US Catholic gets nutty about Bp. Olmsted of Phoenix and Communion under both kinds

US Catholic ‘s Bryan Cones became a little hysterical about Bp. Olmsted’s decision to apply the Church’s laws concerning Communion under both kinds in the Diocese of Phoenix.

As I understand it, the 1975 edition of the Missale Romanum gave 14 instances when Communion could be distributed under both kinds.  Since 1975 in some regions – including the USA – experimental privileges, not rights, were granted for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds. These privileges, not rights, expired in 2005.  These privileges, not rights, were not renewed by the Holy See.  Therefore the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) for the 3rd edition of the Missale Roman and the 2011 Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds for the Dioceses of the United States of America are now to be applied.  However, diocesan bishops can to a certain extent lawfully establish other instances, such as important local feasts, etc., for Communion under both kinds.  This is what Bp. Olmsted intends to do.  He will implement the Church’s law.

This is how Mr. Cones reacted.  First, the title of his piece.

Truthiness in Phoenix about communion from the cup
Thursday, September 22, 2011
By Bryan Cones

Truthiness” (I had to look it up) suggests Mr. Cones is writing for aficionados of Comedy Central.   Indeed, his schtick does produce some chuckles.

This next bit, however, is not funny.

(Note that Cones writes in absolutes: “deeply … incredibly… narrow…. utterly… universal…. entire… every.”   Tiring.

The deeply dishonest q&a provided by the diocese–basically a collection of half-truths–provides an incredibly narrow reading of church law on this matter, utterly disregarding the universal practice of the ancient church [Noooo.] (still the practice of the Eastern Catholic churches), which was that the entire assembly received the eucharist under both kinds at every celebration of the eucharist.

Cones says that Bp. Olmsted and his staff in Phoenix are liars (“dishonest… half-truths”).

Furthermore, and let the comedy begin, Cones thinks Latins ought to be more like Eastern Catholics.

I love it when Latin liberals cite Eastern Catholic practices!

My understanding is that Eastern Catholics do not receive the Eucharist every time they attend the Divine Liturgy.  Am I wrong?

Eastern Catholics only rarely admit women to read at Divine Liturgy.  They still have the subdiaconate.  The congregation can’t see what is going on because clergy shut the doors on them. They have unaccompanied chant without guitars. There is no Communion in the hand… ehvurrrr.

Yah!  Bring it on!  Let’s be like our Eastern brothers! Oh yes, and sisters… because women play a huge role in the governance of Eastern Churches.

The East! That’s the ticket!  Maybe they don’t have guitars and saxophones – as in the Papal Mass in Berlin – but the priests do have spiffy hats!  Eastern bishops wear crowns! Ad Orientem!

But I digress.  Let’s skip down to another bit in Mr. Cone’s piece.

This decision is no less than an abuse of power by the bishop, a withdrawal from the faithful what they have a right to by their baptism. (Yes, baptized people have a right, in canon law, to the eucharist in its fullest form.) It may be that reception of the bread alone is “sufficient,” [I should think it is more than "sufficient" considering that the Host alone is the Body, Blood, soul and divinity of Christ, whole and entire.] but I haven’t the foggiest idea why we should settle for “sufficient” when we can have the fullness of the eucharistic symbol.

Perhaps Mr. Cones is under the impression that he receives “more Eucharist” by receiving under both kinds. Dunno.  In any event, Cones should be getting worked up over what the Holy See and all the bishops of the USCCB have issued, not over what Bp. Olmsted is doing.

No.  Bp. Olmsted is not a bully and people don’t have a right to Communion under both kinds all the time.  Which canon in the 1983 Code gives people the right to Holy Communion under both kinds?

Holy Church determines how the sacraments are received, not individuals.  The Church has determined that there are some occasions when it can be done, others when it cannot.

Another point.

Isn’t it interesting how an experiment in a trial period becomes the norm?  How a temporary option becomes the iron-bound obligation of the ages?

The conditions for Communion under both kinds were matters for a test period.  Communion under both kinds is now assumed, by some, to be an absolute right all of the time.  On the other hand, conditions for the use of the Extraordinary Form are not matters of experimentation or a test period.  The provisions of Summorum Pontificum, clarified in Universae Ecclesiae, are not temporary trial runs.  They are actual laws for the whole Latin Church.  Stable groups have the right to make a request and pastors have an obligation personally to respond positively or to find another way to see to their needs.

