The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionJesus calls us outside of the temple
by Melissa Musick Nussbaum on Oct. 27, 2011
The Phoenix diocese announced plans to restrict the distribution of Communion under both species. The cup will be offered to the laity on feast days “and other special moments.” The first reason the diocese offers is this: to protect the sacred species from profanation.
The word profane comes from the Latin words pro and fanum, that is, outside the temple. The unholy, or profane, has the quality of something outside the temple. There is a suggestion of will here, of choosing to remove oneself from the temple and its precincts. I don’t believe this is what Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix means when he authorizes use of the word “profanation.” If there was an epidemic of deliberate evil being done with the sacred cup, we would know about it.
I’m guessing that by profanation he means the danger that, in passing the cup from the ordinary or extraordinary minister to the communicant, the blood of Christ might be spilled. Indeed, it is moving for me, Sunday after Sunday, to watch the care with which our ministers, both ordained and lay, handle Christ’s body and blood. Their movements are slow and measured, deliberate and focused. In our downtown parish, where an eclectic assembly gathers for Mass, ministers of the cup offer the precious blood to children and to the elderly, to the blind and to mothers juggling babies and toddlers. There are the infirm, who use crutches or canes or walkers to come forward and be fed.
From my familiar place in the second pew to the west of the altar, I have clear lines of sight. I have seen ministers wait until the communicant puts down the toddler or shifts from leaning on his walker to sitting on it so that his hands are free. I have seen ministers walk over to those for whom even this short journey is too long and offer them the body and blood there in the pews where they sit. I have never seen an accident.
Perhaps my parish is the exception, and these accidents are routine enough to warrant restricting the reception of Christ’s blood. But restricting its distribution to a feast day or other special occasion multiplies the possibilities for all sorts of irregularities. Think of midnight on Christmas Eve when the church is filled with visitors, many not Catholic. Think of weddings, which are almost always one-time assemblies, brought together solely by ties to the bride and groom. Sunday Mass, in contrast, has a more stable assembly, people who have been worshiping together for a long time and who are well-acquainted with the needs of individual members.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
In my parish, those who serve the altar know most of the folks to whom Communion must be carried and they know many of the mentally ill who are likely to behave inappropriately. They know which children are new to Communion and need more help learning the gestures.
Let me tell you what I do see in my parish. What I see is a holy mirroring. People who have been running all week, all morning, slow down and match their movements to those of the ministers holding the patens and the chalices. They take the time to wait: for the girl in the cast, for the father with the sleeping babies, for the woman who must untangle her oxygen tube before she can rise from the pew and walk out into the aisle. They take the time to bow before the offered riches of Christ’s very body and blood. The minister takes the time to offer -- not shove -- what God has given and human hands have made. The minister speaks. And his brothers and sisters take the time to receive -- not grab -- slowly and with care. The communicant answers in word and gesture, making the sign of the cross. She is fed, sustained and blessed. He has food for the journey.
I do know that the precious body offers far greater challenges to the ordinary and extraordinary ministers of Communion. My husband has served as an extraordinary minister of holy Communion for decades. He has watched as people have put the consecrated host in a pocket or carried it off like a cookie, to be consumed -- or not -- at their leisure. I have watched him walk quietly after a person and ask that he or she remove the host from the pocket and consume it. He is measured in his action, calm and hospitable, aware, always, that he is serving the body of Christ, both in the body broken and shared and in the ones who receive it.
It would be interesting to survey priests, deacons and extraordinary ministers to find which is most difficult, in terms of accidents and misunderstandings (“I’m taking this home for later,” for instance). Is it in the distribution of the body or the offering of the blood of Christ?
Whatever the answer to that question, it does not address the dilemma of those who desire (and I believe sincerely so) to protect Christ’s precious blood from profanation. The difficulty, of course, is that the only way to protect Christ from profanation is to keep Christ away from us. And that Christ will not do.
The mystery of the Incarnation means that God shares our life, our flesh, our journeys, our sorrows, our fears, our living and our dying. In the course of this Christ gets taken to the very worst places, the very deepest pits.
I often think of this as we are sent out of the church on Sunday mornings. I know that, once baptized, I have become the temple where Christ may dwell. So I suppose one could make the observation that no baptized Christian then is ever truly pro fanum, outside the temple. Perhaps. But I know that I have taken my temple and dragged it through all kinds of dirt.
I watch trash and read trash and talk trash.
I tend grudges and angers and desires for revenge like rare tropical orchids. I nurture envy like a mother her child. I embrace sloth, and gluttony -- well, gluttony is a way of life for me and most everyone I know. A native Texan, I was raised to believe that pride was probably a typo on the list of the seven deadly sins. And I have avoided the sin of murder mostly because I have been protected from the circumstances that lead men and women to grab a weapon and strike. I have not given too much thought to those who do kill, even those who kill on my behalf and in my name.
I will never grasp the terrible beauty of the Incarnation. I will never understand the wild love that drives Christ’s desire to be in me and with me in every moment and in every place. I would understand if Christ left in disgust and abandoned me to the mean precincts in which I choose, again and again, to place my temple.
But the dreadful truth, the glorious truth is that God is with us. Not, we are with God. Look at Israel to see how far we wander; look at the church. Still, God is with us.
Christ feeds me. I am fed on Christ. I am fed by Christ. I carry Christ in my flesh. Because that is what Christ wills.
After the Resurrection, Christ meets Simon Peter, the very first bishop, on the shores of the Sea of Tiberias. Christ asks, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?”
Simon Peter replies, “Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus tells him, “Feed my sheep.” Three times, he tells him, “Feed my sheep.”
Peter, do you love me? Feed my sheep.
[Melissa Musick Nussbaum is an NCR columnist and contributor to Celebration, NCR’s sister publication for liturgy planners and preachers.]
