Women dispensing the eucharist

[itsjustdave1988]

Iohannes,

Iohannes:

You cannot even see with your own eyes. That girl looks like a priest.

I don’t know what your priest looks like, but mine wears a chasuble and stole. I see neither in this picture.

So, yes, I do have eyes and they do work quite well. Perhaps you can point out where the chasuble and stole are hidden in the picture with your superior vision? Doesn’t your priest wear them? Or does he simply omit them in favor or just an alb? That would be a bit irregular as compared to the FSSP practice here in Colorado Springs.

 

[Ham1]

Iohannes:

Ham1,

Pope John Paul II
To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, 11)

The Council of Trent (1545-1565)
“The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

Iohannes,

Great quotes…What’s your point???

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Iohannes,

The Council of Trent (1545-1565)
“The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

This is the quote from Trent, Session XIII, Ch. VIII:

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 apostolic tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained. (Session

In context, this seems to address the custom that lay members ought not to self-communicate, as do priests. Nevertheless, the custom to communicate using both species is also from apostolic tradition, yet for just reasons, the Church may change such customs. Ecclesiastical disciplines are not immutable, even if they come from apostolic tradition.

From the Council of Trent, Session XXI, Ch. II,

It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,–or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places.

The 12-year old martyr, St. Tarcisius, was not a priest yet was entrusted by the Church to dispense Holy Communion to the faithful. Such matters are not de fide immutable dogmas, but pertain to ecclesiastical discipline, which are not immutable.

Another example of ecclesiastical discipline from apostolic tradition that was changed is discussed by St. Augustine:

For, allowing that the apostles did on that occasion require Christians to abstain from the blood of animals, and not to eat of things strangled [Acts 15:20], they seem to me to have consulted the time in choosing an easy observance that could not be burdensome to any one, and which the Gentiles might have in common with the Israelities, for the sake of the Corner-stone, who makes both one in Himself; while at the same time they would be reminded how the Church of all nations was prefigured by the ark of Noah, when God gave this command,–a type which began to be fulfilled in the time of the apostles by the accession of the Gentiles to the faith. But since the close of that period during which the two walls of the circumcision and the uncircumcision, although united in the Corner-stone, still retained some distinctive peculiarities, and now that the Church has become so entirely Gentile that none who are Outwardly Israelites are to be found in it, no Christian feels bound to abstain from thrushes or small birds because their blood has not been poured out, or from hares because they are killed by a stroke on the neck without shedding their blood. (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Bk XXXII, 13)

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

itsjustdave1988:

I think you presume to know the motives of the Holy See, who in fact decided most certainly to allow female altar servers and EMHCs in accordance with canon 230, §2.

The Holy See gave his authentic interpretation of canon law. To presume he faked the authenticity in his role as Supreme Legislator to appease the masses is unconvincing.

Please don’t think that I presume, nor that I accuse the Holy Father of “faking the authenticity in his role as Supreme Legislator.” That is not the case.

Are you saying that the interpretation of canon law by the Holy See is not authentically interpreted as he contends it is?

Nope. I’m just saying that that interpretation of canon law came about lonnnnng after female altar servers were being implemented widespread in the US.

On 15 March 1994, Cardinal Ortas, prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, wrote:

So, prior to 1994, those using altar girls were doing so without authentic permission. That is what I am saying. Permission to do so was granted only after it had become a widespread (unauthorized) practice here in the US.

I am a parent with of a large family. If more than half of my kids are doing something that I might not have permitted had I been asked, which breaks with every “tradition” we’ve observed as a family heretofore, then they are unjustified in “presuming” and granting themselves permission. I may see no real harm in it, and acquiesse, but the fact remains that they took it upon themselves to engage in an activity without permission.

Again, look at the military discipline. Does the soldier take it upon himself to change direction while in formation, without the order of the higher ranking officer being given first?

The only manner in which one may be considered disobedient, is if one’s bishop did not allow it and some parish in his diocese was doing it despite the bishop’s authority to decide otherwise.

Or, as I say, if they jumped the gun and began using female servers before permission had been granted by the Holy See.

Not meaning to sound argumentative…

Pax Christi. <><

 

[oldschoolcath23]

Personally, I think only priests and deacons should be the only ones giving out communion anyway, since it is only they who are given the privelage and authority of offering the gifts of bread and wine to be changed into the real presence of Our Lord. For the same reasons we should only be receiving communion on the tongue and never in the hand, since we are definitely not worthy of touching it! I mean, if we can let anyone pass out communion like their pieces of gum, then why do we need priests? Or in the future, will we not have them at all?

 

[annejohno]

from post #3
“If you are referring to a permanently installed ministry, neither the minstry of lector nor that of acolyte is available to women. However, either male or female may serve in the temporary ministry of reader or Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. There is no gender-based restriction for these temporary ministries.”

