veiling and canon law

[Q the Ninja]

Oh yeah, I forgot I added that.

[Cam42]

[quote name='FutureSoror' date='Jun 26 2005, 02:49 PM']I think that the cultural aspect of it does play a big role in the issue.  When veils were required, especially in apostolic times, a woman showing her hair had a sexual connotation to it, something that certainly does not apply today.  It is a good practice recommended by many, but not required.
[right][snapback]624416[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


This is what I posted in the Q&A:
[quote name='Cam42 @ Today' date=' 08:11 AM']Al, there is nothing stated as to whether women should or should not wear mantillas (chapel veils). A lot behind the use of mantillas, is the use of hats in general. If society is wearing hats, the mantilla is going to be used, if not, then it will most likely fall out of use.

A good parallel is this. When the biretta makes a comeback in the sanctuary, then the mantilla will make a comeback in the pew. They are both related to societal use of the hat. Kennedy stopped wearing hats, and so they fell out of use....at the same time the biretta started to fall out of use and the mantilla wasn't far behind that.

So, it will be society that will dictate the use or the disuse of head coverings....it is not an eccelesatical norm, except for bishops.[/quote]

[Aloysius]

My problem there was that it seemed to suggest it was decided by societatal norms... ignoring that the 1917 Code used to require it so it used to carry the weight of law... so it wasn't just in fashion because our societies saw hats as in fashion back then, it was canon law of the Latin Rite and as far as I can tell it's still canon law for the other rites of the Church (correct me if I'm wrong)

So maybe the canon law isn't still in force, I was just a bit confused (then what do 20-21 mean by saying that if a specific law isn't specifically abrogated then it shouldn't be considered out of force?)

St. Paul gives universal theology and symbolic reasons when talking about women covering their heads... not societatal. For basically the entire history of the Church both East and West have thusly required chaple veils... how can that be ended with "it is not mentioned in the 1983 code".... no more explanation offered than that? just, 1983 code doesn't say anything about it, so the requirement is gone??

I mean, if the Church were going to do something so drastic... wouldn't she at least write up a document with some reasons listed?

[Aloysius]

well, regardless... I'm going to get myself a box of mantillas and have them ready to offer any girl I give a ride to to go to mass

but I am still very interested in the anti-climactic end to such a long scriptural tradition by an ommission... and an explanation as to what can 20-21 mean if they don't mean some of 1917 is still in force.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 26 2005, 04:03 PM']well, regardless... I'm going to get myself a box of mantillas and have them ready to offer any girl I give a ride to to go to mass

but I am still very interested in the anti-climactic end to such a long scriptural tradition by an ommission... and an explanation as to what can 20-21 mean if they don't mean some of 1917 is still in force.
[right][snapback]624544[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Isn't that a little pretentious?

And the 1917 CIC is not in force any longer. It has been replaced by the 1983 CIC. I think that if I post Can. 6 one more time, I will go buggy.

[quote name='Edward Peters' date=' JCD']Today, canon law for Roman Catholics is found primarily in a single volume called the 1983 Code of Canon Law. (Eastern Catholics have a separate code which was issued in 1990.) The date indicated, 1983, while not technically part of the official title, simply refers to the year in which the current canon law took effect, replacing when it did so the Catholic Church's first Code of Canon Law which was published in 1917. Up until this century, the canon law of the Catholic Church was scattered over a wide variety of texts and collections that only an elite group of highly-trained specialists could access. The modern redaction of Church law into a single unified code, however, is one of the steps that has contributed to the ability of rank-and-file Catholics to make greater use of canon law in their own lives.[/quote]

[quote name='Edward Peters' date=' JCD']Roman Catholics today are bound by the 1983 Code of Canon Law which was promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 25 January 1983, the anniversary of Pope John XXIII's announcement in 1959 of his plans to convoke the Second Vatican Council and to reform the Code of Canon Law of 1917. Eastern rite Catholics, including those living in the US, have their own Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches that went into effect in 1990.[/quote]

There is an old Latin saying:
[quote]Ecclesia semper reformanda est.  --  The Church is always in need of renewal.[/quote]

This most certainly applies....and it is alluded to in [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_25011983_sacrae-disciplinae-leges_en.html"]SACRAE DISCIPLINAE LEGES[/url] #6. That is the apostolic constitution which promulgates the 1983 CIC.

[Aloysius]

it's a nice practice that apparently now is optional... but it's scriptural... and I don't think there's anything wrong with me making them available if someone wanted one. I'm not forcing it on them... but I would love to see head coverings make a comeback. I don't know... maybe I won't... but that's beside the point

anyway, I have no problem with the Church being always in need of renewel... but the head covering tradition is not just any tradition... it dates back to scriptural days and remains unbroken until recent times... with the only explanation being an ommission from the code of canon law. how is it considered "renewel" to end such a tradition?

I'm not just sitting here opposing all new things and all renewells... I'm wondering what the purpose is in ending head coverings

and what do canons 20-21 mean... I'm not even proposing anymore that they mean what I said they meant earlier but I would like to know what the heck they mean... that if a specific law isn't specifically abrogated then it shouldn't be assumed not to be in force anymore... which laws are being referred to? give me an example where this would be applicable? I'm just confused here.

it's really quite odd that such a huge practice that can be considered unbroken since the time of St. Paul doesn't even merit a document explaining why it's not in force anymore...

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i read one article that said because it was in the old code of canon law but nothing was mentioned about it in the new code of canon law that it still aplies. is this true?

[Guest Eremite]

St. Paul's epistles (and all Scripture, for that matter) need to be understood in their proper historical context.

Titus 2:9 reads:

[quote]Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters[/quote]

In what context is St. Paul exhorting slaves to be submissive to their masters? In the context of the ancient world, where slavery was an established institution.

St. Paul did not thereby condone slavery. If someone kidnaps you today, and claims you as their slave, you don't have to "be submissive" to him. We live in a different society, where slavery is not a social institution, and not something that is to be submissively dealt with.

In the same ancient context, St. Paul exhorted the Corinthian women not to attend Church with an uncovered head. Why? Because a veil was an essential element of modesty in their society, as Brother Adam notes.

The essence of St. Paul's teaching was modesty. Women must bear themselves modestly in Church. Today, in our society, it is not a sign of unmodesty for women not to wear a veil. And so the Church does not hold them to the standards of the ancient world. She does, however, hold them to the standards of modesty, which is necessary in every culture.

Not only was the legal requirement of the mantilla not included in the new Code of Canon Law, but neither the Popes nor the Bishops have included a lack of mantilla (which is the general practice) as an abuse, as they have with many other things (see, for example, Redemptionis Sacramentum). When we read Scripture apart from the practice of the Church, we empower ourselves with authority we do not have. We cannot be more Catholic than the Churches of God.

Note, also, that St. Paul is equally clear that men should not wear head coverings:

[quote]For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God[/quote]

Yet, the 1917 Code of Canon Law allows it according to custom:

[quote]Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bear-headed, [b]unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise[/b][/quote]

In summary, St. Paul's exhortation to the Corinthians must be seen in its cultural context, as both the 1917 and the 1983 Codes of Canon Law do see it. We must not become integrists.

That said, it's fine to wear mantillas, and personally, I wish it would become a matter of law again, but that's another question altogether.

[Cam42]

[quote name='CIC #20']A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise.[/quote]

[quote name='CIC #21']In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them.[/quote]

This is not dealing with the 1917 CIC v. 1983 CIC. It is dealing with a new law being brought into the 1983 CIC and being harmonized with the existing law.

The 1917 CIC has no force of law any longer, that CIC ceased to be 27 Nov, 1983. That is when the 1983 CIC gained force of Law.

[Aloysius]

okay, I just wanted clarification as to what 20 and 21 meant.

anyway, I understand the historical context of scripture... but what about the 2000 year historical context of every other rite, and the 1960 year historical context of our rite... did 1960 mark the first time in all of the history of the Church where the culture of the Latin Rite no longer considered veils a symbol of modesty and reverence? I still see them that way...

