Canon 825

[Ron_Conte]

Can. 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.

§2. With the permission of the conference of bishops, Catholic members of the Christian faithful in collaboration with separated brothers and sisters can prepare and publish translations of the sacred scriptures provided with appropriate annotations.

**Discussion

**Bishops’ conferences are a relatively new feature in the structure of the Church. For most of the history of the Church, there were no such conferences. Conferences have been established licitly by the temporal authority of the Church, but such structures are not inherent to the nature of the Church or of the Episcopate.

Each Bishop, by virtue of his ordination to the Episcopal degree, is a successor to the Apostles who can exercise both the teaching authority (Magisterium) and the temporal authority of the Church. The Magisterium teaches only from Tradition and Scripture.

It is problematic that the authority to approve of a publication of Scripture has been taken from individual Bishops, and given to Conferences (which then delegate the authority to a small committee). I think that individual Bishops have the authority, inherent to their office as Bishops, to approve of publications of Scripture, and that Canon Law errs in taking away that authority.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Ron,

Everything you say about the authority of bishops as coming from the apostles is true. But what is also true is the authority vested in Peter and his successors over the whole Church, including bishops. Conferences of bishops have been set up by the Holy See, that is the Pope, and they are therefore to be respected.

In the old days, bishops usually gathered in provincial synods, that is the bishops of a territory presided by an Archbishop. These synods took decisions similar to those taken by Conferences of Bishops today. Today, in a world of easy travelling and instant communications. the Conferences make sense.

Verbum

 

[Ron_Conte]

Hi Ron,

Everything you say about the authority of bishops as coming from the apostles is true. But what is also true is the authority vested in Peter and his successors over the whole Church, including bishops. Conferences of bishops have been set up by the Holy See, that is the Pope, and they are therefore to be respected.

In the old days, bishops usually gathered in provincial synods, that is the bishops of a territory presided by an Archbishop. These synods took decisions similar to those taken by Conferences of Bishops today. Today, in a world of easy travelling and instant communications. the Conferences make sense.

Verbum

Yes, but the temporal authority of the Church is limited, and the authority of the Pope over the Bishops is limited.

In my opinion, taking away from the individual Bishops the authority to approve of the publication of an edition of the Bible exceeds the limits of the temporal authority of the Holy See.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Ron,

What do you mean by temporal authority?

Verbum

 

[cameron_lansing]

Ron,

The code was promulgated by the power that resides in the Bishop of Rome, the Roman Pontiff, who “possesses supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he can always freely exercise.” (canon 331) He also possesses a “primacy of ordinary power” (canon 333). Doctrinally, we believe that his office is established by divine law in a way that he is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth (canon 331).

In what sense then, is it asserted that the Roman Pontiff lacked the authority to regulate as he did in canon 825? What is meant, indeed, by “temporal” authority? Do you hold the belief that the pope has something less than the degree of authority mentioned in those canons above?

 

[porthos11]

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Canon law is canon law is canon law. Last time I checked, law does not mean suggestion.

If the Pope were to promulgate a new Code of canon law tomorrow saying that henceforth all Bible publications were to be approved by a conference of donkeys, you better head for the nearest barn before publishing your Bible.

Respectable Catholic publishing companies have no problems obtaining episcopal conference approval for their publications.

Who cares how temporal this law and the Conference is? It’s not so much a matter of temporality as it is a matter of authority. It’s just another example of whether one wants to be faithful to the Church’s authority, or disobedient. There is no middle ground.

Rome has spoken.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Ron,
I hope your new translation of the vulgate into english hasn’t run into a snag with the bishop’s conference
Neil

 

[tobinatorstark]

If the Pope were to promulgate a new Code of canon law tomorrow saying that henceforth all Bible publications were to be approved by a conference of donkeys, you better head for the nearest barn before publishing your Bible.

.

Your comment cracks me up a little. You do present good points. Although Ron’s translation is excellent, he still should still submit his work to be approved by the Church. This certainly isn’t the only time that one went against laws to produce a Bible translation. I happened with John Wycliffe. And William Tyndale (who at the time, I don’t think was Catholic)was burned at the stake.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Ron,
I hope your new translation of the vulgate into english hasn’t run into a snag with the bishop’s conference
Neil

He hasn’t submitted it to the Bishop’s Conference

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Church has two types of authority:

1. teaching authority (Magisterium), whose teachings are either infallible (no possibility of error) or non-infallible (limited possibility of error)
2. temporal authority, whose decisions are fallible

doctrine falls under the teaching authority;
discipline falls under the temporal authority.

