Topic: Bishop: Bread alone will do for Communion at most Masses (no wine)

[Asteriktos]

24-kt gold? Must be pretty expensive. Where can I pick one up?

Only $535, but it while supplies last!

[Keble]

I suspect Bishop Olmstead is doing this so he can then cut back on the number of Extraordinary Ministers at each Mass. After all, if the Eucharist is only offered under one species, you don't need as many EMs.

Well, the root problem there is that there aren't enough ordinations to supply the priests and deacons needed to do the job.

And there have definitely been abuses in that area.  My husband and I (who are Byzantine Catholic) were horrified when we went to Mass at a church in Phoenix a few years ago, and *only* the EMs distributed the Eucharist - while the priest sat at the altar!

It's a lead-pipe cinch that the rubrics don't allow that; certainly the ECUSA rubrics don't. That points to another deep problem: RC priests don't follow their own rules, so changing the rules is probably not going to help.

[theistgal]

It's a lead-pipe cinch that the rubrics don't allow that; certainly the ECUSA rubrics don't. That points to another deep problem: RC priests don't follow their own rules, so changing the rules is probably not going to help.

Yes, my mother reported to me that the priest at her church has already stated his intention to continue offering the wine no matter what the Bishop says. (Being a die-hard liberal, she is of course quite happy about that.   )

[Jetavan]

A bread-only Mass is like Passover without wine.

[theistgal]

A bread-only Mass is like Passover without wine.

Perhaps you didn't know there are "non-alcoholic Passovers":

http://globalresonance.net/message.cfm?messageid=271739

[lubeltri]

A bread-only Mass is like Passover without wine.

Wine is consecrated at every Mass. But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

Let me kneel at the rail and receive the Host, and I am most grateful for the privilege!

[bogdan]

Wine is consecrated at every Mass. But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

The way you phrased this makes it sound like it takes a lot of extra effort to commune people under both species. Why would that be?

[elijahmaria]

Wine is consecrated at every Mass. But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

The way you phrased this makes it sound like it takes a lot of extra effort to commune people under both species. Why would that be?

It also makes it sound as though Christ is not to be experienced by hundreds of laity.

As I said earlier there is ample gospel evidence that Jesus is far more patient than we are with the humble folk.

Teach them...don't lock Him away from them.

[Alveus Lacuna]

But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

It also wasn't necessary to be feeding thousands of people by multiplying a few loaves of bread, and I bet it took a while to distribute.

[dzheremi]

Yeah, I'm with Alveus Lacuna on this one. It sounds like RC is just lazy with these kinds of justifications. "But it'll take tooooo longgggg!" Wah, wah, wah. God forbid your liturgy might last an hour and a half instead of an hour because people are receiving the body and blood of Christ! Which, if I remember my RCIA classes, is kind of the point of the whole thing...

[Fr. George]

The Roman Catholic Church has been wrong for hundreds of years insisting on communion of one kind only, a practice which has been consistently  rejected and repudiated by the Holy Orthodox Church.

So even our infants receive both Body and Blood?

Why not?

I don't know. That's why I asked.

Oh, ok I'm not sure of the particulars... I've taken two daughters to communion sporadically, but never really paid attention to that (I was more focused on keeping them from getting fidgety and causing an accident!)... though I think (?) they give them a bit of wine, and not really a piece of bread (?) but it's assumed that there are some small crums/particles of the bread in the wine.

That's what I do - the smallest particle of the Body that I can see, with more of the Blood on the spoon.  Less likely to get spit-up (especially be a pre-solids baby).

[bogdan]

There is a large Orthodox church in my area that has hundreds of attendants each Sunday, and they manage to commune everyone. Granted they have several deacons so it goes somewhat faster, but it still takes awhile to get through everybody. Nobody has ever appeared impatient or irritated that they had to wait in line for that long (and if you are, I dare say your heart isn't well-prepared to receive anyway). I just don't see why time is a valid reason.

I still remember my Emergent days. The pastor would say, "We don't do a drive-thru Eucharist here." Even Emergents know the Lord's Table should be approached with awe. It's not a time to be tapping your feet or drumming your fingers.

