What if EMHCs were

[TrentCath]

It seems to me that you soundly reject current Church teaching and discipline, especially when you say that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the priest alone, because the Church clearly teaches that the ordinary minister is the deacon, the priest and the bishop.

I should like to point out that the faith of the church does not change, so to use the phrase ‘current Church teaching and discipline’ as if the church can change its faith or has had a different faith in the past is misleading. There is not ‘current church teaching’ and ‘past church teaching’, there is simply Church Teaching.

As regards the ordinary minister being the deacon, the priest and the bishop? All I have to say on that matter is what The Catechism of The Council of Trent says 'Only Priests Have Power To Consecrate And Administer The Eucharist
It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful,
the Holy Eucharist. That this has been the unvarying practice of the Church, that the faithful should receive the
Sacrament from the priests, and that the officiating priests should communicate themselves, has been explained
by the holy Council of Trent, which has also shown that this practice, as having proceeded from Apostolic
tradition, is to be religiously retained, particularly as Christ the Lord has left us an illustrious example thereof,
having consecrated His own most sacred body, and given it to the Apostles with His own hands.

That quote shows three things:

1. That the Church believes that only priests have the right to administer the Eucharist
   2)That this ‘is the unvarying practice of the church’
2. That this practice is Apostolic

To deny either 1,2, or 3 is to say that The Catechism of The Council of Trent devised by St Robert Bellarmine (one of the greatest if not the greatest Theologian of the Counter Reformation) and approved by St Pius V, is not only wrong but in error and that both the aforementioned saints and all those involved in its creation were also wrong. This is not simply to say that they were wrong doctrinally but also wrong as regards it being the unvarying practice of the church and Apostolic which either means they were ignorant as regards the history of the Church or lying. Further it is also to say that their interpretation of the Council of Trent is also wrong, something that appears highly unlikely to say the least.

 

[JReducation]

I’ve been thinking about stuff during my commutes. Sure I pray sometimes, but sometimes I meditate too on what is discussed here at CAF. Anyway, I was reflecting on the differences between Liturgical practices in the East and West. One thing I was thinking about is that in the East, only the clergy may touch the Sacred Vessels. Okay, so sometimes the laity would reverence them by kissing the chalice after receiving Communion. Anyway, I just thought that at Mass, the Sacred Vessels are prepared by the altar boys, who are lay. So I thought, even from there the debate would begin because why can’t EMHCs touch Sacred Vessels and altar boys can? Then an idea…

What if minor orders are restored and the EMHCs are only those who receive minor orders? I mean, ideally it would all be priests and deacons to distribute Communion. But realistically, there are parishes that is serviced by one priest only. So a helper is truly needed. Would someone ordained to minor orders satisfy traditional Catholics?

You’re talking about the acolyte. The ministry of acolyte has never been suppressed in the Latin Church. It was changed from a minor order to a ministry, but it still exists as a formal ministry for adult males who are formally installed by either a bishop or a major superior of male religious with Ordinary powers, such as an abbot, guardian, or prior. I’m a permanent acolyte.

It was changed from minor orders to ministry at the request of the mendicants and the monks of the Latin Church. The mendican orders and the monks were not founded as orders of priests, except for the Dominicans. They were founded as brotherhoods. In their early days, many of the monks and friars were acolytes. Gradually, the order of acolyte became clericalized along with tonsure and lector. If a monk or friar was not to be a priest, he did not become an acolyte or lector. In order to restore the function of lector and acolyte to the ranks of the non-clerics (lay and religious) the name was changed from order to ministry.

But we don’t have to resurrect these as minor orders. These still exist, but are called Ministries. They require theological formation and are only for males.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I should like to point out that the faith of the church does not change, so to use the phrase ‘current Church teaching and discipline’ as if the church can change its faith or has had a different faith in the past is misleading. There is not ‘current church teaching’ and ‘past church teaching’, there is simply Church Teaching.

As regards the ordinary minister being the deacon, the priest and the bishop? All I have to say on that matter is what The Catechism of The Council of Trent says 'Only Priests Have Power To Consecrate And Administer The Eucharist
It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful,
the Holy Eucharist. That this has been the unvarying practice of the Church, that the faithful should receive the
Sacrament from the priests, and that the officiating priests should communicate themselves, has been explained
by the holy Council of Trent, which has also shown that this practice, as having proceeded from Apostolic
tradition, is to be religiously retained, particularly as Christ the Lord has left us an illustrious example thereof,
having consecrated His own most sacred body, and given it to the Apostles with His own hands.