If Cones and US Catholic are so concerned about rights and celebration of the Eucharist in ways that are centuries old, when they show the same high dudgeon when stable groups of the faithful are denied the Extraordinary form by their pastors?

When stable groups are straight-armed by their priests and bishops, will US Catholic and Mr. Cones write pieces saying that the excuses for not celebrating the Extraordinary Form are – just how did Cones put it again? – a “collection of half-truths” providing “an incredibly narrow reading of church law on this matter, utterly disregarding the universal practice of the ancient church”?

When Catholics are forced to the back of the bus because of their desire for the Extraordinary Form, or for the Ordinary Form in Latin and with Gregorian chant as Sacrasanctum Concilium mandated, will Mr. Cones come to their aid?  When a bishop denies Catholics their legitimate aspirations for traditional, abuse-free liturgical worship in either Form will Mr. Cones write in US Catholic that it’s – just how did he put it again? – “an abuse of power by the bishop”?

But let’s move on.

Let’s consider for a moment basic conditions for Communion under both kinds, even during the period since 1975.  The foundational conditions, before any others are considered, require that:

  • The faithful have been well instructed (especially on the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist), and
  • There is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants, or for some other reason.

Don’t those conditions apply to any manner of reception of Communion, under both kinds or just one?

I wonder what might result from a brief quiz of the congregants participating at Masses where Communion under both kinds has been the practice for a while. After all, isn’t the “fullness” supposed to be… what… edifying? Instructive?  Shouldn’t we be able to argue that a long experience of Communion under both kinds has made congregations more devout?  Better Catholic Christians?  More eager to receive in a worthy manner and to give witness to their Faith in their lives?

It would be interesting to hear these congregants explain their understanding of the Church’s teachings about the Eucharist, or about what Mass is.  It would be interesting to know if they have been to confession lately.  It would be interesting to know if married couples receiving under both kinds are also using contraception.  I would be fascinating to learn if anyone receiving under both kinds for a long time now dissents from any defined teachings, or can even explain what a “sacrament” is.

Perhaps we should promote worthy reception of the Eucharist rather than froth about reception under both kinds.

Given what Bp. Olmsted has been doing, I’ll wager that Phoenixians are coming to a clearer, not fuzzier, understanding of the Church’s teachings and practices about a wide range of matters important to our Catholic identity in an ever more secular society.  You have to know your Faith and practices before you can live and observe them.

Long-time lax catholics may not enjoy the resection and sutures Doctor Olmsted is applying, but, as St. Augustine once preached, a doctor doesn’t stop cutting just because the patient screams for him to stop (cf. s. 80, 3).

In any event, I’ll bet Bp. Olmsted is losing sleep because Mr. Cones and US Catholic think he is a dishonest abuser of power.  I have just sent His Excellency a “Say The Black – Do The Red” coffee mug as a consolation.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, SESSIUNCULA, SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM, The Drill, Throwing a Nutty, Universae Ecclesiae and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to US Catholic gets nutty about Bp. Olmsted of Phoenix and Communion under both kinds

  1. Fredo says:

    The GIRM as presently found in the 2nd edition of the Roman Missale in no. 242 states the following after it lists the 14 times communion can be offered under both kinds:

    Further, the conferences of bishops have the power to decide to what extent and under what considerations and conditions Ordinaries may allow communion under both kinds in other instances that are of special significance in the spiritual life of any community or group of the faithful.

    Within such limits, Ordinaries may designate the particular instances, but on condition that they grant permission not indiscriminately but for clearly defined celebrations and that they point out matters for caution. They are also to exclude occasions when there will be a large number of communicants. The groups receiving this permission must also be specific, well-ordered, and homogeneous.

