The Eucharist without the Wine Form

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
prodromos said:
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.
Click to expand...
AIDS is relatively safe and only transmitted through body fluid. That won’t happen during Holy Communion.

I was mentioning about SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) which is highly infectious and lethal. There was a very bad epidemic in 2003 I think. It was only a precaution in areas where the epidemic occurred. Of course there are people who brave the odd to receive both specie in risky circumstances and yet nothing happen to them but It is a folly to subject the rest of the communicants to risk when we know that we can take precaution.

I am saying not because I think the Orthodox should not give out both specie but rather it was not done in our cathedral for reason stated. There is no law in the Catholic Church that say both specie must be given out, and our church decided to give one species only.
 
prodromos said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about getting AIDS or anything but it just sounds kind of gross to put everyone’s spit back into the chalice.

A Lutheran friend told me they had their own little plastic cup that the priest put the wine into & he discarded it after the mass.
 
Coder said:
That’s a lot of “churches”. Clearly one God and one Church are believable and biblical and so by definition it must be “catholic” i.e. universal. To me these concepts are a given just as belief in the one God was revealed and reasonable to Abraham.

So, all these other churches should really view themselves as part (if not fully and to the extent the Church views them) of the “catholic” church (again, granted, not fully).

Returning to my question regarding both forms in light of John 6:53-56, any thoughts welcome (by anyone).
Click to expand...
The GIRM specifies that the bishop of the diocese may establish additional norms
and “is given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the priest to whom a community has been entrusted as its own shepherd, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and that there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament…”.

There are three specific times where both forms are the norm, in the GIRM 2011:
283. In addition to those cases given in the ritual books, Communion under both kinds is permitted:
a) Priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate Mass;
b) the Deacon and others who perform some duty at the Mass;
c) members of communities at the Conventual Mass or the “community” Mass, along with seminarians, and all those engaged in a retreat or taking part in a spiritual or pastoral gathering.

Diocese of Phoenix
Questions and Answers
Norms for Reception of Holy Communion
Under Both Forms (2011)

There are five reasons to limit reception to one form:

  1. *]To protect the Sacred Species from profanation (careless treatment, spillage, swilling, etc.);
    *]The practice is not in any way necessary for salvation — it is a fuller sign of Holy Communion, but not a fuller reality of Christ Himself than what is received under the form of bread alone;
    *]The practice is used to emphasize special feast days and other special moments in the lives of the faithful;
    *]The unity of the practice throughout the world is an act of solidarity in the universal Church — rich and poor countries alike; and *]In normal circumstances, only priests and deacons are to distribute Holy Communion; when both forms of Communion are used frequently, “extraordinary” ministers of Holy Communion are disproportionately multiplied.
 
OK. That makes sense, then, and helps us answer your question “why would [receiving both species] be impractical in the Latin Church”…
prodromos said:
40.png
Gorgias:
How many congregants would typically be receiving Eucharist at a Divine Liturgy?
Click to expand...
It depends on the feast day. During Pascha, over 1000.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t really answer the question, though. Easter Mass in a Latin Rite Catholic church would be really crowded, too. The question really goes to what is normally the case. 😉
40.png
prodromos:
40.png
Gorgias:
What’s the expectation for the length of the Liturgy?
Click to expand...
Matins and Divine Liturgy usually lasts about 3 hours
Click to expand...
40.png
prodromos:
40.png
Gorgias:
How many Divine Liturgies would be scheduled on a normal Sunday?
Click to expand...
Church canons do not allow more than one Liturgy to be served on the same altar each day.
Click to expand...
Here’s where you find the answer to your question. At a typical Roman Catholic parish in America, there are many Masses celebrated on a Sunday. In addition, a priest might be required to celebrate a Mass at one parish, and then drive to get to another parish in order to celebrate Mass there. As a result, the expectation is that Mass will tend to last one hour.

Under those constraints, it’s not unreasonable that some may decide to distribute the Eucharist under one species only. It’s not the decision that all pastors will reach, but it’s not scandalous that some might. 🤷
40.png
prodromos:
Reverence is very high in the Orthodox Church. Holy Communion is the very focus of the Liturgy.
Click to expand...
As it is in the Catholic Church, as well. “We value the Eucharist more than ya’ll” is neither a charitable nor accurate stance. 😉

I don’t think it’s a fair conclusion to assert that reception under both species shows more reverence for the Eucharist, nor that it’s ‘right’ and reception under one species is ‘wrong’, nor that reception under one species is sacramentally incomplete.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top