Vanity: Question about methods of Communion

[mike182d]

Now it's okay for everyone to drink out of the same cup. It's going from one extreme to the other.

Here's the thing: It's still not okay to touch the host, technically. The American Church has grossly exaggerated a special exception made by Rome, but the whole of the Roman Church receives on the tongue.
However, this isn't because we're "dirty laity," so to speak, but rather the priest is in persona Christi, the person of Christ, and in the sacrament of the Eucharist only he can consecrate the host and literally "bring" it to the rest of the congregation. It is the priest, in persona Christi that is to hand Christ to us and we are not meant to hand Christ to ourselves as Christ did not confer upon us the power to consecrate the host to begin with.

There is a difference between not touching the Eucharist because we're "dirty" and not touching the Eucharist because we don't have the authority. Church theology supports the latter.

[mike182d]

I'm not using my flame-thrower here but... :-)

Will you drink from the same cup as your parents or your kids at all?

[sitetest]

Dear Aggie Mama,

As Mershon said, when one receives the Blessed Sacrament under either species, either the Host or the Cup, one receives Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. It is entirely unnecessary to receive the Cup to receive fully the graces from this Sacrament.

This was a point of theological difference between the Catholic Church and the dissenters at the time of the Reformation. Thus, for centuries, reception of the Cup was generally forbidden to the laity during Mass, to emphasize our belief that one receives our Lord in the entirety by receiving only the Host (or if one were to receive only from the Cup).

Even today, it may be an abuse of the rubrics if the Cup is generally offered at Mass. My understanding is that the general rule is that it may NOT be offered at the regular Sunday Mass, but that the bishop of the diocese may make exceptions as he sees fit.

As for the visiting priest who said Jesus is sad... Well, what might sadden Jesus are the priest's comments, as his words seem to evince a less-than-fully-Catholic view of the Eucharist.


sitetest

[mike182d]

Well, then, I am very fond of intinction :-)

[mike182d]

The irony is that Vatican II did nothing to harm the Church, but the people who misinterpreted the document "in the spirit of Vatican II" did and the council will be forever scarred by that.

[dsc]

"The irony is that Vatican II did nothing to harm the Church, but the people who misinterpreted the document "in the spirit of Vatican II" did and the council will be forever scarred by that"

If the documents had not been written, they could not have been misinterpreted. Therefore, even if we stipulate your point about the documents, it still seems to me that the very fact of calling a council was harmful.

[mike182d]

If the documents had not been written, they could not have been misinterpreted.

Every heresy is the product of misintepretation of Church councils and teachings, but that does not mean they should not have been called or written. Heck, just writting filioque into the Nicene Creed caused a rift between the whole of the Eastern Church that has yet to be repaired... :-)

[dsc]

"Every heresy is the product of misintepretation of Church councils and teachings"

True enough, but as the writings of St. Pius X show, there was a subversive movement within the Church that was infiltrating and gaining strength. The Church was eyeball to eyeball with an enemy of great potential power, and which was poised and thirsting for just such an opportunity to cry havoc and loose the hounds of theological warfare.

The kindest word one can use to describe the act of calling a council under those circumstances is "folly."

[MamaLucci]

However, this isn't because we're "dirty laity," so to speak, but rather the priest is in persona Christi, the person of Christ, and in the sacrament of the Eucharist only he can consecrate the host and literally "bring" it to the rest of the congregation. It is the priest, in persona Christi that is to hand Christ to us and we are not meant to hand Christ to ourselves as Christ did not confer upon us the power to consecrate the host to begin with.

I found your post about persona Christi interesting. I am currently in the process of converting to Catholicism. The Priest at my church often times has a parishioner help him offer the Eucharist. Is this a common practice?

[siunevada]

Just to repeat what others have posted, might as well check your Catechism:

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly." This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

[mike182d]

I found your post about persona Christi interesting. I am currently in the process of converting to Catholicism. The Priest at my church often times has a parishioner help him offer the Eucharist. Is this a common practice?

It depends on what you mean by "help" him offer the Eucharist. The act of consecration can only be done by the priest, or other priests if more than one is celebrating the Mass.

[Aggie Mama]

Even today, it may be an abuse of the rubrics if the Cup is generally offered at Mass. My understanding is that the general rule is that it may NOT be offered at the regular Sunday Mass, but that the bishop of the diocese may make exceptions as he sees fit.

I live in the Houston-Galveston diocese. At my church both are offered at every mass (daily included).

[ArrogantBustard]

Actually, what I really like is that I've heard of priests dipping the host into the wine and then placing it in people's mouths.

It's called "intinction". When I was much younger, that practice was common on major feast days. In my Parish, anyway. I always liked it, although it required extra vigilance of me as an Altar Boy. Communion in the hand largely killed the practice. My current Pastor does it occasionally.

FWIW, it is the norm in the Eastern Catholic rites, and they use a little golden spoon to give Holy Communtion to the faithful.

[MamaLucci]

It depends on what you mean by "help" him offer the Eucharist...

Well, the parishioner stands with the Priest and two lines of parishioners go up for Communion, some go to the lay person, and some go to the Priest.

[Mershon]

Actually, you are right and your answer is theologically correct.

[mike182d]

Oh! I thought you meant while up on the altar. Forgive me.

Ideally, the priest is to be the sole distributor of the host and wine, but because of restrictions placed upon Churchs by a decline in the number of priests, it may become necessary to use lay persons and can be allowed as an exception. They're referred to as Extraordinary Ministers.

[Mershon]

"I'm guess I'm just trying to figure out why they changed things. I even heard a visiting priest once say in effect that Jesus is sad if you don't accept the consecrated wine."

This is pure baloney. Jesus is present whole and entire under both species. Receiving under both species is not better nor more reverent, nor more holy.

Aside from the health dangers, there is also the fact that Jesus's body inevitably ends up being spilled with all of these chalices (called "cups") being handled by everyone. There is absolutely no reason nor need nor spiritual benefit objectively from receiving from both species.

Also, theologically, a case could be made for it detracting from the meaning of the ordained Priesthood. The reason they changed it was so that they could continue to employ "extraordinary" ministers of Holy Communion every single Mass, thereby making them ordinary--which also takes away from the sacredness of the ordained priesthood.