Eastern code of canon law

[Honorius]

Some (name removed by moderator)ut on these three questions would be much appreciated:

1.Why is there only one code for the various eastern churches. To me this seems a bit like stereotyping and maybe smothering some of the distinctions that may exist between the various churches.

1. Why is said code in Latin?
2. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[malphono]

1.Why is there only one code for the various eastern churches. To me this seems a bit like stereotyping and maybe smothering some of the distinctions that may exist between the various churches.

Whereas there is one CCEO, it more-or-less covers general matters. Each Church “sui juris” has its own Particular Law, and references to “Particular Law” abound in the CCEO. Note, however, that “Particular law” may never be in conflict with the CCEO. Also, in cases where Particular Law does not address one or another matter, the provisions of the CCEO pertaining to that/those mater(s) are in force.

1. Why is said code in Latin?

Because it’s the official language of the Roman Church which wrote, promulgated, and enforces the CCEO.

1. What are your thoughts on this?

Best I keep those thoughts to myself.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Dear Brother,

If one wants to get into the definition of “conflicts with” in regard to the CCEO/particular law, it’s a matter of interpretation, isn’t it… for example, CCEO states the explicit Tradition of married deacons and priests in the East from Apostolic Tradition. The particular law of the Malankara Church of 1990 contradicts this Tradition and inserts the Latin Tradition into it’s own law. Ditto for ‘first communion’ and other errant Latinism. Sadly, hoisted internally, and not at all from Rome.

 

[malphono]

Dear Brother,

If one wants to get into the definition of “conflicts with” in regard to the CCEO/particular law, it’s a matter of interpretation, isn’t it… for example, CCEO states the explicit Tradition of married deacons and priests in the East from Apostolic Tradition. The particular law of the Malankara Church of 1990 contradicts this Tradition and inserts the Latin Tradition into it’s own law. Ditto for ‘first communion’ and other errant Latinism. Sadly, hoisted internally, and not at all from Rome.

Yes, in a way I suppose it is a matter of interpretation, but of course law as a whole is generally a matter of interpretation.

In re the CCEO, the whole thing is prefaced by Canon 6:

Canon 6 - Once this Code goes into effect:
1° all common or particular laws are abrogated, which are contrary to the canons of the Code or which pertain to a matter ex integro regulated in this Code;
2° all customs are revoked which are reprobated by the canons of this Code or which are contrary to them and are neither centenary nor immemorial.

which was the basis for my earlier comment.

In the case of married clergy, CCEO Canon 373 isn’t very specific:

Canon 373 - Clerical celibacy chosen for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and suited to the priesthood is to be greatly esteemed everywhere, as supported by the tradition of the whole Church; likewise, the hallowed practice of married clerics in the primitive Church and in the tradition of the Eastern Churches throughout the ages is to be held in honor.

One can read the first clause as giving preference to celibate secular clergy, despite the fact that the very existence of a “celibate secular” clergy is itself a latinization.

On infant communion the CCEO says

Canon 710 - With respect to the participation of infants in the Divine Eucharist after baptism and chrismation with holy myron, the prescriptions of the liturgical books of each Church sui iuris are to be observed with the suitable due precautions.

thus differing to Particular Law.

Indeed the internal adoption of latinizations is lamentable (and heaven knows the Maronites have more than just about anyone else), but in spite of all the platitudes, it seems that such things are never countermanded by Rome. :banghead:

 

[Honorius]

Because it’s the official language of the Roman Church which wrote
, promulgated, and enforces the CCEO.

When you say that the Roman Church enforces the code, do you mean that the Congregation for the Oriental Church or some similar structure enforces those rules and norms contained in the code, and that particular law is mainly enforced by tribunals in the local churches?

Also, are there any good books or websites on the canon law for the Eastern Churches? Information seems a bit difficult to find.

 

[AXO]

it seems that such things are never countermanded by Rome. :banghead:

The churches are sui iuris, i.e., of their own law, for a reason. The Bishop of Rome, as Head of the West, can legislate in the Latin Church, but he can only act in the Eastern Churches as Supreme Head of the Church, not as legislator. This means he can only give his assent to the election of bishops and take actions in case of emergency. The reform of the Liturgy can only be performed by the Synod of Bishops. Rome has already called on these Churches to return to their roots and stop spoiling their Liturgies. Further steps must be taken by those.

I thought after the 2004 Synod under Mar Nasrallah Boutros the Qurbono has been under purification, isn’t it?

 

[malphono]

The churches are sui iuris, i.e., of their own law, for a reason. The Bishop of Rome, as Head of the West, can legislate in the Latin Church, but he can only act in the Eastern Churches as Supreme Head of the Church, not as legislator.

In theory, yes, but not so much in fact. E.g, how, then, does one explain the very existence of the CCEO?

This means he can only give his assent to the election of bishops and take actions in case of emergency.

Not quite true, particularly in the diaspora.

The reform of the Liturgy can only be performed by the Synod of Bishops. Rome has already called on these Churches to return to their roots and stop spoiling their Liturgies. Further steps must be taken by those.

That’s exactly what I meant about platitudes. Rome says what she says and does nothing to stop the degeneration.

I thought after the 2004 Synod under Mar Nasrallah Boutros the Qurbono has been under purification, isn’t it?

Perhaps putrefaction would be more apropos, but I digress.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

A single code for all 23 churches sui iuris does not seem to be in itself more opposed to diversity than were the canons of the ecumenical councils - these established universal norms for the sake of peaceful communion while still allowing variety among the churches in other matters.

 

[Medical_Student]

That’s exactly what I meant about platitudes. Rome says what she says and does nothing to stop the degeneration.

Perhaps putrefaction would be more apropos, but I digress.

It would be nice if Rome took their power in an good way and demanded the return to ancient traditions…if they cared.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

It would be nice if Rome took their power in an good way and demanded the return to ancient traditions…if they cared.

But how is that not still Rome “telling everybody what to do”? Even if there was a mandate from Rome to purify Latinizations, I think the “Latinization” par excellance is taking orders from Rome rather than running things on your own while retaining communion.

 

[Medical_Student]

But how is that not still Rome “telling everybody what to do”? Even if there was a mandate from Rome to purify Latinizations, I think the “Latinization” par excellance is taking orders from Rome rather than running things on your own while retaining communion.

I was just pointing out what would be the potential irony of the situation, if it were to occur. I wouldn’t mind it though, just for this once…

 

[MorEphrem]

The reform of the Liturgy can only be performed by the Synod of Bishops.

Entirely untrue, according to both the Eastern Code (written in Rome) and by precedent. Without getting into it too much, texts promulgated for worldwide use must be approved by the “competent authority” i.e. the head of the Congregation for Oriental Churches. There have been instances (whether for better or worse) where certain bishops have gone to Cardinal Sandri to block a version of the liturgy they did not like from being permitted to be used, effectively neutralizing what a synod can do. Additionally, Rome has produced many a Maronite text.

 

[AXO]

Entirely untrue, according to both the Eastern Code (written in Rome) and by precedent. Without getting into it too much, texts promulgated for worldwide use must be approved by the “competent authority” i.e. the head of the Congregation for Oriental Churches. There have been instances (whether for better or worse) where certain bishops have gone to Cardinal Sandri to block a version of the liturgy they did not like from being permitted to be used, effectively neutralizing what a synod can do. Additionally, Rome has produced many a Maronite text.

I was supposing the elaboration of the text and not the approval. Anyway that attitude shows a kind of filibustering and seizure of the Synod by obstructing its powers.