Eucharist via one species...

[tee_eff_em]

It is not poor catechesis to believe it an injustice to not even be offered the Chalice. The church itself says both must be offered and consumed at every Mass.

The Church does not say both must be offered to and consumed by *the laity *at every Mass. The GIRM says:

1. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ). The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely.

If, however, Communion is given under both kinds, the rite prescribed in nos. 284-287 is followed.

There is no similar instruction *“If Communion is given only under the species of wine,…”

Further:

1. When Communion is distributed under both kinds,
   …
   Any of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion under the species of bread alone should be granted their wish.

tee

 

[chrisb]

The Church does not say both must be offered to and consumed by *the laity *at every Mass. The GIRM says:

There is no similar instruction *“If Communion is given only under the species of wine,…”

Further:

tee

Hi Tee,

So you are saying that even in the Novus Ordo the Church isn’t abliged to offer the Holy Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ?

My whole concern isn’t about the divine essence ‘shared’ between the two species. My whole concern is about not practicing what has come down from Holy Tradition as the ‘complete’ Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

I didn’t know we where protestants and looking for the minimum requirement in our obedience of our faith but Catholic participating in the fullest expression of the faith.

These arguments lead one to follow minimums and not the fullness of our faith. I really don’t like that. It leaves a bad feeling in my heart.

I believe, as Catholics, we should participate fulling in our faith and not to minimize and philosophize the faith down to essences.

That is my feelings on the matter anyway. This whole debate is about minimums not maximums as bearers of Christ and His Holy Traditions we should be all about the maximums and the fullness of the faith and not about philosophizing shortcuts.

Shortcuts are for Protestants not Catholics.

 

[AlexV]

Your first mistake, “Woodstock”, is arguing that the “concerns” the Church once had are over and done with.

The deplorable state of knowledge about Catholic Eucharistic doctrine is more than sufficient evidence that her concerns are alive and well. Do most Catholics, let alone all, know that the Eucharist (under EITHER species) is really and truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ?

I wonder. I frankly doubt it. I’ve certainly met many Catholics who don’t know it/accept it.

It’s your opinion that the Church is “unjust” (what a quaint word to use) in not offering everyone present the Chalice. Your opinion isn’t the Church’s, which certainly doesn’t promote injustice. And, since this is posted on a traditional forum, the Tridentine Mass does indeed offer one and not species. The Church does not promote injustice.

I receive the Blood of Christ at a Tridentine Mass.

You have fallen into the all too common trap of archaeologism, seasoned with a healthy sprinkling of bliblical literalism divorced from Sacred Tradition.

There are people on this forum who have called it “blasphemous” not to receive from the Chalice. That shows you the degree of nuttiness that is alive and well in Catholicism, and why the problem is indeed catechesis…not “injustice” over someone not being able to take from the Chalice.

And notice ChrisB’s truly obstinate error: he insists on talking about “not offering the Holy Blood”.

Lies. Heresy. The “Holy Blood” is indeed “offered”, EVEN UNDER ONE SPECIES, namely the species of bread.

Let’s get this straight for the sake of those who want or need an education in Catholic doctrine: you’re expressing a heresy if you try to argue that one or other species of the Eucharist isn’t COMPLETE. EITHER SPECIES IS COMPLETE.

And, I will be bolder. The REAL offense on this forum is someone claiming (erroneously) that those of us receiving under one species are somehow “shortcutting” or “minimalizing” our Faith like Protestants. That’s slanderous, erroneous, skirts the line of heresy, and should be what leaves a “bad feeling”.

 

[Woodstock]

The Church does not say both must be offered to and consumed by *the laity *at every Mass.

I did not argue that “both must be offered to and consumed by *the laity *at every Mass.” I argue that both must be offered during the sacrifice of the Mass and both must be consumed. The rationale being as long as the priest consumes the minimal requirement is met, the church allowed the Chalice to be consumed only by the priest during a time when she felt there was grave concern for blasphemy if the faithful were allowed to receive under both species. The priest, however, does not have an option and must consume under both species. Because of this, alcoholics and celiacs unable to consume under one of the approved matter (including low gluten hosts or mustum) are not considered for the priesthood. The practical and theological concerns which led to the restriction of the chalice are no longer challenging the church, so I argue that this break from tradition should be ended in favor of the traditional practice of being offered both species.

I argue that

1. Christ instituted the Eucharist under both species
2. We are not remembering, but re-living the Last Supper, which means we must adhere as closely as possible to the words and actions of Christ according to our circumstances
3. There is no identifiable grave concern at the present time worth overriding the commandment Christ gave
4. The Church does not allow the Mass to be offered without the reception of the Eucharist (currently carried out only by the priest in some places)
5. *The Church states that priest must take the utmost care to make sure people have the best opportunity to fully participate in the Mass.
6. The Church states that by receiving under both species, the faithful more fully participate in the Mass
7. *The Church states that the people have an obligation to most fully participate in the Mass (this does not negate the spiritual and physical well-being of the person which could possibly limit an individual’s full participation.)
8. The above taken into consideration, the Chalice should also be offered to the laity so that they might “drink the cup of salvation.”

*The celebration of the eucharist, like the entire liturgy, involves the use of outward signs that foster, strengthen, and express faith. There must be the utmost care therefore to choose and to make wise use of those forms and elements provided by the Church which, in view of the circumstances of the people and the place, will best foster active and full participation and serve the spiritual well-being of the faithful.

 

[AlexV]

The Church does NOT teach that those receiving under both species are somehow participating in the Mass more “fully”. Your (frankly offensive, let alone erroneous) series of bullet points is all but a demand for people to receive under both species, since you claim the Church says it’s more fully participatory, AND that the Church commands full participation.

That’s a very dangerous argument, and one that is quite close to heresy. You’re actually arguing that people attending Tridentine Masses are less fully participating in the Mass than Novus Ordinarians who receive under two species. Heresy indeed.

As for the idea that the concerns of centuries are no longer valid or worthy of worry…some of the outrageous posts on these fora prove exactly the opposite.

The Tridentine practice of reception under one species does NOT countermand the divine decree. Christ said receive his Body and Blood. And we do indeed receive it. Indeed, we can even say we eat and drink it, since we are receiving the Blood, even when we take the Host, and nobody would say we’re “eating” the Blood, or “drinking” the Body…EITHER SPECIES IS COMPLETE. Get it, yet?

Your Last Supper details bit is what we call archaeologism. Shall we eschew electric lights and start speaking in Hebrew/Aramaic as well?

 

[corvidae]

I think that one of the things that has infected modern Catholicism is the idea of deserving the sacraments. The sacraments are very truly a gift.

When I was younger, there were a few weeks in my life where I would go to friday mass at school and think, I have lived a great week, I have not sinned, I am truly worthy to recieve Christ in the Eucharist. Every time I did this, my guardian angel would whisper inside my head “no you are not” That is very true, I am not, nor will I ever be worthy to recieve my Lord, unless He makes me worthy.

The Church has every right to withold a “more complete sign” in order to teach something about the Eucharist, and look at the need for it. People are repeating the old heresies, saying it is necessary and blasphemy not to recieve. There is need for the Church teaching, and withholding the species of wine may be one way to teach this.

I would say look at it this way, the Church does not owe you the sacraments, they are God’s gift through the Church, and the Church can bind them. For example, the Church can refuse to marry someone, or can refuse to give someone any of the sacraments (excommunication) or in rare times, the Church may deny all sacraments to an entire country (this happened most often in the middle ages as use against an obstinate ruler).

The sacraments are a gift, and a great gift, be thankful for the gift, and do not approach with the mindset of “the Church owes me this, or must do this”

A lone Raven

 

[Jakub]

Is it just me or are the Eucharistic Hosts different re: the large majority of Novus Ordo’s are a honey tan and at most indult and traditional masses are white…

I also noticed that in televised masses from Rome & EWTN they are also white…

Why the differences ?

james

 

[chrisb]

1. Christ instituted the Eucharist under both species
2. We are not remembering, but re-living the Last Supper, which means we must adhere as closely as possible to the words and actions of Christ according to our circumstances
3. There is no identifiable grave concern at the present time worth overriding the commandment Christ gave
4. The Church does not allow the Mass to be offered without the reception of the Eucharist (currently carried out only by the priest in some places)
5. *The Church states that priest must take the utmost care to make sure people have the best opportunity to fully participate in the Mass.
6. The Church states that by receiving under both species, the faithful more fully participate in the Mass
7. *The Church states that the people have an obligation to most fully participate in the Mass (this does not negate the spiritual and physical well-being of the person which could possibly limit an individual’s full participation.)
8. The above taken into consideration, the Chalice should also be offered to the laity so that they might “drink the cup of salvation.”

Yes I completely agree!

This is about orthopraxi not orthodoxi. It is right practice to participate in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist through the two species. Period.

This has ‘nothing’ to do with ‘essenses’ and other conjecture.

It’s about orthopraxi of the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.

 

[AlexV]

It is heresy to argue that the “right practice” = Greek orthopraxis of the Eucharist is reception under two species.

Plain and simple heresy.

And you, Chris, called it “blasphemy” not to receive from a Chalice.

That’s also heresy.

Also, the doctrines of the Eucharist are not merely philosophical “conjecture” as you like calling them. The Host = the Blood. The Chalice = the Body. FULLY, COMPLETELY, WITHOUT DIVISION.

I suggest a slow and careful reading of Aquinas’ Sequence for the Corpus Christi liturgy.

 

[mercygate]

In nomine Iesu pax vobiscum,

I understand the scholastic articulation of the ‘common’ essense between the two species but is this getting philosophy in the way of the direct commandments of our Lord and Saviour?

Again, I say… Except…ye drink my blood…

Such an act appears to do injury to the Divine Blood of Christ.

The Mass is invalid without the consecration of the Cup, and the Priest must partake of it. The decision to limit Holy Communion of the faithful to one species was taken in the 1400s in response to the utraquist heresy that Christ was not fully present in EITHER species, and that only communion in both kinds conveyed the fully Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

 

[Woodstock]

Do most Catholics, let alone all, know that the Eucharist (under EITHER species) is really and truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ?

I wonder. I frankly doubt it. I’ve certainly met many Catholics who don’t know it/accept it.

I believe current statistics show that a good number of those who identify as Roman Catholic also do not know or believe that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ (or even minimally, the Body) is present in the consecrated bread. Should that also be held from the laity?

You have fallen into the all too common trap of archaeologism, seasoned with a healthy sprinkling of bliblical literalism divorced from Sacred Tradition.

Sacred Tradition is to recieve under both species. The Latin church broke with that tradition (instituted by Christ himself, in His own words!) because it felt that the best course of action in response to a specific heresy raging through the church at the time. First, the motivation behind that heresy where they believed Bread=Body, Wine=Blood is quite different from the apathy and malformation of those in error today. The same prescription is not called for.

And notice ChrisB’s truly obstinate error: he insists on talking about “not offering the Holy Blood”.

Yes, we should be very explicit. We are discussing offering the Chalice to the laity. Calling him a liar and a heretic for not choosing his words more carefully is really reactionary and disproportionate.

Let’s get this straight for the sake of those who want or need an education in Catholic doctrine: you’re expressing a heresy if you try to argue that one or other species of the Eucharist isn’t COMPLETE. EITHER SPECIES IS COMPLETE.

OK. We all agree. No one has argued otherwise. Can we drop that issue now and get back to the one at hand?

 

[AlexV]

We ARE on the topic at hand.

The Latin Church did NOT break from Sacred Tradition.

The Church had the power to bind and loose the Sacrament, since she IS NOT DISOBEYING Christ in having Communion under one species.

Get it?

The Latin Rite, the Tridentine Mass, wherever the Chalice is not offered to the faithful, is NOT disobedient to Christ.

You’re still drinking his Blood, even if you receive only the one species, and vice versa. The Blood is there, in the Host, fully. Completely.

As long as people talk blasphemy because i don’t receive from the Chalice, you bet I’ll call them liars and heretics. Because this is a serious issue, and I won’t tolerate false charges of blasphemy from people posting heretical, erroneous views.

This is a forum on traditional Catholicism. The practice of receiving one species is not blasphemous, it isn’t incomplete, it isn’t less than full reception of the Eucharist, it isn’t wrong, it isn’t disobedient to Christ.

Got it?

 

[tee_eff_em]

So you are saying that even in the Novus Ordo the Church isn’t abliged to offer the Holy Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ?

No.

I say that under the current Missal, the Church does not say the Eucharistic species of wine must be proffered to the laity, but that even when it is, the laity are not obliged to partake.

tee

 

[AlexV]

Quite correct. In fact, it comes as a shock to some Catholics to learn that a valid Mass doesn’t require ANY Communion of the faithful whatsoever.

 

[chrisb]

It is heresy to argue that the “right practice” = Greek orthopraxis of the Eucharist is reception under two species.

Plain and simple heresy.

No, what I am saying is that it is orthopraxi of the Eucharist ‘to offer’ unders two species.

And you, Chris, called it “blasphemy” not to receive from a Chalice.

That’s also heresy.

No, I believe it does ‘injury’ to Christ (i.e. baspheme Christ) to take of His Holy Body and deny value to His Holy Blood when and if it is offered until it is consumed.

Also, the doctrines of the Eucharist are not merely philosophical “conjecture” as you like calling them. The Host = the Blood. The Chalice = the Body. FULLY, COMPLETELY, WITHOUT DIVISION.

The species do not co-mingle. Yes they share the same essense but they are that divine essense in two signs or species. Your ‘doctrine’ creates a dualism between the two species where one is of no value. That to me does ‘injury’ to the dignity of God and His Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

I suggest a slow and careful reading of Aquinas’ Sequence for the Corpus Christi liturgy.

Link?

 

[tee_eff_em]

I did not argue that “both must be offered to and consumed by *the laity *at every Mass.” I argue that both must be offered during the sacrifice of the Mass and both must be consumed.

It was not clear in the post that I responded to that you were speaking of the requirements to the clergy, which is why I responded.

I am glad to know that I misunderstood, and I thank you for clarifying.

tee

 

[Walking_Home]

I argue that

1. Christ instituted the Eucharist under both species
2. We are not remembering, but re-living the Last Supper, which means we must adhere as closely as possible to the words and actions of Christ according to our circumstances
3. There is no identifiable grave concern at the present time worth overriding the commandment Christ gave4) The Church does not allow the Mass to be offered without the reception of the Eucharist (currently carried out only by the priest in some places)
4. *The Church states that priest must take the utmost care to make sure people have the best opportunity to fully participate in the Mass.
5. The Church states that by receiving under both species, the faithful more fully participate in the Mass
6. *The Church states that the people have an obligation to most fully participate in the Mass (this does not negate the spiritual and physical well-being of the person which could possibly limit an individual’s full participation.)
7. The above taken into consideration, the Chalice should also be offered to the laity so that they might “drink the cup of salvation.”

---

Your posts—Chrisb’s posts and St. Bernard’s posts —prove otherwise. From what the three of you has stated—the danger is real and exits.

Not offering the Chalice --has been called blasphemous–undervaluing the Blood of our Lord—unjust. Yet our Lord Himself —at various times—sad to eat His flesh—without saying to drink His Blood.

You all —in essence have cast our Lord’s words against Himself. You are pitting the Church against God. God against God.

 

[AlexV]

The Church decides what is orthopraxis, Chris, not you.

She does not command the Chalice to be offered. Therefore, the practice of one species is orthopractic, because She allows it. Period. She decides, not you.

Your view that it is blasphemous not to receive the Chalice when offered is false. Erroneous.

What I have stated has been consistently Catholic doctrine.

 

[AJV]

Hi Tee,

So you are saying that even in the Novus Ordo the Church isn’t abliged to offer the Holy Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Sequence for Corpus Christi

The extending of the chalice seems to be very common in the USA and Canada but it is not universal-actually, I think contrary( at least, in the Indian subcontinent and many parts of Asia it isn’t and I’ve read posts saying that it is not common in places like Italy and Spain either)

 

[corvidae]

preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Hymni/LaudaSion.html

There is a link to the senquence.

No one is denying value to the Holy Blood, it is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ as much as the species of the host is, I could recieve either one and recieve fully. I am not devaluing either by saying you do not NEED to recieve both, and I do not believe both need to be offered to the laity.

By the way, your disdain for doctrine confuses me. Are you Catholic, do you believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation.

A lone Raven