Not Offering the Cup

[japhy]

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.

Well, let’s fix both of these analogies. The parents (with, say, 8 kids) started the snack routine on an occasional basis (like Vatican II). Then they let their two eldest take over the duties; these two eldest expanded the list of occasions, but without making it a daily occurrence (like the 1970/1975 GIRMs). However, they let the next two oldest revise these rules, and one of those two decided that dinner on any day could have a snack (the US adaptations that occurred between 1975 and 1985). Then, finally, the parents, seeing this development, decided to just let one of the other children (any parish pastor) permission to determine when snacks would be given (the 2002 GIRM).

I know, I know, it’s really contrived, but any analogy is going to be imperfect in this situation. The way I’ve described it above, though, is basically how it happened. Receiving from the Chalice on every Sunday (let alone on a ferial weekday) was not what Vatican II had in mind (or put on paper).

Before I get into your scenarios below, let me offer one other possible interpretation of the decision of the EWTN priests. They recognize that there are liberties being taken with the liturgy – without being abuses, mind you – that do not seem to be coherent with the reform stated in Vatican II’s document. The every-day concession of the Chalice is one of them; again, this is not something based in Vatican II nor in the instructions on its proper implementation up through 1975. So they are, in a way, “making a statement”: they are choosing to celebrate the Mass in a perfectly valid and licit way, while opting for the more traditional (or you might say “conservative”) choices, such as using the Confiteor, chanting parts of the Mass, using Latin in the Ordinary of the Mass, ringing sanctus bells, etc. In doing so, people take notice. They become curious. They ask questions, they do investigations, and they (like Fr. Fessio, for example) see that what is perceived to be the norm is really not the norm, and we run the risk of molding the liturgy to suit our personal desires. Instead, these priests prefer to let the tradition of the Church (and not just from the past 5, 10, or 40 years) guide their celebration of the Mass, and they invite their parishioners to do the same.

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.

Well, I’d sure like to hear why the US Bishops changed the rules, and when the Church at large followed suit. I’d like to hear first why and how we went from the regulations dictated between Vatican II and 1975… to the granting of permission to individual bishops and even to individual parish pastors, for the determination of when to offer the Chalice. That explanation should come first, before the EWTN priests should be required to give their explanation. To be fair.

I’m a younger kid in the pew and I’m just wondering what’s going on.

Then I repeat: email EWTN and ask them.

 

[Walking_Home]

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? )

---

The way you are continue to carry on in this thread— leads one to wonder if you view reception via one species as somehow deficient.

 

[benedictgal]

---

The way you are continue to carry on in this thread— leads one to wonder if you view reception via one species as somehow deficient.

This would certainly seem like the case. I am reminded of the sequence that we prayed on the Solemnity of Corpus Christi. This sequence, written by St. Thomas Aquinas, certainly bears repeating:

***Here in outward signs are hidden
Priceless things, to sense forbidden;
Signs, not things, are all we see:-
Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine;
Yet is Christ, in either sign,
All entire confessed to be.

They too who of Him partake
Sever not, nor rend, nor break,
But entire their Lord receive.
Whether one or thousands eat,
All receive the selfsame meat,
Nor the less for others leave***.

Leave it to St. Thomas Aquinas, the great angelic doctor, to clear up any misconceptions and misunderstandings.

 

[Spiller]

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.”

I asked EWTN about this. They claim they do not have the means to estimate how many will attend Mass on any given day.

EWTN clearly has an agenda. Not sure if it’s “conservative.” More severe than anything. Things like this and the omission of the sign of peace (both quite licit omissions) do send a certain message. To me, both omissions detract from the Mass and they also deprive the faithful of at least seeing how both can be done in a reverent manner…

 

[japhy]

I asked EWTN about this. They claim they do not have the means to estimate how many will attend Mass on any given day. EWTN clearly has an agenda. Not sure if it’s “conservative.”

