The ULTRAQUISTS claimed that the Sacrament wasn’t complete unless everyone received under both species. They claimed that NO MATTER what the Church said, and NO MATTER what the situation of the Communicant, unless the Communicant received BOTH the Body of Christ and the Blessed Blood, he/she just wasn’t receiving the Sacrament of our Lord’s Body & Blood. Have you heard ANYONE actually claim that? and, Do you hear anyone actually saying that here?
In the case of Teresa Schindler-Schiavo, She wasn’t able to shallow the Body of Christ, because she was SO DEHYDRATED her body couldn’t make saliva. Thank God, Fr. Pavone had brought a small amount of Lord’s Precious Blood so Terry was still able to receive Communion right before she died. and, Thank God, Our Lord has taught, through His Church, that that Little bit of Blessed Blood is enough, that Terry didn’t need to keep on trying desperately to swallow the Body of Christ when she couldn’t make saliva.
I want you to look at this argument from Catholic Encyclopedia about Denying the CUP to the Laity, and ask yourself if the same logic could be used to reverse many of current practices:
[FONT=Georgia]New Advent - Communion Under Both Kinds
(2) Regarding the merits of the Utraquist controversy, if we assume the doctrinal points involved – viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds, the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species, and the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not divinely determined the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary, and is to be decided by a reference to the two fold purpose to be attained,of safeguarding the reverence due to this most august sacrament and of facilitating and encouraging its frequent and fervent reception. Nor can it be doubted that the modern Catholic discipline best secures these ends. The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; [size=3]the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers – the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Communion in the case of a great many otherwise well-disposed people; these and similar “weighty and just reasons” against the Utraquist practice are more than sufficient to justify the Church in forbidding it.
[size=4][FONT=Georgia]For my part, I’ll limit my response to a few points - I’ve seen several articles by Medical Authorities on the issue of the CUP and “passing of Germs” - Most of which have given the Common Communion CUP a “Clean Bill of Health”. One of the priests from my former parish used to be the former President of the American Association of Physicians Assistants, and for 17 years (1982-1997), his practice was caring for AIDS Patients. This is ONE ARTICLE I don’t dare show him because it’ll make the Catholic Church look REALLY STUPID… And, That’s ONE THING the Church isn’t.
I don’t seem to recall people NOT going to the Communion rail because we shared a COMMON CUP. I recall people using COMMON SENSE - If you’re sick, or think you are, receive the Lord’s Precious Blood by INTINCTION, or not at all. If you’re an Alcoholic, don’t receive the Lord’s Precious Blood, or, If you have CILIAC DISEASE, Receive ONLY the precious Blood (The Council of Trent can also be used “Pastorally” and not just to make points)…
Just because the Congregation receives the Lord under both species doesn’t mean the Priests & Deacons are going to insist on taking the Sacrament under both Species to the Sick, or the Sick are going to demand that they bring the Lord to them under both Species, or Priests are going to try to pour the Lord’s Precious Blood into Ciboria & place the Ciboria into Tabernacles. People don’t lose their common sense just because they start receiving our Lord under both Species.
The bit about Spillage - I’ve worshiped in a situation where that was eliminated - The CUP was handled by Bishops, Priests & Deacons only - The only handling by the Communicants was incidental & was to “guide the CUP to their lips” - The CUP NEVER left the custody of the Bishop, Priest or Deacon who was “Distributing Our Lord’s precious Blood” to the Faithful. Everyone had Reverence for the Lord who was in the CUP, the CUP was UNDER-, NOT over-filed and handled with extreme care. Again, That may have been because the CUP was handled by Sacred Ministers ONLY!
Most Roman parishes use EMHE (NOT Deacons) who probably may nor may not understand who is in the CUP, who then have to hand the cup to LAYPEOPLE most of whom quite probably don’t understand who’s in the CUP. The result is SPILLAGE, just as the result of much of what’s being done in Roman parishes is dropping of crumbs (of our Lord) & trampling on our Lord, and a general and precipitous decline in reverence since the late 1950’s.
I’ll let the article stand as Plaintiff’s Witness One.
Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael[/size][/FONT]