Kurgan ignores the Hierarchy of Clerics

And this failure to learn the different types and levels of clerics, and how this relates to various sections of canon law, is how he gets things unbelievably wrong. In kurgan's mind you either "are clergy", or "are not clergy", because you either "are" a heretic or "are not" a heretic. This is the attitude of a very lost and ignorant soul. I'll address heretics and heresy in a future post, but right now I'd like to go through kurgans latest blog post, and exactly how and why he gets canon 188 wrong once again.

Kurgan’s Blog post

“As there are several new people and some are being led astray, allow me to demonstrate in one picture how deceitful @CatholicDeacon the fake, Freemasonic “clergy” of the Novus Orco “Catholic” Church is.

He makes a very lengthy blog post supposed to show me the error of my “interpretation” of Canon 188.4 by trying to say that all the other points of canon 188 are losing only the secular office, which is absolutely a completely retarded approach, since the other points are for very different things, but in any case it is simply not true. Here we see Canon 188 part 6 and it is obvious that UNLESS it is in order to fulfill a draft that was before ordination, canon 188 part 6 means you immediately lose clerical status Note how he simply fails to mention part 2 of canon 141 altogether, and just outright lies with absurd circular (and false) reasoning. Astonishing isn’t it?”

Kurgan’s Picture:

“Canon 141

1 - [Clerics] should not volunteer in secular armies, except with the permission of the local Ordinary, which they might do in order to be free of an earlier draft; nor should they become involved in civil wars or disturbances of the public order in any way.

2 - A minor cleric who freely gives his name to the army in violation of the prescription of 141.1 falls by law from the clerical state.”

I’ll add this so we have a complete picture of what he’s talking about:

Canon 188.6 says this:

“Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric, against the prescription of Canon 141.1, freely gives his name to a secular army.”

In order to get this correct it is vital to know the different types and levels of clergy. There are 2 categories, and seven levels of clergy from canon 949.

Minor Orders (called “offices” in the commentary)

1 - Doorkeeper - MINOR

2 - Lector - MINOR

3 - Exorcist  - MINOR

4 - Acolyte -  MINOR

Major orders

5 - Sub-Diaconate - (Not sacred, not a Sacrament) - MAJOR NON-SACRAMENTAL

6 - Diaconate - Deacons - MAJOR SACRED - SACRAMENTAL

7 - Priesthood - Priests and Bishops -  MAJOR SACRED SACRAMENTAL

See canon 949. We see that only two of the major orders and sacred and sacramental, the preisthood, and the diaconate.

Now, with this knowledge of the different types of clerics, let’s read Canon 188.6 and canon 141.1 and 141.2 again (my comments in red):

“Canon 141

1 - [Clerics] (ALL) should not volunteer in secular armies, except with the permission of the local Ordinary, which they might do in order to be free of an earlier draft; nor should they become involved in civil wars or disturbances of the public order in any way. If they do, they lose their offices (141.1 is mentioned in 188.6, so they are connected

2 - A minor (MINOR) cleric who freely gives his name to the army in violation of the prescription of 141.1 falls by law from the clerical state.” Minor orders fall from clerical state. This is NOT connected to 188.6 because it is NOT mentioned. 141.2 is a subset of 141.1)

Canon 188.6 says:

“Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric (ALL), against the prescription of Canon 141.1, freely gives his name to a secular army.” 

Now let’s examine a sentence in kurgans blog post. 

In one sentence, he jumbles together canons 141.1, 141.2, and 188.6, just because he ignores or doesn't understand the term “minor orders” in 141.2:

A quote from kurgan's post

”Here we see Canon 188 part 6 and it is obvious that UNLESS it is in order to fulfill a draft that was before ordination, canon 188 part 6 means you immediately lose clerical status Note how he simply fails to mention part 2 of canon 141 altogether” No - 188.6 states that any clergy, minor or major, will lose their office (their job they’ve been assigned by the bishop) if they join the military. Isn’t that obvious? If you’ve left for the military you’ve lost your ability to perform your church job? Canon 188.6 has nothing to do with loss of clerical state. However, if we look at 141.2, we see a specific loss of clerical state for MINOR order clergy ONLY. Kurgan somehow “leaps” from 141.2 that specifies a loss of clerical state for only MINOR clergy, and magically jumps back to 188.6 and applies this loss to ALL clergy. They are not connected, as canon 188 is concerned with loss of office. And Lord knows how this connects to his beloved 188.4(?). Kurgan desperately needs any part of 188 to mean loss of clerical state for ALL clergy, when it is clearly talking about loss of office (job or responsibility assigned). He is starting with a conclusion, and grasping at anything to make it true.