That quote shows three things:

1. That the Church believes that only priests have the right to administer the Eucharist
   2)That this ‘is the unvarying practice of the church’
2. That this practice is Apostolic

To deny either 1,2, or 3 is to say that The Catechism of The Council of Trent devised by St Robert Bellarmine (one of the greatest if not the greatest Theologian of the Counter Reformation) and approved by St Pius V, is not only wrong but in error and that both the aforementioned saints and all those involved in its creation were also wrong. This is not simply to say that they were wrong doctrinally but also wrong as regards it being the unvarying practice of the church and Apostolic which either means they were ignorant as regards the history of the Church or lying. Further it is also to say that their interpretation of the Council of Trent is also wrong, something that appears highly unlikely to say the least.

These are not doctrines, they are theological postulates. The Church has the right to hold them up as law for as long and when she feels they serve a purpose and she can set them aside when the pope believes they no longer serve a purpose. Setting them aside does not say that they are in error, because they were never doctrine.

Pope Paul VI set them aside. We tend to forget that Pope Paul VI was both a civil lawyer and a Doctor of Canon Law. The man knew history and understood Church law. It is reasonable to believe that he was familiar with such teachings.

We have to avoid the tendency to treat the popes as if the were dolts who don’t know Church history or as if they were deliberately trying to sabotage the Church. These men know their Church history better than most of us and they can discriminate between what binds them and what does not bind them. We may not like their choices, but they’re not there to please us.

As Pope Benedict said about and I’m paraphrasing, Popes have their own personalities, charisms, mission, and their own vision.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ConstantineTG]

Everything from the Vatican that I’ve read prohibits such a setting apart. EMHC’s aren’t supposed to wear any type of special clothing, or sit apart. They are especially not to wear a stole, as it is reserved for priests and deacons.

IMHO, EMHC’s should have to wear gloves to handle the sacred vessels, and use one of these special tongs, or something similar for distributing communion.
Christian Books, Bibles, Gifts & more. - Christianbook.com

The stoles their wear aren’t the stole of the priest or deacon. There’s a special one made for the ministry of EMHC. I don’t recall any rule that says that they must not be seated apart. Even here in Canada in my last RC parish, the EMHCs sit in front in a section opposite to the choir (outside the sanctuary).

Tongs would be a break in tradition. And it more likely would break the hosts.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The problem with this is that one of the major arguments against EMHC’s is that it supplants a role traditionally exclusive to the Priesthood and gives it to the laity, EMHC’s wearing distinctive clothing or worse a stole only make’s this situation worse. It blurs the lines between the priesthood and the laity yet further and in that sense makes things worse rather than better.

The consecration of the Eucharist is reserved alone to the priest. The distribution isn’t. The deacon may distribute. This is true even in the Eastern Rites, which points that it is a very old Church practice.

 

[ClayPots47]

I should like to point out that the faith of the church does not change, so to use the phrase ‘current Church teaching and discipline’ as if the church can change its faith or has had a different faith in the past is misleading. There is not ‘current church teaching’ and ‘past church teaching’, there is simply Church Teaching.

As regards the ordinary minister being the deacon, the priest and the bishop? All I have to say on that matter is what The Catechism of The Council of Trent says 'Only Priests Have Power To Consecrate And Administer The Eucharist
It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful,
the Holy Eucharist. That this has been the unvarying practice of the Church, that the faithful should receive the
Sacrament from the priests, and that the officiating priests should communicate themselves, has been explained
by the holy Council of Trent, which has also shown that this practice, as having proceeded from Apostolic
tradition, is to be religiously retained, particularly as Christ the Lord has left us an illustrious example thereof,
having consecrated His own most sacred body, and given it to the Apostles with His own hands.

That quote shows three things:

1. That the Church believes that only priests have the right to administer the Eucharist
   2)That this ‘is the unvarying practice of the church’
2. That this practice is Apostolic

To deny either 1,2, or 3 is to say that The Catechism of The Council of Trent devised by St Robert Bellarmine (one of the greatest if not the greatest Theologian of the Counter Reformation) and approved by St Pius V, is not only wrong but in error and that both the aforementioned saints and all those involved in its creation were also wrong. This is not simply to say that they were wrong doctrinally but also wrong as regards it being the unvarying practice of the church and Apostolic which either means they were ignorant as regards the history of the Church or lying. Further it is also to say that their interpretation of the Council of Trent is also wrong, something that appears highly unlikely to say the least.

