Enchanted’s understanding of the Code of 1917 is correct. This law restricting the touching of the Eucharist to the ordained was introduced in1917 and was modified in 1983. It was a short-lived law, given a 2000 year history. Also, today we have only three orders in the Sacrament of Holy Orders: deacon, presbyter and bishop. We must be careful when we say that only a priest can touch the Eucharist. This is not true. The rule is that all the ordained can do so. The practice was made law in 1917, because it had been the tradition of the Roman Church for many centuries. As often happens, the tradition is born first and the law follows. But the tradition was one of discipline, not doctrine.
Although St. Thomas Aquinas thought of it as doctrine, his friend and colleague, St. Bonaventure, refuted him. Thus it never became a doctrine. Rome always treated the question as a disciplinary one, not a doctrinal one. It was probably the most prudent path to take, given that you had to theological heavy-weights on opposite sides and both had very strong arguments to sustain their positions. Aquinas used logic and Bonaventure used history.
The ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the ordained man. However, even in the Roman Church, there have always been exceptions to almost every discipline. Since the laity does not live inside the enclosure of a male monastery or friary, it is not privy to the fact that many abbeys and provinces of friars were excempt from this discipline.
It is important to understand how and why it was allowed that non-ordained religiuos men had the indult for centuries. Some founders of the old religious orders founded with the intent to found brotherhoods, not orders of priests. They deliberately avoided all customs and practices that distinguished the ordained brothers from the lay brothers. Observe the use of the terms: monk and friar. They applied to both the ordained and the lay who made solemn vows. They are orders with two states: lay (not as in the secular lay person) and clerics. There were other orders that were clerical orders, meaning that they were for priests and the few lay brothers that they had, were bound to the same rules to which the Church binds the secular laity.
Those orders founded upon for the sole purpose of living the Gospel as brotherhoods, avoided distinctions between the ordained and the non-ordained. The Franciscans have been the largest of these orders, but not the only one. This was especially important to us, because our founder was not a priest. To preserve the unity of the order, as he founded it, it was always important to avoid clericalism. The early friars and monks did not need such things as altar rails, kneelers and other elements commonly found in a parish church. They gathered for mass and the Divine Office as a brotherhood, without separations. Eventually, they installed choir stalls on either side of the altar, instead of the model that many of us know, where everyone is facing in the same direction. Friars (Franciscan, Carmelites, etc) borrowed this model from the Benedictine liturgical tradition. The altar was between two sets of stalls that faced each other. Everyone was seeing the priest from the side, not the back. Facing ad orientem had a slightly different meaning for these communities.
Why is this important to this discussion? For one thing, is proves that it is not heresy to face the altar from another angle. If it were, it would never have been approved as a venerable practice and one that promoted brotherhood and united a community as the Apostles were united to each other. It also proves that the liturgical life of the Church has been influenced by many schools of spirituality, especially Benedictine and Franciscan. For example, the Franciscans introduced the tabernacle on the main altar in the 13th century. It is important to know that this came to us because of Francis’ poverty. The friars lived in very small houses with one room for prayer.
The monks lived in monasteries. They had the abbey Church and they had a separate chapel. The great Cathedrals never had it in the Church either. This was a later development as the Franciscan school spread. Artists began to build elaborate and beautiful central altars to enshrine the tabernacle to place the tabernacle.
The more that we know about the tradition that we’re defending, the better we can defend it, without going overboard. Certainly, to suggest that something like CITH is wrong, can be overboard, since it has been allowed by the Church for many people in many regions and situations, long before this indult. In addition, it has been allowed in some of the other Catholic Churches. It cannot possibly be an error, with upper case E.
To say that many people in the Roman Church do not use the indult properly or do not show the reverence that those early monks and friars did, has validity. This raises the question of how to correct this. There are two choices, first to teach the reverence of the monks and friars to the faithful or second, revoke the indult. Our current Holy Father does not appear to be in any hurry to revoke the indult.
To suggest that there would be an internal war, if it were revoked, may be a little over the top too. There are always going to be lose canons. They come in left and right shades. The truth is that the average person in the pew, cleric and religious will do as told. We have a history of doing as we’re told. We don’t always like it and we often gripe and complain on our way to the shed to get the wood and back, but we do it. We have to give our people more credit than we’re giving them, remembering that the lose canons are not the norm and they cannot be avoided. They have existed since before Christ.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
