Skip to comments.Diocese limits Communion under both kinds, laments excessive extraordinary ministers
Posted on 09/22/2011 11:02:51 AM PDT by NYer
The Diocese of Phoenix has announced that it will issue norms specifying the conditions under which Holy Communion may be distributed under both species.
The new norms will promote unity in the celebration of the Eucharist all around the world, and come from the revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd Edition, together with the final edition of The Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds for the Dioceses of the United States of America, the diocese stated in a press release.
In the Roman Missal (1975), 14 instances were provided when the chalice could be offered to the laity, the diocese noted. From 1975 on, the United States, United Kingdom and Oceania were given experimental privileges for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds. These privileges expired in 2005 and were not renewed by the Holy See. The new norms issued in June 2011 are what guide the liturgical practice today and in the future.
These universal norms for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds greatly expanded those times when the chalice could be offered to the lay faithful for most of the Catholic world (since in most countries their practice was virtually non-existent), the diocesan statement continued. In the Diocese of Phoenix, like other places where the practice of reception from the chalice became frequent or even commonplace, the new norms call for the practice of less frequent distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds than the faithful may have been accustomed.
The ritual books state that Holy Communion may be offered at the Chrism Mass and feast of Corpus Christi. Additionally, it may be offered to a Catholic couple at their wedding Mass, to first communicants and their family members, confirmation candidates and their sponsors, as well as deacons, non-concelebrating priests, servers and seminarians at any Mass, as well as community members at a conventual Mass or those on a retreat or at a spiritual gathering. In addition, a priest may select other important solemnities in which it may be offered, e.g., parish patronal feast days or the celebration of the dedication of the church building, provided the conditions are met.
In normal circumstances, only priests and deacons are to distribute Holy Communion, the diocese added; when both forms of Communion are used frequently, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are disproportionately multiplied.
Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.
Does the Roman Catholic Church restrict the reception of wine as well as bread at the Eucharist? If so, what’s the reason?
The Latin Church used to restrict the reception of communion to the consecrated host. Following 2nd Vatican Council, they began administering communion under both species. In the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Eucharist has always been distributed under both species but by intinction and only by a validly ordained priest or deacon.
In the usus antiquor celebration of Holy Mass, only the priest receives the Sacred Blood of Christ. The Body of Christ is received by him and then offered to the congregants. In the novus ordo (re Vatican II reforms), both were offered to the laity via the priest and NUMEROUS extraordinary ministers.
It is sad that he has not been able to out all of the enemy that lies within the diocese.
Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen. Alleluia
Excuse my ignorance but could you date that form of the mass? I am a Roman Catholic who grew up with the Latin Mass pre VCII. I am also familiar with the Pre-Sanctified Liturgy celebrated in the Maronite Catholic Church, which is an adaption of the ancient Anaphora of Sharrar and is celebrated only on Good Friday. It is the only occasion where communion is restricted to the priest.
How fortunate you are to have such an extraordinarily holy and obedient and manly shepherd leading the flock of Phoenix. He gives us all hope!
It is not necessary for the laity to receive the Precious Blood in addition to the Communion host. The consecrated host is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
I cannot date the Latin term (which I misspelled — it is “usus antiqior”) and literally means “ancient usage”. I probably should have not used the term and you are obviously more educated in the forms before Vatican II. When I read it and use it, I mean in the traditional form—ie the Tridentine.
as in this quote:
This Saturday, August 22nd, you may wish tune in to EWTN to witness a Solemn Mass in the usus antiquior from the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Hanceville, Alabama.
If I am in error, please accept apologies. I can always benefit from being educated—reason I love all things Catholic.
Bravo! That statement needs repeating forever!
Ok .. thanks for the example. According to Wikipedia ...
The 1962 Tridentine Mass is sometimes referred to as the "usus antiquior" (older use) or "forma antiquior" (older form), to differentiate it from the newer form of the Roman Rite in use since 1970.
So, essentially , if I understand this correctly, the usus antiquior form of the Holy Mass is the one in which I grew up. Phew! So many fancy words to state something quite simple.
Yeah. It was a bit self-aggrandizing I admit.
And yes, I think of it as the mass that introduced me to the true faith in the early sixties. Can’t tell you how I miss it. (Here, we have one on the first Sunday of each month, thanks to a priest who he very devoted to it. So once a month, I don’t have to hold hands, etc. For me, heaven on earth.)
Hooray — and this is where there will only be altar boys.
God bless Bishop Olmsted.
(PS. I pray that Western Oregon gets him.)
People who are allergic to wheat and cannot receive the consecrated host, can always receive the Precious Blood
The complete Body and Blood of Christ is contained in each species.
1) a nostalgic antiquarianism;
2) a desire to downplay (if not outright deny) the belief and significance of Transubstantiation and the sacrificial character of the Mass re-presenting the one Sacrifice of our Lord on the Cross, replacing it with an understanding of the Eucharist as the action of the communal meal;
3) a denial of the substantial differences between the ordained priesthood and the common priesthood of the laity, insisting that the priest and the laity must have the same form of Communion; and
4) and a excuse to multiply the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Communion, furthering the idea that the Eucharist is confected by the gathered community rather than the priest acting in persona Christ by virtue of his ordination.
