The author of this article does make a valid point. In the minds of men, the 1917 Code of Canon Law did contribute to a change in the way men viewed law. On the other hand, it was more a recognition of what had been changing in the world rather than leading the charge.
However, and I say this to essentially say that even his one valid point is bunk, his thesis is that since Pope St. Pius X initiated and Pope Benedict XV completed this project that was a novelty in the Church, though not in society at large, we cannot condemn, in principle, the novelties that have become daily fare since 1960.
His backhanded argument is that the novelties of Conciliarism which purport to change the faith, novelties that declare that what was once evil is now good, novelties that declare that the Church was wrong in matters of faith and morals for 1960 years but has now seen the light, should be considered on par with a single novelty (if this is even really the right word) that maintainted the Apostolic faith of the the One, Holy, Catholic Church but made it easier for the non-canon lawyer to know the basic administrative law of the Church.
Ultimately, he argues that since the Church consolidated the whole of the Canons (laws) of the Church into one codex, something never before done, we must accept that the Church can now change those laws willy-nilly so that, for example, the absolute prohibition of giving Holy Communion to non-Christians (i.e., non-Catholics) in the 1917 code can now be allowed in "certain cases" in the 1986 code.
Frankly, for me this article was the beginning of the end of my association with The Remnant. If this publication was going to go to these lengths to justify Conciliarism--a course which began with the election of Cardinal Ratzinger as Benedict 16--I allowed my subscription to lapse. I am not sure why The Remnant editors felt themselves so invested in Ratzinger that they must ignore in him the very things they condemned in John Paul 2. Nor can I understand, as was pointed out earlier in this topic, this idea that the very men leading the charge into hell are simply ignorant of what underlings are doing.
At some point, near the beginning of the crisis, many of our shepherds sold their flocks and became hirelings. They no longer protected the flocks against enemies and would run for cover, leaving the flocks defenseless, at the first sign of ravenous wolves. I know of few shepherds left today, but there are even fewer hirelings for most of the hirelings of the Conciliar Church today have actively joined with the wolves and drive their flocks out of the sheep gate into the jaws of the enemy. It is shameful that The Remnant has become a sheepdog for them chasing after the few sheep who don't want to leave safe environs and try to drive them out of the gate by telling its readers that the Church of Pope St. Pius X and Benedict XV is no safer than the Church of Benedict 16.
It is unfortunate, but the voices we hear today are simply not the same voice we heard before. Those who claim to be shepherds in the Church today drive the sheep in front of them to the desination they wish them to go. The true shepherd lead the sheep and the sheep go voluntarily because they can hear his voice and trust him to lead them to green pastures; they want to go where he leads them. Now, even The Remnant does not trust traditional Catholics to go where these bishops and popes want them to go. Rather than trying to get Catholics to simply move on, the editors should be asking themselves why so many are even more fearful.
Topic: The Problem with 1917 Code of Canon Law (Read 4365 times)