[Alveus Lacuna]

Yeah, I'm with Alveus Lacuna on this one. It sounds like RC is just lazy with these kinds of justifications. "But it'll take tooooo longgggg!" Wah, wah, wah. God forbid your liturgy might last an hour and a half instead of an hour because people are receiving the body and blood of Christ! Which, if I remember my RCIA classes, is kind of the point of the whole thing...

I'm Alveus Lacuna, and I didn't approve this message.

[dzheremi]

Alright, please excuse me for misunderstanding your message, then. Apologies.

But of course I will stand by my own opinion as is. I was thinking about it and the difference as far as I can tell in the ritual surrounding distribution of communion that might account for the RC attitude is that, all other things being equal (so as not to compare a 3,000 person RC parish to a 40 person Orthodox one), there seems much less to do in the RC model. I can't receive in the COC yet, and it takes about 20-25 minutes to distribute communion in the parish I now attend, but that time lets us get through a few communion hymns, which are generally the high point of the liturgy, as that's when the people are at their most energetic and joyous. Contrasting that with my memories in the RC church, I don't even remember there being multiple communion hymns (though there probably were), meaning that there was a lot of space filled up with silence or some soft, droning keyboard/organ. I could see how a half an hour or more of that would get tiresome. Perhaps the RC could lessen the apparent dread at having long communion lines if there were more to do around it other than wait for it a while, then to back to your seat and sit quietly.

[Jetavan]

Alright, please excuse me for misunderstanding your message, then. Apologies.

Alveus may be referring to the fact that Catholics believe that the host is the Body and the Blood of Christ. Just receiving the host means that one gets both, from a Catholic perspective.

[Alveus Lacuna]

I just didn't like his tone. I remain on the side of reception of both the Body and Blood, not that we can be certain whether or not their is sacramental grace in the Roman Catholic Church, so it is possible that the thread is a non-starter.

[katherine 2001]

A bread-only Mass is like Passover without wine.

Wine is consecrated at every Mass. But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

Let me kneel at the rail and receive the Host, and I am most grateful for the privilege!

Why would they have to be passing around wine?  All they have to do (if they give them separately), is give them the host, and then a sip of wine from the chalice.  Or, do like the EO do, and put the bread in the chalice with the wine and put it in your mouth with a spoon.  Christ said to eat His flesh and to drink His blood.

[Papist]

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54

ENOUGH SAID!

Of course Catholics will tell you the his Body also contains His blood as well but Christ offers his disciples both species at the Last Supper.

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt 26:26-28

Both his body and blood are present under each species, because the whole Christ is present under each species.

[Papist]

Receiving in one kind is no different in terms of the reality than receiving in both. Unfortunately I run across too many people who think there is a difference, as if they are "receiving less Jesus" or that it's "unfair" that the priests gets "the full" Jesus and they don't.

 Alas I also see too many horrible abuses arising from 300 laity routinely drinking out of cups from too many lay "cup" ministers, and out of principle I refrain.

If we have communion in both species, then we should switch to intinction (and NOT self-intinction, alas I've seen quite a bit of that too!).  

Amen!

[Papist]

The way some EOs are reacting to this news, you would think that EOs believe that Christ is only half present under each species.

[Papist]

But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

It also wasn't necessary to be feeding thousands of people by multiplying a few loaves of bread, and I bet it took a while to distribute.

Is mass the feeding of the five thousand?

[bogdan]

The way some EOs are reacting to this news, you would think that EOs believe that Christ is only half present under each species.

We don't deduce such things, nor do we attempt to reduce things to their simplest elements. They are inseparable. Thus they must always be served together. "Unless you eat my body AND drink my blood..."

By that logic we could use Welch's instead of wine. "You would think they believed Christ is half in the alcohol and half in the grape juice."

What is the actual problem with intinction? Most of the RCs in this thread make it sound like it's this impossible feat. Yet our Western Rite parishes manage to somehow pull it off at every Mass, quite painlessly.

