Remember the whole kerfuffle about fewer opportunities for Communion under both kinds? The Diocese of Phoenix and the Diocese of Madison set new policies which bring distribution of Communion under both kinds (CUBK, for short) into line with the new GIRM. That means, there will be fewer occasions for distribution under both kinds.
At the time this started to be an issue, the Diocese of Phoenix related that there was an “Indult” to expand opportunities for CUBK which had expired. Apparently there was some confusion about the that expired indult, which actually dealt with cleansing of the sacred vessels, rather than CUBK. The permission for CUBK was conflated with that indult for lay people to cleanse vessels. The expiration of the indult was mistaken for expiration of wider permission of CUBK.
It seems that both the Dioceses of Phoenix and of Madison have revised their statements, though they have not revised their policies. In other words, they are basing their arguments on another foundation. That foundation is legitimate, but the argument is different.
The revised statement from the Diocese of Phoenix is here. Far more interesting and forthright is the statement of the Diocese of Madison’s Office of Worship, which is here, and here is an excerpt (my emphases):
b. The reports from the Phoenix Diocese concerning the expiration of an indult regarding Communion under both kinds seem to have been mistaken. I have contacted the USCCB Secretariat for Divine Worship regarding this. While there was permission granted to the US Bishops for Communion under both kinds on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation (October 13, 1984), there was no time limit noted in the decree on file in the USCCB. My assumption is that this somehow was confused with another indult (regarding the purification of sacred vessels by EMHC) that expired and was not renewed around that same time. Unfortunately the internet has perpetuated this to the point that it is considered to be true, even though there is evidence to the contrary.
Okay! Let’s therefore set that record straight!
However, the bottom line remains that GIRM 283 says that the diocesan bishop determines the norms for CUBK. In the cases of both Phoenix and of Madison, the bishops have made determinations about CUBK according as they see conditions in the respective dioceses which is precisely what bishops ought to do.
I am guessing this will hardly assuage those who think that bishops should make any policies about CUBK or that the Church should place any conditions for or frequency of CUBK. They will spout about their rights and the ancient Christians and fuller signs and more people actively participating and the like. We have heard their arguments. A change in the grounding of the change in diocesan policies doesn’t make their arguments any stronger.
If they are worried about greater active participation and sign value of the Eucharist and how meaningful it all is to them, I recommend to them, priests and lay people alike, that they reflect also on the frequency of their use of the Sacrament of Penance before receiving Communion in any manner. If they are not in the state of grace when they receive, they receive no graces from the Sacrament and they actually commit the mortal sin of sacrilege. Reception of Communion should be about grace, not about their personal views – set against those of the Church’s laws – about their right to have “the wine” or “the cup”.
To my mind, even in the face of some of the confusion about the basis for restriction of CUBK, this dust up has brought to the fore the need for greater discernment about what the proper dispositions are for reception of Holy Communion and then care that there be no profanation of the Eucharist.
In spite of the fact that there were missteps in the explanations for the decisions made – missteps corrected – a fair consideration of the motives of the Dioceses of Phoenix and of Madison must lead people back to the conclusion that the bishops want to promote greater care of and reverence for the Eucharist and its celebration, and therefore the souls of those entrusted to them.
Loading ...
The issue is not CUBK. It is lay extraordinary ministers of holy communion being used at Mass.
The real question that no one seems to address is the document ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIEST found at this link:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html
The controversial paragraph is in Article 8 and reads:
To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:
— extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;
— association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;
— the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful”.
This document was signed in forma specifica by JPII, meaning it is one of the Roman Pontiff’s highest laws, and witnessed by 8 dicasteries…….a HUGE statement as to the gravity of the message.
Yet here we are in the USA 15 years later, and no one has heard a peep about it. My money is on the fact that it is still being “studied” by American bureaucrats (in effect killing the legislation).