This isn’t doctrine, and Trent, just like many other councils, have had teachings set aside by later councils or the pope. And that is exactly what happened, much of the above has been put aside, and the following is what currently takes it’s place.

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP
AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENT
INSTRUCTION

Redemptionis Sacramentum

On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided
regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

[21] Finally, the structures and forms of the sacred celebrations according to each of the Rites of both East and West are in harmony with the practice of the universal Church also as regards practices received universally from apostolic and unbroken tradition,[22] which it is the Church’s task to transmit faithfully and carefully to future generations. All these things are wisely safeguarded and protected by the liturgical norms.

[14.] “The regulation of the Sacred Liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, which rests specifically with the Apostolic See and, according to the norms of law, with the Bishop.[34]

[15.] The Roman Pontiff, “the Vicar of Christ and the Pastor of the universal Church on earth, by virtue of his supreme office enjoys full, immediate and universal ordinary power, which he may always freely exercise”[35], also by means of communication with the pastors and with the members of the flock.

[16.] “It pertains to the Apostolic See to regulate the Sacred Liturgy of the universal Church, to publish the liturgical books and to grant the recognition for their translation into vernacular languages, as well as to ensure that the liturgical regulations, especially those governing the celebration of the most exalted celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, are everywhere faithfully observed”.[36]

1. Deacons

[34.] Deacons “upon whom hands are imposed not for the Priesthood but for the ministry”,[77] as men of good repute,[78] must act in such a way that with the help of God they may be recognized as the true disciples[79] of him “who came not to be served but to serve”[80], and who was among his disciples “as one who serves”.[81] Strengthened by the gift of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands, they are in service to the People of God, in communion with the Bishop and his presbyterate.[82] They should therefore consider the Bishop as a father, and give assistance to him and to the Priests “in the ministry of the word, of the altar, and of charity”.[83]

[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.[254] 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. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

(Continued next post)

 

[ClayPots47]

(Continued from last post)

[186.] Let all Christ’s faithful participate in the Most Holy Eucharist as fully, consciously and actively as they can,[293] honouring it lovingly by their devotion and the manner of their life. Let Bishops, Priests and Deacons, in the exercise of the sacred ministry, examine their consciences as regards the authenticity and fidelity of the actions they have performed in the name of Christ and the Church in the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy. Let each one of the sacred ministers ask himself, even with severity, whether he has respected the rights of the lay members of Christ’s faithful, who confidently entrust themselves and their children to him, relying on him to fulfill for the faithful those sacred functions that the Church intends to carry out in celebrating the sacred Liturgy at Christ’s command.[294] For each one should always remember that he is a servant of the Sacred Liturgy.[295]

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

This Instruction, prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was approved by the same Pontiff on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, 19 March 2004, and he ordered it to be published and to be observed immediately by all concerned.

From the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Rome, on the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord, 25 March 2004.

Francis Card. Arinze
Prefect

Domenico Sorrentino
Archbishop Secretary

That quote shows three things:

1. That the Church believes that priests and deacons have the right to administer the Eucharist
   2)That this ‘is the unvarying practice of the church’
2. That this practice is Apostolic

To deny either 1,2, or 3 is to say that Redemptionis Sacramentum prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and it’s Prefect
Francis Card. Arinze by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is not only wrong but in error and that both the aforementioned prefect and all those involved in its creation were also wrong. Can you see how your argument works neither for Trent nor Redemptionis Sacramentum? All three statement are correct in reference to the teachings, but those teachings of Trent have been set aside, and the Holy Father has mandated new ones.

Brother JR explains how Pope Paul VI set aside those Trent teachings, Redemptionis Sacramentum shows what was mandated by John Paul II.

 

[TrentCath]

The consecration of the Eucharist is reserved alone to the priest. The distribution isn’t. The deacon may distribute. This is true even in the Eastern Rites, which points that it is a very old Church practice.

See my citation from the council of Trent

 

[TrentCath]

This isn’t doctrine, and Trent, just like many other councils, have had teachings set aside by later councils or the pope. And that is exactly what happened, much of the above has been put aside, and the following is what currently takes it’s place.

(Continued next post)

It is beyond a Pope’s powers to set aside the teachings of an ecumenical council, an ecumenical council is infallible and irreformable, no one whether Pope or a later ecumenical council may later set aside its teachings. Its disciplinary canons are of course subject to reform, but this is hardly a matter of discipline it is a matter of doctrine namely the privileges of the Priest.

 

[TrentCath]

(Continued from last post)

That quote shows three things:

1. That the Church believes that priests and deacons have the right to administer the Eucharist
   2)That this ‘is the unvarying practice of the church’
2. That this practice is Apostolic

To deny either 1,2, or 3 is to say that Redemptionis Sacramentum prepared by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and it’s Prefect
Francis Card. Arinze by mandate of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is not only wrong but in error and that both the aforementioned prefect and all those involved in its creation were also wrong. Can you see how your argument works neither for Trent nor Redemptionis Sacramentum? All three statement are correct in reference to the teachings, but those teachings of Trent have been set aside, and the Holy Father has mandated new ones.

Brother JR explains how Pope Paul VI set aside those Trent teachings, Redemptionis Sacramentum shows what was mandated by John Paul II.

No, because that documents comes some 500 years after the Council of Trent. Which document is therefore more likely to reflect that councils genuine teachings? A Catechism created to expound its teachings and commisioned by a Pope or a document from a Roman Congregations some 500 years later? To compare the two documents therefore as if they were like for like is to say the least Rash if not foolish.

Further Redemptionis Sacramentum knows better than to claim that what it is teaching is either Apostolic OR supported by the ‘unvarying practice of the church’ and makes that claim nowhere in the text. The text I quoted does however make that claim and would have more authority than Redemptionis Sacramentum merely by the fact it was commisioned by a Pope to expound the teachings of an Ecumenical Council let alone for the fact that the persons involved in drawing it up and the Pope who approved it are both Saints.

 

[JReducation]

It is beyond a Pope’s powers to set aside the teachings of an ecumenical council, an ecumenical council is infallible and irreformable, no one whether Pope or a later ecumenical council may later set aside its teachings. Its disciplinary canons are of course subject to reform, but this is hardly a matter of discipline it is a matter of doctrine namely the privileges of the Priest.

This is not a point of revealed dogma, morals or virtue. Therefore, any pope can set it aside. It is also not true that popes are bound by ecumenical councils. Popes are bound only by moral and dogmatic statements made by councils. It is the moral law or the dogma that binds, not the council. Itis a point in Canon Law that a pope can overrule a council, a previous pope, canon law and anything that is not revealed dogma and morals.

The distribution of Holy Communion is not part of the ordination to the priesthood. The consecration is. In fact, the distribution of Holy Communion is now mentioined in the ordination rite of the deacon and not in the ordination rite of the priest for the obvious reason, all those to be ordained priests are already deacons. They do not lose the order of deacon when they are ordained to the order of presbyter. Nor does a man lose the other two when he is ordained to the order of bishop.

From the deacon on, the Ordinary minister of Holy Communion in the Latin Church are the deacon, presbyter and bishop. This is establishe and decreed in canon law in 1983 by Bl. John Paul II. If your argument were correct, then canon law would be in error. How is it possible that Church law can be in error when it is promulgated by the pope himself? Church law cannot err. What can happen is that circumstances change and the law is no longer applicable. That’s very different from saying that the pope promulgated error.

According to the faith of the Church, the reigning pope, not his predecessors, is the Living Law of the Church through whom Christ the Law Giver speaks. Therefore, whatever he makes law becomes law and whatever law his unbind, is unbound at his sole discretion.

**The sovereign pontiff is the most fruitful source of canon law; he can abrogate the laws made by his predecessors or by Ecumenical councils; he can legislate for the whole church or for a part thereof, a country or a given body of individuals; if he is morally bound to take advice and to follow the dictates of prudence, he is not legally obliged to obtain the consent of any other person or persons, or to observe any particular form; his power is limited only by Divine law, natural and positive, dogmatic and moral. (Boniface VIII. c. i, “De Constit.” in VI). **

The minister of Holy Communion is not a doctrine, but a discipline. It has always been thus since the time of the Apostles. Different theologians and councils have made different theological assertions, but none of them has ever stuck, because none of them are revealed truths. They are what we call theological postulates. They bind only when a pope or a council decide that they bind and they are unbound by a future pope or council.

There are very few rules in Catholicism that are direct divine revelation. Most of them are rational points that can be changed by another rational argument.

Doctrines, morals, natural law and scripture can be explained through reason, but cannot be reasoned away.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrentCath]

These are not doctrines, they are theological postulates. The Church has the right to hold them up as law for as long and when she feels they serve a purpose and she can set them aside when the pope believes they no longer serve a purpose. Setting them aside does not say that they are in error, because they were never doctrine.

