And now, Madison

Following upon recent developments in the Diocese of Phoenix, the diocese of Madison, Wisconsin, has announced that it too will drastically reduce the number of occasions on which Communion from the Cup is offered to the laity. There will be time to get used to it, but–significantly, I think–it is being linked to the launch of the new translation of the Roman Missal.

They present the Communion shift as a requirement and a necessity, with no mention that the bishop can choose to do otherwise. I guess they haven’t read the GIRM? Or perhaps they don’t think anyone else will.

Share:

63 comments

  1. Interesting news. The article, by intimating that they have no choice in the matter, also implies that other dioceses should follow suit: “all over the United States, we now find ourselves needing to bring our practice into conformity with current regulations (and with the rest of the world).

    Why not, indeed? The US bishops did not complain when the responsibility for the texts of the Antiphons was taken over by Rome instead of requiring their votes for approval first. They accepted the Vox Clara version of the new missal, with all of its changes compared to what they had submitted, without raising objections. There is no reason to think that they won’t go along with this “interpretation” of the rules as well.

  2. Today, with the Old Testament and Gospel readings proclaiming the coming banquet—choice meat and wine, the wedding feast of the king—I listened to the songs selected, and how jubilantly they used the image of the shared cup. In Phoenix and Madison, these songs will make no sense, without Psalm 137 as a coda. When I get overwhelmed with fear and despair for the future of our church, at least there is some consolation that at the heavenly banquet, where I hope to see everyone from the communion lines at today’s 9:00 AM mass, our joy will be complete. May that image sustain us through the nonsense of the present.

  3. If I recall, Madison has also reined in preaching by deacons, saying it should only happen on special occasions and not as a part of a regular preaching rota.

    1. Actually, now that I check, it was bishop Sample of Marquette, not Morlino.

      Must be something in the cheese.

    2. Re: #3 by F C Bauerschmidt on October 9, 2011 – 3:21 pm

      I find the denial of diaconal ministry just as disturbing as the removal of the cup.

      The Madison diocese’s decision to greatly restrict the preaching of deacons reminds me of the deep suspicion of permanent deacons in some EF circles. A good number of EF Catholics do not want married deacons to minister at all in the older rites. I’m not sure why. The SSPX is dead-set against any clerical marriage, so there might be some cross currents there. I’m 200% pro-married presbyterate, so I certainly don’t have a problem with married deacons!

      I will say that some married deacons have not had proper homiletic training, at least from my pew perspective. Poor preaching is a question of formation and not Orders. The answer is continuing formation for deacons and not the denial of ministry.

      Why do I get the suspicion that the denial of the cup in Phoenix and now restrictions on deacons in the Madison diocese is a way for some bishops to enhance their traditional liturgical cred? In my view, true “traditional” credibility is a knowledge of Catholic history, a solid grounding in exegesis, philology and philosophy, but also a willingness to allow for evolution. The last is hardest, especially for recovering traditionalists like me. Donning baroque vestments and pining for an imaginary counter-reformation candyland is not only anachronistic but also damaging to the just need for the Sacrament.

    3. Our Deacon preaches once a month. Last Sunday was his turn and he gave us two relatively funny jokes to start off the homily. I would yank his license to preach for incompetence. He has been given a privilege to proclaim the Word not to enhance his reputation as a stand-up comic.

      In every other way he is a fine person, but he hits the pulpit and judgement goes out the window. Oh, he recycles jokes too.

      1. I would yank his license to preach for incompetence.

        I might be inclined to do the same, though I be inclined to do it for presbyters as well. Bishops. . . well, they preach by virtue of their apostolic office, so there’s not a lot you can do about them.

      2. In his parables, Jesus used provocative, ambiguous, often outrageous elements to alert the hearers’ attention before presenting them with his message.

        Don’t be so po faced!

  4. How sad. Another step backward, but, hey, let’s keep lay people in their place!I will try to keep Ralph’s vision in mind, but isn’t heaven supposed to start here?

  5. Oft, tired of labour never bearing fruit,
    I think how, with an unsuspected flight,
    Allowed by grace which rarely breaks the night,
    The soul at once extends its mighty wings,
    Inerrantly creating beauteous things,
    And then the breath is stopped before the face!-

    Really, is this the best my church has to offer? Is this the best bishop Morlino has to offer?

    How about the best Chrysostom has to offer : “He retires not, but remains, and asks of us to drink, not water, but holiness, for ‘His holy things He gives unto the holy.’ For it is not water that He gives us from this fountain, but living blood; and it is indeed a symbol of death, but it is become the cause of life.”

    At least its only 2 of 194, but that gives little comfort now-a-days.

  6. We still don’t know if this will be a practice of the lunatic fringe or if Rome is pressuring all bishops in this way. I would agree, the lack of episcopal backbone with respect to the VC2010 does not bode well for the denial of the fullest sign of communion.

    I ask myself seriously if thirty years ago I knew the sorry state of episcopal leadership to come I would have taken this path. It’s as bad as it’s ever been and there are no signs that it will improve.

    1. Really, obviously a pointed comment toward doctors there Jeff. You need to practice what you preach about being Christian and all. I don’t recall attacking you?
      You automatically assume that we doctors and laymen will be in a worse place than bishops, a hint of clericalism there I’d say.
      Well, “shudder” no more because I think you have it backwards. If I recall Jesus ate with sinners and despised many of the self righteous religious leaders of His day.

      No need to worry where my skull will be Jeff, worry about your own.

    2. With all due respect you might feel that way Karl but I don’t. I’m in good company w/ St. John and others in scripture who used terms like vipers, back biters and on. Didn’t reflect badly on them. ( and no, I am not comparing myself or am putting myself in the same category as they are.)

    3. Well Sam, let me illuminate you.
      Bishop John Meyers secretly emailed his fellow bishops to block the sex abuse lay panel because he stated that lay people should never be able to tell a bishop what to do. Someone at the USCCB leaked the email and correspondence which went viral. Apparently protecting bishop priviledges were more important than stopping the rape of kids.
      Fabian Bruskewitz, friend of Meyers who collaborated w/ him to block the lay board. Again, rape of kids was secondary.
      Ah, Vasa of Santa Clara. Singlehandedly drove more parishoners from parishes in his diocese than any bishop prior to him. Parishoners cheered when he left his previous diocese in Baker. Significant numbers either walked away from church participation or “were forced to go to other churches, even to the point of being told their ministries were no longer needed,” said Fr. Rob Irwin. A priest of the diocese, Irwin himself sought permission to minister elsewhere last October.The directory reports an 18 percent drop in the “total students under Catholic instruction” Unheard of! Many attribute the decline to Vasa’s hard-line policies, rigid theological interpretations and what they describe as a markedly top-down leadership style short on compassion.
      And DeWane? Well, you may not agree w/ Fr. Eugene Kennedy but this is what he says about Dewane: Frank Dewane, formerly in the soft drink business, but now making a hard sell of fascist Catholicism as if he were the Doge of medieval Venice in Italy rather than just the bishop of Venice in Florida. According to John Hushon, international lawyer and former CEO of a multinational energy company, who earned a theology degree after retiring and became active in church matters, Dewane has ignored, eliminated, or condemned any activity that he cannot personally control.
      He has eliminated parish councils, ruled out women‘s participating in the liturgy in any way when he presides, assigned spy-like agents to make sure that his orders are carried out by pastors, some of whom he has imported from a religious order with which he has close ties and all of whom must subscribe to his view of Catholicism. Even parish bulletins must be cleared at the chancery. Not only has he withdrawn from all inter-faith activities and fired even volunteer church workers suspected of being “liberal.” While building a large home in a location he prefers to keep undisclosed he cut the Catholic Charities budget “for financial reasons.”
      So you may prefer censorship Sam but I don’t and I don’t think the editors do either.

    4. Sam, I almost forgot Father Z.
      The problems w/ his celebret came from his own site. He even stated that his bishop in Italy somehow mixed up or lost his papers.
      Hmmm, how convenient.
      Almost incredulous. Go look yourself if you don’t believe me.

  7. Some background about the bishop:

    http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/madisons-morlino-noted-othodoxy-controversy

    Keys:

    – “Some local Catholics became so frustrated by Morino’s leadership that they took out a $3,500 full page “open letter” ad in a local paper to express their feelings. The letter accused Morino of ignoring input of clergy and laypeople, causing a climate of fear among priests who are afraid to publicly disagree with their bishop for fear of reprisal; of firing an openly gay music director; of hiring of priests who ban female altar servers; and of the alienation of Catholics who disagree with church doctrine as Morino expresses it.”

    So, Rita, you had posted that the indult for both kinds had ended in 2005. Rome did nothing at that time, so the process is that the indult then becomes part of the standard practice and law. Phoenix, Madison, and Fr. Z state that the indult ended in 2005 and thus the practice should have ended. Where is there a good canon lawyer?

    From Fr. Z – “In The Catholic Herald of the Diocese of Madison, where the great Bishop Robert Morlino exercises oversight, there is a great article on an issue we have addressed here many times: Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion giving blessings to non-communicants.” You have to read it to believe it.

    With Olmsted – we need to look at the Martino solution.

    1. Hello Bill, yes the Martino solution…. I surmise he was canned because VP Biden was insulted by him by threatening to not open the cathedral on St. Patricks day if Biden marched in the parade. I think he gave Biden’s mother a hard time too.

      Any high ranking government official in Wisconsin and Arizona that is offended and can start complaining to the Vatican ambassador?

  8. Found it, Rita, on your new dotCommonweal post:

    “……The indult was offered to the US conference, as a whole. When it expired, it was not renewed, evidently because in the meantime the GIRM, which is universal legislation, had been updated and broadened to include the provision I quote here, which allows for the very same thing only via the diocesan bishop rather than by indult given to the conference.

    The GIRM has higher standing. The GIRM since 2002 puts communion under both forms on a regular basis within reach of any diocesan bishop, whether or not their conference has had an indult. This is not a restriction, but rather a more ample opportunity for all.”

    You might want to clue in Fr. Z and the rectors in Phoenix and Madison.

    1. Bill and Rita, good point about the GIRM. Unfortunately my experience is that priests of any “ideology” or outlook tend to either 1) not read the GIRM, or 2) look at it as an optional advisory document.

  9. The bishops may be getting themselves into deep trouble by restricting the Cup.

    Catholics can get really upset by something that affects them deeply. Just look at the people who lost their parishes. Or the people who suffered sexual abuse or became close to some one who has. Those rather small groups of people have waged deep fights against the bishops. They are more than minor annoyances.

    The much larger groups of people who disagree with the bishops about celibacy or women’s ordination have not waged really deep fights against the bishops. People care about these issues but only a few married men and women are deeply motivated to be priests even though many people may be sympathetic to these ideas. For most people these issues just do not generate the motivation that sexual abuse and parish lost generate for other people.

    Losing the Cup may have the right combination of having enough people who are really deeply affected to become a rallying point against clericalism, abuse of Episcopal authority, and the roll back of Vatican II. It could become a very symbolically charged issue. It would be strange if that happened since many people have not accepted the Cup because of health concerns. But for many people, including elderly, the Cup has become a very important part of their spiritual life.

    1. I think you could be right, but I will say that if it is limited to two diocese’ there may not be enough support to change anything. If, on the other hand, a wholesale action starts around the country, though….

      1. If there is “a wholesale action” it will simply ignite a counter-reaction. If bishops wish to define a “new normal” by currying favor in Rome, or by making the mistake of advancing the Church by becoming an extension of radical right-wing evangelicalism, still a mainstay of American political life, there
        will always be those Catholics who are going to take their vision of the Catholic Church underground. It’s been going a long time now. No major branch of Christianity has been immune from it.

        Traditionalists delude themselves thinking Anglicans are shattering into countless offshoots from Canterbury over a multitude of issues, but the same has been happening since the end of the Council and continues to happen in the Catholic Church today.

    2. I think the bishops are playing with fire on this one. Those who want to turn back the clock often accuse others of not respecting the Eucharist and/or of not believing in the Real Presence. Turning the Eucharist into a special prize for the favored is the greatest sacrilege of all.

  10. In reference to what Jack said, I wish it were true. But, alas, I think most of the poeple in the pews are now of the old PPO (pray,pay, obey) discipline then stand up and be counted. In my music ministry, out of 60 adults, I would say only 8 or 9 are rally upset about the ways things are going. I only wish I could retire now, I just am too fed up with all this “garbage’.

  11. Sorry, I forgot to say this before. I really believe this is the bishops way of limiting lay involvement. At my parish, if we did away with the cups, that would be 16 less people we would have to use on a weekend. Lets see how they start to limit the lay lectors

    1. I agree that limiting EMs is the agenda.. Lectors next I would say. 17% of Mass going laity are involved in ministry. I call them the NCOs [sergeants]. of the Church . get rid of them and you have the PPO people left .. easier to control..
      However a sergeants revolt is not off the table..

      1. Gerard, documents like Ecclesia de mysterio and Redemptionis sacramentum have been out for several years, so it does not come as a surprise to me that certain bishops or priests would prefer to reduce the number of (or the frequent recourse to) EMHCs.

        I do not know of a similar position in the Church’s documents about who should be reading the First and Second Readings at Mass. I know of the position of “Instituted Lector” and that the laity can take their place, just as the laity can take the place of the “Instituted Acolyte”. The EMHC seems to me to have been in a separate sphere of substitution.

  12. I lament!
    Have some forgotten about the universal call to holiness and the dignity of baptism? We need to continue to enhance the Church as the People of God, especially when we gather for worship.
    I am a lay, religious educator who loves liturgy enough to read and integrate the GIRM. I wish everyone did…

  13. What most saddens me is that these bishops fail to see how their decisions are turning the sacrament of our unity into a source of division.

    In my choir (Phx Diocese), I have two sopranos who are not speaking to each other because one organized a campaign to speak out against Bishop Olmsted’s decision and the other considers the first a heretic for being disobedient to the bishop.

    Listening to the discussion in my parish, those against the new norms see them in terms of division as well – dividing those who can share the cup as privileged ordained from the unworthy laity. They see the arguments of profanation and solidarity with other countries as smokescreens for the real issue: clericalism.

    1. Steve,

      Your choir story is a good example of where the bishop may be playing with fire.

      IF this issue divides parishes, that may fuel the fire. While there are plenty of people in the parishes that want to avoid conflict, there are probably far more people willing to vent their anger against fellow parish members than are willing to enter into direct conflict with their pastors or even the bishop.

      A lot of Protestant congregations have a lot of internal conflict so the potential is probably there for Catholic parishes to have much more internal conflict than is now evident. Once it gets started in may be difficult to stop.

  14. Omaha and Portland Maine are strong candidates to join Madison and Phoenix. You can almost predict the dioceses to soon follow suit. With bishops most inclined to polish off their cappa magna each day.

      1. Boy, I hope you’re wrong! But experience has told me that anything is possible under the current Ordinary!

  15. Another unfortunate aspect of this situation is the perception that speaking out will do no good. I am one of the people who organized the campaign Steve mentions in Phoenix (and yes, I’m one of the sopranos and I do hope time and reflection will cool some tempers) and while we have had a postive response from many, those same people often express resignation. They feel their signature on a petition or their letter to Bishop Olmsted’s office will be ignored. We’ve encouraged them to speak, sign, and write despite their concerns because, certainly, quiet acceptance doesn’t change anything.

    I hope other dioceses will take note and speak out in support of of those of us in Phoenix and Madison (you can find our campaign on Facebook – “Cherish the Chalice” – and I expect there will be similar efforts in Madison) as well as taking a proactive stand for themselves. I don’t know what else we can do.

    1. Sandra,

      Congratulations on your initiative! This is very important for it is a symbol of the growing clericalism that is spreading especially through many of the younger priests and bishops. Your bishop has already shown himself to be a man who regards it as a virtue to make controversial decisions in the face of great opposition. Be both charitable and insistent on being heard. You will not be excommunicated for asserting that Christ meant all of us when he said, “Take and drink this all of you.”

    2. Yes, Sandra, congratulations and God bless your efforts! If bishops and priests feel it is a matter of indifference to the faithful, they will certainly be working out of an inadequate playbook as they make their decisions. Let them know this is important to you, and not some kind of frill. The bishop may not know he needs your witness, but he surely does!

    3. Re: #28 by Sandra Gordon on October 10, 2011 – 12:55 pm

      Sandra, I respect your initiative. The laity of your diocese should have access to a non-commingled cup of the Sacred Blood at Mass, particularly because some of those present at Mass might not be able to communicate any other way.

      Please, however, be charitable and mindful of your conservative/traditional brothers and sisters who have grave reservations about the administration of the cup at Holy Communion. I’m not going to get into great detail here, but the conservative/traditional understanding of the communion rite is very different than the progressive understanding of the same liturgical act. We Catholics all share a common eucharistic theology, but often are worlds apart in liturgical ideology. Neither “side” is right. Rather, we must learn to coexist.

      I hope that there is a truly inclusive and peaceful resolution in Phoenix. In my diocese, the “high church”/Tridentine Catholics have their own parishes, and more evangelical and progressive Catholics have theirs. Balkanization is a false peace. American Catholicism should not be a reluctant union of two separate denominations. Sadly, we are well down this road in many dioceses.

  16. News update from Morlino to his priests:

    http://www.madisondiocese.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=PpigRo3O-pM%3d&tabid=81&mid=551

    Highlights:

    “The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the Priest to whom a community has been entrusted as its own shepherd, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and that there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or for some other cause (Roman Missal, 283).”

    This permission has been assumed, if not expressed directly in the past. I recognize this, and I understand fully that communion under both forms at every Mass has become common practice at some parishes.

    However, I have been told of, and have personally experienced, the reality that the provision both that the faithful be well instructed and that there be no danger of profanation of the Sacrament, is not being met. As such, while recognizing the need for patient, prudent and practical steps according to your individual parishes, I’ve asked you to move in this direction.

    Thus, I cannot in good conscience, allow us to go forward without addressing these matters. That’s specifically what I’ve asked you to do. Please help your people to know and understand the beautiful gift we have in the Eucharist, to know our obligations of preparing for reception of the Sacrament, both in terms of our preparation through the Sacrament of Confession, our observance of the pre-communion fast, our attending to our attire as best we can, and the like. Please help them to know of Christ’s presence, fully and entirely in the Sacred Host. Our people know well, the aspect of the Mass which is the Sacred banquet, but help them to know the Eucharist at the Memorial of Christ’s loving Sacrifice for them. Help them to understand your role in laying down your own life as the minister of Christ’s…

    1. Thanks for the link Bill. But you left out an important highlight, the one where the Bishop quotes the Norms (#24) and adds his own emphasis by underlining “excessive use of
      extraordinary ministers”.

      It’s the only phrase in three pages highlighted in that way. Perhaps a not-so-subtle hint as to what this is really all about – clericalism. Dividing, rather than uniting.

      I pray this issue makes the agenda of next month’s meeting of the US Bishops.

      1. I pray this issue makes the agenda of next month’s meeting of the US Bishops.

        While the specific limitations imposed by these two bishops is one thing, the fact remains that the Norms for Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds is a document of the USCCB Committee on the Liturgy. There shouldn’t be anything in there (even #24) that’s a surprise to the bishops.

    2. How does this bishop “know” the sacrament is being profaned as he so clearly states?

      By his criteria, he knows that the majority of communicants are guilty of mortal sin and not going to confession? He knows the majority of communicants are not observing the pre-communion fast? He knows that those he judges as imprudently dressed are therefore not deserving of communing? By these standards these individuals shouldn’t go to communion at all!

      How do these criteria apply specifically to the cup? His criteria for that seems solely based upon an explicit knowledge of concommitance…if that’s the case…let every priest instruct the faithful during Mass next weekend and explain the doctrine – then all who present themselves for communion can receive from the cup. Or better yet, they can receive only from the cup to prove their belief in concommitance!

      This is all lunacy and daftness! God spare us and the church…

  17. JP – beg to differ with you. A number of facts if you have ever listened to one of the USCCB meetings:
    – by their own admission, some (many) bishops do not read or review every document on the agenda or published by the USCCB
    – by their own admission, not every bishop has studied to the degree necessary to weigh in on this question i.e. Norms of the USCCB – bishops leave much of that to their staffs
    – as many above have outlined well, it appears that the “indult” question and the 2002 GIRM superseceding this indult, is either not understood or is interpreted differently; there also appears to be confusion around “excessive use of extraordinary ministers” (would suggest that “extraordinary” needs to be defined historically and currently); profanation; and other related issues such as female altar servers; role of EMs; the timing of these decisions along with the introduction of the new translation (pastoral sense?)
    – altho Rome seems to be pushing the individual bishop’s authority, VII’s principle of collegiality put appropriate authority in the hands of conferences so that dialogue, discussion, and debate might build up the church vs. individual bishops doing their own thing

    1. Bill can you help us w/ this.
      I read the “news Update” link (thanks for providing it) and
      his response seems to be couched and elusive i.e. as we have discussed…
      Is he banning the cup at Sunday masses? It seems he says he isn’t
      then it seems it’s up to individual pastors, then it seem it’s an
      outright ban?
      Medical journals are much easier to read than this stuff!

      1. Wondered the same thing. Yet, the final sentences seem to clearly indicate that he is going to require them to move in this direction – the timing, how, when may be left to deaneries, pastors of large parishes?? And, it appears that if a specific pastor chooses to wait, he must have valid reasons – translation – he needs the bishop’s permission.

        But that is merely my guess.

    2. More news from Madison:

      http://host.madison.com/article_12b3e3d0-a352-58c0-aeca-148b7b8bf0bf.html#ixzz1aZIDApyO

      “diocesan officials stressed Monday that Morlino has not issued a directive to priests.
      “He has not issued a formal mandate or set a fixed timeline but has asked pastors to exercise their own leadership to move in this direction,” said Monsignor James Bartylla, the diocese’s second-in-command.”

      Also:
      “In a letter to priests Monday, Morlino said the change was needed to deepen laypeople’s reverence for the Eucharist, the Catholic term for communion.”

      Really? How does this accomplish this? If the laity need more catechesis then by all means do so but to withdraw it to deepen reverence?
      It’s like no flu shot for you this year because you don’t value it enough!

  18. It’s in the Roman curia’s interest to push individual bishops and to play down the authority of bishops’ conferences. They are afraid of a repeat of Gallicanism when the French hierarchy didn’t care what the curia thought.

    In the case of the US it suits the curia not to be challenged by the bishops conference of a political superpower. The German bishops’ conference and increasingly, the Italian, are well able to stand up for themselves over and against the bureaucrats in the Vatican.

  19. Let’s keep up the good work on the blogosphere!
    Note that bishop Morlino has written a quick update to the priests of the diocese!
    He states:
    “but one individual point seems already to have drawn attention, and so I feel I must send and make
    public this letter to assist all of us”
    and
    “the “blogosphere,” has begun speculation and, perhaps,
    innuendo”
    Wow, a quick response by him.
    He is hearing us….
    The blogosphere works, keep it up!!!

    1. The sad thing is, these are the apostolic shepherds who waste their time declaring that those who don’t dress in finery are to be withheld the cup of salvation. But in a very muttled statement the bishop blames the withdrawal of the cup on a lack of belief in the theological explanation of concomitance, as well as a the cozy co-incidence of a supposed “expiration” of permission for “experimentation.” Please bishop, God’s salvation has never been an experiment!

      Well, what is the exact problem bishop so we can address your concern of a lack of catechesis? Saint John Chrysostom seemed to understand a whole host of problems with communion practice in his time but urged his believers not to withdraw from the cup of salvation! Yes we live in a post-christian society – but judging those few who are still faithful in attending Mass and receiving the sacraments as unworthy is daft and madness. What is this American episcopal eagerness to “discern” who is faithful and who is not?

      Suggesting that a desire to receive of the cup is a denial of the theological explanation of concomitance is a circular rationale and un-proveable but a standard the bishop himself lays out. According to such an argument no one can satisfy the logic and be worthy of the cup.

      Rather, why doesn’t the bishop express evangelical charity and believe that all those who present themselves for reception of the body and blood of Christ, in its sacramental and “accidental” fullness do so in good faith and to the salvation of their being? Is this not the role of the bishop? To build up the faith? Rather than diminish and demean it?!

      Is the difference of divine generosity really based upon a tie or shorts? Is it really based upon the number of “extra-ordinary” ministers of the Eucharist? God help this church!

      Please, presbyters of the diocese, inform your episcopas that he is severely outside of the judgement of the presbyteral and diaconal colleges regarding the cure…

  20. Thank you J. T. Very well said. I’m in full agreement.

    What planet is this bishop living on?

    It seems as if he expects the priests of his diocese simply to shut up and take it on the chin. How well does he know them?

  21. In Rochester (NY) we may have a new bishop sometime in late 2012. If the new bishop takes the Cup from the laity (no reason to think he would do that), then the alternative for me is to attend the local Ukrainian Catholic Church or Maronite or Melkite Church, where I will experience complete sacramental communion. Question – what about Anglican-Use parishes (only a handful, I believe)? What is their practice?

    1. Our Lady of the Atonement in San Antonio (a parish which celebrates Mass with both the Anglican-Use missal and the Pauline missal) distributes Communion by intinction, if I’m not mistaken.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *