Cardinal Mahony Defies Rome again

[Petite]

For what it’s worth: here is the link to what apparently is the source of this: closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2006/10/memo-from-los-angeles-archdiocese-re.html

The comments are interesting to read also.

I think the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is too large for the Holy Father NOT to be aware of any defiance. If Cardinal Mahony is that bad, why doesn’t the the Holy Father discipline him? Others have been disciplined.

 

[James_2_24]

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.

Um, do you happen to live in Southern California or the Diocese of Los Angeles? I happen to have been at many Masses where only one species was offered. I have been to Masses all over the place: Texas, Georgia, Southern California, Nevada, Italy, Israel, Philippines. And in some of these places I have been to liturgies where only one species was offered.

To be sure, in today’s Church you will probably find communion under both species to be offered more – however that doesn’t disqualify it from being an abuse. It is still an abuse, even if all the Churches in America did it this way. What makes an abuse an abuse is the fact that Rome sets the standard and one must adhere to it.

There are many other abuses prevalent in the new liturgy (but not the fault of the liturgy itself) that can be talked about. But because “everyone is doing it” doesn’t make it right.

As a side note, if you attend a TLM Mass you will not receive under both species.

 

[Vianney]

Um, do you happen to live in Southern California or the Diocese of Los Angeles? I happen to have been at many Masses where only one species was offered. I have been to Masses all over the place: Texas, Georgia, Southern California, Nevada, Italy, Israel, Philippines. And in some of these places I have been to liturgies where only one species was offered.

To be sure, in today’s Church you will probably find communion under both species to be offered more – however that doesn’t disqualify it from being an abuse. It is still an abuse, even if all the Churches in America did it this way. What makes an abuse an abuse is the fact that Rome sets the standard and one must adhere to it.

There are many other abuses prevalent in the new liturgy (but not the fault of the liturgy itself) that can be talked about. But because “everyone is doing it” doesn’t make it right.

As a side note, if you attend a TLM Mass you will not receive under both species.

However, Rome has not set this standard. If you read my previous post, you will see that the GIRM clearly states it is permissible under normal circumstances to have both species. It is not required that it be a special occasion, although their are certain requirements.

Believe me, I am for traditionalism and orthodoxy in the Mass. I have a liturgical radar that makes me twitch every time I see an abuse or anything that should not be taking place at the Mass. But do not call something an abuse unless it is one. It can easily spread confusion and judgement on priests who are not doing anything wrong.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Funny how the author of that article said

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

I was going to say: The blogger needs to read his or her catechism.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

The catechsim clearly states that the “sign” is more complete. No one is questioning that Christ is fully present under both Sacred Species. And the Pope can go beyond the recommendations of Sancrosanctum Concilium and allow the local bishop to permit reception of both Sacred Species, can he not? So the reception of both Sacred Species can hardly be called an abuse. Cardinal Arinze did not say that reception by the laity of the Chalice was wrong, he said that it shouldn’t be done if the numbers were too large.

I see another danger in the advocacy of NOT allowing the laity to rec. the Chalice and that’s the danger of coming to believe that the Most Precious Blood in It’s Sacred Species is of a higher order than the Most Sacred Body and only the priests are worthy to receive it. Certainly, at papal masses, World Youth Day, that awful conference the Cardinal has every year, the numbers ARE too large. But I don’t think the numbers are too large at your average Sunday Mass.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

To be sure, in today’s Church you will probably find communion under both species to be offered more – however that doesn’t disqualify it from being an abuse. It is still an abuse, even if all the Churches in America did it this way. What makes an abuse an abuse is the fact that Rome sets the standard and one must adhere to it.

You need to consult with an apologist. The reception of the Chalice most certainly is not an abuse.

 

[Mt19_26]

The catechsim clearly states that the “sign” is more complete. No one is questioning that Christ is fully present under both Sacred Species.

From the blog post:

Receiving Holy Communion under both kinds remains a “more complete” [Since when does is require both species to be “more complete”?!? - dd] sign of the sacrament’s meaning and continues to be the norm in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

I guess the statement (in the memo) is some what unclear but I read it as meaning that a communicant would receive “more” of Christ if He was received under both kinds. That’s what I assume the blogger meant by his comment. However, it can be read the other way which would make the statement perfectly fine.

And the Pope can go beyond the recommendations of Sancrosanctum Concilium and allow the local bishop to permit reception of both Sacred Species, can he not? So the reception of both Sacred Species can hardly be called an abuse. Cardinal Arinze did not say that reception by the laity of the Chalice was wrong, he said that it shouldn’t be done if the numbers were too large.

Yes, the Pope can allow the bishop to go beyond Sancrosanctum Concilium but has he? Has he issued an indult allowing a bishop to make a decision that goes beyond what Sancrosanctum Concilium states? I don’t think so and if Sancrosanctum Concilium is used as the guide it clearly states that both species can only be offered under limited circumstances. It certainly doesn’t say they it can be offered at every Sunday Mass. My parish seats 1400 people and it’s almost full for each Mass. Allowing the Precious Blood to be offered at Mass becomes too difficult because it’s hard to judge how many will receive the Blood and results in 12 chalices being used. Which means 12 Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. After communion all the EMHC are busy consuming what’s left in the 12 chalices.

 

[Mt19_26]

From Sancrosanctum Concilium:

1. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.
   The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact (40), communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.

It doesn’t say Sunday Mass is one of those instances. Instead it specifies “instances” that don’t happen every week. If it was intended for Sunday Mass it surely would have included it as an instance. It’s very clear that it should only be offered under limited circumstances.

 

[Mt19_26]

You need to consult with an apologist. The reception of the Chalice most certainly is not an abuse.

The reception of the Chalice is not an abuse in and of itself. But it’s an abuse if it’s offered under circumstances that are outside the limited circumstances that Sancrosanctum Concilium specified.

 

[Mt19_26]

I was going to say: The blogger needs to read his or her catechism.

Maybe the blogger should be asked what his or her comment meant. I am sure he/she probably was thinking that the memo some how was saying that unless Christ is received under both species it’s not as “complete”. That’s the only explanation that makes sense. If that’s not what he/she was thinking then clearly he/she needs to read the catechism.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

From the USCCB’s Website:

nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml
Holy Communion Under Both Kinds

1. From the first days of the Church’s celebration of the Eucharist, Holy Communion consisted of the reception of both species in fulfillment of the Lord’s command to “take and eat . . . take and drink.” The distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium of Catholic liturgical practice.
2. The practice of Holy Communion under both kinds at Mass continued until the late eleventh century, when the custom of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful under the form of bread alone began to grow. By the twelfth century theologians such as Peter Cantor speak of Communion under one kind as a “custom” of the Church. (28) This practice spread until the Council of Constance in 1415 decreed that Holy Communion under the form of bread alone would be distributed to the faithful.
3. In 1963, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council authorized the extension of the faculty for Holy Communion under both kinds in Sacrosanctum Concilium:

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, Communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See. . . . (29)
20. The Council’s decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds at the bishop’s discretion took expression in the first edition of the *Missale Romanum *and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:

Holy Communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom. (30)
The *General Instruction *further states that “at the same time the faithful should be guided toward a desire to take part more intensely in a sacred rite in which the sign of the Eucharistic meal stands out more explicitly.” (31)
21. The extension of the faculty for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds does not represent a change in the Church’s immemorial beliefs concerning the Holy Eucharist. Rather, today the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545. (32) But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience “a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet.” (33)

 

[James_2_24]

You need to consult with an apologist. The reception of the Chalice most certainly is not an abuse.

Since you are telling everyone what they “need” to do (i.e. “you need to read your catechism” “you need to consult an apologist”). I guess I’ll join in the fun

Rather I believe you should contact an apologist and re-read your catechism.

Here is paragraph 55 of SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM :

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact (40), communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.

If you read the paragraph it is very clear that there are very strict limitations as to when communion under both species can be offered. Why, for example, does it not say: “Communion of both species is hereby permitted in all circumstances” or even “during Sunday Liturgy” ? Instead, it actually points out very, very specific circumstances. It goes so far to give specific examples.

The GIRM paragraph by Vianney only puts another restriction on the reception through the Chalice, no need to mention SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM there. Also, he mentioned in Italy he never saw the same practice of reception under both kinds there and it seems to be an American practice. This ought to tell you someting. I spent ample time in Italy as well and my experiences were the same.

As for the Catechism section that was quoted. It stated the sign was more complete. Not that receiving was more complete. The Eucharist is complete in either species.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Church has permitted the reception of the Chalice by the laity for far longer than she has forbidden it.

See this timeline:

ecclesiadei.nl/docs/timeline.html

 

[Mt19_26]

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.

Being “orthodox” doesn’t mean that abuses can’t occur.

Before Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass the Precious Blood was almost never offered as far as I know. Vatican II allowed for it to be offered, however, under limited circumstances.

Your statement about not seeing the Precious Blood offered in Italy should tell you something. The American church has abused this practice. Vatican II allowed for certain circumstances in which it could be offered and the U.S. bishops used this to make it the “norm” in the United States.

 

[Mt19_26]

The Church has permitted the reception of the Chalice by the laity for far longer than she has forbidden it.

See this timeline:

ecclesiadei.nl/docs/timeline.html

That doesn’t justify the American Bishops unilaterally offering the Chalice today. Rome still says it should only be offered under certain circumstances and Sunday Mass is not one of them. If it was it would make the statement in Sancrosanctum Concilium that gives examples of when the Chalice can be offered irrelevant because each of the examples that are listed occur far less than Sunday Mass. In fact, if it was allowable at Sunday Mass that statement would make no sense because Sunday Mass is not as “limited” as what is mentioned.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Since you are telling everyone what they “need” to do (i.e. “you need to read your catechism” “you need to consult an apologist”). I guess I’ll join in the fun

Rather I believe you should contact an apologist and re-read your catechism.

Here is paragraph 55 of SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM :

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact (40), communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.

If you read the paragraph it is very clear that there are very strict limitations as to when communion under both species can be offered. Why, for example, does it not say: “Communion of both species is hereby permitted in all circumstances” or even “during Sunday Liturgy” ? Instead, it actually points out very, very specific circumstances. It goes so far to give specific examples.

The GIRM paragraph by Vianney only puts another restriction on the reception through the Chalice, no need to mention SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM there. Also, he mentioned in Italy he never saw the same practice of reception under both kinds there and it seems to be an American practice. This ought to tell you someting. I spent ample time in Italy as well and my experiences were the same.

As for the Catechism section that was quoted. It stated the sign was more complete. Not that receiving was more complete. The Eucharist is complete in either species.

Ah, yes, evil Americanism, our bishops are permitted to make the decision by the Holy See, they allow us to receive the Chalice, which is obviously wrong, DESPITE their being allowed to make the decision by the Holy See, which was also obviously wrong. Reception in both kinds is commended to us by the CCC, which is obviously also wrong.

SINCE the Council of Trent, the permission for the laity to receive Holy Communion has been broadened by the Holy See to times deemed appropriate by the local ordinary or the national conference itself.

Also, your statement “As for the Catechism section that was quoted. It stated the sign was more complete. Not that receiving was more complete. The Eucharist is complete in either species.” A bit disingenous. The section is talking ABOUT reception, ie, “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.” This context is made more clear by the final sentence “This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern Rites.” That doesn’t mean that one is missing anything sacramentally by the reception of only one of the Sacred Species.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

That doesn’t justify the American Bishops unilaterally offering the Chalice today. Rome still says it should only be offered under certain circumstances and Sunday Mass is not one of them. If it was it would make the statement in Sancrosanctum Concilium that gives examples of when the Chalice can be offered irrelevant because each of the examples that are listed occur far less than Sunday Mass. In fact, if it was allowable at Sunday Mass that statement would make no sense because Sunday Mass is not as “limited” as what is mentioned.

But if the decision is left to the Bishops, the Holy See has given them the competance to make the decision as to WHEN it is appropriate or when it isn’t, even if it’s every Sunday Mass, which I happen to think IS appropriate, the ultraquist heresy having been dealt with, because that’s the way the Lord instituted the Sacrament originally. I don’t dispute the Church’s authority to either offer it or deny it, I simply think it’s appropriate that she does offer it unless the number in the congregation is extraordinarily large. I see no reason NOT to offer it, since the Church now permits it.

 

[Mt19_26]

From the USCCB’s Website:

nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml
Holy Communion Under Both Kinds

You’re quoting a USCCB document that is clearly incorrectly interpreting Sacrosanctum Concilium…just like it does for alot of other things. Sacrosanctum Concilum gives examples of limited circumstances in which the Chalice can be offered and each of them occur much less than Sunday Mass. Sunday Mass is not one of those limited circumstances but the USCCB has chosen to make it one of those circumstances.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Being “orthodox” doesn’t mean that abuses can’t occur.

Before Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass the Precious Blood was almost never offered as far as I know. Vatican II allowed for it to be offered, however, under limited circumstances.

Your statement about not seeing the Precious Blood offered in Italy should tell you something. The American church has abused this practice. Vatican II allowed for certain circumstances in which it could be offered and the U.S. bishops used this to make it the “norm” in the United States.

Which they were pemitted to do by the Holy See. Something allowed by the competant authority is, by definition, *allowed *and so cannot be an “abuse.”

And how far back before VII and the Novus Ordo? Again, the Church permitted the chalice to the laity for far longer than she denied it, not doing away with the practice until the 14th century.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You’re quoting a USCCB document that is clearly incorrectly interpreting Sacrosanctum Concilium…just like it does for alot of other things. Sacrosanctum Concilum gives examples of limited circumstances in which the Chalice can be offered and each of them occur much less than Sunday Mass. Sunday Mass is not one of those limited circumstances but the USCCB has chosen to make it one of those circumstances.

Sir or ma’am, those rules on the USSCB’s site aren’t just issued right and left. They don’t make it into the governing documents unless they’ve been reviewed by the Holy See. Sometimes the bishops ask for indults or “permissions,” like for the laity to cleanse the sacred vessels (and you’ve got me there, I’ve no idea why the laity needed to EVER do that) and they’re allowed to for a period of time, but they’re notified that this is an indult, which will expire. I assume that this is about the same case. Rome has NOT said that we cannot have the Chalice at Sunday Masses. The idea that this is an abuse is simply wrong. Send an email to one of the apologists here at CA and see what they tell you. I’m not being a wise mouth, I urge you to ask.