www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Value of Canon Law

In order to understand what is being said by the above quote, we need to know how matters that are immutable and infallible are determined. What distinguishes such a matter from a those that are NOT immutable and infallible?

Personally, while I can see the truth in saying that something that repeats what is known to be infallible, is itself infallible, I think this has to do with the nature of the subject matter and NOT with the nature of Canon law.

Canon law is by nature fallible and mutable, which is why it can and needs to be changed from time to time.

I am surprised that this perspective is called "cavalier". I cannot envision Canon law working any other way. Canon law is not Divine Revelation. At best it is exposition of Divine Revelation and often, perhaps even usually, does not even attain that.

I am sorry if the rejection of the Primacy of Rome offends, but that is the position of many on this forum. One should not be surprised or "astounded" at it.

It seems strange to me that Rome makes up rules at will and attaches penalties to them that are equal to violations of the moral law as Divinely revealed.

It is beyond me how something can be true yesterday (mortal sin for attending a Protestant worship service, for example) and NOT true today. How can a regulation, imposed by the Church and which she is free to change at will, carry with GOD the same weight as something HE has explicitly forbidden such as adultery or murder?

I don't for one second believe the spin that in the illustration I gave the "real" sin was disobedience. If that's true for THAT it's true for ALL mortal sins across the board. I am not about to admit that the only thing wrong with adultery is that God said don't do it and therefore it is merely a sin of disobedience. Such a sin is inherently evil and is both sin in itself as well as disobedience. No, attending Protestant worship services has never mattered much to God and the Catholic Church finally figured this out and changed it's mind.

So it is with all canon law. It is wrong to call it immutable. It is not inspired. If that were true it would be on the same par as Holy Scripture itself and then one is opening up a whole new can of worms and must answer the charge of "new public revelation", something the Church explicitly rejects.

Something all closet Canon Lawyers should remember is that Canon Law is not like secular law. The rule of Law is not the focus of the Canon, they are always focused on the good of the Faith.

Interesting Wikipedia article on Canon Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law

God bless,

Gordo

As the Angelic Doctor himself said when asked to arbitrate a difference of interpretation of canon law of his time - "The highest law is the salvation of the soul" and he walked away.

The temporal must always yield to and be at the service of the eternal. And an unjust law - even from the Pope of Rome - should not be obeyed. (Like when the Pope tried to impose Latin fasting rules on the Maronites, and he was effectively inored. Or when the Jesuits were unjustly suppressed everywhere but Russia..."Supression? What does dis suppression mean? Is outrage!")

God bless,

Gordo

The value of canon law? Well . . . one sometimes needs a good-sized book to hold up the desk if the regular leg of the desk is broken.

Fr. Serge

ROFL

And here I thought Canon Law was where you stacked up the law books and fired Cannons at them.

No, you have that backwards. Canon Law is primarily the Law of Gravity, which tells you where the canon ball lands

hawk

RomanRedneck, I have no difference with what you state in your first two paragraphs; that's what I was saying (or attempting to say) in the quote block of mine that is posted as the thread topic.

Papal primacy, or to be precisely specific, papal universal jurisdictional supremacy, as well as papal infallibility, are indeed immutable and infallible teachings of the Catholic faith. When Catholics are attacking these teachings, I would respectfully suggest that astonishment, while perhaps a bit naive, is a proper response to the open willingness of any Catholics to defy immutable teachings of their faith.

The fact that canon law is subject to change, let us say, in non-immutable matters, does not mean that it does not enjoy an authority of a provisional nature that should be recognized. I would think the analogy is somewhat similar, though not exact, to the dichotomy of constitutional versus statutory law in our society. The fact that the speed limit is not in the U.S. Constitution and can be changed doesn't mean you aren't called upon to follow what it is at any given time.

The fact that I have now witnessed in my time as a Byzantine Catholic a number of Byzantine Catholic priests openly exhibit an evident lack of regard for their own canon law, including most especially in the area of theological immutables, poses a siginficant challenge to the Church Universal.

Also, Gordo, I must take issue with your apparent claims regarding the rightful prerogatives of the Holy See. My understanding is that the Pope of Rome, as the Vicar of Christ, has full, jurisdictional authority over the Church Universal. That includes Eastern disciplines, should he choose to involve himself in such matters. While I can agree, prudentially speaking, that such involvement should probably best be minimized, my understanding is that it does fall within his pontifical authority. The fact that previous pontificates have chosen to involve themselves more in such matters that our recent post-Second Vatican Council ones have does not mean they were doing anything wrong. I don't think disobedient Maronites qualify as ecclesiastical Martin Luther Kings.

Best to all,
Robster

Robster,

An unjust law binds no one. Were a Pope to intervene and impose Latin disciplines on an Eastern Church, he would be acting unjustly. This was the case with the Maronites who justly ignored the Pope's attempt to force them to conform to Latin Church fasting practices. He superceded his charge of "strengthening the bretheren" and instead sought to "supercede and undermine the bretheren" in an area that was justly their own to shepherd. His actions therefore offended charity. That does not make the Maronites "disobedient subjects". But it does make the Pope in that particular case an unjust "ruler".

God bless,

Gordo

Robster,

As with all people in general, you are entitled to your opinion. Everyone else, in turn, is entitled to theirs.

It is impossible that even two people can absolutely agree on any single thing exactly as either of them conceives an idea. This is simply the nature of finite existence. We are not God, and cannot know as God knows. We can only assent to what we THINK is said as all information that comes to us is subject to our own personal understanding.

This is the basis for my rejection of the Roman Catholic notion of infallibility. Even if it is true that the Pope can and does speak infallibly, nobody but the Pope himself and God can know with absolute certainty what his infallible pronouncement means. Thus infallibility is of little practical use.

When we assert that something in particular is an infallible statement we necessarily imply that our understanding of that statement is the correct one...and thus infallible. I suppose it is possible to say that such and such a statement in it's given form is said to be infallible if one does not change the words. But this begs the question...Does God speak in Latin? Any translation from a latin pronouncement involves the subjective opinion of the translator...thus there is integrity lost in translation...even if the general meaning is retained.

I know I am nit-picking over minutia but when any entity claims to speak for God in an infallible way, such a claim must stand up to even the most minute scrutiny. I do not believe that such an entity should be taken at face value. Otherwise we would be running after every prophet that graces the late night tv screen.

In my opinion, which probably isn't worth very much, you seem to have pretty much missed the point of Canon law. Law, any law, is not the measure of right and wrong and the violation of law may or may not be a sin. The only standard of sin is the character of God himself. As Holy Scripture tells us the law is for evil doers...to convict them of evil. It is not for the righteous who have no need of law but are in conformity to the "Law of God", His Holy Character according to the inward man or the heart.

Canon law is not equal in any sense to the Law of God. If it had been provided by Divine Revelation, then that would be different. But it is not. Public Divine Revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle. Any rule or regulation the Church has seen fit to enact after that point is mutable and fallible and by it's very nature CANNOT be absolutely binding. Only Divine Revelation is absolutely binding. It is true that it is the job of the Church to exposit, explain and preach the content of Revelation but it cannot add to it nor can it take away. It is the duty of the Church to proclaim the "whole counsel of God". It is not, nor has it ever been the duty or even in the power of the Church to bind men's consciences, on pain of damnation, to anything not revealed by God.

In order to bolster itself, sometimes the Church has proclaimed things to be Divine revelation that are not. At other times it has ceased to proclaim things that ARE Divine revelation. Sometimes this has been due to mistakes or misinterpretation of Scripture and Holy Tradition. Other times it has been presumption or flat out desire for power.

Both East and West teach that there is an infallible character to the Church. With this I have no dispute. However, the proper understanding of this character is such that it never produces anything that is not found in the initial deposit of Faith. It may elaborate, apply or otherwise propound, but it cannot redefine or create.

To return to the beginning, all I have said here, is my own opinion. Perhaps no one will agree with it one iota. It doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether ones inner being is conformed and conforming to the Holy Character of God.

Jason