Bishop Olmsted- A "new" norm for Phoenix

[DarrenOglesby]

You know, something I don’t like about this debate is that usually people start acting as though the Precious blood were venom… Yes you can receive both under one species. But don’t forget that scripture says to eat his flesh and drink his blood. You do receive both from the host. But it is not wrong to receive both.

 

[MarkThompson]

Thanks, Mark!!

CAF needs a “like” button!!

Don’t get me wrong, if Bishop Olmsted wanted to proclaim, “By the power vested in me as ordinary of this diocese, I forbid the Chalice by my own initiative,” I would support that too. As I have remarked before in the context of altar girls, “I think it’s good for the Church to take a visible stand on a minor issue and show that it will not be subject to the whims of public opinion and will stick a finger in the eye of political correctness.” But if such a decision were made, I would appreciate it if the reasons given were both correct and honest. The contention that it was no longer allowed because of the lapse of an indult was incorrect, and the “secret plan” which people here have posited to reduce the use of lay ministers by finding any hokey pretext to eliminate the Chalice would be dishonest.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Don’t get me wrong, if Bishop Olmsted wanted to proclaim, “By the power vested in me as ordinary of this diocese, I forbid the Chalice by my own initiative,” I would support that too. As I have remarked before in the context of altar girls, “I think it’s good for the Church to take a visible stand on a minor issue and show that it will not be subject to the whims of public opinion and will stick a finger in the eye of political correctness.” But if such a decision were made, I would appreciate it if the reasons given were both correct and honest. The contention that it was no longer allowed because of the lapse of an indult was incorrect, and the “secret plan” which people here have posited to reduce the use of lay ministers by finding any hokey pretext to eliminate the Chalice would be dishonest.

I agree 100%
And I have said many, many times- GOOD CATECHESIS would go a lot further than “knee-jerk” reacations!!

 

[MissRose73]

I am glad I am in a diocese where the faithful are offered both forms at Communion & has been the norm for quite some time. For someone like my aunt who is a celiac, the Precious Blood is her only option.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I am glad I am in a diocese where the faithful are offered both forms at Communion & has been the norm for quite some time. For someone like my aunt who is a celiac, the Precious Blood is her only option.

I am sorry to say this but it is comments like this that totally make this issue into something that it is not.

This comment implies that if the Chalice was not offered then everyone who suffers from celiac disease would be denied communion. That is not true. Those who suffer from this disease would just need to speak to their pastor about their condition and there would be an allowance made for them so that they could continue to receive communion.

 

[ProVobis]

You do receive both from the host. But it is not wrong to receive both.

Not if it’s offered, unless you’re not properly disposed.

But if you insist you must have both, that would seem to indicate a problem of disbelief.

 

[jwinch2]

If we go to communion via Intinction, things would get much easier. Practically speaking however, it would be very difficult for most parishes. Unless we get an Army of vocations to the priesthood, most parishes would be sitting there forever. I guess the other option would be to canonically allow Deacons to give communion via intinction. That would speed things up a bit and might help reduce the need for EMHC as well.

 

[DeaconsSon87]

I believe that anyone may choose to receive under only one form…that also means you may receive from the chalice only (if you have wheat/gluten allergies, that’s what I would do)

But I do believe both should be offered.