Diocese limits Communion under both kinds

[curlycool89]

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.

I don’t actually mind if the Bishop has decided to withhold the Precious Blood or not (I disagree, but I’m not the bishop so it’s not my call).

What I don’t like is when people start making up outlandish reasons.

 

[irishpatrick]

I don’t actually mind if the Bishop has decided to withhold the Precious Blood or not (I disagree, but I’m not the bishop so it’s not my call).

What I don’t like is when people start making up outlandish reasons.

Such as?

 

[Elizium23]

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.

Q&A: Diocese of Phoenix

1. Is the Catholic Church forbidding Holy Communion “from the chalice”?

No. In fact, just the opposite. The New Roman Missal is, according to the new norms, “significantly expanding those opportunities when Holy Communion may be offered under both kinds.” This is explained in the new document titled The Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the United States.

1. Why is this news now? Has something recently changed?

Yes, something has changed: there have been some new changes in the “GIRM” (General Instruction on the Roman Missal), which is the “how to” book for the Mass.

1. What is new, then?

What is new is the relaxing of restrictions regarding when bishops may permit Holy Communion under both kinds. Since 1985, there were 14 instances listed in the GIRM when Communion under both forms could be offered, and only a Conference of Catholic Bishops could extend the practice. The process of extending the practice has been greatly simplified. The number of instances listed in the GIRM is now reduced to three, but now the new GIRM states that the diocesan bishop may establish additional norms and, further, the diocesan bishop “is given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom a community has been entrusted as its own shepherd, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and that there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament…”.

Yes, this is part of the new translation of the GIRM, which comes with the Roman Missal. The GIRM was translated and implemented in 2002; it has been re-translated and, as far as I know, is currently in effect for the United States. The bishop here announces his plan to issue a decree; i.e. it’s not implemented or even decreed yet, but will be soon.

 

[PodunkMommy]

This is so sad that the church in Phoenix can do something like this. .

The Church in Phoenix is not “doing” anything. They are simply following what the Pope and the Vatican does.

Blessings.

 

[PodunkMommy]

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

Makes me think of “What is Truth?”

Blessings.

 

[PodunkMommy]

I
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.
.

Seriously?? We are so blessed to have Bishop Olmsted in the Phoenix diocese. He is a loving and faithful servant of the Lord and he does not care about the critism he is receiving now or will continue to receive in the future because he serves Christ. He does not worry about politics and that is why we have weeded out so many problems here. Maybe we can become a diocese like Lincoln, Nebraska.

Our diocese was a mess because of misleading leaders of the past and Bishop Olmsted has done wonderful things. You keep talking about Eastern Rites, well, the Eastern Rite Catholics here love him as well.

For a Latin Rite Catholic, that really knows his faith, this isn’t something new. The Pope also gives Communionn on the tongue and there are no altar girls but when that comes around, are Americans going to claim it’s political as well?

Blessings.

 

[Newbie2]

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.

I think you misunderstand the quote. Read it again:

“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…”

That’s the first part. Yeah, it means that receiving is part of it. Offering alone is pointless without it being received, no?

Second:

“… 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…”

The other part is properly understanding the sacrament and the sign.

“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”

How so? (I’m not disagreeing…necessarily )

 

[Corki]

I think you misunderstand the quote. Read it again:

“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…”

I agree that there is room for interpretation.

That’s the first part. Yeah, it means that receiving is part of it. Offering alone is pointless without it being received, no?

Not necessarily. Many signs in the liturgy do not require physical participation by the faithful. In fact most do not.

“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”

How so? (I’m not disagreeing…necessarily)

When was the last time you heard any Catechesis during (or outside of) Mass regarding the symbol and sign of receiving Communion under both species? Outside of CCE class, I have never heard any. People, including priests, just take it for granted. If it was a “special occasion” thing, the catechesis would be very easy to tie to the announcement of the special occassion.

 

[Newbie2]

Not necessarily. Many signs in the liturgy do not require physical participation by the faithful. In fact most do not.

This one does.

When was the last time you heard any Catechesis during (or outside of) Mass regarding the symbol and sign of receiving Communion under both species? Outside of CCE class, I have never heard any. People, including priests, just take it for granted. If it was a “special occasion” thing, the catechesis would be very easy to tie to the announcement of the special occassion.

Understood, and that’s a good point. My guess is that if there was ongoing Catechesis there would have been no need to pull the cup, as in the situation in the OP.

Our priest started then dropped after a couple of times, a “two minute teaching” that he would have once a month, during mass at the end of the homily, which explained different teachings
of the Church and was initially to focus on the liturgy.

He did it for a couple of months then decided, despite support and encouragement from the parish council, not to continue.

And that’s part of my point in addressing the OP. While the significance of reception under both kinds is perhaps another topic, I get out of the OP and the links that the root cause is not being addressed, or at least not being addressed in print that we have access to. If the diocese had said (and they may have done so in another communication) that they are focusing efforts on increasing awareness of the significance of the Eucharist and especially the cup and directing efforts toward addressing abuses and indiscretions that border on abuses, then I’d be behind it.

The simple answers that “they said so and we are to obey” don’t cut it for me. Not to seem disobedient, but the Church expects us to engage our intellect toward our faith, hence, I would expect an explanation, a more detailed explanation, of all discretionary diocese-wide liturgical changes. Sure, I’d obey, but I’d need to know why.

If it was simply an arbitrary decision, I would like to know that. If there was a matter of abuse or near-abuse, I’d like to know that. But maybe that’s just me. Some are comfortabe with the Church says this and that is enough, and that’s fine too.

 

[Corki]

This one does.

Actually, no it doesn’t. When Communion is offered under both kinds, the fuller sign is present even if you chose to personally receive under just one species or to not receive at all.

Understood, and that’s a good point. My guess is that if there was ongoing Catechesis there would have been no need to pull the cup, as in the situation in the OP.

Just a guess. My own guess would be that with ongoing thorough catechesis, most people would understand announcements like the one in the OP and it wouldn’t cause such a stir.

Our priest started then dropped after a couple of times, a “two minute teaching” that he would have once a month, during mass at the end of the homily, which explained different teachings
of the Church and was initially to focus on the liturgy.

He did it for a couple of months then decided, despite support and encouragement from the parish council, not to continue.

I have seen this before. Unfortunately, many people (including priests) seem to think it is inappropriate to discuss Church teacing in the context of the homily. He may have been getting some “push back” from that misquided crowd.

The simple answers that “they said so and we are to obey” don’t cut it for me. Not to seem disobedient, but the Church expects us to engage our intellect toward our faith, hence, I would expect an explanation, a more detailed explanation, of all discretionary diocese-wide liturgical changes. Sure, I’d obey, but I’d need to know why.

However, offering the cup is an entirely optional part of Mass. Do you see everyone getting so worked up when the priest choses option C instead of option B for the penetential rite? Or when the priest decides to celebrate an optional Memorial instead of a Mass in ordinary time? Why do you expect an “detailed explanation” of something that doesn’t affect you and that is entirely within the options for Mass?

If it was simply an arbitrary decision, I would like to know that. If there was a matter of abuse or near-abuse, I’d like to know that. But maybe that’s just me. Some are comfortabe with the Church says this and that is enough, and that’s fine too.

I think the Bishop’s explanation, especially when read in light of the new GIRM instructions Redemptionis Sacramentum. is a very thorough explanation. The fact is, when someone doesn’t like change, no explanation will ever be “thorough” enough.

 

[centurionguard]

Perhaps someone can charitably explain it to me how receiving under both consecrated species becomes (A Fuller Sign) when both the Sacred consecrated Host and Consecrated Wine both identically contain Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ

I have no disbelief that it (“IS”) a Fuller Sign…I’m just trying to humbly wrap my head around this understanding.

I’m not ignoring what is said in Redemptionis Sacramentum namely;
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#_ftnref187

**4. Communion under Both Kinds

[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]

[101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.[187] With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”.[188]

[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants[189]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”.[190] The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.**

Presently; I don’t receive under both species. And yet I can’t quite put my finger on why?
Should I entertain personal guilt for not having received both Body and Blood under both species as if I have missed a certain aspect that I should have received.

I receive the Consecrated Host believing in Faith that I have received Jesus Body and Blood fully in every way. I feel as though I’m missing understanding in this Fuller Sign aspect.

Will someone please explain this charitably?

 

[Newbie2]

Actually, no it doesn’t. When Communion is offered under both kinds, the fuller sign is present even if you chose to personally receive under just one species or to not receive at all.

Yeah, I guess so. Agreed.

I have seen this before. Unfortunately, many people (including priests) seem to think it is inappropriate to discuss Church teacing in the context of the homily. He may have been getting some “push back” from that misquided crowd.

Doubtful in our parish, but certainly possible. I know him well enough that I would have expected him to say something of the sort if that was the case. Still wish he’d reconsider…

However, offering the cup is an entirely optional part of Mass. Do you see everyone getting so worked up when the priest choses option C instead of option B for the penetential rite? Or when the priest decides to celebrate an optional Memorial instead of a Mass in ordinary time? Why do you expect an “detailed explanation” of something that doesn’t affect you and that is entirely within the options for Mass?

My guess is that most people don’t even know there are different options within the mass, but don’t pay attention. But you see, it does (or would) affect me; it would affect my experience in the sacrament. I’d get used to not having it, but don’t get the idea that it would not affect people who look forward to receiving under both.

I think the Bishop’s explanation, especially when read in light of the new GIRM instructions Redemptionis Sacramentum. is a very thorough explanation. The fact is, when someone doesn’t like change, no explanation will ever be “thorough” enough.

That may be so, but I was speaking more in general of “the Church say so and that’s enough for me” notion.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Quick Question: If the US stopped having experimental privileges, then why are churches still allowed to give Consecrated wine?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Quick Question: If the US stopped having experimental privileges, then why are churches still allowed to give Consecrated wine?

I’m wondering that too.

 

[FrDavid96]

Quick Question: If the US stopped having experimental privileges, then why are churches still allowed to give Consecrated wine?

I’m wondering that too.

Fair question. The permission was given by Rome at the request of the bishop’s conference. The local priest, though, is bound to follow the GIRM–or we could phrase that differently to say “permitted to do what the GIRM allows.” Even though Rome withdrew the permission, the GIRM itself remained in effect (remained liturgical law) for the priest. To put it differently, something like this doesn’t change until the new GIRM gets printed and becomes effective.

Sometimes it happens that what was printed in the GIRM is changed by Rome (like EMHCs purifying the vessels), and those changes are made effective and communicated to the parishes. In other words, there’s a sort of amendment to the GIRM that’s not printed in the sacramentary. That simply didn’t happen in the case of Communion under both species.

Since the old GIRM is still in effect until the end of November this year, the current one still applies, so priests who distribute at “every Mass” are still acting licitly because the law hasn’t yet taken effect.

The other reason is that the local bishop is still permitted to expand upon the times when Communion under both species may be given. So, as long as the priest has the bishop’s permission, it’s technically licit to continue. This is probably the “better answer” and certainly the more straightforward, but I thought I’d provide both.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Fair question. The permission was given by Rome at the request of the bishop’s conference. The local priest, though, is bound to follow the GIRM–or we could phrase that differently to say “permitted to do what the GIRM allows.” Even though Rome withdrew the permission, the GIRM itself remained in effect (remained liturgical law) for the priest. To put it differently, something like this doesn’t change until the new GIRM gets printed and becomes effective.

Sometimes it happens that what was printed in the GIRM is changed by Rome (like EMHCs purifying the vessels), and those changes are made effective and communicated to the parishes. In other words, there’s a sort of amendment to the GIRM that’s not printed in the sacramentary. That simply didn’t happen in the case of Communion under both species.

Since the old GIRM is still in effect until the end of November this year, the current one still applies, so priests who distribute at “every Mass” are still acting licitly because the law hasn’t yet taken effect.

The other reason is that the local bishop is still permitted to expand upon the times when Communion under both species may be given. So, as long as the priest has the bishop’s permission, it’s technically licit to continue. This is probably the “better answer” and certainly the more straightforward, but I thought I’d provide both.

So the Bishop decides when Consecrated Wine is allowed to be served?

 

[FrDavid96]

So the Bishop decides when Consecrated Wine is allowed to be served?

Here’s what the GIRM has to say on the matter:

1. In addition to those cases given in the ritual books, Communion under both kinds is permitted for

Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate Mass;
The deacon and others who perform some duty at the Mass;
Members of communities at the conventual Mass or “community” Mass, along with seminarians, and all who are engaged in a retreat or are taking part in a spiritual or pastoral gathering.

The Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups. The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason.
source: old.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect4
the same text is also found at nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect4
just in case some have bookmarked the sites, I’ve given both.

The underlining is mine.

 

[Inquiringperson]

Here’s what the GIRM has to say on the matter:

1. In addition to those cases given in the ritual books, Communion under both kinds is permitted for

Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate Mass;
The deacon and others who perform some duty at the Mass;
Members of communities at the conventual Mass or “community” Mass, along with seminarians, and all who are engaged in a retreat or are taking part in a spiritual or pastoral gathering.

The Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups. The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason.
source: old.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect4
the same text is also found at nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect4
just in case some have bookmarked the sites, I’ve given both.

The underlining is mine.

Thanks.

 

[otjm]

Newbie,

The Church defines the reception of both species to be a fuller sign. We all agree on that.

The question then becomes, what does the Church mean by it being a ‘fuller sign’, what does the Church mean by something being a ‘sign’ at all.

• Modern Catholic Dictionary - Fr. John Harden, SJ

We can see what the Church means when we consider a street sign. A sign that says “Main St.” tells us where we can find Main Street or that we have arrived at Main St.

A Sign, therefore, has value only when one is searching for the greater reality (Main St) or is unsure if one has arrived\achieved that reality ( if one is, or is not on Main St)

Likewise the Sign value of recieving both species indicates (points towards) the greater reality of the Eucharist, that Christ is Present in Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

But if one has found that greater realtity of the Eucharist ( of which there can be NO greater reality) and if one is sure of that reality, then the sign has little meaning.

That doesn’t not mean that the sign value is of value to other, but our GOAL is to move past the need for sign and to focus on the reality.

When one is sure of the reality ( that we are driving along Main St) we don’t need to look for the signs telling us that.

That is why I have no particular need to recieve in more than one species. I recognize that I am recieving the full, complete Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, the Creator and Savior of the Universe. I do not need a sign telling me that His Blood is also present, and that it is living, flowing Blood.

So why the ‘sign’ is fuller’ is adds nothing, nor can it add. One recieves Christ who is God almighty, there can be nothing ‘better’

I am assuming you were quoting from Fr. Harden towards the end; and while I have often agreed with him, perhaps he needs a bit more of a brush-up on Eucharistic Theology, since it seems to elude him why the priest has always had to receive under both species. Perhaps he does not need the sign value; or perhaps he doesn’t understand why the Church holds that reception under both species is a fuller sign. Or perhaps he simply wants to presume that the unwashed masses are all at his loftier spiritual level.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

Perhaps someone can charitably explain it to me how receiving under both consecrated species becomes (A Fuller Sign) when both the Sacred consecrated Host and Consecrated Wine both identically contain Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ

I have no disbelief that it (“IS”) a Fuller Sign…I’m just trying to humbly wrap my head around this understanding.

I’m not ignoring what is said in Redemptionis Sacramentum namely;
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#_ftnref187

Presently; I don’t receive under both species. And yet I can’t quite put my finger on why?
Should I entertain personal guilt for not having received both Body and Blood under both species as if I have missed a certain aspect that I should have received.

I receive the Consecrated Host believing in Faith that I have received Jesus Body and Blood fully in every way. I feel as though I’m missing understanding in this Fuller Sign aspect.

Will someone please explain this charitably?

I think the best way to describe the meaning and value of receiving under both species is to use the same analogy as Jesus and St. Paul used, that of marriage. Actually analogy isn’t a good term, because Jesus actually called himself the “Bridegroom” and St. Paul said that the relationship between a husband and wife represents the relationship between Christ and the Church. A husband should sacrifice himself for his wife as Christ sacrificed himself for the Church. So there is actually a deep reality shared by the sacrament of the Eucharist and the sacrament of marriage.

Here is why I like to think that receiving under both kinds is like a marriage and the acts of love between the husband and wife. A husband who really loves his wife will take her in his arms and shower her with his hugs and kisses, telling her he loves her so much. This is what Jesus did to his Bride, the Church. On the night before he died for her, he took bread and changed it to his body and took wine and changed to his blood. Here, he told us through the ages, “take and eat this, take and drink this. This is my body given for you and this is my blood which will be shed for you.” “Remember me by doing this.”

I don’t remember what Church father said it, but what a great description (no doubt somewhat mangled by me) - “The sacraments are God’s love for us made visible.” As his supreme act of love, Jesus gave us his Body and his Blood.

Now, you might say that everyone expresses love differently. Some couples hug and kiss passionately, others less so or only a little and some not at all but are happy to be in each other’s presence. The different couples may all love each equally but the expression (or sign) is different.

But how did the Bridegroom of the Church express his love? He did it effusively, giving all of his Body and his Blood as the fullest of signs. What is the best way to respond to effusive love. It is by returning that love in the same way. Sure, when someone hugs and kisses us, we could draw back and give a slight peck on the cheek. The interior love expressed may be the same, but why not return it in the fullest way possible? It not only speaks of love back to the original giver but also helps us to grow more fully as persons.

When we are able to take Jesus in our hands and eat his Body and take the Cup and drink his blood, the same blood that was sacrificially shed on the Cross, we giving Jesus back the “full hug” he gave us. We are really touching Jesus in the fullest way possible. Now one may feel that by receiving only the host, you are receiving Jesus and his graces in the same way, and that is true. But I am flesh and blood like Jesus was. I want to express myself as a human as fully as possible. I am not judging you if you only want to receive under only one kind but don’t take receiving Communion as Jesus asked away from me.

Since 1968, I have been able until very recently to receive both Jesus’s Body and Blood. It has been a great grace and is a real loss now that we now have these foreign preists at our parish who look down on Vatican II and took communion under both species away. I am starting to go to a different church, actually going back to my small childhood church. Unfortunately because of family commitments I can’t attend that Church every Sunday. But when I do, it really makes a difference in my life to go a mass that is closer to what the early Christians experienced. It helps me understand why the Church grew so quickly.

Because of my recent experience, I can’t help but feel that when a church leader takes communion under both species away from his people, it is like a spouse who withholds expressions of love to try to control the spouse. I am sorry if I am wrong, judgmental, disobedient or whatever, but this is how I feel.

God Bless you!