Communion Under Both Species

[smndtupidisaftr]

Sorry to say, you are not the bishop, and your opinion is simply “your opinion.” Do you usually disagree with them and look for better solutions when something is unacceptable to you?

Your bold comment is really deplorable.

I did not mean to make it sound as though this is my bishop’s intention, because I believe and hope that this is not so. Instead, I find this to be an attitude among EMHC’s and explains why they are so hesitant to a diminished role.

Thinking about this more, however, I find it may be too judgmental and I’ll leave the judgement to the EMHC’s themselves. I will, however, stand by my opinion that there are too many EMHC’s and that we could greatly diminish their number and increase reverence and awareness of the Eucharist as the actual Body of Christ by removing the option to receive from the chalice (except when needed in the example of Celiac diseases and possibly other needs as mentioned previously).

 

[Sirach2]

I did not mean to make it sound as though this is my bishop’s intention, because I believe and hope that this is not so. Instead, I find this to be an attitude among EMHC’s and explains why they are so hesitant to a diminished role.

Thinking about this more, however, I find it may be too judgmental and I’ll leave the judgement to the EMHC’s themselves.

Thank you.

 

[jwinch2]

I will, however, stand by my opinion that there are too many EMHC’s and that we could greatly diminish their number…

Agreed, 100%. We could do with far less of these in almost every parish I have attended Mass in.

…and increase reverence and awareness of the Eucharist as the actual Body of Christ by removing the option to receive from the chalice (except when needed in the example of Celiac diseases and possibly other needs as mentioned previously).

Disagreed, 100%. I see no argument based upon reason or theology which serves to explain how reverence is decreased through the receiving of the blood of Christ in addition to the body. Considering it was the common practice throughout the ancient Church, this simply does not add up.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Disagreed, 100%. I see no argument based upon reason or theology which serves to explain how reverence is decreased through the receiving of the blood of Christ in addition to the body. Considering it was the common practice throughout the ancient Church, this simply does not add up.

From my experience, people feel as though they are missing out on something by not receiving the Precious Blood. This is nonsense since every particle of the Eucharist contains the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord. Receiving in either form imparts full grace.

That said, I don’t think that restricting receiving under both species would completely resolve the problem. Rather, do that and teach the people about the nature of the Eucharist so that they understand what they are receiving.

 

[superamazingman]

I don’t remember where I saw it, but I’m quite confident that I saw a document or letter from Rome making clear that a lack of ordinary ministers was a sufficient reason not to distribute under both forms.

 

[jwinch2]

From my experience, people feel as though they are missing out on something by not receiving the Precious Blood. This is nonsense since every particle of the Eucharist contains the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord. Receiving in either form imparts full grace.

That said, I don’t think that restricting receiving under both species would completely resolve the problem. Rather, do that and teach the people about the nature of the Eucharist so that they understand what they are receiving.

Understood, and agreed with. The Church has indeed taught exactly what you wrote in terms of each particle of the Eucharist containing the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Blessed Lord. However, as you are probably already aware, the Church has also noted that receiving under both kinds is a fuller sign of the sacrament. In addition, and I apologize for belaboring this point, reception under both body and blood was common practice in the early Church. This hardly leads me to the conclusion that doing so is somehow leading to a lack of understanding of the Eucharist.

What is needed, as we are all too often seeing in these types of situations and, as you correctly noted above, is better teaching on the subject at hand. A lack of reverence toward Holy Communion is not something that I can in anyway see as inherent to reception under body kinds but rather as inherent to a lack of faith combined with lousy catechesis. I can also see the contributing factors of the manner in which the liturgy is celebrated, reception in the hand, standing, etc. as leading one to a doubt or at the least, a lack of reverence towards the Eucharist. As Cardinal Arinze said when discussing the concerns about the Eucharist: “if you truly believe that is God, why don’t you kneel? Why don’t you crawl?”

Peace of Christ,

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Understood, and agreed with. The Church has indeed taught exactly what you wrote in terms of each particle of the Eucharist containing the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Blessed Lord. However, as you are probably already aware, the Church has also noted that receiving under both kinds is a fuller sign of the sacrament. In addition, and I apologize for belaboring this point, reception under both body and blood was common practice in the early Church. This hardly leads me to the conclusion that doing so is somehow leading to a lack of understanding of the Eucharist.

What is needed, as we are all too often seeing in these types of situations and, as you correctly noted above, is better teaching on the subject at hand. A lack of reverence toward Holy Communion is not something that I can in anyway see as inherent to reception under body kinds but rather as inherent to a lack of faith combined with lousy catechesis.

Peace of Christ,

I agree with what yousay. If we had enough Eucharistic Ministers then there would be no good reason to withhold both species. Better education would be the solution. With the shortage, though, there is compelling reason to withhold it and use the situation to teach people about the true nature of the sacrament.

God bless.

 

[jwinch2]

I agree with what you say. If we had enough Eucharistic Ministers then there would be no good reason to withhold both species. Better education would be the solution. With the shortage, though, there is compelling reason to withhold it and use the situation to teach people about the true nature of the sacrament.

God bless.

I still disagree. I’ve been to Anglican use parishes where reception is done under both kinds, with only the priest and deacon, and it is very reverent. It makes communion last a bit longer, but not excessively so (1 more song perhaps). It can be done, it just takes the commitment to make it happen. I believe if a bishop would give deacons the faculties to distribute via intinction and restore altar rails, that it would go a long way towards fixing the problem.

 

[superamazingman]

I agree with what yousay. If we had enough Eucharistic Ministers then there would be no good reason to withhold both species. Better education would be the solution. With the shortage, though, there is compelling reason to withhold it and use the situation to teach people about the true nature of the sacrament.

God bless.

Well, not entirely. There’s also the danger of profanation, and other issues that redemptonis sacramentum outlines.

 

[SHoJ]

But alas, people see it as a way to encourage participation so that the people get to play priest. I don’t understand it.

I agree with Sirach that this comment is deplorable. It is also very uncharitable to those who offer to serve others.

Having said that, I agree that there are too many EMHC’s at one of the Masses at my parish. I would like to see the number decreased by 1/3, but I know it is not likely to happen as long as the priest we have now is in charge.

 

[superamazingman]

I agree with Sirach that this comment is deplorable. It is also very uncharitable to those who offer to serve others.

Having said that, I agree that there are too many EMHC’s at one of the Masses at my parish. I would like to see the number decreased by 1/3, but I know it is not likely to happen as long as the priest we have now is in charge.

It may have been blunt, but the attitude is very prevalent in some circles.

 

[ConstantineTG]

From my experience, people feel as though they are missing out on something by not receiving the Precious Blood. This is nonsense since every particle of the Eucharist contains the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord. Receiving in either form imparts full grace.

That said, I don’t think that restricting receiving under both species would completely resolve the problem. Rather, do that and teach the people about the nature of the Eucharist so that they understand what they are receiving.

There is a reason why Sacraments are instituted that way. Desptie spiritual realities, we need the physical reality to remind us of this. We don’t just pray with our minds and hearts, we pray with our bodies as well. That is why we kneel, prostrate, put our hands together, etc.

I very much disagree with the continuation of the practice of Communion in one species only. It was not the way Jesus instituted the Sacrament, why change it? Because we know better? It is not about the scholastic wrangling whether one species is complete or not, but that the sign we are given are both and thus we need to participate in both so that our bodies pray with our minds. As the Psalm says, “Taste and see the goodness of the Lord!”

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

I still disagree. I’ve been to Anglican use parishes where reception is done under both kinds, with only the priest and deacon, and it is very reverent. It makes communion last a bit longer, but not excessively so (1 more song perhaps). It can be done, it just takes the commitment to make it happen. I believe if a bishop would give deacons the faculties to distribute via intinction and restore altar rails, that it would go a long way towards fixing the problem.

Intinction is fine as well. I just don’t know of any parishes where there are enough Eucharistic Ministers to distribute the Precious Blood.

 

[jwinch2]

It may have been blunt, but the attitude is very prevalent in some circles.

Unfortunately, this is true. I have seen it when a priest decreased the number of EMHCs at a given Mass time due to lesser attendance when compared to another Mass time. There were a number among the group who believed that they had a “right” to serve in this capacity and that this was being taken away from them.

As for being blunt, good. We dance around things too darn much.

 

[jwinch2]

Intinction is fine as well. I just don’t know of any parishes where there are enough Eucharistic Ministers to distribute the Precious Blood.

Fair point. Though, like I said, at the Anglican use parishes I have attended, communion was done under both kinds. However, it was not done via intinction (the priest went down the line with the body and the deacon followed with the blood) and still only lasted 10-15 minutes (3 songs) with approx. 700 people in the congregation. If both the priest and deacon could distribute via intinction, it would have been much faster. Frankly, I would not have a problem with a properly trained acolyte distributing also, but that may not be possible.

Peace,

 

[jwinch2]

There is a reason why Sacraments are instituted that way. Desptie spiritual realities, we need the physical reality to remind us of this. We don’t just pray with our minds and hearts, we pray with our bodies as well. That is why we kneel, prostrate, put our hands together, etc.

I very much disagree with the continuation of the practice of Communion in one species only. It was not the way Jesus instituted the Sacrament, why change it? Because we know better? It is not about the scholastic wrangling whether one species is complete or not, but that the sign we are given are both and thus we need to participate in both so that our bodies pray with our minds. As the Psalm says, “Taste and see the goodness of the Lord!”

Well said.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Fair point. Though, like I said, at the Anglican use parishes I have attended, communion was done under both kinds. However, it was not done via intinction (the priest went down the line with the body and the deacon followed with the blood) and still only lasted 10-15 minutes (3 songs) with approx. 700 people in the congregation. If both the priest and deacon could distribute via intinction, it would have been much faster. Frankly, I would not have a problem with a properly trained acolyte distributing also, but that may not be possible.

Peace,

In the Roman Rite though the Deacon is not allowed to distribute via intinction. It is not a doctrinal matter though, in the Byzantine Rite it is the deacon that places the Precious Blood into the chalice before distribution of Communion, so if the Pope wants to he can allow Deacons to give Communion via Intinction.

 

[jwinch2]

In the Roman Rite though the Deacon is not allowed to distribute via intinction. It is not a doctrinal matter though, in the Byzantine Rite it is the deacon that places the Precious Blood into the chalice before distribution of Communion, so if the Pope wants to he can allow Deacons to give Communion via Intinction.

My understanding is that this is a matter of not having given deacons the faculties to do so rather than a doctrinal matter. As you stated, that pope could do this. However, my understanding is that this does not rise to the level of a discipline, so perhaps the local bishop could grant these faculties also. I could be wrong on that understanding.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My understanding is that this is a matter of not having given deacons the faculties to do so rather than a doctrinal matter. As you stated, that pope could do this. However, my understanding is that this does not rise to the level of a discipline, so perhaps the local bishop could grant these faculties also. I could be wrong on that understanding.

I forgot where it was stated that only a priest may give via intinction. But it is written plainly somewhere, perhaps the GIRM (I won’t search for it, too lazy ) but it is written somewhere. So someone who has the authority to overturn that piece of legislation needs to do so. Not sure if a Local Ordinary would suffice, or an Episcopal Conference, or does it have to be the Vatican.

I guess with more Permanent Deacons coming, it might be time to lift that prohibition.

 

[O_Moriah]

The term ‘extraordinary’ should not be conflated with ‘extreme’ just to make a point. Having lay people help with distribution is not an ‘extreme’ position of the church. The Lay Instituted Ministry of Acolyte is for, as the name implies, lay people. An installed Acolyte is an ORDINARY minister of communion, and done by a lay person, not a cleric.

And so, from the Church’s perspective and teaching, lay people can exercise a ministry of distributing Holy Communion at Mass, conducting Communion Services, and bringing Communion to the sick as an ordinary minister. And by the way, serving at the altar, as a parish altar-server does is an Extraordinary Ministry, too – it’s supposed to be done by Acolytes as the ordinary ministers… but I don’t see anyone railing against that.

And this Instituted Lay Ministry is no way ‘playing priest’ nor extreme nor even extraordinary. It is ordinary ministry by a lay person. No more ‘playing priest’ than when a Reader reads or an Instituted Lay Lector reads, but again, I don’t see anyone railing against the Extraordinary Form of reader in parishes.

The Instituted Lay Ministry of Acolyte is, however, limited in most part to seminarians (who are still lay people until ordained a deacon). And thus, allowing other lay people who don’t have access to this Instituted Lay Ministry to help with distribution of Communion as an Extraordinary ministry is not because of how extraordinary it is for lay people to distribute communion (which can be done officially in an ordinary way) but because the indult to do so is extraordinary – that is, outside the ordinary manner in which to institute acolytes.

Besides, the easiest way to get rid of EMHCs, if one wishes to do so, is to ordain more priests or deacons. When there are 800 souls seated in a suburban mega church but only one priest (a parish I was in for a while), then there’s a bigger problem than offering the Cup. That’s one person to communicate 800 people. And if anyone suggests it’s OK to have EMHCs for the Consecrated Bread, but not for the Precious Blood, then I will call shenanigans and point out this isn’t about EMHCs at all, but about offering the Cup. Let’s make sure we’re being honest about what our presenting concern is.

But in the US, there is pressure from some quarters to actually slow down the ordination of permanent deacons. And as far as ordaining more priests… well, putting one’s efforts to get that to happen is more laudable than attacking lay people who assist at Mass in an extraordinary way as somehow disrespectful to the Mass when the Church already has an ordinary path for lay people to assist, but limits it to just seminarians (mostly).