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

  • Thread starter Thread starter michaeldaniels
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

michaeldaniels

Guest
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???
 
Good question.

Maybe a lot had to do with the ecumenism aspects of the Vatican II documents. Don’t forget the 1983 Canon Law took over 20 years to write.
 
\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.\

**The Code of 1917 was itself an innovation, as before that, the various canons and church laws had to be sought for in different big collections, which contained many that had fallen into disuse.

In other words, it wasn’t around for 1980 years, as you said in your original post.**
 
“properly disposed” could very well mean that the person needs to renounce their errors. Even if that isn’t explicitly stated, I am hard pressed to think of another way a person could be “properly disposed” to receive Catholic Sacraments.
 
It is important to remember that the Code of Canon Law is a list of the disciplines of the Catholic Church and are not dogmatic.

This does not mean that we do not have to follow them but it means that they can and do change and can be dispensed from by the proper authorities.

It is also important to remember that the Code of Canon Law -1917 came into being in 1917 so it was in no way 1980 years old when the Current Code came into being.

Some of it may have been older but at the most one could say that it was codified in the current form in 1917.
 
This is where people who decry the “spirit of Vatican II” versus the actual text of the Vatican II documents run into problems. Many official post-Vatican II documents make concrete the general statements made by Vatican II in ways that go against the theory that Vatican II didn’t change anything because it was only pastoral and not dogmatic.

Chief among these is the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which sought to implement the spirit of Vatican II, e.g., taking the general principles on the role of the laity and deciding that girls could be altar servers as well as boys. An early example of this is Mixta Matrimonia (see here), which changed the rules about mixed marriage, correcting the extreme lopsidedness of the prior rules as regards the non-Catholic party. Paul VI wrote:

Accordingly, in order that ecclesiastical discipline on mixed marriages be more perfectly formulated and that, without violating divine law, canon law should have regard for the different circumstances of married couples, in accordance with the mind of the Second Vatican Council expressed especially in the decree Unitatis Redintegratio [AAS 57 (1965), pp. 90-112.] and in the declaration Dignitatis Humanae, [AAS 58 (1966), pp. 929-946.] and also in the Synod of Bishops, we, by our own authority, and after mature deliberation, establish and decree the followings norms

Note that Paul VI referred to the “mind of Vatican II” instead of the “spirit of Vatican II”, but nonetheless found the call to change canon law in a way not specifically directed by the Vatican II documents, but in accordance with the general principles underlying those documents.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is another official post-Vatican II document that extends the spirit of Vatican II. This is why groups like the SSPX have problems with the 1983 code and the CCC as well.
 
The Apostolic Constitution SACRAE DISCIPLINAE LEGES (see here) had this to say about the need for a new code and the relation between the Code and the Second Vatican Council:

Such a decision to reform the Code was taken together with two other decisions of which the Pontiff spoke on that same day: the intention to hold a synod of the Diocese of Rome and to convoke an ecumenical council. Of these two events, the first was not closely connected with the reform of the Code; but the second, the council, is of supreme importance in regard to the present matter and is closely connected with it.

If we ask why John XXIII considered it necessary to reform the existing Code, the answer can perhaps be found in the Code itself which was promulgated in the year 1917. But there exists also another answer and it is the decisive one: namely, that the reform of the Code of Canon Law appeared to be definitely desired and requested by the same council which devoted such great attention to the Church.

As is obvious, when the revision of the Code was first announced the council was an event of the future. Moreover, the acts of its magisterium and especially its doctrine on the Church would be decided in the years 1962-1965; however, it is clear to everyone that John XXIII’s intuition was very true, and with good reason it must be said that his decision was for the long-term good of the Church.

Therefore the new Code which is promulgated today necessarily required the previous work of the council. Although it was announced together with the ecumenical council, nevertheless it follows it chronologically because the work undertaken in its preparation, which had to be based upon the council, could not begin until after the latter’s completion.

Turning our minds today to the beginning of this long journey, to that January 25, 1959 and to John XXIII himself who initiated the revision of the Code, I must recognize that this Code derives from one and the same intention, the renewal of Christian living. From such an intention, in fact, the entire work of the council drew its norms and its direction.

If we now pass on to consider the nature of the work which preceded the promulgation of the Code and also the manner in which it was carried out, especially during the pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul I, and from then until the present day, it must be clearly pointed out that this work was brought to completion in an outstandingly collegial spirit. This applies not only in regard to the material drafting of the work, but also to the very substance of the laws enacted.

