tAnGo wrote:
Edward Pothier wrote:
tAnGo wrote:
oh yes, i'm aware that common practice says it's no longer a requirement.
i'm just unaware of anything that expressly abrogates it.
….
The more I look at part of the discussion here, the more I am convinced that the problem is due to misunderstanding two relatively rare English verbs.
Abrogate: almost always (always?) has with it the idea of nullifying or suppressing a law or requirement.
Reprobate: has with it the idea of condemning or forbidding a practice.
While headcovering for women has been officially abrogated (in the sense that Canon Law or other church law no longer requires it), it has by no means been reprobated (or forbidden).
Edward Pothier
Uhhh... nobody's misunderstanding any English here.
Please show me the document where it reads that the practice has been ABROGATED. Nobody around here has EVER said it was now "forbidden" practice. I'm looking for something that
specifically states that the requirement to wear a head veil is no longer a requirement.
To the best of my knowledge, the only thing going on is that the issue of "head veil is a requirement for women" WAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN THE NEW EDITION.
So people think "hey, since it wasn't mentioned, I guess we don't have to wear it anymore"...
Where is the rule that says specifically "don't have to wear it anymore"?
That's what I'm looking for.
CDF 1976 Document Inter Insigniores:Even before the 1983 Code [of Canon Law], there was an official "relaxation" of the headcovering requirement from a rather unsuspected source. The CDF document under consideration actually comes from 1976-1977, even before the papacy of Pope John Paul II and the CDF prefecture of Cardinal Ratzinger. Even back then, under Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Seper, the CDF was not generally called liberal. The document, although internally dated October 15, 1976, was actually released on January 27, 1977. It is the CDF "Declaration on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood", sometimes known by its Latin title _Inter Insigniores_.
The Declaration by the CDF against the ordination of women [in its section on the permanent value of the attitude of Jesus and the Apostles against ordination of women] states almost in passing the former requirement:
CDF 1976 Declaration INTER INSIGNIORES wrote:
"Another objection [of supporters of the ordination of women] is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of St. Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on the head (1 Cor. 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value." {emphasis mine}
That sure sounds like abrogation of the obligation!
CODE OF CANON LAW if 1983: Although the 1983 CODE OF CANON LAW is the not the totality of the Church's law (just as the 1917 CODE was not either). However, the 1917 Code, which was officially abrogated, (i.e. de-activated) by Canon 6.1.1 of the 1983 Code, did require headcovering.
1917 CODE OF CANON LAW wrote:
1917 CODE Can. 1262. § 1. Optandum ut, congruenter antiquae disciplinae, mulieres in ecclesia separatae sint a viris.
§ 2. Viri in ecclesia vel extra ecclesiam, dum sacris ritibus assistunt, nudo capite sint, nisi aliud ferant probati populorum mores aut peculiaria rerum adiuncta; mulieres autem, capite cooperto et modeste vestitae, maxime cum ad mensam Dominicam accedunt.
1917 CODE Canon 1262, § 1. "It is desirable that, in harmony with ancient Church order, the women in church be separated from the men."
Canon 1262, § 2. "Men should attend Mass, either in church or outside church, with bare heads, unless approved local custom or special circumstances suggest otherwise; women, however, should have their heads veiled and should be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord."
The 1917 Code's canon 1262 (neither section!) was not retained in any form in the 1983 CODE.
Edward Pothier