No Blood of Christ at Mass?

[Detroit_Sue]

At my parish, Communion under both Species has been offered only once in the 9 years I’ve belonged there. And that was by intinction. Nobody’s ever felt “cheated,” because the priest never makes them feel cheated. He always offers us The Body, The Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in the form of bread.

Conversely, I’ve seen more people spill drops of the Precious Blood and/or wipe their lips with the back of their hand after receiving the Cup. I prefer it the way it is in our parish. Seems at the very least, to give less opportunity for abuse.

 

[rfk]

misericordie:

I am glad you recognize that the distribution under both kinds is AN OPTION.

Absolutely, it is an option. These quotes are also from Redemptionis Sacramentum.

[100.] So that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful in the course of the Eucharistic banquet, lay members of Christ’s faithful, too, are admitted to Communion under both kinds, in the cases set forth in the liturgical books, preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter laid down by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.[186]

Please note that this assumes that, while Communion under both kind is permitted and people can be admitted also to receive under both kinds, it is the exception rather than the rule. The local bishop must determine if this can be permitted in the diocese and under what circumstances.

Addressing Melman’s point:

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.

The phrase “preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter” is where I am coming from when I talk about the need for catechesis. After all, look at the tone here:

[101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned. (emphasis added)[187] With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”.[188]

I think it is quite clear that RS is clarifying some principles regarding Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds. It is not being mandated or promoted as a right. Quite the opposite – what I read is a serious tone of caution.

RS describes it can be a good option only when circumstances permit, meaning everyone participating:* is well-formed spiritually and intellectually

• understands what is going on, and what this means
• understands Church teaching on the “efficacy of eucharistic Communion” under the species of bread alone
• understands that reception of Communion under both kinds as a “clearer form of the sacramental sign”.
• has adequate resources in terms of vessels, wine, properly authorized ministers (both ordinary and extraordinary).

Otherwise, lacking anything, it is better NOT to have Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, lest there be even a slight risk of profanation.

With all the admonishments in the text (here and elsewhere) concerning the serious need to avoid at all cost any risk of profanation of the Sacred Species under either kind, RS seems to stress the need to cease the practice and build on a solid foundation through proper catechesis before considering if it is to be used at all. RS in no way makes it obligatory to institute Communion under both kinds.

 

[rfk]

misericordie:

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.

Shocking, just simply shocking. Sounds like a textbook example of the need for catechesis to the faithful.

 

[system]

misericordie:

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

Let’s see.

You made a post about the “dogmatic” council of Trent and the “pastoral” Vatican II Council. I presented a quote saying that’s not the right way to think about Councils. Respond to that instead of claiming “attack”, “yellow is green” or whatever.

And you also wrote that a “Cardinal Arinze” document (I assume you mean “RS”) said that Communion should not be given under both kinds but that bishops may authorize it. What it really says, is that it MAY be given under both kinds, provided that safeguards are in place against profanation. Which is somewhat opposite of what you said, logically speaking.

 

[system]

rfk:

Addressing Melman’s point: The phrase “preceded and continually accompanied by proper catechesis regarding the dogmatic principles on this matter” is where I am coming from when I talk about the need for catechesis.

I see - yes, you’re right. I don’t think I’ve ever heard any real catechesis on the topic, certainly not in the way that “RS” presents it. But how and when to do it? In a homily, or in the bulletin (where you might present more of the text of “RS” and other documents, however few would probably read them)? Do you do it along with a caution that the chalices might be discontinued? Or do you discontinue them first, then provide the catechesis, then reintroduce the chalices on a trial basis? I’m not sure how I’d handle it.

 

[rfk]

Melman:

Or do you discontinue them first, then provide the catechesis, then reintroduce the chalices on a trial basis?

Well, I am sure this would vary with the pastoral situation, but with the great caution RS exhibits towards the risk of profanation, I think I’d tend to support the way you phrased it