Cardinal Mahony Defies Rome again

  • Thread starter Thread starter James_2_24
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, how can this be sent to our Holy Father so he actually sees it? This is just totally inexcusable. There has to be some kind of repercussion for this…doesn’t there?
 
Funny how the author of that article said
Since when does is require both species to be “more complete”?!?
Click to expand...
He/she must not know their catechism:

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly." 225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

http://www.kofc.org/images/1px_transparent.gif
http://www.kofc.org/images/1px_transparent.gif
 
… So once again Cardinal Mahony has decided to defy the Pope and do what ever he wants in his diocese …
Click to expand...
What happened to obedience to the church – especially for those in it’s service?
 
Sir_Knight said:
What happened to obedience to the church – especially for those in it’s service?
Click to expand...
I, too, will repeat what I said in the thread about the pro-abort nuns.

This makes me sick.

I truly hope something is done about it.
 
awalt said:
1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly." 225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.
http://www.kofc.org/images/1px_transparent.gif
http://www.kofc.org/images/1px_transparent.gif
Click to expand...
Before you accuse the author of not knowing the catechism maybe you should consider he/she based his/her statement on the Council of Trent:

Can. 3. If anyone denies that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each form and under every part of each form when separated, let him be anathema.

So how can communion under both species be “more complete?” Someone that receives Christ only under one specie is not receiving any less of Christ than those that recieve under both. And that is what I understood the comment the author made to mean.

Besides it’s an abuse to receive under both kinds unless it’s done under very specific circumstances as stated in Sacrosanctum Concilium. So yet again Mahony has gone against Rome. He deserves to be removed. Maybe the Vatican won’t have to do anything and instead let the civil authorities do the work. Cardinal Mahony is exposed in the new “Deliver Us From Evil” movie.
 
The memo states “cups and plates”. I suppose it shouldn’t be a surprise that Cardinal Mahony refers to the sacred vessels as just “cups and plates”.
 
Incredible.

Nuns defy Church teaching on abortion and gay marriage; Cardinal Mahoney waves off a Papal mandate; whats next?
 
Mt19_26 said:
Besides it’s an abuse to receive under both kinds unless it’s done under very specific circumstances as stated in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Click to expand...
How can this ever be termed an abuse? :confused:
I’m shocked.

How can receiving under both kinds be so restricted? What is this Sacrosanctum Concilium, is it something recent?
 
Hesychios said:
How can this ever be termed an abuse? :confused:
I’m shocked.

How can receiving under both kinds be so restricted? What is this Sacrosanctum Concilium, is it something recent?
Click to expand...
Sacrosanctum Concilium is the Vatican II document on the Liturgy. So no, not recent. It does indeed state that only under special circumstances (forget the specifics) can someone other then the celebrating priest partake of the Chalice.

Although, Vatican II and Sacrosanctum Concilium says a lot of things that we dont follow today- such as the use of the Gregorian Chant (yep, mandated by V2!), the use of Latin (only under special circumstances can vernacular be used- and then only for the Propers of the Liturgy), and of course an organic Liturgy. The changes in architecture (removal of communion rails and ad orientem altars was never even discussed) were not in Vatican II.
 
Although it may seem otherwise, perhaps we should simply wait until the Fall meeting of the USCCB.

Communications are so rapid, we all tend to have this knee-jerk reaction. The communication from Arinze was to the USCCB and so that’s where the issue lays right now. I’m not sure the issue is settled, although I have an opinion on it.

Certainly, I, for one, haven’t read any of the official correspondence and the crux of the issue may lay there someplace.

I’m not one that overly favors Communion under both species every week by the entire congregation. I’m not saying I know better than the Lord, of course.
 
Crumpy said:
Although it may seem otherwise, perhaps we should simply wait until the Fall meeting of the USCCB.
Click to expand...
Given the track record of Mahony they probably won’t be discussing how to follow Rome’s orders but instead how to get around them. What is there to discuss anyways? Rome denied the indult that they requested and there shouldn’t be anything to discuss. The memo should have stated that Rome no longer allows the laity to cleanse the sacred vessals and as a result the practice should stop immediately. Instead it states that Rome has denied the indult -but- go ahead and keep doing what Rome doesn’t want you to do. Sad…
 
Hesychios said:
How can this ever be termed an abuse? :confused:
I’m shocked.

How can receiving under both kinds be so restricted? What is this Sacrosanctum Concilium, is it something recent?
Click to expand...
Sacrosanctum Concilium is a document concerning the celebration of the Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1963. In paragraph 55 it mentions receiving under both species. From an article Fr. Fessio wrote:

“The Council also permits Communion under both species here, but under very limited circumstances. For example, “to the newly ordained in the Mass of the Sacred Ordination, or the newly professed in the Mass of Profession, and the newly baptized in the Mass which follows baptism.” The Council itself did not call for offering both species to all the faithful all the time, but it did grant limited permission for it.”

The Council of Trent stated that by hypostatic union and of the indivisibility of His glorified humanity, Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species alone. So nothing is lost when only one species offered.

The reason it’s an abuse is because receiving under both kinds is limited to special circumstances. Allowing both kinds at every single mass in the entire diocese are not “special circumstances”.
 
Crumpy said:
Although it may seem otherwise, perhaps we should simply wait until the Fall meeting of the USCCB.

Communications are so rapid, we all tend to have this knee-jerk reaction. The communication from Arinze was to the USCCB and so that’s where the issue lays right now. I’m not sure the issue is settled, although I have an opinion on it.

Certainly, I, for one, haven’t read any of the official correspondence and the crux of the issue may lay there someplace.

I’m not one that overly favors Communion under both species every week by the entire congregation. I’m not saying I know better than the Lord, of course.
Click to expand...
Note that the messages in both Los Angeles and Orange the respective bishops state that they received notification of this from the Chairman of the USCCB. Bishops should take note from the parable of the Centurion, who could order men because he was obedient to orders. People are going to pay about half as much attention to the bishops as the bishops pay to Rome.
 
Mt19_26 said:
Sacrosanctum Concilium is a document concerning the celebration of the Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1963. In paragraph 55 it mentions receiving under both species. From an article Fr. Fessio wrote:

“The Council also permits Communion under both species here, but under very limited circumstances. For example, “to the newly ordained in the Mass of the Sacred Ordination, or the newly professed in the Mass of Profession, and the newly baptized in the Mass which follows baptism.” The Council itself did not call for offering both species to all the faithful all the time, but it did grant limited permission for it.”

The Council of Trent stated that by hypostatic union and of the indivisibility of His glorified humanity, Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species alone. So nothing is lost when only one species offered.

The reason it’s an abuse is because receiving under both kinds is limited to special circumstances. Allowing both kinds at every single mass in the entire diocese are not “special circumstances”.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I had never heard of this being an abuse, as it is certainly the norm to have Communion under both species at any Sunday Mass anywhere I have been. In fact, our very devout and orthodox parochial vicar offers both species at most daily Masses.

I did not notice the same practice in Italy for Daily Mass when I was there for two weeks earlier this month, which makes me think maybe it’s generally just a practice of American priests. Why then do so many othodox parishes offer Communion under both species if it’s truly an abuse? I’m skepitcal.
 
This is from CA’s guide on Liturigal Abuses

catholic.com/library/liturgical_abuses.asp
Should Communion under both kinds automatically be offered to the faithful, or are there circumstances in which it should not be offered?
Click to expand...
The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration.” The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could be known only with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated (102; cf. GIRM 285a).
Click to expand...
Certainly a priest in an average sized church is able to gauge the amount of wine to be used for the Eucharist. No mention of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Although it is not required for Communion to be offered under both species, it is certainly not an abuse to do so. It is left to the discretion of the priest.
 
Mt19_26 said:
The reason it’s an abuse is because receiving under both kinds is limited to special circumstances. Allowing both kinds at every single mass in the entire diocese are not “special circumstances”.
Click to expand...
Am I missing something here? I can’t recall being at any Mass anywhere, where both species were not offered; I thought it was a matter of personal choice for each worshipper to decide.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top