Real Wine?

[diggerdomer]

You may not have said that it was required, but, as I read your posts, you make it seem as though it is through references. A parish should not be accused of not employing this practice for convenience sake. As an EMHC, I have seen quite a few instances where folks just do not know how to handle the Precious Blood, which once included spillage. People will try to self-intinct and others who are supposed to be trained as EMHCs may not know how to properly dispose of the Precious Blood. There was one instance when we ran out of the Precious Blood and one of the servers went into the sacristy and retrieved a cruet from the fridge.

There are just too many risks.

Sorry you misread what I typed. I never said or implied communion under both kinds was required. Clearly, the Church teaches it is not.

I think in general the claim of “too great risks” is either spurious or lazy. if Church teaching were followed the risks would not be present as there would be proper and effective catechesis.

Of course I would not suggest doing something different in a parish without effective catechesis, and regarding communion under both kinds the Church is quite clear on how important this is.

Now, if a community refuses to offer good catechesis, as a way of avoiding all together the issue of offering communion under both kinds, I would wonder why, given the clear benefits that the GIRM notes communion under both kinds provides. In such a hypothetical case like this, where a community does not give proper catechesis, and so refuses to consider the option the Church provides for communion under both species, whose agenda and goods are really being promoted here?

 

[Aramis]

I don’t see how this applies to roselily’s question/comment. For Roman Catholics, intinction is not the norm, and there is no *a priori *reason that both the bread and wine/Body and Blood can be celebrated at Mass (again with no need to refer to intinction). In fact, the GIRM clearly suggests benefits for celebrating Eucharist using both species. Unless roselily is Eastern Rite (in which case, sorry, I read through previous comments but must have missed that).

Because it is a valid option in the Roman Mass.

And pointing out that the Eastern Churches in Union with rome do so daily also provides another route for her desire to receive both at the same time.

Roman intinction is by dipping. So is Maronite and Chaldean, from what I’ve seen & read. And the Melkites use either dipping or immersion.

Byzantine and Coptic is by immersion.

All of these are intinction, and may only be done by a priest. It would miff quite a few EMHCs to find out that Father was going to intinct, so all they get to do is hold the ciborium…

 

[diggerdomer]

Because it is a valid option in the Roman Mass.

And pointing out that the Eastern Churches in Union with rome do so daily also provides another route for her desire to receive both at the same time.

Roman intinction is by dipping. So is Maronite and Chaldean, from what I’ve seen & read. And the Melkites use either dipping or immersion.

Byzantine and Coptic is by immersion.

All of these are intinction, and may only be done by a priest. It would miff quite a few EMHCs to find out that Father was going to intinct, so all they get to do is hold the ciborium…

Of course it’s a valid option.

I guess I misunderstood roselily’s original comment/question, I didn’t realize she was looking for other valid options in the Roman Rite for communion under both species. Thanks for the clarification on that.

 

[paperwight]

Now an observation.

It seems to me that a distinction can and should be made between the concept of “taking” and the use of the word “take”.

This active taking versus passive taking seems to me present in English. The use of the word “take” itself doesn’t tell us the interior disposition of the person. Thus we can take without violently grasping something – when we “take this woman as your wife” surely the interior disposition is passive, i.e. “receptive taking”. Also when someone offers their hand and I “take” it – again it is a receptive disposition. In fact, in both, the basic sense of accipio is conveyed, to accept something offered.

As a matter of interest, isn’t there also the expression ‘to take the veil’? Passive taking again, as nobody is suggesting that the would-be nun grabs it, but rather the use of ‘taking’ implying the voluntary nature of the commitment.
So one could say that ‘taking’ HC implies our voluntary acceptance of all that reception involves, in particular acknowlegment of the sacrifice and of our willingness to likewise take up the cross.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

However, at the fraction rite, if you notice, the priest places a small particle of the Sacred Host into the chalice filled with the Precious Blood. This is the moment when the Body and Blood are reunited, the Resurrection, if you will.

benedictgal,

Returning to the above and adding on to my prior post regarding concomitance, I forgot to mention that the Lauda Sion that you quoted from actually indicates what I am referring to – that Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity at the moment of the consecration of the bread (i.e. the mingling is symbolic, not efficacious, of the resurrection and union of body and blood).
Lauda Sion:

Here beneath these signs are hidden
priceless things, to sense forbidden;
signs, not things, are all we see.
** Flesh from bread**, and Blood from wine,
** yet is Christ in either sign,
all entire** confessed to be.