Simply dazzling.
Simply dazzling.
I am a Eucharistic Minister
I am a Eucharistic Minister (Extraordinary Minister of Communion) and I treasure this gift.
What Melissa describes that she sees on Sundays is what I see: respectful, dedicated, struggling, faithful Catholics coming to be nourished by the presence of Jesus in the Bread and Wine.
You are NOT a Eucharistic
You are NOT a Eucharistic Minister. The only ministers of the Eucharist are priests and bishops.
Furthermore, Jesus is not present in "wine." Transubstation teaches us that no wine remains after the priest speaks the words of consecration.
Tell that to a recovering
Tell that to a recovering alcoholic see what that person tells you! Why do recovering priests use Mustem? Did Jesus walk around Gallilee with 20 proof blood?
"You are NOT a Eucharistic
"You are NOT a Eucharistic Minister...blah, blah, blah."
Mr. John N., everyone who distributes holy communion is a "eucharistic minister". The use of the word 'Extraordinary' is merely one more feeble attempt by a Vatican hierarchy to perpetuate the elevation of the ordained and subordination of the laity.
Indeed, it seems today that we are seeing "word pollution": Why, for example, use the word 'Personnel' when we can use the phrase "Human Resources Management"; why use the word 'Supply' when we can use the phrase "Materiel Acquisition and Management", and so on?
"Transubstantiation teaches us...blah, blah, blah."
The word 'Transubstantiation' doesn't really teach us anything. It is a useless attempt to define a mystery when, of all people, you should know that the human mind is simply incapable of comprehending, much less articulating, a mystery of our faith. Let's face it: If we could truly understand this mystery, it would no longer be a mystery, would it? Rome's attempt to explain a mystery is just as bad as the Protestant attempt to demystify it. Both sides are singin' from the wrong hymnal. And the music is awful.
Let's jettison use of 'transubstantiation' and conclude (rightly) that the Eucharist is a mystery of our faith that cannot be understood, much less explained.
And let's get rid once for all of the word 'Extraordinary'. It doesn't help matters any.
1.) A Eucharistic minister is
1.) A Eucharistic minister is someone who can confect the Eucharist. One must be a priest or a bishop to do that. They are the "ordinary" ministers; no extraordinary ministers exist.
2.) You are quite correct that in an ideal world, only the ordained would be ministers of Holy Communion. Those who have been set aside for sacred ministry rightly are stewards of the sacred.
3.) Are you Catholic? Because your objections to transubstantiation sound like they are right out of that heresiarch Luther's mouth. To repeat Trent: "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." Looks like the word actually means something, my son... how about a retraction?
here here
here here
I thought that Luther
I thought that Luther objected to the historic apostolic transference of the priesthood. He argued rather that it was transferred in the whole body of believers -- the Church.
I suspect that questions of the Real Presence came later in the Reformation.
Transubstantiation, substance and accident are terms from metaphysics. Not physics or the physical sciences.
Question.
If a liquid were chemically constituted with the proper amount of alcohol, water, flavanoids, and the multitude of other components known to be present in a known wine, but made in a flask (or test tube) could it be legitimately consecrated?
I doubt that it could; as it would not be "fruit of the vine". The source of the sacrament comes (not wholly) from the symbol itself (that is part of what makes it a metaphysical event). More than a symbol? Yes, the Sacrament comes from the basic human relationships of men to God, men to each other, man to creation, and I'm sure others can add to this. The sacrament transforms the relationships on a level we do not comprehend.
There is some truth in both of the above arguments. Metaphysics and biochemistry are not the same science.
Before I post this comment I add. I am well outside my sphere of competence. And I suspect others are as well.
I became a Catholic in 1979.
I became a Catholic in 1979. I realize now that, by happenstance, I was given a skewed picture of the nature of Catholic priests because, you see, he guys I knew were loving, caring, gentle and compassionate above all else. They really were; I'm certain it's not just a case of euphoric recall. I met Christ in them; they were ministers. These days, I find I'm constantly asking myself rhetorically, where are they now; did they change, or did I?
(By the way, I had a friend, a now-deceased priest, who was in recovery in alcoholism. I recall he made a special point to not drink the wine during or after communion. Incidentally, he never once called anyone "my son" or "my daughter," preferring to personalize the conversation by using their name. I guess he wouldn't have been "Catholic enough" for the present day.) How things have changed.
Father John N, where are you a priest? (I'm a mental health professional in Louisiana.)
Kent, no it is not "euphoric
Kent, no it is not "euphoric recall." Many of us are now serving alternative intentional Eucharistic communities. Gene Baum, St Anthony's Community, Santa Barbara CA
You know, Fr. Baum, I almost
You know, Fr. Baum, I almost wish it were a case of nostalgic remembrance. I know the allusion will date me, but I find myself wondering on occasion if the Church has been taken over by "pod people."
John N, one last time (I
John N, one last time (I promise): Where are you a priest, and what is your full name?
My son. How condescending..
My son. How condescending..
I see that this person has no
I see that this person has no respect whatsoever for the role of the priest - typical liberalism.
I dunno about you, Mr.
I dunno about you, Mr. Jaglowicz, but I'm beginning to think that "Father John" is merely a nickname and not a description of this guy's vocation, that he's not a priest at all.
May God have mercy on all of
May God have mercy on all of you...for your hate-speech!
Please rid yourself of this
Please rid yourself of this hate before you present yourself to receive the Real Presence again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Father, God created me
Father,
God created me female. By the further grace of God, my parents requested Baptism for me from the Catholic faith community of believers in the Risen Christ. Many avenues of care and participation are closed to me within the Church I love. By the further grace of God, I have continued my journey in faith nurtured and sustained by the Eucharist and by many of those who have the good manners and warmth not to be caught up in the distinction which although of great importance can be quite the stumbling block for some. Whomever is not against us is for us, no?
