Cardinal Mahony Defies Rome again

[JKirkLVNV]

Note: Karl says the Church encourages reception of both Species, though he also warns that we need better catechesis to form the people’s minds about why we receive that way, etc.

1. Not to succumb to the Utraquist heresy. (The Utraquists “both/and”-ers] said that to receive the Eucharist validly, a communicant must receive the host and also must drink from the chalice, on the erroneous theory that the host is only the Body of Christ while the chalice contains only his Blood. Today’s Church encourages reception under both kinds, which is fine, but it appears, unfortunately, that not a few Catholics now have the impression that to receive the host only is to receive only half of Christ. Pulpit catechesis, anyone?)

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_031231.asp

 

[Mt19_26]

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)…

Maybe because there are so many Chalices to cleanse that the priest can’t or doesn’t want to cleanse all be himself? Like I was saying at my parish the Chalice is offered at one Sunday Mass which has resulted in 12 extra EOMC’s to be used meaning that there are 12 Chalices. It’s no wonder why the Bishops have asked for an indult to cleanse the Sacred Vessels.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Maybe because there are so many Chalices to cleanse that the priest can’t or doesn’t want to cleanse all be himself? Like I was saying at my parish the Chalice is offered at one Sunday Mass which has resulted in 12 extra EOMC’s to be used meaning that there are 12 Chalices. It’s no wonder why the Bishops have asked for an indult to cleanse the Sacred Vessels.

Ah, but I would prefer more EMHCs if it meant that I could receive under both species. I’ve never understood why ALL our priests were not required to attend all of the Sunday masses and assist with Holy Communion. If they did, 3 of them could communicate the entire congregation in sections, one distributing the Most Sacred Body, the other two distributing from the chalice. But then the whole thing could be best handled, I suppose, with intinction, which is also allowed.

I don’t think EMHCs are a great idea, but I don’t want the chalice to be forbidden again.

 

[Mt19_26]

Ah, but I would prefer more EMHCs if it meant that I could receive under both species.

But the USCCB says that if more EMHCs are required then the Chalice should not be offered:

“In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

But the USCCB says that if more EMHCs are required then the Chalice should not be offered:

“In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.”

I hope they keep offering it. Let me ask you a question, given that the Lord instituted it that way, why SHOULDN’T we receive it that way, given that the ultraquist heresy isn’t much of a problem (insisting that it HAS to be given that way to be valid…I don’t insist that it does)? What’s the problem?

 

[Mt19_26]

Also the USCCB states:

When Communion Under Both Kinds May Be Given

1. The revised Missale Romanum, third typical edition, significantly expands those opportunities when Holy Communion may be offered under both kinds. In addition to those instances specified by individual ritual books, the *General Instruction *states that Communion under both kinds may be permitted as follows:

1. 
   *]for priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate
   
   *]for the deacon and others who perform some role at Mass
   
   *]for community members at their conventual Mass or what in some places is known as the “community” Mass, for seminarians, [and] for all who are on retreat or are participating in a spiritual or pastoral gathering
   Show were in the Missale Romanium that Rome allows for the Chalice to be offered at Sunday Mass then I’ll retract my statement/belief that it’s an abuse. I have searched and have yet to find anything that says specifically or seems to indicate that the Blood of Christ should be offered at all (or most) Sunday Masses. In fact, I have found otherwise. I think the riding factor here that determines if the Chalice should be offered is number of people at Mass and whether or not more EOMC’s are needed. In most of the parishes in the U.S. that have a normal-sized number of parishioners the Chalice should not be offered because of the two reasons I mentioned above. Offering the Chalice almost always requires the number of EOMC’s servicing at Mass to double. Also, most Masses I have been to have had too many people making it difficult to offering the Chalice.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Also the USCCB states:

When Communion Under Both Kinds May Be Given

1. The revised Missale Romanum, third typical edition, significantly expands those opportunities when Holy Communion may be offered under both kinds. In addition to those instances specified by individual ritual books, the *General Instruction *states that Communion under both kinds may be permitted as follows:
   1. 
      *]for priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate
      *]for the deacon and others who perform some role at Mass
      *]for community members at their conventual Mass or what in some places is known as the “community” Mass, for seminarians, [and] for all who are on retreat or are participating in a spiritual or pastoral gathering
      Show were in the Missale Romanium that Rome allows for the Chalice to be offered at Sunday Mass then I’ll retract my statement/belief that it’s an abuse. I have searched and have yet to find anything that says specifically or seems to indicate that the Blood of Christ should be offered at all (or most) Sunday Masses. In fact, I have found otherwise. I think the riding factor here that determines if the Chalice should be offered is number of people at Mass and whether or not more EOMC’s are needed. In most of the parishes in the U.S. that have a normal-sized number of parishioners the Chalice should not be offered because of the two reasons I mentioned above. Offering the Chalice almost always requires the number of EOMC’s servicing at Mass to double. Also, most Masses I have been to have had too many people making it difficult to offering the Chalice.

