“People are suffering because their marriages are broken, not because they cannot go to Communion. For us, the center of the Eucharist is the consecration. Each Christian has the obligation to go to Mass, but not to go to Communion. To concentrate on only one aspect resolves nothing.”
First the blog moderator has the audacity to say that Cardinal Muller doesn't care about people's suffering, which is hogwash as he states why people are suffering.
Then a liturgical theologian commenting on what Cardinal Mueller says, cherry picks the Council of Trent to make his ideological point:
It’s one thing to hear a priest or even a bishop misstate a dogmatic proposition but for the prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith . . . !
Council of Trent, Session 13, October 11, 1551:
. . . quod fuerit a Christo Domino, ut sumatur institutum.
. . . Christ the Lord instituted the Eucharist to be received/consumed.
Only to have another commenter give the full context of Trent:
That’s not quite the entire teaching, is it?
They have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, as sinners; others spiritually only, namely, those who eating in desire the heavenly bread set before them, are by a lively made sensible of its fruit and usefulness; while the third class receives it both sacramentally and spiritually, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand that they approach this divine table clothed with the wedding garment.Only to have the moderator castigate the above comment:
What is your point? How does this relate to the quotation from Trent, cited by Paul Ford, that the Eucharist was instituted to be consumed?
To which the intelligent commenter responds to AWR:
Dear Fr Anthony
Paul is quoting part of a sentence from chapter 5 of the thirteenth session (concerning Eucharistic adoration), I am quoting chapter 8 of the same session, which concerns the reception of communion.
My point is that the passage that Paul quotes is not a definitive demonstration that the Cardinal has erred.