Author Topic: SSPX chapel giving Communion under Both Kinds (Read 3340 times)

Änσnymσus · « **on:** June 28, 2016, 02:42:34 PM »

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Laymen-receiving-the-Precious-Blood-due-to-gluten-intolerance

Some more details:

There is a gluten-intolerant man at my local SSPX chapel who brings his own small, gold chalice to Mass every Sunday. The priest distributes Communion to this man via the Precious Blood rather than the Body of Our Lord. It is probably relevant to this discussion to mention that he is a wealthy parishioner.

So the priest comes up to him during Communion, bearing a golden chalice with the Precious Blood, and communicates this man. All normal liturgical measures to prevent profanation of the Sacred Species are used (paten, corporal, etc.)

Just think of the effect on the rest of the parish. This man is certainly being given special treatment. Besides the priest, he alone receives the Precious Blood. This happens every Sunday at a very public Mass. All the other parishioners are Latin Rite Catholics who are not accustomed to laymen receiving in this manner. It's not like this is the Byzantine Rite, or the Novus Ordo. We're talking about trads!

And I believe there's a big difference between giving a man the Precious Blood from a golden chalice every Sunday, and letting old people stand for Holy Communion because they physically can't kneel. At least they are still receiving the same Holy Communion with everyone else.

In 1965 the Vatican allowed both species under certain conditions.

http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/docuмentText/Index/2/SubIndex/41/ContentIndex/334/Start/333

This is quite literally a Vatican II docuмent which gave this permission. Read it and weep:

Quote

The Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, in accordance with the wishes of the council, also prepared a rite for the administration of Communion under both species and it defined the occasions and the manner in which clergy, religious and laity may receive the Eucharist under both species.

For some months a number of experiments were carried out, with excellent results, with regard to the rites both of concelebration and of Communion under both species, all over the world. When the secretary had received reports and comments on these experiments, both rites were submitted to a final revision in the light of the experience gained and were submitted to the Holy Father by Cardinal Giacomo Lercaro, President of the Consilium.

The Holy Father considered the two rites very carefully, with the assistance both of the Consilium and the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and he approved and confirmed them, speciali modo, in their entirety and in all parts, in virtue of his authority, in an audience with Cardinal Arcadio Maria Larraona, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. He ordered it to be published and to be observed by everybody from Holy Thursday, 16 April, 1965

What traditional Catholic, much less what trad Priest, would have recourse to Vatican II to justify one of their actions?

Since when do we go along with anything from Vatican II? Especially as regards the Liturgy? Isn't this a slippery slide, and more evidence that the SSPX is getting a little too close and familiar with Vatican II?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #1 on:** June 28, 2016, 03:00:28 PM »

Hey get with the times, will ya? Maybe they should waive the 6th commandment for sex addicts. It's not their fault after all!!!!!! It's a disease.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #2 on:** June 28, 2016, 03:02:51 PM »

Why do I suspect that if he were a poor parishioner, the priest would tell the man that it's his cross to bear, and how he could become quite close to Our Lord from a strong desire and love for Him, making frequent and ardent Spiritual Communions, and possibly become closer to Jesus than many Catholics who can receive Him every Sunday.

Maybe I'm just cynical. But it's true that money talks and bull____ walks.

Miseremini · « **Reply #3 on:** June 28, 2016, 03:33:50 PM »

And who purifies his personal chalice after he's received?
Does he hand it to the priest or does he take it back to his pew?

wallflower · « **Reply #4 on:** June 28, 2016, 04:08:53 PM »

OP I agree it's a little strange considering there are low gluten hosts. But if his intolerance is severe, then even a low gluten host wouldn't cut it and he would have to receive under the other species.

Isn't this a matter of discipline rather than doctrine? If the discipline is upheld everywhere but in one case that warrants an exception, I don't see how this is a slide. It's an exception.

I hope you will reconsider what it costs the man to receive "special treatment". I daresay that if you knew what he endures from his disease and has to sacrifice every day, you would happily take your Holy Communion in the normal line like a typical parishioner and regard his "special treatment" with more compassion than envy. Some people like to stand out yes, but in my experience many don't and are embarrassed by the attention rather than flattered. I am sure he knows there are whisperers out there. It's not a good feeling, trust me.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #5 on:** June 28, 2016, 05:16:44 PM »

Quote from: wallflower

OP I agree it's a little strange considering there are low gluten hosts. But if his intolerance is severe, then even a low gluten host wouldn't cut it and he would have to receive under the other species.

