The Bishops honestly thought the new Code allowed girl altar boys? PLEASE! Are these people really this naive?
By the new code do you mean the 1917 or the 1983 Code? Stevusmagnus' correspondent said:
About a decade later, some Bishops did permit girl altar servers based on their reading of Canon 230 Section 2 [ from the 1917 Code of Canon Law ], which was adopted in the new code in 1983 : "§2. Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law."
Those who are honest with themselves will admit that this theoretically can open the door to altar girls. It just depends on your interpretation of "norm of law." The real norm of law is that altar servers must be male, but a non-Catholic such as populates the VII Church would not have that norm of law. They could also argue against the traditional norm of law being the real norm of law. They could say "Well, we believe the norm of law is that altar servers be of the human species and not apes. And we will not change that for anything -- call us conservative!"
Already under Pius XII the norm of law was being changed. Do people realize that he allowed women in the choir? This is certainly a total perversion of what was always known as the "norm of law."
Musicae Sacrae, 1955 --
"74. Where it is impossible to have schools of singers or where there are not enough choir boys, it is allowed that "a group of men and women or girls, located in a place outside the sanctuary set apart for the exclusive use of this group, can sing the liturgical texts at Solemn Mass, as long as the men are completely separated from the women and girls and everything unbecoming is avoided. The Ordinary is bound in conscience in this matter."
"The Ordinary is bound in conscience on this matter." Give me a break. The tone is conservative; the teaching is liberal. This dichotomy is the essence of Pius XII and of the anti-Popes who followed.
What he is prescribing goes contrary to everything ever known -- the "norm of law" -- about sacred music. Women are not to sing in Church with men ( I just realized that they do at CMRI, where I go ). Pius XII, by saying that men and women can sing together, but should be separated physically, makes it seem like the Church forbade male/female singing because of the danger of illicit contact. But that has nothing to do with it. It is the very sound
of male and female voices harmonizing that is the problem. The blend of male and female voices imparts an overtly sexual quality -- just listen to certain recordings of Monteverdi's Vespers to see what I'm talking about -- and this is why boys were used in polyphony instead ( though obviously women could sing in nunneries and on other occasions ).
But still, this falls under a matter of discipline, and if the Pope allows it, what are you going to do? There was a time when certain people found polyphony in itself to be against custom and controversial, and wanted there to be only Gregorian chant in Church. They may have been partly right because, prior to Palestrina -- who completely purified and Catholicized the form, hence his singular greatness -- much polyphony was based on popular chansons, and this reached its pinnacle of subversion with Orlando Lassus, who based one entire Mass on a song about the joys of 15-year old girls.
"Some of his masses are based on extremely secular French chansons, some of which are frankly obscene (Entre vous filles de quinze ans, 'Oh you fifteen-year old girls', by Clemens non Papa, gave him source material for his 1581 Missa entre vous filles, probably the most scandalous of the lot)."
Imagine being in Church and hearing a Mass called the "Missa 'Like a Virgin'" using the Madonna song as its cantus firmus. That is exactly what this was like but even worse. Talk about Novus Ordo services being incentives to impiety.
I think it was Cardinal Borromeo and Trent that finally put an end to this usage of the secular chanson in the Mass, but as you can see, the "norm of law" when it comes to discipline is VERY flexible, if not frankly uncertain at times. For a century or longer no one cared that most musical settings of the Mass were based on pop songs.
It would be extremely easy for an anti-Pope or even a liberalizing true Pope to push the boundaries in terms of discipline, because the very norms of law in that case are flexible, and who can say when they are broken? You would have to prove that altar girls are intrinsically contrary to the custom of the Church, not based on tradition, but again, intrinsically
. The usual argument of the "trads" will be "There have never been altar girls before!" But the Modernizers/Judaizers can just respond, "Well, during Lent we can now eat meat on certain days other than the weekends, and that has never been done before." Or they can say, "There have never been women in the choir before either."
Now, the SSPX completely disregards Pius XII, and goes back to Pius X, saying there should be no women in the choir. This just proves they are making up their own religion and have no consistency. I hope people understand that my rambling post is trying to show that one must be consistent. It's like SSPV throwing out the Pius XII/Bugnini Holy Week changes. If you believe Pius XII is a Pope, keep the changes
, hypocrites. I'll give the CMRI credit for this much -- they accept Pius XII as Pope and they follow his discipline. And you know what? Though I do not accept Pius XII as Pope, I admire their consistency.
Anyway, this is why I don't concentrate on the Mass when it comes to proving that the VII Popes are anti-Popes. How can you prove that the Novus Ordo in itself, not as it is practiced by individual clergymen, is an intrinsic evil that could not have been promulgated by a true Pope?
In the same way, you cannot prove someone is not a Pope or a bishop on the basis that they permit altar girls. We all know it's wrong, but if you are in SSPX, and believe these men are legitimate Popes, you have hoisted yourself with your own petard. They can allow all sorts of transgressions like this and you'll just have to endure it with a wan smile. Fortunately, I am far from sharing your pain. Not only do I reject the Vatican II Popes but I reject Pius XII, but because of their teachings on faith and morals, not because of their lax disciplinary laws. Yet it's all connected, isn't it?
You get what you deserve by saying these men are Popes. You tie yourselves up and subject yourselves to endless frustrations, and guess what? It will never, ever stop until either you wake up and smell the coffee, or God ends this Himself through means unknown to us.
Getting back to the 1917 Code, some extremists like CM and Ibranyi have questioned even that, and though I have to do more research on this issue, I will probably end up agreeing with them. I am convinced that there are troubling ambiguities and perversions in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. For instance, though I believe in baptism of desire, I think burying deceased catechumens in hallowed ground is a more than questionable disciplinary change, and there are other trouble spots in this Code. I think this Code may have been the first great foray in the Modernist usurpation.
My guess is that the restored Church will throw it out and build on whatever Corpus Juris Canonici preceded it. I think a lot of the confusion of our time can be traced to the 1917 Code.