T
twf
Guest
Of course at the discretion of the local bishop / pastor. In many places around the world the chalice is rarely if ever distributed. In my archdiocese it is rare.
- Status
J
JoeShlabotnik
Guest
I have never seen the Host dipped into the Chalice. We accept on the tongue or in our hand, and we drink (or not) from the Cup.
B
Babaganoush
Guest
It amazes me that Catholics have gotten to the point that their logic has convinced them that the words and actions of Jesus were redundant and therefore meaningless.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Proving a point to the Prots trumps the full ceremonial form literally instituted by Christ!
P
PetraG
Guest
It amazes me that there are Catholics who don’t believe that the Church fathers at the Council of Trent correctly understood what they were talking about when they clarified the unchangeable truths about the Most Holy Eucharist, truths which have been reiterated by the Church from then until today.
Saying that a ritual difference does not change the essence of what is taking place is nothing like the same as saying it is meaningless. Did I say that exchanging rings at a wedding is meaningless? I did not!! I said that a couple who didn’t exchange rings is 100% just as married as one who did…because they are!! It is the same with someone who elects to receive Holy Communion under only one species. It is exactly the same. They should be left alone about it and not be falsely accused of believing anything Our Lord said or did was meaningless when they never said or implied any such thing!
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
Intinction is not something that happens frequently in the Roman rite.
Only a priest is allowed to do this, and since most parishes have only one priest, it can be a logistical nightmare. Also, some Bishops outright forbid it.
Only a priest is allowed to do this, and since most parishes have only one priest, it can be a logistical nightmare. Also, some Bishops outright forbid it.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
This thread started because Voris said that it is a bad development in the church that the cup was offered to laity. We’re defending receiving the chalice, not attacking receiving under one species.
S
steph03
Guest
OK I am surprised as it seems to be the way it is done here (Canada). Most of the time you will get the host only, but the person receiving the host in hand and dipping the host in the wine is not rare. Where do you see that this is forbidden? Maybe I should talk to the local priests …
And I should clarify, we do not dip into the chalice… There are separate vessels used for the wine. Never paid attention as to how it ends up in these cups, but will watch more carerully next sunday…
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
I was responding to someone who said that there are no reasons for anyone to elect not to receive under both species when both are offered. That is also not true. No one needs an excuse to receive only just one species when both are being offered. If someone elects not to receive under both species, no one else should draw any conclusions from that. Correct catechesis says that there is no difference in the essence of either way of doing it. That is why it is allowed to receive under just one species.
It does no good to correct one false impression only to introduce another idea that is also incorrect.
Last edited:
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
In the US, self-intinction is forbidden.
From the GIRM:
48. Distribution of the Precious Blood by a spoon or through a straw is not customary in the Latin dioceses of the United States of America.
From the GIRM:
48. Distribution of the Precious Blood by a spoon or through a straw is not customary in the Latin dioceses of the United States of America.
- Holy Communion may be distributed by intinction in the following manner: "Each communicant, while holding a Communion-plate under the mouth, approaches the Priest who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, with a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The Priest takes a host, intincts it partly in the chalice and, showing it, says: ‘The Body and Blood of Christ.’ The communicant replies, ‘Amen,’ receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the Priest, and then withdraws."54
- The communicant, including the extraordinary minister, is never allowed to self-communicate, even by means of intinction. Communion under either form, bread or wine, must always be given by an ordinary or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Well, no, they said:
“It isn’t the same to receive only one” which is not true
“To be honest there is no reason not to accept it unless you do not drink alcohol” which is not true.
That’s no defense of the laundry list of just wrong-headed things that Michael Voris has spouted.
The Archdiocese of Detroit has made it very clear he does NOT speak for the Catholic Church!!!
Regarding Real Catholic TV and its Name
From Ned McGrath, Director of Public Affairs | Issued December 15, 2011
The Church encourages the Christian faithful to promote or sustain a variety of apostolic undertakings but, nevertheless, prohibits any such undertaking from claiming the name Catholic without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority (see canon 216 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law). For some time, the Archdiocese of Detroit has been in communication with Mr. Michael Voris and his media partner at Real Catholic TV regarding their prominent use of the word “Catholic” in identifying and promoting their public activities disseminated from the enterprise’s production facility in Ferndale, Michigan. The Archdiocese has informed Mr. Voris and Real Catholic TV, RealCatholicTV.com, that it does not regard them as being authorized to use the word “Catholic” to identify or promote their public activities. Questions about this matter may be directed to the Archdiocese of Detroit, Department of Communications. [Boldface mine: PetraG]
This is a self-proclaimed “Catholic expert” whose pronouncements ought to be, if not studiously avoided, at least taken with a HUGE grain of salt. Nothing he says ought to be taken as correct unless it is independently verified with a reliable source, because he has made himself a reputation as an unreliable one.
Last edited:
S
steph03
Guest
OK, will have to check if Canada has a similar statement
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
It is not the same to receive only one.
It is the same sacramentally, but it is not the same to our physical senses. Both of those things matter.
I’m not saying Voris is worth listening to. But this thread was started to talk about a specific claim made by Michael Voris. It’s 100% germane to discuss the claim by Michael Voris that sparked this thread.
P
PetraG
Guest
To be the same sacramentally is to be the same in supernatural reality. That is what ultimately matters.