Is that true? I have been a reader for a long time…certainly not to fill a temporary need. People often thank me after reading and say that God blesses them through my reading. I always pray that God will take it from my mouth to their ears that they will hear Him and not me. I am earnestly trying to do right and have gotten a little comfortable that this is something I can do. should I stop?

 

[Ham1]

oldschoolcath23:

Personally, I think only priests and deacons should be the only ones giving out communion anyway, since it is only they who are given the privelage and authority of offering the gifts of bread and wine to be changed into the real presence of Our Lord. For the same reasons we should only be receiving communion on the tongue and never in the hand, since we are definitely not worthy of touching it! I mean, if we can let anyone pass out communion like their pieces of gum, then why do we need priests? Or in the future, will we not have them at all?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

However, the Pope and numerous holy cardinals and the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments all disagree with you. Call me rash, but I value their judgement on liturgical issues. I also think that they exhibit sound theological reasoning in their decisions.

You seem to think that people are not becoming priests because they can distribute communion anyway. I may be wrong but I am willing to bet that the ability to distribute communion is not a primary motivation for a vocation to the priesthood. I sincerely hope that the men in the seminaries in the 40’s and 50’s were not there in order ot be able to distribute communion.

 

[OhioBob]

oldschoolcath23:

I mean, if we can let anyone pass out communion like their pieces of gum, then why do we need priests? Or in the future, will we not have them at all?

We need priests to confect the Eucharist, not just to distribute it. I think it is an extreme leap of logic to presume that merely allowing selected, trained EMHC’s to distribute the Eucharist as permitted by ecclestical authority will lead to the elimination of the priest.

Without the priest there is no Eucharist to distribute. No amount of EMHCs will change that.

When people start throwing around sentiments like “pass out communion like pieces of gum” it does not contribute to the discussion and I think they do a disservice to all the well-intentioned EMHCs out there who serve because their priest needs their help. Not because they want to usurp the role of the priest. They serve for reasons exactly opposite - they recognize the essential nature of the priest and want to love and support him - so he can remain their priest (too many parishes have lost theirs due to workload demands).

And by the way, I’ve seen priests who distribute the Eucharist with less reverence than some EMHCs. The expectations for reverence in distributing the Eucharist are clearly defined by the Church. That’s not to say that there aren’t abuses on all sides.

I think there is far too much generalization going on regarding this entire issue.

Blessings.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So, prior to 1994, those using altar girls were doing so without authentic permission. That is what I am saying. Permission to do so was granted only after it had become a widespread (unauthorized) practice here in the US.

Not necessarily. That particular canon of the 1983 Code of Canon Law was at least in force in 1983. The Bishops have the power to legislate within their diocese in accordance with universal law. Unless universal law prohibited female altar servers/EMHCs (and it didn’t), then it was within their authority to allow them.

The interpretation of canon 230 prior to 1994 was appearantly ambiguous to some. So, to resolve the doubt, they sent a *Dubium *to the Holy See, and the resultant *Responsum ad Dubium *clarified with certainty that authentic interpretation of canon 230 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law such that no more doubt ought to have remained. Those Bishops that interpreted canon 230 authentically prior to the Responsum ad Dubium of 1994 were not disobedient to canon law. They were, in fact, correct in their interpretation of canon 230 all along.

Again, look at the military discipline. Does the soldier take it upon himself to change direction while in formation, without the order of the higher ranking officer being given first?

If lawful orders can be interpreted reasonably (as canon 230 was) as to delegate authority to lower ranking officers to decide one way or another, then the lower ranking officers cannot be reasonably called insubordinate by exercising that authority.

they jumped the gun and began using female servers before permission had been granted by the Holy See.

I disagree that they “jumped the gun” as it seems clear that the bishops had interpreted canon 230 in the exact manner which was intended by the Holy See.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Again, Dave, not wishing to sound argumentative or disrespectful, but when was the Dubium sent and Responsum ad Dubium received?

Since female altar servers hadn’t been used during the liturgy previously, and since clarification was requested from the Holy See regarding this, it would seem logical that those bishops or priests permitting the use of altar girls should have waited for the Responsum before allowing them…

Yet, I do remember Karl Keating himself saying that using altar girls was an act of disobedience, when I questioned him when he visited a nearby parish, before the Responsum ad Dubium.

Pax Christi. <><

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Since female altar servers hadn’t been used during the liturgy previously, and since clarification was requested from the Holy See regarding this, it would seem logical that those bishops or priests permitting the use of altar girls should have waited for the Responsum before allowing them…

I’m sure we can disagree without being argumentative. And in this case, I disagree with you.

Canon 230 was permissive from the very start. It made no prohibition against female altar servers. Just because some expressed doubt as to the true intent of canon 230 did not mean that every Bishop had such a doubt.

