A question about canon law

[james_neville]

Hi i have been looking at the work of Sungenis and Jimmy Akin and they seem to have two differing perspectives of how canon law changes its binding property.

e.g. for women wearing head coverings is in the 1917 canon but removed in the later canon.

so my question is, does excluding something from this canon automatically mean that it is no longer binding if it is formally taught? (Sungenis argues that it was formally taught by St Paul and hence removing it from the canon doesn’t simply remove the binding teaching until a formal declaration is made) (where as Jimmy Akin says that no such declaration is needed and that the exclusion of it in the canon means that it is no longer binding)

Thoughts?

 

[1ke]

The confusion comes from the fact that canon law contains elements of both doctrine and discipline. Doctrines, of course, are universal and eternal whether or not they are explicitly listed in canon law. Disciplines can be changed, and are governed by canon law but also by particular law in dioceses, liturgical documents, other documents issued by various curia offices, etc.

It seems, based on your post, that Sunegis contends that head coverings are doctrine and therefore binding whether or not explicitly in canon law. Akin’s position seems to be that it is a disciplinary matter and therefore not binding based on canon 6 of the 1983 code of canon law:

Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

I believe that Akin’s position is consistent with the Church’s position on the matter.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Hi i have been looking at the work of Sungenis and Jimmy Akin and they seem to have two differing perspectives of how canon law changes its binding property.

e.g. for women wearing head coverings is in the 1917 canon but removed in the later canon.

so my question is, does excluding something from this canon automatically mean that it is no longer binding if it is formally taught? (Sungenis argues that it was formally taught by St Paul and hence removing it from the canon doesn’t simply remove the binding teaching until a formal declaration is made) (where as Jimmy Akin says that no such declaration is needed and that the exclusion of it in the canon means that it is no longer binding)

Thoughts?

The authority was given to Peter and his successors. Nothing in Scripture written by Saint Paul overrides that. No one is bound by previous Canons and any Pope can change any Canon at any time and is not bound by any Canons of any previous Pope. Neither are we.

Everything in Scripture is not a “binding teaching.” If it were, Bishops would be allowed one wife.

But only one.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Interestingly from the Orthodox view point, canons can never every be removed. But every bishop is free to apply canons to the flock based on the situation (ie. economy, they may say a certain canon would bring more hardship than spiritual growth and thus not apply it, but not completely remove the canon) and also interpret the canon in the spirit the fathers wrote it and how it applies to todays time and context. So how it is worded may not necessarily be how it is applied as the intention of the wording was based on the context of the time it was written.

So discipline or not, canons are meant to be for good, but not in a legalistic way that it is followed to the letter disregarding the spirit of the law.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The practice of women wearing headcoverings at Mass is an expression of doctrine: that God gave different roles to men and women in the Church, the family, and society. The exclusion of the practice from Canon Law means that it is not a required practice. But it is still praiseworthy. And the doctrine is unchanged.

Similarly, some acts of penance are required, such as fasting on Good Friday. But other acts of penance are not required but praiseworthy, such as fasting on every Friday.

I believe that the Vatican still has the requirement that women attending Mass wear a headcovering.