The temporal authority is the authority to make decisions, judgments, rules, norms, etc. Examples include various provisions of Canon Law, diocesan rules for fasting during lent, a decision to grant an annulment, a dispensation granted by the local ordinary, the approval of rules for religious orders, establishment or suppression of a religious order, the opening or closing of a new parish church, etc.

The teachings of the Church have a higher place than the disciplines of the Church. Whenever discipline conflicts with teaching, teaching takes precedence.

Canon 825 is of the temporal authority, which is fallible.

The Pope has the authority to exercise the temporal authority of the Church, as do the Bishops. But just as it is inherent to the office of Pope to exercise both the teaching and temporal authority, so also it is inherent to the office of Bishop to exercise both also.

The temporal authority of the Church is limited.
For example, the Church lacks the authority to ordain women to the priesthood, to permit any matter other than wheat bread and wine to be used for the Eucharist, to grant an annulment to a couple who in fact has the Sacrament of Marriage, to prohibit the faithful from reading and studying Sacred Scripture, to prohibit the faithful from exercising the apostolate of the laity.

The Pope also lacks the authority to restrict the Bishops from exercising the role as successors of the Apostles given to them at ordination. And he lacks the authority to require the body of Bishops to do nothing other than what he orders, and to teach only by repeating his own teaching. The Bishops are not merely the assistants to the Pope.

My opinion is that Canon Law exceeds its authority when it says that individual Bishops may not give approval to the publication of editions of Sacred Scripture, but only Bishops Conferences and the Holy See may do so.

 

[porthos11]

The Church has two types of authority:

1. teaching authority (Magisterium), whose teachings are either infallible (no possibility of error) or non-infallible (limited possibility of error)
2. temporal authority, whose decisions are fallible

doctrine falls under the teaching authority;
discipline falls under the temporal authority.

The temporal authority is the authority to make decisions, judgments, rules, norms, etc. Examples include various provisions of Canon Law, diocesan rules for fasting during lent, a decision to grant an annulment, a dispensation granted by the local ordinary, the approval of rules for religious orders, establishment or suppression of a religious order, the opening or closing of a new parish church, etc.

The teachings of the Church have a higher place than the disciplines of the Church. Whenever discipline conflicts with teaching, teaching takes precedence.

Canon 825 is of the temporal authority, which is fallible.

The Pope has the authority to exercise the temporal authority of the Church, as do the Bishops. But just as it is inherent to the office of Pope to exercise both the teaching and temporal authority, so also it is inherent to the office of Bishop to exercise both also.

The temporal authority of the Church is limited.
For example, the Church lacks the authority to ordain women to the priesthood, to permit any matter other than wheat bread and wine to be used for the Eucharist, to grant an annulment to a couple who in fact has the Sacrament of Marriage, to prohibit the faithful from reading and studying Sacred Scripture, to prohibit the faithful from exercising the apostolate of the laity.

The Pope also lacks the authority to restrict the Bishops from exercising the role as successors of the Apostles given to them at ordination. And he lacks the authority to require the body of Bishops to do nothing other than what he orders, and to teach only by repeating his own teaching. The Bishops are not merely the assistants to the Pope.

My opinion is that Canon Law exceeds its authority when it says that individual Bishops may not give approval to the publication of editions of Sacred Scripture, but only Bishops Conferences and the Holy See may do so.

Your opinion means squat. Canon Law was promulgated by the Pope, who has authority to bind and loose, even in temporal matters. The Pope’s jurisdiction is absolute over the Catholic Church. That means that if a despotic Pope wants to suspend or excommunicate a whole Conference of bishops, or their entire membership, he certainly can do so. That should essentially tell them to do nothing other than what he orders.

It doesn’t matter that Canon Law is temporal or fallible. Big deal. The fact of the matter is, fallible or infallible, the canon is BINDING. For those who love the Church, it is a joy to obey and submit the intellect, even if it goes against our own opinion.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Canon law is canon law is canon law. Last time I checked, law does not mean suggestion.

Canon law is not Divine Revelation. Placing canon law above or equal to Divine Revelation (Tradition and Scripture) would be a serious error.

If the Pope were to promulgate a new Code of canon law tomorrow saying that henceforth all Bible publications were to be approved by a conference of donkeys, you better head for the nearest barn before publishing your Bible.

