Diocese limits Communion under both kinds

[Corki]

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.

Did you receive your First Holy Communion in 1968 and are no longer able to recieve Communion at all? Even receiving Communion under one kind is to receive both Jesus’ Body and Blood.

It almost sounds like you have been regularly receiving Communion under both kinds since 1968. Since there was no allowance for regular reception of Communion under both kinds in the 60s, 70s or early 80s, that would mean that you were in a parish where abuse was a regular occurance. Is it possible that exposure to that widespread abuse has distorted your theology on the subject of Communion?

 

[Thomas_Redd]

Did you receive your First Holy Communion in 1968 and are no longer able to recieve Communion at all? Even receiving Communion under one kind is to receive both Jesus’ Body and Blood.

It almost sounds like you have been regularly receiving Communion under both kinds since 1968. Since there was no allowance for regular reception of Communion under both kinds in the 60s, 70s or early 80s, that would mean that you were in a parish where abuse was a regular occurance. Is it possible that exposure to that widespread abuse has distorted your theology on the subject of Communion?

Sorry but we are obviously talking about the effiicacy of receiving under both species. Everyone clearly understand that you receive Jesus whole and undivided in either the bread or the wine.

Actually I first received communion under both species in my childhood from the eastern rite churches my relatives went to. My people came from Slovakia which is about 90% Catholic of which two third are Roman rite and one third Byzantine Rite. As close as I can figure, I think my father was baptised in a Byzantine Rite church (he was unclear himself) but as a child went to the next village to live with his uncle when my grandparents seperated and was raised Roman Rite. So communion under both species in my family was hardly a novelty.

In 1968 I first received communion under both species in the Roman rite at my high school graduation. After that I can assure you there were no abuses. I was just lucky to be in situations where communion under both species was allowed. Should you have not assumed that? I can also assure you that my theology is not distorted. I think I was pretty orthodox. Again, at my present parish we have been sent an order of foreign priests who openly preach heresy about the Second Vatican Council and do not believe that the people should ever receive communion under both species. Unfortunately there are many people out there who have the same distorted theology which allows these abuses. I am told by other priests that the bishop is aware of this order’s abuses but he needs priests and quite honestly looks the other way.

 

[Corki]

Sorry but we are obviously talking about the effiicacy of receiving under both species. Everyone clearly understand that you receive Jesus whole and undivided in either the bread or the wine.

The efficacy of Communion under one species is EXACTLY the same as under both species.

Actually I first received communion under both species in my childhood from the eastern rite churches my relatives went to. My people came from Slovakia which is about 90% Catholic of which two third are Roman rite and one third Byzantine Rite. As close as I can figure, I think my father was baptised in a Byzantine Rite church (he was unclear himself) but as a child went to the next village to live with his uncle when my grandparents seperated and was raised Roman Rite. So communion under both species in my family was hardly a novelty.

Communion in the Eastern rites is with both species and not at all relevant to this thread.

In 1968 I first received communion under both species in the Roman rite at my high school graduation.

As a special occassion, that may have been allowed.

After that I can assure you there were no abuses. I was just lucky to be in situations where communion under both species was allowed.

So you only received Communion at special occassion Masses? Those were the only cases where it wasn’t an abuse in the 60s and 70s.

Should you have not assumed that?

No, I assumed you were a regular communicant.

I can also assure you that my theology is not distorted. I think I was pretty orthodox.

So, what happened to get you to the twisted version you now hold?

Again, at my present parish we have been sent an order of foreign priests who openly preach heresy about the Second Vatican Council and do not believe that the people should ever receive communion under both species.

If they preach heresy you should report them to the Bishop and to their religious superior. However, it is not heresy, or against the Second Vatican Council to believe that Communion should not be offered under both species.

Unfortunately there are many people out there who have the same distorted theology which allows these abuses.

What abuses? It is not an abuse to offer Communion under only one kind.

I am told by other priests that the bishop is aware of this order’s abuses but he needs priests and quite honestly looks the other way

Then your parish has a problem. I will pray that you are sent other good and holy priests. But the problem has nothing to do with Communion under one or both species.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

The efficacy of Communion under one species is EXACTLY the same as under both species.
**
You are really locked in in trying to set up the classic “straw man” to knock down. No one believes that you don’t receive communion validly under only one species. Please read closely what we are saying. Efficacy is a general word meaning to have effect. Well there is an effect in receiving under the fuller sign of both the Body and Blood. It is not a matter of the amount of grace or of sacramental validity but an effect on our experience of receiving the sacrament. Why else would the church say it is the fuller sign******
]

Communion in the eastern church is with both species and not at all relevant to this thread.**

******It is very relevant. I included it to indirectly reference that communion under both species is the tradition of the church in both the eastern and western church. Receving under only one species is a relatively recent innovation, that is 800 years, in the western church.
As a special occassion, that may have been allowed.

** B]Yes it was.**

So you only received Communion at special occassion Masses? Those were the only cases where it wasn’t an abuse in the 60s and 70s.

That’s not true. Please check the rules.

No, I assumed you were a regular communicant.

B]I am.]

So, what happened to get you to the twisted version you now hold?

**Now it comes down to the brass tacks. Your only response is an ad hominem attack. Please quote me chapter and verse how my theology of communion is twisted. You can’t. **

If they preach heresy you should report them to the Bishop and to their religious superior. However, it is not heresy, or against the Second Vatican Council to believe that Communion should not be offered under both species.

B]No it is not against Church doctrine to offer communion under only one species. But it is against Church doctirne to preach that the Second Vatican Council was wrong and that Communion under both species is only allowed for the clergy and not the laity. Try to understand the difference. I did meet with the vicar and was told basically that they know there is a problem and they are trying to do some training. However, in the short term, there isn’t much they can do because they need the priests.

What abuses? It is not an abuse to offer Communion under only one kind.

See above.

Then your parish has a problem. I will pray that you are sent other good and holy priests. But the problem has nothing to do with Communion under one or both species.

B]Thank you for yoru prayers. The Church has a problem. Communion under both species is one facet of it. It is part of a complex of issues that a small vocal group are pushing, such as doing away with the vernacular mass, returning to a mass facing away from the people and God and doing away with alter girls and extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, etc, etc. There are many people who call themselves traditionalists who want to bring back innovations from the middle ages such as communion under only species. Why do that when the Spirit has moved our Church back to its orginal traditions?

 

[Corki]

You are really locked in in trying to set up the classic “straw man” to knock down. No one believes that you don’t receive communion validly under only one species. Please read closely what we are saying. Efficacy is a general word meaning to have effect. Well there is an effect in receiving under the fuller sign of both the Body and Blood. It is not a matter of the amount of grace or of sacramental validity but an effect on our experience of receiving the sacrament. Why else would the church say it is the fuller sign

Fuller sign does not mean more efficacious. To say that there is a different effect, either in quantity (more) or quality (better) is completely against Church teaching.

One of the conditions placed on the permission to offer Communion under both kinds was an obligation to ongoing Catechesis on this very point. When people say things like

Since 1968, I have been able until very recently to receive both Jesus’s Body and Blood.

this is strong evidence that either the priests are not fulfilling their obligation to give ongoing catechesis or some people aren’t listening.

That’s not true. Please check the rules.

The rules as of 1975 listed 14 very specific instances where Communion could be offered under both kinds.

1. At the discretion of the Ordinary and after the prerequisite catechesis, communion from the chalice is permitted in the case of:[71]

1. newly baptized adults at the Mass following their baptism; adults at the Mass at which they receive confirmation; baptized persons who are being received into the full communion of the Church;

1. the bride and bridegroom at their wedding Mass;

1. deacons at the Mass of their ordination;

1. an abbess at the Mass in which she is blessed; those consecrated to a life of virginity at the Mass of their consecration; professed religious, their relatives, friends, and the other members of their community at the Mass of first or perpetual vows or renewal of vows;

1. those who receive institution for a certain ministry at the Mass of their institution; lay missionary helpers at the Mass in which they publicly receive their mission; others at the Mass in which they receive an ecclesiastical mission;

1. the sick person and all present at the time viaticum is to be administered when Mass is lawfully celebrated in the sick person’s home;

1. the deacon and ministers who exercise their office at Mass;

1. when there is a concelebration, in the case of:

a. all who exercise a liturgical function at this concelebration and also all seminarians present;

b. in their churches or oratories, all members of institutes professing the evangelical counsels and other societies whose members dedicate themselves to God by religious vows or by an offering or promise; also all those who reside in the houses of members of such institutes and societies;

1. priests who are present at major celebrations and are not able to celebrate or concelebrate;

1. all who make a retreat at a Mass in which they actively participate and which is specially celebrated for the group; also all who take part in the meeting of any pastoral body at a Mass the celebrate as a group;

1. those listed in nos. 2 and 4, at Masses celebrating their jubilees;

1. godparents, relatives, wife or husband, and lay catechists of newly baptized adults at the Mass of their initiation;

1. relatives, friends, and special benefactors who take part in the Mass of a newly ordained priest;

1. members of communities at the conventual or community Mass, in accord with the provisions of this Instruction no. 76.

Prior to 1975, the list was even shorter. There was a period of time where the US received permission to offer Communion under both kinds more frequently but it wasn’t a blanket permission for all Masses all the time. There were still limitations. The special permission expired in 2005.

So, if you received Communion under both kinds prior to the special permissions being granted or after 2005 and it wasn’t one of those 14 special occassions, it was a liturgical abuse.

(continued in next post)

 

[Corki]

Now it comes down to the brass tacks. Your only response is an ad hominem attack. Please quote me chapter and verse how my theology of communion is twisted. You can’t.

Yes, I can. The first is already quoted above where you claim greater efficacy for Communion under both kinds.

Here’s another faulty description of the Sacramental reality of Communion.

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.

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.

And more of a factual, than theological point.

we now have these foreign preists at our parish who look down on Vatican II and took communion under both species away.

Communion under both kinds had nothing to do with Vatican II.

Thank you for yoru prayers. The Church has a problem. Communion under both species is one facet of it.

Exactly! That’s the problem the Bishop of Phoenix is trying to address.

It is part of a complex of issues that a small vocal group are pushing,

You realize that the “small vocal group” includes the Pope?

such as doing away with the vernacular mass,

No one wants to “do away” with the vernacular Mass. But Vatican II and later documents required that Latin be maintained. When the vernacular is used so frequently that some people never hear Latin in the Mass, something has to be fixed.

returning to a mass facing away from the people and God

You mean Mass with the priest and people facing God in the same direction?

and doing away with alter girls and extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist

Altar girls and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are options. When a priest or bishop choses to use them, fine. When a priest of bishop choses not to use them, also fine. With regard to EMHCs, in many parishes they are used more frequently than allowed. When that happens, it needs to be fixed.

There are many people who call themselves traditionalists who want to bring back innovations from the middle ages such as communion under only species. Why do that when the Spirit has moved our Church back to its orginal traditions

How do you know that it isn’t the Holy Spirit behind a return to some of the traditions of the past? And while there is some evidence for those “original” traditions such as Communion under both species, there is nothing close to the early Church about using altar girls or EMHCs. Why throw the baby out with the bath water?

 

[Thomas_Redd]

How do you know that it isn’t the Holy Spirit behind a return to some of the traditions of the past? And while there is some evidence for those “original” traditions such as Communion under both species, there is nothing close to the early Church about using altar girls or EMHCs. Why throw the baby out with the bath water?

Corki you have made no effort at all to understand what I am saying about communion under both species. For instance your refusal to understand the difference between what I was saying about the efficacy of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist which we all agree is whole and complete under either species and the efficacy of receiving under both species which provides as the Church says a fuller sign, that is a fuller experience.

We have a completely different view of what is essential or throwing “the baby out with the bath water.” as you put it. All of the things you are pushing as tradition are later innovations, quite late innovations actually. The Second Vatican was actually a very conservative council. It whole thrust was to look at the Church’s essential traditions and to reform our sacred liturgy in light of the best understanding available of those traditions. At the Council, the Roman rite bishops were actually upbraided by eastern rite bishops about not maintaining the tradition of communion under both species. Certainly things lke EMHC and altar gilrs are of course recent innovations but they are a response to try in some small way to return to our Christian teachings that we are all brother and sisters and that the Eucharist belongs to all of us. There was nothing like the clericalism in the early church that was so rampant in the Church before the Council.

I think the word that really sums up how we going to completely differ is your statement that there is “some” evidence of communion under both species in the early Church. That is like saying that there is “some” evidence that the sun rose every morning 2,000 years ago. There is of course some evidence that communion was given under one species especially to the sick, but the accepted standard way in both the eastern and western church was communion under both species. The Church fathers are very clear on this. St. Paul was very clear on this. The Gospels were very clear on this. While receiving communion under both species is not a requirement, why not be effusive about how we respond to Jesus and receive under both species as the Jesus taught us to do, the Apostles taught us to do, the Church Fathers taught us to do and how the Church taught us to do for 1200 years and is now again encouraging us to do? *** Only good can come out of it.***

No one is forcing anyone to receive under both species but why take it away from us who understand the wonderfulness of it.

 

[Corki]

Corki you have made no effort at all to understand what I am saying about communion under both species. For instance your refusal to understand the difference between what I was saying about the efficacy of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist which we all agree is whole and complete under either species and the efficacy of receiving under both species which provides as the Church says a fuller sign, that is a fuller experience.

I have made every effort. The problem is that you equate a greater sign value to greater efficacy. That is not what the Church teaches at all.

All of the things you are pushing as tradition are later innovations, quite late innovations actually.

And the things you are advocating, such as altar girls and EMHCs are later innovations still. So what?

It whole thrust was to look at the Church’s essential traditions and to reform our sacred liturgy in light of the best understanding available of those traditions.

Yes, but Communion under both kinds is not an essential tradition. It is a simple discipline. As are the postures at Mass and the language Mass is said in.

There was nothing like the clericalism in the early church that was so rampant in the Church before the Council.

Clericalism has nothing to do with receiving Communion under both kinds. But why do you have a goal of making Mass like the early Church? The early Church was a persecuted Church, Mass was held in secret in homes rather than Churches. Thank God that is not the reality of the modern Church.

While receiving communion under both species is not a requirement, why not be effusive about how we respond to Jesus and receive under both species as the Jesus taught us to do, the Apostles taught us to do, the Church Fathers taught us to do and how the Church taught us to do for 1200 years and is now again encouraging us to do?

Another distortion of Church teaching. Communion is not our effusive response to Jesus. It is our humble, passive reception of His Body and Blood. That is one reason why we always “receive” and not “take” Communion.

*** Only good can come out of it.***

Historically, that has not been the case. Not only were there the heresies discussed earlier but Communion under both kinds provides more risk for accidents and for profanation of the Eucharist. It can lead to abuses, especially if there is a shortage of ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and it creates practical problems when there are large groups of communicants. That is why the Church wisely tells us that Communion under both kinds should be offered only after careful consideration and with continuing catechesis.

 

[otjm]

I have made every effort. The problem is that you equate a greater sign value to greater efficacy. That is not what the Church teaches at all.

Efficacy is defined as producing an effect. Given that it is used, in reference to Communion, as having the power to give grace, you are correct; he may be misusing the term, or simply speaking of a different effect. His use of the term could lead to confusion given that the term is usually directed to giving grace; but he is correct that receiving under both species can have an effect not only of giving grace, but also the effect of signifying unity, signifying participation in a full (sacred) meal, participating fully in the Paschal Meal, and etc. I think he might try to find a different word for what he is expressing, but you overstate the issue on the other side by trying to put words into his mouth. His use of the term may not be advised (and I would not so advise), but I can understand what he is trying to say.

The early Church was a persecuted Church, Mass was held in secret in homes rather than Churches. Thank God that is not the reality of the modern Church.

There have been repeated statements that there have been more martyrs in the last 100 years than there have been in all the previous centuries. The Church may not be persecuted in the US (and some would disagree with that statement), but it most certainly is being persecuted in the Middle East, in China, in Viet Nam and in other areas of the world.

Another distortion of Church teaching. Communion is not our effusive response to Jesus. It is our humble, passive reception of His Body and Blood. That is one reason why we always “receive” and not “take” Communion.

One can still be effusive and be receiving.

Historically, that has not been the case. Not only were there the heresies discussed earlier but Communion under both kinds provides more risk for accidents and for profanation of the Eucharist. It can lead to abuses, especially if there is a shortage of ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and it creates practical problems when there are large groups of communicants. That is why the Church wisely tells us that Communion under both kinds should be offered only after careful consideration and with continuing catechesis.

Interesting that the Eastern rites have managed it for 2000 years and the Roman rite for something like 1750 - 1800 years…

And yes, there is a dire need for catechesis, as most of it went into the toilet in the early '70’s and only started to be rectified in the 90’s. There are, however, some who wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater, rather than correct the problem area - catechesis. If one does not understand the theology of the Church, changing practice is not going to cause greater understanding. It is just going to leave people with one more change that has little or no meaning to them.

 

[Phemie]

Certainly things lke EMHC and altar gilrs are of course recent innovations but they are a response to try in some small way to return to our Christian teachings that we are all brother and sisters and that the Eucharist belongs to all of us. There was nothing like the clericalism in the early church that was so rampant in the Church before the Council.

If you read the document that first allowed EMHCs you will quickly see that “we are all brother and sisters and that the Eucharist belongs to all of us” had nothing to do with it. EMHCs were allowed by “Immensae Caritatis” because:

There are various circumstances in which a lack of sufficient ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion can occur: During Mass, because of the size of the congregation or a particular difficulty in which a celebrant finds himself; outside of Mass, when it is difficult because of distance to take the sacred species, especially in the Viaticum, to the sick in danger of death, or when the very number of the sick, especially in hospitals and similar institutions, require many ministers.

As for altar girls, they are not allowed unless the Bishop specifically decides they are allowed in his diocese and then only if the Pastor agrees for his parish and then only if the priest celebrating a particular Mass wants them to serve. They have no ‘right’ to serve and no one has a right to be an EMHC, we have to be invited.

 

[LPS]

All I know is, I deeply appreciate receiving both the Body and Precious Blood of our LORD at mass, as He offered both. I am sad at the thought of the Precious Blood no longer being offered regularly.

 

[Tigg]

I applaud the courage of this good and faithful bishop and pray more will follow suit. Imo, this whole problem has occurred because of the hubris of the laity. I spoke with a woman the other day who told me with pride she and her husband had been EMHC’s for 30 years. Now to some that may indeed, be service, but let’s face it…there’s a certain amount of prestige to be had to be seen on the altar with the priest. It can grow into an attitude of “it’s MY ministry, MY job, MY right.” That’s spiritual perversion. Perhaps this move in Phoenix and the controversy surrounding it will help clarify the boundaries between the ministerial and common priesthood.

 

[LPS]

I applaud the courage of this good and faithful bishop and pray more will follow suit. Imo, this whole problem has occurred because of the hubris of the laity. I spoke with a woman the other day who told me with pride she and her husband had been EMHC’s for 30 years. Now to some that may indeed, be service, but let’s face it…there’s a certain amount of prestige to be had to be seen on the altar with the priest. It can grow into an attitude of “it’s MY ministry, MY job, MY right.” That’s spiritual perversion. Perhaps this move in Phoenix and the controversy surrounding it will help clarify the boundaries between the ministerial and common priesthood.

Using that reasoning, then perhaps we should dissolve the Catholic Church altogether. I certainly know people who are “proud” of being Catholic and a few who place more of their identity in being Catholic, than in Christ.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

I applaud the courage of this good and faithful bishop and pray more will follow suit. Imo, this whole problem has occurred because of the hubris of the laity. I spoke with a woman the other day who told me with pride she and her husband had been EMHC’s for 30 years. Now to some that may indeed, be service, but let’s face it…there’s a certain amount of prestige to be had to be seen on the altar with the priest. It can grow into an attitude of “it’s MY ministry, MY job, MY right.” That’s spiritual perversion. Perhaps this move in Phoenix and the controversy surrounding it will help clarify the boundaries between the ministerial and common priesthood.

There is are two types of pride. A good pride and a bad pride. In good pride, there is nothing wrong with being proud of what you are doing well and doing well for the rest of humanity. Being a EMHC and being proud of it is a good and healthy thing. Good pride comes from God. The example doesn’t sound like hubris to me. It sounds like someone asked (my assumption) the woman and her husband to do this good deed and be EMHCs. She was proud that she did something good. You don’t describe anything other than a good pride. This appears to be another back handed attack on EMHCs which are approved by the Church and are a good thing and personally in my observations are rarely overused.

Bad pride of course is take pride to an extreme. Bad pride compares ourselves to others to the detriment of those other. Bad pride hurts and is a spiritual perversion. Good pride helps to motivate us to do good. Quite frankly the only spiritual hubris, I personally have seen has been among clergy. Jesus himself spoke often of this tendancy and usually targeted the religious leaders of his day, calling them whited tombs.

I can relate to the woman you describe. When I was small, no one could understand me when I talked because of a eardrum problem. I only heard part of the word so I repeated back what I heard. When an operation cleared up the eardrum problem I learned to talk (at about 6 years old) but had to have some years of speech therapy. I practiced reading aloud a lot, even trying that old trick of talking with stones in my mouth (who was that Greek orator with the same problem?). I eventually got to the point that my reading aloud got quite good and I starting reading for my high school’s mass in 1966. Today, I still read at mass and people come up to me sometimes and thank me for reading clearly and with feeling. I feel really blessed and yes a little proud. This was a gift that God gave me and I am trying to use it for good in the best way I know. Sure I am a sinner. Sure I am weak. Sure I think too much of myself. But I am giving what little I have and I believe God is accepting it.