And here Pope Benedict is shown receiving a bowl of first lady Laura Bush’s five-alarm barn burner home made Texas chili, topped with shredded Monterrey Jack cheese.
Oh, wait. That’s not what’s going on here.
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Actually, Mrs. Bush was in Italy for the opening of the Olympics, and she stopped by to see the pope.
They talked about terrorism and the cartoon riots.
And she brought him a silver bowl. (No chili. I’m sure the pope was disappointed.)
GET THE STORY.
LEARN MORE ABOUT CHILI.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
And here Pope Benedict is shown receiving a bowl of first lady Laura Bush’s five-alarm barn burner home made Texas chili, topped with shredded Monterrey Jack cheese.
WOO HOO! The Wikipedia article mentions the NM state question. Green please (my wife likes red, it actually does cause minor arguments sometimes..)
When in Cincinnati, you must try Three Way Cincy chili i.e. spaghetti covered with beanless chili and shredded American cheese. Awesome!! Get a side order of Coney Islands, small hot dog on a bun covered with the same chili and cheese with or without onions. Awesome plus!!!
DJ, I prefer the Christmas because I can never make up my mind…mmm…red and green chile.
Realist, are you a Skyline or a Gold Star fan?
Why’s she wearing a veil?
It is standard etiquette for all women who personally meet the pope in official audience to wear black clothing and a veil.
Fr. Stephanos,
Do you know why? I am just curious. I knew about the headcovering because I remember something being said about Hilary Clinton not wearing a veil, but I didn’t know about the black clothing rule. Does it have to be a veil or will a hat do?
Skyline forever, Gold Star never!
Jimmy –
actually, it would be great if you could write an entry on the topic of women veiling in churches. I have a (Catholic) friend who has recently become concerned with this topic, because it seems to be clearly commanded in the Bible (1 Corinthians 11:2-16). She is wondering if she is obliged to veil herself while in church, and if not, then, why not? I’m ashamed to say that I don’t know much on the topic, despite being a student in medieval history. I thought you might be able to shed some light on the subject.
Short answers to save us from long weird veil discussion thread:
1. Why do women wear black and veils to meet the Pope? Um, same reason why men in the Anglosphere have to wear tuxes to formal events?
Think of this as an old-fashioned Italian woman’s version of formal visitwear. Remember also that the Vatican is very conservative, and that we women usually like to have an excuse to dress up. (Especially in something different.) Also remember that this lets the Spanish queen keep her privilege of wearing white in the presence of the Pope. (See above.) It’s all fun, folks. Don’t try to save us from it.
2. Why don’t Catholic women wear veils to church? Because we got dispensed from it. Also, because a lot of Catholic women really really don’t like hats (which were far more common in the old days, as they are a much more head-coveringish option than lace-y little veils, and a lot warmer in a church without central heating).
If you want to do it, fine. But don’t fool yourself into thinking you’re being more scriptural-than-thou if you do, either. Once Rome speaks, it’s just another morally neutral fashion custom.
But don’t wear a mantilla. Wear a big hennin. Or copy off Empress Theodora. Heh.
BTW, if you go to Skyline be sure to pronounce it properly, Ski-lee-nees, so it sounds vaguely like an fine Italian restaurant.
Skyline rules! Haven’t had one in years since I now live up here in Northern Wisconsin. However, my wife makes a mean three-way.
Actually I made a little mistake on the pronunciation, try Skee-lee-nees instead.
Maureen –
Thanks for your explanation; I appreciate it. I have to say, though – I don’t think anyone was trying to ‘save’ women from wearing veils during papal audiences. Some of us just don’t know this stuff.
Also, I don’t think my friend is trying to be more scriptural than anyone. She was just puzzled and wanted an answer to her question. She’s a recent convert, so she didn’t know. I’m in the process of converting, so I didn’t have any answers for her either.
Would you happen to know when Rome gave the dispensation, so I can direct my friend to that info? Thanks again.
