S
- Status
C
centurionguard
Guest
Interesting; though I’m somewhat confused about certain points the article addresses which seems to be late given the fact my Archdiocese as is many across Canada has been distributing Holy Communion under both species for over a decade.
I would note that limiting Holy Communion under both species for special occasions IMHO would be a prudent beginning to help stop liturgical abuses with too much wine being consecrated which I have witnessed for a long time.
The other point I thought was good in the article was limiting the number of EMHC’s which I think is an abuse in itself especially when you see priests or deacons sitting it out during Holy Communion instead of being in the center aisle giving out Communion.
I’m aware of poor health amongst some clergy members but when this becomes a common occurrence something is wrong.
F
Fiasco
Guest
Looks like it.
Getting rid of some of the EMHCs is a good start; but restricting Communion under both kinds may have even greater benefit. Some of the Hussite heretics (15th Century) claimed that Jesus has to be received under both species to be received totally; so the Church banned the receiving of the Precious Blood, to reinforce her teaching that He is Totally present as the Host (and as the Precious Blood).
I know a few Catholics who believe what the earlier heretics believed: this new move might change some of their minds.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
C
Corki
Guest
While “abuse” might be a strong word, Redemptionis Sacramentum lists consecrating too much wine as a matter to be avoided.Since when is consecrating too much wine an abuse?
Even if consecrating too much wine is not itself an abuse, it can easily lead to abuses such as removing chalices still containing consecrated wine from the altar.
C
centurionguard
Guest
When too much excess amount of the Blood of Christ isn’t consumed by the priest or EMHC’s and the excess amount winds up being poured down the Sacrarium then (“Yes”) it becomes an huge liturgical abuse.Since when is consecrating too much wine an abuse?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
As long as it is consumed, then it is no abuse. Consecrating a small amount doesn’t guarantee that it will fully be consumed. If that is the issue, then it is not about how much wine is consecrated but the priest and other ministers of Communion not doing their job to consume all the Precious Blood.
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
Common Sense is something that is hard to find in these years …
The Catholic Orthodox Church has been doing for times, in a way that I do not like very much, without problems…
Once you have in mind that there should ever be problems, they will appear out of nothing…
C
centurionguard
Guest
Now really how does this statement make a lot of sense?
As you pointed out someones not doing their job due to complete carelessness.
Pure complacency and disrespect towards both consecrated species as I see it.
I would even call into question a person’s Faith with such neglect.
Fact is no abuse should ever take place and every respect to make sure it doesn’t happen should be diligently enforced. There is No Excuse.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Let’s put it this way.
By itself, it’s not an abuse to consecrate more than is strictly necessary. After all, one can only approximate how much each person is going to consume, and it’s usually better to err on the side of “a little more” than “not enough.”
It becomes an abuse, however, when this is taken to the extreme, and way too much wine is consecrated than reasonably necessary. So if there are about 6 people at a daily Mass and the priest consecrates a whole bottle’s quantity of wine, that would be an abuse. And yes, I’ve seen it done.
What do you say?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
From Redemptionis Sacramentum
How do we determine a “reasonable quantity”? Naturally, the answer to that will vary, however, we do know when something is taken to an excess and done intentionally.
- The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”…
- Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn…102…
How do we determine a “reasonable quantity”? Naturally, the answer to that will vary, however, we do know when something is taken to an excess and done intentionally.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Maybe it’s a common occurance with our ever aging priest population?
Right, but is the answer to eliminate the faithful receiving consecrated wine, or addressing the (abuse, irregularity, whatever) by addressing the (abuse, irregularity, whatever)?
Good answer, I say.
C
Corki
Guest
Do you mean the Orthodox-Catholic Church? They are not part of the Catholic Church at all (in spite of their name) so I am not sure considering their practices is very helpful.
C
Corki
Guest
If that were the only reason, maybe not. But the link in the OP shows that the Bishop mentioned several reasons to make Communion under both species more infrequent.
T
TimothyH
Guest
The ritual books state that Holy Communion may be offered at the Chrism Mass and feast of Corpus Christi. Additionally, it may be offered to a Catholic couple at their wedding Mass, to first communicants…"
I’m sure they meant to say, “Holy Communion under the species of wine” rather than just Holy Communion in general.
-Tim-
I’m sure they meant to say, “Holy Communion under the species of wine” rather than just Holy Communion in general.
-Tim-
N
Newbie2
Guest
What were the several reasons? It seems only to mention the excessive EMHC use.
Personally, even if there are several valid reasons, methinks it’s like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
C
Corki
Guest
I see three
- Excessive EMHC use (that’s a big one by itself)
- Large number of communicants
- Desire to restore “special occasion” character of Communion under both kinds.
N
Newbie2
Guest
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 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…
C
Corki
Guest
You can disagree but it doesn’t make it less valid.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.
I am currently in a parish where the congregation receives under both kinds only on special occassions. I don’t see it as hiding light under a basket at all. We do many liturgical things only on special occasions such as processing in candlelight, incense, singing particular hymns, kneeling at the words of the incarnation in the Creed.
C
centurionguard
Guest
Maybe it’s a common occurrence with our ever aging priest population?
Right, but is the answer to eliminate the faithful receiving consecrated wine, or addressing the (abuse, irregularity, whatever) by addressing the (abuse, irregularity, whatever)?
Good answer, I say.
Why make such a ridiculous suggestion? What part of what I wrote did (you) fail to understand that made you give such a suggestion in the first place?
- Status