Whether or not someone needs some particular set of physical circumstances to impress a supernatural reality upon their soul varies from person to person. It matters, but it doesn’t matter in the same way to everybody and the Church makes it extremely clear that it does not need to. That is why the decision to offer Holy Communion to all of the faithful under both species or just one is legitimately a pastoral decision, even though it is necessary for both species to be consecrated and for the priest to receive under both species. There is not some single “right” way or “best” way to make Holy Communion available to the faithful that is right or best or most correct under all circumstances, and the Church has made that very clear, as well.
Provided that the priest actually does consecrate both species and does consume both species, there is no way in which any part of the Pascal Mystery has been rendered “redundant” just because not all of the faithful can or do receive Holy Communion or not all receive under both species.
Remember, after all, that the obligation to assist at Mass to commemorate the Lord’s Day every week does not include an obligation to receive Holy Communion at all. The minimum obligation is to receive at least once a year during the Easter season because even to go to Mass and not receive Holy Communion at all is by no means a “meaningless” act!!
On that note, there are people going around saying that there is something wrong that people receive Holy Communion every week even though it is obvious that not everyone goes to Confession every week. That is also wrong! If someone hasn’t committed a mortal sin, they may recieve Holy Communion. They don’t have to satisfy some busybody at their church who presumes they don’t go to confession often enough to be sufficiently worthy to receive Holy Communion.
Last edited:
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
I have no idea where you’re getting your ideas of what positions I hold.HopkinsReb:
To be the same sacramentally is to be the same in supernatural reality. That is what ultimately matters.
Whether or not someone needs some particular set of physical circumstances to impress a supernatural reality upon their soul varies from person to person. It matters, but it doesn’t matter in the same way to everybody and the Church makes it extremely clear that it does not need to. That is why the decision to offer Holy Communion to all of the faithful under both species or just one is legitimately a pastoral decision, even though it is necessary for both species to be consecrated and for the priest to receive under both species. There is not some single “right” way or “best” way to make Holy Communion available to the faithful that is right or best or most correct under all circumstances, and the Church has made that very clear, as well.
Provided that the priest actually does consecrate both species and does consume both species, there is no way in which any part of the Pascal Mystery has been rendered “redundant” just because not all of the faithful can or do receive Holy Communion or not all receive under both species.
Remember, after all, that the obligation to assist at Mass to commemorate the Lord’s Day every week does not include an obligation to receive Holy Communion at all. The minimum obligation is to receive at least once a year during the Easter season because even to go to Mass and not receive Holy Communion at all is by no means a “meaningless” act!!
P
pnewton
Guest
By all means do what you want. This is from the vatican website.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-.../documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_17121999_jan-hus.html
The Holy Father speaks for the Church, with authority. As he was making no doctrinal announcement, the only question is authority. About what he said, everyone is free to have opinions. That is how opinions work, especially in America. Everyone has one. Most want to propagate and spread theirs, leading to YouTube, vlogs, and websites like Church Militant. Though it doesn’t spread opinions, sites like his tend to attract those who already agree with him and repel others.
Yet there is no authority, and that matters.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-.../documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_17121999_jan-hus.html
The Holy Father speaks for the Church, with authority. As he was making no doctrinal announcement, the only question is authority. About what he said, everyone is free to have opinions. That is how opinions work, especially in America. Everyone has one. Most want to propagate and spread theirs, leading to YouTube, vlogs, and websites like Church Militant. Though it doesn’t spread opinions, sites like his tend to attract those who already agree with him and repel others.
Yet there is no authority, and that matters.
Last edited:
C
CRV
Guest
Especially RED lipstick , the ones that last 24hrs …
Ladies, if you choose to wear lipstick to Mass, please choose a different color or at least not one of those 24hr lasting types. Thankyou!! 
P
phil19034
Guest
NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING THAT I AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH VORIS. I’M SIMPLY PROVIDING MY THEORY REGARDING WHAT HE MAY OF MEANT.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think Michael Voris objects to receiving the Blood of Christ,… I think he objects to the laity holding/touching the sacred vessels when receiving.
Before Vatican II, lay people were not allowed to touch the sacred vessels after they contained The Body and Blood of Christ. The lay people were not allowed to touch them again until the priest performed a triple absolution to remove all traces of God.
My guess is that Voris would rather see lay people receive from the Cup while the Deacon is still holding it – which happens at Anglican Use masses of the Ordinariate (though they do allow people to hold it… they do both)
When I attended an Anglican Use mass, I knelt at the Altar Rail and received from the Cup while the Deacon (or sub-deacon - don’t remember which) held the cup.
If I were to take an educated guess, I think Voris would simply prefer that we receive the Blood of Christ in a matter where the laity are NOT touching the sacred vessels.
I pray this answers your question.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think Michael Voris objects to receiving the Blood of Christ,… I think he objects to the laity holding/touching the sacred vessels when receiving.
Before Vatican II, lay people were not allowed to touch the sacred vessels after they contained The Body and Blood of Christ. The lay people were not allowed to touch them again until the priest performed a triple absolution to remove all traces of God.
My guess is that Voris would rather see lay people receive from the Cup while the Deacon is still holding it – which happens at Anglican Use masses of the Ordinariate (though they do allow people to hold it… they do both)
When I attended an Anglican Use mass, I knelt at the Altar Rail and received from the Cup while the Deacon (or sub-deacon - don’t remember which) held the cup.
If I were to take an educated guess, I think Voris would simply prefer that we receive the Blood of Christ in a matter where the laity are NOT touching the sacred vessels.
I pray this answers your question.
Last edited:
- Status