Diocese limits Communion under both kinds

[Thomas_Redd]

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.

I am sorry I don’t think you fully understand what we are saying. Absolutely no one that I know denies that we receive Jesus whole and complete when we receive in only one kind. This argument, used in this way, is setting up the classic “Straw Man” fallacy to knock down. We are not talking the validity of the sacrament but what is best for the Church, its people and what follows more closely Jesus’s commands and the real traditions of the Church.

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. Again, this was not done for religious purposes but for politicial purposes, that is, to exert power.

Thanks for your good question.

 

[Brendan]

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. .

Here you are mistaken. It is used because it give no preference to any language

Pope John XXIII ( the one who called Vatican II in the first place), had this to say:

Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor anyone nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

-Veterum sapientia

I myself experienced that both when I was growing up, and when I was in a period of extensive global business travel.
The parish my grandmother went to was half Irish and half hispanic. The Mass was the EF Mass said in Latin, with the readings and the homily given in both languages.

When Vatican II came around, the pastor there just said the OF Mass, ad orientum, in Latin and the readings and the homily was done in both languages.

Since my father often took my grandmother to Mass on Sunday, that was how I learned the Latin responses

Now, parishes are generally ‘balkanized’ with two different groups of people attending the same parish, but not knowing each other. Kinda sad really.

When I was traveling globally, it was far easier to send an email to the diocese in which I was traveling and find a Mass in Latin, than to learn all the responses in German, French, Spanish, Porteguese, Korean, Japanese, etc…

I would go that Mass and all of us would pray in a common language, no matter where they were from.

Pope John XXIII, in the same document, also noted the precision of Latin, which is necessary, as theology requires the precise conveyance of concepts.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin’s formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

And besides, IIRC correctly, Christ preached a servant model, with shepards above us, and we as the sheep.

So it’s Christian to act like sheep every now and then

 

[Thomas_Redd]

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

Again, we are going to differ. Go back to the basic political theory we all learned in grade school and high school. Americans believe that the original state of humanity is one of freedom and digniity. It is the europeans and other old world “ruffians” who redefined authority to mean subservience of everyone to themselves (no surprise there). Read the Book of Kings when God is trying dissaude the Isrealites from having a King. God tries to warn them about the freedom they will have to give up. It is quite a remarkable passage and almost has an "American’ feel to it. Remember Rome was a republic for longer than it was either a kingdom or an empire.

Of course you can make a point about religious authority being different than political authority. That is true. However, Jesus was always clear that a person in authority must serve and not lord it over others. By his life and death it was clear He meant this passage literally. So many times as in the case of bishop of Phoenix, this passage is conveniently overlooked. Even the Pope uses the title, “Servant of the Servants of God.” Do they really understand what that means in reality. Some popes have and some have not.

We Americans have much to bring to the Catholic Church in our theory of goverance. Remember at the Second Vatican Council, it was the American bishops, in their finest hour, who demanded the document on religious freedom. Just imagine, a Catholic Church without that document. How embarrased we would all be before the world.

 

[beckers]

I am okay with this.

1.) when I went to st.Patrick’s in NY we received only under the bread species. For such a big church they only had priest and it took no longer then if they had had emhc. Same thing when I visited south bend a few weeks ago.

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.

3.) logistics. Having a line for bread and the wines slow downs the process of getting people to and from their seats. As you have some not getting wine and then having to wait for those who did receive wine to fet back into the seat which backs up things and keeps people from getting focused in their after coomunuion prayers. Plus receiving wine is not as fast as receiving the host and causes a line that effects the host line.

I do love how people scream “you can’t change things as they have been this way for a long time”…really…the changes have been around for less than 50 years and that is a drop in the hat for our church’s history. The church has tried the change and decided to change back… no biggie. And why do we Americans think we deserve to be different then the rest of the church? If this is the norm then let’s get back into the fold with everyone else.

For me I am excited about the new mass changes. No more of me screwing up responses as I go from Anglican use(rite 1) to regular roman. Now people won’t look at me strangely when I say “with thy spirit”.

 

[curlycool89]

I’m not going to argue about withholding the Precious Blood, and I’m not saying that there many be legitimate reasons to do it, but I will make one comment here.

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.

That is an awful reason.

Any adult should be able to carry a chalice of any liquid down steps without spilling it. It’s not rocket science; most people have done it hundreds of times in their lives. The only reason I could possibly see is if the chalices are being overfilled. I’ve been an EMHC for a couple years now and have never seen a chalice filled over half-way, which should have 0% chance of spilling if you are at all looking where you are going while walking.

The only time I have ever seen a spill is when a priest was pouring the unconsecrated wine into the chalices and spilled a little on the alter.

There’s trying to be cautious, and then there’s being way overprotective.

 

[PaulinVA]

Again, we are going to differ. Go back to the basic political theory we all learned in grade school and high school. Americans believe that the original state of humanity is one of freedom and dignity. It is the europeans and other old world “ruffians” who redefined authority to mean subservience of everyone to themselves (no surprise there).

Are you forgetting that the United States was a colonial power? Are you forgetting what Americans did to native Americans? Your statements can not be proven by the facts.

However, Jesus was always clear that a person in authority must serve and not lord it over others. By his life and death it was clear He meant this passage literally. So many times as in the case of bishop of Phoenix, this passage is conveniently overlooked.

The Bishop of Phoenix is simply conforming his instructions with the GIRM. How can that be bad? You are imputing many things to the Bishop of Phoenix simply because he doesn’t agree with you.

We Americans have much to bring to the Catholic Church in our theory of governance. Remember at the Second Vatican Council, it was the American bishops, in their finest hour, who demanded the document on religious freedom. Just imagine, a Catholic Church without that document. How embarrassed we would all be before the world.

We did really well for centuries without that document. And, quite frankly, the American theory of governance is the number one impediment the Church in American faces.

 

[1holycatholic]

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

Our understanding does not have any impact on the reality of the Eucharist.

 

[Inquiringperson]

I’m not going to argue about withholding the Precious Blood, and I’m not saying that there many be legitimate reasons to do it, but I will make one comment here.

That is an awful reason.

Any adult should be able to carry a chalice of any liquid down steps without spilling it. It’s not rocket science; most people have done it hundreds of times in their lives. The only reason I could possibly see is if the chalices are being overfilled. I’ve been an EMHC for a couple years now and have never seen a chalice filled over half-way, which should have 0% chance of spilling if you are at all looking where you are going while walking.

The only time I have ever seen a spill is when a priest was pouring the unconsecrated wine into the chalices and spilled a little on the alter.

There’s trying to be cautious, and then there’s being way overprotective.

There’s too many variables for you to make a blanket statement like that. In my Parish, a lot of EMHC’s for my mass are old, so climbing steps can be a difficulty sometimes.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Again, we are going to differ. Go back to the basic political theory we all learned in grade school and high school. Americans believe that the original state of humanity is one of freedom and digniity. It is the europeans and other old world “ruffians” who redefined authority to mean subservience of everyone to themselves (no surprise there). Read the Book of Kings when God is trying dissaude the Isrealites from having a King. God tries to warn them about the freedom they will have to give up. It is quite a remarkable passage and almost has an "American’ feel to it. Remember Rome was a republic for longer than it was either a kingdom or an empire.

Of course you can make a point about religious authority being different than political authority. That is true. However, Jesus was always clear that a person in authority must serve and not lord it over others. By his life and death it was clear He meant this passage literally. So many times as in the case of bishop of Phoenix, this passage is conveniently overlooked. Even the Pope uses the title, “Servant of the Servants of God.” Do they really understand what that means in reality. Some popes have and some have not.

We Americans have much to bring to the Catholic Church in our theory of goverance. Remember at the Second Vatican Council, it was the American bishops, in their finest hour, who demanded the document on religious freedom. Just imagine, a Catholic Church without that document. How embarrased we would all be before the world.

Church government isn’t a democracy. It’s a monarchy led by God. If you don’t like it, too bad. God will provide.

I’d do a double quote for one of your posts, but I don’t really know how, and I’m kind of lazy to do so right now. But right now, the Bishop is changing it so the Church in America can be more like the Church in Spain or the Church in Poland, where they don’t give Precious Blood. Too often, Americans “Protestantise” the Mass here. Holding hands during the Our Father, which is okay, isn’t something they’ll do in Spain. I’m not sure, but I don’t think the Church in Europe holds hands during the Pater Noster. Someone kindly correct me if I’m wrong.

My point, in case it got lost in my paragraph, is that American Catholics need to conform to the World’s norms, so our Mass can be more universal.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Got the Diocese’s Q and A on the Norms and their reasons. This should help with our discussion.

diocesephoenix.org/uploads/docs/COMMUNION-Q-AND-A-092111.pdf

On special days, they will give out Consecrated wine.

 

[rlg94086]

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.

I disagree with your assumption. I don’t think the move has anything to do with a “symbolic political statement.” That said, Christ didn’t leave an egalitarian Church structure - that is a Protestant viewpoint. He selected apostles whom He gave the ability to “bind and loose.” He also gave Peter the keys to the kingdom.

 

[rlg94086]

Again, we are going to differ. Go back to the basic political theory we all learned in grade school and high school. Americans believe that the original state of humanity is one of freedom and digniity. It is the europeans and other old world “ruffians” who redefined authority to mean subservience of everyone to themselves (no surprise there). Read the Book of Kings when God is trying dissaude the Isrealites from having a King. God tries to warn them about the freedom they will have to give up. It is quite a remarkable passage and almost has an "American’ feel to it. Remember Rome was a republic for longer than it was either a kingdom or an empire.

Of course you can make a point about religious authority being different than political authority. That is true. However, Jesus was always clear that a person in authority must serve and not lord it over others. By his life and death it was clear He meant this passage literally. So many times as in the case of bishop of Phoenix, this passage is conveniently overlooked. Even the Pope uses the title, “Servant of the Servants of God.” Do they really understand what that means in reality. Some popes have and some have not.

We Americans have much to bring to the Catholic Church in our theory of goverance. Remember at the Second Vatican Council, it was the American bishops, in their finest hour, who demanded the document on religious freedom. Just imagine, a Catholic Church without that document. How embarrased we would all be before the world.

FYI…there is actually a heresy called Americanism. You are doing a pretty good job of illustrating it.
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/AMERICAN.TXT

More recently, however, the pendulum of historical opinion has swung
back the other way, so that American Catholic “Americanism” has come
to be seen as something both real and serious. Father Conley, for
example, identifies four central Americanist tenets:

• that the world was in an era of radical change (as indeed it was
  then, and still is today);

• that America was at the cutting edge of change-indeed, was the very
  embodiment of the future (which was also true, and very likely still
  is true, although no one can say how long it will remain the case);

• that the Catholic Church was obliged to change with the times (a
  proposition which may be either true or false, depending on what
  specific content one gives to that statement); and

*** that the Church in America-or, as is now often said, the “American
Church”-had a divine mission to point the way to the Church
everywhere else, and particularly to “Rome” (which contains an
element of truth, but suffers from a fatal arrogance as well as from
a failure to comprehend the divine constitution of the Church).

**

 

[Thomas_Redd]

Church government isn’t a democracy. It’s a monarchy led by God. If you don’t like it, too bad. God will provide.

In the Book of Kings, God say that He would be our king. That is absolutely great. So while I agree that the Catholic Church is not a democracy, it certainly could be more democratic as it was in the early Church. However, it certainly and absolutely is not a monarchy of this world. In the Gospels, Jesus was pretty clear when he said, "My kingdom is not of this world. Clearly, the Pope and the bishops are not absolute rulers, but must follow the laws like everyone else and must serve the People of God. I am sorry if you may not like that.

The question a reasonable person must ask is how do we translate God being our king into day to day governance. The Church has a principle called subsidiarity, which means that decisions should be made at the lowest level possible with the greatest imput. This is a real principle and makes a lot of sense. We need to be moving in the direction of as much local control as possible. This after all was how the Church operated in its beginnings.

 

[curlycool89]

There’s too many variables for you to make a blanket statement like that. In my Parish, a lot of EMHC’s for my mass are old, so climbing steps can be a difficulty sometimes.

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.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

FYI…there is actually a heresy called Americanism. You are doing a pretty good job of illustrating it.
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/AMERICAN.TXT

Sorry, but you are wrong on American political thought being heretical. Please read closely your link on Americanism and do a little more research. The papal encyclicals on Americanism were actually aimed at French political theorists who based their theories on an erroneous understanding of American political philosophy. Yes its complicated. But the USA was essentially exonerated.

God bless.

 

[Inquiringperson]

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.

Unfortunately, not enough people in that mass wants to be a EMHC.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Inquiringperson;8397413:

Church government isn’t a democracy. It’s a monarchy led by God. If you don’t like it, too bad. God will provide.

In the Book of Kings, God say that He would be our king. That is absolutely great. So while I agree that the Catholic Church is not a democracy, it certainly could be more democratic as it was in the early Church. However, it certainly and absolutely is not a monarchy of this world. In the Gospels, Jesus was pretty clear when he said, "My kingdom is not of this world. Clearly, the Pope and the bishops are not absolute rulers, but must follow the laws like everyone else and must serve the People of God. I am sorry if you may not like that.

The question a reasonable person must ask is how do we translate God being our king into day to day governance. The Church has a principle called subsidiarity, which means that decisions should be made at the lowest level possible with the greatest imput. This is a real principle and makes a lot of sense. We need to be moving in the direction of as much local control as possible. This after all was how the Church operated in its beginnings.

1st point. Sure it may have operated more democratically back then, but in later times, it isn’t a good idea. Power corrupts, so if the people want a Bishop to support Contraception, they will get one, and if they’re excommunicated, they won’t even care. That would mean that it would be hard for the Lay Faithful to actually find a good Diocese. In a perfect world, a more democratic way would work.

2nd Point. We can’t have much local control if we aren’t isolationist. For example, since the US joined the UN and are permanent members, they can’t be isolationist anymore. We, as Catholics, need to shine our lights, so if we have smaller governments, we can’t shine our lights to the fullest it could be. That would contradict our name, Catholic (which, by the way, means universal).

 

[rlg94086]

Sorry, but you are wrong on American political thought being heretical. Please read closely your link on Americanism and do a little more research. The papal encyclicals on Americanism were actually aimed at French political theorists who based their theories on an erroneous understanding of American political philosophy. Yes its complicated. But the USA was essentially exonerated.

God bless.

It is complicated. The section I bolded applies to your train of thought.

 

[Newbie2]

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’

I could go with that.

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.

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 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.

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

No.

Matthew 5: 27-28

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

No, I agee.

No. **The sign is not for you. **

The sign is not for me? Please explain. You lost me.

 

[Corki]

We are having a defective translation of the mass which is arkward at best and unintelligible in parts pushed down our throats.

Fortunately, the defective translation will be gone as of the first Sunday of Advent.

Now there are leaders in the Church who want to take away the great gift that Jesus gave us in receiving both his Body and Blood.

No there are not. Limiting reception of Communion under both species does not “take away” any opportunity for you to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

By the way, extraordinary ministers of the Eurcharist are a wonderful thing.

If they were used only in truly extraordinary situations, I would agree. When every single Sunday Mass has EMHCs, there’s a problem.

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

It’s not a matter of fairness. There are several provisions available for those who cannot receive the host.

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.

We DO receive His Body and Blood regardless of whether we receive just the host or just from the cup or both.

By denying the congregation the Cup, the Church basically made a symbolic political statement about how it views its members.

How is this possibly a political statement?

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.

You mean the use of Latin that was mandated to be coninued by Vatican II?

Clearly, from a reilgious prospective there is absolutely no reason to deny communion under both species.

Actually, there are several reasons theological and practical ones if you read the Bishop’s statement.

I think in that case, it’s good to ask whether it’s prudent for these people to continue as EMHC then.

Likewise, if it is impossible to distribute Communion under both kinds without perpetual use of EMHCs it would be good to ask if that is a prudent practice.