MADISON, Wis. (EWTN News) — Citing a need for reverence, Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wis., has asked priests to move in the direction of giving Communion only in the form of the Host and not the Precious Blood and to limit occasions when both kinds are distributed.
“What we say and do at the Mass, and what we do before the Lord present in the tabernacle, matters,” he said in an Oct. 10 letter to his diocese’s priests.
Bishop Morlino cited the new edition of the Roman Missal’s instruction on Communion under both species. It says the diocesan bishop may permit this whenever it seems appropriate to a pastor, provided that the faithful are “well instructed” and there is “no danger of profanation” of the sacrament.
“However, I have been told of, and have personally experienced, the reality that the provision both that the faithful be well instructed and that there be no danger of profanation of the sacrament is not being met,” he said.
“So many Catholics do not understand the Eucharist as the memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, death and resurrection or the real presence of Christ under both species of bread and wine. They do not understand the role of the ordinary and extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist,” he said.
“Most of all … so many of our people do not understand the kinds of reverence due at all times to the sacrament, whether within the Eucharistic liturgy or outside the celebration.”
This lack of understanding shows the need for the new translation of the Roman Missal, the bishop said.
His letter also comes at a time when the Catholic Church is reacting to the expiration of the permission the Vatican gave to the U.S. Church in 1975. It allowed American dioceses to experiment with Communion under both forms.
Bishop Morlino explained that the Second Vatican Council envisioned the provision of holy Communion under both kinds in situations like the ordination Mass for a newly ordained priest, at the Mass of religious profession for new Catholics, and at the post-baptismal Mass for the newly baptized.
Given these examples, the bishop said, “It would be hard to argue that Vatican II envisioned Communion under both forms every week.”
The new Roman Missal recommends that the chrism Mass and the feast of Corpus Christi as good occasions for Communion under both kinds. Other recommended times are to a couple at their wedding Mass, to children receiving their first Communion, to confirmation candidates or to people on retreat.
However, the new Missal also warns against the “excessive use” of extraordinary ministers because it could obscure the role of the priest or deacon.
The local bishop has the authority to allow Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate. Bishop Morlino said this permission has been “assumed,” and he understands that the practice is common at some parishes.
He asked priests to take “patient, prudent and practical steps” according to their situation in their individual parishes.
He also urged them to help their people know and understand the “beautiful gift” of the Eucharist and to know their obligations to prepare to receive it. He mentioned preparations like the sacrament of confession, the observance of the pre-Communion fast, proper attire and other matters.
“Our people know well the aspect of the Mass which is the Sacred Banquet, but help them to know the Eucharist at the memorial of Christ’s loving sacrifice for them,” he said. “Help them to understand your role in laying down your own life as the minister of Christ’s Body and Blood, present in the Host.”
On Sept. 21 the Diocese of Phoenix announced it intends to change its norms to conform to the new Missal’s instructions.
Msgr. Kevin Holmes, the rector of Madison’s cathedral parish Holy Redeemer Church, said in the parish’s Oct. 9 bulletin that Bishop Morlino has given pastors “considerable latitude” about the timetable to implement the changes. The bishop has suggested the beginning of Advent as one plausible date for the change.
Jimmy Akin: Should We Be Concerned About Pope Francis's Inaugural Mass?
Matthew Warner: Ask Fr. Barron: What is a miracle?
Comments
Post a Comment
I heard from the blog of a priest that the Us got a special permission before to give the blood usually at mass and the expiration date to d it had run out a long time ago but the bishops forgot it was not the norm until just recently that they realized. We are now like the other countries, Europe and stuff, that didn’t have the privilege of receiving the blood every week. They just always could have it for special occasions. I don’t think it’s very connected with the new missal except that their being picked into effect near the same time.
He mentioned preparations like the sacrament of confession, the observance of the pre-Communion fast, proper attire and other matters.
All of the above are badly needed. At Mass a couple of weeks ago two teenage girls, aside from giggling and talking at points during the liturgy also presented a bit of a near occasion of sin to a young man in a pew behind them, as one of them was wearing short shorts that literally barely covered her posterior. I know that at 62 I am probably an old fuddy duddy but my mother would never have let me come to church looking like that.
How about respecting first of all the Lord truly present in our Tabernacles as well as the sensibilities of older parishioners.
Does anyone know where I can find this experimental permission to distribute under both species that everyone is talking about? I’ve looked and looked, but have not been able to find any evidence of it. I would like to read the originally document. Thanks.
Maybe you would get the results if you used the word indult.
Here is one quote Fr. Z said about it and in the link he talks more about it and has other posts where he mentions it too:
“What the expiration of the indult for more opportunities for Communion under both kinds means is that the directives for same are now the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and Redemptionis Sacramentum and whatever law the local bishop establishes.”
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/10/communion-under-both-kinds-bp-morlino-explains-the-situation-to-his-priests/
Fr. Ray has more info on it:
“the temporary indult that allowed the practice has run out. The indult, to diverge from the universal practice, was issued in 1975 and ran out in 2005.”
A few of the comments in the blog are informative too. Us and Britian, who got it a bit later, had the temporary indult.
http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2011/10/has-our-indult-ran-out.html
“....the new Missal also warns against the “excessive use” of extraordinary ministers because it could obscure the role of the priest or deacon.”
Really????? Are they that insecure in their own value as a priest that they have to try and elbow the laity out?
If that’s the case, how about they start doing the dishes, cleaning up the church and taking care of the gardening for themselves too?
Pathetic and disturbing.
Joseph, it isn’t that the priest/deacon is insecure in their own value. The problem with an excessive use of EMHC’s is that there is the possibility that some may not understand the difference between a cleric and a lay person (of which I am), especially in liturgical contexts. Now, if you think that there is no difference between the clergy and the laity, then I am sorry you have been misinformed. But regardless, we are bound to follow the norms laid down, and the norms are quite clear about when EMHC’s can be used and when they ought not be used. It is actually more humble for the celebrant to simply follow the rite than to think that they can “improve” it by deviating from the norms.
We are witnessing something insidious and seemingly innocuous,
a bishop restricting the distribution of Holy Communion
under both species (bread and wine)
to the faithful,
reserving it only for the most limited instances prescribed by the rubrics,
namely to the priest and deacon alone
unless there is some special celebration.
Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign
when it is distributed under both kinds.
In this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident
and clear expression is given to the divine will
by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord.
This whole business is very curious.
It seems absurd that a bishop,
including the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome,
would be so myopic.
That the bishop of Phoenix curbs access to Holy Communion
under both species,
is a scandal in itself.
The faithful have a right according to Canon law 912:
“Any baptized person not prohibited by law
can and must be admitted to holy communion”
to receive Communion
and this right, according to the liturgical law
speaks to communion under both species as normative
unless it becomes impossible due to circumstances
such as large numbers of people or lack of access to wine.
The Eucharist is Not a Weapon.
It is nothing less-than clerical overstepping
and unnecessary demarcation of the clergy and laity.
What is this Bishop thinking?
It seems that it’s his “in” and “out” club
who is and who is not permitted to receive from the cup.
The only shred of juridical support for his action
is the technicality about
who can and cannot clean the cups after Communion.
We have more important things to be concerned about.
Went to a wedding Mass last week and not only did the priest invite everyone to Communion (“according to your faith and your conscience. Everyone is welcome in God’s house”, but he never even articulated the Catholic belief in the Real Presence. I witnessed many former Catholics who now attend Protestant churches come forward for communion, as well as non- Catholics who don’t believe in the Real Presence. One woman took the occasion of giving the bride a hug while she was acting as the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion by distributing the Precious Blood. I’m all for the greater reverence called for by this bishop.
If priests would start preaching the gospel and practicing holiness in their own lives instead of obsessing over how best to protect their position and specialness a lot of the problems in this world would improve.
From what I’ve seen, there’s a lot more reverence and holiness in the pews than behind the altar.
If this bishop thinks the faithful are such a bunch of profane hypocrites, why doesn’t he put more effort into his job of preaching and teaching?
Joseph,
It is not about the priest’s view of his value, but rather how the laity sees the priest, a man consecrated specifically to distribute Holy Communion. By having the priest, acting in the person of Christ, solely distributing the Eucharist will better show the sacredness of the sacrament. Sacred being defined as something that is so special it is set apart from the ordinary to demonstrate its holiness. Another aspect is the practical consern for protecting the Eucharist from desecration such as when it should fall or spill on the floor. Having less people handling the sacrament will protect against this.
Thank God for Bishops like Robert Morlino. Vatican Council I should have been maintained, and the modern world should have been brought into the Church instead of allowing the smoke of Satan to enter the sanctuary. Profanation of the Holy vessels and the Host has caused familiarity to breed indifference to or lack of belief in the Real Presence. That is the crowning failure of Vatican Council II.
