Do we need a miracle of Cana?

[JKirkLVNV]

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. **This is distressing. It’s a part of a basic elementary curriculum that children in the late third or early fourth grade are expected to master that there is a difference in facts and opinions. The first is empirically verifiable, proveable, if you will, and the other is not capable of empirical verification. You have expressed an opinion, nothing more, and thankfully, the Church isn’t run on opinions. **

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. See above. Also, as promulgated by the Council of Trent (that’s Trent, not Vatican II), the Church cannot propose to the faithful any practice that may lead to impiety. Her liturgical practices are thus assured of at least a negative infallibility.

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. **I, too, am concerned with not blurring the roles of the priesthood and the laity. I pray we may have an increase in vocations, both to the priesthood and to the diaconate, but I don’t see EMHCs as being a problem unless they are OVERUSED or unless each individual EMHC becomes a problem in and of themselves, ie, thrusting themselves forward, viewing their role as a right, etc. I don’t think that denying the Chalice to the laity because of EMHCs is a balanced approach, given the Church’s teaching that a reception of both Sacred Species is a “fuller sign” (and I’m not taunting anyone with that, or disparaging anyone who doesn’t receive that way, I’m merely using the Church’s words). **

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 honestly fail to see how receiving both Sacred Species is disrespectful to Jesus, but then I deny that EMHCs as an institution are disrespectful to Jesus. **

quote]

 

[Walking_Home]

**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. **

---

I am led to believe by what is being reflected in other peoples words. The “fuller sign” is buring our doctrine little by little. As I said—when people become more concerned with the Chalice not being offered or that the Precious Blood runs out–that is the priority—that is the focus.

Do not change what I say–to imply that I cast doubt on the Church. She is not responsible for the actions of the people. The Church allows offering the Chalice–as long as our doctrine is not undermined. That people have a clear understanding that the Host alone —imparts full grace. Yet the concern that comes up–is where is the Chalice, etc.

No matter how anyone tries to justify what is happening–how words are turned around 00–the threads on this subject reflect different----no matter how anyone tries to explain it away.

 

[netmilsmom]

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.

Honestly, I’m not dismissing it, I just don’t understand it. I mean personally.
If Our Lord is complete in the Host, how can anything be fuller?
I’m not looking for a tiff, truly. I’m just saying, I personally don’t get it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Honestly, I’m not dismissing it, I just don’t understand it. I mean personally.
If Our Lord is complete in the Host, how can anything be fuller?
I’m not looking for a tiff, truly. I’m just saying, I personally don’t get it.

It’s a fuller sign, visually, outwardly (***part ***of what make’s a sacrament), sensually (by that I mean refering to the senses, always an important part of Catholic worship).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

I am led to believe by what is being reflected in other peoples words. The “fuller sign” is buring our doctrine little by little. As I said—when people become more concerned with the Chalice not being offered or that the Precious Blood runs out–that is the priority—that is the focus. Maybe not. Maybe it’s a simple observation. There is a logistical element to Mass, ie.“Do we have enough incense, sufficient hosts, enough wine,” etc. I wouldn’t assume the worse or make the leap to suspecting that a doctrine of the Church is being left out of focus.

Do not change what I say–to imply that I cast doubt on the Church. She is not responsible for the actions of the people. The Church allows offering the Chalice–as long as our doctrine is not undermined. That people have a clear understanding that the Host alone —imparts full grace. Yet the concern that comes up–is where is the Chalice, etc. Again, I doubt very much that it’s as big a problem as you’re making out. It seems to me, however, that there’s a subtle attempt to constrain the faithful’s conscience here, “yes, it’s a fuller sign, but we need to be emphasizing that the Fullness is already in One Sacred Species.” I think a balanced approach and catechesis would be far better than SEEMING to dismiss the teaching of the fuller sign (or the fullness of the Presence in the One, should there be a reason not to offer the Chalice).
And by constantly weighing in with seeming support (seeming is the word I use) for those who state that the laity shouldn’t receive the Chalice, you do cast doubt on the Church, which plainly says they may and encourages them to do so, but doesn’t require it. You implied the same of me, after all, that I basically thought the Church negligent of Christ’s institution of both Sacred Species.

No matter how anyone tries to justify what is happening–how words are turned around 00–the threads on this subject reflect different----no matter how anyone tries to explain it away.