I simply do not understand
I simply do not understand the controversy that His Excellency, Bishop Olmsted's decision has stirred up. Under Canon Law he is charged with the responsibility to govern his diocese and he has the power, under the law as contained in the Third Edition of the General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM) to determine when and if the Precious Blood may be offered to the faithful at Mass. The good bishop has determined that it is not desirable, for a multiplicity of reasons which he has enunciated, that the offering of the Precious Blood at every Mass is not appropriate in his diocese. Thus he is exercising his legitimate and lawful authority as ordinary to limit Communion under both species.
In receiving Communion under the form of the Host, a person receives the fullness of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. One does not receive half of the Real Presence in the Host, half in the Precious Blood. No, the fullness of the Real Presence is entirely found in each and the other. Receiving from the cup may, perhaps, make the sign of a meal more complete, but no one is denied any graces from not receiving from the cup. And, ultimately, that is what Communion is about, receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Jesus, and receiving the inestimable grace that results, and then, so strengthened to be more and more like Christ, go into the world, leave the temple as it were, to bring Christ to the Public Square.
In a time when the sacred has
In a time when the sacred has been so secularized; when the "holy" is either not recognized or dismissed - it makes little sense for a bishop - despite his canonical powers - to remove a sign of the sacred from his parishioners. Given previous episcopal moves by Olmstead it bears all the resemblance of yet another means of reducing the value of the parishioner while desperately scrambling to assert clerical control and authority.
If young men are drawn to the priesthood by such maneuvers, one wonders why anyone would bother consulting a priest of this caliber or frankly even taking him seriously.
The tired, chest-beating of those Catholics who cheer at the sight of such episcopal gestures as signs of the assertion of the "authority of the church" suggests something far deeper is wrong with our institution or at least the way some view it than anything else.
All that is quite true. But -
All that is quite true. But - the sign value of the sacrament is lessened, if we receive Our Lord under the appearances either of bread or the appearances of wine. As the Holy Eucharist is the greatest of all sacraments, and therefore of sacramental signs, it seems especially desirable that we should receive Him under both sacramental signs, rather than under one alone. He did after all seal the new covenant in His Body & Blood under both appearances, and not under one or either alone. So unless there is an very urgent reason for not distributing the Body & Blood under both appearances - as can happen - ISTM that both should be distributed. After all, the Messianic Banquet, of which the Holy Eucharist is a pledge and foretaste, is typified more fully by the distribution under both kinds rather than under one alone.
As for the danger of profanation - accurate instruction in the Church's Faith regarding the Holy Eucharist should take care of that. Can't deacons or priests preach on the subject ?
CWG, All of those reasons
CWG, All of those reasons given by Olmsted are merely smoke to cover up the real reason- to give him "power over" the laity and pronounce that he has that power and will use it for any or no reason and to create a distiction that says priests are better than the laity because they do partake of the Body and Blood at every celebration of the Eucharist but lay people aren't good enough. Not one of his reason holds water.
See Matthew 26:26,27. Jesus
See Matthew 26:26,27. Jesus shared both bread and wine with his disciples.
According to your reasoning
According to your reasoning we can no longer refer to Eucharist as meal can we? Who sits down to eat any meal without drinking? The symbolism of a meal cannot be over emphasized, especially since the Eucharist was instituted during the Passover at what has become known as the Last Supper. Without references to meal we can no longer call the altar a table, nor the Eucharist a "feast". You might also have to eliminate the Eucharistic proclamation "when we eat this bread and drink this cup...." The symbolism of the cup is filled with a richness of covenant and sacrifice that possesses a integral part of the meal. Obviously, the bishops in Phoenix and Madison have other agendas. I never have worried too much about Eucharisitc crumbs and drips (there will always be accidents) I am far more concerned about the treatment of the Body of Christ in the pews.....Restricting the distribution of the Blood of Christ is one more attempt to endorse a "clerical culture" of separation and division.
As someone with a wheat
As someone with a wheat allergy, the bishop's decision is appalling. I would be severely limited in my ability to receive. Evidently the bishop feels that is not much of a problem. Do these guys ever think?
Your point takes me on
Your point takes me on another tangent which may have no place here. In a reply above I expressed the opinion that part of the Sacrament or sign, arose from the physical symbol itself. In a society in which wheat is not a staple, rather rice is, is not that a suitable substitute? I don't know; but would entertain the idea that it is a worthy substitute in that case. Thus it would also be in the cases of individuals who are unable to consume wheat. Each is a most basic form of food in the society, carefully cultivated., and deeply ingrained in the cultures as a form of nourishment and community.
I'll look for response -- I'm sure that this is not an original idea.
In answer to your question:
In answer to your question: No; it's forbidden. lol
In a nutshell, this is about
In a nutshell, this is about getting the lay adults off of the altar, especially the women. I've seen this movie played out in a number of parishes with a neo-trad priest in command. St. Williams in Greenville, TX and St. Mary's in Pendleton, OR are 2 prime examples.
"this is about getting the
"this is about getting the lay adults off of the altar"
hahahahahahahahaha
Off the altar?! No one should be ON the ALTAR in the first place! And if anyone WERE on the altar, then they SHOULD be chased off. Oh wait! You mean "out of the sanctuary"
Living in Phoenx, I have seen
Living in Phoenx, I have seen that Bishop Olmsted values his "authority" above all else. He is extremely legalistic at the expense of compassion and at the expense of the teaching of his church.
Wine has been routinely part of communin in the RCC since 1975--and now "profanation" is a problem??? Having seen Bishop Olmsted at work,I agree with the comment above, "In a nutshell, this is about getting the lay adults off of the altar, especially the women."
