Are both species necessary?

[Popes_Soldier]

I want to know if I am right or wrong in these statements I recently made regarding the importance of serving both species at Mass, and tghe related matter of using Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist to the point of abuse:

…having both species is no better than having one. If it were, we would have been doing it all along.

I might also add that American parishes were starting to serve wine BEFORE it was approved by the Vatican. American parishes are real good at commiting liturgical abuses and attempting to present the Vatican with a Fate Accompli’ to force it to accept them into the GIRM. It just so happens that the Vatican buckled on this one, when instead the Vatican should have taken the bishops to task for allowing the rampant abuses. But its the same with the holding hands during the Our Father, laity lifting their hands in priestly gestures when they say “…and also with you”; all things things are unapproved too. We’ll see if the Vatican buckles again.

Having an army of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist is also an abuse, and serving the wine only doubles their already bloated numbers.

Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist - often wrongly called Eucharistic Ministers - are for use in extraordinary circumstances: Hence the name “Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist”. (Duhhh.) But it has become the habit to have a bunch of them at Mass no matter how many people are attending. THAT is an abuse. If you don’t believe me, ask an apologist. I don’t make this stuff up.

EME’s are neccessary if its going to take the priest(s) too long to distribute the Eucharist due to the size of the crowd - hence the “extraordinary circumstance”. But people have lost sight of that, because too many lay people want to blur the line between priests and laity. As an example: I went to daily mass the other day with about only 20 people attending, and there were still four EME’s. Now THAT is DEFINITELY an ABUSE. There was no extraordinary circumstance there warranting their presence.

So I stand by my statement: “…Having an army of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist is also an abuse, and serving the wine only doubles their already bloated numbers…”…

 

[Fr.Vincent_Serpa]

Hi,

While many parishes use too many extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, having the Eucharist under both species is not in itself an abuse. After all it was the Lord Himself who instituted the Eucharist as two species. So let’s be careful about bad mouthing the ministering of His blood. He could easily have only used bread. But by showing the body and blood as separate, the Eucharist is a living sign of His death. The Church teaches that the Eucharist under both forms is a more complete sign than under only one form just as Baptism by immersion is a fuller sign than pouring the water only on the head. But the Eucharist under one form is the full sacrament just as pouring the Baptismal water on the head only is a full sacrament.

I personally would rather have too many EMEs than not have the Eucharist under both forms as our Blessed Lord instituted it. And what’s all this talk of serving the “wine”? It is not wine. Let us offer the respect that the precious blood of the Lord deserves.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.