For those who have been in denial about the epidemic and pandemic producing common chalice, please no longer be in doubt and no longer quote outdated science to remain in your delusional denial.
This is an article from the National Catholic Reporter, and you can read the entire article in full by pressing the title.
But what I never thought about is how capitalism has promoted the common chalice as it concerns those who produce sacramental wine. I never thought of that before--its a money making scheme for them!
Money Quote:
Respiratory viruses can transmit from one person to the next as germs
are spread through the air, by touch and on surfaces, said Enbal
Shacham, a professor of public health at the St. Louis University
College for Public Health and Social Justice, the country's only
accredited Catholic school of public health.
With COVID-19 far more contagious and deadly than the flu or common
cold, the risk of transmission is greater, spurring public health
officials to recommend preventative measures like sanitizing surfaces,
limiting large gatherings, wearing masks and avoiding shared items,
including a cup.
"The major point of contact, from one mouth to the next mouth, it doesn't get very much more intimate than that," Shacham said.
39 comments:
There is a glaring issue of theology that I don't see anyone talking about -- and I'm not at all surprised the N"C"R article skips over this, because that outfit only pays attention to theology when it can serve its agenda. That is the problem of a significant portion of those attending Mass consciously refusing the chalice.
Nearly the entire point of offering the chalice at Mass is that it gives a "fuller" sign and tangible sense of the Eucharist. Note well: I'm not saying the Eucharist isn't "whole" and "full" under either form. This is about how we mere mortals grasp the reality of the sacrament through our own experience. But then let's remember: the reception of the Holy Eucharist isn't merely a private, individual thing, right? Right, progressive liturgists? And, this time I agree with the progressive liturgists. The Eucharist is the Body of Christ, obviously, and it also is the means whereby the Lord more perfectly forms his Mystical Body.
So, here's the problem: what exactly is the "sign value" of a very significant portion of those attending Mass bypassing the Precious Blood? I'm not talking about an occasional person, but lots of people. This has often been the case in many settings pre-Covid; does anyone dispute that after Covid, even more will be reluctant to drink from the chalice?
It seems to me that if you are all about the "fuller sign," then the best course is to provide only the Sacred Host (it's always possible to provide the chalice on an as-needed basis for those who can't receive a Host), because like it or not, the broad refusal of the chalice is an obvious, and very unfortunate, counter-sign. It is consistent with the very frequent misunderstanding expressed by the formulation, "The Eucharist and the Wine," as in, "Father will distribute the Eucharist while the Sally and Jim will be on the wings distributing the Wine." I'm not saying such good people consciously deny the Real Presence; I'm saying that a lot of Catholics don't quite get it.
And, after all, where is the groundswell of lay Catholics demanding the chalice back?
The truth is, most Catholics are content to receive the Sacred Host. I am all for a greater appreciation of the Precious Blood, and for grasping the fuller Eucharistic reality. But some other strategy needs to be pursued in that regard. In the meantime, satisfying the agenda-pushers isn't a good enough reason to bring back the distribution of the Precious Blood.
Or we could just try intinction?
Father Fox,
I seem to recall that there was a Vatican directive, it may have been in Pope Benedict's time, that suggested that the Precious Blood should be given in more limited circumstances. Is my memory faulty? FYI, I have NEVER taken the Precious Blood other than at my wedding where the priest offered it to only me and my wife (year: 1977)
What Fr. Fox is describing is, to me, a shortcoming of having options in the first place. When such an option is available, the communicant has the option to accept/participate in such an option or, reject/avoid participation. I think what's being suggested is we're either accepting our Lord in both forms or, rejecting on in favor of another.
In the Byzantine Churches, communicants have 1 option for the reception of holy communion: reception on a spoon from a priest. There isn't a proviso for either/or. Pre COVID, in the Byzantine Catholic Church, reception was from a common spoon with the consecrated elements being dropped into the communicants mouth. No contact with the spoon was ever normative. During COVID until the present, this norm was changed to reception via spoons (one per communicant) that would be sterilized between liturgies where communions was distributed, or on a wooden spoon that was burned/destroyed after liturgies where communion is distributed.
