EMHC and the possible misuses

[smead2942]

Wow - receiving the Cup, something which Christ gave us and the bishops of the world have recommended - is a problem?

Our entire parish has never been to one Mass on Sunday, and would not fit into our church, as we have four Masses. And Communion has never, as long as I have been there (27 years) been distributed in 3 minutes.

Yes, theologically, one does not have to consume both Species in order to receive, a heresy in existence well over 500 years ago; and we don’t need to fight a heresy that no longer applies.

But then, the bishops of the world have said that receiving under both Species is encouraged because it is a fuller sign of the Eucharist. Of course, pick and choose in terms of the advice the bishops give is synonymous not just with the liberals who have played that hand for so many years.

It is a privilege to receive under both Species; and it is amazing how many people would like to remove that privilege from the rest of us, the recommendations of the bishops of the world not withstanding.

I’d much rather only receive the Sacred Host from the priest than risk the spilling of several chalices containing the Precious Blood.

 

[JimG]

I’d much rather only receive the Sacred Host from the priest than risk the spilling of several chalices containing the Precious Blood.

A good argument for intinction. I’ve also noticed that in many parishes in another diocese where typically communion is offered under both species, that the majority of communicants receive only the host as a matter of preference.

 

[otjm]

I’d much rather only receive the Sacred Host from the priest than risk the spilling of several chalices containing the Precious Blood.

In all the years I have seen the Chalice presented, I have yet to see anyone spill. Most people spill a drink when they are not paying attention - which is not the case when someone is receiving from the Cup.

No one is required to receive from the Cup; but let’s not make non-existent issues be the excuse. Choice should be the reason.

 

[otjm]

A good argument for intinction. I’ve also noticed that in many parishes in another diocese where typically communion is offered under both species, that the majority of communicants receive only the host as a matter of preference.

Actually, it is no argument for intinction; it is an excuse. Excuses are not reasons; they are smoke screens.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

A good argument for intinction. I’ve also noticed that in many parishes in another diocese where typically communion is offered under both species, that the majority of communicants receive only the host as a matter of preference.

As a priest, I have given Communion by intinction over the years, when I have visited other parishes. I would never choose it for my own. It all but imposes upon people both reception on the tongue and reception under both species while denying the sign value of “take and drink”.

Remembering a time when we did not have Extraordinary Ministers and we did not have Communion under both species, these two developments have been such a beautiful thing to see.

 

[Brendan]

Actually, it is no argument for intinction; it is an excuse. Excuses are not reasons; they are smoke screens.

It is a reason if the pastor says it is.

As you have noted, there are certain prerogatives that the pastor has, the use or non use of EMHCs is one, and this is another.

 

[otjm]

It is a reason if the pastor says it is.

As you have noted, there are certain prerogatives that the pastor has, the use or non use of EMHCs is one, and this is another.

We were not discussing what a pastor might say; we were discussing what a poster did say.

And I will simply defer to what Don Ruggero says just prior to your post.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t believe that we need the laity to serve in that capacity to make them feel involved in Mass. It should be from absolute need.

By the way at our parish we have 16 EMHC’s per Sunday Mass.

I don’t believe there is an “absolute” need ever. (It is not even necessary for the congregation to receive.) One of convenience maybe but not absolute. But I do agree they shouldn’t be used just to make them feel involved in Mass.

 

[Brendan]

We were not discussing what a pastor might say; we were discussing what a poster did say.

And I will simply defer to what Don Ruggero says just prior to your post.

I know. But that does not imply that it is not a reason.

 

[JimG]

As a priest, I have given Communion by intinction over the years, when I have visited other parishes. I would never choose it for my own. It all but imposes upon people both reception on the tongue and reception under both species while denying the sign value of “take and drink”.

Remembering a time when we did not have Extraordinary Ministers and we did not have Communion under both species, these two developments have been such a beautiful thing to see.

It’s true that if communion is offered ONLY by intinction, then it is imposed on everyone, as well as imposing communion on the tongue, since intinction is not given by hand to hand.

But I have seen parishes in which communicants may receive either the host only, or both species by intinction. And in some large parishes, offering the chalice as well as the ciborium is deemed impractical, requiring large numbers of EMHC’s.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I would say you should stop being an extraordinary minister and, if you wish to have a role in the parish, do something else. You could teach catechism or volunteer for a parish activity. You were correct in telling your mother that participating at Mass in no wise involves having an external role, it doesn’t even involve singing or responding to the prayers (as long as mental prayer is being done).

If you are unhappy with the modernist tendencies of your parishes, try to find a traditional parish near you. Laymen are not allowed to preach a homily at Mass, so I would avoid going to that parish that allowed such a thing to happen. If there is a Traditional Latin Mass near you, you should try going there since it is assured that it won’t be irreverent.

It is a well known fact that the Second Vatican Council was very misconstrued. It is often used in defense of many of the current practices in the Church even though they are never mentioned in any of the documents of the Council, and those that try to follow what the Council actually had in mind are called bad names. The truth will prevail.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

(It is not even necessary for the congregation to receive.)

Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

Thus the parish priest, who has received the cura animarum from the bishop, has a most serious obligation to facilitate Holy Communion for anyone who may lawfully receive at any Mass.

Also, as the Council Fathers rightly indicate in Sacrosanctum Concilium:

55. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.

