EMHC and the possible misuses

[otjm]

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.

The Precious Blood has been given to laymen for 2000 years, as it is consistent in the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church (as well as the Orthodox), and was given in the Roman rite for about 1,000 years in some areas, and possibly even longer (as it became part of the Council of Trent’s issues).

Given the consistent history in the East, and the extensive history in the West, I am curious as to why you think it should not be given? It is not mandatory now in the West. But not at all?

 

[o_mlly]

Pastors who authorize EMHC’s to distribute Holy Communion outside Mass, i.e. to the sick and home bound, prisons, hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities without proper training is a possible misuse of this lay apostolate.

 

[Brendan]

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 **.

What you just said was probably my biggest objection. You stated “Precious Blood” , while the Council mentioned ‘both kinds’

THAT is the biggest problem I have seen in the common use of the Chalice. A lot of the Church has lost the sense of the Doctrine of Concommitence.

If a priest chose to offer only the species of bread at Communion, and then, in the post Communion time for statements, asked the congregation who received the Precious Blood, I’d be willing to be almost no one would raise their hands. In fact, some would complain that the Precious Blood was not offered. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS, in the species of bread.

There is a widespread lack of knowledge of what the Church really teaches on the Eucharist.

That, at least would be a teachable moment

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

The Precious Blood has been given to laymen for 2000 years, as it is consistent in the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church (as well as the Orthodox), and was given in the Roman rite for about 1,000 years in some areas, and possibly even longer (as it became part of the Council of Trent’s issues).

Given the consistent history in the East, and the extensive history in the West, I am curious as to why you think it should not be given? It is not mandatory now in the West. But not at all?

I am not concerned with the practices of the Eastern Rites since I am in the Latin Rite. The main reasons I don’t like it, and why the Church discontinued the practice, is because it is very easy to spill the Precious Blood and because it reinforces the doctrine of Christ being whole and entire in both species if only the Host is given. If receiving the Host is receiving both the Body & Blood of Christ, I don’t see any reason to also receive from the chalice (not including the priest of course). It would also be difficult to give both the Host and the chalice to the faithful at Mass since it requires more priests.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

What you just said was probably my biggest objection. You stated “Precious Blood” , while the Council mentioned ‘both kinds’

THAT is the biggest problem I have seen in the common use of the Chalice. A lot of the Church has lost the sense of the Doctrine of Concommitence.

If a priest chose to offer only the species of bread at Communion, and then, in the post Communion time for statements, asked the congregation who received the Precious Blood, I’d be willing to be almost no one would raise their hands. In fact, some would complain that the Precious Blood was not offered. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS, in the species of bread.

There is a widespread lack of knowledge of what the Church really teaches on the Eucharist.

That, at least would be a teachable moment

There is nothing wrong with saying the “Precious Blood” and the “Body of Christ” when referring to the Host and the chalice. This is the practice at Mass when the priest says Corpus Dómini nostri Jesu Christi custódiat ánimam meam (tuam) in vitam ætérnam. Amen. (May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve my (thy) soul unto life everlasting) and Sanguis Dómini nostri Jesu Christi custódiat ánimam meam in vtiam ætérnam. Amen. (May the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve my soul unto life everlasting. Amen.). This is the traditional formula for Communion of the priest and faithful that is used at the Traditional Latin Mass. The Roman Catechism does similar when speaking of the Host and chalice. However, I agree that there is most likely a widespread lack of knowledge about the doctrine of concomitance due to poor catechesis.

 

[ProVobis]

This is the practice at Mass when the priest says Corpus Dómini nostri Jesu Christi custódiat ánimam meam (tuam) in vitam ætérnam. Amen. (May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve my (thy) soul unto life everlasting) and Sanguis Dómini nostri Jesu Christi custódiat ánimam meam in vtiam ætérnam. Amen. (May the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve my soul unto life everlasting. Amen.). This is the traditional formula for Communion of the priest and faithful that is used at the Traditional Latin Mass.

FWIW, this is also the formula the priest uses in the OF, albeit silently. I have yet to hear the reason(s) why it’s not the same as the formula used for the rest of the congregation.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

FWIW, this is also the formula the priest uses in the OF, albeit silently. I have yet to hear the reason(s) why it’s not the same as the formula used for the rest of the congregation.

No. The vetus ordo formula is not what the priest says at his Communion in the novus ordo. It was simplified. I say at the moment of taking the elements “Corpus Christi custodiat me in vitam aeternam” and “Sanguis Christi custodiat me in vitam aeternam” – and to the others, simply “Corpus Christi” and “Sanguis Christi” – the communicant professes their faith in turn by their response, which was not asked of them in the vetus ordo.

