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

[Just_Lurking]

So, Just Lurking, will you be ordained soon?

 

[otjm]

Canon 731 §2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.

This is a clear, whole-scale prohibition of administering the Catholic sacraments to non-Catholics. This is in direct contrast to the 1983 Code’s Canon 844 §§3-4, so much so that if one were to say that the 1983 Code’s new regulation is good, then the prohibition of Canon 731 of the 1917 Code is necessarily bad, since the two canons are mutually exclusive. In other words, those who hold that the 1983 Code’s new regulation is good must concede that the 1917 Code’s Canon 731 is bad, an impossibility.

Thus, either Canon 731 of the 1917 Code is evil, or Canon 844 §§3-4 of the 1983 “Code” is. Either position cannot be embraced by a Catholic who acknowledges John Paul II as Pope.

Thus, the only way out of this dilemma is to reject the 1983 “Code of Canon Law” -or reject the past teachings and canon law. Difficult decision, huh?

That any permission to administer the sacraments to non-Catholics is necessarily evil as backed by scripture and the following teachings of the Holy Catholic Church:

Sacred Scripture, St. Matthew 7:6:
Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (III, q. 80, a. 6, ad 1):
Holy things are forbidden to be given to dogs, that is, to notorious sinners. . . .

Fourth Lateran Council (1215), Constitution #3, on Heretics:
Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the Church to such pestilent people * nor give them a Christian burial nor accept alms or offerings from them; if they do, let them be deprived of their office and not restored to it without a special indult of the apostolic see.

It is hurtful that Our Lords body is now being used as a barganing chip for ecumenism and “Hospitiality”*For starters, you might want to research the difference between a formal heretic and a material heretic. You are making a false dichotomy in your argument.

Further, the issue of administering the sacraments to those who are not porfessed Catholics is far more limited than you seem to realize. Practive may not always follow the Code, but failure in practice does not automatically mean the Code is wrong.

 

[Lujack]

This is a clear, whole-scale prohibition of administering the Catholic sacraments to non-Catholics. This is in direct contrast to the 1983 Code’s Canon 844 §§3-4, so much so that if one were to say that the 1983 Code’s new regulation is good, then the prohibition of Canon 731 of the 1917 Code is necessarily bad, since the two canons are mutually exclusive. In other words, those who hold that the 1983 Code’s new regulation is good must concede that the 1917 Code’s Canon 731 is bad, an impossibility.

Thus, either Canon 731 of the 1917 Code is evil, or Canon 844 §§3-4 of the 1983 “Code” is. Either position cannot be embraced by a Catholic who acknowledges John Paul II as Pope.

There is also the rational option: the Code of Canon Law is a discipline, and can be change by the Church as it sees fit. This opens up three other options:

1. The rule from the 1917 Code was good for its time. The rule for the 1983 Code is also good for its time. A future code may return to the 1917 Code, and that may also be good for its time. Before anyone cries “Modernism!”, note that that heresy refers to dogmas, and not disciplines. The Church is free to change its disciplines to serve the faithful and fit the times as it sees fit.
2. The rule from the 1917 Code was unworkable, and the change of the rule in the 1983 Code is an improvement. There is no doctrine of the Church that says that its disciplines must always be the best. Decisions that the Church makes in that area must be followed, but they can be disagreed with.
3. The current rule is not as good as the 1917 Code’s rule. It should be returned to the way it was. There is no doctrine of the Church that says that its disciplines must always be the best. Decisions that the Church makes in that area must be followed, but they can be disagreed with.

 

[Hesychios]

There is also the rational option: the Code of Canon Law is a discipline, and can be change by the Church as it sees fit.

That is correct.

It is probably also worth pointing out that most (if not all) of the original canons (rules) the church followed in the first centuries were composed by Councils. Here is a site with the canons from Councils as used by the eastern Catholic/Orthodox churches, the western Catholic collection presumably also included material from some other local western Councils or Synods. Then there were also Papal decretals which accumulated into a major collection and had also to be remembered and studied, these were essentially new canons, even if they were not listed together with them. These two collections tended to be altogether unwieldy, and was not very systematic.

I cannot remember whom it was that was the first ‘codifier’ of the western Canons (for the sake of convenience), but something tells me it was a monk sometime after the Great Schism (I don’t remember when I read that). Probably the 1917AD code was a big improvement over what was being used before.

So now the Pope, through his Curial staff, ‘codifies’ the canons. They are edited, combined, abbreviated or expanded as seen fit and put into some order. Unfortunately it is not easy for us to trace the origin of some of these rules, we cannot be sure how far back some of them actually go (which is why some people might reasonably assume a canon is as old as the church, when it most likely is not).

The canons as they stand today (in the Code) are completely dependent upon Papal authority, and can be rewritten whenever that authority deems necessary. Naturally, this means the most recent one is always the valid one.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I cannot remember whom it was that was the first ‘codifier’ of the western Canons (for the sake of convenience), but something tells me it was a monk sometime after the Great Schism (I don’t remember when I read that).

