Is it wrong to cite the 1917 Code of Canon Law

  • Thread starter Thread starter DerKreuzritter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DerKreuzritter

Guest
I was Debating with someone about girl altar boys and used the 1917 Code of Canon law as evidence on why we shouldn’t have girl altar boys. Am I in the wrong or is it ok to use the 1917 code of canon law as resources?
 
Last edited:
DerKreuzritter said:
I was Debating with someone about girl altar boys and used the 1917 Code of Canon law as evidence on why we shouldn’t have girl altar boys. Am I in the wrong or is it ok to use the 1917 code of canon law as resources?
Click to expand...
The 1983 Code of Canon Law superseded the 1917 one and is the only one in force. If you want to use the Code of Canon Law to support a view/position then you use the only valid one which is the 1983 one.
 
As others said, the 1917 Code of Canon Law is no longer in force, so relying on it in an argument is just going to make you look foolish.

Furthermore, the Church has permitted female altar servers for some years now. (“Female altar servers” is the correct term as servers, both male and female, are often adults nowadays and not always “boys” or “girls”, plus “girl altar boy” makes no sense. ) Although they are permitted by the Church, the Church does not obligate any priest or bishop to permit females to be altar servers. So an individual bishop could decide they weren’t appropriate for his diocese, and an individual priest could decide they weren’t appropriate for his parish.

Here is a Catholic Answers column on the matter, I hope it helps your understanding.

 
I as at a Mass this week with a Bishop and a Nuncio. There was a very young Priest also concelebrating with them. And at Communion, a female served the second Chalice of Precious Blood. So three clergy, One His Excellency a Nuncio, one a Bishop, one a new Priest and one woman.
If it is good enough for the representative of Pope Francis, then I am not arguing.
 
Last edited:
twf said:
Of course altar girls were still not permitted in 1983. That provision came in the 90s.
Click to expand...
Not exactly.

The code itself permits it.

It wasn’t until 1992 that some asked the Holy See to confirm that fact, which it did. Then JPII reiterated this, and also had the Congregation for Divine Worship clarify that it permits but doesn’t require it and that it is up to the bishop (and later in 2001 individual priests) whether female servers are used.
 
As others have mentioned, it is no longer in force and cannot be cited when making a legal argument. However, it is certainly a piece of valid evidence among centuries of such evidence as to the Church’s tradition.

Utter positivism, even in things with potential to change, is foreign to the praxis of the Church. Tradition is itself a strong argument and sets a high burden of proof that needs to be overcome to justify a novelty.

Whether a thing can be done is one argument; whether it should is another (“should” was used in your original post). When arguing about whether a changeable thing should or should not be changed or whether something should have been changed or should be changed back, it is certainly valid to argue from tradition.
 
The 1917 Code of Canon Law is not longer in force. The Code of Canon Law in force is the 1983 code. The 1917 code is no longer the law of the Church. The current code permits female altar servers.
 
The 1917 Code Of Cannon says women can be altar servers, but they shouldn’t approach the altar and say the responses at a distance. I would say both compliment each other. I think the 1917 gives a more in depth description of what they should do.
 
I know the 1917 has no legal authority anymore. the 1983 says it is permitted, so it is permitted. but the 1917 gives a description what they should do. I could be wrong though.
 
Last edited:
You are mistaken. The only one who can determine that females cannot be altar servers is the pastor in his parish, and there are no restrictions on the location or duties of the female servers.

This is not a hill you want to perish on.
 
The 1917 code is not in force. You can say all day long it gives a description or provides history, etc. While this might be interesting if you were writing some academic article on the evolution of the Church’s current position on female altar servers, no one is required to follow the description of what female altar servers should do in the 1917 code, so your citing this in an argument is pointless.
Your opponent will simply say, “That’s no longer in force since 1983 now”.

I realize you may find this disappointing if you have some strong opinion that female altar servers shouldn’t be allowed, but that’s just the way it is.
 
Last edited:
I already recognized that the 1917 is no longer in force. I’m not denying girl altar boys altogether as it is permitted by the Holy See, but the Vatican supports male altar boys. But just like Extraordinary Minister are used in Extraordinary Circumstances. I think altar girls should be used in circumstances when males are not available and it shouldn’t be the norm. Altar Serving is not a right it’s a privilege.
 
Last edited:
When you get to be a priest or a bishop you can have it your way in your parish church or your diocese. Until then, you need to accept the fact that priests and bishops may think differently from you and that the Vatican and canon law allow them to do so.
 
DerKreuzritter said:
Read what I just posted.
Click to expand...
Okay, here’s what you posted:
DerKreuzritter said:
I think altar girls should be used in circumstances when males are not available and it shouldn’t be the norm.
Click to expand...
They’re basically “the norm” now unless bishops and priests specifically decide otherwise. I see them everywhere.

Anyway, we’ve resolved your canon law question, so I’m outta here. Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
DerKreuzritter said:
but the 1917 gives a description what they should do.
Click to expand...
It gives a description of what what allowed under that code.

This isn’t about “should” or “shouldn’t”. It is about permitted and not permitted.

And the 1917 code was abrogated in 1983. So what may not have been permitted before may now.
DerKreuzritter said:
I would say both compliment each other.
Click to expand...
Nope. The 1917 code was abrogated. That means completely replaced, none of those laws remain in force.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top