Chapel Veil

The Chapel Veil is a beautiful tradition still followed in Latin Mass Catholic Churches. I, myself, wear one to Latin Mass.

The tradition is a sign of dignity and grace. It was a sign of the reverence of a woman. The call to respect a woman. Just as the Tabernacle veils the body of Christ, so the Chapel Veil (or Mantilla) veils a woman in dignity. It is a sign that Woman is unique in her femininity. Unlike a man, God made woman close to his heart because they are the ones who can create life in the unique way that God designed, and influence life, whether spiritually as a child of God, as a mother to an actual life she brought into the world, or both.

A woman veils herself in church just like a priest is veiled in his vestments, just like the Body of Christ is veiled in the Tabernacle. It is a sign of reverence rather than oppression as some believe.

Despite what people desire to believe, there are only 2 true sexes, and God created them in different ways. Man from his image, and woman from the side of Man. Just as blood and water rushed from the side of Jesus after he was lanced on the cross, and purified those who were touched by it, and purifies us all even today... so woman was created from the side of Man, Adam. How wonderful is it truly with you see how the church looks at a woman. She is the tabernacle of life, whether physically by bearing a child, or spiritually by uplifting souls and bringing them back to God. Because woman was created from Adam's rib, she is likened to the GIFT of Christ's blood that flowed from HIS side.

God created a hierarchy. Woman to be an obedient spouse to her husband, a husband to lay down his life for his bride like Christ sacrificed himself for his bride, the Holy Church. A great act of love. It's not oppressive or abusive, it's a hierarchy with a perfect design.

And so women, to CELEBRATE their unique dignity in femininity... they wear a veil in the presence of God in the church.

The end of wearing Chapel Veils is one of many examples of why the Church has been in so much turmoil since the modernization of Vatican II, why women think they have the right to be priests, why people are gender confused, it all starts with the loss of dignity and grace and respect shown in church. Feminism and modernization removed gender roles, it removed the dignity of being feminine as if femininity is some sort of chain around a woman's neck, rather than a source of pride.

I think this video explains it far better than I ever could. it's over an hour long, but well worth the watch if you truly want to understand the Chapel Veil and how it is a tradition that should return to the church rather than be suppressed or mocked.

More Reading:

7 Reasons I Do Not Wear a Chapel Veil

God and science

In modern times, there has been a great separation of God from Science as if it is impossible for the two to coexist. which is funny since the greatest minds of science were either Christian or believed in the possibility of God.

Copernicus
Isaac Newton
Galileo
Kepler
Sir Francis Bacon

Even Einstein. Einstein was more agnostic than anything. He did not believe in a personal God, but he also did not like being "misrepresented" as atheist (those who don't believe in the existence of any higher power) and also believed a non-created universe (lacking intelligent design) was impossible.

In fact, there were (and are) many Catholic scientists.

As a Catholic, I firmly believe in science. As I type this on my computer, I'm using science... as science created the technology that allowed blogging to be possible. I was vaccinated using science. Scientists came up with cures for diseases that have all but been eradicated, and they continue to make advances.

I don't think the two contradict. God created this world, Got created man. Many use the intelligence and free will God endowed them with, to grow and learn, and utilize what he created on this earth to advance as a people. The earth God created provides many medicinal herbs that help with many ailments, and man's intelligence helps doctors and scientists learn about new ways to use them.

Science exists because God created the earth, then created man, gave man intelligence and free will, and let them go at it.

So science is not contradictory to religion.

And it's not just scientists that think the two can not coexist. There are some religious sects that reject science, and to me, that's rejecting a piece of God. I never understood the "God will heal me so I don't go to a doctor" argument. God made the doctor who wants to heal you, may have even nudged him in the direction of this career. He created the earth where all the resources that could save you comes from, God is in the work that doctor does, and the medicines he uses to treat.

