WASHINGTON (EWTN News)—New guidelines for Mass celebration do not discourage laypersons’ reception of holy Communion under the forms of both bread and wine, contrary to early reports about a change in practice.
“In recent weeks, there have been questions regarding current liturgical law for the United States in offering holy Communion under both kinds to the faithful during Mass,” wrote Archbishop Gregory Aymond, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat for Divine Worship, in an Oct. 26 letter to the country’s Catholic hierarchy.
“In light of these questions,” he stated, “it is hoped that the following clarifications will prove helpful.”
The letter goes on to explain that the 2011 General Instruction of the Roman Missal does not restrict the circumstances under which the lay faithful may receive Communion under both kinds. In fact, the new norms encourage the practice, while giving local bishops freedom to expand or restrict it.
“Each diocesan bishop may establish norms for holy Communion under both kinds within his diocese,” Archbishop Aymond stated, explaining Provision 283 of the Mass guidelines released in June 2011.
That provision states that “the diocesan bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom a community has been entrusted as its own shepherd.”
A Sept. 23 EWTN News report, based on information from the Diocese of Phoenix, incorrectly reported that the Third Edition of the Roman Missal had “reduced the number of times — 14 down to three — when the chalice could be offered during Mass within the U.S. Church.”
That report claimed that the new Mass instructions would “allow the chalice to be offered during Mass in only three instances or at the discretion of a parish priest.”
In fact, the new edition of the Missal does encourage bishops and their priests to offer the chalice under three particular circumstances. However, its new norms do not “reduce” or restrict the circumstances under which the faithful may potentially receive Communion under both kinds.
Rather, they offer bishops a set of guidelines to help them decide when this practice should occur in their dioceses.
Those guidelines state that the faithful should be “well-instructed” about the nature and meaning of the sacrament, in which Christ is fully present and received whether or not one partakes of the chalice.
Likewise, “there should be no danger of profanation of the sacrament” and “no danger of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or for some other cause.”
“If the diocesan bishop discerns these minimum requirements are met,” Archbishop Aymond explained, “he may allow holy Communion under both kinds at any celebration of the Eucharist in his diocese” on a “weekday, Sunday or holy day.”
The archbishop also corrected a misconception surrounding U.S. dioceses’ permission to offer holy Communion to the lay faithful under both kinds.
In its Sept. 21 announcement, the Diocese of Phoenix mentioned “experimental privileges for the distribution of holy Communion under both kinds” in the U.S., U.K. and Oceania.
The diocese said those privileges “expired in 2005 and were not renewed by the Holy See,” an interpretation of liturgical rules that EWTN News reported in an Oct. 12 story.
However, according to the chairman of the U.S. bishops’ liturgical office, the “indult that was not renewed in 2005 … pertains only to the purification of sacred vessels by extraordinary ministers of holy Communion” and not to the distribution of the sacrament.
Archbishop Aymond stated that the U.S. Church’s permission to expand access to both forms of the Eucharist, outlined in a 1984 Vatican decree, “did not expire but, rather, was superseded by ordinary liturgical law as now given in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.”
In those instructions, he said, “the circumstances in which holy Communion under both kinds is allowed have actually been greatly expanded, not only for the United States, but for the universal Church,” as long as the local bishop considers it appropriate.
Jimmy Akin: Should We Be Concerned About Pope Francis's Inaugural Mass?
Comments
Post a Comment
Wow, way to throw Bishop Olmsted under the bus. I guess those of us in his flock have been put on notice we’ll have to defend him from “higher ups” more intent on being soothing and popular than courageous and orthodox. I don’t believe for one second that Bishop Olmsted is so stupid as to have mistaken to what the indult referred!
When the distribution of the chalice requires the deployment of the unordained laity, it seems to me that it would be beneficial to distribute the Sacred Host only. I just don’t see the value in this practice at all. If anything, it has diminished the reverence for the Eucharist in our parishes.
I still say that they should do away with distrubiting the precious blood to the people, too many do not believe that the host contains both body and blood of JESUS CHRIST, it would also do away with the lay people looking during mass to see who is going to serve the precious blood. It is so distracting. I believe that only the priest and the deacon should recieve the precious blood. I don’t know why they changed that in the first place.
I, too, wish this practice of distributing under both kinds would cease except where someone with celiac disease (cannot receive the Host) would be in need of it. Our parish floor is carpeted and I can only imagine the many drops of Our Lord’s precious Presence sprinkling it because someone dribbled. That’s not even considering how many people drip on their clothing and don’t care for it properly. Why does anyone think it’s even needed? People complain about things not moving along quickly enough, then insist on receiving Our Lord twice in one mass!
The Precious Blood is constantly being spilt (even small drops). It’s a mess. It’s also an issue of 1) Faith and 2) Common Sense.
The correct answer should come from our Holy Father ! How did this start in the first place ? What prelate instituted this, Bernardin ????? Only consecrated hands should be allowed to touch the host !
I think you are all like the PHARISEES-too concerned with the stupid rules.
Who knows how holy anyone is.
If it helps more peop;e to receive Christ, I say God bless Eucharistic Ministers.
DEUS
I was once asked - “What happens when you separate the blood from the body?” My answer was that the body dies, this was compared to how when the offering of the Eucharist was separated into the offering of the host and the chalice(blood) there was a dramatic decrease in the belief of the True Presence. I, for myself, believe that the analogy hits it right on the mark.
Our parish discontinued offering the Precious Blood during the flu season last year, and I declined to reinstate it when the “OK” was given again for these and other reasons:
1) The Church says that Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are to be “extra” ordinary, not ordinary, but using the chalice at every Mass makes them all “ordinary” ministers since there are never enough clergy present to offer Communion under both Species.
