Cardinal Mahony: "There is no liturgical abuses in L.A"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Iohannes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Karl Keating said:
1. Yes, the Pharisees followed the rules, and our Lord did not fault them for that. He faulted them for giving false emphasis to rules they had made up and for following rules in lieu of following charity.
  1. As for flagons vs. chalices, the solution for the conference would have been simple: Communion under one kind. Not only would this have meant that the rubrics would have been followed (rubrics = rules), but there would have been no chance of spillage. Plus, Communion would have gone more expeditiously.
Click to expand...
Karl,
Thanks so much for jumping in. The Pharisees always seem to be brought up when one emphasizes the importance of following the rules of the Church.

God Bless,
Gary
 
40.png
MaryAgnes:
Bishops have more latitude than parish priests. Again, what is in question is if one is to abide by the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. The liturgical changes promulgated by RS cannot be deemed more important than the SPIRIT in which those changes were made.

Look closely at the pictures. Cardinal Mahoney is obviously saying Mass at a Conference–and a very large one at that. You can see that people are seated in bleachers. I’ve been to such conferences and there can be several thousand people present for one liturgy!

So … if the Cardinal followed the “rules” of RS, I wonder how many chalices he would need??? Where would he put them all??? Seems to me there would be more danger of spillage if he had followed the “rule” rather than the “spirit.”

Remember: The Pharisees followed the rules.
Click to expand...
Thinking with the mind of the Church is being a Pharisee? Christ said of the Pharisees to do exactly as they tell you, but do not do as they do. The Pharisees were hypocrites, but the law was still to be obeyed.

That a Cardinal does not follow what is asked of him is not the ideal example for the faithful.
 
40.png
GloriaPatri4:
I know for a fact that there are still liturgical abuses in the LA diocese as well as I know that there are liturgical abuses here in the Orange diocese.

When were these photos taken?

Did anyone attend the last RE Conference in Anaheim? Was the cardinal still using glass chalices? How many Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion were distributing?

I think Karl’s idea is a good one not only not only at the RE conferencese but at churches. One of the reason we have these armies of EM’sHC is because we are distributing under both species. The other reason is, in our diocese our BISHOP has mandated the use of EM’sHC even when a church doesn’t need them. I suspect it’s the same for Los Angeles.

I think the Los Angeles and Orange diocese should rename Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion to **ORDINARY **Ministers of Holy Communion because they are hardly ever used in Extraordinary circumstances.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, this is the most recent RE congress photo. There is one picture of Bishop Tod Brown in thread about St. Mary’s by the Sea.
 
40.png
Ray_Scheel:
Even Cardinals are bound to obey both the letter and spirit of the instruction of the Church, and the abuses shown indicate he wasn’t following either.
Click to expand...
It is obvious that your understanding of the spirit of the law is not the same as Cardinal Mahoney’s. But since he IS a Cardinal and a Bishop, I do respect his office and HIS authority.

If you and others truly feel this was an abuse, then you are obligated to address this with Cardinal Mahoney. That would be the Christian and thing to do, not to mention the appropriate thing to do. Liturgy bashing is worst of all bearing false witness and at the very least gossip. It is divisive and tears down the Body of Christ.

If you get no response from the Cardinal, write the Pope! But to discuss it here is not the least bit constructive.
 
40.png
MaryAgnes:
It is obvious that your understanding of the spirit of the law is not the same as Cardinal Mahoney’s. But since he IS a Cardinal and a Bishop, I do respect his office and HIS authority.

If you and others truly feel this was an abuse, then you are obligated to address this with Cardinal Mahoney. That would be the Christian and thing to do, not to mention the appropriate thing to do. Liturgy bashing is worst of all bearing false witness and at the very least gossip. It is divisive and tears down the Body of Christ.

If you get no response from the Cardinal, write the Pope! But to discuss it here is not the least bit constructive.
Click to expand...
First of all, this is a discussion forum. We discuss.
Second, where exactly do you see anything FALSE in this?

We have for too long been told that the innovations in our churches are in the “Spirit of Vatican II” and we should get used to it. We have a right to discuss. You may not see it as constructive, but I and many of us have learned much from these discussions. They are very constructive to me.
When one is a public figure, and a spiritual leader, one should expect to be discussed. No one is discussing the man’s personal life, they are evaluating his job performance. There is a difference.
 
Has it occured to anyone that all this pouring of the Blood of Christ, there is potential spillage and sacrilage?
 
40.png
MaryAgnes:
It is obvious that your understanding of the spirit of the law is not the same as Cardinal Mahoney’s. But since he IS a Cardinal and a Bishop, I do respect his office and HIS authority.

If you and others truly feel this was an abuse, then you are obligated to address this with Cardinal Mahoney. That would be the Christian and thing to do, not to mention the appropriate thing to do. Liturgy bashing is worst of all bearing false witness and at the very least gossip. It is divisive and tears down the Body of Christ.

If you get no response from the Cardinal, write the Pope! But to discuss it here is not the least bit constructive.
Click to expand...
Mary Agnes,

The issue is being addressed with the Vatican.

The use of flagons was requested by several bishops, of which +Mahoney was one.

The request was denied. Those bishops have since appealed, stating that the Congregation for Divine Worship did not have the authority to make that decision ( other diacastery would?)

I agree that

The appeal is in process.

And what many here object too (and rightly so) is what appears to be a disregard of Vatican authority. As a Bishop, +Mahoney should be a model of respect. He, as part of his position, deserves respect from his priests, deacons and faithful. As a Bishop, he should, as a model, give the same respect and obedience for the See of Peter and His designated diacasteries.

To what extent should +Mahoney be able to expect his pastors to adhere to the diocesan rules he sets down. Should they be as ‘creative’ in their interperation as +Mahoney is of RS?

Can, for example, a pastor issue his own ‘indult’ to say the TLM in his parish?
 
40.png
MaryAgnes:
It is obvious that your understanding of the spirit of the law is not the same as Cardinal Mahoney’s. But since he IS a Cardinal and a Bishop, I do respect his office and HIS authority.

If you and others truly feel this was an abuse, then you are obligated to address this with Cardinal Mahoney. That would be the Christian and thing to do, not to mention the appropriate thing to do. Liturgy bashing is worst of all bearing false witness and at the very least gossip. It is divisive and tears down the Body of Christ.

If you get no response from the Cardinal, write the Pope! But to discuss it here is not the least bit constructive.
Click to expand...
There are a few problems here and with earlier comments being made.

First, as was addressed above it is the RIGHT of each lay faithful to have the liturgy celebrated correctly. No priest, bishop, cardinal or pope has the right to take this away from the people.

Another falicy that is being stated is that strict observance of the rubrics is in kind with the Pharasees. I would add to the other statements that they were focused on the rules for the sake of the rules whereas those of us that are focused on the rubrics of the liturgy are not in it for the rubrics but are in it for the person who is presented to us in the liturgy. Glass chalices and flagons are wrong not stricktly because the rules say so but because it is disrespectful to Christ and posses a great danger of harming the sacred species.

Further, St. Thomas stated that if you know that something is wrong you are obligated to inform the person of their error even if he be the Pope. I am sure that many come from this forum and others like it and equiped with the tools they gain here are able to instruct others when something is wrong.
 
“When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.”
–St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica II, II, q. 33, a. 4
Click to expand...
 
“What is a small error in the beginning is a great error in the end”

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Ente et Essentia
 
40.png
MaryAgnes:
…Look closely at the pictures. Cardinal Mahoney is obviously saying Mass at a Conference–and a very large one at that…there can be several thousand people present for one liturgy!

So … if the Cardinal followed the “rules” of RS, I wonder how many chalices he would need??? Where would he put them all??? Seems to me there would be more danger of spillage if he had followed the “rule” rather than the “spirit.”
Click to expand...
Forget the pictures, look closely at the “rules”. In RS it is clearly stated:
[102.] 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”.
So to answer your questions, he would simply need *one chalice, placed front and center on the corporal, on the altar. *Very little danger of spillage or profanation.
 
Seeing the statement from Cardinal Mahony has made me wonder and perhaps others here can help me with my question. What exactly are the rights and powers a Bishop has over the way the Liturgy is celebrated in his diocese. I left out Responsibility on purpose because I would like to focus on the aspects of right and powers.
 
What do you expect from a cardinal that let this happen on a cathedral altar?
 
Is that guy a magician or doing a ritual???
Why it would be anywhere near any altar is just :confused: :confused: :confused:
 
Cardinal Baloney strikes again. Ever since Archbishop Weakland from Milwaukee mercifully retired before he could desecrate any more cathedrals, Cardinal Mahony has become the number one vaudevillian of the American Church.
netmil(name removed by moderator):
We have for too long been told that the innovations in our churches are in the “Spirit of Vatican II” and we should get used to it.
Click to expand...
And as Father Benedict Groeschel has stated, “If you ever meet the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’, drive a stake through its heart.”
 
40.png
GloriaPatri4:
I think Karl’s idea is a good one not only not only at the RE conferencese but at churches. One of the reason we have these armies of EM’sHC is because we are distributing under both species. The other reason is, in our diocese our BISHOP has mandated the use of EM’sHC even when a church doesn’t need them. I suspect it’s the same for Los Angeles.
Click to expand...
I agree that this conference calls for communion under one species. I disagree that this should be the standard practice. The Church has administered it under BOTH species for far longer than She hasn’t (the Chalice wasn’t finally and regularly denied to the laity until around 1400). At a normal Sunday Mass, the laity should be allowed and encouraged to rec. under both species. At a humongous conference, no.

These are egregious abuses pictured here. I’m pleased to be able to find a point of agreement with Iohannes, but saddened at such blatant rebellion. I guess what I don’t really understand is this: what would the Cardinal, a prince of the Church, loose by simple obedience? What’s the big deal? I knew there were rules when I signed up in the Catholic Church, didn’t he when he was ordained?
 
40.png
Iohannes:
Has it occured to anyone that all this pouring of the Blood of Christ, there is potential spillage and sacrilage?
Click to expand...
Yes, but get your terminology straight. Spillage is an accident, sacrilege is by intent. That’s WHY the Holy See decreed that the wine could not be consecrated in flagons, but had to be consecrated in chalices and that it was fine to have more than one chalice on the altar for that purpose (but not as such a very large gathering, as has been pointed out). The Cardinal is clearly disobeying the intent of the directive (I don’t know, but I suppose there might be written a caveat that allows a bishop to “adapt” or fidget with the liturgy in his diocese).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top