MYTH BUSTING: attending other churches

[on_the_hill]

Hello Running Dude.

No it hasn’t been “repealed.” That doesn’t happen. Every bit of Church law is not contained in one place. The Church’s laws are many and come from many sources. Taken together they make the whole body of laws. When new Codes are promulgated, if something isn’t specifically mentioned then the old Canons are still in force. If the Church felt the need to revise it, then the new set of Canons would contain the revised Canons and you’d see them. Read up on it.

Glenda

Give me a citation and I will. First of all, it is impossible for the Code of 1917 to disagree with the Code of 1983. By definition, when a code supplants an older code, the older code is abrogated. It doesn’t matter where the old code is located, whether it’s all in one place or scattered. And you don’t have to specifically cite the code they you’re deleting . You can simply state, “This is the new law about attending other services. Any previous laws about attending other services are invalid.” Period. End of story.

For example: if Pennsylvania raises the speed limit to 70mph you can’t go to an old law book that states the speed limit is 55mph and give tickets to everyone who’s driving 70. The old law is invalid. The new law doesn’t have to reference the old law in order for that to happen.

 

[runningdude]

Hello Running Dude.

No it hasn’t been “repealed.” That doesn’t happen. Every bit of Church law is not contained in one place. The Church’s laws are many and come from many sources. Taken together they make the whole body of laws. When new Codes are promulgated, if something isn’t specifically mentioned then the old Canons are still in force. If the Church felt the need to revise it, then the new set of Canons would contain the revised Canons and you’d see them. Read up on it.

Glenda

1983 Code of Canon Law:

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

1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2/ other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;

3/ any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;

4/ other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.

§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2.HTM

The entire body of law has been repealed. It cannot be assumed to remain in force.

Parts that were copied verbatim retain their traditional interpretations, but parts that were not copied or otherwise addressed simply cannot retain their force.

 

[glendab]

Hello ON The Hill.

Give me a citation and I will. First of all, it is impossible for the Code of 1917 to disagree with the Code of 1983. By definition, when a code supplants an older code, the older code is abrogated. It doesn’t matter where the old code is located, whether it’s all in one place or scattered. And you don’t have to specifically cite the code they you’re deleting . You can simply state, “This is the new law about attending other services. Any previous laws about attending other services are invalid.” Period. End of story.

For example: if Pennsylvania raises the speed limit to 70mph you can’t go to an old law book that states the speed limit is 55mph and give tickets to everyone who’s driving 70. The old law is invalid. The new law doesn’t have to reference the old law in order for that to happen.

Not all the Church’s laws are in the Code of Canons of 1983. For instance, an Acta Apostolica Sedes. It is binding as Law yet whatever it states isn’t in the Code of 1983. Would you claim that the Code nullifies anything not in it specifically?

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Running Dude.

The** entire body of law **has been repealed. It cannot be assumed to remain in force.

Parts that were copied verbatim retain their traditional interpretations, but parts that were not copied or otherwise addressed simply cannot retain their force.

No. I bolded what you are trying to imply. Your inclusion of all other Church laws is incorrect. If it were, the Holy Father wouldn’t be able to make any laws binding unless their equivalent were found in the current code. There are other laws in the Church. If things are not listed as you say, verbatim, you’re saying they are no longer binding? So, if the Pope himself tells the Mafia in a speech they are excommunicated, they could say as you did, it isn’t in the current code verbatim, therefore the Pope is wrong. Guess what? he’s right. Their excommunicated, whether in writing or by Pope Francis’ word. You’re wrong.

Glenda

 

[on_the_hill]

Hello ON The Hill.

Not all the Church’s laws are in the Code of Canons of 1983. For instance, an Acta Apostolica Sedes. It is binding as Law yet whatever it states isn’t in the Code of 1983. Would you claim that the Code nullifies anything not in it specifically?

Glenda

If a law *was *in the Code of 1917, it is now invalid. If a law was stated in the code of 1917 and somewhere else, the code of 1983 has to take precedence. The whole purpose of codification is to organize a body of laws so that cross-purposes, redundancies, etc. are avoided.

Can. 20 A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

 

[Rau]

… If invited to participate in a wedding in a Protestant place, I would respectfully decline, no matter who it is. I’ve already declined one Protestant wedding in my immediate family and will do so again if it happens. I cannot do it. I don’t want to.

Glenda

Fine, but can we be clear that you act out of your personal choice, and not in obedience to any applicable Church dictate.

 

[Rau]

Glenda, the quote from the 1983 Canon Law given here forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12197289&postcount=81 looks to be pretty conclusive. You cannot claim a law to exist by virtue of its inclusion in the 1917 code.

 

[runningdude]

I believe you are right about 1917. Women didn’t have the right to vote or own property. …and African-American were not considered a whole person.

Things have changed. …

Women could always own property in the United States…

 

[runningdude]

Hello Running Dude.

No. I bolded what you are trying to imply. Your inclusion of all other Church laws is incorrect.

I did not “include” all other laws; I quoted verbatim the passage that repealed by name the Code of 1917, and stated that only those passages from the old Code that were included in the new code continue to apply.

THUS, your assertion that the ban on attending non-Catholic worship found in the 1917 Code still applies is ABSURD. You have repeated this explicit ban over and over again, and yet, IT NO LONGER APPLIES.

Now you vaguely assert that some “other” universal law prohibits all attendance at non-Catholic worship. Yet, YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO QUOTE WHAT LAW THIS IS.

In fact, you repeatedly try to disprove my claim that the church does not prohibit all attendance by quoting sources, that AGREE EXACTLY with my position that the church allows attendance when their is sufficient reason to attend.

I do not understand what your argument is anymore. You have contradicted yourself so many times, and fluidly changed the scope of your argument that it is impossible to follow or address your argument anymore. The inability to disprove a poorly constructed argument does not prove the argument.

If it were, the Holy Father wouldn’t be able to make any laws binding unless their equivalent were found in the current code. There are other laws in the Church. If things are not listed as you say, verbatim, you’re saying they are no longer binding? So, if the Pope himself tells the Mafia in a speech they are excommunicated, they could say as you did, it isn’t in the current code verbatim, therefore the Pope is wrong. Guess what? he’s right. Their excommunicated, whether in writing or by Pope Francis’ word. You’re wrong.

Glenda

Again, your argument is so fluid, that you bring up irrelevant points.

The Pope did not “excommunicate” the “Mafia”. It is simply beyond even his unbounded authority to direct a penalty as serious as excommunication at a fluid group such as all of organized crime in Italy and elsewhere.

No, the Pope only issued a deliberately hyperbolic statement, clarifying that belonging to organize crime is contrary to being a faithful Catholic. He used deliberately strong language to informally compel their assent.

However, unless the Pope issued complementary norms for exactly what actions would incur this penalty, either through a church tribunal or latae sentencae, and more importantly, norms for for lifting this excommunication, such as reserving it to the bishops, or even to himself, then we cannot assume a formal excommunication penalty has been enacted.

The