Regarding wine in the Tridentine Liturgy

[TheLearner]

1. The bolded qualifier is huge and I would be rarely, rarely occurs.

My point was not that it occurs. My point was that both wine and blood have to be consecrated for the Eucharist to be correct. When both are consecrated, and when the consecration of both wine and bread by the priest is necessary for the transsubstantiation and eucharist, withholding one of them from laity is absurd, especially on the negative grounds that it is “not absolutely necessary” - it is still a liturgical practice and action that goes back to the simple words of God.

1. If you’re not prepared to accept the Church’s teaching that both the Sacred Host and the Precious Blood are individually the fullness of Christ, then you’ve got some issues to work out with the Faith.

Nothing that I’ve said denies that both the Sacred Host and Precious Blood are the individually fullness of Christ. Re-read my sayings.

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

withholding one of them from laity is absurd,

If you don’t like it, go to the Ordinary Form.

especially on the negative grounds that it is “not absolutely necessary” - it is still a liturgical practice and action that goes back to the simple words of God.

…aaaand the words of God extend beyond what Jesus actually said. Indeed, He gave us a Church and that Church is infallible. And that infallible Church says that both the Host and the Precious Blood are the fullness of Christ. So your argument is moot.

Nothing that I’ve said denies that both the Sacred Host and Precious Blood are the individually fullness of Christ. Re-read my sayings.

I did reread your “sayings,” though it was difficult to wade through the run-on sentences. To be honest, I really can’t understand what you’re trying to say. But it seems to me that you’re declaring a mere function of “theological specificity” the fact that the faithful need only have the Host or Precious Blood. So if that’s the case, I don’t see the reason for your issue.

Indeed, if it is the case the only the Host is available to the faithful, then I guess that will have to do. If it is the case that only the Precious Blood is available, then I guess that will have to do. If both are available, it’s your lucky day.

My point is that you aren’t obliged to consume both. And in the Extraordinary Form Mass, 99% of the time, you consume the Host. This is just as good as having both at an Ordinary Form Mass.

 

[LilyM]

There is a theological specifity which means that the laity needs not receive both species.

The problem then begins when you focus more on theological specifities rather than on uniform liturgical practice which goes back to Christs own words, which are more authoritative than anything else, and should resonate into the skulls of all men.

But Christ’s own words in this instance were addressed only to the Apostles, and were addressed to them as priests - at the very moment at which He was instituting the priesthood. Note that no other disciples were present when they were uttered.

He did issue specific directives to the Apostles alone at other times too - when granting them the power to absolve sins, for example - which is one laity do not possess. So while Christ’s words are authoritative, they are not in all circumstances meant to apply to all believers. And it is the Church, not you or I, who is the final arbiter of how Christ’s words are to be applied and interpreted correctly.

As I think I’ve said before, if those words of Christ were really meant for all of us, laity as well as clergy, then laity as well as clergy would all HAVE to receive at EVERY Mass for the Eucharistic celebration to be validly conducted. As it is, if there is good reason, laity need not even be present at all for a licit and valid Mass ot occur.

In this the priests of the New Covenant are like the priests of the old - they offered sacrifices on behalf of the people. The people were sometimes present, and sometimes had an active role, but not always - and certainly did not need to consummate the sacrifice by eating the flesh of the victim animals (or the tithes of cereal or other offerings which were given) - which was reserved in fact for the priests alone.

 

[TheLearner]

…aaaand the words of God extend beyond what Jesus actually said. Indeed, He gave us a Church and that Church is infallible. And that infallible Church says that both the Host and the Precious Blood are the fullness of Christ. So your argument is moot.

That is a true statement, but nevertheless a statement which has absolutely no relevance to the claim it was directed at. It would only have so, if a contradiction existed between the Churchs infallible teaching and Gods words - and no such contradiction exists, and if it did, it would be an error, which contradicts infallibility. In any case, Gods words and actions apply: this is my Body and this is my Blood. They do not exclude anything else, but they stand there authoritatively for liturgical norm and practice, and so they were normative in and of themselves regardless of other theological definitions for the first 1500 years and are authoritative as undisputed legacy of both tradition and scripture on the same time, for the liturgical practice.

My point is that you aren’t obliged to consume both.

But that point has nothing to do with the discussion and concerns raised. The concern is not one over obligation or necessity.

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

That is a true statement, but nevertheless a statement which has absolutely no relevance to the claim it was directed at. It would only have so, if a contradiction existed between the Churchs infallible teaching and Gods words - and no such contradiction exists, and if it did, it would be an error, which contradicts infallibility. In any case, Gods words and actions apply: this is my Body and this is my Blood. They do not exclude anything else, but they stand there authoritatively for liturgical norm and practice, and so they were normative in and of themselves regardless of other theological definitions for the first 1500 years and are authoritative as undisputed legacy of both tradition and scripture on the same time, for the liturgical practice.
But that point has nothing to do with the discussion and concerns raised. The concern is not one over obligation or necessity.

I’m sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say.

 

[jbrewer]

This has been an interesting thread and has brought back many pleasant memories of my RCIA and Lay Ministries classes at Immaculate Conception Parish in Denton TX from the mid 1980s. I converted from the Episcopal Church. I remember when transubstantiation was explained to me and I thought, well, of course, I already knew that, I’ve believed that all of my life. My parents taught me that, the Episcopal Priest and the Bishop who confirmed me when I was 12 years old believed that. I then learned that many Episcopalians believe in transubstantiation, which really suprised me. I thought that my family and our little parish were the odd ones out. And I was delighted to find out that it originated in the Catholic Church. All of the original traditions of the Church are what drew me in, initially. Praise Jesus for His sacrifice for us and all of mankind. For me, I desire both species, not out of any pride or envy of the priests, but out of a desire for the fullest experience of Jesus and His sacrifice, His suffering, His Body and His Blood becoming a part of me, healing me, restoring my soul, cleansing me of my sins. I understand that some of that perspective is more in line with Eastern Orthodox thought, but even Thomas Aquinas viewed the Eucharist in this manner, i.e. capable of healing and restoring man to righteousness, his pre-Eucharistic prayer stating such. It comforts me to see this attribute in the Eucharist. i hope that it is not blasphemous or anything.

 

[TheLearner]

This has been an interesting thread and has brought back many pleasant memories of my RCIA and Lay Ministries classes at Immaculate Conception Parish in Denton TX from the mid 1980s. I converted from the Episcopal Church. I remember when transubstantiation was explained to me and I thought, well, of course, I already knew that, I’ve believed that all of my life. My parents taught me that, the Episcopal Priest and the Bishop who confirmed me when I was 12 years old believed that. I then learned that many Episcopalians believe in transubstantiation, which really suprised me. I thought that my family and our little parish were the odd ones out. And I was delighted to find out that it originated in the Catholic Church. All of the original traditions of the Church are what drew me in, initially. Praise Jesus for His sacrifice for us and all of mankind. For me, I desire both species, not out of any pride or envy of the priests, but out of a desire for the fullest experience of Jesus and His sacrifice, His suffering, His Body and His Blood becoming a part of me, healing me, restoring my soul, cleansing me of my sins. I understand that some of that perspective is more in line with Eastern Orthodox thought, but even Thomas Aquinas viewed the Eucharist in this manner, i.e. capable of healing and restoring man to righteousness, his pre-Eucharistic prayer stating such. It comforts me to see this attribute in the Eucharist. i hope that it is not blasphemous or anything.

It’s not blasphemous and anyone who would suggest that is a heretic, so don’t worry. If anything, it is a reason to go over to other liturgies, that of the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic, and abandon any tradition that denies you the chalice for no real reason.