Perhaps in our COVID/variant world that isn't likely to go away anytime soon, intinction should become the norm in the Roman Church where distribution under both species is contemplated and where health concern wouldn't prevent a communicant from receiving this way. I suppose, in the Roman Church, distribution from the edge of the sanctuary, or safely behind the communion rail would protect against spillage.
Intinction, seems to me to solve both issues at hand.
When the most recent translation of the NO came out we had meetings on it to help people reorient to the Lost Mass. There was on fellow in particular, a zealous convert, who announced that he would leave the Church if he was ‘prevented’ from receiving both species. He and I discussed intinction and he seemed more confused than satisfied.
As a layman, and to Fr. Fox’ point, it would be less confusing and therefore more helpful to focus on the Host because the concept is difficult enough without insinuating some state of incompleteness with only one species. If we are going to innovate perhaps we could have a pipette to administer the Blood of Christ for parishioners with Gluten Drama Syndrome.
I did get angry reactions from some when the chalice was discontinued for various epidemics and the pandemic, but usually from converts from Protestant denominations.
I have had people tell me they want to receive Christ completely, not just His Body.
There is a fundamentalism here and with many modern liturgists. And try to tell them that at the Last Supper Jesus was speaking specifically to the newly ordained priests in front of Him, not to the many. Oh well...
If memory serves, we had about 50% of our communicants receiving the Precious Blood from the cups pre-Covid. I don't think that is an insignificant number.
I never thought of those who did not receive from the cup as being part of a "broad refusal" or a "counter sign." I don't think they are.
There are some who do not dip their fingers into the holy water at the doors as they enter or depart, some who never open their mouths in song, some who dart out immediately after receiving communion. I don't think any of them are "refusing" the efficacy of the signs they do not participate in or that they are somehow part of a negative "counter sign."
Lots of people for lots of reasons, from laziness to arthritis, don't participate in the fullness of the sign of genuflection. If you've served as pastor of a parish with a school, you know the kids have about a zillion different ways to genuflect - left knee, right knee, BOTH knees, fex-and-dash, Orthodox style sign of the cross especially in the Pre-K crowd.
"Orthodox style sign of the cross especially in the Pre-K crowd."
Ahh....innocent children instinctively know how to do this correctly.
Yes, but these pre-kindergarteners and kids older use their left hand to make the Sign of the Cross--how sinister!
Fr Kavanaugh
According to Redemptionis Sacramentum (para.102) the chalice should not be ministered to the congregation 'where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.' I would have thought that 50% of communicants represented a 'notable part'.
I used to frequent a cathedral where the chalice was routinely offered, and noticed that the take-up was about half (like your parish pre-Covid). Those who refused included those of Asian background, to whom presumably it isn't the norm, and those of a traditional bent. In the case of the latter it is a conscious decision; firstly they don't like handling the sacred vessels and object to EMs doing so, secondly the way the chalice is administered amounts to self-communication, and thirdly they are aware that theologically it isn't necessary for the laity to receive in both kinds.
John Nolan,
You are dealing with a leftwing ideologue who does not respect the wishes of the Faithful nor Tradition. He is an empty cassock and corrupt
John - I would say that "notable" is a completely unworkable term.
To some who are opposed to 1) communion in the hand and encourage intinction in order to prevent it, and 2) who think the use of the common cup is a) superfluous or b) the cause of plagues, only 2 out of 1000 would be considered "notable."
Fr K., 50% variation in anything is significant. I think John was resorting to British understatement (by half). Likewise, as the paster and spiritual leader it would seem worth knowing the reason so as to find a way to draw the parish into communion or support them in their decision.
TJM:
I am not able to answer your question comprehensively, however I am confident in my memory regarding the documents from or immediately after Vatican II, in which the sharing of the Precious Blood with the faithful was proposed more or less as you say, i.e., on special occasions.
John Nolan:
Thank you for citing that! I'd read that document some years ago, but I didn't recall that specifically. That states precisely what I was trying to say.
Fr Kavanaugh
RS was issued in 2004 by the CDWDS, then under Cardinal Arinze. It does not reprobate CITH or what you call the 'common cup'. Regarding the latter it issues some clear guidelines. A 'notable' proportion of communicants, given its terms of reference, is not 'unworkable' and your own figure of 50% (fully one half) would surely fit the bill.
There may be some people who believe that a figure of 2 in 1000 (0.2%) represents a significant or noteworthy proportion, but I haven't met any. Have you?
