Znaczenie zasady «supplet Ecclesia». Od kan. 209 KPK z 1917 roku do kan. 144 obecnego KPK – interpretacja i aplikacja

JAN DOHNALIK

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21697/pk.2017.60.4.02

Abstrakt


The article is divided into three parts. In the first one works on the formulation of the norm on jurisdiction supply by the Church during the first codification have been reviewed. The author quotes archival documents and preparatory schemata in which one can notice the evolution of what is to become the canon 209. The scope of application of the rule supplet Ecclesia as well as the conditions in which doubt or common error may occur have been specified in the light of authentic interpretations and the canonical heritage of the first half of the 20th century.

In the second part the process of creation of the current canon 144 and its interpretation has been outlined. Discussion of these issues during preparation of the new codification and subsequent drafts are quoted after the periodical Communicationes.  The meaning of particular elements of the traditional rule’s new formulation is presented in the perspective of former and current commentaries.

The third part is dedicated to the application of the supplet Ecclesia principle in the specific situations of the Church’s life. The first paragraph of the canon can be applied among the others in case of invalid acquisition of an ecclesiastical office for undisclosed reasons as well as the death of the ordinary if it remains unknown to the public. The reader will also find discussions about the implementation of the rule in question in connection with canon 883, the circumstances in which the Church supplies the faculty to celebrate the sacrament of penance or the scope of application of the canon 144 in the assistance at marriages. 

The present elaborate shows that the outline of the history of the interpretation of the supplet Ecclesia principle in the last 100 years helps to better understand and apply the canon 144 of the current Code.  


Słowa kluczowe


normy ogólne; zasady prawne; interpretacja prawa kanonicznego; Ecclesia supplet

Pełny tekst:

PDF

Bibliografia


ŹRÓDŁA

Archivum Secretum Vaticanum (ASV), Comissione Cod. Diritto Canonico, teczki nr 7, 22, 26, 27, 53, 86,87.

Archivum Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae (APUG), Fondo Ojetti, teczki nr 1964; 2082.

Communicationes 1 (1969), s. 35-43;

Communicationes 7 (1975), s. 35;

Communicationes 10 (1978), s. 63 – 90 ;

Communicationes 21 (1989), s. 261;

Communicationes 22 (1990), s. 25 – 92;

Communicationes 23 (1991), s. 52 ; 230 -243;

Communicationes 36 (2004), s. 190-216.

Coram Stankiewicz, 15 grudnia 1992, RRD 84, s. 664-679.

Decretalium D. Gregorii Papae IX. Compilatio (Liber Extra), in Corpus Iuris Canonici, tom II, ed. A. Friedberg, Graz 1955, s. 3-928.

Decretum Magistri Gratiani, w: Corpus Iuris Canonici, tom I, ed. A. Friedberg, Graz 1955.

Digesta Iustiniani, ed. T. Mommsen – P. Krueger, w: Corpus Iuris Civilis, tom I, Berolini 192214.

KLUMPER, B., Postulata Epicoporum in Ordine digesta, Romae Typis Vaticanis 1905.

MÜLLER, A., Votum De poenitentia, Romae 1905.

PONTIFICIA COMISSIO CODICI IURIS CANONICI AUTHENTICE INTERPRETANDOS, Responsa ad proposita dubia, 26 martii 1952, w: AAS 44 (1952), s. 496.

Schema Codicis Iuris Canonici, Vaticano 1980.

Schema novissimum, Vaticano 1982.

Literatura:

BENDER, L., Dubium in Codice Iuris Canonici, Roma – Parigi – New York – Tournai 1962

BENDER, L., Potestas ordinaria et delegata. Commentarius in canones 196-209, Roma –Parigi –New York – Tournai 1957.

BETTI, U., Appunto sulla mia partecipazione alla revisione ultima del nuovo Codice di Diritto Canonico, in: Il processo di designazione dei Vescovi, Utrumque Ius 27, Roma 1995, s. 28-45.

BETTI, U., In margine al nuovo Codice di Diritto Canonico, Antonianum 58 (1983), s. 628-647.

BEYER, J., De potestate ordinaria et delegata, Romae 1971/72.

BUCCERONI, I., Casus Conscientiae, tom II, Romae 1899.

CAPPELLO, F.M., Summa iuris canonici, tom I, Romae4 1945.

COMOTTI, G., La canonica traditio come criterio di interpretazione del C.I.C. (note in margine al can. 6 § 2), w: S. GERRO (red.) Studi sul primo libro del Codex Iuris Canonici, Padova 1993, s. 111-136.

CREUSEN, J., Pouvoir dominatif et erreur commun, w: Acta Congressus Iuridici Internationalis VII saeculo a decretalibus Gregorii IX et XIV a Codice Iustiniano Promulgatus Romae 12-17 novembris 1934, tom IV, Romae 1937, s. 182-193.

DE PAOLIS, V., Delega e supplenza della potestà per assistere al matrimonio, Periodica 92 (2003), s. 455-496.

GANTLEY, M. J., Ecclesia Supplet. Answer to question, JCL on 9/19/2009, w: http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=411941 [31.12.2016].

KRAJCZYŃSKI, J., Uzupełnienie uprawnienia do asystowania przy zawarciu małżeństwa, Ius matrimoniale 13 (19) 2008, s. 125-144.

MICHIELS, G., De potestate ordinaria et delegata. Commentarius Tituli V Libri II Codicis Iuris Canonici. Canones 196-210, Parisiis – Tornaci –Romae – Neo Eboraci 1964.

OJETTI, B., Commentarium in Codicem iuris canonici, Romae 1931.

OJETTI, B., Synopis Rerum Moralium et Iuris Pontificii, tom II, Romae 1911.

ORTIZ, M. A., La supplenza di facoltà per assistere al matrimonio nella giurisprudenza coram Stankiewicz, w: Iustitia et Iudicium. Studi di Diritto matrimoniale e processuale canonico in onore di Antoni Stankiewicz, red. J. Kowal – J. Llobell, tom II, Città del Vaticano, 2010, s. 967-990.

PAŁKA, P., Uzupełnienie jurysdykcji w prawie kanonicznem, Lublin 1926.

PETIT, E., Consentement matrimonial et fiction de droit. Etude sur l’efficacité juridique du consentement après l’introduction de la fiction en droit canonique, Roma 2010.

REGATILLO, E. F., Interpretatio et iurisprudentia Codicis Iuris Canonici, Santander, 1953.

SZMYD, W., Kary kościelne, Kraków 1929.

WERNZ, F.-X. – VIDAL, P., Ius Canonicum, tom II, Romae 1928.

WILCHES, F. A., De errore communi in iure romano et canonico, Romae 1940.

VIANA, A., C. 144. Comentario, w: Commentario Exegético al Código de Derecho Canónico, tom I, Pamplona 1996.

Zewnętrzne odnośniki

  • Obecnie brak jakichkolwiek odnośników.