Gratian (see here) was the “Father of the Science of Canon Law”.

Probably the 1917AD code was a big improvement over what was being used before.

When the bishops were polled prior to Vatican I about the important issues facing the Catholic Church that needed to be dealt with at the council, reworking the patchwork canon law that had accumulated over the centuries was very high on their list.

 

[LilyM]

There is also the rational option: the Code of Canon Law is a discipline, and can be change by the Church as it sees fit.

Amen!

Remember, prior to 1000AD there was almost certainly canon law to the effect that married men could be priests within the Latin Rite. Fairly soon after, you would’ve found equally authoritative canon law to the effect that married men could NOT be priests within the Latin Rite.

This change in discipline, which caused no end of grief in terms of getting priests to accept it, for some decades after it was implemented, was entirely permissible. And the change emphatically did NOT mean that either discipline (married clergy or celibate clergy) was wrong in and of itself.

Furthermore, succeeding centuries proved that there were in fact many advantages to having celibate priests, so many that the newer discipline has continued as canon law for 1000 years.

We’ve had nearly 30 years since the 1983 code was implemented, a mere blink of the eye in terms of Church history, so it is certainly too soon to judge whether the change in discipline noted in this thread will bear good or bad fruit.

 

[Perplexity]

Canon 731 §2, 1917 Code of Canon Law:

It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.

This is a clear, whole-scale prohibition of administering the Catholic sacraments to non-Catholics. This is in direct contrast to the 1983 Code’s Canon 844 §§3-4, so much so that if one were to say that the 1983 Code’s new regulation is good, then the prohibition of Canon 731 of the 1917 Code is necessarily bad, since the two canons are mutually exclusive. In other words, those who hold that the 1983 Code’s new regulation is good must concede that the 1917 Code’s Canon 731 is bad, an impossibility.

This discussion seems to be moving in the direction of conceding that these canons are merely disciplinary and therefore susceptible to change as the Church sees fit. However, I think a few points need to be brought to light:

1.) The Church is infallible in its universal disciplines, and canon 731 of the 1917 is a universal discipline.

2.) The Church declared in canon 731 that the reception of sacraments by heretics (material and formal) is absolutely forbidden. This decree is free from all doctrinal error and is in perfect conformity with Catholic morality.

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

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.

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.

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.

God bless

 

[Lujack]

This discussion seems to be moving in the direction of conceding that these canons are merely disciplinary and therefore susceptible to change as the Church sees fit. However, I think a few points need to be brought to light:

1.) The Church is infallible in its universal disciplines, and canon 731 of the 1917 is a universal discipline.

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.

2.) The Church declared in canon 731 that the reception of sacraments by heretics (material and formal) is absolutely forbidden. This decree is free from all doctrinal error and is in perfect conformity with Catholic morality.

The Canon teaches no error, that is true.

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

Where is this generally conceded?

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.

They don’t contradict each other, they just change the rule.

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.

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.

God bless

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.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I do not understand the need or want to compare the Current code with the old code especially when one reads this;

**Can. 6 §1 **When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated:

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2° other laws, whether universal or particular, which are contrary to the provisions of this Code, unless it is otherwise expressly provided in respect of particular laws;

3° all penal laws enacted by the Apostolic See, whether universal or particular, unless they are resumed in this Code itself;

4° any other universal disciplinary laws concerning matters which are integrally reordered by this Code.

See the underlined portion, the old code is abrogated, it no longer holds any force of discipline.

If you wish to make an argument that something within the code is enforced by something more than mere discipline then you must make that argument from other sources and not from the code itself as the code is mere discipline of the Church.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The change in the canon law as regards Protestants is more than just an arbitrary change in discipline, as the rule that priests must be unmarried might be seen to be. On the contrary, it reflects and codifies a fundamental change in the Catholic Church’s view of Protestants as expressed in the spirit of Vatican II, e.g., from Unitatis Redintegratio:

1. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

But i thought that the council has said that there is no more heretics, is this correct?

didnt the Church said that the Bible people can no longer be called heretics?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The change in the canon law as regards Protestants is more than just an arbitrary change in discipline, as the rule that priests must be unmarried might be seen to be. On the contrary, it reflects and codifies a fundamental change in the Catholic Church’s view of Protestants as expressed in the spirit of Vatican II, e.g., from Unitatis Redintegratio:

1. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

You are misinterpreting the code.

Canon 844 §2 and §3 do not apply to protestants as protestants do not have valid sacraments.

Here is the full code in question, the underlined emphasis is mine.

**Can. 844 §1 **Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.

§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5 In respect of the cases dealt with in §§2, 3 and 4, the diocesan Bishop or the Episcopal Conference is not to issue general norms except after consultation with the competent authority, at least at the local level, of the non-catholic Church or community concerned.

