Church Veil Reactions

  • Thread starter Thread starter onegreenclover
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Famule said:
Mr. Aken refers to Canon 1262 of the old code as liturgical law. What about Canon 2 of the new code?
Click to expand...
Canon 6 explicitly abrogates the 1917 CIC.

Can. 6
§1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;

3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;

4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.

§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2.HTM

The 1917 code can not be used to prove anything in respect to the 1983 CIC, since the 1983 explicitly and totally abrogates the 1917.

The requirement headwear for women was separately abrogated by Rome prior to the 1983 CIC, and therefore was no longer required discipline at the time.
 
The requirement headwear for women was separately abrogated by Rome prior to the 1983 CIC, and therefore was no longer required discipline at the time.
Click to expand...
The Pope can revert (back) to the 1917 Code if he sees fit. In fact, he does so in a sense when he requires all women to wear headwear in private audiences.
 
To the original question, there are women who wear a headcovering to mass in my parish. It is lovely, and there is a softness to them which is appealing.

I myself waver on this…I would like to because I would like a heart which is totally submitted to bringing Jesus honor, not to my own desires or understanding or what others think. I don’t always want to wear one if it is inconvenient or I will be looked at like a religious kook. In our culture, it is almost dishomorable for a woman to wear a headcovering because she might be mistaken for a Muslim! But, it is a matter of conscience. Do I follow my conscience or do I follow what will make me comfortable? What brings honor to my “head” (Jesus since I am not married)?

However, where I DO have an internal argument on headcovering (and I welcome opinions in the spirit of love and for the sake of clarity) is thus:
While 1 Cor 11:5-6 is apparently clear, 1 Cor 11:13-15 seems to indicate that it IS a cultural thing that we should decide for ourselves. “consider for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to offer prayer to God with her head uncovered?” (um, since you asked me to judge for myself, well - actually, I think it is fine. Why? Is there something wrong with it?) 14: “Does not the native sense of propriety itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is a dishonor to him” (Well, you’re asking us to judge for ourselves, so: no, it doesn’t. It is a matter of preference whether a man has long hair. In some cultures it is an honor!) 16: “But if a woman has long hair, it is her glory, for her hair is given to her for a covering” (um…so, is hair the headcovering being referred to in 11:5-6? Or are you saying that since female pattern baldness is not found in nature, we can conclude that because as nature itself keeps her covered, it is right for her to a headcovering referred to 11:5-6? ? I mean, not all women have long hair! How long is long?) LOL…what a struggle!
JKirkLVNV said:
I ask again. One command from St. Paul, “traditionalists” insist on. A similar command from our Blessed Lord they ignore? Reconcile the two.
Click to expand...
I understand why you relate the two topics. Matt 15:6: Jesus criticizes the Pharisees and Scribes for teaching doctrines of men which nullify the word of God. Wouldn’t one take this as a dire warning for us to hold scripture as the ultimate authority?

However, scripture itself is sometimes not so clear. For example, as you are, I too am sometimes befuddled when Paul refers to himself as father in 1 Cor 4:17 (and so many other places: see catholic-forum.com/churches/luxver/father.htm) when Jesus says to call no man Father in Matt 23:9. And again, when Paul says in 1 Cor 10:25 that eating meat sacrificed to idols really doesn’t matter, but Acts 15:29, 21:and Revelation 2:14, 2:20 clearly state that it does.

LOL… 🤷 Does anyone have any clarity to offer on these apparent contradictions between Paul and the rest of scripture?
 
MagsM said:
However, where I DO have an internal argument on headcovering (and I welcome opinions in the spirit of love and for the sake of clarity) is thus:
While 1 Cor 11:5-6 is apparently clear, 1 Cor 11:13-15 seems to indicate that it IS a cultural thing that we should decide for ourselves. “consider for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to offer prayer to God with her head uncovered?” (um, since you asked me to judge for myself, well - actually, I think it is fine. Why? Is there something wrong with it?) 14: “Does not the native sense of propriety itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is a dishonor to him” (Well, you’re asking us to judge for ourselves, so: no, it doesn’t. It is a matter of preference whether a man has long hair. In some cultures it is an honor!) 16: “But if a woman has long hair, it is her glory, for her hair is given to her for a covering” (um…so, is hair the headcovering being referred to in 11:5-6? Or are you saying that since female pattern baldness is not found in nature, we can conclude that because as nature itself keeps her covered, it is right for her to a headcovering referred to 11:5-6? ? I mean, not all women have long hair! How long is long?) LOL…what a struggle!

I understand why you relate the two topics. Matt 15:6: Jesus criticizes the Pharisees and Scribes for teaching doctrines of men which nullify the word of God. Wouldn’t one take this as a dire warning for us to hold scripture as the ultimate authority?

However, scripture itself is sometimes not so clear. For example, as you are, I too am sometimes befuddled when Paul refers to himself as father in 1 Cor 4:17 (and so many other places: see catholic-forum.com/churches/luxver/father.htm) when Jesus says to call no man Father in Matt 23:9. And again, when Paul says in 1 Cor 10:25 that eating meat sacrificed to idols really doesn’t matter, but Acts 15:29, 21:and Revelation 2:14, 2:20 clearly state that it does.

LOL… 🤷 Does anyone have any clarity to offer on these apparent contradictions between Paul and the rest of scripture?
Click to expand...
These are interesting points you’ve presented as I have struggled with this too. However, we’re dealing with an English translation of the Latin Vulgate, which itself had been a conscientious effort by St. Jerome to consolidate the Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and other languages in which the original was written. As we know many things are lost in translations. I for one do not believe the true Bible has contradictions but then I don’t quite understand quite all of it either. I guess it’s up to us to try to understand the context behind each passage we read instead of analyzing each word or phrase. Easier said than done, though, I admit. Perhaps a translinear translation such as this might help.
 
Aramis said:
Canon 6 explicitly abrogates the 1917 CIC.

Can. 6
§1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;

3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;

4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.

§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2.HTM

The 1917 code can not be used to prove anything in respect to the 1983 CIC, since the 1983 explicitly and totally abrogates the 1917.

The requirement headwear for women was separately abrogated by Rome prior to the 1983 CIC, and therefore was no longer required discipline at the time.
Click to expand...
What about Canon 2?
 
Famule said:
What about Canon 2?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant in the case of veils and hats because of Canon 6 and the explicit lessening of the discipline of headware in the 70’s.

If rome had NOT explicitly abrogated the requirement, then it would have force of law. But that isn’t the case.
 
ProVobis said:
…However, we’re dealing with an English translation of the Latin Vulgate, which itself had been a conscientious effort by St. Jerome to consolidate the Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and other languages in which the original was written. As we know many things are lost in translations. I for one do not believe the true Bible has contradictions but then I don’t quite understand quite all of it either. I guess it’s up to us to try to understand the context behind each passage we read instead of analyzing each word or phrase. Easier said than done, though, I admit. Perhaps a translinear translation such as this might help.
Click to expand...
Good points! I also believe that the original language does not contain contradictions. And you bring up a very important reminder that understanding context or spirit of a writing is much more important than each separate word. I also believe that through persistent prayer with an open heart, He will reveal the meaning eventually - if it isn’t revealed, it is more likely that my own heart clouds my understanding.
 
Aramis said:
Irrelevant in the case of veils and hats because of Canon 6 and the explicit lessening of the discipline of headware in the 70’s.

If rome had NOT explicitly abrogated the requirement, then it would have force of law. But that isn’t the case.
Click to expand...
Please provide documentation where rome explicitly abrogated this specific liturgical law.
 
onegreenclover said:
So I just wore a mantilla to mass this morning. It was pretty scary at first and I’m not sure what to think about my experience.

What are some other people’s experiences either wearing one or seeing someone wear it? (not that it matters what other people think but just curious)

Thanks!
Click to expand...
My wife and I, along with another couple, just returned from a visit to Rome. Both of the women wore chapel veils whenever we entered a church, and we entered many over the course of 3 weeks. In St. Peter’s Basilica, I believe they were the only two women with veils out of perhaps a thousand. There was nothing scary about it nor did they feel odd - it is just what they do when in a room containing the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, for the same reasons women traditionally wore head coverings before this modern era. They even put them on in the Sistine Chapel until they were sure that there was no Blessed Sacrament there.
 
Famule said:
Please provide documentation where rome explicitly abrogated this specific liturgical law.
Click to expand...
one might make a distinction between specifically abrogating or approving something either by action or by silence.
 
maurin said:
one might make a distinction between specifically abrogating or approving something either by action or by silence.
Click to expand...
I believe the 1983 Code is silent on the matter of head coverings and where it does not specifically abrogate the previous 1917 Code, the former still applies.
 
I believe the 1983 Code is silent on the matter of head coverings and where it does not specifically abrogate the previous 1917 Code, the former still applies.
Click to expand...
True, but the Pope can reinstate some of the 1917 Code, as he has effectively done by requiring women to wear veils in private audiences with him. Perhaps he is trying to set an example for the Church? 🙂
 
giuseppeTO said:
I believe the 1983 Code is silent on the matter of head coverings and where it does not specifically abrogate the previous 1917 Code, the former still applies.
Click to expand...
Actually it is exactly the opposite. The entire 1917 Code was abrogated unless something was specifically brought back in.

As noted previously, the only thing that applies is that by virtue of being an “immemorial custom”, the right to wear headcoverings cannot be abrogated, just as the right to kneel for communion could not be abrogated by virtue of being an immemorial custom.
 
ProVobis said:
The Pope can revert (back) to the 1917 Code if he sees fit. In fact, he does so in a sense when he requires all women to wear headwear in private audiences.
Click to expand...
Though John Paul II was Pope at the time, when my family and I were privileged to be granted a private audience with His Holiness, we received a phone call from one of the nuns who handled such things, advising us as to appropriate clothing, where to assemble, etc. Though we were advised to wear modest-length skirts and have covered shoulders, *headcoverings were not even mentioned. * I have referred to this before in previous threads on the topic.

There was one Spanish woman wearing a mantilla, but of our group of several families (with everyone dressed conservatively and modestly) who then individually met with His Holiness, there were no other covered heads, no one batted an eye, and not a word was said. (Whether this has changed with Benedict, I do not know, but it was simply not an issue in the early part of this decade.)
 
dixieagle said:
Though John Paul II was Pope at the time, when my family and I were privileged to be granted a private audience with His Holiness, we received a phone call from one of the nuns who handled such things, advising us as to appropriate clothing, where to assemble, etc. Though we were advised to wear modest-length skirts and have covered shoulders, *headcoverings were not even mentioned. * I have referred to this before in previous threads on the topic.

There was one Spanish woman wearing a mantilla, but of our group of several families (with everyone dressed conservatively and modestly) who then individually met with His Holiness, there were no other covered heads, no one batted an eye, and not a word was said. (Whether this has changed with Benedict, I do not know, but it was simply not an issue in the early part of this decade.)
Click to expand...
From what (little) I’ve read, headcovering is expected in a diplomatic context, as a matter of diplomatic protocol, not church law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top