Ok, I am newly returned to the Church (less than 2 years) and I am thinking I want to try going to the Latin Mass in my area- however as a rape survivor I am afraid to because I have been told I will not be allowed in if I do not wear a dress/skirt. I no longer wear dresses/skirts and am wondering if I am excluded from Latin Mass or if I should talk to the priest or if there is another option.
I understand at a Latin Mass I *must* cover my head and will do so. But would the women who veil for Novus Ordo masses be willing to talk to me about it -- I have been told that it is, in part, in deference to men. Is this true? could someone help me understand the practice. Thanks
Wearing a skirt is not required.
Veiling is a bit more complicated, but either way, it doesn't actually have anything to do with there being a Latin Mass, or any Mass at all. If veiling is required, it's required for the Latin Mass, the Novus Ordo, or just popping in the church for any reason.
Skirts aren't required (although if jags give you guff, deck 'em, IMHO).
Veiling, the only folks who'll be picky about that are generally SSPX chapels. It's not really deference to men, I don't think. I'll yield to the women to explain it. :lol:
At a Latin Mass you aren't required to veil, but the majority of women will cover their hair. This doesn't have to be with a veil/mantilla either. Some women wear hats that match the rest of their outfits (for an example, just watch a video clip of HM the Queen at any Anglican service).
As far as skirts/dress goes, you could always wear pants/leggings underneath your dress if people at Mass really give you grief (not sure if that would be an acceptable compromise for you).
Quote from: AndiA on November 16, 2015, 09:37:42 PM
Ok, I am newly returned to the Church (less than 2 years) and I am thinking I want to try going to the Latin Mass in my area- however as a rape survivor I am afraid to because I have been told I will not be allowed in if I do not wear a dress/skirt. I no longer wear dresses/skirts and am wondering if I am excluded from Latin Mass or if I should talk to the priest or if there is another option.
I understand at a Latin Mass I *must* cover my head and will do so. But would the women who veil for Novus Ordo masses be willing to talk to me about it -- I have been told that it is, in part, in deference to men. Is this true? could someone help me understand the practice. Thanks
First of all, welcome back to the faith.
This article explains a lot about veiling and you might find it helpful: http://www.onepeterfive.com/chapel-veil-womans-rights/
I remember the first time I started veiling, and it did feel awkward and I was out of place. It gets easier over time and eventually it feels strange to be in church without one. I often am without a veil in church these days because my 19 month old yanks it off, and I always feel naked without it :) I originally only wore the veil at the Latin Mass, but eventually realized that Our Lord is just as worthy of that reverence in the Novus Ordo, even if I am the only woman practicing it.
SSPX Chapels ask women to veil and to dress modestly, they do consider pants to be immodest. That being said you will not be told you cannot come to mass if you wear trousers. Sometimes it takes years for a woman to shake off the habit of wearing pants (including me, I wear pants but not to mass ). I have seen women receive Communion dressed in pants and no remarks are passed. I myself am trad since I was 15 and now at 43 have never been scolded and the parishioners know it too but have not said anything.
You have a genuine aversion to skirts but mine is just I love my pants and I am trying to break the habit slowly but surely.
Don't let the pants rule put you off thankfully Trad priests are truly Catholic so they are more concerned with your soul and far more sympathetic than you realise.
Some chapels require skirts. Would leggings underneath make you feel safe and comfortable? :) You could even try a long skirt with thick leggings/thin pants under.
Veils can seem a bit strange at first -- I've always liked them, but some ladies like to ease into it. Hats are perfectly acceptable, as are shawls, etc.
I tend to wear a Russian shawl, because our chapel tends to be quite cold. It looks something like this:
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pravoslavie.ru%2Fsas%2Fimage%2F101153%2F115345.b.jpg&hash=70d92f608cea98627d20ba79cf33d9c830e5797c)
There are some women who wear pants to our trad Masses. They are in the minority but they're not a minority of one or something like that. I'd say about 10 of them wear pants. No one says anything (nothing I've ever heard), and no one stares at them or treats them funny at Mass, at the Communion rail, or at reception.
I don't always cover my head for all of Mass, but I always do for Communion. Sometimes covering my head that long makes me too warm. (I wear wrap-type scarves, like OCLittleFlower does; I don't wear lighter mantillas, so warmth is a negative factor; our chapel tends to be warm, unlike hers.)
Veils used to be required under the 1917 Code of Canon Law and some people make an argument that they still are. The more common (in my experience) interpretation of Canon Law is that they are no longer required since the 1983 Code.
But I did not know about that when I start doing it. I just knew it was a way to honour Christ's Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. This has always been a very important part of our Faith for me, so it was natural for me to do it when I learned about it. It is similar to genuflecting to the Tabernacle but only for women.
Another thing I like about covering my head is that, until recently, it was always the practice of Catholic women. It makes me feel connected to the Catholic women of the past. I think of the them as my mothers in faith and it is a comforting feeling.
When I started covering my head I was still regularly attending the Novus Ordo and my husband thought that wearing a lace veil (mantilla) would make me stand out. He was uncomfortable with that so I wore hats and scarves at first. But when he was more used to my head always being covered he didn't mind anymore and I started wearing a mantilla as my main head covering. I find them more convenient and comfortable.
Quote from: AndiA on November 16, 2015, 09:37:42 PM
Ok, I am newly returned to the Church (less than 2 years) and I am thinking I want to try going to the Latin Mass in my area- however as a rape survivor I am afraid to because I have been told I will not be allowed in if I do not wear a dress/skirt. I no longer wear dresses/skirts and am wondering if I am excluded from Latin Mass or if I should talk to the priest or if there is another option.
I understand at a Latin Mass I *must* cover my head and will do so. But would the women who veil for Novus Ordo masses be willing to talk to me about it -- I have been told that it is, in part, in deference to men. Is this true? could someone help me understand the practice. Thanks
You are not required to do either...some people will annoy you about it, but it all depends on where you go.
Remember the Church is made of folks...
Just dress somewhat modestly, and you'll be fine. Unless some place has some sort of dress code. I think the Roman dress code is fine enough.
Quote from: AndiA on November 16, 2015, 09:37:42 PM
I understand at a Latin Mass I *must* cover my head and will do so. But would the women who veil for Novus Ordo masses be willing to talk to me about it -- I have been told that it is, in part, in deference to men. Is this true? could someone help me understand the practice. Thanks
Before I began attending the Latin Mass, I listened to this sermon (http://files.audiosancto.org/20090329-The-Theological-Significance-of-Veils-and-Consequences-of-Unveiling.mp3) ... it really made a huge impression on me and helped me understand some reasons for/the significance of veiling. Perhaps you would find it helpful as well(?).
(If you do listen: The first part discusses the veiling of statues during Passiontide and around the 9:30 mark the priest begins to discuss the veiling of women.)
Quote from: Jayne on November 17, 2015, 08:06:20 AM
Veils used to be required under the 1917 Code of Canon Law and some people make an argument that they still are. The more common (in my experience) interpretation of Canon Law is that they are no longer required since the 1983 Code.
I got in a heated argument (and eventually banned somewhere for being right), but veils were required in 1917. CANONICALLY, they NO LONGER are.
The 1983 Code abrogated the ENTIRETY of the 1917 Code. Whatever was contained in that 1917 Code has NO EFFECT OR FORCE.
Canonically - veiling not required. Some people erroneously argue this, but they are dead-wrong.
</soapbox>
:lol:
Quote from: AndiA on November 16, 2015, 09:37:42 PMI have been told that it is, in part, in deference to men. Is this true?
This is not true, but I don't see why it would matter.
Quote from: piabee on November 17, 2015, 03:26:15 PM
Quote from: AndiA on November 16, 2015, 09:37:42 PMI have been told that it is, in part, in deference to men. Is this true?
This is not true, but I don't see why it would matter.
It would matter to me if it were true. Because it wouldn't make any sense.
Quote from: Jayne on November 17, 2015, 08:06:20 AM
When I started covering my head I was still regularly attending the Novus Ordo and my husband thought that wearing a lace veil (mantilla) would make me stand out. He was uncomfortable with that so I wore hats and scarves at first. But when he was more used to my head always being covered he didn't mind anymore and I started wearing a mantilla as my main head covering....
I started wearing a mantilla when I was attending the Novus Ordo, and a few old ladies thought I was practically a saint! :lol:
I veil if I have to go to a Novus Ordo (usually for a funeral). People think I'm strange, but the presence of the Blessed Sacrament is more important than the opinions of my half-practicing family and acquaintances.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also, I would see if you could talk briefly and casually with the priest (bring a friend if you need some support) after Mass and just explain that you're coming back to the Church/exploring tradition, that you have some experiences in your personal life that you are working to overcome, and ask him to be available if you need some spiritual guidance in that regard. If it's a chapel with a dress code (most diocesan TLMs do not have a dress code), a quick word with the priest without going into detail may go a long way in making it clear that you're on a journey here and that you're not trying to undermine the expectations or cultural norms at the chapel.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Penelope on November 17, 2015, 03:59:17 PM
I veil if I have to go to a Novus Ordo (usually for a funeral). People think I'm strange, but the presence of the Blessed Sacrament is more important than the opinions of my half-practicing family and acquaintances.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
At a Novus Ordo, I usually wear a hat to balance obedience with not standing out. I like vintage hats, and it's a fun opportunity to wear them. :)
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 17, 2015, 01:00:28 PM
Quote from: Jayne on November 17, 2015, 08:06:20 AM
Veils used to be required under the 1917 Code of Canon Law and some people make an argument that they still are. The more common (in my experience) interpretation of Canon Law is that they are no longer required since the 1983 Code.
I got in a heated argument (and eventually banned somewhere for being right), but veils were required in 1917. CANONICALLY, they NO LONGER are.
The 1983 Code abrogated the ENTIRETY of the 1917 Code. Whatever was contained in that 1917 Code has NO EFFECT OR FORCE.
Canonically - veiling not required. Some people erroneously argue this, but they are dead-wrong.
</soapbox>
:lol:
So much wrong...want to derail...so much want to...not going to derail
Quote from: VeraeFidei on November 17, 2015, 06:29:35 PM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 17, 2015, 01:00:28 PM
Quote from: Jayne on November 17, 2015, 08:06:20 AM
Veils used to be required under the 1917 Code of Canon Law and some people make an argument that they still are. The more common (in my experience) interpretation of Canon Law is that they are no longer required since the 1983 Code.
I got in a heated argument (and eventually banned somewhere for being right), but veils were required in 1917. CANONICALLY, they NO LONGER are.
The 1983 Code abrogated the ENTIRETY of the 1917 Code. Whatever was contained in that 1917 Code has NO EFFECT OR FORCE.
Canonically - veiling not required. Some people erroneously argue this, but they are dead-wrong.
</soapbox>
:lol:
So much wrong...want to derail...so much want to...not going to derail
New thread=no derail?
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on November 17, 2015, 06:02:04 PM
Quote from: Penelope on November 17, 2015, 03:59:17 PM
I veil if I have to go to a Novus Ordo (usually for a funeral). People think I'm strange, but the presence of the Blessed Sacrament is more important than the opinions of my half-practicing family and acquaintances.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
At a Novus Ordo, I usually wear a hat to balance obedience with not standing out. I like vintage hats, and it's a fun opportunity to wear them. :)
I do hats or chapel caps at times, too. People still think I'm weird. :lol:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Does anyone else find the stock veil option pretty lame? I know I'm a terrible Trad for saying it and I don't want to offend anyone but I much prefer the E.European head scarf style to a tea doily.
(https://img1.etsystatic.com/000/0/6823702/il_570xN.345173763.jpg)
vs.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a8/74/0d/a8740d49c759b175cd11fbbcb07f4bd7.jpg)
(having been on Trad forums long enough I have a feeling I will regret this post in the morning)
Quote from: Bernadette on November 17, 2015, 03:39:47 PM
Quote from: piabee on November 17, 2015, 03:26:15 PM
Quote from: AndiA on November 16, 2015, 09:37:42 PMI have been told that it is, in part, in deference to men. Is this true?
This is not true, but I don't see why it would matter.
It would matter to me if it were true. Because it wouldn't make any sense.
It matters to me, I am not more sinful than a man that I need to hide myself from him ( one explanation), nor should I have to cover myself because he can not control his lust in Church if he catches a glimpse of my hair ( the other explanation I was given). I remember when we had to wear scarves or hats in Church but was too young to understand it, then.
Covering myself in the presence of God would make sense if men were required to do it also...but they are not.
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on November 17, 2015, 07:23:53 PM
Does anyone else find the stock veil option pretty lame? I know I'm a terrible Trad for saying it and I don't want to offend anyone but I much prefer the E.European head scarf style to a tea doily.
(https://img1.etsystatic.com/000/0/6823702/il_570xN.345173763.jpg)
vs.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a8/74/0d/a8740d49c759b175cd11fbbcb07f4bd7.jpg)
(having been on Trad forums long enough I have a feeling I will regret this post in the morning)
Don't like either option, really. Altho' the worst one I have seen had the word "Mantilla" crocheted into it.
Thanks so much for answering me all, I am loving the discussion!
Quote from: AndiA on November 17, 2015, 07:25:03 PM
It matters to me, I am not more sinful than a man that I need to hide myself from him ( one explanation), nor should I have to cover myself because he can not control his lust in Church if he catches a glimpse of my hair ( the other explanation I was given). I remember when we had to wear scarves or hats in Church but was too young to understand it, then.
Covering myself in the presence of God would make sense if men were required to do it also...but they are not.
Men and women sin equally but they are not the same. A woman's hair is her crowning glory. But anyway, the point is moot.
Quote from: AndiA on November 17, 2015, 07:25:03 PM
Covering myself in the presence of God would make sense if men were required to do it also...but they are not.
In Western culture there's a long history of hat etiquette for men and wearing a hat in church would be considered grossly irreverent and disrespectful. Apparently wearing a hat in someone's home is rude behavior too.
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on November 17, 2015, 07:23:53 PM
Does anyone else find the stock veil option pretty lame? I know I'm a terrible Trad for saying it and I don't want to offend anyone but I much prefer the E.European head scarf style to a tea doily.
As I mentioned, I do not wear a dangling short lace mantilla that would look more like a doily for furniture and would not conform to any head shape. I wear a generous draped scarf around my neck, which I then pull up to cover my head effectively. Some women wear soft, long veils such as this, which also do a better job of conforming to head shape. Usually those are long and rectangular.
http://www.veilsbylily.com/floral-rectangle-lace-mantillas/
As I recall, the short, lace veil was once offered as a temporary courtesy in the vestibule of many churches, including European churches which had many visitors, as an immediate solution for those traveling. However, the standard head covering for females, historically, was either a hat or a tied or otherwise snug scarf.
