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.You mean celebrating The EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF MASS. The EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF MASS Follows the 1962 Missal and Rubrics and does not allow Lay Ministers to serve on the altar save Altar Boys. Can you show me where you read it? I would love to read and show it to the Priest who is the head of our Latin Mass Community here. Since he can perform both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of Mass. He is well informed.
The ORDANARY FORM OF MASS does allow women to be E.M.H.C., Lectors and Altar Servers.
No, and I disagree.T By the way did you know it is an indult to recieve in in the hand? .
I would like to know who the canon lawyer is. Eclesia Dei is in charge of The Extrodinary Form of Mass. They would be the ones to consult. If you read this fourm you would have read about them telling a Bishop to stop stalling the E.F. from being said.My understanding, from a post I read on a separate listserv from a canon lawyer, is that the restriction on “altar servers” is something that has changed (among many other things) liturgically since 1962, and that change is independent of which “form” is liturgically celebrated.
I’m certainly no expert in this area, but this is something I’ve read from a well known canon lawyer. Let me see if I can find more definitive clarification.
To be honest, personally, I am very critical for a number of reasons.Do not be to criticle of The Extra Ordinary Form of the Mass.
.
It is not a universal law. If you go to recieve Holy Communion from the Pope in Rome.No, and I disagree.
My understanding is that as the universal law of the Church allows either reception on the tongue or by hand there is no indult involved. See the GIRM.
Where do you get the idea there’s an indult?
I don’t think the Commission Ecclesia Dei is in charge of this form of the Mass. My understanding is that they are in charge of the relationship between the Catholic Church and the schismatic SSPX.I would like to know who the canon lawyer is. Eclesia Dei is in charge of The Extrodinary Form of Mass. They would be the ones to consult. If you read this fourm you would have read about them telling a Bishop to stop stalling the E.F. from being said.
Glad you recognize it’s not universal law.It is not a universal law. If you go to recieve Holy Communion from the Pope in Rome.
He wants you to kneel and recieve it on the tongue.
The indult has been posted on Catholic forums in the past.
With your posts. I knew where you were comming from.To be honest, personally, I am very critical for a number of reasons.
HOWEVER…more importantly, I fully accept current Church teaching that it’s a valid and licit way to worship God, so I’m not opposed to it or lobbying against it in that sense.
I’m glad that Benedict XVI noted that the so-called “ordinary form” is still the norm.
I’m not forgetting about the Church before Vatican Ii. I’ve studied a lot (but not enough!) about the Church. I have no hostility to or problem with anything that happened before Vaitcan II. Seems to me that many people are hostile to anything that happened since vatican II.With your posts. I knew where you were comming from.
All I can say is read and study more about the church. The Pope recienty said that we should not forget about the church before Vatican II. Do not be hostile to traditionists. They can teach and pass down the traditions that is being lost.
Wait, I may have misunderstood what I read.It is not a universal law. If you go to recieve Holy Communion from the Pope in Rome.
He wants you to kneel and recieve it on the tongue.
The indult has been posted on Catholic forums in the past.
Glad you recognize it’s not universal law.
The Pope is free to distribute communion how he wants (within the constraints of Church Law) and of course this may or may not (likely the latter) be binding on the universal Church.
I have never seen the indult, though I’ve asked for a reference to it a number of times. I f you can help at all I would be very grateful.
The Pope is the Head of The Catholic Church. All Cardinals, Bishops and Priests are under and are obidient to him. 'We are ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC" Nicene Creed. We are in union with Rome.I don’t think the Commission Ecclesia Dei is in charge of this form of the Mass. My understanding is that they are in charge of the relationship between the Catholic Church and the schismatic SSPX.
THe Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments is the responsible Vatican Congregation for liturgy.
I may be wrong of course.
How indiviidual Bishops implement the EF should primarily be determined by the same Bishops and Benedict XVI’s motu proprio. I’m not clear on what relation the Vatican has, given that the appropriate guidance/instruction has been published in the form of the motu proprio from the Pope, and the Bishop is the chief liturgist in his diocese.
The Motu Proprio is not exactly an executive order. As I understand it, it’s a teaching of the Pope on his own initiative, which has the effect of “law” (which in my mind is more important than a so-called “executive order”)/ Who’s right on this we likely need to leave to canon lawyers.The Pope is the Head of The Catholic Church. All Cardinals, Bishops and Priests are under and are obidient to him. 'We are ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC" Nicene Creed. We are in union with Rome.
The Motu Proprio is an Executive Order from Pontiff. It must be obeyed.
The Bishops who are stalling are Disobeident. The Bishops are not above the Pope. Although a majority think they are. We are not Automonus.
I accept Vatican II. But, I do believe it was not properly explained to the faithful. Vatican II never said to remove the Communion Rail, High Altars, Removal of Latin in the Liturgy. By the way did you know that Latin is the official language of the Church? If you read the introduction to Vatican II, It says that the council is Pastoral. This forum has many post about Pro/con Vatican II and abuses, problems that occured in its aftermath. That is why I hope there is a reform of the reform and the Pope explains the true meaning of Vatican II.I’m not forgetting about the Church before Vatican Ii. I’ve studied a lot (but not enough!) about the Church. I have no hostility to or problem with anything that happened before Vaitcan II. Seems to me that many people are hostile to anything that happened since vatican II.
How about you, are you equally accepting both pre and post VII as I am?
If it’s important to you to determine who’s studied what about the Church, let me know what books you’ve read and I’ll do likewise.
A Motu Proprio is a Executive Order from the Pope. Canon Lawyers are not above the Pope.The Motu Proprio is not exactly an executive order. As I understand it, it’s a teaching of the Pope on his own initiative, which has the effect of “law” (which in my mind is more important than a so-called “executive order”)/ Who’s right on this we likely need to leave to canon lawyers.
How exactly bishops are “under” the bishop of Rome is a somewhat intricate matter. Yes, the Pope has supreme authority, but so does each Bishop in his diocese (this is Church teaching). How the Church “negotiates” this relationship is not really explicit.
To the issue of the specific Motu Proprio I assume we’re referring to, I know of zero Bishops who are not obeying it.
If you know of Bishops who are disobeying it, please let us know the specifics. I personally can’t believe that any Bishop would outright disobey something the Pope validly taught. If you know something to the contrary, please let us know specifically what bishops are disobeying the Pope and exactly what they’re doing that is causing this disobedience (which is a very serious charge, imho).
Yes…absolutely… Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) in no way dictated many of the changes that happened to occur.I accept Vatican II. But, I do believe it was not properly explained to the faithful. Vatican II never said to remove the Communion Rail, High Altars, Removal of Latin in the Liturgy. By the way did you know that Latin is the official language of the Church? If you read the introduction to Vatican II, It says that the council is Pastoral. This forum has many post about Pro/con Vatican II and abuses, problems that occured in its aftermath. That is why I hope there is a reform of the reform and the Pope explains the true meaning of Vatican II.
In 1984 and 1988 J.P.II issued a Motu Proprio to allow the Traditional Latin Mass. So you the Cannon law from 1983 you are refering to is only to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.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.
The Holy Father has said that Active participation was ment to be internally not Externally.Yes…absolutely… Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) in no way dictated many of the changes that happened to occur.
Yet it did teach some essential principles for liturgical renewal and reform, completely in continuity with Tradition, such as the full active conscious participation of the faithful.
Have “abuses” occurred? No doubt. The implementation of VII was by most accounts imperfect, initially. We’re still working on it. And this applies to all areas, not just liturgy.
Regardless, it’s still an ecumenical council which is the highest form of teaching authority we have as Catholics, so we can’t dismiss the Council based on how fallible people and communities may have, thus far, appropriated the teachings.
In the Eastern Rite of the Catholic church You recieve Holy Communion by both forms, the Host is bread that is inside the Chalace with wine. You recieve it on a spoon in your mouth.No, and I disagree.
My understanding is that as the universal law of the Church allows either reception on the tongue or by hand there is no indult involved. See the GIRM.
Where do you get the idea there’s an indult?
Of course Canon Lawyers are not above the pope.A Motu Proprio is a Executive Order from the Pope. Canon Lawyers are not above the Pope.
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.In 1984 and 1988 J.P.II issued a Motu Proprio to allow the Traditional Latin Mass. So you the Cannon law from 1983 you are refering to is only to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
Food for Thought