A dispensation? I’m doubtful that such a thing exists otherwise it would have been used before but I’d be interested in seeing a reference.
Tope,
It is discussed in the following Declaration on the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood.
Inter Insigniores
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
October 15, 1976, 4
“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 their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Tope says:
“Some of us just don’t know this stuff.”
I didn’t know either, but I was curious. Thanks for asking Tope.
Inocencio – Thank you!!! I’ll let my friend know 🙂
The “don’t try to save us” thing is, although sometimes a bit back-taking, a valid worry these days…..
Joe,
For the best Cincy chili, try Chili Time in St. Bernard. I assume it is still there. We live in Philly and I haven’t been there for a number of years. Whereever you go, make sure you have oyster crackers with the chili.
Chili Time is walking distance from my husband’s grandparents’ house. When we go out there to visit, it is like Mecca for those in the family who actually like Cincy Chili. (I don’t.) If Chili Time ever closed, there would be much mourning in my house.
Maureen,
While there’s no requirement to wear a veil, it certainly is encouraged. Notice that Inter Insigniores said “probably,” leaving the possibility that this isn’t a custom at all, there’s actually a religious motive for the wearing of the veil. And it’s hard to think the Holy Ghost would devote so much time to writing about it in St. Paul’s epistles if it really didn’t have any vlasting alue.
After all, 1917 canon law clearly had a requirement to wear the veil, and this wasn’t out of “morally neutral fashion custom.”
Face it, wearing veils are more traditional. They are obviously more scriptural, inasmuch as they have a clear scriptural support. We’re allowed more leeway certainly today. I can wear jeans and a t-shirt and go bare-headed to Mass. I appreciate that convenience, but that doesn’t make me defensive about people wearing more formal clothes, which is of course better. But that doesn’t deprive the tradition of its value, even as I get a dispensation from it.
There’s no obligation to wear the veil surely. But that doesn’t mean people can’t encourage it.
And indeed, if it’s simply fashion, there’s a strong reason for forbidding people from wearing veils, because it makes them stand out and could be seen as ostentation.
There’s more theological support for wearing a veil at church than kneeling for communion, and both ought to be generously allowed for.
Aquinas says wearing the veil is praiseworthy, and not wearing it is not a sin, but not to be praised. Seems fair enough to me.
He recognizes that if a custom militates against wearing the veil, there’s no obligation to wear it. This is no doubt the case today. If it was truly “normative” then Aquinas couldn’t have said that.
Nevertheless, that shows that Rome has not spoken to this issue at all, all we have is a statement repeating what Aquinas already said. There’s no legal obligation now, but dissing the venerable custom is undesirable.
The reason this topic is hateful to many is because the reason given for wearing the veil, far from simple custom, was that its symbolic of subjection to authority. The idea that men, based on their sex, have any kind of leadership role is pretty well anathema to the modern world.
Sailorette –
It’s definitely a valid worry, I’m just not sure it’s an attitude that one has to worry about when it comes to most people who read Jimmy’s site 😉
Tope,
The real dispensation came not with the quoted document, which was simply an aside in a response to an objection in favor of women’s ordination, but rather with the 1983 Code of Canon Law.
The 1917 Code in canon 1262 stated:
“1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.
2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bear-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.”
This was the law of the Church until 1983.
Canon 1262 does not show up in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Moreover, the 1983 Code abrogated, repealed, the entirity of the 1917 Code, including Canon 1262.
So as of 1983 there is no canon law on the subject, just custom and whatever encouragement we infer, or do not infer, from reading St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.
Margaret,
What street in St. Bernard? I hear St. B has hit some hard times financially since P&G cut back in the area. I grew up on Clay Street near the St. B firehouse.
Thanks, Breier!
“Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bear-headed…”
Grr! I hope not! 🙂
As for the veil/headcovering business, I seem to remember it disappearing as the result of a typo in an official letter. When I was young (and I turn 54 this year) headcovering for women was mandatory. You Did.Not.Go.To.Mass.Without.It. Then one day long about 1965 or ’66, we heard a letter read from the pulpit (from the Bishop maybe?) saying that veils, hats etc. were not required. Bam! Next Sunday most of them had disappeared. Never mind that the priest had to get up in the pulpit and announce that there was a mistake in last week’s letter, that in fact headcoverings were indeed still required. Too late; they’d vanished like smoke, and were not to return.
Well, I guess we’re getting a veil thread anyway! 🙂
My mother was a pre-VII Catholic. Her mother was a pre-VII Catholic. They had never seen any woman wear a veil or chapel veil on their head (except the nun and bridal kind) until they saw it on television. Even the oldest old ladies wore hats.
Now, this may be a function of the fact that Dayton was largely a city of German, Polish, and Irish Catholics instead of Italian and Hispanic Catholics. Or it may be a function of the fact that it’s cold here in the winter. Or maybe we were just more fashion-forward here in the middle of Ohio. But that’s the way it was, and that’s what I see in all the old family photos.
If people really want to wear mantillas, fine. However, I will continue to point out that if you covered your body the way those things ‘cover’ your hair, you’d get arrested for indecent exposure. So it’s not really about scripture; it’s tradition adjusted to fashion. Which was why women were able to drop it so fast.
Now, Orthodox Jewish veil sites — those are hair coverings. Yeah, buddy. Medieval reenactor headrails to keep you cool on a hot day — that’ll cover your hair pretty good too, and without making you look Muslim. A hat? Natch. But gauzy lace? No.
Real head coverings! None of this “bobby pin a veil to your hair and it still slides off” crud! Fillets and barbettes and caps and chaperones and French hoods, that’s what you want!
http://www.castlegardencreations.com/cgi-bin/cart.pl?DT=9
Maureen, who obviously dreams of being a Bad Influence in a really trad parish.
Maureen, what a fun site! I’m partial to the Italian Trinsale, though I don’t know how it would look on my irish head. Those turrets were pretty nifty too. Maybe you and I together could start a new fashion trend. A friend of mine said her mother would pin a kleenex to her head if she forgot her veil. Now that’s tacky.
I think what bothers me is this.
Mrs. Bush obviously planned out her outfit so that her mantilla (which was a gift from the Hispanic side of her family) would go with that outfit organically. Same thing with the ladies at the Pope’s funeral who wore black (and white, in the Spanish queen’s case) veils. No problem there.
Women who wear churchlady hats also plan out their outfits so that their hats are part of the ensemble. No problem there.
But a lot of women who wear veils (or hats) to Mass out of a sincere conviction that they should — um, well, a lot of them look like they don’t really care about their hair covering other than that they’ve got one.
Obviously, it’s hard to go wrong color-wise, since white and black go with everything, but most American fashion today is not planned out to include a hat or a veil or even a shawl over the head. So I suppose it’s natural that American women are also out of practice with this. But seriously, lace does not go with everything. You can’t just plop a doily on your head and say you’re done. (Well, you can, but….)
If you want to cover your head in a formal church situation, you’re going to have to dress in an outfit that won’t look stupid with the head covering you choose to wear. If you want to set an example, then set one that makes women want to follow it.
I think this is especially important to think about, because head coverings of various styles are coming back into fashion now, as they were eventually bound to do. (That’s how I know about the Jewish veil sites. I know some non-Jewish, very non-Orthodox young women who buy and wear them just because they think they’re fun and funky.)
But I don’t like the whole “women who don’t cover their heads are bad” attitude, either, and I don’t think it is calculated to make most women want to cover their heads. It also panders to Muslim extremism, and I don’t think that’s something any Catholic needs to do.
To sum up — I won’t cover my head in church until my bishop tells me to, unless I get some really cool hats before then. (And if I can get over the irrational and unhistorical feeling that I should take off my hat as soon as I get indoors, and that head coverings always block people’s view.) If the bishop tells me to, I will get some really cool hats and break out my headrail and fillet, and wear something different and bizarre every Sunday, especially when I cantor. Sumptuary canon laws will soon follow, and you will all be sorry you made us have a veil discussion thread. 🙂
Maureen, who shouldn’t have drunk that third cup of coffee this morning. (You could never have guessed.)
