Traditional Latin Mass - no wine?

[Walking_Home]

It’s simply a bad habit the Latin Church got into in the Middle AGes when people did not receive Communion at the proper time–that is, during Mass after the Communion of the Clergy–but outside of Mass from the Reserved Sacrament.

---

I have wondered about the Eastern Rites and Utraquism. Utraquism could already infiltrated the Eastern Rites up to their necks --but it would stay hidden and covered over by your tradition of receiving both species.

 

[cyberwolf001]

So why have the wine at all?

 

[sancte_joseph]

So why have the wine at all?

The wine is needed for the “sacrifice” to be umm… completed (for lack of a better word).

 

[Dtmccameron]

The wine is needed for the “sacrifice” to be umm… completed (for lack of a better word).

Wuh-oah! That sound awful Utraquisical to me!

If anything, because Christ told us to.

I wonder if, with good enough Catechesis, we might be able to remove the stain of that particular heresy and return to the even more traditional practice of recieving Him…ahm, under or through? I’ll say through both species. ahem ?

 

[cyberwolf001]

I admit this always confused me. Jesus gave it under both, the Church gave under both. Now a big to do about only needing the bread. I admit when I was Catholic I preferred both. For the fact the wine helped me wash Jesus down from a practical point of view and I always felt I got more from the flesh and blood in a solid and liquid form.

Then of course the Anima Christi after that and the pre-communion prayers…

Okay I’ll admit it somedays I miss Mass.

 

[malphono]

Receiving the blood of Christ has always been an option. In the Tridentine liturgy, it was never offered. Christ’s body, blood, soul, and Divinity are equally present under either species (bread or wine). Vatican II suggested that, liturgically, it was more fulfilling if offered but never mandated it. Theologically, it isn’t necessary.

I think it’s slightly misleading to say that it was “never offered” in the Tridentine liturgy. There were (admittedly rare) cases where it was possible for as person to communicate under the Species of wine alone. (If I recall correctly, it may well have required a dispensation, (whether on the episcopal or pastoral level, I don’t know), but it was possible.) Also, I have a vague memory that intinction began to be practiced in the Latin Rite in the US in the brief “interim Missal of 1965” years.

 

[DorianGregorian]

Council of Trent Session 13: history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html

Decree on the Holy Eucharist:
CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

It is redundant to receive the accidents of the bread and wine, because Christ is wholly present, body and blood, under both species. If you don’t believe this, you are not Catholic.

Laus Deo

 

[Micawber]

Council of Trent Session 13: history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html

Decree on the Holy Eucharist:
CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

It is redundant to receive the accidents of the bread and wine, because Christ is wholly present, body and blood, under both species. If you don’t believe this, you are not Catholic.

Laus Deo

What’s wrong with redundancy? Serious question.

I can see the argument that it’s not necessary. But that same argument isn’t a reason NOT to offer both; rather, it’s only an argument for why the Church doesn’t NEED to offer both. As has been argued above, there are many advantages to offering both; and few reasons not to. Ergo, why not offer both?

 

[Brendan]

Most of us need the Symbol as much as we need the Teaching.

Sort, of.

First of all, the Church states that the reception of both species is a fuller SIGN, not a SYMBOL.

There is a difference between the two.

A Sign points towards a greater reality than itself. A street sign lets you know that you have either arrived at, or are on, “Main St.”. The Sign itself is not the Reality it signifies, but points towards, or leads to it.

A Symbol stands in place of the reality.

The Sign of both species is two fold, First is that the Eucharist is a Banquet, this is best signified by both species offered seperately. This sign fails in that it also SYMBOLIZES the Body and Blood being seperate. This Symbol is properly used in the consecration to symbolize that this is the Sacrifice of Calvary, where Christ died in attonment for our sins.

The fullest Sign is therefore for the species to be presented together, Intincted as in the East. This signifies that we are receiving the Ressurected Lord, whose Body and Blood cannot ever be seperated.

These are Signs that point us towards these realites, but they are only useful insofar as they point us towards this knowledge.

The street sign has no value, for example, unless you are uncertain that you actually HAVE arrived at Main St. or that you are, in fact, driving alone Main St. If you are certain that you ARE on Main St, that you have achieved the reality to which the sign points, then the signs are unnecessary, and potentially distracting from the reality. We do not search for what we are certain we have obtained.

So no, once we have the teachings, and we are certain they are true, then most should NOT need the sign.