The Eucharist without the Wine Form

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Makes sense but why then does Jesus refer so specifically and apparently emphatically to drinking His Blood in John 6:53-56?
I would suggest that by partaking in the Eucharistic you are in fact eating the flesh AND drinking the blood of our Load Jesus Christ…He not only lived for us but suffered and died on the cross for us so that we could receive him at Holy Mass.

Very hard to get my head around that most of the time!
 
Well I appreciate the charitable responses. I would add that it is we Catholics who insist to Protestants, in defense of the Eucharist, that these Scriptures are indeed interpreted literally and then Jesus clearly states “and blood” 4 times in a row after beginning the teaching with "Amen, Amen… " which the Church teaches is the highest and strongest form of Jesus speaking and we also believe that the Eucharist is the center of our faith (rightly so). The article shown was from a devout priest (if I’m not mistaken) who is clearly advising the Church to restore devotion to and emphasis on the Blood, so therefore as a weak sinful Catholic who needs all the grace and help that I can obtain (and I’m sure that I’m not alone) I beg the Church to look at this and bring the Blood to the forefront with the Bread so that we may more fully appreciate the sacrifice of God Himself for our sake and have a more true spirituality which may be part of what the Church is missing now so please priests and bishops and the Pope consider this.
 
Coder,

You might want to read the USCCB’s document on the distribution of Communion under both species. At the beginning of the document is an introduction that discusses issues that touch upon your questions. In particular, I’d draw your attention to the following quote there from the Roman Missal:
Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it takes place under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clearer expression is given
Yes, Christ is fully present – not only his body, but also by concomitance, his blood – in the Eucharistic bread. That means that you are doing what He commands in John 6, every time you receive communion, even if you don’t receive from the chalice. But, when the chalice is offered to the congregation, the ‘sign value’ of the Eucharist is “more clearly evident”.

So, you have a point: it becomes easier to ‘see’ the Eucharist as “body and blood” when the chalice is offered to all. Yet, it is still “body, blood, soul, and divinity”, even when the chalice is not offered to the congregation. In other words, you’re not missing out on anything and the Church isn’t disobeying Jesus’ words in John 6 when the chalice isn’t offered to you. 😉

Hope this helps…

Blessings,
G.
 
Thank You (Some Eastern Rite churches have mass in Aramaic which is considered the native language of Jesus and I find that to be exciting! Note to Latin Rite [Romam] Catholics who may not know, the Eastern Rite Churches [there are several branches] are in full communion with the Latin Rite churches and together all make up the entire Catholic church [the part here on earth, that is ☺️]
 
It’s not always practical for the people to receive the blood also. eg. at a large church, in a hospital, for the homebound.
It has never been a problem in the Orthodox Church. Why would it be impractical in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church?
 
Is there any greater “devotion” than “drinking” it as Jesus so strongly and repeatedly teaches us to do?
Sacrament is a grace. The answer to your question would be answered by the answer to this question: Do you receive any less grace by receiving only species or more grace by receiving both specie?

Try answer that and it will answer your question.
 
It has never been a problem in the Orthodox Church. Why would it be impractical in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church?
How many congregants would typically be receiving Eucharist at a Divine Liturgy? What’s the expectation for the length of the Liturgy? How many Divine Liturgies would be scheduled on a normal Sunday?
 
It has never been a problem in the Orthodox Church. Why would it be impractical in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church?
Maybe you can’t compare because they are different churches.

In my cathedral we serve only the host. With a seating capacity of about 1800, it has never been brought up at all to serve the blood. Perhaps we are unique in the sense that reverence is very high on the list when giving and receiving Communion, the logistic of trying to give the blood would be unthinkable.

The thought of sharing the cup can be very repugnant to some people. During the SARS epidemic, we are not allow to shake hand in the church and receiving on the tongue was suspended due to health hazard.

All in all, I think it is impractical in our cathedral. I think it can be done, but it was never thought of.
 
Maybe we should be more focused on above and less focused on fears/cares of this world. After all, isn’t the transcendence of Jesus what excites us about Him and attracts us to Him? He healed many, didn’t the Apostles heal also?
 
How many congregants would typically be receiving Eucharist at a Divine Liturgy?
It depends on the feast day. During Pascha, over 1000.
What’s the expectation for the length of the Liturgy?
Matins and Divine Liturgy usually lasts about 3 hours
How many Divine Liturgies would be scheduled on a normal Sunday?
Church canons do not allow more than one Liturgy to be served on the same altar each day. Some churches have a smaller chapel on one side where a second Liturgy could be performed by another priest (the priest can only serve one Divine Liturgy per day also)
 
Prodromos,

There is also the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified. That is the communication of the Holy Eucharist via the form of bread. The primary difference in the Roman Church is that it is not offered mixed with unconsecrated wine.
 
Prodromos,

There is also the Liturgy of the Pre-Sanctified. That is the communication of the Holy Eucharist via the form of bread. The primary difference in the Roman Church is that it is not offered mixed with unconsecrated wine.
The presanctified lamb also has the sign of the cross made on it with the sanctified blood before it is set aside. Both Body and Blood are always present in Orthodox Holy Communion
 
Maybe you can’t compare because they are different churches.
Unfortunately that is very true.
In my cathedral we serve only the host. With a seating capacity of about 1800, it has never been brought up at all to serve the blood. Perhaps we are unique in the sense that reverence is very high on the list when giving and receiving Communion, the logistic of trying to give the blood would be unthinkable.
Reverence is very high in the Orthodox Church. Holy Communion is the very focus of the Liturgy.
The thought of sharing the cup can be very repugnant to some people. During the SARS epidemic, we are not allow to shake hand in the church and receiving on the tongue was suspended due to health hazard.
This makes no sense to me. We are receiving life itself. How can anyone imagine disease could be spread through the “spring of immortality” or through the hands or chalice which have been sanctified by the same?
 
The presanctified lamb also has the sign of the cross made on it with the sanctified blood before it is set aside. Both Body and Blood are always present in Orthodox Holy Communion
Yes, the wine is blessed, but Anaphora is not said over the wine. Ergo, it remains wine.
 
Yes, the wine is blessed, but Anaphora is not said over the wine. Ergo, it remains wine.
Wine is added to the pre sanctified gifts, but as I stated before, the lamb is intincted with the precious blood on Sunday, before it is set aside for use in the pre sanctified liturgy during the weekdays of Lent.
 
This makes no sense to me. We are receiving life itself. How can anyone imagine disease could be spread through the “spring of immortality” or through the hands or chalice which have been sanctified by the same?
Now we’re getting somewhere! 🙂
 
This makes no sense to me. We are receiving life itself. How can anyone imagine disease could be spread through the “spring of immortality” or through the hands or chalice which have been sanctified by the same?
I tended to take that approach initially but I guess those responsible were more pragmatic about it. Apparently they thought the life giving part is spiritual, and less of the physical.

Likewise, the usage of the holy water font was suspended during the duration. Both actions were taken in cognizance of the Health Ministry advice.
 
I tended to take that approach initially but I guess those responsible were more pragmatic about it. Apparently they thought the life giving part is spiritual, and less of the physical.

Likewise, the usage of the holy water font was suspended during the duration. Both actions were taken in cognizance of the Health Ministry advice.
In the Orthodox Church, the priest uses a small spoon to take a small amount of Christ’s Body and Blood from the chalice then puts the spoon into the communicant’s mouth, after which it goes back into the chalice for the next person. At the end of the Liturgy, the priest or deacon consumes whatever remains of the Holy Gifts. No priest or deacon has ever contracted disease from one of his flock through the Eucharist. I know of Orthodox who made a point of receiving Holy Communion after fellow parishioners who were suffering from AIDS had received. If any in our parish were suffering such illnesses, I would happily do the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top