No need for consecrated wine?

[liturgyluver]

The Diocese of Westminster in London issued the following advice on Holy Communion in the summer:

“The usual practice in our parishes is for the Sacred Host to be received on the hand, standing, and – when practical and prudent to do so reverently- for the Precious Blood to be received from the Chalice, also whilst standing. This practice of standing is now confirmed in the Liturgical Norm for England and Wales, just recently approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome.”

“This Norm together with the General Instruction of the Roman Missal also provide choices which each recipient is at liberty to make: to receive the Sacred Host in the hand or on the tongue, either standing or kneeling. Each way has its symbolic and spiritual meaning helping us to be profoundly aware of whom it is that we receive and the unity of faith we share.”

What this means in practice is that different provisions apply from parish to parish. I much prefer to receive kneeling but so few parishes have communion rails. I always receive the blood when available, though I would say only 50% of people do so.

 

[Brendan]

So often you hear the statement that the mass is not only a meal but also a sacrifice. What better way to participate in it than by receiving communion as the Apostles taught us in both His Body and Blood.

The Body and Blood are fully present in each species, so even in the reception of a single species ( such as that of bread) we DO recieve as the Apostles taught us.

There is this wonderful scene at the end of Christopher Marlowe’s, Dr. Faustus. As Faustus is about to be dragged down to hell, he looks up to heaven and exclaims that he can see the Blood of Christ streaming through the firmament. Oh, he pleads, if only one drop could fall on him.

And since that is equally true of the species of bread,…what exactly is your point?

I think you have really proved the point that there should be only the reception of a single species.

The error you articulated is unfortunately very common; the belief that the species are distinct in being the Body and the Blood. The postition of the Church is that the species are of the same substance ( the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Risen Lord, Jesus) and are distinct in appearance only.

One recieves the Precious Blood, and drinks of it, when when recieves the species of bread alone. The senses of the mouth detect solid, in much the same way as our eyes see only bread.

But what is offered to us is living bodily flesh and flowing blood, fully and completly, regardless of what our eyes (or mouths) detect.

 

[Brendan]

What this means in practice is that different provisions apply from parish to parish. I much prefer to receive kneeling but so few parishes have communion rails. I always receive the blood when available, though I would say only 50% of people do so.

I would disagree with your assesment. The provisions are not from parish to parish, but from individual to individual.

A parish policy could not force a person to choose to recieve kneeling and on the tounge, nor standing and in the hand.

The choice, per the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments is that the individual is free to choose between the two practices. The CDWDS is the legislative authority under Canon 16 and the authority by which the norms gain the force of law.

As since the CDWDS is the authority under Church law, it would be to the CDWDS that we owe obedience in this matter.

 

[paperwight66]

The Diocese of Westminster in London issued the following advice on Holy Communion in the summer:

“The usual practice in our parishes is for the Sacred Host to be received on the hand, standing, and – when practical and prudent to do so reverently- for the Precious Blood to be received from the Chalice, also whilst standing. This practice of standing is now confirmed in the Liturgical Norm for England and Wales, just recently approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome.”

“This Norm together with the General Instruction of the Roman Missal also provide choices which each recipient is at liberty to make: to receive the Sacred Host in the hand or on the tongue, either standing or kneeling. Each way has its symbolic and spiritual meaning helping us to be profoundly aware of whom it is that we receive and the unity of faith we share.”

What this means in practice is that different provisions apply from parish to parish. I much prefer to receive kneeling but so few parishes have communion rails. I always receive the blood when available, though I would say only 50% of people do so.

liturgyluver, do you mean that you receive at a (Roman) Catholic church?

 

[liturgyluver]

I would disagree with your assesment. The provisions are not from parish to parish, but from individual to individual.

A parish policy could not force a person to choose to recieve kneeling and on the tounge, nor standing and in the hand.

The choice, per the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments is that the individual is free to choose between the two practices. The CDWDS is the legislative authority under Canon 16 and the authority by which the norms gain the force of law.

As since the CDWDS is the authority under Church law, it would be to the CDWDS that we owe obedience in this matter.

Perhaps not clear, I was talking about the blood not the body! You can’t choose to receive if its not offerred can you?

 

[liturgyluver]

liturgyluver, do you mean that you receive at a (Roman) Catholic church?

Yes - I am a baptised Roman Catholic.

 

[Brendan]

Perhaps not clear, I was talking about the blood not the body! You can’t choose to receive if its not offerred can you?

It doesn’t matter.

If one receives a single species, for example, the species of bread, one recieves

The FULL BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, and DIVINITY of Christ.

