Do we need a miracle of Cana?

[BeeSweet]

D. Communion under both species is a concession to heretics.

Please explain this statement for me, I don’t understand. I recieve both species via intinction. My parish is not an innovative one, unless it’s innovative to be more traditional while still celebrating a Novus Ordo Mass!

 

[Catholic90]

I love these kind of posts!!!
You realize that as you point out the venom in the veins of the poster, you seem that way yourself?

I’m not sure what kind of worship you prefer nor what kind of liturgy you are offered but in some places, one does not have to look for innovations. They are overflowing.

Now, if each of us was offered our flavor of liturgy, this would be a moot point but really, in some places, innovations rule and those of us who long for an Historically Catholic Holy Mass are accused of venom in the veins when all we want is a mass without innovations.

Well, I am a convert. I went to a Benedictan university in Collegeville, MN. I can honestly say I’ve never been to an “indult” mass (couldn’t even really tell you what it is, other than what I’ve gleaned from these forums). I go to what most would probably say is a liberal Catholic parish. We use EMHCs (I am one), we have a LifeTeen mass, we have girl altar servers, we have female readers, we have an adoration chapel. We have a vibrant parish that is growing, and I love it! I have learned a lot, and continue to learn a lot, but it never ceases to amaze me what people get so bent out of shape over (holding hands , clapping <joyful!>, servers , EMHCs <each of our masses have 1,000 per mass>, and the list goes on.)

So when I read some of these posts about people should not receive the blood, I’m amused! Or about the poster here who presumes to know more than the priests know! Again, I’m amused. Some posters think all priests walk on water - they are HUMAN and they are NOT perfect!

People do seem to worry about the ‘small stuff’. Form over substance! That is what is annoying!

Anyway, I’m rambling. Gotta get back to work.

 

[Walking_Home]

This isn’t the mind of the Church. The Church clearly teaches that the sign is more full if the Blessed Sacrament is received under both of the Sacred Species. “People who want the Mass more focused on God” understand equally well that while the Fullness of Divine Grace (the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ) are indeed contained whole and undivided in one or the other of the Sacred Species, this teaching on the fuller sign still exists (not to mention that this was the way Christ instituted it and the early Church, until the 1400’s, practiced it…of course, thank God for modern traditionalists, who can correct those errors ). I think intinction is a very viable option. Or we could just make those who receive from the Chalice out to be less Catholic. I can see how the latter might be more attractive to some.

---

Or could it be that those who push for both species --actually feel it is more Catholic to receive both. After all —this is the way our Lord instituted Communion. While we do have the teaching that receiving both is a “fuller sign”—the sign in itself does not in any confer any special grace. This is not a teaching of “modern traditionalists”.

Frankly --bringing up the way our Lord instituted Communion-seems to say that the Church has been negligent in following our Lord commands.

 

[netmilsmom]

I go to what most would probably say is a liberal Catholic parish. We use EMHCs (I am one), we have a LifeTeen mass, we have girl altar servers, we have female readers, we have an adoration chapel. We have a vibrant parish that is growing, and I love it! I have learned a lot, and continue to learn a lot, but it never ceases to amaze me what people get so bent out of shape over (holding hands , clapping <joyful!>, servers , EMHCs <each of our masses have 1,000 per mass>, and the list goes on.)
People do seem to worry about the ‘small stuff’. Form over substance! That is what is annoying!

Wow, I would have never guessed!

You see, when someone is not offered the type of worship his soul cries for, the little things become big things.
When denied the sacred, the innovations become annoying. To you, loving the way you worship, all of the innovations you talk about seem like “small stuff”. Lump it all together, and suddenly it’s not so small.