Isn't this a matter of discipline rather than doctrine? If the discipline is upheld everywhere but in one case that warrants an exception, I don't see how this is a slide. It's an exception.

I hope you will reconsider what it costs the man to receive "special treatment". I daresay that if you knew what he endures from his disease and has to sacrifice every day, you would happily take your Holy Communion in the normal line like a typical parishioner and regard his "special treatment" with more compassion than envy. Some people like to stand out yes, but in my experience many don't and are embarrassed by the attention rather than flattered. I am sure he knows there are whisperers out there. It's not a good feeling, trust me.

Sure, the man is suffering, and I grant you that. We should be compassionate.

But where in the book of "Tradition" does a Latin-rite priest have the option to do what he's doing? Or is he just cherry-picking from the wicked Vatican II out of compassion? That's a dangerous road to travel...

What's next, communion in the hand? Perhaps married permanent deacons? The modern church allows for both. As long as there is an expedient reason for it, we can throw out the sensibilities of all the Catholics present.

I guarantee you that someone could come up with good reasons to ordain married men as permanent deacons, especially if they promise to *do it right* and pick only the most suitable candidates.

But there is the problem with all that. How can a priest root for the total destruction of Vatican II, when he's making use of part(s) of it in his apostolate? Of course, SSPX priests are no longer firmly against Vatican II, but that's a whole other story.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #6 on:** June 28, 2016, 05:43:42 PM »

Quote from: Guest

his apostolate?

Only a modernist uses the term "apostolate". Busted :detective:

TKGS · « **Reply #7 on:** June 28, 2016, 06:00:58 PM »

Quote from: Guest

What's next, communion in the hand? Perhaps married permanent deacons? The modern church allows for both. As long as there is an expedient reason for it, we can throw out the sensibilities of all the Catholics present.

There's another topic here about Communion for people who cannot tolerate any gluten at all. I would defer to the priest on what to do except for the "small, gold chalice" the man brings to Mass every Sunday. The Precious Blood should not be placed in an unconsecrated container and if it consecrated, it should be kept by the priest.

But as to what is next, if the SSPX regularizes, I expect all of these. If the Conciliar church starts ordaining deaconesses, I expect that one will one day see an SSPX chapel in "full-communion" having a high Mass with deaconesses.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #8 on:** June 28, 2016, 06:44:28 PM »

Then maybe the man should not receive. It's possible he may be exempt from the Easter obligation.

wallflower · « **Reply #9 on:** June 28, 2016, 06:50:20 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: wallflower
OP I agree it's a little strange considering there are low gluten hosts. But if his intolerance is severe, then even a low gluten host wouldn't cut it and he would have to receive under the other species.

Isn't this a matter of discipline rather than doctrine? If the discipline is upheld everywhere but in one case that warrants an exception, I don't see how this is a slide. It's an exception.

I hope you will reconsider what it costs the man to receive "special treatment". I daresay that if you knew what he endures from his disease and has to sacrifice every day, you would happily take your Holy Communion in the normal line like a typical parishioner and regard his "special treatment" with more compassion than envy. Some people like to stand out yes, but in my experience many don't and are embarrassed by the attention rather than flattered. I am sure he knows there are whisperers out there. It's not a good feeling, trust me.

Sure, the man is suffering, and I grant you that. We should be compassionate.

But where in the book of "Tradition" does a Latin-rite priest have the option to do what he's doing? Or is he just cherry-picking from the wicked Vatican II out of compassion? That's a dangerous road to travel...

What's next, communion in the hand? Perhaps married permanent deacons? The modern church allows for both. As long as there is an expedient reason for it, we can throw out the sensibilities of all the Catholics present.

I guarantee you that someone could come up with good reasons to ordain married men as permanent deacons, especially if they promise to *do it right* and pick only the most suitable candidates.

But there is the problem with all that. How can a priest root for the total destruction of Vatican II, when he's making use of part(s) of it in his apostolate? Of course, SSPX priests are no longer firmly against Vatican II, but that's a whole other story.

I think you are trying to compare a bunch of things that aren't necessarily comparable. You're trying to swipe several complex issues with one broad yes-or-no brush. It doesn't work that way.

Can you say with confidence that had the epidemic of severe food intolerances happened 200 years ago, the Church would not have taken it into account if it kept a significant number of people from Communion? I don't think you can. This is MUCH less significant than the other issues you bring forward and again -- it's an exception, not a rule -- unlike the other issues you bring forward.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #10 on:** June 28, 2016, 06:51:34 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest
his apostolate?