 

[otjm]

I am not concerned with the practices of the Eastern Rites since I am in the Latin Rite. The main reasons I don’t like it, and why the Church discontinued the practice, is because it is very easy to spill the Precious Blood and because it reinforces the doctrine of Christ being whole and entire in both species if only the Host is given. If receiving the Host is receiving both the Body & Blood of Christ, I don’t see any reason to also receive from the chalice (not including the priest of course). It would also be difficult to give both the Host and the chalice to the faithful at Mass since it requires more priests.

I was an altar server in the 1950’s and early 1960’s when the only reception was on the tongue, and during that time I saw - either when I was serving or attending Mass - a number of Hosts dropped (usually because someone did not stick their tongue out far enough, or because it hit their teeth as they were drawing their tongue in).

I have seen people receive from the Cup since it was allowed, and I have yet to see anyone spill it. Sorry, I don’t buy that. It is the same comment that is made about receiving in the hand; and in all the years I he seen that, I have seen two Hosts dropped - both times because the receive was moving instead of standing still and keeping their hands still.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

What you just said was probably my biggest objection. You stated “Precious Blood” , while the Council mentioned ‘both kinds’

THAT is the biggest problem I have seen in the common use of the Chalice. A lot of the Church has lost the sense of the Doctrine of Concommitence.

If a priest chose to offer only the species of bread at Communion, and then, in the post Communion time for statements, asked the congregation who received the Precious Blood, I’d be willing to be almost no one would raise their hands. In fact, some would complain that the Precious Blood was not offered. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS, in the species of bread.

There is a widespread lack of knowledge of what the Church really teaches on the Eucharist.

That, at least would be a teachable moment

I am afraid that your objection is lost to me.

When I consecrate the bread, it becomes the Body of Christ. When I consecrate the wine, it becomes the Blood of Christ. Thus, when I am referring to the ciboria, I refer to the Body of the Lord. When I refer to the chalice, I refer to the Precious Blood.

The doctrine of Eucharistic concomitance is a consequence that the consecrated element is the living Christ. A body without blood is dead. If this is the Body of the Lord and it is the living Lord, then the blood must be concomitantly present. If it is the living Body of the Lord, the soul must be present since, even if body and blood are joined but the soul is absent we are not dealing with a living body. As it is the Lord moreover, where the body, the blood, and the soul are present, the divinity must thereto be hypostatically united. Hence, concomitance.

That Christ, the Living Christ, is whole and entire under each species in no way mitigates that we are dealing with elements that become, respectively, the Body of the Lord and His Precious Blood…and that for very deep theological significance foundation to the whole Theology of the Eucharist.

Receiving under both species is not for all that without real significance; sacramental theology’s theology of sign is better served thereby.

As one whose thesis topic was Eucharistic, I would agree with your statement that “There is a widespread lack of knowledge of what the Church really teaches on the Eucharist.” But I would qualify it according to relative degrees of knowledge. As a theologian, I would feel bereft if I did not have that knowledge of the Eucharist that is derived from years of study of It at the post graduate level.

As a case in point, I would respectfully suggest that the statement "In fact, some would complain that the Precious Blood was not offered. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS, in the species of bread would be more theologically precise if you used a different preposition as “in” could, in this instance, be theologically problematic depending upon how you define “in”, although I understand from the context what you intend.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I was an altar server in the 1950’s and early 1960’s when the only reception was on the tongue, and during that time I saw - either when I was serving or attending Mass - a number of Hosts dropped (usually because someone did not stick their tongue out far enough, or because it hit their teeth as they were drawing their tongue in).

I have seen people receive from the Cup since it was allowed, and I have yet to see anyone spill it. Sorry, I don’t buy that. It is the same comment that is made about receiving in the hand; and in all the years I he seen that, I have seen two Hosts dropped - both times because the receive was moving instead of standing still and keeping their hands still.

When the Host drops, there is the paten and the cloth on the Communion rail to catch It, but should the Precious Blood spill, It is much more likely to touch the ground since the paten is flat and the cloth can’t absorb It all. It is easy to quickly pick up a Host, but not easy to clean a spill, especially if there are cracks in the floor or there’s carpet.

The Precious Blood spilled at my old parish and the Host was always falling, but not at my current parish. The Council Fathers at Trent knew what they were talking about, and the threat of spilling was not the only reason the practice was discontinued. The problems with Communion in the hand extend far beyond the dropping of the Host.

 

[Brendan]

I am afraid that your objection is lost to me.

When I consecrate the bread, it becomes the Body of Christ. When I consecrate the wine, it becomes the Blood of Christ. Thus, when I am referring to the ciboria, I refer to the Body of the Lord. When I refer to the chalice, I refer to the Precious Blood.

