A respectful question about receiving the Blood of Christ

[IanM]

Intinction is in fact allowed. What is not allowed is self-intinction. Only the priest can do the intinction.

Permitting the distribution of the Eucharist by poorly catechised Extra Ordinary Eucharistic Ministers and reception of the Eucharist on the hand opened a can of worms to be frank. I recently attended a large Catholic funeral and after receiving Holy Communion went to my pew at the rear of the church. On glancing towards the Sanctuary, I saw a good woman I know slightly, who I know for certain to be an Anglican, appear from the direction of the Host distributors (Celebrant and lay Extra Ordinary Eucharistic Minister.) She walked up to an Extra Ordinary Eucharistic Minister who was standing in a corner and holding a chalice and proceeded to place what appeared to be something (I presumed to be the Host) into the chalice, remove it and then consumed it. I have no doubt that she was acting in good faith but was in ignorance of what we believe. Such things can only happen under the present methods of distribution of the Eucharist in the Ordinary Form Mass.

 

[EricPH]

Smokers seem to have more courage than we do, they see the graphic health warnings on cigarette packets, they ignore the risks and get on with life.

There are reasons we take the body and blood of our Lord, yet at the slightest perceived risk we seem to loose our faith; very sad.

 

[InThePew]

The reason why individual cups are prohibited has less to do with logistical challenges and more to do with the notion of communion (i.e. “with” or “as one”) symbolised by (ideally) receiving from the “one cup” in keeping with Christ’s actions at the last supper when he “took the chalice and, giving thanks, gave the chalice to his disciples saying take this all of you and drink from it”. Granted, for logistical reasons, it’s not always possible for all of the faithful to receive from one chalice but nonetheless all chalices are consecrated at once since pouring the precious blood from one vessel to another after consecration is strictly prohibited because of the danger of profanation. As Redemptionis Sacramentum notes though, “It is praiseworthy, by reason of the sign value, to use a main chalice of larger dimensions, together with smaller chalices.”

In fairness, we do of course use individual hosts since it would not be possible to break a single (presumably ginormous) hosts into sufficient individual pieces especially without the risk of crumbs going everywhere. Smaller hosts with sealed edges avoids this risk. Nonetheless we are of course stil sharing in the one body of Christ and (preferably) hosts consecrated at that mass. It would be difficult (to put it mildly) to consecrate anything upwards of 80-100 (if not 10x that number) of individual communion cups! As well as this, the large host, broken at the fraction rite, reminds us (symbolically at least) that we are sharing in the one body.

I have no doubt that she was acting in good faith but was in ignorance of what we believe. Such things can only happen under the present methods of distribution of the Eucharist in the Ordinary Form Mass.

The Extraordinary Minister did nothing wrong - it is not for them to decide whether or not someone should receive - that’s the responsibility of the priest. Without knowing anything more, I would give communion to a person in those circumstances because there are (limited) circumstances in which an Anglican can receive the eucharist and I could not say for sure that those circumstances didn’t apply. If nothing else I would give them communion in order to avoid the appearance of scandal (again, based solely on what you’ve described) - basically people speculating on the possible reasons for someone being visibly refused the eucharist. I would however, if possible, approach them afterwards to clarify the situation.

Intinction is another problem altogether. While it wouldn’t exist without reception under both kinds to eliminate that would remove “a fuller sign of the eucharistic banquet”. Ultimately, it’s just one of those things that’s persisted despite attempts to eliminate it and, for better or worse, has ended up in the too hard basket probably because there are more pressing concerns to deal with and it’s not (at least as I’ve observed) that predmoniant - a small percentage in any given congregation.

 

[IanM]

The Extraordinary Minister did nothing wrong - it is not for them to decide whether or not someone should receive - that’s the responsibility of the priest. Without knowing anything more, I would give communion to a person in those circumstances because there are (limited) circumstances in which an Anglican can receive the eucharist and I could not say for sure that those circumstances didn’t apply. If nothing else I would give them communion in order to avoid the appearance of scandal (again, based solely on what you’ve described) - basically people speculating on the possible reasons for someone being visibly refused the eucharist. I would however, if possible, approach them afterwards to clarify the situation.

