This Article is the companion to Part 7 of the Sedeprivation Series found at Kurgantv.vhx.tv
Canon 188. Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus:
4º A fide catholica publice defecerit;
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;
***
All the objections to it:
- You are not allowed to use the English version of Canon Law!
Being aware of Canon Law and following its principles and precepts is the duty of every Catholic. This used to normally be done by reading Catechisms, receiving instruction by decent priests or Bishops and so on. Being aware of the Canonic Law, and its requirements is a duty. But here the deceivers are attempting to conflate the false idea that a member of the laity is trying to be a Canon Lawyer, with the reality of a member of the laity simply being aware of his duty and the relevant Canon Law and pointing it out to others who have been intentionally mis-instructed, lied to and falsely catechised by false priests, false bishops and false popes that are in reality Freemasons (Satanists). And since these enemies of the Church pervert intentionally the simplest and most basic tenets of Catholicism, as they did throughout Vatican II and since year zero it is incumbent upon every and any Catholic to call them out. The New Orcs (Novus Orco) are the same as the Old Orcs (Pharisees, gnostics, impostors, magicians, schismatics and so on) and they serve the same master.
2. You are not allowed to Interpret Canon Law because you’re not a Canon Law Lawyer!
No one is “interpreting” anything. The law is as plain, direct and simple as can be. It is one of the most direct and simple, as well as divine, laws in the entire Canon. We are merely obeying it, as obedient Catholics should. The ONLY “people” trying to “interpret” it right into a complete inversion of itself are the fake Catholics. The liars, the deceivers, the fake “clergy” who call themselves “Catholic” but who in fact have all, to a man, fallen foul of Canon 188 part 4 themselves for publicly, notoriously and pertinaciously promulgating heresy (Vatican II) for decades.
3. The plain words even in Latin are just very complicated and you cannot interpret them!
They are absolute, clear and direct and as per Roman law, express a principle so clear, obvious and logical that literally a five year-old child gets it. Anyone who publicly, abandons, that is, defects, in word or deed from the Catholic Faith is not, and cannot be, a Catholic; and as such is not, and cannot be, valid clergy of the Catholic Church. It really is that elementary and simple.
Besides, their guilt is even more obvious than simply being public heretics, because to a man, they also do so notoriously (Vatican II documents are as public and notorious as it gets since they are intended, literally, for the entire human race) and pertinaciously (they have been spouting the same heresy since December 4th 1963, so not just a couple of times by mistake). There really is simply no way to wriggle your way out of the fact that Canon 188 part 4 puts a holy lance of truth, logic, sunlight and justice through the shrivelled, blackened, deceptive heart of the deceivers without any escape whatsoever. Such is the justice of God after all and it is always plain and clear for all with eyes to see.
4. You have no authoritha! To interpret Canon Law, only clergy (like me) can do that!
No one is claiming any authority of interpretation. In fact, only the fake freemasonic “clergy” attempts to arrogate such power to itself. As already explained, there is no interpretation required. Merely obedience. Which is all that actual Catholics do. They OBEY the Magisterium of the Church and being aware of their duty as Catholics call out heretics, impostors and liars for what they are, which is a duty of EVERY Catholic, even a child.
5. You can’t say that there is no interpretation required! Lots of Canons in Canon Law link/speak to/involve Canon 188 part 4 and it’s all very complicated.
No, it isn’t. There is literally only ONE other canon that directly refers to Canon 188 part 4. It is canon 2314, and it clearly states that the warnings and other effects that are required to pronounce heresy on someone do NOT apply for Canon 188 part 4.
Here is Canon 2314 in full:
Canon 2314
§ 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
1.° Incur by that fact excommunication;
2.° Unless they respect warnings, they are deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other duty that they have in the Church, they are declared infamous, and [if] clerics, with the warning being repeated, [they are] are deposed;
3.° If they give their names to non-Catholic sects or publicly adhere [to them], they are by that fact infamous, and with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 4, clerics, the previous warnings having been useless, are degraded.
§ 2. Absolution from the excommunication mentioned in § 1, sought in the forum of conscience, is specially reserved to the Apostolic See. But if, however, the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism has been brought in any manner to the external forum of the local Ordinary, even by voluntary confession, that same Ordinary, but not the Vicar General without a special mandate, can by his own ordinary power absolve one duly recovered in the external forum, the prior abjuration being conducted juridically and observing those other things that in law ought to be observed; and one thus absolved can thereupon be absolved from sin by any confessor in the forum of conscience. Abjuration is considered juridically done if it happens in the presence of the same local Ordinary or his delegate and at least two witnesses.
Canon Law Digest
I: 849–53; II: 577; III: 650–60; IV: 423; VI: 853–54; VII: 1027; VIII: 1210
So, what does this mean?
In MOST instances of heresy or excommunication, which is the punishment for heresy, the heresy must first be proven. In really almost every case possible, there is a process for this that involves various steps depending on the case and so on. Notice in part 1.2 it clearly states that warnings and so on have to be ignored before proceeding to the next steps of judgement and then therefore execution of the sentence of excommunication, which normally requires a pronouncement by a judge. Usually the ordinary, but in other cases it can be various clerics of higher office, right up to and including the Pope.
We are also told that before being excommunicated one must have ignored such warning in order to become infamous, a requirement before one can be excommunicated. All good so far.
Part 1.3 however is the crux of the matter, because it states very clearly that IF a priest gives his name (by action or written or spoken statement) to heretic sects, that act alone makes them automatically infamous, and, even if it is not specified by them in either written or spoken forms, but they adhere to the sect publicly they also become infamous. So that removes the need for the pronouncement and the warnings to take place, since if you do this you automatically skip warnings and become infamous.
HOWEVER, in the case of a priest that say privately (not publicly) becomes say a freemason, if he merely acts like a freemason privately but does not say he is a freemason (privately or publicly) then he is not automatically degraded, because such an instance would require investigation (he has not admitted defection himself and his heretic actions are private, not public, so he is not yet infamous) and with such an investigation, naturally, would come warnings, and only once and if these warnings are ignored, can he then truly be declared infamous.
HOWEVER, note that it specifically states with DUE PROVISION FOR CANON 188 part 4.
Which means that IF and WHEN a cleric falls foul of Canon 188 part 4, then this canon applies instead. And what does it say, it says that if a cleric PUBLICLY defects from the Catholic Faith (by action, spoken or written word) then he is immediately and there and then degraded, because, please not the wording of canon 188, it specifically states that the office is lost BY THE LAW ITSELF and requires NO PRONOUNCEMENT BY ANYONE.
This means that a public, notorious and pertinacious heretic loses both his wordly and his clerical office, there and then, because the sentence has already been passed, by the law itself, the guilt is obvious to all and the punishment is prescribed as an edict by law.
Every single Canon in Canon Law (a whole number of 1) that somehow refers to Canon 188 part 4 clearly identifies the fact that Canon 188 part 4 means precisely what it says and any other consideration usually afforded to suspected or accused heretics does NOT in fact apply when Canon 188 part 4 comes into play. Precisely as the Canon 188 part 4 itself clearly states and the most simple and obvious logic dictates.
6. Canon 188 part 4 doesn’t AKKKSHUALY say what you (or it) plainly says.
Yes. It does. Really that is simply it. And the multiple ways they try to say it does not are all addressed above and below.
And to be clear, it is not “an interpretation”; it is literally what the canon itself says in the plainest, most obvious, logical and direct language humanly or even divinely possible to state. A self-admitted (by deed or admission or both) non-Catholic is a non-Catholic, and as such is not a valid Catholic nor, obviously, can he be Catholic clergy. He is, by clear definition, a public, notorious, confirmed heretic and as such his heresy, status as a heretic and punishment is all already determined and requires no further pronouncement, statement, or any other official action before it is in full and instant effect.
7. Canon 188 part 4 only means you lose the wordly office, not any clerical status because all the eight parts of Canon 188 part 4 are identical and mean the same thing!