Pope Paul VI set them aside. We tend to forget that Pope Paul VI was both a civil lawyer and a Doctor of Canon Law. The man knew history and understood Church law. It is reasonable to believe that he was familiar with such teachings.

We have to avoid the tendency to treat the popes as if the were dolts who don’t know Church history or as if they were deliberately trying to sabotage the Church. These men know their Church history better than most of us and they can discriminate between what binds them and what does not bind them. We may not like their choices, but they’re not there to please us.

As Pope Benedict said about and I’m paraphrasing, Popes have their own personalities, charisms, mission, and their own vision.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The profession of faith of the First Vatican Council states inter alia ‘I, Pius, bishop of the catholic church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the holy Roman church uses, namely…Apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same church I most firmly accept and embrace…Likewise all other things which have been transmitted, defined and declared by the sacred canons and the ecumenical councils, especially the sacred Trent, I accept unhesitatingly and profess; in the same way’

Neither Pope Pius IX nor the Council appears to believe that the Pope could jettison ‘the unvarying pratice of the church’ or ‘Apostolic tradition’ whenever it suited him. Indeed with all due respect such a claim is self-evidently absurd, can the Pope change the matter, form or intention of the Sacraments? No. Could the Pope declare that women can become priests? No. Could the Pope remove books from the Bible? No. There are clear limits on the powers of the Popes.

Further the same council when speaking of the Pope’s powers states ‘…**For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. **…’

If therefore the Catechism is right in stating that it is a practice ‘transmitted from the Apostles’ it would appear to clearly be beyond the Pope’s powers to change or abrogate.

The Council of Trent itself states 'Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained. ’

Do you honestly believe that it is within the Popes powers to modify or change Apostolic Traditions whenever he so wishes?

 

[TrentCath]

This is not a point of revealed dogma, morals or virtue. Therefore, any pope can set it aside. It is also not true that popes are bound by ecumenical councils. Popes are bound only by moral and dogmatic statements made by councils. It is the moral law or the dogma that binds, not the council. Itis a point in Canon Law that a pope can overrule a council, a previous pope, canon law and anything that is not revealed dogma and morals.

The distribution of Holy Communion is not part of the ordination to the priesthood. The consecration is. In fact, the distribution of Holy Communion is now mentioined in the ordination rite of the deacon and not in the ordination rite of the priest for the obvious reason, all those to be ordained priests are already deacons. They do not lose the order of deacon when they are ordained to the order of presbyter. Nor does a man lose the other two when he is ordained to the order of bishop.

From the deacon on, the Ordinary minister of Holy Communion in the Latin Church are the deacon, presbyter and bishop. This is establishe and decreed in canon law in 1983 by Bl. John Paul II. If your argument were correct, then canon law would be in error. How is it possible that Church law can be in error when it is promulgated by the pope himself? Church law cannot err. What can happen is that circumstances change and the law is no longer applicable. That’s very different from saying that the pope promulgated error.

According to the faith of the Church, the reigning pope, not his predecessors, is the Living Law of the Church through whom Christ the Law Giver speaks. Therefore, whatever he makes law becomes law and whatever law his unbind, is unbound at his sole discretion.

The sovereign pontiff is the most fruitful source of canon law; he can abrogate the laws made by his predecessors or by Ecumenical councils; he can legislate for the whole church or for a part thereof, a country or a given body of individuals; if he is morally bound to take advice and to follow the dictates of prudence, he is not legally obliged to obtain the consent of any other person or persons, or to observe any particular form; his power is limited only by Divine law, natural and positive, dogmatic and moral. (Boniface VIII. c. i, “De Constit.” in VI).

The minister of Holy Communion is not a doctrine, but a discipline. It has always been thus since the time of the Apostles. Different theologians and councils have made different theological assertions, but none of them has ever stuck, because none of them are revealed truths. They are what we call theological postulates. They bind only when a pope or a council decide that they bind and they are unbound by a future pope or council.

There are very few rules in Catholicism that are direct divine revelation. Most of them are rational points that can be changed by another rational argument.

Doctrines, morals, natural law and scripture can be explained through reason, but cannot be reasoned away.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

We are talking about a rather different situation here than merely a councils disciplines, we are talking about an ‘Apostolic Tradition’, do you therefore believe that it is within the Pope’s powers to change or abrogate Apostolic Traditions whenever he so wishes?

Notable Catholic theologians do not think so, Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), S.J., “Most Exalted and Pius Doctor,” says in De Charitate, Disputatio XII de Schismate, sectio 1 '…(a Pope who)…wished to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition would become a schismatic, not to be obeyed".

Cardinal Juan de Torqumada O.P; says in Commentarii in Decretum Gratiani (1519) and Summa de Ecclesia (1489) “t**he Pope could, without doubt, fall into Schism . . . Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church. . . . Thus it is that Innocent states (De Consuetudine) that, it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, he need not be followed . . **.”

What I am saying therefore is hardly a ‘new’ or ‘Uncatholic’ idea.

 

[TrentCath]

I have been informed that I cannot say ‘The Church does not teach’ and so i will say ‘The Church has not taught’ or this teaching is ‘new or novel’

 

[JReducation]

The profession of faith of the First Vatican Council states inter alia ‘I, Pius, bishop of the catholic church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the holy Roman church uses, namely…Apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same church I most firmly accept and embrace…Likewise all other things which have been transmitted, defined and declared by the sacred canons and the ecumenical councils, especially the sacred Trent, I accept unhesitatingly and profess; in the same way’

This is a profession of faith in what the Church embraces as teaching. The distribution of Holy Communion is not a teaching. It is a discipline.

Neither Pope Pius IX nor the Council appears to believe that the Pope could jettison ‘the unvarying pratice of the church’ or ‘Apostolic tradition’ whenever it suited him. Indeed with all due respect such a claim is self-evidently absurd, can the Pope change the matter, form or intention of the Sacraments? No. Could the Pope declare that women can become priests? No. Could the Pope remove books from the Bible? No. There are clear limits on the powers of the Popes.

The distribution of Holy Communion is not part of this revealed deposit of faith. That is decided by the Church.

Further the same council when speaking of the Pope’s powers states ‘…For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. …’

No pope has changed the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. We’re talking about whether or not a deacon is an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Bl. John Paul II decreed that he is. He also decreed that the local bishop may permit EMHC.

If therefore the Catechism is right in stating that it is a practice ‘transmitted from the Apostles’ it would appear to clearly be beyond the Pope’s powers to change or abrogate.

It says that it is a practice, not a doctrine. That’s why a pope can change it.

The Council of Trent itself states 'Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained. ’

Do you honestly believe that it is within the Popes powers to modify or change Apostolic Traditions whenever he so wishes?

St. Boniface says that a pope can change laws. All the evidence that you posted above points to the pope being bound to dogmas, not to laws, rubrics and disciplines. Bl. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI say they can change any tradition, no matter how old, as long as it’s not a dogma or a moral law and in 1983, they did. What are you going to do about? What do you expect the rest of the faithful to do about it? You’re fighting a losing battle, unless you declare the Chair of Peter vacant. Church law can never be in error, because it cannot contradict Truth.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrentCath]

This is a profession of faith in what the Church embraces as teaching. The distribution of Holy Communion is not a teaching. It is a discipline.

The distribution of Holy Communion is not part of this revealed deposit of faith. That is decided by the Church.

No pope has changed the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. We’re talking about whether or not a deacon is an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Bl. John Paul II decreed that he is. He also decreed that the local bishop may permit EMHC.

It says that it is a practice, not a doctrine. That’s why a pope can change it.

St. Boniface says that a pope can change laws. All the evidence that you posted above points to the pope being bound to dogmas, not to laws, rubrics and disciplines. Bl. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI say they can change any tradition, no matter how old, as long as it’s not a dogma or a moral law and in 1983, they did. What are you going to do about? What do you expect the rest of the faithful to do about it? You’re fighting a losing battle, unless you declare the Chair of Peter vacant. Church law can never be in error, because it cannot contradict Truth.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

In other words yes you do think its absolutely fine for the Pope to change Apostolic traditions whenever he so wishes?

As regards the profession of faith, it clearly extends beyond what is explicitly Dogma as it says 'traditions and all other observances…’.

As for church law never being in error, what do you think of the 1917 code of canon law which contradicts the 1983 code numerous times? If you think Church Law can never be wrong, then neither of those can be wrong and yet they explicitly contradict each other!

 

[JReducation]

In other words yes you do think its absolutely fine for the Pope to change Apostolic traditions whenever he so wishes?

As regards the profession of faith, it clearly extends beyond what is explicitly Dogma as it says 'traditions and all other observances…’.

As for church law never being in error, what do you think of the 1917 code of canon law which contradicts the 1983 code numerous times? If you think Church Law can never be wrong, then neither of those can be wrong and yet they explicitly contradict each other!