The GIRM calls for CUBK. As you state the Bishop has the right to regulate his liturgy contrary to the GIRM. Bishop McGrath does this very thing in San Jose. He has everyone stand during the entire Eucharistic Prayer, Consecration and everything. I get around this because I have his permission in writing to kneel where the GIRM says to kneel. I have often wondered if a Bishop has a legitmate right to call an audabel at the line of scrimage. Appearently he does
Extraordinary ministers should be, well, extraordinary. I am a bit militant about receiving only from a priest or deacon (and only on the tongue)
Careful with this argument. The easy rejoinder from “the other side” is, “how about the Extraordinary Form?”
(This is Tifoso–I put in my real first name=Louis ;) )
Ezra, excellent point….although one could say, but the Extraordinary Form is used in a much smaller # of Masses than the OF, so it proves my point :D
Changed it back to Tifoso….(Louis seems to confuse the system a bit)….you guys all call me Louis or Lou, though. (Sorry for the OT )
As a card carrying member of “The other side” let me say Ut Unum Sint” An extraordinary encyclical
by an extraordinary pope of christian unity!
OK last one. I have changed it to Louis OblOSB=Louis=Tifoso
Last OT, I promise :)
By the way, it would be worth a plane ticket just be there when they break out the Chalices on Corpus Christie in Phoenix.
I’m glad that they got cleared up that there was no indult affecting Communion Under Both Kinds that expired. As in the past, the diocesan bishop can set his own policies* on when both kinds can be offered – or delegate the decison to pastors. Nothing requires a bishop to change any existing policy unless he wants to do it.
I thought this was the most encouraging part of the Madison meno:
*except for the few specific cases specified in the GIRM
The issue is not CUBK.
I disagree. It very much is an issue that we should look into and examine whether or not this practice promotes the reverent reception of Christ.
That issue has been discussed and decided in many documents over the past 50 years. The current statement, which has received the recognitio of the Vatican, is in 19 to 21 of the USCCB Norms.
My first pastor after ordination warned me of the dangers inherent in being “more Catholic than the church,” and that admonition has served me very well. Had these two ordinaries been similarly wise they would not have had to go through this embarrassing situation.
RichR said,
It is covered in #28 of the USCCB Norms, which have received the recognito of the Vatican
Also in #24
FrJim, by the grace of God His Excellency Robert Morlino is bishop of Madison and not yourself, and not embarrassed to be Catholic and to exercise his authority as bishop for the good of his diocese! I am just home from hearing him speak to UW Madison students about “Angels and Demons”. It included catechesis on the forms of demonic activity and exorcism. He said that for 50 years Satan has convinced the Church that exorcism is something pretend and we have not had exorcists, and Satan has wreaked havoc for 50 years. That is changing, he said. In our diocese. It was a powerful talk from a Bishop unembarrassed to be Catholic. The talk he gave tonight will save souls, and students were advised that if they had anything they needed to talk about as a result of the Bishop’s presentation, that they could speak to the pastors at any time and they would be available to talk as long as needed. The pastors are ones who will be of suitable assistance. In a couple nights is the infamous downtown Madison “Freakfest” Halloween drunken street party. I understand the timing of the Bishop’s talk is not at all coincidental.
Then they announced an All Souls Day Requiem Mass to be celebrated by Bishop Morlino. The Bishop said he had only attended one Requiem Mass in his life.
There is also greater sign value in receiving from a priest. Mass is a Sacrifice, Holy Communion is a sacrificial banquet, a participation in the Sacrifice offered. This is more clearly seen when Holy Communion is received from the hands of the priest through whose ministration the Sacrifice was offered.
In my opinion, the use of EMHCs cancels out (if I may quantify the unquantifiable) any net increase in sign value.
In fact I would argue that it drops it even lower. If communion is offered under only one species, at least all the people see the very large and visible chalice which they know contains the Precious Blood under the appearance of wine and which they all see the priest drink. Therefore, the sign of the Precious Blood under the appearance of wine is quite evident. Therefore, I do not think that communion under one species actually in any way obscures the sign value of the Precious Blood under the appearance of wine.
On the other hand, an army of EMHCs, in my personal opinion, actually obscures the sign value of the priest as the representative of Christ who offers himself to God and feeds his people with his own Body and Blood. A group of 10 people distributing Communion, wherein one of the 10 is a priest, does not very well show for forth the symbolism that Christ, the Sacrificing Priest, represented in the person of the priest, comes to feed the sheep of his flock.
You can make an argument that so long as the priest actually hands each EMHC the vessel from which they distribute, the sign is somewhat protected; however, I wonder if this is enough. Indeed everyone knows that the priest confected the Sacrament, just as everyone knows that the priest received the Precious Blood in Mass with Communion under one kind. However, now we are not just not having both species at the moment of Holy Communion. Those who receive from an EMHC are not just not receiving from a priest, they are actually receiving from someone who is not a priest. When people who are not priests outnumber people who are priests, so that most people are receiving from people who are not priests, it seems to me to positively obscure the symbolism of Holy Communion as a participation in the Sacrifice offered by the priest and the symbolism of the priest as a representative of Christ who feeds his flock.
I am not in any way trying to criticize those who, in their generosity, are EMHCs; I am only asking whether we might be mistaken in thinking that Communion under both kinds is a sufficient reason to employ them (or at least to employ armies of them).
Conclusion:
Communion under one form = Sign value at time of Communion is simply not emphasized but is emphasized in the Mass itself.
Communion under both species with and army of lay EMHCs = Sign value at time of Communion is positively (even if not intentionally) de-emphasized, but it is still emphasized in the Mass itself.
Some Quick Pointers on the Memorandum From the Office of Worship of the Diocese of Madison
*Patrick Gorman is not a priest. His is the Diocesan Choir Director and Director of the Office of Worship http://www.madisondiocese.org/Ministry/DiocesanChoir/OurDirectorOrganist.aspx
*In regards to EMHC and CUBK, Dr. Gorman makes it clear that he is speaking in no official capacity but only giving his thoughts. His thoughts are not diocesean policy, regardless of them being good or bad.
*Dr. Gorman says that he has not spoken to Bp. Morlino recently and that his thoughts are only based on past discussions.
*Dr. Gorman says that he is only assuming about the indult issue. The Phoenix Diocese and the Madison Diocese need to clarify this issue in an official capacity. Dr. Gorman references a 1984 document while Msgr. Holmes references a 1975 document.
—-
As others have pointed out, there seems to be a conflation of issues going on.
1.) The usage of EMHCs.
2.) CUBK
GIRM #283 is not envisioning the usage of EMHC — it is discussing ordinary circumstances when there is a sufficient number of ordinary ministers. If we notice with 283, it views that the laity normally receive only ONE Species but the Diocesan Bishop is given the facility to permit Communion under both kinds when 1.) The Priest to whom a community has been entrusted finds it appropriate AND THE FOLLOWING CONDITION IS MET A1.) the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament AND A2.) the rite doesn’t become difficult because of the large number of participants or for some other cause.
NOTE: Having a large number of laity at the Mass is actually cause not to have Communion under both species even when there is a sufficent number of ordinary ministers if it makes things difficult.
Many people mistakenly think that the greater number of laity the greater number of EMHCs is needed. That is not really the case. Redemptonis sacramentum only envisions one instance of using EMHCs: when the celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.
SOME QUESTION THAT HELP CLARIFY THINGS
1.) Does the usage of EMHC necessitate CUBK? No.
2.) Does CUBK necessitate the usage of EMHC? No.
