Talk:1983 Code of Canon Law
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Section moved from Corpus Juris Canonici
editI moved a large section on the present code from the above page. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 05:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Ecclesiological inspiration of the 1983 Code
editI have added a brief paragraph which helps to underline the difference, in theological-ecclesiological structuring, between the 1917 and the 1983 Codes.Iuris-can (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Language of the Summary
editThe technicalities of the subject are complicated by English which seems to have been translated from another language. I have tried to clarify some parts, but I am not a Roman Catholic and I only hope I have understood it correctly. It would be a great help if a native English-speaker who knows the subject could copy-edit it, please? Jezza (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Italics
editShouldn't "Code of Canon Law" and "Codex Iuris Canonici" be italicized, being titles? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 05:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Disagreement on the page moves
edit@CanonLawJunkie: I disagree with your page move. "Code of Canon Law" does not commonly refer to the 1983 code. Even if it did, on WP "Code of Canon Law", just like "Codex Iuris Canonici" (which you also moved) is confusing and used for both the 1917 and 1983 editions, e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here. Veverve (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Rlationship Church-Freemasonry
editA new provision is going to come in force within December 8, 2021 about the relationships between Cthe Roman Catholic hurch and the Synagogue of Satan. But the related text of Book VI seems to be available solely in Italian. It has not been cited in the WP article given the WP policies about hypothetic predictions on future events.
Furthermore, the canon 2335 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law wasn't extensively cited due to the lack of a WP:reliable source. The related WP article links a Google Books preview where the norm isn't readable. Hope in further aid to find an alternative source. I haven't found it in the fsspx website that is undoubtedly a reliable source.Theologian81sp (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Theologian81sp: are you looking for this?