From a reader:
This "perspective" was published by the editor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, NY official newspaper. In all likelihood it will go unchallenged and the agony will continue, of which it seems, to be ridiculous articles week in and week out.
Christ’s feast curtailed
BY CHRISTOPHER D. RINGWALD
While traveling, my family attended a Mass where more than half the congregants took the wine at Communion. It contrasted happily [this is a professional writer?] with common practice. [And this statement reveals a lack of care in speaking about the Most Holy Eucharist. First, they "took" instead of received. Second, this is not "wine".]
Based on my periodic tallies, a minority of us receive both the Body and Blood of Jesus. [So it is the Blood of Christ?] With-out requiring it, the Church urges us to take both to better participate in the sacrament. To receive only the host reduces the sacrament. […!? … "reduces the sacrament". I see. Sooo… I am reminded of an answer received in seminary when seminiarns eventually complained about the nearly impossible to chew and swallow "substantial" bread in use. The incredible answer that came back from a priest… I am not making this up… "the longer you chew the more of a sacrament it is". Anyone see anything wrong with that?]
Christ did bless and share both the bread and wine. He represents God incarnate in human form, [Okay… this is just getting better and better. Christ represents God in human form. I think he is either a Arian or, perhaps a Docetist. Or both? Remember: this is the editor of a Catholic newspaper.] and we are made of both flesh and blood. To receive only the host is, to me, like eating food without tasting it, or akin to loving someone but never touching that person. Why deprive yourself? [Hmmm. Why indeed. I wonder to what other things we might apply that principle?]
Less acceptable is the large proportion of parishes that offer only the Body of Christ. To see the priest take the wine but not share it with all offends [OFFENDS] even schoolyard rules and violates the spirit of Vatican II. Yes, there may be reasons – flu, leftover wine, lingering Jansenism – but Christ’s love rolls over those. Don’t hold back: take and eat, take and drink.
This person is the editor of a Catholic newspaper?
Since this is the editor of the paper, should we conclude that the views expressed in this editorial are shared by the bishop who is its publisher?