Only a modernist uses the term "apostolate". Busted :detective:

Only an idiot over-generalizes and jumps to accusations when he doesn't know what the heck he's talking about. There is nothing wrong with the word apostolate. The word is very old, and is the best word to describe the work a priest does.

Gustave Chautard became a novice in the Trappist abbey of Aiguebelle on May 6, 1877. After theological studies he was ordained a priest on 3 June 1884. Among his early duties was the care of the abbey’s chocolate factory. In 1897, he was elected abbot in the monastery Chambarand near Grenoble and then, only two years later, he became abbot of the monastery that had founded Chambarand, Sept-Fons. Thus, he became responsible for several foundations that Sept-Fons had made in the 19th century. Chautard became one of the leading figures in the Trappist Order. He continued the expansion for which the Order was known at that time, even achieving in 1898/99 the purchase of the famous Cîteaux Abbey, in which the Cisterican Order began around 1100 (the monastery had been lost during the French Revolution). Monks from La Trappe and Sept-Fons were sent there to reestablish Cistercian life. Jean-Baptiste Chautard suffered a fatal heart attack while returning home from the Trappist General Chapter in 1935.

Writings[edit]
Dom Chautard was also responsible for foundations in Belgium (Orval) and Latin America, yet his reputation as the author of religious books made him even more well-known among European and American Catholics. His Soul of the Apostolate[1] has been translated into several languages and is still in print. Chautard's books were the fruit of his daily spiritual conferences in the abbeys under his care; he was also an active letter writer. The book seeks to underline the basic and indispensable importance of prayer and Marian devotions, all the more so for people engaged in an active life of apostolic works.

Several popes cited Chautard’s book and recommended it to wide audiences. Pope Pius X was said to have it on his night stand, Benedict XV wrote a foreword for it, and Benedict XVI cited it during his visit to Lourdes in 2008.[2]

P.S. The word you're thinking of is "ministry". So you don't even have the right word here! Get a clue.

wallflower · « **Reply #11 on:** June 28, 2016, 06:57:51 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

There's another topic here about Communion for people who cannot tolerate any gluten at all. I would defer to the priest on what to do except for the "small, gold chalice" the man brings to Mass every Sunday. The Precious Blood should not be placed in an unconsecrated container and if it consecrated, it should be kept by the priest.

That's a good point. I had assumed since it was in his possession that it was unconsecrated but that would mean the Precious Blood is poured into an unconsecrated vessel. Is there a rule about that? The alternative is that the man would be putting his mouth to the consecrated chalice to receive. That seems worse. Too bad we can't adopt a Latin equivalent of the Ukrainian spoon for such exceptions. If things keep going as they are, it may become a necessity or a large percentage of people will not be able to receive in just a few generations.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #12 on:** June 28, 2016, 07:02:41 PM »

Yes, only tonsured clerics may touch a consecrated vessel. And only a Deacon can touch the Sacred Species or any vessel with the Sacred Species in it.

So did he get his chalice consecrated, and he just never touches it directly? Even so, he touches it with his lips. Those lips, unlike those of the priest, are not consecrated.

We don't have Ukrainian Rite spoons and all that kind of infrastructure to distribute the Precious Blood because...we're not Ukrainian. See the problem?

Miseremini · « **Reply #13 on:** June 28, 2016, 07:10:18 PM »

Not having a problem with gluten I understand that an allergy would prevent someone from receiving a Host with gluten but it is gluten intolerant that is mentioned. Am I to assume that means the person is not rushed to the hospital by ambulance? What is a reaction to gluten? Can they not receive a small particle of the Host? That is all that is required to receive the sacrament.

Also could the OP please answer my previous questions.
Who purifies the chalice the man brings?
And
Does he take it back with him to his pew.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #14 on:** June 28, 2016, 11:47:32 PM »

Quote from: wallflower

Can you say with confidence that had the epidemic of severe food intolerances happened 200 years ago, the Church would not have taken it into account if it kept a significant number of people from Communion? I don't think you can. This is MUCH less significant than the other issues you bring forward and again -- it's an exception, not a rule -- unlike the other issues you bring forward.

Acting on what you think the Church would do if things were different is a very slippery slope.

I think even if the situation affected large numbers of people, it would be wiser to pray that God resolve the situation rather than presume the Church would have acted in a particular manner.

Yes, this situation isn't the most significant, but the same reasoning could be applied to any number of things and where would the line be drawn?

Author Topic: SSPX chapel giving Communion under Both Kinds (Read 3340 times)

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus