Code 1983 vs. Code 1917


#1

Code of Canon Law 1983 says:

Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.

§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

Now, 1917 Code says:

Canon 731 §2,
It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church.

How do we reconcile the two? Or am I really confused? 1983 Code is saying that members who are not in “Full communion” can recieve the sacraments in these circumstances. But 1917 Code seems to disagree. I guess the question is, “If a church is ‘not in full communion’ does that mean they are schismatic/heretical?” Thanks in advance!


#2

That’s an easy one. Whenever it’s 1917 vs. 1983, 1983 ALWAYS wins.

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

the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

John


#3

Cassman,

Have you been reading Mario Derksen lately? I ask because he recently raised the same issue.

The 1983 Code says that they must exhibit Catholic faith in the sacrament. This would appear to involve rejecting their errors and so does not contradict 1917.
Peace,
Ryan


#4

[quote=cassman]How do we reconcile the two?
[/quote]

They are not reconciled as such. The 1983 code is currently in force; the 1917 code no longer has the force of Church law.

Canon 6 §1 1°of the 1983 code makes this explicit:

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

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

2° other laws, whether universal or particular, which are contrary to the provisions of this Code, unless it is otherwise expressly provided in respect of particular laws;

3° all penal laws enacted by the Apostolic See, whether universal or particular, unless they are resumed in this Code itself;

4° any other universal disciplinary laws concerning matters which are integrally reordered by this Code.

§2 To the extent that the canons of this Code reproduce the former law, they are to be assessed in the light also of canonical tradition.


#5

[quote=ServusChristi]Cassman,

Have you been reading Mario Derksen lately? I ask because he recently raised the same issue.

[/quote]

Yes, and now I have a headache.


#6

John and Catholic2003,

Thanks for that basic point. So 1983 trumps 1917 when in conflict. What if an issue is not raised up in 1983 that was in 1917? Do we have to continue to follow 1917? Thanks in advance!

Also, is 1917 Code the first of it’s kind? Did it replace a previous teaching document?


#7

What does the phrase “reconciled with the Church” mean? What does one do to be reconciled with the Church other than Baptism (if not already baptized), Penance and Communion? Is there a ceremony that is performed?


#8

[quote=cassman]Yes, and now I have a headache.
[/quote]

My advice to you is to break all contact with Mario Derksen and stop reading his material. I used to read his stuff and he has done some good work, but I immediately axed his page from my favorites when I found out he had gone sedevacantist.

He is treading in very dangerous waters.


#9

The 1983 code was written that way because someone, who is about to die, can realize their errors and repent. There is no time to call the bishop or hold a conference. The decision was made to allow communion, if the person was ‘faking it’, that person will be dealing with God shortly and we should not worry about that. It will be between him and God.


#10

[quote=cassman]What if an issue is not raised up in 1983 that was in 1917? Do we have to continue to follow 1917?
[/quote]

No, we only follow the 1983 code today. Anything mentioned in the 1917 code that is not mentioned in the 1983 code has been removed from Church law. For example, the 1917 code had two kinds of excommunicated persons, vitandi (shunned) and tolerati (tolerated). The 1983 code makes no such distinction, so this distinction has thereby been removed from Church law, and there is only one category of excommunication today.

The only time 1917 canon law is still applicable is when the 1983 code says basically the same thing that the 1917 code did. In this case, all the prior rules of interpretation pertaining to that item remain in force for the 1983 code as well.

[quote=cassman]Also, is 1917 Code the first of it’s kind? Did it replace a previous teaching document?
[/quote]

The 1917 code was the first codification of canon law. Prior to that, canon law was found in the proclamations of the various councils and popes, and it was very hard to get a handle on what the applicable canon law rules were, much less how to apply them to a new situation. When the 1917 code came into force in 1918, all these prior rules were abrograted, just as the 1983 code abrogated the 1917 code.


#11

Thanks to all for the great responses! They help.


#12

Cassman,

I suggest you go to:
lidless-eye.blogspot.com

Mario has been refuted many times


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.