Priest's chalice

[Gorgias]

Just for the record, I am not against receiving from the priest’s chalice. In fact in my earlier post I did mention I like that.

Yeah, I saw that. That’s why I quoted your comment, in which you curiously suggested that receiving under one species was non-normative. It isn’t.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yeah, I saw that. That’s why I quoted your comment, in which you curiously suggested that receiving under one species was non-normative. It isn’t.

Not sure what you were getting at, though I do note the wink. So probably there is a miscommunication somewhere along the lines.

My post (which was right from New Advent) was saying that:

(a) The communion, under both kinds, was not to be omitted. – Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, c. i; XXII, c. i).

But,

(b) There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, sess. XXI, c. i.)

(c) Christ is really present under either species alone. And that the communicant is not deprived of any grace when receiving either one (Trent, Sess. XXI, c., iii).

(d) the Church has authority to determine usages employed in their administration.

Then the comment after that – at one time it was strictly forbidden for the laity to receive from the priest’s chalice other than the celebrating priest. This decree was in reaction among other things: irreverence and directed against the Reformers who ‘maintained the existence of a Divine precept obliging the faithful to receive under both kinds’.

It did not say that two kinds cannot be administered at all times but that it was only forbidden during those periods.

I put up that post because that must be the basic understanding of the Holy Communion – **that Christ is fully present in either one and that receiving either one is sufficient and not less for the transmission of grace. **

But receiving in two kinds is also practiced if the Church allows it since it has the authority to decide on how to administer the Sacrament, which is allowed today.

You were disagreeing that the chalice was forbidden. But it really was (forbidden), as you can see from history and also from the Council of Constance (1415), which happened for many years before we reach to the stage of where we are now.

 

[Gorgias]

Not sure what you were getting at, though I do note the wink. So probably there is a miscommunication somewhere along the lines.

My post (which was right from New Advent) was saying that:

INDENT The communion, under both kinds, was not to be omitted. – Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, c. i; XXII, c. i).

The problem, I think, is that you’re mixing and matching contexts, which makes the whole picture harder to visualize. What you’re saying is true, but not clear (IMHO). So, when you say “Receiving under one kind is not normative, at least in the U.S.”, you’re kinda right and kinda wrong:

• Communion under both kinds is not optional [for the celebrating priest].
• Communion under both kinds is always possible [for concelebrating priests, deacons, and perhaps other ministers].
• Communion under both kinds is optional [for the congregation, depending on what the bishop (or conference of bishops) has decided].

So, if you mean to say “receiving under one kind is not normative for the priest celebrant,” then I’m with you. If you mean to say “receiving under one kind is not normative for the congregation, at least in the U.S.”, then I think you’re misstating what the Church says. I don’t think you’re trying to misstate the teaching, but without making the distinction between ‘celebrant’ and ‘congregation’, it’s easy to get confused…

You were disagreeing that the chalice was forbidden.

Maybe that’s where the disconnect is. I wasn’t disagreeing that it was forbidden (to the congregation) in the past; I was disagreeing that it is forbidden now. Look back at Reuben’s statement (which I quoted): he stated that it is forbidden (not “was forbidden, but now permissible”).

 

[Reuben_J]

The problem, I think, is that you’re mixing and matching contexts, which makes the whole picture harder to visualize. What you’re saying is true, but not clear (IMHO). So, when you say “Receiving under one kind is not normative, at least in the U.S.”, you’re kinda right and kinda wrong:

• Communion under both kinds is not optional [for the celebrating priest].
• Communion under both kinds is always possible [for concelebrating priests, deacons, and perhaps other ministers].
• Communion under both kinds is optional [for the congregation, depending on what the bishop (or conference of bishops) has decided].

So, if you mean to say “receiving under one kind is not normative for the priest celebrant,” then I’m with you. If you mean to say “receiving under one kind is not normative for the congregation, at least in the U.S.”, then I think you’re misstating what the Church says. I don’t think you’re trying to misstate the teaching, but without making the distinction between ‘celebrant’ and ‘congregation’, it’s easy to get confused…

Maybe that’s where the disconnect is. I wasn’t disagreeing that it was forbidden (to the congregation) in the past; I was disagreeing that it is forbidden now. Look back at Reuben’s statement (which I quoted): he stated that it is forbidden (not “was forbidden, but now permissible”).

Ok, then, guess that settles it.

 

[Brendan]

Yeah, I saw that. That’s why I quoted your comment, in which you curiously suggested that receiving under one species was non-normative. It isn’t.

Sorta kinda

The Diocesan Bishop may establish norms for Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which are also to be observed in churches of religious and at celebrations with small groups. The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom, as its own shepherd, a community has been entrusted, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or some other reason. (GIRM §283

Most diocese and\or bishops conferences have A Norm for when Holy Communion is offered under both species.

But it is not universal, it is dependent on diocese, or in some cases, if delegated, at the parish level.

 

[MorEphrem]

Ok, then, guess that settles it.

It seems everyone is in agreement. This is anticlimactic.

 

[Reuben_J]

It seems everyone is in agreement. This is anticlimactic.

Yep, but perhaps should have made it more dramatic for the finale, right?

Seriously, we are all Catholics. Her belief and practices on something relevant and basic for everyday life are not really a mystery and they are for everyone to know. A reasonably mature Catholic would have no problem understanding and accepting those, and which are true and reasonable. There is really no need for any disagreement though there can be differences in personal preference.

The nature of discussion can depend on one’s personal disposition though, whether one is negative and argumentative or whether to be objective, positive and just trying to contribute helpfully especially on such threads where questions and advices are sought.

 

[Phemie]

• Communion under both kinds is not optional [for the celebrating priest].
• Communion under both kinds is always possible [for concelebrating priests, deacons, and perhaps other ministers].

Am I missing something? Concelebrants are celebrating their own Mass so they must receive from the chalice otherwise they have not celebrated Mass.