Cardinal Ortas, in the same 1994 letter stated:

It shall also be made clear that the norm is already being widely applied, by the fact that women frequently serve as lectors in the liturgy and can also be called upon to distribute Holy Communion as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist and to carry out other functions, according to the provisions of the same canon 230 §3.

That a Responsum ad Dubium was requested does not indicate that the canon law was not permissive as originally intended. That was the entire point of the Responsum ad Dubium … to more clearly explain the authentic interpretation of a law that had already been promulgated. A Responsum ad Dubium does not make new norms, but answers a doubt as to the true intent of what had already been promulgated by the Holy See.

 

[JNB]

It is intresting that the diocese the Pope head, the Archdiocese of Rome does not allow altar girls. One will not find an altar girl in the Vatican itself(or EMHCs). Altar girls were allowed in 94 on a technicality because Canon Law did not state exactly that only boys were to be used as altar servers.

Another thing that is intresting is many dioceses as early as the 70s were using female altar servers, and back then it was expressly banned in Canon law.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

annejohno:

from post #3
“If you are referring to a permanently installed ministry, neither the minstry of lector nor that of acolyte is available to women. However, either male or female may serve in the temporary ministry of reader or Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. There is no gender-based restriction for these temporary ministries.”

Is that true? I have been a reader for a long time…certainly not to fill a temporary need. People often thank me after reading and say that God blesses them through my reading. I always pray that God will take it from my mouth to their ears that they will hear Him and not me. I am earnestly trying to do right and have gotten a little comfortable that this is something I can do. should I stop?

Yes. This is true. You are only temporarly instituted to this ministry. It’s really up to you as to whether you think you should stop. Yet, don’t let the word “temporary” give you anxiety. I was a “temporary” altar boy for many years.

In my diocese, the Bishop chooses to only admit seminarians to the ministries of lector and acolyte on “a stable basis.” The same may be true of your diocese. Before you decide to stop or not, I’d consult the Bishop’s office and get their opinion on the matter.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Panis Angelicas:

I think it looks inappropriate that a female altar server is distributing Holy Communion, for a number of reasons.
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?

But would it be appropriate?

Also, regarding the “legality” of altar girls ~ do you know how they came about here in the US?

Not because the Holy See decided to institute them, but rather because our disobedient nuance of using them with no permission was so epidemic it could hardly be stamped out, so it was “allowed,” but still, if you read the Vatican’s wording, male servers still seem to be preferred.

Have our disobedience and our innovations hurt vocations in the US? I would tend to say yes.

Just as a low ranking soldier should not try to re-invent the military, so too Catholics in the US should not try to reinvent the Mass.

Redemptionis Sacramentum clearly states:
[151.] Only out of true necessity is there to be recourse to the assistance of extraordinary ministers in the celebration of the Liturgy. Such recourse is not intended for the sake of a fuller participation of the laity but rather, by its very nature, is supplementary and provisional…

[152.] These purely supplementary functions must not be an occasion for disfiguring the very ministry of Priests…

Not only does the Church give permission for these functions, but it sets limits and gives guidelines, too. EMHCs themselves, if used according to the Church’s instructions, would not be harmful.
But the misuse and over use of them does harm the Church, undoubtedly.

Pax Christi. <><

I didn’t realize that folks here would use the reputation option to deride one another.
I’ve left agreeing and disagreeing remarks for people, but always in a charitable manner.
However, to my above post, someone had this to say to me:
if you don’t like living in the US and being Catholic, then leave…no one would miss you
Actually, I think my 12 children and four grandchildren would miss me. And some friends, too. And other relatives…

And I never said that I don’t like living in the US and being Catholic. I love being Catholic, and I just wish that many bishops here in the US were more obedient to the Holy See.

If you have to hide your lack of charity by sending anonymous hate messages, then you must be less of a Christian and Catholic than you think. I shall pray for you!

 

[Deacon2006]

itsjustdave1988:

Cardinal Ortas, in the same 1994 letter stated:
That a Responsum ad Dubium was requested does not indicate that the canon law was not permissive as originally intended. That was the entire point of the Responsum ad Dubium … to more clearly explain the authentic interpretation of a law that had already been promulgated. A Responsum ad Dubium does not make new norms, but answers a doubt as to the true intent of what had already been promulgated by the Holy See.

:nope: :whacky:

It seems to me that this is a bit of recreative history since we know exactly what the Holy See and the Pope intended by the release of Inaestimabile Donum in 1980. NO ALTAR GIRLS

18. There are, of course, various roles that women can perform in the liturgical assembly: these include reading the Word of God and proclaiming the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers.

In many of the dioceses that had altar girls post 1983 had them pre 1983. I even have a copy of an altar servers handbook(Liturgical Press Minnesota) from 1982 that pictures a girl altar server on the cover. **There can be little doubt that female altar servers came about as a result of disobedience. ** The ultimate end game was to achieve female ordination in the same manner as the Anglicans/Episcopalians. One step up the hierarchy at a time.