The doctrine of Eucharistic concomitance is a consequence that the consecrated element is the living Christ. A body without blood is dead. If this is the Body of the Lord and it is the living Lord, then the blood must be concomitantly present. If it is the living Body of the Lord, the soul must be present since, even if body and blood are joined but the soul is absent we are not dealing with a living body. As it is the Lord moreover, where the body, the blood, and the soul are present, the divinity must thereto be hypostatically united. Hence, concomitance.

That Christ, the Living Christ, is whole and entire under each species in no way mitigates that we are dealing with elements that become, respectively, the Body of the Lord and His Precious Blood…and that for very deep theological significance foundation to the whole Theology of the Eucharist.

Receiving under both species is not for all that without real significance; sacramental theology’s theology of sign is better served thereby.

As one whose thesis topic was Eucharistic, I would agree with your statement that “There is a widespread lack of knowledge of what the Church really teaches on the Eucharist.” But I would qualify it according to relative degrees of knowledge. As a theologian, I would feel bereft if I did not have that knowledge of the Eucharist that is derived from years of study of It at the post graduate level.

As a case in point, I would respectfully suggest that the statement "In fact, some would complain that the Precious Blood was not offered. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS, in the species of bread would be more theologically precise if you used a different preposition as “in” could, in this instance, be theologically problematic depending upon how you define “in”, although I understand from the context what you intend.

Agree with what you stated. The problem being, a substantial ( no pun) amount of the faithful do not see it via the eyes of concomitance.

They simply view it as two different substances, one being the Body, one being the Blood.

You are correct that they are consecrated in that way, but, as you stated, it is impossible for one consecrated species to be the Body of Christ, separate from the Blood. They cannot be separated, as one is receive the whole, undivided living, Risen Christ.

So any claim that the Precious Blood was not offered to the laity, or that the laity received only the Body of Christ when they received via one species would be a false one.

Hence my proposal for a learning opportunity. Offer Holy Communion via a single species of bread, and then poll the congregation to see who recognized that they received the Precious Blood as well. My expectation would be that few, if any would raise their hands.

This does not require post graduate studies to comprehend, I myself have only studied at the Bachelor level ( I was in Diaconal formation, I left when we were expecting our 5th child, and then our 6th. I did finish up the academic work, which in our Archdiocese, the theology and philosophy work is Bachelors level)

The Church offers both as a fuller sign, and rightly so. But that is of little benefit if the laity commonly misinterpret the sign to point to a erroneous reality.

The reality, as you well know is that it is the whole Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity present in each form. If the faithful view it otherwise, instruction is needed for the faithful to gain the benefit of the fuller sign. I do not see that happening.

Since the Church and our bishops desire this sign to be made known ( or else they would not have called for it), it follows that they have the expectation that this sign, and the reality that it points towards, be knowable to those without advanced theological study.

But that has not been the case. Hence my objection. The common use of the chalice has seemed to reinforce the view that the forms of bread and wine are separate substances, not whole, living Christ.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Agree with what you stated. The problem being, a substantial ( no pun) amount of the faithful do not see it via the eyes of concomitance.

They simply view it as two different substances, one being the Body, one being the Blood.

You are correct that they are consecrated in that way, but, as you stated, it is impossible for one consecrated species to be the Body of Christ, separate from the Blood. They cannot be separated, as one is receive the whole, undivided living, Risen Christ.

So any claim that the Precious Blood was not offered to the laity, or that the laity received only the Body of Christ when they received via one species would be a false one.

Hence my proposal for a learning opportunity. Offer Holy Communion via a single species of bread, and then poll the congregation to see who recognized that they received the Precious Blood as well. My expectation would be that few, if any would raise their hands.

This does not require post graduate studies to comprehend, I myself have only studied at the Bachelor level ( I was in Diaconal formation, I left when we were expecting our 5th child, and then our 6th. I did finish up the academic work, which in our Archdiocese, the theology and philosophy work is Bachelors level)

The Church offers both as a fuller sign, and rightly so. But that is of little benefit if the laity commonly misinterpret the sign to point to a erroneous reality.

The reality, as you well know is that it is the whole Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity present in each form. If the faithful view it otherwise, instruction is needed for the faithful to gain the benefit of the fuller sign. I do not see that happening.

Since the Church and our bishops desire this sign to be made known ( or else they would not have called for it), it follows that they have the expectation that this sign, and the reality that it points towards, be knowable to those without advanced theological study.

But that has not been the case. Hence my objection. The common use of the chalice has seemed to reinforce the view that the forms of bread and wine are separate substances, not whole, living Christ.

I am sorry but as a professor, I find it a bizarre pedagogical method to take away something as a means of attempting to teach students a positive truth.

I also do not agree with your premises or your conclusions.

Beyond that, I am doubtful of the value of my engaging in a discussion on a topic that is determined authoritatively by the bishops and by the pastors of parishes. Personally, as a priest, I have been happy to explain why Communion was offered under both species wherever I served. Having done that, however, the conversation was not an open-ended one. I really did not care if someone objected or did not agree and, as the liturgical guidelines were being faithfully followed, my bishop was even less open to discussing it with those approaching him with objection(s).

 

[Don_Ruggero]

When the Host drops, there is the paten and the cloth on the Communion rail to catch It, but should the Precious Blood spill, It is much more likely to touch the ground since the paten is flat and the cloth can’t absorb It all. It is easy to quickly pick up a Host, but not easy to clean a spill, especially if there are cracks in the floor or there’s carpet.

I have not been where there was a communion rail cloth being used in decades – are you in a parish where they are still employed?

In all those decades, I have never had an issue involving a chalice and Communion, thanks be to God. That said, I did have to deal with an accident involving the chalice during the days I was in residence at a seminary. It had nothing to do with Communion but with one of the seminarians assisting at the altar who miscalculated his reach and upset the chalice. Most of my morning was canceled as I was the one to deal with what needed to occur and it took me some amount of time to methodically and meticulously resolve. That said, the memory never altered my decision that the mind of the Fathers of the Council would be implemented wherever I was and the chalice would be available, when the governing norms allowed it.

The Precious Blood spilled at my old parish and the Host was always falling, but not at my current parish. The Council Fathers at Trent knew what they were talking about, and the threat of spilling was not the only reason the practice was discontinued. The problems with Communion in the hand extend far beyond the dropping of the Host.

The Council Fathers at Vatican II had before them the actions of the Fathers of Trent. In their far greater numbers and in their far greater breadth of experience, the Fathers at Vatican II made a determination that affirmed the doctrine previously articulated while altering the practice concerning Communion for the faithful and the chalice.

 

[otjm]

When the Host drops, there is the paten and the cloth on the Communion rail to catch It,

There was. Generally isn’t any more. You seem to miss the point: there were far more Hosts “dropped” with Communion on the tongue than in the hand. And they did not all end up on the paten, and not all altar rails had a cloth. Some ended up on the floor.

but should the Precious Blood spill, It is much more likely to touch the ground since the paten is flat and the cloth can’t absorb It all. It is easy to quickly pick up a Host, but not easy to clean a spill, especially if there are cracks in the floor or there’s carpet.

How many spills have you seen? Since it started, I have yet to see any. People who are handed a Cup are not rushed, and have a good grasp of it. You are making a straw man “It might”. Except, it isn’t. And furthermore, you impliedly are making the bishops of the world to be either fools or exceedingly casual about the Eucharist. I don’t believe they are either of those.

The Precious Blood spilled at my old parish and the Host was always falling, but not at my current parish. The Council Fathers at Trent knew what they were talking about, and the threat of spilling was not the only reason the practice was discontinued. The problems with Communion in the hand extend far beyond the dropping of the Host.

Okay - it happened once. Christ didn’t have a problem with it, and the Church does not have a problem with it. Non-problem solved.

 

[Brendan]

I am sorry but as a professor, I find it a bizarre pedagogical method to take away something as a means of attempting to teach students a positive truth.

In elementary mathematics, the operational sign is often removed ( 6 blank 4 = 2). The pedagogical purpose is to teach and discuss what sign is appropriate, what is the significance of that sign. Is that pedagogical method ‘bizarre’?

If the student in question is misinterpreting the signs, showing indications of not understating the arithmetical realities that are represented by each individual sign, one might say that such replacement drills would be sound pedagogy.

I also do not agree with your premises or your conclusions.

Which premise is that? That the faithful are not commonly aware of the doctrine of concomitance? You seemed to agree with that point.

Beyond that, I am doubtful of the value of my engaging in a discussion on a topic that is determined authoritatively by the bishops and by the pastors of parishes.

As a professor, I would think that engaging in such discussions is commonly done. I presume that you teach at the seminary, I would presume the the vast majority of the content is has been authoritatively determined.

Personally, as a priest, I have been happy to explain why Communion was offered under both species wherever I served. Having done that, however, the conversation was not an open-ended one. I really did not care if someone objected or did not agree and, as the liturgical guidelines were being faithfully followed, my bishop was even less open to discussing it with those approaching him with objection(s).

Excellent. I likewise have not challenged anything taught by the Church, nor it’s liturgical guidelines. What I HAVE asked for is a greater understanding of exactly WHAT the fuller sign entails, what reality that it points towards.

 

[ProVobis]

When the Host drops, there is the paten and the cloth on the Communion rail to catch It,

That’s just it, though. The paten has become very seldomly used as a precaution against dropping to the floor and it seems a moral hazard has been created in this scenario. While some would argue that it is an acceptable discipline not to use the paten, I would argue that it borders on profanity and/or sacrilege (even by today’s standards now allowing the laity to handle the precious species).