Mysterium Fidei

[SFD]

As for the sources: for example, the scholastics who taught that the instruments were the form justified their teaching by saying that it was handed down by the Apostles and that the words in Scripture referring to the laying on of hands meant that the hands was required only for the integrity. Of course, as soon as the question was re-raised in the 16th century, examination showed that the oldest missals did not contain it, and most post-Tridentine theologians maintianed either a partial matter, or total matter theory regarding the laying on of hands.

Inocent III on the other hand, taught for example, in his work on the Mass, that Christ did not consecrate at the Last Supper by the words “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood”.

In the Oriental rites the matter of this Sacrament (for the order of presbyterate) is and always has been simply the bishop’s imposition of hands. Up until Nov. 30, 1947, the matter of this Sacrament (for ordination to the priesthood) in the Latin Rite was twofold; namely, the aforesaid imposition of hands and the “bestowal of the instruments,” that is, the touching by the candidate of a chalice containing wine and a few drops of water, and a paten with host. Both elements of this twofold matter were considered to be essential for validity. On the aforementioned date Pope Pius XII issued the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, in which the Pontiff determined that thereafter the valid matter for the Latin Rite would consist of only the first imposition of hands by the bishop, and not the bestowal of the instruments also.

Pius XII distinctly implied, nevertheless, that not only was the bestowal of the instruments considered necessary for validity previously, but that it was in fact necessary: “by Our Apostolic Authority We do … decide that the bestowal of the instruments at least for the future (‘saltem in posterum’) is not necessary for the validity…,” noting that “this Our Constitution does not have retroactive force.” He also granted the possibility that the Church might even in the future revert to maintaining that the bestowal of the instruments is necessary for validity: “But if, according to the will and prescription of the Church, the same should some day be held necessary for validity also, all would know the Church is able even to change and to abrogate what She has established.”

Note that the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII had both the power and the right to determine further the matter of Holy Orders, since that Sacrament was instituted by Christ “in genere.” On the contrary, no agency on earth, neither pope nor council nor all the bishops of the world collectively, can alter the substance – i.e., the matter and the form – of the Holy Eucharist, which Christ instituted “in specie.”

 

[japhy]

In the Latin Rite the ordinary minister of Confirmation, and the only valid minister (with the exceptions noted immediately below) is a bishop. The extraordinary minister of Confirmation is a priest to whom the faculty to confirm has been given either by common law or by a general or special indult of the Holy See, (according to Canon 782). However, such extraordinary ministers of the Latin Rite (under the same Canon 782), can validly confirm only Catholics of the Latin Rite. Ergo, it is certain that ordinary Latin Rite priests cannot validly administer this Sacrament. Whereas it is a well known fact that in the Oriental rites any priest at all confirms validly and licitly, even Catholics of the Latin Rite.

In the Eastern rites the ordinary valid matter for the Consecration of the Body of Christ is leavened bread. But we know that: “In the Latin Church hosts must be unleavened and circular in form.” A Latin Rite priest cannot consecrate using leavened bread, except under one extraordinary condition: “Leavened bread may be used in the Latin Rite only to complete the Sacrifice already begun.”

If I asked you to give the source for those two statements in quotes, could you?

They don’t appear to be from the 1917 Code of Canon law, in which I can only find the word azymus (and its variants) used in these occasions:
Can 816. In Missae celebratione sacerdos, secundum proprium ritum, debet panem azymum vel fermentatum adhibere ubicunque Sacrum litet.

Can 851 §1. Sacerdos sacram communionem distribuat azymo pane vel fermentato, secundum proprium ritum.
§2. Ubi vero necessitas urgeat nec sacerdos diversi ritus adsit, licet sacerdoti orientali qui fermentato utitur, ministrare Eucharistiam in azymo, vicissim latino aut orientali qui utitur azymo, ministrare in fermentato; at suum quisque ritum ministrandi servare debet.
So where are those two quotes from?

More to the point, would you please quote your sources instead of plagiarizing them?

 

[cam100]

Originally Posted by cam100

What I said was correct, but I think you misunderstood. When I said “in the big picture”, I meant just what you said above, that is, I was not speaking about laws that the Church has imposed as particular to a rite. Those are functions of the Church’s authority, and are modifiable by the Church. If you recall, we were speaking about Divine law. The Church does not alter Divine law. If something belongs to Divine law, the Church does not say that it only has to be followed by certain rites and not others. So, my point is that if you want to know if something is considered Divine law or has originating by the Church’s authority, one way to do so is to see if all valid rites are held to it. If it is a matter of Divine law, all rites will have to comply. If it is a matter of the Church’s authority alone, she can permit differences among the rites.

I am not speaking about what is obligatory for someone in a particular rite. That is another matter. I am presenting a methodology to understand whether a law comes directly from God, and is therefore unchangeable, or from the Church, which means that it can be changed by the Church.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

This thread is closed. Thanks to all who participated in the thread.