Talk:Corpus Iuris Canonici

Confusing phrase
The following sentence looks strange to me:

"The Corpus were in fact the standard law books of canon law for the Catholic Church from 1580 until 1917 and was superseded by Corpus Iuris Canonici wanted by Benedict XV"

The latter part of the phrase uses the word "wanted" the non-obvious way. If it should mean that "Benedict XV wanted the new Corpus Iuris Canonici to be used" then I suggest the following re-writing: "The Corpus were in fact the standard law books of canon law for the Catholic Church from 1580 until 1917 and was superseded by Corpus Iuris Canonici introduced by Benedict XV" --Volphy 22:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge
Why does the other page have weird characters before the "Corpus"? -- Cat Whisperer 20:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that that's been fixed, I think the merged article should have the "Iuris" title, as that is what both articles had prior to the rename to get rid of the weird characters. -- Cat Whisperer 22:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Corpus Iuris Canonici" and "Corpus Juris Canonici" are simply two ways of spelling the same name of the same reality. The letter J began to be used to distinguish consonantal from vocal "I" in Latin only in the late sixteenth century, when the Corpus had already been formed.  The letter J was dropped from editions of classical texts in, I think, the nineteenth century.  Certainly, it was dropped from Catholic legislative texts by the time of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Even Catholic liturgical texts dropped it in the second half of the twentieth century.  When English uses Latin legal phrases, it tends to use, old-fashionedly, the letter J, as in "sui juris"; but the Corpus is not an English legal text.  In short, I do not much mind which spelling is used; but it is clear that the spelling difference does not justify two articles about the same matter.  Lima 04:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)