T
twf
Guest
The chalice is never distributed in the parishes I’m familiar with in our archdiocese. Certainly never at the cathedral. We still use the altar rail… and yes this is the Ordinary Form.
How would you react if communion began to be offered under one species in your parish?
- Status
T
twf
Guest
No, Vancouver. To clarify, I meant the altar rail is used at the cathedral, not necessarily in most parishes. Distribution of the chalice is, however, rare.
H
Horton
Guest
You are correct, there are advantages and disadvantages to a way a parish or diocese distributes the Eucharist. It appears there are differences that may be geographical. In my diocese it is common to receive both body & blood.
In the basilicas and churches I visited in Italy and France, the blood was not offered to the laity.
If offered I will generally receive both, but if offered one or the other I will know I have received the body, blood, soul & divinity of our Lord.
In the basilicas and churches I visited in Italy and France, the blood was not offered to the laity.
If offered I will generally receive both, but if offered one or the other I will know I have received the body, blood, soul & divinity of our Lord.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
That’s sorta what got me thinking about this subject. My archdiocese uses 26-28 chalices to distribute the Precious Blood at its cathedral. Worse, it pours the Precious Blood from flagons into the chalices – a hard liturgical abuse. The whole process isn’t very reverent. The more I thought about it, the more negatives of offering the Precious Blood in many situations came to mind. It was interesting to learn here that many parishes don’t offer the chalice (for good reason it would seem) and even if they do, many do not avail themselves to it.
Last edited:
M
Mintaka
Guest
The poll doesn’t have an option for “I don’t really care; they are both normal ways to go.” It is actually heretical either to declare that the laity must or “should” receive under both species, or that they must receive under only one. The most one can say is that reception under both species is a “fuller sign.”
The only people in the Roman Rite who have to receive both species are the priest/s/deacon/s celebrating Mass, and the newlywed couple at a nuptial Mass. (Although obviously the latter can be dispensed from receiving both species if there are health problems, like celiac disease or alcoholism.)
Pastors have every right to set policy for the species available at Communion in their own parishes, or to vary it by Mass, and it’s not really the laity’s business to worry about it at all. (Although of course one can always ask, and it would naturally be something any good pastor would inform the parish about.)
Interesting that nobody mentions the elephant in the room – alcoholism, as well as physical problems associated with swallowing the accidents of wine. We did touch on the financial burden – obviously less on people in the first world than on people in third world areas where grapes and wine are rare or hard to grow.
Over on another thread, the OP had idiosyncratic problems receiving the Precious Blood, and was relieved to learn that it wasn’t obligatory for him to receive both species in order to receive Communion. Obviously, there are Catholics out there who haven’t been properly educated, who are not aware that either of the species is all the Communion they need, and who do feel pressured to receive under both species when they would rather not.
Having a fuller sign is not something to sneeze at. But the custom of receiving under only one species, or of offering only one, is also good and holy. Things that were good and holy in the past do not cease being good and holy. Liturgical fashions and fads have a tendency to ebb as well as flood in, so it’s helpful to distinguish between what is necessary and what is only a popular thing to do right now.
The only people in the Roman Rite who have to receive both species are the priest/s/deacon/s celebrating Mass, and the newlywed couple at a nuptial Mass. (Although obviously the latter can be dispensed from receiving both species if there are health problems, like celiac disease or alcoholism.)
Pastors have every right to set policy for the species available at Communion in their own parishes, or to vary it by Mass, and it’s not really the laity’s business to worry about it at all. (Although of course one can always ask, and it would naturally be something any good pastor would inform the parish about.)
Interesting that nobody mentions the elephant in the room – alcoholism, as well as physical problems associated with swallowing the accidents of wine. We did touch on the financial burden – obviously less on people in the first world than on people in third world areas where grapes and wine are rare or hard to grow.
Over on another thread, the OP had idiosyncratic problems receiving the Precious Blood, and was relieved to learn that it wasn’t obligatory for him to receive both species in order to receive Communion. Obviously, there are Catholics out there who haven’t been properly educated, who are not aware that either of the species is all the Communion they need, and who do feel pressured to receive under both species when they would rather not.
Having a fuller sign is not something to sneeze at. But the custom of receiving under only one species, or of offering only one, is also good and holy. Things that were good and holy in the past do not cease being good and holy. Liturgical fashions and fads have a tendency to ebb as well as flood in, so it’s helpful to distinguish between what is necessary and what is only a popular thing to do right now.
U
Usige
Guest
Do you know how incredibly disrespectful your statement is?
I know, or certainly hope, you did not mean to be disrespectful, but we are talking about blessed sacred vessels, not “dishes”. If my pastor heard anyone use that flippant phrase he would toss them so far out of the Sacristy it would take them months to find their way back. If you were an EMHC and said that, it would be the last time you distributed too. It is rude not just to priests but is beyond the pale to treat purifying sacred vessels as akin to cleaning up after dinner.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
That’s actually very cool to hear! It used to be sickening to watch a dozen people descend on the sanctuary before the recession was even out the door. The battle cry was “we gotta do the dishes!” The process was done with such little care – particularly the purification. The sacred vessels would get beaten against the sink because people were in such a hurry to get out the door. The din in the sacristy was alarming.
I was the sacristan and MC for a funeral Mass once. Over a thousand people in attendance. Right after Mass one of the EMsHC (who had been doing that function for years) came into the sacristy with a tray of sacred vessels literally yelling “it’s time to do the dishes!” The Precious Blood had been confected in two glass flagons. Before I could stop him he quickly rinsed the (un-purified) flagons and dumped the contents down the sink (the sink, not a sacrarium, which we do not have anyway.) I can see see him dumping the light/pale red contents.
I very stridently excused everyone from the sacristy. They’d have to move their party elsewhere – I would take care of everything, and I did. The parish pastor not only saw the dumping of the Precious Blood, he was well aware of the general lack of reverence by EMsHC in the sacristy (and sanctuary.) He did nothing. I was disgusted. The only good thing is that he didn’t dare discipline me for clearing the room.
It’s wonderful to hear that some pastors simply don’t put up with such behavior. Bravo.
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
The issue is with this priest. I used a term that could be considered irreverent to prove a point. Good priests do NOT just shove off their duties to EMHC’s, period. Nearly all of the OP’s declarations in his posts point to an incompetent priest who does not wish to pastor his people.Xanthippe_Voorhees:
Do you know how incredibly disrespectful your statement is?
I know, or certainly hope, you did not mean to be disrespectful, but we are talking about blessed sacred vessels, not “dishes”. If my pastor heard anyone use that flippant phrase he would toss them so far out of the Sacristy it would take them months to find their way back. If you were an EMHC and said that, it would be the last time you distributed too. It is rude not just to priests but is beyond the pale to treat purifying sacred vessels as akin to cleaning up after dinner.
I will add a sarcasm tag and make it noted.
To me, it is beyond the pale that ANYONE would get it in their heads that having MORE sacred vessels after Communion would be ANYTHING beyond a great joy at how much Jesus was able to be received by His people.
Of course, I wouldn’t use that term in real life. I was proving a point about the terrible state of being pastored. Again, I edited my post to fix.
Last edited:
- Status