1917 Code and Eastern Churches

[jj2011]

Hello all,

Does anybody know which canon in the 1917 Code of Canon Law says it’s okay for Latins to attend Divine Liturgy and receive communion in eastern Catholic churches?

Thanks,

jj

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Hello all,

Does anybody know which canon in the 1917 Code of Canon Law says it’s okay for Latins to attend Divine Liturgy and receive communion in eastern Catholic churches?

Thanks,

jj

Why? That Code is no longer in force. But here you go.

Can. 923 Christ’s faithful may participate in the eucharistic Sacrifice and receive holy communion in any catholic rite, without prejudice to the provisions of can. 844.

 

[jj2011]

Why? That Code is no longer in force. But here you go.

Can. 923 Christ’s faithful may participate in the eucharistic Sacrifice and receive holy communion in any catholic rite, without prejudice to the provisions of can. 844.

Thanks, Brother.

I saw this question in a traditionalist forum, and some of the hard liners will take it better if they get the answer from the pre-Vatican II code.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thanks, Brother.

I saw this question in a traditionalist forum, and some of the hard liners will take it better if they get the answer from the pre-Vatican II code.

I have to say that if they reject papal authority, which is what they are doing when they reject the current Code of Canon Law, then they are not traditionalists.

 

[AJV]

From the 1917 Code regarding Communion

Can.866. § 1. Omnibus fidelibus cuiusvis ritus datur facultas ut, pietatis causa, sacramentum Eucharisticum quolibet ritu confectum suscipiant.

§ 2. Suadendum tamen ut suo quisque ritu fideles praecepto communionis paschalis satisfaciant.

and the Mass obligation

Can. 1249. Legi de audiendo Sacro satisfacit qui Missae adest quocunque catholico ritu celebretur, sub dio aut in quacunque ecclesia vel oratorio publico aut semi-publico et in privatis coemeteriorum aediculis de quibus in can. 1190, non vero in aliis oratoriis privatis, nisi hoc privilegium a Sede Apostolica concessum fuerit.

Ave Maria Purissima

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Why? That Code is no longer in force. But here you go.

Can. 923 Christ’s faithful may participate in the eucharistic Sacrifice and receive holy communion in any catholic rite, without prejudice to the provisions of can. 844.

David,

That quote is from the present edition - not 1917

Many years,

Neil

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Hello all,

Does anybody know which canon in the 1917 Code of Canon Law says it’s okay for Latins to attend Divine Liturgy and receive communion in eastern Catholic churches?

Thanks,

jj

I don’t know the code, but I know that we did it. For example, I attended an eastern Catholic mass at the invitation of Cardinal Cushing at which he was celebrant and ordained a new eastern Catholic bishop.

 

[Chellow]

You may find a copy here but it’s in Latin and I don’t know if it’s genuine

jgray.org/codes/

catholic-pages.com/dir/canon_law.asp

 

[Irish_Melkite]

You may find a copy here but it’s in Latin and I don’t know if it’s genuine

jgray.org/codes/

Yes, that’s an accurate edition

Many years,

Neil

 

[jj2011]

From the 1917 Code regarding Communion…

Thanks, those were the canons I was trying to find.

 

[cookydon3]

The phrase natural law is sometimes opposed to the positive law of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law. In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be evoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.

---

business opportunity
cannon safe

 

[mardukm]

It is Canon 866 of the old Latin Code.

The Canon gives any Catholic the right to receive in any Rite except in the case of Viaticum, which if possible must be recieved according to one’s own Rite.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[newyorkcatholic]

It is Canon 866 of the old Latin Code.

The Canon gives any Catholic the right to receive in any Rite except in the case of Viaticum, which if possible must be recieved according to one’s own Rite.

Blessings,
Marduk

I wonder what the reason for that might be? You would think (or I would) that the suggestions/rules for Viaticum would be more relaxes, not stricter. If I was sick in a hospital and happened to be in the Ukraine, it would be easier not to have to find a Roman Rite priest and joyfully accept Viaticum from the Ukrainian Catholic priest, no?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

David,

That quote is from the present edition - not 1917

Many years,

Neil

Neil,
I know that was from the present edition of the Code of Canon Law, but that is the one in effect.