[Papist]

A bread-only Mass is like Passover without wine.

Wine is consecrated at every Mass. But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

Let me kneel at the rail and receive the Host, and I am most grateful for the privilege!

Why would they have to be passing around wine?  All they have to do (if they give them separately), is give them the host, and then a sip of wine from the chalice.  Or, do like the EO do, and put the bread in the chalice with the wine and put it in your mouth with a spoon.  Christ said to eat His flesh and to drink His blood.

Again, the above post seems to suggest that EOs believe that Christ is only half present under each species.

[ialmisry]

But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

It also wasn't necessary to be feeding thousands of people by multiplying a few loaves of bread, and I bet it took a while to distribute.

Is mass the feeding of the five thousand?

yes.

[Papist]

The way some EOs are reacting to this news, you would think that EOs believe that Christ is only half present under each species.

We don't deduce such things, nor do we attempt to reduce things to their simplest elements. They are inseparable. Thus they must always be served together. "Unless you eat my body AND drink my blood..."

By that logic we could use Welch's instead of wine. "You would think they believed Christ is half in the alcohol and half in the grape juice."

What is the actual problem with intinction? Most of the RCs in this thread make it sound like it's this impossible feat. Yet our Western Rite parishes manage to somehow pull it off at every Mass, quite painlessly.

I don't have a problem with intinction. I just don't think it's necessary.

[JR]

I think it is actually better to use intinction, that way your not sharing the same chalice with lots of people, and simplifies things for the Priest.

[Papist]

I think it is actually better to use intinction, that way your not sharing the same chalice with lots of people, and simplifies things for the Priest.

I agree that intinction is better than having each person drink from the same cup. However, I don't think that communion under both kinds is necessary.

[Keble]

However, I don't think that communion under both kinds is necessary.

"Necessary" is not the point; indeed, concentrating on what is merely necessary is how the abuse is rationalized.

[elijahmaria]

However, I don't think that communion under both kinds is necessary.

"Necessary" is not the point; indeed, concentrating on what is merely necessary is how the abuse is rationalized.

It is not an abuse. 

Communion under one of the species is the norm in the Catholic west.

She is holding to that tradition.

Hold your own and be glad.

[bogdan]

However, I don't think that communion under both kinds is necessary.

"Necessary" is not the point; indeed, concentrating on what is merely necessary is how the abuse is rationalized.

^ This.

I mean, I agree with you that the fullness of Christ is in both species—indeed, in every molecule—and maybe in extremis one could be taken by itself without any loss of its "Christfulness". Why should that become the norm? Just to prove that Christ is fully present in both?

The two were served together at the Last Supper and it was always served together thereafter, until the West came to change her ancient tradition (serving both species together is more ancient than only serving one, true in both East and West). How can the elements be divorced? especially for the sake of proving a point, or for the sake of convenience? It seems to be literally a reduction to absurdity, in my opinion.

[ialmisry]

A bread-only Mass is like Passover without wine.

Wine is consecrated at every Mass. But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

Let me kneel at the rail and receive the Host, and I am most grateful for the privilege!

Why would they have to be passing around wine?  All they have to do (if they give them separately), is give them the host, and then a sip of wine from the chalice.  Or, do like the EO do, and put the bread in the chalice with the wine and put it in your mouth with a spoon.  Christ said to eat His flesh and to drink His blood.

Again, the above post seems to suggest that EOs believe that Christ is only half present under each species.

No, just that we do what Christ commanded.  But then that is what makes us Orthodox.

[ialmisry]

However, I don't think that communion under both kinds is necessary.

"Necessary" is not the point; indeed, concentrating on what is merely necessary is how the abuse is rationalized.

It is not an abuse.

Yes, it is. One of many.

Communion under one of the species is the norm in the Catholic west.

It was not practiced during the first centuries of the Vatican's schism, is not practiced everywhere in its ecclesial community, nor by its Protestant siblings of the West, and of course never in the East. So it fails the test of Catholic practice on all levels.

She is holding to that tradition.

abuse is not a tradition.

Hold your own and be glad.

LOL.  As if the Vatican ever allowed that when it promised.  Is the same abuse enforced on the Anglican use/personal prelature?

[Papist]

However, I don't think that communion under both kinds is necessary.

"Necessary" is not the point; indeed, concentrating on what is merely necessary is how the abuse is rationalized.

It's not an abuse.

[elijahmaria]

However, I don't think that communion under both kinds is necessary.

"Necessary" is not the point; indeed, concentrating on what is merely necessary is how the abuse is rationalized.

^ This.

I mean, I agree with you that the fullness of Christ is in both species—indeed, in every molecule—and maybe in extremis one could be taken by itself without any loss of its "Christfulness". Why should that become the norm? Just to prove that Christ is fully present in both?

The two were served together at the Last Supper and it was always served together thereafter, until the West came to change her ancient tradition (serving both species together is more ancient than only serving one, true in both East and West). How can the elements be divorced? especially for the sake of proving a point, or for the sake of convenience? It seems to be literally a reduction to absurdity, in my opinion.

That is not quite true.  The symbol of the early agape meal was a loaf of bread, symbolizing the unity of community.  As the early communities and Churches begin to distinguish between Eucharist and Agape meal then the wine became a more important element but in 2000 years the precious blood has never achieved the symbolic power of the Body of Christ, which is why when the Church began to commune under one species it was the Body of Christ that was chosen.

I do realize what you believe and that's good.  I didn't think we had an argument there.  We don't seem to agree on the question of whether or not the choice to commune under one species is some effort to "prove" something.  I would say it is not.

[Paisius]

However, I don't think that communion under both kinds is necessary.

That is precisely the way the Protestants think. They've just boiled down what is "necessary" a little further than you have. Of course as they say, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. 

[elijahmaria]

However, I don't think that communion under both kinds is necessary.

That is precisely the way the Protestants think. They've just boiled down what is "necessary" a little further than you have. Of course as they say, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. 

Totally different order.

All Papist is saying is that it is not necessary to have the body AND blood to have the fullness of the real presence.   That exists in either the body, or the blood, or both.

[lubeltri]

Alright, please excuse me for misunderstanding your message, then. Apologies.

But of course I will stand by my own opinion as is. I was thinking about it and the difference as far as I can tell in the ritual surrounding distribution of communion that might account for the RC attitude is that, all other things being equal (so as not to compare a 3,000 person RC parish to a 40 person Orthodox one), there seems much less to do in the RC model. I can't receive in the COC yet, and it takes about 20-25 minutes to distribute communion in the parish I now attend, but that time lets us get through a few communion hymns, which are generally the high point of the liturgy, as that's when the people are at their most energetic and joyous. Contrasting that with my memories in the RC church, I don't even remember there being multiple communion hymns (though there probably were), meaning that there was a lot of space filled up with silence or some soft, droning keyboard/organ. I could see how a half an hour or more of that would get tiresome. Perhaps the RC could lessen the apparent dread at having long communion lines if there were more to do around it other than wait for it a while, then to back to your seat and sit quietly.

Well, at my church two priests offer the host and two laypeople hold chalices off to the side for those who wish to drink from them (maybe about half do; as I said before, I'm not one of them). The choir sings first the communion chant from the Roman Gradual, followed by a motet and/or some hymns. Communion only takes about 15 minutes.

[lubeltri]

But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

It also wasn't necessary to be feeding thousands of people by multiplying a few loaves of bread, and I bet it took a while to distribute.

Is mass the feeding of the five thousand?

Even if it were, there is no mention of wine in the feeding of the five thousand 

[Volnutt]

What's the point of Communion under one kind anyway though? Intinction virtually eliminates the risk of spilling the chalice and if there are no deacons and you don't want extraordinary ministers touching the host, then just have help keep the line orderly.

One kind just seems to cause unnessesary theological confusion.

[elijahmaria]

One kind just seems to cause unnessesary theological confusion.

So the Resurrection would then cause necessary theological confusion?

God forbid that we are ever challenged by doubt, confusion or pain: Pain the Greatest Evil...I suppose confusion is the second greatest evil...?

