No head coverings at all? In the SSPX mass centers they at least wear them around their necks, more or less.
Short skirts, too! Sheesh! Oh, but is God supposed to be happy because "at least they are at church?"
What mean-spirited comments.Congratulations those people confirmed.
Notions of modesty in dress are surely relative and not frozen some time in 1950, surely? Those skirts are perfectly demure an appropriate; why should Traditionalism provide cover for mere fogeyism? (Asked in a completely civil way, fyi.)Giles H.
I have heard from a French traditionalist priest friend in the IBP, that women wearing hats or chapel veils in France [traditional Masses in non SSPX societies] is not that common.I guess that since the canon law requirement for this has been abrogated, there is no sin incurred.It is ashame though.Cruise the Groove.
Cruise,Head coverings was never abrogated - merely abandoned.
"Head coverings was never abrogated - merely abandoned.'Anonymous,Interesting, I did not know this.Could you please cite me where in the 1983 Code of Canon Law it says that females must wear head coverings at Holy Mass?All I have been able to find [or not find] in current Canon Law, is no mention of women covering their heads in Church.From what I have been told by several canonists, this "non-mention" implies that this particular law, which was in effect in the 1917 Code, is no longer in effect in current law.I wish it was, but I, obviously, have no authority to mandate it.But if you where to show me in the '83 Code where it states, explicitly, that women must cover their heads in Church, I will tell all of this law.God bless.Cruise the groove.
The law requiring women to wear head coverings was not included in the new Code of Canon Law, and therefore is abrogated. It was ignored before it was abrogated, however.It's still a proper and wholesome practice, of course, and the clash between St. Paul's teaching and the current practice is severe. The arguments against St. Paul's teaching on head coverings are identical to those deployed against Christ and Paul's teaching on women's ordination.
Cruise,Some say Bugnini forgot to do away with the covering law and that it is still in effect. No mention in the 1983 code but not abrogated. Read for yourself.see:http://www.tldm.org/news6/veils.htmFor you neo cons see Sungenis:http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/women-covering003.htm
Speaking of Chapel Veils and Charity, here is a bit of somewhat old, yet joyful news from the SSPX "Regina Caeli" report.Apparently a group of SSPX girls and two priests went to the RTL March in D.C. this past January, and the SSPX priests were permitted to offer Mass in the National Basilica of the Immaculate Conception!http://www.sspx.org/RCRpdfs/2010_rcrs/june_2010_rcr.pdfApparently, the rector of the Basilica does not believe the Society priests are suspended from offering the Sacrifice. The thaw is moving along nicely.Cruise the Groove.
"Some say Bugnini forgot to do away with the covering law and that it is still in effect. No mention in the 1983 code but not abrogated."I've encountered that argument before, but I've never heard of any canonist agreeing with it. If a law is not found in the Latin Church's code of canon law, it's not a binding canon. A law doesn't have to be explicitly rescinded by name for it to no longer be canonically binding. All it takes is for a law to be omitted from a newly-promulgated code for said law to be effectively repealed.This law remained in effect until 1983, long after Bunigni was out of the picture. The Holy See needs to put the head covering law back in the code.
"The Holy See needs to put the head covering law back in the code."And How!!!Cruise the Groove.
From the 1983 Code of Canon Law:“A later law [laws in the 1983 code] abrogates, or derogates, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law.”The 1983 Code does state expressly that female head coverings are abrogated, neither is its silence on this matter directly contrary to it, since silence is neither contrary or equivocal, and therfore there is no reordering of the law.It appears the law ordering women to cover their heads whilst praying in church, and men to bare their heads, is still in effect.As an interesting aside, if, as some say, silence in the code begets abrogation, then I, as a male may wear a betassled and bedecked huge sombrero into Mass, since the 1983 code is silent on men wearing head coverings in church, whereas the 1917 code expressly forbids them.Cruise the Groove.
The deletion of a law certainly is contrary to its presence in earlier codes. If it's not in the Church's current codes of canon law, it's not a binding canon.And yes, there currently is no canon forbidding a man from wearing a hat (even a sombrero) to Mass.Centuries ago there was a canon law that required Jews to wear distinctive dress. There is no such canon law any longer, which is why it's not found in the Code of Canon Law (and I suspect it wasn't in the 1917 code). A sure rule of thumb for determining if an older canon is still in force is to see if you can find it in the current code.