Let’s see if I can help you out of this mess, because I think that you may not know as much about theology and Canon Law as I thought. That would be my error, because I assumed that you did.

1. A tradition can be an Apostolic Tradition, because it is handed down by the Apostles. Some can be changed and some cannot, depending on the intent of the Apostles. For example, when they hand down the teaching on the Eucharist, that is one that cannot be changed. On the other hand, you have Paul saying that women should be quiet. That is one that can change, because it was meant for a very specific situation. It takes a biblical scholar to sort through these things.
2. There are other traditions that date back to the time of the Apostles. Some of them are dogmatic or moral. Those cannot be changed, such as the ordination of women. There is no evidence that the Apostles believed they could ordain women. Therefore, the generations that followed, all the way up to us, cannot go back and say, “They meant this or they understood that.” We don’t have that evidence. We take it at face value and it is what it is.
3. There are traditions that date back to the time of the Apostles, but they are not Apostolic. They were not handed down by them, but customs that were adopted by the Church. All customs are subject to the authority of the reigning pope. They are what the word says, customs, not morals, not dogmas nor virtues.
4. There have been many theologians who have argued that customs may not change, especially liturgical customs. However, the Church has never upheld any of these arguments as revealed truths. They are rational and intelligent positions that the Pontif is free to accept or not. Even much of Aquinas thought is not used by the Pontiffs.
5. In regard to Canon Law, are there differences and even juxtapositions between the Code of 1917 and the code 1983? Of course. There were differences and juxtapositions between the Code of 1917 and that of 1221,etc. The codes change because situations change. They are not in error. They are appropriate for their time and their purpose. When the Pontiff feels that the time is not right or the purpose is no longer there, he has the Divine Right to change the law.
6. Finally, the question on the table is whether or not the deacon can one of the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Since this is not a revealed truth from Christ, not a doctrine handed down by the Apostles, in fact they had deacons distributing Holy Communion, Stehen and Jason, then it falls into the area of custom. It became a custom for the priest to distribute Holy Communion. The custom was made law.
7. One of the best ways to tell if a law is binding on the Church is to observe if the law is applied to everyone. This particular law, priests distributing Holy Communion, was never applied to everyone. Had it been a dogma, it would have been universal. The fact is that religious brothers and sisters who are not priests, often carried the Eucharist with them when on mission to places where there was no priest. They also carried it to their sick members in the monastery if there was no priest to do so. Many mission countries did not have enough priests and many religious houses did not have priests. In these places, the priest came, consecrated and left the consecrated hosts in the tabernacle for the religious to give communion to their sick or take to the jungles of some country as they traveled back and forth from the base to the bush station.
8. Finally, you’re being inappropriate in that you’re even arguing against a Cardinal of the Church who was the Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship. One had better be very knowledgeable of theology and law and very sure that one is right before one has the courage or bravado to take on a person in such a position. If I were you, I would back down and reconsider my stance and my attitude. No one is forcing you to receive Holy Communion from a deacon or an EMHC. I hope that you’re never in a hospital where you don’t have a priest to bring you Holy Communion. I’ve been there and it’s not pleasant. I am grateful to the deacons, EMHC and our brothers who brought me Communion and to the Church for allowing them to do so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

In these places, the priest came, consecrated and left the consecrated hosts in the tabernacle for the religious to give communion to their sick or take to the jungles of some country as they traveled back and forth from the base to the bush station.

Br. JR. That is a very interesting point, and it makes sense. Do you have any references you can link to?

Thanks.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR. That is a very interesting point, and it makes sense. Do you have any references you can link to?

Thanks.

No. These are points that the Church’s hierarchy and religious superiors consider to be trivial. So, no one ever bothers to “formally document” it. Those who have been missionaries or who are in monasteries know this from practice. If you ask any of us, we just go and say, “We’ve been doing this since. . . .” You can pick up storied here and there about the missionaries and in these stories they will make a reference to how the missionary carried the Eucharist through the jungles to bush station or other remote place. The same with the monasteries. You can pick up the story of a house or a religious and there will be a one liner about how Brother John or Sister Mary took communion to the sick in the house. People need to understand that what the laity may consider of great importance, the clergy and religious consider it to be so obvious or so simple, because it’s a vary familiar thing to us that it never occurs to us that anyone would ever want a formal decree or document on it. One is never requested.

