The Precious Blood

[Thursday1]

I have a devotion to the Precious Blood of Christ. It seems to me that very few Catholics view the Wine as equal to the Host when receiving communion. I can’t tell you how many times I have witnessed people get into the “wrong” line at communion, realize it was the cup, then cause a disruption as they try to get back into the “right” line. Now, maybe they are recovering alcoholics, or have another reason for abstaining from the cup, but it seems more likely that they just don’t view the wine as Christ’s blood. It is viewed as something “extra” maybe for special occasions.

I believe part of this comes from the Church’s response to the heresy that you must receive both the body and blood of Christ separately (I put in separately to stem any posts pointing out that both are the body and blood of Christ) to truly receive communion. The Church denied the Chalice to the faithful to prove this (and I am not saying the Church was wrong in do it.) Now the Church has allowed the faithful to receive from the Chalice again, but did not properly catechize the faithful on the subject. I know some people who believe that it is the tiny piece of host in the Chalice that makes it the Blood of Christ.

I have a solution though. It would require the changing of one rubric; that the remainder of the Precious Blood must be consumed at the end of the Mass. If a small airtight vial of Wine were consecrated during the Mass, and reserved in the Tabernacle, it could be used in place of a host for adoration. In fact, it might even be preferable, as if it is air tight, and has a high enough alcohol content, it could stay “fresh” for months, if not years or decades.

Does anyone else think this might be a good way of Catechizing the faithful on the real presence under the appearance of wine?

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[Genesis315]

You know, I too have often thought of Adoration using the Blood in some sort of special monstrance. I think that would be a beautiful devotion. I don’t see any theological problems (does some part of the sacrificial nature of the Mass require all the Blood to consumed?) but I do see some practical problems–but they are not insurrmountable.

 

[Thursday1]

You know, I too have often thought of Adoration using the Blood in some sort of special monstrance. I think that would be a beautiful devotion. I don’t see any theological problems (does some part of the sacrificial nature of the Mass require all the Blood to consumed?) but I do see some practical problems–but they are not insurrmountable.

The only practical problem I could see was dropping the vial containing the Blood, but if it was made of shatter proof glass, with gold on it (so it qualifies as a precious vessel), I don’ think that would be an issue.
I would imagine some pretty spectacular Monstrances could be made that could hold both the Host and the vial of Blood.
I think I am going to talk to some people I know who might be able to help me submit the necessary letters to the necessary offices, and see if this could become a reality.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[Thursday1]

Over 100 views and only Genesis315 has thought about this before?

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[Cristiano]

If the glass vial is coated with gold how do you get to see what is inside?

 

[LilyM]

If the glass vial is coated with gold how do you get to see what is inside?

I think she means a similar arrangement to a Monstrance - some glass so that you can see the Precious Blood, but gold decoration around the outside.

I’m sure there must be Canon Law or something against exposing the Precious Blood for Adoration, otherwise someone somewhere would’ve done it already!!!

I personally don’t take the Precious Blood except when I’m ministering Holy Communion once in a blue moon. Partly because there are health and hygiene considerations (and yes, people DO get sick from taking the Chalice, it’s happened to my mother)

Also because it’s a recently re-introduced and somewhat unnecessary (for the most part) innovation, since the entire Real Presence is more than sufficiently contained within the Host.

 

[Cristiano]

You cannot allow glass to be in contact with the liquid. The only solution is to have a chalice with a glass cover in order to expose it. The problem is that you need to look at it from the top down and so it is highly impractical and borderline irreverent.

My other point is that a devotion to the Precious Blood has a specific theological meaning. However, the liquid is not just the Blood so there is a major theological disconnect (probably heresy) if you use it for an exclusive devotion to the Precious Blood.

 

[Thursday1]

I think she means a similar arrangement to a Monstrance - some glass so that you can see the Precious Blood, but gold decoration around the outside.

I’m sure there must be Canon Law or something against exposing the Precious Blood for Adoration, otherwise someone somewhere would’ve done it already!!!

I personally don’t take the Precious Blood except when I’m ministering Holy Communion once in a blue moon.

Partly because there are health and hygiene considerations (and yes, people DO get sick from taking the Chalice, it’s happened to my mother)

Also because it’s a recently re-introduced and somewhat unnecessary (for the most part) innovation, since the entire Real Presence is more than sufficiently contained within the Host.

The only reference to exposing the Blood in a monstrance was to a Eucharistic miracle, where the Blood turned to Physical blood, and was preserved in a monstrance.

You cannot allow glass to be in contact with the liquid.

How about coating the inside with diamond? It is nonporous, and I think everyone would agree that it is not a base material.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[cue]

I must state up front that I think your thread title is a bit misleading. As you said and as the Church says, our Lord is present in his entire Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity under either species by itself (No 282). Your question, as I understand it, is not about the Precious Blood, but about the species of wine. Thus, you are not asking to be able to adore the Precious Blood, since there is always an opportunity to do so whenever there is ordinary Eucharistic Adoration (under the species of bread) because each consecrated host contains the Body and Blood of our Lord. The suggestion is to be able to adore his Body and Blood, not under the species of bread, but wine. The simple answer is practicality.
The Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the Tabernacle under the form of bread only because it is the least susceptible to desecration. It can also be transported to the sick without the serious dangers of accidents that transporting liquid entails.

…Christ’s blood…is viewed as something “extra” maybe for special occasions.

Receiving under both species is something ‘extra’ though. Since each species contains the whole Christ, the only thing gained by distribution under both species is symbolic, as the Church says.

Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds.(No 281)

But it is here that we get into mirky water, because the postive syombolism gained by distributing both species is hidden beneath the avalanche of negative, albeit accidental, symbolism.

First, there are the words for reception, “The Body of Christ” for the Sacrament under the species of bread and “The Blood of Christ” for the Sacrament under the species of wine. This leads people to believe that they are receiving only the Body or only the Blood–that they are only receiving ‘half’ of Christ.

Second, there is the need to ordinarily call on extraordinary minister to distribute Communion. This tears at a belief in the need of the Sacrament of Holy Orders–men choosen and set apart just for the care and administration of the Blessed Sacrament.

Third, the majority of these extraordinary ministers are dramatically unprepared and under-catechized. This leads to widespread abuse and even, unfortunately, profantion (I’ve seen it).

Now, this opens up a whole shelf of other-cans-of-worms, but the point is that symbolism–the only benefit of distributing under both species–is not enriched the way both species is distributed in this country.

 

[otjm]

But it is here that we get into mirky water, because the postive syombolism gained by distributing both species is hidden beneath the avalanche of negative, albeit accidental, symbolism.

First, there are the words for reception, “The Body of Christ” for the Sacrament under the species of bread and “The Blood of Christ” for the Sacrament under the species of wine. This leads people to believe that they are receiving only the Body or only the Blood–that they are only receiving ‘half’ of Christ.

On the other hand, that is what Christ said and did at the Last Supper. It was His choice to consecrate them separatley and distribute them separately. If following what He did causes problems, then we need to look at why following what He did causes problems. It seemed to work for Him.

 

[Thursday1]

I must state up front that I think your thread title is a bit misleading. As you said and as the Church says, our Lord is present in his entire Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity under either species by itself (No 282). Your question, as I understand it, is not about the Precious Blood, but about the species of wine. Thus, you are not asking to be able to adore the Precious Blood, since there is always an opportunity to do so whenever there is ordinary Eucharistic Adoration (under the species of bread) because each consecrated host contains the Body and Blood of our Lord. The suggestion is to be able to adore his Body and Blood, not under the species of bread, but wine. The simple answer is practicality.
The Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the Tabernacle under the form of bread only because it is the least susceptible to desecration. It can also be transported to the sick without the serious dangers of accidents that transporting liquid entails.

Receiving under both species is something ‘extra’ though. Since each species contains the whole Christ, the only thing gained by distribution under both species is symbolic, as the Church says.
But it is here that we get into mirky water, because the postive syombolism gained by distributing both species is hidden beneath the avalanche of negative, albeit accidental, symbolism.

First, there are the words for reception, “The Body of Christ” for the Sacrament under the species of bread and “The Blood of Christ” for the Sacrament under the species of wine. This leads people to believe that they are receiving only the Body or only the Blood–that they are only receiving ‘half’ of Christ.

Second, there is the need to ordinarily call on extraordinary minister to distribute Communion. This tears at a belief in the need of the Sacrament of Holy Orders–men choosen and set apart just for the care and administration of the Blessed Sacrament.

Third, the majority of these extraordinary ministers are dramatically unprepared and under-catechized. This leads to widespread abuse and even, unfortunately, profantion (I’ve seen it).

Now, this opens up a whole shelf of other-cans-of-worms, but the point is that symbolism–the only benefit of distributing under both species–is not enriched the way both species is distributed in this country.

You are right that the thread title is a bit misleading, but only due to the inability of language to adequately describe the mystery of Transubstantiation. I referred to the Eucharist under the species of Wine as the Precious Blood because in the Mass that is how it is referred to (minus the precious). The Priest says (to himself) “may the blood of Christ bring me to ever lasting life” before drinking from the chalice.

I see my idea as a way to catechize, as actions speak louder than words. I think the reason we have the problem with abuse and profanation of the Eucharist under the species of Wine is because people do not view it as the Eucharist. It is deemed secondary to the host, or dependent on the host (as I mentioned in the OP). The very problem is that people view it as “less” Jesus than under the species of bread.

