Not Offering the Cup

[Vanessa]

This line of reasoning assumes that the default position is that the cup must be offered to the laity, and that there must be some special reason to not offer it. But the practice of offering both species started out as an exception to the rule, and the exceptions just kept getting bigger and bigger.

But the default, the common practice, has been for the cup to be offered to all at mass. Neither the vatican nor the bishops have demanded that this be changed. Instead, someone else has re-read the rules, re-interpreted them, and now is leading everyone else by their public actions. So again I ask, why? What is the real reasoning behind this, not the justification. What is the real scheme?

You can justify the actions with all the documents you want, the laity, will wonder what’s really going on too.

My suspicion is that it’s another subtle action to return us to pre-Vatican 2 practices. The pendulum has swung from too far left and is now swinging to too far right. And the laity is being knocked around just as hard.

 

[BrendanD]

But the default, the common practice, has been for the cup to be offered to all at mass.

According to what? There is no rule that the cup should always be offered…it’s only by exceptions to the norm that the cup is offered to the laity at all.

Neither the vatican nor the bishops have demanded that this be changed. Instead, someone else has re-read the rules, re-interpreted them, and now is leading everyone else by their public actions.

Neither the Vatican nor the bishops demanded that the chalice always be offered in the first place. It is offering the cup at every Mass that is a change from the normal rules.

My suspicion is that it’s another subtle action to return us to pre-Vatican 2 practices.

To the best of my knowledge, nothing in Vatican II said that the chalice should always be offered to the laity. People often say “they changed that at Vatican II” and then describe something that wasn’t mentioned at V-II at all.

The pendulum has swung from too far left and is now swinging to too far right. And the laity is being knocked around just as hard.

Were Christians that only received the Host for the last many centuries “too far right”? Were they missing out on something by not receiving under the wine?

Honestly, I think it’s wrong to accuse EWTN of having some insidious motive, “scheming”, knocking the laity around, undermining the bishops, etc. It sounds like you already have your mind made up that they’re plotting something nefarious, regardless of what anyone says.

Offering the chalice to the laity is a relatively recent practice. It increases the chance of spills, it requires more EMHCs, and IMO, might lead to the thought that “the bread is only the body, and the wine is only the blood.” Either way, EWTN’s Masses are perfectly in line with the rules of the Church. And they aren’t forcing anyone to watch their Masses or making other parishes follow their decisions.

I imagine you wouldn’t like it if somebody criticized your parish for doing something that is perfectly allowed and traditional. Likewise, the people that attend EWTN’s Masses probably don’t care for criticism of their perfectly legitimate and traditional practices from people that don’t even go to their parish.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Okay, what I’m getting from all these responses is that it’s because EWTN priests think that the rest of American parishes are abusing communion, so they’ll make a public stand against it by not offering the cup. Because otherwise there wouldn’t be a reason because they are small enough, with enough priests or religious, that they could easily offer the cup with no violations.

** So they’re using their tv station as an alternative authority to the US Catholic bishops, who just don’t get things right?**
/quote]

You can’t accuse them of being an alternative authority to the bishops since the bishops don’t require communion be given under both forms. The EWTN priests may be somewhat conservative but I don’t notice they do anything that isn’t permitted. Probably their motives are to celebrate mass as reverently as they can. How mass is celebrated in my parish is generally more to my taste, more ‘modern’ but very faithful to the GIRM, however I can’t fault EWTN. Where there are options, we can prefer one but should recognize that both are acceptable.

 

[japhy]

But the default, the common practice, has been for the cup to be offered to all at mass.

No, just because something is “the common practice” does not make it the “default” nor the norm. Latin Masses are the norm and default, but clearly not the common practice. That doesn’t change the fact that Latin is the default.

What is the real reasoning behind this, not the justification. What is the real scheme?

There is no “scheme” (if you give a derogatory connotation to that word). Perhaps there is a goal, which is to reinforce the teaching of the Church that receiving Communion under one species is a complete Communion. Regardless, it is completely up to the priest whether to offer both kinds or not; offering both kinds is NOT the “default”.

My suspicion is that it’s another subtle action to return us to pre-Vatican 2 practices. The pendulum has swung from too far left and is now swinging to too far right. And the laity is being knocked around just as hard.

Is there anything wrong with pre-Vatican II practices (such as Communion on the tongue kneeling under the species of bread alone, Latin in the Mass, chant, etc.)?

One problem with restricting access to something is that people feel they are being deprived of an intrinsic right. For example, if Communion in the hand were to be outlawed again (as it was a millenium ago), I bet a lot of people would be indignant.

 

[Vanessa]

Perhaps there is a goal, which is to reinforce the teaching of the Church that receiving Communion under one species is a complete Communion.