**Of equal concern is a potential and erroneous mindset that could develop that elevates the Most Precious Blood to a level that is above the Most Sacred Body and thus the priests alone are worthy to receive it. I see that trend among some in the same threads. That’s not the mind of the Church. **

 

[TOP]

As the op , I want to make it clear that I understand that we receive the Lord completly from the Eucharist alone and that it is not necessary to receive from the chalice. But the Lord said take my body…and this is the blood of the new and everlasting… so I partake in both. When Rome tells me to abstain or to drink antifreeze, I do it. Thanks for answering my question. Tim

 

[Walking_Home]

**Of equal concern is a potential and erroneous mindset that could develop that elevates the Most Precious Blood to a level that is above the Most Sacred Body and thus the priests alone are worthy to receive it. I see that trend among some in the same threads. That’s not the mind of the Church. **

---

How soon we forget----remember our discussion on the other thread—the Council of Trent. We the laity do not have a divine right to the Chalice —only the priest offering the Holy Sacrifice has the right and must receive the Precious Blood (that is the mind of the Church).

So–it is not about people elevating the Precious Blood or turning it into the priest alone being worthy----It is from the Church Herself.

The Church has allowed the laity to recieve-but this does not derail what She has already stated.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I think the problem of the OP would be best solved by having an altar party that is more prepared–the subdeacon should make sure there is enough wine to consecrate. Period.

A. All the stuff seen left in the chalices mingled with the Blood of Christ after Holy Communion is distributed- lipstick oils, eyelash and mustache hair, etc. and someone had to drink the remainder of it all down. And next in line please feel free to drink as much as you can- and don’t forget the crumbs at the bottom.

In his Incarnation, our Lord did not despise the Virgin’s womb, nor, in his Love, did he reject the humanity which he put on for our sake. I do not think your point here is valid.

And the crumbs at the bottom of the chalice are pieces of the Body of God. Nothing wrong with that.

And the use of a purificator to wipe the rim of the chalice would do a fine job of removing the detritus of our human frailty to which you sternly object.

B. Possible spillage - this board has posts of numerous times this has happened.

If it’s spilled, clean it up. If there are no communion linens handy for the purpose, use a paper towel, after which, burn the paper towel or bury it.

C. Lay people distributing Holy Communion narrows the distintion of the Catholic Priesthood and priesthood of the layity.

Only if the roles are ill-defined. I firmly believe a priest should distribute the Body. A lay minister may distribute the chalice. Or better yet, a deacon or concelebrating priest can assist with the distribution.

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

Not so. It appears (as has been previously mentioned) that reception of the body and blood was an ancient practice alterred by the church (perhaps for the better at the time of the alteration). To view the restoration of an ancient practice as a concession to heretics is a bit petty, I must say.

E. Spread of germs- cold, flu and other viruses- the last thing I want is to be throwing up until 4:00 AM and have to sit in a hospital bed with an IV in my arm to rehydrate me due to a stomach virus I got due to recieving Holy Communion.

The CDC did a great study of the possibility of receiving a germ through the reception of the common cup. Information from the report may be found here: www.stjoseph.belmont.ma.us/publications/ChronicleWinter04.pdf

Suffice to say that while some germs may survive the alcohol content of what is in the cup, the risk of catching something from the common cup is negligible, and the only thing one is likely to catch (in the statistically highly unlikely chance that one would catch anything) is the common cold.

Again, purificators to wipe the rim of the cup are sound practice. Also, the use of a chalice made of gold or silver is helpful. Germs generally cannot live on the surface of something that is gold or silver. Noble metals are like that.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

How soon we forget----remember our discussion on the other thread—the Council of Trent. We the laity do not have a divine right to the Chalice —only the priest offering the Holy Sacrifice has the right and must receive the Precious Blood (that is the mind of the Church).

So–it is not about people elevating the Precious Blood or turning it into the priest alone being worthy----It is from the Church Herself.

The Church has allowed the laity to recieve-but this does not derail what She has already stated.

We’re not talking about a “right.” I don’t question that the Church has the right to govern the Sacrament, to withold or offer the Chalice. *I’m talking about a potentially erroneous view of the nature of the two Sacred Species, *not a “right.” Don’t derail this by attempting to talk about rights. I’ve not said the laity have a “right” to the Chalice, the laity have no more nor no less rights than the Church extends to them. This is about attempting to constrain the consciences of people availing themselves of something that the Church, in many locales, legitimately offers (but does not require or constrain those who do not wish to receive that way to do so).

 

[Walking_Home]

We’re not talking about a “right.” I don’t question that the Church has the right to govern the Sacrament, to withold or offer the Chalice. *I’m talking about a potentially erroneous view of the nature of the two Sacred Species, *not a “right.” Don’t derail this by attempting to talk about rights. I’ve not said the laity have a “right” to the Chalice, the laity have no more nor no less rights than the Church extends to them. This is about attempting to constrain the consciences of people availing themselves of something that the Church, in many locales, legitimately offers (but does not require or constrain those who do not wish to receive that way to do so).

