Precious Blood and TLM

[Jerry-Jet]

I went to an EF once and received the precious Body kneeling on the tongue but not the precious Blood.

Is it possible to receive the precious Blood during the EF?

Forgive me for asking such a dumb question but that is the only EF that I’ve ever been to and I’ve only been Catholic a little over a year.

I know that one only has to receive one of the species and that I’ve done a few times even in the OF but I like to take the precious Blood and do so if I have the opportunity.

Am I wrong for wanting to take BOTH kinds?

Am I wrong for wanting to kneel and take on the tongue?

Am I wrong if I think that every Catholic Church should have an altar rail?

I was brought up Methodist and we had altar rails where I took communion!

I convert to the Catholic faith and most Catholic Churches in my area DON’T have altar rails! What is wrong with that picture?!

I didn’t mind the priest in the EF I attended having his back to the congregation–I just wish that he were mike’d up well so that the congregation could hear him–I never have understood the glorification of mumbling!

For that matter I never have gotten the prayers that are between the priest and God that the congregation shouldn’t hear–if we know them and God knows them do you think God would mind everybody hearing them?

I do get the Latin being more theologically accurate.

If the Latin Mass were translated as well as could possibly be translated into English would that make for the most theologically accurate mass ever in English?

 

[giuseppeTO]

Our faith teaches us that Christ is fully present - body, blood, soul and divinity in each of the species. Therefore, to receive both species is sacramentally redundant. It cannot be more spiritually fulfilling - it only appeals to our human sense.

That said, if one has a natural impediment to receiving one or the other species, because of gluten intolerance for instance, one receives the full sacrament by just drinking the Precious Blood. This is acceptable in the EF but you would have to make prior arrangements with the priest.

 

[giuseppeTO]

For that matter I never have gotten the prayers that are between the priest and God that the congregation shouldn’t hear–if we know them and God knows them do you think God would mind everybody hearing them?

Parts of the Mass are traditionally silent, but not secret. If you get a missal, you’ll know what’s being said as its being said. Why is it important that the priest speaks loud enough for you to hear him?

I do get the Latin being more theologically accurate.

If the Latin Mass were translated as well as could possibly be translated into English would that make for the most theologically accurate mass ever in English?

Whenever you translate, you always open yourself up to introducing inaccuracies because there are always choices in translation. One cannot become more accurate when translating since the accuracy is always inherent in the original form. One can only try to be as faithful as possible to the original.

 

[YoungTradCath]

There is no necessity to receive both Species, as you say. The Precious Blood is usually not offered to anyone in the EF. However, if a person can for some reason not receive the Host, then he may receive the Blood.

 

[elizabeth_anne_1]

I do get the Latin being more theologically accurate.

If the Latin Mass were translated as well as could possibly be translated into English would that make for the most theologically accurate mass ever in English?

Actually mass in the vernacular is not inherently less theologically accurate.

 

[TimothyH]

I went to an EF once and received the precious Body kneeling on the tongue

Wow, that must have hurt!

-Tim-

 

[Kevin812]

There is no necessity to receive both Species, as you say. The Precious Blood is usually not offered to anyone in the EF. However, if a person can for some reason not receive the Host, then he may receive the Blood.

If I might be so bold to add to your post

If a person intends to receive the Chalice, please, please, please, consult with the Priest as soon as possible, preferably well in advance of the Mass. This will avoid hurtful misunderstandings and future CAF threads.

 

[YoungTradCath]

If I might be so bold to add to your post

If a person intends to receive the Chalice, please, please, please, consult with the Priest as soon as possible, preferably well in advance of the Mass. This will avoid hurtful misunderstandings and future CAF threads.

Yes, absolutely.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually mass in the vernacular is not inherently less theologically accurate.

There were papers written (by Omlor et al) in the 60’s to the contrary.

The Pope has said the TLM (or EF) must be said only in Latin for a reason.

 

[ProVobis]

I didn’t mind the priest in the EF I attended having his back to the congregation–I just wish that he were mike’d up well so that the congregation could hear him–I never have understood the glorification of mumbling!

For that matter I never have gotten the prayers that are between the priest and God that the congregation shouldn’t hear–if we know them and God knows them do you think God would mind everybody hearing them?

According to Trent, Session 22:

CHAPTER V.

On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore **has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. **She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolical discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice.

…

CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned… let him be anathema.

 

[bilop]

There is no necessity to receive both Species, as you say. The Precious Blood is usually not offered to anyone in the EF. However, if a person can for some reason not receive the Host, then he may receive the Blood.

Traditionally the laity are not allowed to touch the chalice, so sharing the chalices in the EF seems very odd to me…

Communion can be offered in both forms via intinction; the host is dipped in the precious blood and placed on the tongue. This is usually only done in special circumstances, e.g. for the bride and groom at their wedding.

To do so on a large scale would require a special ciboria/chalice, so the priest can hold both at the same time, and an altar server with paten. It’s possible, but logistically challenging, which is why we don’t see it.

