Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Yes, we just like to think we can do what we want here, I suppose.
- Status
F
FrDavid96
Guest
As far as the first part. My point is that “he is enforcing the GIRM” and we (those of us on internet forums) should not try to assign motivations to the bishop which we’re not in any position to do.
I’ve read quite a few (though in fairness, not too many) posts which either say or imply that that the bishop is doing this for one reason or another–either in favor of what he’s done or against it. If someone can point-out where the bishop is saying that, all well and good. Post away. However, the only information that we do have is that he’s doing it because that’s what the GIRM tells him he should be doing–that much is clear in the public communications from the diocese. Any other motivations are just speculation. That’s my concern; that we keep the speculation about his motivations out of the conversation and only deal with what we actually know to be fact.
As to the second part, the bishop has decided those times to allow Communion under both species. Certainly, that also means that he has “not chosen” to allow it at other times, when he “could have allowed it.” What we have to keep in mind though is that when a bishop (any bishop) allows it beyond those days specifically mentioned in the GIRM, he’s making an exception.
It’s not as if the Church universal says “do this anytime, unless the bishop says otherwise.” It’s the opposite. The Church is saying “don’t do this, except on certain days, or other days that the local bishop gives permission.”
Saying that the bishop is opting to disallow it in cases where he could have allowed it is a bit like saying that the bishop is making Christmas a Holy Day of Obligation for his diocese because he “chooses not” to exercise his authority to dispense from the obligation. It’s putting the cart before the horse.
N
Newbie2
Guest
No. That’s not it.
In any case, there is another thread that discusses the issue that was moved to the Catholic News forum. Interesting posts there, as well.
C
Corki
Guest
I have lived in two S. American countries and that’s the case there as well. Nor have I ever seen Communion under both kinds in my many visits to different cities in Mexico. I expect this is more of an American issue.
There seems too have been more of a move in the Church to have a more universal experience of Mass instead of the differences between countries.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
This is part of the reasoning that the bishop gives: It is better to go with liturgical customs more in keeping with the practice in the rest of the Roman Rite.
H
hilde_the_dog
Guest
I do not really understand the whole issue. Here in Norther Va in our parish the Blood of Christ has never been distributed to the laity. Then again we have always had a latin mass, have a gregorian chant choir now, just got female alter servers two years ago and have no parish council.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
this is what most Catholic churches in the Latin rite did up until the last third of the last century, don’t know where “1300s” comes from. In my youth reception from the chalice was offered to laity only in certain specific situations: the bride and groom during a nuptial Mass, sometimes for first communion or reception of new Catholics into the Church (before RCIA).
No there is no requirement for laity to receive the Precious Blood and never has been at any time in the Church’s history.
it is already the norm in many dioceses and many parts of the world. this is not new news
P
promethius
Guest
I think youngtradcatholic has got 1/3rd of the answer down. The other 2/3rds are magisterial teaching and scripture.
Jesus instituted bread and wine, consecrated into His Flesh and Blood at the Last Supper, so we do the same, as the scriptures teach, as the church teaches, and as tradition teaches.
However, theologically by tradition and magisterial teaching, we know that Christ is a living sacrifice (to the Jews, a sacrifice was “dead” or complete when the blood had been drained entirely from the body)… notice during mass there is a portion where the priest drops a piece of the Flesh into the Blood, reuniting the both species and thus complying with this understanding of a UNITED Body and Blood.
The other thing is that Christ, who is God, is perfect and unalterable. As a result, nothing can DIVIDE God. Hence when we take the Flesh, we get the Blood (and Soul and Divinity), and vice versa. Because Christ is indivisible, we only need one species to receive ALL of Christ’s Final Passover.
H
hosea
Guest
We live in the Diocese of Phoenix. Our Bishop has decreed that starting the first Sunday of Advent we will not be offering the Cup to the congregation.
We have heard mixed reviews on the decision with the majority being against it.
Have any of your cities adopted this reversion back to Vatican 1 custom?
peace,
h
I guess we’ll have to change some wording of some of our favorite songs:
See this bread, take and eat and live in Me.
don’t drink this cup-it’s only for the Priests, you see…
We have heard mixed reviews on the decision with the majority being against it.
Have any of your cities adopted this reversion back to Vatican 1 custom?
peace,
h
I guess we’ll have to change some wording of some of our favorite songs:
See this bread, take and eat and live in Me.
don’t drink this cup-it’s only for the Priests, you see…
T
TheMc
Guest
It’s not really fair to call it a Vatican I custom (although it’s technically correct). Read Sacrosanctum Concilium and you’ll see that Vatican II also envisioned that communion under both forms not be a regular occurrence.
SC no. 55:
The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.
It seems to be more like “following the Spirit of Vatican II” than “going back to Vatican I.”
C
Corki
Guest
There are three diocese that I know of that issued new guidelines for Communon under both species to coincide with the new GIRM instructions. Phoenix and Madison, WI are very similar. The diocese of Souix City allows the cup under more circumstances but is also very clear that this was never intended to be something that was done at every Mass.We live in the Diocese of Phoenix. Our Bishop has decreed that starting the first Sunday of Advent we will not be offering the Cup to the congregation.
We have heard mixed reviews on the decision with the majority being against it.
Have any of your cities adopted this reversion back to Vatican 1 custom?
peace,
h
Also, there are many dioceses, in the US and world-wide, where Communion under both kinds has never been seen as the norm. I believe someone mentioned the diocese of Brooklyn in an earlier post as one that falls under that category.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
My parish has always done this. We are a large parish and our pastor is concerned about the risk of spilling the Blood. We currently have 8 communion stations and traffic is tight and communion takes quite a bit of time. We would require potentially 16 EMHCs to offer both the body and blood and I have no idea where those people would go!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.
So this doesn’t seem like a strange occurrence to me. Newsworthy because the whole diocese is making the change at once. Although, again here, most parishes nearby don’t offer both. Not sure if it is a majority in the diocese though.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
That is crazy! I think two is an enormous number of EMs. I WONDER what people did before 1970… They waited.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Isn’t it lovely to live in the Diocese of Arlington? We are so blessed to have Bishop Loverde.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Well they weren’t receiving under both species then. And we don’t now. I’ve only rarely seen more than 4 EMHC at a Mass, but I know in other places that do regularly offer the cup, there are indeed 16 EMHCs. It’s crazy to me too! A logistical nightmare.
T
TheMc
Guest
I know. It seems the need for them was invented almost. First they throw out the altar rails to make communion take longer, then complain that it takes too long. It really makes no sense.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I know. With a rail, communion goes so fast.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I’ve also noticed that the distribution of Communion itself just “takes longer”
When I was first ordained, I used to give Communion the person on the right, saying “The Body of Christ” the person would respond “Amen” and receive then walk away; then turn to the left, and do the same; back to the right…
Nowadays, I have to stand and wait while the Communicant stands there a few paces away, finally decides to walk toward me, then I say “The Body of Christ” then the person waits, then a bow, then a long pause before the “Amen.” I turn towards the left, and sure enough, the person is a few paces back. Waits for me to wait, then finally decides to come forward, then “The Body of Christ” again the pause, then a bow, finally the “Amen.” Turn to the right…and so on and so on.
There are times when I actually have to motion to the person to finally come forward while I’m standing there waiting to say “The Body of Christ” What they wait for, I don’t know.
There seems to be this trend (I don’t know what else to call it) that everyone wants to make the individual act of receiving into a grand procession—for each person.
I’m not at all advocating lack of reverence when receiving. Not at all.
Each person should be receiving with reverence. But what I see now is that trending toward making the individual Communion more and more elaborate–not “more reverent” just more elaborate.
And yes, I have talked about it. It works for one week, then they’re back to the same habits. And I’m fortunate to be at a parish full of Catholics who sincerely want to follow the rubrics of the Mass. Not that delaying the Communion line is an abuse mind you–I’m only saying that I am not dealing with a group of people who think they have license to do whatever they please at Mass.
I just don’t get it. It seems that every time I take notice of it, distributing Communion to each person is just longer this time than it was last time.
When I was first ordained, I used to give Communion the person on the right, saying “The Body of Christ” the person would respond “Amen” and receive then walk away; then turn to the left, and do the same; back to the right…
Nowadays, I have to stand and wait while the Communicant stands there a few paces away, finally decides to walk toward me, then I say “The Body of Christ” then the person waits, then a bow, then a long pause before the “Amen.” I turn towards the left, and sure enough, the person is a few paces back. Waits for me to wait, then finally decides to come forward, then “The Body of Christ” again the pause, then a bow, finally the “Amen.” Turn to the right…and so on and so on.
There are times when I actually have to motion to the person to finally come forward while I’m standing there waiting to say “The Body of Christ” What they wait for, I don’t know.
There seems to be this trend (I don’t know what else to call it) that everyone wants to make the individual act of receiving into a grand procession—for each person.
I’m not at all advocating lack of reverence when receiving. Not at all.
Each person should be receiving with reverence. But what I see now is that trending toward making the individual Communion more and more elaborate–not “more reverent” just more elaborate.
And yes, I have talked about it. It works for one week, then they’re back to the same habits. And I’m fortunate to be at a parish full of Catholics who sincerely want to follow the rubrics of the Mass. Not that delaying the Communion line is an abuse mind you–I’m only saying that I am not dealing with a group of people who think they have license to do whatever they please at Mass.
I just don’t get it. It seems that every time I take notice of it, distributing Communion to each person is just longer this time than it was last time.
J
jimrob
Guest
The practice of allowing the congregation to receive Holy Communion under both kinds ceased in the 14th century and was only revived after Vatican II. It has never been compulsory. In England and Wales, it’s encouraged and it is standard practice in larger parishes where there are plenty of Eucharistic Ministers. Many smaller parishes never adopted the practice.
In Italy, it’s almost unheard of outside of Rome.
In Italy, it’s almost unheard of outside of Rome.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Communion at my parish usually takes eight minutes or so. This is with two people distributing, and a congregation of 225 or so. The people who do bow their heads, which is the majority, do so when they are second in line. We don’t really have a class or anything on this, people just do it automatically.
- Status