Reddit mentions of New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law

> 3. If the Pope is Jesus's representation on this Earth, how do you justify some of the horrifying things Popes have done in the past?

King David was an adulterer and a murderer, but he was the anointed one of God.

In Matthew 23, Jesus makes a lengthy denunciation of the scribes and the Pharisees. And after you've read it, if you go back to the beginning, what Jesus tells the crowds is amazing: "do whatever they teach you and follow it." However scandalous a wicked priest may be, and however harshly he will be judged on the Day of the Lord, we look not on the man, but on the grace of his office. The value of the clerical orders derives from the grace of God, not from the personal holiness of their members.

> When should their authority be disregarded?

St Paul says to the Galatians: "even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!"

A cleric who departs from the unity of faith, or from the corporate unity of the Church, ceases to be a member of the Church and ceases to hold any office in the Church. This would apply even to the pope, if he became a heretic. As Lawrence Wrenn puts it in the Canon Law Society of America's New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, "to fall from Peter's faith is to fall from his chair." However, that has never happened. (It is sometimes thought that the First Vatican Council defined that this never will happen, but Vinzenz Gasser, who drafted the definition, explicitly disavowed this interpretation in his explanation to the Council Fathers of what they were voting on.)

> Why is there a single Pope instead of a council like the Orthodox Church has and like the board of apostles we see in the NT?

The entire body of bishops corresponds to the board (we would rather say college) of apostles, and is considered a distinct subject of supreme authority in the Church when acting together with the Bishop of Rome as its head. Yet among the apostles, Peter's role is special. It was Peter to whom Jesus said, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And if you read the passage in Greek, the "you" is a singular "you," a "thou"; that is, Jesus does not say he will give the disciples the keys of the kingdom, but that he will give Peter in particular the keys of the kingdom. His words recall the prophecy of Isaiah:

> On that day I will summon my servant
> Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
> I will clothe him with your robe,
> gird him with your sash,
> confer on him your authority.
> He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
> and to the house of Judah.
> I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;
> what he opens, no one will shut,
> what he shuts, no one will open.
> I will fix him as a peg in a firm place,
> a seat of honor for his ancestral house;
> On him shall hang all the glory of his ancestral house:
> descendants and offspring,
> all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs. (Is 22:20-24)

In foretelling Peter's denial, Jesus also foretold his redemption, saying:

> "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers." (Lk 22:31)

After the Resurrection, just as Peter had denied Jesus three times, he was reconciled affirming that he loved Jesus three times, and Jesus gave him a special charge:

> When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." [Jesus] said to him, "Feed my sheep. Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, "Follow me." (Jn 21:15-19)

What an exalted responsibility! Peter is to stand over the flock in the very place of the Good Shepherd (cf. John 10:11-18). He will bind and loose with divine ratification in heaven. Will he, as Eliakim did in the Davidic kingdom, have successors in his office as "a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem"? It is hard to give a reason why there should not be more vicars when Christ has appointed one. It is even hard to understand why he would give such great means of grace to the Church, even the authority to forgive sins (Jn 20:21-23), and not perpetuate them beyond one generation.

Those vicars are the Roman Pontiffs. It used to be popular among Protestants to deny that Peter even went to Rome, but as Schatz says, that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there "is something that can be asserted with a degree of probability bordering on certainty." The tradition connecting Peter with Rome is very ancient and unrivalled, and supported by the New Testament itself if "Babylon" refers to Rome in 1 Peter 5:13, which is highly probable.

It’s supposedly a change in the 1983 Code from the old norms. Came from this commentary:

New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0809105020/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_00Z9AbMCFE3D3

I wasn’t trying to offer any personal interpretation except to say that maybe the priest felt there was just cause here.

Here's the CLSA Commentary (https://www.amazon.com/New-Commentary-Code-Canon-Law/dp/0809105020) for canon 988:

https://i.imgur.com/Dc778qt.png

Here's the 1917 Code: https://i.imgur.com/cqoMMKs.jpg

I'll find other commentaries on Monday if I remember.

>Debatable. If it was invalid, it could be argued it was not confession. Part of the premise of the movie Calvary.

No it is no debatable. Movies are not Catholic teaching. Not all confessions are completed with absolution. Even a priest who hears a confession, if they refuse absolution or if the confession is interrupted for some reason, must not break the seal.

[edit} At the bottem of page 1163 of this book (http://www.amazon.com/New-Commentary-Code-Canon-Law/dp/0809105020)
>Canon 983 is concerned with any kind of betrayal of a penitent, whose confession is said to be under or protected by the inviolable or sacramental seal, and is even if he or she has not been absolved. It is a betrayal of a person who has simply confessed in the context of the sacrament.

While I don't agree with them these are thoughts by /u/Ibrey. I'm hesitant to link to them since they are potentially much more than just dubious.

>The basic doctrinal truth underlying this is that the members of the Church are those who:

>1. have been baptised;
>2. profess the true faith; and
>3. maintain corporate unity by submitting to the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him.

>This is expressed in the Code of Canon Law in [Can 205], using language from Lumen Gentium 14. Baptism unites us to the body of the Church, and manifest heresy, apostasy, and schism cut us off from it. The Church is a visible institution, and so what counts for membership in it are visible facts; we are not cut off by merely internal, mental infidelity, or infidelity which is only written about in a diary or disclosed to a few discreet individuals, but by heresy and apostasy which is manifest or notorious, that is, openly divulged.

>There is a radical incompatibility between being a non-member of the Church and holding any office in it. Thus, a cleric who notoriously defects from the Church is automatically removed from any office he holds. [Can 194]

>Many Catholic theologians have defended as a pious and probable opinion that God would never allow the Roman Pontiff to personally fall away from the faith (and it is heresy to allow that God might permit him to define an error to be held by the universal Church). However, if God should allow such a great evil to occur, what applies to lower offices would logically apply to the supreme office. If you are not a member of the Church, you cannot be the head of the Church. As Lawrence Wrenn puts it in the Canon Law Society of America's New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, "to fall from Peter's faith is to fall from his chair." The pope would not have to commit heresy in any special or official way; if he makes his heresy manifest, he departs from the Church as easily as you or I.

>Of course, the idea of evicting an ipso facto ex-pope from the Apostolic Palace (or even the Casa Santa Marta) presents great difficulties in practice. Many authors think that a general council would be competent to declare the fact of the pope's heresy. Others would accept a judgement of the College of Cardinals. In any case, the rest of the Church should all stick together while we work through this and not leave parishes in communion with Rome for sedevacantist chapels. Roberto de Mattei has recently argued that even though Francis has professed heresies in public, they are not notorious. After all, "notorious" means they are known to everybody, and there are still many members of the faithful interpret all Francis' statements in an orthodox light.