John - Is 49% notable? 39%? 29%? 19%? If there are 20 people at mass and 2 do not recieve from the common cup, that 10% would be, to almost anyone I have met, "notable." They would stand out like the proverbial sore thumbs.
I stand by my suggestion that "notable" is not workable.
For what it's worth, I don't buy into the 'sign of unity' meme. Whether or not an individual communicates is a matter of his or her interior disposition - and being in what used to be called 'a state of grace' is more important than doing what everyone else is doing. I can still recall my annoyance when, some twenty years ago, I was tapped on the shoulder by an officious sidesman to remind me to join the Communion queue - why did the fellow assume that I was properly disposed?
There are practical considerations which arise when the chalice is offered but a considerable number of communicants refuse it. A large quantity of the Precious Blood can be left over, and is consumed by whoever is administering the chalice, usually a female EMHC. Driving home she might well be over the alcohol limit, and I doubt that English law allows transubstantiation as a defence.
Fr. Fox -
I'm likely wrong, but, the "special occasion" that comes to me for me is Holy Thursday and perhaps Corpus Christi.
John Nolan:
While I don't much care for most "progressive" liturgical notions, I do think the emphases on the communal dimension of the liturgy, and on the unity of action, have their place. The problem with progressives is that they go all Barney Fife with his ticket book on the subject. It's really OK if someone prays the Rosary while at Mass, even if it isn't the best way to attend Mass.
I have been fascinated by discussions here and there about how Mass can be a challenge for those with autism or Aspergers, and lo and behold, guess what works for them? Low Mass. Not being poked and prodded to stand or sit, clap or respond. Folks in this situation like things quiet.
That said, it is appropriate to make the point that the liturgy is the action of the *whole* Christ, united with the Head, as expressed in the hierarchical structure of his Church.
Changing lanes without using one's blinker isn't the best way to do it, but it's really OK.
Never balancing your checking account isn't the best way to do it, but it's really OK.
It might be said that essential communal dimensions of the mass were overwhelmed when the focus was almost exclusively on the priest celebrant and what he said and did. The restoration of these elements was needed.
An example of the focus being almost exclusively on the priest celebrant and what he says or does was furnished by the video of Mass for Lent I from St Michael's Houston posted earlier this month. In this case it was exacerbated by the celebrant's histrionic style.
But what do you expect when you turn the celebrant into a 'presider'?
The focus on the priest celebrant at St. Michael's were caused by the presider's poor understanding of his role.
In the VAST majority of NO parishes, nothing of this sort takes place. Ever.
In the un-reformed mass, however, the focus on the priest celebrant is intentionally part and parcel of the liturgy. Each celebrant is expected, on pain of mortal sin, to follow the rubrics that make it so.
??????. Priests in the so called pre revised rite no where are 🤡 like as they are in the so called revised rite.
"??????. Priests in the so called pre revised rite no where are 🤡 like as they are in the so called revised rite."
Can I phone a friend for a translation here...?
Take the word "are" out of the equation and look up the emoji's meaning (hint: clown) and substitute that for the emoji and it makes perfect sense. F- for inability to decipher clear coded English.
Technically are should have read near. Understandable mistake.
Father K, says:
The focus on the priest celebrant at St. Michael's were caused by the presider's poor understanding of his role.
Were? Don't you mean "was" so-called expert in English?
Fr K.
Are you acquainted with what goes on in the 'vast majority' of parishes? And if so, how? Judging by what US parishes choose to post on YouTube the behaviour of the priest in Houston is not out of the ordinary; indeed he is probably on the more conservative end of the spectrum. I've seen a lot worse.
When you talk of 'focus', are you referring to what the congregation is focusing on, or what the liturgy focuses on? In the case of the former, if someone is facing you and addressing you in your native language, you naturally focus on him. Quite apart from what he says, you are bound to notice his appearance, accent and mannerisms.
In the case of what the liturgy should focus on, the answer is obvious - God. From what you have written, it would appear that you believe that the Roman Rite prior to its revision in 1964 was wrongly focused. What qualifies you to make such a judgement? It's not as if you have a great experience and understanding of the 'unreformed' Roman Rite.