Silly

[Schultz]

What's the point of Communion under one kind anyway though? Intinction virtually eliminates the risk of spilling the chalice and if there are no deacons and you don't want extraordinary ministers touching the host, then just have help keep the line orderly.

One kind just seems to cause unnessesary theological confusion.

I've never met a Catholic, even the most obtuse Christmas-and-Easter ones, who is theologically confused about the Eucharist because they only (usually) receive under one kind.

While I certainly firmly believe that one should receive both elements of the Eucharist, I just as firmly believe that not doing so does not necessarily cause "theological" confusion.  If one is confused about the nature of the Body and Blood, it's for another, deeper reason.

[ialmisry]

But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

It also wasn't necessary to be feeding thousands of people by multiplying a few loaves of bread, and I bet it took a while to distribute.

Is mass the feeding of the five thousand?

Even if it were, there is no mention of wine in the feeding of the five thousand 

just drinking His blood, "drink indeed"   John 6:26-7;53-8

[Scotty]

What's the point of Communion under one kind anyway though? Intinction virtually eliminates the risk of spilling the chalice and if there are no deacons and you don't want extraordinary ministers touching the host, then just have help keep the line orderly.

One kind just seems to cause unnessesary theological confusion.

I believe this became practice in the early 1000's because the idea spread about Europe that the Body and Blood of the Eucharist were separate forms of Christ.  Receiving under one species was done to emphasize the fact that the same Christ is present in both the Body and Blood, and that receiving under one kind is not receiving less of Christ.  See the Catechism of the Council of Trent for more details.

[J Michael]

But it's not necessary to be passing cups of it all over the place among hundreds of laity.

It also wasn't necessary to be feeding thousands of people by multiplying a few loaves of bread, and I bet it took a while to distribute.

Is mass the feeding of the five thousand?

Even if it were, there is no mention of wine in the feeding of the five thousand 

just drinking His blood, "drink indeed"   John 6:26-7;53-8

John.6
[1]

After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiber'i-as.

[2] And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased.
[3] Jesus went up on the mountain, and there sat down with his disciples.
[4] Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.
[5] Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, "How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?"
[6] This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do.
[7] Philip answered him, "Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little."
[8] One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him,
[9] "There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?"
[10] Jesus said, "Make the people sit down." Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
[11] Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted.
[12] And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, "Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost."
[13] So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten.
[14] When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, "This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!"
[15]

Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

[16] When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea,
[17] got into a boat, and started across the sea to Caper'na-um. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.
[18] The sea rose because a strong wind was blowing.
[19] When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and drawing near to the boat. They were frightened,
[20] but he said to them, "It is I; do not be afraid."
[21] Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.
[22]

No mention of wine or blood--just loaves and fish.  The verses you referenced are, unless I'm mistaken, chronologically---after the feeding of the multitude.

[Volnutt]

What's the point of Communion under one kind anyway though? Intinction virtually eliminates the risk of spilling the chalice and if there are no deacons and you don't want extraordinary ministers touching the host, then just have help keep the line orderly.

One kind just seems to cause unnessesary theological confusion.

I believe this became practice in the early 1000's because the idea spread about Europe that the Body and Blood of the Eucharist were separate forms of Christ.  Receiving under one species was done to emphasize the fact that the same Christ is present in both the Body and Blood, and that receiving under one kind is not receiving less of Christ.  See the Catechism of the Council of Trent for more details.

What's the point of Communion under one kind anyway though? Intinction virtually eliminates the risk of spilling the chalice and if there are no deacons and you don't want extraordinary ministers touching the host, then just have help keep the line orderly.

One kind just seems to cause unnessesary theological confusion.

I've never met a Catholic, even the most obtuse Christmas-and-Easter ones, who is theologically confused about the Eucharist because they only (usually) receive under one kind.

While I certainly firmly believe that one should receive both elements of the Eucharist, I just as firmly believe that not doing so does not necessarily cause "theological" confusion.  If one is confused about the nature of the Body and Blood, it's for another, deeper reason.

I see.