Do you NOT partake of the chalice? If so, why not?

[Theresa65]

Theresa

this has nothing to do with prohibiting the faithful from receiving from the cup. As specified in all documents from Rome, the Bishop is the one who sets the norms on this. Purification of the
cups is still done by the deacon or priest.

You can read the USCB’s words on reception under both species.

usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml

Jim

The Holy Father …emphasized for this reason that Communion under one species is therefore the “most common form in the Latin rite” for pastoral reasons.

Jim, it is like many practices that are happening in the Church today - Rome says one thing i.e. allowing communion under both kinds on special occasions - but some Bishops may choose to do another thing. But I would expect Bishops following Peter to follow the spirit and intent of the instruction from Rome. As many people here on this post say they do not receive the Precious blood for health reasons and, in any case, as we receive the full sacrament under either kind, it is not required. I go back to my original statement that Communion under Both Kinds is permitted by the Church on special occasions - whether the Bishops follow the Pope or not is up to them, and we know many are not.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Theresa

That may be so, but originally the Jews offered the sacrifice facing away from the people

Well for one, Jews did not believe God was among them, when Jesus was walking this earth.

Also, Jesus gave us the sacred Eucharist, facing the people. The priest takes the place of Christ in the Mass.

Its also the way the early Church celebrated the Eucharist.

Jim

 

[Theresa65]

According to an article in the Catholic Free Press this week by
Father Robert Girattaroti:

So, the codification to the Trinidine, was to organize the Church into one expression.

Fr. Girattaroti, also explains in the article, that Vatican II restored the “Mass in the truest sense.” The ancient Mass was celebrated in the “circular form” where the altar was free standing and the priest stood in “persona Christi.” Also the Masses were celebrated in the language of the people.

So, by the time the Trinidine Mass was codified, Latin was a common language of most of Western Europe.

Those who try to tell us that the Trinidine Mass was the Mass of the ancient Church, and the Novus Ordo is not, are way off base.

Jim

No doubt as you are looking back, Jim, the Church at the time looked back to the ancient sacrifice of the Jews where the priest faced away from the people and offered sacrifice to God.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Holy Father …emphasized for this reason that Communion under one species is therefore the “most common form in the Latin rite” for pastoral reasons.

Jim, it is like many practices that are happening in the Church today - Rome says one thing i.e. allowing communion under both kinds on special occasions - but some Bishops may choose to do another thing. But I would expect Bishops following Peter to follow the spirit and intent of the instruction from Rome. As many people here on this post say they do not receive the Precious blood for health reasons and, in any case, as we receive the full sacrament under either kind, it is not required. I go back to my original statement that Communion under Both Kinds is permitted by the Church on special occasions - whether the Bishops follow the Pope or not is up to them, and we know many are not.

Receiving under one species is the common way. Keep in mind that the Pope is talking about the majority of the Church, of which, 2/3rds exist in 2nd and 3rd world countries. In other words, we in Western Europe and North American, make up less than 1/3 of the Catholic Church.

Either way, we in the US are not prohibited, but allowed to receive under both species. IF that ever changes, no one should feel that they are prohibited, or less Catholic, when receiving from the cup. My guess is that we in the US will be fortunate to have a priest say Mass, and receiving from the cup will be a non-issue.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No doubt as you are looking back, Jim, the Church at the time looked back to the ancient sacrifice of the Jews where the priest faced away from the people and offered sacrifice to God.

No, the Church is looking back at the Early Church, not the Jewish animal sacrifices.

The Apostles celebrated the Eucharist as Jesus did, facing them.

In fact, there was some confusion because the Mass began to be treated as a meal. St. Paul wrote that it was not a matter of eating and drinking, but rather the one we are receiving.

Jim

 

[Theresa65]

Theresa

Well for one, Jews did not believe God was among them, when Jesus was walking this earth.

Also, Jesus gave us the sacred Eucharist, facing the people. The priest takes the place of Christ in the Mass.

Its also the way the early Church celebrated the Eucharist.

Jim

Jesus was with the apostles the first priests - they were alone together. The meal he offered was the paschal meal as was the Jewish practice, but the Mass is a sacrificial meal and no doubt the Mass grew into facing away from the people as had been the Jewish custom. Jesus replaced the lamb of sacrifice that the priest used to hold aloft to God with his back to the people, offering the sacrifice on behalf of them. The Mass has evolved as you can see and it is the practice of the Church never to completely give away any part of that tradition.

 

[AlexV]

The “early Church” most likely had everyone facing East, awaiting the return of Christ.

There is ZERO evidence that the priest ever “faced the people” from antiquity.

 

[AlexV]

As for the good Father and his pop-ed piece on the so-called “Tridentine” Mass (get the spelling write before you lecture us about it), I suggest he read some decent scholarly books of critical history of the liturgy.

“Codified” does not mean “invented”.

The Novus Ordo Missae was invented by a committee, a so-called Consilium, largely in a Swiss hotel suite.

Note also that in the 1570 codification Pius V PRESERVED various other usages and rites (the Missale Parisiense was being published into the 18th century)…in 1970…hmm…more like “everyone had better do one thing or else they’re liable to be called schismatic or at least disobedient”…

 

[Theresa65]

The “early Church” most likely had everyone facing East, awaiting the return of Christ.

