Does someone have the rules for Laity receiving the Precious Blood handy?

[Michael96]

Brendan, Br Rich

I think in this case the Magisterium is at odds with traditional orthodox practice (including the practice of the first 1,000 years or more of the Catholic Church) and is at odds with the instructions of Christ, and with the practice of the very earliest Church that we read about scripture (e.g. 1 Cor. 28). Trent, in my opinion, put the magisterium above both scripture and tradition. Personally, I feel Vatican-II brought the Church back into orthodox practice.

But I’ve had more than fair fair share of a say on this, I look forward to reading other views on it.

God bless

Michael

 

[SenorSalsa]

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.)

I can pretty well picture what you mean as far as your Church, and as for that USCCB quote, again, American’s have come to think they are being jipped if they do not have the opportunity receive the Precious Blood

And Br. Rich, can I steal you away from here and point you to the Vocations forum, I created a thread with some questions about the Secular Fanciscans

 

[Newbie2]

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.

Even at that, 2:1 ratio seems a bit excessive.

I can pretty well picture what you mean as far as your Church, and as for that USCCB quote, again, American’s have come to think they are being jipped if they do not have the opportunity receive the Precious Blood

Well, maybe not jipped…but coming from a protestant background, it takes a bit of getting used to…or if one goes on occasion (maybe on vacation or such) to a different parish and they don’t offer it.

 

[Michael96]

Well, maybe not jipped…but coming from a protestant background, it takes a bit of getting used to…or if one goes on occasion (maybe on vacation or such) to a different parish and they don’t offer it.

It’s not a protestant thing, the Catholic Church now also again acknowledges this is the best practice (as it did for the first 1200 years of the Chruch)…

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. (GIRM 281)

 

[Walking_Home]

It’s not a protestant thing, the Catholic Church now also again acknowledges this is the best practice (as it did for the first 1200 years of the Chruch)…

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. (GIRM 281)

---

It sure is not Catholic to believe the Church lost her footing since the time of Trent–and didn’t regained it till Vatican II. It seems you may be under the impression that Vat II overturned Trent–but that is not the case.

At some pt. the Church may need to consider that what is actually happening with the return of the Chalice is that people are being led astray.

GIRM
282. Sacred pastors should take care to ensure that the faithful who participate in the rite or are present at it are as fully aware as possible of the Catholic teaching on the form of Holy Communion as set forth by the Ecumenical Council of Trent. Above all, they should instruct the Christian faithful that the Catholic faith teaches that Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even under only one species, and consequently that as far as the effects are concerned, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any of the grace that is necessary for salvation.106

 

[palmas85]

Brendan, Br Rich

I think in this case the Magisterium is at odds with traditional orthodox practice (including the practice of the first 1,000 years or more of the Catholic Church) and is at odds with the instructions of Christ, and with the practice of the very earliest Church that we read about scripture (e.g. 1 Cor. 28). Trent, in my opinion, put the magisterium above both scripture and tradition. Personally, I feel Vatican-II brought the Church back into orthodox practice.

But I’ve had more than fair fair share of a say on this, I look forward to reading other views on it.

God bless

Michael

I think that receiving under both species is fine as long as the faithful are given proper and complete catechisis on it. I have seen far too many posts on this forum and others where people either feel they must receive both in order to have received Holy Communion or that they have the unmitigated and absolute right to receive under both species at every Mass they go to.

I personally feel that if offered under both species it should be done via intinction, which is efficient, highly reverent, everyone receives under both species and ta da cuts down on the need for the ever increasing numbers of Extraordinary Ministers that keep popping up everywhere.:dancing: :

A win win situation for all concerned as far as I can see:thumbsup:

 

[Walking_Home]

I think that receiving under both species is fine as long as the faithful are given proper and complete catechisis on it. I have seen far too many posts on this forum and others where people either feel they must receive both in order to have received Holy Communion or that they have the unmitigated and absolute right to receive under both species at every Mass they go to.

I personally feel that if offered under both species it should be done via intinction, which is efficient, highly reverent, everyone receives under both species and ta da cuts down on the need for the ever increasing numbers of Extraordinary Ministers that keep popping up everywhere.:dancing: :

A win win situation for all concerned as far as I can see:thumbsup:

---

While I agree that intinction is the best way to offer the two species ----there are still those out there who will find fault with communion via intinction since – intinction was not the form used at the Last Supper.

 

[palmas85]

---

While I agree that intinction is the best way to offer the two species ----there are still those out there who will find fault with communion via intinction since – intinction was not the form used at the Last Supper.

Neither was it done the way it is done now. Not by a long shot.

 

[SenorSalsa]

We must also remember that, in the Mass, it is the Sacrifice that is meant to remember the Last Supper and Jesus’ Sacrifice. Not the Comunnion Line. That is why the presiding priest MUST consume both species. Communion, in a way, is a whole different part, and it is not us who participate in the Last Supper.

 

[Newbie2]

It’s not a protestant thing, the Catholic Church now also again acknowledges this is the best practice (as it did for the first 1200 years of the Chruch)…

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. (GIRM 281)

What I meant was that many protestants have always used both, not exclusivity.

 

[SenorSalsa]

What I meant was that many protestants have always used both, not exclusivity.

Actually, to be truthful, they haven’t used either form of the Eucharist.

But I will give you that in their “communion services” they do often use bread and grape juice/wine