I posted this on the other forum yesterday:You can hear what Cardinal Arinze has to say on this matter by looking up “Cardinal
Arinze, altar girls, you tube”. I wanted to insert a link, but don’t know how to do it. I
followed someone else’s directions but it didn’t work. sigh.
then he should work on changing the rules
Your first post on the matter was very sarcastic and it seemed that you were trying to provoke others. Now you are continuing along the same line. If you don’t mention things like you did, then people won’t have anything to respond to.
The Church has already answer the t/T-radition by pemitting female altar servers. The Church has no authority to change Tradition.
He is free to hold that opinion, but that “mistake” goes back to the '83 Code. Unless he’s going to argue that Code of Canon Law is meaningless if a Cardinal holds a different opinion…
I think I’m confused. Father, are you saying that one or more of the posts have said that
He was not denying the lawfulness of altar girls. Just giving his opinion on the matter.
I was familiar with that case since the plaintiff often posts in these forums.
What Card. Arinze is trying to say is:
Sorry if I wasn’t clear. When I quoted GIRM 100 in post 91, it was the part that I bolded that is new, and which gives instituted acolytes a right to serve at the altar in preference to non-instituted lay people. The other parts of GIRM 100 are not new; in fact, the part that gives instituted acolytes preference as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communication is indeed taken from canon 230 §3, as noted in footnote 85 to the GIRM.
Huh? The church can’t change her own rules? In disciplinary areas, it is free to. In this case, the church has given the permission to use altar girls very recently. And you are saying we are now stuck with it until the end of time? I don’t understand your logic.
He’s talking about the difference between small ‘t’ tradition, which can be changed, and capital ‘T’ Tradition which cannot be changed. Obviously the gender of altar servers, like head covering for women and fasting rules, is small t tradition because it has been changed.
Could be but isn’t Cardinal Arinze part of the Magisterium of the Church? In one of the videos he states that he speaks for the Pope in liturgical matters.
Thanks!
I was going to say something like that, but I could think of how to word it.I read this as if it weren’t the custom in 1983 - 30, or 1953, then there is no canon law protection. But I’m sure others see it differently.
Reading the decision, I noticed that the tribunal ruled against him on the canon 230.3 grounds because of the particulars of the case: “The questions will not be resolved by the petitioner demanding that he can walk into any church and take priority over all non-instituted readers.” “We believe that the real answer is that he will be treated like any bishop, priest, deacon or lay person approaching the Archdiocesan border or entering St Patrick’s Cathedral. Hundreds of priests are in Melbourne at any one time, but none of them presumes the right to officiate in St Patrick’s Cathedral. If appointed to an office there (for example, assistant priest) they function there. If invited to join in special Masses or ceremonies, they are free to accept the invitation. They may even offer their services on occasion. But there is no injustice done them, if their services are refused because not needed. Should the petitioner want to exercise his munus of instituted lector, we recommend that he approach the Archbishop to see whether there is an officium available in the Archdiocese of Melbourne where this can happen.”
I believe the date would be a rolling 30 years (ie 1980 at present). Just a few years ago neglect of Ministeria Quaedam may have become become custom, except there have been examples like the GIon the Lectionary that would indicate a contrary Law (hence no custom).