One more thing, the other thread on consecrating wine reminded me of the relevant passage in the Summa:

Hence it must be understood that directly the consecration of the bread is complete, the body of Christ is indeed present by the power of the sacrament, and the blood by real concomitance; but afterwards by the consecration of the wine, conversely, the blood of Christ is there by the power of the sacrament, and the body by real concomitance, so that the entire Christ is under either species (III, 78, 6, ad 1)

Please let me know your thoughts,
VC

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal,

Returning to the above and adding on to my prior post regarding concomitance, I forgot to mention that the Lauda Sion that you quoted from actually indicates what I am referring to – that Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity at the moment of the consecration of the bread (i.e. the mingling is symbolic, not efficacious, of the resurrection and union of body and blood).

One more thing, the other thread on consecrating wine reminded me of the relevant passage in the Summa:
Please let me know your thoughts,
VC

I understand what you are saying; however, both species need to be consecrated or else there is no sacrifice. When there is no sacrifice, there is no Mass. I do not believe that St Thomas Aquinas was saying that consecration of the wine into the Precious Blood would have no bearing. The Mass is not just about the consecration of one element, but, of both. Jesus did not consecrate one species and not the other; he consecrated both.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Yes, of course! I certainly have never indicated otherwise: for the sacrifice of the Mass you need the double consecration.

But, my point was that you seemed to indicate that Christ was not present body AND blood until the “body was joined with the blood” in the mingling. But that is not correct. He is so present at the moment on the consecration of the bread.

Did I misunderstand you?

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I do not believe that St Thomas Aquinas was saying that consecration of the wine into the Precious Blood would have no bearing.

That took a bit off guard, bg. Certainly I didn’t indicate I thought St. Thomas was saying that. Where did that come from?

VC

 

[diggerdomer]

I understand what you are saying; however, both species need to be consecrated or else there is no sacrifice. When there is no sacrifice, there is no Mass. I do not believe that St Thomas Aquinas was saying that consecration of the wine into the Precious Blood would have no bearing. The Mass is not just about the consecration of one element, but, of both. Jesus did not consecrate one species and not the other; he consecrated both.

Confession: dead horse.

I have still not found any Church teaching that supports this and if anyone (again) can help me with such I would greatly appreciate it.

I will not post again on this thread/topic; sorry if I’ve detracted or diverted attention, I am just really interested in learning more and have never gotten any response to my numerous questions about this issue previously.

 

[roselily]

The pastor can decide such, but then only the priests may commune the faithful. It’s called intinction. Historically, it was done about 2x a year, tho’ apparently not in much of the US.

The Byzantine Rite and Coptic Rite Churches intinct as the norm. The priest puts the Body (it’s little cubes he’s cut just before liturgy; the Byzatine Rite uses leavened bread, and this is permitted by Rome) into the Blood. The people are communed with a spoon; a piece of the precious body is taken out, and then dropped into the communicant’s mouth. (The Melkites sometimes instead use strips, and dip them at the moment of communion, but that’s an exception.) The Chaldean and Maronite Churches both permit intinction as well, tho’ it follows the roman mode of dipping.

The thing is, ONLY a priest is permitted to place the Body into the Blood.

I don’t see how this applies to roselily’s question/comment. For Roman Catholics, intinction is not the norm, and there is no *a priori *reason that both the bread and wine/Body and Blood can be celebrated at Mass (again with no need to refer to intinction). In fact, the GIRM clearly suggests benefits for celebrating Eucharist using both species. Unless roselily is Eastern Rite (in which case, sorry, I read through previous comments but must have missed that).

I do not know, -that I always think Catholics are all Roman Catholics, I even don’t know have different Rite, but I would not be so conceited, and would love to learn more.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Confession: dead horse.

I have still not found any Church teaching that supports this and if anyone (again) can help me with such I would greatly appreciate it.

I will not post again on this thread/topic; sorry if I’ve detracted or diverted attention, I am just really interested in learning more and have never gotten any response to my numerous questions about this issue previously.

diggerdomer,

Please don’t apologize, it is an excellent question and, I think, quite in keeping with the nature of this thread.

Here is one piece of support:

Thus the commemorative representation of His death, which actually took place on Calvary, is repeated in every sacrifice of the altar, seeing that Jesus Christ is symbolically shown by separate symbols to be in a state of victimhood.(Mediator Dei, 70)

 

[benedictgal]

Confession: dead horse.

I have still not found any Church teaching that supports this and if anyone (again) can help me with such I would greatly appreciate it.

I will not post again on this thread/topic; sorry if I’ve detracted or diverted attention, I am just really interested in learning more and have never gotten any response to my numerous questions about this issue previously.

Here is the first and earliest reference from no less than St. Paul himself in his First Letter to the Corinthians:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. 24 And giving thanks, broke, and said:** Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. 25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. **

The Church has never taught that the consecration of just one species was enough. Both of them have to be consecrated. Jesus did not simply consecrate one element; he consecrated both the bread and the wine, albeit separately, but, he consecrated them them nonetheless.

I read this article, “Is Your Mass valid?” In it, the author notes that:

The most serious type of abuse makes the Mass “invalid.” For a Mass to be invalid, the Consecration of the Eucharist does not occur. Going to an invalid Mass is like not attending Mass at all since Jesus is not physically present via the miracle of transubstantiation[9].

Here is the article and the footnotes that it uses (which are all authoritative documents of the Holy See:

ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm

The footnote that the author cites is from an encyclical written by Pope Paul VI.

Additional research produced this article from Zenit’s Fr. McNamara. Although he is not the Holy See, he makes some very solid points:

The consecration of the host was valid. The consecration of the chalice was not, for the priest’s intention to consecrate cannot supply for the lack of proper sacramental form.

As a consequence the Mass, which requires the consecration of both species, was not valid. Those who received the host at communion were in the same state as those who receive Communion outside of Mass.

What should the deacon or the faithful have done? As a priest is as human as everyone else, and can also get tired and distracted, they should comprehend that such mishaps may occur. The mishaps should, however, be remedied as soon as possible.

In the case at hand the deacon should have immediately, albeit quietly, interrupted the priest as soon as he realized that he was using the mistaken formula. If no deacon is present, then one of the faithful may approach the altar and inform him.

The priest, as soon as he has realized his mistake, should then recite the proper formula. If he had just initiated the second part of the Eucharistic Prayer he may repeat it. If the Eucharistic Prayer was already near the end or completed, then he should interrupt the Mass at that point, quietly recite the formula of consecration, and then continue the Mass from where he left off.

If he were informed of his error just after Mass ended, then he should immediately consecrate and consume the species of wine in order to complete the Sacrifice, even, if necessary, in the sacristy.

If he becomes aware of his error after some time has elapsed, then nothing remains to be done but seek forgiveness and commit himself to be more attentive in the future. If a stipend were attached to the celebration of the Mass in question, another Mass must be celebrated to fulfill the obligation.

Thus, both elements need to be consecrated in order to have a valid Mass.

 

[roselily]

Of course it’s a valid option.

I guess I misunderstood roselily’s original comment/question, I didn’t realize she was looking for other valid options in the Roman Rite for communion under both species. Thanks for the clarification on that.

Thank you, diggerdomer,
On the contrary, I think you understood what I mean.

 

[diggerdomer]

Thank you, diggerdomer,
On the contrary, I think you understood what I mean.