Perhaps my example was not too clearly presented. The lady approached the Extra Ordinary Eucharistic Minister holding something, which I presumed to be a Host, received from either the Priest or the Extra Ordinary Eucharistic Minister standing at the open altar rail gate. Which person presented it to her, is unknown to me. Her approach to the second Extra Ordinary Minister (holding the chalice) who was positioned elsewhere, was in my view. It seems that this Minister apparently permitted intinction and I presume the Host was consumed when she placed it into her mouth. That suggest poor catechisis of the person holding the chalice, I suggest. Incidentally, I actually approached her after Mass but obviously decided not to embarrass her by mentioning what I had seen. She told me that this was the first time she had attended a “Catholic funeral” but she was surprised at how similar the service was to her Anglican service.

 

[Gorgias]

The consecrated host is not the Body alone, it has both Body and Precious Blood.

To be fair, “Precious Blood” is the term we use for the contents of the chalice.

The doctrine of “concomitance” teaches that when we receive under either species, we receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, whole and entire.

Nothing can keep me personally from receiving under both species

Are you concerned about receiving “both species” or receiving the “body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ”? If the former, then you’re concerned merely about physical form; if the latter, then you do receive it when you receive only one species.

I suppose I can “get it” that intinction recombines the Body and the Blood

It really doesn’t. The whole Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are present in the host alone.

True, they’re an environmental nightmare, and a time-sink to set up.

Set-up is less a nightmare than proper purification afterward!

if the Body proclaims His death and the Blood proclaims the New Covenant

Nope. That’s not what the Catholic Church teaches, anyway. Is that a teaching from a Protestant denomination somewhere?

That is why when one of the local priests who I often receive from is distributing the consecrated hosts, he always says “Blood of Christ”, not “Body of Christ”.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Gorgias, if you don’t like it, take it up with Father. He is from Africa originally and better catechized than 90 percent of my parish. He’s also very holy and I don’t think you should facepalm at him. You probably could learn some things from him.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, if you don’t like it, take it up with Father. He is from Africa originally and better catechized than 90 percent of my parish. He’s also very holy and I don’t think you should facepalm at him. You probably could learn some things from him.

It sounds like a personal styling. I think perhaps we might look to the GIRM, and learn some things from it:

1. Holy Communion under the form of bread is offered to the communicant with the words “The Body of Christ.”
2. The chalice is offered to the communicant with the words “The Blood of Christ,” to which the communicant responds, “Amen.”

I get it that you love your priest, but when he does stuff like this, it confuses the faithful. It would be wonderful in the context of a homiletic exposition… but not as a means to change the rubrics of the Mass.

I’m sure he’s holy… but he’s objectively in error on this point.

 

[Katie777]

Thank you for your concern…I am well aware.
Your sister in Christ Jesus
Katie

 

[Gorgias]

Thank you for your concern…I am well aware.
Your sister in Christ Jesus
Katie

Cool!

OK, then… so you know that you’re receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ each time you receive the host! Cool!

 

[The_Old_Maid]

@TheOldMaid … if the Body proclaims His death and the Blood proclaims the New Covenant … @Gorgias … Nope. That’s not what the Catholic Church teaches, anyway. Is that a teaching from a Protestant denomination somewhere?

It’s from The Gospels.

Luke 22:19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

Luke 22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

I was taken to at least five denominations as a child (not counting the non-denominational ones), and if I recall correctly they all quoted/phrased and taught it that way.

Also, the general comments here on intinction are fascinating. I had heard that one of the Julian Popes disliked it, but I haven’t heard why.

 

[Gorgias]

I was taken to at least five denominations as a child (not counting the non-denominational ones), and if I recall correctly they all quoted/phrased and taught it that way.

Fascinating! I’ve been a Catholic for a half-century, and I’ve never heard it interpreted in quite that way! I think that, from a Catholic perspective, we’d say that the Body and Blood of Christ point to one reality, not two – the redemptive sacrifice of Christ and the ongoing memorial of his actions!

Also, the general comments here on intinction are fascinating.

To be honest, I haven’t experienced intinction (as a distribution method for the congregation) since the widespread adoption of distribution by EMHCs in the 1970s. Once altar rails – and therefore, distribution solely by a priest – were largely abandoned in the U.S., intinction for the congregation likewise seemed to be a thing of the past.

 

[on_the_hill]

Smokers seem to have more courage than we do, they see the graphic health warnings on cigarette packets, they ignore the risks and get on with life.

False. It’s not courageous to smoke cigarettes. Nicotine is addictive. The level of obtuseness behind this statement is baffling. You should rethink that position. It’s offensive.