Fr K obviously does not understand HIS role - he has stated here that he “improves” the texts. He is violating the mandate of Sacrosanctum Concilium and has set himself over the Council
John - Unlike you, I DO cross the street to attend the celebration of the Eucharist in NO parishes. I have attended mass in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Indiana, Illinois, Vermont, Massachusetts, Arizona, California, and a handful of European locations including England, France, Italy, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and Hungary.
Not once in my personal experience Have I encountered anything close to the silliness of the Houston scene. Not once.
The focus of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite was on what the priest did and said. The role of the congregation was almost entirely ignored. The focus in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is far less priest-centered and much more inclusive of the laity and their role in worshipping God, serving the community, and being evangelists for the Good News.
As for lacking "great experienc," I can tell you that I have never in my life used an illegal drug. Lacking totally any experience of such, I can tell you with utter confidence and authority that drug use is a devastatingly bad idea. Or, am I too lacking in experience to kow anything about that?
TJM
I wouldn't go that far. My beef is with people who 'improve' translations without referring to the original text. I was able to demonstrate that one of his tweakings changed the word order with a slight but perceptible detrimental effect, and another missed an important nuance.
There are one or two howlers in the 2011 translation and Fr Hunwicke has drawn attention to them. Presumably in time they will be corrected.
John Nolan,
As you know, there is an express statement in SC prohibiting any person from changing anything in the Mass on their own. I do recall your correction of Father K, with delight!
Fr K obviously lived on a different planet than the rest of us. In my youth the Missa Recitata and singing the Mass was in vogue. As I have mentioned here on this blog, I could chant by memory 5 settings of the Latin Ordinary by age 10. The priest was not the star of the show as he is with the OF. He was restrained by the rubrics. But most importantly the EF attendees believed in the Real Presence where barely a third of OF attendees do. Father K should be demanding the OF be suppressed since it is not fulfilling its essential purpose
Fr K,
Your post at 5:03 (27 March) reminded me so much of the Johnny Cash song 'I've been everywhere, man' that I laughed out loud. I can't believe that on your extensive peregrinations you have never encountered a priest who opened his arms wide to greet the assembly with a portentously declaimed 'The LORD ... be with ... YOU!' (The NO rubrics simply have 'manus extendens' - the sober traditional gesture in which the hands are extended but the elbows remain by the sides).
As for the drugs comment, I am minded to compile a compendium of your bizarre comparisons, starting with the infamous Sopwith Camel. A working title might be 'inapt analogies of a redneck priest'. Or is this too rude? I'm not au fait with transatlantic epithets and wouldn't want to cause unnecessary offence.
John - What you care to believe or not believe isn't worth a tinker's dam.
As for the drug comment, you said that because I had no great experiecne of the EF I was not in a qualified to make judgments about it. Well, I have no experience of using illegal drugs, but I and quite certain that you will agree that my judgment about their use - that it is a devastatingly bad idea - is entirely correct.
The analogy is appropriate.
Fr K. - A better analogy would be a person who delivers a damning critique of a book he hasn't read.
And John - You like to think that lack of experience is a impediment to reaching a legitimate judgment of the EF. You ought to apply the same qualification to yourself. I suspect you have not attended an NO mass in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Indiana, Illinois, Vermont, Massachusetts, Arizona, or California. Yet you find is "unbelievable" that I have not,"...encountered a priest who opened his arms wide to greet the assembly with a portentously declaimed 'The LORD ... be with ... YOU!'"
Have you been to an NO mass in any of those places? If not, how do you, lacking relevant experience, come to such conclusions?
Fr K.
It's not necessary to visit half the States of the Union to experience the NO vernacular Mass celebrated badly. There are plenty of examples even in this tight little island. In my experience, exaggerated gestures are not uncommon, especially among priests of a certain age. Youtube allows one to compare different parishes throughout the Anglophone world. Did you actually attend the Houston Mass? Or did you, like me, watch it on Youtube? It didn't stop either of us commenting adversely on it.
I saw what you saw of the Houston mass. That was our shared experience. We commented based on that experience.
You have not attended an NO mass in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Indiana, Illinois, Vermont, Massachusetts, Arizona, or California. Therefore you have NO NO experience in these places. Yet, you are rather certain of what my experience has been.
Interesting, that.
Post a Comment