C
- Status
N
NorthTexan88
Guest
I just read a news article about the Diocese of Phoenix and how they are going to be the first in the nation to not offer the conescrated wine all the time (or at all?) the article claims this is what te Catholic Church did back in the 1300’s. Could someone explain this to me please. I couldn’t figure out how to link the article on here from my iPhone but if you go to google and type in Diocese of Phoenix communion, it should pop up.
P
promethius
Guest
They are correct, although I think you have misread. The priest must partake of both species, but the laity are only required to partake of one species to participate in the fullness of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ’s communion.
I wonder, however, why they are taking this action…
B
beehumble
Guest
I read there was a 25 year trial for the US, UK and one other place,and the trial time for this has ended, so they are obediently following the rules. The normal practice as carried out in the rest of the Catholic world is only the host, no wine, at Communion, excepting special occasions, such as the bride and groom at a wedding, certain Church feast days such as Corpus Christi, etc. Also, this keeps the number of extraordinary ministers at an “ordinary”
level.I am old enough to remember when there was no wine on Sundays except for the priest, and this worked out just fine.
God bless you.
M
mcrow
Guest
Yes, it does seem odd.
As you said, if you take in the body, you get both the body and the blood so there is nothing lost here from a theological point of view.
S
Simon_Moon
Guest
I heard it was because of health issues.
N
NorthTexan88
Guest
Thanks for the help everyone, so can this be expected to becom commonplace in all diocese in coming months/years?
P
promethius
Guest
I try never to predict the pattern of things like this. Follow the instruction of your bishop in this matter and you’ll come out all right though
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
I think it’s safe to say that no, it will not become commonplace in all dioceses anytime soon.
This is the first time I’m hearing about communion under both species being any kind of trial. The Church does do those kinds of things, like when non-clergy were allowed to preach homilies for a few years or when Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion were allowed to purify the liturgical vessels for a few years (both are now forbidden again) but these trials seem to usually be of much shorter duration.
If the last 25 years really were a trial period, perhaps rather than mandating it for everywhere or disallowing it for everywhere as is often the case, the decision has been left up to the diocesan bishop to decide whether it will continue in his diocese? If this is the case I would expect the vast majority of bishops to continue to allow communion under both species.
It’s true that for centuries communion was only offered to the faithful under the species of bread, and it’s also true that you receive the whole of Jesus and all the sacramental grace of the Eucharist from either of the species, so there is really nothing more to be gained from receiving both. Personally I’ve only received from the chalice twice (once for my first communion and once because an unusual kind of bread was used which would have required chewing and my braces had just been tightened so I couldn’t chew- so really I’ve received under both species only once), mainly because I can’t stand the thought of drinking from a cup all those other people have already drank out of. But there is a greater symbolic significance to receiving both, which is why it’s become popular again, and I would not expect that to change any time soon in most places.
C
CountrySteve
Guest
why?
C
Corki
Guest
Ain’t that the truth.
The Bishop of Phoenix referenced some language from the instructional parts of the newly translated Missal which most of us haven’t seen yet. It may be that that language has the effect of more dioceses issuing similar guidelines. On the other hand, our diocese still hasn’t fully implemented RS and took quite a few years to fully implement the last GIRM. So, while it may happen in all dioceses, I doubt I or my children will be alive to see it.
(By the way, this is at least the third thread on this topic)
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
tradition.
C
Cavaille-Coll
Guest
One of the reasons that Holy Communion was limited to one species centuries ago was to combat the heresy that one did not completely receive the Body and Blood of Christ unless he received under both species. That heresy is alive and well today, and I have no problem with Phoenix making that decision.
And please, folks, it is not “wine” at this point.
And please, folks, it is not “wine” at this point.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
To keep this in perspective, the bishop already gave his reasoning for the new policy. It’s quite simple: he’s enforcing the GIRM in his diocese.
The GIRM only envisions the laity receiving the Precious Blood on some occasions, not the “everyday, every Mass” that has become familiar to some.
We need to be careful about assigning motivations to what he’s doing and why he’s doing it beyond what he has already explained.
Here’s a link to the actual statement from the Diocese of Phoenix webpage
diocesephoenix.org/onenewsstory.php?themonth=201109&story=448092189
Having said that, here’s some history.
Receiving under both species was first allowed by the GIRM in 1975 for certain special occasions (including weddings, and certain feast days, as well as others).
Special permission was given for the US to allow the laity to receive the Blood at “any Mass” (in addition to the times already mentioned in the GIRM) that special permission expired in 2005 and has not been renewed.
It is still up to the bishop of each diocese to interpret and enforce the GIRM for his own diocese. While all bishops will have the same interpretation of the GIRM in this case (after all, it’s pretty straightforward), the difference comes in the fact that the bishop may ALLOW other times for the laity to receive the Precious Blood. In other words, while they all interpret it the same, they will not all implement it exactly the same. We are certainly going to see the many bishops in the US giving permission for different circumstances.
That means that the “other times” that the bishop of Phoenix allows it might be either more or less than how other bishops are going to allow it.
The GIRM only envisions the laity receiving the Precious Blood on some occasions, not the “everyday, every Mass” that has become familiar to some.
We need to be careful about assigning motivations to what he’s doing and why he’s doing it beyond what he has already explained.
Here’s a link to the actual statement from the Diocese of Phoenix webpage
diocesephoenix.org/onenewsstory.php?themonth=201109&story=448092189
Having said that, here’s some history.
Receiving under both species was first allowed by the GIRM in 1975 for certain special occasions (including weddings, and certain feast days, as well as others).
Special permission was given for the US to allow the laity to receive the Blood at “any Mass” (in addition to the times already mentioned in the GIRM) that special permission expired in 2005 and has not been renewed.
It is still up to the bishop of each diocese to interpret and enforce the GIRM for his own diocese. While all bishops will have the same interpretation of the GIRM in this case (after all, it’s pretty straightforward), the difference comes in the fact that the bishop may ALLOW other times for the laity to receive the Precious Blood. In other words, while they all interpret it the same, they will not all implement it exactly the same. We are certainly going to see the many bishops in the US giving permission for different circumstances.
That means that the “other times” that the bishop of Phoenix allows it might be either more or less than how other bishops are going to allow it.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
So, in fact, it is not quite as simple as saying that he’s enforcing the GIRM. He is also opting to disallow reception under both species in cases where he could have allowed it.
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
In the Diocese of New York and the Diocese of Brooklynm, we have had Holy Communion in the one form alone for several years now, and no one has made a big thing about it.
It seems to me that Catholics in New York City and the surrounding States are far more obedient to and accepting of their Bishops than what I often read on this site.
It seems to me that Catholics in New York City and the surrounding States are far more obedient to and accepting of their Bishops than what I often read on this site.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
Of course it’s not, but it is both Biblical and traditional to refer to the Eucharist under the two different species according to the accidents of the species- bread or wine.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
I’ve occasionally attended mass at my grandmother’s (and previously my great-grandmother’s) parish in the diocese of Rockville Centre and they do the same thing, though I don’t know if it’s a diocese-wide thing. Also they say the Agnus Dei in Latin, which I also saw at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. Either would be a huge shock in the dioceses of Albany or Syracuse, I dare say. I’m not sure if it’s so much a difference in obedience to the bishop as a difference between bishops.
If communion under both kinds were abolished here I’m guessing we’d have a lot of people up in arms, and a lot of disobedient ministers unless they faced serious consequences, which they almost certainly would not in this diocesan environment.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Holy Communion was not offered under both species when the H1N1 concerns were at their height. The ordinary ministers were obedient, and that was that. Since the all of the priests have a correct understanding that Our Lord is as fully present under either species alone as when received under one species (not to mention that their bishop is the ultimate liturgical authority in their diocese on this point), I expect that few will go to bat with their bishops over this.
A
Alfonsus
Guest
Actually this is the first I heard that the Blood is offered to all at every Mass celebrated.
Having been living in Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, been to Taiwan and Australia, the Blood is never distributed except when the congregation is very small, first communion, or some other special occasion.
Having been living in Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, been to Taiwan and Australia, the Blood is never distributed except when the congregation is very small, first communion, or some other special occasion.
- Status