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

[JKirkLVNV]

Iohannes:

No, the fact that they are pouring the Blood from pitcher to picther has the potential of the Precious Blood of spilling and people stepping on it. That is a sacrilige whether it was an accident or not.

You are, once again, mistaken. Sacrilege must be intended, as it is a sin. “Spillage” implies an accident. In your fervor for that the proper reverence be shown to Our Lord in the Sacred Species, don’t inflame things by crying “sacrilege” where there is none. Sometimes things happen: the Most Precious Body is dropped on the floor during Communion, the Most Precious Blood is splashed on the top of the Altar. This things are unintended and thus NOT sacrilege. The vandalism of a tabernacle and the attendent assault on the Sacred Species would be sacrilege. I’m not excusing Cardinal Mahoney, I think he is disobedient to what ought to be a clear directive. The wine is not to consecrated in flagons.

 

[MaryAgnes]

"On the testimony of competent observers from all over North and South America as well as from Europe and from official Rome itself, the regime of His Eminence, Cardinal Mahony, has been marked by a steady de-Romanization and de-Catholicization of the once flourishing Los Angeles archdiocese.

Rev. Malachi Martin 1997

Who are the “competent observers” I wonder? I’m especially interested in knowing who the “competent observer” from “official Rome” might be? Seems like in the past 8 years (Malachi Martin’s statement was made in 1997!) the seriousness of a valid claim would have been rectified …

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Ray_Scheel:

This statement of yours is uncomfortably close to the heretical position that the Eucharist is not fully present in either species by itself. As far as the symbolism goes, just the cup on the altar is suffficient for the assembly to see the Eucharist in both species - there is no need for it to be available under both forms for the sign to be complete. What was a “small error” (a liturgical abuse) is in danger of growing into a “great one” (heresy).

No, she was correct. The language of the Pope and the Magisterium in the Catechism refer to the reception under both species as a “more complete sign.” The same Catechism affirms that Our Lord is fully present in both species, however.

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.

 

[MaryAgnes]

There is no liturgical abuses in LA.

flamingsword:

But there are grammatical ones.

ROFL!
I thought the same thing … you had the chutzpah to say it!

 

[MaryAgnes]

Fast_ed75:

It’s obvious that Fr. Martin was asking for direct action against Cardinal Mahony. He could put real pressure on the Cardinal and that was his task at the time in his coordinated efforts with Fr. Kunz and Fr. Fiore.

What may have set them off was the Cardinal’s appeal to the Vatican to have Mother Angelica removed as the head of EWTN. This was after she criticized one of his documents watering down the Eucharist.

Be careful with your wording, please. Mother Angelica, who is NOT a member of the magisterium OR an official teaching authority of the Church, OR a theologian, perceived Cardinal Mahoney’s pastoral letter to water down the Eucharist. She then told the Catholics in LA (via her TV show) they should render no obedience to the Cardinal, **their Bishop! **
Her public remarks–because Cardinal Mahoney IS an official member of the magisterium, IS a Bishop and has the AUTHORITY to teach–caused great scandal. **For that reason ** she was ordered to render a public apology, which as is obvious here, never takes back the damage done.

 

[MaryAgnes]

epr1993:

What did JP2 do at the World Youth Days for Communion? I was in Denver and don’t remember being able to receive under both species.

There is a major difference in having a Mass in an auditorium for 2000 and a Mass outdoors for hundreds of thousands (millions?)! Think about it.

 

[MaryAgnes]

Ray_Scheel:

This statement of yours is uncomfortably close to the heretical position that the Eucharist is not fully present in either species by itself. As far as the symbolism goes, just the cup on the altar is suffficient for the assembly to see the Eucharist in both species - there is no need for it to be available under both forms for the sign to be complete. What was a “small error” (a liturgical abuse) is in danger of growing into a “great one” (heresy).

Be careful … I did not imply that at all! :tsktsk: You had better re-read what I wrote!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

MaryAgnes:

There is a major difference in having a Mass in an auditorium for 2000 and a Mass for hundreds of thousands! Think about it.

Mary Agnes, I’m all with you on the “more complete sign” thing and I receive the Most Precious Blood from the chalice every Sunday. This gathering, however, was patently too large for the Most Precious Blood to be offered in reasonable hope of safety. The directive of the Holy See should have prevailed in this instance and even if His Eminence had seen fit offer the Most Precious Blood under Its Own Species, he still should not have consecrated It in those flagons! That is expressly forbidden. He should have simply put all of the chalices that were needed on the Altar, which then, at least, should have induced him to say, “Hmmmmm, maybe this group is too big to receive both species. I can’t see the top of the Altar!”

 

[MaryAgnes]

JKirkLVNV:

No, she was correct. The language of the Pope and the Magisterium in the Catechism refer to the reception under both species as a “more complete sign.” The same Catechism affirms that Our Lord is fully present in both species, however.

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.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

MaryAgnes:

Be careful … I did not imply that at all! :tsktsk: You had better re-read what I wrote!

Please accept my apologies for misinterpreting your intent.

 

[fix]

MaryAgnes:

Be careful with your wording, please. Mother Angelica, who is NOT a member of the magisterium OR an official teaching authority of the Church, OR a theologian, perceived Cardinal Mahoney’s pastoral letter to water down the Eucharist. She then told the Catholics in LA (via her TV show) they should render no obedience to the Cardinal, their Bishop!
Her public remarks–because Cardinal Mahoney IS an official member of the magisterium, IS a Bishop and has the AUTHORITY to teach–caused great scandal. **For that reason ** she was ordered to render a public apology, which as is obvious here, never takes back the damage done.

Do you have a transcript? I seem to have some recollection of that show and I think she said if she were in that diocese her obedience would be zero. I do not recall her telling others to be disobedient.

 

[fix]

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.

By what authority do you claim this?

Remember: The Pharisees followed the rules.

Remember clericalism is no virtue.

 

[MaryAgnes]

JKirkLVNV:

Mary Agnes, I’m all with you on the “more complete sign” thing and I receive the Most Precious Blood from the chalice every Sunday. This gathering, however, was patently too large for the Most Precious Blood to be offered in reasonable hope of safety. The directive of the Holy See should have prevailed in this instance and even if His Eminence had seen fit offer the Most Precious Blood under Its Own Species, he still should not have consecrated It in those flagons! That is expressly forbidden. He should have simply put all of the chalices that were needed on the Altar, which then, at least, should have induced him to say, “Hmmmmm, maybe this group is too big to receive both species. I can’t see the top of the Altar!”

And I understand where you are coming from, and clearly understand the directive and agree with it too! Still, **WHO ** is responsible for determining when the gathered assembly is “too large?” We are dealing with a subjective term here. The directive is clear:

Redemptionis Sacramentum [101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.

Cardinal Mahoney IS in fact the Diocesan Bishop–it was his call.

 

[MaryAgnes]

fix:

Do you have a transcript? I seem to have some recollection of that show and I think she said if she were in that diocese her obedience would be zero. I do not recall her telling others to be disobedient.

You are probably right. However, given the good Mother’s public following … is there REALLY a difference?? The bottom line is that HER Bishop ordered her to apologize–not because of what she “thought” about the Cardinal’s pastoral letter, but because **she caused scandal ** in the Church!

 

[Sgt_Sweaters]

MaryAgnes:

Cardinal Mahoney IS in fact the Diocesan Bishop–it was his call.

You’re right. But it was also his call to consecrate the wine in flagons. This is illicit.

MaryAgnes:

You are probably right. However, given the good Mother’s public following … is there REALLY a difference??

Yes.

 

[hilde_the_dog]

Not so fast please explain to new members and visitors the problems. And in the title quote I hope that was not Mahony or he needs a basic refresher course in english - should it not be “are” instead of “is”.

 

[fix]

MaryAgnes:

You are probably right. However, given the good Mother’s public following … is there REALLY a difference?? The bottom line is that HER Bishop ordered her to apologize–not because of what she “thought” about the Cardinal’s pastoral letter, but because **she caused scandal ** in the Church!

And I think she did apologize out of obedience and that was a good example of obedience that many of our bishops and cardinals should learn from. They are supposed to be here to serve after all.

 

[MaryAgnes]

fix:

And I think she did apologize out of obedience and that was a good example of obedience that many of our bishops and cardinals should learn from. They are supposed to be here to serve after all.

She did apologize–strictly out of obedience. I applaud her for at least that. And I graciously applaud our bishops and cardinals for all the love and service they give to God and all God’s people! :clapping:

 

[netmilsmom]

MaryAgnes:

She did apologize–strictly out of obedience. I applaud her for at least that. And I graciously applaud our bishops and cardinals for all the love and service they give to God and all God’s people! :clapping:

Read here about the debate…
losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/1998/0198ms.htm

What Mahony said in his pastoral was amazingly wrong.

" Debate with Mother Angelica
Sept 18, 2004
Late last year Mother Angelica became involved in a debate with Cardinal Mahony, the Archbishop of Los Angeles, as the result of comments she made about a new directive the cardinal issued on September 4, 1997 - the Feast of Our Lady of the Angels.

(5 January 2001) The directive - “Gather Faithfully Together” - was issued as a guide for Sunday Mass for the Los Angeles archdiocese to be implemented by the year 2000.

Mother Angelica said that the document placed too much emphasis on the community and not nearly enough on the Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the consecrated species. In fact, the Jesus Presence par excellence, the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, appears to be noted only by numeric reference to a section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is not mentioned directly anywhere in the 30+ page document, an apparent oversight that creates a very confusing picture of the celebration of Jesus’ eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood, particularly to the faithful for whom the directive was intended.

Mother Angelica initially urged the Catholics of Los Angeles to ignore the Cardinal’s directive, then later apologized after the Cardinal demanded she do so. She apologized for overstepping her bounds but then systematically found theological problems with several sections of the Cardinal’s new directive. On hearing of this, the Cardinal apparently appealed to the Vatican in December asking for her removal as the head of EWTN."

Mother Angelica stated that she would not obey this directive and hoped that those in the LA diocese would have zero tolerance. I can hope the same thing. That doesn’t mean that she said, “Anyone under Mahony should directly disobey anything he says.”

I believe that she overstepped her boundries but if you get to read her apology letter it is with style and grace. She is a class act. God Bless her! If it wasn’t for EWTN, we would still be stuck in “Happy Catholic Land” singing Kumbaya and holding hands.
Who knew that a little nun with moxie could change our lives so much!!!

 

[Scotty_PGH]

MaryAgnes:

ROFL!
I thought the same thing … you had the chutzpah to say it!

Ah, but all that really matters is the “Spirit” of the thread title.

Remember, the Pharisees used good grammar.