How would you react if communion began to be offered under one species in your parish?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Xanthippe_Voorhees said:
Vast amounts of 100% grape wine can be purchased from Trader Joe’s for cheap. It’s called “Five buck chuck”
Click to expand...
While any wine can technically be used for consecration (yes, technically rose and white too but deep red is favored for the imagery), there are particular formulation the church favors over others; my memory is failing me here but I believe it has something to do with the composition, less sulfides and contaminants from specific wine providers?
 
I had posted a link from the Vatican on another thread.

The only requirements are 100% grape wine. If it has adultering agents added (ie not the normal wine-making process) it’s not considered licit. But cheap 100% grape wine is just as good as expensive wine.
 
Last edited:
OK, everybody pile on.

I’m the least aggressive person you’ll meet.

Posting history is real.
I’m not the one with a long history of bashing my pwn parish, my priest or other people who are different. I do resond in their defense though.

I stand by what I said.
 
Oooh, so that’s why the favor that. I knew there was some reason for the wine choice but with the wide assortment of different countries of origin and grape used in consecration I was baffled as to what made it suitable.

Thank you very much, learn something new every day. 🙂
 
Horton said:
Were you ever taught the concept of “when you don’t have anything nice to say, say nothing”. You continually go after this poster in an extremely uncharitable way. If you don’t like him or his posts, just move on.
Click to expand...
The purpose of message boards is 2 fold.
  1. to help the OP with an issue or to flesh out an interesting topic
  2. to build a repository of information that will likely be preserved ad infinitum
10 of the 13 suppositions posed by the OP about the consumption of wine are from that of a biased observer who is not working with clergy. All could easily be corrected with education. Who, we know via another thread, refuses to work with clergy from the priest and the bishop.

Having what I believe is nearing 2 decades of work in multiple parishes, Clare can speak to the process–especially to one who refuses to get involved.

Her (name removed by moderator)ut is based on her passion for the topic and her knowledge of the OP based on other posts. It is not only valid, it’s helpful insight into how a good parish should be acting and what should be expected of them. And since this forum will be around “forever” it’s extremely helpful.
 
Xanthippe_Voorhees said:
The purpose of message boards is 2 fold.

to help the OP with an issue or to flesh out an interesting topic
to build a repository of information that will likely be preserved ad infinitum
Click to expand...
So you agree a poster should never be attacked consistently by another poster? I’m not going to discuss the poster here with you as it is inappropriate.

I’m all for folks increasing information & knowledge as well as civil debate when folks disagree. If any poster can’t add nothing more than an uncharitable post…the say nothing.
 
Thanks. That is the point of CAF.
Not to have fans or haters. To educate.

Full stop. 🤣 Sorry, couldn’t resist. Which btw, is a habit picked up from lontimes poster GEddie, who seems to be missing. Miss you Gerard!
 
Horton said:
40.png
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
The purpose of message boards is 2 fold.

to help the OP with an issue or to flesh out an interesting topic
to build a repository of information that will likely be preserved ad infinitum
Click to expand...
So you agree a poster should never be attacked consistently by another poster? I’m not going to discuss the poster here with you as it is inappropriate.

I’m all for folks increasing information & knowledge as well as civil debate when folks disagree. If any poster can’t add nothing more than an uncharitable post…the say nothing.
Click to expand...
It’s uncharitable to the sanctity of the Mass and the Holy Blood of Jesus that the OP continues to list a diatribe of personal, petty reasons that the Blood of Jesus poured out for us cannot be offered.

How very uncivil for someone to stand by and allow the Holy Blood be turned into a circus act (either in person or on a forum). I come back to this thread, not to antagonize the OP, but because the very thought of the Holy Blood being a mere casualty of social graces or lack thereof is appalling.
 
Now you are changing the subject. If one feels correction should be made to a poster’s KNOWLEDGE, then one can do so charitably. It is uncharitable and uncivil to attack a posters knowledge or lack thereof, their motive, or their opinion. There seems to be those who would rather judge than correct.

No one is making a circus out of the Mass or the Eucharist in either species.
 
Verdanty said:
A major reason historically why the laity only received in one form is to reduce the chance they might come to believe one species was “more valid” or “better” than the other; it was seen as a measure to reduce confusion.
Click to expand...
No question that happens today. In my parish, I perceive that those who cannot receive under both species (the chalices run dry) are upset because they did not receive “complete” communion. Yes, added catachesis would help, but many remain extremely steadfast in their (mis)beliefs.
 
Horton said:
Were you ever taught the concept of “when you don’t have anything nice to say, say nothing”. You continually go after this poster in an extremely uncharitable way. If you don’t like him or his posts, just move on.
Click to expand...
Thank you sincerely…

I know I have found it to be prudent to simply skip over postings from some individuals I typically don’t agree with.
 
Last edited:
Horton said:
Now you are changing the subject. If one feels correction should be made to a poster’s KNOWLEDGE, then one can do so charitably. It is uncharitable and uncivil to attack a posters knowledge or lack thereof, their motive, or their opinion. There seems to be those who would rather judge than correct.

No one is making a circus out of the Mass or the Eucharist in either species.
Click to expand...
🤨

Are you really going to sit there and contest that the OP’s reasons are not, in part, entirely ludicrous and disrespectful of the intelligence of the priest an laity? Are you not aware that the OP has made these suppositions based on a commitment to lack of participation in the sacramental administration of his parish?

I’m not “changing the subject” The topic is how the OP feels the offering of wine is somehow less valuable than not offering it at all. Those who actually participate in the running of their parish and therefore are knowledgeable on educating laity can only stand to add experience that the initial theories lack.

Reducing the Eucharist to a simple social hassle as evidenced and reiterated by the OP should be enormously shocking and disturbing to anyone who comes upon them.
 
Horton said:
Now you are changing the subject. If one feels correction should be made to a poster’s KNOWLEDGE, then one can do so charitably. It is uncharitable and uncivil to attack a posters knowledge or lack thereof, their motive, or their opinion. There seems to be those who would rather judge than correct.

No one is making a circus out of the Mass or the Eucharist in either species.
Click to expand...
Amen! That’s one reason why the PM system exists.
 
Horton said:
It’s time to bow out. You just don’t get it.
Click to expand...
You’re right about one thing…

…I just don’t get the complete disrespect and contrived excuses for removing the Blood of Christ from the laity.
 
1ke said:
The Eucharist is always offered under one species at my parish and has been since forever.
Click to expand...
Based on the comments on this thread and another, I am surprised at how often that’s the case. Around here the opposite is typically the case.

This is a good example of something at least I learned from these two threads.
 
Christ Himself said:
TAKE and DRINK.

His message trumps any phobias that people have about abuse or imagined thoughts of others in the line for the cup.

Holy Communion Under Both Kinds
  1. From the first days of the Church’s celebration of the Eucharist, Holy Communion consisted of the reception of both species in fulfillment of the Lord’s command to “take and eat . . . take and drink.” The distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds was thus the norm for more than a millennium of Catholic liturgical practice.
  2. The practice of Holy Communion under both kinds at Mass continued until the late eleventh century, when the custom of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful under the form of bread alone began to grow. By the twelfth century theologians such as Peter Cantor speak of Communion under one kind as a “custom” of the Church.28 This practice spread until the Council of Constance in 1415 decreed that Holy Communion under the form of bread alone would be distributed to the faithful.
  3. In 1963, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council authorized the extension of the faculty for Holy Communion under both kinds in Sacrosanctum Concilium:
The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, Communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See. . . .29
  1. The Council’s decision to restore Holy Communion under both kinds at the bishop’s discretion took expression in the first edition of the Missale Romanum and enjoys an even more generous application in the third typical edition of the Missale Romanum:
Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer 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 connection between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father.30
The General Instruction further states that "at the same time the faithful should be instructed to participate more readily in this sacred rite, by which the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is made more fully evident."31
  1. The extension of the faculty for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds does not represent a change in the Church’s immemorial beliefs concerning the Holy Eucharist. Rather, today the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545.32 But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience "a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet."33
 
One thing is for certain. There are concrete advantages and disadvantages with distributing Holy Communion in the Latin Rite via intinction, under the appearance of bread only, or under the appearance of both species. Emotion and crudity doesn’t change that fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top