San Jose bishop issues letter clarifying diocesan policy regarding Communion under both kinds.
“Not only permitted but also encouraged and expected”
Comments
58 responses to ““Not only permitted but also encouraged and expected””
-
Laudetur Iesus Christus! Well, one glimmer of hope.
Needed after the translations of today’s mass on the feast of the Lateran Dedication. “Oh god, who, hu….?” I had no idea what the collect was supposed to say. “in visible” church anyone? That cannot be said aloud in English without sounding like “invisible” church. I’m not a Calvanist. The priest read the Gloria “at” the assembly, or maybe in place of, since there were no worship aids for the congregation and no one had yet memorized the new texts. Who needs to praise, bless, laud, God? That’s right, I’m supposed to be wooed by the irresistible sacrality of it all!
-
The reader comments to the bishop’s letter are even more interesting. Bud commented: ” The second extraordinary ministers of every kind got into the act, reverance was lost. With the loss of so many priests there is still no excuse for relegating the distribution of Communion while non-liturgically dressed pseudo ministers relieve the priests of their primary duties. I’m sure our “Orthodox” brethren and clergy must gasp at the practice. They place a small bit of the bread dipped in the wine with a small spoon. This makes more sense and displays true reverence when it is not touched by anyone.”
“True reverence” is not touching Jesus? Would liturgical dress validate an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist’s ministry?
-
A few of the comments at calcatholic.com are truly lamentable.
Posted Wednesday, November 09, 2011 6:40 AM By JLS
Since this routine was started, the number of babies aborted by Catholic women has been hundreds of thousands each year … So obviously this bishop is on to something that really improves the holiness of the Church. And of course it serves to cut down the number of abortions when gay people “marry”, so as we can see the bishops have been busy leading us all in the will of God.What a ridiculous case of “post hoc, propter hoc”! There must be rampant abortion among the Eastern Rite Christians!
Posted Wednesday, November 09, 2011 6:51 AM By Tee
And this helps the Catholics of the Diocese of San Jose save their eternal souls how?Astonishing! Reception of Communion, under both kinds no less, does not help attain the salvation of souls!
-
I think that the majority of parishes in my diocese allow the common chalice, but I wonder just how common the common chalice is in the USA. Are there any statistics?
-
I would say it is pretty much the norm, at all Masses, Sunday and weekday, based on my experience visiting hundreds if not thousands of churches across the nation since 1984. In fact I have only ever experienced a single Mass where Communion sub utraque specie was not offered during this period.
I have not been to Mass in Phoenix or Madison recently, but all my previous experiences in those dioceses have included Communion from the chalice.
I am sure someone will now step forward and say “It never happens in my parish”. All our evidence is necessarily going to be anecdotal, since I do not believe that any surveys have delved into this area.
-
Thanks Paul, I stick pretty close to home on Sundays and don’t have near the evidence you have but the two places I’ve been to on Sunday in the last couple of years was St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York and the Cathedral in New Orleans and they did not have the common chalice. Of course I’ve been doing it for over 31 years in all my parishes except for a short time when it was banned by our bishop because of H1N1 contagion.
-
I wonder if that means that some cathedrals are different? Certainly the cathedrals in Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, Houston, San Francisco, Milwaukee, Venice (FL), Helena, just to name the first few that spring to mind (there are many more), have all offered Communion from the chalice on the occasions when I have been there.
-
It seems that in the Archdiocese of New York, at least in my corner of it, communion from the cup is not as common as everywhere else I’ve been. When I started working at my parish in Staten Island in 2000, it was only offered at one Sunday Mass, and the reaction from most people was that we were unusual. Expanding it to all Sunday Masses was the biggest thing on my list at that time, and that took about two years. Even so, we didn’t make it to daily Masses until we got a new pastor about three years ago. Still, I hear from parishioners that we are one of the few in the area.
I was so surprised that the parish didn’t offer both forms because I hadn’t been in a church in many years that did not. I’m not an extensive traveler like Paul, but I do have family all across the country who I visit, usually on weekends.
-
Terri, that’s been my experience of the few places I’ve been on the east coast the last few times I’ve travled. I have celiac so it makes it rather difficult to receive communion on trips and it’s certainly not easy to travel with low-gluten hosts.
-
And yet, as I read the newspaper this morning, there were two pictures from the Blue Mass at the Newark cathedral. One was of a man receiving communion from a chalice, the other was of a family carrying a large amount of wine in the procession with the gifts. Evidence that there are northeastern, large city cathedrals that do offer the cup.
