1917 Code of Canon Law vs. 1983

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neil_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Neil_Anthony

Guest
It’s my understanding that the original code of canon law, from 1917, was based on taking all of the canons of councils, and orders of popes through the centuries, and putting them all together in a single work. So it wasn’t just arbitrary laws made up by the pope, it was in fact a concise list of all the rules of the church that already existed long before 1917, but put in a form that makes it easier to access them.

Then in 1983, they redid the whole thing. How does that make any sense? Is the code of canon law still supposed to be a list of laws from the councils and the popes through the ages, or was it completely re-written based on the new faith taught in vatican II? Does it supercede the 1917 code of canon law?
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Then in 1983, they redid the whole thing. How does that make any sense? Is the code of canon law still supposed to be a list of laws from the councils and the popes through the ages, or was it completely re-written based on the new faith taught in vatican II?
Click to expand...
Pope John XXIII called for an update to canon law at the same time he called for Vatican II. So the new code is actually the result of twenty years of work implementing the decrees of Vatican II.

Since Vatican II was an ecumenical council, it counts just as much as all the other councils that the former canon law was based upon. So as much as many try to dismiss it as “merely a pastoral council,” its influence on today’s canon law is unmistakable. (This is why the SSPX has problems with the 1983 code just as it has problems with Vatican II.)
 
(This is why the SSPX has problems with the 1983 code just as it has problems with Vatican II.)
This would suggest that SSPX has problems with the authority of the Church.

And that is NOT traditional at all.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
It’s my understanding that the original code of canon law, from 1917, was based on taking all of the canons of councils, and orders of popes through the centuries, and putting them all together in a single work. So it wasn’t just arbitrary laws made up by the pope, it was in fact a concise list of all the rules of the church that already existed long before 1917, but put in a form that makes it easier to access them.
Click to expand...
It is correct that it is a compilation of sorts but its not true that they didn’t change anything in 1917. If you read through one of the commentaries on the 1917 Code, you’ll find it full of references to laws and penalities which were changed, updated and rewritten.
 
It’s my understanding that the original code of canon law, from 1917, was based on taking all of the canons of councils, and orders of popes through the centuries, and putting them all together in a single work. So it wasn’t just arbitrary laws made up by the pope, it was in fact a concise list of all the rules of the church that already existed long before 1917, but put in a form that makes it easier to access them.

Then in 1983, they redid the whole thing. How does that make any sense?
Click to expand...
How does it NOT make sense? :confused:
 
Neil_Anthony said:
It’s my understanding that the original code of canon law, from 1917, was based on taking all of the canons of councils, and orders of popes through the centuries, and putting them all together in a single work. So it wasn’t just arbitrary laws made up by the pope, it was in fact a concise list of all the rules of the church that already existed long before 1917, but put in a form that makes it easier to access them.

Then in 1983, they redid the whole thing. How does that make any sense? Is the code of canon law still supposed to be a list of laws from the councils and the popes through the ages, or was it completely re-written based on the new faith taught in vatican II? Does it supercede the 1917 code of canon law?
Click to expand...
There were a lot of laws in the 1917 Code of Canon Law that were long since obsolete by the time the 1983 Code was published. Meat on Friday, Eucharistic fast, veiling, days of fast, use of the vernacular- all things that had been changed over the years.

It would be accurate to say the 1983 Code was not arbitrary making up of new canons, but codifying all the stuff that had happened since 1917
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Then in 1983, they redid the whole thing. How does that make any sense?
Click to expand...
It makes since because they had to include the Vatican ll Council.
Neil_Anthony said:
Is the code of canon law still supposed to be a list of laws from the councils and the popes through the ages, or was it completely re-written based on the new faith taught in vatican II?
Click to expand...
New Faith, eh? How did Vatican ll present a new faith? Look at the Dogmas it re-affirmed. There’s nothing new about it, unless you’re referring to the liturgical reform that still acknowledges the mass as a sacrifice.
 
Cluny said:
(This is why the SSPX has problems with the 1983 code just as it has problems with Vatican II.)
This would suggest that SSPX has problems with the authority of the Church.
Click to expand...
Is that what it suggests to you? Or are you speaking in some official capacity? I am certainly no expert on the Code of Canon Law.

The only problems that the SSPX has with both the Council and the current code of Canon law are in those places, and only those places where they are in contradiction to what the Church has always taught.
And that is NOT traditional at all.
Click to expand...
I agree, that which is in contradiction to what the Church has always taught is indeed NOT traditional at all.
 
JuanCarlos said:
There were a lot of laws in the 1917 Code of Canon Law that were long since obsolete by the time the 1983 Code was published. Meat on Friday, Eucharistic fast, veiling, days of fast, use of the vernacular- all things that had been changed over the years.

