S
SenorSalsa
Guest
I have a friend who stated that not only is it optional, it isn’t even supposed to be done on a regular basis. Or it least thats what it seemed to imply. Is he right?
Does someone have the rules for Laity receiving the Precious Blood handy?
- Status
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Yes, that is correct. The Laity receiving under both forms is not required. Only the distribution of the Body of Christ under the form of bread is required. Many Parishes are now adopting the practice of only distributing the Host at weekday Mass. In all cases the priest MUST receive both forms however.
W
Writer
Guest
Karl Keating did an interesting newsletter on this a year or two ago. You might try to search for it…
M
marchoi
Guest
Well, I think the General Instructions would qualify as “rules”… so here it is (or at least parts thereof):
- It is most desirable that the faithful… in the instances when it is permitted, they partake of the chalice.
- The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another.
- Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear 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 relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.
- In addition to those cases given in the ritual books, Communion under both kinds is permitted for
- Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate Mass;
- The deacon and others who perform some duty at the Mass;
- Members of communities at the conventual Mass or “community” Mass, along with seminarians, and all who are engaged in a retreat or are taking part in a spiritual or pastoral gathering.
S
SenorSalsa
Guest
Right, but this friend made it sound like it wasn’t supposed to be offered every time.
his exact words were “today, we make an assumption, that Holy Communion under the form of wine, that is, Christ’s Precious Blood, is always available to the congregation. But according to the directives of the GIRM, Holy Communion is received under both species only in extraordinary circumstances – for example, the family members of a newly baptized infant. That means, unless you’re reading between the lines, /not/ every Sunday.”
Im afraid I wouldn’t even know where to search for such a thing
J
japhy
Guest
I have three posts (here and here (briefer version of previous post) and here) that go over the history of the concession of the Chalice since Vatican II.
Long story short: Vatican II did not envision Communion under both kinds being a regular or “normal” occurrence. There was a set list of a dozen or so circumstances in the late 60’s / early 70’s. In 1975, the US adaptation of the GIRM included “weekday Masses” to the list of occasions at which the Chalice could be conceded. In 1978, the US Bishops extended this to all holy days of obligation (Sundays included). Nowadays, the Bishop can even let parish pastors decided when to concede the Chalice.
The current situation seems entirely opposite the original intention (which was held for a decade or so) that “Ordinaries are not to grant blanket permission but, within the limits set by the conference of bishops, are to specify the instances and celebrations for this form of communion. To be excluded are occasions when the number of communicants is great. The permission should be for specific, structured, and homogeneous assemblies.”
S
SenorSalsa
Guest
Those posts were very helpful. Thank you
L
Lepanto
Guest
It was an article in THis Rock magazine of about 2.5 years ago. Search for “utraquist”.Im afraid I wouldn’t even know where to search for such a thing
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
The key to your question is in this line:Right, but this friend made it sound like it wasn’t supposed to be offered every time.
his exact words were “today, we make an assumption, that Holy Communion under the form of wine, that is, Christ’s Precious Blood, is always available to the congregation. But according to the directives of the GIRM, Holy Communion is received under both species only in extraordinary circumstances – for example, the family members of a newly baptized infant. That means, unless you’re reading between the lines, /not/ every Sunday.”
Im afraid I wouldn’t even know where to search for such a thing
“85. It is most desirable that the faithful… in the instances when it is permitted, they partake of the chalice.”
When are those instances? It would (name removed by moderator)ly that there are specific instances and that this is not always the practice at every Mass.
You need to go to other Church documents (USCCB) to find this.
Also remember that the higher numbers in the GIRM may be from the norms for the United States.
M
Michael96
Guest
This is one area I’m very grateful for Vatican-II. Receiving only under one kind is not found in the bible or in the early Church fathers. It is not part of what some call “The Deep Church” -orthodox (with a little “o”) Christianity. Indeed it could be consider rather unorthodox (even if it is valid). I think Vatican II brought the Church substantially back into orthodoxy on this point.
I much prefer to take the Bible at face value here…
Mark 14:23-25: Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.
John 6:54-56: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
Personally I would always seek out a parish that offers communion in the most orthodox way and in full conformity with scripture, if possible. If the church moved away again from orthodoxy and scriptual fidelity on this important matter then I may probably consider joining the Orthodox Church who have always maintained the practice of the Christ and the Apostles.
I much prefer to take the Bible at face value here…
Mark 14:23-25: Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.
John 6:54-56: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
Personally I would always seek out a parish that offers communion in the most orthodox way and in full conformity with scripture, if possible. If the church moved away again from orthodoxy and scriptual fidelity on this important matter then I may probably consider joining the Orthodox Church who have always maintained the practice of the Christ and the Apostles.
J
japhy
Guest
There is evidence in the Church Fathers of people only receiving under the form of bread, although this is admittedly more common in non-liturgical settings, e.g., a Christian taking home a portion of the consecrated bread and receiving it (on his own, even!) throughout the course of the week.
As for the Church’s teaching on the legitimacy and validity of receiving under a single species, have you read what the Council of Trent said on the matter? See Session XXI.
M
Michael96
Guest
Yes, and I think to make a theological point the Council took the Church away from the orthodox practice that Church had practiced from the time of Christ for over 1200 years (and which the Orthodox Church has maintained from the last supper through to today). My personal opinion (which I’m happy concede counts for nothing except it is what drives my practice, and it makes for a discussion on internet forums and at home where my wife was brought up receiving only under one kind) is the the Council reformed something it should not have reformed. While theological arguements allow for receiving under one kind it leaves you having to twist Christ’s words at the last supper (in my opinion).
M
MrS
Guest
Interesting quote…
So, when the number of communicants is “great”, only one species is offered.
Yet many parishes, who justify the overuse of EMHC because of “great” numbers, then need 4,6 8 or more EMHCs just for the cup.
S
SenorSalsa
Guest
I went to Mass at the Cathedral on Sunday, they had 2 priests and 10 EMHCs. 10. and 8 of them offered the Eucharist under the species of the Precious Blood.Interesting quote…
So, when the number of communicants is “great”, only one species is offered.
Yet many parishes, who justify the overuse of EMHC because of “great” numbers, then need 4,6 8 or more EMHCs just for the cup.
It seemed really unnecessary, when there were only 4 that offered the Body.
The only explanation is that the people all feel like the NEED the Precious Blood.
M
MrS
Guest
Locally too. A rather large parish (4000 families I think) uses a lot of EMHC. I attended there (not by choice) at a 5pm Sunday Mass, and at first thought that everyone was lining up for communion early… like 10 or so in each of two lines in the center aisle.
Turned out they were the EMHC waiting to receive the host first, then going up to the altar to take their assigned chalice or bowl… they were all over the place.
J
japhy
Guest
Thank the USCCB for that. “For Communion from the chalice, it is desirable that there be generally two ministers of the Precious Blood for each minister of the Body of Christ, lest the liturgical celebration be unduly prolonged.” (NDRHC 30) I don’t really see why that’s the case. One chalice per ciborium seems logical to me. At my parish, we actually have the ratio the other way: four ciboria, two chalices. (That’s because of the layout of my church, I think. It’s a semicircle, basically, with six seating sections. There are two ministers of the Host for both of the seating sections on the center aisle; then there is one minister of the Host for the two seating areas to the left of the altar, and another minister of the Host for the two seating areas to the right of the altar. The two ministers of the Chalice stand between the ministers of the Host: one in between the two on the left, and one in between the two on the right. A picture probably would’ve helped. Sorry.)
If only people cultivated a devotion to the Precious Blood!
J
japhy
Guest
That’s some populous 5pm Sunday Mass!
Take from the altar themselves, or be handed as the Church instructs?
I’m convinced that this ignorance of Church liturgical procedure can be cured easily and pastorally… we just need lay faithful and priests that are willing to listen to the Church and obey Her in humility.
B
Brendan
Guest
Michael.
If a parish offers a single species to the faithful, it certainly DOES SO in full conformity to Scripture.
The faithful have, unfortunatly, recieved substandard catechisis on the meaning of Substance vs. Accident.
In the Catholic Church, we acknowledge the truth that the gifts of bread and wine change completely into the Divine Substance; Christ’s living Flesh and flowing Blood.
The Accidents, those aspects which appear to the senses, either aided or unaided, remain, but what was actally IS bread, changes to what actually IS living flesh and flowing Blood.
We do not eat flowing blood, even if our senses tell us otherwise, we drink it. That is the nature of flowing blood.
So to claim that we do not actually eat AND drink when we recieve a single species is, in effect, a denial of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Either than, or it is a claim that Christ did not Rise and is living, but is rather dead and congealed.
Yes, the reception of both speices is a fuller SIGN. It signifies and points towards what the Eucharist is. Like a road sign, it can serve to indentify the road if a person is unsure. But once on is on the road, has ‘recieved the road’ and it sure the road is the correct one, the sign has little value.
That is the goal, to be so sure in Faith that what we recieve is truely living Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, that the additional sign adds nothing.
Some ARE there, all need to BE there. That is the call of our Faith.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Remember that the Liturgy and Sacraments are within the authority of the Church to administer. The Church moved away from Communion under both forms because of abuse, and may very well do so again.
- Status