F
FrDavid96
Guest
Yep. Same thing.Hello,
I concur. Practically, the bishop (…the “office for canonical services” or whatever) is there to be a resource, helping all to know, understand and observe the universal law. I consider this to be a role identified in c. 391-392, not c. 16. So, I would (continue to) make a distinction between that role and the role of “authentic interpretation.” A bishop has no authority to “authentically interpret” the Code of Canon Law since he is not “the legislator” of it.
I think it also may be helpful to note that the way I understand “authentic” in this context (and the way I was taught to understand it) is that it means “authoritative” and not “genuine.” A bishop can certainly make a genuine or true or accurate interpretation of the Code but it is not authoritative and that’s what c. 16 is about: authoritative interpretation.
Diocesan law is a different matter, since the bishop does have the authority to authentically interpret it.
Dan
When I say that the bishop interprets the Code of Canon Law (CIC) I mean that specifically in contrast to the idea that he is the author of the CIC or that he can modify the CIC.
His interpretation would not be an “authentic interpretation” as defined in c. 16.
I’m mentioning that only because a lot of readers here might think “what? his interpretation isn’t authentic?” and come away with a false impression. We both mean “authentic interpretation” as a very specific term as it’s used in canon law.