    The new Translation of the GIRM is less restrictive (it does not say “on condition that they grant permission not indiscriminately) when it comes to how frequently the local ordinaries can allow for “other instances” by which the fuller sign of communion is given to the faithful under both species. The 2011 GIRM refers to the June 2011 edition of the USCCB document on communion under both kinds and instructs that those guidelines are to be followed. The new USCCB document does not impose any restrictions as to when a Bishop can allow a pastor of a given church in his Diocese to offer the Chalice to the faithful provided that they have been properly catechized. Thus it would seem that any Bishop in the States can now licitly write up a document for their Diocese by which communion is given frequently under both kinds, that is, even daily or in a more restrictive sense as in the Diocese of Phoenix. Both pastoral decisions are possible under the law even though I do not believe it is the intention of the Holy See that communion under both kinds become a daily routine but that its use be properly extended where Bishops deem it advisable.

    I for one prefer the policies put in place in Phoenix and hope that more Bishops will follow Bishop Olmsted’s courageous example.

  2. Alan Aversa says:

    God bless Bp. Olmsted! He was similarly attacked awhile ago for prohibiting glass chalices and demanding gilded ones in his diocese.

    [Don't fall into the trap that Cones fell into. It is not Bp. Olmsted who prohibits those. They are prohibited by the Church's legislation. Check Redemptionis Sacramentum. Bp. Olmsted is implementing the law, not imposing his own rules.]

  3. Dr. K says:

    Whatever sells magazines, right Mr. Cones?

    If it is indeed true that this experimentation period was not renewed by the Vatican, then I’d like to see more bishops follow suit as soon as possible. Really drive those libs crazy!

  4. jbas says:

    “2011 Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds for the Dioceses of the United States of America”. I’ve never heard of this before (grated, it’s new) and cannot find it anywhere online. I would love to read it.

  5. tjboudreaux says:

    Were I to speculate on Mr. Cones’ real problem, it is that he believes that the laity are entitled to participate in mass in the same manner as the priest, and feels that limiting the laity to one form, while a priest receives both, shows that the laity is not equal to the priesthood.

    Someone would do well to explain to Mr. Cones that we are equal in the dignity of our personhood, not role.

    [Has he written anything like that somewhere else? To be sure he does seem, in paragraph I didn't quote, to play the "class warfare" card, but I don't want to read too much into that.]

  6. mike cliffson says:

    You said it, Fr.:
    “Perhaps we should promote worthy reception of the Eucharist rather than froth about reception under both kinds.”
    At least,God knows I don’t go to confession enough myself,and God forgive me being judgemental, I don’t know particular cases, but I can’t physically see how many people who communicate every Sunday are going at all ever.Nor understand they should.

  7. Subdeacon Joseph says:

    As a priest of the Byzantine Rite I would like to offer a few insights.

    First would be that Fr. Z is correct that not every one communes at a Divine Liturgy. One still has to be properly prepared through confession, fasting, and prayer.

    While women may read the epistle, this almost never occurs because 1) most parishes have a tonsured reader (only a male), and 2) women cannot enter the altar to receive the blessing to read the epistle. Thus if a women does read the epistle the rubrics are changed in that the priest must leave the altar and come to the amvon to bless the female reader . It is done, but it is rare. [Interesting. Thanks for that!]

    An honest question would be what has the greater practice been in Rome throughout history in regards to receiving Holy Communion? To my knowledge it has been to receive under one species. Where is the problem in keeping with this western tradition? In the Byzantine Rite we have people with wheat allergies who only receive the blood. They get the same amount of divinity. This argument holds no water, or shall I say wine.

    I guess my only critique of Bp. Olmstead would be why is he issuing the chalice on certain feasts. He certainly is within his right to do this, but, it would seem that if he wants to make the change just do it, and be fully consistent. There is no need for special chalice days. I would also end the laity receiving the Eucharist in the hand because of its ability to be abused. To those who do not like it let it be an ascetical endeavor of obedience to their archpastor. Oh wait obedience to one’s bishop is rarely considered anymore, but I digress.

    Lastly, the East must be the East, and the West must be the West. I stand for the West being the West.

  8. Dear in Christ Fr. Joseph,

    In the Russian Church women who often read the epistle come to the Deacon door to receive the blessing from the priest. Frankly there could be no objection to using intinction, which would preclude the use of lay distributors, and keep more intact the sacramental wholeness of the Mystical Banquet. Unfortunately while in Sicily some years ago I attend divine liturgy in the Cathedral of Piana degli Albanesis, and was horrified to see young girls wearing stichars almost lounging in the Holy Place.