As for practicality, nothing could be more practical than a vial of the Eucharist under the species of wine that will never go “off” (thereby, never reverting back to simple matter). If the alcohol content is high enough and the vial airtight, it would remain pure for decades, if not for centuries.

As to the objection before about using glass, I believe the prohibition against using glass altar vessels is waived for monstrances, as I have never seen one with out a glass front.
In this case there would be nothing to worry about if the glass was nonporous and shatterproof.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[cue]

Thursday,
Spilling is a very real danger.

How would a container as you describe be purified?

Also, this would require the Blessed Sacrament to be poured from one vessel to another. This is not practically done without irreverence, which is why the Church does not allow the Blessed Sacrament to be poured.

A solution might be to distribute by intinction. This shows the unity of the Sacrament but accents the diversity of the symbols. You are absolutely correct, though, about the inadequate belief in the Real Presence. I am convinced, though, that the distribution of both species (not in itself, but the way it is done in this country) only exaggerates that problem.

On the other hand, that is what Christ said and did at the Last Supper. It was His choice to consecrate them separatley and distribute them separately. If following what He did causes problems, then we need to look at why following what He did causes problems. It seemed to work for Him.

otjm,
Christ also had only twelve people at the Last Supper, and they were the first bishops. If everything must happen exactly as at the Last Supper, myself and the rest of the laity would be really hurtin’. Thankfully, we have a contemporary representative of Christ, his priests and bishops, who were given authority to hand on to us what Christ entrusted to them (Sacraments). If you would like help in understanding why the Church defined the doctrine of concomitance (the whole Christ under one species), prescribed such reverence for the Body of her Lord, and deemed it unnecessary for all of the faithful to receive under both species every time, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, and some of the decrees of the Council of Trent should be a good starting place.

 

[Thursday1]

Thursday,
Spilling is a very real danger.

How would a container as you describe be purified?

Also, this would require the Blessed Sacrament to be poured from one vessel to another. This is not practically done without irreverence, which is why the Church does not allow the Blessed Sacrament to be poured.

A solution might be to distribute by intinction. This shows the unity of the Sacrament but accents the diversity of the symbols. You are absolutely correct, though, about the inadequate belief in the Real Presence. I am convinced, though, that the distribution of both species (not in itself, but the way it is done in this country) only exaggerates that problem.

Spilling is not a danger, it is filled with wine, and then closed before the Mass begins. It would be placed on the Altar, and Priest’s intention would cover the rest.
Purifying would not be necessary. It would only be used for adoration, and as I’ve said would stay Christ for a very very very long time (unlike the hosts that are used that last a couple of weeks tops). And if it ever did start to look like a change was needed, it isn’t Christ anymore (if the accidents change from that of wine, the substance reverts to simple matter).
There would be no pouring, everything would be where it needs to be before any Substantial change occurs.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[otjm]

otjm,
Christ also had only twelve people at the Last Supper, and they were the first bishops. If everything must happen exactly as at the Last Supper, myself and the rest of the laity would be really hurtin’. Thankfully, we have a contemporary representative of Christ, his priests and bishops, who were given authority to hand on to us what Christ entrusted to them (Sacraments). If you would like help in understanding why the Church defined the doctrine of concomitance (the whole Christ under one species), prescribed such reverence for the Body of her Lord, and deemed it unnecessary for all of the faithful to receive under both species every time, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, and some of the decrees of the Council of Trent should be a good starting place.

I am well aware of who was at the Last Supper, and I have no need for help in understanding the evolution of sacramental practice of the Eucharist as I am already familiar with it.

I think you missed the point; the poster to whom I was replying was lamenting the problem of the two species with their attendant comments - The Body of Christ; The Blood of Christ. My comment is that if it was possible for not only Christ but also the early Church to not have a problem with it, then perhaps if there is a problem now, we need to figure out what it is and correct it. And I do not suggest that correction is the return to only receiving the Host.

 

[BobP123]

I must state up front that I think your thread title is a bit misleading. As you said and as the Church says, our Lord is present in his entire Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity under either species by itself (No 282). Your question, as I understand it, is not about the Precious Blood, but about the species of wine. Thus, you are not asking to be able to adore the Precious Blood, since there is always an opportunity to do so whenever there is ordinary Eucharistic Adoration (under the species of bread) because each consecrated host contains the Body and Blood of our Lord. The suggestion is to be able to adore his Body and Blood, not under the species of bread, but wine. The simple answer is practicality.
The Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the Tabernacle under the form of bread only because it is the least susceptible to desecration. It can also be transported to the sick without the serious dangers of accidents that transporting liquid entails.

Receiving under both species is something ‘extra’ though. Since each species contains the whole Christ, the only thing gained by distribution under both species is symbolic, as the Church says.
But it is here that we get into mirky water, because the postive syombolism gained by distributing both species is hidden beneath the avalanche of negative, albeit accidental, symbolism.

