No More Communion in Both Species

[ConstantineTG]

Thank you Constantine, I can always count on you for honesty in responding. Curious? Why non practicing? It would seem someone of your knowledge base you would be a daily church goer. I have often seen your responses and been in awe of your knowledge.

Heheheh, sorry. The “religion” is something I made a joke of. Unfortunately I was not allowed to teach Catechism to Roman Catholic children because I go almost exclusively to a Ukrainian Catholic parish (I still go to Mass on certain weekdays, but just because I do not have access to a Byzantine Rite parish where I work). One called me a “non-practicing” for explaining why I cannot teach. So as a joke I put it as my “religion” here in CAF. I’m still very much a practicing Ukrainian Catholic

 

[JerrySeibert]

Great to hear that. Thank you Constantine. Afraid we had lost one (one being YOU) Keep the faith my friend. I will keep learning and one day I hope I can have an intelligent conversation with you. One where you don’t zing me with knowledge. Your an inspiration.

 

[FAB]

When we receive the Body, we also receive the Blood; thus fulfilling Our Lord’s command.

Perhaps Rome’s unwillingness to renew the indult is somehow linked to the manner in which so many American bishops totally ignored Rome’s directives to reduce the excessive use of “Eucharistic Ministers” (EMHCs).

I just wonder how long this illicit practice will continue and what kind of creative excuses they will dream up to do so.

I know it’s not nessary to recieve under both species. But by doing so we are recieving the fullness of the sacrament. It is something we need to cherish as a presious gift instead of using it as a cause for divison.

Rome is trying to re-establish the seperation between the ordained and the laity, there are better ways to do so, mainly improved instructions than trying to cut down the EMHC.

Also it is not illicit, communion under both species is in the new GIRM and was approved by Rome. The reasons these bishops are restriciting it is due to their own preference.

 

[ProVobis]

I know it’s not nessary to recieve under both species. But by doing so we are recieving the fullness of the sacrament.

The fullness of the sacrament is achieved by the reception of the tiniest piece of the Body or the smallest drop of Blood. My dying father tried but he couldn’t receive even a small amount so he received spiritual communion (at least I hope).

 

[FAB]

The fullness of the sacrament is achieved by the reception of the tiniest piece of the Body or the smallest drop of Blood. My dying father tried but he couldn’t receive even a small amount so he received spiritual communion (at least I hope).

As a deacon you should know that I do know this. I also know therefore the importance and theology of the behind laity recieving under both species. It is as stated, it is a fuller SIGN of the sacrament. It is part of our sacraments.

 

[OriginalJS]

Sounds like a great public health development. It is unsanitary to share a cup with large number of people of all ages, sexes and conditions.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Sounds like a great public health development. It is unsanitary to share a cup with large number of people of all ages, sexes and conditions.

I agree with this also, a point that is discussed regularly in my parish but which isn’t mentioned often on this board. Although, I don’t think sex has to do with anything.

 

[FAB]

Sounds like a great public health development. It is unsanitary to share a cup with large number of people of all ages, sexes and conditions.

It is not that unsanitary. The chalice is wiped and turned after each person, the chemical composition of the wine kills the girms.

It is actually more unsanitary to give communion on the tongue. Very often the finger of the priest or deacon will touch the tongue of the recipiant, he then reaches in and takes another host with possiblility of the girms of the previous person spreading to the second.
I know, it happens to me, I have to watch my reach and the possition of the tongue when someone wishes to recieve in that mannor.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sounds like a great public health development. It is unsanitary to share a cup with large number of people of all ages, sexes and conditions.

You don’t see an epidemic caused by Communion for 2000 years. Why worry about it today?

 

[Godfollower]

When we receive the Body, we also receive the Blood; thus fulfilling Our Lord’s command.

Perhaps Rome’s unwillingness to renew the indult is somehow linked to the manner in which so many American bishops totally ignored Rome’s directives to reduce the excessive use of “Eucharistic Ministers” (EMHCs).

I just wonder how long this illicit practice will continue and what kind of creative excuses they will dream up to do so.

Or, perhaps Rome’s unwillingness to renew the indult is based on the apparent fact that there is no such indult. The GIRM explicitly permits Communion under both species if the bishop allows it.

The diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups. The diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason.

General Instruction of the Roman Missal ¶ 283 (emphasis added).

