Covid 19 holy wine

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cmc1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cmc1

Guest
covid 19 could be here to stay could holy communion wine be sevied in your own chales or disposable cups
 
Neither are possible as anything that is used to distribute to precious blood must be purified. Only clergy and instituted acolytes may purify sacred vessels so under your proposal the ministers would have to purify all of the extra vessels (leaving aside that disposable containers are not fitting vessels for containing the precious blood).

The most likely thing will be to only receive under on species. The other possibility would be through intinction, but that presents its own challenges as only ordinary ministers (i.e. clergy) may distribute via intinction and it must be done on the tongue.
 
The altar cloth and purificators may not even be disposable, let alone the sacred vessels.
 
Wow thank you so until it’s safe just bread
 
Last edited:
No because reception of the Eucharist isn’t an individual act - we don’t receive as individuals but as members of a community. So receiving from individual cups would undermine this.
 
Cmc1 said:
Wow thank you so until it’s safe just bread
Click to expand...
Maybe phrase that “under the species of bread,” because it helps to catechize people that we realize it is no longer bread but only retains the accidents of bread. (Not that the Church never refers to it in that way, but because the understanding has become undermined.)

There have been centuries in which the faithful only received Holy Communion under the species of bread. We may find that in spite of the sign value of allowing the faithful to receive under both species, the practice also has some drawbacks that may lead to it being discontinued or largely discontinued in the future.

(Here is an example in which the Church refers to the consecrated species as bread, just to let you know I’m not saying it was wrong to write what you did):
CCC 1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ. (Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641.)
 
Last edited:
May I inquire out of curiosity but respectfully why being small prevents the distribution of the Eucharist under both species?
 
I don’t know if it’s the same in CajunJoy’s case, but in my small parish growing up we couldn’t afford the extra orders of wine if we were going to offer both species. We had both offered twice a year: Easter and Christmas.
 
The Precious Blood is in a noble vessel, little plastic shot glasses are not precious. There is far greater danger of spillage. If your parish COULD afford hundreds of little gold plated cups, cleansing them after Mass would be very difficult.
 
I’m getting images of a bizarre, short but wide, dishwasher, similar to the ones used in bars for rapid cleaning.

But the water would need to all be collected, and either e3vaporated or sent to the sacrarium.

Or maybe it blsgd each one with steam.

I’m not seeing a dignified way to do this, interesting as the mechanics are . . .
 
sounds like you’re young. when i was young (i’m 73) we only
received the Sacred Host and never doubted we we’re and are receiving our Lord.
 
I remember when I was growing up in a Presbyterian congregation that we had grape juice passed around in little plastic “shot glasses” on platters with holes to hold them. It always seems that we had one or two cups that would have a small crack and then leak into the base of the platters. It could be a messy inconvenience with grape juice, but I am so glad that as Presbyterians the pastor did not have the ability to consecrate the liquid into the Precious Blood.
 
Last edited:
I asked because I wondered if perhaps there was a local (diocesan) regulation requiring a minimum number of congregants or recipients in order to have Communion under both species. I know well it can be difficult at times to get enough to volunteer to serve in various capacities, even in large parishes. Hopefully in the future willing parishioners can be found so that the rest can experience Holy Communion in the fuller or more complete form on a regular basis.

Also I would point out that in the USCCB guide on EMHCs which you cite above the following paragraph states “ when recourse is had to Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (sic), especially in the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds, their number should not be increased beyond what is required for the orderly and reverent distribution of the Body and Blood of the Lord. ” In the absence of any addition ordinary ministers of Holy Communion, my read is that the distribution under both kinds permits and requires a minimum of one EMHC and likewise in a small parish a maximum of one.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think the local bishop could do something like that licitly. That part of the liturgy for allowing Communion in individual cups would need to be changed by the Congregation for Divine Worship (under the Pope’s approval).
 
Last edited:
As a practical matter, we can’t do “shot glasses” or “medicine cups” like Protestants do, because we believe in the Real Presence, whereas for many of them, the Eucharist is just a symbol and a memorial. Cleaning them would be a huge logistical challenge, and disposing of them (in the case of plastic cups) would be impossible.

I don’t know if Anglicans and Lutherans use “shot glasses”, but I’d be surprised if they do. Both believe in a kinda-sorta “real presence”. Methodists, at least some of them, have a similar belief. But belief or no belief, they don’t have the Real Presence because they generally don’t have validly ordained priests in apostolic succession. I say “generally” because, sad to say, some Catholic priests have become Anglican priests, and their Masses would be valid because their orders are valid.
 
Because you quote part of my post I assume your comment is in response to it.

Am I suggesting that you are missing out on receiving Jesus Body Blood Soul Divinity–ALL OF HIM, by receiving the Consecrated host alone, I absolutely am not. Do I believe that by not having the opportunity to receive Holy Communion under both species your parish is missing out on the opportunity to experience Holy Communion in the fuller or more complete form on a regular basis, yes I am. And I do sincerely hope that the lack of volunteers, a discomfort with EMHCs, or whatever is preventing it may be resolved in the future, yes I do.

I fully realize that on the subjective level what is very meaningful to me may not necessarily be so to others. However on the objective level I offer from The General Instruction of the Roman Missal : “ Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father. ” (no. 281)

and from Eucharisticum Mysterium (Instruction on Eucharistic Worship) which the GIRM cites in footnote #104:“ Holy Communion, considered as a sign, has a more complete form when it is received under both kinds . For under this form (leaving intact the principles of the Council of Trent by which under either species there is received the true sacrament and Christ whole and entire), the sign of the Eucharistic banquet appears more perfectly. Moreover, it shows more clearly how the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as it also expresses the relation of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father (cf. Matt. 26: 27-29).”

Dear lady, I did not intend to disparage your practices or preferences and apologize if I did so.
 
Last edited:
On a practical level, for distribution of communion under both species, an EMHC is required for anything more than about four or five people (depending on the size and layout of the church). I’m not suggesting that that’s any sort of a hard and fast rule or that there’s anything wrong with distribution under one species, all I’m saying is that this is what I’ve found.
 
TheLittleLady said:
40.png
InThePew:
an EMHC is required
Click to expand...
Or a Deacon
Click to expand...
Or at least a second pair of hands…which is the point I was trying to make, apparently unclearly, above.
Although I think I remember an occasion where just the celebrant distributed under both species but to a very small group.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top