Hooray! Glad to know for once I’m not as out to lunch as I usually feel I am here!

Peace

 

[roselily]

Thank you, brothers /sisters,
you all write everything so well- that I learned more understanding in our Faith, though some beyond my understanding, why should I not all know these like you?
May God bless you.

 

[Aramis]

I do not know, -that I always think Catholics are all Roman Catholics, I even don’t know have different Rite, but I would not be so conceited, and would love to learn more.

Pope John Paul the Great commended all Latin Catholics to see and experience the Eastern Catholic Churches. 14 are byzantine, 2 are Alexandrian (1 Coptic and 1 Ethiopian), and in those 16, intinction is the norm. The 23 churches united to Rome are diverse; seek them out, and see the diversity of the Church.

Heck, most Latins are unaware that there are not 2 forms, but At leasts 9 forms of the Mass permitted in the Roman Church… The Roman Mass as amended through 1962 (the EF), the Roman Mass as promulgated by Pp. Paul VI, the Ambrosian Mass, the Bragan Mass, The Mozarabic Mass, the Dominican Mass, the Carmelite Mass, and the Carthusian Mass, plus the Anglican Use Mass. 9 Forms of mass, 2 for general use, 7 for specific groups (3 archdioceses, 4 orders of clerics). One can find good videos of the Ambrosian and Mozarabic masses on-line; one must go to the appropriate dioceses to experience the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, or Bragan masses. The Dominicans in Seattle and Anchorage say the Dominican Mass every so often, to conform to the calls to both preserve the unique forms as per V II, and to help fill the desire of the Traditionalists for a Latin-Language pre-V II mass; it is not the EF, but it is quite similar.

 

[diggerdomer]

Additional research produced this article from Zenit’s Fr. McNamara. Although he is not the Holy See, he makes some very solid points:

The ref. to 1 Cor in this context leaves much to be desired. I don’t see how it at all proves whatever you might be trying to prove.

Fr. McNamara does indeed often make some very solid points. He also makes some goofy points, imho (which, as he’s not speaking for the Magisterium, I don’t worry about expressing my personal opinion which may or may not be significant for anyone reading this). Follow him if you want to, as long as what he says does not contradict the Magisterium.

By the way, traditional Catholic terminology only ascribes “the Great” to 2 Popes: Leo I and Gregory I. Your personal devotion to John Paul II is of course laudable, I assume, if it is meaningful to you for whatever reasons, but please realize you are marginalizing yourself with respect to the universal Catholic tradition when you use that title. There are only 2 Catholic Popes recognized with the title “the Great.” You’re welcome to individually and personally on your own give that title to John Paul II but please be aware it’s your personal decision/devotion. Right? Good luck in your efforts at evangelization.

 

[roselily]

Pope John Paul the Great commended all Latin Catholics to see and experience the Eastern Catholic Churches. 14 are byzantine, 2 are Alexandrian (1 Coptic and 1 Ethiopian), and in those 16, intinction is the norm. The 23 churches united to Rome are diverse; seek them out, and see the diversity of the Church.

Heck, most Latins are unaware that there are not 2 forms, but At leasts 9 forms of the Mass permitted in the Roman Church… The Roman Mass as amended through 1962 (the EF), the Roman Mass as promulgated by Pp. Paul VI, the Ambrosian Mass, the Bragan Mass, The Mozarabic Mass, the Dominican Mass, the Carmelite Mass, and the Carthusian Mass, plus the Anglican Use Mass. 9 Forms of mass, 2 for general use, 7 for specific groups (3 archdioceses, 4 orders of clerics). One can find good videos of the Ambrosian and Mozarabic masses on-line; one must go to the appropriate dioceses to experience the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, or Bragan masses. The Dominicans in Seattle and Anchorage say the Dominican Mass every so often, to conform to the calls to both preserve the unique forms as per V II, and to help fill the desire of the Traditionalists for a Latin-Language pre-V II mass; it is not the EF, but it is quite similar.

thank you, Aramis,
I will read it again tomorrow morning, try to remember .

