Steps involved in the Eucharist

[gazelam]

I’m attempting to understand who and what is involved in each step of providing Communion at Mass.

1. I believe that the priest is required to consecrate both the bread and the wine, correct?

Can. 927* It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.*

1. Only one species or the other must be offered to the laity, it that right?

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/ item #31 states:

Even when Communion will be ministered in the form of bread alone to the congregation, care should be taken that sufficient amounts of the elements are consecrated so that the Precious Blood may be distributed to all concelebrating Priests.

Here is a clip from 4 years ago stating that the Phoenix diocese is scaling back offerings of wine at Mass. content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2011/09/catholic-communion-wine-eucharist-mass/1#.Vr9EA1mrGOo

1. The laity must only receive one or the other.

There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, sess. XXI, c. i.)

Are there any other aspects to the process I’m overlooking? Thanks in advance.

 

[Catholic1954]

I’m attempting to understand who and what is involved in each step of providing Communion at Mass.

1. I believe that the priest is required to consecrate both the bread and the wine, correct?

Can. 927* It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.*

1. Only one species or the other must be offered to the laity, it that right?

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/ item #31 states:

Even when Communion will be ministered in the form of bread alone to the congregation, care should be taken that sufficient amounts of the elements are consecrated so that the Precious Blood may be distributed to all concelebrating Priests.

Here is a clip from 4 years ago stating that the Phoenix diocese is scaling back offerings of wine at Mass. content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2011/09/catholic-communion-wine-eucharist-mass/1#.Vr9EA1mrGOo

1. The laity must only receive one or the other.

There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, sess. XXI, c. i.)

Are there any other aspects to the process I’m overlooking? Thanks in advance.

#1 Is correct.

#2 Is not correct. Communion is usually offered under both species, bread & wine. One is free to chose either one or both.

#3 See #2 above.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m attempting to understand who and what is involved in each step of providing Communion at Mass.

1. I believe that the priest is required to consecrate both the bread and the wine, correct?

Yes.

A priest is required (absolutely, and with no possible exceptions).
Every priest is required to consecrate both at each and every Mass.

1. Only one species or the other must be offered to the laity, it that right?

That sentence may be taken 2 different ways.

If you mean that it is sufficient for the laity to receive either the Body or the Blood of Christ, then: yes.

If you mean that if one form is offered, the other is excluded, then: no.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/ item #31 states:

Even when Communion will be ministered in the form of bread alone to the congregation, care should be taken that sufficient amounts of the elements are consecrated so that the Precious Blood may be distributed to all concelebrating Priests.

All concelebrating priests must receive under both forms (forms of bread and wine not either-or).

Here is a clip from 4 years ago stating that the Phoenix diocese is scaling back offerings of wine at Mass. content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2011/09/catholic-communion-wine-eucharist-mass/1#.Vr9EA1mrGOo

What the good bishop said and did was completely right and within his authority.

I remember this from the time. The media distorted it, and it’s obvious that the article is extremely biased against the bishop and his decision.

The diocese later issued some clarifications.

1. The laity must only receive one or the other.

Again, this sentence may be taken several different ways.

If you mean that once a layman receives the Body of Christ, then he cannot receive the Blood (at the same Mass), then that is not correct.

There is no Divine precept binding the laity or non-celebrating priests to receive the sacrament under both kinds (Trent, sess. XXI, c. i.)

Right. There is no “Divine Precept.”

Are there any other aspects to the process I’m overlooking? Thanks in advance.

It isn’t what you might have overlooked, but where you are going with these questions that concerns me.

What is the point? What are you attempting to prove?

 

[Todd977]

If I understand my history correctly, Catholic liturgical practice has changed over the years. From the New Testament and other writings of the early Church, we know that Communion was offered to the laity under both species (bread and wine). During the Middle Ages, for some reason, the practice of offering Communion under the species of wine to the laity became less frequent until the 1400s (Council of Constance) when Communion under the species of wine was altogether prohibited, at least in the Latin-rite of the Catholic Church. The prohibition remained in effect until a few decades ago (Second Vatican Council). Since the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council, it has been up to the individual bishop to decide whether or not Communion under the species of wine will be offered to the laity of his diocese. Even in a diocese where it is permitted by the bishop, it is still up to the priest celebrant to decide whether or not Communion under the species of wine will be offered to the laity at any particular Mass.

Since, according to Catholic teaching, the whole Jesus is received under either species, where both species are offered, the laity may, as each person decides for himself, receive Communion under the species of bread or wine or both. Your statement by the Council of Trent had this teaching (the whole Jesus is received under either species) in mind when it said there was no divine precept that the laity must receive under both species, as some Protestant reformers were claiming at the time against the Catholic practice at the time of offering the laity only Communion under the species of bread.

 

[ProVobis]

1. The laity must only receive one or the other.

Laity need not receive at all. Centuries ago, maybe just a couple or so, it was so infrequent that people received that they had to introduce a rule that one was obligated to receive once per year.

 

[Micosil]

Laity need not receive at all. Centuries ago, maybe just a couple or so, it was so infrequent that people received that they had to introduce a rule that one was obligated to receive once per year.

I thought the Fourth Council of the Lateran of 1215 found it necessary to require that people commune once a year at Easter? Or am I misunderstanding something in what you said.

 

[ProVobis]

I thought the Fourth Council of the Lateran of 1215 found it necessary to require that people commune once a year at Easter? Or am I misunderstanding something in what you said.

I thought it was more recent but I’ll take your word for it.

 

[Micosil]

I thought it was more recent but I’ll take your word for it.

Apologies, I misunderstood what you said and decided to delete my message.