This note of collegiality eminently characterizes and distinguishes the process of developing the present Code; it corresponds perfectly with the teaching and the character of the Second Vatican Council. Therefore not only because of its content but also because of its very origin, the Code manifests the spirit of this council in whose documents the Church, the universal “sacrament of salvation” (dogmatic constitution on the Church Lumen gentium, nn. 1, 9, 48), is presented as the people of God and its hierarchical constitution appears based on the college of bishops united with its head.
 
I understand what you are saying David…I know the actual Code hasn’t been around that long…and the wording could change, but for the most part, hasn’t the general aim and beliefs of the Church been pretty solid and consistent with the words found in the 1917 version??? If that is the case, then why such a dramatic shift in wording and understanding?
ByzCath said:
It is important to remember that the Code of Canon Law is a list of the disciplines of the Catholic Church and are not dogmatic.

This does not mean that we do not have to follow them but it means that they can and do change and can be dispensed from by the proper authorities.

It is also important to remember that the Code of Canon Law -1917 came into being in 1917 so it was in no way 1980 years old when the Current Code came into being.

Some of it may have been older but at the most one could say that it was codified in the current form in 1917.
Click to expand...
 
Just_Lurking said:
This is where people who decry the “spirit of Vatican II” versus the actual text of the Vatican II documents run into problems. Many official post-Vatican II documents make concrete the general statements made by Vatican II in ways that go against the theory that Vatican II didn’t change anything because it was only pastoral and not dogmatic.

Chief among these is the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which sought to implement the spirit of Vatican II, e.g., taking the general principles on the role of the laity and deciding that girls could be altar servers as well as boys. An early example of this is Mixta Matrimonia (see here), which changed the rules about mixed marriage, correcting the extreme lopsidedness of the prior rules as regards the non-Catholic party. Paul VI wrote:

Accordingly, in order that ecclesiastical discipline on mixed marriages be more perfectly formulated and that, without violating divine law, canon law should have regard for the different circumstances of married couples, in accordance with the mind of the Second Vatican Council expressed especially in the decree Unitatis Redintegratio [AAS 57 (1965), pp. 90-112.] and in the declaration Dignitatis Humanae, [AAS 58 (1966), pp. 929-946.] and also in the Synod of Bishops, we, by our own authority, and after mature deliberation, establish and decree the followings norms

Note that Paul VI referred to the “mind of Vatican II” instead of the “spirit of Vatican II”, but nonetheless found the call to change canon law in a way not specifically directed by the Vatican II documents, but in accordance with the general principles underlying those documents.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is another official post-Vatican II document that extends the spirit of Vatican II. This is why groups like the SSPX have problems with the 1983 code and the CCC as well.
Click to expand...
Forgive me if I’m missing something, but if memory serves, the 1983 code says nothing about female altar servers. I thought that JPII authorized altar girls (after refusing many, many times) himself. I always thought that his reasons were that, since people were going to go on using altar girls anyway (regardless of papal edict), and since he was getting nagged about it again and again, it would be better to allow altar girls. This way, those who did so would not be making a mockery of the Church by worshiping in open defiance of her laws.
 
delsydebothom said:
Forgive me if I’m missing something, but if memory serves, the 1983 code says nothing about female altar servers. I thought that JPII authorized altar girls (after refusing many, many times) himself. I always thought that his reasons were that, since people were going to go on using altar girls anyway (regardless of papal edict), and since he was getting nagged about it again and again, it would be better to allow altar girls. This way, those who did so would not be making a mockery of the Church by worshiping in open defiance of her laws.
Click to expand...
Canon 230 §2 of the 1983 code states: Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law. In 1992/1994, the Vatican confirmed that “other functions” includes altar servers.

This was a deliberate change from the 1917 code, which stated in canon 813 §2: The minister serving at Mass should not be a woman unless, in the absence of a man, for a just cause, it is so arranged that the woman respond from afar and by no means approach the altar.
 
michaeldaniels said:
…]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.
Click to expand...
I think that besides the ecclesiastic reasons, we should remember that before 1917 the Church faced a mostly believing world and it was not that difficult for people to seek out the truth about God, but 1917 is just about when much of the world was becoming a place in which any kind of belief in God would go unpunished by secular authorities. I think that the Holy Spirit does move the Church to adjust to these kinds of changes. Paradoxically, the tendency of the Church to lag behind secular culture is balanced by a frequent ability to anticipate it.
 
Just_Lurking said:
Canon 230 §2 of the 1983 code states: Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law. In 1992/1994, the Vatican confirmed that “other functions” includes altar servers.

