No Blood of Christ at Mass?

[Melonie]

At this evening’s Mass (from which I have just returned) I found it odd that there was no Blood of Christ offered during Communion. Normally, I go in line and receive the “Body of Christ” and then move on to the “Blood of Christ” line – but tonight, there was only the Body of Christ line. The host and the wine were both prepared by the priest, but only the host was offered, and I wonder what the reason for this was.

If this is something customary on this date in the Liturgical year, I hope you will overlook my ignorance, as I’ve recently returned to the Catholic faith after some years. Thanks for any help.

 

[cmom]

No today is nothing special.
In Pittsburgh diocese the Body and Blood are offered at every Sunday Mass.

It all depends on the rules in your diocese set by the Bishop and your priest whether the Blood of Christ is offered or not.

 

[Melonie]

Thanks, cmom. I guess that is why it confused me; I have never seen this happen in our parish before. Granted, we had a different priest than usual this evening, so perhaps it was just a difference in him and our normal priest. I appreciate your answer very much. I learned something new.

 

[rfk]

It could be something as simple as the celebrating priest deciding there aren’t enough Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion present to offer Communion under Both Kinds at that Mass on that day.

Or, it may be that your parish is getting around to figuring out how to implement the recent Redemptionis Sacramentum. One relevant section is:

[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants[189]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”.[190] The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or 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.

I know in my parish, they really shouldn’t offer Communion under Both Kinds because roughly 75% of communicants bypass the chalice. Either the parish should receive catechesis that teaches them it is important to demonstrate unity and accept both kinds when offered, or it should be offered only as the Body of Christ.

 

[Mike_Rainville]

Either the consecrated host or consecrated wine is the Sacred Body and the Precious Blood, the Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I will look up the actual teaching as soon as I can, If you are in a hurry, you can do a search here: vatican.va

You should also research the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano.

 

[system]

rfk:

Either the parish should receive catechesis that teaches them it is important to demonstrate unity and accept both kinds when offered

But I don’t think there is any directive to teach that. Rather, the teaching is that one receives the complete Body and Blood even when just receiving the host.

 

[cmom]

“I know in my parish, they really shouldn’t offer Communion under Both Kinds because roughly 75% of communicants bypass the chalice. Either the parish should receive catechesis that teaches them it is important to demonstrate unity and accept both kinds when offered, or it should be offered only as the Body of Christ”

That is certainly not part of Catholic teaching. We have a personal choice on how to recieve Our Lord.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

" Either the parish should receive catechesis that teaches them it is important to demonstrate unity and accept both kinds when offered."

I find that an odd statement. The unitative nature of Holy Communion has nothing to do with the form that it is received under. We are all receiving Christ and are therefore united in Christ no matter if we receive only under the form of bread or only under the form of wine or both.

I believe that we will see more and more parishes offering only the Body of Christ at regular Sunday Mass. Because the Instructions require the wine and water to be distributed into individual chalices BEFORE being Consecrated. In many places this would require 6, 9 or even 12 chalices. This will become impractical. I can see 3 or 4 chalices no more than that being reasonable. And they all need to be heavy metal chalices with a weighted base and a base that is larger than the top cup to minimize the possibility of them being knocked over and spilling.

 

[Mike_Rainville]

[
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

PART TWO
THE CELEBRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY

SECTION TWO
THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH

CHAPTER ONE
THE SACRAMENTS OF CHRISTIAN INITIATION

ARTICLE 3
THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm#1390
)

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But "the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly."225 This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites.

 

[misericordie]

Melonie:

At this evening’s Mass (from which I have just returned) I found it odd that there was no Blood of Christ offered during Communion. Normally, I go in line and receive the “Body of Christ” and then move on to the “Blood of Christ” line – but tonight, there was only the Body of Christ line. The host and the wine were both prepared by the priest, but only the host was offered, and I wonder what the reason for this was.

If this is something customary on this date in the Liturgical year, I hope you will overlook my ignorance, as I’ve recently returned to the Catholic faith after some years. Thanks for any help.