While the first reason might have been harmless, the others lead to a denial of basic Catholic teachings. I give thanks that there is finally a bishop brave enough to address this practice.
This is a step backwards. According to St Jusin Martyr, everyone in the early chuch received the chalice.
I applaud Vatican II for moving the Church towards reception of both kinds. This is how it was done in the early Church and in every other Church today.
The Scriptures says: “After supper He took the cup, and when He gave thanks He held it up in front of them and said ‘Whatch me as a drink from this...as often as you see Me drink this, watch in remembrance of Me.”
Oh wait, that’s not what Christ said. He said “Drink this all of you.”
I appreciate receiving communion under both species. Interesting thing at our church is that about 1/2 of the communicants just receive the host. (A friend of mine says she does that because she is concerned about germs from the cup.) My, perhaps judgemental, take on it is that the Blood of Christ gets chosen by those who are a bit more devout, generally, and are taking Communion more seriously than those who take the Host and then saunter away without their hands folded.
Random comment: if you like people watching, check out the communion line, as the people range from holy to clueless.
It must be pointed out that Vatican II did not call for Communion under both species at all Masses but only at special occasions:
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.There is no theological objections, per se, against Communion under both species but there are serious practical problems, especially at large Masses, that cannot be lightly dismissed. Additionally, there has grown a school of thought requiring Communion under both species that has serious theological problems which I have pointed out above. The emphasis on the manner of reception rather than on the WHO of reception weakens our faith in the reality of the Eucharist. The entirety of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is present under the smallest particle of either species. The insistence on Communion under both species as the only valid way to receive attacks this truth.
Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 55.
Many of the practical problems with Communion under both species could be resolved if we were to seriously consider the use of intinction. Many, however, object because:
1) it differs from the manner in which the priest receives,
2) it precludes Communion in the hand, and
3) it goes contrary to what is an overemphasis on the act of drinking which clouds the reality of the person who is received, Jesus Christ.
You are indeed being judgmental. I know of many very devout Catholics who prefer to receive under the form of bread alone.
In fact, reception of the host alone has long been considered a pious practice, because it is a recognition that we receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ under each individual Kind.
The time for reception under both Kinds to be more limited is long overdue. It has been used as an excuse to routinely use extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.
I’m just curious as to the rationale behind only offering the bread under normal circumstances.
In the pre Novus Ordo liturgy, the Latin Mass (more commonly referred to as the Tridentine Liturgy), communion consisted of the consecrated host. It was only distributed by a priest (there were no deacons), on the tongue to communicants kneeling at an altar rail. It looked like this.
Since our Lord is present - Body, Soul and Divinity - in both species, it was far more expedient to distribute only the eucharistic host.
The Eastern Catholic Churches have always distributed communion by intinction; i.e. - the priest dips the consecrated host into the Precious Blood and places it on the tongue of the communicant.
Probably more information than you were seeking but this is how it has been done for centuries.
(A friend of mine says she does that because she is concerned about germs from the cup.) My, perhaps judgemental, take on it is that the Blood of Christ gets chosen by those who are a bit more devout, generally, and are taking Communion more seriously than those who take the Host and then saunter away without their hands folded.
I can't speak to many people who choose to receive only under one kind, but as for myself it surely has nothing to do with germs. I honestly find that a troubling statement. How can the Sacrament of Healing spread disease? It seems to speak against the entirety of our faith. I also don't consider myself less devout than others. Rather, I do not think reception under both kinds is sacramentally greater than only receiving under one kind. You don't get more Christ, or more grace doing it that way. I think it is nice to offer it in such a manner as it does better reflect the actions of our Lord, but that doesn't mean everyone has to indulge in the practice. Personally it means risking possible spills or accidents of a terrible nature for what would be a personally symbolic action. Just not what I choose to do. But, I certainly can't see how it makes me less devout.
Your photo reminds me of attending Mass as a child with my Grandparents every Sunday. Kneeling at the rail for Communion, very reverent. You knew it was special and if you felt unworthy you did not go to that rail, but rather waited to go to confession.
As a chalice bearer in my Anglican (not episcopalian) parish I have noticed that over the years more and more people are dipping rather than sipping. I know a lot will cite germ concerns, but the fact is that germs are more of a problem with dipping rather than sipping. Of course, considering that the question concerns the Blood of Christ, germs wouldn’t be a problem anyway.
As you may be aware, the Anglican Church did away with Communion in One Kind in 1559 (it was retained by Henry VIII, abolished by Edward VI, reinstated by Mary I, and ended by Elizabeth I). The reason is simple, we are commanded to eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood. He said we must do both. Everywhere one is mentioned, the other is also mentioned. Nowhere are they distributed to two different sets of people. Therefore, in light of Christ’s instruction (John 6) and His institution (Last Supper), the Flesh and Blood ar both part of the Sacrament and both should be distributed to all who are worthy to receive.
Just to add one thing to think about, practice in the early Church may or may not be a more "licit" form of practice. The idea that we should be practicing as they did in the second or third centuries is an assumption that may or may not be good.
In my Episcopal parish we have a communion rail. We used to use it all the time. Now we distribute Communion standing up except during Lent, when we use the rail. But we always distribute both the bread and the wine.