- Status
P
palmas85
Guest
I don’t really get the horizontal worship aspect, except maybe giving the laity the chance to actually see the Precious Blood. However, I always did suspect the offering of the Chalice to the laity was mainly an excuse to have Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion most of the time, thus promoting more active participation in the Mass by the faithful. Distributing the Eucharist could be handled by the Priest alone or with one assistant easily except in rare circumstances.
I mean the Priests used to able to do that, right? I guess they still could.
O
otm
Guest
Would you care to site some study that has found that to be a fact, or paper published in a theological journal, or is that simply a personal opinion?
The only “horizontal” worship I have seen is when someone is in the posture of “laying out”; that is, in the prone position; seen on Good Friday and at ordinations.
Other than that, I take it to be a code word for “something I don’t like”. I fail to see how seeing the Precious Blood in a glass crystal chalice is “horizontal”. Visually, and in particualr if it was red wine that was used in the Consecration, I find it a stunning testimeny to Christ’s death.
And perhaps you might want to read the official documents the Vatican has produced, wherein they speak of reception of the Precious Blood as a more full symbol of the Eucharistic Meal. Doesn’t seem to have anything to do with busybodies that I can see.
O
otm
Guest
Perhaps your suspicion might give way to the explanation the Chruch has given officially that reception of the Precious Blood is a fuller sign of the Eucharistic Meal?
C
cecelia
Guest
I’m a little saddened that those who point out what the GIRM mandates are somehow seen as nitpicky. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a finely woven tapestry so to speak and every part, though seemingly inconsequential in and of itself, intimately works together with the other parts to effect a transcendent experience and serve as a conduit to the supernatural. The GIRM requires precious material, not because it its trying to be punctilious, but because it recognizes that we bring ourselves to God by offering Him our best. God himself requires it. He instructed the making of the Ark in the Old Testament with preciseness and the use of the most precious materials, and the makers of the Ark built it according to specifications. The Magesterium of the Church requires a certain manner of worship because in doing so, we humans are brought more close to God. Why are those who point this out seen as the wet blanket at the party. It’s the Catholic equivalent of pointing out a wrong action to those in the secular world and being told by them that we have no right to judge. Well they’re not being judged. Their actions are, and in this instance, those who are pointing out the liturgical abuses are doing so not to be sanctimonious but to merely point out that this is contrary to the Church’s teaching and so continue to allow the abuse lessens our obedience to God. So let’s not categorize abuses as “little” or “big”; rather let’s see them as actions that can erode the finely woven tapestry. If one goes, then another, then another, soon we’ll look at the tapestry and not be able to recognize it.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
But the question remains if crystal is precious “enough” for the Most Precious Blood? I think it is, barring a ruling by the Holy See that it isn’t. Some cultures take great pride in the artistry of their crystal. Our pastor’s chalice and paten are thick and heavy, it looks from a distance to be Waterford (I only know this because my mother collects the stuff and I’ve had to buy it!), and it’s pretty if you like that kind of thing (I don’t, I prefer a metal chalice, but that’s a preference on my part. I think silver is more beautiful than gold, for that matter, and I’m sure others would disagree). He’s the only priest in the parish who uses it. Is it forbidden because it could shatter? If so, then yes, it ought not be used, not because of the shattering (if a metal chalice is dropped, the Most Precious Blood is spilled anyway), but out of obedience. I agree with you on that part. I am myself, however, tired of the “liturgy police” sitting in my head every Sunday. THAT also snarls up the theads in the “finely woven tapestry.” I know enough of GIRM to be able to pick out egregious practices. Unfortunately, I also know enough to be able to mentally nit-pick.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Otm: Would you provide a link? I’d love to be able to show this to people who think it’s a scandal that the Most Precious Blood should be offered to the laity in a seperate species. I am devoted to the Most Precious Blood and would hate to not be able to rec. the Chalice, though I know the entirety of the Most Precious Body and Blood are equally rec. under one Species.
M
msproule
Guest
This is just one of the reasons cited, and it is quite clear.
From Redemptionis Sacramentum:
117…Reprobated, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that break easily…
P
palmas85
Guest
I never knew the Church had said the receiving of just the Body was an insufficient or less “full” sign of the “meal”. In fact, I was taught that the whole of Jesus is substantially present under both or either species, there was no need to receive both and that either would suffice totally. I was taught that there was absolutely nothing lacking in receiving under just one species. Heck, we were even taught that if we couldn’t receive due to being in a state of grave sin, or illness, we could still make a spiritual communion.
So am I to assume that I was taught error and have been practicing a somehow less “Full” version of Catholicism than those who receive under both species?
Oh and just in case you forgot, the Holy Mass is not just a rememberance of the “Meal” It is also a real though un-bloody re-presentation of the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ dying on the cross for our sins. Mine and yours and everyone elses… Please don’t forget that in the ecstacy of the “Meal” Many don’t seem to remember it at all.
Or maybe I was taught error on that as well.