They must have valid sacraments and they must be properly disposed.

This is not a wide open door as you seem to read it to be.

 

[Just_Lurking]

You are misinterpreting the code.

I wasn’t interpreting any particular part of either code. I was explaining the general principle by which the committee that drafted the 1983 code removed all of the 1917 canons which treated Protestants as heretics to be opposed, oppressed, and shunned, and added new canons to the 1983 code which treated Protestants as fellow Christians to work along side with in furthering Christ’s kingdom on Earth.

Canon 844 §2 and §3 do not apply to protestants as protestants do not have valid sacraments.

Note that canon 844 §4 does apply to Protestants.

This is not a wide open door as you seem to read it to be.

Even a door that is opened only a small crack is very different from being burned at the stake. Vatican II and the 1983 code which implements the council represent a significant update to how the Catholic Church interacts with Protestants.

 

[malphono]

Canon 844 §2 and §3 do not apply to protestants as protestants do not have valid sacraments. … They must have valid sacraments and they must be properly disposed.

This is not a wide open door as you seem to read it to be.

Yes. That’s just about what I was going to say, but I’ll add one thought:

IMO, the words “properly disposed” don’t really conflict with the prior Code. The matter of “proper disposition” can be read as the belief in the nature and efficacy of the Sacraments (Mysteries) which is common to the Apostolic Churches. Read that way, there is no “error” to be renounced.

 

[delsydebothom]

The change in the canon law as regards Protestants is more than just an arbitrary change in discipline, as the rule that priests must be unmarried might be seen to be. On the contrary, it reflects and codifies a fundamental change in the Catholic Church’s view of Protestants as expressed in the spirit of Vatican II, e.g., from Unitatis Redintegratio:

1. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Those sentiments were expressed by Catholics long before V II, even if V II represented the first time an ecumenical council presented the doctrine as an official position of the Church. That said, I don’t think one can point to a time in the past where the Church condemned the teaching outlined above, and it has certainly always been implied by the doctrines regarding baptism and invincible ignorance.

 

[malphono]

Note that canon 844 §4 does apply to Protestants.

What you apparently fail to see is that 844 §4 applies (a) in extremis only and (b) implies “Baptism of Desire” both of which are consistent with Church teaching.

Even a door that is opened only a small crack is very different from being burned at the stake. Vatican II and the 1983 code which implements the council represent a significant update to how the Catholic Church interacts with Protestants.

Hogwash. The CIC is a code of law. It is not doctrine, and does nothing beyond what it says. It certainly is not a reflection of the “spirit of Vatican II” with respect to Protestants.

 

[Just_Lurking]

What you apparently fail to see is that 844 §4 applies (a) in extremis only and (b) implies “Baptism of Desire” both of which are consistent with Church teaching.

See here for the CLSA commentary on canon 844. Notice in particular the conspicuous absence of any mention of your points (a) and (b).

Hogwash. The CIC is a code of law. It is not doctrine, and does nothing beyond what it says. It certainly is not a reflection of the “spirit of Vatican II” with respect to Protestants.

Pope Paul VI called it the “mind of Vatican II”, but clearly acknowledged that the correct implementation of Vatican II involved understanding the general principles envisioned by the council fathers and applying those principles in concrete situations that were not directly addressed in the council documents themselves.

 

[malphono]

See here for the CLSA commentary on canon 844. Notice in particular the conspicuous absence of any mention of your points (a) and (b).

I hate to be the one to break this news, but both points are noted in that article. Perhaps the exact same words are not used, but the principles are clear. “Conspicuous absence?” I don’t think so.

Pope Paul VI called it the “mind of Vatican II”, but clearly acknowledged that the correct implementation of Vatican II involved understanding the general principles envisioned by the council fathers and applying those principles in concrete situations that were not directly addressed in the council documents themselves.

I care less the word “mind” or “spirit” or any other that one might conjure up. My prior comment stands.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I hate to be the one to break this news, but both points are noted in that article. Perhaps the exact same words are not used, but the principles are clear. “Conspicuous absence?” I don’t think so.

Okay, so which paragraph on which page has anything to do with baptism of desire?

I care less the word “mind” or “spirit” or any other that one might conjure up. My prior comment stands.

So you disagree with Pope Paul VI’s explanation of why he changed the canon law on mixed marriage to treat the non-Catholic party fairly and equally instead of the prior canon law which was very lopsidedly in favor of the Catholic party?

 

[malphono]

Okay, so which paragraph on which page has anything to do with baptism of desire?

If you can’t figure it out, I’m not going to help you.

So you disagree with Pope Paul VI’s explanation of why he changed the canon law on mixed marriage to treat the non-Catholic party fairly and equally instead of the prior canon law which was very lopsidedly in favor of the Catholic party?

That is most definitely not what I said, nor was my comment in regard to the dreaded “spirit of Vatican II” made in relation to any marriage regulations.