I cannot understand how we can say "this is specific to the historical and cultural context of the time St. Paul lived" when we can say that for every period of Church history (as far as I know there has not been a time lacking the veil tradition until modern times)

okay, so thank you for debunking the idea that it was still required, I was confused about that and needed to know what exactly 20 and 21 meant. but there still exists the question not of if it is required, but if it should be done or if it should be required. I really don't see the reason why not... veils are still a symbol of modesty and respect... and they separate the genders in Church which is a good thing... and they add to the distinct Catholic biblical nature of the mass (in the same way keeping scripture quotes in the liturgy does... only not with a scripture quote but with a scripture symbol)

the Church today really does nothing but ignore it. it is not required by canon law, but there is no document... absolutely no teaching coming out as to why it should or shouldn't be done. I cannot understand if the thing was done for 1980+ years in continuity how there can be a mere ommission in canon law that completely removes it from all practice.

Is there a reasoning of "renewel" behind it, as Cam says the Church is constantly in need of renewel. if so... what is this reasoning? because I can't figure it out.

okay, so, in summation:
I admit it is no longer required because of the 1983 codes ommission (I was just confused about that) but cannot understand the REASONING behind why it is not required and wish that it would be required again.

[Apotheoun]

Sacred Scripture is the source of the tradition of women covering their heads during Divine Liturgy, as a consequence, the abrogation of CIC 1917 is irrelevant.

[son_of_angels]

I think St. Paul would say today, "If a woman shall wear a veil, let her wear it unto the Lord, that she may grow in humility and modesty. If she does not, let her rejoice in the freedom given her by Christ and his holy Church."

At least that is my impression of St. Paul.

Then again, I don't think it would hurt to bring back this requirement.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Apotheoun']Sacred Scripture is the source of the tradition of women covering their heads during Divine Liturgy, as a consequence, the abrogation of CIC 1917 is irrelevant.[/quote]
But the Church is the interpreter of scripture, and the Roman Church does not interpret the scripture that's been cited here as being binding on all times and places. You can't deny that the mantillas and veils have been gone for some time, and no pope has spoken out against their absence -- this means that the 1983 Code of Canon Law did indeed abrogate the 1917 code, and that this is a discipline of the Church, not a doctrine.

Is it really your contention that Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI have all broken with a necessary scriptural tradition?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jul 1 2005, 07:40 PM'][quote name='Apotheoun']Sacred Scripture is the source of the tradition of women covering their heads during Divine Liturgy, as a consequence, the abrogation of CIC 1917 is irrelevant.[/quote]
But the Church is the interpreter of scripture, and the Roman Church does not interpret the scripture that's been cited here as being binding on all times and places. You can't deny that the mantillas and veils have been gone for some time, and no pope has spoken out against their absence -- this means that the 1983 Code of Canon Law did indeed abrogate the 1917 code, and that this is a discipline of the Church, not a doctrine.
[right][snapback]629697[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Actually the Magisterium has never given a definitive interpretation for this text, and it is unlikely that it ever will. But what St. Paul said concerning the veiling of women is a revealed datum, and as such no one, not even the Magisterium, can invalidate it. Those who argue that this practice is no longer in effect because it is no longer contained in the Latin Rite Code of Canon Law have forgotten that the practice is not founded simply upon a canonical prescription, but upon divine revelation itself. Moreover, an interpretation of a text cannot involve invalidating or rescinding a text of Sacred Scripture, because the Magisterium is the guardian of revelation not the "creator" of it.

Now will a woman who does not follow this venerable tradition endanger her salvation? No, but she is breaking a venerable practice of the Churches of God, a practice founded upon the proper anthropological and angelic ordering of reality. A return to this revealed tradition would be a helpful step in the right direction for the restoration of reverence in the liturgy of the Roman Rite.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jul 1 2005, 07:40 PM']Is it really your contention that Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI have all broken with a necessary scriptural tradition?
[right][snapback]629697[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
None of these Popes ever issued a document saying that women no longer had to be veiled during the liturgical synaxis; instead, beginning in the early 1970s women just stopped wearing veils. The Magisterium never ordered the end to this practice.

Of course as we all know many things happened in the Church during the 1970s that the Magisterium had nothing at all to do with.