1917 CIC & deacons handling the Blessed Sacrament

[japhy]

A recently-closed thread ended with the following statement: “The 1917 canon law permitted the Deacon, as well. Older documents I can’t cite by name from memory also permitted distribution in the Roman Rite by Deacons.”

Can someone who knows the 1917 CIC confirm or deny this?

Update: Ok, I found it:
Can. 845. § l. Minister ordinarius sacrae communionis est solus sacerdos.

§ 2. Extraordinarius est diaconus, de Ordinarii loci vel parochi licentia, gravi de causa concedenda, quae in casu necessitatis legitime praesumitur.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Does it matter? The 1917 code has been replaced.

 

[japhy]

Does it matter? The 1917 code has been replaced.

It was something I didn’t know, and it goes against much of the diatribe I hear from staunch traditionalists who insist that no one except the priest was permitted to touch the host.

 

[Aramis]

Does it matter? The 1917 code has been replaced.

It was something I didn’t know, and it goes against much of the diatribe I hear from staunch traditionalists who insist that no one except the priest was permitted to touch the host.

Further, many of the hyper-traditionalists reject the 1983 CIC.

By showing that the deacon was permitted under the 1917 CIC, it shows that the most narrow view has been wrong longer than most of them have been alive.

 

[bpbasilphx]

In his SIGN OF JONAS, Fr. Mary Louis (Thomas Merton) talks about how as a Deacon he held the host for the first time during either Mass or Benediction–don’t remember which.

 

[Penitant]

Further, many of the hyper-traditionalists reject the 1983 CIC.

By showing that the deacon was permitted under the 1917 CIC, it shows that the most narrow view has been wrong longer than most of them have been alive.

Please don’t group sedevecantists and conclavists with traditionalists. They are anything but traditional.

Pax Tecum,
Zach

 

[Aramis]

Please don’t group sedevecantists and conclavists with traditionalists. They are anything but traditional.

Pax Tecum,
Zach

I’m not. I’ve encountered non-sedes who consider the 1983 as invalid, since it allows things that are forbidden by prior proclamations by other popes before hand. Like lay EMHC’s, Deacons as Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, and a few other issues. Usually, they also try to claim the 1917 is still in force, and consider the OF illicit but not invalid. These also tend to be the types to go try to Latinize the Byzantine parishes.

Most of the sedevaticanists and conclavists agree with them, but go much further (some rejecting even the 1917 CIC and Vatican I), but they are not the ones of whom I speak.