Women dispensing the eucharist

[Iohannes]

Whatever your views on EMHC are, just pray that there will be more vocations and less use of EMHC, I think we can all agree on that point.

EMHC are legal but very imprudent is my overall opinion on that matter.

 

[OhioBob]

Iohannes:

Whatever your views on EMHC are, just pray that there will be more vocations and less use of EMHC, I think we can all agree on that point.

I don’t think anyone here would argue with you on that.

Blessings.

 

[Deacon2006]

The bishop or pastor who was disobedient in 1980 is disobedient. Nothing in the Responsum ad Dubium alleviated them from their actions in 1980. Almost every diocese that has altar girls today was disobedient in 1980 and is still rightly considered disobedient until they make a public apology or gain new pastor or bishops not engaged in the earlier disobedience.

Church law is subservient to the Pope and not the other way around. Only the Pope can make a definitive interpretation of the law. The reckless pursuit of local interpretations of the law in the face of the clear and public wishes of the Pope is the essence of the post 1983 disobedience charges

The failure to employ established methods of guidance on this matter for years, and then only once it became clear the pope was going to squash the women’s ordination debate, was self-serving.

Granted this type of disobedience won’t get you excommunicated but by deliberately ignoring the widely known and explicit wishes of the Pope they profaned their oaths to respect and obey the Bishop of Rome. By their public Polly Annish ploys they held themselves up to ridicule as schemers and manipulators.

I think we should all join the Pope in calling for Holy Bishops to populate the church and thank God that this Pope is outlasting and repairing much of the damage done by these bishops.

God Bless

 

[Catholic2003]

Deacon2006:

Church law is subservient to the Pope and not the other way around. Only the Pope can make a definitive interpretation of the law. The reckless pursuit of local interpretations of the law in the face of the clear and public wishes of the Pope is the essence of the post 1983 disobedience charges

If this were true, then there would be no diocesan tribunals. All cases would have to go directly to Rome for judgment, and the bishops would merely be papal administrators. However, Vatican II and canon law provide otherwise:

Lumen Gentium 27. Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power, which indeed they use only for the edification of their flock in truth and holiness, remembering that he who is greater should become as the lesser and he who is the chief become as the servant. This power, which they personally exercise in Christ’s name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful. In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate.

The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called “prelates,” heads of the people whom they govern. Their power, therefore, is not destroyed by the supreme and universal power, but on the contrary it is affirmed, strengthened and vindicated by it, since the Holy Spirit unfailingly preserves the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church.

Can. 381 §1 In the diocese entrusted to his care, the diocesan Bishop has all the ordinary, proper and immediate power required for the exercise of his pastoral office, except in those matters which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme or to some other ecclesiastical authority.

Can. 391 §1 The diocesan Bishop governs the particular Church entrusted to him with legislative, executive and judicial power, in accordance with the law.

§2 The Bishop exercises legislative power himself. He exercises executive power either personally or through Vicars general or episcopal Vicars, in accordance with the law. He exercises judicial power either personally or through a judicial Vicar and judges, in accordance with the law.

Given that the 1983 code made a deliberate decision to remove the “male only” requirement from certain liturgical functions, there was no reason for the bishops to defer implementation of the new code waiting for a confirmation from the Pope that he really did read the 1983 code before he promulgated it.

 

[Deacon2006]

Nothing in canon 230 mentions altar servers however I agree it doesn’t take much squinting to include them into the 230: 2. We must never loose sight of the context that for 2000 years women were not allowed to serve the altar and the current Pope had gone on the record barring them from doing such even as the draft of the canons were being penned.

The problem is most of those who pretend they were implementing 230 in 1983-1994 were already using altar girls in open defiance to the Pope’s definitive teaching in 1980. Its like a tax evader claiming to have done nothing wrong once the President decides to eliminate the tax they choose to embezzle under.

No Bishop or group of Bishops, up to and including all of them less the Pope can prevent the Pope from defining liturgical roles of the laity. Every canon you quoted only has meaning as long as the Pope agrees to it. If he disagrees then they become mere words on a piece of paper with no consequence.

Only the Pope could settle the altar girl question in 1994 not any of the local bishop or any cardinal of the curia. His agreement to finally allow altar girls is both an excellent tribute to his compassion by bringing dissenting dioceses back into the fold and strategic prowess by forever barring women’s ordination without causing any uproar.

**All the bishops knew of the controversy raging about this issue. ** A man of character would have asked for clarification from the Holy Father before implementing a policy so diametrically opposed to the Popes public magisterial teachings and tradition. Unscrupulous men can always find real or imagined loop holes in the laws but faithful men respect the wishes of their Divinely empowered superiors even if its means not exercising the extreme limit of their legal rights. To not ask for clarification for over ten years in these circumstances is simply disrespectful of the Pope.

My Cardinal always forbade altar girls until 1994 but that didn’t stop his aux bishops and some pastors from bringing them in. There is no rosy memory in history awaiting those reprobate bishops and pastors who so cavalierly defied the Pope.

God Bless

PS If my bishop or pastor allows altar girls in the future I will respect and if he rejects altar girls I will respect it. Respect and obedience have nothing to do with what I can get away with under canon law.

 

[Catholic2003]

Deacon2006:

A man of character would have asked for clarification from the Holy Father before implementing a policy so diametrically opposed to the Popes public magisterial teachings and tradition.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I view the part of Lumen Gentium 27 which states, “This power, which [bishops] personally exercise in Christ’s name, is proper, ordinary and immediate,” to mean that bishops don’t have to go running to the Pope before they can act on any matter pertaining to their diocese, controversial or not.

Lumen Gentium 22 states, “In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.” The Pope can always step in and correct any bishop who errs or oversteps his authority. In fact, the document Inaestimabile Donum was not the response to any question from a bishop. The Vatican was certainly capable of reissuing a post-1983 instruction if the use of altar girls was against the Pope’s intentions under the new canon law. (I believe there were two other documents a few years prior to Inaestimabile Donum that also forbade the use of altar girls, so repeating things one more time wouldn’t have been an issue.)

 

[wet-rat]

I keep seeing the quote:

'This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion…"
Redemptionis Sacramentum

So what does “extraordinary” mean?

1. The extraordinary minister is not ordained. This state of not being ordained is itself described by “extraordinary.”
2. The extraordinary minister is used in “extraordinary” situations. It seems like this is a secondary interpretation of “extraordinary.” It is also interesting to think about what constitutes an extraordinary circumstance. It could be argued that the present priest shortage is an extraordinary situation.

What does “extraordinary” not mean? Although (1) above points out the unordained nature of the minister, it does not indicate that the purpose of the ministry is to dilute the function of the ordained minister by broadening the role of the laity. Rather it recognizes the particular role of the ordained and excludes (note the prefix “extra”) from the function of the ordained.

Also, by virtue of (2) the extraordinary minister is used in situations where the auxiliary functions of the ordained minister that do not pertain to his ordination can not solely be done by the ordinary minister himself. In this case an extraordinary minister may facilitate the mechanics of delivery in a manner that does not change fundamentally change the role of the extraordinary minister.

I.e. the extraordinary minister is like a cane. A cane is used not because one’s legs cannot function, but because it is difficult for one to keep steady on his legs due to age, injury, or illness. The legs still do the walking, but every so often the cane is used to steady the body and compensate for a weakness in the joints or muscles. Without the legs, the cane is useless. Also, the cane when properly used does not perform the function of the legs. Rather it is used to remove an impediment to the legs realizing their own unique function.

 

[Iohannes]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=92621&postcount=137

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

itsjustdave1988:

You lost me. I’m a military officer and have saluted higher ranking officers in and out of uniform. It’s not mandated, but is a sign of respect. Officers ought to return a salute to lower ranking officers, in or out of uniform. This too is a sign of respect. Civilians have saluted me as they see me in uniform too. I presume they too are showing respect. I return their salute as well.

That’s why I used a military analogical question: Would it look great to you if you saw a uniformed military officer saluting a lower-ranking soldier in civilian attire, who was not saluting back?

This would not be appropriate, as I understand it. The higher-ranking officer doesn’t ordinarily initiate the mutual sign of respect; the lower-ranking person does. And a salute given should be returned. A photo of a higher ranking officer giving a salute and not receiving one, then, would be hard to come by.

Also, it seems inappropriate that a female server in her alb, would be distributing the Sacred Species, as the photo above seemed to indicate.

I’ll grant that looks may be deceiving, and perhaps this is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion wearing a liturgical robe, but even that would be out of the ordinary, since they are to come forward from the faithful (do they come to Mass in an alb? or do they slip out during Mass to change into a liturgical garb?) So, for appearance’s sake, that photo of the altar girl distributing the Host appears quite inappropriate, and not “great.”

I suppose in my attempt to clarify, I muddled. Apologies! salute

Pax Christi. <><

 

[Deacon2006]

Catholic2003:

Lumen Gentium 22 states, “In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.”

Your posting of the LG 22 leads me to believe we are not in that much diasagreement here.

I believe we both are acknolwdgeing that if you have a heirarchy then you must have a supreme power from which all subservient powers draw their legitimacy. I also think we both agree that all wise leaders, Popes, Bishops, Pastors, Deacons, laity can never effectively lead by always standing on the extreme limits of their power.

The Altar Girl controversy in the scheme of things now is a minor issue because 1) the pope has publically allowed them and 2) the he has elimated the most negative repercussion of female altar servers by forever barring female ordination.

Let us join the Holy Father in prayer for Holy and Faithful Bishops as the church enters into the great springtime. If we are indisagreement about the exercise of episcopal power then let us be united in prayer.

God Bless

PS I like the points you make they provoked some excellent discussion and reflection but I think this issue has escaped the scope of the thread.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Whatever your views on EMHC are, just pray that there will be more vocations and less use of EMHC, I think we can all agree on that point.

Absolutely!