There is ZERO evidence that the priest ever “faced the people” from antiquity.

I agree. I have heard all sorts of reasons why the priest faced away from the people, but the normal way of offering a sacrifice to God is the priest has his back to the people facing east.

 

[AlexV]

What the progressives fail to realize is it’s far more DEMOCRATIC and anti-clerical to have EVERYONE facing the same direction…instead of having the talking heads lecture us.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jesus was with the apostles the first priests - they were alone together. The meal he offered was the paschal meal as was the Jewish practice, but the Mass is a sacrificial meal and no doubt the Mass grew into facing away from the people as had been the Jewish custom. Jesus replaced the lamb of sacrifice that the priest used to hold aloft to God with his back to the people, offering the sacrifice on behalf of them. The Mass has evolved as you can see and it is the practice of the Church never to completely give away any part of that tradition.

Jesus gave us the Eucharist in the context of a Seder meal, for they gathered for the Passover meal. This is how the Mass was celebrated in the early Church.

You can continue to argue about it, or read about the history of the Mass. It was not like we celebrate in the Novus Ordo or the Trinidine, but as Vatican II’s goal was, the Novus Ordo, brought us closer to the origin.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What the progressives fail to realize is it’s far more DEMOCRATIC and anti-clerical to have EVERYONE facing the same direction…instead of having the talking heads lecture us.

I fail to understand this statement.

Jim

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Teresa:

You’re misinformed.

1. The administration of Communion under both Sacred Species is permitted, not merely on special occasions, but where a bishop deems it appropriate. A bishop may deem it appropriate (any other opinion notwithstanding) for each and every celebration of the Holy Sacrifice. There are prudential reasons not to, for very large gatherings, etc.
2. Many thing which you mention as abuses are, in point of fact, NOT abuses. If they are permitted by the competent authority, either the Holy See or the bishops acting with the Holy See’s delegated authority, they are by definition not an abuse.
3. EDIT Communion in the hand and Communion under both Species have antecedents in the Catholicism, therefore they are hardly Protestant, even if it were Protestants that harkended back and insisted that we had to revert to Communion in the hand and Communion under both Sacred Species. We don’t, because the Church possess the authority given Her by Christ to govern the Sacraments. Form, matter, and intention are immutable. Disciplines are not. The Church exercises Her prudential wisdom in these matters. It’s as big a mistake to say that we must receive Communion in the hand and under both Sacred Species as it is to say we cannot receive Communion in the Hand and under both Sacred Species. They’re both incorrect.

 

[Lepanto]

What you say is 100% correct.

Thank you.

Will you marry me?

 

[AlexV]

We know practically nothing about the liturgy in the West in the 1st century. We know next to nothing about the 2nd century and the 3rd century. We start to know more in the fourth, but still precious little compared to what the pop-ed liturgists would have us think.

In any case, Pius XII condemned archaeologism. There is no evidence there were women at the Last Supper. Be careful how far you push archaeologism.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Jesus gave us the Eucharist in the context of a Seder meal, for they gathered for the Passover meal. This is how the Mass was celebrated in the early Church.

You can continue to argue about it, or read about the history of the Mass. It was not like we celebrate in the Novus Ordo or the Trinidine, but as Vatican II’s goal was, the Novus Ordo, brought us closer to the origin.

Jim

Jim,

Certainly there are lots of elements in the Pauline Missal that echo the liturgical practices of early Christianity. It would be a mistake, however, to say that the Tridentine was “made up” by Trent. It was CODIFIED by Trent, but it had been celebrated for centuries. Even though I love the noble simplicity of the Pauline Rite, I would never argue that the Tridentine was “constructed.” It was only “constructed” very slowly and over centuries.

Maybe I mistook you?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

We know practically nothing about the liturgy in the West in the 1st century. We know next to nothing about the 2nd century and the 3rd century. We start to know more in the fourth, but still precious little compared to what the pop-ed liturgists would have us think.

Which also answers some “traditionalists” who seem to think that Saint John the Divine handed the Tridentine to St. Polycarp. Not you, of course, Alex.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Jim,

Certainly there are lots of elements in the Pauline Missal that echo the liturgical practices of early Christianity. It would be a mistake, however, to say that the Tridentine was “made up” by Trent. It was CODIFIED by Trent, but it had been celebrated for centuries. Even though I love the noble simplicity of the Pauline Rite, I would never argue that the Tridentine was “constructed.” It was only “constructed” very slowly and over centuries.

Maybe I mistook you?

I never said it was made up by Trent. It codified the various expressions of the Mass, which were going on at the time.

Jim

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I never said it was made up by Trent. It codified the various expressions of the Mass, which were going on at the time.

Jim

I see what you’re saying, but I’m not sure it’s entirely accurate the way you’ve expressed it. I’m pretty sure it was a matter of the Tridentine being confirmed and promulgated pretty much whole cloth, the way it had already been celebrated for a long time (though parts may have been “tightened up”). Variations were supressed, as were other rites more recent than 200 years. I’d be happy to be further educated about this, though.

 

[AlexV]

Quite a few media outlets…AND diocesan outlets…have recently printed the same ahistorical nonsense, namely that the Mass somehow “dates” to 1570. Balderdash. What was codified in 1570 was quite a bit older than 1570. As can be shown most easily from the first printed Missal, 1474, which is virtually instinguishable from 1570’s.