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on November 17, 2015, 07:23:53 PM
Does anyone else find the stock veil option pretty lame? I know I'm a terrible Trad for saying it and I don't want to offend anyone but I much prefer the E.European head scarf style to a tea doily.
...
(having been on Trad forums long enough I have a feeling I will regret this post in the morning)
I also like and wear head scarves ... but sometimes I wear a lace mantilla or a hat.
i prefer my wife to wear a tiechel
she also has a few snoods
To the OP:
Regarding the issue of "subjugation," I never think of it in relation to men. I think of it in relation to God only. Before God do I and should I subjugate myself. I therefore feel privileged to "display" that subjugation -- for want of a more appropriate word. Affirm is perhaps a better word.
I think of the Magnificat when I veil. Our Lady felt privileged in her humility.
:)
Quote from: Chestertonian on November 17, 2015, 07:44:49 PM
i prefer my wife to wear a tiechel
she also has a few snoods
I want a snood. :) A cloth one. One of these days I'll make myself one.
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 17, 2015, 07:51:08 PM
Regarding the issue of "subjugation," I never think of it in relation to men. I think of it in relation to God only. Before God do I and should I subjugate myself. I therefore feel privileged to "display" that subjugation -- for want of a more appropriate word. Affirm is perhaps a better word.
But Catholic women do not veil themselves in church in subjugation to men.
Quote from: piabee on November 17, 2015, 08:25:08 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 17, 2015, 07:51:08 PM
Regarding the issue of "subjugation," I never think of it in relation to men. I think of it in relation to God only. Before God do I and should I subjugate myself. I therefore feel privileged to "display" that subjugation -- for want of a more appropriate word. Affirm is perhaps a better word.
But Catholic women do not veil themselves in church in subjugation to men.
I never said they did. That was implied earlier, upthread, by someone else.
Quote from: VeraeFidei on November 17, 2015, 06:29:35 PM
So much wrong...want to derail...so much want to...not going to derail
Canonically, no requirement. Start a new thread, though. I'll try to post more extensively Friday...
Canonically, in my usage, is that which can be cited explicitly by canon law.
I think veiling is obligatory under reasons not pertaining to canon law, though. :P
Quote from: Penelope on November 17, 2015, 06:53:32 PM
I do hats or chapel caps at times, too. People still think I'm weird. :lol:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Think?
:lol:
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 17, 2015, 07:38:11 PM
However, the standard head covering for females, historically, was either a hat or a tied or otherwise snug scarf.
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
I love hats, but I can never find one that fits around my big Jersey hair
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 17, 2015, 09:04:07 PM
Quote from: Penelope on November 17, 2015, 06:53:32 PM
I do hats or chapel caps at times, too. People still think I'm weird. :lol:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Think?
:lol:
Hate you. Always have. Always will. :bronx:
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 17, 2015, 08:37:34 PM
I never said they did. That was implied earlier, upthread, by someone else.
Can you quote the post? I don't see it.
Quote from: piabee on November 17, 2015, 11:59:54 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 17, 2015, 08:37:34 PM
I never said they did. That was implied earlier, upthread, by someone else.
Can you quote the post? I don't see it.
In the Original Post.
:)
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on November 17, 2015, 07:23:53 PM
Does anyone else find the stock veil option pretty lame? I know I'm a terrible Trad for saying it and I don't want to offend anyone but I much prefer the E.European head scarf style to a tea doily.
(https://img1.etsystatic.com/000/0/6823702/il_570xN.345173763.jpg)
vs.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a8/74/0d/a8740d49c759b175cd11fbbcb07f4bd7.jpg)
(having been on Trad forums long enough I have a feeling I will regret this post in the morning)
I have a weird dislike, personally, of hair hanging out from under the veil. It just looks sloppy. If that girl's veil were a bit longer and the lace was of a higher quality, it would look much nicer.
That said, we all have our own preferences and taste -- either style is correct (as are hats, etc) and it's up to each woman how she expresses her style (with husband's input if he has an opinion -- mine doesn't so long as the head is covered and there's no hair hanging out the bottom, since we share that weird hang-up -- he also hates the small round doily, where as I only dislike it with long hair).
I also Have read and been told by several good priest as well as my mother that for a woman to cover her head at Mass is a great honor.
It reflects the veil over the tabernacle as well as Mary being the enclosed and covered tabernacle of Almighty God.
Jayne,
I have read that a canon has to explicitly reverse an earlier canon for it to be abrogated by actually wording it as such.
In fact I believe Canon Law itself, says as much.
Quote from: AndiA on November 17, 2015, 07:25:03 PM
Covering myself in the presence of God would make sense if men were required to do it also...but they are not.
Men and women are not the same. We are physically and spiritually different. It does not make sense that our actions must always be the same.
It is a privilege to have this extra way of showing honour to the Blessed Sacrament. It would make more sense for men to be jealous of us for having it than for us to resent doing it.
This book might help you see veiling in a more positive way:
http://www.amazon.com/Privilege-Being-Woman-Alice-Hildebrand/dp/097061067X
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F51CRSYR01KL._SX298_BO1%2C204%2C203%2C200_.jpg&hash=07da9b289c0afd28f9767770695511c5584b8971)
Quote from: Older Salt on November 18, 2015, 06:51:53 AM
Jayne,
I have read that a canon has to explicitly reverse an earlier canon for it to be abrogated by actually wording it as such.
In fact I believe Canon Law itself, says as much.
From the 1983 code:
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Quote from: AndiA on November 16, 2015, 09:37:42 PM
Ok, I am newly returned to the Church (less than 2 years) and I am thinking I want to try going to the Latin Mass in my area- however as a rape survivor I am afraid to because I have been told I will not be allowed in if I do not wear a dress/skirt. I no longer wear dresses/skirts and am wondering if I am excluded from Latin Mass or if I should talk to the priest or if there is another option.
I understand at a Latin Mass I *must* cover my head and will do so. But would the women who veil for Novus Ordo masses be willing to talk to me about it -- I have been told that it is, in part, in deference to men. Is this true? could someone help me understand the practice. Thanks
The scriptural basis for veiling is 1 Corinthians 11, but I will say ahead of time it has never struck me as a particularly straightforward passage - there is clearly some cultural background necessary for proper interpretation.
Basically, veiling is about humility before God, not deference to men. A woman's hair is in many cultures and in many times and places an object of beauty, pride, etc., and there is nothing wrong with that, within proper limits. But in a Church, particularly during the divine services, such displays are improper, and so veiling the hair covers the earthly glory so that the focus can be on the Divine Glory. I think this can also be the case with clothes in general. We should make sure our "Sunday best" is not an ostentatious display, whether through immodesty, eye-catching anachronisms, or other idiosyncracies. It is interesting that Slavic peoples do not have the "Sunday best" idea that Americans do - basically you wear clean clothes that cover the legs and arms but allow your body to participate in worship by bowing and prostrations. Ties and jackets are generally discouraged for this reason.
In any event, the most important part of veiling, or dressing for Church in general, is to first "clothe" the heart in the garments of humility and repentance; without that, Church attire is a source of spiritual pride and misses the point.
Quote from: aquinas138 on November 18, 2015, 09:12:35 AM
Basically, veiling is about humility before God, not deference to men. ....veiling the hair covers the earthly glory so that the focus can be on the Divine Glory.
the most important part of veiling, or dressing for Church in general, is to first "clothe" the heart in the garments of humility and repentance;
Yes. Hence my Reply 29.