The Pope shut the door forever on womens ordination. Second he then undercut the disobedient bishops by appealling directly to the priests that they are not obliged to accept female altar servers in their parish. Third he has been an active promoter for special programs to encourage only boys to seek the ministry of the server. Finally the pastors who defied their bishops and brought altar girls to their parishes in the 1980’s seem to have left the priesthood.

As a friend of mine used to say sometimes the wisest choice is to put a little water in your wine. It servers a purpose to let the disobiedient get some wiggle room after loosing so big on female ordination but it is just a matter of time before more priests stop accepting girls for service in local parishes. Regardless nobaody in good conscience could ever claim that they had the intention of the holy See at heart when they allowed altar girls.

God Bless

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Deacon2006:

… we know exactly what the Holy See and the Pope intended by the release of Inaestimabile Donum in 1980. NO ALTAR GIRLS

18. There are, of course, various roles that women can perform in the liturgical assembly: these include reading the Word of God and proclaiming the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers.

In many of the dioceses that had altar girls post 1983 had them pre 1983. I even have a copy of an altar servers handbook(Liturgical Press Minnesota) from 1982 that pictures a girl altar server on the cover. **There can be little doubt that female altar servers came about as a result of disobedience. **The ultimate end game was to achieve female ordination in the same manner as the Anglicans/Episcopalians. One step up the hierarchy at a time.

The Pope shut the door forever on womens ordination. Second he then undercut the disobedient bishops by appealling directly to the priests that they are not obliged to accept female altar servers in their parish. Third he has been an active promoter for special programs to encourage only boys to seek the ministry of the server. Finally the pastors who defied their bishops and brought altar girls to their parishes in the 1980’s seem to have left the priesthood…

Regardless nobaody in good conscience could ever claim that they had the intention of the holy See at heart when they allowed altar girls.

God Bless

:bowdown:


Pax Christi. <><

 

[Iohannes]

if you don’t like being catholic, become protestant…you seem to have more in common with them anyway

Gosh, I did not know objecting to the overuse of EMHC, Communion-in-hand, and liturgical abuse made me more in common protestantism.

 

[Iohannes]

Here is another problem with Extraordinary Ministers of the Holy Communion that people have not thought about.

After the priest distributes Holy Communion to the faithful, the priest does the ablution which is basically taking any particles of Holy Communion in the Paten, fingers and thumbs and washing it down in the chalice, then later takes a purificator and dries his thumbs and fingures. When that is done he drinks the ablution. The same thing is done with the BLood of Christ.

The priest makes sure that no Holy Communion particles are on his hands so he washes them over the chalice and later drinks the ablution.

Has anyone thought of the potential spillage of the Blood of Christ by an EMHC especially when descending down the steps with High heels?

Do you see any EMHC making sure that no Holy Communion particles are on their fingers or washing their hands over a chalice, because every particle is the Body of Christ?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Inaestimabile Donum in 1980. NO ALTAR GIRLS

18. There are, of course, various roles that women can perform in the liturgical assembly: these include reading the Word of God and proclaiming the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers.

Yes. *In 1980, that was canon law. *However, in 1983, in accordance with canon 230, as verified by the Holy See’s authentic interpretation of that 1983 canon, women ARE permitted to act as altar servers.

I’m not rewriting history, but stating exactly the authentic interpretation of canon 230 that the Holy See has stated. One is not disobedient, as was asserted, if after the 1983 Code of Canon law a Bishop decided to permit altar girls in accord with the authentic interpretation of canon 230. It was asserted that it was only after 1994’s Responsum ad Dubium that this was permitted. I disagreed because Responsum ad Dubiums do not make new norms, but merely clarify a norm already promulgated.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Pope shut the door forever on womens ordination.

I agree.

The Pope did this definitively IN 1994 with the promulgation of Odinatio Sacerdotalis here:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

By way of example, there was a Responsum ad Dubium promulgated IN 1995 which clarified the authentic interpretation of Odinatio Sacerdotalis here:
womenpriests.org/church/ratz_95a.htm

So, if one were to say that it wasn’t until 1995 that this definitive judgment was promulgated, they would be incorrect, wouldn’t they?

Likewise, to say that it wasn’t until 1994 that altar girls were permitted is incorrect. It was permitted NOT by the Responsum ad Dubium, but by the norm previously promulgated in 1983 (canon 230) which the Responsum ad Dubium clarified.

Those that permitted female altar servers prior to 1983 were disobedient. Those that permitted female altar servers after 1983 are not. One cannot be considered disobedient to the Catholic Church by acting in accordance with the authentic interpretation of canon law. Is there liturgical abuse? Certainly, but many seem to attempt to muddle abuse with the lawful use, as if they were both examples of disobedience. They are not.