Diocese limits Communion under both kinds

[Newbie2]

The problem comes in when some people think Communion is better under both kinds. The Church is pretty emphatic that “fuller sign” does not mean better. And that’s very important. Look at the reaction from people when some dioceses suspended the shared cup during flu season. People thought they were getting less, which they weren’t. Nor are people getting “less” Communion in countries where the cup is never offered to the congregation.

Actually, they were/are getting less in terms of the outward signs that accompany the sacrament.

So "fuller" is not better?

Guess other “churches” that are not in full communion with the RCC are OK then.

Depends on how one defines “better”. Sacramentally, we receive the same Lord; no difference there. But in the outward sign(s) of the sacrament, we receive more. Is a fuller sign in this case “better”. Yeah, I think so, and looking carefully the Church seems to think so as well, if we define “better” as “more special”. Note it is still reserved for “special” occasions.

Shouldn’t we want the fullest experience possible as often as possible? As Catholics, this is an instance where we are literalists regarding Scripture. So we are OK with the literal interpretation of what Jesus said about the substance of his body and blood but not literal about his command to “take and drink”?

IF there were clear abuses or matters of practicality with EMHCs that could not be resolved, I’d be in agreement in pulling the cup. Maybe there is in that diocese and maybe sincere efforts were made to clean them up to no avail. From the information that is available in this thread, though, it seems to me like the diocese simply wants to take the easy road in dealing with the issue.

 

[Corki]

You knew what I meant when talking about communion under the 2 species: The Eastern Rite.

No, I did not know you were referring to the Eastern Rite. They are not Orthodox. Nor are there disciplines regarding Communion a factor when discussing the Latin Rite. Many Eastern Rite Chuches use a straw or tube to distribute Communion under both kinds together. The closest we have to that practice in the Latin Rite is Communion by intinction.

 

[Corki]

**Redemptionis Sacramentum is setting out what is the discipline today. ** There is no Vatican document for tradition. Christ instituted the Eucharist that way and it has been that way for over 1000 years before events forced the Latin Church to institute different norms for the sake of better catechesis for the people.

Exactly. Norms by definition are disciplinary matters.

 

[TimothyH]

Sad to read this- as abuse is a problem due to the priests not following the proper guidelines. Precious Blood must be consumed , not thrown away.
Hosts are to be consecrated with the amount determined before mass as to comply with the guidelines.
Perhaps requireing priests to complete continuing education might help eliminate these abuses.
This is not to be mistaken as a attack on our priests but rather a suggestion as to improve
the liturgy that the laity are entitled to.

The liturgy is for God, not for man. We are entitled to nothing, liturgy included.

Christ gave the Mass and the Eucharist to man as a gift. Perhaps the feeling of entitlement is the problem, and not the liturgy itself.

And maybe we should let the priests do their job, consecrating as many hosts as they see fit, and be thankful that us dogs get a crumb that falls from the master’s table.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

I agree with this. It is one thing that bothers me. I understand the reasons for why over time only the body is given, in some congregations or forms, but Jesus did say to do both.

But He didn’t say how often.

Also, in the physical sense, can you really separate flesh and blood? Isn’t the proper terminology “consume” instead of eating or drinking? My personal preference would be for intinction, which, of course, would only be allowed by the priest or deacon.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually, they were/are getting less in terms of the outward signs that accompany the sacrament.

So "fuller" is not better?

With that logic, wouldn’t a large Host be better to consume since you would get more of Christ? But that’s heresy.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Exactly. Norms by definition are disciplinary matters.

1. I don’t think the problem that necessitated withholding the cup exists anymore. So why still keep it away from the laity?
2. Jesus instituted the Sacrament with both bread and wine, why change it?

 

[Will_S]

With that logic, wouldn’t a large Host be better to consume since you would get more of Christ? But that’s heresy.

Right. When you receive Holy Communion you receive Christ whole and entire, regardless of how large or small the host is, as long as it is large enough to be recognizable as bread.

Also, of course, since you receive Christ whole and entire when receiving the host, you receive both body and blood.

 

[Corki]

1. I don’t think the problem that necessitated withholding the cup exists anymore. So why still keep it away from the laity?

Well, if you read post #41, you will see that the problem still exists.

1. Jesus instituted the Sacrament with both bread and wine, why change it?

No one is saying to change it everywhere and always. I happen to agree with the Bishop’s reasons as stated in the OP link. Those are all valid reasons to limit the use of the separate cup. The most powerful reason, just in my opinion, is the shortage of ordinary ministers. Wanting to distribute Communion under both kinds is not really an Extraordinary enough reason to have the flocks of EMHCs that are present in some parishes (I counted 17 once).

 

[Walking_Home]

1.** I don’t think the problem that necessitated withholding the cup exists anymore. So why still keep it away from the laity?**
2. Jesus instituted the Sacrament with both bread and wine, why change it?

---

I disagree. I don’t believe heresies completely disappear— they lay dormant/underground – until conditions become favorable – for them to resurface. The return of the Cup/Chalice to the laity-- has created the right conditions/environment – for the utraquist error – to once again rise.

 

[ConstantineTG]

---

I disagree. I don’t believe heresies completely disappear— they lay dormant/underground – until conditions become favorable – for them to resurface. The return of the Cup/Chalice to the laity-- has created the right conditions/environment – for the utraquist error – to once again rise.

We can’t withhold the traditions of the faith just because of the heresies. Perhaps hundreds of years ago there was no easy way to disseminate the proper catechesis and this was necessary. But not today. Most people just jump right in to the Vatican website and read stuff off of there.

Besides, saying that the heresy is still alive today proves the point that withdrawing the Cup did nothing to prevent it.

 

[TrueLight]

But He didn’t say how often.

Also, in the physical sense, can you really separate flesh and blood? Isn’t the proper terminology “consume” instead of eating or drinking? My personal preference would be for intinction, which, of course, would only be allowed by the priest or deacon.

It is true that you can’t separate them, but Jesus knew that and still used both. My personal preference would be intinction as well.

 

[Brendan]

Depends on how one defines “better”. Sacramentally, we receive the same Lord; no difference there. But in the outward sign(s) of the sacrament, we receive more. Is a fuller sign in this case “better”. Yeah, I think so, and looking carefully the Church seems to think so as well, if we define “better” as “more special”. Note it is still reserved for “special” occasions…

Newbie,

The Church defines the reception of both species to be a fuller sign. We all agree on that.

The question then becomes, what does the Church mean by it being a ‘fuller sign’, what does the Church mean by something being a ‘sign’ at all.

Sign: Something that leads to somethings else. It may be an arbitrary on conventional sign that has a connection with what is signified. Or it may be a pure sign that leads to knowledge of something with out it being first known

• Modern Catholic Dictionary - Fr. John Harden, SJ

We can see what the Church means when we consider a street sign. A sign that says “Main St.” tells us where we can find Main Street or that we have arrived at Main St.

A Sign, therefore, has value only when one is searching for the greater reality (Main St) or is unsure if one has arrived\achieved that reality ( if one is, or is not on Main St)

Likewise the Sign value of recieving both species indicates (points towards) the greater reality of the Eucharist, that Christ is Present in Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

But if one has found that greater realtity of the Eucharist ( of which there can be NO greater reality) and if one is sure of that reality, then the sign has little meaning.

That doesn’t not mean that the sign value is of value to other, but our GOAL is to move past the need for sign and to focus on the reality.

When one is sure of the reality ( that we are driving along Main St) we don’t need to look for the signs telling us that.

That is why I have no particular need to recieve in more than one species. I recognize that I am recieving the full, complete Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, the Creator and Savior of the Universe. I do not need a sign telling me that His Blood is also present, and that it is living, flowing Blood.

So why the ‘sign’ is fuller’ is adds nothing, nor can it add. One recieves Christ who is God almighty, there can be nothing ‘better’

 

[Walking_Home]

We can’t withhold the traditions of the faith just because of the heresies. ** Perhaps hundreds of years ago there was no easy way to disseminate the proper catechesis and this was necessary. But not today. Most people just jump right in to the Vatican website and read stuff off of there.
**
Besides, saying that the heresy is still alive today proves the point that withdrawing the Cup did nothing to prevent it.

---

Are you purposely trying to be naive. The state of catechesis within the Church today is not healthy. And I dare say --“most” people are not jumping into the Vatican website – to receive proper instruction. And yes – the Church can and has before --withheld the Cup – to bring the laity back on the right track.

And another thing – the act of receiving one species —itself instructs/gives catechesis – that the whole fullness of Christ/grace – is received – and nothing–absolutely nothing is lacking.

 

[Brendan]

Besides, saying that the heresy is still alive today proves the point that withdrawing the Cup did nothing to prevent it.

Constantine, if one follows your logic, the fact that Arianism still exists means that we should withdraw the recitation of the Nicean Creed. That clearly has done nothing to prevent Jehovah’s Witnesses.

 

[Brendan]

1. I don’t think the problem that necessitated withholding the cup exists anymore. So why still keep it away from the laity?

I think it still does. I see it often enough on this board. How many threads were there during last years flu season where people talked about their parish withholding ‘the Blood’ from the laity, when we all know that neither the Body and Blood of Christ were withheld, only the species of wine.

1. Jesus instituted the Sacrament with both bread and wine, why change it?

Both species are required for a licit celebration of Mass, so that has not changed.

And even in the East, there are times when only one species is presented to the laity, the Liturgy of the Presanctified. As you well know, the Holy Eucharist is mixed with unconsecrated, common wine and given to the laity.

 

[Brendan]

FYI,

Here are some recent examples of this misunderstanding of the Eucharist persisting. In each case, the OP was referring to the species of wine, but their question showed a lack of understanding that the Eucharist in each species contains the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

Sealed Vessel for Precious Blood
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=593505

Can one recieve the Precious Blood of Jesus kneeling at a Novus Ordo Mass?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=593488

Why do we recieve only the Body of Christ at Mass
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=589133

So yes, even in today’s world, there is clearly trouble disseminating proper catechisis on the Eucharist.

 

[Cider]

How I miss living in the Phoenix diocese.

 

[Will_S]

We can’t withhold the traditions of the faith just because of the heresies.

Communion under one kind is a tradition of the faith in the Latin Church.

Perhaps hundreds of years ago there was no easy way to disseminate the proper catechesis and this was necessary. But not today. Most people just jump right in to the Vatican website and read stuff off of there.

Not true. Most people don’t pay any attention at all to doctrine and catechesis, do whatever they want to, and tell themselves that they’re good people.

Besides, saying that the heresy is still alive today proves the point that withdrawing the Cup did nothing to prevent it.

Not at all. It wiped it out. But now it is being revived because people are being told in what passes for catechesis, that if they don’t receive both they’re somehow missing out on something.

Personally I favor a rule requiring ALL Latin Rite parishes to distribute Holy Communion under both species by intinction at ALL Masses. But that’s not because the reception under both species is critically important, but rather because communion in the hand would be wiped out overnight.

 

[BellsSmells]

I think it’s much more important to look at who the EMsHC are, how well they are trained and how well the entire Mass is coordinated. I just attended a Sunday Mass at a large cathedral where I counted 24 (yes, 24) chalices in addition to the ciboria.

There were more than 2,500 in attendance. The cathedral is large and well laid-out. The EMsHC were clearly very well trained (almost military-like in their precision), appropriately attired and the entire process of distributing Holy Communion was very well organized. It did not feel “abusive” in the least no matter what certain peoples’ personal interpretations of Church documents might lead them to believe. Mass took just under 90 minutes even with the large number of EMsHC.

On the other hand, the 4 EMsHC “passing out the wine” (sic) at my parish is horribly abusive in more than one way.