Code of Canon Law 1917 vs. Code of Canon Law 1983

[Perplexity]

The Church is not infallible in their universal disciplines in the sense that the disciplines always represent the best choices. It is infallible in its universal disciplines in the sense that it cannot teach error.

I wasn’t aware infallibility referred to anything other than immunity from error.

Where is this generally conceded?

By canonists commentating on this canon.

You have failed to make the link from your conclusion to the premise. Therefore, your argument fails. You declared that the canon represented a divine law, without ever proving that it did. Then, on your own authority and by your own interpretation, you declared (and yes, you did it say it) a sedevacantist position.

After re-reading my post and your response I believe you are reading into my post something I did not intend.

The ‘argument’ I offered, that if canon 731 is a divine law, then John Paul II could not have possessed the authority he claimed is sound. I was not intending to demonstrate that canon 731 is a divine law, merely saying that this option has not been considered thus far to my knowlege.

God bless

 

[otjm]

3.) It is generally conceded that this canon is not merely disciplinary, but is a divine law, which the Church has no power over.

As asked by another poster, please site the evidence of this.

Having said these, it is clear that the 1983 and the 1917 contradict each other on this point. I don’t think anyone is debating that.

Perhaps only because the debgte has not been formulated. I don’t think that it is at all clear that the two code sections relate tot he same thing. To begin with, the new code speaks to a follower of a religious line of belief, and has qualifiers to it. Secondly, it does not speak to the founder of the religious line: for example, it may be speaking to a High LUtheran (for example) member of today, and is not addressed to Luther himself. Luther was the heretic; someone following Luther’s teachings today, some 400+ years later, is hardly in the same shoes as Luther stood.

The new code is not an open invitation to any and all Protestants to an “open communion” but is an extremely selective provision for a rare occasion of reception of the sacraments.

The question is whether the 1983 could overrule the 1917 on this point. If canon 731 is a divine law, the answer is no, if it is merely disciplinary the answer is yes.

Or rather, the quesiton is whether or not the 83 code section is a completely different matter, since the 1917 code was addressed apparently to someone else.

If canon 731 is a divine law, then the post-conciliar Church promulgated a universal law which contradicts Church teaching and is harmful to souls. Because the Church in its capacity to issue universal laws is preserved from doing such things, we must conclude the individuals who issued the 1983 code did not possess the authority they claimed to. This is of course if we believe the gates of hell shall never prevail.

Again, totally misses the point; you are comparing apples and oranges. Just because they are fruit does not make them identical. You are making an assumption that the two codes are addressing the same issue. Your assumption is not sustained.

 

[LilyM]

By canonists commentating on this canon.

Which canonists, and what precisely have they said about the Canon?

By saying that it’s been ‘generally conceded’, you’re advancing the argument beyond the hypothetical and saying that it’s FACT that the Canon is divine law and thus that JP2 was wrong. You need to provide evidence if you expect us to go along with you on this one.

 

[Just_Lurking]

See here for the entry on the 1917 code canon 731 from Augustine’s eight volume commentary. It doesn’t say anything as regards divine law.

 

[JAGCath28]

I had a question about this so I thought I would tag on at the end here…

I was watching Karl Keating’s debate with Peter Ruckman. Ruckman read the following from the 1917 Canon Law §1325

Catholics should not enter into any disputes or conferences with non-Catholics, especially public ones without the permission of the Holy See or in urgent cases with the local ordinary.

I tried to search and see if something similar was mentioned in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. I couldn’t find anything. Is anyone familiar with this, and could you explain what they meant by it back in 1917 and whether it is applicable now.

Thanks!

Jessica

 

[otjm]

I had a question about this so I thought I would tag on at the end here…

I was watching Karl Keating’s debate with Peter Ruckman. Ruckman read the following from the 1917 Canon Law §1325

I tried to search and see if something similar was mentioned in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. I couldn’t find anything. Is anyone familiar with this, and could you explain what they meant by it back in 1917 and whether it is applicable now.

Thanks!

Jessica

I am no canon lawyer, but it would appear to be at least part of the basis of a very isolationist attitude that the Church had prior to Vatican 2, and a means of limiting “pew Catholics” from involvement with Protestants that the Church appeared to leave to the area of experts - that is, theologians. And since the '83 Code explicitly abrogated what was not carried over, the issue would be moot (assuming you are correct and there is nothing mentioned in the new Code).

 

[JAGCath28]

I am no canon lawyer, but it would appear to be at least part of the basis of a very isolationist attitude that the Church had prior to Vatican 2, and a means of limiting “pew Catholics” from involvement with Protestants that the Church appeared to leave to the area of experts - that is, theologians. And since the '83 Code explicitly abrogated what was not carried over, the issue would be moot (assuming you are correct and there is nothing mentioned in the new Code).

I don’t want to make a definitive statement that it is not in there. I just couldn’t find it in a simple word search. I’m not very familiar with the make-up of the document so it could be there just worded differently.

Is the abrogation in the introduction of the 1983 Code?

 

[otjm]

I don’t want to make a definitive statement that it is not in there. I just couldn’t find it in a simple word search. I’m not very familiar with the make-up of the document so it could be there just worded differently.

Is the abrogation in the introduction of the 1983 Code?

I believe that is correct. It has been a long time since I actually had the Code in my hand. Reading law is generally no longer one of my pursuits. I think a degree in Canon law takes about as long as a degree in civil/criminal law - three years if I recall correctly.

 

[malphono]

Is the abrogation in the introduction of the 1983 Code?

Yes.

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

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 …

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I don’t want to make a definitive statement that it is not in there. I just couldn’t find it in a simple word search. I’m not very familiar with the make-up of the document so it could be there just worded differently.

Is the abrogation in the introduction of the 1983 Code?

Yes.

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

Which is why I am very confused by this thread.

There is no verses when one Code is valid and the other is abrogated. No one can run to the 1917 Code to argue a point. No Canon Lawyer is going to go to the 1917 Code when is dealing with an issue.

So what is the real purpose of this thread? That is the thought that comes to mind every time I see this thread title.

 

[Just_Lurking]

and could you explain what they meant by it back in 1917

Here is a link to the first page of Augustine’s commentary on this canon. It goes on for several pages. The commentary for §3 starts at the bottom of page 335 and goes on through page 336.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I tried to search and see if something similar was mentioned in the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

§3 seems to be cross-referenced to canon 755 of the 1983 code:

Can. 755 §1. It is above all for the entire college of bishops and the Apostolic See to foster and direct among Catholics the ecumenical movement whose purpose is the restoration among all Christians of the unity which the Church is bound to promote by the will of Christ.

§2. It is likewise for the bishops and, according to the norm of law, the conferences of bishops to promote this same unity and to impart practical norms according to the various needs and opportunities of the circumstances; they are to be attentive to the prescripts issued by the supreme authority of the Church.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Here is a link to the norms on ecumenism promulgated by the Vatican pursuant to canon 755 of the new code. It doesn’t seem to mention the 1917 code anywhere.

 

[malphono]

Here is a link to the norms on ecumenism promulgated by the Vatican pursuant to canon 755 of the new code. It doesn’t seem to mention the 1917 code anywhere.

I’m not reading the entire document, but if one looks at the preface, it says (emphasis added)

The promulgation of the new Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church (1983) and of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (1990) has created in ecumenical matters a disciplinary situation for the faithful of the Catholic Church which is partly new.

It’s not a direct reference to 1917, but it seems to me that such is clearly implied.

 

[Lujack]

I am no canon lawyer, but it would appear to be at least part of the basis of a very isolationist attitude that the Church had prior to Vatican 2, and a means of limiting “pew Catholics” from involvement with Protestants that the Church appeared to leave to the area of experts - that is, theologians. And since the '83 Code explicitly abrogated what was not carried over, the issue would be moot (assuming you are correct and there is nothing mentioned in the new Code).

As that canon applies to the United States, at least, it might also be part of an issue that doesn’t really exist any more. Catholic vs. Protestant debates were considered high entertainment in the mid-19th century, and if a Catholic made a fool out of himself in a debate against a Protestant, it made what was basically an immigrant church look bad. Whether or not these debates should be taking place at all was a bit of a hot issue in the American hierarchy: Archbishop Kenrick of Baltimore thought the whole thing was silly and wouldn’t allow anyone to participate, but Archbishop Hughes of New York actively sought out fundamentalist anti-Catholic ministers to have rough and tumble debates with them.

 

[Shin]

In my intro to Peter’s translation of the 1917, it says, ‘More than just of historical interest, the 1917 Code is an indispensable tool for understanding and interpreting the current 1983 Code. . .’

Which is quite the case. You’d also want the Canon Law Digest books at the very least.

As for the changes in the 1983 code being discussed… I find the subject unpleasant, and don’t think I’ll be contributing much more to this thread.

I do wish there was an English translation of Gratian’s available. The more of the canons and commentary we have the more we understand about the Church…

 

[alih]

i don’t know if the subject has been broached in this discussion, but a reading of
the directive by pius x, known as “praestancia scripturae sacrae” (sp ?) may shed
some light on the basis for some concerns. have a good year. (alih)
p.s. it can be obtained via a search engine.

 

[RomanCatholic66]

The difference is the Code of canon law of 1983 does not have the term “Heretics” in it. 1917 one, does.

Why is there such a disparity on issues found in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, when compared to the 1983 Code of Canon Law…I find it hard to believe that the Canon was so radically wrong for approx 1980 years and needed a radical update…I am just confused.
For instance:
Code of Canon Law 1917, Canon 731 §2:
It is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church. Canon 1258 of the Code of Canon Law (1917) legislated:

“It is forbidden to actively participate in the worship of non-Catholics.” (communicatio in sacris)
And also Canon 2316:

“One who cooperates communicatio in sacris contrary to the provision of Canon 1258 is suspected of heresy.”
In the conclusion of his teaching on false ecumenism, Pope Pius XI stated:

“Thus, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics.”

Furthermore, the Council of Trent taught:

“If anyone saith that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the Sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. But if anyone shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.”
“I will strike the Shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.” Pope Leo XIII realized a century ago the diabolical forces which were at work to destroy the Catholic Church. For this reason, he composed an exorcism prayer which begins with an invocation to St. Michael. Pope Leo XIII wrote on September 25, 1888:

“These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the Spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.”

Then in the Code of Canon Law 1983, the corresponding Canon is 844:
Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-

Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.

Why is there such a huge difference???

 

[malphono]

For this a 4 year old thread was resurrected?