It would be accurate to say the 1983 Code was not arbitrary making up of new canons, but codifying all the stuff that had happened since 1917
Click to expand...
What changed about meatless Fridays?
 
Just_Lurking said:
(This is why the SSPX has problems with the 1983 code just as it has problems with Vatican II.)
Click to expand...
How can you say this as the new code allows for the Sunday obligation at any Catholic rite and also whatever it takes out of “necessity”? 😉
 
Cluny said:
This would suggest that SSPX has problems with the authority of the Church.

And that is NOT traditional at all.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree. Competent authority can promulgate and change law, be it in a democratic or autocratic situation.

Let’s look at civil life: a good many “laws” in the US are knee-jerk reactions to specific events, and in practical terms, I consider hem to be over-reactions. Personally, I think a lot of them are beyond stupid, but I obey them nonetheless. It’s either that or the pokey.

Most of the 1983 CIC is but a re-worded mirror of the 1917 version. There are things in the 1983 CIC that make me shake my head, but at the same time there were things in the 1917 CIC that I consider equally absurd.

In a related vein, personally I think the CCOE is just plain silly, but that is my opinion (and that of some Canon Lawyers I know, but that’s beside the point). The fact is we’re stuck with it until such time (if ever) they get around to finishing the project.

In the same way, the Latin Church is stuck with the 1983 CIC, at least until such time as it is revised/amended yet again. Sorry folks, but the SSPX is not exempt.
 
Originally Posted by Neil_Anthony
Then in 1983, they redid the whole thing. How does that make any sense?
Click to expand...
Wintersdemise said:
It makes since because they had to include the Vatican ll Council.
Click to expand...
Well that makes perfect sense. I would expect to see a few additions of more laws defined in the second vatican council. But, instead, we see everything re-written, as if the whole other 19 councils and the 19 centuries preceding had not taken place?
Originally Posted by Neil_Anthony
Is the code of canon law still supposed to be a list of laws from the councils and the popes through the ages, or was it completely re-written based on the new faith taught in vatican II?
Click to expand...
Wintersdemise said:
New Faith, eh? How did Vatican ll present a new faith? Look at the Dogmas it re-affirmed. There’s nothing new about it, unless you’re referring to the liturgical reform that still acknowledges the mass as a sacrifice.
Click to expand...
Well, thats just it. It wasn’t supposed to present a new faith. So shouldn’t 95% of the code of canon law remain the same, with just a few additions?
 
I believe the SSPX uses the new code of canon law as well as the new rules on indulgences, fasting, etc… Since the Church officially abrogated the old code I really don’t see how they could go about ignoring the new one? The only people I’m aware of who still adhere the old code are the Sedes (for obvious reasons).

There are some great things about the new code such as not making attendance at ones territorial parish as obligatory as it previously was. This really comes in handy if you want to join a more traditional parish some distance from your home.
 
Wintersdemise said:
It makes since because they had to include the Vatican ll Council.

New Faith, eh? How did Vatican ll present a new faith? Look at the Dogmas it re-affirmed. There’s nothing new about it, unless you’re referring to the liturgical reform that still acknowledges the mass as a sacrifice.
Click to expand...
“Acknowledges” - good choice of words.
 
Kearney said:
I believe the SSPX uses the new code of canon law as well as the new rules on indulgences, fasting, etc… Since the Church officially abrogated the old code I really don’t see how they could go about ignoring the new one?
Click to expand...
This might clarify it for you.
“For the most part, we may regret the loss of clarity, precision and integrity the 1917 Code of Canon Law had, but that is insufficient reason to reject these canons. there are a few novelties, though, which must be rejected”

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q8_canonlaw.htm
 
Kearney said:
I believe the SSPX uses the new code of canon law as well as the new rules on indulgences, fasting, etc.
Click to expand...
See here for the SSPX’s thoughts on the new code as it relates to annulments. Their discussion on canon 1098 is particularly enlightening. They acknowledge that the Church has the authority to enact canon 1098 as positive law, but they have a problem with how “personalistic” the canon is, so they reject it in their own marriage tribunals. The reason that they reject the canon entirely is that they have no authority to modify/correct the canon, but for some reason they claim to have the authority to reject altogether canons they disapprove of.
 
Just_Lurking said:
The reason that they reject the canon entirely is that they have no authority to modify/correct the canon, but for some reason they claim to have the authority to reject altogether canons they disapprove of.
Click to expand...
That is just so them, huh?!?!?🙂
 
How does the SSPX have its own marriage tribunals? Were did they get the jurisdiction for them? Also, how can one accept a code of canon law yet cipher through it and pick and choose what they consider as authentically Catholic?

Bizarre sounding to me.

Also, its a shock to me that the SSPX allows annulments in the first place under any conditions:eek: ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top