No, if the Pope added a provision to Canon Law which was foolish or unreasonable, or contrary to a teaching of Divine Revelation, such a provision could be safely ignored without sin by the faithful. The Pope can teach infallibly, but he usually teaches non-infallibly; when the Pope exercises the temporal authority, he does so fallibly.

Respectable Catholic publishing companies have no problems obtaining episcopal conference approval for their publications.

This is actually not true, but the situation is complex.
Also, it is problematic that you envision ‘respectable … companies’ getting approval, as if the approval were based on reputation, or as if one needed a corporation in order to obtain approval.

Who cares how temporal this law and the Conference is? It’s not so much a matter of temporality as it is a matter of authority. It’s just another example of whether one wants to be faithful to the Church’s authority, or disobedient. There is no middle ground.
Rome has spoken.

The Catholic Faith is not so simple as obeying Rome or disobeying Rome. Also, I notice that the Pope and the Bishops do not behave the way that you suggest, speaking or acting as if they had absolute authority, and as if that authority should never be questioned or contradicted. They don’t act as if the Faith consisted solely in absolute blind obedience. It is mostly persons who have no authority themselves who represent the Pope and the Bishops this way.

[Mark]
{9:37} John responded to him by saying, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name; he does not follow us, and so we prohibited him.”
{9:38} But Jesus said: “Do not prohibit him. For there is no one who can act with virtue in my name and soon speak evil about me.
{9:39} For whoever is not against you is for you."
…
{10:42} But Jesus, calling them, said to them: “You know that those who seem to be leaders among the Gentiles dominate them, and their leaders exercise authority over them.
{10:43} But it is not to be this way among you. Instead, whoever would become greater shall be your minister;
{10:44} and whoever will be first among you shall be the servant of all.
{10:45} So, too, the Son of man has not come so that they would minister to him, but so that he would minister and would give his life as a redemption for many.”

 

[Ron_Conte]

That means that if a despotic Pope wants to suspend or excommunicate a whole Conference of bishops, or their entire membership, he certainly can do so. That should essentially tell them to do nothing other than what he orders.

The Pope lacks the authority to give any arbitrary order whatsoever to any Bishop or any group of Bishops. He lacks the authority to prevent the Bishops from acting as true successors of the Apostles, or to require them to act solely as his own servants and assistants. The Bishops are Apostles in their own right, by virtue of ordination to the Episcopal degree.

“Bishops, as successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord, to whom was given all power in heaven and on earth, the mission to teach all nations and to preach the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain to salvation by faith, baptism and the fulfillment of the commandments.”
Lumen Gentium, n. 24

The temporal authority of the Pope is limited; it is not absolute.

 

[porthos11]

Canon law is not Divine Revelation. Placing canon law above or equal to Divine Revelation (Tradition and Scripture) would be a serious error.

No, it is not. Canon law is canon law.

No, if the Pope added a provision to Canon Law which was foolish or unreasonable, or contrary to a teaching of Divine Revelation, such a provision could be safely ignored without sin by the faithful. The Pope can teach infallibly, but he usually teaches non-infallibly; when the Pope exercises the temporal authority, he does so fallibly.

And yet, we are required to give assent of the intellect when it has been duly promulgated.

Canon 825 is not unreasonable, does not command one to sin, and is not contrary to any divine revelation. It does make things slightly more difficult for authors and publishers of Bibles. But that does not matter. Canon 825 binds.

This is actually not true, but the situation is complex.
Also, it is problematic that you envision ‘respectable … companies’ getting approval, as if the approval were based on reputation, or as if one needed a corporation in order to obtain approval.

That’s not the issue. They don’t have any issues with the canon, and are willing to go through the hurdles, so why should you?

The Catholic Faith is not so simple as obeying Rome or disobeying Rome. Also, I notice that the Pope and the Bishops do not behave the way that you suggest, speaking or acting as if they had absolute authority, and as if that authority should never be questioned or contradicted. They don’t act as if the Faith consisted solely in absolute blind obedience. It is mostly persons who have no authority themselves who represent the Pope and the Bishops this way.

