Honest Question about Dress codes( warning could be triggering)

[Miriam_M]

I don't know what happened in your Reply 103, OS.   Your words became boxed within my quoted post.

[Kaesekopf]

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.

[Kaesekopf]

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/

[Kaesekopf]

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.

That doesn't really permit the wholesale ignoring of the 1983 Code.

[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.

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). 

[Kaesekopf]

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).

Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
  1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

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.

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. 

[Kaesekopf]

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

[Kaesekopf]

Peters also talks about it here, re: a letter from Card. Burke.

http://canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/raymundus-locutus-causa-finita.html

[Lydia Purpuraria]

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).

Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
  1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

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.

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?

[Lydia Purpuraria]

Just saw your other links, Kaese - thanks.  I'll look at them when I get a chance. 

[Kaesekopf]

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.

[aquinas138]

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."

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.

[VeraeFidei]

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?

[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.

Does it also nullify the words of Saint Paul?

No.
St Paul did not promulgate Canon Law.
A higher authority did.

[Kaesekopf]

I wouldn't say the pope is a higher authority than scripture....



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk