M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Lefebvrist?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
The 1917 Code of Canon Law is not in force any longer. The 1983 Code of Canon Law is.
Having said it doesn’t hurt to have knowledge of the both Codes, who wrote them, how we got them and the changes that have happened over the years and the Catholic Traditions behind them.
Having said it doesn’t hurt to have knowledge of the both Codes, who wrote them, how we got them and the changes that have happened over the years and the Catholic Traditions behind them.
C
CRV
Guest
I’m not so sure.If I’m not mistaken, with Confirmation, the priest would be an extraordinary minister of the Sacrament.
At Confirmations whilst the Bishop is usually there , I would not think his presence reduces the priests’ role to an extraordinary minister at Communion time - having the Bishop there does not remove the priests sacramental character of ordination.
When priests concelebrate, the other priests apart from the main celebrant do not become extra-ordinary ministers when distributing Communion nor are they reduced to the rank of an acolyte or a member of the lay faithful for the distribution of Communion - extraordinary minister of Communion.
If I’ve misunderstood your comment - I apologize.
Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum #97 & 98 cover when concelebrating priests are to receive communion themselves (being equal with the main celebrant) and under #154 " Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon,[255] to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass." then in #155 " In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass."
INSTRUCTION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIEST 1997 Article 8 § 1. " The canonical discipline concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must be correctly applied so as to avoid generating confusion. The same discipline establishes that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the Bishop, the Priest and the the Deacon.(96) Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are those instituted as acolytes and the faithful so deputed in accordance with Canon 230, § 3.(97)"
T
TheMortenBay
Guest
It’s a simplified term for people who follow the teachings of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the SSPX.Lefebvrist?
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Yes, I have just never heard them call themselves Lefebvrists.It’s a simplified term for people who follow the teachings of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the SSPX.
No problem. As I said above, I have never heard them call themselves Lefebrvrists.My apologies again. I have already been corrected on this thread for calling her a Lefebvrist!
D
dochawk
Guest
In the RCC, priests are the ordinary minister of confirmation outside of adolescent confirmation . . .Not necessarily. If I’m not mistaken, with Confirmation, the priest would be an extraordinary minister of the Sacrament.
In the other Catholic and Orthodox churches, it isn’t even an issue, as Baptism, Chyrsmation, and the Eucharist are administered at the same time (well, a few minutes apart . . .)
hawk
F
Fauken
Guest
I said Confirmation, not the Eucharist/Communion. Either way, it’s a bad example.At Confirmations whilst the Bishop is usually there , I would not think his presence reduces the priests’ role to an extraordinary minister at Communion time - having the Bishop there does not remove the priests sacramental character of ordination.
Confirmation wasn’t the best example. Marriage is a better one.In the RCC, priests are the ordinary minister of confirmation outside of adolescent confirmation . . .
D
dochawk
Guest
AFAIK, the only Sacraments for which priests aren’t the ordinary minister (saving the disciplinary practice of reserving adolescent Confirmation to the bishop) are Holy Orders and Matrimony in the West (in the East, EC and EO, the priest [and not a deacon!] confers Matrimony).
F
Fauken
Guest
So far as I know, that’s correct. My objection was that ordinary ministers are clergy and extraordinary are lay people. Marriage is an example of that not being the case.AFAIK, the only Sacraments for which priests aren’t the ordinary minister (saving the disciplinary practice of reserving adolescent Confirmation to the bishop) are Holy Orders and Matrimony in the West (in the East, EC and EO, the priest [and not a deacon!] confers Matrimony).
C
CRV
Guest
Well, I did say in my earlier post and I’ll repeat it here - I apologize for misunderstanding what you wrote.I said Confirmation, not the Eucharist/Communion.
I also stated I wasn’t sure - and did my best to explain why, using the example of concelebrating priests. Obviously I interpreted your comment regarding confirmands being confirmed at Confirmation as concerning the distribution of Holy Communion and not the imposition of hands during the Rite of Confirmation itself.
Nevertheless I accept your correction regarding your statement concerned the Rite of Confirmation as you pointed out.
I don’t accept the example I gave was a bad one, as extraordinary ministers are acolytes and the faithful. So the priest assisting the Bishop during the Rite of Confirmation does not lose his sacramental character because he is assisting and consequently isn’t reduced to the same level as an acolyte or the laity just because he is assisting.
Though I suppose you could say he is an additional or extra in that sense of the term because he is assisting the Bishop due to the large number of Confirmands.
G
glencor63
Guest
@Londoner
“Sorry, I only just realised Archbishop Donoghue was archbishop until 2004. I thought this was recent. The Church now allows women to be involved in the foot-washing. I thought he was trying to find a way to circumvent Church discipline. It makes more sense now I know we are talking about quite a few years ago”.
It was Archbishop Wilton Gregory, the successor to Archbishop Donoghue that implemented the practice of using children. It ended the protests.
“Sorry, I only just realised Archbishop Donoghue was archbishop until 2004. I thought this was recent. The Church now allows women to be involved in the foot-washing. I thought he was trying to find a way to circumvent Church discipline. It makes more sense now I know we are talking about quite a few years ago”.
It was Archbishop Wilton Gregory, the successor to Archbishop Donoghue that implemented the practice of using children. It ended the protests.
Last edited:
L
Londoner
Guest
Sorry, I got my archbishops mixed up! Did Archbishop Gregory, the later one, begin to wash women’s feet when the liturgy was changed in 2016? Also, the former liturgy specifically mentions men (viri), so I’m not sure that that includes girls, but still, it seems like a clever way around the problem.
C
casslean
Guest
You are wrong. There are rules around how we use past versions of statutes to interpret the present versions, and the type of interpretation you are suggesting is inconsistent with those rules.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.
The fact that the 1983 Code does NOT include the limitations placed on women that were included in the 1917 Code means that, from a statutory interpretation perspective, it is logical the presume that the drafters could have included such limitations again and chose not to. Therefore, the intent of the 1983 Code must have been to lift such limitations.
G
glencor63
Guest
It’s actually altar servers.
Last edited:
G
glencor63
Guest
Archbishop Gregory used children. End of protests!
M
Minks
Guest
@ dochawk How are you defining confer in this sentence
N
Nikolaite
Guest
You can use the 1917 CIC to point out an historical truth or as a reference from which to research a tradition.
The practice of using women or girls to serve at the altar is an obvious novelty. Some people argue that it is permitted. However, it is clear in the 1994 document from the CDW which dealt with interpreting the permissions under 1983 CIC can. 230, #2 that the tradition is for boys/males to serve at the altar.
It’s clearly not allowed in some cathedrals (e.g., Phoenix, AZ) and in some dioceses (e.g., Lincoln, NE) for women and girls to serve at the altar even now. The Holy Father, St. John Paul II designated the question as up to the bishops to decide for themselves in their own dioceses, but not as a clear “anything goes” as some would have you believe.
The practice of using women or girls to serve at the altar is an obvious novelty. Some people argue that it is permitted. However, it is clear in the 1994 document from the CDW which dealt with interpreting the permissions under 1983 CIC can. 230, #2 that the tradition is for boys/males to serve at the altar.
It’s clearly not allowed in some cathedrals (e.g., Phoenix, AZ) and in some dioceses (e.g., Lincoln, NE) for women and girls to serve at the altar even now. The Holy Father, St. John Paul II designated the question as up to the bishops to decide for themselves in their own dioceses, but not as a clear “anything goes” as some would have you believe.
C
CTBcin
Guest
All prospective seminarians in the US are required to have extensive psychological screening.Perhaps the Catholic Church should consult experts in psychology and psychiatry on how best to screen candidates for the priesthood.
S
Scott84
Guest
I would argue it is not appropriate to cite the 1917 Code of Canon Law today, as it is obsolete and was superseded by the 1983 Code of Canon Law.
Pope St. John Paul II allowed for the discretion of the bishop and later the priest to determine if female altar servers are to be allowed or not. There are some more conservative minded bishops and priests who have placed a ban on the use of altar girls in their parishes I have heard. And there are other more liberal minded clergy who allow the practice.
I am curious, what form of Mass do you attend? Do you attend a Traditional Latin Mass parish, or an Ordinary Form parish?
For those who are more conservative and traditional, I’d highly recommend you seek out a TLM parish if you have not already done so. At those parishes you will never see altar girls, and most women veil.
I for one do attend a TLM parish as I love the old form of Mass and the traditions associated with it.
To just add my two cents about women veiling, under a strict interpretation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, it does not mention head coverings for women at all. So if a woman wants to veil at Mass, there is nothing prohibiting her from doing so, likewise if she does not want to veil, there is nothing prohibiting that practice either.
Pope St. John Paul II allowed for the discretion of the bishop and later the priest to determine if female altar servers are to be allowed or not. There are some more conservative minded bishops and priests who have placed a ban on the use of altar girls in their parishes I have heard. And there are other more liberal minded clergy who allow the practice.
I am curious, what form of Mass do you attend? Do you attend a Traditional Latin Mass parish, or an Ordinary Form parish?
For those who are more conservative and traditional, I’d highly recommend you seek out a TLM parish if you have not already done so. At those parishes you will never see altar girls, and most women veil.
I for one do attend a TLM parish as I love the old form of Mass and the traditions associated with it.
To just add my two cents about women veiling, under a strict interpretation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, it does not mention head coverings for women at all. So if a woman wants to veil at Mass, there is nothing prohibiting her from doing so, likewise if she does not want to veil, there is nothing prohibiting that practice either.
N
Nikolaite
Guest
Canon Law is not the only law which the Church abides. There is also divine law, liturgical law, canons of the greater and lesser councils, and ancient custom.To just add my two cents about women veiling, under a strict interpretation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, it does not mention head coverings for women at all. So if a woman wants to veil at Mass, there is nothing prohibiting her from doing so, likewise if she does not want to veil, there is nothing prohibiting that practice either.
That being the case, there is divine law which prohibits women from praying and prophesying in public with their heads uncovered. Not a lot of people like to acknowledge it, but if one were to follow the rationem fidei bound on us at the First Vatican Council, we have to believe by divine and catholic faith all that is contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition.
Some like to interpret an absence of regulation in Canon Law as an absence of regulation, but Canon Law is not a document of moral theology, nor a compendium of Church teaching.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.