Author Topic: 1917 code (Read 1812 times)

jman123 · « **on:** December 26, 2011, 06:38:34 PM »

can someone explain to me why the 1917 code forbade priests to say Mass without a server? that happens a lot nowadays at the TLM. Also why does no 2 mention a woman and her husband in part 2? I am not good in Latin so please explain to me what this means if you know.

Can 813 §1. Sacerdos Missam ne celebret sine ministro qui eidem inserviat et respondeat. §2. Minister Missae inserviens ne sit mulier, nisi, deficiente viro, iusta de causa, eaque lege ut mulier ex longinquo respondeat nec ullo pacto ad altare accedat.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #1 on:** December 27, 2011, 01:45:31 AM »

The Mass is always in its nature an act of public worship. This law was most of all passed in order to make sure that the priest does not celebrate alone (Missa Solitaria) and is aided by at least one server.
Also remember that the Solemn Mass is the ordinary form of celebration of the Roman Rite, in case the two sacred ministers are absent, the server(s) replace them.

For grave reasons, though, one is excused from this regulation. This is especially the case when a congregation is present, but not a server. In such a case even a woman can give the responses from afar as long as she does not ascend to the Altar. Still, a man is to be preferred.

TKGS · « **Reply #2 on:** December 27, 2011, 08:05:00 AM »

Quote from: jman123

can someone explain to me why the 1917 code forbade priests to say Mass without a server? that happens a lot nowadays at the TLM. Also why does no 2 mention a woman and her husband in part 2? I am not good in Latin so please explain to me what this means if you know.

Can 813 §1. Sacerdos Missam ne celebret sine ministro qui eidem inserviat et respondeat. §2. Minister Missae inserviens ne sit mulier, nisi, deficiente viro, iusta de causa, eaque lege ut mulier ex longinquo respondeat nec ullo pacto ad altare accedat.

The English translation I have (The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law in English Translation with Extensive Scholarly Apparatus by Dr. Edward N. Peters, Ignatius Press ©2001) translates Canon 813 this way:

Canon 813

§1. A priest should not celebrate Mass without a minister who assists him and responds.
§2. The minister serving at Mass should not be a woman unless, in the absence of a man, for a just cause, it is so arranged that the woman respond from afar and by no means apprach the altar.

Note: The justification for this translation is from Canon Law Digest III: 318-40; X: 146-47, and "The Law Requiring a Server at Mass: A Study of Its Origin, and the Development of Its Interpretation" (doctoral diss. 37, University of Ottawa, 1952, by Anselm Regan, 1952.

I do not have these sources, but I have known of priest who, before Vatican II (and the new and improved code) who said Mass without a server when none was available without any qualm of conscience. I presume that the 1917 Code, in the Latin, is saying what I quoted above telling priests that they should always have a minister to assist at Mass, but that it is not mandatory and that the sources the author provided make this clear.

The translation seems to say that there should be a server and if a man is not available, a woman can be used to make the responses; however the woman will not approach the altar. The only question is whether the use of "should" is a proper English translation. I believe it to be because of my personal knowledge related above.

Other than this, I can not be of further service.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #3 on:** December 27, 2011, 08:28:12 AM »

It clear says that the priest "is not to celebrate" without minister.

Going with the principles of (Canon) Law, the law ceases for a greater good, e.g. there is no server obtainable on a holy day of obligation.

Saying Mass alone without without permission of the ordinary is clearly an abuse. Decrees against such practices where already passed centuries before the Code.

I also looked it up in Wernz-Vidal "Ius Canonicuм" Tom. IV, "De Ministris" p. 107, which says that a priest is forbidden to say Mass alone, as long as there is no grave necessity or has obtained an Apostolic Indult.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #4 on:** December 27, 2011, 10:50:44 AM »

Of course, this is all an intellectual exercise, as the '83 Code is the one that is currently in force in the Catholic Church.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #5 on:** December 27, 2011, 11:23:43 AM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Of course, this is all an intellectual exercise, as the '83 Code is the one that is currently in force in the Catholic Church.

Not exactly, as Canon 906 of the New Code states:

"A priest may not celebrate the eucharistic Sacrifice without the participation of at least one of the faithful, unless there is a good and reasonable cause for doing so."

SJB · « **Reply #6 on:** December 27, 2011, 01:48:23 PM »

Quote from: Woywod

656. The priest should not say Holy Mass unless he has a server who serves and answers him. The server at Mass should not be a woman, unless no man can be had, and provided the woman stays at a distance to answer the prayers and does not in any way approach the altar. (Canon 813.)

TKGS · « **Reply #7 on:** December 27, 2011, 03:01:13 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Of course, this is all an intellectual exercise, as the '83 Code is the one that is currently in force in the Catholic Church.

I beg to differ. The 1983 code has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. It is a heretical code for a heretical church.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #8 on:** December 28, 2011, 11:12:12 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Santo Subito
Of course, this is all an intellectual exercise, as the '83 Code is the one that is currently in force in the Catholic Church.

I beg to differ. The 1983 code has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. It is a heretical code for a heretical church.

Then the Church has failed.

s2srea · « **Reply #9 on:** December 28, 2011, 02:34:31 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Santo Subito
Of course, this is all an intellectual exercise, as the '83 Code is the one that is currently in force in the Catholic Church.

I beg to differ. The 1983 code has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. It is a heretical code for a heretical church.

Then the Church has failed.

No- the new Code is not Catholic (at least not fully). The old still remains; its still kept alive by Catholics and the Church succeeds through them.

TKGS · « **Reply #10 on:** December 28, 2011, 09:00:04 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Santo Subito
Of course, this is all an intellectual exercise, as the '83 Code is the one that is currently in force in the Catholic Church.

I beg to differ. The 1983 code has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. It is a heretical code for a heretical church.

Then the Church has failed.

You really should actually read some of the posts on this forum rather than just make inane comments. You might learn something.

The Catholic Church has not failed just as it did not fail in the time of Saint Athanasius. But if you are united in faith with the Conciliar church, then, yes indeed, your church has failed.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #11 on:** December 30, 2011, 10:55:51 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: Santo Subito
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Santo Subito
Of course, this is all an intellectual exercise, as the '83 Code is the one that is currently in force in the Catholic Church.

I beg to differ. The 1983 code has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. It is a heretical code for a heretical church.

Then the Church has failed.

No- the new Code is not Catholic (at least not fully). The old still remains; its still kept alive by Catholics and the Church succeeds through them.

So the abrogated 1917 Code is kept alive by a select invisible smattering of "true Catholics" while the '83 Code is non-binding? Can you find any legitimate canonist in his right mind who agrees with you?

Santo Subito · « **Reply #12 on:** December 30, 2011, 10:59:08 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

The Catholic Church has not failed just as it did not fail in the time of Saint Athanasius. But if you are united in faith with the Conciliar church, then, yes indeed, your church has failed.

If memory serves correctly, St. Athanasius did not declare Liberius an antipope and claim that St. A and his followers were the true Church and any promulgation from Rome in the future did not apply to them. In fact he even obeyed the unjust decree by Liberius to go into banishment. Nor did he even claim that the Arian bishops had somehow lost their office due to heresy. Therefore the situation is in no way analogous.

s2srea · « **Reply #13 on:** December 30, 2011, 11:18:11 AM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Quote from: s2srea
Quote from: Santo Subito
Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Santo Subito
Of course, this is all an intellectual exercise, as the '83 Code is the one that is currently in force in the Catholic Church.

I beg to differ. The 1983 code has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. It is a heretical code for a heretical church.

Then the Church has failed.

No- the new Code is not Catholic (at least not fully). The old still remains; its still kept alive by Catholics and the Church succeeds through them.

So the abrogated 1917 Code is kept alive by a select invisible smattering of "true Catholics" while the '83 Code is non-binding?

Yes. What else do you expect when the visible head of the Church is not, nor does it even act, Catholic?

Quote

Can you find any legitimate canonist in his right mind who agrees with you?

Probably not, but that's because what you define as legitimate, is also not Catholic Santo.

s2srea · « **Reply #14 on:** December 30, 2011, 11:20:49 AM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Quote from: TKGS
The Catholic Church has not failed just as it did not fail in the time of Saint Athanasius. But if you are united in faith with the Conciliar church, then, yes indeed, your church has failed.

If memory serves correctly, St. Athanasius did not declare Liberius an antipope and claim that St. A and his followers were the true Church and any promulgation from Rome in the future did not apply to them. In fact he even obeyed the unjust decree by Liberius to go into banishment. Nor did he even claim that the Arian bishops had somehow lost their office due to heresy. Therefore the situation is in no way analogous.

While Saint Athanasius and his opposition to Arianism is useful in guiding Traditionalists, the history of the Arian heresy is not 'Traditionalists Guide to the Apostasy' Santo, though many of your comments act as if it is brother.