"There is power, power,
"There is power, power, wonder working power in the blood of the lamb." Authority to do so or not, I ask how dare a bishop deprive me of the blood of Christ? Oh, I forgot, I am a woman. Yes, the full body and blood of Christ is in the host, but the sign and symbol the Lord himself chose for the Eucharist is a meal. Bread AND wine.
Even the new form of the words of consecration say "Take this ALL of you and drink..." I suppose now it should just say, take this you special people, bishops, priests and forget the laity. Let them thirst.
Today it's "how dare a bishop
Today it's "how dare a bishop deprive me...." tomorrow it's "how dare Christ deprive me...." Ego trip all the way...
Participating in the Eucharist is a privilege of Christ’s mercy for those in a state of grace, not a right to be waved about like a clenched fist. By the way, it’s irrelevant whether you're a woman, a goat, or a ham sandwich.
By the anger and hate in your writing, I’d recommend a double bourbon and some anger management before you queue in the communion line again.
And I've got a west coast
And I've got a west coast orange bridge for ya', "Sirach". I'll give it to ya' FREE, but I will need $100 to cover shipping & handling. Believe me, it'd be a steal!
(and, btw, i wasn't aware that the Lord's mercy is a "privilege" for folks "in a state of grace"; i don't recall Jesus telling his disciples to hear confessions before allowing folks to approach the Lord)
In your case, never mind the bourbon and anger management. A healthy dose of adult religious education would be a good place to start.
I mean, Really!
The "anger and hate" are
The "anger and hate" are actually the log in your own eye.
A bottle of bourbon would
A bottle of bourbon would not
be enough for you. And decades of anger management would not resolve your lack of true Christian empathy and compassion, not to speak about discernment and understanding of te Catholic faith.
This phrase tells a lot about your anger and unsound and unhealthy judgement:"By the way, it’s irrelevant whether you're a woman, a goat, or a ham sandwich."
You make me feel ashamed!
Sirach on Oct. 27, 2011. You
Sirach on Oct. 27, 2011.
You stated:
"Today it's "how dare a bishop deprive me...." tomorrow it's "how dare Christ deprive me...." Ego trip all the way...
Participating in the Eucharist is a privilege of Christ’s mercy for those in a state of grace, not a right to be waved about like a clenched fist. By the way, it’s irrelevant whether you're a woman, a goat, or a ham sandwich.
By the anger and hate in your writing, I’d recommend a double bourbon and some anger management before you queue in the communion line again."
--------------------------
"Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me and I in them." (John 6:56-57). Jesus is telling us that HE (his flesh and blood) is the basic diet for spiritual life. Or do you see life (physical and spiritual) as a privilege?
There is nothing of an ego trip here. Christ is nowhere as stingy as Bishop Olmsted or you are. The Eucharist was the first sacrament of forgiveness, healing, and life----before the Sacrament of Penance evolved.
The Eucharist (Christ's body and blood) is for the spiritually hungry, the spiritually sick, and the sinner.
Does any bishop have the right to abrogate Christ's words in order to impose his own understanding of his authority (according to the Council of Trent)?
Were all the Apostles in a state of grace when they ate Christ's body and drank his blood at the Last Supper? Did Jesus even use the phrase "state of grace"? Or is this just theological doublespeak by the official Church?
Our Church officials put many hurdles in the way of the people, very much like the pharasees put hurdles in the people's path to holiness, in Christ's time.
Dear Sirach, 99.9% of those
Dear Sirach, 99.9% of those Jesus encountered, (the exception being His mother) were not in the state of grace when Jesus came to them or they approached Him. I refer to the woman caught in adultery, Zaccheus, the good thief, etc., etc., etc. None of us is worthy, however by the incredible unfathomable grace of God we are invited to take, eat and DRINK. So I ask you this, is the Eucharist a cause of unity or a sign of unity? If it is a cause then we must allow the grace of the sacrament to even those who are in sin seeking healing and reconciliation. This is the penitential aspect of the Eucharist. Please be honest, not everyone is in the state of grace when they come to the Lord. You will note in the Gospels however that AFTER their encounter with Him their lives had been transformed, please note the special emphasis on the preposition "after". Anyone who starts policing who should and who shouldn't be admitted to communion with the Lord is risking a violation of the Lord's command, "come to me all you who are weary and find life burdensome....." this isn't just a description of the tired housewife or exhausted laborer, this is a call to the wounded, weak, despairing, lost and especially the sinners. I was properly instructed in the seminary that the day I became a priest I was NEVER permitted to deny communion to anyone and thankfully, I never did. That is between the individual and God.
I would definitely recommend
I would definitely recommend the confession line before the communion line...
You liberals are doing the
You liberals are doing the same thing that you are accusing the hierarchy of doing - trying to set up a group of people (the laity) as special and in need of "power"...
"You liberals"......NICE! We
"You liberals"......NICE!
We aren't trying to do the same as the hierarchy--the hierarchy wishes to elevate itself as distinct from the rest of the People of God. Perhaps you would be interested in this article: http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0601.asp
Recently, I heard a quote attributed to William Barclay, which, I think, reflects the power issues going on in the church:
"They drew a circle and counted me out - they thought me a thing of nought.
But Love and I had the will to win; we drew a bigger circle and counted them in."
Even a cursory examination of the gospels shows that Jesus invited all within his circle. It is curious that those who self-identify as 'conservatives' invariably 'invite' those who have a more liberal and inclusive viewpoints to leave the (small) circle of the Roman Catholic Church. In contrast, I cannot recall reading here anyone of a more liberal viewpoint dis-inviting those of a more conservative viewpoint to leave! I'm sure if I'm wrong here some will point it out for me. So, those of us critical of the power abuses by the hierarchy do not want them out, rather, we are inviting them to take their place within the larger circle of God's people.
Knopp, the one thing that you point out that is true is that it is about POWER. It has always been about power. Jesus encountered this as well (Mk. 11:27-33)
Cheers,
Thank you Melissa. I
Thank you Melissa. I appreciate the sensitivity with which you wrote this article. It beautifully speaks to the needs of the faithful compounded with a deep reverence for the sacrament. I've always felt a special presence of Christ in the "extra" ordinary ministers of communion. I personally consider them another christ, alter christos, just as the priest, since I believe there are many different moments of eucharist in which Christ transmits himself during the Mass. He continues his Incarnation in us, in those dirty places, outside the temple. We are called to participate in this mystery. He is not afraid of 'profanation'. After all, he has overcome the world. Neither should we.
Simply a careerist Bishop
Simply a careerist Bishop further ingratiating himself to the Vatican in order to enhance his career. Watch for a promotion soon.
Slowly, dreadfully, we are
Slowly, dreadfully, we are going back to a pre-Vatican II church. Now, two dioceses have eliminated the cup. Tomorrow, how many? Bishops are consumed with their "power" and "authority". Somehow, somewhere, they have forgotten that they are "servants". They are here to serve. And is this how they serve? Why do the bishops ignore what Christ did and what Christ taught? Was Christ concerned at the Last Supper that one of his followers might spill a drop of wine? How can the bishops (and pope) ignore what Jesus instituted for all? How are we, as Catholics, to respond to this? Are we to meekly follow whatever is ordered for us to do? Or are we to use our intellect and conscience? Are we to blindly obey? Have not the bishops already lost all credibility with their handling of events where innocent human life has been destroyed? Where secrecy and silence were to be the method to handle abuse? How can these men even think that their "authority" is respected by anybody anymore?
Melissa, thank you for a
Melissa, thank you for a beautiful and touching description. Most, perhaps all, also applies to the parish where I serve as a Eucharistic minister regularly, and the weekday one where I'm sometimes pressed into service. When I serve in this role, I never fail to be humbled and awed at what I'm allowed to do, and at the transparent faith of those who approach the cup.
I am completely baffled by the motivation behind the move in Phoenix, and more recently in Madison, WI. Baffled on at least two counts: 1) Do these bishops want to fight the Protestant Reformation all over again, with a new cast? 2) So many of our bishops reputedly have degrees in canon law (I don't know whether or not these two do). How is that they cannot even get straight the proper interpretation of the canons? And, what about the authority of an Ecumenical Council?
What good is the blood of
What good is the blood of Jesus? http://www.squidoo.com/power-in-the-blood-of-jesus
What madness! This is just
What madness! This is just another of Benedict's determined actions to undo Vatican II. How dare he, or the national bishops' groups, make such decisions. And they lie about the reasons--to protect against "profanation." They lie, sin, about the Eucharist! What is most profane is to ignore the Last Supper when and where the Eucharist is claimed to have been instituted under both "species." Why not go all the way with these lies. Why not exclude wine from the Eucharistic Prayer at the altar, from the clergy's sup? What's good for the People of God is good for the clergy. All of Christendom, except for Catholicism, has always shared both forms, bread and wine--or grape juice. The Mormons use bread and water. Now Benedict, his cabinet, and his bishops--bishops must always conform if they want to keep their jobs--decide monarchically that the wine, the blood, is only for them. The claim of profanation is a lie. The bread can be profaned just as easily as the wine.
First of all, the vast
First of all, the vast majority of Protestant denominations teach that the meal that they share, called the Lord's Supper, is merely symbolic, and that the bread and grape juice are nothing more than symbolic of the Body and Blood of Christ. Certain denominations hold that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood, but only so long as the congregation is present. When the congregation leaves, the remaining bread and wine are just bread and wine. So, to compare what the rest of these denominations do with what Mother Church does is like comparing apples and oranges. The bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, fully present in each of the species.
Second of all, your comments about Pope Benedict are inane, to be brutally honest. If the Holy Father chose to "undo Vatican II", he could do so. If it was his desire to limit reception of Holy Communion under both forms to the laity only on certain occasions, he could do so by universal mandate. At the same time, I would ask you to point out where in the documents of the Second Council of the Vatican you will find a mandate that Communion under both forms be offered at every celebration of Mass.
Indeed, the indult to offer Communion under both forms was not instituted until 1975, ten years after the close of Vatican II! Further, the indult granted the PRIVILEGE of offering Communion under both species, but it was not a RIGHT. Those PRIVILEGES expired in 2005 and were not renewed by the Holy See. Many bishops have continued to permit reception of Communion under both Species, but Bishop Olmsted is actually choosing to execute the Church's law. And, because he is doing the right thing, he is attacked.
Third of all, the fullness of Christ's Real Presence, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, is found in the Host. So, it's not as if you are receiving only half of Christ's Presence. Additionally, all the graces attached to reception of the Holy Communion are received when one consumes the Host. So, it's not as if you are receiving only half of the grace. That being the case, I have to wonder if any of this is about Christ, or if it is all about your own sense of entitlement.
"The bread and wine become
"The bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ..."
Yes, so it really doesn't matter what Christians, Catholic and otherwise, personally believe, does it?
Christ's presence in the eucharist is independent of one's belief. One can have a misunderstanding (from an official Catholic perspective), but Jesus did not tell his disciples that only Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and related groups with "valid orders" have a "valid eucharist", did he?
Jesus merely said, "This is my body,...this is my blood...Do this to remember me." And, by golly, this is what our primitive ancestors in the Christian faith did at their sacred meals. On the other hand, Jesus did not tell those present at the Last Supper, "Now, before I continue, let me explain to you what I have asked you to do." No, the Lord shared bread and cup and asked his followers to do the same. Simple words. Simple mystery. Unexplained.
