Is the Eastern Code of Canon Law authentically Eastern? Does it apply to Eastern Catholics?

[malphono]

I find it remarkable that the Latins maintain that the CCOE is Eastern while the Eastern Catholics maintain that it is not. Hilarious!

Stick around for a while … as the old saying goes, ya ain’t seen nothin’ yet …

 

[Vico]

Here are some people who apparently didn’t find it to be “a bad Roman joke”:When the Second Vatican Council finally ended in 1965, all the patriarchs of
the Eastern Catholic Churches were named to the commission. At the
beginning of the last year of the Commission for the Redaction of the
^Eastern Code of Canon Law" the college of members consisted of the six
heads of the Eastern Churches and the prefect of the Congregation for the
Eastern Churches.Apostolic Constitution Sacri Canones John Paul II 1990

Then again, perhaps this can be easily dismissed by a “yeah right” comment and a emoticon. On the the other hand, if your bishops accept the CCEO then I wonder what the fuss is all about.

The Presidents of the Commission for Redacting the «Code of Eastern Canon Law» first established in 1935, were:

Cardinals Aloysius Sincero, until his death
Maximus Massimi, until his death
Gregory Peter XV Agagianian, Patriarch of the Armenian Church.

Up to the time of xxx it was Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli who nearly completed the whole codification of the Eastern canons. Ten of 24 titles were promulgated by Pope Pius XII (1939-1958). The remaining 14 titles were held for later promulgation. Then in 1965-1972 these Patriarchs were on the commission:

Coptic Patriarch Cardinal Stephanos I Sidarouss (1965-1987)
Melkite Patriarch Cardinal Maximos IV Saïgh (1947-1967)
Melkite Patriarch Maximos V Hakim (1967-2000)
Maronite Patriarch Cardinal Paul Pierre Méouchi (1955-1975)
Syrian Patriarch Ignace Antoine II Hayek (1968-1998)
Armenian Patriarch Iknadios XVI Bédros (1962-1976)
Chaldean Patriarch Paul II Cheikho (1959-1989)

Some matrimonial laws also changed in 1965 (Marriage with Orthodox) and in 1970 (Marriage Mixed). So then the Latin Canon law revison of the 1917 version was promulgated in 1983 and then seven years later CCEO in 1990.

 

[malphono]

Up to the time of xxx it was Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli who nearly completed the whole codification of the Eastern canons. Ten of 24 titles were promulgated by Pope Pius XII (1939-1958). The remaining 14 titles were held for later promulgation.

Correction: Whatever Pacelli may have done, whether under the guise of Secretary of State or that of Pius XII, it was Pietro Cardinal Gasparri (Secretary of State under Pius XI until 1932, when he retired) who did the work.

It’s interesting to note that much of what is now the CCEO was plagiarized from Gasparri. And I have it on unimpeachable authority that some other parts of Gasparri’s work were suppressed by his successor as Secretary of State as having been too “friendly” (for lack of a better term) to the East/Orient.

 

[lssanjose]

Correction: Whatever Pacelli may have done, whether under the guise of Secretary of State or that of Pius XII, it was Pietro Cardinal Gasparri (Secretary of State under Pius XI until 1932, when he retired) who did the work.

It’s interesting to note that much of what is now the CCEO was plagiarized from Gasparri. And I have it on unimpeachable authority that some other parts of Gasparri’s work were suppressed by his successor as Secretary of State as having been too “friendly” (for lack of a better term) to the East/Orient.

Plot thickens…?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

Correction: Whatever Pacelli may have done, whether under the guise of Secretary of State or that of Pius XII, it was Pietro Cardinal Gasparri (Secretary of State under Pius XI until 1932, when he retired) who did the work.

It’s interesting to note that much of what is now the CCEO was plagiarized from Gasparri. And I have it on unimpeachable authority that some other parts of Gasparri’s work were suppressed by his successor as Secretary of State as having been too “friendly” (for lack of a better term) to the East/Orient.

I think I agree with your assessment.

On the other hand, it should be noted that the work of the Commission until the early 1950’s was merely the collection and translation of the Eastern/Oriental Catholic canon law sources.

From 1955 until the present, the Presidents of the Commission were all non-Latin Catholics.

I read an article about a month ago from the Canon Law Society that if it wasn’t for the influence of
a certain Jesuit of the Latin Church, the CCEO would be much more “Latin” than it is now. I’ll try to dig it up if I have time (and if I remember )

At this point, I feel obliged to repeat some statements on the matter as I’ve expressed in the past on this issue of papal involvement in the CCEO:
(1) Just because the Pope promulgates something with his personal authority does not mean that it was created and formulated without collegial authority.

(2) The seeds for the formulation and codification of the CCEO began at V1, according to the concerns of the Chaldean Patriarch that there should be a separate Code for non-Latin Churches. In his words, “Perhaps the illustrious consultors thought that there is little or no difference between the laws, customs, rites of the two Churches. But in reality they differ as far as the rising of the sun is from its setting…the Orientals are so tenacious of their ancient discipline that even small things cannot be changed without tumult and scandals and danger to souls…as the practical solution…compose a corpus of canon law for the Eastern Churches, combining these canons with the old canons and constitutins of those Churches, this new code to be submitted for approval to the Council.” The Eastern Code was not set up unilaterally by the Pope, as some mistakenly like to pretend.

(3) There are many places in the CCEO that are open-ended (to use brother ConstantineTG’s expression), and gives way to the particular law of local Churches.

(4) Though I wish that certain new canons regarding papal involvement would be removed, I recognize at the same time their necessity since the Churches are in a constant state of emergency (so-to-speak) being in a state of schism. I do believe that in such times, the unifiying authority of the Church should be more evident in the use of that authority for that purpose. I do recognize humbly that the matters in which I personally wish papal involvement would cease (Liturgy and episcopal elections) are precisely those matters that the world that does not know Christ will immediately look for as signs of a “united” Church.

(5) I do have a hope that when the Churches are finally united, such certain canons will in fact be erased from the memory of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Correction: Whatever Pacelli may have done, whether under the guise of Secretary of State or that of Pius XII, it was Pietro Cardinal Gasparri (Secretary of State under Pius XI until 1932, when he retired) who did the work.

It’s interesting to note that much of what is now the CCEO was plagiarized from Gasparri. And I have it on unimpeachable authority that some other parts of Gasparri’s work were suppressed by his successor as Secretary of State as having been too “friendly” (for lack of a better term) to the East/Orient.

Everything is subject to final review and approval!

The 1917 code was codified from a collection of prior documents and formed the base for the 1983 and 1990 codes, although there are a great number of differences in the CCEO compared to the CIC. The 1917 code.

The cast for the Pio-Benedictine Code, Gaspari and 24 others shown:

canonlaw.info/canonlaw_menbehindman.htm

But the Body of Canon Law existed long before Gaspari who was commissioned to reduce it.

 

[mardukm]

It’s interesting to note that much of what is now the CCEO was plagiarized from Gasparri. And I have it on unimpeachable authority that some other parts of Gasparri’s work were suppressed by his successor as Secretary of State as having been too “friendly” (for lack of a better term) to the East/Orient.

Do you have any specifics on “Gasparri’s work”? What exactly do you mean? Did he make some commentaries that were suppressed, or was it certain canons that were suppressed (I can understand for example if certain anti-Latin and anti-Armenian canons from Trullo were “suppressed”).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Bookcat]

First post here, so hello

Canon 43 of the CCEO: “Canon 43 - The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.”

This doesn’t look like something composed by Easterners to me. I mean, even the name of the Eastern Canon rule book, Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, is Latin.

Yes such is the Faith of the Catholic Church.

Is this something that Eastern Orthodox are not in full complete agreement with? Such is yes known to be the case.

That is indeed on of the things that sadly keep us from full communion from our Orthodox Brothers and Sisters.

And while there were invited and there where present observers from the Eastern Orthodox Churches who provided even collaboration --this is the Code of the Eastern Catholic Churches not Eastern Orthodox Canons. So it will not reflect Eastern Orthodox views here.

May we all be one day in full communion!

 

[TrueLight]

Very good question.

Personally, I find the CCEO to be mainly a bad Roman joke (despite the decree of promulgation and its reference to all those true Easterners and Orientals who wrote it – yeah, right ). Nonetheless, and my personal thoughts notwithstanding, it is the “law of the land” so-to-speak. It’s interesting, though, that as much as I dislike it, (not to mention bristle at what it represents), it does have its practical uses. For example, it gives a frame of reference for the myriad and sundry ways that Rome can interfere with matters that really are none of its concern.

Somehow I have the feeling that this forum was created to celebrate and explore Eastern Catholicism, but every time I come here, this is what I find:

• Resentful Eastern Catholics
• Eastern Catholics who want to be Orthodox
• Roman and Eastern Catholics who use this as a forum to bash the Roman Catholic Church

This is so disappointing.

Kudos to the EC’s who try to keep things positive and to the Orthodox who share their opinions/theology/practices respectfully.

 

[TrueLight]

I apologize for my post. I shouldn’t let frustration get to me.

You know what they say, “If you can’t handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen.”

 

[ByzCathCantor]

This is so disappointing.

TL - not to defend blindly or simply for the sake (and I do hope Malphono replies as well), I share that it is challenging to be both Eastern and Catholic, yet those of us who do manage to embrace and experience the joy in both are truly blessed (e.g. seeing the Pope in Lebanon bless the faithful with a three-bar cross, looking rather natural at it). Yet, there are still some painful aspects of that existence, and they do point to a history replete with occasions of sadness.

FWIW I do believe it was Blessed Pope John Paul II’s intent and fervent hope that the CCEO promulgated in his Papacy (1990) would create a foundation for the health and preservation of the venerable traditions of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which he so fervently extolled throughout his Papacy in so many ways.

As relates to governance (properly noted by Vico earlier), balance was to be struck in the formalization of the “sui juris” Church conceptualization. While “sui juris” does not mean “autonomous” in the Orthodox ecclesiastical sense, it does mean that the Eastern Catholic Churches should be free, as permitted by the CCEO and as relates to matters of liturgy and discipline, in particular, be able to “self-govern”. Even in this modern and more enlightened age in the Church and in the maturing of the Catholic Communion, this simply has not always been the case. Until it is, there will continue to be this tension within the Catholic Communion, palable to all - Catholics and Orthodox alike - and it really needs to be settled once and for all.

That said, there has been a disturbing trend here of late to which you allude, with comments from some on the EC side that speak less politely (and in some cases, inaccurately) of these conditions. That errodes credibility and takes away from the opportunity to foster common understanding and mutual appreciation of those circumstances that should, indeed, be a goal of exchange here among us.

 

[TrueLight]

TL - not to defend blindly or simply for the sake (and I do hope Malphono replies as well), I share that it is challenging to be both Eastern and Catholic, yet those of us who do manage to experience the joy in both are truly blessed. Yet, there are still some painful aspects of that existence, and they do point to a history replete with occasions of sadness.

FWIW I do believe it was Blessed Pope John Paul II’s intent and fervent hope that the CCEO promulgated in his Papacy (1990) would create a foundation for the health and preservation of the venerable traditions of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which he so fervently extolled throughout his Papacy in so many ways.

As relates to governance (properly noted by Vico earlier), balance was to be struck in the formalization of the “sui juris” Church conceptualization. While “sui juris” does not mean “autonomous” in the Orthodox ecclesiastical sense, it does mean that the Eastern Catholic Churches should be free, as permitted by the CCEO and as relates to matters of liturgy and discipline, in particular, be able to “self-govern”. Even in this modern and more enlightened age in the Church and in the maturing of the Catholic Communion, this simply has not always been the case. Until it is, there will continue to be this tension within the Catholic Communion, palable to all - Catholics and Orthodox alike - and it really needs to be settled once and for all.

That said, there has been a disturbing trend here of late to which you allude, with comments from some on the EC side that speak less politely (and in some cases, inaccurately) of these conditions. That errodes credibility and takes away from the opportunity to foster common understanding and mutual appreciation of those circumstances that should, indeed, be a goal of exchange here among us.

Thank you for taking the time to clarify.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Somehow I have the feeling that this forum was created to celebrate and explore Eastern Catholicism, but every time I come here, this is what I find:

• Resentful Eastern Catholics
• Eastern Catholics who want to be Orthodox
• Roman and Eastern Catholics who use this as a forum to bash the Roman Catholic Church

This is so disappointing.

Kudos to the EC’s who try to keep things positive and to the Orthodox who share their opinions/theology/practices respectfully.

We party like its 1054

 

[lssanjose]

We party like its 1054

Wonder what parties were like, then

 

[ConstantineTG]

Wonder what parties were like, then

I heard instead of gifts, anathemas were exchanged back then.

 

[tdgesq]

If you want to talk specifics on this particular subject, and you do feel that the CCEO is fairly portrayed as a work of the Eastern / Oriental Churches themselves, perhaps you could explain and validate as Eastern desires:

ByzCath,

There is an enormous difference between the proposition that the entire CCEO is a peculiar Roman imposition and the proposition that some particular canons do not accurately reflect Eastern Tradition in interpretation as well as in fact. I would agree that the treatment of ordination of married men in the ECCs, particularly in the United States, cannot be what was anticipated by ECs, especially considering the language of canon 769. Major Archiepiscopates as a term may not be of ancient origin, but conferring the pallium is; and CCEO 151,152 do not make major distinctions between it and the patriarchal churches. I fail to see the significance of similarities between the CIC and the CCEO unless they intrude on authentic eastern tradition. I would expect there to be some similarities.

The point being: I agree with you that the faithfulness of particular canons to tradition can be debated - just as they are frequently in the western Church. That doesn’t equate to the CCEO being a Roman joke.

I find it remarkable that the Latins maintain that the CCOE is Eastern while the Eastern Catholics maintain that it is not. Hilarious!

I find it very discouraging. I have not seen this kind of reaction from any bishop of the Churches sui iuris, although there have been disputes (some of them well founded in my opinion) over certain provisions of the CCEO.

The Presidents of the Commission for Redacting the «Code of Eastern Canon Law» first established in 1935, were:.

This all looks correct to me. It should be noted that post-1972 the Commission for the Revision of the CCEO was under the presidency of Joseph Parecattil of the Syro-Malabar Church, up until three years before its approval. The job of the commission was to revise both the promulgated and unpromulgated text up to that point. The commission published its work in a 31 issue periodical throughout that time. New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law

JPII did indicate that:

The constitution and form of the established Pontifical Commission for the
Revision of the «Code of Eastern Canon Law», coming in mid-1972,
safeguarded its Eastern character since it consisted of a multiplicity of
Churches, with the Eastern patriarchs being in the very first place. The work
of the commission kept in sight the exceptional collegial aspect. For the
formulation of the canons, gradually worked out by groups of experts chosen
from all the Churches, was sent to all the bishops of the Eastern Catholic
Churches before anyone else, so that their opinions could be given collegially
insofar as possible. Apostolic Constitution Sacri Canones John Paul II 1990

 

[ConstantineTG]

Kudos to the EC’s who try to keep things positive and to the Orthodox who share their opinions/theology/practices respectfully.

And kudos to the Latins who are respectful, humble to admit when they actually do not know anything about the East, and are willing to listen and learn what is actually the truth about the East.

 

[Vico]

TL - not to defend blindly or simply for the sake (and I do hope Malphono replies as well), I share that it is challenging to be both Eastern and Catholic, yet those of us who do manage to embrace and experience the joy in both are truly blessed (e.g. seeing the Pope in Lebanon bless the faithful with a three-bar cross, looking rather natural at it). Yet, there are still some painful aspects of that existence, and they do point to a history replete with occasions of sadness.

FWIW I do believe it was Blessed Pope John Paul II’s intent and fervent hope that the CCEO promulgated in his Papacy (1990) would create a foundation for the health and preservation of the venerable traditions of the Eastern Catholic Churches, which he so fervently extolled throughout his Papacy in so many ways.

As relates to governance (properly noted by Vico earlier), balance was to be struck in the formalization of the “sui juris” Church conceptualization. While “sui juris” does not mean “autonomous” in the Orthodox ecclesiastical sense, it does mean that the Eastern Catholic Churches should be free, as permitted by the CCEO and as relates to matters of liturgy and discipline, in particular, be able to “self-govern”. Even in this modern and more enlightened age in the Church and in the maturing of the Catholic Communion, this simply has not always been the case. Until it is, there will continue to be this tension within the Catholic Communion, palable to all - Catholics and Orthodox alike - and it really needs to be settled once and for all.

That said, there has been a disturbing trend here of late to which you allude, with comments from some on the EC side that speak less politely (and in some cases, inaccurately) of these conditions. That errodes credibility and takes away from the opportunity to foster common understanding and mutual appreciation of those circumstances that should, indeed, be a goal of exchange here among us.

He continued the work of Pope Benedict XIV and Pope Leo XIII:

“Inasmuch as the following protocols have seemed proper to ordain and sanction in Our Lord, by Our Apostolic Authority We do declare now that it is Our will and decree that the aforesaid decree of Benedict XIV originally promulgated respecting the Greek Melkites, now apply globally to all the faithful of any Eastern rite whatever.”

*ORIENTALIUM DIGNITAS, *On the Churches of the East, by Pope Leo XII, November 30, 1894.

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13orient.htm

 

[malphono]

Do you have any specifics on “Gasparri’s work”? What exactly do you mean? Did he make some commentaries that were suppressed, or was it certain canons that were suppressed (I can understand for example if certain anti-Latin and anti-Armenian canons from Trullo were “suppressed”).

For a variety of reasons I cannot provide “specifics” as such, but I’m not aware that Gasparri intended to include any “anti-Latin” canons or other such things. I really can’t imagine him doing anything quite like that.

In any case, the bulk of the work in codifying a “CCEO” (or whatever title was initially envisioned) was done by Gasparri and his crew. There was indeed commentary, much in Gasparri’s own hand, and as it was explained to me, a lot of it was hidden away (“buried” is perhaps a better term) in the archives after his retirement which, of course, means it was effectively suppressed.

Also, the code itself was basically completed and nearly ready for promulgation by 1932 but, with Gasparri’s exit, it was more-or-less shelved by his successor at State. By all accounts I’ve heard, the code as it was then, (in something of a “final draft” version), was actually “friendlier” to the East and Orient than what appeared some 60 years later.

 

[malphono]

Everything is subject to final review and approval!

The 1917 code was codified from a collection of prior documents and formed the base for the 1983 and 1990 codes, although there are a great number of differences in the CCEO compared to the CIC. The 1917 code. …

But the Body of Canon Law existed long before Gaspari who was commissioned to reduce it.

Yes, I know.