Ok, so since we’ve ruled out getting the truth from EWTN…

To me, both omissions detract from the Mass and they also deprive the faithful of at least seeing how both can be done in a reverent manner…

I agree with the bolded part. In order for the sign of peace to be done reverently, people need to be taught.

 

[Vanessa]

Well, let’s fix both of these analogies. The parents (with, say, 8 kids) started the snack routine on an occasional basis (like Vatican II). Then they let their two eldest take over the duties; these two eldest expanded the list of occasions, but without making it a daily occurrence (like the 1970/1975 GIRMs). However, they let the next two oldest revise these rules, and one of those two decided that dinner on any day could have a snack (the US adaptations that occurred between 1975 and 1985). Then, finally, the parents, seeing this development, decided to just let one of the other children (any parish pastor) permission to determine when snacks would be given (the 2002 GIRM).

Well, I’d sure like to hear why the US Bishops changed the rules, and when the Church at large followed suit. I’d like to hear first why and how we went from the regulations dictated between Vatican II and 1975… to the granting of permission to individual bishops and even to individual parish pastors, for the determination of when to offer the Chalice. .

I liked your analagy so well, I got out my copy of Vatican II. My book has additions in it, such as “Instruction on the Extension of the Faculty to Administer Holy Communion Under Both KInds” S.C.D.W., Sacramentali Communione, 29 June, 1970. I’ll type what it says, it explains how this came about and it was the desire of the Pope, not a mad grab for power by others. So unfortuately, your analogy doesn’t fit. (I highlighted certain parts)

"Through sacramental communion the faithful take part more perfectly in the eucharistic celebration. This is the teaching of the entire tradition of the Church. By communion, in fact, the faithful share fully in the eucharistic sacrifice. In this way they are not limited to sharing communion with Christe offered on the altar, but they receive Christe himself sacramentally so as to receive more fully the fruits of this most holy sacrifice.

"In order that the fullness of sign in the eucharistic banquet may be seen more clearly by the faithful, the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council laid down that in certain cases - to be decided by the Holy See - the faithful should be able to receive holy communion under both kinds. Thsi leaves intact the dogmatic principles recognized in the Council of Trent, by which it is taught that Christ whole and entire and the true sacrament are also received under one species alone.

"This desire of the council has gradually been put into effect. The preparation of the faithful has accompanied this gradual development, so that from this change in ecclesiastical discipline there should come ever more abundant fruits of devotion and spiritual growth.

“As time has gone on it has been possible to witness an ever increasing desire that the number of cases, in which it is possible to administer communion under both kinds, shoud be further extended according to the needs of different regions and people.”

 

[Vanessa]

Wonder no more. I see one species as sufficient.

 

[Walking_Home]

Wonder no more. I see one species as sufficient.

---

If you do — then why all the fuss as to why EWTN does not offer the Chalice.

 

[japhy]

Sacramentali Communione … explains how this came about and it was the desire of the Pope, not a mad grab for power by others.

I’ve read it before, and I used it as a resource in my other post on this forum about the history of the development of Communion under both kinds since Vatican II. It’s online here (albeit a slightly different translation).
Vatican Council II decreed that in certain instances, to be determined by the Apostolic See, the faithful could receive communion under both kinds. … The will of Vatican Council II in this regard has been gradually put into practice… Subsequently there has been a growing desire to increase the instances in which administration of communion under both kinds would be allowed, according to the different situations in the various parts of the world and among different peoples.
Also of interest are nn. 2 and 3 of this document:
2. The conferences of bishops moreover have the power to decide to what extent and under what considerations and conditions Ordinaries are empowered to grant communion under both kinds in other instances that are of special significance in the spiritual life of any community or group of the faithful.

1. Within such limits, Ordinaries may designate the particular instances, but on condition that they grant permission not indiscriminately but for clearly defined celebrations and that they point out matters for caution. They are also to exclude occasions when there will be a large number of communicants. The groups receiving this permission must also be specific, well ordered, and homogeneous.
   In other words, this document (from 1970) does reflect an implementation of the desires of Vatican II, but still imposes limits on the occasions. This document – and the 1970 and 1975 universal GIRMs – did not envision daily or weekly reception of the Chalice by the faithful.

