Blood at Mass for all

  • Thread starter Thread starter ginny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

ginny

Guest
Did the early church offer the cup to all - “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood…” A man who was Catholic but left and has now come back is disturbed that the cup is not offered at our church. Is there somewhere that the information can be found. I told him about the miracles of the Eucharist where blood came out of the host but he wants to know why this was changed.
 
To my (very) limited knowledge, a Mass does not have to be completed under both species, as each species is in itself both the Body and Blood of Christ…
So, if only hosts are Consecrated, they fully represent both the Body and Blood of Christ, as would be the same if only wine was Consecrated.
If he wishes to recieve under both species, then maybe he should contact the Priest and ask if both could be Consecrated.

As for the question about the Early Church, I’d just take a wild guess and say that some Churches offered both of the species, while others did not.
 
40.png
CatholicCid:
To my (very) limited knowledge, a Mass does not have to be completed under both species, as each species is in itself both the Body and Blood of Christ…
So, if only hosts are Consecrated, they fully represent both the Body and Blood of Christ, as would be the same if only wine was Consecrated.
If he wishes to recieve under both species, then maybe he should contact the Priest and ask if both could be Consecrated.

As for the question about the Early Church, I’d just take a wild guess and say that some Churches offered both of the species, while others did not.
Click to expand...
Not to be nasty, but they don’t fully reprsent the Body and Blood of Christ. They fully ARE.
 
That’s why I put “to my (very) limited knowledge” as I knew I would make a mistake in there or possibly confuse someone
Man years of experience saying things that don’t come out right 👍
 
40.png
CatholicCid:
To my (very) limited knowledge, a Mass does not have to be completed under both species, as each species is in itself both the Body and Blood of Christ…
So, if only hosts are Consecrated, they fully represent both the Body and Blood of Christ, as would be the same if only wine was Consecrated.
If he wishes to recieve under both species, then maybe he should contact the Priest and ask if both could be Consecrated.

As for the question about the Early Church, I’d just take a wild guess and say that some Churches offered both of the species, while others did not.
Click to expand...
I think ginny is saying that both the bread and wine are consecrated and become the Body and Blood of Christ, however only the hosts are destributed. Is this what you are talking about ginny?

matthew
 
40.png
CatholicCid:
That’s why I put “to my (very) limited knowledge” as I knew I would make a mistake in there or possibly confuse someone
Man years of experience saying things that don’t come out right 👍
Click to expand...
LOL and hugs to you. You definitely get props for the effort. 🙂
 
40.png
CatholicCid:
To my (very) limited knowledge, a Mass does not have to be completed under both species, as each species is in itself both the Body and Blood of Christ…
So, if only hosts are Consecrated, they fully represent both the Body and Blood of Christ, as would be the same if only wine was Consecrated.
If he wishes to recieve under both species, then maybe he should contact the Priest and ask if both could be Consecrated.

As for the question about the Early Church, I’d just take a wild guess and say that some Churches offered both of the species, while others did not.
Click to expand...
“a Mass does not have to be completed under both species…So, if only hosts are Consecrated, they fully represent both the Body and Blood of Christ, as would be the same if only wine was Consecrated”

Wrong, The priest normally MUST receive under both forms for the Mass to be complete. The Faithful do not. Consecration of bread without the Consecration of wine is forbidden.
 
To chime in with Bro. Rich, at every Mass both the bread and wine are consecrated, and the priest always receives under both species. But it is not required that communon be distributed to the congregation under both species.
 
40.png
Lorrie:
LOL and hugs to you. You definitely get props for the effort. 🙂
Click to expand...
Heh, thanks.
Cr. Rich SFO:
Wrong, The priest normally MUST receive under both forms for the Mass to be complete. The Faithful do not. Consecration of bread without the Consecration of wine is forbidden.
Click to expand...
See, I didn’t know that… Quite luckily I’ve never attended a Mass where both species haven’t been offered.
Though I must ask why you used the word “normally” when doing so without each species would be forbidden. Is it because, in dire circumstances exceptions can be made?

Also to:
40.png
JimG:
But it is not required that communon be distributed to the congregation under both species.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard before it’s also not necessary that any of the Congregation recieve either species. Would you know if that’s true? I can’t remember the precise reason why… At least not in coherent sentences.
 
40.png
CatholicCid:
Heh, thanks.

Though I must ask why you used the word “normally” when doing so without each species would be forbidden. Is it because, in dire circumstances exceptions can be made?

Also to:

I’ve heard before it’s also not necessary that any of the Congregation recieve either species. Would you know if that’s true? I can’t remember the precise reason why… At least not in coherent sentences.
Click to expand...
I posted in that manner because there is a very narrow set of circumstances which would not apply in 99.99 % of the cases to which I have never received a clear answer.

Before the liturgical reforms “Private Masses” could be celebrated by any priest alone. Now the Law requires that at least one member of the faithful be present unless the Bishop gives permission. Any of the Faithful at Mass who are in the proper disposition are encouraged to approach and receive Holy Communion.
 
But it is not required that communon be distributed to the congregation under both species.

In 50 years I have never been to a church where they had both species. I have only been to 5 churches in all that time and 4 were wedding/funeral.
 
Did the early church offer the cup to all - “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood…” A man who was Catholic but left and has now come back is disturbed that the cup is not offered at our church. Is there somewhere that the information can be found. I told him about the miracles of the Eucharist where blood came out of the host but he wants to know why this was changed.
Click to expand...
To answer the question asked with what i have been taught in my classes. The Precious Blood was offered from the earliest days of the Church. Like today some churches offered under both species and some did not. Then the protestant reformation happened. As a result of seeing what the protestants started doing, Catholics began believing that they needed to receive both species in order to receive the sacrament. To reinforce the teaching that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Chirst in both species the Church supressed the distribution of the Precious Blood. I would suggest looking at the Council of Trent, and what came out of it.
 
I’ve been at some parishes in which communion under both species is routinely offered to the congregation, and at some parishes where communion is offered only under the species of bread.

I think the reason for offering only under one species is mainly logistical. My current parish has about 3000 families which translates to about 10,000 people going to one of the 7 weekend Masses. If the precious blood were offered at every Mass, and most people did receive under both species, the amount of wine needed for consecration would be a not insignificant extra recurring cost, and it would also take considerably longer for communion.

I’ve noticed, though, that in most of the parishes I’ve been in which offer communion under both species, not everyone partakes of the chalice.
 
40.png
JimG:
I’ve been at some parishes in which communion under both species is routinely offered to the congregation, and at some parishes where communion is offered only under the species of bread.

I think the reason for offering only under one species is mainly logistical. My current parish has about 3000 families which translates to about 10,000 people going to one of the 7 weekend Masses. If the precious blood were offered at every Mass, and most people did receive under both species, the amount of wine needed for consecration would be a not insignificant extra recurring cost, and it would also take considerably longer for communion.

I’ve noticed, though, that in most of the parishes I’ve been in which offer communion under both species, not everyone partakes of the chalice.
Click to expand...
I believe the universal norm is to receive under only one species (the host)…even if the US has adapted differently. Also, when a substantial number of people do not receive from the chalice, the parish is not supposed to offer it. (No definition on substantial, but this is from Redemptoris Sacramentum.). I imagine is it pretty tough to gauge the amount needed, especially when it comes to occasions like weddings, funerals, Easter and Christmas when many present are not able to receive at all.

Unfortunately, when offering the Precious Blood is explained as a “fuller sign,” the language used tends to undermine the theology (i.e. that it is not just a symbol and that the both species contain the entire Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ). Which, as has been pointed out, caused the suppression of the offering of the Blood to the general congregation in the first place.
 
40.png
flamingsword:
To answer the question asked with what i have been taught in my classes. The Precious Blood was offered from the earliest days of the Church. Like today some churches offered under both species and some did not. Then the protestant reformation happened. As a result of seeing what the protestants started doing, Catholics began believing that they needed to receive both species in order to receive the sacrament. To reinforce the teaching that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Chirst in both species the Church supressed the distribution of the Precious Blood. I would suggest looking at the Council of Trent, and what came out of it.
Click to expand...
The suppression of offering the chalice to the faithful actually occurred hundreds of years before the Reformation; the insistence on both kinds for a full reception was an old heresy by the time the Reformers got to it.
 
This question actually came up on the EWTN answer forums about a priest accidentally consecrating one species, IE–he said the wrong words over the wine. THerefore the wine was not consecrated. If I remember correctly and if wrong call me on it, but I think he went as far to say the Mass was invalid.
 
Marty, yes I was saying that both are consecrated but only the host distributed. The young man in question wants to know why we keep changing things. He reads Scripture ans sees Jesus saying those words, “Unless you eat of the son of man and drink his blood…”

Thank you all for responding. Does anyone know where I would find the original writing that says we need only one or the other?

Bless you all!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top