It is hard to read someone’s mind. I thought maybe someone knew why this practice is spreading across the country instead of guessing. I guess not.

Or at least I didn’t realize that there was a great heresy spreading across the country that people were thinking they needed to receive both, seems to me most people skip the cup anyway. I thought the great heresy was that most Catholics don’t believe it is indeed the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus and not just a symbol. I would have worked on that fallacy which would cause a deep problem for those people.

That’s why I’m so confused as to why they’re shaking everyone up with these little irritating changes whose symbolic meanings obviously leave even thinking Catholics with little clue as to what is trying to be accomplished. Yeah, they don’t have to do this or that, but because someone does something, especially when it’s not what everyone else is doing, it means something. I still wonder what.

 

[BrendanD]

Receiving Communion under one species is not, in any way, a change. It’s the normal, traditional practice. As several people have pointed out, it’s what is to be done, save for exceptions to the rules. Not to mention that the people attending those Masses probably don’t want to receive the chalice anyway. It sounds like you want to force them to celebrate Mass your way, regardless of what their priest and congregation wants to do.

You are the one that’s trying to read minds by accusing priests you’ve never met of “scheming”, “undermining the bishops”, having a “subtle agenda”, “knocking the laity around”, “shaking everyone up”, “re-interpreting the rules”, being “too far right”, “undoing Vatican II”, making “irritating changes”, etc. Hardly sounds charitable, especially while ignoring all the explanations people have taken the time to post.

 

[japhy]

Or at least I didn’t realize that there was a great heresy spreading across the country that people were thinking they needed to receive both, seems to me most people skip the cup anyway.

I would say there’s a number of Catholics who only know receiving under both species; receiving the Host only would seem “wrong” to them.

I thought the great heresy was that most Catholics don’t believe it is indeed the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus and not just a symbol.

Yes, that is a very big problem facing the Church right now.

That’s why I’m so confused as to why they’re shaking everyone up with these little irritating changes whose symbolic meanings obviously leave even thinking Catholics with little clue as to what is trying to be accomplished.

I would guess that the people attending Mass at EWTN either already know about concomitance so it’s not a surprise for them, or they are made aware of it before they attend the Mass. Now, at some other parish, it’d be very important for the pastor to catechize his flock about ANY liturgical change made.

 

[Vanessa]

You are the one that’s trying to read minds by accusing priests you’ve never met of “scheming”, “undermining the bishops”, having a “subtle agenda”, “knocking the laity around”, “shaking everyone up”, “re-interpreting the rules”, being “too far right”, “undoing Vatican II”, making “irritating changes”, etc. Hardly sounds charitable, especially while ignoring all the explanations people have taken the time to post.

Exactlly. That’s what people think when they don’t know what’s going on. Imagination is often far worse than the truth. And no matter how much everyone “explained” they don’t know what’s going on. Otherwise they would have said “I heard on __ show, or I read on the EWTN site that…” So all those explanations are guesses.

Charity would be answering the question, not be offended when I point out that it’s not answered. And that was the original question in the thread, which I ddin’t post, but found it in a search because I wondered the same thing. I didn’t ignore the answers given. They ignored answering the question. Or the answers they gave were the typical buzzwords given by the pro-latin mass people, which only added to what you would call my “uncharitable” suspicions.

 

[japhy]

Charity would be answering the question, not be offended when I point out that it’s not answered.

If you want the answer, ask the priests who say Mass at EWTN; don’t ask here and then be shocked when we offer our opinions and guesses, since we don’t know the minds of the priests.

I didn’t ignore the answers given. They ignored answering the question. Or the answers they gave were the typical buzzwords given by the pro-latin mass people, which only added to what you would call my “uncharitable” suspicions.

Care to give some examples of the “typical buzzwords”? Are we not allowed to use the terms “concession of the Chalice” or “concomitance” anymore?

 

[SacredHeartFan]

But I’m curious. And I should have asked this MONTHS ago.

I’m not a Catholic. Close, but not just yet. I tuned into EWTN for the second or third time one day many months ago, and watched The Mass (and quickly learned that Father Francis Mary is someone whom I really enjoy), and something caught me off guard.

I know, 95% of you are going to point and laugh at my ignorance.
So be it.

When did the cup become unavailable to the laity? And why?

The cup being avaliable is decided by the priest. At most papal and other big masses they only offer the body because of the avaliability. I don’t know why they did not offer it at the mass on EWTN.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

I guess I don’t understand your question. Both species are offered at my Church every weekend, both at the Saturday evening vigil Mass and at all of the Sunday Masses. The Precious Blood is not offered during weekday Masses.

Or are you asking specifically about EWTN and the other churches that do not offer both? I do not know, so cannot answer that, but I’m sure it is up to Pastors or maybe the local Bishop.

but they do still consecrate the blood though? if they don’t it is not a complete mass.

