Folia Theologica et Canonica 4. 26/18 (2015)

IUS CANONICUM - Szabolcs Anzelm Szuromi. O.Praem., Interpretation of the Church's discipline without the former sources?

INTERPRETATION OF THE CHURCH' S DISCIPLINE...

261

such a case are the Can. 1172 § 232 and Can. 2271 n° 2 of CIC (1917)33 as compared with norm of the Liber Sextus (a. 1298). When there was questionable whether the contents of the Code is differ or not from the old law, the old law should be used until that time when the Holy See issued authentic interpretation to that canon. Within the sanctions of the Church Can. 6 n. 5 of CIC (1917) resulted a unique situation, which expressed unambiguously that the Code does not mention every possible sanction either latae or ferendae sententiae. Therefore this technicality gave further possibilities to use the old law, including the Apostolicae Sedis decree (1869) which had reformed the censures in the Church’s discipline.

In order to interpret correctly these canons, the canonist needed to know- at least on basic level - the Corpus iuris canonici, including acquiring the meaning and method of the auxiliary abbreviation system. Good routine in the canonical Latin was an elementary presumption by the Code. These indicated capacities was served by the annotated edition of CIC (1917) which contained the sources of each canon in abbreviated form34, and also the monumental- nine volumes - source edition to the CIC (1917) by Pietro Gasparri and Justinian Serédi O.S.B.35 We only mention here that the knowledge of every original source was indispensable not only to the above listed canons - in order to make more clear the concrete cases - but also to understand the entire picture behind the other canons. This last general view was extraordinary important when the judge liked to locate the particular canonical problem among those casuistic customs which have crystalized at various ecclesiastical tribunals or diocesan curia throughout many centuries.

The current Code of Canon Law (1983) deals with the old law also in Can. 6 and declares: “The canons of this Code when it cites the old law, must be interpreted considering the canonical tradition too.”36 This prescription indeed gives

32 CIC (1917) Can. 1172 - § 2. Violata ecclesia, non ideo coemeterium, etsi contiguum, violatum censetur, et viceversa. Cf. VI 3. 21. un.

33 CIC (1917) Can. 2271 - 2° In ecclesia vero cathedrali, ecclesiis paroecialibus vel in ecclesia quae unica sit in oppido, in iisque solis, permittuntur unius Missae celebratio, asservatio sanctis- simi Sacramenti, administratio baptismatis, Eucharistiae, poenitentiae, assistentia matrimoniis, exclusa benedictione nuptiali, mortuorum exsequiae, vetita tarnen quavis sollemnitate, benedic- tio aquae bapismalis et sacrorum oleorum, praedicatio verbi Dei. In his tarnen sacris functioni- bus prohibetur cantus et pompa in sacra supellectili et sonitus campanarum, organorum, alio- rumve instrumentorum musicalium; sacrum autem Viaticum ad infirmos privatim deferatur. Cf. VI 5. 11. 19, 24.

34 Codex iuris canonici Pii X Pontificia Maximi iussu digestus, Benedicti Papae XV auctoritate promulgatus, praefatione, fontium annotationae etindice analytico-alphabetico ab E.mo Petro Card. Gasparri auctus, Typ. Poi. Vat. 1974.

35 Gasparri, P.-Serédi, I., Codicis iuris canonici fontes, I-IX. Romae 1923-1939.

36 CIC Can. 6 - § 2. Canones huius Codicis, quatenus ius vetus referunt, aestimandi sunt ratione etiam canonicae traditionis habita.