I didn’t make up the definition for ecclesiastical office, it’s right in canon 145:

Canon 145

1 - Ecclesiastical office in the wide sense is any responsibility exercised  legitimately for a spiritual end; in the strict sense however, it is a divinely or ecclesiastically ordered responsibility, constituted in a stable manner, conferred according to the norms of the sacred canons, entailing at least some participation in ecclesiastical power, whether of orders or of jurisdiction. (The definitions of ecclesiastical office do not even mention sacred ordination)

2 - In law, ecclesiastical office is taken in the strict sense, unless it appears otherwise from the context of the words.

So, all 8 parts of Canon 188 deal with the loss of ecclesiastical offices in the strict sense, because all 8 parts refer to clergy (ALL clergy). 188.6, and all of the other parts of canon 188, do not refer to loss of clerical state). 

So now let’s add to our types and levels of clergy chart:

Minor Orders (called “offices” in the commentary)

1 - Doorkeeper - MINOR - Can resign - can lose clerical state

2 - Lector - MINOR - Can resign - can lose clerical state

3 - Exorcist  - MINOR - Can resign - can lose clerical state

4 - Acolyte -  MINOR - can resign - can lose clerical state

Major orders

5 - Sub-Diaconate - (Not sacred, not a Sacrament) - MAJOR

6 - Diaconate - Deacons - CAN’T RESIGN - MUST BE RETURNED TO THE LAY STATE

7 - Priesthood - Priests and Bishops -  CAN’T RESIGN - MUST BE RETURNED TO LAY STATE

See commentary for canon 949 by Dom Augustine for more info. 

"Loss of clerical state" is different from "returned to the lay state". How do do I know this? Let’s go to Canon 211, the first Canon under the section “On the reduction of clerics to the lay state”:

Canon 211 

1 - Although sacred ordination, once validly received, can never be invalidated, nevertheless, a major cleric can be returned to the lay state by a rescript of the Holy See, by a decree of sentence according to the norm of Canon 214, or finally as a penalty of degradation. (So, there are three, and only three, ways of returning a MAJOR cleric to the lay state. Notice that canon 188 is not mentioned here as a way of returning a major cleric to the lay state. That’s because canon 188 is only deals with loss of offices)

2 - A minor cleric can be returned to the lay state not only automatically (major clergy cannot be returned automatically) as a result of the causes described in law but also upon his own will, having informed the local Ordinary, or by a decree of the same Ordinary given for a just cause, (a major cleric CANNOT RESIGN like a minor cleric can) if namely the Ordinary, all things considered, prudently judges that the cleric is not (sufficiently) consistent with the decorum of the clerical state to be promoted to sacred orders.

Commentary of Canon 211 - Dom Augustine (excerpts)

Although sacred ordination, once validly received, can never be annulled, aa clergyman in higher orders may be reduced to the lay state by a rescript of the Holy See, by a decree or sentence issued in accordance with canon 214, or finally, by degradation. There are only three things that can return a MAJOR cleric to the lay state, and canon 188.4 is NOT one of them. For the sake of brevity, I will not go through these three instances in detail, but I can)

A cleric in minor orders is reduced to the lay state not only ipso facto for reasons stated in the law, but may also return thereto of his own accord, after having informed the Ordinary of the diocese, or by virtue of decree issued by the same Ordinary for just reasons, if the latter upon due deliberation prudently judges that the cleric cannot be promoted to higher orders without disparagement to the clerical state. You can resign from the minor orders, but you cannot resign from being a deacon, priest, or deacon, as these are divine, sacred sacraments that leave a permanent mark on the soul.

The above historical note (not shown here) has touched upon the three reasons which may bring about a reduction to the lay state, as outlined in can. 211.1. The first is a rescript (a rescript is an apostolic letter from the Pope, in whatever form they may be. The answers of the Pope to questions, in writing. Rescripts are covered in canons 36 to 62) of the Holy See to the effect that, notwithstanding a validly received higher order (which is indelible), a cleric is free from the law of celibacy, the obligation of the Breviary, and other duties. It is evident that weightier reasons are required for a dispensation from those obligations attached to deaconship than from those attached to subdeaconship (deacon is sacred and sacramental, subdeacon is not). 

The second reason is a judicial sentence concerning the reception of a higher order from fear or coercion, as seen under can. 214. (Coercion must be proven, and a judge must sentence per can. 214)

The third reason is degradation, which comprises deposition, privation of clerical prerogatives, and reduction to the lay state, and can be inflicted only for crimes stated in the law and after a duly conducted trial or confession.

So, for the three ways that a MAJOR cleric is returned to the lay state:

Number 1 requires a letter from the Pope

Number 2 requires proof and a sentence by a judge

Number 3 requires a duly conducted trial or confession

There are no ways mentioned of automatically returning a major cleric to the lay state, and it has NEVER happened in all of church history. Everyone gets his day in court, as justice would suggest. However, here’s what follows concerning MINOR clerics:

A cleric in minor orders may be reduced to the lay state if he does not wear the clerical dress (footnote directing us to canon 136.3), as stated above, or if he spontaneously enlists in the army (footnote directing us to canon 141.2,  where we started); thus also a dismissed religious, especially if he has made profession by deceit. But the Ordinary may pass judgment, if he finds reason for not admitting a cleric to higher orders, because minor orders were instituted precisely for the purpose of testing character, or as a kind of clerical novitiate. (because once you become ordained, there is no easy way to go back, as we have shown)

FOR THE RECORD - I believe that the 1983 Code of Canon law (the one that has been promulgated and used in the Church hierarchy for the past 38 years) is the valid one. The orders that I personally went through were acolyte, lector, and deacon, as the others were done away with in the 1983 code. Even though I was given the OFFICES of acolyte and lector, I was not a deacon until I went through the SACRED and SACRAMENTAL ordination.

My Summary and final point

My logic chain:

1 - Per kurgan, I started at canon 188.6, which led me to canon 141.1

2 - 141.1 told me that all clerics lose their office if they leave and join the military. That makes sense. You can’t do your job if you’re gone.

3 - Kurgan thinks (incorrectly) that 141.2 relates back to 188.6 and means that you lose clerical status in 188.6. That’s wrong, but I investigated 141.2 anyway.

4 - Iaked myself, "What exactly does minor orders mean?" That sent me to canon 949 and the commentary.

      — 949 gave me the clergy types

      —949 commentary gave me the clergy levels

5 - Does “loss of clerical state” (minor orders), mean the same thing as “returning to the lay state”? That sent me to canon 211

6 - Canon 211 shows us, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that “loss of clerical state” only happens automatically for minor orders. They are in a novitiate (training) period, so they haven’t really left the lay state yet.

7 - In the Canon 211 commentary, we learn that major orders can only be returned to the lay state by one of three procedures, none of them automatic.

8 - The Canon 212 commentary also verifies that canon 141.2 only relates to minor orders, as stated at the beginning.

Kurgans “logic’ chain

1 - If you think that canon 188 only deals with loss of office, you are retarded

2 - It’s obvious that canon 188.6 means loss of clerical status because the reference to 141.1 somehow includes 141.2, which somehow means “all” clergy even though it only says “minor”clergy, which then leaps back to canon 188.6 for no reason whatsoever, which somehow related to 188.4, defrocking almost all clergy at the same time.

3 - PadreGeo is obviously lying with false and absurd reasoning.

ASK YOURSELF - WHICH ONE MAKES SENSE??

One final point:

The section in canon law concerning trials is 127 pages long, and is 17.3% of the totality of canon law. Do you think the law was written so that one line, in one canon (188.4), Gives a layman the power to automatically defrock almost all of the clergy, at the same time?

Talk about absurd.

END OF PART 6