The Precious Blood

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Eagle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Eagle

Guest
the Precious Blood is now normally given out in many churches during Mass. This is not a tradition in the Latin/Roman Rite.It is a tradition in the Greek rite but weren’t Greeks. [Okay my humor is lousy]I think this practice has been borrowed from the Protestants. Also there is the problem of the Precious Blood spilling on the floor. the Precious Blood cannot spill on the floor for it is precious. Would you let gold dust fall on the floor? These are some of the reasons I am against Communion under both species. What are your opinions?
 
Distribution of communion under both species is a Catholic (& Roman Rite Catholic) practice and was the practice from the very earliest apostolic times. It is not borrowed from Protestantism at all.

See Catholic Encyclopaedia, ‘Communion Under Both Kinds’:

newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm

🙂
 
The argument about spilling it could also be used regarding dropping the host

I cannot remember where it is, but there are procedures for spilling.
 
Outside of the English speaking world, and to an extent Germany and France, as I said in other posts, Communion of both species, much less communion via the chalice is quite rare. At papal masses, communion is via the host alone, and the current practice of communion via the chalice is barrowed from the protestants.

Again, I will restate that I STRONGLY believe much of the push to have communion via the chalice was an excuse to pack as much of the laity as possible on the altar.
 
40.png
JNB:
Again, I will restate that I STRONGLY believe much of the push to have communion via the chalice was an excuse to pack as much of the laity as possible on the altar.
Click to expand...
I really doubt that - note the following from the 2003 GIRM. I don’t think V-II was motivated by packing laity on the altar, and Communion under both kinds is absolutely NOT “borrowed from the Protestants”.
  1. Moved by the same desire and pastoral concern, the Second Vatican Council was able to give renewed consideration to what was established by Trent on Communion under both kinds. And indeed, since no one today calls into doubt in any way the doctrinal principles on the complete efficacy of eucharistic Communion under the species of bread alone, the Council thus gave permission for the reception of Communion under both kinds on some occasions, because this clearer form of the sacramental sign offers a particular opportunity of deepening the understanding of the mystery in which the faithful take part.
Click to expand...
 
It says on some occasions, also, I did not mention Vatican II melman. The occasions mentioned in Vatican II itself are very few, such as priests concelbrating and adult converts entering into the faith.

Again, I am not 100% opposed to communion under both species, I am opposed to use of the chalice. Communion via iniction I support because use of extra ministers is not needed.
 
I would prefer intiction.

However, someone brought up in another thread the allergies prople have to wheat, sensitive enough to cause a reaction by just receiving the Precious Blood once intiction had occurred.
 
40.png
JNB:
I did not mention Vatican II melman.
Click to expand...
I know you didn’t. But the GIRM traces the return of Communion under both kinds back to V-II. And at the time of V-II, I don’t think the motivation for doing it was to get laypeople on the altar. Thus, it would seem to contradict your proposal that “I STRONGLY believe much of the push to have communion via the chalice was an excuse to pack as much of the laity as possible on the altar.”
 
Catholic Eagle:
the Precious Blood is now normally given out in many churches during Mass. This is not a tradition in the Latin/Roman Rite.It is a tradition in the Greek rite but weren’t Greeks. [Okay my humor is lousy]I think this practice has been borrowed from the Protestants. Also there is the problem of the Precious Blood spilling on the floor. the Precious Blood cannot spill on the floor for it is precious. Would you let gold dust fall on the floor? These are some of the reasons I am against Communion under both species. What are your opinions?
Click to expand...
I TOTALLY agree with you. But, many will disagree with this strongly because, well, they don’t get it. One way I avoid seeing any liturgical abuse or sacrilege such as spilling of the precious blood, is: I ONLY GO TO THE LATIN TRIDENTINE INDULT MASS.
 
40.png
JNB:
Outside of the English speaking world, and to an extent Germany and France, as I said in other posts, Communion of both species, much less communion via the chalice is quite rare. At papal masses, communion is via the host alone, and the current practice of communion via the chalice is barrowed from the protestants.

Again, I will restate that I STRONGLY believe much of the push to have communion via the chalice was an excuse to pack as much of the laity as possible on the altar.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you. Again, another reason why I ONLY attend the Latin Tridentine Mass: we don’t imitate the pentecostals.
 
40.png
JNB:
It says on some occasions, also, I did not mention Vatican II melman. The occasions mentioned in Vatican II itself are very few, such as priests concelbrating and adult converts entering into the faith.

Again, I am not 100% opposed to communion under both species, I am opposed to use of the chalice. Communion via iniction I support because use of extra ministers is not needed.
Click to expand...
JNB you are totally right, but your true statements are taken out of context by some who just, don’t get it. Why don’t many leave the 1970’s liturgical novelties, and go with CURRENT Church teaching, or DOGMATIC definitions. Oh yes, many pastors have told me they don’t permit the Blood of Christ in the Chalice to be given to the laity for another reason, to avoid the transmittal of germs, and viruses which can spread by sharing the Chalice (not the “cup”).
 
If you visite the “Cloisters” museum in upper Manhattan they have on display the silver straws used by laypeople to receive the Precious Blood in the early days of the Church. It is not borrowed from the Protestants
In the Eastern churches the Holy Species is distributed by a spoon.
No fear of spillage or germs.
 
The little gold tube through which the Pope receives the Precious Blood is called a “fistula” by the way. The Catholic Dictionary indicates this is the only surviving example of communing through what we would call a “straw”. In the Eastern Rites, Communion is received in a spoon: the priest mixes the bread and wine together and places the Body and Blood into the mouth of the Communicant with the liturgical equivalent of a Spoon. Until AD 1215 , the 4th Lateran Council and the definition of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, it was usual to receive the Cup in the West as well. Jesus told the Disciples at the Last Supper “drink of it *all * of you…*do this * for the remembrance of Me” That’s good enough for me. In obedience to *Jesus’ * command we drink the Precious Blood from the Cup, it is disrespect, disobedience, superstition and idolatry to do otherwise. If you’re worried about spilling it–a silly and specious argument, by the way—then drink from the chalice CAREFULLY.
 
Headman, the fullness of both the body and blood of Christ is in either species, it is a heresy to think that the spcies alone do not contain the fullness of both the body and blood of Christ.
 
The fullness of both the Body and the Blood are indeed in both species.I didn’t say it was not. As I say, however, Jesus Himself commanded us to drink from the Cup and I tend to want to obey Him. St. Paul stresses the drinking out of the cup as well.
 
Then headman, close to 85% of the Catholic world today is disobeyiong Jesus, and the Catholic world diobeyed Jesus from the 1200s till the 1970s.

Again, Communion under both species is rare outside of the English speaking world, with parts of Europe. In Latin America, Southren and Eastren Europe, Asia and Africa, communion under both spcies is very rare. The Catholic church does not equal what is going on in the US.
 
The 12th Century practice of receiving only the Sacred Body was rendered binding in the early 15th Century in response to the Hussite heresy, which asserted that Communion under both species was necessary for salvation. This demonstrated that Christ is entirely present in any particle of the consecrated elements.

Since we haven’t met any Hussites lately, the custom of receiving under both species has been restored. Thus, receiving under both species is only Protestant insofar as the “Protestant” Hussites declared Communion under one kind to be insufficient.

Note: no one is REQUIRED to receive under both species.
 
mercygate is correct in pointing out that communion under both species was Catholic before it was Protestant. Thank you for the history.

I for one like the symbolism of receivng both the body of Christ and the Precious blood, even though I know he is fully present in each separately. Those of us that have this preference must be careful, though, and not think we are getting more Jesus than those that only receive under on species.
 
Yes but most of the time because of the small number of priests EMs have to give out Holy Eucharist. The giving out of Communion by the laity is a denigraton of the Eucharist. The belief in the Real Presence is now at only 30% amongst Catholics in the USA.
The Precious Blood should only be given to priests.
 
Catholic Eagle:
Yes but most of the time because of the small number of priests EMs have to give out Holy Eucharist.** The giving out of Communion by the laity is a denigraton of the Eucharist.** The belief in the Real Presence is now at only 30% amongst Catholics in the USA.
The Precious Blood should only be given to priests.
Click to expand...
Sorry. It’s not a denigration of the Eucharist. It is permitted under certain circumstances by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Pope himself. So, are you saying that the Pope and the Congregation are calling for the denigration of the Eucharist??? That’s a pretty serious charge!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top