  9. JohnRoss says:

    I don’t understand the problem many Latin Catholics have with the idea of intinction, which is the norm in the Eastern Churches and in the Anglican Use.

    Besides, intinction would make communion in hand less desirable.

  10. Subdeacon Joseph says:

    Dear Fr. Gregory,

    I have no problem with intinction. I would agree to receive under both kinds is desirable. I simply do not want to seem presumptuous in telling the west what to do according to their tradition as an Orthodox priest, because I do not like what the west always presumed to tell Byzantine Catholics for the greater part of the unia. I find it best not to try and emulate each other.

  11. jfk03 says:

    I am a Byzantine Catholic. I attend a parish of the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church. “Extraordinary” ministers of the Eucharist are unknown in our tradition. The faithful receive both the Body and Blood of Christ on a spoon, from a large chalice held by the priest. This tradition is common with all the Byzantine churches, both Orthodox and Catholic, to the best of my knowledge. There are instances, however, where people with wheat allergies and infants receive the Blood of Christ from the same spoon.

    This is not the “intinction” that is occasionally practiced in the Latin Church. (On one occasion, in Mexico, I observed the priest dip the Host in the sacred Chalice before administering both species to the faithful, on the tongue.)

    I agree that East is East and West is West. Most Eastern Catholics I know are somewhat put off by Eucharistic practices in the Latin Church, particularly the abundance of Eucharistic ministers and the tradition of denying the Holy Mysteries to infants and children. That does not mean we are right, or the Latin Church is wrong. It means that we come from a different tradition, essentially Orthodox in liturgical practices.

  12. Tom Esteban says:

    I was going to comment on topic… but I won’t bother. I want to remain charitable to Mr.Cones.

    I have looked through all his articles. I just don’t understand. I really don’t. Sigh.

    God Bless Bishop Olmsted.

  13. Nicole says:

    I am not an expert on the Eastern Catholic Rites, but to my knowledge they do not take the chalice in their hands and drink from it. My understanding was that they either communicate by intinction or by the sacred species from the chalice being put into a small spoon and into their mouths (as in the case of infants). I have seen intinction done in Latin parishes, but not as a rule by any means. I have always wondered, however, why people who take the chalice in their hands “feel” the need to communicate twice…? Intinction is not quite the same, because the man only communicates once but under both species at the same time.

    I know that my experience growing up in a pseudo-catholic family receiving the Holy Eucharist from the chalice was treated like a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood, but in a very profane and sacrilegious way. I had no notion that the sacred species in the chalice was no longer the substance of wine, but rather Christ, really, truly and substantially present. I grew up thinking that I was now getting to drink wine like the adults drink wine at the dinner table. Sad story, I know, but it’s the truth.

    Poor Bishop Olmsted. I feel somewhat akin to him since his hometown is where I now live. He seems to be getting a few bits of bad press these days; first with that abortion at one of his hospitals causing him to reduce it from its Catholic status…and now this article. Well…I personally don’t find any good reason to judge his prudential judgment bad…especially if he’s obeying the regulations basically set down by the Pope…more power to him!

  14. Charles E Flynn says:

    The term “truthiness” was brought back from obscurity by Stephen Colbert:
    Truthiness, by Ben Zimmer.

  15. mrose says:

    Fr. Z, thank you for pointing out the absurd contradictions in Mr. Cones’ piece.

    Would that we have more shepherds akin to His Excellency Bp. Olmstead. Many positive things seem to be coming out of the Diocese of Phoenix.

  16. JoAnna says:

    I’m a parishioner in the Diocese of Phoenix, and the local news rag, the Arizona Repugnant Republic, had similar groan-inducing headlines – “Bishop Denies Wine to Catholics,” for example. Thank God, Fr. Hans devoted a good portion of his homily today to explaining why the change was being made, some of the practical reasons for doing so, and why anti-Catholic newspapers are a poor source for Catholic doctrine. (The rest of his homily was devoted to explaining some of the new changes to the Missal.)

    God bless him, & Bp. Olmsted!

  17. benedetta says:

    Agree with what Nicole said.

