The Precious Blood

[Thursday1]

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.

I didn’t bring up what the early Christians did.

As for the belief that the host is the whole Christ, how does common belief of the “inferiority” of the wine help it? My point is not the denigration of the Host, but the understanding that he Host of the Wine are equal.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[dylanschrader]

People who need basic catechesis on the Eucharist need basic catechesis on the Eucharist.

If they don’t adore the Eucharist under the form of wine with latria, as they should, then they’re probably not adoring the Eucharist under the form of bread as they should either.

I would say that this is the case especially where both species are habitually offered: people who don’t understand the substantial presence of Christ in one won’t in the other. Therefore, the problem is one of basic catechesis which can be accomplished by explaining to people what the truth is rather than reserving both species.

In fact, reserving both species could even lead to a lessening of belief in concomitance because it could lead people to think that receiving under both forms is essential to the reception of the sacrament rather than simply a fuller sign.

 

[AlexV]

Considering you repeatedly post on this issue, including once making the serious error that consecrations were invalid unless both species were consecrated, I wouldn’t worry much about the issue of people who think the species of wine is “inferior”. I have never seen anyone on these fora post that, I have never heard anyone say it. Don’t confuse reception under one species, or adoration/reservation under one species, with denigration. That’s quite a leap.

 

[cue]

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.)

According to Dr. Ott,

…For bread and wine are neither of their nature nor, by current speech-usage, symbols of body and blood.

(Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 375)

And from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1333
At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: “He took bread. . . .” “He took the cup filled with wine. . . .” The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine, fruit of the “work of human hands,” but above all as “fruit of the earth” and “of the vine” - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who “brought out bread and wine,” a prefiguring of her own offering.

The Catechism goes on in paragraphs 1334-1336 to expound about bread and wine and their symbolism in the Jewish culture, particularly the Passover and in Christ’s ministry (loaves and fish, etc.). This hits home that the signs of bread and wine point directly to, not a man’s body and blood, but the Passover and, necessarily, the “goodness of creation.” Indeed, it says that bread and wine, “in a way the surpassing understanding” becomes Christ’s Body and Blood. If these symbols were so expressive of flesh and blood, it would not be so surpassing.

The Catechism continues in 1340:

By celebrating the Last Supper with his apostles in the course of the Passover meal, Jesus gave the Jewish Passover its definitive meaning.

Blah, blah…so what’s my point. Christ did not choose bread and wine because they were the best symbols of flesh and blood. The CCC 1333-1340 make this clear. He choose them to fulfill the covenant. Christ transforms the old covenant into the new.

To be continued…

 

[cue]

Part Two

Back to our discussion, this means that receiving under both species is a fuller sign, not because bread is a better symbol of flesh and wine of blood, but because it is a closer imitation of what physically happened at the Last Supper. Now here’s the danger, when we seek to receive under both species so much that we deny that we are ‘drinking of cup’ of Christ’s Blood when receive under the form of bread only.

CCC 1390

Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.”

Again, the only the gained by distribution under both species is a “more complete” sign, not of flesh and blood, but, as the Church says, the “Eucharistic meal,” namely, the fulfilled Passover and everything I mentioned above (CCC 1333-40).

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.”

So since we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood under the form of bread, receiving from the chalice is very much ‘extra’; it is extra symbolism of the “Eucharistic meal.” It is precisely because this is extra that it is not required at every Mass and is only to allowed with the specific permission of the bishop (Liturgicae Instaurationes No 6 - a rule commonly broken in American parishes).

Now, Thursday, I want definitely agree that there is a great need for education in belief about the Eucharist. However, what you describe does not seem to be an error in belief. If people are seeing reception of Christ’s Body and Blood under the form of wine as something ‘extra’ after they have received His Body and Blood under the form of bread, then good–they’re exactly right. If they do not recognize the Real Presence under the form of wine, then we have a problem. However, the most common errors I see are either not believing in the Real Presence at all, or a failure to believe in concomitance.

As for your proposal about Eucharistic adoration under the form of wine, we can go back and forth with practical issues and solution, but the fact, despite what you or I think is not a danger or is a solution, Jesus Christ, present and active in his apostles, the bishops, have not seen sufficient reasons to reserve the Blessed Sacrament under the form of wine. Personally, I tend to side with them. Much of what you say makes sense, however, I think via tradition, apostolic succession, and the Holy Ghost, the cards are kinda stacked in the bishops’ favor.

 

[Thursday1]

This is going to be a long one. . .

dylanschrader:

In fact, reserving both species could even lead to a lessening of belief in concomitance because it could lead people to think that receiving under both forms is essential to the reception of the sacrament rather than simply a fuller sign.

In the past this has happened, and the Church restricted the cup. I am not arguing that both must be received!

AlexV:

considering you repeatedly post on this issue, including once making the serious error that consecrations were invalid unless both species were consecrated, I wouldn’t worry much about the issue of people who think the species of wine is “inferior”. I have never seen anyone on these fora post that, I have never heard anyone say it. Don’t confuse reception under one species, or adoration/reservation under one species, with denigration. That’s quite a leap.

That was a different thread than this, and I admit I had misunderstood my teacher, he was only saying the Mass would be invalid.
You might not have seen or heard denigration, but I have. I have seen a EMHC refill the Chalice with wine from a cruet, because there was still the fractured host in it, so that will would make the wine the Eucharist.

Cue:

SNIP

I know why Christ chose Bread and Wine. However the point still stands that the Priest refers to the Host as “the Body of Christ” and the Wine as the “Blood of Christ,” despite the fact that they are both equally the Body and Blood of Christ.
Again, I am not saying that both the Host and the Wine must be received to receive the fullness of Christ. I believe that the Host is both the Body and Blood of Christ (I say believe because I do not understand it, but then again, no one does, it’s a Mystery.)

As for the comment on it being new, everything was new at some point. I’m sure there is a point when the monstrance was new. There was a time when Latin was new. I would never start this without the Church’s blessing, but I see no reason to to pursue that blessing. Maybe someday 20 years from now, you’ll duck in for adoration, and adore the Body and Blood of Christ present in a vial of wine, suspended in a golden monstrance surrounded with precious stones.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[m134e5]

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

It is much easier to pick up a dropped host than to clean up the contents of a dropped chalice. It seems this would add an unnecessary step in handling the chalice- and so add further risk.

Many people who only recieve the host understand that the chalice contains the same sacrament. Some churches don’t even offer the chalice, because of the risk of spilling it. I do not receive from the chalice, because I don’t like drinking after people. Also, even though it’s the body and blood of Christ, before it became that, it was probably cheap table wine that tastes horrible (to me at least)- and it doesn’t taste any better after the consecration.

 

[puzzleannie]

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. Itt,
Thursday

the OP brought up distribution problems in the first paragraph. the reason permission to receive under both species was to take advantage of the sign value which you quite rightly describe. Whether or not people have gotten the message probably depends on the level of their general catechesis on the nature of the Eucharist, which many would say has degenerated of late. Intinction, as is the Eastern practice, would make reception under both species routine and add to the sign value by the very act of reception together.

 

[Thursday1]

It is much easier to pick up a dropped host than to clean up the contents of a dropped chalice. It seems this would add an unnecessary step in handling the chalice- and so add further risk.

Many people who only recieve the host understand that the chalice contains the same sacrament. Some churches don’t even offer the chalice, because of the risk of spilling it. I do not receive from the chalice, because I don’t like drinking after people. Also, even though it’s the body and blood of Christ, before it became that, it was probably cheap table wine that tastes horrible (to me at least)- and it doesn’t taste any better after the consecration.

If you read the rest of the thread, I address the problem of spillage. The wine would never be poured post consecration, it is not allowed.

And I realize that many people have a germ problem with the cup, and that there is nothing wrong with not partaking in it.

I have come up with another situation where the wine was not utilized when it should have been. The low gluten host. Why make a special host, when the Chalice is at every Mass? I have been at parishes where the cup is offered (not even the main Chalice with the piece of host in it), but they still use low gluten hosts for one woman. (yes I know she could be an alcoholic as well.)

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[cue]

If you read the rest of the thread, I address the problem of spillage. The wine would never be poured post consecration, it is not allowed.

Yes, you have addressed the issue of spillage. However, based on the repeated mention from posters, the issue has not been addressed to our satisfaction nor, we can say, to the satisfaction of the Church who places the restrictions on the species of wine.

When it comes down to it, it seems we are talking about a speculation game. Thursday, you speculate about a series of events in the future where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved under the form of wine but is no threatened by any danger of irreverence or desecration. Since this is a new, original idea, your speculation cannot be based on a lot experiential data.
The Church, on the other hand, speculates that in future celebrations, reserving the Blessed Sacrament under the form of wine can lead to desecration. This desecration (of the species of wine) has happened in the past more easily than the species of bread (I have seen it). Therefore, this speculation is very much based on experiential data and might even be called wisdom.
The sentiment that I get from the posters in this thread is that when it comes to a choice between whose speculation to buy into, most choose the Church’s over yours. They are unwilling to make the speculative leap that you have been so eager in doing. Nonetheless, referencing the views of the Church seems to be running us in circles and in the end, it will not matter what our personal take on the situation is. God only asks us to obey.

 

[SeanTom]

Thursday,

I refer back to your original post.

Concerning the taking ng of one or both species at Communion. Paul says “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread OR (my caps) drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body AND (my caps) blood of the Lord.” Do these words “OR” and “AND” here mean that we do have a choice? I believe so. I surmise from this statement that if we only eat the consecrated bread, OR drink only the cup, we will have taken the body and blood of Jesus; but if we take either one in an unworthy manner, we will be guilty of taking both the body and blood in serious violation of Jesus’ teachings.

My humble and non-educated opinion on the above paragraph tells me that by taking either the consecrated bread, OR the consecrated wine, we do, in fact, receive the BODY AND BLOOD of Jesus Christ. (This is what the church teaches us also). I absolutely do not have a problem with this.

YBIC,

SeanTom