WHY? The Host contains the blody, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, as does the Precious Blood in the Chalice. This insistance on receiving the Chalice smacks to me of either separation of body and blood which is contrary to doctrine or wanting to have everything the priest has, which is a sign of envy. If the Chalice is offered I will accept it but I do not need it and am perfectly happy with the traditional reception of the Host.
That’s presumably only distributing the host, most parishes have communion of both species in the current day. Some bishops have instructed that parishes must offer both.
There’s nothing wrong with intinction. There’s also nothing wrong with the chalice, either. As far as I’m concerned, Communion under both Species with reception of the Most Precious Blood from the chalice should be the norm.
Then what you are saying is that EMHCs should also be the norm, because with the the chalice being used, EMHCs almost allways have to be used, and the role of ordained ministers continues to be diminished. In any event, in a large majority of the Catholic world, communion is the host alone, at almost all papal masses, communion is the host alone.
Sadly some Bishops have different agendas sadly, and seem to enjoy forceing even more novelties in the liturgy. If intinction was the norm for communion under both species, no extra ministers will be needed. I pray that Pope Benidict XVI is going to take a far stronger hand when it comes to the liturgy that Pope John Paul II did.
Absolutely absurd! The chalice being given to the laity is a novelty? The laity in the Western Church had access to the chalice until between 1200 and 1300 AD. I’ve heard others date it as late as 1400. In other words, we had it for far longer than we didn’t. And yes, it would be worth having a EMHC to assist the priest. I attend a huge parish and I’ve never understood why our priest cannot communicate everyone up the central aisle with the Most Sacred Body, with 2 of our other 3 priests communicating from the Chalice, but even if it was one priest with the paten and two EMHCs with two chalices, I fail to see how that is an abuse. We’re not stupid, we know the difference between the lay and clerical states. I wish more men would become permanent deacons (we’ve not one that I know of in our diocese) to replace the EMHC’s, but yes, even if it meant EMHCs. The bishops you accuse of having “different agendas” may only be responding to the following teaching of the Church (from the Catechism):
See above quote from the Catechism. It doesn’t have anything to do with EMHC’s or blurring the line between priest and laity. The Catechism was largely the work of the pope and the CDF, and I doubt that they were thinking, “Ya know, we need to get the laity up on the altar more.” Sorry, but it seems to me to be merely a matter of more faithfully copying what the Lord did at the Last Supper. You don’t have to receive Both to rec. the Lord in His Fullness (Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity), the Church has said so and she has all the authority to govern Her Sacraments. But you can if you wish and it should be allowed. And it is allowed, thank God, in every parish of which I’ve been a member.
I’ve never denied that the Most Sacred Body and Most Precious Blood was present under both Species and that one only has to recieve One. So I’ve uttered nothing contrary to the doctrine of the Church. Nor do I want everything the priest has, else I would have become a priest. You are attributing bad motive where you have no objective proof that there is any (detraction at the least, calumny at the worst…but that’s okay, they’re sins I have to regularly confess myself). I did not say I NEEDED the chalice, I simply said I wouldn’t mind altar rails if they would not prevent the chalice from being offered (and I don’t see why they should. Five years as an Episcopalian, I knelt every Sunday for Holy Communion and in all that time, the chalice bearers never spilled the wine, and we received it on our knees). I don’t care if other people elect to not receive from the Chalice. I’m just glad I’m able to do so.
It is one thing to attack an argument. It is entirely another to attack a person. You need not become personal.
Where do you get the idea that the Last Supper was “the first ordination?” We’ve no record of precisely when the Apostle’s were ordained. As for them being priests and bishops, it is a matter of history that the Chalice was given to the laity for far longer than it hasn’t been . It’s a matter of fact that the Church can govern the discipline of the Sacraments and since She permits the Chalice, it’s permitted, under the authority of the local ordinary. The circumstances (the heresy of the Hussites being the main one)that dictated the witholding of the Chalice apparently do not seem to prevent the Holy See from NOW allowing the laity to receive from the Chalice.
Yes I did. Good job!
It was the first mass, but there is no objective historical evidence that the Apostles were ordained at that particular event, not evidence that can be drawn from the text itself. The Church has pointed to the possibility, but hasn’t bound us to believe it. We’ve no record of when they were ordained. I challenge you to look back through my postings (click on my name). Anytime I’ve commented on the meaning of scripture, anytime it’s come up, I’ve said that the Bible means what the Church says It means. The Church is the guardian of Scripture. I take this tone very strongly because I very strongly feel that people who have confused tradition with a small “t” with tradition with a large “T” should stop trying to force an incorrect and subjective understanding down the rest of our throats.
Catechesis would be far more important than learning new “traffic patterns”. The latter should happen as a result of common sense, but a lack of catechesis is what led to the removal of altar rails (and statues, icons, sanctus bells, proper music, incense, etc.) in the first place. I think too much emphasis has been placed on rehearsal and choreography and not enough on what is truly important. It is not supposed to be a stage performance.
It seems that you have gotten a good response, 81% sat yes, bring them back.
