Diocese limits Communion under both kinds

[ConstantineTG]

---

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 again, it has not worked. In fact, the heresy is not prominent today not because it was quashed, but because people don’t care. Most don’t even believe in the Real Presence.

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.

No offence but I think this is being naive. The act itself doesn’t have any teaching value especially when the person today doesn’t even believe in the Real Presence. And also that the wine is to be reserved only for special occasion, not a heresy but a wrong belief nonetheless. The issue of “is Christ whole or half in the Precious Body alone” is not the problem anymore. The problem today is if Christ is present at all in the Eucharist.

 

[bookgirl32]

It is precisely my point is that the bishop of Phoenix is using the Blessed Sacrament to exert his authority and his perception of Church authority.

Um . . . he is – as is every bishop – Church authority. Until this authority is taken away from him through the correct channels of even higher authority, the only reality is that Catholics in his diocese do what he says when it comes to liturgical matters. It sounds like you’re the one having a little problem with the perception of authority, being that you seem to think you have some.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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.

Here’s the thing, they’re not Catholic so what Catholics do doesn’t concern them nor that the Church can do anything for them to believe otherwise. The Cup was withheld from Catholics, not to another religious group. Last time I checked, Catholics believe that Jesus is indeed God. And those who doesn’t have left the Church.

I also disagree with your views. Have you ever looked at Catholic Polls on how the greater majority of so called true Catholics ("Who Don’t Believe In The Holy Presence Of Jesus Christ In The Eucharist.

And how does withholding the Cup help that? This is a different issue from the one being discussed.

Educating oneself online reading from the Vatican website won’t help with the belief in the Eucharist or what the Church teaches. The Polls themselves give witness to these facts. What is it 30% of Catholics who actually believe in the True Presence?

I just made one passing example. I could list all the ways one could catechize oneself via the internet. But I’m participating on a forum discussion, not writing a paper on catechesis via the internet.

Where did the Church go wrong with the 70%?

Definitely the withholding of the Cup has nothing to do with it.

Or was it secularization and relativism that filled the hearts of the lost 70%?

And again, what does withholding the Cup has anything to do with this?

 

[Chianne]

M’kay, thanks.

I can see 1 and 2 as perhaps valid, but not 3.

Why should it be limited to “special occasion(s)”? Seems to me like it’s akin is a way to hiding a light under a basket. Maybe it’s just me…

I agree–I guess I think that Jesus said “Do THIS is memory of me–” This was eating His body and drinking His blood. I think the real issue is that they do not like extraordinary ministers.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not that it is under our authority as lay people, but for lack of a better term, why should we “settle” for less than the fullest sign possible?

Totally agree with you here. No one is claiming that receiving one of the sacred species only does not constitute the fullness of Christ. But the Sacrament was established with Jesus making the bread and wine to be His body and blood. Its like baptism. Not that a small amount of water on the forehead is invalid, but if possible we use as much water as possible in the different forms of immersion (like kneeling in a pool of water then being poured on with a lot of water) then the better. There is a reason the physical signs have been established as such and it tells us more when we receive the fuller sign/

 

[Newbie2]

I think the real issue is that they do not like extraordinary ministers.

That may very well be…and if they are having problems with the EMHCs in spite of having made genuine efforts to correct such problems, it seems to me that the solution is to ban the excessive use of EMHCs. However, that may be the problem! And perhaps the only solution is to pull the cup, so to speak.

If that were the scenario, I could see it as a temporary measure to get the house in order. Permanently, though, I see it as problematic, as it begs the question, what if there are and continue to be abuses with the consecrated hosts?

But I/we am/are speculating, at least somewhat. As in most cases, there’s probably more to the story.

 

[Newbie2]

Totally agree with you here. No one is claiming that receiving one of the sacred species only does not constitute the fullness of Christ. But the Sacrament was established with Jesus making the bread and wine to be His body and blood. Its like baptism. Not that a small amount of water on the forehead is invalid, but if possible we use as much water as possible in the different forms of immersion (like kneeling in a pool of water then being poured on with a lot of water) then the better. There is a reason the physical signs have been established as such and it tells us more when we receive the fuller sign/

That reminds me of a video we saw in one of our theology classes a number of years back…it was a history of baptismal fonts, covering from the ancient times to present. I got a laugh out of the one picture they showed of a baptismal font that looked like it held about a quart of water…the voiceover suggested that this might be the equivalent of “Spiritual Dry Cleaning”

 

[beckers]

I think in that case, it’s good to ask whether it’s prudent for these people to continue as EMHC then. Like, if they can’t descend 2-3 steps without spilling a half-full chalice, then it might be time to let someone else take your place. It’s hard, but it’s a time to be humble and admit that you’re not superman anymore.

For most people, this should not be an issues.

Age isn’t the biggest deal. Heck I have walked down the stairs and tripped. And yes I have seen it happen. Young guy (mid 20’s) spill the whole cup on the way down. The clean up was horrible. Luckily it was on tile and not carpet.

People get so use to it that they don’t think about walking up or down the stairs and thats when accidents happen. The blood is much easier to spill. Its one of the reasons that glass isn’t allowed anymore.

 

[MissRose73]

I have no issues with the limitations. When I go to EF Mass, I know I will only receive one species, and that is enough for me. Most OF Masses, I do receive both but keep in mind not all choose to partake in the cup.

Yes, it seems like a lot of ministers to give communion sometimes. When I went to one EF Mass, 2 priests gave out Communion to about 200 people, and it did not seem to take any longer having people go to the rails to get the host compared to a normal lineup where you get the host then some choose the cup also at OF Mass.

 

[Etamin]

2.) spillage. I cringe when I go to parish and see the Emhc leave the altar with the cup of blood. They normally have to walk down and then back up the stairs and there is great possibilities for spillage. It is much easier to clean up someone dropping the host then cleaning up spilt wine.

Note too that some of these chalices can actually be disassemble by a twisting motion, which can happen as the EMHC rotates the cup and wipes with a purificator. I saw this happen to a cousin of mine. The Precious Blood was spilled on all his clothes and the floor. It became a mission to get everything cleaned up correctly and with reverence.

We should also remember that when an EMHC distributes the chalice, all us parishioners get involved in handling the vessel, increasing the chances of an accident.

It is for such reasons that I believe a priest distributing via intinction, with as server assisting by holding a commion plate, is the most suitable manner for all. As we are lacking in priests to do this at many larger Sunday services, distribution under one species would make sense as we receive both the Body and Blood of Jesus, even under one species.

 

[ProVobis]

I think the real issue is that they do not like extraordinary ministers.

Well, that is part of what the OP cites. But excessive use of EMHC is against Church policy; they are trying to enforce it in this particular diocese. If they have to cut an extra line after they’ve already received the entire Body and Blood of Christ, so be it; there is nothing theologically wrong with doing that.

 

[centurionguard]

Here’s the thing, they’re not Catholic so what Catholics do doesn’t concern them nor that the Church can do anything for them to believe otherwise. The Cup was withheld from Catholics, not to another religious group. Last time I checked, Catholics believe that Jesus is indeed God. And those who doesn’t have left the Church.

And how does withholding the Cup help that? This is a different issue from the one being discussed.

I just made one passing example. I could list all the ways one could catechize oneself via the internet. But I’m participating on a forum discussion, not writing a paper on catechesis via the internet.

Definitely the withholding of the Cup has nothing to do with it.

And again, what does withholding the Cup has anything to do with this?

With-holding the Consecrated Blood of Christ from the Faithful is ultimately the Bishops discretion by Church law. It does matter what you, I or anybody else thinks about the Bishops decision. Nor does a Bishop have to explain his reasons. Our job is to follow in obedience.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I’d like to see some support for the us wanting the sign value (outward sign) of any sacrament to be zero. I understand what you’re saying in theory, but in practice I beg to differ. The outward sign is an essential part of any sacrament.

I agree 100%

I am very Ignatian in my spirituality, and the senses, the imagination and emotions are all very important parts of my spirituality, and receiveing from the cup is one way in which my prayer is enhanced.
I know that it is not necessary to receive both and I will correct anyone who seems to imply this or who seems to have a distorted view of things,
which seems to be the prevailing reason why so many are in favor of denying the cup to the laity.

My problem with this is it does nothing to help the situation.
What is needed, and what the answer to just about all of the the so-called “problems” in the Church is better, LIFE-LONG catechesis, from the pulpit, from our words & actions and in our homes & schools.

 

[irishpatrick]

Too much debate imo.

 

[curlycool89]

Age isn’t the biggest deal. Heck I have walked down the stairs and tripped. And yes I have seen it happen. Young guy (mid 20’s) spill the whole cup on the way down. The clean up was horrible. Luckily it was on tile and not carpet.