First, there are the words for reception, “The Body of Christ” for the Sacrament under the species of bread and “The Blood of Christ” for the Sacrament under the species of wine. This leads people to believe that they are receiving only the Body or only the Blood–that they are only receiving ‘half’ of Christ.

Second, there is the need to ordinarily call on extraordinary minister to distribute Communion. This tears at a belief in the need of the Sacrament of Holy Orders–men choosen and set apart just for the care and administration of the Blessed Sacrament.

Third, the majority of these extraordinary ministers are dramatically unprepared and under-catechized. This leads to widespread abuse and even, unfortunately, profantion (I’ve seen it).

Now, this opens up a whole shelf of other-cans-of-worms, but the point is that symbolism–the only benefit of distributing under both species–is not enriched the way both species is distributed in this country.

I see you did your homework. Good job.

 

[puzzleannie]

the easiest solution to the “distribution” problems is to use intinction, done by the priest or deacon, using vessels designed for that purpose. If you wish to express particular devotion to the Precious Blood that can be done during Eucharistic Adoration, as Christ is fully present Body Blood Soul and Divinity in the host.

there should not be two “lines” anyhow, those who have received the host and wish also to receive under the species of wine should then move a few feet to that station. If people are regularly getting confused it means the ushers have to be trained to do their jobs better, not change the entire tenor of Eucharistic devotion.

 

[Thursday1]

the easiest solution to the “distribution” problems is to use intinction, done by the priest or deacon, using vessels designed for that purpose. If you wish to express particular devotion to the Precious Blood that can be done during Eucharistic Adoration, as Christ is fully present Body Blood Soul and Divinity in the host.

there should not be two “lines” anyhow, those who have received the host and wish also to receive under the species of wine should then move a few feet to that station.

I think some people are missing my point. I don’t think there is a distribution problem, though I do agree that intinction is probably the best way to receive. I think there is a problem with understanding the Eucharist under the appearance of wine. It is often viewed as secondary, less important, or redundant. Christ instituted it for a reason. I see using the Eucharist under the species of wine for adoration as a good way of Catechizing the faithful that it is equal to the Eucharist under the species of bread.

If you read my OP, I do say I know that the Precious Blood is also in the Eucharist under the species of bread. But, I think many will agree that a liquid is a better sign for blood, as a solid is better sign for flesh. The Church recognizes this, as the Priest refers to the host as the “Body of Christ” and the wine as “Blood of Christ” before he consumes them (may the . . . bring me to ever lasting life.)

As for the two lines, what I was describing was what you said should happen. However, if the cup is only offered occasionally, most people are used to there being another “bread” station where the cup is being offered. That is when I notice the confusion.

And one last point, your post was a very good example of the almost subconscious idea many Catholics have that the cup is something “extra.” By saying “those who had received the host” you assume that one always receives the host, and may sometimes receive from the cup. Why not the other way around? Why not only receive from the cup?

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[dylanschrader]

Inaestimabile Donum says:

1. On the other hand, the consecrated wine is to be consumed immediately after Communion and may not be kept. Care must be taken to consecrate only the amount of wine needed for Communion.

An exception is made for the sick who cannot receive under the species of bread in Eucharisticum Mysterium:

1. Communion under the Species of Wine Alone
   In case of necessity, depending on the judgment of the bishop, it is permitted to give the Eucharist under the species of wine alone to those who are unable to receive it under the species of bread.

In this case it is permissible, with the consent of the local Ordinary, to celebrate Mass in the house of the sick person.

If, however, Mass is not celebrated in the presence of the sick person, the Blood of the Lord should be kept in a properly covered chalice and placed in the tabernacle after Mass. It should be taken to the sick person only if contained in a vessel which is closed in such a way as to eliminate all danger of spilling. When the sacrament is administered, that method should be chosen from the ones given in the Ritus servandus in distributione communionis sub utraque specie which is most suited to the case. When Communion has been given, should some of the precious Blood still remain, it should be consumed by the minister; he will also carry out the usual ablutions.

Besides that exception, no provision is made in the General Instruction or other documents for reserving the Eucharist under the form of wine.

 

[Thursday1]

Thursday1 (that's me):

It would require the changing of one rubric; that the remainder of the Precious Blood must be consumed at the end of the Mass.

I posted in my OP that one rubric would have to be changed. And as there are exceptions, I don’t see a reason that this exception couldn’t be added to them. The risks are minimal, and the rewards could be immeasurable.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[AlexV]

Beware archaeologism (the tired old game of reminding us about what the earliest Christians did and how wonderful it was then, etc.)…and beware anything that weakens the belief that the host is the whole Christ, including the blood.