No More Communion in Both Species

[Phemie]

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. Is it worth the risk?

Remember that a serving of wine is 5 ounces = 1.5 ounces of scotch or rye. Since I’m small that much would probably put me over the .05 that would get my license pulled for a week and it might even put me over the .08 that would see my license suspended, which is why I don’t drive for a few hours even if I’ve only had one glass of wine with a meal. A teaspoonful (1/30 of a serving) or less is not going to impair me in any way, shape or form.

If I’m stopped by the cops and asked, I’d reply truthfully, “I’ve just received Communion and took a sip from the chalice.” I avoid that by not speeding on my way home from Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

If I’m stopped by the cops and asked, I’d reply truthfully, “I’ve just received Communion and took a sip from the chalice.”

I’m not a policeman but just like with doctors, whatever number you give them, they multiply it by 10 in their heads.

But more to the point, here in most states anyway, the Church, just like bars, would be responsible for anything happening on the way home, so I don’t blame any bishop for curtailing all Wine drinking in Church except for the priest, of course. From a legal standpoint, the fewer fingerprints on the chalice, the better.

 

[Lapey]

Just curious: Your opinion would seem counter to the current Church discipline that deacons are Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. I understand that the current GIRM - possibly because of oversight, as discussed in a thread some weeks ago - is not specific on the matter of deacons and intinction.I am still waiting on a reply on this one from the office of worship, but in conversation with him it appears that the fact that the deacon is an ordinary minister of communion, he is also an ordinary minister by intinction with the same requirements as the priests. But he is still researching. (Nor, apparently, on the matter of deacons and removing ciboria from the tabernacle, strangely.Yes this would be incredibly strange if it were in fact true, which according to the response from our diosecan liturgist is not true. The GIRM section where it is lested as a priest function is in the section marked, “Mass Without a Deacon”. so it doesn’t apply.) That said, do you have a concern with deacons distributing the Eucharist?

 

[Lapey]

Redemptionis Sacramentum is specific on the distribution via intinction.

This one is in “committee” right now. Many dioceses allow this by priests and deacons, but to my knowledge no where in the US is it the norm to distribute only by intinction. I think this is more the reason for the discrepancy in what is written and what is practiced.

There will never be a list called, “What the deacon is allowed to do.” The key phrase in my humble opinion, backed up by many liturgist I might add, is ordinary minister of Holy Communion. If Eucharistic theology is consistent then why would the church hold communion by intinction to a higher standard than other methods; or one minister of Communion above another when it comes to method of distribution? From what I am learning, it is more because of the fact that the permanent diaconate is so recent in it’s reinstatement that its purpose and duties in some cases, especially in liturgy, are unclear to most.

These issues are even unclear within the priesthood and diaconate. I have had priests who have told me the deacon cannot bless any one or thing except for in baptism or the rings in a wedding and the nuptial blessing. If you look in the CCL commentaries and the book of blessings itself, you will find different. Father Z’s blog even states this, that’s why I don’t believe what he says is anything more than his opinion. It is a very well educated opinion, but still opinion.

GIRM states that it is up to the bishop, thats it. Nothing illicit or against any expired indult because no indult is needed for this. It is not illicit either way, the bishop has full authority to continue this practice or end it in his diocese.

 

[centurionguard]

Remember that a serving of wine is 5 ounces = 1.5 ounces of scotch or rye. Since I’m small that much would probably put me over the .05 that would get my license pulled for a week and it might even put me over the .08 that would see my license suspended, which is why I don’t drive for a few hours even if I’ve only had one glass of wine with a meal. A teaspoonful (1/30 of a serving) or less is not going to impair me in any way, shape or form.

If I’m stopped by the cops and asked, I’d reply truthfully, “I’ve just received Communion and took a sip from the chalice.” I avoid that by not speeding on my way home from Mass.

I can’t be exact on the ruling in the Church but most Sacramental Mass Wines are well below 17% Alc Vol. Most wines above these Alcohol Volume Percentages are fortified wines that can’t be used for valid Mass. I remember this from my sacristan years.

Our parish as with most in our Archdiocese use Red or White Mass Wines at 12% Alc Vol. And really how many who drink from the Chalice will consume 5 ounces? Hardly enough to get anyone near or over the legal drinking limit.

 

[ProVobis]

I can’t be exact on the ruling in the Church but most Sacramental Mass Wines are well below 17% Alc Vol. Most wines above these Alcohol Volume Percentages are fortified wines that can’t be used for valid Mass. I remember this from my sacristan years.

Our parish as with most in our Archdiocese use Red or White Mass Wines at 12% Alc Vol. And really how many who drink from the Chalice will consume 5 ounces? Hardly enough to get anyone near or over the legal drinking limit.