 

[benedictgal]

The ref. to 1 Cor in this context leaves much to be desired. I don’t see how it at all proves whatever you might be trying to prove.

Fr. McNamara does indeed often make some very solid points. He also makes some goofy points, imho (which, as he’s not speaking for the Magisterium, I don’t worry about expressing my personal opinion which may or may not be significant for anyone reading this). Follow him if you want to, as long as what he says does not contradict the Magisterium.

By the way, traditional Catholic terminology only ascribes “the Great” to 2 Popes: Leo I and Gregory I. Your personal devotion to John Paul II is of course laudable, I assume, if it is meaningful to you for whatever reasons, but please realize you are marginalizing yourself with respect to the universal Catholic tradition when you use that title. There are only 2 Catholic Popes recognized with the title “the Great.” You’re welcome to individually and personally on your own give that title to John Paul II but please be aware it’s your personal decision/devotion. Right? Good luck in your efforts at evangelization.

Please point out where I stated Pope John Paul the Great in this thread.

Second, the reference from St. Paul is indeed valid because he does not state the consecration of one species, but, of two. In fact, you have been given numerous references stating that the consecration of the two species must take place in order for the Mass to be valid.

According to this article from Catholics United for the Faith:

Issue: Which changes and omissions render a Mass of the Roman Rite invalid?

Response: A Mass of the Roman Rite is invalid when the celebrant of the Mass is not a validly ordained priest, when the priest does not have the proper intention, when wheat bread or grape wine is not used, or when the words “This is my Body” or “This is … my Blood” are not said.

The article further goes on to state that:

Unauthorized liturgical changes, then, are against the law of the Church: they are illicit. But not every illicit act renders the Mass invalid. The valid celebration of any sacrament requires the proper minister and intention, sacramental signs (matter), and form (usually words). Only changes to these render the Eucharistic Sacrifice invalid.

…The Form (Words of Consecration) of the Eucharistic Sacrifice

Over the wheat bread and grape wine, “the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: ‘This is my body which will be given up for you…. This is the cup of my blood….’ ” (Catechism 1412).

The words of consecration have varied slightly in the different rites throughout the Church’s history, in part because the words vary slightly in different New Testament passages. In the Roman Missal of 1962, the words of consecration said over the bread are simply Hoc est enim Corpus Meum. In the Roman Missal of 1962, the words of consecration said over the wine are Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis Mei, novi et æterni testamenti: Mysterium Fídei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hæc quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis.

In his apostolic constitution Missale Romanum (1969), which promulgated the current Roman Missal, Pope Paul VI writes:

We have ordered that the words of the Lord be identical in each form of the canon. Thus in each Eucharistic Prayer we wish those words to be as follows: over the bread: Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur; over the chalice: Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. The words Mysterium fidei have been removed from the context of Christ’s own words and are spoken by the priest as an introduction to the faithful’s acclamation.

Summarizing the Church’s theological tradition, Ludwig Ott believes that “Jesus effected the transmutation by the words: ‘This is My Body,’ ‘This is My Blood’.”[6] These words, which are never omitted in any formula of consecration, are undoubtedly essential for the validity of the sacrifice.

You can read the entire article here:

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=188

Furthermore, if one species were enough for the validity of the Mass, why would my parochial vicar have gone back to the altar to consecrate the wine into the Precious Blood? You have been given numerous, bona fide examples, yet this does not satisfy you.

 

[diggerdomer]

Furthermore, if one species were enough for the validity of the Mass, why would my parochial vicar have gone back to the altar to consecrate the wine into the Precious Blood? You have been given numerous, bona fide examples, yet this does not satisfy you.

My apologies if I’ve come across in any negative way. Let me go back and re-read all the posts and references. I appreciate all the thoughtful and informative posts you’ve shared, especially. I am likely missing something, so let me try to get my brain in gear and review things. Thanks.