No More Communion in Both Species

[Lapey]

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?

WOW!!! I totally misread your post the first time I read it. You are referring to all reieveing the cup, not just some, correct? If so then YES! I agree. If not let me know, I will post the response I was working on…lol:thumbsup:

 

[Lapey]

Anne,

I think you’re preaching to the choir here. We all have this issue, I can’t even tell our EMsHC at the parish I am assigned to call the sacred species Body and Blood instead of bread and wine without my pastor calling me down. He even refers to them as Eucharistic ministers.

I think for this discussion however, we must come to realize that the bishop has full authority given to him by the Holy See to make the determination in his diocese. Now if we agree that this bishop has the right to descide to go with less distribution of both species, then we must recognize the bishop has the right to allow both to be distributed at all masses; like my bishop has done.

 

[ProVobis]

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?

Actually the Latin is Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes (literally, “Accept and eat from this all”) and Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes ("literally, “Accept and drink from this all”). But, you’re right, omnes (“all”) refers to those present, including Judas.

Note the difference in gender of the demonstrative pronoun, by the way, completely lost in the English.

 

[Lapey]

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!

I agree with you here, I’ve been in the trenches. However, if we properly catechize the laity who serves in this role, they will enthusiastically back out when not needed; and be there when needed. I have witnessed this as I transitioned from lay minister, to acolyte and then to deacon. My parish never had an acolyte or deacon, but with the proper knowledge the ministers understood why I was now “bumping” them from the schedule occasionally. Now when they see me there they come ask me if I have a spot and offer me their spot. The reason they do this is they understand the true meaning of the Eucharist and the role of the different ministers.

I also agree with you first statement that this is an issue with the pastors, not the ministers. It is the pastor’s responsibility to teach the laity their role. We may do the training and the coordination, but it is at the direction, or lack there of, of the pastor. I also agree this may be why the bishop has chosen this route, but as you state we are not 100% sure.

 

[ProVobis]

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?

Actually the Latin is Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes (literally, “Accept and eat from this all”) and Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes (literally, “Accept and drink from this all”). But, you’re right, omnes (“all”) refers to those Apostles present, including Judas. However, distinguish this from pro vobis et pro multis (“for you (who are present) and for the multitudes (of others)” There is no command telling everyone in the general population to receive.

Note the difference in gender of the demonstrative pronoun, by the way, completely lost in the English.

 

[centurionguard]

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 infect 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 reprobate 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 bulletins should be: “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion”. The word “Eucharist” or “Eucharistic” is not to be used.

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

The Key Here is IF (“Reasons”) prompt it.. Seems to me every Sunday and Weekday Mass EMHC’s are allocated. And what of Weekday Masses when smaller numbers attend Mass. What Reasons are in place that require the absolute necessity of EMHC’s? Personally; I see only one reason, namely expediency. Of course this might vary from Parish to parish but on a norm bases I don’t see the real need of EMHC’s on weekday Masses. I mean really a Priest and/or Deacon can’t handle 50 to 100 parishioners in the congregation coming up for Holy Communion?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually the Latin is Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes (literally, “Accept and eat from this all”) and Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes (literally, “Accept and drink from this all”). But, you’re right, omnes (“all”) refers to those Apostles present, including Judas. However, distinguish this from pro vobis et pro multis (“for you (who are present) and for the multitudes (of others)” There is no command telling everyone in the general population to receive.

Note the difference in gender of the demonstrative pronoun, by the way, completely lost in the English.

This is just trivializing the event. Are you expecting Jesus to stick his head out the window and tell the rest of the world to partake?

 

[CompSciGuy]

Quote " In the last couple of decades, Communion under both species (with the congregation able to receive the Pre-cious Blood as well as the Sacred Host) has become routine in our experience.
I knew (as many of you do) that Communion under both species was first introduced, on a limited basis, after the Second Vati-can Council, and that it has become much more common since.
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. " Unquote (See attached for full article “from the Rector”.)

isthmuscatholic.org/documents/2011%2046%20Oct%209W.pdf

What is being done to be obedient to the Vatican in your Diocese ?

Actually the practice of offering both species began with Christ at the last supper. Christ offered communion under both species, as did his apostles.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Actually the Latin is Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes (literally, “Accept and eat from this all”) and Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes (literally, “Accept and drink from this all”). But, you’re right, omnes (“all”) refers to those Apostles present, including Judas. However, distinguish this from pro vobis et pro multis (“for you (who are present) and for the multitudes (of others)” There is no command telling everyone in the general population to receive.

Note the difference in gender of the demonstrative pronoun, by the way, completely lost in the English.

Are you using the fact that Jesus was speaking to his apostles to say that Jesus did not intend for others than his apostles to receive the precious blood?

Then you do you reconcile it in 1 Corinthians when Paul explicitly talks about receiving the body and blood?

“For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” 1 Corinthians 11:26

Also I don’t understand why you brought up the latin translations, it doesn’t really add anything to the discussion, not to mention Christ did not speak these words in Latin but in Aramaic.

 

[ANNE_2]

Actually the practice of offering both species began with Christ at the last supper. Christ offered communion under both species, as did his apostles.

" Since the 11th century, the Latin Rite Catholic Church distributed Holy Communion to the faithful under the form of bread.
At the end of the Second Vatican Council, the Fathers of the Council directed the Sacred Congregation on Divine Worship to provide for occasions where the practice of distribution and reception of Holy Communion under both kinds to the laity could be restored. In the Roman Missal (1975), - 14 instances were provided when the chalice could be offered to the Laity.

From 1975 on, the United States, United Kingdom and Oceania were given experimental privileges for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds. These privileges expired in 2005 and were not renewed by the Holy See. The new norms issued in June 2011 are what guide the liturgical practice today and in the future. "

diocesephoenix.org/onenewsstory.php?themonth=201109&story=448092189

 

[paperwight66]

You are forgetting the 30 year rule. That is to say, when something has been practised in the Church for 30 years, it becomes a local norm or adaptation.

There has certainly not been any whisper of things changing in the UK regardng Communion under both kinds, nor, I gather from previous posters, in the US.

Don’t you think, if the case is so clear-cut, that cessation would have been mandated and publicised? 2005 to 2011 - hmmm. I’d have thought six years would have been long enough for something to have filtered down from the bishops, or failing that, from Rome if the bishops had ignored what Rome wanted.

One is forced to conclude that it is a non-issue.

 

[roadsend]

The Key Here is IF (“Reasons”) prompt it.. Seems to me every Sunday and Weekday Mass EMHC’s are allocated. And what of Weekday Masses when smaller numbers attend Mass. What Reasons are in place that require the absolute necessity of EMHC’s? Personally; I see only one reason, namely expediency. Of course this might vary from Parish to parish but on a norm bases I don’t see the real need of EMHC’s on weekday Masses. I mean really a Priest and/or Deacon can’t handle 50 to 100 parishioners in the congregation coming up for Holy Communion?

Uh, our parish 0800 Sunday Mass often has less than 100 folks attending and has five “Eucharistic Ministers” plus our young healthy padre giving out Communion.

 

[ProVobis]

“For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” 1 Corinthians 11:26

Also I don’t understand why you brought up the latin translations, it doesn’t really add anything to the discussion,

Not an accurate translation. (So what’s new?) I don’t know what St. Paul has to do with it, but it seems as if you want to use English as the new baseline for Christian theology and we know Christ or St. Paul did not speak in English.

1 Corinthians 11:26:

26 ὁσάκις γὰρ ἐὰν ἐσθίητε τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον πίνητε, τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε, ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ.

26 Quotiescumque enim manducabitis panem hunc, et calicem bibetis, mortem Domini annuntiabitis donec veniat.

 

[ProVobis]

You are forgetting the 30 year rule.

Written in 1983, I thought that was retroactive. You mean if we can deal with an abuse for 30 years, it automatically becomes legal?

 

[paperwight66]

We have to trust the church that an actual abuse would not last 30 years. Eventually it would get picked up and corrected.

But we are not talking about an abuse, are we, but something (Communion under both kinds) allowed by the church.

Sorry, I’m being very dim, but what does your comment about 1983 refer to?

 

[AnneTeresa]

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.

I live in this diocese. The problem, as stated, is poor catechesis. I don’t see how limiting receiving the blood of Christ will solve that. I am sad. I love receiving both forms. Most people in the diocese will never read this letter and they will just be confused. Please pray for this diocese.

 

[FAB]

Communion under both species first is a fuller sign of the sacrament and yes I know that the smallest portion of the Eucharist is receiving Christ, but we are talking about it as a sacramental sign and all participation in the supper of the Lord.

What the bishops are doing is contrary to this idea because they are reading a section in the GIRM on the use of EMHC. By elimnating giving the precisous blood they are acting contrary to one instruction, giving communion under both species to be in compliance with another instruction concerning EMHC.

My bishop has specific instructions on the training and use of EMHC. Large mega parishs have no other choice when there are 700 people at a mass. Eliminating giving the chalice would not eliminate the need for EMHC.
Basic rules, each minister should be able to give to 100-150 people and there should be two chalices for each ceborium. As aslo an ordinary minister is to distribute before a EMHC.

 

[centurionguard]

Uh, our parish 0800 Sunday Mass often has less than 100 folks attending and has five “Eucharistic Ministers” plus our young healthy padre giving out Communion.

Wow. Not sure what you think but it does seem a little overkill to use (“Five”) EMHC’s for the Sunday Solemnity with (only) 100 parishioners.

My parish usually has near 800 parishioners on most Sundays during peak times of the annual seasonal changes. In excess of 1000 parishioners if you account for the C & E (“Christmas and Easter”) people, standing room only packed to the rafters.

A total of Nine EMHC’s along with the Parish Priest every Sunday Mass. One EMHC for the choir loft (Hosts in Ciborium only). Two EMHC;s with the Precious Blood of Christ in the Chalice flank below the stairs on both far sides of the Sanctuary. Center Aisle One Priest and One EMHC. Flanking eight feet away on both sides of the center aisle close to the Sanctuary a total of four more EMHC;s with two EMHC’s on either side.

 

[ProVobis]

We have to trust the church that an actual abuse would not last 30 years. Eventually it would get picked up and corrected.

But we are not talking about an abuse, are we, but something (Communion under both kinds) allowed by the church.

Sorry, I’m being very dim, but what does your comment about 1983 refer to?

The 1983 Canon Law has mention about the 30 years being required to establish a custom. But is that going forward?

If there is an overuse of EMHC, I believe that a case can be made where this indeed may be an abuse, allowance of EMHC’s or otherwise. That may or may not be the crux of the underlying issue but just saying.

 

[ConstantineTG]

" Since the 11th century, the Latin Rite Catholic Church distributed Holy Communion to the faithful under the form of bread.
At the end of the Second Vatican Council, the Fathers of the Council directed the Sacred Congregation on Divine Worship to provide for occasions where the practice of distribution and reception of Holy Communion under both kinds to the laity could be restored. In the Roman Missal (1975), - 14 instances were provided when the chalice could be offered to the Laity.

From 1975 on, the United States, United Kingdom and Oceania were given experimental privileges for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds. These privileges expired in 2005 and were not renewed by the Holy See. The new norms issued in June 2011 are what guide the liturgical practice today and in the future. "

diocesephoenix.org/onenewsstory.php?themonth=201109&story=448092189

I don’t know why you highlight “11th century”. Communion under both kinds is how the Sacrament was established and has been the practice in the First Millennium.