCarolina1
This is the new trend in NO parishes..Or they pin it under thier hair if in a bun. In church in front of Our Lord.

What do you think of this?


Brides wearing wedding dresses with veils started with Queen Victoria's (Church of England) wedding in 1839, which was a fashion sensation that reverberated around the world. Before that, there was no special costume for weddings.

Since it is purely a cultural custom, it makes no difference to the Church. Whether you, or I, or anyone else like it or not is purely a matter of personal taste.

There isn't, and never has been, a religious obligation for a bride to wear a wedding dress and veil.
[-] The following 2 users Like Dominus Vobisdu's post:
  • Anon777, J Michael
Reply
#3
(06-20-2021, 08:04 AM)Dominus Vobisdu Wrote: AnaCarolina1
    This is the new trend in NO parishes..Or they pin it under thier hair if in a bun. In church in front of Our Lord.

    What do you think of this?


Brides wearing wedding dresses with veils started with Queen Victoria's (Church of England) wedding in 1839, which was a fashion sensation that reverberated around the world. Before that, there was no special costume for weddings.

Since it is purely a cultural custom, it makes no difference to the Church. Whether you, or I, or anyone else like it or not is purely a matter of personal taste.

There isn't, and never has been, a religious obligation for a bride to wear a wedding dress and veil.

Veiling in a Catholic church isn't just a matter of fashion or custom. Special wedding dresses and special, white, lacy veils are, but women covering their heads isn't.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 2 users Like VoxClamantis's post:
  • JacafamalaRedux, newenglandsun
Reply
#4
I miss the version, Victorian Bride with full veil.
Reply
#5
My aunt wore a white suit and hat for her wedding and this was in 1950. The Mass and wedding service was in Latin. There never was a rule that a bride had to wear a veil.
Reply
#6
(06-18-2021, 07:18 PM)AnaCarolina1 Wrote: This is the new trend in NO parishes..Or they pin it under thier hair if in a bun. In church in front of Our Lord.

What do you think of this?
If I was the legitimate Emperor of the United States of America (which I may soon become), I would mandate that women in churches and in the presence of the monarch, and in other governmental buildings, veil themselves. The unveiling of women is horrid and the Apostle clearly teaches at the practice in ALL churches when writing to the Corinthians. Canon Law of 1983 did not do away with it, it only did not mention it. Thus, the law should still be in practice under both Scripture and Canon Law of 1917.
https://historyofnewengland.blogspot.com/?m=1
"This guy gets it." Fan mail I've received.
[-] The following 1 user Likes newenglandsun's post:
  • Anon777
Reply
#7
Yes it was never addressed.

I've been to weddings (Catholic) with the bride in a mermaid dress. I mean really? This was at an NO parish .

I was embarrassed for the priest.
Reply
#8
(07-11-2021, 07:04 PM)AnaCarolina1 Wrote: Yes it was never addressed.

I've been to weddings (Catholic) with the bride in a mermaid dress. I mean really? This was at an NO parish .

I was embarrassed for the priest.
I'd be even more embarrassed for the bride.
https://historyofnewengland.blogspot.com/?m=1
"This guy gets it." Fan mail I've received.
[-] The following 3 users Like newenglandsun's post:
  • AnaCarolina1, Anon777, Grandma
Reply
#9
(07-11-2021, 08:23 AM)KyPerson Wrote: My aunt wore a white suit and hat for her wedding and this was in 1950.  The Mass and wedding service was in Latin.  There never was a rule that a bride had to wear a veil.

"Veiling" includes the use of a hat. It's always been the rule that women veil themselves in Catholic churches, whether they wear hats or mantillas.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 1 user Likes VoxClamantis's post:
  • AnaCarolina1
Reply
#10
(07-11-2021, 02:31 PM)newenglandsun Wrote: Canon Law of 1983 did not do away with it, it only did not mention it. Thus, the law should still be in practice under both Scripture and Canon Law of 1917.

Unfortunately for your argument, this is what the 1983 Code DID mention:

Quote:Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.

IOW, anything enjoined by the 1917 Code that is not enjoined by the 1983 Code is no longer the law.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)