L'"antiqua traditio" fonte "vigente" di diritto? Ermeneutica del can.2/CCEO sull'interpretazione
Regarding the juridical effect, the function, and the area of application of can. 2/CCEO in matters of doctrine, several diverse interpretations have been formulated. According to some authors, this entails the precision of the formal force (?) of the "sacred canons". On the other hand, wh...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Print Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Institution
2013
|
| In: |
Eastern canon law
Year: 2013, Volume: 2, Issue: 1, Pages: 201-232 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Catholic church, Verfasserschaft1, Codex canonum ecclesiarum orientalium. 2
/ Hermeneutics
/ Legal source
|
| IxTheo Classification: | SA Church law; state-church law SB Catholic Church law |
| Summary: | Regarding the juridical effect, the function, and the area of application of can. 2/CCEO in matters of doctrine, several diverse interpretations have been formulated. According to some authors, this entails the precision of the formal force (?) of the "sacred canons". On the other hand, while others rightly agree on the fact that the canon deals exclusively with hermeneutics, nevertheless they disagree regarding whether or not the said canon applies to almost all of the canons of the CCEO or only to some of them. Francesco Urrutia held that between cc. 2 and 1499 there is a tension that is difficult to overcome, while according to George Nedungatt, the rule offered by can. 2 results more in a "Pandora's box" and therefore a source of subsequent discussions and uncertainties, rather then a path offering clear solutions. The present article attempts to overcome these dilemmas through a critical analysis of above-mentioned opinions and arrives at the fol-lowing conclusions: (1) The norm in question has "only" an hermeneutical relevance and therefore does not restore the formal legal force of the "sacred canons" in their original form. (2) The application of canon 2/CCEO, or at least in its first sense, seems to extend (at least until a secure proof arrives to the contrary) to all the canons of the CCEO and moreover, in an analogous way, also to all the norms regarding the juridical order of the oriental catholic Churches. Hence, its interpretive effect is not limited to those canons that are explicitly connected to the ancient sources by the "CCEO fontium annotatione auctus”. (3) Lastly, the primary function of can. 2/CCEO I argue seems to act similarly to the “DNA” of a living body: That is a “genetic program”, so to speak, a component responsible for the handing on through time (paradosi diacronica) of self-identity, or in negative terms, an internal alarm that hast he mandate to guarantee that in the system, there do not arise norms or interpretations incompatible with the “mens”, that is with the particular “genius” of the same order. Under this aspect, the present norm of interpretation (can. 2/CCEO) precedes and stands above any other hermeneutical method. In this sense (primarily= one can say that the objective of can. 2(CCEO is negative, insofar as it often does not identify a concrete and precise meaning of a norm, instead it limits itself only to prevent interpretations that would be outside of the authentic tradition and therefore outside of the spirit of the ius canonicum orientale. Instead, in its secondary function, that is when it identifies a concrete, normative meaning, the reference to the authentic ancient tradition is an element only “co”-primary, but not necessarily prioritized in when performing hermeneutics. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2064-0412 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Eastern canon law
|