ALL I CAN SAY IS GAAAROSSS!
Just think of all the hairy germs deposited on the chalice and its contents! You know this kind of thing drives me CRAZY!
From Fr. Z's blog:
QUAERITUR:
I have a fairly bushy mustache. I don’t feel comfortable receiving the Precious Blood as I sometimes get liquids on my mustache, my morning coffee is sometimes a chore.You can read Fr. Z's answer here. But just think about it, just visualize it, if you follow this guy in the Common Chalice queue!
That said, a friend said I was missing out on part of the sacrament, which I’m certain is untrue. However I am just doublechecking, should I go with a Boston Blackie mustache and receive under both species? Is there some sort of rubric or regulation about facial hair and the chalice?
18 comments:
QUAERITUR: Does priest saying Mass have the authority to say "We wont be using the common chalices at this Mass." Does the the parish priest have the authority to say "This parish wont be using the common chalices anymore." I don't normally receive from those common chalices, and think that intinction doesn't have to become the norm. What is wrong with my receiving simply Eucharist as the host, aside from not kneeling or receiving on the tongue?
Does priest saying Mass have the authority to say "We wont be using the common chalices at this Mass."
No, unless he is the pastor of the parish.
Does the parish priest have the authority to say "This parish wont be using the common chalices anymore."
Yes, understanding that "parish priest" is the equivalent of pastor.
What is wrong with my receiving simply Eucharist as the host, aside from not kneeling or receiving on the tongue?
Nothing. In the same what that there is nothing "wrong" if only the priest receives communion, or in the same way that there is nothing "wrong" if there is no music whatsoever.
For the ZILLIONTH time:
THE BODY AND THE BLOOD OF CHRIST ARE BOTH PRESENT IN THE HOST!
Catholics used to know this. We don't need 20 EMHC's scrambling to the altar and an additional 10 minutes to purify all the vessels if we just catechize the faithful and tell all of these laypeople to sit down.
For the ZILLIONth time.
We KNOW Christ the fully present under the form of bread or under the form of wine.
In the 30+ years of having EMHC's assist in the distribution, never once have I seen a single one of them "scramble" to the altar.
Never once in these 30+ years has the purification of the sacred vessels taken anywhere near "an additional 10 minutes."
Dear Anonymous:
Please get a dictionary (or google) and look up this word: HYPERBOLE.
Cletus - So you don't have to use your time to get a dictionary (or google), here's the definition of STRAW MAN: "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."
I'm not avoiding any argument nor am I thinking in terms of "defeating" or "losing". Save such considerations for middle schoolers.
My entire point is that this entire debacle of EMHC's marching up to the altar (Sorry--I'll be literal and say "walking") at every Mass and sticking their unconsecrated lay hands in the tabernacle and all over the chalices is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. If more Catholics actually understood and took to heart the reality of the consecration, this would not even be an issue.
Cletus - Your position is that the use of EMHC is a "debacle." Mine is that they are not.
Your position is that unconsecrated hands should not be allowed to touch the sacred species or even the sacred vessels. Mine is that, for hundreds of years, they did so, and no one complained.
The reality of the consecration is that the same sacrifice which Jesus offered on the Cross for our salvation is made present in the Mass in an unbloody manner, and that He is really present under the forms of bread and wine.
That "reality" does not preclude EMHC touching the sacred species or the sacred vessels.
Then i guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. Touching the Sacred Species and the vessels has, for centuries, been the privilege of the ordained. I am sure you are going to present us with some historical claim I am ignorant of, but that has always been my understanding, ignorant as I may be. The more people who are allowed to handle the most Sacred Treasure of the Church, the more casual everyone's attitudes begin to grow and, with casual attitudes come casual behaviors and the beginning of doubt. Father has posted several items here on the decline of Catholic belief in the real Presence. I call that a debacle. It is no secret that confession lines are a rarity in most parishes, while everyone goes up for Communion. Unless there has been a logarithmic jump in personal holiness, that means there are more and more sacrilegious Communions. To me, that's a debacle.
I am sure you will prove me wrong and I guess you will go on celebrating your "new springtime", but I must disagree. I see very little here to celebrate or not view as a debacle.
I would also remind us all that the "E" in EMHC stands for extraordinary. Let's face it, they have become all-too-ordinary. I don't call that a success.
What I WOULD call a success is more vocations, so that we don't have to call upon EMHC's so much. Then again, I think many of us have witnessed new young priests--the kind we've prayed for--trying to limit the use of EMHC's only to get smacked down by their liberal geriatric-type pastors. That's not success either. I won't say debacle--but it's nothing to celebrate.
WELL....
A hornets nest here. We use a good number of EHMCs as during our morning Masses, one of our priests is hearing confessions and another is at the nearby Hispanic mission saying Mass, and another may be leading an adult ed class. There are only so many clergy to go around. We usually also have a deacon assisting with the distribution of communion. I guess the Episcopalians have copied us---although they might use them less (proportionally) because they have no clergy shortage---just like they copied us by moving their altar to the center (facing the people). About 20 years ago, meeting an Episcopal bishop in Virginia, he credited Vatican 2 with a lot of their liturgical changes (like the shift from Morning Prayer to the Eucharist as the main Sunday worship).
As for Cletus calling for more vocations, why sure---we have dozens of seminarians studying for the Archdiocese of Atlanta, thought a lot of them likely will be replacing retiring priests, as opposed to a net gain of clergy.
Extraordinary doesn't have to mean "rare" or even "infrequent."
Inasmuch as the priest is the "ordinary" minister of communion, those lay men and women who, with dedication and dignity, assist in the distribution of the Sacred Species are "extraordinary" whether they function often or infrequently.
"What has always been my understanding" is something I am always willing to change when I realize that my understanding has been incomplete, unnuanced, or flat-out wrong.
Well, you've given us a great virtue-signaling philosophy for what to do when we realize that we are wrong. Fine and dandy. But you still have not explained how the privilege of the ordained--or should we say my "limited understanding" of it--is wrong.
Where is the doctrine - not your understanding or your experience - but the doctrine that only "consecrated hands" should be allowed to touch the Sacred Species and the Sacred Vessels?
Remember, rubrics aren't doctrine, long-standing practices aren't doctrine, personal preferences aren't doctrine.
I never claimed that rubrics were doctrine. What I have claimed is that deviating from them and/or changing them has not been good. If you are still unsure about WHY I don't believe it was a good idea, look at my previous posts.
As the matter is not doctrinal, I don't understand the importance you seem to attach to the practice of reserving the touching of the Sacred Species and Sacred Vessels to "consecrated hands" only.
Your previous posts seem to indicate that the use of EMHC's has been the cause of a decline in belief in and reverence for the Real Presence.
Do I understand correctly? And, if that is your position, what evidence can show the connection?
"We have to keep doing it this way because we have always done it this way" is, I would suggest, a very weak argument for maintaining any practice.
And putting words in someone's mouth is a very weak way to try to understand someone else's position. I am not out to "win" some debate with you, so I wish you would stop all of these "gotcha" style tactics. We don't "have to keep doing" anything a certain way. I would just point out that by making the Consecrated Species readily available for the laity to touch, the sense of awe, wonder and otherness has largely disappeared and led to a decline in reverence and a huge decline of belief in the Real Presence. That's what I have observed and that's what I think. As far as what we "have to do"...well, most Catholics seem to have gone the way of the Protestants and are doing whatever pleases them. I don't expect that to change any time soon.
BTW,
I am not entirely against Extraordinary Minsters of Holy Communion. I simply think they are overused for the wrong tasks.
Cletus - I said, "Your previous posts seem to indicate that the use of EMHC's has been the cause of a decline in belief in and reverence for the Real Presence."
I then said, "Do I understand correctly?"
So I wasn't putting words into your mouth.
Post a Comment