Story from the New Jersey Star Ledger here:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/blue_mass_in_newark_honors_njs.html
-
-
-
Thank you so much, Bishop McGrath, for your pastoral letter and beautiful encouragement for receiving the body and blood of Christ under both forms. It is good for us to see such positive leadership on the part of our Bishops.
-
Good news! Because “when we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim your Death, O Lord, until you come again.”
-
“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him to life on the last day.”
Thank you bishop McGrath. You get the message. What part of this message do the bishops of Phoenix and Madison not understand?
-
Bravo Bishop! You make us proud! God Bless You!
-
Wow, a beautiful letter!
Amazed by both the letter and the fact that there is an ordinary out there who is not afraid to be buried in situ.
-
Bishop McGrath also scored a big hit with attendees at the Catholic Theological Society of America convention in June which was held in San Jose. He seems to be a great man with a great heart and a good soul.
-
If only more bishops would prepare similiar pastoral letters for the folks in their local churches.
-
I have fun pointing out to the ultra-literalists that in the words of institution, the command to “do this in memory of me” follows only the Cup, not the Bread. That usually leaves them flummoxed.
-
LOL
-
-
It all has to do with connectedness and communion with Jesus Christ. Christ, present in the Community. Eating the Body and drinking the Blood of the Risen Christ is not, in any way, a private devotion. Common sense, which is where Jesus was/is, tells us the more the sign and the reality are present, the more impact it all can have! Some people just want to be minimalists. Do only as much as you must. They use all kinds of goofy reasons to justify their positions.
-
It’s not merely minimalism. It’s minimalism veiled with derivative post-hoc theological rationalization.
-
I don’t think that this is about minimalism — many of the advocates of communion in one kind only would cheerfully embrace maniples, incense, birettas and the cappa magna.
My sense from the stream of blogs and comments on the issue is that it is, first and foremost, about reducing the number of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion; second, about maintaining a sharper distinction between clerics and the laity; third, about resisting what seems a fundamental change in practice from the Tridentine Mass.
I agree with many commenters here that the ex post theological rationale for these rationalisations is very weak.
-
-
The administration of the cup should be generously encouraged in those parishes which have the financial means to consecrate large quantities of indubitably valid sacramental wine. Indeed, the non-commingled cup is necessary for those with celiac disease. However, if a parish cannot afford to purchase enough indubitably valid wine for Mass, it is better to have a valid Mass with the administration of the Host only for most of the laity. One cup should be consecrated if there are any unable to consume the Host. Parishioners who are able to consume the Host should be asked not to partake of the cup at that Mass. One would hope that the financial abilities of the parish would one day permit a general reception under both species.
Due to the not uncommon use of questionably valid matter (some popular boxed wines) at Masses, I try to attend Mass where I know that the sacramental wine is canonically sound. At other times, I must merely trust that valid matter has been used. Still, no priest or pastor should resort to using questionably valid matter just because his ordinary highly encourages reception under both kinds. I would hope that a bishop would excuse those parishes unable to consecrate enough valid wine due to financial inability.
-
Let us hope that in California, in wine country, all parishes are able to get some good wine!
How many people can be served with a bottle a wine? I and the people I know usually take just a small sip, barely a taste, just enough to wet our lips. At one quarter-ounce (at most!) per person, that’s 80 communicants for one bottle. Say that the bottle costs $20, for some nice wine. That’s 25 cents per communicant. Are parishes in the US so poor that they cannot afford that? It’s hard to imagine!
-
When the practice first started, the usual calculation was 200 communicants to a half bottle of wine. As people have become used to taking more than the tiniest sip, this calculation has been revised! But it’s still probably rather more than the 80 communicants to one bottle that Claire suggests.
-
In my parish, we calculate one ounce for every 12 who attend daily or holy day Mass, and 15-17 for Sundays. If a decent bottle of wine is $10 and holds about 24 ounces, we’re talking pennies per communicant.
The argument that a church can’t afford wine for its people would tell me not only is someone having a struggle with 1962-65, but they’re ashamed to admit it.
-
-
re: #23 by Claire Mathieu on November 10, 2011 – 1:30 pm
This is what I was taught as well, Claire. I still only receive a little bit from the cup when I do receive from it rarely, but I have seen people treat the cup and the Blood disrespectfully (i.e. chug). One would hope that most people would realize that this is the Blood of Christ and only take a tiny sip.
I have never received consecrated dry wine from a cup. I do know priests who celebrate Mass with dry wine. It’s perfectly fine to do so, but may not be appropriate for the common cup. The Greeks and Russians customarily use a sweet red wine at Divine Liturgy. One also has to factor in the cost of a wine that can be easily consumed by most of the congregation. That shouldn’t be too expensive. However, the amount of Precious Blood consumed will vary from parish to parish.
Even with Paul’s recalculation, one would hope that the only place a parish would not economize is on sacramental wine! Perhaps it is better to say that parishes should endeavor to provide the cup to everyone at Mass even if it means sacrificing something else.
-
-
I’m very proud of our Bishop and grateful to be working for him in the Diocese of San Jose. I’m also surprised his letter has received so much blog press. I guess it says something about our Church when reasonable, pastoral leadership makes the news.
When the Bishop established this as a norm back in 2003, we did extensive catechesis throughout the Diocese for a year and a half, using the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the GIRM, and the U.S. norms for holy Communion under both kinds.
We have 54 parishes in our diocese of about 700,000 Catholics. All but two offer Communion from the cup every Sunday (and we’re working with those two). At every diocesan celebration we use only ordinary ministers of Communion, and as far as I can tell, parishes use extraordinary ministers of holy Communion only when there are not enough ordinary ministers to distribute Communion to the number gathered at a Mass. At most of our Masses, there is the celebrant assisted by a deacon. At most of our Masses, we have between 500 to 1000+ people in the assembly. At four of our parishes, each with at least six Masses a weekend, it is standing room only at every Mass. One only needs to do the math to see that this is not about any agenda of diminishing the ordinary minister’s role by adding more extraordinary ministers. It’s simply because we need it.
In the last four years we’ve ordained 15 to the priesthood and 15 to the permanent diaconate. Our people are not confused about who is ordained and who is not. We have a healthy respect for the clerical state as well as a good understanding of lay ministry. We know both are necessary in the Church’s work. We have a parish that celebrates the extraordinary form exclusively and a few others that celebrate it on a regular basis.
Through our Bishop’s leadership, we do our best to give praise to God in worship and service, to preach the Gospel, and to attend to the needs of our local community. Having the cup has only helped us…
-
He is a Dub after all!!! 🙂
-
-
The Code of Canon Law makes no reference to “valid bread,” “valid wine,” “valid water,” or even “valid matter” for any of the sacraments. Material things are neither valid nor invalid; they just are what they are. But canon law does specify some characteristics of bread and wine which are required for a valid celebration of the Eucharist.
The most important requisite characteristics are that the bread be made from wheat alone, and not from any other grain, and that the wine be made from grapes, and not from any other fruit.
That is all that is stated in canon 924. The reference in that canon to “wheat alone” and the “natural wine of the grape” is interpreted by commentators as referring to nothing being added to the wheaten flour or wine. There is no requirement that the wine must have a certain alcohol content, only that it be made from grapes, with no regard for the sugar content of those grapes.
The additives issue is an interesting one. The principal additive in many wines is sulfites. So a wine containing sulfites is what Jordan must be alluding to in his reference to “valid wine.”
The Benedictine Sisters of Clyde, MO, were told a number of years ago that they could not add xanthum gum to their gluten free flour to make hosts for celiac sufferers. A small amount of gluten had to be in the flour to provide the binding agent for the flour to become bread. (That’s why celiac sufferers are supposed to use gulten-low, rather than gluten-free, hosts. The gluten-free hosts of necessity contain an added chemical binding agent.)
If folks only knew what’s in the flour used to make regular hosts! I do not wish to promote scrupulosity, but if any reader wants to take the time to read the label on every package of flour in the local grocery store, he or she will not find a single package that does not contain these additives: niacin, iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid, and a host of other chemicals. – continued –
-
Actually, I believe that Rome responded to a dubium in 1922 that sulfites was not a problem canonically (sulfites naturally occur in wine grapes, anyway). The more likely issue is the addition of sugars. (This can be a problem for celiac sufferers, btw, if they are grain sugars from glutinous grains – an unusual but not impossible situation, from what I’ve read.)
I believe Rome has generally been tolerant of de minimis amounts of ingredients that would naturally occur in the matter made in traditional ways. So, de minimis amounts of insect matter, which commonly occurs in all flours, would not be a canonical issue. But gum is not traditionally added to wheaten bread, so its addition to the matter raises more concerns. Basically, if it’s not something that would have been naturally occurring or common practice in the pre-industrial era, it’g going to get more scrutiny. This may seem arbitrary, but it’s not caprice.
-
-
(continuation)
In addition, many wheaten flours contain some malted barley flour! So does the addition of sulfites to wine made solely from grapes render the wine as unsuitable for a valid celebration of the Eucharist?
-
And many altar wines sold on this side of the Atlantic are fortified as a means of preserving the wine (think cooking sherry — ugh!). Worse still, they are fortified with grain spirit, which a moment’s thought will show is potentially lethal to those who have an acute form of celiac disease. And yet they all proclaim that they approved by ecclesiastical authority.
-
Paul
Actually, if sacramental wines are fortified, they cannot be used unless the fortified spirit is made solely from the grape, for precisely this reason. What Catholic sacramental wine purveyors do you know who use grain spirits? That would be quite a bust.
-
My point exactly. Those purveyors who use grain spirit are located in the UK. It should be clarified that this is not all purveyors, only some. But no one seems to care. The “by ecclesiastical authority” thing seems to stifle any critique.
By contrast, the US seems positively enlightened.
-
Paul, you have a duty to make it widely known. Who is doing this?
-
S.J.H. – Who cares? Do you think God does?
-
-
-
A correspondent has disclosed today that
Yesterday, Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix issued a clarification of his own policy, acknowledging that it was based on an incorrect understanding of the norms, and also offering an apology for the confusion amongst the faithful that his earlier announcement had caused.
However, there is no obvious sign of this on the Phoenix website as far as I have been able to discover. Can anyone point us to a link?
-
What is the scriptural warrant for saying NOTHING can be added to the wheat?
This is provocative, I know, but really, isn’t it just too much legalism? Does *God* have to conform exactly to the canons when they say it cannot be valid if there is honey added? Who is to bind God’s work, or bind consciences?
Make a rule to say no additives. fine. But to say what God does or not is itself NOT reverent or worshipful of God.
Some of this kind of thing would lead me to say that the reformation was, perhaps tragic, but not a tragic mistake.
Mark MIller
-
Not everything in the Catholic Church is based on scripture. God doesn’t have to conform himself to the ordinary rules for the sacraments, but we are obliged to conform ourselves to them. Sure, Eucharistic bread might be valid with the addition of honey, but if it’s not valid it’s idolatry and not the sacrament, so why would you take this chance?
The Eastern churches have different rules, because they have a different tradition. Our tradition is nothing but wheat and water.
-
I would think that if any idolatry is involved, it is in giving reverence to man-made rules over and above good common sense or even the safety of communicants! Celiacs are so sensitive to gluten that they can not tolerate oats processed on equipment used to process wheat, or oats grown in a field used previously for wheat. The amount of gluten from a couple stray volunteer wheat stalks is enough to cause them damage. Yet someone in the Vatican has decided that the hosts must contain wheat gluten, so that’s that! Idolatry, indeed!
-
Brigid
It’s not just the Vatican. Non-glutinous grains could not be accepted as matzot in Judaism, either.
-
“If it’s not valid it’s idolatry.”
What nonsense! Ecclesia supplet.You don’t expect God to act as a neurotic would, do you?
-
Bravissima, Brigid!
-
Mary, that’s not what ecclesia supplet means. The term means that the Church supplies jurisdiction when jurisdiction is lacking through no fault of the recipient of the sacrament (primarily in the case of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.) The Church cannot supply the matter or form of the sacrament in this way. Wheaten bread is the matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist and if it is lacking, the Church can’t supply for the lack. Admixture of other substances besides wheat, water, yeast, and salt (including Eastern practices) starts to move it away from being bread and at some point it ceases to be bread and becomes something else. So as to a) conform with our tradition and b) avoid any doubt we stick with straight water and wheat in our Western tradition.
-
-
-
-
Yep, indeed, but that proof text has to be set with other proof texts that keep this messy and end at a draw of proof texts at best.
For good or ill, ecclesia supplet doesn’t apply to sacramental matter of the Eucharist. The priest can pray over rice wafers, with the right words and right intentions, and nothing the Church can do will with certainty confect the sacrament.
-
-
Nothing the CHURCH can do?
Who is doing what in the sacraments?
Oh boy!
-
I think I understand your point, but the issue here was a claim of Ecclesia supplet, which asserts something is supplied by the Church.
Ever since the Donatist schism (which might be better thought of as a civil war in the North African church in the 4th century), the Roman church has been deeply concerned have clear, precise, and objective criteria for sacramental validity (the one exception, matrimony, falls back on more subjective issues involving the element of consent because it involves two co-ministers), so that doubts about validity on the part of the faithful are minimized. That’s the long arc involved here. I certainly see as reasonable on the part of the Church to strain to eliminate opportunities for reasonable doubts about validity; doing things that invite reasonable doubts is quite a nasty thing to do to the faithful, even with the best of intentions.
-
As the lady answered Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani when he protested that artificial contraception could not be permitted because of all the people who had already gone to Hell for having used it:
“Your Eminence, surely you don’t think that the good Lord obeyed all your decrees.”
Likewise with those who bring up the issue of idolatry. You don’t think the good Lord is examining the consistency of the dough. If, in an emergency, the anaphora were proclaimed over potatoes and milk it would have the same effect. -
Mary
As an end result, I would hope so. But that in no way justifies presuming upon it deliberately. Therein lies a vital difference. Lots of not so great things can be rationalized using that rubric. It’s good practice to remember that things we adopt to justify one result can be used in ways to justify results we’d be less than thrilled about.
-
Mary, why would it have to be an emergency? Why not consecrate potatoes and milk regularly?
-
-
Liam,
Concerns about certainty and reasonable doubts have to be balanced by concerns about scrupulosity. Lack of certainty rarely justifies accusations of idolatry. (it may even be that this excessive concern about the bread/body is an idolatrous distraction from worship of the divine.)
While uncertainty might call for modifications of discipline, it does not justify aspersions against the laity. Even if the Church cannot supply the proper matter, God provides as on the mountain when Abraham might have sacrificed Isaac.
-
-
Bishop Olmsted has, indeed, changed course. He will allow pastors to determine whether to distribute communion under both species.
http://www.catholicsun.org/2011/november/12/new-communion-norms.html -
In the Byzantine tradition there is a delightful story set in the days when monasteries did not have priests and daily Divine Liturgy.
A young postulant went into the village each day to attend Divine Liturgy, and brought back the blessed unconsecrated bread given out at the end of the liturgy. He so loved the Divine Liturgy that he would sing its words on his way back home. One day, the Holy Spirit, so enchanted by his singing and purity of heart, consecrated the bread.
At the same time an angel appeared to the deacon back at the monastery telling him to ring the bell to summon all the monks to Holy Communion.
A God who is enchanted by singing and purity of heart is more plausible than a God who is concerned about sulfites, etc.
-
Mary, why would it have to be an emergency? Why not consecrate potatoes and milk regularly?
Only comments with a full name will be approved.
Moderation and charity in all things is generally the best course. In other words, wheat bread and wine from grapes unless there is an overriding concern or problem. I suppose some would condemn this as situational ethics. Others would call it looking at the big picture!
-
I thank Karl for his comments; I too want to have pretty clear rules about what is to be used, and indeed, to use something other than bread except if there is nothing else, is wrong.
I’ve heard of a story of a Russian bishop (not RC and heir to the history Karl cites) in the camps keeping a crust of bread somehow, and who somehow found some raisins, soaked them in water, and used that water and the crust for the Liturgy. Surely the bread was mostly sawdust or something! How can that not be the Divine Liturgy?
I realise nobody, certainly not you Karl, would doubt that it was. But keeping such things in mind is good, so we don’t make rules and precise definitions into, well, idols.-
Raisin wine is valid matter, btw, in the Roman tradition. Had to be in pre-industrial times in the areas of northern Europe far from grapes and fresh grape wine.
My larger point is not the blow off the rules as mere suggestions or customs and not something that merits being deeply familiar with when one is charged with offering the Mass. I wish I could say that a certain ideological resistance to such knowledge were a thing of the recent past, but it’s alive and well and merits being confronted. I don’t think working back from hard hypotheticals is a useful exercise (indeed, it’s those very thought processes that *create* the fodder for scrupulosity – it’s amazing to me to see the Mobius strip quality of this dynamic where the poles meet each other without realizing it). I am an unapolegetic liturgical progressive. But I’ve been to the land of liturgical subjectivism, and it’s no paradise; the cure is worse than the disease.
-
by
Please leave a reply.