In addition to what's been said by aquinas138, et al... the sermon I linked to (http://files.audiosancto.org/20090329-The-Theological-Significance-of-Veils-and-Consequences-of-Unveiling.mp3) before has a nice, brief explanation of it.
But the basic points are: A veil is a sign of a great mystery - we see holy things like the tabernacle and chalice veiled and these are only to be handled by men specifically consecrated to do so. As well as the bridal veil showing the submission of the wife to the authority and loving care of her husband - and he is the only one granted the authority to "handle" the wife.
But for those women that are not married- why should they veil? The priest in the sermon says that every Catholic woman - as a woman - is a living icon of the Church and as such is a visible reminder of the spousal/bridal relationship between the Church and Christ. Thus, it is significant for a Catholic woman to veil as a visible "sermon"/statement/proclamation to the Lord that we love Him and are ready to submit and serve Him and trust Him as a/His loving bride... just as the Church is to lovingly submit to Him and His loving care. Therefore, veiling is a statement of a greater spiritual reality.
This is just my general summary, I do recommend listening to it yourself. Also, the first part of the sermon is well worth listening to as well as it discusses the purpose of sacred images to lift our minds in contemplation of spiritual realities of God and holy mysteries, etc.
Beautifully said, Lydia.
It's interesting that although I had not read the sermon, I often also am conscious of this:
Quote[being] a visible reminder of the spousal/bridal relationship between the Church and Christ
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 18, 2015, 08:50:31 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 18, 2015, 06:51:53 AM
Jayne,
I have read that a canon has to explicitly reverse an earlier canon for it to be abrogated by actually wording it as such.
In fact I believe Canon Law itself, says as much.
From the 1983 code:
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Thank you sir.
The head covering Canon was not enforced anyhow before 1983.
I recall seeing many woman wearing no covering in the 1970's
I guess not a venial sin.
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 18, 2015, 09:53:07 AM
Beautifully said, Lydia.
It's interesting that although I had not read the sermon, I often also am conscious of this:
Quote[being] a visible reminder of the spousal/bridal relationship between the Church and Christ
Thank you, Miriam.
I think that is really something to consider more deeply, Miriam. Look at what has happened when Catholic women en masse quit veiling... the Church's heirarchy/members have "thrown off the veil" as well... it's frightening the implications of this statement, we are dealing with them today in every aspect of the Church and society, it seems to me.
Quote from: Older Salt on November 18, 2015, 09:54:47 AM
The head covering Canon was not enforced anyhow before 1983.
I recall seeing many woman wearing no covering in the 1970's
I was a teenager in the late 60's and when I went to confession on Saturdays (I've know I've said this here before but it *really* irks me ::) ), I would see women, frequently, with kleenex bobby-pinned on their heads.
Really? You couldn't possibly fit a mantilla in your purse, really?
Quote from: Lynne on November 18, 2015, 10:11:08 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 18, 2015, 09:54:47 AM
The head covering Canon was not enforced anyhow before 1983.
I recall seeing many woman wearing no covering in the 1970's
I was a teenager in the late 60's and when I went to confession on Saturdays (I've know I've said this here before but it *really* irks me ::) ), I would see women, frequently, with kleenex bobby-pinned on their heads.
Really? You couldn't possibly fit a mantilla in your purse, really?
i once saw a woman inchurch wearing a Dunkin Donuts napkin on her head
America veils on dunkin
Quote from: Chestertonian on November 18, 2015, 10:17:03 AM
Quote from: Lynne on November 18, 2015, 10:11:08 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 18, 2015, 09:54:47 AM
The head covering Canon was not enforced anyhow before 1983.
I recall seeing many woman wearing no covering in the 1970's
I was a teenager in the late 60's and when I went to confession on Saturdays (I've know I've said this here before but it *really* irks me ::) ), I would see women, frequently, with kleenex bobby-pinned on their heads.
Really? You couldn't possibly fit a mantilla in your purse, really?
i once saw a woman inchurch wearing a Dunkin Donuts napkin on her head
America veils on dunkin
Grrrr...
::)
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 18, 2015, 10:07:14 AM
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 18, 2015, 09:53:07 AM
Beautifully said, Lydia.
It's interesting that although I had not read the sermon, I often also am conscious of this:
Quote[being] a visible reminder of the spousal/bridal relationship between the Church and Christ
Thank you, Miriam.
I think that is really something to consider more deeply, Miriam. Look at what has happened when Catholic women en masse quit veiling... the Church's heirarchy/members have "thrown off the veil" as well... it's frightening the implications of this statement, we are dealing with them today in every aspect of the Church and society, it seems to me.
Another eloquent statement, yes. And the sad but objective truth is that it is no exaggeration. So much of the modern mainstream Conciliar Religion's
raison d'être seems to be, from the mouths of her spokespeople, to glorify mankind and reduce the Godhead. It's from their mouths, not from mine.
mystery ("the veil"), bad; temporal, mundane, and tasteless displays of the familiar, good
subjugation, bad; pride good
praising ourselves, good; praising God, to be rationed
people's feelings, good; God's commands, only in relation to people's feelings
Important that Mass-goers don't "feel alienated" and "feel secondary to what's going on at the altar." Not an exaggeration. I hear this literally from the mouths of priests and bishops. Yes,
we should not feel secondary to Jesus Christ. :lol: Perfect. Where did they get their theology degrees, again?
In the meantime, we'll keep witnessing to the eternal truths and ignore their repetitious, political and psychological propaganda.
Let's keep inviting our N.O. friends and relatives to trad Masses. I do. Their response? "Beautiful." But the N.O. machine works feverishly to prevent that exposure whenever they can, labeling it "non-Catholic," LOL, and "dangerous," and discouraging said attendance.
Sorry for the derail.
Continue....
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 18, 2015, 10:55:42 AM
Another eloquent statement, yes. And the sad but objective truth is that it is no exaggeration. So much of the modern mainstream Conciliar Religion's raison d'être seems to be, from the mouths of her spokespeople, to glorify mankind and reduce the Godhead. It's from their mouths, not from mine.
mystery ("the veil"), bad; temporal, mundane, and tasteless displays of the familiar, good
subjugation, bad; pride good
praising ourselves, good; praising God, to be rationed
people's feelings, good; God's commands, only in relation to people's feelings
Important that Mass-goers don't "feel alienated" and "feel secondary to what's going on at the altar." Not an exaggeration. I hear this literally from the mouths of priests and bishops. Yes, we should not feel secondary to Jesus Christ. :lol: Perfect. Where did they get their theology degrees, again?
In the meantime, we'll keep witnessing to the eternal truths and ignore their repetitious, political and psychological propaganda.
Let's keep inviting our N.O. friends and relatives to trad Masses. I do. Their response? "Beautiful." But the N.O. machine works feverishly to prevent that exposure whenever they can, labeling it "non-Catholic," LOL, and "dangerous," and discouraging said attendance.
Sorry for the derail.
Continue....
Don't apologize, Miriam; that was a very good derail.
Quote from: Chestertonian on November 18, 2015, 10:17:03 AM
Quote from: Lynne on November 18, 2015, 10:11:08 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 18, 2015, 09:54:47 AM
The head covering Canon was not enforced anyhow before 1983.
I recall seeing many woman wearing no covering in the 1970's
I was a teenager in the late 60's and when I went to confession on Saturdays (I've know I've said this here before but it *really* irks me ::) ), I would see women, frequently, with kleenex bobby-pinned on their heads.
Really? You couldn't possibly fit a mantilla in your purse, really?
i once saw a woman inchurch wearing a Dunkin Donuts napkin on her head
America veils on dunkin
:doh:
People are so strange.
[yt]zq7Eki5EZ8o[/yt]
Quote from: Lynne on November 18, 2015, 10:11:08 AM
I was a teenager in the late 60's and when I went to confession on Saturdays (I've know I've said this here before but it *really* irks me ::) ), I would see women, frequently, with kleenex bobby-pinned on their heads.
Really? You couldn't possibly fit a mantilla in your purse, really?
When I used to post to CAF, I would regularly see stories like this offered as evidence that veiling was a bad thing. I could never follow the thinking behind this.
I guess I don't see why it is so bad in the first place and I especially don't see how it shows that veiling is a bad practice.
There is a woman where I attend the TLM who always wears a kleenex, but I am pretty sure that she is has something wrong with her. I know that she has been offered mantillas.
Quote from: Jayne on November 19, 2015, 06:53:55 AM
I guess I don't see why it is so bad in the first place
Wearing a kleenex on your head?
Quote from: Jayne on November 19, 2015, 06:53:55 AM
Quote from: Lynne on November 18, 2015, 10:11:08 AM
I was a teenager in the late 60's and when I went to confession on Saturdays (I've know I've said this here before but it *really* irks me ::) ), I would see women, frequently, with kleenex bobby-pinned on their heads.
Really? You couldn't possibly fit a mantilla in your purse, really?
When I used to post to CAF, I would regularly see stories like this offered as evidence that veiling was a bad thing. I could never follow the thinking behind this.
I guess I don't see why it is so bad in the first place and I especially don't see how it shows that veiling is a bad practice.
There is a woman where I attend the TLM who always wears a kleenex, but I am pretty sure that she is has something wrong with her. I know that she has been offered mantillas.
because kleenex are for boogers
mantillas
.....pretty sure you're not supposed to blow your nose in those although i am sure my son has tried
Quote from: Chestertonian on November 19, 2015, 07:20:29 AM
mantillas
.....pretty sure you're not supposed to blow your nose in those although i am sure my son has tried
:)
Quote from: Jayne on November 19, 2015, 06:53:55 AM
Quote from: Lynne on November 18, 2015, 10:11:08 AM
I was a teenager in the late 60's and when I went to confession on Saturdays (I've know I've said this here before but it *really* irks me ::) ), I would see women, frequently, with kleenex bobby-pinned on their heads.
Really? You couldn't possibly fit a mantilla in your purse, really?
When I used to post to CAF, I would regularly see stories like this offered as evidence that veiling was a bad thing. I could never follow the thinking behind this.
I guess I don't see why it is so bad in the first place and I especially don't see how it shows that veiling is a bad practice.
There is a woman where I attend the TLM who always wears a kleenex, but I am pretty sure that she is has something wrong with her. I know that she has been offered mantillas.
It does not show that veiling is a bad practice, because a piece of tissue is not a veil. ;) It shows that tissues are not veils. They don't "cover" anything except maybe if the woman is effectively bald (having little or no "glorious hair" to veil).
A tissue substitute belongs in the category, Why bother? :)
I wish I could wear my hat at Mass.
WARNING!! TRIGGER WORDS PRESENT!!! FIND A SAFE SPACE NEARBY TO USE IF NEEDED !!!
Let's consult Dr. Bo.
Quote[3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. [4] Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. [5] But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.
[6] For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. [7] The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. [8] For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. [9] For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. [10] Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.
[10] A power: that is, a veil or covering, as a sign that she is under the power of her husband: and this, the apostle adds, because of the angels, who are present in the assemblies of the faithful.
[11] But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. [12] For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God. [13] You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered? [14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? [15] But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
So a married women shows the authority of her husband over her, and a single women shows the authority of her father. In all cases she is under God. But even with this hierarchy, man and women are united in the Lord.
James, while your point is a good and necessary one to make with regard to one of the many reasons why women cover their heads in church, your tone at the beginning of your post was unnecessary. We ought not downplay truth simply because it may offend modern sensibilities, but we also don't need to go out of our way to be jerks about it, particularly when other posters explain that they are in the process of overcoming a related traumatic experience.
So, this is a warning to mind your tone.
James I am so sorry I asked. You could have just told me to shut up and go away, mocking me was not necessary, but you've told me all I need to know about this community. Bowing out now
And, please know that most trads do not have James' attitude. I for one recognize that rape can have a long-lasting traumatic effect on the victim, and thus certain words, images, or situations can trigger flashbacks or extreme discomfort. Please don't take James' post as typical of posters on this forum.
FYI: AndiA has been permanently banned from this forum per her request because she no longer wishes to be a part of a community whose entire ethos is apparently embodied by one user's harsh post.
That's very unfortunate :(
I agree, GP, but considering that all previous posters in this thread (excluding one post that was almost immediately moderated) were models of charity and understanding about AndiA's past and present difficulties, I'm not sure what else we could have done to encourage her in her journey to better understanding the Faith. If she wants to let one post with a nasty tone override every other response to her OP, then I'm not sure there was anything else that the rest of us could have done differently.
So, anyway, if we want to keep talking about women's headcoverings, carry on, but let's consider the topic of AndiA's involvement at this forum to be closed.
An uncharitable reply, and I apologize. I'll be taking this to the confessional.
if the '83 Code abrogated discipline's of the 1917 Code and woman's head coverings are no longer required in Mass, and the 1917 Code called for men to uncover their heads whilst in Mass, then now men may wear hats in Church.
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 09:18:09 AM
if the '83 Code abrogated discipline's of the 1917 Code and woman's head coverings are no longer required in Mass, and the 1917 Code called for men to uncover their heads whilst in Mass, then now men may wear hats in Church.
Unless the 1983 Code carried over the 1917 Code's prohibition on men wearing hat's in Church. Also, there may be additional legislation issues that deals with this specific issue.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on November 20, 2015, 09:36:39 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 09:18:09 AM
if the '83 Code abrogated discipline's of the 1917 Code and woman's head coverings are no longer required in Mass, and the 1917 Code called for men to uncover their heads whilst in Mass, then now men may wear hats in Church.
Unless the 1983 Code carried over the 1917 Code's prohibition on men wearing hat's in Church. Also, there may be additional legislation issues that deals with this specific issue.
83 did not, since it never mentioned women wearing head coverings at Mass nor MEN UNCOVERING THEIR HEADS.
I just looked it up.
Quote from: GloriaPatri on November 20, 2015, 09:36:39 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 09:18:09 AM
if the '83 Code abrogated discipline's of the 1917 Code and woman's head coverings are no longer required in Mass, and the 1917 Code called for men to uncover their heads whilst in Mass, then now men may wear hats in Church.
Unless the 1983 Code carried over the 1917 Code's prohibition on men wearing hat's in Church. Also, there may be additional legislation issues that deals with this specific issue.
Canon law or no, a man wearing a hat in church will probably still be considered bad manners.
old ladies will hit you in the face with their purse if you wear a hat in churchregardless of canon law
I don't think so.
I will try it this Sunday.
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 10:37:29 AM
I don't think so.
I will try it this Sunday.
At the
Novus Ordo?
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 12:16:36 PM
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 20, 2015, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 10:37:29 AM
I don't think so.
I will try it this Sunday.
At the Novus Ordo?
No TLM
Both Rites operate under the '83 Code.
Does the '83 Code trump immemorial custom, patristics, and Scripture? (honest question)
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 20, 2015, 12:37:30 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 12:16:36 PM
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 20, 2015, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 10:37:29 AM
I don't think so.
I will try it this Sunday.
At the Novus Ordo?
No TLM
Both Rites operate under the '83 Code.
Does the '83 Code trump immemorial custom, patristics, and Scripture? (honest question)
No
That is why women should wear head coverings in church.
But the 83 code says otherwise.
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 20, 2015, 12:37:30 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 12:16:36 PM
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 20, 2015, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 10:37:29 AM
I don't think so.
I will try it this Sunday.
At the Novus Ordo?
No TLM
Both Rites operate under the '83 Code.
Does the '83 Code trump immemorial custom, patristics, and Scripture? (honest question)
No, but the Church has the authority to regulate its life. Previously it was a sin not to veil because the law mandated veiling; the law no longer mandates, so there is no longer a sin in not veiling. The law does not forbid veiling, so women are free to do so. Given that immemorial custom, patristics and Scripture all enjoin the practice, it is better to do so.
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 12:50:47 PM
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 20, 2015, 12:37:30 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 12:16:36 PM
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 20, 2015, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 10:37:29 AM
I don't think so.
I will try it this Sunday.
At the Novus Ordo?
No TLM
Both Rites operate under the '83 Code.
Does the '83 Code trump immemorial custom, patristics, and Scripture? (honest question)
No
That is why women should wear head coverings in church.
But the 83 code says otherwise.
I thought the '83 code said nothing on the subject.
Quote from: Clare on November 20, 2015, 01:41:21 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 12:50:47 PM
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 20, 2015, 12:37:30 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 12:16:36 PM
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 20, 2015, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 10:37:29 AM
I don't think so.
I will try it this Sunday.
At the Novus Ordo?
No TLM
Both Rites operate under the '83 Code.
Does the '83 Code trump immemorial custom, patristics, and Scripture? (honest question)
No
That is why women should wear head coverings in church.
But the 83 code says otherwise.
I thought the '83 code said nothing on the subject.
Yes, thus abrogating the older law.
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 18, 2015, 12:54:58 AM
In the Original Post.
Deference and subjugation are not the same thing.
Quote from: piabee on November 20, 2015, 03:25:45 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 18, 2015, 12:54:58 AM
In the Original Post.
Deference and subjugation are not the same thing.
Whatever.
I spoke neither about deference to
men nor subjugation to
men. Please reread my posts; you will not find anything in
mine about veiling
in relation to men.
Again, I will quote my own post:
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 17, 2015, 07:51:08 PM
Regarding the issue of "subjugation," I never think of it in relation to men. I think of it in relation to God only. Before God do I and should I subjugate myself. I therefore feel privileged to "display" that subjugation -- for want of a more appropriate word. Affirm is perhaps a better word.
elaborating more, piabee.
I think perhaps you misunderstood my term of subjugation to mean (for some reason, I'm not sure why) in relationship to men. But again, I don't know where you would have gotten that.
:shrug:
However, I do think many Catholic women, especially ones not well read on the issue, and especially modern feminists, regard the gesture as humiliating, and regard everything St. Paul says in his Epistles, regarding men and women, as an affront to women. Many such women misread Paul.
In addition, I think they interpret the whole thing as a double-standard (vis-a-vis men, without understanding the theology behind it).
I don't have that problem, however.
:)
Quote from: james03 on November 20, 2015, 07:23:09 AM
An uncharitable reply, and I apologize. I'll be taking this to the confessional.
James, on behalf of Kaesekopf and myself, thank you for your apology. Even though AndiA will not see it, others have seen it and will be assured that you were not trying to cast a bad light on this forum community or traditional Catholicism in general.
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 10:37:29 AM
I don't think so.
I will try it this Sunday.
Did you try it? And if so, what happened?
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 02:27:47 PM
Quote from: Clare on November 20, 2015, 01:41:21 PM
I thought the '83 code said nothing on the subject.
Yes, thus abrogating the older law.
I am ignorant on how canon law works in this case-- Is this correct? As long as new canon law is silent on something, it abrogates what it previously explicitly stated (on that "something")?
Quote from: aquinas138 on November 20, 2015, 01:12:27 PM
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 20, 2015, 12:37:30 PM
Does the '83 Code trump immemorial custom, patristics, and Scripture? (honest question)
No, but the Church has the authority to regulate its life. Previously it was a sin not to veil because the law mandated veiling; the law no longer mandates, so there is no longer a sin in not veiling. The law does not forbid veiling, so women are free to do so. Given that immemorial custom, patristics and Scripture all enjoin the practice, it is better to do so.
Thank you for your response, I appreciate it. Do you know the answer to the question I asked above to OS regarding "silence" and abrogation of former laws?
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 23, 2015, 09:45:32 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 02:27:47 PM
Quote from: Clare on November 20, 2015, 01:41:21 PM
I thought the '83 code said nothing on the subject.
Yes, thus abrogating the older law.
I am ignorant on how canon law works in this case-- Is this correct? As long as new canon law is silent on something, it abrogates what it previously explicitly stated (on that "something")?
Canon 6 1 of the 1983 Code reads thusly:
"Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2º other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4º 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."
Quote from: Older Salt on November 23, 2015, 12:01:29 PM
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 23, 2015, 09:45:32 AM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 20, 2015, 02:27:47 PM
Quote from: Clare on November 20, 2015, 01:41:21 PM
I thought the '83 code said nothing on the subject.
Yes, thus abrogating the older law.
I am ignorant on how canon law works in this case-- Is this correct? As long as new canon law is silent on something, it abrogates what it previously explicitly stated (on that "something")?
Canon 6 1 of the 1983 Code reads thusly:
"Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2º other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4º 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."
Well, nothing here abrogates the requirement of women to veil.
1. Irrelevant.
2. I don't think anyone is putting forward the argument that veiling is contrary to any articles of the 1983 Code.
3. Veiling is not a penal law.
4. The code does not "complete reorder" this disciplinary matter.
Yes the '83 Code does abrogate the 1917 law of head covering for women.
Again:
"Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917"
1983 Code ABROGATES 1917.
1917 calls for woman to cover their heads whilst pubically worshiping.
1983 abrogates that 1917 law.
Quote from: VeraeFidei on November 23, 2015, 05:44:57 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 23, 2015, 12:01:29 PM
Canon 6 1 of the 1983 Code reads thusly:
"Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2º other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4º 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."
Well, nothing here abrogates the requirement of women to veil.
1. Irrelevant.
2. I don't think anyone is putting forward the argument that veiling is contrary to any articles of the 1983 Code.
3. Veiling is not a penal law.
4. The code does not "complete reorder" this disciplinary matter.
Also, I found the following From FE (http://www.fisheaters.com/theveil.html):
"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."
------------------
Older Salt, I just saw your post when I went to "preview" -- the above canons seem to make exceptions to canon 6. Or would you say they do not?
83' Canon expressly states that it abrogates all of 1917.
Canon 20 is no exception to Canon 6.
1917 code is off the books. Each and every canon in 1917 is gone.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 24, 2015, 10:07:17 AM
Canon 20 is no exception to Canon 6.
1917 code is off the books. Each and every canon in 1917 is gone.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
hwhatig jpii wasn't a real pope
Quote from: Older Salt on November 24, 2015, 09:58:10 AM
83' Canon expressly states that it abrogates all of 1917.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 24, 2015, 10:07:17 AM
Canon 20 is no exception to Canon 6.
1917 code is off the books. Each and every canon in 1917 is gone.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Then why are canons 21, 27, & 28 even included in the new code?
(edit to add OS quote)
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 24, 2015, 10:59:02 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 24, 2015, 10:07:17 AM
Canon 20 is no exception to Canon 6.
1917 code is off the books. Each and every canon in 1917 is gone.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Then why are canons 21, 27, & 28 even included in the new code?
There is more to church law than the code.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 24, 2015, 11:00:28 AM
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 24, 2015, 10:59:02 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 24, 2015, 10:07:17 AM
Canon 20 is no exception to Canon 6.
1917 code is off the books. Each and every canon in 1917 is gone.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Then why are canons 21, 27, & 28 even included in the new code?
There is more to church law than the code.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
I'm sure you're right about that, but would you expound a bit?
(eta: I should add that canon law and church law are not my forté, so I seriously hope you'll say some more on this)
While people are answering, Ches also asked this question.
Quote from: Chestertonian on November 24, 2015, 10:46:16 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 24, 2015, 10:07:17 AM
Canon 20 is no exception to Canon 6.
1917 code is off the books. Each and every canon in 1917 is gone.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
what if jpii wasn't a real pope
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 24, 2015, 11:04:30 AM
While people are answering, Ches also asked this question.
Quote from: Chestertonian on November 24, 2015, 10:46:16 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 24, 2015, 10:07:17 AM
Canon 20 is no exception to Canon 6.
1917 code is off the books. Each and every canon in 1917 is gone.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
what if jpii wasn't a real pope
If John Paul II was not a Pope we still use the 1917 Code as he would have no authority other than a bishop.
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 24, 2015, 11:04:30 AM
While people are answering, Ches also asked this question.
Quote from: Chestertonian on November 24, 2015, 10:46:16 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 24, 2015, 10:07:17 AM
Canon 20 is no exception to Canon 6.
1917 code is off the books. Each and every canon in 1917 is gone.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
what if jpii wasn't a real pope
Another point to consider is that Pope John 23 is the one who called for a new code of canon law when he called for the new council. The code is simply to implement the new mind and spirit of Vatican 2. See this (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1.HTM).
eta: The above is just interesting to me - maybe it is nothing.
I don't know what happened in your Reply 103, OS. Your words became boxed within my quoted post.
Fixed quoting issues.
Folks, if you see an issue in quoting, please don't perpetuate it. Take a second, hit the preview button, and make sure it looks right.
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 24, 2015, 11:03:28 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 24, 2015, 11:00:28 AM
There is more to church law than the code.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
I'm sure you're right about that, but would you expound a bit?
(eta: I should add that canon law and church law are not my forté, so I seriously hope you'll say some more on this)
The Code is one facet of Church law. There are others, like liturgical law, and I imagine other "lesser" laws that a bit more fluid than the Code of Canon Law, like disciplinary law, etc.
Ed Peters has a huge site on Church law.
http://www.canonlaw.info/
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 24, 2015, 11:09:42 AM
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 24, 2015, 11:04:30 AM
While people are answering, Ches also asked this question.
Quote from: Chestertonian on November 24, 2015, 10:46:16 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 24, 2015, 10:07:17 AM
Canon 20 is no exception to Canon 6.
1917 code is off the books. Each and every canon in 1917 is gone.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
what if jpii wasn't a real pope
Another point to consider is that Pope John 23 is the one who called for a new code of canon law when he called for the new council. The code is simply to implement the new mind and spirit of Vatican 2. See this (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1.HTM).
eta: The above is just interesting to me - maybe it is nothing.
That doesn't really permit the wholesale ignoring of the 1983 Code.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 24, 2015, 12:05:22 PM
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 24, 2015, 11:09:42 AM
Quote from: Miriam_M on November 24, 2015, 11:04:30 AM
While people are answering, Ches also asked this question.
Quote from: Chestertonian on November 24, 2015, 10:46:16 AM
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 24, 2015, 10:07:17 AM
Canon 20 is no exception to Canon 6.
1917 code is off the books. Each and every canon in 1917 is gone.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
what if jpii wasn't a real pope
Another point to consider is that Pope John 23 is the one who called for a new code of canon law when he called for the new council. The code is simply to implement the new mind and spirit of Vatican 2. See this (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1.HTM).
eta: The above is just interesting to me - maybe it is nothing.
That doesn't really permit the wholesale ignoring of the 1983 Code.
I'm not necessarily advocating or looking to do
that! That's why I'm trying to see if they inserted canon 21, 27, & 28 as exceptions to canon 6 in order to NOT go against things like immemorial custom, patristics, and Scripture (in this case pertaining to veiling).
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 24, 2015, 12:16:46 PM
I'm not necessarily advocating or looking to do that! That's why I'm trying to see if they inserted canon 21, 27, & 28 as exceptions to canon 6 in order to NOT go against things like immemorial custom, patristics, and Scripture (in this case pertaining to veiling).
QuoteCan. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
QuoteCanon 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.
But there isn't any doubt that the veiling canon is abrogated. Canon 6 clearly and expressly states, the entirety of the 1917 Code of Canon Law is abrogated.
They really couldn't make that any clearer.
Dunno if I posted this before, but Ed Peters handles this topic.
http://www.canonlaw.info/2006/09/vatican-ii-canon-1262-and-chapel-veils.html
Peters also talks about it here, re: a letter from Card. Burke.
http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/raymundus-locutus-causa-finita.html
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 24, 2015, 12:25:04 PM
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 24, 2015, 12:16:46 PM
I'm not necessarily advocating or looking to do that! That's why I'm trying to see if they inserted canon 21, 27, & 28 as exceptions to canon 6 in order to NOT go against things like immemorial custom, patristics, and Scripture (in this case pertaining to veiling).
QuoteCan. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
QuoteCanon 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.
But there isn't any doubt that the veiling canon is abrogated. Canon 6 clearly and expressly states, the entirety of the 1917 Code of Canon Law is abrogated.
They really couldn't make that any clearer.
But that still doesn't explain why they would bother to put those additional canons in. Why are they necessary if every code before it is wiped off the books? Is there some other context for those canons that I should be aware of? Also, I think just the fact that there is so much confusion over the issue would indicate (at least some manner of) "doubt."
Another question, was the 1917 Code the first time that the Code mentioned women veiling as a canonical requirement?
Just saw your other links, Kaese - thanks. I'll look at them when I get a chance.
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 24, 2015, 12:35:02 PM
But that still doesn't explain why they would bother to put those additional canons in. Why are they necessary if every code before it is wiped off the books? Is there some other context for those canons that I should be aware of? Also, I think just the fact that there is so much confusion over the issue would indicate (at least some manner of) "doubt."
Another question, was the 1917 Code the first time that the Code mentioned women veiling as a canonical requirement?
1917 was the first time canon law had been codified, so, yes.
Why were the others necessary? I imagine because there are other Church laws not specified in Canon 6. I don't know. I'd suggest writing Ed Peters. He'd probably be able to expound a bit more.
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 24, 2015, 12:35:02 PMBut that still doesn't explain why they would bother to put those additional canons in. Why are they necessary if every code before it is wiped off the books? Is there some other context for those canons that I should be aware of? Also, I think just the fact that there is so much confusion over the issue would indicate (at least some manner of) "doubt."
Not every law is contained in the Code of Canon Law. The innumerable local concessions, privileges, indults, etc., are presumed valid unless expressly revoked.
A lot of the "confusion," frankly, is caused by people with no training in canon law interpreting canon law. It is a legal system just like common law in the US, and the record of non-lawyers defending themselves in court is not good. There are principles of interpretation in legal study of which those without training are ignorant. Sometimes things are better left to the lawyers, just I truly believe some things are better left to trained theologians.
Quote from: Older Salt on November 24, 2015, 09:43:27 AM
Yes the '83 Code does abrogate the 1917 law of head covering for women.
Again:
"Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917"
1983 Code ABROGATES 1917.
1917 calls for woman to cover their heads whilst pubically worshiping.
1983 abrogates that 1917 law.
Does it also nullify the words of Saint Paul?
Quote from: VeraeFidei on November 24, 2015, 10:28:12 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 24, 2015, 09:43:27 AM
Yes the '83 Code does abrogate the 1917 law of head covering for women.
Again:
"Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917"
1983 Code ABROGATES 1917.
1917 calls for woman to cover their heads whilst pubically worshiping.
1983 abrogates that 1917 law.
Does it also nullify the words of Saint Paul?
No.
St Paul did not promulgate Canon Law.
A higher authority did.
I wouldn't say the pope is a higher authority than scripture....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Kaesekopf on November 25, 2015, 09:36:11 AM
I wouldn't say the pope is a higher authority than scripture....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
I would, in a certain sense. Scripture is high, yes, but we need an immutable, authoritative 'body' to interpret it. That's not to say a Pope can "overrule" scripture
Only God can change teaching from scripture or overrule it. Only the authority that laid down the law can change the law. This was the theme of our Sermon this week.
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 25, 2015, 02:30:11 PM
Only God can change teaching from scripture or overrule it. Only the authority that laid down the law can change the law. This was the theme of our Sermon this week.
Yes, but who does He do that through? He doesn't come down here and say, "Hey, I want this to mean something different now." Someone has to reinterpret for us. Look at circumcision. That was a law from the old order. Now it's not. God didn't come down and say, "Don't do this anymore." Someone had to decide that this is the way God wants it now and implement it throughout the Church.
Quote from: aquinas138 on November 24, 2015, 06:46:49 PM
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on November 24, 2015, 12:35:02 PMBut that still doesn't explain why they would bother to put those additional canons in. Why are they necessary if every code before it is wiped off the books? Is there some other context for those canons that I should be aware of? Also, I think just the fact that there is so much confusion over the issue would indicate (at least some manner of) "doubt."
Not every law is contained in the Code of Canon Law. The innumerable local concessions, privileges, indults, etc., are presumed valid unless expressly revoked.
Okay, so perhaps those canons are in place for this reason. How a practice that is explicitly commanded in Scripture, has serious spiritual significance, and has been practiced by Catholics for centuries wouldn't still be presumed as valid (and encouraged as such) due seemingly to a legal technicality is mind-boggling to me (but then again, I'm no canon lawyer ;)).
QuoteA lot of the "confusion," frankly, is caused by people with no training in canon law interpreting canon law. It is a legal system just like common law in the US, and the record of non-lawyers defending themselves in court is not good. There are principles of interpretation in legal study of which those without training are ignorant. Sometimes things are better left to the lawyers, just I truly believe some things are better left to trained theologians.
You're probably right about laypeople adding to some of the confusion... but, I don't think it's right to place the burden of blame for confusion on laypeople who are simply trying to make sense of the endless contradictions to their Catholic Faith being presented to them as "how it's done now" -- often justified by referring to the current Code of Canon Law. It offends traditional Catholic sensibilities. Just as being put in the position where one has to decide if they submit to the post-Conciliar heirarchy in all things(?), some things(?), nothing(?) offends and goes against Catholic sensibilities. No good Catholic asked to be put in this position. As for the issue of veiling, I care about it from the vantage point of how the massive unveiling of women in Church offends God and what spiritual implications this holds for women and men and the Church as a whole. But, at this point, perhaps the hour is too late and only God can set things back aright.
Quote from: dymphna17 on November 25, 2015, 03:04:08 PM
Quote from: Traditionallyruralmom on November 25, 2015, 02:30:11 PM
Only God can change teaching from scripture or overrule it. Only the authority that laid down the law can change the law. This was the theme of our Sermon this week.
Yes, but who does He do that through? He doesn't come down here and say, "Hey, I want this to mean something different now." Someone has to reinterpret for us. Look at circumcision. That was a law from the old order. Now it's not. God didn't come down and say, "Don't do this anymore." Someone had to decide that this is the way God wants it now and implement it throughout the Church.
Can you explain or clarify a little more what you mean here? I'm not sure that it's apt because with circumcision, Sts Peter and Paul were working out the Church teaching itself (and this was still part of divine revelation that Church teaching is derived from). After them, and with the end of divine revelation, the later Popes and Church heirarchy are to safeguard and preserve these teachings, not reinterpret them. But, maybe I'm just not understanding your point, hence my hopes you'd clarify.
Canon law does not need to cover everything in the church. You can be bound by Canon law and other sorts of law.
Just because Canon law doesn't say anything about veiling doesnt mean theres not an obligation.
Heck, veiling wasnt even canonically a law until 1917.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on November 17, 2015, 06:02:04 PM
Quote from: Penelope on November 17, 2015, 03:59:17 PM
I veil if I have to go to a Novus Ordo (usually for a funeral). People think I'm strange, but the presence of the Blessed Sacrament is more important than the opinions of my half-practicing family and acquaintances.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
At a Novus Ordo, I usually wear a hat to balance obedience with not standing out. I like vintage hats, and it's a fun opportunity to wear them. :)
Ditto, OC! I do that too.
aquinas138, I was re-reading a little of the thread and I think I was talking past you a bit in my last (somewhat rambling) post -- so I'd like to apologize to you for that. I should have re-read and focused my thoughts prior to replying.
Quote from: Older Salt on November 25, 2015, 09:31:48 AM
Quote from: VeraeFidei on November 24, 2015, 10:28:12 PM
Quote from: Older Salt on November 24, 2015, 09:43:27 AM
Yes the '83 Code does abrogate the 1917 law of head covering for women.
Again:
"Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917"
1983 Code ABROGATES 1917.
1917 calls for woman to cover their heads whilst pubically worshiping.
1983 abrogates that 1917 law.
Does it also nullify the words of Saint Paul?
No.
St Paul did not promulgate Canon Law.
A higher authority did.
God Almighty, help us.
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on December 01, 2015, 04:20:04 PM
aquinas138, I was re-reading a little of the thread and I think I was talking past you a bit in my last (somewhat rambling) post -- so I'd like to apologize to you for that. I should have re-read and focused my thoughts prior to replying.
No problem. I agree with you that veiling is important; I disagree that it offends God when women don't. Especially nowadays where it has not been the custom for the vast majority of Catholics for half a century - many women have grown to mature adulthood in that time totally ignorant of the practice.
Quote from: aquinas138 on December 07, 2015, 07:53:17 AM
No problem. I agree with you that veiling is important; I disagree that it offends God when women don't. Especially nowadays where it has not been the custom for the vast majority of Catholics for half a century - many women have grown to mature adulthood in that time totally ignorant of the practice.
I agree with you that most women are simply ignorant of the practice and mean no harm - they're just going along with what they've been told (that it's no longer required, no longer a sin) if following the '83 Code. It wasn't my intention to accuse any individual woman of purposefully sinning or offending God by not veiling.