Yea, I know they’re not mandatory and shouldn’t be. I do think they’re kind of cool, though. Think of it this way, the pope always wears something on his head too. And so do (a lot of) nuns. I don’t wear one either, but a headcovering to me is flattering (if coordinated, I’ll give you that) and reminds me more of nuns and their habits than “submission”. It’s an outward sign that “laity are religious, too”. I also used to abhor the idea of wearing dresses until I thought, well, priests and their robes/cassocks look like the same thing, really. (I’m weird, I know).
Breier,
The real dispensation came not with the quoted document, which was simply an aside in a response to an objection in favor of women’s ordination, but rather with the 1983 Code of Canon Law.
All of which I pointed out in my comments when I said it was discussed in the Declaration on the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood.
Thank you for giving out the old canon number.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Don’t feel the need to comment on the “to veil or not to veil” question. Just wanted to ask:
1. Where does the hispanic side of her family come from? Her family tree has no reference to one.
2. How is it obvious that she coordinated her veil with her outfit? They are both black? It is hard to tell what fabric her dress is made out of.
3. If the mantilla is specifically a hispanic or spanish influence, then why do most of the women from many different cultures wear one when visiting the Pope?
Just curious.
Also, why does the Queen of Spain wear white, but no mantilla?
The following is an insider’s view: what’s it like to be in the press pool accompanying Laura Bush on her audience with the pope.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1158238,00.html
As for the queen of Spain in white, I believe Catholic queens have the privilege of wearing white when they have an audience with the pope.
On wearing white with the Pope:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege_(royalty)
I was joking about it only being the Spanish queen’s party, because Queen Sophia was just about the only Catholic queen or monarch I knew about. I guess I missed the Queen of Belgium and the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg at the Pope’s investiture (if they came). They must have been sitting further back.
Now, Wikipedia’s picture shows the Queen choosing not to wear a white mantilla with her white clothing. I’m pretty sure I saw her wearing a white mantilla at the Pope’s investiture at some point, though. (At the Pope’s funeral, she of course wore a black mantilla.)
(I did find a picture of Condi getting her hand kissed at the funeral. I’d forgotten about that!)
Re: how to tell an outfit coordinates with a mantilla?
The only way I know is that it doesn’t look dorky or tacky or cheap. If I could tell you the exact whys and wherefores, I’d be blogging fashion instead of the Manolo.
But I’m sure my mother could tell you exactly which materials would not go with lace (probably corduroy is a no-no), which kinds of clothing (T-shirts and jeans probably don’t go well with mantillas), which patterns are too busy (paisley and lace? Probably not a plan…), which shapes make the mantilla look stupid, and all of that.
Nowadays, the fashion rules are not so strict, so you have to depend on your own eye and fashion sense. (And sometimes once I get out of the door, it becomes obvious that I wasn’t noticing something I should have, which is yet another reason I don’t set up as a fashionista!)
But probably most “good clothes” wouldn’t actively fight a veil. Probably.
Re: the Hispanic side of the Bush family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columba_Bush
Columba Bush (nee Columba Garnica Gallo) is the mantilla-giver in the family, I believe.
I was a student in Rome from 1988 to 1991. At one papal Mass in St. Peter, a Spanish couple was designated to present the bread and wine to the Holy Father. The man wore a dark suit. The woman wore a dress that was in a modest cut reaching to just below her knees. However, the dress was VIVID RED … and she wore a black mantilla that reached all the way down to her ankles. Quite a remarkable sight!
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/specials/popewatch/
In the upper right, Queen Sofia is wearing her white mantilla. Sorry I couldn’t find a better picture.