No. You are speaking against a law that was promulgated by the authority of the Pope, as if that law is contrary to faith, morals, or reason. None of the Code is. And in case you have any doubts about that:
Sacrae Disciplinae Leges:

Trusting therefore in the help of divine grace, sustained by the authority of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, with certain knowledge, and in response to the wishes of the bishops of the whole world who have collaborated with me in a collegial spirit; with the supreme authority with which I am vested, by means of this Constitution, to be valid forever in the future, I promulgate the present Code as it has been set in order and revised.** I command that for the future it is to have the force of law for the whole Latin Church,** and I entrust it to the watchful care of all those concerned, in order that it may be observed.

You, sir, have no right to disobey the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome which promulgated this law. It may not be ex cathedra, but the Pope possesses the power of the keys, a power, I remind you, you do not possess.

 

[porthos11]

The Pope lacks the authority to give any arbitrary order whatsoever to any Bishop or any group of Bishops. He lacks the authority to prevent the Bishops from acting as true successors of the Apostles, or to require them to act solely as his own servants and assistants. The Bishops are Apostles in their own right, by virtue of ordination to the Episcopal degree.

“Bishops, as successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord, to whom was given all power in heaven and on earth, the mission to teach all nations and to preach the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain to salvation by faith, baptism and the fulfillment of the commandments.”
Lumen Gentium, n. 24

The temporal authority of the Pope is limited; it is not absolute.

How convenient for you to leave out the pertinent paragraphs of Lumen Gentium:

**But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, *the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27) **This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. **

And besides that, the Pope invoked his primacy and supreme authority in promulgating Canon Law, which IS what we’re talking about.

So back to 825. The bishops may have the episcopal power to approve Bibles. But by virtue of this canon and Lumen Gentium, which continues the dogmatic unbroken teaching of the Church, he cannot exercise this power without the consent of the Roman Pontiff. By virtue of canon 825, the Pontiff has withdrawn the authority, and therefore, the consent to approve Bibles from the individual Bishops. This is the right of the Roman Pontiff under Lumen Gentium. Even if they have the power to do so, they cannot without the Pontiff’s consent.

So it does not matter what your opinion is. Canon Law is binding upon the faithful, and the Pope has invoked his authority in making it so. The proper faithful Catholic’s reponse is assent.

 

[Ron_Conte]

porthos11,

I think that you have misunderstood:

1. the role of Canon Law in the spiritual life of the Church,
2. the respective roles of the Pope and of the Bishops, in relation to one another and to the faithful
3. the difference between the teaching authority and the temporal authority
4. the limits of both the teaching authority and the temporal authority

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It is problematic that the authority to approve of a publication of Scripture has been taken from individual Bishops, and given to Conferences (which then delegate the authority to a small committee). I think that individual Bishops have the authority, inherent to their office as Bishops, to approve of publications of Scripture, and that Canon Law errs in taking away that authority.

Ron,
Even if you could get one bishop to approve your translation, you could only publish it in his diocese.

 

[Ron_Conte]

But to continue the discussion with everyone else,

I think that Canon 825 should be changed to permit individual Bishops to approve of editions of the Bible, and even to permit the faithful to publish without permission. I think it would be more useful for the Bishops to instruct the faithful about the various editions of the Bible, rather than merely giving permission by way of a list of approved editions.

The current system for approval of Bible editions, taking away the ability from individual Bishops and giving it to Conferences, has not worked well. The Conferences inevitably delegate this authority to a few Bishops in a committee. Here is the list of approved versions from the USCCB committee:

usccb.org/dpp/translations.htm

The Contemporary English Version is approved despite the very loose rephrasing of every passage, the extensive use of gender-inclusive language, and the rewriting of certain verses to agree with modern views of gender equality. See for example: Galatians 3:28 and 1 Corinthians 11:10
bible-researcher.com/cev.html

The other approved editions are either Protestant versions, or inclusive language versions, or very loose translations.

The RSV-CE2 is not on the list, and reportedly they declined to review it.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

But to continue the discussion with everyone else,

I think that Canon 825 should be changed to permit individual Bishops to approve of editions of the Bible, and even to permit the faithful to publish without permission. I think it would be more useful for the Bishops to instruct the faithful about the various editions of the Bible, rather than merely giving permission by way of a list of approved editions.

Well maybe some day when you’re pope you can change the canon law.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron,
Even if you could get one bishop to approve your translation, you could only publish it in his diocese.

No. Previous to the current code of Canon Law, when an individual Bishop approved of the publication of an edition, that approval was good throughout the Church. For example, there were a number of different edits of the Challoner Douai version published under the authority of one Bishop, but used very widely.