    And, if we are going to be going the route of the ancient Christians, and why not really, then, there are numerous other areas requiring delving into. At the same time though I do not fancy myself in receiving the sacrament as something of a historical re-enactor. If that is the point then we ought to all come to the church, dressed, accordingly?

  18. Scott W. says:

    Why doesn’t he get it over and just re-post 19th-centtury anti-Catholic propaganda? Like: http://www.bettnet.com/gallery/anticatholic/image/cup2.jpg

  19. I had no idea that the permission for Communion under both species was temporary and had expired. I guess that says it all about what’s been going on in my diocese.

  20. jrpascucci says:

    The decree of the Council of Constance, session 13, June 15, 1415: Here.

    I think this decree is apropos: Therefore, since this custom was introduced for good reasons by the church and holy fathers, and has been observed for a very long time, it should be held as a law which nobody may repudiate or alter at will without the church’s permission. To say that the observance of this custom or law is sacrilegious or illicit must be regarded as erroneous. Those who stubbornly assert the opposite of the aforesaid are to be confined as heretics and severely punished by the local bishops or their officials or the inquisitors of heresy in the kingdoms or provinces in which anything is attempted or presumed against this decree, according to the canonical and legitimate sanctions that have been wisely established in favour of the catholic faith against heretics and their supporters.

    All that being said, I am generally a proponent of the worthy reception communion under two species as being a more full symbol of the sacrament, with the Church’s gracious permission. (So, I’m saying here that the species themselves are sacraments, and the reception of both is a more complete better symbol, but that the reception of one suffices for all things in terms of the grace given and merit received). But under no circumstances could it by any stretch be considered a right of the laity and prudence, in perhaps most instances, might dictate reception of one form only. That proposition has kept coming up from heretics who placed themselves outside of Communion for other reasons through the Church throughout her history – invariably associated with a functionally protestant misunderstanding of the priesthood, I think.

    Heresy is always old and boring, it’s orthodoxy that is ever new.

  21. DetJohn says:

    Re: Eastern Rite Catholics receiving Holy Communion every time the attend the liturgy.

    I attend Maronite and two Byzantine parishs on a regular basis. Most times everyone present recieves Communion at all three locations. All three have a stable attendance at the liturgy.

    The Italo-Byzantines in Las Vegas, Nv. and the Melkite-Byzantines in Covina, Ca each have 40 t0 50 at their liturgy and the Maronites of West Covina, Where I am a parishoner, have 150 to 200 attending each Sunday.

  22. ejcmartin says:

    Mr. Cones could simply move to Canada. The information from the CCCB gushes about the preference of receiving and two kinds.

  23. RichardT says:

    I think I read once that the Council of Trent explained that receiving under both kinds was forbidden because otherwise people would think that receiving just the Bread was a second-rate, less complete way of Communion.

    From the article quoted above, it seems they were right.

  24. I’m a parishioner at the Cathedral in Phoenix, and Fr. Lankeit commented on this at about 69:45 in the closing comments of the mass today: http://www.faithandlifetv.com/CustomContentRetrieve.aspx?ID=1156111 (Also, he began an 8 week catechesis on the new translation today, really excellent if you have the time to listen.)

  25. racjax says:

    I have been meaning to post a query about the difference between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic communion practices. My Copt Orthodox husband INSISTS that both forms must be taken because the wine represents the covenent. I retort with the “redundancy” argument. How CAN I get the point over to him that both forms are not necessary and that “his way” is not superior??? ;)

  26. priests wife says:

    grrrr…I LOATHE it when people use eastern pracitces like this to convince the West to change…probably it is because we are so small, they can ‘use’ us because most people will never visit us and see- wow…they might have both species, but BOY are they conservative

    Fr Z- lay people can see what is going on through Byzantine icon screens- orthodox are pretty solid, however

    racjax—I need to learn about the Copts, but come on, tell him to be charitable to both traditions- and God is NOT separate even when we can see two species

  27. priests wife says:

    Isn’t one good reason to have ‘only’ the Body of Christ in the Roman rite so that there will be less need for Extraordinary Eucharistic Minsiters? Maybe that is the reason for the backlash

  28. Michael J. says:

    If Mr. Cones wants to return to the days of past, how about public confessions and public penances? Venerable Pope Pius XII warned us about certain subjects in his Encyclical Mediator Dei of 1947, and I think he was very prophetic. Born in 1972, I was one of the groups of P.S.R. students (our name for C.C.D.) that received a very sub-par religious education. Fortunately, by the Grace of God, I have since learned more about the Catholic Faith, and now only attend the Extraordinary Form of Mass, authorized by the Pope, Bishop, and Pastor. Along with a few other Catholic practices, including the Rosary, and The Confraternitas Sancti Petri, I credit the Extraordinary Form of Mass with helping me to keep my Faith.

  29. Nicole says:

    I just found this tonight in the Council of Trent, 21st Session:

    Chapter IV.

    That Little Children Are Not Bound to Sacramental Communion.

    Finally, this same Holy Synod teaches, that little children, who have not attained to the use of reason, are not by any necessity obliged to the Sacramental Communion of the Eucharist: forasmuch as, having been regenerated by the laver of Baptism, and being incorporated with Christ, they cannot, at that age, lose the grace which they have already acquired of being the sons of God. Not therefore, however, is antiquity to be condemned, if, in some places, it, at one time, observed that custom; for as those most Holy Fathers had a probable cause for what they did in respect of their times, so, assuredly, is it to be believed without controversy, that they did this without any necessity thereof unto salvation.

    On Communion under Both Species, and on the Communion of Infants.

    Canon I. If anyone saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the Most Holy Sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema.

    Canon II. If anyone saith, that the Holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be anathema.

    Canon III. If anyone denieth, that Christ whole and entire – the Fountain and Author of all graces – is received under the one species of bread; because that – as some falsely assert – He is not received, according to the institution of Christ Himself, under both species; let him be anathema.

    Canon IV. If anyone saith, that the Communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema. As regards, however, those two articles, proposed on another occasion, but which have not as yet been discussed; to wit, whether the reasons by which the Holy Catholic Church was led to communicate, under the one species of bread only, laymen, and also priests when not celebrating, are in such wise to be adhered to, as that on no account is the use of the chalice to be allowed to anyone soever; and, whether, in case that, for reasons beseeming and consonant with Christian charity, it appears that the use of the chalice is to be granted to any nation or kingdom, it is to be conceded under certain conditions; and what are those conditions: this same Holy Synod reserves the same to another time, – for the earliest opportunity that shall present itself, – to be examined and defined.

  30. Brad says:

    Mr. Cones’s mind has been altered by the agitprop on “comedy central” e.g. Colbert (Catholic?), Jon Stewart (born Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz), and the always lovely Bill Maher. He is wink winky writing to those who have also had their minds altered.

  31. tjboudreaux says:

    While my original comment was speculation, Father Z’s comments in red made me feel that I should do some digging, to either validate my suspicions, or give reason to recant my public statement of them.

    In so doing, I have definitely at least found underpinnings that show the attitude in which I was suspicious of, most notably in this article in which Mr. Cones is quoted as saying

    But more importantly, I’m tired of the endless canonizations of priests and nuns, priests and nuns. Can we not find a single example of heroic virtue among the other 99 percent of the baptized? Even the one married couple JPII canonized among the legions of priests and religious became celibate.

  32. Ryan M says:

    One aspect that surely comes into play is this statement:

    I haven’t the foggiest idea why we should settle for “sufficient” when we can have the fullness of the eucharistic symbol.

    Flannery O’Connor’s statement comes to mind, but more than that even, his viewpoint is easily understood when this statement is made. If it’s just a symbol and not a sacrament, then yes, reception under both species is better and more meaningful than one. The only problem with this viewpoint is that it’s not right.

  33. THREEHEARTS says:

    My Goodness!! What value does the Council of Trent have? Is it worthless now? “Under either kind alone” is this phrase obviously not understood but also too old to be true??