God Bless

 

[AdDeum]

My thoughts exactly! But I was raised a Catholic, and have not been to a Methodist service. I simply do not understand the the lack of Altar Rails in most Catholic Churches today.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

ProVobis: thanks for correcting me on the priest using a low tone during mass.

Since Trent said it I 100% support it!

A new Catholic will never go wrong if when they hear the churches teaching on anything–they obediently support it!

 

[maryjk]

Traditionally the laity are not allowed to touch the chalice, so sharing the chalices in the EF seems very odd to me…

**Communion can be offered in both forms via intinction; the host is dipped in the precious blood and placed on the tongue. ** This is usually only done in special circumstances, e.g. for the bride and groom at their wedding.

To do so on a large scale would require a special ciboria/chalice, so the priest can hold both at the same time, and an altar server with paten. It’s possible, but logistically challenging, which is why we don’t see it.

God Bless

But this would not be a solution for those that cannot receive the Host. So what would they do?

 

[MarkThompson]

But this would not be a solution for those that cannot receive the Host. So what would they do?

They would be restricted to making a spiritual Communion only. I suppose if a church has been infected with the “spirit of Vatican II” and wants to be “pastoral” so as not to hurt the person’s “feelings,” they could arrange to make the Chalice available to them, but that is against tradition and the rubrics.

 

[ConstantineTG]

They would be restricted to making a spiritual Communion only. I suppose if a church has been infected with the “spirit of Vatican II” and wants to be “pastoral” so as not to hurt the person’s “feelings,” they could arrange to make the Chalice available to them,

So pastoral reasons bad things when the priest does something extraordinary for someone to receive a Sacrament?

but that is against tradition and the rubrics.

Which tradition are we talking about? The one in the Second Millennium that says the cup is withheld, or the one from the time of the Apostles where the Precious Body and Precious Blood are both offered to all the faithful?

 

[MarkThompson]

So pastoral reasons bad things when the priest does something extraordinary for someone to receive a Sacrament?

As far as I can tell, “pastoral” is merely a synonym for “bad.” As in, “The priest acted very pastorally,” or “It was a pastoral council.” At any rate, it is not the prerogative of the individual to ask that the rite be changed for her benefit, nor is it within the authority of the priest to do so, notwithstanding the apparent “pastoral” merit of the reason.

Which tradition are we talking about? The one in the Second Millennium that says the cup is withheld, or the one from the time of the Apostles where the Precious Body and Precious Blood are both offered to all the faithful?

I’m talking about the tradition in the Roman Catholic Church, of course. If you’re asking about something from ages ago that we haven’t done in centuries, then it hasn’t been “handed on,” so, by definition, it is no longer a “tradition.” You may call it an “erstwhile tradition,” I suppose, but that’s certainly not what my post said.

 

[ConstantineTG]

As far as I can tell, “pastoral” is merely a synonym for “bad.” As in, “The priest acted very pastorally,” or “It was a pastoral council.” At any rate, it is not the prerogative of the individual to ask that the rite be changed for her benefit, nor is it within the authority of the priest to do so, notwithstanding the apparent “pastoral” merit of the reason.

But receiving a Sacrament is a necessity for our salvation. God instituted the Sacraments so that we may receive grace through them to be able to follow the path of salvation. To put weight on rubrics more than the need of a person to receive the graces of God through the Sacrament, most especially THE Sacrament which is called the source and summit of our faith, is the phariseeism that Jesus abhors. What good is the law when it saves nobody?

I’m talking about the tradition in the Roman Catholic Church, of course. If you’re asking about something from ages ago that we haven’t done in centuries, then it hasn’t been “handed on,” so, by definition, it is no longer a “tradition.” You may call it an “erstwhile tradition,” I suppose, but that’s certainly not what my post said.

Well it is the Roman Catholic tradition in the First Millennium to offer the cup. And if a tradition is no longer handed on, you are right, then it is not a tradition. Then there is a new tradition, one that is NOT apostolic in origin. So why are we adhering to it then?

 

[maryjk]

They would be restricted to making a spiritual Communion only. I suppose if a church has been infected with the “spirit of Vatican II” and wants to be “pastoral” so as not to hurt the person’s “feelings,” they could arrange to make the Chalice available to them, but that is against tradition and the rubrics.

Yet another reason not to attend the EF of the Mass.

I guess I am not Catholic enough to not get my feelings hurt when a priest looks at me and says “sorry, no sacrament for you.” Do they also regularly refuse Confession to those that can’t get into the Confessional?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yet another reason not to attend the EF of the Mass.

I guess I am not Catholic enough to not get my feelings hurt when a priest looks at me and says “sorry, no sacrament for you.” Do they also regularly refuse Confession to those that can’t get into the Confessional?

This was the point I am making. Why shouldn’t the priest move heaven and earth to get you to receive the Sacrament? God became man and died for us so that we may receive His Body and Blood, and the priest refuses just because the rubrics say so? Pharisee!