Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 13 posts ]   
Author Message
 Post subject: What does this mean?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:39 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 7681
Location: India
Religion: Syro Malabar Christian
CANON 41
Summary. No prescription is valid unless it rests on good faith.

Text. Since all that is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14: 23), we decree that no prescription, whether canonical or civil, is valid unless it rests on good faith; because in a general way a prescription that cannot be maintained without mortal sin is in conflict with all law and custom. Wherefore it is essential that he who holds a prescription should at no time be aware of the fact that the object belongs to another.
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran4.asp

Another translation:
41. No one is to knowingly prescribe an object to the wrong party

Since whatever does not proceed from faith is sin, and since in general any constitution or custom which cannot be observed without mortal sin is to be disregarded, we therefore define by this synodal judgment that no prescription, whether canonical or civil, is valid without good faith. It is therefore necessary that the person who prescribes should at no stage be aware that the object belongs to someone else.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/lateran4.htm

_________________
Prayers,
Jack3
South Indian Eastern Catholic teenager.

"May our tongues proclaim Your truth. May Your Cross be a protection for us as we let our tongues be turned into new harps and sing hymns with fiery lips"

-From the introduction to Our Father, "On the feasts of the Lord and other important feasts", Syro Malabar rite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What does this mean?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:52 am 
Offline
Master
Master
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:22 pm
Posts: 1542
Location: Canada
Religion: la foi Catholique
Church Affiliations: K of C 4th Degree
I'd say the obvious meaning is an attempt to legislate a sin into canon law is always invalid.

But I think the reason you're not getting a reply is because not a lot of people like to give unprofessional canon law advice.

Please don't take my advice as anything but a non-expert opinion :P

_________________
In Te speravi, Domine: dixi: Tu es Deus meus, in manibus Tuis tempora mea.
Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak: heal me, O Lord, for my bones are troubled.
All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.
Tiber swim team '13


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What does this mean?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:54 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 7681
Location: India
Religion: Syro Malabar Christian
What is meant by "hold a prescription, the object of which belongs to another" ?

_________________
Prayers,
Jack3
South Indian Eastern Catholic teenager.

"May our tongues proclaim Your truth. May Your Cross be a protection for us as we let our tongues be turned into new harps and sing hymns with fiery lips"

-From the introduction to Our Father, "On the feasts of the Lord and other important feasts", Syro Malabar rite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What does this mean?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:59 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 78189
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
The reason he's not getting an answer is that this canon (which is, BTW, disciplinary and not doctrinal) doesn't apply to anything going on in the world today that I know of. I have no idea what it's talking about.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What does this mean?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:11 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 7681
Location: India
Religion: Syro Malabar Christian
To me, the four things said seem to be put together randomly without concern for coherence. :scratch:

_________________
Prayers,
Jack3
South Indian Eastern Catholic teenager.

"May our tongues proclaim Your truth. May Your Cross be a protection for us as we let our tongues be turned into new harps and sing hymns with fiery lips"

-From the introduction to Our Father, "On the feasts of the Lord and other important feasts", Syro Malabar rite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What does this mean?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 8:12 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 78189
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
I would guess that context would provide coherence.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What does this mean?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:15 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 7681
Location: India
Religion: Syro Malabar Christian
Do you know what it means?

_________________
Prayers,
Jack3
South Indian Eastern Catholic teenager.

"May our tongues proclaim Your truth. May Your Cross be a protection for us as we let our tongues be turned into new harps and sing hymns with fiery lips"

-From the introduction to Our Father, "On the feasts of the Lord and other important feasts", Syro Malabar rite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What does this mean?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:01 am 
Offline
Jedi Master
Jedi Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:55 am
Posts: 78189
Location: 1.5532386636 radians
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 4th Degree KofC
Not a clue.

_________________
Nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri

Need something to read?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What does this mean?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:10 am 
Offline
King of Cool
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 75506
Religion: Anticukite Catholic
Where did you get this from? Are you just reading the Code of Canon Law? If so, why?

_________________
Excelsior!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What does this mean?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:28 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 7681
Location: India
Religion: Syro Malabar Christian
Doom wrote:
Where did you get this from? Are you just reading the Code of Canon Law? If so, why?