2) The expense of so many bottles of wine. Most parts of the world could never even dream of offering Communion under the form of wine, so Communion under both species is not a sign of unity with the rest of the Catholic world, but rather a sign of our having the luxury of abundant wine. (A better sign would be if we were to continuously ship cases of wine to all the poor areas of the world!)
3) The Church has always taught the truth that people who receive just the Host are receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus.
4) Purifying the sacred vessels: I don’t like having to drink the water which has rinsed out my chalice after a number of others have drunk from that chalice, and I don’t want anyone else to have to do something which I prefer not to do. When I, and perhaps a concelebrating priest or a deacon are the only ones who have used my chalice, I do not mind purifying it and drinking the water myself.
5) See #102 in Redemptionis Sacramentum from 3-19-2004. “The chalice should not be ministered to lay members ... where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.”
I was at one Mass not long ago at a parish where three Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion approached the altar to assist the priest. After he’d drunk from the Chalice, he offered it to one of them and she declined to drink from it. He turned to the two others to offer them the Chalice, and both of them also declined. Yet, those extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion were going to minister the Chalice—from which they were unwilling to drink—to others!
6) Too many Catholics—even Extraordinary Ministers—speak about distributing the “wine”! No one has ever distributed “wine” at a Catholic Mass! If people do not refer to the Precious Blood as what it is, they are not ready to drink from the chalice because they are showing that they do not recognize it as the Blood of Christ.
Our parish discontinued offering the Precious Blood during the flu season last year, and I declined to reinstate it when the “OK” was given again for these and other reasons: 1) The Church says that Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are to be “extra” ordinary, not ordinary, but using the chalice at every Mass makes them all “ordinary” ministers since there are never enough clergy present to offer Communion under both Species. 2) The expense of so many bottles of wine. Most parts of the world could never even dream of offering Communion under the form of wine, so Communion under both species is not a sign of unity with the rest of the Catholic world, but rather a sign of our having the luxury of abundant wine. (A better sign would be if we were to continuously ship cases of wine to all the poor areas of the world!) 3) The Church has always taught the truth that people who receive just the Host are receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. 4) Purifying the sacred vessels: I don’t like having to drink the water which has rinsed out my chalice after a number of others have drunk from that chalice, and I don’t want anyone else to have to do something which I prefer not to do. When I, and perhaps a concelebrating priest or a deacon are the only ones who have used my chalice, I do not mind purifying it and drinking the water myself. 5) See #102 in Redemptionis Sacramentum from 3-19-2004. “The chalice should not be ministered to lay members ... where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.”
I was at one Mass not long ago at a parish where three Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion approached the altar to assist the priest. After he’d drunk from the Chalice, he offered it to one of them and she declined to drink from it. He turned to the two others to offer them the Chalice, and both of them also declined. Yet, those extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion were going to minister the Chalice—from which they were unwilling to drink—to others! 6) Too many Catholics—even Extraordinary Ministers—speak about distributing the “wine”! No one has ever distributed “wine” at a Catholic Mass! If people do not refer to the Precious Blood as what it is, they are not ready to drink from the chalice because they are showing that they do not recognize it as the Blood of Christ.
Too many Catholics—even Extraordinary Ministers—speak about distributing the “wine”! No one has ever distributed “wine” at a Catholic Mass! If people do not refer to the Precious Blood as what it is, they are not ready to drink from the chalice because they are showing that they do not recognize it as the Blood of Christ.
Lorraine,
This has nothing to do with the spiritual condition of EMHC’s. The concern is with reverence and care for the Precious Blood of Christ. THAT is the most important consideration. No one is holy enough to receive, which is what we clearly proclaim right before receiving Our Lord. The point being made is that it is never necessary for lay people to receive the Precious Blood when they’re received the Host. Never. And for all us time-conscious Americans, offering the Precious Blood slows down the line. So, stop distributing the Precious Blood to the entire congregation and cut down to one EMHC to take the other line when you only have one priest, and everyone is able to receive in a timely manner with the whole issue of the possible desecration of the Precious Blood eliminated.
While the intent might have been noble, the confusion and distraction has created an environment of empty ritual and judgement. Unless the emphasis is about what is in someone’s heart whilst recieving one or both forms, then the whole “ta do” is lost. In these discussions, I rarely hear a word about what is in one’s heart, their faith and love in Jesus Christ, but rather, focusing on rules and regulations. Fortunatly, Christ cares more about what is in one’s heart than a drop of blood. Without which, none of this really matters.
Scott,
What I find sad is that your greatest concern is what is in people’s hearts—none of which can be seen or truly known by others—rather than protecting the precious gift of Christ’s own Blood. In what you consider “empty ritual” I find a beautiful regard for the Holy Gift we have been given and a concern that It be safeguarded from desecration. If others are confused or distracted, isn’t that misunderstanding or a lack of comprehension on their part about the purpose of the rules? Do we ditch the rules in other contexts because they are confusing and distracting? Or do we learn the intent of the rules so we can live within them in understanding and humility?
It seems to me distressing that the state of “people’s hearts” seems to be the trump card in all these discussions. “Well, his heart was in the right place.” Was it? If it was, wouldn’t that person be just as concerned about the treatment of Our Lord’s Blood?
Every Catholic in good standing (a judgement made by each person before deciding to receive Our Lord) can receive Christ in the Host. Receiving the Precious Blood is simply not necessary for anyone except the priest and those who suffer gluten allergies and cannot receive the Host. Every effort is to be made to accommodate them. For the rest of us, it’s superfluous. And it’s Our Lord who suffers the indignity of having His Blood tread on by those in line.
“This is My Body… take and eat. This is My Blood… take and drink.” Seems pretty simple to me.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.