Talk:Corpus Juris Canonici

Name of this article

The name of the main article should be "Corpus Iuris Canonici". The "Juris" version was only created because there was a problem with weird Unicode characters. What is the best way to accomplish this name change without losing the history? -- Cat Whisperer 12:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

The old "Iuris" article is now merged. The format I chose was a summary timeline. I'm open to ideas on how to improve that section. patsw 13:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Section moved to 1983 Code of Canon Law

I moved the section on the 1983 Codex Iuris Canonici to the article on such code. It seems more appropriate now that there is an article on it. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 05:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Eastern Catholic Churches

@CanonLawJunkie: I have a question about this edit which your edit summary said was "inaccurate". So, you are saying that even prior to the 1917 codification, Corpus Juris Canonici was not applicable then to what are now known as Eastern Catholic Churches? What standards were used when such cases was referred to the Curia? Are you saying that its content is not the predecessor of both the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO) and the 1983 Code of Canon Law (1983 CIC)? In other words, in my opinion, the CCEO did not appear without a patrimony out of nothing and yet somehow contain many parallel canons to Latin Church 1983 CIC and in turn the 1917 CIC. I don't think that the canons of the CCEO are a late 20th century innovation. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The sui juris Eastern Churches each had their own canonical patrimony, many of which shared similar characteristics due to the similarity of Eastern canon law vis-a-vis Latin canon law. The Corpus was a "codification" (or "compiling" might be more accurate at this historical timeframe) of the Latin canonical laws that had accumulated to that time. Many laws in East & West had evolved similarly, due either to their shared Roman legal patrimony, or to the common nature of Divine law, or due to their common relations with the Holy See. But no, the Corpus in itself—even if certain specific provisions governed the entire Catholic Church— was never applicable to the Eastern Churches in their opperations and tribunals. The 1917 CIC replaced the Corpus, which was thereby abrogated entirely. The CCEO replaced the scattered canonical laws that were common to all Eastern Catholic Churches (which then had to issue codes of particular law as supplements) and the Eastern canonical reforms of Pius XII. In their dealings with the Roman Curia, Latin law was usually applied, but only until 1917 when the Benedict XV founded the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches, at which point a dicastery was granted almost universal jurisdiction over the Eastern Catholic Churches and used their own law. But simply because Latin law was applicable at the curial level does not mean that Latin law is the predecessor of their common code of particular law (i.e. the CCEO). That would be like saying that Anglo-American common law is the ancestor of Louisiana civil law because it is applicable to Louisiana in disputes at the Federal level of the United States government. There is some mix, but French law is the ancestor of Louisiana law.
If this does not clear up your question and explain my edit, please feel free to ask more questions. :) It's interesting to actually dialogue with an editor concerning canon law, since it seems to be a forgotten part of Wiki. Have you thought of joining WikiProject Canon Law? Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 00:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I see your distinction between containing compilations and a shared particular canon. I mistakenly thought that prior to the 1917 CIC there was no distinction, like found in 1917 CIC canon 1, about the jurisdiction of common canons and that various compilations could refer to a shared particular canon. From that, I thought the canon mattered and not the compilation in which it was found.

I visited the WikiProject Canon Law several times but got the impression that nothing was happening there; besides, I have no special competence in canon law other than just reading about it. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corpus Juris Canonici. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120905033709/http://digital.library.ucla.edu/canonlaw/ to http://digital.library.ucla.edu/canonlaw/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)