Not enough precious blood?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rosary_Miracles
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thomasbradley312 said:
Think of it this way, until fairly recently in Church history, noone but the priest consumed the blood.
Click to expand...
Think of it this way: that’s just plain incorrect and ahistorical. 🙂

It was only about 700 years ago that the cup was withheld in the western church to flush out heretics (and for exactly the reason @snarflemike pointed out in post 2).

The Vatican moves slowly, and it took 700 years to get things back to their historical state (interesting, about the same amount of time as it did to close the loophole about the priest witnessing marriage vows 🤔)

And there is an unbroken 2000 years of receiving both in the East. I think it was about the fourth century when byzantines switched to combining them in the cup and the priest distributing with the spoon.
Thomasbradley312 said:
Who knows? I don’t know what the patriarchs of the east allow, we are in schism.
Click to expand...
😡😱😠

Did you really just claim that Eastern Catholics are in schism???

Perhaps you should notify the pope . . .

Getting your history wrong is one thing; falsely accusing us of schism is, well . . .
 
Regarding intinction -
GIRM # 285 b “If Communion is carried out by intinction, the hosts should be neither too thin nor too small, but rather a little thicker than usual, so that after being dipped partly into the Blood of Christ they can still easily be distributed to each communicant.”

and GIRM #287 " If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen , receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws."

Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum #103 & 104
 
There are even special chalices and patens set made for intinction like this one. My old parish priest used one when celebrating Mass when there wasn’t a deacon or second priest present. He was used to giving Holy Communion by intinction as that is normal practice in the Eastern church he belongs to. In our combined set, the chalice is about a thumb high and is placed in the middle. No one had a problem with receiving by intinction but then I would guess 70-80% receive the Body of Christ on the tongue when the Body and Blood are offered separately. All receiving their first Holy Communion do so by intinction. Then there are some other Masses like Corpus Christi when all receive by intinction.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I don’t receive the precious blood from the chalice because I am going through chemo and my immune system is out of wack right now but I receive his precious body and blood when under the species of bread.
 
How do you define schism then? If Schism is refusal of submission to Roman Pontiff they are not in Schism. If Schism is lack of full communion they are not in Schism.

Please do not confuse Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
 
The chalice is rarely distributed in my archdiocese. I don’t think I’ve received from the chalice in years.
 
Rosary_Miracles said:
Good point,
But I do sit pretty close to the front…thats why I was frustrated, because it seems people consume too much…
Every RC church I have ever been to offer the precious blood, so I guess I just feel like taking both body and blood made me feel “complete” I do understand this is not necessary, but it’s something I feel called to do…
Click to expand...
Yes, some people do consume a lot more than they should so there’s no longer enough for all the faithful who would like to receive it. Also sometimes (for whatever reason) the priest didn’t pour enough wine in the chalice or flagon itself to be consecrated. But as others have already stated, if you did receive the consecrated host, you did receive both the body of blood of our Lord, so I wouldn’t worry to much about though I understand your disappointment.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
How do you define schism then? If Schism is refusal of submission to Roman Pontiff they are not in Schism. If Schism is lack of full communion they are not in Schism.

Please do not confuse Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
Click to expand...
I am Eastern Catholic. I don’t know why you directed this at me.
 
Actually the chalice is offered even during the “flu season” in some dioceses. Why other’s don’t, sadly it might be because the local ordinary knuckles under to the secular county health department.

I live near two dioceses. In one, they don’t offer the chalice during the “flu season”. In the diocese next door, they do. In the diocese that still offers the chalice during the flu season, parishioners don’t seem to get stricken by the flu more than parishioners who live in the adjacent diocese where the chalice isn’t offered during the flu season.

Go figure.
 
HopkinsReb said:
It seems to me that some Catholics have a bad tendency to define themselves not primarily by the teachings of Catholicism but rather by their opposition to non-Catholics. Such people would look down on Eastern Catholicism because it is too much like the Orthodox.
Click to expand...
In all fairness, a very large number of Roman Catholics are completely unaware that there even ARE Eastern Catholics.

In my area in Metro Detroit, the Eastern Catholics are well represented. Within 5 miles of my home, I have 2 Chaldean parishes, 1 Syro Malabar and 1 Ruthenian.

But I have had a chance to discuss things with my Chaldean neighbor. He originally emigrated with his family to Arizona. Even the local Catholic parish priest there was not familiar with Eastern Catholicism, let alone the lay faithful.

So a lot of Catholics, when the hear of Eastern Churches, think only of the Eastern Orthodox. That is all they (unfortunately) know.
 
HeDa said:
He was used to giving Holy Communion by intinction as that is normal practice in the Eastern church he belongs to
Click to expand...
Melkite, I would presume.

They use strips, perhaps a quarter inch wide and tall, and an inch or two long, of fresh-baked leavened bread.

While I was used to ruthenian usage, in which our cloth is to catch the Eucharist itself, the Melchites use a larger cloth to catch the crumbs which fall off.
JimG said:
Do Eastern Catholic parishes use EMHC’s?
Click to expand...
Our notion of an extraordinary minister is a deacon distributing . . .

Although there have been a couple (as in I can count them on the fingers of one hand!) of cases in which a priest’s infinity has made it too difficult for him to distribute, and the bishop has instructed the parish to choose two lay men to be appointed to the task.

Also understand that the concept of “one cup” is stronger in the East–to the point that the Russians for large services may use a cup with a capacity measured in gallons (ok, tens of liters), and laden from that chalice to those that will be used by various priests.

Also, note that for nonmruthenians, only the 33 particles are actually consecrated, if I understand correctly, and the remaining bread receives its divine nature when added to the Blood (conversely, for all byzantine, only the host is set aside for presanctified liturgies [twice a week during lent, when we fast form the full liturgy during the week], and is added to merely blessed wine to sanctify it). Oh, and Ruthenians, as opposed to all other byzantines (AFAIK) , concrete all the bread on the altar.

Genrerally, the blessed (not consecrated) bread comes from the same loaf.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
How do you define schism then? If Schism is refusal of submission to Roman Pontiff they are not in Schism. If Schism is lack of full communion they are not in Schism.

Please do not confuse Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
Click to expand...
This was meant for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top