Cardinal Mahony Defies Rome again

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

But if the recognitio was given, then that blanket authority DOES exist. I’m sorry, that’s how it works. It could be withdrawn, like the ability of the laity to cleanse the sacred vessels, but until it is, it exists and has the force of law. It isn’t a matter of interpreting: the recognitio allows it. And it’s really too bad that the reception of the Most Precious Blood under it’s seperate species doesn’t happen much outside this country. It goes back to my previous question: the ultraquist heresy having been dealt with (the final reason for the Church denying the chalice to the laity in the first place), why not simply do it the way Our Lord instituted it, outside of really large “mega” Masses (which is what Cardinal Arinze was talking about, wasn’t he, times when numbers reasonably prohibited the distribution from the Chalice?)?

And yes, I did read it. There’s this bit (emphasis mine):

“The Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups. The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason.”

 

[Walking_Home]

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.

---

I do not have a hangup in knowing our Lord is present in His entirety in each of the species. A healthy Catholic conscience will have no problem with only the Host being offered.

 

[Crumpy]

45 years ago when I was an altar boy, a friend of mine startled me by raiding the locker where the wine cruets were kept. He drank up all the wine left over from the preceding Masses.

That had never occurred to me, and I was never tempted to do it myself, just given the lack of hygiene involved.

Use of the wine species of Communion fulfills our Lord’s command to eat His body and drink His blood, but the Church accepts that the bread species is sufficient.

I think the wine species should be abandoned, just for all the trivialization of it such as in this thread.

The issue is sort of like what Jack Nickelson shouted to Tom Cruise in that move, “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH”

 

[James_2_24]

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.

AH YES! EVIL AMERICANISM. You give them an inch and they go a mile. I like how you create a straw man and then tear it down. Quite nice. “they allow us to receive the chalice, which is obviously wrong”, “…being allowed to make the decision by the Holy See was also obviously wrong” I have said neither of the sort, yet you will have our readers believe that. Obviously you don’t care about the truth, but rather being right and painting anyone who disagrees with you in a false way.

They were given the decision to allow it in LIMITED circumstances. And outside those limited circumstances is an abuse. This is what I have been saying and I believe MT19:26 as well.

And as for your last sentence about receiving under both species. It appears we agree on that, so i’m not sure what your intention is with that one. You reiterated my point at the end of your post. Yes the sign is more complete. But it doesn’t talk about reception being more complete. Reception remains complete in either form, just has you have reiterated. This goes back to a quote made on that blog www.domusdei.org in which you stated they needed to read their catechism. They said nothing wrong there when they stated that the Eucharist is not more complete went you receive both species. You recieve the WHOLE Jesus either way. The sign may be more complete of course, becuase you see both body and the blood before you.

But I am not going to get into this too deeply this time. I have seen you and MT19:26 go round and round. It appears that this is getting no where. And it has lead to lies about what we said on your part as I have stated above. I’m done with this God bless

 

[Mt19_26]

But if the recognitio was given, then that blanket authority DOES exist. I’m sorry, that’s how it works. It could be withdrawn, like the ability of the laity to cleanse the sacred vessels

I am sorry but that is not how it works. If you read the numerous references I have mentioned in previous posts you should not have any problem seeing that authority was given within limited circumstances. Not one place does it specify that there are no limits in what the bishops can allow. You’re doing what a typical protestant does by taking things out of context. Sure, take one of two sentences and it might appear that they have blanket authority but read further, thus taking in the full context of the document, and it’s doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see within what limits the bishops are allowed to operate.

Even the indult allowing the laity to cleanse the sacred vessels had limits. It specified that only under “grave” circumstances are the laity to cleanse the vessels. The bishops of the U.S. conveniently overlooked that clause and in the three short years that the indult was in affect the laity cleansing the sacred vessels was a common practice.

[snip]

It goes back to my previous question: the ultraquist heresy having been dealt with (the final reason for the Church denying the chalice to the laity in the first place), why not simply do it the way Our Lord instituted it, outside of really large “mega” Masses (which is what Cardinal Arinze was talking about, wasn’t he, times when numbers reasonably prohibited the distribution from the Chalice?)?

Yes, back then the Chalice was denied to help fight the ultraquist heresy but that is not the reason it’s not offered today. I’ve mentioned the reasons numerous times in my previous posts and provided references to Church documents that detail those reasons.

And yes, I did read it. There’s this bit (emphasis mine):

“The Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups. The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason.”

Read further, what you quoted above goes on to say:

“…provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason.”

There are four limits right there. The limit because of large number of participants would eliminate most parishes. Also, “some other reasons” is spelled out in other Church documents (which have been referred to numerous times in this thread). One reason is when more EOHC’s are needed which is always the case. The parishes in the U.S. seem to have forgot what the word “extraordinary” means. There are already too many of them at most Masses. Offering the Precious Blood just makes things worse. Rome is aware of this and that is why they placed that limit on the U.S. bishops authority to offer the Chalice.

Show me where the blanket authority you claim was given without using protestant tactics by simply quoting bits and pieces of a Church document. You can’t do it. If the documents are taken as a whole it could easily be seen that authority was given but within limits.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

I do not have a hangup in knowing our Lord is present in His entirety in each of the species. A healthy Catholic conscience will have no problem with only the Host being offered.

That’s not what I was refering to, Walking Home. And a healthy Catholic conscience also should have no problem with both Sacred Species being offered (in Karl Keating’s words, it’s a practice commended to us by the Church). I’m sure you don’t mean to imply that I don’t have a healthy Catholic conscience, sinner though I certainly am.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I am sorry but that is not how it works. If you read the numerous references I have mentioned in previous posts you should not have any problem seeing that authority was given within limited circumstances. Not one place does it specify that there are no limits in what the bishops can allow. You’re doing what a typical protestant does by taking things out of context. Sure, take one of two sentences and it might appear that they have blanket authority but read further, thus taking in the full context of the document, and it’s doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see within what limits the bishops are allowed to operate.

Even the indult allowing the laity to cleanse the sacred vessels had limits. It specified that only under “grave” circumstances are the laity to cleanse the vessels. The bishops of the U.S. conveniently overlooked that clause and in the three short years that the indult was in affect the laity cleansing the sacred vessels was a common practice.

Yes, back then the Chalice was denied to help fight the ultraquist heresy but that is not the reason it’s not offered today. I’ve mentioned the reasons numerous times in my previous posts and provided references to Church documents that detail those reasons.

Read further, what you quoted above goes on to say:

“…provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason.”

There are four limits right there. The limit because of large number of participants would eliminate most parishes. Also, “some other reasons” is spelled out in other Church documents (which have been referred to numerous times in this thread). One reason is when more EOHC’s are needed which is always the case. The parishes in the U.S. seem to have forgot what the word “extraordinary” means. There are already too many of them at most Masses. Offering the Precious Blood just makes things worse. Rome is aware of this and that is why they placed that limit on the U.S. bishops authority to offer the Chalice.

Show me where the blanket authority you claim was given without using protestant tactics by simply quoting bits and pieces of a Church document. You can’t do it. If the documents are taken as a whole it could easily be seen that authority was given but within limits.

I’m not using Protestant tactics. You’re asking me to prove to you that the sun rises! The recognitio allows the priest to make the call, provided his bishop has allowed it. And the above four conditions are left to the prudential judgement of the priest and the bishop. You’re stating that Rome laid conditions on it. Yes, she did…those conditions are to be determined by the pastors. How can you claim that those four conditions are left to anything BUT the prudential judgement of the bishop and his priests? They aren’t asked to prove anything to Rome, they are simply cautioned to mind those things.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

AH YES! EVIL AMERICANISM. You give them an inch and they go a mile. I like how you create a straw man and then tear it down. Quite nice. “they allow us to receive the chalice, which is obviously wrong”, “…being allowed to make the decision by the Holy See was also obviously wrong” I have said neither of the sort, yet you will have our readers believe that. Obviously you don’t care about the truth, but rather being right and painting anyone who disagrees with you in a false way.

They were given the decision to allow it in LIMITED circumstances. And outside those limited circumstances is an abuse. This is what I have been saying and I believe MT19:26 as well.

And as for your last sentence about receiving under both species. It appears we agree on that, so i’m not sure what your intention is with that one. You reiterated my point at the end of your post. Yes the sign is more complete. But it doesn’t talk about reception being more complete. Reception remains complete in either form, just has you have reiterated. This goes back to a quote made on that blog www.domusdei.org in which you stated they needed to read their catechism. They said nothing wrong there when they stated that the Eucharist is not more complete went you receive both species. You recieve the WHOLE Jesus either way. The sign may be more complete of course, becuase you see both body and the blood before you.

But I am not going to get into this too deeply this time. I have seen you and MT19:26 go round and round. It appears that this is getting no where. And it has lead to lies about what we said on your part as I have stated above. I’m done with this God bless

You accuse me of lying. If I have, I will most sincerely apologize. I assure you, it was not intentional.

 

[Walking_Home]

That’s not what I was refering to, Walking Home. And a healthy Catholic conscience also should have no problem with both Sacred Species being offered (in Karl Keating’s words, it’s a practice commended to us by the Church). I’m sure you don’t mean to imply that I don’t have a healthy Catholic conscience, sinner though I certainly am.

---

I fully agree----a healthy Catholic conscience would have no qualms as to how our Lord is offered. It should make no difference if He is offered in the Host only or under both species because it is a “fuller sign”. It is when we start emphasizing the sign value that we as Catholics can start losing track and start looking at the Church as if She has done wrong to our Lord.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

I fully agree----a healthy Catholic conscience would have no qualms as to how our Lord is offered. It should make no difference if He is offered in the Host only or under both species because it is a “fuller sign”. It is when we start emphasizing the sign value that we as Catholics can start losing track and start looking at the Church as if She has done wrong to our Lord.

I’m sorry, I see this as the “taught” Church (the faithful) attempting to teach the “teaching” Church (the legitimate governing and teaching authority). THEY are the ones in the catechism and in the discipline who brought up “fuller sign.” I didn’t make that up, it’s out of the Catechism. ALSO, reception of both Sacred Species was the manner instituted by our Lord. Absent really large numbers, why not simply do it as Our Lord instituted it? That’s the problem with talking about discipline. No one has said the Church did wrong to our Lord in witholding the Chalice, she had a good reason to do so. So why is it wrong for her to permit THIS discipline? Haven’t you bascially said, “So the teaching Church thinks it’s a fuller sign if both species are received, but we don’t need to worry about that”? Why did they bother to say it? Why did they give the bishops and priests the permission to decide?

 

[Mt19_26]

[snip]

…they are simply cautioned to mind those things.

Maybe we’re closer in agreement on this then it appeared. Those things which you say, “they are simply cautioned to mind”, in making their judgement is what I understand to be limits. Their judgement has limits in that they can’t make a decision without keeping in mind what Rome has said needs to be taken into consideration. What it comes down to is what the pastor thinks Rome means when it says to take into account the number of people attending Mass, the number of EOHC’s, etc before making a decision. I happen to think that at most parishes in the United States the number of attendees and the number of EOHC’s needed would eliminate both species at most Sunday Masses.

So were is the abuse? The abuse is when in making the decision the pastor either ignores those “limits/conditions” or interprets them in such a way to make it appear that he’s still within those limits. For example, a priest might think doubling the number of EOHC’s when clearly this is not what Rome wants. Rome has emphasized limiting the need for EOHC’s. Hence, the name “extraordinary”.

This all goes back to what I have been saying. The American Church has been given permission to offer both species but that permission has conditions attached to it.

After re-reading what I just typed I am not sure if we’re closer in agreement. I guess you’ll have to tell me.

 

[Walking_Home]

I’m sorry, I see this as the “taught” Church (the faithful) attempting to teach the “teaching” Church (the legitimate governing and teaching authority). THEY are the ones in the catechism and in the discipline who brought up “fuller sign.” I didn’t make that up, it’s out of the Catechism. ALSO, reception of both Sacred Species was the manner instituted by our Lord. Absent really large numbers, why not simply do it as Our Lord instituted it? That’s the problem with talking about discipline. No one has said the Church did wrong to our Lord in witholding the Chalice, she had a good reason to do so. So why is it wrong for her to permit THIS discipline? Haven’t you bascially said, “So the teaching Church thinks it’s a fuller sign if both species are received, but we don’t need to worry about that”? Why did they bother to say it? Why did they give the bishops and priests the permission to decide?

---

I am not going over the teaching authority of the Church. I am stating what the Church Herself teaches.

And yes—since the Church Herself teaches that our Lord is fully present in each of the species----a healthy Catholic conscience would not worry if the Chalice is not offered.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606058.htm

Although receiving Communion under both kinds is a “more complete” sign of the sacrament’s meaning, Cardinal Arinze said, “Christ is fully present under each of the species.”

“Communion under the species of the bread alone, as a consequence, makes it possible to receive all the fruit of eucharistic grace,” he added.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

I am not going over the teaching authority of the Church. I am stating what the Church Herself teaches.

And yes—since the Church Herself teaches that our Lord is fully present in each of the species----a healthy Catholic conscience would not worry if the Chalice is not offered.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606058.htm

Although receiving Communion under both kinds is a “more complete” sign of the sacrament’s meaning, Cardinal Arinze said, “Christ is fully present under each of the species.”

“Communion under the species of the bread alone, as a consequence, makes it possible to receive all the fruit of eucharistic grace,” he added.

I’ve never once denied that. But I would be cautious in making assumptions about “healthy Catholic consciences.” I fail to see how availing oneself of the opportunity to receive from the Chalice where it is offered is a sign of an unhealthy Catholic conscience. Also, if you don’t want to receive from the Chalice, it isn’t required. Simply don’t receive that way.

 

[Walking_Home]

I’ve never once denied that. But I would be cautious in making assumptions about “healthy Catholic consciences.” I fail to see how availing oneself of the opportunity to receive from the Chalice where it is offered is a sign of an unhealthy Catholic conscience. Also, if you don’t want to receive from the Chalice, it isn’t required. Simply don’t receive that way.