First, the distribution of the blood of Christ to the laity is NOT mandatory, and was specifically prhibited by the Council of Trent (DOGMATIC COUNCIL: and its documents are still in effect, and cited by V.II and the NEW Catechism of the Catholic Church) actually, it is quite a novelty. Christ is present in the host, body, BLOOD, soul and divinity. Plus, sharing the same Chalice with many others, is not too hygenic(colds, etc.) I say this seriously and with all respect.

 

[JNB]

Communion under both kinds is actually pretty rare outside of the English speaking world, and possibly parts of Westren Europe. About 80-85% of masses celebrated in the world only offer the host, and Bishops that force all parishes to offer both kinds are possibly in violation of Canon law.

Also in places were communion under both kinds is rare, such as the 3rd world and Southren and Eastren Europe, when it is offered, it is commonly distributed via intinction(dipping the host in the precious blood by the priest).

 

[rfk]

Melman:

But I don’t think there is any directive to teach that. Rather, the teaching is that one receives the complete Body and Blood even when just receiving the host.

To Melman, Mike, Br. Rich, and others. I think you are misunderstanding my point.

As a base assumption, I agree, and we all agree, that we receive all of the graces associated with the Real Presence, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, even if we only receive it under one species, the Host.

The converse assumption that one needed to receive both Body and Blood to get “the real deal” was the utraquist heresy dealt with at the Council of Trent.

So let’s get past that – it wasn’t the point I was making.

Let me re-quote the relevant part of Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful …or 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.

OK, first, it is telling us that if “a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice”, then we should not minister the chalice. The reason has nothing to do with the Council of Trent, it is an issue of unity.

We recall that:

The Eucharist is a sacred meal, “a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity” (9) in which Christ calls us as his friends to share in the banquet of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Jn 15:15).

Now, we are faced with the question of what is a “notable number”. In my parish, I think 75% of people preferring to skip the chalice qualifies. Actually, the number of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion in our parish are directly opposite what the norms specify. From Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America

a suitable number of ministers of Holy Communion are provided at each Mass. 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.

In our parish, we have one minister of the Precious Blood for every two ministers of the Body of Christ.

Thus, if we are to faithfully follow Redemptionis Sacramentum it appears we really have two possible courses of action. We could cease offering the chalice. Alternatively, we could teach the congregation the value of Holy Communion under Both Kinds, the value of unity, and encourage greater participation in the chalice. In others words, we could adopt a strategy of making sure that we do not have “a notable part of the people” refusing to partake of the Blood of Christ.

Have I made this any clearer, or have I successfully concocted mud?

 

[rfk]

There is another aspect to this that is worth appreciating. If a pastor decides to offer Holy Communion under Both Kinds, there is proper planning to consider. We’ve covered the issue of teaching the lay parishioners about unity. We also have the issue of estimating the amount of wine to consecrate. For example, we average about 800 people per Sunday Mass (large parish). If too little wine is consecrated and all the chalices are empty before half the pews have received, then we run right into the “notable part of the people” problem discussed above.

Conversely, if too much wine is consecrated, it must all be drunk during Communion. There is no setting aside the Blood of Christ in the Tabernacle like we do with the Body of Christ. The GIRM requires all of the leftover Blood of Christ to be drunk at Mass, and explicitly authorizes the priest to receive help from concelebrating priests, deacons, alcolytes, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, and ordinary lay faithful when needed to finish consuming the Blood of Christ.

Then there is the issue of ensuring sufficient ministers, both ordinary and extraordinary, to handle Holy Communion under Both Kinds. This all takes planning.

 

[rfk]

misericordie:

First, the distribution of the of Christ to the laity is NOT mandatory, and was specifically prhibited by the Council of Trent (DOGMATIC COUNCIL: and its documents are still in effect, and cited by V.II and the NEW Catechism of the Catholic Church) actually, it is quite a novelty.

First, agreed that Trent restricted the laity to receiving only the Body of Christ, and agreed that distributing Holy Communion under Both Kinds is not mandatory – in fact, it is at the option of the Bishop and Pastor.

But are you trying to imply that the Council of Trent prohibition against Holy Communion under Both Kinds is still in effect? Are you trying to say that its common distribution in the United States is invalid? If that is the point you are trying to make, you are clearly in error.

In 1963, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council authorized the extension of the faculty for Holy Communion under both kinds in the document Sacrosanctum Concilium.

This distribution is defined and authorized by the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America

 

[Servulus]

The norms to which rfk referred were published in June, 2001. The section pertinent to the question at hand says:

"When Communion Under Both Kinds May Be Given

1. The revised Missale Romanum, third typical edition, significantly expands those opportunities when Holy Communion may be offered under both kinds. In addition to those instances specified by individual ritual books, the *General Instruction *states that Communion under both kinds may be permitted as follows:
   1. 
      *]for priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate
      *]for the deacon and others who perform some role at Mass
      *]for community members at their conventual Mass or what in some places is known as the “community” Mass, for seminarians, [and] for all who are on retreat or are participating in a spiritual or pastoral gathering (35)
   2. The General Instruction then indicates that
   the diocesan Bishop may lay down norms for the distribution of Communion under both kinds for his own diocese, which must be observed. . . . The diocesan Bishop also has the faculty to allow Communion under both kinds, whenever it seems appropriate to the priest to whom charge of a given community has been entrusted as [its] own pastor, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants or for some other reason. (36)
   
   In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.
   Norms established by the diocesan bishop must be observed wherever the Eucharist is celebrated in the diocese, “even in the churches of religious orders and in celebrations with small groups.” (37)
   
   While the original question can only be answered fully in light of the norms established by the original poster’s bishop, the document makes clear that reception under both forms is not intended to be an “everywhere, every time thing”.
   
   Hope that helps.

 

[system]

rfk:

Now, we are faced with the question of what is a “notable number”. In my parish, I think 75% of people preferring to skip the chalice qualifies.

I certainly think so. I wish they hadn’t said “notable” (in the typically vague manner of most Church documents). Every parish I’ve ever attended would pass (fail?) the “notable” test (at least at Sunday masses) and should be discontinuing the chalices.

We could cease offering the chalice. Alternatively, we could teach the congregation the value of Holy Communion under Both Kinds, the value of unity, and encourage greater participation in the chalice.

I think the point that some of us were making, is that nowhere in “RS” (or any other document) does it advise the teaching you’ve suggested. I’m not sure that your interpretations (as you’ve briefly stated them) are entirely correct, although the arguments can be made. More to the point, I don’t think Rome envisioned sermons giving the impression of “if more of you don’t start receiving the Blood, we’re going to stop offering it”.

I guess I’d like to hear a sermon on this paragraph from the 2003 GIRM since it seems to say two things at once. If receiving both kinds is clearer, then reciving only the host must by definition be “less clear”. But it has “complete efficacy”. I’m confused.

1. Moved by the same desire and pastoral concern, the Second Vatican Council was able to give renewed consideration to what was established by Trent on Communion under both kinds. And indeed, since no one today calls into doubt in any way the doctrinal principles on the complete efficacy of eucharistic Communion under the species of bread alone, the Council thus gave permission for the reception of Communion under both kinds on some occasions, because this clearer form of the sacramental sign offers a particular opportunity of deepening the understanding of the mystery in which the faithful take part.

And then if habits do not change, take action to discontinue the chalice at masses where it is appropriate. (Without any lectures about “the importance of unity” since reception of the host alone is a sufficient sign of unity. I think.)

 

[misericordie]

rfk:

First, agreed that Trent restricted the laity to receiving only the Body of Christ, and agreed that distributing Holy Communion under Both Kinds is not mandatory – in fact, it is at the option of the Bishop and Pastor.

But are you trying to imply that the Council of Trent prohibition against Holy Communion under Both Kinds is still in effect? Are you trying to say that its common distribution in the United States is invalid? If that is the point you are trying to make, you are clearly in error.

In 1963, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council authorized the extension of the faculty for Holy Communion under both kinds in the document Sacrosanctum Concilium.

This distribution is defined and authorized by the Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America

 I am glad you recognize that the distribution under both kinds is AN OPTION.  Secondly, that it was prohibitted by the Dogmatic Council of Trent.  Note that although I accept Vatican II's Documents, not the so called "spirit" of vatican II, one must note that many beleive that every single word vatican II said, MUST (in a dogmatic sense) be followed, or else.  Vatican II did not pronounce any teaching in a dogmatic way.  Actually, Pope John XXIII said it was a PASTORAL council, not intent on pronouncing any new dogma, or denouncing through anathemas.  On the other side of the coin, the Council of TRENT(which defines such terms as Transubstanciation, and formally established the Biblical Canon) WAS DOGMATIC, not pastoral.  That being said,  the latest vatican Document out of Cardinal Arize's office, states that Communion should not be given under both kinds (I guess they saw how many abuses happen when this takes place, such as happened at a local church here where at a Mass, an EXTRA-ordinary Eucharisic minister Dropped the chalice full of the precious blood as she was distributing), and well then ends by stating that, well, the Bishop may authorize it, with the may, not MUST.  Even if the Bishop "authorizes" it, the local Pastor(who in a big city like this knows his parish members better then the Bishop who has never visited his parish) could decide NOT to give the chalice to the laity.   It reminds me of a lady who approached my New pastor after Mass and yelling at the top of her lungs at him in the sacristy asked him: "where's the blood????????".

She then went on to tell him: “how dare you not give us the blood”??? This seems as a lack of belief on the part of that person that Christ is REALLY present body, BLOOD, soul and divinity in the Eucharistic Host. This is the situation too in many other parishes. Luckily, my pastor is NOT easily intimidated into fulfilling all the whims of the liberal parish members.

 

[system]

Why do so many threads get sidetracked by arguments about what “kind” of council Vatican II was? Or Trent?

On another forum site, a priest wrote this which will hopefully put the matter to rest:

Whether a [V-II] document is more dogmatic or more pastoral, it is a common misunderstanding to refer to all of Vatican II as a “pastoral” council." The Catholic Church has never, in 2000 years, broken councils down into “dogmatic” and “pastoral” since every council of the Church has a mixture of both. It is true that Cardinal Ratzinger has referred to Vatican II teaching as pastoral in nature, but this is the Cardinal’s opinion and is not how magisterial documents speak of councils.

For instance, Trent is incorrectly referred to by some as a “dogmatic” council, although there are numerous pastoral directives in the Tridentine documents. The bishops at Trent simply call it an “ecumenical Council.” Thus, it is proper to simply refer to Vatican II as an “ecumenical Council” meaning an assembly of the entire college of bishops with the pope.

misericordie:

That being said, the latest vatican Document out of Cardinal Arize’s office, states that Communion should not be given under both kinds (irrelevant parenthetical deleted) and well then ends by stating that, well, the Bishop may authorize it, with the may, not MUST.

Huh? Do you wanna try that one again?

 

[misericordie]

Melman:

Why do so many threads get sidetracked by arguments about what “kind” of council Vatican II was? Or Trent?

On another forum site, a priest wrote this which will hopefully put the matter to rest:
Huh? Do you wanna try that one again? Here you go AGAIN Melman, your post again fails the logic test, as per the reason being it attacks ME: the messenger, while failing to really focus on the issue. Your arguments remind me of those who still beleive the world is NOT round, or that the color yellow is really green.
Less fallacy, more logic please:tsktsk: :yawn:

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

rfk I agree.Maybe the chalice should not be offered with 75% not receiving from the chalice. There would be better “uniformity” in the distribution of Holy Communion. I still don’t like the work “unity” in this case. Because when speaking of Communion that word can have different meanings.