Re: “all the way down to her ankles”
Yow! That was a mantilla! (Literally, “little cloak”)
what “bothers” me is that Mrs. Bush received a rosary from the Holy Father… and besides being a cherished gift, probably means “nothing” to her… as it would mean the world to me or to any other Catholic.
what an awesome humbling thing to be given a blessed rosary by the Pope… I would cherish it every day and every time I prayed the Rosary from now until my earthly death!
we must pray that Mrs. Bush will begin to use it and meet the BVM, too!!!
This is such an interesting topic, papal etiquette that is. I understood the “Hispanic side of her family” to mean HER family so I found her family tree online and was confused when I couldn’t find the Latino branch. I forgot about the President’s brother. Read a lovely interview with them in Faith and Family a while back.
Why Spain, Luxembourg and Belgium but not Monaco? Anybody know?
If I attend a Latin Mass I wear my mother’s mantilla, because I choose to not because I have to. It was the custom in Australia for women, if they didn’t wear hats, to wear mantillas to church before the hat thing was discontinued.
Tim, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Mrs. Bush were to make a present of that rosary to her brother-in-law Jeb or his wife, both of whom are Catholic. And if she keeps it, I don’t doubt she’ll know that a rosary from the Holy Father is truly special.
Dear CW,
Monaco, being a principality, has a prince and princess. Not being a kingdom, it has no king or queen.
Oh, please!
The 1917 Code of Canon law was NOT abrograted.
I hate it when people play “Pope.”
Ruth said:
“Oh, please! The 1917 Code of Canon law was NOT abrograted. I hate it when people play ‘Pope.'”
From the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 6:
“When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated:
1. the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;”
So, saying that the 1917 Code of Canon Law was abrogated is not “playing Pope,” but rather is merely stating what the current 1983 Code of Canon Law plainly says.
James, and others – Ruth is correct.
1983 Code of Canon Law
Canons 20-21 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law make clear that later Canon Law abrogates earlier Canon Law only in certain outlined situations and that, in cases of doubt, the revocation of earlier law is not to be presumed; quite the opposite:
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.
So, the 1983 Canon did not “expressly” abrogate the 1917 mandate for veiling. To be fair is fair. The law would seem to contradict itself. But, obviously its not when stating 1983 Canon ‘does’ abrogate everything that is specifically ordered in that canon.
David
Curious what Dr. Peters has to say about this, but Canon 6 of the 1983 Code sure seems to me to expressly abrogate the 1917 Code. In other words, the condition of Canon 20 for abrogation appears to have been met. Canon 21 would seem to have no relevance because the abrogation in that case is not in doubt, and there is no reliance on a presumption of abrogation.
But again, I’d rather here what Dr. Peters has to say.
I understand what you are saying. Although,when reviewing Canon 6 it is clear that it is abrogating the universal Canon of 1917.
Because, we can know assuredly that Canon 20 is initially speaking of how specific law is abrogated because Canon 20 gives us an example of that by stating “a later law” which has to abrogated – an “earlier” specific law by 1-expressly abrogating it, 2-directly contradicting it, or 3-reorders the subject matter. All of which the Code of 1983 has not done concerning veiling.
However, we see that the second part of Canon 20 referring to ‘universal’ law. “A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.” And having stated that, we are in “doubt” as to whether the Code of 1983 “expressly” derogated the “special” previous law of having to veil.
Thus, Canon 21 resolves the “doubt”, by clearly stating, “In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed”.
There is doubt, so no one can “presume” the veiling mandate to have been abrogated.
Dr. Peter’s statement on the subject may be persuasive, but thats besides the point, because it cannot dissolve the existence of doubt, thus we can’t presume.
Not to mention Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s take in his book, ‘Three to get Married’, says that women appearing in church with their heads uncovered is “divinely prohibited”. The book carries Nihil Obstat: John M. A. Fearns, STD; Imprimatur: Francis Cardinal Spellman.
Not to mention, St. Paul’s admonition that women should cover their heads in I Cor.