"And yes, there currently is no canon forbidding a man from wearing a hat (even a sombrero) to Mass."Jordanes,Thank you for the explanation it does help.I would actually, like to wear a sombrero to the TLM that I go to.It has a beautiful embroidered image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on the crown.I honestly would like to wear it during Holy Mass, not to make some kind of a statement, but it is so beautiful for Almighty God, and since the 1983 code now allows men to wear head coverings during Mass, I encourage all our brothers here at Rorate to start wearing respectful and nice hats during Mass.Again, Jordanes, thank you for freeing up my conscience that I may feel that I am permitted to wear a hat during Mass.Cruise the Groove.
Again, Jordanes, thank you for freeing up my conscience that I may feel that I am permitted to wear a hat during Mass.The topic at hand is about what canon law says and doesn't say about head coverings, not what your conscience should or shouldn't tell you.
"The topic at hand is about what canon law says and doesn't say about head coverings, not what your conscience should or shouldn't tell you.'Jordanes,And yet canon law has helped me form my conscience.Thank you.Cruise the Groove.
The 1983 Code does not mention the exact words of consecration for wine while the 1917 Code does. The words have been incorrect in English ever since the NOM was implemented. Our Holy Father has saught to go back to what the 1917 made clear with no change in the 1983 Code.A papmplet entitled "The Veil" is made available free of charge (even in large quantities) from:Christian Family Outreach538 PR 131Franklin, LA 70538It explains how we arrived at abolishing the veil. In particular Feminist Organiztion. Made clear is that the Church has never changed its teaching on the matter.A.M. LaPietra
To quote a canonist on the head covering law:"Those who argue against head coverings say that the 1983 code "abrogated" the 1917 code (the 1917 code expressly required head coverings in canon 1262, and the 1983 code is silent about the issue). There are problems with this argument. First, when we say the 1983 code abrogated the 1917 code, that only means that the 1917 has no jurisdiction; it cannot be relied upon as legal authority. But this does not mean that everything that came out of the 1917 code is abrogated. Quite the contrary. This is why the 1983 code says that if a previous law is not expressly revoked (paraphrasing), then it is still in force. The 1983 code did not expressly revoke head coverings, which means the head covering requirement is still in force. Of course, the 1983 code would not have such a law if it trumped every thing in previous law."Cruise the Groove.
This is why the 1983 code says that if a previous law is not expressly revoked (paraphrasing), then it is still in force.This is where this line of argument falls apart. The 1983 code nowhere says that if a previous law is not expressly revoked, then it is still in force.See CCL 1983 6.1.If the law were still in force, it would be in the 1983 code. It's ridiculous to claim that all the canons in the 1983 code are in force AS WELL AS any 1917 canons that are not explicitly or expressly revoked by the 1983 code. If the Holy See had wanted any such canons to remain a part of canon law, it would have made sure they were included in the revised code. But since the 1917 code is abrogated and the 1983 contains no canon positively requiring women to wear head coverings at Mass, therefore there is currently no canon positively requiring women to wear head coverings at Mass.I don't like that, but there it is.
And furthermore on the law of female head coverings:"Second, canon 28 says that a law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs. Further, canon 26 says that a centenary or immemorial custom can even prevail against a canonical law which contains a law prohibiting future customs. Head-covering is an immemorial custom of the Church. We know this from Scripture (St. Paul devotes a lot of ink to this issue in his first letter to the Corinthian church because evidently women were not covering their heads) and Tradition (there are many Fathers who wrote about the necessity for women to wear veils, beginning with Pope Linus, the direct successor to Peter)."C the G
How many traditionalists sit next to their spouses in Church? Didn't the 1917 Code of Canon Law forbid this? Weren't male and female parishioners supposed to be segregated in the 1917 Code? How many traditionalists are displeasing to Our Lord because they sit next to their husbands or wives. Confessions are in order for this mass apostasy! And, hey, let's go back to 24-hour fasts before receiving Our Lord while we're at it (so much for being a daily communicant centuries ago). Don't let devotion to a perception of "tradition" devolve into rabbinic nitpicking.
Last anonymous, you are absolutely correct.NC
Post a Comment