Adoration Question--Precious Blood

[PacoG]

Is the Sacred Host the only Eucharistic Species exposed? Is the Precious Blood ever exposed for adoration? Is there any tradition (archaic or otherwise) by which the Precious Blood was ever exposed?

 

[zab]

Is the Sacred Host the only Eucharistic Species exposed? Is the Precious Blood ever exposed for adoration? Is there any tradition (archaic or otherwise) by which the Precious Blood was ever exposed?

I have never heard of the Precious Blood ever being exposed for adoration, except in cases of ongoing Eucharistic Miracles such as the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano in Italy.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Since normally, the Eucharist is reserved (in the West) only under the species of bread, it would be very difficult and impractical, not to say almost impossible, to expose the Precious Blood for veneration.

In what would you be reserving it? A cruet? A crystal flagon?

And since the Eucharistic presence of Our Lord exists ONLY under the appearances of bread and wine, if the either of the species takes on the appearance of anything else, including flesh and blood, it’s no longer the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I recall reading someplace that exposition of the Precious Blood is specifically prohibited. I don’t remember where I read this, but it was a reliable, though maybe not official, source.

Note that Canon Law only discusses the exposition of the Host.

Can. 941 §1. In churches or oratories where it is permitted to reserve the Most Holy Eucharist, there can be expositions with the pyx or the monstrance; the norms prescribed in the liturgical books are to be observed.
§2. Exposition of the Most Blessed Sacrament is not to be held in the same area of the church or oratory during the celebration of Mass.

This seems to imply that exposition of the Precious Blood is not anticipated.

 

[nkbeth]

And since the Eucharistic presence of Our Lord exists ONLY under the appearances of bread and wine, if the either of the species takes on the appearance of anything else, including flesh and blood, it’s no longer the Body and Blood of Christ.

But what do you think about the miracle of Lanciano, described here: acfp2000.com/Miracles/eucharistic.html
Read it through to see the approval given by the Church

I don’t know enough to speculate.

The Eucharist is the greatest miracle of all in any case

 

[Spirithound]

But what do you think about the miracle of Lanciano, described here: acfp2000.com/Miracles/eucharistic.html
Read it through to see the approval given by the Church

I don’t know enough to speculate.

The Eucharist is the greatest miracle of all in any case

Eucharistic miracles like the one at Lanciano may indeed be the Lord’s own Flesh and Blood (and I think that Lanciano and other have been given approval), but the point that was made was that once the accidents of bread and wine no longer exist, then it is not the Eucharist.

 

[nkbeth]

Eucharistic miracles like the one at Lanciano may indeed be the Lord’s own Flesh and Blood (and I think that Lanciano and other have been given approval), but the point that was made was that once the accidents of bread and wine no longer exist, then it is not the Eucharist.

But the accidents (the appearances) of bread and wine indeed no longer existed when the flesh and blood appeared at Lanciano. Yet those who looked on at Laciano were still seeing the Holy Eucharist - weren’t they??

Outside of such miracles, it is true that when the accidents no longer exist, it is not the Eucharist; e.g. after the host has been digested.

I presume communion would not be given at a Eucharistic miracle, partly because there are no appearances of bread and wine. But can it be right to say that what is seen at a “Eucharistic miracle” is not the Eucharist?

 

[Claire_from_DE]

But the accidents (the appearances) of bread and wine indeed no longer existed when the flesh and blood appeared at Lanciano. Yet those who looked on at Laciano were still seeing the Holy Eucharist - weren’t they?? No, we think they were seeing an actual segment of the heart muscle of Jesus’ heart.

Outside of such miracles, it is true that when the accidents no longer exist, it is not the Eucharist; e.g. after the host has been digested. Yes, Jesus is no longer present.

I presume communion would not be given at a Eucharistic miracle, partly because there are no appearances of bread and wine. But can it be right to say that what is seen at a “Eucharistic miracle” is not the Eucharist? Yes. For instance, if drops of blood flow from the Host, the Host remains the Eucharist. But the blood is Jesus’ blood. The blood itself isn’t ‘the Eucharist’; It isn’t the living Jesus whole and entire under the appearance of bread or wine. Like if you cut yourself and bled. The drops would be your blood but they wouldn’t be you yourself.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Is the Sacred Host the only Eucharistic Species exposed? Is the Precious Blood ever exposed for adoration? Is there any tradition (archaic or otherwise) by which the Precious Blood was ever exposed?

In the Latin rite, all the precious blood must be consumed, only the Hosts may be reserved.

 

[Spirithound]

But the accidents (the appearances) of bread and wine indeed no longer existed when the flesh and blood appeared at Lanciano. Yet those who looked on at Laciano were still seeing the Holy Eucharist - weren’t they??

On this point, I would say no, they are seeing part of Jesus’s heart. The Holy Eucharist is indeed Jesus, but Jesus is not exclusively existent in the Eucharist.

I presume communion would not be given at a Eucharistic miracle, partly because there are no appearances of bread and wine. But can it be right to say that what is seen at a “Eucharistic miracle” is not the Eucharist?

I think we’re getting into really fine terminology here. Here’s hoping someone more knowledgeable than myself helps out!

 

[nkbeth]

But the accidents (the appearances) of bread and wine indeed no longer existed when the flesh and blood appeared at Lanciano. Yet those who looked on at Laciano were still seeing the Holy Eucharist - weren’t they??

On this point, I would say no, they are seeing part of Jesus’s heart. The Holy Eucharist is indeed Jesus, but Jesus is not exclusively existent in the Eucharist.

I do understand what you are saying, and it makes sense in particular for the case when there is Jesus’ blood dripping from the Host.

But when the bread and wine are visibly transformed in their entirety to visible flesh and blood, it is harder for me to understand that the Holy Eucharist would not be present. A true segment of Jesus heart and blood would be present, but would the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist be confected? Would there be a Mass?.

O dear, I am way over my head.