During times of sede vacante, the Code of Canon Law states that “nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church” and that “special laws…are to be observed” (c. 335). Among these “special laws” include the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici gregis, promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1996 and revised in 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Normas nonnulas, which governs the election of the Roman Pontiff.
One could write a whole book about the influence of Vatican II (or more broadly, the nouvelle théologie) not just on the interpretation of modern canon law, but on the laws themselves. I just might do this and call it the nouvelle jurisprudence...
I do not think this comes from Vatican II. It comes from the codification of canon Law, wich has changed the "mentality" of the ecclesiastical law in a more positivistic way. It is part of the "false spirit" of Vatican I, indeed
That's a very interesting question that I've been thinking about lately as well. It seems like today's crisis was set up by two seemingly opposing factions. First you had the "ultramontanists" of the first half of the twentieth century who gave us the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Divino Afflatu, and many harsh words against modernism. Then you had the "modernists" of the second half who were active at Vatican II and contributed to what followed.
Just because the "solutions" of the 1960s and later were disastrous doesn't mean we can stick our heads in the sand and pretend that no problems existed in the extremely Jansenist ecclesiastical climate of the decades prior to Vatican II. The simplistic view that most modern "traditionalists" in 2025 (including and especially the SSPX) have is that the way to combat the second group is to adopt the approach of the first despite the first group's tactics just not working (as history shows). Writing more words on a page about why religious liberty is bad isn't going to solve anything because it is an inherently positivistic approach.
This isn't to say that writing articles isn't helping, but more books and articles aren't enough to change mentalities. Only liturgy, symbolism, ritual, and beauty can do that. The problem with Pius X's generation is that they accurately identified problems but thought that banning all bad things and promoting good things through papal authority would somehow be sufficient. Making modernists who are more than capable of putting on an orthodox face when needed to accomplish their agenda recite some words in the "Oath of Modernism" wasn't going to stop them.
While Pius X wouldn't have supported the Novus Ordo Missae or something like canon 844 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, one can argue that these innovations are part of the legacy of his papacy. Their content could only have arisen after Pius X's positivistic approach to liturgy and canon law created the groundwork for the enemies of the Church to infiltrate during Vatican II and impose their nonsense on the faithful in the name of false obedience.
"Only liturgy, symbolism, ritual, and beauty can do that". I fully agree with that. That is why I have come more and more aware of the roots of the crisis we are facing. And I think is an error to just point out to a determined era. It is a development. We cannot understand our presente situation if we do not see what nominalism means, it's influence on the so called Protestant "reformation", it's influence on the conception of the State and law, an so on. One of the things that sometimes is not very well understood is the impact that the influence of the loss of the Papa States had on the psychology of the Vatican I fathers, and the Roman Pontiffs. I think (is just an opinion) that it was the moment when the church realized fully what modernity meant and wanted. And they trembled. And it had several reactions on the whole Church. I do not like to divide them in the usual categories of progressive, conservatives, traditionalists... but I am going to use it as a matter of understanding. The modernist heresy was a philosophical one in its roots and it was an attempt to embrace the challenge of modernity. A false embrace, but an attempt. I think the reaction to modernism was a "conservative" one in the sense we use it nowadays. Let me explain. I think Saint Puis X was a very good Pastor, but (as it happens to all of us, in some way) was a son of this time. And He accepted the way of thinking of the Vatican I fathers that in order to prevail to the challenges of modernity and overcome them you could use their tools. Referring to the examples you are making: 1) we can use a juridical technique (codification) for he sake of clarity, utility and unity without compromising the truth about the natura of law, reason and the bond of the authority to divine revelation; 2) we can change the traditional 'cursus psalmorum' because there is not time for priests due to the way of modern living without compromising their spiritual life, office and the salvation of souls. For me, this means, two thing: reason and liturgy are changeable. We can change them without changing the doctrine. And I think that is a conservative standard. Off course I am aware that we now see the consequences of this things, and when we change things one has to be very wise to realize about their consequences. And because of that we are now in a better position than they were. And yes, because of that I thing things now can be changed (God willing)
"... the message sent to the faithful will inevitably be that law simply does not matter"
Thus realizing the vision of Vatican II -- to keep in step with the modern world.
