Honest Question about Dress codes( warning could be triggering)

[Lydia Purpuraria]

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")? 

[Lydia Purpuraria]

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?

[Older Salt]

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."

[VeraeFidei]

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.

[Older Salt]

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.

[Lydia Purpuraria]

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:

"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?

[Older Salt]

83' Canon expressly states that it abrogates all of 1917.

[Kaesekopf]

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

[Chestertonian]

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

[Lydia Purpuraria]

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

Then why are canons 21, 27, & 28 even included in the new code? 


(edit to add OS quote)

[Kaesekopf]

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

[Lydia Purpuraria]

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)

[Miriam_M]

While people are answering, Ches also asked this question.

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

[Older Salt]

While people are answering, Ches also asked this question.

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.

[Lydia Purpuraria]

While people are answering, Ches also asked this question.

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.


eta:  The above is just interesting to me - maybe it is nothing.