There are reasons we take the body and blood of our Lord, yet at the slightest perceived risk we seem to loose our faith; very sad.

What’s sad is that you’re probably not serious and yet I’m getting irked nonetheless.

And so, on reflection, I offer my patience and understanding. For all I know, I’m irked at a 15 year old high school kid for spouting off just for kicks.

 

[Berenice5768]

I wondered the same thing, i understand that because of health concerns there is no more receiving the blood of Christ, (the wine). However, I wondered why the church, especially the catholic church doesn’t offer communion the same way as the eastern catholic churches offer communion, with dipping the bread into wine. After all, isn’t the body and blood of Christ central to Catholicism, that its one of Catholicism’s tenets? And Easter is coming; especially Holy Thursday. is the wine suspended on that mass too?

 

[InThePew]

It seems that this Minister apparently permitted intinction and I presume the Host was consumed when she placed it into her mouth. That suggest poor catechisis of the person holding the chalice, I suggest.

In fairness to the minister, it’s not up to her to refuse a communicant, even they’re doing something they shouldn’t, in the absence of specific direction on this from the parish priest. Should the priest then address it? Probably yes; but as I said before there are a lot of other things on a priest’s to do list and, particularly when it comes to an issue like this, timing and patience are important. It’s also something which would arguably be better addressed at the diocesan level but that said, what’s true of the priest is also true of the bishop - only more so!

 

[otjm]

However, I wondered why the church, especially the catholic church doesn’t offer communion the same way as the eastern catholic churches offer communion, with dipping the bread into wine.

Eastern Rite Churches in union with Rome use leavened bread; prior to preparation, it is actually a small loaf. It is then put into the chalice, and one receives from a small spoon (and having done so several times, it is awkward!). I have heard nothing at all as to how those Churches are responding to the virus issue.

And Easter is coming; especially Holy Thursday. is the wine suspended on that mass too?

The Cup may or may not be suspended, depending on the diocese. Mine has recommended it but not required that it no longer be offered.

 

[Berenice5768]

Otjm,

Thank you for your reply.

 

[JanR]

That’s what I was always led to understand – receiving communion by either species is receive the totality of Christ – body AND blood. That’s why alcoholics who must forego drinking the wine are perfectly safe receiving only the host. Christ is complete in either or both.

Thank God!

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Eastern Rite Churches in union with Rome use leavened bread; prior to preparation, it is actually a small loaf. It is then put into the chalice, and one receives from a small spoon (and having done so several times, it is awkward!). I have heard nothing at all as to how those Churches are responding to the virus issue.

Our pastor said that the RCC should take a cue from us and immerse the Hosts in the chalice. However, since the RCC uses unleavened bread that’s not an option.

To each his own, to each his own…

 

[otjm]

However, since the RCC uses unleavened bread that’s not an option.

Actually, there is a vessel which is designed to be used in the Roman Rite; in the center is a chalice like cup, and surrounding that is what would be considered a ciborium. It looks a bit like a platter or shallow bowl with a cup (with little or no base) in the center, and a lip around the side to prevent the Hosts from falling off. I have seen pictures of it and presume it is used, likely in very few parishes as one can receive only from the priest (as it appears the rule only provides for the priest distributing; I do not see reference to a deacon doing so). In a large parish, that could lead to a very long period of time distributing Communion.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Vico]

I was saddened to read that some believers won’t be receiving the Blood for the duration of the current health concern. I was told that the chalice is the only accepted method to receive, and was curious why.

I suppose I can “get it” that intinction recombines the Body and the Blood, and that this bothers some people.

But I was puzzled to learn that those tiny Communion cups (with the silver stacking trays) are “verboten for Catholics.” True, they’re an environmental nightmare, and a time-sink to set up. But every congregation I know that does it says it’s acceptable because Luke 22:17 says, And he [Jesus] took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves .

Do you think the Church might reconsider, so that believers may partake? Or is there a stronger reason than the ones I know?

[EDIT: thanks, HomeschoolDad, for catching that typo that it’s 22:17, not 17:22.]

I am Byzantine Catholic and we receive the Body and Blood of Christ appearing in the forms of risen wheat cubes soaked in wine and water. It is the norm in the eastern churches, yet for the Latin Church is it not the norm. Yet the Catechism states “the sign of communion is more complete”.