This absurdly stupid position was laughably taken by the same fake deacon I mention in point 9 later. They really are not sending their best when they try to emulate the self-admitted freemason John Salza. The attempt at copying the style of Salza is obvious: vomit out as many words in as boring and lengthy a fashion as possible in the hope that the sheer verbiage will put anyone off from actually reading it in detail and then taking the time to point out every one of the absolute lies, inversion and intentional conflations, sophistry and goal-post-shifting these people do. Well, unfortunately for them, they are starting to discover what they are up against when they bump into an actual Catholic like myself. So, for completion, here is the entirety of Canon 188 with all its 8 parts and we will put the lie to this absurdly ridiculous idea in short order, and do so in a way that a child can follow it too, you know, just to avoid that refrain they love so much about how “very complicated” it all is. This is exhaustingly long, yes, but complicated? No. Not at all.
Canon 188
Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 156, 1444, 2168, 2314, 2379, 2388
Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
1.° Makes religious profession with due regard for the prescription of Canon 584 concerning benefices;
So, let’s look at Canon 584:
Canon 584
Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 188, 1484
After one year from making any religious profession, parochial benefices vacate; after three years, the others [vacate].
Canon Law Digest
II: 167–70
What this refers to then is limited to the receipt of benefices, which cease automatically after one year for parochial ones and three years for any others. Clearly this therefore only refers to the receipt of such benefices and does not affect a clerical status, obviously.
No law or infraction has been committed here in this case, it is just a reiteration that if a cleric makes some religious profession (say becomes a monk in some monastery) he not only would have vacated his office (naturally, since he is going somewhere else) but his benefices (as part of his original office) end after the specified time. This is really just a reiteration/fortification of Canon 584. Precisely for clarity, Canon Law often says the same thing in different ways, so there is no ambiguity.
2.° Within the useful time established by law or, legal provision lacking, as determined by the Ordinary, fails to take possession of the office;
Once again, this is a simple and obvious rule. If a cleric is given a post and for whatever reason he does not fill that post in the allotted time, then he is automatically considered as having not taken it up and therefore the post is vacant. Here, the REASON for not taking up the post may be culpable or innocent, and THAT might be determined in a separate case, but as far as the office is concerned, it is vacant after the specified date. Once again, no direct implication of loss of clerical office is implied.
3.° Accepts another ecclesiastical office incompatible with the prior, and has obtained peaceful possession of [the other office];
Again, very self-explanatory. Given the vastness (at the time) of the Church, or express need or commandment from higher authority like a Bishop or even the Pope himself, the running of one office or post may be incompatible, impractical or simply not possible to be performed while being posted at a different office that takes precedence. Once again, no crime or even impropriety needs to have been committed here and there is certainly no implication of loss of clerical office.
4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;
This absolutely DOES imply loss, not only of the wordly office, but absolute loss of clerical status for public defection from the faith. In short, you are a public, self-confessed heretic and as such, obviously, you cannot any longer perform any function of a valid Catholic cleric. And we will see this in detail later by literally going through every single canon that in any way refers to canon 188 part 4.
5.° Contracts marriage even, as they say, merely civilly;
Once again, a priest who marries is automatically defrocked and cannot perform his clerical duties, although the punishment of the loss of office is automatic even for the mere attempt, while there is a warning given to those who attempt it only, and if they do not obey they are then excommunicated (as heretics) as per canon 188 part 5, as stated in Canon 2388 below which refers to it in recursive fashion. Note also that anyone who tries to marry a member of the clergy is also excommunicated automatically except if stated otherwise by the Pope himself.
Part one of Canon 2388 refers to ACTUAL Priests and above.
In Traditional (real Catholicism) there are various stages prior to being ordained in the higher orders and this refers to such, the stages are 4 minor and 3 major or sacred orders.
Porter, Reader, Exorcist and Acolyte are minor orders and Subdeacon, Deacon and Priest the major ones.
While those attempting marriage or doing so with the minor orders get automatically excommunicated except if stated otherwise by the ordinary (which in the overwhelming majority of cases would do no such thing and would consider them excommunicated, unless, perhaps due to innocence by deception of the clerical side of the equation).
