AmericanPapist Comments
It's about time this was clarified.
I've seen priests, with only a small number of people present, sitting down as lay people purify the vessels. This is misguided in that it is likely rooted in allowing for more "active participation".
This will also have implications for large parishes using Communion under both kinds because the priest will have to purify them all, or get help from the deacon, or acolyte. I think we are going to see the practice of precious blood at every Mass in every parish diminish.
They can purify them directly following Mass so as not to hold people up, but priests these days seem to be concerned with hurrying up. While on the one hand it is considerate of our busy lives, we also need to be challenged to slow down when it comes to Sunday worship.
In my former parish, the Mass ran all of 45 minutes on most Sundays & Saturdays. Even at that, people are tripping on each other at that parish as they arrive late, and most especially as a mass exodus takes place (no pun intended) before the priest even leaves. It usually starts as people receive Communion.
I should have typed that "Precious Blood" with capital letters. It's lunchtime, so hopefully the Lord will forgive my error.
I think you may be right about how this ruling will diminish communion from the cup. If that is the case, it will be gross pastoral negligence to deny communicants full access to the important sign value of eating and drinking that communion under both kinds affords.
Peador, I heartily disagree with your last comment. The Catholic Church has taught for centuries that receiving either the Host or the Precious Blood is sufficient. Receiving both is not theologically required. If so, we were out of compliance for centuries. Also, in this day and age of highly communicable diseases it seems foolish to offer the cup so freely. Tom
Well, sufficient is not the same as fullness. Yes, theologically we receive the whole Christ in either of the elements, but the eucharist is also a banquet and both the GIRM and papal statements speak of the importance of the sign value of eating and drinking. That's why the Church encourages communion of the faithful under both kinds.
You have at least a greater chance of catching disease from doorknobs and receiving the host on the tounge than you do from receiving from the chalice.
My first thought at hearing about this was that perhaps we'd see an increase in priests using intinction so people could still receive under both species. But then I realized two things: 1) many people are attached to receiving in the hand which is (for obvious reasons) not allowed with intinction and 2) the great majority of people in parishes I've been in don't receive the Precious Blood.
There are, however, many EMHCs that have come to identify their "participation" in the Mass with their position as EMHC so cutting the times they are used is, in some places, not going to go over well. I've been hacked for saying that before, but I speak of what people have told me not my own interpretation.
My own question is, will this increase the number of Accolytes instituted so that they may take care of this cleansing? According to the GIRM only priests, deacons and accolytes can cleanse the vessels without the indult.
Cardinal Arinze answers the complaint that it will limit communion under both species and thus destroy the sign value.His Eminence says that you can receive commmunion under ONE species and still receive the full Christ or you can receive by intinction.He also refers the bishops to other documents i.e. Redemptionis Sacramentum,which states that you should not have both species if there are a large number of people. I also doubt you can get more germs from touching a doorknob than by drinking fron a common cup.This was verified for me by a woman who has a doctorate in microbiology.I also guess then Pope Benedict is guilty of "pastoral negligence".That remark is laughable.
I am not afraid of communicable diseases from the cup. Is it still wine or is it Precious Blood? If I am receiving Christ, than I am being healed and not harmed.
I have not read where the vessels must be purified during Mass. As a former Pastor of mine phrased it,"who does dishes while still at the table?" There is no question that the vessels must be purified. Very often this is done immediately after Mass in the Sacristy.
Deborah, You sound very devout but you comments point to the damage caused by poor AND INACCURATE Mass translations. The last phrase of the Domine non sum Dignus, i.e. SANABITUR ANIMA MEA, is properly translated as "my SOUL shall be healed." Christ did not promise us physical healing.
Father MacAfee, You Da Man! Tom
In defense of Deborah, I think she meant that drinking from the cup wouldn't do any harm, not necessarily heal us from physical ailements (though it can and it has).
Don't worry, the new translation will fix the confusion.
Though the Eucharist is primarily the healer of our souls, the fullness of our redemption is both our bodies and souls. Jesus said, "My Body is real Food and My Blood is Real Drink." This implies that we are not merely nourished in our souls but our entire person expressed through our bodies.
I'm open for correction.
RE: Fr. MacAfee
Of course, I never said that the Pope was guilty of pastoral negligence. You are not a very good reader of things.
Once I asked a doctor friend, a specialist in communicable diseases, if receiving from the common cup should be discontinued because of fear of disease. He laughed at me. By the way, he is Jewish. By far, the most common way of picking up cold and flu viruses is by touching a door handle and then rubbing your eyes, touching your nose or mouth. Anyone who has given communion on the tongue--and I have--knows that it is likely to expose the person to another person's saliva or whatever else is on your figers.
With due respect for Cardinal Arinze, he doesn't get the point that is made so clear in the GIRM and other teachings. The sign value of the Eucharist as an eschatological banquet is in the eating and drinking of the host and precious blood. Eating soggy food is not the same as eating and drink. How clearly could Jesus have been?
Peadar, the need (or perhaps desire) to view it as primarily a banquet has been the cause of many of the liturgical abuses we have seen in recent decades. If its sign value as an eschatological banquet overshadows its value as a sacrifice I question whether that is a trade we are or should be willing to make. I grant, it needs to be both, but to have a meal without understanding it as the sacrifice of Christ at Golgotha somehow seems to have missed the whole point. Christ didn't come to have dinner with us...
Peador: I think you should withhold your criticism of Father McAfee and Cardinal Arinze. It's actually laughable that you would take on the Church's principal liturgist and suggest he doesn't know what he is talking about. I assume your communicable disease expert told you also not to exchange the Pax by shaking hands or holding hands at the Pater Noster because that is the surest way of passing a communicable disease. By the way, my mother-in-law is a microbiologist and NEVER takes the Precious Blood from the common cup she says it is not prudent. Tom
It is not enough to purify the vessels and the hands of the priests and EMHCs. Communion in the Hand still creates a great potential for problems with the Divine Species.
I am an EM at my parish, mosly because I was asked to serve as one. Frankly, I will be glad if this cuts down on the number of EM's we have each week. It is terribly distracting for me to worry about people dropping a cup of the Lord's Precious Blood just after I have received. I would much rather have time for quiet meditation. If we stop having the cup regularly (and I thought this whole thing was supposed to be EXTRAORDINARY), I will praise God.
peace
And let us not forget that this practice came about, like Communion in the hand, by way of disobedience. At the time, I believe that Archbishop Weakland was chairman of the Bishops Liturgy Committee. They wanted to get more people into the sanctuary, especially women, and so without permission they began to push lay people giving out Communion even though they were not needed, and Communion under both species to create the "need."
Peter:
Of course, I never said that the Eucharist is "primarily" a banquet. In fact, I was clear from the beginning that one receives the whole Christ in one species and therefore one shares in the sacrifice. However, the very fact that the Church has stressed communion under both kinds for the sake of the sign value indicates how the restriction of the cup to the priest resulted in a stunted view of Eucharistic theology. The truth is the Eucharist is Sacrifice, as it is also a sign of the eschatological banquet, as it also is communion with the Lord, as it also is a sign of the unity of the Church, as it also is a reminder of the meal Christ shared not only with his apostles but throughout the New Testament. We are Catholics and capable of maintaining in harmony the multifaceted symbolism of the Eucharist. And yes, of course it is a symbol in so many ways, given the ancient meaning of that term. I think it is time we put Reformation polemics behind us and started drawing from the fullness of Catholic faith.
Tom,
I think it is a key component of Catholic tradition that we do not withold criticism when the Tradition is being distorted or stunted. That's what kept the Church from caving to Arianism, after all. If Cardinal Arinze is trying to argue that we don't have to receive from the cup because we receive the whole Christ in one species (while the latter part of that argument is true, its use as justification for witholding the cup certainly can't be maintained), then I don't think the simple fact he is a Cardinal currently heading the CDW makes his argument correct.
Peador, forgive me, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I did not realize that you are the competent ecclesiastical authority on this issue and the head of the Congregation is a mere minion whose statements should be discarded. You and Mahony must be buddies because he's disregarding it too, until the supreme authority in the Catholic Church, the USCCB, weighs in on the issue. This really gets tiring. Tom
Tom,
I don't understand the sacrcasm you continually use. My point was clear: if the argument doesn't make sense, the man's position of authority won't help matters. The fact is, Cardinal Arinze is trying to address one issue--the sign value--with a different issue--the theological significance of the presence of the whole Christ in either element. They are two different elements of Catholic theology of the Eucharist. Please spare me the partisan cynicism.
Peador, old man. Perhaps you should re-read some of your posts before you throw around the sarcasm word: "Eating soggy food is not the same as eating and drink." Tom
Tom,
That's not sarcasm. It is simply true.
P
I wanted to address an earlier question about Spiritual vs. Physical healing. When John's disciples asked Jesus if He was the awaited Messiah, what was his response? He talked about the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, and the lame walking. Physical healing was very much a part of Christ's ministry on earth. At Mass, do we not repeat the words of the Centurian who sought physical healing of his daughter? If Jesus is alive in the Eucharist, who am I to limit how or what he heals within me? Very often physical ailments do have a spiritual component. When I pray for healing, I do not pray "if" which denotes doubt. Instead, I pray "in accordance with God's Will." My focus is on God, not myself.
Fr. Francis McNutt's book on Healing is recommended.
You raise an interesting point about physical healing versus spiritual healing. While Jesus clearly healed the sick, his answer to the disciples of John the Baptist is not one of miracles--look at what I can do, of course I am the Messiah. The signs he worked--and the Gospels always prefer the word "sign"--had long been associated with the coming Kingdom. The blind see, the deaf hear, the lame walk because the kingdom has come and those signs point to Jesus as the Messiah (or anointed). While it is always in the scope of God's power to give physical healings, they are not given in and of themselves, but to encourage faith. At the Eucharist, we partake of the eschatological banquet of the Kingdom, which is why eating and drinking is so important.
Peador, I guess it's not sarcasm because you say so, whatever. Tom
Peadar--You and I are actually in agreement. God would have us be whole physically, spiritually, emotionally, and psychologically. The healing we receive leads to faith or is a response to faith that leads to an ever deepening faith.
As an ordained Priest for 48 years, it is refreshing to me to read the profound insights of "Peadar"
Thank you, Peadar, for the inspiration that all is not hopeless.
Commenting by HaloScan
