Non-catholics altar serving

[FrDavid96]

Fr David,

I am sorry. I didn’t mean to contradict you.

What I should have said, is I believe celebrants will sometimes make exceptions for non-catholic readers at weddings , funerals or other Masses where there is a request.

Certainly any commissioned reader must be Catholic. I couldn’t find this documentation. Do you have a reference?

Thanks

Lux

Lux,

The problem is that priests do not have the authority to exempt themselves from the liturgical law that says that all lay functions in the Mass must be filled by Catholics (suitable lay persons). Priests might be doing it, but they are doing so out of disobedience.

I am looking for a very specific sentence that states non-Catholics may not read, (it’s out there, but I can’t recall where). In the meantime, here’s a quote from Redemptionis Sacramentum
#46
“The lay Christian faithful called to give assistance at liturgical celebrations should be well instructed and must be those whose Christian life, morals and fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium recommend them.”

Althouth that doesn’t explicitly exclude non-Catholics, the sentence makes it clear that they must be Catholics, and in “good standing.” The qualification “fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium” would in itself necessarily exclude anyone who is not Catholic.

How a non-Catholic could possibly meet the criteria set forth in #46 defies logic itself.

The phrase itself “The lay Christian faithful” refers to specifically to Catholics. We see that phrase throughout the canon and liturgical laws. It’s not necessary to qualify that every time by adding the words “this doesn’t mean non-Catholics”. Indeed, canon 204 does define “lay faithful” specifically as those who are members of the Catholic Church.

 

[reform3703]

Catholic does not equal Christian. It used to be true, but [not] now. [edited]

 

[po18guy]

Catholic does not equal Christian. It used to be true, but [not] now. [edited]

How about going to “Non-Catholic Religions” start a thread and continue your remarks? This is the wrong thread. Can guess what your argument is already, though. We have gone round and round with another “Reformed” for weeks. If you love Jesus and seek the truth, you can learn much here, in site of what you have heard or been taught.

The peace of Christ in the Flesh be with you.

 

[cameron_lansing]

I am looking for a very specific sentence that states non-Catholics may not read, (it’s out there, but I can’t recall where).

You might consult the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 1993.

“133. The reading of Scripture during a Eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church is to be done by members of that Church. On exceptional occasions and for a just cause, the Bishop of the diocese may permit a member of another Church or ecclesial Community to take on the task of reader.”

But also “126. Catholics may read lessons at a sacramental liturgical celebration in the Eastern Churches if they are invited to do so. An Eastern Christian may be invited to read the lessons at similar services in Catholic churches.”

 

[FrDavid96]

You might consult the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 1993.

“133. The reading of Scripture during a Eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church is to be done by members of that Church. On exceptional occasions and for a just cause, the Bishop of the diocese may permit a member of another Church or ecclesial Community to take on the task of reader.”

But also “126. Catholics may read lessons at a sacramental liturgical celebration in the Eastern Churches if they are invited to do so. An Eastern Christian may be invited to read the lessons at similar services in Catholic churches.”

Thanks.

I was unaware that the bishop might permit it “On exceptional occasions.”

I certainly won’t dispute the above, but what’s been said so far has been about ordinary circumstances, and clearly the pastor or other priest may not exempt himself.

I also wonder whether or not that clause in the 1993 directory is abrogated by Redemptionis Sacramentum? I’m not saying it is, I’m just wonderring if that might be the case. Any thoughts? Has there been anything more recent to clarify?

The Eastern Churches are almost always an exception to the rule (and with good reason).

 

[cameron_lansing]

I also wonder whether or not that clause in the 1993 directory is abrogated by Redemptionis Sacramentum? I’m not saying it is, I’m just wonderring if that might be the case. Any thoughts? Has there been anything more recent to clarify?

As I do not have a Latin text of DAPN, I work from the translation of “exceptional occasion” but the French appears confirmatory. I am not aware of other developments but someone else might be.

An exceptional occasion is a way of saying that the Church provides an exception to its disciplinary law under particular conditions for a certain reason. The exercise of the exception is itself licit under the condition and the existence of the reason. An exception is not something that should become a normative practice. Exceptions are subject to a strict interpretation. Therefore, it does not seem correct that a priest may apply the exception without having referred the matter to the judgement of the diocesan bishop.

DAPN and RS were both identified as instructions. Instructions clarify the prescripts of laws, elaborate on them and determine the methods to be observed in fulfilling them (c. 34 §1). Yet although RS is called an instruction, is is something of a sui generis legal genre. That notwithstanding, its context is the correction of specific and general abuses or distortions.

In n. 8 it warns against “Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith” as they might pertain to ecumenism. There is no further particular elaboration.

However, using the principle of canon 20 in regard to these two instructions, RS did not expressly state any abrogation or derogation of the exception in DAPN; it was not contrary to the exception; nor did it reorder the subject matter of the exception.

Had the executive authority issuing the RS, and the Roman pontiff, who approved and ordered its immediate observance, wanted to remove the exception, that would have been done.

The diocesan bishop is competent to establish norms that clarify what those exceptional occasions might be. However, we also note that a just cause (reason) is needed, and that is a low threshold. It is distinguishable from a cause or reason that is not just.

An obvious element to keep in mind in seeking the permission of the diocesan bishop is that one might be faced with a situation in which the service of a member of another Church or ecclesial community reads a lesson, but might not receive communion under provisions in canon 844 §3.

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

You might consult the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, 1993.

“133. The reading of Scripture during a Eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church is to be done by members of that Church. On exceptional occasions and for a just cause, the Bishop of the diocese may permit a member of another Church or ecclesial Community to take on the task of reader.”

But also “126. Catholics may read lessons at a sacramental liturgical celebration in the Eastern Churches if they are invited to do so. An Eastern Christian may be invited to read the lessons at similar services in Catholic churches.”

Thanks for posting this. I did recall this instruction, but did not have the reference handy.

Lux

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

]Therefore, it does not seem correct that a priest may apply the exception without having referred the matter to the judgement of the diocesan bishop.

How would we know if the pastor had referred the matter to the Bishop? Also most Bishops do give a sort of understood approval in situations where an exception may be made, and would support the pastor, if anyone questioned the pastor’s decision.

Lux

 

[FrDavid96]

How would we know if the pastor had referred the matter to the Bishop? Also most Bishops do give a sort of understood approval in situations where an exception may be made, and would support the pastor, if anyone questioned the pastor’s decision.

Lux

That’s true. But I believe the thread is speaking of a general practice, and not an “exceptional occastion”

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

That’s true. But I believe the thread is speaking of a general practice, and not an “exceptional occastion”

Hi again,

I believe it was I who brought up readers, as opposed to servers. My understanding is that an exception may be made for readers, but not servers or EMHC. This was the point I was stressing.

There was quite a discussion a while back when a non Catholic clergy read the gospel at the funeral of a more well known person. One suggestion was this clergy could have done a reading, since this could have been allowed.

Lux

 

[Newbie2]

Say it ain’t so…

My Bishop converted to Catholicism when he was a child in order to join his friends in altar serving - he was attending the Catholic school because it was a better education than the public schools. By just opening the door to non-Catholics without them becoming Catholic just think of all the future Bishops we’re missing out on.

I think, the fact that anyone serving in a lay liturgical function should be Catholic aside, that the notion of non-Catholics somehow displacing Catholic altar servers will prevent them from vocations is a non sequitur.

 

[FrDavid96]

I think, the fact that anyone serving in a lay liturgical function should be Catholic aside, that the notion of non-Catholics somehow displacing Catholic altar servers will prevent them from vocations is a non sequitur.

We might not be “preventing” the vocation as such, but would we be failing to properly foster it? Is diluting liturgical ministry to a mere function-that-can-be-done-by-anyone not harming (in some small way) the very idea of vocation itself?

 

[JMJ_coder]

I think, the fact that anyone serving in a lay liturgical function should be Catholic aside, that the notion of non-Catholics somehow displacing Catholic altar servers will prevent them from vocations is a non sequitur.

The Bishop was Catholic when he began to serve the altar. It was the desire to be an altar server that was the initial impetus for his conversion.

 

[Newbie2]

We might not be “preventing” the vocation as such, but would we be failing to properly foster it? Is diluting liturgical ministry to a mere function-that-can-be-done-by-anyone not harming (in some small way) the very idea of vocation itself?

Yes, very possibly, as far as not fostering it. Good point. On the other side, allowing non-Catholics to participate may precipitate a conversion. I don’t advocate such, but the argument may have some merit.

The Bishop was Catholic when he began to serve the altar. It was the desire to be an altar server that was the initial impetus for his conversion.

I don’t doubt that one bit.

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, very possibly, as far as not fostering it. Good point. On the other side, allowing non-Catholics to participate may precipitate a conversion. I don’t advocate such, but the argument may have some merit.

I’ve got to come down on the other side of that one. When we allow non-Catholics to do so, we give them (and everyone) the false impression that membership in the Church is merely an external characteristic. Why should they convert if they are already seen to be “Catholics” in the practical sense of the word? We cannot neglect the Communion that is the Church. Being outside of the Church means being outside of that visible community. We can’t have it both ways. When we allow this, we in fact distort the necessity of being an actual member of the Church. There is a reason why we say in the Creed “I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” We cannot dismiss this by practicing false eccumenism.

Yes, we should encourage non-Catholics to join the Church. Absolutely yes. But that encouragement has to be done in ways that do not distort the unity that is the One Church.