And we would call that an accident. The risk of actually spilling the chalice is very, very low (I have no data to back this up, but my guess would be something on the order of 1 in 1,000 to 10,000 or more Masses where the Precious Blood is offered to the faithful). That’s a fairly reasonable level of risk, and nobody actually intends to spill the Precious Blood.

When you get into risk reduction, you can end up coming up with completely unfeasible solutions. For example, the only sure way you can prevent every accident is for no one to get out of bed in the morning. If you want less liturgical abuses, then the solution is to have less Masses and fewer authorized priests. If you want less vehicle accidents, then people should drive less.

Those would be trying to reduce the risk at the source by stoping the risky action in the first place. Obviously, in most cases it’s a non-started. Preventing spillage by stoping distribution of the Precious Blood is like preventing airline accidents by grounding all flights.

Everything you do in life has risk (I could trip and fall out of bed in the morning and hit my head on my bedside stand, and that’s just the first 30 seconds of my day ). The best you can do in most cases is mitigate the risk to an acceptable level.

Note too that some of these chalices can actually be disassemble by a twisting motion, which can happen as the EMHC rotates the cup and wipes with a purificator. I saw this happen to a cousin of mine. The Precious Blood was spilled on all his clothes and the floor. It became a mission to get everything cleaned up correctly and with reverence.

I’m no expert of sacred vessels or chalices, but that just seems like a bad idea to begin with.

We should also remember that when an EMHC distributes the chalice, all us parishioners get involved in handling the vessel, increasing the chances of an accident.

Which is why EMHC are paying close attention to make sure that nothing happens. Most EMHC are able to accomplish the back and forth safely without it turning into a tug-of-war despite the fact that they aren’t Superman.

I’m getting the general feeling that people here have a low confidence in human ability to do simple tasks. And here I thought I was cynical.

 

[JerseyCatholic]

abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/wine-dropped-from-catholic-mass-in-phoenix

Perhaps someone with more knowledge than me can answer this. Is this change really going to be part of the new missal when it goes into effect on November 27? That’s what the article says and I was just curious to see if that was the case or not.

 

[1holycatholic]

And we would call that an accident. The risk of actually spilling the chalice is very, very low (I have no data to back this up, but my guess would be something on the order of 1 in 1,000 to 10,000 or more Masses where the Precious Blood is offered to the faithful). That’s a fairly reasonable level of risk, and nobody actually intends to spill the Precious Blood.

When you get into risk reduction, you can end up coming up with completely unfeasible solutions. For example, the only sure way you can prevent every accident is for no one to get out of bed in the morning. If you want less liturgical abuses, then the solution is to have less Masses and fewer authorized priests. If you want less vehicle accidents, then people should drive less.

Abuse isn’t accidental, abuse involves intent.

 

[Corki]

Too much debate imo.

I agree. As in many of the questions of liturgy, there are options. The Bishop has exercised his option. He was nice enough to explain his reasoning, which he didn’t have to. That should be enough.

 

[Corki]

I fully hold the two points above. Yet for me, the addition “sign value” of receiving under both species is real. This you cannot deny, as you do not have access to my perception of “sign value” of the sacrament. I do not believe that I receive any additional redemption or grace under both species, but yet I hold that there is greater value, of some sort, for me and I’m sure for others.

I wouldn’t disagree if you said that the value I perceive is merely emotional, though.

No one is going to question that but it isn’t a difference in the Sacrament. You may have an enhanced perception by receiving under both species in the same way that someone may have an enhanced perception by receiving kneeling, or by listening to instrumental music during the reception of Communion.

I feel the issue of “fuller sign” is often misrepresented. This is what RS says,

[100.] So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.[186]

The sign value, as mentioned in this passage, isn’t acheived by the reception of Communion under both kinds, but rather, by the offering and the explanation. Just from a practical standpoint, the ongoing catechesis regarding Communion is probably lacking in most parishes and much easier to implement if tied to occasional rather than ordingary Communion under both kinds.

 

[irishpatrick]

I agree. As in many of the questions of liturgy, there are options. The Bishop has exercised his option. He was nice enough to explain his reasoning, which he didn’t have to. That should be enough.

Exactly. Catholics argue too much, and obey too little, imo.

I really think the Church and the world would do much better if we made obedience more important. All this arguing and debating and discussing just take people away from having a simple, loving, and abiding faith. It creates dissention and division.

It reminds of the confusing message children are sent today.