Quote=JKirkLVNV
Of equal concern is a potential and erroneous mindset that could develop that elevates the Most Precious Blood to a level that is above the Most Sacred Body and thus the priests alone are worthy to receive it. I see that trend among some in the same threads. That’s not the mind of the Church.​

I am not derailing anything. I based myself on your own words above. What you basicly did—was change the words around–to make it seem that the belief that the priest alone receives is an erroneous mindset.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Quote=JKirkLVNV
Of equal concern is a potential and erroneous mindset that could develop that elevates the Most Precious Blood to a level that is above the Most Sacred Body and thus the priests alone are worthy to receive it. I see that trend among some in the same threads. That’s not the mind of the Church.​

I am not derailing anything. I based myself on your own words above. What you basicly did—was change the words around–to make it seem that the belief that the priest alone receives is an erroneous mindset.

It IS an erroneous mindset! It’s a mistake, an error! By saying that the laity MAY receive from the Chalice, the Church clearly rejects the view, expressed by misinformed people who call themselves “traditionalists,” on these and other threads, that the clergy ALONE MAY OR SHOULD receive the Chalice. It isn’t an error to believe that the clergy alone possesses the RIGHT to receive the Chalice (because it’s true). It isn’t an error to believe that the clergy alone are BOUND to receive from the Chalice. It isn’t an error to believe that the laity don’t possess the right to receive the Chalice BY right, as the clergy do (because the laity DOESN’T possess that right). But yes, it’s an error to say that the laity MAY NOT not or that the priest ALONE MAY.

Think of it this way: I’m a feudal lord. I alone possess the right to hunt in the forest of Greater Bumpleteteedumshire. No one questions that and anyone caught poaching there knows that they are there illicitly, without right or licencse. I, however, because I’m such a nice guy, grant to everyone under my rule the LIBERTY to hunt in the forest of Greater Bumpleteteedumshire. Now, do the people of GB have the right to hunt there? No, they only have the liberty extended by nice guy ME.

The Church has extended a liberty that is hers to extend.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Quote=JKirkLVNV
Of equal concern is a potential and erroneous mindset that could develop that elevates the Most Precious Blood to a level that is above the Most Sacred Body and thus the priests alone are worthy to receive it. I see that trend among some in the same threads. That’s not the mind of the Church.​

I am not derailing anything. I based myself on your own words above. What you basicly did—was change the words around–to make it seem that the belief that the priest alone receives is an erroneous mindset.

It IS an erroneous mindset! It’s a mistake, an error! By saying that the laity MAY receive from the Chalice, the Church clearly rejects the view, expressed by misinformed people who call themselves “traditionalists,” on these and other threads, that the clergy ALONE MAY OR SHOULD receive the Chalice. It isn’t an error to believe that the clergy alone possesses the RIGHT to receive the Chalice (because it’s true). It isn’t an error to believe that the clergy alone are BOUND to receive from the Chalice. It isn’t an error to believe that the laity don’t possess the right to receive the Chalice BY right, as the clergy do (because the laity DOESN’T possess that right). But yes, it’s an error to say that the laity MAY NOT not or that the priest ALONE MAY.

Think of it this way: I’m a feudal lord. I alone possess the right to hunt in the forest of Greater Bumpleteteedumshire. No one questions that and anyone caught poaching there knows that they are there illicitly, without right or licencse. I, however, because I’m such a nice guy, grant to everyone under my rule the LIBERTY to hunt in the forest of Greater Bumpleteteedumshire. Now, do the people of GB have the right to hunt there? No, they only have the liberty extended by nice guy ME.

The Church has extended a liberty that is hers to extend.

---

Boy —you are getting good at turning things around. I never stated that the Laity receiving from the Chalice is an erroneous mind set. You did in fact—imply that the belief in the priest alone receiving is erroneous.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Boy —you are getting good at turning things around. I never stated that the Laity receiving from the Chalice is an erroneous mind set. You did in fact—imply that the belief in the priest alone receiving is erroneous.

Sigh Walking Home, I never said that you stated that the laity receiving from the Chalice was an erroneous mindset, NEVER. I asked why you weigh in on the side of those who seem to want to constrain the consciences of those who are simply doing what the Church permits. And I implied nothing, I overtly stated that to say the priest alone MAY receive is an error. That’s not true, the Church permits the laity to receive where the Bishop and priests grant it.

For clarification:

That the laity may not: error.
That the laity possess the right: error
That the priest alone “may”, in the sense that it’s only allowed to *him *by the Church: error
That the priest alone “may,” in the sense that there’s a prudential reason for the laity not to do so: not an error.
That one must receive both Sacred Species in order to receive the fullness of the Real Presence: error

 

[Walking_Home]

Sigh Walking Home, I never said that you stated that the laity receiving from the Chalice was an erroneous mindset, NEVER. I asked why you weigh in on the side of those who seem to want to constrain the consciences of those who are simply doing what the Church permits. And I implied nothing, I overtly stated that to say the priest alone MAY receive is an error. That’s not true, the Church permits the laity to receive where the Bishop and priests grant it.

For clarification:

That the laity may not: error.
That the laity possess the right: error
That the priest alone “may”, in the sense that it’s only allowed to *him *by the Church: errorThat the priest alone “may,” in the sense that there’s a prudential reason for the laity not to do so: not an error.
That one must receive both Sacred Species in order to receive the fullness of the Real Presence: error

---

Since you and I have been back and forth on this—and the statement was made in response to my post–I acknowledged it.

As to the priest alone receiving the Chalice— it IS valid to believe that the priest alone has the divine right to the Chalice–this does not go against the mind of the Church as per the Council of Trent.

The Church can offer the Chalice to the people —but at any pt.–If She sees fit----can withdraw the Chalice from the laity—yet priest must still receive.

 

[HailMary]

The answer is intinction.

Thats how we do it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Since you and I have been back and forth on this—and the statement was made in response to my post–I acknowledged it.

As to the priest alone receiving the Chalice— it IS valid to believe that the priest alone has the divine right to the Chalice–this does not go against the mind of the Church as per the Council of Trent.

The Church can offer the Chalice to the people —but at any pt.–If She sees fit----can withdraw the Chalice from the laity—yet priest must still receive.

I’ve already stipulated to that!!! I’m talking about people who erroneously say that the priest alone should receive or can recieve! How can I possibly be any clearer? See post 51!

 

[Walking_Home]

I’ve already stipulated to that!!! I’m talking about people who erroneously say that the priest alone should receive or can recieve! How can I possibly be any clearer? See post 51!

Quote=JKirkLVNV
For clarification:

That the laity may not: error.
That the laity possess the right: error
That the priest alone “may”, in the sense that it’s only allowed to him by the Church: error
That the priest alone “may,” in the sense that there’s a prudential reason for the laity not to do so: not an error.That one must receive both Sacred Species in order to receive the fullness of the Real Presence: error​

Ok–this is where you lost me. It is the word “may”.

The priest alone–must receive–Yes–as per the Church. This does not deny the Church offering the Chalice to the people.

The priest alone–must receive- --YES–if the Church deems it prudential to withdraw the Chalice from the people.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Quote=JKirkLVNV
For clarification:

That the laity may not: error.
That the laity possess the right: error
That the priest alone “may”, in the sense that it’s only allowed to him by the Church: error
That the priest alone “may,” in the sense that there’s a prudential reason for the laity not to do so: not an error.That one must receive both Sacred Species in order to receive the fullness of the Real Presence: error​

Ok–this is where you lost me. It is the word “may”.

The priest alone–must receive–Yes–as per the Church. This does not deny the Church offering the Chalice to the people.

The priest alone–must receive- --YES–if the Church deems it prudential to withdraw the Chalice from the people.

Precisely.

 

[Brendan]

By saying that the laity MAY receive from the Chalice, the Church clearly rejects the view, expressed by misinformed people who call themselves “traditionalists,” on these and other threads, that the clergy ALONE MAY OR SHOULD receive the Chalice. .

Not true.The Church is very clear that there IS a difference.

The celebrant (including any concelebrants) MUST recieve from the chalice.

And since the Deacon is Guardian of the Chalice, he is defined as SHOULD recieve from the Chalice

Everyone else MAY, (if the priest or bishop deems it to be advisable.)

So not only SHOULD the clergy recieve from the Chalice, some MUST recieve. But the laity only MAY recieve.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Not true.The Church is very clear that there IS a difference.

The celebrant (including any concelebrants) MUST recieve from the chalice.

And since the Deacon is Guardian of the Chalice, he is defined as SHOULD recieve from the Chalice

Everyone else MAY, (if the priest or bishop deems it to be advisable.)

So not only SHOULD the clergy recieve from the Chalice, some MUST recieve. But the laity only MAY recieve.

I’ve been saying that repeatedly…REPEATEDLY!!! Look back through the thread. And deacons ARE clergy.