Talk:Eastern Catholic canon law

Abrogated vs. obrogated in "note"

@CanonLawJunkie: where did you read this:

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.

I thought Quaerit Semper article 1 abrogated it. Is it in a commentary? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@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 for Divine Worship over marriages ratum sed non consummatum, which was not abrogated (was not explicitly repealed), was obrogated (impliedly repealed).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)

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)

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.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Catholic Oriental canon law → Eastern Catholic canon law – WP:COMMONNAME; Oriental is an obsolete and confusing term, the Eastern Catholic Churches are known by this name now and that is the name of their Code in English. Elizium23 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree per rationale. Veverve (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: @Elizium23: In case the renaming goes throught, you will have to ask for the renaming of Category:Oriental canon law. Veverve (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

@Elizium23: I agree, I removed this speedy rename. Veverve (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

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.