Principle 1: Authority and Validity of Law
Law Must Originate from a Valid Lawgiver
A fundamental principle in both civil and ecclesiastical law is that a law must be issued by a legitimate authority. In civil society, this requires that laws are passed in accordance with constitutional procedures and by recognized governmental bodies. Similarly, within the Church, a valid lawgiver is required to issue binding ecclesiastical laws.
In the Church, the Pope generally holds this authority. However, this authority is contingent upon his continued legitimacy as Pope. According to established Church teaching, if a Pope falls into heresy, he loses his office and thus his authority to promulgate laws. This concept is supported by notable canonists and theologians:
X. Wernz and P. Vidal (1943): "Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church. A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church." (Ius Canonicum, 2:453)
Udalricus Beste (1946): "Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See [i.e., the See of Peter] is judged by no one. The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously, cannot be its head." (Introductio in Codicem, 3rd ed., Canon 221)
Thus, any laws or documents issued by a Pope who has lost his authority due to heresy are invalid and not binding. This principle calls into question the legitimacy of the 1983 Code of Canon Law if issued under such circumstances, especially considering the actions of John Paul II who promulgated the 1983 Code.
Principle 2: The Salvation of Souls as Supreme Law
Laws Must Not Harm Souls
Even if a law is issued by a legitimate authority, it must be rejected if it is harmful to souls or promotes sin. The maxim salus animarum, suprema lex (the salvation of souls is the supreme law) underscores this obligation. In 1984, Archbishop Lefebvre called the new code another grave problem undermining the Church and stated that the new Canon Law is very serious for it goes much further [i.e. promoting errors] than the Council itself in a October 29, 1984 conference at Stuttgart, Germany.
The 1983 Code of Canon Law introduces a novel conception of the Church that undermines traditional ecclesiology and instead embraces the ecclesiology of Vatican II, which erases the distinction between clergy and laity. Canon 204 exemplifies this by defining all the faithful, clergy and laity alike, as partaking in Christ's priestly, prophetic, and royal functions. This new understanding dissolves the unique roles of the clergy, leading to the laicization of the Church. Such a shift is detrimental, as it aligns with Protestant reforms that laicized the priesthood, diminishing the sacred character of the clergy.
Archbishop Bugnini's reforms in the Liturgy further illustrate this harmful trend. The liturgical changes aimed to transform the Mass into an action of the entire "people of God," minimizing the role of the priest and the mystical nature of the Mass. This shift from God-centered worship to man-centered activity undermines the sanctity of the Eucharist and the priesthood.
The new Code even permits practices such as giving Communion to Protestants, a clear rupture from traditional Catholic teaching. This "eucharistic hospitality" contradicts the sacrament's role as a sign of unity in the Faith, thereby compromising the Church's doctrinal integrity. The 1983 Code is a codification of the errors of Vatican II, which are dangerous to souls as they undermine true doctrine, piety, and holiness. We see this reflected in the unmistakable collapse of Catholic praxis after Vatican II.
Conclusion
Catholics are bound by these two principles: the necessity of a valid lawgiver and the imperative to reject laws harmful to souls. Given either the questionable legitimacy of the authority behind the 1983 Code of Canon Law or its harmful spiritual consequences, Catholics are obliged to adhere to the strictness of the 1917 Code and reject the novelties introduced by the 1983 Code. While even the 1917 Code lessened discipline for Catholics in many regards, it nevertheless was a valid Code. The same unwaveringly statement of validity can not apply to the 1983 Code.
Salus animarum, suprema lex. Long live Tradition. Long live the True Catholic Church. Down with the counterfeit Church of the Modernists.
0 comment(s):
Post a Comment