Both of the above are considered invalidated by subsequent canon law. Though the decree of Pope Alexander IV in “Sextus Decretalium was considered binding when the CE was written (1902) it was absent in the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1917 (Pio-Benedictine Codex) while Canon 229 §1 provides some sanction for defending Cath faith. However, canon law is both changeable and can be quite interpretive, such as applying it to liberals getting the wafer or church funerals.
Can. 229 §1. Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire knowledge of Christian doctrine appropriate to the capacity and condition of each in order for them to be able to live according to this doctrine, announce it themselves, defend it if necessary, and take their part in exercising the apostolate.
But which is too broad and ambiguous. And since the penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new code of canon law that went into effect on January 1, 1983., then it also is considered abrogated . At least by some.
As Rome interprets herself, and what she said in the past only means what she says in the present, thus it seems RCs are not to base their obedience on their judgment of whether present teaching conforms with the past, but like docile sheep, their on duty is to follow the pastors.
See debate here on Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium,” "We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication."
While the Quinisext Ecumenical Council in Trullo, Canon 64, states: It does not befit a layman to dispute or teach publicly, thus claiming for himself authority to teach, but he should yield to the order appointed by the Lord, The Quinisext Council of 692 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm) was not held by the western church as authoritative and binding, but it is regarded by the Orthodox as ecumenical/binding, yet as disciplinary canons they can be abrogated.
I stand corrected. Thank you for the diligence.
After noting what Can. 229 §1 says (thank you very much) and seeing that supplies positive endorsement of the activity, compared to previous prohibition
As Rome interprets herself, and what she said in the past only means what she says in the present, thus it seems RCs are not to base their obedience on their judgment of whether present teaching conforms with the past, but like docile sheep, their on duty is to follow the pastors.
At least by some. That's quite the kicker, isn't it?
I'd still like to see the permission slips, although there are more than a few around here who value the Constitution of the United States well enough (in it's more original intents, anyway) that they should have lifetime, "free" hall-passes, and as far as I'm concerned, do.
For others, not so much.
I've often wondered ... does the confessor of a few (certainly not all whom we interact with on these pages, but a few) of the 'Catholics' around here, know what their people are up to, in what they say and how they choose to say it?
If the priests are fully supportive of some of the more extreme edges, then I'd much rather discuss the issues with them --- and hopefully put some matters at least, to rest, so that we may possibly be hearing less of the same in the future.
Wouldn't that be nice?
Maybe people could better focus upon those things which can be agreed upon too, instead of so much be continually about what is in dispute.
I appreciate your own efforts towards this end, your honesty and the work you put into documentation, as you go along.
It's too bad that many so frequently just shine you on.