Diocese limits Communion under both kinds

[ProVobis]

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?

If a large Host is offered, it’s okay to receive It. If a large amount of Blood is offered, it’s okay to receive It. But it’s when one starts to complain about how little they get or that they don’t receive as much as the next guy is where problems arise. Who are we to tell the Church what should be available to us when they’ve already told us point blank only a tiny amount of either counts for communion? As does spiritual communion for that matter. My dying father couldn’t receive even a small fragment because of his condition and here we are complaining about needing both the consecrated Host and consecrated Wine to feel fulfilled?

 

[Newbie2]

If a large Host is offered, it’s okay to receive It. If a large amount of Blood is offered, it’s okay to receive It. But it’s when one starts to complain about how little they get or that they don’t receive as much as the next guy is where problems arise. Who are we to tell the Church what should be available to us when they’ve already told us point blank only a tiny amount of either counts for communion? As does spiritual communion for that matter. My dying father couldn’t receive even a small fragment because of his condition and here we are complaining about needing both the consecrated Host and consecrated Wine to feel fulfilled?

Stop right there…nobody ever said anything in this thread about NEEDING both to be fulfilled.

We’re talking prefereces here, nothing else.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

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.

I beg to differ. We Americans are not at all lacking in respect for authority. We have a different view of it, one I think that is more correct. Remember we have the oldest republic, with the oldest written constitution, with the oldest political party in the world. No, we respect legitimate authority.

Yes, if we don’t like something we try to change it and make it better. Of course there are certain things in the Church, our deposit of Faith, that cannot change. However, a surprisingly large amount of the way the Catholic Church operates is changeable. Unfortunately, many of those in power in the Church try to present it differently. Take for example the selection of bishops. The earliest and real tradition of the Church is that the bishops would be elected by the people and clergy of the local diocese. Many times, the new bishop would often send his greetings to the Bishop of Rome acknowledging his union with “Peter” who would confirm his election. Eventually, this act gave rise to the claim that only the pope can appoint a bishop. Yet the ancient customs are different. This claim has caused untold problems in the Church. It is bascially what has torn the Church apart many times in past, such as the great eastern schism of 1054 and the Protestant revolt.

We American believe that authority must first and foremost also follow the law. I hardly think that is wrong.

 

[Brendan]

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?

The Church has stated that the only aspect in which the Sacrament is ‘fuller’ is in it’s sign value,

And as I said before, the our goal is for the sign value to be reduced to zero.

Therefore, what is added to our reception of both species should be a fuller ‘zero’ that the reception of one species alone.

But then again, no matter how much fuller zero is, it’s still zero, which therefore is what is added to the Sacrament for anyone who recognizes

1.) that what they are recieving is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Risen Christ, Our Lord.

1. The Substance of Christ, our Lord, is the same in both species, and that the only difference between the two species is are the accidental properties, (how our senses percieve them)

So for anyone who has a Catholic understanding of the two points above, the additional sign value is zero and therefore there is no difference at all in recieving the Eucharist in a single species.

For those who lack such a Catholic understading of the two points above, the sign has value, but should be serving as a teaching aid so that the person progresses to a point where the sign no longer has value.

 

[Brendan]

And one other point.

Theologiciall the fullest sign value comes when the Eucharist is offered Intincted by the priest.

The sign value of both species is indicative of the Resurrected Nature of Christ. That His Body is whole and His Blood is flowing.

The most common way both species are offered in the Latin Rite has them offered seperately. The sign value of consecrating both species seperately in the Eucharisitc Prayer shows the death of Christ, that His Body and Blood are seperated.

This is necessary, as the Eucharistic prayer is a represenation of the Sacrifice of Calvary, where Christ died. But the Liturgy of the Eucharist is also a re-presentation of the Resurrection. The sign value of that is the placing of an element of the species of bread into the chalice. This shows the union of Body and Blood of the Risen Lord.

In the East, and in certain Latin parishes, this fullest sign is presented to the laity in the form of an intincted Host. The signs of Body and Blood are united, as in the Risen Christ.

And being offered to the laity by the priest himself, the sign value is increased, as the priest is in-persona Christi, and we see the offering the Christ Himself BY Christ Himself.

So Newbie, if you are calling on your clergy to offer the fullest possible sign, if the sign has value, to be logically and theologically consistant, you should be asking for the priest himself (and alone) to offer the Eucharist intincted.

Anything less, is having the sign ‘less full’

 

[Fiasco]

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.***

It already has: I know a truly devout Catholic who thinks he misses out when he cant receive the Precious Blood. I also know someone whose belief in the Real Presence faded after she started receiving the "wine": "It TASTES like wine! It IS wine!" Betrayed by her own senses! The Hosts taste is bland, so there`s not the same sensory problem, not to the same extent, anyway.

At the Last Supper, when Jesus said: “Take and eat . . .” and “Take and drink . . .”, the Apostles were consecrated bishops.
A priest consecrates and consumes under both species to acknowledge Jesus death, symbolized by the separating of His Body and Blood.*** Were not priests.***

I`m not too keen on the idea that some Communicants feel emotionally better about receiving under both Species. Is there a tendency for emotion to override the intellect?

 

[Brendan]

It already has: I know a truly devout Catholic who thinks he misses out when he can`t receive the Precious Blood.

Fiasco, I loved your post, but you unintentionally reinforced your point.

The Ultraquist heresy is alive and well in that people still refer to the species of wine as if it was a seperate substance “The Precious Blood”

The Precious Blood is fully and equally present in both species, yet we commonly refer to one species as if it was substantially distinct from the other species.

I know you are just using what is common terminology, but FAR, FAR too many Catholics really believe that one species is the singularly the Body of Christ, and the other species is singularly the Blood of Christ.

 

[centurionguard]

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.

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.

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?

Where did the Church go wrong with the 70%?

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

 

[PaulinVA]

I beg to differ. We Americans are not at all lacking in respect for authority. We have a different view of it

Thomas, I believe your post proves my point. We Americans even want to redefine what “respect for authority” means.

 

[Inquiringperson]

I beg to differ. We Americans are not at all lacking in respect for authority. We have a different view of it, one I think that is more correct. Remember we have the oldest republic, with the oldest written constitution, with the oldest political party in the world. No, we respect legitimate authority.

Yes, if we don’t like something we try to change it and make it better. Of course there are certain things in the Church, our deposit of Faith, that cannot change. However, a surprisingly large amount of the way the Catholic Church operates is changeable. Unfortunately, many of those in power in the Church try to present it differently. Take for example the selection of bishops. The earliest and real tradition of the Church is that the bishops would be elected by the people and clergy of the local diocese. Many times, the new bishop would often send his greetings to the Bishop of Rome acknowledging his union with “Peter” who would confirm his election. Eventually, this act gave rise to the claim that only the pope can appoint a bishop. Yet the ancient customs are different. This claim has caused untold problems in the Church. It is bascially what has torn the Church apart many times in past, such as the great eastern schism of 1054 and the Protestant revolt.

We American believe that authority must first and foremost also follow the law. I hardly think that is wrong.

You may be right about the people electing the Bishops, but the reason this is deeply flawed is that the Pope has to watch out for the heretics. If liberal Catholics in my diocese decided to elect a heretical Bishop, who knows of the untold destruction to me and all who stand against the heresy. At the very least, we’d be excommunicated!

I don’t think you understand about the difference between the types of Authority. There is the God-Given Authority, and there is secular authority. Secular authority can change and may conform to what the people said or they can be overthrown. God-Given Authority means that God chose them and you have to listen to them if they’re in good standing with God. No amount of protests or petitions can stop a decision made by the Bishop. The only person that can override the decision is the Pope.

 

[Inquiringperson]

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.

While it is true that receiving under both species is a more “fuller” sign as in I know for a fact using my eyes that I received his Body and Blood, we still receive his Body and Blood through the Consecrated host alone. So, we still are “The People of God”. I’m not sure you understand that.

Why would you view this as a political symbol? Just a thought.

 

[BellsSmells]

Not more than 30 minutes ago at Saturday morning Mass an EMHC returned a chalice to the credence table and (properly) veiled it with the purificator as the chalice would not be purified until after Mass. When it came time to purify the vessels there was an ounce or two of Precious Blood still in the chalice. This person has been instructed before that ALL the Precious Blood is to be consumed before returning a chalice, either by oneself or with help from others. Yet she continues to do her own thing. Two weeks ago at Sunday Mass she returned a chalice and the adult server stuffed the purificator into the chalice, right into, you guessed it, the Precious Blood. This was a huge problem in my parish. It took years to stamp out. It’s painful to see people who don’t listen/care/BELIEVE commit the same transgressions.

I think limiting the use of Precious Blood might help many of these situations.

 

[centurionguard]

I thought this article was worth the read: catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=11822

“In the Diocese of Phoenix, like other places where the practice of reception from the chalice became frequent or even commonplace, the new norms call for the practice of less frequent distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds than the faithful may have been accustomed.”

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 and their family members, confirmation candidates and their sponsors, as well as deacons, non-concelebrating priests, servers and seminarians at any Mass, as well as community members at a conventual Mass or those on a retreat or at a spiritual gathering. In addition, a priest may select other important solemnities in which it may be offered, e.g., parish patronal feast days or the celebration of the dedication of the church building, provided the conditions are met.

“In normal circumstances, only priests and deacons are to distribute Holy Communion,” the diocese added; ** “when both forms of Communion are used frequently, ‘extraordinary’ ministers of Holy Communion are disproportionately multiplied.”**

I agree that EMHC’s are often disproportionately multiplied

 

[ProVobis]

At the Last Supper, when Jesus said: “Take and eat . . .” and “Take and drink . . .”, the Apostles were consecrated bishops.
A priest consecrates and consumes under both species to acknowledge Jesus death, symbolized by the separating of His Body and Blood. Were not priests.

Actually the priest does consume by intinction, at least a form of it. Right after the Pater Noster, at the Haec Commixtio prayer, he breaks a small amount of the large Host into the consecrated Wine before he drinks of the chalice later.

But you’re right. We’re not priests and we don’t perform the sacrifice.

 

[angelic06]

Let me state that whenever I received my first Holy Communion, about 1992 I think, I did not receive both the Host and from the chalice. While I was only a second grader then, I did not believe that I was being cheated out my place in the “People of God”. I just received the Host. In light of this, I think it is pretty generous that the Church permits, according to the revised Norms, Latin Catholics to receive both the Host and from the chalice under a few circumstances, one of them being the reception of First Holy Communion, and some solemnities as decided by the priest. Other than the Chrism Mass, Corpus Christi, and patronal feast days, dedication of the edifice, these other solemnities are not mentioned------for all we know, they can be a generous as having it on Christmas, Easter, All Saints, and other solemnities.

 

[JM3]

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

In Baptism, are sins more ‘fully’ washed away by immersion then by cupping the hand and sprinkling a few drops on the head?

Matthew 5: 27-28

27: "You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.’

28: But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Does Jesus teach that you sin less ‘in the heart’ then physically?

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”?

No. The sign is not for you.

 

[1holycatholic]

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.

The Eucharist is not a symbol.

 

[Te_Deum]

Regarding how much wine should be used at Mass… in the EF, we use a wine-cruet that is only about an inch tall, maybe just over that. The danger isn’t having too much wine at the consecration… it’s not having any wine left at the Ablutions (I was mortified when that happened to me ).

Edit: Just to clarify, this is only at the EF Mass I assist at, it isn’t a general pronouncement on cruet-practise in the EF liturgy.

No more needs to be said.

When you consume the Host, you are eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood. Regardless of species. When you consume the Precious Blood are you also eating His Flesh.

Nothing more needs to be said.

 

[irishpatrick]

When we receive the Host, we ARE receiving both species.

The Priest consecrates and receives under both species. It is not mandated that the faithful do the same, and frankly it is not like receiving both species is EXTRA special, since receiving one or the other contains the Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

If this helps reduce EMHCs, I am all for it.

 

[Brendan]

The Eucharist is not a symbol.

Actually, it is.

It is Sign, Symbol AND Reality.

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

The Eucharist has both a connection to what is signified, in that the species of bread and wine represent the individual substances of body and blood. The Reality is that both are unifed in a Risen Christ, the Substance ( unified Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) we recieve.

But it’s value as Sign and Symbol decrease as our understanding of the Reality increase.

Our goal is for the Eucharist to have no sign value as we accept the fullness of the reality, as we are lead to the knowledge of what is signified, the sign has done it’s job.

It ceases in value as the reality of what it signifies is gained.