 

[otjm]

It is a well known fact that the Second Vatican Council was very misconstrued. It is often used in defense of many of the current practices in the Church even though they are never mentioned in any of the documents of the Council, and those that try to follow what the Council actually had in mind are called bad names. The truth will prevail.

I am going to assume that you are not indicating that the documents of Vatican 2 did not indicate a desire to resume reception from the Cup.

As to other practices, their validity has nothing to do with whether they were in one of the documents or not. Their validity comes from the document (such as the GIRM) which sets them forth.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

It’s true that if communion is offered ONLY by intinction, then it is imposed on everyone, as well as imposing communion on the tongue, since intinction is not given by hand to hand.

But I have seen parishes in which communicants may receive either the host only, or both species by intinction. And in some large parishes, offering the chalice as well as the ciborium is deemed impractical, requiring large numbers of EMHC’s.

I would be very glad and very pleased if you could describe how the parishes organised what you describe so that the people would know with relative ease which station to proceed to in order to receive the Eucharist according to their preference yet without confusion or requiring elaborate explanations.

In all the years, I never saw this successfully done in a way that I could comfortably implement – except in one abbey that I would visit. They had a wonderful system in place that supported receiving just the Host, on the tongue or in the hand, and then proceed to the chalice for those who also wished to receive in that manner (or for those with celiac or other issues, they could bypass the ciborium and simply proceed straight to the chalice) or the communicant could receive by intinction.

The monks did it extraordinarily well but, unfortunately, their methodology was simply not reproducible on the scale of a parish; it also relied on the guest master briefing the relatively small congregation of laity (a number of whom were regular attendees anyway) before Mass and then the laity being able to observe the process as it unfolded with the monastic community; the laity then followed behind the monks in receiving Holy Communion.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s true that if communion is offered ONLY by intinction, then it is imposed on everyone, as well as imposing communion on the tongue, since intinction is not given by hand to hand.

But I have seen parishes in which communicants may receive either the host only, or both species by intinction. And in some large parishes, offering the chalice as well as the ciborium is deemed impractical, requiring large numbers of EMHC’s.

…

As to other practices, their validity has nothing to do with whether they were in one of the documents or not. Their validity comes from the document (such as the GIRM) which sets them forth.

Right. The IGMR/GIRM doesn’t apply to those rites (or forms) where intinction, for example, is more prevalent. And, even if they are “pre-Vatican2” practices, they should never be undermined. Frankly, I’m surprised no one from the Eastern rites has challenged this point. There is no deficiency with the intinction method, just so we’re clear.

 

[Brendan]

…
Frankly, I’m surprised no one from the Eastern rites has challenged this point. There is no deficiency with the intinction method, just so we’re clear.

There is a Ruthenian parish near my house that we occasionally attend Divine Liturgy at. ( I like to have my kids experience the full breath of the Church)

The clergy there will claim that Intinction is the fullest sign of Communion, as it shows the unity of Body and Blood in the Risen Christ.

 

[otjm]

…

Right. The IGMR/GIRM doesn’t apply to those rites (or forms) where intinction, for example, is more prevalent. And, even if they are “pre-Vatican2” practices, they should never be undermined. Frankly, I’m surprised no one from the Eastern rites has challenged this point. There is no deficiency with the intinction method, just so we’re clear.

I don’t think anyone has challenged the point.

I do have to admit that when I go to the Ruthenian rite liturgy, I find it awkward to tip my head back and receive off the spoon. But that has never stopped me. Do I prefer it? No, but that is to me somewhat irrelevant.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I am going to assume that you are not indicating that the documents of Vatican 2 did not indicate a desire to resume reception from the Cup.

As to other practices, their validity has nothing to do with whether they were in one of the documents or not. Their validity comes from the document (such as the GIRM) which sets them forth.

I was not speaking of the reception of the Precious Blood by the laymen during Mass, but I was unaware that the Council spoke of this point. It doesn’t seem to have been a very strong point by the Council, thankfully.

I wasn’t trying to say that the current practices were invalid because they are not in the Council, but that people are incorrect when they say the Council changed something that the Council Fathers didn’t even speak about.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I was not speaking of the reception of the Precious Blood by the laymen during Mass, but I was unaware that the Council spoke of this point. It doesn’t seem to have been a very strong point by the Council, thankfully.

I wasn’t trying to say that the current practices were invalid because they are not in the Council, but that people are incorrect when they say the Council changed something that the Council Fathers didn’t even speak about.

To the contrary, the Council Fathers wanted Holy Communion under both species. while affirming what Trent had previously declared The bishops of the Catholic world saw it, at least at its introduction, for special occasions but it was actually so enthusiastically received that the permission was extended by the Apostolic See, using the mechanism the Council Fathers put in place.

From Sacrosanctum Concilium:

*55. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact [40], communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.*

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

To the contrary, the Council Fathers wanted Holy Communion under both species. while affirming what Trent had previously declared The bishops of the Catholic world saw it, at least at its introduction, for special occasions but it was actually so enthusiastically received that the permission was extended by the Apostolic See, using the mechanism the Council Fathers put in place.

From Sacrosanctum Concilium:

*55. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact [40], communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit*, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.

It seems I was not clear. What I meant by it not being a very strong point was that the Council Fathers did not mandate for reception of the Precious Blood by laymen but merely gave permission for it to be done according to the quote you provided. I said I am thankful it wasn’t forcefully given by the Council since I don’t think the Precious Blood should be given to the laymen. I had no idea that the Council mentioned this matter until otjm pointed it out, so your quote was helpful.