Are certain papal edicts classified as having been issued motu proprio in order to prevent their validity being impugned on the grounds of obreption or subreption (Cfr CIC 63)?
Dear Father, one needs to be precise. I'm not sure what you mean by a 'papal edict'. You should look at the previous canons on 'rescripts' to put Canon 63 in context, especially Canon 59. Kindest regards (a priestly canonist).
Canon lawyer Cathy Caridi, J.C.L. has an article which does not directly address the classification motu proprio, but does directly address the binding force of Traditionis Custodes.
was for nearly three decades at Lancing College; where he taught Latin and Greek language and literature, was Head of Theology, and Assistant Chaplain. He has served three curacies, been a Parish Priest, and Senior Research Fellow at Pusey House in Oxford. Since 2011, he has been in full communion with the See of S Peter. The opinions expressed on this Blog are not asserted as being those of the Magisterium of the Church, but as the writer's opinions as a private individual. Nevertheless, the writer strives, hopes, and prays that the views he expresses are conformable with and supportive of the Magisterium. In this blog, the letters PF stand for Pope Francis. On this blog, 'Argumentum ad hominem' refers solely to the Lockean definition, Pressing a man with the consequences of his own concessions'.
3 comments:
Dear Father, one needs to be precise. I'm not sure what you mean by a 'papal edict'. You should look at the previous canons on 'rescripts' to put Canon 63 in context, especially Canon 59. Kindest regards (a priestly canonist).
Canon lawyer Cathy Caridi, J.C.L. has an article which does not directly address the classification motu proprio, but does directly address the binding force of Traditionis Custodes.
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2021/07/29/the-enormous-loophole-in-traditionis-custodes/
frjustin, thank you for the link. Very informative content.
Post a Comment