canon law 1917

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thinkandmull

Guest
Can anyone quote for me the 1917 canon law of baptism of desire?
 
thinkandmull said:
Can anyone quote for me the 1917 canon law of baptism of desire?
Click to expand...
The 1917 Code did not include Baptism of Desire. Frankly, I have no idea why the 1983 CIC mentions it. Baptism of Desire has nothing to do with Church law. It’s a doctrine, not a law, so it doesn’t belong in the CIC. But I think there’s a lot in the 1983 CIC that has nothing to do with Church law. It’s a sloppy edition.

Each edition of Canon Law completely abrogates (abolishes) its predecessor - each and every Canon goes up in smoke, as if it were never there. If we have purely doctrinal Canons with no legal perspective, it might appear that the Church is abolishing doctrine when the next edition is published. That’s why Doctrine has no place in Canon Law - only man-made rules that relate to doctrine belong there.
 
thinkandmull said:
Can anyone quote for me the 1917 canon law of baptism of desire?
Click to expand...
1917 CIC
Can 1239
§1. Ad sepulturam ecclesiasticam non sunt admittendi qui sine baptismo decesserint.
§2. Catechumeni qui nulla sua culpa sine baptismo moriantur, baptizatis accensendi sunt.
§3. Omnes baptizati sepultura ecclesiastica donandi sunt, nisi eadem a iure expresse priventur.
Translation of 1239. 2 Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized.
 
DavidFilmer said:
The 1917 Code did not include Baptism of Desire. Frankly, I have no idea why the 1983 CIC mentions it. Baptism of Desire has nothing to do with Church law. It’s a doctrine, not a law, so it doesn’t belong in the CIC. But I think there’s a lot in the 1983 CIC that has nothing to do with Church law. It’s a sloppy edition.

Each edition of Canon Law completely abrogates (abolishes) its predecessor - each and every Canon goes up in smoke, as if it were never there. If we have purely doctrinal Canons with no legal perspective, it might appear that the Church is abolishing doctrine when the next edition is published. That’s why Doctrine has no place in Canon Law - only man-made rules that relate to doctrine belong there.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, and charity:
  1. The 1917 Code did not include Baptism of Desire. WRONG… it does
  2. Frankly, I have no idea why the 1983 CIC mentions it. BECAUSE CIC are laws to protect the rights of the faithful.
  3. Baptism of Desire has nothing to do with Church law. IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH CHURCH LAW (see responses 1 and 2, above)
  4. But I think there’s a lot in the 1983 CIC that has nothing to do with Church law. It’s a sloppy edition. I’M SURE THIS IS WHAT YOU THINK, BUT this is why interpreting canon law is best left to professionally trained and certified Canon Lawyers.
Peace and all good!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top