Bishop Olmsted- A "new" norm for Phoenix

  • Thread starter Thread starter Oneofthewomen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Oneofthewomen

Guest
From California Catholic Daily September 27, 2011(my emphasis added)
In the Diocese of Phoenix, like other places where the practice of reception from the chalice became frequent or even commonplace, the new norms call for the practice of less frequent distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds than the faithful may have been accustomed.

Though these norms are for the universal Church, latitude is given to the local bishop to apply them for his particular diocese. In the Diocese of Phoenix, the norms provide for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds for special feast days and other important occasions (e.g., the Chrism Mass, Holy Thursday, the Feast of Corpus Christi, retreats, spiritual gatherings, weddings, and more).
Click to expand...
From the Diocese of Phoenix November 11, 2011 (my emphasis added)
In the Diocese of Phoenix, Holy Communion under both kinds may be offered to all the faithful in the following instances whenever it seems appropriate to the priest to whom a given community is entrusted, provided that the conditions listed are met.
Click to expand...
i. Solemnities, Sundays, Holy Days of Obligation
Click to expand...
ii. The occasions listed in the ritual books
Click to expand...
iii. Weekday Masses
Click to expand...
Seems like Bishop Olmsted had a change of heart.

Thanks be to God!!:harp:
 
Unfortunately, I can’t help but think this was due to a threat of apostasy or something.
 
You left out a lot of context here - both species may be offered, provided the following conditions are met:
i. The faithful present at Mass are properly catechized and continually receive catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on the matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.1
ii. The ordinary ministers (i.e., priests and deacons) are able to purify all the sacred vessels either during or immediately following Dismissal of the people at the conclusion of the Mass.2
iii. There exists not even a small danger of the sacred species being profaned.3
iv. There is not such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist. There is no danger that more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remains after distribution of Holy Communion.
v. There is an adequate number of ordinary ministers of Holy Communion for the distribution of Holy Communion.4 When this is not the case, there is an adequate number of properly deputed and trained extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.5
vi. The role of the Priest and Deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion is not obscured by an excessive use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion; the bond between the ministerial priesthood and the Eucharist is clearly manifest.6
vii. There are no health concerns such as influenza or some other contagious disease that would deter the faithful from approaching the chalice.
viii. "The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where…a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated."7
Click to expand...
 
Elizium23 said:
You left out a lot of context here - both species may be offered, provided the following conditions are met:
…The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where…a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.
Click to expand...
So…start a protest and get half the parish not to receive precious blood, and you’re all good!
Click to expand...
 
TheMc said:
So…start a protest and get half the parish not to receive precious blood, and you’re all good!
Click to expand...
If you do not want to receive the Precious Blood then don’t. Its that simple. However, to suggest that others are wrong for wishing to is absolutely ridiculous.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Unfortunately, I can’t help but think this was due to a threat of apostasy or something.
Click to expand...
Unlikely, since +Olmstead admitted that he had misunderstood the rules and had mishandled the situation. Sounds like he graciously admitted he was wrong, as we all knew and had discussed on this forum anyway (+Morlino did a similar backpedal a week or so ago).
 
Elizium23 said:
You left out a lot of context here - both species may be offered, provided the following conditions are met:
Click to expand...
I left nothing out, I offered the links to the appropriate material.
I have no opinion either way on the issue. I live in a diocese where the cup is usually offered.
Usually I receive under both speices, but not always.
I am glad that I have the option, but if my Bishop says tomorrow
"No more cup" , I would humbly submit.

I have no "agenda’ here, just looking to continue the discussion that started when the new norms were issued in September.

What I find interesting is that the Bishop has, in fact, changed his position somewhat-
yes there are requirements and conditions, that is to be expected.
What I think is very important to note is that the Bishop calls for more catechesis-
which is something that I have always believed to be lacking on a parish level, especially life-long formation programs.

I said it when the news first came out, that IMHO,
it was a “knee-jerk” reaction to a bigger problem (that of poor catechesis),
and that if I had to make the decision, I would not have restricted the cup,
but would have launced a program of formation to instruct those who were looking to me for guidance.
 
jwinch2 said:
Yes, by all means people should refuse to accept Christ in the precious blood so that you can have Mass the way you feel it should be.

Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
No one is refusing Christ. They receive him, blood and all, under the form of bread. Nothing ridiculous here. That is one reason why the other bishop is still not allowing COBS (communion under both species) on a regular basis in his diocese. Some other reasons include the real danger of profanation, in addition to my notes below about the council.

Anyways, it’s not about how I feel. The council never intended it to be a weekly thing.
Of course, I may be wrong, but if you’re going to say that I am, prove your point with church documents, as I’m about to do.

If you look in Sacrosanctum Concilium, it mentions that COBS may be extended, with the permission of the bishop, to some situations. Then it gave three specific examples of what they were talking about:
  • Newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination
  • Religious in the Mass of their religious profession,
  • Newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.
Now look at me and tell me with a straight face that after giving these three examples that the council fathers were also envisioning COBS on a weekly basis. Intentionally, every single situation they give as examples are all quite rare situations. Maybe 1 time every 5000 or 10000 Masses, off the top of my head. The council clearly intended that COBS not be a regular occurrence.

As I said above, feel free to prove me wrong, but do support your point.
 
MarkThompson said:
Unlikely, since +Olmstead admitted that he had misunderstood the rules and had mishandled the situation. Sounds like he graciously admitted he was wrong, as we all knew and had discussed on this forum anyway (+Morlino did a similar backpedal a week or so ago).
Click to expand...
Thanks, Mark!! 😃

CAF needs a “like” button!! 😉
 
TheMc said:
No one is refusing Christ. They receive him, blood and all, under the form of bread.
Click to expand...
You stated that people should “start a protest and get half the parish not to receive precious blood”. Christ is in the blood the last time I checked. Whether or not the blood is offered is up to the Bishop. Personally, I would prefer that it be offered, but if our Bishop decided that it was not to be offered as the norm, I would not raise a stink about it. However, I am not about to refuse to receive in some sort of childish effort to cause a change in policy. To suggest that people stage some sort of Eucharistic protest is absolutely ridiculous.
 
jwinch2 said:
You stated that people should “start a protest and get half the parish not to receive precious blood”. Christ is in the blood the last time I checked. Whether or not the blood is offered is up to the Bishop. Personally, I would prefer that it be offered, but if our Bishop decided that it was not to be offered as the norm, I would not raise a stink about it. However, I am not about to refuse to receive in some sort of childish effort to cause a change in policy. To suggest that people stage some sort of Eucharistic protest is absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I was joking, that would be stupid to protest like that DURING MASS. Appologies if that wasn’t clear.
 
In the Diocese of Phoenix, Holy Communion under both kinds may be offered to all the faithful in the following instances whenever it seems appropriate to the priest to whom a given community is entrusted, provided that the conditions listed are met.
Click to expand...
i. Solemnities, Sundays, Holy Days of Obligation
Click to expand...
ii. The occasions listed in the ritual books
Click to expand...
iii. Weekday Masses
Click to expand...
I’m not in Phoenix, but I’m curious. Why isn’t Saturday (morning) covered? Or is that covered under ii, in which case there seem to be no restrictions?
 
Elizium23 said:
You left out a lot of context here - both species may be offered, provided the following conditions are met:
i. The faithful present at Mass are properly catechized and continually receive catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on the matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.1
Click to expand...
Good point.

Maybe I’m wrong but I’m reading the conditions as a suggestion the people read up on the Catechism of Trent (if not the documents of Trent) before they receive under both kinds.
Click to expand...
 
ProVobis said:
Good point.

Maybe I’m wrong but I’m reading the conditions as a suggestion the people read up on the Catechism of Trent (if not the documents of Trent) before they receive under both kinds.
Click to expand...
Or at least have preaching about it.
 
ProVobis said:
I’m not in Phoenix, but I’m curious. Why isn’t Saturday (morning) covered? Or is that covered under ii, in which case there seem to be no restrictions?
Click to expand...
Isn’t Saturday morning considered a weekday Mass?
So then it would fall under iii, I would presume.
 
TheMc said:
Or at least have preaching about it.
Click to expand...
Well, the Council of Trent which spanned eighteen some years and three Popes covers a lot of doctrine so that would be a lot of preaching. But I’m glad the bishop made reference to it. 👍
 
Some ambiguity here.

week·day/ˈwēkˌdā/Noun: A day of the week other than Sunday or Saturday

weekday ( ) n. Any of the days of the week exclusive of Sunday and often Saturday. weekdays week ’ days ’

Definition of WEEKDAY
: a day of the week except Sunday or sometimes except Saturday and Sunday
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top