Wearing the Mantilla

[Adonis33]

I don’t understand why this is still an argument.
Some women veil because they feel called by the Holy Spirit to do so, other women are not. Just as some men are called to the priesthood and others to marriage, yet you don’t see us sitting here deciding whose calling is better, do?

Exactly. I can’t understand why so many people get bent out of shape about women covering their heads.

It seems to me that the same kind of people who give you the self congratulatory “I’m too busy worshipping to notice the woman wearing the bikini in church” are the same kind of people who go nuts when they see a mantilla.

(I am not referring to any posters here, it’s just a general observation over the course of my time here on the Forums)

 

[St_Isidore]

I’m not sure who the big bad evil “Modernists” are. I hope you are not referring to the moderators because, I assure you, they are not modernists.

You say that disobedience was encouraged post Vatican II in regard to headcovering. When did the modernists do away with separating men and women in Church which was also required in canon law until 1983???

I thought I would approach this using your references to Canon Law: ( I am not sure if this was already posted, if so I apologize for the redundancy but not the reinforcement)

However, Canons 20-21 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law make clear that later Canon Law abrogates earlier Canon Law only when this is made explicit and that, in cases of doubt, the revocation of earlier law is not to be presumed; quite the opposite:

Canon 20 A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

Canon 21 In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed; rather, later laws are to be related to earlier ones and, as far as possible, harmonized with them.

Canons 27 and 28 add to the argument:

Canon 27 *Custom is the best interpreter of laws.*

Canon 28 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 5, a custom, whether contrary to or apart from the law, is revoked by a contrary custom or law. But unless the law makes express mention of them, it does not revoke centennial or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

Hence, according to Canon Law and immemorial custom, women are still to veil themselves.

Hope this now clarifies it for you
(courtesy of www.fisheaters.com) I hope my references are not edited out again.

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Hope this now clarifies it for you
(courtesy of www.fisheaters.com) I hope my references are not edited out again.

I think, at this point, the argument is done. I just wish there was a specific way to ask the mods to lock the thread, but I know it will just be brought up again.

As for the “evil modernists”- No, they are not out to get you, to silence you, to further the feminist/gay/leftist/whatever agenda, or anything like that (at least on this site)
No, the evil modernists did not edit your post because it was too traditional, rather it was edited because there are rules about cutting and pasting from other cites and copyright laws that have to be obeyed.

 

[tcraig]

Exactly. I can’t understand why so many people get bent out of shape about women covering their heads.

It seems to me that the same kind of people who give you the self congratulatory “I’m too busy worshipping to notice the woman wearing the bikini in church” are the same kind of people who go nuts when they see a mantilla.

(I am not referring to any posters here, it’s just a general observation over the course of my time here on the Forums)

I don’t know too many people who get bent out of shape over women choosing to cover their heads. I do see people (including me) objecting when some try to charge that it is still part of Canon Law, or that there was some type of plot/plan by the modernists to do away with it, etc. I also think there are objections because some seem to come across as a bit “holier than thou” or even downright obnoxious on the headcovering issue (not pointing fingers ).

 

[Brendan]

What on earth does any of this have to do with the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which explicitly abrogates the entirety of the 1917 Code including the Canon regarding headcovering?

What is means is that veiling was NOT done away with by Vatican II, and that, all the way up until the 1983 CCC, women were still required under Canon Law to veil.

 

[LilyM]

What is means is that veiling was NOT done away with by Vatican II, and that, all the way up until the 1983 CCC, women were still required under Canon Law to veil.

Again, that means what to us today? We are not required to veil now.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is now closed. Thank you to all who particiapated.