Cardinal Mahony Defies Rome again

[bear06]

I’m tired here but boo to Cardinal Mahony.

That said, in regards to the Communion Under Both Species discussion this seems pertinent. This is from the American Adaptations of the Previous GIRM. Apparently, Adoremus sides with JKirk interpretation he’s in good company. This link is down at the bottom.

Approved American Adaptations:
ourladyswarriors.org/liturgy/girmusa1975.htm

1. COMMUNION UNDER BOTH KINDS

See the statement of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, “Communion under Both Kinds,” “Newsletter,” July 1966.

In accord with the instruction of the Congregation for Divine Worship on Communion under both kinds June 29, 1970), the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in November, 1970, added the following cases:

1. other members of the faithful present on the special occasions enumerated in no. 242 of the “General Instruction”;

1. at funeral Masses and at Masses for a special family observance;

1. at Masses on days of special religious or civil significance for the people of the United States;

1. at Masses on Holy Thursday and at the Mass of the Easter Vigil, the norms of the instruction of June 29, 1970, being observed;

1. at weekday Masses.

At its meeting in November, 1978, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops further extended the occasions on which Holy Communion under both kinds might be given when it approved the motion that Holy Communion may be given under both kinds to the faithful at Masses on Sundays and holy days of obligation if, in the judgment of the ordinary, Communion may be given in an orderly and reverent manner.

The USCCB extended the occasions and this was approved by Rome.

As for Adoremus:
adoremus.org/0903Intinction.html

The Constitution on the Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) listed only a few specific instances when Communion under both kinds might be distributed. Gradually the list expanded until, in the newly revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), the decision is left wholly to the diocesan bishop

I, personally, don’t prefer it and oddly enough, neither of the 2 churches I attend does it.

Night, night!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

The recognitio is specific as to who it would affect. It is within this context that the bishops and priests were to adhere. As has happened before–the bishops took it upon themselves and extend the recognitio beyond what Rome had approved. Now since it is firmly implanted —what is Rome to do.

As I said before----when we attend Mass–in which ever parish—the last thing on our minds should be–why is the Chalice not offered. Yes the Church permits it—but She does not demand it—so if the Chalice is not offered —we should not be wondering why.

Everytime you bring up doing it the way our Lord instituted Holy Communion—it does in a way—put the Church in position of being contrary to our Lord.

But that’s just it: the Church permits it, so the Church ISN’T being contrary to our Lord!!! And even if she didn’t permit it, He left it to her to decide. That’s all I’m saying and it’s all I’ve been saying. I DON’T wonder why the chalice isn’t offered, I don’t even have to think about it, because the overwhelming amount of time, the Chalice IS offered. And I still think you’re mistaken as to Rome’s intent. The Catechism and thus the Pope have called it a fuller or more complete sign. That doesn’t sound like they’re discouraging the laity from reception, except where they specifically discourage it: in the case of large numbers.

 

[havemercy]

I’ve attended a Church in Montreal where I’ve received both the Body and Precious Blood of Christ. Indeed, it was Catholic.

I realize Canada has their own Bishops, but I wonder…