---

Making assumptions-----who here is dwelling on the more “complete sign”-----when all of our Lords grace is received at the instance of the first form of reception.

It does become a problem and a sign of an unhealthy conscience when the “sign” starts to over shadow that our Lord’s grace is complete in receiving in only one form.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Making assumptions-----who here is dwelling on the more “complete sign”-----when all of our Lords grace is received at the instance of the first form of reception.

It does become a problem and a sign of an unhealthy conscience when the “sign” starts to over shadow that our Lord’s grace is complete in receiving in only one form.

I was answering the assertion that frequent reception from the Chalice was an abuse. It isn’t. I also did not bring up “fuller” sign, the Church did. I have not criticized anyone for not rec. from the Chalice.

And once again, in the absence of the ultraquist heresy or truly large numbers at a Mass, why not simply do it as our Lord instituted it and as the bishops who allow it are allowed to do? I haven’t gotten an answer to that, though I’ve stipulated several times that I fully understand and conform to the Church’s teaching that the fullness of Christ’s Presence and sacramental grace is received under one Species alone.

 

[Walking_Home]

I was answering the assertion that frequent reception from the Chalice was an abuse. It isn’t. I also did not bring up “fuller” sign, the Church did. I have not criticized anyone for not rec. from the Chalice.

And once again, in the absence of the ultraquist heresy or truly large numbers at a Mass, why not simply do it as our Lord instituted it and as the bishops who allow it are allowed to do? I haven’t gotten an answer to that, though I’ve stipulated several times that I fully understand and conform to the Church’s teaching that the fullness of Christ’s Presence and sacramental grace is received under one Species alone.

---

Let me put it this way. When we attend Mass----it should not even come to mind—why the Chalice is not offered.

As to what the bishops are allowed to do. Rome gave the recognitio to the following. Show me where the bishops were given blanket authority to offer both to all the laity in general.

What you are stating as giving the bishops this authority applies to what Rome did approve. The bishops can lay down norms and allow the faculty to priests—but only within the confines of what Rome initially approved. Rome gave an inch—our bishops took a mile and pushed this on Rome.

nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml
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)

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:

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 (35)
24. The General Instruction then indicates that

the diocesan Bishop may lay down norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which must be observed. . . . The diocesan Bishop also has the faculty to allow Communion under both kinds, whenever it seems appropriate to the priest to whom charge of a given community has been entrusted as [its] own pastor, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants or for some other reason. (36)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Let me put it this way. When we attend Mass----it should not even come to mind—why the Chalice is not offered.

As to what the bishops are allowed to do. Rome gave the recognitio to the following. Show me where the bishops were given blanket authority to offer both to all the laity in general.

What you are stating as giving the bishops this authority applies to what Rome did approve. The bishops can lay down norms and allow the faculty to priests—but only within the confines of what Rome initially approved. Rome gave an inch—our bishops took a mile and pushed this on Rome.

nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml
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)

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:

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 (35)
24. The General Instruction then indicates that

the diocesan Bishop may lay down norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which must be observed. . . . The diocesan Bishop also has the faculty to allow Communion under both kinds, whenever it seems appropriate to the priest to whom charge of a given community has been entrusted as [its] own pastor, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants or for some other reason. (36)

You’re simply posting what I’ve posted, what Mt. has posted. “Whenever it seems appropriate to the priest.” That says it all. The term “abuse” is coming to be “abused” these days.

 

[Walking_Home]

You’re simply posting what I’ve posted, what Mt. has posted. “Whenever it seems appropriate to the priest.” That says it all. The term “abuse” is coming to be “abused” these days.

---

Whenever it seems appropriate in the following -----which is what Rome gave recognitio to.

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 (35)

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Whenever it seems appropriate in the following -----which is what Rome gave recognitio to.

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 (35)

You still haven’t gotten around the fact, in the discipline of the Church, that it’s left up to the priest throughout most of the United States. The recognitio extends to that fact: that it’s left up to the bishop and the priest. That the Holy See permits it here may be an exception, but that permission precludes it from being an abuse. Again, absent a misunderstanding of the nature of the sacrament or a really large number of people attending the Mass, why not simply do it the way the Lord instituted it (and the way the Church now permits it)?

 

[Walking_Home]

You still haven’t gotten around the fact, in the discipline of the Church, that it’s left up to the priest throughout most of the United States. The recognitio extends to that fact: that it’s left up to the bishop and the priest. That the Holy See permits it here may be an exception, but that permission precludes it from being an abuse. Again, absent a misunderstanding of the nature of the sacrament or a really large number of people attending the Mass, why not simply do it the way the Lord instituted it (and the way the Church now permits it)?

---

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.