Diocese limits Communion under both kinds

[Elizium23]

Thread title is misleading: please read the officlal statements from the Diocese. They are not “stopping” access to the cup but they are aligning to the norms established by the Holy See. For some parishes, this means that the daily or weekly distribution will cease; for the whole diocese, however, this means that special occasions such as the dedication of the church building, patronal feasts, weddings, the Chrism Mass, Corpus Christi - there will be many opportunities for a “fuller sign” by offering both species and these will indeed feel like special occasions.

 

[BellsSmells]

I for one usually don’t take Communion under both species. I was taught that one receives Jesus fully in the Eucharistic Host.

I am grateful we have Bishop Olmsted to lead our diocese to a greater reverence for Our Lord. What was supposed to be saved for special occassions had become common place in the US.

Blessings.

Not true.

In any event, few things are more special than receiving Holy Communion.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

Receiving under both species is a good thing. I understand your problem when they denied you both species, and if your Bishop allows it, you should talk to the CDWDS. But receiving both species isn’t necessary. Just the consecrated bread or the consecrated wine will do just fine, as you still receive Jesus’ body and blood, soul and divinity.

Thanks for your understanding. I think most people fully understand that you receive Jesus under the sign of either the Bread or Wine. There is really no danger of a Hussite or Utraquist heresy in the Church now. But our experience is so much fuller when we receive under both species. I have essentially received communion with few exceptions under both species my entire adult life (40 years). But to be denied it now is very hurtful. It is also demeaning when the reason given for denying me this gift is that I am a second class citizen of the Kingdom of God. I don’t know what a CDWDS is, but I did meet with our local vicar and gave my concerns in writing. He was great and understanding. We talked about the difficulty Europeans have in understanding Americans. For 400 years we have lived with democracy, freedom and equility. We look at anything else as lawlessness, pure and simple. The immigrants who came here came to live a life of freedom. Europeans have never really lived in freedom. Even now their democratic governments are a thin veneer indeed. Their default buttom is to clamp down. Our default buttom is to enhance freedom and dignity.

 

[7_Sorrows]

as a Catholic who is a part of the Diocese of Phoenix, i was stunned when i heard the news this afternoon. i will wait and see what the reaction is here. evidently, there are a lot of priests, deacons who don’t agree with this. i like Bishop Olmstead and he has been good for the diocese, so i will accept whatever comes of this.

 

[ProVobis]

READ my post. I’m talking about the external sign, not the reality of what we’re receiving.

I’ve read and reread it and I still don’t follow. If I receive the tiniest piece of consecrated bread OR sip the smallest amount of consecrated wine, then I’ve received sacramentally the ENTIRE BODY AND BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY of Christ. Not 1% or 50%, but 100%! If I insist on more, then it probably shows I’m not comfortable with that small amount and/or I don’t believe I’ve received 100%. Therefore I’d be entertaining a heretical (but not necessarily sinful) mindset.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Thanks for your understanding. I think most people fully understand that you receive Jesus under the sign of either the Bread or Wine. There is really no danger of a Hussite or Utraquist heresy in the Church now. But our experience is so much fuller when we receive under both species. I have essentially received communion with few exceptions under both species my entire adult life (40 years). But to be denied it now is very hurtful. It is also demeaning when the reason given for denying me this gift is that I am a second class citizen of the Kingdom of God. I don’t know what a CDWDS is, but I did meet with our local vicar and gave my concerns in writing. He was great and understanding. We talked about the difficulty Europeans have in understanding Americans. For 400 years we have lived with democracy, freedom and equility. We look at anything else as lawlessness, pure and simple. The immigrants who came here came to live a life of freedom. Europeans have never really lived in freedom. Even now their democratic governments are a thin veneer indeed. Their default buttom is to clamp down. Our default buttom is to enhance freedom and dignity.

Well, actually, we have many Catholics not knowing that Jesus is in the Eucharist!

 

[PiousTemplar]

Actually, it’s the species of wine.

The Blood of Christ is equally present in both species.

Oops sorry

 

[Stonez]

The parishes I’ve regular gone to (New YOrk Archdiocese) don’t give out the wine. When I’ve been to mass in Orlando, and Massachussetts, the wine is given./QUOTE

if you’re in nyc, try going to st. francis de sales on 96th and lex, they have good “wine”

 

[Stonez]

The parishes I’ve regular gone to (New YOrk Archdiocese) don’t give out the wine. When I’ve been to mass in Orlando, and Massachussetts, the wine is given.

if you’re in nyc, try going to st francis de sales on 96th and lex, they’ve got good “wine”

 

[rlg94086]

For people like me who have celiac disease, cannot consume anything with wheat, that is sad and unfair.

More than likely, the priest/bishop will make exceptions. In our local Dominican Priory, the Eucharist is received kneeling at the altar rail. A young girl with celiac disease receives from the priest’s chalice after the other communicants have all received.

 

[rlg94086]

Thanks for your understanding. I think most people fully understand that you receive Jesus under the sign of either the Bread or Wine. There is really no danger of a Hussite or Utraquist heresy in the Church now. But our experience is so much fuller when we receive under both species. I have essentially received communion with few exceptions under both species my entire adult life (40 years). But to be denied it now is very hurtful. It is also demeaning when the reason given for denying me this gift is that I am a second class citizen of the Kingdom of God. I don’t know what a CDWDS is, but I did meet with our local vicar and gave my concerns in writing. He was great and understanding. We talked about the difficulty Europeans have in understanding Americans. For 400 years we have lived with democracy, freedom and equility. We look at anything else as lawlessness, pure and simple. The immigrants who came here came to live a life of freedom. Europeans have never really lived in freedom. Even now their democratic governments are a thin veneer indeed. Their default buttom is to clamp down. Our default buttom is to enhance freedom and dignity.

IMHO, you are overreacting. Receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ is not any “fuller” when received under both species. Even a tiny speck of a crumb of the consecrated host would suffice for me. It holds the fullness of His Grace.

 

[Fiasco]

Do you know about the utraquists?

I knew the Hussites pushed that heresy, but didn`t realise it went back to Wycliffe! He had even more to answer for.

IMHO, you are overreacting. Receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ is not any “fuller” when received under both species. Even a tiny speck of a crumb of the consecrated host would suffice for me. It holds the fullness of His Grace.

Theres something about receiving under both Species that worries me. I know a good devout Catholic who refuses to believe that the Precious Blood is anything but wine: "But, its WINE, it TASTES like wine!" **PERIOD! **She wont budge! And now, the Host is just bread. She wouldnt be the only deceived one.
OK: defective catechesis, partly; but theres a big difference between the bland taste of the Host, and the strong and lingering taste of the "wine". The few times Ive had to receive by intinction, Ive had to drive the thought that Its wine out of my mind. Why aggravate it for those with a weaker belief in the Real Presence?

The combat helmet is in place.

 

[PaulinVA]

From the Bishop’s letter. This makes sense:

From 1975 on, the United States, United Kingdom and Oceania were given experimental privileges for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds. These privileges expired in 2005 and were not renewed by the Holy See. The new norms issued in June 2011 are what guide the liturgical practice today and in the future.

 

[PaulinVA]

The immigrants who came here came to live a life of freedom. Europeans have never really lived in freedom. Even now their democratic governments are a thin veneer indeed. Their default buttom is to clamp down. Our default buttom is to enhance freedom and dignity.

But, who says we are right? What we as Americans are totally lacking is a respect for legitimate authority.

If we don’t like something, we try to change it, or just ignore it. Well, that doesn’t work with the Church. Making this the Church’s problem is wrong. It’s our problem with respecting authority.

 

[Newbie2]

I’ve read and reread it and I still don’t follow. If I receive the tiniest piece of consecrated bread OR sip the smallest amount of consecrated wine, then I’ve received sacramentally the ENTIRE BODY AND BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY of Christ. Not 1% or 50%, but 100%! If I insist on more, then it probably shows I’m not comfortable with that small amount and/or I don’t believe I’ve received 100%. Therefore I’d be entertaining a heretical (but not necessarily sinful) mindset.

Yes, I agree with that.

Let me put it a different way. As Brendan says, we all can agree that receiving under both species is a fuller sign; such is Church teaching.

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?

If the Lord gave his diciples both species and commanded them (and by extension, us) to do so, why (unless there are apparent problems with abuses, etc.) should they not be made available to us?

I have to stress once again that the “fullness” does not refer to the completeness of reception of our Lord, rather it refers to the physical experience present in the sacrament. Spritually, it’s all the same under one species or both.

 

[Newbie2]

Large and bright street signs are great, but even the largest and brightest street sign has little value once you know for certain you have arrived at Main St.

In fact, having that bright signs can even be a distraction.

Remember again the purpose of a sign

It is supposed to lead us to something else. If we have recieved Christ Himself, what else can we be lead to, should be lead to?

**The sign can lead us to knowledge, but if we already have the knowledge, and are certain of it, what purpose does the sign serve. It serve no purpose, we have achieved the reality, we have the knowledge the sign pointed towards. **

So it might be a fuller sign, but a gazillion times zero still equals zero.

Well, that’s my point. It is a fuller sigh. Nothing else.

You might have a personal preference for the experience, but that would mean that you are not using the sign in the way the Church intents. A Sign should either move us towards the reality, or allow us to gain greater knowledge of the reality it signifies.

The experience you refer to is not what the sign signifies.

(Re: bolded)

I think you’ve gone a little too far in your thinking here, if I’m understanding you correctly: IF one had knowledge and certainty of the reality, we still need the sign, the sign is essential in the sacrament…it does serve an essential purpose. If it did not, then we could receive a “spiritual communion” or a “spiritual baptism” or a “spritual annointing of the sick” and never have a need for the physical actions present in these sacraments, no?

I guess that’s the problem with analogies…they’re never perfect.

Maybe I can put it another way…would you agree that it is fair to say that by “fuller sign” the Church means “fuller physical experience”?

 

[Thomas_Redd]

IMHO, you are overreacting. Receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ is not any “fuller” when received under both species. Even a tiny speck of a crumb of the consecrated host would suffice for me. It holds the fullness of His Grace.

In my most humble opinion, I think you may be under reacting. The incredible thing about symbols is that they operate on so many different levels. Like for instance a Christmas tree not only is a symbol of life surviving in the midst of winter (death), it also stands for the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden and the second Tree of Life - the cross.

We are just not talking about receiving Jesus. Your remarks are understood and agreed upon. Unfortunately, the Latin rite departed from the wishes of Jesus himself that we receive him in his Body ***AND *** His Blood and from a 12 hundred year old tradition in the Latin rite and the tradition of the rest of the unverisal Church.

By denying the congregation the Cup, the Church basically made a symbolic political statement about how it views its members. Instead of being brothers and sisters as our Christian faith demands, we are children who must be kept in our place, both in the Church and in society. The use of Latin, a language only the tiniest percentage of the congregation understood, was also part of this complex of symbols designed to reinforce the polictical agenda of subservience. When the Church restored the Cup, it made the statement symbolically that we are all “The People of God.” Remember that beautiful phrase. It seems like we don’t use it anymore.

Unfortunately the Bishop of Phoenix is again using the reception of communion as a political symbol. Clearly, from a reilgious prospective there is absolutely no reason to deny communion under both species. In fact the overwelming prepondence of theology is the opposite. While the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, it is still a institution of frail humans. The “will to power” is strong in all of us and will even use our most sacred symbols.

 

[Teelynn]

For people like me who have celiac disease, cannot consume anything with wheat, that is sad and unfair.

Upon watching EWTN last week, they were talking about a group of nuns that have come up with a recipe for the Host that is valid with extremely minimal glutten in it. They were saying that it is minute enough to not cause any problems for people with celiac disease, yet with just a trace in it which is enough to make it valid. With celiac disease on the rise, this might be the answer. Just an FYI that I thought was interesting.

I also learned in this segment that there is also a wine available that is valid with extremely minimal alcohol for priests that are afflicted with alcoholism. (maybe I am behind in not hearing about this sooner:shrug This has also been a problem in the past. We have an adult altar server in our parish that is a recovering alcoholic that cannot take the precious blood, and I am sure that there are enough alcoholic priests running around that need this.

Heck, I thought it was pretty progressive (excuse the term) when our parish received the very small Hosts for the ill and infirm that have a hard time processing the larger Hosts. It’s nice to have the tiny ones to give them instead of having to break them which might cause particles to fly here and there.

 

[Brendan]

Yes, I agree with that.

Let me put it a different way. As Brendan says, we all can agree that receiving under both species is a fuller sign; such is Church teaching.

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?

Because, be definition, the value of the sign should decrease to zero as we more fully accept what the Eucharist is ( the reality).

So our **goal **is for the sign to be meaningless to us.

But yet you ask for us to ‘settle’ for just the opposite of what the Church asks for, having a fuller sign?? No, we should not settle for that, but for making the sign value as close to zero as we can make it.

If the Lord gave his diciples both species and commanded them (and by extension, us) to do so, why (unless there are apparent problems with abuses, etc.) should they not be made available to us?

Christ did not command us (the laity) to do what He instructed the Apostles to do. He made them Bishops and commanded them to confect the Eucharist as an perpetual sacrifice.

That does not, and cannot, apply to the laity.

Like the Apostles, Minister who confects the Eucharist has always recieved in both species. That fulfills Christ’s command to the Apostles, but that is not true for the laity.

As for why it should not be available to us, the Church has given the circumstances in which it can be offered. If those conditions are not met, then (by definition), it should not be offered to us.

 

[Newbie2]

Let me throw this out there:

What exactly is meant by “fullness” in this sacrament? If it is “fuller” under both species, it is obviously “less full” under one.

I think we’re talking about fullness in different contexts. We all agree that we receive the complete fullness of the spritual dimention of the sacrament under one or both. So what is it that we are receiving “less fully” under one species only?

Brendan and I have discussed the sign…any further thoughts? Something other than the sign then “less full”?

(I don’t mean to suggest that we have exhausted the topic )

And what about the physical experience? Is that “less full” under one species?

And…the diocese in this thread seems to consider reception of both species “more special”, reserving it for “special” occasions. What exactly is “more special” about receiving under both species?