Tridentine Liturgy and the Precious Blood

[paramedicgirl]

As to first, the Church DOES authoritatively teach that it is a fuller sign.

So you would have no objection to rec. from the Chalice if a priest administered it either from the Chalice or via intinction?

If I was the first to receive, maybe. I’m not a big fan of sharing a cup with other people. I see too much illness and disease in my job.

I have no problem with intinction, done properly.

 

[Rykell]

You say it is pure error–to abide by Trent.

No I did not say that. I responded to Paramedicgirl’s assertion that reception of both species should be only by the priest is an error. We are not discussing whether BOTH species should always be received, as the liberty to receive under only one form is still protected by the Church. In other words, we agree, to a point.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If I was the first to receive, maybe. I’m not a big fan of sharing a cup with other people. I see too much illness and disease in my job.

I have no problem with intinction, done properly.

I see, thank you for explaining.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Paramedic Girl:

This is what I simply don’t get, esp. in you, because you’re obviously very intelligent. Since the Church permits you to receive under both species in most places, absent alcoholism or an allergy, why would you not want to?

Because the chalice was denied to the laity for so long, communion under both kinds is associated with a “priesthood of the people” type theology. That is made stronger because it usually requires the services of a Eucharistic Minister.

Personally I see it as symbol of celebration which rings rather hollow when numbers are declining. However if we are ever reduced to a small rump of committed people then it will be appropriate once more. As for the priesthood of the people, most people who like the idea really mean that they want the privileges of the priesthood. However mainly it is about accepting the burdens. That’s not something I am in a hurry to volunteer for.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Personally I see it as symbol of celebration which rings rather hollow when numbers are declining. However if we are ever reduced to a small rump of committed people then it will be appropriate once more. As for the priesthood of the people, most people who like the idea really mean that they want the privileges of the priesthood. However mainly it is about accepting the burdens. That’s not something I am in a hurry to volunteer for.

I don’t see how it can be remotely inappropriate, inasmuch as that is how the Lord instituted the Sacrament and its how even the Latin Church practiced the giving of it for the majority of its history, the Eastern Churches having never given it up. Now, if you’re talking about practical logistics, obviously it’s appropriate to not give it to a huge crowd, like at papal masses.

 

[Rykell]

As for the priesthood of the people, most people who like the idea really mean that they want the privileges of the priesthood.

Malcolm, that is really way off the wall! Are you truly believing that those who devoutly receive the Precious Blood want the privileges of priesthood? What a terrible judgment you hold with respect to Christ’s faithful people who have never let this idea enter their mind!

 

[kleary]

Hello,

I am aware that the GIRM is for the current missal and not the 1962 missal. But there are a couple things from Vatican II that should none the less be implemented for the Tridentine Liturgy, in my opinion. One would be actual participation. I don’t think we should go back to praying the Rosary during the Mass. Another would be to commune under both species.

Praying the Rosary during Mass is not the same as lay people receiving Holy Communion from the chalice.

At the Latin Mass I attend the lay people “actually participate”, singing or saying in Latin the responses after the prayers at the foot of the altar.

The lay person receiving from the chalice however, that is another story altogether. There are REASONS why at the Tridentine Liturgy the lay people do not receive from the chalice. Liturgical reasons that express the Catholic Faith. Namely there is a difference between the Ministerial Priesthood and the priesthood of the layity. Not to mention other numerous practical reasons.

Ken

 

[kleary]

Malcolm, that is really way off the wall! Are you truly believing that those who devoutly receive the Precious Blood want the privileges of priesthood? What a terrible judgment you hold with respect to Christ’s faithful people who have never let this idea enter their mind!

No… not that I think- just that the reintroduction of communion from the chalice is a Protestant one that liturgically expressed the destruction of Catholic Priesthood- the non existance of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and that we are all priests.

You may not have ever let this concept enter your mind, but the Protestant Reformers did it to make their followers believe their heretical doctrines.

Ken

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Malcolm, that is really way off the wall! Are you truly believing that those who devoutly receive the Precious Blood want the privileges of priesthood? What a terrible judgment you hold with respect to Christ’s faithful people who have never let this idea enter their mind!

No. I receive the Precious Blood myself. “I disagree that we should have a sports day” and “I will refuse to help with sports day if the headmaster decides to hold it” are quite different propositions. It is very rarely my job to organise worship.

A “priesthood of the people” theology is legitimate, because there is a sense in which all Catholics are called on to be priests. There is not one of us who might not face the demand to repeat Christ’s sacrifice on Calavary, though we should pray not to be put to the test. So that means both the good things and the bad things about being a priest must be accepted by the layman, to an extent.

However generally I don’t like the thrust of “priesthood of the people” thought. There are individuals who want to be Eucharistic Ministers because they see that they can relieve the priest of the duty of taking communion to the sick, and I don’t criticise that. However there are also those who see it as a sign of being a senior Catholic. I don’t criticise them personally - there was a position going and they volunteered for it - but I do criticise an arrangement that promotes that type of thinking.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Your point taken about the Rosary during Mass. But what exactly do you mean by “actual participation”? Don’t want to sound harsh, but are you saying up until 1963, people were “faking it” during Mass? I’m of the pre-Vatican II days and I don’t remember lack of “participation” being a problem. People knew what was going on; otherwise the Church where I served wouldn’t have had standing-room only for seven Sunday morning Masses. (OK, maybe the 6am one did not have standing-room only but it had the nuns. )

What exactly do you mean by actual participation? Are you talking about having laity in the sanctuary during Mass doing the readings and acting as EMHC? The sign of peace?

I mean what the Second Vatican Council meant. The laity actually participating in the Mass.

This is not the same as “active” participation, which is the common interpretation by many. Active participation is where you get everyone running around, and the view that everyone needs a unique, perhaps priestly, role to play in the sanctuary.

In contrast, actual participation means just that - you actually and fully participate in the Mass. If the congregation has a response, they say it. They don’t pray the Rosary during the Mass (which had been a problem in at least the 1950’s and early 1960’s). There is a time for the Rosary and the Mass isn’t it (before Mass is a great time for this devotion). They don’t daydream, they concentrate on the Mystery upon the Altar. Actual participation includes periods of silence (which abound in the Low Mass). Actual participation includes singing those parts which they should sing (hymns, responses, etc.). Actual participation includes being aware of what is going on in the Mass.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I am aware of all that. I was wondering what your take was on it. I don’t see why there was a push to receive under both species when even one fragment of the Host contains the Body & Blood of Our Lord. It used to be that only the priest received from the Chalice. Now the laity is everywhere, doing everything a priest is privileged to do.

Only the priest receiving from the Chalice was a discipline not a doctrine. There is nothing inherent in either the Priesthood or Precious Blood that makes them mutually exclusive to one another - except only the Priesthood can consecrate the Sacred Species.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

---

You say it is pure error–to abide by Trent.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct21.html

SESSION THE TWENTY-FIRST,

Being the fifth under the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius IV., celebrated on the sixteenth day of July, MDLXII.

[DECREE ON COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES, AND THE COMMUNION OF INFANTS]
Note: This title is missing in the Waterworth translation, 1848 edition.

The sacred and holy, ocecumenical and general Synod of Trent,–lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,-whereas, touching the tremendous and most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there are in divers places, by the most wicked artifices of the devil, spread abroad certain monstrous errors, by reason of which, in some provinces, many are seen to have departed from the faith and obedience of the Catholic Church, It has thought fit, that what relates to communion under both species, and the com-munion of infants, be in this place set forth. Wherefore It forbids all the faithful in Christ to presume henceforth to believe, teach, or preach otherwise on these matters, than is in these decrees explained and defined.

CHAPTER I.
That laymen and clerics, when not sacrifising, are not bound, of divine right, to communion under both species.

Wherefore, this holy Synod,–instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of godliness, and following the judgment and usage of the Church itself,–declares and teaches, that laymen, and clerics when not consecrating, are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species ; and that neither can it by any means be doubted, without injury to faith, that communion under either species [Page 141] is sufficient for them unto salvation. For, although Christ, the Lord, in the last supper, instituted and delivered to the apostles, this venerable sacrament in the species of bread and wine; not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of Church be bound, by the institution of the Lord, to receive both species. But neither is it rightly gathered, from that discourse which is in the sixth of John,-however according to the various interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors it be understood,–that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord : for He who said; Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (v. 54), also said; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59); and He who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life (v. 55), also said; The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of (lie world (v. 52); and, in fine,- He who said; He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him (v. 57), said, nevertheless; He that eateth this bread shall live for ever (v. 59.)

Thank you for posting this. I had always thought that the discipline of the Chalice not being given to the laity after the Middle Ages and declared again at Trent. But reading this, I can see that the option for the laity to receive the Chalice was always present, it just wasn’t obligatory for the laity or non-celebrating clergy as it was for the celebrating clergy.

Thanks!

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

The lay person receiving from the chalice however, that is another story altogether. There are REASONS why at the Tridentine Liturgy the lay people do not receive from the chalice. Liturgical reasons that express the Catholic Faith. Namely there is a difference between the Ministerial Priesthood and the priesthood of the layity. Not to mention other numerous practical reasons.

Other than to combat the heresy that one must receive both of the Sacred Species to receive the entire Jesus in the Eucharist (which can be accomplished by proper catechesis), what other reasons were there?

How is partaking of the Cup blurring the distinction between the Ministerial Priesthood and the Priesthood of the People, anymore than sharing the Host does?

What other practical reasons are there?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I agree with others in this thread that most likely the best possible solution to giving of the Cup in the Tridentine Mass is via intinction (which is allowed even now in the Novus Ordo Mass).

 

[paramedicgirl]

Hello,
I mean what the Second Vatican Council meant. The laity actually participating in the Mass.

This is not the same as “active” participation, which is the common interpretation by many. Active participation is where you get everyone running around, and the view that everyone needs a unique, perhaps priestly, role to play in the sanctuary.

In contrast, actual participation means just that - you actually and fully participate in the Mass. If the congregation has a response, they say it. They don’t pray the Rosary during the Mass (which had been a problem in at least the 1950’s and early 1960’s). There is a time for the Rosary and the Mass isn’t it (before Mass is a great time for this devotion). They don’t daydream, they concentrate on the Mystery upon the Altar. Actual participation includes periods of silence (which abound in the Low Mass). Actual participation includes singing those parts which they should sing (hymns, responses, etc.). Actual participation includes being aware of what is going on in the Mass.

I am aware of the difference between active and actual participation and that VII called for actual, not active participation. In the TLM, people are actually praying the Mass instead of gazing around distracted by all the other things that are happening. I’ve only seen the rosary prayed before the TLM, never during it. What you describe as actual participation in the above paragraph, is what happens at the TLM 's that I have been to. I would love to see that done at the Novus Ordo Mass I go to, but there are too many distractions for it to be possible.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

How is partaking of the Cup blurring the distinction between the Ministerial Priesthood and the Priesthood of the People, anymore than sharing the Host does?

It is does not do this inherently. Just as there is nothing inherently priestly about a dog collar. It could be that sometime these will be the fashion for disaffected youth and indigo trousers with T-shirt will be associated with priests. However if I wore a dog collar today then I would be trying to make a statement that I was a priest or priestly person.

Similarly communion under both kinds has become associated with a “priesthood of the people” way of thinking, partly because the chalice was reserved to the priest for so long, partly because it usually requires the services of a Eucharistic Minister.

Sharing the host did acquire the same associations in the Middle Ages, incidentally, and it became the tradition not to receive on a normal Sunday. It was necessary for the Pope to require the faithful to receive Communion at least once a year at Easter, a rule which is still in force.

 

[BobP123]

Hello,

I mean what the Second Vatican Council meant. The laity actually participating in the Mass.

This is not the same as “active” participation, which is the common interpretation by many. Active participation is where you get everyone running around, and the view that everyone needs a unique, perhaps priestly, role to play in the sanctuary.

In contrast, actual participation means just that - you actually and fully participate in the Mass. If the congregation has a response, they say it. They don’t pray the Rosary during the Mass (which had been a problem in at least the 1950’s and early 1960’s). There is a time for the Rosary and the Mass isn’t it (before Mass is a great time for this devotion). They don’t daydream, they concentrate on the Mystery upon the Altar. Actual participation includes periods of silence (which abound in the Low Mass). Actual participation includes singing those parts which they should sing (hymns, responses, etc.). Actual participation includes being aware of what is going on in the Mass.

I don’t know exactly what Vatican II meant by participation either. To me if you assisted at Mass in any way, shape, or form, you participated. (Maybe they meant not watching it on YouTube? )

Having said that, one of my pet peeves is the choir singing the Introit while the priest and servers are still reciting the prayers at the Foot of the Altar but that doesn’t mean they haven’t participated. But which of these do I follow?

And daydreaming at a TLM? I can’t help you there.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I don’t know exactly what Vatican II meant by participation either. To me if you assisted at Mass in any way, shape, or form, you participated. (Maybe they meant not watching it on YouTube? )

Trent took the Woody Allen position that 90% of life was showing up. So the women would go inside and say their rosaries whilst the men hung around outside smoking, with the priest and altar boys saying the Mass. Basically if you were there that was OK.

Now it is very much required to say the responses, and lay people are expected to read, distribute the Eucharist, and so forth. Some of this hasn’t been thought through. For instance whilst most adults in Britain can read, a substantial number are not very confident readers, and the Bible is a hard text. So it can be rather embarrassing if you can’t act as reader. The rosary sytem wasn’t ideal, and certainly there was a strong case for clamping down on the smoking men, but if the price is these people not turning up at all, then it is not worth it.

 

[kleary]

Hello,

Other than to combat the heresy that one must receive both of the Sacred Species to receive the entire Jesus in the Eucharist (which can be accomplished by proper catechesis), what other reasons were there?

How is partaking of the Cup blurring the distinction between the Ministerial Priesthood and the Priesthood of the People, anymore than sharing the Host does?

What other practical reasons are there?

Practical reasons- my pastor used to say the NOM and saw the contents of the chalices brought back to the altar. The oils from many women’s lipstick and lip gloss, small pieces of what looked to be chapped lip particles. He almost puked when he had to drink it all down.

It blurs the distintion for those who know that in the past only the priest was able to receive from the chalice, and now anyone can. Gee, when they came out with this along with communion in the hand we were told it was to show the priesthood of the layity, to be able to do what only the priest could do before- touch the sacred host with your hands and recieve from the chalice.

Proper catechesis is no replacement for a liturgical action to show the catechesis. Every action of worship must show the Catholic belief- lex orendi - lex credendi.

Ken

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I’m not quite sure of what “fullness” means in the above quote(s) but from Session XIII of the Council of Trent:

The GIRM says “fuller” not “fullness”. It’s “fuller” because the Apostles received the Body & the Blood through the Cup and the Host.

The English language is faulty, and sometimes cannot communicate the 2,000 year Tradition of the Church, which is why it is best to consult the Latin for things pertaining to dogma or doctrine.