I matters not what the old Code says, we are bound by the current Code.

 

[mardukm]

I wonder what the reason for that might be? You would think (or I would) that the suggestions/rules for Viaticum would be more relaxes, not stricter. If I was sick in a hospital and happened to be in the Ukraine, it would be easier not to have to find a Roman Rite priest and joyfully accept Viaticum from the Ukrainian Catholic priest, no?

That’s a good question - probably better asked in the TCF or AF. I have not studied the Latin rite, but maybe it has to do with the rite itself. Maybe there is something theologically different in the rite (like the use of filioque or something) of administering Viaticum. I don’t know.

I read the old Catholic Encyclopedia article, and it says Viaticum is only given to persons who have rational faculties. This may be one of the reasons that one must receive in one’s own Rite, because use of reason is not a condition in the Oriental and Eastern Churches to be able to receive the Grace of the Eucharist.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SouthpawLink]

I have to say that if they reject papal authority, which is what they are doing when they reject the current Code of Canon Law, then they are not traditionalists.

Which of the following is the traditional position?

The 1917 Code (can. 731 §2, and the Holy Office as well: Denz. 2181a) forbid heretics and schismatics from receiving the sacraments until they abjured their errors (i.e. convert).

The 1983 Code (can. 844) allows heretics and schismatics to receive the sacraments (so long as they have faith in them) while still rejecting the Catholic Faith and/or the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff; no conversion is necessary.



Oh, and then there’s the old decree from the Council of Florence: “The unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation” (Cantate Domino, 4 February 1441: Denz. 714).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Which of the following is the traditional position?

The 1917 Code (can. 731 §2, and the Holy Office as well: Denz. 2181a) forbid heretics and schismatics from receiving the sacraments until they abjured their errors (i.e. convert).

The 1983 Code (can. 844) allows heretics and schismatics to receive the sacraments (so long as they have faith in them) while still rejecting the Catholic Faith and/or the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff; no conversion is necessary.



Oh, and then there’s the old decree from the Council of Florence: “The unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation” (Cantate Domino, 4 February 1441: Denz. 714).

The traditional position would be to follow the authority of the Pope in obedience.

To follow your own opinion and interpretation is not traditional, it is protestantism.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Which of the following is the traditional position?

The 1917 Code (can. 731 §2, and the Holy Office as well: Denz. 2181a) forbid heretics and schismatics from receiving the sacraments until they abjured their errors (i.e. convert).

The 1983 Code (can. 844) allows heretics and schismatics to receive the sacraments (so long as they have faith in them) while still rejecting the Catholic Faith and/or the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff; no conversion is necessary.



Oh, and then there’s the old decree from the Council of Florence: “The unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation” (Cantate Domino, 4 February 1441: Denz. 714).

The traditionalist Catholic must side with the current Cannon Code (or they are heretics).

I’d assume that in all three that Eastern Catholics could attend the Latin Rite and vice-versa because we are all part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I’d also go so far to say that the 4 February 1441 Code would think of Eastern Catholics since the Maronites re-affirmed their ties in the 12th-century.

 

[Tradycja]

Oh, and then there’s the old decree from the Council of Florence: “The unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation” (Cantate Domino, 4 February 1441: Denz. 714).

This particular statement is not part of Canon Law, but of an Ecumenical Council. It is also doctrinal, not disciplinary. The allowance of those not in union with Rome to receive communion in the new code is a matter of discipline.

Here is a good example I heard of the distinction:

Doctrine------> Paul is a boy. (Stating a truth)
Discipline-----> Paul, go fetch some water. (Imperative form, a command)

 

[SouthpawLink]

The traditional position would be to follow the authority of the Pope in obedience.

To follow your own opinion and interpretation is not traditional, it is protestantism.

Dakota Robers:

The traditionalist Catholic must side with the current Cannon Code (or they are heretics).

It’s sacrilegious.

“Unworthy treatment of the Eucharist is the worst of sacrileges….”[8] “They who make a sacrilegious Communion,” writes St. Cyril, “receive satan and Jesus Christ into their hearts—satan, that they may let him rule, and Jesus Christ, that they may offer Him in sacrifice as a Victim to satan.”