It's like the story of a woman during a flood, a neighbor comes in his car to rescue her but she refuses saying God will deliver her from the flood. As the waters rise... a boat comes by, yet still she refuses help saying God will save her. Then a helicopter comes by as the water rise even higher, and still she rejects the help saying God is going to save her. When she drowns and goes to heaven, she asks God why he let her die when she had faith he'd save her... and God said, "What more could I have done? I sent your neighbor, someone with a boat and even a helicopter, but you refused all three."

I just never understood why you would reject life saving treatment, because "God". God is in that treatment. I personally believe in accepting the treatment that was made through that which God created and placed on this earth for our use, and then praying to God for the treatment to work. But that's me.

Anyway, I don't believe the two are separate and must be at constant odds... yet the scientific community search for ways to disprove the existence of God and find ways to say, "We've discredited the bible." (If only they'd spend so much time finding a cure for cancer with the God given intelligence and materials they have at their disposal.)

There was a recent article entitled: the Bible got it wrong: Ancient Canaanites survived and their DNA lives on in modern-day Lebanese.

the main purpose of the article was to discuss the remains of ancient bodies recently uncovered that were able to tie modern day Lebanese to ancestry with the Canaanites, which supposedly discredits the bible who stated the Canaanites were wiped out in a biblical event. If the DNA found links the Canaanites to those in modern times who come from Lebanon, the bible "obviously got it wrong".

Now, in science, there's a pesky little thing called "research". Research, research, research. It is important to almost any discovery, especially when making a sweeping claim like, "this discovery discredits" anything.

Research is such an important phase in the scientific process, because you wouldn't want to make a wide sweeping statement and claim it is factual, only to be humiliated when your glaring error is pointed out, and worse, pointed out by those who are not a part of the scientific community. That is what is happening with all of the articles on this topic. They are being left embarrassed by the comments section where they're basically getting schooled on how wrong they are and being shown evidence that they did not take due diligence to make sure their statements were accurate.

What is that evidence? Well, after the "destruction" of the Canaanites discussed in the book of Joshua... it's made very clear in the book of Judges that the Canaanites still existed and weren't, in fact, eradicated from the face of the earth. Their DNA still existed and thus could be passed on, which is why it was found in modern day Lebanese.

Manasseh did not take possession of Beth-shean with its towns or of Taanach with its towns. Nor did they dispossess the inhabitants of Dor and its towns, those of Ibleam and its towns, or those of Megiddo and its towns. The Canaanites continued to live in this district. When Israel grew stronger, they conscripted the Canaanites as laborers, but did not actually drive them out. Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites living in Gezer, and so the Canaanites lived among them in Gezer.

- Judges 1:27-29

It's obvious, since the book of Judges take place AFTER this alleged "destruction", that this wasn't a full genocide of biblical proportions as the Canaanites were still alive when discussed in Judges, Chapter 1. While it may sound like a mass genocide in Joshua (possibly due to simplification of an ancient translation, or a misinterpretation)... Had these scientists researched the bible (since it is part of their hypothesis about their discovery) before making claims that their findings discredited it... they'd have saved themselves a little credibility.

This proves one thing. Science is not perfect because it is being advanced by humans, which are 100% fallible. All humans err. Even the smartest of us. That does not discredit science and scientific advances... but it's one reason TRUE scientists are open to the idea that a theory could be changed/built on or even wrong.

Everyone seems be believe science is infallible, "Science is based on facts, That is why it is more trust worthy than an imaginary friend in the sky." they say.

Science has been proven wrong on many occasions. Science often contradicts itself. Science told us that vaccines cause Autism. Yet, other scientists believe they have proven the autism link theory to be faulty and the math behind it manipulated.

A few decades ago, Scientists claimed that by 2016, we'd be underwater due to man-made global warming. It was a warning touted by Al Gore who became a billionaire off it. Of course, it's 2017 and we're still here. Now many scientists believe they have proved that Global warming is NOT greatly affected by man, that ice ages and global warmings are naturally occurring events that have happened without man's influence. Some scientists now believe it was a global warming after the first Ice Age that actually killed the last of the woolly Mammoths, and no carbon footprint offsets will make much of a difference.

