C
ConstantineTG
Guest
To settle this issue about receiving under both kinds, if you really want to receive under both kinds then, to paraphrase a famous CAF saying, “run to the nearest Byzantine Rite parish”.
- Status
C
Corki
Guest
But the Bishop is NOT eliminating the distribution of Communion under both species. He is simply giving specific direction as to on which occasions it is allowed. That’s exactly what the GIRM says to do. He is not acting contrary to any part of the instruction.
As a contrast to the OP and the Bishop of Phoenix, I recently came accross the July, 2011 letter from the Bishop of Sioux City regarding Communion under Both Kinds. His letter includes the following:
He then goes on to state the occassions where Communion under both kinds is appropriate in his diocese. While his allowance is broader than that of the Bishop of Phoenix, they are both fulfilling their duty as prescribed by the GIRM to clearly set the norms for the diocese.
scdiocese.org/files/Guidelines_and_Norms_for_Holy_Communion.htm
BTW, Father Z has some additional commentary on the letter from Sioux City.
wdtprs.com/blog/2011/07/bp-nickless-d-sioux-city-issues-guidelines-for-communion-under-both-kinds-and-also-emhcs/
B
Bearsong
Guest
Reception under both species is pretty much an accepted norm in the U.S. from my experience of attending different parishes around the country over the years. But, Bishop Olmstead has set the norm for the diocese according to the GIRM. It doesn’t mean that both species will never be offered, but that there are special times when this should occur. It makes sense, even if I disagree, and it has the added benefit of creating a heightened awareness when both species are utilized on those occasions when it is allowed here. That being said, it is still a fuller experience of the sacrament when both species are used as this also says something about the abundance of God’s grace toward us in Jesus Christ. God’s grace is boundless, knowing no limit. It’s a difficult concept for us as human beings to understand and accept, so when we limit the physical elements used in the expression of the sacraments we are communicating a kind of minimalist sense of the extent of God’s grace.Other examples of this include, the blessed chrism oils used in confirmation, baptism and the annointing of the sick. Or the drizzle of water used in baptism. How much more fuller understood are these glimpses of God’s saving grace to us when we are more lavish with the application. It’s frightening to most people to really receive the fullness of God’s love and grace. I think often that priests don’t always understand the contradiction of the message they send when they are ‘skimpy’ about the use of these elements. God’s signs of grace are not to be taken lightly or just treated as if they are a precious commodity we might run out of if we’re not careful. What are we afraid of? God truly does love us very much in a very intimate way. How can we put artificial limits on God’s excess of love for us? I think this is the problem with the decision. It’s very similar to a recent decision by a priest to exclude girls from service as altar servers. It attempts to put a limitation on who God chooses to call into service and their response to say “yes” like Mary did.
B
BigDave31
Guest
Is there a bishop or priest that has more authority than our Lord Jesus Christ? Read the Scriptures. In every case our Lord says that we are to eat the bread and drink the wine in remembrance of his body and blood shed for our souls. As long as Scripture does not change (and it never will) I will attend a church that follows what Jesus said. Eithedr thaty or I will find an orthodox or other church that does. No one can change that whish Jesus has asked us to do.
F
FatHead
Guest
seriously. jesus gave his authority to the church, and the church’s very very long tradition is that only the priest recieves the precious blood under the specie of wine. if you have a problem with that… then you have a problem with the church…
you sound very protestant to me. i don’t mean that as an insult, just as a fact.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I’m sorry but the very long standing tradition is receiving under both kinds, which began from the Last Supper and has been upheld by various parts of the Church to this very day. Even the mode of receiving the Precious Body only by the laity is less than 1000 years old, far younger than the tradition of receiving under both kinds.
And what is Protestant about following something just as Jesus instituted?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
But I think the Church’s 2000 year old track record of not spreading an epidemic via the chalice speaks for itself.
L
Lapey
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuriousInIL
Sorry, but I just couldn’t leave this (rather older sidetrack post) alone. There is not enough alcohol content in the wine to have the sure effect of killing all the germs (not “girms” which is a totally different point). It has a fairly limited effect.
I think everyone on this forum knew exactly what Deacon Fab was saying here. Did you really feel the NEED to correct his spelling? Wow, what an ego…
PS. Dear Curious, before you correct my improper word usage, since instead of sense, I did it on purpose.
Originally Posted by CuriousInIL
Sorry, but I just couldn’t leave this (rather older sidetrack post) alone. There is not enough alcohol content in the wine to have the sure effect of killing all the germs (not “girms” which is a totally different point). It has a fairly limited effect.
I think everyone on this forum knew exactly what Deacon Fab was saying here. Did you really feel the NEED to correct his spelling? Wow, what an ego…
Constantine, seems sometimes common since falls by the way side…thanks for your post. I will drink His Blood from the cup, even if 600 of the dirtiest and smelliest people drink before me, I shall be last and delight in every drop, even with the “girms”.
PS. Dear Curious, before you correct my improper word usage, since instead of sense, I did it on purpose.
P
peresieh
Guest
Peeople who receive the Precious Blood from the chalice do not get sick more often than anyone else (J. Environmental Health, Vol. 60, 1997. Dr. Anne LaGrange Loving). Byzantines have been receiving the body and blood from the chalice with a spoon for over 1600 years, even during the black death. Often, the spoon touches the lips of the person receiving. The priest consumes the remains of the body and blood after liturgy and I do not know of any time my Byzantine priest has become ill from this. We are commanded to eat his body and DRINK his blood. You cannot drink a host.Quote:
Originally Posted by CuriousInIL
Sorry, but I just couldn’t leave this (rather older sidetrack post) alone. There is not enough alcohol content in the wine to have the sure effect of killing all the germs (not “girms” which is a totally different point). It has a fairly limited effect.
I think everyone on this forum knew exactly what Deacon Fab was saying here. Did you really feel the NEED to correct his spelling? Wow, what an ego…
Constantine, seems sometimes common since falls by the way side…thanks for your post. I will drink His Blood from the cup, even if 600 of the dirtiest and smelliest people drink before me, I shall be last and delight in every drop, even with the “girms”.
PS. Dear Curious, before you correct my improper word usage, since instead of sense, I did it on purpose.
If the problem is EMHC, then that should be dealt with–not eliminating the chalice.
L
Lapey
Guest
Well said…
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Are you suggesting, then, that during the period that the Latin Church commanded that only hosts were to be distributed, that the Church and her members were going against the teachings of Jesus on the matter?
P
pnewton
Guest
Correcting a typo is better than a well-typed insult. That is uncalled for. (Yes, I ended in a preposition). At least you did not call him protestant. For the earlier poster, saying that it is not an insult and just an opinion to justify an insult doesn’t make the statement any nicer.
However, I like this typo. I think it is hilariously punny. We can have a Mass so bad that it kills 99% of all girms or a proscribed action can be said to be girmicidal. If this was a mistake, it is the funniest one I have seen in a while. I wish would could have more jokes and fewer pokes.
P
pnewton
Guest
By the way, or Catholic Herald just came out. There was nothing in the paper about changing communion, so I guess we will still be offering it under both species as the fuller sign of the Sacrament.
P
ProVobis
Guest
When necessary to avoid confusion, I think it should be done. Uncorrected it seems to get copied by others and only further corrupts the English language. (That’s one of the ways languages change and morph into new languages, by the way.) I give full permission to those who wish to correct me if they feel I misspell something in English (or Latin or Polish, for that matter.) I will simply respond, “I stand corrected.”
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I don’t know about you but when I receive the Eucharist all I’m thinking about is Jesus, not “girms”Constantine, seems sometimes common since falls by the way side…thanks for your post. I will drink His Blood from the cup, even if 600 of the dirtiest and smelliest people drink before me, I shall be last and delight in every drop, even with the “girms”.
PS. Dear Curious, before you correct my improper word usage, since instead of sense, I did it on purpose.
C
CompSciGuy
Guest
Give. Me. A. Break. You are telling me that Jesus nor St. Paul ever advocated communion of the faithful under the form of precious blood? That is the way the Eucharist was instituted. Under the form of bread and wine. It sounds to me like you are the one trying to twist scripture to fit your own personal desires.
F
FatHead
Guest
actually, if you are going to be so literalist with going about it exactly how it was instituted, it was only distributed to 12 bishops at the first Mass. no faithful.
J
japhy
Guest
Hee hee. The bishops aren’t faithful?
- Status