Not to mention, Canon 27, Custom is the best interpreter of law. So even if someone interprets the Code of 1983 to allow the abrogation of the veiling law, since the 1983 code does not expressly abrogate that law, the code then says that custom should interpret, which is, UNDENIABLY, 2000 years of veiling.
I don’t see how you can get around it, its just not there. I have tried. The facts are on the veil’s side.
David
I understand what you are saying. Although,when reviewing Canon 6 it is clear that it is abrogating the universal Canon of 1917.
Because, we can know assuredly that Canon 20 is initially speaking of how specific law is abrogated because Canon 20 gives us an example of that by stating “a later law” which has to abrogated – an “earlier” specific law by 1-expressly abrogating it, 2-directly contradicting it, or 3-reorders the subject matter. All of which the Code of 1983 has not done concerning veiling.
However, we see that the second part of Canon 20 referring to ‘universal’ law. “A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.” And having stated that, we are in “doubt” as to whether the Code of 1983 “expressly” derogated the “special” previous law of having to veil.
Thus, Canon 21 resolves the “doubt”, by clearly stating, “In doubt, the revocation of a previous law is not presumed”.
There is doubt, so no one can “presume” the veiling mandate to have been abrogated.
Dr. Peter’s statement on the subject may be persuasive, but thats besides the point, because it cannot dissolve the existence of doubt, thus we can’t presume.
Not to mention Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s take in his book, ‘Three to get Married’, says that women appearing in church with their heads uncovered is “divinely prohibited”. The book carries Nihil Obstat: John M. A. Fearns, STD; Imprimatur: Francis Cardinal Spellman.
Not to mention, St. Paul’s admonition that women should cover their heads in I Cor.
Not to mention, Canon 27, Custom is the best interpreter of law. So even if someone interprets the Code of 1983 to allow the abrogation of the veiling law, since the 1983 code does not expressly abrogate that law, the code then says that custom should interpret, which is, UNDENIABLY, 2000 years of veiling.
I don’t see how you can get around it, its just not there. I have tried. The facts are on the veil’s side.
David
David,
It really is pretty simple. Canon 6 of the 1983 Code abrogated, repealed, the entirity of the 1917 Code, including Canon 1262. There is no doubt. There is no uncertainty. Nothing is being abrogated by presumption. The entirety of the 1917 Code has been abrogated, and no part of the 1917 Code retains the force of law.
You can make whatever arguments you want from custom or Scripture — those need to be addressed separately — but the subject is no longer addressed by canon law.
Hey Tim,
1983 Canon 20 places specific requirements for the abrogation of “specific laws” in previous canons. If you get to say it doesn’t apply then anyone else can say 1983 Canon 6 doesn’t apply.
Canon 20 says””””A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.””””
I’m sorry I just don’t see that the new Canon ‘expressly’ provided for the abrogation of that “specific” law.
But I understand and respect how you see it so clearly I just have tried and tried, and to read it otherwise to me does unjustice to the wording. However, I would gladly accept the decision of a legitimately appointed interpreter in my dicoese. I just can’t find one.
In any instance, I see the Nihil Obstat: John M. A. Fearns, STD and Imprimatur: Francis Cardinal Spellman for Servant of God Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s writings as I see the early Church Father’s writings. It confirms what is indeed the truth and what sould be believed and practiced. Since divine prohibitions don’t change(even if they are specifically not noted in canon law) they have to be followed. I can’t see Cardinal Spellman allowing heresy, and I can’t see Archbishop Sheen spouting any.
Logically one would know for a fact that scripture says it clearly, Sheen and Spellman confirm it, and Canon 1983 does not mention it. So logically I understand Canon 20 as meaning it has not been specifically abrogated.
In others words Canon law cannot be interpreted without “holding fast to the Traditions we have been taught.” To do so allows ME to decide all sorts of things that are in Tradition but not in canon law. Especially these days when the benefit of the doubt is always allowed on the lax side of things, especially at mass.
God Bless, david