  34. THREEHEARTS says:

    I apologize for some reason this did not get posted. One reason for extra to the ordinary minister becoming acceptable was it took too much time with only priests communing. Then they cut out more time by adding the Offering from the chalice. Liberals and others are not known for their logic

  35. Nicole says:

    THREEHEARTS: :)

    Anywhere the Pope’s infallible magisterium is exercised stands for all people, at all places, in all times. That includes whether he’s convoked, celebrated or confirmed an Ecumenical Council, or a special synod of Bishops, or merely teaching on his own. So…Parts of the Council of Trent are applicable even today, such as the Canons and other things which are taught EX CATHEDRA… :)

  36. Fr. Thomas Kocik says:

    Greatest line: “Perhaps we should promote worthy reception of the Eucharist rather than froth about reception under both kinds.” Of all the possible “reforms of the reform,” I believe the one most urgently needed is the revocation of the indult to receive Holy Communion in the hand — more urgent, even, than a return to “ad orientem” worship (though that’s right up there, too). Let us return to reception kneeling and on the tongue — and not only when receiving from the Supreme Pontiff. Communion is supposed to be one of the most deeply prayerful moments of the Mass. Yet what do I observe Sunday after Sunday? Kids nudging and talking to one another in line as they approach the sanctuary to receive Communion… the usual “body snatchers”… people not putting the Host into their mouths right away… almost no heads bowed in prayer and recollection upon returning to their pews after receiving… unbelievable commotion — all this, despite my frequent exhortations on reverence, proper dispositions, etc. before Mass as well as orthodox preaching. It doesn’t work. I can preach on the Real Presence until I’m blue in the face, Sunday after Sunday, day after day, but until the norm once again is to receive kneeling and on the tongue only, such preaching is in vain. The “body language” is much more effective. While one can receive reverently while standing (as has always been the case in the Eastern churches), kneeling at a rail allows the recipient time to focus as well as time to make a quick thanksgiving before returning to the pew.

  37. Denise says:

    Mr. Cones might want to check with those of us in the Diocese of Arlington. We have been receiving the Host exclusively for years and years. Those with gluten issues do receive only the Precious Blood. Our faith is intact, vibrant, and growing. Bishop Olmsted’s decision is not a catastrophe. Relax.

  38. irishgirl says:

    Father Thomas Kocik-you said it, echoing Father Z’s words! I agree with you totally!
    I felt very sorry for you as I read your comment. You sure have a lot to put up with in regards to lack of reverence at Holy Communion.
    I support you and all good long-suffering priests with my poor prayers.
    Oh, and God Bless Bishop Olmstead in Phoenix! Another one of our ‘good shepherds’!
    And ‘boo-hoo’ to Mr. Cones and ‘US catholic’! He ought to go back and learn something of the Faith instead of taking potshots!

  39. Elijahmaria says:

    Fr. Thomas Kocik:

    I fully agree with and support your recommendation. To that I would commend the Church universal to more rigorous fasting in general and in particular for Eucharistic preparation, along with a good confession.

    Mr. Cones recommends the eastern rites and rituals as examples. He would be loathe, profoundly, to extend himself or his fellow Catholics to the ministrations of Orthodox fasting, and frequent confession, but without that constant attention to the Eucharistic presence in our daily lives: we have nothing: and nothing is nothing regardless of species: and Eucharist is empty unless we know intimately who we receive by communing in real love and genuine gratitude.

    I returned to the Catholic Church in the Roman rite of my Baptism, as an adult, and began the process of learning once more to be Catholic: but it was not until I transferred to the eastern rites as a Catholic and began to interact liturgically with the Orthodox that I moved the next step in my faith walk: why?: Because of the ascetic discipline.

    Eastern Orthodox Catholics and Eastern Catholics are not perfect people: but the discipline that they strive to live by makes a clearly observable difference in the spiritual life and in liturgy.

    Thank you, Father for your astute comments and wholesome approach to the heart and soul of Catholic life!

    In Christ, Elijahmaria

  40. Tina in Ashburn says:

    May God continue to strengthen Bp Olmstead, as he upholds and enforces the teachings of the Church.
    Bryan Cones exhibits rash ignorance of the Catholic Faith. I hope he will realize this and, as any good journalist should, will educate himself on the subject before he writes further about the Catholic Faith.

    Perhaps the problem isn’t really Communion under both species, since the Byzantines do it this way, with great reverence and care.
    I do believe that offering the Chalice can create the false belief that a recipient isn’t getting It ‘all’ without both species [as quoted in a comment above from Trent] because I have heard it from so many Latin riters who receive this way!

    However the biggest risk is that of profanation of the Blood of Christ. Taking the Chalice in hand creates risk of spills, splashes, dropping the Chalice, etc etc. As with Communion-in-the-Hand [and handling the Host by ANY unconsecrated hand], there exists terrible, daily profanation by everyone who touches the Host. [dirty hands, ignoring the specks of Host that fall to the ground or remain on the hands, Hosts found in pews or on the floor, or ease of intentional sacrilege].

    In both cases where there is risk of profanation, the practice should be stopped immediately, without question.

    Also, when taking the Chalice or taking the Host in one’s hand, the recipient is TAKING Communion, rather than being fed by the hand of the priest. Taking Communion became a big deal during the Reformation to prove the uselessness of the priesthood and the usurping of power by the laity.

  41. MissOH says:

    Rather reinforces my decision to pray for Bishop Olmstead along with my own bishop. He has roots in my home town and became bishop of Phoenix while my sister lived there. I pray the church gets more bishops like him.

    Fishwrap ever championing the spirit of the late 60′s/early 70′s.

  42. irishgirl says:

    Amen to what you said, Tina in Ashburn!

  43. leonugent2005 says:

    It’s interesting that Zuhlsdorf is too difficult but christianorum adiutor shouldn’t be [?]

  44. leonugent2005 says:

    More on topic I would say that I think that the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds is one of the worst thought out ideas of the Second Vatican Council and I would rejoice whole heartedly if my bishop would follow bishop Olmsted’s lead. However, if you read the new GIRM page 140 number 24 there are holes in that instruction big enough to drive a truck through. For example:

    “In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the Priest and the Deacon as ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary ministers (((MIGHT IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES))) constitute a reason for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species.” This instruction can be, and is interpreted however the person in charge decides to interpret it. Until this kind of wording changes nothing will change and who can say they have violated church guidelines?

  45. departing contestant says:

    certainly wish bishop Olmsted was still in Wichita

  46. jhayes says:

    The GIRM explains the benefit of distributing Communion under both kinds”

    “281. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.”

    HERE.
    The USCCB says:

    “The distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds has been the norm for more than a millenium. It began during the first days of the Church’s celebration of the Eucharist in fulfillment of the Lord’s command to “take and eat . . . take and drink.” This practice continued until the late eleventh century when the custom of distributing communion to the faithful under of the form of bread alone began to grow.

    The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council restored the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds at the bishop’s discretion. Support for this practice has grown even more strongly with the third typical edition of the Roman Missal:”

    It is, of course, a bishop’s right to set standards for his own diocese.

    [Thanks for trying, but this is causing some work now!]

  47. jhayes says:

    To the Moderator:

    I guess I haven’t gotten the hang of your way of making a link. If you have a moment, perhaps you could fix it. If you look at the HTML. you’ ll see where the links (two of them) are supposed to be.

    –John Hayes

  48. leonugent2005 says:

    Jhayes, not only does it say this in the GIRM but the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome approves the document!

  49. leonugent2005 says:

    Actually the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments my bad

  50. Charles E Flynn says:

    A Set-Back for Lutheran Humility, by Russell E. Saltzman, at First Things.

  51. leonugent2005 says:

    Charles your link contains the following…..Lutheran smugness may be coming back in fashion, however. The Phoenix diocese announced, based on Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted’s understanding of the new translation of the Mass and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, the chalice for the laity is going, going, almost gone. This indeed is one of the Many options available to the Bishop in the new GIRM and I commend Bishop Olmstead.

  52. my kidz mom says:

    Not only is Mr. Coynes throwing a nutty, but so are parishioners at St. It’s All About Us, my former Phoenix diocese parish. Their pastor has given them permission to launch a petition drive at all masses for the next three weeks “requesting Bishop Olmsted reconsider his new norms or, at least, leave implementation to the discretion of the Pastors, as permitted in the GIRM 283.”

    Would that they heed Fr. Z: “Bp. Olmsted is not a bully and people don’t have a right to Communion under both kinds all the time…Holy Church determines how the sacraments are received, not individuals. The Church has determined that there are some occasions when it can be done, others when it cannot.”

    Bishop Olmsted — semper fi.