Our bishops aren’t violating the rubrics (or following an expired indult) at all, because the practice is perfectly licit. I have yet to hear anyone cite this supposed expired indult, and I have yet to hear anyone point to a valid Church document prohibiting reception of Communion under both species (or prohibiting bishops from allowing it). So far all we’ve got is a couple of parish bulletins saying “Whoops! Nobody knew that the prohibition had come back in force! Sorry about that!” without a single quotation or citation of the alleged prohibition.

Bear in mind that the article quoted by the OP erroneously claims that “Communion under both species was first introduced, on a limited basis, after the Second Vatican Council” (when it was actually first introduced 2,000 years ago by Jesus Himself and continued unabated until Trent). I certainly wouldn’t run around accusing any bishops of violating canon law based on this apparently poorly researched article.

Unless someone out there can find the expired indult? Or the prohibition that the indult had suspended?

 

[ProVobis]

No, it just means that people with celiac disease would make arrangements with the priest beforehand. What do you think people with celiac disease do in countries where Communion under both species is not a regular occurance?

FWIW, they’re experimenting with legal low-gluten hosts.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2591870/posts

 

[Corki]

FWIW, they’re experimenting with legal low-gluten hosts.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2591870/posts

I think it’s beyond an experiment. They have been available for a while now. But every parish won’t necessarily have them available and I don’t know if they are available outside the US at all.

For those who suffer with celiac disease and have access to the extremely low-gluten hosts, it’s a good option. But for those who don’t have access or for whom the sensitivity is so severe they can’t tolerate even the extremely low gluton hosts, Communion may be arranged under the species of wine even in locations or parishes where it isn’t regularly offered that way to the whole congregation.

 

[ANNE_2]

Bear in mind that the article quoted by the OP erroneously claims that “Communion under both species was first introduced, on a limited basis, after the Second Vatican Council” (when it was actually first introduced 2,000 years ago by Jesus Himself and continued unabated until Trent). I certainly wouldn’t run around accusing any bishops of violating canon law based on this apparently poorly researched article.
Unless someone out there can find the expired indult? Or the prohibition that the indult had suspended?

Sorry, but I am the OP, I never brought up the topic of “Communion under both species” in this thread. Further I brought up the fact that this was not the topic, in a later post. And specifically asked if anyone had a direct link to the indult.
Unfortunately, neither the USCCB nor the Vatican posts all the indults at this time as far as I can find. The USCCB site does mention this indult in a post dated 2001, but does not provide the exact wording.

 

[ANNE_2]

Partial Error on my part , please disregard above post of mine dated at 5:15am today, regarding Communion under both species.

The posted article was from a Parish paper in the Diocese of Madison, Wisc.
He was talking about the USA, not 2000 years ago.

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix, AZ also states that this is an indult and wine will no longer be given to the people at most times in his Diocese.

Here is Bishop Olmstead’s statement on his Diocese web site.
This including a link he provided to questions and answers provides many answers to our questions…
diocesephoenix.org/onenewsstory.php?themonth=201109&story=448092189

 

[DL82]

What I did not know was that the widespread American practice of offering both species at most Sunday Masses began here under an indult (special permission) given by the Vatican in 1975, which expired in 2005. "
?

I remember this coming up in a discussion elsewhere on different kneeling practices at Mass in Scotland (where people tend to kneel from the Orate Fratres to the final dismissal, except for the Our Father). Where a practice has been common for 30 years, it becomes an accepted local norm. After that it would need to be formally abolished by the bishops or the Vatican. The Vatican knew what it was doing when it gave the indult for 30 years, they probably wanted to see if it caught on - so if it didn’t, some priest couldn’t instigate it as a novelty in 2025. Just because the indult ended, doesn’t mean every priest in America is breaking the rules - do you really think the Church is that far lost?

 

[pnewton]

Rules are only set for ordinary situations but the Church will be flexible enough for the extraordinary situations.

I am reminded of what Jesus told the Pharisees, a principle we all need to remember. Man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for Man. Even something as sacred as the Sabbath was for the benefit of Man. How much more should we remember that the Church’s disciplinary regulations are designed to be for our benefit. We are not Catholics for the sake of obeying the rules. It is the other way around. There is not rule that should not be overridden for pastoral reasons. Yes, this principle may be abused. I do not see that as a worse option than being an impediment in any way to the grace of God and the salvation of souls.