Fair point but let’s put it this way. I’m not implying anything, but it doesn’t take an alcoholic much to get him going. The very smell or even suggestion of apple cider, which has by volume less alcohol than wine, can trigger a relapse.

Compare that to percentage of Catholic celiac patients who absolutely no tolerance for wheat, not even a milligram, and you’ll probably find a lot more alcoholics. Just my opinion.

 

[Phemie]

Fair point but let’s put it this way. I’m not implying anything, but it doesn’t take an alcoholic much to get him going. The very smell or even suggestion of apple cider, which has by volume less alcohol than wine, can trigger a relapse.

Compare that to percentage of Catholic celiac patients who absolutely no tolerance for wheat, not even a milligram, and you’ll probably find a lot more alcoholics. Just my opinion.

Boy, you’re really looking for troubling cases, aren’t you? Nobody has to receive from the Chalice unless they have a medical reason to do so. The alcoholics I know that are sober don’t receive from the Chalice. Not offering the chalice because there are alcoholics in the congregation makes as much sense as also not offering Hosts because there are a few people with celiac disease or an allergy to wheat and they might be tempted to consume one.

 

[DarrenOglesby]

I personally don’t see a problem with the laity receiving. As a EMHC most of the laity don’t receive the precious blood at my church.

I also play the trumpet at my church, and there are cases where I need to receive the precious blood to help consume the host in a respective manner, so that the host doesn’t end up in my trumpet.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t know why alcohol levels are being discussed here. We’re not supposed to take a big gulp of the Precious Blood.

 

[hilde_the_dog]

This whole thread is moot for me, since we hve never recieved under both species Fairfax City VA. Problem solved.

 

[FatHead]

in case you all didnt see it (it wasn’t very publicized, and im sure most of you dont regularly check the diocese of madison’s website), bishop morlino wrote a letter yesterday explaining and clarifying some of the reasons for it, including:

• he himself has both witnessed and heard reports of the eucharist is in danger of being profaned, as well as the faithful not having adequate catechesis on the eucharist. This seems to be his biggest point throughout the letter.
• the current situation we are in was not envisioned by Vatican II (see Sacrosanctum Concilium no. 55)

SC 55 states that there should be a few opportunities that the faithful should receive the precious blood, and then gives examples, such as:

• ordinandi at their ordination Mass
• confirmandi at their confirmation
• religious at their professions and/or vows
• the baptized at the Mass after their baptism

it doesntt seem to envision having it on a weekly, or even daily basis, as it is in some parishes. its not that he hates comminion under both species. he even says that. the problems are chatecesis, near occasion of profainity of the preciuos blood, and VII not envisioning it.

 

[Lapey]

in case you all didnt see it (it wasn’t very publicized, and im sure most of you dont regularly check the diocese of madison’s website), bishop morlino wrote a letter yesterday explaining and clarifying some of the reasons for it, including:

• he himself has both witnessed and heard reports of the eucharist is in danger of being profaned, as well as the faithful not having adequate catechesis on the eucharist. This seems to be his biggest point throughout the letter.
• the current situation we are in was not envisioned by Vatican II (see Sacrosanctum Concilium no. 55)

SC 55 states that there should be a few opportunities that the faithful should receive the precious blood, and then gives examples, such as:

• ordinandi at their ordination Mass
• confirmandi at their confirmation
• religious at their professions and/or vows
• the baptized at the Mass after their baptism

it doesntt seem to envision having it on a weekly, or even daily basis, as it is in some parishes. its not that he hates comminion under both species. he even says that. the problems are chatecesis, near occasion of profainity of the preciuos blood, and VII not envisioning it.

How is profanation taking place? Is profanation only taking place with the PB, why not protect the P Body as well? After all, we are not required to recieve but once a year.

 

[FatHead]

How is profanation taking place? Is profanation only taking place with the PB, why not protect the P Body as well? After all, we are not required to recieve but once a year.

i dont know, but he’s a good bishop, so i trust his jugement. he said he has seen it himself as well as reciecing reports of them.

heres what their vicar general said when interviewed. maybe its the same thing he was talking about.

*“Wine, as a liquid, is much more subject to accidents and misuse than bread,” [Vicar general Msgr.] Bartylla said. “There are practical and logistical difficulties.”
*

but really, we can only speculate about what both msgr bartylla and bishop morlino mean by profanation.

note, im not in madison, but i love that diocese, and if i ever move, i will want to move there

 

[CHRISTINE77]

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?

yes this is true, they give gluten free wafers to those with celiac disease.

 

[Lapey]

i dont know, but he’s a good bishop, so i trust his jugement. he said he has seen it himself as well as reciecing reports of them.

heres what their vicar general said when interviewed. maybe its the same thing he was talking about.

*“Wine, as a liquid, is much more subject to accidents and misuse than bread,” [Vicar general Msgr.] Bartylla said. “There are practical and logistical difficulties.”
*

but really, we can only speculate about what both msgr bartylla and bishop morlino mean by profanation.

note, im not in madison, but i love that diocese, and if i ever move, i will want to move there

I’m sure he is a good bishop, and even if he would be a not so good bishop, he would still be bishop. I made a promise to be subordinate to my bishop and his successors at ordination, and I would follow whatever he said.

After reading his letter though, I don’t see the drastic change in the norms in most areas now, and also the reason for the change I would agree more with. Instead of the all encompasing “profonation”, one reason he states has to do with the over use of EMsHC.

I have had this discussion with my pastor a couple of times. His response is, if they are scheduled they should serve, whether needed or not, after all “they have a right”.

 

[corsair]

Waiting patiently for our Archdiocese to follow up with this item.

 

[thomas_jd]

I’m sure he is a good bishop, and even if he would be a not so good bishop, he would still be bishop. I made a promise to be subordinate to my bishop and his successors at ordination, and I would follow whatever he said.

After reading his letter though, I don’t see the drastic change in the norms in most areas now, and also the reason for the change I would agree more with. Instead of the all encompasing “profonation”, one reason he states has to do with the over use of EMsHC.

I have had this discussion with my pastor a couple of times. His response is, if they are scheduled they should serve, whether needed or not, after all “they have a right”.

Deacon , the overuse of E.M.H.C. may be a problem. The problem is brought on by the pastors not the ministers.The pastors are responsible for the number and manner of those called to assist. The bishop may feel that his priests will not listen to his directives, he may feel that this is the easiest way to limit the “overuse”. We do not have enought info . to judge his decision at this time.We don’t need to He is the Bishop, his chioce!

I personally schedule and act as coordinator for the parish in the Eucharistic Ministers of Holy Communion. We have over 50 mandated yet at one or two masses each week we are short of the scheduled amount to help distribute Holy Communion. We can use more ministers of care to bring Holy Communion to the homebound. The schedule requires a committment of time and energy each week. His response of “they have a right” can be understood as a right to complete their assigned task for the church.“Needed or not” can be also understood as the schedule must be maintained otherwise the E.M.H.C might not be in attendance when needed. There are many, many different situations that arise from the mandate of E.M.H.C. Until one is in "the trenches"doing the assigned work, the issues are one dimensional.
This thursday I will be holding the paten at the communion rail during Communion, thus eliminating the need for E.M.H.C… Now that is extraordinary!
When called i believe we serve!

 

[FrIntervention]

for one, since this is an opinion thread, I am with Fr. Stravinskis and would advocate communion by intinction administered only by the priest using vessels intended for the purpose, which would eliminate several problems at once that have been troubling for two generations of Catholics.

yep…me too…

 

[WhiteLeather]

I guess I’m the first to bring this detail up: at the Last Supper (and repeated in every Eucharistic Prayer), Jesus tells us to “take and eat” and “take and drink”. In both cases, it’s “all of you”, not “some of you”. Shouldn’t we get our instructions from the source, not the rule book made by humans?

 

[ANNE_2]

The very fact that most of us, including our Parish bulletins use the name “Eucharistic Minister of Holy Communion” proves an abuse.

The following is from the Vatican Web site.
INSTRUCTION
Redemptionis Sacramentum
On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided
regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

A link is provided at the bottom this web page.
You may want to inform your Parish pastor or your Diocese Bishop if you find this problem in your local Parishes.

[154.] As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.[254]
Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon,[255] to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass.
In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

[155.] In addition to the ordinary ministers there is the formally instituted acolyte, who by virtue of his institution is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion even outside the celebration of Mass.
If, moreover, ]reasons of real necessity prompt it, another lay member of Christ’s faithful may also be delegated by the diocesan Bishop, in accordance with the norm of law,[256] for one occasion or for a specified time, and an appropriate formula of blessing may be used for the occasion.
This act of appointment, however, does not necessarily take a liturgical form, nor, if it does take a liturgical form, should it resemble sacred Ordination in any way.
Finally, in special cases of an unforeseen nature, permission can be given for a single occasion by the Priest who presides at the celebration of the Eucharist.[257]

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

[157.]** If **there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.[258]

[158.] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion** only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, **when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.[259] This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

The correct term in your Parish bullitens should be: “Extraordinary Miniister of Holy Communion”. The word “Eucharist” or “Eucharistic” is not to be used.