New Eucharist Rules Set For April Publication

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'm glad they are going to discourage Communion under both kinds because I see it as a huge cause of sacriledge towards Jesus. I've been active as a Catholic for about 5 years now and I've seen at least a dozen heinous acts of sacrilege caused by lay EMs sloshing chalices around. I was at a Mass once where I saw the Precious Blood trampled underfoot. I've seen people spill from chalices, I've seen people get Precious Blood on their hands and wipe their hands on their pants, I've seen kids take the Chalice and dribble Precious Blood on their shirt and on the floor. I've seen this at different parishes, but it tends to be parishes that seem obsessed with Communion under Both kinds and insist upon it even for large congregations. Another practice that is common is pouring Precious Blood down a sink after Mass which is also sacrilege. I think the Church has probably decided to do this because its for the best. These types of sacrilege should never happen, but they are no doubt common place in our day. It makes me ill..

Edited March 19, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[PhatPhred]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 18 2004, 04:12 AM']phatphred,
You state "They were permitted by the new 1983 canon law, which dropped the "male only" requirement from the previous 1917 edition of canon law"

Funny that the Holy Father did not see it that way.  It was not a "legal" (and I use that term very loosly) practice until 1994.[/quote]
The essay by Kenneth D. Whitehead that you posted proves my point:

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 18 2004, 01:17 PM']The interpretation by the PCILT was apparently based on its reading of a sub-canon in the [b]1983 Code of Canon Law[/b] concerned with "other functions" in the liturgy at which lay people are allowed to assist. The first and principal part of the canon in question (c.230.1) specifies that only lay men (viri laici) can be "installed" permanently in the Church ministries of lector and acolyte; but then the next sub-canon (c.230.2) says that lay persons (laici) can fulfill these functions "by temporary deputation". Thus, it was decided, females are not explicitly excluded from these functions by canon law, even if they may not be installed as such.[/quote]
As I said, altar girls were allowed by the 1983 version of canon law, which was an explicit change from the prior 1917 verson of canon law. There are published opinions by doctors of canon law in the 1983 to 1985 timeframe which make the above reasoning based on canon law number 230 explicit. The Vatican was publically silent on the matter until the aforementioned letter published in 1994, at which time the long-standing canonical opinions were confirmed. So when you say "Funny that the Holy Father did not see it that way," I'm assuming that you've had some private communication with His Holiness on the subject.

By the way, I have yet to see anyone pose any official documentation that altar girls are to be discouraged in those dioceses and parishes where the bishops and priests have allowed them. Is this from another private communication with the Pope?

[Laudate_Dominum]

Canon 44 of the Collection of Laodicea (late fourth century) condemns altar girls as did Pope St. Gelasius back in 494 AD.
Those are the earliest decrees I know of that condemn the practice.. Unless someone else knows otherwise?

[ThomasPeter]

hey, do we know if there is a plan (in this letter coming in April) to change some the Eucharistic prayers back to what theu use to be? like the Sanctus? it use to be (in English) "....Lord God of Hosts." now (in english) it is "...Lord God of power and might." i think it should go back to "Hosts" and hope it does. do u agree?
oh, and the Agnus Dei... now in english it says "Lamb of God you....Bread of life you... Lamb of God.... Bread of life.... etc until the 'grant us peace." where did "Bread of life" come from? look at my sig, all it says is Lamb of God (Agnus Dei.) they say the Aguns Dei on the ewtn masses, in Latin there is no Bread of life part.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I have heard that this is supposed to happen. The Latin Novus Ordo actually says "Dominus Deus Sabbaoth" so the problem is really the whack English translation. But this will be improved shortly.

As far as the Lamb of God, Bread of Life thing. I don't know where that came from. Maybe it's just the parish you go to? I've been to parishes that add stuff to the Agnus Dei or do different variations. It's conceivable that this is allowed because there are a surprising number of options like that in the novus ordo Mass. I feel that its cheesy and is too much of a novelty and makes the Mass less universal and less consistent with the way Mass has been for century upon century. I couldn't imagine being a priest or a music minister and taking it upon myself to "improve" the Agnus Dei!!

Edited March 19, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[homeschoolmom]

Ahhhh... you means I'm just going to get everything learned and they're gonna change it??

[FaustinaVianney]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Mar 19 2004, 07:51 AM'] Ahhhh... you means I'm just going to get everything learned and they're gonna change it?? [/quote]
homeschoolmom-- don't worry. The thing about being Catholic is that you are constantly learning new things. I, too, am a convert and have discovered this. Continuing to learn more is part of your Confirmation.

I am excited about the new rules maybe people will have more reverance for our dear Lord. I like receiving under both species, but I have not see the sacrileges that some others have described...maybe it is a good thing to change that...

[popestpiusx]

Phred,

You state, "As I said, altar girls were allowed by the 1983 version of canon law, which was an explicit change from the prior 1917 verson of canon law. There are published opinions by doctors of canon law in the 1983 to 1985 timeframe which make the above reasoning based on canon law number 230 explicit. The Vatican was publically silent on the matter until the aforementioned letter published in 1994, at which time the long-standing canonical opinions were confirmed."

I am afraid the Whitehead article does not prove your point. Despite whatever opinions existed before 1994, the practice was illicit. The opinions had no legal force until the Holy See permitted it. Prior to 1994 any bishop or priest who allowed altar girls did so based on a private interpretation of canon law, and did so in violation of Church Law. The loose interpretation of that Canon 230 had no legal effect until 1994.

To answer your question about the Holy Father, it had been commented upon numerous time, Rome issued several warnings to those who were allowing it, and most of all, Mother Theresa stated publicly in New York that faithful need not worry as the Holy Father had guaranteed her that altar girs would never be allowed. Did she lie? Or maybe the numerous reports were lies?

[ThomasPeter]

did Mother Theresa not want alter girls as well?

[popestpiusx]

She did not. Another interesting quote from her is what she said when asked what was the one thing more than anything else that casused her the most pain to see. Having seen as much as she had one can easily come up with a list of what her answer may have been (starving children, etc. etc.). Instead of anything like that, she answered that what caused her the most pain was tavelling around the world and seeing people recieve Communion in the hand.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='ThomasPeter' date='Mar 19 2004, 02:58 AM'] hey, do we know if there is a plan (in this letter coming in April) to change some the Eucharistic prayers back to what theu use to be? like the Sanctus? it use to be (in English) "....Lord God of Hosts." now (in english) it is "...Lord God of power and might." i think it should go back to "Hosts" and hope it does. do u agree?
oh, and the Agnus Dei... now in english it says "Lamb of God you....Bread of life you... Lamb of God.... Bread of life.... etc until the 'grant us peace." where did "Bread of life" come from? look at my sig, all it says is Lamb of God (Agnus Dei.) they say the Aguns Dei on the ewtn masses, in Latin there is no Bread of life part. [/quote]
I just heard this Agnus Dei - bread of life version sung on Wednesday at our Cathedral. Bishop Weurl was singing along with it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Mar 19 2004, 02:35 AM'] I'm glad they are going to discourage Communion under both kinds because I see it as a huge cause of sacriledge towards Jesus. I've been active as a Catholic for about 5 years now and I've seen at least a dozen heinous acts of sacrilege caused by lay EMs sloshing chalices around. I was at a Mass once where I saw the Precious Blood trampled underfoot. I've seen people spill from chalices, I've seen people get Precious Blood on their hands and wipe their hands on their pants, I've seen kids take the Chalice and dribble Precious Blood on their shirt and on the floor. I've seen this at different parishes, but it tends to be parishes that seem obsessed with Communion under Both kinds and insist upon it even for large congregations. Another practice that is common is pouring Precious Blood down a sink after Mass which is also sacrilege. I think the Church has probably decided to do this because its for the best. These types of sacrilege should never happen, but they are no doubt common place in our day. It makes me ill..

[/quote]
The Body and the Blood are offered at all Sunday Masses in the Pittsburgh diocese.

[Aloysius]

i spilled the Precious Blood[color=red](edit cuz i don't feel right calling the Precious Blood "it")[/color] on my shirt once. i had to fight to get them to let me wash it in the sink that goes down into the ground and i never wear that shirt anymore.

i think it's the Vatican's call here, if the Church in her centuries of wisdom decides to go back to only offering the Host to the lay people, i will agree with them. if she does not i really don't have any big agenda to get her to do so.

CMOM, at least at my Church they're both offered on weekday masses as well.

Edited March 19, 2004 by Aloysius

[Donna]

Those with celiac's disease (they cannot have wheat):

Now there's a good reason to comunicate by chalice.

[PhatPhred]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 19 2004, 02:26 PM']The opinions had no legal force until the Holy See permitted it.[/quote]
The opinions had no legal force period. It is the 1983 canon law itself that has the legal force. And it was intentionally changed from the prior 1917 canon law as regards the "males only" requirements. (The vote by the coetus/committee that dealt with this particular change was all but one in favor, with that one abstaining.) When Pope John Paul II promulgated the new code in the Apostolic Constitution [i]Sacrae Disciplinae Leges[/i], he wrote:

[quote name='Sacrae Disciplinae Leges']Finally, the canonical laws by their very nature must be observed. The greatest care has therefore been taken to ensure that in the lengthy preparation of the Code the wording of the norms should be accurate, and that they should be based on a solid juridical, canonical and theological foundation.[/quote]
Everyone, whether bishop or priest or laity, had no choice but to follow the new canon law when in took effect on November 27, 1983.

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 19 2004, 02:26 PM']Prior to 1994 any bishop or priest who allowed altar girls did so based on a private interpretation of canon law, and did so in violation of Church Law.[/quote]
Canon lawyers have the authority to interpret canon law; this is why their training is strictly regulated by the Vatican. The rest of your statement is nonsense; how can following the new canon law as required by the [i]Sacrae Disciplinae Leges[/i] be in violation of Church Law?

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 19 2004, 02:26 PM']The loose interpretation of that Canon 230 had no legal effect until 1994.[/quote]
Canon 230 had legal effect starting November 27, 1983. What you call the "loose" interpretation was in fact the correct interpretation, and the 1992 letter (which was made public in 1994) confirms this. In fact, by canon law, this 1992 interpretation is considered retroactive legally.

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 19 2004, 02:26 PM']Rome issued several warnings to those who were allowing it[/quote]
Then you should have no problem in citing even one such warning from the Vatican that was made after the new 1983 canon law took effect. I'm waiting.

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Mar 19 2004, 02:26 PM']and most of all, Mother Theresa stated publicly in New York that faithful need not worry as the Holy Father had guaranteed her that altar girs would never be allowed.  Did she lie?  Or maybe the numerous reports were lies?[/quote]
I don't have the slightest idea what point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that there is a vast Vatican conspiracy (a la the movie "Dave") where the real Pope has been replaced by an impostor? It is a fact, undisputed by all Catholics faithful to Pope John Paul II, that altar girls are now allowed.