3.) In a Mass with less than “a great number of the faithful”, with only one priest and no deacon, should EMHCs be used? No. Redemptionis sacramentum 158
4. Should EMHC be used to achieve CUBK given a Mass with less than “a great number of the faithful”, with only one priest and no deacon? First the priest, himself, may give CUBK using one of the various legitimate means for doing so, but GRIM 283 will requires him not to if it makes the rite difficult. Second, EMHC are not to be habitual and normative at Mass, this means that a EMHC shouldn’t be used just for CUBK. Ecclesiæ de mysterio Article 8 § 2; Redemptionis sacramentum, 151. Thirdly, the norms don’t tie CUBK to EMHC — I have never seen any indication that a priest may call upon a EMHC if he desires CUBK. Fourthly, EMHC are not extraordinary ministers of the chalice — that is while the norms discuss EMHC in terms of holding the chalice, the norms do not envision the purpose of the EMHC as being used when there is no deacon present. THUS I see no reason that EMHC should be used to achieve CUBK.
AN IMPORTANT OVERLOOKED POINT
In no way shape or form should it be possible to confuse an EMHC with an ordinary minister. A non-Christian who knows nothing, when viewing the Mass, should be able to easily tell who is a minister and who is not. If EMHCs are anywhere near the sanctuary, especially in it, prior to the laity receiving Communion, they look like ordinary ministers. This can be underscored by using EMHC and not praying for vocations at that Mass as Redemptionis sacramentum 151 instructs. EMHC do not belong as a normative part of the Mass and their usage indicates that the parish is unhealthy from either the pastor being injured or infirm or there simply not being enough vocations.
@frjim4321
The desire to limit EMHC and CUBK is not drawn from a sense of legalism. It is not because the GIRM says so or a bishop says so, but because we notice that there is a problem with what we are seeing at Mass.
As a lay member of the Church, the more I study the issues of EMHC, the more I can articulate the sense of the disjoint at what I am seeing at Mass, and the more I feel that my rights as a lay member of the Church are being stepped on.
The Church is not just about what the clerics do — the laity do have distinctive and unique roles in the Church and her worship and the more I understand the problems with EMHC and abuses surrounding them, the more I find that my role as a lay member of the Church devalued and diminished.
I am not writing this to shoot you down, just to let you know that Bp. Morlino is protecting my rights as a lay member of Christ’s Church in a way that my parish priest is not.
A sheepish nod to jhayes, who was right all along. I am still flabbergasted that the Phoenix chancery would botch the indult issue so badly. This is the first legitimate negative news I have ever heard regarding Bp. Olmsted and his leadership, and it still appears to be less a misstep by him than an oversight by one of his subordinates.
That said, friend, your #24 is the best thing I’ve ever read in any of your posts. Bps. Olmsted and Morlino may be critiqued for the mistaken impressions given about the phantom indult, but not legitimately so for the limitation of the use of the cup. With regard to the “obscuring of the role of the priest and the deacon” – particularly the priest – well, yes, the overproliferation of EMHCs does that, and so that’s a good reason to limit the distribution of the cup. But the greater risk of obscuring, and thus the even more pressing reason not to overdistribute the cup, comes from CUBK itself. When Jesus said “take and eat,” and “take and drink,” He was talking to the disciples as priests (cf. the Last Supper as the institution of the priesthood). We as Catholics can rest assured in this, from the CUOK practice of nearly a century in the Latin Church and the infallibly stated doctrine of concomitance. If we read Jesus’ words as referring literally to CUBK, not only would this delegitimate Latin rite Cathoicism, but it would thus also be wrong of the Church to give out Hosts, whether on the tongue or in the hand, as opposed to passing around the ciborium, because by the former method, the faithful are not “taking and eating.” CUOK safeguards a secure sense of the Church’s history as well as teaching (“lex orandi, lex credendi”) infallible Catholic doctrine on the ordained/lay distinction.
And as others have said before, CUOK is great pastoral care for those suffering from celiac disease, as the distribution solely under the appearance of bread for most of the faithful makes clear for them when they can only receive under the appearance of wine that they have received the fullness of Christ.
Two points: First, I do think that a “great number of the Faithful” can – happily – attend a Holy Mass habitually. Needless to say that there is a limit for EMHCs then still. In a parish with good attendance, four ministers in all for the main Sunday Mass, two for other Sunday Masses, and two for extraordinary weekdays (I think of cases such as a regular university students’ Mass, etc. – certainly not normal weekdays) should be within reasonable limits. It does not fit the shape (though the letter) of the Ordinary Form if Holy Communion takes longer that ten minutes, or fifteen in very long Masses such as on Christmas.
As to Communion under both kinds, I wonder about the certain grudge apparently held among non-liberal (American sense of the word) Catholics. I wonder. Yes, communion by bread alone suffices, nor are we under divine precept to do CUBK, as the Church infallibly teaches and reverend @FrAWeidner makes clear to us. In fact the main reason for Communion under one kind, today, seems to me fighting the perception that those who also communicate under the species of wine “get more”. Which theoretically could be done by preaching also. But besides that, what basically is the problem with a form of Communion which is the fuller sign and which has not been forbidden by Jesus Christ either?
Arguments against CUBK: 1. It is an indult for America (apparently), while the rest of the Catholic Church still, though with a couple of exceptions, most notably Maundy Thursday, has Communion under bread alone.
2. It does not fit the shape of the Extraordinary Form. Don’t ask me why. But this is my perception.
Wrong arguments against CUBK:
1. We need not communicate under the shape of poison.
2. We have to fight alongside the temperance movement.
3. We do not know why Christ chose wine as well, and though we do what we he ordered us to do, we personally disagree with the decision.
And though the “hygienical argument” has a high reputation, I personally consider it a bit, well, hygienical, clinically clean, you know.
Positive arguments for Communion under one kind: “We could say that the Precious Blood of Christ – which, as we know, is not distributed” in general “to the layfolk in the Roman Rite, somewhat flows into the confessionary where the sins are forgiven.” This beautiful thought of Father Bernhard Deneke FSSP somewhat fulfils the need of a positive meaning for a law that in its origin was “only” an anti-heretical action, which in itself, even if necessary, is only regrettably necessary.
By the way, I’ve sometimes thought that the little number of deacons in Masses, i. e. of ordinary ministers, was the origin of Communion under one kind.
frjim4321 You are a man after my own heart. I don’t see that the problem with EMHC is solved by being more catholic than every other diocese in the United States. it’s solved by the bishop disciplining his priests.
In my parish, CUBK is the norm, and the use of EMHCs is the norm, to the number, at the Mass I attend, of 10-12. I d0 my best to always receive form the priest, on the tongue. I do not take the precious blood, which is always in the hands of an EMHC.
I am routinely disturbed to see that the EMHCs receive in the apse (some allowances must be made for description of location, in this very moderne church), apart from the rest of the faithful.
It is my view that the phrase “great number of the Faithful” is a great failing in the GIRM. Some metric ought to be substituted for this almost meaningless phrase. Since at my Mass the number of the faithful is generally 500-700, then if we have priest, deacon, and 12 EMHCs, then 100 faithful per server (14/2 for CUBK) we must assume to be a “great number of the Faithful”???
<>
So there’s only permission for CUBK on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation and not every single day of the week, which is what occurs in most parishes in this Archdiocese?
{US Bishops for Communion under both kinds on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation (October 13, 1984),}
So there’s only permission for CUBK on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation and not every single day of the week, which is what occurs in most parishes in this Archdiocese?
Sorry, I didn’t know that using pointy brackets to quote would lead to it think they were html tags. I wasn’t paying attention.
Imrahil, there is no Indult. The GIRM provision that a diocesan bishop can authorize Communion under both forms is universal. For example, here is the relevant text of the GIRM in Italian, as it would be used in Italy:
FrAWeidner said,
I agree completely that each bishop has the right to do whatever he believes is best about distributing communion under both kinds. He can say that it will be limited to special occasions, just as, at the other extreme, Baltimore can say that “Holy Communion under both kinds is to be considered normative. Parishes that do not currently offer Communion under the species of wine should implement this practice.”
Since very few parishes have enough priests or deacons to distribute Communion under both forms without involving EMHCs, each bishop has to weigh the relative advantages of distributing under both kinds frequently or rarely.