Bishop Morlino’s directive, which his staff insist isn’t, is a sad commentary from the way he comes about to justify his decision. In other words, he is saying that all these people who doesn’t understand, doesn’t know, doesn’t show proper reverence to the Blood of Jesus, are ignorant people, CCD skippers. Because this is the only conclusion I can make of His Excellency’s utterings. Isn’t this a prodigal occasion to ask what are they teaching at CCD programs? What are the priests teaching at masses and homilies? What went wrong with Catholic formation? I invite the Bishop to take responsibility and form the people of God he is called to shepherd. Issuing prohibitions is the easy way out.
When you receive Holy Communion under either species, the bread or the wine, you are receiving Christ in His entirety - body, blood, soul, and divinity. You do not need to receive both to recieve the fullness of Christ in Holy Communion. I do not understand why people feel that they are “missing out” if they do not have the opportunity to receive the precious blood.
All of you who see sinister intent in this, think every move by any Church official is all about power and oppression, why do you bother with the Catholic Church at all then? If you really think this is what the Catholic Church is about, why are you here?
Go find yourselves a nice democratic Protestant/evangelical/independent church, the ten-thousandth iteration of some beef with Rome that has now split itself off dozens of times, and leave the evil power brokers and mindless, oppressed sheep of the Catholic Church to ourselves.
John,
At my own parish I have witnessed the dropping of hosts and even one extraordinary minister spill the precious blood all over the floor. To say that we have more important things to concern ourselves over is absurd if you believe in the real presense. And it is not true that communion is a right. Perhaps you should read the epistles of St. Paul again. Those eating and drinking unworthily treat our Lord with contempt.
It has been the tradition of the Church that it is normative to receive our Lord under one species. If you truly believe that returning to this practice is a violation of the faithful’s right, then you are saying that the Church has for centuries been denying our Lord’s command to receive His Body and Blood. You criticise the Church’s liturgical laws by referring to Canon Law. Why is it that you accept one over the other when they come from the same authority? Have some humility please. The Church is well aware of Her own laws. The pope has required those receiving communion from him to do so under one species, kneeling. Is he wrong as well?
I think this is all going to come as a surprise to the faithful that converted to the Church since 1975. I wasn’t told once that communion had to be preceded by confession. The “blood and flesh” and “bread and wine” were not explained as being in separate categories. Nor as I read the Catechism can you describe the Eurcharist as simply a memorial to the Lord - it is rather more. Any writer worth a bean will tell you a word means what people thinks it means. Changing the heart of the liturgy as it has existed in the lifetime of most members of the American Church reminds me of teachers in high school that would establish and rule that existed for its own sake to teach the students “discipline.” But discipline is a means, not an end. I’ve supported the Vatican from day one. Now I’m beginning to feel the fool.
Eric
I have read with interest the comments posted here. I am an extra ordinary Eucharstic Ministry at my parish. Our parish is quite large and on a Sunday. We have six laity serving the Precious Blood and usually one priest serving the precioius body and three laity serving the precious blood. I believe it is a good idea to have only species-the precious Body. I would like to see someday that we have enough priests and deacons to serve communion and use the extra ordinary Eucharstic ministers rarely. We received the body, blood, soul and divnity under the one species. We need to bring back more reverence during the Mass and especially during Holy Communion. I thank you Bishop Morlino for your clarificaiton and stand on this issue.
Let’s stop treating the laity as a bunch of dummies who do not recognize the Blessed Sacrament for what it is and the Priest and Deacons for who they are. It sounds like an excuse for not teaching and making sure everyone understands. I love the Catholic Church, but if this comes to my area I will return to the Anglican Communion. The bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ was given by Jesus without restriction. He did not teach for the benefit of certain people nor was He crucified for a certain group of people. He gave all that we would receive all. For me, to receive both elements is to find complete fulfillment in participation in the Mass and knowing Christ truly present.
Eric,
Actually there are many people who remember receiving Communion under one species. Not to mention all those that go to daily mass and only receive the consecrated bread. You seem to be writing off all those in the church born and raised before the 70s. I’m not sure what you are talking about regarding the word meaning something. But whether or not one is properly catechized on the Eucharist does not mean the Church is bound by someone’s misunderstanding. As for your support of the Vatican coming into question. The Vatican had nothing to do with this. It was American bishops that requested this practice. It was not meant to be permanent. It is time for the American church to return to the norms that most of the Church has been following since 1975.
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.