One could write a whole book about the influence of Vatican II (or more broadly, the nouvelle théologie) not just on the interpretation of modern canon law, but on the laws themselves. I just might do this and call it the nouvelle jurisprudence...
I do not think this comes from Vatican II. It comes from the codification of canon Law, wich has changed the "mentality" of the ecclesiastical law in a more positivistic way. It is part of the "false spirit" of Vatican I, indeed
That's a very interesting question that I've been thinking about lately as well. It seems like today's crisis was set up by two seemingly opposing factions. First you had the "ultramontanists" of the first half of the twentieth century who gave us the 1917 Code of Canon Law, Divino Afflatu, and many harsh words against modernism. Then you had the "modernists" of the second half who were active at Vatican II and contributed to what followed.
Just because the "solutions" of the 1960s and later were disastrous doesn't mean we can stick our heads in the sand and pretend that no problems existed in the extremely Jansenist ecclesiastical climate of the decades prior to Vatican II. The simplistic view that most modern "traditionalists" in 2025 (including and especially the SSPX) have is that the way to combat the second group is to adopt the approach of the first despite the first group's tactics just not working (as history shows). Writing more words on a page about why religious liberty is bad isn't going to solve anything because it is an inherently positivistic approach.
This isn't to say that writing articles isn't helping, but more books and articles aren't enough to change mentalities. Only liturgy, symbolism, ritual, and beauty can do that. The problem with Pius X's generation is that they accurately identified problems but thought that banning all bad things and promoting good things through papal authority would somehow be sufficient. Making modernists who are more than capable of putting on an orthodox face when needed to accomplish their agenda recite some words in the "Oath of Modernism" wasn't going to stop them.
While Pius X wouldn't have supported the Novus Ordo Missae or something like canon 844 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, one can argue that these innovations are part of the legacy of his papacy. Their content could only have arisen after Pius X's positivistic approach to liturgy and canon law created the groundwork for the enemies of the Church to infiltrate during Vatican II and impose their nonsense on the faithful in the name of false obedience.
"Only liturgy, symbolism, ritual, and beauty can do that". I fully agree with that. That is why I have come more and more aware of the roots of the crisis we are facing. And I think is an error to just point out to a determined era. It is a development. We cannot understand our presente situation if we do not see what nominalism means, it's influence on the so called Protestant "reformation", it's influence on the conception of the State and law, an so on. One of the things that sometimes is not very well understood is the impact that the influence of the loss of the Papa States had on the psychology of the Vatican I fathers, and the Roman Pontiffs. I think (is just an opinion) that it was the moment when the church realized fully what modernity meant and wanted. And they trembled. And it had several reactions on the whole Church. I do not like to divide them in the usual categories of progressive, conservatives, traditionalists... but I am going to use it as a matter of understanding. The modernist heresy was a philosophical one in its roots and it was an attempt to embrace the challenge of modernity. A false embrace, but an attempt. I think the reaction to modernism was a "conservative" one in the sense we use it nowadays. Let me explain. I think Saint Puis X was a very good Pastor, but (as it happens to all of us, in some way) was a son of this time. And He accepted the way of thinking of the Vatican I fathers that in order to prevail to the challenges of modernity and overcome them you could use their tools. Referring to the examples you are making: 1) we can use a juridical technique (codification) for he sake of clarity, utility and unity without compromising the truth about the natura of law, reason and the bond of the authority to divine revelation; 2) we can change the traditional 'cursus psalmorum' because there is not time for priests due to the way of modern living without compromising their spiritual life, office and the salvation of souls. For me, this means, two thing: reason and liturgy are changeable. We can change them without changing the doctrine. And I think that is a conservative standard. Off course I am aware that we now see the consequences of this things, and when we change things one has to be very wise to realize about their consequences. And because of that we are now in a better position than they were. And yes, because of that I thing things now can be changed (God willing)
It's definitely a work waiting to be written, God willing you'll do it justice.