 

[ProVobis]

But for those who don’t have access or for whom the sensitivity is so severe they can’t tolerate even the extremely low gluton hosts, Communion may be arranged under the species of wine even in locations or parishes where it isn’t regularly offered that way to the whole congregation.

But keep in mind the consecrated wine supposedly contains a small amount of the consecrated host as well. (The priest has broken part of the Host over the Blood, or is that only in the EF?) And a lot of people can’t tolerate even a small amount of alcohol, especially if they have to drive afterwards.

Either way, some planning must be done on the part of the priest as to how much wine to consecrate when consecrated wine is offered to the congregation. I’ve been at Masses where they ran out of Hosts to be distributed. And I’ve heard that at one Mass all the Wine was drunk by the EMHC before the priest got a chance to consume it. Seems like these little matters should be taken into account. And they’re practical. Why introduce problems when you don’t need them?

 

[Phemie]

But keep in mind the consecrated wine supposedly contains a small amount of the consecrated host as well. (The priest has broken part of the Host over the Blood, or is that only in the EF?)

When a separate chalice is prepared for celiac sufferers the priest doesn’t put a particle of the Host in it.

And a lot of people can’t tolerate even a small amount of alcohol, especially if they have to drive afterwards.

The only people I can think of who might be so greatly affected by a few drops of the accidents of wine are those on Antabuse or a similar drug designed to make you very ill if you ingest alcohol and they shouldn’t be approaching the chalice anyway. Nobody who doesn’t need to receive from the chalice even has to approach it.

Either way, some planning must be done on the part of the priest as to how much wine to consecrate when consecrated wine is offered to the congregation.

That can be a big problem but when celiac sufferers want to receive from the chalice they would approach the priest prior to Mass and a separate chalice would be prepared with just enough wine for the number of such communicants.

I’ve been at Masses where they ran out of Hosts to be distributed.

That can happen if the number of people coming to Communion is much greater than anticipated.

And I’ve heard that at one Mass all the Wine was drunk by the EMHC before the priest got a chance to consume it.

That couldn’t happen if the priest did what he was supposed to do, receive Communion before giving Communion to anyone else.

Seems like these little matters should be taken into account. And they’re practical. Why introduce problems when you don’t need them?

While I fully support what the bishop has decided for his own diocese, since it’s his prerogative to do so, I think it’s a stretch to make things sound so complicated.

Parishes have distributed Communion under both species for a couple of decades without a problem and if one arose they solved it very quickly. Too much wine consecrated at one Mass? Put less in the cruet or carafe and have Father pour less in the chalice(s) since it’s better to run out of the Precious Blood before everyone has received it than to have too much left over to allow the EMHCs and the priest to consume it.

Remember that the documents have always said that if the congregation is too large to easily assess how much wine is necessary then both species should NOT be offered.

I don’t know about other parishes but in mine less than 25% of communicants receive the Precious Blood. Is it really crucial that we offer it? Matter of fact, some weeks we don’t, simply because we only have one priest, no deacon and on those weeks no EMHC is available.

 

[Orogeny]

Partial Error on my part , please disregard above post of mine dated at 5:15am today, regarding Communion under both species.

The posted article was from a Parish paper in the Diocese of Madison, Wisc.
He was talking about the USA, not 2000 years ago.

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix, AZ also states that this is an indult and wine will no longer be given to the people at most times in his Diocese.

Here is Bishop Olmstead’s statement on his Diocese web site.
This including a link he provided to questions and answers provides many answers to our questions…
diocesephoenix.org/onenewsstory.php?themonth=201109&story=448092189

I have read that but I don’t understand it. The GIRM clearly allows distribution of both species at Mass as does Redemptionist Sacramentum. The GIRM was approved by the Vatican in March 2010, much later than the expiration date of the indult and RS was published just before the indult expired. Seems to me that the indult is no longer needed.

That said, if my bishop implements the same policy, I will follow without question. But since Bishop Olmstead isn’t my bishop…

Peace

Tim

 

[ProVobis]

And a lot of people can’t tolerate even a small amount of alcohol, especially if they have to drive afterwards.

The only people I can think of who might be so greatly affected by a few drops of the accidents of wine …

So if the police pull you over for speeding and ask you if you’ve had something to drink, how do you respond? And you’re probably driving on an empty stomach besides. And guess who’s responsible? Is it worth the risk? And times have changed. Most companies don’t allow any alcohol even on one’s lunch hour. Just trying to be practical here.