 

[Vanessa]

You choose to dwell on “…instances that are of special significance in the spiritual life …” instead of “The conferences of bishops moreover have the power to decide…”

IF they have the power to decide then who is anyone else to decide that their decision is wrong? Especially since the purpose written in the Vatican II documents is to go back to the ancient practice, the practice obeying the words of Jesus at the last supper.

But I’m distracted. I don’t care if what they’re doing is legal or illegal. I never asked that. I’m wondering what is the purpose of this change. If it was just EWTN, then I still wouldn’t care overyly much, but I’ve noticed it with my own eyes at another place and now I’m wondering what the rebellion is all about.

 

[Walking_Home]

You choose to dwell on “…instances that are of special significance in the spiritual life …” instead of “The conferences of bishops moreover have the power to decide…”

IF they have the power to decide then who is anyone else to decide that their decision is wrong? Especially since the purpose written in the Vatican II documents is to go back to the ancient practice, the practice obeying the words of Jesus at the last supper.

But I’m distracted. I don’t care if what they’re doing is legal or illegal. I never asked that. I’m wondering what is the purpose of this change. If it was just EWTN, then I still wouldn’t care overyly much,** but I’ve noticed it with my own eyes at another place and now I’m wondering what the rebellion is all about.**

---

So in your mind —Pope Benedict XVI is also in rebellion —since the Chalice is not offered in his Papal Masses.

 

[Walking_Home]

You choose to dwell on “…instances that are of special significance in the spiritual life …” instead of “The conferences of bishops moreover have the power to decide…”

IF they have the power to decide then who is anyone else to decide that their decision is wrong? Especially since the purpose written in the Vatican II documents is to go back to the ancient practice,** the practice obeying the words of Jesus at the last supper.**

But I’m distracted. I don’t care if what they’re doing is legal or illegal. I never asked that. I’m wondering what is the purpose of this change. If it was just EWTN, then I still wouldn’t care overyly much, but I’ve noticed it with my own eyes at another place and now I’m wondering what the rebellion is all about.

---

One more thing — your statement above. In your view this would mean the Church for centuries had defected from obeying Jesus —until Vat II that is. Sounds similar to the “gospel” the Neocatechumenals preach.

 

[japhy]

You choose to dwell on “…instances that are of special significance in the spiritual life …” instead of “The conferences of bishops moreover have the power to decide…” IF they have the power to decide then who is anyone else to decide that their decision is wrong?

I “dwell” on the whole thing. If bishops, individually, cannot be indiscriminate in granting permission (as per n. 3), then it follows that the conference of bishops cannot exercise its power by deeming as “instances … of special significance in the spiritual life” every Sunday Mass or every weekday Mass.

Now, apparently, all that was changed, because the US Bishops’ Conference was able to give its bishops permission to allow Communion under both kinds every Sunday and even every weekday… and eventually the whole Church followed suit (insofar as the permission is there, although it is not necessarily exercised). This sounds like another example of bishops doing something against the rules and, instead of being disciplined for it, their action is “absorbed”.

Especially since the purpose written in the Vatican II documents is to go back to the ancient practice, the practice obeying the words of Jesus at the last supper.

I’m not sure that’s accurate. At least, I don’t get that impression from nn. 47 and 55.

I’m wondering what is the purpose of this change. If it was just EWTN, then I still wouldn’t care overyly much, but I’ve noticed it with my own eyes at another place and now I’m wondering what the rebellion is all about.

I’ve had just about enough of this thread. If you want to know why a particular priest, pastor, or parish is doing something, ask that person or parish. Don’t hound us with your conspiracy theories and murmurs of rebellion.

 

[BrendanD]

Anyone else think this person is from the Neocatechumenal Way?

 

[BrendanD]

But I’m distracted. I don’t care if what they’re doing is legal or illegal. I never asked that. I’m wondering what is the purpose of this change. If it was just EWTN, then I still wouldn’t care overyly much, but I’ve noticed it with my own eyes at another place and now I’m wondering what the rebellion is all about.

By the way, why don’t you have any conspiracy theories about the priests that changed the practice in the first place-- the ones that started offering the chalice at every Mass? You don’t seem to care what the ulterior motive behind that is.

Also, if we were supposed to “go back to the Last Supper”, shouldn’t we receive Communion sitting down, with only men receiving? It’s as if saying “Vatican II said that…” before any sentence automatically makes it true.

 

[benedictgal]

Anyone else think this person is from the Neocatechumenal Way?

Yeppers.

Unfortunately, the Neocats have their own theology regarding Holy Communion which is very problematic, and, probably one of the reasons why it took so long to get them on approved status.

Interestingly enough, not all parishes offer Holy Communion under both species. Why? It is an option, not a requirement.

As Cardinal Arinze noted, it also makes no sense to offer Holy Communion under both species when you have tens of thousands of communicants (Papal Mass). There is a great danger that the Preciuos Blood will be profaned.

If only people would take the words of St. Thomas Aquinas to heart.

 

[john_portis]

I am new convert in 2008 I am trying to learn all I can about the Catholic faith I was wondering why ,when I watch daily MASS on tv when it comes to partaking the cup only the preist dink and not the poeple?In my parish where I attend the bread and cup is offered to everyone?I know what the LORD says we need both?Someone shed some light on this please, I am very happy about my decison to conv
ert.JP

 

[benedictgal]

I am new convert in 2008 I am trying to learn all I can about the Catholic faith I was wondering why ,when I watch daily MASS on tv when it comes to partaking the cup only the preist dink and not the poeple?In my parish where I attend the bread and cup is offered to everyone?I know what the LORD says we need both?Someone shed some light on this please, I am very happy about my decison to conv
ert.JP

Welcome Home!

First of all, it is no longer bread and wine at this point (Communion), but the Body and Blood of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Let me allow the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, to answer your question:

Here beneath these signs are hidden
priceless things, to sense forbidden;
signs, not things, are all we see.
Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine,
yet is Christ in either sign,
all entire confessed to be.

And whoe’er of Him partakes,
severs not, nor rends, nor breaks:
all entire, their Lord receive.
Whether one or thousand eat,
all receive the selfsame meat,
nor do less for others leave.

Both the wicked and the good
eat of this celestial Food:
but with ends how opposite!
With this most substantial Bread,
unto life or death they’re fed,
in a difference infinite.

Nor a single doubt retain,
when they break the Host in twain,
but that in each part remain
what was in the whole before;
For the outward sign alone
may some change have undergone,
while the Signified stays one,
and the same forevermore.

In other words, Christ is contained, whole and entire, in either forms of bread and wine. He is present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. We receive His Living Body. A living body has blood in it, right? As I am typing this, blood is coursing through my veins. We receive the living God when we receive Holy Communion.

If there are thousands of communicants at a Papal Mass, they are not cheated nor are they deprived if they do not consume the Precious Blood. When they receive the Body of Christ, they are also receiving His Blood. When someone who cannot receive the Sacred Host receives the Precious Blood, he is receiving the Body of Christ.

I hope this helps.

 

[sancte_joseph]

ok ok ok…any real catholic (that is a catholic who believes all that the Holy Church teaches) should be ok with priest not offering the chalice to the people because you get the glorified body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord Jesus in the Host. And I don’t think EWTN is making a statement saying they are doing it right…because the Church ALLOWS it…

 

[bpbasilphx]

**For many centuries prior to Vatican II , communion under both kinds wasn’t ever offered to the laity. **

Only in the Latin rite. It has always been the norm for the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome.