Are Lay Ministries hurting priestly vocations

[Malkin71]

I disagree. If JPII issued some law subsequent to his promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, he would either have to revise the Code or make a specific exception to it.

I’ve never heard or read of anything alluding to this. Can you please clarify your claim?

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificum.htm

Summorum Potificum

Click on the Link in case you have never read it.

 

[Malkin71]

1984

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDW62IND.HTM

QUATTUOR ABHINC ANNOS
Indult for Use of Roman Missal of 1962
Congregation for Divine Worship
The following is the text of a Circular Letter sent on 3 October 1984 by the Congregation for Divine Worship to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences.

Most Rev. Excellency:

Four years ago, by order of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, the bishops of the whole Church were invited to present a report:

—concerning the way in. which the priests and faithful of their dioceses had received the Missal promulgated in 1970 by authority of Pope Paul VI in accordance with the decisions of the Second Vatican Council

—concerning the difficulties arising in the implementation of the liturgical reform;

—concerning possible resistance that may have arisen.

The result of the consultation was sent to all the bishops (cf. Notitiae, n. 185 December 1981). On the basis of their replies it appeared that the problem of priests and faithful holding to the so-called “Tridentine” rite was almost completely solved.

Since, however, the same problem continues, the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition, but under the following conditions:

a) That it be made publicly clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.

b) Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in churches and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually or in individual cases.

c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin.

d) There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals.

e) Each bishop must inform this Congregation of the concessions granted by him, and at the end of a year from the granting of this indult, he must report on the result of its application.

This concession, indicative of the common Father’s solicitude for all his children, must be used in such a way as not to prejudice the faithful observance of the liturgical reform in the life of the respective ecclesial communities.

I am pleased to avail myself of this occasion to express to Your Excellency my sentiments of deep esteem.

Yours devotedly in the Lord

Augustin Mayer, Pro-Prefect
Virgilio Noe Secretary
Taken from:
L’Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
22 October 1984, page

L’Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.
The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by:

The Cathedral Foundation
L’Osservatore Romano English Edition
320 Cathedral St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
Subscriptions: (410) 547-5315
Fax: (410) 332-1069
lormail@catholicreview.org

Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com

Pay attention to

c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin.

d) There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals.

 

[Malkin71]

Regarding reception of communion, yes, as I noted, I was only talking about the Roman Catholic rite. I thought you were too. Were you not? Sorry, again, for any confusion my mistake may have caused.

You never did answer my questions, as I answered yours. Have you been to other Rites/ liturgies? The ones I’ve been to (Byzantine and Melkite Rites) we received communion in the hand, so I really don’t know what you mean by insulting them. If you can clarify I’d appreciate it. And there was no concern about spilling the Blood of Christ.

Thanks.

Here is a reply right from the forums bords

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=79048

 

[Malkin71]

Regarding reception of communion, yes, as I noted, I was only talking about the Roman Catholic rite. I thought you were too. Were you not? Sorry, again, for any confusion my mistake may have caused.

You never did answer my questions, as I answered yours. Have you been to other Rites/ liturgies? The ones I’ve been to (Byzantine and Melkite Rites) we received communion in the hand, so I really don’t know what you mean by insulting them. If you can clarify I’d appreciate it. And there was no concern about spilling the Blood of Christ.

Thanks.

I am Baptisied Ukrainian Catholic and I have been to services in the Byzantine rite.

 

[Malkin71]

I am sorry, I don’t understand how we could say the things you note are not Church teaching. If the Church allows and regulates the practices you note, which She does, how else should we refer to them if not as part of “church teaching”? What word is preferable to you?

Sorry to hear it. That’s the kind of thing why I think Church rules are important. The Church clearly does not allow banning kneeling as a posture in that circumstance. I’m not intending to be legalistic, and I don’t think the Church is, I think the rules are important because, I hope, they are ways the Church tries to ensure unity and worship and not subject our worship to individual whims that may not be true to the Church’s intent and tradition. Again, sorry to hear you had that experience, that’s a shame.

That is the difference between the O.F. form and the E.F. form. The E.F. form has strict rubrics and guild lines that makes it unity for every where you go to attend the E.F. form.

While the O.F. does not have strict guidlines. That is why the Mass is different from parish to parish. There is a different interpertation of the rubics and and it leads to creativity and experimentation in the Mass.

 

[Malkin71]

Never heard this before. Do you have any source to back this up?

In the Holy Father’s book “The Spirit of the Liturgy”

Here is a good review of the book and it mentions about participation.

rtforum.org/lt/lt92.html

 

[CradleCath]

Thanks. That’s one person’s opinion on a Q&A site though, not quite the same as official Church teaching.

On the other hand, the answer I gave was from “Inaestimabile Donum” & states: “The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist** can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of the Mass excessively long.”**I. No comment. Wait…let me guess, "Who is to say what “so large” & “excessively long” means.

 

[diggerdomer]

Pay attention to

c) These celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal and in Latin.

d) There must be no interchanging of texts and rites of the two Missals.

I know. I agree.No problem.

Let me ask this, though, if it helps clarify my thought about the different “law” or rules today, given the change in the Code of Canon Law and other liturgical laws since 1962.

I admit I’m not as familiar with the EF as you are. My understanding is that a subdeacon is required for the solemn High Mass. Is this right? Or do you know? If it is correct, then how can the EF solemn High Mass be celebrated? The Church no longer has the order of subdeacons.

That’s an example where later laws now take precedence. This would apply to female readers and so on. Note, the law does not say you HAVE to use female readers or altar servers, but it does allow them, so any liturgical celebration (EF or OF) is bound by the same liturgical law. The Missal (texts, rubrics, and so on) are different between the two Rites, obviously, but the other pertinent laws and instructions (like canon law) are not.

Does that help clarify what I mean?

 

[Malkin71]

I may have misread and/or misinterpreted your posts. If that’s the case please accept my sincere apology.

My inference (which of course may be in error) was that you were lobbying for the Tridentine Rite as the preferred Roman Catholic liturgy.

The Tridentine Rite is, of course, about 500 years old. The Catholic tradition, on the other hand, obviously goes back 2000+ years.

If I misread or misunderstood your points or position, please accept my sincere apology.

Here is some history for you. I think you need to pay attention

institute-christ-king.org/latin-mass-resources/traditional-latin-mass/common-misconceptions/

Common Misconceptions about the Latin Mass
Many people are unaware of some of the important facts below.

The Classical/Traditional Latin Mass is not a product of the 16th-century Council of Trent.
The history of the Traditional Latin Mass, whose latest version dates from 1962, traces back to the beginnings of Christianity. The Mass went through organic, gradual development throughout the centuries. The first written record of the Prayers of the Latin Mass is found in a 6th-century manuscript (Leonine Sacramentary). The Roman Latin Mass was codified and made universal in the 16th century by Pope St. Pius V because of the liturgical confusion then reigning. As this codification was part of the measures taken by the Council of Trent, the Traditional Latin Mass has often been called “Tridentine Mass.” After this, as before, small, incremental changes were made to the Missal (book containing texts and prayer for Mass) in the centuries following, the latest being made by Pope John XXIII in 1962. In 1969 Pope Paul VI promulgated a new form of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) designed by an appointed committee, based on the Traditional Mass but with substantial changes to it, particularly in the Offertory prayers.

The Traditional Latin Mass was not changed or replaced by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).
In fact, it was the Mass celebrated during the Council. A document produced by the Second Vatican Council (Sacrosanctum Concilium) outlined certain directives for changes to the Mass. Additional directives were given in post-conciliar documents. The new form of Mass (Novus Ordo) was crafted after the Council by a committee and promulgated in 1969 by Pope Paul VI.

The priest facing the people was not a practice introduced by the Second Vatican Council.
The orientation of the priest toward the East, with the people, symbolic of all facing God together toward the same direction, is millenary. It is the norm for the Traditional Latin Rite, and in this is shared by all the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church as well as by the Orthodox Church.

The custom of the priest facing the people, instead of East with the people, was gradually introduced as an experimentation by some members of the priesthood in the 20th century. It became the unwritten practice in the Novus Ordo Mass, though there are no directives to do so in the documents issuing from the Second Vatican Council nor in the Missal of 1969. The first written mention in an official Church document of the possibility of a priest facing the people during Mass dates to the year 2000 in the General Instructions of the Roman Missal issued by the Vatican (GIRM 299).

Mass in the vernacular (English or the language of the area) was not introduced by the Second Vatican Council.
As stated above, the Novus Ordo Mass was not produced by the Second Vatican Council. In the Second Vatican Council document on the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium), mention is made of the possibility of the Mass being translated to the vernacular. However, the Council also confirmed that the official language of the Catholic Church is Latin. Accordingly, the original language of the Novus Ordo Mass of 1969 is Latin, translations then being made from this original text.

 

[diggerdomer]

No comment. Wait…let me guess, "Who is to say what “so large” & “excessively long” means.

The bishop (local ordinary).

 

[Malkin71]

Thanks for the book recommendation. That’s one I haven’t read.

Lay eucharistic ministers have become such a familiar sight in our churches today, that we have ceased to be aware of their proper place, we’ve been “desensitized”.

“Inaestimabile Donum” states: “The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of the Mass excessively long.”

Of course, the loophole that’s been used to expand the role of the EEM beyond what the Church ever intended, is the last sentence in the above phrase.
God help us if we should have to stay at Mass “excessively long”.

BTW., in my former parish, the list of Eucharistic Ministers was LONG, yet we had to beg for people to man our House of Bread & serve food to those who didn’t have enough. It seems that the people prefer the up-front “ministries”???

The Book’s author is Jimmy Akin

astore.amazon.com/jimmyakincom-20/detail/1888992050

 

[Malkin71]

diggerdomer;4989297:

Thanks. That’s one person’s opinion on a Q&A site though, not quite the same as official Church teaching.

On the other hand, the answer I gave was from “Inaestimabile Donum” & states: “The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist** can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of the Mass excessively long.”**

I. No comment. Wait…let me guess, "Who is to say what “so large” & “excessively long” means.

100% right.

That is why there needs a reform of the reform. The O.F. needs to be strict and tight like the E.F… No more expermentations. The reason why we have lay people go into our tabernacle is because our Sacrasterian in the early 90’s started to do it spontaniously. She wanted our church to be The “Helpful church”.

 

[diggerdomer]

Here is some history for you. I think you need to pay attention

institute-christ-king.org/latin-mass-resources/traditional-latin-mass/common-misconceptions/

Thanks, but I was familiar with all that already.

 

[Malkin71]

Thanks, but I was familiar with all that already.

Then you should know the O.F. form goes back further than 500 years.

 

[Malkin71]

I know. I agree.No problem.

Let me ask this, though, if it helps clarify my thought about the different “law” or rules today, given the change in the Code of Canon Law and other liturgical laws since 1962.

I admit I’m not as familiar with the EF as you are. My understanding is that a subdeacon is required for the solemn High Mass. Is this right? Or do you know? If it is correct, then how can the EF solemn High Mass be celebrated? The Church no longer has the order of subdeacons.

That’s an example where later laws now take precedence. This would apply to female readers and so on. Note, the law does not say you HAVE to use female readers or altar servers, but it does allow them, so any liturgical celebration (EF or OF) is bound by the same liturgical law. The Missal (texts, rubrics, and so on) are different between the two Rites, obviously, but the other pertinent laws and instructions (like canon law) are not.

Does that help clarify what I mean?

Ewtn does have Solemn High O.F. Masses on t.v.

I think you should become more familiar with the E.F. form. Also with the documents of Vatican II. You will different understanding about the goings on in the church. A good book to read about the development of the Mass in “Reform of the Roman Liturgy” by Msg. Klaus Gamber. Roman Catholic Books is the publisher.

Ask F.S.S.P. about serving the Solemn High Mass or the institute of Christ the King. They are the experts. I enclosed the link in one of my replys. Further more I even posted the address on the Pontifical Council of Eclesia Dei. They will help you with their questions.

When quoting from the GIRM make sure you know the norms for waht you are discussing
because the norms are different for some things here in America than other countries around the world.

 

[Malkin71]

I know. I agree.No problem.

Let me ask this, though, if it helps clarify my thought about the different “law” or rules today, given the change in the Code of Canon Law and other liturgical laws since 1962.

I admit I’m not as familiar with the EF as you are. My understanding is that a subdeacon is required for the solemn High Mass. Is this right? Or do you know? If it is correct, then how can the EF solemn High Mass be celebrated? The Church no longer has the order of subdeacons.

That’s an example where later laws now take precedence. This would apply to female readers and so on. Note, the law does not say you HAVE to use female readers or altar servers, but it does allow them, so any liturgical celebration (EF or OF) is bound by the same liturgical law. The Missal (texts, rubrics, and so on) are different between the two Rites, obviously, but the other pertinent laws and instructions (like canon law) are not.

Does that help clarify what I mean?

Liturgical law after Vatican II affects the O.F. only. It has no effects on E.F… Lay Ministers are not permitted save Altar Boys at the Altar. Communion is recieved kneeling and on the tongue. Ask The Pontifical Council on Eclesia Dei or F.S.S.P., Institute of Christ the King. If they say otherwise I will take back what I just posted.

 

[Malkin71]

Then you should know the O.F. form goes back further than 500 years.

I ment EXTRAORDINARY FORM goes back further than 500 years.

 

[diggerdomer]

Liturgical law after Vatican II affects the O.F. only. It has no effects on E.F… Lay Ministers are not permitted save Altar Boys at the Altar. Communion is recieved kneeling and on the tongue. Ask The Pontifical Council on Eclesia Dei or F.S.S.P., Institute of Christ the King. If they say otherwise I will take back what I just posted.

So you don’t know if the solemn High Mass requires a subdeacon?

 

[diggerdomer]

Liturgical law after Vatican II affects the O.F. only. It has no effects on E.F… Lay Ministers are not permitted save Altar Boys at the Altar. Communion is recieved kneeling and on the tongue. Ask The Pontifical Council on Eclesia Dei or F.S.S.P., Institute of Christ the King. If they say otherwise I will take back what I just posted.

No I’m not going to randomly contact those international groups. I’m sure they have more important things to do.

What you’re saying is that the Code of Canon Law --the one and only Code for the Roman Church–has no bearing on the EF? I see nothing in the Code that exempts the EF.

 

[atassina]

Separate note…maybe…some or all of these things may be regulated by Canon Law, which would be independent of which liturgical “form” is followed. Canon Law (1983) clearly allows female “readers”, EMHCs, altar servers, etc.

Food for thought.

Dear Fellow Thread Posters:
Please, please, if you are quoting Scripture, Canon Law, Vatican II, the Pope et cetera, give the reference. If you think something says something, go look it up, make the accurate quote, give the reference and let us do the checking. We are making no progress just pulling information out of the wind. Thanks, AT