How often should the Precious Blood be offered?

[otm]

JimG:

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.

I have been to a Mass with over 9,000 people. It was eminently feasable at that Mass. So it should not be less feasable with a parish with 500 to 1,000 attending Mass.

Your comment about “all that is required” is a good example of minimalism. Christ gave us both species, the early Church distributed both species, and it is aprecious gift from Our Lord. Those who choose to receive only under one species are free to do so. There is no requirement to receive only one, or to receive both, or to receive at all.

 

[otm]

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.

Oh yes, by all means we would want to speed it up; that certainly is going to go a long way to building up reverence for Communion!

Not!

As an altar boy, I had to move right smartly along the Communion rail when the priest got a bee in his bonnet; he could distribute the host about once every second and a half and you had better have your tongue out waiting! Hoorah, lets all go back to that!

Not!

 

[JNB]

Actually an option was left out that I would have voted for, and that is communion by intinction, but because it was not on the list, I voted never. It seems that many people in these forums suffer from what many Americans suffer from, and that is they want it both ways, because another poll had almost everyone saying they do not want EMHCs. Sorry, unless it is communion via intinction, one can not have the precious blood offererd and avoid use of EMHCs, it doesnt work that way.

In any event, there is no theological justification for communion under both species, but hey, it is a perfect way to stuff more laity in the sanctuary, and as Mr Keating himself said, the alcoholic concent of the blood is not high enough to kill off germs in any event, while the precious blood is conccrated, the backwash certainly is not.

 

[otm]

JNB:

In any event, there is no theological justification for communion under both species,

There is plenty of theological justification. That is the way Christ gave it to the Church, and that is the way that the Church celebrated the Eucharist for a number of centuries, and precious little more needs be given. It was good enough for Christ, and good enough for the early Church. No one is forced to receive it under both species; if you wish to turn down the fuller sign that Christ gave us, the Church has said you have that right… Those who want to go looking for some theologian or Council to make a decree miss the point.

JNB:

but hey, it is a perfect way to stuff more laity in the sanctuary, and as Mr Keating himself said, the alcoholic concent of the blood is not high enough to kill off germs in any event, while the precious blood is conccrated, the backwash certainly is not.

And neither is the spit that the priest inevitably picks up from a communicant’s tongue, for those who wish to receive it that way. And your point is?

 

[jlw]

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.

When we recieve the host, isn’t it the *Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity *of our Lord, Jesus Christ??

Our parish does it much like Brendan says.

 

[JNB]

We have been down this road before. All I will say is one can not get more Jesus from both species, since the fullness of Christ is in both species, of course when both species are offered, it does force use of EMHCs, as other threads have stated. Not even Vatican II liturgical documents called for both species at every mass, and outside of the English speaking world, and maybe Northren Europe, communion under both species is rare, and is not done at papal masses.

otm:

There is plenty of theological justification. That is the way Christ gave it to the Church, and that is the way that the Church celebrated the Eucharist for a number of centuries, and precious little more needs be given. It was good enough for Christ, and good enough for the early Church. No one is forced to receive it under both species; if you wish to turn down the fuller sign that Christ gave us, the Church has said you have that right… Those who want to go looking for some theologian or Council to make a decree miss the point. And neither is the spit that the priest inevitably picks up from a communicant’s tongue, for those who wish to receive it that way. And your point is?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

What’s this obsession with the “early church” anyway? Disciplines develop. This fixation with having everything the way it was in the “early church” is foolish and seems aimed at denying the Holy Spirit’s influence over disciplinary development through the centuries.

Discarding twenty centuries of development is not progress. It is corruption.

 

[otm]

jlw:

When we recieve the host, isn’t it the *Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity *of our Lord, Jesus Christ??

Our parish does it much like Brendan says.

Of course it is. So is the cup. It was a theological definition to a specific heresy. None of which negates the fact that Christ gave us the host and the cup, and said “take and eat… Take and drink”.

I thought you were claiming Holy Rosary as your parish; I do not recall them doing intinction. Or are you referring to another parish?