I
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Clear enough, then.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
OTM was not saying that the Fullness of the Sacrament was not present in the Host. The Church is clear that It is. He is saying that the Holy See has also said that the “sign” is fuller if Both Species are received. “Sign” is different than sacramental reality, to put it awkwardly. That’s why I hope OTM will provide a link, as I’d like to be able to show it to Catholics who don’t think that the laity should EVER rec. the Most Precious Blood.
He also didn’t say about the Mass not being the Sacrifice.
P
palmas85
Guest
Actually I don’t have a link, but here are the instructions from the GIRM sections 281 and 282
COMMUNION UNDER BOTH KINDS
281 Holy communion has a more complete form as a sign when it is received under both kinds. For in this manner of reception a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet shines forth. Moreover there is a clearer expression of that will by which the new and everlasting covenant is ratified in the blood of the Lord and of the relationship of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Father’s kingdom.
282 For the faithful who take part in the rite or are present at it, pastors should take care to call to mind as appropriately as possible Catholic teaching according to the Council of Trent on the manner of communion. Above all they should instruct the Christian faithful that, according to Catholic faith, Christ, whole and entire, as well as the true Sacrament are received under one kind only; that, therefore, as far as the effects are concerned, those who receive in this manner are not deprived of any grace necessary for salvation.
So as I see it the whole thing comes down to a matter of choice on the part of the laity as to whether or not they receive under both species.
As I have said before, I just don’t understand why someone would particularly want to receive under both when either suffices. I have no objection I just don’t fully comprehend it thats all. I guess that I am old fashioned, but I still see the Holy Mass as primarily the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Christ and secondarily as a meal. Sorry, but I guess it is too ingrained in me to neglect or forget.
And as to the sacrificial aspect of the Mass, he specifically referred to It as the Eucharistic Meal, and made absolutely no mention of the sacrificial aspect at all. But then again, you seldom hear that anymore anyway.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Thank you for the link! As for the bolded above, I guess I feel that Our Lord gave It under both Species, and the ancient Church took It under both Species. I see it as both Sacrifice and meal. In the OT, if you took a bullock or a lamb to the Temple or Tabernacle to be sacrificed, your eating of the sacrifice was important. Anything you eat could be reckoned a meal, so it’s both.
N
ncjohn
Guest
You know, it’s a good thing we’re all Catholics in here. From all the different opinions and some of the animosity I see, just this thread alone could create a half dozen new denominations that didn’t speak to each other if we were Protestants.
O
otm
Guest
I don’t know how old you are, but I can understand, particularly with someone who grew up at least partially prior to Vatican 2, how one might feel that the Cup was unnecessary. That, in and of itself, is probably a good part of why the Cup has been made available to the laity.
I in no way am trying to say that the Mass is not a sacrifice. The term Eucharistic Meal is from official Church documents; it is not something I tagged the Mass with. There are some who have put so much emphasis on the meal aspect that they have lost sight of the sacrificial aspect of the Mass; there may even be a few wwho use the focus change to deny or denigrate the sacrificial aspect. I do not see them as the majority, other than as through, generally, poor catechesis.
I do, however, find that some people take an almost rigid approach to the issue, and seem by their attitude to suggest that any thought or discussion of receiving under both species is somehow "prtestantizing’ the Mass. Their approach is one of attempting to minimize, almost out of existence, the sacred meal aspect of the Mass. I find that both sad and troublesome.
K
kmknapp
Guest
Quietly, without fanfare, judgment, or snide commentary, donate to your parish the appropriate number of gold ones — or at least silver with gold lined cups, since anything less will continue to bring down the wrath of the Liturgy Cops.
Remember, you need enough for the largest Masses of the year, and if your parish has multiple Sunday Masses closely scheduled, will need double to cover Mass #2 while the sacristy crew are washing chalices from Mass #1. If your is a small parish, a dozen might do.
karen marie
D
DIT
Guest
Sorry for my delay in responding.
The cost is not the point except to say that you can purchase the proper vessel to hold the Blood of Christ at a relatively inexpensive price.
The point is that crystal or glass chalices can break and can break relatively easily. When chalices are lined up on the altar for consecration, they tend to be very close together or, atleast, gathered together on the altar. When they are moved, they can “clink” together. If they are glass or cystal, they can break when they hit or chip when hit together. This is not to mention other chances for breakage that exist when handling these type of chalices.
Normal chalices (solid material and gold lined) are more sturdy and less likely to break from incidential contact.
Cost is one thing but reverence is the important point here. Plus, the GIRM asks for it so who are we to change what the church is requiring.
M
mercygate
Guest
viktor aleksndr:
Brass is not “noble” and does not fulfill the requirements. (However, it is splendid for door knockers, candlesticks, thuribles, crosses/crucifixes, etc.)
S
severinus
Guest
The issue of what constitutes appropriately sacred material for liturgical vessels is best left to the GIRM. But I see all kinds of things used for the Mass, including wicker baskets and clay cups.
My question is: Why would someone not want to use the best possible vessels to hold the Body and Blood of Christ?
My question is: Why would someone not want to use the best possible vessels to hold the Body and Blood of Christ?
M
misericordie
Guest
Your pastor has to OBEY ROME. Rome has spoken=Redemptionis Sacramentum. The Mass is not his own property and private affair. These are NOT to be used.
- Status