Eastern Catholic canon law is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the
Catholic Church. For more information, visit the
project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
The law obrogated the provision stating the 'exclusive competence' of the Congregation for Divine Worship regarding these marriages, for this provision was not expressly abrogated and the Office at the Roman Rota now oversees dispensations from such marriages.
@
BoBoMisiu: I didn't "read" this. I recently stumbled upon this note that I had written years ago in which I stated that "it is unclear as to whether the provision was abrogated" or something like that, since I didn't realize that there is a canonical doctrine of implied repeal called
obrogation.
Quaerit Semper did not "abrogate" the Pastor Bonus provision in the section on the Congr. for the Oriental Churches stating that it was the exclusive competence of the Congr. for Divine Worship, since Q.S. did not state that Article 58 §2 was to be abrogated/amended. It was an implied abrogation if you will, i.e. obrogation, since the imposition of a later and contrary law obrogates the former law. I understand what you're saying about Art. 1 of Q.S., which most certainly did abrogate Arts. 67 & 68, but Q.S. did not explicitly abrogate/amend Article 58 §2 of Pastor Bonus, and it was to the specific clause of this paragraph of this article that I was referring to in my note. Since Q.S. most certainly did change the substance of the law in this area, I think it is fair to say that the clause of Pastor Bonus Article 58 §2 that mentions the exclusive competence of the Congr. for Divine Worship over marriages ratum sed non consummatum, which was not abrogated (was not explicitly repealed), was obrogated (impliedly repealed).
That being said, if you'd like to delete my "note", since I don't have a source to explicitly say that it was obrogated, you may. I simply applied the canonical understanding of obrogation (which I have many sources about) to the present legal situation, and did not use a source to explicitly apply the notion of obrogation to Pastor Bonus.
However, if you do choose to delete my note, I am unaware of a source that explicitly states that Article 58 §2 of Pastor Bonus was abrogated/obrogated, which means we would have to say that the Congr. for Divine Worship also has exclusive competence over marriages ratum sed non consummatum, since without having been explicitly abrogated, the original text of Pastor Bonus Article 58 §2 remains "on the books", whether or not it has been deprived of the status of "law" through obrogation.
Since this is a less-than-ideal solution, and since the law was clearly changed by Q.S., I thought that the note on obrogation was the best solution to this discrepancy in the text of Q.S. However, again, if you'd like to delete my note, since it is unsourced, I will not contest such deletion.Canon Law Junkie§§§ Talk 06:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Another option is that I could clarify my note, citing Article 58 §2 of Pastor Bonus as the obrogated provision, thereby clearing up confusion regarding the abrogation clause contained in Quaerit Semper Art. 1.Canon Law Junkie§§§ Talk 07:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Requested move 17 January 2021
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Veverve, well could you please undo your speedy rename request so we don't go to the extra trouble?
Elizium23 (
talk) 18:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Elizium23: I agree, I removed this speedy rename.
Veverve (
talk) 19:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Eastern Catholic canon law is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the
Catholic Church. For more information, visit the
project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
assess and improve articles to
good and
1.0 standards, or visit the
wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
The law obrogated the provision stating the 'exclusive competence' of the Congregation for Divine Worship regarding these marriages, for this provision was not expressly abrogated and the Office at the Roman Rota now oversees dispensations from such marriages.
@
BoBoMisiu: I didn't "read" this. I recently stumbled upon this note that I had written years ago in which I stated that "it is unclear as to whether the provision was abrogated" or something like that, since I didn't realize that there is a canonical doctrine of implied repeal called
obrogation.
Quaerit Semper did not "abrogate" the Pastor Bonus provision in the section on the Congr. for the Oriental Churches stating that it was the exclusive competence of the Congr. for Divine Worship, since Q.S. did not state that Article 58 §2 was to be abrogated/amended. It was an implied abrogation if you will, i.e. obrogation, since the imposition of a later and contrary law obrogates the former law. I understand what you're saying about Art. 1 of Q.S., which most certainly did abrogate Arts. 67 & 68, but Q.S. did not explicitly abrogate/amend Article 58 §2 of Pastor Bonus, and it was to the specific clause of this paragraph of this article that I was referring to in my note. Since Q.S. most certainly did change the substance of the law in this area, I think it is fair to say that the clause of Pastor Bonus Article 58 §2 that mentions the exclusive competence of the Congr. for Divine Worship over marriages ratum sed non consummatum, which was not abrogated (was not explicitly repealed), was obrogated (impliedly repealed).
That being said, if you'd like to delete my "note", since I don't have a source to explicitly say that it was obrogated, you may. I simply applied the canonical understanding of obrogation (which I have many sources about) to the present legal situation, and did not use a source to explicitly apply the notion of obrogation to Pastor Bonus.
However, if you do choose to delete my note, I am unaware of a source that explicitly states that Article 58 §2 of Pastor Bonus was abrogated/obrogated, which means we would have to say that the Congr. for Divine Worship also has exclusive competence over marriages ratum sed non consummatum, since without having been explicitly abrogated, the original text of Pastor Bonus Article 58 §2 remains "on the books", whether or not it has been deprived of the status of "law" through obrogation.
Since this is a less-than-ideal solution, and since the law was clearly changed by Q.S., I thought that the note on obrogation was the best solution to this discrepancy in the text of Q.S. However, again, if you'd like to delete my note, since it is unsourced, I will not contest such deletion.Canon Law Junkie§§§ Talk 06:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Another option is that I could clarify my note, citing Article 58 §2 of Pastor Bonus as the obrogated provision, thereby clearing up confusion regarding the abrogation clause contained in Quaerit Semper Art. 1.Canon Law Junkie§§§ Talk 07:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Requested move 17 January 2021
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Veverve, well could you please undo your speedy rename request so we don't go to the extra trouble?
Elizium23 (
talk) 18:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Elizium23: I agree, I removed this speedy rename.
Veverve (
talk) 19:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.