Science was able to disprove the scientific theory of a static universe (A universe that neither contracts nor expands.) This was proven wrong by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which proved that the universe is unstable, and must either be expanding or contracting. The Redshift effect substantiated this theory.

So, as someone who loves science, lives in an age of science and utilizes sciences, I must say that scientific minds must be very careful about their wording. In this particular case, they made a factual statement about a discovery... only to find out they didn't do proper research before releasing the statements... and were, in fact, wrong. (Sadly, I have not seen one of the articles making that correction). So now one must wonder if it doesn't hurt the credibility of the field that they didn't do the proper research... nor will they correct the statement. Or perhaps science isn't as important as their vendetta against Christianity.

jumping to the "We did it! We discredited the bible!" (and Torah since this is the old Testament) celebration... makes them look foolish, makes them look like anti-religion bigots, and does not do anything to advance science.

This is how science works.

There is an idea

There are tests

There is a lot of research

There is trial and error

a Hypothesis is created

The hypothesis is put to the test

If it fails, it's reconsidered - if it passes it's tested again.

If it can be replicated more than once... it is run through the ringer by fellow scientists

If they agree with the results, it becomes a theory.

Theory - Noun: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

It does not mean - undisputed fact that can never be challenged. Theories are reconsidered, disputed, and proven wrong all the time in the scientific field, which is why it's not the "Fact of Relativity" or the "Fact of static universe" - they are THEORIES. Meaning, "this is what is believed, this is what is accepted in the scientific community"... but it leaves it open for corrections, should someone one day come in and say, "no, this is wrong, the math doesn't add up and here's why."

So to generalize the discovery of Canaanite DNA as "Discrediting the bible", "Proving the bible wrong"... etc. without having done the proper research, and then acting as if it is factual and not a theory... that's not science. That's embarrassing.

Continued Protestant Confusion

There is still so much false information about Catholicism.  There was a post online about the 100 years of Fatima, and it was followed by such pure hatred for Catholics by so called "Christians", that even atheists were going, "Whoa, Whoa, Whoa,".

Here are a few misconceptions I thought I would touch on again.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Catholics Worship Mary - That is covered HERE

but I wanted to give some more details because of things brought up in that post I saw.

Many people say Mary was a sinner who was merely used as a vessel to bring God the son into the world. She's not important. She's just another sister in Christ. And that she went on to have children after Christ was born and there is nothing "holy" about her. She is not our spiritual "mother".

This is ridiculous and heretical for many reasons.

A. Do you really think the Father would let his only begotten Son be born of a sinner? Does that make sense to anyone? Someone so holy being born of someone sinful?

The angel Gabriel comes to Mary and says "Hail Full of Grace! The Lord is with You." then says "Do not be afraid, you have found Favor with God." Mary was troubled by the greeting when the angel said this. To be "Full of Grace" denotes exceptional grace and holiness. Those greetings are not given lightly, so it was surprising to hear it, most of all being said by an angel of God!

This was a plan of God's, she was to be the Mother of God the Son, Jesus Christ, and he could not enter the world in the womb of a sinner. So she was special, she was holy, and this was more than likely due to God blessing her upon her conception by freeing her of original sin before her birth so that she would be ready to bare our Lord.

Christ loved Mary. She wasn't merely his vessel... she was his protector, she was his caretaker. Christ came into this world as a baby. She carried him in her womb, she labored to give birth to him, she protected him, she loved him... and he loved her. She was his mother by blood, by birth, by love.

During the wedding of Cana, Jesus told Mary when she said they had no more wine, "What concern of it is mine, my time has not yet come." In the end, however, he acquiesced to his mother and performed the first miracle by turning water into wine. Christ started to say, "no... I can't do that. I can't show who I am yet." but he could not deny his mother and performed the miracle.

B. Mary was Christ's mother, and he loved her. When he was on the cross, he looked down and saw the mother whom he loved. He not only asked one of his beloved disciples to take her into his home... he basically told that disciple to look at her as his own mother. "Woman, behold your son. Son, behold your mother." When Christ asked his beloved disciple to take his mother as his own mother, We Catholics believe this was a message that Mary is the spiritual mother of all who follow Christ, like that disciple. 

So his thoughts of her, even while in agony, were of love. To see her disrespected by calling her a sinner and making it seem as if she were nothing more than a baby incubator, it must hurt his heart to see that commandment of "honor thy mother" being openly broken by those who call themselves his followers.

C. The term "Brother" was used very loosely (as was sister).  it was often a term used among close friends, and usually close family (aside from actual siblings, it was also used as a term for 1st cousins). That is why they often say "Jesus, brother of James and Judas and Simon"... they never say, Mary, the Mother of Jesus and Judas and Simon. They always say "Jesus, Brother of" or "Judas Brother of Jesus" etc.

St. Jude the Apostle was oft called "Judas Brother of Jesus" (St Jude is not to be confused with Judas the betrayer) most theologians believe he was the cousin of Jesus, son of Mary's sister (Christ's aunt). Jude's sibling was James. That would make James the cousin of Jesus as well. So when they say "Jesus, brother of James and Judas" they are speaking in a brethren sort of way and not an actual sibling way. They are first cousins.

To wrap up #1... Mary was not a vessel. She was for all intents and purposes, Christ's MOTHER, and Christ loved her. The bible demands that we HONOR our parents, so to say she was only a container to hold Jesus for 9 months... it greatly insults our Savior who loves her, and our Father who favored her and hand picked her to bare Christ. It is faulty thinking to believe God would allow Jesus to be born of a sinner, and no... Just the term "brothers" does not mean Mary did not remain a virgin, as the term "brother/sister" was often used to describe his followers and other family relations such as cousins.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Catholics Worship Saints - That is Covered HERE

There truly isn't more to say about that other than what was already covered, except for... if you think asking saints to intercede for us, and pray for us is heretical (many stating there is no intercessor. We must go straight to God) then you are all heretics. It is more often the very protestants who cast judgement about a Catholic's relationships with our saints, that are posting "prayer circles" and asking for prayers for themselves, family, friends, loved ones. You are basically asking your friends on Facebook or twitter or at church... to INTERCEDE ON YOUR BEHALF and PRAY FOR YOU. It's the same thing Catholics do with saints. We ask them to pray for us. So you're heretics as well by your own definition.

The same goes for Angels. We do not worship angels. We love them because they love us and protect us and carry our prayers to God. But we do not worship them, nor do they desire worship.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Catholics Worship Statues - That is covered HERE

This is another one where I pretty much said all there is to say on the subject except to add a few things. People are often confused by icons and veneration of relics of saints (usually bones) or Christ himself. (Relics of the True Cross exist)

A. God was not talking about Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, God was not talking about the relics of the True Cross, God was not talking about the Crucifix or artistic renderings of Him or His Son or the Saints. He was not talking about Relics of those who were martyred in his name, or died saints in Christ.

God was talking about worshiping false gods. (The golden calf, pagan gods, mythological creatures, worshiping things of this world with no focus on the Holy Trinity) this was about holding something above God other than God. Catholics do not do this.

Tell me, if we have a statue depicting Christ... how is it worshiping a false god? It is a depiction of CHRIST - God the Son! And we do not worship the statues. As we look at the statue, it is God that is in our hearts. It's just a visual aid more or less.

B. I am taking this from another website for an Orthodox faith, who explains this better than I can when it comes to venerating relics of saints, Christian icons.


For here, you see, is where we come across the crucial reason for having icons in the first place. In the image we see the Prototype. An icon of Christ reveals to us Christ. And through Him, He taught us, we also glimpse the Father. Icons become for us, windows to heaven, revealing the glory of God. The fact is, icons help to protect us from idolatry! Thus, we bow before the icon of Christ, seeing through it, Him and His Father.


This veneration, by the way, is accompa­nied by rich scriptural precedent. Saint John of Damascus reminds us that:  Joshua, the son of Nun, and Daniel bowed in veneration before an angel of God, but they did not adore him” They showed respect and honor where respect and honor was due... that is not the same as worship or adoration meant only for God.

Throughout the ages of the Church, sensible believers have seen that following godly men and women who have gone before, is a help in personal growth toward the image and like­ness of God. When Orthodox Christians (And Catholics) honor an icon of one of the saints by bowing before it, kissing it, and saying a prayer before it, they are intent upon the godly example of that saint and upon following that example. It is not about worship, it is about respect, and following the example that leads us closer to God.

So if you feel what the Catholics do is idolatry... then you better remove any cross, any photo of Christ, stop wearing necklaces with angels or the cross on it, because those are also icons by your own definition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Christ founded his church. The church went on as a whole for many centuries. In the earliest times of Christianity, As early as the late 1st into the 2nd century... the term "Catholic" was actually used by Christians to mean "Christians as a whole" (As that is the definition of the word Catholic... "as a whole") and it continued on to when Constantine the Great ended the Roman persecution of the Christian faith and called the First Counsel of Nicaea.

From there, the East-West schism occurred. We believe the Catholic faith maintained it's path while the Eastern Orthodox broke away. So we feel we're still older than the Orthodox because we didn't leave the path originally set by the earliest Christians.

That said, the Orthodox church is like the Catholic faith in many ways... and they receive the same judgmental treatment by sanctimonious protestants that Catholics face.

protestants are newer religions. The great schism that created Eastern Orthodox and the officially titled Roman Catholic happened in 1058. They were the first to divide Christians into separate religions. The rest were founded centuries later, breaking away from the Roman Catholic faith.

Lutherans - 1483
Puritans - 1560

Baptists - 1638

Mormons - 1820s

Protestant religions are more modern than the Catholic church. They were not founded off the branches of the faith started by Christ and his apostles, they were founded by those abandoning the Catholic faith, Many were made for political reasons, and for making religion more convenient to man and their ideologies.

Despite protestants being more modern, they have been beaten over the head and indoctrinated over the centuries to have a deep seeded hatred for Catholicism (Even more-so than their dislike of the Eastern Orthodox religion) by being perpetually lied to about what Catholicism is all about.

We can scream till we're blue in the faces that we do not worship Mary, we do not worship Saints, we do not idolize statues, we do not hold anyone above the Holy Trinity... but they have been so brainwashed by hate - that they refuse to see it. They don't even see their judgmental superiority as hate, or judgement. (yet they are the first to say "Thou shalt not judge")

They even go so far as to accuse Catholics of not being Christians. When again, the term Catholic comes from the earliest Christians, a word that means "as a whole" meaning, Christians universally as a whole in it's earliest definition of the word.

They are so prideful in their own beliefs that they are superior to all others, they forget the term Christian is founded on the word CHRIST. It is the description of those who follow Christ and believe he is the Savior, the Truth and the Light, the only Way to the Father in Heaven. That he is God the Son, That he is united as one God in the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

That is EXACTLY what Catholics believe. WE ARE CHRISTIANS. And we have been following the teachings of Christ since before Martin Luther was in diapers.

All churches have scandals. All churches can be harmed by apostasy and politics. But the word of God is unchangeable, and we shall overcome even the apostasy of Vatican II, because Jesus promised that, though forces may try to break the church... evil will never overcome.

We know that one day, ALL Christians will be Catholic again as defined by the earliest use of the word... (Christians "AS A WHOLE")