N
neophyte
Guest
I’m a recovering alcoholic, and am susceptible to very serious reactions to the accident of alcohol.
- Status
E
Elzee
Guest
For those who would like to receive from the cup but have a phobia about germs, have you considered sitting in the front row so you would be first (or one of the first) after the EMHC receives from the cup they have been given? Would this help?
A friend of mine is an EMHC and she says the number of people who receive from the cup drops dramatically the further back in the communion line they are.
A friend of mine is an EMHC and she says the number of people who receive from the cup drops dramatically the further back in the communion line they are.
E
episcogirl
Guest
I’m coming kind of late to this thread, but is intincture allowed in the Catholic Church? I know many Episcopals who receive the cup this way. I don’t know if it’s allowed for RC’s. When I was a girl,(I grew up Roman Catholic) we were allowed to receive the host in our hands or directly on the tongue, but the cup was reserved for the priests, it was later when I got older that the congregation was allowed to partake of the cup, or am I remembering wrong?
At any rate, I am told by many that doing intincture, they avoid the germs (although our priest says that there is no valid evidence to support the theory that drinking from the same cup for communion leads to the spread of germs.
At any rate, I am told by many that doing intincture, they avoid the germs (although our priest says that there is no valid evidence to support the theory that drinking from the same cup for communion leads to the spread of germs.
D
DJgang
Guest
RC can receive that way, but the host must be given to the LEM (opps, EMHC, my Episcopalian coming out) and they can put in the cup.
B
Brendan
Guest
Yes, Cardinal Arinze declared intinction to be an option “always and everywhere”.
Intinction is the standard method of offering both species in my parish. It has the advantage of being both more hygenic, and reducing the number of ministers needed.
Also, in the Eastern Catholic Churches, it is the ONLY way that the Eucharist is offered.
E
episcogirl
Guest
LOL, I’m an LEM but our bishop prefers “Eucharist Minister” only, not sure why.
Thank you for the information about intincture in the RC Church. When I was growing up, it was not really given to us as an option. Like I said, I seem to remember in the Catholic Church years ago the cup was not offered to the congregation, but my memory may be faulty.
J
japhy
Guest
Intinction cannot be done by the laity; the priest must do the intinction and give the host to the recipient on his or her tongue. The recipient may not first receive the host in the hand and then take it to a chalice to have it intincted.
E
episcogirl
Guest
Ah, yes, I see, that makes sense to me.
A
AlexV
Guest
One truly unnecessary problem with the permission to receive under both forms is too many Catholics…clergy and laity…have decided that those who receive under “only” one form need to defend and justify why they don’t receive under both forms.
That’s problematic. Nobody owes anybody…clergy or laity…an explanation for why they receive under “only” one form. The graces received are identical in both cases. End of story.
That’s problematic. Nobody owes anybody…clergy or laity…an explanation for why they receive under “only” one form. The graces received are identical in both cases. End of story.
F
fix
Guest
Well said.
J
japhy
Guest
This might not be an issue if the original guidelines had been followed.
From the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy:
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.
Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 55
From the 1970 Instruction on Communion under both kinds:
- Communion may be distributed under both kinds, at the discretion of the Ordinary, in those cases determined by the Apostolic See, according to the list in the Appendix to this document.
- 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.
- 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.
Among the ways of communicating prescribed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, receiving from the chalice itself ranks first … only when everything can be carried out in fitting order and with no danger of irreverence toward the blood of Christ. … The method of communicating in which the communicants pass the chalice to one another or go directly to the chalice to take Christ’s blood must be regarded as unacceptable.
Whenever none of the ministers already mentioned is available, if the communicants are few and are to receive communion under both kinds by drinking directly from the chalice, the priest himself distributes communion, first under the form of bread, then under the form of wine.
Otherwise the preference should be for the rite of communion under both kinds by intinction [which] makes access to communion under both kinds easier and safer for the faithful.
Liturgicae Instaurationes (promulgated only a few months later), the third Instruction on the orderly carrying out of Sacrosanctum Concilium, agreed with Sacramentali Communione.
S
spellinggirl
Guest
Some people at my parish do this. They bow to the person holding the wine, since it is Christ’s blood, and return to their seats. This type of refusal is perfectly acceptable in our church.
A lot of parents don’t let their kids take the wine since so many people come to our church while they are sick, and kids’ immune systems are still forming. Also, people who have cancer who come to our church don’t take it, since their immune systems are really weak from chemotherapy.
A lot of parents don’t let their kids take the wine since so many people come to our church while they are sick, and kids’ immune systems are still forming. Also, people who have cancer who come to our church don’t take it, since their immune systems are really weak from chemotherapy.
C
Carolinagirl411
Guest
Well
I guess I’ll add my 2 cents to this whole issue. Our parish offers the body and the blood as well. I’m a convert from being a baptist where we took bread and grape juice lol. Anywho, I have an issue with my stomach where I vomit a lot, especially during the morning. Acid reflux, not morning sickness. Anyway, due to the fasting before mass, if I take the wine, I end up getting nauseated and have the need to throw up. I figured it would be best not to vomit up the body and blood of Christ and just stick with the body.
I don’t see why this is even a huge issue. Some people have preference some people don’t. I’m grateful just to have the ability to partake in the body of Christ. Why bicker?
I guess I’ll add my 2 cents to this whole issue. Our parish offers the body and the blood as well. I’m a convert from being a baptist where we took bread and grape juice lol. Anywho, I have an issue with my stomach where I vomit a lot, especially during the morning. Acid reflux, not morning sickness. Anyway, due to the fasting before mass, if I take the wine, I end up getting nauseated and have the need to throw up. I figured it would be best not to vomit up the body and blood of Christ and just stick with the body.
I don’t see why this is even a huge issue. Some people have preference some people don’t. I’m grateful just to have the ability to partake in the body of Christ. Why bicker?
P
peary
Guest
Exactly! And it’s not necessary to receive under both species. The bread itself is the full body, blood, soul, and Divinity of our Lord, just as is the wine. The Church has never made the decision that you are required to receive both for a full communion.Well
I guess I’ll add my 2 cents to this whole issue. Our parish offers the body and the blood as well. I’m a convert from being a baptist where we took bread and grape juice lol. Anywho, I have an issue with my stomach where I vomit a lot, especially during the morning. Acid reflux, not morning sickness. Anyway, due to the fasting before mass, if I take the wine, I end up getting nauseated and have the need to throw up. I figured it would be best not to vomit up the body and blood of Christ and just stick with the body.
I don’t see why this is even a huge issue. Some people have preference some people don’t. I’m grateful just to have the ability to partake in the body of Christ. Why bicker?
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Are you saying that the 1970 Instruction is still binding,
or merely suggesting that at some historical point ordinaries could have been more discriminating in choosing to allow both species, which would have perpetuated the status quo and prevented the widespread distribution under both kinds seen today?
B
Brendan
Guest
HUH???
Why bow to the person??
If you give reverence when passing, give it to the species, not the person holding it.!!!
J
japhy
Guest
What I’m saying is the allowance for Holy Communion under both kinds is far wider than the Second Vatican Council called for.
In 1963, Sacrosanctum Concilium suggested these situations: “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.” (n. 55)
In 1965, Ecclesiae semper said “The Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, in accordance with the wishes of the council, also prepared a rite for the administration of Communion under both species and it defined the occasions and the manner in which clergy, religious and laity may receive the Eucharist under both species.” I don’t have access to that particular rite, but it defined specific occasions for the reception under both kinds. (I’d like to see it.)
In 1970, Sacramentali Communione gave a list of circumstances when both kinds would be offered. Also in 1970, Liturgicae Instaurationes said “Ordinaries are not to grant blanket permission but, within the limits set by the conference of bishops, are to specify the instances and celebrations for this form of communion. To be excluded are occasions when the number of communicants is great. The permission should be for specific, structured, and homogeneous assemblies.” (n. 6a)
Then 1975 GIRM used the list of occasions from Sacramentali Communione. The 1975 GIRM, n. 242, says that “conferences of bishops have the power to decide to what extent and under what considerations and conditions Ordinaries may allow communion under both kinds in other instances that are of special significance in the spiritual life of any community or group of the faithful. 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.” It’s the same message we’ve read before.
These documents did not give permission for, nor envision, communion under both kinds at every Sunday Mass, let alone every daily Mass. I have yet to find the place it changed along the way, but between 1975 and 2002 something changed: now the 2002 GIRM says the following (n. 283):
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.
In other words, nowadays, a bishop can give a parish pastor permission to decide when both kinds are offered. Gone is the list of specific instances, replaced by a list of three (also from n. 283):
- *]Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate Mass;
*]The deacon and others who perform some duty at the Mass;
*]Members of communities at the conventual Mass or “community” Mass, along with seminarians, and all who are engaged in a retreat or are taking part in a spiritual or pastoral gathering.
The problem, as I see it, is if and when communion under both kinds is reduced, people will feel they’re being cheated of something, probably because there was never sound catechesis when the practice started. Do people know about concomitance, for example?
P
Phemie
Guest
The list of who may receive under both kinds & when was expanded in the latest GIRM and in the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America
P
peary
Guest
I would interpret it to mean that they are bowing to the Presence of God under the auspices of the wine, NOT to the person holding the cup.
S
spellinggirl
Guest
Thank you, Peary. This is exactly what I was trying to imply. We do not bow to the person, but to God.
- Status