If ever there was a time and opportunity to jettison so much of what Catholics have been taught by indoctrination and, therefore, taken for granted, that time is now. It's, indeed, well past time for Catholics to grow up theologically, critically examine so much of what we've "accepted as gospel", and move forward in the spirit of renewal ("to make new again") of Vatican II.
The Church, after all, began after the Resurrection, not before then.
"Privilege", my rear end!
Even conservative priests I
Even conservative priests I know speak of "graceless communion", meaning if a person is not cognizant of the fact they are receiving the body and blood of Christ, then they are not actually in communion with Him. This makes total sense.
The Eucharist is a mystery, not magic. Jesus is not trapped in a wafer should it fall unnoticed to the ground, nor in drops of wine that might spill to the floor. Light can only be seen when it is viewed, sound only heard when it is received by the ear. Jesus is present when we are 'there' to receive Him.
An example: in the movie the Matrix, the hero, Neo, is asked to choose one of two pills to swallow. One will open his eyes to the truth, the other will allow him to return to blissful ignorance. The pill itself is not really capable of doing this, it is merely symbolic, it is mind that will change his reality. This is essentially what happens when he accept the communion wafer. It is just bread, but it is our mind and our choice to believe that transforms it and brings us into communion with Christ. Mystery, not magic.
The bread and wine become the
The bread and wine become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, regardless of the belief of the people at a Catholic Mass, and an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy, that much is true.
After the Lord's Ascension, there was one Church, a unity of faith, founded on the Rock of Peter, just as the Lord intended. That much is historical fact, as well as doctrinal belief. There grew divisions, schisms, Arianism, Gnosticism, Donatism, etc., but those divisions were called what they were, heresy, by Church leaders and the first ecumenical councils. The Church was seriously divided by the Great Schism of 1054, but though she was torn in two, the basic doctrinal and dogmatic belief regarding Scripture and the Sacraments coincided.
Following the so-called Protestant Reformation, Christ's Church was divided even further, not only into various sects, bad enough, but also into a variety of belief systems, some that held that all seven Sacraments were valid, many that held that there were only two. Moreover, many of these sects did away with the ordained priesthood, ordaining ministers instead; men who would preach and teach, but who were not empowered by the Holy Spirit to confect the Eucharist.
Christ empowered His Apostles to "do this in memory of Me". They were the only ones present at the Last Supper. If He did not intend for them to be able to hand that mandate on, then it would be impossible to "do this in memory" of Him after the Apostles died. But, they did hand on that mandate to their successors, beginning with St. Matthias, then St. Paul. These successors handed the mandate on to their successors, and to their helpers, who eventually became the ministerial priesthood. Each priest ordained today, with enough time and enough historical records, could trace his ordination all the way back to the time of the Church Fathers in the 1st and 2nd centuries. That is what the unbroken line of succession from the Apostles means. That is how the mandate to "do this in memory" of the Lord is passed on.
That fact that this unbroken line does not exist in Protestant sects means that the authority to confect the Eucharist was not passed on to Protestant ministers in the same way it has been passed on to Catholic and Orthodox priests. Thus, since they lack the authority, they lack the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. And, the vast majority of our Protestant brothers and sisters, will readily admit this.
To be a Roman Catholic, Mr. Jaglowicz, means to accept certain beliefs. It means that we are different from other denominations because we have held to a system of doctrine and dogma that has existed for nearly 2000 years, and that we believe today what our predecessors in the faith believed then. St. Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, prohibits receiving Communion by anyone who is "unworthy" ("Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly, {1 Corinthians 11: 27-29}.
Finally, that which is found in Sacred Scripture is only half of the story of Divine Revelation. There is also Sacred Tradition; Sacred Tradition is that which is not written down, and contained in the Bible, but that which the Church has continually believed nonetheless. To proceed with discussing the Church simply by saying "the Lord did not say this, or that", again is only half of the story.
Per previous comment by
Per previous comment by CWC:
Christ empowered His Apostles to "do this in memory of Me". They were the only ones present at the Last Supper.
_______________________________________________________________________
Wow, this presents a rather interesting theological discussion!
If indeed only male Apostles were present at the last supper, and this is the basis for the narrow rationale for only men to be "ordained" priests, then by consistent rigid application of the same narrow rationale, would it not be logical to assume that only males receive the Eucharist?
When Jesus said "take and eat, take and drink" he was addressing an all male audience, no women! How did the Apostles take His very distinct all male tradition and "profane" it by offing the Eucharist to women?...the audacity of the Apostles to break this all male tradition!
Why not maintain continuity in this all male Tradition with a rigid all male application?
No women present at Last Supper...women cannot be priests!
No women present at Last Supper...women cannot receive communion!
Logically, how can you have it any other way?
Am I being sarcastic or pointing out absurdity by being absurd?
When Jesus said to His Apostles, "take and eat, take and drink, do this in memory of me"... He did NOT say, take and sacrifice "in persona" of Me, nor did He say, "impersonate Me", while eating and drinking and sacrificing in "memory" of Me. I cannot find in Holy Scripture where the Apostles claimed to be "alter christus", quite to the contrary...
Acts 10:25-27
25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter raised him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am just a man
READ:
I am not Jesus
I am not divine like Jesus
I am not alter chritus
I am not in persona christi
His Apostles were to be witnesses, preachers and ambassadors, not sacrificers!
There is no need for an "ordained" priesthood to sacrifice. Jesus said we are ALL a royal priesthood of believers. Where two or more are gathered in His name, He is present. Gospel Truth! Can any theologian deny that Jesus is present when two or more are gathered in His name?
In the first "Post-Resurrection" mass, on the road to Emmaus, Did Jesus "give thanks" or did He "re-present" his sacrifice on the Cross?
"They recognized Him in the breaking of the bread". Jesus wants all of us to recognize =(give thanks in memory of Him), every time we "break bread" with our families, friends and strangers.
An Ordained Priesthood, is not required in our home, to eat and drink "in memory" of Jesus' sacrifice...we simply give thanks and remember, as He requested at the Last Supper and as He demonstrated at Emmaus, and as He promised, "Where ever two or more are gathered in My Name!
Three for three, His word is His promise that He is with us!
Sacrificing Priests are obsolete. Actually Ordained Priests have always been obsolete...show me one instance in the new testament where any of the Apostles "celebrate" a mass, with the re-presentation of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross!
Don't you think if the Eucharist was the "source and summit", the Apostles would have abundantly offered it and it would have been demonstrated at least once by an Apostle, in the new testament?
The indult to US dioceses did
The indult to US dioceses did expire but did not need to be re-instituted because a change to the GIRM [GIRM, no. 281; cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum (RS), no. 100] was revised and allowed all the world's bishops and pastors to allow reception of communion under both species (unless the local ordinary nixed it) For a far better explanation, and with references, see: http://www.usccbpublishing.org/client/client_pdfs/SevenQuestions.pdf
The dioceses of Phoenix and Madison admitted and published their error, that they got the indult for communion under both species mixed up with the nixing of lay people cleansing the sacred vessels after communion. I think both dioceses continue to deny reception of the Blood of Christ to laity for other reasons or reasonings. There are a lot of other articles on the internet that discuss the Vatican pronouncements on the laity receiving communion under both species.
"Many bishops have continued
"Many bishops have continued to permit reception of Communion under both Species, but Bishop Olmsted is actually choosing to execute the Church's law. And, because he is doing the right thing, he is attacked."
So all the other bishops are breaking the church's Law (not Christ's command to eat AND drink)? Bishop Morris just voices a thought and he is sacked! I wonder how many bishops are going to be sacked because they are breaking the Church's Law!Olmsted isn't being attacked because he is doing the right thing; the people he is called (that's a big maybe on the being 'called')to SERVE, not use the withholding of the cup as a weapon towards, are reminding him of his role as poorly as he is equipped to perform.
Cheers,
CWG on Oct. 28, 2011. You
CWG on Oct. 28, 2011.
You stated:
"First of all, the vast majority of Protestant denominations teach that the meal that they share, called the Lord's Supper, is merely symbolic, and that the bread and grape juice are nothing more than symbolic of the Body and Blood of Christ. Certain denominations hold that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood, but only so long as the congregation is present. When the congregation leaves, the remaining bread and wine are just bread and wine. So, to compare what the rest of these denominations do with what Mother Church does is like comparing apples and oranges. The bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, fully present in each of the species.
Second of all, your comments about Pope Benedict are inane, to be brutally honest. If the Holy Father chose to "undo Vatican II", he could do so. If it was his desire to limit reception of Holy Communion under both forms to the laity only on certain occasions, he could do so by universal mandate. At the same time, I would ask you to point out where in the documents of the Second Council of the Vatican you will find a mandate that Communion under both forms be offered at every celebration of Mass.
Indeed, the indult to offer Communion under both forms was not instituted until 1975, ten years after the close of Vatican II! Further, the indult granted the PRIVILEGE of offering Communion under both species, but it was not a RIGHT. Those PRIVILEGES expired in 2005 and were not renewed by the Holy See. Many bishops have continued to permit reception of Communion under both Species, but Bishop Olmsted is actually choosing to execute the Church's law. And, because he is doing the right thing, he is attacked.
Third of all, the fullness of Christ's Real Presence, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, is found in the Host. So, it's not as if you are receiving only half of Christ's Presence. Additionally, all the graces attached to reception of the Holy Communion are received when one consumes the Host. So, it's not as if you are receiving only half of the grace. That being the case, I have to wonder if any of this is about Christ, or if it is all about your own sense of entitlement."
--------------------------------------------------
First of all to be brutally honest, any Pope who tried to undo what an Ecumenical Council did (and especially a Council that had more than 2500 of the world bishops present) could and should be deposed. In the past, popes HAVE BEEN deposed for far less than that.
The Pope is a bishop---just like any other bishop. The fact that through the evolution of history, the popes became like emperors (and certainly John Paul II helped tip that aspect of his authority even more so), does not make any pope greater than all of the world's assembled bishops. Even in the time of Pope Leo (often called the Great), the Pope was seen as "the first among equals". This is the appropriate place for a Pope---not any other position.
Christ, himself, told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood---otherwise we would not have life within us. No Pope, bishop or council has the right to abrogate Christ's words. The very fact that Eastern Catholics have ALWAYS received Communion under both species---is a further example of the Roman Curia and Popes playing theological games with the people. It was the Roman Rite that concocted that idea that the Host alone is sufficient for the people.
No priest consecrates only the hosts at the altar. No priest only consumes only the host (Body of Christ) at the altar. But in the Diocese of Phoenix (and a few others like Phoenix), whacky Olmsted states that only the clergy and bishop (of course) can receive communion under both species.
The people of the Diocese of Phoenix should depose Bishop Olmsted any way that they can----to be brutally honest!
Excellently written Melissa.
Excellently written Melissa. Life-giving. Thanks. God bless you....From Texas, where we kill people regularly...Pray for us.
The Bishop should know that
The Bishop should know that Jesus said: TAKE AND EAT; TAKE AND DRINK
Love this article ... I see
Love this article ... I see many of these same things at my parish week after week.
For the posters who say receiving the host gives a growing Catholic body everything it needs, I pose this question: Why not just receive from the cup, without the host? Wouldn't the body, blood, soul & divinity of Jesus the Christ be contained there, in the Precious Blood, the same manner as it is in the Eucharistic What-Passes-for-Bread? Just sayin' ...
So it's all about power? No
So it's all about power? No surprise, since Olmstead clearly believes we laity are second class citizens in th.e body of Christ. His use of the word "profanation" shows how ignorant he is about common English usage. In fact, it is a lot easier to conceal a host and take it from the church in order to use it in a Satanic ritual than to commit an act of profanation with the sacred cup. It's very sad to see Olmstead and his groupies split canonical and theological hairs to justify the very kind of acts that Jesus condemned in the Sadducees and Pharasees. No wonder the rift between the People of God and the clerical caste is widening daily. It is also sad to see that the bishops, with very few exceptions, fail to challenge the absolutist regime that has grown up in Rome under JP2 and Benny16. Whatever happened to the theologically fundamental practice of collegiality that guided the church until unfortunate ascendancy of Pio Nono?
I have come back to read this
I have come back to read this three times now. The tenseness in my shoulders dissolves, I breath deeper, my heart is at peace.
What you have written is love...mystery...compassion...humility...poetry...a blessing.
Thank you.
The future of Roman Catholic
The future of Roman Catholic COMMUNION:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803381.htm
http://catholicism.about.com/b/2008/06/26/pope-benedict-sets-the-norm-fo...
Hold onto your hats folks, and dust off those ALTAR RAILS; for while Jesus is calling us outside the temple, Benedict and his temple police are ordering us outside of the sanctuary!
It's bad enough that they
It's bad enough that they require the use of wheat in hosts, for no Scriptural reason. It's bad enough that they've decreed that men with Celiac disease are not eligible to become priests (after a Bishop with Celiac petitioned to be able to use non-wheat hosts). Now people with wheat allergies and gluten sensitivity are to be denied even the cup?
For shame.
Don't forget that we have two
Don't forget that we have two fonts of revelation, Scripture and Tradition. Tradition is equal to Scripture and I think a lot of people don't realize that Mass is Scripturally based as well a based in Tradition. Not everything that happens in Mass is written in the Gospels. Mass is not a re-presentation of the last supper. Mass is where time is opened and Christ is made present on the altar. We call it an altar and not a table because that is where sacrifice takes place. Christ comes to us as the sacrificed lamb on the altar. We can even see how the physical church building mimics the temple in Jerusalem. There is court of the people, the altar of sacrifice, and the holy of holies, the tabernacle. So we need to keep in perspective that Mass is not simply just the last supper.
Maybe wine is too expensive
Maybe wine is too expensive is the simple reason. If Jesus is totally present in the host, why the outrage? The deacon that ran my Church remarked one time that wine was a significant expense to the parish. To put all sorts of conspiracy theories for the reason, like getting women off the altar, is a bit of a stretch.
Melissa, your article
Melissa, your article exemplifies the best in the Vatican II tradition. Christ chooses the temple he desires to reside in not some fallible human being. When he celebrated His Last Supper, those who were in communion with him did not wear well pressed slacks and shirts, their shoes were not polished, and their hygiene probably did not measure up to social standards of their day. Yet, Our Lord found them worthy. The same is true with our Eucharistic Minister today, they see Christ in human beings regardless of their station and their social acceptability.
I visited a parish at which
I visited a parish at which after everyone present had received, a call was isued for those visiting the sick to come forward. About twenty people lined up to receive the Host in a ciborium and be blessed. It was a wonderful way to connect those unable to attend to the entire community. It is a far better way to avoid so-called prfonation than to ban the cup!
Has there been any discussion
Has there been any discussion about if this "profanity" is just germs? I'm trying to give Bishop Olmstead (whom I find as smarmy as your average politician,) the benefit of the doubt. Is profanation just a fancy way of saying he shares some people's concerns about the hygiene of sharing the cup? I know a few people that refrain from the Blood just because of that. A friend of mine, who was used to individual plastic dixie cups at her church, was pretty grossed out by so many people sharing one cup. I try to believe Jesus can protect us from some germs, but it is a legitimate concern. Thoughts?
You are all living in the
You are all living in the 16th century. Google "Hubble Telescope" and give up your medieval notions.
Kathy Sine, if the cost of
Kathy Sine, if the cost of the wine was the true concern, why does the bishop just not say that? Why lie about the issue being "profantion"? If cost was the true issue, just say it. In this economic climate, most people would understand that concern. The idea that Bishop Olmsted is concerned about "profantion" is just silly. There is no issue of "profanation" in the Diocese of Phoenix or in any other RC diocese in the US or in other parts of the world.
Bishop Olmsted is making this issue up in order to reduce the participation of the laity and to make certain that women do not distribute communion. And he is angling to be a cardinal.
Melissa, What a wonderful
Melissa, What a wonderful article! You have inspired a future homily.
Recoveringcatholic52, what a
Recoveringcatholic52, what a beautifully brilliant, insightful response you wrote to GWC. To claim no women at Last Supper (which in nonsense) logically leads to no women ever being allowed to attend church or get communion.
Good point. All men club means all men club.
Please add that this is wrongly based
1. Women and children were present. It was a Passover Seder and women and children must be present at that. WOMEN Apostles were part of his mission.
2. These apostles were married. Peter and Junia / Joanna we know were married.
Jesus has community in communion, he included women and children. Children were included too, and apostles were advised not to send them away from the presence and care of Jesus. He never abused women, men or children. He corrected the vain, greedy, selfish, narcissitic cruel Pharisees and moneychangers.
3. Jesus respected, admired women and children.
Jesus chose WOMEN Apostles too. He lavished praise on Samaritan woman and woman of the city anointer, and Mary Bethany anointer of himself, the Messiah, the anointed one.
Jesus respected children too. Let the children come to me. Harm the children and many millstones around your neck and away with you.
Post new comment