Rules for Being (and Staying) Roman
. . . or
A Quick Outline of Canon Law and Excommunication – What & Why
There has recently been a widely-publicized case where the Roman Catholic Archbishop of St. Louis MO, USA made a public statement about 3 women having excommunicated themselves “laete sententiae” as the result of one of them “ordaining” the other two to the Catholic Priesthood. In his Edict:
http://www.archstl.org/images/stories/pdfs/03-12-08-delcaration_fresen-hudson-mcgrath.pdf
. . . Archbishop Burke also excommunicates them very specifically by his own authority. If you look closely at the text, you find lots of numbers, some with the word “canon” or “cann” attached – these are citations from the 1983 Roman Catholic Codex of Canon Law:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
Canon Law is a deep, dark mystery to most people – and Canon Lawyers want to keep it that way, to protect their incomes. But like any body of modern (19th Century and later) legislation, it is an attempt at providing a consistent framework for a large and diverse organization.
Pope John Paul II, in his letter promulgating the 1983 Roman Code of Canon Law said (among other things):
"As a matter of fact, the Code of Canon Law is extremely necessary for the Church. Since the Church is organized as a social and visible structure, it must also have norms: in order that its hierarchical and organic structure be visible; in order that the exercise of the functions divinely entrusted to it, especially that of sacred power and of the administration of the sacraments, may be adequately organized; in order that the mutual relations of the faithful may be regulated according to justice based upon charity, with the rights of individuals guaranteed and well-defined; in order, finally, that common initiatives undertaken to live a Christian life ever more perfectly may be sustained, strengthened and fostered by canonical norms."
Formalized procedures and laws are not as necessary for small groups, but as the Church grew from the 12 Apostles and some few hundred disciples at Pentecost into the millions in the succeeding centuries, there grew up a collection of rules and regulations, partly from the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, partly from decisions of Synods, and partly from the work of individual Patriarchs and Bishops.
Up until 1917, Roman Canon Law consisted of the opinions of Canon Lawyers, who drew from the entire 1900-odd year history of Church legislation to frame their briefs. In 1917, Pope Benedict XV promulgated a new, definitive collection of Canon Laws. In 1959, Pope John XXIII announced, on the same day that he convoked Vatican II, that a new version of Roman Canon Law would be formulated -- which is the Code promulgated by JP II in 1983 and in force today. Canon Lawyers still refer to the 1917 Code, and indeed to the writings of other Lawyers before that, when they are interpreting various parts if the 1983 Code, but where there is a conflict, the 1983 Code takes precedence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law_(Catholic_Church)
Beginning about 600 A.D., and especially after the election of Pius IX in 1846, Rome increasingly defined itself and the Pope as supreme over all the Church. For the extremely detailed list of what this means, see the 1983 Code of Canon Law: Book II, Part II, Section I, Chapter I, Article I: The Roman Pontiff, consisting of Canons 331 to 335:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P16.HTM
Translating again from the Vaticanese, it says: The Pope is the Boss, and what he says goes. The Code of Canon Law was issued on the sole authority of the Pope alone.
Note that I am _NOT_ saying that the 1983 Code was created whole hog & de novo by JP II -- but Canons 331 to 335 clearly say he _COULD_.
Put another way, you play by the Pope's rules, or you are simply not a Roman Catholic. Period. No wiggle, no "interpretation".
_OLD_ Catholics, however, along with the Orthodox, decline to accept this Imperial vision of the Papacy, adhering instead to the terms of Canon II of the Second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 381 A.D.:
"CANON II.
THE bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nicea, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese (Asia Minor, modern Turkey) administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic (area near the Black Sea) bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops
go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nicea. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers."
It was upon this principle that the Archdiocese of Utrecht and the Netherlands became separated from the Roman Communion in the mid-1700s. Specifically, for political reasons (with Jesuits lurking in the wings), Rome wanted to impose a German bishop on the Netherlands. When Utrecht refused him, and the Dutch (Calvinist) Government (with loud laughter) refused to become involved, Rome abandoned the Netherlands until 1853, when they sent in Jesuits to establish NEW parishes and Dioceses, ignoring the _OLD_ Catholic church already there.
