National Catholic Fishwrap’s website, the editors have run something that was in their print edition, the actual fishwrap. They are reacting to both Bp. Olmsted of Phoenix and Bp. Morlino of Madison and their implementation of new local practices for Communion under both kinds.
They invoke the usual suspects, such as Call to Action, Chicago Theological Union, Boston College so as to crush poor benighted Olmsted and Morlino in the iron jaws of their logic.
They are also waking up to the fact that this issue of Communion under both kinds also has implications for their mobs of usually unnecessary Extraordinary Ministers.
In short, they are panicking.
What I find most interesting is that NCF refers throughout to “Communion wine“. The word “blood” didn’t appear in the article. A small detail, but one I find telling.
“But Father! But Father!”, some of you may protest. “You are just nitpicking. After all, they aren’t used to thinking in terms of traditional images, language, theology… the Church’s teachings. You’re mean!”
Yes. Indeed.
Loading ...
“Communion wine…” “Valet, please get my Camry.” “Yes sir, what color is it?” “Wine colored.” “Is that white wine or red wine?” Heh.
Father –
Were some words left out of this sentence?
“The word “blood” appear in the article. ” [I did this from my phone on a train into London. What words do you think were left out?]
Speaking of the “Fishwrap”, I was in my local cathedral last night for the first time in maybe ten years, and near the entrance was a small rack labeled catholic reading, or some such thing. It contained a few copies of various magazines for people to take as well as one or two copies of the NCF. I was saddened by this but not entirely surprised. On a positive note, the diocese just completed a restoration of the cathedral which was quite beautiful.
Whenever I’m asked about Communion under both species, I say that I save it for a special occasion.
And then we have this – ahem – gem(?) on the issue from the diocesan newspaper of Evansville, In.:
http://www.themessageonline.org/local/2011/10-07/sauer.html
MSM
Hmmm, I would imagine the NCR crowd would also prefer the anamnesis “When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory,” which has always seemed to me to be a catechetical disaster given that the substance is no longer bread…
(Not to speak of drinking a cup, which seems rather more zealous than drinking the contents of the cup.)
I usually prefer the prayer:
O my Father, if it be possible, let me pass from this cup.
That’s how it goes, isn’t it?
If I did not see the signs throughout our society that there is rampant inability to recognize the planks sticking out of eyes I would be surprised. Indult means “we have permission to do it now and forever” unless it had to do with the TLM then indult means “the answer is still no”.
I also realized that there had been wholesale ignoring of the actual words in Vatican II documents when I read Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Lead by Pope Benedict, we have some wonderful bishops, who are actually listening to what the Holy Father says and who are trying to guide their flocks away from the guitar and tie dye hangover and navel gazing “aren’t we and us wonderful” liturgies and back to the focus on Christ.
If I’m understanding the issue correctly, shouldn’t all dioceses throughout the USA be curtailing the practice of dual species communion? Personally I find any argument which declares the necessity or dual reception (something I personally have never taken part in) can only devolve into heresy by declaring that one only receiving the appearance of the bread is somehow not receiving our lord in his entirety.
MissOh said, “Indult means “we have permission to do it now and forever” unless it had to do with the TLM then indult means “the answer is still no”.”
Good one. :)
btb,
Just FYI, that’s from St Paul (1 Corinthians 11:26):
“For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. “
I can’t wait until the celebacy rules for deacons and married men are enforced. [Married men aren’t celibate. Moreover, it is spelled with an “i”. And what does that have to do with Communion under both kinds or Extraordinary Ministers?]
One point on which I feel strongly is that Communion should not be distributed under both kinds if that in itself creates a need for a multitude of extraordinary ministers. The symbolic value of using an ordinary minister of Holy Communion is greater than the symbolic value of reception under both forms. One thing I keep in mind is that even in the 1950’s there probably weren’t enough ordinary ministers of Communion to distribute under both forms at a typical Sunday Mass, even taking into consideration that priests made a point of being available to distribute Communion at Mass instead of busying themselves with other things.