Another diocese limits Communion cup

The diocese of Phoenix is ahead of you. The rector of Bishop Olmsted's cathedral has already been working on Communion in the hand because of 9 unintentional profanations he frequently observes. His major aim is to deepen appreciation for the Eucharist. See his Bulletin Letter January 29/30, 2011 and 3 preceding letters.
http://www.simonjude.org/documents/BulletinLetterJanuary302011.pdf

The author asks:

"What's next? No Communion in the hand? Bring back the Communion rail? Getting rid of the vernacular altogether?"

Sounds like a great plan to me !

If you add getting rid of Ecumenism and Religious Liberty, and restoring the Missal of St Pius V.... well, I will support you as a laywoman to head a congregation at the Vatican !

Will someone please explain to me the reason for this new trend to restrict Holy Communion under both species? Is it for reasons of health? Or does the Church want to revert back to before Vatican II? Perhaps moving the altar back against the wall so that the priest's back faces the congregation? Maybe even bringing back the altar rail as in the old days? This trend is totally puzzling to me.
Peter
Petradom737@aol.com

Hopefully, yes.

One of my fears, the "extraordinary form" of the Liturgy will become the "Ordinary Form". Hasn't anyone learned something from almost a hundred years of scholarship,from Jungmann,Dix,Miller,Diekmann,Baumstark,Talley, Taft,etc. The Tridentine Liturgy was already way out of date when it was imposed on most of the Western church in 1570. If a more substantial revision of the Liturgy had been undertaken in the 16th century,the spiritual fruits of Trent might have been strnger and more enduring. The pious devotional asceticism of the subsequent centuries did not really stand up to the intellectual and spiritual challenges of the times.

Whatever happened to "Do this in remembrance of me." Very few of Jesus' words are reported, but that sounds like a command. Church fathers can disobey Christ's commands but not the laity?

The new Mass translations, banning altar girls, limiting the Communion cup. What's next? No Communion in the hand? Bring back the Communion rail? Getting rid of the vernacular altogether?

All excellent ideas, though only timid steps in the right direction.

Heidi wrote:   I try to not get upset about every little step backward by the church hierarchy,   but when it's evident that a movement is underway to take us back to a church where laity knew their place and had appropriate awe — not necessarily for God,   but for their leaders and the trappings of the church — it is very depressing.
.
Amen to that!     An image of Raymond Burke in his medieval royal finery,   ermine and silk cappa magna train complete with attending courtiers,   comes to mind...   as his excellent self upstages the Lord of the Mass with his grand theatrical entrance.     That's where the Vatican's political heavy hitters are taking us...   awe directed toward men.     But obey the clear directive of the Lord of the Church:   "take this all of you and drink from it"   ...not so much.
.

This happens where I attend mass and I will bring my own wine in a flask. However, I don't think that my billfold and the flask will both fit in my purse.

As I read the comments to Deacon Kandra's blog, I felt the impact of the first three or four beginning with "This is sad."
In part, the feelings of anger are giving way to the sense of sadness that what use to be an open, enlivening, and engaging Catholic Church especially liturgically is dying; the sadness of a people feeling the effects of an oppressive power structure; the sadness of the sanctuary light diminishing.
I know there are others who disagree with my view as they embrace a more traditional and perhaps even catechetical and canonical affection for the Church. By that I mean they too love the Church and wholeheartedly embrace an identity as Catholic that had clearer markings, that had practices they truly found good. My hat is off to you and I respect your fervor.
But I only ask that you likewise respect someone who grew up in an era of change within the Church and a change that was quite compatible not only with scripture and tradition, but also reflective of a changing world. Perhaps our time is gone as the world itself appears changing, as our nation is going through upheaval and perhaps diminishment, and the level of uncertainty and ambiguity rises. You and I both believed the liturgy as we both know it was a source of hope and nourishment. But the slow undoing of so much that was hopeful, in my Vat II awareness, has reached the tipping point and the next era of an older style Catholic Church is marching in. That today's young people are less inclined to attend our church could be the fault of us who let the inspiration and hope of our era die out. Or it could also be the exposure of the clerical abuse system as revealed not only in the sex abuse crises, but also the cover up, the power drive, and the erosion of inviting lay involvement.
Yes, it is sad. And while those who follow a more traditional approach may relish the changes (ironically) and the growing separation of priest and people, I believe your church will be smaller and continue to reduce as you age. I don't know if a different church will emerge, and actually have my doubts that one will because the "emerging church" is broad-based and open to a variety of expressions that does not seem to possess a core.
Is it such a big deal that serving wine will no longer be a normative practice? Perhaps by itself no, but as Heidi tallies it up the individual pieces keep adding up. Erosion, not revolution, is the process.

It should be obvious to anyone that in the thoughts of some bishops, that the People of God, the Body of Christ, cannot be trusted with the proper care and handling of the same.....not only must you confess that you are not worthy to have Him come under your roof, you are also unworthy to drink His blood......this level of clericalism is strangling a Church gasping for air. If the bishops are afraid that no one is listening to them or demonstrating to them the proper respect, then one response on their behalf is to control the accessibility the faithful might have to what they seek most, the Eucharist. This authoritarianism is blasphemous, who has the right to deny another access to the Body of Christ? Someone needs to inform them about Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16. How compelling that the all three of the Synoptics contain this story!
Sometimes I get the impression that those who have positions of authority in the Roman Catholic Church see themselves as the last bastions of defense and protection of what they interpret as essential to Catholic dogma and tradition.They resist any and all attempts at change, as if change was an element of evil and destruction. Sadly, they also resist the very Spirit of God which brings that same change, in so doing they clearly manifest a lack of faith in the same God they seek to serve. Instead of listening with an open mind and heart they have closed them both to anything which is new and different, they honor Him with their lips but their hearts are far from Him.

No one forces anyone to receive communion in the chalice. When both forms are offered, communicants can do what they feel is liturgically and aesthetically appropriate for them that day. Why does the mere fact of the laity having a little say in their liturgical actions make some authoritarian people so angry? Why the outrage and viciousness hidden behind meek-sounding but unconvincing words and reasons?

Profanation or desecration my eye. If the bishops think that God and the body of Christ are so easily profaned or desecrated by accident or, if intentionally, by some misguided or hurt soul, then I say that is evidence of the paucity of their faith. Do these bishops really think they can take God and shrink God down to the shriveled little raisin that they have apparently become? We need to ask: are the bishops in love with their flock, are they in a deep, caring relationship with it when they refuse to empower it with even the smallest crumb of influence in their own liturgy? Clearly there is no love or caring. These people do not mean us well.

Communion in the hand is the exception, not the rule. Communion on the tongue is the rule. Vatican II did not change that, nor did it ever call for the removal of altar rails, or placing the tabernacle in an out of sight location. I think it is not those things that we hold true to the faith in our tradition as Catholics, I fear it may be a loss of faith on your part. The laity know why we go to mass, and no, it isn't to be in awe of the priest, but in what the priest point us toward.