Canon 2388
§ 1. Clerics constituted in sacred [orders] or regulars, or nuns after a solemn vow of chastity, and likewise all those who presume to contract even a civil marriage with any of the aforesaid persons incur automatic excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See; clerics moreover, having been warned, if they do not come back to their senses within a time defined by the Ordinary according to the diversity of circumstances, will be degraded, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 5.
§ 2. But for those professed of simple perpetual vows, whether to an Ordinary or to a religious Congregation, all of them, as above, receive excommunication automatically reserved to the Ordinary.
You can see a bit more about this loss of clerical office as well as the wordly office by reading the following Canons, which also make it clear that clerical status IS lost for breaking Canon 188 part 5.
Canon 212
§ 1. One who was constituted in minor orders and who for any reason returned to the lay state, in order that he be readmitted to the clergy, requires the permission of the Ordinary of the diocese in which he was incardinated by ordination, [which permission] is not to be granted except after a diligent examination of the life and morals and an appropriate trial, according to the judgment of that Ordinary.
§ 2. A cleric in major orders who returned to the lay state, in order that he be admitted again to the clergy, requires the permission of the Holy See.
Canon 213
Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 123, 135
§ 1. All those who are legitimately removed or who return from the clerical state to the lay state by that fact lose all offices, benefices, clerical rights, and privileges and are prohibited from going around in ecclesiastical garb and wearing the tonsure.
§ 2. A major cleric, however, is bound by the obligation of celibacy, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 214.
Canon Law Digest
VI: 171
Canon 214
Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 132, 135, 211, 213
§ 1. A cleric who, coerced by grave fear, receives sacred ordination, and does not later, once the fear has passed, ratify that ordination at least tacitly by the exercise of orders, [and] wanting by such an act to subject himself to clerical obligations, is returned to the lay state by sentence of a judge, upon legitimate proof of coercion and lack of ratification, [by which sentence] all obligations of celibacy and canonical hours cease.
§ 2. The coercion and lack of ratification must be proved according to the norm of Canons 1993–98.
6.° Against the prescription of Canon 141, § 1, freely gives his name to a secular army;
Once again, this particular canon includes the loss of both worldly as well as clerical office with one small exception, see Canon 141 below for clarity.
Canon 141
Cross-Ref.: 1917 CIC 188
§ 1. [Clerics] should not volunteer in secular armies, except with the permission of the local Ordinary, which they might do in order to be free of an earlier draft; nor should they become involved in civil wars or disturbances of the public order in any way.
§ 2. A minor cleric who freely gives his name to the army in violation of the prescription of § 1 falls by law from the clerical state.
So once again, the idiotic assertion by the fake deacon that all the aspects of Canon 188 only involve the loss of the wordly aspect of the office are already completely blown out of the water.
And please note that in his original “takedown”, the fake deacon omits part 2 of canon 141 which specifically reiterates that the loss of clerical state is incurred automatically by the law itself (i.e. as canon 188 part 6 states, requiring no further pronouncement by ANYONE). In fact, he LIES outright about it, as he did regarding part 5 of canon 188 above.
7.° Disposes of ecclesiastical habit on his own authority and without just cause, unless, having been warned by the Ordinary, he resumes [wearing it] within a month of having received the warning;
Once again, loss of both the worldly and clerical office is indeed happening here, however, there is a warning and then a second warning prior to being deposed. Canon 2379 clarifies.
Canon 2379
Clerics who, against the prescription of Canon 136, do not wear ecclesiastical habit and clerical tonsure are to be gravely warned; but if a month passes from the warning without result, [then] as to minor clerics the prescription of the same Canon 136, § 3, is observed; but major clerics, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 7, are suspended from the orders received, and if they notoriously go to a sort of life alien to the clerical state, [then] unless, once again being warned, they recover their senses, after three months from the final warning they are deposed.
NOTE that the cleric is suspended after the one month of warning as per Canon 188 part 7, from CLERICAL ORDERS RECEIVED therefore losing clerical office as well as wordly office.