1. Some laypersons will feel strongly that the bishop should permit frequent distribution of Communion under both kinds in order to provide the “more complete form as a sign”
2. Other laypersons will feel equally strongly that the bishop should restrict distribution under both kinds to avoid “obscuring the role of the priest and deacon”
3. Many laypersons will not be troubled by whatever decision the bishop makes.
I think it’s OK for laypersons to argue their point of view to the bishop. so that he can get a sense of what would be most fruitful for them in developing their faith. In the end, it is the bishop who gets to decide – or individual pastors if he delegates to them.
One thing that I find troubling is the tendency of people on both sides to say that their point of view is the only possible one – or to claim that the bishop must decide in their favor because some document favors their view.
My sense is that that the GIRM and the USCCB Norms have carefully avoided taking sides on this issue. Note that even in #24, it waffles by saying “the need to avoid obscuring… might in some circumstances constitute a reason…for limiting the distribution ” rather than by saying that it is a reason to limit distribution.
“Unfortunately the internet has perpetuated this to the point that it is considered to be true, even though there is evidence to the contrary.”
Ahem! What did most to perpetuate that myth, Mr. Gorman, was not “the internet” all by itself, but the widely-circulated statement of your colleague Msgr. Kevin Holmes that “the widespread American practice of offering both species at most Sunday Masses began here under an indult (special permission) given by the Vatican in 1975, which expired in 2005. Almost no one realized that until very recently.”
It seems to me that Fr. Z’s post lacked what I would have
hoped was a sense of embarassment about how these
bishops got the pretext for this wrong. Whether or not
they have the right to do it, this cannot inspire confidence
in their leadership. Absent this correction and given enough
time, a layman like me would have mailed his local diocese
asking why the bishop was not faithfully responding to the
expiration of the indult as his brother bishops were.
@Speravi:
“There is also greater sign value in receiving from a priest. Mass is a Sacrifice, Holy Communion is a sacrificial banquet, a participation in the Sacrifice offered. This is more clearly seen when Holy Communion is received from the hands of the priest through whose ministration the Sacrifice was offered.”
I agree. I actually would like to receive communion under both Species, however, wherever I attend Mass, the Precious Blood is always administered by extraordinary ministers and I simply cannot bring myself to receive Holy Communion from…just some guy or woman. In a hospital environment, sure. That’s one thing. As I see matters, in fact, the role of EMHC is one of service; it is not and should not be considered a liturgical role.
Eucharistic reception under both species is, I think, an excellent idea and a praiseworthy one. But it ought to be considered that it is a practice that need not prevail in circumstances in which it is not convenient: i.e., when there are no ordained persons available to distribute it. It doesn’t have to feature at every Mass.
I once saw an Episcopal communion service at which the persons in attendance knelt at the rail (yes, knelt at the rail) for the bread and remained for the wine, which the celebrant distributed all by himself after distributing the bread. Obviously this was a very small group–an intimate weekday setting–and that seemed to me to be the right setting under which to distribute Communion under both kinds. In such a setting, the priest would distribute under both kinds, in turn, making the Communion experience a very beautiful and rich one.
In that setting, I see Holy Communion under both species made delightful. In the setting of a busy Sunday Mass at a local suburban parish at which the Precious Blood is distributed by often badly-trained laypersons, however, I have to say I find the practice unseemly. But as I have said, I find the extraordinary minister as liturgical office unseemly, altogether.
Holy Communion under both species is a beautiful thing. Retain it by all means, but get rid of the extraordinary ministers and, dear celebrants, just distribute it yourself (in situations at which there are no other clergy available to do so). Will it take longer? I doubt it, actually. When extraordinary ministers are employed, everyone has to wait for all of them to emerge from their pews and gather at the altar to communicate, first, in their own little show, before the communication of the faithful can even begin. I wonder that pastors cannot see how unfitting this exclusive pre-communication of the EMHCs is, how unseemly it appears. It invariably gives a worshipper the impression that these several worshippers are holier than thou (particularly when they have for themselves reserved the front pews).
The EMHC ought to be eliminated from the liturgy, except under extraordinary circumstances under which it actually does make sense (I can’t conceive of any, off the top of my head). Send them out to the hospitals and special care homes and to shut-ins, where they belong, but take them off the altar.
Communion under both kinds, retain, but employ the practice wisely, in appropriate and fitting settings.
To be honest, in my opinion, CUBK has resulted in confusion. When offered, I receive both. I also recognize that receiving the Consecrated Host, even a quarter of The Host, in a state of grace, is receiving all of Jesus, and is full communion. What bothers me most is when CUBK is offered, so many receive the Body of Christ, then shuffle without recognition or reverence past the Blood of Christ. I guess that’s what bothers me most, as opposed to increased reverence of Our Lord, it seems to have increased the opportunity of indifference to the very real presence of Our Lord in His Precious Blood.
Cathy,
I never receive the Blood of Christ, as I refuse to accept the Body or Blood from an extraordinary minister. Many traditionals only accept from the priest. That is why you see this phenomenon.
Dr. Gorman’s statement of the existance of a 1984 document pertaining to CUBK doesn’t refute Msgr. Holmes’ statement about the existance of a 1975 document pertaining to CUBK. It is quite possible that both documents could exist.
Given that Dr. Gorman could have very easily walked from his office to Msgr. Holmes’ office and asked “what document are you refering to?” or “did you make a mistake?” indicates to me that we need to be careful about jumping to conclusions in the other direction. We simply do not know what Msgr. Holmes was refering to. Further, do note that Dr. Gorman is stating that he is assuming, is what he thinks, and that he hasn’t had any conversation with Bp. Morlino on this topic recently — which given the amount of “assumings” and “I thinks” in the document that the last conversation should have been prior to any questions that were raised about CUBK from Msgr. Holmes’ statement.
SOME POINTS TO KEEP IN MIND:
1.) What is Msgr. Holmes referencing when he talks about a 1975 document?
2.) What is the October 13, 1984 document referenced by Dr. Gorman and the USCCB Secretariate for Divine Worship? I believe that this is Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship Prot. CD 1297/78, though I cannot find this online.
3.) Prot. CD 1297/78 is the result of contentious issues surrounding CUBK and the then NCCB violation of norms surrounding CUBK. To my understanding Prot. CD 1297/78 basically normalized the abnormalities given that certain conditions were met via an indult.
4.) The Diocese of Phoenix’s statement, which Fr. Z referenced, doesn’t indicate any document or date other than noting that since 1985 there have been 14 instances in the GRIM when CUBK could be offered.
5.) “How should EMHC be used?” is a different question from “Should CUBK be normative?”. First, while it is perfectly legitimate to argue either for or against on the normalicy of CUBK, it is not legitimate to argue that EMHC should be normative. Even if CUBK is normative, that doesn’t make EMHC normative. The Diocese of Phoenix and Madison are not addressing the EMHC, who should always be non-normative but rather the normalicy of CUBK. Moving to CUOK should cause EMHC to be brought into line but that is not the reason for moving to CUOK.
Supertradmom,
That’s what is so sad. Why you may see it as protest against a change in tradition, Our Lord is still fully present in His Precious Blood and is still worthy at every moment of our reverence and gratitude and worship.
Lurker 59 says:
“Dr. Gorman’s statement of the existance of a 1984 document pertaining to CUBK doesn’t refute Msgr. Holmes’ statement about the existance of a 1975 document pertaining to CUBK. It is quite possible that both documents could exist.”
That’s possible, but doubtful. If it existed, it would have been located after its existence became a central point in this controversy, and the coincidence of an indult that fits the bill in everything (timing, expiry, denial of renewal) except substance makes it very likely that the latter was confused for the former.
Interview with Fr. Richard Hilgartner, executive director of the Office of Divine Worship at the USCCB. He mentions the 1984 Indult.
I’d pay good money to know who’s side Jesus is on in all of this