veiling and canon law

[Guest Eremite]

The veiling of women is no more an immemorial tradition as the non-veiling of men. St. Paul makes no provision for men to cover their heads; but the Church has, and does.

I agree that chapel veils, and men not covering their heads, is a venerable tradition. But the world hasn't, and won't, end because the Church rescinded any legal requirement on this matter, and it subsequently fell from custom in a world vastly different from that of St. Paul.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jul 1 2005, 08:32 PM']The veiling of women is no more an immemorial tradition as the non-veiling of men. St. Paul makes no provision for men to cover their heads; but the Church has, and does.
[right][snapback]629732[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That is a lovely assertion, but the burdern of proof is upon you to show that women have not always, prior to the 1970s, worn a head covering in Church. Moreover, you have to refute the revealed teaching of St. Paul.

Good luck.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]you have to refute the revealed teaching of St. Paul.[/quote]

I have to do no such thing. St. Paul had apostolic authority to establish disciplinary norms in the Church of his time, and the Bishops have the same authority today. I don't have to "refute" him anymore than the Church did by allowing men to cover their heads.

"Immemorial" was the wrong word to convey what I was trying to say above. Rather, veiling is not something which, of any intrinsic necessity, requires resumption until the end of time.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jul 1 2005, 08:32 PM']The veiling of women is no more an immemorial tradition as the non-veiling of men. St. Paul makes no provision for men to cover their heads; but the Church has, and does.

I agree that chapel veils, and men not covering their heads, is a venerable tradition. But the world hasn't, and won't, end because the Church rescinded any legal requirement on this matter, and it subsequently fell from custom in a world vastly different from that of St. Paul.
[right][snapback]629732[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What is not in dispute is that the Church's Magisterium can add any number of practices for both men and women during the liturgy.

But what the Magisterium cannot do is alter revealed truth, or change the order of creation in connection with the proper relations that exist between men, women, and angels.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]what the Magisterium cannot do is alter revealed truth[/quote]

And St. Paul did not reveal any truth that women and men MUST be veiled and unveiled, respectively. The Church can and has dispensed from the custom of St. Paul's time, according to her good pleasure.

[quote]or change the order of creation in connection with the proper ordering of relations between men, women, and angels.[/quote]

God did not create us with veils on our heads. While veils have symbolic value in expressing the order of creation, they are not necessary to do so. An unveiled woman does not change the order of creation any more than a hatted man does.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jul 1 2005, 08:36 PM']I have to do no such thing. St. Paul had apostolic authority to establish disciplinary norms in the Church of his time, and the Bishops have the same authority today. I don't have to "refute" him anymore than the Church did by allowing men to cover their heads.

"Immemorial" was the wrong word to convey what I was trying to say above. Rather, veiling is not something which, of any intrinsic necessity, requires resumption until the end of time.
[right][snapback]629736[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Again, read what Paul says, he does not connect this practice simply with "canonical discipline." You may be willing to deny divine revelation, but I am not. The burden of proof lies with those who are advocating the innovation of allowing women pray with their heads uncovered, and not with those who defend the immemorial practice of the Churches of God.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]You may be willing to deny divine revelation, but I am not.[/quote]

Actually, you are. When you upbraid the Catholic Church for allowing men to cover their heads, contrary to the command of Scripture, then maybe you'll have legitimacy in your argument for the veiling of women.

Until then, you are being speciously selective, and illogical.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jul 1 2005, 08:41 PM']And St. Paul did not reveal any truth that women and men MUST be veiled and unveiled, respectively. The Church can and has dispensed from the custom of St. Paul's time, according to her good pleasure.
God did not create us with veils on our heads. While veils have symbolic value in expressing the order of creation, they are not necessary to do so. An unveiled woman does not change the order of creation any more than a hatted man does.
[right][snapback]629742[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
First Corinthians 11:1-16

[1] Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
[2] I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
[3] But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
[4] Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
[5] but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head -- it is the same as if her head were shaven.
[6] For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.
[7] For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
[8] (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
[9] Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)
[10] That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.
[11] (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
[12] for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.)
[13] Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
[14] Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him,
[15] but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
[16] If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head[/quote]

Just so we're clear, you are admonishing the pre 1960 Church for allowing men to cover their heads, contrary to this exhortation from St. Paul, correct?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jul 1 2005, 08:50 PM']Just so we're clear, you are admonishing the pre 1960 Church for allowing men to cover their heads, contrary to this exhortation from St. Paul, correct?
[right][snapback]629748[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Are you saying that men didn't take their hats off in Church when they prayed? I went to Church in the 1960s, did you? My father wore a hat, but always removed it upon entering the Church.

Even bishops and priests who wear various "hats" or head coverings, [i]remove them when the pray[/i]. Or do you dispute this fact?

[Guest Eremite]

The 1917 Code of Canon Law reads:

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

Men were allowed to cover their heads "while they are assisting at sacred rites", including the Mass.

In America, the mores of the people didn't allow men to wear hats. But, in principle, the Church allowed it, depending upon custom.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jul 1 2005, 08:59 PM']Men were allowed to cover their heads "while they are assisting at sacred rites", including the Mass.
[right][snapback]629753[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Read the canon, that only holds if it is a part of the particular culture. In which Western countries was that the practice?

Moreover, assisting is not the equivalent of praying. You will notice that bishops and even the Pope, wear their miters at various times during the rite of the Mass, but they don't wear them or their skull cap when the pray the Eucharistic prayer.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]that only holds if it is a part of the particular culture. In which Western countries was that the practice?[/quote]

I missed the verse where St. Paul says "it is a dishonor for men to cover their heads, unless they're not westerners".

[quote]assisting is not the equivalent of praying.[/quote]

Canon law makes no such distinction. It all rests on the mores of the people. Besides, the entire mass is a prayer.

Furthemore, St. Paul says it is a dishonor for men to cover their heads while praying. He doesn't say "while praying in a Church" or "while praying at mass". The Bishops pray all the time with their miters on.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jul 1 2005, 09:06 PM']I missed the verse where St. Paul says "it is a dishonor for men to cover their heads, unless they're not westerners".
[right][snapback]629759[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Which Western Church had men "pray" with their head covered. I don't accept your assumption that the word "assisting" is identical to the word "praying."

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jul 1 2005, 09:06 PM']Canon law makes no such distinction. It all rests on the mores of the people. Besides, the entire mass is a prayer.
[right][snapback]629759[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm sorry I didn't know that you had a degree in philology and canon law. I bow to your superior knowledge on this particular aspect of the subject.