I’m thinking of a simple example that comes to mind from our own Franciscan history. St. Clare, the co-foundress of the Franciscan nuns, is usually depicted holding a monstrance.
The legend is that the monastery was under attack and was about to be raided and that Clare got up from her sick bed, rushed to the tabernacle, took the Blessed Sacrament and held it over the monastery wall to repell the invaders and it worked. God intervened.

The truth is that this was made up by the laity after her death. The truth is not as romantic as it is told. The nuns had permission to take communion to Clare, because she was very sick. She could only watch the mass through a window in her cell that looked into the chapel. However, the friars were not allowed to take communion to the nuns. The nuns would take the Eucharist to Clare.

On the day of the assault, they rushed in to Mother Clare and asked her for advice. She told them to get the Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle, which they were used to doing. The Blessed Sacrament was kept in a ciborium. It was put on the altar. The nuns, led by Clare through her window, began to raise prayers of adoration and the attack suddenly and for no unexplainable reason stopped.

After she died, the legend developed that she had single-handedly stopped the invasion by holding up a monstrance over the wall. In the end, we are not even sure if she ever went to the wall with the ciborium, maybe aided by her nuns or not. We are sure that they (the nuns) handled the Eucharist and that is is very plausible that they may have carried the Eucharist and Clare to the wall. Why is it plausible, because they handled the Eucharist and still do to this day.

It’s little snippets of history and customs that have been in place for centuries that tell us that this cannot be a sin or such a horror and it certainly cannot be a dogma, because these people would not have touched the Eucharist be it for adoration or to give communion to the sick. From a caonical point of view, we also know that to every law in canon law, there are indults and exceptions. You cannot grant an indult from a moral law or a dogma.

For example, you cannot say that an abortion is OK today for this person. That would be an indult or exception. You cannot say that because the priest consecrated a bagel, there is no transubstantiation. That would be an exception to a dogma. As far as I know, a bagel is bread. Correct me if I’m wrong. It is illegal to consecrate a bagel, but it does not change the dogma.

However, the church can change the law and allow you to consecrate a bagel or a piece of it, if that’s all you have. This happens often with priests who are in prison such as St. Maximilian Kolbe. He celebrated mass and consecrated leavened bread that was several days old and hard. That’s what the Nazis gave them to each. He would save it and when someone snuck in a little wine, he consecrated the old hard leavened bread and the the few drops of wine that he could get and celebrate mass in the bunkers. Was the mass illegal? No. Was it a sin? No. The law only works when it applies.

That’s why we say that Canon Law does not err. It changes according to time, place and circumstance. It’s up to the pope to decide when, how and to whom it applies. The popes have always held in honor priests in situations such as St. Maximlian and never recriminated against them as long as they consecrated bread and wine.

They are not even bound to celebrate the entire mass. They can reduce it to those parts that they can do from memory. There would be no collects, not proper prayers for the day, no readings, etc. Just the ordinary parts of the mass. Is this on paper somewhere? No. Is it done and approved? Yes. Why is it not on paper? Because the hierarchy and superiors of religious just assume that this is obvious, because it’s obvious to them.

As strange as it sounds, the Church always makes an assumption in favor of common sense. There are many things that we will only find mentioned because they’re embedded in stories or embedded in customs of certain places or groups. Common sense tells us that if they happen and it is allowed, it cannot be a doctrine or a moral law. It then falls into the category of discipline.

 

[JReducation]

It is also true that every theological argument is based on reason. It is not true that every theological argument makes it to the level of doctrine or moral law. The Doctors of the Church have written much, which the popes have praised them for, but never promulgated. However, when the popes need something to support a position, they often go back to the doctors and pull out that single piece of writings that St. John Doe wrote 300 years ago. In other words, these works are important, but they are not laws. The law always comes from the pope. The popes use these works as they need them, to make law, to teach, to edify the people, to encourage devotion, to support a position, etc. As long as these writings are not contrary to revealed truth, they can be used. By themselves, they are not law. They take on the force of law when they are adopted by the Church.

When St. Thomas Aquinas said that only the consecrated hands of the priest should distribute Holy Communion, that was St. Thomas. The Church never said that this was a revealed truth. The Church is not bound to follow St. Thomas. She is bound to follow revealed truth. She takes form him what she needs. The rest is there for when we need it. But we can’t hold St. Thomas above the pope. Thomas would be horrified at the thought. If he were here today, maybe he would still say the same thing, but he would also humbly submit and accept what the Church allows. He was very clear that disobedience is only allowed in matters of sin. This is not a moral law nor is it heresy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF