A New Jurisprudence?

[Forum Poster]

I've had this thought developing in my mind for a while now, and I thought I might as well post it here to get some thoughts from others.

There have been a few articles written examining specific problems with some canons of the 1983 Code of Canon Law; for example, much has been said about the canons on marriage and nullity cases, and how they (and their abuses) have contributed to the nullity crisis. I've also noticed some people trying to apply a certain "hermeneutic of continuity" to these canons, like what Cardinal Burke tried to do in his doctoral thesis on canon 1095 (the most frequently cited canon in American nullity cases).

The hermeneutic of continuity, however, simply does not work, because often there are problems that still remain even after an interpretation "in continuity with Tradition" is followed. For example, this morning I published an article analyzing the various doctrinal and juridical problems with canon 844, perhaps the most scandalous canon in the entire new Code. It remains doctrinally and juridically unsound even after applying the most rigorous principles governing canonical interpretation:

https://onthecontrarynewsletter.substack.com/p/canon-844

The more I examine specific canons, the more it seems that there's a "nouvelle jurisprudence" to go along with the "nouvelle théologie" embraced by Vatican II. The problem all begins with canon 6. Quoting from the article:

If the problem is one of law, then the primary blame cannot fall upon the interpreters, but only upon the legislator himself. The "hermeneutic of rupture" is contained within the 1983 Code itself; in fact, this is not really a question of hermeneutics at all, as canon 6 itself causes a radical break with the past. The proper view of canonical tradition is exemplified by the equivalent canon 6 of the 1917 Code, which declares that for the most part, the Code preserves the discipline previously in force while making some opportune changes. Even laws that are only partly consistent with the old laws must be assessed in light of tradition (3°), and laws that are implicitly contained in the Code are still considered to remain in force (6°). Despite its own faults, the 1917 Code was a remarkable achievement, succinctly codifying the corpus of canon law while paying due respect to canonical tradition.

In contrast to this approach, canon 6 of the 1983 Code seeks innovation and begins by listing the categories of laws that are abrogated. No matter how much of the old law was re-legislated, the attitude presented—that of wiping the slate clean—was a distinct break with the past. This predisposes the entire Code to be interpreted in accordance with the hermeneutic of rupture whenever terms are found to be vague or ill-defined, and it is not wayward legal scholars, lawyers, or judges who established this hermeneutic, but the law itself. The blame shifts from the interpreters of canon law to the one wrote it and built these flaws into the system to begin with. In light of this, canon 6 §2, which mentions "canonical tradition," is only a rather poor attempt at damage control.

Any thoughts? If you agree that there is a "new jurisprudence" governing the study and practice of canon law in the post-conciliar era, what are some of its key attributes and principles?

[Goldfinch]

The more I examine specific canons, the more it seems that there's a "nouvelle jurisprudence" to go along with the "nouvelle théologie" embraced by Vatican II.

This is to be expected.

Vatican II brought forth a new Church, with a new liturgy, new sacraments and new laws and disciplines. The break is clear as daylight.

[Forum Poster]

Vatican II brought forth a new Church, with a new liturgy, new sacraments and new laws and disciplines. The break is clear as daylight.

I hesitate to say that there is a "new Church" in a juridical sense; nevertheless, it is true that witnessing a Novus Ordo after years of not seeing one is quite jarring, and it does seem like a different religion. I think we need to establish some clarity concerning the "spirit" behind those new laws and disciplines, along with the general approach that people have toward law these days. The study and practice of canon law has been infected with a naturalistic and positivistic spirit for the past several decades.

Given that the modernists generally innovate in the area of discipline to avoid being directly accused of creating doctrinal innovations, it's important to examine the relationship between doctrine and law, which reflects it, and how approaches differ between traditional and non-traditional Catholics. I will write more on this later.

[crossingtherubicon]

The more I examine specific canons, the more it seems that there's a "nouvelle jurisprudence" to go along with the "nouvelle théologie" embraced by Vatican II.

This is to be expected.

Vatican II brought forth a new Church, with a new liturgy, new sacraments and new laws and disciplines. The break is clear as daylight.

So you deny the Eucharist is valid in Novus Ordo?  You deny that the Eucharist is truly Jesus Christ at a Novus Ordo mass?

[crossingtherubicon]

The Orthodox also deny that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ at a Novus Ordo Mass.  You have more in common that the Orthodox than you thought?  Its always been a crisis of Faith, dont believe in the power of prayer, dont believe that the demonic is unmasking in a unprecedented(in our lifetimes)way, dont believe in miracles, dont believe in Fatima.  Do Not Believe.

[Jmartyr]

Amazing, all this ecumenism and the Orthodox won't touch the NO with a ten-foot pole. They are rightly scandalized by it.

[Goldfinch]

The more I examine specific canons, the more it seems that there's a "nouvelle jurisprudence" to go along with the "nouvelle théologie" embraced by Vatican II.

This is to be expected.

Vatican II brought forth a new Church, with a new liturgy, new sacraments and new laws and disciplines. The break is clear as daylight.

So you deny the Eucharist is valid in Novus Ordo?  You deny that the Eucharist is truly Jesus Christ at a Novus Ordo mass?

Validity is not the only concern a Catholic should have regarding the sacrament of the Eucharist, or any other sacrament for that matter. Sacraments may certainly be valid but unlawful: what is valid is not always good for souls. The discussion of the NOM must not turn round its validity or invalidity. The Masses of schismatics (like the Eastern Orthodox or the Old Catholics) are also valid, but we're prevented by divine law from attending them. The real problem is not whether the NOM is valid or invalid (it depends on the faith of the individual priest), but rather whether it causes spiritual harm to the person hearing it.

What is wrong with the Novus Ordo Missae?

Does the New Mass fulfill the notion of Catholic liturgy?

[Jean Carrier]

Amazing, all this ecumenism and the Orthodox won't touch the NO with a ten-foot pole. They are rightly scandalized by it.

I wouldn't place too much stock in that. They are just as scandalized by the TLM and believe it to be full of heresies and sacrilege. We're talking about a sect which embraces Utraquism and accepts the veneration of Jan Hus after all. They even have icons depicting him as a martyr.

[Jean Carrier]

I've had this thought developing in my mind for a while now, and I thought I might as well post it here to get some thoughts from others.

There have been a few articles written examining specific problems with some canons of the 1983 Code of Canon Law; for example, much has been said about the canons on marriage and nullity cases, and how they (and their abuses) have contributed to the nullity crisis. I've also noticed some people trying to apply a certain "hermeneutic of continuity" to these canons, like what Cardinal Burke tried to do in his doctoral thesis on canon 1095 (the most frequently cited canon in American nullity cases).

The hermeneutic of continuity, however, simply does not work, because often there are problems that still remain even after an interpretation "in continuity with Tradition" is followed. For example, this morning I published an article analyzing the various doctrinal and juridical problems with canon 844, perhaps the most scandalous canon in the entire new Code. It remains doctrinally and juridically unsound even after applying the most rigorous principles governing canonical interpretation:

https://onthecontrarynewsletter.substack.com/p/canon-844

The more I examine specific canons, the more it seems that there's a "nouvelle jurisprudence" to go along with the "nouvelle théologie" embraced by Vatican II. The problem all begins with canon 6. Quoting from the article:

If the problem is one of law, then the primary blame cannot fall upon the interpreters, but only upon the legislator himself. The "hermeneutic of rupture" is contained within the 1983 Code itself; in fact, this is not really a question of hermeneutics at all, as canon 6 itself causes a radical break with the past. The proper view of canonical tradition is exemplified by the equivalent canon 6 of the 1917 Code, which declares that for the most part, the Code preserves the discipline previously in force while making some opportune changes. Even laws that are only partly consistent with the old laws must be assessed in light of tradition (3°), and laws that are implicitly contained in the Code are still considered to remain in force (6°). Despite its own faults, the 1917 Code was a remarkable achievement, succinctly codifying the corpus of canon law while paying due respect to canonical tradition.

In contrast to this approach, canon 6 of the 1983 Code seeks innovation and begins by listing the categories of laws that are abrogated. No matter how much of the old law was re-legislated, the attitude presented—that of wiping the slate clean—was a distinct break with the past. This predisposes the entire Code to be interpreted in accordance with the hermeneutic of rupture whenever terms are found to be vague or ill-defined, and it is not wayward legal scholars, lawyers, or judges who established this hermeneutic, but the law itself. The blame shifts from the interpreters of canon law to the one wrote it and built these flaws into the system to begin with. In light of this, canon 6 §2, which mentions "canonical tradition," is only a rather poor attempt at damage control.

Any thoughts? If you agree that there is a "new jurisprudence" governing the study and practice of canon law in the post-conciliar era, what are some of its key attributes and principles?

This is a very good examination of Canon 844, and your interpretation matches my own. There is indeed a sense in which in a Nouvelle Jurisprudence has infected the Church alongside Nouvelle Theologie, and it is best manifested in certain modern American (i.e., liberal) commentaries on the 1983 Code. That said, I think the 1983 Code could be mostly kept provided certain canons were given strict clarifications, modifications, or removed all together. Some the terminology could use a touch up too. I'd also like to see some injection of material from the entire history of the Church, such as the canonical legislation of the first millennium and from Gratian's collection, in order to really ground the Code of Canon Law in the fullness of the juridical tradition.

[crossingtherubicon]

The more I examine specific canons, the more it seems that there's a "nouvelle jurisprudence" to go along with the "nouvelle théologie" embraced by Vatican II.

This is to be expected.

Vatican II brought forth a new Church, with a new liturgy, new sacraments and new laws and disciplines. The break is clear as daylight.

So you deny the Eucharist is valid in Novus Ordo?  You deny that the Eucharist is truly Jesus Christ at a Novus Ordo mass?

Validity is not the only concern a Catholic should have regarding the sacrament of the Eucharist, or any other sacrament for that matter. Sacraments may certainly be valid but unlawful: what is valid is not always good for souls. The discussion of the NOM must not turn round its validity or invalidity. The Masses of schismatics (like the Eastern Orthodox or the Old Catholics) are also valid, but we're prevented by divine law from attending them. The real problem is not whether the NOM is valid or invalid (it depends on the faith of the individual priest), but rather whether it causes spiritual harm to the person hearing it.

What is wrong with the Novus Ordo Missae?

Does the New Mass fulfill the notion of Catholic liturgy?

Both things can be true at once, it can cause harm and it can produce miracles and good fruits.  If Jesus Christ is there, miracles can happen.  To deny that is to deny Jesus Christ.  Same with Orthodox liturgy, if Jesus Christ is there, miracles can happen.

[Jean Carrier]

The more I examine specific canons, the more it seems that there's a "nouvelle jurisprudence" to go along with the "nouvelle théologie" embraced by Vatican II.

This is to be expected.

Vatican II brought forth a new Church, with a new liturgy, new sacraments and new laws and disciplines. The break is clear as daylight.

So you deny the Eucharist is valid in Novus Ordo?  You deny that the Eucharist is truly Jesus Christ at a Novus Ordo mass?

Validity is not the only concern a Catholic should have regarding the sacrament of the Eucharist, or any other sacrament for that matter. Sacraments may certainly be valid but unlawful: what is valid is not always good for souls. The discussion of the NOM must not turn round its validity or invalidity. The Masses of schismatics (like the Eastern Orthodox or the Old Catholics) are also valid, but we're prevented by divine law from attending them. The real problem is not whether the NOM is valid or invalid (it depends on the faith of the individual priest), but rather whether it causes spiritual harm to the person hearing it.

What is wrong with the Novus Ordo Missae?

Does the New Mass fulfill the notion of Catholic liturgy?

Both things can be true at once, it can cause harm and it can produce miracles and good fruits.  If Jesus Christ is there, miracles can happen.  To deny that is to deny Jesus Christ.  Same with Orthodox liturgy, if Jesus Christ is there, miracles can happen.

The Photians ("Eastern Orthodox") don't have true eucharistic miracles. What they claim are either fakes or just cases of animals naturally reverencing the Blessed Sacrament (like that one "miracle" with the bees they claim).

[Prayerful]

Amazing, all this ecumenism and the Orthodox won't touch the NO with a ten-foot pole. They are rightly scandalized by it.

There are many, many Ortho and Greek Rite jurisdictions, but I don't get the impression there was much keenness for the New Order. Some Ortho jurisdictions have formed Latin Rite communities but these seem mostly to use traditional English and appeal mostly to Anglicans who want neither the Anglican nor Roman mess. Sarum, BCP, tradition Roman all good, the New Order, not so much.

[Forum Poster]

That said, I think the 1983 Code could be mostly kept provided certain canons were given strict clarifications, modifications, or removed all together. Some the terminology could use a touch up too.

I wouldn't wholesale reject the 1983 Code, given that there were some advantages to it. For example, there were several diriment impediments to marriage under the 1917 Code that were being routinely dispensed from, and some proposed that it would be more efficient to simply get rid of them entirely. (However, there were also some impediments (such as the spiritual relationship between an individual and his or her sponsor or godparent) that probably should have been retained.) Some cleaning up in the area of reserved sins and latae sententiae censures in the name of efficiency were also good things, although in my opinion there was too much of a reduction in penalties.

The fundamental problem, however, is still canon 6, which does an almost complete wholesale abrogation of past legislation, cutting off current legislation from Tradition, regardless of how much conservatives attempt to interpret the new law in light of Tradition.