Other groups came out of Rome after 1870, over the issue of "Papal Infallibility", and joined with Utrecht to form the modern European Old Catholic Churches,
Utrecht followed the ancient practice of "Appealing to the Future Council" -- but Pius IX, on his own authority, closed that recourse, too, in the preparations for Vatican I. For various political reasons, then, Old Catholicism is _NOT_ part of the Roman Catholic Communion of Churches (better name than "Roman Catholic Church", or the arrogant "Catholic Church").
We are Catholic, but not Roman. We maintain the Deposit of Faith, the Sacraments, and the Apostolic succession -- which is the Catholic and Orthodox definition of a Church. Groups lacking one or more of these are, in the quaint wording of Vatican II: "quasi-ecclesial communities".
==========================
So what is "laete sententiae" excommunication?
Briefly: Doing something serious which is against Canon Law, and which effectively breaks obedience to and communion with Rome. It is automatic, and does not require formal pronouncements.
Even more briefly: "Da Pope said don't. You did. Yer out."
Dr Peters' article:
http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/03/abp-burkes-excommunication-of-women.html
. . . nicely summarizes how three women (Fresen, Hudson, & McGrath) have sundered themselves (laete sententiale) from Roman Catholicism by going contrary to Canon Law, as well as being explicitly excommunicated (ferendae sententiae) for denying an article of faith.
The Pope (in Canon Law) said don't. They did. They're out.
Ms Fresen reportedly said that they are still truly Roman Catholic, and protests against fusty old rules. Sorry, Lady, but by Rome's own rules -- which you have to accept to be truly Roman Catholic -- you aren't. Note that I say nothing about the _validity_ of what they did, but solely about its _legality_ within the Roman orbit.
==================================
Summarizing:
If you want to be a _ROMAN_ Catholic, you need to:
1) Accept the unconditional authority of the Pope.
2) Abide by his rules -- generally Canon Law.
If you can't stomach either or both of those, you're already out, you just haven't admitted it.
But then, I'm already out, so I don't have to agonize about it.
+S.B.Bassett
Old Catholic Bishop
of Zzyzx in California
(you can Google it)
A Quick Outline of Canon Law and Excommunication – What & Why
There has recently been a widely-publicized case where the Roman Catholic Archbishop of St. Louis MO, USA made a public statement about 3 women having excommunicated themselves “laete sententiae” as the result of one of them “ordaining” the other two to the Catholic Priesthood. In his Edict:
http://www.archstl.org/images/stories/pdfs/03-12-08-delcaration_fresen-hudson-mcgrath.pdf
. . . Archbishop Burke also excommunicates them very specifically by his own authority. If you look closely at the text, you find lots of numbers, some with the word “canon” or “cann” attached – these are citations from the 1983 Roman Catholic Codex of Canon Law:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
Canon Law is a deep, dark mystery to most people – and Canon Lawyers want to keep it that way, to protect their incomes. But like any body of modern (19th Century and later) legislation, it is an attempt at providing a consistent framework for a large and diverse organization.
Pope John Paul II, in his letter promulgating the 1983 Roman Code of Canon Law said (among other things):
"As a matter of fact, the Code of Canon Law is extremely necessary for the Church. Since the Church is organized as a social and visible structure, it must also have norms: in order that its hierarchical and organic structure be visible; in order that the exercise of the functions divinely entrusted to it, especially that of sacred power and of the administration of the sacraments, may be adequately organized; in order that the mutual relations of the faithful may be regulated according to justice based upon charity, with the rights of individuals guaranteed and well-defined; in order, finally, that common initiatives undertaken to live a Christian life ever more perfectly may be sustained, strengthened and fostered by canonical norms."
Formalized procedures and laws are not as necessary for small groups, but as the Church grew from the 12 Apostles and some few hundred disciples at Pentecost into the millions in the succeeding centuries, there grew up a collection of rules and regulations, partly from the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, partly from decisions of Synods, and partly from the work of individual Patriarchs and Bishops.
Up until 1917, Roman Canon Law consisted of the opinions of Canon Lawyers, who drew from the entire 1900-odd year history of Church legislation to frame their briefs. In 1917, Pope Benedict XV promulgated a new, definitive collection of Canon Laws. In 1959, Pope John XXIII announced, on the same day that he convoked Vatican II, that a new version of Roman Canon Law would be formulated -- which is the Code promulgated by JP II in 1983 and in force today. Canon Lawyers still refer to the 1917 Code, and indeed to the writings of other Lawyers before that, when they are interpreting various parts if the 1983 Code, but where there is a conflict, the 1983 Code takes precedence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law_(Catholic_Church)
Beginning about 600 A.D., and especially after the election of Pius IX in 1846, Rome increasingly defined itself and the Pope as supreme over all the Church. For the extremely detailed list of what this means, see the 1983 Code of Canon Law: Book II, Part II, Section I, Chapter I, Article I: The Roman Pontiff, consisting of Canons 331 to 335:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P16.HTM
Translating again from the Vaticanese, it says: The Pope is the Boss, and what he says goes. The Code of Canon Law was issued on the sole authority of the Pope alone.
Note that I am _NOT_ saying that the 1983 Code was created whole hog & de novo by JP II -- but Canons 331 to 335 clearly say he _COULD_.
Put another way, you play by the Pope's rules, or you are simply not a Roman Catholic. Period. No wiggle, no "interpretation".
_OLD_ Catholics, however, along with the Orthodox, decline to accept this Imperial vision of the Papacy, adhering instead to the terms of Canon II of the Second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 381 A.D.:
"CANON II.
THE bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nicea, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese (Asia Minor, modern Turkey) administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic (area near the Black Sea) bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops
go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nicea. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers."
It was upon this principle that the Archdiocese of Utrecht and the Netherlands became separated from the Roman Communion in the mid-1700s. Specifically, for political reasons (with Jesuits lurking in the wings), Rome wanted to impose a German bishop on the Netherlands. When Utrecht refused him, and the Dutch (Calvinist) Government (with loud laughter) refused to become involved, Rome abandoned the Netherlands until 1853, when they sent in Jesuits to establish NEW parishes and Dioceses, ignoring the _OLD_ Catholic church already there.
Other groups came out of Rome after 1870, over the issue of "Papal Infallibility", and joined with Utrecht to form the modern European Old Catholic Churches,
Utrecht followed the ancient practice of "Appealing to the Future Council" -- but Pius IX, on his own authority, closed that recourse, too, in the preparations for Vatican I. For various political reasons, then, Old Catholicism is _NOT_ part of the Roman Catholic Communion of Churches (better name than "Roman Catholic Church", or the arrogant "Catholic Church").
We are Catholic, but not Roman. We maintain the Deposit of Faith, the Sacraments, and the Apostolic succession -- which is the Catholic and Orthodox definition of a Church. Groups lacking one or more of these are, in the quaint wording of Vatican II: "quasi-ecclesial communities".
==========================
So what is "laete sententiae" excommunication?
Briefly: Doing something serious which is against Canon Law, and which effectively breaks obedience to and communion with Rome. It is automatic, and does not require formal pronouncements.
Even more briefly: "Da Pope said don't. You did. Yer out."
Dr Peters' article:
http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/03/abp-burkes-excommunication-of-women.html
. . . nicely summarizes how three women (Fresen, Hudson, & McGrath) have sundered themselves (laete sententiale) from Roman Catholicism by going contrary to Canon Law, as well as being explicitly excommunicated (ferendae sententiae) for denying an article of faith.
The Pope (in Canon Law) said don't. They did. They're out.
Ms Fresen reportedly said that they are still truly Roman Catholic, and protests against fusty old rules. Sorry, Lady, but by Rome's own rules -- which you have to accept to be truly Roman Catholic -- you aren't. Note that I say nothing about the _validity_ of what they did, but solely about its _legality_ within the Roman orbit.
==================================
Summarizing:
If you want to be a _ROMAN_ Catholic, you need to:
1) Accept the unconditional authority of the Pope.
2) Abide by his rules -- generally Canon Law.
If you can't stomach either or both of those, you're already out, you just haven't admitted it.
But then, I'm already out, so I don't have to agonize about it.
+S.B.Bassett
Old Catholic Bishop
of Zzyzx in California
(you can Google it)
posted by Sam'l B. at
10:08 PM
0 Comments
