Contagious threats to our physical health:
We already know that those liturgists, back in the day, late 60's early 70's, reminded reluctant Catholic communicants that there was no threat to their health from drinking from the Common Chalice shared with up to 20 or more communicants. They reasoned, based upon their science, that the alcohol content of the wine, and wiping the rim of the chalice and turning the "cup" as it was called, back in the day, would prevent communicants from getting a disease of some kind, like oral herpes.
Sterling silver or pure gold chalices would reduce the threat, but what parishes can afford up to 10 chalices like that? Most use cheap materials or materials that help spread contagion!
Of course, these liturgists, who in most things are proven wrong, were and are proven wrong today. We learned that when there was an epidemic of a particular kind of flu several years ago, prior to Covid. Because the common chalice and shaking of hands at Mass could exacerbate the epidemic, usually in the winter time, bishops demanded that the handshake of peace and the common chalice be eliminated. Good for them and common sense.
But, the Orthodox Churches and Eastern Rite equivalents, have always provided both the Species of Holy Communion to their lay communicants. Differing rites use differing methods, although none that I know of have several communicants drinking from the same "cup." Usually a spoon or even a glass straw are used. But the same problem of spreading germs and contagion exist.
Theologically, I agree that the laity receiving both Species of Holy Communion at Mass is beneficial for the communicant. I think the best way in the Latin Rite is through the proper used of intinction, where the minister of Holy Communion intincts the Host for those receiving, not the communicant.
I am thrilled that because of Covid, when priests concelebrate Mass, especially with their bishop, that the concelebrants now intinct their Host rather than drinking from the Common Chalice. When this change occurred, due to Covid, in my diocese our bishop intincted his Host too. I thought that was wrong. That the celebrant of the Mass must drink from his chalice and not share it with anyone else. Other chalices should be available for the concelebrants to intinct their Host.
Contagious threats to the Liturgy in the Latin Rite:
Having the common chalice available means multiple more Communion Ministers. At a parish where I assist that means 12 Eucharistic Ministers ascend to the altar at the Lamb of God. It is confusing as to who is the Host Minister and Who are the chalice ministers. And sometimes someone doesn't show up and there is a chalice or ciborium left with no communion minister to take it!
It is liturgical chaos at what should be a very solemn moment! That is a threat to the Latin Rite Liturgy and the reverence due to it!
Then after Communion, only a priest or a deacon or an officially installed acolyte are allowed to purify the vessels. They must drink the ablutions. Doing this at Mass takes an inordinate amount of time. This is another threat to the Latin Rite Liturgy.
10 comments:
"...reminded reluctant Catholic communicants that there was no threat to their health..." IF that was said, and I doubt it, it was incorrect. The question is how MUCH of a threat. The answer is: Minimal, when the practice of wiping and turning the cup is used.
Ah, "Common Sense." It is NOT common sense to worry about things that CAN happen, but are very, very unlikely to happen. You can be struck by lightning even when the sky above you is clear. Do you, therefore, let your worry keep you inside?
"That the celebrant of the Mass must drink from his chalice and not share it with anyone else." Where can I find this regulation?
As for "liturgical chaos," please recall that we are humans. Errors happen. Sometimes the tabernacle key is not placed in the lock. Chaos? Hardly. Sometimes a lector reads the wrong reading. Chaos? Hardly. An altar server may forget to ring the bells at the elevation. Chaos? Hardly.
I could be wrong, but, I understand that a Roman priest must consume the precious blood, hence the sacrifice is concluded. I suppose any focus might center upon drink vs consume.
There will be chaos if chaos isn't mitigated. That's a management issue.
Agree, errors happen. I'm about certain I inadvertently chanted the incorrect epistle once during Divine Liturgy when the breeze from opened windows turned the pages of my opened book without me realizing what had happened (I'm usually surrounded by the books that I need). The floor didn't split open. You just keep moving forward.
One other thing, I'am a big fan of tape flags to mark pages when I am asked to serve as cantor. They don't do any damage that's visible to me and it eliminates the possibility of chanting the incorrect epistle.
I'm also a big fan of a binder with plastic sleeves to insert propers for a given day and other parts of Divine Liturgy/optional settings as well as other services like panachida (memorial for the deceased). I learned this from a very experienced cantor and have done since. You get organized and stay that way as in the East, cantors chant the responses/propers/epistle (where there isn't a Reader) etc. You have to be organized to not delay the liturgy by fumbling.
Theologically, when one receives under either species, one receives the complete Christ (body, blood, soul and divinity). There is no theological "benefit" for laity to receive both species. There may be a psychological benefit, but not a theological one.
Perhaps a “Liturgical” or Symboloc” benefit would be more accurate.
Add to that "liturgical" or "symbolic" benefit a spiritual benefit. Most Catholics I know do not live in the realm of what benefits them "theologically." If so, we might be more inclined to wonder about the "theological" benefit of carrying a canopy over the Blessed Sacrament in procession, of replacing bells with clappers in Lent, or of burying St. Joseph in the yard in order to sell real estate.
At my wife’s Episcopal church, the priest intincts the Host and then distributes it to the communicant who is typically kneeling at the altar rail.
Why not intinct? I cannot see the harm, only benefit for those who, rationally or irrationally, might be anxious about receiving from the common chalice.
Why not offer the option of kneeling to receive for those who wish to do so (for example, by providing kneelers if there is no altar rail)? Again, I cannot see the harm, only benefit for those for whom this particular gesture of reverence is spiritually meaningful.
Mark J.
If parishioners did have the idea drummed into their heads that Communion under one species is deficient they would not be concerned with the symbolic and recognize that they are still receiving the whole body, blood, and divinity of our Lord under the one species, as did countless generations before them. It should be noted that Vatican II envisioned Communion under both species only in a limited number of special circumstances, not as a general rule.
Anthony - If we are not to be concerned with the symbolic, then we will promptly do away with altar candles, images of saints, highly ornate altarpieces, even the magnificent Ghent example, embroidered images of the Sacred Heart on chalice palls, etc.
You see, ALL of these - and hundreds of other examples in our churches - are symbolic.
You would do well to review a fundamental Sacramental theology text which speaks to the incarnational aspects of the Catholic faith. Note also the Catholic Catechism on liturgy paying particular attention to CCC 1145: "A sacramental celebration is woven from signs and symbols. In keeping with the divine pedagogy of salvation, their meaning is rooted in the work of creation and in human culture, specified by the events of the Old Covenant and fully revealed in the person and work of Christ."
Anthony,
Your citation of Vatican II contradicts the Spirit of the Council. Cardinal Roche and Bishop Viola will pay extra attention to the bulletins of the parish you attend.
Nick
Post a Comment