Clicking the hypertext might shed light on the concerns you raise. :fyi:

_________________
Prayers,
Jack3
South Indian Eastern Catholic teenager.

"May our tongues proclaim Your truth. May Your Cross be a protection for us as we let our tongues be turned into new harps and sing hymns with fiery lips"

-From the introduction to Our Father, "On the feasts of the Lord and other important feasts", Syro Malabar rite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What does this mean?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:33 pm 
Offline
Handmaids of the Lord
Handmaids of the Lord
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:25 pm
Posts: 2064
Location: Missouri
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: Endow facilitator
Jack3 wrote:
CANON 41
Summary. No prescription is valid unless it rests on good faith.

Text. Since all that is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14: 23), we decree that no prescription, whether canonical or civil, is valid unless it rests on good faith; because in a general way a prescription that cannot be maintained without mortal sin is in conflict with all law and custom. Wherefore it is essential that he who holds a prescription should at no time be aware of the fact that the object belongs to another.
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran4.asp

Another translation:
41. No one is to knowingly prescribe an object to the wrong party

Since whatever does not proceed from faith is sin, and since in general any constitution or custom which cannot be observed without mortal sin is to be disregarded, we therefore define by this synodal judgment that no prescription, whether canonical or civil, is valid without good faith. It is therefore necessary that the person who prescribes should at no stage be aware that the object belongs to someone else.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/lateran4.htm


I am not an expert on Canon Law by any stretch of the imagination, so the following is only my own opinion regarding a possible interpretation. :)

Considering the context (this section seems to be about property and stealing) and the fact that a "prescription" can mean staking a claim on something due to having it in your possession for a length of time, it seems to me to be saying that the person in the position of authority to grant "official" recognition of someone as the owner of an object/property should not grant them that claim if he is aware that the property actually belongs to someone else, even if the civil authority allows it due to length of time.

For example, where I live, let's say I rent an apartment from Joe. After my lease is up, I move out, but I leave behind a relatively valuable piano. If I don't make other arrangements with Joe regarding the piano, then according to civil law, he becomes the owner, whether I like it or not, after 30 days (there are additional requirements for Joe to meet, but let's just go with that for now).

It seems to me that "Canon 41" is saying that even though the civil law says the piano is now Joe's, it's really still mine, and Joe should treat it as such. And if Joe goes to the civil authority and attempts to lay claim to my piano because I left it behind, but the official is aware that Joe is not the actual owner, that official also should not "prescribe" the piano to Joe (that is, allow him to claim it because he's had it in his possession for a length of time), because that would be stealing.

Again, I'm only making a guess here, based on the context and the meaning of "prescription," but I hope it's helpful.

_________________
God bless,
--Amy


"Never read books you aren't sure about . . . even supposing that these bad books are very well written from a literary point of view. Let me ask you this: Would you drink something you knew was poisoned just because it was offered to you in a golden cup?" --St. John Bosco


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What does this mean?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:45 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 7681
Location: India
Religion: Syro Malabar Christian
Catholic Rose wrote:
Jack3 wrote:
CANON 41
Summary. No prescription is valid unless it rests on good faith.

Text. Since all that is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14: 23), we decree that no prescription, whether canonical or civil, is valid unless it rests on good faith; because in a general way a prescription that cannot be maintained without mortal sin is in conflict with all law and custom. Wherefore it is essential that he who holds a prescription should at no time be aware of the fact that the object belongs to another.
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran4.asp

Another translation:
41. No one is to knowingly prescribe an object to the wrong party

Since whatever does not proceed from faith is sin, and since in general any constitution or custom which cannot be observed without mortal sin is to be disregarded, we therefore define by this synodal judgment that no prescription, whether canonical or civil, is valid without good faith. It is therefore necessary that the person who prescribes should at no stage be aware that the object belongs to someone else.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/lateran4.htm


I am not an expert on Canon Law by any stretch of the imagination, so the following is only my own opinion regarding a possible interpretation. :)

Considering the context (this section seems to be about property and stealing) and the fact that a "prescription" can mean staking a claim on something due to having it in your possession for a length of time, it seems to me to be saying that the person in the position of authority to grant "official" recognition of someone as the owner of an object/property should not grant them that claim if he is aware that the property actually belongs to someone else, even if the civil authority allows it due to length of time.

For example, where I live, let's say I rent an apartment from Joe. After my lease is up, I move out, but I leave behind a relatively valuable piano. If I don't make other arrangements with Joe regarding the piano, then according to civil law, he becomes the owner, whether I like it or not, after 30 days (there are additional requirements for Joe to meet, but let's just go with that for now).

It seems to me that "Canon 41" is saying that even though the civil law says the piano is now Joe's, it's really still mine, and Joe should treat it as such. And if Joe goes to the civil authority and attempts to lay claim to my piano because I left it behind, but the official is aware that Joe is not the actual owner, that official also should not "prescribe" the piano to Joe (that is, allow him to claim it because he's had it in his possession for a length of time), because that would be stealing.

Again, I'm only making a guess here, based on the context and the meaning of "prescription," but I hope it's helpful.

Why is Rom 14:23 quoted?

_________________
Prayers,
Jack3
South Indian Eastern Catholic teenager.

"May our tongues proclaim Your truth. May Your Cross be a protection for us as we let our tongues be turned into new harps and sing hymns with fiery lips"

-From the introduction to Our Father, "On the feasts of the Lord and other important feasts", Syro Malabar rite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What does this mean?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 12:16 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 28984
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
Jack3 wrote:
CANON 41
Summary. No prescription is valid unless it rests on good faith.

Text. Since all that is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14: 23), we decree that no prescription, whether canonical or civil, is valid unless it rests on good faith; because in a general way a prescription that cannot be maintained without mortal sin is in conflict with all law and custom. Wherefore it is essential that he who holds a prescription should at no time be aware of the fact that the object belongs to another.
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran4.asp

Another translation:
41. No one is to knowingly prescribe an object to the wrong party

Since whatever does not proceed from faith is sin, and since in general any constitution or custom which cannot be observed without mortal sin is to be disregarded, we therefore define by this synodal judgment that no prescription, whether canonical or civil, is valid without good faith. It is therefore necessary that the person who prescribes should at no stage be aware that the object belongs to someone else.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/lateran4.htm

Prescription is two-fold in law, negative and positive. Negative prescription is the loss of a right due to non exercise of that right.

With real or personal property it is essentially abandoning the property, and thus losing any claim to it.

Positive prescription is the acquisition of a right by actual exercise of it publicly, peacefully and without interruption.

It has happened in the Church many times. E.g a Church or a monastery is abandoned, and another order publicly and notoriously occupies it without any real challenge, it becomes theirs. Such happened with St. Francis and several of his early foundations.

What the canon is stating is that a claim of positive prescription cannot be acquired through sinful means. For example, if one hides their occupation from one who might challenge it, or if one deceives or knowing another has ownership claims prescription, even though the owner has not lost his claim, or if the previous owner has only not exercised his rights because frustrated by one's occupation, then the prescription was only acquired through sin and so is voided.

Prescription is currently governed by title X of Canon Law

Quote:
Can. 197 The Church receives prescription as it is in the civil legislation of the nation in question, without prejudice to the exceptions which are established in the canons of this Code; prescription is a means of acquiring or losing a subjective right as well as of freeing oneself from obligations.

Can. 198 No prescription is valid unless it is based in good faith not only at the beginning but through the entire course of time required for prescription, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ Can. 1362.
q

Can 1362 controls prescription with regard to criminal penalties. Essentially many punishments can only be given within three years from the time the crime was committed or ceased (if continous).

In anycase, the gist is prescription must be claimed in good faith. E.g if I were an abbot and publicly and openly occupy a run down monastery with no known owner, fixing it and housing my monks, making no attempt to hide my occupation, but doing it so anyone with a claim could reasonably know it and exercise their rights, and after years finally another owner, which had owned the building, challenges my claim, it wouldn't matter. It is now mine, acquired in good faith. But if I had told the owner that I wanted to use his building, offered fixing it up in lieu of rent, etc but then claimed prescription, that would be in bad faith.

Romans is quoted for no big reason, namely because of the mention of faith being incompatible with sin

_________________
Quoniam sapientia aperuit os mutorum, et linguas infantium fecit disertas.

http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 1 of 1   [ 13 posts ]   


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Jump to: