How often should the Precious Blood be offered?

  • Thread starter Thread starter amasimp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The GIRM says:
  1. 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.
Click to expand...
So I think the Precious Blood should be offered whenever possible. RS 101-102 indicates the conditions where it is not possible:
  • where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned
  • where there is such a large number of communicants that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”
  • wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange
  • where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty
  • wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation
  • where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated
 
The precious blood is always offered in every Mass, and the priest always receives under both species. That is all that is required. Many parishes have communion under both species at Sunday Mass, but not all. The larger the parish, the less feasible it becomes.
 
In the Eastern Rites, the Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior is distributed at each Divine Liturgy.

It is distributed by the priests and deacon and NOT by Eucharistic Ministers which we do not have.
 
In every parish I have had the honor to assist at Mass in, the Precious Blood has been offered to the faithful along with the Body of Christ (even though yes He is present under either species, entirely.) I love receiving the Blood of Christ. Many people pass by the chalice without receiving. So have I, at times when I have had a cold. But I prefer to receive it. ☘️ (I love these Irish smilies. I wonder if they’ll automatically get replaced at the stroke of midnight with their ordinary equivalents.)
 
I would greatly prefer that the Chalice be offered to the faithful only on major occasions, such as Solemnities, and also those Feasts pertaining directly to the Eucharist, such as Corpus Christi.

Overall, it would reduce the number of EMHC’s required at each Mass and probably speed up the distibution of the Blessed Sacrament.
 
40.png
Brendan:
I would greatly prefer that the Chalice be offered to the faithful only on major occasions, such as Solemnities, and also those Feasts pertaining directly to the Eucharist, such as Corpus Christi.

Overall, it would reduce the number of EMHC’s required at each Mass and probably speed up the distibution of the Blessed Sacrament.
Click to expand...
So does or does not the spiritual good of offering the Precious Blood to the faithful offset the negatives of relying too heavily on extraordinary ministers, and the Communion procession taking a long time?
 
Bobby Jim:
So does or does not the spiritual good of offering the Precious Blood to the faithful offset the negatives of relying too heavily on extraordinary ministers, and the Communion procession taking a long time?
Click to expand...
All Spiritual Good is provided in the single species.

The only thing ‘lacking’ is a certain element of symbolism. But even that is not complete, because the use of the Chalice also carries incomplete symbolism; the Body and Blood are show as separated. Christ is fully united and Risen, His Body and Blood cannot be separated

The truest symbolism is that of Intinction, either the Roman or Byzantine methods.

The Body and Blood are server together and united. That is my true preference and is mandatory in the Eastern Churches.

Nobody seems very interested in that in the Roman Church, as intinction can only be done by a Priest or Deacon (not an EMHC) and Communion in the hand of an Intincted Host in forbidden as well.

So really, the deepest, truest symbolism really isn’t there in any common case in the Roman Church, but all the Grace and Spiritual Good is; so I would therefore look to limit EMHC’s and for brevity.
 
40.png
Brendan:
All Spiritual Good is provided in the single species.

The only thing ‘lacking’ is a certain element of symbolism. But even that is not complete, because the use of the Chalice also carries incomplete symbolism; the Body and Blood are show as separated. Christ is fully united and Risen, His Body and Blood cannot be separated

The truest symbolism is that of Intinction, either the Roman or Byzantine methods.

The Body and Blood are server together and united. That is my true preference and is mandatory in the Eastern Churches.

Nobody seems very interested in that in the Roman Church, as intinction can only be done by a Priest or Deacon (not an EMHC) and Communion in the hand of an Intincted Host in forbidden as well.

So really, the deepest, truest symbolism really isn’t there in any common case in the Roman Church, but all the Grace and Spiritual Good is; so I would therefore look to limit EMHC’s and for brevity.
Click to expand...
The monastary that rec. me into the Church (Latin Rite) offers the Sacred Species by intinction. I’ve never minded it at all. That said, I very much doubt the Sacred Body and Most Precious Blood were offered by Our Lord to the Apostles by intinction at the Last Supper when the Holy Eucharist was instituted.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
That said, I very much doubt the Sacred Body and Most Precious Blood were offered by Our Lord to the Apostles by intinction at the Last Supper when the Holy Eucharist was instituted.
Click to expand...
True, but He also didn’t use any EMHC’s either 😉

And one might also note that the Apostles are Bishops, and both Priests and Bishops receive the Eucharist at at different time and a different way that the Laity during Mass. A similar passing of both the paten and the chalice to the attending clergy has always been part of the Mass.

Priests and Bishops re present the Sacrificial offering. This is symbolized by the separation of the Body and the Blood. It is therefore appropriate theologically and symbolically for them to receive the species separately.

The faithful receive the Resurrection. It is therefore correct for them to receive the united Christ, symbolized either by a single Host, or by the joining of the species together.
 
40.png
Brendan:
True, but He also didn’t use any EMHC’s either 😉

And one might also note that the Apostles are Bishops, and both Priests and Bishops receive the Eucharist at at different time and a different way that the Laity during Mass. A similar passing of both the paten and the chalice to the attending clergy has always been part of the Mass.

Priests and Bishops re present the Sacrificial offering. This is symbolized by the separation of the Body and the Blood. It is therefore appropriate theologically and symbolically for them to receive the species separately.

The faithful receive the Resurrection. It is therefore correct for them to receive the united Christ, symbolized either by a single Host, or by the joining of the species together.
Click to expand...
Now, Brenden, I was being somewhat light-hearted (and I do agree that if necessary it is sufficient to rec. only the Sacred Body, as the fullness of the Sacrament is contained in both and either of the Sacred Species), but I’m pretty sure that we are intended, in the Holy Communion, to rec. both the Sacrifice (the Death) and the Resurrection of Our Lord. There may be good reason for not allowing a general reception of the Most Precious Blood at times (in my opinion, few, like during flu season, etc.), but I don’t think the above Eucharistic theology is precisely what we subscribe to, with all due respect.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
), but I’m pretty sure that we are intended, in the Holy Communion, to rec. both the Sacrifice (the Death) and the Resurrection of Our Lord. … but I don’t think the above Eucharistic theology is precisely what we subscribe to, with all due respect.
Click to expand...

What I outlined is pretty much exactly what I learned in Sacramental Theology class 😉

The specices are consecrated seperately as a re presentation of the death of Christ. (there is death when the Blood is seperate from the Body)

They are rejoined as a re presentation of the Resurection. In the East both the species are completely mixed; in the Roman Church, a small piece of the Host is placed into the Chalice.

But it is entirely forbidden for the laity to recieve communion prior to that rejoining.

Yes, the faithful unite in prayer at the Sacrifice, but it is the priest who presents the offering. The priest is the Alter Christi, That is the nature of Priesthood.
 
U need to clarify your question b/c the precious blood is to be offered at all Masses (i.e. Body and Blood of Christ). A better wording of your question might be how often should the faithful be permitted to receive from the chalice?
 
40.png
Brendan:
What I outlined is pretty much exactly what I learned in Sacramental Theology class 😉

The specices are consecrated seperately as a re presentation of the death of Christ. (there is death when the Blood is seperate from the Body)

They are rejoined as a re presentation of the Resurection. In the East both the species are completely mixed; in the Roman Church, a small piece of the Host is placed into the Chalice.

But it is entirely forbidden for the laity to recieve communion prior to that rejoining.

Yes, the faithful unite in prayer at the Sacrifice, but it is the priest who presents the offering. The priest is the Alter Christi, That is the nature of Priesthood.
Click to expand...
Well, honestly, I don’t know enough to comment, but I’ve never heard of this distinction before. Of course, I did know and reverence the notion of Alter Christi.
 
Every time that there is a Mass there should be both the bread and wine because the Bible commands that both the bread and wine be given in Holy Communion.

John
 
This was a good idea for a poll. So often only the most vocal post their opinions and do so repeatedly. By simply reading the thread one does not get the true sense of how people feel. Rgith now 2 out of every 3 users prefer to have the chalice offered at every Mass.
 
40.png
frdave20:
U need to clarify your question b/c the precious blood is to be offered at all Masses (i.e. Body and Blood of Christ). A better wording of your question might be how often should the faithful be permitted to receive from the chalice?
Click to expand...
You are picking nits. Most people understood the question.
 
the language of the Church and references to Mass must be precise. otherwise, ambiguity and misconceptions creep in. If u cannot say what u mean, then u, certainly, cannot mean what u say.
 
We are not writing Church documents here. Jeesh. Get over it. It is just a simple opinion poll.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top