veiling and canon law

[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.

[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?