This might help you. Picture walking into your church and finding everyone laying prostrate on the floor. No more clapping, no more happy music, no holding hands and silence required. How happy would you be? Of course, for the sake of this discussion, you could say, “Oh I would be focusing on Our Lord.” but wouldn’t your soul cry for the liturgy you love? That is what many of the posters here are going through so before you judge and lay a thick coating of guilt into your posts, put the shoe on the other foot and don’t just have a “get used to it and get over it” attitude.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Well, I am a convert. I went to a Benedictan university in Collegeville, MN. I can honestly say I’ve never been to an “indult” mass (couldn’t even really tell you what it is, other than what I’ve gleaned from these forums). I go to what most would probably say is a liberal Catholic parish. We use EMHCs (I am one), we have a LifeTeen mass, we have girl altar servers, we have female readers, we have an adoration chapel. We have a vibrant parish that is growing, and I love it! I have learned a lot, and continue to learn a lot, but it never ceases to amaze me what people get so bent out of shape over (holding hands , clapping <joyful!>, servers , EMHCs <each of our masses have 1,000 per mass>, and the list goes on.)

So when I read some of these posts about people should not receive the blood, I’m amused! Or about the poster here who presumes to know more than the priests know! Again, I’m amused. Some posters think all priests walk on water - they are HUMAN and they are NOT perfect!

People do seem to worry about the ‘small stuff’. Form over substance! That is what is annoying!

Anyway, I’m rambling. Gotta get back to work.

Pax tecum!

Hand-holdng is not an approved practice and Cardinal Arinze said that it is discouraged. It also places the focus on ourselves rather than on God. Besides, why only hold hands during the Our Father? Why not during the Creed? The Gloria? The Angus Dei? Those are all “community prayers” that we all pray together as well, aren’t they? Mass is a sacrifice…in fact, it is the very same sacrifice that took place on Calvary. Do you think people were clapping on Calvary? That is also not an approved practice. It is an innovation that was brought into Mass, just as hand-holding and liturgical dance. Everything starts with the “small stuff”, which, gone unchecked, leads to “big stuff” like dancing around the isles, having the congregation stand around the altar for the Canon, having the congregation recite the Doxology with the priest, or having a woman give the “homily”. That is why we don’t like the “small stuff”. The Mass is not ours to do with as we please.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Or could it be that those who push for both species --actually feel it is more Catholic to receive both. After all —this is the way our Lord instituted Communion. While we do have the teaching that receiving both is a “fuller sign”—the sign in itself does not in any confer any special grace. This is not a teaching of “modern traditionalists”.

Frankly --bringing up the way our Lord instituted Communion-seems to say that the Church has been negligent in following our Lord commands.

I’m not (we’ve had this discussion before) saying that the Church has been negligent (I assume a GOOD motive for an action on the part of the Church authorities). I’m saying that this is one (important!) reason WHY the Church now allows this. If you would correct ME for defending what is commended by the Church, will you not correct others for encouraging the opposite? When do I come out demanding that those who don’t wish to receive from the Chalice do so? I only ever mention the topic in response to those who dump on Catholics for doing what the Church permits and encourages.

 

[scylla]

This isn’t the mind of the Church. The Church clearly teaches that the sign is more full if the Blessed Sacrament is received under both of the Sacred Species. “People who want the Mass more focused on God” understand equally well that while the Fullness of Divine Grace (the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ) are indeed contained whole and undivided in one or the other of the Sacred Species, this teaching on the fuller sign still exists (not to mention that this was the way Christ instituted it and the early Church, until the 1400’s, practiced it…of course, thank God for modern traditionalists, who can correct those errors ). I think intinction is a very viable option. Or we could just make those who receive from the Chalice out to be less Catholic. I can see how the latter might be more attractive to some.

I am not a traditionalist, heck I have never even been to the Latin Mass. I just believe Jesus is there in the Eucharist.

Of course it is more full as a sign when it is received under both species, I am not making that point at all. Of course it is more full a sign when received under both species. I am in full agreement with you.

I agree as a sign it is more full.

What you need to remember is Jesus is present in the Eucharist.

As the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus we need to have utmost respect and trying to give out the Sacred Blood each time, when you have large amounts of people, leads to disrespect.
Disrespect of Jesus is much more important as something to avoid, than showing people the fuller sign.
Which is more important respect of Jesus, or expressing the sign of what Jesus did?