1. 
   Write one of the apologists here at CA and ask if it’s an abuse for the Chalice to be offered at each and every Mass celebrated by the Church (not just Sunday masses). I respectfully challenge you to do that. Ask them.

 

[Mt19_26]

I hope they keep offering it. Let me ask you a question, given that the Lord instituted it that way, why SHOULDN’T we receive it that way, given that the ultraquist heresy isn’t much of a problem (insisting that it HAS to be given that way to be valid…I don’t insist that it does)? What’s the problem?

I never said we shouldn’t recieve it that way if it’s possible. It would be the preferred way I’d like to receive. On the other hand, I also believe we should be obedient to Rome and I happen to believe, based on what I understand, Rome has limited the reception of the Blood of Christ to specific circumstances for valid reasons. Before Vatican II reception of Christ’s Blood was rare (unless one goes back hundreds of years). But after Vatican II Christ’s Blood was made “more” available. This is good…but the U.S. parishes seem to have run amok with this and are allowing the Blood of Christ to be offered even if the number of people attending Mass is too large and the number of EOMC’s needed are too many. It’s no coincidence that if one goes outside the U.S. they will not find the Blood of Christ offered as frequently as it is here. You’ll also not find alot of EOMC’s participating at Mass.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I never said we shouldn’t recieve it that way if it’s possible. It would be the preferred way I’d like to receive. On the other hand, I also believe we should be obedient to Rome and I happen to believe, based on what I understand, Rome has limited the reception of the Blood of Christ to specific circumstances for valid reasons. Before Vatican II reception of Christ’s Blood was rare (unless one goes back hundreds of years). But after Vatican II Christ’s Blood was made “more” available. This is good…but the U.S. parishes seem to have run amok with this and are allowing the Blood of Christ to be offered even if the number of people attending Mass is too large and the number of EOMC’s needed are too many. It’s no coincidence that if one goes outside the U.S. they will not find the Blood of Christ offered as frequently as it is here. You’ll also not find alot of EOMC’s participating at Mass.

I’m not arguing for EMHCs per se. I think that generally they should be limited to taking the Blessed Sacrment to the sick. However, I would NOT like to see the Chalice denied simply to get rid of EMHCs. Now, do we need the army that usually descends on the sanctuary at communion? No, absolutely not. In the case of my very large parish, where most masses are packed, one of three scenarios could be implemented: 3 (we have 4 regular ones) priests communicating the entire congregation in sections(two with chalices) OR one priest assisted by two EMHCs (the priest with the Sacred Body and the EMHCs with two chalices) OR one priest communicating everyone via intinction. I think that since our Lord gave us the Sacrament a certain way, we should do all that we reasonably can do to receive it that way, while stipulating to the fact that the Church has the authority to establish whatever discipline she feels is wise with regard to the Sacrement. And I would maintain that the bishops’ decision to make both Sacred Species available to the laity is within their competence, since that competence was given to them by the Holy See. Just because it’s exercised in a way that we don’t think it should be exercised doesn’t make it an abuse.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I submitted the question to the apologists here myself. I don’t know if they will select it to be answered, but here’s what I asked:

"Is it an abuse if the Chalice of the Most Precious Blood is offered to the laity regularly (ie, not on special occasions)? Is a bishop competent to authorize the offering of the chalice to the laity at regular Sunday Masses or even daily Masses? What if the only practical way for the laity to receive the Chalice is for it to be administered by an EMHC?

I understand that it is suffecient for the fullness of sacramental Grace if the laity are only able to receive one of the Sacred Species, that Christ is fully present, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in both species."

 

[Mt19_26]

I’m not arguing for EMHCs per se. I think that generally they should be limited to taking the Blessed Sacrment to the sick. However, I would NOT like to see the Chalice denied simply to get rid of EMHCs.

If you generally think they, the EOMC’s, should be limited to taking the Eucharist to the sick why would you go to the other extreme and think they should be made available to ensure that the Blood of Christ is offered at each and every Mass? The Council of Trent stated that Christ is fully present in both species and thus receiving under only one species doesn’t diminish or make it less complete. Receiving only the Bread is sufficient. For specific reasons the Holy See has placed limitations on receiving the Blood of Christ which in no way denies any part of Christ to the laity.

Now, do we need the army that usually descends on the sanctuary at communion? No, absolutely not. In the case of my very large parish, where most masses are packed, one of three scenarios could be implemented: 3 (we have 4 regular ones) priests communicating the entire congregation in sections(two with chalices) OR one priest assisted by two EMHCs (the priest with the Sacred Body and the EMHCs with two chalices) OR one priest communicating everyone via intinction.

I am also a parishioner at a very large parish. In fact, it’s the largest one in San Diego. And, yes, a large EOHC army does descend on the sanctuary at communion. I don’t think it’s right that they are in the Sanctuary but never the less they are needed to distribute Holy Communion. If the Blood of Christ was offered here (which it is during one of the seven Masses) it would require 17 EOHC’s vs just 5 if only the Bread was offered. This is one of the reason Rome places restrictions on receiving under both species

I think that since our Lord gave us the Sacrament a certain way, we should do all that we reasonably can do to receive it that way, while stipulating to the fact that the Church has the authority to establish whatever discipline she feels is wise with regard to the Sacrement. And I would maintain that the bishops’ decision to make both Sacred Species available to the laity is within their competence, since that competence was given to them by the Holy See. Just because it’s exercised in a way that we don’t think it should be exercised doesn’t make it an abuse.

The thing we disagree on here is that I think the bishops’ have overstepped the authority that was given to them. The Church does have the authority to establish whatever disipline she feels is wise with regard to the Sacrament…and she has. The parishes in the U.S. haven’t followed it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If you generally think they, the EOMC’s, should be limited to taking the Eucharist to the sick why would you go to the other extreme and think they should be made available to ensure that the Blood of Christ is offered at each and every Mass? The Council of Trent stated that Christ is fully present in both species and thus receiving under only one species doesn’t diminish or make it less complete. Receiving only the Bread is sufficient. For specific reasons the Holy See has placed limitations on receiving the Blood of Christ which in no way denies any part of Christ to the laity.

**I feel much better: we only have 5 EMHCs at Mass on Sunday and 1 at the daily Mass to assist the priest. Again, we’re talking about the fullness of the “sign,” not the sacrmental fullness of His Presence. I’m not arguing that you have to receive from the Chalice for a valid Communion. I still see a possibly dangerous trend in this: elevating the accidents of the Most Precious Blood above the accidents of the Most Sacred Body. How do you avoid that by saying that the former can only be received on “special” occasions? Doesn’t the “special” occasion make It more “special?” Why not, as a matter of course, simply do it the way the Lord instituted it and the way the Church now commends it to us? Why? **

The thing we disagree on here is that I think the bishops’ have overstepped the authority that was given to them. The Church does have the authority to establish whatever disipline she feels is wise with regard to the Sacrament…and she has. The parishes in the U.S. haven’t followed it.

My understanding is that if they are given the authority BY the competent authority to make the call, it isn’t an abuse and they haven’t overstepped their authority.

 

[Mt19_26]

My understanding is that if they are given the authority BY the competent authority to make the call, it isn’t an abuse and they haven’t overstepped their authority.

You would be right if they were given blanket permission to “make the call”. The problem is they haven’t been given blanket permission. Their authority is bounded by limits and in the U.S. those limits would make receiving under both species at a Sunday Mass a rare occurance at the great majority of American parishes. Going beyond those limits would be overstepping the authority which they have been entrusted with and thus be an abuse.

This article explains it much better than I can:

Communion under both species - The Law

 

[Hesychios]

“The Council also permits Communion under both species here, but under very limited circumstances…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 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”.

I wish I didn’t have to say this, but from my perspective the restriction of the Eucharist to one kind by Roma is the abuse in real terms.

I can understand special cases (such as allergies or age of reception) where one kind would be necessary. Even with the large public Divine liturgies it might be expedient to restrict the reception to one kind. But Jesus Christ offered himself in both kinds and this should be the ordinary practice, not the extraordinary practice. We should not take it upon ourselves to manipulate the practice.

It seems the world has turned upside down, it’s just crazy. I am beginning to see why this issue exacerbated the great schism.

 

[Walking_Home]

I wish I didn’t have to say this, but from my perspective the restriction of the Eucharist to one kind by Roma is the abuse in real terms.

I can understand special cases (such as allergies or age of reception) where one kind would be necessary. Even with the large public Divine liturgies it might be expedient to restrict the reception to one kind. But Jesus Christ offered himself in both kinds and this should be the ordinary practice, not the extraordinary practice. We should not take it upon ourselves to manipulate the practice.

It seems the world has turned upside down, it’s just crazy. I am beginning to see why this issue exacerbated the great schism.

---

Frankly Hesychios—since you left the Catholic Church and became Orthodox—why do you care --how the Catholic Church offers Holy Communion. This does not affect you one way or another. You seem to pop in on threads like these—that I am beginning to think you have some sort of hangup.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Frankly Hesychios—since you left the Catholic Church and became Orthodox—why do you care --how the Catholic Church offers Holy Communion. This does not affect you one way or another. You seem to pop in on threads like these—that I am beginning to think you have some sort of hangup.

I shouldn’t, but I’m going to…

Do you mean a hang-up like this, Walking Home?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1613398#post1613398

Actually, I rather think we all have the odd hang-up or two.

 

[Mt19_26]

I wish I didn’t have to say this, but from my perspective the restriction of the Eucharist to one kind by Roma is the abuse in real terms.

I can understand special cases (such as allergies or age of reception) where one kind would be necessary.

If you can see how this might be necessary in special cases maybe what you don’t see is where Christ thinks it is necessary in this present time. If one believes that the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit as Christ himself has promised then one would have to just accept what the Church decrees. Right now the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, is saying that the Blood of Christ is to be offered only under certain circumstances. The “average joe” in the pew might think this is absurb but does the “average joe” really know better than the Holy Spirit?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You would be right if they were given blanket permission to “make the call”. The problem is they haven’t been given blanket permission. Their authority is bounded by limits and in the U.S. those limits would make receiving under both species at a Sunday Mass a rare occurance at the great majority of American parishes. Going beyond those limits would be overstepping the authority which they have been entrusted with and thus be an abuse.

This article explains it much better than I can:

Communion under both species - The Law

Here’s a link that may be helpful to our discussion, to the very question posed to the apologists at EWTN. A bishop in the US can allow a pastor to offer both Sacred Species and even allow an EMHC to distribute the Chalice (the norms established by the bishops in their conference having the recognitio of the Holy See? Are you saying, Mt19:26, that there is no recognitio of this practice by the Holy See?). So I still don’t see how this constitutes an abuse.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If you can see how this might be necessary in special cases maybe what you don’t see is where Christ thinks it is necessary in this present time. If one believes that the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit as Christ himself has promised then one would have to just accept what the Church decrees. Right now the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, is saying that the Blood of Christ is to be offered only under certain circumstances. The “average joe” in the pew might think this is absurb but does the “average joe” really know better than the Holy Spirit?

Disciplines of the Church only enjoy a “negative” infallibility, that is to say, any discipline imposed by the Church cannot lead the faithful into impiety. That’s not the same as dogma, nor is it the same as inspiration or guidance by the Holy Spirit. It means that the Holy Spirit will not allow the faithful to be lead astray, it doesn’t mean that it’s the Holy Spirit’s idea or inspiration.

 

[Mt19_26]

Here’s a link that may be helpful to our discussion, to the very question posed to the apologists at EWTN. A bishop in the US can allow a pastor to offer both Sacred Species and even allow an EMHC to distribute the Chalice (the norms established by the bishops in their conference having the recognitio of the Holy See? Are you saying, Mt19:26, that there is no recognitio of this practice by the Holy See?). So I still don’t see how this constitutes an abuse.

Did you even read article I referred to? Frankly, I don’t see how one can believe that the Vatican has given blanket authority, which is what you seem to believe, to the U.S. Bishops if they have read all the relevant documents. The Holy See has clearly limited the U.S. Bishops authority in this matter. The circumstances in which both species can be allowed is spelled out in multiple documents and those documents make it such that receiving under both species at most parishes in the United States would be extremely rare. The documents list the limited situations and yet some think it’s alright at most Sunday Masses. Sunday Mass is not a limited “situation”. In fact, Sunday Mass by it’s very nature is not limited since it is celebrated every week. However, some how some people want to twist words around to some how include Sunday Mass as one of those limited situations that the Vatican has specified.

The Vatican has said it should be offered in limited situations. Is Sunday Mass a limited situation? If it is the documents make no sense and should have instead said that both species should be offered most Masses except for these [fill in the blank] cases. But it doesn’t. It says the reverse. It limits it to a few specific cases.

With interpretations like this no wonder why the Chruch in the United States is in such bad shape. We have had a few posters on this thread say that they have went outside the United States and have not seen the Precious Blood offered. That should tell you something.