This was a deliberate change from the 1917 code, which stated in canon 813 §2: The minister serving at Mass should not be a woman unless, in the absence of a man, for a just cause, it is so arranged that the woman respond from afar and by no means approach the altar.
Click to expand...
If that is the correct interpretation, why did JPII twice forbid women to serve at the altar (cf. web.archive.org/web/20070927203454/www.adoremus.org/LiturgicaeInstaurationes.html) and ( web.archive.org/web/20071002142821/www.adoremus.org/InaestimabileDonum.html )?
 
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”*
 
The 1917 code treated women as “second-class citizens” in hundreds of ways. The 1983 code sought to change that, and in the end only contains one prohibition against women that doesn’t apply to lay men, in that they can’t be instituted on a stable basis as lectors and acolytes (canon 230 §1). And the recent Synod of Bishops even voted to request that that rule be changed.
 
delsydebothom said:
If that is the correct interpretation, why did JPII twice forbid women to serve at the altar (cf. web.archive.org/web/20070927203454/www.adoremus.org/LiturgicaeInstaurationes.html) and ( web.archive.org/web/20071002142821/www.adoremus.org/InaestimabileDonum.html )?
Click to expand...
The documents you cite are from 1970 and 1980, which is before the 1983 code, and so fall under the rules of the 1917 code. Note that the 1970 document is before John Paul II became pope in 1978, and was issued by the Vatican curia under Paul VI’s pontificate.
 
Just_Lurking said:
The 1917 code treated women as “second-class citizens” in hundreds of ways. The 1983 code sought to change that, and in the end only contains one prohibition against women that doesn’t apply to lay men, in that they can’t be instituted on a stable basis as lectors and acolytes (canon 230 §1). And the recent Synod of Bishops even voted to request that that rule be changed.
Click to expand...
Keeping women from serving at the altar was not a way of treating them as “second class citizens”. Since those who minister at the altar assist the priest in offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, they from with the priest, visually, a “unit” of sorts. To be sure, the priest alone confects the sacrament, but there is still a visual connection made between the altar servers and the action of the priest. When the priest, acting as the* alter Christus,* confects the sacrament, Christ is extending his role as the Church’s husband through him. Christ is entering into his Church, and making her fruitful with his life-giving grace. Having women serve at the altar distracts visually from this point, since one cannot legitimately view a woman in the role of husband. To be sure, it isn’t outright sacrilege, like a women attempting to be a priest, but having women at the altar tends to make the fundamentally masculine act Christ is performing less clearly masculine.

There may have been ways in which women were treated like second class citizens in the past (which, in my opinion, is still more dignified than the modern tendency to treat women basically like men), but barring them from ministering at the altar was not one of them.
 
Just_Lurking said:
The documents you cite are from 1970 and 1980, which is before the 1983 code, and so fall under the rules of the 1917 code. Note that the 1970 document is before John Paul II became pope in 1978, and was issued by the Vatican curia under Paul VI’s pontificate.
Click to expand...
All right, but what I’m was trying to bring out was JPII’s own opinion about the matter. He didn’t change his mind until 1994 (cf. web.archive.org/web/20060716084730/www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWCOMM.HTM ) and so it seems that he didn’t see the 1983 code as negating his previous decisions.
 
delsydebothom said:
There may have been ways in which women were treated like second class citizens in the past (which, in my opinion, is still more dignified than the modern tendency to treat women basically like men), but barring them from ministering at the altar was not one of them.
Click to expand...
My point is that the committee that drafted the 1983 code disagreed with you, and implemented the spirit of Vatican II (e.g., Gaudium et Spes 29) by removing, among many other things, the restriction against women ministering at the altar, not only as altar servers but in other capacities as well, e.g., canon 930 §2 of the 1983 code.
 
delsydebothom said:
All right, but what I’m was trying to bring out was JPII’s own opinion about the matter. He didn’t change his mind until 1994 (cf. web.archive.org/web/20060716084730/www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWCOMM.HTM ) and so it seems that he didn’t see the 1983 code as negating his previous decisions.
Click to expand...
For some reason, your link only gives the Latin text. The 1992/1994 decision of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts merely confirms that the 1983 code canon 230 allows female altar servers. Here is the English translation:

The doubt: Whether, among the liturgical functions that lay persons, men or women, may exercise according to Canon 230.2 of the Code of Canon Law, may also be included service at the altar?

The response: Affirmative, and in accordance with instructions to be given by the Apostolic See.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top