It is fully valid to offer the Body and Blood of our Lord in one species and does not invalidate the Sacrament. So in order to pay the utmost respect of our Lord it is always preferable to have less or no EHMC’s and never allow anyone besides a priest to touch the Blessed Sacrament, you should always have someone with consecrated hands.
Unless you don’t really believe our Lord is there then it doesn’t matter and anyone can touch him.

What is more important than feelings, signs or preference is respect of our Lord Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament at Mass.
This is true Catholic belief.

If possible at small gatherings we can always offer the cup if it is offered in respect as the Lord Jesus is there, but we must never compromise to offer more if respect of Jesus is diminished in any way. I do not think that taking from the cup makes anyone less Catholic. There is no such thing as less or more Catholic if you profess it, practice it.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I am not a traditionalist, heck I have never even been to the Latin Mass. I just believe Jesus is there in the Eucharist.

Of course it is more full as a sign when it is received under both species, I am not making that point at all. Of course it is more full a sign when received under both species. I am in full agreement with you.

I agree as a sign it is more full.

What you need to remember is Jesus is present in the Eucharist.

As the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus we need to have utmost respect and trying to give out the Sacred Blood each time, when you have large amounts of people, leads to disrespect.
Disrespect of Jesus is much more important as something to avoid, than showing people the fuller sign.
Which is more important respect of Jesus, or expressing the sign of what Jesus did?

It is fully valid to offer the Body and Blood of our Lord in one species and does not invalidate the Sacrament. So in order to pay the utmost respect of our Lord it is always preferable to have less or no EHMC’s and never allow anyone besides a priest to touch the Blessed Sacrament, you should always have someone with consecrated hands.
Unless you don’t really believe our Lord is there then it doesn’t matter and anyone can touch him.

What is more important than feelings, signs or preference is respect of our Lord Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament at Mass.
This is true Catholic belief.

If possible at small gatherings we can always offer the cup if it is offered in respect as the Lord Jesus is there, but we must never compromise to offer more if respect of Jesus is diminished in any way. I do not think that taking from the cup makes anyone less Catholic. There is no such thing as less or more Catholic if you profess it, practice it.

In Christ
Scylla

Honestly, I serious doubt that anyone who’s read any history of my posts either before or after the crash would question whether or not I remember that Jesus is present in the Eucharist.

And you’re making an assumption that more EMHCs are a sign of irreverence or disrespect. I agree that EMHSs are generally abused, BUT I don’t think that HAVING them or making use of them is either irreverent or disrespectful toward our Lord, anymore than I think receiving in the hand is irreverent or disrespectful (also an ancient practice now allowed by indult), though certainly individual EMHCs may be irreverent or disrespectul. You’re essentially saying we shouldn’t receive on the Chalice so we won’t have to use EMCHs. I think that falls on the side of being less than logical, given that the Church encourages the reception of both species and since we have a priest shortage, we use EMHCs.

 

[scylla]

As you said having EMHC’s generally leads to abuses.

Any abuse against Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is wrong and should be guarded against. So the only logical thing to do is to immediately stop anything that leads to abuses.

I am looking for your agreement on this since you state that you believe Jesus is truly present. I believe you.

Please look at the logical conclusion, since you profess belief in the real presence. If Jesus enters the room you should fall on your face in adoration or at the very least on your knees.
This is certainly possible at Mass.

Now to hold Jesus you would have to be set apart like the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is why the Priests hands are consecrated.

As we develop and understanding of the faith we see that more respect=better what leads to abuses should be avoided.
Unfortunately many in the spirit of Vatican II threw out a lot of the development of understanding we have had ignoring why we had the understanding in the first place.

So yes, the early Church allowed people to receive in the hand and found it was better to receive on the tongue and more respectful.

Since the Church encourages reception of the Chalice we should do so when it is possible with a Priest\Deacon or Acolyte.
(which incidently most dioceses don’t encourage, to encourage EMHC’s)

To solve this we encourage vocations to the Priesthood which is the proper solution. Solve the problem don’t put a bandaid on it.
EMHC’s are a bandaid not a solution.
EMHC’s have not led to more reverence or respect for Jesus in the Eucharist.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[JKirkLVNV]

As you said having EMHC’s generally leads to abuses. I DIDN’T say that. I didn’t say that at all. I said sometimes the use of EMHCs is sometimes abused. We use too many when one or two would do. I don’t believe the use of EMHCs leads to abuse. I wish we had sufficient priests (or deacons) so that EMHCs weren’t necessary, but they are. My parish is huge, with packed and nearly back to back Masses. If the priests didn’t have assistance, Communion would take so long that the entire congregation for the NEXT Mass would be circling the parking lot and not in a very good state. I also don’t think the proper approach is to say,“Well, we’ll simply not permit the Chalice to the laity, that way we won’t have to use ANY EMHCs at all ever.” You’re dispensing with the “fuller sign” to eliminate something that isn’t an abuse in and of itself. I don’t think much of the argument.

Any abuse against Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is wrong and should be guarded against. So the only logical thing to do is to immediately stop anything that leads to abuses.

I am looking for your agreement on this since you state that you believe Jesus is truly present. I believe you. **You aren’t going to get it. As I said, I don’t believe, as you apparently do, that EMHCs logically lead to abuse. **

Please look at the logical conclusion, since you profess belief in the real presence. If Jesus enters the room you should fall on your face in adoration or at the very least on your knees.
This is certainly possible at Mass.

Now to hold Jesus you would have to be set apart like the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is why the Priests hands are consecrated.

So yes, the early Church allowed people to receive in the hand and found it was better to receive on the tongue and more respectful. The Church permits communion in the hand to those who wish to rec. that way (people rec. that way at Mass at the Holy See, from the hand of the Holy Father himself). Nonetheless, that’s another thread. And if you’re tempted to start one, please, for pity’s sake, do a search, it’s been argued ad nauseum.

Since the Church encourages reception of the Chalice we should do so when it is possible with a Priest\Deacon or Acolyte.
(which incidently most dioceses don’t encourage, to encourage EMHC’s) **

What? Where do you live? In the United States, I’ve rarely been to a Mass anywhere where the Chalice wasn’t offered.**

 

[netmilsmom]

In the United States, I’ve rarely been to a Mass anywhere where the Chalice wasn’t offered.

St. Gregory’s
Fort Lauderdale, FL

(- Happy Thanksgiving, Dear Heart!)

 

[Walking_Home]

I’m not (we’ve had this discussion before) saying that the Church has been negligent (I assume a GOOD motive for an action on the part of the Church authorities). I’m saying that this is one (important!) reason WHY the Church now allows this. If you would correct ME for defending what is commended by the Church, will you not correct others for encouraging the opposite? When do I come out demanding that those who don’t wish to receive from the Chalice do so? I only ever mention the topic in response to those who dump on Catholics for doing what the Church permits and encourages.

---

Yes we have had this conversation before. The Church allows the Chalice as long as our core doctrine- our Lord is full and complete in either species—is not undermined. This is the clear teaching that everyone should understand correctly.

From what I am seeing --more importance is being placed on receiving both species because it is a fuller sign. When people become concerned that both species are not offered --or that our Lord’s Precious Blood runs out before they get to receive—that is putting the “fuller sign” above our core teaching. That is what I see happening.

A healthy understanding should mean—that we should not have any concern if the Chalice is not offered–or if our Lord’s Blood runs out. It should make no difference.

 

[netmilsmom]

---

Yes we have had this conversation before. The Church allows the Chalice as long as our core doctrine- our Lord is full and complete in either species—is not undermined. This is the clear teaching that everyone should understand correctly.

From what I am seeing --more importance is being placed on receiving both species because it is a fuller sign. When people become concerned that both species are not offered --or that our Lord’s Precious Blood runs out before they get to receive—that is putting the “fuller sign” above our core teaching. That is what I see happening.

A healthy understanding should mean—that we should not have any concern if the Chalice is not offered–or if our Lord’s Blood runs out. It should make no difference.

Honestly, I still don’t get the “fuller” idea anyway. I’m glad I receive by intinction.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Yes we have had this conversation before. The Church allows the Chalice as long as our core doctrine- our Lord is full and complete in either species—is not undermined. This is the clear teaching that everyone should understand correctly.

From what I am seeing --more importance is being placed on receiving both species because it is a fuller sign. When people become concerned that both species are not offered --or that our Lord’s Precious Blood runs out before they get to receive—that is putting the “fuller sign” above our core teaching. That is what I see happening. **We’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t see it as doing anything more than receiving in the way the Church has, for the bulk of Her History, the way Our Lord instituted it, the way the “other lung” (the Orthodox and our own Eastern Catholics) has always received it and continued to receive it, etc. **

A healthy understanding should mean—that we should not have any concern if the Chalice is not offered–or if our Lord’s Blood runs out. It should make no difference.

One’s OWN opinion of a healthy understanding may call for that. An equally healthy opinion is to think what the Church teaches: it’s a fuller sign. You may get it or you may not, doesn’t matter if you don’t in terms of sacramental grace, etc., but the Church has taught what the Church has taught.

What do you loose, btw, if others receive from the Chalice? I wonder why you weigh in on this? I do so because of repeated attempts to mislead people on the part of others, ie, “the priests are properly the only ones who should receive from the Chalice!” and “if the laity would just remember their place,” (in the face of clear Church teaching that it may be offered to the laity and that they are free to receive it, etc.). That’s the only time I venture an opinion. I’ve never said one HAD to rec. that way (that would be a heresy) or even that one SHOULD receive that way (that would be extremely judgmental, as many may not for reasons of health or because of alcoholism), nor have I ever read on these forums anyone who DID receive from the Chalice try to browbeat anyone who DIDN’T into doing so. If they did, I’d be the first to rear up on my hind legs and tell them to back off and what the Church actually taught (like one can’t be denied Communion for kneeling or one cannot be castigated for receiving on the tongue, etc.). So given that you don’t HAVE to receive from the Chalice, what dog do you have in this race? EMHCs? If we had more priests or deacons, would you feel the same? Is someone trying to force you into reception from the Chalice? I, for one, would be happy to leap to your defense.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Honestly, I still don’t get the “fuller” idea anyway. I’m glad I receive by intinction.

It’s a teaching in the Catechism, promulgated by the Pope. And reception by intinction is a participation IN that fuller sign, anyway. And it might be a better idea to go with intinction universally, BUT the fact remains that the idea of the “fuller sign” cannot be dismissed.

 

[Walking_Home]

One’s OWN opinion of a healthy understanding may call for that. An equally healthy opinion is to think what the Church teaches: it’s a fuller sign. You may get it or you may not, doesn’t matter if you don’t in terms of sacramental grace, etc., but the Church has taught what the Church has taught.

What do you loose, btw, if others receive from the Chalice? I wonder why you weigh in on this? I do so because of repeated attempts to mislead people on the part of others, ie, “the priests are properly the only ones who should receive from the Chalice!” and “if the laity would just remember their place,” (in the face of clear Church teaching that it may be offered to the laity and that they are free to receive it, etc.). That’s the only time I venture an opinion. I’ve never said one HAD to rec. that way (that would be a heresy) or even that one SHOULD receive that way (that would be extremely judgmental, as many may not for reasons of health or because of alcoholism), nor have I ever read on these forums anyone who DID receive from the Chalice try to browbeat anyone who DIDN’T into doing so. If they did, I’d be the first to rear up on my hind legs and tell them to back off and what the Church actually taught (like one can’t be denied Communion for kneeling or one cannot be castigated for receiving on the tongue, etc.). So given that you don’t HAVE to receive from the Chalice, what dog do you have in this race? EMHCs? If we had more priests or deacons, would you feel the same? Is someone trying to force you into reception from the Chalice? I, for one, would be happy to leap to your defense.

---

Getting it----should be—that it makes no difference. That is the core teaching of the Church. When the sign becomes more important than our core teaching—we have a problem.

From this and other threads—the “fuller sign” is what is grabbing the peoples attention—there is where importance is placed. It does in no way bother me if you or anyone else receives from the Chalice–but I am bothered by the fact that the “sign” is gaining more importance than our core teaching.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Getting it----should be—that it makes no difference. That is the core teaching of the Church. When the sign becomes more important than our core teaching—we have a problem.

From this and other threads—the “fuller sign” is what is grabbing the peoples attention—there is where importance is placed. It does in no way bother me if you or anyone else receives from the Chalice–but I am bothered by the fact that the “sign” is gaining more importance than our core teaching.

I don’t see that it is! I don’t see that this detracts from the Real Presence of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in its fullness in one species alone. I certainly do no (nor do I know of anyone who confides in me) find myself going to Communion thinking, “Now really, the teaching of the Church is that you only HAVE to have the One, but it’s a fuller sign if you have the Two.”

 

[Walking_Home]

I don’t see that it is! I don’t see that this detracts from the Real Presence of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in its fullness in one species alone. I certainly do no (nor do I know of anyone who confides in me) find myself going to Communion thinking, “Now really, the teaching of the Church is that you only HAVE to have the One, but it’s a fuller sign if you have the Two.”

---

Really—then where have all your posts on the “fuller sign” come from–if not from your thoughts. If you reflect your thoughts here --your thought are already with you.

The following is where it all comes down to. This is our core belief. Once we place more importance on the “fuller sign” --we do in fact detract from this belief. No matter how anyone turns it–if the emphasis is on the fuller sign–if it becomes the concern–we do have a problem.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

Can. 925 Holy communion is to be given under the form of bread alone, or under both species according to the norm of the liturgical laws, or even under the form of wine alone in a case of necessity.

 

[scylla]

I am not going to say it is just a belief but a fact that EMHC’s lead to abuses as these are not people who are priests.

Not only does allowing laity to handle the Eucharist leads to sacrilege, it is disrespectful to Jesus. Regardless of what some Popes have allowed, that doesn’t define Catholic belief. Or else any action of the Pope would be imitatable. Popes are infallible but are humans and not inerrant in their actions.

Giving the job of a priest to the laity blurs the distinction between those ordained to serve in Persona Christi and the laity, This is an extremely important facet of the Catholic faith that must not be denied or blurred.

The first thing we should look to is the center of our faith which is the Eucharist. If Jesus is there then we need to act like it. Everything else is secondary, regardless if the sign is important to our reception, we respect Jesus first then if possible recieve what we can. I again agree with you as a more fuller sign we can recieve both species, but respect of Jesus by far comes first.

I have no problem recieving in one species if that will give more respect to Jesus, heck I wont receive at all if necessary.
This would be in a situation where recieving would further insult Jesus more, as the person distributing Him would have one more chance to insult Him. Example: (Halloween Mass or something stupid like that)

In Christ
Scylla

To the original poster:
Don’t worry about running out of the Sacred Blood, Jesus is fully present in both the species. Eventually they will get the hang of measuring out sufficient amounts.
Sorry about the huge discussion, but it is important sometimes to discuss these things.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Really—then where have all your posts on the “fuller sign” come from–if not from your thoughts. If you reflect your thoughts here --your thought are already with you. **Those thoughts come from the Church. **

The following is where it all comes down to. This is our core belief. Once we place more importance on the “fuller sign” --we do in fact detract from this belief. No matter how anyone turns it–if the emphasis is on the fuller sign–if it becomes the concern–we do have a problem.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

Can. 925 Holy communion is to be given under the form of bread alone, or under both species according to the norm of the liturgical laws, or even under the form of wine alone in a case of necessity.

**I’m sorry that you feel that one teaching of the Church detracts from another. I happen not to think that it does. I would recommend that you not assume that others are troubled by the same reservation that you have. They may well understand that it’s sufficient to receive one, but that they are welcome to receive both, provided that it is permitted by their bishop and their priest. But least don’t join in or appear to join in those who are attempting to misinform them, as in the cases I cited, as it seems to cast doubt on whether the Church is right in asserting that it is a fuller sign (which she does in fact do) or whether she may or may not extend the Chalice to the laity (which she may, in fact). You don’t have to receive from the Chalice, for whatever reason, but others may if they wish. **