veiling and canon law

[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.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jul 1 2005, 09:06 PM']The Bishops pray all the time with their miters on.
[right][snapback]629759[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I didn't know that your bishop wears his miter while praying the Eucharistic prayer.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Which Western Church had men "pray" with their head covered.[/quote]

This has nothing to do with the discussion. The question is not where, in fact, the mores of the people permitted covered heads. Rather, the question is that the Church allowed it at all, since St. Paul makes no exceptions. The Church is Catholic, not fundamentalist. The disciplines of St. Paul are not part of the deposit of faith.

[quote] I don't accept your assumption that the word "assisting" is identical to the word "praying."[/quote]

The ordinary "assistance" of the faithful consists in the responsorial acclamations (eg, "et cum spiritu tuo", "Amen", etc). The entire Mass is a prayer, and the faithful take part in it. Their assistance is part of their prayer, for "the Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists" (St. Pius X).

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]I didn't know that your bishop wears his miter while praying the Eucharistic prayer. [/quote]

St. Paul does not call it a dishonor "when you're celebrating the Eucharist". He calls it a dishonor to pray, period, with head covered. If a Bishop is outside with his people, and has his miter on, and utters an impromptu prayer, he is dishonoring his head, according to the Revised Fundamentalist Version of Scripture.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jul 1 2005, 09:14 PM']The ordinary "assistance" of the faithful consists in the responsorial acclamations (eg, "et cum spiritu tuo", "Amen", etc). The entire Mass is a prayer, and the faithful take part in it. Their assistance is part of their prayer, for "the Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists" (St. Pius X).
[right][snapback]629767[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well of course life itself is a prayer, but I don't think that is what canon law is talking about.

[Apotheoun]

Requiring that the priest or other minister wear a specific garment as a sign of his office during a particular service is not the same as totally nullifying a practice of the Church that is founded upon divine revelation.

Nowhere has the Magisterium issued a document positively ending the practice of women covering their heads while praying. If you can supply such a document I will concede to you that the Roman Rite has authoritatively broken an Apostolic Tradition through the issuance of an indult (as it did once before when it allowed women to serve at the altar), but so far you have only given your opinion of what the scriptural text means and what the Church has commanded.

[Guest Eremite]

Of course the Church hasn't ended the practice of veiled heads. Any woman can veil herself as she sees fit. What the Church HAS done is remove any legal requirement to do so.

Your selectively fundamentalist reading of St. Paul does not bear up under logical scrutiny. Nowhere does St. Paul mention praying in a Church. Taking his injunction at its word-for-word value, he forbids women to pray at all unless their head is covered.

Since there is no ecclesiastical requirement for women to wear a veil, then you are left with appeal to the exhortation of St. Paul. As I've pointed out, however, your appeal is selective and exegetically inconsistent. You limit the necessity of veils to Church, and yet St. Paul makes no such distinction. You have no recourse to ecclesiastical law, because it has been abrogated with the introduction of the Code of 1983. Thus, your case stands on shoddy foundation.

Time for me to go to bed. I think I've said all I can say on this topic, without going in circles.

[Apotheoun]

I still await your copy of the indult permitting the new practice during the liturgy.

God bless, and sleep well,
Todd