Simple. To avoid the use of EMHCs. The Eucharist has been discredited in today’s Church to a point in which we need drastic measures to recover the reverence and devotion that has been lost. In my case, I think that I do follow the teachings of the Church. Redemptionis Sacramentum mentions that “*n order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop.” (101) My Bishop has mentioned the crisis in the Church regarding the abuses committed against the Eucharist, and it is not mandated in my diocese to distribute communion under both species.
You’re misusing RS here…the idea that EMs arent to be used to increase ‘participation’ is that we shouldn’t have tons of EMHCs just to allow more people to have a ‘job’ at mass…but it is legitimate to use them to allow for communion under both forms to be offered
Yes. But I wanted to stress the fact the their use is extraordinary, supplementary and provisional.
Extraordinary as in ‘extra-ordinary’…if there aren’t enough ‘ordinaries’ present…then there is no reason not to utilize EMHCs for holy communion.
But what is “enough”?
This isn’t about ‘lack’ of anything or nothing.
You see, thats where we disagree…I dont think taking Jesus Christ further away from the people increases reverence…
You are on really shakey theological ground here frommi!
This is the problem. You are not taking Christ away. He is there fully and completely, 100%. He is not there in a substantial way anymore under both forms. People start to feel they must have both and without both Christ is somehow less fully present in their communion. And that is not the case at all.
I do not know what you mean by this. Perhaps you can explain further what you mean by “discredited” and how communing with the cup would lead to futher discredit.
A long time ago only an ordained priest or deacon could touch the Holy Eucharist. During the ordination the Bishop would anoint his hands as a sign of the especial duty that he would have to undertake of confecting and distributing the Blessed Sacrament. He would also take extreme care to purify his fingers and all the sacred vessels because he was conscious that Christ is really present in every single visible particle of the Host.
This was something that I asked about earlier in the thread. Since I just received this diagnosis, it is especially important to me. Sorry that I keep bringing it up, but it bothers me to think that I might not be able to receive at some parishes.
.Indeed, from what we know of the early church, the distribution - of the bread and of the cup - was not limited to a few, many participated. Not that I suggest we let anyone who is not trained do this, but the idea that more people help to distribute isn’t a new idea.
Another issue for sure, but how does not offering the cup change this? I don’t see how the offering of the cup further further discredits the Eucharist.
But if I understand correctly, your personal opinion has superseded what I first presented as the desire for the church to offer a “fuller form”. I asked “Are the teachings of the Church and the desire of the communicants to achieve the “fuller form” secondary to the personal interpretation of the local parish leadership be it priest or bishop or both?”
The teaching of the Church allows communion under both species as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop.
By not offering the Chalice only ordained ministers can distribute communion in my parish avoiding the use of EMHCs. This is not an infalible solution to the loss of devotion to the Eucharist, but I think it certainly helps to recover it.
Couple things:
About why receiving form an ordained minister increases reverence for the Eucharist, I have already answer that in my previous posts.