If you recieve ‘just’ the Host alone, for example, you recieve the Blood of Christ.

This is exactly the problem that is developing in the Church. Far too many people think like you do. That the species of bread is 'the Body" and the species of wine is 'the Blood"

They are one and the same. Christ is living, Risen. He Blood is not, and cannot be seperate from the Body. That would mean that Christ died again.

If you have one small sip from the chalice, you recieved the Body of Christ, the Blood of Christ, His Soul and His Divinity.

If you have one small crumb from the ciboroum, you recive the Blood of Christ, the Body of Christ, His Soul and His Divinity.

The Blood is present in the form of bread, and the Body is present in the form of wine.

 

[TheMc]

It doesn’t matter.

If one receives a single species, for example, the species of bread, one recieves

The FULL BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, and DIVINITY of Christ.

If you recieve ‘just’ the Host alone, for example, you recieve the Blood of Christ.

This is exactly the problem that is developing in the Church. Far too many people think like you do. That the species of bread is 'the Body" and the species of wine is 'the Blood"

They are one and the same. Christ is living, Risen. He Blood is not, and cannot be seperate from the Body. That would mean that Christ died again.

If you have one small sip from the chalice, you recieved the Body of Christ, the Blood of Christ, His Soul and His Divinity.

If you have one small crumb from the ciboroum, you recive the Blood of Christ, the Body of Christ, His Soul and His Divinity.

The Blood is present in the form of bread, and the Body is present in the form of wine.

Methinks we need to go back to single species for everyone.

 

[liturgyluver]

It doesn’t matter.

If one receives a single species, for example, the species of bread, one recieves

The FULL BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, and DIVINITY of Christ.

If you recieve ‘just’ the Host alone, for example, you recieve the Blood of Christ.

This is exactly the problem that is developing in the Church. Far too many people think like you do. That the species of bread is 'the Body" and the species of wine is 'the Blood"

They are one and the same. Christ is living, Risen. He Blood is not, and cannot be seperate from the Body. That would mean that Christ died again.

If you have one small sip from the chalice, you recieved the Body of Christ, the Blood of Christ, His Soul and His Divinity.

If you have one small crumb from the ciboroum, you recive the Blood of Christ, the Body of Christ, His Soul and His Divinity.

The Blood is present in the form of bread, and the Body is present in the form of wine.

Calm down! I was merely pointing out that some parishes in London offer the chalice and others don’t. When it’s available I - and about half the congregation - choose to take it.

 

[paperwight66]

Yes - I am a baptised Roman Catholic.

But you have ‘Anglo-Catholic’ as your religion?

 

[liturgyluver]

But you have ‘Anglo-Catholic’ as your religion?

Thanks for pointing out - I shall change it back. It should be one of my interests not my religion!

 

[Brendan]

Calm down! I was merely pointing out that some parishes in London offer the chalice and others don’t. .

I understand that, but that is not what you said (or wrote )

You wrote about substance of Blood, rather than the species (or form) of wine.

 

[liturgyluver]

I understand that, but that is not what you said (or wrote )

You wrote about substance of Blood, rather than the species (or form) of wine.

Okay - point taken.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

The Body and Blood are fully present in each species, so even in the reception of a single species ( such as that of bread) we DO recieve as the Apostles taught us.

And since that is equally true of the species of bread,…what exactly is your point?

I think you have really proved the point that there should be only the reception of a single species.

The error you articulated is unfortunately very common; the belief that the species are distinct in being the Body and the Blood. The postition of the Church is that the species are of the same substance ( the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Risen Lord, Jesus) and are distinct in appearance only.

One recieves the Precious Blood, and drinks of it, when when recieves the species of bread alone. The senses of the mouth detect solid, in much the same way as our eyes see only bread.

But what is offered to us is living bodily flesh and flowing blood, fully and completly, regardless of what our eyes (or mouths) detect.

What is your point? I agree that you receive Jesus whole and complete in either species. I am not in error. I am merely outlining what is the official teaching of the Church that communion under both both species is the fuller sign and if possible should be encouraged.

Where you went wrong is that you set up the classic “straw man” fallacy and then proceeded to knock down what no one said. It is true that we receive Jesus whole and complete in either species. However, Jesus became a human like us and left us signs which are a visible signs of his love. He left us the sacrament of the Eucharist in signs of both his Body and Blood in Bread and Wine. I am not making this up. This is what Jesus did. This is what the Apostles taught us. This is what is the tradition of the Universal Church gave us. Again, it is only the Roman Rite which started the non-traditional practice of giving communion only under the species of Bread well over a millenium after Christ. However, the Spirit has guided the Roman Rite (notice I didn’t say the Church, since the other rites stayed with our Apostolic tradition) back to the tradition of giving communion under both species. How wonderful.

I ask - and please answer this - what possible harm could come from going back to our Apostlic tradition? Oh well I’ll tell you myself. - Absolutely none.

Only goodness could come from something so good.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

That belief among the faithful is what brought the church to limit the precious blood to only the priest in the first place.

Do you think we need to go back to that again?

Considering the uproar it’s caused, I’m thinking we might need to.

This isn’t true. Communion under both species began to be limited in the Roman rite (only) when during the middle ages a theology became current which discouraged people from receiving Communion. Because of that, adoration of the host began to take a much larger role that it had in the past and communion was taken rarely. The cup for the people eventually passed out of usage in the Roman rite. Since the scholarship of the middle ages was deprived by political conditions of much of the source material from the early Church and the Church fathers, some theologians began to believe that communion under both species had always been denied to the faithful. Of course not everyone believed that because the Gospels are quite clear that communion under both species is the norm.

However, during the high middle ages and the Renaissance much of the original source material of the early church became available. Many people started questioning why the Chruch did not follow the Apostolic tradition. Heresies arose such as the Hussites and Utraquists which essentally said that communion must be given under both species. This obviously was not Church tradition either since communion from the earliest time was sent to the sick under only the species of Bread. Of course it is well known that the Council of Trent actually authorized communion under both species if the Pope chose to reintroduce it. Unfortunately he did not.

An interesting point here is that to my knowledge there was never any problem like the Utraquist or Hussite heresies in the east, since communion was always given according to our Apostolic tradition, that is, under both species. It didn’t even occur to people to hold these heretical beliefs.

I might add that no one I know holds these heretical beliefs. All the Catholics I know who treasure receiving communion in the Apostolic tradition, understand that Jesus is whole and complete in either species. Throwing out the strawman of the Ultraquist heresy is just, in my opinion, a red herring.

 

[Brendan]

An interesting point here is that to my knowledge there was never any problem like the Utraquist or Hussite heresies in the east, since communion was always given according to our Apostolic tradition, that is, under both species. It didn’t even occur to people to hold these heretical beliefs. .

No, the reason the Utraquist heresy didn’t happen was that it came about after the seperation by the East.

The Chaldean Church, which allows for the reception of both species, but it remained uncommon, never had the Utraquist heresy.

BTW, the East does occasionaly offer the Eucharist in a single species. The Liturgy of the Presanctifed Gifts has the Eucharist in the form of bread alone, though it is served intincted in unconsecrated wine.

 

[Aramis]

No, the reason the Utraquist heresy didn’t happen was that it came about after the seperation by the East.

The Chaldean Church, which allows for the reception of both species, but it remained uncommon, never had the Utraquist heresy.

BTW, the East does occasionaly offer the Eucharist in a single species. The Liturgy of the Presanctifed Gifts has the Eucharist in the form of bread alone, though it is served intincted in unconsecrated wine.

Multiple issues, Brendan.

1. Treating the “East” as a unified whole. It’s 5 of the 6 rites, and LOTS of different Traditions.

The Chaldeans do allow single species, but everything I’ve seen says their norm is to offer both, but not intincted.

Maronites have intinction at individual communion as the norm by rubric, but visual evidence online shows some follow the Roman praxis of just the species of the Body.

The Byzantines and Copts generally are the sticklers for 100% intinction…

1. Byzantine Presanctified…

Better read up on the prep…

small amounts of the blood are spooned over the body, at least according to every reliable source I’ve seen. In a few juridictions, they’re fully intincted then drained and dried. The latter I’ve SEEN done. The former is what I’ve seen specified in most documentation.

And then also read the theories of Contact Consecration.

Which is why the constant theological back and forth about typica with communion being lead by deacons…where contact consecration is believed, it amounts to a deacon consecrating the wine by use of the intincted dried Blood…

In either case, the remaining matter in the cup is consumed reverently in the normal way…

 

[vsedriver]

That is crazy! I think two is an enormous number of EMs. I WONDER what people did before 1970… They waited.

they could afford to wait back then. Their parish priest didn’t have to run off to say Mass at his second/sister parish.

 

[YoungTradCath]

they could afford to wait back then. Their parish priest didn’t have to run off to say Mass at his second/sister parish.

Okay lol. I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of American priests do not have charge of two churches.

 

[Brendan]

Okay lol. I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of American priests do not have charge of two churches.

And even then, if he really is in a hurry, he could just bring back the communion rail. That is a lot more time efficent than communion lines.