 

[Vanessa]

I would say there’s a number of Catholics who only know receiving under both species; receiving the Host only would seem “wrong” to them.

Come on guys, you can’t have it both ways. On one hand you say that receiving under both species is not the norm, not what everyone in the US have come to expect. (not some dry legal definition or interpretation) So I’m uncharitable for noticing a change on EWTN from normal church procedure.

On the other hand, you say that there’s a great problem with people believing they have to receive under both species. Now how could that be if it’s not what they normally see in their parishes?

Admit it, no one knows what’s going on either. Or if you do, you’re not going to admit it because …? Now that’s the question.

 

[japhy]

Come on guys, you can’t have it both ways. On one hand you say that receiving under both species is not the norm, not what everyone in the US have come to expect. On the other hand, you say that there’s a great problem with people believing they have to receive under both species. Now how could that be if it’s not what they normally see in their parishes?

I’ll summarize for you.

• The norm is that the laity receives the Host alone. (The rubrics do not speak of withholding the Host and only offering the Chalice, so I would expect that isn’t encouraged.)
• There are exceptions to this norm (see post #9). Vatican II mention a few instances; shortly after that list grew; eventually, the US Bishops said that priests can decide for themselves when to concede the Chalice to the laity.
• This has resulted in some priests always conceding the Chalice; it becomes a commonplace occurrence without being the norm.
• Where this is the case, some Catholics think that it is actually the norm to have both the Host and Chalice offered to the laity, and that withholding the Chalice is a deviation from that norm. It’s a “perceived norm” without actually being the norm. It’s like the language Mass is celebrated in. Latin is the norm, not the vernacular; and yet there’s this constant misinformation that the Novus Ordo is a vernacular Mass by its very nature, simply because it’s observed in the vernacular 99% of the time.

Long story short: perceived norms are not actual norms.

Admit it, no one knows what’s going on either. Or if you do, you’re not going to admit it because …? Now that’s the question.

We are not withholding information or answers from you. We have answered to the best of our ability. Again, if you want to know why the priests on EWTN do not offer the Chalice to the laity, ASK THEM, NOT US. There’s not a conspiracy here.

Here’s another possible reason: the priests are trying to emphasize the sacrificial aspect of the Mass over the communal meal aspect. Again, this is just a guess. I don’t have the priests’ answer available. ASK THEM.

 

[Colin_Adian]

After reading about a page and a half and not seeing an answer to the original question I have decided to take a hack, if it was answered after I stopped reading I am sorry. The question wasn’t just about the rules and theology behind it, but as to why at this particular Mass the priest didn’t offer both species.

There are a few reasons why he may not have offered both:

1. Time constraints, being on TV his time is limited, he may of had a particularly long homily or something of that nature and did not want to purify multiple chalices.
2. Practicality, it is possible that there were not enough EMHC to offer both.
3. Preference, possibly the priest prefers to only offer one species, it is his choice. Or perhaps he prefers not to use EMHCs and not enough Ordinary Ministers (Deacons and Priest) were at the Mass to offer both.

That is just food for though, make of it what you will. But I hope that gives an answer to the actual question.

 

[Vanessa]

]*]The norm is

Okay, I’m not explaining well what the question is. No one ever said what they were doing is illegal. The question was why are they suddenly doing it. And not just EWTN, but other places and parishes too. Let me give you some examples to show you the difference in question.

If my husband suddenly stopped wearing his wedding ring and I asked him about it expecting him to tell me it’s too small or he almost got injured at work or something, And instead he told me that he’s still married that the ring isn’t legally required, that in the past people had single ring weddings… I would be alarmed. I would know something else is up.

If my boss suddenly changed my evaluations to “average” instead of “far exceeds expectations”, but claimed it’s just a change to better conform with policy… I would be alarmed.

To ignore either of those events and suddenly be “surprised” by a divorce petition or layoff, would be foolish. I’m too old not to recognize something else is happening.

So my guess is that EWTN is trying to slowly move us all to pre-vatican 2 practices. This is just another step. I think it’s the frog in the water slowly heating up.

I despise being manipulated.

Even if it’s for the good of my soul.

 

[SwizzleStick]

but they do still consecrate the blood though? if they don’t it is not a complete mass.

Yes, both Body and Blood are consecrated at every Mass, though the Blood is not offered to the laity at weekday Masses.

 

[japhy]

The question was why are they suddenly doing it. And not just EWTN, but other places and parishes too.

Is it “sudden” at EWTN? I haven’t watched them long enough to know. And I’ll repeat myself: if you want to know why EWTN and other parishes are “suddenly” limiting the occasions on which the Chalice is offered to the laity, you really need to ask the priests who are making the decisions. And those priests should really be catechizing their parishes to make sure the people know why they’re doing something different.

If my husband suddenly stopped wearing his wedding ring and I asked him about it expecting him to tell me it’s too small or he almost got injured at work or something, And instead he told me that he’s still married that the ring isn’t legally required, that in the past people had single ring weddings… I would be alarmed. I would know something else is up.

Interesting analogy. I would propose (no pun intended) a different one. Let’s say two parents decided to allow a snack right after dinner for their children on special occasions. Over time, the list of occasions grew and grew to the point where a snack was pretty much expected right after dinner, and there didn’t really need to be any reason for it. Then one day, the parents realize they haven’t been following the rules they had laid down for themselves, for the whole family to follow, so one night at dinner, they say there will be no snack. How do the parents explain this to the kids? I don’t know for certain. They certainly should, though.

So my guess is that EWTN is trying to slowly move us all to pre-vatican 2 practices.

I would not doubt that EWTN is trying to promote reverent and pious practices and reinforce the traditional Catholic identity that has been suffering the past couple of decades. I’m surprised you haven’t mentioned that EWTN daily Masses involve some Latin, some chanting, and a crucifix and candles on the altar; not to mention that the ministers are all priests, deacons, or brothers. If it weren’t for the mandate from their local bishop, they would most likely celebrate Mass ad orientem too – their bishop says that televised Masses must be said facing the people. They also broadcast some Masses in the Extraordinary Form from time to time.

And only offering the Host to the laity is not just a “pre-Vatican II” practice. It was also a “during-Vatican II” practice and it is currently a “post-Vatican II” practice.

I despise being manipulated. Even if it’s for the good of my soul.

How are you even effected by EWTN’s priests not offering the Chalice? Is your pastor considering doing it too? Who is manipulating you?

 

[benedictgal]

First of all, as many posters have indicated, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ is contained in its entirety whether one receives the host or from the chalice. In fact, even if the priest were to break the Sacred Host and give the communicant a small piece, Jesus is completely and fully present in that little section.

Contrary to the impression some posters might be getting, not all parishes offer Holy Communion under both species for many reasons. That is not to say that they are being “disobedient” or returning to pre-reform days. The fact of the matter is that offering Holy Communion under both species is not a requirement.

Redemptionis Sacramentum also sets very specific paramaters as to how the Precious Blood is to be offered:

101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.187 With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”.188

[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants189 that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.190 The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.

[Edited]

Furthermore, I have yet to see Holy Communion under both species at a huge Papal Mass. Given the tens of thousands present, such would not be practical.

 

[Digitonomy]

Receiving Communion under one species is not, in any way, a change.

Actually, if EWTN normally offered both species at one point, but no longer does so, that would indeed be a change. I don’t watch very often, so I’m not sure whether they once did this, but it apparently hasn’t been in the last couple years: Back in 2006, someone was complaining about EWTN’s practices in this regard.

No doubt EWTN often makes conservative choices, and is fully aware of its influence. Beyond that, however, I haven’t seen any justification for alleging a “scheme.”

 

[Vanessa]

Interesting analogy. I would propose (no pun intended) a different one. Let’s say two parents decided to allow a snack right after dinner for their children on special occasions. Over time, the list of occasions grew and grew to the point where a snack was pretty much expected right after dinner, and there didn’t really need to be any reason for it. Then one day, the parents realize they haven’t been following the rules they had laid down for themselves, for the whole family to follow, so one night at dinner, they say there will be no snack. How do the parents explain this to the kids? I don’t know for certain. They certainly should, though.

Let’s do a closer analagy. It’s the same as yours except that it’s the grown children who suddenly object to mom and dad’s treatment of the younger children still at home. So they start complaining and taking away the snacks from the kids themselves, since their parents obviously aren’t good enough to parent anymore. How dare they bend their own rules! Those younger kids are going to be so screwed up if they eat those snacks! What’s wrong with their parents anyway!?

Now several things could happen. The parents could realize they indeed are messing up and revert back to thier rules. They could be resentful of their adult children and continue the snacks - even though they’re wrong - just to spite the kids. Or they could have reasons for why the rules were allowed to change and try to explain it to the older kids, who still lack the experience, love, and wisdom of their parents. The older kids don’t realize that times and needs have changed and they need to do what’s right for their children now, not follow rules made for another time and need.

I shouldn’t have to explain the analagy, but my points seem to be hard to understand, so let me explain. The parents are the Pope and magisterium. The adult children are EWTN and other parishes and people making their own changes (conservative or liberal), and within the rules, of course. The younger children are the faithful Catholics in the pew.

I’m a younger kid in the pew and I’m just wondering what’s going on. And I wish my older sibings would quit picking on me. (Or perhaps I’m on the verge of adulthood myself and want to tell my parents what they should be doing too? )