Deposition is not yet total expulsion from the Church like being degraded is, but it does remove the ability to wear the clerical habit and as such to perform any clerical office, as per the canons listed below:
Canon 136
Cross-Ref.: 1917 CIC 2379
§ 1. All clerics must wear a decent ecclesiastical habit, according to the legitimate customs of the place or the prescriptions of the local Ordinary, [and] a tonsure or clerical crown, unless the received mores of the people indicate otherwise, [and] they shall cultivate simplicity in the wearing of hair.
§ 2. They shall not wear a ring, unless this right has been conceded them by apostolic privilege or law.
§ 3. Minor clerics who, on their own authority [and] without legitimate cause, leave off the ecclesiastical habit and tonsure, [upon] having been warned by the Ordinary, unless they correct their ways within one month, fall from the clerical state by the law itself.
Canon Law Digest
I: 123–25; VI: 167–68; VII: 110; VIII: 124–27; IX: 91; X: 11–15
Note that as in 188 part 4 for ALL clerics, in this case, minor clerics who fall foul of 188 part 7 fall completely out of the clerical state by the law itself (i.e. Also without any further pronouncement or anything else required by anyone.)
Note the following Canons too which give further clarity of suspension, deposition and degradation (full expulsion from the Church)
Canon 2300
If a cleric gives grave scandal and does not respect a warning, and the scandal cannot otherwise be removed, he can, in the meantime, be deprived of the right of wearing ecclesiastical habit; that privation, for as long as it lasts, includes the prohibition of exercising any ecclesiastical ministry and the privation of clerical privileges.
Canon 2303
Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 2299, 2304
§ 1. Deposition, with due regard for the obligations taken up in ordination and clerical privileges, includes both suspension from office and incapacity for any office, dignity, benefice, pension, or duties in the Church, and even the privation of those things that the defendant has, although they were the title of the one ordained.
§ 2. But in this last case, if the cleric is truly indigent, the Ordinary in his charity, by whatever manner is best, shall take care of him and not let him go around begging in a state indecorous for clerics.
§ 3. The penalty of deposition cannot be inflicted except for those cases expressed in law.
Canon 2304
Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 123, 2299
§ 1. If a deposed cleric gives no sign of reform, and especially if he continues to give scandal and does not respect warnings, the Ordinary can deprive him perpetually of the right of wearing ecclesiastical habit.
§ 2. This privation carries with it the privation of clerical privileges and the cessation of the prescription of Canon 2303, § 2.
Canon 2305
§ 1. Degradation contains within itself deposition, the perpetual privation of ecclesiastical habit, and the reduction of the cleric to the lay state.
§ 2. This penalty can only be carried out for a delict expressed in law, or if it is a cleric who is already deposed and deprived of ecclesiastical habit, if he continues to give out grave scandal for a year.
§ 3. One form is verbal, that is, by edict, which can only be imposed by sentence so that all of its juridic effects take place immediately without execution; the other form is real, if the solemn prescripts in the Roman Pontifical are observed.
Canon Law Digest
I: 848
Now notice an important point regarding degradation (full expulsion from the Church for heresy) in canon 2305 part 2. Degradation, that is the total removal of all clerical status, can only be achieved by a delict (a criminal act) defined in canon law or if he continues to act as a scandalous creature for a year. Note part 3 that says that degradation (full expulsion from the Church) can only happen in two ways: Verbal (which does NOT mean it HAS to be actually spoken by anyone) it means that it can only take place by edict, in other words, a prescription of law that has been passed (and this is usually but not always spoken by someone making a judgement) and such expulsion can only be passed by sentence. That is, the guilty party has to have been sentenced, that is found guilty, at which point ALL of its juridic effects become immediately in effect EVEN IF THERE HAS BEEN NO EXECUTION OF THESE EFFECTS. In other words, this means that if a law prescribes a specific condemnation and judgement ipso fact (as a result of the act itself), and further requires NO further pronouncement by anyone on the matter, the degradation (expulsion from the Church in full) is immediately carried out, regardless of whether the execution of such a state has been carried out. Meaning that even though the fake Pope may continue to sit in the Chair of Peter (the execution of the excommunication has not been carried out physically) he is, in fact, a heretic, and not a Catholic.
Canon 188 part 4 AND Canon 188 part 6 for those who ignore Canon 141 part 1 is to my knowledge the only ones that do this. As well as Canon 188 part 7 for minor orders.
The other way is by the solemn following of all the various rules for condemning suspected heretics after relevant investigations and so on.
8.° Deserts illegitimately the residence to which he is bound and, having received a warning from the Ordinary and not being detained by a legitimate impediment, neither appears nor answers within an appropriate time as determined by the Ordinary.
This results in definite loss of worldly office but not of clerical office, at least not without many and further warnings etc which need not be explained in detail here. Essentially this is a bad behaviour castigation but not an expulsion from the Church.
But for the sake of completeness, let us now go through literally every Canon that refers to in any way to canon 188 part 4.
Canon 156 – we have already seen above with respect to Canon 188 part 3
Canon 156
Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 460, 1439, 2396
§ 1. Two incompatible offices cannot be conferred on anyone.
§ 2. Those offices are incompatible that cannot be fulfilled by the same person at the same time.
§ 3. With due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 3, the grant of a second office made by the Apostolic See is invalid, unless, in the petitioning document, mention of the first incompatible office is made or a derogatory clause is attached
Pretty self-explanatory and doesn’t change anything about 188 part 4
Canon 1444 – refers to Canon 188 part 2
Canon 1444
Cross-Refs.: 1917 CIC 405, 461, 1095
§ 1. The placing in possession of a benefice shall be done according to the manner prescribed by particular law, or by legitimate received custom, unless for a just cause the Ordinary dispenses from this manner or rite, expressly in writing; in which case, the dispensation takes the place of the reception of possession.
§ 2. The local Ordinary shall define the time within which possession of the benefice must take place; but if this time passes without effect, unless it was impeded by a just impediment, he shall declare the benefice vacant according to the norm of Canon 188, n. 2.
Canon Law Digest
I: 705; IV: 390
Again, doesn’t change anything about 188 part 4
Canon 2168 – Refers to Canon 188 part 8
Canon 2168
§ 1. The Ordinary shall warn a pastor, canon, or other cleric who, being bound by the law of residence by reason of the benefice he holds, neglects [that law] and, in the meantime, if it concerns a pastor, make his own provision lest the welfare of souls suffer harm.
§ 2. In the warning, the Ordinary shall recall the penalties that non-residential clerics incur and the prescription of Canon 188, n. 8, and indicate to the cleric that within an appropriate time defined by the Ordinary he resume residence.
Canon Law Digest
I: 840
Again, doesn’t change anything about 188 part 4
Canon 2314 – This one DOES refer to Canon 188 part 4 and it is interesting that the fake deacon literally tries to invert what it states quite plainly, as demonstrated earlier.
Canon 2379 – We saw this above for Canon 188 part 7. It has no effect on Canon 188 part 4.
Canon 2388 – We have seen this above for Canon 188 part 5. It has no effect on Canon 188 part 4 but gives the lie to the idea that no part of Canon 188 removes clerical status.
8. Canon X says that… and this means your private interpretation of Canon 188 part 4 is wrong and schismatic and protestant!
No. We have literally gone through every single Canon that even remotely relates to Canon 188 as a whole, and 188 part 4 specifically. There is no such canon.
9. Pope Benedict the XV stated only his special cardinals can interpret Canon Law and so you can’t say what Canon 188 part 4 REALLY means or says or how to use it or when it applies.
No, it really doesn’t and the fake “Catholic Deacon” on Social Galactic who said so along with a couple of other deceivers are literally saying that white is black and vice-versa.
Here is the original Motu Proprio in Latin:
And here is a Google translate version in English – While a translation is not always ideal, this one does a fair job and the original Latin is available at the archived link above – NOTE BOLDED PART
Since, meeting the expectations of the whole Catholic world, We have recently promulgated the Code of Canon Law desired by Pius X, Our Predecessor of happy memory, the good of the Church and the very character of the work require that we give every possible be careful that the validity of such an important text is not one day put into question either by questionable interpretations and conjectures by individuals on the authentic meaning of the canons, or by the multiple variety of new laws. We therefore intend to overcome both the drawbacks, and for this purpose, Motu proprio, with some knowledge and after mature consideration, We establish and decree the following:
I. Following the example of Our Predecessors, who entrusted the interpretation of the decrees of the Council of Trent to a special assembly of Cardinal Fathers, We establish a Council, or a Commission, as they call it, which will have the exclusive right to pronounce on the authentic interpretation of the canons of the Code, after having nevertheless listened, in cases of particular importance, to the opinion of the Sacred Congregation which raised the question submitted for examination by the Commission itself. We want this Council to be composed of some Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, one of whom is designated to preside over it, chosen directly by Our Authority and by Our successors; to these will be added a secretary, with the task of drawing up the acts of the Council, and some Consultors, of both clergy, experts in canon law, designated by the same Authority; but the Council will also have the right to hear the opinion of the Consultors of the Sacred Congreations from which the questions have been proposed.
II. The Sacred Roman Congregations will not elaborate new General Decrees from now on, except in cases where a serious need of the universal Church requires it. Their ordinary task, therefore, in this sector, will be to check that the norms of the Code are religiously observed, as well as to publish, when the opportunity arises, the Instructions aimed at shedding more light on the prescriptions of the Code and increasing it. effectiveness. These documents will be compiled not only so that they are, but also so that they appear as a sort of commentary and complement to the canons, so that they can be very conveniently inserted in the context of the documents.
III. If over time the good of the universal Church requires that a new general decree be issued by some Sacred Congregation, and that it itself draws up this decree, in the event that this does not comply with the prescriptions of the Code, it must notify the Supreme Pontiff such a discrepancy. Furthermore, once the decree has been approved by the Pontiff, the Sacred Conregation itself will submit it to the Council, which will be responsible for drawing up the canon or canons in accordance with the spirit of the Decree. If the Decree deviates from the provisions of the Code, the Board will indicate which law of the Code the new law must take over; if the Decree relates to a topic not contained in the Code, the Council will establish at which point of the Code the new canon or canons must be inserted, repeating the number of the immediately preceding canon with the addition of bis, ter, etc., so that no canon changes its location and that the numbering is not altered in any way. All of the above will be reported immediately after the Decree of the Sacred Gongregation in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
All that seemed useful to us to decree on this matter, we want and command each and every one of the rules set out here to be and remain stable and unshakable, despite anything to the contrary.
Given in Rome, at St. Peter’s, on September 15, 1917, the fourth year of Our Pontificate.
BENEDICTUS PP. XV
***
In short then, the commission was created precisely to make sure that IF there was any change ever required, it would be clear to all and that IF any change in the future too were required, it too would be made clear to all on which canonical and dogmatic basis such a change should take place. In other words, the very intent of this august body was NOT to argue the details of any “interpretation” by squabbling would-be lawyers of dubious provenance and even more suspect ethics, but rather the ensuring that the entire work of Canon Law was internally and externally consistent and essentially immutable UNLESS a specific flaw in the dogma or some kind of contradiction took place with some past dogma of the Church.
Given that in total some 20,000 documents were consulted, this body of work remains the most vetted in the world second only to the Bible. And in over 4 decades only a tiny change to part 2 of canon 1099 was required, and was done by Pope Pius XII himself.
In short, NO, there is NOT the need to put your false, concern-trolling, lying, and fake interpretation that you have no authority to do before some panel of Freemasons before you can know what the meaning of the word “is” is, because you were raping an altar boy.*
Nor is there a need to put it before such a panel in order to be assured that the plain meaning of words remains the same. And keep in mind that in Roman law the plainest and most clear interpretation of the words is always intended.
*Younger generations may not be familiar with the absurd Bill Clinton phrase of saying that “it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is,” when he was being grilled over his sexual liaison with Monica Lewinsky.
